§4.2 Appropriate assessment of plans

The overall procedural framework for the integration of environmental considerations at strategic planning level is set by the strategic environmental assessment (SEA), as stipulated in the SEA Directive (43). According to Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive, a plan has to undergo an SEA if it is deemed to require an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive (i.e. if the plan may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site (44)). Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive applies to all plans that are likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites. As explained above and in the Article 6 Guide, the term ‘plan’ has a broad meaning, including land-use and maritime spatial plans (45), as well as sectoral plans or programmes. The assessment of such plans under Article 6(3) and their appropriate assessment follow the same steps as described in Chapter 3 of this document. However, there are also certain particularities in the assessment of plans, which are described further below. These particularities pertain to possible limitations and constraints and suitable approaches that can be used to overcome the difficulties and uncertainties linked with a lack of detailed information or insufficient definition of all the elements, components and actions of the plan. The level of detail of the plan itself will determine the scope and extent of the appropriate assessment, but in all cases the assessment must aim to identify sensitive or vulnerable areas or other potential risks or conflicts with Natura 2000 sites so that these can be taken into account at later stages in the planning process. For instance, municipal or urban plans may contain sufficient details that make it possible to determine potential adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites with a good level of certainty. On the other hand, for wider spatial or sectoral plans at regional or national level, where the location and design of all their main components are not yet decided, it may only be possible to identify potential effects of certain actions or components of the plan at a general level, without specifying them at site level. Nevertheless, wider plans can orientate further developments to areas where there is a lesser risk of potential conflicts with Natura 2000 (e.g. wildlife sensitivity maps.) The assessment should be proportionate to the geographical scope, to the plan’s level of detail and to the nature and extent of the likely effects. In some cases, it may not be possible to analyse in detail all the possible impacts on individual sites at this stage; however, sufficient analysis must be carried out to identify: — the main impacts at the level of the Natura 2000 network, including the identification of Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected, as well as possible impacts on the connectivity of the sites, and in light of national or regional conservation objectives for species and habitats protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives, where they exist; — possible broad mitigation measures such as exclusion of areas with sensitive biodiversity, or application of certain standards and best practices (e.g. minimum density of wildlife passages, use of noise screens, respecting breeding periods); — possible alternatives, including different locations for projects or different methods to achieve the expected results (e.g. use of different modes of transport or technologies for production of energy); — potential cumulative impacts, considering other existing or proposed plans, programmes and strategies. For strategic plans where it is not possible to identify effects on individual sites, the analysis should as a minimum focus on potential impacts and major risks; site-specific effects will then need to be analysed at project level. In such cases, the appropriate assessment should focus at least on determining the Natura 2000 sites that could be adversely affected as well as any EU protected habitats and species that could be affected (also outside Natura 2000), effects on connectivity, fragmentation and other effects at the network scale. This should serve to orientate the scope and focus of the assessment of individual projects. Where there is uncertainty about adverse effects on relevant features of Natura 2000 sites and their conservation objectives, it may be appropriate to carry out and record a risk assessment, which can consider the following aspects: — the potential hazards of the plan and their likely consequences for the conservation objectives of the special area of conservation or site of Community importance / special protection area features; — for each hazard, the probability that the hazard will affect the special area of conservation / special protection area’s conservation objectives; — for each hazard, the magnitude, likely duration and irreversibility or reversibility of the effect (recording briefly the assumptions made or evidence used in reaching that conclusion). Nevertheless, it should be born in mind that the underlying aim at all times is to avoid or remove any risk of adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, or to remove any reasonable grounds for concern that such an adverse effect may occur when the plan is implemented. The assessment of the effects of plans under Article 6(3), and the assessment carried out in accordance with applicable SEA procedures, may identify activities or elements of the plan that are certain to harm the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, even if mitigation is carried out; such activities or elements could therefore be excluded from the plan at this point. The assessment could additionally provide an overview of which other activities may be harmful to protected habitats and species and thus better focus the assessment at project level. However, future projects to be implemented under a plan should be in line with the outcome of the appropriate assessment undertaken for the strategic spatial/sectoral plan. This does not replace the requirement for an appropriate assessment of future projects stemming from that plan. There are clear links and analogies between appropriate assessment of plans and strategic environmental assessment, which are covered in the section 5. Coordination of SEA with appropriate assessment is thus recommended. These are parallel but separate processes that usually overlap but which also differ in a number of key aspects. The appropriate assessment is narrower in focus and requires more rigorous tests, with the conservation and protection of Natura 2000 sites at its core. The findings and recommendations of appropriate assessment are mandatory and must be incorporated into and be part of a plan presented for adoption. In other words, the findings of the appropriate assessment most not just be taken into account, they condition the decision over whether or not to approve the plan or project. It is recommended that a separate appropriate assessment file is maintained throughout the entire process of preparing or reviewing a plan. The file should include copies of all documentation relevant to the appropriate assessment and will be useful to record how environmental considerations were integrated into the plan. It may be appropriate to plan follow-up and a reassessment of the expected effects and risks throughout the plan’s lifetime. This will ensure that the predictions and estimates are realistic and identify any possible new effects that had not been considered due to lack of information or that arise in light of new elements or changes introduced in the plan. The ‘final’ appropriate assessment of any plan must be based on its final version. If the plan changes significantly at any time before adoption, the changes should be also addressed in the appropriate assessment, in an iterative process.

← 4.1 · All articles · 4.3 →

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