Requirements of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

Transcription

1 Requirements of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Natura 2000 appropriate assessments in the context of major projects JASPERS Networking Platform Brussels, 31 January 2018

2 Natura 2000 backbone of EU biodiversity policy sites 1.2 million km² 18 % EU land 4 % EU seas Globally largest coordinated network of PAs; Almost complete on land; Marine component still some gaps; Ensures provision of ecosystem services.

3 Article 6: protection and management of the Natura 2000 sites Applies to SACs Applies to SPAs, SCsI & SACs Applies to SPAs, SCIs & SACs

4 Projects: construction works, other installations or schemes, interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape incl. extraction of mineral resources Waddensea case (C-127/02) Pappenburg case (C-226/08) periodic activities (license) maintenance works (in so far as they constitute projects)

5 Application form Part F: Analysis of the environmental impact F.1 consistency with the env policy (1) resource efficiency, biodiversity and ecosystem services, reduction of GHG emissions, resilience to climate change impacts etc.; (2) precautionary principle, "polluter pays" principle F.2 Application of the SEA Directive F.3 - Application of the EIA Directive F.4 Application of the Habitats Directive (Natura 2000) F.5 - Application of the WFD F.6 - Application of the other env directives F.7 Costs of env measures F. 8 - Climate change adaptation and mitigation, and disaster resilience

6 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/207: submission of the information on a major project

7 Is the project likely to have significant impact on N2000 Yes Has the AA confirmed significant negative impact? No Provide declaration Appendix I No Yes Provide: 1) Env decision 2) Appropriate assessment Provide: 1) Env decision 2) Appropriate assessment 3) 6(4) form 4) EC opinion (if required)

8

9 Appendix 1 requirements Issued by the authority responsible for Natura 2000 Not by the managing authority Explanation: name and number of the relevant site(s) distance of the project to the nearest Natura 2000 site(s) conservation objectives justification (individually or in combination with other projects) if relevant, an administrative decision. Map (at scale of 1: or the nearest possible)

10 Appropriate assessment requirements Likelihood of significant effect: Certainty versus likelihood Precautionary principle - if in doubt, do the AA (Waddensea) Spatial scope (plans and projects both inside and outside Natura 2000 sites) Significant effect - no absolute (quantitative) definition case by case approach Related to specific features and ecological conditions of the protected site.

11 Integrity of the site: Ecological structure function processes Linked to conservation objectives Site specific

12 Site's conservation objectives Site specific Information on each site in a Standard Data Form (SDF) In management plans, SAC designation acts Maintenance or improvement of conservation status Commission Guidance notes: nt/nature/natura2000/manage ment/guidance_en.htm#art6

13 Cumulative impacts Modest impacts multiplied = significant impact Plans and projects to be considered: Completed, or approved but uncompleted, or actually proposed.

14 Mitigation measures Prevent negative effects or Reduce them to non-significant level Directly linked to the negative effects Must be described in sufficient detail Case A2 Motorway in NL (C-521/12) mitigation and compenasation not to be confused

15 Article 6(4)

16 AA plans/programmes (3) Alternatives assessment Early consultation Integrated approach Win-win solutions

17 Species protection In addition to site protection HD: Annex IV (over 400 species) BD: all wild birds occurring in Europe Should be included in the EIA Should be included in the AF: Initial situation Impacts Mitigation measures Monitoring

18 F.4 - Assessment of effects on Natura 2000 Recurring problems: lack of understanding when Annex I is provided; lack of info about Art. 6(4) form if a project has significant negative impact; confusing information provided in the form (e.g. reference to compensation when AA concluded no need for application of the 6(4) test, mixing up compensation with mitigation); lack of appropriate maps; lack or insufficient justification in Annex I why a project was screened out; lack of information about species protection obligations.

19 Commission guidance documents nature/natura2000/management/g uidance_en.htm#art6

20 4 priorities 15 actions

21 Contact: For more information, please consult:

22 More Information For info or further questions on this seminar and the activities of the JASPERS Networking Platform, please contact the JASPERS Networking and Competence Centre at the following JASPERS Website: JASPERS Networking Platform: jaspers.eib.org 22