{"projectrec":{"ProID":2132,"StandardTitle":"De habitattoets getoetst","OrigTitle":null,"Acronym":null,"AbstractEnglish":"<u>Knowledge gap target group</u>\r\nAt the end of 2004, media coverage and court judgements gave rise to the notion that article 6 of the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora formed an obstruction for many spatial plans and projects in the Netherlands.\r\n\r\n<u>Research objectives</u>\r\nResearch was carried out to answer the two following central questions:\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>To what extent does the application of article 6 of the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora obstruct the realization of intended activities in or close to Natura 2000 areas? \r\n<li>What lessons can be learned from cases in which the application of area protection law (the Council Directive) ended satisfactorily for the parties concerned?\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<u>Results and products</u>\r\nThe following conclusions can be drawn from this research project:\r\n<ul>\r\n<li<None of the authorities concerned had a full overview of all activities with possible significantly harmful consequences for a Natura 2000 area. It turned out not to be possible to gain insight into the total number of decisions relating to the areas investigated during the research period involving a comparison against article 6 of the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. \r\n<li>The permit requirement did not form any real obstruction for the authorities to grant permission for activities. Not a single permit was refused because the authorities were of the opinion that the activity was incompatible with the ecological value of the area. The case law also demonstrated that a judgement was made only in a very few cases that article 6 of the Council Directive absolutely prohibited a particular activity. \r\n<li>Considerable obstructions and delays occurred for certain activities due to the negligent application of article 6, or due to article 6 not being applied at all. \r\n<li>The quality of 'habitat tests' left rather a lot to be desired in view of the high percentage of suspensions and nullifications due to habitat tests not being carried out in a sufficiently serious manner. \r\n<li>The perception of the quality of the 'habitat test' within the responsible bodies of authority is considerably more positive than reality. \r\n<li>On the basis of the three case studies looked at in greater depth (amongst other things), it appears that the careful implementation of the habitat test and the serious consideration of comments made by third parties could save time, money and bother. \r\n<li>The prevailing topic within the habitat test is the question of whether there are any significant effects for a Natura 2000 area. The 'external effects' in particular brought about many discussions. \r\n<li>Not being able to obtain absolute certainty regarding possible significantly harmful effects does not always form an obstruction for obtaining a permit. \r\n<li>The supervision by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of the direct application of article 6 of the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora has not proved to be simple.","AbstractOtherLang":"<u>Doel</u>\r\nNa enkele rechterlijke uitspraken in 2004 ontstond in de media het beeld dat artikel 6 Habitatrichtlijn vele ruimtelijke plannen en projecten in Nederland zou belemmeren. Doel van het onderzoek is antwoord vinden op de vragen:\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>Heeft de toepassing van artikel 6 Habitatrichtlijn de beoogde activiteiten belemmerd? \r\n<li>Zo ja, wat waren dan de redenen? \r\n<li>Hoe zijn de mogelijke tegenstellingen tussen het beschermingsregime voor Natura 2000-gebieden en de beoogde activiteiten opgelost?\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<u>Werkwijze</u>\r\nHet onderzoek had betrekking op de periode 2000 - voorjaar 2005. Voor die tijd werd art. 6 Habitatrichtlijn vaak niet erkend. Er is een selectie gemaakt van vijf Natura 2000-gebieden, allemaal Vogelrichtlijngebieden (o.a. Westerschelde, Peel en Drontermeer). 49 vergunningen(aanvragen) zijn geanalyseerd op mogelijke schadelijke invloeden. Drie gevallen zijn vervolgens nader onderzocht. Aanvullend is een jurisprudentieanalyse verricht om te ‘controleren’ of de jurisprudentie het beeld bevestigt dat uit de dossiers naar voren kwam.\r\n\r\n<u>Resultaten</u>\r\nEnkele conclusies uit het onderzoek:\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>Geen van de bestuursorganen had een compleet overzicht van alle activiteiten die zijn verricht of aangevraagd met mogelijk schadelijke gevolgen voor een Natura 2000-gebied; \r\n<li>Geen enkele vergunning werd door het bevoegde gezag geweigerd op grond van art. 6 Habitatrichtlijn; \r\n<li>Onzorgvuldige toepassing van de richtlijn werkte belemmerend/vertragend; \r\n<li>Onzorgvuldige toepassing van de habitattoetsen leidde tot veel schorsingen en vernietigingen; \r\n<li>Het toezicht door LNV op de toepassing van art. 6 Habitatrichtlijn is niet eenvoudig gebleken.\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<u>Beleidsaanbevelingen</u>\r\n<ul>\r\n<li>Het zorgvuldig uitvoeren van de habitattoets vermindert het risico op tijdsverlies door beroepsprocedures; \r\n<li>Betrek in een vroeg stadium natuurbelangenorganisaties en derden bij de (voor)toets. Vertraging lijkt daarmee voorkomen te kunnen worden; \r\n<li>Veel vragen rond de toepassing van art. 6 Habitatrichtlijn blijven open, houd daarom de jurisprudentie in de gaten. LNV zou hierin een belangrijke faciliterende rol kunnen spelen met bijvoorbeeld een kennissteunpunt.\r\n</ul>","DateLastModified":{"date":"2024-05-06 10:25:46.257000","timezone_type":1,"timezone":"+00:00"},"ParentProID":null,"BeginYear":2005,"EndYear":2007,"BMonth":1,"EMonth":3,"BeginMonth":"January","EndMonth":"March","OrigTitleLangCode":null,"OrigTitleLangID":null,"OrigTitleLangNL":null,"OrigTitleLang":null,"OtherAbstractLangCode":"nl","OtherAbstractLangID":41,"OtherAbstractLang":"Dutch","OtherAbstractLangNL":"Nederlands","Progress":"Completed","ProgressNL":"Afgelopen","PublicFlag":1,"CheckedFlag":0,"ND":"2007-07-25","UD":"2007-07-25","DMPFlag":0,"Budget":null,"BudgetCurrency":"EUR"},"parent":null,"persons":null,"projects":null,"events":null,"datasets":null,"institutes":[{"instituterec":{"Acronym":"NLP","ProPartID":8365,"PublicFlag":1,"OrigNameLangCode":null,"OrigNameLangID":null,"FullOrigName":null,"Line1":"Postbus 20401","Line2":"2500 EK Den Haag","Line3":null,"Line4":null,"InsID":5987,"FullStandardName":"Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie; Directie Natuur, Landschap & Platteland","Role":"Co-ordinator","RoleID":7,"EncAddress":"Postbus 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag, Netherlands"},"parent":null,"institutes":null,"references":null,"conferences":null,"datasets":null,"persons":[{"Surname":"Dusseldorp","Firstname":null,"Initials":"G.","LeaderFlag":0,"PersID":15294,"Role":null,"RoleID":null,"PastInstitute":0,"BeginDay":null,"BeginMonth":null,"BeginYear":null,"EndDay":null,"EndMonth":null,"EndYear":null}],"pastpers":null,"subpers":null,"projects":null,"urls":null,"pictures":null,"published":null,"affrefs":null,"collections":null,"thesterms":null,"taxterms":null,"geoterms":null,"thestermsFRIS":null,"nXtins":null,"previns":null,"spcols":null,"resmessage":"no id specified","complete":0,"participantrec":null,"peerrevs":null,"urlmaps":null}],"refs":null,"urls":null,"thesterms":[{"ThesaurusTerm":"Habitat (natural)","ThestID":3852,"ThesTypID":1,"ThesType":"ASFA Thesaurus List","OrigThesTerm":"Habitat (natural)","DutchTerm":null,"Code":null}],"taxterms":null,"geoterms":null,"funderids":null,"othtermsFRIS":null,"pictures":[],"spcols":[{"SpColID":27,"SpName":"ScheldeMonitor"}],"resmessage":"","complete":1}