Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
surface water: Floodplains are important as a habitat for
fishes like eel or pike, for
instance. Their abundance may decrease signi
cantly in the absence of natural
fl
ood
dynamics (Krug and Ehlert
2003
, p. 56; Sch
fer
2004
, p. 9). Therefore, recreation
and restoration of wetland areas are important measures which have to be taken to
achieve the good ecological water status (cf. Annex VI part B (vii) WFD). How-
ever, species living outside water bodies like amphibians or
ä
'
water-bound
'
mam-
mals (e.g. beavers) are not in the focus of the WFD.
If the objectives of the WFD are applicable in Natura 2000 sites, Art. 4 para. 1 c)
WFD regulates that Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards
and objectives of the WFD at the latest by 2015, unless otherwise speci
ed in the
Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been
established. Where more than one of the objectives under Art. 4 para. 1 WFD
relates to a given body of water,
(Art. 4 para. 2
WFD). This regulation aims to ensure that eventually more strict regulations of
nature conservation law are not weakened by the WFD.
The legal situation is different if the objectives of the WFD (
“
the most stringent shall apply
”
“
good water status
”
)
and Natura 2000 law (
ict. For this
case, the directives do not regulate any general priority of the objectives of the
WFD or of Natura 2000 law (Fuchs et al.
2010
, p. 100 et seq.; M
“
favourable conservation status
”
) are in con
fl
ö
ckel
2007
, p. 606
et seq.). However, the directives provide instruments how to handle con
icts in the
individual case. The preconditions of these instruments are introduced in the fol-
lowing section.
The objectives of the WFD and Natura 2000 may be in con
fl
ict, for instance, if
the removal of barriers, such as dikes and dams, is necessary to restore the original
(hydromorphological) status of the water body as it is required by the good eco-
logical status (Art. 4 para. 1 WFD). This may cause negative impacts on the
conservation status of Natura 2000 sites, because, for example, secondary biotopes
which are protected by the HD may have developed alongside arti
fl
cially retained
rivers. If the retaining structures are removed to restore river continuity with the aim
to improve ecological water status, this may have negative impacts on the con-
servation status of the protected Natura 2000 site.
The legal instrument to solve such con
icts is the HD Assessment (Art. 6 para. 3
and 4 HD) (Fuchs et al.
2010
, p. 107 et seq.). As designated in Art. 6 para. 3 HD
any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the
Natura 2000 site but likely to have a signi
fl
cant effect thereon shall be subject to
appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site
s con-
servation objectives. The above-mentioned construction measures will regularly be
quali
'
ed as projects in the sense of Art. 6 para. 3 WFD. In spite of a negative
assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solu-
tions, such a project may be approved, if it must nevertheless be carried out
“
for
”
imperative reasons of overriding public interest
. The achievement of the objectives
of Art. 4 WFD may justify an overriding interest and can even be allowed if the
concerned site hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, as it
may have bene
cial consequences of primary importance for the environment (cf.
Art. 6 para. 4 sent. 3 HD). However, the Member State shall take all compensatory
Search WWH ::
Custom Search