Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 269

9.4.4 The EU Habitats Directive
The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) requires all Member States to designate sites
hosting important habitat types and species as Special Areas of Conservation. Together
with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC), it is intended that these sites will form a network of European protected
habitats known as “Natura 2000”. The Habitats Directive is designed to protect the
integrity of this European-wide network of sites, and includes provisions for the
safeguarding of Natura 2000 sites and priority habitats.
In cases in which a project is likely to have a significant impact on a protected site, the
Directive states that there must be an “appropriate assessment of the implications for the
site in view of [its] conservation objectives”. Under the terms of the Directive, consent
can only be granted for such a project if, as a result of this appropriate assessment, either
(a) it is concluded that the integrity of the site will not be adversely affected, or (b) where
an adverse effect is anticipated, there is shown to be an absence of alternative solutions
and imperative reasons of overriding public interest that the project should go ahead. The
overall intention of the Directive is “to prevent the loss of existing priority habitat sites
whenever possible by requiring alternative solutions to be adopted” (Weston & Smith
1999). Projects that have a negative impact on the integrity of a priority habitat, but
which are able to satisfy both the absence of alternatives and overriding-reasons tests, can
go abead. However, in such cases, the developer must provide compensatory measures to
replace the loss of priority habitat. Huggett (2003) discusses the development of such
measures in relation to a range of port-development proposals in the UK.
The tests set out in the Directive are not absolute and require a degree of
interpretation. For example, a literal interpretation of the “absence of alternative
solutions” test could be taken to imply that any alternative that is less damaging to the
protected habitat than the proposed scheme should be selected, regardless of cost or
impacts on other interests. European case law provides some indication as to the
appropriate interpretation of the Directive's tests, and this is reviewed by Weston &
Smith (1999). They conclude that both the “absence of alternatives” and “reasons of
public interest” tests should be interpreted stringently, in view of the intention of the
Directive to provide a significant level of protection to priority habitats. The application
of these tests to the N21 link road proposal is now explored.
9.4.5 Appropriate assessment of the N21 link road proposals
Under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the appropriate assessment of the N21 project
involved a series of sequential tests. These concerned:
• the impact of the scheme on the integrity of the priority habitat;
• the presence or absence of alternative solutions; and
• the existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest that the scheme should
go ahead.
Each of these tests is examined in turn, drawing on the results of the independent study
commissioned by the EC, as reported in Weston & Smith (1999).