3.2.4. Step 4: Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures may be proposed by the plan or project developer or required by the competent national authorities in order to remove, pre-empt or reduce the impacts identified in the appropriate assessment to a level where they will no longer affect the integrity of the site. In practice, the need for mitigation measures is often acknowledged at an early stage in the design or inception stages of a plan/project (for example at a 'pre-application' discussion between the developer/applicant and the nature conservation advisers) and included as part of the application for authorisation. Although mitigation measures cannot be taken into consideration when screening the plan or project, the fact that they have been identified as necessary can greatly assist the efficient, effective and timely execution of the appropriate assessment stage, and hence the decision on whether the plan/project can be authorised under Article 6(3). The hierarchy of mitigation measures suggests first avoidance (i.e. preventing significant impacts from happening in the first place) and then reduction of impact (i.e. reducing the magnitude and/or likelihood of an impact). Examples are given in table 6 below: Table 6 Examples of types of mitigation measures At the level of plans, mitigation measures may include e.g. re-locating or removing components of the plan identified as having significant adverse effects on the site integrity. The proposed measures can be fine-tuned throughout the assessment process. At a high level of planning (e.g. in national/regional plans), mitigation could imply setting out potential measures to be worked out in more detail at a lower level, in line with the ecological, locational, timeframe, legal and financial parameters to be met as part of any planning application. Mitigation measures must not be confused with compensatory measures which are only considered under the Article 6(4) procedure (see section 3.3.3 of this document). Specifically, measures which are not functionally part of the project, such as habitat improvement and restoration (even if contributing to a net increase of the habitat area within the affected site (33)) or creation and improvement of breeding or resting places for the species, should not be considered as mitigation as they do not reduce negative impact of the project as such. This type of measures, if they are outside the normal practice required for the conservation of the site, meet rather the criteria for compensatory measures. Each mitigation measure must be described in detail, specifying how it will eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts identified, and how, when and by whom it will be implemented. The following aspects must be indicated: The impacts concerned that the mitigation measures aim to address, including information on relevant parameters (e.g. the area of the habitats of Community interest subject to deterioration and their conservation degree in the site, the species population subject to disturbance). The expected results from implementing the proposed mitigation measures, with reference to each parameter (e.g. habitat area, species population numbers or structure and functions). Technical-scientific feasibility and degree of effectiveness expected of the proposed measures. The person or body in charge of implementation. The management of the area where the mitigation measures will be implemented (methods, duration). The location and timing of the measures with relation to the plan or project. The methods for checking implementation of the measures. The financing of the measures. The monitoring programme to verify the effectiveness of the measures, and adapt them if necessary. The effectiveness of mitigation measures needs to be demonstrated, e.g. with reference to successful implementation in other similar developments, and monitored, and by putting in place a system to monitor results and take corrective measures where failures are detected. The following checklist can be used to assess effectiveness: Monitoring mitigation measures is crucial to check their successful and timely implementation and to detect any unexpected impacts requiring additional measures. The effectiveness of mitigation measures must be demonstrated before the plan or project is approved. In addition, when the effectiveness of mitigation depends on the presence of stable natural conditions or natural processes that could change (e.g. due to floods, droughts, storms or other events), monitoring should also be used to verify the expected results and detect any possible changes warrantying the adaptation or reprogramming of the measures. The results of monitoring should be shared with the competent authorities to help formulate suitable response options, if needed e.g. to address any apparent failure in the mitigation measure or to respond to unexpected impacts or to effects for which only a risk was identified. Table 7 gives an example of a matrix for presenting information on mitigation measures. The expected results of implementing the mitigation measure in terms of preventing or reducing the impacts identified in the assessment should be properly documented. Table 8 gives an example of a matrix to present the outcome of the assessment after the mitigation measure. Table 7 Information on mitigation measures proposed for a plan or project Table 8 Summary results of the assessment after implementation of mitigation measures

← doc__table__73 · All articles · doc__table__74 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.