Maintain or Restore Objectives - guidance for Habitats Regulations Appraisals (HRA)

Using ‘New style’ Conservation Objectives in the Conservation Advice Packages

This note should be read alongside the European sites Casework guidance (currently being updated - July 2021).

The Conservation Advice Packages (CAPs) for SACs include revised conservation objectives that have been written to comply with EU guidance and discussions with the Commission.  Objectives are better targeted for each feature on each SAC and include supplementary advice for each headline objective.  They also include either ‘maintain’ or ‘restore’ objectives.

Maintain/restore

The decision on whether maintain or restore objectives are necessary for a feature has been determined by whether it is in favourable or unfavourable condition at a site level.  Generally speaking, if a feature is unfavourable, objectives have been set to restore whatever element has caused this assessment – for example objectives for a habitat may be to maintain its extent but to restore its structure and function, and/or the distribution of its typical species.

In addition to the feature-specific objectives (2a, b & c), there are overarching objectives (1 & 2) for the whole SAC.  Objective 2 is related to site integrity. Site integrity is defined in SG Circular 6/95 as "the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified". In the CAP documents, if any feature of the SAC is in unfavourable condition, the integrity of the site is deemed to be compromised and the overarching objective is therefore to restore site integrity.

Conservation objectives are in place to protect the qualifying features of the site and to help assess the potential impacts of plans and projects.  With the ‘new style’ conservation objectives it is not expected that plans or projects must include measures that lead to restoration of features (where restore objectives are in place) in order to gain approval from a competent authority.  Instead, as the supplementary advice for Objective 2 makes clear, a plan or project should not prevent site integrity from being able to be restored where necessary.  This means that a plan or project should not prevent a feature from being able to be restored.

Therefore we need to change our thinking when assessing effects on site integrity.  We cannot say that if the conservation objectives are met the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, particularly if the objectives are to restore the feature(s) and site integrity.  Instead, Habitats Regulations Appraisals (including our own appraisals of cases we are consulted over) should focus on and consider if the plan or project is likely to undermine the conservation objectives of the site. The Waddenzee ruling clarifies that a plan or project that is likely to undermine the conservation objectives is likely to have a significant effect on the site.  This includes the particular characteristics and environmental conditions of the site.  The first Sweetman ruling goes on to clarify that if a plan or project prevents the long-term preservation of these characteristics that led to the presence of the site’s features, there will be an adverse effect on site integrity.

Information to help inform this appraisal can be found in the supplementary advice for each conservation objective.  Data from Site Condition Monitoring includes information on the pressures affecting features and the introductory section of the documents refers to these pressures and why features are in unfavourable condition.

In summary:

• Restore objectives have been set where features are in unfavourable condition.
• Site integrity is deemed to be compromised where features are not all in favourable condition.
• Plans or projects are not expected to restore features in order to avoid adverse effects on site integrity.  Instead a plan or project cannot prevent restoration in order to be able to proceed.
• This means that we must show that a plan or project does not undermine the conservation objectives in order to conclude there is no adverse effect on site integrity.

Protected Areas & Nature Reserves

May 2021

Example of habitat conservation objectives:

1. To ensure that the qualifying features of [Insert Name] SAC are in favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status

Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) is considered at a European biogeographic level.  When determining whether management measures may be required to ensure that the conservation objectives for this site are achieved, the focus should be on maintaining or restoring the contribution that this site makes to FCS.

When carrying out appraisals of plans and projects against these conservation objectives, it is not necessary to understand the status of the feature in other SACs in this biogeographic region.  The purpose of the appraisal should be to understand whether the integrity of the site (see objective 2) would be maintained.  If this is the case then its contribution to FCS across the Atlantic Biogeographic Region will continue to be met. Further details on how these appraisals should be carried out in relation to maintaining site integrity is provided by objective 2 (including parts a, b and c).  If broader information on the feature is available then it should be used to provide context to the site-based appraisal.

Note that “appropriate” within this part of the conservation objectives is included to indicate that the contribution to FCS varies from site to site and feature to feature.

2.  To ensure that the integrity of [Insert Name] SAC is [maintained or restored] by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qualifying feature

The aim at this SAC is to [maintain or restore] the features in a favourable condition as a contribution to their wider conservation status. Therefore any impacts to the objectives shown in 2a, 2b, or 2c below must not persist so that they prevent the achievement of this overall aim.

When carrying out appraisals of plans or projects the focus should be on [maintaining/restoring] site integrity, specifically by meeting the objectives outlined in 2a, 2b and 2c. If these are met then site integrity will be [maintained/restored]. Note that not all of these will be relevant for every activity being considered. Any impacts on the objectives shown in 2a, 2b or 2c below must not persist so that they prevent the [maintenance/restoration] of site integrity. Temporary impacts on these objectives resulting from plans or projects can only be permitted where they do not prevent the ability of a feature to recover and there is certainty that the features will be able to quickly recover.

This objective recognises that the qualifying habitat is exposed to a wide range of drivers of change. Some of these are natural and are not a direct result of human influences.  Such changes in the habitats’ extent, distribution or condition within the site which are brought about by natural processes, directly or indirectly, are normally considered compatible with the site’s conservation objectives.  [An exception to this is when the favourable condition of a habitat is dependent on halting or managing natural succession.] An assessment of whether a change is natural or anthropogenic, or a combination of both, will need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

2a.  Maintain/Restore the extent and distribution of the habitat within the site

Site specific supplementary advice to be entered here

 

2b.  Maintain/Restore the structure, function and supporting processes of the habitat

Site specific supplementary advice to be entered here

 

2c.  Maintain/Restore the distribution and viability of typical species of the

Site specific supplementary advice to be entered here