Natura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

Natura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice Tara Söderman ⁎ Finnish Environment Institute, Research Programme for Environmental Policy, Findland

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 17 January 2008 Received in revised form 3 March 2008 Accepted 16 April 2008 Available online 10 June 2008

A B S T R A C T The EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC requires impact assessments called Appropriate Assessments (AA) for plans and projects probably having adverse effects on the sites of European ecological importance, Natura 2000 sites. Seventy-three Appropriate Assessment reports and seventy official opinions given on them by regional environmental authorities from 1997 to 2005 were reviewed. The findings of the study demonstrate typical shortcomings of ecological impact assessment: a weak information basis for assessment outcomes and lack of proper cumulative impact assessment with respect to ecological structures and processes. The quality of reporting has improved over time with respect to direct impacts on individual habitat types and species and detailed mitigation measures. Regional environment centres considered one fifth of the AA reports to be inadequate because of lacking data. In most cases the regional environment centres demanded a change of plan or project, added mitigation measures, choice of only one alternative for further planning or a new completed assessment with additional information in order to be able to evaluate the significance of the effects. The study underlines the need for iterative planning practices in which the preparation of a plan or project with alternative options goes hand in hand with the impact assessment equipped with sufficient data. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Habitats Directive (CEC, 1992) contributes towards ensuring biodiversity by providing legal protection for habitats and species with European importance through an EU-wide network of sites, the Natura 2000 network. The network comprises special areas of conservation (SACs) designated by Member states and special protection areas (SPAs) protected by the Birds Directive (CEC, 1979). Before the SACs are officially designated by a member state they are called sites of community importance (SCIs). After the first proposal for the Finnish Natura 2000 sites in 1998, several additions were made and in 2005 the EU accepted the final sites. The Finnish Natura 2000 network consists of 1,632 sites which cover ca. 15% of the overall Finnish territorial area (Ministry of the Environment, 2007). The Directive requires decision-making tests including impact assessment for plans or projects affecting these sites. The tests are called Appropriate Assessments (AA) and they concern projects and plans which, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, are likely to have significant negative effects on a Natura 2000 site(s). These tests have been obligatory in Finland since the first proposal for sites in 1988. The Finnish Nature Conservation Act (1996, sections 65 and 66) follows quite literally Articles 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive. In practice the AA process includes screening, scoping, assessment and ⁎ Tel.: +358 400 148 693; fax: +358 20 490 2791. E-mail address: tarja.soderman@ymparisto.fi. 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.04.001

AA reporting. Reporting includes documenting the assessment process and concluding whether the plan or project affect the integrity of the site. In addition, the Finnish Nature Conservation Act requires that the authority in charge of granting the permit or approving the plan must request from the regional environment centre an official opinion on the AA report regarding the adequacy of the report and the significance of the impacts. The 13 regional environment centres in Finland are the governmental regional authorities responsible for environmental issues. Their opinion must be given within 6 months from the date of the request. Only after receiving the opinion can an authority granting a permit or an approval accept or reject the plan or project. Thus, in Finland the AA process is composed of two stages. If the AA report and opinion reach the same conclusion, it cannot be deviated from. If on the other hand they differ, the decision-making authority can use its discretion concerning which one of them it considers to be correct (Nordberg, 2001). If EIA is applied to a project, an AA is a part of the procedure (Act of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, 1994). AA is also one trigger to SEA application and the Environmental report must discuss the problems connected to Natura 2000 sites. Pölönen (2006) demonstrated that assessment findings do not filter into decisionmaking, and that the completeness of EIA reporting cannot be legally challenged. Unlike in the EIA (Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, 1994; CEC, 1997) and SEA (CEC, 2001), where only the assessment findings must be taken into account, in AA there is a direct precondition to decision-making: according to the precautionary

80

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

principle, approval cannot be granted if the results of the AA show significant negative impacts. In other words AA must explicitly ascertain with evidence that no significant adverse effects will be caused. However, the scope of assessment is narrower than in EIA and SEA, where all aspects of the environment are considered. The Habitats Directive requires assessment of the impacts on the site's integrity. The integrity of a site is interpreted in the European Commission guidance (2000) as “the coherence of the site's ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex habitats and/or populations of the species for which the site is or will be classified”. Therefore, the integrity depends on the ecological processes and environmental conditions affecting them. Commission guidance also stresses that “it is important to take into account a range of factors, including the possibility of effects manifesting themselves in the short, medium and long-term.” “Long-term” must be considered as being at least 30–50 years (Nordberg, 2001). This judgment of effects on integrity of the site(s) requires substantial ecological expertise, data and reporting for the basis of decision-making. The Habitat Directive promotes hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and compensation. The aim of the AA process is to avoid or mitigate negative impacts so that the plan or project can proceed without harming the Natura 2000 site(s). Nevertheless, despite negative assessment findings, a plan or project can proceed if there are no alternatives and if imperative reasons for overriding public interest exist. In such cases the negative effects must be compensated (European Commission, 2007). The demonstration of these reasons and the non-existence of alternatives is a complex, time-consuming legal process with expensive compensatory measures. To date, no plans or projects in Finland have been approved this way. In the case of plans possible alternatives are endless because they can be drawn for any administrative region. In the case of projects there are also many alternatives, although it has been considered that the alternatives of individual projects should be found within the same economic region which the planned project is meant to serve (Nordberg, 2001, 2007). In addition to the guidance given by the European Commission (2000, 2001), in Finland as in other EU member states (e.g. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing of the Federal republic of Germany, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006) additional guidance aimed at national authorities, project proponents and consultants (Söderman, 2003) have been published to carry out AAs. The quality of treating biodiversity issues in EIA and SEA has been studied widely (e.g. Atkinson et al., 2000; Byron et al., 2000; Geneletti, 2002, 2006; Gontier et al., 2006; Jong et al., 2004; Kolhoff and Slooweg, 2005; Mandelik et al., 2005a,b; Lee, 2005; Rajvanshi, 2001; Thompson et al., 1997; Treweek et al., 1993; Tanaka, 2001; Söderman, 2005, 2006; Uprety 2005), and both national and international guidance have been given (e.g. CBD, 2002, 2006; Countryside Council for Wales et al., 2004; Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006; Slootweg et al., 2006; Söderman, 2003). The studies demonstrate that generally the treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assessment has been superficial and the connection between baseline data and impact prediction has not been working. Also identification of the study area has been done on a nonecological basis, fragmentation and barrier effects have been ignored and only direct, descriptive impacts have been addressed. In addition, application of the precautionary principle has been vague. The hierarchy from avoidance to mitigation has not been fully applied because alternative solutions in the starting phase of the assessment have not been considered sufficiently. Furthermore, cumulative impacts have been almost totally ignored (Atkinson et al., 2001; Bismar, 2004; Cooper and Sheate, 2002; Wood et al,. 2006; Piper, 2001). This study aims to determine whether these problems characterize the AA process as well, or do the strong emphasis on the precautionary principle and impact accumulation, strict linkage between decision-making and assessment and specific conservation objectives steer ecological impact assessment to be more in-depth.

The main goals were to examine how the Finnish AA process meets the requirements of the Habitats Directive regarding AAs and to propose recommendations to improve the assessment process. 2. Methods The methodology used in this study consists of the following six steps, explained in more detail below: 1. Collection of AA reports and opinions given on them during the period 1997–2005 2. Identification of information provided in assessment reports in eight categories: description of the plan's or project's (PP's) likelihood to cause significant effects on the Natura 2000 site, plan or project, the site likely to affected, impacts on the site(s), other plans and projects, alternative solutions, mitigation and monitoring and map presentations 3. Collection of data from the reports 4. Analysis of the data based on review questions and calculation of quality indices 5. Examination of the views given on report adequacy by authorities 6. Comparing views given in the reports and authority views on the significance of the impacts. The regional environment centres were asked to send all AA reports which were on their records or on which they had given an opinion between 1997 and 2005. Because the centres do not have a legal obligation to file AA reports and opinions, there could be reports that were not sent. In addition, one environment centre did not send any material at all. The delivered reports were divided into two periods, 1997–early 2001 and late 2001–2005. The first period covered 22 AA reports and 20 opinions and covered both the same and different plans and projects. The second period covered 51 AA reports and 50 opinions and in 50 cases of this period the AA reports and opinions covered exactly the same plans and projects. Hence in these 50 cases it was possible to compare AA reports and opinions with each other. Land use plans accounted for 37% of the studied AA reports and 63% dealt with the project-level impacts. The plans were general master plans or detailed master plans. Only 3 plans concerned more than one municipality. Thus the level of assessment was quite detailed. Factors needed to be taken into account in determining whether a plan or project will have adverse effects on a Natura 2000 site(s) were considered based on the guidance and international and national experiences described earlier in the introduction. The first factor is the explanation of the reasons or triggers for the assessment, viz. why impacts are considered likely including e.g. the magnitude of the project, its duration, and sensitivity of the ecological features. The second factor is a more detailed description of the plan and its environmental stress affecting the site. The third factor is the description of the site and its conservation objectives including the natural habitats listed in Annex I and animal and plant species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive, Annex I species and regularly occurring migratory species of Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive. This description should emphasize the ecological requirements of these natural habitats and bird species. The fourth factor is the impact description on species and habitat type levels and as a whole ecological unit meaning ecological structures and processes, and the description of the used impact prediction methods. The fifth factor is the consideration of other plans and projects which may have cumulative effects with the proposed plan or project and their impacts. The sixth factor is the consideration of alternative solutions including impact assessment of several options to carry out a project or realise objectives of a plan. The seventh factor are mitigation and monitoring of the impacts. The final conclusion of the effects and their significance should be described after proposed mitigation measures.

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

81

expressed their views on the adequacy on the AA report. The given rationale for regarding an AA report as adequate or inadequate was analysed. The views were also compared to the calculated indices in order to estimate what quality is regarded by the authorities as adequate. Evaluation of the significance of the impacts of the proposed activity is the final and the most important stage of the assessment. Views of the 50 AA reports and opinions given on them were compared in order to determine the number of cases in which the AA reports and the opinions concerning the significance of the adverse impacts were unanimous. The given rationale for the significance of impacts was also analysed. 3. Findings of the study

Fig. 1. Regional environment centres and their codes.

The description of monitoring should include how the plan or project organisation will monitor effectiveness of the mitigation measures and act on non-foreseeable impacts. Map presentations were examined as the eighth factor because localization of the plan or project activities, areas of habitat type and species occurrences and possible impacts expose the level of detail of the information used in the assessment. In addition, the map presentations are essential instruments to pass assessment results to decision-makers. The review questions are listed in Appendix A. Data of the AA reports was collected regarding these factors on the basis of 45 review questions rather similar to those used in Finnish EIA review (described in Söderman, 2005), with modifications to represent issues emphasized by the Habitats Directive, e.g. specific conservation objectives and integrity of the site(s). A simple semiquantitative method of evaluating quality of impact assessment developed by Atkinson et al. (2000) was used to give the AA reports summed quality grades which are referred to as Natura-indices. Using this method, indices are calculated as an average score based on the review scores given to the treatment of questions. The scores can be triangular: the question is addressed in a report 1) satisfactorily to a level that would allow most decision-makers to understand confidently the ramifications of the plan or project, 2) only partially, so that most decision-makers would probably be unsure or unclear about the ramifications or 3) not addressed at all. The index can vary from 0.0 to 1.0 so that a high index represents a report of high quality. This scoring system is somewhat subjective and depends on the set criteria and the reviewer's expectations concerning a satisfactory treatment of issues. However, it has been regarded an acceptable method for comparing assessment reports (Atkinson et al., 2000; Carrasco et al., 2006). The appropriateness of the AA is much defined by its form and content. According to the Habitats Directive (CEC, 1992) and Nature Conservation Act (1996) the responsibility for providing information on the potential impact of a plan or project rests with the project developer or planning authority. The provisional appraisal is made by the regional environmental centre and the final appraisal by the responsible authority. The opinions of the regional environment centres were examined in order to conclude whether they have

The number of reports varied considerably between regional environment centres (Fig. 1, Table 1). The high number of reports in the most southern and populated part of Finland, Uusimaa was expected but otherwise the wide differences between centres may depend on different practices of screening an AA. Two different Natura-indices were calculated for both time periods. The broader index (NI 45) covered all 45 review questions and the more concise index 21 essential review questions. The average NI(21) for all reports was 0.44 in 1997–2001 and 0.48 in 2001–2005. The average NI (45) was 0.29 in 1997–2001 and 0.38 in 2001–2005. Thus the quality of reporting improved to some extent over time. The changes are more distinct between groups of different report quality if AA reports are divided in four groups: deficient (NI b 0.2), poor (NI ≥ 0.2 b 0.5), moderate (NI ≥ 0.5 b 0.7) and high quality (NI ≥ 0.7). The percentage of very inadequate reports has decreased and correspondingly the percentage of high quality reports has increased (Fig. 2). Especially the number of addressed issues has grown and more explanations and background information is given in recent documents. The quality of AA reports was considerably better in plans than in projects (Fig. 3). The comparison based on data from 2001 to 2005 revealed that the bulk of project AAs are below moderate quality both in treatment of the most important issues (63%) and of all issues (83%). This suggests that the improvement is due solely to the improvement of plan AAs. The quality of project AAs may have even deteriorated. The number of pages and the year of reporting were compared to the NI indices. Although some improvement was observed when comparing averages of the two periods, it was noted that the quality of the report was not very dependent on the year of preparation. In both review periods, both poor and good quality reports had been prepared and no clear trend of improvement was observed. The page number of AA reports varied from 2 to 107 pages and the most common length was 10–20 pages (30%). Only 7% covered more than 50 pages. A very brief AA report covering less than 5 pages including map presentations

Table 1 Number of received AA documents from regional environment centres 1997–2005 Code and region

Number of AA reports from 1997 to 2005

1. Uusimaa 2. Southwest Finland 3. Häme 4. Pirkanmaa 5. Southeast Finland 6. South Savo 7. North Savo 8. North Karelia 9. Central Finland 10 West Finland 11. North Ostrobothnia 12. Kainuu 13. Lapland

13 No data 5 6 No AAs executed 2 2 8 18 6 7 4 2

82

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

Fig. 2. Quality of treatment of issues in AA reports in 1997–2001 and 2001–2005.

did not usually achieve a score be of moderate quality in addressing the most important issues (Fig. 4). In the years 1997–2001 the best addressed issues, satisfactorily described in over 50% of the reports, were the environmental stress caused by the plan or project, ecological requirements of the conservation objectives, use of ecological expertise, data sources, qualitative description of direct impacts, impacts on individual habitat types and reasons for significant or insignificant deterioration of habitat types or species, proposals for mitigation and delineation of the project site or plan area on a map. The most poorly treated issue was cumulative impacts, which were mentioned only in 15% of the AA reports. Other severe deficits were reporting of reasons for carrying out the whole AA process and understanding of overall integrity including ecological structures and processes. Ecological requirements of individual species, e.g. their sensitivity to disturbances, were treated, although environmental features to maintain ecological processes affecting the habitat types and broader ecosystem components (e.g. groundwater levels affecting habitat types or species– habitats relationships) were addressed only rarely. Furthermore, indirect long-term impacts were treated superficially. The mitigation measures were mentioned but not described, i.e. planned in any detail. The plan or project site was localized on a map in most (69%) reports, whereas habitat types and habitat of the species were

localized satisfactorily only in 30–40% of the reports. This, compounded with the fact that there were very few field visits lasting more than 5 days (22%), suggests that the data basis for assessment was not sufficient. The emphasis in the treatment of the issues in 2001–2005 was very similar. The most satisfactorily handled issues were the same, but some progress was noted. The plan or project was described in more detail. In addition to habitat types, impacts on species were treated satisfactorily in over 50% of the reports of this period. The most poorly treated issues were still indirect and cumulative impacts, although some improvements were noted. Whereas in 1997– 2001 only 12% of the assessments made cursory attempts to describe cumulative impacts, 29% in 1997–2001 managed to treat them at some general level and in 19% this treatment was considered satisfactory. Description of the mitigation measures also improved. Earlier none of the reports described mitigation measures satisfactorily in detail and 70% did not address them at all, but 22% of the reports in 2001–2005 treated them satisfactorily and 38% provided some detailed information on mitigation measures. The most severe deficit was still the lack of verified data. In 2001– 2005 the localization of species data on maps deteriorated. Only in 31% of the reports were some species occurrences delineated on maps whereas earlier this proportion was 53%. Furthermore, little field work

Fig. 3. Quality of treatment of issues in AA reports of plans and projects in 2001–2005.

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

Fig. 4. Quality of AA reports in relation to their length.

was carried out. In 2001–2005, 12% of the reports mentioned field studies that lasted more than 5 days and 32% mentioned short field visit lasting one day or a few hours. This suggests that assessments are made on a superficial knowledge base and without knowing exact sites of species and habitats. This impression was strengthened when reviewing the opinions given on the reports in which the regional environment centres paid much of attention to inadequate basic information of the impact assessment. Only one regional level land use plan was reviewed, and no general conclusions can be drawn based on this single case. However, in this case both detailed studies on conservation objectives and mitigation measures were proposed to be studied in specific EIA procedures or in the management plans of the Natura 2000 sites. This is not permitted by the Habitats Directive, but each land use plan must demonstrate that it does not cause significant adverse impacts. The responsibility cannot be delegated to more detailed land use planning phases or other planning instruments. In their opinions of the second period AA reports, the regional environment centres considered 34 reports (68%) as adequate. This number included 5 reports that were completed after a first opinion of inadequacy. The centres considered 11 reports (22%) to be inadequate. This included one report that had been completed twice after the first opinion but was still inadequate because the chosen alternative was regarded as significantly deteriorating the Natura 2000 area. The proponent reached the reverse conclusion but failed to provide sufficient supporting data. In 5 (10%) opinions, the adequacy of the AA report was not reviewed. The most frequent reason for regarding an AA report as inadequate was the absence of data on species and habitats and on factors (e.g. changing water balance and quality) affecting their existence within the Natura 2000 site. When opinions were compared to the calculated quality indices, most regional environment centres considered reports of moderate quality (NI21 ≥ 0.5) to be acceptable and adequate regarding the most important issues (Fig. 5). In broader treatment even lower quality (NI45 ≥ 0.3) was regarded as acceptable. It would appear that regional

Fig. 5. Quality index NI(21) compared to the adequacy of the AA reports as judged by the regional environment centres.

83

Fig. 6. Opinions on impact significance of the regional environment centres compared to the views of the AA reports.

environment centres supervise creditably the compliance of most essential features of AA of the Habitats Directive. The lesser accepted quality in the broader treatment may indicate that the centres do not pay enough attention to additional, explanatory information regarding assessment outcomes. It may however also indicate that the criteria developed for this study are too broad and that decisionmaking is possible with less information. In 86% of the opinions the significance of adverse effects was discussed. In 14% of the opinions where it was not discussed, the reason for this was that the centre regarded the AA report as so incomplete that it did not enable conclusions on the significance. The AA reports did not address the significance in 22% of the cases. The AA reports tended to regard the adverse effects as insignificant more often than did the opinions given on them (Fig. 6). In 35 (70%) of the AA reports the impacts were regarded as non-significant compared to only 17 (35%) of the opinions. In 4 cases (8%) the AA report and the opinion were unanimous on the point of significant adverse impacts. The regional environment centres regarded the adverse impacts as insignificant in 18 (36%) cases if added mitigation proposed by the centre was introduced to the project. Mitigation measures included e.g. working outside the nesting season, removal of certain building plots, buffer zones of certain width, prohibition or licensing of dredging in shore areas and especially changing of status of the reserved areas in land use plans. In some cases the regional environment centres also demanded that one alternative from several options for the land use plan was chosen and other options were discarded. In this way altogether 35 (70%) of the plans or projects were found to be feasible by the regional environment centres, either as such, or with added mitigation. Only 8 (16%) plans or projects were found to be absolutely non-feasible even with added mitigation measures. In 7 (14%) cases the feasibility still remained unclear. 4. Discussion and recommendations The number of AA processes in 1997–2005 per region varied between zero and over 15. This and poorly formulated reasons for carrying out AAs indicate that screening practices vary between different parts of Finland. In published guidance (Söderman, 2003), the developers and land use planners are urged to ask the advice of the regional environment centres in the screening phase of the AA. The findings of this study suggest that this advice may be inconsistent. Therefore, national guidance for AA processes should emphasize more strongly the screening phase. In addition, some coherent – but still flexible for be application in specific planning situations – screening criteria should be created to help regional environment centres to provide consistent guidance. The Finnish AA reports as such do not provide an adequate information basis for well rationalised and transparent decisionmaking. The more focused subjects of assessment, i.e. conservation objectives and integrity of the site, strong emphasis on cumulative

84

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

impacts and close connection to decision-making, did not affect the thoroughness of the report. The results imply that AA suffers from the same problems as ecological impact assessment in general. However, some progress over time was detected in description of the plan or project, impact assessment on the species level and handling of cumulative impacts and detailed mitigation. The information basis for impact assessment was weak in many AA reports. Impacts on conservation objectives were assessed without sufficient knowledge of their exact location and full understanding of integrity and factors supporting the ecological character of the site. This implies that more attention should be paid to the site itself than to the plan or project. In this respect national practices and guidance need some modifications to emphasize a more site-based approach. Wilson et al. (2006) recommend focusing first on features of interest and the integrity of a site in AA. Although only one regional level plan was reviewed in this study, in future regional AAs an analysis of the Natura 2000 sites of the plan area would also facilitate the identification of wider issues and direct and indirect trends affecting Natura 2000 sites, e.g. cross-cutting issues such as increased urbanization, urban sprawl and related automobile dependence causing increasing NOx emissions and climate change. In contrast to Brittish AAs (Venn and Treweek, 2007), this component is currently lacking from Finnish AAs. In addition to regional planning the approach of a wider trend analysis identifying driving forces and environmental pressures should be applied in AAs of local master plans. Site-specific land use allocations may remain undefined until detailed master planning is carried out. The environmental pressures could be e.g. need for larger houses, better transport services, fully fitted out summer cottages with municipal engineering or outdoor recreation. Regardless of the specific requirement of the Habitats Directive to ensure that the impacts of the plan or project are not significant in combination with other projects or plans affecting the same Natura 2000 site(s), cumulative impact assessment remained one of the most deficiently treated issues. Better consideration of cumulative impacts requires more effort in data collecting methods. Especially interauthority and inter-municipal communication in the scoping phase is needed to provide better information, or at least information sources for ecological consultants carrying out baseline studies and impact prediction. It is difficult for an individual consultant to obtain access to authority data without cooperation between the authorities whose activities affect the same site(s). When assessing impacts of individual projects it is even more difficult to gain access to data of other private project developers. For example infrastructure assessment and mitigation of cumulative impacts should be carried out at a regional level and with a more strategic approach (Söderman, 2006) using international principles for the best practice in impact assessment (IAIA, 2004; Treweek et al., 2005), and these assessment results should be transferred to the project planning. The contribution of the regional environment centres is decisive in the Finnish two-staged AA process. This study emphasizes that opinions of the centres strengthen the linkage to decision-making and provide necessary additional support and a quality check based on ecological expertise. The opinions not only improved the quality of the AA reporting, but actually changed the plans and projects. In five cases in which the regional environment centre found the AA report to be inadequate and the assessment was improved or completed, the plan or project was changed or mitigation measures were added so that significant adverse effects could be avoided. However, in one case where AA was carried out in a late stage of planning not even three rounds of assessment could change the fact that the impacts were significantly negative because the preferred option/location of the project had been predetermined. Thus, undertaking AA in a late planning phase on a fully drafted plan or project may lead to a return to the starting point. This underlines the need for iterative planning where the preparation of a plan or project with alternative options goes hand in hand with AA.

The experiences from the other EU Member States are very similar to Finland's (Kunzman et al., 2007). The identification of the significance and compatibility of impacts has been regarded as the most severe problem. However, data collecting methods and initial data sources differ in the Member states as well as methods employed to improve the quality of assessments. Practices vary e.g. in what degree opinions of authorities are included in the assessment process. Nevertheless, the experiences on shortcomings from ecological impact assessment are more or less the same in many EU Member States (e.g. Byron et al., 2000; Geneletti, 2006; Gontier et al., 2006; Treweek et al., 1993) and thus most results of this study are applicable also to the rest of the EU. In addition, guidance is needed to establish criteria for improving assessment methods and developing a more holistic approach to landscape with regard to AAs (Kunzman et al., 2007). New guidance and more consistent AA procedures in screening, scoping and carrying out AAs are also needed in Finland. In particular more information on the AA process itself should be provided for private project planners. This guidance should be flexible enough or fine-tuned separately for e.g. different land use planning levels. The challenge is that AA approaches should pursue the Habitat Directive and its objectives in very different planning contexts: from assessing impacts of broad-brush policies on a number of Natura 2000 sites, to assessing local detailed plans or development projects possibly affecting a single Natura 2000 site. Appendix A. The review questions The 21 most important questions of AA are underlined 1. Consideration of the likelihood of a project or plan (PP) to cause significant effects on a NATURA 2000 site 1. Is the consideration of the PP's likelihood to cause significant effects reported? 2. Description of the plan or project 2. Is the purpose, construction, operation and possible decommissioning of the proposed PP described? 3. Is the size of the proposed PP established? For linear development (e.g. roads and power transmission lines) the length and width should also be indicated. 4. Are the emissions and other environmental stress affecting conservation objectives and other characteristics of the site estimated? 5. Are the emissions and other environmental stress affecting conservation objectives and other characteristics of the site estimated quantitatively? 3. Description of the Natura 2000 site likely to be affected 6. Is the area to be affected by the proposed PP and its relationship to the Natura 2000 site indicated? S/P/N 7. Are the spatial and temporal boundaries of the assessment addressed? 8. Are the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types and species of the site described? 9. Are the specific areas where natural habitat types and species occur inside the Natura 2000 site delineated and described? S/P/N 10. Are the natural habitat types and species of the site addressed quantitatively? 11. Is a qualified ecologist involved in the investigation? 12. Is there evidence of conducted field surveys? 13. If so, are the date, the name of the ecologist and the number of field days indicated? 14. Are the sources of data identified? 15. Are the gaps and limitations of the base data and means to deal with them described? 4. Description of impacts on Natura 2000 site's conservation objectives 16. Are direct impacts described? 17. Are indirect and secondary impacts described?

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

18. Is the time span of the impacts described (short, medium and long-term)? 19. Is the permanence of the impacts described (permanent and temporary)? 20. Are the impacts considered in quantitative terms? 21. Are the impacts considered in qualitative terms? 22. Are the impacts addressed by individual habitat types? 23. Are the impacts addressed by individual species? 24. Is it indicated by habitat types and by species whether the impact is/is not significant? 25. Are the reasons why each habitat type or species is/is not significantly affected given? 26. Are classes of magnitude (e.g. major, moderate, minor) or significance of impacts used? 27. Are the criteria used to classify the impacts by magnitude/ significance explained (or given)? 28. Are the methods/approaches used to identify the impacts and the rationale for using them described? 29. Are GIS-based methods used? 30. Are the effects on the Natura 200 site as a whole (integrity) summarized? 5. Consideration of other plans and projects which may have “in combination” or cumulative effects with the assessed PP 31. Are the spatial and temporal boundaries set to an area within which the other PPs are examined? 32. Is information on other plans and projects concerning the Natura 2000 site reviewed or is it stated that “in combination” or cumulative effects are not likely? 33. Are the “in combination” or cumulative effects of the other PPs with the proposed PP on conservation objectives described cursorily? 34. Are the “in combination” or cumulative effects of the other PPs with the proposed PP on conservation objectives described in detail? 35. Are the gaps and limitations in information to assess “in combination” or cumulative effects addressed? 6. Examination of alternative solutions 36. Are impacts of alternative solutions described and compared with the proposed PP? 37. Are impacts on conservation objectives compared with the probable future conditions in the absence of the PP? 7. Examination of mitigation and monitoring 38. Are mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce or eliminate impacts on the conservation objectives? 39. Are the details how the mitigation measures will be implemented given? 40. Is monitoring of impacts on the conservation objectives proposed? 41. Are details concerning how the monitoring will be implemented given? 8. Map presentations 42. Is the land area taken up by the PP clearly shown on a map? 43. Are the natural habitat types delineated inside the Natura 2000 site? 44. Are the species occurrences/territories delineated inside the Natura 2000 site? 45. Are the impacts presented on the map? References Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure. Statutes of Finland 468/. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice; 1994. Atkinson SF, Bhatia S, Schoolmaster FS, Waller WT. Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(4):271–82. Bismar A. Attention to impact pathways in EISs of large dam projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24(1):59–87.

85

Byron HJ, Treweek JR, Sheate WR, Thompson S. Road developments in the UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between 1993 and 1997. J Environ Plan Manag 2000;43(1):71–97. Carrasco L, Balnk G, Sills EO. Characterizing environmental impact statements for road projects in North Carolina, USA. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2006;24(1):65–76. CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. Further development of guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental-impact-assessment legislation or processes and in strategic impact assessment. CBD Conference of Parties 6 Decision VI/7A, The Hague; 2002. (April). CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment. CBD Conference of Parties 8 Decision VIII/28, Curitiba; 2006 (March). Available at [http://www.cbd.int/convention/result.aspx?id=11042&l0=IMP]. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Council directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Off J 1979:L103 25 April. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J 1992:L206 22 July. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Off J 1997:L073 14 March. Commission of the European Communities (CED). Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment of the effect of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Off J 2001:L197 21 July. Cooper LM, Sheate WR. Cumulative effects assessment: a review of UK environmental impact statesments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22(4):415–39. Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, Environment Agency, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Biodiversity: Guidance for Prationers; 2004. Available at [http://www.english.nature.org.uk/ pubs/publication/PDF/SEAbiodiversityGuide.pdf]. European Commission. DG Environment. Managing Natura 2000 sites, the provisions of article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2000. European Commission. DG Environment. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 site — methodological guidance on the provisions of the Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001. Available at [http:// europa.eu.int/comm./environment/pubs/home.htm]. European Commission, DG Environment. Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC;2007. Available at [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/index_en.htm]. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing of the Federal Republic of Germany. Methodological guideline for impact assessment of transportation infrastructure significantly affecting Natura 2000 site; 2004. Available at [http://www.kifl.de/ english/guidance-and-training.htm]. Geneletti D. Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Neth Georg Stud (NGS 301). Utrecht, Knag; 2002. Geneletti D. Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(3):257–67. Gontier M, Balfors B, Mörtberg U. Biodiversity in environmental assessment — current practice and tools for prediction. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(3):268–86. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Best Practice Principles for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment. Fargo; 2004 [www.iaia.org]. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006); 2006. Available at [http:// www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html]. Jong de J, Oscarsson A, Lundmark G., Hur behandlas biologisk mångfald i MKB? [How biodiversity is treated in EIA?]. Uppsala: Centrum för biologisk mångfald, Sveriges lantbruksunivesitet; 2004. Kolhoff A, Slootweg R. Biodiversity in SEA for spatial plans — experiences from the Netherlands. J Environ Plan Manag 2005;7(2):267–86. Kunzmann K, Kruppa I, Bernotat D, Wende W, Köppel J, editors. European Exchange of Experience on the Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites According to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive(92/43/EEC). Bonn: Bundesamt fur Naturschutz; 2007. Lee SD. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Biological Diversity, conservation in the Korean high-speed railway project. J Environ Plan Manag 2005;7(2):287–98. Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Feitelson E. Planning for biodiversity: the role of ecological impact assessment. Conserv Biol 2005a;19(4):1254–61. Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Feitelson E. Issues and dilemmas in ecological scoping: scientific, procedural and economic perspectives. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2005b;23(1): 55–63. Ministry of the Environment. Nature protection; 2007 [http://www.ymparisto.fi]. Nature Conservation Act. Statutes of Finland 1096/1996. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice; 1996. Nordber L. Recent questions of interpretation concerning Art 6 of the Habitats Directive. Translation of the article published in Ympäristöjuridiikka: Ajankohtaisia luontodirektiivin tulkintakysymyksiä. Ympäristöjuridiikka 2001;4:87–97 Available at http://arkisto.fi/Natura/NordbergArt6.html. Nordberg L. The Vuosaari harbour case: implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in the Vuosaari harbour project. Reciel 2007;16(1):87–103. Piper JM. Assessing the cumulative effects of project clusters: a comparison of process and methods in four UK cases. J Environ Plan Manag 2001;44(3):353–75. Pölönen I. Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(5):481–91. Rajvanshi A. Strategic environmental assessment of the India ecodevelopment project: experiences, prospects and lessons learnt. J Environ Plan Manag 2001;3(3):373–93. Slootweg R, Kolhoff A, Verheem R, Höft R. Biodiversity in EIA & SEA. Commission for Environmental Assessment.Government of the Netherlands; 2006.

86

T. Söderman / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 79–86

Söderman T. Luontoselvitykset ja luontovaikutusten arviointi [Biodiversity impact assessment]. Environment Guide, vol. 109. Helsinki; 2003. Edita. Söderman T. Treatment of biodiversity issues in Finnish environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2005;22(2):87–99. Söderman T. Treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assessment of electricity power transmission lines: A Finnish Case Review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(4): 319–38. Tanaka A. Changing Ecological Assessment and Mitigation in Japan. Built Environ 2001;27(1):35–41. Thompson S, Treweek JR, Thurling DJ. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. J Environ Plan Manag 1997;40(2):157–71. Treweek JR, Thompson S, Veitch N, Japp J. Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements. J Environ Plan Manag 1993;36(3): 295–307. Treweek J, Therivel R, Thompson S, Slater S. Principles for the use of strategic environmental assessment as a tool for promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. J Environ Plan Manag 2005;7(2):173–99.

Uprety BK. Biodiversity consideration in strategic Environmental Assessment: a case study of Nepal Water Plan. J Environ Plan Manag 2005;7(2):247–66. Venn O, Treweek J. Early findings from the Appropriate Assessment of plans required by the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Presentation at the 27th Annual IAIA Conference, June 2007. Korea: Seoul; 2007. Wilson S. Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, Treweek Environmental Consultants, Land Use Consultants. Appropriate assessment of plans; 2006. Available at [http://www.levett-therivel.fsworld.co.uk]. Wood G, Glasson J, Becker J. EIA scoping in England and Wales: practioner approaches, perspectives and constrains. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(3):221–41.

Tarja Soderman is a Senior Researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE. Her work focuses on the integration of biodiversity aspects in environmental impact assessment procedure, strategic impact assessment and land use planning. She is involved in advising, training and developing practices for ecological impact assessment.