§3.3.2 Step 2: Examining imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)

In the absence of alternative solutions with no adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site concerned or in the presence of solutions having even more negative environmental effects on the site, the competent authorities must examine whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, that would justify the realisation of the plan or project in question. The concept of ‘imperative reason of overriding public interest’ is not defined in the Directive. However, Article 6(4) second subparagraph mentions human health, public safety and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment as examples of such imperative reasons of overriding public interest. As regards the ‘other imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ of social or economic nature, it is clear from the wording that only public interests, irrespective of whether they are promoted either by public or private bodies, can be balanced against the conservation aims of the Directive. Thus, projects developed by private bodies can only be considered where such public interests are served and demonstrated. It is reasonable to consider that the ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social and economic nature’ refer to situations where plans or projects envisaged prove to be indispensable: — as part of actions or policies to protect fundamental values for the life of citizens (health, safety, environment); — as part of fundamental policies for the State and society; — as part of the performance of activities of an economic or social nature, fulfilling specific public service obligations. It is for the competent authorities to weigh up the imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the plan or project against the objective of conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. They can only approve the plan or project if the imperative reasons for the plan or project outweigh its impact on the conservation objectives. See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.2. When determining IROPI, a competent authority must consider all of the elements, i.e. whether it is : — imperative: the plan or project serves an essential public interest, rather than private interests; — overriding: the interest served by the plan or project outweighs the harm (or risk of harm) to the integrity of the site as identified in the appropriate assessment; — of public interest: for instance it is a fundamental part of public policies for the State and society. Public interests can occur at national, regional or local level, but, whatever the level, the other elements of the test must also be met. In practice, plans and projects which are consistent with national or regional strategic plans or policies (e.g. identified within a national infrastructure plan) are more likely to be of public interest. However, consideration would still need to be given to whether, in a specific case, that interest outweighs the harm that will be done to the affected sites and therefore whether IROPI can be demonstrated. Plans or projects that fall outside national strategic plans, including those at a lower geographic scale, may also be able to show IROPI. IROPI must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of: (i) the objective of the particular plan or project; and (ii) its particular impact on the Natura 2000 sites affected as identified in the appropriate assessment. Weighing up IROPI against conservation objectives The description of the plan or project objectives may already include elements that can be used to assess the presence of IROPI. This assessment, like the one dealing with the identification of less harmful alternatives, requires a weighing up any IROPI against the damage caused to the Natura 2000 site as a result of implementing the plan or project under consideration, in view of its conservation objectives and taking into account also the overall importance of the site for the species and habitats for which it is designated. The more important or vulnerable the conservation values of the site affected, the more restrictive the scope will be for IROPI to be considered acceptable and for the damage to the site, as determined by the appropriate assessment, to be justifiable. Where a priority natural habitat type or a priority species is affected, the only considerations which may be raised as IROPI under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive are those relating to human health or public safety, or to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. If other IROPI are evoked, a Commission opinion is required. Elements underpinning the case for IROPI can be included to a certain extent in the description of plans or programmes, in particular in the statement of the objectives motivating the development action. Such reasons must also be specified in a formal decision at the appropriate level of government (e.g. regional, national) and be clearly documented. The consideration of IROPI may be inherent to the strategic planning of certain policy areas (e.g. flood risk management), which are relevant to human health, public safety or the protection of public goods. For activities likely to be justified for IROPI, the need to consider alternatives and compensation can thus be taken into account at an early stage in the planning process (see example in Box 20 below). Examples of IROPI applied in the context of requests for Commission opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (37) are set out in Box 19 below. Box 19 Examples of IROPI under Article 6(4) Case 1 Deepening and widening of a ship fairway (38) The River Main is part of the Trans-European Network (TEN) and is the only inland waterway connecting several Member States to the south-east of Europe. It has important functions as a cross-border route for goods connecting Rotterdam (NL) and Constanţa (RO) and is therefore of economic importance. The project is one of the last missing links needed to adjust this fairway to new political and economic developments and to the requirements of an enlarged European Union. Currently, this part of the River Main creates a bottleneck of 30 km where ships are still limited in terms of their width and depth. Case 2. Long-distance and suburban railway connection (39) According to the authorities, the project will improve regional and long-distance passenger transport services, creating and strengthening cross-regional links to other development areas. It would be part of a ring system necessary to improve railway transport in the region. It would also involve the rebuilding of a bridge crossing which is more than 100 years old. Case 3. Construction of a new port (40) The island of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain) is highly dependent on maritime transport and an efficient port system. The main port, currently located in the capital, is experiencing increasing congestion. The new port would add much needed capacity to: (i) accommodate future growth in maritime traffic, especially in relation to container traffic, which is forecast to increase significantly on the island; and (ii) de-congest the existing port. The new port is expected to generate a sound economic rate of return and will also provide the island with the possibility of attracting international container transhipment traffic.

← 3.3.1 · All articles · 3.3.3 →

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