INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS This assignment is in lieu of an Exam and contains one question which should be answered in full. Font is to be 12 point, line spacing is to be 1.5 lines and paragraph format...

Habitats Directive and Appropriate Assessment
Table of content
1. The Habitats Directive:
The Habitats Directive is the short-name for “Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council” of the European Union concerning the protection of wildlife and natural habitats. The Habitats Directive was introduced in “1992”. It forms part of EU law on nature and incorporates and modifies the Birds Directive. The Directive includes European protected species and other issues, as well as identifying natural areas and specifying how they should be protected. The Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, is a significant contribution to the European community. (Pillai, 2015)
In regulating protected site development, the “Habitats Directive as a benchmark of European Nature Conservation Act produces a triumvirate”. The authority of decision-makers, technical advisors (used generically to refer the decision-makers to those who have expert scientific proof) and the courts is divided. (The habitats directive in its EU environmental law context, n.d.) There are several layers of decision-making that agree to changes in the UK. The first step is general. In other words, the local and national planning policies and plans are designed to provide an outline of a generally appropriate development in each area and that is generally unacceptable. For instance, a local plan may state that “500 households” must be built in a certain area without specifying the exact location, size of house etc. On the basis of the provisions of the Directive, the local and national plans themselves are subject to review. This cycle has a significant effect on the likelihood that a protected environment would be created or affected. (Jones, 2012)
1.1 “Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála”
“Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála” is the first case to be considered. Under this case, the ECJ provides guidance on "adverse impact on the reputation of the site" (i.e. “the second step of the assessment under compliance with Art. 6(3)”). In so-holding, it relies on Waddenzee but offers more instructions on how the Directive works, and what decisions and by whom in connection with projects or plans in or near protected sites need to be made. (Möckel, 2017)
The case concerned the proposed construction of a road scheme for the “N6 Galway City Outer Bypass, affecting 1.5 hectares of limestone”. It will leave the “SCI” (Site of Community Importance a site submitted to the Commission that could eventually become a Special Conservation Area according to the directive on habitats) for a hundred of hectares of this habitat unattached. The problem was whether a very small part of the habitat would be lost entirely.
The Court therefore held that: authorizations for the plan or the project should only be given if the competent authorities-having defined all aspects of the planning or the project-are satisfied that the plan or the project would not have lasting adverse effects on the integrity of the site, in the light of the best available scientific information in the area. There is no reasonable scientific doubt as to whether such effects are not present.
“General Sharpston” addresses in detail the protocol to be followed in the conduct of an assessment in compliance with “Article 6”. The Advocate General stresses, in the understanding of its terms, the importance of the purpose of the Directive. Therefore (whether couched or not specifically in scientific terms) the first question of choice that occurs in making this assessment relates to the particular conservation objectives of the site. Although these will be defined at the time of selection, there are unavoidable variations in the parameters of these goals and their interpretation is needed in the evaluation process.
In fact, the objective is to ensure that the site is "likely to continue to exist in the foreseeable future," with its special conservation structures and functions. This test seems to be a purely scientific judgment on your face once again. But it is obvious that this decision is not susceptible to scientific investigation alone, i.e. the chance that the site has a good preservation status. Rather, it is, in part, a matter of political decision making in the sense that, when assessing both what is meant by probability and how far the foreseeable future extends, different values, including the desire to safeguard the environment and the social benefits of development, have to be weighed against one another. Thus, the complexity of the information and values to be considered when ca
ying out this objective, even if the
oad purpose of the Habits Directive is taken into consideration, means that such a stage is not easy. (Jans, 2000)
1.2 “Briels v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu”
“Briels v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu” is the second point. In this case the “A2 Hertogenbosch-Eindhoven road” was also involved. This is the case. The plan for extending this route would have effects on a “SAC”, a habitat for Molinia meadows, mainly because of increased deposits of nitrogen. The “CJEU” was asked to assess whether the site was not affected by compensatory measures, such as the development of another area of this habitat in the vicinity.
The relevant question was therefore as to whether “Article 6(3) of the habitats Directive” should be interpreted to mean that, in the same site, a region of equal or greater size of the same natural habitat type has an effect on the quality of the site, a plan or project with negative impact on the kind of natural habitat present therein. The Court emphasizes that the Directive has to be "coherent in its entirety." Again, as the driving force behind the interpretive approach, they rely on the conservation goals of the Directive. The Court found that, in its assessment of the project consequences under “Article 6(3)”, the protection measures provided for in a project aimed at compensating for negative effects of the project on the "Natura 2000" site cannot be taken into account. (Diaz, 2001)
This inference is based not least on the fact that the effects of new habitats are very difficult to reliably predict. The reliance of the Court for these judgments on the proof of scientific evidence is evident, and “Sweetman and Waddenzee” reiterate their precautionary approach: 'The evaluation ca
ied out cannot be lacunae and must include full, accurate and final conclusions and findings that can remove any rational scientific doubts.'
There are, therefore, a partial assumption based on the limitations of the available data, that the developments of new habitat should be interpreted as...