"The EU biodiversity and nature policy and legislation – focus on Art 6.3 and and legislation focus on Art 6.3 and

6.4 Habitats Directive"

Stefan LeinerHead of the Nature Unit

DG Environment European CommissionDG Environment, European Commission

Meeting with Slovenian AuthoritiesMeeting with Slovenian Authorities

Ljubljana, 7/01//2013

Part IGeneral Introduction to the EU biodiversity policyGeneral Introduction to the EU biodiversity policyFocus 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• 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 strategyA 2050 VISIONA 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 f f ibl d t th EU' t ib ti t ti l b l bi di itinsofar as feasible, and step up the EU's contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

6 TARGETS

Enhance implementation

of nature legislation

Restore ecosystems est. Green

Infrastructure

Sustainable Agriculture

&Forestry

Sustainable Fisheries

Combat Alien Invasive

Species

Contribute to averting global

biodiversity lossloss

ACTIONS

New EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011New EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011Target 1 - Nature conservation

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and

hi i ifi t d bl i t achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status by 2020

Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000k d d network and ensure good management

Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement

d l i i d tiImprove and streamline monitoring and reportingEnsure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites

Objective and scope of Habitats Directive j p

To contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through conservation of natural habitats and species in EUnatural habitats and species in EUTo 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

Species protection & management

Site protection and management gg

Annex II species

Annex IHabitat types

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 DIRECTIVEBIRDS DIRECTIVE

Site protection Species protectionp

migratory birds

Annex I birds

All wild birds

Exemptions for species on

II & III

p p

birds birds birds annex II & III

Natura 2000 – based on two EU Directives

HABITATS DIRECTIVE BIRDS DIRECTIVE

National List of proposed sites

Special Protectionproposed sites

(pSCI)

Sites of

Protection Areas (SPA)

Sites of CommunityImportance

(SCI)

Special Areas ofConservation

(SAC)

7

Site designation - processSite designation - process

Based solely on scientific criteriaSCI A t 4 + A III HD i t d l f th SCIs: Art 4 + Annex III HD, importance and value of the site, area coverage, geographical distributionSufficiency assessed by Commission following discussions with MS + experts + stakeholders at biogeographical meetings5% rule (Annex III criteria can be applied more flexibly if a MS hosts priority species on more than 5% of territory) , applicable per species and habitat type (e.g. large pp p p yp ( g gcarnivores)SPAs: 'most suitable territories in number and size' – usually IBA criteria used

Slovenia needs to designate few more sites for Slovenia needs to designate few more sites for both SPAs and SCIs

Needs urgent solving – creates legal uncertainty, court case possible

State of progress in establishing Natura 2000

• 26 400 sites986 000 k ²• 986 000 km²

• 18 % EU land• ~4 % EU seas• Largest co-ordinated PA networkLargest co ordinated PA network• Almost complete on land• Some additional work for marine

Communication and public awarenessCommunication and public awareness

Natura 2000 viewer------------------------------------------

10

Key protection principles of Natura 2000Key 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;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;Works in collaboration with land owners & users;Supports sustainable development : new activities or development affecting N2000 are not automatically excluded not all strictly protected automatically excluded, not all strictly protected areas

P t ti R i f N t 2000Protection Regime for Natura 2000

Species Protection Under DirectivesSpecies Protection Under Directives

• Article 12 (animals) & 13 (plants) HD and 5 BD (Birds) provide system of strict species protectionprovide system of strict species protection

• Derogations allowed under specific conditions• Annex V HD and Annex II BD lists species that can be

huntedhunted• 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, as well as on Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores in 2008

• COM supporting Species and Birds Action and M t PlManagement Plans

Monitoring & ReportingMonitoring & Reporting

First Member State assessments done for

17%First Member State assessments done for 2001-2006 2009 EU composite report or ‘Health Check’ showed

37%

18%

Only 17% deemed to be in favourable conservation statusGrasslands, wetlands & coastal habitats most under pressure

28% p

The job is far from done!

New reporting cycle underway – MS to

17%22%

New reporting cycle underway MS to submit national reports in 2013

30%31%

Habitats and Species related to Agriculture and water have worse status than others.have worse status than others.

6

3

12

11

1 10

11

35

7

rocky habitats

sclerophyllous scrub

52

14

21

10

6 15

6

1 7

6

grasslands

heath & scrub

64

25

50

28

9

6

20

11 1

38

13

forests

freshwater habitats

30

31

25

25

5

1

12

4

4 8

1

coastal habitats

dunes habitats

31 17 3 1 4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

bogs, mires & fens

EU common birds Index in Europe population index (1980 = 100)

Future Management of Natura 2000 g(Article 4.4 and 6.1)

SCI SAC (6 d dli d )• SCI SAC (6 year deadline overdue)

• Define Conservation Objectives

• Establish Conservation Measures

• Develop Management Plans, Legal, statutory or contractual arrangementsstatutory or contractual arrangements

• Full stakeholder engagement

N bi hi l S i • New biogeographical Seminars on management/restoration

Commission enforcement policyCommission enforcement policy• Commission obligation to ensure application of

EU lawEU 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

DG ENV open cases per sector (339) on 31/12/2011

MISCELLANEOUS1

LIABILITY1

IMPACT43

13%Enforcement related to citizen complaints/European Parliament petitions

• Trend towards strategic use of enforcement powers confirmed by 2008 Communication

CHEMICALS268%

AIR35

10%

NATURE76

0% 0% 13%

INFORMATION1

0%

WATER80

25%

powers confirmed by 2008 Communication WASTE76

22%

7622%

Strategy for Financing Natura 2000SEC (2011) 1573 SEC (2011) 1573

• Article 8 foresees EU co-financingN 2014 2020 MFF i l CAP f d• New 2014-2020 MFF incl CAP reform and 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

LIFELIFE

• 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) network)

• is now increasingly covering a significant portion of the marine network

• C 320 000 hectares in sites restored• C.320,000 hectares in sites restored• 150, 000 hectares acquired• pump-priming initial heavy investment costs to

make long-term management easier make long term management easier

New EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011T t 2 R t ti f E t S iTarget 2 - Restoration of Ecosystem Services

By 2020 ecosystems and their services are By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystemsdegraded ecosystems.Actions:

Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU (ES mapping and assessment valuation)(ES mapping and assessment, valuation)Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green

infrastructure (GI Strategy 2012)

l f b d d (Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BD screening, no net loss initiative by 2015)

M 2012 C l b ti 20 f H bit t May 2012: Celebrating 20 years of Habitats Directive and LIFE instrument

Th k t th HD BD & LIFEThanks to the HD, BD & LIFE

• Nature protected Areas in EU more than tripledp p• Large-scale destruction of high value areas halted• Endangered species are brought back from the brink of

extinctionextinction• 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 practices supportedg p pp• New opportunities for recreation and tourism

…

T t 1 f th t tiTo sum up part 1 of the presentation• 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 breakTime for a break

25

Part II – Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the 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,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 nationalauthorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertainedth t it ill t d l ff t th i t it f th it d d ifthat it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, ifappropriate, 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 siteand in the absence of alternative solutions,• a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperativep p j p

reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social oreconomic nature,

• the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary top y yensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Itshall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

(2) Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type(2) Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat typeand/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raisedare those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficialconsequences of primary importance for the environment or, further toq p y p ,an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons ofoverriding 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 projectsaffecting Natura 2000 sites (Art 6 3 & 6 4)

Screening - Likely negative impact on Natura 2000 site?

yesaffecting Natura 2000 sites (Art 6.3 & 6.4)

Appropriate Assessment incl mitigation measures

If negative

If no

IROPI? If yes

Alternatives?If no

Compensatory measures If priority habitat/species& IROPI not for & IROPI not for public health or safety

Commission Opinion required

Art 6.3.

More details…

• 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’sconservation 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 inview of the site's conservation objectivesview of the site s conservation objectives.

Methodology for the AADEFINE THE STUDY

AREA- Natura 2000 site

- Project actions areas

IDENTIFY THE CONSERVATION

OBJECTIVES OF THE SITE

CONSULTATION: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

& STAKEHOLDERS

IDENTIFY THE HABITATS AND SPECIES TO BE CONSIDERED

IN THE ASSESSSMENT Analyse species sensitivity to project actions & habitats

EXISTING INFORMATION,INVENTORIES,

to project actions & habitats present in the project areas

SURVEYS

ASSESS THE EFFECTS ONNATURAL HABITATS & SPECIES

INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER

PLANS AND NATURAL HABITATS & SPECIES,ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE &

FUNCTIONS

DESIGN PREVENTIVE

PLANS AND PROJECTS

DESIGN MONITORING

DETERMINE THE EFFECTS ON THE

AND MITIGATION MEASURES

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 nationalauthorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertainedh ll d l ff h f h d d fthat it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if

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 washabitats, complex of habitats and/or population of species for which the site wasdesignated, i.e. involves its ecological functions related to the sites conservationobjectives.

• On public consultation, links to EIA and Aarhus

Art 6. 4.(1) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the siteand in the absence of alternative solutions, (zero alternative needs tobe incorporated, real alternatives related to the site’s conservationobjectives needed)• a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative

reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social oreconomic nature, (long-term, public interest)

• the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary toensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.p(compensatory measures need to be additional to the normalmanagement of the site. They are a last resort. They must clearlyoffset 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 measuresadopted.

Art 6. 4.(2) Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat typeand/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raisedare 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-respect of the 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 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 expertiseeffects 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• 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• Trying to avoid going to Art 6.4.• Negative results of assessments not respected• No/insufficient alternatives considered

• Economic arguments only are not enough• 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 (e.g. a private project)• 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

expectedp• 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 projectsDealing with sectoral plans and projectsCOM sectoral specific guidelinesSo far developed: Wind energy, Ports & Estuaries, Inland Waterway Transport, NEEI, AquacultureForthcoming: Energy Grid Development, Agriculture, ForestryFocus on reconciling development activities with Natura 2000 protection + good practiceGives policy & legal context, evidence of risk, & examines strategic & p y g , , gproject level approachesPrepared with the assistance of Working Group (Member States, Sectors and NGOs)

Example: Wind EnergyExample: 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 wildlifein terms of nature and wildlife.

Scottish example of good practicepractice

Example: Electricity Grids – Power linesp y

• Example for joint cooperation and strategic risk analysis: electrocution of birds in Hungary• Risks of Electrocution Collision Displacement Possible fragmentation and loss of habitatsRisks of Electrocution, Collision, 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 l d i f ti t i l i ti iti it i tdeveloped, information material, communication, sensitivity mapping, etc …

The LIFE Programme: source of best practiceThe LIFE Programme: source of best practice

Examples for integrated projects – Estuaries d Riand Rivers

Via Donau Integrated River Engineering Project on the Danube to the East of Vienna (IREP)Vienna (IREP)

Cooperation between Donauauen NP and Via DonauCreation of an Interdisciplinary working group + stakeholder processUndertaking of joint EIA and Art 6 AACompromise between all involved foundProject has measures to improve the navigation and to improve the ecology

SIGMA plan – Flood protection of the Scheldt in Netherlands and BelgiumFloods in 1976, a first plan developed (technology-driven)All Scheldt Estuary Natura 2000 new plan in 2005All Scheldt Estuary Natura 2000 – new plan in 2005Combination of flood protection work and Natura 2000 restoration workCreation 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 IISummary of Part II• Economic Development compatible with Natura 2000• Birds and Habitats Directives provide clear framework within which

i t d i i b t k Th fl ibl i t t appropriate decisions can be taken. They are flexible instruments, providing a key tool for achieving the EU 2020 target for halting the loss of biodiversity

• Natura 2000 is not a “no go area” even a lot of win-win • Natura 2000 is not a no go area , even a lot of win-win opportunities

• « Appropriate Assessments » is a key tool of Habitats Directive in ensuring sustainable development and nature protection. A sound and g p pobjective 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 d h th t i t id itend cheaper than trying to avoid it

Summary of Part II (cont.)• Value of strategic approach and integrated planning – especially in the context 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 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 determining thresholds of significance cumulative effectsconservation objectives, determining thresholds of significance, cumulative effects

• Better cooperation between services and sectors important• Guidelines and standards help ensure quality and consistency of assessments• With good will, pragmatism, integrity and the right knowledge, each problem has a g , p g , g y g g , p

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 please consult:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

For more information, please consult:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6

44