Transport infrastructure projects and their impacts on

Natura 2000

Przemyslaw Oginski

European Commission, DG Environment

Unit B.3 "Natura 2000"

Budapest, 6th July 2011

The European Commission’s perspectiveThe European Commission’s perspective

Birds and Habitats Directives

Art. 6(2): Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated.

Art. 6(3): Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site shall be subject to appropriate assessment . Competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project when it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

Art. 6(4): If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

Birds and Habitats Directives

A general system of strict protection for species (Article 12 HD and 5 BD);

Animals: Annex IV HD;

Birds: all wild bird species in the EU;

Apply both inside and outside protected sites;

Derogations → provided that there is no other solution and the consequences of these derogations are not incompatible with the overall aims of the Directives.

Procedure

NA107IT

Is a plan or project likely to have significant effects on the site? (Screening)

YES Impact assessment1

Is the integrity of the site negatively affected?

YES Assess alternatives2

If there are no alternative solutions: are there imperative reasons of overriding public interest?

YES

Compensation measures (& Information to the EC)

3

• No priority habitats/species

• Priority habitats/species and reasons relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment?

Opinion from the Commission & Compensation measures

• Priority habitats/species and other reasons of overriding public

interest

Compensation measures (& Information to the EC)

Step 1:

Screening for possible effects of a transport project on Natura 2000 site

Potential impacts of transport infrastructure on nature and wildlife

Direct impacts:

• habitat loss;

• habitat fragmentation

• disruption of migration corridors (isolated populations, genetic impoverishment, local extinctions);

• road kills

• noise;

• air, water and soil pollution;

Potential impacts of transport infrastructure on nature and wildlife

• spread of invasive alien species;

• hydrology disruption;

• human penetration;

Indirect effects:

• transportation networks encourage future developments;

• CO2 emissions

Temporary impacts (construction phase)

Permanent impacts (operational phase)

Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation

Habitat loss:

• reduced habitat for breeding, foraging, resting, wintering etc.;

Habitat fragmentation:

• barriers to animal movement ;

• open space - threat of predation;

• edge effect;

• animal mortality from traffic;

• disruption of migrating corridors;

Result: division of continuous populations into smaller more isolated ones; increased vulnerability to genetic drift, inbreeding depression and an increased risk of population decline and extinction.

Noise Particularly important in the case of birds and large mammals.

Many species depend on sound to communicate, navigate, avoid dangers, find food.

Road traffic noise alters animals behavior and interferes with normal functioning.

Noise can harm the health of animals, alter their reproduction, survivorship, habitat use, distribution, abundance and therefore genetic composition.

Dutch studies: both in woodlands and grasslands adjacent to roads most bird species had lower densities; in effected zones both total bird density and species richness were much lower.

Woodland songbirds particularly sensitive (decline from 42 dB; grassland birds 48dB).

Air, water and soil pollution

Air pollution:

• Local: NOx, SOx, VOCs (hydrocarbons), vehicle wear particles, road salt, herbicides, etc.

• Regional: NOx, SOx, VOCs

• Global scale: CO2 , methane, nitrous oxide

Water pollution:

• Oil, grease, hydraulic fluids;

• Road salt;

• Chemical spills (particularly dangerous when occur in wetlands);

Soil pollution

Invasive alien species

Roadsides habitat favor non-

native species;

Dispersion corridors;

Non-native species often planted

to reduce erosion;

Plant control chemicals –

additional source of pollution.

Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica)

Diversity of native and non-native plant species in roadside habitats (Road Ecology, 2003)

Soil sealing and hydrology disruption

Road construction usually disrupts natural flaw and circulation of water.

In wet areas impacts of land use change (including roads construction) can extend as far as 4 km (Houlahan, Findlay, Landscape Ecology, 2004) .

Mitigation measures such as culverts are available but do not offset all damages.

Road construction in wetlands might have particularly significant impacts.

Draining ditches accumulate pollutants.

Sealed soil increases runoffs.

Step 2:

Assessment of impacts of a transport project on a Natura 2000 site

Appropriate assessment

Carried out when not possible to exclude significant effect on the integrity of the site; in view of its conservation objectives.

It should enable to assess whether the plan or project, alone, or in combination with other plans or projects, will have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site.

The burden of proof is on demonstrating that there will be no adverse affects on the integrity of the site.

Knowledge base, i.e. gathering information about possible impacts of

the project

Sufficient information has to be gathered on both the road project and on the Natura 2000 site(s) that might be affected.

Natura 2000 site: information about species and habitat types for which it has been designated, their conservation state and on the overall conservation objectives of the site.

Standard Data Forms and maps: Natura 2000 viewer: http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/

Natura 2000 sites management plans.

Mapping the impacts

• Field studies to make inventories of species and habitats;

• Usually at least one whole vegetation period is required ;

• Mitigation measures have to reflect the scale of and location of impact; they have to be functional and effective.

Determining a likelihood of a ‘significant effect’

Emphasis on a ‘likelihood’ of potentially significant effects - not a certitude;

Best available information should be the basis for decision;

Precautionary principle to be applied;

If there are doubts, assessment should be carried out;

Significance must be established in the light, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project (Case C-127/02 para. 46-48).

Cases C-304/05, C-418/04 and C-209/02: significance has to be assessed case-by-case. Sometimes even small spatial impact can have a significant impact on the coherence of the site.

Assessing impacts on the integrity of a site

Focus on demonstrating no adverse effects on the integrity of the

Natura 2000 site;

Integrity of the site ↔ site’s conservation objectives.

Usually defined as “the coherence of the site’s ecological structure

and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the

habitat, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for

which the site is classified” (EC 2000).

Looking at potential cumulative effects

Plans or projects have to be assessed in combination with other plans or projects (completed or planned).

Mitigation of adverse effects of a transport project on wildlife

Mitigation → to eliminate or reduce negative effects;

Directly linked to the likely negative effects;

Changes to the location, design, scale of the project;

Additional infrastructure such as wildlife passages, animal fencing, noise screens;

Adapted to the character and scales of impacts;

Planned at the early stages of project planning;

Solid, long-lasting;

Effective → monitoring programmes.

Properly planned, designed by specialists, effective…

Examples of ineffective mitigation measures

Examples of effective mitigation measures

Some more examples of bad…

… and good practice.

Derogation procedure of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

Appropriate assessment → cannot be ascertained that a project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site;

Plan/project should either be refused or Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive should be applied.

Following conditions have to be met:

• Proposed alternative has to be least damaging for the Natura 2000 site; no other feasible alternative exists that would not adversely affect the integrity of any Natura 2000 site;

• There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI);

• All necessary compensatory measures have been adopted.

Flow chart of the Article 6(4) conditions:

Alternative solutions

Search for alternatives should be broad:

• alternative locations,

• different scales,

• or designs.

First the analysis of the need of the plan or project concerned → zero option should also be considered at this stage.

Reference parameters for comparisons → impacts on the integrity of the site / ecological functions.

Example alternative solutions analysis:Via Baltica in Poland

Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)

Apply both to private and public project promotors;

Balanced against the conservation aims of the Directive;

Public interests may include:

• human health,

• public safety,

• beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment,

• other interests of a social (e.g. employment) or economic nature.

Public interest must be overriding: long-term, fundamental for the society.

Adopting compensatory measures

Compensatory measures - not defined in the Habitats

Directive;

Specific to a project or plan;

The weapon of "last resort”;

Compensatory measures have to be additional to the normal

practice under the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Have to secure the „coherence of the network”.

Overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network

Art. 3(1) of HD: Natura 2000 is “a coherent European ecological

network of special areas of conservation that shall enable the

natural habitats types and species’ habitats concerned to be

maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable

conservation status in their natural range”.

Compensatory measures:

Adequate to conservation objectives of the site;

Address, in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected;

Provide functions comparable to those which had justified the selection criteria of the original site;

Distance between the original site and the place of the compensatory measures not necessarily an obstacle.

Issues which need to be addressed in the programme of compensatory

measures

Time-frame for the achievement of the conservation objectives.

Timetable for implementation of measures and co-ordination with

the schedule for the plan or project implementation.

Public information and/or consultation stages.

Monitoring and reporting.

Budget of the programme.

Timing and scope

General principle - a site should not be irreversibly affected by a project before the compensation is in place.

This conditions is often difficult/impossible to meet.

Solution - extra compensation to make up for interim losses.

Proportion of compensation - ratios should be generally well above 1:1.

Additionality - compensation must be additional to normal obligations of the Member States under the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Designations of new Natura 2000 sites can be part of a compensation package, although the designations on their own are insufficient without the accompanying measures.

Scope of compensation

Source: Botnia Line plan of compensatory measures, management and financing, June 2004

Timing of compensation

Case-by-case approach.

Schedule adopted must ensure the continuity of the ecological processes.

Tight coordination between the implementation of the plan or project and the implementation of the measures.

A site must not be irreversibly affected before compensation is in place.

The result of compensation should be effective at the time the damage occurs on the site concerned. Under certain circumstances where this can not be fully achieved, overcompensation would be required for the interim losses.

Who bears the cost of the compensation measures?

In line with the 'polluter pays' principle, the promoter of a project bears the cost of the compensatory measures.

In case of projects co-financed by the EU compensatory measures are eligible for co-financing (provided that the project meets all the rules and procedures applicable to the EU regional funds).

A subsidy granted by a public authority for measures taken in order to compensate for damage to a Natura 2000 site can be considered as a ”state aid”.

Information to the Commission of the compensatory measures

The competent national authorities have to inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

To facilitate the process the Commission services have prepared a standard form (attached to the guideline document).

It is not the Commission's role either to suggest compensatory measures, or to validate them scientifically.

National authorities are only specifically obliged to communicate the compensatory measures adopted (information about alternative solutions and imperative reasons for overriding public interest should be also provided).

Compensatory measures – case studies

Botnia Line - Sweden Maasvlakte 2 port – Rotterdam

La Breña dam – Spain Via Baltica (Rospuda)

Botnia Line A new 190 km railway in Sweden.

Two Natura 2000 sites were impacted (an SPA and a pSCI – partially overlapping).

Impact – 13 ha of various habitats damaged (permanent and temporary damage) plus indirect impacts.

Habitats affected: Primary forest (9030*) and alluvial forest (91E0*) – 17 ha under direct impact

or edge effect

Estuaries (1130) – minor or non-existent impact

Transition mires and quaking bogs (7140) – 1 ha affected

Molinia meadows (6410) – 6 ha within disturbance zone

Impact on staging birds – disturbance zone of 50 ha.

Botnia Line - continuation

Assumption – compensation must, at the very least, equate to the habitat values that will be affected.

Uncertainty – considerable margin for safety.

Compensation – wide range of measures:

• nature conservation of unaffected forest;

• managed nature conservation of deciduous forest;

• restoration of littoral meadows;

• recreation of wetlands;

• construction of foraging sites for wetland birds.

Botnia Line - continuation

Overall compensation area covered 350 ha of land.

Most of it was to be protected as nature reserves (to be included in the Natura 2000 network).

All compensatory measures - additional to the nature conservation planned for the area. No overlapping with other national nature conservation programmes.

Monitoring programme drawn by Umeå University.

The National Rail Administration responsible for implementation and financing of the compensatory measures.

Botnia Line - continuation

The National Rail Administration also responsible for establishing Nature Conservation Foundation – in charge of the long-term management of the compensatory measures.

Cost of compensation: 42 mln SEK (approx. 4,5 mln EUR).

19 mln SEK at the initial stage

23 mln SEK set aside for long-term management by the Foundation – the funds and the return on them to be used in the time frame of 100 years.

Via Baltica – Rospuda case (Poland)

Via Baltica - European express-way running from Prague to Helsinki by way of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Rospuda Valley - one of the most valuable wetland areas in Europe (peat bogs and mires) with natural, intact water relations.

The express-way would significantly affect the integrity of the site.

The government proposed compensatory measures – afforestation of the Sejny lakeland (160 ha).

Via Baltica – Rospuda case (Poland) - continuation

Compensatory measures not corresponding to the damages – different habitats and species.

Areas for compensation – important feeding area for many species of birds and, presence of protected habitats and species.

The Commission requested the European Court of Justice to take interim measures against Poland

Poland finally decided to give up the compensatory measures (and the whole project).

Guidlines of the European Commission

Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC: Clarification of the concepts of alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest, compensatory measures, overall coherence, opinion of the Commission

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