In The Media

Natura Impact Assessment

January 12, 2011

The EU Habitats Directive requires the promoters of projects or plans to consider the possible significant impacts of any plan or project on the qualifying habitats and species, integrity and conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site network before any decision is made to allow that plan or project to proceed. Malone O'Regan has recently project managed a number of Natura Impact Statements with specialist input not just from ecologists but also from acousticians and hydrologists.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna
better known as 'The Habitats Directive'.

The EU Habitats Directive aims to protect the wild plants, animals and habitats that make up our diverse natural environment.

The Directive created a network of protected areas around the European Union of national and international importance. They are called Natura 2000 sites and include both:

• Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) - these support rare, endangered or vulnerable  natural habitats, plants and animals (other than birds), and,
• Special Protection Areas (SPAs) - support significant numbers of wild birds and their habitats.

1. The Directive sets out a series of decision-making tests that must be carried out for projects likely to affect Natura 2000 sites. Article 6(3) of the Directive establishes the requirement for Natura Impact Assessment (also referred to as Appropriate Assessment).

2. In response to the need for clarification on the requirements of the Directive, the DEHLG has produced Guidelines entitled 'Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland. Guidance for Planning Authorities' (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government December 2009, revised February 2010'. These Guidelines are due to be revised and re-issued later in 2011. The current Guidelines set out the various stages of assessment required under the Habitats Directive including Stage I screening for the need for assessment, Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment leading to Plan/Project authorisation (if there are no significant impacts).

3. The current Guidelines require Stage II assessment if mitigation is required however the new guidelines to be issued later in 2011 will allow assessment and mitigation to be undertaken at Stage I screening if scientific data is available which enables all likely significant impacts to be screened out beyond all reasonable doubt.

4. Stage I Screening and Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment must prove beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that no impact on an SAC or SPA will occur as a result of a development. If this is not the case even after mitigation then all possible alternatives must be considered. If there is no alternative with less damaging effects then a project qualifies for IROPI (imperative reasons for over-riding public interest) where it is referred to the EU Commission for an opinion. In reality this really only applies to major infrastructural projects which are in the public interest. In these cases compensatory measures must be developed.

5. The requirement for all reasonable scientific doubt means that assessments must be robust and may require detailed seasonal surveys as well as for example, supporting studies such as hydrogeological monitoring and modelling e.g. where a groundwater resource potentially affected by a proposal plays a supporting function to the ecological component. Similarly, the inter-relationships between the functioning of a habitat and the ambient noise environment or air quality may need to be assessed. For example piling noise may impact on migrating listed fish species. MOR has recently been involved in a number of assessments where our in-house acoustic specialists liaised with aquatic ecologists in understanding and assessing this type of impact.

6. It is given that Appropriate Assessment will require input from an experienced qualified ecologist however other specialists may also be required to support an assessment. A Natura Impact Statement (the reporting output from the process) must be robust and stand up to peer review.

7. All projects including actions in or near a Natura 2000 site (i.e. at least within 10km) should be screened for potential significant impacts as early as possible in the project process to avoid problems arising at a later stage in the design and before too much investment is made. It is recommended that it commences before EIA. Projects should be considered on a case by case basis unlike the requirement for EIA where thresholds are set.

8. If there is any scientific doubt regarding an impact on a Natura 2000 site then this alone can be a SHOW STOPPER and prevent a project from proceeding; - unlike EIA.

9. Local authorities are generally the competent authorities for assessing whether a development needs assessment under the Habitats Directive and in ensuring it is fully completed and done correctly. However it should also be noted that there are other competent authorities who may be responsible for ensuring that an assessment is completed and these could for example include port authorities, government departments and the EPA.

10. It is important to note from recent legal rulings that even if something is not a plan or project, the action should be looked at in terms of its impact on a Natura 2000 site. The term “Plans and Projects” should be interpreted broadly.

11. All decisions by competent authorities must have written and reasoned documentation where there are potential likely significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites to be addressed.

12. Malone O’ Regan has recently been involved in the preparation of Natura Impact Statements for a number of piling and dredging projects in the Lower River Suir SAC, a pier construction project in Bannow Bay SAC and SPA, a bridge crossing of the River Nore in the River Barrow and Nore SAC and disposal of dredged material potentially affecting the Hook Head SAC. Even as far back as 2002, the company was involved in assessing the impacts of the extension to Belview Port on the integrity of the Lower Suir SAC which was a key issue in the An Bord Pleanàla hearing at the time.
 

Back to listing >