key issues in ecological impact assessment - iema iema ecia... · key issues in ecological impact...
TRANSCRIPT
Five Key Issues
• EcIA and the role of PEA
• Baseline data collection
• Defining Important Ecological Features
• Cumulative assessment
• Mitigation Hierarchy and No Net Loss
Over-arching theme – proportionality and professional judgement
Participant Poll #1
A. PEA is a short and simple EcIA.
B. PEA is a precursor to EcIA to inform development design and to scope assessments and surveys.
C. PEA is another name for an “extended” Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
D. PEA is all of the above.
What is a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal?
Scoping and Preliminary Ecological Appraisals
• PEA is a precursor to EcIA – typically undertaken before project design freeze
• Appropriate for all scales of development
• PEA reports are typically not suitable to support planning submissions
• Data collected for PEA may be suitable for submission to support planning applications where ecological effects are minor.
• CIEEM’s Guidelines for PEA - Update due in early 2016
Key Issue 1
Determine study objectives and methodologies
Where further surveys and/or
detailed assessments are required,
undertake an Ecological Impact
Assessment.
2nd ed. EcIA guidelines (CIEEM,
2016)
For small scale, low risk sites a
“low impact” EcIA report may
be suitable to support planning
submission.
Design freeze
Produce a PEA report, informing
client of constraints and
opportunities and (where
necessary) recommend further
surveys.
Reports containing
recommendations for further
survey are unlikely to be
sufficient to support a planning
submission.
Design iterations and further survey work
Initial Ecological Site Assessment
Site visit: Describe habitats & species present, potential ecological value and risks
of protected or notable species.
Desk study: Use of aerial images, historical maps and biological records.
Use available information to produce a Baseline Report
Assessment and Review
• Evaluate ecological receptors,
• Determine potential impacts,
• Make initial avoidance, mitigation and enhancement recommendations,
• Describe any further work that is required.
Key Issue 1 – PEA and Scoping
• Ecological reports containing recommendations for further survey or assessment are unlikely to be suitable for planning determination
• Further surveys should only secured by planning conditions in “exceptional circumstances”(BS42020 – Clause 6.4.5 and 9.2.4 and ODPM Circular 06/05 Paragraph 99)
Key Issue 2 - Baseline Data
• Survey standards and guidance
• Reasonable deviations and professional judgement
• How much data is enough?
Survey Guidelines - Bats
Baseline Surveys: Proportionality, Deviations
and Professional Judgement
• Clearly state the actual methods used and the survey effort.
• Document deviations from guidance stating rationale. BCT, 2016 (Section 1.1.3)
• Surveys should be appropriate for purpose intended, follow published good practice but modify these where necessary and state limitations. BS42020 (e.g. clauses 6.2, 6.3, 6.7)
• If methods vary, this should be explained and justified and reliability discussed. CIEEM, 2016 (para 3.11)
Baseline Study - Summary
• Refer to specific guidelines (where available), but remember they are guidance, not rules.
• Design surveys to answer specific questions.
• Competent professionals should justify deviations on ecological grounds.
• Conducting less survey than “minimum reasonable standards” is unlikely to be sufficient
Participant Poll #2
A. Yes. Guidance is clear and consistently interpreted.
B. No. Guidance is not clear, or it is interpreted variably
C. The quality of guidance varies between taxa and could be improved.
Are current survey guidelines clear about the effort required to meet reasonable minimum standards?
Key Issue 3 - Valuation
• CIEEM Approach
• Data limitations & professional opinion
• Consideration of other values
Valuation – CIEEM Approach
• “Important Ecological Features” are those that require further consideration in the EcIA process. It does not mean that other features do not have biodiversity value.
• Geographic context is a useful as a frame of reference for designated sites and where good survey and contextual data exists.
• Geographic context is not a hierarchy, but informs the reader of the scale at which the impact would be observed.
• Avoid conflating species protection and biodiversity valuation.
• Different types of features may be identified: species populations, habitats and sites. Avoid double-counting.
Valuation – Protected Species• Species populations should be assessed based on
distribution, abundance and population trends, not level of protection.
• For instance, badgers are very common and populations increasing. Important because of welfare and legal protection, not biodiversity value.
Valuation – Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital
• EcIA should consider other values and benefits derived from for biodiversity. For instance:
• Supporting services
• Provisioning services
• Regulating services
• Cultural services
• Natural Capital Protocol - an approach that captures the economic value of ecosystem services.
• Ecologists can provide information to support ES or NC assessments.
Valuation – Ecosystem Services
Fruit and nut forests in Kyrgyzstan
Photo Credit: FFI Fungi foraging Blackberry picking
EcIA: other services may be considered as “Important Ecological Features” where a project may affect this service.
Cultural services: enjoyment of bluebell woods in spring
Salmonid fisheries
Participant Poll #3
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not relevant. Ecosystem services assessments should be considered outside the EcIA process.
Would more guidance on how to assess the impacts to ecosystem services in EcIA be welcomed?
Valuation - Summary
• Valuation is only as good as the baseline data
• Professional judgement required
• Statutory protection is different
Key Issue 4 – Cumulative Effects
• Actions or activities that collectively lead to significant effects
• Additive (1+1=2) or synergistic (1+1=3)
• Associated – enabling development under different consents
Cumulative Assessment -Considerations
• Proposals awaiting determination
• Projects granted consent but not constructed
• Refused, but awaiting appeal
• Constructed or in construction – effects not recognised in baseline
• Maybe…developments included in plans and policies
Needs assistance from Planning Consultants, Statutory
Authorities, especially planning authorities, at scoping.
Key Issue 5 - Mitigation
The Mitigation Hierarchy is embedded into UK and global biodiversity policy:
• England - NPPF 2012
• CIEEM – EcIA Guidelines 2016
• IFC PS6
• Cross-sector Biodiversity Initiative – 2015 Guide
• Biodiversity Offsets, e.g. DEFRA Pilot Study and BBOP.
Biodiversity offsets and impact mitigation
The mitigation hierarchy:
Avoid
Reduce, moderate, minimize
Rescue (relocation, translocation)
Repair, reinstate, restore
Compensate/offset
Positive contributions
(Net biodiversity benefit)
Thanks to Martin Hollands and Josh Bishop for slide
Mitigation Hierarchy - Avoidance
• Avoidance is most effective and usually best value
• Requires early engagement between ecologists and design team
• Iterative project design
• Don’t forget to describe avoidance measures in the EcIA, e.g. in an alternatives section, or development description
Mitigation
Drayson, 2014
• EcIA typically overstates the effectiveness of mitigation measures
• More precaution needed
• More detail on mitigation measures implemented and responsibilities
Mitigation
• Poor evidence base for effectiveness
• Poor reporting of limitations in EcIA
• Poor implementation, regulation and compliance checks
• Better monitoring and adaptive management required
• Long-term multi-stakeholder partnerships can be useful
• Plenty of room for improvement!
Biodiversity Offsets
• are measurable conservation outcomes…
• after avoidance, minimization and restoration measures.
• there are limits to what can be offset.
Biodiversity Offsets – DEFRA Pilot
Biodiversity Offsets
• Offsetting is likely to continue to be used in England on a voluntary or case-by-case basis
• Offsetting remains controversial, especially in the NGO sector and with the wider public
• There is a lack of consistency between planning authorities on the use of offsetting
• Offsetting should only be used where the mitigation hierarchy has been rigorously applied
Participant Poll #4
A. Yes, in it’s current form.
B. Yes, but needs to be adapted and the approach strengthened.
C. No.
Do you think that Biodiversity Offsetting has a role project EcIA?
Summary
• CIEEM’s new EcIA Guidelines are part of a suite of new guidance from CIEEM and other organisations.
• Focus on professional competence, judgement, transparency and proportionality.
• Increasing emphasis on ecosystem services.
• Mitigation hierarchy now widely adopted.
• Offsets remain controversial, but use likely to continue.
Acknowledgments: Katherine Drayson, Jo Treweek, Alison Gunn (FFI), Jess Colebrook & Dominic Buffin (SLR), Mike Dean, Sally Hayns (CIEEM) and Josh Fothergill (IEMA)
Bob Edmonds CEnv MCIEEM
SLR Consulting Ltd, Stafford
Thank You