Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DG Env.B21 Requirements of the Habitats Directive and planning and implementation of the projects Cohesion Fund and Environmental Impact Assessment TAIEX.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "DG Env.B21 Requirements of the Habitats Directive and planning and implementation of the projects Cohesion Fund and Environmental Impact Assessment TAIEX."— Presentation transcript:

1 DG Env.B21 Requirements of the Habitats Directive and planning and implementation of the projects Cohesion Fund and Environmental Impact Assessment TAIEX Seminar Prague, 24 February, 2005 András Demeter, Nature & Biodiversity Unit, Directorate-General Environment, European Commission Contact:

2 DG Env.B22 Key Priorities of the 6th Environment Action Programme = 156 priority actions 1. Climate Change 2. Nature and Biodiversity One of the specific aims (Gothenburg summit): Halt biodiversity decline by 2010! 3. Environment and Health and quality of life 4. Natural Resources and Waste

3 DG Env.B23 Legal Instruments for nature National Legislation Protected species, protected areas, hunting provisions,... European Union International Conventions Bern, Bonn, Ramsar, Washington (CITES), Biological Diversity

4 DG Env.B24 EU-nature conservation policy Two main directives: Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) bird species Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) other animal and plant species, habitat types

5 DG Env.B25 BIRDS DIR All bird species protected No priority bird species (cf. indicative list for Life-Nature) EU territory treated as a whole Habitat conservation measures (incl. SPAs in NATURA 2000) Regulated hunting and trade limited to a few species HABITATS DIR Species/habitats of EU interest protected Priority Habitats/species Biogeographical regions Site protection and management measures (SACs) in NATURA 2000 Species protection and management PRIORITY EU LEGAL INSTRUMENTS FOR NATURE & BIODIVERSITY

6 DG Env.B26

7 7 Natura 2000 network Global aim: Maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of certain species and natural habitat types in their natural range SPA SCI

8 DG Env.B28 What is the target of protection under Natura 2000? - I Birds Directive –181 vulnerable bird species (Annex I) +13 species (EU15+10) –migratory bird species (esp. wetlands)

9 DG Env.B29 Implementing the Birds Directive – nesting and migratory species

10 DG Env.B210 2 of the 13 new bird species in Annex I also proposed by CZ, HU, PL, SK (BG)

11 DG Env.B211 Setting up Natura 2000 Birds Directive 1)Member States classify (CC: by accession) 2) Commission takes coordinating role Reference list: Important Bird Areas (IBAs) based on international criteria

12 DG Env.B212 What is the target of protection under Natura 2000? - II Species and habitats of Community interest Habitats Directive (its annexes I-V) –appr. 200 habitats (EU15) + 20 habitats (EU15+10) –appr. 700 species (EU15) species (EU15+10)

13 DG Env.B213 The species such as the steppe polecat (Mustela eversmanii) or the beetle Carabus hungaricus have been proposed by both the Czech Republic and Hungary

14 DG Env.B214 Not only endemic plants... Dianthus moravicus Galium sudeticum

15 DG Env.B215 but also species which occur in other acceding countries.. e.g. Cirsium brachycephalum

16 DG Env.B216 Setting up Natura 2000 Habitats Directive 1)National lists proposed (CC: by accession) 2)Selection process on biogeographical level (aim: Community list) - MS & EC - max. 3 years 3)Designation by MS max. 6 years after Community list

17 DG Env.B217 NA103IT NATURA 2000 network « Habitats » Directive Art. 3 « Birds » Directive Art. 4 Special Protection Areas May End 2007 Special Conservation Areas NATURA 2000 National list of sites Habitat types (Annex I) Species (Annex II) List of Sites of Community Importance

18 DG Env.B218

19 DG Env.B219 What is special about Natura 2000? Clearly defined objectives Science based Biogeographic regions Site evaluation/selection on EU-level Management / Integration Legal obligation for the member states

20 DG Env.B220 State of play in 2005

21 DG Env.B221 Natura 2000 in the EU-15

22 DG Env.B222 What about the new Member States?

23 DG Env.B223 MSTotal NumberTotal Area (km²)Terrestrial Area (km²)% Terrestrial (1) No. of sites in which a marine part is noted Marine Area (km²) CY2108 1,200 CZ ,8 - EE , HU ,2 - LT ,5 0 LV ,64520 MT6882,4 0 PL , SI ,013 SK ,2 - EU , , Special Protection Areas – February, 2005

24 DG Env.B224

25 DG Env.B225 MSTotal NumberTotal Area (km²) Terrestrial Area (km²) % Terrestrial (1) No. of sites in which a marine part is noted Marine Area (km²) CY ,0550 CZ ,2 - EE , HU ,0 - LT ,1120 LV ,06556 MT ,5 0 PL ,7 0 SI ,430,2 SK ,8 - EU , , Sites of Community Importance – February 2005

26 DG Env.B226

27 DG Env.B227 Article 6 For sites Member States shall: –Establish necessary conservation measures –Avoid deterioration Prepare appropriate assessment for any plan or project (except direct management of site) –Likely to have a significant effect on site –Either individually or in combination with other plans or projects

28 DG Env.B228 Article 6 Requirements have to be transposed in the national legislation Appropriate assessment might be a separate document or part of the EIA package

29 DG Env.B229 The procedure Screening: the process which identifies the likely impacts upon Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant Appropriate assessment: the consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site of the project or plan with respect to the sites structure and function and its conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts; Alternative solutions: the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site; If adverse impacts remain: an assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI), it is deemed that the project or plan should proceed.

30 DG Env.B230 Art. 6.3 and 6.4 Habitats Directive NA107IT Plan/project with impact on a site Is the plan/project likely to have a negative impact on the values of the NATURA 2000 site? YESEVALUATION OF CONSEQUENCES 1 Does the evaluation conclude that there will be significant negative consequences? YESSTUDY OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 2 If the initial project is kept YES Inform the Commission COMPENSATION MEASURES 3 No priority habitats/species and overriding public interest YESOpinion of the Commission COMPENSATION MEASURES Priority habitats/species and specific interest for human health, public safety or environment YESOPINION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION + COMPENSATION MEASURES Priority habitats/species and other overriding public interests

31 DG Env.B231 Screening Is the project or plan directly connected to or necessary for the management of the site and is unlikely to have significant effects? Yes No Significant Impacts are likely to occur ? Yes No Move directly to the relevant authorisation procedures Appropriate assessment

32 DG Env.B232 Screening Brief description of the plan or project Brief description of the site Brief description of potential effects on the Natura 2000 site Assessment of significance (use criteria)

33 DG Env.B233 No significant effect Fill in the Annex I (A) of the project document Signed and stamped by responsible authority Add the screening report to the project document and submit to the Commission

34 DG Env.B234 Appropriate assessment Can be concluded that the integrity of the site will not be affected by the project or plan? Yes It is possible to design appropriate mitigation measures that will cancel or minimise the adverse impacts? It is objectively concluded that adverse impacts on the integrity of the site remain? Move directly to the relevant authorisation process No Yes No To 6.4 Yes

35 DG Env.B235 Article 6 Appropriate assessment Study prepared by project promoter Used by responsible nature conservation authority for the assessment and filling in the ANNEX I (A) form (in case of Community funding)

36 DG Env.B236 Appropriate assessment No significant negative consequences Mitigation measures Appropriate assessments report Should be made publicly accessible Annex I (A)

37 DG Env.B237 Alternative solutions It is for national competent authority to determine whether alternative solution exists or not Alternatives suggested by project proponent Alternatives suggested by other stakeholders Mitigation measures

38 DG Env.B238 Overriding public interest targeted to protect fundamental values for citizens lives (health, safety, environment) carrying out activities of economic or social nature, fulfilling specific obligations of public service within the framework of fundamental policies for the State and society Determined by national authorities Supported by evidence Weigh against conservation status of the site and objectives of the directive

39 DG Env.B239 Compensation measures Within the same biogeographic region (HD) Within the same range and/or migration rout (BD) Within the territory of the same Member State Maintain coherence of the Natura 2000 network Enlargement of the same site Designation of new site with the same quality, function and structure Restoration of an other site Creation of a new site

40 DG Env.B240 Compensation measures The Commission informed and consulted well in advance Timing of compensation agreed Responsibilities agreed (also financial) Legal (contractual measures in place )

41 DG Env.B241 Art. 6.3/4 Habitats Directive, simplified Possible negative impact on Natura 2000 site? Nature impact assessment yes If negative Overriding public interest? If yes Compensation measures - Commission opinion (if priority interest ) Alternatives? If no

42 DG Env.B242 The way article 6 is implemented in the United Kingdom (diagramme by Wyn Jones)

43 DG Env.B243 Imperative reasons excluding socio-economicsYN Imperative reasons including socio-economicsYN Priority featuresYN YN No adverse effect on integrity Alternative solutions NY SoS to secure compensation measures Notify SoS Plan or Project Express Further info and consult EN YN Avoid by conditions YN Likely Significant Effect Branch-line Usual Considerations Junction DECISIONSVILLE STATION Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects STOP

44 DG Env.B244 Imperative reasons excluding socio-economicsYN Imperative reasons including socio-economicsYN Priority features branchlineYN YN No adverse effect on integrity Alternative solutionsYN SOS to secure compulsory measures Notify SOS Plan or Project Express Further info and consult EN YN Avoid by conditions YN Likely Significant Effect Branch-line Usual Considerations Junction DECISIONSVILLE STATION Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects STOP

45 DG Env.B245 The Commission is concerned because… The Habitats and Birds Directive: a sector with high public attention: for example, in mid-2003 –53% of all environmental complaints (97%: bad application) –30% of all environmental own initiative cases (93% bad application) –28% of all environmental infringement cases (78% bad application) Most of them relate to project developments (art.6), not to designation of sites

46 DG Env.B246 dealing with plans and projects New Member States : Art.6 (2/3/4) apply from accession onwards Problems: – no or inappropriate nature impact assessments – negative results of assessments not respected – no alternatives considered – no or inadequate mitigation / compensation measures – no designation or nomination of a qualifying site: provisions apply nevertheless (SPAs: even stricter rules!) SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

47 DG Env.B247 The Commissions response l Production of guidance documents l Information & communication (NATURA newsletter, web site, etc) l Legal actions (many court cases)

48 DG Env.B248 Guidance documents, for example

49 DG Env.B249

50 DG Env.B250

51 DG Env.B251 Should there always be a conflicts between conservation goals and economic interests?

52 DG Env.B252 Conclusions as regards planning vs. Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive The Competent Authority must be competent Appropriate assessment EIA Case by case judgement important Resource-demanding legal obligation

53 DG Env.B253 Best of luck in applying Article 6, and thank you for your attention ! More information at homepage: nature/home.htm


Download ppt "DG Env.B21 Requirements of the Habitats Directive and planning and implementation of the projects Cohesion Fund and Environmental Impact Assessment TAIEX."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google