Conceptos EIA

7/27/2019 Conceptos EIA

1/53

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.


2/53

Cranfield University at SilsoeHulda PetterssonMSc in Natural Resource Management

ii

The academic year of 2003/2004Compensation within Environmental Impact Assessmentin 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 proposedcompensation 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


3/53

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.



4/53

iv

Table of contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________ 1

1.1CHOICE OF TOPIC__________________________________________________ 11.2AIMS AND OBJECTIVES______________________________________________ 11.3HYPOTHESES_____________________________________________________ 21.4LIMITATIONS_____________________________________________________ 21.5TERMINOLOGY____________________________________________________ 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY_________________________________________________ 4

2.1LITERATURE REVIEW_______________________________________________ 42.2COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EIA DOCUMENTS______________________________ 4

3.0 BACKGROUND___________________________________________________ 7

3.1ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT________________________________ 73.2COMPENSATION___________________________________________________ 9

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION______________________________________ 15

4.1RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY ___________________________________ 154.2ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION_________________________________________ 18

5.0 CONCLUSIONS__________________________________________________ 29

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES___________________ 31

7.0 REFERENCES ___________________________________________________ 32

7.1WRITTEN_______________________________________________________ 327.2ELECTRONIC ____________________________________________________ 347.3EIADOCUMENTS_________________________________________________ 34

APPENDICES_______________________________________________________ 36

APPENDIX 1GLOSSARY _____________________________________________ 36APPENDIX 2ANALYSIS ROAD 73 ______________________________________ 37APPENDIX 3ANALYSIS ROAD E18 _____________________________________ 39APPENDIX 4ANALYSIS ROADNORRORTSLEDEN __________________________ 41APPENDIX 5ANALYSIS DIBDEN RAIL LINK______________________________ 44

APPENDIX 6ANALYSIS DIBDEN TERMINAL ______________________________ 45APPENDIX 7ANALYSIS ROAD A507 ____________________________________ 47



5/53

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Choice of topicEnvironmental 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 thesame 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.



6/53

2

- 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.



7/53

3

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.



8/53

4

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Literature reviewIn 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 Country Brief description of proposed project

Road 73 Sweden Building a new four-lane road to increase road safety.

Road E18 Sweden Partly building a new four-lane road, partly diverting traffic to alreadyexisting road to increase road capacity.

Road Norrortsleden Sweden Building a new single carriageway road to connect existing roads.

Dibden Rail Link UK Building a new double track railway line connecting a possible newport development to existing railway network.

Dibden terminal UK Building a new port including quay, storage area and access road toincrease sea freight capacity.

Road A507 UK Building a new single carriageway road to increase road safety andconnect to existing roads.



9/53

5

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 ofproject

How are compensation

methods mentioned?

Examination of compensation recommendations within EIA

Loss of natural values Suggested

compensation

Justification of compensation

Monitoring and

evaluation of

compensation?

Comments



10/53

6

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 itcan 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.



11/53

7

3.0 Background

3.1 Environmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental 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 wasconducted. 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 decision-

making, 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.



12/53

8

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 baselineIdentification of key impacts

Prediction of impactsEvaluation and assessment of significance of impactsIdentification of mitigating measures

Publicparticipation

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

Post-decision monitoringEvaluation 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 theopportunity 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).



13/53

9

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 wasimplemented 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



14/53

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 toRundcrantz & 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.



15/53

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 thatthere 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



16/53

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).



17/53

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 hasalso 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 theUK. 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



18/53

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.



19/53

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 EIAsare 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

Description of proposed project

Road 73

Sweden

Road 73 between Nynshamn and Stockholm is too small in comparison to theamount of traffic using this road. Therefore it is suggested that a new four-laneroad is built in a new corridor through the terrain to increase safety for both road-users and residents in the area.

Road E18

Sweden

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 willpartly be re-built and partly re-located to another already existing road moresuitable for heavy traffic.

Road Norrortsleden

Sweden

Road Norrortsleden part Tby Rosenklla is a proposal to connect the alreadybuilt part of a crossway from road E4 with a 7 km long new single carriagewayroad up to road E18 North.

Dibden rail link

UK

The port at Dibden bay, Southampton is facing development, and as a part of thisdevelopment there is a proposal to build a 1,3 km double track railway line tolink the new port to existing Fawley branch railway line.

Dibden terminal

UK

The port of Southampton is important as an international sea freight gateway andthe volume of trade at the port has over time increased considerably. Therefore itis suggested that a new deep-water terminal is built at Dibden bay. The quaywould be 1,8 km long with a deep-water channel in front of it. Adjacent to thequay an area of approximately 200 hectares would be claimed for storage anddistribution of containers.

Road A507

UK

Due to the proximity to larger roads and highways, especially the M1, there is alarge volume of heavy goods vehicles using the A507 through the villagesRidgmont and Husborne Crawley. To reduce the level of traffic a singlecarriageway bypass is proposed, which would form part of the local strategic

road network and connect to the M1.



20/53

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

ProjectLoss ofnaturalvalues

Suggestedcompen-sation

Cooperationwithauthorities/

stakeholders

Decision ondesign andconstruction

Require-ments forcompen-

sation

Monitoringandevaluation of

compensation

Comments

Road 73

Loss ofmeanderingwatercourse

Improvehabitat forsea trout

Yes Decisiontaken

Roadformingbarrier

Passagesfor fauna

Yes Decisiontaken

Possibleloss ofinsecthabitat

Newhabitat

Not evident Decisionpostponed

No loss Newvegetation Not evident Decisiontaken

Legislation

Regionalauthority

Notsuggesteddirectly

Data missing onwhy certaincompensationmeasures werechosen

Areas left outthat potentiallyneedcompensation

Road E18

Loss ofhabitat forfrogs

NewhabitatMovementof frogeggs

Yes Decisionpostponed

Loss ofvegetation

Newvegetation

Not evident Decisiontaken

Localauthority

Notsuggesteddirectly


Road Norrortsleden

Road

formingbarrier

Passages

for floraand fauna

Not evident

Changewatercourse

Culvertpassagesfor frogs,rodents andinsects

Not evident

Loss ofvegetation

Newvegetation

Not evident

No loss Newvegetation

Yes

All measures

suggestedwill beinvestigatedfurther toensure cost-effectiveness

Not

mentioned

Yes Data missing on

why certaincompensationmeasures werechosen




21/53

17

Table 4 continued

Project

Loss of

naturalvalues

Suggested

compen-sation

Cooperation

withauthorities/stakeholders

Decision on

design andconstruction

Require-

ments forcompen-sation

Monitoring

andevaluation ofcompensation

Comments

Dibden rail link

No areasidentified

None - - - - Areas left outthat potentiallyneedcompensation

Dibden terminal

Loss ofhabitat forwaterfowl

andinvertebrates

Newhabitat


Loss ofvegetation

Movementofvegetation

Yes Decisiontaken

Harbourauthority

Notsuggesteddirectly,

to bediscussedlater

Areas left outthat potentiallyneed

compensation

Proposalrejected bygovernment

Road A507

Isolation ofgreatcrested newthabitat

NewhabitatMovementof fauna

Not evident Decisionpostponed

Loss ofvegetation

Newvegetation


Possibleloss of bathabitat

Decisionafterinventory

Yes Decisionpostponed

Legislation

Localauthority

Yes Areas left outthat potentiallyneedcompensation

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 compensationmeasures 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.



22/53

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 thecategories 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.



23/53

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 toensure 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.



24/53

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 nooption 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, RoadNorrortsleden 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



25/53

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 withindevelopment 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 twois 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.



26/53

22

Cooperation with author ities/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 construc tion

For some of the suggested compensation measures, decisions about design and

construction are already taken, which means that compensation can be carried outwithout 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 bediscussed 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



27/53

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 adescription 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



28/53

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 thelegislative 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.



29/53

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.

CommentsWithin 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 onlymention 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.



30/53

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 whatcompensation 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 Faunaand 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.



31/53

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 reallya 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



32/53

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 financialvalues 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.



33/53

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 todevelopment 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



34/53

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 agreater 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.



35/53

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.



36/53

32

7.0 References

7.1 WrittenAstner, H (2003)tgrder fr att minska vgars barrireffekter fr vilt fallstudier avtv vgprojekt. Examensarbete. Institutionen fr Landskapsplanering Ultuna, SverigesLantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Ultuna, Sweden.

Berggren, M (2000) En jmfrande studie av systemen frmiljkonsekvensbeskrivningar (MKB) mellan EU-medlemsstaterna Sverige ochTyskland. Examensarbete. Institutionen fr landskapsplanering Ultuna, SverigesLantbruksuniversitet (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 Environmentalchange: Making Capital out of Cardiff Bay. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 43, 689-710 (2000). Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group.

Cowell, R (2003) Substitution and scalar politics: negotiating environmentalcompensation in Cardiff Bay. Geoforum 34 343-358 (2003). Pergamon, ElsevierScience Ltd.

Cuperus, R; Canters, KJ; Udo de Haes, HA & Friedman, D (1999) Guidelines forecological 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 theassessment 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 theconservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

European Union (1997) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amendingdirective 85/337/EEC in the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and PrivateProjects on the Environment.

European Union (2004) Council Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament andthe 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 ImpactAssessment, 2ndedition. Spon Press, London, UK.



37/53

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 Dutchcase study. European Environment 7, 118-125 (1997). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERPEnvironment.

Kvale, S (1997)Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.

Ledoux, L; Crooks, S; Jordan, A & Turner, RK (2000)Implementing EU biodiversitypolicy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy 17 257-268 (2000). Pergamon, ElsevierScience Ltd.

Lerman, P (1995) Environmental Assessment within the European Union Environmental Assessment in Sweden. EIA Newsletter10 (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, 2ndedition. Spon Press, London, UK.

Rundcrantz, K & Skrbck, E (2003) Environmental Compensation in planning: Areview of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system. EuropeanEnvironment 13, 204-226 (2003). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Skrbck, E (1997)Den som tar mste ge tillbaks. Den tyska balanseringsmetoden frbttre landskap. Skog & Forskning 1, 6-12 (1997). Freningen Skogen, Stockholm,Sweden.

Thompson, S; Treweek, J & Thurling, DJ (1997) The ecological component ofenvironmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements.

Journal of environmental Planning and Management 40, 157-171 (1997). CarfaxPublishing, Taylor and Francis Group.

Treweek, J & Thompson, S (1997)A review of ecological mitigation measures in UKenvironmental statements with respect to sustainable development. International Journalof Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4, 40-50 (1997). Parthenon Publishing,Taylor and Francis Group.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Ourcommon future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.



38/53

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 Newsletter10 (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 treepreservation 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 terminalproposals 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&iMiddleID=285&iParentMenuID=236&iLanguageID=1 (Published 1998-06-11, Lastupdated 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 Consultantson behalf of Associated British Ports, Southampton, UK.

Dibden terminal railway - Environmental Statement Dibden terminal Fawley branchline improvements. September 2000. Prepared by Adams & Hendry Chartered TownPlanners & 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. Preparedby Babtie Group on behalf of Bedfordshire County Council, Bedfordshire, UK.



39/53

35

Road E18 Miljkonsekvensbeskrivning Vg E18 Hjulsta Kista Arbetsplan 41510Detaljplan Dp 1999-08897-54. 2004-01-15. Prepared by SWECO VBB on behalf ofVgverket 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. verklagatbeslut 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.



40/53

36

Appendices

Appendix 1 GlossaryBanverket The Swedish National Railroad Administration

Boverket The Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning

CE The European Community

EC The European Commission

EEC The European Economic Community

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ES Environmental StatementEU The European Union

Km Kilometers

MKB Miljkonsekvensbeskrivning EIA

MSc Master of Science

Natura 2000 A project by the EU and each of its member states to protect the

environment

PhD Doctor of PhilosophyRSPB The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet the Swedish University of Agriculture

TPO Tree Preservation Order

UK The United Kingdom

USA The United States of America

Vgverket The Swedish National Road Administration



41/53

37

Appendix 2 Analysis Road 73

EIA analysed Road 73 Nynshamn Stockholm, part lgviken Fors.

EIA working plan, object number 41540 Publication2003:97Date of EIA 2003-11-12

Brief description of

project

Road 73 between Nynshamn and Stockholm is too small incomparison to the amount of traffic using this road. Thishas lead to a dangerous environment for people using theroad and for people living close to it. Therefore it issuggested that a new four-lane road is built in a newcorridor through the terrain to increase safety for both road-users and residents in the area. The suggested new road will

lead to environmental consequences for flora and fauna.


methods mentioned?

In conditions set by the County Administrative Board ofStockholmAs something that has to be fulfilled according to law



compensation


Vivid sea trout population in the

area need good breeding grounds

Creating a straighter

stream more suitable forsea trout County administrative boardfishing expert involved in theconstruction

Loss of meandering on

one part of a stream dueto new bridge

Creating a new naturallooking ravine along thestraightened stream

Re-creation of lost ravine

Dimensions for the passages aresuggested

Road passages andspreading corridors forgame (both larger andsmaller animals)

Passages and spreading corridorsdesigned and located in

cooperation with hunters andgamekeepers to ensure that gamewill use the assigned passagesDimensions for the passages aresuggested

New road creatingbarrier hindering themovement of animals

The need for andlocation of frog

passages will beinvestigated

Field research will be carried outto get adequate data



42/53

38

Insect species live in very specialhabitats. If no possibility to savehabitat, new habitat will becreated

Possible loss of protectedinsect species habitat

Creation of new habitatfor rare insect species(if present habitat isdamaged)

No data on location and howconstruction of new habitat willtake place

No particular loss Supplementary plantingof trees

No justification

Monitoring and

evaluation of

compensation?

The aim of the control programme is to monitor andevaluate the fulfilment of the environmental goals.However, monitoring and evaluation of the compensationmeasures is not suggested.

Comments The EIA is well presented, and it seems as thoughcompensation is an issue taken seriously. However, thereare data missing on why the chosen compensation measuresselected and what effect they will have on the overallenvironmental values for the area. There is an area that,according to the EIA, will not be affected by thedevelopment, but where supplementary planting of trees isstill suggested without justification. The passages suggestedare proposed to be used for social purposes, e.g. horsebackriding as well as for animals. There are some areas where

development will affect natural values without there beingany suggestions of compensation or mitigation



43/53

39

Appendix 3 Analysis Road E18

EIA analysed Road E18 Hjulsta Kista

EIA working plan, object number 41510,Detail plan DP 1999-08897-54Date of EIA 2004-01-15

Brief description of

project

Europe road E18 close to Stockholm is an unsafe road withmuch heavy traffic. To increase road safety and the capacityof the road, E18 will partly be re-built and partly re-locatedto another already existing road more suitable for heavytraffic. To make the connection to the new assigned E18road a so-called green wedge, which is a nature area ofimportance to the city based on both social and natural

values, will be affected.


methods mentioned?

Need for compensation due to loss of biotopes stressed bythe municipal environment- and health board.Compensation methods are described and suggested underown heading following consequences within the chapter onnatural values.



compensation


Replacement of lost habitat andincrease the habitat suitability forfrogsShould be finished at least oneseason before old habitat isdestroyedDone in cooperation with local

planning authority

Creation of new habitatsfor regeneration and tospend the winter

No data on location and howconstruction of new habitat will

take placeFrogs return to the habitat wherethey grew up to regenerate, so toavoid the loss of frogs and aid insettling in at the new habitat alleggs laid in old habitat should bemoved

Loss of habitat forregeneration of frogs

Movement of eggs fromold habitat beforeexploitation

No data on how movement willtake place


Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	diego-alejandro-vargas
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times