Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures EXPERT GROUP ON REPORTING UNDER THE NATURE DIRECTIVES 10th Meeting: 24 November 2011 Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6.4 THE N2K GROUP http://biodiversity.europa.eu

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Tasks: Compilation and analysis of information submitted by MS to the Commission from 2007 to 2010 (21 projects, 5 MS). Assessment of the completeness and quality of reporting and identification of possible gaps. Elaboration of recommendations to improve the notifications concerning the application of article 6.4 provisions. Review of the reporting format proposed for submission of information to the European Commission

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Tasks: Compilation and analysis of information submitted by MS to the Commission from 2007 to 2010 (21 projects, 5 MS). Assessment of the completeness and quality of reporting and identification of possible gaps. Elaboration of recommendations to improve the notifications concerning the application of article 6.4 provisions. Review of the reporting format proposed for submission of information to the European Commission

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Objectives and results of the analysis Review the information submitted by MS to the Commission with the notification of compensatory measures  Identify any possible gaps, without making any judgement on the individual cases addressed.  Identify the main strengths and weaknesses in the notifications that have been analysed towards improving the whole process.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 The information provided by the MS should enable the Commission to appreciate the manner in which the conservation objectives of the site in question are pursued in the particular case and the overall coherence of the network is maintained (Guidance document on article 6.4) This analysis is therefore focused on whether this would be possible considering the information submitted for each case.

Notification of compensatory measures under article 6.4 Completeness of the information provided Standard form used (info. about the plan or project, the the negative effects on the site, the alternative solutions, the IROPI, foreseen compensatory measures and timetable) Additional information provided by some MS (eg. on the project, the AA, the compensatory measures, maps…) Some shortcomings and gaps in the information submitted have been detected paticularly in those cases for which only the standard form was submitted The Commission requested additional information and further clarifications in some cases

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Information about the Natura 2000 sites affected Guidance document on article 6.4: Assessment procedures of plans or projects likely to affect Natura 2000 sites should guarantee full consideration of all elements contributing to the site integrity and to the overall coherence of the network, both in the definition of the baseline conditions and in the stages leading to identification of potential impacts, mitigation measures and residual impacts. These determine what has to be compensated, both in quality and quantity.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Information about the Natura 2000 sites affected (Guidance doc.) Elements contributing to the site integrity and to the overall coherence of the network, as defined in the site’s conservation objectives and SDF Structure and function, and the respective role of the site’s ecological assets Area, representativity and conservation status of the priority and non priority habitats in the site Population size, degree of isolation, ecotype, genetic pool, age class structure, and conservation status of species present in the site Role of the site within the biogeoraphical region and in the coherence of the Natura 2000 network Any other ecological assets and functions identified in the site.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Information about the Natura 2000 sites affected Main gaps: not enough information about the key elements contributing to the site integrity and to the overall coherence of the network, more specific site’s conservation objectives the importance of the site for the habitats and species that will be affected the role of the site within the biogeographical region and in the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. the representativity, conservation status and degree of isolation of the species and habitats that will be affected by the project their respective roles and functions in the site

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Information about the Appropriate Assessment Elaboration of the AA, procedure, methods, results Potential adverse effects: location of the impacts and areas affected (maps) extent of the effects: habitat surface or species numbers and proportion / total area or population conservation status of the affected habitats and species in the site relevance of the habitats and species affected in the site and relative importance in the network possible indirect effects, cumulative effects

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Evaluation and selection of alternatives Not enough information to assess whether a proper evaluation was carried out why other alternatives were not taken into account including the zero option Conclusion that there are no other possible alternatives or less damaging alternatives without sufficient justification.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) Described and explained, but in some cases weakly justified, especially where reasons of a social or economic nature are mentioned or when beneficial consequences for the environment are concerned. Project officially declared of public interest or part of a European network (eg. TEN) to justify the IROPI.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Well described as regards the extent and the target features The measures address the habitats and species negatively affected The surface areas where the compensatory measures will be implemented are quantified and a comparison with the areas affected is usually possible Only the direct adverse effects (land uptake by the project actions) are considered Precise location of compensation areas not always available

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Shortcomings about: time schedule for implementation, not clear when the expected results will be achieved techniques and methods feasibility and possible effectiveness. long-term implementation and monitoring (eg. how the measures and their expected results will be maintained and followed-up in the long term) costs and financing

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 Conclusions Improvement in the information transmitted to the Commission on the notification of compensatory measures during the period considered in this analysis (2007-2010) Still some deficiencies and gaps Recommendations Revision of the standard form, request information about relevant aspects (taking into account the shortcomings and gaps detected and the recommendations included the Guidance document). Improvements in the procedure: possibility of electronic submission of the information, appropriate timing for notification and the Commission response.

Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures under article 6 THANK YOU THE N2K GROUP