01989nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001300041245009000054210006900144260001300213300001200226490000700238520138800245653000701633653001701640653000701657653001501664653001101679653001501690100001701705856004901722       2009                        eng d  a0195925500aNatura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice0 aNatura 2000 appropriate assessment Shortcomings and improvements  cFebruary  a79–860 v293 aThe EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC requires impact assessments called Appropriate Assessments (AA) for plans and projects probably having adverse effects on the sites of European ecological importance, Natura 2000 sites. Seventy-three Appropriate Assessment reports and seventy official opinions given on them by regional environmental authorities from 1997 to 2005 were reviewed. The findings of the study demonstrate typical shortcomings of ecological impact assessment: a weak information basis for assessment outcomes and lack of proper cumulative impact assessment with respect to ecological structures and processes. The quality of reporting has improved over time with respect to direct impacts on individual habitat types and species and detailed mitigation measures. Regional environment centres considered one fifth of the AA reports to be inadequate because of lacking data. In most cases the regional environment centres demanded a change of plan or project, added mitigation measures, choice of only one alternative for further planning or a new completed assessment with additional information in order to be able to evaluate the significance of the effects. The study underlines the need for iterative planning practices in which the preparation of a plan or project with alternative options goes hand in hand with the impact assessment equipped with sufficient data.10aaa10aconservation10aec10aenvironemt10aeurope10anatura20001 aSoderman, T.  uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.04.001