§3.2.4 Step 4: Mitigation measures

If adverse impacts on the site’s integrity have been identified during the appropriate assessment or cannot be ruled out, the plan or project in question cannot be approved. However, depending on the degree of impact identified, it may be possible to apply mitigation measures to avoid these impacts or reduce them to a level where they will no longer adversely affect the integrity of the site. See the Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.6. 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: Avoiding impact: — technical solutions to prevent negative effects of the plan or project (e.g. noise or light or dust suppression devices); — placing of project elements to avoid sensitive areas (entire Natura 2000 sites or key areas within or connecting Natura 2000 sites); — protective fences and other measures to prevent damage to vegetation or wildlife; — avoidance of works during sensitive periods (e.g. breeding season of species); — optimisation of coordination of works to avoid cumulative impacts. Reducing impact: — emission controls; — noise barriers such as screens; — pollutant interceptors; — controlled access to sensitive areas during construction/operation; — wildlife crossings (e.g. bridges, tunnels and ‘eco-ducts’); — adapting impact-generating actions to reduce effects to the extent possible (e.g. from noise, light, dust …). 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). Mitigation measures are measures that aim to minimise, or even eliminate, the negative impacts likely to arise when a plan or project is implemented so that the site’s integrity is not adversely affected. These measures are considered in the context of Article 6(3) and are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project or conditional to its authorisation. Compensatory measures are independent of the project (including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended to offset the residual negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network is maintained. They can only be considered in the context of Article 6(4). See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.4.1. 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: Box 13 Assessing the effectiveness of mitigation measures — Are mitigation measures feasible within the plan or project under evaluation? — Do mitigation measures clearly target the impacts identified in the appropriate assessment? Are they effective in reducing these impacts below a level of significance? — Are there the sufficient means and resources foreseen to implement the mitigation measures? — Are there records of successful prior implementation of the mitigation measures proposed? — Is there an indication of limiting factors and rates of success or failure of the proposed measures? — Is there a comprehensive plan on how to implement and sustain the mitigation measures (including monitoring and evaluation where needed)? 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. Adverse effects identified (list) Description of the measures, details on implementation, effectiveness, monitoring Effect #1 Measure #1 Name/description Explain how the measure will contribute to avoiding/reducing the effects on the integrity of the site Explain how it will be implemented and by whom Demonstrate its effectiveness (e.g. based on scientific evidence / expert rationale) Provide a timescale of implementation, relative to the plan or project Set out the proposed monitoring scheme and reporting requirements, including how any possible unexpected impacts will be addressed Provide details of the mitigation measure, explaining the elements that will address the adverse effects This may include details of legally binding agreements that should be completed in advance of plan or project authorisation This may include evaluation: (i) reports or evidence from similar projects or plans; (ii) statements from relevant experts; or (iii) support from the relevant nature conservation agency Some mitigation may be integrated into the plan or project; in some cases, it will be an additional measure that needs to be in place either before plan or project authorisation or shortly after it This may be done through legally binding agreements in advance of plan or project authorisation Relevant features in the site Summary description of impacts/adverse effects Importance/magnitude of the effects Description of the proposed mitigation measures Expected results regarding the mitigation of effects Habitats — ... — ... Species — ... — ... Other natural elements of importance for the integrity of the site

← 3.2.3 · All articles · 3.2.5 →

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