cieem 2016 spring conference · ecological impact assessment, ecosystem services assessment and the...
TRANSCRIPT
Ecological Impact Assessment,
Ecosystem Services Assessment
and the interrelationship between
the two
Dr Steven Smith
CIEEM 2016 spring conference
This presentation
– Natural capital and ecosystem services
– EcIA practice, guidance and consideration of ecosystem
services
– ESA internationally: drivers and approach
– What about ESA in the UK?
– Key issues to think about
Natural capital
www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview
Natural capital and ecosystem services
– “Natural capital can be
defined as the stock of our
physical natural assets
(such as soil, forests, water
and biodiversity) which
provide flows of
[ecosystem] services that
benefit people (such as
pollinating crops, natural
hazard protection, climate
regulation or the mental
health benefits of a walk in
the park)”
Types of ecosystem services
Provisioning services –provision of food, water, timber,
and fibre
Regulating services – e.g. regulation of climate, water
quality, air quality and flood risk
Cultural services – opportunities for recreation, tourism, and
cultural development
Supporting services – nutrient cycling, soil formation, and
biodiversity
Habitat for wildlife
Air quality
regulation
Timber
Woodfuel
Recreation
Flood
management
Climate
regulation
Soil
formation
Erosion
regulation
Food
(animals)
Water
quality
Food
(plants)
Landscape
aesthetics
Community
engagement
Community
cohesion
Health and
wellbeing
Habitats typically provide multiple ecosystem services
Valuing and reflecting these values in decision-making
– “Too many of the benefits we derive
from nature are not properly valued.
The value of natural capital is not fully
captured in the prices customers pay,
in the operations of our markets or in
the accounts of government or
business. When nature is undervalued,
bad choices can be made.”
The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (HM
Government, 2011)
Source: Adapted from Potschin, M.B. and Haines-Young, R.H. (2011).
Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in
Physical Geography 2011 35: 575.
Natural capital Ecosystem services Values
Conceptualising value
Values do not necessarily need to be
expressed in monetary terms (and, in
some instances, this is enormously
challenging); however, monetary values
can be incorporated within cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) and monetary values
may have a resonance with decision-
makers that qualitative or quantitative
values do not
Why is this important?
– “The decline in natural capital seen over the last 60 years
will continue into the future, and is likely to accelerate,
unless there is some radical departure from the
approaches of the past.”
Natural Capital Committee (2015). The State of Natural Capital, third report
New and emerging approaches (sufficiently radical?)
– Biodiversity offsetting / no net loss / net gain
– Landscape scale approach to conservation (e.g.
Nature Improvement Areas)
– Natural capital accounting (national, sub-
national and corporate for businesses)
– Market-based approaches, including payments
for ecosystem services (PES)
– Ecosystem-based mitigation (forest and
peatland carbon) and adaptation (e.g. natural
flood management)
– Government’s 25 year environment plan
– Ecosystem services assessment as part of
EIA/ESIA
“We agree with the aims
of the [Natural Capital]
Committee’s
recommendation to
develop a 25 year plan …”
The government’s response to the
Natural Capital Committee’s third
State of Natural Capital report
(September, 2015)
Consideration of ecosystem services in EcIA
– AECOM staff reviewed a series of (non-AECOM)
Preliminary Ecological Appraisals (PEAs), Environmental
Statements (ESs) and Development Consent Order (DCO)
applications downloaded from planning portals and
reviewed for reference to ecosystem services
– In general, ecosystem services not mentioned explicitly;
some reference to wildlife corridor functionality and
maintenance
– Ecosystem services appear to be addressed more clearly
in the marine context, e.g. value of commercial fisheries
EcIA guidance
– “EcIA can provide ecological information to
support the assessment of ecosystem
services. It is important to recognise cases
where ecosystem service provision might
be affected as a result of a project’s
ecological effects. However, assessment of
ecosystem services relies on separate
specialist assessments of social and
economic value. Ecologists can work
together with other specialists to ensure that
relevant data is collected during the EcIA
process to inform these separate
assessments. This can enable the social
and economic implications of ecological
changes to be taken into account.”
Indicates that EcIA should
perhaps identify instances
where a project’s ecological
impacts might undermine
ecosystem service provision
(e.g. pollination services); do
EcIAs routinely take this
additional step in terms of
analysis?
Indicates the need for early
collaboration between ecologists
and economists, social scientists
and others at the scoping stage
(or perhaps earlier at screening)
Implies two separate but related
processes, EcIA and ESA
Important ecological features
– “One of the key challenges in EcIA is to
decide which ecological features
(habitats, species, ecosystems and
their functions/processes) are
important and should be subject to
detailed assessment.”
– Is the identification of ‘ecosystems and
their function/processes’ a means to
facilitate ESA?
What’s driving ESA internationally?
– “The IFC Performance Standards are the
leading benchmark for CSR and sustainable
business practices on a global level. They are
especially important in key emerging markets.
More and more, the Performance Standards are
part of investment agreements and financing
contracts. For companies, this means that
complying with the Performance Standards may
be necessary to get the financing they need to
do business in emerging markets. Their
implementation also creates legal risks for
financial institutions and their clients.”
– IFC Performance Standards on Environmental &
Social Sustainability: A Guidebook
Source (quote and bottom right image): www.nortonrosefulbright.com/news/72221/norton-rose-lawyers-
release-ifc-performance-standards-on-environmental-social-sustainability
Ecosystem services in the IFC Performance Standards
IFC Performance
StandardSummary of requirements
PS1: Assessment and
Management of Environmental
and Social Risks and Impacts
Identify all reasonably expected risks and impacts related to ecosystem services and
use a broader definition of a project’s area of influence, which now includes indirect
project impact on ecosystem services upon which Affected Communities’ livelihoods
are dependent.
PS4: Community Health,
Safety, and Security
Assess and manage health, safety, and security risks to communities resulting from
direct project impact on provisioning and regulating ecosystem services such as the
loss of buffer areas (e.g., wetlands, mangroves, or upland forests).
PS5: Land Acquisition and
Involuntary Resettlement
Assess impacts on and compensate for loss of provisioning ecosystem services
resulting from land acquisition and involuntary resettlement.
PS6: Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Living Natural
Resources
Carry out a systematic review (including participation of Affected Communities) of all
ecosystem services a project will impact or is dependent upon to identify priority
ecosystem services, and avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on priority ecosystem
services for which a client has direct management control or significant influence.
PS7: Indigenous Peoples Assess provisioning and cultural ecosystem services when examining projects
affecting Indigenous Peoples.
PS8: Cultural Heritage Minimize adverse impacts and implement restoration measures, in situ, that ensure
maintenance of the value and functionality of the cultural heritage, including maintaining
or restoring any ecosystem processes (consistent with requirements in Performance
Standard 6 related to ecosystem services and conservation of biodiversity) needed to
support it. Where restoration in situ is not possible, restore the functionality of the
cultural heritage, in a different location, including the ecosystem processes needed to
support it.
Is there anything driving ESA in the UK?
– Ecosystem services not featured in
the revised EIA Directive but…
• “The environmental impact assessment
shall identify, describe and assess in an
appropriate manner, in the light of each
individual case, the direct and indirect
significant effects of a project on the
following factors… land, soil, water, air
and climate” (revised Article 3)
• Does this call for a more integrated
consideration of land and regulating
services (e.g. water, air and climate
regulation)?
Key issues to think about
– If there is no direct driver for ESA in the UK through the revised
EIA Directive, should ecologists nonetheless promote and
undertake ESA as an extension to EcIA?
– Should ESA be undertaken for EcIA in a non-EIA context?
– How do we best promote cooperation between ecologists,
environmental economists, social scientists and specialists from
other technical disciplines to facilitate ESA?
– Who should undertake ESA? Can it help break down ‘silos’?
(NB is EIA ‘compartmentalised’ for a reason?)
– If ESA is undertaken should it be a standalone chapter, an
overarching synthesis, a useful cross-check or perhaps the
philosophy underpinning the whole EIA?
Key issues to think about (cont.)
– What about the technical challenges (e.g. defining the spatial
scope of the assessment)?
– Could it promote a new approach to the baseline, i.e. less of an
‘inventory’ and more of a ‘what matters to people and why’
approach (and therefore a different approach to community
engagement?)
– Could it help to identify cumulative effects and cross-disciplinary
mitigation measures?
– Could ESA help ultimately determine whether the project’s
benefits outweigh the harm caused or vice-versa?
– If ESA is undertaken, how do we ensure that the intrinsic value
of wildlife is taken into account given the anthropocentric nature
of the ecosystem services concept?
Biodiversity and natural capital / ecosystem services
