juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks-4a72bec9e95844b3.pdf

This guide, commissioned by the Environmental Board and published by the Stockholm Environment Institute in December 2020, provides instructions for implementing Article 6.4 of the Habitats Directive in Estonia. It details the process for granting exceptions to Natura 2000 assessments when a project or strategic planning document (SPD) is deemed essential for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI/AETP), despite causing adverse effects on a protected site.

• An exception to a Natura assessment is considered when a project or strategic planning document (SPD) cannot avoid adverse effects on a Natura 2000 site, but is deemed essential for 'imperative reasons of public interest' (AETP/IROPI), including social or economic reasons.
• The guide distinguishes between two types of AETP situations: Situation 1 occurs when the activity affects the integrity of a Natura 2000 site but not priority habitat types or species; Situation 2 occurs when priority habitats or species are affected. In Situation 2, the project must specifically improve human health, public safety, or provide significant environmental benefits, or be based on other imperative reasons requiring an opinion from the European Commission.
• Compensatory measures are mandatory to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network and must be implemented before the project or SPD activities begin. These measures are not financial payments but ecological 'good deeds' such as habitat restoration, creation of new habitats, or species reintroduction.
• Compensatory measures must be proportional to the damage, based on scientific data, and ecologically functional. The guide notes that some ecosystems, such as springs or specific geological objects, cannot be artificially recreated or restored, in which case the exception should be denied.
• The process for granting an exception involves a specific sequence: Natura screening, followed by an appropriate assessment. If no alternatives are found, the decision-maker issues an 'interim position' (vaheseisukoht) to stakeholders, explaining the AETP justification and the path toward a compensatory measures plan.
• Between 1997 and 2019, AETP situations in EU member states primarily involved infrastructure projects. Examples include highway construction (7 cases), river deepening (3), airport construction/expansion (2), and port construction/expansion (2).

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks-4a72bec9e95844b3.pdf. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks-4a72bec9e95844b3.pdf. n.d. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks-4a72bec9e95844b3.pdf |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendjuhendloodusdirektiiviart64rakendamiseks4a72bec9e95844b3pdf, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks-4a72bec9e95844b3.pdf}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/juhend-loodusdirektiivi-art-6.4.-rakendamiseks.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }