§1.2 Guidance for the assessment

Austria – Guidelines for assessment of transport infrastructure Austrian Research Association Road – Rail –Transport (www.fsv.at) has developed guidelines, so called ‘RVS’ (3). The Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology motorways and highways has made these guidelines binding for the ASFINAG (national public road company) – and part of the ‘rules of the game’ for other projects as well. They describe, inter alia, how planning processes must be designed, which methods should be used to sufficiently consider different environmental requirements. These guidelines contain for example, recommendations or agreements on thresholds, descriptions of collection methods, or definitions of technical terms. For nature protection – especially for Natura 2000 and EU species protection requirements – a specific RVS was worked out and published 2015 (‘Species conservation assessments in infrastructure projects’, RVS 04.03.13). Topics such as the definition of a significant nuisance for a population or a Natura 2000 area are addressed in a way the users – the project planning offices and infrastructure evaluation authorities –can clearly understand. Belgium – Guidelines to assess acidification and eutrophication through aerial deposits There are guidelines on impacts such as ‘acidification through aerial deposits’ and ‘eutrophication through aerial deposits’. These methodologies are linked to activities such as intensive agriculture, industrial heating and energy processes and mobility (deposition of NOx and NH3). For assessing these possible impacts, a two-steps approach is promoted. For a first screening, an interactive online tool is available to determine through a quick scan whether there can be a possible impact. If this quick deposition scan gives a green light, no possible harmful impact is to be expected. If the tool gives a red light, this means that there might be a harmful impact that needs to be examined closer through an appropriate assessment (https://www.milieuinfo.be/voortoets/). Germany – Setting thresholds to determine significant adverse effects In Germany, as elsewhere, because of a high level of subjectivity, it was difficult to assess the significance of effects on Natura 2000 target features, which is the core of the appropriate assessment. As a result, the competent authorities often did not have the reasonable scientific certainty they needed to back their decisions on whether or not to authorise a plan or project. To address this problem and ensure a more uniform and consistent approach when assessing the impact significance in practice, the German Federal Agency for Nature Protection (BfN) commissioned a research project to provide scientifically tested rules and conventions for assessing significance of effects on all habitat types and species listed in the Birds and Habitats Directives that occur in Germany. The resulting guidance document was published in 2007 (Lambrecht & Trautner 2007). Background and status of the standards Based on the ruling of the CJEU in the Waddenzee-case the highest national administrative court in Germany (BVerwG) came to the conclusion that a loss of habitat which is part of the conservation objectives in a Natura 2000 site should, in general, considered a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Also the ruling of the CJEU regarding the Galway-Case 11.4.2013 (C-258/11) shows clearly that a strict protection of habitats in Natura 2000 sites is required and that even small losses might be assessed as significant under specific conditions. In order to deal properly with relatively small losses, the standards of Lambrecht & Trautner (2007) provide orientation levels of significance. These standards were developed by scientific research and development projects and then discussed and evaluated through broad expert participation procedure during a six year period. They are now broadly accepted and agreed, recommended in guidelines, officially and regularly regarded by administrative courts and broadly used in appropriate assessments of all kinds. Concept of the standards The starting premise for the standard is that, in general, a permanent loss of habitat types and habitats for species, which are part of the conservation objectives in a Natura 2000 site, should be considered a significant adverse effect on integrity of the site. A certain level of loss could nevertheless be treated as insignificant for some habitat types and species under certain conditions. The guidance provides scientifically agreed criteria and thresholds for determining significance, which are based on qualitative and functional aspects, as well as on quantitative criteria. For an impact to be considered insignificant all the following conditions must be met: A. No important or special function or variant of the habitat is affected. Specific features of the habitat must remain unaltered; B. Orientation values of ‘quantitative — absolute area loss’ (defined for each habitat type and for habitats of species) are not exceeded; C. A ‘relative area loss’ of 1 % of the total area of the habitat in the site is not exceeded; D. Cumulative effects with other projects do not exceed the above values (B and C); E. Cumulative effects with other impact factors do also not exceed the above values. Developing the thresholds for habitat loss Orientation values for non-significant losses were developed by a habitat-specific and species- specific approach using a set of criteria. The thresholds were defined taking into account the vulnerability of the habitats, which was estimated on the basis of 3 main criteria and 4 secondary criteria: Main criteria for habitat types: — ecological minimum viable area of the habitat; — average area of the habitat in Natura 2000 sites; — total area of the habitat in the Natura 2000 network; Secondary criteria: — rarity/frequency of the habitat type; — status as priority habitat; — threat situation of the habitat; — regeneration capability. Five vulnerability classes for terrestrial habitats and two classes of marine habitats were defined (see Table 1), based on an evaluation of the nationwide stock of habitats in the Natura 2000 network. A matrix was then established that related the vulnerability classes with 3 levels of relative area loss (level I, II and III), corresponding to 1 %, 0,5 % and 0,1 % relative loss. Thresholds of tolerable absolute area loss for each habitat class were estimated for each class of habitat and each level of relative loss s (see Table 1). In case of a relative loss: Level Classes of orientation values (thresholds of tolerable quantitative-absolute loss of habitat) 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b Special Marine Class < 1 % I. basic OV 0 m2 25 m2 50 m2 100 m2 250 m2 500 m2 0,5 ha < 0,5 % II. middle OV 0 m2 125 m2 250 m2 500 m2 1 250 m2 2 500 m2 2,5 ha < 0,1 % III. upper OV 0 m2 250 m2 500 m2 1 000 m2 2 500 m2 5 000 m2 5 ha In practice this means that for 21 of the 91 habitat types occurring in Germany, no loss is acceptable, while for the remaining habitats some loss may be considered insignificant if the orientation values defined for each habitat are not exceeded. Relating the absolute area loss to the relative loss implies that a larger habitat area will allow a greater absolute loss as long as it represents a smaller proportion of affected surface area. For the establishment of thresholds, the minimum viable area of habitat was considered. Orientation values for habitat loss defined for some Annex I habitat types in Germany are presented in Table 2 below. Code Habitat type Orientation value for habitat loss (in m2) class Level I Level II Level III If loss ≤ 1 % If loss ≤ 0,5 % If loss ≤ 0,1 % 9110 Luzulo Faegetum beech forest 5 250 1 250 2 500 9130 Asperulo Fagetum beech forest 5 250 1 250 2 500 9170 Oak hornbeam forest 4 100 500 1 000 91E0* Alluvial forest 4 100 500 1 000 6510 Lowland hay meadows 4 100 500 1 000 4030 European dry heaths 3 50 250 500 6430 Hydrophilus tall herb fringe comm. 3 50 250 500 6120* Xeric sand calcareous grasslands 2 25 125 250 7110* Active raised bogs 1 0 0 0 7220* Petrifying springs with tufa formations 1 0 0 0 Thresholds for losses of habitats of animal species The development of tolerable losses of the habitats of protected species was mainly based on the typical size of habitats of species and on a literature review, considering the home ranges, territory sizes and mobility of the individuals and the ranges of the populations. The species were grouped into 8 classes of average home ranges which were defined (according to Bink 1992) as: <1 ha, 4 ha,16 ha, 64 ha, 260 ha,10 km2, 40 km2, 160 km2. The ‘orientation values’ for the significance levels were then determined as 1/100 or 1/1 000 of the class value depending on whether the specific class was chosen for individuals or populations, respectively. For the orientation values also a combination of relative and absolute levels for losses has to be considered. Additionally, the specific habitat use of a species has to be taken into account to determine for which parts of habitats the orientation values may be used. For highly endangered species no orientation value is given; i.e., the threshold for a significant impact is considered to be anything greater than zero. Regarding the 53 species from Annex II, no threshold values exist for 16 of them, nor for 20 of the 98 Birds Directive species. In other words, no loss is likely to be acceptable. All these conclusions/ figures/ thresholds are intended for guidance purposes only. This means that a case-by-case approach for each appropriate assessment is still required. Advantages of the standards Since its publication, the guidance document has been successfully tested in the German courts and is now applied across the country. Based on more than ten years of experience, several advantages of this approach can be identified: — More transparency and objectivity, a clear assessment framework for the assessment of significant adverse effects on integrity. — Rules for the appropriate assessment are clear for everyone (proponent, consultancies, competent authority, nature conservation authority, judges/courts and public). — Standards are guaranteeing the quality of the assessments. — The approach might also be useful for other impacts (regarding the gradual losses). — Provides more legal and planning certainty. For more information regarding the development or the usage in practice and case law, see: Lambrecht H., Trautner J. (2007): Fachinformationssystem und Fachkonventionen zur Bestimmung der Erheblichkeit im Rahmen der FFH-VP — Endbericht zum Teil Fachkonventionen, Schlussstand Juni 2007. (Expert information system and rules for significance assessment in the context of the appropriate assessment — Final report part Expert rules, final version June 2007. In German.) https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/ffh-vertraeglichkeitspruefung.html Bernotat, D. (2013): Appropriate Assessment: Standards of significance for more planning certainty. Presentation on Jaspers seminar on nature protection, Brussels, 10.4.2013. http://www.jaspersnetwork.org/download/attachments/13205585/Appropriate%20assessment%20standards%20-%20Germany.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1400316957000&api=v2 Germany – Criteria for the assessment of mortality of wild animals in the context of projects and operations A classification system for the importance of anthropogenic mortality on the species level was developed in Germany between 2008 and 2016. This system takes into account parameters related to population biology and nature conservation status. First, a Population Biology Sensitivity Index (PSI) was developed based on parameters such as mortality rate, longevity, age of first reproduction, reproductive rate, national population size and population trend. For most parameters, measured values were translated into a scoring system reflecting the vulnerability to anthropogenic mortality starting with high vulnerability (1 point) and ending with low vulnerability (9 points). A Conservation Value Index (NWI) was also created. This index takes into consideration the parameters such as ‘status on the National Red List’, ‘abundance in Germany’, ‘population condition’ (according to the Natura 2000 system) and ‘national responsibility for the species’. To help with carrying out species-specific assessments, both indices (PSI and NWI) were aggregated in a matrix resulting in an Index of Mortality Sensitivity (MGI). This index facilitates the assessment of a loss of an individual on the whole population. It allows one to detect which of the species (depending on how rare, threatened and sensitive they are) the loss of only few individuals has to be considered as significant in the context of the assessments. The MGI also allows the identification of those abundant species, which do not require a more detailed consideration regarding a project-related mortality risk, at least when only a few individuals are concerned. In addition to the indexes, the authorities also developed instructions on how to apply the MGI in the framework of planning and impact assessment. In planning and permitting processes, risks of collision or mortality need to be considered on a project-specific basis. For instance, the mortality risk for birds from wind turbines, power lines (collision and electrocution) and traffic routes (roads and railroads) does not only differ among species, but can also depend on the type of project. The same applies to bats. Therefore in the second step, for each species the mortality risk related to specific project types was divided into four classes for birds (collision at power lines, electrocution at medium voltage masts, collision with cars and wind turbines) and two classes for bats (collision with cars and wind turbines). This evaluation is based on an extensive literature review regarding the numbers of animals killed by each project type in Germany and Europe, as well as on knowledge about biology and behaviour of the species (e.g. mobility, home range size, flight altitude, flight behaviour, manoeuvrability, speed of locomotion, body size, wing span or vision), on published estimates of experts (including published national and international guidelines) and on own estimates. When interpreting statistics of casualties from different projects, the abundance of the respective species was also considered. Subsequently, the mortality risk related to specific project types was combined with the general mortality sensitivity (MGI) in the form of an index of mortality sensitivity related to specific project types (vMGI). To further illustrate this, a ‘high collision risk’ with power lines, wind turbines or roads does not automatically mean a ‘significantly increased mortality risk’ (sensu conservation laws) in species which show a natural mortality of 50-60 %. More drastic examples are insects (e.g. many butterflies and dragonflies), which show a high collision risk on roads, but of which 100 % of the imagines naturally die each year anyway. Those animals are adapted to high losses in their whole autecology (high natural mortality, low longevity, high reproductive rate, large population size). Thus, for short-lived species, certain anthropogenic mortality risks resulting from infrastructure are much less significant than for long-living species with low natural mortality and reproduction (k-strategists). Using the MGI-method, these autecological aspects and differences are considered in the evaluation of project-specific mortality risks. Finally, each individual case has to be assessed in terms of the potential conflict of the project with the number of the individuals of the affected species. For this purpose a ‘constellation specific risk’ (KSR) is applied. The evaluation of this risk is based on area-specific information and project parameters. In summary, the Index of Sensitivity to Mortality (MGI) cannot replace the assessment of mortality in each individual case. Instead, the differentiated classifications help to objectify the assessment of mortality risks, for example in the context of the Impact Mitigation Regulation (under the German Federal Nature Conservation Act) or the provisions of Art. 6 (appropriate assessment) and Art. 12 (species protection) of the Habitats Directive, or the provisions of the Environmental Liability Directive. The aim of the method is to provide a standardized way of assessing the impact of species mortality, and thus to increase objectivity and transparency of impact assessments. Bernotat, D. & Dierschke, V. (2016): Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen. 3. Fassung – Stand 20.9.2016. – Leipzig (Bundesamt für Naturschutz), 460 S. https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/besonderer-artenschutz/toetungsverbot.html Italy. National Guidelines for assessments in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive Italy has recently published national guidelines, which describe the procedures for the screening, the appropriate assessment and the implementation of derogations, in accordance with Article 6(3)-(4) of the Habitats Directive. The document was prepared by a working group formed by representatives of national and regional authorities and public administrations competent in the field of impact assessment. It takes into account the suggestions received during the Fitness Check and the update of the guidance on Article 6 by the Commission. The guidelines are aimed at harmonising at national level the implementation of Article 6(3)-(4). They promote the inclusion of plans, programmes, projects, interventions and activities (P/P/P/I/A), not only plans and projects, in the procedure. A ‘screening format’ is provided in order to ensure a uniform approach at this stage and the use of standard evaluation criteria at the national level. A ‘developer format’ has also been prepared for the presentation of the relevant information on the P/P/P/I/A. With regard to the appropriate assessment, the guidelines contain detailed specifications on the contents and the information to consider, specific provisions and elements for the study and for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the significance of the effects on Natura 2000 sites. Concerning the derogation pursuant to Article 6(4), the guidelines address the evaluation of alternative solutions in a dedicated chapter. The guidelines emphasise that this evaluation remains formally, and in all cases, a pre-requisite to allow the exemption procedure provided for by Article 6(4), although in it is believed that, within the framework of an appropriate assessment, it should also provide the possibility of directing the proposal towards solutions with a lower environmental impact. The guidelines also describe the criteria for verifying the imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), the methods for identifying and implementing appropriate compensation measures, as well as clarifications relating to their verification and the notification process to the European Commission by filling in the appropriate form. On compensation measures, minimum compensation ratios are proposed as follows: 2: 1 ratio for priority habitats and/or species of Community interest (also valid for habitats of priority species); 1,5: 1 ratio for habitats and/or species of community interest (also valid for species habitats); 1: 1 ratio for additional habitats, species or species habitats. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2019/12/28/303/sg/pdf ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS ON THE NATURA 2000 SITE (PART OF THE SCREENNG FORMAT INCLUDED IN NATIONAL GUIDELINES IN ITALY) 1. HABITATS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST Habitats of Community interest (Annex I HD) concerned by the proposal: — ... — ... Possible loss of habitats of Community interest: — Habitat code: ... — repeat for each habitat involved ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ Permanent ☐ Temporary Possible fragmentation of habitats of community interest: — Habitat code: ... — repeat for each habitat involved ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ Permanent ☐ Temporary 2. SPECIES AND HABITAT OF SPECIES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST Species of Community interest (Annex II HD and Art.4 BD) concerned by the proposal: — ... — ... Possible disturbance of species of Community interest: — Species: … — repeat for each species involved ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ Permanent ☐ Temporary Possible direct/indirect loss of species of Community interest (repeat for each species involved): — Species: … — Number of individuals, pairs,... from SDF ☐ No ☐ Yes Estimate (no. of individuals, pairs...) lost Possible loss/fragmentation of species’ habitats: — Species: … — Type of species’ habitat: … (repeat for each habitat of species involved) ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ Permanent ☐ Temporary 3. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Can other P/P/I/A cause significant cumulative and/or synergetic effects on the Natura 2000 site concerned jointly with the proposal in question? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, indicate which other P/P/I/A and describe how they will significantly affect the site, together with the proposal under consideration: ... 4. INDIRECT EFFECTS EVALUATION Can the proposal have indirect effects on the Natura 2000 site? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, indicate which ones: ... 5. ASSESSMENT SYNTHESIS The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects, even potential, on habitats of community interest? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, why: ... ... The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects, even potential, on species of community interest? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, why: … … The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative, even potential, impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site (s)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, why: … … … 6. CONCLUSION OF THE SCREENING Conclusions and motivations (reasoned opinion): … … … … 7. RESULT OF THE SCREENING: ☐ Positive: No need for Appropriate Assessment ☐ Negative: Appropriate Assessment is required Source: Guidelines for evaluation of effects on Natura 2000 sites (Italy). Linee guida nazionali per la valutazione di incidenza (VInCA). Direttiva 92/43/CEE ‘Habitat’ art. 6, paragrafi 3 e 4. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 2019.

← 1.1 · All articles · 1.3 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07