Habitats Directive Art. 6(4) procedure
where no alternative solutions exist –
case study
Petr Roth
Belgrade, 25th November 2016
A little bit of theory
• Art. 6(4) HabDir:
If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for
the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a
plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for
imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
including those of a social or economic nature, the
Member State shall take all compensatory measures
necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of
Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the
Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
A little bit of theory
• imperative reasons of overriding public interest:
• interest public
• reasons imperative
• public interest overriding the interest in maintaining the N2K site
• social and economic reasons acceptable
• compensatory measures
• overall coherence of Natura 2000
• informing the Commission of the compensatory
measures adopted
A little bit of theory
• Art. 6(4) HabDir:
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat
type and/or a priority species, the only considerations
which may be raised are those relating to human health
or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary
importance for the environment or, further to an opinion
from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest.
A little bit of theory
Site with priority feature(s)
only these considerations may be raised:
• relating to human health or public safety,
• relating to beneficial consequences of primary
importance for the environment
• or relating to other imperative reasons of overriding
public interest - further to an opinion from the
Commission
A little bit of theory
„Priority“ procedure lengthy, costly, demanding
Issuance of EC opinion – up to several years
EC require complete design of compensatory measures
and proof of their viability
Deepening and widening of the
ship fairway Unter- and
Außenelbe (river Elbe) to the
port of Hamburg
A case study
Situation
Situation
Project proponent: Hamburg Port Authority
Purpose: to enable entering the Port of Hamburg (130 km
upstream) by the “reference container ships”
(“Bemessungsschiff”)
Project elements
Deepening: 136 km, suction dredgers
Establishment of the siding and waiting places: between km 644 and
636 (siding place), km 695 waiting place
Establishment of 5 underwater deposits and groynes around
Altenbruch
Feed of reloading places Medembogen and Neuer Luechtergrund
Filling-in of the deep riverbed pools by St. Margarethen
Drift fields “Spülfeld III Pagensand” (fine silt deposits)
Maintenance digging: increase approximately by 10%
Natura 2000 sites
Natura 2000 sites
a) SCIs
„NTP S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete“ (DE 0916-391)
„Schleswig-Holsteinisches Elbästuar & angrenzende Flächen“ (DE 2323392)
„Unterelbe“ (DE 2018-331)
„Komplex NSG Neßsand und LSG Mühlenberger Loch“ (DE 2424-302)
„Rapfenschutzgebiet Hamburger Stromelbe“ (DE 2424-303)
„Komplex NSG Heuckenlock und NSG Schweenssand“ (DE 2526-302)
„Hamburger Unterelbe“ (DE 2526-305)
„Komplex NSG Zollenspieker und NSG Kiebitzbrack“ (DE 2627-301)
b) SPAs
SPA „Ramsar-Gebiet S-H Wattenmeer und angrenzende Küstengebiete“ (DE
0916-491)
SPA „Unterelbe bis Wedel“ (DE 2323-401)
Project history
2007: the first project + AA 1:
conclusion: no significant impact on N2K
Protests of the public
2008: project amendment I + AA amended (AA 2)
conclusion: no significant impact on N2K
Protests of the public
2009: project amendment II + AA amended (AA 3)
conclusion: no significant impact on N2K
Heavy protests of the public
AA1 – AA3 carried out by the Project proponent
Project history
2010: project amendment III + new AA 4
author: BIOCONSULT Schuchardt & Scholle GbR Bremen
conclusions: highly significant impact on two target features
of four SCIs
•
•
1130 Estuaries
endemic priority plant species Oenanthe conioides
The same data used, their interpretation totally different!
Thus, the whole „case“ was shifted to the level of Art. 6(4) procedure
and EC opinion requested
Art. 6(4) procedure
EC asked to check out:
•
•
•
•
correctness of AAs
check of alternatives
IROPI
compensatory measures
Art. 6(4) procedure
Correctness of AAs
AA1 – 3 carried out in a completely wrong way
Assessment of impact on national PAs overlapping with SCIs: „no
impact“
Assessment of impact on N2K using violated definitions of
conservation status: „no significant impact“
AA4 leaving out several target features without justification
Only impact on 2 habitats and 4 species evaluated
This part carried out correctly
Art. 6(4) procedure
Check of alternatives
6 alternatives evaluated
4 of them not realistic
But:
- Expert opinions put in doubt assertion that „project will modernise
the Hamburg Port for ever“ („Bemessungschiff“ no further the most
frequent container ship)
Art. 6(4) procedure
- JadeWeserPort to be completed in 2012: no drought limitation at all
Art. 6(4) procedure
IROPI
• Hundreds of thousands jobs dependent on Hamburg Port
• However, proponent exaggerated impacts of „zero alternative“
• Hamburg Port - the best valued port in the Nordrange (6 North Sea
major ports)
Public interest? Clearly „yes“
Imperative reasons? Doubtful: reason for this project = retreat from
the JadeWeserPort agreement in 2001
Public interests overriding over the interest on N2K protection?
JadeWeserPort reduces it; Elbe waterway will never be competitive
for largest overseas ships; competition instead of specialization
Art. 6(4) procedure
Compensatory measures
• habitat type 1130 compensable (UK proof); proposed extent and
way of implementation seem reasonable
• practical ability to compensate habitats of species generally much
lower – but good experience with Oenanthe conioides
Objections:
- only two locations for new habitats proposed → high risk of failure
- implementation of CM envisaged in parallel with project
implementation – but at least 4 years needed to prove success/failure
- monitoring proposed – to adapt construction if case of failure – but
when?
- CM and monitoring not budgeted
Conclusion
EC assessed all the circumstances
Final decision political
EC opinion positive
Lesson learnt
• Project proponent should not carry out AA of his own
project
• AA should follow the HabDir requirements
• Attempts to get around the procedures may lead to big
delays
• EC opinion takes 1 year minimum – provided all
analyses and above all CM are available
Hvala na pažnji!