Even though the Habitats Directive does not specify the term “project” any more closely, a European definition for the term is to be assumed. The ECJ refers to the term “project” in Article 1(2) a) of the EIA Directive for its interpretation of the term and takes a broad view on what projects are. In accordance with Article 1(2) a) of the EIA Directive for the ECJ, the term “project” in Article 6(3) HD includes not only building installations, but also all human interventions in nature and the landscape, independent of whether they are also subject to an authorisation procedure based on national law.⁵⁷ It is therefore not the kind of proposed development that is decisive, but simply the potential effects on Natura 2000 sites, which is why an appropriate assessment is also necessary for activities that are not intrinsically associated with physical change.⁵⁸ This means that every human measure could be a project, if it might have negative potential effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether the project proponent is a private person or public authority, including the legislator. The ECJ also states in settled case law that an appropriate assessment is to be carried out if there is the likelihood or threat that a project, either alone or in combination with other projects and plans, will have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the site concerned.⁵⁹ No appropriate assessment is required if this can clearly be ruled out, i.e. without reasonable doubt, by a screening process.⁶⁰ The screening of a potential threat is to be based on objective circumstances and under consideration of the specific characteristics and environmental conditions of the Natura 2000 site in question. It is only in this appraisal of the potential significant adverse effects that the type, size and location of a project must be considered. However, if the project definition of the ECJ – referring to the term “project” in the EIA Directive – depends on the potential negative effects, then the term “project” includes the screening of the potential impacts.⁶¹ There is only a project in the sense of Articles 6(3) HD, requiring an appropriate assessment, if significant effects could not be ruled out in the screening process. The screening is therefore not an expendable process step,⁶² not mentioned in Article 6(3) HD,⁶³ but is part of the project definition.

A variety of consequences and further questions arise from the impact-related understanding of the term “project”.⁶⁴

6.1.1. Proposed developments within and outside Natura 2000 sites

The protective system stipulated in Article 6(3) HD is basically limited to the protected site within its designated boundaries. Proposed developments outside a Natura 2000 site may, however, have external effects on the conservation objectives of the site – for example, because they emit compounds (e.g. nutrients) or other emissions, including noise (e.g. traffic or aircraft noise), into the site.⁶⁵ A proposed development may also exert an external influence on the water balance within the site, for example, through the diversion of rivers, a reduction in their water levels, or changes in the groundwater levels in the site due to drainage measures.⁶⁶ Such proposed developments are, at minimum, to be subjected to a screening process and to be fully assessed for their compatibility if a significant adverse impact cannot be excluded.⁶⁷ Finally, an appropriate assessment may also be necessary if a proposed development would affect the reproduction or reduce the number of individuals of those species in the relevant protected areas (e.g. in the case of migratory species) or prevent gene flow between the protected animals inhabiting the site and relevant neighbouring populations outside it or prevent access to important food sources, areas where reproduction takes place or resting sites.⁶⁸ Projects are therefore not restricted to proposed developments within Natura 2000 sites.

General specifications for relevant projects based on the size of the radius around the Natura 2000 site are not expedient, because the significant of impacts of projects are rather more dependent on the habitat types and species that are protected, the kind of project and impact, on the attribution of effects over distance and on the impacts of cumulating projects and plans.⁶⁹

6.1.2. Imputation of indirect impacts

The broad scope of an impact-related project term raises the question of when an appropriate assessment for a proposed development is necessary due to indirect impacts. In this process, indirect impacts are to be understood as impacts that are directly and causally linked to the proposed development, but are only associated with the development through additional causal links in a chain. Relevant indirect or collateral effects are present, for example, if non-protected animal and plant species that are a basic food source of a protected species in the site (e.g. insects for birds) are adversely affected by a proposed development or if a river is polluted by the proposed development and the pollutants thus enter into a Natura 2000 site. Such indirect or collateral effects of a proposed development are also relevant to the assessment, insofar as they can be imputed.⁷⁰ No evidence for causality is required in the appropriate assessment and the probability of significant adverse effects due to the proposed development is therefore sufficient.⁷¹

However, an obligation to undergo an assessment, thus a project in the sense of Article 6(3) HD, can no longer be assumed if the expected effects of a proposed development cannot be unambiguously attributed to the development. For example, this is the case for the emission of greenhouse gases, as no concrete association can be made between the proposed development and the effects of climate change on a specific site due to global processes and emissions. The same principally applies if the imputation is affected by the autonomous, independent actions of third parties (e.g. the construction of a biogas plant also results in an increase in maize crops within a Natura 2000 site). Conversely, when cumulative actions and impacts of third parties arise from the proposed development – as is frequently the case for plans – then this increase could be attributed to the development (e.g. when opening or expanding roads or building or expanding housing results in greater visitor traffic and increased negative effects on a Natura 2000 site⁷²).

6.1.3. Planned impacts on Natura 2000 sites?

The BVerwG has raised the question on whether the impact-related term “project” requires greater specification and narrowing down in relation to the general prohibitions to change and disturbance in Article 6(2) HD, stating that a premise for projects within the meaning of Article 6(3) HD is that they must be planned developments.⁷³ The Court therefore only regards human activities that are not related to the construction or operation of a plant as a “project” (e.g. low-altitude flying by military aircraft, airways or non-binding landscape plans) if there is the option of assessing them for their compatibility with the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site, through existing drafts, concepts or a stipulated practice.⁷⁴ The consequence of this would be that measures that had to be carried out ad hoc, like agricultural measures (e.g. pesticide use, conversion of permanent grassland) would not constitute projects in the sense of Article 6(3) HD, which require an assessment of their compatibility. The Court hereby includes considerations on feasibility in the definition of the term “project”.

To what extent this is compatible with Article 6(3) HD appears debatable, as activities that have not been planned comprehensively or are being constantly practised can also constitute interventions with significant adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites. Furthermore, the ECJ has specified strict requirements, also related to the protected goods, of a blanket release from the appropriate assessment for specific proposed developments (see 6.2). After all, a planned approach underlies every activity, which is why a more precise differentiation would be required here based on the quality of forward planning. The question on the option of an official appropriate assessment referred to by the Court is therefore of greater importance, as European Law is also not permitted to demand anything impossible or disproportionate of Member States in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). However, this does not result in a licence for exemption for specific activities. On the contrary, Member States are under the obligation to ensure that all relevant activities can be appropriately assessed by the authorities using suitable procedural provisions. For example, this can be implemented through an obligation to disclose specific activities prior to their conduct (see 6.1.4).

Actions that are exempt from the obligation for assessment are exclusively those that only have the properties of bagatelles and where significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives can be excluded (e.g. leisure activities like walking, cycling or riding on designated). This is because, in this case, only the accumulation of multiple individual actions (many visitors) could have significant adverse effects. Significant negative cumulative effects must be prevented by the authorities through measures pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2) HD (e.g. guiding or limiting visitors) and must also be considered within the scope of the appropriate assessment on the creation of infrastructures (e.g. paths in the site, roads to the site).

6.1.4. No restriction to proposed developments with an obligation for disclosure or authorisation

If the impact on Natura 2000 sites is decisive, then the requirement for an appropriate assessment does not depend on national rules of procedure, especially on an obligation for approval or disclosure.⁷⁵ The ECJ therefore consequently saw a contravention against Article 6(3) HD in the former German legal definition of the term “project”, which had limited the term to proposed developments subject to authorisation.⁷⁶ It is also irrelevant whether a proposed development is planned by a national office, a company or a citizen. Even projects and plans put forward by the legislator are not exempt from the protective system and are also to be assessed.⁷⁷

Nevertheless, a specific obligation for disclosure or approval that is related to Natura 2000 is required for projects that do not otherwise require approval or disclosure, to ensure that the responsible authorities can assess the compatibility of all relevant projects. For this reason, after the judgement reached by the ECJ, a general obligation for disclosure was introduced in § 34(6) of the German Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) for all projects that are otherwise not subject to an obligation for approval or disclosure. The German legislator did not, albeit, define in any greater detail when a human activity constitutes a project.

However, a general obligation for disclosure for “projects” without any further detail on the definition of the term “project” raises significant practical and essentially also legal problems, as the European understanding of the term “project” is then being referred to, based on which all projects are interventions that are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site concerned (see 6.2). This means it is incumbent upon the citizen or company acting in the case concerned to assess whether their planned measure, either alone or in combination with other projects and plans, is likely to have significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives - i.e., these cannot be unambiguously excluded. This screening process that must be conducted ex officio is – as explained above – to be undertaken based on objective circumstances and under consideration of the specific characteristics and environmental conditions of the Natura 2000 site in question. There are significant doubts as to whether every private proponent of a measure (e.g. farmers or foresters, maintenance associations, private building contractors) are in the position, sufficiently competent and also willing to independently carry out such a specialist conservation screening process adequately and objectively or to commission it at their own cost.⁷⁸ The cumulative impacts of other projects and plans alone are difficult to determine and assess for private proponents of a measure, as they will usually have no legal or administrative access to the required information on the other proposed developments.

This means that, in the event of a general obligation for disclosure for “projects”, there is no legal guarantee that all relevant proposed developments will be directed to undergo an official appropriate assessment. The comprehensible interest of the State in limiting the amount of official assessment work,⁷⁹ however, does not justify a lower conservation standard for projects that are not subject to an obligation for approval or disclosure. Therefore, all measures and proposed developments within or in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites, for which adverse effects on the conservation objectives cannot be excluded based on general experience, are to be subject to a blanket obligation for disclosure. The measures and proposed developments, as well as the relevant spatial scope of validity for the obligation for disclosure should be specified in a legally binding manner in a list that is specific to the site or in a general list. In the event that a reduction in administrative work is desired, a general obligation for authorisation could be considered for land use practices (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fishery, and hunting) that have not been subject to approval to date, instead of making every single land use measure subject to disclosure and assessing it in cases of disclosure. This condition for approval should, whenever possible, be associated with a concentrated effect in relation to all obligations under public law and should only apply for a limited time period to ensure that land use is again assessed at regular intervals based on current practices, the legal position and the situation in the site concerned.

6.1.5. Classification of recurrent measures

In spite of longer time frames, there is only one project in the case of uninterrupted operation of facilities (e.g. a motorway). For measures that are not constant, but only recurrent at regular intervals (e.g. maintenance measures⁸⁰; land use measures by agriculture, forestry or fisheries⁸¹), the question arises as to whether this is one contiguous project or several successive individual projects or if a Member State is permitted to stipulate procedural rules on this.⁸² According to the ECJ, the conservation purpose of the Habitats Directive demands, on principle, that every intervention is assessed separately, especially when each measure already requires approval pursuant to national law.⁸³ This apparently applies even when a recurrent measure has finally been approved pursuant to national law before expiry of the deadline for implementation, as the requirement for a renewed appropriate assessment is not contravened by the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.⁸⁴ However, the ECJ does recognise that recurrent maintenance measures can be regarded as a single project within the meaning of Article 6(3) HD if they can be viewed as a uniform measure based on their type or the circumstances of their implementation, especially as they always pursue the same aim (e.g. guaranteeing a specific depth of the shipping channel).⁸⁵ At the core of this lies a weighing up process between the protection of Natura 2000 sites from new interventions that is as comprehensive as possible and considerations on feasibility and legal protection, whereby, even in the case of a uniform project, Natura 2000 sites are constantly under the protection of the general prohibition of deterioration and disturbance in line with Article 6(2) HD.

Due to the impact-related understanding of the term, based on the dynamic development of the habitat types, species and habitat areas in the site concerned, new interventions must essentially be evaluated based on the situation in the site at the time of the planned measures, even if the type and extent of the interventions are similar.⁸⁶ In this process, the conservation status of the habitat types and species and their developmental trends can only be appropriately assessed at regular intervals over a few years due to the diversity of possible ecological changes (especially based on species dynamics and climate change) and the cumulative effects of additional proposed developments and impacts.⁸⁷This means there is usually a change in the environmental situation after a year or more. This, alone, argues against the acceptance of an unlimited uniform project, even if the measures remain the same in type and scope.⁸⁸ Therefore, at minimum, recurrent measures need a screening process in order to check the status of the affected habitat types and species, to apply new scientific knowledge and to check on the environmental situation in the site as a whole, including cumulating projects and plans.

Rather more, the latitude granted by the ECJ in relation to consideration must be interpreted such that, procedurally, recurrent similar measures can only be summarised into one project within a limited time frame (e.g. 3-5 years) without notable losses in protection. In this process, the time frame is to be primarily determined based on the current conservation status of the affected habitat types and species and their assumed development and dynamics within the site. An approval of recurrent measures thus always requires time limitation.⁸⁹ If the type and scope of the measures change, then this constitutes a new project that must be assessed.⁹⁰ In contrast, if the recurrent measures are not subject to approval and also not part of a different approval (e.g. decision on planning approval for waterway construction), then each measure constitutes a project that must be assessed given the absence of the procedural structure inherent in an approval and the fact that no time limit can be imposed. This applies to many recurrent measures, in particular, most measures in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. At minimum, an obligation for disclosure to the responsible authorities is then required for these measures, whereby the introduction of a more comprehensive operating licence is probably associated with less administrative work for authorities and enterprises (see 6.1.4).

The ECJ has taken clear action against any attempts by Member States⁹¹ to extend the scope of the term “project” and to thereby limit the applicability of the appropriate assessment through a statutory exemption for specific interventions and types of proposed development:

It is therefore clear from the case-law of the Court that, in principle, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, a Member State may not, on the basis of the sphere of activity concerned or by introducing a declaratory scheme, systematically and generally exempt certain categories of plans or projects from the obligation requiring an assessment to be undertaken of their implications for Natura 2000 sites. ⁹²

An exemption is only permissible in exceptional cases where the criteria for exemption can guarantee that the possibility of a significant adverse impact on the protected areas due to the projects concerned is ruled out.⁹³ The conditions that justify exemption must guarantee, both systematically and in each individual case, that the activities in question will cause no disturbance that might have a significant adverse impact on the conservation objectives.⁹⁴ In each individual case, therefore, there must also be certainty – i.e. without remaining scientific doubts – that no significant adverse effects are to be expected due to exemptions. A simple reference to the obligation to adhere to general conservation provisions is not sufficient if this will only reduce the threat of significant adverse impacts, but does not exclude them.⁹⁵ Likewise, spheres of action or installations cannot be sweepingly excluded, for example, due to their small scope or the low cost of proposed developments.⁹⁶ This also applies when these have previously already shaped the site, as is the case for agriculture, forestry and fishery or hunting,⁹⁷ or adherence to the conservation objectives has been contractually agreed.⁹⁸ The reason for this is that whether or not an activity or proposed development will have significant adverse effects is not only dependent on their nature and extent, but also on the sensitivity and the condition of the habitat types and species that are under protection in the site in question, as well as on the previous pressures on the site and the additional cumulative effects of other projects and plans.⁹⁹

Projects with a small scope or quantity can also have significant adverse effects on the environment if they are realised in locations where the environmental factors like fauna and flora, soil, water, climate or cultural heritage react sensitively to the tiniest of changes or other impacts exist or are to be expected.¹⁰⁰ Exemptions made in relation to the Natura 2000 appropriate assessment for projects and plans put forward by the administration, such as roads, railways, development plans or relating to the army¹⁰¹, even projects proposed by the legislator¹⁰², are also prohibited as there are no suitable institutional guarantees for sufficient protection. For this reason, plans and projects for site management that are issued with exemption in Article 6(3) HD must also be subject to strict requirements (see 4).

As a result, anticipated statutory exemptions must refer to the sensitivity and the condition of the affected habitat types and species to exclude significant effects with certainty in every case. General exemptions would therefore, at best, comply with these requirements within the designation act of a Natura 2000 site. Even here, compliance with the relevant provision in the designation act should be ensured through an anticipated Habitats Directive appropriate assessment.

Finally, the blanket exemption for certain activities also raises problems in relation to the principle of equality as other activities without exemption are subject to the conservation regime and must accept that the impacts of exempt activities will count against them as a previous pressure or cumulative pressure (e.g. when the high nitrogen pollution from agriculture poses an obstacle to a road construction project).

6.3.1. Creation of sections for linear infrastructural developments

Longer linear infrastructures, such as motorways, railways and waterways or power lines are frequently divided into multiple sections, for which independent plans are then produced and authorisation procedures carried out. According to the BVerwG, such breaking into sections is also permissible in relation to the assessment of compatibility with Natura 2000 and the entire infrastructural development is thus not to be regarded and assessed as one project.¹⁰³ The ECJ also raises no objections to the creation of sections.¹⁰⁴ However, this does not mean that planning that is limited to one section is permitted to completely ignore and not overcome problems that are raised by subsequent sections.¹⁰⁵ A provisional positive overall verdict is required in relation to the subsequent sections, especially within the scope of a derogation assessment pursuant to Article 6(4) HD, to assess whether imperative reasons of overriding public interest justify a significant adverse impact.¹⁰⁶

The BVerwG elaborates in settled case law on the required forecast projection, as follows:

The forecast must predict that the realisation of a proposed development will also not be impeded over its further course by any obstacles that cannot be overcome a priori. Whether or not the subsequent sections of the project can be realised is to be answered in court proceedings based on objective circumstances; what is decisive in this process is whether realisation can be excluded after a summary appraisal of the facts of the case. This forecast will not simply have a negative outcome because the proposed development - as is the case here - could or will probably have adverse impacts on an SCI over its further course; rather more, it must also be considered whether it appears possible to guarantee compatibility with the aid of conservation measures or to achieve permissibility of a proposed development based on a derogation assessment. ¹⁰⁷

Conversely, the legal validity of an approved section does not constitute an obligation to implement the subsequent sections in the sense that it is in the public interest to implement those sections and that this interest can no longer be overcome.¹⁰⁸ Although greater weighting is allocated to the planning of connection points (so-called constraint points) by the BVerwG, these do not create any strict connections in the sense that they must be set as fixed determinants in further planning.¹⁰⁹

6.3.2. Air corridors

Based on the impact-related project term, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) in Germany has recognised that the defining of air corridors constitutes a project within the meaning of Article 6(3) HD if this results in flights over protected areas at a certain regularity and intensity.¹¹⁰ Even the fact that deviations from the defining of flight procedures are permitted in individual cases under German law changes nothing in relation to this. According to the BVerwG, deviations from the defined air corridors requiring approval (e.g. lower flight altitudes) also constitute projects, even if these are associated with the German armed forces and thus serve the purpose of protecting public safety.¹¹¹

6.3.3. Maintenance measures

Maintenance measures entail managing and maintaining objects, including linear structures like roads, railways, waterways, long distance pipelines, supply and sewage pipelines or drainage ditches, and spatially limited facilities like harbours, airports, residential areas or industrial plants. However, in the European cultural landscape, these are also carried out on natural water bodies and near-natural landscape elements (e.g. hedges, parks). Maintenance measures denote that these are intended to reinstate the earlier status quo at regular intervals or as required and to remove natural or anthropogenic changes that have occurred in the interim (e.g. removal of plant growth in drainage ditches, removal of dead wood from water bodies, keeping road and railway margins and power lines clear). These act on a regular basis to combat natural development. Adverse effects on the conservation objectives can therefore not be excluded if these measures are carried out within or in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites, such that this constitutes a project and, at minimum, screening should be conducted.¹¹² The question discussed in 6.1.5 arises, as to whether and to what extent maintenance measures that are temporally separated are to be treated as a project, as these are recurrent measures. This must also be answered for maintenance measures in relation to the fact that measures that are subject to approval can generally be summarised into one project within a limited time span, while measures that are not subject to approval are to be assessed individually and accordingly in line with Article 6(3) HD.

Pursuant to Article 6(3) HD, those measures that are immediately associated with the management of a Natura 2000 site or are required for this purpose do not constitute maintenance measures that are obliged to undergo an assessment. This refers to the conservation, management and developmental measures for the maintenance of the relevant protected habitat types and species as these have no impact on the conservation objectives, but are designed to promote them (see 4).

6.3.4. Land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries

Agriculture and forestry not only constitute the largest uses of areas within and outside Natura 2000 sites, they are also among the factors that pose the greatest threat to habitats and species in the EU (see 2).¹¹³ The reasons for this are manifold. The main causes are the morphological and hydrological re-organisation of areas, including the transformation of permanent grassland into arable land, the intensity of land use and the application of fertilisers and plant protection products. However, the cessation of land use practices in the case of historically cultivated areas (e.g. meadows with scattered fruit trees, alkaline grassland) also causes losses of habitats and species worthy of conservation. Agriculture, in particular, has a substantial influence on Natura 2000 sites, namely, also from outside their boundaries.¹¹⁴ It is questionable to what extent land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries meet the definition of the term “project” and are subject to appropriate assessments. The German Federal legislator had attempted up to 2007 to expressly exclude such land use from appropriate assessments. This was regarded as in contravention of Article 6(3) HD in ECJ infringement proceedings.¹¹⁵ Following this, an obligation for disclosure was introduced for all projects that had previously not required approval, whereby the assumption is established in the justification for the change in law that, as a rule, correct land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries do not constitute a project.¹¹⁶ Under reference to this justification, the BVerwG concluded in a decision that, as a rule, agricultural land use is not to be regarded as a project as correct agricultural land use does not constitute an intervention into nature and the landscape under other national legislation pursuant to § 14(2) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG), if the requirement for best practice is adhered to and the conservation objectives are considered.¹¹⁷ In the Court’s opinion, the protection of Natura 2000 sites from agricultural impacts is governed solely by Article 6(2) HD. According to this, it is the obligation of the legislator responsible for the protection of a Natura 2000 site to lay down rules through the designation of a protected area and its management to prevent any changes or disturbances arising from a specific agricultural land use that could lead to a significant adverse effect on the site in relation to its components that are essential to the conservation objectives or conservation purpose.¹¹⁸

This decision is surprising as, on the one hand, in the particular case in question - which is by no means an isolated legal case - the implementation of another project (a section of the A33 motorway) was being debated as the critical load in the site had already been exceeded by agricultural nitrogen pollution from outside the site.¹¹⁹ Construction of the section of the motorway was only admissible within the scope of a derogation procedure through measures to reduce the agricultural nitrogen pollution (including the transformation of arable land into a forested area), which the BVerwG classified as compensatory measures for the overall coherence of Natura 2000 within the meaning of Article 6(4) HD.¹²⁰

On the other hand, the Court’s interpretation is not compatible with the impact-related understanding of the term and ECJ case law. Given the significant impacts of measures employed in land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries on the environment and nature (especially through nitrogen pollution, the use of pesticides and changes to soil structure and the water balance), significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites - either individually or cumulatively - cannot generally be excluded if these occur within or in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites. The ECJ¹²¹, but also, for example, the overwhelming opinion in the German literature¹²², therefore classifies measures associated with land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries as projects within the meaning of Article 6(3) HD, for which at least a screening process is required. This also applies to the resumption of land use practices that were stopped or have been intensified.

The blanket special treatment of land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries that is favoured by the BVerwG essentially constitutes an anticipated legal exemption for specific types of projects for which the ECJ has set up strict requirements to prevent the circumvention of the protective system outlined in Article 6 HD (see 6.2). Based on this, even uses such as agriculture, forestry and fishery or hunting that shape the site may not be issued with a blanket exemption from the protective system and the appropriate assessment, so long as the possibility of a significant adverse effect on the protected areas by these debatable projects cannot be systematically excluded with certainty in each individual case, as well as without any remaining scientific doubt.¹²³

However, general nationwide provisions on correct land use practices related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries cannot safeguard this as they are neither tailored towards the protection of species or habitat types in particular need of protection, nor do they contain specific demands for protection for the Natura 2000 sites that are affected.¹²⁴ The demand by the ECJ¹²⁵ for appropriate assessments in individual cases also applies for agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Anticipated general exemption for these land uses is only possible in the designation act, with corresponding site-specific definitions of requirements for land use practices and measures laid down in the management plan.¹²⁶ However, for reasons of proportionality, it is viewed as permissible that multiple land use measures that are based on each other or are recurrent within an adequate time frame of approx. 3–5 years can be handled as a cohesive project (see 6.1.5).