You are on page 1of 53

i

Cranfield University at Silsoe Institute of Water and Environment Master of Science thesis The academic year of 2003/2004

Author: Hulda Pettersson

Compensation within Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden and the United Kingdom

Supervisor: William Stephens

Date of presentation: 2004-09-09

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. Cranfield University, 2004. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission of the copyright holder.

Cranfield University at Silsoe ii Hulda Pettersson MSc in Natural Resource Management The academic year of 2003/2004 Compensation within Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden and the United Kingdom

Abstract
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool to ensure consideration of environmental impacts within development planning. Within EIA, compensation measures can be proposed to ensure that the overall environmental value of an area is not reduced unduly by the development. This report compares the use of compensation measures within development planning in Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK) through a literature review and analysis of six EIA documents, three from each country.

The results show that compensation measures often are proposed to offset the loss of environmental values due to development and that the practical use of compensation measures in the two countries are comparable. There is a legal basis for implementation of compensation measures within the EIA process in Sweden and the UK through directives from the European Union. The legislation and regulations on national level differ somewhat between Sweden and the UK. Five of the six EIAs studied proposed compensation measures, the most common being passages for animals, creation of habitats and relocation of species. In all EIAs there are areas left out that potentially need compensation, and there is some confusion on where and why compensation measures should be put in place, which can mainly explained by the lack of experience and protocols on how to implement compensation. This is a case study based on six EIA documents. A sample of randomly chosen EIAs could be tested against the hypotheses set up within this report to ensure the consistency of these conclusions from a general perspective.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

iii

Acknowledgements
I am very grateful for those who have helped me with information and advice during the work on this report. I would especially like to thank the County Administrative Board of Stockholm, Sweden, in particular Bengt Eriksson and Carl-Gustaf Hagander, who have helped me in the location of documents and provided me with an office. I would also like to thank Brian Cleary at the RSPB and Kristina Rundcrantz, PhD student at the Swedish University of Agriculture for their help in location of material. My final thanks goes toward my supervisors, William Stephens at Cranfield University at Silsoe and Stina Lundstrm at the Swedish University of Agriculture, who have helped me and kept me focused on the important issues.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

iv

Table of contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________ 1 1.1 CHOICE OF TOPIC __________________________________________________ 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ______________________________________________ 1.3 HYPOTHESES _____________________________________________________ 1.4 LIMITATIONS _____________________________________________________ 1.5 TERMINOLOGY ____________________________________________________ 1 1 2 2 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________ 4 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW _______________________________________________ 4 2.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EIA DOCUMENTS ______________________________ 4 3.0 BACKGROUND___________________________________________________ 7 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ________________________________ 7 3.2 COMPENSATION ___________________________________________________ 9 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION______________________________________ 15 4.1 RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY ___________________________________ 15 4.2 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION _________________________________________ 18 5.0 CONCLUSIONS__________________________________________________ 29 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ___________________ 31 7.0 REFERENCES ___________________________________________________ 32 7.1 WRITTEN _______________________________________________________ 32 7.2 ELECTRONIC ____________________________________________________ 34 7.3 EIA DOCUMENTS_________________________________________________ 34 APPENDICES_______________________________________________________ 36 APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY _____________________________________________ APPENDIX 2 ANALYSIS ROAD 73 ______________________________________ APPENDIX 3 ANALYSIS ROAD E18 _____________________________________ APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS ROAD NORRORTSLEDEN __________________________ APPENDIX 5 ANALYSIS DIBDEN RAIL LINK ______________________________ APPENDIX 6 ANALYSIS DIBDEN TERMINAL ______________________________ APPENDIX 7 ANALYSIS ROAD A507 ____________________________________ 36 37 39 41 44 45 47

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Choice of topic
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be an important tool for promoting sustainable development since it involves environmental issues within development planning. Sometimes when development takes place, it is at the expense of nature. To make sure that environmental values are not reduced unduly, compensation can be introduced to equalise the loss of natural capital resulting from project development by ensuring investments are made in other natural capital. This has over time become increasingly important (Cowell 2000; Cuperus 1999; Treweek & Thompson 1997).

In this report, the use of compensation measures in Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK) are investigated through a literature study and a comparative review. The countries chosen for this study both struggle with how to handle the issue of compensation (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Wilding & Raemaekers 2000), and more research is needed within this area. Sweden and the UK are both members of the European Union (EU), therefore the EIA systems in the two countries are based on the same directives. However, the implementation within national legislation is different (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003).

This project is undertaken as part of a Master of Science double degree programme in Natural Resource Management at Cranfield University at Silsoe, England and in Biology at the Swedish University of Agriculture, Ultuna, Sweden. The project is done in cooperation with the County Administrative Board of Stockholm, Sweden.

1.2 Aims and objectives


The aim of this project is to investigate if and how compensation within EIA is used in Sweden and the UK. This has been broken down into the following objectives:

Conduct a literature review focussing on the EIA system at EU and national level and on the use of compensation measures within EIA to investigate the common practice and legislative demand for EIA and compensation.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

Make an empirical comparison and evaluation of the use of compensation, using EIA documents and Environmental Statements (ES) from Sweden and the UK, to examine the practical use of compensation within EIA and investigate any differences or similarities in the use of compensation between the studied countries.

1.3 Hypotheses
Based on the aims and objectives, two hypotheses were designed. These were then tested within the report. The outcome and evaluation of the hypotheses can be found in the Conclusions (section 5.0). The hypotheses are that:

Compensation is an important tool within the EIA process to minimise the loss of environmental value due to development.

The use of compensation methods is consistent between Sweden and the UK.

1.4 Limitations
Within this report, a comparative study investigating the use of compensation in Sweden and the UK was undertaken. The selection of documents was done in cooperation with contact persons with knowledge about compensation within EIA; hence it is not a random sample. The number of EIA documents that could be included in the analysis was limited due to time and accessibility of documents. For these reasons, no general conclusions can be drawn from the comparative study.

The focus of this report is on compensation methods that compensate for loss in environmental values (i.e. natural capital like flora and fauna). This is due to time limitations and to focus the project on natural resources rather than social and financial resources.

The study was undertaken during a limited period of time and with a word limit. This has put constraints on the depth and breadth of analysis in the report.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

1.5 Terminology
There are many definitions of compensation. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (Hornby 2000) defines compensate as: to provide something good to balance or reduce the bad effects of damage, loss etc. Environmental compensation is defined by Cowell (2000) as: the provision of positive environmental measures to correct, balance or otherwise atone for the loss of environmental resources and by Kuiper (1997) as: the creation of new values, which are equal to the lost values. If the lost values are irreplaceable compensation concerns the creation of values which are as similar as possible.

Based on the above, the author of this paper has defined environmental compensation as: equalising the loss or increasing the environmental values in the proximity of an area that has experienced loss of environmental capital due to development. Compensation includes a factor of change and how to overcome the environmental loss due to this change by investing in environmental goods.

Environmental impact statements frequently refer to the mitigation of environmental impacts. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (Hornby 2000) defines mitigate as: to make something less harmful, serious etc. The EU defines mitigation in directive 85/337/EC as: measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible remedy significant adverse effects (European Union 1985). Rundcrantz & Skrbck (2003) define mitigation as something that limits or reduces the degree, extent, magnitude or duration of adverse impacts. Mitigation can be achieved through downscaling, relocation or redesign of a project. Within this report mitigation is defined as: measures to limit the environmental effects due to development.

A complete glossary of abbreviations used within this report and translation of Swedish terms can be found in Appendix 1.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

2.0 Methodology
2.1 Literature review
In order to gain background knowledge about EIA, compensation and environmental legislation on EU and national level in the two countries, relevant literature, in both English and Swedish, was studied. Literature was located using search engines in the university libraries, journal and Internet search engines and by contact with persons with extensive knowledge about EIA and compensation.

2.2 Comparative study of EIA documents


To investigate if there is a difference in the use of compensation measures between Sweden and the UK, a comparative study of EIA documents was undertaken. Key issues were identified, structured and compared. As stated under limitations, the focus of the comparison was on compensation of natural values rather than on social and financial values. The comparative review is based on a qualitative approach, which means that the aim of the analysis is to understand the meaning of issues by interpreting the data rather than trying to measure them quantitatively (Merriam 1994).

A total of six EIA documents was studied, three from Sweden and three from the UK. The proposed projects are presented briefly in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Brief description of proposed projects within the EIAs studied in this report EIA Road 73 Road E18 Road Norrortsleden Dibden Rail Link Dibden terminal Road A507 Country Sweden Sweden Sweden UK UK UK Brief description of proposed project Building a new four-lane road to increase road safety. Partly building a new four-lane road, partly diverting traffic to already existing road to increase road capacity. Building a new single carriageway road to connect existing roads. Building a new double track railway line connecting a possible new port development to existing railway network. Building a new port including quay, storage area and access road to increase sea freight capacity. Building a new single carriageway road to increase road safety and connect to existing roads.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

The EIA documents used in the comparison were chosen on the basis that they, according to the contact persons that have helped in the selection of documents, discuss or suggest compensation methods. The availability of records from the EIA process was limited, why only the EIA document was considered in the comparison. Whether compensation was discussed during the EIA process is not possible to determine unless it was recorded in the document. The six EIA documents used within this study are presented in more detail in Appendices 2 to 7, and a more descriptive summary table introducing the proposed projects can be found in Table 3 in section 4.1.

Each EIA document was audited individually, using a checklist with broad categories. The checklist can be seen in Table 2 below. The checklist was designed to identify and evaluate if and how environmental compensation was discussed and acted upon within the EIAs and to ensure consistency in the analysis between the studied EIAs.
Table 2. Checklist used in the analyses of EIA documents

EIA analysed Date of EIA Brief description of project How are compensation methods mentioned? Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation

Monitoring and evaluation of compensation? Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

Since the analyses are made qualitatively, the categories in the checklist are just a way to ensure structure and complete coverage of what is written about compensation rather than providing a base for quantitative analysis. The checklist was tested on one of the EIA documents and based on this test changes were made to it in order to improve the analysis, which then was carried out on all six EIA documents.

The results of the analyses of the EIA documents can be found in full text in Appendices 2 to 7. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 4 in section 4.1. This summary table was prepared using a technique known as concentration of sentences (Kvale 1997). Using this method, only the most important points are carried forward in order to ease the comparison. However, the comparative analysis is made on the complete records. The results are presented in a matrix to facilitate the comparison between the different EIA documents. The results were then analysed and discussed together with studied literature to evaluate the use of compensation and to identify differences and similarities (see section 4.2).

The comparative study undertaken within this report is a case study, based on only a few EIA documents. This means that no general conclusions can be drawn from it, but it can still give a good indication of how compensation methods are being used within the two countries, and along with the literature review a wider understanding of compensation within EIA can be gained.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

3.0 Background
3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was initiated in the United States of America (USA) in the 1960s as a tool to judge, evaluate and describe environmental impacts (Boverket 1997). Since then, EIA has spread over the world and has become an important tool to ensure that environmental values are considered within planning (Morris & Therviel 2001). EIA systems are established in many countries around the world, either through legislation or through regulations or guidelines, although there are still countries where an EIA process still has not been implemented (Glasson et al. 1999). Some nations, e.g. Canada, Germany and the Netherlands have a more refined EIA system, whereas in other nations, the process of EIA has only recently been implemented, and the system is still evolving. This is the case in many developing countries.

EIA is both a process and a document (Glasson et al. 1999). Both have to be transparent so that decision makers and the public can see and understand how the EIA was conducted. The process is presented more closely in the following section. The EIA document (also called an environmental statement, ES) is used as a base for decisionmaking, so it has to include all the vital information that has been gained during the process to ensure that the basis of decision is correct and extensive.

The EIA Process


The EIA process goes through a number of steps before an EIA document or ES is produced, as can be seen in Figure 1. The system on how the different steps are fulfilled varies in different countries, but the steps are roughly the same no matter where the EIA is conducted (Glasson et al. 1999). As can be observed in Figure 1, the production of an ES does not mean that the EIA process is completed. The process continues to ensure that what is said in the ES is fulfilled through monitoring and evaluation programmes.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

Project screening (is an EIA needed?) Scoping (which impacts and issues should be considered?) Description of the project/development action and alternatives Description of the environmental baseline Identification of key impacts

Prediction of impacts Evaluation and assessment of significance of impacts Identification of mitigating measures

Public participation

Presentation of findings in Environmental Statement (ES) Review of ES Decision-making

Post-decision monitoring Evaluation of predictions and mitigation measures Figure 1. Important steps in the EIA Process (After Glasson et al. 1999)

It is important to remember that even though it looks like a linear process, it is in reality a cyclical process (hence all the arrows) since all aspects of the process can have impacts on other parts of the process (Glasson et al. 1999). The public should have the opportunity to be involved throughout the process since they are a heterogeneous group that can contribute with valuable knowledge in many different areas within the EIA process (Grandell 1996).

EIA implementation in the European Union, the UK and Sweden


In 1985 the European Union (EU) introduced directive 85/337/EEC (European Union 1985), which ensured that EIA would become implemented in legislation or regulations in all member states (Morris & Therviel 2001; Glasson et al. 1999). The aim of this was to prevent future deterioration of the environment and impede unhealthy competition between member states (Glasson et al. 1999). This directive was later amended in 1997 by directive 97/11/EC (European Union 1997), which was developed to refine the scope and ensure consistency between the member states (Glasson et al. 1999). These two directives have ensured that EIA has been implemented and that it has become an environmental planning tool in the EU member states (Morris & Therviel 2001).

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

In the UK, environmental impacts have been considered for a long time within the local land-use planning systems, where the impact assessment was the responsibility of the developer. However, there was a problem with controlling the impacts of larger scale developments, which lead to the development of an EIA system in the 1970s. This research faded when EU started to work on a joint system for all member states (Glasson et al. 1999). The UK enacted a formal EIA legislation in 1988 when the EU directive 85/337/EEC was implemented through a series of regulations. Since then, the number of EIAs performed has increased, and the quality has improved due to increase in experience and guidance (Wood 1995). The EU directive 97/11/EC was implemented in 1999 through the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Glasson et al. 1999).

In Sweden, as in the UK, EIA has traditionally been the responsibility of the developer, who, when changing the land use or developing according to land use plans, had to assess the environmental impacts before getting permission for the development (Lerman 1995). The first legal demands for environmental assessment in Sweden were implemented in 1981 through the Environmental Protection Act (Berggren 2000). In 1991, an extensive EIA legislation that covered several kinds of development was implemented with the purpose of ensuring a broad view on environmental impacts and promoting environmental issues in development processes (Lerman 1995). Sweden joined the EU in 1995, and has since implemented the EU directives on EIA through the Swedish Environmental Code that was introduced in 1999 (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003).

3.2 Compensation
The use of compensation measures mean that if a natural feature, e.g. a forest, is lost due to development, the loss can be compensated by planting a new forest on another location close by, or by investing in some other kind of natural capital in the area to equalise the loss (Berggren 2000). If damage due to development cannot be prevented or reasonably limited, compensation can be used to contribute to a positive development of the environmental quality (Vgverket 2002). According to Kuiper (1997), compensation offers opportunities for creating win-win situations. This means that

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

10

compensation can be used to turn the negative effects of development into something positive, or at least to equalise the negative effects. The purpose of compensation is to ensure that the overall environmental quality in an area is not diminished (Vgverket 2002).

Within the EIA process, three steps that can be used to deal with environmental impacts that occur due to development are usually discussed: avoidance, mitigation and compensation (Cuperus et al. 1999; Skrbck 1997). The first step is to avoid the impacts. This can be achieved by not pursuing development, generating alternatives or by limiting the magnitude of development (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Cuperus et al. 1999). If avoidance of impacts is not feasible, the second step is to mitigate the impacts in situ, i.e. limit the environmental effects due to development on site. This is very common, and is done in many projects. If mitigation is not enough to ensure that the overall environmental value due to development is not decreased, compensation can be introduced (Cuperus et al. 1999). Compensation can be done on-site or off-site to remedy the environmental impacts (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003).

There is some confusion between the terms compensation and mitigation. According to Rundcrantz & Skrbck (2003), mitigation is the minimisation of significant impacts, whereas compensation is the remedy of impacts that could not be mitigated. However, the definitions are somewhat different between countries and, as can be seen in section 1.5, for instance the EU (European Union 1985) includes remedial actions within the definition of mitigation, whereas other definitions make a clear distinction between compensation and mitigation. The definitions used within this report can be found in section 1.5.

Attempts to recreate or restore environmental quality lost through development have taken place since the 1930s (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003). The interest in environmental solutions of this kind was augmented during the 1970s, when public concern about environmental issues increased, and society started to move more towards a more environmentally sustainable way of thinking.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

11

Compensation methods have been used in e.g. Germany, the Netherlands and the USA for some time (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Wilding & Raemaekers 2000; Kuiper 1997). Germany places much emphasis on compensation and have, since 1976, had a system where developers must consider compensation when nature will be affected due to development (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Skrbck 1997). The German legislation on compensation decrees that intrusion on natural and cultural values due to development should be avoided, minimised or compensated. The principle is that you cannot exploit more than what you can return (Skrbck 1997). In both Sweden and the UK compensation has been a topic for discussion and investigation and is becoming an increasingly more important tool within EIA (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Cowell 2000; Treweek & Thompson 1997). However, neither of the countries have an extensive compensation system like Germany.

When and how to compensate


In the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), also known as the Brundtland report, sustainable development was defined as present generation using natural, social and financial resources in such a way that the needs of future generations are not discriminated against. The risk with this definition is that there might be a tendency to substitute natural resources with social or financial resources. Compensation is a way to ensure that, even though natural resources at a location are used, this does not give an overall loss of natural capital, hence ensuring the natural capital for future generations.

Compensation should be considered when environmental values are at risk to be reduced due to development. Since the environmental situation and possible damage due to development varies from case to case, it is difficult to have a general scheme on how compensation should be implemented. The best way to compensate has to be investigated in each case individually to create the best compensation solutions based on local conditions (Skrbck 1997). Compensation measures should preferably be considered early in the planning process, alongside the planning of the development to ensure that the conditions, both financially and spatially, for compensation are favourable (Kuiper 1997). The implementation of compensation in the planning process

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

12

also allows the inclusion of alternatives and estimated cost of compensation within the overall decision on the development. Therefore compensation should be seen as a part of the development planning process rather than a standalone activity.

An example of compensation that has occurred recently in Sweden was the creation of a new habitat for adders (Banverket 2004, web). When restoring an old rail track, a habitat of adders was found in a conduit. Adders always return to the same place for their winter rest, so several generations of adders used this conduit, which provides the frost-free environment adders need to survive during the winter. Since the conduit had to be replaced as a part of the rail track restoration, it led to destruction of this habitat. The adder is a fully protected species and therefore the decision to create a new habitat in the immediate proximity was taken. The aim was to get the adder population to use the newly constructed habitat since their old habitat will be destroyed. This is the first time this type of compensation for snakes has taken place in Sweden, and a monitoring and evaluation programme has been designed to evaluate the success of the compensation.

Compensation within EU, the UK and Sweden


As stated earlier, the EU has implemented EIA issues within two directives, 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC. Within these directives, Article 5 states that a description of planned actions to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy serious impacts should be included in the EIA (European Union 1997; European Union 1985). It is also stated in the Habitats directive Article 6 (European Union 1992) that if development must take place on a Natura 2000 area, compensatory measures should be used to ensure that the overall coherence of the area is protected. In April 2004 the EU passed a directive (2004/35/CE) concerned with environmental liability and remedy (European Union 2004), which stresses the need for compensation if there is a risk of damage on habitats. All countries within the EU have these directives as a base, but each member state is free to implement it into its own legislation, so the legal demands on national level is different between different member states (Glasson et al. 1999).

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

13

Both Sweden and the UK are members of the EU, so the legislative base, in the form of above-mentioned directives, is the same. The implementation into national legislation is somewhat different. In the UK there is a demand for compensation through the directives mentioned above and through the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (Wilding & Raemaekers 2000). The TPO is contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It states that if a tree protected by the TPO has to be felled, a demand for compensation in the form of planting of replacement trees can be put in place (Department of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, web). Compensation is also mentioned in regulations connected to the UK legislation on environmental assessment (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003).

Assessments of measures to avoid, reduce or remedy impacts should be included in the Environmental Statements in the UK. However, there is no methodological protocol designed for how to do this (Wilding & Raemaekers 2000), which is why there is some confusion on what methodology to use and how to evaluate the effectiveness of suggested measures (Treweek & Thompson 1997). According to a study conducted by Thompson et al. (1997), most of the proposed compensation measures were put in place to compensate aesthetical values and did not deal with the environmental issues. It has also been recognised in a study by Treweek & Thompson (1997) that the number of Environmental Statements where compensation has been proposed is very low (about one-tenth), and that many of the compensation measures used have not been chosen based on what is lost due to the development but rather on what is easy to put into place, e.g. planting of trees.

In Sweden, the demand for compensation comes through the same directives as for the UK. The directives are implemented in the Swedish Environmental code which was introduced in 1999 (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003), where it is stated that the protection of a nature reserve can only be withdrawn or an exemption granted if the area is properly compensated and that development permission or exemptions can be followed by a demand to perform or pay for special measures to compensate the intrusion in public goods that the development will result in (Swedish Parliament 1998, web). Environmental compensation has also been discussed within some policies and plans

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

14

connected to the legislation on environmental assessment. Even though environmental compensation has to be considered within all projects that will effect the environment in Sweden, there is a focus on the road-building sector (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003). Environmental compensation is included within the road regulations (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003; Vgverket 2002), which means that road projects have to consider compensation based on both legislation and regulations.

There have also been trials in some municipalities to include compensation issues within the detailed development plans (Skrbck 1997). The success of these trials has been dependent on how well compensation has been integrated into the planning process (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003). This is because it is easier to introduce compensation in the early stages of a process than at the end (Skrbck 1997). When a decision about development is already taken, the possibilities to make demands for compensation are reduced.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

15

4.0 Results and discussion


In this section, the results from the comparative study are presented. This is then followed by analysis and discussion of the findings, where the results are discussed together with relevant literature.

4.1 Results of comparative study


To investigate if and how compensation is used in the UK and Sweden, a comparative study of EIA documents has been undertaken. The methodology is described in section 2.2. Six EIA documents were included within this study, three from Sweden and three from the UK. Four of them concerned roads, one a railroad and one a port. The six EIAs are listed in Table 3 below with a brief description of the proposed projects.
Table 3. Description of proposed projects within the EIAs studied in this report EIA Country Road 73 Sweden Road 73 between Nynshamn and Stockholm is too small in comparison to the amount of traffic using this road. Therefore it is suggested that a new four-lane road is built in a new corridor through the terrain to increase safety for both roadusers and residents in the area. Europe road E18 close to Stockholm is an unsafe road with much heavy traffic. To increase road safety and the capacity of the road, the four-lane road E18 will partly be re-built and partly re-located to another already existing road more suitable for heavy traffic. Road Norrortsleden part Tby Rosenklla is a proposal to connect the already built part of a crossway from road E4 with a 7 km long new single carriageway road up to road E18 North. The port at Dibden bay, Southampton is facing development, and as a part of this development there is a proposal to build a 1,3 km double track railway line to link the new port to existing Fawley branch railway line. The port of Southampton is important as an international sea freight gateway and the volume of trade at the port has over time increased considerably. Therefore it is suggested that a new deep-water terminal is built at Dibden bay. The quay would be 1,8 km long with a deep-water channel in front of it. Adjacent to the quay an area of approximately 200 hectares would be claimed for storage and distribution of containers. Due to the proximity to larger roads and highways, especially the M1, there is a large volume of heavy goods vehicles using the A507 through the villages Ridgmont and Husborne Crawley. To reduce the level of traffic a single carriageway bypass is proposed, which would form part of the local strategic road network and connect to the M1. Description of proposed project

Road E18 Sweden

Road Norrortsleden Sweden Dibden rail link UK Dibden terminal UK

Road A507 UK

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

16

The EIAs used within this study and the results of the analysis and comparison are presented in full text in Appendices 2 to 7, where the EIAs are presented more closely and the outcome of the analysis is documented. Below a summary of the results is presented in tabular form (Table 4). The results are then analysed and discussed together with relevant literature in section 4.2.
Table 4. Comparative matrix of the use of compensation measures within six EIA documents from Sweden and the UK Project Loss of natural values Road 73 Loss of meandering watercourse Road forming barrier Possible loss of insect habitat No loss Road E18 Loss of habitat for frogs

Suggested compensation

Cooperation with authorities/ stakeholders Yes

Decision on design and construction

Requirements for compensation

Monitoring Comments and evaluation of compensation Data missing on why certain compensation measures were chosen Areas left out that potentially need compensation

Improve habitat for sea trout Passages for fauna New habitat

Decision taken Decision taken Decision postponed

Yes

Legislation Not suggested Regional directly authority

Not evident

New vegetation New habitat Movement of frog eggs New vegetation

Not evident

Decision taken Decision postponed Local authority Not suggested directly Areas left out that potentially need compensation

Yes

Loss of vegetation

Not evident

Decision taken All measures suggested will be investigated further to ensure costeffectiveness Not mentioned Yes Data missing on why certain compensation measures were chosen Areas left out that potentially need compensation

Road Norrortsleden Road Passages forming for flora barrier and fauna Change Culvert watercourse passages for frogs, rodents and insects Loss of New vegetation vegetation No loss New vegetation

Not evident

Not evident

Not evident Yes

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

17

Table 4 continued
Project Loss of natural values

Suggested compensation

Cooperation with authorities/ stakeholders -

Decision on design and construction

Requirements for compensation -

Monitoring Comments and evaluation of compensation Areas left out that potentially need compensation Areas left out that potentially need compensation Proposal rejected by government Areas left out that potentially need compensation

Dibden rail link No areas None identified

Dibden terminal Loss of New habitat for habitat waterfowl and invertebrates Loss of Movement vegetation of vegetation Road A507 Isolation of great crested newt habitat Loss of vegetation Possible loss of bat habitat New habitat Movement of fauna New vegetation Decision after inventory

Not evident

Decision taken

Harbour authority

Yes

Decision taken

Not suggested directly, to be discussed later

Not evident

Decision postponed

Legislation Yes Local authority

Not evident Yes

Decision taken Decision postponed

As can be seen in the comparative review of the EIA documents, there are both similarities and differences between how compensation is dealt with in the EIAs. Firstly, it has to be recognised, that one of the EIAs from the UK within this study, Dibden rail link, does not contain any compensation measures. The possible reasons for this will be discussed further in section 4.2. Because there are no compensation measures mentioned within this EIA, it has not been included in the analysis of compensation below, however the lack of suggested compensation in this particular EIA is discussed. The findings from the comparative study, based on the different categories identified in Table 4, and the differences and similarities are discussed in section 4.2 below.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

18

4.2 Analysis and discussion


The comparative study showed that there are areas where compensation measures are suggested, but none of the studied EIA documents seem to have a totally comprehensive view of how to deal with compensation.

One of the studied EIAs, the Dibden rail link, had not discussed compensation at all within the EIA document. The stated reason for this is that the area of exploitation is too small to be able to have any significant environmental impacts. Due to this approach, the loss of floodplain that is mentioned as a possible loss in the EIA document if development is to take place is not discussed within mitigation or compensation terms. This EIA shows the characteristics of a smaller project EIA that is held separate from a larger development (i.e. the Dibden terminal proposal). If the railway had been included within the Dibden terminal EIA, it is possible that the impacts from the rail link development would have been compensated within the overall compensation plan for Dibden terminal. But since a separate EIA was conducted for Dibden rail link, the impacts that would occur were judged too small to have any significant effect, and therefore no compensation measures were suggested.

The danger with arguing that an area of exploitation is too small to have any significant impacts is that there is a risk that a proposed development does not cause any large significant impacts, but rather many smaller impacts, that, when put together, would justify compensation. Kuiper (1997) states that it is important that the decision makers take this into consideration to ensure that compensation is introduced where needed.

Below follow a review and discussion of compensation within EIA, based on the categories set out in Table 4 (section 4.1) followed by a discussion about the need for compensation measures. The discussion incorporates the literature review and the findings from the comparative study.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

19

Suggested compensation
Within the five EIA documents where compensation has been suggested, the suggestions consist mainly of passages to overcome barriers, creation of new habitats for animals, planting of new vegetation and relocation of flora and fauna.

Passages for fauna are suggested in two of the Swedish EIAs (Road 73 and Road Norrortsleden), and were discussed in one of the UK EIAs (Road A507). According to Astner (2003), passages are not suggested or implemented very often within road projects in Sweden, even though it is often recognised in the EIA that the road will form a barrier for animals. The success of passages depends on how they are designed and if they are put where animals actually move (Astner 2003; Cuperus et al. 1999). In the Road A507 ES, passages were considered but then disregarded since they would be quite long; hence there were doubts whether animals would actually use them. In the two Swedish EIAs where passages are proposed, the suggested passages for larger animals are to be shared with people using them for social recreation. If and how this will work in reality, the number of people that might be expected to use these passages for recreation and how this will affect the animals that are supposed to use the passage is not discussed, therefore it is not evident if these questions have been studied and if the proposed design of the passages is appropriate for fauna.

According to Cowell (2003), there can be a conflict between values that are in need of compensation. Creating passages with a dual purpose might be a way to overcome this divergence. However, there is a risk that the social compensation issues are prioritised over the natural compensation issues if these questions are not analysed thoroughly. For larger animals that travel over large areas of land, passages are a sensible solution to ensure that the thoroughfares for these animals remain open even though the landscape changes due to development. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the passages are located where the animals usually move to avoid unnecessary changes in the movement patterns. Based on a case study concerned with roads forming barriers for animals, Astner (2003) states that passages for animals are often located where animals move naturally, but that passages are not always constructed according to plan, which means that the animals might not use them as intended by developers.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

20

New habitats are suggested in four EIAs (Road 73, Road E18, Dibden terminal and Road A507). Most of them are created because the old habitat will be destroyed. However, Road 73 also suggests improvement of habitat for sea trout as compensation for loss of meandering of watercourse. This explains the very essence of compensation, that when a natural value, here the meandering river, is lost due to development, investments are made to create or improve another natural value, here a habitat for sea trout, to ensure that the overall environmental value of the area is not decreased. Two of the EIAs that suggest new habitats (Road E18 and Road A507) also suggest movement of fauna to the new habitat to ensure that species will not be lost.

It is important when creating a new habitat for fauna that the new habitat is finalised a while before the old habitat is destroyed, to give the species a chance to colonise the new habitat before the old habitat is demolished. According to Cuperus et al. (1999), it is very difficult to create a new, suitable habitat and to make sure that it is colonised by the intended species it was created for. Ledoux et al. (2000) and Treweek & Thompson (1997) states that it is usually more ecologically beneficial to restore a degraded habitat than to create a brand new one. However, if the old habitat will be destroyed, there is no option but to create a new habitat. But when trying to locate an area for the new habitat, investigations should be made to ensure that the location is as favourable as possible for the species. Therefore it is very important to involve experts in the creation of new habitats to ensure that they are appropriate for the species that are meant to colonise them.

New vegetation is suggested in four of the EIAs (Road 73, Road E18, Road Norrortsleden and Road A507) to compensate loss of vegetation due to development. In two of the cases (Road 73 and Road Norrortsleden), new vegetation is also suggested without any justification. It has been recognised by Treweek & Thompson (1997) that there is a tendency to compensate by planting trees without justifying the cause of this compensation. The reason for this might be that vegetation is easily planted and does usually not require any special skills or designated areas, but can be placed where suitable, whereas the creation of a new habitat has to be more carefully planned

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

21

(Cuperus et al. 1999). In the Dibden terminal ES, new vegetation was not suggested. Instead, the movement of existing vegetation (grassland) is suggested to ensure that species richness is not decreased. It is not stated how this relocation will be done in reality, only that a specialist contractor will do it. There is no record in the EIA document of the rare species within the grassland that will be affected by the development, and if movement is to be preferred over planting of species on new location.

It is difficult to draw a clear boundary between where mitigation measures end and compensation measures start. As mentioned in the background (section 3.2) there is some confusion between these definitions, since there are many somewhat different definitions. For instance in the movement of great crested newts to a new habitat proposed in Road A507 can be seen as both mitigation and compensation. Based on the definitions used within this report (see section 1.5), the movement of the species is seen as mitigation, whereas the establishment of the new habitat is seen as compensation. Even though both mitigation and compensation have been defined within this report, the boundary between them is a bit fuzzy. However, the aim of both mitigation and compensation measures is to ensure that environmental values are considered within development planning.

There is no clear difference between the compensation measures suggested in Sweden and the UK. All Swedish EIAs within this study come from the road sector, which specifically include compensation within the regulations, so it could be expected that compensation should be discussed in Swedish EIAs concerning roads. Only two of the EIAs from the UK suggest compensation, but the compensation suggested in these two is similar to what is suggested in the Swedish EIAs. It is clear that where there is a legislative demand, e.g. protection of great crested newt (Road A507), the compensation measures suggested seem better planned, which is probably due to the fact that there is a demand for protection of the species, so development cannot take place if the species is not protected and loss of habitat appropriately compensated.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

22

Cooperation with authorities/stakeholders


In all EIAs there is some record of cooperation with relevant authorities or stakeholders. This is very important to ensure that the suggested compensation measures are appropriate and effective. It is very hard for the authors of the EIA to be experts within all areas that are discussed within the EIA, so external experts in the form of competent authorities, experts and relevant stakeholder groups should be seen as an asset that can aid in the choice, design and construction of suitable compensation measures.

There was no discernible difference in the level of cooperation with authorities/stakeholders between Sweden and the UK. Within all studied EIAs it is evident that some areas of compensations have been developed in cooperation with relevant stakeholders or authorities. However, within all EIAs there are also areas of compensation where there is no record of cooperation with relevant stakeholders or authorities.

Decision on design and construction


For some of the suggested compensation measures, decisions about design and construction are already taken, which means that compensation can be carried out without any further investigations or decisions to be made. But for some of the suggested compensation the decision on design and construction is postponed and will be investigated or discussed further. The risk with this approach, as identified by Rundcrantz & Skrbck (2003), Kuiper (1997) and Skrbck (1997), is that compensation is not integrated within the planning process and the estimated cost of compensation is not included within the overall cost of the project. Compensation should be seen as a part of the development, and compensation measures should be discussed alongside choice of alternatives for the project to ensure that the chosen alternative can include suitable compensation if needed.

Although it is important to discuss and make decisions about compensation early and throughout the EIA process, there is hardly no way of knowing in advance if all environmental impacts are covered within the EIA, so the developers should be open to consider implementation of new compensation measures throughout the project

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

23

development, but also during the construction and operation phases. There is no legal requirement for this, but it can be regulated through the monitoring and evaluation plans. An example of this is the adder habitat that was discovered in a conduit during renovation of a railroad track (see section 3.2). This adder habitat had not been identified in advance of the project starting, and yet compensation was put in place during the construction phase to ensure that the adder population would not be lost. This shows that compensation measures cannot be a static process, but rather a dynamic system that can change if new areas that need compensation are discovered or chosen compensation proves inefficient.

There was no distinction between EIAs from Sweden and from the UK. The only EIA where it seems like all decisions about design and construction are already taken is Dibden terminal, which could be the case due to the scale of the project and the significance of the impacts.

Requirements for compensation


The legislative demand for compensation measures is quite similar in Sweden and the UK. For both countries, it is based on the EU directives, where it is stated that a description of planned actions to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy serious impacts should be included in the EIA (European Union 1997; European Union 1985). However, this phrasing is quite weak, which means that the EU provides no clear guidance on when compensation measures should be implemented. This is however no hindrance for member countries to design their own compensation systems. Germany, which also is a member of the EU and therefore must conform to the same directives, have for a long time had a system with guidelines on how compensation should be involved within the EIA process.

In both Sweden and the UK, compensation measures are considered within the environmental legislation and regulations. In Sweden, compensation has been mainly focussed on the road-building sector (Rundcrantz & Skrbck 2003), however the legislation states that compensation should be considered within all development planning that might lead to environmental impacts if project is carried out. In the

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

24

comparative study undertaken within this report, the Swedish EIAs audited all come from the road sector, and the analysis has shown that there are still gaps in the implementation of compensation within road projects. The main problem in the implementation of environmental compensation in both Sweden and the UK is the lack of protocol in how to implement compensation, and adequate protocols are not yet available in the extent they might be needed (Wilding & Raemaekers 2000). It is evident within the comparative study undertaken in this report that there are no clear procedures on where and why compensation measures should be considered by the developer.

The justification for performing compensation given in the studied EIAs was that it was demanded either through legislation or by local or regional authorities. Road Norrortsleden does not mention the reason for using compensation measures, but then the EIA was appealed partly on the basis of lack of compensation measures. The other four all mention authorities demanding compensation. One EIA from each country, Road 73 from Sweden and Road A507 from the UK, also mentioned legislative demands for performing compensation measures. Since only two of the five EIAs mentioned legislative demands, this can be sign that there is confusion on where the legislative demands for compensation can be put in place and why compensation should be considered.

Monitoring and evaluation of compensation


As discussed earlier, it is important that compensation is a dynamic system that allows change. But in order to know if change is required, monitoring and evaluation of compensation has to be carried out. It is therefore of utmost importance that the monitoring and evaluation that is carried out within the EIA process includes the compensation measures (Treweek & Thompson 1997). Kuiper (1997) suggests that it might take quite a long time for the compensation areas to adjust and develop, so it is important to have a monitoring and evaluation plan that is extensive in time to ensure that compensation is adequate and fulfils the agreed compensation values. Otherwise supplementary compensation actions might become necessary to guarantee that the loss of environmental values is equalised.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

25

In two of the studied EIAs (Road Norrortsleden and Road A507) it is evident that compensation is included within the monitoring and evaluation schemes. For the other EIAs within the study, monitoring and evaluation of compensation is not directly suggested, so it is not possible to tell based on the EIA documents if the suggested compensation measures will be monitored and evaluated. Since this study is based on the EIA documents alone, no monitoring and evaluation reports have been studied, therefore, it was not possible to investigate if and how compensation was included in monitoring and evaluation plans.

Comments
Within all studied EIAs, there are gaps, where environmental values might be lost, but where it is not evident within the EIA that compensation has been considered. For instance in Road E18, it is mentioned in the EIA that a wetland area hosting a few rare species will be negatively affected by the development. It is possible that some kind of compensation should preferably be put in place to ensure that these species are not lost. This is however, not mentioned within the EIA document, so it is not possible to tell if compensation has been discussed and discarded or not discussed at all. The only mention of this area in mitigation terms is that caution has to be taken during the construction phase, however, it is not stated what kind of caution that needs to be taken, what to do if this caution is not enough to save the species and if and how the species might be affected during the operation phase.

In two of the Swedish EIAs (Road 73 and Road Norrortsleden) there are data missing on why certain compensation measures were chosen. In both cases planting of trees is proposed without any justification. This can perhaps be seen as positive since it may compensate for loss of unidentified or non-compensated natural values that possibly should be compensated but where compensation has not been suggested. This highlights an issue of if compensation should be seen as a balanced budget. If so, all lost values have to have a price, which has to be compensated with something that equals the same price, which means that there has to be some kind of pricelist on natural values to equalise loss and gain.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

26

There are many ways such a budget system could be designed. Wilding and Raemaekers (2000) discuss one alternative, where value points were assigned per square meter to the natural values found within an area that was facing development. It was then calculated how many of these value points that would be lost through the development. The loss of value points on the development site defines how much compensation that is needed on another location. The advantage with a budget system is that it uses numerical values, which make the evaluation look objective. However, the application of value points can be very subjective, and the quantification indicates an objectivity that might not exist. It also means that the compensation measures must be evaluated into a similar value points system to ensure that the measures put in place on the compensatory location equalises the loss from the development site. Treweek & Thompson (1997) states that this kind of approach tends to obscure important qualitative differences.

Most developments are not similar to any other, and the importance of different natural values varies based on location, size and rarity. As stated by Skrbck (1997), compensatory solutions should preferably be created based on local conditions to ensure the appropriateness of chosen measures, where a local pricelist states what compensation measures that are suitable for the specific losses that occur on a local scale.

All Swedish EIAs have been approved, along with road A507 of the UK EIAs. Dibden terminal had an extensive compensation plan, but a part of the proposed site was protected through EC Wild Birds directive, and another part proposed to be protected through the EC directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Therefore the proposal was rejected by the British government, based partly on the fact that internationally important environmental sites would be lost and could not be satisfactorily compensated for (Department for Transport 2004, web). This means that the development of Dibden rail link as well will not take place since the purpose of this project was to connect Dibden terminal to existing railway lines.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

27

In the Dibden terminal EIA it was argued that environmental impacts that are mitigated or compensated are no longer to be considered as negative impacts due to the fact that the environmental loss is equalised. Instead, it is argued that nature would benefit from the development. This kind of argumentation implies that all values, including those with a high protection due to their rarity, can be replaced. However, according to Cowell (2000), it is increasingly recognised that the environmental impacts due to development are not negated when they are mitigated or compensated.

The comparative study undertaken within this report has shown that compensation measures are being used in both Sweden and the UK, but it has also shown that there are information gaps within the EIA documents in how areas and issues chosen for compensation were distinguished from areas and issues not chosen for compensation. There is some confusion on where and why compensation measures should be considered, and more data is needed within the EIA on how the implementation of compensation measures will bee followed up through monitoring and evaluation.

The need for compensation


This report deals with the use of compensation measures within EIA. But is there really a need for compensation? On one side, the answer is yes, there is a need for compensation due to the fact that there is a tendency amongst many developers, whose main ambition is to make money, to do minimum required within the environmental field. If demands for compensation can raise the minimum environmental level that developers have to fulfil within development planning, natural values will not be depleted further if compensation measures are introduced.

However, Rundcrantz & Skrbck (2003) and Cowell (2000) recognise that compensation can also be used as a tool by the developer to promote development in environmentally sensitive areas, that might should not be developed due to their sensitivity. Compensation opens a window of opportunity for the developer to introduce compensation for loss of sensitive areas. Take for instance the proposal of a new terminal at Dibden bay. A part of the area proposed for development was protected through the EC Wild Birds directive, and another part of the area within the

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

28

development site was proposed to get protection under the EC directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Still, the developer planned to develop this site, and the suggested compensation for the loss of protected land was to create a new area in the proximity, suitable for the species living on the protected land. The developer also claimed that that nature would benefit from this change. This brings the issue of natural versus financial interests to a head, where decision-makers have to decide if proposed compensation is sufficient to justify development. In the Dibden terminal case, the development proposal was rejected, but there might be other developments that have got the go-ahead on land that is very hard to replace or even irreplaceable.

There is a risk that the suggestion of compensation measures are used by the developer as an extra opportunity to get the go-ahead with development that is disadvantageous for the environmental values in an area. However, this risk is diminished by the fact that in both Sweden and the UK there is a good administrative structure to ensure that environmental values are considered within the planning process. This does not however, mean that nature will never be exploited, since decisions can be driven by political pressure, and decision-making authorities have to focus on social and financial values as well as the environmental values (Cuperus et al. 1999). In these cases, compensation measures can be a tool the help ensure that the environmental values in a larger perspective are not lost due to development.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

29

5.0 Conclusions
In order to investigate the use of compensation measures within Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden and the United Kingdom, two hypotheses were set out in the beginning of this report. These hypotheses were that:

Compensation is an important tool within the EIA process to minimise the loss of environmental values due to development.

The use of compensation methods is consistent between Sweden and the UK.

To evaluate the first hypothesis, this report has shown that compensation measures are used to reduce the loss of environmental value. There is a legal basis for implementation of compensation measures within the EIA process in Sweden and the UK; however, the demand for compensation within legislation is quite weak. The comparative study has shown that compensation measures are used, and where put in place they can help to create a remedial plan to ensure that the environmental impacts due to development are properly compensated for. This means that the loss of environmental value due to development is considered within the EIA process; hence the hypothesis is not rejected. However, in this study it is not evident if compensation actually does remedy the environmental effects due to development. The reason for this is that no monitoring and evaluation reports have been studied, so it is not possible to say if and how compensation is included in the remedial plan to ensure that environmental values are not lost due to development.

To evaluate the second hypothesis, the comparative study undertaken within this report has shown that the same range of practical compensation methods are used in Sweden and the UK. Differences between the national legislation and regulations mean that compensation within EIAs in Sweden focus mainly on road projects, whereas compensation within EIAs in the UK have no main focus. The environmental issues that occur due to development are similar for both countries, and the suggested compensation measures propose similar solutions where the most common are passages

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

30

for animals, creation of new habitats and relocation of species. There are few differences in reasons for suggesting compensation or proposed design of compensation, and neither of the two countries has a flawless system. Hence the hypothesis is not rejected.

The aim of this project was to investigate if and how compensation is used within EIA in Sweden and the UK. This aim has been fulfilled through a literature review and a comparative study. The study undertaken within this report has shown that there is some confusion on why compensation measures should be put in place. The main aspect is that there is a lack of experience and protocol in how to implement compensation and adequate protocols are not yet available in the extent they might be needed. Compensation is used within EIA in both Sweden and the UK, however, there is still work to be done before either of the countries have a complete system to ensure that loss of environmental capital caused by development is equalised or increased by investing to increase environmental values in the proximity.

The conclusions drawn in this report are based on the six EIA documents used in the comparative study and relevant literature. A larger sample of EIAs could lead to a greater certainty of the conclusions, but there are no specific limitations on when the base of analysis is large enough. To ensure that the conclusions drawn in this report are general, a random sample of EIAs could be tested against the hypotheses set up within this report. If these tests were to reach the same conclusions as in this study, it would be evident that the conclusions from this report could be seen as general.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

31

6.0 Recommendations for further studies


The comparative study is done based solely on the EIA documents. If all documents during the EIA process and interviews with stakeholders involved in the process were used within the comparison, a more in-depth understanding of how compensation methods are discussed throughout the EIA process could be gained. A larger sample of EIA documents would also improve the certainty of the results.

In this study only two countries are compared. It would be of great interest to involve other countries, such as Germany, that have progressive policies on compensation measures, to get a better view of what the difference is between a system that has been up and running for a long time, and systems that are still struggling to get going.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

32

7.0 References
7.1 Written
Astner, H (2003) tgrder fr att minska vgars barrireffekter fr vilt fallstudier av tv vgprojekt. Examensarbete. Institutionen fr Landskapsplanering Ultuna, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Ultuna, Sweden. Berggren, M (2000) En jmfrande studie av systemen fr miljkonsekvensbeskrivningar (MKB) mellan EU-medlemsstaterna Sverige och Tyskland. Examensarbete. Institutionen fr landskapsplanering Ultuna, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Ultuna, Sweden. Boverket (1997) Boken om MKB del 1 Att arbeta med MKB fr projekt. Boverket, Karlskrona, Sweden. Cowell, R (2000) Environmental Compensation and the Mediation of Environmental change: Making Capital out of Cardiff Bay. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43, 689-710 (2000). Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group. Cowell, R (2003) Substitution and scalar politics: negotiating environmental compensation in Cardiff Bay. Geoforum 34 343-358 (2003). Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Cuperus, R; Canters, KJ; Udo de Haes, HA & Friedman, D (1999) Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation 90, 41-51 (1999). Elsevier Science Ltd. European Union (1985) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. European Union (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending directive 85/337/EEC in the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment. European Union (2004) Council Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004 on the environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Glasson, J; Therviel, R & Chadwick, A (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edition. Spon Press, London, UK.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

33

Grandell, N (1996) Allmnhetens deltagande i MKB-processen i de nordiska lnderna. Nordiska Ministerrdet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Hornby, A S (2000) Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, 6th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Kuiper, G (1997) Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. European Environment 7, 118-125 (1997). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. Kvale, S (1997) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Ledoux, L; Crooks, S; Jordan, A & Turner, RK (2000) Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy 17 257-268 (2000). Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Lerman, P (1995) Environmental Assessment within the European Union Environmental Assessment in Sweden. EIA Newsletter 10 (1995). EIA Centre, Department of planning and landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Merriam, S (1994) Fallstudien som forskningsmetod. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Morris, P & Therviel, R, eds (2001) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edition. Spon Press, London, UK. Rundcrantz, K & Skrbck, E (2003) Environmental Compensation in planning: A review of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system. European Environment 13, 204-226 (2003). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. Skrbck, E (1997) Den som tar mste ge tillbaks. Den tyska balanseringsmetoden fr bttre landskap. Skog & Forskning 1, 6-12 (1997). Freningen Skogen, Stockholm, Sweden. Thompson, S; Treweek, J & Thurling, DJ (1997) The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of environmental Planning and Management 40, 157-171 (1997). Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group. Treweek, J & Thompson, S (1997) A review of ecological mitigation measures in UK environmental statements with respect to sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4, 40-50 (1997). Parthenon Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

34

Vgverket (2002) Miljkonsekvensbeskrivning inom vgsektorn, Del 2 Metodik. Vgverket Publikation 2002:42. Vgverket, Borlnge, Sweden. Wilding, S & Raemaekers, J (2000) Environmental compensation for Greenfield development: Is the devil in the detail? Planning Practice and Research 15, 211-231 (2000). Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group. Wood, C (1995) Environmental Assessment within the European Union Environmental Assessment in the UK. EIA Newsletter 10 (1995). EIA Centre, Department of planning and landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

7.2 Electronic
Banverket (2004) Banverket hjlper vervintrade ormar. http://www.banverket.se/templates/Pressmeddelande____10692.asp (Last updated 2004-06-24, accessed 2004-06-29) Department of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Protected trees: a guide to tree preservation procedures. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpolicy/documents/page/odpm_urb pol_607980.hcsp (Accessed 2004-07-23) Department of Transport (2004) News Release 2004/0042 Dibden Bay port terminal proposals rejected. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0042 (Published 2004-04-10, accessed 2004-07-20) Swedish Parliament (1998) The Swedish Environmental Code 808. http://www.notisum.se/index2.asp?sTemplate=/template/index.asp&iMenuID=314&iMi ddleID=285&iParentMenuID=236&iLanguageID=1 (Published 1998-06-11, Last updated 2004-07-21, accessed 2004-07-22)

7.3 EIA Documents


Dibden terminal - Environmental Statement Dibden terminal. September 2000. Prepared by Adams & Hendry Chartered Town Planners & Environmental Consultants on behalf of Associated British Ports, Southampton, UK. Dibden terminal railway - Environmental Statement Dibden terminal Fawley branch line improvements. September 2000. Prepared by Adams & Hendry Chartered Town Planners & Environmental Consultants on behalf of Associated British Ports, Southampton, UK. Road 73 Miljkonsekvenskbeskrivning fr Arbetsplan Vg 73, delen lgviken Fors. Publikation 2003:97, Objektnr 41540. 2003-11-12. Prepared by Landskapslaget AB on behalf of Vgverket Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. Road A 507 - Environmental Statement A507 Ridgmont Bypass. May 2001. Prepared by Babtie Group on behalf of Bedfordshire County Council, Bedfordshire, UK.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

35

Road E18 Miljkonsekvensbeskrivning Vg E18 Hjulsta Kista Arbetsplan 41510 Detaljplan Dp 1999-08897-54. 2004-01-15. Prepared by SWECO VBB on behalf of Vgverket Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. Road Norrortsleden - MKB Yttre tvrleden, Norrortsleden, delen Tby Kyrkby Rosenklla. Objektnr VST 230 Arbetsplan. 1999-10-12. Vgverket Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. Road Norrortsleden Norrortsleden delen Tby Kyrkby Rosenklla. verklagat beslut om faststllelse av arbetsplan fr Norrortsleden, delen Tby Kyrkby Rosenklla, samt indragning av vg, Tby, Vallentuna och sterkers kommuner, Stockholms ln. 2003-04-29. Vgverket Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

36

Appendices
Appendix 1 Glossary
Banverket Boverket CE EC EEC EIA ES EU Km MKB MSc Natura 2000 The Swedish National Railroad Administration The Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning The European Community The European Commission The European Economic Community Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Statement The European Union Kilometers Miljkonsekvensbeskrivning EIA Master of Science A project by the EU and each of its member states to protect the environment PhD RSPB SLU TPO UK USA Vgverket Doctor of Philosophy The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet the Swedish University of Agriculture Tree Preservation Order The United Kingdom The United States of America The Swedish National Road Administration

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

37

Appendix 2 Analysis Road 73


EIA analysed Road 73 Nynshamn Stockholm, part lgviken Fors. EIA working plan, object number 41540 Publication 2003:97 2003-11-12 Road 73 between Nynshamn and Stockholm is too small in comparison to the amount of traffic using this road. This has lead to a dangerous environment for people using the road and for people living close to it. Therefore it is suggested that a new four-lane road is built in a new corridor through the terrain to increase safety for both roadusers and residents in the area. The suggested new road will lead to environmental consequences for flora and fauna. In conditions set by the County Administrative Board of Stockholm As something that has to be fulfilled according to law

Date of EIA Brief description of project

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Loss of meandering on Creating a straighter Vivid sea trout population in the one part of a stream due stream more suitable for area need good breeding grounds to new bridge sea trout County administrative board fishing expert involved in the construction Creating a new natural Re-creation of lost ravine looking ravine along the straightened stream New road creating Road passages and Dimensions for the passages are barrier hindering the spreading corridors for suggested movement of animals game (both larger and Passages and spreading corridors smaller animals) designed and located in cooperation with hunters and gamekeepers to ensure that game will use the assigned passages The need for and Dimensions for the passages are location of frog suggested passages will be Field research will be carried out investigated to get adequate data

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

38

Possible loss of protected Creation of new habitat insect species habitat for rare insect species (if present habitat is damaged)

No particular loss

Insect species live in very special habitats. If no possibility to save habitat, new habitat will be created No data on location and how construction of new habitat will take place Supplementary planting No justification of trees The aim of the control programme is to monitor and evaluate the fulfilment of the environmental goals. However, monitoring and evaluation of the compensation measures is not suggested. The EIA is well presented, and it seems as though compensation is an issue taken seriously. However, there are data missing on why the chosen compensation measures selected and what effect they will have on the overall environmental values for the area. There is an area that, according to the EIA, will not be affected by the development, but where supplementary planting of trees is still suggested without justification. The passages suggested are proposed to be used for social purposes, e.g. horseback riding as well as for animals. There are some areas where development will affect natural values without there being any suggestions of compensation or mitigation

Monitoring and evaluation of compensation?

Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

39

Appendix 3 Analysis Road E18


EIA analysed Road E18 Hjulsta Kista EIA working plan, object number 41510, Detail plan DP 1999-08897-54 2004-01-15 Europe road E18 close to Stockholm is an unsafe road with much heavy traffic. To increase road safety and the capacity of the road, E18 will partly be re-built and partly re-located to another already existing road more suitable for heavy traffic. To make the connection to the new assigned E18 road a so-called green wedge, which is a nature area of importance to the city based on both social and natural values, will be affected. Need for compensation due to loss of biotopes stressed by the municipal environment- and health board. Compensation methods are described and suggested under own heading following consequences within the chapter on natural values.

Date of EIA Brief description of project

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Loss of habitat for Creation of new habitats Replacement of lost habitat and regeneration of frogs for regeneration and to increase the habitat suitability for spend the winter frogs Should be finished at least one season before old habitat is destroyed Done in cooperation with local planning authority No data on location and how construction of new habitat will take place Movement of eggs from Frogs return to the habitat where they grew up to regenerate, so to old habitat before avoid the loss of frogs and aid in exploitation settling in at the new habitat all eggs laid in old habitat should be moved No data on how movement will take place

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

40

Loss of trees and shrubs

Vegetation zones along new road

Shelter belts along the roads to increase the environmental value of the areas behind the shelterbelts.

Monitoring and evaluation of compensation?

A control programme with the aim to monitor and evaluate the consequences of the development both under construction and operation. However, monitoring and evaluation of the compensation measures is not suggested. Within the chapter on natural values, compensation for loss of frog habitat and shelterbelts are suggested. But the fact that other environmental values are lost or decreased is not evident within the compensation-section of the report. It is for instance mentioned in the EIA that a wetland area with a few rare species will be affected negatively by the development, but this is not mentioned under mitigation or compensation more than that caution has to be taken during the construction phase. There is a thought about compensation within the EIA, but it does not include all areas that might need to be compensated.

Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

41

Appendix 4 Analysis Road Norrortsleden


EIA analysed Date of EIA Brief description of project Road Norrortsleden, part Tby Kyrkby Rosenklla EIA, Working plan, object number VST230 1999-10-12 Road Norrortsleden is a part of a project to improve the Outer Crossway just north of Stockholm. Part Tby Rosenklla is a proposal to connect the already built part of the crossway from road E4 with a 7 km long new road (part Tby Rosenklla) to road E18 North. The proposal will affect regionally important green wedge areas. Compensation is not discussed within the EIA, other than where compensation is suggested.

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Loss of possibility for For a smaller part of the The road tunnel will secure that the most important spreading flora and fauna to spread road, the road will be corridor for fauna and flora is not due to intrusion in green tunnelled under wedge important green wedge destroyed spreading corridor. Creation of tunnel Dimensions for tunnel passages passages for social suggested activities that can also Passages designed so daylight can be used by fauna be seen in the other end of tunnel, which will encourage fauna to use tunnel Creation of bridge Dimensions for bridge passage passage for social suggested activities that can also Bridge will have gravel base and be used by fauna plants growing on it to increase its suitability for fauna to use it Open watercourses lost Creation of culverts Dimensions for culverts due to road passing over, under the road suggested hindering frogs, rodents Design suggested which will ease and insects to spread the spread of fauna Monitoring and evaluation of compensation? A control programme will be established to monitor and evaluate the impacts and measures put in place to mitigate and compensate the impacts. A number of sites will be measured both during construction and during operation to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and compensation.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

42

Comments

Compensation is not really discussed within this EIA. Some impacts are compensated, but the success of these compensation measures can be discussed. Tunnel and bridge passages will be constructed to meet the social needs, and then the developers hope that it might meet the needs of the larger animals as well. If this really is the case is hard to say since there is no evidence of how effective chosen compensation is. Culvert for frogs, rodents and insects is much more detailed in how design and construction will be done to suit the needs of the fauna. According to the EIA, the development will lead to loss of valuable geological formation with species rich dry meadow flora, loss of parts of species rich alder and other wood species marsh woodland with protected flora and fauna species and loss of grassland suggested for national protection. This is not compensated at all, it is just stated that it should be protected as far as possible. This EIA was appealed by, amongst others, the Swedish Environmental Agency, partly on the basis that area proposed for nature reserve was affected (partly on areas important for cultural and social reasons as well). This lead to the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication demanding a complementary document to the EIA, investigating these sensitive areas further. This complementary document was produced, including suggestions of compensation (see below)

Road Norrortsleden, part Tby Kyrkby Rosenklla Presentation on account of the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications letter of 2002-10-28 Date of complementary 2003-04-29 document Document analysed Examination of compensation recommendations within complementary document Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Make the road blend in better in Loss of part of grassland Modelling road banks suggested for nature according to terrain and the landscape reserve shape them like islands within arable fields Planting of native Increase species richness shrubs and meadow Make the road blend in better in flowers on road banks the landscape

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

43

No direct justification Loss of part of grassland Restoration of arable landscape within the suggested for nature According to the complementary proposed nature reserve report not the responsibility of the reserve (continued) developer, but can be done by other stakeholders No justification on why this is Loss of part of important Southern edge of road important green wedge area tunnel will be terraced and planted with vegetation No direct loss Replanting of rare trees Done in cooperation with within the area ecological and botanical expertise According to the complementary report not the responsibility of the developer, but can be done by other stakeholders Monitoring and evaluation of compensation? The effect of the development on flora, especially the rare species, will be followed up through inventory during the operation phase. A management plan for the meadow areas will be established. All mitigation and compensation measures suggested in the complementary report will be investigated further to ensure cost-effectiveness. The detailed planning of how the measures will be carried out will be done in cooperation with the county board and the municipalities. The complementary report goes through some alternatives on where to put the road, but decides that the already suggested proposal is the most favourable from a general picture of all interests. As mentioned in the comments for the EIA (see above), the development will lead to loss of valuable geological formation with species rich dry meadow flora, loss of parts of species rich alder and other wood species marsh woodland with protected flora and fauna species and loss of grassland suggested for national protection. The only impact that is described in the complementary report is the loss of grassland. This means that the other two impacts, which are identified within the EIA, are still not investigated further to ensure that potential loss is adequately compensated. The complementary report suggests compensation for other areas within the development, but it is not clear who should be responsible for the implementation of the compensation measures, and what they are meant to compensate.

Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

44

Appendix 5 Analysis Dibden Rail Link


EIA analysed Date of EIA Brief description of project Dibden terminal Fawley branch line improvements Environmental Statement September 2000 The port at Dibden bay, Southampton is facing development, and as a part of this development there is a proposal to build a 1,3 km double track railway line to link the new port to existing Fawley branch railway line, and to increase the capacity of existing railway line in the area and the connection between regional and national infrastructure. This development will lead to a corridor of land being exploited. Measures envisaged to offset any significant effect of the environment should be described. However, no significant effects are identified within this EIA.

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation None significant enough None No compensation when area of for compensation exploitation is too small to be considered to have significant impacts Monitoring and evaluation of compensation? A control programme with the aim to monitor and evaluate the consequences of the development both under construction and operation. However, since compensation measures are not suggested, no monitoring and evaluation of this will be carried out. A very technical EIA that does not recognise any severe natural environmental impacts, hence no need for compensation. The reason for this viewpoint within the EIA is that the railroad track will go through an area that is already very highly developed, so the extra railroad will only marginally increase the environmental impacts within the area. The EIA emphasises the impacts on social structures, e.g. housing and infrastructure rather than the impacts on nature. The only area where loss of natural values are recognised is an area of Bartley Water floodplain that will be exploited. But due to the small area that will be lost is it considered not to have a significant impact on environment, and no mitigation or compensation is suggested.

Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

45

Appendix 6 Analysis Dibden Terminal


EIA analysed Date of EIA Brief description of project Dibden Terminal Environmental statement September 2000 The port of Southampton is important as an international sea freight gateway and the volume of trade at the port has over time increased considerably. Therefore it is suggested that a new deep-water terminal is built at Dibden bay, on land that is already reclaimed from the river Test, opposite the existing terminal at Southampton docks. The quay would be 1,8 km long with a deep-water channel in front of it. Adjacent to the quay an area of approximately 200 hectares would be claimed for storage and distribution of containers. A 10 metre wide road approximately 1,4 km linking the terminal to existing road network would also be built. Dibden bay is a part of the Solent estuarine system, which is one of the most important intertidal wetland habitats in southern England and of national and international conservation value. A part of the area proposed for the terminal is protected under the EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), and another part is proposed to be designated under the EC directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC) As something that has to be carried out on demand from higher harbour authority. A separate section is dedicated to the main mitigation and compensation measures

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Translocation of grass Loss of species high Grass moved into the new nature grassland along road conservation area to minimise corridor loss of rare species Move carried out by specialist contractor Loss of ancient Creation of new Long term goal to create new woodland in road woodland ancient woodland corridor Relocation to minimise loss of Translocation of flora from ancient woodland ancient woodland area to other location

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

46

Loss of mudflat protected under the EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and area proposed for protection under the EC directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC)

Creation of additional 22 ha of mudflat Improve quality of 32 ha existing contaminated mudflat Construction of 32 ha of intertidal creek, of which 30 ha is intertidal mud

Creation of nature conservation area to provide replacement habitat for e.g. waterfowl species and rare plant species Monitoring and evaluation of compensation?

The new area will have similar mud particle size, which will increase the survival of invertebrates There will be an increase in the time of intertidal area being exposed which will benefit the waterfowl species and improve the quality of the new mudflat compared to present mudflat There is an overall net gain of good quality intertidal mudflat land Conservation area environment is suitable for species using present mudflat Construction designed to provide conditions for rare plant species

The harbour administration considers it important to monitor all habitats created and to include this monitoring into the management plan of the area. Details about monitoring programme are to be discussed later in the process. According to the EIA, almost all negative environmental effects due to development, including loss of protected land, have been mitigated and compensated to become minor beneficial impacts instead, mainly due to the quality of the compensation area. There are some gaps in the EIA, for instance it is stated that the bird population will be disturbed by the light and noise from the new terminal, but it is not discussed how this impact might be mitigated or compensated. The proposal to build the new terminal at Dibden bay was rejected by the British government in April 2004, based on the fact that internationally important environmental sites would be lost and could not be satisfactory compensated (Department for transport 2004, web).

Comments

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

47

Appendix 7 Analysis Road A507


EIA analysed Date of EIA Brief description of project A507 Ridgmont bypass Environmental Statement May 2001 Due to the proximity to larger roads and highways, especially the M1, there is a large volume of heavy goods vehicles using the A507 through the villages Ridgmont and Husborne Crawley. To reduce the level of traffic a single carriageway bypass is proposed, which would form part of the local strategic road network and connect to the M1. The proposed road will go through a new corridor in the landscape, and may therefore cause some environmental impacts, for instance the isolation of two habitats of great crested newt, which is a protected species. Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) is mentioned and a number of TPO areas were identified Local authority states that environmental features should be protected, rehabilitated/restored and enhanced

How are compensation methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA Loss of natural values Suggested Justification of compensation compensation Isolation of two major A ten-year great crested In cooperation with English newt-breeding areas, newt conservation Nature and the county council which are considered the management plan will How the actual compensation will best great crested newt be produced for the be done is not yet decided ponds in the county. The entire site The three suggestions below are great crested newt is all examined within the EIA, fully protected in the where the third suggestion is Wildlife Countryside Act favoured 1981. In all suggestions, great crested newt will be caught in traps and moved during construction phase to ensure no animals are killed 1) Creation of two new Cannot be done if other ponds on adjacent field development proposal to widen the M1 is approved since suitable outside development, field will be lost designated as a nature reserve for great crested newts

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

48

2) Amphibian tunnels

3) Creation of four new ponds together with adjoining terrestrial habitat on suitable, not yet identified, location Loss of scattered mature Planting of new native trees oaks within arable farmland Creation of hedgerows Loss of hedgerow of along road mature hawthorn with some mature oaks Possible loss of bat If bats are found, population since feeding development ceases for areas will be changed consultation with and possible roosting English Nature areas in old oak trees Bat boxes should be will be lost. Bats are placed on mature trees fully protected in the where appropriate in the Wildlife Countryside Act proximity 1981. Areas for planting with features pertinent to bat to be created, including linear flight corridors and a mix of vegetation density Creation of grassland Loss of significant amount of course neutral verges along road corridor grassland Monitoring and evaluation of compensation?

Roads are fenced off and the only possibility for newts to cross is through tunnels Doubtful if newts will actually use tunnel since it will be quite long Smaller area around ponds for newt population to live in Takes account of possible M1 widening Creates new habitat Maintains links with other areas Long term goal to create new mature oaks Will incorporate a good variety of species that are appropriate for local conditions No data on how development will continue after consultation

Creation of possible roosting areas

The interests of the bats should be included in the landscaping of the area

Will incorporate a good variety of species that are appropriate for local conditions

The great crested newts will be monitored within the management plan by consultant licensed vertebrate ecologists. A programme will be designed for monitoring of the other compensation measures.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004

49

Comments

There are quite a few suggestions for compensation within this EIA. However, compensation is dealt with more thoroughly where there is a legislative demand for the protection of species than where there is not. Great crested newts cannot, according to law, be killed, so for development to take place a solution that includes the survival of the great crested newts is necessary. Toads and smooth newts also use the same ponds as habitats, but have a lower protection grade, and compensation is therefore not considered necessary. There is a tendency within the EIA to wait with the decision on what compensation measure to use. This could mean that the decision might come too late.

Cranfield University at Silsoe

Hulda Pettersson

2004