| 28.10.2021 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 437/1 | 28.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/1 |
| OBVESTILO KOMISIJE | COMMISSION NOTICE |
| Presoja načrtov in projektov v zvezi z območji Natura 2000 Metodološke smernice o določbah člena 6(3) in (4) Direktive 92/43/EGS o habitatih | Assessment of plans and projects in relation to Natura 2000 sites – Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC |
| (2021/C 437/01) | (2021/C 437/01) |
| KAZALO | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| 1. | UVOD | 3 | 1. | INTRODUCTION | 3 |
| 1.1 | Namen in narava dokumenta | 3 | 1.1. | Purpose and nature of the document | 3 |
| 1.2 | Struktura | 3 | 1.2. | Structure | 3 |
| 2. | SPLOŠNI PRISTOP IN NAČELA | 4 | 2. | GENERAL APPROACH AND PRINCIPLES | 4 |
| 2.1 | Faze postopka iz člena 6(3) in (4) | 4 | 2.1. | The stages of the Article 6(3) and 6(4) procedure | 4 |
| 2.2 | Pristop k odločanju | 5 | 2.2. | Approach to decision making | 5 |
| 3. | METODOLOGIJA IZ ČLENA 6(3) IN (4) | 7 | 3. | THE ARTICLE 6(3) AND 6(4) METHODOLOGY | 7 |
| 3.1 | Prva faza: pregled | 7 | 3.1. | Stage 1: Screening | 7 |
| 3.1.1 | Korak 1: preverjanje, ali je načrt ali projekt neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja Natura 2000 ali zanj potreben | 8 | 3.1.1. | Step 1: Ascertain whether the plan or project is directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a Natura 2000 site | 8 |
| 3.1.2 | Korak 2: opis načrta ali projekta in njegovih dejavnikov vpliva | 9 | 3.1.2. | Step 2: Description of the plan or project and its impact factors | 9 |
| 3.1.3 | Korak 3: opredelitev območij Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta zaradi načrta ali projekta | 10 | 3.1.3. | Step 3: Identify which Natura 2000 sites may be affected by the plan or project | 10 |
| 3.1.4 | Korak 4: presoja, ali je mogoče izključiti verjetne pomembne vplive glede na cilje ohranjanja območja | 13 | 3.1.4. | Step 4: Assess whether likely significant effects can be ruled out in view of the site's conservation objectives | 13 |
| 3.1.5 | Ugotovitve: odločitev na podlagi rezultata pregleda | 15 | 3.1.5. | Conclusions: decision based on the outcome of the screening | 15 |
| 3.2 | Faza 2: ustrezna presoja | 17 | 3.2. | Stage 2: Appropriate assessment | 17 |
| 3.2.1 | Korak 1: zbiranje informacij o projektu in zadevnih območjih Natura 2000 | 18 | 3.2.1. | Step 1: Collect information on the project and on the Natura 2000 sites concerned | 18 |
| 3.2.2 | Korak 2: presoja posledic načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območja, ki jih ima načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti | 23 | 3.2.2. | Step 2: Assessing the implications of the plan or project in view of the site's conservation objectives, individually or in combination with other plans or projects | 23 |
| 3.2.3 | Korak 3: potrditev vplivov načrta ali projekta na celovitost območja Natura 2000 | 34 | 3.2.3. | Step 3: Ascertain the effects of the plan or project on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site | 34 |
| 3.2.4 | Korak 4: ukrepi za ublažitev | 36 | 3.2.4. | Step 4: Mitigation measures | 36 |
| 3.2.5 | Sklepi ustrezne presoje | 40 | 3.2.5. | Conclusions of the appropriate assessment | 40 |
| 3.2.6 | Dodatni preudarki: posvetovanja, kakovost ustrezne presoje, dostop do pravnega varstva | 42 | 3.2.6. | Further considerations: consultations, quality of the appropriate assessment, access to justice | 42 |
| 3.3 | Faza 3: postopek iz člena 6(4) | 46 | 3.3. | Stage 3: Procedure under Article 6(4) | 46 |
| 3.3.1 | Korak 1: proučitev drugih ustreznih rešitev | 47 | 3.3.1. | Step 1: Examining alternative solutions | 47 |
| 3.3.2 | Korak 2: proučitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa | 53 | 3.3.2. | Step 2: Examining imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) | 53 |
| 3.3.3 | Korak 3: opredelitev, presoja in sprejetje izravnalnih ukrepov | 55 | 3.3.3. | Step 3: Identification, assessment and adoption of compensatory measures | 55 |
| (a) | Glavne vrste izravnalnih ukrepov | 55 | (a) | Main types of compensatory measures | 55 |
| (b) | Vodilna načela za določanje izravnalnih ukrepov in ciljev | 57 | (b) | Guiding principles for setting compensatory measures and targets | 57 |
| (c) | Časovna razporeditev izravnave | 59 | (c) | Timing of compensation | 59 |
| (d) | Ocenjevanje in spremljanje izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) | 59 | (d) | Evaluation and monitoring of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) | 59 |
| (e) | Določanje izravnalnih ukrepov za načrte | 61 | (e) | Setting compensatory measures for plans | 61 |
| 4. | STRATEŠKO NAČRTOVANJE IN USTREZNA PRESOJA NAČRTOV | 64 | 4. | STRATEGIC PLANNING AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF PLANS | 64 |
| 4.1 | Strateško načrtovanje | 64 | 4.1. | Strategic planning | 64 |
| 4.2 | Ustrezna presoja načrtov | 64 | 4.2. | Appropriate assessment of plans | 64 |
| 4.3 | Kartiranje občutljivosti | 66 | 4.3. | Sensitivity mapping | 66 |
| 4.4 | Posvetovanje in dialog pri strateškem načrtovanju | 70 | 4.4. | Consultation and dialogue in strategic planning | 70 |
| 5. | POVEZAVE Z DRUGIMI POSTOPKI OKOLJSKIH PRESOJ: PVO, SPVO, OKVIRNA DIREKTIVA O VODAH | 71 | 5. | LINKS WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES: EIA, SEA, WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE | 71 |
| 5.1 | Poenostavitev okoljskih presoj | 71 | 5.1. | Streamlining environmental assessments | 71 |
| 5.2 | Presoja vplivov na okolje, strateška presoja vplivov na okolje in ustrezna presoja | 71 | 5.2. | Environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and the appropriate assessment | 71 |
| 5.2.1 | Priložnosti za poenostavitev PVO/SPVO in ustrezne presoje ter koristi takšne poenostavitve | 72 | 5.2.1. | Opportunities for and benefits of streamlining EIA/SEA and appropriate assessment | 72 |
| 5.2.2 | Posebne značilnosti ustrezne presoje in razlike v primerjavi s postopki PVO/SPVO | 73 | 5.2.2. | Specific features of the appropriate assessment and differences with EIA/SEA procedures | 73 |
| 5.2.3 | Povezava med SPVO/PVO/ustrezno presojo in strogimi določbami direktiv o naravi, ki se nanašajo na varstvo vrst | 74 | 5.2.3 | Relationship between SEA/EIA/appropriate assessment and the strict species protection provisions of the Nature Directives | 74 |
| 5.3 | Presoje iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah, ki se usklajujejo ali povezujejo s postopkom iz člena 6(3) direktive o habitatih | 75 | 5.3. | Assessments under Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive, coordinated or integrated with the Article 6(3) procedure under the Habitats Directive | 75 |
| 6. | KLJUČNI REFERENČNI DOKUMENTI | 77 | 6. | KEY REFERENCES | 77 |
| PRILOGA | ANNEX |
| 1. UVOD | 1. INTRODUCTION |
| 1.1 Namen in narava dokumenta | 1.1. Purpose and nature of the document |
| Namen tega dokumenta je zagotoviti metodološke smernice o uporabi člena 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih (1). Te smernice so namenjene organom in nacionalnim agencijam v državah članicah in državah kandidatkah ter nosilcem projektov, svetovalcem, upravljavcem območij, izvajalcem in drugim deležnikom kot pomoč pri uporabi obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz teh določb. Ta dokument predstavlja stališča Evropske komisije in ni pravno zavezujoč; za uradno razlago prava Unije je pristojno samo Sodišče Evropske unije. | The purpose of this document is to provide methodological guidance on the application of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive (1). This guidance is intended to assist authorities and national agencies in the Member States and in candidate countries, as well as developers, consultants, site managers, practitioners and other stakeholders in the application of obligations stemming from these provisions. This document presents the views of the European Commission and is not legally binding; only the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law. |
| Smernice je treba brati v povezavi z direktivami in nacionalno zakonodajo ter nasveti iz obvestila Komisije z naslovom Upravljanje območij Natura 2000: določbe člena 6 direktive 92/43/EGS o habitatih (2) (v tem dokumentu imenovano „Napotki za uporabo člena 6“), ki je izhodišče za razlago ključnih izrazov in pojmov iz direktive o habitatih. Zaradi lažjega branja so v teh smernicah citirani ustrezni deli Napotkov za uporabo člena 6. | The guidance must be read in conjunction with the directives and national legislation, and with the advice set out in the Commission notice ‘Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC’ (2) (referred to in this document as the ‘Article 6 Guide’), which is the starting point for interpreting the key terms and concepts contained in the Habitats Directive. For ease of reading, this guidance cites the relevant parts of the Article 6 Guide. |
| Komisija je sprejela tudi več sektorskih smernic za različna področja politike, kot so energija, vključno z energijo iz obnovljivih virov, rudarstvo, prevoz po celinskih plovnih poteh, razvoj pristanišč in estuarijev, kmetijstvo in gozdarstvo (3). V teh dokumentih so pogosto podrobneje analizirane posebnosti presoj načrtov ali projektov v teh sektorjih. Zato se lahko uporabljajo za dopolnitev sedanjih splošnih smernic s praktičnimi preudarki za posamezne sektorje. | The Commission has also adopted several sector specific guidance documents for different policy areas such as energy, including renewables, mining, inland water transport, developments in ports and estuaries, agriculture and forestry (3). These documents often analyse in more detail the specificities of plan or project assessments in these particular sectors. They can therefore be used to supplement the present general guidelines with practical sector specific considerations. |
| V skladu z načelom procesne avtonomije se morajo posamezne države članice odločiti, kako bodo vzpostavile postopkovne zahteve, ki izhajajo iz Direktive. Za sprejemanje ključnih odločitev v okviru presoj iz člena 6(3) in (4) je odgovoren pristojni organ v vsaki državi članici. V teh smernicah izraz „presoja“ opisuje celoten postopek, s katerim nosilec načrta ali projekta, organi, naravovarstvene in druge agencije, nevladne organizacije (NVO) ter javnost zbirajo informacije, ki se pristojnemu organu predložijo v proučitev in oceno. | Under the principle of procedural autonomy, it is for individual Member States to decide how to put in place the procedural requirements deriving from the directive. It is the responsibility of the competent authority in each Member State to make the key decisions contained in the Article 6(3) and (4) assessments. In this guidance document, the term ‘assessment’ describes the whole process by which information is collected by plan or project developer, authorities, nature conservation and other agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the public, and provided to the competent authority for consideration and evaluation. |
| Pristojni organ nato določi rezultate presoje in sprejme odločitev o tem, ali bo načrt ali projekt odobril ali ne, in če ga bo, pod kakšnimi pogoji. S tem postopkom se priznava, da presoje, ki se zahtevajo v skladu s členom 6(3) in (4), temeljijo na zbiranju zanesljivih informacij in podatkov s strani več deležnikov ter na posvetovanjih z njimi in med njimi. | The competent authority then determines the outcomes of the assessment and reaches a decision on whether or not to approve the plan or project, and if so, under which conditions. This process recognises that the assessments required under Article 6(3) and 6(4) relies on the collection of reliable information and data by multiple stakeholders, as well as on consultations with and between them. |
| Ta dokument je posodobitev prejšnjih metodoloških smernic o členu 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih (4) (5). Temelji na izkušnjah pri izvajanju direktive o habitatih in povezani sodni praksi Sodišča Evropske unije ter na pregledu smernic EU in literature, gradivu o študijah primerov, povratnih informacijah in predlogih na podlagi posvetovanja z organi držav članic EU in deležniki. Pripravo teh smernic sta na podlagi pogodbe z Evropsko komisijo (6) podprli družbi ATECMA S.L. in Adelphi consult GmbH. | This document is an update of the previous methodological guidance on Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive (4) , (5). It draws on experience in implementing the Habitats Directive and on related case-law of the CJEU, as well as on a review of EU guidance and literature, case study material, feedback and suggestions following consultation with EU Member State authorities and stakeholders. The preparation of this guidance document was supported by ATECMA S.L. and Adelphi consult GmbH, under a contract with the European Commission (6). |
| 1.2 Struktura | 1.2. Structure |
| Ta dokument je sestavljen iz treh glavnih delov in priloge. | This document is made up of three main parts and an annex. |
| — | V prvem oddelku so pojasnjeni splošni pristop in načela, na katerih temeljijo smernice. Vključuje shematski prikaz iz Napotkov za uporabo člena 6 za ponazoritev, kako bi morale biti presoje iz člena 6(3) in (4) strukturirane in kako so različne faze presoj povezane z zahtevami iz člena 6(3) in (4). | — | The first section explains the general approach and principles underpinning the guidance. It includes the flow chart from the Article 6 Guide to illustrate how the Article 6(3) and 6(4) assessments should be structured and how the various stages of the assessments relate to the requirements of Article 6(3) and (4). |
| — | Naslednji oddelek vsebuje glavne metodološke smernice po posameznih fazah. Vsaka faza vključuje metode in orodja, primere in predloge za izvedbo presoj. To je podprto z uporabo kontrolnih seznamov, matrik in navodil po korakih za vsako fazo presoje. Vendar je treba opozoriti, da je vse to namenjeno zgolj ponazoritvi in ne more zajemati vseh primerov. | — | The next section contains the main stage-by-stage methodological guidance. Each stage contains methods and tools, examples and suggestions on how to complete the assessments. This is supported by the use of checklists, matrices and step-by-step instructions for each stage of the assessment. It should be noted, however, that these are for illustrative purposes only and cannot cover all situations. |
| — | Tretji oddelek vključuje poglavje o strateškem načrtovanju in zlasti o postopku presoje načrtov. V tem oddelku so obravnavane tudi povezave z drugimi okoljskimi presojami, ki se zahtevajo v skladu z zakonodajo EU. | — | The third section includes a chapter on strategic planning and the assessment procedure for plans in particular. This section also explores the links with other environmental assessments required under EU legislation. |
| — | Priloga vsebuje primere metod ter dodatne smernice in orodja, ki se lahko uporabijo za izvedbo postopkov iz člena 6(3) in (4) (npr. kontrolni seznami ali obrazci). | — | The annex provides examples of methods and further guidance and tools that can be used to implement Article 6(3) and 6(4) procedures (e.g. checklists or formats). |
| 2. SPLOŠNI PRISTOP IN NAČELA | 2. GENERAL APPROACH AND PRINCIPLES |
| 2.1 Faze postopka iz člena 6(3) in (4) | 2.1. The stages of the Article 6(3) and 6(4) procedure |
| V členu 6(3) in (4) je navedeno: | Article 6, paragraphs 3 and 4, states the following: |
| „3. | Pri vsakem načrtu ali projektu, ki ni neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja ali zanj potreben, pa bi sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti lahko pomembno vplival na območje, je treba opraviti ustrezno presojo njegovih posledic glede na cilje ohranjanja tega območja. Glede na ugotovitve presoje posledic za območje in ob upoštevanju določb odstavka 4 pristojni nacionalni organi soglašajo z načrtom ali projektom šele potem, ko se prepričajo, da ne bo škodoval celovitosti zadevnega območja, in, če je primerno, ko pridobijo mnenje javnosti. | 4. | Če je treba kljub negativni presoji posledic za območje izvesti načrt ali projekt iz nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa, vključno tistih socialne ali gospodarske narave, in ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, država članica izvede vse izravnalne ukrepe, potrebne za zagotovitev varstva celovite usklajenosti Nature 2000. O sprejetih izravnalnih ukrepih obvesti Komisijo. Če je zadevno območje območje s prednostnim naravnim habitatnim tipom in/ali prednostno vrsto, se lahko upoštevajo le razlogi, povezani z zdravjem ljudi ali javno varnostjo ali koristnimi posledicami bistvenega pomena za okolje ali drugimi, po predhodnem mnenju Komisije nujnimi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa.“ | ‘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 site’s 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. | 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 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.’ |
| V členu 6(3) in (4) je opredeljen postopek po korakih za presojo načrtov ali projektov, ki bodo verjetno vplivali na območja Natura 2000. To vključuje tri glavne faze: | Article 6(3) and (4) sets out a step-by-step procedure for assessing plans or projects that are likely to have impact on Natura 2000 sites. This involves three main stages: |
| — | Prva faza: pregled. Prvi del postopka sestavlja faza predhodne presoje („pregled“), da se preveri, ali je načrt ali projekt neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja Natura 2000 ali zanj potreben in, če ni tako, ali bi lahko pomembno vplival na območje (7) (sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekt) z vidika ciljev ohranjanja območja. Prvo fazo ureja prvi del prvega stavka člena 6(3). | — | Stage one: screening . The first part of the procedure consists of a pre-assessment stage (‘screening’) to ascertain whether the plan or project is directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a Natura 2000 site, and, if this is not the case, then whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the site (7) (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Stage one is governed by the first part of the first sentence of Article 6(3). |
| — | Druga faza: ustrezna presoja. Če verjetnih pomembnih vplivov ni mogoče izključiti, naslednja faza postopka vključuje presojo vpliva načrta ali projekta (samega ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti) glede na cilje ohranjanja območja in preverjanje, ali bo projekt ali načrt vplival na celovitost območja Natura 2000, pri čemer se upoštevajo morebitni ukrepi za ublažitev. Pristojni organi se odločijo, ali bodo glede ne ugotovitve ustrezne presoje načrt ali projekt odobrili ali ne. Drugo fazo urejata drugi del prvega stavka in drugi stavek člena 6(3). | — | Stage two: the appropriate assessment . If likely significant effects cannot be excluded, the next stage of the procedure involves assessing the impact of the plan or project (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) against the site’s conservation objectives, and ascertaining whether it will affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, taking into account any mitigation measures. It will be for the competent authorities to decide whether or not to approve the plan or project in light of the findings of the appropriate assessment. Stage two is governed by the second part of the first sentence and the second sentence of Article 6(3). |
| — | Tretja faza: odstopanje od člena 6(3) pod nekaterimi pogoji. Tretjo fazo postopka ureja člen 6(4). Uporabi se samo, če nosilec kljub negativni presoji meni, da bi bilo treba načrt ali projekt vseeno izvesti iz nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa. To je mogoče le, če ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, če so nujni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa ustrezno utemeljeni in če so sprejeti primerni izravnalni ukrepi za zagotovitev varstva celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | — | Stage three: derogation from Article 6(3) under certain conditions . The third stage of the procedure governed by Article 6(4). It only comes into play if, despite a negative assessment, the developer considers that the plan or project should still be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. This is only possible if there are no alternative solutions, the imperative reasons of overriding public interest are duly justified, and if suitable compensatory measures are adopted to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. |
| Vsaka faza postopka vpliva na naslednjo fazo. Vrstni red faz je zato ključnega pomena za ustrezno uporabo člena 6(3) in (4). Slika 1 vsebuje shematski prikaz poteka tega postopka. | Each stage of the procedure is influenced by the previous one. The order in which the stages are followed is therefore essential for applying Article 6(3) and (4) correctly. Figure 1 gives a flow chart of this procedure. |
| 2.2 Pristop k odločanju | 2.2. Approach to decision making |
| Tako kot vsa okoljska zakonodaja EU tudi direktiva o habitatih temelji na previdnostnem načelu (8), v skladu s katerim neobstoja znanstvenih dokazov o pomembnem negativnem vplivu ukrepa ni mogoče uporabiti za utemeljitev odobritve tega ukrepa. Če se previdnostno načelo uporabi za postopek iz člena 6(3), pomeni, da mora biti dokazan neobstoj negativnega vpliva na območja Natura 2000, preden se lahko načrt ali projekt odobri. Povedano drugače, če ni gotovosti glede obstoja morebitnih negativnih vplivov, načrta ali projekta ni mogoče odobriti. | Like all EU environmental legislation, the Habitats Directive is based on the precautionary principle (8), i.e. that absence of scientific evidence on the significant negative effect of an action cannot be used as justification for approval of this action. When applied to Article 6(3) procedure, the precautionary principle implies that the absence of a negative effect on Natura 2000 sites has to be demonstrated before a plan or project can be authorised. In other words, if there is a lack of certainty as to whether there will be any negative effects, then the plan or project cannot be approved. |
| V praktičnem smislu to pomeni, da dokazno breme nosi nosilec načrta ali projekta, ki mora brez razumnega dvoma dokazati – pristojni organ pa potrditi: | In practical terms, this means that the burden of proof lies with the plan or project developer to demonstrate – and for the competent authority to confirm – without reasonable doubt that: |
| — | da je v prvi fazi (pregled) mogoče izključiti verjetne pomembne vplive ali | — | in stage 1 (screening) – likely significant effects can be excluded; or |
| — | da je v drugi fazi (ustrezna presoja) mogoče izključiti škodljive vplive na celovitost območja Natura 2000. | — | in stage 2 (appropriate assessment) – adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site can be excluded. |
| Če so škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja gotovi ali če jih ni mogoče izključiti, se načrt ali projekt še vedno lahko odobri na podlagi izjeme iz člena 6(4), če ni drugih ustreznih možnosti, če je to utemeljeno z nujnimi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa in če so vzpostavljeni zadostni izravnalni ukrepi za zaščito celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. Previdnostno načelo se lahko uporablja tudi v takšnih primerih, zlasti v zvezi z obsegom izravnalnih ukrepov, ki bodo uporabljeni (glej oddelek 3.3.3). | When adverse effects on the integrity of a site are either certain or cannot be excluded, the plan or project can still be authorised by way of exception under Article 6(4) on condition that there are no alternatives, it is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and sufficient compensatory measures are put in place to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. The precautionary principle may also have some applications in such cases, particularly in relation to the extent of the compensatory measures to be applied (see section 3.3.3). |
| Direktiva o habitatih se izrecno sklicuje na „cilje ohranjanja območja“ kot na podlago za uporabo člena 6(3). Sodišče Evropske unije je v sodbi v zadevi C-849/19, Komisija/Grčija, potrdilo, da morajo biti cilji ohranjanja uradno določeni ter da morajo biti specifični za posamezno območje, povezani s posebnimi vrednostmi območja in natančni (9). | The Habitats Directive explicitly refers to the ‘site’s conservation objectives’ as a basis for applying Article 6(3). The CJEU, in its judgment in Case C-849/19, Commission v Greece, confirmed that conservation objectives must be formally established and that these must be site specific, refer to the specific values present in the site, and be precise (9). |
| Poleg tega je Sodišče Evropske unije večkrat razsodilo, da bi moral biti glede na cilje ohranjanja določen obseg obveznosti izvedbe ustrezne presoje vplivov načrta ali projekta na zavarovano območje (10). Povedano drugače, odločitev, ali bi lahko načrt ali projekt pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000, bi bilo treba sprejeti ob upoštevanju ciljev ohranjanja območja (glej oddelek 3.1 „Pregled“). Zato je bistveno, da se cilji ohranjanja za posamezno območje brez odlašanja določijo za vsa območja Natura 2000 in da so javno dostopni. | Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that it is in the light of the conservation objectives that the scope of the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment of the effects of a plan or a project on a protected site should be determined. (10) In other words, the decision as to whether the plan or project is likely to have significant impact on a Natura 2000 site should be taken in view of the site’s conservation objectives (see section 3.1 ‘Screening’). It is therefore essential that site-specific conservation objectives are set without delay for all Natura 2000 sites and that these are made publicly available. |
| Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 3.2.2 spodaj, morajo biti cilji ohranjanja za posamezno območje določeni za vse zavarovane habitate in vrste, ki so pomembno prisotni na zadevnem območju (tj. habitate in vrste z oceno območja A, B ali C, ne pa tudi D, v standardnem podatkovnem obrazcu za zadevno območje (11)). Cilji ohranjanja morajo določati ciljne vrednosti, ki jih je treba doseči za vsakega od atributov ali parametrov, ki določajo stanje ohranjenosti zavarovanih značilnosti. | As explained in section 3.2.2 below, site-specific conservation objectives must be set for all protected habitats and species that are significantly present on the site (i.e. habitats and species with A, B or C, but not D, site assessment in the Standard Data Form for the site (11)). The conservation objectives must specify targets to be achieved for each of the attributes or parameters that determine the conservation condition of the protected features. |
| Ocene je treba ponovno proučiti – v fazah pregleda in ustrezne presoje –, če se načrt ali projekt med pripravo spremeni ali izpopolni. Če na primer med fazo pregleda ni mogoče izključiti verjetnosti pomembnih vplivov, se lahko nosilec načrta ali projekta odloči za spremembo zasnove načrta ali projekta, da bi izključil tveganje možnih pomembnih vplivov. V takšnih primerih bi bilo treba spremenjeni načrt ali projekt ponovno pregledati, da se ugotovi, ali bi še vedno lahko pomembno vplival na območje ali ne. | The assessments must be reviewed – at both the screening and the appropriate assessment stages – if the plan or project is modified or further developed during the preparation process. For example if, during the screening phase, it cannot be excluded that there is a likelihood of significant effects, the plan or project developer may decide to revise the plan or project design in order to exclude the risk of possible significant effects. In such cases, the modified plan or project should be screened again to determine whether or not it is still likely to have a significant effect on the site. |
| Okvir 1 | Odločanje na podlagi ustrezne presoje | Pristojni nacionalni organi se morajo glede na ugotovitve ustrezne presoje posledic načrta ali projekta za zadevno območje Natura 2000 odločiti, ali bodo načrt ali projekt odobrili ali ne. Odobrijo ga lahko šele, ko se prepričajo, da ne bo škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja Natura 2000. To velja, kadar z znanstvenega stališča ne obstaja noben razumen dvom glede neobstoja takšnih vplivov (12). | Poudarek je torej na dokazovanju neobstoja škodljivih vplivov, ne njihovega obstoja, kar izhaja iz previdnostnega načela (13). Ustrezna presoja mora biti zato dovolj podrobna in utemeljena, da dokazuje neobstoj škodljivih vplivov, ob upoštevanju najboljših znanstvenih spoznanj na zadevnem področju (14). | Enaka stopnja gotovosti se zahteva, če se odločitev sprejme v fazi pregleda; tudi v tej fazi ne bi smelo biti razumnega dvoma glede neobstoja verjetnih pomembnih vplivov. | Box 1 | Making a decision on the basis of the appropriate assessment | It is the responsibility of the competent authorities, in the light of the conclusions of the appropriate assessment on the implications of a plan or project for the Natura 2000 site concerned, to decide whether or not to approve the plan or project. Approval can be given only after they are certain that the proposed plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects (12). | The focus is therefore on demonstrating the absence of adverse effects rather than their presence, reflecting the precautionary principle (13). The appropriate assessment must therefore be sufficiently detailed and substantiated to demonstrate the absence of adverse effects, in light of the best existing scientific knowledge in the field (14). | The same level of certainty is required if the decision is made during the screening stage; also at this stage there should no reasonable doubt as to the absence of likely significant effects |
| 3. METODOLOGIJA IZ ČLENA 6(3) IN (4) | 3. THE ARTICLE 6(3) AND 6(4) METHODOLOGY |
| 3.1 Prva faza: pregled | 3.1. Stage 1: Screening |
| V prvi fazi se prouči, kakšna je verjetnost, da bo načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000. Če verjetnih pomembnih vplivov ni mogoče izključiti brez razumnega dvoma, je treba za načrt ali projekt izvesti celovito ustrezno presojo iz člena 6(3). | This first stage examines the likelihood of a plan or project having significant effects upon a Natura 2000 site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. If likely significant effects cannot be excluded beyond any reasonable doubt, the plan or project will have to undergo a full appropriate assessment under Article 6(3). |
| Izraza „načrt“ in „projekt“ bi bilo treba razumeti široko. | Projekt lahko vključuje gradbena dela, postavitve in druge posege v naravno okolje, vključno z rednimi dejavnostmi, namenjenimi izkoriščanju naravnih virov. | Tudi izraz načrt ima lahko za namene člena 6(3) širok pomen, pri čemer vključuje načrte rabe zemljišč ali prostorske načrte in sektorske načrte (npr. za promet, energijo, ravnanje z odpadki, upravljanje voda, gospodarjenje z gozdovi itd.). | Direktiva ne omejuje področja uporabe načrta ali projekta na določene kategorije. Odločilni dejavnik je, ali bi lahko pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000 ali ne. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelka 4.4.1 in 4.4.2. | The terms ‘plan’ and ‘project’ should be understood broadly. | A project can involve construction works, installations and other interventions in the natural environment, including regular activities aimed at utilising natural resources. | The term plan has also, for the purposes of Article 6(3), a potentially broad meaning, including land-use or spatial plans and sectoral plans (e.g. for transport, energy, waste management, water management, forest management, etc.). | The Directive does not limit the scope of either a plan or a project to particular categories. The key trigger is whether they are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site . | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. |
| Kot faza predhodne presoje lahko pregled navadno temelji na že obstoječih informacijah, vključno s strokovnimi mnenji (npr. pristojnih okoljskih organov) ali objavljenim gradivom (npr. karte habitatov ali popisi vrst), in ne na zahtevi, da se zberejo podrobni novi dokazi. Kadar pa ni zadostnih informacij na primer o prisotnosti zavarovanih habitatov in vrst na območju, na katero bi lahko načrt ali projekt vplival, ali so takšne informacije zastarele, je morda treba zbrati in analizirati dodatne podatke, da se ugotovi, ali obstaja verjetnost pomembnih vplivov ali ne. Če informacije ne obstajajo, je treba domnevati, da obstaja verjetnost pomembnih vplivov in da je potrebna ustrezna presoja. | As a pre-assessment stage, screening can normally be based on already existing information, including expert opinions (e.g. of competent environmental authorities) or published material (e.g. habitat maps or species inventories), rather than requiring detailed new evidence to be collected. However, where sufficient information e.g. on the presence of protected habitats and species in the area potentially affected by a plan or project does not exist or is outdated, further data may have to be collected and analysed in order to determine whether or not there are likely to be significant effects. If the information does not exist, then the assumption has to be that there is a likelihood of significant effects and that an appropriate assessment is required. |
| Pregled je treba izvesti v zgodnji fazi, običajno pred določitvijo vseh podrobnosti načrta ali projekta, na primer kadar sta lokacija in splošna narava projekta znana, vendar se postopek zasnove še ni začel. Zgodnji pregled prinaša več koristi: | Screening needs to be carried out at an early stage, normally before all the details of a plan or project have been fixed, for instance when the location and general nature of a project are known but where the design process has not yet commenced. Early screening has several benefits: |
| — | lahko zmanjša tveganje zamud in dodatnih stroškov v poznejši fazi, ko se načrt ali projekt predloži za izdajo soglasja za izvedbo; | — | It can reduce the risk of delays and additional costs later on, when the plan or project is submitted for development consent. |
| — | omogoča zgodnje posvetovanje in izmenjavo informacij med predlagatelji načrtov ali projektov, pristojnimi organi in drugimi deležniki, ki imajo ustrezne podatke in strokovno znanje; | — | It allows early consultation and exchange of information between plan or project promoters, competent authorities and other stakeholders who have relevant data and expertise. |
| — | nosilcu načrta ali projekta omogoča, da bolje oceni naslednje korake, ki bodo morda potrebni, ne da bi v to vložil veliko časa in denarja; | — | It enables the developer of a plan or project to better gauge the next steps that may be required, without investing a significant amount of time and money. |
| — | omogoča prepoznavanje in predvidevanje možnih tveganj za območja Natura 2000 in sam načrt ali projekt, na primer z opozarjanjem na potrebo po izbiri druge ustrezne lokacije ali zasnove za načrt ali projekt, da se prepreči vsakršno tveganje škode, ali z zbiranjem dodatnih podatkov za olajšanje pravočasne izvedbe presoje. Čeprav bi morali biti ključni vidiki začetnega načrtovanja jasni, bi morale obstajati tudi možnosti za prilagoditev načrta ali projekta. | — | It makes it possible to identify and anticipate potential risks, both to Natura 2000 sites and to the plan or project itself, for example by highlighting the need for an alternative location or design for the plan or project to avoid any risk of damage, or by collecting further data to facilitate a timely assessment. Although key aspects of the initial planning should be clear, there should be also scope to adjust the plan or project. |
| Kadar se načrt ali projekt pregleda v zgodnji fazi, je treba pregled morda ponoviti v poznejši fazi, ko je na voljo več podrobnosti načrta ali projekta. Obseg analize v okviru pregleda se lahko med posameznimi načrti in projekti razlikuje glede na obseg razvoja in verjetnih vplivov. | When a plan or project is screened at an early stage, the screening may need to be reviewed at a later stage when more details of the plan or project become available. The scope of the screening analysis may differ for plans and projects, depending on the scale of the development and the likely effects. |
| Analiza vključuje štiri korake: | The analysis comprises four steps: |
| 1. | preverjanje, ali je načrt ali projekt neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja Natura 2000 ali zanj potreben; | 1. | ascertaining whether the plan or project is directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site; |
| 2. | opredelitev ustreznih elementov načrta ali projekta in njihovih verjetnih vplivov; | 2. | identifying the relevant elements of the plan or project and their likely impacts; |
| 3. | opredelitev (morebitnih) območij Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta, ob upoštevanju možnih vplivov načrta ali projekta samega ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti; | 3. | identifying which (if any) Natura 2000 sites may be affected, considering the potential effects of the plan or project alone or in combination with other plans or projects; |
| 4. | presoja, ali je mogoče izključiti verjetne pomembne vplive na območje Natura 2000 glede na cilje ohranjanja območja. | 4. | assessing whether likely significant effects on the Natura 2000 site can be ruled out, in view of the site's conservation objectives. |
| V naslednjih oddelkih so vsi posamezni koraki podrobneje predstavljeni, skupaj z rezultatom pregleda in povezano dokumentacijo. | The following sections present each of the four steps in further detail, along with the outcome of screening and related documentation. |
| V spodnji preglednici 1 so opredeljene ključne razlike med fazama pregleda in ustrezne presoje iz člena 6(3) direktive o habitatih. | Table 1 below sets out the key differences between the screening and the appropriate assessment stages under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. |
| Preglednica 1 | Table 1 |
| Razlike med fazo pregleda in ustrezno presojo | Differences between the screening stage and the appropriate assessment |
| Pregled | Ustrezna presoja | Screening | Appropriate assessment |
| Z njim se preveri, ali so zaradi izvajanja načrta ali projekta verjetni pomembni negativni vplivi na območje Natura 2000 glede na cilje ohranjanja območja. | Z njo se presodijo verjetni vplivi na območje Natura 2000 glede na cilje njegovega ohranjanja in presodi, ali se bodo oziroma bi se lahko pojavili škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja. | Ascertains whether significant negative effects on a Natura 2000 site are likely as a result of implementing the plan or project in view of the site's conservation objectives. | Assesses the likely effects on the Natura 2000 site in view of its conservation objectives and assesses whether adverse effects on the integrity of the site will or might occur. |
| Če pojava pomembnih vplivov ni mogoče z gotovostjo izključiti, je treba za načrt ali projekt izvesti ustrezno presojo. | Načrt ali projekt se lahko odobri le, če je mogoče izključiti škodljive vplive na celovitost območja Natura 2000. | If the occurrence of significant effects cannot be excluded with certainty, the plan or project has to undergo an appropriate assessment. | The plan or project can be authorised only if adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site can be excluded. |
| Običajno na podlagi obstoječih podatkov, razpoložljivega znanja in izkušenj ter izvedenskega mnenja. | Zahteva podrobno proučitev, pogosto terenske raziskave, strokovno svetovanje in strokovno presojo posameznega primera. | Typically based on existing data, available knowledge and experience, and expert opinion. | Requires a detailed examination, often field surveys, expert advice, and an expert assessment of the specific case. |
| Ukrepov za ublažitev ni mogoče upoštevati (15). | Z njo se ocenijo ukrepi za ublažitev, namenjeni odpravi ali zmanjšanju škodljivih vplivov. | Mitigation measures cannot be considered (15). | Assesses mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects. |
| 3.1.1 Korak 1: preverjanje, ali je načrt ali projekt neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja Natura 2000 ali zanj potreben | 3.1.1. Step 1: Ascertain whether the plan or project is directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of a Natura 2000 site |
| V tem koraku se preveri, ali je načrt ali projekt povezan z upravljanjem območja ali potreben zanj, tj. ali prispeva k doseganju ciljev ohranjanja območja. | This step ascertains whether the plan or project is connected with, or necessary for, the management of a site, i.e. if it contributes to achieving the site’s conservation objectives. |
| Izraz „upravljanje“ se nanaša na upravljanje ohranjanja območja, kar pomeni, da ga je treba razumeti v smislu, v katerem je uporabljen v členu 6(1). Če je dejavnost neposredno povezana z uresničevanjem ciljev ohranjanja in potrebna zanj, je torej izvzeta iz zahteve po presoji. | Načrti ali projekti, ki so neposredno povezani z upravljanjem ohranjanja območij Natura 2000, bi morali biti na splošno izključeni iz določb člena 6(3), vendar lahko njihovi sestavni deli, ki niso povezani z ohranjanjem, še vedno zahtevajo presojo. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.4.3. | The term ‘management’ refers to the conservation management of a site, i.e. it is to be understood within the meaning for which it is used in Article 6(1). Thus, if an activity is directly connected with, and necessary for, fulfilling the conservation objectives, it is exempt from the requirement for an assessment. | Plans or projects directly connected with, or necessary to, the conservation management of Natura 2000 sites should generally be excluded from the provisions of Article 6(3), but their non-conservation components may still require an assessment. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.4.3. |
| Sestavni del načrta ali projekta, ki ni povezan z ohranjanjem in ima med svojimi cilji upravljanje ohranjanja, lahko še vedno zahteva ustrezno presojo. To lahko na primer velja za sečnjo lesa, ki je del načrta upravljanja ohranjanja za gozdno območje, določeno kot območje Natura 2000. Za del dejavnosti, ki ni potreben za upravljanje ohranjanja območja, bi se morala izvesti ustrezna presoja (16). | A non-conservation component of a plan or project which includes conservation management among its objectives may still require an appropriate assessment. For example, this could apply to timber harvesting that forms part of a conservation management plan for a woodland designated as a Natura 2000 site. The part of the activity, which is not necessary to the site's conservation management, should be subject to an appropriate assessment (16). |
| Obstajajo lahko tudi okoliščine, v katerih lahko načrt ali projekt, ki je neposredno povezan z upravljanjem enega območja (ciljno območje) ali zanj potreben, negativno vpliva na drugo območje. Za izboljšanje obvladovanja poplav na ciljnem območju je lahko v načrtu predlagana izgradnja zapornice na drugem območju, kar lahko pomembno škodljivo vpliva na to območje. Zato bi bilo treba za načrt ali projekt izvesti presojo možnih pomembnih vplivov na drugo območje. | There may also be circumstances where a plan or project directly connected with, or necessary for, the management of one site (the target site) may have a negative effect on another site. For example, to improve the flood management of a target site, the plan may propose to build a barrier in another site, which may have a significant adverse effect on that site. Therefore, the plan or project should be the subject of an assessment of the potentially significant effects on the other site. |
| Posledično bi morali biti načrti ali projekti, ki bodo v skladu z direktivama o pticah in habitatih neposredno povezani z upravljanjem območij Natura 2000 ali zanj potrebni, načrti ali projekti, katerih cilj je prispevati in ki bodo prispevali k ohranjanju ali, kjer je primerno, obnovi zavarovanih habitatov in vrst na teh območjih v ugodno stanje ohranjenosti. | Consequently, the plans or projects that will be directly related or necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives should be plans or projects that aim to, and will contribute to, preserving or, where appropriate, restoring the protected habitats and species in these sites to a favourable conservation condition. |
| Okvir 2 | Primeri meril za preverjanje, ali je načrt ali projekt neposredno povezan z upravljanjem območja Natura 2000 ali zanj potreben | — | Ukrepi, predvideni v načrtu ali projektu, so vključeni v načrt upravljanja zadevnega območja Natura 2000 ali predlagani v okviru drugih zakonskih, upravnih ali pogodbenih ukrepov, ki so potrebni za vzdrževanje in obnovo (če je potrebna) območja, njegovih habitatnih tipov in vrst v dobro stanje ohranjenosti; | — | obstaja utemeljena izjava zakonskega organa, pristojnega za upravljanje območja Natura 2000, da je dejavnost neposredno povezana z upravljanjem ciljnega območja in zanj potrebna ter da je jasno povezana z vzdrževanjem ali izboljšanjem stanja ohranjenosti habitatnih tipov ali vrst na območju. | Box 2 | Examples of criteria for ascertaining whether a plan or project is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 site | — | measures envisaged in the plan or project are included in the management plan of the Natura 2000 site concerned or are proposed as part of other statutory, administrative or contractual measures required for maintaining and restoring (if necessary) the site, its habitat types and species in good state of conservation; | — | there is a substantiated statement from the statutory body responsible for managing the Natura 2000 site that the activity is directly related to, and necessary for the management of the target site, and that it is clearly related to maintaining or improving the conservation status of habitat types or species in the site. |
| 3.1.2 Korak 2: opis načrta ali projekta in njegovih dejavnikov vpliva | 3.1.2. Step 2: Description of the plan or project and its impact factors |
| Pri opisovanju načrta ali projekta bo treba opredeliti vse vidike, ki bi lahko sami ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti vplivali na območje Natura 2000. | When describing the plan or project, it will be necessary to identify all aspects that have a potential to affect the Natura 2000 site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. |
| Upoštevati je treba vse faze projekta, vključno z gradnjo, obratovanjem in razgradnjo. | All phases of the project have to be taken into account including construction, operation and decommissioning. |
| Za načrte je treba zbrati in analizirati ustrezne podrobnosti o dejavnostih, ki se bodo izvajale v okviru načrta, da se ugotovi, ali bi lahko posamezno ali skupaj pomembno vplivale na območja Natura 2000, med drugim v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti. | For plans, appropriate details about the activities carried out within the plan need to be collected and analysed to see if individually or collectively they may have significant impact on the Natura 2000 sites, including in combination with other plans or projects. |
| V okviru 3 so navedeni ključni parametri načrta ali projekta, ki jih je treba opredeliti. Ti elementi so zgolj okvirni in jih je treba prilagoditi ali dopolniti, da ustrezajo posameznemu primeru. Za nekatere projekte ali načrte je morda treba ločeno določiti parametre za faze gradnje, obratovanja in razgradnje. | Box 3 lists the key parameters of the plan or project to be identified. These elements are indicative only, to be adapted or complemented to suit each case. For some projects or plans, it may be necessary to identify parameters separately for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. |
| Okvir 3 | Primeri elementov načrta ali projekta, ki jih je treba upoštevati med pregledom | — | Velikost (npr. glede na neposredno rabo zemljišč); | — | ccelotno prizadeto območje, vključno z območjem, prizadetim zaradi posrednih vplivov (npr. hrup, motnost, vibracije); | — | fizične spremembe v okolju (npr. sprememba rečnih strug ali morfologije drugih vodnih teles, spremembe gozdnatosti); | — | spremembe intenzivnosti obstoječega pritiska (npr. povečanje hrupa, onesnaženosti ali prometa); | — | potrebe po virih (npr. odvzem vode, pridobivanje mineralnih surovin); | — | emisije (npr. usedline dušika) in odpadki (in ali se odlagajo v tla, vodo ali zrak); | — | zahteve glede prevoza (npr. dovozne ceste); | — | trajanje gradnje, obratovanja, razgradnje itd.; | — | časovni vidiki (časovni okvir različnih faz načrta ali projekta); | — | oddaljenost od območij Natura 2000 in zlasti od njihovih določujočih značilnosti; | — | kumulativni vplivi z drugimi projekti in načrti. | Box 3 | Examples of elements of the plan or project to be considered during screening | — | size (e.g. in relation to direct land-take); | — | overall affected area including the area affected by indirect impacts (e.g. noise, turbidity, vibrations); | — | physical changes in the environment (e.g. modification of riverbeds or morphology of other water bodies, changes in the density of forest cover); | — | changes in the intensity of an existing pressure (e.g. increase in noise, pollution or traffic); | — | resource requirements (e.g. water abstraction, mineral extraction); | — | emissions (e.g. nitrogen deposition) and waste (and whether they are disposed of on land, water or in the air); | — | transportation requirements (e.g. access roads); | — | duration of construction, operation, decommissioning, etc.; | — | temporal aspects (timing of the different stages of a plan or project); | — | distance from Natura 2000 sites and in particular from their designating features; | — | cumulative impacts with other projects and plans. |
| 3.1.3 Korak 3: opredelitev območij Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta zaradi načrta ali projekta | 3.1.3. Step 3: Identify which Natura 2000 sites may be affected by the plan or project |
| Pri opredelitvi območij Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta, bi bilo treba upoštevati vse vidike načrta ali projekta, ki bi lahko vplivali na območja Natura 2000 znotraj vplivnega območja načrta ali projekta. Pri tem bi bilo treba upoštevati vse določujoče značilnosti (vrste, habitatni tipi), ki so pomembno prisotne na območjih, in cilje njihovega ohranjanja. | Identifying the Natura 2000 sites that may be affected should be done by taking into consideration all aspects of the plan or project that could have potential effects on any Natura 2000 sites located within the zone of influence of the plan or project. This should take into account all of the designating features (species, habitat types) that are significantly present on the sites and their conservation objectives. |
| Zlasti bi bilo treba opredeliti: | In particular, it should identify: |
| — | vsa območja Natura 2000, ki se z geografskega vidika prekrivajo s katerim koli ukrepom ali vidikom načrta ali projekta v kateri koli njegovi fazi, ali sosednja območja; | — | any Natura 2000 sites geographically overlapping with any of the actions or aspects of the plan or project in any of its phases, or adjacent to them; |
| — | vsa območja Natura 2000 znotraj verjetnega vplivnega območja načrta ali projekta. Območja Natura 2000 v okolici načrta ali projekta (ali nekoliko oddaljena od njega), na katera bi vidiki projekta še vedno lahko posredno vplivali, tudi kar zadeva uporabo naravnih virov (npr. vode) in različne vrste odpadkov, izpustov ali emisij snovi ali energije; | — | any Natura 2000 sites within the likely zone of influence of the plan or project. Natura 2000 sites located in the surroundings of the plan or project (or at some distance) that could still be indirectly affected by aspects of the project, including as regards the use of natural resources (e.g. water) and various types of waste, discharge or emissions of substances or energy; |
| — | območja Natura 2000 v okolici projekta ali načrta (ali nekoliko oddaljena od njega), ki so območja živalskih vrst, ki se lahko premikajo na območje projekta, posledica česar so umrljivost ali drugi vplivi (npr. izguba območij hranjenja ali zmanjšanje naravnega območja razširjenosti); | — | Natura 2000 sites in the surroundings of the plan or project (or at some distance) which host fauna that can move to the project area and then suffer mortality or other impacts (e.g. loss of feeding areas, reduction of home range); |
| — | območja Natura 2000, na katerih povezljivost ali ekološko kontinuiteto vpliva načrt ali projekt. | — | Natura 2000 sites whose connectivity or ecological continuity can be affected by the plan or project. |
| Obseg območij Natura 2000, ki ga je treba oceniti, tj. območje, na katerem se lahko pojavijo vplivi načrta ali projekta, bo odvisen od narave načrta ali projekta in razdalje, na kateri se vplivi lahko pojavijo. Pri območjih Natura 2000 dolvodno ob rekah ali mokriščih, ki jih napajajo vodonosniki, se lahko zgodi, da načrt ali projekt vpliva na vodotoke, selitev rib itd., tudi če je zelo oddaljen. Emisije onesnaževal lahko vplivajo tudi pri veliki oddaljenosti. | The range of Natura 2000 sites to be assessed, i.e. the zone in which impacts from the plan or project may arise, will depend on the nature of the plan or project and the distance at which effects may occur. For Natura 2000 sites located downstream along rivers or wetlands fed by aquifers, it may be that a plan or project can affect water flows, fish migration and so forth, even at a great distance. Emissions of pollutants may also have effects over a long distance. |
| Vpliv nekaterih projektov ali načrtov, ki ne vplivajo neposredno na območja Natura 2000, je lahko še vedno pomemben, če povzročajo učinek pregrade ali onemogočajo ekološke povezave. To se lahko zgodi, če na primer načrti vplivajo na značilnosti krajine, ki povezujejo območja Natura 2000 ali ki lahko ovirajo premike vrst ali prekinjajo kontinuiteto rečnega ali gozdnega ekosistema. | Some projects or plans that do not directly affect Natura 2000 sites may still have a significant impact on them if they cause a barrier effect or prevent ecological linkages. This may happen, for example, when plans affect features of the landscape that connect Natura 2000 sites or that may obstruct the movements of species or disrupt the continuity of a fluvial or woodland ecosystem. |
| Za določitev možnih vplivov načrta ali projekta na območja Natura 2000 je treba opredeliti ne le ustrezna območja, ampak tudi habitate in vrste, ki so na njih pomembno prisotni, ter cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja. | To determine the possible effects of the plan or project on Natura 2000 sites, it is necessary to identify not only the relevant sites but also the habitats and species that are significantly present within them, as well as the site-specific conservation objectives. |
| V okviru 4 so navedeni primeri virov podatkov, ki se lahko uporabijo v ta namen. | Box 4 lists examples of the data sources that can be used for this purpose. |
| Okvir 4 | Viri, ki se lahko uporabijo za opredelitev vpliva na območje Natura 2000 | — | Standardni podatkovni obrazec Natura 2000 za območje; | — | cilji ohranjanja za posamezna območja (opredeljeni v aktih o določitvi posebnih ohranitvenih območij, v aktih o razvrstitvi posebnih območij varstva, v načrtu upravljanja območja ali v ločenem aktu); | — | načrti upravljanja območja (v katerih so na primer opredeljeni pritiski na območje in grožnje zanj); | — | obstoječe raziskave in podatki o spremljanju za zadevne vrste in habitatne tipe, njihovo porazdelitev na območju in okrog njega, stanje ohranjenosti, pritiske nanje in grožnjah zanje; | — | sedanje in pretekle karte območja; | — | načrti rabe tal in drugi ustrezni obstoječi načrti; | — | obstoječe gradivo o raziskavah območja; | — | obstoječi podatki o hidrogeologiji; | — | obstoječi podatki o zadevnih snoveh (npr. usedlinah dušika ali sestavi odpadnih voda); | — | presoje vplivov na okolje za podobne projekte ali načrte; | — | ustrezna poročila o stanju okolja; | — | karte in geografski informacijski sistemi; | — | dokumentacija o zgodovini območja itd. | Box 4 | Sources to use to identify impact on a Natura 2000 site | — | the Natura 2000 standard data form for the site; | — | site-specific conservation objectives (set out in the special areas of conservation (SAC) designation acts or in the special protection area (SPA) classification acts, or in the site management plan, or in a separate act); | — | site management plans (e.g. that identify pressures and threats on the site); | — | existing surveys and monitoring data on relevant species and habitat types, their distribution in and around the site, conservation status, pressures and threats on them; | — | current and past maps of the site; | — | land-use and other relevant existing plans; | — | existing site survey material; | — | existing data on hydrogeology; | — | existing data on relevant substances (e.g. nitrogen deposition, composition of discharged waste waters); | — | environmental impact assessments for similar projects or plans; | — | relevant state of the environment reports; | — | maps and geographical information systems; | — | site history files, etc. |
| Informacije, navedene v standardnem podatkovnem obrazcu Natura 2000 (17), so izhodišče za opredelitev habitatnih tipov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju in ki bi lahko bili prizadeti zaradi načrta ali projekta, ter vseh obstoječih pritiskov in vplivov na območje. Druge informacije na ravni območja se lahko pridobijo iz virov, kot so načrt upravljanja območja Natura 2000, seznami dejavnosti, ki lahko povzročijo škodo ali poslabšanje, rezultati raziskav za spremljanje habitatov in vrst znotraj območja ter viri zunaj območja Natura 2000 na biogeografski, nacionalni in lokalni ravni. | The information provided in the Natura 2000 standard data form (17) is the starting point for identifying the habitat types and species that are significantly present on the site and that could be affected by the plan or project, as well as any existing pressures and impacts on the site. Other information at site-level can be obtained from sources such as the Natura 2000 site management plan, lists of operations that may cause damage or deterioration, the results of monitoring surveys of habitat and species inside the site, as well as sources outside the Natura 2000 site at biogeographic, national and local level. |
| Pomembno je, da so ti podatki in informacije javno dostopni, na primer v osrednji podatkovni zbirki ali na spletnih portalih in spletnih mestih nacionalnih ali regionalnih organov, ter se redno posodabljajo, tako da imajo vsi deležniki in organi enostaven dostop do njih. | It is important that this data and information is made publically available e.g. through a central database or through online portals and websites from national or regional authorities, and regularly updated, so that all stakeholders and authorities concerned can easily have access to them. |
| Okvir 5 | Ključni viri informacij o določujočih značilnostih območij Natura 2000 | Standardni podatkovni obrazec je na voljo za vsako območje Natura 2000. Vsebuje informacije o zavarovanih vrstah in habitatnih tipih v EU, ki so na območju, ter omogoča splošno oceno stanja vsake vrste ali habitatnega tipa na navedenem območju (na lestvici od A do D). Zagotavlja informacije o površini, reprezentativnosti in stanju ohranjenosti habitatov, ki so na območju, ter splošno oceno pomena območja za ohranjanje zadevnih naravnih habitatnih tipov. V zvezi z vrstami, ki so na območju, zagotavlja informacije o njihovi populaciji, stanju (bivanje, razmnoževanje, prezimovanje, selitve) in pomenu območja za zadevne vrste. | Vključuje tudi vsebinske informacije o območju, med drugim: | — | splošne značilnosti, kakovost in pomen območja; | — | ranljivost (pritisk človekovih in drugih vplivov na območje ter občutljivost habitatov in ekosistemov); | — | vplive, povezane s človekovimi dejavnostmi in naravnimi procesi, ki lahko pozitivno ali negativno vplivajo na ohranjanje in upravljanje območja ter del površine prizadetega območja; | — | organ upravljanja, pristojen za območje; | — | načrte in prakso na področju upravljanja območja, vključno s tradicionalnimi človekovimi dejavnostmi; | — | karto območja. | Ohranitveni ukrepi in načrti upravljanja | Države članice morajo za posebna ohranitvena območja oblikovati ohranitvene ukrepe, ki ustrezajo ekološkim zahtevam naravnih habitatnih tipov iz Priloge I in vrst iz Priloge II na območju (člen 6(1) direktive o habitatih). To lahko po potrebi vključuje načrte upravljanja, ki so pripravljeni posebej za ta območja ali zajeti v drugih razvojnih načrtih, in/ali druge zakonske, upravne in pogodbene ukrepe. | Podobno je treba na posebnih ohranitvenih območjih izvajati tudi ciljno usmerjene ohranitvene ukrepe. Načrti upravljanja območij Natura 2000 lahko, kadar so na voljo, zagotovijo informacije o ciljih ohranjanja območij, lokaciji ter stanju vrst in habitatov, ki se na območju pojavljajo, grožnjah zanje in ohranitvenih ukrepih, potrebnih za izboljšanje njihovega stanja ohranjenosti na območju. Vse to je lahko koristno v fazi pregleda in pri ustrezni presoji. | Box 5 | Key information sources on the designating features of the Natura 2000 sites | A standard data form is available for each Natura 2000 site. It contains information on the EU protected species and habitat types present on the site and provides a broad assessment of the condition of each species or habitat type on that site (scored from A to D). It provides information about the surface area, representativeness and conservation status of the habitats present in the site, and gives an overall assessment of the value of the site for conservation of the natural habitat types concerned. For the species present in the site, the form provides information on their populations, status (resident, breeding, wintering, migratory) and on the site’s value for the species in question. | The form also includes contextual information about the site, including: | — | General site characteristics, quality and importance; | — | vulnerability (pressure on the site from human and other influences and the fragility of habitats and ecosystems); | — | impacts related to human activities and natural processes that may have an influence, either positive or negative, on the conservation and management of the site as well as the proportion of the area of the site affected; | — | management body responsible for the site; | — | site management plans and practice, including traditional human activities; | — | map of the site. | Conservation measures and management plans | For special areas of conservation, Member States must draw up conservation measures that correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the site (Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive). This can involve, if need be, management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and/or other statutory, administrative or contractual measures. | Similarly, special protection areas must also be the subject of targeted conservation measures. Where available, Natura 2000 management plans can provide information about the sites’ conservation objectives, the location and status of the species and habitats occurring in the site, their threats and the conservation measures required to improve their conservation condition on the site. All of this can be useful for the screening stage and for the appropriate assessment. |
| Na spletnem mestu Komisije so v pregledovalniku Natura 2000 in javni podatkovni zbirki Natura 2000 na voljo podatki in karte za vsa območja Natura 2000 v EU: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/data/index_en.htm. Tudi večina držav članic ima javno dostopne informacije o območjih Natura 2000 in njihovih značilnostih. Pri razumevanju povezave med vidiki načrta ali projekta in posebnimi značilnostmi območja Natura 2000 je lahko v pomoč tudi geografski informacijski sistem (GIS). | The Commission’s website provides data and maps for all Natura 2000 sites in the EU via the Natura 2000 viewer and the Natura 2000 public database: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/data/indexen.htm. Most Member States also have publically available information on Natura 2000 sites and their features. Geographical information systems (GIS) can also aide in the understanding of the relationship between aspects of a plan or project and the specific features of the Natura 2000 site. |
| V različnih državah so na voljo praktična orodja in informacijski sistemi za pomoč pri opredelitvi možnih vplivov različnih vrst projektov in načrtov na območja Natura 2000. V okviru 6 je navedenih nekaj primerov takšnih orodij: | Practical tools and information systems are available in different countries to help identify potential impacts from different types of projects and plans on Natura 2000 sites. Box 6 gives some examples of such tools. |
| Okvir 6 | Primeri informacijskih sistemov za opredelitev možnih vplivov različnih vrst projektov in načrtov na območja Natura 2000 | Nemčija | Informacije, potrebne za presojo možnih negativnih vplivov skoraj vseh vrst projektov, zagotavlja informacijski sistem FFH-VP- Info, ki ga je vzpostavil zvezni urad za varstvo narave. Informacijski sistem gosti obsežno podatkovno zbirko možnih vplivov in učinkov na posamezne habitatne tipe in vrste, ki se lahko uporabi za pregled in ustrezno presojo. Zagotavlja podrobne informacije o občutljivosti in možnih učinkih dejavnikov vpliva za skoraj vse habitate in vrste v Nemčiji, ki so zavarovani na podlagi direktiv o naravi. Vključuje tudi kontrolne sezname s presojami resnosti/pomembnosti posameznega vpliva na habitatne tipe in vrste. | Glej: http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp. | Irska | Aplikacija GeoTool je na Irskem na voljo za podporo v postopku zbiranja podatkov v prvi fazi (pregled) in drugi fazi (ustrezna presoja). Aplikacija uporabnikom omogoča, da izberejo točko na karti in nato iščejo posebna ohranitvena območja in posebna območja varstva znotraj določene razdalje od točke, ki jo lahko uporabnik izbere glede na raven možnega vpliva načrta ali projekta na okolje. Informacije, navedene za posamezna območja Natura 2000, ki so v izbranem razponu, vključujejo seznam habitatov in vrst, za katere so območja določena, in povezavo do ciljev ohranjanja za vsako območje. | Glej: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/AAGeoTool. | Nizozemska | Nizozemska vlada je oblikovala orodje za hitro presojo možnega vpliva projekta v začetni fazi. V njem so opisani postopkovni koraki, ki so potrebni, če je presoja vplivov na območja Natura 2000 ali zavarovane vrste del postopka za pridobitev dovoljenja. Orodje pomaga opredeliti možne vplive na posamezne vrste in habitatne tipe ter zagotavlja informacije o občutljivosti vrst in habitatnih tipov na različne dejavnosti. | Glej: www.natura2000.nl (pod routeplanner beschermde natuur in effectenindicator Natura 2000-gebieden). | Belgija | Za oceno zakisljevanja in evtrofikacije zaradi odlaganja iz zraka (odlaganje NOx in NH3, povezano z dejavnostmi, kot so intenzivno kmetijstvo, industrijsko ogrevanje ter energetski procesi in mobilnost) Belgija zagotavlja interaktivno spletno aplikacijo za izvedbo prvega pregleda. Gre za orodje za hitri pregled, s katerim se opredelijo možni vplivi. Če pregled pokaže zeleno luč, se ne pričakujejo škodljivi vplivi. Če orodje pokaže rdečo luč, lahko obstaja škodljiv vpliv, ki zahteva podrobnejšo proučitev z ustrezno presojo. | Glej: https://www.milieuinfo.be/voortoets/. | Dodatne podrobnosti o informacijah in praktičnih orodjih v podporo pregledu in ustrezni presoji so na voljo v Prilogi k tem smernicam (oddelek 1.1). | Box 6 | Examples of information systems to identify potential impact from different types of projects and plans on Natura 2000 sites | Germany | The information needed to assess the potential negative effects of nearly all types of projects is provided by the information system FFH-VP- Info, produced by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. It hosts an extensive database on potential impacts and effects on specific habitat types and species that can be used for the screening and appropriate assessment. It provides detailed information on the sensitivity and potential effects of the impact factors for nearly all habitats and species protected under the nature directives that are present in Germany. It also includes checklists with assessments of the severity/relevance of each impact on habitat types and species. | See: http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp | Ireland | A GeoTool application is available in Ireland to support the data collection process in Stage 1 (screening) and Stage 2 (the appropriate assessment). It allows the user to select a point on the map and then search for SACs and SPAs within a set distance from the point, which the user can select depending on the level of potential environmental impact from a plan or project. The information given for each Natura 2000 site located in the selected range includes the list of habitats and species for which the sites are designated and a link to the conservation objectives for each site. | See: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/AAGeoTool | The Netherlands | The Dutch government has produced a tool to quickly assess the potential impact of a project during the initial phase. It describes the procedural steps needed if an assessment of the effects on Natura 2000 sites or protected species is part of the procedure for obtaining a permit. It helps identify potential impacts on individual species and habitat types and provides information about the sensitivity of species and habitat types to different activities. | See: www.natura2000.nl (under ‘routeplanner beschermde natuur’ and ‘effectenindicator Natura 2000-gebieden’). | Belgium | To assess acidification and eutrophication through aerial deposits (deposition of NOx and NH3 linked to activities such as intensive agriculture, industrial heating and energy processes and mobility), Belgium provides an interactive online application to conduct the first screening. It is a quick scan tool to identify potential impacts. If the scan gives a green light, no harmful impact is to be expected. If the tool gives a red light, there may be a harmful impact that merits closer examination via an appropriate assessment. | See: https://www.milieuinfo.be/voortoets/ | See further details on information and practical tools to support the screening and the appropriate assessment in the annex to this guidance document (Section 1.1). |
| 3.1.4 Korak 4: presoja, ali je mogoče izključiti verjetne pomembne vplive glede na cilje ohranjanja območja | 3.1.4. Step 4: Assess whether likely significant effects can be ruled out in view of the site's conservation objectives |
| Naslednji korak faze pregleda je presoja verjetnosti in morebitnega pomena vplivov, opredeljenih v prejšnjem koraku, ob upoštevanju možnih kumulativnih vplivov z drugimi načrti ali projekti. | The next step of the screening stage is to assess the likelihood and potential significance of the impacts identified in the previous step, taking into account potential cumulative impacts with other plans or projects. |
| Presoja verjetnosti pomembnih vplivov | Assessing the likelihood of significant effects |
| Verjeten pomembni vpliv je v tem okviru vsak vpliv, ki ga je mogoče razumno predvideti kot posledico načrta ali projekta, ki bi negativno in pomembno vplival na cilje ohranjanja, določene za habitate in vrste, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju Natura 2000. Lahko je rezultat dejavnosti na območju ali zunaj njega ali se pojavi v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti. | A likely significant effect is, in this context, any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that would negatively and significantly affect the conservation objectives established for the habitats and species significantly present on the Natura 2000 site. This can result from either on-site or off-site activities, or through combinations with other plans or projects. |
| Pri tem je treba opozoriti, da če verjetnih pomembnih vplivov ni mogoče izključiti brez razumnega dvoma, je treba za načrt ali projekt izvesti celovito ustrezno presojo iz člena 6(3) (glej oddelek 3.2.2 za več podrobnosti o presoji možnih vplivov). | It should be recalled here that if likely significant effects cannot be excluded beyond reasonable doubt, the plan or project will have to undergo a full appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) (see section 3.2.2.b for further details on assessing potential impacts). |
| Pomembnost vplivov bo odvisna od dejavnikov, kot so razsežnost vpliva, vrsta, obseg, trajanje, intenzivnost, časovni okvir, verjetnost, kumulativni vplivi ter ranljivost zadevnih habitatov in vrst. | Significance of the effects will vary depending on factors such as the magnitude of impact, the type, extent, duration, intensity, timing, probability, cumulative effects and the vulnerability of the habitats and species concerned. |
| V okviru 7 so navedeni primeri kazalnikov za količinsko opredelitev pomembnosti teh vplivov. | Box 7 lists examples of indicators to quantify the significance of these effects. |
| Okvir 7 | Primeri kazalnikov pomembnosti | Vrsta vpliva | Kazalnik pomembnosti | Izguba območja habitata | Degradacija | Hektari izgubljenega habitata, odstotek izgubljenega habitata | Območje (v absolutnem smislu in kot odstotek), na katerem so se atributi, ki se uporabljajo za določanje stanja ohranjenosti vrste ali habitata, poslabšali, in obseg degradacije za vsakega od atributov | Vznemirjanje | Stopnja intenzivnosti, trajanje ali trajnost dejavnika vznemirjanja, njegova oddaljenost od razmnoževališč | Razdrobljenost | Sprememba v primerjavi s prvotnim in želenim stanjem (npr. oblikovanje več manjših delov habitata namesto enega velikega, hektari habitata, izpostavljeni učinku roba) | Posredni vplivi | V kakšnem obsegu je območje odprto za druge grožnje (invazivne tujerodne vrste, prodiranje človeka in živali, dodatni razvojni projekti) | Box 7 | Examples of significance indicators | Impact type | Significance indicator | Loss of habitat area | Degradation | Hectares of habitat lost, percentage of the habitat lost | Area (in absolute terms and percentage) where the attributes used to determine the conservation status of the species or habitat has worsened as well as the scale of degradation for each of the attributes | Disturbance | Degree of intensity, duration or permanence of the disturbance factor, its distance from breeding areas | Fragmentation | Change in comparison with the original and desired states (e.g. creation of several small habitat patches instead of one large one, hectares of habitat exposed to the edge effect) | Indirect effects | Degree to which the area is opened to other threats (invasive alien species, human and animal penetration, additional developments). |
| Viri informacij za presojo pomembnosti vplivov so med drugim dokazi, pridobljeni v okviru podobnih dejavnosti, ki vplivajo na območja s podobnimi določenimi značilnostmi in podobnim stanjem ohranjenosti ali s podobnimi cilji ohranjanja, ter strokovna mnenja na podlagi razpoložljivih dokazov. Ker pa se posamezni primeri obvezno razlikujejo, je treba upoštevati lokalne okoliščine. Presojo je treba zato vedno izvesti za vsak primer posebej. | Sources of information to assess the significance of effects include evidence from similar operations affecting sites with similar designated features in a similar conservation condition or with similar conservation objectives, and expert judgement based on available evidence. However, as each case is necessarily different, consideration must be given to the local circumstances. The assessment must therefore always be done on a case-by-case basis. |
| Kot je navedeno v Napotkih za uporabo člena 6, tisto, kar je morda pomembno za eno območje, morda ni pomembno za drugo. Izguba sto kvadratnih metrov habitata je na primer lahko pomembna za majhno območje redkih orhidej, medtem ko je lahko podobna izguba na velikem stepskem območju nepomembna, če ne vpliva na cilje ohranjanja območja. | As stated in the Article 6 Guide, what may be significant for one site may not be significant for another. For example, a loss of a hundred square metres of habitat may be significant for a small rare orchid site, while a similar loss in a large steppe site may be insignificant if it does not affect the site’s conservation objectives. |
| V primeru načrtov je – odvisno od ravni opredelitve ter podrobnosti različnih vidikov in sestavnih delov načrta – morda težko presoditi razsežnost in pomembnost vseh možnih vplivov na posamezna območja v tej fazi. Vendar pa se verjetnost pomembnih vplivov na območje Natura 2000 še vedno lahko presodi na primer glede na vrsto načrta ali projekta in njegovo morebitno vplivno območje. | In case of plans, depending on the level of definition and details of the various aspects and components of the plan, it may be difficult to assess the magnitude and significance of all potential effects on individual sites at this stage. Nevertheless, the likelihood of significant effects on Natura 2000 site can still be assessed for instance in light of the type of plan or project and its potential zone of influence. |
| Načrte je treba zato pregledati z zadostno mero previdnosti (brez razumnega dvoma) in ob upoštevanju previdnostnega načela, da se preprečita izločitev sestavnih delov ali ukrepov, ki bi lahko vplivali na območje Natura 2000, in njihova izključitev iz dodatnega pregleda v okviru ustrezne presoje. | Plans must therefore be screened with a sufficient degree of caution (beyond reasonable doubt), and in light of the precautionary principle, to avoid ruling out components or actions with a potential impact on a Natura 2000 site and excluding them from further scrutiny in the appropriate assessment. |
| Kar zadeva presojo ukrepov za ublažitev (18) pri izvajanju postopka iz člena 6(3), je Sodišče odločilo, da „se za ugotovitev, ali je treba pozneje opraviti ustrezno presojo vplivov načrta ali projekta na zadevno območje, v fazi predhodne ocene ne sme upoštevati ukrepov, katerih namen je preprečiti ali zmanjšati škodljive posledice tega načrta ali projekta na to območje“ (zadeva C-323/17). | As regards the assessment of mitigation measures (18) in implementing the Article 6(3) procedure, the Court has ruled that ‘in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site’ (Case C-323/17). |
| Vendar lahko nosilci projektov včasih načrtujejo projekte tako, da se že na začetku preprečijo ali zmanjšajo morebitni vplivi. Pri tem lahko uporabijo najboljše razpoložljive tehnologije ali preventivne ukrepe, vključno z zakonskimi ukrepi (npr. prepovedana območja), ki so na primer predpisani v sektorskih uredbah, načrtih upravljanja območij Natura 2000 ali prostorskih načrtih. | However, project developers can sometimes design projects in a way to avoid or minimise potential impacts from the outset. This can be done by using best available technologies or by applying pre-emptive measures, including statutory measures (e.g. no go zones) prescribed e.g. in sector-specific regulations, Natura 2000 management plans or in spatial/zoning plans |
| Takšni splošni sestavni deli projekta se lahko upoštevajo pri pregledu, v nasprotju z ukrepi za ublažitev za posamezne načrte ali projekte, ki se v tej fazi ne smejo upoštevati. Ti sestavni deli bi morali biti jasno opredeljeni v opisu projekta. Posebni ukrepi za ublažitev, na primer gradnja zelenih mostov, da se omogoči selitev vrst, za katerih varstvo je bilo območje določeno, zlasti če jih naloži pristojni organ, bi se morali upoštevati samo med ustrezno presojo, kot je opisano v oddelku 3.2.5. | Such generic components of the project can be considered in the screening, contrary to the plan- or project-specific mitigation measures that must not be taken into account at this stage. These components should be clearly identified in the project description. Specific mitigation measures e.g. construction of green bridges to allow migration of species for protection of which the site has been designated, particularly if imposed by the competent authority, should only be considered during the appropriate assessment, as described in section 3.2.5. |
| Presoja možnih kumulativnih vplivov z drugimi načrti in projekti | Assessing possible cumulative impacts with other plans and projects |
| Med pregledom bi bilo treba oceniti verjetnost morebitnih pomembnih vplivov načrta ali projekta, samega ali v povezavi z drugimi projekti in načrti. Presoja takšnih kumulativnih vplivov je pogosto manj podrobna v fazi pregleda kot pri ustrezni presoji. Vendar je treba kljub temu opredeliti vse druge načrte ali projekte, ki bi lahko imeli kumulativne vplive z zadevnim načrtom ali projektom. | During screening, the assessment of the likelihood of potentially significant effects should be done of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans. The assessment of such cumulative impacts is often less detailed at the screening stage than in the appropriate assessment. But there is still a need to identify all other plans or projects that could give rise to cumulative impacts with the plan or project in question. |
| Pregled v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti zahteva opredelitev drugih načrtov in projektov, ki bi lahko vplivali na ista območja Natura 2000 in nato oceno njihove zmožnosti povzročanja pomembnih vplivov, če se obravnavajo skupaj z načrtom ali projektom, ki je predmet presoje. Če na podlagi te analize ni mogoče sprejeti dokončnih sklepov, bi bilo treba z njo vsaj opredeliti morebitne druge ustrezne načrte in projekte, ki bi jih bilo treba med ustrezno presojo podrobneje pregledati. | The ‘in combination’ screening requires the identification of other plans and projects that can have potential effects on the same Natura 2000 sites and then assessing their capacity to cause significant effects when considered together with the plan or project under assessment. If this analysis cannot reach definitive conclusions, it should at least identify any other relevant plans and projects that should be scrutinised in more detail during the appropriate assessment. |
| Presoja kumulativnih vplivov v fazi pregleda | Več posameznih majhnih vplivov ima lahko skupaj pomemben vpliv. Pri določanju verjetnih pomembnih vplivov načrta ali projekta bi ga bilo treba obravnavati tudi v povezavi z drugimi načrti in/ali projekti, da bi se med presojo zadevnega načrta ali projekta upoštevali kumulativni vplivi. | Določba o obravnavanju v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti se nanaša na druge načrte ali projekte, ki so že dokončani, odobreni, vendar še nedokončani, ali predlagani (tj. tiste, za katere je bila vložena vloga za odobritev ali soglasje). Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da presoja kumulativnih vplivov ni omejena na presojo podobnih vrst načrtov ali projektov v istem sektorju dejavnosti. Vanjo bi bilo treba vključiti vse vrste načrtov ali projektov, ki bi lahko v povezavi z obravnavanim načrtom ali projektom imeli pomemben vpliv. | Podobno bi bilo treba pri presoji proučiti ne le kumulativne vplive med projekti ali med načrti, ampak tudi med projekti in načrti (in obratno) . Tako na primer nov projekt za izgradnjo velike avtoceste sam po sebi morda ne vpliva negativno na območje, če pa se upošteva v povezavi z že odobrenim načrtom gradnje stanovanj za isto območje, lahko ti vplivi postanejo dovolj pomembni, da negativno vplivajo na območje. Nasprotno pa načrt sam po sebi morda nima pomembnega vpliva na območja Natura 2000, vendar se lahko o njem presodi drugače, če se obravnava v povezavi z že predlaganim ali odobrenim velikim razvojnim projektom, ki ni vključen v zadevni načrt. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.5.3. | Assessing cumulative effects at the screening stage | A series of individually low-level impacts may, in combination, produce a significant impact. When determining likely significant effects, the combination with other plans and/or projects should also be considered to take account of cumulative impacts during the assessment of the plan or project. | The in-combination provision concerns other plans or projects that have been already completed, approved but uncompleted, or proposed (i.e. for which an application for approval or consent has been submitted). In addition, it is important to note that the assessment of cumulative effects is not restricted to the assessment of similar types of plans or projects covering the same sector of activity. All types of plans or projects that could, in combination with the plan or project under consideration, have a significant effect, should be included during the assessment. | Similarly, the assessment should look at the cumulative effects, not just between projects or between plans but also between projects and plans (and vice versa) . For example, a new project to build a major motorway may on its own not adversely affect the site, but when considered in combination with an already approved housing development plan for the same area, the impacts may become significant enough to adversely affect the site. By contrast, a plan may have no significant impact on Natura 2000 sites on its own but may be assessed differently if considered in combination with an already proposed or authorised major development project not included in that plan. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.5.3. |
| Pridobivanje informacij o drugih načrtih in projektih, ki lahko skupaj povzročajo kumulativne vplive na zadevno območje Natura 2000, je lahko izziv. Zelo koristne so podatkovne zbirke ali informacijski sistemi, ki lahko zagotavljajo te informacije na izbranem območju, kot jih nekatere države že imajo ali jih še razvijajo (19). Za opredelitev možnih kumulativnih vplivov se lahko uporabijo tudi obstoječe podatkovne zbirke za obveščanje javnosti o SPVO in PVO za načrte in projekte (20). | Obtaining information on other plans and projects that can combine to generate cumulative impacts on the Natura 2000 site can be challenging. It is very useful to have databases or information systems that can provide this information in a selected area, as some countries already have or are in the process of developing (19). Existing databases to inform the public about SEA and EIA of plans and projects may also be used to identify possible cumulative effects (20). |
| V vsakem primeru bi se bilo treba posvetovati s pristojnimi organi (okoljskimi ali sektorskimi), ki bi morali biti sposobni zagotoviti informacije o drugih načrtih/projektih, ki jih je treba upoštevati med pregledom. | In any case, the competent authorities (environmental or sectoral) should be consulted and should be able to provide information about other plans/projects to consider during the screening. |
| V preglednici 2 so opisani ključni koraki za presojo kumulativnih vplivov na območje Natura 2000. | Table 2 outlines the key steps for assessing cumulative effects on a Natura 2000 site. |
| Preglednica 2 | Table 2 |
| Presoja kumulativnih vplivov | Cumulative impact assessment |
| Koraki pri presoji | Dejavnost, ki jo je treba izvesti | Steps in the assessment | Activity to be completed |
| Določitev geografskih meja in časovnega okvira presoje | Določite meje za proučitev kumulativnih vplivov; upoštevajte, da bodo te različne za različne vrste vplivov (npr. vplivi na vodne vire, hrup) in lahko vključujejo oddaljene lokacije (zunaj območja). | Define geographic boundaries and the timeframe for assessment | Define boundaries for examining cumulative effects; note these will be different for different types of impact (e.g. effects upon water resources, noise) and may include remote (off-site) locations. |
| Opredelitev vseh projektov/načrtov, ki bi lahko delovali v povezavi z drugimi | Opredelite vse možne vire vplivov obravnavanega načrta ali projekta, skupaj z drugimi viri v obstoječem okolju in drugimi možnimi vplivi drugih predlaganih projektov ali načrtov; časovni okvir in faze projektov ali načrtov. | Identify all projects/plans that could act in combination | Identify all possible sources of effects from the plan or project under consideration, together with other sources in the existing environment and other possible effects from other proposed projects or plans; timing and phasing of projects or plans. |
| Opredelitev vplivov | Opredelite vrste vplivov (npr. hrup, zmanjševanje vodnih virov, emisije kemikalij), ki lahko vplivajo na strukturo in funkcije območja, občutljivega na spremembe. | Impact identification | Identify the types of impact (e.g. noise, water resource reduction, chemical emissions) that can affect the structure and functions of the site vulnerable to change. |
| Opredelitev poti | Opredelite možne kumulativne poti (21) (npr. prek vode ali zraka; kopičenje vplivov v času ali prostoru). Proučite razmere na območju in opredelite, kje so ranljivi vidiki strukture in funkcije območja ogroženi. | Pathway identification | Identify potential cumulative pathways (21) (e.g. via water, air; accumulation of effects in time or space). Examine site conditions to identify where vulnerable aspects of the structure and function of the site are at risk. |
| Predvidevanje | Predvidite razsežnost/obseg opredeljenih verjetnih kumulativnih vplivov. | Prediction | Predict the magnitude/extent of identified likely cumulative effects. |
| Presoja | Pojasnite, ali bi bili morebitni kumulativni vplivi lahko pomembni ali ne, ob upoštevanju informacij, zbranih v koraku presoja pomembnosti. | Assessment | Explain whether or not the potential cumulative impacts are likely to be significant, taking into account information collected during the ‘assessing significance’ step. |
| Če je zavarovani habitat ali vrsta na zadevnem območju že v neugodnem stanju ali če so kritični pragovi vplivov za posebne značilnosti habitatov ali vrst preseženi (ali če na območju obstajajo kumulativni vplivi, ki bodo privedli do katerega koli od teh stanj), bo vsak dodatni načrt ali projekt, ki sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti še povečuje vplive na teh ravneh, verjetno pomembno vplival na zadevno območje Natura 2000. | When a protected habitat or species in the site is already in an unfavourable condition or when critical thresholds of impacts for the habitats’ or species’ specific attributes are being exceeded (or if the site is subject to cumulative effects that will lead to either of these states), any additional plan or project which, either alone or in combination, adds further impacts to these levels is likely to have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 site. |
| 3.1.5 Ugotovitve: odločitev na podlagi rezultata pregleda | 3.1.5. Conclusions: decision based on the outcome of the screening |
| Ugotavljanje, ali bi lahko načrt ali projekt pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000, ima praktične in pravne posledice. Načrti in projekti, za katere se brez razumnega dvoma šteje, da verjetno ne bodo imeli pomembnih vplivov, se lahko obdelajo brez sklicevanja na nadaljnje korake iz člena 6(3). | Deciding whether a plan or project is likely to have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site will have practical and legal consequences. Plans and projects that are considered not likely to have significant effects beyond reasonable doubt can be processed without reference to the subsequent steps of Article 6(3). |
| Tako kot faza ustrezne presoje se mora tudi faza pregleda zaključiti s pisno utemeljeno odločitvijo pristojnega organa, da se evidentirajo razlogi za takšno ugotovitev. Pri oblikovanju ugotovitev bi bilo treba upoštevati tudi mnenje upravljavskega organa območja Natura 2000. | Just like the appropriate assessment stage, the screening stage must conclude with a written substantiated decision by the competent authority in order to provide a record of the reasons for reaching this conclusion. The opinion of the management body of the Natura 2000 site should also be taken into consideration in drafting the conclusions. |
| Odločitev bi morala biti javno dostopna. Čeprav se besedilo direktive ne sklicuje izrecno na to, je Sodišče Evropske unije priznalo, da se sodelovanje javnosti zahteva tudi v fazi pregleda iz člena 6(3) (zadeva C-243/15, točke 46 do 49). Poleg tega je Sodišče Evropske unije priznalo pravico nevladnih organizacij do izpodbijanja odločitve, ki jo na podlagi pregleda sprejmejo organi (zadeva C-243/15, točke 56 do 61). | The decision should also be made publically available. Although the text of the directive makes no explicit reference to this, the Court has recognised that public participation is required also in the screening phase of Article 6(3) (Case C-243/15, paragraphs 46-49). In addition, the Court has recognised the right for NGOs to challenge the screening decision taken by the authorities (Case C-243/15, paragraphs 56-61). |
| Ker že zgolj možnost pomembnega vpliva na območje sproži potrebo po ustrezni presoji, se lahko ta odločitev sprejme bodisi po temeljitem pregledu načrta ali projekta bodisi na podlagi preproste analize, pri kateri se že predvideva, da bo imel načrt ali projekt verjetno pomembne vplive (zaradi vrste, velikosti ali obsega načrta ali projekta, značilnosti zadevnega območja Natura 2000 ali visokega tveganja skupnih učinkov z drugimi načrti ali projekti). To bo omogočilo čim prejšnji začetek ustrezne presoje. | As the mere possibility of there being a significant effect on the site will trigger the need for an appropriate assessment, this decision can be taken either after a thorough examination of the plan or project, or on the basis of a simple analysis where it is already anticipated that there are likely to have significant effects (due to the type, size or scale of the plan or project, the characteristics of the Natura 2000 site or because of a high risk of combined effects with other plans or projects). This will enable the appropriate assessment to start as soon as possible. |
| V primeru dvoma, tj. če na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij ni mogoče izključiti, da bi načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti lahko pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000, je treba za ta načrt ali projekt opraviti ustrezno presojo. | In case of doubt, i.e. if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of available information, that a plan or project can have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, the plan or project must be subject to an appropriate assessment. |
| Odločitev na podlagi pregleda bi morala po možnosti zagotoviti tudi nekaj smernic o obsegu ustrezne presoje, ki mora slediti, in o verjetnih pomembnih vplivih, ki jih je treba proučiti (22). V primeru načrta bi moralo to zajemati tudi vsa območja Natura 2000, ki bi jih načrt lahko prizadel. | The screening decision should also ideally provide some guidance on the scope of the appropriate assessment that is to follow and on likely significant impacts to be studied (22). In the case of a plan, this should also cover all Natura 2000 sites which could be affected by the plan. |
| V okviru 8 je predloga analize pregleda. | Box 8 provides a screening analysis template. |
| Okvir 8 | Predloga analize pregleda | Povzetek opisa načrta ali projekta in glavnih vidikov, ki bi lahko povzročili vplive | Cilji načrta ali projekta in njegove glavne značilnosti/dejavnosti v različnih fazah (npr. gradnja, obratovanje in razgradnja, če je ustrezno). | Povzetek opisa območij Natura 2000 in njihovih ključnih značilnosti | Habitati in vrste, za katere je bilo območje določeno, ter cilji njihovega ohranjanja. | Opis posameznih vidikov načrta ali projekta, ki bi lahko ustvarili vplive na območja Natura 2000, vključno z: | — | velikostjo in obsegom; | — | oddaljenostjo od območij Natura 2000; | — | rabo zemljišč (neposredno/posredno); | — | potrebami po virih (npr. odvzem vode, izkopavanje zemlje, pridobivanje mineralnih surovin); | — | emisijami (odlaganje v tla, vodo ali zrak); | — | zahtevami glede prevoza; | — | trajanjem in časovnim okvirom gradnje, obratovanja in razgradnje; | — | obsegom dejavnikov vpliva (npr. hrup, usedline dušika, motnost). | Opis verjetnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000 glede na posebne cilje ohranjanja, določene za določujoče značilnosti, vključno z: | — | zmanjšanjem območja habitata, degradacijo ali razdrobljenostjo habitata; | — | vznemirjanjem vrst, zmanjšanjem populacij in gostote vrst; | — | spremembami ekoloških funkcij in/ali značilnosti, ki so bistvene za ekološke zahteve habitatov in vrst (npr. kakovost in količina vode); | — | poseganjem v ključna razmerja, ki določajo strukturo in funkcijo območja. | Opis verjetnih vplivov v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti: | — | dejavniki vpliva, ki jih je treba proučiti pri kumulativnih vplivih; | — | seznam in opis projektov, ki lahko prispevajo h kumulativnim vplivom; | — | ocena obsega in pomembnosti kumulativnih vplivov glede na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja. | Merila za presojo pomembnosti, tj. kazalniki pomembnosti, glede na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja, npr.: | — | stopnja izgube habitatov (absolutna, relativna), spremembe strukture habitatov; | — | tveganje selitve populacij vrst, raven vznemirjanja, zmanjšanje naravnega območja razširjenosti vrst, območja hranjenja in pribežališč, sprememba ugodnih pogojev za razmnoževanje; | — | pomen prizadetih habitatov in vrst, npr. reprezentativnost ali lokalna raznolikost; | — | pomen območja (npr. omejitev območja razširjenosti za nekatere habitate in vrste, vmesna povezava, ki je pomembna za ekološko povezljivost); | — | motenje ali spreminjanje ekoloških funkcij; | — | spremembe ključnih ekoloških značilnosti območja (npr. kakovost vode). | Ugotovitve: Opis, ki temelji na zgoraj navedenih informacijah, vidikov načrta ali projekta ali kombinacije vidikov, ki bodo verjetno povzročili pomembne vplive, in tistih, v zvezi s katerimi narava ali razsežnost vplivov nista znani. | Verjetni pomembni vplivi: | ☐ Ne | ☐ Da ali ni gotovo | Box 8 | Screening analysis template | Summary description of the plan or project and main aspects likely to cause impacts | Objectives of the plan or project and its main characteristics/activities during different phases (e.g. construction, operation and decommissioning, if appropriate). | Summary description of the Natura 2000 sites and their key features | Habitats and species for which the sites have been designated and their conservation objectives. | Description of individual aspects of the plan or project that could generate impacts on Natura 2000 sites including: | — | size and scale; | — | distance from the Natura 2000 sites; | — | land-take (direct/indirect); | — | resource requirements (e.g. water abstraction, soil/mineral excavation); | — | emissions (disposal to land, water or air); | — | transportation requirements; | — | duration and timing of construction, operation, decommissioning; | — | range of impact factors (e.g. noise, nitrogen deposition, turbidity). | Description of likely effects on the Natura 2000 sites in view of the specific conservation objectives set out for the designating features, including: | — | reduction of habitat area, habitat degradation or fragmentation; | — | disturbance to species, reduction in species populations and density; | — | changes in ecological functions and/or features that are essential for the ecological requirements of habitats and species (e.g. water quality and quantity); | — | interference with the key relationships that define the structure and function of the site. | Description of likely impacts in combination with other plans or projects: | — | impact factors to be considered for cumulative effects; | — | list and description of projects that may contribute to cumulative effects; | — | assessment of the extent and significance of cumulative effects in view of the site-specific conservation objectives. | Criteria for assessing significance, indicators of significance, in view of the site-specific conservation objectives e.g.: | — | degree of habitat loss (absolute, relative), changes in habitats structure; | — | risk of species populations’ displacement, level of disturbance, reduction of species home range, feeding area, refuge areas, alteration of favourable condition for breeding; | — | importance of the habitats and species affected, e.g. representativeness, local variety; | — | importance of the site (e.g. limit of distribution area for certain habitats and species, stepping stone, important for ecological connectivity); | — | disruption or alteration of ecological functions; | — | changes to key ecological features of the site (e.g. water quality). | Conclusions: Description, based on the above information, of the aspects of the plan or project, or combination of aspects, that are likely to cause significant impacts and the ones in relation to which the character or magnitude of impacts is not known. | Likely significant effects: | ☐ No | ☐ Yes or uncertain |
| 3.2 Faza 2: ustrezna presoja | 3.2. Stage 2: Appropriate assessment |
| Namen ustrezne presoje je oceniti posledice načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območja, ki jih ima načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti. | Ugotovitve bi morale pristojnim organom omogočiti, da se prepričajo, ali bo načrt ali projekt škodoval celovitosti zadevnega območja. Ustrezna presoja se zato osredotoča prav na vrste in/ali habitate, za katere je določeno območje Natura 2000. | Napotki za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6.1 | The purpose of the appropriate assessment is to assess the implications of the plan or project against the site’s conservation objectives, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. | The conclusions should enable the competent authorities to ascertain whether the plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. The focus of the appropriate assessment is therefore specifically on the species and/or the habitats for which the Natura 2000 site is designated. | Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.1. |
| Ustrezna presoja se nanaša na projekte in načrte. Lahko je usklajena z drugimi okoljskimi presojami – ali vanje vključena –, kot so presoja vplivov na okolje (PVO) za projekte, strateška presoja vplivov na okolje (SPVO) za načrte in programe ter presoje, ki se izvajajo v okviru okvirne direktive o vodah (glej oddelek 5.2). | The appropriate assessment applies both to projects and plans. It can be coordinated with, or integrated into, other environmental assessments, such as the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for projects, the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for plans and programmes and assessments done in the context of the Water Framework Directive (see Section 5.2). |
| Tako kot pri postopkih PVO in SPVO nosilec načrta ali projekta običajno predloži poročilo o ustrezni presoji v pregled pristojnemu organu. Če so s presojo ugotovljeni negativni vplivi ali verjetnost takšnih vplivov, lahko nosilec v tej fazi uvede tudi ukrepe za ublažitev, namenjene zmanjšanju vpliva. | As in the EIA and SEA processes, the plan or project developer usually submits an appropriate assessment report to the competent authority for scrutiny. If the assessment identifies negative impacts, or the likelihood of such effects, the developer may also bring in mitigation measures at this stage to reduce the impact. |
| Nato se mora pristojni organ prepričati, ali bo načrt ali projekt škodljivo vplival na celovitost zadevnega območja ali ne oziroma ali se načrt ali projekt lahko odobri ali ne. Pristojni organ lahko tudi določi pogoje za odobritev, pri čemer po potrebi pred tem pridobi mnenje širše javnosti. Dodatne informacije o posvetovanju v okviru ustrezne presoje so na voljo v oddelku 3.2.7. | It is then the competent authority’s responsibility to ascertain whether the plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned or not, and so whether the plan or project can be approved or not. The competent authority can also set conditions for approval and, if appropriate, obtain the opinion of the general public beforehand. Further information about consultation in the context of the appropriate assessment is provided in section 3.2.7. |
| Postopek presoje vključuje zbiranje in ocenjevanje informacij več deležnikov, vključno z nacionalnimi, regionalnimi in lokalnimi naravovarstvenimi organi, znanstvenimi strokovnjaki in nevladnimi organizacijami. Pristojni organ lahko uporabi informacije, ki jih je predložil nosilec načrta ali projekta, tudi za posvetovanje z notranjimi in zunanjimi strokovnjaki ter drugimi deležniki. | The assessment process will include collecting and assessing information from multiple stakeholders, including national, regional and local nature conservation authorities, scientific experts and NGOs. The competent authority can also use the information submitted by the plan or project developer to consult with internal and external experts and other stakeholders. |
| Včasih bo morda moral zahtevati tudi dodatne informacije za zagotovitev čim bolj celovite in objektivne končne presoje. Opozoriti je treba, da mora biti ustrezna presoja dovolj podrobna in utemeljena, da dokazuje neobstoj škodljivih vplivov, upoštevajoč najboljša znanstvena spoznanja na zadevnem področju. | There will be occasions where the competent authority may need to request further information to ensure that the final assessment is as comprehensive and objective as possible. It should be recalled that appropriate assessment must be sufficiently detailed and substantiated to demonstrate the absence of adverse effects, in light of the best existing scientific knowledge in the field. |
| Skratka, ustrezna presoja vključuje naslednje korake: | In summary, an appropriate assessment involves the following steps: |
| 1. | zbiranje informacij o projektu in zadevnem območju Natura 2000; | 1. | collecting information on the project and on the Natura 2000 site concerned; |
| 2. | oceno posledic načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območja, ki jih ima načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti; | 2. | assessing the implications of the plan or project in view of the site's conservation objectives, individually or in combination with other plans or projects; |
| 3. | preverjanje, ali bi lahko načrt ali projekt škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja; | 3. | ascertaining whether the plan or project can have adverse effects on the integrity of the site; |
| 4. | proučitev ukrepov za ublažitev (vključno z njihovim spremljanjem). | 4. | considering mitigation measures (including their monitoring). |
| Te korake je morda treba izvesti večkrat, saj se nekateri od njih lahko ponavljajo zaradi rezultatov nadaljnjih korakov. Posamezni koraki so opisani v oddelkih v nadaljevanju. Dodatni vidiki, kot sta javno posvetovanje in zagotavljanje kakovosti ustreznih presoj, so obravnavani na koncu tega poglavja. | These steps may need to be implemented iteratively, with some steps revisited in response to the results of subsequent steps. Each step is described in the following sections. Further aspects, such as public consultation and ensuring the quality of appropriate assessments, are covered at the end of this chapter. |
| 3.2.1 Korak 1: zbiranje informacij o projektu in zadevnih območjih Natura 2000 | 3.2.1. Step 1: Collect information on the project and on the Natura 2000 sites concerned |
| Informacije, ki so potrebne za ustrezno presojo, vključujejo opis območij Natura 2000, ki bodo verjetno prizadeta, vrst in habitatov, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju (tako imenovane določujoče značilnosti), in ciljev njihovega ohranjanja ter opis načrta ali projekta in njegovih možnih vplivov na cilje ohranjanja območja. Del teh informacij je bil morda zbran že v fazi pregleda, vendar morajo biti informacije za ustrezno presojo običajno podrobnejše. | The information required for the appropriate assessment includes a description of the Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected, the species and habitats significantly present on the site (so called designating features) and their conservation objectives, as well as a description of the plan or project and its possible effects on the site’s conservation objectives. Part of this information may already have been collected during the screening phase, but usually the information will need to be more detailed for the appropriate assessment. |
| V skladu s členom 5(2) direktive o PVO in členom 5(4) direktive o SPVO bi moral pristojni organ na zahtevo nosilca določiti obseg presoje vplivov na okolje (določitev obsega). Namen določitve obsega je opredeliti elemente, ki bi morali biti zajeti v poročilu o okoljski presoji, ki ga pripravi nosilec in se predloži pristojnemu organu. Določitev obsega bi morala zlasti pomagati pri opredelitvi najpomembnejših elementov, ki jih je treba proučiti, tako da se lahko ti podrobneje obravnavajo (23). | Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the EIA Directive and Article 5(4) of the SEA Directive, at the request of the developer, the competent authority should establish the scope of the environmental impact assessment (scoping). The purpose of scoping is to identify those elements that should be covered in the environmental assessment report prepared by the developer and submitted to the competent authority. In particular, the scoping exercise should help to identify the most important elements to be studied so that these can be addressed in greater detail. (23) |
| Določanje obsega je različno, odvisno od načrta ali projekta in zadevnih območij. Vendar običajno vključuje opis območja, opis načrta ali projekta in opredelitev njegovih možnih vplivov na območje glede na cilje ohranjanja območij. Ne glede na to, ali je ustrezna presoja vključena v PVO/SPVO ali ne, bi bilo treba pri določanju obsega navesti referenčna stanja na območju (tj. stanja zavarovanih habitatov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja ter druge elemente, ki določajo celovitost in pomen območja za usklajenost omrežja), ki jih bo treba opredeliti in proučiti med ustrezno presojo, raven podrobnosti analize, metode, merila za ocenjevanje pomembnosti, vrste ukrepov za ublažitev in druge ustrezne možnosti, ki jih je treba proučiti, itd. | The scoping will vary depending on the plan or project and the sites concerned. However, normally it will include a description of the site, a description of the plan or project and the identification of its potential impacts on the site, in view of the sties conservation objectives. Irrespective of whether the appropriate assessment is integrated into the EIA/SEA or not, the scoping should indicate the baseline conditions within the site (i.e. the conditions of protected habitats and species significantly present on the site, the site-specific conservation objectives as well as of other elements that determine its integrity and the importance of the site for the coherence of the network) that will need to be identified and studied during the appropriate assessment, the level of detail of the analysis, the methods, criteria for the evaluation of significance, types of mitigation measures and alternatives to be analysed, etc. |
| Člen 5(2) direktive o PVO (Direktiva 2011/92/EU, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2014/52/EU) | Na zahtevo nosilca projekta pristojni organ ob upoštevanju informacij, ki jih je predložil nosilec projekta, zlasti o posebnih značilnostih projekta, tudi o njegovi lokaciji in tehničnih zmogljivostih, in njegovega verjetnega vpliva na okolje, izda mnenje o obsegu in stopnji podrobnosti informacij, ki jih mora nosilec projekta vključiti v poročilo o presoji vplivov na okolje v skladu z odstavkom 1 tega člena. Pristojni organ se pred izdajo mnenja posvetuje z organi iz člena 6(1). | Države članice lahko zahtevajo tudi, da pristojni organi izdajo mnenje iz prvega pododstavka, ne glede na to, ali ga zahteva nosilec projekta. | Člen 5(4) direktive o SPVO (Direktiva 2001/42/ES) | Pri odločanju o obsegu in natančnosti informacij, ki morajo biti vključene v okoljsko poročilo, se je treba posvetovati z organi iz člena 6(3). | Article 5(2) of the EIA Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU) | Where requested by the developer, the competent authority, taking into account the information provided by the developer in particular on the specific characteristics of the project, including its location and technical capacity, and its likely impact on the environment, shall issue an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included by the developer in the environmental impact assessment report in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article. The competent authority shall consult the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) before it gives its opinion. | Member States may also require the competent authorities to give an opinion as referred to in the first subparagraph, irrespective of whether the developer so requests. | Article 5(4) of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) | The authorities referred to in Article 6(3) shall be consulted when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information which must be included in the environmental report. |
| Obseg in raven podrobnosti, ki se zahtevata za zbiranje podatkov, raziskave in preiskave, sta odvisna od projekta in prizadetih območij. Zato ju je treba določiti za vsak primer posebej. Lahko sta na primer odvisna od kompleksnosti projekta in območja ter pomena območja za vrste in habitate, za katere je bilo določeno. Odvisna sta tudi od podatkov, ki so že na voljo za območje ter vrste in habitate, ki so pomembno prisotni, ter od informacij iz prejšnjih presoj itd. | The extent and level of detail required for data collection, surveys and investigations will differ depending on the project and the site(s) affected. It must therefore be decided on a case-by-case. It may depend, for instance, on the complexity of the project and of the site, as well as the site’s importance for the species and habitats for which it has been designated. It will also depend on the data that is already available on the site and the species and habitats significantly present, as well as on information from previous assessments, etc. |
| Usklajene in visokokakovostne geografske informacije nosilcem projektov, organom in deležnikom običajno olajšajo delo ter so zlasti pomembne v okviru čezmejnih projektov in vplivov. V primeru projekta, ki prizadene čezmejno reko, ali objekta, ki bi lahko povzročil čezmejno onesnaževanje, je na primer zelo pomembno, da se uporabljajo skupni standardi za opredelitev, presojo in ublažitev teh vplivov. Cilj direktive EU „INSPIRE“ (INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe – infrastruktura za prostorske informacije v Evropi) je zagotoviti razpoložljivost in uporabo takšnih standardiziranih podatkov (24). | Harmonised and high quality geographic information usually facilitates the work of the developers, authorities and stakeholders and is of particular importance in the context of transboundary projects and impacts. For example, in the case of a project affecting a cross-border river or an installation which can potentially create transboundary pollution, it is very important that common standards are used to identify, assess and mitigate these impacts. The EU directive ‘INSPIRE’ (INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe) aims to make such standardised data available and used (24). |
| Preglednica 3 vsebuje okvirni kontrolni seznam osnovnih informacij, potrebnih za ustrezno presojo, v preglednici 4 pa je predstavljen primer informacij, ki jih je treba zbrati pri presoji vplivov načrtov in projektov na območja Natura 2000. | Table 3 provides an indicative checklist of baseline information required for the appropriate assessment, while Table 4 gives an example of information to collect when assessing the effects of plans and projects on Natura 2000. |
| Preglednica 3 | Table 3 |
| Okvirni kontrolni seznam osnovnih informacij, potrebnih za ustrezno presojo | Indicative checklist of baseline information required for the appropriate assessment |
| Osnovne informacije o območjih Natura 2000 in njihovih značilnostih | Viri informacij | Na voljo pri/na/v | Baseline information about Natura 2000 sites and their features | Information sources | Available at/from |
| Cilji ohranjanja območij Natura 2000 | Ohranitveni ukrepi, določeni za območja | Raba zemljišč, prepovedane in dovoljene dejavnosti na območjih | Glavne grožnje in pritiski, ugotovljeni na območjih | Karte območij Natura 2000 (ki prikazujejo meje območij in lokacijo ustreznih značilnosti) | Standardni podatkovni obrazci Natura 2000 | Zakonski akti za določitev posebnega ohranitvenega območja ali posebnega območja varstva | Načrti upravljanja in drugi dokumenti/instrumenti za upravljanje območij (predpisi, pogodbe, sporazumi) | Nacionalni/regionalni spletni portali | Uradni listi | Naravovarstveni organi/agencije | Pregledovalnik Natura 2000 (25) | Podatkovna zbirka Natura 2000 (26) | Nacionalne podatkovne zbirke | Conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites. | Conservation measures established for the sites. | Land use, prohibited and permitted activities in the sites. | Main threats and pressures identified in the sites. | Maps of Natura 2000 sites (showing site boundaries and location of relevant features) | Natura 2000 standard data forms | Statutory acts to designate an SAC or SPA | Management plans and other site management documents/instruments (regulations, contracts, agreements,) | National/regional online portals | Official journals | Conservation authorities/agencies | Natura 2000 viewer (25) | Natura 2000 database (26) | National databases |
| Prisotni habitatni tipi in vrste ter njihovo stanje na območjih: stopnja ohranjenosti, reprezentativnost itd. | Pomen območij za prisotne habitate in vrste | Glavne ekološke zahteve, ranljivost in občutljivost habitatnih tipov in vrst | Standardni podatkovni obrazci Natura 2000 | Načrti upravljanja območij | Akti o določitvi | Zakonski načrti in politike za varstvo narave na nacionalni/regionalni/lokalni ravni | Akcijski načrti za ohranjanje vrst in habitatov | Aktualne in zgodovinske karte, raziskave itd. | Strokovne informacije | Nacionalni/regionalni spletni portali | Pregledovalnik Natura 2000 | Podatkovna zbirka Natura 2000 | Nacionalne podatkovne zbirke | Pristojni organi | Razpoložljiva literatura | Znanstvene ustanove | The habitat types and species present and their condition on the sites: conservation degree, representativeness, etc. | Importance of the sites to the habitats and species present. | Main ecological requirements, vulnerability and sensitivity of the habitat types and species. | Natura 2000 standard data forms | Site management plans | Designating acts | Statutory plans and policies for nature conservation at national/regional/local level | Species and habitats conservation action plans | Current and historical maps, surveys, etc. | Expert-based information | National/regional online portals | Natura 2000 viewer | Natura 2000 database | National databases | Competent authorities | Available literature | Scientific institutions |
| Stanje ohranjenosti habitatov in vrst, trendi, glavne grožnje in pritiski nanje (v biogeografski regiji in na nacionalni ravni) | Nacionalna poročila o stanju ohranjenosti v skladu s členom 17 direktive o habitatih in členom 12 direktive o pticah | Spletna poročila (27) | Conservation status of habitats and species, trends, main threats and pressures on them (in the biogeographic region and at national level). | National reports on conservation status under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive | Online reports (27) |
| Osnovne informacije o projektu/načrtu | Viri informacij | Na voljo pri/na/v | Baseline information about the project/plan | Information sources | Available at/from |
| Vse značilnosti načrta ali projekta: celotno območje, prizadeto zaradi projekta, projektne dejavnosti, emisije, raba naravnih virov, faze, časovno načrtovanje itd. | Povezava (npr. ključne razdalje ali poti) med načrtom ali projektom in območjem Natura 2000 | Dokumenti načrta ali projekta (načrt, karte itd.) | Karte, GIS | Predlagatelj projekta/načrta | Pregledovalnik Natura 2000 | Full characteristics of the plan or project: total area affected by the project, project activities, emissions, natural resources use, phases, time planning, etc. | Relationship (e.g. key distances or pathways) between the plan or project and the Natura 2000 site. | Plan or project documents (blueprint, maps, etc.) | Maps, GIS | Project/plan promoter | Natura 2000 viewer |
| Značilnosti drugih načrtov ali projektov (izvedenih, odobrenih ali predlaganih), ki lahko povzročijo vplive v povezavi z drugimi načrti in/ali projekti ali kumulativne vplive s projektom, ki je predmet presoje, na območja Natura 2000 | Podatkovne zbirke, npr. o SOP in PVO, ustrezne presoje načrtov/projektov, regionalni ali občinski načrti, vloge za izdajo gradbenega dovoljenja pri lokalnih organih | Pristojni organi | Spletne platforme | Characteristics of other plans or projects (implemented, approved or proposed) that may cause in-combination or cumulative effects with the project being assessed on Natura 2000 sites. | Databases, e.g. on SEA, EIA, appropriate assessments of plans/projects, regional or municipal plans, local authority planning applications | Competent authorities | Online platforms |
| Informacije o drugih presojah, ki se zahtevajo za soglasje za izvedbo projekta ali odobritev načrta | Nacionalna zakonodaja | Pristojni organi | Uradni listi | Information about other assessments required for project consent or plan approval. | National legislation | Competent authorities | Official journals |
| Organizacije, ki so vključene v/jih zadeva sektor/dejavnost načrta ali projekta | Sektorske organizacije/združenja | Nosilec projekta/načrta | Pristojni organi | Organisations involved in/concerned by the sector/activity of the plan or project. | Sectoral organisations/associations | Project/plan developer | Competent authorities |
| Presoje podobnih načrtov ali projektov | Izjave o PVO in SOP, poročila o ustreznih presojah in druga dokumentarna dokazila iz podobnih načrtov ali projektov, ki so se presojali v preteklosti | Uradni listi | Pristojni organi, ustrezne agencije in drugi organi | Assessments of similar plans or projects. | EIA and SEA statements, appropriate assessment reports and other documentary evidence from similar plans or projects assessed in the past | Official journals | Competent authorities, relevant agencies and other bodies |
| Preglednica 4 | Table 4 |
| Informacije, ki jih je treba zbrati pri presoji vplivov načrtov in projektov na območja Natura 2000 (smernice v Španiji) | Information to collect when assessing the effects of plans and projects on Natura 2000 sites (guidelines in Spain) |
| Elementi | Obseg | Informacije, ki jih je treba zbrati | Elements | Scope | Information to collect |
| Območja Natura 2000 | Habitati | Splošno | — | oznaka, ime, prednostna značilnost; | — | značilne vrste; | — | zadevne spremenljivke strukture in funkcije ter ekološke zahteve. | Natura 2000 sites | Habitats | General | — | code, name, priority character; | — | characteristic species; | — | relevant variables of structure and function and ecological requirements. |
| Biogeografska regija (raven države) | — | stanje ohranjenosti habitata v biogeografski regiji (nacionalna raven); | — | vloga in pomen območja za ohranjanje habitata. | Biogeographical region (country level) | — | conservation status of the habitat in the biogeographical region (national); | — | role and importance of the site for the habitat conservation. |
| Območje Natura 2000 | — | stopnja ohranjenosti in reprezentativnost habitata na območju; | — | cilj ohranjanja, določen za habitat na območju; | — | območje razširjenosti habitata na območju (vključno s kartiranjem), % celotne površine (država/regija); | — | pritiski, grožnje in vplivi na habitat na območju; | — | ranljivost za možne vplive projekta. | Natura 2000 site | — | conservation degree and representativeness of the habitat in the site; | — | conservation objective set for the habitat in the site; | — | habitat distribution area in the site (including mapping), % of total area (country/region); | — | pressures, threats and impacts affecting the habitat in the site; | — | vulnerability to the project potential impacts. |
| Vrste | Splošno | — | oznaka, ime, prednostna značilnost, status varstva v regiji/državi; | — | ekološke zahteve in dejavniki, ki vplivajo na dinamiko populacije vrste. | Species | General | — | code, name, priority character, protection status in the region/country; | — | ecological requirements and factors that influence the species population dynamics. |
| Biogeografska regija (raven države) | — | stanje ohranjenosti vrste v biogeografski regiji (nacionalna raven); | — | vloga in pomen območja za ohranjanje vrste. | Biogeographical region (country level) | — | conservation status of the species in the biogeographical region (national); | — | role and importance of the site for the species conservation. |
| Območje Natura 2000 | — | stanje ohranjenosti vrste na območju; | — | cilj ohranjanja, določen za vrsto na območju; | — | območje razširjenosti vrste in uporaba območja (vključno s kartiranjem); | — | populacija in trendi na območju; % celotne populacije v državi/regiji; | — | obstoječi pritiski in grožnje za vrste na območju; | — | ranljivost vrst za možne vplive (npr. občutljivost na vznemirjanje). | Natura 2000 site | — | conservation condition of the species in the site; | — | conservation objective set for the species in the site; | — | species distribution area and use of the site (including mapping); | — | population and trends in the site; % of total population in the country/region; | — | existing pressures and threats on the species in the site; | — | species vulnerability to potential impacts ( e.g. sensitivity to disturbance); |
| Krajinske značilnosti, ki so pomembne za usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000 | Biogeografska regija (raven države) | — | vrsta (ekološki koridor, vmesna povezava itd.); | — | območja Natura 2000 in druga povezana ali ekološko sorodna območja (vključno s kartiranjem); | — | vrste (ali habitati), za katere so pomembne, in pomen za njihovo ohranjanje; | — | pritiski, grožnje in vplivi na značilnost; | — | ranljivost zaradi projekta in možnih vplivov. | Landscape features that are important for the coherence of the Natura 2000 network | Biogeographical region (country level) | — | type (ecological corridor, stepping stone, etc.); | — | Natura 2000 and other areas connected or ecologically related (including mapping); | — | species (or habitats) for which it is important, and importance for their conservation; | — | pressures, threats and impacts affecting the feature; | — | vulnerability to the project and potential impact. |
| Prilagojeno po: Priporočila glede informacij, ki jih je treba vključiti v ustrezno presojo projektov v zvezi z omrežjem Natura 2000 v dokumentih PVO nacionalne uprave v Španiji (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, 2018). Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/evaluacion-ambiental/guias-directrices/. | Adapted from: Recommendations on the information to include in the appropriate assessment of projects on the Natura 2000 network in the EIA documents of the national administration in Spain (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, 2018). Available at: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/evaluacion-ambiental/guias-directrices/ |
| 3.2.2 Korak 2: presoja posledic načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območja, ki jih ima načrt ali projekt sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti | 3.2.2. Step 2: Assessing the implications of the plan or project in view of the site's conservation objectives, individually or in combination with other plans or projects |
| Ustrezna presoja bi morala vključevati celovito opredelitev vseh možnih vplivov načrta ali projekta, ki bi lahko bili pomembni na območju, ob upoštevanju kumulativnih in drugih vplivov, ki bi se lahko pojavili zaradi skupnega delovanja načrta ali projekta, ki je predmet presoje, in drugih načrtov ali projektov. | (Napotki za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6.2) | The appropriate assessment should include a comprehensive identification of all the potential effects of the plan or project likely to be significant on the site, taking into account cumulative and other effects likely to arise as a result of the combined action of the plan or project under assessment with other plans or projects. | (The Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.2) |
| Ustrezna presoja bi morala zagotoviti, da so vsi strukturni in funkcionalni vidiki, ki prispevajo k celovitosti območja, v celoti upoštevani, tako v opredelitvi referenčnih stanj kot v fazah, ki vodijo do opredelitve možnih vplivov, ukrepov za ublažitev in morebitnih preostalih vplivov po uporabi ukrepov za ublažitev. | The appropriate assessment should ensure that all structural and functional aspects that contribute to site integrity are considered in full, both in the definition of the baseline conditions and in the stages leading to identification of potential impacts, mitigation measures and any residual impacts after mitigation measures have been applied. |
| Drugi korak vključuje naslednje dejavnosti: | Step 2 includes the following activities: |
| — | opredelitev ciljev ohranjanja območij Natura 2000, ki so prizadeta zaradi načrta ali projekta; | — | identifying the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites affected by the plan or project; |
| — | opredelitev in presoja vplivov načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območij; | — | identifying and assessing the impacts of the plan or project against the sites’ conservation objectives; |
| — | proučitev kumulativnih vplivov z drugimi načrti in projekti. | — | considering cumulative effects with other plans and projects. |
| (a) Opredelitev ciljev ohranjanja območij Natura 2000, ki so prizadeta zaradi načrta ali projekta | (a) Identifying the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites affected by the plan or project |
| V ustrezni presoji je treba oceniti vplive načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja, določene za zavarovane habitate in vrste na območjih Natura 2000. | In the appropriate assessment, the effects of a plan or project must be assessed against the conservation objectives set for the protected habitats and species present in the Natura 2000 sites. |
| Pristojni organi morajo določiti cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja. Cilje je treba določiti za vse vrste in habitatne tipe v interesu Skupnosti iz direktive o habitatih in vrste ptic iz Priloge I k direktivi o pticah, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju Natura 2000, ter za redno pojavljajoče se selivske vrste ptic. | Competent authorities must set conservation objectives for each site. The objectives must be established for all species and habitat types of Community interest under the Habitats Directive and bird species of the Annex I of the Birds Directive that are significantly present on a Natura 2000 site, as well as for regularly occurring migratory bird species. |
| Cilji ohranjanja na ravni območij so sklop opredeljenih ciljev, ki jih je treba doseči na območju za zagotovitev, da območje na najboljši možni način prispeva k doseganju ugodnega stanja ohranjenosti na ustrezni ravni (ob upoštevanju naravnega območja razširjenosti zadevnih vrst ali habitatnih tipov). | Cilji ohranjanja na ravni območij bi morali opredeljevati želeno stanje ohranjenosti vrst in habitatnih tipov na območju, da bi se povečal njihov prispevek k doseganju ugodnega stanja ohranjenosti na ustrezni ravni. Včasih so opredeljeni kot sklop ciljev, ki jih je treba doseči v določenem obdobju. Te cilje bi bilo treba določiti glede na oceno ohranjenosti posamezne vrste in habitatnega tipa na območju, kot je evidentirana v standardnem podatkovnem obrazcu. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 2.3.1 in obvestilo Komisije o določanju ciljev ohranjanja (na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm). | Site-level conservation objectives are a set of specified objectives to be met in a site in order to make sure that the site contributes in the best possible way to achieving favourable conservation status at the appropriate level (taking into account the natural range of the respective species or habitat types). | Site-level conservation objectives should define the desired conservation condition of the species and habitat types on the site for maximising its contribution to achieving FCS [favourable conservation status] at the appropriate level. They are sometimes defined as a set of targets to be achieved over a certain period of time. These targets should be set in function of the conservation assessment of each species and habitat type on the site as recorded in the SDF [standard data form]. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 2.3.1, and the Commission Note on setting conservation objectives (available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm) |
| Cilji ohranjanja za območje Natura 2000 so običajno določeni v načrtih upravljanja ali ustreznih instrumentih upravljanja ali v drugih dokumentih, objavljenih za območja (npr. aktih o določitvi, objavljenih v uradnih listih). Morali bi biti javno dostopni. | The conservation objectives for a Natura 2000 site are usually set in the management plans or relevant management instruments, or in other documents published for the sites (e.g. designation acts published in official journals). They should also be publically available. |
| Cilji ohranjanja za posamezni habitatni tip in vrsto na območju bi morali biti povezani z njihovimi ekološkimi zahtevami in določeni s sklicevanjem na parametre, ki se uporabljajo za določitev njihovega stanja ohranjenosti na območju (npr. njihova površina, struktura in funkcije ali populacije). Določati bi morali ciljne vrednosti, ki jih je treba doseči za vsakega od teh atributov/parametrov. Vključevati bi morali tudi ciljne/mejne vrednosti za ekološke funkcije in procese, od katerih so habitati in vrste odvisni (npr. z opredelitvijo zahtevane kakovosti in količine vode za vodne vrste). | Conservation objectives for each of the habitat types and species present in the site should be related to their ecological requirements and set with reference to the parameters used for determining its conservation condition on the site (e.g. their area, structure and functions or populations). They should specify targets to be achieved for each of these attributes/parameters. They should also include targets/limits for the ecological functions and processes on which the habitats and species depend (e.g. defining the required water quality and quantity for aquatic species). |
| Cilji ohranjanja morajo biti: | — | specifični – tj. nanašati se morajo na določeno značilnost (vrsta ali habitatni tip) in določati pogoje, potrebne za izpolnitev cilja ohranjanja; | — | merljivi in omogočati poročanje o njih – tj. vključevati morajo kvantitativne ciljne vrednosti (po možnosti dopolnjene s kvalitativnimi, kot je opis dobrega stanja habitata ali strukture populacije), ki omogočajo spremljanje za presojo, ali so cilji ohranjanja izpolnjeni, in za namene člena 17 direktive o habitatih; | — | realni – tj. časovni okvir in uporaba sredstev zanje morata biti razumna; | — | dosledni pri uporabi pristopa – tj. struktura ciljev ohranjanja bi morala biti, če je le mogoče, enaka na vseh območjih ter na območjih, ki podpirajo isto značilnost, uporabljati podobne atribute in ciljne vrednosti za opis ugodnih stanj, in | — | celoviti – tj. atributi in ciljne vrednosti bi morali zajemati lastnosti značilnosti, ki so potrebne za opis stanja kot ugodnega ali neugodnega. | V ciljih mora biti tudi določeno, ali so namenjeni obnovitvi ali vzdrževanju stanja ohranjenosti dane značilnosti območja (raven ambicioznosti, ki vnaprej določa potrebne ohranitvene ukrepe). | Prilagojeno po obvestilu Komisije o določanju ciljev ohranjanja (na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm). | The conservation objectives must be: | — | specific – i.e. relate to a particular feature (species or habitat type) and define the condition(s) required to meet the conservation objective; | — | measurable and reportable – i.e. include quantitative targets (possibly supplemented by qualitative ones, such as a description of good condition of a habitat or a population structure), enabling monitoring to assess whether the conservation objectives are being met and for the purposes of Article 17 of the Habitats Directive; | — | realistic – i.e. given a reasonable timeframe and application of resources; | — | consistent in approach – i.e. the structure of conservation objectives should, as far as possible, be the same across all sites, and at sites supporting the same feature, use similar attributes and targets to describe favourable conditions; and | — | comprehensive – i.e. the attributes and targets should cover the properties of the feature necessary to describe its condition as either favourable or unfavourable. | The objectives must also specify whether they aim to ‘restore’ or ‘maintain’ the conservation status of the given feature of the site (the level of ambition predetermining the necessary conservation measures). | Adapted from ‘Commission Note on setting conservation objectives’ (available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm) |
| Neobstoj ciljev ohranjanja za posamezna območja ali določitev ciljev ohranjanja, ki niso skladni z zgoraj opisanim standardom, ogroža skladnost z zahtevami iz člena 6(3). | The lack of site-specific conservation objectives or the establishment of conservation objectives, which are not in line with the standard described above, jeopardises compliance with the requirements of Article 6(3). |
| V okviru 9 so navedeni primeri ciljev ohranjanja območja. | Box 9 gives examples of site conservation objectives. |
| Okvir 9 | Primeri ciljev ohranjanja za habitatne tipe in vrste na območjih Natura 2000 | Morski grebeni (1170) | — | površina stalnega habitata (xx ha) je stabilna ali se povečuje, odvisno od naravnih procesov; | — | porazdelitev morskih grebenov je stabilna ali se povečuje (priložena karta); | — | naslednje vrste združb so ohranjene v naravnem stanju: izpostavljen sklop združb morskih grebenov v bibavičnem pasu (xx ha); izpostavljen sklop podplimskih združb (xx ha) (naveden je opis posameznih vrst združb). | Premične sipine vzdolž obrežij z vrsto Ammophila arenaria („bele sipine“) (2120) | — | površina habitata (xx ha) je stabilna ali se povečuje, njegova porazdelitev pa se ne zmanjšuje (priložena karta), odvisno od naravnih procesov; | — | ohranja se naravno kroženje sedimentov in organskih snovi, brez kakršnih koli fizičnih ovir (npr. fizičnih pregrad); | — | ohranja se prisotnost z vrstami revnih združb, v katerih prevladuje vrsta Ammophila arenaria; | — | negativne indikatorske vrste (vključno s tujerodnimi vrstami, vrstami, ki kažejo na spremembe stanja hranil, in vrste, ki se ne štejejo za značilne za habitat) predstavljajo manj kot 5-odstotno pokrovnost. | Suhe resave (4030) | — | trenutna površina (xx ha) in porazdelitev habitata na območju je povečana za x % (priložena karta); | — | ohranja se številčnost značilnih vrst (priložen seznam); | — | ohranja se majhna pokrovnost razpršenih avtohtonih dreves in grmišč (<10-odstotna pokrovnost); | — | vsaj 1-odstotno, vendar največ 10-odstotno pokrovnost območja habitata sestavljajo gola tla; | — | usedline dušika se ohranjajo pod kritičnimi vrednostmi obremenitve, določenimi za območje (npr. 10–20 kgN/ha/leto). | Travniki s prevladujočo stožko (Molinia spp.) na karbonatnih, šotnih ali glineno-muljastih tleh (Molinion caeruleae) (6410) | — | trenutna površina (xx ha) in porazdelitev habitata na območju je povečana za x % (priložena karta); | — | sestava vegetacije je izboljšana: prisotnih je vsaj xx pozitivnih indikatorskih vrst, vključno z eno „visokokakovostno“ vrsto, negativne indikatorske vrste skupaj ne predstavljajo več kot 20 % pokrovnosti, pri čemer je pokrovnost s posamezno vrsto manjša od 10 %, pokrovnost tujerodnih vrst pa ni večja od 1 %; | — | sestava vegetacije je izboljšana: pokrovnost lesnatih vrst in orlove praproti (Pteridium aquilinum) ni večja od 5 %, delež širokolistnih zelišč v vegetaciji pa znaša med 40 in 90 %. Najmanj 30 % travne ruše je visoke med 10 in 80 cm; | — | ohranja se fizična struktura: gola tla obsegajo največ 10 %. | Aktivna visoka barja (7110) | — | površina habitata na območju je razširjena (npr. povečanje trenutne površine za 10 % – z xx ha na yy ha) in njeno stanje izboljšano (npr. s povečanjem stopnje pokrovnosti značilnega šotnega mahu vrste Sphagnum na najmanj x %); | — | na celotnem območju so ponovno vzpostavljeni ustrezni vodostaji (srednji vodostaj je večino leta blizu površine močvirnatih trat ali nad njo; sezonska nihanja ne bi smela presegati 20 cm in vodostaj bi moral biti le 10 cm pod površino, razen v zelo kratkih obdobjih); | — | ohranjajo se pH tal in ustrezne ravni hranil (navedena so ustrezna hranila in njihova naravna območja razširjenosti za območje); | — | pokrovnost razpršenih avtohtonih dreves in grmišč je manjša od 10 %. | Bukovi gozdovi Luzulo-Fagetum (9110) | — | vzdržuje se trenutno stanje ohranjenosti (ugodno); | — | ohranja se trenutna površina habitata na območju: xx ha; | — | ohranjajo se značilne drevesne vrste: vsaj 70-odstotna pokrovnost krošenj, sestavljenih iz vrst Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica ssp. sylvatica in Abies alba v različnih razmerjih, z redko prisotnostjo vrst Betula pendula in Sorbus aucuparia, z 80–90-odstotno pokrovnostjo ter višino 22–30 m za smreke in jelke in 18–24 m za bukve pri starosti 100 let; | — | ohranjajo se značilne vrste za zeliščno plast: zeliščna plast z najmanj tremi vrstami/1 000 m2 izmed naslednjih kisloljubnih vrst Calamagrostis arundinacea, Luzula luzuloides, Vaccinium myrtillus, Hieracium rotundatum, Athyrium filix-femina, Digitalis grandiflora, Dryopteris filix-mas, Festuca drymeia, Galium odoratum, Galium schultesii, Lamium galeobdolon, Luzula luzuloides, Oxalis acetosella, Poa nemoralis, Pteridium aquilinum in Veronica officinalis; | — | invazivne tujerodne drevesne vrste, vključno z neustrezno pokrovnostjo ekotipov, manjšo od 20 %; zadrževalna drevesa; vsaj tri drevesa/ha; količina odmrlega lesa; vsaj 20 m3/ha. | Bukovi gozdovi Asperulo-Fagetum (9130) | — | trenutna površina (xx ha) in porazdelitev habitata na območju je povečana za x % (priložena karta); | — | kakovost habitata (v smislu ekološke strukture in funkcije) je izboljšana z zagotavljanjem, da: najmanj 95 % krošenj tvorijo drevesa lokalnih avtohtonih vrst, kot so bukev, jesen in hrast, pri čemer jih je vsaj 50 % vrste Fagus sylvatica; približno 10 % krošenj vključuje dinamičen spreminjajoč se vzorec vrzeli, ki spodbuja naravno obnavljanje drevesnih vrst vseh starosti; vsaj X odraslih dreves/ha in vsaj X ustreznih vrst talnih rastlin/ha (priložen je seznam ustreznih vrst); | — | količina odmrlih dreves, nepodrtih ali podrtih, je povečana, kjer je to mogoče, da se zagotovi habitat za nevretenčarje, glive in druge gozdne vrste (podrta drevesa in veje, odmrle veje na živih drevesih ali nepodrtih odmrlih drevesih, vsi s premerom > 20 cm; navedena je minimalna količina). | Vidra (Lutra lutra) | — | ohranja se trenutna populacija (xx osebkov); | — | ekološka kakovost sladkovodnega (rečnega) habitata je izboljšana (več kot xx km); | — | ohranja se število počivališč in brlogov (navedeno je število) in razpoložljiva ribja biomasa ni bistveno zmanjšana (xx kg); | — | povezljivost z drugimi populacijami vider vzdolž reke je izboljšana. | Pristaniška rjava pliskavka (Phocoena phocoena) | — | ohranja se populacija vrst na območju (xx osebkov); | — | podvodni hrup je omejen na največ xx dB; | — | območje razširjenosti vrst na območju se ohranja z zagotavljanjem, da ni umetnih ovir, ki bi lahko omejevale uporabo območja; | — | ohranjata se razpoložljivost in gostota plenilcev na območju (npr. vključno s peščenko, molom, sledom in papalino); | — | prilov pristaniške rjave pliskavke z ribolovnim orodjem na območju je prepovedan. | Mali podkovnjak (Rhinolophus hipposideros) | — | populacija je ohranjena, z minimalnim številom xx netopirjev za poletni počitek; | — | ohranjata se število in stanje poletnih in pomožnih počivališč; | — | ohranjajo se obseg možnega habitata za razmnoževanje (xx ha) in linearne značilnosti (xx km), brez občutnega zmanjšanja ali izgube znotraj 2,5 km počivališča (priložena je karta); | — | ni bistvenega povečanja intenzivnosti umetne razsvetljave v bližini počivališča ali na letalnih poteh znotraj 2,5 km počivališča. | Box 9 | Examples of conservation objectives for habitat types and species in Natura 2000 sites | Reefs (1170) | — | the permanent habitat area (xx ha) is stable or increasing, subject to natural processes; | — | the distribution of reefs is stable or increasing (map provided); | — | the following community types are conserved in a natural condition: exposed intertidal reef community complex (xx ha); exposed subtidal community complex (xx ha) (a description of each of the community types is provided). | Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’) (2120) | — | the habitat area (xx ha) is stable or increasing and there is no decline in its distribution (map provided), subject to natural processes; | — | the natural circulation of sediment and organic matter is maintained, without any physical obstructions (e.g. physical barriers); | — | the presence of species-poor communities dominated by Ammophila arenaria is maintained; | — | negative indicator species (including non-native species, species indicative of changes in nutrient status and species not considered characteristic of the habitat) represent less than 5 % cover. | Dry heaths (4030) | — | the current surface area (xx ha) and distribution of the habitat within the site is increased by x % (map provided); | — | the abundance of typical species is maintained (list provided); | — | a low cover of scattered native trees and scrub (< 10 % cover) is maintained; | — | at least 1 % but not more than 10 % cover of the area of the habitat consists of bare ground; | — | nitrogen deposition is maintained below critical load values defined for the site (e.g. 10-20 kgN/ha/yr). | Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) (6410) | — | the current surface area (xx ha) and distribution of the habitat within the site is increased by x % (map provided); | — | the vegetal composition is improved: at least xx positive indicator species present, including one ‘high quality’ species, negative indicator species cover collectively not more than 20 % cover, with cover by an individual species less than 10 %, and cover of non-native species not more than 1 %; | — | the vegetal structure is improved: cover of woody species and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) is not more than 5 %, broadleaf herb component of vegetation is between 40 and 90 %. At least 30 % of sward is between 10 and 80 cm tall; | — | the physical structure is maintained: not more than 10 % bare soil. | Active raised bogs (7110) | — | the area of the habitat in the site is extended (e.g. increase the current area by 10 % – from xx ha to yy ha) and its condition improved (e.g. by increasing the cover level of characteristic bog mosses –Sphagnum species to a minimum of x %); | — | appropriate water levels are restored throughout the site (mean water level to be near or above the surface of bog lawns for most of the year; seasonal fluctuations should not exceed 20 cm, and should only be 10 cm below the surface, except for very short periods of time); | — | soil pH and appropriate nutrient levels are maintained (relevant nutrients and their natural ranges are provided for the site); | — | cover of scattered native trees and shrubs is less than 10 %. | Beech forests Luzulo-Fagetum (9110) | — | the current conservation status is maintained (fav); | — | the current surface area of the habitat in the site: xx ha is maintained; | — | characteristic tree species are maintained: at least 70 % of canopy level composed of Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica ssp. sylvatica, Abies alba in various proportions, with rare presence of Betula pendula, Sorbus aucuparia, with an 80–90 % cover and 22–30 m height for spruce and fir, 18–24 m for beech at 100 years age; | — | characteristic species for herb layer are maintained: Herb layer with at least three species/1 000 m2 of the following acidophilous species Calamagrostis arundinacea, Luzula luzuloides, Vaccinium myrtillus, Hieracium rotundatum, Athyrium filix-femina, Digitalis grandiflora, Dryopteris filix-mas, Festuca drymeia, Galium odoratum, Galium schultesii, Lamium galeobdolon, Luzula luzuloides, Oxalis acetosella, Poa nemoralis, Pteridium aquilinum, Veronica officinalis; | — | invasive and allochtonous tree species, including not-corresponding ecotypescover less than 20 %; retention trees: at least three trees/ha; deadwood volume: at least 20 m3/ha. | Asperulo-Fagetum beech forest (9130) | — | the current surface area (xx ha) and distribution of the habitat within the site is increased by x % (map provided); | — | the habitat quality (in terms of ecological structure and function) is improved by ensuring that: at least 95 % of canopy forming trees are locally native species such as beech, ash and oak site, with at least 50 % being Fagus sylvatica; approximately 10 % of the canopy includes a dynamic shifting pattern of gaps encouraging natural regeneration of tree species of all ages; at least X mature trees/ha and at least X relevant ground flora species/ha (list of relevant species provided); | — | dead wood, standing and fallen, is increased where possible to provide a habitat for invertebrates, fungi and other woodland species (fallen trees and branches, dead branches on living trees or standing dead trees, all > 20 cm in diameter; minimum volume indicated). | Otter (Lutra lutra) | — | the current population (xx individuals) is maintained; | — | the ecological quality of freshwater (river) habitat is improved (over xx km); | — | the number of couching sites and holts (number provided) is maintained and there is no significant decline in the fish biomass available (xx kg); | — | connectivity with other otter populations along the river is improved. | Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) | — | the current population of the species in the site is maintained (xx individuals); | — | underwater noise to maximum is limited to xx dB; | — | species range within the site is maintained by ensuring there are not artificial barriers that could restrict site use; | — | the availability and density of prey within the site is maintained(e.g. including sand eel, whiting, herring and sprat); | — | by-catch of harbour porpoise in fishing gears in the site is prevented. | Lesser Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) | — | the population is maintained, with a minimum number of xx bats for the summer roost; | — | the number and condition of summer and auxiliary roosts is maintained; | — | the extent of potential foraging habitat (xx ha) and linear features xx (km), is maintained with no significant decline or loss within 2,5 km of the roost (map provided); | — | there is no significant increase in artificial light intensity adjacent to the roost or along commuting routes within 2,5 km of the roost. |
| Če cilji ohranjanja niso določeni (28), bi bilo treba pri ustrezni presoji predvidevati vsaj, da je cilj zagotoviti, da se stanje habitatnih tipov ali habitatov vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, ne poslabša pod trenutno raven (v času presoje) in da se vrste pomembno ne vznemirjajo, v skladu z zahtevami iz člena 6(2) (29). | In the absence of conservation objectives (28), the appropriate assessment should assume as a minimum that the objective is to ensure that the habitat types or habitats of species significantly present on the site do not deteriorate below the current level (at the time of the assessment) and that the species are not significantly disturbed, in line with the requirements of Article 6(2) (29). |
| Čeprav morajo biti v ospredju presoje ptice in vrste ter habitatni tipi v interesu Skupnosti, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, je treba opozoriti, da te ciljne značilnosti kompleksno vzajemno delujejo tudi na druge vrste, habitatne tipe in naravno okolje. V zvezi s tem so lahko pri proučevanju možnih vplivov na zavarovane habitate pomembne tudi druge vrste, če predstavljajo značilne rastlinske in živalske vrste zadevnega habitatnega tipa (30) ali imajo pomembno vlogo v prehranski verigi, od katere so odvisne ciljne značilnosti območja Natura 2000. To se bo odražalo v ciljih ohranjanja območja, pri ustrezni presoji pa bi bilo treba po potrebi proučiti tudi možne vplive načrta ali projekta na te druge vrste. | Although the focus of the assessment should be on the birds and the species and habitat types of Community interest significantly present on the site, it should not be forgotten that these target features also interact with other species, habitat types and with the natural environment in complex ways. In this regard, other species can also be relevant when looking at the potential effects on protected habitats if they constitute typical plant and animal species of the habitat type in question (30) or play a significant role in the food chain on which the Natura 2000 site’s target feature depend. This will be reflected in the site’s conservation objectives and the appropriate assessment should also look at the possible impacts of the plan or project on these other species where relevant. |
| Krajinske značilnosti, ki prispevajo k ekološki usklajenosti omrežja, med drugim k njegovi povezljivosti, bi bilo treba po potrebi upoštevati tudi pri presoji vplivov načrtov in projektov na območja Natura 2000 (glej preglednico 4). | Landscape features that contribute to the ecological coherence of the network, including to its connectivity, should also be considered, where appropriate, in the assessment of the effects of plans and projects on Natura 2000 (see Table 4). |
| (b) Opredelitev in presoja vplivov načrta ali projekta glede na cilje ohranjanja območja | (b) Identifying and assessing the impacts of the plan or project in view of the site's conservation objectives |
| Ob upoštevanju najboljših znanstvenih spoznanj na zadevnem področju je treba opredeliti vse vidike načrta ali projekta, ki lahko sami ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti vplivajo na cilje ohranjanja območja. | Presoja vplivov mora temeljiti na objektivnih in po možnosti merljivih merilih. Vplive bi bilo treba napovedati čim natančneje, pri čemer bi morala biti podlaga za te napovedi jasna in evidentirana v poročilu o ustrezni presoji. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6. | All aspects of the plan or project that can, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field. | The appraisal of effects must be based on objective and, if possible, quantifiable criteria. Impacts should be predicted as precisely as possible, and the basis of these predictions should be made clear and recorded in the appropriate assessment report. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.6. |
| Presoja mora zajemati vpliv celotnega zadevnega načrta ali projekta, z vsemi dejavnostmi, ki jih zajema, in v vseh fazah (priprava, gradnja, obratovanje in, kjer je primerno, razgradnja ali obnova). V presoji je treba opredeliti različne vrste vplivov in razlikovati med njimi, vključno z neposrednimi in posrednimi vplivi, začasnimi ali trajnimi vplivi, kratkoročnimi ali dolgoročnimi vplivi in kumulativnimi vplivi. | The assessment must cover the impact of the entire plan or project in question, with all the activities it comprises, and during all phases (preparation, construction, operation and, where relevant, decommissioning or reconditioning). The assessment must identify and differentiate the various types of impact, including direct and indirect effects, temporary or permanent effects, short- and long-term effects and cumulative effects |
| Presoja običajno vključuje analizo naslednjih možnih vplivov: | The assessment typically includes the analysis of the following possible impacts: |
| — | neposredne izgube: zmanjšanje razširjenosti habitata zaradi fizičnega uničenja (tj. zaradi njegove odstranitve ali odlaganja gradbenih materialov ali sedimentov); izguba razmnoževališč, prehranjevališč in počivališč za vrste; | — | Direct loss : reduction of habitat coverage as a result of its physical destruction (e.g. due to its removal or to the deposition of construction materials or sediments); loss of breeding, foraging, resting areas for species. |
| — | degradacije: poslabšanje kakovosti habitata, ki vodi do manjše številčnosti značilnih vrst ali spremenjene strukture združbe (sestave vrst). To je lahko posledica sprememb abiotskih razmer (npr. vodostaji ali povečana količina suspendiranih sedimentov, onesnaževal ali prašnih usedlin); poškodovanje razmnoževališč, prehranjevališč in počivališč za vrste; | — | Degradation : deterioration of habitat quality, leading to a reduced abundance of characteristic species or an altered community structure (species composition). This can be caused by changes in abiotic conditions (e.g. water levels or an increase in suspended sediments, pollutants or dust deposition); deterioration of breeding, foraging, resting areas for species. |
| — | vznemirjanja: sprememba obstoječih okoljskih razmer (npr. povečan hrup ali povečano svetlobno onesnaženje, pogostejša prisotnost ljudi in vozil). Vznemirjanje lahko med drugim povzroči selitev osebkov vrst, spremembe vedenja vrst ali tveganje obolevnosti in umrljivosti; | — | Disturbance : a change in existing environmental conditions (e.g. increased noise or light pollution, a greater frequentation of people and vehicles). Disturbance may cause, inter alia, the displacement of species individuals, changes in species behaviour, or the risk of morbidity or mortality. |
| — | razdrobljenosti: ki povzroča spreminjanje porazdelitve delov ustreznih habitatov in vrst, na primer z ustvarjanjem fizičnih ali ekoloških pregrad na območjih, ki so fizično ali funkcionalno povezana, ali njihovo razdelitvijo na manjše, bolj ločene enote; | — | Fragmentation: leading to an alteration of distribution patches of relevant habitats and species, e.g. through the creation physical or ecological barriers in areas that are physically of functionally connected, or splitting them into smaller more isolated units. |
| — | drugih posrednih vplivov: posredna sprememba kakovosti okolja (ki je na primer posledica spremembe razpoložljivosti hranil in svetlobe ali povečanja ranljivosti območja za druge nove grožnje, kot so invazivne tujerodne vrste ali prodiranje ljudi in živali). | — | Other indirect effects: indirect change to the quality of the environment (resulting for example from a change in availability of nutrients and light, or an increase in the vulnerability of the site to other new threats such as invasive alien species, human and animal penetration). |
| Te vplive bi bilo treba analizirati glede na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja, kar pomeni, da je treba analizo opraviti ne le glede na trenutno stanje habitatov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, ampak tudi glede na njihovo želeno stanje, kot je opredeljeno s cilji ohranjanja (npr. povečanje velikosti populacije ali razširjenosti habitata za x %). | These effects should be analysed in view of the site-specific conservation objectives, which implies that the analysis needs to be done not only in relation to the current condition of the habitats and species significantly present within the site but also in relation to their desired condition as defined by the conservation objectives (e.g. an increase in population size or habitat coverage by x %). |
| Analizo vplivov glede na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja je treba zato opraviti tudi na podlagi posebnih atributov ali parametrov, ki določajo stanje ohranjenosti zavarovanih značilnosti (npr. razširjenost, habitat, struktura in funkcija, velikost populacije, napovedi za prihodnost). | An analysis of effects in view of the site-specific conservation objectives must also therefore be done on the basis of the specific attributes or parameters that determine the conservation condition of the protected features (e.g. range, habitat, structure and function, population size, future prospects). |
| Drugega za drugim bi bilo treba proučiti vsak vidik načrta ali projekta, pri čemer bi bilo treba njegove morebitne vplive obravnavati glede na cilje ohranjanja območja. Vplive na vse prizadete habitate in vrste bi bilo nato treba proučiti skupaj in v medsebojni povezavi, tako da je mogoče opredeliti tudi njihovo vzajemno delovanje. | Each aspect of the plan or project should be examined in turn and its potential effects considered against the site’s conservation objectives. Then the effects on all the affected habitats and species should be looked at together, and in relation to each other, so that the interactions between them can also be taken into account. |
| Za napovedovanje morebitnih vplivov načrta ali projekta se lahko uporabljajo različne metode. V okviru 10 je navedenih nekaj primerov metod, ki se lahko uporabijo za napovedovanje vplivov in obsega vpliva. | Different methods can be used to predict the potential impact of plan or projects. Box 10 lists some examples of methods that can be used to predict the impacts as well as the scale of the impact. |
| Okvir 10 | Primeri metod za napovedovanje vplivov | Z neposrednimi meritvami, na primer površine izgubljenega ali prizadetega habitata, se lahko opredeli sorazmerna izguba populacij vrst, habitatov in združb. | Z diagrami poteka, omrežji in diagrami sistemov se opredelijo verige vplivov, ki so posledica neposrednih in posrednih vplivov, glede na njihov nastanek, pri čemer prikazujejo medsebojna razmerja in procesne poti. | Modeli za količinsko napovedovanje zagotavljajo matematično pridobljene napovedi, ki temeljijo na podatkih in predpostavkah o sili in smeri vplivov. Modeli lahko ekstrapolirajo napovedi, ki so skladne s preteklimi in trenutnimi podatki (analiza trendov, scenariji, analogije, ki temeljijo na podatkih z drugih ustreznih lokacij) ter intuitivnim napovedovanjem. Nekateri najpogosteje uporabljeni modeli napovedujejo širjenje onesnaževal v zraku, erozijo tal, nalaganje sedimentov v vodotokih in upadanje kisika v onesnaženih rekah. | Geografski informacijski sistemi (GIS) se lahko uporabljajo za oblikovanje modelov prostorskih razmerij, kot so prekrivanja območij omejitev, ali kartiranje občutljivih območij in lokacij izgube habitata. GIS so kombinacija računalniške kartografije, shranjevanja kartiranih podatkov in sistema za upravljanje zbirk podatkov za shranjevanje atributov, kot je raba ali naklon zemljišč. GIS omogočajo hiter prikaz, združevanje in analiziranje shranjenih spremenljivk. | Informacije iz predhodnih podobnih projektov so lahko koristne, zlasti če so se na začetku izdelale in med dejavnostjo spremljale kvantitativne napovedi. | Strokovna mnenja in presoje lahko temeljijo na predhodnih izkušnjah in posvetovanjih. | Box 10 | Examples of impact prediction methods | Direct measurements, for example size of area of habitat lost or affected, can identify proportionate loss from species’ populations, habitats and communities. | Flow charts, networks and systems diagrams identify chains of impact resulting from direct and indirect impacts, in line with how they are caused, illustrating interrelationships and process pathways. | Quantitative predictive models provide mathematically derived predictions based on data and assumptions about the force and direction of impact. Models may extrapolate predictions that are consistent with past and present data (trend analysis, scenarios, analogies which transfer information from other relevant locations) and intuitive forecasting. Some commonly used models predict the dispersal of pollutants in air, soil erosion, sediment loading of streams, and oxygen sag in polluted rivers. | Geographical information systems (GIS) can be used to produce models of spatial relationships, such as constraint overlays, or to map sensitive areas and locations of habitat loss. GIS are a combination of computerised cartography, storing map data, and a database management system, storing attributes such as land use or slope. GIS enable the variables stored to be displayed, combined, and analysed at speed. | Information from previous similar projects may be useful, especially if quantitative predictions were made initially and have been monitored during operation. | Expert opinion and judgement can be derived from previous experience and consultations. |
| V preglednici 5 je naveden primer sistematične navzkrižne analize med elementi projekta in zavarovanimi značilnostmi območja Natura 2000. | Table 5 gives an example of a systematic cross-analysis between project elements and the protected features in a Natura 2000 site. |
| Preglednica 5 | Table 5 |
| Primer sistematične navzkrižne analize med sestavnimi deli projekta in zavarovanimi značilnostmi območja Natura 2000 – poenostavljen primer ribogojnice | Example of systematic cross-analysis between project components and protected features on a Natura 2000 site – simplified example for a fish farm |
| Faza projekta | Sestavni del projekta | Habitat 1 | Reka | Habitat 2 | Obrečni gozdovi | Habitat 3 | Vlažne resave | Vrsta 1 | Ribe | Vrsta 2 | Nevretenčarji | Vrsta 3 | Ptice | Project phase | Project component | Habitat 1 | River | Habitat 2 | Riverine forests | Habitat 3 | Wet heaths | Species 1 | Fish | Species 2 | Invertebrates | Species 3 | Birds |
| Gradnja | Ribniki | Sprememba rečne struge in rečnega toka | (v dolžini xx m) | Izguba območja | (xx m2) | Izguba območja (xx m2) | | Spremembe v združbah vrst | Vznemirjanje, selitev osebkov. | Izguba razmnoževalnega habitata | Construction | Ponds | Riverbed and river flow modification | (xx m -length) | Loss of area | (xx m2) | Loss of area (xx m2) | | Changes in species communities | Disturbance, displacement of individuals. | Loss of breeding habitat |
| Stavbe | | | Izguba območja (xx m2) | | Izguba in poslabšanje habitata | | Buildings | | | Loss of area (xx m2) | | Habitat loss and deterioration | |
| Ceste | | Lokalne spremembe pretoka vode | Izguba območja (xx m2) | | Izguba in poslabšanje habitata | | Roads | | Local changes in water flow | Loss of area (xx m2) | | Habitat loss and deterioration | |
| Obratovanje | Hranjenje rib in njihovo zdravljenje | Onesnaženost vode z organskimi in kemičnimi proizvodi | | | Sprememba kakovosti habitata zaradi onesnaženosti vode | | Vznemirjanje, selitev osebkov | Operation | Fish feeding and treatments | Water pollution by organic and chemical products | | | Habitat quality alteration due to water pollution | | Disturbance, displacement of individuals |
| Odvzem vode | Sprememba habitata zaradi zmanjšanja pretoka | | Degradacija habitata zaradi zmanjšanja pretoka | Degradacija habitata zaradi zmanjšanja pretoka | | | Water abstraction | Habitat alteration due to flow reduction | | Habitat degradation due to flow reduction | Habitat degradation due to flow reduction | | |
| Razsvetljava | | | | | Vznemirjanje, selitev osebkov | Vznemirjanje, selitev osebkov | Lighting | | | | | Disturbance, displacement of individuals | Disturbance, displacement of individuals |
| Hrup | | | | | | Selitev osebkov | Noise | | | | | | Displacement of individuals |
| Presoja mora temeljiti na najboljših razpoložljivih znanstvenih spoznanjih na zadevnem področju. To pomeni, da morajo biti informacije popolne in posodobljene. Zato je treba pogosto izvesti terenske raziskave, da se zapolnijo vrzeli v informacijah in zberejo natančni podatki. To lahko na primer vključuje raziskovanje območja (z uporabo metod vzorčenja, popisov, evidenc itd.) za opredelitev ali potrditev natančne lokacije in porazdelitve naravnih značilnosti glede na načrtovane dejavnosti načrta ali projekta, ki je predmet presoje, ter njihovega stanja ohranjenosti. | The assessment must be based on the best available scientific knowledge in the field. This means that the information must be complete and up-to-date. For this reason, it is often necessary to carry out field surveys in order to fill information gaps and collect precise data. This may involve, for example, prospecting the area (using sampling methods, censuses, inventories, etc.) to identify or confirm the precise location and distribution of natural features in relation to the planned activities of the plan or project under assessment, and their conservation condition. |
| Predhodna teoretična raziskava je lahko koristna za pregled razpoložljivega znanja in opredelitev potreb po informacijah, ki upravičujejo nadaljnje terenske raziskave. To je lahko na primer koristna praksa, kadar teoretična raziskava kaže, da obstajajo ranljivi habitati s povezanim redkim skupkom rastlinskih in/ali živalskih vrst ali da so na območju, ki bo prizadeto, vrste, ki so ključne za cilje ohranjanja območja. | A prior desk study may be useful to review available knowledge and identify the information needs that warrant further field survey work. For instance, this can be useful practice when the desk study indicates that there are vulnerable habitats present which have an associated rare assemblage of flora and/or fauna, or that the area to be affected hosts species critical for the conservation objectives of the site. |
| Podatki, pridobljeni s terenskimi raziskavami, bi morali zagotavljati objektivno podlago za postopek presoje, ki ga je treba izvesti ob upoštevanju ciljev ohranjanja za posamezna območja. Da bi bili terenski podatki popolni, je treba zagotoviti dovolj dolg časovni okvir, na primer eno- ali večletno raziskavo, ki zajema celotno rastno dobo, ob upoštevanju sezonskosti prostoživečih živali, ali raziskave živalskih vrst, ki jih je morda treba ponoviti za potrditev populacij in trendov v nekem obdobju. | Data obtained from field surveys should provide an objective basis for the assessment process, which has to be carried out in view of the site-specific conservation objectives. For the field data to be complete, a sufficient timeframe has to be set, e.g. a one or more-year study that covers a whole vegetation cycle, taking into account the seasonality of the wildlife, or faunal surveys that may need to be repeated to confirm populations and trends over a period of time. |
| Za velike razvojne projekte, kot so avtoceste, železnice, polja vetrnih elektrarn, pristanišča, plovne poti itd., za katere se zaradi njihovega obsega in narave pričakuje, da bodo pomembno vplivali na območje, se skoraj vedno zahtevajo terenske raziskave. Vključevati bodo morali podrobno kartiranje zavarovanih habitatov ali razmnoževališč ali počivališč vrst itd. (razen če so bile nekatere od teh raziskav pred kratkim že izvedene, na primer med pripravo ali posodabljanjem načrta upravljanja ali med presojo drugega velikega razvojnega projekta na območju). | For major developments such as motorways, railways, windfarms, ports, waterways, etc., which due to their scale and nature are expected to have significant effects on a site, field studies are almost always required. They will need to include detailed mapping of protected habitats or of breeding or resting places of species etc. (unless some of these surveys and studies have already been carried out recently, for example during the preparation or updating of a management plan or while assessing another major development project in the area). |
| Vplive bi bilo treba količinsko opredeliti ali evidentirati z uporabo parametrov, ki omogočajo oceno obsega in resnosti vpliva na določene cilje ohranjanja habitatov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju (za kazalnike pomembnosti glej tudi okvir 7 v oddelku 3.1.4). To bi lahko na primer vključevalo parametre, kot so: | The impact should be quantified or recorded using parameters that make it possible to assess the scale and severity of the impact on the specific conservation objectives of the habitats and species significantly present on the site (see also box 7 in section 3.1.4 for indicators of significance) . This could include, for instance, parameters such as: |
| — | površina habitata ali habitata vrst, ki je trajno izgubljena (npr. zaradi odstranitve rastlinja ali primernih razmnoževališč/gnezdišč), ocenjena glede na površino habitata na zadevnem območju, na regionalni, nacionalni in biogeografski ravni (delež izgubljene površine habitata) ter glede na ciljno vrednost, določeno s ciljem ohranjanja za posamezno območje (ki lahko vključuje ciljno vrednost za obnovo); | — | Area of the habitat or habitat of the species permanently lost (e.g. by clearing of vegetation or removal of suitable breeding/nesting sites) assessed against the habitat area on the site, at regional, national and biogeographical level (percentage of habitat area lost) and against the target set in the site-specific conservation objective (which may include a target for restoration); |
| — | površina habitata ali habitata vrst, ki je prizadeta (npr. zaradi onesnaževanja, hrupa ali poslabšanja drugih ekoloških pogojev), ocenjena glede na delež površine habitata na zadevnem območju, na regionalni, nacionalni in biogeografski ravni (delež prizadete površine habitata) ter glede na ciljno vrednost, določeno s ciljem ohranjanja za posamezno območje (ki lahko vključuje ciljno vrednost za obnovo); | — | Area of the habitat or habitat of the species affected (e.g. by pollution, noise, deterioration of other ecological conditions) assessed against percentage of the habitat area on the site, at regional, national and biogeographical level (percentage of habitat area affected) and against the target set in the site-specific conservation objective (which may include a target for restoration); |
| — | velikost prizadetih populacij vrst stalnic in selivskih vrst, ocenjena glede na lokalne, regionalne, nacionalne in mednarodne populacije (delež prizadete populacije) ter glede na ciljno vrednost, določeno s ciljem ohranjanja za posamezno območje (ki lahko vključuje ciljno vrednost za povečanje velikosti populacije na zadevnem območju); | — | Size of resident and migratory species populations affected, assessed against the local, regional, national and international populations (percentage of population affected) and against the target set in the site-specific conservation objective (which may include a target for an increase in population size within the site); |
| — | obseg vpliva (npr. zaradi onesnaževanja, hrupa, poslabšanja drugih ekoloških pogojev) na kakovost habitata ali habitata vrst ali preživetje prizadetih vrst, ob upoštevanju ekoloških zahtev na zadevnem območju, kot so opredeljene s ciljem ohranjanja za posamezno območje (ki lahko vključuje ciljno vrednost za obnovo). | — | Scale of impact (e.g. by pollution, noise, deterioration of other ecological conditions) on the quality of the habitat or habitat of the species or the survival of species affected, in view of their ecological requirements in the site as defined in the site-specific conservation objective (which may include a target for restoration). |
| Kot je bilo že navedeno v zgornjih točkah, bi bilo treba pri ocenjevanju možnih škodljivih vplivov pri presoji upoštevati ne le negativne spremembe trenutnega stanja, ampak tudi spremembe, ki preprečujejo doseganje ciljev ohranjanja, če zahtevajo izboljšanje trenutnih pogojev. | As already mentioned in the points above, when assessing possible adverse effects, the assessment should not only consider negative changes in the current status, but also changes that can prevent the achievement of the conservation objectives in so far as they require improvement of the current conditions. |
| (c) Presoja kumulativnih vplivov z drugimi načrti in projekti | (c) Assessing cumulative effects with other plans and projects |
| Kumulativni vplivi so lahko posledica zaporednih, postopnih in/ali skupnih vplivov razvoja (načrt, projekt) v povezavi z drugimi obstoječimi, načrtovanimi in/ali razumno pričakovanimi razvojnimi projekti (glej tudi oddelek 3.1.4, preglednica 2 o ključnih korakih za presojo kumulativnih vplivov na območje Natura 2000). Primeri kumulativnih vplivov vključujejo: | Cumulative impacts can result from the successive, incremental, and/or combined effects of a development (plan, project) when added to other existing, planned, and/or reasonably anticipated developments (see also section 3.1.4, table 2 on the key steps for assessing cumulative effects on a Natura 2000 site). Examples of cumulative impacts include: |
| — | povečane koncentracije onesnaževal (zlasti v vodi in tleh), ki presegajo ravni, ki so združljive z ekološkimi zahtevami zavarovanega habitata ali vrste na območju; | — | increased pollutant concentrations (particularly in water and soil), beyond levels compatible with the ecological requirements of the habitat or species protected in the site; |
| — | zmanjšanje pretoka vode na zbirnem območju zaradi večkratnega odvzema pod raven, ki je združljiva z ekološkimi zahtevami zavarovanega habitata ali vrste na območju; | — | reduction of water flow in a watershed due to multiple withdrawals, below the level which is compatible with the ecological requirements of the habitat or species protected in the site; |
| — | poseganje v selitvene poti ali gibanje prostoživečih živali; | — | interference with migratory routes or wildlife movement; |
| — | povečan pritisk na habitate in vrste v ekosistemu zaradi različnih razvojnih projektov. | — | increased pressure on habitats and species in an ecosystem from different developments. |
| Kumulativni vplivi zajemajo širok spekter vplivov z različnimi geografskimi obsegi in časovnimi okviri. V nekaterih primerih se kumulativni vplivi pojavijo zaradi priprave več istovrstnih projektov. Glavni primeri so: | Cumulative impacts encompass a broad spectrum of impacts on different geographical scales and timeframes. In some cases, cumulative impacts occur because a series of projects of the same type are being developed. Prime examples are: |
| — | gradnja ali načrtovanje več hidroelektričnih projektov na isti reki ali istem zbirnem območju; | — | when several hydroelectric projects are constructed or planned on the same river or within the same watershed; |
| — | priprava več naftnih in plinskih projektov ali projektov pridobivanja mineralnih surovin v neposredni bližini ali | — | when multiple oil and gas projects or mineral extraction projects are developed in close proximity; or |
| — | gradnja ali načrtovanje več polj vetrnih elektrarn na isti poti letenja ali v isti regiji. | — | when a number of wind farms are constructed or planned within the same flyway or region. |
| V drugih primerih se kumulativni vplivi pojavijo zaradi skupnih vplivov različnih vrst projektov na istem območju, kot so gradnja rudnika mineralnih surovin, dovoznih cest ali daljnovodov, in druge rabe sosednjih zemljišč. V nekaterih primerih se različni sestavni deli istega razvojnega projekta izvajajo in presojajo ločeno, kar pomeni, da bi morali biti tudi kumulativni vplivi teh sestavnih delov predmet presoje kumulativnih vplivov. | In other cases, cumulative impacts occur due to the combined effects of different types of projects in the same area, such as the development of a mineral extraction site, access roads, transmission lines, and other adjacent land uses. In some situations, different components of the same development are implemented and assessed separately, meaning that the cumulative impacts from these components should also be subject to a cumulative impact assessment. |
| Med ustrezno presojo je treba upoštevati druge načrte ali projekte, ki bi lahko skupaj z načrtom ali projektom, ki je predmet preiskave, pomembno vplivali na območje. Predlagana cesta bo na primer precej oddaljena od območja Natura 2000 in vznemirjanje, ki ga bo povzročila (npr. hrup), ne bo pomembno vplivalo na zavarovane vrste ptic na območju. Če pa obstajajo še drugi obstoječi ali predlagani projekti ali načrti (npr. cesta na drugi strani območja Natura 2000), lahko skupne ravni hrupa iz vseh teh projektov skupaj povzročijo znatno raven vznemirjanja zadevnih vrst ptic (ravni hrupa, ki so višje od ravni, združljivih z ekološkimi zahtevami za vrsto). | Other plans or projects that could, in combination with the plan or project under investigation, have a significant effect on a site must be taken into account during the appropriate assessment. For example, a proposed road will pass some distance from a Natura 2000 site and the disturbance it will generate (e.g. noise) will not significantly affect bird species protected in the site. However, if there are other existing or proposed projects or plans (e.g. a road on the other side of the Natura 2000 site), then the total noise levels from all these projects combined may cause a significant level of disturbance for those bird species (noise levels above what it compatible with the ecological requirements of the species). |
| Opozoriti je treba tudi, da se lahko kumulativni vplivi pojavijo, kadar so prizadeta območja povezana. Primer tega bi bil, kadar bi se zaradi predlaganega projekta verjetno znižali vodostaji na območju Natura 2000. Čeprav zmanjšanje tega vira samo po sebi morda ni pomembno, lahko v primeru, če obstoječi ostanki gnojil in pesticidov dosežejo območje z bližnjega območja intenzivnega kmetijstva, nižji vodostaji pomenijo višje koncentracije onesnaževal v primeru iztekanja, in sicer v takšnem obsegu, da skupni vpliv postane pomemben, tj. koncentracije onesnaževal presegajo ravni, ki so združljive z ekološkimi zahtevami za zavarovani habitat ali zavarovane vrste na območju. | To note also that cumulative impacts could occur where impacted areas interact. An example of this would be where a proposed project is likely to reduce water levels in a Natura 2000 site. Although that resource reduction in itself may not be significant, if existing fertiliser and pesticide residues reach the site from a nearby intensive farming area, the lower water levels may mean higher concentrations of pollutants when run-off occurs, to an extent that the combined effect becomes significant, i.e. concentrations of pollutants beyond the levels which are compatible with the ecological requirements of the habitat or species protected in the site. |
| Vplive v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti bi bilo treba proučiti že v fazi pregleda (oddelek 3.2), prav tako bi bilo treba opredeliti vse druge načrte in projekte, ki lahko povzročajo skupne vplive. Presoja v fazi pregleda je bila morda poenostavljena, v fazi ustrezne presoje pa bi bilo treba ustrezno oceniti opredeljene vplive drugih projektov ali načrtov, ki lahko vplivajo v povezavi z načrtom ali projektom, ki je predmet presoje. To zahteva količinsko opredelitev in/ali oceno razsežnosti teh drugih vplivov ter opredelitev prizadetih značilnosti območij Natura 2000. | ‘In-combination’ effects should already have been investigated at the screening stage (Section 3.2), and any other plans and projects that can act in combination should have been identified. The assessment at the screening stage may have been simplified, but, at the appropriate assessment stage, the identified impacts of other projects or plans that can act in combination with the plan or project being assessed should be properly evaluated. This requires quantifying and/or qualifying the magnitude of these other impacts and identifying the affected features of the Natura 2000 sites. |
| Kot je navedeno v oddelku 3.1.4, se določba o vplivih v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti nanaša na druge načrte ali projekte, ki so že zaključeni, odobreni, vendar še niso zaključeni, ali predloženi v odobritev. | As stated in section 3.1.4, the in-combination provision concerns other plans or projects that have been already completed, approved but not yet completed, or submitted for consent. |
| Poleg vplivov načrtov ali projektov, ki so glavni predmet presoje, je morda ustrezno proučiti tudi vplive že zaključenih načrtov in projektov, vključno s tistimi pred datumom prenosa Direktive ali datumom določitve območja. Vplivi takšnih zaključenih načrtov in projektov bi bili običajno del referenčnih stanj območja, ki se obravnavajo v tej fazi. | V določbo o vplivih v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti bi bilo treba vključiti tudi načrte in projekte, ki so bili v preteklosti odobreni, vendar še niso bili izvedeni ali zaključeni. Kar zadeva druge predlagane načrte ali projekte, bi bilo zaradi pravne varnosti primerno omejiti določbo o vplivih v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti na tiste načrte, ki so bili dejansko predlagani, tj. na tiste, za katere je bila predložena vloga za odobritev ali soglasje. Hkrati mora biti jasno, da države članice med presojo predlaganega načrta ali projekta ne oblikujejo domneve v korist drugih načrtov ali projektov v prihodnosti, ki še niso bili predlagani. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.5.3. | In addition to the effects of the plans or projects that are the main subject of the assessment, it may be appropriate to consider the effects of already completed plans and projects, including those preceding the date of transposition of the directive or the date of designation of the site. The effects of such completed plans and projects would typically form part of the site's baseline conditions which are considered at this stage. | Plans and projects that have been approved in the past but have not yet been implemented or completed should also be included in the in-combination provision. As regards other proposed plans or projects, in the interest of legal certainty it would be appropriate to restrict the in-combination provision to plans that have been actually proposed, i.e. for which an application for approval or consent has been submitted. At the same time, it must be evident that, when assessing a proposed plan or project, Member States do not create a presumption in favour of other not yet proposed plans or projects in the future. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.5.3. |
| Geografski obseg, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri proučevanju kumulativnih vplivov, je odvisen od vrste načrta ali projekta ter habitatov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju. Lahko se na primer določi znotraj določenega radija, na podlagi povodja ali vzdolž selitvenih poti ptic. Vendar bi moral zajemati celotno geografsko območje, na katerem bi vse dejavnosti v okviru načrta ali projekta ter njihovi kumulativni vplivi lahko imeli posledice za cilje ohranjanja zadevnih območij Natura 2000. | The geographical scope to use when looking at cumulative effects will depend on the type of plan or project and the habitats and species significantly present on the site. It could be, for instance, within a certain radius, on a catchment area basis, or along a bird migration route. It should however cover the entire geographic area in which all plan or project activities and their cumulative effects are likely to have implications on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites in question. |
| Presoje na ravni načrta so zlasti primerne za presojo kumulativnih in sinergijskih vplivov, saj lahko preprečijo težave pozneje v fazi projekta, na primer v primeru načrtov za določene sektorje, kot so promet, energija in gospodarjenje z vodo, ter načrtov in strategij, načrtov rabe zemljišč itd. V tem okviru je lahko še posebej koristen pregled okoljskih presoj za druge obstoječe načrte in projekte, ki vplivajo na isto območje (SPVO in ustrezne presoje, če je na voljo). | Plan level assessments are particularly suitable for assessing cumulative and synergistic effects since they can pre-empt problems further down the line at the project stage, e.g. in the case of plans for specific sectors such as transport, energy, water management, as well as regional plans and strategies, land use plans, etc. In this context, it can be particularly useful to consult the environmental assessments of other existing plans and projects affecting the same area (SEA and appropriate assessment where available). |
| Z ustrezno presojo, izvedeno v zvezi s temi načrti, se lahko določi tudi obseg za ustrezno presojo posameznih sestavnih delov načrta (projektov) v smislu njihovih kumulativnih vplivov. Pri določanju obsega ustrezne presoje načrta pridobivanja mineralnih surovin je na primer lahko koristno določiti razpon ali obseg, v katerem lahko širše omrežje dovoznih cest do rudnikov prispeva h kumulativnim vplivom, na primer v zvezi z razdrobljenostjo habitata, ki prizadene populacije vrst. | The appropriate assessment carried out on these plans may also determine the scope for the appropriate assessment of individual components of the plan (projects) in terms of their cumulative effects. For example, when scoping the appropriate assessment of a mineral extraction plan, it may be useful to determine the range or extent to which the wider network of access roads to extraction sites may contribute to the cumulative impacts, e.g. in relation to habitat fragmentation affecting populations of species. |
| V preglednici 3 so navedeni viri, ki lahko zagotovijo informacije o drugih načrtih in projektih, ki lahko povzročijo kumulativne vplive. Za poenostavitev presoje kumulativnih vplivov so koristna orodja za primerjavo kumulativnih vplivov, kot so podatkovne zbirke, v katerih so evidentirani projekti in načrti, ki jih je treba upoštevati. Pregled različnih dejavnosti je na primer zelo olajšan, če obstaja posodobljena nacionalna ali regionalna podatkovna zbirka, ki po možnosti vključuje dinamično karto, s pomočjo katere lahko uporabniki poiščejo vse projekte, vključno s tistimi, ki so še v fazi načrtovanja. Da bi bile takšne podatkovne zbirke koristne za ustrezno presojo, bi si morali pristojni organi prizadevati za ohranitev ustreznih dokumentov na spletu (npr. presoja vplivov, uvedeni ukrepi za ublažitev ali pogoji, določeni za odobritev) tudi po izdaji dovoljenj. | Table 3 illustrates the sources that can provide information on other plans and projects that can give rise to cumulative effects. Tools to collate cumulative impacts, like databases recording the projects and plans to be considered, are helpful to streamline the assessment of cumulative effects. For instance, getting an overview of different activities is greatly facilitated if there is an up-to-date national or regional database, preferably including a dynamic map, which enables users to search all projects, including those still in the planning phase. In order for those databases to be useful for the appropriate assessment, competent authorities should aim to maintain the relevant documents online (e.g. impact assessment, mitigation measures introduced or conditions set for approval) also after permits are granted. |
| Posvetovati bi se bilo treba s pristojnimi organi (naravovarstvenimi in sektorskimi), da bi se zbrale informacije o drugih načrtih/projektih, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati med presojo. Pristojni organi lahko tudi prispevajo k presoji kumulativnih vplivov ali jo podprejo, saj imajo najboljši pregled nad drugimi dejavnostmi na širših območjih in najboljše znanje o njih. Poleg tega lahko zberejo vse ustrezne informacije ter jih posredujejo nosilcem projektov in svetovalcem. | Competent authorities (nature conservation, sectoral) should be consulted in order to collect information about the other plans/projects that should be considered during the assessment. Competent authorities can also contribute or support the assessment of cumulative impacts, as they have the best overview and knowledge about other activities across wider areas. They can also collect all relevant information and provide this to the project developers and consultants. |
| Presoja kumulativnih vplivov lahko temelji na informacijah iz različnih virov, ki vključujejo okoljske študije in programe, strateške, sektorske in regionalne okoljske presoje, okoljske presoje na ravni projekta, presoje kumulativnih vplivov v podobnih primerih in ciljno usmerjene študije o določenih vprašanjih. Dober vir informacij o kumulativnih vplivih so lahko tudi strokovni nasveti. | The assessment of cumulative impacts may draw on information from a variety of sources including environmental studies and programmes, strategic, sectoral, and regional environmental assessments, project level environmental assessments, cumulative impact assessments from similar situations and targeted studies on specific issues. Expert advice can also be a good source of information on cumulative effects. |
| Za presojo kumulativnih vplivov se lahko uporablja veliko različnih metod in orodij, ki običajno vključujejo tudi fazo določanja obsega in ocenjevanja (glej sliko 2 spodaj). | A wide variety of methods and tools can be used to assess cumulative impacts, which usually also includes a scoping and an evaluation phase (see Figure 2 below). |
| Vir: Evropska komisija, 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (Smernice za presojo posrednih in kumulativnih vplivov ter njihovega vzajemnega delovanja). | Source: European Commission, 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. |
| Posvetovanja, kontrolni seznami, prekrivni zemljevidi, analiza omrežja in sistemov so lahko primerna orodja pri določanju obsega, s katerimi bodo opredeljeni možni vplivi, ki jih je treba podrobneje proučiti pri presoji kumulativnih vplivov. | Consultations, checklists, overlay maps, network and systems analysis can be suitable tools in the scoping exercise, which will identify the potential impacts to be looked at further in the cumulative impacts assessment. |
| — | Analize omrežja in sistemov temeljijo na konceptu, da med posameznimi značilnostmi okolja obstajajo povezave in poti vzajemnega delovanja ter da en element, ki je še posebej prizadet, vpliva tudi na druge značilnosti, ki z njim vzajemno delujejo. | — | Network and systems analyses are based on the concept that there are links and interaction pathways between individual features of the environment, and that when one element is specifically affected, it will also have an effect on other features that interact with it. |
| — | Pri prostorskih analizah se uporabljajo geografski informacijski sistemi (GIS) in prekrivni zemljevidi, da se opredeli, kje bi se lahko pojavili kumulativni vplivi več različnih dejavnosti, in opredeli vzajemno delovanje vplivov. Z njimi se lahko vpliv projekta preslika tudi na izbrane receptorje, značilnosti ali vire za opredelitev, kje bi bil vpliv največji. | — | Spatial analyses use geographical information systems (GIS) and overlay maps to identify where the cumulative impacts of a number of different actions may occur, and identify impact interactions. It can also overlay a project’s effect on selected receptors, features or resources to identify where the impact would be greatest. |
| — | Koristno je lahko tudi kartiranje občutljivosti, saj lahko pomaga napovedati možne kumulativne vplive nekaterih dejavnosti na naravne značilnosti, ki so ranljive za vplive zadevnih dejavnosti (za več podrobnosti glej oddelek 4.2.2 teh smernic) (31). | — | Sensitivity mapping can also be useful, as it may help predict potential cumulative impacts of certain activities on natural features that are vulnerable to the effects of those activities (see further details in section 4.2.2 of this guidance document) (31). |
| — | Oblikujejo se lahko strokovni odbori za opredelitev in presojo kumulativnih vplivov. Za oceno vplivov in proučitev kumulativnih vplivov več dejavnosti na območje ali značilnost ter njihovega vzajemnega delovanja se lahko uporabijo matrike. | — | Expert panels can be formed to identify and assess cumulative impacts. Matrices can be used to evaluate impacts and to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple actions on a site or feature as well as interactions between impacts. |
| — | Modeliranje zagotavlja analitično orodje za količinsko opredelitev vzročno-posledičnih razmerij s simulacijo okoljskih pogojev. To lahko vključuje vse od modeliranja kakovosti zraka ali hrupa do uporabe modela, ki predstavlja zapleten naravni sistem. | — | Modelling provides an analytical tool to quantify cause-and-effect relationships by simulating environmental conditions. This can range from air quality or noise modelling, to the use of a model representing a complex natural system. |
| — | Z analizami nosilne zmogljivosti (32) se prouči kopičenje vplivov glede na pragove. Vendar morda ni vedno mogoče določiti praga ali nosilne zmogljivosti za določeno značilnost ali receptor. | — | Carrying capacity (32) analyses look at the accumulation of impacts against thresholds. However it may not always be possible to set the threshold or carrying capacity for a particular feature or receptor. |
| Ne glede na to, katere metode se izberejo, bi morale biti prilagojene informacijam, ki so na voljo za analizo, in, če je le mogoče, zagotavljati kvantitativno oceno kumulativnega vpliva. Če je treba pripraviti kvalitativne ocene kumulativnih vplivov, bi morale temeljiti na sporazumni oceni odbora neodvisnih strokovnjakov in ne na mnenju posameznega strokovnjaka. Odbor je lahko na primer koristen in celo potreben tudi v primeru, če kumulativni vplivi, o katerih je treba presojati, izvirajo iz različnih projektov, na primer gradnje hidroelektrarne, poglabljanja in namakanja na isti reki. | Whatever methods are chosen, they should be adjusted to the information available for the analysis and provide, whenever possible, a quantitative estimate of cumulative impact. If qualitative estimates of cumulative impact are to be developed, they should be based on a consensual estimate of a panel of independent experts rather than on the opinion of an individual expert. A panel may also be useful and even necessary, for instance where cumulative effects to be assessed come from different projects, e.g. hydropower construction, dredging and irrigation on the same river. |
| Ni nujno, da je izbrana metoda zapletena. Cilj bi moral biti predstaviti rezultate tako, da jih lahko nosilec, odločevalec (tj. pristojni organ) in javnost brez težav razumejo. Vlade imajo lahko pomembno vlogo pri zagotavljanju in izvajanju omogočitvenih okvirov za usmerjanje tega dela ter lahko pomagajo pri opredelitvi in obvladovanju kumulativnih vplivov. | The method chosen does not need to be complex. The aim should be to present the results in a way that can be easily understood by the developer, decision-maker (i.e. competent authority) and the public. Governments can play a significant role by providing and implementing enabling frameworks to guide this work and help identify and manage cumulative impacts. |
| V okviru 11 je predstavljen primer postopka po korakih za presojo kumulativnih vplivov. Postopek je treba uporabljati prilagodljivo, kar pomeni, da se vrstni red korakov lahko spremeni in je korake morda treba izvesti večkrat, tako da se glede na rezultate drugih korakov nekateri koraki ponovijo. | Box 11 sets out an example of a step-by-step process for cumulative impact assessment. The process must be applied in a flexible way, i.e. the steps can be taken out of sequence and may need to be implemented iteratively, with some steps revisited in response to the results of others. |
| Okvir 11 | Primer postopka za izvedbo presoje kumulativnih vplivov | 1. korak Določitev obsega | — | Opredelitev geografskih meja in časovnega okvira presoje kumulativnih vplivov | — | Opredelitev zavarovanih habitatov in vrst, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, ter ekoloških procesov, ki jih je treba obravnavati | — | Opredelitev drugih obstoječih in načrtovanih načrtov in projektov (ter človekovih dejavnosti), ki vplivajo ali bi vplivali na naravne značilnosti, ki jih je treba vključiti v presojo kumulativnih vplivov | — | Opredelitev naravnih okoljskih dejavnikov, ki tudi vplivajo na stanje značilnosti, ki se obravnavajo pri presoji kumulativnih vplivov | 2. korak Presoja kumulativnih vplivov na zavarovane habitate in vrste | — | Zbiranje razpoložljivih informacij o vplivu drugih načrtov, projektov, dejavnosti in naravnih dejavnikov na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja, določene za naravne značilnosti območja | — | Ocena kumulativnega vpliva na cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja, ki se nanašajo na zavarovane značilnosti, tj. skupni vpliv na zavarovane značilnosti, kadar so vplivi načrta ali projekta, ki je predmet preiskave, povezani z drugimi načrti ali projekti | 3. korak Ocena pomembnosti predvidenih kumulativnih vplivov | — | Ocena pomembnosti predvidenih kumulativnih vplivov na obravnavane naravne značilnosti, ob upoštevanju ciljev njihovega ohranjanja. Kadar se na primer kumulativni vpliv na stanje naravne značilnosti približa pragu za določen atribut, opredeljen v cilju ohranjanja za to značilnost, ali ta prag preseže, je vpliv pomemben | 4. korak Obvladovanje kumulativnih vplivov | — | Po potrebi opredelitev dodatnih ukrepov za ublažitev, da se zmanjšajo ocenjeni kumulativni vplivi na zavarovane značilnosti (izvajanje nalog, opisanih v 2. in 3. koraku, bo potrebno za oceno vrednosti takšne dodatne ublažitve) | Box 11 | Example of a process for carrying out the cumulative impact assessment (CumIA) | Step 1. Scoping | — | Identify the geographical boundaries and the timeframe of the CumIA; | — | Identify the protected habitats and species significantly present on the site and ecological processes to consider; | — | Identify other existing and planned plans and projects (and human activities) that do/would affect the natural features to be included in the CumIA; | — | Identify natural environmental drivers that also impact the condition of the features considered in the CumIA. | Step 2. Assess cumulative impacts on the protected habitats and species | — | Collect available information on the impact of other plans, projects, activities and natural drivers on the site-specific conservation objectives set for the natural features in the site; | — | Estimate the cumulative impact on the protected features’ site-specific conservation objectives — i.e. the total impact on the protected features when the impacts of the plan or project under investigation are combined with other plans or projects. | Step 3. Assess the significance of anticipated cumulative impacts | — | Assess the significance of the anticipated cumulative impacts on the natural features considered, taking into account its conservation objectives. For example, when the cumulative impact on the condition of the natural features approaches or exceeds a threshold for a certain attribute defined in the conservation objective of that feature, the impact is significant. | Step 4. Managing cumulative impacts | — | Identify, when necessary, additional mitigation measures to reduce an estimated cumulative impact on the protected features (carrying out the tasks described in steps 2 and 3 will be necessary to assess the value of such additional mitigation). |
| 3.2.3 Korak 3: potrditev vplivov načrta ali projekta na celovitost območja Natura 2000 | 3.2.3. Step 3: Ascertain the effects of the plan or project on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site |
| Zbrane informacije in napovedi glede stopnje in ravni intenzivnosti vplivov in sprememb, ki lahko izhajajo iz različnih faz načrta ali projekta, bi morale zdaj omogočati presojo obsega vplivov načrta ali projekta na celovitost območja. | The information collected and the predictions made about the degree and level of intensity of the impacts and changes that are likely to result from the different stages of the plan or project should now make it possible to assess the extent of the effects of the plan or project on the integrity of site. |
| Opis celovitosti območja in presoja vplivov bi morala temeljiti na parametrih, ki določajo cilje ohranjanja, pri čemer so specifični za habitate in vrste na območju ter njihove ekološke zahteve. To je lahko koristno tudi za poznejše spremljanje vpliva načrta ali projekta med izvajanjem. | The description of the site’s integrity and the impact assessment should be based on the parameters that determine the conservation objectives and that are specific to the habitats and species of the site and their ecological requirements. This can also be useful for the subsequent monitoring of the impact of the plan or project during implementation. |
| Kar zadeva konotacijo ali pomen izraza „celovitost“, se ta jasno nanaša na ekološko celovitost. To se lahko šteje za odliko ali stanje popolnosti. V dinamičnem ekološkem okviru se lahko tudi šteje, da pomeni odpornost in sposobnost razvijanja na načine, ki so ugodni za ohranjanje. | „Celovitost območja“ je mogoče uporabno opredeliti kot skladno vsoto ekološke strukture, funkcije in ekoloških procesov na celotnem območju, ki omogoča, da se na njem ohranijo habitati, sklopi habitatov in/ali populacij vrst, za katere je bilo območje določeno. | Območje lahko velja za območje z visoko stopnjo celovitosti, kadar je vsebovani potencial za izpolnjevanje ciljev ohranjanja območja uresničen, kadar se vzdržuje sposobnost samopopravljanja in samoobnavljanja v dinamičnih pogojih in je potrebna minimalna zunanja podpora upravljanju. | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6.4. | As regards the connotation or meaning of ‘integrity’, this clearly relates to ecological integrity. This can be considered as a quality or condition of being whole or complete. In a dynamic ecological context, it can also be considered as having the sense of resilience and ability to evolve in ways that are favourable to conservation. | The ‘integrity of the site’ can be usefully defined as the coherent sum of the site’s ecological structure, function and ecological processes, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is designated. | A site can be described as having a high degree of integrity where the inherent potential for meeting site conservation objectives is realised, the capacity for self-repair and self-renewal under dynamic conditions is maintained, and a minimum of external management support is required. | See the Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.4. |
| „Celovitost območja“ se tako nanaša na cilje ohranjanja območja, njegove ključne naravne značilnosti, ekološko strukturo in funkcijo. Če predlagani načrt ali projekt (sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti) ne škoduje ciljem ohranjanja območja, se šteje, da celovitost območja ni prizadeta. | The ‘integrity of a site’ thus relates to the site’s conservation objectives, its key natural features, ecological structure and function. If the site’s conservation objectives are not undermined by the proposed plan or project (alone and in-combination with other plans and projects) then the site’s integrity is not considered to be adversely affected. |
| „Celovitost“ se nanaša tudi na glavne ekološke procese in dejavnike, ki podpirajo dolgotrajno prisotnost vrst in habitatov na območju Natura 2000. To je običajno zajeto s cilji ohranjanja za območje (npr. izboljšanje kakovosti habitata ali povečanje območja razširjenosti določene vrste na območju). Poslabšanje teh dejavnikov lahko ogrozi doseganje teh ciljev in ima škodljiv vpliv, tudi če vrste ali habitati niso neposredno prizadeti. Hidrološki režim reke, procesi rečne morfologije, erozija, transport in akumulacija sedimentov so na primer ključni dejavniki za ohranjanje rečnih habitatov in vrst, ki so izraženi v njihovih ciljih ohranjanja. Vplivanje na te procese bi lahko imelo posledice za celovitost območja, tudi če znani deli naravnih habitatov in kraji s potrjeno prisotnostjo vrst niso neposredno prizadeti. | Site ‘integrity’ also concerns the main ecological processes and factors that sustain the long-term presence of the species and habitats in a Natura 2000 site. This will normally be covered by the conservation objectives for the site (e.g. to improve the quality of a habitat or extend the range of a species within the site). An impairment of these factors may jeopardise achievement of these objectives and have an adverse effect, even if the species or habitats are not directly impacted. For instance, the hydrological regime of a river, fluvial morphology processes, erosion, sediment transport and accumulation are crucial factors for conserving river habitats and species, reflected in their conservation objectives. Influencing these processes could have an impact on the site’s integrity, even if known patches of natural habitats and localities with confirmed species presence are not directly impacted. |
| Kadar sta trajna izguba dela habitata ali populacije vrste, ki je pomembno prisotna na območju, ali dolgotrajno poslabševanje ekološke strukture in funkcije območja ter ekoloških procesov na njem opredeljena kot vpliv, ki izhaja iz projekta ali načrta, je mogoče sklepati, da bo načrt ali projekt škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja. | When a permanent loss of a part of a habitat or a species population significantly present on the site, or a long-lasting deterioration of the site ecological structure, function and processes are identified as an impact resulting from the project or plan, it can be concluded that the plan or project will cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. |
| Vendar je treba tudi upoštevati, da bi lahko sposobnost samopopravljanja ali odpornost v nekaterih primerih omogočali obnovitev ekološke strukture in ekoloških funkcij območja v razmeroma kratkem času, na primer združba ali populacija vrste bi se lahko naravno obnovila po začasnem vznemirjanju. V tem primeru bi se lahko štelo, da razvojni projekt ne bi škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja. Sposobnost samopopravljanja se običajno upošteva v ciljih ohranjanja zavarovanih značilnosti (npr. z opredelitvijo določenih pragov ali omejitev spreminjanja, kot je na primer dovoljevanje določene ravni začasne motnosti zaradi vzdrževalnih del na rekah ali drugih vodnih telesih). | Nevertheless, it has also to be considered that the capacity for self-repair or resilience could in some cases allow the ecological structure and functions of the site to recover within a relatively short period of time, e.g. a community or a species population could recover naturally after some temporary disturbance. If so, it might be considered that the development would have no adverse effects on the integrity of the site. The capacity for self-repair would be normally reflected in the conservation objectives of the protected features (e.g. identifying certain thresholds or limits of change, like for instance allowing a certain level of temporary turbidity due to the maintenance works on rivers or other water bodies). |
| Od stopnje začasnih škodljivih vplivov je lahko odvisno, ali je mogoče sklepati o škodljivem vplivu na območje. Če je čas, potreben za obnovo habitata, ocenjen v dnevih, tednih ali celo nekaj mesecih, se lahko šteje, da ne bo škodljivih vplivov na celovitost območja. Kratko obdobje vznemirjanja tako morda ne bo škodljivo vplivalo na celovitost območja, čeprav prizadene nekatere habitate ali vrste. Vendar je treba to skrbno analizirati za vsak primer posebej, ob upoštevanju ciklov ekosistemov na določenem območju, strukture združb, ekoloških funkcij in procesov na območju. | The degree of temporary adverse effects can determine whether an adverse effect on the site can be concluded. If the time needed for the habitat to recover is estimated in days, weeks or even a couple of months, it might be considered that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the site. A short period of disturbance, while affecting some habitats or species, might thus not cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. However, this must be carefully analysed on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the cycles of the ecosystems in the particular site, the structure of the communities, ecological functions and the processes in the site. |
| Presoja vplivov na celovitost območja je lahko dokaj enostavna na manjših območjih s samo enim ali nekaj habitati ali vrstami in jasnimi ekološkimi funkcijami. Težje pa je o njih presojati na velikih območjih z zapletenimi ekosistemi in ekološkimi funkcijami, ki gostijo številne habitate in vrste. | Assessing the effects on the integrity of the site may be relatively straightforward in small sites with just one or a few habitats or species and clear ecological functions. But it will be more difficult to assess in large sites with complex ecosystems and ecological functions, which host many habitats and species. |
| Za sistematično in objektivno presojo vplivov na celovitost območja je pomembno, da so določeni pragovi in ciljne vrednosti za posamezne atribute, ki določajo cilje ohranjanja za zavarovane habitatne tipe in vrste na območju. Za pomoč pri ugotavljanju, ali je prizadeta celovitost območja Natura 2000, okvir 12 spodaj vsebuje okvirni kontrolni seznam z upoštevanimi parametri, ki se uporabljajo za opredelitev ciljev ohranjanja za zavarovane habitate/vrste na območjih. | To assess the effects on the integrity of the site in a systematic and objective manner, it is important to have established thresholds and targets for each of the attributes that define the conservation objectives for the habitat types and species protected in the site. In order to help determine whether the integrity of a Natura 2000 site is affected, Box 12 below provides an indicative checklist reflecting the parameters used to define the conservation objectives for the habitats/species protected in the sites. |
| Okvir 12 | Presoja vplivov na celovitost območja: primer kontrolnega seznama | Ali bi lahko načrt ali projekt: | — | oviral napredek pri doseganju ciljev ohranjanja območja ali povzročal zamude pri njegovem doseganju? | — | zmanjšal območje ali kakovost zavarovanih habitatnih tipov ali habitatov zavarovanih vrst na območju? | — | zmanjšal populacijo zavarovane vrste, ki je pomembno prisotna na območju? | — | povzročil vznemirjanje, ki bi lahko vplivalo na velikost ali gostoto populacije ali ravnovesje med vrstami? | — | povzročil razselitev zavarovanih vrst, ki so pomembno prisotne na območju, in s tem zmanjšal območje razširjenosti zadevnih vrst na območju? | — | povzročil razdrobljenost habitatov ali habitatov vrst iz Priloge I? | — | povzročil izgubo ali zmanjšanje ključnih značilnosti, naravnih procesov ali virov, ki so bistveni za ohranjanje ali obnavljanje ustreznih habitatov in vrst na območju (npr. pokritost z drevesi, izpostavljenost plimovanju, letne poplave, ujede, viri hrane)? | — | motil dejavnike, ki pomagajo vzdrževati ugodna stanja območja ali so potrebni za obnovitev tega ugodnega stanja na območju? | — | posegal v ravnovesje, porazdelitev in gostoto vrst, ki so kazalniki ugodnih stanj območja? | Box 12 | Assessing the effects on the integrity of the site: a checklist example | Does the plan or project have the potential to: | — | hamper or cause delays in progress towards achieving the site’s conservation objectives? | — | reduce the area, or quality, of protected habitat types or habitats of protected species present on the site? | — | reduce the population of the protected species significantly present on the site? | — | result in disturbance that could affect the population size or density or the balance between species? | — | cause the displacement of protected species significantly present on the site and thus reduce the distribution area of those species in the site? | — | result in a fragmentation of Annex I habitats or habitats of species? | — | result in a loss or reduction of key features, natural processes or resources that are essential for the maintenance or restoration of relevant habitats and species in the site (e.g. tree cover, tidal exposure, annual flooding, prey, food resources)? | — | disrupt the factors that help maintain the favourable conditions of the site or that are needed to restore these to a favourable condition within the site? | — | interfere with the balance, distribution and density of species that are the indicators of the favourable conditions of the site? |
| 3.2.4 Korak 4: ukrepi za ublažitev | 3.2.4. Step 4: Mitigation measures |
| Če so bili med ustrezno presojo ugotovljeni škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja ali takšnih vplivov ni mogoče izključiti, zadevnega načrta ali projekta ni mogoče odobriti. Vendar se glede na stopnjo ugotovljenega vpliva morda lahko uporabijo nekateri ukrepi za ublažitev, ki bodo preprečili te vplive ali jih toliko zmanjšali, da ne bodo več škodljivo vplivali na celovitost območja. | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6.6. | If adverse impacts on the site’s integrity have been identified during the appropriate assessment or cannot be ruled out, the plan or project in question cannot be approved. However, depending on the degree of impact identified, it may be possible to apply mitigation measures to avoid these impacts or reduce them to a level where they will no longer adversely affect the integrity of the site. | See the Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.6. |
| Ukrepe za ublažitev lahko predlaga nosilec načrta ali projekta ali jih zahtevajo pristojni nacionalni organi, da se vplivi, opredeljeni v ustrezni presoji, odpravijo, preprečijo ali zmanjšajo na raven, ko ne škodijo več celovitosti območja. | Mitigation measures may be proposed by the plan or project developer or required by the competent national authorities in order to remove, pre-empt or reduce the impacts identified in the appropriate assessment to a level where they will no longer affect the integrity of the site. |
| V praksi se potreba po ukrepih za ublažitev pogosto prepozna že v zgodnji fazi zasnove ali začetnih fazah načrta/projekta (npr. v razpravi med nosilcem projekta/vložnikom in naravovarstvenimi svetovalci pred vložitvijo vloge) in vključi v vlogo za izdajo dovoljenja. Čeprav ukrepov za ublažitev ni mogoče upoštevati pri pregledu načrta ali projekta, lahko dejstvo, da so bili opredeljeni kot potrebni, veliko pripomore k učinkoviti, uspešni in pravočasni izvedbi faze ustrezne presoje ter s tem k odločitvi, ali se lahko za načrt/projekt izda dovoljenje v skladu s členom 6(3). | In practice, the need for mitigation measures is often acknowledged at an early stage in the design or inception stages of a plan/project (for example at a 'pre-application' discussion between the developer/applicant and the nature conservation advisers) and included as part of the application for authorisation. Although mitigation measures cannot be taken into consideration when screening the plan or project, the fact that they have been identified as necessary can greatly assist the efficient, effective and timely execution of the appropriate assessment stage, and hence the decision on whether the plan/project can be authorised under Article 6(3). |
| V hierarhiji ukrepov za ublažitev se predlaga najprej izognitev vplivu (tj. preprečitev, da bi do pomembnih vplivov sploh prišlo) in nato njegovo zmanjšanje (tj. zmanjšanje obsega in/ali verjetnosti vpliva). Primeri so navedeni v preglednici 6 spodaj: | The hierarchy of mitigation measures suggests first avoidance (i.e. preventing significant impacts from happening in the first place) and then reduction of impact (i.e. reducing the magnitude and/or likelihood of an impact). Examples are given in table 6 below: |
| Preglednica 6 | Table 6 |
| Primeri vrst ukrepov za ublažitev | Examples of types of mitigation measures |
| Izogibanje vplivu: | Avoiding impact: |
| — | tehnične rešitve za preprečevanje negativnih vplivov načrta ali projekta (npr. naprave za preprečevanje hrupa, svetlobe ali prahu); | — | umestitev elementov projekta za izognitev občutljivim območjem (celotna območja Natura 2000 ali ključna območja, ki so znotraj območij Natura 2000 ali jih povezujejo); | — | varovalne ograje in drugi ukrepi za preprečevanje poškodb vegetacije ali prostoživečih živali; | — | izogibanje izvajanju del v občutljivih obdobjih (npr. v obdobju razmnoževanja vrst); | — | optimizacija koordinacije del za preprečevanje kumulativnih vplivov. | — | technical solutions to prevent negative effects of the plan or project (e.g. noise or light or dust suppression devices); | — | placing of project elements to avoid sensitive areas (entire Natura 2000 sites or key areas within or connecting Natura 2000 sites); | — | protective fences and other measures to prevent damage to vegetation or wildlife; | — | avoidance of works during sensitive periods (e.g. breeding season of species); | — | optimisation of coordination of works to avoid cumulative impacts. |
| Zmanjševanje vpliva: | Reducing impact: |
| — | nadzorovanje emisij; | — | protihrupne pregrade, kot so zasloni; | — | prestrezniki onesnaževal; | — | nadzorovan dostop do občutljivih območij med gradnjo/obratovanjem; | — | prehodi za prostoživeče živali (npr. mostovi, tuneli in „ekološki kanali“); | — | prilagajanje ukrepov, ki ustvarjajo vplive, za čim večje zmanjšanje vplivov (npr. zaradi hrupa, svetlobe, prahu itd.). | — | emission controls; | — | noise barriers such as screens; | — | pollutant interceptors; | — | controlled access to sensitive areas during construction/operation; | — | wildlife crossings (e.g. bridges, tunnels and ‘eco-ducts’); | — | adapting impact-generating actions to reduce effects to the extent possible (e.g. from noise, light, dust …). |
| Na ravni načrtov lahko ukrepi za ublažitev vključujejo na primer spremembo lokacije ali črtanje sestavnih delov načrta, za katere je ugotovljeno, da imajo pomembne škodljive vplive na celovitost območja. Predlagani ukrepi se lahko prilagajajo skozi celoten postopek presoje. Na visoki ravni načrtovanja (npr. v nacionalnih/regionalnih načrtih) lahko ublažitev pomeni opredelitev možnih ukrepov, ki jih je treba podrobneje razdelati na nižji ravni, v skladu z ekološkimi, lokacijskimi, časovnimi, pravnimi in finančnimi parametri, ki jih je treba izpolniti v okviru vsakega načrtovanja. | At the level of plans, mitigation measures may include e.g. re-locating or removing components of the plan identified as having significant adverse effects on the site integrity. The proposed measures can be fine-tuned throughout the assessment process. At a high level of planning (e.g. in national/regional plans), mitigation could imply setting out potential measures to be worked out in more detail at a lower level, in line with the ecological, locational, timeframe, legal and financial parameters to be met as part of any planning application. |
| Ukrepov za ublažitev se ne sme zamenjevati z izravnalnimi ukrepi, ki se obravnavajo samo v postopku iz člena 6(4) (glej oddelek 3.3.3 tega dokumenta). | Mitigation measures must not be confused with compensatory measures which are only considered under the Article 6(4) procedure (see section 3.3.3 of this document). |
| Ukrepi za ublažitev so ukrepi, katerih cilj je čim bolj zmanjšati ali celo odpraviti negativne vplive, ki se lahko pojavijo pri izvajanju načrta ali projekta, tako da celovitost območja ni prizadeta. Ti ukrepi se obravnavajo v okviru člena 6(3) in so sestavni del specifikacij načrta ali projekta ali pogoj za izdajo dovoljenja zanj. | Izravnalni ukrepi so neodvisni od projekta (vključno z vsemi ukrepi za ublažitev, povezanimi s projektom). Njihov namen je izravnati preostale negativne vplive načrta ali projekta, tako da se ohrani splošna ekološka usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000. Proučijo se lahko le v okviru člena 6(4). | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.4.1. | Mitigation measures are measures that aim to minimise, or even eliminate, the negative impacts likely to arise when a plan or project is implemented so that the site’s integrity is not adversely affected. These measures are considered in the context of Article 6(3) and are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project or conditional to its authorisation. | Compensatory measures are independent of the project (including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended to offset the residual negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network is maintained. They can only be considered in the context of Article 6(4). | See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.4.1. |
| Natančneje, ukrepi, ki funkcionalno niso del projekta, kot so izboljšanje in obnova habitata (tudi če prispevajo k neto povečanju območja habitata na prizadetem območju (33)) ali ustvarjanje in izboljšanje razmnoževališč in počivališč za vrste, se ne bi smeli šteti za ukrepe za ublažitev, saj ne zmanjšujejo negativnega vpliva projekta kot takšnega. Tovrstni ukrepi, če ne spadajo v okvir običajne prakse, ki je potrebna za ohranjanja območja, izpolnjujejo merila za izravnalne ukrepe. | Specifically, measures which are not functionally part of the project, such as habitat improvement and restoration (even if contributing to a net increase of the habitat area within the affected site (33)) or creation and improvement of breeding or resting places for the species, should not be considered as mitigation as they do not reduce negative impact of the project as such. This type of measures, if they are outside the normal practice required for the conservation of the site, meet rather the criteria for compensatory measures. |
| Vsak ukrep za ublažitev mora biti podrobno opisan, pri čemer se navede, kako bo odpravil ali zmanjšal opredeljene škodljive vplive, kako in kdaj se bo izvajal in kdo ga bo izvedel. Navesti je treba naslednje vidike: | Each mitigation measure must be described in detail, specifying how it will eliminate or reduce the adverse impacts identified, and how, when and by whom it will be implemented. The following aspects must be indicated: |
| — | zadevne vplive, ki naj bi se z ukrepi za ublažitev obravnavali, vključno z informacijami o ustreznih parametrih (npr. območje habitatov v interesu Skupnosti, katerih stanje se poslabšuje, in njihova stopnja ohranjenosti na območju, populacija vrst, ki so izpostavljene vznemirjanju); | — | The impacts concerned that the mitigation measures aim to address, including information on relevant parameters (e.g. the area of the habitats of Community interest subject to deterioration and their conservation degree in the site, the species population subject to disturbance). |
| — | pričakovane rezultate izvajanja predlaganih ukrepov za ublažitev, s sklicevanjem na posamezne parametre (npr. območje habitata, število populacij vrst ali struktura in funkcije); | — | The expected results from implementing the proposed mitigation measures, with reference to each parameter (e.g. habitat area, species population numbers or structure and functions). |
| — | tehnično-znanstveno izvedljivost in pričakovano stopnjo učinkovitosti predlaganih ukrepov; | — | Technical-scientific feasibility and degree of effectiveness expected of the proposed measures. |
| — | osebo ali organ, pristojen za izvajanje; | — | The person or body in charge of implementation. |
| — | upravljanje območja, na katerem se bodo izvajali ukrepi za ublažitev (metode, trajanje); | — | The management of the area where the mitigation measures will be implemented (methods, duration). |
| — | lokacijo in časovno razporeditev ukrepov glede na načrt ali projekt; | — | The location and timing of the measures with relation to the plan or project. |
| — | metode za preverjanje izvajanja ukrepov; | — | The methods for checking implementation of the measures. |
| — | financiranje ukrepov; | — | The financing of the measures. |
| — | program spremljanja za preverjanje učinkovitosti ukrepov in po potrebi njihovo prilagoditev. | — | The monitoring programme to verify the effectiveness of the measures, and adapt them if necessary. |
| Učinkovitost ukrepov za ublažitev je treba dokazati, na primer s sklicevanjem na uspešno izvajanje pri drugih podobnih razvojnih projektih, in spremljati, tako da se vzpostavi sistem za spremljanje rezultatov in sprejetje korektivnih ukrepov, če se odkrijejo napake. Za oceno učinkovitosti se lahko uporabi naslednji kontrolni seznam: | The effectiveness of mitigation measures needs to be demonstrated, e.g. with reference to successful implementation in other similar developments, and monitored, and by putting in place a system to monitor results and take corrective measures where failures are detected. The following checklist can be used to assess effectiveness: |
| Okvir 13 | Ocena učinkovitosti ukrepov za ublažitev | — | Ali so ukrepi za ublažitev izvedljivi v okviru načrta ali projekta, ki je predmet presoje? | — | Ali se ukrepi za ublažitev jasno osredotočajo na vplive, opredeljene v ustrezni presoji? Ali so učinkoviti pri zmanjševanju teh vplivov pod raven pomembnosti? | — | Ali so predvideni zadostna sredstva in zadostni viri za izvajanje ukrepov za ublažitev? | — | Ali obstajajo evidence o uspešnem predhodnem izvajanju predlaganih ukrepov za ublažitev? | — | Ali obstajajo znaki omejujočih dejavnikov in stopenj uspešnosti ali neuspešnosti predlaganih ukrepov? | — | Ali obstaja celovit načrt izvajanja in ohranjanja ukrepov za ublažitev (po potrebi tudi s spremljanjem in vrednotenjem)? | Box 13 | Assessing the effectiveness of mitigation measures | — | Are mitigation measures feasible within the plan or project under evaluation? | — | Do mitigation measures clearly target the impacts identified in the appropriate assessment? Are they effective in reducing these impacts below a level of significance? | — | Are there the sufficient means and resources foreseen to implement the mitigation measures? | — | Are there records of successful prior implementation of the mitigation measures proposed? | — | Is there an indication of limiting factors and rates of success or failure of the proposed measures? | — | Is there a comprehensive plan on how to implement and sustain the mitigation measures (including monitoring and evaluation where needed)? |
| Spremljanje ukrepov za ublažitev je ključno za preverjanje njihovega uspešnega in pravočasnega izvajanja ter za odkrivanje morebitnih nepričakovanih vplivov, ki zahtevajo dodatne ukrepe. | Monitoring mitigation measures is crucial to check their successful and timely implementation and to detect any unexpected impacts requiring additional measures. |
| Učinkovitost ukrepov za ublažitev je treba dokazati pred odobritvijo načrta ali projekta. Poleg tega bi bilo treba v primeru, ko je učinkovitost blažitve odvisna od obstoja stabilnih naravnih pogojev ali naravnih procesov, ki bi se lahko spremenili (npr. zaradi poplav, suš, neviht ali drugih dogodkov), spremljanje uporabljati tudi za preverjanje pričakovanih rezultatov in odkrivanje vseh možnih spremembi, zaradi katerih je treba ukrepe prilagoditi ali reprogramirati. | The effectiveness of mitigation measures must be demonstrated before the plan or project is approved. In addition, when the effectiveness of mitigation depends on the presence of stable natural conditions or natural processes that could change (e.g. due to floods, droughts, storms or other events), monitoring should also be used to verify the expected results and detect any possible changes warrantying the adaptation or reprogramming of the measures. |
| Rezultate spremljanja bi bilo treba deliti s pristojnimi organi, da bi bili v pomoč pri oblikovanju ustreznih možnosti odzivanja, kadar je to potrebno na primer za odpravo morebitne očitne neučinkovitosti ukrepa za ublažitev ali za odzivanje na nepričakovane vplive ali učinke, v zvezi s katerimi je bilo ugotovljeno samo tveganje. V preglednici 7 je naveden primer matrike za predložitev informacij o ukrepih za ublažitev. | The results of monitoring should be shared with the competent authorities to help formulate suitable response options, if needed e.g. to address any apparent failure in the mitigation measure or to respond to unexpected impacts or to effects for which only a risk was identified. Table 7 gives an example of a matrix for presenting information on mitigation measures. |
| Pričakovane rezultate izvajanja ukrepa za ublažitev v smislu preprečevanja ali zmanjševanja vplivov, opredeljenih v presoji, bi bilo treba ustrezno dokumentirati. | The expected results of implementing the mitigation measure in terms of preventing or reducing the impacts identified in the assessment should be properly documented. |
| V preglednici 8 je naveden primer matrike za predstavitev rezultata presoje po ukrepu za ublažitev. | Table 8 gives an example of a matrix to present the outcome of the assessment after the mitigation measure. |
| Preglednica 7 | Table 7 |
| Informacije o ukrepih za ublažitev, predlaganih za načrt ali projekt | Information on mitigation measures proposed for a plan or project |
| Opredeljeni škodljivi vplivi (seznam) | Opis ukrepov, podrobnosti o izvajanju, učinkovitosti in spremljanju | Adverse effects identified (list) | Description of the measures, details on implementation, effectiveness, monitoring |
| Vpliv št. 1 | Ukrep št. 1 | Effect #1 | Measure #1 |
| Ime/opis | Pojasnite, kako bo ukrep prispeval k preprečevanju/zmanjševanju vplivov na celovitost območja. | Pojasnite, kako se bo izvajal in kdo ga bo izvajal. | Dokažite njegovo učinkovitost (npr. na podlagi znanstvenih dokazov/strokovne utemeljitve). | Navedite časovni okvir izvajanja glede na načrt ali projekt. | Opredelite predlagani program spremljanja in zahteve glede poročanja, vključno s tem, kako se bodo obravnavali morebitni nepričakovani vplivi. | Name/description | Explain how the measure will contribute to avoiding/reducing the effects on the integrity of the site | Explain how it will be implemented and by whom | Demonstrate its effectiveness (e.g. based on scientific evidence / expert rationale) | Provide a timescale of implementation, relative to the plan or project | Set out the proposed monitoring scheme and reporting requirements, including how any possible unexpected impacts will be addressed |
| | Navedite podrobnosti o ukrepu za ublažitev, pri čemer pojasnite elemente, s katerimi se bodo obravnavali škodljivi vplivi. | To lahko vključuje podrobnosti o pravno zavezujočih sporazumih, ki bi morali biti sklenjeni pred odobritvijo načrta ali projekta. | To lahko vključuje oceno: (i) poročil ali dokazov o podobnih projektih ali načrtih; (ii) izjav ustreznih strokovnjakov ali (iii) podpore ustrezne naravovarstvene agencije. | Nekateri ukrepi za ublažitev so lahko vključeni v načrt ali projekt; v nekaterih primerih bo treba uvesti dodaten ukrep bodisi pred odobritvijo načrta ali projekta bodisi kmalu po njej. | To se lahko izvede s pravno zavezujočimi sporazumi pred odobritvijo načrta ali projekta. | | Provide details of the mitigation measure, explaining the elements that will address the adverse effects | This may include details of legally binding agreements that should be completed in advance of plan or project authorisation | This may include evaluation: (i) reports or evidence from similar projects or plans; (ii) statements from relevant experts; or (iii) support from the relevant nature conservation agency | Some mitigation may be integrated into the plan or project; in some cases, it will be an additional measure that needs to be in place either before plan or project authorisation or shortly after it | This may be done through legally binding agreements in advance of plan or project authorisation |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Preglednica 8 | Table 8 |
| Povzetek rezultatov presoje po izvedbi ukrepov za ublažitev | Summary results of the assessment after implementation of mitigation measures |
| Zadevne značilnosti na območju | Kratek opis vplivov/škodljivih vplivov | Pomen/razsežnost vplivov | Opis predlaganih ukrepov za ublažitev | Pričakovani rezultati v zvezi z blaženjem vplivov | Relevant features in the site | Summary description of impacts/adverse effects | Importance/magnitude of the effects | Description of the proposed mitigation measures | Expected results regarding the mitigation of effects |
| Habitati | — | ... | — | ... | | | | | Habitats | — | ... | — | ... | | | | |
| Vrste | — | ... | — | ... | | | | | Species | — | ... | — | ... | | | | |
| Drugi naravni elementi, ki so pomembni za celovitost območja | | | | | Other natural elements of importance for the integrity of the site | | | | |
| 3.2.5 Sklepi ustrezne presoje | 3.2.5. Conclusions of the appropriate assessment |
| Presoja, ki se izvede v skladu s členom 6(3) direktive o habitatih, mora vsebovati popolne, natančne in dokončne ugotovitve in sklepe ob upoštevanju najboljših znanstvenih spoznanj na tem področju. Odpraviti mora vsak razumen znanstveni dvom glede vplivov predlaganega načrta ali projekta na zadevno zavarovano območje. | An assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field. It must be capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubts as to the effects of the plan or project proposed on the protected site concerned. |
| Sklepi ustrezne presoje se morajo jasno nanašati na celovitost območja in cilje njegovega ohranjanja. Če se pri presoji ugotovi, da se bodo pojavili škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja, bi bilo treba pojasniti, pri katerih vidikih so ob upoštevanju ukrepov za ublažitev prisotni preostali škodljivi vplivi. To je pomembno, če se načrt ali projekt nadalje obravnava v skladu s členom 6(4). | The conclusions of the appropriate assessment must clearly relate to the integrity of the site and its conservation objectives. Where the assessment concludes that there will be adverse effects on the integrity of the site, it should clarify for which aspects, taking mitigation into account, there are residual adverse effects. This will be important if the plan or project is further considered under Article 6(4). |
| Razdelan primer možnega obrazca za evidentiranje rezultatov ustrezne presoje je naveden v preglednici 9 na naslednji strani. | A worked out example of a possible format for recording the results of the appropriate assessment is provided in Table 9 on the next page. |
| Preglednica 9 | Table 9 |
| Primer evidence ustrezne presoje | Example of an appropriate assessment record |
| Območje 1: Posebno območje varstva Xxx | Kratek opis: Posebno območje varstva zajema največji obseg močvirij v regiji Xxxxxx. Velika raznolikost obalnih habitatov na območju skozi celo leto omogoča preživetje številnim vodnim pticam. | Site 1: SPA Xxx | Summary description: The SPA contains the largest extent of marsh in Xxxxxx region. The wide diversity of coastal habitats found on the site supports important numbers of water birds throughout the year. |
| Možen vpliv | Prizadeta značilnost | Cilji ohranjanja | Škodljiv vpliv načrta/projekta samega na značilnost | Škodljiv vpliv načrta/projekta v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti na prizadeto značilnost | Možna preprečitev ali ublažitev škodljivih vplivov | Sklep: škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja: Da. Ne. Negotovi. Dolgoročni. Kratkoročni | Potential impact | Feature affected | Conservation objectives | Adverse effect of plan/project alone on the feature | Adverse effect of plan/project in combination with other plans or projects on the feature affected | Possible avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects | Conclusion: adverse effects on the integrity of the site: Yes. No. Uncertain. Long term. Short term |
| Izguba habitatov | Vznemirjanje vrst | Ptice obalnih habitatov: | ... | ... | (ime vrste) | Ohranjanje populacije in razširjenosti vrst (podrobnosti glede na cilje ohranjanja). | Ohranjanje strukture in funkcij ter podpiranje procesov, od katerih so odvisni habitati vrst ... (podrobnosti glede na cilje ohranjanja). | Sestavni del X načrta bo zmanjšal območje slanih močvirij, ki je na voljo vrstam. V ustrezni presoji je bila ocenjena morebitna izguba 110 ha. | Obstaja možnost škodljivih vplivov v povezavi z drugimi načrti, ki bi povečali posredne pritiske na območja. Povečano vznemirjanje zaradi povečanja rabe za rekreativne namene, povezano z drugimi projekti, bi škodljivo vplivalo na območje. | Ne | Da – dolgoročni | Habitat loss | Species disturbance | Birds of coastal habitats: | ... | … | (species names) | Maintain population and distribution of species… (details in relation to the conservation objectives). | Maintain structure and functions and supporting processes on which habitats of species rely… (details in relation to the conservation objectives). | Component X of the plan will reduce the area of saltmarsh available to the species. A potential loss of 110 ha has been estimated in the appropriate assessment. | There is the potential for adverse effects in combination with other plans that would increase indirect pressures on the sites. Increased disturbance through a rise in recreational use, associated with other projects, would have adverse effects on the site. | No | Yes – long term |
| Poslabšanje stanja habitata | Ptice nižinskih mokrih travišč | ... | ... | (ime vrste) | Ohranjanje populacije in razširjenosti vrst (podrobnosti glede na cilje ohranjanja). Ohranjanje strukture in funkcij ter podpiranje procesov, od katerih so odvisni habitati vrst ... (podrobnosti glede na cilje ohranjanja). | Sestavni del Y načrta bi lahko povzročil spremembo režima pretoka vode, ki bi lahko vplivala na mokra travišča, ki zagotavljajo ustrezen habitat za vrste ... (podrobnosti glede na cilje ohranjanja). | Niso pričakovani | Negotovi | Negotovi (sestavni del Y ni podrobno opredeljen, zato vplivov na režim pretoka ni mogoče ustrezno presojati in količinsko opredeliti). | Habitat deterioration | Birds of lowland wet grasslands | … | … | (species names) | Maintain population and distribution of species… (details in relation to the conservation objectives). Maintain structure and functions and supporting processes on which habitats of species rely… (details in relation to the conservation objectives). | Component Y of the plan could cause a modification in the water flow regime that could affect wet grasslands that provide suitable habitat for the species …..(details in relation to the conservation objectives) | Not expected | Uncertain | Uncertain (component Y is not defined in detail so effects on flow regime cannot be properly assessed and quantified). |
| ... | | | | | | | … | | | | | | |
| Po končani ustrezni presoji bi bilo treba sklepe presoje jasno predstaviti v poročilu, v katerem se: | Following the completion of the appropriate assessment, its conclusions should be clearly presented in a report which: |
| (a) | dovolj podrobno opiše projekt ali načrt, da se javnosti pojasnijo njegova narava, obseg in cilji; | (a) | describes the plan or project in sufficient detail for members of the public to understand its nature, scale and objectives; |
| (b) | opišejo referenčno stanje območja Natura 2000 in cilji njegovega ohranjanja; | (b) | describes the baseline conditions of the Natura 2000 site as well as its conservation objectives; |
| (c) | opredelijo škodljivi vplivi načrta ali projekta na območje Natura 2000 glede na cilje ohranjanja posameznega območja; | (c) | identifies the adverse effects of the plan or project on the Natura 2000 site in view of the site-specific conservation objectives; |
| (d) | pojasni, kako se bodo navedeni vplivi preprečili ali dovolj zmanjšali z ublažitvijo; | (d) | explains how those effects will be avoided or sufficiently reduced through mitigation; |
| (e) | določi časovni okvir in opredelijo mehanizmi, s katerimi se bodo ukrepi za ublažitev zagotovili, izvajali in spremljali; | (e) | sets out a timescale and identifies the mechanisms through which the mitigation measures will be secured, implemented and monitored; |
| (f) | izpelje ustrezno utemeljen sklep o vplivu na celovitost območja. | (f) | draws a duly justified conclusion as to the impact on the integrity of the site. |
| Poročilo o ustrezni presoji bi moralo biti sestavljeno jasno z: (i) enostavno razumljivimi dokaznimi sledmi (ki na primer od dejavnosti vodijo k pritiskom ter občutljivostim in ranljivostim prizadetih naravnih značilnosti) in (ii) ustrezno ravnjo dokazov ali analize, primerno za posvetovanje z ustreznimi agencijami za varstvo narave in javnostjo. | The appropriate assessment report should be drafted clearly, with: (i) easy-to-follow evidence trails (e.g. leading from activities to pressures and to sensitivities and vulnerabilities of affected natural features); and (ii) an adequate level of evidence or analysis, suitable for consultation with the relevant nature conservation agencies and the public. |
| Za nekatere elemente ali sestavne dele načrta so lahko škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja negotovi ali jih ni mogoče določiti dovolj prepričljivo. Vendar je treba takšne vidike kljub temu nadalje proučiti. Številne nacionalne strategije vključujejo ključne načrtovane naložbe, kot so nova zajetja ali prometni koridorji, ki lahko vplivajo na območja Natura 2000, vendar njihova natančna lokacija, zasnova ali podrobnosti v zvezi z delovanjem še niso določene; takšne elemente je treba ustrezno presojati na ravni projekta. V takšnih primerih bi bilo treba to dejstvo, tj. preostalo negotovost, evidentirati v rezultatih presoje in za take sestavne dele/elemente načrtov izvesti ustrezno presojo na ravni projekta (glej tudi oddelek 4.2). | For some of the plan’s elements or components, adverse effects on the site’s integrity may be uncertain or not possible to determine with enough confidence. Such aspects would, however, still require further consideration. Many national strategies comprise key planned investments like new reservoirs or transport corridors which may affect Natura 2000 sites, but whose exact location, design or operation details are not determined yet; such elements must be duly assessed at project level. In such cases, this fact, i.e. the remaining uncertainty, should be recorded in the results of the assessment, and such components/elements of plans must undergo appropriate assessment at project level (see also section 4.2). |
| Sklepi ustrezne presoje, skupaj z morebitnimi dogovorjenimi ukrepi za ublažitev ali pogoji, bi morali biti tudi del dovoljenja ali katere koli druge odločitve v zvezi z obravnavanim načrtom ali projektom. | The conclusions of the appropriate assessment, together with any agreed mitigation measures or conditions, should also be part of the permit or any other decision taken in relation to the plan or project under consideration. |
| Odločanje na podlagi ustrezne presoje | Pristojni nacionalni organi so tisti, ki glede na sklepe ustrezne presoje posledic načrta ali projekta za zadevno območje Natura 2000 odobrijo načrt ali projekt. To lahko storijo šele, ko se prepričajo, da načrt ali projekt ne bo škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja. To velja, kadar z znanstvenega stališča ne obstaja noben razumen dvom glede neobstoja takšnih vplivov. | Če obstaja negotovost glede neobstoja škodljivih vplivov, povezanih z zadevnim načrtom ali projektom, na celovitost tega območja, bo moral pristojni nacionalni organ zavrniti izdajo dovoljenja zanj (zadeva C-127/02, točka 57). | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.7.3. | Making a decision on the basis of the appropriate assessment | It is for the competent authorities, in the light of the conclusions of the appropriate assessment into the implications of a plan or project for the Natura 2000 site concerned, to approve the plan or project. This can be done only after they have made certain that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects. | Where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site linked to the plan or project being considered, the competent authority will have to refuse authorisation (C-127/02 paragraph 57). | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.7.3. |
| Vzorec poročila za predstavitev rezultatov ustrezne presoje je predstavljen v okviru 16 na koncu oddelka 3.2. | A specimen report for presenting the outcomes of the appropriate assessment is presented in Box 16 at the end of section 3.2. |
| Če pristojni organ ugotovi, da se bodo pojavili škodljivi vplivi ali da škodljivih vplivov ni mogoče izključiti, se načrt ali projekt ne sme začeti izvajati (razen če veljajo pogoji iz člena 6(4) – glej oddelek 3.3). | If the competent authority determines that adverse effects will occur or cannot be excluded, then the plan or project may not proceed (unless the conditions of Article 6(4) apply – see section 3.3). |
| 3.2.6 Dodatni preudarki: posvetovanja, kakovost ustrezne presoje, dostop do pravnega varstva | 3.2.6. Further considerations: consultations, quality of the appropriate assessment, access to justice |
| Posvetovanja | Consultations |
| Posvetovanja s strokovnjaki, drugimi organi, nevladnimi organizacijami, potencialno prizadetimi skupinami ali širšo javnostjo lahko zagotovijo boljše razpoložljive okoljske informacije za osebe, ki izvajajo ustrezno presojo, in za odločevalce, na primer s prepoznavanjem okoljskih vplivov ali pripravo ustreznih ukrepov za ublažitev. Poleg tega lahko prispevajo k zmanjšanju možnih navzkrižij in zamud. | Consultations with experts, other authorities, NGOs, potentially affected groups or the general public can improve the environmental information available to those carrying out the appropriate assessment and to decision-makers, e.g. by identifying environmental effects or designing suitable mitigation measures. Consultations can also help minimise potential conflicts and delays. |
| Posvetovanje z ustreznimi organi, strokovnjaki s področja biologije ali ekologije ter predstavniki ustreznih panog in sektorjev politike, deležniki in nevladnimi organizacijami med postopkom iz člena 6(3) izboljšuje razpoložljivost informacij in upoštevanje različnih stališč. | Consultation with relevant authorities, experts in biology or ecology as well as with representatives of relevant industries and policy sectors, stakeholders and NGOs during the procedures laid down in Article 6(3) improves the availability of information and the consideration of different points of view. |
| Organi za varstvo narave in sektorski organi bi morali med postopkom presoje sodelovati, s čimer zagotovijo, da: (i) ustrezna presoja temelji na najboljših razpoložljivih informacijah in izkušnjah ter (ii) se ustrezno upoštevajo vsi pomembni vidiki. | Nature conservation and sectoral authorities should cooperate during the assessment process to ensure that: (i) the appropriate assessment is based on the best available information and experiences; and (ii) all relevant aspects are properly taken into account. |
| Sodelovanje javnosti v postopku iz člena 6(3) | Direktiva o habitatih ne vsebuje izrecne obveznosti pridobitve mnenja širše javnosti pri izdajanju dovoljenja za načrte ali projekte, ki zahtevajo ustrezno presojo. V skladu z besedilom člena 6(3) je to potrebno le, če se „šteje za ustrezno“. Vendar je Sodišče pojasnilo, da ima na podlagi zahtev iz Aarhuške konvencije (34) zadevna javnost, vključno s priznanimi nevladnimi organizacijami za varstvo okolja, pravico do sodelovanja v postopku za izdajo dovoljenja (zadeva C-243/15, točka 49). Ta pravica vključuje zlasti „pravico [javnosti] do ‚učinkovitega sodelovanja pri okoljskem odločanju‘ s tem, da predloži ,pisno oz. na javni obravnavi ali ob zaslišanju vložnika vse pripombe, informacije, analize ali mnenja, za katere meni, da se nanašajo na predlagano dejavnost“ (zadeva C-243/15, točka 46). | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.7.2. | Public participation in the Article 6(3) procedure | The Habitats Directive does not contain an explicit obligation to obtain the opinion of the general public when authorising plans or projects requiring an appropriate assessment. According to the wording of Article 6(3) this has only to be done if it is ‘considered appropriate’. However, the Court has clarified that, on the basis of the requirements of the Aarhus Convention (34) , the public concerned, including recognised environmental NGOs, has the right to participate in the authorisation procedure (C-243/15 paragraph 49). This right involves in particular, ‘the right to participate “effectively during the environmental decision-making” by submitting, “in writing or, as appropriate, at a public hearing or inquiry with the applicant, any comments, information, analyses or opinions that it considers relevant to the proposed activity”’ (C-243/15, paragraph 46). | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 4.7.2. |
| Kadar se ustrezna presoja usklajuje ali izvaja skupaj s presojo vplivov na okolje (PVO)/strateško presojo vplivov na okolje (SPVO), so lahko koristne tudi nujne določbe v zvezi s sodelovanjem javnosti iz zadevnih direktiv. Vendar je pomembno, da se rezultati ustrezne presoje razločijo od rezultatov PVO/SPVO in so ločeni od njih. To je potrebno za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe člena 6(3), drugi stavek (pristojni organi lahko dovoljenje izdajo šele, ko se prepričajo, da načrt ali projekt ne bo škodoval celovitosti zadevnega območja). | When the appropriate assessment is coordinated or runs jointly with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) / strategic environmental assessment (SEA), it can also benefit from the necessary provisions regarding public participation under those directives. However, it is important that the results of the appropriate assessment are distinguished and distinct from those of the EIA/SEA. This is required to ensure the correct application of Article 6(3), second sentence (authorisation can only be given after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned). |
| Direktiva o PVO (člen 6) določa, da morajo države članice: (i) zagotoviti posvetovanje z ustreznimi organi ter (ii) zgodaj in učinkovito omogočiti obveščanje javnosti in sodelovanje zadevne javnosti v postopku sprejemanja odločitev o okoljskih vprašanjih. To vključuje določitev razumnih rokov za različne faze sodelovanja. Podobne zahteve do določene v členu 6 direktive o SPVO. | The EIA Directive (Article 6) requires the Member States to: (i) ensure consultation of relevant authorities; and (ii) provide for early and effective opportunities to inform the public and allow the public concerned to participate in the environmental decision-making procedure. This includes the setting of reasonable time frames for different phases of participation. Similar requirements are set out in Article 6 of the SEA Directive. |
| Sodelovanje javnosti na podlagi direktiv o PVO in SPVO | Direktiva o PVO | Preambula: | — | Učinkovito sodelovanje javnosti pri sprejemanju odločitev omogoča, da javnost izrazi, nosilec odločitev pa se zaveda mnenj in skrbi, ki utegnejo biti pomembne za te odločitve, ter tako poveča odgovornost in preglednost procesa odločanja in prispeva k zavesti javnosti o okoljskih vprašanjih in k podpori sprejetim odločitvam. | — | Sodelovanje, ki vključuje tudi sodelovanje združenj, organizacij in skupin, zlasti nevladnih organizacij, ki spodbujajo varovanje okolja, je treba podpreti, vključno med drugim s spodbujanjem izobraževanja javnosti v zvezi z varstvom okolja. | — | Med cilji Aarhuške konvencije je želja zagotoviti pravico sodelovanja javnosti v odločanju o okoljskih zadevah, da bi prispevali k varovanju pravice živeti v okolju, ki je primerno za osebno zdravje in dobro počutje. Člen 6 Aarhuške konvencije predvideva sodelovanje javnosti pri odločitvah o dejavnostih, ki niso vključene v seznam, vendar lahko pomembno vplivajo na okolje. | Člen 6(2): Za učinkovito sodelovanje zadevne javnosti v postopkih odločanja se jo elektronsko in z javnimi objavami ali drugimi sredstvi obvesti o naslednjih zadevah že na začetni stopnji postopka sprejemanja odločitev o okoljskih vprašanjih iz člena 2(2), najpozneje pa takrat, ko se informacije razumno lahko predložijo: | Direktiva o SPVO | Preambula: Da bi se prispevalo k preglednejšemu odločanju in zagotovilo, da se za presojo priskrbijo celovite in zanesljive informacije, je treba predvideti posvetovanje z organi, pristojnimi za ustrezne okoljske naloge, in javnostjo med presojo načrtov in programov ter določitev takih rokov, ki dopuščajo dovolj časa za posvetovanja, skupaj z izrekanjem mnenja. | Člen 6(4): Države članice opredelijo pojem javnost za namene odstavka 2, vključno z javnostjo, ki jo bo ali bi jo lahko odločanje po tej direktivi prizadelo ali ki ima interes pri takem odločanju, skupaj z ustreznimi nevladnimi organizacijami, kakršne so organizacije, ki spodbujajo varstvo okolja, in drugimi zadevnimi organizacijami. | Public participation under the EIA and SEA Directives | EIA Directive | Preamble: | — | Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken. | — | Participation, including participation by associations, organisations and groups, in particular non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, should accordingly be fostered, including, inter alia, by promoting environmental education of the public. | — | Among the objectives of the Aarhus Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in decision-making in environmental matters in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and well-being. Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention provides for public participation in decisions on activities not so listed which may have a significant effect on the environment. | Article 6(2): In order to ensure the effective participation of the public concerned in the decision-making procedures, the public shall be informed electronically and by public notices or by other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided: | SEA Directive | Preamble: In order to contribute to more transparent decision making and with the aim of ensuring that the information supplied for the assessment is comprehensive and reliable, it is necessary to provide that authorities with relevant environmental responsibilities and the public are to be consulted during the assessment of plans and programmes, and that appropriate time frames are set, allowing sufficient time for consultations, including the expression of opinion. | Article 6(4): Member States shall identify the public for the purposes of paragraph 2, including the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the decision-making subject to this Directive, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those promoting environmental protection and other organisations concerned. |
| Zagotavljanje kakovosti ustrezne presoje | Ensuring the quality of the appropriate assessment |
| Kot je bilo že navedeno, mora presoja temeljiti na najboljših znanstvenih spoznanjih na zadevnem področju. V skladu s tem mora ustrezno presojo pripraviti oseba ali osebe z zahtevanim strokovnim znanjem in izkušnjami s področja ekologije. Študijo bi bilo treba po potrebi dopolniti z dodatnim strokovnim znanjem in izkušnjami (npr. s področja geologije, hidrologije, inženiringa ali načrtovanja ali okoljske zakonodaje) ter jo izvesti znanstveno popolno, strokovno in objektivno. | As stated previously, the appropriate assessment must be based on the best scientific knowledge in the field. Accordingly, the appropriate assessment must be prepared by a person or persons with the requisite ecological expertise and experience. The study should be supplemented as necessary by additional expertise and experience (e.g. geology, hydrology, engineering or planning, environmental law) and produced in a scientifically complete, professional and objective manner. |
| Čeprav študijo, ki je podlaga za ustrezno presojo, običajno predložijo osebe, ki zaprosijo za odobritev načrta ali projekta, bi se morali pristojni organi prepričati, da je dovolj strokovna, obsežna in usmerjena v zvezi z ekološkimi ali drugimi zadevnimi vprašanji (npr. hidrološka) ter dokazuje zadostno usposobljenost in standarde na področju znanstvene metodologije in presoje vplivov. Da bi se izpolnile te zahteve glede kakovosti, so nekatere države uvedle sistem potrjevanja ali sistem kvalifikacij/odobritev za osebe, ki izvedejo študijo za ustrezno presojo (glej okvir 14). | While the study to inform the appropriate assessment will generally be submitted by those seeking approval for a plan or project, competent authorities should satisfy themselves that it demonstrates sufficient expertise, scope and focus in relation to the ecological or other issues (e.g. hydrological) concerned, and sufficient competence and standards in scientific methodology and impact assessment. In order to comply with these quality requirements, some countries have adopted a certification scheme or qualification/authorisation system for those who undertake the appropriate assessment study (see box 14). |
| Zagotavljanje kakovosti poročila o presoji vplivov na okolje iz direktive o PVO | Za zagotovitev popolnosti in kakovosti poročila o presoji vplivov na okolje: | (a) | nosilec projekta zagotovi, da poročilo o presoji vplivov na okolje pripravijo usposobljeni strokovnjaki; | (b) | pristojni organ zagotovi, da ima na voljo zadostno strokovno znanje za preučitev poročila o presoji vplivov na okolje ali po potrebi lahko dostopa do njega, in | (c) | pristojni organ po potrebi od nosilca projekta zahteva dodatne informacije v skladu s Prilogo IV, ki so neposredno pomembne za pripravo obrazloženega sklepa o pomembnih vplivih projekta na okolje. | Države članice po potrebi zagotovijo, da kateri koli organi, ki imajo pomembne informacije, s posebnim ozirom na člen 3, dajo te informacije na razpolago nosilcu projekta. | (člen 5(3) in (4) direktive o PVO) | Ensuring quality of the environmental impact assessment report in the EIA Directive | In order to ensure the completeness and quality of the environmental impact assessment report: | (a) | the developer shall ensure that the environmental impact assessment report is prepared by competent experts; | (b) | the competent authority shall ensure that it has, or has access as necessary to, sufficient expertise to examine the environmental impact assessment report; and | (c) | where necessary, the competent authority shall seek from the developer supplementary information, in accordance with Annex IV, which is directly relevant to reaching the reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment. | Member States shall, if necessary, ensure that any authorities holding relevant information, with particular reference to Article 3, make this information available to the developer. | (Article 5(3) and (4) of the EIA Directive) |
| Okvir 14 | Uporaba licenciranih strokovnjakov za ustrezno presojo na Češkem | Na Češkem lahko ustrezne presoje izvajajo samo licencirani strokovnjaki. Sistem licenciranja temelji na zakonu o varstvu narave, podrobnosti pa so določene v ministrskem odloku. Prvo osnovno merilo za pridobitev licence je diploma iz biologije ali ekologije ali državni izpit iz ekologije. Odstopanja od tega pravila niso dovoljena, saj izkušnje s tega področja kažejo, da je znanje s področja ekologije bistven pogoj za pravilne presoje. | Izpit za pridobitev licence je sestavljen iz pisnega testa o ekologiji, zoologiji, botaniki in nacionalnem pravu (slednje je povezano z vprašanji v zvezi z ustrezno presojo in PVO/SPVO) ter ustne predstavitve študije primera. Izpiti se izvajajo približno dvakrat letno, standard pa je postavljen precej visoko, s posebnim poudarkom na znanju s področja ekologije. Uspešnim kandidatom licenco podeli ministrstvo za okolje za pet let. | Med pozitivnimi posledicami sistema licenciranja so izboljšave celotnega postopka ustrezne presoje. Licencirani presojevalci organizirajo redna srečanja, na katerih si izmenjujejo izkušnje in razpravljajo o težavnih primerih. Ministrstvo za okolje jim je tako naročilo pripravo več praktičnih smernic za izboljšanje ustreznih presoj in zagotovitev usklajenega pristopa. | Box 14 | Use of licenced experts for appropriate assessment in Czechia | In the Czechia, only licensed experts are allowed to carry out appropriate assessments (AA). The licensing system is anchored in the Act on Nature Protection and details are specified in a ministerial decree. The first basic criterion for obtaining a license is to have a degree in biology or ecology or state exam in ecology. No derogation from this rule is allowed as experience from the field has shown that knowledge of ecology is an essential prerequisite for correct assessments. | The authorisation exam consists of a written test on ecology, zoology, botany and national law (the latter is linked to AA and EIA/SEA issues) and an oral presentation of a case study. The exams take place approximately twice a year and the standard is set rather high, with a special emphasis on knowledge in ecology. Successful candidates are granted a license by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) for 5 years. | The licensing scheme has had a positive spin-off in terms of making improvements to the overall AA process. The licensed assessors organise regular meetings to share experiences and discuss difficult cases. In view of this the Ministry of Environment commissioned a number of practical guidance documents from them to improve the AAs and ensure a consistent approach. |
| Ne glede na to, ali se člen 6(3) upošteva pri obstoječih postopkih presoje vpliva na okolje ali drugih posebnih pristopih, bi morali rezultati presoj iz člena 6(3) omogočati popolno sledljivost na koncu sprejetih odločitev. | Regardless of whether Article 6(3) is complied with through existing environmental impact assessment procedures or other specific approaches, the results of Article 6(3) assessments should allow full traceability of the decisions eventually made. |
| Okvir 15 | Elementi za zagotavljanje kakovosti ustrezne presoje | Presoja: | — | obravnava vse elemente, ki prispevajo k celovitosti območja Natura 2000, kot je določeno v ciljih ohranjanja območja, načrtu upravljanja (če je na voljo) in standardnem podatkovnem obrazcu, ter pomen zadevnih habitatov in vrst v okviru omrežja, pri čemer temelji na najboljših razpoložljivih znanstvenih spoznanjih na tem področju; | — | obravnava vlogo območja in njegovo funkcijo v biogeografski regiji ter ekološko usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000; | — | vključuje celovito opredelitev vseh možnih pomembnih vplivov načrta ali projekta na območje, pri čemer upošteva kumulativne vplive, ki se lahko pojavijo zaradi skupnih učinkov načrta ali projekta, ki je predmet presoje, in drugih načrtov ali projektov; | — | če je ustrezno, v načrt ali projekt vključi učinkovite ukrepe za ublažitev, da se prepreči, zmanjša ali celo odpravi negativni vpliv na območje; | — | temelji na najboljših razpoložljivih tehnikah in metodah za oceno obsega vplivov načrta ali projekta na ekološko celovitost območja(-ij); | — | vključuje zanesljive kazalnike za spremljanje izvajanja načrta ali projekta. | Box 15 | Elements for ensuring quality of the appropriate assessment | The assessment: | — | considers all elements contributing to the Natura 2000 site’s integrity as indicated in the site’s conservation objectives, management plan (where available) and Standard Data Form and the importance of habitats and species concerned in the context of network, and is based on best available scientific knowledge in the field; | — | considers the role of the site and its function within the biogeographical region and the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network; | — | includes a comprehensive identification of all the potential impacts of the plan or project likely to be significant on the site, taking into account cumulative impacts likely to arise as a result of the combined effects of the plan or project under assessment with other plans or projects; | — | if appropriate, incorporates effective mitigation measures into the plan or project, in order to avoid, reduce or even cancel the negative impact on the site; | — | applies the best available techniques and methods to estimate the extent of the effects of the plan or project on the ecological integrity of the site(s); | — | includes the robust indicators to monitor the plan or project implementation. |
| Organi omrežja Natura 2000 lahko za izpolnitev zahtev za presojo iz člena 6(3) pripravijo formalne specifikacije o vrsti informacij in merilih, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri izvajanju ustrezne presoje. | To meet the requirements of the Article 6(3) assessment, the Natura 2000 authorities may draw up formal specifications on the type of information and criteria to follow when carrying out the appropriate assessment. |
| Zelo priporočljivo je, da se vsem, ki jih ustrezna presoja zadeva (npr. ustreznim zakonsko določenim organom na vseh ravneh upravljanja, svetovalcem ali nosilcem projektov ali načrtov), zagotovita izmenjava dobrih praks in usposabljanje. | It is highly recommended that good practice sharing and training be given to all those concerned by the appropriate assessment (e.g. relevant statutory authorities at all levels of government, consultants, project or plan developers). |
| Okvir 16 | Primer vsebine poročila o ustrezni presoji | Opis načrta ali projekta | Cilj, obseg, lokacija, glavne dejavnosti | Območja Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta, in cilji njihovega ohranjanja | Opišite območja Natura 2000, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta, vrste in habitate, ki so jim namenjena, in njihovo stanje ohranjenosti ter cilje ohranjanja območij. | Presoja vplivov načrta ali projekta na celovitost območja | — | Opišite elemente načrta ali projekta (samega ali v povezavi z drugimi projekti ali načrti), ki bi lahko povzročili pomembne vplive na območje Natura 2000 (uporabite rezultate presoje v okviru pregleda). | — | Opišite, kako bo načrt ali projekt vplival na zavarovane vrste in habitate na območju, in posledice za cilje ohranjanja območja (npr. izguba habitata, razdrobljenost, vznemirjanje vrst, umrljivost vrst, kemijske spremembe, hidrološke ali geološke spremembe). Opozorite na negotovosti in morebitne vrzeli v informacijah. | — | Navedite, ali bo načrt ali projekt vplival na celovitost območja ali ne. | — | Opozorite na negotovosti in morebitne vrzeli v informacijah. | Ukrepi za ublažitev | — | Opišite, kateri ukrepi za ublažitev bodo uvedeni za preprečitev ali zmanjšanje škodljivih vplivov na celovitost območja, in dokažite njihovo učinkovitost pri zmanjševanju vpliva pod prag pomembnosti. | — | Opozorite na negotovosti in morebitne vrzeli v informacijah. | — | Opišite predvideno spremljanje. | Sklepna ugotovitev | Navedite, ali bi načrt ali projekt lahko vplival ali bo vplival na celovitost območja ali da zagotovo ne bo vplival nanjo (ob upoštevanju previdnostnega načela). | Viri, uporabljeni pri pripravi ustrezne presoje | Navedite vire uporabljenih informacij. | Rezultati posvetovanj | Imena agencij, organov ali strokovnjakov, s katerimi so bila opravljena posvetovanja | Povzetek odgovorov | Box 16 | Example of contents of the appropriate assessment report | Description of the plan or project | Aim, scope, location, main activities | Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected and their conservation objectives | Outline of the Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected, the species and habitats for which they are designated and their conservation condition, as well the conservation objectives of the sites. | Assessment of the effects of the plan or project on the integrity of the site | — | Describe the elements of the plan or project (alone or in combination with other projects or plans) that are likely to cause significant effects on the Natura 2000 site (use outcomes of the screening assessment). | — | Describe how the plan or project will affect species and habitats protected in the site, and the implications for the site’s conservation objectives (e.g. loss of habitat, fragmentation, disturbance to species, mortality of species, chemical changes, hydrological or geological changes). Acknowledge uncertainties and any gaps in information. | — | State whether the integrity of the site will be affected by the plan or project or not. | — | Acknowledge uncertainties and any gaps in information. | Mitigation measures | — | Describe what mitigation measures are to be introduced to avoid or reduce the adverse effects on the integrity of the site and demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing the impact below significance. | — | Acknowledge uncertainties and any gaps in information. | — | Outline intended monitoring. | Conclusion | State whether the integrity of the site might or will be affected by the plan or project or that it certainly will not (having regard to the precautionary principle). | Sources used when drawing up the appropriate assessment | Indicate sources of information used | Results of consultation | Name of agencies, bodies or experts consulted | Summary of responses |
| Dostop do pravnega varstva | Access to justice |
| Sodišče Evropske unije je priznalo tudi pravico javnosti, ki vključuje tudi okoljske organizacije, do izpodbijanja odločitev organov na podlagi ustrezne presoje (zadeva C-243/15, točke 56 do 61), med drugim glede veljavnosti sklepov, sprejetih na podlagi presoje, kar zadeva tveganja zadevnega načrta ali projekta za celovitost območja. | The Court of Justice of the European Union has also recognised the right of the public, which includes environmental organisations, to challenge the appropriate assessment decisions taken by authorities (Case C-243/15, paragraphs 56-61), including on the validity of the conclusions drawn from the assessment as regards the risks of that plan or project for the integrity of the site. |
| 3.3 Faza 3: postopek iz člena 6(4) | 3.3. Stage 3: Procedure under Article 6(4) |
| S členom 6(4) so dovoljene izjeme od splošnega pravila iz člena 6(3), vendar njegova uporaba ni samodejna. Organ odloči, ali se odstopanje od člena 6(3) lahko uporabi. Člen 6(4) je treba uporabljati v zaporedju, določenem z Direktivo, tj. potem, ko so bile vse določbe člena 6(3) zadovoljivo izvedene. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.2. | Article 6(4) allows for exceptions to the general rule of Article 6(3) but its application is not automatic. It is up to the authority to decide whether a derogation from Article 6(3) can be applied. Article 6(4) must be applied in the sequential order established by the Directive – that is, after all the provisions of Article 6(3) have been undertaken in a satisfactory manner. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.2. |
| Pristojni organi lahko načrte ali projekte, za katere na podlagi ustrezne presoje ni bilo mogoče skleniti, da ne bodo vplivali na celovitost zadevnih območij, odobrijo samo, če se zahteva odstopanje v skladu z določbami člena 6(4). | Plans or projects for which the appropriate assessment could not conclude that they will not affect the integrity of the sites concerned may only be approved by the competent authorities if a derogation is sought in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(4). |
| Te določbe vključujejo tri ključne zahteve, ki jih je treba izpolniti in dokumentirati: | These provisions entail three key requirements that must be met and documented: |
| 1. | proučene so bile druge ustrezne rešitve, pri čemer je mogoče dokazati, da druga ustrezna rešitev, predložena v odobritev, najmanj škoduje habitatom, vrstam in celovitosti območja Natura 2000 ter da ni druge izvedljive možnosti, ki ne bi škodovala celovitosti območja; | 1. | alternatives have been considered and it can be demonstrated that the alternative put forward for approval is the least damaging for habitats and species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, and that no other feasible alternative exists that would not adversely affect the integrity of the site; |
| 2. | obstajajo nujni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, vključno s tistimi socialne ali gospodarske narave; | 2. | there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including ‘those of a social or economic nature’; |
| 3. | sprejeti so vsi izravnalni ukrepi, potrebni za zagotovitev varstva celovite usklajenosti omrežja Nature 2000. | 3. | all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected are taken. |
| Te tri glavne zahteve so obravnavane v oddelkih v nadaljevanju. | These three main requirements are discussed in the following sections. |
| 3.3.1 Korak 1: proučitev drugih ustreznih rešitev | 3.3.1. Step 1: Examining alternative solutions |
| Pristojni nacionalni organi morajo zagotoviti, da so bile z enako stopnjo podrobnosti proučene vse izvedljive druge ustrezne rešitve, ki izpolnjujejo cilje načrta/projekta. To presojo bi bilo treba izvesti ob upoštevanju vrst in habitatov, za katere je bilo območje določeno, in ciljev ohranjanja območja. | Neobstoj ustreznih rešitev je treba dokazati pred proučitvijo, ali je načrt ali projekt potreben iz nujnih razlogov v javnem interesu (sodba Sodišča v zadevi Castro Verde, C-239/04, točke 36 do 39). | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.3.1. | It is for the competent national authorities to ensure that all feasible alternative solutions that meet the plan/project aims have been explored to the same level of detail. This assessment should be made against the species and habitats for which the site has been designated and the site’s conservation objectives. | The absence of alternatives must be demonstrated before examining whether the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of public interest (Court ruling in Castro Verde Case C-239/04 paragraphs 36-39). | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.1. |
| Prva obveznost v okviru postopka iz člena 6(4) je proučitev, ali za načrt ali projekt obstajajo druge ustrezne rešitve. Druge ustrezne rešitve se lahko nanašajo na drugo možno zasnovo projekta (npr. drugačna trasa ceste ali drugačno število voznih pasov). Nanašajo se lahko tudi na širše možnosti za doseganje istega splošnega cilja, na primer izboljšava železniške povezave bi se lahko štela za alternativo novi cesti, razvoj vetrne energije pa za alternativo hidroelektrarni. | The first obligation of the Article 6(4) procedure is to examine whether there are alternative solutions to the plan or project. Alternative solutions could refer to an alternative design of the project (e.g. different routing of a road or different number of lanes). They could also refer to broader options to achieve the same overall objective, e.g. a rail connection improvement could be considered as an alternative to a new road, a wind energy development as an alternative to a hydro power plant. |
| Proučitev drugih ustreznih rešitev iz člena 6(4) vključuje naslednje naloge: | Examining alternative solutions under Article 6(4) involves the following tasks: |
| — | opredelitev drugih ustreznih rešitev; | — | identification of alternative solutions; |
| — | primerjalno oceno obravnavanih drugih ustreznih rešitev; | — | comparative assessment of the alternatives considered; |
| — | utemeljitev neobstoja drugih ustreznih rešitev, ki jih je mogoče upoštevati v skladu s členom 6(4) (če je to ustrezno). | — | justification of the absence of alternatives that are feasible for consideration under Article 6(4) (if applicable). |
| (a) Opredelitev drugih ustreznih rešitev | (a) Identification of alternative solutions |
| Prva naloga je pregled možnih drugih ustreznih rešitev, ki bi lahko obstajale za doseganje ciljev načrta ali projekta. Ključno je upoštevati scenarij „brez ukrepanja“, znan tudi kot „nična“ možnost, ki zagotavlja izhodišče za primerjavo drugih ustreznih rešitev. | The first task is to review possible alternatives that could exist for achieving the objectives of the plan or project. Crucial is the consideration of the ‘do nothing’ scenario, also known as the ‘zero’ option, which provides the baseline for comparison of alternatives. |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve lahko vključujejo različne: | The alternatives may consist of different: |
| — | načine za doseganje ciljev predlaganega razvojnega projekta; | — | ways to achieve the objectives of the proposed development; |
| — | lokacije, ki bi lahko bile na voljo za razvojni projekt, ob upoštevanju zavarovanih habitatov in vrst, na primer z opredelitvijo različnih kopenskih prometnih koridorjev v glavnih načrtih za ceste in avtoceste ali različnih območij gradnje stanovanjskih naselij; | — | locations that may be available for the development having regard to protected habitats and species, for example, by defining different land transportation corridors in master plans for roads and motorways or different housing development zones; |
| — | obseg in vrsto razvojnega projekta; | — | scale and size of the development; |
| — | rešitve glede zasnove razvojnega projekta; | — | design solutions for the development; |
| — | tehnike, načine gradnje ali operativne metode za izvedbo razvojnega projekta; | — | techniques, methods of construction or operational methods for the implementation of the development; |
| — | časovni razpored različnih dejavnosti in nalog v posameznih fazah izvajanja, tudi med gradnjo, obratovanjem, vzdrževanjem in, če je ustrezno, razgradnjo ali obnovo. | — | timetable of the various activities and tasks at each of the implementation stages, including during construction, operation, maintenance and, if applicable, decommissioning or reconditioning. |
| Naravne rešitve (v nasprotju s tradicionalno „sivo infrastrukturo“) so lahko pogosto enako izvedljive in manj škodljive za območja Natura 2000. Na primer obnova bolj naravne rečne struge s sosednjimi mokrišči lahko zagotovi podobno ali boljšo zaščito pred poplavami kot umetni nasipi in/ali zbiralniki, ter hkrati precej manj vpliva na zavarovane habitate in vrste ali celo izboljša njihovo stanje. Zato bi bilo treba takšne druge ustrezne rešitve ustrezno proučiti med analizo razpoložljivih možnosti. | Nature-based solutions (as opposed to traditional ‘grey infrastructure’) can often be equally viable and less detrimental to Natura 2000 sites. For example restoring a more natural river bed with adjacent wetlands can ensure similar or better flood protection than artificial dykes and/or reservoirs, while at the same time exerting significantly less impact on protected habitats and species or even improving their condition. Hence such alternatives should be given due consideration during the analysis of available options. |
| V primeru načrtov nacionalne ali regionalne politike in strategije ter drugi dokumenti, v katerih so opredeljene sektorske politike (npr. o energiji iz obnovljivih virov ali drugem razvoju infrastrukture), zagotavljajo okvir za oceno obsega in vrste možnih drugih ustreznih rešitev. Postopek načrtovanja je primeren zlasti za analizo drugih ustreznih rešitev, saj gre za vsakokraten postopek, s katerim se lahko zagotovijo rešitve za varstvo območij Natura 2000 in trajnostni razvoj dejavnosti za zadovoljitev potreb družbe. | In the case of plans, national or regional policies and strategies, and other documents setting out sectoral policies (e.g. on renewable energy or other infrastructure development) provide a framework for assessing the range and type of possible alternative solutions. The plan-making process is particularly suitable for analysis of alternatives, as it is an iterative process capable of providing solutions that protect Natura 2000 sites and ensure the sustainable development of activities to meet society’s needs. |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve bi bilo treba proučiti za vse sestavne dele, dejavnosti in postopke načrta, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da škodljivo vplivajo na celovitost območja(-ij) Natura 2000. | Alternatives should be considered for all components, activities and operations of the plan which have been identified as adversely affecting the integrity of Natura 2000 site(s). |
| Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 3.2.6, so v primeru načrtov nekateri sestavni deli ali dejavnosti načrta morda nezadostno opredeljeni, kar omejuje presojo drugih ustreznih rešitev. Vendar bi bilo treba razumne druge ustrezne rešitve kljub temu opredeliti, opisati in ovrednotiti, in sicer ob upoštevanju ciljev načrta ali programa in geografskega obsega. To se zahteva tudi z direktivo o SPVO (člen 5). | As discussed in section 3.2.6, in the case of plans, certain components or actions of the plan may be insufficiently defined, placing limitations on the assessment of alternatives. Nonetheless, reasonable alternatives should still be identified, described and evaluated, taking into account the plan or programme’s objectives and geographical scope. This is also required by the SEA Directive (Article 5). |
| Izvajanje postopkov iz člena 6(4) je lahko lažje, če nosilci načrta ali projekta obravnavajo morebitne druge ustrezne rešitve s pristojnimi organi in/ali zakonsko določenimi naravovarstvenimi organi že v zgodnji fazi postopka. | It can be easier to implement Article 6(4) procedures if the plan or project developers discuss possible alternatives with the competent authorities and/or statutory nature authorities at an early stage in the process. |
| Primeren okvir za iskanje drugih ustreznih rešitev zagotavljajo postopki za javno posvetovanje, kot so postopki, določeni v direktivah o SPVO in PVO. | A suitable framework for finding alternatives is provided by the procedures for public consultation such as those laid down in the SEA and EIA Directives. |
| (b) Primerjalna ocena obravnavanih drugih ustreznih rešitev | (b) Comparative assessment of the alternatives considered |
| Pristojni organi so odgovorni za oceno relativnega vpliva drugih ustreznih rešitev za utemeljitev odločitve v skladu s členom 6(4). Pristojni organi morajo ugotoviti, ali je druga ustrezna rešitev, predložena v odobritev, najmanj škodljiva za habitate in vrste ter za celovitost zadevnega območja ali območij Natura 2000. Presoja drugih ustreznih rešitev je potrebna tudi, če je naložba že vnaprej utemeljena z nujnimi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, na primer z nacionalno zakonodajo. | It is the responsibility of competent authorities to evaluate the relative impact of the alternative solutions with a view to justifying a decision under Article 6(4). The competent authorities must determine whether the alternative put forward for approval is the least damaging for habitats and species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site or sites concerned. The assessment of alternative solutions is necessary even if the investment is already justified in advance for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, e.g. through national law. |
| Različne druge ustrezne rešitve je treba primerjati glede na njihove vplive na habitate in vrste, ki so pomembno prisotni na območju, pa tudi glede na njihove cilje ohranjanja ter glede na celovitost območja in njegov pomen za ekološko usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000. | The various alternatives must be compared in light of their effects on the habitats and species significantly present on the site as well as their conservation objectives, and on the integrity of the site and its importance for the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network. |
| Opredeljeni vplivi posamezne druge ustrezne rešitve morajo biti čim bolj popolno in natančno opisani ter količinsko opredeljeni glede na naslednje vidike (neizčrpen seznam) in ob upoštevanju ciljev ohranjanja za posamezno območje: | The identified impacts of each alternative must be fully and precisely described and quantified as far as possible in terms of the following (non-exhaustive list) and in view of the site-specific conservation objectives: |
| — | prizadeta območja Natura 2000; | — | Natura 2000 sites affected; |
| — | območje izgube in razvrednotenja habitatov; | — | area of habitat loss and degradation; |
| — | številčnost populacije prizadetih vrst; | — | population numbers of affected species; |
| — | poslabšanje pomembnih funkcij; | — | deterioration of important functions; |
| — | vznemirjanje; | — | disturbance; |
| — | selitev populacij vrst. | — | displacement of species populations. |
| To bi moralo zagotoviti podlago za primerjavo drugih ustreznih rešitev in za ugotavljanje, katere druge ustrezne rešitve so najmanj škodljive za območja Natura 2000 ter vrste in habitate, ki so pomembno prisotni na njih, ob upoštevanju ciljev ohranjanja za posamezno območje. To je treba opredeliti na podlagi sklopa kvalitativnih in kvantitativnih meril. | This should provide the basis for comparing alternatives and for determining which alternatives are the least damaging for Natura 2000 sites and the species and habitats that are significantly present therein, in view of the site-specific conservation objectives. This needs to be identified based on a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria. |
| V drugi fazi se lahko pri izbiri drugih ustreznih rešitev upoštevajo druga merila, kot so družbeni preudarki in ekonomski stroški analiziranih drugih ustreznih rešitev. | In a second phase, other criteria such as social considerations and the economic cost of the alternatives analysed may be considered in the choice of alternative solutions. |
| Ekonomski stroški ukrepov, ki jih je morda treba upoštevati pri pregledu drugih ustreznih rešitev, ne morejo biti edini odločilni dejavnik pri izbiri drugih ustreznih rešitev. Drugače rečeno, nosilec projekta ne more trditi, da druge ustrezne rešitve niso bile proučene, ker bi bile predrage. | (Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.3.1) | The economic cost of the steps that may be considered in the review of alternatives cannot be the sole determining factor in the choice of alternative solutions. In other words, a project developer cannot claim that alternatives have not been examined because they would cost too much. | (See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.1) |
| Naloge, ki jih je treba izvesti pri ocenjevanju drugih ustreznih rešitev, so povzete v okviru 17. | Tasks to be carried out in assessing alternatives are summarised in Box 17. |
| Okvir 17 | Kako oceniti druge ustrezne rešitve | — | Posvetujte se z ustreznimi agencijami in organizacijami; | — | uporabite informacije, zbrane za izvedbo faz pregleda in ustrezne presoje v okviru presoj iz člena 6(3); | — | opredelite in opišite ključne cilje načrta ali projekta, tudi v širšem (strateškem) smislu (35); | — | opredelite vse druge ustrezne načine za izpolnitev ciljev projekta ali načrta; | — | zagotovite čim več informacij, opozorite na vrzeli v informacijah in navedite vire informacij; | — | ocenite vplive (kvalitativno in kvantitativno) posamezne druge ustrezne rešitve na cilje ohranjanja območja. | Box 17 | How to assess alternative solutions | — | consult relevant agencies and organisations; | — | make use of the information gathered to complete the screening and appropriate assessment stages of the Article 6(3) assessments; | — | identify and characterise the key objectives of the plan or project, also in broad (strategic) terms (35); | — | identify all alternative means of meeting the objectives of the project or plan; | — | provide as much information as possible, acknowledge gaps in information, and provide sources of information; | — | assess the impacts (in a qualitative and quantitative way) of each alternative on the conservation objectives of the site. |
| Matrika za opredelitev in oceno drugih ustreznih rešitev je predstavljena v preglednici 10 spodaj. Ta matrika se lahko uporabi tudi za poročanje o rezultatih ocene drugih ustreznih rešitev. | A matrix for the identification and assessment of alternatives is presented in Table 10 below. The matrix can also be used to report on the results of the assessment of alternatives. |
| Preglednica 10 | Table 10 |
| Matrika za oceno drugih ustreznih rešitev | Assessment of alternative solutions matrix |
| Ocena drugih ustreznih rešitev | Assessment of alternative solutions |
| Opis in cilji načrta ali projekta | Scenarij „brez ukrepanja“ | The description and objectives of the plan or project | The ‘do nothing’ scenario |
| Predvideni škodljivi vplivi načrta ali projekta na območje Natura 2000 na podlagi ustrezne presoje | Predicted adverse effects of the plan or project on the Natura 2000 site based on the appropriate assessment |
| Primerjava z načrtom ali projektom | Comparison with plan or project |
| Možne druge ustrezne rešitve | Dokazila o načinu ocene drugih ustreznih rešitev | Opišite relativne vplive na cilje ohranjanja območij Natura 2000 (večji ali manj škodljivi vplivi) | Possible alternative solutions | Evidence of how the alternative solutions were assessed | Describe the relative effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 (greater or less adverse effects) |
| Druge možne lokacije/poti | Alternative locations/routes |
| Druga možnost 1 | | | Alternative 1 | | |
| Druga možnost 2 | | | Alternative 2 | | |
| Druga možnost 3 | | | Alternative 3 | | |
| Druga možna velikost in obseg | Alternative size and scale |
| Druga možnost 1 | | | Alternative 1 | | |
| Druga možnost 2 | | | Alternative 2 | | |
| Druga možnost 3 | | | Alternative 3 | | |
| Drugi možni načini za izpolnitev ciljev (npr. upravljanje povpraševanja) | Alternative means of meeting objectives (e.g. demand management) |
| Druga možnost 1 | | | Alternative 1 | | |
| Druga možnost 2 | | | Alternative 2 | | |
| Druga možnost 3 | | | Alternative 3 | | |
| | Primerjava z načrtom ali projektom (nadaljevanje) | | | Comparison with plan or project (cont.) | |
| Možne druge ustrezne rešitve | Dokazila o načinu ocene drugih ustreznih rešitev | Opišite relativne vplive na cilje ohranjanja območij Natura 2000 (večji ali manj škodljivi vplivi) | Possible alternative solutions | Evidence of how the alternative solutions were assessed | Describe the relative effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 (greater or less adverse effects) |
| | Druge možne metode (gradnja, obratovanje in razgradnja) | | | Alternative methods (construction, operational, decommissioning) | |
| Druga možnost 1 | | | Alternative 1 | | |
| Druga možnost 2 | | | Alternative 2 | | |
| Druga možnost 3 | | | Alternative 3 | | |
| | Drugi možni časovni okviri | | | Alternative timescales | |
| Druga možnost 1 | | | Alternative 1 | | |
| Druga možnost 2 | | | Alternative 2 | | |
| Druga možnost 3 | | | Alternative 3 | | |
| Sklepi na podlagi ocene drugih ustreznih rešitev | Conclusions on assessment of alternatives |
| V okviru 18 spodaj so povzeti primeri drugih ustreznih rešitev, ki so bile proučene v okviru priglasitev za mnenja Komisije v skladu s členom 6(4) direktive o habitatih (36). | Box 18 below summarises examples of alternatives that have been considered in the context of notifications for Commission opinions in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (36). |
| Okvir 18 | Primeri drugih ustreznih rešitev, proučenih v skladu s postopkom iz člena 6(4) | Primer 1. Poglobitev in razširitev ladijske plovne poti reke | Projekt je vključeval poglobitev in razširitev ladijske plovne poti reke Majne vzdolž odsekov Wipfeld, Garstadt in Schweinfurt na Bavarskem v Nemčiji. | Z ustrezno presojo je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi obstajal pomemben vpliv na dve območji Natura 2000, dva habitatna tipa pa bi bila neposredno poškodovana, kar vključuje izgubo površine 9 460 m2 prednostnega habitata 91E0* in 6 440 m2 habitata 6510. | Tri druge ustrezne rešitve so bile proučene poleg nične možnosti. Pri slednji se je pokazal pomen ciljev glede rečnega prometa. Ena od drugih ustreznih rešitev je bila opuščena, ker bi negativno vplivala še na drugo območje Natura 2000 ter podaljšala čas gradnje in prostorski obseg projekta. Še ena od drugih ustreznih rešitev je bila zavrnjena, ker kljub manj škodljivemu ekološkemu vplivu ne bi izboljšala navtičnih značilnosti reke, kar je eden od ciljev projekta. | Z izbrano drugo ustrezno rešitvijo bi bil vzpostavljen kanal za neprekinjeno plovbo z enotnimi najmanjšimi širino in globinami, ki bi bil večinoma omejen na obstoječo rečno strugo. Čeprav bi vplivala na dva habitatna tipa v interesu Skupnosti, ki sta navedena zgoraj, so pristojni organi menili, da je bilo s predlagano rešitvijo doseženo najboljše ravnovesje med ekološkimi cilji in cilji glede rečnega prometa. Izguba habitatov bi bila ustrezno izravnana. | Primer 2. Medkrajevna in primestna železniške povezava | Projekt se je nanašal na medkrajevno in primestno železniško povezavo med Bad Cannstattom in Stuttgartom (Nemčija). Projekt bi pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000, na katerem je pomemben habitat za puščavnika (Osmoderma eremita), ki je zavarovana prednostna vrsta. | Pristojni organi so proučili druge ustrezne rešitve za progo, ki so zajemale celoten odsek, dele odseka in „nično“ možnost. Slednja ne bi izpolnila merila projekta glede povezave postaj Stuttgart in Bad Cannstatt ter obnove železniškega mostu čez reko Neckar. Vse druge ustrezne rešitve bi pomembno vplivale na območje Natura 2000, vključno z območji s prednostnimi vrstami, njihova primerjava pa je pokazala, da bi nekatere zajemale večjo površino območja Natura 2000 kot izbrana rešitev ali povzročile odstranitev večjega števila dreves, ki zagotavljajo potencialne habitate za vrste. Predlagana rešitev je zato ponujala najboljše ravnovesje med ekološkimi in ekonomskimi cilji. | Primer 3. Gradnja novega pristanišča | Projekt se je nanašal na gradnjo novega pristanišča v kraju Granadilla na Tenerifu na Kanarskih otokih. Projekt bi škodljivo vplival na dve območji Natura 2000, določeni za glavato kareto (Caretta caretta), tj. prednostno vrsto, in za prednostni habitatni tip 2130 (ustaljene obalne sipine z zelnato vegetacijo („sive sipine“)). | Španski organi so proučili več drugih ustreznih rešitev, vključno z možnostjo brez razvoja dodatne pristaniške zmogljivosti („nična možnost“) ter nadaljnjo širitvijo in razvojem obstoječega pristanišča v Santa Cruzu. Nična možnost je bila opuščena, ker z obstoječimi pristaniškimi zmogljivostmi ne bi bilo mogoče obvladovati pričakovanega povečanja pomorskega prometa in ker je bila povečana pristaniška zmogljivost nujna za gospodarski razvoj otoka. Razširitev obstoječih pristaniških zmogljivosti v Santa Cruzu ne bi bila mogoča iz več tehničnih razlogov. Drugih možnih lokacij ni bilo mogoče izbrati zaradi različnih dejavnikov, kot so globina morskega dna ob obali, neobstoj kamnoloma dovolj blizu predvidenega območja, razpoložljivost prostih sosednjih zemljišč za špedicijske in logistične dejavnosti, ustreznost prometnih povezav z zaledjem in bližina uporabnikov pristanišča. | Box 18 | Examples of alternatives considered under Article 6(4) procedure | Case 1. Deepening and widening of the ship fairway of a river | The project involved the deepening and widening of the ship fairway of the River Main along the Wipfeld, Garstadt and Schweinfurt sections in Bavaria, Germany. | The appropriate assessment concluded that there would be significant impact on two Natura 2000 sites and two habitat types would be damaged directly, involving a surface loss of 9 460 m2 for priority habitat 91E0* and 6 440 m2 for habitat 6510. | Three alternatives were examined in addition to the zero alternative. The latter showed the importance of the river transportation objectives. One of the alternatives was discarded because it would negatively affect another Natura 2000 site and would lengthen both the construction time and the spatial extent of the project. Another alternative was rejected because, although it would have less adverse ecological impact, it would not improve the river’s nautical characteristics, which is one of the project’s objectives. | The alternative selected would create a continuous navigation channel with uniform minimum width and depths and was mainly limited to the existing riverbed. Although it would affect the two habitat types of Community interest mentioned above, the competent authorities considered that the proposed solution achieved the best balance between ecological and river transportation objectives. The loss of the habitats would be adequately compensated. | Case 2. Long-distance and suburban railway connection | The project concerned a long-distance and suburban railway connection from Bad Cannstatt to Stuttgart (Germany). It would significantly affect a Natura 2000 site, which holds an important habitat for the hermit beetle (Osmoderma eremita), a protected priority species. | The authorities examined route alternatives covering the entire section, parts of the section and the ‘zero’ option. The latter would not meet the project criteria of linking Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt stations and renovating the railway bridge over the River Neckar. All the other alternative solutions would significantly affect the Natura 2000 site, including zones with the priority species, and their comparison showed that some would cover a larger area of the Natura 2000 site than the one selected or would lead to clearing a larger number of trees which provide potential habitats for the species. The proposed solution therefore offered the best balance between ecological and economic objectives. | Case 3. Construction of a new port | The project concerned the construction of a new port in Granadilla, Tenerife, Canary Islands. The project would adversely affect two Natura 2000 sites designated for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), a priority species, and for a priority habitat type 2130 (fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ‘grey dunes‘). | The Spanish authorities studied several alternatives, including the option of not developing more port capacity (the ‘zero option’) as well as the further expansion and development of the existing port in Santa Cruz. The zero option was discarded because the existing port facilities would not be able to handle the expected increase in maritime traffic and because increased port capacity was necessary for the island’s economic development. Expansion of the existing port facilities in Santa Cruz would not be possible for a number of technical reasons. Other alternative locations could not be chosen because of different factors such as the depth of the seabed at the shore, the lack of a quarry close enough to the envisaged site, availability of free adjacent land for handling and logistics operations, adequacy of transport connections with the hinterland and proximity to port users. |
| (c) Rezultati – utemeljitev neobstoja drugih ustreznih rešitev | (c) Outcomes – justification of the absence of alternatives |
| Po končani oceni drugih ustreznih rešitev bi bilo treba pripraviti evidenco vseh drugih ustreznih rešitev, ki so bile proučene, rezultatov njihove ocene ter agencij in drugih organov, s katerimi so bila opravljena posvetovanja. Namen je ugotoviti, ali je mogoče objektivno sklepati, da ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, ali ne. Če so bile opredeljene druge ustrezne rešitve, s katerimi se bodo preprečili morebitni škodljivi vplivi ali ki bodo manj resno vplivale na območje, bo treba z ustrezno presojo oceniti njihov morebitni vpliv. Po drugi strani pa bo treba, če je mogoče razumno in objektivno sklepati, da ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, nadaljevati z naslednjim korakom v postopku iz člena 6(4). | Once the assessment of alternative solutions is complete, a record should be made of all the alternatives that have been considered, the results of their assessment and the agencies and other bodies that were consulted. The purpose is to determine whether or not it can be objectively concluded that there are no alternative solutions. If alternative solutions have been identified that will either avoid any adverse impacts or result in less severe impacts on the site, it will be necessary to assess their potential impact through an appropriate assessment. On the other hand, if it can be reasonably and objectively concluded that there are no alternatives, it will be necessary to proceed to the next step in the Article 6(4) procedure. |
| 3.3.2 Korak 2: proučitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa | 3.3.2. Step 2: Examining imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) |
| Če ni drugih ustreznih rešitev brez škodljivih vplivov na celovitost zadevnega območja Natura 2000 ali če obstajajo rešitve, ki imajo še več negativnih okoljskih vplivov na območje, morajo pristojni organi proučiti, ali obstajajo nujni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, vključno s tistimi socialne ali gospodarske narave, ki bi upravičili izvedbo zadevnega načrta ali projekta. | In the absence of alternative solutions with no adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site concerned or in the presence of solutions having even more negative environmental effects on the site, the competent authorities must examine whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, that would justify the realisation of the plan or project in question. |
| Pojem „nujni razlog prevladujočega javnega interesa“ v Direktivi ni opredeljen. Vendar so v členu 6(4), drugi pododstavek, kot primer takšnih nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa omenjeni zdravje ljudi, javna varnost in koristne posledice bistvenega pomena za okolje. | Kar zadeva „druge nujne razloge prevladujočega javnega interesa“ socialne ali gospodarske narave, je iz besedila razvidno, da lahko cilje ohranjanja iz Direktive odtehtajo le javni interesi ne glede na to, ali jih spodbujajo javni ali zasebni organi. Tako se lahko projekti, ki jih načrtujejo zasebni organi, proučijo le, kadar dokazano upoštevajo takšne javne interese. | Smiselno je upoštevati, da so „nujni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, vključno s tistimi socialne in gospodarske narave“, povezani s primeri, za katere je jasno, da so predvideni načrti ali projekti nujno potrebni: | — | v okviru ukrepov ali politik za varstvo temeljnih vrednot za življenje državljanov (zdravje, varnost, okolje); | — | v okviru temeljnih politik za državo in družbo; | — | v okviru izvajanja dejavnosti gospodarske ali socialne narave, s katerimi se izpolnjujejo posebne obveznosti javnih služb. | Pristojni organi morajo pretehtati nujne razloge prevladujočega javnega interesa načrta ali projekta glede na cilj ohranjanja naravnih habitatov ter prostoživečih živalskih in rastlinskih vrst. Načrt ali projekt lahko odobrijo le, če nujni razlogi za načrt ali projekt prevladajo nad njegovim vplivom na cilje ohranjanja. | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.3.2. | The concept of ‘imperative reason of overriding public interest’ is not defined in the Directive. However, Article 6(4) second subparagraph mentions human health, public safety and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment as examples of such imperative reasons of overriding public interest. | As regards the ‘other imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ of social or economic nature, it is clear from the wording that only public interests, irrespective of whether they are promoted either by public or private bodies, can be balanced against the conservation aims of the Directive. Thus, projects developed by private bodies can only be considered where such public interests are served and demonstrated. | It is reasonable to consider that the ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social and economic nature’ refer to situations where plans or projects envisaged prove to be indispensable: | — | as part of actions or policies to protect fundamental values for the life of citizens (health, safety, environment); | — | as part of fundamental policies for the State and society; | — | as part of the performance of activities of an economic or social nature, fulfilling specific public service obligations. | It is for the competent authorities to weigh up the imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the plan or project against the objective of conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. They can only approve the plan or project if the imperative reasons for the plan or project outweigh its impact on the conservation objectives. | See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.2. |
| Pri določanju razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa mora pristojni organ upoštevati vse elemente, tj. ali je razlog: | When determining IROPI, a competent authority must consider all of the elements, i.e. whether it is : |
| — | nujen: načrt ali projekt služi bistvenemu javnemu interesu in ne zasebnim interesom; | — | imperative: the plan or project serves an essential public interest, rather than private interests; |
| — | prevladujoč: interes, ki mu služi načrt ali projekt, prevlada nad škodo (ali tveganjem škode) za celovitost območja, kot je opredeljena v ustrezni presoji; | — | overriding: the interest served by the plan or project outweighs the harm (or risk of harm) to the integrity of the site as identified in the appropriate assessment; |
| — | v javnem interesu: je na primer temeljni del javnih politik za državo in družbo. | — | of public interest: for instance it is a fundamental part of public policies for the State and society. |
| Javni interesi se lahko pojavijo na nacionalni, regionalni ali lokalni ravni, vendar morajo biti ne glede na raven izpolnjeni tudi drugi elementi preizkusa. V praksi pri načrtih in projektih, ki so skladni z nacionalnimi ali regionalnimi strateškimi načrti ali politikami (npr. opredeljeni v nacionalnem infrastrukturnem načrtu) obstaja večja verjetnost, da bodo v javnem interesu. Vendar bi bilo treba kljub temu upoštevati, ali v posameznem primeru zadevni interes prevlada nad škodo, ki bo povzročena prizadetim območjem, in ali je torej mogoče dokazati razloge prevladujočega javnega interesa. Razloge prevladujočega javnega interesa lahko izkazujejo tudi načrti ali projekti, ki ne spadajo v nacionalne strateške načrte, vključno s tistimi z manjšim geografskim obsegom. | Public interests can occur at national, regional or local level, but, whatever the level, the other elements of the test must also be met. In practice, plans and projects which are consistent with national or regional strategic plans or policies (e.g. identified within a national infrastructure plan) are more likely to be of public interest. However, consideration would still need to be given to whether, in a specific case, that interest outweighs the harm that will be done to the affected sites and therefore whether IROPI can be demonstrated. Plans or projects that fall outside national strategic plans, including those at a lower geographic scale, may also be able to show IROPI. |
| Razloge prevladujočega javnega interesa je treba oceniti za vsak primer posebej, ob upoštevanju: (i) cilja posameznega načrta ali projekta in (ii) njegovega posebnega vpliva na prizadeta območja Natura 2000, kot je opredeljen v ustrezni presoji. | IROPI must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of: (i) the objective of the particular plan or project; and (ii) its particular impact on the Natura 2000 sites affected as identified in the appropriate assessment. |
| Tehtanje razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa glede na cilje ohranjanja | Weighing up IROPI against conservation objectives |
| Opis ciljev načrta ali projekta morda že vključuje elemente, ki se lahko uporabijo za oceno obstoja razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa. Ta ocena, tako kot ocena, s katero so opredelijo manj škodljive druge ustrezne rešitve, zahteva tehtanje razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa glede na škodo, povzročeno območju Natura 2000 zaradi izvajanja obravnavanega načrta ali projekta, ob upoštevanju njegovih ciljev ohranjanja in tudi splošnega pomena območja za vrste in habitate, za katere je določeno. | The description of the plan or project objectives may already include elements that can be used to assess the presence of IROPI. This assessment, like the one dealing with the identification of less harmful alternatives, requires a weighing up any IROPI against the damage caused to the Natura 2000 site as a result of implementing the plan or project under consideration, in view of its conservation objectives and taking into account also the overall importance of the site for the species and habitats for which it is designated. |
| Pomembnejše ali ranljivejše kot so ohranitvene vrednosti prizadetega območja, bolj omejen bo obseg, v katerem se bodo razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa šteli za sprejemljive in škoda, povzročena območju, kot je opredeljena z ustrezno presojo, za upravičeno. | The more important or vulnerable the conservation values of the site affected, the more restrictive the scope will be for IROPI to be considered acceptable and for the damage to the site, as determined by the appropriate assessment, to be justifiable. |
| Kadar je prizadet prednostni naravni habitatni tip ali prednostna vrsta, so edini preudarki, ki se lahko navedejo kot razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa v skladu s členom 6(4) direktive o habitatih, tisti, ki se nanašajo na zdravje ljudi ali javno varnost ali na koristne posledice bistvenega pomena za okolje. Če se navedejo drugi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, se zahteva mnenje Komisije. | Where a priority natural habitat type or a priority species is affected, the only considerations which may be raised as IROPI under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive are those relating to human health or public safety, or to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. If other IROPI are evoked, a Commission opinion is required. |
| Elementi, na katerih so utemeljeni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa, so lahko do neke mere vključeni v opis načrtov ali programov, zlasti v izjavo o ciljih, ki so podlaga za razvojne ukrepe. Takšni razlogi morajo biti navedeni tudi v uradnem sklepu na ustrezni ravni upravljanja (npr. regionalni ali nacionalni) in jasno dokumentirani. | Elements underpinning the case for IROPI can be included to a certain extent in the description of plans or programmes, in particular in the statement of the objectives motivating the development action. Such reasons must also be specified in a formal decision at the appropriate level of government (e.g. regional, national) and be clearly documented. |
| Proučitev razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa je lahko neločljivo povezana s strateškim načrtovanjem nekaterih področij politike (npr. obvladovanje poplavne ogroženosti), ki so pomembna za zdravje ljudi, javno varnost ali varstvo javnih dobrin. Za dejavnosti, ki bodo verjetno upravičene iz razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa, se lahko potreba po proučitvi drugih ustreznih rešitev in izravnave tako upošteva v zgodnji fazi postopka načrtovanja (glej primer v okviru 20 spodaj). | The consideration of IROPI may be inherent to the strategic planning of certain policy areas (e.g. flood risk management), which are relevant to human health, public safety or the protection of public goods. For activities likely to be justified for IROPI, the need to consider alternatives and compensation can thus be taken into account at an early stage in the planning process (see example in Box 20 below). |
| Primeri razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa, uporabljenih v okviru zahtev za mnenja Komisije v skladu s členom 6(4) direktive o habitatih (37), so navedeni v okviru 19 spodaj. | Examples of IROPI applied in the context of requests for Commission opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (37) are set out in Box 19 below. |
| Okvir 19 | Primeri razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa v skladu s členom 6(4) | Primer 1. Poglobitev in razširitev ladijske plovne poti (38) | Reka Majna je del vseevropskega omrežja (TEN) in je edina celinska plovna pot, ki več držav članic povezuje z jugovzhodno Evropo. Ima pomembne funkcije kot čezmejna pot za blago, ki povezuje Rotterdam (NL) in Constanto (RO), ter je zato gospodarskega pomena. | Projekt je ena od zadnjih manjkajočih povezav, potrebnih za prilagoditev te vodne poti novemu političnemu in gospodarskemu razvoju ter zahtevam razširjene Evropske unije. Trenutno ta del reke Majne ustvarja ozko grlo v dolžini 30 km, kjer so ladje še vedno omejene v smislu njihove širine in globine. | Primer 2. Medkrajevna in primestna železniške povezava (39) | Po mnenju organov bo projekt izboljšal storitve regionalnega in medkrajevnega javnega potniškega prevoza z vzpostavitvijo in okrepitvijo medregionalnih povezav z drugimi razvojnimi območji. Projekt bi bil del krožnega sistema, potrebnega za izboljšanje železniškega prevoza v regiji. Vključeval bi tudi obnovo mostu, ki je star več kot 100 let. | Primer 3. Gradnja novega pristanišča (40) | Otok Tenerife (Kanarski otoki, Španija) je močno odvisen od pomorskega prevoza in učinkovitega pristaniškega sistema. Glavno pristanišče, ki je trenutno v glavnem mestu, se srečuje z vse gostejšim prometom. | Z novim pristaniščem bi se dodala zelo potrebna zmogljivost za: (i) omogočanje prihodnje rasti pomorskega prometa, zlasti kar zadeva kontejnerski promet, ki naj bi se po napovedih na otoku znatno povečal, in (ii) razbremenitev obstoječega pristanišča. Novo pristanišče naj bi ustvarilo stabilno interno stopnjo donosnosti in bo otoku omogočilo tudi privabljanje mednarodnega kontejnerskega prometa s pretovarjanjem. | Box 19 | Examples of IROPI under Article 6(4) | Case 1 Deepening and widening of a ship fairway (38) | The River Main is part of the Trans-European Network (TEN) and is the only inland waterway connecting several Member States to the south-east of Europe. It has important functions as a cross-border route for goods connecting Rotterdam (NL) and Constanţa (RO) and is therefore of economic importance. | The project is one of the last missing links needed to adjust this fairway to new political and economic developments and to the requirements of an enlarged European Union. Currently, this part of the River Main creates a bottleneck of 30 km where ships are still limited in terms of their width and depth. | Case 2. Long-distance and suburban railway connection (39) | According to the authorities, the project will improve regional and long-distance passenger transport services, creating and strengthening cross-regional links to other development areas. It would be part of a ring system necessary to improve railway transport in the region. It would also involve the rebuilding of a bridge crossing which is more than 100 years old. | Case 3. Construction of a new port (40) | The island of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain) is highly dependent on maritime transport and an efficient port system. The main port, currently located in the capital, is experiencing increasing congestion. | The new port would add much needed capacity to: (i) accommodate future growth in maritime traffic, especially in relation to container traffic, which is forecast to increase significantly on the island; and (ii) de-congest the existing port. The new port is expected to generate a sound economic rate of return and will also provide the island with the possibility of attracting international container transhipment traffic. |
| 3.3.3 Korak 3: opredelitev, presoja in sprejetje izravnalnih ukrepov | 3.3.3. Step 3: Identification, assessment and adoption of compensatory measures |
| Potem ko je v celoti potrjeno in dokumentirano, da ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, ki bi bile manj škodljive za območje, in da so razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa upravičeni, je treba sprejeti vse izravnalne ukrepe za zagotovitev varstva celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | Once it has been fully ascertained and documented that there are no alternatives less harmful to the site and that IROPI is justified, all compensatory measures to ensure the protection of the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network must be taken. |
| Izravnalni ukrepi so ukrepi, ki so značilni za načrt ali projekt ter se izvajajo poleg običajnih nalog, ki izhajajo iz direktiv o pticah in habitatih. Njihov cilj je natančno izravnati negativni vpliv načrta ali projekta na zadevne vrste ali habitate. Pomenijo „zadnjo možnost“ in se uporabijo le, če so bili že uporabljeni drugi zaščitni ukrepi, ki jih zagotavlja Direktiva, in se sprejme odločitev, da se kljub temu prouči načrt/projekt, ki ima negativni vpliv na celovitost območja Natura 2000, ali projekt/načrt, pri katerem takšnega vpliva ni mogoče izključiti. | Izravnava bi morala zadevati cilje ohranjanja območja Natura 2000 ter negativno prizadete habitate in vrste, ob upoštevanju primerljivega razmerja glede na kakovost, količino, funkcije in stanje. Hkrati je treba ustrezno nadomestiti vlogo, ki jo ima zadevno območje v zvezi z biogeografsko porazdelitvijo. | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.4. | The compensatory measures constitute measures specific to a plan or project, additional to the normal duties stemming from the Birds and Habitats Directives. These measures aim to offset precisely the negative impact of a plan or project on the species or habitats concerned. They constitute the ‘last resort’ and are used only when the other safeguards provided for by the Directive are exhausted and the decision has been taken to consider a plan/project as nonetheless having a negative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site or when such an impact cannot be excluded. | Compensation should refer to the Natura 2000 site’s conservation objectives and to the habitats and species negatively affected in comparable proportions in terms of quality, quantity, functions and status. At the same time, the role played by the site concerned in relation to the biogeographical distribution has to be replaced adequately. | See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.4. |
| (a) Glavne vrste izravnalnih ukrepov | (a) Main types of compensatory measures |
| Izravnalni ukrepi v okviru člena 6(4) direktive o habitatih bi morali: (i) biti specifični za obravnavani načrt ali projekt in (ii) presegati ukrepe, ki se zahtevajo za določitev, varstvo in upravljanje območij Natura 2000, kot so opredeljeni v ciljih ohranjanja za območje. | Compensatory measures in the context of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive should: (i) be specific to the plan or project under consideration; and (ii) go beyond the measures required for the designation, protection and management of Natura 2000 sites, as set out in the conservation objectives for the site. |
| Naslednje se ne more šteti za izravnalne ukrepe: (i) izvajanje načrta upravljanja za območje; (ii) ukrepi za izboljšanje stanja ohranjenosti habitatnega tipa na določenem območju, ki so že načrtovani, ne glede na načrt/projekt, ali (iii) določitev območja, ki je že določeno kot pomembno za Skupnost, kot posebnega ohranitvenega območja. Namesto tega bi morali izravnalni ukrepi dopolnjevati ukrepe ohranjanja, ki jih je treba uvesti in izvajati na območju Natura 2000, in druge določbe o varstvu, ki se zahtevajo z direktivama o habitatih in pticah, ali obveznosti, določene v pravu EU. | The following cannot be considered as compensatory measures: (i) the implementation of a management plan for the site; (ii) measures for improving the conservation status of a habitat type on a site that are already planned irrespective of the plan/project; or (iii) the designation as special area of conservation of an area already identified as being of Community importance. Instead, compensatory measures should be additional to the conservation measures that need to be established and implemented in a Natura 2000 site and additional to other protection provisions required by the Habitats and Birds Directives or obligations laid down in EU law. |
| Primeri vrst izravnalnih ukrepov, skupaj s spremljevalnimi ukrepi, ki lahko omogočijo in olajšajo njihovo izvajanje, so predstavljeni v spodnji preglednici 11. Poudariti je treba, da morajo vsi ti ukrepi presegati običajne obveznosti iz direktiv o pticah in habitatih, vključno s tistimi, ki se nanašajo na določitev, upravljanje in obnovitev območij. | Examples of types of compensatory measures, along with accompanying measures that can enable and facilitate their implementation, are presented in Table 11 below. It is important to note that all of these measures have to go over and beyond the normal obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives, including those related to the designation, management and restoration of the sites. |
| Preglednica 11 | Table 11 |
| Primeri vrst izravnalnih ukrepov, primernih za člen 6(4) | Examples of types of compensatory measures suitable for Article 6(4) |
| Izravnalni ukrep | Opis | Compensatory measure | Description |
| Obnovitev habitata ali povečanje obstoječih območij | Povečanje površine habitata na zadevnem območju ali obnovitev habitata na drugem območju Natura 2000, sorazmerno z izgubo zaradi načrta ali projekta, če to še ni predvideno v ciljih ohranjanja za posamezno območje. | Habitat restoration or enhancement in existing sites | Increasing the habitat area in the site concerned or restoring the habitat in another Natura 2000 site, in proportion to the loss due to the plan or project, if this is not already foreseen in the site-specific conservation objectives. |
| Ponovno oblikovanje habitata | Oblikovanje ali obnovitev habitata na novem ali povečanem območju, ki bo vključeno v omrežje Natura 2000 zaradi njegovega varstva/upravljanja. | Habitat recreation | Creating or restoring a habitat on a new or enlarged site, to be incorporated into the Natura 2000 network in view of its protection/management. |
| Določitev novega območja za omrežje Natura 2000 z izvajanjem spremljevalnih ukrepov upravljanja | Določitev novega območja zadostne kakovosti v skladu z direktivama o pticah in habitatih ter izvajanje ustreznih zaščitnih in ohranitvenih ukrepov. | Designation of a new site for the Natura 2000 network with implementation of accompanying management measures | Designating a new site of sufficient quality under the Birds or Habitats Directives and implementing the appropriate protection and conservation measures. |
| Ponovna naselitev, obnovitev in okrepitev vrst, vključno z okrepitvijo roparskih vrst | Ponovna naselitev vrst na območjih, s katerih so izginile (če je takšna ponovna naselitev znanstveno tehtna), ali obnova populacij vrst na območjih, kjer se njihovo število zmanjšuje, ter poznejše varstvo in upravljanje takih območij v korist zadevnih vrst. | Species reintroduction, recovery and reinforcement, including reinforcement of prey species | Reintroduction of species into sites where the species have disappeared (provided the scientific soundness of such a reintroduction), or re-stocking species populations in areas where they are declining, and subsequently protecting and managing those sites for the benefit of the species. |
| Možni spremljevalni ukrepi | Opis | Possible accompanying measures | Description |
| Nakup zemljišč in uvedba/izvajanje ustreznih zaščitnih in ohranitvenih ukrepov | Pridobitev zemljišča za varstvo narave ter uvedba/izvajanje ustreznih zaščitnih in ohranitvenih ukrepov. | Land purchase and establishing/implementing the appropriate protection and conservation measures | Acquiring an area of land for nature conservation and establishing/implementing the appropriate protection and conservation measures. |
| Pridobitev pravic za varstvo narave ter uvedba/izvajanje ustreznih zaščitnih in ohranitvenih ukrepov | Pridobitev upravljavskih pravic nad zemljiščem ali delom morja ter uvedba/izvajanje ustreznih zaščitnih in ohranitvenih ukrepov. | Rights acquisition for nature conservation and establishing/implementing the appropriate protection and conservation measures | Acquiring management rights over an area of land or sea and establishing/implementing the appropriate protection and conservation measures. |
| Oblikovanje rezervata | Določitev omejitev pri uporabi zemljišča ali dela morja, ki presegajo omejitve, potrebne za skladnost z drugimi določbami direktiv o pticah in habitatih. | Reserve creation | Setting restrictions in the use of an area of land or sea, beyond those required to comply with other provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives. |
| Zmanjšanje groženj | Zmanjšanje (drugih) groženj bodisi z ukrepi v zvezi z enim samim virom bodisi z usklajenimi ukrepi v zvezi z vsemi dejavniki tveganja. | Reduction of threats | Reduction in (other) threats, either through action on a single source or through coordinated action on all threat factors. |
| Možnost oblikovanja in izvajanja učinkovitih izravnalnih ukrepov bo odvisna od funkcije različnih zadevnih habitatov in vrst ter lokalnih razmer. Čeprav obstaja veliko dobrih primerov uspešne obnove ali oblikovanja novih habitatov za močvirske ptice ali razmnoževanje dvoživk, za številne vrste in habitate učinkovite tehnike za obnovitev še vedno niso dovolj znane ali razpoložljive. | The possibility of designing and implementing effective compensation measures will vary in function of the different habitats and species concerned and local conditions. While there are many good examples of the successful restoration or creation of new habitats for wetland birds or for amphibian reproduction, for many species and habitats effective techniques for restoration are still not well-known or available. |
| V vseh primerih morata obnova in ponovno oblikovanje ekosistemov in habitatov vrst za izravnavo temeljiti na dobrem poznavanju obnovitvene ekologije (41). | In all cases, the restoration and recreation of ecosystems and habitats of species for compensation purposes must be based on sound knowledge of restoration ecology (41). |
| V nekaterih primerih ustrezna izravnava z obnovitvijo ni mogoča. Tako je lahko zlasti v naslednjih primerih: | In some cases, adequate compensation through restoration may not be possible. This can be the case, in particular, in the following situations: |
| — | kadar bodo lokacije, ki so ključne za ogrožene vrste ali habitatne tipe, uničene, vendar jih ni mogoče nadomestiti s podobnimi ključnimi lokacijami (npr. primernimi lokacijami, ki imajo podobno vlogo na območju razširjenosti vrst kot prizadete lokacije); | — | Where localities crucial for endangered species or habitat types are to be destroyed but cannot be replaced by similar key locations (e.g. suitable locations that play a similar role in the species range than the ones affected). |
| — | kadar obnovitev ni izvedljiva, bodisi ker bi zahtevala izjemno veliko časa (npr. za učinkovito obnovitev močvirja bi bilo potrebnih nekaj tisoč let) bodisi zaradi trenutnega neobstoja znanja o obnovitveni ekologiji za vrsto ali habitatni tip (npr. tako bi lahko bilo v primeru apnenčastih izvirov ali naravnih bazičnih barij). | — | Where restoration is not feasible, either because it would require an extremely long time (e.g. a bog would require a few thousand years to be effectively restored), or due to the current lack of knowledge on the restoration ecology of the species or habitat type (e.g. this could be the case for limestone springs or natural alkaline fens). |
| Če ni nobenega zagotovila za učinkovito obnovitev ali ponovno vzpostavitev poškodovanih habitatov in vrst, skladnost s členom 6(4) ni zagotovljena. Vendar je v zgoraj opisanih primerih morda še vedno mogoče, da se kot izravnalni ukrep določi, zavaruje in upravlja novo območje s primerno površino istega(-ih) prizadetega(-ih) habitata(-ov) (glej zgoraj v preglednici 12). | When there is no guarantee of the effective restoration or reinstatement of damaged habitats and species, compliance with Article 6(4) is not ensured. In the situations described above, however, it may still be possible, as a compensatory measure, to designate, protect and manage a new site hosting a suitable area of the same habitat(s) affected (see above in Table 12). |
| (b) Vodilna načela za določanje izravnalnih ukrepov in ciljev | (b) Guiding principles for setting compensatory measures and targets |
| Glavni cilj izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) je ohraniti celovito usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000. Zato je treba obravnavati vidika, ki določata obliko in izvajanje izravnalnih ukrepov: sorazmernost in ekološko funkcionalnost. | The main aim of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) is to maintain the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Consequently, two aspects that determine the design and implementation of compensatory measures must be addressed: proportionality and ecological functionality. |
| Ti načeli določata obseg in raven ambicioznosti ukrepov, potrebnih za izravnavo škodljivih vplivov načrta ali projekta. Z izravnalnimi ukrepi bi se morali tudi izničiti najslabši možni scenariji verjetnih škodljivih vplivov. | These two principles set the scope and level of ambition of the measures required to compensate the plan or project’s adverse effects. Compensation measures should also aim to outweigh the worst-case scenarios of likely adverse effects. |
| Da se zagotovi celovita usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000, morajo izravnalni ukrepi, predlagani za projekt, torej: (a) obravnavati negativno prizadete habitate in vrste v primerljivih razmerjih ter (b) zagotoviti funkcije, ki so primerljive s tistimi, s katerimi so se utemeljila izbirna merila za prvotno območje, zlasti glede ustrezne geografske porazdelitve. Zato ne zadostuje, da se izravnalni ukrepi nanašajo na isto biogeografsko regijo v isti državi članici. | In order to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000, the compensatory measures proposed for a project should therefore: (a) address, in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected; and (b) provide functions comparable to those which had justified the selection criteria for the original site, particularly regarding the adequate geographical distribution. Thus, it would not be enough for the compensatory measures to concern the same biogeographical region in the same Member State. |
| Razdalja med prvotnim območjem in krajem, ki ga zagotovijo izravnalni ukrepi, ni nujno ovira, dokler ne vpliva na funkcionalnost območja, njegovo vlogo v geografski porazdelitvi in razloge za njegovo prvotno izbiro. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.4.2. | The distance between the original site and the place of the compensatory measures is not necessarily an obstacle as long as it does not affect the site’s functionality, its role in the geographical distribution and the reasons for its initial selection. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.4.2. |
| Sorazmernost izravnalnih ukrepov | Proportionality of the compensatory measures |
| Ohranjanje celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 pomeni zagotavljanje, da predlagani izravnalni ukrepi obravnavajo habitate in vrste sorazmerno glede na škodljive vplive, povzročene na območju. Pristojni organi morajo zato določiti relativni pomen prizadetih značilnosti omrežja Natura 2000 in negativnih vplivov nanje v skladu s kvantitativnimi in kvalitativnimi merili. Tako se določi izhodišče za primerjavo. | Maintaining the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network means ensuring that the compensatory measures proposed address the habitats and species in proportions comparable to the adverse effects caused on the site. The competent authorities must therefore determine the relative importance of the Natura 2000 features affected and the negative impacts on them according to quantitative and qualitative criteria. This sets the baseline for compensation. |
| Razmerja izravnave je najbolje določiti za vsak primer posebej. Prvotno morajo biti določena glede na informacije iz ustrezne presoje iz člena 6(3) in morajo zagotavljati ekološko funkcionalnost. Razmerje se nato lahko ponovno opredeli v skladu z rezultati, dobljenimi pri spremljanju učinkovitosti. Končna odločitev o deležu izravnave mora biti utemeljena. | Na splošno se priznava, da bi moralo biti razmerje na splošno precej večje od 1 : 1. Tako bi bilo treba razmerje izravnave 1 : 1 ali nižje razmerje obravnavati le, kadar je dokazano, da bodo ukrepi v takšnem obsegu popolnoma učinkoviti pri obnovi strukture in funkcionalnosti v kratkem časovnem obdobju (npr. ne da bi ob tem ogrozili ohranjanje habitatov ali populacij ključnih vrst, ki jim lahko načrt ali projekt škoduje, niti cilje njihovega ohranjanja). | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.5.4. | Compensation ratios are best set on a case-by-case basis. They must be initially determined in the light of the information from the Article 6(3) appropriate assessment and must ensure ecological functionality. The ratios may then be redefined according to the results observed when monitoring the effectiveness. The final decision on the proportion of compensation must be justified. | There is wide acknowledgement that ratios should be generally well above 1:1. Thus, compensation ratios of 1:1 or below should only be considered when it is shown that with such an extent the measures will be fully effective in reinstating structure and functionality within a short period of time (e.g. without compromising the preservation of the habitats or the populations of key species likely to be affected by the plan or project or their conservation objectives). | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.5.4. |
| Ekološka funkcionalnost in lokacija izravnalnih ukrepov | Ecological functionality and location of the compensatory measures |
| Poleg potrebe po obravnavanju negativno prizadetih habitatov in vrst v primerljivih razmerjih mora izravnava zagotoviti tudi ekološke funkcije, ki so primerljive s tistimi, ki so sploh upravičile izbiro območja Natura 2000. | In addition to the need to address, in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected, compensation must also provide ecological functions comparable to those which had justified the selection of the Natura 2000 site in the first place. |
| Obseg izravnalnih ukrepov je odvisen od posebnih zahtev za obnovitev nekaterih ekoloških funkcij in struktur, ki bodo bodisi verjetno izgubljene bodisi se bodo poslabšale zaradi izvajanja načrta ali projekta. Posebno pozornost je treba nameniti habitatnim tipom ali habitatom vrst, ki potrebujejo dolgo časa, da dosežejo enako raven ekološke funkcionalnosti. | The scope of compensatory measures is determined by the specific requirements for reinstating certain ecological functions and structures that are either likely to be lost or subject to degradation as a result of the plan or project implementation. Special attention must be paid to habitat types or habitats of species that need a long time to reach the same level of ecological functionality. |
| Obstaja splošni dogovor, da so lokalne razmere, potrebne za obnovitev ogroženega ekološkega bogastva, čim bliže območju, na katero vpliva načrt ali projekt. Zato se zdi določitev lokacije izravnave na zadevnem območju Natura 2000 ali v njegovi bližini na kraju z ustreznimi razmerami za uspešno izvajanje ukrepov najbolj zaželena možnost. Vendar to ni vedno mogoče, zato bi bilo treba določiti prednostne pogoje, ki se bodo uporabljali pri iskanju lokacij, ki izpolnjujejo zahteve iz direktive o habitatih: | (1) | izravnava na območju Natura 2000, če so na območju potrebni dejavniki za zagotavljanje ekološke usklajenosti in funkcionalnosti omrežja; | (2) | izravnava zunaj zadevnega območja Natura 2000, vendar znotraj skupne topografske ali pokrajinske enote, če lahko enako prispeva k ekološki strukturi in/ali funkciji omrežja. Nova lokacija je lahko na drugem območju, določenem kot območje Natura 2000, ali lokacija, ki ni določena kot območje Natura 2000. V slednjem primeru mora biti lokacija določena kot območje Natura 2000 in izpolnjevati vse zahteve iz direktiv o naravi; | (3) | izravnava zunaj območja Natura 2000 v drugi topografski ali pokrajinski enoti. Nova lokacija je lahko drugo območje, določeno kot območje Natura 2000. Če izravnava poteka na lokaciji, ki ni določena kot območje Natura 2000, jo je treba določiti kot območje Natura 2000, pri čemer mora izpolnjevati vse zahteve iz direktiv o naravi. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.5.5. | There is general agreement that the local conditions necessary to reinstate the ecological assets at stake are found as close as possible to the area affected by the plan or project. Therefore, locating compensation within or near the Natura 2000 site concerned where suitable conditions for the measures to be successful seems the most preferred option. However, this is not always possible and a range of priorities should therefore be applied when searching for locations that meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive: | 1) | Compensation within the Natura 2000 site, provided the necessary elements to ensure ecological coherence and network functionality exist within the site. | 2) | Compensation outside the Natura 2000 site concerned, but within a common topographical or landscape unit, provided the same contribution to the ecological structure and/or network function is feasible. The new location can be in another designated Natura 2000 site or a non-designated location. In the latter case, the location must be designated as a Natura 2000 site and be subject to all the requirements of the Nature Directives. | 3) | Compensation outside the Natura 2000 site, in a different topographical or landscape unit. The new location can be another designated Natura 2000 site. If compensation takes place on a non-designated location, this location must then be designated as a Natura 2000 site and be subject to all the requirements of the Nature Directives. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.5.5. |
| V okviru 20 spodaj je prikazan poenostavljen primer določanja obsega izravnalnih ukrepov glede na ekološke funkcije. | Box 20 below provides a simplified example for defining the scope of compensatory measures in relation to ecological functions. |
| Okvir 20 | Opredelitev obsega izravnalnih ukrepov glede na ekološke funkcije – primer na posebnem območju varstva | Ekološka funkcija, na katero vpliva načrt ali projekt: počivališča za selivske vrste ptic, ki letijo proti severu, na posebnem območju varstva. | Poudarek izravnalnih ukrepov: | (a) | izravnalni ukrepi morajo zagotoviti druge ustrezne prostore za počitek za populacije selivskih vrst ptic; | (b) | novi primerni prostori za počitek za ciljne vrste morajo biti pravilno umeščeni na isti selitveni poti; | (c) | novi primerni prostori za počitek morajo biti enostavno dostopni pticam, ki uporabljajo prvotno območje Natura 2000, prizadeto zaradi projekta (42). Nosilna zmogljivost novega habitata mora biti vsaj enaka nosilni zmogljivosti prizadetega območja. Novi prostori za počitek bi morali biti zavarovani pred izvedbo zadevnega projekta. | Novi prostori za počitek za isto vrsto, vendar na lokacijah zunaj selitvene poti, ali na selitveni poti, vendar daleč stran od prizadetega mesta za počitek, ne bi bili primeren izravnalni ukrep. Ponovna vzpostavitev ekološke funkcionalnosti namreč ne bi zadoščala za zagotovitev ekološke usklajenosti omrežja. | Box 20 | Defining the scope of compensatory measures in relation to ecological functions – example in a special protection area | Ecological function affected by a plan or project: resting areas for migratory bird species heading northwards, located in an SPA. | Focus of compensatory measure: | (a) | The compensatory measures must provide alternative resting areas for the populations of the migratory bird species. | (b) | The new suitable resting areas for the targeted species must be correctly located in the same migratory path. | (c) | The new suitable resting areas must be readily accessible to the birds that use the original Natura 2000 site affected by the project (42). The carrying capacity of the new habitat must be at least equal to the carrying capacity of the site affected. The new resting areas should be protected before that project is implemented. | New resting areas for the same species but in locations out of the migratory path, or within the migratory path but far away from the resting spot affected, would not be a suitable compensatory measure. This is because the ecological functionality recreated would not be sufficient to ensure the ecological coherence of the network. |
| Zbirni kontrolni seznam ključnih vprašanj, ki jih je treba obravnavati pri oblikovanju izravnalnih ukrepov, je vključen na koncu tega poglavja (preglednica 15). | A summary checklist of key issues to consider when designing compensatory measures is included at this end of this chapter (Table 15). |
| (c) Časovna razporeditev izravnave | (c) Timing of compensation |
| Čas je ključna razsežnost pri načrtovanju izravnalnih ukrepov, saj bi morali biti vzpostavljeni, v celoti delujoči in učinkoviti pred nastankom škode na območju. | Time is a crucial dimension in the planning of compensatory measures as they should be in place, fully operational and effective before the damage on the site occurs. |
| Časovna razporeditev izravnalnih ukrepov zahteva pristop obravnavanja vsakega primera posebej. Sprejeta časovna razporeditev mora zagotavljati kontinuiteto ekoloških procesov, bistvenih za ohranjanje strukture in funkcij, ki prispevajo k celoviti usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. To zahteva tesno sodelovanje med izvajanjem načrta ali projekta in izvajanjem izravnalnih ukrepov. Povezano je tudi z vprašanji, kot je čas, potreben za razvoj habitatov in/ali obnovo ali vnos populacij vrst na določenem območju. | Poleg tega je treba upoštevati tudi druge dejavnike in procese: | — | pred začetkom izravnave območje ne sme biti nepopravljivo poškodovano; | — | rezultat izravnave bi moral biti operativen v času, ko se zadevno območje poškoduje. V nekaterih okoliščinah, kadar tega ni mogoče uresničiti v celoti, je potrebna čezmerna izravnava za vmesne izgube; | — | časovni zamiki so lahko dopustni le, kadar je potrjeno, da ne bodo ogrozili cilja celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 „brez neto izgub“; | — | časovni zamiki ne smejo biti dovoljeni, če na primer povzročijo zmanjšanje populacije katere koli zaščitene vrste na območju iz Priloge II k direktivi o habitatih ali Priloge I k direktivi o pticah; prednostne vrste iz Priloge II k direktivi o habitatih si zaslužijo posebno pozornost; | — | sčasoma je mogoče zmanjšati izravnalne ukrepe glede na to, ali naj bi se znatni negativni vplivi pojavili kratko-, srednje- ali dolgoročno. | Priporočljiva je lahko uporaba posebnih ukrepov za izničevanje vmesnih izgub, ki bi se pojavile pred uresničitvijo ciljev ohranjanja. Vse tehnične, zakonske ali finančne določbe, ki so potrebne za izvajanje izravnalnih ukrepov, morajo biti uresničene pred začetkom izvajanja načrta ali projekta, da se preprečijo nepredvidene zamude, ki lahko ovirajo učinkovitost ukrepov. | Za več podrobnosti glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 5.5.6. | Timing the compensatory measures calls for a case-by-case approach. The schedule adopted must provide continuity in the ecological processes essential for maintaining the structure and functions that contribute to the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. This requires tight coordination between the implementation of the plan or project and the implementation of the compensatory measures. It also depends on issues such as the time required for habitats to develop and/or for species populations to recover or establish in a given area. | In addition, other factors and processes must also be considered. | — | A site must not be irreversibly affected before compensation is in place. | — | The result of compensation should be operational at the time the damage occurs on the site concerned. Under certain circumstances where this cannot be fully achieved, overcompensation would be required for the interim losses. | — | Time lags might only be admissible when it is ascertained that they would not compromise the objective of ‘no net losses’ to the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. | — | Time lags must not be permitted, for example, if they lead to population losses for any species protected on the site under Annex II to the Habitats Directive or Annex I to the Birds Directive; priority species listed in Annex II to the Habitats Directive merit special attention. | — | It may be possible to scale down in time compensatory measures, depending whether the significant negative effects are expected to arise in the short, medium or long term. | Specific measures to outweigh interim losses that would occur until the conservation objectives are met may be advisable. All technical, legal or financial provisions needed to implement the compensatory measures must be completed before the plan or project implementation starts, so as to prevent any unforeseen delays that may hinder the effectiveness of the measures. | See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.5.6. |
| Čas, potreben za nadgradnjo, obnovo ali ponovno vzpostavitev ekološke funkcionalnosti, je odvisen od biologije in ekologije habitatov in vrst. To je treba zato oceniti za vsak primer posebej in lahko zahteva preiskavo ali iskanje dokazov o obnovi v podobnih primerih. | The time required for upgrading, restoring or reinstating ecological functionality depends on the biology and ecology of the habitats and species. This needs therefore to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and may require investigation or searching for evidence of restoration from similar situations. |
| Primer možnega časovnega zamika, potrebnega za obnovo združb travišč, je naveden v okviru 21 spodaj. | An example of the possible time lag taken to restore grassland communities is provided in Box 21 below. |
| Okvir 21 | Čas, potreben za obnovo združb travišč | 22 študij iz sedmih evropskih držav vključuje informacije o času, potrebnem za obnovo združb travišč. To vključuje 16 ponovljenih poskusov, od katerih jih je bilo devet tudi kontroliranih, trije pa so bili pregledi. Pri šestih študijah so se pozitivni znaki obnove pokazali v manj kot petih letih, pri 11 študijah v desetih letih, v dveh študijah pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da je obnova trajala več kot deset let. V šestih študijah so bile po obnovi ugotovljene omejene ali počasne spremembe rastlinskih združb. | Vir: Restoration Evidence. Ukrep: obnova/oblikovanje z vrstami bogatega polnaravnega travišča. http://www.restorationevidence.org | Box 21 | Time necessary to restore grassland communities | 22 studies from 7 European countries include information on the length of time taken to restore grassland communities. This includes 16 replicated trials, of which 9 were also controlled and 3 were reviews. There were 6 studies that saw positive signs of restoration in less than 5 years, 11 studies within 10 years, and 2 studies found restoration took more than 10 years. Six studies found limited or slow changes in plant communities following restoration. | Source: Restoration Evidence. Action: Restore/create species-rich, semi-natural grassland. http://www.restorationevidence.org |
| (d) Ocenjevanje in spremljanje izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) | (d) Evaluation and monitoring of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) |
| Za izpolnitev obveznosti ohranjanja usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 mora biti v programu izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) dokazana njihova učinkovitost in zagotovljena dokumentacija za to. | To comply with the obligation to maintain the coherence of the Natura 2000 network, the programme of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) must demonstrate their effectiveness and provide documentation for this. |
| Geografska lokacija, obseg in časovna razporeditev so odločilni dejavniki za uspešno izravnavo. Ustrezna razmerja izravnave so tudi ključna za zagotovitev učinkovitosti izravnave, preden se pojavijo vplivi načrta ali projekta. | Geographical location, extent and timing are all determining factors for successful compensation. Adequate compensation ratios are also crucial to ensure effectiveness of compensation before the plan or project impacts appear. |
| Oblikovanje in izvajanje izravnalnih ukrepov morata biti celovita in znanstveno utemeljena, tj.: | The design and implementation of the compensatory measures must be comprehensive and scientifically sound, i.e.: |
| — | cilji ohranjanja, ključne značilnosti in ekološka funkcionalnost, ki jih je treba izravnati, so zajeti v ustreznem razmerju; | — | The conservation objectives, key features and ecological functionality to be compensated are targeted in the correct proportion. |
| — | vključeni so zahtevani spremljevalni ukrepi, vključno s tehničnimi, upravnimi in finančnimi; | — | The accompanying measures required, including technical, administrative and financial, have been incorporated. |
| — | časovni razpored izvajanja posameznih nalog v okviru posameznega ukrepa, vključno z zagotavljanjem vzdrževalnih del in spremljanja, je dovolj podroben; | — | The timetable for implementing the individual tasks within each measure, including provision for maintenance works and monitoring, is sufficiently detailed. |
| — | znanstvena podlaga, ki zagotavlja učinkovitost posameznega izravnalnega ukrepa, je pojasnjena in dokazana posebej za vpliv, ki naj bi se z ukrepom izravnal; | — | The scientific basis proving the effectiveness of each compensatory measure is explained and evidenced specifically for the impact it aims to offset. |
| — | naveden je časovni okvir za doseganje pričakovanih rezultatov posameznega predlaganega ukrepa; | — | The time scale for accomplishing the expected results from each of the proposed measures is stated. |
| — | prednostna razvrstitev izvajanja ukrepov je utemeljena na podlagi ciljev ohranjanja omrežja Natura 2000 in znanstvenih dokazov. | — | The prioritisation of the measures’ implementation is justified based on the Natura 2000 conservation objectives and scientific evidence. |
| Nekateri ključni elementi za učinkovite izravnalne ukrepe glede na njihovo lokacijo, časovni razpored in obseg so predstavljeni v nadaljevanju. Primeri uporabe teh elementov v praksi so navedeni v oddelku 3 Priloge. | Some critical elements for effective compensation measures in relation to their location, timing and extent are presented below. Examples of how these elements have been applied in practice are provided in Section 3 of the Annex. |
| Preglednica 12 | Table 12 |
| Ključni elementi za učinkovite izravnalne ukrepe | Key elements for effective compensatory measures |
| Lokacija | Omogočati mora ohranjanje celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | Location | Must make it possible to maintain the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. |
| Morala bi imeti – ali biti sposobna razviti – posebne značilnosti, strukturo in funkcije, potrebne za izravnavo glede na rezultate ustrezne presoje. | Should host – or be able to develop – the specific features, structure and functions required for compensation according to the results of the appropriate assessment. |
| Ustrezno mora upoštevati kvalitativne ekološke vidike, kot je edinstvenost značilnosti, ki bodo prizadete. | Must give proper consideration to qualitative ecological aspects such as the uniqueness of the features that will be impaired. |
| Določena mora biti na podlagi podrobne analize lokalnih ekoloških razmer, tako da je izravnava izvedljiva in čim bliže območju, ki je prizadeto zaradi načrta ali projekta. | Must be determined through careful analysis of local ecological conditions so that compensation is both feasible and as close as possible to the area affected by the plan or project. |
| Biti mora v isti biogeografski regiji (za območja iz direktive o habitatih) ali v istem obsegu, na isti selitveni poti ali v istem prezimovališču za vrste ptic (tj. območja iz direktive o pticah) v zadevni državi članici. | Must be within the same biogeographical region (for sites designated under the Habitats Directive) or within the same range, migration route or wintering area for bird species (i.e. sites designated under the Birds Directive) in the Member State concerned. |
| Obseg | Določen je z: | — | obsegom negativnih vplivov načrta ali projekta na ključne značilnosti in ekološke procese, ki ogrožajo celovitost območja Natura 2000; | — | znanstvenimi dokazi o zmožnosti ukrepov, da dosežejo pričakovane rezultate za ohranjanje celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | Extent | Is determined by: | — | the extent of the plan or project’s negative effects on the key features and ecological processes, which undermine the integrity of the Natura 2000 site; | — | scientific evidence of the measures’ capacity to achieve the expected results for maintaining the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. |
| Najbolje ga je določiti za vsak primer posebej, in sicer glede na informacije, dobljene z ustrezno presojo iz člena 6(3). | Is best set on a case-by-case basis, according to the information generated in the appropriate assessment under Article 6(3). |
| Prvotno je določen s ciljem izničiti najslabše možne scenarije verjetnih škodljivih vplivov. | Is initially set with the aim of outweighing the worst-case scenarios of likely adverse effects. |
| Potrdi se s spremljanjem in poročanjem o rezultatih ekološke funkcionalnosti. | Is ascertained by monitoring and reporting on ecological functionality outcomes. |
| Časovni razpored | Zagotavljati mora kontinuiteto ekoloških procesov, bistvenih za ohranjanje strukture in funkcij, ki prispevajo k celoviti usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | Timing | Must ensure the continuity of the ecological processes essential for maintaining the structure and functions that contribute to the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. |
| Upošteva usklajevanje, ki je potrebno med izvajanjem načrta ali projekta in izvajanjem izravnalnih ukrepov. | Considers the coordination required between implementing the plan or project and implementing the compensatory measures. |
| Določen je s časom, potrebnim za razvoj habitatov in/ali obnovo ali vnos populacij vrst na določenem območju. | Is determined by the time required for habitats to develop and/or for species populations to recover or establish in a given area. |
| Vključevati mora pravna varovala, potrebna za dolgoročno izvajanje ter varstvo, spremljanje in ohranjanje območij, da se zavarujejo, preden se pojavijo vplivi na habitate in/ali vrste. | Must include legal safeguards required for long-term implementation and the protection, monitoring and maintenance of the sites to be secured before impacts on habitats and/or species occur. |
| Lahko zahtevajo uporabo posebnih ukrepov za izničevanje vmesnih izgub, ki bi se pojavile pred uresničitvijo ciljev ohranjanja. | May require the application of specific measures to outweigh interim losses that would occur until the conservation objectives are met. |
| Zahteva vzpostavitev zanesljivih in celovitih programov spremljanja, s katerimi je mogoče oceniti uspešnost izravnalnih ukrepov. | Requires the establishment of robust and complete monitoring programmes capable of assessing the success of compensation measures. |
| Zagotavljanje učinkovite izravnave bi bilo treba preverjati z ustreznim spremljanjem. | The delivery of effective compensation should be verified through adequate monitoring. |
| Za učinkovit postopek spremljanja so lahko potrebni naslednji elementi: | Effective monitoring process may require the following elements: |
| — | načrt spremljanja, dogovorjen s pristojnim organom; | — | a monitoring plan agreed with the competent authority; |
| — | sklenitev pogodbe s specializiranim podjetjem ali drugim subjektom za izvajanje spremljanja; | — | contracting a specialised company or another entity to carry out the monitoring; |
| — | opredelitev elementov spremljanja; značilnosti živalskih in rastlinskih vrst, vodotokov, kakovosti tal itd.; | — | identification of elements to be monitored: features of fauna and flora, water flows, soil quality, etc.; |
| — | dogovor o časovnem razporedu poročanja (letno, vsaki dve leti itd.); | — | agreement on the reporting timeline (annual, biennial, etc.); |
| — | dogovor o poročilu o spremljanju; | — | agreement on the monitoring report; |
| — | dokumentacijo o napredovanju del (slike, terenska poročila itd.); | — | documentation of the progress of works (pictures, field reports, etc.); |
| — | mehanizem za shranjevanje in izmenjavo rezultatov; | — | mechanism for storing and sharing the results; |
| — | sodelovanje z znanstveniki za objavo rezultatov izravnave v znanstvenem članku. | — | cooperation with scientists with a view to publishing the results of compensation in a scientific paper. |
| Spremljanje in vrednotenje izravnalnih ukrepov morata omogočati tudi upoštevanje škodljivih negativnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000, ki jih ni bilo mogoče predvideti v ustrezni presoji. Poleg tega je treba izravnalne ukrepe, če se izkaže, da niso zadostni, da bi izničili te nove vplive, morda spremeniti, tako da končni cilj zagotavljanja celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 ostane dosegljiv. | The monitoring and evaluation of compensatory measures must also allow for the possibility to factor in adverse negative effects on Natura 2000 sites that could not be foreseen in the appropriate assessment. Moreover, if the compensatory measures turn out not to be sufficient to outweigh these new impacts, they may need to be amended so that the ultimate aim of ensuring the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network remains feasible. |
| Spremljanje izravnalnih ukrepov bi bilo treba tesno usklajevati s splošnim spremljanjem vplivov in ukrepov za ublažitev (glej oddelek 3.2.4). Ta pristop je skladen z zahtevo v politiki EU glede usklajevanja programov spremljanja, ki izhajajo iz različnih zakonodajnih aktov, za večjo učinkovitost njihovega upravljanja. | Monitoring of compensation measures should be closely coordinated with the overall monitoring of impacts and mitigation measures (see section 3.2.4). This approach is consistent with the requirement in EU policy to coordinate monitoring programmes arising from different pieces of legislation, for an improved efficiency in their administration. |
| V nekaterih primerih se lahko prilagodljivo upravljanje – ki je sistematičen pristop za izboljšanje in prilagajanje ukrepov za ohranjanje z učenjem iz rezultatov upravljanja – zahteva in zagotovi s pravnim dogovorom. V tem okviru se prilagodljivo upravljanje lahko uporablja za izboljšanje izvajanja izravnalnih ukrepov, kadar morda obstajajo negotovosti, zaradi katerih je potrebno redno vrednotenje dejanskih rezultatov ukrepov. To je zlasti pomembno, kadar obseg vpliva in s tem obseg izravnave nista jasna (npr. pri izravnavi vplivov zaradi izgradnje protipoplavne zaščite na kopenski strani zavarovanega območja). | In some cases, adaptive management – which is a systematic approach for improving and adjusting conservation action by learning from management outcomes – may be required and secured through a legal agreement. In this context, adaptive management can be used to improve the implementation of compensatory measures where there may be uncertainties triggering the need for regular evaluation of the measures’ actual outcomes. This is particularly relevant where the scale of impact and therefore the scale of compensation is not clear (e.g. when compensating for impacts arising from coastal flood defence development landward of a protected site). |
| (e) Določanje izravnalnih ukrepov za načrte | (e) Setting compensatory measures for plans |
| V fazi načrta lahko obstajajo določene omejitve pri določanju potrebnih izravnalnih ukrepov. Presoja in opredelitev škodljivih vplivov načrta na ciljne značilnosti nekaterih območij Natura 2000 zagotavljata podlago za opredelitev potrebe po izravnalnih ukrepih. Če obstaja zadostna gotovost glede predvidenih vplivov na habitate, vrste ali naravne procese, obseg in razsežnost takšnih vplivov pa sta dobro poznana, se lahko opredelijo ustrezni izravnalni ukrepi ter določita primerna lokacija in ustrezen časovni okvir. | At a plan stage, there may be some limitations to setting the necessary compensatory measures. The assessment and identification of adverse effects of a plan on the target features of certain Natura 2000 sites provides the basis for defining the need for compensatory measures. If there is enough certainty about the predicted effects on habitats, species or natural processes, and good knowledge about the extent and magnitude of those effects, it may be possible to define appropriate compensatory measures, identify the suitable location and an appropriate timing. |
| Vendar lahko v samih načrtih manjkajo podrobne informacije o vplivih nekaterih sestavnih delov načrta. V takih primerih se morda lahko določi samo vrsta izravnalnih ukrepov, ki bodo potrebni na ravni projekta, na primer za izravnavo izgube nekaterih habitatov ali zagotovitev dodatnih habitatov za nekatere vrste. Če je le mogoče, bi bilo treba potrebe količinsko opredeliti, na primer površino za obnovo habitata. | Nevertheless, detailed information about the effects of some of a plan’s components may be missing from the plans themselves. In such cases, it may only be possible to define the kind of compensatory measures that will be necessary at the project level, e.g. to compensate the loss of certain habitats, or to provide additional habitats for certain species. As far as possible, a quantification of the needs should be provided, for instance surface area for habitat restoration. |
| Vsekakor bi bilo treba poskrbeti za zagotovitev, da se potrebni izravnalni ukrepi opredelijo, načrtujejo in izvajajo na ustrezni ravni. V načrt bi se lahko vključila začasna opredelitev izravnalnih ukrepov. To bi moralo biti pospremljeno s smernicami, merili in pristopi, ki bi jih bilo treba celoviteje in podrobneje opredeliti, ko bo priprava načrta to omogočala. | In all cases, provision should be made to ensure that the necessary compensatory measures are defined, planned and implemented at the appropriate level. A provisional definition of the compensatory measures could be included in the plan. This should be accompanied by guidelines, criteria and approaches, which would require a more complete and detailed definition when the development of the plan allows for this task to be carried out. |
| Preglednica 13 spodaj vsebuje pregled vprašanj, pomembnih za oblikovanje, izvajanje in spremljanje programa izravnalnih ukrepov. | Table 13 below provides an overview of issues relevant to the design, implementation and monitoring of the programme of compensation measures. |
| Preglednica 13 | Table 13 |
| Vidiki, ki jih je treba upoštevati v programu izravnalnih ukrepov za načrte | Aspects to consider in the programme of compensatory measures for plans |
| Območje izravnave: | Area of compensation: |
| — | lokacija in površina izravnave (vključno s kartami) ter | — | status in stanje območij izravnave. | — | the location and surface areas of compensation (including maps); and | — | the status and condition in the compensation areas. |
| Vrste in habitati, ki so predmet izravnave: | Species and habitats subject to compensation: |
| — | prejšnja status in stanje vrst in habitatov, ki so predmet izravnave, na območjih izravnave, ter | — | pojasnilo, kako naj bi se s predlaganimi izravnalnimi ukrepi izravnali škodljivi vplivi na celovitost območja in kako bodo navedeni ukrepi omogočili ohranjanje usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | — | the former status and condition in the compensation areas of the species and the habitats subject to compensation; and | — | an explanation of how the proposed compensatory measures are expected to outweigh the adverse effects on the integrity of the site and will make it possible to preserve the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. |
| Tehnična zmogljivost: | Technical performance: |
| — | tehnike in metode, izvedene za vzpostavitev predlaganih izravnalnih ukrepov, ter | — | ocena njihove pričakovane ravni učinkovitosti. | — | techniques and methods implemented to put in place the proposed compensatory measures; and | — | evaluation of their expected level of effectiveness. |
| Upravne določbe: | Administrative provisions: |
| — | dokončanje vzpostavljenih upravnih ukrepov, da se olajša izvajanje izravnalnih ukrepov (npr. morebitni zaščitni ukrepi pri načrtovanju), in | — | opredelitev vseh dodatnih upravnih ukrepov, ki so morda potrebni za zagotovitev polnega učinka izvajanja izravnalnih ukrepov. | — | completion of the administrative measures in place to ease implementation of the compensatory measures (e.g. any planning safeguards); and | — | identification of any additional administrative measures that may be required to guarantee implementation of the compensatory measures to their full effectiveness. |
| Časovni okvir izravnave: | Timing of compensation: |
| — | časovni razpored izvajanja izravnalnih ukrepov (ob upoštevanju dolgoročnega izvajanja – glej oddelek o stroških v nadaljevanju) z navedbo, kdaj bodo pričakovani rezultati doseženi; | — | časovni razpored posredovanja rezultatov spremljanja pristojnim organom in | — | časovni razpored prevzema nalog spremljanja za program izravnalnih ukrepov. | — | time schedule for implementing the compensatory measures (considering long-term implementation – see the section below on cost), indicating when the expected results will be achieved; | — | time schedule to convey monitoring results to the competent authorities; and | — | time schedule for takeover of monitoring duties for the programme of compensatory measures. |
| Stroški izravnave: | Cost of compensation: |
| — | dejanski stroški izvedenih ukrepov; | — | odstopanja od stroškov v primerjavi s stroški, načrtovanimi v programu izravnalnih ukrepov, in | — | morebitno časovno razlikovanje med stroški glede na ukrepe upravnega usklajevanja (npr. nakup zemljišč, enkratna plačila v zvezi s pravicami do uporabe virov in/ali redna plačila za določene ponavljajoče se ukrepe). | — | real costs of the measures implemented; | — | cost deviations as compared to the cost planned in the programme of compensatory measures; and | — | any differentiation in time between costs depending on administrative coordination action (e.g. land purchase, one-off payments relating to rights on resource use; and/or regular payments towards specific recurring measures). |
| Preglednica 14 | Table 14 |
| Zbirni kontrolni seznam ključnih vprašanj, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri oblikovanju izravnalnih ukrepov | Summary checklist of key issues to consider when designing compensatory measures |
| Področje ukrepanja | Opis | Elementi, ki jih je treba vključiti | Action line | Description | Elements to include |
| Tehnične zadeve | Tehnični načrt | Dejavnosti, ki bodo izvedene, z navedbo njihove pomembnosti glede na: | — | cilje ohranjanja prvotnega območja in | — | njihovo povezavo z ohranjanjem celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000. | Cilji in ciljne vrednosti, usklajeni s cilji ohranjanja območja | Technical | Technical plan | The activities to be undertaken with indication of their relevance according to: | — | the original site’s conservation objectives; and | — | their relationship to the maintenance of the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. | Objectives and target values aligned to the site’s conservation objectives |
| Opis predlaganih izravnalnih ukrepov | Description of the compensatory measures proposed |
| Dokazilo o tehnični izvedljivosti ukrepov glede na njihove cilje ohranjanja – ekološka funkcionalnost | Demonstration of the technical feasibility of the measures in relation to their conservation objectives – ecological functionality |
| Znanstveno zanesljiva razlaga učinkovitosti dejavnosti pri izravnavi negativnih vplivov načrta ali projekta | Scientifically robust explanation of effectiveness of the activities in compensating the negative effects of the plan or project |
| Prednostna razvrstitev dejavnosti v skladu z naravovarstvenimi cilji – časovni razpored, usklajen z naravovarstvenimi cilji | Prioritisation of activities according to the nature conservation aims – timetable aligned to nature conservation objectives |
| Oris spremljanja – po dejavnosti in na splošno | Monitoring outline – per activity and overall |
| Finančne zadeve | Finančni načrt | Ekonomski stroški izvajanja programa izravnalnih ukrepov | Razčlenitev proračuna po kategoriji stroškov | Financial | Financial plan | The economic cost of implementing the programme of compensatory measures | Budget breakdown by cost category |
| Razčlenitev proračuna po časovnem razporedu izvajanja | Budget breakdown by implementation timetable |
| Dokazilo o finančni izvedljivosti ukrepov v skladu z zahtevanim časovnim okvirom in časovnim razporedom za odobritev sredstev | Demonstration of the financial feasibility of the measures according to the timing required and schedule for approval of the funds |
| Pravne in upravne zadeve | Zaščitni ukrepi za varstvo narave | Analiza izvedljivosti upravljavskih pravic: po vrsti dejavnosti in primerni lokaciji (nakup, najem, upravljanje itd.) | Legal and administrative | Safeguards for nature conservation | Feasibility analysis of management rights: per type of activity and per suitable location (purchase, lease, stewardship, etc.) |
| Dokazilo o pravni in/ali finančni izvedljivosti ukrepov glede na zahtevani časovni okvir | Demonstration of the legal and/or financial feasibility of the measures according to the timing required |
| Opredelitev zahtev glede priobčitve javnosti | Identification of requirements for communication to the public |
| Usklajevanje in sodelovanje – javni organi | Vloge in odgovornosti pri izvajanju in poročanju | Potrebe glede posvetovanja, usklajevanja in sodelovanja, usklajene s časovnim okvirom: dogovor o programu za izravnavo in njegova odobritev s strani organov omrežja Natura 2000, organov za presojo in nosilca | Coordination and cooperation – public authorities | Roles and responsibilities in implementation and reporting | Consultation, coordination and cooperation needs aligned to the timetable: agreement and approval of the compensatory programme by the Natura 2000 authorities, assessment authorities and the developer |
| Načrt spremljanja, ki temelji na kazalnikih napredka v skladu s cilji ohranjanja, skupaj z razporedom poročanja in morebitnimi povezavami do obstoječih obveznosti glede presoje in spremljanja | Monitoring plan based on progress indicators according to the conservation objectives, with reporting schedule and prospective links to existing assessment and monitoring obligations |
| 4. STRATEŠKO NAČRTOVANJE IN USTREZNA PRESOJA NAČRTOV | 4. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF PLANS |
| 4.1 Strateško načrtovanje | 4.1. Strategic planning |
| Učinkovit način za preprečevanje negativnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000 ter zavarovane vrste in habitate v EU je proučitev okoljskih posledic novih razvojnih projektov že zelo zgodaj na ravni strateškega načrtovanja. To se lahko izvede z regionalnim ali nacionalnim razvojnim načrtom za sektorske dejavnosti (npr. v energetskem sektorju, prometu, ekstraktivnih dejavnostih, kmetijstvu) ali z načrti rabe zemljišč ali drugimi prostorskimi načrti. Strateški načrti omogočajo vključitev okoljskih pogojev in zahtev, zlasti tistih, ki so povezani z varstvom narave, že v zgodnji fazi načrtovanja, tako da se lahko prepreči ali zmanjša tveganje morebitnih negativnih vplivov pozneje na ravni projekta ter se ustrezno določijo izvedljivost in načini izvajanja posameznih razvojnih projektov. | An effective way to prevent conflicts with Natura 2000 sites and EU protected species and habitats is to consider the environmental consequences of new developments early on at strategic planning level. This can be done through a regional or national development plan for sectoral activities (e.g. in the energy sector, transport, extractive activities, aquaculture) or through land-use or other spatial plans. Having a strategic plan makes it possible to integrate environmental conditions and requirements, in particular those related to nature conservation, at an early planning stage so that the risk of potential conflicts later on at project level can be avoided or minimised and to determine the feasibility and means of implementing individual developments accordingly. |
| V okviru uporabe člena 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih je s strateškim načrtovanjem precej lažje v večjem obsegu in celovito proučiti možne posledice načrtovanih dejavnosti na območja Natura 2000. Tako se občutljivosti območij upoštevajo že v zgodnji fazi, ko je na voljo več možnosti za doseganje razvojnih ciljev, hkrati pa se zmanjšajo njihovi morebitni vplivi na okolje. To bo na primer pomagalo pri opredelitvi primernih ali neprimernih območij za posamezne dejavnosti in za zmanjšanje tveganja negativnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000 na ravni posameznega projekta. | In the context of applying Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, strategic planning makes it much easier to consider the possible implications of planned activities on Natura 2000 sites at a broader scale and in a comprehensive way. In this way, the sites’ sensitivities are taken into account at an early stage, when more options are available for meeting development objectives while at the same time reducing their potential environmental impacts. This will help, for example, in identifying suitable or unsuitable sites for specific activities and for minimising the risk of potential conflicts with Natura 2000 sites at individual project level. |
| Strateško načrtovanje lahko: | — | spodbudi bolj interaktiven in pregleden postopek načrtovanja ter zgodnji in vsakokratni dialog z ustreznimi organi, interesnimi skupinami itd., kar lahko precej skrajša skupni čas, potreben za postopek za izdajo dovoljenja; | — | zagotovi širši in primernejši okvir za proučitev možnih kumulativnih vplivov z drugimi načrti ali projekti in izvedljive druge ustrezne rešitve; | — | prispeva k preprečitvi ali zmanjšanju morebitnih negativnih vplivov na posamezno območje v poznejši fazi postopka razvoja, ko so dodeljena finančna in pravna sredstva ter je manj manevrskega prostora; | — | nosilcem zagotovi ustrezne informacije in pravno varnost glede okoljskih pomislekov, ki jih je morda treba upoštevati že v začetni zasnovi projekta; | — | postane dolgoročno stroškovno učinkovitejše (če se možni ukrepi za ublažitev upoštevajo v zgodnji fazi načrtovanja, bo njihova vključitev verjetno tehnično enostavnejša in cenejša); | — | vključuje analizo splošnih drugih ustreznih rešitev, kot je uvedba zelene infrastrukture namesto „sive infrastrukture“; vodi do razvoja novih, ustvarjalnih in inovativnih rešitev (vključno s sonaravnimi) ter prinese vsestranske koristi; | — | prispeva k izboljšanju javne podobe projektov in odgovornih ustanov. | Strategic planning can: | — | promote a more interactive and transparent planning process and encourages early and iterative dialogue with relevant authorities, interest groups etc., which may significantly reduce the overall time required for the permitting procedure; | — | provide a broader and more suitable framework for considering potential cumulative effects with other plans or projects, and feasible alternatives; | — | help to avoid or reduce the number of potential site-specific conflicts at a later stage in the development process, when financial and legal resources have been committed and there is less room for manoeuvre; | — | provide developers with relevant information and legal certainty about environmental concerns that may need to be considered already during the initial project concept; | — | be more cost effective in the long run (if possible mitigation measures are factored in at an early planning stage, they are likely to be technically easier and cheaper to integrate); | — | analyse broad alternatives, such as deployment of green infrastructure instead of ‘grey infrastructure’; lead to the development of new, creative and innovative solutions (including nature-based) and potential win-win situations; | — | contribute to improving the public image of the projects and the institutions responsible. |
| Primeri strateškega načrtovanja, ki so pomembni za omrežje Natura 2000, so navedeni v oddelku 5 Priloge k temu dokumentu. | Examples of strategic planning relevant to Natura 2000 are provided in section 5 of the Annex to this document. |
| 4.2 Ustrezna presoja načrtov | 4.2. Appropriate assessment of plans |
| Splošni postopkovni okvir za vključevanje okoljskih vidikov na ravni strateškega načrtovanja je določen s strateško presojo vplivov na okolje (SPVO), kot je določeno v direktivi o strateški presoji vplivov na okolje (43). V skladu s členom 3(2)(b) direktive o strateški presoji vplivov na okolje je treba za načrt izvesti strateško presojo vplivov na okolje, če se šteje, da je zanj potrebna ustrezna presoja v skladu z direktivo o habitatih (tj. če bi lahko načrt pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000 (44)). | The overall procedural framework for the integration of environmental considerations at strategic planning level is set by the strategic environmental assessment (SEA), as stipulated in the SEA Directive (43). According to Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive, a plan has to undergo an SEA if it is deemed to require an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive (i.e. if the plan may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site (44)). |
| Člen 6(3) direktive o habitatih se uporablja za vse načrte, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na območja Natura 2000. Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj in v Napotkih za uporabo člena 6, ima izraz „načrt“ širši pomen, tako da vključuje načrte rabe zemljišč in pomorske prostorske načrte (45) ter sektorske načrte ali programe. | Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive applies to all plans that are likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites. As explained above and in the Article 6 Guide, the term ‘plan’ has a broad meaning, including land-use and maritime spatial plans (45), as well as sectoral plans or programmes. |
| Presoja takšnih načrtov v skladu s členom 6(3) in njihova ustrezna presoja vključujeta enake korake, kot so opisani v poglavju 3 tega dokumenta. Vendar pri presoji načrtov obstajajo tudi nekatere posebnosti, ki so opisane v nadaljevanju. Te posebnosti se nanašajo na možne omejitve in ovire ter primerne pristope, ki se lahko uporabijo za premagovanje težav in negotovosti, povezanih z neobstojem podrobnih informacij ali nezadostno opredelitvijo vseh elementov, sestavnih delov in ukrepov načrta. | The assessment of such plans under Article 6(3) and their appropriate assessment follow the same steps as described in Chapter 3 of this document. However, there are also certain particularities in the assessment of plans, which are described further below. These particularities pertain to possible limitations and constraints and suitable approaches that can be used to overcome the difficulties and uncertainties linked with a lack of detailed information or insufficient definition of all the elements, components and actions of the plan. |
| Področje in obseg ustrezne presoje bosta odvisna od ravni podrobnosti samega načrta, vendar mora biti v vseh primerih cilj presoje opredelitev občutljivih ali ranljivih območij ali drugih možnih tveganj ali negativnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000, tako da se ti lahko upoštevajo v poznejših fazah postopka načrtovanja. | The level of detail of the plan itself will determine the scope and extent of the appropriate assessment, but in all cases the assessment must aim to identify sensitive or vulnerable areas or other potential risks or conflicts with Natura 2000 sites so that these can be taken into account at later stages in the planning process. |
| Občinski ali urbanistični načrti na primer lahko vsebujejo zadostne podrobnosti, ki omogočajo, da se možni škodljivi vplivi na območja Natura 2000 določijo s precejšnjo gotovostjo. Po drugi strani pa je za širše prostorske ali sektorske načrte na regionalni ali nacionalni ravni, kadar lokacija in zasnova vseh glavnih sestavnih delov še nista določeni, morda mogoča le opredelitev možnih vplivov nekaterih ukrepov ali sestavnih delov načrta na splošni ravni, ne da bi bili podrobno opredeljeni na ravni območja. Kljub temu lahko širši načrti pomagajo usmerjati nadaljnji razvoj na območja, na katerih obstaja manjše tveganje možnih negativnih vplivov na območja Natura 2000 (npr. karte občutljivosti za prostoživeče živali). | For instance, municipal or urban plans may contain sufficient details that make it possible to determine potential adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites with a good level of certainty. On the other hand, for wider spatial or sectoral plans at regional or national level, where the location and design of all their main components are not yet decided, it may only be possible to identify potential effects of certain actions or components of the plan at a general level, without specifying them at site level. Nevertheless, wider plans can orientate further developments to areas where there is a lesser risk of potential conflicts with Natura 2000 (e.g. wildlife sensitivity maps.) |
| Presoja bi morala biti sorazmerna z geografskim obsegom načrta, ravnjo podrobnosti načrta ter naravo in obsegom verjetnih vplivov. V nekaterih primerih v tej fazi morda ni mogoče podrobno analizirati vseh možnih vplivov na posamezna območja, vendar je treba izvesti zadostno analizo, da se opredelijo: | The assessment should be proportionate to the geographical scope, to the plan’s level of detail and to the nature and extent of the likely effects. In some cases, it may not be possible to analyse in detail all the possible impacts on individual sites at this stage; however, sufficient analysis must be carried out to identify: |
| — | glavni vplivi na ravni omrežja Natura 2000, vključno z opredelitvijo območij Natura 2000, ki bodo verjetno prizadeta, in možnih vplivov na povezljivost območij ter ob upoštevanju nacionalnih in regionalnih ciljev ohranjanja za vrste in habitate, zavarovane z direktivama o habitatih in pticah, če obstajajo; | — | the main impacts at the level of the Natura 2000 network, including the identification of Natura 2000 sites likely to be affected, as well as possible impacts on the connectivity of the sites, and in light of national or regional conservation objectives for species and habitats protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives, where they exist; |
| — | možni široko zastavljeni ukrepi za ublažitev, kot je izključitev območij z občutljivo biotsko raznovrstnostjo, ali uporaba nekaterih standardov in dobrih praks (npr. najmanjša gostota prehodov za prostoživeče živali, uporaba protihrupne zaščite, upoštevanje obdobij razmnoževanja); | — | possible broad mitigation measures such as exclusion of areas with sensitive biodiversity, or application of certain standards and best practices (e.g. minimum density of wildlife passages, use of noise screens, respecting breeding periods); |
| — | možne druge ustrezne rešitve, vključno z drugimi lokacijami za projekte ali drugimi metodami za doseganje pričakovanih rezultatov (npr. uporaba različnih načinov prevoza ali tehnologij za proizvodnjo energije); | — | possible alternatives, including different locations for projects or different methods to achieve the expected results (e.g. use of different modes of transport or technologies for production of energy); |
| — | možni kumulativni vplivi ob upoštevanju drugih obstoječih ali predlaganih načrtov, programov in strategij. | — | potential cumulative impacts, considering other existing or proposed plans, programmes and strategies. |
| Pri strateških načrtih, za katere ni mogoče opredeliti vplivov na posamezna območja, bi morala biti analiza osredotočena vsaj na možne vplive in glavna tveganja; vplive na posamezno območje bo nato treba analizirati na ravni projekta. V takih primerih bi morala biti ustrezna presoja osredotočena vsaj na določitev območij Natura 2000, na katera bi načrt ali projekt lahko škodljivo vplival, ter vseh zavarovanih habitatov in vrst v EU, ki bi lahko bili prizadeti (tudi zunaj omrežja Natura 2000), vplive na povezljivost, razdrobljenost in druge vplive na ravni omrežja. To bi moralo biti podlaga za določitev obsega in poudarka presoje posameznih projektov. | For strategic plans where it is not possible to identify effects on individual sites, the analysis should as a minimum focus on potential impacts and major risks; site-specific effects will then need to be analysed at project level. In such cases, the appropriate assessment should focus at least on determining the Natura 2000 sites that could be adversely affected as well as any EU protected habitats and species that could be affected (also outside Natura 2000), effects on connectivity, fragmentation and other effects at the network scale. This should serve to orientate the scope and focus of the assessment of individual projects. |
| Če obstaja negotovost glede škodljivih vplivov na ustrezne značilnosti območij Natura 2000 in cilje njihovega ohranjanja, bi bilo morda ustrezno izvesti in evidentirati presojo vplivov, pri kateri se lahko obravnavajo naslednji vidiki: | Where there is uncertainty about adverse effects on relevant features of Natura 2000 sites and their conservation objectives, it may be appropriate to carry out and record a risk assessment, which can consider the following aspects: |
| — | morebitne nevarnosti načrta in njihove verjetne posledice za cilje ohranjanja posebnega ohranitvenega območja ali značilnosti območja, pomembnega za Skupnost/posebnega območja varstva; | — | the potential hazards of the plan and their likely consequences for the conservation objectives of the special area of conservation or site of Community importance / special protection area features; |
| — | za vsako nevarnost verjetnost, da bo nevarnost vplivala na cilje ohranjanja posebnega ohranitvenega območja/posebnega območja varstva; | — | for each hazard, the probability that the hazard will affect the special area of conservation / special protection area’s conservation objectives; |
| — | za vsako nevarnost obseg, verjetno trajanje in ireverzibilnost ali reverzibilnost vpliva (s povzetkom predpostavk ali dokazov, na katerih temelji zadevni sklep). | — | for each hazard, the magnitude, likely duration and irreversibility or reversibility of the effect (recording briefly the assumptions made or evidence used in reaching that conclusion). |
| Vendar je treba upoštevati, da je osnovni cilj vedno preprečiti ali odpraviti vsakršno tveganje škodljivih vplivov na celovitost območij Natura 2000 oziroma odpraviti vse razumne razloge za zaskrbljenost, da bi se takšen škodljiv vpliv lahko pojavil med izvajanjem načrta. | Nevertheless, it should be born in mind that the underlying aim at all times is to avoid or remove any risk of adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, or to remove any reasonable grounds for concern that such an adverse effect may occur when the plan is implemented. |
| S presojo vplivov načrtov iz člena 6(3) in presojo, ki se izvede v skladu z veljavnimi postopki SPVO, se lahko opredelijo dejavnosti ali elementi načrta, ki bodo gotovo škodili celovitosti območij Natura 2000, tudi če se izvedejo ukrepi za ublažitev; takšne dejavnosti ali elementi bi se zato na tej točki lahko izključili iz načrta. S presojo bi se lahko poleg tega zagotovil pregled nad tem, katere druge dejavnosti bi lahko bile škodljive za zavarovane habitate in vrste, ter s tem boljša osredotočenost presoje na ravni projekta. | The assessment of the effects of plans under Article 6(3), and the assessment carried out in accordance with applicable SEA procedures, may identify activities or elements of the plan that are certain to harm the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, even if mitigation is carried out; such activities or elements could therefore be excluded from the plan at this point. The assessment could additionally provide an overview of which other activities may be harmful to protected habitats and species and thus better focus the assessment at project level. |
| Vendar bi morali biti prihodnji projekti, ki bodo izvedeni v okviru načrta, usklajeni z rezultatom ustrezne presoje, izvedene za strateški prostorski/sektorski načrt. To ne nadomešča zahteve po ustrezni presoji prihodnjih projektov, ki izhajajo iz zadevnega načrta. | However, future projects to be implemented under a plan should be in line with the outcome of the appropriate assessment undertaken for the strategic spatial/sectoral plan. This does not replace the requirement for an appropriate assessment of future projects stemming from that plan. |
| Obstajajo jasne povezave in analogije med ustrezno presojo načrtov in strateško okoljsko presojo, ki so obravnavane v oddelku 5. Zato je priporočljivo, da se strateška presoja vplivov na okolje uskladi z ustrezno presojo. Ti presoji sta vzporedna, vendar ločena postopka, ki se običajno prekrivata, pa tudi razlikujeta v več ključnih vidikih. Ustrezna presoja je ožje usmerjena in zahteva strožje preizkuse, njen poudarek pa je na ohranjanju in varstvu območij Natura 2000. Ugotovitve in priporočila ustrezne presoje so obvezni ter morajo biti vključeni v načrt, predložen v sprejetje, in biti njegov sestavni del. Povedano drugače, ugotovitve ustrezne presoje se ne smejo samo upoštevati, ampak so pogoj za odločitev o tem, ali se načrt ali projekt odobri ali ne. | There are clear links and analogies between appropriate assessment of plans and strategic environmental assessment, which are covered in the section 5. Coordination of SEA with appropriate assessment is thus recommended. These are parallel but separate processes that usually overlap but which also differ in a number of key aspects. The appropriate assessment is narrower in focus and requires more rigorous tests, with the conservation and protection of Natura 2000 sites at its core. The findings and recommendations of appropriate assessment are mandatory and must be incorporated into and be part of a plan presented for adoption. In other words, the findings of the appropriate assessment most not just be taken into account, they condition the decision over whether or not to approve the plan or project. |
| Priporočljivo je, da se skozi celoten postopek priprave ali pregleda načrta vodi ločena dokumentacija ustrezne presoje. Dokumentacija bi morala vključevati kopije vseh dokumentov, ki so pomembni za ustrezno presojo, in bo koristna za evidentiranje, kako so bili okoljski vidiki vključeni v načrt. | It is recommended that a separate appropriate assessment file is maintained throughout the entire process of preparing or reviewing a plan. The file should include copies of all documentation relevant to the appropriate assessment and will be useful to record how environmental considerations were integrated into the plan. |
| Morda bi bilo primerno načrtovati nadaljnje spremljanje in ponovno presojo pričakovanih vplivov in tveganj v celotnem obdobju izvajanja načrta. To bo zagotovilo, da bodo napovedi in ocene realistične, pri čemer bodo opredeljeni vsi morebitni novi vplivi, ki niso bili upoštevani zaradi pomanjkanja informacij ali ki se pojavijo zaradi novih elementov ali sprememb načrta. „Končna“ ustrezna presoja vsakega načrta mora temeljiti na njegovi dokončni različici. Če se načrt kadar koli pred sprejetjem bistveno spremeni, bi bilo treba spremembe vsakič znova obravnavati tudi v ustrezni presoji. | It may be appropriate to plan follow-up and a reassessment of the expected effects and risks throughout the plan’s lifetime. This will ensure that the predictions and estimates are realistic and identify any possible new effects that had not been considered due to lack of information or that arise in light of new elements or changes introduced in the plan. The ‘final’ appropriate assessment of any plan must be based on its final version. If the plan changes significantly at any time before adoption, the changes should be also addressed in the appropriate assessment, in an iterative process. |
| 4.3 Kartiranje občutljivosti | 4.3. Sensitivity mapping |
| Opredelitev primernih lokacij ali izključitev neprimernih lokacij je lahko del ustrezne presoje načrtov. Temeljiti mora na ustrezni analizi, v kolikšni meri so zavarovani habitatni tipi in vrste v EU na celotnem območju predlaganega razvoja ranljivi za načrtovane dejavnosti. | Identifying suitable locations or excluding unsuitable locations can be part of the appropriate assessment of plans. It needs to be based on a proper analysis of how far the EU protected habitat types and species present in the whole area of the proposed development are vulnerable to the planned activities. |
| Kartiranje občutljivosti je metoda, ki se pogosto uporablja za opredelitev območij, ki so lahko posebej občutljiva za razvoj sektorskih dejavnosti. Pogosto se na primer uporablja za opredelitev občutljivih območij ptic in netopirjev, ki morda niso primerna za razvoj vetrne energije, ali za opredelitev potencialno spornih območij za industrijske dejavnosti ali gradnjo stanovanj. | Sensitivity mapping is a method often used to identify areas that may be particularly sensitive to development of sectoral activities. It is often used, for instance, to identify sensitive bird and bat areas that may be unsuitable for wind energy developments, or to identify potential conflict areas for industrial activities, or housing developments. |
| Karte občutljivosti se lahko uporabijo v zgodnji fazi postopka načrtovanja za opredelitev območij z ekološkimi združbami, občutljivimi na določen vpliv ali dejavnost. Lahko so podlaga za odločitve o strateškem načrtovanju v začetni fazi izbire lokacije v postopku razvoja in se lahko pripravijo na regionalni, nacionalni ali nadnacionalni ravni. | Sensitivity maps can be used at an early stage in the planning process to identify areas containing ecological communities sensitive to a specific influence or activity. They can inform strategic planning decisions during the initial site selection phase of the development process and can operate at a regional, national or transnational scale. |
| Pristopi s kartiranjem občutljivosti ne nadomeščajo ustrezne presoje za posamezno območje v skladu s členom 6 direktive o habitatih in presoj vplivov na okolje. Lahko pa se uporabijo med ustreznimi presojami/presojami vplivov na okolje in po pridobljenem soglasju za izvedbo, da so podlaga za izbiro lokacije in možne predpise v zvezi z upravljanjem. | Sensitivity mapping approaches do not replace the need for a site-specific appropriate assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and for environmental impact assessments (EIAs). They can, however, be used during the appropriate assessments/EIAs and after the development consent has been delivered to inform siting and possible management prescriptions. |
| Pri kartiranju občutljivosti se uporabljajo geografski informacijski sistemi (GIS) za primerjanje, analiziranje in prikaz prostorskih in geografskih podatkov, ki temeljijo na obstoječih podatkih o prostorski biotski raznovrstnosti v zvezi z vrstami in/ali območji, včasih pa je treba podatke zbrati izrecno za pomoč pri pripravi karte občutljivosti, ki je pomembna za zadevni načrt. | Sensitivity mapping uses geographic information systems (GIS) to collate, analyse and display spatial and geographic data, which are based on existing spatial biodiversity data relating to species and/or sites; however, sometimes data needs to be collected specifically to aid the creation of a sensitivity map that is relevant for the plan in question. |
| Karte občutljivosti je treba redno posodabljati. Pogostost in obseg teh posodobitev sta pomemben vidik, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri zasnovi kart občutljivosti, saj so ekološke združbe dinamične, njihovo vedenje pa je včasih težko predvideti. Zato je treba karte občutljivosti za prostoživeče živali vedno razlagati previdno. | Sensitivity maps need to be regularly updated. The frequency and scale of these updates is an important aspect to consider in the design of sensitivity maps, as ecological communities are dynamic and their behaviour can be sometimes be difficult to predict. Therefore wildlife sensitivity maps should always be interpreted with caution. |
| Komisija je pripravila Priročnik za pripravo kart občutljivosti za prostoživeče živali (46), tj. praktični vodnik za oblikovanje pristopov h kartiranju občutljivosti za tehnologije na področju energije iz obnovljivih virov. Ta priročnik zagotavlja pregled naborov podatkov, metodologij in aplikacij geografskih informacijskih sistemov. Osredotočen je na vrste in habitate, ki so zavarovani na podlagi direktiv EU o naravi, s posebnim poudarkom na pticah, netopirjih in morskih sesalcih. Vključuje tudi pristop v več korakih za pripravo kart občutljivosti za prostoživeče živali, ki je predstavljen v okviru 22 spodaj. | The Commission has produced a Wildlife Sensitivity Mapping Manual (46), a practical guide for developing sensitivity mapping approaches for renewable energy technologies. This manual provides an overview of datasets, methodologies and GIS applications. It focuses on species and habitats protected by the EU Nature Directives, with particular emphasis on birds, bats and marine mammals. It also includes a step-by-step approach for preparing wildlife sensitivity maps, which is presented in Box 22 below. |
| Okvir 22 | Pristop h kartiranju občutljivosti za prostoživeče živali v več korakih | (1) | Opredelite vrste posegov (projekti, dejavnosti, infrastruktura itd.), ki bodo vključene, ter vrste in habitate, ki bodo verjetno prizadeti. V ta namen proučite: | — | vrste/habitate, ki bodo verjetno prisotni med posegom (v kateri koli fazi življenjskega cikla), in vse faze življenja (razmnoževanje, selitev itd.); | — | različne faze posega (npr. gradnja, obratovalna faza) ter povezano infrastrukturo; | — | katere vrste/habitati so občutljivi za poseg; | — | katere vrste/habitate je treba ohraniti (npr. tiste iz direktiv o pticah in habitatih); | — | kako so vrste lahko prizadete: npr. izguba in degradacija habitatov, trk z infrastrukturo, izogibanje, selitev in učinki pregrade. | (2) | Pripravite nabor podatkov o porazdelitvi za občutljive vrste, habitate in druge ustrezne dejavnike. | — | Preglejte, kateri podatki so že na voljo, in se odločite, ali bi bilo treba zbrati dodatne podatke. | — | Če so nabori podatkov prostorsko nepopolni, razmislite o uporabi modeliranja na podlagi napovedovalcev habitatov in krajine za napoved porazdelitve na lokacijah, na katerih je bilo opravljenega premalo vzorčenja. | — | Pomembno je tudi, da se opozori na pomanjkljivosti podatkov in druge metodološke pomanjkljivosti. | (3) | Razvijte sistem točkovanja za občutljivost. | — | Vrstam in habitatom dodelite točke za občutljivost na podlagi ustreznih značilnosti (ranljivost habitata, stanje ohranjenosti, vedenje vrste itd.). | (4) | Izdelajte karto. | — | Opredelite, katera je najustreznejša oblika kartiranja, programska oprema GIS, enota kartiranja itd. | — | Na podlagi ustrezne enote kartiranja izdelajte mrežo, na katero prenesite porazdelitve vrst (ali modele) in po možnosti druge uporabne nabore podatkov, vključno z ustreznimi varovalnimi pasovi. | — | Opredelite vrste, prisotne v vsakem kvadratu mreže. | — | Za vsak kvadrat mreže z uporabo sistema točkovanja za občutljivost vrste izračunajte število točk. | (5) | Razložite karto. | — | Točke za občutljivost združite v kategorije, ki odražajo stopnjo občutljivosti (npr. zelo visoka, visoka, srednja, nizka) ali poseben predpis (npr. prepovedana območja v primerjavi z območji z nizkim tveganjem). | — | Pripravite smernice, v katerih je pojasnjeno, kateri podatki se uporabijo, kako se karta izdela, kako bi jo bilo treba razlagati in kateri pridržki obstajajo v zvezi z razlago. | Box 22 | Step-by-step approach to sensitivity mapping | 1) | Identify the types of developments (projects, activities, infrastructure, etc.) to be included and the species and habitats likely to be affected. To do so consider: | — | species/habitats likely to coincide with development (at any stage of their lifecycle) and consider all life history phases (breeding, migration, etc.) | — | different phases of development (e.g. construction, operational phases) as well as associated infrastructure | — | which species/habitats are sensitive to development | — | which species/habitats are of conservation concern (e.g. those listed within the Birds and Habitats Directives) | — | how species can be affected: e.g. habitat loss and degradation, collision with infrastructure, avoidance, displacement and barrier effects. | 2) | Compile distributional datasets on sensitive species, habitats and other relevant factors. | — | Review what data are already available and decide whether additional data should be collected | — | If the datasets are spatially incomplete, consider using modelling based on habitat and landscape predictors to forecast distribution in under-sampled localities | — | It is also important to highlight data deficiencies and other methodological shortcomings. | 3) | Develop a sensitivity scoring system | — | Assign sensitivity scores to species and habitats based on relevant characteristics (habitat fragility, conservation status, species behaviour, etc.) | 4) | Generate the map | — | Identify what is the most appropriate mapping format, GIS software, mapping unit, etc. | — | Generate a grid based on an appropriate mapping unit and overlay the species distributions (or models) and potentially other useful datasets, including relevant buffer zones | — | Identify the species present within each grid cell | — | For each grid square, calculate a score using the species sensitivity scoring systems. | 5) | Interpret the map | — | Group sensitivity scores in categories indicative of their level of sensitivity (e.g. very high, high, medium, low) or that indicate a particular prescription (e.g. no-go vs low risk areas) | — | Develop guidance material that explains what data are used, how the map is generated, how it should be interpreted and what caveats exist regarding the interpretation. |
| V nadaljevanju so predstavljeni nacionalni primeri kartiranja občutljivosti. | National examples of sensitivity mapping are presented below. |
| Okvir 23 | Nizozemska nacionalna karta občutljivosti na vetrna polja | Nacionalna karta tveganj zaradi vetrnih turbin za Nizozemsko je orodje za prostorsko načrtovanje za zgodnji pregled razvoja vetrnih elektrarn na kopnem. Orodje se osredotoča na populacije kopenskih ptic in vključuje območja ornitološkega pomena, kot so selitvena žarišča, kmetijske krajine z visoko naravno vrednostjo in pomembna gnezdišča. Orodje meri tveganje za vrste ptic v smislu pomembnosti njihovega ohranjanja. Ne vključuje ocenjevanja dovzetnosti vrst za trke. | Podatki so bili zbrani iz različnih virov, vključno z nacionalnim popisom gnezditvenih ptic, štetji vodnih ptic, štetji kolonialnih ptic, podatki iz modela trkov ptic v zraku (BAMBAS, biomasa ptic v letu) ter popisi območij Natura 2000 in posebnimi popisi redkih vrst ptic. Vključena so bila tudi selitvena žarišča. Karte tveganja so bile za posamezne občutljive vrste ali skupine vrst ptic ustvarjene kot posamezne plasti, na primer vodne ptice, travniške ptice, labodi in gosi, območja Natura 2000 in prehranjevališča vrst z rdečega seznama. Iz posameznih plasti se je izdelala končna karta tveganja. | Za vsako „plast“ karte so bili kvadrati mreže na Nizozemskem razvrščeni kot nizko, srednje ali visoko tvegani na podlagi pomena območja in/ali števila vrst na njem. Za vsako vrsto so bili opredeljeni varovalni pasovi, ki so se uporabili na kartah. Točke iz različnih kvadratov mreže so bile združene na končni karti. | To orodje se je izkazalo za zelo koristno orodje za pregled. Čeprav karta prej ni bila sprejeta v nizozemskem sistemu načrtovanja, se kljub temu široko uporablja. | Splošna karta tveganja, ki prikazuje tveganje od najvišjega (vijoličasta) do razmeroma nizkega (svetlo modra) | (Vir: Aarts, B., in Bruinzeel, L., (2009), De nationale windmolenrisicokaart voor vogels. SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland/Altenburg & Wymenga. | https://assets.vogelbescherming.nl/docs/e3b4524d-5cc2-4565-a65e-3226a124837e.pdf?_ga=2.19770104.1164016512.1551712082-129991070.1550147440) | Box 23 | The Netherlands national wind farm sensitivity map | The National Wind Turbine Risk Map for the Netherlands is a spatial mapping tool for the early screening of onshore wind farm developments. The tool focuses on terrestrial bird populations and includes sites of ornithological importance such as migration hotspots, high natural value farmland and important roosting sites. The tool measures risk for bird species in terms of their conservation importance. It does not integrate any assessment of species susceptibility to collision. | Data were compiled from a variety of sources, including the national breeding bird census, water bird counts, colonial bird counts, data from a bird airstrike model (BAMBAS, bird biomass of flying birds), Natura 2000 sites and specific rare bird inventories. Migration hotspots were also integrated. Risk maps were generated for specific sensitive bird species or groups of species as individual layers, for example waterfowl birds, meadow birds, swans and geese, Natura 2000 and Red List species foraging areas. The individual layers were used to compile the final risk map. | For each ‘layer’ of the map, the grid cells in the Netherlands were classified as being of low, moderate or high risk based on the site’s importance and/or number of species present. Buffer zones were identified for each species and applied to the maps. The scores from the various grid cells were aggregated in the final map. | This tool has proved to be very useful as a screening tool. While the map has not been formerly adopted within the Dutch planning system, it is still widely used. | Overall risk map illustrating risk from highest (purple) to relatively low risk (light blue) | (Source: Aarts, B. and Bruinzeel, L. (2009) De nationale windmolenrisicokaart voor vogels. SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland/Altenburg & Wymenga | https://assets.vogelbescherming.nl/docs/e3b4524d-5cc2-4565-a65e-3226a124837e.pdf?_ga=2.19770104.1164016512.1551712082-129991070.1550147440) |
| Okvir 24 | Orodje za kartiranje občutljivosti za hidroenergetski razvoj v Avstriji | Za hidroenergetski razvoj bi se moral uporabljati strateški pristop, da bi se lahko zaščitili preostali pomembni, občutljivi in nedotaknjeni odseki reke. V podporo temu je Svetovni sklad za naravo (WWF) pripravil strateški načrt, da bi zagotovil tehnično zanesljivo podlago za odločanje pri presoji potrebe po varstvu avstrijskih rek (WWF Ökomasterplan, 2009). Študija je bila objavljena leta 2009, v njej pa je bil prvič ocenjen ekološki pomen 53 največjih rek v Avstriji, katerih prispevna površina je večja od 500 kvadratnih kilometrov. V njej so bili predstavljeni tudi uradni podatki analize trenutnega stanja, ki jo je izvedlo ministrstvo, pristojno za izvajanje okvirne direktive EU o vodah in zagotavljanje informacij, povezanih z ohranjanjem, kot so informacije o območjih Natura 2000 in drugih zavarovanih območjih. | Vsak od vodnih odsekov je bil razvrščen in določen po pomembnosti glede na različna merila izbire (npr. ekološko stanje, stanje na zavarovanih območjih, hidromorfologija, dolžina povezanega prosto tekočega odseka vodotoka), pri čemer je bil vsak rečni odsek razvrščen glede na naslednje razrede občutljivosti: | — | razred občutljivosti 1: vreden zelo velikega varstva zaradi ekološkega stanja; | — | razred občutljivosti 2: vreden zelo velikega varstva zaradi stanja v rezervatih; | — | razred občutljivosti 3: vreden velikega varstva zaradi morfologije; | — | razred občutljivosti 4: vreden velikega varstva zaradi dolžine povezanega prosto tekočega odseka vodotoka; | — | razred občutljivosti 5: pogojno vreden varstva, saj manjka podatkovna podlaga za presojo stanja okolja; | — | razred občutljivosti 6: pogojno vreden varstva; | — | razred občutljivosti 7: malo vreden varstva; | — | razred občutljivosti 8: obstoječa gospodarska raba energije; | — | manjkajoči podatki (ekološko stanje, hidromorfologija). | Box 24 | A sensitivity mapping tool for hydropower development in Austria | Hydropower developments should follow a strategic approach so that the remaining significant, sensitive and intact stretches of a river can be safeguarded. To support this, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) prepared a master plan to provide a technically sound decision basis for assessing the need to protect Austrian waters (WWF Ökomasterplan, 2009). The study was published in 2009 and assessed, for the first time, the ecological significance of 53 of the largest rivers in Austria with a catchment area larger than 500 square kilometres. It also presented the official data of the current status analysis of the ministry responsible for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive and providing conservation-related information, such as on Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas. | Each of the water stretches was categorised and prioritised in order of importance according to different selection criteria (for example, ecological status, situation in protected areas, hydromorphology, length of contiguous free flow path) and each river stretch was ranked according to the following sensitivity classes: | — | Sensitivity class 1: very high merit protection based on the ecological status | — | Sensitivity class 2: very high merit protection due to the situation in reserve(s) | — | Sensitivity class 3: highly deserving of protection on the basis of morphology | — | Sensitivity class 4: highly worthy of protection due to length of contiguous free flow | — | Sensitivity class 5: potentially worthy of protection as there is no existing database for environmental condition assessment | — | Sensitivity class 6: potentially worthy of protection | — | Sensitivity class 7: low merit protection | — | Sensitivity class 8: existing energy economic use | — | Data deficient (ecological status, hydromorphology) |
| Okvir 25 | Spletne platforme za presojo kart občutljivosti na Irskem | Spletne platforme omogočajo hitro in interaktivno prostorsko proučitev okoljskih občutljivosti in morebitnih spornih rab zemljišč. Podpirajo lahko strateško presojo vplivov na okolje in ustrezno presojo ter konec koncev utemeljeno načrtovanje in odločanje. Portal irskega podatkovnega središča za biotsko raznovrstnost na primer prek spletnega orodja zagotavlja dostop do karte občutljivosti ptic na vetrno energijo. | Vir: https://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/Map. | Box 25 | Online platforms to access sensitivity maps in Ireland | A web platform enables rapid and interactive spatial examination of environmental sensitivities and potential for land-use conflicts. These can support strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment and, ultimately, informed planning and decision-making. As an example, the Irish Biodiversity Data Centre portal provides access to the bird sensitivity map to wind energy through an online web tool. | Source: https://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/Map |
| 4.4 Posvetovanje in dialog pri strateškem načrtovanju | 4.4. Consultation and dialogue in strategic planning |
| Ob prepoznavanju koristi dialoga in posvetovanja vse več načrtovalcev zdaj uvaja bolj interaktiven in preglednejši postopek načrtovanja. Ta pristop spodbuja zgodnje posvetovanje z okoljskimi organi in deležniki kot pomemben element pri zagotavljanju oblikovanja sprejemljivih in trajnostnih rešitev. | Recognising the benefits of dialogue and consultation, more and more planners are now adopting a more interactive and transparent planning process. This approach encourages early consultation with environmental authorities and stakeholders as an important element in ensuring that acceptable and sustainable solutions are found. |
| Posvetovanje med strateškim načrtovanjem je enako pomembno tudi pri doseganju skupnega razumevanja perečih vprašanj. Spodbuja tudi večje sodelovanje pri iskanju rešitev (tj. morebitnih drugih ustreznih rešitev ali ukrepov za ublažitev) za ekološke vplive, opredeljene v presoji načrta. | Consultation during strategic planning is equally important in reaching a common understanding of the issues at stake. It also encourages greater cooperation in the search for solutions (i.e. possible alternatives or mitigation measures) to the ecological effects identified in the plan assessment. |
| Posvetovanje in dialog z naravovarstvenimi organi že od samega začetka sta ključna za opredelitev morebitnih tveganj ter negativnih vplivov na občutljiva območja in vrste, za boljše razumevanje ranljivosti habitatov in vrst zaradi načrtovanih razvojnih projektov ter za določitev obsega in izvedbo ustrezne presoje. V skladu z direktivo o SPVO se zahteva tudi posvetovanje z drugimi organi, nevladnimi organizacijami, skupinami deležnikov in javnostjo (glej okvir na str. 47 o sodelovanju javnosti na podlagi direktiv o PVO in SPVO). | Consultation and dialogue with nature authorities from the outset is essential in order to identify possible risks and conflicts with sensitive areas and species, to better understand the vulnerability of habitats and species to the planned developments and to scope and carry out an appropriate assessment. Consultation with other authorities, NGOs, stakeholder groups and the public is also required under the SEA Directive (see box on p. 47 on public participation under the EIA and SEA Directives). |
| Sodelovanje je pomembno v fazi opredelitve načrta ter med interaktivnim in vsakokratnim postopkom oblikovanja realističnih drugih ustreznih rešitev za problematična področja. V zvezi s tem je pomembno opredeliti deležnike in jih vključiti v posvetovanje, saj to zagotavlja, da se v postopku strateškega načrtovanja upoštevajo vsa ustrezna spoznanja in informacije o vseh možnih negativnih vplivih. | Participation is important in the definition phase of the plan and during the interactive and iterative process of working out realistic alternative solutions for problematic areas. In this respect, it is important to identify stakeholders and involve them in the consultations as this ensures that the strategic planning process takes into account all the relevant knowledge and information about any potential conflicts. |
| Nosilci projektov in pristojni organi bi morali čim prej tesno sodelovati, če se predvideva možnost uporabe odstopanja na podlagi člena 6(4). To je lahko na začetku priprave predloga oziroma takoj, ko postane jasno, da bo morda potrebno odstopanje. Zagotoviti bi morali tudi, da se pogoji za odstopanje v celoti proučijo in dokumentirajo, saj bo to pomagalo preprečiti zamude v postopku odločanja ter zagotovilo pregledno in trdno odločitev. | Developers and competent authorities should engage closely at the earliest possible stage if it is anticipated that an Article 6(4) derogation will be considered. This might be in the early stages of developing a proposal, or otherwise as soon as it becomes clear that a derogation may be needed. They should also ensure that the conditions for derogation are fully explored and documented, since this will help avoid delays to the decision-making process and ensure a transparent and robust decision. |
| 5. POVEZAVE Z DRUGIMI POSTOPKI OKOLJSKIH PRESOJ: PVO, SPVO, OKVIRNA DIREKTIVA O VODAH | 5. LINKS WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES: EIA, SEA, WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE |
| 5.1 Poenostavitev okoljskih presoj | 5.1. Streamlining environmental assessments |
| Okoljska presoja je postopek, ki zagotavlja, da se pred sprejetjem odločitev upoštevajo posledice odločitev za okolje. Več zakonodajnih aktov EU vsebuje določbe o postopkih okoljske presoje. Poleg člena 6 direktive o habitatih to zlasti velja za direktivo o presoji vplivov na okolje (PVO) (47), direktivo o strateški presoji vplivov na okolje (SPVO) (48) in člen 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah (49). | Environmental assessment is a procedure that ensures that the environmental implications of decisions are taken into account before the decisions are made. Several pieces of EU legislation contain provisions on environmental assessment procedures. Besides Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, this is in particular the case of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (47), the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (48) and Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD (49)). |
| Povezovanje in usklajevanje zahtev glede okoljske presoje iz teh direktiv lahko znatno prispevata k izboljšanju učinkovitosti postopkov izdaje dovoljenj s področja okolja. Direktiva o presoji vplivov na okolje vključuje določbe o poenostavitvi postopkov presoje, povezanih z okoljskimi vprašanji, ki se zahtevajo v skladu z različnimi direktivami EU, vključno z direktivo o habitatih in okvirno direktivo o vodah. Izrecno se zahteva, da države članice, kjer je to ustrezno, zagotovijo, da so zagotovljeni usklajeni in/ali skupni postopki, ki izpolnjujejo zahteve iz zadevne zakonodaje Unije (člen 2(3) direktive o PVO). | The integration and coordination of the environmental assessment requirements of these directives can greatly contribute to improving the efficiency of environmental permitting procedures. The EIA Directive includes provisions on streamlining the assessment procedures related to environmental issues required under various EU directives, including the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. It requires specifically that Member States, where appropriate, ensure that coordinated and/or joint procedures fulfilling the requirements of that Union legislation are provided (Article 2(3) of the EIA Directive). |
| Določbe za usklajene ali skupne postopke okoljske presoje, ki hkrati izhajajo iz direktive o SPVO in druge zakonodaje EU, so navedene tudi v členu 11(2) direktive o SPVO. Namenjene so preprečevanju podvajanja presoj, pri čemer ne vplivajo na posamezne zahteve vsake direktive. | Provisions for coordinated or joint environmental assessment procedures arising simultaneously from the SEA Directive and other EU legislation are also set out in Article 11(2) of the SEA Directive. They aim to avoid duplication of assessments, without prejudice to the specific requirements of each directive. |
| Komisija je izdala smernice za poenostavitev okoljskih presoj (50). | The Commission has issued a guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments (50). |
| 5.2 Presoja vplivov na okolje, strateška presoja vplivov na okolje in ustrezna presoja | 5.2. Environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and the appropriate assessment |
| Direktivi o PVO in SPVO določata, da je treba za načrte in programe, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje, pred njihovo odobritvijo ali pridobitvijo dovoljenja zanje izvesti okoljsko presojo. | The EIA and SEA Directives require that projects, and plans and programmes, likely to have significant effects on the environment undergo environmental assessment prior to their approval or authorisation. |
| Zahteva po presoji pomembnih vplivov načrtov ali projektov lahko hkrati izhaja iz direktive o PVO ali direktive o SPVO in člena 6(3) direktive o habitatih. V tem primeru lahko postopki presoje in izdaje dovoljenj potekajo skupaj ali usklajeno, kot je določeno v direktivah o PVO in SPVO. Vendar presoje, izvedene v skladu s tema direktivama, ne morejo nadomestiti postopka in obveznosti iz člena 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih, saj noben postopek nima prednosti pred drugim. | The requirement to assess the significant effects of plans or projects may arise jointly under the SEA or EIA Directives and Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. In that case the assessment and permitting procedures can run jointly or in coordination, as provided for by the EIA and SEA Directives. However, assessments carried out pursuant to these Directives cannot replace the procedure and obligations provided for in Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, as neither procedure overrides the other. |
| O ustrezni presoji se lahko poroča bodisi v poročilu o PVO ali SPVO bodisi v ločenem poročilu. V vsakem primeru morajo biti informacije in ugotovitve, pomembne za ustrezno presojo, ločene ter jih mora biti mogoče razlikovati od informacij in ugotovitev iz PVO ali SPVO. To je nujno, ker obstaja več pomembnih razlik med postopki PVO/SPVO in ustrezne presoje (glej oddelek 5.2.2 spodaj). | An appropriate assessment can be reported either within the EIA or SEA report or in a separate report. In either case, the information and conclusions relevant to the appropriate assessment must be distinguishable and differentiated from those of the EIA or SEA. This is necessary as there are a number of important distinctions between the EIA/SEA and appropriate assessment procedures (see (5.2.2 below). |
| Bistveno je, da informacije, pomembne za ustrezno presojo in njene ugotovitve, ostanejo jasno ločene in prepoznavne v poročilu o presoji vplivov na okolje, tako da jih je mogoče razlikovati od informacij iz splošne PVO ali SPVO. To je nujno, ker obstaja več pomembnih razlik med postopki PVO/SPVO in ustrezne presoje, kar pomeni, da SPVO ali PVO ne more nadomestiti ali zamenjati ustrezne presoje, saj noben postopek nima prednosti pred drugim. | Glej Napotke za uporabo člena 6 – oddelek 4.6.1. | It is essential that the information relevant to the appropriate assessment and its conclusions remain clearly distinguishable and identifiable in the environmental impact assessment report so that they can be differentiated from those of the general EIA or SEA. This is necessary as there are a number of important distinctions between the EIA/SEA and the appropriate assessment procedures, which means that an SEA or an EIA cannot replace, or be a substitute for, an appropriate assessment as neither procedure overrides the other . | See the Article 6 Guide – section 4.6.1. |
| 5.2.1 Priložnosti za poenostavitev PVO/SPVO in ustrezne presoje ter koristi takšne poenostavitve | 5.2.1. Opportunities for and benefits of streamlining EIA/SEA and appropriate assessment |
| Poenostavitev PVO/SPVO in ustrezne presoje ima več prednosti. Prispeva lahko na primer k boljšemu razumevanju povezav med različnimi okoljskimi dejavniki, preprečuje podvajanje presoj, prispeva k učinkovitejši uporabi virov, potrebnih za izvedbo presoj, in omogoča boljšo usklajenost pri postopkih izdaje dovoljenj. | There are several advantages to streamlining EIA/SEA and appropriate assessments. They can, for instance, help to better understand the relationships between different environmental factors, avoid duplication of assessments, contribute to making more efficient use of resources needed to carry out the assessments, and enable better coordination in permitting procedures. |
| Med ključnimi elementi za učinkovito poenostavitev ustrezne presoje in PVO/SPVO so: | Key elements for effective streamlining of appropriate assessment and EIA/SEA include: |
| — | tesno sodelovanje med pristojnimi organi; | — | close cooperation between responsible authorities; |
| — | ustrezna določitev obsega, kar je običajna praksa pri postopkih PVO in SPVO; | — | adequate scoping, which is a common practice in the EIA and SEA procedures; |
| — | tesno sodelovanje in ustrezna izmenjava informacij med strokovnjaki, ki pripravljajo PVO/SPVO, in strokovnjaki, ki izvajajo ustrezno presojo (npr. informacije o vprašanjih hrupa, zraka, vode ali tal, ki jih zadevni strokovnjak izmenja s strokovnjakom s področja biotske raznovrstnosti); | — | close cooperation and proper information exchange between the experts preparing the EIA/SEA and the experts conducting the appropriate assessment (e.g. information about noise, air, water, soil issues by the respective expert to the expert in biodiversity); |
| — | nadzor kakovosti s strani pristojnega organa; | — | quality control by the competent authority; |
| — | jasne in ločene ugotovitve za posamezni poenostavljeni postopek presoje. | — | clear and distinct conclusions for each of the streamlined assessment procedures. |
| Več določb direktiv o PVO in SPVO zadeva ustrezno presojo iz člena 6(3) ter lahko prispeva k njeni kakovosti v okviru poenostavljenega izvajanja. Mednje spadajo: | Several provisions of the EIA and SEA Directives are relevant to the Article 6(3) appropriate assessment and can contribute to its quality in the context of streamlined implementation. They include: |
| Določanje obsega: | Scoping: |
| „Na zahtevo nosilca projekta pristojni organ […] izda mnenje o obsegu in stopnji podrobnosti informacij, ki jih mora nosilec projekta vključiti v poročilo o presoji vplivov na okolje“ (člen 5(2) direktive o PVO). | ‘Where requested by the developer, the competent authority […] shall issue an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included by the developer in the environmental impact assessment report’ (Article 5(2), EIA Directive). |
| Direktiva SPVO določa obvezno posvetovanje z organi, pristojnimi na področju okolja, da se izboljša kakovost okoljskega poročila: „Pri odločanju o obsegu in natančnosti informacij, ki morajo biti vključene v okoljsko poročilo, se je treba posvetovati z organi iz člena 6(3)“ (člen 5(4) direktive o SPVO). | The SEA Directive provides for mandatory consultation of the authorities with powers in the field of the environment, aiming to improve the quality of the environmental report: ‘The authorities referred to in Article 6(3) shall be consulted when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information which must be included in the environmental report’ (Article 5(4), SEA Directive). |
| Zagotavljanje kakovosti in popolnosti presoje: | Ensuring quality and completeness of the assessment: |
| „Nosilec projekta zagotovi, da poročilo o presoji vplivov na okolje pripravijo usposobljeni strokovnjaki; pristojni organ zagotovi, da ima na voljo zadostno strokovno znanje za preučitev poročila o presoji vplivov na okolje ali po potrebi lahko dostopa do njega, pristojni organ po potrebi od nosilca projekta zahteva dodatne informacije, […] , ki so neposredno pomembne za pripravo obrazloženega sklepa o pomembnih vplivih projekta na okolje“ (člen 5(3) direktive o PVO). | ‘The developer shall ensure that the environmental impact assessment report is prepared by competent experts; the competent authority shall ensure that it has, or has access as necessary to, sufficient expertise to examine the environmental impact assessment report; and where necessary, the competent authority shall seek from the developer supplementary information, […] which is directly relevant to reaching the reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment’ (Article 5(3), EIA Directive). |
| Posvetovanje in sodelovanje javnosti: | Consultation and public participation: |
| „Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovijo, da imajo organi, ki bodo projekt verjetno obravnavali zaradi svojih posebnih okoljskih odgovornosti ali lokalnih in regionalnih pristojnosti, možnost izraziti svoje mnenje o informacijah, ki jih je predložil nosilec projekta, in o prošnji za soglasje za izvedbo […] Za učinkovito sodelovanje zadevne javnosti v postopkih odločanja se jo elektronsko in z javnimi objavami ali drugimi sredstvi obvesti o naslednjih zadevah že na začetni stopnji postopka sprejemanja odločitev o okoljskih vprašanjih […], najpozneje pa takrat, ko se informacije razumno lahko predložijo“ (člen 6 direktive o PVO). | ‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities or local and regional competences are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent… In order to ensure the effective participation of the public concerned in the decision-making procedures, the public shall be informed electronically and by public notices or by other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided’ (Article 6, EIA Directive). |
| „Države članice zagotovijo, da so vse njihove ugotovitve […] [v zvezi s tem], ali je verjetno, da bodo načrti ali programi […] znatno vplivali na okolje, […] javnosti dostopne skupaj z razlogi, zakaj okoljska presoja […] ni potrebna“ (člen 3 direktive o SPVO). | ‘Member States shall ensure that their conclusions […] on whether plans or programmes are likely to have significant environmental effects […], including the reasons for not requiring an environmental assessment […], are made available to the public’ (Article 3, SEA Directive). |
| „Organom […] in javnosti […] je treba dovolj zgodaj dati učinkovito priložnost, da v ustreznih rokih podajo svoje mnenje o osnutku načrta ali programa in spremljajočem okoljskem poročilu, preden se načrt ali program sprejme ali vloži v zakonodajni postopek. Države članice določijo organe, s katerimi se je treba posvetovati in ki jih bodo verjetno zadevali okoljski vplivi izvajanja načrtov in programov zaradi njihovih posebnih okoljskih nalog. Države članice opredelijo pojem javnost […], vključno z javnostjo, ki jo bo ali bi jo lahko odločanje po tej direktivi prizadelo ali ki ima interes pri takem odločanju, skupaj z ustreznimi nevladnimi organizacijami, kakršne so organizacije, ki spodbujajo varstvo okolja, in drugimi zadevnimi organizacijami“ (člen 6 direktive o SPVO). | ‘The authorities […] and the public […] shall be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme or its submission to the legislative procedure. Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes. Member States shall identify the public […], including the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the decision-making subject to this Directive, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those promoting environmental protection and other organisations concerned.’ (Article 6, SEA Directive). |
| Spremljanje: | Monitoring: |
| „[D]ržave članice zagotovijo, da nosilec projekta izvaja vidike projekta in/ali predvidene ukrepe za preprečevanje ali zmanjševanje in po možnosti izravnavanje pomembnih škodljivih vplivov na okolje, ter določijo postopke za spremljanje pomembnih škodljivih vplivov na okolje“ (člen 8a direktive o PVO). | ‘Member States shall ensure that the features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment are implemented by the developer, and shall determine the procedures regarding the monitoring of significant adverse effects on the environment’ (Article 8a, EIA Directive). |
| „Države članice spremljajo in nadzorujejo znatne okoljske vplive izvajanja načrtov in programov, da med drugim dovolj zgodaj ugotovijo nepredvidene škodljive vplive in da lahko sprejmejo ustrezne sanacijske ukrepe“ (člen 10 direktive o SPVO). | ‘Member States shall monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action’ (Article 10, SEA Directive). |
| Obveščanje javnosti in organi, s katerimi se opravi posvetovanje: | Information to the public and consulted authorities: |
| „Ko je sprejeta odločitev za izdajo ali zavrnitev soglasja za izvedbo, pristojni organ ali organi […] o tem nemudoma obvestijo javnost in organe [ki jih bo projekt verjetno zadeval] ter zagotovijo, da so […] na voljo naslednje informacije […]: vsebino odločitve in vsakršne z njo povezane pogoje […]; glavne razloge in ugotovitve, na katerih temelji ta odločitev“ (člen 9 direktive o PVO). | ‘When a decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken, the competent authority or authorities shall promptly inform the public and the authorities [likely to be concerned by the project] thereof, […] and shall ensure that the following information is available…: the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto […]; the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based’ (Article 9, EIA Directive). |
| Nasprotje interesov: | Conflict of interest: |
| „Države članice zagotovijo, da so pristojni organ ali organi objektivni pri opravljanju nalog, ki izhajajo iz te direktive, in da se ne znajdejo v nasprotju interesov. Če je pristojni organ tudi nosilec projekta, države članice v okviru svoje ureditve upravnih pristojnosti uvedejo v zvezi z opravljanjem nalog na podlagi te direktive vsaj ustrezno ločitev funkcij, pri katerih obstaja nasprotje interesov“ (člen 9a direktive o PVO). | ‘Member States shall ensure that the competent authority or authorities perform the duties arising from this Directive in an objective manner and do not find themselves in a situation giving rise to a conflict of interest. Where the competent authority is also the developer, Member States shall at least implement, within their organisation of administrative competences, an appropriate separation between conflicting functions when performing the duties arising from this Directive.’ (Article 9a, EIA Directive) |
| Čezmejni vplivi: | Transboundary impacts: |
| Člen 7 direktive o PVO vsebuje določbe za presojo projektov s čezmejnimi vplivi, vključno z zahtevami po obveščanju druge države članice, kadar so predvideni verjetni pomembni vplivi načrta ali projekta na to državo članico. Država članica, ki bi lahko bila prizadeta, lahko nato sodeluje pri presoji, če to želi. EU je podpisala Konvencijo o presoji čezmejnih vplivov na okolje (Konvencija iz Espooja). Da bi se uskladili in olajšali postopki presoje za čezmejne projekte ter zlasti izvedla posvetovanja v skladu s Konvencijo, lahko zadevne države članice ustanovijo skupni organ, v katerem so enakovredno zastopane. | Article 7 of the EIA Directive sets the provisions for assessing projects with transboundary impacts, including the requirements to inform another Member State where likely significant effects of a plan or project are envisaged on that Member State. The Member State that may be affected can then participate in the assessment if it so wishes. The EU has signed the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention). In order to coordinate and facilitate the assessment procedures for cross-border projects, and in particular to conduct consultations in accordance with the Convention, the Member States concerned may set up a joint body, on the basis of equal representation. |
| Čezmejna posvetovanja so predvidena in zakonsko urejena tudi z direktivo o SPVO (člen 7). Te določbe o čezmejnih posvetovanjih so zelo pomembne tudi v smislu splošnih ciljev direktiv o pticah in habitatih ter omrežja Natura 2000. Zagotavljajo namreč pomembno preventivno orodje med ustrezno presojo načrta ali projekta, katerega škodljivi vplivi bi lahko ogrozili te cilje v sosednji državi članici. | Transboundary consultations are also envisaged and regulated under the SEA Directive (Article 7). These provisions on transboundary consultations are also highly relevant in terms of the overall goals of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Natura 2000 network. This is because they provide an important preventive tool during the appropriate assessment of a plan or project whose adverse effects could jeopardise these goals in a neighbouring Member State. |
| 5.2.2 Posebne značilnosti ustrezne presoje in razlike v primerjavi s postopki PVO/SPVO | 5.2.2. Specific features of the appropriate assessment and differences with EIA/SEA procedures |
| Čeprav je poenostavitev okoljskih presoj iz direktive o habitatih in direktive o PVO ali direktive o SPVO v večini primerov koristna in priporočljiva, je treba upoštevati posebne značilnosti in razlike glede obsega in poudarka posameznih presoj. Razlikujejo se lahko tudi uporaba nekaterih pogojev in posledice presoj. Natančneje: | While the streamlining of environmental assessments under the Habitats Directive and the EIA or SEA Directives is beneficial and recommended in most cases, it is important to keep in mind the specific features and differences in the scope and focus of the respective assessments. The use of certain terms and the consequences from the assessments can also be different. In particular: |
| — | Ustrezna presoja je osredotočena na varstvo območij Natura 2000, tj. območij velikega pomena za ohranjanje biotske raznovrstnosti na evropski ravni, zato zahteva strožje preizkuse. Njeni sklepi so zavezujoči, in sicer določajo, ali je načrt ali projekt mogoče odobriti ali ne (pristojni organi lahko soglašajo z načrtom ali projektom šele potem, ko se prepričajo, da ne bo škodoval celovitosti zadevnega območja). Po drugi strani pa se rezultati PVO ali SPVO upoštevajo v postopku soglasja za izvedbo ali pri pripravi in sprejetju načrta. | — | The appropriate assessment is focused on the protection of Natura 2000 sites, i.e. areas of high biodiversity value of European importance, and therefore requires more rigorous tests. Its conclusions are binding in that they determine whether a plan or project can be authorised or not (the competent authorities can agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site). On the other hand, the results of the EIA or SEA shall be taken into account in the development consent procedure or in the plan preparation and adoption. |
| — | V okviru usklajenih ali skupnih postopkov bi bilo smiselno izvesti ustrezno presojo že v zgodnejši fazi postopka. S tem bi se izognili potencialno dragemu in dolgotrajnemu postopku PVO/SPVO, če so sklepi ustrezne presoje že negativni, kar pomeni, da v skladu z določbami člena 6(3) dovoljenja ni mogoče izdati (razen če se lahko načrt ali projekt izvede v skladu z določbami člena 6(4)). | — | In the context of coordinated or joint procedures it would make sense to carry out the appropriate assessment earlier in the process. This would avoid a potentially costly and lengthy EIA/SEA procedure if the conclusions of the appropriate assessment are already negative, meaning authorisation cannot be granted in accordance with the Article 6(3) provisions (unless the plan or project can go ahead under the Article 6(4) provisions). |
| — | V skladu z direktivo o PVO so predvideni ukrepi za ublažitev in izravnalni ukrepi za preprečevanje ali zmanjševanje in po možnosti izravnavanje verjetnih pomembnih škodljivih vplivov na okolje, zlasti na vrste in habitate, zavarovane na podlagi direktiv o pticah in habitatih. Tako se lahko izravnalni ukrepi obravnavajo tudi v okviru ublažitvene hierarhije za izravnavo preostalih vplivov, da se prepreči morebitna čista izguba biotske raznovrstnosti. | Nasprotno pa se v primeru načrtov in projektov, ki so predmet presoje v skladu z direktivo o habitatih, ukrepi za ublažitev, namenjeni preprečitvi ali zmanjšanju pomembnih škodljivih vplivov na celovitost območja, obravnavajo v okviru ustrezne presoje iz člena 6(3), medtem ko se izravnalni ukrepi, namenjeni izravnavi preostalih vplivov, uporabijo kot zadnja možnost v okviru postopka iz člena 6(4). To bi se zgodilo, če bi bila kljub negativnemu sklepu ustrezne presoje sprejeta odločitev o začetku izvajanja načrta ali projekta. V takšnem primeru je treba najprej dokazati, da ne obstaja nobena druga ustrezna rešitev, s katero bi se preprečil vpliv na celovitost območij Natura 2000, in da je načrt ali projekt utemeljen z nujnimi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa. | — | Under the EIA Directive, mitigation and compensation measures are envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Thus, compensation measures can also be considered in the context of the mitigation hierarchy to offset residual impacts with the aim to avoid any net loss of biodiversity. | By contrast, in the case of plans and projects assessed under the Habitats Directive, mitigation measures to avoid, prevent or reduce significant adverse effects on the site’s integrity are considered under the Article 6(3) appropriate assessment, but compensatory measures to offset residual impacts are used as a last resort only under the procedure of Article 6(4). This would take place if it is decided to proceed with the plan or project despite the negative conclusion of the appropriate assessment. In such case, it must first be demonstrated that no alternative solutions exist that would avoid affecting the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and that the plan or project is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. |
| — | Poleg tega, kar zadeva fazo presoje, v kateri se obravnavajo „ukrepi za ublažitev“, se lahko v skladu z direktivo o PVO ublažitev upošteva že v fazi pregleda. Takih ukrepov ni mogoče obravnavati v fazi „pregleda“ postopka iz člena 6(3), ampak šele ko so analizirani škodljivi vplivi v fazi dejanske ustrezne presoje. | — | Furthermore, as regards the stage of the assessment when ‘mitigation measures’ are considered, under the EIA Directive mitigation can be taken into account already at the screening stage. Such measures cannot be considered in the ‘screening’ stage of the Article 6(3) procedure, but only when adverse effects are analysed in the actual appropriate assessment stage. |
| Ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti z namenom izogibanja, preprečitve, zmanjšanja in, kjer je mogoče, izravnave pomembnih škodljivih učinkov na okolje, zlasti v zvezi z vrstami in habitati, zaščitenimi z Direktivo Sveta 92/43/EGS in Direktivo 2009/147/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, bi morali prispevati k preprečevanju poslabšanja kakovosti okolja in vsakršne čiste izgube biotske raznovrstnosti. […] | Države članice bi morale zagotoviti izvajanje blažilnih in kompenzacijskih ukrepov ter določitev ustreznih postopkov v zvezi s spremljanjem pomembnih negativnih vplivov na okolje, ki izhajajo iz gradnje in obratovanja projekta, med drugim zaradi ugotavljanja nepredvidenih pomembnih negativnih vplivov in izvajanja ustreznih popravnih ukrepov. | Direktiva o PVO. Preambula (Direktiva 2014/52/EU, uvodni izjavi 11 in 35). | The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity. […] | Member States should ensure that mitigation and compensation measures are implemented, and that appropriate procedures are determined regarding the monitoring of significant adverse effects on the environment resulting from the construction and operation of a project, inter alia, to identify unforeseen significant adverse effects, in order to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. | EIA Directive. Preamble (Directive 2014/52/EU, recitals 11 and 35). |
| 5.2.3 Povezava med SPVO/PVO/ustrezno presojo in strogimi določbami direktiv o naravi, ki se nanašajo na varstvo vrst | 5.2.3. Relationship between SEA/EIA/appropriate assessment and the strict species protection provisions of the Nature Directives |
| Člen 3 direktive o PVO določa, da „[p]resoja vplivov na okolje na primeren način glede na vsak posamezni primer opredeli, opiše in presodi neposredne in posredne pomembne vplive projekta na naslednje dejavnike: [...] (b) biotsko raznovrstnost, s posebnim poudarkom na vrste in habitate, ki so zavarovani v skladu z Direktivo 92/43/EGS in Direktivo 2009/147/ES“. Podobne določbe veljajo za načrte v skladu s členom 5(1) direktive o SPVO. | Article 3 of the EIA Directive stipulates that ‘the environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors: […] (b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC’. Similar provisions are applicable to plans pursuant to Article 5(1) of the SEA Directive. |
| Ob tej priložnosti je treba opozoriti, da je z direktivama o pticah in habitatih poleg varstva območij, ki ga urejata člen 4 direktive o pticah in člen 6 direktive o habitatih, vzpostavljen tudi sistem strogega varstva nekaterih vrst na njihovem celotnem naravnem območju razširjenosti v EU, tj. na območjih Natura 2000 in zunaj njih. Ti varstveni ukrepi se uporabljajo za vrste, navedene v Prilogi IV k direktivi o habitatih, in vse vrste prostoživečih ptic v EU. Natančni pogoji so določeni v členu 5 direktive o pticah ter členu 12 (za živali) in členu 13 (za rastline) direktive o habitatih. | On this occasion it is important to note that the Birds and Habitats Directives, in addition to site protection regulated by Article 4 of the Birds Directive and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, also establish a system of strict protection of certain species across their entire natural range within the EU, i.e. both within and outside Natura 2000 sites. These protection measures apply to species listed in Annex IV to the Habitats Directive and to all wild bird species in the EU. The exact terms are laid down in Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Articles 12 (for animals) and 13 (for plants) of the Habitats Directive. |
| V bistvu se v skladu z njimi od držav članic zahteva, naj prepovejo: | In essence they require Member States to prohibit: |
| — | namerno ujetje ali ubitje vrst; | — | the deliberate capture or killing of species; |
| — | namerno vznemirjanje vrst, zlasti med razmnoževanjem, vzrejo mladičev, zimskim spanjem in selitvijo; | — | their deliberate disturbance, in particular during breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration; |
| — | poškodovanje ali uničenje razmnoževališč ali počivališč; | — | the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places; |
| — | namerno uničevanje gnezd ali jajc ter ruvanje ali uničevanje zavarovanih rastlin. | — | the deliberate destruction of nests or eggs, or the uprooting or destruction of protected plants. |
| Z izvajanjem načrta ali razvojem/izvajanjem projekta se lahko te prepovedi kršijo. Nosilec načrta ali projekta bi moral zato med ustrezno presojo in PVO/SPVO skupaj s pristojnim organom preveriti, ali je načrt ali projekt skladen s temi strogimi določbami o varstvu vrst. Tako preverjanje bi zahtevalo opredelitev vrst in njihovih habitatov, ki bi bili lahko prizadeti, preverjanje njihove prisotnosti na območju, prizadetem zaradi načrta ali projekta, in njihovih razmnoževališč ali počivališč ter analizo možnih vplivov na vrste in ustreznih ukrepov za ublažitev. Če se vplivi na osebke vrst ali na njihova razmnoževališča in počivališča potrdijo ali jih ni mogoče izključiti, se lahko zahteva odstopanje od strogega varstva vrst. | The implementation of a plan or development/operation of a project can lead to conflicts with these prohibitions. During the appropriate assessment and EIA/SEA the developer together with the competent authority should therefore check if the plan or project is compatible with these strict species protection provisions. Such a check would require identification of species and their habitats, which could be potentially affected, verification of their presence on the area affected by a plan or project as well as of their breeding sites or resting places, analysis of possible impacts on the species and of suitable mitigation measures. If impacts on the individuals of the species or on their breeding sites and resting places are confirmed, or if it cannot be excluded, the derogations from strict species protection may be required. |
| Vendar je treba poudariti, da so odstopanja dovoljena le v omejenih primerih, na primer zaradi interesov javnega zdravja in javne varnosti, če ni druge zadovoljive možnosti in če posledice teh odstopanj niso nezdružljive s splošnimi cilji direktiv. Pogoji za uporabo odstopanj so določeni v členu 9 direktive o pticah in členu 16 direktive o habitatih. | However, it has to be noted that derogations are only allowed in limited cases, e.g. in the interest of public health and safety, provided that there is no other satisfactory alternative and provided that the consequences of these derogations are not incompatible with the overall aims of the Directives. The conditions for applying derogations are set out in Article 9 of the Birds Directive and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive. |
| Poudariti je treba tudi, da se te določbe lahko uporabljajo tudi za načrte in projekte, ki so izločeni iz ustrezne presoje in/ali PVO/SPVO. V takih primerih je treba analizo, ali veljajo odstopanja iz člena 9 direktive o pticah in člena 16 direktive o habitatih, izvesti v ločenem postopku. | It is important to note as well that these provisions may also apply to plans and projects which are screened out from appropriate assessment and/or from EIA/SEA. In such cases the analysis of whether derogations under Article 9 of the Birds Directive and 16 of the Habitats Directive are applicable will have to be performed in a separate procedure. |
| Dovoljenje za odstopanje od strogega varstva vrst se lahko dodeli kot ločen sklep ali v okviru enotnega dovoljenja, ki je rezultat različnih presoj in postopkov za izdajo dovoljenja. V vsakem primeru morajo biti v njem jasno navedeni razlogi in pogoji za tako odstopanje. | A permit to derogate from strict species protection can be granted as a separate decision or within a single permit resulting from different assessments and authorisation procedures. Either way it needs to clearly specify the reasons for and conditions of such derogation. |
| Dodatne informacije o zahtevah glede strogega varstva vrst, vključno z najnovejšimi smernicami, so na voljo na spletnem mestu Evropske komisije (51). | Further information on the strict species protection requirements, including latest guidelines, are available on the European Commission website (51). |
| 5.3 Presoje iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah, ki se usklajujejo ali povezujejo s postopkom iz člena 6(3) direktive o habitatih | 5.3. Assessments under Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive, coordinated or integrated with the Article 6(3) procedure under the Habitats Directive |
| Obstajajo tudi tesne povezave med okvirno direktivo o vodah in direktivo o habitatih. Obe se vsaj deloma uporabljata za isto okolje, tj. okolje vodnih ekosistemov in kopenskih ekosistemov ter mokrišč, ki so od njih neposredno odvisna. Imata tudi na splošno podobne cilje, saj je njun namen preprečiti poslabšanje stanja vodnih ekosistemov in izboljšati njihovo ekološko stanje. Kjer je primerno, bi ju bilo treba izvajati usklajeno, da se zagotovi njuno povezano delovanje (52). | There are also strong links between the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats Directive. They are both applicable, at least in part, to the same environment – that of aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly dependent on them. They also have broadly similar ambitions in that they aim to ensure the non-deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and to enhance their ecological condition. Where appropriate, they should therefore be implemented in a coordinated way to ensure that they operate in an integrated manner (52). |
| Tako kot direktiva o habitatih tudi okvirna direktiva o vodah vsebuje posebne določbe za presojo vplivov novih razvojnih projektov na vodna telesa. V skladu s členom 4(7) lahko organi odobrijo izjeme za nove spremembe in dejavnosti trajnostnega razvoja, ki: (i) povzročijo poslabšanje stanja vodnega telesa ali (ii) preprečujejo doseganje dobrega ekološkega stanja ali potenciala ali dobrega stanja podzemne vode pod nekaterimi pogoji (53). | Like the Habitats Directive, the WFD lays down specific provisions for assessing the effects of new developments on water bodies. Under Article 4(7) of the WFD, exemptions can be approved by the authorities for new modifications and sustainable human development activities that: (i) result in the deterioration of the status of the water body; or (ii) prevent the achievement of good ecological status or potential, or good groundwater status under certain conditions (53). |
| V skladu s členom 4(8) okvirne direktive o vodah morajo države članice pri uporabi člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah zagotoviti, da je uporaba skladna z izvajanjem druge okoljske zakonodaje EU. Povedano drugače, če se za projekt odobri odstopanje na podlagi člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah, mora po potrebi še vedno izpolnjevati zahteve iz člena 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih. | Under Article 4(8) of the WFD, Member States are required – when applying Article 4(7) of the WFD – to ensure that the application is consistent with the implementation of other EU environmental legislation. In other words, if the project is granted a derogation under Article 4(7) of the WFD, it must still comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, if applicable. |
| Če bi razvojni projekt lahko vplival na cilj okvirne direktive o vodah in na območje Natura 2000, je treba izvesti postopek iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah in tudi postopek presoje iz člena 6(3) direktive o habitatih. To bi moralo po možnosti potekati usklajeno in povezano, kot je priporočeno tudi v direktivi o PVO. Vsaka presoja ima drugačen poudarek: s prvo se presodi, ali bi projekt lahko ogrozil primarne cilje okvirne direktive o vodah, z drugo pa, ali bo projekt škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja Natura 2000. | If the development potentially affects both a WFD objective and a Natura 2000 site, then both the WFD Article 4(7) procedure and the assessment procedure under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be undertaken. Ideally, this should be done in a coordinated or integrated manner, as also recommended by the EIA Directive. Each assessment has a different focus: the former will assess if the project is likely to compromise the primary objectives of the WFD, while the latter will assess whether the project will adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. |
| Vendar to ne pomeni, da se nekateri vidiki presoje ne morejo usklajevati, na primer z vprašalniki in posvetovanji. Poudariti je treba, da če lahko postopek iz okvirne direktive o vodah privede do izdaje dovoljenja, vendar je načrt ali projekt v nasprotju z zahtevami omrežja Natura 2000, dovoljenja ni mogoče izdati, razen na podlagi določb člena 6(4). | However, this does not prevent certain aspects of the assessment being coordinated, e.g. through surveys and consultations. It should be stressed that if the WFD procedure may lead to a licence being granted, but the plan or project conflicts with Natura 2000 requirements, authorisation cannot be granted, except under Article 6(4) provisions. |
| Medtem ko je povezovanje postopkov ustrezne presoje s postopki iz direktive o PVO obvezno, je za okvirno direktivo o vodah prepuščeno prosti presoji. Kljub temu je več držav članic že določilo ali še vzpostavljajo povezane postopke za primere, ko se zahtevajo PVO, ustrezna presoja in tudi presoja iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah. Poenostavitev teh presoj se spodbuja v smernicah EU o izvajanju okvirne direktive o vodah (54). | While the integration of appropriate assessment procedures with procedures under the EIA Directive is mandatory, for the WFD it is discretionary. Nonetheless, a number of Member States have already provided for, or are in the process of establishing, integrated procedures for cases where EIA, appropriate assessment and the WFD 4(7) assessment are all required. Streamlining these assessments is encouraged in EU guidance on the implementation of the WFD (54). |
| Podobnosti med presojo iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah ter presojami iz direktiv o PVO in habitatih pomenijo, da se lahko nekateri koraki v različnih postopkih izvedejo skupaj. To se nanaša zlasti na „pregled“, „določanje obsega“ in potrebno zbiranje podatkov. S takim poenostavljenim pristopom se lahko prihrani veliko stroškov in časa, zlasti v zvezi s fazo zbiranja podatkov, ki se lahko izvede skupaj, potem ko se v prejšnjih korakih pojasnijo zahteve glede podatkov iz vsake direktive. | The similarities between the WFD Article 4(7) assessment and those under the EIA and Habitats Directives mean that certain steps under the different procedures can be carried out together. This concerns particularly ‘screening’, ‘scoping’ and the necessary data collection. Such a streamlined approach can lead to significant cost and time savings, notably in relation to the data collection stage that can be jointly performed once the data requirements under each directive are clarified during the previous steps. |
| Uporabijo se lahko dodatne sinergije, na primer v zvezi z iskanjem drugih ustreznih rešitev ali ukrepov za ublažitev. Vendar je treba v vseh primerih upoštevati različen poudarek različnih preizkusov iz vsake direktive. | Further synergies can be applied, for instance regarding the search for alternatives or mitigation measures. However, in all cases the distinct focus of the various tests under each directive needs to be fulfilled. |
| Če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz ene direktive, ne pa tudi iz druge, organi ne izdajo dovoljenja za projekt, ker bi v takem primeru projekt še vedno kršil pravne določbe EU. Namesto tega bi bilo treba proučiti, ali je mogoče projekt spremeniti tako, da bi izpolnjeval zahteve iz vseh zadevnih direktiv. | If the conditions of one directive are fulfilled but not the other, then the authorities may not authorise the project because in such a case the project would still infringe EU legal provisions. Instead, it should be examined whether amendments can be made to the project so that it satisfies the requirements of all relevant directives. |
| Na sliki 3 so na kratko predstavljene podobnosti in razlike med ključnimi koraki presoj iz člena 4(7) okvirne direktive o vodah, PVO in člena 6 direktive o habitatih. | Figure 3 outlines similarities and differences across the key steps of assessments under WFD Article 4(7), the EIA and Articles 6 of the Habitats Directive. |
| Vir: CIS, 2017. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No. 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7) (Skupna strategija izvajanja za okvirno direktivo o vodah in direktivo o poplavah. Dokument s smernicami št. 36: Izjeme glede okoljskih ciljev v skladu s členom 4(7)). | Source: CIS, 2017. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7). |
| 6. KLJUČNI REFERENČNI DOKUMENTI | 6. KEY REFERENCES |
| CIS, 2017. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No. 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7) (Skupna strategija izvajanja za okvirno direktivo o vodah in direktivo o poplavah. Dokument s smernicami št. 36: Izjeme glede okoljskih ciljev v skladu s členom 4(7)). Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/ e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb- 939185be3e89/CISGuidanceArticle47FINAL.PDF. | CIS, 2017. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7). Available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/ e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb- 939185be3e89/CISGuidanceArticle47FINAL.PDF |
| Ekosistemi, 2014. Člen 6 direktive o habitatih. Sodbe Sodišča Evropske unije. Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/others/ECJ_rulings%20Art_%206%20-%20Final%20Sept%202014-2.pdf. | Ecosystems, 2014. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Rulings of the European Court of Justice. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/others/ECJ_rulings%20Art_%206%20-%20Final%20Sept%202014-2.pdf |
| Evropska komisija, 1999. Smernice za presojo posrednih in kumulativnih učinkov ter njihovega vzajemnega delovanja. | European Commission, 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. |
| Evropska komisija, 2011. Povezave med okvirno direktivo o vodah in direktivama o naravi. Pogosta vprašanja. Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm. | European Commission, 2011. Links between the Water Framework Directive and the Nature Directives. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidanceen.htm |
| Evropska komisija, 2012. Obvestilo Komisije o določanju ciljev ohranjanja za območja Natura 2000. Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ management/guidance_en.htm. | European Commission, 2012. Commission Note on setting conservation objectives in Natura 2000 sites. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ management/guidanceen.htm |
| Evropska komisija, 2013(a). Smernice o uporabi postopka presoje vplivov na okolje za obsežne čezmejne projekte. Evropska komisija, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf. | European Commission, 2013(a). Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-scale Trans-boundary Projects. European Commission, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf |
| Evropska komisija, 2013(b). Smernice za poenostavitev postopkov presoje vplivov na okolje za projekte skupnega interesa za energetsko infrastrukturo. Evropska komisija, maj 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCIguidance.pdf. | European Commission, 2013(b). Guidance Document ‘Streamlining environmental assessment procedures for energy infrastructure “Projects of Common Interest” (PCIs).’ European Commission, May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCIguidance.pdf |
| Evropska komisija, 2016. Smernice Komisije za poenostavitev okoljskih presoj na podlagi člena 2(3) direktive o presoji vplivov na okolje. Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/sl/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016XC0727(01)&from=EN. | European Commission, 2016. Commission Guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments conducted under article 2.3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016XC0727(01)&from=EN |
| Evropska komisija, 2017(a). Smernice o določanju obsega. Direktiva 2011/92/EU, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2014/52/EU. Evropska komisija. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm. | European Commission, 2017(a). Guidance on Scoping. Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm |
| Evropska komisija, 2017(b). Smernice o pregledu. Direktiva 2011/92/EU, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2014/52/EU. Evropska komisija. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm. | European Commission, 2017(b). Guidance on Screening. Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm |
| Evropska komisija, 2019. Obvestilo Komisije z naslovom Upravljanje območij Natura 2000. Določbe člena 6 direktive 92/43/EGS o habitatih (UL C 33, 25.1.2019, str. 1). Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019XC0125(07)&from=sl. | European Commission, 2019. Commission notice ‘Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC’ (OJ C 33, 25.1.2019, p. 1). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C.2019.033.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2019:033:FULL |
| Evropska komisija je objavila več sektorskih smernic (o neenergetskih ekstraktivnih dejavnostih, razvoju polj vetrnih elektrarn, pristaniščih in estuarijih, prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh, akvakulturi itd.). Te smernice zagotavljajo dodatne nasvete o tem, kako izvesti ustrezno presojo v zvezi s pripravo načrtov in projektov v vsakem od teh sektorjev. Na voljo so na spletnem naslovu: | The European Commission has published several sector-specific guidance documents (on non-energy extractive industries, wind farm development, ports and estuaries, inland waterway transport, aquaculture, etc.). These provide further advice on how to carry out an appropriate assessment in relation to the development of plans and projects in each of these sectors. The guidance documents are available at: |
| https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm. | https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidanceen.htm |
| (1) Direktiva Sveta 92/43/EGS o ohranjanju naravnih habitatov ter prosto živečih živalskih in rastlinskih vrst (UL L 206, 22.7.1992, str. 7). | (1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). |
| (2) Evropska komisija, 2019. Obvestilo Komisije z naslovom Upravljanje območij Natura 2000. Določbe člena 6 direktive 92/43/EGS o habitatih (2019/C 33/01), na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/?qid=1555085968125&uri=CELEX:52019XC0125(07). | (2) European Commission, 2019. Commission notice ‘Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC’ (2019/C 33/01), available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1555085968125&uri=CELEX:52019XC0125(07) |
| (3) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm | (3) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm |
| (4) Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Presoja načrtov in projektov v zvezi z območji Natura 2000 – metodološke smernice o določbah člena 6(3) in (4) Direktive 92/43/EGS o habitatih), Evropska komisija, 2002. | (4) Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, European Commission, 2002. |
| (5) Posodobitev je eden od rezultatov Akcijskega načrta za naravo, ljudi in gospodarstvo, COM(2017) 198 final, ukrep 1. | (5) The update is one of the deliverables of the ‘Action Plan for nature, people and the economy’, COM(2017) 198 final (Action 1). |
| (6) Pogodba EU o storitvah št. 07.0202/2017/770634/SER/ENV.D.3 za tehnično in znanstveno podporo v zvezi z izvajanjem akcijskega načrta za naravo, ljudi in gospodarstvo – ukrepi 1, 2 in 13. | (6) EU Service contract Nr. 07.0202/2017/770634/SER/ENV.D.3 for technical and scientific support in relation to the delivery of the ‘Action Plan for nature, people and the economy’ – Actions 1, 2 and 13. |
| (7) V praksi je morda treba upoštevati več kot eno območje. | (7) In practice, more than one site may need to be considered. |
| (8) Člen 191 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije. | (8) Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| (9) Točki 58 in 59. | (9) Paragraphs 58-59. |
| (10) Točka 51. | (10) Paragraph 51. |
| (11) Glej okvir 4 „Viri, ki se uporabljajo za opredelitev vpliva na območja Natura 2000“ v oddelku 3.1.3 teh smernic. | (11) See Box 4 ‘Sources to use to identify impact on a Natura 2000 site’ in section 3.1.3 of this guide. |
| (12) Zadeva C-127/02, točka 59. | (12) Case C-127/02, paragraph 59. |
| (13) Zadeva C-157/96, točka 63. | (13) Case C-157/96 paragraph 63. |
| (14) Zadeva C-127/02, točka 61. | (14) Case C-127/02 paragraph 61. |
| (15) Zadeva C-323/17. | (15) Case C-323/17. |
| (16) Tehnično poročilo z naslovom Omrežje Natura 2000 in gozdovi (2015) (poglavje 4.6) vsebuje primere, kako preprečiti nasprotujoče si cilje med gospodarjenjem z gozdovi in upravljanjem omrežja Natura 2000: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Final%20Guide%20N2000%20%20Forests%20Part%20I-II-Annexes_sl.pdf. | (16) The technical report ‘Natura 2000 and Forests’ (2015) (chapter 4.6) provides examples of how to avoid conflicting goals between forest- and Natura 2000 management: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Final%20Guide%20N2000%20%20Forests%20Part%20I-II-Annexes.pdf |
| (17) Glej: pojasnila v Izvedbenem sklepu Komisije 2011/484/EU z dne 11. julija 2011 o obliki informacij za območja Natura 2000 (sklep o obliki standardnih obrazcev). | (17) See: Explanatory notes in the Commission Implementing Decision 2011/484/EU of 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites (Decision setting format of the Standard Data Forms). |
| (18) Glej: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=sl&num=C-323/17. | (18) See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-323/17 |
| (19) V Nemčiji na primer podatkovna zbirka in informacijski sistem za preizkuse združljivosti FFH v Severnem Porenju - Vestfaliji: http://ffh-vp.naturschutzinformationen.nrw.de/ffh-vp/de/start. | (19) For example, in Germany the database and information system on FFH compatibility tests in North Rhine-Westphalia: http://ffh-vp.naturschutzinformationen.nrw.de/ffh-vp/de/start |
| (20) Na Češkem na primer obstaja informacijski sistem s podatkovno zbirko načrtov in projektov, za katere sta bili izvedeni SPVO in PVO, vključno s tistimi, ki so predmet ustrezne presoje: https://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/eia100cr; https://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/SEA100koncepce. | (20) For example, in Czechia there is an information system with a database of plans and projects that have gone through the EIA and SEA, including those subject to an appropriate assessment: https://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/eia100cr; https://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/SEA100koncepce |
| (21) Pri tem je lahko koristen model „vir-pot-prejemnik“. | (21) A source-pathway-reception model may be useful for this task. |
| (22) Glej oddelek 3.2.1 o določitvi obsega. | (22) See section 3.2.1 on scoping. |
| (23) Evropska komisija, Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on Scoping (Presoja vplivov projektov na okolje, smernice o določanju obsega), 2017. | (23) European Commission, Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on Scoping, 2017. |
| (24) Direktiva 2007/2/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. marca 2007 o vzpostavitvi infrastrukture za prostorske informacije v Evropski skupnosti (INSPIRE) (UL L 108, 25.4.2007, str. 1). | (24) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1). |
| (25) http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/ | (25) http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/ |
| (26) V evropski podatkovni zbirki za območja Natura 2000 so zbrani podatki, ki so jih države članice predložile Evropski komisiji. Ta evropska podatkovna zbirka se načeloma posodobi enkrat na leto, da se upoštevajo posodobitve vsebine nacionalnih podatkovnih zbirk držav članic. Na voljo je na spletnem naslovu: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-10. | (26) The European database on Natura 2000 sites consists of a compilation of the data submitted by Member States to the European Commission. This European database is generally updated once a year to take into account updates to the content of Member States national databases. It is available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-10 |
| (27) https://nature-art17.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ | (27) https://nature-art17.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ |
| (28) Države članice imajo na voljo šest let od uvrstitve območja na seznam EU, da sprejmejo cilje ohranjanja za posamezna območja in določijo območje, pomembno za Skupnost, kot posebno ohranitveno območje. Za posebna območja varstva morajo biti cilji ohranjanja za posamezna območja določeni od datuma njihove razvrstitve. | (28) Member States have 6 years from the time the site has been listed on the EU list to adopt site-specific conservation objectives and designate the SCI as an SAC. For SPAs, appropriate site-specific conservation objectives must be in place as from the date of their classification. |
| (29) Sodišče je to stališče potrdilo v zadevi C-127/02: „Dovoljenje za načrt ali projekt [...] nujno predpostavlja, da se je štelo, da ta ni vplival na celovitost zadevnega območja in da niti ni povzročil pomembnih poškodovanj ali vznemirjanj v smislu odstavka 2“ (točka 36). | (29) The Court confirmed this position in Case C-127/02: ‘Authorisation of a plan or project necessarily assumes that it is considered not likely to adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, consequently, not likely to give rise to deterioration or significant disturbances within the meaning of Article 6(2)’ (paragraph 36). |
| (30) Za razlago posameznih izrazov glej Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats - EUR28 (Razlagalni priročnik o habitatih Evropske unije – EUR28) na spletnem naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm#interpretation. | (30) For an explanation of specific terms, see ‘Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats – EUR28’ at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/indexen.htm#interpretation |
| (31) Primer spletnega orodja za kartiranje okoljske občutljivosti v podporo postopkom okoljske presoje na Irskem je na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/mapping-resources/airo-research-maps/environmental-research-projects/environmental-sensitivity. | (31) An example of an Environmental Sensitivity Mapping online tool to support environmental assessment processes in Ireland is available at: http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/mapping-resources/airo-research-maps/environmental-research-projects/environmental-sensitivity |
| (32) V ekologiji se nosilna zmogljivost meri kot največja obremenitev okolja. Fizične značilnosti v okolju delujejo kot omejevalni dejavniki (npr. hrana, voda, konkurenca itd.). https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/carrying-capacity | (32) In ecology, carrying capacity is measured as the maximum load of an environment. The physical features present in the environment act as limiting factors (e.g. food, water, competition, etc.). https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/carrying-capacity |
| (33) Glej sodbo Sodišče Evropske unije v zadevi C-521/12. | (33) See CJEU judgment C-521/12. |
| (34) Konvencija o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah. Ta konvencija je bila sklenjena junija 1998 v Aarhusu na Danskem. EU je v skladu s Sklepom Sveta 2005/370/ES od leta 2005 ena od njenih podpisnic. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/legislation.htm | (34) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. This Convention was concluded in Aarhus, Denmark in June 1998. The EU is one of the signatories since 2005 under Decision 2005/370/EC http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/legislation.htm |
| (35) Cilje načrta ali projekta bi bilo treba analizirati ne le glede na eno določeno tehnologijo, ampak glede na doseganje določenega cilja (npr. za hidroenergetski načrt ali projekt bi bilo treba cilj analizirati v smislu „proizvodnje x MW energije iz obnovljivih virov“, tako da se lahko ocenijo tudi možnosti uporabe drugih tehnologij (npr. vetrne, sončne ali geotermalne energije)). | (35) The objectives of a plan or project should be analysed not only in relation to one specific technology but rather in relation to achieving a certain goal (e.g. for a hydropower plan or project the objective should be analysed in terms of ‘producing x MW of renewable energy’, so that the possibilities of using other technologies can be assessed as well (e.g. wind, solar or geothermal energy). |
| (36) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm | (36) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinionen.htm |
| (37) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm | (37) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm |
| (38) Mnenje Komisije C(2013) 1871 final z dne 5. aprila 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Commission%20Opinion%20Main%20EN%20SEC-2013-1871.pdf. | (38) Commission Opinion C(2013) 1871 final 5.4.2013 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Commission%20Opinion%20Main%20EN%20SEC-2013-1871.pdf |
| (39) Mnenje Komisije C(2018) 466 final z dne 30. januarja 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/C2018466F1COMMISSIONOPINIONENV5P1961037.pdf. | (39) Commission Opinion C(2018) 466 final of 30.1.2018 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/C2018466F1COMMISSIONOPINIONENV5P1961037.pdf |
| (40) Mnenje Komisije v zvezi s projektom gradnje novega pristanišča Granadilla (Tenerife), 2006, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/granadillaen.pdf. | (40) Opinion of the Commission in relation to the construction project of the new port of Granadilla (Tenerife), 2006. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/granadillaen.pdf |
| (41) Med ustrezne vire spadajo znanstvene revije ali namenska spletna mesta (npr. http://www.restorationevidence.org/) in obnovitveni projekti, podprti s programom LIFE (na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life). | (41) Relevant sources include scientific journals or dedicated websites (e.g. http://www.restorationevidence.org/), as well as restoration projects supported by the LIFE programme (available at: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life). |
| (42) Lokacija območja mora biti dovolj blizu, da vrsti ni treba trošiti dodatne energije, da bi prišla na novo območje, saj se tako lahko zmanjša njena odpornost in poveča njena ranljivost. | (42) The location of the site must be sufficiently close to avoid that the species has to expend extra energy in getting to the new site, which may in turn reduce its resilience and increase its vulnerability. |
| (43) Direktiva 2001/42/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. junija 2001 o presoji vplivov nekaterih načrtov in programov na okolje (UL L 197, 21.7.2001, str. 30). | (43) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30). |
| (44) V sodbi v zadevi C-177/11, točka 24, je tudi navedeno: „Preizkus, ali je zadnjenavedeni pogoj izpolnjen, je nujno omejen na vprašanje, ali je na podlagi objektivnih dejavnikov mogoče izključiti, da navedeni načrt ali projekt znatno vpliva na zadevno območje“. | (44) C-177/11, paragraph 24, also stating: ‘The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned’. |
| (45) Direktiva 2014/89/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. julija 2014 o vzpostavitvi okvira za pomorsko prostorsko načrtovanje (UL L 257, 28.8.2014, str. 135). | (45) Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135). |
| (46) Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm. | (46) Available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm |
| (47) Direktiva 2011/92/EU o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2014/52/EU (UL L 26, 28.1.2012, str. 1). | (47) Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1). |
| (48) Direktiva 2001/42/ES o presoji vplivov nekaterih načrtov in programov na okolje (UL L 197, 21.7.2001, str. 30). | (48) Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30). |
| (49) Direktiva 2000/60/ES o določitvi okvira za ukrepe Skupnosti na področju vodne politike (UL L 327, 22.12.2000, str. 1). | (49) Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). |
| (50) Obvestilo Komisije 2016/C 273/01, na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52016XC0727(01). | (50) Commission notice 2016/C 273/01, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2016:273:TOC |
| (51) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/index_en.htm | (51) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/index_en.htm |
| (52) Glej odgovore Komisije na pogosta vprašanja o okvirni direktivi o vodah in direktivah o naravi: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ-WFD%20final.pdf. | (52) See the Commission FAQ on the WFD and Nature Directives: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ-WFD%20final.pdf |
| (53) Za sodno prakso v zvezi z uporabo člena 4(7) glej sodbi Sodišča v zadevah C-461/13 in C-346/14. | (53) For case-law on the application of Article 4(7) see Court rulings in Cases C-461/13 and C-346/14. |
| (54) Glej zlasti: Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No. 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7) (Skupna strategija izvajanja za okvirno direktivo o vodah in direktivo o poplavah. Dokument s smernicami št. 36: Izjeme glede okoljskih ciljev v skladu s členom 4(7)). Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-939185be3e89/CISGuidanceArticle47FINAL.PDF. | (54) See in particular: Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Guidance Document No 36. Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7). Available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-939185be3e89/CISGuidanceArticle47FINAL.PDF |
| PRILOGA | ANNEX |
| PRIMERI PRAKS, ŠTUDIJ PRIMEROV, METOD IN NACIONALNIH SMERNIC KAZALO | EXAMPLES OF PRACTICES, CASE STUDIES, METHODS AND NATIONAL GUIDANCE |
| Uvod | Introduction |
| Ta priloga je namenjena zagotovitvi elementov smernic ter primerov procesov in metod za različne faze izvajanja postopkov iz člena 6(3) in (4). Razvrščeni in predstavljeni so glede na glavne oddelke in točke, zajete v smernicah. | This annex is intended to provide elements of guidance and examples of processes and methods for the different stages of the implementation of Article 6(3) and 6(4) procedures. They are grouped and presented according to the main sections and items covered in the guidance document. |
| VSEBINSKO KAZALO | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| 1. | PREGLED IN USTREZNA PRESOJA: PRISTOPI, METODE, PRIMERI IZ DRŽAV ČLANIC | 79 | 1. | SCREENING AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT: APPROACHES, METHODS, EXAMPLES FROM MEMBER STATES | 79 |
| 1.1 | Informacije in praktična orodja v podporo pregledu in ustreznim presojam | 79 | 1.1. | Information and practical tools to support the screening and the appropriate assessments (AA) | 79 |
| 1.2 | Smernice za presojo | 82 | 1.2. | Guidance for the assessment | 82 |
| 1.3 | Ustrezna presoja nacionalnega programa za električno energijo na Irskem – presoja kumulativnih vplivov | 89 | 1.3. | Appropriate Assessment of a national Electricity Programme in Ireland – Assessment of Cumulative effects | 89 |
| 2. | NUJNI RAZLOGI PREVLADUJOČEGA JAVNEGA INTERESA | 93 | 2. | IMPERATIVE REASONS OF OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST (IROPI) | 93 |
| 2.1 | Primeri različnih vrst nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa in njihova utemeljitev | 93 | 2.1. | Examples of various types of IROPI and their justification | 93 |
| 3. | IZRAVNALNI UKREPI | 96 | 3. | COMPENSATORY MEASURES | 96 |
| 3.1 | Primeri izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) | 96 | 3.1. | Examples of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) | 96 |
| 3.2 | Časovni vidiki izravnalnih ukrepov | 99 | 3.2. | Time-related aspects of compensation measures | 99 |
| 4. | POVEZAVE MED POSTOPKI OKOLJSKIH PRESOJ: UP, PVO, SPVO | 102 | 4 | LINKS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES: AA, EIA, SEA | 102 |
| 4.1 | Primerjava postopkov v skladu z ustrezno presojo (UP), presojo vplivov na okolje (PVO) in strateško presojo vplivov na okolje (SPVO) | 102 | 4.1. | Comparison of procedures under Appropriate Assessment (AA), EIA and SEA | 102 |
| 5. | STRATEŠKO NAČRTOVANJE – PRESOJA NAČRTOV | 105 | 5 | STRATEGIC PLANNING – ASSESSMENT OF PLANS | 105 |
| 5.1 | Primer: načrtovanje avtocest v Avstriji | 105 | 5.1. | Example: Planning of highways in Austria | 105 |
| 5.2 | Primer: strateško načrtovanje novega hidroenergetskega razvoja na Donavi | 105 | 5.2. | Example: Strategic planning of new hydropower developments in the Danube | 105 |
| 5.3 | Primer: prostorski načrt za polja vetrnih elektrarn na morju in omrežne povezave v nemški izključni ekonomski coni Severnega morja | 107 | 5.3. | Example: Spatial plan for offshore wind farms and grid connections in the German North Sea EEZ | 107 |
| 1. PREGLED IN USTREZNA PRESOJA: PRISTOPI, METODE, PRIMERI IZ DRŽAV ČLANIC | 1. SCREENING AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT: APPROACHES, METHODS, EXAMPLES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 1.1 Informacije in praktična orodja v podporo pregledu in ustreznim presojam | 1.1. Information and practical tools to support the screening and the appropriate assessments (AA) |
| Nemčija – podatkovna zbirka in informacijski sistem zveznega urada za varstvo narave (BfN) za ustrezne presoje | Germany – Database and Information system of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) for appropriate assessments |
| Potrebne informacije o možnih negativnih vplivih za skoraj vse vrste projektov in načrte so na voljo v informacijskem sistemu FFH-VP- Info zveznega urada za varstvo narave. Poleg tega sistem FFH-VP-Info gosti obsežno podatkovno zbirko o možnih vplivih in učinkih v zvezi s posameznimi habitatnimi tipi in vrstami, ki se lahko uporabi za pregled in ustrezne presoje. http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp | The necessary information on potential negative effects for nearly all project types and plans is provided in the information system FFH-VP- Info of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Additionally, FFH-VP-Info hosts an extensive database of possible impacts and effects with respect to specific habitat types and species that can be used for screening and appropriate assessments. http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp |
| I. | Cilji in funkcije sistema FFH-VP-Info | I. | Objectives and functions of FFH-VP-Info |
| Glavni cilj sistema FFH-VP-Info je, da deluje kot osrednja platforma z informacijami o dejavnikih vpliva, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri pregledu (faza 1) in ustreznih presojah (faza 2) načrtov ali projektov, ter da zagotavlja informacije o možnih učinkih vplivov na posamezne habitate in vrste iz direktive o habitatih in direktive o pticah. | Vrsta dostopa št. 1 (vrste projektov, načrti, dejavniki vpliva) je namenjena podpori predlagateljem in nosilcem projektov z zagotavljanjem hitrega pregleda vseh dejavnikov vpliva, ki jih morajo upoštevati. | Vrsta dostopa št. 2 (habitati, vrste) omogoča izčrpnejše poizvedbe o posameznih učinkih dejavnika vpliva na habitate ali vrste, ki so lahko pomembni za projekt. | Dodatne informacije vključujejo glosar, citirano literaturo ter podatke o mobilnosti in naravnem območju razširjenosti vrst. | Na splošno je sistem FFH-VP-Info namenjen zagotavljanju najboljšega znanstvenega znanja, pri čemer lajša strokovne presoje in nadzor nad njimi s strani organov za izdajo dovoljenj. Čeprav sta popolnost in točnost presoj pomembni za zagotavljanje pravne varnosti, je mogoče porabljeni čas, finančne vložke in osebne napore na obeh straneh ohranjati na razumni ravni z zagotavljanjem enostavnega dostopa do ustreznih informacij. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=ziel (predstavitev sistema FFH-VP-Info) | The main objective of FFH-VP-Info is to function as a central platform providing information on impact factors that have to be considered for the screening (stage 1) and appropriate assessments (stage 2) of plans or projects, and to provide information on potential effects of impacts on specific habitats and species under the Habitats Directive and the Bird Directive. | Access type No 1 (project types, plans, impact factors) intends to support proponents and project developers by providing a quick overview of all impact factors they have to take into account. | Access type No 2 (habitats, species) allows in-depth enquiries on the specific effects of an impact factor on habitats or species that may be of concern for the project. | Additional information includes a glossary, cited literature, data about mobility and home ranges of species. | Overall, FFH-VP-Info aims at providing best scientific knowledge, facilitating expert assessments and their scrutiny by the permitting authorities. While the completeness and accuracy of the assessments is important to guarantee legal safety, the amount of time, financial and personal efforts used may be kept at a reasonable level on both sides by providing easy access to the relevant information. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=ziel (introduction of FFH-VP-Info) |
| II. | Orodje za pregled vrst projektov in načrtov ter njihovih možnih vplivov | II. | Screening tool for project types and plans and their possible effects |
| Orodje za pregled zagotavlja podatke o približno 140 vrstah projektov, razdeljenih v 19 skupin. To vključuje oceno morebitne pomembnosti, kar zadeva 36 različnih dejavnikov vpliva. Pomembnost je označena s številkami: | 0 | = | običajno ni pomemben (lahko veljajo izjeme) | 1 | = | potencialno pomemben | 2 | = | praviloma/na splošno pomemben | Za vsako vrsto projekta sta na voljo kontrolni seznam in poročilo s kratkimi posameznimi razlagami ocen pomembnosti dejavnikov vpliva. Za vsak dejavnik vpliva stran z razlago vključuje povezavo na kratko opredelitev in podrobne opise možnih učinkov zadevnega dejavnika (glej spodaj). | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=projekttypen (uvod v projekte) | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Projekt.jsp?start (podatkovna zbirka projektov) | The screening tool provides data on about 140 project types assigned to 19 groups. This includes an estimation of possible relevance as regards 36 different impact factors. Relevance is indicated by numbers: | 0 | = | normally not relevant (exceptions may apply) | 1 | = | potentially relevant | 2 | = | regularly/generally relevant | A checklist and a report are available for each project type, with short individual explanations of the relevance ratings of impact factors. For each impact factor an explanatory page is linked to a short definition and detailed descriptions on the potential effects of the respective factor (see below). | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=projekttypen (introduction projects) | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Projekt.jsp?start (database projects) |
| III. | Podatkovna zbirka in podatkovni listi za habitate in vrste iz direktive o habitatih in direktive o pticah | III. | Database and datasheets to the habitats and the species of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive |
| To je jedro informacijskega sistema. Zagotavlja podrobne informacije o občutljivosti in možnih učinkih dejavnikov vpliva za skoraj vse nemške | — | habitate iz Priloge I k direktivi o habitatih => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Lrt.jsp; | — | vrste iz Priloge II k direktivi o habitatih => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Art.jsp; | — | vrste ptic iz Priloge I in člena 4(2) direktive o pticah => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Vog.jsp. | Po izbiri teme se pomembnost različnih dejavnikov vpliva v zvezi s posameznim habitatom ali vrsto prikaže v preglednici. Izbira teme/učinka privede do dodatnih informacij, ki so navedene v petih kategorijah: | 1. | občutljivost/možni učinki (najboljša znanstvena spoznanja v zvezi z občutljivostjo habitatov in vrst ter o možnih učinkih za vseh 36 dejavnikov vpliva); | 2. | sposobnost obnavljanja (informacije o naravnem samoobnavljanju); | 3. | uveljavljene metode za presojo vplivov (namigi, sklici in opombe o parametrih, merilih ali metodah za napovedovanje vplivov in učinkov); | 4. | pragovi pomembnosti in informacije za pregled (primeri, orientacijske vrednosti, pragovi za pomembne učinke); | 5. | pragovi pomembnosti in nasveti za ustrezno presojo (primeri, orientacijske vrednosti, pragovi za pomembne škodljive učinke). | Pri nadaljnji izbiri učinkov dejavnika vpliva se odpre ena ali več strani za prikaz izvlečkov znanstvenih ugotovitev, strokovnih dognanj in ocen iz podatkovne zbirke. Izbirna ali izčrpna poročila v zvezi s temi podatki je mogoče prebrati ali natisniti. | Ocene pomembnosti temeljijo na znanstvenih virih, ki so bili ocenjeni in povzeti. Če taki viri niso na voljo, so ocene predlogi za orientacijo, primerljivi z ocenami pomembnosti za vrste projektov. | Viri, ki so bili uporabljeni, so označeni glede na njihovo znanstveno kakovost in/ali njihovo posebnost. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=lebensraum_arten (uvod v habitate/vrste) | This is the core of the information system. It provides detailed information on the sensitivity and potential effects of the impact factors for nearly all German | — | Habitats of Annex I Habitats Directive => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Lrt.jsp | — | Species of Annex II Habitats Directive => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Art.jsp | — | Bird species of Annex I and Article 4(2) Birds Directive => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Vog.jsp | Once the subject is chosen, the relevance of the different impact factors with respect to a particular habitat or species is displayed in a table. The selection of a topic/effect leads to further information which is provided in 5 categories: | 1. | Sensitivity / possible effects (best scientific knowledge regarding sensitivity of habitats and species and about possible effects for all 36 impact factors); | 2. | Regeneration capacity (information on natural self-regeneration); | 3. | Established methods for assessing impacts (hints, references and comments on parameters, criteria or methods to conduct prognoses of impacts and effects); | 4. | Thresholds of significance and information for the screening (examples, orientation values, thresholds for relevant effects); | 5. | Thresholds of significance and advice for the appropriate assessment (examples, orientation values, thresholds for significant adverse effects). | When selecting further the effects of an impact factor, one or more pages open up to display excerpts of scientific findings, expert knowledge and estimates contained in the database. There is a possibility to read or print selective or comprehensive reports of these data. | The relevance ratings are based on scientific sources that have been evaluated and extracted. Where such sources are not available the ratings are suggestions for orientation, comparable to the relevance ratings for project types. | The sources that have been used are marked with respect to their scientific quality and/or their specificity. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=lebensraumarten (introduction habitats/species) |
| IV. | Opredelitev in opis 36 dejavnikov vpliva | IV. | Definition and description of 36 impact factors |
| Baza znanja o 36 dejavnikih vpliva, razdeljenih v devet skupin, s posameznimi opredelitvami in podrobnimi opisi možnih vplivov na habitate in vrste. Ti dejavniki vpliva so skupna vez med projekti in habitati/vrstami. Mogoče jih je tudi prebrati in natisniti kot poročila. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=wirkfaktoren (uvod v dejavnike vpliva) | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Wirkfaktor.jsp (podatkovna zbirka dejavnikov vpliva) | Knowledge base on 36 impact factors assigned to 9 groups with specific definitions and detailed descriptions about possible effects on habitats and species. These impact factors are the common link between projects and habitats/species. They can also be read or printed as reports. | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Page.jsp?name=wirkfaktoren (introduction impact factors) | => http://ffh-vp-info.de/FFHVP/Wirkfaktor.jsp (database impact factors) |
| V. | Dodatne informacije | V. | Additional information |
| Dodatne informacije za zdaj vključujejo bibliografijo literature, citirane v sistemu, glosar in povezave, ki vključujejo na primer sistem spletnega kartiranja nemških območij Natura 2000. V prihodnosti se bo lahko sistem uporabljal kot platforma za predstavitev dodatnih informacij o presoji vplivov in učinkov, če bo to ustrezno na zvezni ravni. | So far, additional information includes a bibliography of the literature cited in the system, a glossary and links containing e.g. a web mapping system of the German Natura 2000 sites. In future, the system may serve as a platform for presenting further information on the assessment of impacts and effects as far as it is appropriate on the federal level. |
| Irska – AA GeoTool – informacije za pregled in ustrezno presojo | Ireland – AA GeoTool – Information for screening and appropriate assessment |
| Aplikacija AA GeoTool podpira postopek zbiranja podatkov med pregledom (faza 1) in ustrezno presojo (faza 2). Pri razvoju aplikacije AA GeoTool sta sodelovali agencija za varstvo okolja (EPA) in služba za narodne parke in prostoživeče živali (NPWS). Aplikacija uporablja podatke neposredno iz spletne storitve, ki jo zagotavlja NPWS. Podatki se redno posodabljajo, presoje pa temeljijo na najnovejših razpoložljivih informacijah. | AA GeoTool application supports the data gathering process during screening (stage 1) and the appropriate assessment (stage 2). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have worked together to develop the AA GeoTool. The application uses data directly from a web service provided by the NPWS. The data is regularly updated and the assessments are based on the most up-to-date information available. |
| Aplikacija AA GeoTool uporabnikom omogoča, da izberejo točko na karti in nato iščejo posebna ohranitvena območja in posebna območja varstva znotraj določene razdalje/navzgor/navzdol od točke. Razdalja, ki jo izbere uporabnik, je odvisna od ravni možnega vpliva načrta ali projekta na okolje. | The AA GeoTool allows the user to select a point on the map and then search for SACs and SPAs within a defined distance/ upstream/ downstream of the point. The distance selected by the user is dependent on the level of potential environmental impact from a plan or project. |
| Informacije, zbrane za posamezno območje Natura 2000 znotraj izbranega razpona razdalje, vključujejo: | The information gathered for each Natura 2000 site located within the selected distance range includes the following: |
| 1. | vrsto območja, npr. posebno ohranitveno območje ali posebno območje varstva; | 1. | site type, e.g., SAC or SPA; |
| 2. | edinstveno oznako območja; | 2. | unique site code for the site; |
| 3. | ime območja; | 3. | site name; |
| 4. | oddaljenost območja od izhodišča, ki ga izberejo uporabniki; | 4. | distance of the site from the users selected starting point; |
| 5. | smer iskanja, ki jo izberejo uporabniki; | 5. | search direction selected by user; |
| 6. | seznam upravičenih interesov za posamezno območje; | 6. | list of qualifying interests for each site; |
| 7. | povezavo URL do ciljev ohranjanja za posamezno območje. | 7. | Url link to the conservation objectives for each site. |
| Povezava do aplikacije AA GeoTool: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/AAGeoTool | Link to AA GeoTool: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/AAGeoTool |
| Dodatne informacije o posameznih območjih Natura 2000 so na voljo na spletnem mestu NPWS : http://www.epa.ie/terminalfour/AppropAssess/index.jsp in tudi na https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/default. | Further information on specific Natura 2000 Sites can be found on the NPWS website: http://www.epa.ie/terminalfour/AppropAssess/index.jsp and also https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/default |
| Nizozemska – orodja in smernice za ustrezno presojo | Netherlands – Tools and guidance for appropriate assessment |
| Na Nizozemskem je na voljo „načrtovalec poti za upoštevanje naravovarstvenih vidikov v okoljevarstvenih dovoljenjih“ (1), ki pomaga pri vseh potrebnih korakih v tem postopku. Ta načrtovalec poti je namenjen vlagateljem vloge za pridobitev okoljevarstvenega dovoljenja, kadar se zahteva naravovarstveno preverjanje. Namenjen je tudi pristojnim organom, vključenim v obravnavo vloge za pridobitev okoljevarstvenega dovoljenja, na občinski in pokrajinski ravni. Ta načrtovalec poti opisuje postopkovne korake, ki so potrebni, če je presoja za zavarovane vrste ali zavarovana območja Natura 2000 del postopka za pridobitev okoljevarstvenega dovoljenja. Načrtovalec poti pomaga vlagateljem in izvajalcem z vprašanji, kot so „Kako vem, ali je potrebna naravovarstvena ocena?“, „V kateri fazi bi morali biti na voljo ekološki podatki?“ in „Kako dolgo traja postopek?“. | Obstaja tudi orodje za napovedovanje možnih vplivov na vrste in habitatne tipe na območjih Natura 2000 (vendar ne na celovitost območja kot takega). Kazalnik vplivov „Natura 2000 – ekološki pogoji in moteči dejavniki“ je orodje za razvijalce, ponudnike dovoljenj in pripravljavce načrtov, ki imajo opravka z dejavnostmi na območjih Natura 2000 ali v njihovi bližini. Kazalnik vplivov je instrument, s katerim je mogoče proučiti možne škodljive vplive zaradi dejavnosti in načrtov. Kazalnik vplivov zagotavlja informacije o občutljivosti vrst in habitatnih tipov za najpogostejše moteče dejavnike. Te informacije so splošne: za ugotovitev, ali je dejavnost škodljiva v praksi, je treba izvesti dodatne raziskave. | Splet vsebuje tudi smernice o pomembnosti (2), ki so bile pripravljene leta 2010 in zagotavljajo nasvete za presojo pomembnosti vplivov na območja Natura 2000. Izhodišče je, da so lahko posledice precejšnje, če se zaradi posega površina habitata, število vrst ali kakovost habitata zmanjšajo bolj, kot je navedeno v ciljih ohranjanja. Vendar lahko posebne značilnosti dejavnosti ali posebne okoliščine na območju povzročijo, da kljub zmanjšanju ni bistvenih posledic. Podrobna analiza na ravni območja lahko zato privede do drugačnega zaključka, kar je opisano v smernicah. | Poleg tega obstajajo posebne smernice za projekte z možnimi vplivi dušika. Za odlaganje dušika je bil za Nizozemsko razvit kompleksen sistem, pri katerem se upoštevajo kumulativni vplivi (samo) dušika iz različnih virov. | V zvezi z nacionalnimi projekti „banka podatkov o dovoljenjih“ zagotavlja vse ustrezne informacije, odločbo in od 1. januarja 2017 tudi popolne ustrezne presoje za dovoljenja, povezana z izvajanjem zakona o ohranjanju narave. | In the Netherlands a ‘route planner for consideration of protected nature in environmental permits’ is available (1), which helps in taking all the steps necessary in the process. This route planner is intended for the applicant of an environmental permit where a nature check is required. It is also intended for the competent authority involved in the processing of an application for an environmental permit, namely the municipality and the province. This route planner describes the procedural steps that are necessary if an assessment for protected species or protected Natura 2000 sites is part of the procedure for obtaining an environmental permit. The route planner helps the applicants and practitioners with questions such as ‘How do I know whether a nature assessment is required?’, ‘In which phase should the ecological data be available?’ and ‘How long does the procedure take?’. | There is also a tool to predict possible impacts on species and habitat types in Natura 2000 sites (but not on the integrity of the site as such). The impact indicator ‘Natura 2000 – ecological preconditions and disruptive factors’ is a tool for developers, permit providers and plan makers who have to deal with activities in or near Natura 2000 areas. The effects indicator is an instrument with which possible harmful effects as a result of the activity and plans can be explored. The effects indicator provides information about the sensitivity of species and habitat types for the most common disturbing factors. This information is generic: to determine whether an activity is harmful in practice, further research must be undertaken. | The web also contains guidance on significance (2), developed in 2010, which provides advice for the assessment of the significance of impacts on Natura 2000 sites. The starting point is that if, as a result of an intervention, the surface area of habitat, number of a species or quality of a habitat will be lower than referred to in the conservation objectives, then there may be significant consequences. However, the specific characteristics of the activity or the specific circumstances of the area can make that, despite the decrease, there are no significant consequences. Detailed analysis at the site level can therefore lead to a different conclusion, which is described in the guidelines. | In addition, there is a specific guidance for projects with possible nitrogen effects. For N-deposition for the Netherlands a complex system has been developed that takes into account the cumulative impacts of (only) nitrogen from different sources. | On national projects, a ‘permit data bank’ provides all relevant information, the decision and since 1.1.2017 also the complete appropriate assessments for permits related to the implementation of the Nature Conservation Act. |
| 1.2 Smernice za presojo | 1.2. Guidance for the assessment |
| Avstrija – smernice za presojo prometne infrastrukture | Austria – Guidelines for assessment of transport infrastructure |
| Avstrijsko raziskovalno združenje za ceste, železnice in promet (www.fsv.at) je pripravilo smernice, tako imenovane „RVS“ (3). Avstrijsko ministrstvo za promet, inovacije in tehnologijo, oddelek za hitre ceste in avtoceste, je določilo, da so te smernice zavezujoče za ASFINAG (nacionalno javno cestno podjetje) in del „pravil igre“ tudi za druge projekte. V njih je med drugim opisano, kako mora biti zasnovano načrtovanje procesov in katere metode bi bilo treba uporabljati za zadostno upoštevanje različnih okoljskih zahtev. Te smernice vsebujejo na primer priporočila ali dogovore o pragovih, opise metod zbiranja ali opredelitve tehničnih izrazov. Za varstvo narave – zlasti za zahteve glede varstva vrst na območjih Natura 2000 in v EU – so bile pripravljene posebne smernice RVS, ki so bile objavljene leta 2015 („Ocene ohranjanja vrst pri infrastrukturnih projektih“, RVS 04.03.13). Teme, kot je opredelitev znatne obremenitve za določeno populacijo ali območje Natura 2000, so obravnavane tako, da so uporabnikom – projektnim pisarnam in organom za oceno infrastrukture – zlahka razumljive. | Austrian Research Association Road – Rail –Transport (www.fsv.at) has developed guidelines, so called ‘RVS’ (3). The Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology motorways and highways has made these guidelines binding for the ASFINAG (national public road company) – and part of the ‘rules of the game’ for other projects as well. They describe, inter alia, how planning processes must be designed, which methods should be used to sufficiently consider different environmental requirements. These guidelines contain for example, recommendations or agreements on thresholds, descriptions of collection methods, or definitions of technical terms. For nature protection – especially for Natura 2000 and EU species protection requirements – a specific RVS was worked out and published 2015 (‘Species conservation assessments in infrastructure projects’, RVS 04.03.13). Topics such as the definition of a significant nuisance for a population or a Natura 2000 area are addressed in a way the users – the project planning offices and infrastructure evaluation authorities –can clearly understand. |
| Belgija – smernice za presojo zakisljevanja in evtrofikacije zaradi odlaganja iz zraka | Belgium – Guidelines to assess acidification and eutrophication through aerial deposits |
| Obstajajo smernice o vplivih, kot sta „zakisljevanje zaradi odlaganja iz zraka“ in „evtrofikacija zaradi odlaganja iz zraka“. Te metodologije so povezane z dejavnostmi, kot so intenzivno kmetijstvo, industrijsko ogrevanje ter energetski procesi in mobilnost (odlaganje NOx in NH3). Za presojo teh možnih vplivov se spodbuja pristop v dveh korakih. Za prvi pregled je na voljo interaktivno spletno orodje, da se s hitrim pregledom ugotovi, ali lahko obstaja možen vpliv. Če ta hitri pregled odlaganja pokaže zeleno luč, se ne pričakujejo možni škodljivi vplivi. Če orodje pokaže rdečo luč, to pomeni, da bi lahko obstajal škodljiv vpliv, ki ga je treba podrobneje proučiti z ustrezno presojo (https://www.milieuinfo.be/voortoets/). | There are guidelines on impacts such as ‘acidification through aerial deposits’ and ‘eutrophication through aerial deposits’. These methodologies are linked to activities such as intensive agriculture, industrial heating and energy processes and mobility (deposition of NOx and NH3). For assessing these possible impacts, a two-steps approach is promoted. For a first screening, an interactive online tool is available to determine through a quick scan whether there can be a possible impact. If this quick deposition scan gives a green light, no possible harmful impact is to be expected. If the tool gives a red light, this means that there might be a harmful impact that needs to be examined closer through an appropriate assessment (https://www.milieuinfo.be/voortoets/). |
| Nemčija – določitev pragov za ugotovitev večjih škodljivih vplivov | Germany – Setting thresholds to determine significant adverse effects |
| Tako kot drugod je bilo zaradi visoke ravni subjektivnosti tudi v Nemčiji težko presoditi pomembnost vplivov na ciljne značilnosti omrežja Natura 2000, ki je jedro ustrezne presoje. Zato pristojni organi pogosto niso imeli razumne znanstvene gotovosti, ki so jo potrebovali za utemeljitev odločitve glede odobritve ali zavrnitve načrta ali projekta. | In Germany, as elsewhere, because of a high level of subjectivity, it was difficult to assess the significance of effects on Natura 2000 target features, which is the core of the appropriate assessment. As a result, the competent authorities often did not have the reasonable scientific certainty they needed to back their decisions on whether or not to authorise a plan or project. |
| Nemški zvezni urad za varstvo narave (Bundesamt für Naturschurt, BfN) je za obravnavo te težave ter zagotovitev enotnejšega in skladnejšega pristopa pri presoji pomembnosti vpliva v praksi naročil raziskovalni projekt, da bi zagotovil znanstveno preskušena pravila in norme za presojo pomembnosti vplivov na vse habitatne tipe in vrste, navedene v direktivah o pticah in habitatih, ki se pojavljajo v Nemčiji. Tako pripravljene smernice so bile objavljene leta 2007 (Lambrecht in Trautner, 2007). | To address this problem and ensure a more uniform and consistent approach when assessing the impact significance in practice, the German Federal Agency for Nature Protection (BfN) commissioned a research project to provide scientifically tested rules and conventions for assessing significance of effects on all habitat types and species listed in the Birds and Habitats Directives that occur in Germany. The resulting guidance document was published in 2007 (Lambrecht & Trautner 2007). |
| A: Ozadje in status standardov | A: Background and status of the standards |
| Na podlagi sodbe Sodišča Evropske unije v zadevi Waddenzee je najvišje nacionalno upravno sodišče v Nemčiji (BVerwG) sklenilo, da bi se morala izguba habitata, ki je del ciljev ohranjanja na območju Natura 2000, na splošno šteti za večji škodljiv vpliv na celovitost območja. Tudi sodba Sodišča Evropske unije v zadevi Galway z dne 11. aprila 2013 (C-258/11) jasno kaže, da je treba dosledno zavarovati habitate na območjih Natura 2000 in da se lahko v določenih pogojih tudi majhne izgube ocenijo kot pomembne. | Based on the ruling of the CJEU in the Waddenzee-case the highest national administrative court in Germany (BVerwG) came to the conclusion that a loss of habitat which is part of the conservation objectives in a Natura 2000 site should, in general, considered a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Also the ruling of the CJEU regarding the Galway-Case 11.4.2013 (C-258/11) shows clearly that a strict protection of habitats in Natura 2000 sites is required and that even small losses might be assessed as significant under specific conditions. |
| Da bi se ustrezno obravnavale razmeroma majhne izgube, standardi Lambrechta in Trautnerja (2007) zagotavljajo orientacijske stopnje pomembnosti. Ti standardi so bili razviti s projekti znanstvenih raziskav in razvoja ter nato obravnavani in ovrednoteni v postopku s široko udeležbo strokovnjakov, ki je trajal šest let. Zdaj so široko sprejeti in dogovorjeni, priporočajo pa se tudi v smernicah, ki jih uradno in redno upoštevajo upravna sodišča ter se široko uporabljajo pri vseh vrstah ustreznih presoj. | In order to deal properly with relatively small losses, the standards of Lambrecht & Trautner (2007) provide orientation levels of significance. These standards were developed by scientific research and development projects and then discussed and evaluated through broad expert participation procedure during a six year period. They are now broadly accepted and agreed, recommended in guidelines, officially and regularly regarded by administrative courts and broadly used in appropriate assessments of all kinds. |
| B: Koncept standardov | B: Concept of the standards |
| Izhodišče standarda je, da bi se morala trajna izguba habitatnih tipov in habitatov za vrste, ki so del ciljev ohranjanja na območju Natura 2000, na splošno šteti za pomemben škodljiv vpliv na celovitost območja. Vendar pa bi bilo mogoče pod določenimi pogoji določeno raven izgube za nekatere habitatne tipe in vrste kljub temu obravnavati kot nepomembno. | The starting premise for the standard is that, in general, a permanent loss of habitat types and habitats for species, which are part of the conservation objectives in a Natura 2000 site, should be considered a significant adverse effect on integrity of the site. A certain level of loss could nevertheless be treated as insignificant for some habitat types and species under certain conditions. |
| Smernice vsebujejo znanstveno določene merila in pragove za določitev pomembnosti, ki temeljijo na kvalitativnih in funkcionalnih vidikih ter na kvantitativnih merilih. Da se vpliv šteje za nepomemben, morajo biti izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji: | The guidance provides scientifically agreed criteria and thresholds for determining significance, which are based on qualitative and functional aspects, as well as on quantitative criteria. For an impact to be considered insignificant all the following conditions must be met: |
| A. | prizadeta ni nobena pomembna ali posebna funkcija ali različica habitata. Posebne značilnosti habitata morajo ostati nespremenjene; | A. | No important or special function or variant of the habitat is affected. Specific features of the habitat must remain unaltered; |
| B. | orientacijske vrednosti „kvantitativne – absolutne izgube območja“ (določene za posamezne habitatne tipe in habitate vrst) niso presežene; | B. | Orientation values of ‘quantitative — absolute area loss’ (defined for each habitat type and for habitats of species) are not exceeded; |
| C. | „relativna izguba območja“ v višini 1 % celotne površine habitata na območju ni presežena; | C. | A ‘relative area loss’ of 1 % of the total area of the habitat in the site is not exceeded; |
| D. | kumulativni vplivi z drugimi projekti ne presegajo zgornjih vrednosti (B in C); | D. | Cumulative effects with other projects do not exceed the above values (B and C); |
| E. | kumulativni vplivi z drugimi dejavniki vpliva prav tako ne presegajo zgornjih vrednosti. | E. | Cumulative effects with other impact factors do also not exceed the above values. |
| C: Določitev pragov za izgubo habitatov | C: Developing the thresholds for habitat loss |
| Orientacijske vrednosti za nepomembne izgube so bile določene na podlagi pristopa za posamezne habitate in posamezne vrste z uporabo sklopa meril. Pragovi so bili določeni ob upoštevanju ranljivosti habitatov, ki je bila ocenjena na podlagi treh glavnih meril in štirih sekundarnih meril: | Orientation values for non-significant losses were developed by a habitat-specific and species- specific approach using a set of criteria. The thresholds were defined taking into account the vulnerability of the habitats, which was estimated on the basis of 3 main criteria and 4 secondary criteria: |
| Glavna merila za habitatne tipe: | Main criteria for habitat types: |
| — | ekološko najmanjše preživetja sposobno območje habitata; | — | ecological minimum viable area of the habitat; |
| — | povprečna površina habitata na območjih Natura 2000; | — | average area of the habitat in Natura 2000 sites; |
| — | skupna površina habitata v omrežju Natura 2000. | — | total area of the habitat in the Natura 2000 network; |
| Sekundarna merila: | Secondary criteria: |
| — | redkost/pogostost habitatnega tipa; | — | rarity/frequency of the habitat type; |
| — | status prednostnega habitata; | — | status as priority habitat; |
| — | ogroženost habitata; | — | threat situation of the habitat; |
| — | sposobnost obnavljanja. | — | regeneration capability. |
| Na podlagi ocene nacionalnega stanja habitatov v omrežju Natura 2000 je bilo opredeljenih pet razredov ranljivosti za kopenske habitate in dva razreda morskih habitatov (glej preglednico 1). | Five vulnerability classes for terrestrial habitats and two classes of marine habitats were defined (see Table 1), based on an evaluation of the nationwide stock of habitats in the Natura 2000 network. |
| Nato je bila določena matrika, ki se je nanašala na razrede ranljivosti s tremi stopnjami relativne izgube območja (stopnje I, II in III), kar ustreza relativni izgubi v višini 1 %, 0,5 % in 0,1 %. Pragovi dopustne absolutne izgube območja za posamezne razrede habitata so bile ocenjene za vsak razred habitata in vsako stopnjo relativne izgube (glej preglednico 1). | A matrix was then established that related the vulnerability classes with 3 levels of relative area loss (level I, II and III), corresponding to 1 %, 0,5 % and 0,1 % relative loss. Thresholds of tolerable absolute area loss for each habitat class were estimated for each class of habitat and each level of relative loss s (see Table 1). |
| Preglednica 1 | Table 1 |
| Orientacijske vrednosti (OV) za absolutne in relativne pragove dopustnih nepomembnih izgub zavarovanih habitatov iz Priloge 1 k direktivi o habitatih | Orientation values (OV) for absolute and relative thresholds of tolerable non-significant losses of protected habitats of Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive |
| V primeru relativne izgube: | Stopnja | Razredi orientacijskih vrednosti | (pragovi dopustne kvantitativno absolutne izgube habitata) | In case of a relative loss: | Level | Classes of orientation values | (thresholds of tolerable quantitative-absolute loss of habitat) |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6a | 6b | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6a | 6b |
| posebni morski razred | Special Marine Class |
| < 1 % | I. osnovna OV | 0 m2 | 25 m2 | 50 m2 | 100 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 0,5 ha | < 1 % | I. basic OV | 0 m2 | 25 m2 | 50 m2 | 100 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 0,5 ha |
| < 0,5 % | II. srednja OV | 0 m2 | 125 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 1 250 m2 | 2 500 m2 | 2,5 ha | < 0,5 % | II. middle OV | 0 m2 | 125 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 1 250 m2 | 2 500 m2 | 2,5 ha |
| < 0,1 % | III. zgornja OV | 0 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 1 000 m2 | 2 500 m2 | 5 000 m2 | 5 ha | < 0,1 % | III. upper OV | 0 m2 | 250 m2 | 500 m2 | 1 000 m2 | 2 500 m2 | 5 000 m2 | 5 ha |
| V praksi to pomeni, da za 21 od 91 habitatnih tipov, ki se pojavljajo v Nemčiji, izguba ni sprejemljiva, za preostale habitate pa je določeno izgubo mogoče obravnavati kot nepomembno, če orientacijske vrednosti, določene za posamezne habitate, niso presežene. | In practice this means that for 21 of the 91 habitat types occurring in Germany, no loss is acceptable, while for the remaining habitats some loss may be considered insignificant if the orientation values defined for each habitat are not exceeded. |
| Povezovanje absolutne izgube območja z relativno izgubo pomeni, da bo večje območje habitata omogočalo večjo absolutno izgubo, dokler predstavlja manjši delež prizadete površine. Za določitev pragov se je upoštevalo minimalno preživetja sposobno območje habitata. Orientacijske vrednosti za izgubo habitata, določene za nekatere habitatne tipe iz Priloge I v Nemčiji, so predstavljene v preglednici 2 spodaj. | Relating the absolute area loss to the relative loss implies that a larger habitat area will allow a greater absolute loss as long as it represents a smaller proportion of affected surface area. For the establishment of thresholds, the minimum viable area of habitat was considered. Orientation values for habitat loss defined for some Annex I habitat types in Germany are presented in Table 2 below. |
| Preglednica 2 | Table 2 |
| Orientacijske vrednosti za izgubo habitata, določene za nekatere habitatne tipe iz Priloge I v Nemčiji | Orientation values for habitat loss defined for some Annex I habitat types in Germany |
| Oznaka | Habitatni tip | Orientacijska vrednost za izgubo habitata | (v m2) | Code | Habitat type | Orientation value for habitat loss | (in m2) |
| razred | stopnja I | stopnja II | stopnja III | class | Level I | Level II | Level III |
| če izguba znaša | ≤ 1 % | če izguba znaša | ≤ 0,5 % | če izguba znaša | ≤ 0,1 % | If loss | ≤ 1 % | If loss | ≤ 0,5 % | If loss | ≤ 0,1 % |
| 9110 | Bukovi gozdovi Luzulo Faegetum | 5 | 250 | 1 250 | 2 500 | 9110 | Luzulo Faegetum beech forest | 5 | 250 | 1 250 | 2 500 |
| 9130 | Bukovi gozdovi Asperulo Fagetum | 5 | 250 | 1 250 | 2 500 | 9130 | Asperulo Fagetum beech forest | 5 | 250 | 1 250 | 2 500 |
| 9170 | Hrastovo-belogabrovi gozdovi | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 | 9170 | Oak hornbeam forest | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 |
| 91E0* | Obrečni gozdovi | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 | 91E0* | Alluvial forest | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 |
| 6510 | Nižinski ekstenzivno gojeni travniki | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 | 6510 | Lowland hay meadows | 4 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 |
| 4030 | Evropske suhe resave | 3 | 50 | 250 | 500 | 4030 | European dry heaths | 3 | 50 | 250 | 500 |
| 6430 | Hidrofilne robne združbe z visokim steblikovjem | 3 | 50 | 250 | 500 | 6430 | Hydrophilus tall herb fringe comm. | 3 | 50 | 250 | 500 |
| 6120* | Polnaravna suha travišča in njihove grmiščne faze na karbonatnih tleh | 2 | 25 | 125 | 250 | 6120* | Xeric sand calcareous grasslands | 2 | 25 | 125 | 250 |
| 7110* | Aktivna visoka barja | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7110* | Active raised bogs | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7220* | Lehnjakotvorni izviri | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7220* | Petrifying springs with tufa formations | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C. Pragovi za izgube habitatov živalskih vrst | C. Thresholds for losses of habitats of animal species |
| Razvoj dopustnih izgub habitatov zavarovanih vrst je večinoma temeljil na značilni velikosti habitatov vrst in na pregledu literature, pri čemer so se upoštevali naravno območje razširjenosti, velikosti ozemlja in mobilnost osebkov ter območja populacij. Vrste so bile razvrščene v osem razredov povprečnih naravnih območij razširjenosti, ki so bila opredeljena (po Binku, 1992) kot: < 1 ha, 4 ha, 16 ha, 64 ha, 260 ha, 10 km2, 40 km2, 160 km2. | The development of tolerable losses of the habitats of protected species was mainly based on the typical size of habitats of species and on a literature review, considering the home ranges, territory sizes and mobility of the individuals and the ranges of the populations. The species were grouped into 8 classes of average home ranges which were defined (according to Bink 1992) as: <1 ha, 4 ha,16 ha, 64 ha, 260 ha,10 km2, 40 km2, 160 km2. |
| „Orientacijske vrednosti“ za stopnje pomembnosti so bile nato določene kot 1/100 ali 1/1 000 vrednosti razreda glede na to, ali je bil posamezen razred izbran za osebke oziroma populacije. Pri orientacijskih vrednostih je treba upoštevati tudi kombinacijo relativne in absolutne ravni izgub. | The ‘orientation values’ for the significance levels were then determined as 1/100 or 1/1 000 of the class value depending on whether the specific class was chosen for individuals or populations, respectively. For the orientation values also a combination of relative and absolute levels for losses has to be considered. |
| Poleg tega je treba upoštevati posamezno uporabo habitata za vrsto, da se določi, za katere dele habitatov se lahko uporabijo orientacijske vrednosti. Za zelo ogrožene vrste orientacijska vrednost ni navedena; to pomeni, da se kot prag za pomemben vpliv šteje vsaka vrednost, večja od nič. | Additionally, the specific habitat use of a species has to be taken into account to determine for which parts of habitats the orientation values may be used. For highly endangered species no orientation value is given; i.e., the threshold for a significant impact is considered to be anything greater than zero. |
| V zvezi s 53 vrstami iz Priloge II za 16 vrst ne obstajajo pragovi, kakor tudi ne za 20 od 98 vrst iz direktive o pticah. Drugače rečeno, verjetno ne bo sprejemljiva nobena izguba. Vse te ugotovitve/podatki/pragovi so samo smernice. To pomeni, da je pri vsaki ustrezni presoji še vedno potreben pristop na podlagi posameznega primera. | Regarding the 53 species from Annex II, no threshold values exist for 16 of them, nor for 20 of the 98 Birds Directive species. In other words, no loss is likely to be acceptable. All these conclusions/ figures/ thresholds are intended for guidance purposes only. This means that a case-by-case approach for each appropriate assessment is still required. |
| D: Prednosti standardov | D: Advantages of the standards |
| Smernice so od objave uspešno prestale presoje na nemških sodiščih in se zdaj uporabljajo po vsej državi. Na podlagi več kot desetletnih izkušenj je mogoče opredeliti več prednosti tega pristopa: | Since its publication, the guidance document has been successfully tested in the German courts and is now applied across the country. Based on more than ten years of experience, several advantages of this approach can be identified: |
| — | večja preglednost in objektivnost, jasen okvir presojanja za presojo pomembnih škodljivih vplivov na celovitost; | — | More transparency and objectivity, a clear assessment framework for the assessment of significant adverse effects on integrity. |
| — | pravila za ustrezno presojo so jasna za vse (predlagatelja, svetovalna podjetja, pristojni organ, organ za varstvo narave, sodnike/sodišča in javnost); | — | Rules for the appropriate assessment are clear for everyone (proponent, consultancies, competent authority, nature conservation authority, judges/courts and public). |
| — | standardi zagotavljajo kakovost presoj; | — | Standards are guaranteeing the quality of the assessments. |
| — | pristop je lahko koristen tudi za druge vplive (v zvezi s postopnimi izgubami); | — | The approach might also be useful for other impacts (regarding the gradual losses). |
| — | zagotavlja večjo pravno varnost in gotovost pri načrtovanju. | — | Provides more legal and planning certainty. |
| Za več informacij v zvezi z razvojem ali uporabo v praksi in sodno prakso glej: | For more information regarding the development or the usage in practice and case law, see: |
| | Lambrecht, H., Trautner, J. (2007): Fachinformationssystem und Fachkonventionen zurBestimmung der Erheblichkeit im Rahmen der FFH-VP — Endbericht zum Teil Fachkonventionen, Schlussstand Juni 2007 (Strokovni informacijski sistem in pravila za presojo pomembnosti v okviru ustrezne presoje – končno poročilo, del Strokovna pravila, končna različica iz junija 2007. V nemščini), https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/ffh-vertraeglichkeitspruefung.html; | | Lambrecht H., Trautner J. (2007): Fachinformationssystem und Fachkonventionen zur Bestimmung der Erheblichkeit im Rahmen der FFH-VP — Endbericht zum Teil Fachkonventionen, Schlussstand Juni 2007. (Expert information system and rules for significance assessment in the context of the appropriate assessment — Final report part Expert rules, final version June 2007. In German.) https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/ffh-vertraeglichkeitspruefung.html |
| | Bernotat, D. (2013): Appropriate Assessment: Standards of significance for more planning certainty (Ustrezna presoja: standardi pomembnosti za večjo gotovost pri načrtovanju). Predstavitev na seminarju Jaspers o varstvu narave, Bruselj, 10. april 2013, http://www.jaspersnetwork.org/download/attachments/13205585/Appropriate%20assessment%20standards%20-%20Germany.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1400316957000&api=v2. | | Bernotat, D. (2013): Appropriate Assessment: Standards of significance for more planning certainty. Presentation on Jaspers seminar on nature protection, Brussels, 10.4.2013. http://www.jaspersnetwork.org/download/attachments/13205585/Appropriate%20assessment%20standards%20-%20Germany.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1400316957000&api=v2 |
| Nemčija – merila za oceno umrljivosti prostoživečih živali v okviru projektov in dejavnosti | Germany – Criteria for the assessment of mortality of wild animals in the context of projects and operations |
| V Nemčiji je bil med letoma 2008 in 2016 razvit sistem razvrščanja za pomembnost umrljivosti zaradi človekovih dejavnosti na ravni vrst. Ta sistem upošteva parametre, povezane s populacijsko biologijo in stanjem ohranjenosti narave. | A classification system for the importance of anthropogenic mortality on the species level was developed in Germany between 2008 and 2016. This system takes into account parameters related to population biology and nature conservation status. |
| Najprej je bil razvit indeks občutljivosti populacijske biologije (PSI) na podlagi parametrov, kot so stopnja umrljivosti, življenjska doba, starost pri prvem razmnoževanju, stopnja razmnoževanja, velikost nacionalne populacije in trend populacije. Za večino parametrov so bile izmerjene vrednosti pretvorjene v sistem točkovanja, ki izraža ranljivost za umrljivost zaradi človekovih dejavnosti, od visoke ranljivosti (1 točka) do nizke ranljivosti (9 točk). | First, a Population Biology Sensitivity Index (PSI) was developed based on parameters such as mortality rate, longevity, age of first reproduction, reproductive rate, national population size and population trend. For most parameters, measured values were translated into a scoring system reflecting the vulnerability to anthropogenic mortality starting with high vulnerability (1 point) and ending with low vulnerability (9 points). |
| Oblikovan je bil tudi indeks ohranitvene vrednosti (NWI). Ta indeks upošteva parametre, kot so „status na nacionalnem rdečem seznamu“, „številčnost v Nemčiji“, „stanje populacije“ (v skladu s sistemom Natura 2000) in „nacionalna odgovornost za vrste“. | A Conservation Value Index (NWI) was also created. This index takes into consideration the parameters such as ‘status on the National Red List’, ‘abundance in Germany’, ‘population condition’ (according to the Natura 2000 system) and ‘national responsibility for the species’. |
| Za pomoč pri presojah za posamezne vrste sta bila oba indeksa (PSI in NWI) združena v matriko, s čimer je bil dobljen indeks občutljivosti na umrljivost (MGI). Ta indeks olajšuje oceno izgube osebka za celotno populacijo. Z njim je mogoče ugotoviti, za katere vrste (odvisno od tega, kako redke, ogrožene in občutljive so) je treba že izgubo nekaj osebkov šteti za pomembno v okviru presoj. Indeks MGI omogoča tudi opredelitev tistih številčnih vrst, ki ne zahtevajo podrobnejše obravnave, kar zadeva tveganje umrljivosti, povezano s projektom, vsaj v primeru, ko gre za le nekaj osebkov. | To help with carrying out species-specific assessments, both indices (PSI and NWI) were aggregated in a matrix resulting in an Index of Mortality Sensitivity (MGI). This index facilitates the assessment of a loss of an individual on the whole population. It allows one to detect which of the species (depending on how rare, threatened and sensitive they are) the loss of only few individuals has to be considered as significant in the context of the assessments. The MGI also allows the identification of those abundant species, which do not require a more detailed consideration regarding a project-related mortality risk, at least when only a few individuals are concerned. |
| Poleg indeksov so organi pripravili tudi navodila za uporabo indeksa MGI v okviru načrtovanja in presoje vplivov. Pri načrtovanju in postopkih za izdajo dovoljenj je treba tveganja trčenja ali umrljivosti upoštevati za vsak projekt posebej. Na primer, tveganje umrljivosti pri pticah zaradi vetrnih turbin, električnih vodov (trk in smrt zaradi električnega toka) in prometnih poti (ceste in železnice) se ne razlikuje samo med vrstami, ampak je lahko odvisno tudi od vrste projekta. Enako velja za netopirje. | In addition to the indexes, the authorities also developed instructions on how to apply the MGI in the framework of planning and impact assessment. In planning and permitting processes, risks of collision or mortality need to be considered on a project-specific basis. For instance, the mortality risk for birds from wind turbines, power lines (collision and electrocution) and traffic routes (roads and railroads) does not only differ among species, but can also depend on the type of project. The same applies to bats. |
| Zato je bilo v drugem koraku za vsako vrsto tveganje umrljivosti, povezano s posameznimi vrstami projektov, razdeljeno na štiri razrede za ptice (trk z električnimi vodi, smrt zaradi električnega toka v drogovih srednjenapetostnih vodov, trk z avtomobili in vetrnimi turbinami) in dva razreda za netopirje (trk z avtomobili in vetrnimi turbinami). Ta ocena temelji na obsežnem pregledu literature v zvezi s številom ubitih živali po posamezni vrsti projektov v Nemčiji in Evropi ter na poznavanju biologije in vedenja vrst (npr. mobilnost, velikost naravnega območja razširjenosti, višina letenja, vedenje med letenjem, okretnost pri letenju, hitrost premikanja, velikost telesa, razpon kril ali vidno polje), na objavljenih ocenah strokovnjakov (vključno z objavljenimi nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi smernicami) in na lastnih ocenah. Pri razlagi statističnih podatkov o smrtnih primerih v okviru različnih projektov se je upoštevala tudi številčnost zadevnih vrst. | Therefore in the second step, for each species the mortality risk related to specific project types was divided into four classes for birds (collision at power lines, electrocution at medium voltage masts, collision with cars and wind turbines) and two classes for bats (collision with cars and wind turbines). This evaluation is based on an extensive literature review regarding the numbers of animals killed by each project type in Germany and Europe, as well as on knowledge about biology and behaviour of the species (e.g. mobility, home range size, flight altitude, flight behaviour, manoeuvrability, speed of locomotion, body size, wing span or vision), on published estimates of experts (including published national and international guidelines) and on own estimates. When interpreting statistics of casualties from different projects, the abundance of the respective species was also considered. |
| Naknadno je bilo tveganje umrljivosti, povezano s posameznimi vrstami projektov, združeno s splošno občutljivostjo za umrljivost (MGI) v obliki indeksa občutljivosti za umrljivost, povezanega s posameznimi vrstami projektov (vMGI). | Subsequently, the mortality risk related to specific project types was combined with the general mortality sensitivity (MGI) in the form of an index of mortality sensitivity related to specific project types (vMGI). |
| Za dodatno ponazoritev tega „visoko tveganje trka“ z električnimi vodi, vetrnimi turbinami ali cestami ne pomeni samodejno „znatno povečanega tveganja umrljivosti“ (v smislu zakonov o ohranjanju) pri vrstah, ki kažejo 50–60-odstotno naravno umrljivost. Bolj drastični primeri so žuželke (npr. številni metulji in kačji pastirji), ki kažejo visoko tveganje trka na cestah, vendar vsako leto vsi odrasli primerki tako ali tako umrejo naravne smrti. Te živali so v svoji celotni avtekologiji prilagojene velikim izgubam (visoka naravna umrljivost, kratka življenjska doba, visoka stopnja razmnoževanja in velika populacija). Tako so nekatera tveganja umrljivosti zaradi človekovih dejavnosti, ki so povezana z infrastrukturo, za kratkožive vrste precej manj pomembna kot za dolgožive vrste z nizko naravno umrljivostjo in stopnjo razmnoževanja (k-strategi). Z uporabo metode MGI se ti avtekološki vidiki in razlike upoštevajo pri oceni tveganj umrljivosti za posamezne projekte. | To further illustrate this, a ‘high collision risk’ with power lines, wind turbines or roads does not automatically mean a ‘significantly increased mortality risk’ (sensu conservation laws) in species which show a natural mortality of 50-60 %. More drastic examples are insects (e.g. many butterflies and dragonflies), which show a high collision risk on roads, but of which 100 % of the imagines naturally die each year anyway. Those animals are adapted to high losses in their whole autecology (high natural mortality, low longevity, high reproductive rate, large population size). Thus, for short-lived species, certain anthropogenic mortality risks resulting from infrastructure are much less significant than for long-living species with low natural mortality and reproduction (k-strategists). Using the MGI-method, these autecological aspects and differences are considered in the evaluation of project-specific mortality risks. |
| Nazadnje, vsak posamezen primer je treba presojati z vidika morebitnega navzkrižja med projektom in številom osebkov prizadete vrste. V ta namen se uporabi „tveganje za posamezno združbo“ (KSR). Ocena tega tveganja temelji na informacijah za posamezno območje in parametrih projekta. | Finally, each individual case has to be assessed in terms of the potential conflict of the project with the number of the individuals of the affected species. For this purpose a ‘constellation specific risk’ (KSR) is applied. The evaluation of this risk is based on area-specific information and project parameters. |
| Skratka, indeks občutljivosti na umrljivost (MGI) ne more nadomestiti presoje umrljivosti v vsakem posameznem primeru. Pač pa diferencirane razvrstitve pomagajo objektivizirati presojo tveganj umrljivosti, na primer v okviru uredbe o blaženju vplivov (na podlagi nemškega zveznega zakona o varstvu narave) ali določb člena 6 (ustrezna presoja) in člena 12 (varstvo vrst) direktive o habitatih ali določb direktive o okoljski odgovornosti. Cilj metode je zagotoviti standardiziran način presoje vpliva umrljivosti vrst ter s tem povečati objektivnost in preglednost presoj vpliva. | In summary, the Index of Sensitivity to Mortality (MGI) cannot replace the assessment of mortality in each individual case. Instead, the differentiated classifications help to objectify the assessment of mortality risks, for example in the context of the Impact Mitigation Regulation (under the German Federal Nature Conservation Act) or the provisions of Art. 6 (appropriate assessment) and Art. 12 (species protection) of the Habitats Directive, or the provisions of the Environmental Liability Directive. The aim of the method is to provide a standardized way of assessing the impact of species mortality, and thus to increase objectivity and transparency of impact assessments. |
| Bernotat, D., in Dierschke, V. (2016): Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen. 3. Fassung – Stand 20.9.2016 – Leipzig (Bundesamt für Naturschutz), 460 S. https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/besonderer-artenschutz/toetungsverbot.html | Bernotat, D. & Dierschke, V. (2016): Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen. 3. Fassung – Stand 20.9.2016. – Leipzig (Bundesamt für Naturschutz), 460 S. https://www.bfn.de/themen/planung/eingriffe/besonderer-artenschutz/toetungsverbot.html |
| Italija – nacionalne smernice za presoje v skladu s členom 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih | Italy. National Guidelines for assessments in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive |
| Italija je nedavno objavila nacionalne smernice, v katerih so opisani postopki za pregled, ustrezno presojo in uporabo odstopanj v skladu s členom 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih. | Dokument je pripravila delovna skupina, ki so jo sestavljali predstavniki nacionalnih in regionalnih organov ter javnih uprav, pristojni na področju presoje vplivov. V njem so upoštevani predlogi, prejeti med preverjanjem primernosti, in posodobitev smernic o členu 6, ki jo je izvedla Komisija. | Smernice so namenjene uskladitvi izvajanja člena 6(3) in (4) na nacionalni ravni. Z njimi se spodbuja vključitev načrtov, programov, projektov, posegov in dejavnosti (N/P/P/P/D) – ne samo načrtov in projektov – v postopek. Na voljo je „obrazec za pregled“ za zagotovitev enotnega pristopa v tej fazi in uporabe standardnih meril ocenjevanja na nacionalni ravni. Pripravljen je bil tudi „obrazec za nosilca projekta“ za predstavitev ustreznih informacij o N/P/P/P/D. V zvezi z ustrezno presojo smernice vsebujejo podrobne specifikacije o vsebini in informacijah, ki jih je treba upoštevati, posameznih določbah in elementih za študijo ter za kvalitativno in kvantitativno analizo pomembnosti vplivov na območja Natura 2000. | V zvezi z odstopanjem na podlagi člena 6(4) je v posebnem poglavju smernic obravnavana ocena drugih ustreznih rešitev. V smernicah je poudarjeno, da je ta ocena uradno in v vseh primerih še naprej osnovni pogoj za postopek izvzetja iz člena 6(4), čeprav se v njem domneva, da bi morala v okviru ustrezne presoje zagotavljati tudi možnost usmeritve predloga v rešitve z manjšim vplivom na okolje. | V smernicah so opisana tudi merila za preverjanje nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa, metode za opredelitev in izvajanje ustreznih izravnalnih ukrepov ter pojasnila v zvezi z njihovim preverjanjem in postopkom priglasitve Evropski komisiji z izpolnitvijo ustreznega obrazca. V zvezi z izravnalnimi ukrepi so predlagana naslednja minimalna razmerja izravnave: razmerje 2 : 1 za prednostne habitate in/ali vrste v interesu Skupnosti (velja tudi za habitate prednostnih vrst); razmerje 1,5 : 1 za habitate in/ali vrste v interesu Skupnosti (velja tudi za habitate vrst); razmerje 1 : 1 razmerje za dodatne habitate, vrste ali habitate vrst. | https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2019/12/28/303/sg/pdf | Italy has recently published national guidelines, which describe the procedures for the screening, the appropriate assessment and the implementation of derogations, in accordance with Article 6(3)-(4) of the Habitats Directive. | The document was prepared by a working group formed by representatives of national and regional authorities and public administrations competent in the field of impact assessment. It takes into account the suggestions received during the Fitness Check and the update of the guidance on Article 6 by the Commission. | The guidelines are aimed at harmonising at national level the implementation of Article 6(3)-(4). They promote the inclusion of plans, programmes, projects, interventions and activities (P/P/P/I/A), not only plans and projects, in the procedure. A ‘screening format’ is provided in order to ensure a uniform approach at this stage and the use of standard evaluation criteria at the national level. A ‘developer format’ has also been prepared for the presentation of the relevant information on the P/P/P/I/A. With regard to the appropriate assessment, the guidelines contain detailed specifications on the contents and the information to consider, specific provisions and elements for the study and for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the significance of the effects on Natura 2000 sites. | Concerning the derogation pursuant to Article 6(4), the guidelines address the evaluation of alternative solutions in a dedicated chapter. The guidelines emphasise that this evaluation remains formally, and in all cases, a pre-requisite to allow the exemption procedure provided for by Article 6(4), although in it is believed that, within the framework of an appropriate assessment, it should also provide the possibility of directing the proposal towards solutions with a lower environmental impact. | The guidelines also describe the criteria for verifying the imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), the methods for identifying and implementing appropriate compensation measures, as well as clarifications relating to their verification and the notification process to the European Commission by filling in the appropriate form. On compensation measures, minimum compensation ratios are proposed as follows: 2: 1 ratio for priority habitats and/or species of Community interest (also valid for habitats of priority species); 1,5: 1 ratio for habitats and/or species of community interest (also valid for species habitats); 1: 1 ratio for additional habitats, species or species habitats. | https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2019/12/28/303/sg/pdf |
| PRESOJA POMEMBNOSTI VPLIVOV NA OBMOČJE NATURA 2000 | ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS ON THE NATURA 2000 SITE |
| (DEL OBRAZCA ZA PREGLED, KI JE VKLJUČEN V NACIONALNE SMERNICE V ITALIJI) | (PART OF THE SCREENNG FORMAT INCLUDED IN NATIONAL GUIDELINES IN ITALY) |
| 1. | HABITATI V INTERESU SKUPNOSTI | 1. | HABITATS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST |
| Habitati v interesu Skupnosti (Priloga I k direktivi o habitatih), ki jih zadeva predlog: | — | ... | — | ... | Habitats of Community interest (Annex I HD) concerned by the proposal: | — | ... | — | ... |
| Morebitna izguba habitatov v interesu Skupnosti: | — | Oznaka habitata: ... | — | ponovite za vsak vključeni habitat | ☐ | Ne | ☐ | Da | ☐ | Trajna | ☐ | Začasna | Possible loss of habitats of Community interest: | — | Habitat code: ... | — | repeat for each habitat involved | ☐ | No | ☐ | Yes | ☐ | Permanent | ☐ | Temporary |
| Morebitna razdrobljenost habitatov v interesu Skupnosti: | — | Oznaka habitata: ... | — | ponovite za vsak vključeni habitat | ☐ | Ne | ☐ | Da | ☐ | Trajna | ☐ | Začasna | Possible fragmentation of habitats of community interest: | — | Habitat code: ... | — | repeat for each habitat involved | ☐ | No | ☐ | Yes | ☐ | Permanent | ☐ | Temporary |
| 2. | VRSTE IN HABITAT VRST V INTERESU SKUPNOSTI | 2. | SPECIES AND HABITAT OF SPECIES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST |
| Vrste v interesu Skupnosti (Priloga II k direktivi o habitatih in člen 4 direktive o pticah), ki jih zadeva predlog: | — | ... | — | ... | Species of Community interest (Annex II HD and Art.4 BD) concerned by the proposal: | — | ... | — | ... |
| Morebitno vznemirjanje vrst v interesu Skupnosti: | — | Vrsta: ... | — | ponovite za vsako vključeno vrsto | ☐ | Ne | ☐ | Da | ☐ | Trajna | ☐ | Začasna | Possible disturbance of species of Community interest: | — | Species: … | — | repeat for each species involved | ☐ | No | ☐ | Yes | ☐ | Permanent | ☐ | Temporary |
| Morebitna neposredna/posredna izguba vrst v interesu Skupnosti (ponovite za vsako vključeno vrsto): | — | Vrsta: ... | — | Število osebkov, parov itd. iz standardnega podatkovnega obrazca | ☐ | Ne | ☐ | Da | Ocena izgube (število osebkov, parov itd.) | Possible direct/indirect loss of species of Community interest (repeat for each species involved): | — | Species: … | — | Number of individuals, pairs,... from SDF | ☐ | No | ☐ | Yes | Estimate (no. of individuals, pairs...) lost |
| Morebitna izguba/razdrobljenost habitatov vrst: | — | Vrsta: ... | — | Tip habitata vrste: | ... | (ponovite za vsak habitat vključene vrste) | ☐ | Ne | ☐ | Da | ☐ | Trajna | ☐ | Začasna | Possible loss/fragmentation of species’ habitats: | — | Species: … | — | Type of species’ habitat: | … | (repeat for each habitat of species involved) | ☐ | No | ☐ | Yes | ☐ | Permanent | ☐ | Temporary |
| 3. | PRESOJA KUMULATIVNIH VPLIVOV | 3. | CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
| Ali lahko drugi N/P/P/P/D skupaj z zadevnim predlogom povzročijo pomembne kumulativne in/ali sinergijske vplive na zadevno območje Natura 2000? | ☐ Da ☐ Ne | Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite, kateri N/P/P/P/D, in opišite, kako bodo skupaj z obravnavanim predlogom pomembno vplivali na območje: | ... | Can other P/P/I/A cause significant cumulative and/or synergetic effects on the Natura 2000 site concerned jointly with the proposal in question? | ☐ Yes ☐ No | If Yes, indicate which other P/P/I/A and describe how they will significantly affect the site, together with the proposal under consideration: | ... |
| 4. | OCENA POSREDNIH VPLIVOV | 4. | INDIRECT EFFECTS EVALUATION |
| Ali ima lahko predlog posredne vplive na območje Natura 2000? | ☐ Da ☐ Ne | Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite, kateri so ti posredni vplivi: | ... | Can the proposal have indirect effects on the Natura 2000 site? | ☐ Yes ☐ No | If Yes, indicate which ones: | ... |
| 5. | SINTEZA PRESOJE | 5. | ASSESSMENT SYNTHESIS |
| Ali lahko N/P/P/P/D povzročijo neposredne, posredne in/ali kumulativne vplive, tudi morebitne, na habitate v interesu Skupnosti? | ☐ Da ☐ Ne | Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, zakaj: | ... | ... | Ali lahko N/P/P/P/D povzročijo neposredne, posredne in/ali kumulativne vplive, tudi morebitne, na vrste v interesu Skupnosti? | ☐ Da ☐ Ne | Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, zakaj: | ... | ... | Ali lahko N/P/P/P/D povzročijo neposredne, posredne in/ali kumulativne vplive, tudi morebitne, na celovitost območja(-ij) Natura 2000? | ☐ Da ☐ Ne | Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, zakaj: | ... | ... | ... | The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects, even potential, on habitats of community interest? | ☐ Yes ☐ No | If Yes, why: | ... | ... | The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects, even potential, on species of community interest? | ☐ Yes ☐ No | If Yes, why: | … | … | The P/P/P/I/A can cause direct, indirect, and/or cumulative, even potential, impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site (s)? | ☐ Yes ☐ No | If Yes, why: | … | … | … |
| 6. | SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV PREGLEDA | 6. | CONCLUSION OF THE SCREENING |
| Ugotovitve in razlogi (obrazloženo mnenje): | ... | ... | ... | ... | Conclusions and motivations (reasoned opinion): | … | … | … | … |
| 7. | REZULTAT PREGLEDA: | 7. | RESULT OF THE SCREENING: |
| ☐ | Pozitiven: ustrezna presoja ni potrebna | ☐ | Negativen: potrebna je ustrezna presoja | ☐ | Positive: No need for Appropriate Assessment | ☐ | Negative: Appropriate Assessment is required |
| Vir: Smernice za oceno vplivov na območja Natura 2000 (Italija). Linee guida nazionali per la valutazione di incidenza (VInCA). Direttiva 92/43/CEE „Habitat“ art. 6, paragrafi 3 e 4. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 2019. | Source: Guidelines for evaluation of effects on Natura 2000 sites (Italy). Linee guida nazionali per la valutazione di incidenza (VInCA). Direttiva 92/43/CEE ‘Habitat’ art. 6, paragrafi 3 e 4. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 2019. |
| 1.3 Ustrezna presoja nacionalnega programa za električno energijo na Irskem – presoja kumulativnih vplivov | 1.3. Appropriate assessment of a national electricity programme in Ireland – assessment of cumulative effects |
| Izvedbeni program Grid25 je načrt za razvoj električnega omrežja na Irskem do leta 2025. Namenjen je zagotovitvi dolgoročne trajnostne in zanesljive dobave iz obnovljivih in konvencionalnih virov v mesta, vasi, domove in na druge ključne trge, kjer je potrebna električna energija. | The Grid25 Implementation Programme (the IP) is a plan for the development of the electricity network in Ireland until 2025. It aims to ensure a long-term sustainable and reliable supply from renewable and conventional sources to the cities, towns, villages, homes and other key markets where the power is required. |
| Glavne določbe izvedbenega programa do leta 2025 vključujejo: | The main provisions of the IP until 2025 include: |
| — | nadgradnjo obstoječega omrežja v dolžini 2 530 km in | — | upgrading 2 530 km of the existing network and |
| — | izgradnjo 828 km nove infrastrukture. | — | building 828 km of new infrastructure. |
| Kot strategija na visoki ravni izvedbeni program Grid25 navaja vrste infrastrukturnih zahtev, ki se bodo verjetno pojavile v prihodnosti glede na vladno politiko na področju energije iz obnovljivih virov in predvideno rast povpraševanja, vendar ne predpisuje natančno lokacije infrastrukture, kot so elektrarne ali transformatorji, ali poti prenosnih vodov. Namesto tega zagotavlja okvirni pregled splošnega pristopa, predlaganega za prihodnji razvoj omrežja. | As a high-level strategy, the Grid25 IP, provides an indication of the types of infrastructural requirements likely to arise in the future, given government policy on renewable energy and predicted growth in demand, but does not prescribe exactly the location of infrastructure such as generation plants or transformers, or the route of transmission lines. Instead, it provides an indicative overview of the general approach proposed for the future development of the grid. |
| Za program je bila opravljena ustrezna presoja v skladu s členom 6(3) direktive o habitatih. Ker se izvedbeni program uporablja za celotno Republiko Irsko in ima lahko sinergijske učinke zunaj meja Irske, je bil pregled izveden na vseh območjih Natura 2000 v Republiki Irski in na Severnem Irskem. | The programme has been subject to an appropriate assessment according to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. As the IP applies to the entire Republic of Ireland and may have synergistic effects beyond Ireland’s borders, a screening exercise was carried out on all Natura 2000 sites within the Republic and Northern Ireland. |
| Predhodno so bile proučene vrste vplivov, ki se lahko pojavijo zaradi izvajanja izvedbenega programa. Vrsta vpliva je odvisna od vrste zgrajene infrastrukture, vključno z: | A preliminary examination of the types of effects that may arise as a result of the IP was carried out. The type of impact depends on the type of infrastructure constructed, including: |
| — | infrastrukturo na območju, kot so postaje za proizvodnjo električne energije, transformatorji itd.; | — | Site based infrastructure e.g. electricity generating stations, transformers, etc. |
| — | linearno infrastrukturo, kot so nadzemni vodi ali podzemni kabli. | — | Linear infrastructure e.g. overhead lines, underground cables. |
| Vplivi, ki bi lahko nastali z izvajanjem izvedbenega programa, so bili razvrščeni v več razdelkov: | Impacts that could potentially occur through the implementation of the IP were categorised under a number of headings: |
| — | izguba/zmanjšanje območja habitata; | — | loss/reduction of habitat area; |
| — | vznemirjanje ključnih vrst; | — | disturbance to key species; |
| — | razdrobljenost habitatnih tipov ali habitatov vrst; | — | habitat type or species habitat fragmentation; |
| — | zmanjšanje gostote vrst; | — | reduction in species density; |
| — | spremembe ključnih kazalnikov ohranitvene vrednosti, kot je zmanjšanje kakovosti in količine vode. | — | changes in key indicators of conservation value such as decrease in water quality and quantity. |
| Zaradi narave izvedbenega programa so bili vplivi opisani na splošno, vendar so bili izrecno opredeljeni za vsako od območij, ki so bila pregledana. S postopkom pregleda je bilo opredeljenih približno 340 posebnih ohranitvenih območij in 97 posebnih območij varstva, na katera bi lahko neposredno ali posredno vplival razvoj infrastrukture, predlagan v izvedbenem programu. Zaradi čezmejnih povezovalnih daljnovodov bi bilo lahko prizadetih dodatnih 18 ohranitvenih območij in dve posebni območji varstva na Severnem Irskem. | Due to the nature of the IP, impacts were described in a general manner but were specifically identified for any of the sites that were screened in. The screening process identified approximately 340 SACs and 97 SPAs that could potentially be either directly or indirectly impacted through the development of infrastructure proposed by the IP. A further 18 SACs and 2 SPAs in Northern Ireland may be affected by cross border interconnectors. |
| Z ustrezno presojo so bili nato proučeni morebitni škodljivi vplivi zaradi uporabe izvedbenega programa samega ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti, programi in/ali projekti. Presoja kumulativnih vplivov je bila najprej obravnavana, da bi se preverilo, ali so se ustrezno upoštevali pri presoji morebitnih pomembnih vplivov izvedbenega programa. | The appropriate assessment then considered the potential adverse effects occurring as a result of the application of the IP alone or in-combination with other plans, programmes and/or projects. The assessment of cumulative impacts was firstly addressed in order to make sure that they were properly considered when assessing the potential significant effects of the IP. |
| Presoja kumulativnih vplivov | Assessment of cumulative effects |
| Pri presoji so bili opredeljeni glavni načrti, politike in programi (na nacionalni in regionalni ravni ter ravni okrožja), na podlagi katerih se bodo verjetno izvedli razvojni projekti, ki bodo povzročili vplive, ki bi se lahko povezovali ali prepletali z vplivi izvedbenega programa Grid25. Ta analiza je zahtevala poznavanje verjetnih vplivov vseh obravnavanih načrtov/razvojnih projektov, kljub omejenim informacijam o verjetnih vplivih nekaterih načrtov pa je omogočila opredelitev vzajemnega delovanja, ki povzroča kumulativne vplive za nekatere načrte. V spodnji preglednici je navedenih nekaj primerov. | The assessment identified the principal plans, policies and programmes (at national, regional and county level) that are likely to give rise to developments causing effects that could combine or interact with those of the IP for Grid25. This analysis required knowledge of the likely effects of all plans/developments under consideration, and despite the limitations in the information about the likely effects of some plans, it could identify the interactions resulting in cumulative impacts for some plans. A few examples are provided in then table below. |
| Politika, načrt, program ali projekti | Vzajemno delovanje, ki povzroča kumulativne vplive | Policy, plan, programme or projects | Interactions resulting in cumulative impacts |
| Nacionalna raven (primer) | National (example) |
| Program Transport 21 | Možni vplivi v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti se lahko pojavijo, kadar se novi ali nadgrajeni prometni koridorji gradijo v skladu z novo ali nadgrajeno prenosno infrastrukturo. Vplivi lahko vključujejo: | — | izgubo in vznemirjanje habitatov. Prizadeta so lahko vsa kopenska določena območja, odvisno od tega, kam so umeščeni/speljani infrastruktura in prenosni vodi; | — | spremembe lokalne hidrologije in vpliv na bližnje habitate. Najverjetneje bodo prizadeti habitati, ki so odvisni od podzemne vode, kot so nizka barja, presihajoča jezera in visoka barja; | — | onesnaževanje sedimentov in povezani hidrološki vplivi, kadar so prizadeti vrste in habitati, ki so odvisni od površinskih voda. Prizadeti so lahko losos, piškur, primorski koščak in potočna bisernica; | — | onesnaževanje površinske in podzemne vode z onesnaževali (npr. gorivi, mazivi in betonom) med gradnjo. Prizadeti so lahko losos, piškur, primorski koščak in potočna bisernica; | — | vznemirjanje vrst med dejavnostmi gradnje in vzdrževanja. Med vrstami, ki so lahko prizadete, so ptice selivke in ptice prezimovalke na obalnih in sladkovodnih posebnih območjih varstva; vidre in vodomci, kadar razvojni projekti potekajo v bližini ali na križišču vodotokov; netopirji, kadar razvojni projekt vpliva na gozdne površine, mejice ali gnezdišča; | — | tveganje trka ptic, kadar so nadzemni prenosni kabli nameščeni v bližini posebnih območij varstva ali sekajo poti letenja ptic. | Transport 21 Programme | Potential in-combination impacts may arise where new or upgraded transport corridors are constructed in line with new or upgraded transmission infrastructure. Impacts may include the following: | — | Habitat loss and disturbance. All terrestrial based designated sites may be affected, depending on where infrastructure and transmission lines are located/routed. | — | Alterations to local hydrology and effect on adjacent habitats. Groundwater dependant habitats such as fens, turloughs and bogs are most likely to be affected. | — | Sediment pollution and associated hydrological impacts where surface water dependant species and habitats are affected. Salmon, lamprey, white clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussel may potentially be affected. | — | Contamination of surface and groundwater with pollutants (e.g. fuels, lubricants, concrete) during construction. Salmon, lamprey, white clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussel may potentially be affected. | — | Disturbance of species during construction and maintenance activities. Species that may be affected include nesting and overwintering birds in coastal and freshwater SPAs; otters and kingfishers, where development occurs adjacent to or crossing watercourses; bats, where development affects woodlands, hedgerows or roosting sites. | — | Risk of bird strike where overhead transmission cables are installed near SPAs or across bird flight lines. |
| Regionalna raven (primer) | Regional (example) |
| Regionalni načrt ravnanja z odpadki | Možni vplivi v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti se lahko pojavijo, kadar se nova infrastruktura za ravnanje z odpadki in nova prenosna infrastruktura skupaj pojavljata na določenem območju ali v njegovi neposredni bližini. | Verjetni pomembni vplivi so enaki tistim, ki so opisani zgoraj. | Regional waste management plans | Potential in-combination impacts may arise where new waste infrastructure and new transmission infrastructure occur together within or in close proximity to a designated site. | Likely significant impacts are as previously outlined. |
| Raven okrožja (primer) | County (example) |
| Razvojni | načrti okrožij in mest | Možni vplivi v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti se lahko pojavijo, kadar je treba zagotoviti novo infrastrukturo z izvajanjem razvojnih načrtov okrožja in mesta. Zagotavljanje povezane prenosne infrastrukture lahko povzroči verjetne pomembne vplive, kot so opisani zgoraj. | County | and town development plans | Potential in-combination impacts may arise where there is a requirement to provide for new infrastructure through implementation of county and town development plans. Provision of related transmission infrastructure may result in likely significant impacts as previously described. |
| Projekti | Projects |
| Projekti proizvodnje energije na morju | Vplivi v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti se lahko pojavijo na stičišču infrastrukture na morju in infrastrukture na kopnem. Med vplivi, ki se lahko pojavijo, so: | — | izguba in vznemirjanje habitatov. Prizadeta so lahko vsa kopenska določena območja, odvisno od tega, kam so umeščeni/speljani infrastruktura in prenosni vodi. Do izgube habitatov lahko pride tudi na obmorskih in obalnih območjih. Izguba habitatov bo večja, kjer so nameščeni podzemni kabli; | — | onesnaževanje sedimentov in povezani hidrološki vplivi, kadar so prizadeti vrste in habitati, ki so odvisni od površinskih voda. Prizadeti so lahko losos, piškur, primorski koščak in potočna bisernica; | — | onesnaževanje površinske in podzemne vode z onesnaževali (npr. gorivi, mazivi in betonom) med gradnjo. Prizadeti so lahko losos, piškur, primorski koščak in potočna bisernica; | — | vznemirjanje vrst med dejavnostmi gradnje in vzdrževanja. Med vrstami, ki so lahko prizadete, so ptice selivke in ptice prezimovalke na obalnih in sladkovodnih posebnih območjih varstva; morski sesalci, kadar pride do medsebojnega povezovanja infrastrukture na morju in kopnem; vidre in vodomci, kadar razvojni projekt poteka v bližini ali na križišču vodotokov; netopirji, kadar razvojni projekt vpliva na gozdne površine, mejice ali gnezdišča. | Offshore energy generation projects | In-combination impacts may arise at the interface between offshore and on shore infrastructure. Impacts that may occur include: | — | Habitat loss and disturbance. All terrestrial based designated sites may be affected, depending on where infrastructure and transmission lines are located/routed. Loss of habitats may also occur in the littoral and coastal zones. Habitat loss will be grater where underground cables are installed. | — | Sediment pollution and associated hydrological impacts where surface water dependant species and habitats are affected. Salmon, lamprey, white clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussel may potentially be affected. | — | Contamination of surface and groundwater with pollutants (e.g. fuels, lubricants, concrete) during construction. Salmon, lamprey, white clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussel may potentially be affected. | — | Disturbance of species during construction and maintenance activities. Species that may be affected include nesting and overwintering birds in coastal and freshwater SPAs; marine mammals, where interconnection between offshore and onshore infrastructure occurs; otters and kingfishers, where development occurs adjacent to or crossing watercourses; bats, where development affects woodlands, hedgerows or roosting sites. |
| S presojo je bilo ugotovljeno, da lahko razvoj nove infrastrukture za proizvodnjo energije v povezavi z drugim gospodarskim razvojem povzroči izgubo habitatov in/ali vrst, razdrobljenost vrst/populacij in spremembe kakovosti/količine vode. Ta morebitna navzkrižja bi bilo mogoče ublažiti z ukrepi, opisanimi v nadaljevanju ustrezne presoje, in bi se po potrebi obravnavala z okoljsko presojo na nižji ravni. | The assessment concluded that development of a new energy generation infrastructure when combined with other economic developments will potentially lead to habitat and/or species loss, species/population fragmentation and changes in water quality/quality. These potential conflicts could be mitigated by measures outlined later in the appropriate assessment and they would be addressed by lower tier environmental assessment, as appropriate. |
| Presoja morebitnih pomembnih vplivov in predlog ukrepov za ublažitev | Assessment of potential significant effects and proposal of mitigation measures |
| Kot je navedeno zgoraj, izvedbeni program Grid25 zagotavlja okvirni pregled splošnega pristopa, predlaganega za prihodnji razvoj omrežja, in ne predpisuje natančno lokacije infrastrukture. Kot tak omejuje raven presoje, ki se lahko izvede, in pomeni, da je treba izvesti splošno presojo morebitnih pomembnih vplivov. Zato so bili vplivi in občutljivosti proučeni na splošno. S presojo so bile opredeljene vrste vplivov na prizadete habitate in vrste, ki jih je mogoče predvideti za naslednje glavne elemente izvedbenega programa: | As previously mentioned, the Grid25 Implementation Programme provides an indicative overview of the general approach proposed for the future development of the grid and does not prescribe exactly the location of infrastructure. As such, this has the effect of limiting the level of assessment that can be undertaken and means that the assessment of potential significant effects has to be made in general terms. A general examination of impacts and sensitivities was therefore carried out. The assessment identified the types of impacts on the habitats and species affected that could be envisaged for the following main components of the IP: |
| — | nadzemne prenosne vode; | — | overhead transmission lines; |
| — | podzemne kable; | — | underground cables; |
| — | gradnjo novih razdelilnih transformatorskih postaj in razširitev obstoječih; | — | construction of new substations and extension of existing substations; |
| — | okrepitev prenosnega sistema v regijah. | — | reinforcement of the transmission system in the regions. |
| Za zadnjenavedeno so bile opredeljene glavne občutljivosti v posamezni regiji in navedena priporočila za preprečitev pričakovanih vplivov (npr. izogibanje nekaterim posebej občutljivim območjem pri krepitvi prenosnega sistema v regiji, spodbujanje umeščanja razdelilnih transformatorskih postaj in nadzemnih poti na mestna zemljišča ali območja zgoščenih koridorjev starodavnih naselbin in hkrati izogibanja občutljivejšemu višje ležečemu zaledju itd.). | For the latter, the main sensitivities in each region were identified and recommendations to avoid the expected impacts were outlined (e.g. avoidance of certain particularly sensitive areas in the reinforcement of the transmission system in the region, encourage to locate sub-stations and overhead routes on urban land, or in areas that contain dense corridors of anciently established settlement while avoiding more sensitive upland interiors etc.). |
| S presojo so bili opredeljeni tudi vplivi več projektov razvoja omrežja, ki so napredovali do faze podrobnega načrtovanja (čeprav umestitev in potek teh projektov še nista določena), na območja Natura 2000, ki so v njihovi bližini in bi jih zato lahko prizadeli posamezni zadevni projekti. | The assessment also identified the impacts for a number of network developments that have progressed to detailed design stage (although the location and route of these projects is not fixed yet) on the Natura 2000 sites located in their proximity and therefore having potential to be affected by the individual projects in question. |
| Zaradi strateške narave izvedbenega programa Grid25 v zadevni fazi ni bilo mogoče z gotovostjo trditi, da izvedbeni program ne bo škodljivo vplival na celovitost omrežja Natura 2000. Zato so bili predlagani ukrepi za ublažitev, da bi se preprečili pomembni vplivi. | Due to the strategic nature of the Grid25 IP, it could not be conclusively stated at that stage that the IP will not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 network. Therefore, mitigation measures were proposed to ensure that significant impacts are avoided. |
| Predlagani sta bili dve ravni ukrepov za ublažitev. Prva raven ukrepov bo usmerjala strateški pristop k blaženju vplivov, druga raven ukrepov za ublažitev pa se bolj osredotoča na posamezne vplive in se uporablja, kadar so na podlagi presoje vplivov na okolje na ravni projekta in ustrezne presoje opredeljeni pomembni vplivi. | Two levels of mitigation measures have been proposed. The first level of measures will guide the strategic approach to mitigating impacts and the second level of mitigation measures are more impact specific and shall be applied where significant impacts are identified following project level environmental impact assessment (EIA) and appropriate assessment. |
| Splošni ukrepi za ublažitev so opisani za glavne kategorije opredeljenih vplivov ter za glavne habitate in vrste, ki bi lahko bili prizadeti. V zvezi s splošno izgubo in vznemirjanjem habitatov so na primer ukrepi za preprečevanje in ublažitev opisani za visoka barja in šotišča, ptice, netopirje, vidre, od vode odvisne habitate in vrste, potočne bisernice, druge zavarovane vrste itd. | General mitigation measures are outlined for the main categories of impact identified and for the main habitats and species potentially affected. For instance, regarding general habitat loss and disturbance, avoidance and mitigation measures are described for bogs and peatland areas, birds, bats, otters, water dependant habitats and species, freshwater pearl mussel, other protected species, etc. |
| Pri proučevanju ukrepov za ublažitev bo imelo prednost predvsem preprečevanje vplivov in njihovo blaženje, če jih ni mogoče preprečiti. Poleg tega bo za vse projekte na nižji ravni, ki izhajajo iz izvajanja izvedbenega programa, izvedena ustrezna presoja, ko bodo znane nadaljnje podrobnosti načrtovanja in umestitve. | The consideration of mitigation measures will prioritise the avoidance of impacts in the first place and mitigate impacts where these cannot be avoided. In addition, all lower level projects arising through the implementation of the IP will themselves be subject to appropriate assessment when further details of design and location are known. |
| Šteje se, da z vključitvijo ukrepov za ublažitev izvajanje izvedbenega programa Grid25 ne bo pomembno škodljivo vplivalo na celovitost omrežja Natura 2000. Kljub temu bodo vsi projekti, ki se bodo izvajali v okviru izvedbenega programa, pregledani, po potrebi pa bo v zvezi z njimi izvedena tudi ustrezna presoja. | Having incorporated mitigation measures, it is considered that the Grid25 Implementation Programme will not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 network. Nevertheless, all the projects to be implemented in the framework of the IP will be screened and subject to appropriate assessment as required. |
| Vir: Natura Impact Statement in support of the Appropriate Assessment of the Grid25 implementation programme. Na voljo na spletnem naslovu: | Source: Natura Impact Statement in support of the Appropriate Assessment of the Grid25 implementation programme. Available at: |
| https://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Natura-Impact-Statement-in-Support-of-the-Appropriate-Assessment-of-the-Grid25-Implementation-Plan.pdf. | https://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Natura-Impact-Statement-in-Support-of-the-Appropriate-Assessment-of-the-Grid25-Implementation-Plan.pdf |
| 2. NUJNI RAZLOGI PREVLADUJOČEGA JAVNEGA INTERESA | 2. IMPERATIVE REASONS OF OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST (IROPI) |
| 2.1 Primeri različnih vrst nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa in njihova utemeljitev | 2.1. Examples of various types of IROPI and their justification |
| Člen 6(4) direktive o habitatih: | „Če je treba kljub negativni presoji posledic za območje izvesti načrt ali projekt iz nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa, vključno tistih socialne ali gospodarske narave, in ni drugih ustreznih rešitev, država članica izvede vse izravnalne ukrepe, potrebne za zagotovitev varstva celovite usklajenosti Nature 2000. O sprejetih izravnalnih ukrepih obvesti Komisijo. | Če je zadevno območje območje s prednostnim naravnim habitatnim tipom in/ali prednostno vrsto, se lahko upoštevajo le razlogi, povezani z zdravjem ljudi ali javno varnostjo, ali koristnimi posledicami bistvenega pomena za okolje ali drugimi, po predhodnem mnenju Komisije nujnimi razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa.“ | Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive: | ‘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.’ |
| I. Nujni razlogi prevladujočega javnega interesa socialne ali gospodarske narave (območje z neprednostnimi ciljnimi značilnostmi) | I. IROPI of a social or economic nature (site with non-priority target features) |
| Projekt: predlagana nadgradnja obstoječe čistilne naprave na jezeru Lough Talt v grofiji Sligo (Irska, 2019). | Project: Proposed Upgrade to an existing Water Treatment Plant at Lough Talt, Co. Sligo (Ireland, 2019). |
| Opis projekta in območja Natura 2000: | Project and Natura 2000 site description: |
| | Gorsko jezero Lough Talt, ki je del posebnega ohranitvenega območja IE0000633 Lough Hoe Bog, se že od 50. let prejšnjega stoletja uporablja kot vir vode za več kot 13 000 prebivalcev prek ene same čistilne naprave. Nadgradnja čistilne naprave je potrebna za zagotovitev stalne oskrbe s pitno vodo v skladu s sedanjimi ravnmi odvzema. S hidrogeološkimi raziskavami je bilo ugotovljeno, da v daljših obdobjih suhega vremena odvzem vode iz jezera prispeva k precejšnjemu upadu gladine jezera, kar škodljivo vpliva na habitat Gejerjevega vrtenca (Vertigo geyeri). Za preprečitev tega vpliva bi bilo treba v precejšnjem delu leta odvzem zmanjšati za približno 50 %. | | Since the 1950s, an upland lake Lough Talt, part of SAC IE0000633 Lough Hoe Bog, has served as a source of water for a population of more than 13 000 inhabitants via a single Water Treatment Plant (WTP). An upgrade of the WTP is required to provide a consistent supply of potable drinking water, matching the current abstraction levels. The hydrogeological investigations concluded that, during periods of extended dry weather, the lake abstraction operation contributes to a significant drop in lake level which has an adverse impact on the habitat of the Geyer's Whorl Snail Vertigo geyeri. To avoid this impact it would be necessary for the abstraction to be reduced by approximately 50 % during a significant portion of the year. |
| | Čeprav vrsta V. geyeri na območju ni bila evidentirana od leta 2007, se njena populacija šteje za pomembno na ravni države in jo je treba obnoviti. S predlaganimi ohranitvenimi ukrepi se bo s sistemom namakanja in ponovne vzpostavitve mokrišč izboljšalo stanje habitata. Vendar pa se z njimi ne zmanjšujejo pretekle izgube vrste zaradi obremenitev, ki so posledica odvzema. S predlaganim projektom se bo še naprej spreminjala abiotska in biotska dinamika, ki določa strukturo in funkcijo populacije vrste V. geyeri, s čimer bodo nastajale zamude pri doseganju cilja njenega ohranjanja. | | Although V. geyeri has not been recorded at the site since 2007, its population is considered important at the country scale and has to be restored. The proposed conservation measures will improve the habitat conditions through a system of irrigation and rewetting. They do not however mitigate for the historical loss of the species due to abstraction pressures. The proposed project will continue to change the abiotic and biotic dynamics that define the structure and function of V. geyeri population, thus causing delays in achieving its conservation objective. |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve: | Alternative solutions: |
| | Ocenjenih je bilo sedem drugih ustreznih rešitev, vključno s scenarijem „brez ukrepanja“ (nična možnost), in sicer glede na njihove zdravstvene, družbene in ekološke vplive. Edina takojšnja kratkoročna razpoložljiva možnost je, da se zagotovi nadgradnja čiščenja na območju obstoječe čistilne naprave in tako pri čiščenju izboljša zaščita pred parazitskimi protozoji in preseženimi vrednostmi okoljskih onesnaževal trihalometanov (THM). Ta nadgradnja bo za približno 7–10 let zagotovila varno pitno vodo za lokalno prebivalstvo, medtem pa se bo razvila in izvedla dolgoročna trajnostna rešitev. | | Seven alternatives including the ‘do nothing’ scenario (option zero) were assessed according to their health, social, and ecological impacts. The only available option in the immediate short term is to provide upgraded treatment at the existing WTP site to improve the treatment barrier against parasitic protozoans and the exceedances in environmental pollutants trihalomethanes (THM). This upgrade will provide water that is safe to drink to the local population for approximately 7-10 years while a long-term sustainable solution is developed and implemented. |
| Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: | IROPI justification: |
| | Zagotavljanje varne in zanesljive pitne vode več kot 13 000 prebivalcem. | | Provide safe and reliable drinking water to a population of more than 13 000. |
| Predlagani izravnalni ukrepi: | Proposed compensatory measures: |
| | Obnova trajnostne populacije Gejerjevega vrtenca na posebnem ohranitvenem območju je predlagana v okviru podrobnega programa začasnega namakanja ključnega habitata karbonatnega nizkega barja, dokler se na območju ne odpravi obremenitev zaradi odvzema. V povezavi z upravljanjem namakanja so v štiriletnem obdobju predlagani stalno spremljanje delovanja namakalnega sistema in postopne selitve polžev v habitat nizkega barja, tako da se najprej preselijo manj občutljive vrste, na koncu pa še vrsta Vertigo geyeri, in sicer z drugega posebnega ohranitvenega območja, kjer ima ugodno stanje ohranjenosti. | | The restoration of a sustainable population of Geyer’s whorl snail to the SAC is proposed through a detailed programme of temporary irrigation of the key calcareous fen habitat until the abstraction pressure is removed from the site. In conjunction with the irrigation management, ongoing monitoring of the irrigation system function and staged translocations of snails to the fen habitat are proposed over a four year period, starting with less sensitive species and culminating in the translocation of Vertigo geyeri from another SAC where it has a favourable conservation condition. |
| II. Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: zaščita življenj in premoženja | II. Justification of IROPI: protection of lives and property |
| Projekt: uvedba vodljivega protipoplavnega polderja Rösa (Nemčija, 2014). | Project: Implementation of a dirigible flood protection polder Rösa (Germany, 2014). |
| Opis projekta in območja Natura 2000: | Project and Natura 2000 site description: |
| | Cilj projekta je nadgraditi sedanje protipoplavne konstrukcije suhega polderja blizu vasi Rösa na raven zaščite HQ200 (najvišja raven pri največjem izpustu, do katerega pride enkrat na 200 let). Glavni elementi projekta so: približno 7,5 km obnovljenih nasipov, širokih 5 m na dnu in 3 m na vrhu; nove naprave za dotok in izpust ter protipoplavna zidova, dolga 1 225 m in 310 m. Obstoječi nasipi zagotavljajo samo zaščito pred HQ100, zaradi nepredvidljivih ekstremnih vremenskih dogodkov pa obstaja verjetnost poplav, ki presegajo to raven ter bi lahko resno poškodovale naselja in industrijske objekte nižje od obstoječega polderja. | | The aim of the project is to upgrade the current flood protection structures of a dry polder next to the village of Rösa up to HQ200 (the peak level at maximum discharge occurring once within a 200-year period) protection level. Main elements of the project consist of: about 7,5 km of restored dykes 5 m wide at the bottom and 3 m wide on the crest; new influx and discharge installations; and two flood protection walls 1 225 m and 310 m long. The current dykes ensure protection against HQ100 only, but due to unpredictable extreme weather events, floods exceeding this level are likely and could seriously damage settlements and industry located downstream of the current polder. |
| | Projekt naj bi se izvajal na posebnem ohranitvenem območju DE4340301 Muldeaue oberhalb Pouch, pri čemer bi z neposredno rabo zemljišč vplival na naslednje ciljne habitatne tipe: 6430 – 604 m2 (0,17 % območja tega habitatnega tipa na posebnem ohranitvenem območju); 6510 – 40 665 m2 (20,33 %); 91F0 – 456 m2 (0,46 %). V skladu z uradno nemško metodologijo za presojo pomembnosti vplivov se vsi ti vplivi štejejo za „pomembne“ (vključno s tistimi z domnevno zanemarljivo rabo zemljišč, saj se poleg samega deleža rabe zemljišč upošteva še veliko drugih dejavnikov). | | The project is to be constructed within the SAC DE4340301 Muldeaue oberhalb Pouch, affecting the following target habitat types through direct land take: 6430 – 604 m2 (0,17 % of the area of this habitat type within the SAC); 6510 – 40 665 m2 (20,33 %); 91F0: 456 m2 (0,46 %). According to the official German methodology for assessing impact significance, all these impacts are considered ‘significant’ (including those with apparently negligible land take, as many factors other than the mere percentage of land take are considered). |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve: | Alternative solutions: |
| | Zaradi značilnosti rečne doline ni drugih ustreznih rešitev za projekt, ob iskanju drugih ustreznih rešitev pa je bilo izvedenih več manjših prilagoditev projekta, s katerimi se bodo zmanjšali njegovi škodljivi vplivi (na primer sprememba naklona nasipa, ki omogoča ponovno vzpostavitev travišč, manjše premestitve nasipov in zidov itd.). | | No project alternative exists due to the character of the river valley; however, the search for alternatives resulted in many smaller adjustments being made to the project which would reduce its adverse effects (such as e.g. change in dyke slope inclination enabling reestablishment of grasslands, tiny relocations of dykes and walls, etc.). |
| Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: | IROPI justification: |
| | Izgradnja polderskega nasipa je nujna za povečanje varnosti nasipa in zaščito prebivalstva pred poplavami. Zato je glavna utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa povezana z javno varnostjo in zdravjem ljudi. | | Construction of the polder dyke is necessary in order to increase the dyke’s safety as well as protect the population from floods. Therefore, the main IROPI justification is linked to the public safety and human health. |
| Predlagani izravnalni ukrepi: | Proposed compensatory measures: |
| | Habitatni tip 6430 bo oblikovan znotraj posebnega ohranitvenega območja v razmerju 1 : 8. Habitatni tip 6510 bo ponovno oblikovan na pobočjih nasipa, ki so večinoma zunaj posebnega ohranitvenega območja, v razmerju 1 : 5. Izgubljeni gozdni habitati 91F0 (kakovosti „D“) bodo nadomeščeni z zasaditvijo novega gozda z enako sestavo vrst v razmerju 1 : 4 in zasaditvijo drevesnega „pokrova“ vzdolž obstoječih gozdov v razmerju 1 : 16, ki so vsi večinoma zunaj območja. Da bi se ohranila usklajenost omrežja, se bo posebno ohranitveno območje povečalo, da bo zajemalo lokacije izravnalnih ukrepov. | | Habitat type 6430 will be created inside the SAC in a ratio 1 : 8. Habitat type 6510 will be re-created on the slopes of the dyke mostly outside the SAC in a ratio 1 : 5. The lost forest habitats 91F0 (having a quality ‘D’) will be compensated by planting of a new forest with the same species composition in a ratio 1 : 4 as well as planting a tree ‘mantle’ along existing forests in a ratio 1 : 16, all mostly outside the site. To maintain the network coherence, the SAC area will be increased to embrace the locations of compensatory measures. |
| III. Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: drugi razlogi, vključno s socialnimi in ekonomskimi | III. Justification of IROPI: other reasons including social and economic ones |
| Projekt: javna naročila za hitri vlak med Toursom in Bordeauxom (Francija, 2013). | Project: Public works for a high-speed train between Tours and Bordeaux (France, 2013). |
| Opis projekta in območja Natura 2000: | Project and Natura 2000 site description: |
| | Projekt je namenjen izgradnji nove proge za hitri vlak med Toursom in Bordeauxom. To vključuje izgradnjo nove proge (302 km) in njene povezave z obstoječimi železniškimi progami (38 km) ter stranskih poti, povodij, objektov za oskrbo z električno energijo, nad- in podvozov (za kmetijske poti, prehode živali), delovnih ploščadi in pomožnih objektov. | | The project is for a new high-speed train line between Tours and Bordeaux. This includes the laying of a new line (302 km) and its connection t- o existing railway lines (38 km), as well as lateral pathways, basins, electricity facilities, over and underpasses (for agriculture paths, fauna passages), working platforms, and ancillary facilities. |
| | Proga naj bi prečila štiri posebna območja varstva (FR5412006 Vallée de la Charente en amont d’Angoulême, FR5412018 Plaines du Mirebelais et du Neuvillois, FR5412021 Plaines de Villefagnan in FR5412022 Plaine de la Mothe St Héray Lezay) ter dve posebni ohranitveni območji (FR5402010 Vallée du Lary et du Palais in FR5400405 Coteaux calcaires laine de la Mothe St Héray Lezay). Škodljivi vplivi vključujejo verjetno uničenje 1,9 ha mokrih travnikov in 4,2 ha sekundarnih habitatov, ki so pomembni za ohranitev kosca Crex crex. Poleg tega bo proga neposredno vplivala na 185 ha in posredno (vznemirjanje) na 2 947 ha potencialnih habitatov male droplje Tetrax tetrax; povzročila uničenje 2 ha habitata (mokre resave) barjanskega okarčka Coenonympha oedippus, uničenje 0,35 ha območja z eno od največjih pojavnosti polnaravnih suhih travišč in grmiščnih faciesov na karbonatnih tleh (Festuco-Brometalia) habitatnega tipa 6210 ter razdrobljenost lokalne povezljivosti tega habitata. | | The route is to cross four SPAs (FR5412006 Vallée de la Charente en amont d’Angoulême, FR5412018 Plaines du Mirebelais et du Neuvillois, FR5412021 Plaines de Villefagnan, FR5412022 Plaine de la Mothe St Héray Lezay) and two SACs (FR5402010 Vallée du Lary et du Palais, FR5400405 Coteaux calcaires laine de la Mothe St Héray Lezay). Adverse effects consist of the likely destruction of 1,9 ha of wet meadows and 4,2 ha of secondary habitats important for conservation of the Corncrake Crex. It will also directly affect 185 ha and indirectly (disturbance) affect 2 947 ha of potential habitats of Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax; lead to the destruction of 2 ha of habitat (wet heathland) of False Ringlet Coenonympha oedippus; as well as the destruction of 0,35 ha of one of the best occurrences of 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) and fragment the local connectivity of this habitat. |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve: | Alternative solutions: |
| | Izvedena je bila presoja treh drugih ustreznih rešitev za progo. Kar zadeva progo za visoke hitrosti, ne obstaja prav veliko prožnosti za uvedbo delnih preusmeritev proge, pri čemer je bilo ugotovljeno, da izbrana možnost najmanj škodljivo vpliva na območja Natura 2000, hkrati pa je še vedno tehnično izvedljiva. | | Three alternatives for the route were assessed. With regard to the high-speed line, there is not much flexibility to introduce partial shifts of the route; and it was concluded that the chosen alternative has the least adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites while being still technically feasible. |
| Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: | IROPI justification: |
| | Ta proga za visoke hitrosti (TGV) je s 340 km nove proge med Toursom in Bordeauxom eden od najpomembnejših železniških projektov v evropskem merilu. Z njo bo vzpostavljena učinkovita povezava na atlantski obali za zadovoljitev vse večjih potreb po mobilnosti. S komercialno hitrostjo 300 km/h bo potnikom olajšala potovanje in izboljšala prometne povezave z mesti ob progi. S potovalnim časom dobri dve uri za povezavo med Parizom in Bordeauxom postaja konkurenčna prednost železniškega prevoza pred letalskim prevozom odločilnega pomena in s tem spodbuja prehod na drugo obliko prevoza. Ta projekt bo imel ključno vlogo pri krepitvi vseevropske osi, ki regije severne in vzhodne Evrope prek atlantske obale povezuje z jugozahodom Francije in Iberskim polotokom. | | With 340 km of new line between Tours and Bordeaux, this high-speed line (TGV) is one of the most important railway projects on a European scale. It will create an efficient link on the Atlantic coast to meet the growing demand for mobility. With a commercial speed of 300 km/h, it will make it easier for travellers to travel and improve service to towns on the route. Barely more than two hours to connect Paris to Bordeaux, the competitive advantage of rail transport over air transport becomes decisive, thus promoting modal shift. This project will play an essential role in strengthening the trans-European axis connecting, via the Atlantic coast, the regions of N and E Europe to the SW of France and the Iberian Peninsula. |
| | Okrepil bo tudi dejavnosti na zadevnih ozemljih: izboljšanje konkurenčnosti in širitev trgov za regionalna podjetja; olajševanje potovanj za dejavnosti, ki zahtevajo visoko mobilnost, kar je pomemben argument za vzpostavitev nove poslovne enote ali selitev iz Pariza v zadevne regije; razvoj turizma, zlasti kratkotrajnega bivanja; ustvarjanje delovnih mest med gradnjo in obratovanjem; razvoj večjih urbanističnih projektov. Za potnike je vlak hitro in udobno prevozno sredstvo, ki je 34-krat varnejše od avtomobila. Vlak TGV lahko prepelje do 1 000 potnikov pri hitrosti 300 km/h. Je tudi energijsko učinkovit in prostorsko varčen način potovanja. | | It will also boost the activity of the territories concerned: improving competitiveness and expanding markets for regional businesses; facilitation of travel for activities requiring high mobility, a major argument for a new establishment or relocation from Paris to the regions; development of tourism, in particular short-term stays; creation of jobs, during construction and operation; development major urban projects. For travellers, the train is a fast and comfortable means of transport, 34 times safer than the car. A TGV can transport up to 1 000 passengers at 300 km/h. It is also an energy-efficient and space-saving mode of travel. |
| | Vlaki za visoke hitrosti imajo ključno vlogo pri zniževanju stroškov energije in trajnostnem razvoju regij. Ustvarjajo 20-krat manj toplogrednih plinov kot avtomobili in 45-krat manj kot letala. Ne povzročajo lokalnega onesnaževanje ozračja: električni vlaki zagotavljajo 90 % prometa. Za skupnost so stroški prevoza potnikov ali blaga po cesti v smislu onesnaževanja, nesreč in podnebnih vplivov 4,5-krat višji od stroškov prevoza z vlakom. | | The high-speed train has a key role to play in reducing the energy bill and developing regions sustainably. It produces 20 times less greenhouse gasses than the car and 45 times less than the plane. It does not generate any local atmospheric pollution: electric trains provide 90 % of the traffic. For the community, the cost of transporting passengers or goods in terms of pollution, accidents and climatic impacts is 4,5 times higher by road than by rail. |
| Predlagani izravnalni ukrepi: | Proposed compensatory measures: |
| | Kupljenih je bilo 35 ha za kosce, da bi se nadomestila izguba 6,1 ha habitata. Za droplje bo shema izravnave na treh posebnih območjih varstva zajemala 702 ha: 160 ha bo kupljenih, za 542 ha pa bo podpisana pogodba o upravljanju z ukrepi, ki bodo skladni z načrti upravljanja posebnih območij varstva. Predviden je program spremljanja, v programu ponovnega naseljevanja pa bo sodeloval zasebni subjekt. Kupljenih bo 5 ha zemljišča s habitatnim tipom 6210 (izravnava v razmerju 1 : 14). | | 35 ha were purchased for the Corncrake to compensate the 6,1 ha of habitat loss. For Little bustard, the compensation scheme in three SPAs will comprise 702 ha: 160 ha will be purchased and 542 ha will have a management contract with measures in line with the management plans for SPAs. A monitoring programme is foreseen and a private body will participate in a reintroduction programme. 5 ha of land with the habitat type 6210 will be purchased (compensation 1 : 14). |
| IV. Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: drugi razlogi na podlagi mnenja Komisije | IV. Justification of IROPI: other reasons further to an opinion from the Commission |
| Projekt: poglobitev plovne poti Donave med Straubingom in Vilshofnom; odsek Straubing–Deggendorf (Nemčija, 2019). | Project: Deepening the Danube waterway between Straubing and Vilshofen; section Straubing-Deggendorf (Germany, 2019). |
| Opis projekta in območja Natura 2000: | Project and Natura 2000 site description: |
| | Na reki Donavi med Straubingom in Deggendorfom (približno 40 km) niso bili nikoli vzpostavljeni pogoji za plovbo v obdobjih nizkega vodostaja (ugrez 2 m) – v nasprotju z odsekom gorvodno (2,9 m) in dolvodno (2,7 m) –, zaradi česar to predstavlja ozko grlo. Ugrez 2,5 m se lahko doseže samo pri srednjem vodostaju, ki je na voljo samo 144 dni na leto. Cilj projekta je odpraviti to oviro za plovbo in oblikovati izboljšane ukrepe varstva pred poplavami. Rezultat končne zasnove bo poglobitev rečne struge za 20 cm, tj. na –2,2 cm v primerjavi s sedanjim nizkim vodostajem, ki znaša –2 m. Rečna struga bo za 45 cm, tj. na –2,65 cm, dodatno poglobljena tudi na 9,7-kilometrskem odseku. Medtem bi morali ukrepi varstva pred poplavami zagotavljati zaščito pred Q100 (največji izpust, do katerega pride enkrat na 100 let). | | On Danube River between Straubing – Deggendorf (about 40 km), the conditions for navigation during the low water periods (draught 2 m) were never put in place, contrary to the section up- (2,90 m) and downstream (2,70 m) making this a bottleneck. The draught of 2,50 m can only been reached on middle water, which is available for only 144 days/year. The aim of the project is to overcome this obstacle to navigation, and to build improved flood protection measures. The final design will result in the deepening of the riverbed by 20 cm to -2,20 cm, as compared to today’s low water stand of -2,00 m. It will also further deepen the riverbed by 45 cm to -2,65 cm. in a 9,7 km long section. Meanwhile the flood protection measures should provide protection against Q100 (the maximum discharge occurring once within a 100-year period). |
| | Na odseku Straubing–Vilshofen, ki ga projekt zadeva, se zgodi največ nesreč zaradi sedanjega profila ladijske plovne poti. Glede na študijo naj bi se število nesreč na leto zaradi vse večjega obsega prometa do leta 2025 povečalo z 39 (2004) na 55,4. | | The project section of Straubing-Vilshofen has the highest number of accidents due to the current profile of the ship fairway. The study puts the number of accidents at 39 per year (2004), increasing to 55,4 by 2025 due to the increasing volume of transport. |
| | Projekt bo vplival na veliko posebno ohranitveno območje (4 720 ha) DE7142301 Donauauen zwischen Straubing und Vilshofen. Verjetni pomembni vplivi, posredni, neposredni in v povezavi z drugimi načrti ali projekti, so bili ugotovljeni za sedem vrst rib, eno vrsto metuljev in eno vrsto mehkužcev ter sedem habitatnih tipov, vključno s prednostnimi aluvialnimi gozdovi habitatnega tipa 91E0* z vrstama Alnus glutinosa in Fraxinus excelsior. | | The project will affect a large SAC (4 720 ha) DE7142301 Donauauen zwischen Straubing und Vilshofen. Likely significant impacts, both direct, indirect and in-combination, were identified on 7 fish species, 1 butterfly species and 1 mollusc species and 7 habitat types, including the priority 91E0* alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior. |
| Druge ustrezne rešitve: | Alternative solutions: |
| | Poleg izbrane zasnove projekta je bila temeljita presoja izvedena tudi za štiri druge ustrezne rešitve in „nično možnost“. Nobena od drugih ustreznih rešitev ne bi zagotovila vpliva, ki bi bil znatno manjši od vpliva izbrane možnosti, saj bi bodisi zajemale večjo površino posebnega ohranitvenega območja kot predlagani projekt bodisi bi pomembno vplivale na večji habitat zavarovanih vrst. | | In addition to the selected project design, four other alternatives as well as zero alternative were thoroughly assessed. None of the alternatives would give rise to a significantly lower impact than the chosen option because they would either cover a larger area of the SAC than the proposed project or would significantly affect a larger habitat for protected species. |
| Utemeljitev nujnih razlogov prevladujočega javnega interesa: | IROPI justification: |
| (a) | Izpolnitev cilja nacionalne in evropske prometne politike: s poglobitvijo Donave med Straubingom in Vilshofnom se odpravlja vrzel v obstoječi povezavi plovnih poti, ki Severno morje prek Rena, Majne, kanala Majna–Donava in Donave povezuje s Črnim morjem. V skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 1315/2013 o smernicah Unije za razvoj vseevropskega prometnega omrežja zvezna plovna pot po Donavi tvori del jedrnega omrežja evropskega omrežja TEN-T in je velikega gospodarskega interesa za Evropo. | (a) | Meeting the objective of national and European transport policy: Deepening the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen closes a gap in the existing waterway connection linking the North Sea to the Black Sea via the Rhine, the Main, the Main-Danube Canal and the Danube. Under the EU Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, the Danube federal waterway forms part of the core network of the European TEN-T network, and is of high economic interest for Europe. |
| (b) | Boljša povezljivost za pristanišča na celinskih plovnih poteh: s projektom se bodo izboljšale razmere za plovbo na območju projekta v času nizkega vodostaja Donave. Za razliko od drugih načinov prevoza ima ladijski prevoz po Donavi še vedno proste prevozne zmogljivosti, ki bi se lahko s poglobitvijo ladijske plovne poti učinkoviteje izkoriščale. | (b) | Better connectivity for inland ports: The project will improve navigation conditions in the project area when water levels in the Danube are low. Unlike other modes of transport, shipping on the Danube still has free transport capacity, which could be used more efficiently by deepening the ship fairway. |
| (c) | Varnost in enostavnost plovbe: z izvedbo projekta bi se lahko kljub povečanju prometa zmanjšala pogostost nesreč s predvidenih 55,4 na 42,4 na leto. | (c) | Safety and ease of navigation: The implementation of the project could reduce the frequency of accidents from anticipated 55,4 to 42,4 per year, despite the increase in traffic. |
| (d) | Predvideno povečanje prometa: obseg tovora naj bi se do leta 2025 povečal s 7 milijonov ton/leto (2007) na 9,7 milijona ton/leto ali za 50 %, tj. na 10,5 milijona ton/leto. | (d) | Predicted increase in transport: The freight volume is expected to increase from 7.0 million tonnes/year (2007) to 9,7 million tonnes/year by 2025 or to increase by 50 % to 10,5 million tonnes/year. |
| Predlagani izravnalni ukrepi: | Proposed compensatory measures: |
| | Vsi prizadeti habitatni tipi, vključno s prednostnim 91E0*, bodo nadomeščeni z oblikovanjem novih habitatov v razmerju 3 : 1. Za vrsto Maculinea nausithous bodo oblikovani novi habitati travišč, novi habitati pa bodo oblikovani tudi za vrsto Unio crassus, in sicer v obliki novih rečnih otokov in rečnih rokavov (slednje bodo uporabljale tudi prizadete vrste rib). Predvideni sta dolgoročno spremljanje in upravljanje ohranjanja novih habitatov. | | All habitat types affected, including the priority one 91E0*, will be compensated by creation of new habitats at a ratio of 3:1. For Maculinea nausithous, new grassland habitats will be created, as well as new habitats for Unio crassus in a form of new river islands and river branches (the latter serving also the affected fish species). Long-term monitoring and conservation management of new habitats is envisaged. |
| Mnenje Komisije (celotna različica je objavljena na spletnem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm). | Commission’s opinion (full version published at: (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm): |
| 3. IZRAVNALNI UKREPI | 3. COMPENSATORY MEASURES |
| 3.1 Primeri izravnalnih ukrepov iz člena 6(4) | 3.1. Examples of compensatory measures under Article 6(4) |
| Načrt ali projekt | Medkrajevna železniška proga med dvema vozliščema in obnova 100 let starega mostu v Baden-Württembergu (Nemčija). | Projekt vključuje površinske trase, ki bodo skrajšane z izgradnjo tunelov. | Plan or project | Long distance railway line between two nodes and renewal of a 100 yr old bridge in Baden-Württemberg (Germany). | The project includes surface alignments mitigated with tunnelling. |
| Prizadeto območje Natura 2000 | Prizadeto območje je DE 7220-311 „Glemswald und Stuttgarter Bucht“ (3 813 ha, razdeljeno na 31 podobmočij). | Natura 2000 site affected | The site affected is DE 7220-311 ‘Glemswald und Stuttgarter Bucht’ (3 813 ha, with 31 sub-fragmented areas). |
| Vpliv | Vplivi so posledica rabe zemljišč ter poznejše izgube in degradacije habitatov, vključno s sečnjo odraslih dreves. Prizadete dobrine v interesu Skupnosti so: | vrsta: populacija prednostne vrste Osmoderma eremita iz Priloge II k direktivi o habitatih v ugodnem stanju ohranjenosti; | habitat: nižinski ekstenzivno gojeni travniki habitatnega tipa 6510 (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis). | Impact | Impacts result from land take and subsequent habitat loss and degradation including mature tree felling. The assets of Community interest affected are: | Species: population of Habitats Directive Annex II priority species Osmoderma eremita in favourable conservation status. | Habitat: 6510 Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) |
| Izravnalni ukrepi | — | Določitev 50 ha zemljišča v bližini nacionalnega naravnega rezervata (Neuweiler Viehweide) kot območja Natura 2000. | — | Upravljanje določenega območja, namenjenega vrsti *Osmoderma eremita, z obnovitvijo bistvenih ekoloških značilnosti, potrebnih za preživetje vrste. | Upravljano določeno zemljišče povezuje dve obstoječi osrednji zavarovani območji, ki sta bili ločeni, z vplivom ekološke meje na prednostno vrsto. Rezultat ciljno usmerjenega upravljanja naj bi bila ohranitev ugodnega stanja ohranjenosti prednostne vrste. | Compensatory measures | — | Designation as Natura 2000 of 50 ha of land near a national nature reserve (Neuweiler Viehweide). | — | Management of the designated area targeted to *Osmoderma eremita by regenerating the essential ecological features required for the species’ survival. | The managed designated land connects two existing core protected sites that were isolated, with ecological border effect on the priority species. The outcome of targeted management is expected to retain favourable conservation status for the priority species. |
| Vir: C(2018) 466 final z dne 3. januarja 2018. | Source: C(2018) 466 final 30.1.2018 |
| Načrt ali projekt | Cesta B173 med kraji na Bavarskem (Nemčija) | Plan or project | Road B173 between localities in Bavaria (Germany) |
| Prizadeto območje Natura 2000 | Prizadeto območje je območje, pomembno za Skupnost, DE 5833-371 Maintal von Theisau bis Lichtenfels (872 ha), ki se večinoma prekriva s posebnim območjem varstva DE 5931-471.02 Täler von Oberem Main, Unterer Rodach und Steinach. | Posebno območje varstva je na območju bolj prizadeto kot območje, pomembno za Skupnost. Funkcionalnost območja je povezana z devetimi drugimi območji Natura 2000 v celinski biogeografski regiji. Območja sestavljajo habitati na poplavni ravnici s stoječo in tekočo vodo. | Natura 2000 site affected | The site affected is DE 5833-371 Maintal von Theisau bis Lichtenfels SCI (872 ha), largely coincident with an SPA DE 5931-471.02 Täler von Oberem Main, Unterer Rodach und Steinach. | The SPA area is more affected in area than the SCI. The site’s functionality is linked to 9 other Natura 2000 sites in the Continental biogeographic region. The sites consist of floodplain habitats with stagnant and running waters. |
| Vpliv | Trasa ceste seka omrežje Natura 2000, njeni vplivi pa izhajajo iz rabe zemljišč (izguba habitatov) ter vznemirjanja/degradacije habitatov in vrst med gradnjo in upravljanjem ceste, večinoma zaradi odlaganja dušika. Podrobneje: | habitatni tipi iz Priloge I, na katere projekt vpliva: šest, od tega en prednostni (91E0*); | vrste iz Priloge II, na katere projekt vpliva: pet, od tega tri tudi iz Priloge IV. | Pomembni vplivi na: | habitatne tipe 3150, 6430, 6510 in 91E0* iz Priloge I k direktivi o habitatih; | vrsto ptic Circus aeruginosus iz Priloge I k direktivi o pticah. | Impact | The road alignment intersects the Natura 2000 network and impacts through land take (habitat loss) and disturbance/degradation to habitats and species during construction and operation of the road, mainly as a result of nitrogen deposition. In detail: | Annex I habitat types affected by the project: 6, of which one priority (91E0*). | Annex II species affected: 5, of which 3 also Annex IV. | Significant impacts on: | Habitats Directive Annex I habitat types 3150, 6430, 6510, and 91E0* | Birds Directive Annex I bird species Circus aeruginosus |
| Izravnalni ukrepi | Sorazmernost pri izravnavi za uravnoteženje izgube habitatov v okviru celovite usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 je bila določena pri: | razmerju 1 : 3 za habitatne tipe 3150, 6430 in 91E0* ter | razmerju 1 : 6 za habitatni tip 6510. | Povečanje območja, pomembnega za Skupnost, za 2 ha. | Oblikovanje območja habitata trstičja za vrsto Circus aeruginosus. | Finančni načrt ter načrt spremljanja in vrednotenja. | Evropska komisija ta načrt izravnave pogojuje z: | — | izvajanjem v skladu z delovnim načrtom, ki so ga Evropski komisiji predložili nemški organi; | — | poročili o spremljanju in vrednotenju v skladu s predloženim delovnim načrtom, kot je bil dogovorjen z nemškimi organi. Poročilo mora biti dostopno javnosti na internetu; | — | rezultati spremljanja in vrednotenja za omrežje Natura 2000, ki jih je treba upoštevati za predvidevanje vrednotenj in pregledov izravnalnih ukrepov ter ukrepov za ublažitev, povezanih s projektom; | — | izpolnjevanjem zavez v zvezi z omrežjem Natura 2000 s strani Nemčije za območje DE 5833 - 371 v skladu s členom 4(4) in členom 6(1) direktive o habitatih. | Compensatory measures | Proportionality in compensation to balance habitat loss within the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network has been decided at: | 1:3 ratio for habitat types 3150, 6430 and 91E0* | 1:6 for 6510. | Enlargement of the SCI by 2 ha. | Creation of reedbed habitat area for Circus aeruginosus. | Financial plan and monitoring and evaluation plan. | The European Commission makes this compensation plan conditional on: | — | Implementation according to the work plan presented to the European Commission by the German authorities. | — | Monitoring and evaluation reports according to the work plan presented as agreed by the German authorities. The report must be made available to the public on the internet. | — | The results of monitoring and evaluation for the Natura 2000 network must be taken into account in order to foresee evaluation and review of the compensatory measures and of the mitigation measures link to the project. | — | Germany fulfils the commitments concerning the Natura 2000 network for site DE 5833 – 371 as per Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive. |
| Vir: C(2015) 9085 final z dne 18. decembra 2015. | Source: C(2015) 9085 final 18.12.2015 |
| Načrt ali projekt | Državna cesta B 252/B 62; 17,56 km nove ceste, ki bo obšla občine Münchhausen, Wetter in Lahntal (Hesse). | Povezava v smeri sever–jug med regijama Paderborn-Korbach in Marburg-Gießen. Državna cesta B 62 Biedenkopf prek Cölbeja povezuje z medkrajevno osjo Gießen–Marburg–Kassel. | Nova trasa vključuje spremembo velikosti in premestitev javne infrastrukture, kot so javne ceste, energetska omrežja, železnica in plinovod. | Plan or project/ | National Road B 252/B 62; 17,56 km of new road to bypass the municipalities Münchhausen, Wetter and Lahntal (Hesse). | North-south connection between the regions Paderborn-Korbach and Marburg-Gießen. The National Road B 62 links Biedenkopf via Cölbe to the long-distance axes Gießen-Marburg-Kassel. | The new alignment entails resizing and relocation of public infrastructure, such as communal roads, energy grids, a railway and a gas pipeline. |
| Prizadeto območje Natura 2000 | V obseg ustrezne presoje je bilo vključenih več območij Natura 2000. Ugotovitve so bile naslednje: | območje DE 5017-305 „Lahnhänge zwischen Biedenkopf und Marburg“: projekt ne bo škodljivo vplival na to območje; | območje DE 5018-401 „Burgwald“: projekt bo pozitivno vplival na to območje, saj se bo izvajal dlje od območja in bo zmanjšal večino prometne obremenitve obstoječe državne ceste B 252; | območje DE 5118-302 „Obere Lahn und Wetschaft mit Nebengewässern“: projekt bo pomembno vplival na to območje. | Natura 2000 site affected | The scope of the appropriate assessment included several Natura 2000 sites. The conclusions were: | Site DE 5017-305 ‘Lahnhänge zwischen Biedenkopf und Marburg’: not adversely affected by the project. | Site DE 5018-401 ‘Burgwald’: positively affected by the project because the project will be further away from the site and will reduce most of the traffic load of the existing National Road B 252. | Site DE 5118-302 ‘Obere Lahn und Wetschaft mit Nebengewässern’: there will be significant impacts on this site. |
| Vpliv | Trasa državne ceste B 252/B 62 seka omrežje Natura 2000 na treh lokacijah. Neposredna pritiska sta izguba in degradacija habitatov; obstajajo vplivi pregrade in odlaganja dušika, ki z vznemirjanjem habitatov in njihovo degradacijo na splošno vplivajo na habitate in vrste. Dobrine, ki so izpostavljene pomembnim posledicam teh vplivov, so: | — | habitatna tipa iz Priloge I k direktivi o habitatih: | — | 91E0* (aluvialni gozdovi z vrstama Alnus glutinosa in Fraxinus excelsior) in | — | 3260 (vodotoki v nižinskem in montanskem pasu z vodno vegetacijo zvez Ranunculion fluitantis in Callitricho-Batrachion; | — | vrsti iz Priloge II k direktivi o habitatih: | Cottus gobio in Lampetra planeri. | Vsi habitatni tipi in drugi habitati vrst iz Priloge I so izpostavljeni pomembnim vplivom zaradi povečane ravni odlaganja dušika. Povečana obremenitev s sedimenti pomembno škodljivo vpliva na vse v vodi živeče vrste. Največja škoda, neposredna ali posredna, je povzročena habitatnemu tipu 91E0* zaradi gnojenja in zakisljevanja z dušikovimi plini. | Impact | The route alignment of the National Road B 252/B 62 intersects the Natura 2000 network at three locations. The direct pressures are habitat loss and habitat degradation; there are barrier effects and nitrogen deposition that have general effects on habitats and species through habitat disturbance and degradation. The assets subject to significant consequences out of these impacts are: | — | Habitats Directive Annex I habitat types | — | 91E0* (alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior) | — | 3260 (water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation) | — | Habitats Directive Annex II species | Cottus gobio and Lampetra planeri | All Annex I habitat types and other habitats of species are subject to significant impact as a result of increased levels of nitrogen deposition. Increased sediment loads have adverse significant effects on all water-living species. The most significant damage, direct and indirect, is on habitat type 91E0* through fertilizing and acidifying by nitrogen gases. |
| Izravnalni ukrepi | Izguba habitatnega tipa 91E0* (aluvialni gozdovi z vrstama Alnus glutinosa in Fraxinus excelsior): | izravnava neposrednih vplivov: razmerje 1 : 3; | izravnava posrednih vplivov: razmerje 1 : 2. | Compensatory measures | Loss of habitat type 91E0* alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior: | Compensation of the direct impacts: ratio 1:3. | Compensation of the indirect impacts: ratio 1:2. |
| Vir: C(2012) 3392 z dne 29. maja 2012. | Source: C(2012) 3392 of 29.5.2012 |
| Načrt ali projekt | Poglobitev in razširitev ladijske plovne poti po reki Majni na odsekih Wipfeld, Garstadt in Schweinfurt (Bavarska/Nemčija). | Glavni namen projekta je razširiti obstoječo plovno pot po reki Majni med vodnimi zapornicami v Wipfeldu (kilometrski mejnik 316,12) in Ottendorfom (kilometrski mejnik 345,29) s 36 na 40 m ter poglobiti plovno pot po reki s sedanjih 2,5 m na 2,9 m. S tem se bo povečala zmožnost fizičnega manevriranja ladij. | Plan or project/ | Deepening and widening of the ship fairway of the river Main at the sections Wipfeld, Garstadt and Schweinfurt (Bavaria/Germany) | The main purpose of the project is to widen the existing fairway of the river Main between the floodgates Wipfeld (milestone km 316,12) and Ottendorf (milestone km 345,29) from 36 m to 40 m and to deepen the river's waterway from currently 2,50 m to 2,90 m. This will increase the physical manoeuvrability of boats. |
| Vpliv | Prizadeta bi bila zlasti prednostni habitatni tip v interesu Skupnosti 91E0* (aluvialni gozdovi z vrstama Alnus glutinosa in Fraxinus excelsior) in habitatni tip 6510 (nižinski ekstenzivno gojeni travniki). Neposredna škoda bi nastala za oba habitatna tipa, kar bi vključevalo izgubo površine v velikosti 9 460 m2 za habitatni tip 91E0* in 6 440 m2 za habitatni tip 6510. | Impact | The priority habitat type of Community interest 91E0* Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior and the habitat type 6510 Lowland hay meadows would be particularly affected. Both habitat types would be damaged directly involving a surface loss of 9 460 m2 for 91E0* and 6 440 m2 for 6510. |
| Prizadeto območje Natura 2000 | V obseg ustrezne presoje je bilo vključeno podomrežje omrežja Natura 2000, ki meji na vodotok. Ugotovitve ustrezne presoje za območje Natura 2000 so bile: | območje „Maintal zwischen Schweinfurt und Dettelbach“ (posebno območje varstva): brez pomembnih vplivov; | območje „Mainaue zwischen Grafenrheinfeld und Kitzingen“ (območje, pomembno za Skupnost): pomembni vplivi; | območje „Maintal bei Sennfeld und Weyer“(območje, pomembno za Skupnost): pomembni vplivi. | Območja s pomembnimi vplivi merijo 1 706 ha. | Natura 2000 site affected | The scope of the appropriate assessment included a sub-network of the Natura 2000 network neighbouring the watercourse. The AA conclusions per Natura 2000 site were: | Site 'Maintal zwischen Schweinfurt und Dettelbach' (SPA): no significant effects. | Site 'Mainaue zwischen Grafenrheinfeld und Kitzingen' (SCI): significant effects. | Site 'Maintal bei Sennfeld und Weyer'(SCI): significant effects. | The sites significantly affected have a dimension of 1 706 ha. |
| Izravnalni ukrepi | Sorazmernost je bila dogovorjena pri: | | habitatnem tipu 6510: razmerje znaša skoraj 1 : 7; | | habitatnem tipu 91E0*: razmerje znaša skoraj 1 : 4. | | V zadnjenavedenem primeru se pri razmerjih upošteva, da lahko obdobje ponovnega oblikovanja habitata traja več desetletij. | | Območje izravnave je lokalno, saj je potrebno ekološko funkcionalnost mogoče najti v bližini. | | Prizadeta območja Natura 2000 bodo povečana s predlaganimi izravnalnimi ukrepi ter pozneje določena in priglašena s strani države članice. Na poplavnem območju Schweinfurt in Wipfeld je skupno predvidenih deset ukrepov. | Compensatory measures | Proportionality was agreed at: | | Habitat type 6510: proportion of almost 1:7 | | Habitat type 91E0*: proportion of almost 1:4 | | In the latter case, the proportions take into account that the habitat re-creation period may last several decades. | | The compensation area is local, since the ecological functionality required is found nearby. | | The affected Natura 2000 sites will be enlarged by the proposed compensatory measures and subsequently designated and notified by the Member State. In total, 10 measures are foreseen in the flooding area Schweinfurt and Wipfeld. |
| 3.2 Časovni vidiki izravnalnih ukrepov | 3.2. Time-related aspects of compensation measures |
| Nemčija – časovni vidiki izravnalnih ukrepov (izvleček iz dokumenta LANA 2004) (4) | Germany – Time-related aspects of compensation measures (extract from LANA 2004) (4) |
| Ukrepi za zagotovitev skladnosti bi morali biti ob nastanku škode, če so tehnično izvedljivi, že izvedeni in funkcionalni. Po mnenju Evropske komisije je ponovno oblikovanje primernega habitata za prizadete vrste kot ukrep za zagotovitev skladnosti dopustno samo, če „je oblikovano območje na voljo v času, ko prizadeto območje izgublja svojo naravno vrednost“ (EVROPSKA KOMISIJA, 2000:49). | Measures to ensure coherence should, if technically feasible, already be executed and functional when the damage occurs. According to the EU Commission, the recreation of a suitable habitat for the affected species can only be accepted as a measure to ensure coherence if ‘the created site is available at the time when the affected site loses its natural value’ (European Commission 2000:49). |
| Med strokovnjaki obstaja široko soglasje, da bi bilo treba ukrepe za zagotovitev skladnosti izvesti že pred izvajanjem projekta (začetkom gradnje) ali vsaj pred začetkom bistvenega poslabšanja stanja zadevnega območja Natura 2000, tako da so ob nastanku škode pripravljeni za uporabo in čim bolj funkcionalni (npr. BAUMANN in drugi, 1999:470; AG FFH VERTRÄGLICHKEITSPRÜFUNG, 1999:72; SSYMANK in drugi, 1998:39; WEYRICH, 1999:1704; EVROPSKA KOMISIJA, 2000:49; SCHRÖDTER, 2001:17; FGSV, 2002:18; BERNOTAT, 2003:25). | There is therefore broad consensus among experts that the measures to ensure coherence should be carried out already prior to the implementation of the project (start of construction), or at least prior to the commencement of the considerable impairment of the relevant Natura 2000 site, so that they are ready to use and as functional as possible at the time of the damage occurring (e.g. Baumann et al. 1999:470, AG FFH Verträglichkeitsprüfung 1999:72, Ssymank et al. 1998:39, Weyrich 1999:1704, European Commission 2000:49, Schrödter 2001:17, FGSV 2002:18, Bernotat 2003:25). |
| V zvezi s tem zvezno upravno sodišče (sodba z dne 17. maja 2002) navaja tudi nevarnost „zakasnitve pri funkcionalnosti“. EVROPSKA KOMISIJA (2000:50) zahteva, da je rezultat ukrepa praviloma operativen, ko nastane škoda na območju, povezanem s projektom, razen če je mogoče dokazati, da ta sočasnost ni potrebna za zagotovitev prispevka območja k omrežju Natura 2000. | In this regard, the Federal Administrative Court (judgment of 17.5.2002) also refers to the danger of a ‘time-lag in functionality’. The EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000:50) requires that the result of the measure must as a rule be operational when damage occurs on the site connected with the project, unless it can be proven that this simultaneity is not necessary to ensure the site's contribution to the Natura 2000 network. |
| Vsekakor so te zakasnitve pri funkcionalnosti lahko – če sploh – dopustne le, če je mogoče z gotovostjo pričakovati, da se bo z izvedenimi ukrepi zagotovila potrebna izravnava in s tem ponovna vzpostavitev skladnosti (RAMSAUER, 2000:608). | Certainly, these time-lags in functionality can only – if at all – be tolerated if it can be expected with certainty that the measures carried out will result in the required compensation and hence in the restoration of coherence (RAMSAUER 2000:608). |
| V vsakem posameznem primeru je treba zato proučiti, ali so v okviru ekološke usklajenosti omrežja Natura 2000 te zakasnitve pri funkcionalnosti lahko dopustne ali ne. V nadaljevanju sta opisani taki skupini primerov (primer A: popolna funkcionalnost ukrepov za zagotavljanje usklajenosti, ki je potrebna v času poslabšanja stanja; primer B: v času poslabšanja stanja ni potrebna popolna funkcionalnost ukrepov). | In each individual case, therefore, there must be an examination into whether, in the context of the ecological coherence of Natura 2000, these time-lags in functionality can be tolerated or not. The following describes the case constellations of this (case A: complete functionality of the measures for ensuring coherence necessary at the time of the impairment; case B: at the time of the impairment, full functionality of the measures not necessary). |
| Če zakasnitev pri funkcionalnosti ni mogoče uskladiti z ustreznim ciljem ohranjanja, je treba zadržati priznanje ukrepa kot ukrepa za zagotovitev usklajenosti. | If time-lags in functionality cannot be reconciled with the respective conservation objective, recognition as a measure for ensuring coherence must be withheld. |
| Primer A: popolna funkcionalnost ukrepov za zagotavljanje usklajenosti, ki je potrebna v času poslabšanja stanja. | Case A: Complete functionality of the measures for ensuring coherence necessary at the time of the impairment. |
| Habitatni tip ali habitati, ki jih potrebuje vrsta, morajo biti popolnoma funkcionalni, preden pride do poslabšanja stanja, zlasti če obstaja nevarnost izgube zadevne (delne) populacije vrste, ki je zavarovana v skladu s Prilogo 2 k direktivi o habitatih ali Prilogo 1 k direktivi o pticah. V takih primerih se lahko samo ukrepi, ki so izvedeni vnaprej in v času posega že učinkujejo, štejejo za zadostne ukrepe za zagotovitev usklajenosti. Iz razlogov ohranjanja narave zakasnitev pri funkcionalnosti ne more biti dopustna. | The habitat type or the habitats needed by a species must be fully functional before the impairment occurs, especially if there is a danger of losing a relevant (partial) population of a species protected under Annex 2 of the FFH Directive or Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. In such cases, only measures implemented in advance which are already effective at the time of the intervention can be considered as sufficient measures for ensuring coherence. For reasons of nature conservation a time-lag in functionality cannot be tolerated. |
| V bistvu je čas, ki ga habitati vrst potrebujejo za razvoj, odvisen, na eni strani, od obdobij lokalnega razvoja zadevnih habitatov in, na drugi strani, od dostopnosti območij v okviru potrebne ponovne naselitve. Potencial vrst za ponovno naselitev je med drugim določen s prostorsko porazdelitvijo vrst, pojavom konkretnih središč porazdelitve in izvornih populacij v geografski bližini, mobilnostjo in sposobnostjo posamezne vrste za širitev ter neovirano dostopnostjo območij. | Essentially, the length of time habitats of species need to develop depends, on the one hand, on the local development periods of the relevant habitats and, on the other, on the accessibility of areas in the framework of the necessary repopulation. The potential of species for repopulation is determined among others by the spatial distribution of the species, the occurrence of concrete centres of distribution and source populations in the geographical vicinity, species-specific mobility and ability to spread, and unhampered accessibility of the areas. |
| Če poseg močno vpliva na posamezne pojave vrste ali vrst, ki so malo mobilne, obstaja zelo majhna verjetnost, da bo habitat, oblikovan z ukrepi za zagotovitev usklajenosti, na novo ali ponovno naseljen od zunaj. Pri tem je ključnega pomena, da se habitati vnaprej razvijejo čim bližje prizadeti populaciji in da lahko isti osebki ali populacije naselijo habitat že pred posegom kot ubežni habitat. Ponovne naselitve habitata pozneje pogosto ni več mogoče brezpogojno zagotoviti po bistveni oslabitvi populacije. | If an intervention affects heavily isolated occurrences of a species or species with little mobility, there is a very low potential for the habitat created by coherence measures to be newly populated or repopulated from outside. Here it is of key significance that the habitats are developed in advance as close as possible to the affected population and that the same individuals or populations can already populate the habitat prior to the intervention as an escape habitat. Repopulating the habitat at a later period can often no longer be absolutely guaranteed following the considerable impairment of the population. |
| V primeru habitatnih tipov je čas razvoja habitatov določen z njihovo sposobnostjo obnavljanja in abiotskimi razmerami na območju, ki jih je treba ustvariti, ter naselitvijo značilnih rastlinskih in živalskih vrst (glej na primer RIECKEN in drugi, 1994:21 in naslednje). Popolno funkcionalnost v smislu primera A je mogoče doseči samo za habitatne tipe, ki imajo krajši čas razvoja. | In the case of habitat types, development times for the habitats are determined by their regeneration capacity and by the abiotic site conditions to be created and by colonisation by characteristic plant and animal species (cf. e.g. RIECKEN et al. 1994:21ff). Full functionality in the sense of Case A can only be achieved for habitat types which have shorter development times. |
| Vnaprejšnje izvajanje ukrepov | Advance implementation of measures |
| Da bi bilo mogoče v okoliščinah iz primera A še naprej ukrepati, morata biti financiranje in izvajanje ukrepov omogočeni že pred končno odobritvijo projekta (…). V praksi na primer obstaja možnost, da se območje zavaruje že pred sklepom o odobritvi načrta s pripravljalnimi deli pred pridobitvijo zemljišča ali predčasno pridobitvijo zemljišča. Načeloma postopki po korakih zagotavljajo ugodnejše pogoje za to. | In order, in case A situations, to remain able to act, it must already be possible to finance and implement the measures before final authorisation of the project (…). In practice, there is e.g. the possibility here of securing the area already before the planning approval decision by preparatory land acquisition or early land acquisition. In principle, step-by-step procedures offer more favourable conditions for this. |
| Zaradi posebne zahteve glede pravne varnosti pri poznejšem sklepu o odobritvi morajo biti pri predhodnem postopku presoje vplivov na živalske in rastlinske vrste ter habitate (npr. za določitve koridorjev ali v postopkih prostorskega načrtovanja) glavne odločitve o predmetu, lokaciji in obsegu ukrepov za zagotavljanje usklajenosti pogosto sprejete že v fazi osnutka (glej na primer KÜSTER, 2001). Če struktura projekta ostane enaka, se te odločitve ob odobritvi projekta ne bodo bistveno spremenile; ukrepi se lahko izvedejo vnaprej, takoj ko postane jasno, da je projekt v osnovi izvedljiv. | Because of the special legal security requirement of the later approval decision, in the preliminary procedure of an FFH impact assessment (e.g. for the line determinations or in spatial planning procedures), the main decisions on the subject, location and extent of the measures for ensuring coherence must often already be taken at the draft stage. (cf. e.g. KÜSTER 2001). If the structure of the project remains the same, these will not essentially change in the course of the project authorisation; the measures can be implemented in advance as soon as the fundamental achievability of the project becomes apparent. |
| Instrumenti za območja dopolnjevanja in izravnalni ukrepi, ki so že bili vzpostavljeni v drugih okvirih, kažejo tudi, da je predčasno izvajanje ukrepov mogoče in se z vidika načrtovanja lahko prenese v prakso (glej na primer AMMERMANN in drugi, 1998, BUNZEL in BÖHME, 2002). Tu bi se lahko kot dopolnilna možnost sprejeli tudi dogovori med upravljavcem projekta in upravljavcem zemljiškega rezervata. Ti dogovori bi omogočali prevzem izvedenih ukrepov s strani upravljavca zemljiškega rezervata in denarno odškodnino zanje v malo verjetnem primeru, da projekta iz določenega nepredvidenega razloga sploh ne bi bilo mogoče izvesti. | Instruments for stocking areas and compensation measures which have already been established in other contexts also show that an earlier implementation of the measures is possible and can be put into practice from a planning point of view (cf. e.g. AMMERMANN et al. 1998, BUNZEL & BÖHME 2002). As a supplementary possibility here, agreements could also be made between the project operator and the operator of a land reserve. These agreements would allow for the measures carried out to be taken over by the operator of the land reserve and financially compensated in the unlikely event that the project could not, for some unforeseen reason, be realised after all. |
| Spodnji primer načrtovanja projekta A 26 tudi kaže, da je v fazah gradnje za vnaprejšnjo izvedbo ukrepov poleg možnosti pripravljalnih del pred pridobitvijo zemljišča primerna tudi uporaba faz načrtovanja in odobritve. | The following example of the planning of the A 26 also shows that, in addition to the possibility of preparatory land acquisition, it is also appropriate to use the planning and approval stages in phases of building for the advance implementation of measures. |
| Primer: vnaprejšnja izvedba ukrepov v primeru projekta A 26 | Example: Advance implementation of measures in the case of the A 26 |
| Območje varstva ptic, na katero vpliva projekt, je prizadeto in njegovo stanje poslabšano zaradi več povezanih gradbenih odsekov. Med odobritvijo trenutne gradbene faze se ukrepi za zagotovitev usklajenosti že vzpostavljajo, deloma samo zaradi poslabšanj stanja, ki izhajajo iz naslednjih dveh faz, za kateri še ni bil sprejet sklep o odobritvi načrta. Da bi se omogočila učinkovitost ukrepov za oblikovanje novih habitatov, je moralo biti preverjanje, ali je bil določen obseg ukrepov, kot se zahteva z ustrezno presojo, zagotovljeno že v odobritvi načrta za to gradbeno fazo. Izvajanje ukrepov se na ta način prestavi za približno pet let, s čimer se prepreči zakasnitev med poslabšanjem stanja in izravnalno funkcijo. | The bird protection area impacted by the project is affected and impaired by several connected construction sections. During authorisation of the current building phase, measures for ensuring coherence are already being established which in part are only due to impairments arising out of the two following phases, for which no planning approval decision has yet been made. To allow measures for the creation of new habitats to develop their effectiveness, verification that the extent of the measures as required under the appropriate assessment has been laid down must already be provided in the planning approval for this building phase. Implementation of the measures is in this way brought forward by around five years, thus avoiding a time lag between the impairment and the compensatory function. |
| Osnovni pogoji za to so razpoložljivost zemljišč v obsegu, ki ga strokovnjaki določijo kot potrebnega, dogovor o omejitvah upravljanja za kmete, ki na teh zemljiščih delajo, in po potrebi razpoložljivost finančnih sredstev za vnaprejšnje nadomestilo, ki se izplača precej pred sklepom o odobritvi za naslednjo gradbeno fazo. Možnosti, da se pojavijo taki okvirni pogoji za izvajanje, je treba vsekakor razlagati za vsak primer posebej. Pri projektu A 26 je obstoj takih pogojev očiten. Pripravljalna dela pred pridobitvijo zemljišča so omogočila zavarovanje območij. Pristop, izbran v tem postopku, je dobrodošel, saj preprečuje ogroženost zaradi začasnih funkcionalnih pomanjkljivosti in zagotavlja neprekinjeno usklajenost omrežja Natura 2000 med celotnim projektom, ne da bo povzročal kakršne koli zamude pri projektu. | The prerequisites for this are the availability of land areas on the scale designated necessary by experts, agreement of management restrictions for the farmers working there and where necessary the availability of funds for advance compensation paid well before the approval decision for the following building phase. The chances of such framework conditions for implementation occurring must certainly be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. In the A 26 project, such conditions are clearly present. A preparatory land acquisition made it possible to secure the areas. The approach selected in this procedure is welcome, as it prevents the threat of temporary functional deficiencies and ensures the uninterrupted coherence of the Natura 2000 network during the entire project without causing any delays to the project. |
| Po potrebi je mogoča tudi ločena odobritev načrta za ukrepe za zagotovitev usklajenosti, ki zagotavlja njihovo predčasno izvajanje. Seveda imajo predlagatelji projekta vedno možnost, da ukrepe prostovoljno izvedejo predčasno na svoje stroške. Če se ukrepi za zagotovitev usklajenosti izvedejo dovolj vnaprej, v okviru določb o posegih, lahko pozitivno vplivajo na obseg ukrepov za izravnavo in nadomestitev, saj se lahko znižajo dodatni stroški, nastali zaradi začasnih funkcionalnih pomanjkljivosti. | Where necessary, it is also possible to have separate planning approval for the measures to ensure coherence, which provides for their earlier implementation. Of course, the project promoters always have the option of voluntarily implementing the measures early at their own cost. If implemented well in advance, in the context of the provisions on intervention, measures for ensuring coherence could have a positive impact on the extent of compensation and replacement measures, since extra costs incurred for temporary functional deficiencies might be reduced. |
| Upravljavci projektov iz javnega sektorja in upravljavci projektov, ki izvajajo številne ali velike projekte, po možnosti v postopkih odobritve po korakih, imajo pri tem največ prostora za ukrepanje in zato nosijo posebno odgovornost. | Public sector project operators and project operators carrying out many or major projects, possibly in step-by-step approval procedures, have the largest scope for action here and therefore bear a special responsibility. |
| Primer B: v času poslabšanja stanja ni potrebna popolna funkcionalnost ukrepov za zagotovitev usklajenosti | Case B: at the time of the impairment, full functionality of the measures to secure coherence not necessary |
| Ni nujno, da je habitatni tip ali habitat vrst popolnoma funkcionalen pred nastopom bistvenega poslabšanja stanja. Iz nekaterih tehničnih razlogov, ki jih je treba izčrpno navesti, je zakasnitev pri funkcionalnosti upravičena do polne učinkovitosti ukrepa in jo je treba nadomestiti z izvajanjem ukrepov v ustrezno večjem obsegu. Dokazano je, da je s tem zagotovljen tudi prispevek območja k omrežju Natura 2000. | The type of habitat or the habitat of the species must not necessarily be fully functional prior to the onset of the considerable impairment. For certain technical reasons, which must be stated comprehensively, a time-lag in functionality is justifiable up to the full effectiveness of the measure and must be compensated for by implementing the measures on a correspondingly larger scale. It is proven that the site's contribution to the Natura 2000 network is also guaranteed in this way. |
| Tudi v teh primerih bi si bilo treba prizadevati za vnaprejšnjo izvedbo ukrepov. Na podlagi izkušenj, pridobljenih z izvajanjem drugih instrumentov za ohranjanje narave, je mogoče sklepati, da je v nekaterih okoliščinah zakasnitve pri funkcionalnosti mogoče preprečiti s povečanjem obsega ukrepa. To med drugim temelji na dejstvu, da je mogoče na ta način zakasnitve večinoma nadomestiti z nekaterimi funkcijami habitatov. | In these cases too, advance implementation of the measures should be aimed for. Experience gained from implementing other nature conservation instruments allow the conclusion to be drawn that under certain circumstances, time-lags in functionality can be countered by increasing the scale of the measure. This is based among others on the fact that time lags can largely be offset in this way for certain habitat functions. |
| Na podlagi zakasnitve pri funkcionalnosti bi bilo treba izbrati dodajanje večjih zemljišč, saj je kljub temu, da ukrepi (npr. zasaditev) na začetku ne morejo ustrezno učinkovati, z bistveno večjim obsegom na splošno vseeno mogoče doseči približno enako raven izravnave. Večji obseg ukrepa povečuje tudi gotovost napovedi v zvezi s funkcionalnimi vidiki. | Based on the time-lag in functionality, larger land additions should be selected, since while the measures (e.g. planting) cannot fulfil the functions adequately at the beginning, a significantly larger stock can nevertheless achieve approximately the same level of compensation overall. The larger scale of the measure also increases prediction security with regard to functional aspects. |
| Primer: Cestni projekt s prečkanjem tekočega vodnega telesa bistveno poslabšuje stanja habitata *91E0 (jesenovi in jelševi gozdovi ob tekočih vodah). Izgubo habitata je treba na drugih območjih, ki so primerna glede na lokacijo in funkcijo, nadomestiti z ukrepi za zagotovitev usklajenosti; to se bo doseglo z ustrezno zasaditvijo in obnovitvijo habitatnega tipa. Ker spremljevalni ukrepi, kot je razvoj staroraslih gozdov, v obstoječih podobnih habitatnih tipih niso mogoči, je načrtovano izvajanje ukrepa na območju, ki je precejkrat večje, da bi se nadomestila zakasnitev pri funkcionalnosti. Gre za vprašanje habitatnega tipa, za katerega so značilna drevesa in ki ima temu ustrezno dolg razvojni čas, ki ga ni mogoče doseči niti z vnaprejšnjim izvajanjem ukrepov. | Example: By crossing a flowing water body, a road project leads to considerable impairment of the habitat *91E0 ‘ash-alder woods along running waters’. The loss of the habitat is to be compensated at other sites which are suitable in location and function by measures to ensure coherence; this will be achieved through appropriate planting and restoration of the habitat type. Since other accompanying measures, such as the development of old growth forests in existing similar habitat types are not possible, it is planned to implement the measure on an area many times larger, in order to offset the time-lag in functionality. It is a question here of a habitat type characterised by trees and which has a correspondingly long development time which cannot be accomplished even with an advanced implementation of measures. |
| Kljub temu bi bilo treba ta ukrep načeloma priznati kot ukrep za zagotovitev usklajenosti, če temu ne nasprotuje noben poseben vidik posameznega primera. | Nevertheless, this measure should in principle be recognised as a measure to ensure coherence provided that no specific aspects of the individual case speak against this. |
| 4. POVEZAVE MED POSTOPKI OKOLJSKIH PRESOJ: UP, PVO, SPVO | 4. LINKS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES: AA, EIA, SEA |
| 4.1 Primerjava postopkov v skladu z ustrezno presojo (UP), presojo vplivov na okolje (PVO) in strateško presojo vplivov na okolje (SPVO) | 4.1. Comparison of procedures under appropriate assessment (AA), EIA and SEA |
| | UP | PVO | SPVO | | AA | EIA | SEA |
| Za katere vrste razvojnih projektov se uporablja? | Za vsak načrt ali projekt, ki bi lahko sam ali v povezavi z drugimi načrti/projekti pomembno vplival na območje Natura 2000 (razen načrtov ali projektov, ki so neposredno povezani z upravljanjem ohranjanja območja). | Za vse projekte iz Priloge I. | Za projekte iz Priloge II se potreba po presoji vplivov na okolje določi za vsak primer posebej ali na podlagi mejnih vrednosti ali meril, ki jih določijo države članice (ob upoštevanju meril iz Priloge III). | Za vse načrte in programe ali njihove spremembe: | (a) | ki jih pripravi in/ali sprejme organ na nacionalni, regionalni ali lokalni ravni; | (b) | ki so zahtevani z zakonskimi in drugimi predpisi; | (c) | ki se pripravijo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo, ribištvo, energetiko, industrijo, promet, ravnanje z odpadki, gospodarjenje z vodami, telekomunikacije, turizem, prostorsko načrtovanje ali rabo zemljišč in določajo okvir za prihodnja soglasja za izvedbo iz prilog I in II k direktivi o presoji vplivov na okolje ali | pri katerih je bilo glede na možne vplive na območja ugotovljeno, da je zanje potrebna presoja skladno s členom 6 ali 7 Direktive 92/43/EGS. | Which types of developments are targeted? | Any plan or project which – either individually or in combination with other plans/projects – is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site (excluding plans or projects directly connected to the conservation management of the site). | All projects listed in Annex I. | For projects listed in Annex II the need for an EIA shall be determined on a case-by-case basis or through thresholds or criteria set by Member States (taking into account criteria in Annex III). | All plans and programmes, or amendments thereof, which: | (a) | are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority and national, regional and local level; | (b) | are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions; | (c) | are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use and set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive; or | which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC. |
| Katere vplive, povezane z naravo, je treba presojati? | Presojo je treba izvesti glede na cilje ohranjanja območja (ki se nanašajo na vrste/habitatne tipe, ki so pomembno prisotni na zadevnem območju). | Pri presoji vplivov je treba določiti, ali bodo škodljivo vplivali na celovitost zadevnega območja. | Neposredne in posredne, sekundarne, kumulativne, čezmejne, kratko-, srednje- in dolgoročne, trajne in začasne, pozitivne in negativne pomembne vplive na prebivalstvo in zdravje ljudi; biotsko raznovrstnost, s posebnim poudarkom na vrstah in habitatih, ki so zavarovani v skladu z Direktivo 92/43/EGS in Direktivo 2009/147/ES; zemljišča, tla, vodo, zrak in podnebje ter krajino; materialne dobrine, kulturno dediščino in krajino ter vzajemno delovanje teh dejavnikov. | Verjetne pomembne vplive na okolje, vključno z vplivi na vprašanja, kot so biotska raznovrstnost, prebivalstvo, zdravje ljudi, živalstvo, rastlinstvo, tla, voda, zrak, podnebni dejavniki, materialne dobrine, kulturna dediščina skupaj z arhitekturno in arheološko dediščino, krajina ter medsebojna razmerja teh dejavnikov. | What impacts need to be assessed relevant to nature? | The assessment should be made in view of the site’s conservation objectives (which relate to the species/habitat types significantly present on the site). | The impacts should be assessed to determine whether or not they will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. | Direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative significant effects on population and human health; biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC; land, soil, water, air and climate and landscape; material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape; and the interaction between these factors. | Likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. |
| Kdo je odgovoren za presojo? | Za izvedbo ustrezne presoje je odgovoren pristojni organ. V tem okviru se lahko od nosilca projekta zahteva, naj izvede vse potrebne študije in pristojnemu organu predloži vse potrebne informacije, da lahko pristojni organ sprejme odločitev na podlagi prejetih informacij. Pri tem lahko pristojni organ, če je to primerno, pridobi tudi informacije iz drugih virov. | Nosilec predloži potrebne informacije, ki jih pristojni organ, ki izdaja soglasje za izvedbo, ustrezno upošteva, skupaj z rezultati posvetovanj. | Z direktivo o strateški presoji vplivov na okolje (SPVO) je državam članicam zagotovljeno široko polje proste presoje pri imenovanju pristojnih organov za SPVO. To so lahko organi, pristojni za pripravo načrta/programa, okoljski organi, s katerimi se izvede posvetovanje ex lege o obsegu in ravni podrobnosti informacij, ki jih je treba vključiti v okoljsko poročilo, pa tudi o osnutku načrta/programa in priloženem okoljskem poročilu, ali organi, ki jim je posebej zaupano vodenje postopka SPVO. | Who is responsible for the assessment? | It is the responsibility of the competent authority to ensure that the AA is carried out. In that context the developer may be required to carry out all necessary studies and to provide all necessary information to the competent authority in order to enable it to take a fully informed decision. In so doing the competent authority may also collect relevant information from other sources as appropriate. | The developer supplies the necessary information to be duly taken into account, together with the results of consultations, by the competent authority issuing the development consent. | The SEA Directive leaves Member States with a wide margin of discretion in assigning the responsible authorities for SEA. These could either be the authorities in charge of making a plan/programme, the environmental authorities, who are consulted ex lege on the scope and level of detail of the information that must be included in the environmental report, as well as the draft plan/programme and the accompanying environmental report; or the authorities specifically entrusted with running the SEA procedure. |
| Ali se je treba posvetovati z javnostjo/drugimi organi? | Direktiva o habitatih ne vsebuje izrecne obveznosti pridobitve mnenja širše javnosti pri izdajanju dovoljenja za načrte ali projekte, ki zahtevajo ustrezno presojo. V skladu z besedilom člena 6(3) je to potrebno le, če se „šteje za ustrezno“. Vendar je Sodišče pojasnilo, da ima zadevna javnost, vključno s priznanimi okoljskimi nevladnimi organizacijami, na podlagi zahtev iz Aarhuške konvencije pravico do udeležbe v postopku odobritve (C-243/15, točka 49). Ta pravica vključuje zlasti „pravico [javnosti] do ,učinkovitega sodelovanja pri okoljskem odločanju‘ s tem, da predloži ,pisno oz. na javni obravnavi ali ob zaslišanju vložnika vse pripombe, informacije, analize ali mnenja, za katere meni, da se nanašajo na predlagano dejavnost‘“ (zadeva C-243/15, točka 46). | Posvetovanje pred sprejetjem predloga izvedbe je obvezno. | Države članice morajo sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da imajo organi, ki bodo verjetno obravnavali projekt (vključno z okoljskimi, lokalnimi in regionalnimi organi), možnost izraziti svoje mnenje o prošnji za soglasje za izvedbo. Enaka načela se uporabljajo za posvetovanje z zadevno javnostjo. | V primeru verjetnih pomembnih vplivov na okolje v drugi državi članici se je treba posvetovati z ustreznimi organi in javnostjo zadevne države članice. | Posvetovanje pred sprejetjem načrta ali programa je obvezno. | Države članice se morajo posvetovati z organi, ki bodo zaradi svojih posebnih okoljskih pristojnosti verjetno obravnavali okoljske vplive izvajanja načrta/programa. Posvetovati bi se bilo treba z javnostjo, vključno z javnostjo, na katero vpliva ali bi verjetno vplivalo odločanje ali ki ima interes pri takem odločanju, vključno z nevladnimi organizacijami. | Organom in javnosti se čim prej v ustreznem časovnem okviru dejansko omogoči, da pred sprejetjem načrta ali programa ali njegovo vložitvijo v zakonodajni postopek izrazijo svoje mnenje o osnutku načrta ali programa in priloženem okoljskem poročilu. | V primeru verjetnih pomembnih vplivov na okolje v drugi državi članici se je treba posvetovati z ustreznimi organi in javnostjo zadevne države članice. | Are the public/other authorities consulted? | The Habitats Directive does not contain an explicit obligation to obtain the opinion of the general public when authorising plans or projects requiring an appropriate assessment. According to the wording of Article 6(3) this has only to be done if it is ‘considered appropriate’. However, the Court has clarified that, on the basis of the requirements of the Aarhus Convention , the public concerned, including recognised environmental NGOs, has the right to participate in the authorisation procedure (C-243/15 paragraph 49). This right involves in particular, ‘the right to participate “effectively during the environmental decision-making” by submitting, “in writing or, as appropriate, at a public hearing or inquiry with the applicant, any comments, information, analyses or opinions that it considers relevant to the proposed activity”’ (C-243/15, paragraph 46). | Compulsory – consultation before adoption of the development proposal. | Member States must take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project (including environmental, local and regional authorities) are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the request for development consent. The same principles apply for consulting the public concerned. | In case of likely significant effects on the environment in another Member State, the relevant authorities and the public in that Member State must be consulted. | Compulsory – consultation before adoption of the plan or programme. | Member States must consult the authorities, which by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing a plan/programme. The public, including the public affected or likely to be affected or having an interest in, the decision-making, including NGOs, should be consulted. | The authorities and the public shall be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme or its submission to the legislative procedure. | In case of likely significant effects on the environment in another Member State, the relevant authorities and the public in that Member State must be consulted. |
| Kako pravno zavezujoči so rezultati presoje? | Zavezujoči. | Pristojni organi lahko z načrtom ali projektom soglašajo šele, ko se prepričajo, da ne bo škodljivo vplival na celovitost območja. | Rezultati posvetovanj in informacije, pridobljene v okviru PVO, se ustrezno upoštevajo v postopku soglasja za izvedbo. | Odločitev o izdaji soglasja za izvedbo vključuje vsaj utemeljeni sklep (tj. sklep o PVO) in morebitne okoljske pogoje, povezane s sklepom. | Okoljsko poročilo in predložena mnenja se upoštevajo pri pripravi načrta ali programa in pred njegovim sprejetjem ali vložitvijo v zakonodajni postopek. | How binding are the outcomes of the assessment? | Binding. | The competent authorities may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. | The results of the consultations and the information gathered as part of the EIA ‘ shall be duly taken into account ’ in the development consent procedure. | The decision to grant development consent shall incorporate at least the reasoned conclusion (i.e. the EIA decision) and any environmental conditions attached to the decision. | The environmental report and the opinions expressed ‘ shall be taken into account ’ during the preparation of the plan or programme and before its adoption or submission to the legislative procedure. |
| 5. STRATEŠKO NAČRTOVANJE – PRESOJA NAČRTOV | 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING – ASSESSMENT OF PLANS |
| 5.1 Primer: načrtovanje avtocest v Avstriji | 5.1. Example: Planning of highways in Austria |
| Načrtovanje avtocest v Avstriji – pregled in ustrezna presoja | Highways Planning in Austria – Screening and appropriate assessment |
| Načrtovanje avtocest v Avstriji vključuje tri različne faze projekta, od katerih je vsakič znova odvisna potreba po ustrezni presoji. | | V prvi fazi (Voruntersuchung ali Korridoruntersuchung) se opredelijo morebitni konfliktni deli območja, ki je predmet raziskav, da se izključijo koridorji z nedopustnimi vplivi oziroma visokim tveganjem neodobritve. Posebna pozornost je namenjena zavarovanim območjem, vključno z območji Natura 2000. Rezultata prve faze sta predhodni izbor možnih različic projekta in program raziskav za drugo fazo. Potreba po izvedbi ustrezne presoje se običajno prepozna v tej fazi (faza pregleda). | | V drugi fazi (Vorprojekt ali Variantenuntersuchung) se opredeli občutljivost habitatov in vrst v različnih možnih različicah projekta ter predvidijo možni vplivi teh različic na okolje. V skladu z notranjimi nacionalnimi zahtevami (RVS* (5)) so v tej fazi potrebne podrobne raziskave v zvezi z ustrezno presojo. To je namenjeno zagotovitvi, da se čim prej upoštevajo vrste in habitati, ki so pod zaščito EU. Na koncu te faze se izbere ena možna različica projekta. | | Tretja faza (Einreichprojekt) vključuje načrtovanje za postopke odobritve. Morebitni vplivi izbrane možnosti na okolje se podrobneje opredelijo, možni negativni vplivi pa se ublažijo z ustreznimi ukrepi. Cilj je okoljsko odgovoren načrt projekta, ki ne vpliva na cilje ohranjanja območja ali zavarovane vrste in ga je po zakonu mogoče odobriti. | Prednost zgodnjega pregleda je, da se pravočasno prepoznajo potrebni pravni postopki, v tem primeru ustrezna presoja ali – v drugih primerih – postopek za odobritev odstopanja. Postopkovna tveganja so tako prepoznana dovolj zgodaj in lahko se uvedejo strategije preprečevanja. | Za lokalizacijo morebitnih območij konflikta se uporabljajo standardni podatkovni obrazci območij Natura 2000, skupaj s podatki iz nacionalnega atlasa gnezditvenih ptic ter regionalnih in lokalnih raziskav habitatov (če so na voljo in aktualni). Pri oceni trenutnega stanja in možnih vplivov se upoštevajo tudi rdeči seznami (nacionalni ali pokrajinski), podatki iz poročila v skladu s členom 17, nacionalni in pokrajinski predpisi v zvezi z vrstami, zavarovanimi na nacionalni ravni, ter drugi podatki, ki so na voljo v regiji. Če so na voljo, se lahko uporabijo tudi dodatni podatki o spremljanju, na primer iz projektov, namenjenih ohranjanju vrst, ali projektov LIFE, izvedenih v regiji. | Vir: študija primera, ki jo je predložilo podjetje ASFINAG. | The planning of highways in Austria follows three different project phases, which determine the need of an appropriate assessment iteratively. | | Phase 1 (‘Voruntersuchung’ or ‘Korridoruntersuchung’) identifies potential conflict-bearing zones within the investigated area, to exclude corridors with intolerable effects and high risk of not being approved, respectively. Special attention is given to protected areas, including Natura 2000 areas. Results of phase 1 are a preliminary selection of possible variations of the project and the investigation programme for phase 2. The requirement of carrying out an appropriate assessment is normally recognized in this stage (screening phase). | | Phase 2 (‘Vorprojekt’ or ‘Variantenuntersuchung’) identifies the sensitivity of habitats and species in the different possible variations of the project and predicts the possible effects of these on the environment. According to internal national requirements (RVS* (5)) detailed surveys regarding an appropriate assessment are required in this phase. This intends to guarantee the earliest possible consideration of species and habitats under EU protection. At the end of that phase one possible variation of the project is chosen. | | Phase 3 (‘Einreichprojekt’) contains the planning for the approval procedures. The potential effects of the chosen route on the environment are further specified and possible negative effects are mitigated by appropriate measures. The goal is an environmentally responsible, without impacts on site’s conservation objectives or protected species and legally approvable project plan. | The advantages of early screening are the timely recognition of necessary legal procedures, in this case of an appropriate assessment or – in other cases – of a derogation procedure. Procedural risks are thus recognized early enough and avoidance strategies can be implemented. | For the localization of potential areas of conflict, the standard data forms of the Natura 2000 sites, together with data from the national atlas of breeding birds, regional and local habitat surveys (as far as they are available and current) are used. The evaluation of the current situation and the possible effects also considers the Red Lists (national or provincial), data from the Article 17 report, national and provincial regulations regarding nationally protected species and other data available in the region. Additional monitoring data can be used where available, e.g. from species conservation projects or LIFE projects implemented in the region. | Source: case study provided by ASFINAG |
| 5.2 Primer: strateško načrtovanje novega hidroenergetskega razvoja na Donavi | 5.2. Example: Strategic planning of new hydropower developments in the Danube |
| Strateško načrtovanje nove hidroelektrarne v povodju Donave | Strategic planning of new hydropower station in the Danube basin |
| Mednarodna komisija za varstvo reke Donave (ICPDR) je pripravila vodilna načela za razvoj trajnostne hidroenergetske rabe v povodju Donave, ki so jih podonavske države sprejele junija 2013. Vodilna načela so bila zasnovana v okviru obširnega participativnega postopka, v katerem so sodelovali predstavniki iz energetskih in okoljskih uprav, hidroenergetskega sektorja, nevladnih organizacij in znanstvene skupnosti. | Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower development in the Danube Basin were developed by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and were adopted by the Danube countries in June 2013. The guiding principles were drafted as part of a broad participative process involving representatives from energy and environment administrations, the hydropower sector, NGOs and the scientific community. |
| Priporoča se pristop strateškega načrtovanja za razvoj novih hidroelektrarn. Ta pristop bi moral temeljiti na oceni na dveh ravneh (vključno s seznami priporočenih meril), tj. nacionalni/regionalni oceni, ki bi ji sledila ocena konkretnega projekta. | They recommend a strategic planning approach for the development of new hydropower stations. This approach should be based on a two-level assessment (including lists of recommended criteria), the national/regional assessment followed by the project specific assessment. |
| V prvem koraku se opredelijo rečni odseki, na katerih je gradnja hidroelektrarn prepovedana z nacionalno ali regionalno zakonodajo/sporazumi (izključitvena območja). Merila, ki so za to kategorijo vzpostavljena v nekaterih evropskih državah, so: zavarovana območja, odseki visoke ekološke vrednosti, referenčni odseki, velikost povodja. | A first step identifies river stretches where hydropower development is forbidden by national or regional legislation/agreements (exclusion zones). Criteria, which are in place in some European countries for this category include: protected areas, high ecological value stretches, reference stretches, catchment size. |
| Priporočeni seznam za nacionalna/regionalna merila vključuje naslednje: | A recommended list for national/regional criteria include the following: |
| — | naravnost: stanje rečnih odsekov/vodnega telesa glede na odstopanje od naravnih pogojev za posamezno vrsto, kar zadeva hidrologijo, morfologijo, biološko kontinuiteto in kontinuiteto sedimentov ter biološke skupnosti; | — | Naturalness. Status of river stretches/water body in relation to the deviation from type-specific natural conditions regarding hydrology, morphology, biological and sediment continuity as well as biological communities. |
| — | stanje vodnega telesa, kar zadeva redkost in ekološko vrednost: redkost rečnega tipa, ekološko stanje rečnega odseka in občutljivost; | — | Status of water body with regard to rarity and ecological value. Rarity of the river type, ecological status of a rive stretch and sensitivity. |
| — | posebna ekološka struktura in funkcija rečnega odseka, tudi kar zadeva celotno povodje/porečje in glede na ekosistemske storitve: na primer habitati za občutljive/dragocene vrste rib ali drugi biološki elementi kakovosti v rečni ekologiji (npr. vrste z rdečega seznama); | — | Specific ecological structure and function of the river stretch also with regard to the whole catchment/sub-basin and in relation to ecosystems services. E.g. particular habitats for sensitive/valuable fish species or other biological quality elements in the riverine ecology (e.g. red list species. |
| — | ohranitvena in zavarovana območja: na primer območja Natura 2000, območja iz Ramsarske konvencije, Unescovi biosferni rezervati, nacionalni, regionalni in naravni parki itd. | — | Conservation areas and protected sites. E.g. Natura 2000 areas, Ramsar sites, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, National, Regional and Nature Parks, etc. |
| V drugem koraku se na podlagi ocenjevalne matrike in razvrstitvene sheme ocenijo vsi drugi odseki. | In a second step, all other stretches will be assessed using the assessment matrix and classification scheme. |
| Ker je veliko rečnih odsekov in poplavnih ravnic v povodju Donave zavarovanih na podlagi direktiv o pticah in o habitatih, je treba upoštevati določbe in zahteve v skladu z upravljanjem in varstvom območij Natura 2000 ter potrebo po ustrezni oceni vpliva možnih projektov na zadevnih območjih. | As many river stretches and floodplains in the Danube basin are protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, the provisions and requirements according to the management and protection of Natura 2000 sites and the need for an appropriate assessment of impact of possible projects in the concerned areas need to be taken into account. |
| Nacionalna/regionalna ocena je instrument, ki upravam pomaga, da gradnjo novih hidroelektrarn usmerijo na območja, kjer se pričakujejo najmanjši vplivi na okolje. Kjer je to ustrezno, je treba upoštevati vidike v celotnem povodju Donave ali čezmejne vidike. Nacionalna/regionalna ocena je koristna za okoljski in vodni sektor, pa tudi za hidroenergetski sektor, saj povečuje predvidljivost postopka odločanja in jasno nakazuje, kje bodo dovoljenja za nove projekte verjetno izdana. | The national/regional assessment is an instrument to help administrations direct new hydropower stations to those areas where minimum effects on the environment are expected. Danube-basin-wide or trans-border aspects need to be taken into account where appropriate. The national/regional assessment benefits both the environment and water sector but also the hydropower sector since it increases the predictability of the decision-making process and makes transparent where licences for new projects are likely to be issued. |
| Medtem ko je ocena na nacionalni/regionalni ravni splošnejša, ocena konkretnega projekta, s katero se razvrsti ustreznost rečnih odsekov za morebitno hidroenergetsko rabo, zagotavlja podrobnejšo in bolj poglobljeno oceno koristi in vplivov konkretnega projekta. To pomaga pri oceni, ali je projekt ustrezno prilagojen konkretni lokaciji. Ocena konkretnega projekta se izvede kot odgovor na vlogo za izdajo dovoljenja za novo hidroelektrarno in je torej odvisna od zasnove konkretnega projekta. | While the assessment at national/regional level is more of a general nature, the project specific assessment classifying the appropriateness of river stretches for potential hydropower use provides a more detailed and in-depth assessment of the benefits and effects of a concrete project. This helps in assessing whether a project is appropriately tailored to a specific location. The project-specific assessment is carried out in response to an application for issuing the licence for a new hydropower plant and therefore depends on the specific project design. |
| Nato je treba določiti ukrepe za ublažitev za zmanjšanje negativnih vplivov hidroenergetskih objektov na vodne ekosisteme. Prednostna ukrepa za ohranjanje in izboljšanje ekološkega stanja voda sta zagotavljanje selitve rib in ekološko sprejemljivih pretokov. | Mitigation measures then have to be set to minimise the negative effects of hydropower installations on aquatic ecosystems. Ensuring fish migration and ecological flows are priority measures for maintaining and improving the ecological status of waters. |
| Drugi ukrepi za ublažitev, kot so izboljšanje upravljanja plavin, zmanjšanje negativnih vplivov umetnih nihanj vodostajev (vršno obratovanje hidroelektrarne), ohranjanje stanja podzemnih voda ali obnovitev habitatov za posamezne tipe in obrežnih območij, so pomembni za rečno ekologijo in mokrišča, ki so neposredno odvisna od vodnih ekosistemov. O teh ukrepih bi bilo torej treba razmisliti pri zasnovi projekta, pri tem pa upoštevati tudi stroškovno učinkovitost in zanesljivost oskrbe z električno energijo. | Other mitigation measures such as improving sediment management, minimising the negative effects of artificial water level fluctuations (hydropeaking), maintaining groundwater conditions or restoring type specific habitats and riparian zones are important for riverine ecology and wetlands directly depending on aquatic ecosystems. These measures should therefore be considered in the project design, taking into account cost-effectiveness and security of electricity supply. |
| Z vodilnimi načeli se priznava uporaba postopka iz člena 6(3) in (4) direktive o habitatih, kadar bi novi hidroenergetski razvoj lahko vplival na območje Natura 2000. | The guiding principles acknowledge the application of the procedure laid down in Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive when new hydropower developments might affect Natura 2000 site. |
| https://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/hydropower | https://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/hydropower |
| 5.3 Primer: prostorski načrt za polja vetrnih elektrarn na morju in omrežne povezave v nemški izključni ekonomski coni Severnega morja | 5.3. Example: Spatial plan for offshore wind farms and grid connections in the German North Sea EEZ |
| Prostorski načrt za priobalno omrežje v nemški izključni ekonomski coni Severnega morja | V načrtu za priobalno omrežje so opredeljena polja vetrnih elektrarn na morju, ki so primerna za skupne omrežne povezave. V skladu z določitvijo potrebnih poti kablov in območij za omrežne povezave polj vetrnih elektrarn na morju načrt za priobalno omrežje vključuje poti kablov za povezovalne daljnovode in opise možnih prečnih povezav. | V nemški izključni ekonomski coni so bila prednostna območja določena za ladijski prevoz, cevovode in proizvodnjo vetrne energije na morju; druge uporabe na teh območjih so prepovedane, razen če so združljive. Na območjih Natura 2000 niso dovoljene vetrne turbine. Na prehodu v teritorialno morje in križišče shem ločene plovbe morajo biti podmorski kabli za prenos električne energije, proizvedene v izključni ekonomski coni, napeljani po določenih kabelskih koridorjih. Ko je bil načrt pripravljen, je bila izvedena strateška presoja vplivov na okolje. | Da bi čim bolj zmanjšali možne negativne vplive na morsko okolje pri polaganju cevovodov in kablov, je v načrtu navedeno, da se občutljivi habitati ne bi smeli prečkati v obdobjih visoke ranljivosti določenih vrst. | Med polaganjem in delovanjem cevovodov in kablov je treba preprečevati škodo ali uničenje peščenih obrežij, grebenov in območij ogroženih bentoških skupnosti, ki so še posebno občutljivi habitati, poleg tega pa je treba upoštevati dobre okoljske prakse v skladu s Konvencijo OSPAR. Cilj načrta je bil tudi uskladitev določitve prednostnih območij za cevovod in polja vetrnih elektrarn. | Cilja načel načrtovanja, kot sta omejitev povezovanja kablov in preprečevanje prečkanja območij Natura 2000, sta skrčiti območje, potrebno za infrastrukturo omrežja, in zmanjšati možne vplive na morsko okolje. V načrtu, za katerega je bila izvedena strateška presoja vplivov na okolje, sta določena zmogljivost in pričakovan časovni okvir priključkov na priobalno omrežje, ki bodo zgrajeni v naslednjih desetih letih. | https://www.bsh.de/EN/TOPICS/Offshore/Maritime_spatial_planning/maritime_spatial_planning_node.html | Spatial Offshore Grid Plan for the German Exclusive Economic Zone of the North Sea | The Offshore Grid Plan defines the offshore wind farms which are suitable for collective grid connections. Along with the stipulation of the necessary cable routes and sites for the offshore wind farms’ grid connections, the Offshore Grid Plan contains the cable routes for interconnectors and descriptions of possible cross connections. | Priority areas have been designated for shipping, pipelines, and offshore wind energy production in German EEZ; other uses are prohibited in these areas unless they are compatible. In Natura 2000 sites wind turbines are not allowed. At the transition to the territorial sea and to the crossing of the traffic separation schemes submarine cables for the transport of power generated in the EEZ must be routed along designated cable corridors. With the establishment of the plan a SEA has been carried out. | To minimise possible negative impacts on the marine environment when laying pipelines and cables, the plan states that sensitive habitats should not be crossed during periods of high vulnerability of particular species. | Damage to or destruction of sandbanks, reefs and areas of benthic communities of conservation concern, which constitute particularly sensitive habitats are to be avoided during the laying and operation of pipelines and cables, and best environmental practices according to the OSPAR Convention are to be followed. The plan has also sought to overlap designation for pipeline and wind farm priority areas. | Planning principles such as maximum bundling of cables and avoiding routes through Natura 2000 sites are aimed at reducing the area needed for grid infrastructure and lowering potential impacts on the marine environment. The plan, which was subject to a SEA set out the capacity and expected timing of offshore grid connections to be built over the next 10 years. | https://www.bsh.de/EN/TOPICS/Offshore/Maritime_spatial_planning/maritime_spatial_planning_node.html |
| (1) https://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/bij12/routeplanner.aspx | (1) https://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/bij12/routeplanner.aspx |
| (2) https://www.commissiemer.nl/docs/mer/diversen/leidraad_bepaling_significantie27052010.pdf | (2) https://www.commissiemer.nl/docs/mer/diversen/leidraad_bepaling_significantie27052010.pdf |
| (3) RVS = smernice in predpisi za načrtovanje, gradnjo in vzdrževanje cest (RVS), www.fsv.at. | (3) RVS=Guidelines and Regulations for the Planning, Construction and Maintenance of Roadways (RVS) www.fsv.at |
| (4) LANA/stalni odbor LANA „ureditev posegov“ (2004): tehnične zahteve za ukrepe, da se zagotovi skladnost na podlagi člena 34, odstavek 5, nemškega zveznega zakona o varstvu narave (BNatSchG) – Priloga k točki dnevnega reda 4.6 87. sestanka delovne skupine LANA 4. in 5. marca 2004. | (4) LANA / Permanent LANA committee ‘intervention regulation’ (2004): Technical requirements for measures to ensure coherence pursuant to Article 34 para. 5 Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG). – Annex to TOP 4.6 of the 87th LANA meeting on 4/5 March 2004. |
| (5) RVS = smernice in predpisi za načrtovanje, gradnjo in vzdrževanje cest (RVS), www.fsv.at. | (5) RVS=Guidelines and Regulations for the Planning, Construction and Maintenance of Roadways (RVS) www.fsv.at |
