Review Article |
Corresponding author: Stefan Möckel ( stefan.moeckel@ufz.de ) Academic editor: Jukka Simila
© 2017 Stefan Möckel.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Möckel S (2017) The assessment of significant effects on the integrity of “Natura 2000” sites under Article 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. In: Möckel S (Ed.) Natura 2000 appropriate assessment and derogation procedure – legal requirements in the light of European and German case-law. Nature Conservation 23: 57-85. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.23.13602
|
This article investigates the question of how the significance of potential adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites – comprising sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) – can be determined legally and methodologically within the scope of appropriate assessments for projects and plans in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
European Union (EU), Natura 2000, significant effects, appropriate assessment, impact assessment, prohibition of deterioration, Article 6(2) Habitats Directive, Article 6(3) Habitats Directive, cumulative impacts, thresholds, bagatelles, case law, ECJ, Germany, BVerwG
In Article 6, the Habitats Directive prescribes a protective system for Natura 2000 sites that demands both developmental and management measures (paragraph 1) of EU Member States, as well as measures to guard against deterioration and disturbance (paragraph 2). It also requires an appropriate assessment for any project and plan that relates to its implications for a Natura 2000 site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives (paragraph 3).
Authorisation for a plan or project, as referred to in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, may therefore be given only on condition that the competent authorities – once all aspects of the plan or project have been identified which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the conservation objectives of the site concerned, and in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field – are certain that the plan or project will not have lasting adverse effects on the integrity of that site. That is so where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects (…).
In line with the European Principle of Proportionality based on Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), however, the Habitats Directive does not intend to prohibit all human activities that will have an adverse effect. This is why, on the one hand in Article 6(3), but also in Article 6(2) HD, only significant adverse effects or disturbances in a Natura 2000 site are relevant.
Both the appropriate assessment and the prohibition of disturbance are dependent on the determination of whether or not an adverse effect or disturbance is significant. A differentiation can be made between several types of negative effects that regularly occur in association with projects and plans.
In relation to the prohibition of disturbance, Article 6(2) HD simply stipulates that disturbances that could have a significant impact on the objectives of the Habitats Directive are to be avoided. More detailed provisions on the threshold for significance are missing in Article 6(2) and (3) HD. According to the ECJ, as a rule, the precautionary principle is to be adhered to during the assessment of potential adverse effects,
In relation to the appropriate assessment, the next section will explore which examination standards and methodological requirements must be applied for the determination of a significant adverse effect (see 2.1 and 2.2), to what extent existing and future cumulative impacts must also be considered in this process (see 2.3), how the threshold between significant and non-significant adverse effects is to be defined (see 2.4), and whether, and under what conditions, mitigation measures could be considered in the assessment of significant adverse effects (see 2.5). Finally, the question arises as to whether, in spite of the differences in wording in Article 6(2) and (3) HD, the criteria developed for determining a significant adverse effect within the scope of the appropriate assessment also apply to the prohibition of disturbance and potentially also to the provision for avoidance in Article 6(2) HD (see 3).
According to Article 6(3) HD, projects and plans are not permitted to have a significant impact on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, either alone, or in combination with other plans and projects, which –based on the first sentence of paragraph 3 – requires an assessment of the compatibility with the conservation objectives that have been defined for the site concerned. The areas of habitat in the site containing protected habitats and species, including their relevant areas for withdrawal, resting, nesting and feeding,
A significant adverse impact does not need to have taken place under Article 6(3) HD, rather more, the possibility that it is “likely to have” a significant adverse impact is sufficient.
The favourable conservation status is the crucial criterion for evaluation based on the conservation objectives for protected habitats and species under Article 1 e) and i) HD.
Permanent land loss essentially always constitutes a significant adverse impact on protected habitat types, as a prerequisite to the favourable conservation status for a habitat type is that the area it covers in the site is stable or expanding.
In the case of protected species, adverse impacts due to proposed developments, including stress factors, must never disturb the species-specific population dynamics to such an extent that a species can no longer form a viable component of the natural habitat that it belongs to and continue to do so in the long term.
In the event that the estimates on compatibility indicate that a positive development is still to be expected in relation to protected habitat types and species, even if the proposed development is realised, there is basically no adverse impact.
Overall, significance is a conservation-specific question that must be solved based on the circumstances of each individual case and Natura 2000 site.
The certainty demanded by the ECJ with reference to the exclusion of significant adverse impacts requires a high methodological standard of examination, although article 6(3) HD does not specify methods for data collection or analysis for the conduct of the appropriate assessment.
The required examinations in the relevant Natura 2000 site must consist of concrete observations that are based on these scientific insights and methods, and must allow precise and conclusive findings.
The judgment on whether a project might have significant adverse impacts on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site contains a forecast of the potential effects of the project or plan, based on the facts of the case and state of knowledge that pertained at the time of issuing the decision for authorisation.
Even though Article 6(3) HD focuses on the compatibility and authorisation of the concrete proposed development, this evaluation must not be separated from the condition of the Natura 2000 site concerned and its protected habitats and species, as well as all other impacts.
• existing previous pressures within the site and
• cumulative impacts of other foreseeable projects and plans that are to be expected, but have not yet been realised.
Both of these factors must be added to the impacts of the proposed project or plan.
• all foreseeable general changes that are to be expected in the future in relation to the protected habitats and species in the site (e.g. due to climate change), namely, both negative and positive changes.
2.3.1. Previous pressures
Previous pressures include the sum of negative effects of all land use practices and implemented developments, as well as existing long-range pollution.
2.3.2. Potential impacts of other foreseeable projects and plans
Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(3) HD, future cumulative effects of other projects and plans must also be covered.
There are diverging opinions on this in Germany. According to the BVerwG, other projects or plans are essentially only to be included if these have received legal or official authorisation but have not yet been realised or realised in full.
Both interpretations distribute the risks and costs of the examination differently between the competing proposed developments. The latter viewpoint is advantageous to the developer in that delays in the official procedure do not impinge on their position of chronological precedence. However, it is a disadvantage for the proponent that the impacts of other projects or plans which may ultimately not be authorised must also be included in the cumulative effects. This equates to a worst-case scenario. In contrast, the BVerwG interpretation states that only proposed developments that have actually received authorisation are to be included, whereby the realisation is also still pending in this case. The disadvantage here, however, is that proposed developments that receive the decision for authorisation at a later stage must also consider the impacts of all proposed developments that were authorised more rapidly, rendering obsolete any estimates of compatibility that were carried out previously and causing further delays to the procedure. This harbours the risk that the new cumulative effects will not be included for time reasons, or not considered in full, which is why it does not provide such a good level of protection of Natura 2000 sites from significant adverse effects.
The differentiation from previous pressures was considered as clarified in Germany. Developments that had been realised legitimately did not need to be included individually as a component of previous pressures in an assessment of cumulative effects.
2.3.3. General changes that are foreseeable and to be expected
The question arises as to whether and to what extent future changes in a Natura 2000 site must also be considered, that may occur due to natural processes or general anthropogenic influences during the assumed duration of the proposed development. This includes changes such as climate change, immigration of invasive species or specific compounds from long-range pollution (e.g. nitrogen, persistent chemicals). These may influence the conservation status of the protected habitat types and species, as well as their resilience to further impacts in the future.
The differentiation between significant and non-significant effects contains a threshold of significance, as significant effects on the integrity of the site concerned are only to be assumed once a specific intensity is exceeded.
2.4.1. Thresholds for pressures on protected habitat types and species
Each type of habitat and each species exhibits specific sensitivities to external impacts and changes, resulting in different thresholds for pressures, beyond which adverse effects are not tolerated prospectively. The BVerwG essentially considers any exceeding of these thresholds of pressures as a significant adverse effect.
Based on Article 1 i) HD, a species’ favourable conservation status is dependent on viable population dynamics, a distribution area that is not decreasing and habitat that is adequate in size. The natural population dynamics and adaptability act as a buffer against change and stress factors (e.g. the loss of a local territory or an area of local habitat) to a certain extent, such that a deterioration in the conservation status of a local population is only to be expected above a threshold for pressure that is dependent on the concrete circumstances of each individual case.
Limits in relation to pressures can also be assumed for habitat types, where the long-term continued existence of areas, the required structure and specific functions, as well as the favourable conservation status of the typical species are decisive to their conservation status according to Article 1(e) HD.
CLs are scientifically established limits in relation to pressures that are to be understood as follows; they should provide a guarantee that the objects of protection will also incur no significant harmful effects in the long term (…). In the event that such limits are already reached or even exceeded by the previous pressures, then it follows that, on principle, any additional pressure is incompatible with the conservation objective and is thus significant as it exceeds the critical limit or enhances the harmful effects already associated with the previous pressures (…).
In this process, the Court ranks modelled critical loads more highly than empirical critical loads.
2.4.2. Thresholds for bagatelles in relation to adverse effects
Referring to the best scientific knowledge in the field, the BVerwG in Germany has recognised thresholds for bagatelles within the scope of the appropriate assessment, below which the impacts of a proposed development are irrelevant (therefore sometimes also called thresholds of irrelevance).
Although the BVerwG mainly justifies the thresholds for bagatelles with the principle of proportionality, the Court requires the derivation and determination of these thresholds to be based on a substantiated justification that uses a nature conservation approach.
For land losses, Lambrecht and Trautner – mandated by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) – recommend differentiated cut-off criteria for natural habitat types of Community interest and for habitats of species of Community interest. These criteria are dependent on habitat type or species and, subsidiary to this, a general de minimis threshold of a 1% loss of the total area of the habitat type or the species habitat in the Natura 2000 site concerned (or in a defined area).
In spite of the legitimate fundamental concern, blanket thresholds for bagatelles that are site-independent cause a variety of difficulties, as the assessment of a proposed development must consider both the characteristics and conservation status specific to a site, as well as the other influences that exist within the site or are to be expected for the site.
Furthermore, in relation to thresholds for bagatelles, the question arises on how a creeping deterioration due to numerous proposed developments that are below this threshold can be prevented, which will result cumulatively in a significant adverse effects on the site concerned (“death by a thousand cuts”).
In line with the provision in Article 6(3) HD, according to which proposed developments that could ‘have an adverse effect on a protected area either individually, or in combination with other plans and projects’ require an appropriate assessment, the legislator has expressed unequivocally that the compatibility of a project is not to be assessed in isolation based on the effects it produces, but under inclusion of the effects of other sufficiently established plans or projects. This provision pursues the objective of preventing a creeping adverse effect caused by sequentially approved projects, each of which are not deemed to have a significant adverse effect alone, insofar as their cumulative effects would have an adverse impact on the conservation objectives of the site, as elaborated on accurately by the lower court. An appropriate assessment will only consistently do justice to this objective if it also includes the effects of other sufficiently established projects within the site in the assessment of whether the threshold of relevance has been exceeded. The point here is also to ensure that additional adverse effects are averted, the sum of which negatively affects the conservation objectives, and can therefore no longer be understood as bagatelles. Otherwise, in the long term, a significant adverse effect on the protected site that could no longer by reversed is likely, which would be diametrically opposed to the conservation objective that is being pursued in the long term through the special statutory designation of a protected site and would contravene the prohibition of deterioration laid down in the Habitat Directive. Why the principle of proportionality should demand consideration of the threshold of relevance being exceeded based solely on the individual project cannot be inferred from this. The assumption of a threshold of relevance is an expression of the principle of proportionality, which would not apply to simply basing an assessment on the emission behaviour of one project without considering the threat posed by the impact of pollutants from other projects that have already been approved.
However, this means that developments that have already been realised and land use practices are still not being considered in the thresholds for bagatelles.
Significant adverse effects could only be excluded with certainty if the effects of all developments that had already been realised after the listing of an SCI or after the designation of an SPA were taken into account in the application of thresholds for bagatelles.
Overall, the recognition of thresholds for bagatelles related to interventions is to be rejected, given the practical difficulties and the questionable compatibility with the strict levels of protection required for Natura 2000 sites.
In conclusion, the appropriate assessment must be solely based on site-specific thresholds for bagatelles, which are to be determined in individual cases. If these are exceeded by a project or by the numerous adverse effects that are already present within the site and further foreseeable additional natural and anthropogenic impacts, then a significant adverse effect is present and the proposed development can only be authorised based on a derogating decision in accordance with Article 6(4) HD. For all the appropriate assessments in which there is an undisputed exceeding of, e.g., critical loads or other thresholds for pressures, a further increase in the load or impact is impermissible and could only be authorised in exceptional cases. The same also regularly applies when the conservation status of a protected habitat type or a protected species is currently bad, as it is then hardly possible to assume any tolerance towards additional adverse effects.
Finally, the question arises on the extent to which mitigation and compensatory measures and offsetting could also be considered in the assessment of the significance of adverse effects.
In its justification, the ECJ cites four convincing
In 2016 and 2017, the ECJ confirmed this decision and further substantiated it.
In Germany, the ECJ decisions have effected a reorientation in BVerwG case law.
According to the BVerwG, uncertainties in relation to the success of individual measures can be countered by risk management with monitoring - if necessary through an official order - as the effectiveness of many measures often depends on their incorporation into an overall concept.
Overall, recognised mitigation measures include:
• protective measures to prevent collisions, such as speed limits, installations for deterrence, aids to cross over obstacles (e.g. green bridges, tunnels, fish ladders
• restrictions to operating and construction times (e.g. not at night or during specific seasons),
• reduction in the pollution caused by the proposed development (e.g. infiltration of road water run-off instead of direct feeding into water bodies, protective planting) or antedated or simultaneously acting reductions to other proposed developments and land uses.
Consideration of the following measures is to be rejected based on the ECJ decision if the successful outcome of the measure has not already occurred at the time of the appropriate assessment:
• improvement and creation of new habitats and habitat areas, even if these are to be carried out at a substantially larger scale than the area that has been lost or adversely affected,
• translocation of protected species with small home ranges (e.g. great crested newt),
• replacement roosts/nesting sites such as nesting and bat boxes,
• demolition of existing transport routes which, on balance, does not result in greater adverse effects when compared with dispensing with the proposed development.
Article 6(2) HD obliges Member States to avoid “the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive” in Natura 2000 sites. The wording in paragraph 2 therefore differs from paragraph 3. Even so, much of its content is indicative of the same level of protection as in the appropriate assessment.
According to the ECJ, paragraphs 2 and 3 are to guarantee the same level of protection for natural environments and species’ habitats.
Based on the equivalent level of protection, Article 6(2) HD could also demand a subsequent review – carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) HD – for projects that were already implemented or approved before the listing of an SCI or the designation as an SPA if there is no other way of achieving sufficient protection of the site or if, because of significant adverse effects, a derogation is to be granted in line with Article 6(4) HD.
After all, the term “disturbance” means the same as “adverse effects”, as is the case in paragraph 3. The term “disturbance” also refers to anthropogenic activities with negative impacts, without the condition of being physical in nature. Disturbances may also be pollutants that have an impact on species. The term deterioration used in Article 6(2) HD is even more comprehensive as it fully covers adverse effects and disturbances of anthropogenic origin, but goes further than this by also including natural changes, according to the ECJ.
The conservation objectives specific to the site are of particular importance, both for the identification of a disturbance or deterioration and in the determination of the significance. They render the general objectives of the Habitats Directive more concrete and must be laid down pursuant to Articles 4(4), 6(1) and 7 HD by the Member States in the designation of the protected area for each site, as well as in the management plans for the natural habitat types of Community interest and species of Community interest that are to be protected within the area.
Overall, numerous factors support the use of the same standard as the basis in Article 6(2) HD as in the appropriate assessment. The aspects and considerations illustrated in paragraph 2 can therefore be transferred to the determination of the significance of a deterioration or disturbance.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the assessment of significance is challenging and raises many questions due to the complexity of ecological relationships and mechanisms of action, as well as the interactions with the cumulative effects of other proposed developments and also other future developments, the consideration of mitigation measures and the subject-specific determination of significance thresholds. The ECJ and the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) in Germany have already partially contributed towards the simplification and clarification of the requirements of the appropriate assessment in numerous decisions they have taken. For example, comprehensive provisions have been developed for the identification and exclusion of potential negative effects and the handling of remaining uncertainties, and the admissible mitigation measures have been defined in greater detail. In Germany, at least, there is case law at the Supreme Court level that governs which other projects and plans are to be included and simplifies the practical handling. However, the doubts raised under European Law are justified in relation to the attempts of the BVerwG to increase the feasibility of the assessment of significance through the recognition of blanket thresholds for bagatelles which are to apply even in cases of a bad conservation status and thresholds for pressures that have been exceeded. Furthermore, the question posed at the start on the transferability of standards relating to significance in Article 6(3) HD to the prohibition of disturbance and deterioration in Article 6(2) HD can be answered positively, with good reason.
The author thanks the reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions and Textworks Translations for the translation of the manuscript and the cited sections of decisions of the BVerwG.
1 Council Directive of 21.5.1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJEU no. L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7 et sqq.
2 All ECJ decisions can be located based on their file number and can be freely accessed under: curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en.
3 From 2002 onwards, BVerwG decisions can be located based on their file number and can be freely accessed under: http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php. References to the locations of earlier decisions are provided in this article.
4 Details on the requirements of the appropriate assessment, Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
5ECJ, adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 40. Similar to, e.g., ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin number 33, 57; adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 43 et seq., 48 et seq.; adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 20 et seq.; adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10, margin number 111 et sqq.; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 41–49, 56–59.
6cf.ECJ, adjudication of 14.4.2005 – C-441/03, margin number 27; BVerwG, decision of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 48; BVerwG, decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 7, 12.
7cf. the explanations in Möckel Nature Conservation 2017a.
8ECJ, adjudication of 21.7.2011 – C-2/10, margin number 48–58.
9cf. Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b; Therivel Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 261 (265) for plans.
10 more detailed in Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
11ECJ, adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 48.
12ECJ, adjudication of 2.8.1993 – C-355/90 – Santoña, margin number 36; BVerwG, adjudication of 1.4.2004 – 4 C 2.03, text number 4.4.
13cf.ECJ, adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 146 et sqq., 166 et sqq.; adjudication of 20.10.2005 – C-6/04, margin number 34; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 43 et seq.;
14cf.ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin numbers 29 et sqq.; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 144.
15ECJ, adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 20; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 49.
16BVerwG, adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 84.
17BVerwG, adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 84; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 41 and headnote 2.
18cf.ECJ, adjudication of 10.11.2016 – C-504/14, margin number 29; adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 42 et seq.; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 142.
19 settled case law ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin numbers 33; adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 20 et seq.; adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 29–41; adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10, margin number 111 et sqq.; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 41–49, 56–59.
20cf. Lees JEL 2016, 191 (201).
21BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 41; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 35; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 60 and headnote 8; Ureta JEEPL 2007, 84 (88); for a broad value judgement Floor/van Koppen/van Tatenhove EnvSci 2016, 380 (381 et sqq., 390 et seq.); Opdam/Broekmeyer/Kistenkas EnvSci 2009, 912 (917).
22ECJ, adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 21; adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 39; BVerwG, adjudication of 3.5.2013 – 9 A 16.12, margin number 28; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 94; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 42 et seq.
23cf.ECJ, adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 43; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 163.
24 settled BVerwG case law, adjudication of 3.5.2013 – 9 A 16.12, margin number 28; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 41; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 43.
25BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 43, 45.
26cf.
27
28BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 124–126; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 50. cf.ECJ, adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 43, 46; adjudication of 14.9.2006 – C-244/05, margin number 46. In detail Wulfert et al. 2015, p. 44 et sqq.
29cf.ECJ, adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 12, 23; adjudication of 13.12.2007 – C-418/04, margin number 256 et seq.; BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 97 et sqq.; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 71–73; adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 41 et sqq.
30cf. Administrative Court of Augsburg, decision of 31.3.2014 – Au 2 S 14.81, margin number 23 et sqq.; Administrative Court of Schwerin, decision of 4.6.2012 – 7 B 240/12; Administrative Court of Bayreuth, adjudication of 28.1.2010 – B 2 K 09.739; Mühlbauer, in: Lorz et al., Naturschutzrecht, 2013, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 3; Pfohl NuR 2013, 311, 315.
31BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 45. cf.ECJ on potential SCIs adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 163; adjudication of 20.5.2010 – C-308/08, margin number 21; adjudication of 14.9.2006 – C-244/05, margin number 46.
32cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 132; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 54.
33BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 132. Rejected due to a loss of 8.82 ha of area of little importance to hunting and roosting for the greater mouse-eared bat, given a total habitat area of 1,267.9 ha (BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 71 et sqq.).
34BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 83.
35cf. Gellermann, in: Landmann/Rohmer, Umweltrecht, 2016, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 30 et seq.
36ECJ, adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 167–170.
37BVerwG, decision of 23.1.2015 – 7 VR 6.14, margin number 27 with reference to EJC, adjudication of 14.6.2007 – C-342/05.
38 similar to Gellermann, in: Landmann/Rohmer, Umweltrecht, 2016, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 10, 30; Schumacher/Schumacher, in: Schumacher/Fischer-Hüftle, BNatSchG, 2011, § 34 margin number 79.
39BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 43; Floor/van Koppen/van Tatenhove EnvSci 2016, 380 (389).
40 an extension of the appropriate assessment for socio-economic aspects, as suggested in Floor/van Koppen/van Tatenhove EnvSci 2016, 380 (390 et seq.).
41 cf. Lees JEL 2016, 191 (201 et seq.); Floor/van Koppen/van Tatenhove EnvSci 2016, 380 et sqq.
42 more detailed Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
43 settled BVerwG case law, decision of 7.2.2011 – 4 B 48.10, margin number 6; adjudication of 12.3.2008 - 9 A 3.06, margin number 68 and adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 43.
44 settled ECJ case law, adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10, margin number 113; adjudication of 26.10.2006 – C-239/04, margin number 20; BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 48; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 73; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 66 and headnote 9.
46 in Germany i.e. Wulfert et al. 2015; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007; Balla et al. 2013. The Federal Agency for Nature conservation set up a specialist online information system for impact assessments in SCIs in 2014 (http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp).
47BVerwG, decision of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 37, 66; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 46; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 125.
48cf. Milieu, IEEP and ICF 2016; Vassiliki et al. CoBi 2015, 260 (266 et sqq.); Söderman Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 79 et sqq.
49 settled ECJ case law, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 50; adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 27; adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 44; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 100. Subsequent BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 48. BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 68.
50BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 73–75; adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 62; adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 26.
51cf.ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 60 et seq.; BVerwG, decision of 6.6.2012 – 7 B 68.11, margin number 9; adjudication of 18.7.2013 – 4 CN 3.12, margin number 33.
52BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 68 and headnote 12.
53 explicitly, ECJ, adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10, margin number 112.
54 settled BVerwG case law, adjudication of 6.11.2013 – 9 A 14.12, margin number 51; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 41; adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 71; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 64. cf. also the advanced standards for conclusions by analogy of the VGH Kassel, adjudication of 21.8.2009 – 11 C 318/08.T, www. openjur.de, margin number 243, which the following BVerwG has left open (BVerwG, decision of 14.4.2011 – 4 B 77.09, margin number 14, 19 et seq.) BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 41.
55 settled BVerwG case law, adjudication of 6.11.2013 – 9 A 14.12, margin number 56; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 95; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 105; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 64, 66, 53 of headnote 11.
56BVerwG, decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 3.
57cf.ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin numbers 56–63; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 53 et seq.; BVerwG, adjudication of 14.4.2010 – 9 A 5.08, margin number 88. Detailed information on practical questions on the assessment of cumulative effects Therivel/Ross EIAR 2007, 365 et sqq.
58cf. Sundseth/Roth 2013, 56, 92.
59ECJ, adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 76–80, 103-108; BVerwG decision of 28.11.2013 – 9 B 14.13, margin number 11; adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 81.
60cf. Albrecht/Gies NuR 2014, 235, 243; Gärditz DVBl 2010, 247, 248.
61BVerwG, decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 3.
62ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin numbers 56–63; BVerwG, decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 3; adjudication of 14.4.2010 – 9 A 5.08, margin number 88; adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 42.
63ECJ, adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 76-80, 103-108; BVerwG, decision of 28.11.2013 – 9 B 14.13, margin number 11.
64 on the discussion in UK, cf. Therivel Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 261 (265).
65BVerwG, decision of 28.11.2013 – 9 B 14.13, margin number 10 et seq.; adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 81; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – 9 A 23.10, margin number 40; adjudication of 21.5.2008 – 9 A 68.07, margin number 21.
66BVerwG, adjudication of 8.1.2014 – 9 A 4.13, margin number 55.
67 Münster Higher Administrative Court, adjudication of 1.12.2011 – 8 D 58/08.AK, http://www.justiz.nrw.de, margin number 826. Similar to Mühlbauer, in: Lorz et al., Naturschutzrecht, 2013, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 6.
68 Also Mühlbauer, in: Lorz et al., Naturschutzrecht, 2013, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 6; Albrecht/Gies NuR 2014, 235, 243.
69 e.g. Gärditz DVBl 2010, 247, 248 with further references.
70ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2010 – C-226/08.
71cf. for climate change
72Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
73 similar, Therivel Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 261 (265); Opdam/Broekmeyer/Kistenkas EnvSci 2009, 912 (917); Therivel/Ross EIAR 2007, 365 (368 et sqq., 376 et sqq.).
74 cf. Therivel/Ross EIAR 2007, 365 (377).
75 on the prediction problems, cf. Therivel/Ross EIAR 2007, 365 (377 et seq.).
76cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 8.1.2014 – 9 A 4.13, margin number 56.
77 settled case law cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 14.4.2010 – 9 A 5.08 margin number 91; decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 6; decision of 26.2.2008 – 7 B 67.07, margin number 10 and headnote 3; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 43 et sqq.
78BVerwG, decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 3.
79BVerwG, decision of 26.2.2008 – 7 B 67.07, margin number 10;
80BVerwG, adjudication of 14.4.2010 – 9 A 5.08, margin number 91; decision of 10.11.2009 – 9 B 28.09, margin number 3; adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 108. In agreement, e.g. Schumacher/Schumacher, in: Schumacher/Fischer-Hüftle, BNatSchG, 2011, § 34 margin number 76; Gellermann, in: Landmann/Rohmer, Umweltrecht, 2016, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 29.
81cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 45; adjudication of 16.3.2006 – 4 A 1075.04, BVerwG decision 125, 116, 321 et seq.; adjudication of 21.6.2006 – 9 A 28.05, BVerwG decision 126, 166, 178 et seq.
82BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 45.
83cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 48; Rees et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2013, 14 et sqq.; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 68 et sqq. More detailed in Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
84BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 48; decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 7 et sqq.; adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 41 and headnote 4; adjudication of 6.11.2012 –9 A 17.11, margin number 93 with further references. For determination in individual cases cf. Balla et al. 2013, p. 123 et sqq.
85BVerwG, decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 7. Similar to BVerwG, adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 41.
86BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 35–39; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 61–65.
87BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 44.
88 settled case law, most recently BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 45 with further references; decision of 6.3.2014 – 9 C 6.12, margin number 23; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 65; adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 42; BVerwG, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 49 f.
89BVerwG, adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 62, 93 and headnote 3; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 124; decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 7, 12.
90BVerwG, adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 44. BVerwG however in doubt, adjudication of 14.7.2011 – 9 A 12.10, margin number 65.
91BVerwG, adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 42.
92cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 124; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 68 et sqq.; Wulfert et al. 2015, p. 44 et sqq.
93BVerwG, decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 7; adjudication of 14.4.2010 – 9 A 5.08, margin number 92–95.
94Wulfert et al. 2015; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007; Balla et al. 2013; Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, Referentenentwurf Technische Anleitung Luft, 9.9.2016, p. 459 et sqq.; Garniel/Mierwald, Arbeitshilfe Vögel und Straßenverkehr, Ergebnis des Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhabens FE 02.286/2007 LRB, 2010 (im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung); Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, Arbeitshilfe Fledermäuse und Straßenverkehr, Entwurfsfassung 2011. See Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b.
95BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 40 et seq.; adjudication of 13.5.2009 – 9 A 73.07, margin number 49; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 125 et seq.; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 33 et sqq., 43 et sqq.
96cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 8.1.2014 – 9 A 4.13, margin number 69; adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 45 et seq. with further references and headnote 1; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 62 and headnote 3; adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 42.
97Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 33 et sqq., 43 et sqq.
98cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 13.5.2009 – 9 A 73.07 margin number 50.
99Balla et al. 2013, p. 94 et seq., 211 et sqq.; 216 et sqq.
100BVerwG, adjudication of 8.1.2014 – 9 A 4.13, margin number 69; similar, Balla et al. 2013, p. 215 et seq., 220 et seq.
101 settled BVerwG case law, adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 46 et seq., 58; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 126, 132.
103 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB), Entwurf zur Anpassung der Ersten Allgemeinen Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz (Technische Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft – TA Luft) of 9 September 2016, (http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Luft/taluft_entwurf_bf.pdf) (accessed on 3 June 2017).
104Möckel Nature Conservation 2017c.
105 critical, Fretzer Ecological Modelling 2016; Fretzer/Möckel Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 2015, 117.
106cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 125 et seq.; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 38 et sqq.
107 More detailed on the ECJ requirements for statutory exemptions, Möckel Nature Conservation 2017c.
108cf.BVerwG, decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 12; Advocate-General E. Sharpston, final applications of 22.11.2012 – C-258/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:743, margin number 67; in general Bastmeijer 2016, p. 387 (402).
109BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 68; decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 12 and headnote.
110BVerwG, decision of 5.9.2012 – 7 B 24.12, margin number 12.
111BVerwG, adjudication of 29.9.2011 – 7 C 21.09, margin number 42; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 62, 93 and headnote 3.
112 for example, Lau NuR 2016, 149, 151 et seq.; Albrecht/Gies NuR 2014, 235, 243; Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, p. 29.
113Lambrecht/Trautner 2007, 29. For example, the State of North Rhine-Westphalia has created this kind of site-specific ongoing database for proposed developments (http://www.naturschutzinformationen-nrw.de/ffh-vp/de/start).
114Lau NuR 2016, 149, 152.
115 also critical Schumacher/Schumacher, in: Schumacher/Fischer-Hüftle, BNatSchG, 2011, § 34 margin number 77.
116ECJ, adjudication of 10.1.2006 – C-98/03, margin number 41; adjudication of 26.5.2011 – C-538/09, margin number 41 et sqq.; adjudication of 4.3.2010 – C-241/08, margin number 36. More detail in Möckel Nature Conservation 2017c.
117ECJ, adjudication of 11.9.2012 – C-43/10, margin number 136 et seq. This is also recognised by the BVerwG (e.g. adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 129 and headnote 16).
118 in favour of broad inclusion Haumont 2015, p. 93 (98); McGillivray JEEPL 2011, 329 (335 et sqq.); Lees JEL 2016, 191 (201 et sqq.) and Therivel Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 261 (266 et seq., 269 et sqq.), both refer to guidance and cases in the UK; as well as the BVerwG in the past, adjudication of 17.1.2007 – 9 A 20.05, margin number 53 et seq.; adjudication of 12.3.2008 – 9 A 3.06, margin number 94; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 41; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 35, 60. More restrictive, e.g. cf. Lees JEL 2016, 191 (199 et sqq., 218); Ureta JEEPL 2007, 84 (90); Schumacher/Schumacher, in: Schumacher/Fischer-Hüftle, BNatSchG, 2011, BNatSchG, § 34 margin number 68; Mühlbauer, in: Lorz et al., Naturschutzrecht, 2013, § 34 BNatSchG margin number 13.
119cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 8.1.2014 – 9 A 4.13, margin number 54; Schumacher/Schumacher, in: Schumacher/Fischer-Hüftle, BNatSchG, 2011, § 34 margin number 68. In favour of inclusion, probably Haumont 2015, p. 93 (98).
120ECJ, adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 28 f. With a similar conclusion, also ECJ, adjudication of 29.1.2004 – C-209/02, margin numbers 24-28.
121cf. Schoukens JEL 2017, 47 et sqq.; Schoukens/Cliquet E&S 2016, 10; Lees JEL 2016, 191 (200 et sqq.); Cliquet/Decleer/Schoukens 2015, p. 265 et sqq.; McGillivray 2015, p. 101 et sqq.; Persson/Larsson/Villarroya Nature Conservation 2015, 113 et sqq.; et sqq.
122 also e.g. Schoukens/Cliquet E&S 2016, 10 (p. 9 et seq.). Critical Lees JEL 2016, 191 (200 et sqq.).
123ECJ, adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 31–36.
124cf. the practical challenges of restoration and compensation measures Schoukens/Cliquet E&S 2016, 10 (p. 3 et sqq.); McGillivray 2015, p. 101 (106 et sqq.).
125ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin number 34 et sqq.; adjudication of 21.6.2016 – C-387/15 and C-388/15, margin number 48, 54–58.
126ECJ, adjudication of 21.6.2016 – C-387/15 and C-388/15, margin number 48, 54–58.
127ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin number 37 et seq. Other opinion, McGillivray JEEPL 2011, 329 (349 et sqq.).
128cf.BVerwG, decision of 16.9.2014 – 7 VR 1.14, margin number 18.
129BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 60.
130BVerwG, adjudication of 6.11.2013 – 9 A 14.12, margin number 59.
131BVerwG, adjudication of 6.11.2013 – 9 A 14.12, margin number 56; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 37 et seq.
132ECJ, adjudication of 26.4.2017 – C-142/16, margin number 39–44.
133 left open in BVerwG, decision of 16.9.2014 – 7 VR 1.14, margin number 18.
134cf.ECJ, adjudication of 20.5.2010 – C-308/08, margin number 31–36, 42; BVerwG, decision of 23.1.2015 – 7 VR 6.14, margin number 28 et seq.; adjudication of 6.11.2013 – 9 A 14.12, margin number 56 et seq.
135BVerwG, adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 54.
136cf.BVerwG, adjudication of 3.5.2013 – 9 A 16.12, margin number 34, 37 et sqq.; Balla et al. 2013, p. 230 et sqq., 238 et sqq.
137 different from BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 64 et sqq.; decision of 13.3.2008 – 9 VR 10.07, margin number 27 et seq. More restrictive BVerwG, adjudication of 9.2.2017 – 7 A 2.15, margin number 420; adjudication of 6.11.2012 – 9 A 17.11, margin number 64.
138 similar to Gellermann, in: Landmann/Rohmer, Umweltrecht, 2016, margin number 33. Different from BVerwG, adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 43 et sqq. and headnote 1.
139 different from BVerwG, adjudication of 23.4.2014 – 9 A 25.12, margin number 55; adjudication of 28.3.2013 – 9 A 22.11, margin number 128; adjudication of 13.5.2009 – 9 A 73.07, margin number 83.
140 different from BVerwG, decision of 13.3.2008 – 9 VR 10.07, margin number 27 et seq.
141cf. settled ECJ case law, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 52; adjudication of 15.5.2014 – C-521/12, margin number 19; adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 32.
142 Article 4(5) HD. ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2010 – C-226/08, margin number 49.
143 for projects and plans in potential SCIs and non-designated SPAs, see Möckel Nature Conservation 2017b and Möckel Nature Conservation 2017c.
144ECJ, adjudication of 11.4.2013 – C-258/11, margin number 33; adjudication of 14.1.2010 – C-226/08, margin number 49.
145ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 37.
146ECJ, adjudication of 27.3.2009 – C-418/08, margin number 208 et seq., 217;
147cf.ECJ, adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 144.
148cf.ECJ, adjudication of 13.12.2007 – C-418/04, margin number 208, 217; Epiney, in: Epiney/Gammenthaler 2009, p. 25.
149ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 33, 42-46, 54-62 and headnote 1–2. More details in Möckel Nature Conservation 2017c.
150ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 60-62 and headnote 2.
151ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2010 – C-226/08, margin number 42-46; adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 67-78; adjudication of 7.9.2004 – C-127/02, margin number 37.
152ECJ, adjudication of 14.1.2016 – C-399/14, margin number 68 et seq.
153ECJ, adjudication of 20.10.2005 – C-6/04, margin number 33 et seq.; adjudication of 24.11.2011 – C-404/09, margin number 135.
154
155
156
157