Transport infrastructure projects
and their impacts on Natura 2000
The European Commission’s perspective
Przemyslaw Oginski
European Commission, DG Environment
Unit B.3 "Natura 2000"
Budapest, 6th July 2011
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
1
Is a plan or project likely to have significant effects on the site?
(Screening)
YES
2
Impact assessment
Is the integrity of the site negatively affected?
YES
3
F
F
Assess alternatives
If there are no alternative solutions: are there imperative reasons of
overriding public interest?
YES
• No priority habitats/species
F
Compensation measures (& Information to the EC)
• Priority habitats/species and reasons relating to human health, public
safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment?
F
NA107IT
Compensation measures (& Information to the EC)
• Priority habitats/species and other reasons of overriding public
interest
Opinion from the Commission &
Compensation measures
F
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 nonnative 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
Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
the
 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
La Breña dam – Spain
Maasvlakte 2 port – Rotterdam
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