"The EU biodiversity and nature policy
and legislation – focus on Art 6.3 and
6.4 Habitats Directive"
Stefan Leiner
Head of the Nature Unit
DG Environment,
Environment European Commission
Meeting with Slovenian Authorities
Ljubljana, 7/01//2013
Part I
¾ General Introduction to the EU biodiversity policy
¾ Focus on the Nature legislation and Natura 2000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Objective and scope of the Directives
Establishment of Natura 2000 – site designations
Protection regime- Article 6
Species protection
Monitoring and reporting – how far is the job done?
Management of the sites
Financing
Celebrating 20 years of the HD and LIFE
EU biodiversity strategy
A 2050 VISION
European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its
natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored…
A 2020 HEADLINE TARGET
Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU and restore them
i
insofar
f as feasible,
f
ibl and
d step
t up the
th EU's
EU' contribution
t ib ti
to
t averting
ti
global
l b l biodiversity
bi di
it
loss.
6 TARGETS
Enhance
implementation
of nature
legislation
Restore
ecosystems
est. Green
Infrastructure
Sustainable
Agriculture
&
Forestry
Sustainable
Fisheries
ACTIONS
Contribute to
Combat
Alien Invasive averting global
biodiversity
Species
loss
New EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011
Target 1 - Nature conservation
To halt the deterioration in the status of all species
and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and
achieve
hi
a significant
i ifi
t and
d measurable
bl improvement
i
t
in their status by 2020
Î Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000
network
k and
d ensure good
d management
Î Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and
improve enforcement
Î Improve and
d streamline
l
monitoring
i
i
and
d reporting
ti
Î Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites
Objective
j
and scope
p of Habitats Directive
To contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through conservation of
natural habitats and species in EU
To ensure that these species and habitat types are maintained at, or
restored to, a ‘favourable conservation status’.
Focus on 1000+ threatened plants & animals & c.230 habitats
HABITATS DIRECTIVE
Site protection and
management
g
Annex I
Habitat types
Annex II
species
Species protection &
management
g
Annex IV
species
Annex V
species
Objectives and Scope of the Birds Directive
Protects all species of naturally occurring birds in the
wild state in the EU.
Overall objective is to maintain the populations of all wild bird
species in the EU at a level which corresponds to their ecological,
scientific and cultural requirements, or to adapt the population of
these species to that level.
BIRDS DIRECTIVE
Site p
protection
migratory
birds
Annex I
birds
Species
p
protection
p
All wild
birds
Exemptions
for species on
annex II & III
Natura 2000 – based on two EU Directives
HABITATS DIRECTIVE
BIRDS DIRECTIVE
National List of
proposed sites
(pSCI)
Special
Protection
Areas (SPA)
Sites of
Community
Importance
(SCI)
Special Areas of
Conservation
(SAC)
7
Site designation - process
Based solely on scientific criteria
¾ SCI
SCIs: Art
A t4+A
Annex III HD,
HD importance
i
t
and
d value
l
off the
th
site, area coverage, geographical distribution
¾ Sufficiency assessed by Commission following discussions
with MS + experts + stakeholders at biogeographical
meetings
¾ 5% rule (Annex III criteria can be applied more flexibly if a
MS hosts priority species on more than 5% of territory) ,
pp
per
p species
p
and habitat type
yp (e.g.
( g large
g
applicable
carnivores)
¾ SPAs: 'most suitable territories in number and size' – usually
IBA criteria used
Slovenia needs to designate few more sites for
both SPAs and SCIs
¾
Needs urgent solving – creates legal uncertainty, court case possible
State of progress in establishing Natura 2000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26 400 sites
986 000 km²
k ²
18 % EU land
~4 % EU seas
Largest co
co-ordinated
ordinated PA network
Almost complete on land
Some additional work for marine
Communication and public awareness
Natura 2000 viewer
------------------------------------------
10
Key protection principles of Natura 2000
Conserves species & habitats across entire natural
range in EU, irrespective of political boundaries;
Selects sites using the same scientific criteria;
Offers strong legal protection but has high
flexibility and subsidiarity provisions;
Works in collaboration with land owners & users;
Supports sustainable development : new activities
or development affecting N2000 are not
automatically excluded
excluded, not all strictly protected
areas
P t ti
Protection
Regime
R i
ffor N
Natura
t
2000
Species Protection Under Directives
• Article 12 (animals) & 13 (plants) HD and 5 BD (Birds)
provide system of strict species protection
• Derogations allowed under specific conditions
• Annex V HD and Annex II BD lists species that can be
hunted
• COM issued Guidance documents on strict protection
of animal species and on Birds hunting and key
concepts as well as on Population Level Management
concepts,
Plans for Large Carnivores in 2008
• COM supporting Species and Birds Action and
M
Management
t Pl
Plans
Monitoring & Reporting
First Member State assessments done for
2001-2006
2009 EU composite report or ‘Health Check’
showed
17%
37%
18%
Only 17% deemed to be in favourable
conservation status
Grasslands, wetlands & coastal habitats most
under p
pressure
The job is far from done!
28%
17%
22%
New reporting cycle underway – MS to
submit national reports in 2013
31%
30%
Habitats and Species related to Agriculture and water
have worse status than others.
sclerophyllous scrub
3
rocky habitats
6
11
12
heath & scrub
1
11
10
35
14
10
grasslands
52
freshwater habitats
6
21
25
forests
28
64
dunes habitats
50
20%
11
9
25
1 7
1
20
5
31
0%
15
13
38
25
30
bogs, mires & fens
6
6
6
31
coastal habitats
7
1 4 1
12
17
40%
60%
4
8
3 1 4
80%
100%
EU common birds Index in Europe
population index (1980 = 100)
Future Management
g
of Natura 2000
(Article 4.4 and 6.1)
• SCI Ö SAC (6 year d
deadline
dli
overdue)
d )
• Define Conservation Objectives
• Establish Conservation Measures
• Develop Management Plans, Legal,
statutory or contractual arrangements
• Full stakeholder engagement
• N
New biogeographical
bi
hi l S
Seminars
i
on
management/restoration
Commission enforcement policy
• Commission obligation to ensure application of
EU law
• But: primarily MS obligation
• Enforcement is within context that includes
compliance promotion, e.g. guidance documents,
LIFE funding, EU Pilot
• Enforcement related to citizen
complaints/European Parliament petitions
• Trend towards strategic use of enforcement
powers confirmed by 2008 Communication
DG ENV open cases per sector (339) on 31/12/2011
MISCELLANEOUS
1
0%
WATER
80
25%
IMPACT
43
13%
LIABILITY
1
0%
CHEMICALS
26
8%
AIR
35
10%
NATURE
76
22%
WASTE
76
22%
INFORMATION
1
0%
Strategy for Financing Natura 2000
SEC (2011) 1573
•
•
•
•
•
•
Article 8 foresees EU co-financing
N
New
2014
2014-2020
2020 MFF incl
i l CAP reform
f
and
d
Cohesion/Regional funds a major opportunity
Need for better strategic planning for financing Natura
2000 by MS and Commission
Improved definition of Natura 2000 management
requirements for targeted action need for PAFs
Strengthening awareness about socio-economic
benefits from Natura 2000 management (estimated
at €200-300 billion/yr.)
Consider other forms of funding for Natura 2000,
including innovative financing
LIFE
• LIFE central to success of Natura 2000
• Practical outdoor laboratory to test feasibility of
management & restoration
• has co-financed about 1,250 projects and
provided some €1.2 billion
• has targeted some 2,200 Natura 2000 sites
(around 8% of the Natura2000 terrestrial
network)
• is now increasingly covering a significant portion
of the marine network
• C.320,000
C 320 000 hectares in sites restored
• 150, 000 hectares acquired
• pump-priming initial heavy investment costs to
make long
long-term
term management easier
New EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011
T
Target
t 2 - Restoration
R t
ti
off Ecosystem
E
t
Services
S
i
By 2020
2020, ecosystems and their services are
maintained and enhanced by establishing green
infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of
degraded ecosystems.
ecosystems
Actions:
Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU
(ES mapping and assessment,
assessment valuation)
¾ Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green
infrastructure
(GI Strategy 2012)
¾ Ensure no net loss
l
off biodiversity
b d
and
d ecosystem services (BD
(
screening, no net loss initiative by 2015)
¾
May 2012:
M
2012 Celebrating
C l b ti
20 years off Habitats
H bit t
Directive and LIFE instrument
Th k to
Thanks
t the
th HD,
HD BD & LIFE
• Nature p
protected Areas in EU more than tripled
p
• Large-scale destruction of high value areas halted
• Endangered species are brought back from the brink of
extinction
• Increased knowledge & better, more targeted action
• Funding for nature in EU significantly increased
• Greater co-operation between countries (EU12-EU 27)
• Better mechanisms for local stakeholder engagement
• Time-honored land management
g
p
practices supported
pp
• New opportunities for recreation and tourism
…
T sum up partt 1 off the
To
th presentation
t ti
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Natura 2000 is as much a network for nature as it is a network for and of
people!
The Birds and Habitats Directives are a key tool to achieve Biodiversity
objectives
A lot was achieved, a lot remains to be done (management, financing)
Investing in Natura 2000 pays off
Integration and cooperation with other sectors and funds is needed
Natura 2000 is not against socio-economic development, but a good tool to
avoid unnecessary damage to our valuable natural heritage
Cooperation between different administrations and stakeholders is important
Thank you Slovenia for a strong contribution and commitment to the
conservation and restoration of EU biodiversity and nature
Time for a break
25
Part II – Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the
Habitats Directive
Art 6.3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Any plan or project
not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site
but likely to have a significant effect thereon,
either individually or in combination with other plans or projects,
shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in
view of the site's conservation objectives.
j
In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the
site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national
authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
th t it will
that
ill nott adversely
d
l affect
ff t the
th integrity
i t
it off the
th site
it concerned
d and,
d if
appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
Art 6. 4.
(1) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site
and in the absence of alternative solutions,
• a p
plan or p
project
j
must nevertheless be carried out for imperative
p
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or
economic nature,
• the Member State shall take all compensatory
p
y measures necessary
y to
ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It
shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
(2) Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type
and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised
are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial
consequences
q
of p
primary
y importance
p
for the environment or,, further to
an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest.
Commission Guidance available
Managing Natura 2000 sites – the
provisions of Art. 6
Assessment of plans and projects :
methodological guide Art 6 (3) & (4)
Additional Guidance document on
Article 6(4)
Step-by-step assessment of plans and projects
affecting Natura 2000 sites (Art 6
6.3
3&6
6.4)
4)
Screening - Likely negative impact on Natura
2000 site?
Appropriate Assessment incl mitigation
measures
Alternatives?
IROPI?
Compensatory measures
yes
If negative
If no
If yes
If priority
habitat/species
& IROPI not for
public health or
safety
Commission Opinion
required
More details…
Art 6.3.
•
•
•
•
•
Any plan or project (should be given a broad interpretation)
not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (i.e.
the conservation management according to Art 6.1)
but likely (i.e. not certainly, precautionary principle), to have a significant
effect thereon, (significant to be objectively interpreted in line of site’s
conservation objectives)
either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, (i.e.
cumulative effects)
shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in
view of the site
site's
s conservation objectives.
objectives
Methodology for the AA
DEFINE THE STUDY
AREA
- Natura 2000 site
- Project actions areas
IDENTIFY THE
CONSERVATION
OBJECTIVES OF THE
SITE
IDENTIFY THE HABITATS AND
SPECIES TO BE CONSIDERED
IN THE ASSESSSMENT
Analyse species sensitivity
to project actions & habitats
present in the project areas
INFORMATION
ABOUT OTHER
PLANS AND
PROJECTS
CONSULTATION:
COMPETENT
AUTHORITIES
& STAKEHOLDERS
EXISTING
INFORMATION,
INVENTORIES,
SURVEYS
ASSESS THE EFFECTS ON
NATURAL HABITATS & SPECIES,
SPECIES
ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE &
FUNCTIONS
DESIGN PREVENTIVE
AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
DESIGN MONITORING
DETERMINE THE
EFFECTS ON THE
INTEGRITY OF THE
SITE
Art 6.3. (cont)
(
)
•
In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the
site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national
authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
that
h
it will
ll not adversely
d
l affect
ff
the
h integrity off the
h site concerned
d and,
d iff
appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
•
•
Integrity of the site means the site’s ecological structure and function, or the
habitats, complex of habitats and/or population of species for which the site was
designated, i.e. involves its ecological functions related to the sites conservation
objectives.
On public consultation, links to EIA and Aarhus
Art 6. 4.
(1) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site
and in the absence of alternative solutions, (zero alternative needs to
be incorporated, real alternatives related to the site’s conservation
objectives needed)
• a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or
economic nature, (long-term, public interest)
• the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to
ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.
p
(compensatory measures need to be additional to the normal
management of the site. They are a last resort. They must clearly
offset all negative impacts, concern the same biogeographic region,
should normally have been done before the damage occurs)
• It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures
adopted.
Art 6. 4.
(2) Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type
and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised
are those
• relating to human health or public safety,
• to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment or,,
• further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative
reasons of overriding public interest.
Typical problems encountered with
applying Article 6.3/6.4
•
•
•
Trying to avoid Art 6.3. AA - inappropriate screening, non
non-respect
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 including poor expert input
•
•
•
•
•
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, insufficient data or expertise
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.)
•
•
•
•
General species provisions of BD and HD neglected
Trying to avoid going to Art 6.4.
64
Negative results of assessments not respected
No/insufficient alternatives considered
•
•
•
•
•
No real IROPI (e.g. a private project)
No or inadequate compensation measures
•
•
•
•
Economic arguments only are not enough
Best alternatives are not assessed on purpose so as to stick to old plans
Zero alternative not assessed
Trying to avoid designating more sites
Usually best sites have been designated, or restoration takes time, so more than 1:1 in size
p
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)
Dealing with sectoral plans and projects
¾ COM sectoral specific guidelines
¾ So far developed: Wind energy, Ports & Estuaries, Inland Waterway
Transport, NEEI, Aquaculture
¾ Forthcoming: Energy Grid Development, Agriculture, Forestry
¾ Focus on reconciling development activities with Natura 2000 protection
+ good practice
¾ Gives p
policy
y & legal
g context,, evidence of risk,, & examines strategic
g &
project level approaches
¾ Prepared with the assistance of Working Group
(Member States,
Sectors and NGOs)
Example: Wind Energy
Developing wildlife sensitivity maps at
strategic planning stage enables areas to be
identified where wind farm development
might be considered a :
- low,,
- medium or
- high risk
in terms of nature and wildlife.
wildlife
Scottish example of good
practice
Example:
p
Electricity
y Grids – Power lines
•
•
•
•
Example for joint cooperation and strategic risk analysis: electrocution of birds in Hungary
Risks of Electrocution
Electrocution, Collision,
Collision Displacement
Displacement, Possible fragmentation and loss of habitats
Accessible Sky agreement signed between all main electricity suppliers and Birdlife HU in 2007
Concrete joint projects implemented, a lot of powerlines retrofitted (insulating, marking,
burying,…), BAT revised, legislation changed, international conference organised, joint database
d
developed,
l
d iinformation
f
ti material,
t i l communication,
i ti
sensitivity
iti it mapping,
i
etc
t …
The LIFE Programme: source of best practice
Examples for integrated projects – Estuaries
and
d Ri
Rivers
Via Donau Integrated River Engineering Project on the Danube to the East of
Vienna (IREP)
Cooperation between Donauauen NP and Via Donau
Creation of an Interdisciplinary working group + stakeholder process
Undertaking of joint EIA and Art 6 AA
Compromise between all involved found
Project has measures to improve the navigation and to improve the ecology
SIGMA plan – Flood protection of the Scheldt in Netherlands and Belgium
Floods in 1976, a first plan developed (technology-driven)
All Scheldt Estuary Natura 2000 – new plan in 2005
Combination of flood protection work and Natura 2000 restoration work
Creation of 500ha of mudflats, 1500 ha of tidal marshes, 1500 ha of grasslands,
2000 ha of reed and riparian zones, 400 ha of marsh woodland
Summary of Part II
•
•
•
•
•
Economic Development compatible with Natura 2000
Birds and Habitats Directives provide clear framework within which
appropriate
i t d
decisions
i i
can b
be taken.
t k
They
Th
are flexible
fl ibl instruments,
i t
t
providing a key tool for achieving the EU 2020 target for halting the loss of
biodiversity
Natura 2000 is not a “no
no go area”
area , even a lot of win-win
opportunities
« Appropriate Assessments » is a key tool of Habitats Directive in
ensuring
g sustainable development
p
and nature p
protection. A sound and
objective AA can prevent/reduce conflicts and delays at the
permitting and implementation stage and increase public acceptance
Fudging makes things worse. Respecting the legislation is often at the
end
d cheaper
h
th
than
trying
t i
tto avoid
id it
Summary of Part II (cont.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Value of strategic approach and integrated planning – especially in the context
of spatial planning (e.g. for roads, wind energy, energy transmission facilities,
transboundary projects etc.)
Early enough start of appropriate assessment, involvement of sectors and
stakeholders and proper communication reduce the risk of difficulties and delays
in permissions
Competent authorities have key responsibility to ensure the standards for
effective delivery of AAs – need clear perspective on status of species/habitats,
conservation objectives,
objectives determining thresholds of significance,
significance cumulative effects
Better cooperation between services and sectors important
Guidelines and standards help ensure quality and consistency of assessments
With g
good will,, pragmatism,
p g
, integrity
g y and the right
g knowledge,
g , each p
problem has a
solution. Natura 2000 is part of the solution, not the problem.
Good to combine AA process with EIA/SEA process but need specific
focus/implications
For more information,
information please consult:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/managemen
t/guidance_en.htm#art6
44