Environmental Impact Assessments and Biodiversity – A valuable approach?

This article was produced by Olswang LLP, which joined with CMS on 1 May 2017.

Any application for planning permission may require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be completed, depending on the scale of the development. It is mandatory for a major industrial development under Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, such as waste disposal installations. If a development falls within Schedule 2 of these regulations, it may also require an EIA if significant effects on the environment may occur as a result of the development.

Any EIA should take into account not only separate impacts such as noise or ecological damage, but also possible cumulative impacts on the ecosystem services provided. A review of ecosystem services affected by a development is likely to identify both the direct and indirect interconnected effects of any planned proposal, both positive and negative (IEMA, 2011a).

Ecosystem services themselves are often defined in accordance with the meaning given in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment where services for regulation (climate management), support (soil formation), provision (food and water) and culture (spiritual values) are supplied as benefits to people at local level and beyond (MA, 2005).

A key link between all ecosystem services as described above is biodiversity, However, the concept of biodiversity itself is under threat from various causes, such as change of land use (such as agriculture) or introduction of invasive species (such as Japanese knotweed).

One way of mitigating biodiversity loss and the consequent damage to ecosystem services may be for an EIA to recommend “biodiversity offsetting”. If the mitigation measures proposed for the site were not enough to address the potential adverse impacts, then it would be possible for the developer to pay to restore land offering the same or similar habitats as the development site (IEMA, 2011b).

It is often suggested that the loss of biodiversity simply be quantified to calculate the value lost by completion of the development in question. While the possibility of mitigating or preventing biodiversity loss through payment of a fixed sum is appealing, anyone implementing the recommendations of an EIA should be aware that such schemes have been criticised for their complexity and high transaction costs. Some EIA practitioners have also reported that clients are unwilling to pay for an EIA to take into account cumulative effects, such as the effect on ecosystem services, if this goes beyond what is required by statutory guidance (IEMA, 2011a).

New guidance from the European Commission on integrating both climate change adaptation and biodiversity into EIAs and strategic environmental assessments are expected in August. It will be interesting to see how the current position changes as a result.