WS Training Materials, May 2012, Activity 3 1 ... - Renanetwork.org

renanetwork.org

WS Training Materials, May 2012, Activity 3 1 ... - Renanetwork.org

The European Union’s Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

Regional Environmental Network

for Accession

(RENA)

CONDUCTING NATURE IMPACT

ASSESSMENTS

WG 3 – Nature Management Activity

Sharr Mountains, Kosovo*

(15 – 17 May 2012)

*This designation is without prejudice to position on status and is in line with UNSCR

1244 and the ICJ opinion on Kosovo declaration of independence.

This project is funded by

the European Union

A project implemented by a

Consortium led by Hulla & Co.

Human Dynamics KG


AGENDA

Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA) project

Module 4: Nature Management: Conducting Nature Impact Assessments

May 15 th – 17th, 2012

Place:

Date/Time:

Shara Mountains, Kosovo*

9.00 – 17.30, Tuesday 15 th May,

9.00 – 17.00, Wednesday 16 th May,

9.00 – 17.00, Thursday 17 th May.

Table : Summary RENA Nature training package Module 4:

Day 1 Day 2 and 3

Topic Target Group Topic Target Group

Module 4:

Nature Impact

Group 1:

National Experts per

Practical Development

and Implementation of

Assessments

RENA country Nature Site Management

Plans

Location:

Shara Mountains,

Kosovo*

15 th -17 th May 2012

Total 24 participants

Nature Impact

Assessments for Natura

2000 sites

Group 2: maximum 12

local participants: 6 local

representatives + site

managers per involved

country:

Kosovo* and

Macedonia and

Albania +

representatives from

Group 1 (maximum 11

RENA representatives: 3

from Kosovo*, 3 from

Albania, 3 from fYRoM,

2 from Croatia)

Trilateral cooperation

site: 29 participants

* "This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion

on the Kosovo declaration of independence."

1


DAY 1, 15th May: Nature Management and Conducting Nature Impact Assessments

9:00 Welcome coffee

9:15 – 9:45 Welcome and introduction

Mr. Imre Csikós, RENA Climate Working Group Leader

Mr. Muhamet Malsiu - Director of EPD and RENA National Focal Point

Mr. Gazmend Selimi - European Commission Liaison Office in Kosovo

Introduction of participants

Objectives of the meeting

Outline of the agenda

9.45 – 10:45 Natura 2000 and Nature Impact assessments

By Imre Csikós

Outline of EU Nature Legislation re Nature Impact Assessments

Habitats Directive

EIA Directive

Water Framework Directive

10:45 – 11:00 Coffee break

11:00 – 11.45 What are the differences between “Appropriate Assessment” and

“Environmental Impact Assessment”

By Mr. Edward Idle and Dr Tim Bines

Appropriate Assessments

• What is their legal basis

• When do they apply or when must they be carried out

• Who is responsible for them

• What must be done about them

• What options for action are available after an AA has been completed

• What role does EU have

11.45 – 12.30 In (Mixed) Country Groups

• Identify 3 examples where an AA should be carried out.

• Identify the “Responsible Authority”.

• Identify the steps to be taken to complete an AA.

• Can impact be avoided or do mitigation and/or compensation apply

• Identify the role of Government in final decision.

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 14:30 Environmental Impact Assessments

By Mr. Edward Idle and Dr Tim Bines

• What is their legal basis

• When do they apply or when must they be carried out

• Who is responsible for them

• What must be done about them

• What options for action are available after an AA has been completed

• What role does EU have

2


14.30 – 15.30 Examples of AA (Order of presentation to be decided)

Croatia, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Poland

15:30 – 15:45 Tea/coffee break

15:45 – 16.30 More examples of AA

By Imre Csikós, Edward Idle and Tim Bines

16.30 – 17.00 Questions and clarifications

17.00- 17.30 Wrap up day 1

Tim Bines and Edward Idle

19.00-21.00 Dinner

DAY 2, 16 th May

Nature Impacts and Management Plans

9:00 Welcome coffee

9:15 – 9:30 Welcome and introduction Mr. Imre Csikós, RENA Working Group Leader

- Introduction of participants

- Objectives of the meeting

- Approval of the agenda

9:30 – 10:00 Short introduction to Mali Shar by National Park staff

- Presentation of main features of interest re Natura 2000

- What are the main features of Management of N.P.

- What resources are available for management

10:00 – 12:00 Site Visit

12.00 – 12.45 The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

Introduction by Mr. Imre Csikós with Tim Bines and Eddie Idle

- EU Nature legislation and policy

- Short Introduction to the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC

- Management Plans and the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’

Directive

12:45 – 13:45 Lunch

13:45 – 14:30 Mali Shar N.P. Management Plan

Plenary session. Facilitated by Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

Information gathering – what is available; what is missing

What are the threats and opportunities at Mali Shar

What should be the objectives

How to plan the work necessary to achieve the objectives

14:30 – 15:15 Dealing with nature impacts at Mali Shar NP – opportunities and threats

3


Plenary session. Facilitated by Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

This section of the programme will be a discussion structured in line with any

guidelines for Management Plan production with an emphasis on evidence based

impacts and significance and how to reduce nature impacts to achieve

sustainability of use of resources.

15:15 – 15:30 Tea /Coffee (to be available during group work below)

15:30 – 16:30 Workshop: Groups to select 1 impact each

Plenary session. Facilitated by Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

- Clarify and confirm the Impact

- Assess the significance of the Impact

- Assess the scope of the Impact

- Identify what information is needed to carry out an AA

16.30 – 17.15 Discussion, comments and feed-back

19.00 – 21.00 Dinner

Day 3: 17 th May

Nature Impacts: Appropriate Assessments

9:00 Welcome coffee

9:15 – 9:45 Review results from the previous day:

By Mr Imre Csikos/Edward Idle/Tim Bines

9:45 – 10.45 Appropriate Assessments

By Edward Idle/Tim Bines

Avoidance

Mitigation and/or Compensation

Other examples e.g. Belgium

10:45 – 11:00 Coffee break

11.00 - 11.45 Appropriate Assessments

By Edward Idle/Tim Bines

- Processes and decision-making

- Ministerial role

11.45 – 12.30 Monitoring and Communication at Mali Shar

- Who needs to know about the AA

- What information is needed to monitor

- How will the information be collected and by whom

- Who needs to know what is going on

- Who will communicate with them

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 14:15 Internal communication and its management

By Edward Idle/Tim Bines

4


- Staff in the NP

- Ministry

- Other Ministries and agencies

- Volunteers

- NGOs

14.15 – 15.00 Communication methods

- IT and modern techniques (blogs and tweeting)

Meetings

Leaflets and Newsletters

Local Centres

15:00 – 16:00 Review results of the training and wrap-up

- Identify how to continue process and responsibilities (if possible).

- Comments and feed back (especially from the National Representatives)

- Recommendations for the next training

16:00 Closure and travel back

5


PROGRAMI

Projekti i Rrjetit Regjional Ambiental për Anëtarësim (RENA)

Moduli 4: Menaxhimi i natyrës: Kryerja e vlerësimit të ndikimit në natyrë

15 – 17 maj, 2012

Vendi:

Data/Koha:

Malet Sharr, Kosovë*

9.00 – 17.30, e martë, 15 maj,

9.00 – 17.00, e mërkurë, 16 maj,

9.00 – 17.00, e enjte, 17 maj.

Tabela : Përmbledhja e pakos së trajnimit mbi natyrën RENA Moduli 4:

Dita e I-rë

Dita e II-të dhe III-të

Tema Grupi cak Tema Grupi cak

Moduli 4:

Vlerësimet e

Grupi 1:

Ekspertët vendor për

Zhvillimi praktik dhe

zbatimi i planeve për

ndikimeve në natyrë çdo shtet të RENA-s menaxhimin e

lokacioneve natyrore

Lokacioni:

Malet e Sharrit,

Kosovë*

15-17 maj 2012

Gjithsej 24 pjesëmarrës

Vlerësimet e ndikimit në

natyrë për lokacionet

Natura 2000

Grupi 2: maksimumi 12

pjesëmarrës lokal: 6

përfaqësues lokal +

menaxherë të lokacionit

për çdo shtet të

përfshirë:

Kosova* dhe

Maqedonia dhe

Shqipëria +

përfaqësues nga Grupi

1 (maksimumi 11

përfaqësues të RENA-s:

3 nga Kosova*, 3 nga

Shqipëria, 3 nga ish-

RFJM, 2 nga Kroacia)

Lokacioni për

bashkëpunim tre-palësh:

29 pjesëmarrës

1


* "Ky emërtim nuk prejudikon qëndrimin ndaj statusit dhe është në përputhje me Rezolutën e KS të OKB-së 1244

dhe Mendimin e GJKD-së mbi deklaratën e pavarësisë së Kosovës."

DITA E I-rë, 15 maj: Menaxhimi i natyrës dhe zbatimi i vlerësimit të ndikimit në natyrë

9:00 Kafeja e mirëseardhjes

9:15 – 9:45 Mirëseardhja dhe fjalimet hyrëse

z. Imre Csikós, Udhëheqësi i Grupit të RENA-s për Klimën

z. Muhamet Malsiu – Drejtori i EPD dhe RENA Personi kombëtar kontaktues

z. Gazmend Selimi - Zyra Ndërlidhëse e Komisionit Evropian në Kosovë

Prezantimi i pjesëmarrësve

Pikësynimet e takimit

Pasqyra e programit

9.45 – 10:45 Natura 2000 dhe vlerësimet e Ndikimit në natyrë

nga Imre Csikós

Pasqyra e Legjislacionit të BE-së mbi Natyrën lidhur me Vlerësimet e Ndikimit

në Natyrë

Direktiva mbi Mjedisin

Direktiva e EIA-s

Direktiva Kornizë mbi Ujin

10:45 – 11:00 Pauza për kafe

11:00 – 11.45 Cilat janë dallimet ndërmjet “Vlerësimit të duhur” dhe “Vlerësimit të

ndikimit në natyrë”

Nga z. Edward Idle dhe Dr Tim Bines

Vlerësimet e duhura

• Cilat janë bazat e tyre ligjore

• Kur vlejnë ato apo kur duhet të zbatohen

• Kush është përgjegjës për to

• Çfarë duhet të bëhet për to

• Cilat mundësi të veprimit janë në dispozicion pas kryerjes së një vlerësimi të

duhur

• Çfarë roli ka BE-ja

11.45 – 12.30 Në grupet (e përziera) të shteteve

• Identifikoni 3 shembuj ku duhet të kryhet VD.

• Identifikoni “Autoriteti përgjegjës”.

• Identifikoni hapat që duhet të ndërmerren për të kryer një VD.

• A mund të shmanget ndikimi apo a mund të bëhet zbutje dhe/ose

kompensim

• Identifikoni rolin e Qeverisë në vendimin përfundimtar.

12:30 – 13:30 Dreka

13:30 – 14:30 Vlerësimet e ndikimit në ambient

Nga Mr. Edward Idle dhe Dr Tim Bines

• Cila është baza e tyre ligjore

• Kur vlejnë ato apo kur duhet të zbatohen

2


• Kush është përgjegjës për to

• Çfarë duhet të bëhet për to

• Cilat mundësi të veprimit janë në dispozicion pas kryerjes së një vlerësimi të

duhur

• Çfarë roli ka BE-ja

14.30 – 15.30 Shembuj të VD (renditja e prezantimeve të vendoset)

Kroacia, Holanda, Irlanda Veriore, Polonia

15:30 – 15:45 Pauza për çaj/kafe

15:45 – 16.30 Shembuj të tjerë të VD-së

Nga Imre Csikós, Edward Idle dhe Tim Bines

16.30 – 17.00 Pyetjet dhe qartësimet

17.00- 17.30 Përmbyllja e Ditës së I-rë

Tim Bines dhe Edward Idle

19.00-21.00 Darka

D. E II-të, 16 maj Ndikimet në natyrë dhe plani i menaxhimit

9:00 Kafeja e mirëseardhjes

9:15 – 9:30 Mirëseardhja dhe prezantimi z. Imre Csikós, Udhëheqësi i grupit punues të

RENA-së

- Prezantimi i pjesëmarrësve

- Pikësynimet e takimit

- Aprovimi i rendit të ditës

9:30 – 10:00 Prezantimi i shkurtër i Malit Sharr nga stafi i Parkut Nacional

- Prezantimi i karakteristikave interesante lidhur me Natura 2000

- Cilat janë karakteristikat kryesore të Menaxhimit të P. N.

- Cilat resurse janë në dispozicion për menaxhim

10:00 – 12:00 Vizita në vend

12.00 – 12.45 Direktiva e Mjedisit dhe Menaxhimi i lokacioneve Natura 2000

Prezantimi nga z. Imre Csikós dhe Tim Bines dhe Eddie Idle

- Legjislacioni dhe politikat e BE-së lidhur me Natyrën

- Prezantimi i shkurtër i Direktivës mbi “Mjedisin” 92/43/EEC

- Planet e menaxhimit dhe dispozitat e Nenit 6 të Direktivës mbi

“Mjedisin”

12:45 – 13:45 Dreka

13:45 – 14:30 Plani i menaxhimit të P. N. Mali Sharr

Seanca plenar, moderuar nga Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

3


Mbledhja e informatave – çka është në dispozicion; çka mungon

Cilat janë mundësitë dhe rreziqet në Malin Sharr

Cilat duhet të jenë pikësynimet

Si të planifikohet puna e domosdoshme për të arritur pikësynimet

14:30 – 15:15 Ballafaqimi me ndikimet në natyrë në P. N. Mali Sharr – mundësitë dhe

kërcënimet

Seanca plenare, moderuar nga Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

Kjo pjesë e programit do të jetë një diskutim i strukturuar në lidhje me

udhëzimet për përgatitjen e Planit të menaxhimit, me theks në ndikimin e bazuar

në dëshmi dhe si të ulet ndikimi në natyrë për të arritur qëndrueshmërinë e

shfrytëzimit të resurseve.

15:15 – 15:30 Çaj / kafe (të ofrohet gjatë punës në grupe si në vijim)

15:30 – 16:30 Punëtoria: grupet të përzgjedhin një ndikim për secilin

Seanca plenare, moderuar nga Eddie Idle, Tim Bines

- Të qartësohet dhe të konfirmohet Ndikimi

- Të vlerësohet domethënia e Ndikimit

- Të vlerësohen përmasat e Ndikimit

- Të identifikohen informatat e nevojshme për të kryer VD

16.30 – 17.15 Diskutimi, komentet dhe reagimet

19.00 – 21.00 Darka

Dita e III-të:

17 maj Ndikimet në natyrë: vlerësimet e duhura

9:00 Kafeja e mirëseardhjes

9:15 – 9:45 Shqyrtimi i rezultateve nga dita paraprake:

Nga z Imre Csikos/Edward Idle/Tim Bines

9:45 – 10.45 Vlerësimet e duhura

Nga Edward Idle/Tim Bines

Shmangia

Zbutja dhe/ose Kompensimi

Shembuj të tjerë p.sh. Belgjika

10:45 – 11:00 Pauza për kafe

11.00 - 11.45 Vlerësimet e duhura

Nga Edward Idle/Tim Bines

- Proceset dhe vendim-marrja

- Roli i ministrisë

11.45 – 12.30 Monitorimi dhe Komunikimi në Malin Sharr

- Kush duhet të dijë për VD

- Cilat informata nevojiten për monitorim

- Si do të mblidhen informatat dhe nga kush

4


- Kush duhet të dijë se çfarë është duke ndodhur

- Kush do të komunikojë me ta

12:30 – 13:30 Dreka

13:30 – 14:15 Komunikimi intern dhe menaxhimi i tij

Nga Edward Idle/Tim Bines

- Stafi i PN

- Ministria

- Ministrisë dhe agjencitë tjera

- Vullnetarët

- OJQ-të

14.15 – 15.00 Metodat e komunikimit

- IT-ja dhe teknikat moderne (bllogu dhe tweeter)

Takimet

Fletëpalosjet dhe fletushkat

Qendrat lokale

15:00 – 16:00 Shqyrtimi i rezultateve të trajnimit dhe përmbyllja

- Identifikoni se si të vazhdoni procesin dhe përgjegjësitë (sipas mundësisë).

- Komentet dhe reagimet (posaçërisht nga Përfaqësuesit Kombëtar)

- Rekomandimet për trajnimin e radhës

16:00 Përmbyllja dhe udhëtimi mbrapa

5


RENA, Activity 3.1, 15-17, May, Sharr Mountains

DAY 1

CONDUCTING NATURE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Regional Environmental Network for Accession

Regional Training under Working Group 3.1 – Nature Management


RENA – Regional Environmental Netwpork for

Accession

WG 3 Activity 3.1 Nature Impact Assessments

Imre Csikós

Sharr Mountains National Park

15 – 17 May 2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Scope of presentation

Habitats Directive and Birds Directive

Differences Appropriate Assessment with

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Key Case Law (Court Of Justice Rulings)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

What is happening to nature and biodiversity in

Europe

Europe has suffered more human-induced fragmentation

than any other continent

50% of wetlands and high-nature-value farmland gone

BirdLife assessments show > 40% of all European bird

species have unfavourable status

About 15% of mammal species in Europe are threatened

with extinction

Only 17% of species and habitats of EU conservation

concern (Habitats Directive) have favourable conservation

status

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

1


EU Nature legislation is central pillar of EU

biodiversity policy

A unique co-operation of MS conserving species &

habitats across entire natural range, irrespective of

political boundaries

Sets common high biodiversity standards

Ensures care for Nature in EU enlargements

Provides a legal basis for integration of nature into

other EU policies

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key EU Nature legislation / policy

Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC)

Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC)

EU 2020 biodiversity strategy

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Habitats Directive

Article 2

Aim: To contribute towards ensuring bio‐diversity through

the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora in the Member States

Aim: To maintain or restore, at favourable conservation

status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora

Measures shall take account of economic, social and

cultural requirements and regional and local

characteristics

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

2


Habitats Directive

Article 3

A coherent European ecological network of special

areas of conservation shall be set up under the title

Natura 2000 (Annex 1 Habitats and Annex 2 species to

be maintained or restored)

Ecological coherence of Natura 2000 to be

endeavoured

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Natura 2000 network

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Habitats Directive

Article 4

Criteria in Annex II and relevant scientific information: List of

sites for Annex I habtitat types and Annex II species.

MS to submit a list of pSCI s to Commission. Flexibility allowed if

pSCI for specific Annex I habitat type and Annex II species

represent more than 5% of national territory

SCI adopted according tp procedure Article 21 : Will be SAC and

Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) applies

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

3


EU Natura 2000 network

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

National lists of proposed

sites pSCIs

Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

Sites of Community Importance

(SCIs)

Special Areas of

Conservation (SAC)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Article 6 Habitats Directive

(1) National conservation measures to be put in place. Management

plans may be prepared

(2 and 3) Other projects should not affect integrity of site (siginificant

impacts)

(3) Public should be consulted,

(4) Only allowed in case of overriding public interest,

(4) But then compensation,

(4) And Inform Commission

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Habitats Directive

Article 7

Article 6 also applies to Birds Directive! Article 4 (SPAs)

Article 12

Prohibitions Annex IV animal species (no disturbance,

capture and killing)

Capture an killing to be monitored

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

4


Habitats Directive

Article 15

Prohibited methods and means of capture and killing and

as per Annex VI for Annex IV and Annex V species

Article 16

Derogations articles 12, 13, 14 and 15: Research, serious damage to

crops and livestock and forests, public health

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Habitats Directive

Site Protection and Management (Annex I Habitat

types) and Annex II (species)

Annex III: Criteria for selecting sites eligible for

identification as Sites of Community Importance (SCI)

and designation as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

Species Protection and management (annex IV and

Annex V species)

Annex VI: prohibited methods of capture or killing

Article 6!!!!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Birds Directive

Site protection (migratory birds and Annex I birds)

Species protection (All wild birds and exemptions on

Annex II and Annex III)

Article 3: Creating protection zones and maintaining

the habitats, restoring destroyed biotopes; and creating

biotopes.

Article 4: Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

5


This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA

Environmental Impact Assessment (Directive

97/11/EC)

Strategic Environmental assessment (Directive

2001/42/EC)

Appropriate Assessment (Directive 92/43/EEC)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Aim of

the processes

Environmental Impact Assessment


Ensure that planning decisions are made with full knowledge of a project’s likely

significant environmental effects, and that therse effects are prevented, reduced or

offset, while positive effects are enhanced

Strategic Environmental assessment


Provide for high level of protction of the environment and to contribute to the

integration of environmental considerations into the preparations and adoption of

plans and programmes with a view to promote sustainable development

Appropriate Assessment


To avoid adverse effects of plans, programmes and projects omn Natura 2000 sites

and thereby maintaining the integrity of the Natura 2000 network and its features

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

6


Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Screening

Environmental Impact Assessment


Identify whether the project falls within Annex I or Annex II of the EIA Directive

and therfore requires EIA

Strategic Environmental assessment


Identify whether a plan of programme is a ‘ plan or programme’ as defined by the

SEA Directive (Article 2(a)) and whether it is lilely to have significant environmental

effects (article 3(4)). If the answer to both of the above is yes, then the plan or

programme will require SEA

Appropriate Assessment


Identify whether a plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either

alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and therefore requires AA.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Scoping

Environmental Impact Assessment


Not mandatory, but accepted as good practice

Strategic Environmental assessment


Mandatory requirement to consult designated statutory bodies on the ‘scope and level of

detail of the information which must be included in the Environmental Report’ (Article 5(4))

Appropriate Assessment


Scoping is accepted as good practice and aims to precisely identify the potential

impacts that the AA should cover, as well as the appropriate information to gather

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Focus of

the assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment


Issues set out in Article 3 of the EIA Ditrective including the indirect and direct

effects of a project on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, air, water, climate,

landscape, material assets, cultural heritage and the interaction of the above factors

Strategic Environmental assessment


Issues set out in Annex 1 of the SEA Directive including biodiversity, population,

human health, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets,

cultural heritage and the interaction of the above factors

Appropriate Assessment


The ecological feautures for which the site has been designated

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

7


Key differences EIA, SEA, AA:

Alternatives

Environmental Impact Assessment


Requires the Environmental Statement (ES) to include, where appropriate, an outline

of the main alternatives studies by the developer and an indication of the reasons for

choosing an alternative, taking into account their environmental effects

Strategic Environmental assessment


Requires the ER to identify, describe and evaluate ‘ reasonable alternatives taking into

account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme’ (Article 5(1))

Appropriate Assessment


Considering the alternative solutions is only technically necessary if the AA process

cannot rule out an adverse effect. However, the search for alternatives is likely to be

ongoing during the plan, programme and project preparation process and

accompanying appropriate assessment process in order to avoid an adverse effect

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Effect of

the result of the assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment


In determining the project application, the CA is required to have regard to the ES, as

well as to other material considerations. The authorities may also request the

developer to provide further information where they consider that the ES is

inadequate

Strategic Environmental assessment


Provides information to be taken account of in the Decision, but does not determine

it. A post-adoption statement must be produced outlining changes made to the plan

or programme as a result of the SEA, responses to consultations and the reasons for

choosing the plan in light of other reasonable alternatives deat with.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA: Effect of

the result of the assessment

Appropriate Assessment

Constraints the Decision: If the appropriate Assessment conculdes that

adverse effects cannot be ruled out then there are very limted options:

1. Reject the plan

2. Consider if there are alternatives. If there are, the plan cannot be

adopted

3. If there are no alternatives, the plan can only be adopted where

there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest

and compensation measures for damage have been secured.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

8


Key differences EIA, SEA, AA:

Monitoring

Environmental Impact Assessment


While the EIA Directive contains no explicit monitoring requirements, these are

implicit in the identification of ‘measures to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any

significant adverse effects on the environment’ (Article 5(3)). Predicted effects shoyuld be

monitored, as well as delivery of commitments in the ES. Competent Authorities also

attach monitoring conditions to consents.

Strategic Environmental assessment


The SEA Directive places a duty on Member States to ‘monitor the significant

environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia, to identify

in an early stage unforeseen adverse effects and to be able to undertake appropriate action’. (Article

10(1)).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

The Impact of EU Environmental Law on Ports and

Waterways

by Eric Van Hooydonk

published by Maklu Press, Antwerp, 2006

ISPN 9046600556

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Key differences EIA, SEA, AA:

Monitoring

Appropriate Assessment


Considered good practice. The Annual Monitoring report provides the

best opportunity to present information how the plan is meeting its

biodiversity targets with respect to European sites. Monitoring the

timing and effectiveness of mitigation measures set out in the plan

policies will be important to ensure the AA’s conclusion of no adverse

effects are realised.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

9


Scope of presentation Afternoon

ECJ Decisions with respect to

Article 4

Legal protection regime of protected sites

Article 6.3 & 6.4

Assessment of plans and projects and compensatory

measures

Article 7

Duality of applicable regimes

Articles 12, 15, 16

Protection of species, derogations

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Case Law on Habitats Directive

(C‐06/04, EU‐Commission / UK and

C‐98/03, EU‐Commission / Germany)

It follows that, in the context of Directive 92/43 on the

conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora, which lays down complex and technical rules in

the field of environmental law, the Member States are

under a particular duty to ensure that their legislation

intended to transpose that directive is clear and

precise.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Port of Bristol on the Severn Estuary

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

10


Article 4 pSCI – SCI – SAC

(legal protection regime of protected sites)

(C-371/98, preliminary ruling in case “First Corporate Shipping”, UK)

Question:

Is a Member State entitled or obliged to take into account economic, social

and cultural requirements according to Article 2(3) when deciding on which

sites to propose to Commission (stage 1 of procedure, pSCI) pursuant to

Article 4(1) and or deciding on boundaries of such site

ECJ: No, since the Commission must have available an exhaustive list

of sites eligible as SACs in order to create a coherent Natura 2000

network. Member States may not take into account economic, social and

cultural requirements (Article 2(3)) when selecting and defining the

boundaries of the sites.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

“Dragaggi” Case Italy

document that will inform key stakeholders of the

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

C-117/03, preliminary ruling in Case “Dragaggi”, Italy

Question:

When are protective measures under Article 6 (2)-(4) required under

Article 4 (5) After final approval as SAC or already before (as pSCI or as

SCI)

ECJ: Protective measures prescribed in Article 6 (2) to (4) are required

only as regards sites which are placed on the list of sites selected as sites

of Community importance (SCI) adopted by the Commission.

As concerns sites eligible for identification as sites of Community

importance (pSCI) that are mentioned on the national lists transmitted to

the Commission, Member States are required to take protective measures

‘appropriate’ for the purpose of safeguarding that ecological interest which

those sites have at national level.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

11


“Bund Naturschutz” Case Germany

document that will inform key stakeholders of the

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Issue: Protection of an area before it

becomes a SCI

(C-244/05, preliminary ruling in case “Bund Naturschutz”, Germany)

Question:

What protection regime is required under Article 3(1) in conjunction with

the sixth recital in the preamble to that Directive in respect of sites which

could be designated sites of Community importance, before they appear

in the list of SCIs adopted by the Commission but already appear in the

national list submitted to the Commission under Article 4(1)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

ECJ:

The appropriate protection scheme applicable to the sites which appear on a

national list transmitted to the Commission under Article 4(1) requires

Member States not to authorise interventions which incur the risk of

seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of those sites.

Member States must, in accordance with the provisions of national law, take

all the measures necessary to avoid interventions which incur the risk of

seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of the sites which

appear on the national list transmitted to the Commission.

It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

12


“Cocclefisheries” Case Netherlands

7

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Article 6.3 Assessment of plans and projects and

compensatory measures

C-127/02, preliminary ruling in case “Waddenvereniging

and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging”, The Netherlands

Questions:

1. Are the words “plan or project” in Article 6(3) to be interpreted as also

covering an activity which has already been carried on for many years

(here: mechanical cockle fishing) but for which an authorisation is in

principle granted each year for a limited period, with a fresh

assessment being carried out on each occasion

2. What is the relationship between Article 6(2) and Article 6(3)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

ECJ:

1. Yes, mechanical cockle fishing which has been carried on for many

years but for which a license is granted annually for a limited period,

with each license entailing a new assessment both of the possibility of

carrying on that activity and of the site where it may be carried on, falls

within the concept of 'plan' or 'project' within the meaning of Article 6(3).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

13


ECJ:

2. Article 6(3) establishes a procedure intended to ensure, by means of a

preliminary examination, that a plan or project which is not directly

connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned

but likely to have a significant effect on it is authorised only to the

extent that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site,

while Article 6(2) establishes an obligation of general protection

consisting in avoiding deterioration and disturbances which could have

significant effects in the light of the Directive’s objectives, and cannot

be applicable concomitantly with Article 6(3).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

“Land use plans” Case Gibraltar

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

C-6/04, EU-Commission / UK

Article 6(3) makes the requirement for an appropriate assessment in

accordance with the precautionary principle!

A probability or a risk of significant effect exists if it cannot be excluded on

the basis of objective information that the plan or project will have a

significant effect on the site concerned.

Land use plans must also be subject to appropriate assessment of their

implication of the site concerned as they have great influence on the

decision.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

14


“Basse Corbieres site” Case, France

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Article 7

Duality of applicable regimes

C-374/98, EU-Commission / France, Basses Corbières Site Case

Question:

Does Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive apply to areas which have

not been classified as SPAs but should have been so classified

Commission’s opinion:

The protection regime laid down in the birds directive is stricter than that

under the habitats directive, and it would be paradoxical to place areas of

ornithological interest that have not been the subject of a national

classification measure such as an SPA under a stricter protection scheme

than that applicable to areas which have actually been classified as SPAs

by a Member State.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

ECJ:

Areas which have not been classified as SPAs but should have been so

classified continue to fall under the (stricter) regime governed by the first

sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive.

A Member State cannot derive an advantage from its failure to comply

with its Community obligations.

The classification of SPA is an incentive for Member States.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

15


However, in C-415/01 (Commission / Belgium) the ECJ

decided:

Since Article 7 of Habitats Directive provides that the obligations which

arise, among others, under Article 6(2) of that directive are to replace

those arising under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive

in respect of SPAs, the legal status of protection of those areas must also

guarantee the avoidance therein of the deterioration of natural habitats

and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the

species for which those areas have been designated.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

“German Plant Protection Law Case

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Articles 12 ff.

Protection of Species

C-98/03, EU-Commission / Germany

ECJ:

Articles 12, 13 and 16 require Member States to establish a coherent

system of strict protection for animal and plant species.

A national provision which, when listing the situations in which the use of

pesticides is prohibited, does not clearly, specifically and strictly express

the prohibitions under Articles 12 and 13 of the directive on protected

species being adversely affected, does not ensure such a system.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

16


“Mopeds and turtles” Case Greece

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Article 12

System of strict protection

C-103/00, EU-Commission / Greece

Use of mopeds and presence of buildings on a breeding beach of

turtle Caretta caretta, also small boats in coastal areas

The Greek Government has not adopted a legislative nor an institutional

framework within the prescribed time-limit capable of ensuring the

effective long-term protection of the sea turtle Caretta caretta.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

The Greek point of view:

By issuing a presidential decree (after the Commissions complaint)

which classifies the land and sea regions in question as a national

marine park and the costal areas as a regional park, it has instituted a

system of strict protection for the sea turtle.

For the period before the Government listed a series of laws,

regulations and administrative measures without referring to any

specific provisions capable of meeting those requirements.

The number of nests has not decreased over a period of 15 years.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

17


ECJ Decision:

Use of mopeds constitute the deliberate disturbance of the species in

question during its breeding period for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b).

Presence of buildings on a breeding beach is liable to lead to the

deterioration or destruction of the breeding site within the meaning of

Article 12(1)(d).

The fact that the number of nests did not decrease is irrelevant.

Failing to take requisite measures to establish and implement an

effective system of strict protection fortheseaturtlesoasto avoid any

disturbance of the species during its breeding period and any activity

which might bring about deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites,

Greece has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

C-98/03, EU-Commission / Germany

ECJ: Article 12(1)(d), which prohibits the deterioration or destruction of

breeding sites or resting places, covers not only deliberate acts but also

non-deliberate ones.

By not limiting that prohibition to deliberate acts, contrary to what it did in

respect of acts referred to in Article 12(1)(a) to (c), the Community

legislature has demonstrated its intention to give breeding grounds or

resting places increased protection against acts causing their deterioration

or destruction.

Given the importance of the objectives of protecting biodiversity which the

directive aims to achieve, it is by no means disproportionate that the

prohibition laid down in Article 12(1)(d) is not limited to deliberate acts.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Article 15

Prohibition of indiscriminate means

C-6/04, EU-Commission / UK

EU-Commission: UK legislation contains no general prohibition on the use

of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of, or

serious disturbance to, populations of relevant species of wild fauna.

UK: Provisions establish lists kept under review in order to be updated.

ECJ: Article 15 imposes a general obligation designed to prohibit the use

of all indiscriminate means of capture or killing of the species of wild fauna

concerned. Prohibiting only the methods expressly listed in Annex VI(a)

and (b), without imposing a general prohibition on the use of indiscriminate

means is less effective than a general prohibition and not sufficient for

proper transposition.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

18


“Finish wolves” Case Finland

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Facts of the case (C-342/05, EU-Commission / Finland,

Finnish wolves):

Articles 12 and 16 have been transposed in substantially identical terms in

the Finnish legislation on hunting. This case puts into question the

administrative practice of the Finnish authorities regarding wolf hunting.

The maximum number of wolves which may be hunted in each district

during the hunting season from 1 November until 31 March, are set by the

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

However, wolf hunting is authorised on a case-by-case basis by the

competent game management district and may exceed the limits.

During the period in question the total number of wolves present on

Finnish territory rose from between 110 and 130 specimens to between

185 and 200 specimens.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

EU-Commission’s point of view:

The practice in Finland consisting in authorising hunting as a preventive

measure is contrary to Article 16(1). Permits are issued by the Finnish

authorities without any relationship with the particular wolves causing such

damage being duly established. In those circumstances hunting is not a

very effective means to prevent such damage. There are alternatives

available to preventive killing of wolves in order to avoid serious damage.

Finland’s point of view:

The decisions precisely determine the geographical areas covered by the

permits where wolves causing such damage are present. However, since

wolves live in packs the hunting permit cannot always identify the

specimen(s) causing the damage. Competent authority examines if there

are satisfactory alternatives to preventive killing in each case.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

19


ECJ Decision:

Article 16(1) does not require serious damage to be sustained before

derogating measures can be adopted.

Certain parties are of the opinion that continued hunting keeps wolves

wary of humans and thus helps to reduce damage, while others consider

that hunting of wolves which belong to packs only increases damage.

However, decisions, which are not based on an assessment of the effect

of the killing of the wolves that they authorise on the maintenance at a

favourable conservation status of the population of that species in its

natural range, and which do not contain a clear and sufficient statement

of reasons as to the absence of a satisfactory alternative, are contrary to

Article 16(1).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Consequently, a Member State which authorises the hunting on a

preventive basis of the wolf, an animal species appearing in Annex IV(a),

without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious

damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b), fails to fulfill its obligations

under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b).

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Thermal Power plant RWE

Eemshaven

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

20


Case MOB against Netherlands, Coal Fired power station

Waddensea

After 4 year procedure the Netherlands Council of State annulled the permit in

2011 on the grounds that:

Construction of plant and deepening of waterways are to be considered as a

single project and therefore need to be considered together

Unclear what are the effects of deposition of Nitrogen on the Waddensea

Islands(with sensitive habitats, especially frey dunes)

Unclear what are the effects on certain fish species (lamprey)

Unclear what are the effects on seals

Construction is allowed though (as no impacts foreseen through construction)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Case MOB against Netherlands, Coal Fired power station Waddensea

New permit granted in May 2012 :

Arguments:

Studies by RWE now indicate that no potential significant impacts exist anmore

(although same project)

Therefore no Article 6 (3) procedures required anymore

This is going to be contested in court

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Proposal MOB to avoid loss of investments

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

21


What do you want

-exchange of experience, learn more about protected areas, share

knowledge with colleagues

-development of management plans, found out how other counties deal

with the issues of outside Natura 2000 sites

-management plans in Natura 2000 sites

-to learn about Natura 2000 sites, nature vs economy

-how to transpose EU legislation into the national legislation, part. Art. 6,

also to learn about managment plans, overriding public interest

-to learn to deal with problems of enforcement, management and

monitoring

-to improve cooperation between the protected areas in the region

-how they encountered the problems (such as low capacity)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

• What will you do with the results

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

• What are the problems

• Economic pressure of development, how to balance this with nature conservation , also

defining the overriding interest

• How to convey envrionmental/nature concerns to the decision-making level

• why this area doesn’t have a status of National Park in Macedonia How to proceed

• Wind farms development, but no strategic planning on this

• Implementation of current legislation, no management plan in Mali Sharr, environment

not a priority so lack of finance and staff to implent any

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

22


Nature Impact Assessments

for

Natura 2000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

EIA

AA

From: EC/EID EC/HD

Relates to: Major developments Any proposal/N2K

Extant per: No Yes

Plans: Yes Yes

Projects: Yes Yes

Mitigation: Yes Yes

Reqd Compn: No Yes

Public ppn. Yes Yes

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

EIA (Art 3) must:

identify, describe and assess

direct and indirect effects of Annex 1 (11)

project on the following factors:

human beings, fauna and flora;

soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;

material assets and the cultural heritage;

& their interaction

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm (latest revision 2003)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

23


Appropriate Assessments

Article 6.3: The Habitats Directive

• Any plan or project

• Not directly connected with, or necessary for

management

• Likely to have a significant effect

• Individually or in combination

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Shall be subject

to appropriate

assessment of

the implications

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Conservation objectives

• Statement of measures, required to maintain at or restore to

favourable conservation status, the natural habitats and/or the

populations of species of wild fauna and flora for which the site has

been selected.

• For species ‘favourable’ defined as when the population, range and

natural habitats of the species are stable or increasing

• For habitats favourable is when the range, structure and function, and

typical species are stable or increasing.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

24


Plan or Project

•Broad interpretations

•Plans include spatial plans, structural plans,

development plans etc.

•Projects include construction works and other interventions in the natural

environment.

•Plans and projects related to conservation management of the site, either

individually or as components of other plans and projects, should

generally be excluded

Likely significant effect

Any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a

plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the

features for which the site was designated.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Alone or in combination

Where either: -

(i) the plan or project by itself (alone) is likely to have a

significant effect

or

(ii) the plan or project alone is not likely to have a significant

effect but in combination with other plans or projects is likely

to have a significant effect

or

(iii) the plan is likely to have a significant effect whether

considered by itself (either alone) or in combination with

other new or established plans or projects.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Following the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment

the National Competent Authority:

Shall only agree:-

• If no adverse effect

• If pubic opinion has been sought (where

appropriate)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

25


Appropriate Assessments

Article 6.4: The Habitats Directive (see hand-out)

Negative Assessments:-

– Alternative Solutions

– Overriding public interest (incl. Socio –

economic)

– Compensatory measures

– Inform the Commission

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The logical sequence:

1. Information

2. Avoidance

3. Mitigation

4. Compensation

5. New Benefits

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Appropriate Assessments

Article 6.4: The Habitats Directive (see hand-out)

For priority Habitats and/or Species only

• Issues of Human Health

• Public Safety

• Commission opinion re other reasons of public interest.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

26


1) Screening for significant

effects

Article 6- working process

no

Carry on

yes

2) Appropriate assessment

indicates adverse effects

no

Carry on

yes

3) Alternative solutions to the

project are present

yes

Select

Alternative

no

4) Mitigation and compensatory measures to maintain Natura 2000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

General experience of use of Article 6 and

mitigation/compensation measures

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Article 6 - requirements

• Article 6(3) assessment of significant

adverse effect - Appropriate Assessments


• Article 6(4) consideration of imperative

reasons of overriding public interest

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

27


Article 6(3)

• Consideration of plans or projects likely to have a significant

effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.

• UK practice is to see if plan or project can first be modified

before it is approved so that the outcome is no adverse effect.

Step 1 – Development application lodged

Step 2 – Consenting authority makes significance

assessment (consulting statutory conservation agency)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Step 3 – If significant effect cannot be discounted test

of adverse effect made (taking advice from statutory

conservation agency)

Step 4 – Modification and alternatives considered to

remove adverse effects

Step 5 – Compensatory measures required if 4 not

fully effective

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Mitigation vs Compensation

Mitigation

Takes place on the site

The Commission has defined mitigation as

‘…measures taken for the reduction or

elimination of negative impacts likely to arise

as a result of the implementation of the

plan/project’.

Compensation

Occurs where it is not possible to

mitigate on site

‘Independent of the project (including any

associated mitigation measures). Intended to

offset the negative effects of the plan

or project so that the overall ecological

coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is

maintained.’

This makes it

possible to mitigate

in the majority of

cases

Must be effective

replacement of like

with like and

audited.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

28


Article 6(3) Mitigation

in the UK

• UK also reviews extant consents to assess their likely

continued significant effect on a Natura 2000 site

(regulation 50)

• Most common consents reviewed – mineral extraction

• Significant repeat consents – port channel dredging;

water abstractions

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

UK 6(3) examples

Road/Rail

Adverse Impacts Mitigation

Habitat destruction

Species migration routes

Disturbance (noise/light)

Disturbance (during building)

relocate/redesign

tunnels

fencing/trees

conditions on time of build

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

UK 6(3) examples

Housing development

Adverse Impacts

Habitat destruction

Species’ Habitat destruction

Disturbance (human)

Disturbance (noise/light)

Disturbance (during building)

Mitigation

relocate/redesign

creation/improvement of habitat on site

restrictions on access

conditions

conditions on time of build

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

29


Article 6(4) Compensation (regulation 49)

• Last resort only where consideration of all alternatives

have been exhausted


• Where it is not possible to modify plan or project and

overriding public interest (IROPI*) judgement can be

made.


• Where IROPI decision is taken compensatory

measures must be secured to protect coherence of

Natura 200.

*IROPI = Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public

Interest

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Site – Orton Brick Pits

OPI Example

• Development – Housing Development

• Avoidance – Mitigation - Compensation

• Compensation – Prior creation of new habitat

and relocation of thousands of great crested newts

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Commission Guidance

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/m

anagement/guidance_en.htm

1. Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of

Article 6 of the 'Habitats‘ Directive 92/43/EEC.

2. Assessment of plans and projects significantly

Affecting Natura 2000 sites Methodological guidance

on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the

Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

3. Guidance document on Article 6(4) (January 2007)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

30


Article 6 - Sector Specific Guidance

Integrating biodiversity

and

nature into port development

Wind energy developments

and Natura 2000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

European Commission Opinions issued according to Article 6

(4) of the Habitats Directive

– Deepening of the river Elbe from the estuary to the port of Hamburg (Germany)

C(2011)9090, adopted on 6.12.2011

– Replacement of motorway bridge "Schiersteiner Brücke" at A 643 (Germany, Hesse)

C(2011)6365, adopted on 14.9.2011

– Győr development plan (Hungary)

– Extension of the motorway A 49 by linking at Neuental with A 5 (Germany, Hesse) -

C(2010)8438, adopted on 3.12.2010

Corrigendum to Commission Opinion C(2010) 8438

C(2012)911, adopted on 15.2.2012

– A20 Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)

– Lübeck Airport (Germany)

– Project for a new port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain)

– Baden Airport (Germany)

– La Brena (Spain)

– TGV Est (France)

– Bothnia (Sweden)

– Prosper Haniel (Germany)

– Rotterdam (The Netherlands)

– Trupbach Siegen (Germany)

– Mühlenberger Loch (Germany)

– Recknitz Querung (Germany)

– Peenequerung - A20

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Postscript:

Recent ECJ Judgement against UK stated

that development plans and other strategic

plans and projects that do not directly

permit a development should nevertheless

be subject to an “appropriate” assessment

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

31


Article 6(3) – example of plans in combination

• Any plan or project.

• Significant effect.

• Individually or in combination

• Appropriate Assessment.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Thames Basin Heaths

Lowland heathland:

– globally rare habitat

– unique range of specially adapted wildlife

Heathland once covered vast areas of southern England.

UK holds bulk of EU resource

Since 1800s 75% loss - forestry, agricultural intensification, urban

development and loss of traditional management.

Housing development in last 50 years critical aspect.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata)

Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus)

Woodlark (Lullula arborea)

Thames Basin Heaths

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

32


Thames Basin Heaths

Qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Bird Directive (79/409/EEC)

3 Annex 1 species during the breeding season:

1. Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, 445 pairs representing at least 27.8%

of British breeding population (1999)

2. Woodlark Lullula arborea, 149 pairs representing at least 9.9% of

British breeding population (1997)

3. Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, 264 pairs representing at least 7.8%

of British breeding population (1998-99)

Designated March 2005 - composite site

(Part designated as SAC for plants)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Thames Basin Heaths SPA

& Local Authorities (Districts)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Site integrity

• UK Government interpreted Article 6 as only plans or

projects that are submitted for consent, permission or

other authorisation such as a planning permission.

• 2005 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled* Article 6(3)

and (4) of the Habitats Directive applies to development

plans - they are to be considered as ‘plans or projects’.

* Water abstraction and land use plans - Gibraltar

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

33


South East England:

Densely populated

Highest rate of economic development outside London.

High housing demand

Demand for quality outdoor recreation

Development plans prepared for housing demand by all Local Authorities.

Collectively 40,000 new homes within Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

Pressurises further fragmented habitats.

Natural England:

Further large scale housing development = unacceptable increase in recreational pressure on

SPA

Sought no new housing within 5 kilometres of the SPA

Appropriate assessment undertaken.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Specific impacts

• Habitat loss and fragmentation

• Habitat damage (increased trampling of habitat and bird or reptile eggs, increased

fire risk)

• Disturbance (from increased numbers and proximity of people and dogs, noise,

predation from pets, dog flushing of birds)

• Pollution (atmospheric, aquatic and direct to land)

• Nutrient enrichment (atmospheric, aquatic and direct to land)

• Disruption to hydrology (diversion of pre-existing water sources, and/or rapid runoff

onto heaths from urban areas)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Appropriate Assessment scope for a residential development in close proximity to an

SPA would typically include (but may not be limited to):

a) Level of use of the SPA by new residents;

b) Impacts of the proposal in combination with other plans and projects

c) Identification of impacts requiring mitigation;

d) Mitigation measures in place prior to determination of the application – developer

and Local Authority

e) Residual impacts after mitigation

Issues inc.:

1. the lack of records of breeding birds on the parts of the SPA closest

to the proposed development;

2. the presence of less suitable habitat, for example, coniferous

plantations, on the parts of the SPA closest to the development;

3. new residential development may offset other population declines in

the area.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

34


Plan by plan approach

• Each plan needs assessment

• Combined effects

• High resource cost

• Consistent approach across this highly fragmented site

• Clear methodology for assessing in-combination impacts

• Uncertainty for developers over information requirements and planning outcomes

• Timeliness for development

Lack of clear Strategy disadvantages all stakeholders.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Natural England and Local Authorities

Final Strategic Policy

No additional housing within 400 metres of the SPA.

New additional housing within 400m - 5 km of the SPA must demonstrate no likely

effect.

Mitigation package, reviewed annually, for each development:

1. provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) - 8ha per 1000 new

residents and a minimum of 2ha.*

2. Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Measures (SAMM).*

3. Habitat Management.*

*Funded by developer contributions in perpetuity and resources pooled.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

An example of costs

Dwelling Occupancy Tariff

@£2600

per person

Tariff including

SAMM* payment

of £263 per person

1 bedroom 1.40 £3,640 £4,008

2 bedroom 1.85 £4,810 £5,297

3 bedroom 2.50 £6,500 £7,157

4 bedroom 2.85 £7,410 £8,160

*SAMM=Strategic Access, Management and Monitoring

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

35


SPA

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Lessons learnt

• Plans as well as projects

•Recognition of effects

•Mitigation planned

•Mitigation monitored

•Polluter pays basis

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Module 4: Nature Management: Conducting Nature

Impact Assessments

Country: Croatia

Presented by: Ms Petra Mihalić

Mali Sharr, Kosovo

15-17 May, 2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

36


ECOLOGICAL NETWORK

‣ REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

‣ MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE

PROTECTION

‣ NATURE PROTECTION DIRECTORATE

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Why ecological network





Harmonization of the Croatian legislation in the field of nature

protection with relevant EU legislation:

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of

wild birds (repealed by the new Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November

2009) (Birds Direcitve)

Convention on conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats

(Bern Convention) – Emerald Network

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05, 139/08, 57/11)

- Art 58 – obligation to establish the EN with the system of

ecologically important areas and corridors

- Art 35-37.f - appropriate assessment of the impact of plans,

programmes and projects

• Regulation on Proclamation of the Ecological Network (OG

109/07)

- designation of EN areas, protection, management, finnancing,

monitoring

• Ordinance on the appropriate assessment of the impact of

plans, programmes and projects on the ecological network (OG

118/09)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

37


State level

Ministry (MENP)

Nature Protection Directorate

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Central governmental body responsible for administrative

and expert tasks in nature protection

State Institute for Nature Protection

Expert tasks in nature protection

PIs for management of national parks and nature parks

Management of national parks (8) and nature parks (11) = EN araes

Regional/local level

County administration offices

Certain administrative tasks under the NPA (for example ecological

network impact assessment of plans, programmes and projects in

prescribed situations)

PIs for management of protected natural values on county level

Management of areas protected in categories of the strict nature and special nature reserve, regional park,

nature monument, important landscape, forest park and park architecture monument as well as areas of the

EN in the county which are not protected in any of the before mentioned categories

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

112

Regulation on Proclamation of the Ecological Network

Designates areas of the EN with conservation objectives (target species

and/or habitat types) and guidelines for their conservation intended to

maintain or, where appropriate, to restore favourable conservation status of

endangered and rare habitat types and/or species in their natural range, and

defines management of the EN areas

Annexes to the Regulation - list of areas (sites) with target species and/or

habitat types with guidelines for their conservation (potential N2000 sites are

indicated)

1540 sites: 40 areas important for birds + 1500 areas important for other species and

habitat types

47% of land teritory and 39% of the sea

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

ECOLOGICAL NETWORK IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF

PLANS, PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS (ENIA)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

38


E N I A

ENIA is a procedure used to assess whether there is a probability that the

implementation of a plan, programme or project in the ecological network

area, which by itself or in combination with other plans, programmes or

projects, may have a significant impact on the conservation objectives and

integrity of the ecological network area in respect of its structure and

functionality

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PLANS AND

PROGRAMMES

Mandatory for any plan and programme which by itself or in

combination with other plans and programmes, may have a significant

impact on the conservation objectives and integrity of the ecological

network area

Always conducted by the Ministry

Plans and programmes for which SEA is not mandatory are assessed in

accordance with the Arts. 123, 124 and 125 of the NPA (nature protection

requirements and measures + prior opinion of the MENP)

Plans and programmes for which the SEA is mandatory are assessed in

accordance with the Arts. 3-11 of the Ordinance on the appropriate

assessment of the impact of plans, programmes and projects on the

ecological network (screening and main assessment, including procedure for

informing general public)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS

screening

main assessment with the assessment of other

feasible options

establishment of overriding public interest and

compensation terms

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

39


(I) Screening

MENP

County administration

office (CAO)

Publishing of the decision/opinion on the WEB site

Expert

opinion

SINP

National park

Nature park

Strict / Special nature reserve

Nature monument

Area in two or more counties

EIA

Regional park

Important landscape

Forest park

Park architecture monument

Non-protected area

EIA

If planned intervention does not have a significant impact on the EN area MENP/CAO shell issue the

CERTIFICAT OF ADMISSIBILITY

If potential negative effects of intervention can not be excluded MENP/CAO shell isue:

- DECISION establishing that project can have a significant impact on EN and main assessment

should be carried out (stand alone procedure), or

- OPINION on the need to carry out the main assessment (for interventions for which the EIA

is mandatory)

MAIN

ASSESSMENT

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

118

(II) Main assessment with the assessment of other feasible options (stand alone procedure)

Request + EN impact assessment study

MENP

County administration office

Expert opinion

SINP

Public participation and information

DESISION authorising planned intervention + MITIGATION MEASURES

(planned intervention does not have an adverse effect on EN)

or

DECISION refusing the request (planned intervention has an adverse effect on the EN even with mitigation

measures)

In the case where the type of intervention requires the EIA procedure the main assessment

is carried out as part of the EIA procedure

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

119

(III) Establishment of overriding public interest and compensation terms

MENP

request

Public participation and information

If the existence of overriding public interest is established

- DECISION authorising the planned intervention WITH COMPENSATION TERMS

or

If the existence of overriding public interest is not established

- DECISION refusing the request

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

120

40


Map at scale of 1: 100.000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

121

NIA

Transport

Waste

Water

Certificat of

admissibility

Opinion

main

assessment

Certificat of

admissibility

Opinion

main

assessment

Certificat of

admissibility

2008 4 0 5 1 5 2

2009 12 2 6 0 19 1

2010 6 2 2 0 8 1

2011 6 2 3 0 12 3

Opinion

main

assessment

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

122

Thank you!

www.mzoip.hr

www.dzzp.hr

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

123

41


Orton Brick Pits

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Natura 2000 Feature

Triturus cristatus

Habitats Directive

Annex ll (a)

30,000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Location

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

42


The Habitat

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Clay Extraction

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Proposal: 1996

• Major Housing Development

• Considerable Political interest

• The Developer is very influential

• Very costly

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

43


The Problem

• Triturus population discovered after

permission to develop had been given.

• Habitats Directive qualification/criteria.

• Financial compensation = £500 million!

• Political interest.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Action

• Avoidance – Mitigation - Compensation

• Compensation – Prior creation of new

habitat and relocation of thousands of

great crested newts

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Southampton

&

Dibden Bay

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

44


Southampton

&

Dibden Bay

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

240 ha 2.1km frontage

reclaimed low intensity grazing

land is SSSI, foreshore is Ramsar, SPA and SAC

adjoins New Forest National Park

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Solent Maritime

Designated SSSI, Ramsar, SPA, SAC

Complex large site of eight estuaries

Estuaries + coastal habitat - intertidal flats,

saline lagoons, shingle beaches, reefs, saltmarsh,

reedbeds, damp woodland +grazing marsh.

Unusually strong double tidal flow – 4 tides per day!

Supports internationally important numbers of wintering

waterfowl (51,361 over winter) includes

Ringed plover -Charadrius hiaticula

Eurasian teal - Anas crecca

Dark bellied brent geese - Branta bernicla bernicla,

important breeding gull and tern populations

assemblage of rare invertebrates and plants.

See:http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.aspEUCode=UK0030059

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

45


Vulnerability:

• existing + proposed flood defence/coast protection works;

• coastal ‘squeeze’ of intertidal;

• development pressure - including ports, marinas, jetties etc.

• capital/maintenance dredging to provide/ improve deep water access;

• land-claim of coastal habitats;

• accidental pollution

• introduction of non-native species e.g. from shipping activity.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Conservation Objectives

Hythe to Calshot Marshes

To:

Maintain* in favourable condition habitats for populations of

migratory bird species of European importance,

with particular reference to:

- Saltmarsh

- Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

- Mixed sediment shores

- Dark-bellied brent goose, teal,

ringed plover and black-tailed godwit.

To maintain* in favourable condition habitats for populations of

witering waterfowl assemblage of European importance,

with particular reference to:

- Saltmarsh

- Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

- Mixed sediment shores

*maintenance implies restoration if the feature is not currently in favourable condition.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

5 key questions: 1. Does appropriate assessment conclude project

will not have a significant “in combination” impact on

the integrity of any European site

2. Feasible alternative solutions that would have a

lesser effect on site integrity

3. Any priority habitat or species adversely affected

4. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest -

human health, public safety or benefits of primary

importance to environment

5. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest

- social or economic nature - sufficient to override

harm to the site

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

46


Appropriate Assessment – proposals/problems

Proposals:

– Planned creek

– Recharge of dredged silt

– Management of an area for wildlife

Problems:

– Long term retention of creek

– Recharge damaging and uncertain effect

– Management proposal not effective

– Failure to consider “assemblages” of birds - different numbers of

different species & seasonal variations;

– Difficulty of predicting long term impacts of change

– Not like for like!!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

13 month PI 2001/2 - Final decision April 2004

Planning Inspector:

1. Port benefits local & national economy.

2. No realistic alternative sites within locality.

3. re-configuration or better management - limited increase in capacity.

4. Urbanising effect & wide impact.

5. Recognised efforts at minimising impact inc. compensatory measures.

If no then:

1. the future of existing port not at risk

2. miss out on benefits of additional container traffic

3. No serious adverse effect on local economy or employment

If built :

1. do substantial environmental damage.

2. adverse effect on local amenity – noise, visual impact and travel delay.

3. damage character of (proposed) New Forest National Park.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

For natural features:

– Greatest impact of development on nature conservation interests.

– Direct impacts on sites of local, national & international sites

– Damage the integrity of the Ramsar & SPA

– Not possible to say would not adversely affect Solent Maritime cSAC and the River Itchen SSSI

integrity.

Secretary of State:

– Alternatives exist within England - provide for similar development without impacting on

designated sites.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

47


Some lessons:

• Alternatives available to expand UK container capacity

• Confusion of mitigation and compensation

• Inadequate appropriate compensation

• Appropriate assessment flawed

• IROPI* test not met

• Competent Authority issues

*Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Strangford Lough (Northern Ireland)

Appropriate Assessment

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

48


Designations

SAC (1996 – 15400ha)

Strangford Lough SAC

Large shallow inlet and bay

Great variety of habitats and species:

•Eelgrass, worms, shellfish in mudflats and

sand flats - vital food for over-wintering birds.

•Eelgrass beds – young fish nurseries.

•Rocky reef habitats & biogenic horse mussels

reefs.

•Extensive salt marsh & shore vegetation.

•Important common seal pupping area.

SPA

Spectacular numbers of over-wintering

waterfowl

•75% northern European population of pale-bellied

Brent geese over-winter.

•Internationally important knot and redshank

numbers.

•Sandwich, Common and Arctic terns nest

Ramsar site & Marine Nature Reserve &

Landscape designation

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Strangford has one of the world's fastest tidal flows - up to 8 knots.

Proposal – November 2003

Install SeaGen in Strangford Lough narrows - 1.2MW capacity – at that time world’s largest

tidal current device – moored on sea floor 400m offshore – would work for c.20hours/day

Consultant appointed 2004 to scope the environmental considerations and conduct the

appropriate assessment

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Stage 1 – Screening of Project

1.Description of Project

2. Description of N2K site

3. Assessment Criteria

i. Installation Phase

ii. Operational Phase

iii. Decommissioning Phase

iv. Secondary or Indirect

Impacts)

4. Conclusion: Appropriate Assessment needed

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

49


The Scoping Document

Construction impact on fish resources and invertebrates;

Physical/chemical characteristics of material for installation of

the turbine and the effects of their deposition;

Impact on:

• benthos;

• cetaceans (harbour porpoises etc), pinnipeds (common seals, grey seals)

and elasmobranches (basking sharks, thresher sharks etc)

Effects on: • marine flora and fauna in terms of scouring of the sea bed

• Water flows;

•Sediment transfer

Also looked •Potential at: contact with fish, sea birds and mammals;

• Visual impact; the water;

• Noise disturbance implications;

• Possible effects on tourism;

• Highway access implications.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Stage Two: Appropriate assessment

Report on the effects of the project on the integrity of the site

Describe the elements of the project likely to give rise to significant

effects:

i. Installation phase

ii. Operational Phase

iii. Decommissioning phase.

How will the plan affect key species and key habitats

What mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the adverse effects

Results of consultation

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Reduced concerns:

a. Disturbance by the jack up during installation and decommissioning,

would the benthic ecology recover or would the damage be permanent.

b. Smothering during the pile socket drilling operations

c. Quasi-permanent reduction in area due to pile and cable installation

d. Effects of scour

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

50


Appropriate assessment: mitigation measures

List

measures to

be

introduced

Explain how

the

measures

will avoid

the adverse

effects on

the integrity

of the site.

Explain how

the

measures

will reduce

the adverse

effects on

the integrity

of the site.

Provide

evidence of

how they will

be

implement

and by

whom.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Stage Three: Assessment of alternative

solutions

1. The “do nothing” alternative.

2. Alternative locations/routes

i. Bristol

ii. Orkney

3. Alternative size and scale

4. Alternative means of meeting objectives (e.g demand management)

5. CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Concerns focused onin several areas:

1) All parties were concerned about the potential

for the presence of the system to cause

dislocation of the current common seal

population. Within Strangford Lough the

common seal colony is one of the protected

features under the European Habitats

designations for the site.

2) All parties expressed concerns about the

potential for impact of common

seals, harbour porpoises and basking sharks with

the turbine whilst

operational.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

51


2004 - Environmental Scoping Study circulated.

2006 - Environmental Statement and baseline report issued.

Conclusion – impacts minor or insignificant.

2004 - European Court ruling (C127-02) on mechanical cockle

fishing in Wadensee, Netherlands,

Provided an interpretation of the “precautionary principle”

‘Authorise such an activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity

of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to

the absence of such effects”

Adaptive management approach developed.

£2million programme – operation only during daylight during commission.

Pre-installation environmental monitoring commenced in May 2004.

All Natura 2000 designated features to be monitored during 5 year installation period.

Preinstallation baseline agreed with EHS.

Any adverse/significant deviations from the baseline during/after installation detected

Pre-agreed reactive measures to be implemented.

If significant environmental change occurs then turbine would be decommissioned.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Proposed installation in Strangford Narrows

Article 6 Assessment as required under the

Habitats Directive

Prepared by Environment and Heritage Service

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FINAL STATEMENT

The only alternative solution is to place the development

outside the boundary or environs of Strangford Lough

SAC/SPA

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

52


Generic Research Opportunities

The process highlighted generic research opportunities:

- Operational noise impacts - cetaceans, pinnipeds, elasmobranches & fish

- Monitoring interactions of cetaceans, pinnipeds, elasmobranches

- Long term impacts on benthic communities

-Establishment of tidal energy extraction impacts

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Consent to install SeaGen in Strangford Lough given

by the Environment & Heritage Service (Northern Ireland)

in December 2005.

Friday, Apr 06 2012 became live

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Some lessons

• Openness

• Effective recognition/acceptance of possible effects

• Measurement of effects

• Agreement to stop/remove

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

53


RENA, Activity 3.1, 15-17, May, Sharr Mountains

DAY 2

CONDUCTING NATURE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Regional Environmental Network for Accession

Regional Training under Working Group 3.1 – Nature Management


6/3/2012

Preparation of Management Plans.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

What do you mean by Management

What do you mean by a Plan

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

-beautiful landscapes, illegal construction and rubbish

-local community how does it use this

-management plan should prescribe if contruction could

be allowed

-lack of infrastructure (no waste containers, no access

roads)

-signs posted, tourist information office lacking

-other parts of NP are protected

-move border of the NP to exclude Prevalla

-some tourist information available, benches, litter bins

-interesting people to meet and talk to

-desire to find the way forward

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

1


6/3/2012

Management is:

• Doing things in the right way

• Use of resources in a sustainable way

• Proper organising of a job

• Set of measures to preserve or enhance something

• Organising things from point A to B, based on previously

prepared plan

• Activties based on a specific set of rules and laws

• Summary of means, activities and goals

• Set of rules and procedure where everybody knows who is

doing what

• Set of mechanisms that coordinates different activities

• Leadership and use of resources efficiently and effectively

Plan is:

• A pre‐meditated action by somebody who wants to execute

• Clear picture of using environment in detailed manner

• Set of measures, duties and activities within a timeframe

• Preparing operational activities within a specific timeframe and predicted

outcome

• Forecast of work and action to manage in the future

• Written action for something we want to achieve

• Written material setting out terms for doing things successfully

• Specific activities carried out in specific time to deliver specific objectives

• Many individual projects, setting out pathways to deliver objectives

• List or summary of important cultural, natural features to deliver

something

• Best use of resources

The Process

1. Plan for the plan

2. Select stakeholders and roles

3. Involve stakeholders from the start

4. Strengthen ownership

5. Clarify content & format

6. Stick to the specific issues/problems of the PA

7. Keep talking

8. Be flexible.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

2


6/3/2012

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

A Management Plan is:

“an easily understood set of principles in an

accessible form by which a defined area (small

or large) may be managed.”

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

Who uses it and for what

1. The Protected Area managers

2. The Protected Area ‘parent’ organisations

e.g. a. allocation of finances and staff

b. recorders

3. Stakeholders

4. Politicians

5. Others

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

Suggested Plan contents:

1. Descriptive part (appendices)

2. Designations.

3. Threats & Opportunities.

4. Objectives & priorities

5. Tasks and Work Plan

6. Monitoring programme.

7. Appendices.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

3


6/3/2012

Traditional management planning process

Final plan

Plan 1. Plan 2.

Specialist Consultation Interests

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

DAD

D for decide

A for announce

D for defend

This is NOT what we want!!!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Consensus Management Planning

Issue Group

Issue Group

Issue

Group

Reports

Plan

Issue Group

Experts Consultees Stakeholders

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

4


6/3/2012

SMART

• Specific

• Measurable

• Achievable

• Realistic

• Timely

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

What will be done by who, when and how

What When Who How

Contacting newly identified stakeholders

Collecting information and data for the Restoration Programme

Descriptive

legal basis

land ownership

Designations

Threads & Opportunities

Objectives & Priorities

Tasks and workplan

Monitoring programme

Appendices

Put all information together in the Restoration Programme format

Distribute draft Restoration Programme before workshop 2

Other issues

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Programme - Timetable

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

5


6/3/2012

Monitoring Programme

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

1. People who can influence Natura 2000

2. People who are influenced by Natura 2000

3. People you need and people who need you

to be successful in managing Natura 2000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

ISSUES to be CONSIDERED

• Interest: Are people interested in the Area & the

Management Plan

No interest = Difficult

High interest = Easier

Link to what is of High Interest

• Knowledge: How much do they know

Start from what they know.

Find out what they know.

Speak their language

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

6


6/3/2012

• Attitude: How do they feel about the issue

Strong feelings against plan = Time, Patience, Effort

Take emotions seriously = Seek common solutions

• Information Behavior: Where do they look for information

Will they attend public meetings

What is the most effective way of providing information

Newspapers, radio, TV, Internet

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

End values: Norms and values of the group

• very traditional or very unconventional

• formal – with others; outsiders

• sense of safety, belonging, recognition

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Stakeholders are people

People have feelings

People have problems and issues

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

7


6/3/2012

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Who are your stakeholders

What do they know about you

What do you know about them

What do your local people think about the Protected

Area

How does it affect their lives

What information do they have – where does it

come from

Who should be involved and how in preparing the

Management Plan

What are the possibilities of cross border cooperation

in Management Plan development

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Informed

Involved

Stakeholder participation

Levels of participation

1.Passive information

2. Active information

3. Participation in planning

4. Full partners in decision making

Increasing

involvement

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

8


6/3/2012

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

How to involve Stakeholders

• Sustainable use of Protected Area resources

• Use of Protected Area status to enhance marketing

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Sustainable Use of Protected Areas

1. N2K is NOT total prohibition.

2. Define what levels of existing use are

acceptable

3. Implement existing legislation effectively

4. Involve and inform local people.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Use Protected Areas to support

Marketing & Employment

1. Identify entrepreneurs

2. Form groups to co-operate on

marketing

3. Branding using Protected Area

designation

4. Initiative comes from Government

(National/Local)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

9


6/3/2012

The positive involvement rules

• Try to find the way things work at local level

• Be positive, patient, and transparent

• Try to find ways to involve (firstly) at least key persons in

community

• Try to find a role (and some income!) for as many local

persons as You can

• Try to appeal to and revitalize people’s memories and

emotions

• Respect the old customs and traditional use

• Motivate and encourage the people in their hard work

• Use media to show Your allies

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Three styles

How do we learn

“Authoritarian”

“Laissez‐Fare”

“Participatory”

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Proper Intervention logic

Step 1: Problem analysis (problem tree)

o Define Key problem

o Define Impact of problem

o Define Causes of problem

Step 2: Make positive (intervention logic)

o Key problem made positive: Project purpose

o Impact made positive: Wider objective

o Cause of problem made positive: Result

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

10


6/3/2012

Proper Intervention logic

Step 4 a: Define indicators that are SMART

o Specific

o Measurable

o Available / Acceptable

o Realistic

o Time bound

In any case indicators should always indicate: (1) How

much; (2) Where and (3) By when

Sometimes an output (step 3) can be an indicator

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Proper Intervention logic

Step 4 b: SMART indicators are to be linked to

o Wider Objective

o Project Purpose

o Results

Step 4 c: Indicate where to find information on

defined indicators (reports, interviews, etc.)

o In case it is impossible to find evidence of defined

indicator, the indicator is wrong

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Proper Intervention logic

Step 5: Define external factors

o Assumptions

o Risks

o In case killer risks/assumptions are identified then

the project needs to be redesigned

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

11


6/3/2012

Then

Intervention logic

Step 1

Impact of problem:

People’s health in Fontanaland is disastrous. Children’s deaths are 200%

higher then is considered acceptable, etc.

If

Then

Key problem

50% of People from Fontanaland suffer from thirst

If

Cause of problem:

There is insufficient water available to 50% of the population of

Fontanaland

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

THEN

IF

THEN

IF

THEN

IF

This Project is funded by the European Union

Inputs: X Euros and x nr of mandays

Intervention logic

Step 2 and 3

Wider objective (Impact of problem made postive):

People’s health in Fontanaland is improved.

Project Purpose (Key problem made positive):

Thirst is satisfied in Fontanaland

Project Results (Cause of problem made positive)

There is sufficient water available to 50% of the population of Fontanaland

Project Activities / Inputs

Activities: Task 1: Dig 100 wells; Task 2: Make wells operational, etc,

Output: 100 operational wells on place x, y and z

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Proper Intervention logic

Step 4

Wider objective: People’s health in Fontanaland is

improved

SMART Indicator: Child death in 2011 decreased by 50% as

compared to 2009 in affected areas Fontanaland

Project Purpose: Thirst is satisfied in Fontanaland

SMART Indicator: 80 liter per capita per day available by 2011

in areas x y z

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

12


6/3/2012

Proper Intervention logic

Step 4

Project Result : There is sufficient water available to 50%

of the population of Fontanaland

SMART Indicator: 100 fully operational and accessible (to all)

wells available by 2011 in area xyz

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Management plan

Problem Analysis and Intervention Logic

Does the information in this section provide you with

an adequate understanding of:

the key problem to be addressed by the project

the impacts of the key problem

the causes of the key problem

what progress has been made or actions undertaken,

if any, to date to try to improve the situation

how this project will address these problems

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Limits to regulating capacity of

earth

Loss of

biodiversity

Fresh Water

Use

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

13


6/3/2012

General discussion on results so far - What is

happening to nature and biodiversity in Europe

Europe has suffered more human-induced fragmentation

than any other continent

50% of wetlands and high-nature-value farmland gone

BirdLife assessments show > 40% of all European bird

species have unfavourable status

About 15% of mammal species in Europe are threatened

with extinction

Only 17% of species and habitats of EU conservation

concern (Habitats Directive) have favourable

conservation status

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

General discussion on results so far - What is

happening to nature and biodiversity in Western

Balkans

Biodiversity is an important asset that the region is bringing to

the EU, but it is threatened by the rapid economic development

and societal changes of the last decade.

Fragmentation, land-use changes, urban sprawl, infrastructure

development, acidification, eutrophication, desertification,

overexploitation, inadequate legal protection and/or poor

enforcement, socio-political factors, low on the political agenda

Cross border nature provides new opportunities for international

cooperation for the protection of shared natural areas. But cross

border cooperation still problematic

Nature legislation is seen as obstacle to economic development

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Nature is seen as obstacle to economic development

But many studies exist that indicate that Natura 2000

contributes to gross welfare benefits (We have counted 10

large studies in EU since 2006) on the subject

All studies say that a paradigm shift is necessary in nature

protection

Investing in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity pays

off.

It is beneficial for our prosperity and our wellbeing. Even more,

it is crucial. Our economy exists on the use of natural resources

and our living climate is strongly influenced by our natural

environment.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

14


6/3/2012

High time to shift the beacons

The decrease of biodiversity leads to the destruction

of these natural resources and is bad news for us, as

well as for the rest of the world.

The efforts made thus far to maintain biodiversity

and the related natural resources are utterly

unsatisfactory.

It is high time to shift the beacons from using up the

natural capital towards sustainable use of that capital

in order to realize green growth in ecological,

economical and social sense.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Example of ecosystem services

Production services

Regulating Services

Socio-Cultural services

Supporting services

Drinking water

Wood

Landscape

Public Health

Recreation

Gene Pooling

Fish

Food

Carbon

sequestratio

n

Pollination

Biological

Pest control

Soil formation

Primary

production

Nutrient cycle

Water

purification

Water

regulation

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level - Example 1: the Netherlands

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

15


6/3/2012

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level

Example 1: Estimated gross benefits of Natura 2000

sites in the Netherlands

In 2006, the Dutch Institute for Environmental

Studies (IVM) carried out an assessment of the

benefits associated with Natura 2000 in the

Netherlands. The main aim of the study was to

provide a broad estimate of the gross benefits of

Natura 2000 areas at the national level.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level

Example 1: Estimated gross benefits of Natura 2000

sites in the Netherlands

The authors extrapolated the gross welfare benefits

of all Natura 2000 areas in the Netherlands (1.1

million ha), deriving an estimate of around 4.5 billion

EUR / year.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level – Example 2: Spain

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

16


6/3/2012

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level

Example 2: Global economic costs of the Natura 2000

Network in Spain

In 2008, an evaluation was carried out to assess the costs of Natura

2000 in Spain in order to determine the overall economic effects of the

network (i.e. impacts on GDP) at national and regional level.

The implementation of Natura 2000 network was considered to have

positive impacts on GDP in Spain, with an estimated increase in GDP

between 0.1 ‐ 0.26 per cent at national level.

In general, it was estimated that the network would generate an

additional 12,792 jobs to the country.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

Benefits of Natura 2000 at national and / or regional

level

Example 2: Global economic costs of the Natura 2000

Network in Spain

At the regional level, Andalucía, Aragón and the Canarias islands were

supposed to benefit the most from Natura 2000 with a 0.26 ‐ 0.44 per

cent increase in their GDP and between 1346 ‐ 5957 additional jobs

created

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

A paradigm shift is needed

A CHANGE FROM ONE WAY OF THINKING TO ANOTHER IS NEEDED

Do not think only about the ‘the value of nature’, but also about the

‘the nature of value’.

THREE LINES OF ACTION REQUIRED

Public Awareness Building.

Greening of the economy

Implement Biodiversity Policy: Land use and nature

conservation/protection of remaining nature areas and wildernesses

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics

Consortium

17


RENA, Activity 3.1, 15-17, May, Sharr Mountains

DAY 3

CONDUCTING NATURE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Regional Environmental Network for Accession

Regional Training under Working Group 3.1 – Nature Management


6/3/2012

Review of morning

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The art of archery

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

When does the arrow miss

• When it hits something else

• When the aim is wrong

• When the arrow is faulty

• When something blocks the arrow’s

flight

• Other reasons

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

1


6/3/2012

How can communication help with

your problem

• Identify the problem you want

communication to help with.

• Identify who you want to send the

message to.

• Identify the message you want to send.

• Identify the effect you want your

message to have.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Message:

• Do you know what you are talking

about

• Try to think as the target group

• What can you offer the target group

• Don’t teach – don’t preach

• Speak the truth

• Actions speak louder than words

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

2


6/3/2012

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

3


6/3/2012

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

4


6/3/2012

Clear communication!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Message – be realistic!!!!!!

• Sell your car and walk forever

• Walk once a week

• Walk once

• Drive a little slower

• Buy a bike

• Others

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

5


6/3/2012

The Medium (1)

• Is it the most effective for the target

• Does it reach the target

• Can the target react to the message

• Can you react to the target’s reaction

• Which organisations will help you

reach the target group

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Ping pong

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Medium (2)

• List the media available to you

• Identify how you choose which to use.

• How much money does your chosen

medium cost

• How much time does your chosen

medium cost

• Does the medium you use fit the

message you want to send

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

6


6/3/2012

Secure effective engagement!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Secure effective

Must get

engagement!

Wasn’t

relevant

so I slept

through

it!

My boss

said I

must

attend!

some food

in for

tonight!

Just

another

waste of

my

time!

I did say I’d

phone her

today! Great ‐

almost

finished my

Emails!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Preparation of Management Plans.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

7


6/3/2012

What do you mean by Management

What do you mean by a Plan

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Process

1. Plan for the plan

2. Select stakeholders and roles

3. Involve stakeholders from the start

4. Strengthen ownership

5. Clarify content & format

6. Stick to the specific issues/problems of the PA

7. Keep talking

8. Be flexible.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

A Management Plan is:

“an easily understood set of principles in an

accessible form by which a defined area (small

or large) may be managed.”

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

8


6/3/2012

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

Who uses it and for what

1. The Protected Area managers

2. The Protected Area ‘parent’ organisations

e.g. a. allocation of finances and staff

b. recorders

3. Stakeholders

4. Politicians

5. Others

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

Suggested Plan contents:

1. Descriptive part (appendices)

2. Designations.

3. Threats & Opportunities.

4. Objectives & priorities

5. Tasks and Work Plan

6. Monitoring programme.

7. Appendices.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Traditional management planning process

Final plan

Plan 1. Plan 2.

Specialist Consultation Interests

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

9


6/3/2012

The Habitats Directive and Managing Natura 2000 sites

DAD

D for decide

A for announce

D for defend

This is NOT what we want!!!

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Consensus Management Planning

Issue Group

Issue Group

Issue

Group

Reports

Plan

Issue Group

Experts Consultees Stakeholders

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

10


6/3/2012

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

1. People who can influence Natura 2000

2. People who are influenced by Natura 2000

3. People you need and people who need you

to be successful in managing Natura 2000

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

ISSUES to be CONSIDERED

• Interest: Are people interested in the Area & the

Management Plan

No interest = Difficult

High interest = Easier

Link to what is of High Interest

• Knowledge: How much do they know

Start from what they know.

Find out what they know.

Speak their language

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

• Attitude: How do they feel about the issue

Strong feelings against plan = Time, Patience, Effort

Take emotions seriously = Seek common solutions

• Information Behavior: Where do they look for information

Will they attend public meetings

What is the most effective way of providing information

Newspapers, radio, TV, Internet

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

11


6/3/2012

End values: Norms and values of the group

• very traditional or very unconventional

• formal – with others; outsiders

• sense of safety, belonging, recognition

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Stakeholders are people

People have feelings

People have problems and issues

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Who are your stakeholders

What do they know about you

What do you know about them

What do your local people think about the Protected

Area

How does it affect their lives

What information do they have – where does it

come from

Who should be involved and how in preparing the

Management Plan

What are the possibilities of cross border cooperation

in Management Plan development

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

12


6/3/2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Informed

Involved

Stakeholder participation

Levels of participation

1.Passive information

2. Active information

3. Participation in planning

4. Full partners in decision making

Increasing

involvement

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

How to involve Stakeholders

• Sustainable use of Protected Area resources

• Use of Protected Area status to enhance marketing

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

13


6/3/2012

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Sustainable Use of Protected Areas

1. N2K is NOT total prohibition.

2. Define what levels of existing use are

acceptable

3. Implement existing legislation effectively

4. Involve and inform local people.

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Management Plan Development –

Considerations for decision makers.

Use Protected Areas to support

Marketing & Employment

1. Identify entrepreneurs

2. Form groups to co-operate on

marketing

3. Branding using Protected Area

designation

4. Initiative comes from Government

(National/Local)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The positive involvement rules

• Try to find the way things work at local level

• Be positive, patient, and transparent

• Try to find ways to involve (firstly) at least key persons in

community

• Try to find a role (and some income!) for as many local

persons as You can

• Try to appeal to and revitalize people’s memories and

emotions

• Respect the old customs and traditional use

• Motivate and encourage the people in their hard work

• Use media to show Your allies

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

14


6/3/2012

SMART

• Specific

• Measurable

• Achievable

• Realistic

• Timely

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

What will be done by who, when and how

What When Who How

Contacting newly identified stakeholders

Collecting information and data for the Restoration Programme

Descriptive

legal basis

land ownership

Designations

Threads & Opportunities

Objectives & Priorities

Tasks and workplan

Monitoring programme

Appendices

Put all information together in the Restoration Programme format

Distribute draft Restoration Programme before workshop 2

Other issues

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Programme - Timetable

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

15


6/3/2012

Monitoring Programme

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

16


6/3/2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

1. Introduction

Management Plan Contents

2. Description of the Natura 2000 site

2.1 Statement of grounds for the selection of the Natura 2000 site

2.2 Location, boundaries, administrative distribution, land ownership

2.3 Social‐economic situation, land‐use

2.4 Natural values

2.4.1 Birds

2.4.2 Fauna

2.4.3 Flora

2.4.4 Geological objects

2.4.5 Objects of cultural history

3. The effect of Natura 2000 network on the site.

4. Action plan for the maintenance of the nature values of Tagamõisa

Natura 2000 site taking account sustainable development of the region

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

17


6/3/2012

Bibliography

Appendix 1. Map of the Tagamõisa Natura‐site

Appendix 2. Dynamics of the wintering population of the Steller’s

Eider and the impact of coastal fishing on the species (Kuresoo, A. et

al., 2000)

Appendix 3. Species list of vasculat plants in Tagamõisa Natura‐site

(Data by E. Roosaluste&M. Reitalu, 2002)

Appendix 4. Facts about the cultural history of Tagamõisa peninsula

(composed by T. Ojala)

Appendix 5. Composition of Working Groups

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Scottish Natural Heritage:

Policy Statement no 03/03

• Land Owned by SNH ‐ 34000 hectares

• Community

• Good Relationships

• Land management plans ‐ local consultation

• Optimising local employment – contract out

• Positive impact on local sustainable development

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

18


6/3/2012

SNH –Nature Reserve Management Plans

1. The Story of the Reserve

2. The Reserve Plan

3. Bibliography

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

The Story of Loch Lomond National Nature Reserve

Contents

Foreword

Maps of Loch Lomond NNR

1 Introduction to Loch Lomond NNR

2 The Natural and Cultural Heritage of the NNR

3 Land Management at Loch Lomond before the NNR

4 Management of Loch Lomond NNR

References

Appendix 1 ‐ National Nature Reserves (NNR)

Appendix 2 ‐ Special Protection Area (SPA)

Appendix 3 ‐ Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Appendix 4 ‐ Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Appendix 5 ‐ Ramsar

Appendix 6 ‐ National Parks

Appendix 7 ‐ National Scenic Area

Appendix 8 ‐ Species (49 pages)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

WINDSOR CASTLE

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

19


6/3/2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

1. PARKLAND

OBJECTIVE

Maintain and enhance

the supply of dead

wood habitats

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Avoid felling or removing

2. In visually non-sensitive

areas retain in situ

3. In visually sensitive areas

4. Implement a planting

programme

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

20


6/3/2012

Revenue promotion

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Economy underpins environment

1. South Downs Lamb

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

2. White tailed eagle

1916

Rum1975 on(82prs)-1985(bred)

2010 Mull's sea eagles (11x2)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

21


6/3/2012

Scotland

Mull

England

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

3 Sept- îles

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

4. Charcoal production

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

22


6/3/2012

Economy underpins environment

4.Sustainable green tourism

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Revenue promotion

Sustainable Use of Protected Areas:

1. N2K is NOT total prohibition

2. Define what levels of existing use are

acceptable

3. Implement existing legislation

effectively

4. Involve and inform local people

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Revenue promotion

Use Protected Areas to support Marketing &

Employment

1.Identify entrepreneurs

2.Form groups to co-operate on marketing

3.Branding using Protected Area designation

4.Initiative comes from Government

(National/Local)

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

23


6/3/2012

5. Hadrian‘s Wall

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Revenue promotion

• How did the branding come about

• Who initiated the use of branding of

products/services – the owner(s),

producer(s), the Protected Area

administration, someone else

• What part did the Protected Area play in

establishing branding

• How long did it take to set up the branding

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Revenue promotion

• What was it that persuaded the owner to

participate

• Does the owner have his own marketing

arrangements for the product or does the

Protected Area help

• What benefits were planned/expected from

branding

• What benefits have come from branding

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

24


6/3/2012

6. Czech Regions

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Revenue promotion

A Management Plan is:

“an easily understood set of principles in an

accessible form by which a defined area

(small or large) may be managed.”

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

7. South Downs

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

25


6/3/2012

Communication

What is it

Write down a 1-sentence definition

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

What are the key elements of

comunication

• Sender

• Receiver (Stakeholder)

• Message

• Medium

• Result/effect

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Where do you place “Feed-back”

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

26


6/3/2012

Communication Model 1

Message

Sender Receiver Effect

Medium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Communication Model 2

Message/Signals

Sender Receiver Effect

Medium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

27


6/3/2012

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

What are the implications for effective

Communication

• for the sender

• for the receiver

• for the message

• for the medium

• for the result/effect

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

Taken from Batelle & ERM

Communication and Stakeholder Involvement ‐ Guidebook for cement facilities ‐ http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/cement/tf6/stakeholder_guide.pdf

This Project is funded by the European Union

Project implemented by Human Dynamics Consortium

28

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines