Appropriate Assessment (AA) – key elements

 Step by step process, triggered by the likelihood of significant effects

 Assessment focusing on conservation objectives of the site on the basis of
habitats/species for which it has been designated.
 Consider cumulative effects .
 Mitigation measures form integral part of the process.
 Objective and verifiable information required to enable the competent
authorities to decide on the basis of the integrity of the site.
 Authorisation if certainty, without any reasonable scientific doubt, that the plan
or project will not affect the integrity of the site.
 Alternatives & compensation measures, if required, need to be properly
analysed and implemented.
 Coordination with the EIA process is possible/advisable.
 Plans and projects

• HD: no definition of a "plan" or a "project"

• ECJ rulings provided some clarification:
Waddenzee case (C-127-02), Papenburg case (C-
226/08)
• Projects under EIA Dir.
• Plans – broad interpretation (including
land use or spatial plans, sectoral plans)
• Plans such as policy statements or other
policy documents normally outside the
scope
• Plans and projects related to
conservation management excluded.
Appropriate assessment - methodology
Relationship between EIA, SEA and AA
• Many similarities but also important differences (scope, content,
implications - see Table)
• Streamlining: Procedures where appropriate can be coordinated
and/or jointly run (Art. 2(3), Amended EIA Directive)
• SEA and EIA cannot substitute for the AA
• In all cases the AA must be clearly identifiable, either within the
EIA/SEA report or in a separate report, so that its conclusions can
be distinguished from those of the overall impact assessment

• EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment
 Comparison of appropriate assessment,
EIA and SEA (1)
AA EIA SEA

Which type of Any plan or project Projects listed in Annex Any Plan or Programme
development? likely to have an I. (a) for certain sectors
adverse effect on a Annex II projects which set the framework
Natura 2000 site determined on a case by for future development
case consent, or
(b) require Art. 6 HD
assessment

What impacts need to be Assessment in view of significant effects on …. Likely significant effects
assessed relevant to the site’s conservation biodiversity, with on the environment,
nature? objectives (for species/ particular attention to including on issues such
habitats for which site species and habitats as biodiversity, fauna,
designated) protected under the flora & interrelationship
Habitats and Birds
Directives.
Comparison of appropriate assessment,
EIA and SEA (2)
Appropriate EIA SEA
assessment

Who carries out the Responsibility of the The developer provides Competent authority for
Assessment? competent authority but necessary information to planning
developer may need to be taken into account by
provide necessary the competent authority
studies & information * Biodiversity should be
taken into account in the
screening process
(Annex II.a, EIA
amendment Directive)
How binding are the Binding. Agreement to The result of The environmental
outcomes? the plan/project only if it consultations and report & opinions
will not affect the information must be expressed shall be taken
integrity of the site taken into consideration into account during the
in the development preparation of the
consent procedure plan/program
Typical problems encountered with
applying Article 6.3/6.4
 Trying to avoid Art 6.3. AA - inappropriate screening, non-respect of the
Precautionary Principle
 Wrong interpretation of 'necessary for the management of the site', e.g.
no AA of forest management plans
 No or inappropriate nature impact assessments:
 e.g. no AA on projects outside Natura 2000 but which affect Natura 2000 nearby or
downstream
 effects on species or habitats not well assessed, poor expert input
 effects assessed on species and habitats status quo, not on the conservation
objectives
 Lack of consideration of cumulative impacts (salami slicing)
 Mixing-up mitigation and compensation measures
 Typical problems encountered with
applying Article 6.3/6.4 (cont'd)
 General species provisions of BD and HD neglected
 Trying to avoid going to Art 6.4.
 Negative results of assessments not respected
 No/insufficient alternatives considered
 Economic arguments only are not enough
 Best alternatives are not assessed on purpose so as to stick to old plans
 Zero alternative not assessed
 No real IROPI
 No or inadequate compensation measures
 Trying to avoid designating more sites
 Usually best sites have been designated, or restoration takes time, so more than 1:1 in size
expected
 Using normal management measures such as restoration of existing sites as compensation
 No designation/proposal of a qualifying site: provisions apply nevertheless (Court
jurisprudence)
 Thank you for your attention

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/
management/guidance_en.htm