MANUAL

FOR
ECOLOGICAL
NETWORK
IMPACT
ASSESMENT
(ENIA)
The European Unions IPA Programme for Croatia
Twinning Light project:
EU HR/2011/IB/EN/02 TWL
Strengthening the expert knowledge and technical capacity of all relevant
institutions for Ecological Network Impact Assessment (CRO-ENIA)

Project funded by
European Union
Croatian Agency for
Environment and Nature


The first draft of this manual originated within the framework of the EU Twinning Light
Project HR/2011/IB/EN/02 TWL Strengthening the expert knowledge and technical capacity of all
relevant institutions for Ecological Network Impact Assessment (CRO ENIA) between the Croatian
Agency for Environment and Nature and Austrian Agency for Environment (Petr Roth, Thomas
Ellmauer and Dirk Bernotat) and has been finalised by the Croatian Agency for Environment and
Nature and Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection. This is the first version that will be
upgraded in the following period based on the experiences during its usage.

Table of Acronyms
AA = Appropriate Assessment
CAEN = Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature
CAO = Administrative offices of the units of regional self-government (counties, City of Zagreb)
competent for nature protection
CJEU = Court of Justice of the European Union
EEC = European Economic Community
EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment
EN = ecological network
ENIA = Ecological Network Impact Assessment
IROPI = Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest
PAMA = public institutions for management of protected areas on county and local level public
institutions managing national and nature parks
MA = Main Assessment
MENP = Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
NGO = Non-Government Organisation
NPA = Nature Protection Act
SCI = Site of Community Interest
SDF = Standard Data Form
SEA = Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPA = Special Protection Area

CONTENT
1.
Introduction 6

1.1. Purpose of the manual 6

1.2. To whom is this manual addressed? 6
2.
Legal background for ENIA 7

2.1. EU Birds and Habitats Directives and role of the rulings of CJEU

2.2. Ecological network and legislation dealing with ENIA

2.3. Definition of a project

10

2.4. Relationship of ENIA and EIA

11

3.
Administrative set-up of ENIA

14

14

3.1. Authorities and bodies involved in ENIA

3.2. Procedure of ENIA

14

4.
General approach to ENIA

17

5.
Screening

19

5.1. Projects unlikely to have any impact by their characteristics

20

5.2. Projects potentially impacting ecological network

21

5.3. Specific issue: projects applying for co-funding from the EU funds

23

6.
Main assessment

24

24

6.1. Data on project and its possible effects

6.1.1. Project description

24

6.1.2. Description of possible project effects

25

6.1.3. Identification of possible project effect area

26

6.1.4. Identification of potentially affected sites of EN

28

6.2. Data on EN sites and their target habitat types and species

29

6.2.1. Data on potentially affected EN sites

29

6.2.2. Identification of affected target habitat types and species of EN sites

29

6.2.3. Gathering of data on affected target features

34

6.3. The reference level for the main assessment: conservation objectives and site integrity 37

6.4. Assessment of impacts

38

38

6.5. Cumulative impacts and impacts from abroad

6.6. Significance of impact

40


6.6.1. Non-significant impact

41

6.6.2. Significant impact

44

6.6.3. Individual assessment of impacts

43

6.6.4. The assessment scale

45

6.7. Mitigation measures

46

6.7.1. Character and purpose of mitigation measures

46

6.7.2. Difference between mitigation and compensatory measures

49

6.7.3. Monitoring of mitigation measures

41

7. Implementation of the procedure of establishment of overriding public interest

and authorization of a project through compensatory measures

53

7.1. Alternative solutions

53

7.2. Public interest

54

7.3. Feasibility of compensatory measures

54

7.4. Imperative reasons

55

7.5. Overriding public interest

55

7.6. Feasibility of compensatory measures

57

7.6.1. Ecological prerequisites and the design of compensatory measures

58

7.6.2. Assurance of land ownership

58

7.6.3. Authorization of land use change

58

7.6.4. Creation of compensatory measures and proof of their functionality

59

7.6.5. Compensatory measures for sites important for bird conservation

59

7.6.6. Costs of compensatory measures

60

8. Transboundary ENIA

61

9. EU guidance documents on ENIA

62

10. Annex I: Excerpts of CJEU rulings dealing with Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

63

1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of the manual
Croatian national legislation has correctly transposed provisions of the EU Habitats Directive
relating to the mechanisms for protection of sites of ecological network (Natura 2000 sites) Ecological Network Impact Assessment (ENIA) in regards to objectives, procedures, and persons
and authorities involved. Relationship to closely linked procedure of environmental impact
assessment (EIA) is also clear from the perspective of legislation. However, as ENIA is a complex
procedure, the mere legal transposition is not enough. It is necessary to explain administrative
and legal aspects of its implementation. In some EU MS their competent authorities as well
as other involved bodies have prepared guidelines and manuals to make the whole procedure
understandable to all the stakeholders project proponents, experts carrying out assessments,
administrative bodies and public thus ensuring the benefit of both nature and society as a whole.
Republic of Croatia is not an exception. Therefore, the goal of this manual is to assist everyone
taking part in the ENIA procedure.
The manual is a result of a team work of experts on ENIA from both Croatia and abroad. It stems
from the analysis of national ENIA practice (interviews with expert institutions, ENIA competent
authorities, analyses of expert opinions and authority decisions, analyses of main assessment
studies), experience with the previous manual, as well as valuable feedback from all the actors
including licensed companies for ENIA1.

1.2. To whom is this manual addressed?

This manual is intended to all bodies and persons directly or indirectly involved in ENIA procedure:
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection (MENP), administrations responsible for nature
protection in counties and City of Zagreb (CAO), Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature
(CAEN), public institutions for management of protected areas on county and local level, public
institutions managing national and nature parks (PAMA), companies licensed for carrying out
ENIA, biologists and other experts carrying out the assessments as well as project proponents.
However, it can also provide information to the public as well as anyone interested in the ENIA
procedure. The proposed structure, individual steps and approach described in this manual
standardize ENIA main assessment (MA) studies as regards both their form and content. In this
way it should contribute to their overall quality and easier comprehensibility for both investors
and competent authorities. Manual also brings some recommendations on how to recognize
which project should be subject of ENIA and for which projects the procedure is not needed. It can
be useful to everyone intending to implement a project in regards to initial considerations about
the likelihood of the impact on Natura 2000 sites as well as possible modifications of the project
proposal to avoid the significant impact even before any official assessment of project is started.

Nature Protection Act (NN 80/13, 78/15)

2. Legal background for ENIA

2.1 EU Birds and Habitats Directives and role of the rulings of CJEU
It was in 1979 within the EU 9, when the first piece of EU law in the field of nature protection was
adopted the so-called Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, later re-codified without factual changes
under the number 2009/147/EC). It introduced an obligation to detect and designate special areas
intended for protection of selected bird species. Thirteen years later the EU Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC) brought in the obligation to establish the Natura 2000 network consisting of sites for
selected animal and plant species and selected habitat types; the network also involved the sites
for conservation of birds required by the Birds Directive.
Establishment of the Natura 2000 network is obligatory for all EU MS without any possibility for
derogation. At that-time 12 EU MS agreed on having this new network of conservation areas not
only on paper but for real. For this purpose were introduced some tools on management and
protection of Natura 2000 from deterioration and destruction.
While the management is governed by the provisions of both directives (Art. 4(4) of the Birds
Directive and Art. 6(1) and partly also 6(2) of the Habitats Directive), for the protection of the
whole network there is a unified tool called appropriate assessment of impact of plans and
projects on Natura 2000 sites ruled by Art. 6(3), which is called in Croatia Ecological Network
Impact Assessment (ENIA), with the exactly same meaning as well as rules. The aim of ENIA,
simply speaking, is to secure that, the Natura 2000 network is protected from impacts of any
plan or project likely to deteriorate or destroy the particular sites so that the network as such
is maintained in a long-term. In very exceptional cases under strict conditions some sites can
be sacrificed but only if they are compensated by other sites with the same qualitative and
quantitative characteristics (Art. 6(4))

Box 1: Provisions of Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

Art. 6(3)
Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but
likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans
or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view
of the sites conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the
implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national
authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the
opinion of the general public.
Art. 6(4)
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.
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.
Official text of the directive can be found on the link:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=celex:31992L0043)
The basic obligation of all EU MS is to transpose the provisions of Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats
Directive into their national law and make them operational. It is necessary to note that in reality
transposition does not refer only to the provisions of the Directive. There is another inseparable
source of instructions how to correctly interpret the directives: rulings of the Court of Justice of
the EU. This is one important difference compared to legislative system of most EU MS: rulings
of the CJEU become intrinsic part of EU law and have to be considered by both judicial system
and law makers. More than 20 rulings of the CJEU have been issued on Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the
Habitats Directive till today, providing valuable explanations to individual terms and clarification
of links to the other legislation (e.g. in the field of EIA). As rulings can be useful for understanding
of expert aspects of ENIA, their list with brief descriptions of their most important outcomes is
attached to this manual as Annex I.
The interpretation of provisions of Art. 6(3) and 6(4) by the CJEU has another important
consequence. Namely, it clearly explains which obligations are binding and what are the limits
of discretion of national bodies both technical and administrative in their own interpretation
of ENIA procedure and its content. Therefore, though each EU MS has its own right to develop its
own national approach of ENIA, it is always bound by the limits set by the CJEU rulings even as
regards technical part of assessments. This manuals sticks to the CJEU interpretation wherever
it is relevant and makes reference to the most important rulings. It should be remembered that
ENIA procedures should always comply with these provisions to prevent breaching of the EU law.
8

2.2. Ecological network and legislation dealing with ENIA

The objective of the Habitats and Birds directives is to maintain or improve conservation status of
species and habitats of the European importance listed on the annexes of the directives. These
are habitat types and species for which it was concluded on the level of EU that they need to be
conserved because of the ecological importance (endangered, vulnerable, rare, and endemic).
One of the basic means to achieve favourable conservation status in any country is establishment
of Natura 2000 network. Member states on the basis of the distribution of habitats and species of
European importance on their territory contribute to the Natura 2000 by designation of the important
areas for these habitats and species as indicated in the directives. In the Republic of Croatia,
ecological network which is identical to Natura 2000 network was established in accordance with
national framework. On the basis of lists in the annexes of the Birds directive were designated
Special Protection Areas (SPA) which are called within the Croatian legal framework Podruja
ouvanja znaajna za ptice (POP) - Conservation Areas Important for Birds. For species and habitat
types indicated on the appropriate annexes of the Habitats directive are designated Special Areas
of Conservation (SAC) or within Croatian legal framework Podruja ouvanja znaajna za vrste i
stanine tipove (POVS) - Conservation Areas Important for Species and Habitat Types. These two
types of areas, designated on the basis of Birds directive and Habitats directive, together make
Natura 2000 or in Croatian legal framework ecological network of the Republic of Croatia (EN).
Provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives were for the first time transposed into Croatian
legislation in 2005 through the provisions of the Nature Protection Act and the Regulation on
Proclamation of the National Ecological Network in 2007. The current Nature Protection Act (NN
80/013) has transposed the provisions of EU Nature Directives in their entirety. Regulation on the
ecological network was adopted in 2013 in the frame of Croatias accession to the European Union
and amended in 2015 (NN 124/13, 105/15).

Figure 1: Ecological network

9

2.3. Definition of a project

Box 2: The EU and the national definition of a project
EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) in its Art. 1(2) defines project as the execution of construction
works or of other installations or schemes; other interventions in the natural surroundings and
landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources.
The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled out that this definition is fully applicable also to
the project in the meaning of Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive2. Croatian national law is,
therefore, compliant with this interpretation. In addition, instead of using the term project, it
deals with the term interventions in environment which has a wider scope and suits better to
the purposes of both environment and nature protection.
Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not define the term project; however, there is a number
of CJEU rulings filling in this apparent gap at the EU level. Following their interpretation, the
current definition from the Nature Protection Act is satisfactory: project means any temporary
or permanent intervention in nature that can deteriorate natural balance if the purpose of the
intervention is not nature protection or conservation. In the context of ENIA it means that neither
character, size nor location of the project is important; the decisive characteristics is the likelihood
of having significant impact on site integrity. This is also the reason why there cannot be any list
of projects which have always to be subject to ENIA: the same project may have totally different
impacts on various EN sites depending on its location, distance from the sites, as well as site
target habitats and species. Therefore, every decision about the likelihood of impact can only be
done on a case-by-case basis using project-specific and site-specific data unique for each case.
It is also important to note that this definition of project covers also many kinds of interventions
which would never be considered projects from the common perspective. In example various
works and programs which are implemented in nature or maintenance of existing objects if
associated works can jeopardize ecological network. Finally to this group belong activities which
do not require any official permit according to national nature legislation (e.g. concerts or mass
sports events in nature etc.).

10

Case C 127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraphs 25 - 29

2.4. Relationship of ENIA and EIA

From the legal perspective, the ENIA procedure can be carried out in two ways. Either it can be
an independent procedure or it is incorporated into the EIA procedure. In Republic of Croatia it is
carried within the EIA for those projects for which EIA is necessary (as defined by the Environment
Protection Act (NN 80/13, 153/13, 78/15) and Governmental decree on environmental impact
assessment (NN 61/14) or as an independent procedure for the other projects. In Croatia, like in
most other EU member states EIA and ENIA procedures are integrated. The integration of ENIA and
EIA procedures is in many respects advantageous in terms of saving time and resources (if these
procedures were separated they would take much more time and the costs of assessments would
be higher). However, it should always be borne in mind that despite many similarities between
these two procedures and despite the fact that EU EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) also refers to Natura
2000 (claiming that during the EIA procedure likely impact on Natura 2000 sites have always to be
considered), there are also principal differences between these two types of assessments. They
are highlighted in the following table (including description of particular specificities according to
Croatian national law):

11

Table 1: Differences and similarities between EIA and ENIA on the basis of EU directives
EIA (according to the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU)

ENIA (according to the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC)

Purely assessment procedure concluded with a report

on the impact of the project

Combination of an assessment and decision-making

Outcome: unbinding recommendation (in the Republic

of Croatia the final outcome is a binding decision)

Outcome: binding decision (project adversely affecting

site integrity must not be authorised, except if Art. 6(4)
regime is applied)

A fixed list of projects to be assessed exists

Any project likely to adversely affect EN sites must be

assessed

All components of the environment are taken into

account

Only sites of ecological network and their target

features are taken into account

Impacts on human health are assessed too

Only impacts on ecological network are assessed

Assessment of significance of impacts is arbitrary

Assessment of significance of impacts is subject to

strict rules

---

Strict derogation regime conditioned by meeting the

following obligations:
- only projects of public importance can enter the
derogation procedure
- seeking for alternatives without significant impact;
obligation to provide proof that no such alternatives
exist; if such alternatives exist the original project
must not be authorized
- proof of imperative reasons of overriding public
interest
- compensatory measures feasible and carried out

Information required regards, inter alia, current

knowledge and methods of assessment in so far
as it is reasonable to ask developer to provide that
information

Information for the assessment to be based on the

best scientific knowledge

The quality of the environment which will likely be

affected may possibly be unknown when the project is
proposed

The aspects of the site are defined by the data

delivered to the EU upon its selection (SDF form - see
Box 7 ) and by the conservation objectives specific to
the site which reflect the ecological requirements of
the natural habitat types and species for which the
site is designated (if they have already been defined)

Public consultation mandatory

Public consultation if appropriate (but mandatory

according to the Croatian law)

No obligation of Member States to take compensatory

measures if significant adverse effects on the
environment are revealed

In the case of the derogation procedure there is an

obligation of Member States to take all compensatory
measures to ensure that the overall coherence of
Natura 2000 is protected

Procedure for EIA prescribed in detail

No prescribed procedures for ENIA (in Croatia

prescribed in detail)

Obligation to publish screening decision

No requirement to publish the decisions (Croatian law

requires publishing of all decisions within the ENIA
procedure)

12

Because of the binding character of the outcomes of ENIA the responsibility of licensed firms
carrying out the latter assessment is rather high: if the conclusion of ENIA says that the project
under scrutiny may have significant adverse impact on EN site(s) the final decision within the
EIA procedure must be negative (i.e., the project must be rejected) even if its impact on all other
components of the environment were acceptable. This is why implementation of ENIA procedure
requires high level of expertise based on appropriate education and high level of responsibility.

13

3. Administrative set-up of ENIA

3.1. Authorities and bodies involved in ENIA
Competent authorities for ENIA (both screening and main assessment stages) in Croatia are
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection (MENP) and administrative offices of the units of
regional self-government (counties, City of Zagreb) competent for nature protection (CAO)
MENP carries out ENIA for projects for which it is also competent authority within the EIA procedure
according to Environment Protection Act and for project located at the territory of National Parks,
Nature Parks or Special Reserves.
CAO carry out ENIA for projects for which they are also competent authorities within the EIA
procedure according to Environment Protection Act and for projects located at the territory of
Regional Park, Significant Landscape, Park Forest, Nature Monument and Park Architecture
Monument and those carried out in an area that is not at the same time protected area, except for
projects for which MENP is competent authority.
Competent authorities deliver their outcomes in a form of binding decision.
Important role in the process have the opinions of public expert body Croatian Agency for
Environment and Nature (CAEN). Its opinion is required for both screening and MA stages.
The procedure of establishment of overriding public interest and authorization of project with
compensatory measures lies within the competence of MENP.

3.2. Procedure of ENIA

Screening is commenced by project proponent submitting the application to the competent
authority. The latter, after taking in to account the expert opinion of CAEN, issues the screening
decision.
If the competent authority excludes the possibility of significant adverse impacts on conservation
objectives and integrity of the EN site, it adopts decision that the project is acceptable for the
ecological network and that it is not necessary to carry out main assessment (MA).
If the competent authority cannot exclude the possibility of significant adverse impacts on
conservation objectives and integrity of the EN site, it adopts decision that the main assessment
is necessary for the project.
If main assessment is needed, the project proponent submits to the competent authority the
application for MA. The application contains data on the proponent, the MA study and the screening
decision. The MA study is prepared by the licensed company which analyses project impacts and
their significance.
14

The competent authority is obliged to inform the public and carry out the public debate.
If the competent authority establishes, taking account of the opinion of the public, that the project
will have significant adverse impact on conservation objectives and integrity of EN site, despite
the mitigation measures, it rejects the project in a form of a decision.
If the competent authority establishes, taking account of the opinion of the public, that the project
cannot have significant adverse impact on conservation objectives and integrity of EN site, it takes
a decision about the acceptability of the project for ecological network.
Proponent of a project for which was rejected by decision may submit an application to the
MENP for establishment of overriding public interest and authorization of the project with the
compensatory measures.
Ministry shall ask CAEN for its opinion as well as inform the public and implement the public
consultation. If it establishes that, when taking into account the opinion of the public, it is impossible
to establish compensatory measures, it rejects the project by means of a decision. If the Ministry
concludes that it is possible to define compensatory measures, it submits the application as
well as the draft of a decision on the prevalence of overriding public interest for the project to
the Government. The Government adopts the decision on the establishment of overriding public
interests, including those of social or economic nature, for the implementation of the project. In
cases specified by the Nature Protection Act, it is necessary to secure the opinion of the European
Commission prior to the decision of the Government.
General flow of the procedure is given in the Figure 2.

15

If the project cannot have impact on the EN

the procedure is not started
(basic information about the project is sufficient)

CONSULTATIONS
WITH COMPETENT
AUTHORITIES /
CAEN/LICENCED
COMPANIES

A request for screening with/description/idea solution of the project is

submitted to the competent authority (Ministry/ counties)

SCREENING

Study/Chapter of the Main assessment is submitted

to the competent authority (Ministry/county)

PROJECT IS REJECTED

Does project have significant impact on

YES the conservation objectives and integrity
of the EN despite implementation of
mitigation measures?
NO

MAIN
ASSESMENT

HABITATS DIRECTIVE ART. 6(3)

PROJECT APPROVAL

Does project have significant impact on

YES the conservation objectives and integrity
of the EN despite implementation of
mitigation measures?
NO

PROJECT IS APPROVED
Request for the starting of procedure for establishment of overriding public
interest (OPI) and compensation measures is submitted to the Ministry.
REQUEST IS REJECTED
Alternatives are forwarded
to the beginning of the
procedure

YES

Postoje li alternativna rjeenja?

NO
Does overriding public interest exist?
YES

REQUEST IS REJECTED
NO

Is it possible to establish
compensation measures?
YES
Does EN site host priority species
or habitat type
YES
NO

NO

Do reasons of (OPI) relate to relating

to human health or public safety or to
beneficial consequences of primary
importance for the environment?
YES

THE GOVERNEMNT OF RC APPROVES

THE PROJECT WITH COMPENSATORY
MEASURES FURTHER TO AN
OPINON OF EUROPEAN COMISSION
16

ESTABLISHEMENT
OF OVERRIDING
PUBLIC INTEREST
AND APPROVAL
OF THE
PROJECT WITH
COMPENSATORY
MEASURES

MINISTRY APPROVES THE PROJECT

WITH COMPENSATORY MEASURES
AND INFORMS
EUROPEAN COMISSION

Figure 2: Overview of the procedure and outcomes of the ENIA

HABITATS DIRECTIVE ART. 6(4)

NO

4. General approach to ENIA

In accordance with national legislation, the entire ENIA procedure is divided into three stages:
screening;
main assessment; and
establishment of overriding public interest and approval of the project with compensatory
measures
In each stage, different questions are to be responded which require specific approaches. The
procedures applicable to particular stages of ENIA are described in the further text.
All stages of ENIA procedure as well as the initial decision if the procedure should be initiated for
a project are governed by the same general principles to which all participants in the procedure
should adhere. These principles are described in the further text. These considerations are relevant
to all stages of the ENIA procedure. However, the scope of analysis is the most comprehensive
in the main assessment and for this reason the full and detailed description of these reasoning
steps is given in the chapter 6 (Main assessment), while only a brief overview is presented here.
The general purpose of the ENIA procedure is to find out if a given project is likely to have a
significant impact on any site of EN or, respectively, on its target habitat types and target species.
Thus, each project proposal should be subject to the following set of considerations:
1) Does the project have any likely territorial connection or not (either directly on the project
location or indirectly by the means of its effects the environment) or not (i.e., various projects
in the offices, purchase of equipment)? If there is no territorial connection, no ENIA is needed.
2) For all other projects it is necessary to consider what are their possible effects (see chapter
6.1.2). i. e. Does it e.g. occupy land (both temporarily and permanently), contaminate surface
or ground water, air? Does it change the hydrological conditions? Does it emit noise or cause
light pollution? Does it lead to changes in land use (of both the plots on which it is to be built
and in their vicinity e.g. building of new settlement within existing village will increase the
number of inhabitants who may impact the surrounding nature, etc.)? Does it provoke any of
these effects indirectly as it requires additional (separate) projects for its operation (e.g. new
settlement in the existing village will need a new access road to the village with additional
effects) or will it increase the impacts of existing infrastructure - the same settlement may
increase road transport on existing roads which will produce additional air pollution and noise
etc.).
3) It is necessary to determine the reaches of all identified project effects and depict them all on
the same map or visualize: in this way project effect area can be obtained (see chapter 6.1.3).

17

4) Should there be an overlap of project effect area and site of ecological network, it is necessary
to take in to the consideration its target features. Can any of the identified project effects
from step 3 impact any of these target features? If not, no further assessment is needed (see
chapter 6.2.2).
5) Should there be any likelihood of impacts on site target features (always if there is a likelihood
of significant effect and even if the effects are expected to be insignificant but it is not clear
yet), further assessment of impact is needed.
If this procedure is applied, a vast number of projects which cannot have any impact on EN can
be identified even before the official ENIA procedure starts (e.g. if project proponent visits the
competent authority, public institution for nature protection or licensed company and consults
their project verbally).
By application of this logical procedure competent authorities can independently consider the
cases for which there is not much doubt.

18

5. Screening
Is the project located within ecological network?

Yes

No

Does the projects effect area overlap

with ecological network?

Yes

Screening
recommended

No

No screening needed

Figure 3: Testing if screening is necessary.

Screening is the first ENIA stage. Its purpose is to decide if the main assessment of the project
impact on the ecological network is necessary
The aim of screening is to answer the following two questions:
i. Is the project directly connected with or necessary for the management of any EN site?
Under the term management of the site is meant management which directly relates to
meeting conservation objectives of the site, i.e., linked to target habitat types and species (i.e.
mowing of grass, removal of invasive species etc.). It may happen that even some management
plans of some protected areas overlapping the EN sites (especially large-scale areas) contain
projects that are not related only to the site conservation objectives. For example, planning of
implementation of visitor infrastructure (visitor centres, educational trails and paths, tourist
refuges, lookouts) should be performed with consideration of target habitats and species.
Therefore such projects planning documents should be subject to ENIA, too.
ii. If not, is it likely that the project may have - alone or in combination with other projects adverse effects on integrity of any EN site?
This second question is discussed in the further chapters.

19

5.1. Projects unlikely to have any impact by their characteristics

Some projects, even if located in the sites of EN or their vicinity, cannot have any impact on ecological network either due to their characteristics, distance from the EN, or lack of interference
with target habitat types or target species of the EN site. Such projects should not be subject to
screening and can be authorized without any further assessment.
Similarly like the Habitats Directive the national law requires that ENIA is carried out for project
or its parts which alone or together with other projects may have significant negative impact on
conservation objectives and integrity of a site of EN. Especially for investors it may be difficult to
orientate in this wording and to make their own consideration if their project is or is not likely to
affect EN sites. Therefore, it is recommended that competent authorities, but also county public
institutions for nature protection as well as licensed firms, assist the investors (before the latter
submit their applications for screening) and if possible to establish prior to launching the ENIA
procedure if a given project is a project that without any doubt cannot have any impact on EN at
all. Such cases are possible under the following circumstances:
a. project located outside EN, i.e. if three following conditions are met:
the most outreaching project effects (e.g. consumption of area, hydrological impacts,
emissions of light, pollution of air and water, nutrient contamination, vibrations, radiation)
are not overlapping with EN; and
if the project impacts are spreading downstream, and target habitats and species of the EN
site that are dependent of water or live in water are situated upstream from the site
the project is not situated in a corridor important for the migration (especially for large
carnivores, bats, birds) or on an important part of the habitat (reproducing, feeding, resting,
hibernating) of a target species of an EN site.
For such projects the likelihood of impact on EN is excluded, unless there are some additional
circumstances not captured by the above-mentioned list. Therefore, no screening is needed.
b. project located inside EN, but within built-in areas of settlement (villages, towns) without
project effects reaching outside of these built-in area, for example:
renovation or upgrading of existing buildings ( i.e. not in the case if it is a renovation of an
attic with bats colony or roof with stork nest)
change in interior equipment of residential buildings offices etc.
Each particular case requires an independent consideration; therefore, nature protection
authorities can substantially help investors easier if they provide advice prior to the procedure
start. It is also important that these authorities regularly communicate with the county authority
departments in charge of construction.
County authority departments in charge of construction should be well informed about the
obligation of ENIA and should direct the applicants for ordinary construction permits to the
20

nature protection authorities in case they feel that project could have an impact on ecological
network. The authorized firms should also provide consultations to investors about the likelihood
of impacts of their projects and instruct them to apply for the screening procedure or not, based
on detailed knowledge of the project, its location and potential impacts.
Box 3: Examples of real projects from various parts of Croatia which were subject to screening
even though it could have been apparent that they could not have any impact on ecological
network.
new sidewalks along the town street
laying of new tarmac on existing town streets
new ditches along the existing town streets
new street lighting in a town (which does not neighbour to any EN site designated for bats)
changes in/upgrading of underground networks (electricity, telephone cables) in a town
adaptation of a flat into dentists surgery
building of garden grill in a private garden inside a town
building of a morgue not connected with a crematorium inside a town
restoration of a part of existing fortress
restoration of office space at the 1st floor of office building
building of town market hall

5.2. Projects potentially impacting ecological network

Any project for which it is impossible to exclude the likelihood of its significant negative impact
on the ecological network has to be subject to screening.
ENIA is a procedure which does not consider if the project or plan impact on the ecological network
site is certain but whether there is a likelihood of project impacts. This is explicitly required by
the Habitats Directive and it has direct link to the precautionary principle3. The intention of the
whole process is to prevent irreversible changes in nature, and not to get exact evidence of their
presence after the ecological network sites have already been damaged. Thus, during the ENIA
process at any stage when assessing the projects we seek for their likely adverse effects on target
habitats and species of EN sites. Therefore, any project whose effects could potentially overlap
with sites of EN should be subject to screening.

3 Comunication EC:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001&from=EN
21

The objective of screening is not to precisely identify impacts and estimate their significance:
the aim of this procedure is to conclude if the main assessment is needed or not. For such a
statement much less data is needed than for the main assessment. Investors are only obliged
to submit a simple application containing the elementary information following the national law:
information on the investor;
information on the project: name, exact location (identification of parcels of land on which
project is planned), brief description of the project - purpose, scope, dimensions, capacity,
etc., duration of the operation, planned period of project implementation, the manner of
implementation (materials, machinery and other resources needed for the implementation),
the amount and type of waste, description of any other activities necessary for the
implementation of the project. It is also advisable to submit the photo documentation of
the present situation on the locality.
The more accurate data on the project is provided by the investor the higher is the probability that
the screening procedure will be simpler and quicker. Especially for projects for which investor
claims they cannot have any significant impact due to the character but the impact cannot not
be excluded on the basis of the simple project description, it is in the interest of the investor
to provide the authorities with as much data as possible. In the opposite case he risks that the
authority will not be able to exclude the likelihood of an impact on EN and consequently forward
the project into the main assessment.
The outcome of screening is the screening decision issued by relevant authority. The statement
of that decision can only have two forms:
i. the given project is acceptable for ecological network or
ii. for the given project likelihood of significant adverse impact on conservation goals and
integrity of the ecological network site cannot be excluded and it is necessary to carry out main
assessment (MA) procedure
Note that the second type of statement does not confirm the significant impact. It must be used any
time if there is any doubt about the absence of any significant impact, which does not mean that the
subsequent main assessment will confirm it. This is the correct application of the precautionary
principle as required by the Habitats Directive: in case of any doubt choose the option preventing
irreversible harm to nature (ecological network) 4.

Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom

22

5.3. Specific issue: projects applying for co-funding from the EU funds
Any project which applies for co-funding from the EU funds has to be accompanied by an official
confirmation on the lack of likelihood of significant impacts on EN sites.
According to the rules of EU funds, each project eligible for co-funding from those sources has
to have proof that it is not likely to adversely affect any EN (= Natura 2000) site, regardless of
its nature, location and size. This obligation is not negotiable and has simply to be met in all
such projects. Therefore, they all have to go through either the procedure of requesting official
statement or through the screening procedure even if it might be clear that due to their character
they cannot have any impact in nature or environment.
This obligation also applies to projects which have already been given some kind of implementation
permit in the past (before EU accession) and now they need to submit official application for EU
co-funding. Investors of such projects ask the competent authority on their opinion; depending
on the character of the project and the likelihood of impact on EN sites they will be given an
official statement saying that there is either need for screening or even the need for the main
assessment, or that there is no need for screening as any impact on EN can be excluded.

23

6. Main assessment
Projects for which a doubt remains about their possible impacts on sites of EN as well as those
for which it is known that there will be an impact have to be subject to the main assessment.
During the main assessment, principal question derived from the wording of Art. 6(3) of the
Habitats Directive, has to be answered:
Is the given project, on the basis of assessment of its impact on EN sites in relation to the
site conservation objectives, likely to have an adverse effect on integrity of one or more sites of
ecological network?
To answer this question, quality impact assessment has to be carried out, resulting in the ENIA
main assessment study (MA study). That study has to describe the project, its possible effects
including cumulative impacts of other projects, to set the project effect area, identify potential
interference with sites of EN, find out which target habitat types and species may be affected,
carry out the assessment of significance of impact on those target features, propose mitigation
measures and monitoring programme for them and to make final conclusion on the project
impact on site integrity. The following chapters describe all these steps in detail and recommend
a suitable approach.

6.1. Data on project and its possible effects

6.1.1. Project description
The ENIA study should include complete, clear and structured description of the project with
emphasis on its elements that may have impact on target features and integrity of Natura 2000
sites. Each ENIA study should be introduced by the following data:
a) location of the project - for projects with compact (dot) location it is recommended to present
their coordinates and land cadastre data (municipality, cadastre area, plot numbers). For
linear projects (roads, railroads, pipelines and conduits) it is necessary to provide as precise
description of the route as possible. For all projects it is recommended to provide also vector
GIS file. A situation map (maps) should be provided in any case;
b) works in the preparatory phase (e.g. ancillary and temporary constructions necessary to
implement before the project has started);
c) works in the construction phase;
d) works in the operational phase ;
e) works in the dismantling phase (this is often neglected but many constructions have temporary
permit only and their dismantling and removal can be more demanding and risky than their
proper construction);
f) expected period of implementation of the project and its duration.
24

Some of the projects claim that they contribute to the protection but that may not the case in
reality. Both competent authorities and licensed companies have to approach the assessment
without any prejudice (neither positive nor negative) and carry out the assessment regardless of
the project name or alleged benefits for nature claimed by the proponent.
Box 4: Example of possible project effects stemming from different stages of the construction
of a water reservoir with power station
Preparatory phase: clearing of vegetation in the future reservoir (which changes the habitats),
land take for infrastructure (temporary access roads), effects related to building of quarters for
the workers and heavy machinery car parks, building of temporary mixing plants and disposal
sites of raw materials,
Construction phase: land take of area for the reservoir and service infrastructure, construction
of a dam, gradual change in character of the river flow, water pollution, break in river connectivity,
Operational phase: permanent change in flow rate of the river, periodical change of water level
in the reservoir, reduction of water quantity downstream of the dam, change in water quality
and temperature, change in sediment transport in the river, ...
Dismantling phase: change in hydrological conditions of the river, movement of mud and other
sediments (possibly toxic) which have accumulated in the reservoir,

6.1.2. Description of possible project effects

Possible effects of projects which may harm habitats or species have to be identified from all
relevant project phases: construction, operation and dismantling phase of the project. If project
description is insufficient an amendment must be required.
For each of the phases mentioned above it is necessary to deduct the possible project effects.
Every physical project has effects on its surrounding environment. Such project effects per se do
not have to be detrimental to the environment including nature - they also can be neutral or even
positive. However, at the very first stage it is necessary to identify all the effects of a given project
which cannot be labelled with certainty as insignificant.

25

Box 5: Examples of project effects

effects on land: e.g. land take, land surface change (loose versus regulated riverbanks
etc.), associated ground works, land use change (temporary and permanent), sand/gravel
consumption, building of structures with a potential of barrier or trap effect, etc.
hydrological changes,
water consumption (e.g. technical water, irrigation, cleaning),
raw material extraction (mineral, energetic),
emissions into water, emissions into air,
waste water, warm/cold water discharge ,
waste,
radiation (ionized),
noise,
vibrations,
light, etc.
These effects can be produced not only by the proper project but also by associated infrastructure
(ancillary constructions and services, transport infrastructure, provisioning of energy etc.)
indispensable for the given project (in any of its stages); their identification is an intrinsic part of
the main assessment.
At the end of this phase of the main assessment there should be a full list of project effects
(regardless of their possible impacts on habitats or species). It would be a mistake if the assessor
focused from the very beginning only on known impacts of given project instead on listing all the
possible project effects first: after such a list of project effects has been made it may appear that
there might be impacts of some of them on target habitats and species which have never been
revealed or considered before.

6.1.3. Identification of possible project effect area

The likely range of each project effect has to be estimated using the precautionary principle.
The overlap of all individual project effect areas results in the maximum likely project effect
area which determines the scope of the impact assessment.
Single project effects which have a potential to harm habitats or species should be identified and
their effect range has to be determined using the precautionary principle, meaning that the range
should be wide and not too tight. All identified project effects of all project phases (construction,
operation, dismantling) taken together create the project effect area. The range of single project
effects may reach differently. For example, water and air pollution caused by the same project
could have further effects than its noise and light pollution. Some of the effects act just within the
project location, some others may be far-reaching; some act in all directions (e.g. air pollution),
26

some unidirectional only (e.g. downstream water pollution of both surface and underground
watercourses). Therefore, the project effect area of a project originates as an overlap of the reach
of all its effects (see Fig. 4).
This is the only way how the project effect area can be drawn; it must never be artificially reduced
this is one of significant differences compared to EIA: it is not allowed to set any spatial restriction
(limit) of the area within which the assessment is carried out (e.g., 1000 m stretch along both
sides of the river or a circle of diameter of 5 km around the project location, etc.) the only
limit is the potential reach of the effects of the given project. The whole project effect area has to
be subject to the main assessment.
(a)

lutio

ol
ir p

Noi

se

Land take
Heating of the river

(b)

Effect area

tion

Noi

ollu

se

p
Air

Land take

Bu

ka

Heating of the river

Figure 4: Graphic representation of the manner of construction of project effect area during the
main assessment.
Each individual project effect has a different reach (a). Their overlap provides the overall project
effect area (b).
27

6.1.4. Identification of potentially affected sites of EN

An overlay of project effect area with the map of ecological network results in the list of potentially
affected EN sites.
Once all possible effects of the given project have been determined and the project effect area is
established, it is necessary to identify its interference with particular sites of ecological network.
For that, an overlay of the project effect area with the map of ecological network has to be
conducted, which determines the extent of potentially impacted sites (see Fig. 5).
The following situations can occur:
1. the project effect area does not overlap with any EN site: there will be no impact at all and
therefore there is no need for further assessment (site A in Fig. 4);
2. the project effect area does overlap with one (site B in Fig. 4) or more EN sites (or their
parts): the project has a potential to adversely affect the site. The overlapping area of impact
can be defined as the potential area for which scrutiny is necessary about the projects
impacts on target features.
Project effects can be seen as an impact only if they interfere with target habitats or species of
EN sites.

Effect area

Site A

Impact area

Site B

Figure 5: Graphic representation of situation after the overlap of the project effect area with
sites of ecological network.
28

6.2. Data on EN sites and their target habitat types and species
6.2.1. Data on potentially affected EN sites
For each potentially affected site of EN, data on them as well as on their target habitat types and
species have to be collected.
For each identified potentially affected Natura 2000 site the following data have to be collected:
- name, code and type (SPA, SCI or both) of potentially affected site
- list of target habitat types and species of the site (according to the Governmental decree on EN).
Most projects are likely to have an impact on specific parts of EN sites only. If some target habitat
types or species do not occur within the project impact area and their influencing by the project is
excluded, they should only be listed (for the sake of completeness) but neither further described
nor assessed.

6.2.2. Identification of affected target habitat types and species of EN sites

Project effects have to be related to site target features and their requirements in the project
impact area. For all potentially affected target features relevant data have to be collected in
order to underpin the assessment by the best scientific knowledge.
In order to determine whether a project effect may have potential negative impact on site
conservation objectives (target features in case the conservation objectives have not been
established yet) and site integrity, for each site of ecological network identified by the previous
step, an interference of project effects in both space and time has to be considered for each
target feature. If some (or any) target features of a given site cannot be affected by the project
due to its distance, character or timing of its implementation, they can be excluded from further
assessment. This has to be decided one by one and exclusion of any target features from further
assessment must be underpinned by simple but clear justification. Then, those target features
for which particular effects could not be excluded (or for which it is clear that impact is to occur)
will represent the object of the proper assessment. The list of affected target features has to be
exhaustive5; this is another reason why exclusion of any site target feature from this list should be
justified (even though very briefly if it is clear, e.g. because of their distance from the impact zone,
that they cannot be affected).
There should not be a description of all target features but only of those which have been identified
as potentially affected within the given site. Further, detailed description of biology is not required.
but it is necessary to emphasize those aspects which are relevant for the impact assessment (e.g.
for birds - nesting and breeding periods during which the given species are extremely sensitive,
for bats periods when they hibernate and roost during summer, habitats period when they are
most sensitive to e.g. temporary changes in groundwater level, etc.).

Case C-304/05, Commission v Italy, paragraph 66

29

Box 6: Possible grouping of likely impacts

To identify which project effects may have an impact on particular target features it might be
useful to group the impacts of each project into the following main different types and to check
their relevance one by one.
1) Impacts of land take
2) Impacts of change in habitat structure/utilisation
a. Change in vegetation structure
b. Change in habitat dynamic
c. Impacts caused by change in intensity of land-use (abandonment or intensification)
3) Impacts of change in abiotic habitat conditions
a. Change in soil or underground
b. Change in morphological conditions
c. Change in hydrological or hydrodynamic conditions
d. Change in hydrochemical conditions
e. Change in local temperatures (micro- and meso-climate)
f. Change in other microclimatic factors
4) Barrier or trap effect/loss of individuals
a. Barrier or trap effect during construction
b. Barrier-or trap effect during operation
5) Various physical impacts
a. Noise
b. Motions
c. Light
d. Vibrations
e. Mechanical impacts

30

6) Material impacts
a. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphate)
b. Organic compounds
c. Heavy metals
d. Other pollutants
e. Salinization
f. Sediments
g. Olfactory attraction (smell)
h. Endocrinal substances
i. Other materials
7) Impacts of radiation
a. Radioactive radiation
b. Electromagnetic fields
8) Disturbance of species and individuals
9) Spread of invasive species
10) Pest control (pesticides)
11) Release of genetically modified organisms (GMO)
12) Others
This list has been compiled on the basis of a list done by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Germany). Detailed descriptions including many references to scientific papers (in
German) can be found at the web page
http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Wirkfaktor.jsp.
The basic source of data on the habitats and species identified as potentially affected by these
impacts is the Standard Data Form. Standard Data Form is a set of data in a format prescribed
by the EU which every EU Member State submits to the European Commission for all its sites of
Natura 2000 network; this data serve as an official reference level for any activity linked to EN
sites, including ENIA.

31

Box 7: Standard Data Form and their use in ENIA procedure

Each Natura 2000 site in the EU has its own Standard Data Form (SDF) it is an official record
of most important characteristics of every site. Its format is prescribed by the EU law*) and
in Croatia they are freely downloadable from the official web page www.bioportal.hr or from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0484.
SDF is divided into chapters, from which the chapters 3 and 4 are of major importance for ENIA.
There is a description of target habitat types (chapter 3.1), target species (3.2) as well as description of the whole site (4. characteristics, quality and importance, threats and pressures).
For each target habitat type, following parameters are provided:
Cover within the site
Representativity
Relative surface
Degree of conservation
Global assessment of the value of the site for conservationof the natural habitat type
concerned
For each target species, following parameters are provided:
Sensitivity
Presence (permanent; during reproduction period only; concentration site; wintering site
Population size
Abundance quality
Data quality
Proportion of national population in the site
Degree of conservation including restoration possibilities
Isolation of population
Global assessment of the value of the site for conservation of the species concerned
From these two chapters of SDF (as well as from the remaining ones which contain description
of other characteristics of the site), very useful data can be obtained which should serve as a
basis for every ENIA study. Potentially the biggest importance for ENIA, in addition to the area
of habitat and population size of species, has the degree of conservation. This characteristic of
both habitat types and species consists of several parameters (for target habitat types: degree of
conservation of the structure, degree of conservation of the functions, restoration possibility; for
target species: degree of conservation of the features of the habitat important for the species,
restoration possibilities). Degree of conservation is graded A, B, C or D for each habitat
type and species (from the best to the worst); this grading can be used for determination of
relative sensitivity to the threats coming from outside which can be further utilized for the
assessment of impact significance. If relevant, impacts on these parameters
32

should be assessed and conclusions from these assessments would help to assess the overall
significance of impact (see chapter 6.6).
As the data in SDF may be gradually updated, it is recommended to check the SDF for particular
site at the beginning of every ENIA.
Particular attention should be paid to the description of data quality. SDF indicates it using the
following: G = Good (e.g. based on surveys); M = Moderate (e.g. based on partial data with
some extrapolation); P = Poor (e.g. rough estimation). This is a key information for everyone
doing the assessment: data indicated as G are reliable and sometimes do not require detailed
check in the field, while all other options (and especially the P) are clear indication for the
need for field examination, sometimes rather thorough and lengthy (see the following chapter).
On the other hand it should be emphasized that the data in SDF are valid for the site as a whole;
i.e., they contain average values for the site but not the values for individual habitats, subpopulations or metapopulations. Therefore, for the assessment of most projects this data is not sufficient and has to be amended based on other sources and, above all, field data gathering. Only
then the requirement of the CJEU that has confirmed that reliable and updated data concerning
target features are indispensable6 can be met.
Last but not least, in sites for which conservation objectives have been established (see chapter
6.3), the reference level for ENIA is represented by these conservation objectives. This is another
kind of data which has to be taken into account then.
Commission Implementing Decision of 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for
Natura 2000 sites (2011/484/EU) Standard Data Form and explanatory notes.

*)

It should not be forgotten that valuable information on the affected site can be provided by local
people living or working around. They often know the history of the site and of previous human
interventions for which no records exist, and can provide valuable hints e.g. as regards mitigation
measures.
It is necessary to mention that those project effects which do not interfere with any target features
or areas necessary for meeting the site conservation objectives will not cause any impact at all,
although there might be a topographical overlap with a site of ecological network.
Example: The most evident interference of project effects with target features requirements is
the land take, since this will usually destroy target features or prevent their maintenance. On
the contrary, for example noise emissions of a road do not interfere with natural habitats even
if this project effect is in overlap with those habitats.

Case C-43/10, Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias and others, paragraph 115

33

6.2.3. Gathering of data on affected target features

Assessment of impacts has to always be based on reliable and scientifically valid data gathered
in the field just for the purpose of given ENIA. These data may have been collected in the previous
investigations and obtained from scientific/expert literature or they should be collected during
the main assessment in cases when there are no recent adequate investigations from the project
location. Gathering of those data requires several visits to the site and a field work proportionate
to the size and possible impacts of the project.
ENIA must be organized in such a manner that complete, precise and definitive findings and
conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the project
on the site concerned. Only then the competent national authorities can be certain that a plan or
project will not have adverse effects on the integrity of the site concerned7.
It is therefore clear that such an impact assessment can only be done based on data purposefully
collected in the field. The field examination of the sites, check if the published data correspond to
the reality and gathering of actual/fresh missing data on target features are obligatory step of any
main assessment. Field data collection cannot be replaced by modelling, use of remote sensing
or any other indirect method. Field examination is not necessary for the whole EN site; it should
be focused on the potentially affected impact area (overlap of EN site and project effect area).
However, to be able to understand ecological relationships on which particular target habitats and
species depend, it might be sometimes necessary to extend the scope of field examination both to
the other parts of the EN site and even outside its limits.
Field examination should always focus on the potentially impacted target habitats and species.
The valuable information about the scope of the examination can be found in the opinions of
CAEN. In this way requirements for amendments of the main assessment study may be avoided.
Guidances given in the HAOP opinions are just the framework and do not exclude possible additional
investigations, if it becomes apparent during the main assessment that they are necessary, based
on the analysis of the certified company. The field examination should consist of three steps.
Step A. Field inspection into identified impact area within the site of EN as well as surrounding
landscape
Purpose:
to familiarize with the situation on-the-spot
to see the project location or project impact location(s)
to check if the data described in the project and publicly accessible data on possibly affected
target features (e.g., habitat/species distribution) correspond to the reality
to preliminarily check the possible in-combination impacts
to secure relevant photo documentation of the potentially affected parts of the sites.

Case C-304/05 European Commission v Italy

34

It is necessary to record and explicitly mention in the MA study:

exact date of the field inspection and its duration
persons taking part in the inspection (including their specialization and role in the upcoming
assessment).

Step B. Focused data gathering (field research)

For the proper assessment it is necessary to have for each potentially affected target habitat
type and target species the following detailed data:
occurrence, distribution and quality of target habitat types and species in the project effect
area, separately for the individual occurrences within the site (in cases when habitats and
populations of species are not widespread)
specific data regarding the possible impacts of the project (for roads e.g. the flying routes
of bats and amphibian corridors have to be assessed, for wind farms the migration routes
of birds and bats have to be identified, and so on)
current threats already affecting the status of these target features in particular sites of EN.
It is necessary to record and explicitly mention in the MA study:
exact date of the field research and its duration
persons taking part in the research (including their specialization and role in the upcoming
assessment)
Without these data, it is impossible to carry out the assessment of impact significance. If such data
is not available either from publicly accessible sources (e.g., Bioportal) or from the own knowledge
of the company carrying out the MA (e.g. from their other assessments within the same sites
carried out during the same vegetation season or reliable published or publicly accessible data
of other experts or scientists on the same site and target feature), it is necessary to gather them
in the field. Such examination (research) must be done by specialists/experts on given habitat
types or taxonomic groups (explicitly listed in the study) by using either standardized, commonly
accepted methodologies (with a reference to published and commonly accessible sources) or their
own methodologies described in detail in the MA study. If the methods differ, their description
should be provided separately for each target feature.
The extent of field data gathering should correspond to the size of affected site(s), number and
complexity of target features and their ecology. Certain habitat types and species can be identified
and examined only during particular parts of the year or their life cycle. From the record of
dates of field inspection and data gathering it should be clear if the ecological characteristics of
particular target features could or could not be captured. Field inspection during an inappropriate
period of the year (e.g., during winter months) can serve to familiarization with the area but only
exceptionally for data gathering (e.g., for detection of otter and few other species).

35

Methodology of data gathering has to be chosen from two points of views. Prerequisite is that it is
adequate (and scientifically proven) to the given target feature. On the other hand, the scope and
use of particular methods must be harmonized with the character of the EN site and e.g. particular
biotopes of given species over there. For example, if there is a project likely to affect several
dozens of kilometres of the riverbed of a big river, it is neither feasible nor needed to organize
ichthyological research along the whole river: instead, depending on target fish and lamprey
species the research should focus on identification of potential breeding, resting and wintering
sites, riverbanks used by sedentary species as refuges, and similar structures influencing
the biology of given species and representing their Achilles heel. Research consisting e.g.
of simple inventorying of species at several transects, or scientific in-depth research of single
population or single habitat, may not provide the information needed for the assessment and thus
may not be relevant for impact assessment. This is of utmost importance if the licensed company
hires an expert (e.g. scientist) who does not regularly work in this field. Main assessment study is
not a scientific study intended to gather scientific data but applied, tailor-made study proceeding
from scientific methods but providing very practical results needed for the decision on impact
significance.
According to the CJEU all impacts must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge8;
the field studies always have to take this into account. From this perspective, the most important
is that the field investigation is carried out during the sufficiently long period of time and by
appropriate methodology.
Step C. Testing of preliminary conclusions about the impact significance as well as proposed
mitigation measures
The preliminary conclusion on the significance of impacts often requires final assurance in the
field when some additional information can be gathered.
In preparation of main assessment study, it is necessary; besides the expenses of the study itself,
to foresee the expenses for the necessary field investigations or appropriate background studies/
expert opinions on the basis of which realistic assessment of impact can be made. The practice so
far has shown that main assessment studies that are not based on the appropriate expert and/or
recent field data require in many cases amendments, most frequently due to the lack of necessary
field investigations. These amendments prolong the duration of the assessment procedure as a
whole.
To be able to foresee the needed time and funds for carrying out main assessment study it is
recommended that the investor contacts CAEN or some of the certified companies. It has been
shown so far that such early communication with CAEN or certified companies results in the
studies with better quality.
It is recommendable that after the field data have been gathered and first draft of the impact
assessment study drafted, it is consulted with both local/regional experts (i.e. like county public
institutions for nature protection, local NGO) with in-depth knowledge of the situation in the field.
Especially for some less known habitat types or species as well as for those that have complex
8

Predmet C-127/02, Waddenvereniging i Vogelbeschermingsvereniging

36

ecology it is recommended to consult the national experts (e.g., scientists for specific taxonomic
groups) who often know the wider picture of the given habitat type or species.

6.3. The reference level for the main assessment: conservation objectives and
site integrity
Assessment of projects has to be done against conservation objectives of the site. Conservation
objectives are telling us what is to be achieved on the territory of the EN site in relation to its
target features.
Site integrity is maintained if no site target feature is significantly adversely affected by any
threat. If even a single site target feature is significantly affected by any external impact, the
integrity of that site is adversely impacted, too.
National law requires, in full compliance with Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, to carry out ENIA
towards site conservation objectives and site integrity (see chapter 6.3). However, neither the
above-mentioned provision of the EU law nor the national law provide description of these two
terms. It is therefore necessary to define them first.
Conservation objectives are common tools of nature protection worldwide. They represent the
required state of target features of the particular protected area (or the required state of the area
as a whole) which should be achieved during specified period of time by applying tailor-made
conservation measures. For Natura 2000 sites it is expected that the conservation objectives will
refer to the target habitat types and species as Natura 2000 conservation always refers to particular
target features and not generally to the sites as such. Well-made conservation objectives will set
minimum threshold values for species and habitats (like the minimum population size needed
for long-term survival, area of sufficiently large habitat) which either has to be maintained or
restored.
The national legislation assumes that conservation objectives are established for all EN sites.
As making up meaningful conservation objectives takes a lot of time it can happen that for some
sites of EN they are not in place yet. However, even in such case conservation objectives exist: in
fact, they can be derived from the provision of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive which requires
Member States to prevent any worsening of the status of target features of the given site (ban of
deterioration of target features) from the moment of designation of that site. This initial reference
level for each site is represented by the SDF (see box 7). This is the minimum conservation
objective which applies if no additional objectives have been set. In Croatia have conservation
objectives been established only for SPA by the Regulation on conservation objectives and basic
measures for the conservation of birds in the ecological network (NN 15/14).
Since specific conservation objectives preferably set thresholds, the reference level for ENIA are
exactly these threshold levels, which might be higher than the current state in the site (if the
objective is to restore/improve some habitats or species). Thus specific conservation goals are an
important criterion that substantially determines the conclusion of the main assessment.

37

Site integrity is, according to the settled definition used across the EU, the presence and
completeness of ecological structure and functions of the given EN site in a quality needed for
long-term maintenance of site target features. From practical perspective it can be said that site
integrity is maintained if no site target feature is significantly adversely affected by any threat and,
vice versa, that if even single site target feature is significantly affected by any external impact the
integrity of that site is adversely impacted, too.
What are the practical consequences of these definitions? The principle of ENIA is that the impacts
of the assessed project are evaluated towards individual target features; if there is a likelihood
that any of the impacts on even single target feature may be significant a conclusion can be drawn
that it would represent adverse impact on conservation objectives and site integrity, and such a
project must not be authorized. Therefore, impact on site integrity is inseparable from impact on
individual target features and must always be assessed together with the latter:

6.4. Assessment of impacts

Project effects have to be related to individual target features in order to identify whether they
have a potential to impact them.
For identification of impacts, project effects have to be identified and related to target features in
terms of likelihood of impact, its duration and implications.
Likelihood: not all project effects can be predicted with certainty and not every project effect
will for sure have an impact on a target feature. Therefore, the precautionary principle has
to be applied. It is obligatory to take into account even those project effects which could be
emitted by the project or which could harm a target feature even if such likelihood is low.
In this context, risk of effects of accidents linked to the normal execution of construction
works and regular project operation has to be considered, too.
Duration: projects effects are not necessarily emitted continuously; therefore the duration
and time-period in which the effects will be effective have to be determined. If the time
period of the project effect interferes with an important phase of the target feature life
cycle, then there is a likelihood of impact.
Implications: project effects have to be assessed in terms of their implication on target
features. Sometimes only parts of a target feature are affected (like parts of a habitat
of a species population); on the other hand, sometimes the overall conditions for target
features are changed just a little (e.g. the nutrient level is increased), the target feature will
remain, but its fitness may decrease.

6.5. Cumulative impacts and impacts from abroad

ENIA of any project has to take into account not only the effects of the project under scrutiny
but of all other projects already authorized or being in the authorization process the effects of
which might cause in-combination impacts. When considering the in-combination effects, also
those of projects implemented abroad must be taken into account.
38

The national law in line with the Habitat Directive requirement asks that ENIA checks if the site
integrity is likely to be affected not only by the project under scrutiny but also in combination with
other plans, programmes and projects. It is to be reminded that the assessment of cumulative
impacts is an important and inseparable part of the main assessment procedure, not some
additional step, and must be carried out together with the assessment of impacts of the given
project.
What is the hierarchy of projects (and elements of plans/programmes) which should be taken into
consideration during the in-combination assessment? The basic rule is that the project under
scrutiny has to consider the effects:
of all the projects implemented earlier,
projects in the process of implementation (based on valid permits) or
projects that have implementation permit.
An important issue which is often being forgotten are projects which already exist. Namely, the
target features of many Natura 2000 sites are under stress caused by current impacts of existing
projects even at the moment of their designation. This information can be partly obtained from the
SDFs for each site. Namely, the quality of target features assessed when filling in the SDFs often
reflects these pressures from the past. However, it is difficult to deal with these preloads as they
usually cannot be quantified. Contrary to these preloads, there might be effects of the projects
and activities implemented after the designation of the sites as part of Natura 2000 network.
Then, the project under scrutiny might have no significant effects as such, but if its effects are
added to already existing adverse effects on the site from these previous projects, the resulting
impact can be significant. No matter how difficult the assessment of already existing impacts can
be (due to lack of data on insignificant impacts from the past) it is necessary to deal with it in the
main assessment.
In-combination assessment has to be carried out always regardless of the fact whether the other
projects likely to have the in-combination effect were assessed by ENIA at the strategic level
(within SEA) as having no likelihood of significant effects. The point is that elements of plans
(= future projects) passing through the strategic impact assessment including ENIA cannot be
assessed in-depth due to low level of detail at the planning stage. Therefore, SEA including ENIA
can only serve as a filter to exclude the most perverse projects from the plan. However, for any
future project remaining in such a plan, it can never be said that it definitely will not have adverse
effects on integrity of Natura 2000 sites. It is only ENIA at the project level which can assess their
likely impacts (either alone or in combination).
Many projects located next to the state boundary may get in-combination effect from projects
located in the neighbouring country. For ENIA it is not relevant if the neighbouring country is or
is not an EU Member State: impacts of projects are independent of EU membership. Assessment
of transboundary effects is subject to exactly identical working manner like that of effects of any
national project. In practice there might be a problem with insufficient data on the projects
located abroad: however, it is the obligation of the assessor of the project under scrutiny to
get all possible data on the transboundary projects in such a detail enabling to evaluate all incombination effects.
39

6.6. Significance of impact

It is possible to define impacts which for sure are not significant (negligible impact) and those
which should be always considered as significant, if there is no other good reason for different
conclusion. In other cases experts that carry out assessment decide about the significance of
impact on the basis of collected data and their expert knowledge, but they too have to adhere to
accepted criteria when making their conclusions.
The main assessment must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions
capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the project proposed on
the EN site concerned9. A project can be authorised only if it is certain that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site10. The authorisation criterion laid down by the Article 6(3) procedure
integrates the precautionary principle11. Consequently the threshold of significance which has to
be applied may not be set too high12.
Since the assessment of impacts is a very demanding issue and it should not be left to the discretion
of individual experts, it is important to define common standards and rules how impacts are to
be assessed. However, it is difficult to define impacts of very low intensity which certainly are not
significantly affecting the site, since the precautionary principle has to be applied. On the other
end of the scale we can define impacts which are certainly of significance. In-between will remain
area of projects, where experts have to decide. For this, a set of criteria should be agreed, which
guides the conclusion on significance.
The assessment should be implemented in an objective, traceable and independent manner which
insures that the decision cannot be challenged later. Consequently there is a set of pre-requisites
for assessing significance:
The assessment should not be dependent on the discretion of the expert but should be
supported by argumentation
The assessment must be done in the light of the best scientific/expert knowledge in the
field of expertise related to the impacted target habitats and species13
Justification of the lack of significance cannot be based on one criterion only (e.g. just the
relative loss of habitat area without consideration of its quality and function)
Significance should be assessed by application of both quantitative and qualitative criteria.

9
10
11
12
13

40

Case C-521/12, Briels and Others, paragraph 27

Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraph 59
Case C-258/11, Sweetman and Other, paragraph 41
Case C-258/11, Sweetman and Others, Opinion of Advocate General, paragraph 51
Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, paragraph 54

6.6.1. Non-significant impact

Some impacts can be always considered insignificant. These are impacts which are only
temporary and short-lasting and leave no consequences on site target habitat types and species.
Since the precautionary principle has to be applied, it is not easy to define which impacts can
always be considered insignificant. Nevertheless, there are impacts that can be identified as
negligible as they do not deteriorate the site. This can be the case when the target features are
only temporarily affected and will without any doubt recover completely after the impact has not
been present any more (e.g., a temporary impact by noise or light during the construction phase
of a project).
The impacts that are not significant are also moderately negative impacts on the habitat type or
populations of species, moderate disturbance of the ecological conditions of the habitat types and
species as well as marginal impacts on the habitat types and natural development of the species.
Elimination or mitigation of these impacts is possible by application of mitigation measures.

6.6.2. Significant impact

Certain impacts have to always be considered as significant based on defined qualitative and
quantitative criteria applied during the main assessment. Some of these criteria are absolute;
some of them can only be applied under certain circumstances.
The threshold of significance of impact may not be set too high, since the assessment must be
undertaken having rigorous regard to the precautionary principle for protection of sites of EN14.
Although there is a room of discretion for the expert decision there should be very clear rules for
situations when there is no doubt about the significance of an impact. Therefore, the following
criteria should be considered during the assessment of significance:
Quantitative criteria, e.g.:
absolute loss/deterioration of habitat area/population
relative loss of habitat area/population within the site
Qualitative criteria, e.g.:
impact on degree of conservation or its sub criteria on the site level ( for the definition of
the degree of conservation see box 7 SDF)
any hindrance to achieving the site conservation objectives
rarity/frequency of a given target feature (within the site and at the level of the country)
level of endangerment of the target feature (within the site or at the level of the country)
regeneration capability of the target feature
minimum necessary size of a habitat/minimum viable population of a species
14

C-258/11, Opinion of the Advocate General, paragraph 51

41

The assessment of above listed criteria has to be based on the best available expert data both
from science as well as gathered in the field. As an indispensable data source, Standard Data
Forms (SDF) have to be used in order to characterize target features, their area or population,
degree of conservation and other characteristics of the affected EN site (see Box 7).
There are many possibilities when the project impact can be significant. Based on the above
mentioned considerations, several examples of impacts which should be assessed as significant
are provided:
a) always:
every impact which makes the achievement of conservation objectives impossible, or
cumulative loss of about 1 %15 or more of area of habitat type, or habitat of a species, or of
the population of a species within the EN site, or
any impact which contributes to the increase of the yearly mortality of certain species for
1 or more %16
impacts which cause a decrease of at least one of sub criteria of degree of conservation.
b. with possible exceptions, in the following cases the conclusion should be that the impact is
also significant:
impacts on target features or their parts of extraordinary ecological value within the site
(e.g. pristine plots of target habitats, essential habitats of target species).
impact on target features which are considered highly threatened at the national level (in
terms of Red list categories this would mean an impact on a target feature assessed on the
national level at least as CR - critically endangered or EN endangered)
impact on target features which are in an unfavourable conservation status on the
biogeographical level (assessment U2)17. For these features any impact would mean
worsening of their status which is poor anyway which would hardly be justifiable.
However, depending on the particular situation within the given EN site, the main assessment can
conclude differently in individual cases. Should this be the case it can only be accepted for very
well-justified reasons related to ecology of species and habitat types, and intensity and kind of
impact.
15

This general rule of maximal acceptable loss is based on the experience of other EU countries in which it has been
established by agreement of experts. It should be borne in mind that this 1 % rule works in one direction only: every
loss equal to or higher than 1 % is always significant but losses lower than 1 % can in many cases be significant, too
(other assessment criteria are taken into consideration for losses lower than 1 %).
16 In accordance with international experiences it is considered that the impact of a certain event that decreases bird
population is significantly negative if it contributes to the increase of species mortality of 1% or more. It does mean
the natural mortality rate increases for more than 1% of population, but for more than 1% of additional mortality
when compared with natural mortality rate. In example, if expected average natural mortality rate is 20 individuals
yearly, then the 1% limit that should not be exceed is 0.2 individuals per year. So, if as a consequence of the project
loss of 1 individual is expected every 10 or 20 years (mortality rate 0.05-0.1 yearly), then the impact would not be
significantly negative since maximal additional mortality is 0,1 and remains below indicated significance limit. This
approach which has the same goal as ENIA was developed by the advisory ORNIS committee of the European Commission for the purpose of additional explanation of derogative articles of the Birds directive during assessment of the
impact of hunting on the bird populations and confirmed by the ECJ (C-344/03)
17 Report on the conservation status of species and habitats types of European interest:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm
42

6.6.3. Individual assessment of impacts

Individual assessment is necessary for impacts which neither can be considered negligible
nor clearly significant. Such an assessment has to be done in a transparent way and must be
underpinned by careful justification.
For impacts which can be considered neither negligible nor clearly significant, scrutiny
is necessary for each assessment. Even though such assessment of significance is up to the
discretion of the expert from the licensed firm, each conclusion on impact significance has to
be duly justified and underpinned with data showing how the conclusion has been reached. In
order to provide a traceable conclusion it is recommended to carry out a thorough analysis of the
following issues:
absolute and relative loss of area of a habitat or of a population in relation to the area
within the EN site;
all conservation objectives of the EN site (if they are set for the given EN site) and analysing
whether the impacts could affect their achievement or not;
sensitivity of affected target features to the identified impacts;
regeneration potential of affected target features (in cases when e.g. the suitable habitat
remains in the site and the impact is only temporary)

43

Box 8: The approach of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Germany) (Bundesamt fr
Naturschutz) to establishment of thresholds for non-significance and significance of impacts
A set of standards was developed within a six-year-long Research & Development project for
determination of negligible impacts*. Therefore an impact which leads to a complete and
permanent loss of a part of a habitat (or habitat of a species) which is part of the conservation
objectives of a site can only be assessed as not significant under the five quantitative and
qualitative conditions which all have to be applied cumulatively. It is important to emphasize
that it is not enough to apply any single condition alone (e.g. if there is a loss of less than 1% of
the habitat area in the site) but all five of them. Then, all impacts not meeting these conditions
should be considered significant:
1. Qualitative-functional specificities: the affected target feature is not an excellent example
with specific characteristics; and
2. Absolute orientation value for permanent loss: the absolute value of permanent loss does
not exceed the orientation value which has been fixed for each target feature separately
in an expert table taking into account the defined habitat-specific and/or species-specific
conditions of the site; and
3. Relative orientation value for permanent loss (1 %-criterion): the relative loss will not
exceed 1 % of the occurrence of the target feature in the particular EN site; and
4. Cumulative loss: the cumulative permanent loss including effects of other plans/projects
will not exceed neither the absolute nor the relative orientation value; and
5. Cumulative effects: cumulative effects of other impact factors will not lead to exceeding
of the threshold of significance.
Lambrecht, H. & Trautner, J. 2007: Fachinformationssystem und Fachkonventionen
zur Bestimmung der Erheblichkeit im Rahmen der FFH-VP Endbericht zum
Teil Fachkonventionen, Schlussstand Juni 2007. FuE-Vorhaben im Rahmen des
Umweltforschungsplanes des Bundesministeriums fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit im Auftrag des Bundesamtes fr Naturschutz FKZ 804 82 004.
http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/images/themen/eingriffsregelung/BfN-FuE_FFHFKV_Bericht_und_Anhang_Juni_2007.pdf

44

6.6.4. The assessment scale

For the expression of the significance of impact it is recommended to use a simple assessment
scale with five values ranging from +2 (significant positive effect) to -2 (significant adverse impact).
Each potentially affected target feature should be evaluated by one of these values according to
the following table:
Table 2: Scale of impact significance
Value
-2

-1

Description

Justification of the description

Significant
negative
impact (not
acceptable
adverse
impact)

Significant disturbance or destructive impact on habitats or species; significant changes in ecological conditions of habitats types
or species, significant impact to the habitat types or to natural
development of species.

Moderately
negative
impact
(adverse
impact
which is not
significant)

Limited/moderate/non-significant negative impact

Significant adverse impacts have to be reduced, by applying mitigation measures, to the level below the threshold of significance.
Should this not be possible, it is necessary to reject the project
as not acceptable.

Moderately negative impact to habitat or species population; moderate disruption of ecological demands of habitat or species;
marginal impact on habitat or natural development of a species.
Its elimination or mitigation via proposed mitigation measures is
possible by application of proposed mitigation measures.
Project implementation is possible.

Without
impact

The project has no demonstrable impact.

+1

Positive
effect
which is not
significant

Moderate positive effect on habitats or population; moderate

improvement of ecological conditions of habitats or species; moderate positive impact on habitats or on natural development of
species.

+2

Significantly
positive
effect

Significant positive effect on habitats or populations; significant

improvement of ecological conditions of habitats or species, significant positive effect on habitats or on natural development of
species.

Using this scale also facilitates the proposal of the final conclusion on the impact of the given
project on site integrity. Namely, if even single target feature of a given EN site is assessed as being
significantly affected even after the mitigation measures have been applied and re-assessed, i.e.,
with the value -2. This automatically means that the integrity of that site has been adversely
affected and that the given project must not be authorized.
45

6.7. Mitigation measures

6.7.1. Character and purpose of mitigation measures
Mitigation measures are those aimed at reducing the projects impact below the level of
significance. They usually refer to the timing and way of implementation of the project. They
must always be linked to particular target habitat types and target species.
ENIA, as already mentioned before, has two basic aims. First, it has to exhaustively assess the
likely impacts of the project under scrutiny on EN sites (their target features and site integrity).
However, there is another aim: to find a way how to make projects which are likely to have adverse
effects on site integrity nevertheless acceptable, i.e., to modify them so as their impacts drop
below the threshold of significance. The tool for achieving this is mitigation measures.
It is evident from this clarification that mitigation measures are only such measures which are
directly or indirectly linked to the particular project and the reduction of its effects on particular
target features of the given EN site. General environment protection measures or measures which
are obligatory according to other laws on the environment, fire protection, protection of human
health and public safety are not mitigation measures in the meaning of the Habitats Directive
unless they explicitly address the impacts on site target features.
In real cases it often happens that any of the individual effects of a given project does not have
significant impact on target features alone; however, synergic interaction of all these nonsignificant project effects may lead to significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measures might
be necessary to also mitigate these small effects in order to prevent the overall impact of a project
become significant.
Box 9: Selected examples of measures which are not mitigation measures
Example of measure

Explanation why proposed measure is not

mitigation measure

As one of mitigation measures, it is proposed Basic examination of the reference state is not
to carry out examination of the target species a mitigation measure but a prerequisite for the
in order to get the data on reference state of proper impact assessment.
that particular species.
Decanting of fuel into the machines and ve- These measures have no direct relation nessels should be done in a way preventing con- ither to any site of ecological network nor to
the target features nor to the particular protamination of watercourses by the fuel.
ject impacts on target features and thus canIn case of an accident of machines, vehicles, not be called mitigation measures.
vessels or fuel spilling, to immediately act in
agreement with legislative provisions. Vessels Moreover, these measures follow from the
which will carry out the works must have suffi- other law (e.g. water protection) and as such
cient number of floating barriers preventing are obligatory thus, cannot be considered
potential pollution (by fuel, engine oil, etc.) additional mitigation measures.
into the surrounding water.

46

Box 10: Selected examples of mitigation measures

Example of mitigation measure

Explanation of mitigation measure

Change in timing of implementation of a Shift of the implementation period outside

project
breeding, rearing, roosting, hibernation
season etc. of particular animal species
Execution of works outside the vegetation
season of plants, etc.
Small changes in project location (or its Small changes in project location (of some its
particular components)
parts or components) to avoid interference
with habitats of species, habitat types, with
migration corridors and flyways which do not
change the overall location of the project
Reduction of project size

Avoidance of certain impacts or reduction of

their significance

Change in technology

Replacing technology with significant impacts

by another one delivering the same economic
benefits but neither affecting species nor
deteriorating habitats (example: using the
suction excavator for bottom sediment removal
from a lake instead of drying up the lake and
using caterpillar excavator)

Reduction of size/impact of preparatory and Avoidance (reduction) of impact on species

ancillary installations
and habitat types
Measures preventing the animals to get into Various species-specific fences (against birds,
the construction site/carriageway or so
amphibians, small mammals, combination of
regular and electric fence against bears, etc.)
Measures protecting the animals from the Anti-noise walls, anti-dazzling walls and
impacts of noise and light
fences, setting of lighting avoiding attraction
of bats etc..
Measures maintaining the permeability of Various underpasses and overpasses, otter
linear as well as transversal constructions bridges in existing as well as new culverts, fish
passes through dams and weirs, etc.
and ecological connectivity of the landscape
It is important to note that mitigation measures have to be feasible. During definition of mitigation
measures it is necessary to list all mitigation measures that are going to be applied and to describe
in which way do they eliminate or mitigate significant negative impact on the target features of the
EN site.
If during the assessment of significance of the project impact on the target species and habitat
types it is concluded that the impact may be significant, the licensed company has an obligation
to propose for the mitigation of impact (or even better elimination of impact). Mitigation measures
have to fulfil following conditions:
47

 they have to be specific, related to target species and habitat types of the certain ecological
network site: it has to be clear in which way (and to what extent) is significance of impact
mitigated
they have to be feasible (an agreement between the licensed company and designer is
essential since the proponent has to guarantee implementation of the mitigation measures
and designer and proponent have the knowledge about technical capabilities)
It has to be made clear that not all the impacts can be mitigated. The purpose of this stage of
proposing mitigation measures is to critically evaluate the mitigation possibilities; if some (or
none) of project effects cannot be mitigated it should be clearly stated in the respective part of
ENIA study instead of trying to propose any measure which in fact would not mitigate any impact.
Once the mitigation measures have been proposed the assessment of impact of the given project
must be repeated, taking into account the assumed positive effect of mitigation measures. It does
not mean that the main assessment has to be repeated in full extent and detail. However, this
additional assessment should be detailed enough to clearly show in which way and to which extent
the proposed mitigation measure is to reduce the particular effect(s) of the project under scrutiny.
These assumptions should be underpinned by calculations, justified estimation or another kind
of quantification: mere personal view of the person in charge of the assessment does not
represent a data which could be accepted as serious impact significance evaluation. Regarding
the strict precautionary principle of the whole ENIA also the mitigation measure must be able to
ensure the mitigating effect.
Table 3: Proposed representation of mitigation measures and repeated impact assessment
Area

Target
feature

Impact

POVS
HR2000593
Mrenica
Tounjica

Rutilus virgo Interruption

of migration
corridor
during
spawning
as a
consequence
of dam
construction

Assessment Mitigation
measure
impact
significance

Assessment
impact
significance
after
mitigation of
impact

Final
assessment
of impact
including
cumulative
impact

-2

-1

-1, the
project is
acceptable
with
mitigation
measures

Construction
of fish pass

Investor should be aware that once the mitigation measures have been proposed and later accepted
by the competent authority (in terms of being included in the ENIA decision), they will become
part of the project proposal. It means that they have to be implemented as an intrinsic part of the
project; they cannot be postponed or abandoned as without them the project in question would
have significant impact and would not be acceptable at all.

48

Practical tip: The interference of project effects with target features in the impact areas has to
be analysed in space and time. Therefore it is advisable to list all target features of the impact
area and check whether there is any indication of spatial and functional conflict with the assessed
project. If so, it should be checked whether the potential conflict can be ruled out because of the
timing/duration of the project sometimes a simple change in project timing can avoid or reduce
significant impact. Such a change in timing is an example of the simplest and most frequent
mitigation measure.

6.7.2. Difference between mitigation and compensatory measures

Mitigation measures focus on the cause of the impacts and reduce the latter below the level
of significance. They are always connected with the target habitats or species. They are
implemented at the projects location.
Compensatory measures compensate for the loss (deterioration) of particular habitat types and
species. They resolve the consequence of the project and are implemented outside the project
location.
Sometimes doubts may arise about the difference between mitigation and compensatory
measures; especially as in practice some of these measures can look identical. It is important
to differentiate between these two types of measures; in reality the difference between them is
easily recognizable.
Mitigation measures, as this term indicates, aim at mitigating the adverse impact of the given
project. Mitigation measure is, therefore, always linked to the project, it modifies it, relocates
it, changes timing of its implementation or operation, but the link between it and the project
is always clear (see also the table in the previous paragraph). Mitigation measures apply only
during the procedure of main assessment, i.e., within the proceedings of Art. 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive, and to be considered real mitigation measure they have to reduce the significance of
impact of given project on target features if they do not meet this requirement (e.g. act neutrally,
i.e., are without both positive and negative impact) they are not mitigation measures.
Compensatory measure, on the contrary, compensates for the loss (or significant deterioration)
of particular habitat types and /or species caused by the given project and is always linked to
new habitats and habitats of species i.e., there is no link to the project causing that need for
compensatory measure. In addition, compensatory measures can only be made up and applied
within the procedure of Art. 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, i.e., during the procedure of establishing
overriding public interest.
In 2014, these differences were described in detail in one of the rulings of the CJEU (see box 11).

49

Box 11 The CJEU ruling in the Case C-521/12

In 2014 the Court of Justice of the EU brought in a ruling in Case C-521/12 Briels and Others
clarifying the difference between the mitigation measures in the meaning of Article 6(3) of the
Habitats Directive and compensatory measures in the meaning of Article 6(4). To illustrate the
way how the CJEU approaches such complex cases, a summary of that ruling is attached in this
box. The full version of the ruling can be downloaded
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=148401&pageIndex=0&doclang=HR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=212455
A. Description of the circumstances
A ministerial order was adopted in the Netherlands relating a motorway project concerning,
inter alia, the widening of that motorway. That project affects a Natura 2000 site which was
designated as an SAC for natural habitat type Molinia meadows. The assessment concluded that
the motorway would affect 6.7 hectares of Molinia meadows due to drying out, acidification of
the soil and increased nitrogen deposits. However, that assessment also stated that sustainable
conservation and development of the Molinia meadows can be achieved if the hydrological system
was completed during the construction of the motorway. It would allow the Molinia meadows
to expand on the SAC. The ministerial order stated that this will allow for the development of
a larger area of Molinia meadows of higher quality, thereby ensuring that the conservation
objectives for this habitat type are maintained through the creation of new meadows.
Briels and Others brought an action against the ministerial order before the court stating that
the development of new Molinia meadows on the SAC could not be taken into account in the
determination of whether the sites integrity was affected. They alleged that such a measure
cannot be categorised as a mitigation measure.
The Council of State of the Netherlands asked the Court of Justice of the EU (Court) the following
questions:
Is the expression will not adversely affect the integrity of the site in Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive to be interpreted in such a way that, where the project affects the area of a target
habitat type within a Natura 2000 site, the integrity of the site is not adversely affected if in the
framework of the project an area of that natural habitat type of equal or greater size to the
existing area is created within that site? If not, is the creation of a new area of a natural habitat
type then to be regarded in that case as a compensatory measure within the meaning of
Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?
B. The ruling
The Court reminded that, where a plan or project is likely to undermine the sites conservation
objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site. In order for
the integrity of a site not to be adversely affected the sites constitutive characteristics must
permanently be preserved that are connected to the presence of a target habitat type.
In this case the motorway project will have significant adverse effects for the sites protected
habitat type Molinia meadows, due to drying out, acidification and increase in nitrogen deposits.
Such a project is liable to compromise the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics
of the Natura 2000 site in question and, consequently, adversely affect the integrity of the site.

50

The Court further reminded that the assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and
conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works
proposed on the SAC concerned. The application of the precautionary principle in the context
of the implementation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires the competent national
authority to assess the implications of the project for the Natura 2000 site concerned in view of
the sites conservation objectives and taking into account the protective measures forming part
of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site, in order to
ensure that it does not adversely affect the integrity of the site. However, protective measures
provided for in a project which are aimed at compensating for the negative effects of the project
on a Natura 2000 site cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the implications of the
project provided for in Article 6(3). This is the case of the measures at issue in this case which,
in a situation where the competent national authority has in fact found that the motorway project is liable to have potentially permanent adverse effects on the protected habitat type on
the Natura 2000 site, provide for the future creation of an area of equal or greater size of that
habitat type in another part of the site which will not be directly affected by the project.
It is clear that these measures are not aimed either at avoiding or reducing the significant
adverse effects for that habitat type caused by the motorway project; rather, they tend to compensate after the fact for those effects. They do not guarantee that the project will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
It should further be noted that any positive effects of a future creation of a new habitat which is
aimed at compensating for the loss of area and quality of that same habitat type on a protected
site, even where the new area will be bigger and of higher quality, are highly difficult to forecast
with any degree of certainty and, in any event, will be visible only several years into the future.
Consequently, they cannot be taken into account at the procedural stage provided for in Article
6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
Consequently, it follows from the foregoing considerations that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project which has negative implications
for a type of natural habitat present on a site and which provides for the creation of an area of
equal or greater size of the same natural habitat type within the same site, has an effect on the
integrity of that site. Such measures can be categorised as compensatory measures within
the meaning of Article 6(4) only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied.

6.7.3. Monitoring of mitigation measures

If mitigation measures are applied, their efficiency has to be monitored by a surveillance
program proposed as a part of ENIA. This program has to focus on particular target habitat
types and target species the impact on which is to be reduced by the mitigation measures.
National law also requires as an intrinsic part of ENIA study delivery of the proposal of a monitoring
and reporting program aimed at implementation of prescribed mitigation measures in relation to
site conservation objectives and site integrity.
Therefore, the monitoring and reporting program should focus on those target features for
which mitigation measures have been proposed. Its purpose is not to replace the tasks of public
51

administration regarding monitoring of the status of sites of EN but to help collect evidence about
the real impacts of the project after its implementation. The proposed mitigation measures are
expected to reduce the significant impacts; the main purpose of monitoring should be to regularly
check if the objective of mitigation measures has been met. Should no mitigation measures be
proposed as no significant impacts have been revealed there is no need for any sophisticated
monitoring: the project proponent should only check at reasonable intervals (very often just once
after certain period of time from the completion of project implementation) the status of target
features identified as being likely impacted.
There will be big difference between the monitoring program of projects which only may have
impact during their construction and those where impacts are expected during their (even longterm) operation. For example, monitoring of target features impacted by the construction stage of
a motorway will probably focus on remedy of the impacts of temporary and ancillary constructions
at the building sites and will be one-off; contrary to that, identified likely impact on target features
(partly the same, partly different) during the operation of that motorway will need to me monitored
for many years at regular intervals using different methodology.
Monitoring program has to focus on identification of status of particular target features in relation
to the given project. Programs consisting in mere inventories (observations) of the presence
of target features do not make any sense; they just represent a burden for the investor while
giving no data on the project impacts to the authorities. Attention should be paid to the proper
timing and frequency of monitoring: field inspection outside the season of activity cannot deliver
any benefit; also, status of many biological objects can only be assessed after having data from
several seasons (to exclude random natural fluctuations). Generally it can be said that tailored
monitoring program using commonly accepted methodologies, restricted to less target features
serving as indicators of the state of target features, is much more useful (and often cheaper)
than general unspecified inventories or mere on-spot observations. For this reason such program
should always be proposed by specialists in given target features that should be well aware of the
purpose of that monitoring and should never be mixed up with gathering of scientific data. Should
the licensed companies not have the relevant specialists in their staff they should outsource
them. It should be borne in mind that the ultimate purpose of any monitoring program is to
timely identify possible problems in project implementation and to modify the project accordingly.
Therefore, any monitoring program should enable the competent authorities to take decision
in case of emergency when the monitoring data show that the mitigation measures do not meet
their purpose and particular target features are put at risk by the project on the necessary
modification or even halting the project.
It should be noted that the national law requires project proponent to bear the costs of the
programme of monitoring of mitigation measures. Thus should be duly reflected in the
implementation budget of the project.

52

7. Implementation of the procedure of establishment of

overriding public interest and authorization of a project
through compensatory measures
In specific cases it is possible to authorize public projects with significant impact on EN sites
if a set of specific conditions is met. These conditions include lack of alternatives, imperative
reasons and overriding character of the public interest on implementation of the given project,
feasibility of compensatory measures. As a rule a proof about implementation and of functionality
of compensatory measures must be given prior to the authorization of such projects.
The proper ENIA ends up at the moment when the competent authority either MENP or CAO
issues the final decision on acceptability of the project for ecological network. However, in
accordance with the provisions of the EU Habitats Directive, also the national law provides the
possibility to the project proponents to apply for the derogation procedure enabling them under
specified strict conditions to nevertheless implement their projects even if the conclusion from
ENIA has been negative, i.e., that those projects were not acceptable for the ecological network
due to the likelihood of significant adverse impacts.
This derogation procedure ensues from the provisions of Art. 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. In
fact it does not consist of the proper assessment. Its aim is to check if the strict conditions of
Art. 6(4) have been met and if this is the case, to compare the value of the public interest in
implementation of the given project to the public interest on maintenance of given EN sites and to
decide which of these public interests prevail. If all conditions are met but the public interest on
the maintenance of the affected EN site is higher than the public interest in the given project (e.g.
when the site hosts target features which are unique, endemic and irreplaceable) then the project
implementation must not be authorized. Should the situation be opposite, implementation of such
project can be authorized provided relevant compensatory measures have been implemented.
However, if relevant compensatory measures are not feasible for any reason (see further), the
project in question must not be authorized even if the public interest in its implementation were
prevailing compared to the interest in maintaining the ecological values of the affected EN sites.
Particular conditions of this derogation procedure are described below.

7.1. Alternative solutions

At the very beginning of the derogation procedure a proof has to be given by the project proponent
about the lack of alternatives to his project without significant impact.
Even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the national legislation, it follows from the Habitats Directive
that before launching the procedure of establishing the overriding public interest and compensatory
measures the project proponent has to give proof on lack of alternatives to his project without
significant impact, and that if there are more such alternatives all having significant impact, the
competent authority should authorize, during the procedure of evaluating the overriding nature of
public interest, that alternative which is least harmful to the ecological network.
53

Even though the project proponent is responsible for providing the proof of the non-existence of
alternative solutions without an impact, it is the state who is liable that all feasible alternatives
have really been checked. Therefore, the competent authority must not only rely on the claim of
the project proponent 18.
In the case that there is an alternative to the goal of the project, it is again the competent authority
who is to check for the presence or absence for such alternatives. This may also require intersectoral consultations and inter-sectoral agreement.

7.2. Public interest

Only projects in public interest are eligible for getting approval during this procedure. Investors
as well as realizers of the projects may be private; however, the interest in implementation such
projects must always be public.
The case law of the CJEU explicitly emphasizes that the entire 6(4) procedure is derogation from
the criterion for authorization laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) and therefore be
interpreted strictly19. It means that all the requirements of this derogation provision have to
be met at once. The first of these requirements is that the project allowed to be subject to this
procedure must of public purpose20. Projects serving solely private purposes do not qualify as
being acceptable for the derogation procedure.
It is to note that public project does not mean public investor. It is irrelevant who is going to be
the investor (project proponent) or who is going to build it. Important is only the purpose, which
has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Even if the national law does not explicitly emphasize the fact that only the public projects can go
through the derogation procedure competent authority should be aware of the binding nature of
the CJEU rulings and act accordingly.

7.3. Feasibility of compensatory measures

Many target habitat types and species of EN sites are not compensable due to their ecological
characteristics or impossibility of restoration. Projects going to impact such target features
cannot go further through this procedure even if there is a high public interest in their implementation.
National law correctly requires that in order to save time and resources of project proponents it
should first be checked if it is possible to compensate the impacts of their projects. The reason
is that, as described in more detail in chapter 7.6, some target habitat types and habitats of
target species are not compensable (or not compensable in a real time) due to current ecological
conditions, the biological nature of these target habitats and species or the case may be that
18
19
20

54

Case C 239/04 Commission v Portugal

Case C 239/04 Commission v Portugal
Case C-182/10 Solvay and Others

the functionality of the compensatory measures can only be confirmed after a very long period
of time (e.g. compensating of primary forest habitats would need around hundred years of
uninterrupted development until it could be confirmed that the structure and function of those
habitats correspond to the desired state). Should some or all the target habitats or species of a
given EN site which is to be sacrificed due to imperative reasons of overriding public interest
be not compensable the application for such project has to be, according to both EU as well as
national law, rejected and project must not be authorised. The possibility of compensation should
not be evaluated in an academic way: the compensatory measures have to be implemented in the
field prior to authorization of the given project; therefore, even for compensable target features
the project proponent must guarantee and provide proof of implementation (see chapter 7.6), not
just make mere consideration about the possibility of compensation.

7.4. Imperative reasons

Reasons for which the projects within this procedure can be authorized must be imperative. It
means that their implementation cannot be postponed, which has to be underpinned by good
reasoning.
Art. 6(4) of the Habitats Directive require that the reasons for which the given project may be
permitted are, among others, imperative. This term is often omitted when considering the reasons
for project authorization; also the national legislation does not mention it explicitly. However, it is
necessary that the competent authority brings the reasons why there are (or are not) reasons of
overriding public interest; justification of these reasons should be grounded, inter alia, on the fact
that the reasons for project implementation are (or are not) imperative.
Imperative in the context of the Habitats Directive means that the reasons behind it cannot be
delayed, i.e., that the given project is really urgent and irreplaceable by any other solution. Many
public projects do not meet this condition: they might be pretty useful if implemented but if not
there would be hardly any damage to the society or national economy.

7.5. Overriding public interest

The need for particular project has to be compared with particular EN site in order to compare
its societal value (other imperative reasons of public interest) with the relative ecological value
of the site. This is always a case-by-case comparison: the same project may be overriding compared to a site with relatively more common and widespread target habitats or species while not
overriding if the impacted site hosts habitats or species with high ecological value.
Even the fact that the given project is public, reasons for its implementation are imperative and
the target features it is going to significantly affect are compensable is not sufficient for getting
it authorised. The final prerequisite is that the reasons for implementation of the given project
are prevailing compared to the reasons for conservation and maintenance of the EN site or sites
which have to be sacrificed.
55

For this comparison, two kinds of considerations (analyses) have to be carried out. The first one
is collecting evidence on and quantification of public benefits from the project in question. Good
guidance can be provided by studying the opinions of the European Commission issued since
1995 on the requests of EU MS in the procedure of permitting big projects affecting the Natura
2000 sites hosting priority habitat types and/or priority species21. It is clear that the benefits of
such projects must refer to large regions (if not to all territory of the Member State) and must
guarantee substantial economic and social contributions (e.g. in terms of long-term provision
of thousands of new jobs, substantially improved social cohesion in wider regions, etc.). Just
temporary benefits (e.g. creation of temporary jobs during the construction of a project) or social
improvements with limited geographical impacts can hardly be accepted as justification for such
projects.
The other consideration refers to the relative value of the EN sites likely to be affected by the
project. During the proper ENIA (i.e., procedure of assessment according to Art. 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive, all target features of a given EN site have the same weigh: it is irrelevant if the target
habitat or species is rare or common in the country, important is only if it can be significantly
affected or not. However, in the procedure of establishing overriding public interest the way of
assessment of particular sites and their ecological and conservation value is different. Namely,
each affected target habitat or species should be assessed as to its relative rarity (or common
nature) within all the sites of EN in the given biogeographical region or even in the whole country.
Those target features which are common and occur in higher number of EN sites (e.g., beech
forest habitat types) are relatively much less rare than habitat types with restricted occurrence,
of endemic nature, or depending on unusual abiotic conditions (e.g., the habitat type 32A0 Tufa
cascades of karstic rivers in the Dinaric Alps). The rarer is the affected habitat type or species
the higher is the relative conservation value of the site hosting it. The depth of this analysis of
ecological and conservation value of the affected EN site or sites should be enabling to approach
the last step comparison of the public interest on implementation of the given project to the
public interest on maintenance of the site. Even if this step is in its end political it should always
be based on expert arguments provided within the two types of analyses described in previous
paragraphs.
The final decision about the presence or absence of overriding public interest should always be
underpinned by clear, quantified arguments on both types of public interest mentioned above, and
consideration about the prevalence of one of them convincingly justified

21

56

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm

7.6. Feasibility of compensatory measures

Compensatory measures aim at replacing the target habitats and species of the affected
site by identical habitats and species with the same or even bigger area/population. These
compensatory measures can be implemented within the existing site of EN, outside any existing
EN site in a form of newly established habitats, or in a form of adding new site with the natural
occurrence of the required habitat types or species to the EN.
Implementation of compensatory measures involves several factual and administrative steps
starting from identification of suitable land, its acquisition, change in land use, implementation
of the measures and providing proof of their functionality.
Compensatory measures for sites important for conservation of birds should provide substitute
habitats for the same bird population like at the original EN site which is to be deteriorated or
destroyed.
As mentioned in chapter 4.3.3, compensatory measures are prerequisite for granting authorization
within the procedure of establishing overriding public interest.
The aim of compensatory measures is to maintain the ecological coherence of Natura 2000
network. Although the term ecological coherence is not defined in the directive, the settled
interpretation is that the Natura 2000 network remains coherent if all the habitat types and species
within the sites are maintained in a long-term as to their quality and quantity. From this it follows
that if there is a project likely to deteriorate or destroy target habitats or species of a site, such a
loss must obligatorily be replaced like for like, i.e., by at least the same quantity and quality of
the same habitat types and species, so that the whole Natura 2000 network remains ecologically
coherent even after the intervention has been implemented.
According to the most recent EU guidelines on management of Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive22
from 2015, only three types (kinds) of compensatory measures are acceptable for meeting the
requirement of maintenance of overall coherence of Natura 2000 network:
a. establishment of replacement habitats and habitats of species of equal size/area
outside existing Natura 2000 sites and official designation of this newly established site
(sites) as new Natura 2000 site;
b. establishment (restoration) of new habitats inside a Natura 2000 site in its part where
no target habitats and species occur currently;
c. designation of a new Natura 2000 site on a location where relevant habitat types and
species already occur. Especially if the new site is to be designated for species, it may be
necessary to also improve the habitat quality or even undertake restoration measures
to make the new site appropriate for the given species.
The first two options are highly preferred as they do not lead to the overall loss of area of the
given habitat type or population of a given species at the biogeographical level. This is not the
22

Managing Natura 2000 sites - The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC - draft,
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3c13a399-8506-4d52-b0b6-772e01ec5a53
57

case of the third option when the overall area of a habitat type or population of a species within
Natura 2000 network is maintained but the overall area/population at the biogeographical level is
reduced by implementation of the given project.
There has been little practical experience with compensatory measures across the EU yet, and
it is difficult to get information on implemented measures. Therefore, the following paragraphs
are mostly based on theoretical considerations about what steps have to be met in order to get
functional compensation prior to the authorization of the given project. They only refer to those
target habitat types and species which, as described in chapter 7.3, are not excluded from the
possibility of compensation due to their ecological or abiotic characteristics. These considerations
are relevant only to the options a) and b) above.

7.6.1. Ecological prerequisites and the design of compensatory measures

To compensate a site of ecological network one must find a site (or more sites for individual target
habitats and species) with similar ecological structure and functions. The latter depend on many
abiotic factors (pedology, hydrology, geological bedrock, altitude, climate, prevailing direction and
strength of winds, precipitation). Ecological requirements of many target features are well known;
suitable locations for compensatory habitats must fully correspond to their needs. However, there
are still many target features with little known or completely unknown ecology; it would be difficult
to find a suitable locations for their compensation.
Compensatory measures should be proposed by experts in given habitats and species in a form of
technical study describing all the requirements and technical and technological needs. Proposal
of measures should also be co-drafted by experts having the technical knowledge related to
implementation of various types of measures (various geotechnical, hydro technical, forestry etc.)

7.6.2. Assurance of land ownership

Compensatory measures are to be implemented on land which, as a rule, is not a property of the
project proponent. However, to be assured that these measures would really be implemented and
their location designated as part of EN later, it is necessary that project proponent acquires the
ownership or similar right to the land identified in chapter 7.6.1 and provides a proof of it to the
competent authority.

7.6.3. Authorization of land use change

Only in rare cases the land designated for compensation will meet the ecological requirements
of compensated habitats or species without any land use change. The change of land use
requires applying for administrative procedures according to legislation different from that on
nature protection. Geodetic data are often needed and the whole procedure is lengthy due to
the involvement of other authorities, local communities, neighbour landowners and other
stakeholders. An effectual authorization for the land use changes entitling the project proponent
to create the compensatory habitats should be another prerequisite for the consent on the project.
58

7.6.4. Creation of compensatory measures and proof of their functionality

The EU guidance document recommends that prior the project in question has been given an
authorization the compensatory measures are implemented and proof of their functionality
provided to the competent authority.
There is no doubt about the first requirement. All works in the field needed for establishment of
the compensatory measures must be fully implemented.
As the proof of functionality regards, there are many habitat types and species which are little
known and for which no field data on the possibility of compensation exist. For them, the proof
of functionality is a must: authorization of the project without having certainty about having
functional compensation would be breaching of the EU. In some cases, however, there are certain
habitat types or species which are either ecologically highly adaptable or which are known to
be compensated relatively easily. Example of such a habitat type might be e.g. 91E0 * Alluvial
forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)
which, if hydrological prerequisites are met, can re-establish itself almost spontaneously and the
success of compensation is guaranteed. For such habitats and species the sufficient proof for
the competent authority (if all the previous steps have been met) should be the fact (obligatorily
confirmed by the field inspection) that the compensated habitat has been established.

7.6.5. Compensatory measures for sites important for bird conservation

The Habitats Directive states in its Art. 7 that provisions of Article 6(3) and 6(4) apply also to
sites established as a part of Natura 2000 network pursuant to the Birds Directive 2009/147/
EU. Therefore, all requirements for compensatory measures must be met if the given project is
to significantly affect the site of ecological network important for birds (SPA). However, due to
ecological requirements of birds the demands on compensatory measures may be partly different,
i.e., stricter.
Namely, in case of birds the objective of compensatory measures is not just to compensate for
quantitative parameters (in terms of area of habitats and habitats of species with the same quality).
Many SPAs host bird species or their assemblages which are geographically bound to the given
region and if their habitat is to be deteriorated or destroyed they would never have any chance to
change this geographical linkage. Therefore, it is not sufficient that the compensatory measure
provides the habitats needed for life of affected bird species. That measure must at the same time
provide opportunity for the same populations affected by the project to move to the new habitat. For
example, it is not an option to establish suitable habitat condition for a certain bird assemblage of
waterfowl in another part of the country: birds have encoded their migration routes for thousands
of years and if the compensatory habitat is far away from the original location: they will never find
it and the whole population may get extinct. Therefore, the possibility of compensation for birds
has to be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on each particular POP and its species
composition, population sizes, as well as other ecological circumstances affecting the birds.

59

7.6.6. Costs of compensatory measures

It follows clearly from the principle polluter pays that all the costs of compensatory measures
have to be borne by the project proponent. It should not be forgotten that in addition to all the
costs incurred during preparation of the measures and their implementation, also the costs of
regular maintenance and management of the newly established sites, as well as the costs of a
focused monitoring programme providing proof about the success of compensatory measures,
should be included as an intrinsic part of the budget for the original project.
National law also requires monitoring of implemented compensatory measures and states
explicitly that the cost of that monitoring is to be borne by project proponent.

60

8. Transboundary ENIA
Effects of any project should be assessed as to their transboundary impacts, if appropriate.
Many projects may have their transboundary effects, too. If there are corresponding Natura 2000
sites in the neighbouring country, impacts on their target features have to be taken into account
in the same way like any other target feature of the ecological network. It might be difficult to get
data on those Natura 2000 sites but this should not be an excuse for not including them into ENIA.
Transboundary effects are not taken into account if the neighbouring country is not an EU MS as
in such a case the provisions of the Habitats Directive are not applicable to the territory of that
country23.
As it has already been mentioned in chapter 6.5., transboundary effects of a project located abroad
on the sites of ecological network in Croatia have to always be taken into account during ENIA
when assessing cumulative impacts, regardless if the neighbouring country is or is not member
of EU.

23

This statement only refers to ENIA, i.e., appropriate assessment pursuant to Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive but
not to international commitments in the field of transboundary environmental impact assessment according to other
internationally binding law.
61

9. EU guidance documents on ENIA

European Commission has developed a number of guidance documents dealing with ENIA. Their
list is introduced here.
A. EU guidance documents dealing with ENIA
European Commission, 2000: Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
69 pp.
European Commission, 2002: Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000
sites. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 76 pp.
European Commission, 2007: Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
(30 pp).
European Commission, 2011: Guidance document. Non-energy mineral extraction and Natura
2000. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 144 pp.
European Commission, 2011: Guidance document. Wind energy development and Natura 2000.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 116 pp.
European Commission, 2011: Guidelines on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives
in estuaries and coastal zones with particular attention to port development and dredging. 48 pp.
European Commission, 2012: Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the Natura 2000
Network. 89 pp.
European Commission, 2012: Guidance document on sustainable inland waterway development and
management in the context of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. 122 pp.
European Commission, 2013: Guidelines on Climate Change and Natura 2000. 105 pp.
All these documents can be downloaded at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6
In preparation:
Document draft - Managing Natura 2000 sites -The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC - draft,
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3c13a399-8506-4d52-b0b6-772e01ec5a53, 77 pp.
B. Rulings of Court of Justice of the EU relevant for ENIA
Sundset K., Roth P., 2014: Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Rulings of the European Court of
Justice. European Commission, 80 pp. Downloadable at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/caselaw/index_en.htm

62

10. Annex I:
Excerpts of CJEU rulings dealing with Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of
the Habitats Directive
This table was adopted from the publication Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Rulings of the
European Court of Justice (2014) available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/
caselaw/index_en.htm. It encompasses all existing rulings referring to Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the
Habitats Directive issued till 2015.
All CJEU rulings can be downloaded at the CJEU web page in most of official EU languages:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en. Croatian translations are available for
the rulings issued after the 2013 accession to the EU.

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

Article 6(3)
Relationship between C-127/02
Waddenv- The fact that such a plan or project has been
Article 6(2) and Article ereniging and Vogelsauthorised according to the procedure laid
6(3
down in Art. 6(3) renders superfluous a conbeschermingverenigcomitant application of the rule of general
ing, paragraphs 31
protection laid down in Art. 6(2).
38)
Nevertheless, it cannot be precluded that
such a plan or project subsequently proves
likely to give rise to such deterioration or disturbance
Art. 6(2) makes it possible to satisfy the essential objective of the preservation and protection
C-304/05 Commission Where a plan or project has been granted
without complying with Article 6(3), a breach
v Italy, paragraphs 94
of Article 6(2) may be found where deteriora 97; C-388/05 Comtion of a habitat or disturbance of the species
mission v Italy
has been established.

63

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

C-404/09 Commission As to the claim that the loss of habitat is

v Kingdom of Spain,
unimportant for the conservation of the capercaillie species, since the area concerned
paragraphs 113 160
did not contain any breeding ground. That
argument cannot be accepted, because,
even if that area were not usable as a breeding ground, it could conceivably be used by
that species as a habitat for other purposes. Moreover, if that operation had not taken
place in that area, the possibility cannot be
excluded that, following measures taken by
the authorities for that purpose, that area
could have become usable as a breeding
ground
The operation of the mines in question, particularly the noises and vibrations produced,
is capable of causing significant disturbances for that species
Allowing a situation which caused significant
disturbances in the Alto Sil SPA to continue for at least four years, Spain omitted to
take, in good time, the measures necessary
to bring those disturbances to an end.
Which plans or projects
are to be assessed under the Habitats Directive

C 127/02 Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging,

paragraphs 25 29

The fact that the activity has been carried on

periodically for several years on the site concerned and that a licence has to be obtained
for it every year does not in itself constitute
an obstacle to considering it, at the time of
each application, as a distinct plan or project.

C-98/03 Commission v
Germany, paragraphs
43 52

The Directive does not distinguish between

measures taken outside or inside a protected area
The Directive does not permit the assessment to be avoided in respect of certain categories of projects. The fact that it concerns
the use of small quantities of water does not
in itself preclude the possibility that some of
those uses are likely to have a significant effect on a protected site

64

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

C-6/04 Commission v In merely defining potentially damaging opUnited Kingdom,

erations and failing to make land use plans
subject to appropriate assessment the UK
paragraphs 47, 50, 56
has not transposed Art 6(3) and Art 6 (4).
C-418/04 Commission National law must make adequate provision
for projects situated outside SPAs but having
v Ireland, paragraphs
significant effects inside them
227, 232, 233, 239,
244, 246, 252-263
Shellfish farms are not exempted from Article 6(3) because they are small in size
In failing to assess the impact of the drains
maintenance works on the conservation objectives of the Glen Lough SPA before those
works were carried out, Ireland has infringed
the first sentence of Article 6(3)
C-538/09 Commission Belgian national legislation defines projects
installations and activities for which ENIA is
v Belgium, paragraphs
not necessary, including small cattle farms.
50-64
During the year 2006 a complaint was received that a significant deterioration of the
status of several target species of Natura
2000 site has occurred because of the influx
of waste from from the cattle farm to Natura
200 site.
By not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for
certain activities, subject to a declaratory
scheme, when those activities are likely to
have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
C-256/98
Commis- Article 6(3) does not authorise a Member
State to enact national legislation which alsion v France, Paralows the environmental impact assessment
graphs 34-40
obligation for development plans to benefit
from a general waiver because of the low
costs entailed or the particular type of work
planned.

65

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

C-226/08 Stadt Papen- Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive
must be interpreted as meaning that ongoburg v Bundesrepublik
ing maintenance works in respect of the navDeutschland, paraigable channels of estuaries, which are not
graphs 35. 51.
connected with or necessary to the management of the site and which were already authorised under national law before the expiry
of the time-limit for transposing the Habitats
Directive, must, to the extent that they constitute a project and are likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, undergo an assessment of their implications for
that site pursuant to those provisions where
they are continued after inclusion of the site
in the list of SCIs
The role of the compe- C-182/10 Solvay and Article 6(3) obligations are incumbent on
tent authority author- others, paragraph 65the Member States by virtue of the Habitats
ised to a plan or project 70.
Directive regardless of the nature of the national authority with competence to authorise the plan or project concerned
Application of stricter C2/10
Azienda Article 193 TFEU provides that Member
rules than required by A g r o - Z o o t e c n i c a
States may adopt more stringent protective
the directives
protection measures in Natura 2000 sites
Franchini et al, para(ban all windfarms)
graph 39-75
Plans or projects not C-241/08 Commission The fact that the Natura 2000 contracts comdirectly connected with v France, paragraphs
ply with the conservation objectives of sites
the management of a 51-62
cannot be regarded as sufficient, in the light
site
of Article 6(3), to allow the works and developments provided for in those contracts to be
systematically exempt from the assessment
of their implications for the sites
When is an AA required:
Plans or projects likely
to have a significant effect

C127/02 Waddenvere- If there be a probability or a risk of significant

impact. Such a risk exists if it cannot be exniging and Vogelbecluded on the basis of objective information
schermingsvereniging,
that the plan or project will have significant
paragraphs 49 - 44
effects on the site concerned
In case of doubt as to the absence of significant effects such an assessment must be
carried out.

66

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

When is an assessment
appropriate for the purposes of the Habitats
Directive

C127/02 Waddenvere- An appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or
niging and Vogelbeproject must precede its approval
schermingsvereniging,
paragraphs 52 61
All the aspects of the plan or project which
can affect those (conservation) objectives
must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.
competent national authorities must approve the plan or project only after having
made sure 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
Case C-304/05 Com- As regards the birds for which the SPA has
been designated, the (AA) report does not
mission v Italy, paracontain an exhaustive list of the wild birds
graphs 46 73
present in the area. The report contains
numerous findings that are preliminary in
nature and it lacks definitive conclusions.
These factors mean that the report cannot
be considered an appropriate assessment.
Both the study of 2000 and the report of 2002
have gaps and lack complete, precise and
definitive findings and conclusions capable
of removing all reasonable scientific doubt
as to the effects of the works proposed on
the SPA concerned. Such findings and conclusions were essential in order that the
competent authorities might gain the necessary level of certainty to take the decision to
authorise the works
Case C-43/10 Com- It cannot be held that an assessment is appropriate where information and reliable and
mission v Greece, paraupdated data concerning the birds in that
graphs 106 117,
SPA are lacking

67

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

Case C-404/09 Com- The assessments concerning the open-cast

mining projects cannot be regarded as apmission v Spain, parapropriate since they are characterised by
graphs 101-105, 128gaps and by the lack of complete, precise
148)
and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific
doubt as to the effects of those projects
The assessments do not demonstrate that
the competent national authorities could
have acquired the certainty that those operations would be free of damaging effects for
the integrity of the said site.
C-209/02 Commission By authorising the proposed extension of the
golf course despite a negative assessment of
v Austria, paragraphs
its implications for the habitat of the corn26-29
crake (Crex crex) Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 6(3
C239/04 Commission It is apparent from that study that the project
has a significantly high overall impact and a
v Portugal, paragraphs
high negative impact on the avifauna pres16. 25.
ent in the SPA. The inevitable conclusion is
that, when authorising the planned route of
the A 2 motorway, the authorities were not
entitled to take the view that it would have no
adverse effects on the SPAs integrity.
Significance of effects C127/02 Waddenvere- Where such a plan or project is likely to unin view of the conserva- niging and Vogelbedermine the conservation objectives of the
tions objectives
site concerned, it must necessarily be conschermingsvereniging,
sidered likely to have a significant effect.
paragraphs 46 49

68

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

Adverse effects on the C-258/11 Peter Sweet- The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats
integrity of the site
Directive must be construed as a coherent
man and Others v An
whole in the light of the conservation objecBord Pleanla
tives pursued by the directive.
In order for the integrity of a site as a natural habitat not to be adversely affected for
the purposes of the second sentence of Article 6(3) the site needs to be preserved at
a favourable conservation status; this entails
the lasting preservation of the constitutive
characteristics of the site concerned that are
connected to the presence of a natural habitat type whose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of that site in
the list of SCIs, in accordance with the directive
Authorisation for a plan or project may
therefore be given only on condition that the
competent authorities are certain that the
plan or project will not have lasting adverse
effects on the integrity of that site.
The authorisation criterion laid down in the
second sentence of Article 6(3) integrates
the precautionary principle
The competent national authorities cannot therefore authorise interventions where
there is a risk of lasting harm to the ecological characteristics of sites which host priority natural habitat types
A plan or project will adversely affect the
integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent
the lasting preservation of the constitutive
characteristics of the site that are connected
to the presence of a priority natural habitat
whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of
SCIs.

69

REQUEST
Distinguishing between mitigation
measures and compensation measures

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

C-521/12 Briels and Protective measures provided for in a project

which are aimed at compensating for the
Others, paragraphs 18
negative effects of the project on a Natura
32, 39.
2000 site cannot be taken into account in the
assessment of the implications of the project
provided for in Article 6(3).
It is clear that these measures are not aimed
either at avoiding or reducing the significant
adverse effects for that habitat type caused
by the A2 motorway project; rather, they tend
to compensate after the fact for those effects. They do not guarantee that the project
will not adversely affect the integrity of the
site within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the
Habitats Directive.
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be
interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary
to the management of a site of Community
importance, which has negative implications
for a type of natural habitat present thereon and which provides for the creation of an
area of equal or greater size of the same natural habitat type within the same site, has
an effect on the integrity of that site. Such
measures can be categorised as compensatory measures within the meaning of Article
6(4) only if the conditions laid down therein
are satisfied.

Wadden- An appropriate assessment of the implicaAssessing cumulative C127/02

tions for the site concerned of the plan or
and in combination vereniging and Vogelproject must precede its approval and take
beschermingsvereeffects
into account the cumulative effects which
niging,
paragraphs
result from the combination of that plan or
52-54
project with other plans or projects in view of
the sites conservation objectives

70

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

Assessing cumulative C-392/96

Komisija The purpose of the EIA Directive cannot be
and in combination ef- protiv Irske, brojacircumvented by the splitting of projects and
fects
the failure to take account of the cumulative
na oznaka 76., 82.;
effect of several projects must not mean in
C-142/07
Ecologispractice that they all escape the obligation
tas en Accin-CODA,
to carry out an assessment when, taken tobrojana oznaka 44;
gether, they are likely to have significant efC-205/08
Umwelfects on the environment within the meaning
tanwalt von Krnten,
of Article 2(1) of the EIA Directive.
brojana oznaka 53.
EIA and AA have differ- C-418/04 Commission Assessments carried out pursuant to the EIA
ent legal consequences v Ireland, paragraphs
Directive or SEA Directive cannot replace the
procedure provided for in Article 6(3) and (4)
229 231
of the Habitats Directive
Application of Article C-209/04 Commission The procedure for authorisation of the pro6(3) to plans or projects v Austria, paragraphes
ject for the construction of the S 18 carriageapproved prior to EC ac- 56 - 62
way was formally initiated prior to the date of
cession
accession of Austria to the EU. It follows that,
in the present case, in accordance with the
case-law referred to in paragraph 56 of this
judgment, the obligations under the Habitats Directive did not bind Austria and that
the project for the construction of the S 18
carriageway was not subject to the requirements laid down in that directive.
Authorization of plans C-244/05 Bund Na- The appropriate protection scheme applicable to the sites which appear on a national
or projects affecting turschutz and Others,
list transmitted to the Commission under
pSCIs on the national paragraphs 35 - 47
Article 4(1) of the Directive requires Member
list
States not to authorise interventions which
incur the risk of seriously compromising the
ecological characteristics of those sites.
Authorization of plans
or projects affecting
pSCIs on the national
list

C-43/10 Nomarchiaki The areas which were listed in the national

list of SCIs transmitted to the Commission
Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarand were then included in the list of SCIs
nanias andOthers, paradopted by Commissions decision were
agraph 105
entitled, after notification of that decision
to the Member State concerned, to the protection of that directive before that decision
was published. In particular, after that notification, the Member state is obliged to take
protective measures laid down in Article 6(2)
to (4)

71

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

Article 6(4)
Article 6(4) applies after C-304/05 Commission Article 6(4) can apply only after the implicatian AA has been made
ons of a plan or project have been studied in
v Italy, paragraph 83Caccordance with Article 6(3) of that directive.
521/12 Briels and
Others, paragraph 35
C 258/11 Sweetman
and Others, paragraph 35
C-521/12 Briels and
Others, paragraph 35
The examination of al- C-241/08 Commission Obligation to examine alternative solutions
ternatives is not part of v France, paragraphs
to a plan or project does not come within the
the AA
scope of Article 6(3) but within the scope of
69-72
Article 6(4)
C441/03 Commission The appropriate assessment is not a merely formal process of examination, but must
v Netherlands, paraallow a detailed analysis which satisfies the
graphs 15. 29.
conservation objectives of the site in question
Having regard to the particular characteristics of each of the stages referred to in
Article 6, it must be held that the various
requirements set out in Article 6(4) cannot
constitute elements that the competent national authorities are obliged to take account
of where they carry out an appropriate assessment provided for in Article 6(3)

72

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

The absence of alterna- C239/04 Commission Article 6(4), which permits a plan or protives must be demon- v Portugal, paragraphs
ject which has given rise to a negative assestrated
ssment under the first sentence of Article
25 39
6(3) to be implemented on certain conditions,
must, as a derogation from the criterion for
authorisation laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3), be interpreted strictly
Thus, the implementation of a plan or project
under Article 6(4) is, inter alia, subject to the
condition that the absence of alternative solutions be demonstrated
It is not apparent from the file that those
authorities examined solutions falling outside that SPA and to the west of the settlements, although, on the basis of information supplied by the Commission, it cannot be
ruled out immediately that such solutions
were capable of amounting to alternative
solutions within the meaning of Article 6(4).
Accordingly, by failing to examine that type of
solution, the Portuguese authorities did not
demonstrate the absence of alternative solutions within the meaning of that provision.
Interpretation of the C-182/10 Solvay and An interest capable of justifying, within the
term imperative rea- Others, paragraphs 71
meaning of Article6(4) of the Habitats Direcsons of overriding pub- 79
tive, the implementation of a plan or project
lic interest (IROPI)
must be both public and overriding, which
means that it must be of such an importance
that it can be weighed up against that directives objective of the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. Works
intended for the location or expansion of an
undertaking satisfy those conditions only in
exceptional circumstances.
The creation of infrastructure intended to accommodate a management centre cannot be
regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest,

73

REQUEST

ECJ RULINGS

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

C-43/10 Nomarchiaki Grounds linked, on the one hand, to irrigation and, on the other, to the supply of drinking
Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarwater, relied on in support of a project for the
nanias and others, pardiversion of water, may constitute imperative
agraphs 120 128
reasons of overriding public interest capable
of justifying the implementation of a project
which adversely affects the integrity of the
sites concerned.
Where such a project adversely affects the
integrity of a SCI hosting a priority natural
habitat type and/or a priority species, its implementation may, in principle, be justified
by grounds linked with the supply of drinking water. In some circumstances, it might
be justified by reference to beneficial consequences of primary importance which irrigation has for the environment. On the other
hand, irrigation cannot, in principle, qualify
as a consideration relating to human health
or public safety, justifying the implementation of a project such as that at issue in the
main proceedings..
Compensatory
ures

74

meas- C-43/10 Nomarchiaki The extent of the diversion of water and the
scale of the works involved in that diversion
Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarare factors which must necessarily be taken
nanias and others, parinto account in order to identify with precisiagraphs 130 132
on the adverse impact of the project on the
site concerned and, therefore, to determine
the nature of the necessary compensatory
measures in order to ensure the protection
of the overall coherence of Natura 2000.

List of tables:
Table 1: Differences and similarities between EIA and ENIA on the basis of EU directives

12

Table 2: Scale of impact significance

45

Table 3: Posible representation of the mitigation measures

48

List of boxes:
Box 1: Provisions of Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

Box 2: The EU and the national definition of a project

10

Box 3: Examples of real projects from various parts of Croatia which were subject to
screening even though it could have been apparent that they could not have any impact on
ecological network.

21

Box 4: Example of possible project effects stemming from different stages of the
construction of a water reservoir with power station

25

Box 5: Examples of project effects

26

Box 6: Possible grouping of likely impacts

30

Box 7: Standard Data Form and their use in ENIA procedure

32

Box 8: The approach of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Germany) (Bundesamt
fr Naturschutz) to establishment of thresholds for non-significance and significance of
impacts

44

Box 9: Selected examples of measures which are not mitigation measures

46

Box 10: Selected examples of mitigation measures

47

Box 11: The CJEU ruling in the Case C-521/12

50

List of figures:
Figure 1: Ecological network

Figure 2: Overview of the procedure and outcomes of the ENIA

16

Figure 3: Testing if screening is necessary.

19

Figure 4: Graphic representation of the manner of construction of project effect area

during the main assessment.

27

Figure 5: Graphic representation of situation after the overlap of the project effect area
with sites of ecological network.

28

75

This manual is one of the outputs of the Twinning Light

Project: EU HR/2011/IB/EN/02 TWL Strengthening
the expert knowledge and technical capacity of all
relevant institutions for Ecological Network Impact
Assessment
(CRO ENIA)
This manual can be downloaded from: www.dzzp.hr
This publication has been produced with the
assistance of the European Union. The contents of this
publication are the sole responsibility of Environment
Agency Austria (Umweltbundesamt) and the Croatian
Agency for Environment and Nature and it does not
necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

More about the project: www.dzzp.hr