1 / 9

Appropriate Assessment practises and reports in Finland

Appropriate Assessment practises and reports in Finland. IAIA’07, Seoul, June 2007 Tarja Söderman Finnish Environment Institute SYKE Nature Division. Appropriate Assessment in Finland. The EU Habitats Directive, Finnish Nature Conservation Act

fergusons
Download Presentation

Appropriate Assessment practises and reports in Finland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Appropriate Assessment practises and reports in Finland IAIA’07, Seoul, June 2007 Tarja Söderman Finnish Environment Institute SYKE Nature Division

  2. Appropriate Assessment in Finland • The EU Habitats Directive, Finnish Nature Conservation Act • AA = assessment of impacts of projects or plans on Natura 2000 sites : - Data on the site’s conservation objectives - Assessment of project’s or plans’s impacts on them -> no significant adverse effects allowed • AA report and an official opinion of a regional environment centre

  3. Review of Finnish AA cases • 22 AA reports (16 projects and 6 plans) and 20 opinions from 1997 – 2001 • 51 AA reports (30 projects and 21 plans) from 2001 – 2005 and 50 opinions • 45 review questions, indices for 45 questions and the 21 most important ones • Comparison of views on singnificance - reports and opinions, consultants, project proponents, planning authorities / nature conservation authorities

  4. Results of the reviews : general quality • Overall quality of AA reports has improved, still not good enough • Changes in quality indices • Improved issues: description of PP, individual habitat types and species, cumulative impacts and and mitigation • No improvement or deterioration: field studies, outlining the habitat types and species habitats on maps -> quality of basic data?

  5. Percentage of the moderate and low quality reports, comparison

  6. Treatment of cumulative ”in addition” impacts of other PPs • Question no 35.Is information on other projects or plans affecting the Natura 2000 site reviewed? • S = satisfactorilyP = partlyN = Not mentioned

  7. Results of 2001-2005 review • Opinions: 68 % of the reports were sufficient/ appropriate, 22 % needed completion, 10 % not stated • 15 % of the suffient reports were already completed at least once • Clear difference between plan and project AAs • Clear difference between initial views on the absence of significant adverse effects- AA reports: 70 % - Opinions: 17 % • After AA process : 70 % of the PPs were feasible, 16 % significant adverse effects, 14 % process still unfinished

  8. Percentage of high, moderate and low quality reports, comparison between plans and projects

  9. Conclusions • AA process reworks projects and plans • Opinions of regional environment centres are crucial • More focus needed on basic data collection, quality control and presentation • Quality of AA process still needs improvement

More Related