Background
The Purpose and Context of the Guidelines
Terminology
Relationship with other Guidance
The Aims of the Ecological Assessment Process
Contents of the Guidance
1.1 The variety of life forms, the ecological roles they perform and the genetic diversity they contain (Wilcox, 19842) - biodiversity - provides the support systems that sustain human existence; it affects the quality of our lives and our standard of living. As the leading professional Institute in the UK for ecologist and environmental managers, IEEM seeks to advance the science and practice of ecology and environmental management for the public benefit in the United Kingdom and internationally, and to further environmentally sustainable management and development. IEEM therefore wishes to improve outcomes for biodiversity by promoting a more scientifically rigorous and transparent approach to Ecological Impact Assessment (hereafter referred to as EcIA). EcIA is ‘the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. If properly implemented, it provides a scientifically defensible approach to ecosystem management’ (Treweek, 1999)1. A common framework for EcIA will help promote better communication and closer cooperation between all ecologists involved in the process.
1.2 EcIA is a key component of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) carried out to meet the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment3, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC4. The statutory instruments that implement these Directives in the UK together with associated guidance are listed in Appendix 8 of Environmental Impact Assessment: guide to procedures5 and can be sourced via the HMSO's web site6 and/or web sites of the UK Government and the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The statutory instruments are particular to each country and to different types of development. Collectively, they are referred to throughout this document as the EIA Regulations. Where an EcIA is undertaken as part of an EIA, it is subject to the relevant EIA Regulations.
1.3 EcIAs can also be undertaken in a wide range of other situations, for example to provide ecological information for applications for changes to agricultural land and forestry, for an application for a consent for which EIA is not required, to guide a development brief or to inform a management plan. This document is intended to provide guidance for these circumstances. However, the assessment method and scope should be fit for the purpose.
1.4 These Guidelines have been developed with the involvement of a wide range of interested parties to establish and set out widely accepted good practice for each stage in the EcIA process.
1.5 They are based on an understanding of the legal requirements of the relevant legislation at the time of publication. However, they are not legally binding and other approaches may be valid and appropriate in some situations. For clarification of the legal requirements, users of these Guidelines should refer to the relevant legislation and case law, and if appropriate seek legal advice.
1.6 Changes in legislation and policies generating a requirement for EcIA, as well as developments in the science, which underpin the assessment process, may necessitate periodic review and revision of these Guidelines.
1.7 The purpose of EcIA is to provide decision-makers with clear and concise information about the likely significant ecological effects associated with a project. Good outcomes for biodiversity depend on input from ecologists at all stages in the decision-making and planning process, from the early design of a project through to its implementation.
1.8 These Guidelines provide practical advice for ecologists involved in EcIA for any type of project in the terrestrial, freshwater and coastal environments to the mean low water mark in the UK. They are intended for everyone involved in the process, whether they are acting as ecologists for:
1.9 Where possible, issues of particular relevance to both different roles and constituent countries of the UK have been identified.
1.10 Whilst these Guidelines look to promote a scientifically rigorous approach, it is important to recognise that EcIA relies on ecologists using their professional judgement. Judgements should be made on the basis of an objective assessment of the best information available. Good communication between ecologists and other professionals involved in the assessment process, together with proponents and relevant specialists will reduce the risk associated with making such judgements. Where limitations are identified, these should be clearly stated and their implications considered. Limitations may include:
1.11 Where there is reasonable doubt, a precautionary approach should be taken.
1.12 Consistent use of terminology is important to avoid ambiguity in EcIA. A glossary of terms has been included to indicate how terminology has been used for the purposes of these Guidelines.
1.13 These Guidelines have been developed to expand upon existing guidance summarised in Box 1. In those circumstances when ecologists are required to fit an assessment into a proscribed format, it is recommended that an explanation is given to relate it to the approach recommended here. An example of how this could be done using Transport Analysis Guidance (Department of Transport) is available separately (see web link in Box 1).
1.14 Those involved in EcIA should seek to obtain the best possible biodiversity outcomes from land use changes. It is important that all interested parties understand the process by which the assessment has been made, and how and by whom any actions needed to deliver biodiversity objectives will be implemented and monitored. Therefore, the EcIA must provide reliable information about, and interpretation of, the ecological implications of any project, from its inception to its operation and, where appropriate, its decommissioning.
Box 1: Selected existing guidance relevant to EcIA
1.15 It is the role of all ecologists involved in EcIA to:
1.16 IEEM endorses the following principles, recommended by the Royal Town Planning Institute18, for optimising the biodiversity outcomes of planning decisions:
| Information: | Obtain sufficient information on the environmental resources and natural processes to assess the impacts of the project. |
| Avoidance: | Consider options that avoid harm to environmental resources or natural processes. |
| Reduction: | Where adverse effects are unavoidable then these should be mitigated either through the design of the project or through measures that can be subsequently guaranteed - for example, through a condition or planning obligation. |
| Compensation: | Where, despite the mitigation proposed, there are significant residual adverse environmental effects these must be offset by appropriate compensatory measures nearby/elsewhere. |
| New Benefits: | Seek to provide net benefits for biodiversity over and above requirements for mitigation or compensation. |
1.17 These principles are applicable to projects requiring consent not only under the Town and Country Planning Act but also other legislation.
1.18 This guidance is structured around the main stages in the EIA process (see Box 2) as these are relevant to most EcIAs, whether or not they are undertaken as part of an EIA. Although described in this staged way, it is important to recognise that EcIA is an iterative process, with early stages (notably project design and scoping) having to be revisited as the assessment proceeds.
1.19 Chapter 2 addresses the task of 'scoping' an EcIA. For projects that may require an EIA, this chapter also outlines ecological considerations that relate to the task of determining whether or not an EIA is required ('screening').
1.20 It may not be appropriate or necessary to study all possible ecological impacts to the same level of detail. Effort must be focused on those features or resources that are sufficiently important to merit more detailed consideration. A clear rationale should be given for deciding which features and resources should be subject to more detailed consideration (a key purpose of scoping), to enable all those involved in the assessment to understand the reasoning behind the scope of investigations. Policy considerations will influence the criteria that will be appropriate for determining the threshold in any particular case.
1.21 Ecological 'valuation', the assigning of values to ecological features and resources, including those that have been designated for their nature conservation interest. This is described in Chapter 3.
1.22 The concept of 'significance' lies at the heart of EcIA and subsequent decision-making. This subject is discussed further in Chapter 4. An EcIA must include a description of the ecologically significant impacts of a project and of how likely they are to occur. This, together with the value of the affected resource or feature, should then be given due consideration; firstly when identifying the need for mitigation and secondly, in determining whether to give consent to a particular project and what conditions or legal obligations should be attached to this consent in order to safeguard ecological interests.
1.23 There are differences in the various criteria currently used for determining whether ecological impacts are significant and decisions are often subjective. This guidance suggests a systematic and consistent approach to determining whether an ecological impact is significant that should help to reduce the need for subjective judgement. In this guidance a significant impact, in ecological terms (whether negative or positive), is defined as an impact on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area.
1.24 Chapter 5 provides advice on 'mitigation', 'compensation' and 'enhancement'. It is important to ensure that any significant residual impacts are clearly identified after taking mitigation into account; in such cases compensation may be necessary.
1.25 Chapter 6 sets out the consequences of a significant impact, in terms of the legal and policy framework within which a decision should be taken by a competent authority.
Box 2: EcIA Process
At the outset of the project the proponent's ecologist should:
The proponent may seek a formal screening opinion from the competent authority concerning the need for EIA under the EIA Regulations.
It is recommended that all ecologists should ensure that scoping:
In relation to EIA, the proponent may seek a formal scoping opinion from the competent authority. In all other cases it is advisable to seek the competent authority's and key consultees' views on the proposed scope of the EcIA (to agree the likely significant effects to be investigated and the assessment methods to be used).
Ideally, the EcIA team (i.e. including the proponent's, competent authority's and other relevant ecologists) will be involved in the following assessment process, which should cover construction, operation and any decommissioning stages of any project:
The surveys and research that are undertaken may indicate that the scope of the assessment should be adjusted and further studies should be undertaken as required.
The final EcIA report or, for EIAs, the Environmental Statement should include, set out clearly, all the ecological information necessary for a decision to be made. Key aspects include:
b In these Guidelines EAP has been used to denote Environmental Management Plans and Environmental Design Management systems
Copyright © IEEM 2006 | Last updated 26-06-06