§5.2.2 Specific features of the appropriate assessment and differences with EIA/SEA procedures

While the streamlining of environmental assessments under the Habitats Directive and the EIA or SEA Directives is beneficial and recommended in most cases, it is important to keep in mind the specific features and differences in the scope and focus of the respective assessments. The use of certain terms and the consequences from the assessments can also be different. In particular: — The appropriate assessment is focused on the protection of Natura 2000 sites, i.e. areas of high biodiversity value of European importance, and therefore requires more rigorous tests. Its conclusions are binding in that they determine whether a plan or project can be authorised or not (the competent authorities can agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site). On the other hand, the results of the EIA or SEA shall be taken into account in the development consent procedure or in the plan preparation and adoption. — In the context of coordinated or joint procedures it would make sense to carry out the appropriate assessment earlier in the process. This would avoid a potentially costly and lengthy EIA/SEA procedure if the conclusions of the appropriate assessment are already negative, meaning authorisation cannot be granted in accordance with the Article 6(3) provisions (unless the plan or project can go ahead under the Article 6(4) provisions). — Under the EIA Directive, mitigation and compensation measures are envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Thus, compensation measures can also be considered in the context of the mitigation hierarchy to offset residual impacts with the aim to avoid any net loss of biodiversity. By contrast, in the case of plans and projects assessed under the Habitats Directive, mitigation measures to avoid, prevent or reduce significant adverse effects on the site’s integrity are considered under the Article 6(3) appropriate assessment, but compensatory measures to offset residual impacts are used as a last resort only under the procedure of Article 6(4). This would take place if it is decided to proceed with the plan or project despite the negative conclusion of the appropriate assessment. In such case, it must first be demonstrated that no alternative solutions exist that would avoid affecting the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and that the plan or project is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. — Furthermore, as regards the stage of the assessment when ‘mitigation measures’ are considered, under the EIA Directive mitigation can be taken into account already at the screening stage. Such measures cannot be considered in the ‘screening’ stage of the Article 6(3) procedure, but only when adverse effects are analysed in the actual appropriate assessment stage. The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity. […] Member States should ensure that mitigation and compensation measures are implemented, and that appropriate procedures are determined regarding the monitoring of significant adverse effects on the environment resulting from the construction and operation of a project, inter alia, to identify unforeseen significant adverse effects, in order to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. EIA Directive. Preamble (Directive 2014/52/EU, recitals 11 and 35).

← 5.2.1 · All articles · 5.2.3 →

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