Managing Natura 2000 sites : the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC.
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law, biodiversity, countryside conservation, directive (EU), environmental protection, interpretation of the law, protected area, user guide

Managing Natura 2000 sites
The provisions of Article 6 of the 
‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC

Environment

Official Reference: Commission Notice C(2018) 7621 final, Brussels, 21.11.2018 

Available in all EU languages from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the 
use that might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019

© European Union, 2019
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330,
14.12.2011, p. 39).
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders.

Print
PDF

ISBN 978-92-79-98623-9
ISBN 978-92-79-98560-7

doi:10.2779/854571
doi:10.2779/02245

KH-06-18-414-EN-C
KH-06-18-414-EN-N

Getting in touch with the EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
• by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
• at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
• by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
Finding information about the EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can 
be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

Cover photo: © Benoit Stichelbaut/naturepl.com

Contents
Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................7

  1.1. Place within the overall scheme of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive as well 

as within a wider context ....................................................................................................................................................................7

  1.2. Relation with Protection of Species Chapter ..........................................................................................................................9

  1.3. Putting article 6 into national law: the duty of transposition ...................................................................................10

  1.4. Time of application of article 6: From which date do the obligations of article 6 apply? .......................10

1.4.1. Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive ............................................................................................10

1.4.2. Sites under the Habitats Directive ................................................................................................................................11

2. Article 6(1) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................15

  2.1. Text .................................................................................................................................................................................................................15

  2.2. Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................................15

  2.3. What should be the content of the ‘necessary conservation measures’? .........................................................16

2.3.1. Setting site-level conservation objectives ...............................................................................................................16

2.3.2. Establishing the necessary conservation measures .........................................................................................18

2.3.3. The ecological requirements ............................................................................................................................................20

  2.4. What form can the necessary conservation measures take? ...................................................................................21

2.4.1. Management plans .................................................................................................................................................................21

2.4.2. Statutory, administrative or contractual measures ...........................................................................................22

3. Article 6(2) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................25

  3.1. Text .................................................................................................................................................................................................................25

  3.2. Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................................25

  3.3. What does ‘take appropriate steps to avoid…’ mean? ...................................................................................................27

  3.4. Does implementation differ for deterioration and disturbance? .............................................................................28

  3.5. Indicators of deterioration and disturbance .........................................................................................................................29

3.5.1. Deterioration of habitat types and habitats of species ..................................................................................29

3.5.2. Disturbance of species .........................................................................................................................................................30

4. Article 6(3) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................33

  4.1. Text .................................................................................................................................................................................................................33

  4.2. Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................................33

  4.3. The relationship between Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) .................................................................................................34

  4.4. What is meant by ‘plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management 

of the site’? ................................................................................................................................................................................................35

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4.1. Project .............................................................................................................................................................................................35

4.4.2. Plan...................................................................................................................................................................................................36

4.4.3. Not directly connected with or necessary to the management … ...........................................................38

  4.5. How to determine whether a plan or project is ‘likely to have a significant effect’ on a site, 

‘either individually or in combination with other plans or projects’? .....................................................................39

4.5.1. Likely to have …  .......................................................................................................................................................................39

4.5.2. Significant effect ......................................................................................................................................................................40

4.5.3. … either individually or in combination with other plans or projects ......................................................41

  4.6. What is meant by ‘appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of 

the site’s conservation objectives’? ............................................................................................................................................43

4.6.1. What is meant by an ‘appropriate’ assessment? .................................................................................................43

4.6.2. Content of the appropriate assessment ...................................................................................................................45

4.6.3. … in view of the site’s conservation objectives .....................................................................................................45

4.6.4. The concept of the ‘Integrity of the site’ ..................................................................................................................46

4.6.5. Assessing the implications for the site ......................................................................................................................47

4.6.6. Considering suitable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impacts .......................................48

  4.7. Decision making ......................................................................................................................................................................................50

4.7.1. The ‘competent national authorities’ ...........................................................................................................................50

4.7.2. When is it appropriate to obtain the opinion of the general public? ........................................................51

4.7.3. Making a decision on the basis of the appropriate assessment ................................................................51

5. Article 6(4) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................53

  5.1. Text .................................................................................................................................................................................................................53

  5.2. Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................................53

  5.3. Initial considerations ...........................................................................................................................................................................54

5.3.1. Examining alternative solutions .....................................................................................................................................54

5.3.2. Examining imperative reasons of overriding public interest ........................................................................55

  5.4. Adopting compensatory measures ............................................................................................................................................57

5.4.1. What is meant by ‘compensatory measures’ and when should they 

be considered? ...........................................................................................................................................................................57

5.4.2. ‘Overall coherence’ of the Natura 2000 network ...............................................................................................58

5.4.3. Objective and general content of compensatory measures ........................................................................60

5.4.4. Key elements to consider in the compensation measures ............................................................................61

  5.5. Criteria for designing compensatory measures .................................................................................................................62

5.5.1. Targeted compensation .......................................................................................................................................................62

5.5.2. Effective compensation .......................................................................................................................................................63

5.5.3. Technical feasibility ................................................................................................................................................................63

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5.4. Extent of compensation ......................................................................................................................................................64

5.5.5. Location of compensatory measures .........................................................................................................................64

5.5.6. Timing of compensation......................................................................................................................................................65

5.5.7. Long term implementation ................................................................................................................................................66

  5.6. Who bears the cost of the compensation measures? ...................................................................................................66

  5.7. Informing the Commission of the compensatory measures ......................................................................................66

  5.8. What happens with sites hosting priority habitats and/or species? ......................................................................67

5.8.1. The sites concerned ...............................................................................................................................................................68

5.8.2. The concepts of ‘human health’, ‘public safety’ and ‘primary beneficial consequences 

for the environment’ .............................................................................................................................................................68

5.8.3. The adoption of Commission’s opinion and its consequences ....................................................................69

Annex I   Comparison of procedures under Appropriate Assessment and EIA/SEA ................................................71
Annex II   Consideration of plans and projects affecting Natura 2000 sites ...............................................................74
Annex III   Form for submission of information to the European Commission 

according to Art. 6(4) .................................................................................................................................................................75

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5

Foreword

Purpose and nature of this document

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) plays a crucial role in the management of the sites that 
make up the Natura 2000 network. With the spirit of integration in mind, it indicates the various tasks 
involved so that the nature conservation interests of the sites can be safeguarded.

This document aims at providing guidelines to the Member States on the interpretation of certain key 
concepts used in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. 

In  the  framework  of  the  Action  Plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy1,  the  Commission  has 
committed to ‘update the interpretative guidance document on provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats 
Directive on the conservation and management of Natura 2000’. This document replaces therefore the 
original version of this document that was issued in April 20002. 

The  present  update  incorporates  the  large  body  of  rulings  that  have  been  issued  by  the  Court  of 
Justice of the EU over the years on Article 63. It also builds on a series of Commission notes addressing 
Natura 2000 management, as well as other relevant Commission guidance documents on Article 6 
that should be read in conjunction with this one4.

The primary targets of the document are Member State authorities. It is however expected to also 
facilitate the understanding of the mechanics of the Habitats Directive amongst anyone involved in the 
management of Natura 2000 sites and in the Article 6 permit procedure. 

The  document  has  been  drafted  following  consultations  with  the  nature  protection  authorities  of 
the  Member  States  and  stakeholders.  It  is  intended  to  assist  Member  State  authorities,  as  well  as 
anyone involved in the management of Natura 2000 sites and in the Article 6 permit procedure, in the 
application of the Habitat Directive. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to 
authoritatively interpret Union law.

The interpretations provided by the Commission cannot go beyond the Directive. This is particularly true 
for this directive as it enshrines the subsidiarity principle and as such lets a large margin of manoeuvre 
to the Member States for the practical implementation of specific measures related to the various sites 
of the Natura 2000 network. In any case, the Member States are free to choose the appropriate way 
they wish to implement the practical measures provided the latter achieve the results of the Directive.

However interpretative, this document is not intended to give absolute answers to site specific questions. 
Such matters should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, while bearing in mind the orientations 
provided in this document.

1  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/communication_en.pdf 
2  ‘Managing Natura 2000 sites’ – The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, European Communities, 2000 – ISBN 92-828-9048. 
3  A compilation of the most relevant cases on Article 6 is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/caselaw/index_en.htm
4  Commission notes on designation of SACs, setting of conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites, establishing conservation measures for 

Natura 2000 sites, Commission guidance documents on application of Article 6 in different sectors. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

6

Structure of the document 

After  an  introductory  note  on  the  overall  content  and  logic  of  Article  6,  there  follows  a  detailed 
presentation of each paragraph (6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(4)) according to the same general structure. This 
involves an introduction to the paragraph and its scope, and then discussion of the main concepts 
and issues raised, on the basis of the Commission’s knowledge, existing jurisprudence of the Court of 
Justice of the EU, and other EU legislation, where relevant.

To allow for a speedy reading of the relevant conclusions, the key points arising from the Commission’s 
analyses are summarised (in bold characters) at the end of each section.

77

1. Introduction

Article 6 in Context

1.1.  Place within the overall scheme of the Habitats Directive and the 

Birds Directive as well as within a wider context

Before addressing Article 6 in detail, it is worth recalling its place within the overall scheme of Directive 
92/43/EEC5 (hereinafter referred to as the Habitats Directive) as well as that of Directive 2009/147/EC6 
(hereinafter referred to as the Birds Directive) and its relationship with a wider legal context. 

The first chapter of the Habitats Directive, comprising Articles 1 and 2, is entitled ‘Definitions’. It sets out 
the aim of the Directive which is to ‘contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation 
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which 
the  Treaty  applies’7.  It  also  provides  a  general  orientation  for  the  implementation  of  the  Directive, 
referring  to  the  need  for  all  measures  taken  pursuant  to  it  to  be  designed  to  maintain  or  restore 
certain habitats and species ‘at favourable conservation status’8, while, at the same time, referring to 
the need for measures taken pursuant to the Directive to ‘take account of economic, social and cultural 
requirements and regional and local characteristics’9.

The  main  specific  requirements  of  the  Habitats  Directive  are  grouped  under  the  two  subsequent 
chapters. The first is entitled ‘Conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species’ and comprises 
Articles 3 to 11. The second is entitled ‘Protection of Species’ and comprises Articles 12 to 16. 

The ‘Conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species’ chapter addresses the establishment 
and conservation of sites designated for habitat types and species of Community interest listed in 
Annexes  I  and  II  to  the  Directive.  These  sites,  along  with  sites  classified  under  the  Birds  Directive, 
form the Natura 2000 network (Article 3(1)). Within this chapter, Article 6 contains provisions which 
govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites. Seen in this context, Article 6 is one 
of the most important of the 24 articles of the Directive, being the one which most determines the 
relationship between conservation and other socioeconomic activities. 

The article has three main sets of provisions. Article 6(1) deals with the establishment of the necessary 
conservation  measures,  and  focuses  on  positive  and  proactive  measures  to  maintain  or  restore 
the natural habitats and the populations of species of wild fauna and flora at a favourable status.  
Article 6(2) makes provision for avoidance of habitat deterioration and significant species disturbance. 

5  OJ L 206, 22.7. 92, p. 7.
6  OJ L 27, 26.1.2010, p 7, directive repealing Directive 79/409/EEC.
7  Article 2(1).
8  Article 2(2). The term ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ is defined in Article 1(e) and 1(i) and refers to the conservation status of the species or 

habitat types of Community interest across their natural range within the EU. 

9  Article 2(3).

8

Its emphasis is therefore preventive. Article 6(3) and (4) set out a series of procedural and substantive 
safeguards governing plans and projects likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. 

Within this structure, it can be seen that there is a distinction between Article 6(1) and (2) which define 
a general regime and Article 6(3) and (4) which define a procedure applying to specific circumstances.

Considered globally, the provisions of Article 6 reflect the general approach set out in Article 2 and 
the recitals of the Directive. This involves the need to promote biodiversity by maintaining or restoring 
certain habitats and species at ‘favourable conservation status’ across their natural range within the 
EU,  while  taking  into  account  economic,  social,  cultural  and  regional  requirements,  as  a  means  of 
achieving sustainable development.

Apart from the place of Article 6 within the overall scheme of the Habitats Directive, it is also relevant 
to mention its relationship with the scheme of the Birds Directive:
●  Firstly, the scheme of the Birds Directive is broadly comparable with that of the Habitats Directive. 
In particular, the ‘Conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species’ chapter of the Habitats 
Directive is analogous to Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive. 

●  Secondly, there has been an important degree of merger or fusion between the schemes of both 
Directives.  First,  Special  Protection  Areas  (SPAs)  classified  under  the  Birds  Directive  are  now  an 
integral part of the Natura 2000 network10. Second, the provisions of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the 
Habitats Directive have been made applicable to SPAs11.

Article 6 is also to be considered within the broader framework of the EU Biodiversity policy12 and is 
crucial for the achievements  of its targets. The implementation of Article 6 can also benefit from other 
actions undertaken in that context. In particular, work undertaken to measure ecosystem condition 
under the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)13 provides useful and 
relevant guidance, including sector-specific, on addressing issues such as measuring and assessing the 
condition of ecosystem types corresponding to the broad habitat types under the Habitats Directive; 
measuring pressures on ecosystems; quantifying ecological requirements as well as deterioration and 
ecological integrity of sites.

Seen in a wider context – that of the Treaty on the European Union – Article 6 can be regarded as 
a key framework to give effect to the principle of integration since it encourages Member States to 
manage the Natura 2000 sites in a sustainable way and it sets the limits of activities which can impact 
negatively on protected areas while allowing some derogations in specific circumstances. Measures 
under Article 6 may also benefit from synergies with other relevant EU environmental policies such as 
on water, marine or fisheries. 

Measures under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive may require the adoption of measures falling under the 
Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. In particular, the provisions under Article 11 of the CFP 
on the conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union environmental legislation 
could apply; these provisions are clarified in the Commission Staff Working Document ‘on the establishment of 
conservation measures under the Common Fisheries Policy for Natura 2000 sites and for the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive purposes’ (SWD(2018)288 final). The Commission has already adopted several delegated 
acts pursuant to Article 11 of the CFP (available at https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules_en).

10   Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive provides that ‘the Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member 

States pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC’.

11  Article 7 of the Habitats Directive.
12  Communication from the Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244).
13  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm

9

Seen  in  an  international  context,  Article  6  helps  achieve  the  aims  of  relevant  international  nature 
conservation conventions such as the Bern Convention14 and the Convention on Biological Diversity15, 
while at the same time creating a more detailed framework for site conservation and protection than 
these conventions themselves do.

Article 6 is a key part of the chapter of the Habitats Directive entitled ‘Conservation of natural 
habitats and habitats of species’. It provides the framework for site conservation and protection, 
and includes proactive, preventive and procedural requirements. It concerns Special Protection 
Areas classified under the Birds Directive as well as sites designated under the Habitats Directive. 
The  framework  is  a  key  means  of  supporting  the  overall  objectives  of  the  two  directives  and 
achieving the objectives of the EU biodiversity policy and the principle of environmental integration 
into other EU policies and ultimately sustainable development.

1.2.  Relation with Protection of Species Chapter

As mentioned above, the chapter of the Habitats Directive entitled ‘Protection of Species’ covers Articles 
12 to 16 and deals with strictly protected animal and plant species listed in Annex IV of the Directive16, 
as well those in need of special management measures, as listed in Annex V. Articles 12, 13 and 14 
cover certain plant and animal species which may also feature in Annex II of the Directive, and which 
therefore also benefit from the provisions of Article 6 within the Natura 2000 sites hosting them17. As 
a result, an activity may at the same time fall within the scope of both chapters.

For  example,  the  destruction  of  a  resting  place  of  the  brown  bear,  Ursus  arctos,  may  contravene  the 
prohibition in Article 12(1)(d), while also running counter to Article 6 if the resting place is within a Natura 
2000 site designated for the species. 

While this may appear to result in duplication, the following points should be noted: 
●  Firstly, certain species of plants or animals covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14 do not appear in Annex 
II. Thus, they do not benefit directly from site conservation and protection within Natura 2000.
●  Secondly, for vulnerable species, such as large carnivores which benefit from both the chapter on 
conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species and the chapter on protection of species, 
the protection afforded to them by Article 6 is limited to sites within the Natura 2000 network, 
whereas the protection afforded by the chapter on protection of species is not limited to sites. Thus, 
Article 6 is concerned with the conservation and protection of sites designated for the species 
within the Natura 2000 network, whereas the chapter on protection of species targets the species 
throughout their natural range within the EU (including specific areas outside Natura 2000 where 
the species occur, in particular breeding sites and resting places for these animals). 

While certain plant and animal species benefit from both the chapter on conservation of natural 
habitats  and  habitats  of  species  and  the  chapter  on  protection  of  species,  the  scope  and  the 
nature of the relevant provisions are different.

14   Council Decision 82/72/EEC of 3 December 1981 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and 

natural habitats (OJ L 38, 10.2.1982, p.1).

15   Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity (OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p.1).
16   Further details on the relationship between the species provisions and the site protection provisions of the Habitats Directive can be found in 

the Commission guidance on the strict protection of species of Community interest. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/
guidance/index_en.htm 

17   The species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive apply to certain species of Community interest but not to habitat types of Community 
interest. The latter only benefit from provisions under the ‘Conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species’ chapter (Articles 3–11) which 
also means that their occurrences outside the Natura 2000 network do not enjoy any protection under the Habitats Directive.

10

1.3.  Putting article 6 into national law: the duty of transposition

It is important to note that the provisions of Article 6 require transposition into national law (i.e. they 
need to be the subject of provisions of national law giving effect to their requirements). In this respect, 
they are covered by Article 23 of the Directive which states that ‘Member States shall bring into force 
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within two 
years of its notification’. Depending on the Member State the deadline for transposition was 10 June 
1994 or the date of EU accession.

This reflects the type of legal instrument that has been used, namely a directive. A directive is binding 
as to the result to be achieved, but leaves a Member State the choice as to the form and methods of 
achieving that result.

Settled case law clarifies that transposition must be clear and precise, faithful and with unquestionable 
binding force (see Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter: Court) Cases C-363/85, C-361/88, C-159/99 
paragraph 32, C-415/01 paragraph 21, C-58/02, C-6/04 paragraphs 21, 25, 26, C-508/04 paragraph 80).18

Depending on the Member State concerned, Article 6 needed to be transposed into national law by 
10 June 1994 for the first 12 Member States or the date of EU accession for the others.

1.4. Time of application of article 6: From which date do the obligations 

of article 6 apply?

In general, a distinction needs to be made between the deadline for transposition of the provisions of 
Article 6 into national law and the date from which these provisions apply to individual sites.

As regards individual sites, a distinction needs to be drawn between Special Protection Areas classified 
under Birds Directive and other sites – Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and Special Areas of 
Conservation (SACs) – under the Habitats Directive.

1.4.1. Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive

The protection requirements regarding Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are given in Article 4(4), first 
sentence  of  the  Birds  Directive  which  provides  that,  for  those  areas,  ‘…  Member  States  shall  take 
appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, 
in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article...’

After  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Habitats  Directive  the  above  obligations  are  replaced  pursuant  to 
Article 7 of that Directive which provides as follows:

‘Obligations arising under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of this Directive shall replace any obligations arising 
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of areas classified pursuant 
to Article 4(1) or similarly recognised under Article 4(2) thereof, as from the date of implementation 
of this Directive or the date of classification or recognition by a Member State under Directive 79/409/
EEC, where the latter date is later.’ 

18  https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7045/en/

 
11

Thus, the provisions of Article 6(1) do not apply to Special Protection Areas (SPAs). However, analogous 
provisions apply to SPAs by virtue of Article 3 and 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. The date from 
which these similar provisions should in principle apply to SPAs is the date from which the Birds Directive 
became  applicable  in  the  Member  States  (cases  C-355/90  Commission  v  Spain  ‘Santoña  Marshes’, 
C-166/97 Commission v France ‘Seine Estuary’).

As regards the provisions of Article 6(2), (3) and (4), it is clear from the terms of Article 7 that these 
apply to SPAs already classified at the time of entry into force of the Habitats Directive. However, given 
the wording of Article 7, a question arises as to whether the provisions of Article 4(4), first sentence of 
the Birds Directive remain applicable after the ‘date of implementation of this Directive’ (10 June 1994 
for the then Member States and the date of accession for later Member States) for sites that should 
have been classified as SPAs but have not been so classified.

In  the  Santoña  Marshes  case  (C-355/90  paragraph  22)  the  Court  established  that  Article  4(4)  first 
sentence of the Birds Directive was applicable to an unclassified site which should have been classified 
as an SPA from the date of implementation of the Birds Directive (i.e. 7 April 1981 for the then Member 
States and the date of accession for later Member States).

According to the Basses Corbières case (C-374/98 paragraphs 43–57; see also C-141/14), areas which 
have not been classified as SPAs but should have been so classified continue to fall under the regime 
governed by the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive, which is stricter than that of Article 
6(2)  to  (4)  of  the  Habitats  Directive  because  it  does  not  provide  for  derogation.  The  duality  of  the 
regimes gives Member States an incentive to carry out classifications, in so far as this enables them to 
use a procedure which allows them, for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those 
of a social or economic nature, and subject to certain conditions, to adopt plans or projects adversely 
affecting an SPA.

Article  6(1)  of  the  Habitats  Directive  does  not  apply  to  SPAs.  However,  there  are  analogous 
provisions  in  Articles  3,  4(1)  and  4(2)  of  the  Birds  Directive  and  these  apply  from  the  date  of 
implementation of that Directive. 

As regards the date of application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive to SPAs, 
these apply to all sites classified as SPAs following Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Birds Directive 
from the date of implementation of the Habitats Directive.  

Sites that have not been classified as SPAs but should have been so classified continue to fall 
under the protection regime of the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive which is 
stricter than the provisions of Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive.

1.4.2. Sites under the Habitats Directive

Article 6(1) applies to SACs. According to Article 4(4) of the Directive, SACs come into being when 
Member States designate them as such. This can happen only after a site has been adopted as an 
SCI in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive. An SCI must be designated as an SAC ‘as soon as 
possible and within six years at the most’. 

The designation of an SCI as an SAC effectively triggers the implementation of Article 6(1) since all the 
other measures under Article 6 – including the duty to prevent further deterioration (Articles 6(2), (3) 
and (4)) – already apply to SCIs before they are designated as SACs. 

12

Article 4(5) of the Habitats Directive provides as follows:

‘As soon as a site is placed on the list referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 it shall be 
subject to Article 6(2), (3) and (4).’

Thus, in contrast to the provisions of Article 6(1) which apply only when an SCI has been designated as 
an SAC, the provisions of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) become applicable as soon as a site becomes an SCI 
(i.e., before it is designated as an SAC). Article 6(1) also applies to SCIs for which the six-year period 
has expired and which have not yet been designated as SAC in breach of Article 4(4). In other terms, 
the obligation to establish the necessary conservation measures applies at the latest by the time the 
six-year period has expired.

The Commission Decisions that approve the SCIs clearly state that: ...it should be stressed that the 
obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible 
and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or updated lists of sites of Community 
importance for the biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance 
was included as such for the first time.

This means the six-year period starts running from the date on which the site was first included in 
the Commission Decision. If later on, subsequent decisions adjust some of the details of the site, this 
should not be used as an excuse to postpone the SAC designation. These new adjustments will however 
need to be incorporated into the SAC designation process and taken into account when establishing the 
necessary conservation measures. 

In the Draggagi case (C-117/03 paragraph 29) the Court ruled that  ‘in the case of sites eligible for 
identification as sites of Community importance that are mentioned on the national lists transmitted 
to the Commission and may include in particular sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority 
species,  the  Member  States  are,  by  virtue  of  the  Directive,  required  to  take  protective  measures 
appropriate for the purpose of safeguarding that ecological interest’.

In the Bund Naturschutz case (C-244/05 paragraph 47) the Court further ruled that ‘the appropriate 
protection scheme applicable to the sites which appear on a national list transmitted to the Commission 
under Article 4(1) of the Directive requires Member States not to authorise interventions which incur the 
risk of seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of those sites’. 

In the light of the foregoing, Member State authorities must ensure that sites on their national list 
of proposed SCIs are not allowed to deteriorate and are protected for the purpose of safeguarding 
their ecological interest even before the Union list of SCIs is adopted. Where the national list remains 
incomplete,  Member  States  are  also  advised  to  safeguard  the  ecological  interest  of  sites  that, 
according to scientific evidence based on the criteria in Annex III to the Habitats Directive, should be 
on the national list. To that effect one practical suggestion is to use properly the environmental impact 
assessment (EIA) process under Directive 2011/92/EU19 for projects with likely significant effects on 
the environment (in so far as they are covered by that Directive). The Court has already confirmed the 
importance that should be attached to sensitive natural sites when deciding whether projects should 
undergo an EIA under that directive (C-392/96 paragraph 66).

19  OJ L 26, 28.1.2011, p.1. , as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1.

The above considerations can be summarised in the following table:

Site status

Proposed SCI

SCI

SAC

SPA

Obligatory 

Optional 
(obligatory if the 
six-year period 
has expired) 

Not applicable
but analogous 
provisions in 
Articles 3, 4(1) 
and 4(2) of the 
Birds Directive 
apply

Obligatory

Obligatory

Obligatory

Article 6(1)

Optional

Article 6(2), 
(3) and (4)

Optional, but 
Member States 
must take 
protective measures 
that are appropriate 
for the purpose of 
safeguarding the 
ecological interest 
of the sites20

20

13

Sites that should 
have been classified 
as SPA

Not applicable 

Not applicable but 
these sites continue 
to fall under the 
protection regime of 
the first sentence of 
Article 4(4) of the 
Birds Directive 

Articles 6(2), (3) and (4) apply to SCIs and SACs under the Habitats Directive. Article 6(1) applies 
to SACs under the Habitats Directive.

They do not apply to sites which are on a national list transmitted to the Commission under 
Article  4(1)  of  the  Directive.  Member  States  must  nevertheless  take  protective  measures  that 
are appropriate to safeguard the ecological interest of those sites. This includes not authorising 
interventions  which  incur  the  risk  of  seriously  compromising  the  ecological  characteristics  of 
those sites.

Where a complete national list has not been submitted, Member States are advised to take 
a similar approach for sites which, on the basis of the scientific criteria in the Directive, clearly 
ought to be on the national list.

20  A similar requirement would apply to sites that, according to scientific evidence based on the criteria of Annex III of the Habitats Directive, should 

be on the national list of proposed SCIs.

14

2. Article 6(1)

15
15

Clarification of the concepts of necessary conservation measures; 
conservation objectives; ecological requirements; management 
plans; and statutory, administrative or contractual measures.

2.1.  Text

‘For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures 
involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated 
into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which 
correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in 
Annex II present on the sites.’

2.2. Scope

Article  6(1)  lays  down  a  general  conservation  regime  which  has  to  be  established  by  the  Member 
States for all Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). 

Article 6(1): 
●  provides  for  positive  conservation  measures,  involving,  if  need  be,  management  plans,  and 
statutory, administrative or contractual measures, which correspond to the ecological requirements 
of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the site. In that regard, 
Article 6(1) is distinguished from the three other paragraphs of Article 6 which provide for preventive 
measures to avoid deterioration, disturbance and significant effects in the Natura 2000 sites; 

●  has a value of reference for the logic and the overall understanding of Article 6 and its three other 

paragraphs; 

●  establishes a general conservation regime which applies to all SACs in the Natura 2000 network 
without exception and to all the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present 
on the sites, except for those identified as non-significant in the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form 
(SDF)21;

●  concerns the SACs specifically: Article 6(1) does not apply to the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), 

unlike Article 6, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. In this way, the legislator established: 
–  a regime laying down ‘special conservation measures’ for the SPAs classified under the Birds 

Directive, according to its Articles 3 and 4, paragraphs 1 and 2;

–  a regime laying down ‘necessary conservation measures’ for the  SACs  designated under the 

Habitats Directive, according to its Article 6(1); 

●  also applies to SCI for which the six years period has expired and which have not yet been designated 
as SAC in breach of Article 4(4). In other terms, the obligation to establish the necessary conservation 
measures applies at the latest by the time the six years period has expired;

21  Commission Decision 2011/484/EU concerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?

uri=OJ:L:2011:198:0039:0070:EN:PDF

16

●  relates to Article 1(a), which defines conservation measures as a series of measures required to 
maintain or restore the natural habitats and the populations of species of wild fauna and flora at a 
favourable status;

●  relates to Article 2(2), which establishes that measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be 
designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of 
wild fauna and flora of Community interest;

●  relates to Article 2(3), which specifies that the measures must take account of economic, social and 

cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.

For  all  the  SACs,  Member  States  are  required  to  draw  up  conservation  measures  and  adopt 
appropriate  statutory,  administrative  or  contractual  measures.  These  measures  must  be 
established within six years from the adoption of Union lists of Sites of Community Importance 
(SCIs) at the latest. 

These measures are positive and site-specific; they apply to all the natural habitat types in 
Annex  I  and  the  species  in  Annex  II  present  on  the  sites,  except  those  whose  presence  is  non-
significant according to the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form. They aim to maintain or restore, at 
favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community 
interest; and they take into account economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and 
local characteristics.

2.3.  What  should  be  the  content  of  the  ‘necessary  conservation 

measures’?

2.3.1. Setting site-level conservation objectives22

There  are  several  references  to  the  term  ‘conservation  objectives’  in  the  preamble  of  the  Directive 
as well as an explicit mention of it in Article 6(3). The need for such a concept is also underlined by 
Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of the Directive. It is useful therefore to examine what is meant by ‘conservation 
objectives’ and how it relates to establishing the necessary conservation measures for SACs under 
Article 6(1). 

Article 1 states that for the purpose of the Directive ‘Conservation means a series of measures required 
to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the populations of species of wild fauna and flora at a 
favourable status...’. 

As  stated  in  Article  2  the  overall  aim  of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  to  contribute  towards  ensuring 
biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The measures 
taken  under  the  Directive  seek  to  are  with  a  view  to  ensuring  that  the  species  and  habitat  types 
covered achieve ‘favourable conservation status’, i.e. that their long-term survival is secured across 
their entire natural range within the EU. 

Whereas  each  site  shall  contribute  to  the  attainment  of  favourable  conservation  status  (FCS) 
this overall objective can only be defined and achieved at the level of the natural range of a 
species or a habitat type (see Article 1(e) and (i) of the Directive). A broad conservation objective 
aiming at achieving FCS can therefore only be considered at an appropriate level, such as for example 
the national, biogeographical or European level. 

22  For further details see Commission note on Setting Conservation Objectives (2013) – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/

management/docs/commission_note/commission_note2_EN.pdf 

17

However, the general objective of achieving FCS for all habitat types and species listed in Annexes I 
and II to the Habitats Directive needs to be translated into site-level conservation objectives. It 
is important to distinguish between conservation objectives of individual sites and the overall objective 
of achieving FCS. 

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 FCS at the appropriate level (taking 
into account the natural range of the respective species or habitat types). 

Site-level  conservation  objectives  should  be  established  not  only  for  special  areas  of  conservation 
(SACs) under the Habitats Directive but also for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive 
with a view to achieving the requirements as set out in Articles 2, 3, 4(1), 4(2) and 4(4) of that Directive. 

In  principle,  site-level  conservation  objectives  should  be  set  for  all  species  and  habitat  types  of 
Community interest under the Habitats Directive and for bird species in Annex I of the Birds Directive or 
regularly occurring migratory bird species, which are significantly present on the site. However, it is not 
necessary to establish specific conservation objectives or conservation measures for species or habitat 
types whose presence on the site is non-significant according to the Natura 2000 SDF23.

Site-level conservation objectives should be based on the ecological requirements of these natural 
habitat types and species present on the site (see below at section 2.3.3) and should define their desired 
conservation condition on the site. They should reflect the importance of the site for the maintenance 
or restoration of the habitat types and species present on the site and for the coherence of Natura 
2000. Moreover, they should reflect the threats of degradation or destruction to which the habitats and 
species on the site are exposed, including those brought about by climate change. 

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 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 established in function of the conservation assessment of each species and habitat type on 
the site as recorded in the SDF.

Conservation  objectives  may  reflect  priorities  within  a  site.  In  case  C-241/08,  the  Court  concluded 
that ‘ …determining the conservation and restoration objectives in the context of Natura 2000 may 
require, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 71 of her Opinion, the reconciliation of various 
conflicting objectives.’ 

It  is  important  to  distinguish  clearly  between  objectives  and  measures.  For  example,  conservation 
objectives can be expected to be reasonably stable over time – indeed, in most cases they need to be 
long-term aims. Meanwhile, the conservation measures required to achieve those objectives are likely 
to change, including in response to changing patterns of threats to sites and, of course, the hopefully 
positive effects of conservation measures already taken. 

Once the conservation objectives have been defined for a Natura 2000 site, there is some flexibility 
in defining and establishing the conservation measures. Several options can be considered, (using a 
choice  of  administrative,  contractual  or  statutory  measures),  which  take  into  account  other  socio-
economic activities in the sites. 

23  i.e. all species indicated as having an insignificant population size and density in relation to the populations present within the national territory 

(population size category D), habitat types indicated as having an insignificant representativity (category D).

18

Examples of site-level conservation objectives

1.  Site x has been designated in view of its importance for the habitat type: semi-natural grasslands (6210). 
According to the SDF, the habitat type has a poor conservation condition (marked as class C in the SDF). The 
conservation objective for this site may therefore have been set to improve the conservation of the habitat 
type to class A – excellent – within 10 years, considering that the habitat type has a very unfavourable 
conservation status within the region. The necessary conservation measures established under Article 6(1) 
have been designed to achieve that objective.

2.  Site y has been designated because it harbours a large area of active raised bog (7110). According to the 
SDF, the habitat type is in excellent condition (marked as class A in the SDF). The conservation objective for 
that site has therefore been set simply to maintain this condition, even though the habitat types has an 
unfavourable conservation status within the region. No conservation measures have been established under 
Article 6(1) since the site does not require any active management measures to maintain this condition.  

In principle conservation objectives should  be  set  for  each site  and  for  all  species and habitat 
types significantly present on each site. They should be based on the ecological requirements of 
the species and habitats present and should define the desired conservation condition of these 
species and habitat types on the site. They should be established in function of the conservation 
assessment of each species and habitat type as recorded in the Standard Data Form. 

The conservation objectives should also reflect the importance of the site for the coherence 
of Natura 2000 so that each site contributes in the best possible way to achieving FCS at the 
appropriate geographical level within the natural range of the respective species or habitat types. 

2.3.2. Establishing the necessary conservation measures24

Conservation measures are the actual mechanisms and actions to be put in place for a Natura 2000 
site  with  the  aim  of  achieving  the  site’s  conservation  objectives  and  addressing  the  pressures  and 
threats that the species and habitats within the site face. 

According to Article 6(1) ‘Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures’ which 
correspond to the ecological requirements of the habitats and species of Community interest present. 
This should be understood as meaning that all necessary conservation measures must be taken. 

This is confirmed by the Court which has ruled that ‘the Directive requires the adoption of necessary 
conservation measures, a fact which excludes any discretion in this regard on the part of the Member 
States and restricts any latitude of the national authorities when laying down the rules or taking decisions 
to the means to be applied and the technical choices to be made in connection with those measures. By 
means of the words used in Article 6(1) of the Directive, the Community legislature sought to impose on 
the Member States the obligation to take the necessary conservation measures that correspond 
to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types and species covered by Annex I and Annex 
II to the Directive respectively’ (case C-508/04 paragraphs 76, 87).

Furthermore the Court has ruled that ‘Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive and Article 4(1) and (2) of 
the Birds Directive require, if those provisions are not to be rendered redundant, that the conservation 
measures necessary for maintaining a favourable conservation status of the protected habitats and 
species within the site concerned not only be adopted, but also, and above all, be actually implemented’ 
(case C-441/17 paragraph 213).

24  See Commission note on Establishing Conservation Measures (2013) – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/

commission_note/comNote%20conservation%20measures_EN.pdf

The  obligation  is  to  establish  the  necessary  conservation  measures,  irrespective  of  whether  those 
measures are applied within individual sites, or even in some cases outside the boundaries of sites 
or across multiple sites. In some cases it may be that a significant component of a Member State’s 
compliance with Article 6(1) is through measures of a broader scope which nevertheless contribute 
to site-specific conservation objectives and are adapted to the ecological requirements of protected 
habitats and species in the SAC. This may be particularly relevant to marine sites where, for example, 
wider regulation of fisheries activities25 may be a significant element of Article 6(1) compliance. 

19

Key elements to consider in establishing the necessary conservation measures26

Sound knowledge base on the existing conditions in the site, on the species and habitats status and the 
main pressures and threats that can affect them, the existing land uses and stakeholders interests, etc. This 
information should include the precise location of key natural features (habitat types and species); the main 
land  uses  and  activities  that  can  influence  the  conservation  status  of  relevant  habitats  and  species;  the 
identification of all relevant stakeholders that need to be involved or consulted in the management planning 
process; potential conflicts and possible ways and means to solve them. 

Participation, consultation and communication in planning and preparing the conservation management 
of a Natura 2000 site allows to take into account the views of the people that live and work or use the site 
and to ensure engagement of the different stakeholders in the management of the site, so that the likelihood 
of success is enhanced. Participation can be carried out throughout the process of management planning, 
starting with early consultation and involvement of stakeholders to inform about the conservation objectives 
of the site and its importance and to clarify the steps for proper management. This can be done for example 
through steering groups or committees involving local authorities and representatives of land owners, users 
and main operators in the Natura 2000 site. It requires efficient organization of the process, collaboration of 
different policy levels, sufficient staff and budget and effective communication tools; targeted training and 
effective conflict resolution methods, as well as facilitation of the whole process by a specifically appointed 
‘site champion’, can also be of great added value. 

Defining the necessary conservation measures with sufficient level of detail (who does what, when 
and how) facilitates their implementation and can prevent possible conflicts. The measures must be realistic, 
quantified, manageable and clearly formulated, drawing on an appropriate level of technical expertise which 
identifies essential measures and those for which there are various alternative options for implementation, 
adapted to local interests. The precise location and a description of the means and tools required for their 
implementation should be provided, e.g. through a work plan flexible enough to allow its review and adaptation 
as required. It is important also to set a timeline to review the implementation of conservation measures 
taken, their suitability and the progress towards achieving conservation objectives. 

Key elements to consider in establishing the necessary conservation measures26

The necessary resources for implementation of the conservation measures need to be considered in any 
management instrument for Natura 2000 sites, including information about estimated costs for implementation 
and monitoring, administration, compensation payments, etc, as well as about required human resources and 
skills, and possible financial instruments. Accordingly, full regard is needed to the multiple benefits that flow 
from investing in Natura 2000 through their ecosystem services. The various socio-economic activities and 
their  interactions  with  the  natural  environment  should  also  be  analysed  to  determine  possible  costs  and 
benefits arising out of the site management and the actual need for financial support. 

Effective implementation and communication needs to be ensured through a mechanism demonstrating 
that the necessary measures are not just established but also actually implemented, and by making them 
publicly available (e.g. on websites or official registers) as a source of information for all those concerned. 

25  In accordance with rules under the Common Fishery Policy, including measures taken under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
26  Extract from Commission Note on Establishing Conservation Measures for Natura 2000 sites, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

nature/natura2000/management/docs/ commission_note/comNote%20conservation%20measures_EN.pdf

20

Article  6(1)  of  the  Habitats  Directive  imposes  an  obligation  to  establish  and  implement  the 
necessary conservation measures that correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural 
habitat types and species covered by Annex I and Annex II, a fact that excludes any discretion in 
this regard on the part of the Member States. 

2.3.3. The ecological requirements

Article 6(1) specifies that the necessary conservation measures have to correspond ‘to the ecological 
requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites’. It 
is therefore in relation to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types and the species that 
Member States have to determine the conservation measures. 

Although the Directive does not contain any definition of the ‘ecological requirements’, the purpose 
and context of Article 6(1) indicate that these involve all the ecological needs, including both abiotic 
and biotic factors, which are deemed necessary to ensure the conservation of the habitat types and 
species, including their relations with the physical environment (air, water, soil, vegetation, etc.)27. 

These requirements are based on scientific knowledge and can only be defined on a case-by-case 
basis, according to the natural habitat types in Annex I, the species in Annex II, and the sites which 
host them. Such knowledge is essential to make it possible to draw up the conservation measures, on 
a case-by-case basis. 

The identification of the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species 
in Annex  II present on the sites is the responsibility of the Member States. The  latter  may  wish to 
exchange their knowledge in this field, with the support of the European Commission and the European 
Environment Agency – European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. 

The ecological requirements may vary from one species to another but also, for the same species, from one 
site to another. 

Thus, for the bats included in Annex II to the Directive, the ecological requirements differ between the 
period of hibernation (when they rest in underground environments, in hollow shafts or in dwellings) and 
the active period, from spring onwards (during which they leave their winter quarters and resume their 
activities of insect hunting).

For the Annex II amphibian Triturus cristatus, the ecological requirements vary during its life cycle. The 
species hibernates in the ground (cavities, fissures), then lays its eggs in spring and at the beginning of the 
summer in ponds. It then leaves the aquatic environment and lives on land during the summer and autumn. 
For the same species, the ecological requirements may therefore vary according to the sites concerned 
(aquatic or land). This species also inhabits an extensive range throughout Europe, which means that its 
ecological requirements may differ from one part of its range to another as well.

The  conservation  measures  have  to  correspond  to  the  ecological  requirements  of  the  natural 
habitat  types  in  Annex  I  and  of  the  species  in  Annex  II  present  on  the  site.  The  ecological 
requirements of those natural habitat types and species involve all the ecological needs which are 
deemed necessary to ensure the conservation of the habitat types and species. They can only be 
defined on a case-by-case basis and using scientific knowledge.

27  Work under Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services can support the identification of the ecological requirements of the 

natural habitat types in Annex I – see especially 5th technical report (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/
index_en.htm). 

21

2.4. What form can the necessary conservation measures take? 

The conservation measures can take the form of ‘appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual 
measures...’ and ‘if need be’, the form of ‘appropriate management plans’. 

The choice is left to the Member States, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The Directive sets out 
the results to be achieved and leaves it up to the Member States to decide how to do so in practice. 
Often, the different options referred to in Article 6(1) are used in combination for the management of 
Natura 2000 sites. 

In all cases, the responsibilities for implementing conservation measures need to be clearly defined, 
along with the relevant financial resources.

2.4.1. Management plans

The  necessary  conservation  measures  may  involve  ‘if  need  be,  appropriate  management  plans 
specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans’. Such management plans 
should address all existing activities, including regular ongoing activities such as day-to-day agricultural 
activities, whereas new plans and projects are dealt with under Article 6(3) and 6(4).

In general, management plans at site level are used to formulate the site’s conservation objectives, 
on the basis of an analysis of the conservation status of species and habitats on the site and the 
pressures  and  threats  they  face,  together  with  the  measures  necessary  to  attain  these  objectives. 
Management plans are often used as a tool to guide managers and other interested parties in dealing 
with the conservation of Natura 2000 sites, and to involve the different socioeconomic stakeholders 
and authorities, including local communities, landowners, farmers, fishermen and other interest groups, 
in implementing the necessary conservation measures that have been identified. 

Management plans are a useful tool for ensuring that the implementation of Article 6(1) provisions 
is done in a clear and transparent way, enabling all stakeholders to be informed about what Natura 
2000 sets out to achieve and to engage actively in this discussion. Management plans may also help 
identifying the funding needs for the measures and achieving better integration into other plans. 

The words ‘if need be’ indicate that management plans may not always be necessary. If management 
plans are chosen by a Member State, it will often make sense to establish them before concluding the 
other measures mentioned in Article 6(1), particularly the contractual measures. Contractual measures 
will often involve a relationship between the competent authorities and individual landowners and will 
be limited to individual land-holdings which are normally smaller than the site. In such circumstances, 
a management plan focused on the site will provide a wider framework, and its contents will provide a 
useful starting point for the specific details of contractual measures. 

The management plans must be ‘appropriate’ and ‘specifically designed for the sites’, i.e. targeted at 
the sites of the Natura 2000 network. Existing management plans for other protected area categories 
(e.g. national or natural parks, etc.) are not always sufficient to address the management of Natura 
2000 sites and should therefore be adapted or supported by further measures to meet the specific 
conservation objectives of the species and habitat types of Community interest present on the site. 
Furthermore, the boundaries of other types of protected areas and those of the Natura 2000 sites 
may not coincide. 

22

Management plans can be stand-alone documents or can also be ‘integrated into other development 
plans’, in line with the principle of integration of the environment into other EU policies. In the case of 
an integrated plan, it is important to ensure that clear conservation objectives and measures are set 
for the relevant habitats and species present on the site. 

Management plans for the Natura 2000 sites are a useful tool for ensuring that the implementation 
of Article 6 (1) provisions is done in a clear and transparent way, and with the involvement of 
stakeholders. These plans are not always necessary but, if they are used, they should be specifically 
designed for the sites or incorporated into other development plans when those exist. They should 
address all known activities, whereas new plans and projects are dealt with under Article 6(3) 
and 6(4).

2.4.2. Statutory, administrative or contractual measures

The phrase ‘if need be’ refers only to the management plans and not to the statutory, administrative 
or contractual measures which are needed in all cases (case C-508/04 paragraph 71). Thus, even if 
a Member State considers a management plan unnecessary, it will still have to take such measures.

The division into these three categories of measures has to be considered in a broad sense. A variety 
of  measures  may  be  considered  as  appropriate  to  achieve  the  conservation  objectives  established 
for each site. Often this involves active management but, in some cases, it may also involve more 
passive  preventative  measures  (e.g.  non-intervention  management).  On  the  other  hand,  they  may 
not necessarily be new measures, since existing measures may be considered sufficient if they are 
appropriate. 

●  Statutory measures usually follow a pattern laid down in law and can set specific requirements in 

relation to activities than can be allowed, restricted or forbidden in the site. 

●  Administrative measures can set relevant provisions in relation to the implementation of conservation 

measures or the authorisation of other activities in the site.

●  Contractual  measures  involve  establishing  contracts  or  agreements  usually  among  managing 

authorities and land-owners or users on the site. 

Agri-environmental  or  forestry-environmental  measures  serve  as  a  good  example  of  a  contractual 
measure that takes socioeconomic requirements into account when establishing agreements which benefit 
Natura 2000 sites. They should be designed in line with the conservation measures established for the site 
and in view of reaching its conservation objectives.
●  Agri-environmental agreements with farmers within the Rural Development Programmes can be used 
as a contractual measure aiming to maintain or improve the conservation condition of certain habitat types 
(e.g. meadows, pastures) and species across a range of sites. 

●  Forestry-environmental measures can also be used to establish contracts and agreements with forest 

owners on the management of the forest to favour the conservation of habitats and species. 

In this perspective, all suitable EU funds (e.g. rural development and regional funds as well as the LIFE 
programme28) should be considered as a means for implementing these measures29.

28  Regulation (EU) No. 1293/2013.
29  Financing Natura 2000 – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm 

23

The choice between statutory, administrative or contractual measures is left to the Member States. 
This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. However, Member States must choose at least one of 
the three categories, i.e. statutory, administrative, contractual. 

There is no hierarchy between these three categories. Thus Member States have the choice to use, on a 
Natura 2000 site, just one category of measures (e.g. only contractual measures) or combined measures 
(e.g. combination of statutory and contractual measures according to the conservation issues of the 
natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the site). Moreover, on top of 
the selected compulsory measures, Member States may establish and implement management plans.

The  three  categories  of  measures  are  qualified  as  ‘appropriate’.  This  qualifier  is  not  defined  in  the 
Directive. However, in the case of Article 6(1), the statutory, administrative or contractual measures 
are embraced within the concept of conservation measures. The qualifier ‘appropriate’ has no other 
objective than to recall that whatever the type of measure chosen by the Member States, there is 
an obligation to ensure that they correspond to the ecological requirements of the target features of 
particular Natura 2000 sites and respect the general aim of the Directive defined in Article 2(1) and (2).

For  SACs,  Member  States  are  required  to  establish  and  implement  the  appropriate  statutory, 
administrative or contractual measures. They must a) correspond to the ecological requirements 
of  habitats  in  Annex  I  and  species  in  Annex  II  present  on  the  sites  and  b)  fulfil  the  Directive’s 
overall aim of maintaining or restoring at a favourable conservation status the natural habitats 
and the species of fauna and flora of Community interest. 

24

3. Article 6(2)

2525

Clarification of the concepts of taking appropriate avoidance 
steps; deterioration; and disturbance 

3.1.  Text

‘Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  steps  to  avoid,  in  the  special  areas  of  conservation,  the 
deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for 
which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to 
the objectives of this Directive.’ 

3.2. Scope

The article takes as its starting point the prevention principle: ‘Member States shall take appropriate 
steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration... as well as disturbances... ‘.

These measures go beyond the management measures needed for conservation purposes, since these 
are already covered by Article 6(1). The words ‘avoid’ and ‘could be significant’ stress the anticipatory 
nature of the measures to be taken. It is not acceptable to wait until deterioration or disturbances occur 
before taking measures (case C-418/04 – see also under section 4.4.1 the interpretation of ‘likely to’ 
in Article 6(3)).

This article should be interpreted as requiring Member States to take all the appropriate actions to 
ensure that no deterioration or significant disturbance occurs. It requires both human-caused and any 
predictable natural deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species to be avoided.

The scope of this article is broader than that of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) which apply only to plans and 
projects. It also applies to the performance of all ongoing activities, like agriculture, fishing or water 
management, that may not fall within the scope of Article 6(3)30, along with plans and projects which 
have already been authorised in the past and subsequently prove likely to give rise to deterioration 
or disturbances31. It can also apply to the implementation of plans or projects which were authorized 
before Article 6(3) became applicable (C-399/14 para. 33).

Article 6(2): 
●  Applies  permanently  in  SACs,  SCIs  and  SPAs.  It  may  concern  past,  present  or  future  activities 
or events. If an already existing activity in a SAC or SPA is likely to cause deterioration of natural 
habitats or disturbance of species for which the area has been designated, it must be covered by 
the appropriate measures foreseen in Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive or Article 4(4) of the 

30  See also section 4.4.1 of this document on term ‘project’.
31  Case C-127/02, paragraph 37. See also section 4.3 of this document on relationship between Article 6(2) and 6(3).

 
26

  Birds Directive respectively, when applicable. This may require, if appropriate, bringing the negative 
impact to an end by stopping the activity and/or by taking mitigation or restoration measures. This 
may be done by means of an ex-post assessment.

This is supported by the Owenduff case (C-117/00 paragraphs 28–30)32 in which the Court ruled that 
Article 6(2) was infringed because measures had not been adopted to prevent deterioration, in an 
SPA, of the habitats of the species for which the SPA was designated. 

The  Court  has  also  ruled  that,  by  providing  generally  that  certain  activities  practised  under  the 
conditions  and  in  the  areas  authorised  by  the  laws  and  regulations  in  force  do  not  constitute 
activities causing disturbance or having such an effect, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations 
under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive (case C-241/08 paragraph 76).

●  Is not limited to intentional acts, but could also cover any chance events that might occur (fire, 
flood, etc.), as long as they are predictable – for example, if they tend to occur every few years33. 
In case of catastrophes this concerns only the obligation to take (relative) precautionary measures 
to decrease the risk of such catastrophes as long as they could jeopardise the aim of the Directive. 

●  Is not limited to human activities. In the case C-6/04 paragraph 34, the Court considered that 
‘in implementing Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, it may be necessary to adopt both measures 
intended  to  avoid  external  man-caused  impairment  and  disturbance  and  measures  to  prevent 
natural developments that may cause the conservation status of species and habitats in SACs to 
deteriorate’. For instance, in the case of natural succession or of climate change effects, measures 
would need to be taken to halt or counter this process if it is deemed to be negatively impacting on 
the species and habitat types for which the site has been designated. Accordingly, naturally dynamic 
situations,  as  well  as  modifications  linked  to  climate  change  (e.g.  sea  level  rise,  disappearing  or 
newly arriving species) should be assessed case-by-case34. 

The legislator envisaged certain limits to the responsibility of the Member States: 
●  Spatial limit – the measures target only species and habitats located ‘in the SACs’. On the other hand, 
measures may need to be implemented outside the SAC if external events may have an impact on 
the species and the habitats inside the SAC. For instance, in the case of a toxic spill affecting a 
wetland, the application of Article 6(2) would require that all preventive measures should have been 
taken to avoid the spillage, even if its location is distant from the wetland. Indeed, the article does 
not specify that measures have to be taken in the SAC but that they should avoid deterioration 
in the SAC. The same logic applies to SPAs.

●  Limit  of  habitats  and  species  concerned  –  the  appropriate  measures  concern  only  habitats  and 
species ‘for which the areas have been designated’. In particular, the habitats and species concerned 
by the measures to be taken are those identified in the Natura 2000 Standard Data Forms (see 
sections 2.2 and 4.6.3). The aim is not therefore to take general protection measures, but rather to 
take measures focused on the species and habitats which justified the selection of the site (i.e. those 
recorded as significantly present in the SDF and identified in the designation act). The disturbances 
and/or deterioration will thus be determined with reference to the information communicated by the 
Member States and used to ensure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network for the species and 
habitats concerned.

32  See also C-75/01, C-418/04, C-508/04, 301/12.
33  In particular, climate projections point to the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events which need to be factored in.
34  See guidance on Climate change and Natura 2000 at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/climatechange/pdf/Guidance%20document.pdf

27

Member States are required to take preventive measures to avoid deterioration and disturbances 
connected with a predictable event, activity or process. These measures apply to all species and 
habitats for which the sites have been designated, and should also be implemented, if necessary, 
outside the sites. 

3.3.  What does ‘take appropriate steps to avoid…’ mean?

Article 6(2) requires Member States to ‘take appropriate steps to avoid…’. Several Court cases have 
clarified the type of legal protection regime that needs to be put in place for the purposes of Article 
6(2) of the Habitats Directive. They stress in particular the need for the legal regime to be specific, 
coherent  and  complete,  capable  of  ensuring  the  sustainable  management  and  the  effective 
protection of the sites concerned (C-293/07 paragraphs 26–29) 35. 

The Court has also identified infringements in cases where the regime in place was ‘too general and did 
not concern specifically the SPA or the species that live in it’ (C-166/04 paragraph 15), where provisions 
can come into play ‘only after the activities in question have already commenced and thus only after 
any  deterioration  has  already  occurred’  (C-418/04  paragraph  208),  or  where  SPAs  were  submitted 
to ‘heterogeneous legal regimes which did not confer on the SPAs a sufficient protection’ (C-293/07 
paragraph 26).

In certain cases, merely bringing criminal proceedings against or imposing fines on the party responsible 
for  deterioration/  disturbance  might  not  be  enough  for  a  Member  State  to  ensure  compliance  with 
Article 6(2) (C-504/14, paragraphs 55 and 56).

According to the Court, ‘the term “appropriate steps” contained in Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive 
implies that Member States enjoy discretion when applying that provision. It should nevertheless be 
recalled that an activity complies with Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive only if it is guaranteed that it 
will not cause any disturbance likely significantly to affect the objectives of that directive, particularly its 
conservation objectives’ (judgment in Commission v Spain, C-404/09 paragraph 126 and the case-law 
cited in it). The Court further states that ‘should a subsequent review, on the basis of Article 6(2) of the 
Habitats Directive, prove to be an ‘appropriate step’ within the meaning of that provision, that review 
must define what risks of deterioration or disturbance likely to be significant within the meaning of that 
provision are entailed by the implementation of the plan or project, and that review must be carried out 
in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive’ (C-399/14, paragraphs 40, 41, 54).

The legal regime under Article 6(2) has to be specific, coherent and complete, capable of ensuring 
the  effective  protection  of  the  sites  concerned.  Member  States  enjoy  discretion  when  taking 
appropriate steps to implement Article 6(2), provided it is guaranteed that no deterioration and 
disturbance will occur. If a review of a plan or project is necessary to comply with the provisions 
of Article 6(2), it must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3).

35  See also Cases C-491/08, C-90/10.

28

3.4. Does implementation differ for deterioration and disturbance?

In terms of disturbance of species, Article 6(2) specifies that appropriate steps have to be taken to 
avoid it ‘in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive’.

The disturbance in question has to be relevant to (have an impact on) the conservation status of the 
species in relation to the objectives of the Directive. It is therefore in relation to these objectives that 
the Member State has to determine whether or not disturbance is significant.

In terms of deterioration of habitats (which relates both to natural habitats and habitats of species) 
however, the effect in relation to the objectives of the Directive is not explicitly mentioned in the text of 
Article 6(2). It is simply stated that the deterioration of habitats must be avoided. 

It  may  seem  difficult  to  assess  deterioration  in  absolute  terms  without  reference  to  measurable 
limits. However, connecting deterioration to the site-level conservation objectives, which contribute to 
achieving the Directive’s objectives, may make it possible to interpret the limits of what constitutes 
deterioration (see section 3.5.1).  

Article 6(2) and (3) of the Habitats Directive must be construed as a coherent whole and are designed 
to ensure the same level of protection of habitat types and habitats of species (C-258/11, paragraph 
32; C-521/12, paragraph 19; C-387&388). Therefore, the assessment of the deterioration, if necessary, 
should follow similar criteria and methods as those used in applying Article 6(3) (see also C-399/14 
paragraph 54).

The conservation condition of a habitat type or habitat of a species present in a site may be assessed 
against its conservation condition as provided in the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form, subject to this 
being up to date. 

On a particular site the conservation condition should reflect the dynamic nature of the habitats and 
species concerned.

Disturbance  of  a  species  must  be  avoided  in  so  far  as  it  could  be  significant  in  relation  to  the 
Directive’s  objectives.  On  the  other  hand,  deterioration  of  a  natural  habitat  or  a  habitat  of  a 
species is not qualified by the need to be significant in relation to the Directive’s objectives, it must 
simply be avoided altogether. 

Deterioration and disturbance should be assessed against the conservation objectives of the 
site and the conservation condition of the species and habitat types present in the site using the 
same criteria as for the Article 6(3) procedure. This notion should be interpreted in a dynamic 
way, according to the evolution of the conservation condition of the habitat or of the species in 
that site. 

29

3.5.  Indicators of deterioration and disturbance

Member  States  must  take  appropriate  protective  measures  in  order  to  maintain  the  ecological 
characteristics of Natura 2000 sites from the time they are proposed as sites of Community interest. 

The Court has confirmed this in the Bund case (C-244/05 paragraph 45): ‘...it must be remembered 
that, in accordance with the first part of Annex III to the Directive, the ecological characteristics of a site 
identified by the competent national authorities must reflect the assessment criteria which are listed 
there, namely, the degree of representativity of the habitat type, its area, structure and functions, the 
size and density of the population of the species present on the site, the features of the habitat which 
are important for the species concerned, the degree of isolation of the population present on the site 
and the value of the site for the conservation of the habitat type and species concerned’.

It follows that the ecological characteristics of the site must not be allowed to deteriorate below their 
level at the time of designation. In case a better condition has been achieved, this improved condition 
should be the reference. As a general rule, on a particular site, disturbance or deterioration is assessed 
on a case-by-case basis, using indicators (see below) with respect to the significance of their change 
in value36.

3.5.1. Deterioration of habitat types and habitats of species

Deterioration  is  any  form  of  degradation  affecting  a  habitat.  The  Member  State  has  to  take  into 
consideration  all  the  influences  on  the  environment  hosting  the  habitats  (space,  water,  air,  soils).  If 
these influences result in making the conservation parameters for the habitat worse than they were 
before, the deterioration can be considered to have occurred. 

It is important to recall that the requirement to avoid deterioration applies not just to the habitat 
types listed in Annex I to the Habitats Directive for which the site has been designated, but also to the 
habitats of the species listed in Annex II to the Habitats Directive and Annex I to the Birds Directive, 
and  of  the  migratory  species  covered  by  Article  4(2)  of  the  Birds  Directive,  for  which  the  site  has 
been designated.

To assess this deterioration, one can refer to the conservation objectives of the site and the ecological 
characteristics of the site that lead to it being selected as an SCI (in accordance with the selection 
criteria in Annex III to the Directive) or as an SPA. 

These  ecological  characteristics  for  habitat  types  are  recorded  in  the  SDF  using  the  following 
parameters37: 
§  The  degree  of  representativity  of  the  habitat  type  –  this  gives  a  measure  of  “how  typical”  a 

habitat type is.
This should be linked to the interpretation manual of Annex I habitat types38 since this manual 
provides  a  definition  of  each  habitat  type,  together  with  an  indication  of  characteristic  species 
and other relevant elements. Any event, activity or process that causes the habitat type to lose its 
representativity should be assessed as deterioration. 

36  Work under Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services provides indicators on pressures on ecosystems that can also be used 
to assess deterioration and disturbance – see especially 5th technical report (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_
assessment/index_en.htm).

37  Commission implementing Decision of 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites (notified under document 

C(2011) 4892) (2011/484/EU) OJ L198 30.7.2011, p 39) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:198:0039:0070:EN:PDF 

38  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28.pdf

30

§  The surface of the habitat in the site and its relative surface as compared to the total area covered 

by the habitat type within the national territory. 
Any  event,  activity  or  process  which  contributes  to  the  reduction  in  the  size,  within  the  site,  of 
the habitat type or the habitat of the species for which this site has been designated, should be 
regarded as deterioration. 

§  The degree of conservation of the structure and functions of the natural habitat type concerned 

and its restoration possibilities. 

Similar  considerations  may  apply  in  the  case  of  habitats  of  species,  e.g.  wetlands  for  birds.  Any 
impairment of any of these factors which are necessary for the long-term maintenance of the habitats 
and habitats of species may be regarded as deterioration, e.g. deterioration may be caused not just by 
the habitat’s physical reduction in size but also by the loss of quality as a breeding, feeding, resting or 
staging site for the species.

The functions necessary for the long-term maintenance depend of course on the habitat concerned. 
Member States must know these requirements (by means of studies, data collection, etc.) since Article 
6(1) provides that they have to take measures ‘which correspond to the ecological requirements of the 
habitats in Annex I and species in Annex II’.

Habitat deterioration occurs on a site when the area covered by the habitat type or habitat of the 
species in this site is reduced, or the specific structure and functions necessary for the long-term 
maintenance of that habitat or the status of the species which are associated with this habitat 
are reduced in comparison to their initial or restored condition. This assessment is done according 
to the site’s conservation objectives and its contribution to the coherence of the network.

3.5.2. Disturbance of species 

Contrary  to  deterioration,  disturbance  does  not  directly  affect  the  physical  conditions  of  a  site;  it 
concerns the species and it may be limited in time (noise, source of light etc.). The intensity, duration 
and frequency of repetition of disturbance are therefore important parameters. 

To assess whether a disturbance is significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive, reference 
can be made to the definition of the favourable conservation status of a species given in Article 1(i), on 
the basis of the following factors: 
● 

‘Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a 
long-term basis as a viable element of its natural habitats’. 
Any event, activity or process contributing to the long-term decline of the population of the species 
on the site can be regarded as a significant disturbance. 

●  ‘The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the 

foreseeable future’. 
Any event, activity or process contributing to the reduction or to the risk of reduction of the range 
of the species within the site can be regarded as a significant disturbance. 

●  ‘There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations 

on a long-term basis’.
Any event, activity or process contributing to the reduction of the size of the available habitat of the 
species can be regarded as a significant disturbance. 

31

In  that  regard  effects  such  as  noise,  vibrations  and  isolation  of  sub-populations  of  a  species  are 
capable of causing significant disturbances for that species. Therefore, failure by a Member State to 
take appropriate measures to prevent them constitutes a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 6(2) 
of the Habitats Directive (case C-404/09). 

Factors such as intensity, frequency and duration of the disturbance may be taken into account to 
determine  its  significance,  which  may  vary  from  one  species  to  another  and  according  to  different 
times and different conditions (e.g. food resources, or through the presence of sufficient undisturbed 
areas nearby).

Disturbance of a species occurs on a site from events, activities or processes contributing, within 
the site, to a long-term decline in the population of the species, to a reduction or risk of reduction 
in its range, and to a reduction in its available habitat. This assessment is done according to the 
site’s conservation objectives and its contribution to the coherence of the network.

32

3333

4. Article 6(3)

Clarification of the concepts of plan or project, likelihood of 
significant effects, appropriate assessment, site’s conservation 
objectives; cumulative effects, competent authorities, opinion of 
the public, integrity of the site

4.1.  Text

‘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.’ 

4.2. Scope

As regards purpose and context, the role of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 6 needs to 
be considered in relation to that of the first (or, in the case of SPAs, with that of the first and second 
paragraphs of Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive) and second paragraphs of Article 6. In particular, 
it is important to remember that, even if it is determined that an initiative or activity does not fall within 
the scope of Article 6(3), it will still be necessary to make it compatible with the other aforementioned 
provisions. 

It  may  be  noted  that  activities  which  contribute  to  or  are  compatible  with  the  site  conservation 
objectives may already be accommodated within Article 6(1) and (2) – for example, traditional farming 
practices  which  sustain  particular  habitat  types  and  species.  The  provisions  of  Article  6(3)  and  (4) 
constitute a form of permitting regime, setting out the circumstances within which plans and projects 
with likely significant negative effects on Natura 2000 sites may or may not be allowed. They thus 
ensure that economic and other non-ecological requirements can be fully considered in light of the 
site’s conservation objectives. 

Article 6(3) defines a step-wise procedure for considering plans and projects39. 
a)  The  first  part  of  this  procedure  consists  of  a  pre-assessment  stage  (‘screening’)  to  determine 
whether, firstly, the plan or project is directly connected with or necessary to the management of 
the site, and secondly, whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the site; it is governed by 
Article 6(3), first sentence.

b)  The  second  part  of  the  procedure,  governed  by  Article  6(3),  second  sentence,  relates  to  the 

appropriate assessment and the decision of the competent national authorities. 

39  A simplified flow chart of this procedure is presented in Annex II at the end of this document.

34

A third part of the procedure (governed by Article 6(4)) comes into play if, despite a negative assessment, 
it is proposed not to reject a plan or project but to give it further consideration. In this case Article 6(4) 
allows for derogations from Article 6(3) under certain conditions. 

The applicability of the procedure, and the extent to which it applies, depend on several factors, and in 
the sequence of steps, each step is influenced by the previous step. The order in which the steps are 
followed is therefore essential for the correct application of Article 6(3).

As regards geographical scope, the provisions of Article 6(3) are not restricted to plans and projects 
that exclusively occur in or cover a protected site; they also target plans and projects situated outside 
the site but likely to have a significant effect on it regardless of their distance from the site in question 
(cases C-98/03 paragraph 51 and C-418/04 paragraphs 232, 233). 

Furthermore, the Court has stated that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not preclude a more 
stringent national protective measure which might for instance impose an absolute prohibition of a 
certain type of activity, without any requirement for an assessment of the environmental impact of the 
individual project or plan on the Natura 2000 site concerned (C-2/10 paragraphs 39–75).

Article  6(3)  defines  a  step-wise  procedure  for  considering  plans  and  projects  that  may  have  a 
significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Activities not falling within the scope of Article 6(3) will 
still have to be compatible with the provisions of Article 6(1) – or, in the case of SPAs, Articles 3, 
4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive – and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive.

4.3.  The relationship between Article 6(2) and Article 6(3)

Articles 6(2) and 6(3) are both intended to prevent any negative effects on a site. In the case of Article 
6(2) the intention is to avoid ‘deterioration …or significant disturbance’. In the case of Article 6(3) the 
aim is to avoid the authorisation of any plans or projects that could ‘adversely affect the integrity of the 
site’. The objectives are therefore broadly similar. However, it should be recalled that the provisions of 
Article 6(2) apply to the site at all times whereas those under Article 6(3) only come into play if a plan or 
project is being proposed that may have significant effects on the site. Because both paragraphs serve 
the same overall objective, it is logical to conclude that any plan or project approved in compliance with 
Article 6(3) will also be in conformity with the provisions of Article 6(2), unless it subsequently proves 
likely to deteriorate the habitat and/or disturb the species for which the site has been designated.

This was confirmed by the Court (case C-127/02 paragraphs 35–37): ‘the fact that a plan or project has 
been authorised according to the procedure laid down in Article 6(3) renders superfluous, as regards the 
action to be taken on the protected site under the plan or project, a concomitant application of the rule 
of general protection laid down in Article 6(2). Authorisation of a plan or project granted in accordance 
with Article 6(3) necessarily assumes that it is considered not likely adversely to 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). 

Nevertheless, it cannot be precluded that such a plan or project subsequently proves likely to give rise to 
such deterioration or disturbance, even where the competent authorities cannot be held responsible for 
any error. Under those conditions, application of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive makes it possible 

35

to satisfy the essential objective of the preservation and protection of the quality of the environment, 
including the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as stated in the first recital 
in the preamble to that directive.’ 

On the other hand, where authorisation for a plan or project has been granted without complying with 
Article 6(3), a breach of Article 6(2) may be found where deterioration of a habitat or disturbance of 
the species for which the area in question was designated has been established (C-304/05, C-388/05, 
C-404/09, C-141/14).

The same applies to all projects and activities which were authorised prior to the inclusion of sites into 
the SCI list, or their classification as SPAs, and which do not fall under the obligation of the assessment 
of their implication for habitat types and species under Article 6(3) but the effects of which might 
adversely  affect  the  integrity  of  those  sites.  Article  6(2)  and  (3)  of  the  Habitats  Directive  must  be 
construed as a coherent whole, and are designed to ensure the same level of protection of natural 
habitats and habitats of species (C-258/11, C-521/12, C-399/14, C-387&388/15). 

Therefore, where Article 6(2) leads to an obligation to carry out a subsequent review of the implications 
for the site concerned of a plan or project, that review must be carried out in accordance with the 
requirements of Article 6(3) (Case C-399/14, paragraph 54).

Article 6(3) does not apply in respect of any action whose implementation was subject to authorisation 
but which was carried out without authorisation and thus unlawfully. However, such actions may have 
consequences breaching Article 6(2), and the Member State is obliged to act in line with the latter 
provision (case C-504/14). 

4.4. What is meant by ‘plan or project not directly connected with or 

necessary to the management of the site’?

In as much as the Habitats Directive does not define ‘plan’ or ‘project’, due consideration must be given 
to general principles of interpretation, in particular the principle that an individual provision of EU law 
must be interpreted on the basis of its wording and of its purpose and the context in which it occurs.

There are two arguments for giving a broad interpretation to ‘plan’ or ‘project’: 
●  Firstly, the Directive does not circumscribe the scope of either ‘plan’ or a ‘project’ by reference to 
particular categories of either. Instead, the key limiting factor is whether or not they are likely to 
have a significant effect on a site. 

●  Secondly, a corollary of the continued applicability of Article 6(2) to activities excluded from the scope 
of Article 6(3) and (4) is that, the more narrowly ‘plan’ and ‘project’ are defined, the more potentially 
restricted are the means to consider a conservation interest against a damaging non-conservation 
interest, and hence to ensure the correct application of Article 6(2), i.e. avoiding deterioration and 
disturbance. 

4.4.1. Project

Support for a broad definition of ‘project’ is reinforced, by analogy, if we refer to Directive 2011/92/
EU  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the  environment40  – 
hereinafter referred to as the EIA Directive. That directive operates in a similar context, setting rules 

40  OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p.1, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU.

36

for the assessment of projects with likely significant effects on the environment. Article 1(2) of the EIA 
Directive provides that ‘project’ means:

‘ – the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes, – other interventions in 
the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources.’

This  is  a  very  broad  definition  (C-72/95  Kraaijeveld  paragraphs  30  and  31)  which  is  not  limited  to 
physical construction but also covers other interventions in the natural environment including regular 
activities aimed at utilising natural resources41. For example, a significant intensification of agriculture 
which threatens to damage or destroy the semi-natural character of a site may be covered42. 

The  Court  has  issued  a  number  of  rulings  regarding  the  type  of  interventions  which  require  the 
application of Article 6(3).

The Waddenzee case (C-127/02 paragraphs 25–29) clarified that activities which have been carried 
out periodically for several years on the site concerned but for which a licence is granted annually for 
a limited period, with each licence entailing a new assessment both of the possibility of carrying on that 
activity and of the site where it may be carried on, should beconsidered, at the time of each application, 
as a distinct plan or project within the meaning of the Habitats Directive. 

In  the  Papenburg  case  (C-226/08  paragraphs  50–51)  the  Court  further  ruled  that:  ‘…  ongoing 
maintenance works in respect of the navigable channels of estuaries, which are not connected with or 
necessary to the management of the site … must, to the extent that they constitute a project and are 
likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, undergo an assessment of their implications for 
that site pursuant to those provisions [Article 6(3)] ’. 

However, ‘…if, having regard in particular to the regularity or nature of the maintenance works at issue 
... or the conditions under which they are carried out, they can be regarded as constituting a single 
operation, in particular where they are designed to maintain the navigable channel at a certain depth 
by means of regular dredging necessary for that purpose, those maintenance works can be considered 
to be one and the same project for the purposes of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.’

The Court has also ruled that the option of exempting generally certain activities does not 
comply with the provisions of Article 6(3) (C-256/98, C-6/04, C-241/08, C-418/04, C-538/09). In 
addition, the Court ruled that projects may not be excluded from the assessment obligation on account 
only of the fact that they are not subject to authorisation (C-98/03, paragraphs 43–52).

The Court has also ruled that the size of the project is not relevant as it does not in itself preclude 
the  possibility  that  it  is  likely  to  have  a  significant  effect  on  a  protected  site  (Case  C-98/03,  Case 
C-418/04 paragraph 244).

4.4.2. Plan

The  term  “plan”  has  also,  for  the  purpose  of  Article  6(3),  a  potentially  very  broad  meaning.  If  we 
refer, by analogy, to the Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and 
programmes on the environment43 (hereinafter referred to as the SEA Directive), Article 2(a) of that 
Directive defines plans and programmes as:

41  The relevance of this definition to the Habitats Directive is also stated by the Court (case C-127/02, paragraph 26). 
42  To fall under the scope of the EIA Directive, such interventions/activities have to involve alterations to the physical aspects of a given site (C-

121/11, Pro-Braine paragraph 31, C-275/09 Brussels Airport paragraph 30).

43  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30–37.

37

‘Plans  and  programmes,  including  those  co-financed  by  the  European  Community,  as  well  as  any 
modifications to them:
–  which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level 
or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by Parliament 
or Government, and

–  which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions;’

In  this  respect,  the  Court  has  ruled  that  ‘Given  the  objective  of  Directive  2001/42,  which  consists 
in  providing  for  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment,  the  provisions  which  delimit  the 
directive’s  scope, in particular those setting out the definitions of the measures envisaged by the 
directive, must be interpreted broadly (C-567/10 paragraphs 24–43).

Of obvious relevance under the Habitats Directive are land-use or spatial plans. Some plans have 
direct legal effects for the use of land, others only indirect effects. For instance, regional or geographically 
extensive spatial plans are often not applied directly but form the basis for more detailed plans or 
serve as a framework for development consents, which then have direct legal effects. Both types of 
land-use plan should be considered as covered by Article 6(3) to the extent that they are likely to have 
significant effects on a Natura 2000 site. 

The Court upheld this view (C-6/04 paragraph 52) stating that although land-use plans do not always 
authorise developments and planning permission must be obtained for development projects in the 
normal manner, they have great influence on development decisions. Therefore land-use plans 
must  be  subject  to  appropriate  assessment  of  their  implications  for  the  site  concerned  (see  also 
C-418/04).

Sectoral plans should also be considered as covered by the scope of Article 6(3), again in so far as they 
are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Examples might include transport network 
plans, energy plans, waste management plans, water management plans or forest management plans 
(see C-441/17, 122–124).

However, a distinction needs to be made with ‘plans’ which are in the nature of policy statements, i.e. 
policy documents which show the general political will or intention of a ministry or lower authority. An 
example might be a general plan for sustainable development across a Member State’s territory or 
region. It does not seem appropriate to treat these as ‘plans’ for the purpose of Article 6(3), particularly 
if any initiatives deriving from such policy statements must pass through the intermediary of a land-
use or sectoral plan (C 179/06, paragraph 41)44. However, where the link between the content of such 
an initiative and likely significant effects on a Natura 2000 site is clear and direct, Article 6(3) should 
be applied.

Where one or more specific projects are included in a plan in a general way but not in terms of project 
details, the assessment made at plan level does not exempt the specific projects from the assessment 
requirements of Article 6(3) at a later stage, when much more details about them are known45.

44  This is without prejudice to the application of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC).
45  For details on the integration of different stages of assessment see also the guidance document on streamlining environmental assessment 

procedures for Projects of Common Interest, Chapter 3.2: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf

38

4.4.3. Not directly connected with or necessary to the management …

From the context and purpose of Article 6, it is apparent that the term ‘management’ is to be treated 
as referring to the ‘conservation’ management of a site, i.e. it is to be seen in the sense in 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 exempted from the requirement for an assessment.

By introducing the possibility of establishing management plans, Article 6(1) envisages flexibility for 
Member States as regards the form such plans can take. The plans can either be specifically designed 
for the sites or ‘integrated into other development plans’. Thus it is possible to have a ‘pure’ conservation 
management plan or a ‘mixed’ plan with conservation as well as other objectives. 

The words ‘not directly connected with or necessary to…’ ensure that a non-conservation component of 
a plan or project which includes conservation management amongst its objectives may still require an 
appropriate assessment. 

For example, commercial timber harvesting may form part of a conservation management plan for a woodland 
designated as Special Area of Conservation. In as much as the commercial dimension is not necessary to 
the site’s conservation management, it may need to be considered for an appropriate assessment.

The Court has supported this view (C-241/08 paragraph 55), pointing out that ‘the mere fact that the 
Natura 2000 contracts comply with the conservation objectives of sites cannot be regarded as sufficient, 
in the light of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, to allow the works and developments provided for 
in those contracts to be systematically exempt from the assessment of their implications for the sites.’ 

There may also be circumstances where a plan or project directly connected with or necessary to the 
management of one site may affect another site. 

For example, in order to improve the flooding regime of one site, it may be proposed to build a barrier in 
another site, with a possible significant adverse effect on the latter. In such a case, the plan or project 
should be the subject of an assessment as regards the affected site.

In  addition,  case  C-441/17  (paragraph  123)  identifies  an  example  of  a  plan  (concerned  solely  with 
increasing the volume of harvestable timber by the carrying out of active forest management operations 
within a Natura 2000 site) not directly related to conservation as it does not lay down any conservation 
objectives or measures, and hence would fall for consideration under Article 6(3). 

The term ‘project’ should be given a broad interpretation to include both construction works and 
other interventions in the natural environment. The term ‘plan’ has also a broad meaning, including 
land-use plans and sectoral plans or programmes. 

Plans  and  projects  directly  related  to  the  conservation  management  of  the  site,  either 
individually or as components of other plans and projects, should generally be excluded from the 
provisions of Article 6(3), but their non-conservation components may still require an assessment. 

39

4.5.  How to determine whether a plan or project is ‘likely to have a 
significant effect’ on a site, ‘either individually or in combination 
with other plans or projects’?

This  phrase  encapsulates  both  a  cause-and-effect  relationship  and  the  cumulative  aspect.  On  the 
one hand, it is necessary to explore what sorts of effects are covered (‘significant effect’), and then 
to explore what sorts of causes are likely to create such effects (‘likely to have … either individually or 
in combination’).

Determining  whether  a  plan  or  project  is  likely  to  have  a  significant  effect  will  have  practical  and 
legal consequences. Therefore, when a plan or project is proposed, it is important firstly that this key 
issue is considered, and secondly that the consideration is capable of standing  up  to  scientific and 
expert scrutiny. 

Plans and projects that are considered as not likely to have significant effects can be processed without 
reference to the subsequent steps of Article 6(3). However, Member States will need to justify and 
record the reasons for reaching such a screening conclusion. 

4.5.1. Likely to have …

The  safeguards  set  out  in  Article  6(3)  are  triggered  not  by  a  certainty  but  by  a  likelihood  of 
significant effects. Thus, in line with the precautionary principle, it is unacceptable to fail to undertake 
an assessment on the basis that significant effects are not certain. 

This was confirmed by the Court’s Waddenzee ruling (C-127/02 paragraphs 39–44): ‘…The environmental 
protection mechanism provided for in Article 6(3) … does not presume that the plan or project considered 
definitely has significant effects on the site concerned but follows from the mere probability that such 
an effect attaches to that plan or project. … In case of doubt as to the absence of significant 
effects such an assessment must be carried out. … The first sentence of Article 6(3) must therefore 
be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  any  plan  or  project  not  directly  connected  with  or  necessary  to  the 
management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site 
in view of the site’s conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective 
information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with 
other plans or projects’.

It is again useful to refer to the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU as amended, since the formula ‘likely to have 
a significant effect’ is almost identical to the basic formula used to create the assessment duty of 
Member States under the EIA Directive46. The EIA Directive is also of assistance in setting out a range 
of factors which may contribute to a likelihood of a significant effect47. Any proposal deemed to require 
an assessment under the EIA Directive on the grounds, inter alia, that it is likely to significantly affect 
a Natura 2000 site can be judged to also come under the assessment requirement of Article 6(3)48.

In determining the likelihood of significant impacts, and hence the need for an appropriate assessment, 
mitigation measures (i.e. measures to avoid or reduce negative effects) cannot be taken into account. 
This is confirmed by the Court in its ruling in case C-323/17: ‘Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC  
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted 

46  See Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU.
47  See Annex III of Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU.
48  On the other hand, an appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) might be required for projects not falling under the scope of the EIA Directive.

40

as meaning 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’.49

A likelihood of significant effects may arise not only from plans or projects located within a protected 
site but also from plans or projects located outside a protected site (C-142/16, paragraph 29). For 
example,  a  wetland  may  be  damaged  by  a  drainage  project  located  some  distance  outside  the 
wetland’s boundaries, or a site may be impacted by an emission of pollutants from an external source. 
For this reason, it is important that Member States, both in their legislation and in their practice, allow 
for the Article 6(3) safeguards to be applied to any development pressures – including those which are 
external to Natura 2000 sites but which are likely to have significant effects on any of them.

This includes the consideration of any potential transboundary effects. If a plan or project in one 
country is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site in a second country, either individually 
or in combination with other plans or projects, then an appropriate assessment must be undertaken 
which addresses inter alia the potential effects on the integrity of respective Natura 2000 sites in that 
second country as well. 

Cross-border plans and projects (i.e. plans or projects located in more than one Member State, involving 
for  example  pipelines,  cables,  bridges,  or  tunnels)  should  be  treated  accordingly,  ensuring  that  all 
potential  effects  on  Natura  2000  sites  are  considered.  To  this  end,  and  to  avoid  duplications,  the 
respective competent authorities should coordinate their assessments.

This is in line with the Espoo Convention and its SEA Protocol50 which are implemented within the EU 
through the EIA and SEA Directives51. As those Directives cover plans or projects that are likely to require 
an assessment pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive as well, it follows that transboundary 
effects are also to be covered in appropriate assessments undertaken under the Habitats Directive, in 
accordance with relevant provisions under those Directives.

The procedure under Article 6(3) is triggered not by the certainty but by the likelihood of significant 
effects, arising from plans or projects regardless of their location inside or outside a protected 
site. Such likelihood exists if significant effects on the site cannot be excluded. Mitigation measures 
cannot be taken into account at this stage. Transboundary effects are also to be considered.

4.5.2. Significant effect

The notion of what is a ‘significant’ effect cannot be treated in an arbitrary way. In the first place, the 
Directive uses the term in an objective context (i.e. it does not qualify it with discretionary formulae). 
In the second place, a consistency of approach to what is ‘significant’ is needed to ensure that Natura 
2000 functions as a coherent network. 

While  there  is  a  need  for  objectivity  in  interpreting  the  scope  of  the  term  ‘significant’,  clearly  such 
objectivity cannot be divorced from the specific features and environmental conditions of the protected 

49  However under the EIA Directive it is possible to take into account features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent 

significant adverse effects when deciding on the need to conduct a full EIA (Article 4(5)(b) of the EIA Directive, as amended).

50  http://www.unece.org/env/eia/welcome.html
51  Art. 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU (as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU) and Art. 7 of Directive 2001/42/EC.

41

site concerned by the plan or project. In this regard, the conservation objectives of a site as well as 
prior or baseline information about it can be very important in more precisely identifying conservation 
sensitivities (C-127/02, paragraphs 46–48). 

Some of this information is presented in the Standard Data Form that accompanies the site selection 
process  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  (see  section  3.5.1).  Member  States  may  also  have 
available detailed site conservation management plans which describe variations in the sensitivity of 
habitats and species within a site with regard to different threats.

Significance will vary depending on factors such as magnitude of impact, type, extent, duration, intensity, 
timing, probability, cumulative effects and the vulnerability of the habitats and species concerned.

Against this background, it is clear that what may be significant in relation to one site may not be in 
relation to another. 

For example, a loss of a hundred square metres of habitat may be significant in relation to a small rare 
orchid site, while a similar loss in a large steppic site may be insignificant if it does not have implications 
for the site conservation objectives.

The notion of what is ‘significant’ needs to be interpreted objectively. The significance of effects 
should  be  determined  in  relation  to  the  specific  features  and  environmental  conditions  of  the 
protected site concerned by the plan or project, taking particular account of the site’s conservation 
objectives and ecological characteristics.

4.5.3. … either individually or in combination with other plans or projects

A series of individually modest impacts may, in combination, produce a significant impact. As the Court 
has pointed out ‘the failure to take account of the cumulative effect of projects in practice leads to a 
situation where all projects of a certain type may escape the obligation to carry out an assessment, 
whereas,  taken  together,  they  are  likely  to  have  significant  effects  on  the  environment’  (C-418/04, 
C-392/96 paragraphs 76, 82). 

Article 6(3) tries to address this by taking into account the combination of effects from other plans or 
projects. In this regard, Article 6(3) does not explicitly define which other plans and projects are within 
the scope of the in-combination provision. 

It is important to note that the underlying intention of this in-combination provision is to take account 
of cumulative impacts, and these will often only occur over time. In that context, one can consider plans 
or projects which are completed, approved but uncompleted, or proposed:
●  In addition to the effects of those plans or projects which are the main subject of the assessment, it 
may be appropriate to consider the effects of already completed plans and projects in this ‘second 
level’ of assessment, including those preceding the date of transposition of the Directive or the date 
of designation of the site (see, for example, C-142/16, paragraphs 61 and 63). Although already 
completed plans and projects are themselves excluded from the assessment requirements of Article 
6(3), it is still important to take them into consideration when assessing the impacts of the current 
plan or project in order to determine whether there are any potential cumulative effects arising from 
the current project in combination with other already completed plans and projects. The effects of 

42

such completed plans and projects would normally form part of the site’s baseline conditions which 
are considered at this stage52. 

●  Plans and projects which have been approved in the past but have not yet been implemented or 

completed should be included in the in-combination provision.

●  As regards other proposed plans or projects, on grounds of legal certainty it would seem appropriate 
to restrict the in-combination provision to those which have been actually proposed, i.e. for which 
an application for approval or consent has been introduced. At the same time, it must be evident 
that,  in  considering  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.

For  example,  if  a  residential  development  is  considered  not  to  give  rise  to  a  significant  effect  and  is 
therefore  approved,  the  approval  should  not  create  a  presumption  in  favour  of  further  residential 
developments in the future.

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 (e.g. a series of 
housing projects). All types of plans or projects that could, in combination with the plan or project under 
consideration, have a significant effect, should be taken into account during the assessment.

Similarly, the assessment should consider 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 through an area 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, these impacts 
may become significant enough to adversely affect the site. On the other hand, 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.

Potential  cumulative  impacts  should  be  assessed  using  sound  baseline  data  and  not  rely  only  on 
qualitative criteria. They should also be assessed as an integral part of the overall assessment and not 
be treated merely as an ‘afterthought’ at the end of the assessment process. 

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 in question. The in-combination provision concerns other plans or projects which 
have been already completed, approved but uncompleted or actually proposed. 

52  Already completed plans and projects may also raise issues under Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive if their continued effects 
give rise to a need for the Member States to take remedial or countervailing conservation measures or measures to avoid habitat deterioration 
or species disturbance.

43

4.6. What is meant by ‘appropriate assessment of its implications for 
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives’? 

4.6.1. What is meant by an ‘appropriate’ assessment?

The  purpose  of  the  appropriate  assessment  is  to  assess  the  implications  of  the  plan  or  project  in 
respect of 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.

In its Waddenzee ruling (C-127/02 paragraphs 52–54, 59) the Court emphasized the importance of 
using the best scientific knowledge when carrying out the appropriate assessment in order to enable 
the  competent  authorities  to  conclude  with  certainty  that  there  will  be  no  adverse  effects  on  the 
site’s integrity: 

‘As regards the concept of ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive, it must be pointed out that the provision does not define any particular method for carrying 
out  such  an  assessment.  None  the  less,  according  to  the  wording  of  that  provision,  an  appropriate 
assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project must precede its approval 
and take into account the cumulative effects which result from the combination of that plan or project 
with other plans or projects in view of the site’s conservation objectives. ’

‘Such  an  assessment  therefore  implies  that  all  the  aspects  of  the  plan  or  project  which  can, 
either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, affect those (conservation) 
objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field. ’

‘The competent national authorities, taking account of the appropriate assessment of the implications 
of the plan or project for the site concerned in the light of the site’s conservation objectives, are to 
authorise such an activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of 
that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of 
such effects.’

Assessments that confine themselves to general descriptions and a superficial review of existing data 
on ‘nature’ within the area cannot therefore be considered as ‘appropriate’ for the purposes of Article 
6(3). According to the Court the appropriate assessment should contain complete, precise and 
definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as 
to the effects of the works proposed on the site concerned (C-304/05 paragraph 69)53. It cannot be 
held that an assessment is appropriate where information and reliable updated data concerning the 
habitats and species in the site are lacking (C-43/10 paragraph 115).

It is at the time of adoption of the decision authorising implementation of the project that there must 
be no reasonable scientific doubt remaining as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of 
the site in question (C-239/04, paragraph 24). Furthermore, as regards multi-phase monitoring, such 
monitoring cannot be considered as sufficient to ensure performance of the obligation laid down in 
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (C-142/16, paragraph 43).

53 See also cases C-239/04 and C-404/09.

44

It follows from the above that the appropriate assessment should be reasoned and recorded. If the 
record of the assessment does not disclose the reasoned basis for the subsequent decision (i.e. if the 
record is a simple unreasoned positive or negative view of a plan or project), the assessment does not 
fulfil its purpose and cannot be considered ‘appropriate’. 

Finally, timing is also important. The assessment is a step preceding and providing a basis for the 
other steps – in particular, an approval or refusal of a plan or project. The assessment must therefore 
be  undertaken  before  the  competent  authority  decides  whether  or  not  to  undertake  or  authorise 
the plan or project (C-127/02 paragraph 42). Of course, where a plan or project undergoes re-design 
before a decision is taken on it, it is quite in order to revise the assessment as part of an iterative 
process. However, it should not be open to authorities to add retrospectively to an assessment once the 
subsequent step in the sequence of steps set out in Article 6(3) and 6(4) has been taken. 

Relationship with the EIA and SEA Directives

The  Appropriate  Assessment  is  often  undertaken  as  part  of  or  alongside  the  EIA  or  SEA  process,  and  its 
results are included in the relevant EIA or SEA report. This approach can help to streamline the administrative 
steps involved in obtaining development authorisations under EU environmental legislation54. The revised EIA 
Directive55 (Art. 2(3)) stipulates that, in the case of projects for which the obligation to carry out assessments of 
the effects on the environment arises simultaneously from the EIA and the Habitats Directives, Member States 
shall, where appropriate, ensure the use of coordinated and/or joint procedures. Relevant guidance on this has 
been issued56. 

Nevertheless 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. 

This  was  further  confirmed  by  the  Court  (C-418/04):  ‘Those  two  (EIA  and  SEA)  Directives  contain  provisions 
relating to the deliberation procedure, without binding the Member States as to the decision, and relate to only 
certain projects and plans. By contrast, under the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, a plan 
or project can be authorised only after the national authorities have ascertained that it will not adversely affect the 
integrity of the site. Accordingly, assessments carried out pursuant to the EIA Directive or SEA Directive cannot 
replace the procedure provided for in Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive’.

Key similarities and differences between the Appropriate Assessment and the EIA and SEA are set out in Annex I.

54  Such streamlining can also cover assessments required under Art. 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive – see also http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf

55  Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU. 
56  Commission guidance on streamlining environmental assessments conducted under Article 2(3) of the revised EIA Directive (Commission notice 

2016/C 273/01, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2016:273:TOC).

45

4.6.2. Content of the appropriate assessment

The appropriate assessment of plans or projects likely to affect Natura 2000 sites should guarantee 
full consideration of all elements contributing to the site integrity (see section 3.7.4), both in defining 
the  baseline  conditions  and  in  the  stages  leading  to  identification  of  potential  impacts,  mitigation 
measures and residual impacts. 

In this respect it must be ensured that the appropriate assessment addresses all elements contributing 
to the site’s integrity as specified in the site’s conservation objectives and Standard Data Form, and is 
based on the best available scientific knowledge in the field.

The information required should be up-to-date (C-43/10, paragraph 115) and may include the 
following issues, as appropriate:
●  structure and function, and the respective role of the site’s ecological assets;
● 
●  population  size,  degree  of  isolation,  ecotype,  genetic  pool,  age  class  structure,  and  degree  of 
conservation of species under Annex II to the Habitats Directive present on the site or of the bird 
species for which a given SPA was classified; 

the area, representativity and degree of conservation of the habitat types on the site;

●  any other ecological assets and functions identified on the site; and
●  any threats affecting or representing a potential risk to habitats and species present on the site.

The appropriate assessment should also 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.

It  should  apply  the  best  available  techniques  and  methods  to  assess  the  extent  of  the 
effects of the plan or project on the integrity of the site(s). The description of the site’s integrity and 
the impact assessment should be based on the best possible indicators specific to the Natura 2000 
features, which can also be useful in monitoring the impact of the plan or project implementation.

The  appropriate  assessment  report  should  be  sufficiently  detailed  to  demonstrate  how  the  final 
conclusion was reached, and on what scientific grounds. For instance, in its ruling in case C-404/09 the 
Court identified a number of gaps in the appropriate assessment under question (namely, that it did 
not give sufficient consideration to the possible disturbances to various species on the sites in question, 
such as noise and vibrations or to the risk of isolating sub-populations by blocking communication 
corridors linking those sub-populations to other populations)57. 

4.6.3. … in view of the site’s conservation objectives

The  appropriate  assessment  focuses  on  assessing  the  implications  for  the  site  of  the  plan  or 
project, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of the site’s conservation 
objectives. Article 6(3) must therefore be read in close conjunction with Article 6(1) and 6(2) since the 
conservation objectives to be used in the appropriate assessment are linked also to these two earlier 
paragraphs. 

57  See also C-441/17 paragraphs 134–144.

46

As explained in section 2.3.1, ‘conservation objectives’ should be set at the level of each individual 
site and should concern, within that site, all the species and habitat types for which the site has been 
designated under the Habitats Directive or classified under the Birds Directive.

These conservation objectives should be based on the ecological requirements of the species and 
habitats present and should define the desired conservation condition of these species and habitat 
types on the site. This should be established in function of the conservation condition of each species 
and  habitat  type  as  recorded  in  the  Standard  Data  Form.  The  conservation  objectives  should  also 
reflect the importance of the site for the coherence of Natura 2000 so that each site contributes in the 
best possible way to achieving Favourable Conservation Status at the appropriate geographical level 
within the natural range of the respective species or habitat types.

Where such conservation objectives have been set for a site, the effects must be assessed against 
these objectives.

This was confirmed by the Court in its Waddenzee Ruling (C-127/02 paragraphs 46–48) : ‘As is clear 
from the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive in conjunction with the 10th recital in its 
preamble, the significant nature of the effect on a site of a plan or project not directly connected with or 
necessary to the management of the site is linked to the site’s conservation objectives. So, where such 
a plan or project has an effect on that site but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, it 
cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned.’ 

‘Conversely, where such a plan or project is likely to undermine the conservation objectives of 
the site concerned, it must necessarily be considered likely to have a significant effect on the 
site. As the Commission in essence maintains, in assessing the potential effects of a plan or project, their 
significance must be established in the light, inter alia, of the characteristics and specific environmental 
conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project. ’

Where  conservation  objectives  have  not  yet  been  set  for  a  site,  and  until  this  is  done,  then  the 
appropriate assessment must assume as a minimum that the objective is to ensure that the habitat 
types or habitats of species present do not deteriorate below the current level or the species are not 
significantly disturbed, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(2) and without prejudice to 
the effectiveness of the conservation measures necessary for the fulfilment of the requirements of 
Article 6(1). 

This  position  has  been  confirmed  by  the  Court  (C-127/02  paragraph  36)  ‘Authorisation  of  a  plan  or 
project granted in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 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). ’

4.6.4. The concept of the ‘Integrity of the site’ 

It is clear from the context and from the purpose of the Directive that the ‘integrity of a site’ relates 
to the site’s conservation objectives (see point 4.6.3 above). For example, it is possible that a plan or 
project will adversely affect the site only in a visual sense or only affect habitat types or species other 
than those listed in Annex I or Annex II for which the site has been designated. In such cases, the 
effects do not amount to an adverse effect for purposes of Article 6(3).

In  other  words  if  none  of  the  habitat  types  or  species  for  which  the  site  has  been  designated  is 
significantly affected then the site’s integrity cannot be considered to be adversely affected. However, 

47

if just one of them is significantly affected, taking into account the site’s conservation objectives, then 
the site integrity is necessarily adversely affected. 

This is supported by the Court in its ruling in case C-258/11, paragraph 48: ‘Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive  must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  a  plan  or  project  not  directly  connected  with  or 
necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is 
liable  to  prevent  the  lasting  preservation  of  the  constitutive  characteristics  of  the  site 
that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the 
objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCIs, in accordance with the directive. The 
precautionary  principle  should  be  applied  for  the  purposes  of  that  appraisal.’  The  logic  of  such  an 
interpretation would also be relevant to non-priority habitat types and to habitats of species.

The expression ‘integrity of the site’ shows that the focus is here on the specific site. Thus, it is not 
allowed to destroy a site or part of it on the basis that the conservation status of the habitat types 
and species it hosts will anyway remain favourable within the European territory of the Member State. 

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. 

When looking at the ‘integrity of the site’, it is therefore important to take into account a range of 
factors, including the possibility of effects materialising in the short, medium and long-term.

The  integrity  of  the  site  involves  its  constitutive  characteristics  and  ecological  functions.  The 
decision as to whether it is adversely affected should focus on and be limited to the habitats and 
species for which the site has been designated and the site’s conservation objectives.

4.6.5. Assessing the implications for the site

The appropriate assessment itself involves looking at all the aspects of the plan or project that could 
cause a significant effect on the Natura 2000 site. In this context, each element of the plan or project 
should be examined in turn and their potential effects should be considered in relation to each of the 
species or habitat types for which the site has been designated58. Thereafter, the effects of the different 
features within the plan or project should be looked at together, and in relation to each other, so that 
the interactions between them can also be identified. 

58  Work under Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services can support the appraisal of effects, e.g. to identify ecological assets and 
functions in the site, define threats to habitats and species, measure ecological structure and functions of broad habitat types relevant to site 
integrity – see especially 5th technical report on ecological condition (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/
index_en.htm).

48

For  instance,  it  may  be  that  the  risk  of  collision  mortality  with  wind  turbines  alone  is  not  likely  to  be 
significant but if it is taken in combination with the installation of overhead power lines, which could also 
cause collision mortality, then the effects for particular bird population could become significant. 

It is evident that the effects of each project will be unique and must be evaluated on a 
case-by-case basis. According to the Waddenzee ruling (C-127/02 paragraph 48), ‘in assessing the 
potential effects of a plan or project, their significance must be established in the light, inter alia, of 
the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project.’ 
Relevant general regulations and specifications established by the Member States may also be used 
for that purpose.

Whilst the focus should be on the species and habitats of Community interest (including birds identified 
according to Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Birds Directive) that have justified the site designation, it should 
not be forgotten that these target features also interact with other species and habitats, as well as the 
physical environment in complex ways. 

It  is  therefore  important  to  consider  all  the  elements  that  are  essential  to  the  functions  and  the 
structure of the site and to the habitat types and species present. Furthermore, other species can also 
be relevant in determining the potential effects on protected habitats if they constitute typical species 
of the habitat in question59 or play a role in the food chain on which the site’s target features depend.

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 (this means also including some explanation of 
the degree of certainty in the prediction). As with all impact assessments, the appropriate assessment 
should be undertaken within a structured framework to ensure that the predictions can be made as 
objectively and accurately as possible.

Bearing in mind that the Court has stressed the importance of using the best scientific knowledge when 
carrying out the appropriate assessment, further ecological and survey field work may be necessary 
to  supplement  existing  data.  Detailed  surveys  and  fieldwork  should  be  sufficiently  long  in  duration 
and  focus  on  those  target  features  that  are  sensitive  to  the  project  actions.  Sensitivity  should  be 
analysed taking into account the possible interactions between the project activities (nature, extent, 
methods, etc.) and the habitats and species concerned (location, ecological requirements, vital areas, 
behaviour, etc.). 

4.6.6. Considering suitable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impacts 

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 introduce certain mitigation measures that will avoid 
these impacts or reduce them to a level where they will no longer adversely affect the integrity of 
the site. 

Mitigation  measures  must  be  directly  linked  to  the  likely  impacts  that  have  been  identified  in  the 
appropriate assessment and can only be defined once these impacts have been fully assessed and 

59  For explanation of particular terms, see the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats – EUR28 at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm#interpretation 

49

described in the appropriate assessment. Thus, as pointed out in section 4.5.1, mitigation measures 
can only be considered at this stage and not at the screening stage.

The identification of mitigation measures, like the impact assessment itself, must be based on a sound 
understanding of the species and habitats concerned. For example, they may cover: 
●  the dates and the timetable of implementation (e.g.: do not operate during the breeding season of 

a particular species); 

●  the type of tools and operation to be carried out (e.g.: to use a specific dredge at a distance agreed 
upon from the shore in order not to affect a fragile habitat, or to reduce emissions which may cause 
harmful deposition of pollutants); and 

●  the strictly inaccessible areas inside a site (e.g. hibernation burrows of an animal species).

Mitigation measures, which aim to avoid or reduce impacts or prevent them from happening 
in the first place, must not be confused with compensatory measures, which are intended to 
compensate for any damage that may be caused by the project. Compensatory measures can only 
be considered under Article 6(4) if the plan or project has been accepted as necessary for imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest and where no alternatives exist (see Section 5). 

This  distinction  was  confirmed  by  the  Court  which  found  that  ‘Article  6(3)  of  the  Habitats  Directive 
must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  a  plan  or  project  not  directly  connected  with  or  necessary  to 
the management of a site of Community importance, which has negative implications for a type of 
natural habitat present thereon and which provides for the creation of an area of equal or greater size 
of the same natural habitat type within the same site, has an effect on the integrity of that site. Such 
measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) only if the 
conditions laid down therein are satisfied. (…) It is clear that these measures are not aimed either at 
avoiding or reducing the significant adverse effects for that habitat type caused by the project; rather, 
they tend to compensate after the fact for those effects. They do not guarantee that the project will not 
adversely affect the integrity of the site within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. ’ 
(C-521/12 paragraphs 29–35, 38–39; see also C-387&388/15 paragraph 48).

In connection with these findings, the Court stated that ‘…measures, contained  in a plan or project 
not  directly  connected  with  or  necessary  to  the  management  of  a  site  of  Community  importance, 
providing, prior to the occurrence of adverse effects on a natural habitat type present thereon, for the 
future creation of an area of that type, but the completion of which will take place subsequently to the 
assessment of the significance of any adverse effects on the integrity of that site, may not be taken into 
consideration in that assessment.’ (C-387&388/15 paragraph 64).

Of course, well designed and implemented mitigation measures will limit the extent of the necessary 
compensatory measures (if applicable, in the context of Article 6(4)), by reducing the residual impacts 
that require compensation.

For the competent authority to be able to decide if the mitigation measures are sufficient to remove 
any potential adverse effects of the plan or project on the site (and do not inadvertently cause other 
adverse effects on the species and habitat types in question), each mitigation measure must be 
described in detail, with an explanation based on scientific evidence of how it will eliminate or reduce 
the adverse impacts which have been identified. Information should also be provided of how, when 
and by whom they will be implemented, and what arrangements will be put in place to monitor their 
effectiveness and take corrective measures if necessary. The need for definitive data at the time of 
authorization is also raised in case C-142/16, paragraphs 37–45.

50

If  the  competent  authority  considers  the  mitigation  measures  are  sufficient  to  avoid  the  adverse 
effects on site integrity identified in the appropriate assessment, they will become an integral part 
of the specification of the final plan or project or may be listed as a condition for project approval. If, 
however, there is still a residual adverse effect on the integrity of the site, even after the introduction 
of mitigation measures, then the plan or project cannot be approved (unless the conditions set out in 
Article 6(4) are fulfilled).

Mitigation measures may be proposed by  the  plan  or  project proponent  and/or required by the 
competent national authorities in order to avoid the potential impacts identified in the appropriate 
assessment or reduce them to a level where they will no longer adversely affect the site’s integrity. 
The  identification  of  mitigation  measures,  like  the  impact  assessment  itself,  must  be  based 
on a sound understanding of the species and habitats concerned and must be described in detail. 
Well  designed  and  implemented  mitigation  measures  will  limit  the  extent  of  any  necessary 
compensatory  measures,  if  applicable  in  the  context  of  Article  6(4),  by  reducing  the  residual 
impacts which require compensation.

4.7.  Decision making

4.7.1. The ‘competent national authorities’

It is clear that the word ‘national’ in this expression has been used in contrast with the word ‘EU’ or 
‘international’. Thus, the term refers not only to authorities within the central administration but also to 
regional, provincial or municipal authorities that have to give an authorisation or consent to a plan or 
project. A court may constitute a competent authority if it has the discretion to make a decision on the 
substance of a proposed plan or project for purposes of Article 6(3) (C-127/04, paragraph 69). 

Under  certain  circumstances,  authorisation  of  a  plan  or  project  may  be  granted  by  a  legislative 
authority  (national  or  regional  parliament)  and  take  the  form  of  a  legislative  text.  In  this  context, 
in  case  C-182/10  paragraphs  69–70,  the  Court  has  ruled  that:  ‘Those  [Article  6(3)]  obligations  are 
incumbent on the Member States by virtue of the Habitats Directive regardless of the nature of the 
national authority with competence to authorise the plan or project concerned. Article 6(3) 
of the Habitats Directive, which refers to the ‘competent national authorities’, does not lay down any 
special rule for plans or projects approved by a legislative authority. That status consequently has no 
effect on the extent or scope of the obligations imposed on the Member States by Article 6(3) of the 
Habitats Directive… Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as not allowing a national 
authority, even if it is a legislative authority, to authorise a plan or project without having ascertained 
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned’

In other words, permission cannot be granted to a plan or project by means of law if an appropriate 
assessment  has  not  been  undertaken  beforehand,  in  accordance  with  Article  6(3)  of  the  Habitats 
Directive,  or  if  the  appropriate  assessment  has  not  concluded  with  certainty  that  there  will  be  no 
adverse effect on the integrity of the site60.

Competent  national  authorities  are  those  entitled  to  give  authorisation  or  consent  to  a  plan 
or project.  

60  See also C-142/16, para 33: ‘As the Court has previously held, competent national authorities may authorise an activity subject to an 

assessment only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. This is so when there is no 
reasonable doubt from a scientific point of view as to the absence of such adverse effects’.

51

4.7.2. When is it appropriate to obtain the opinion of the general public?

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, consultation of the 
public is an essential feature of the EIA and SEA directives. Clearly therefore, where the assessment 
required by Article 6(3) is coordinated with the assessment under these directives, public consultation 
is necessary in line with their requirements. 

Nonetheless, even if a plan or project does not fall under the scope of the SEA or EIA directives and is 
assessed solely on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the Court has clarified in a recent 
judgment  on  the  basis  of  the  requirements  of  the  Aarhus  Convention61,  that  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).

In this context, it is also worth mentioning that the Court, on the basis of the public participation rights, 
provides in particular for recognised environmental NGOs a right to challenge ‘decisions adopted by 
the  competent  national  authorities  within  the  framework  of  Article  6(3)  of  Directive  92/43,  whether 
they  concern  a  request  to  participate  in  the  authorisation  procedure,  the  assessment  of  the  need 
for an environmental assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site, or the 
appropriateness of the conclusions drawn from such an assessment as regards the risks of that plan or 
project for the integrity of the site’ (C-243/15, paragraph 56). 

4.7.3. Making a decision on the basis of the appropriate assessment 

It is for the competent national 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).

Furthermore, ‘The authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive  integrates  the  precautionary  principle  and  makes  it  possible  effectively  to  prevent  adverse 
effects on the integrity of protected sites as the result of the plans or projects being considered. A less 
stringent authorisation criterion than that in question could not as effectively ensure the fulfilment of 
the objective of site protection intended under that provision’ (C-127/02, paragraph 58).

61  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

52

The onus is therefore on demonstrating the absence of adverse effects rather than their 
presence, reflecting the precautionary principle (C-157/96 paragraph 63). It follows that the appropriate 
assessment must be sufficiently detailed and reasoned to demonstrate the absence of adverse effects, 
in light of the best scientific knowledge in the field (C-127/02 paragraph 61). 

5. Article 6(4)

5353

Clarification of the Concepts of alternative solutions, Imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest, Compensatory measures, 
Overall Coherence, Opinion of the Commission.

5.1.  Text

‘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’. 

5.2. Scope

This provision forms part of the procedure of assessment and possible authorisation, by the competent 
national authorities, of plans and projects likely to affect a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Special 
Protection Area (SPA) or a Site of Community Importance (SCI). Two fundamental considerations arise: 
●  on  the  one  hand,  it  deals  with  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  in  Article  6(3),  according  to  which 
authorisation  can  only  be  granted  to  plans  or  projects  not  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  site(s) 
concerned; 

●  on the other hand, its application in practice has to abide by the various steps provided for and in 
the sequential order established by the Directive. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Court 
(C-209/02, C-239/04, C-304/05, C-560/08, C-404/09).

In its ruling in case C-304/05, paragraph 83, the Court clearly stated that: ‘Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 
can apply only after the implications of a plan or project have been studied in accordance with 
Article 6(3) of that directive. Knowledge of those implications in the light of the conservation 
objectives  relating  to  the  site  in  question  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  for  application  of 
Article  6(4)  since,  in  the  absence  thereof,  no  condition  for  application  of  that  derogating  provision 
can  be  assessed.  The  assessment  of  any  imperative  reasons  of  overriding  public  interest 
and that of the existence of less harmful alternatives require a weighing up against the 
damage caused to the site by the plan or project under consideration. In addition, in order 
to determine the nature of any compensatory measures, the damage to the site must be 
precisely identified’ (see also C-399/14, C-387&388/15, C-142/16).

54

The application of Article 6(4) is not automatic. It is up to the authorities to decide whether the 
conditions for a derogation from Article 6(3) can be applied in the event that the appropriate assessment 
has concluded that the plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned, or in case 
of doubt over the absence of such adverse effects. 

The optional nature of Article 6(4) was confirmed by the Court in case C-241/08, paragraph 72: ‘Thus, 
following the assessment of the implications undertaken pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 
and in the event of a negative assessment, the competent authorities have the choice of either 
refusing authorisation for the plan or project or of granting authorisation under Article 6(4) of 
that directive, provided that the conditions laid down in that provision are satisfied’.

The decision to go ahead with a plan or project must meet the conditions and requirements of Article 
6(4). In particular, it must be documented that: 
1.  the alternative put forward for approval is the least damaging for habitats, for species and for 
the integrity of the Natura 2000 site(s), regardless of economic considerations, and that no other 
feasible alternative exists that would not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s);

2.  there  are  imperative  reasons  of  overriding  public  interest,  including  ‘those  of  a  social  or 

economic nature’;

3.  all  compensatory  measures  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  overall  coherence  of  Natura  2000  is 

protected are taken.

Being  an  exception  to  Article  6(3),  this  provision  must  be  interpreted  strictly  (C-239/04  paragraphs 
25–39) and can only be applied to circumstances where all the conditions required by the Directive 
are fully satisfied. In this regard, it falls on whoever wants to make use of this exception to prove, as a 
prerequisite, that the aforementioned conditions are indeed met in each particular case. 

Once the lack of suitable alternatives and the acceptance of imperative reasons of overriding public 
interest are fully ascertained and documented, all compensatory measures that are needed to ensure 
the protection of the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network have to be taken. The compensatory 
measures adopted must always be communicated to the Commission. 

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. 

5.3.  Initial considerations

5.3.1. Examining alternative solutions 

The first obligation of the Article 6(4) derogation procedure is to examine whether there are alternative 
solutions  to  the  plan  or  project.  In  this  respect  the  Court  has  made  it  clear  that  this  examination 
falls formally within the scope of Article 6(4) and not Article 6(3) (C-441/03 paragraph 15, C-241/08 
paragraph 69, C-142/16 paragraph 72). 

In  line  with  the  need  to  prevent  undesired  impairment  to  the  Natura  2000  network,  the  thorough 
revision and/or withdrawal of a proposed plan or project should be considered when negative effects 

 
55

on the integrity of a site have been identified. Thus, the competent authorities have to analyse and 
demonstrate the need of the plan or project concerned, considering the zero option too at this stage. 

Subsequently,  the  competent  authorities  should  examine  the  possibility  of  resorting  to  alternative 
solutions which better respect the integrity of the site in question. All feasible alternatives that meet 
the plan or project aims, in particular, their relative performance with regard to the site’s conservation 
objectives, integrity and contribution to the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network have to be 
analysed, taking also into account their proportionality in terms of cost. They might involve alternative 
locations or routes, different scales or designs of development, or alternative processes. 

As concerns the economic cost of the steps that may be considered in the review of alternatives, it 
cannot be the sole determining factor in the choice of alternative solutions (C-399/14, paragraph 77). 
In other words, a project proponent cannot claim that alternatives have not been examined because 
they would cost too much. 

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, it is for the competent national authorities to assess the relative 
impact of these alternative solutions on the site concerned. It should be stressed that the reference 
parameters for such comparisons deal with aspects concerning the conservation and the maintenance 
of the integrity of the site and of its ecological functions. In this phase, therefore, other assessment 
criteria, such as economic criteria, cannot be seen as overruling ecological criteria. 

The absence of alternatives must be demonstrated, before proceeding with the examination of 
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).

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. 

5.3.2. Examining imperative reasons of overriding public interest 

In the absence of alternative solutions – or in the presence of solutions having even more negative 
environmental effects on the site(s) concerned, with regard to the above-mentioned conservation aims 
of the Directive – the competent authorities have to examine the existence of imperative reasons of 
overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, which require the carrying out 
of the plan or project in question. 

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 reasons. As regards the ‘other imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest’ of a 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.

This was confirmed by the Court in its ruling in case C-182/10, paragraphs 75–78: ‘An interest capable 
of justifying, within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, the implementation of a plan 

56

or project must  be  both  ‘public’  and  ‘overriding’, which  means  that  it  must  be  of  such  an 
importance that it can be weighed up against that directive’s objective of the conservation 
of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. Works intended for the location or expansion of an 
undertaking satisfy those conditions only in exceptional circumstances. It cannot be ruled out that 
that is the case where a project, although of a private character, in fact by its very nature and 
by  its  economic  and  social  context  presents  an  overriding  public  interest  and  it  has  been 
shown that there are no alternative solutions. In the light of those criteria, the mere construction of 
infrastructure designed to accommodate a management centre cannot constitute an imperative reason 
of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.’

It may also be helpful to refer to other fields of EU law, where similar concepts appear. 

The ‘imperative requirement’ concept was worked out by the Court as an exception to the principle of 
free movement of goods. Among the imperative requirements which can justify national measures 
restricting freedom of movement, the Court recognised public health and environmental protection, as 
well as the pursuit of legitimate goals of economic and social policy. 

In addition, EU law also recognises the concept of ‘service of general economic interest’, evoked in 
Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, within the framework of the 
exception to the rules of competition envisaged for companies responsible for managing such services. 
In a Communication on services of general interest in Europe62, the Commission, taking account of case 
law on the matter, gave the following definition of services of general economic interest: ‘economic 
activities which deliver outcomes in the overall public good that would not be supplied (or would be 
supplied under different conditions in terms of quality, safety, affordability, equal treatment or universal 
access) by the market without public intervention’. 

Having regard to the structure of the provision, in the specific cases the competent national authorities 
have to make their approval of the plans and projects in question subject to the condition that the 
balance of interests between the conservation objectives of the site affected by those initiatives and 
the above-mentioned imperative reasons weighs in favour of the latter. This should be determined 
according to the following considerations:
a)  There must be an imperative reason for implementing the plan or project;
b)  the public interest must be overriding: it is therefore clear that not every kind of public interest of 
a social or economic nature is sufficient, in particular when seen against the particular weight of the 
interests protected by the Directive (see for instance recital 4, which refers to ‘Community’s natural 
heritage’);

c)  in this context, it seems also reasonable to assume that the public interest can only be overriding if 
it is a long-term interest; short term economic interests or other interests yielding only short-term 
benefits for the society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation 
interests protected by the Directive. 

As  an  example  of  what  are  considered  imperative  reasons  of  overriding  public  interest,  the  Court 
ruled,  in  a  case  concerning  a  large  region  (region  of  Thessaly  in  Greece),  that:  ‘Irrigation  and  the 
supply of drinking water meet, in principle, those conditions and are therefore capable of justifying the 
implementation of a project for the diversion of water in the absence of alternative solutions’ (C-43/10, 
paragraph 122)63.  

62  A Quality Framework for Services of General Interest in Europe, COM(2011) 900 final 20.12.2011.
63  In this context, this does not mean that drinking water supply and irrigation projects can always be justified for imperative reasons of overriding 

public interest.

 
57

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:

– within the framework of actions or policies aiming to protect fundamental values for the 

citizens’ life (health, safety, the environment); 

– within the framework of fundamental policies for the State and the society;
–  within  the  framework  of  carrying  out  activities  of  an  economic  or  social  nature,  fulfilling 

specific obligations of public service. 

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. 

To  provide  readers  with  a  more  precise  indication  of  what  might  legitimately  be  considered  as  potential 
imperative reasons of overriding public interest, examples can be extracted from the Opinions delivered by the 
Commission in the framework of Article 6(4), second sub-paragraph, and the related reasoning given by the 
Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/opinion_en.htm 

5.4. Adopting compensatory measures

5.4.1. What  is  meant  by  ‘compensatory  measures’  and  when  should  they  be 

considered?

The term ‘compensatory measures’ is not defined in the Habitats Directive. Experience would suggest 
the following distinction between compensatory and mitigation measures: 
●  mitigation  measures  in  the  broader  sense,  are  those  measures  that  aim  to  minimise,  or  even 
eliminate,  the  negative  impacts  likely  to  arise  from  the  implementation  of  a  plan  or  project  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 (see section 4.6.5);

●  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).

For instance, an extension of a colliery’s underground coal mining activities into areas which so far have not 
been exploited will cause large scale ground subsidence, accompanied by flooding and increase of ground 
water  levels  with  considerable  impacts  on  all  ecosystems  in  the  area.  To  compensate  for  the  negative 
effects  of  the  project,  land  will  be  selected  following  ecological  criteria  for  the  creation  of  non-priority 
habitat types (beech and oak forests) through re-afforestation or transformation/improvement of existing 
forests. It is also considered to create and improve alluvial forests and restore or optimise riverbeds to 
compensate for the loss of a priority habitat type (alluvial forests with Alnion glutinoso-incanae) and a 
non-priority habitat type (water courses of plain to montane levels with floating vegetation). The measure 
will also help counteract the negative impact of the project on the Lampetra planeri species.

58

Of course, well-designed and implemented mitigation measures may limit the extent of the necessary 
compensatory measures by reducing the residual negative impacts that require compensation.

Compensatory  measures  should  be  additional  to  the  actions  that  are  normal  practice 
under the Habitats and Birds Directives or obligations laid down in EU law. For example, the 
implementation of conservation measures under Article 6(1), or the proposal/designation of a new area 
already inventoried as being of Community importance, constitute ‘normal’ measures for a Member 
State. Thus, compensatory measures should go beyond the normal/standard measures required for the 
designation, protection and management of Natura 2000 sites. 

Another example of compensation relates to a harbour extension leading to the destruction of a roosting 
site for birds and the decrease of low depth inter-tidal mudflats and reedbeds. The recreation of a high 
tide  roosting  site  and  of  shallow  mudflats,  coupled  with  the  habitat  restoration  of  reedbeds  and  wet 
meadows through hydraulic works and with environmental measures for the agricultural use of reedbeds 
and meadows, would compensate for the negative impact caused by the project. 

Consequently,  compensatory  measures  are  not  a  means  to  allow  the  implementation  of  plans  or 
projects while escaping the appropriate assessment obligations under Article 6. It is clear from the 
sequence  of  Article  6(4)  that  they  constitute  the  ‘last  resort’.  They  are  to  be  considered  only 
when a negative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site is ascertained or it cannot be excluded, 
despite all other measures taken to avoid or reduce adverse effects on it, and once it is decided that 
the project/plan should proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and in absence of 
alternative solutions.

The compensatory measures constitute measures specific to a project or plan, 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, nevertheless, a project/plan 
having a negative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site or when such an impact cannot 
be excluded. 

5.4.2. ‘Overall coherence’ of the Natura 2000 network

The  expression  ‘overall  coherence’  appears  in  Article  6(4)  in  the  context  where  a  plan  or  project  is 
allowed to be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and measures are to be 
taken to compensate for the damage. 

It also appears in Article 3(1) which states that Natura 2000 is a ‘coherent European ecological network 
of special areas of conservation’ that shall enable ‘the natural habitats types and the species’ habitats 
concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their 
natural range’. Hence, two different criteria are considered, on the one hand the targeted species and 
habitats in terms of quantity and quality, and on the other hand the role of the site in ensuring the 
adequate geographical distribution in relation to the range. 

Article 3(3) stipulates that ‘where they consider it necessary, Member States shall endeavour to improve 
the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate developing, features 
of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred to in Article 10.’

59

Article 10, which deals more generally with land-use planning and development policy, stipulates that
‘Member  States  shall  endeavour,  where  they  consider  it  necessary,  in  their  land-use 
planning and development policies and, in particular, with a view to improving the ecological 
coherence of the Natura 2000 network, to encourage the features of the landscape which 
are of major importance for wild fauna and flora.
Such  features  are  those  which,  by  virtue  of  their  linear  and  continuous  structure  (such 
as rivers with their banks…) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small 
woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.’

The word ‘ecological’ is used both in Article 3 and Article 10 to explain the nature of the coherence. It is 
obvious that the expression ‘overall coherence’ in Article 6(4) is used in the same meaning.

Having said this, it is clear that the importance of a site to the coherence of the network depends on 
the site’s conservation objectives, on the number and status of the habitats and species for which it 
has been designated, and on its role in securing an adequate geographical distribution in relation to the 
range of the habitats and species concerned.

For instance, if the plan or project will damage an area of a rare habitat type which has a very restricted 
range, which is very hard to recreate and for which the site in question is only one of 10 sites designated 
for that habitat type, the compensatory measures will clearly need to be very substantial if they are to 
be capable of protecting the overall coherence of Natura 2000. If on the other hand, the plan or project 
will damage a habitat for a species (e.g. Triturus cristatus) which has a wide range across the EU, which is 
relatively straightforward to recreate, and for which the site in question has only a minor role to play in its 
conservation, the compensatory measures will be more feasible and much less onerous. 

Article  6(4)  requires  that  the  overall  coherence  of  Natura  2000  is  protected.  Thus,  the  Directive 
presumes that the ‘original’ network has been coherent. If the exception regime is used, the situation 
must be corrected so that the coherence is fully restored. 

With regard to a plan or project, the compensatory measures defined to protect the overall coherence 
of  Natura  2000  network  will  have  to  address  the  criteria  mentioned  above.  This  would  mean  that 
compensation  should  refer  to  the  site’s  conservation  objectives  and  to  the  habitats  and  species 
negatively affected in comparable proportions in terms of number and status. At the same time the 
role played by the site concerned in relation to the bio-geographical distribution has to be replaced 
adequately.

At this stage it would be useful to recall that under the Habitats Directive the selection of a site for the 
Natura 2000 network takes into account:
● 

the habitat(s) and species in proportions (surface areas, populations) described in the Standard 
Data Form;
the location of the site within the respective biogeographical region; and
the selection criteria established by the Habitats Committee and used by the European Topic Centre 
on Biological Diversity to advise the Commission to place a site on the Union list64.

● 
● 

Competent authorities should be looking at these criteria when designing the compensatory measures 
for a project, and should ensure that the measures provide properties and functions comparable to 
those which had justified the selection of the original site. 

64  https://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/chapter6

 
60

The Birds Directive does not provide for biogeographical regions, or selection at EU level. However by 
analogy, it could be considered that the overall coherence of the network is ensured if:
●  compensation fulfils the same purposes that motivated the site’s classification under Article 4(1) 

and 4(2) of the Birds Directive;

●  compensation fulfils the same function along the same migration path; and
● 

the compensation areas are accessible with certainty by the birds usually occurring on the site 
affected by the project.

For instance, if an SPA, whose specific function is to provide resting areas for migratory bird species in 
their  way  towards  the  north,  is  negatively  affected  by  a  project,  the  compensatory  measures  proposed 
should focus on the specific function played by the site. Therefore, compensating with measures that could 
recreate the necessary conditions for resting of the same species in an area outside the migratory path or 
within the migratory path but at some distance, would not be sufficient to ensure the overall coherence of 
the network. In this case, compensation should provide for suitable resting areas for the targeted species 
located correctly in the migratory path so that they will be realistically accessible to the birds which would 
have used the original site affected by the project. 

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. 

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 functionality of the site, its role in the 
geographical distribution and the reasons for its initial selection.

5.4.3. Objective and general content of compensatory measures

The compensatory measures have to ensure that a site continues contributing to the conservation at a 
favourable status of natural habitats types and habitats of species ‘within the biogeographical region 
concerned’, in short, ensure the maintenance of the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. It 
follows from this, that: 
●  as a general principle, a site should not be irreversibly affected by a project before the compensation 
is in place. However, there may be situations where it will not be possible to meet this condition. For 
example, the recreation of a forest habitat would take many years to ensure the same functions 
as the original habitat negatively affected by a project. Therefore, best efforts should be made to 
ensure that compensation is in place beforehand and, in the case this is not fully achievable, the 
competent authorities should consider extra compensation for the interim losses that would occur 
in the meantime;
the  compensation  must  be  additional  to  the  contribution  to  the  Natura  2000  network  that  the 
Member State should have made under the Directives. 

● 

Member  States  should  pay  particular  attention  when  the  negative  effects  of  a  plan  or  project  are 
produced in rare natural habitats types or in natural habitats that need a long period of time to provide 
the same ecological functionality. 

61

While designations of new Natura 2000 sites can be part of a compensation package under Article 
6(4), the designations alone are insufficient without the accompanying management measures. 

In terms of the Birds Directive, compensation might for example include work to improve the biological 
value of an area, which is or will be classified, so that the carrying capacity or the food potential are 
increased  by  a  quantity  corresponding  to  the  loss  on  the  site  affected  by  the  project.  Accordingly, 
the re-creation of a habitat favourable to the bird species concerned is acceptable provided that the 
created site is available at the time when the affected site loses its natural value. 

In terms of the Habitats Directive, the compensation might, similarly, consist of the re-creation of a 
comparable habitat or the biological improvement of a substandard habitat of the same type within an 
existing designated site, or even the addition to the Natura 2000 network of a new site of comparable 
quality to the original site. In the last of these cases one might argue that overall the project would 
result in a net loss for this habitat at Member State level. However, at EU level, a new site would benefit 
from the protection provided for in Article 6, thus contributing to the objectives of the Directive. 

Compensatory measures appropriate or necessary to offset the adverse effects on a Natura 2000 site 
(i.e. in addition to what is already required under the Directives) may consist of: 
●  habitat  improvement  in  existing  sites:  improving  the  remaining  habitat  on  the  site  concerned 
or restoring the habitat on another Natura 2000 site, in proportion to the loss due to the plan 
or project; 

●  habitat re-creation: creating a habitat on a new or enlarged site, to be incorporated into Natura 2000; 

or

●  as described above, and in association with other works, proposing a new site of sufficient quality 
under the Habitats or Birds Directive and establishing/implementing conservation measures for this 
new site. 

The range of compensatory and accompanying measures found in current practice in the EU under the 
Habitats Directive also includes: 
●  species reintroduction; 
●  species recovery and reinforcement, including reinforcement of prey species; 
● 
● 
● 
● 
● 

land purchase; 
rights acquisition; 
reserve creation (including strong restrictions in land use); 
incentives for certain economic activities that sustain key ecological functions; 
reduction in (other) threats, usually to species, either through action on a single source or through 
co-ordinated action on all threat factors (e.g. factors stemming from from space-crowded effects). 

In principle, the result of compensation measures has to be achieved at the time when the damage 
occurs on the site concerned. Under certain circumstances where this cannot be fully achieved, 
overcompensation would be required for the interim losses. 

5.4.4. Key elements to consider in the compensation measures

The  compensatory  measures  under  Article  6(4)  must  address  all  issues,  be  they  technical,  legal  or 
financial, needed to offset the negative effects of a plan or project and to maintain the overall coherence 
of the Natura 2000 network. 

62

The following list provides an overview of elements to consider:
●  Tight coordination and cooperation between Natura 2000 authorities, assessment authorities and 

the proponent of the plan or project.

●  Clear objectives and target values according to the site’s conservation objectives.
●  Description of the compensatory measures, accompanied by a scientifically robust explanation of 
how they will effectively compensate for the negative effects of the plan or project on the species 
and habitats affected in light of the site’s conservation objectives, and how they will ensure that 
the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. 

●  Demonstration of the technical feasibility of the measures in relation to their objectives.
●  Demonstration  of  the  legal  and/or  financial  feasibility  of  the  measures  according  to  the 

timing required.

●  Analysis of suitable locations and acquisition of the rights (purchase, lease...) to the land to be used 

for the compensatory measures.

●  Explanation of the time-frame in which the compensation measures are expected to achieve their 

objectives.

●  Timetable  for  implementation  and  co-ordination  with  the  schedule  for  the  plan  or  project 

implementation.

●  Public information and/or consultation stages.
●  Specific monitoring and reporting schedules based on progress indicators according to the objectives 

of compensation measures.

●  The  financing  programme  approved  during  the  necessary  period  to  guarantee  the  success  of 

the measures. 

5.5.  Criteria for designing compensatory measures

5.5.1. Targeted compensation

Compensatory  measures  under  the  Habitats  Directive  must  be  established  according  to  reference 
conditions that are defined after the description of the integrity of the site likely to be lost or deteriorated, 
and according to the likely significant negative effects that would remain after mitigation. 

Once the integrity of the site likely to be damaged and the actual extent of the damage have been 
identified, the compensatory measures must address these issues specifically, so that the elements of 
integrity contributing to the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network are compensated for in the 
long term. Thus, these measures should be the most appropriate to the type of impact predicted and 
should be focused on objectives and targets clearly addressing the Natura 2000 elements affected. 
They must clearly refer to the structural and functional aspects of the site integrity, and the related 
types of habitats and species populations that are affected. 

This  entails  that  the  compensatory  measures  must  necessarily  consist  of  ecological  measures. 
Therefore, payments to individuals or towards special funds, regardless of whether or not these are 
ultimately allocated to nature conservation projects are not suitable under the Habitats Directive. In 
addition, any secondary or indirect measure that might be proposed to enhance the performance of 
the core compensatory measures must have a clear relationship to the objectives and targets of the 
compensatory measures themselves. 

63

As an example, in designing compensatory measures for species, there is a need to identify: 
● 

the species adversely affected, their total numbers and the proportion of the total population(s) 
that these occur in; 
the principal function(s) of the habitats that will be adversely affected that the species depend on 
e.g. feeding, roosting, etc.; 
the measures needed to compensate for the damage to the habitat functions and species affected 
so that they are restored to a state that reflects the favourable condition of the area affected. 

● 

● 

5.5.2. Effective compensation

The  feasibility  and  effectiveness  of  compensatory  measures  are  critical  to  the  implementation  of 
Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in keeping with the precautionary principle and good practice. In 
ensuring effectiveness, technical feasibility must go hand in hand with the appropriate extent, timing 
and location of the compensatory measures. 

Compensatory  measures  must  be  feasible  and  operational  in  reinstating  the  ecological  conditions 
needed to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. The estimated timescale and any 
maintenance action required to enhance performance should be known and/or foreseen right from the 
start before the measures are rolled out. This must be based on the best scientific knowledge available, 
together with specific investigations for the precise location where the compensatory measures will 
be  implemented.  Measures  for  which  there  is  no  reasonable  guarantee  of  success  should  not  be 
considered under Article 6(4), and the likely success of the compensation scheme should influence the 
final approval of the plan or project in line with the prevention principle. In addition, when it comes to 
deciding between different possibilities for compensation, the most effective options, with the greatest 
chances of success, must be chosen. 

The programme of compensatory measures needs to include detailed monitoring during implementation 
to ensure effectiveness in the long term. Being in the framework of the Natura 2000 network, such 
monitoring should be co-ordinated with, and possibly integrated into monitoring under Article 11 of the 
Habitats Directive. 

Measures showing in practice a low level of effectiveness in contributing to the objectives should be 
modified accordingly. 

5.5.3. Technical feasibility 

According to current knowledge, it is highly unlikely that the ecological structure and function or the 
related habitats and species populations can be reinstated to the status they had before the damage 
by a plan or project. To overcome the intrinsic difficulties standing in the way of full success for the 
ecological conditions, the design of compensatory measures must: 
1)  follow scientific criteria and evaluation in accordance with best scientific knowledge, and
2)  take into account the specific requirements of the ecological features to be reinstated (e.g. soil, 
humidity, exposure, existing threats and other conditions critical to the success of reinstatement). 

The aspects critical to technical feasibility will determine the suitability of the location of compensatory 
measures (spatial feasibility), the appropriate timing and their required extent. 

64

In addition, the choice of particular measures and their design must follow the existing guidance for 
each  particular  practice,  i.e.  habitat  creation,  habitat  restoration,  population  reinforcement,  species 
reintroduction, or any other measure considered in the compensatory programme. 

5.5.4. Extent of compensation

The extent required for the compensatory measures to be effective is directly related to the quantitative 
and qualitative aspects inherent to the elements of integrity (i.e. including structure and functionality 
and their role in the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network) likely to be impaired and to the 
estimated effectiveness of the measures. 

Consequently, compensation ratios are best set on a case-by-case basis and must be initially determined 
in  the  light  of  the  information  from  the  Article  6(3)  appropriate  assessment  and  ensure  ecological 
functionality. The ratios may then be redefined according to the results observed when monitoring the 
effectiveness, and 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 nor their conservation objectives). 

5.5.5. Location of compensatory measures

Compensatory  measures  should  be  located  in  areas  where  they  will  be  most  highest  effective  in 
maintaining the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. This entails a set of pre-conditions 
that any compensatory measure should meet: 
●  The  area  selected  for  compensation  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. 
Furthermore, the area should provide functions comparable to those which had justified selecting 
the original site, particularly regarding adequate geographical distribution. 

●  The area selected for compensation must have – or must be able to develop – the specific features 
attached  to  the  ecological  structure  and  functions,  and  required  by  the  habitats  and  species 
populations. This relates to qualitative aspects like the uniqueness of the assets impaired and 
requires that local ecological conditions be taken into account. 

●  Compensatory measures must not jeopardize the preservation of the integrity of any other Natura 
2000 site contributing to the overall coherence of the network. When carried out on existing Natura 
2000 site(s), the measures must be consistent with the conservation objectives of the site(s) and 
go above the conservation measures established under Article 6(1). Management plans will be a 
useful reference to steer sensible compensation measures.

In addition, 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.

65

However, this is not always possible and a range of priorities should therefore be applied when searching 
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.

New designations forming part of compensation measures must be submitted to the Commission before 
the measures are implemented and before the carrying out of the project but after its authorisation. 
The new designations should be made available to the Commission through the established channels 
and procedures as happens with SCI lists and SPA classifications, and qualify for designation according 
to relevant criteria under the Habitats and Birds directives respectively. 

Best cooperation and coordination shall be ensured by Member States when dealing with the location 
of compensatory measures in the frame of transboundary projects. 

5.5.6. Timing of compensation

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 a tight coordination 
between  the  implementation  of  the  plan  or  project  and  the  implementation  of  the  compensatory 
measures, and relies 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.

 
 
66

5.5.7. Long term implementation

Compensatory measures require that a sound legal and financial basis for long-term implementation 
and for the protection, monitoring and maintenance of the sites be secured before impacts on habitats 
and/or species occur. This could involve:
●  Providing for temporary protection, even if the SCI/SPA status is only granted later.
●  Applying binding enforcement tools at the national level  to ensure  the full  implementation and 
effectiveness of compensation (e.g. linked to the EIA Directive, if applicable, or to the Environmental 
Liability Directive; or linking the plan or project approval to the robustness of the relevant provisions 
for implementing compensatory measures).

●  Applying the necessary legal means in case land or rights purchase is deemed essential for the 
effective implementation of the measures in line with good practice (e.g. standard procedures for 
compulsory purchase on grounds of nature conservation).

●  Establishing  monitoring  programmes  to  ensure  that  the  compensatory  measures  reach  their 
objective  and  are  maintained  over  the  longer  term,  and  if  not,  that  corrective  measures  are 
taken to address this, including objectives, responsible bodies and resource needs, indicators, and 
requirements for reporting to the Commission. This could be best performed by independent bodies 
specifically set up for the purpose and in close coordination and cooperation with the Natura 2000 
authorities.

5.6.  Who bears the cost of the compensation measures?

It appears logical that, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the promoter of a plan or project bears 
the cost of the compensatory measures. It may include it in the total budget submitted to the public 
authorities in the event of co-financing. In that regard, EU funds could, for example, co-finance the 
compensatory measures for transport infrastructure that is part of the TEN (Trans-European Networks) 
and financed from these funds, provided such financial assistance complies with the objectives, rules 
and procedures applicable to the EU fund in question. 

5.7.  Informing the Commission of the compensatory measures

The competent national authorities have to inform the Commission of the compensatory measures 
adopted. Article 6(4) does not specify the form nor the purpose of this information. However, in order to 
facilitate the process the Commission has prepared a standard form65 for supplying it with information 
under Article 6(4). In any case, it is not the Commission’s role either to suggest compensatory measures 
or to validate them scientifically.

The information should enable the Commission to assess the manner in which the adverse effects are 
compensated for, so that the elements of integrity contributing to the overall coherence of the Natura 
2000 network are maintained in the long term. While the national authorities are only specifically obliged 
to communicate the compensatory measures adopted, it may also prove necessary to provide certain 
elements  relating  to  the  studied  alternative  solutions  and  to  the  imperative  reasons  for  overriding 
public interest which have led to the approval of the plan or project, insofar as these elements have 
affected the choice of the compensatory measures. 

65  Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

67

The obligation to inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted – which is set out in 
the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) – has to be fully transposed into national 
law. If that provision, laying down adequate detailed rules concerning information on the compensatory 
measures adopted, is absent from national law, ‘it is not possible to ensure that the second sentence of 
the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) has full effect and attains its objective’ (C-324/01 paragraph 21).

When in the planning process must the Commission be informed about compensatory measures and 
who is responsible for this information? 

In order to allow the Commission to request additional information on the measures taken or to take 
actions in case it considers that the legal requirements of the Directive have not been applied correctly, 
compensatory  measures  should  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  before  they  are  implemented  – 
and, indeed, before the implementation of the plan or project concerned but after its authorisation. 
Compensatory measures should therefore be submitted to the Commission as soon as they have been 
adopted to allow the Commission, within its competence as Guardian of the Treaties, to assess whether 
the provisions of the Directive are being applied correctly. 

As those responsible for the maintenance of the overall coherence of, and updating the information on, 
the Natura 2000 network, the authorities in charge of Natura 2000 in each Member State must play 
an important role in this process. The information should be submitted by the national authority via the 
Permanent Representation of each Member State, as happens with the process for adopting site lists. 

The information about compensatory measures must enable the Commission to assess the manner 
in  which  the  adverse  effects  are  offset,  so  that  the  elements  of  integrity  contributing  to  the 
overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network are maintained in the long term. However, it is not 
the Commission’s role to suggest compensatory measures.

5.8.  What happens with sites hosting priority habitats and/or species? 

The second subparagraph of Article 6(4) provides for a special treatment whenever the plan or project 
concerns a site hosting priority habitats and/or species and will affect these priority habitats and/or 
species. In such cases carrying out the plan or project could be justified only if the evoked imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest concern human health and public safety or overriding beneficial 
consequences for the environment, or if, before granting approval to the plan or project, the Commission 
expresses an opinion on the envisaged initiative. 

In other words, damage to the sites would only be accepted as overruling the fulfilment of the objectives 
of the directive when the specific imperative reasons mentioned above occur or, alternatively, after the 
additional procedural safeguard of an independent appraisal by the Commission. 

This provision raises a number of questions relating to: 
● 
● 

the identification of sites concerned; 
the  interpretation  of  the  concepts  of  human  health,  public  safety  and  the  primary  beneficial 
consequences for the environment; and
the procedure for adopting the Commission’s opinion and the consequences arising from this opinion. 

● 

68

5.8.1. The sites concerned

Article 6(4), second subparagraph, applies when carrying out the plan or project will affect a site hosting 
priority habitats and/or species. In this regard, it would be reasonable to consider that a plan or project:
a)  not affecting, in any manner, a priority habitat/species; or
b)  affecting a habitat/species which has not been taken into account in the selection of a site (‘non-
significant presence’ in the Standard Data Form) should not de facto justify making a site subject 
to this second subparagraph. 

Since the Birds Directive does not rank any species as priority, compensatory measures aiming to offset 
effects on SPAs’ bird populations would never require the Commission’s opinion. 

Article  6(4),  second  subparagraph  may  be  understood  as  applying  to  all  sites  hosting  priority 
habitats and/or species, when these habitats and species are affected.

5.8.2. The  concepts  of  ‘human  health’,  ‘public  safety’  and  ‘primary  beneficial 

consequences for the environment’

Human health, public safety and primary beneficial consequences for the environment constitute the 
most important imperative reasons of overriding public interest. However, like the concept of ‘imperative 
reasons of overriding public interest’ these three categories are not expressly defined. 

As mentioned in section 5.3.2, EU law refers to public health and public safety as reasons justifying 
the adoption of restrictive national measures on the free movement of goods, workers and services, 
as well as on the right of establishment. In addition, the protection of people’s health is one of the 
fundamental aims of EU environment policy. In the same vein, the primary beneficial consequences 
for  the  environment  constitute  a  category  which  must  be  included  in  these  fundamental  aims  of 
environment policy. 

In line with the subsidiarity principle, it is for the competent national authorities to check whether 
such a situation exists. Of course, any such situation is likely to be examined by the Commission 
under its work to monitor the correct application of EU law. 

69

As regards the concept of ‘public safety’, it is useful to refer to the judgement of the Court in case C-57/89 
(‘Leybucht Dykes’). That judgement preceded the adoption of Directive 92/43/EEC and hence Article 6. However, 
it  is  still  relevant,  not  least  because  the  Court’s  approach  influenced  the  drafting  of  Article  6.  At  issue  were 
construction works to reinforce dykes on the North Sea at Leybucht. These works involved reducing the area of an 
SPA. As a matter of general principle, the Court stated that the grounds for such a reduction must correspond to 
a general interest superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the relevant directive. 
In this specific case the Court confirmed that the danger of flooding and the protection of the coast constituted 
sufficiently serious reasons to justify the dyke works and the strengthening of coastal structures as long as the 
measures were kept to a strict minimum.

In a subsequent case (C-43/10 paragraph 128) the Court held that: ‘Where such a project adversely affects the 
integrity of a SCI hosting a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, its implementation may, in principle, 
be justified by grounds linked with the supply of drinking water. In some circumstances, it might be justified by 
reference to beneficial consequences of primary importance which irrigation has for the environment. On the other 
hand, irrigation cannot, in principle, qualify as a consideration relating to human health or public safety, justifying the 
implementation of a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings.’

In case C-504/14 paragraph 77 the Court stated that ‘…the construction of a platform designed to facilitate the 
movement of disabled persons may, in principle, be regarded as having been carried out for imperative reasons of 
overriding public interest relating to human health…’.

The  national  authorities  may  authorize  a  plan  or  project  only  if  the  proof  of  the  existence  of 
the afore mentioned reasons of overriding  public  interest  is  given  and  within the limits within 
which the plan or project in question proves necessary for the fulfilment of the public interest 
in question. 

5.8.3.  The adoption of Commission’s opinion and its consequences

In the case of imperative reasons of overriding public interest other that human health, safety and 
environmental benefits, the prior opinion of the Commission is a necessary procedural step. Article 6(4), 
second subparagraph, does not specify a procedure or the specific contents of such an opinion66. We 
must therefore refer once again to the economy and to the aims pursued by the provision in question. 

The opinion has to cover the assessment of the ecological values which are likely to be affected by the 
plan or project, the relevance of the invoked imperative reasons and the balance of these two opposed 
interests, as well as an evaluation of the compensatory measures. That assessment involves both a 
scientific and economic appraisal as well as an examination of the necessity and proportionality of the 
plan or project with regard to the invoked imperative reason. 

The Commission can assess whether the implementation of the plan or project meets the requirements 
of EU law and, if necessary, initiate the appropriate legal action. 

66  The relevant standard form (at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/ guidance_en.htm) covers also the request for 

a Commission opinion under Article 6(4), second subparagraph.

70

While the Directive does not include a specific deadline for adopting its opinion, the Commission will 
make all necessary efforts to carry out the assessments and issue its opinion as speedily as possible. 

The Commission, in delivering its opinion, should check the balance between the ecological values 
affected and the invoked imperative reasons, and evaluate the compensation measures. 

ANNEX I

Comparison of procedures under Appropriate Assessment (AA), EIA and SEA

AA

EIA

SEA

71

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).

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 for which the site 
was designated). 
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.

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.

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.

72

Who is 
responsible 
for the 
Assessment? 

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.

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 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.

Are the 
public/other 
authorities 
consulted?

Compulsory – consultation of 
the general public before the 
authorisation of the plan of 
project. 

Member States shall ensure 
that the public concerned, 
in particular environmental 
NGOs, can participate early and 
effectively, already at screening, 
in an authorisation procedure 
following an appropriate 
assessment. This involves 
in particular the possibility 
to submit any comments, 
information, analyses or 
opinions that are considered 
relevant to the proposed 
activity. 

Compulsory – consultation 
before adoption of the 
development proposal.

Compulsory – consultation 
before adoption of the plan or 
programme. 

Member States shall 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. 

Member States shall 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.

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. 

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.

73

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 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.

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.

74
74

ANNEX II

Consideration of plans and projects affecting Natura 2000 sites 

Is the Plan or Project (PP) directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the 
site for nature conservation purposes?

i

g
n
n
e
e
r
c
S

t
n
e
m
s
s
e
s
s
A
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

)
4
(
6
e
l
c
i
t
r
A

:

n
o
i
t
a
g
o
r
e
D

NO

Is the PP likely to have significant 
effects on the site?

YES

YES

NO

Assess implications in view of the site’s 
conservation objectives

Assess cumulative and in-combination 
effects with other plans and/or projects

Redesign the 
plan or project

Can it be concluded that the PP will not 
adversely affect the integrity of the site?

YES

Authorisation 
may be granted

NO

YES

Can the negative impacts be removed 
e.g. through mitigation measures?

NO

Authorisation must not be granted

YES

Are there alternative solutions?

NO

Does the site host a priority habitat or species?

NO

YES

Are there imperative reasons of 
overriding public interest?

Are there human health or safety considerations 
or important environmental benefits?

NO

YES

YES

NO

Authorisation 
must not be 
granted

Authorisation may be granted 
provided adequate compensation 
measures are taken. 
Commission is informed

Authorisation may be granted for 
other imperative reasons of overriding 
public interest, following a Commission 
Opinion. Adequate compensation 
measures have to be taken

Source: Commission guidance on Article 6 of the Habitats Directive

 
 
 
ANNEX III

Form for submission of information to the European Commission 
according to Art. 6(4)

75

Member State:  

Date:

Information to the European Commission
according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC)

Documentation sent for:  
                                                                     (Art. 6(4).1)                       (Art. 6(4).2)

□  information 

□  opinion

Competent national authority:

Address:

Contact person:

Tel., fax, e-mail:

Does the notification contain sensitive information? If yes, please specify and justify

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
76

Name of the plan/project:

Promoted by: 

1. PLAN OR PROJECT

Summary of the plan or project having an effect on the site:

Description and location of the elements and actions of the project having potential impacts and identification of 
the areas affected (include maps):

 
77

2. ASSESSMENT OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS67

Name and code of Natura 2000 site(s) affected:

This site is:

□ an SPA under the Birds Directive   □ an SCI/SAC under the Habitats Directive

□ hosting a priority habitat/species
□ priority habitats/species are affected

Site’s conservation objectives and key features contributing to the site integrity:

Habitats  and  species  that  will  be  adversely  affected  (e.g.  indicate  their  representativity,  if  applicable  their 
conservation status according to Article17 on national and biogeographic level and degree of isolation, their roles 
and functions in the site concerned).

Importance of the site for the habitats and species that will be affected (e.g. explain the role of the site within the 
national and biogeographical region and in the coherence of the Natura 2000 network).

Description of adverse effects expected (loss, deterioration, disturbance, direct and indirect effects, etc.); extent of 
the effects (habitat surface and species numbers or areas of occurrence affected by the project); importance and 
magnitude (e.g. considering the affected area or population in relation to the total area and population in the site, 
and possibly in the country) and location (include maps).

Potential cumulative impacts and other impacts likely to arise as a result of the combined action of the plan or 
project under assessment and other plans or projects.

Mitigation measures included in the project (indicate how these will be implemented and how they will avoid or 
reduce negative impacts on the site).

67  NB.: focus on the adverse effects expected on the habitats and species for which the site has been proposed for the Natura 2000 network. 
Include all the information that may be relevant in each case, depending on the impacts identified for the species and habitats affected.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
78

3. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Identification and description of possible alternative solutions, including the zero option (indicate how they were 
identified, procedure, methods)

Evaluation  of  alternatives  considered  and  justification  of  the  alternative  chosen  (reasons  why  the  competent 
national authorities have concluded that there is absence of alternative solutions)

4. IMPERATIVE REASONS OF OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST

79

Reasons to carry out this plan or project in spite of its negative effects

□ Imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or

economic nature (in the absence of priority habitats/species)

□ human health
□ public safety
□ beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment
□ other imperative reasons of overriding public interest 

Description and justification of the reasons and why they are overriding68:

68  A different level of detail may be required depending on whether the notification is submitted for information or for opinion.

80

5. COMPENSATORY MEASURES69

Objectives, target features (habitats and species) and ecological processes/functions to be compensated (reasons, 
why this measures are suitable to compensate the negative effects)

Extent of the compensatory measures (surface areas, population numbers)

Identification and location of compensation areas (including maps)

Former status and conditions in the compensation areas (existing habitats and their status, type of land, existing 
land uses, etc.) 

Expected  results  and  explanation  of  how  the  proposed  measures  will  compensate  the  adverse  effects  on  the 
integrity of the site and will allow preserving the coherence of the Natura 2000 network

Time  schedule  for  the  implementation  of  the  compensatory  measures  (including  long-term  implementation), 
indicating when the expected results will be achieved. 

Methods  and  techniques  proposed  for  the  implementation  of  the  compensatory  measures,  evaluation  of  their 
feasibility and possible effectiveness

Costs and financing of the proposed compensatory measures

Responsibilities for implementation of compensatory measures

Monitoring  of  the  compensatory  measures,  where  envisaged  (e.g.  if  there  are  uncertainties  concerning  the 
effectiveness of the measures), assessment of results and follow-up

69  A different level of detail may be required depending on whether the notification is submitted for information or for opinion. 

82