World Class Science for the Marine and Freshwater Environment
Offshore Wind Farms Enabling Actions:
A review of the use of compensatory measures and applicability to UK offshore developments.
Author(s): Sylvia Blake1, Victoria Copley2, Alex Fawcett2, Karen Hall3, Joe Perry1 and Daniel Wood1
Issue Date: 30 October 2020
1Cefas, 2Natural England, 3JNCC
Document Control
Offshore Wind Farm Enabling Actions Team, Department for Submitted to: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Date submitted: 30 October 2020
Project Manager: Michael Fox
Sylvia Blake, Victoria Copley, Alexandra Fawcett, Karen Hall, Joe Report compiled by: Perry and Daniel Wood
Quality control by: Adrian Judd, 30 October 2020
Approved by and date: Adrian Judd, 30 October 2020
Version: 5
Blake, S. Copley, V. Fawcett, A. Hall, K. Perry, J. and Wood, D. Recommended citation 2020. A review of the use of compensatory measures and for this report: applicability to UK offshore developments, Defra Project ME6032. pp. 103.
Version Control History Version Author Date Comment SB, VC, AF, KH, JP, 1.0 05/06/2020 First Draft DW SB, VC, AF, KH, JP, 2.0 20/07/2020 Revised version DW 3.0 SB, JP, DW 21/08/2020 Revised version 4.0 SB, DW 02/10/2020 Revised version 5.0 SB 27/10/2020 Final Version
Executive Summary
The UK marine area is becoming increasingly busy with multiple users from different industries operating in the same area. At the same time, the UK government is committed to maintaining a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) to conserve and promote key habitats, species, and ecosystem services At times, social, environmental and economic drivers can compete and come into conflict leading to difficult decisions needing to be made. In certain cases, a project or development may have the potential to impact an MPA to the extent that the negative impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated. In such cases derogations to regulations may be applied where there are either ‘imperative reasons of overriding interest1 (IROPI)’ or where ‘the benefit to the public clearly outweighs the damage to the environment2’. This route may only be taken where all other options to avoid, reduce and mitigate environmental impacts have been exhausted or deemed unfeasible. In these cases, Compensatory Measures will be required in lieu of the environmental features damaged, impacted or lost. In this project ‘compensatory measures’ is used as a collective term to address environmental compensation. This project brought together expertise and knowledge from Cefas, Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee to define, highlight and review key areas for consideration on the use of compensatory measures offshore. The project aim was to review the use of compensatory measures in the UK and international case studies where there was a need to derogate from either UK or EU legislation for protected areas. Either by applying Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, or Article 6 (4) of the EU Habitats Directive (and its transposition into UK legislation). The review looked at 19 case studies in the UK and 14 International developments where compensatory measures were implemented. Of the UK 19 case studies, 17 were selected for further review. The selection depended on the availability of sufficient information. International cases ranged from small scale terrestrial plans or projects to large scale marine projects. The compensatory measures observed for marine projects in the UK were predominantly habitat creation because of managed realignment (11 of the 17). Issues identified included difficulties in measuring success and developers facing barriers or difficulties with legal compliance. The types of habitat created included mudflats, salt marsh, shingle sand, dunes, glacial cobble skear and reedbeds. However, some habitats’ ability to function in the long term may either not be viable (e.g. low-level mudflat naturally accreting to saltmarsh) or be difficult to quantify due to natural variation. Compensatory measures used outside of the UK did not differ considerably from those used within the UK. Most principles could be transferred to a UK environment. Measures such as habitat restoration were undertaken much as they are in the UK. Only Finland has the
1 Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, see: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/regulation/62/made
2 Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, see: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/section/126
Page i
regulatory framework equipped to mandate compensatory measures for sites not covered by the EU Habitats Directive. Where confidence in understanding the scale and severity of the impact and the effectiveness of the measures was poor, or there was a large time lag between the negative impact and the implementation of compensatory measures, large ratios for compensatory habitat were adopted. These ranged from 1:1 to 6:1 because of this precautionary approach.
In the context of offshore wind farms (OWF) all examples of compensatory measures were thought to be either directly relevant or have some measure of transferability. Some innovation may be required for habitat creation offshore. Pilot studies on biogenic reef and translocation of habitats for other renewable industry projects, have had merit. It should be noted that it may not always be possible to provide a like for like replacement of losses in the marine environment. For example, in the compensatory measures applied for the Cardiff Bay Barrage, a wider environmental gain was considered to be of greater value than providing habitat replacement for the negatively impacted features.
Offshore receptors such as marine mammals and migratory fish may not use the habitat in the same way. This may require different measures for loss of a habitat dependent on the receptor. Due to their transient nature, they are difficult and costly to survey and quantify. Considerable scientific doubt remains for some issues identified in previous OWF consents, e.g. impact on marine mammals. Addressing these barriers (e.g. closing knowledge gaps and ensuring a good understanding of baselines and impacts on receptors for offshore developments) are key factors for success.
Designing and implementing a targeted and appropriate compensatory measure did not guarantee its effectiveness, which was critically dependent on the management of the measure. Monitoring requirements were observed to be required initially on an annual basis and for a minimum of 10 years. Whilst there were examples where monitoring lasted decades, steering groups applying adaptive management were able to bring about changes to requirements which appeared beneficial both to the developer and ecologically. The timescale to reach success and consequently for monitoring was dependent on the type of measures implemented and the rate of success which was different for each project due to the physical geographical and biological context applied. Many of the managed realignment schemes implemented as compensatory measures have now been incorporated into designated Special Protection Area or Ramsar sites. Notably outcomes were generally described as successful on reaching either a target or threshold level required to support the impacted feature(s). Some schemes originally determined successful are still waiting to be adopted into conservation designations, and the indication of their contribution to the coherence of the conservation networks is undefined. Most schemes on reaching the required success, were either handed over to trusts and charities like the Wildfowl Wetland Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) or left for commercial management, which included future monitoring of success.
Finally, the report concludes by noting the key points that were identified for the successful use of compensatory measures.
Page ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... i Tables iv Acronyms vi 1 Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Aims and Objectives ...... 10 2 Defining Compensatory Measures ...... 11 2.1 Compensatory Measures under the Habitats Directive ...... 11 2.2 Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit under the Marine and Coastal Access Act ...... 13 2.3 Additional Considerations ...... 14 Mitigation ...... 14 Net Gain ...... 15 Offsetting measures ...... 16 3 Methodology ...... 17 4 Review of Compensatory Measures within the UK ...... 17 4.1 Types of Compensatory Measures ...... 18 Improvement and enhancement ...... 18 Restoration ...... 19 Extension ...... 19 Translocation ...... 20 Replacement ...... 20 Other measures ...... 20 4.2 Adequacy of Compensatory Measures ...... 21 4.3 Departing from “Like for Like” ...... 22 4.4 Out of Area, Region or Country ...... 22 4.5 Summary ...... 22 5 Compensatory Measures Applied Internationally ...... 24 5.1 Types of Compensatory Measure ...... 24 5.2 Adequacy of Compensatory Measures ...... 25 5.3 Out of Area, Region or Country ...... 26 5.4 Summary ...... 26 6 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ...... 28 6.1 Frequency and Duration ...... 28 6.2 Natural Variation ...... 29 6.3 Stakeholder Steering Groups ...... 31 6.4 Reporting ...... 31 6.5 Summary ...... 33 7 Consideration of Assessment and ‘Success Criteria’ ...... 34
Page iii
7.1 Defining Success ...... 34 7.2 UK Case Studies ...... 35 7.3 International Case Studies ...... 36 7.4 Evaluating and Assessing Success ...... 37 7.5 Summary ...... 39 8 Demonstrating Legal Compliance ...... 40 8.1 Barriers to Demonstrating Compliance...... 40 8.2 Consideration of Methods That Could Assist in Demonstrating Compliance .. 45 8.3 Summary ...... 46 9 Discussion ...... 47 9.1 Defining and Implementing Effective Compensatory Measures ...... 47 Design and implementation ...... 47 Management and monitoring of compensatory measures ...... 48 The need for effective compensatory measures ...... 50 Ecological enhancement ...... 52 9.2 Transferability of International into UK ...... 52 9.3 Applicability to Offshore Wind Farms ...... 53 9.4 Barriers and Gaps ...... 55 Lack of available and accessible knowledge and data ...... 55 Data gaps ...... 56 9.5 Compensatory Measures ...... 56 Best practice and principles for Compensatory Measures ...... 57 9.6 Closing Thoughts ...... 58 10 Acknowledgements ...... 60 11 References ...... 60 Annex 1: UK Cases Reviewed ...... 64 Annex 2: International Cases Reviewed ...... 75 Annex 3: Monitoring and Reporting ...... 79 Annex 4: Steering Groups ...... 90 Annex 5: Marine Ecological Enhancement ...... 97
Tables
Table 1. Summary of barriers to demonstration of legal compliance identified during the review...... 43
Table 2. UK projects containing compensatory measures. “–“ indicates insufficient information was available to complete. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work...... 64
Table 3. International projects containing compensatory measures...... 75
Page iv
Table 4. Monitoring and Reporting. Only cases with sufficient information to review included. Projects were selected from those identified in the UK and international case studies in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work...... 79
Table 5. UK case studies evidence of strong regulatory or stakeholder engagement and success and efficiency criteria. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work...... 90
Table 6. Non-UK case studies evidence of strong regulatory or stakeholder engagement and success and efficiency criteria...... 94
Table 7. Examples of marine ecological enhancement (not compensatory measures per se)...... 97
Page v
Acronyms
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
CIWEM Chartered Institute of Water and Environment Management
DASH The Archive for Marine Species and Habitats Data
DCO Development Consent Order
EA Environment Agency
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
HHA Harwich Haven Authority
HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment
ICG- Intersessional Correspondence Group on Underwater Noise Noise
IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest.
JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network
MCAA Marine Coastal Access Act 2009
MCZ Marine Conservation Zone
MEDIN Marine Environmental Data and Information Network
MEEB Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit
MMO Marine Management Organisation
MPA Marine Protected Area
NE Natural England
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NRW Natural Resources Wales
NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project
OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North- East Atlantic
OWF Offshore Wind Farm
PINS Planning Inspectorate
RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Page vi
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SNCB Statutory Nature Conservation Body
SoS Secretary of State
SPA Special Protection Area
SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest
TLSB Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project
WWT Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
Page vii
1 Introduction
The UK marine area is becoming increasingly busy with multiple users from different industries operating in the same area. Within this context, the climate emergency places great emphasis on generating energy from renewable sources providing energy into the future, with offshore wind set to make a significant contribution. At the same time, the UK government is committed to maintaining a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) to conserve and promote key habitats, species, and ecosystems. These habitats, receptors and MPAs play important roles in contributing to Good Environmental Status (GES) under the UK Marine Strategy and the provision of ecosystem services. If for example, the conservation objectives of an MPA are impacted, then the site can no longer fully contribute to GES and the provision of ecosystem services and benefits.
At times, social, environmental, and economic drivers can compete and come into conflict leading to difficult decisions needing to be made. In certain cases, a project or development may have the potential to impact an MPA to the extent that the negative impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated. In these cases, derogations to regulations may be applied where there are either ‘imperative reasons of overriding interest (IROPI)’ (European Commission, 2018) or where ‘the benefit to the public clearly outweighs the damage to the environment’ (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009). This route may only be taken where all other options to avoid, reduce and mitigate environmental impacts have been exhausted or deemed unfeasible (Figure 1). In these cases, Compensatory Measures will be required in lieu of the environmental features damaged, impacted or lost.
Page 8
Figure 1. The ‘derogation route’ to where a project, plan or development may be consented whilst required to take Compensatory Measures. IROPI = imperative reasons of overriding public interest, SoS = Secretary of State, EC = European Commission. Figure adapted from HRA guidance provided by Marine Management Organisation, (n.d.).
In this project ‘compensatory measures’ is used as a collective term to address environmental compensation. Developing a systematic and clear approach to compensatory measures for future offshore wind developments will require a better understanding of how to define, quantify and apply compensatory measures. Equally, the aspects of the environment that are to be compensated for require careful definition. The target outcome for developments would be to minimise the need for compensatory measures through the ‘avoid, reduce, mitigate hierarchy’, and adaptively manage the cumulative environmental effects of offshore wind expansion.
This project considers compensatory measures under:
1. Article 6 (4) of the EU Habitats Directive and its transposition into UK legislation. 2. UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) (plus devolved equivalents).
Under both EU legislation transposed into UK law for European sites and UK law of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) for Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) (plus devolved equivalents), there are provisions for ‘compensatory measures’ or ‘measures of equivalent environmental benefit’ respectively. Whilst the primary goal of such measures is to
Page 9
‘compensate’ for any impact on the features which could prevent delivery of the conservation objectives of protected sites, compensatory measures must also factor in the maintenance of an ecologically coherent network of protected sites.
[Note that The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, (2019) will amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001. These amendments will come into force after the current transition period.] 1.1 Aims and Objectives
This report brings together expertise and knowledge from Cefas, Natural England (NE) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The aim of this report is to define, highlight and review the key areas for consideration on the use of compensatory measures offshore. Some of these areas may warrant specific and more detailed separate investigation. Where relevant, we have highlighted these in the discussion at the end of the report. The project scope is focused on the UK, but international cases of compensatory measures are included as appropriate (noting also that differences in interpretation and application may exist in the Devolved Administrations of the UK).
The overall aim of this project is a literature review to identify feasible compensatory measures for offshore wind developments where there is a need to derogate from either Article 6 (4) of the EU Habitats Directive (and its transposition into UK legislation) or apply Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The review covers the following objectives, each of which is considered in the report through respective sections:
1. Definition of compensatory measures. 2. Identification and review of measures which have already been put in place within the UK including an assessment of what benefits they have delivered. 3. Identification and review of any relevant measures which have been applied internationally, their efficacy, and an assessment of the potential transferability of these to UK waters. 4. Review of the monitoring and reporting requirements around the compensatory measures component of a project or development. 5. Consideration of the assessment and ‘success criteria’ used within the projects. 6. Consideration of methods for demonstrating compliance with legal obligations for projects where a Marine Protected Area is impacted (for example, the requirements of Habitat Regulations Assessments, Marine Conservation Zone Assessments and Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit).
Page 10
2 Defining Compensatory Measures
The following text is a non-legal explanation; developers, advisors and regulators should always refer to the legal text, formal guidance, European Commission judgements and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) Examination submissions for definitive interpretations and advice.
The term ‘compensatory measures’ is used in this report as an umbrella term to cover measures which are taken to sufficiently compensate for a negative impact on a designated site. Designated sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). The use of compensatory measures allows a project to be consented in the knowledge that the overall coherence of the MPA network (and associated features and conservation objectives) is maintained. This report discusses two contexts in which ‘compensatory measures’ may be considered:
1. Habitats Directive: the term ‘compensatory measures’ has a specific meaning under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, compensatory measures must be put in place if a plan/project is judged to have an adverse effect on the integrity of SACs or SPAs but will be taken through the ‘derogation route’ (see section 2.1). 2. Marine and Coastal Access Act section 126, requires that; ‘Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB)’ to the damage which an activity is likely to have in/on an MCZ must be secured if the activity is progressed under the derogation route (see section 2.2). To define compensatory measures, it is important to first understand the differences in comparison to mitigation.
From the regulations (European Commission, 2007):
“The term ‘compensatory measures’ is not defined in the Habitats Directive. Experience would suggest the following distinction between compensatory and mitigation measures:
mitigation measures, in the broader sense, are those measures that aim to minimise, or even eliminate, the negative impacts likely to arise from the implementation of a plan or project so that the site’s integrity is not adversely affected. These measures are considered in the context of Article 6(3) and are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project or conditional to its authorisation (see section 4.6.5).
compensatory measures are independent of the project (including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended to offset the residual negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network is maintained. They can only be considered in the context of Article 6(4).” (Directive 92/43/EEC). 2.1 Compensatory Measures under the Habitats Directive
For any plan or project which may interact with, and impact on, European designated sites, a preliminary assessment is carried out using a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA): a process that includes the screening for ‘likely significant effects’ and the subsequent appropriate assessment. If conclusions of the preliminary assessment (Article 6(3)) are positive, in the sense that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of effects on the site, the competent authorities can give their consent on the plan or project. In case of
Page 11
doubt, or negative conclusions, the precautionary and preventive principles should be applied and procedures under Article 6(4) followed. Compensatory measures are required by Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive where a competent authority is unable to conclude that a plan or project will not have an adverse effect upon the integrity of a European site, but nonetheless intends to consent it for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI).
The provisions of Art. 6(4) apply when the results of the preliminary assessment under Art. 6(3) are negative or uncertain. That is: 1. The plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site or 2. Doubts remain as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site linked to the plan or project concerned "The sequential order of its steps has to be followed".
After ascertaining the absence of alternative solutions, the competent authority must ensure that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network (the UK’s National Site Network as of 2021). This requirement applies to all designated and proposed European sites (SAC and SPA) and includes Ramsar sites. Note it is UK policy to treat proposed sites as designated sites.
The intention is that loss or impairment of extent or function of a site (i.e. an adverse effect on site integrity) arising from a plan or project shall be compensated.
Furthermore, European Commission guidance on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive makes it clear that compensatory measures should be additional to measures that are required for the normal implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, such as implementing a management plan, or designation of a new site that is already proposed. These include Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, and 4(4) of the Birds Directive. (Note these duties are transposed as regulations 25 and 26 of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001). Compensatory measures, therefore, should be additional to those actions required for Member States to meet the normal or standard obligations for the protection and management of European sites.
The EC guidance section 5.4.3 (European Commission, 2018) states that the following are examples of compensatory measures (whilst still relating to features affected by the plan or project): Habitat improvement in existing sites: improving the remaining habitat on the site concerned or restoring the habitat on another Natura 2000 site, in proportion to the loss due to the plan or project. Habitat re-creation: creating a habitat on a new or enlarged site, to be incorporated into Natura 2000. Proposing a new site of sufficient quality and establishing/implementing conservation measures for this new site. Species reintroduction. Species recovery and reinforcement, including reinforcement of prey species. Land purchase. Rights acquisition. Reserve creation.
Page 12
Incentives for certain economic activities to sustain key ecological functions. Reduction in (other) threats.
The European Commission (2018) guidance, section 5.4.2, requires compensatory measures to be within the same bio-geographic region (for Habitat Directive sites). For bird species they should be within the same range, migration route or wintering area (designated under the Birds Directive) in the Member State concerned. Where possible, the compensatory measures are expected to be available before the negative impacts of a project are observed. Where this is not possible then “overcompensation” is needed to include what would be lost between the development project and the delivery of the compensation.
“In principle, the result of implementing compensation has normally to be operational at the time when the damage is effective on the site concerned. Under certain circumstances where this cannot be fully fulfilled, overcompensation would be required for the interim losses.”
2.2 Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit under the Marine and Coastal Access Act
Under section 126 of the MCAA the aim is meeting the MCZ conservation objectives. Consideration must be given to whether the benefit to the public of proceeding with an activity outweighs the risk of damage to the environment. A public benefit is defined as providing a service or benefit to the local and or regional population or community. The required action in this instance is a Measure of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB). However, the meaning of MEEB will depend on the scale and the nature of the impact.
Section 126.7 states:
“The condition in this subsection is that, although the person seeking the authorisation is not able to satisfy the authority that there is no significant risk of the act hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives stated for the MCZ, that person satisfies the authority that—
(a) there is no other means of proceeding with the act which would create a substantially lower risk of hindering the achievement of those objectives,
(b) the benefit to the public of proceeding with the act clearly outweighs the risk of damage to the environment that will be created by proceeding with it, and
(c) the person seeking the authorisation will undertake, or make arrangements for the undertaking of, measures of equivalent environmental benefit to the damage which the act will or is likely to have in or on the MCZ.”
Page 13
2.3 Additional Considerations
Compensatory measures should not be considered mitigation, Net Gain or offsetting. These terms are often used interchangeably, either independently or within the definitions of ‘compensatory measures’, which can be taken to address an environmental impact whilst allowing a development to proceed. However, they are separate mechanisms and should be considered as such. An overview of the definition of each term is included here for the purposes of explaining why these are not unilaterally compensatory measures. It is necessary to understand the differences between compensatory measures and these other forms of intervention measures. These terms are not reviewed further within this project. However, they are referred to where relevant.
Mitigation
The Habitats Regulations make a clear distinction between mitigation and compensatory measures. In the absence of a specific definition, where mitigation relates to the consideration of plans and projects under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive, the following approach is recommended:
Where a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect upon qualifying interests or an adverse effect upon the integrity of a site, but this can be avoided, minimised or cancelled by modifications to the proposal, or by introducing conditions, then this is mitigation (Justice & Environment, 2016). Such mitigation can occur within or outside the site and should be designed to remove negative impacts so that either there is no likely significant effect or no adverse effect on site integrity, or at least reduce the impact. Even if the significant impact cannot be removed, then reducing it is likely to be good practice and reduce the size of compensatory measures required.
European Commission guidance makes it clear that mitigation measures should be an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project. European guidance on wind energy developments goes into some detail as to how the impacts of such proposals may be mitigated. All of which relates to the siting, design and scale of wind farms and their associated infrastructure, or the timing of their construction or operation (European Commission, 2011). For example, grouping turbines in rows that run parallel rather than perpendicular to the main flight path direction of certain birds may be an effective mitigation measure in reducing collision risk. Another example in respect of offshore wind farms is mitigation to minimise the impact of noise and vibration during construction work by starting pile driving gently (‘soft start’) in order to allow fish and marine mammals to move away from the noise source.
For a proposed measure to be treated as mitigation the following must apply: • The measures must be an integral part of the eventual specification of the project or plan. • There must be confidence that the proposed measures will avoid, reduce, or cancel the negative effects of the project or plan.
Mitigation is not a compensatory measure and is not considered further within this project.
Page 14
Net Gain
The development of ‘Net Gain’ in England started with Defra’s biodiversity offsetting (terrestrial) pilot projects in 2012 (Defra and Natural England, 2012). Net Gain is defined as where a development, activity or operation leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand.
It can refer to biodiversity Net Gain and/or wider ecosystem service and natural capital Net Gain. It does not replace the mitigation hierarchy. It can be delivered in the development footprint or at an ‘offset’ location. It can provide a way to unlock investment in the natural environment from development and non-environment sectors. It can improve habitat quality and/ or extent. It benefits nature but can also benefit people. It can be delivered at different scales - site/scheme level through to strategic. Developments must deliver an overall increase in biodiversity.
The Chartered Institute of Water and Environment Management workshop 2018 (CIWEM, 2018) concluded that (terrestrial) Net Gain must : Be made mandatory. Be additional. Seek appropriate balance between ensuring local, on site and strategic off-site gains. Not be represented by a single metric score. Have effective delivery in the long-term and will require significant further work to become mainstream.
Net Gain is a developing concept, with the initial implementation focused on biodiversity. There is some pressure to expand this to include a wider suite of environmental indicators, thereby moving from biodiversity Net Gain to full environmental Net Gain. The Environment Bill 2020 (Defra, 2020) seeks to make biodiversity Net Gain mandatory in the terrestrial environment down to mean low water. Additionally, Defra’s 25-year Environment plan raised biodiversity Net Gain as an area of interest. The concept is largely untested in England. This mandatory requirement for biodiversity Net Gain integrated into the planning system does however, provide a step-change in how planning and development is delivered, both terrestrially and on the inter-tidal (although currently Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) cases terrestrially are exempt from the requirement of Net Gain).
Net Gain requirements are to supplement, but not replace or undermine, existing protections for protected sites or irreplaceable habitats. Biodiversity Net Gain is currently a terrestrial approach. England currently excludes Net Gain within protected sites, i.e. cannot apply to protected features in designated sites. In the marine environment, one of the areas under discussion is the relationship between Net Gain and MPA. The structure, prevalence, and extent of MPAs is very different to terrestrial protections. Net Gain requirements will not undermine the existing range of protections, in planning policy and legislation, for irreplaceable habitats and protected sites. Net Gain is not a compensatory measure but could be a consideration when designing compensatory measures in future.
Page 15
Offsetting measures
Offsetting measures within England have been replaced with the focus on Net Gain (Defra, 2014). However elsewhere, most notably in Australia and USA, biodiversity offsets are considered a type of compensatory measure. These conservation activities are designed to deliver biodiversity benefits as compensation for losses, in a measurable way. Offsetting measures are distinguished from other forms of ecological compensation by the formal requirement for measurable outcomes. The losses due to impact, and gains achievable through the offset, are measured in the same way, even if the habitats concerned are different. Offsetting can include compensatory habitat creation, conservation banking, habitat credit trading, remediation, or mitigation banking etc.
A Defra pilot study in conjunction with Natural England was undertaken for terrestrial projects in the UK in 2012. A metric was used to measure biodiversity losses and compensation required. Multipliers were applied to take account of the difference in time between impact of development and the delivery of biodiversity benefits of an offset project (Defra and Natural England, 2012). For all but one of the pilot projects it was felt that a voluntary system was not sufficient to support biodiversity offsetting particularly for lower value habitats. The pilots worked with planning policy officers to include explicit reference to biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism to achieve no-net-loss/net-gain in local planning policy. Because of the time taken to prepare them, few plans with explicit reference to biodiversity offsetting were adopted during the pilot programme (6 out of 60) (Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited and IEEP, 2014). Despite some inconsistency in the views of stakeholders, the general opinion was that biodiversity offsetting and the use of the metric had the potential to lead to a marginal reduction in time for planning decisions. However, there was an initial learning period which took longer. At the time it was considered that, compared to current practice, the use of the metric and biodiversity offsetting increased the costs of compensatory measures. Increases to cost occurred because of the higher standards required by the metric compared to current practice, in particular requiring management ‘in perpetuity’ and using risk multipliers. Although, the findings also observed that the application of the metric more clearly demonstrated and strengthened application of the mitigation hierarchy in most applications.
At the European level, Niner et al. (2017) found that; “Efforts to identify marine practice in Europe have struggled to find evidence of the use of biodiversity offsetting owing to the way in which the mitigation hierarchy has been applied within impact assessment”.
Offsetting as a form of compensatory measure for the UK is not considered further given the newer focus on Net Gain. However, offsetting is referred to where appropriate in the review of previous and overseas cases.
Page 16
3 Methodology
In terms of compensatory measures, the objectives of the Habitats Directive and MCAA are broadly the same. Where a plan or project is deemed to be critically important by the state authority, and an impact on a designated area cannot be avoided or mitigated against sufficiently to avoid adversely impacting on the conservation objectives for a site, then compensatory measures should be applied (see Figure 1 above). For this reason, this review considers compensatory measures as being the same regardless of the route to designation. The review of UK cases is based on the cases identified by Broekmeyer et al., (2016). The list of cases was then updated to include cases up to January 2020, based on targeted literature searches plus the knowledge of the authors. The literature search was limited to documents that were publicly available.
During the project, advisors at the Marine Management Organisation, and the OSPAR expert group on underwater noise were consulted to compile as comprehensive a review as possible. The UK delegation to OSPAR’s Environmental Impacts of Human Activities Committee were also consulted as to any relevant initiatives or projects.
The update of cases focused on examples of compensatory measures from projects or developments in the marine and coastal environment. Some examples of the compensatory measures from the terrestrial environment were included where they were deemed relevant.
Each case was reviewed to determine the type(s) of compensatory measure(s) used. This included a judgement on whether the compensatory measures stated met the criteria for compensatory measures under relevant legislation. Monitoring and reporting of the compensatory measures were reviewed. Each case was examined to ascertain the criteria used to determine success, if any. This was linked with the monitoring review to see if the criteria were then used to determine the success of the compensatory measures. Finally, the findings of the review were consolidated to determine whether developers faced barriers in demonstrating legal compliance.
4 Review of Compensatory Measures within the UK
A review of 19 case studies of plans or projects in the UK where compensatory measures were stated to have been included was carried out. The full list of projects reviewed is provided in Table 2 (Annex 1).
Broekmeyer et al., (2016) provides more detailed analysis of cases and how comprehensive, or not, the data are and ease of collation. Currently there have been 15 managed realignment projects since the Habitats Regulations were adopted, eight of which were in response to coastal squeeze and seven because of port development (Brady and Boda, 2017).
The review of case studies confirmed all compensatory measures adopted have been applied under the Habitats Regulations. There have been no projects to date where MEEB under MCAA has been applied. There are no examples where compensatory measures have been used offshore, as all cases in the UK with any marine element are either coastal, port or flood related.
Page 17
4.1 Types of Compensatory Measures
The compensatory measures seen in the UK case studies were predominantly habitat creation. These were either within, adjacent to, or extensions of the impacted sites. Creation of a new site was either in the local region or on the same coast. All were within the same country. Habitat creation included improvement, enhancement, restoration and translocation. Most replacement habitat focused on a like-for-like basis (either based on ecosystem functionality or supporting specific features). There was one UK example where the negatively impacted feature was not supported on a like-for-like basis and an entirely different type of habitat created (Cowell, 2000).
Managed realignments creating intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh as compensation for developments were the most prevalent type of compensatory measure. Examples include Green Port Hull, 2011 (Humber Estuary SPA and cSAC), and the Environment Agency (EA) flood defences. These managed realignments worked two-fold, having value as compensatory measures and fulfilling the flood defence need.
Depending on the objectives, the re-creation of saltmarsh and mudflats was seen to be generally successful either from a functionality perspective with the extent and quality of the designated site or from the view of abundance and use by protected species. Success was observed to be within 10 years for this type of habitat. Confidence in monitoring results was reduced in some circumstances: difficulty in accessing the concerned habitat to monitor an indicator or local dog-walking disturbing bird surveys are two examples where confidence was impacted.
Other types of habitat created were reed beds, seagrass beds and glacial cobble skear. All of these were successfully recreated to some degree, such as artificial skear creation for the Morecambe Bay Flood defence works, 2005 (ABPmer, 2005). Although only one objective of a larger scheme, creating intertidal and saltmarsh habitat in Morecambe Bay SPA and SAC using cementitious material was acceptable on the Stone jetty, where it created a niche habitat. The subsequent mussel bed attachment was a valuable source of food and roosting area for Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). However, the use of cementitious material in the wider SAC was not recommended, and translocation was used to improve the feature within the site.
Shingle habitat creation was undertaken for the negative impacts of the EA Pett Frontage tidal flood defence scheme (Mackley, n.d.). Here, more attention was paid to conserving areas of vegetated shingle. This implied that some habitats or species not designated may require additional protection/management in some instances to achieve the site’s designation objectives.
Improvement and enhancement
Improvement of habitats was seen where a site was left with better value or productivity as a result of the objective of the compensatory measures. Translocation of glacial cobble skear from the construction site where it would have been lost, to the poorer area of skear within the site for the Morecambe Bay Flood defence works, 2005, improved the overall condition of the feature within the corresponding designated site.
Page 18
Raising the level of the saltmarsh was also seen as an improvement as additional habitat for roosting and food source for overwintering birds was provided.
Enhancement is a type of improvement, which on its own would not be likely to be able to provide sufficient compensation and may raise the conservation level of a site, but not to a better status. An example of which was the cementitious skear applied to the jetty at Morecombe Bay, which was not sufficient alone as a compensatory measure, but enhanced the feature in that location.
Restoration
NOAA (2008) defines restoration ecologically as “the process of re-establishing a self- sustaining habitat that closely resembles a natural condition in terms of structure and function”.
Management of a habitat back to favourable condition is a form of restoration. But it should be remembered that management alone does not comprise compensatory measures. Restoration includes any measures deemed necessary to restore habitat and/or societal benefits lost. Societal benefits look at the delivery of ecosystem services. Social-ecological restoration is “the process of renewing the structure and function of ecological systems to explicitly meet both societal and ecological management objectives” (Beck, 2014). In some countries, societal benefits are considered together with restoration to determine the best location. Restoration may take place, not necessarily at the best ecological site, but at a place that would also benefit society (e.g. placing a reef feature that may also act as a breakwater). There were, however, no examples of restoration in the UK that included consideration of societal benefits.
Restoration measures identified within this review included elements of the compensatory package for the Harwich Haven Authority development. To compensate for the negative impact on the saltmarsh, caused by the channel deepening, the Harwich Haven Authority sought to restore the predicted erosion at the site by nourishing the area with sediment.
Extension
Compensatory measures for the London Gateway (section A2.4 Broekmeyer 2016), Green Port Hull and the Harwich Haven Authority channel deepening developments included extension of the existing designated sites. For Green Port Hull, Natural England identified a practical way of addressing sub-tidal habitat loss by accepting that a project could deliver compensation by extending the boundary of the European site. It should be stressed that compensatory measures in this case involved losses to the extent of 'Estuaries', rather than a specific sub-tidal habitat listed within the designation as SAC. Thus, the concept remains untested in the wider context of SAC habitats.
Some of the managed realignment schemes on the Humber or for the EA’s flood defence schemes response to coastal squeeze, could also be seen as extensions, as they are adjacent to the designated areas (when officially incorporated into the site as yet no citation change from 2004 has been located for the Humber Estuary).
Page 19
Translocation
Translocation can comprise either a species or a habitat. An example of habitat translocation is the works undertaken as compensation for the construction of the RNLI slipway, St David’s Lifeboat Station. The rock from the boat station sub-structure and the cliff stabilisation works were translocated to the seabed to provide adequate replacement habitat (at least 22 m2) to provide compensation for the expected loss of habitat (17 m2) (Natural Resources Wales, 2014). As part of the Morecambe Bay flood defence works, 2005, glacial cobble skear was another feature that was successfully translocated from the direct area of impact to a poorer area within the site to improve the feature within the site.
Although there are many examples terrestrially in the UK, this review found no examples of compensatory translocation of species in the marine environment. The only relevant case identified comprised a six-month pilot study that was undertaken on the biogenic reef created by the Honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata), as part of the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project (TLSB). This pilot project undertaken by a student used boulders with S. alveolata and translocated the biogenic reef habitat. This trial was only for six months with a five-week monitoring period but demonstrated some success (Reach et al., 2015; Armstrong et al., 2019)
Replacement
Replacement habitat were defined as measures applied outside of the local area where the negative impact had occurred. An example of compensatory replacement measures was identified in the Harwich Haven Authority development; although some of the objectives included measures within or adjacent to the existing sites, to ensure adequate compensatory measures, replacement of the intertidal mudflat habitat lost (12.5 ha for a predicted loss of 5 ha at the North Norfolk Coast SAC and SPA) was required on another part of the coast where the required scale of the works was possible. The size of the compensation site in comparison to that of habitat lost had to be sufficiently large to ensure the new sites provided the required support for the features. The 2016 review indicated that the range of compensation : loss ratios were 1:1 to 6:1 (Broekmeyer et al., 2016), which was based on the individual specifications of plans and projects and compensatory measures proposed.
Other measures
While not strictly a compensatory measure, research and monitoring was listed as an objective for the Harwich Haven Authority channel deepening. An objective added to the package for Bathside Bay, 2007 was to increase the understanding of the processes operating in the Stour and Orwell estuaries and monitoring at Hamford water SPA. This was because short- and medium-term compensatory measures had been agreed but further information was required to make long-term decisions, which the research and monitoring were expected to provide. This was part of an iterative management process. With steering from the advisor and regulator stakeholder group, a flexible approach to the compensation package was developed and increased as the port developments increased. Whilst monitoring and research objectives can conceivably form part of a package of compensation measures, they would not be sufficient on their own.
Page 20
4.2 Adequacy of Compensatory Measures
Implementation of consents granted for IROPI may be driven by external factors, such as global trade patterns or availability of vessels for port developments. It is not always the case that such developments will be constructed immediately, as trade volumes and pressure can change dramatically. If compensatory measures are implemented immediately after consent for a plan or project is granted, their respective goals are likely to be achieved before any damage or loss occurs, thereby increasing the success rate and effectiveness of the measure. The Felixstowe and Sheerness port development started in the 1980s. Implementation of the compensatory measures were delivered upon delivery of the Wallasea Island managed realignment scheme (2006); some 18-22 years after the impacts had occurred. Due to the retrospective nature of the implementation of this measure, a very large ratio for compensatory measures had to be provided to account for losses over time.
ABPmer (2020) states that whilst a ratio of 2:1 (such as for the impacts on Lappel and Fagbury flats (Banks 2003)) is typically used to offset intertidal habitat loss, a ratio of 4:1 has been agreed in rare circumstances. However, Broekmeyer et al., (2016) found that 1:1 to 1:6 ratios had been applied in the cases reviewed.
Whilst some habitat creation was seen to be very effective and completed more rapidly than anticipated (less than 20 years for some saltmarsh developments), viewed in strict isolation from wider estuarine functioning, it was not obvious whether compensatory measures addressed the habitat loss in the long-term. Although numbers of some species may be at target or threshold (minimum number acceptable to qualify or be detectable) levels, the site may not have the functionality of the original site and other species of fauna or flora may not be adequately supported by resulting habitats.
In some case studies, provision was made for the site to be available/functioning prior to development (before the onset of any negative impacts). For Bristol Ports Container Terminal development, the tidal inundation of the managed realignment had to be completed a minimum of two winters before any impacts of the development were observed.
Where projects had gradual functional changes, for practicality, compensatory measures were phased, so that they were in place as the impacts started to take effect (e.g. London Gateway and some of the Harwich Haven Authority project where sediment feeding was implemented before any effects were observed). This adaptive management and iterative process allowed scope for flexibility with regard to monitoring. For the Harwich Haven Authority, they were able to relax some monitoring and additional areas looked at (3D modelling undertaken latterly) as part of ongoing plans and projects.
Sometimes the objectives for a compensatory measures package acted as a stimulus for bigger biodiversity initiatives (e.g. Cley and Salthouse). This would have fulfilled the current requirement of the Environment Bill’s Net Gain ambition. For some projects it was demonstrated that it may not be possible to deliver like-for-like replacement of a specific habitat (e.g. early successional stages of shingle habitats). These habitats were constrained by the need to combine both particular substrates with active coastal processes: a finite resource. Where quality of areas was to be improved, like the sediment feeding at the Port of Harwich to compensate for erosion (i.e. raise the carrying capacity for the site), these
Page 21
measures were delivered in conjunction with other compensatory measures and not set as a sole requirement.
Due to the complex functional changes at the ports and harbours within the Stour and Orwell, the Harwich Haven Authority’s compensatory measures comprised of several objectives. Those objectives ranged from improvement and extension to replacement. Whilst objectives for the short and medium-term were set and addressed there was little information on what the long-term success of some of the plans would be. Confidence that measures were adequate was provided by working with a stakeholder group and implementing monitoring and research to underpin future decisions to determine what might be required long-term if the predicted losses of the channel deepening were observed.
4.3 Departing from “Like for Like”
Nearly all the case studies were able to provide objectives to address the impacts on a feature, or features, that were accepted by regulators and SNCBs. The compensatory measures for the Cardiff Bay Barrage demonstrated that it is not always possible to secure compensatory habitat adjacent to the damaged site. More importantly, the compensatory measures may never be able to support the designated habitat or species. Here, the Welsh Government argued that the compensatory measures contributed more for wider biodiversity gain rather than direct compensation, and they considered the biodiversity gain to be of at least the same or greater value.
4.4 Out of Area, Region or Country
In the UK case studies, all compensatory measures were provided within the same country, if not within the same region of that country (e.g. Wallasea Island managed realignment was undertaken further along the coast from the site of negative impacts).
4.5 Summary
1. The review confirms very few examples of different types of compensatory measures in the marine environment to draw from within the UK. 2. Habitat creation comprised of improvement, enhancement, restoration, extension, and replacement. 3. Most UK examples were coastal – port/flood related and are for managed realignment. 4. Most examples were habitat focused and, with the exception of birds, there were limited examples of measures for other receptors (e.g. otter and voles), with nothing for notable receptors like marine mammals. 5. Other measures, like research and monitoring, may be added as objectives for a compensation package, but are not to be thought of as adequate compensatory measures alone. 6. It is difficult to gather consistent information on how the compensatory measures were derived. There are examples, like the Wallasea Island managed realignment, where a
Page 22
long consultation process was held to ensure it provided adequate compensation in the right place. Other options were also considered, but the information on how it was derived during planning would take considerable time to decipher from statements of common ground and reports (if the project was subject to planning consent under PINS). It is not obvious what framework or decision tree was followed to provide evidence that the chosen route was the one that allowed for the best possible outcomes. 7. It has not been possible to consistently calculate clear ratios between habitat lost and the extent of agreed compensatory measures. Therefore, it is not easy to draw out ratios applied as examples of ratios used for certain features – there is a wide range and it is very site-specific; examples ranged from 1:1 to 1:6. Ratios were seen to be necessarily large where either confidence in the information was low, or where there was a time lag between development and the observation of negative impacts and the implementation of the compensatory measures. 8. All compensatory measures were like-for-like, with the exception of one project that created a completely different habitat that did not support the designated species, when compared to that of the lost area.
Page 23
5 Compensatory Measures Applied Internationally
As in Section 4, an additional review of projects, including compensatory measures from outside the UK, was carried out. Again, the full list of projects reviewed is provided in Annex 2: International Cases Reviewed
Table 3 (see Annex 2). The review of international projects showed a similar pattern to the UK review.
As part of this review contact was made with UK representatives of OSPAR’s Environmental Impacts of Human Activities (EIHA) and Intersessional Correspondence Group on Underwater Noise (ICG-Noise). The representatives confirmed that neither group had done any specific work on compensatory measures that could be added to this review. The ICG-Noise representative felt that there was more work to be achieved on preventing / mitigating the effects of underwater noise. Compensatory measures had not yet been a discussion point within the groups work to date.
This section synthesises examples from outside of the UK of compensatory measures which have been co-ordinated in response to a developer project adversely impacting the environment. Thirteen relevant cases were selected for review in this section. The cases broadly ranged from large-scale marine and coastal developments, such as Maasvlakte and the Port of Gothenburg developments, to smaller-scale terrestrial projects, such as the Bothnia railway development.
The European case studies in this review showed that states and regulatory bodies were inconsistent in how they report and store evidence describing compensatory measures. The international examples disproportionately cited Member States of the Nordic Council. This is due to the Nordic Council publishing a document entitled “Environmental Compensation” (Norden, 2016), which clearly described compensatory measures in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark. The use of this resource skews the international case studies results. 5.1 Types of Compensatory Measure
Habitat degradation or destruction was the most common reason that compensatory measures were mandated/ stipulated. Some measures were also prompted due to anticipated or observed impacts to species and features of local conservation interest, such as the Oulijoki River in Finland. In the majority of cases, the compensatory measure was habitat creation, ranging from long-term restoration projects to increased soil and vegetation cover to shorter- term replanting programmes. We could not determine whether any cases followed a standardised method to designing and implementing the compensatory measure. In cases which involved compensating a European site or other statutory designation, the relevant conservation targets were cited by developers as the primary target to aspire to. In cases with no statutory designation, and thus not relevant under the Habitats Directive, it was less clear what the goals of the various compensatory measures were other than simply “restore the habitat”.
Similar to the results of Section 4, the habitat restoration measures comprised the rebuilding or enhancement of the degraded habitat, such as planting new eelgrass beds for the Port of
Page 24
Gothenburg and soil treatment at Búðarháls power plant in Iceland. For cases where the compensated feature was a species or local population, reintroduction programmes were implemented, where larvae/young of the affected fish species were released into the environment.
A pertinent example where habitat creation and restoration was the selected compensatory measure is the Maasvlakte II Port development in Rotterdam. Here, 2,000 ha of land was reclaimed from the sea (the Natura 2000 Voordelta site) to provide a foundation for the port extension construction. The loss of this habitat was deemed as acceptable under the EU’s Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest; however, measures were subsequently deemed necessary to compensate for the environmental damage. The main impacts justifying the compensatory measures comprised loss of dune habitat, damage to surrounding dune habitat and impact to resident fauna and flora. Dune creation (moist dune valley and grey dune) and beach nourishment were selected as compensatory measures. Furthermore, a compensation target was also implemented for the displaced Fen Orchid species.
Of particular relevance to this review is the marine component of the Maasvlakte compensation process. Due to the nature of the works, in that they intended to reclaim land thereby reducing marine space, improvement of the surrounding environment was deemed preferable compared to forfeit of land to the sea. Throughout the consenting process, impacts to birds which used the Voordelta area for resting and foraging were identified as likely. To compensate for these environmental implications, creation of a marine reserve spanning 25,000 ha was deemed necessary, with the implementation of resting spaces for the identified sensitive bird species3. Certain activities which may impede the measures or further damage the associated features were excluded within this area too, notably the use of bottom trawling.
Many projects have been attempted in relation to reef creation. The Gothenburg reefs were a compensatory measure for the loss of habitat (not relevant under the Habitats Directive) from the channel deepening at Gothenburg Harbour and was seen to have both positive, and a few negative, effects. Seven reefs comprised of 800,000 m³ of rock were placed and lobsters migrated onto the reef within 4 weeks. There were some negative impacts of sedimentation and bacterial growth on parts of the reef, but it was generally deemed to be successful.
Other marine enhancement projects involve creation of artificial islands (Le Havre ports expansion in Seine Estuary) which provide successful roosting sites for birds and a haul-out site for harbour seals. The Hammerfest reefs in Norway comprised the placement of concrete cylinders that were able to encourage seaweed growth. A selection of cases representative of different approaches is summarised in Annex 2. 5.2 Adequacy of Compensatory Measures
Some compensatory measures utilised indicator species, such as the Egmond aan Zee wind farm, where post-construction data regarding indicator fauna, such as migratory birds and marine mammals, collected indicated habitat degradation. Compensatory measures were largely requested or mandated by the relevant state authority, though it is not clear from this
3 Common scoter, Sandwich tern and Common tern
Page 25
review whether the state authority was advised by a third party or another associated stakeholder.
A key consideration for this review was the difficulty ascertaining the management and oversight of the compensatory measures. It was unclear how and by whom the compensatory measure was prompted. And, more saliently, it was very difficult to ascertain whether the relevant state authority played an active role in overseeing or managing the design, implementation and monitoring of the compensatory measure. In the cases where information was more readily available, such as the Port of Gothenburg, management and oversight of the compensatory measure appears to have been entirely owned by the developer. References were often made to adhering to relevant legislation i.e. Habitats Directive, however, this appears to be the only inclusion a state authority or instrument had in the compensatory measure’s management. Authorities are obliged to report cases deemed relevant under the Habitats Directive to the European Commission (EC), however, beyond giving their view, the EC were generally not involved in the compensatory measure’s management.
Vaissière et al. (2014) state that in the context of offshore wind farms in Europe, the mitigation hierarchy and offsetting were poorly implemented. This review of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) from seven European countries did not find biodiversity offsets linked to offshore wind farm impacts. Their study mirrored the lack of information on compensatory measures in the UK as to date, no judgement of adverse effect and IROPI has been formally made for offshore wind farms, as of the time of review (May 2020). 5.3 Out of Area, Region or Country
Most cases included were examples of in-situ compensatory measures, in that the measure was designed to compensate for local degradation/ impacts, rather than a measure which would not have affected the local site. This adheres to the “Managing Natura 2000 Sites” document referenced in Section 3. The compensatory measures implemented by Egmond aan Zee wind farm did not deliver in-situ or biogeographically relevant compensatory measures; rather, in this case, a no-net loss approach was taken, through offsetting activities such as monitoring, habitat restoration and funding education and outreach activities. These measures were not located within or around the affected site. This point is especially pertinent when considering how the UK’s compensatory framework will develop going forward and is discussed in greater detail in later sections of this report. 5.4 Summary
The conclusions derived from this section are largely similar to those from section 4 (the UK case review section). In summary, we have determined that:
Most cases implemented habitat creation as the primary compensatory measure. The receptor, or identified feature, for each case was degraded or impacted habitat, whereas one case identified fish populations as the relevant receptor (Oulijouki River) and a small number of cases identified seabirds (e.g. Maasvlakte) and marine mammals (Egmond aan Zee). Compensatory measures were identified, implemented, and monitored in accordance with the Habitats Directive for most cases.
Page 26
There is a paucity of information publicly available to obtain greater detail for the implementation and monitoring of these compensatory measures.
Page 27
6 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The monitoring and reporting requirements of any compensatory measures in the UK are secured as a condition of the respective development’s consent and are legally binding (either as Development Consent Orders (DCO) for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) or a condition of their Marine Licence).
The monitoring and reporting requirements for each case study were reviewed where the information was available. In many cases there were insufficient details to allow a proper review to be undertaken, so these projects were not considered further. The list of projects reviewed is given in Table 4 (annex 3). 6.1 Frequency and Duration
The frequency and duration of monitoring was extremely varied depending on the nature of the impact and the objectives of the compensatory measure(s). Monitoring was seen to be objective and site-specific, and so the duration and frequency of the different types of monitoring were on a case-by-case allocation.
Most of the plans and projects reviewed underwent considerably lengthy and detailed monitoring programmes. Most stipulated 10 years monitoring, as for Felixstowe in 1998, and then are scaled back depending on findings. Monitoring conducted was often required annually at the start. It was often then reduced in frequency or halted altogether where success was observed (e.g. determined by functionality of the habitat and or if it was able to be designated or thought to be equal or have exceeded the original baseline monitoring).
For the Port of Bristol berth and channel development in 2008, the site had been monitored since 1993, prior to construction. The compensatory measures for Maasvlakte II proposed monitoring for 30 years. The Harwich Haven Authority continues to undertake monitoring 20 years after construction due to the long-term nature of the likely impacts and additional developments at the site and the need for determining success of outcomes. For example, the Harwich Haven Authority channel deepening works finished in 2000, then in 2017 a 3D computer model of sediment movement was used to analyse a range of ongoing maintenance dredging works in the harbour to produce more focused benthic monitoring, sediment replacement and dredging works plan. Some habitats will, by nature, take longer to establish and exceed any success criteria. Elsewhere, at the proposed Humber Flood defence works, compensatory measures were considered over a 50-year period, due to the EA’s requirements to account for coastal squeeze.
As a compensatory measure for the impacts of coastal squeeze by the EA flood defence strategy, the Steart Marshes managed realignment habitat creation (Environment Agency, 2011) comprised a complex wetland habitat. The wetland consisted of intertidal saltmarsh, transitional brackish habitat, coastal grazing marsh, brackish and saline lagoon, reedbeds, ponds, and ditches. This was part of a masterplan for the site that was developed in co- operation with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) that included the Port of Bristol container terminal compensatory measures project. Management was handed over to the Wildfowl and Wetlands trust (WWT) and RSPB when the site became operational. These habitats were anticipated to provide extensive biodiversity gain from losses elsewhere in the Severn Estuary. It is expected that this site will provide compensation for up to 40% of the
Page 28
losses in the region (ICE, 2015). This is another example of the EA providing large areas of habitat to ensure losses of a number of plans or projects can be accommodated. 6.2 Natural Variation
Even with the very comprehensive monitoring undertaken for the Harwich Haven Authority channel deepening compensatory measures, it was not possible to fully distinguish between development impacts and external influences, such as unrelated disturbance or natural change. This caused disagreement with the specialists and developers on when the completion could be agreed. The stakeholder group (including regulators and advisors) were able to request additional analyses to be able to provide better information to make comparisons.
For example, the interpretation of the reported increases in saltmarsh extent within the estuary did not reflect the interpretation of saltmarsh change by some attendees of the annual monitoring meeting in 2012 at the Harwich Haven Authority. Further analyses were agreed, and the area divided into smaller sections to provide sufficient resolution to look at changes in the extent of the saltmarsh. The following year, concerns from the steering group indicated that an area around Levington Marina was deteriorating and the Authority agreed with the committee to undertake more survey work. This work was then assessed by the EA on the rate of change and reported in an addendum to the Essex and South Suffolk Second Generation shoreline management plan which provided an assessment of the increase in extent per year of 1.34 ha. An assessment on behalf of NE reported on the rate of change of saltmarsh in the Orwell but did not include the Stour; no reason was available to explain this omission. As development work at Harwich Haven Authority has been ongoing for some time, judging when a compensation measure has been fulfilled is difficult in the iterative process.
For Wallasea Island managed realignment (also known as Allfleet’s Marsh), after initial success of the inundation, bird numbers were observed to be decreasing in 2010. It was deemed necessary to look more widely at local, regional and national levels to determine the extent to which the decreasing trend could be explained by external factors. Harsh winter and natural variation were cited as potential reasons, but the trend could have been an indication that birds were not using the realigned site for migratory purposes or that the habitat was not functioning as intended. To be able to measure and see change against natural variation the Harwich Haven Authority analysed their bird count data differently. As such, relying solely on indicators and/or proxies may not provide an adequate understanding of a measure’s success when compared with the additional use of alternative data or measurement systems. Therefore, the monitoring set needs to be flexible to allow for this type of eventuality.
In most cases monitoring focused on habitats rather than species receptors; the exceptions being where bird species were associated. A small number of cases (e.g. Bristol Port container terminal development monitoring) included the use of indicator species for rare habitats and included a selection of the rare species requiring the compensatory measures. In their 1998 “Masterplan”, Bristol Port used four measures to define success and habitat condition:
Indicator species should be accessible to monitor without requiring a high time input or specialised equipment. Results gathered should be comparable from year to year.
Page 29
Species selected should be indicative of a particular habitat or habitats so that fluctuations in their populations broadly reflect the response of the habitat to management. As far as possible, the range of species chosen should reflect the desired range of microhabitats within each habitat type.
For birds, the average numbers of assemblages, particular species, pairs of species or percentage threshold levels were set, and then compared to either pre-existing rates or regional and national levels. Changes in counting methods for bird counts meant that it was difficult for one project to determine whether the drop in numbers was a result of the change in method or some other cause. This is true for any change of measuring methods approach regardless of environmental parameter. Caution was employed for the monitoring in this instance to appropriately consider comparison to long-term data sets or data over a wider geographical area.
Morris (2013) argues that using a broad spectrum of bird species leads conservation agencies to conclude that managed realignments are acceptable, which may not always be correct for some highly localised species that may have specific needs. They cite the black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) as an example. As it occupies a specific part of the shore on a comparatively small part of the Humber Estuary, due to the feeding habit and shape of its bill, the aggregation is considered internationally important. In this case, compensatory measures were mandated to consider the specific requirements of impacted species like the godwits (e.g. the range of useful habitat available from the compensatory habitat as a result of their bill shape). Managed realignments may be useful to deliver intertidal habitat at higher elevations, but at lower elevations (as for habitat required by the godwit) this may be limited to the medium to long- term (Mazik et al., 2013) as an effective compensatory habitat due to natural changes in the sediments (e.g. Alkborough site). The change in elevation would impact the success in the long term of the compensatory measures for these internationally important species.
Proxies were used as an effective indicator of change, thereby reducing the burden of monitoring. However, this risked not providing sufficient detail to define the true functionality of the site for those features not designated.
Due to the diverse nature of sites, a range of thresholds depending on the type of habitat and predicted residual impacts were used. These threshold levels were site-dependent and thus had to be based on the best available data. For example, the compensatory measures for Trinity Terminal development at the Port of Felixstowe, assemblages of roosting waterfowl were based on a five year mean peak of at least 36,000 waterfowl. This was compared to historic levels at Fagbury Flats and feeding waterfowl of at least 2800 or a yield of 7 ha of intertidal and 5 ha rough grassland habitat at Brandy hole (part of EA’s tidal flood defence scheme at Hullbridge).
There was little demonstration of the use of either the ecosystem approach (mentioned as an aim of the Defra 25-year environment plan) or specific indicators that have been developed (Defra, 2019).
Page 30
6.3 Stakeholder Steering Groups
The role of a stakeholder steering group was seen to be beneficial in guiding the monitoring in several cases. An effective visible stakeholder/regulator group was deemed to be one where annual meetings and reports of success and decision making were transparent and easily accessible. An example of this is the Harwich Haven Authority regulators group. Annual meetings looked at monitoring of habitat area and quality, as well as biodiversity, measured using a number of techniques including photographs, bathymetry, benthic surveys, as well as validation of modelled information. Although for some types of habitat there were disagreements between specialists in the group regarding the effectiveness of outcomes. However, projects with stakeholder groups were seen to be able to make evidence-based environmental decisions regarding adaptive management and facilitate improvement to some outcomes and bring about required changes (Annex 4). They were also seen as an advantage to be able to halt monitoring where it was seen that the objectives of compensatory measures had been reached or exceeded.
There were many good examples of stakeholder group involvement in monitoring. The projects where there were strong groups, like Harwich Haven Authority and the works at Felixstowe, demonstrated how they could influence change in requirements (supporting cessation of some monitoring), saving developers time and money on unnecessary surveys. Bathside Bay 2007, for example, had an alert mechanism to trigger an iterative process of monitoring. The ecological outcomes of measures which incorporated elements like this seemed to have greater success (e.g. designation of Trimley Marshes) than for outcomes of the other projects reviewed. Where there was a lack of transparency or inclusion of a stakeholder group, there appeared to be more negative outcomes like the EA’s Cley/Salthouse compensatory measures project. Here, there was limited access to undertake surveys and so assessments were not robust. Although it is not possible to correlate and provide greater evidence further without in-depth investigation of reports.
The Steart managed realignment wetland nature reserve was created by the EA in response to coastal squeeze, flood defence and for compensation of works at Bristol Port. The EA recognised the benefit of a long-term site management partner engaged with the project from inception. They undertook a competitive process before selecting the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust to help the delivery of the project. From the initial development there was community and stakeholder engagement, with public consultations to identify the preferred option. Such early engagement appears to have limited public objections at the planning application stage. This stakeholder group also ensured not only regulators and advisors were on board, but other relevant bodies like the Internal Drainage Board, to ensure that the new water management and network structures obligations were well supported. 6.4 Reporting
The reporting of the environmental monitoring for NSIPs is sent to the local authorities of the respective project area. The objectives and requirements of compensatory measures and the monitoring of the cases reviewed were difficult to find. Often reports were titled “mitigation and monitoring” even though the requirement was for compensatory measures. So, while there is one repository for planning there is not one for post-consent documents.
Page 31
Annual monitoring in many of the case studies was overseen by stakeholder groups and the reports posted on developer websites or sent to regulators. Final reports for projects with marine licences from the MMO are required to be submitted to the regulator in line with their marine licence conditions. The MMO consult with Cefas and their statutory consultees for advice (e.g. NE and JNCC). It was noted that where there is regular scrutiny of monitoring from the stakeholder groups the outcomes appear beneficial for both the developer and the environment.
The annual monitoring meeting notes of 2013 for the Trimley marshes managed realignment state that regulators agreed that monitoring had demonstrated that the site’s objectives had been met (Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA). It was subsequently concluded that no survey would be undertaken in 2011, but monitoring would continue at five yearly intervals to ensure stability in the objectives. The same report was able to identify that the monitoring of habitat enhancements for Trinity III terminal should stop as the site had met its objectives. The Harwich Haven Authority stakeholder regulator group were also responsible for requesting changes in bird count reporting and the level at which to make comparisons, which was useful to be able to interpret declines in population. The report to the annual meeting also provided discussion on condition assessment for the SSSI and SPA, making comment on which units were in favourable, unfavourable, or declining condition. The use of forums of regulators, advisors and stakeholders using an Estuary Management Plan have facilitated good information dissemination and dialogue with key stakeholders. The report was easily accessible with comprehensive detail and information on the developments, their mitigation, the monitoring and the compensation objectives. However, if searching for outcomes of objectives of compensatory measures it would not be readily visible. Some habitat creation schemes have not appeared to be successful and the reasons for failure were not established or reported to any degree of absolute certainty.
It was not always evident that the compensatory measures had been effective, especially where continued oversight of development projects was still ongoing. The London Gateway container terminal compensatory measures failed to supply documentation pertaining to the implementation delays of part of the compensatory measures. They did not include NE’s licensing team after consents had been granted and understanding of their operational challenges were not therefore disseminated. Broekmeyer et al. (2016) stated that this case exemplified the need for continued oversight of development and for ensuring relevant archived documents are available for future scrutiny. Good examples of dissemination of best practice were seen where stakeholder groups shared information through a secure web portal (e.g. Wallasea Island managed realignment – compensatory measures for the Harwich Haven Authority channel deepening and the Green Port Hull development).
Trying to retrieve information on monitoring and outcomes for the Steart managed realignment demonstrated the difficulty in finding information. This compensation for Bristol Port Container development was encompassed within the new wetland creation by the managed realignment. Whilst it is documented on websites that the works were completed in 2014, relevant reports are not readily available even though it was a well-publicised project.
The difficulty in locating a comprehensive range of international case studies places a bias on the dataset, in that results and their associated discussion are based on those states, bodies, developers which have made their evidence, data and reporting publicly available and
Page 32
somewhat easily accessible. This represents a challenge in conducting a meaningful summative exercise to synthesise, measure or compare compensatory actions conducted between countries.
Note that the MMO has produced a report on post consent monitoring. The report covers topics including consideration of regional provisions to cover issues regarding Marine mammals and reporting and metadata (Marine Management Organisation, 2014).
6.5 Summary
It was difficult to find reports with sufficient detail on the compensatory measures agreed, and specifics of the monitoring undertaken, to inform clear monitoring and reporting principles. Naming of reports was inconsistent. Mitigation was not always differentiated from monitoring, often referred to as mitigation and monitoring. There was a lack of clarity regarding the success of the measures and monitoring undertaken. Monitoring frequency and duration were specific to the development and sites concerned as well as dependant on type of compensatory measure(s) proposed. Well managed stakeholder groups can influence the efficiency of compensatory measures outcomes, including monitoring and reporting. Stakeholder groups can improve ecological outcomes and benefit developers. Adaptive management measures can change poor outcomes and encourage good outcomes. Adaptive (iterative) management and well managed stakeholder groups can save time and create efficiencies for monitoring. Thresholds vary from site to site as well as project to project. Although construction methods may be similar, the specificity of each site dictates that impacts, and therefore objectives, of compensatory measures and threshold levels will vary, and so by nature are required to be site- and case-specific. Poor confidence in understanding the scale and severity of the impact and the potential effectiveness of the compensatory measures mean that larger areas are determined to be required than may have been necessary for successful habitat replacement. If there were better data or less delay between impacts and delivery of compensatory measures these ratios might be able to be reduced. It is difficult to disseminate best practice effectively and consistently. Gaps in monitoring
Clarification of governance arrangements for biophysical environmental monitoring. Transparent processes for sharing data between relevant bodies and for addressing any issues arising from monitoring. Easily accessible information and data linking development with compensatory measures, sites and projects. Repository for post consent documents. Evidence of criteria and sign-off of successful compensatory measures. Evidence of actions when successful outcomes are not achieved.
Page 33
7 Consideration of Assessment and ‘Success Criteria’
As with the monitoring and reporting, each project was reviewed to see how success of the project had been assessed. Again, projects were only considered where there was sufficient evidence available to do so. The list of projects reviewed are provided in Table 5 and Table 6 (see Annex 4). 7.1 Defining Success The success of a measure may be entirely different depending on how it is evaluated, what the associated receptor is, and which party is determining success. A compensatory measure cannot be deemed successful unless it is decided how to assess and evaluate its progress. It is important to determine how a measure should be deemed successful within the context of the affected receptors. Metrics are a key method to determining the focus of a measure. In this review, by looking at the compensatory measure’s objectives we identified three primary metrics: habitat extent; functionality of the receptor; and target/threshold level of the receptor. In most cases it was not clear from the documentation how the thresholds for receptors were determined. Each of these is intended to help determine how certain aspects of the receptor have changed since implementing the measure.
For most cases, the ultimate objective of compensatory measures was the designation of the extended, created, or improved habitat so that it added to the coherence and overall function of the protected network of sites (i.e. Trimley Marsh and the Wallasea Island managed realignment). The associated objective criteria were typically “exceedance of threshold levels”, and the indicators selected were “functionality” of the habitat, or the number of “bird assemblages” present at the newly created site. The habitats or species were compared to historic values either at the site of impact, or from another conservation area local to the impacts. Where habitat replacement, extension or location was required, a percentage or minimum area for compensatory measures was described.
To reduce the burden on monitoring, indicators or proxies were used as an evaluation of functionality. The Bristol Port Company 1998 Masterplan selected smaller groups of species as indicators of management success and habitat condition (section 6.2). Due to the extent of the requirement for monitoring the objectives for management into essential and discretionary tasks were also split. Discretionary tasks were described as enhancing or extending habitats. On occasion the use of indicator presence and either an average percentage or target/threshold that must be reached or exceeded was set as a monitoring objective. However, this does not prove the success of the measure. More comprehensive monitoring using multifactor assessment was used to provide this. In some cases, there was evidence that both target/threshold and functionality were monitored to determine success. Some compensatory measures used habitat area as a measure of success, with the provision defined in hectares; targets of this type like that for the Harwich Haven Authority were sometimes expressed as a percentage of habitat type (e.g. no more than 30% of the habitat created was to be saltmarsh).
Page 34
Where criteria were based on the species affected, historic data were used to estimate realistic threshold values e.g. number of breeding pairs. These were often required to be averaged over 5 years, which meant substantial previous monitoring data needed to be collected to be able to calculate target values. At one site previous data had been recorded for a decade. Some case studies, like Allfleets Marsh at Wallasea Island managed realignment, detailed that alternative sites were investigated. The selection process ensured the best option was taken forward providing more beneficial ecological outcomes. It should be noted that in this review we identified cases where additional research was sometimes included in the measures/ mitigation which were perceived by some stakeholders as a type of compensatory measure. This research can help to inform future monitoring programmes and demonstrate good examples of engagement, and are thought to improve successful outcomes, but would not be deemed successful compensation if used in isolation. For the Hullbridge Tidal Flood Defence scheme there were no transparent thresholds or targets and the only indicator appeared to be for the development of the saltmarsh. The area was difficult to access and therefore difficult to survey. The EAs Pett Frontage Tidal Flood Defence Scheme in 2005 did not appear to have thresholds or indicators, although the definition of the site would have been informed by the JNCC report on vegetated shingle structures. For the EA’s Cley/Salthouse flood management scheme it was unclear if specific indicators were developed, but measures of functionality were linked to establishment of reedbed to support bittern, marsh harrier, water voles and otters.
7.2 UK Case Studies UK compensatory measures were predominantly habitat creation, improvement and enhancement restoration, translocation, or extension of a designated site. This included breaching sea walls or sediment feeding to make saltmarsh, conversion of arable and grazing land to wetlands, marshes, saltmarsh and lagoons and the translocation of cobble skear to create new cobble skear. Occasionally specific receptors were also mentioned, such as otters or Annex I birds or habitats (e.g. cobble skear). Where Annex I features were affected, a threshold measurement was implemented relevant to the respective feature. Some case studies showed that it could be difficult to determine what success would look like. It was noted that even in coastal areas, some features cannot be replaced adequately due to the unique circumstances that created them, e.g. cobble skear or shingle vegetation. The compensatory measures and criteria for success for the Cardiff Bay Barrage took over ten years to agree, particularly because the habitat replacement was not deemed like-for-like. A new habitat with wider biodiversity and habitats, including social benefit, was eventually agreed, and the loss of mudflats and the species it supported was not directly compensated for. The loss of the mudflats was permanent, and the replacement habitat was seen to require additional monitoring as a result. Where measures were hard to resolve compared to natural variation or lack of good monitoring information (e.g. survey site inaccessible or counting of birds hampered by dog walkers) it was hard to evidence next steps and decisions. There appeared to be no main criterion that indicated whether objectives had completely been fulfilled, even where sites have been deemed ready for designation.
Page 35
For the Harwich Haven Authority Channel deepening it was not possible to find a compensatory measures site for habitat creation close or adjacent to the site of impact. The Wallasea Island managed realignment was therefore chosen, which was part of a much bigger initiative. Wallasea used “Number of Birds” as an indicator; detailing that levels appeared to slightly decline. Assessment and monitoring reports indicated that these trends were strongly influenced by some major inter-annual changes in the abundance of certain species which, in turn, were likely to be influenced by the weather conditions. Comparison of data to national information was necessary to look beyond the local trend. For compensatory measures of the EA’s Flood defence management scheme and the negative impacts at Cley/Salthouse, Hilgay was identified as a site for habitat creation. It was unclear whether specific indicators for functionality were used to determine if “establishment of the reedbed was such that the area supported two pairs of nesting bittern and marsh harrier and other wetland species such as vole and otter”. In the case of the Cardiff Bay Barrage compensatory measures, threshold levels for two alternative species were used to base success at the new wetland reserve, rather than the two significantly affected species. The compensatory measures saw the creation of a new wetland reserve, selecting functionality as its success criteria. However, the original functionality that was being compensated for was ultimately lost. Although an extensive site with much wider biodiversity was created very successfully, if the objective was to compensate for the specific threatened species the development area was designated for, then the compensatory measures could not be considered successful.
7.3 International Case Studies For the Egmond aan Zee offshore wind farm (Netherlands) the regulator asked for a “compensation plan for nature value”. As a result of two appeals, the developer produced six compensatory measures, all of which were onshore or coastal. Although it was consented, the measures were not like-for-like. Consequently, they were not perceived as equivalent to the loss and were not going to provide the required compensation for the objectives of the impacted site. For the Maasvlakte II project, the compensatory measures can be judged as more like-for-like than those for Egmond aan Zee. Whilst the primary impact – reclamation of land from the sea – was not directly compensated for, in that, a comparable piece of land was forfeited to the sea, the measures implemented were designed to reflect the habitat lost and suit the species of concern. Specifically, by restoring dune habitat in the surrounding Voordelta (the habitat in which the Maasvlakte II works were located), the compensation can be considered biogeographically relevant. The monitoring conducted was designed alongside the design of the habitat restoration measures. Assessment targets directly corresponded to the habitats lost (grey and moist dune), resident species displaced (fen orchid) and associated species of concern (resting and foraging bird species). In other countries where there are limited drivers to create like-for-like compensatory measures there are options available for offsetting (e.g. US and Australia). Duke and ten Kate, (2014) explored lessons learned from biodiversity offsetting markets in other countries that could inform appraisal of options for delivering offsets in England, focusing on terrestrial issues. The report listed benefits to developers including time savings from the process, time savings securing the compensatory measures, reduction in long-term liabilities and reduced the constraints of like-for-like requirements (e.g. for threatened species or rare habitats). Of interest was the evaluation of outcomes. In the US, there was strong empirical evidence that
Page 36
developer‐led on‐site compensatory measures gave poor ecological outcomes (only a 7% success rate). Off‐site compensatory measures performance was much greater, due to aggregation, better value or larger sites for offsets being chosen. Anecdotally, the raising of performance standards and consequent costs of mitigation was seen to encourage developers to move back up the mitigation hierarchy. By delivering more avoidance and further minimising impacts, conservation outcomes improved. The report offered that in Australia, third party offsets (offsetting projects or schemes that are not developer or regulator led) were seen to save time in the consenting process, transfer liability in the long-term, and delivered better ecological outcomes than developer‐led offsets.
7.4 Evaluating and Assessing Success Evaluating success brings together success criteria, metrics, and monitoring. It should be noted that cases presented here are examples of successful use of compensatory measures. However, they may not be appropriate to other projects. The success criteria for each project will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In terms of metrics: Extents of saltmarsh or subtidal habitats were measured using photographs and bathymetry and compared year on year. Where accessible, walkover surveys were undertaken for saltmarsh. For subtidal habitats, dropdown camera photos and videos were used and validated with grab sampling, such as for Cardiff Bay Barrage. Biodiversity analysis of grab samples were then compared to previous or existing functional sites to determine the level of success either locally or regionally. To be able to meaningfully look at the functionality and coherence of either the European sites or the continuity of the MPA network, metrics regarding species thresholds, habitat extent and quality, modelling and surveys of indicators and pressures may need to be assessed and monitored. To enable this, the nature, frequency and duration of the monitoring must depend on the negative impact and the objectives of the compensatory measures applied. Depending on exceedance of threshold values applied, monitoring for some projects where habitat is seen to show success earlier than anticipated, like Bathside Bay, were able to reduce the frequency of reporting annually after ten years to five yearly.
The monitored feature was generally associated with the impacted receptor, though for cases concerning habitat extent, multiple indicators may be used if deemed relevant. As stated in section 6, monitoring was initially proposed for 10 years and then the frequency reduced when the outputs of the monitoring suggested a change would be appropriate. In some areas, monitoring was halted after successful outcomes were seen. There was, however, a distinct lack of clarity of how long the monitoring should continue and whether it would be stopped after success was observed. For habitats, both the area of the loss or existing habitats with similar features have been used for comparison. The overall success for a few sites were that the new area or site met the objectives described for the original designated area (for example Allfleets Marsh at Wallasea Island managed realignment). Transparent objectives or hypotheses to be tested may be useful, as it may be difficult to gain meaningful results from an objective being the provision of a certain number of hectares of habitat. This will not inform whether the new, improved or
Page 37
extended habitat created is of sufficient quality and provides the desired function and thus limits how successful a compensatory measure can be deemed. The reduction in frequency of the monitoring for the Bathside Bay compensatory measure was facilitated by a stakeholder group. Formalising this type of group to recommend change could be advantageous for developers and regulators, by preventing monitoring for monitoring’s sake, and for the environment where new technology or alternative methods would mean better resolution of the impact(s). Where monitoring was undertaken to avoid a threshold or to restore systems that have crossed a threshold, Kelly et al., (2015) found that threshold-based monitoring was more effective for smaller systems compared to larger areas. This indicates that the larger an impacted site is, the more significant the element of network coherence becomes. This research also found that routine monitoring was associated with not exceeding thresholds and post-threshold exceedance recovery, and that success was associated with the explicit threshold-based management. Success for many projects was anticipated to be managed or secured, with the aim of keeping the coherence of the Natura 2000 and eventually designation in some cases. Sign-off of suitability for designation and evidence of the secured coherence of the Natura 2000 was not transparent though, even at sites considered to be ready for designation (e.g. Chowderness, Alkoborough, Wallasea Island etc.). Success or completion of compensatory measures was identified in the review on several occasions as designation of a new SAC or SPA. A considerable number of projects only looked at comparable biodiversity or numbers of assemblages of feeding or roosting birds. As the requirement for compensatory measures under the Habitats Directive is for compensation of negative impacts so that the coherence of the network is maintained, objectives for any success criteria will need to be based on robust baseline data using best practice and guidance. The exceedance of the thresholds (or targets) for compensatory measures was informed by any monitoring that was undertaken. Whether indicators, thresholds or the ecosystem approach was used depended on the development, site and nature of impact and the nature of the compensatory measures at the site required. Even if the impact and the compensation being provided is the same as in another development, compensation at one site may take longer. It will not be possible to put specific limits on timelines for monitoring and needs to be able to continue until the objectives have been met. For Felixstowe (1998) and Sheerness Port developments there was an extensive gap of approximately 18-22 years between the development of the ports and the delivery of the compensatory measures. This was because the compensatory measures were deemed to be required after the completion of the projects. Although this project showed significant increases above the compensatory measures target for overwintering and feeding birds, the saltmarsh construction did show negative impacts. So, although appearing successful to support the required assemblages of wildfowl, it was not considered a mature, fully functioning habitat in terms of quality. It has been suggested that managed realignment could be successful initially due to large quantities of prey available at the start and then numbers of species reduce. As most projects are monitored for initially 10 years, this later decline in the status of the site may not be immediately identified (Brady and Boda, 2017). Monitoring for most projects was for 10 years or until the objectives have been “met”, and some, like the Cardiff Nature Reserve, will be monitored in perpetuity. Some are linked to the length of the development. However, for OWF where decommissioning also needs to be considered, this
Page 38
could be longer than the lifetime of the project. There also remains the question of who would be responsible for the subsequent monitoring of a compensated site following the achievement of compensatory targets, especially if the areas have been designated or newly designated. For the managed realignment at Paull Holme Strays in the Humber (part of the compensatory measures for the Humber Flood Defence works) the target was to create functioning intertidal habitat (Manson et al., 2012). Although this was on target to meet the set criteria, there was concern that in the long term it may not continue to provide like-for-like direct compensatory habitat. Future management options and possible inclusion of the habitat within a designated site was being discussed with NE. However, as monitoring ceased in 2013, no further information is available to assess. 7.5 Summary It is important to determine what a successful outcome looks like at the design and inception of a compensatory measure. It should be noted that what is successful in one project may not be deemed as such in another project; the compensatory measure and success criteria will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The criteria upon which to measure and evaluate an outcome as successful must be accurate and relevant to the compensated impact. “Functionality”, “Habitat extent” and “Threshold values” were the three main criteria and metrics used in compensatory measures identified from this review. Some cases selected an indicator criterion to support assessment of success. Most often these considered bird assemblages, though some cases also identified terrestrial mammals and rodents. Cases with successful outcomes in this review typically adopted a flexible approach to monitoring, to accommodate any uncertainty and be adaptable according to any results presented. Questions are raised in relation to the transparency of how success can be appropriately evaluated where “network coherence” is the selected receptor or process. As with other sections, some cases included in the review lacked the necessary information upon which to draw relevant conclusions, limiting the specificity of the review.
Page 39
8 Demonstrating Legal Compliance
There is a need for the developer to demonstrate they have met the requirements of the compensatory measures imposed on the project and complied with the relevant legislation. In turn, there is also need for the relevant regulator(s) to be able to confirm that compliance has been met. Within this review, several barriers to demonstrate compliance were identified. At the same time, several opportunities that could be taken to make it easier for the developer to demonstrate compliance were also identified. Relevant regulators are responsible for compensatory measures for HRAs and MEEB. For construction of OWF in England, compensatory measures are requested and agreed by the Secretary of State and regulated by the MMO through marine licensing and subsequent discharge of marine licence conditions. Developers must demonstrate that compensatory measures implemented are compliant to both. The principal component of legal compliance is adhering to the relevant legislation and designing and implementing measures which satisfy the polluter-pays principle and national and international conservation targets. Factors which impede or amplify these aims are numerous and heavily dependent on local context, the associated receptor, and the national regulatory framework. 8.1 Barriers to Demonstrating Compliance
The primary barrier identified in this study is a lack of information. Firstly, in several cases, the lack of clarity in reporting made it difficult to assess whether the requirements of the compensation measures had been met. It is difficult, therefore, for both the developer to demonstrate compliance and for the regulator to confirm compliance. Improving this aspect of reporting within projects would be beneficial for all parties. It would allow for a more robust sharing of knowledge, experience and lessons-learned for future developers.
Secondly, there are gaps in knowledge, data and scientific evidence which create barriers. Such a lack can lead to wide margins of error and precautionary judgements. These can result in subsequently wide impact zones and therefore compensatory measures with large requirements. This can lead to comprehensive monitoring, which, without stakeholder groups to manage this, may be required for longer than is necessary, or stop before completion. This is not cost effective for the developer and can also increase the burden on the regulators.
Many of the issues in previous rounds of OWF consenting contain considerable scientific doubt and are largely still unresolved. These include a lack of robust underwater noise parameters which have difficulty in providing scientific evidence-based assessments of impacts to spawning, nursery and migratory fish, and marine mammals, and gaps in data on bird collision and disturbance. A 2013 report on the impacts of Fish and Shellfish Ecology concluded that a main priority for industry and regulators was a better understanding of the population dynamics and habitats associated with diadromous4 fish in the context of large- scale installations (Freeman et al., 2013). This is a key consideration in terms of defining the most appropriate compensatory measure based on the best available evidence without disproportionately disadvantaging developers.
4 Fish which migrate between marine and freshwater environments.
Page 40
Closing knowledge gaps required to achieve levels of understanding would most likely need a strategic approach and investment from a government led programme of research. Furthermore, some impacts considered insignificant due to low numbers or the size of the area affected may be of higher concern at the population level or a wider spatial scale. It is essential that site-specific impact assessments continue to be undertaken to establish the potential effects and impacts of each project development. A more strategic national approach to identify, assess, and select sites for potential future development of offshore wind farms is being sought. Suggestions from scientists and conservation agencies are that developing effective mechanisms to deliver such assessments remains an urgent requirement (Fox and Petersen, 2019). Issues regarding bird collisions and displacement or avoidance are still of major concern i.e. there is evidence for widespread avoidance of offshore turbines by some large-bodied birds but knowledge of smaller bird species is less adequate and these gaps are reflected in other receptors also including fish (Marques et al., 2014).
Both the 25-Year Environment Plan and the Fisheries Bill underpin improved fish stock management and set out regulations under the UK Marine Strategy Regulations (2010). The UK marine Strategy is based on an ecosystem approach to ensure reversing, or where possible restoring, the loss of marine biodiversity to achieve good environmental status by 2020 (and beyond). Examples of knowledge gaps are seen for many receptors for offshore wind. However, this is not a new problem for a rapidly developing industry, and other sectors, such as the aggregates sector have overcome considerable knowledge gaps at both the local and regional levels. In this instance the sector collectively used a levy to fund research and to take a regional approach to share costs of monitoring requirements (BMAPA, n.d.). This has led to an improved outcome for biodiversity, as well as benefitting the aggregates developers, with regards to improved scope of the monitoring required and overall cost.
An additional barrier identified within this review is the difficulty in implementing specific, relevant and precise compensatory measures, owing to the difficulty in recreating certain habitat types and designing compensatory measures relevant to specific receptors. It was determined from this review that developers were able to recreate many different types of complex habitats like dunes (Masklavatte ll at Spanjaardsduin designated 35 ha of new dune area - Table 3, Annex 2) and saltmarsh relatively easily. For example, the Steart managed realignment scheme design and modelling showed that, even under challenging conditions, a scheme can successfully deliver mudflat and saltmarsh habitat (Wright et al., 2011). Additionally, it was noted that realignment is one of the few habitat creation techniques that offers some assurance of success because saltmarshes and mudflats respond quickly to environmental change like sea level rise (Morris, 2013). However, over substantial timeframes, compared to the relatively short duration of most monitoring programmes, mudflat will become saltmarsh thus any mudflat-specific benefit may only ever be over the short to medium term. Consequently, creating a mudflat would be sustainable for some 20 to 50 years only (Brady and Boda, 2017).
Occasionally habitats did not always form or perform in the way expected and, in some instances, conflicting results for a habitat would emerge i.e. one species would be more abundant but another key species absent. This highlights the significance of obtaining a good understanding – relevant to the measure proposed and considering the local context – of the baseline or receptor impacted. Whilst a managed realignment may be successful in that it may add to the coherence of a conservation network (e.g. by support a specific percentage of
Page 41
internationally important species), this does not necessarily mean that it will have compensated for the actual negative impact on a feature by a development. It should be noted that creation of mudflat by placing sediment on the subtidal to elevate an area to mudflat has not been tried in the UK.
Even more than for terrestrial and coastal areas, there is a high likelihood that it will not often be possible to provide a like-for-like replacement of losses in the marine environment. Offshore, it is likely that it may not be possible to apply compensatory measures adjacent to the site of loss, and on occasions some features may be irreplaceable. It may also be impossible to accurately measure changes above natural levels of variation. As noted for the Cardiff Bay Barrage, the compensatory measures proposed did not address the direct loss of supporting habitat for the protected species, however, alternative wider biodiversity and an area considered to be of higher value was created (Natural Resources Wales, 2014).
We also identified key barriers in the monitoring element of many cases. There was not always consistent frequency of monitoring. For example, measurements of saltmarsh extent and quality were not always possible due to the potential of disturbing overwintering birds. This too may happen in the marine environment, as there are often times of poor weather or ship/crew problems that lead to significant data gaps. The timing of surveys is particularly key as biodiversity abundance and presence depends on the time of year, temperature and stage of recruitment of flora and fauna. This large variation in species presence and abundance can mean that one survey may not be comparable to another. In extreme cases these data may even be considered unusable as supporting evidence. Availability of equipment, poor weather or other downtime could impact the acquisition of essential data to inform decision-making on compensation requirements.
As well as inconsistent monitoring, the monitored receptor may also present challenges to building an adequate evidence base to demonstrate compliance. For example, offshore receptors, like marine mammals and migratory fish, are difficult and expensive to survey and due to their transient nature in the water column. Table 1 summarises the examples of barriers to legal compliance identified within the review.
Page 42
Table 1. Summary of barriers to demonstration of legal compliance identified during the review.
Project Site Barriers Associated British Ports: Quay 2005, Green Port Humber Estuary SPA and Taken in isolation they may not address waterfowl feeding habitat. Hull 2007 and Immingham Outer Harbour candidate SAC
Dubai Ports World: London Gateway Container Thames Estuary and No previous adequate fish population data on which to base a meaningful success criterion. Terminal, 2010 Marshes SPA
Environment Agency Cley/Salthouse Flood North Norfolk Coast The creation of wetland sites using bunds and water control structures can be slow- may be Management Scheme SAC/SPA affected by bad weather - important management lessons.
Environment Agency Pett Frontage Tidal Flood Dungeness to Pett Levels Disturbance to breeding birds prevented habitat monitoring at times. Defence Scheme, 2005 SPA, Dungeness SAC Conflicting views on how site has performed. This example showed it is not always possible to deliver like-for-like as habitats can be constrained by the need to combine particular substrates with active coastal processes
Where compensatory measures packages are incorporated within projects to deliver wider biodiversity gain there is a risk that specific compensation requirements may be overlooked in pursuit of a broader set of objectives. Environment Agency: Hullbridge Tidal Flood Essex Estuaries cSAC, Only Functionality indicator appears to be for the development of the saltmarsh. Defence Scheme Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA Area difficult to access and therefore assess.
Environment Agency: Humber Estuary Flood Humber Flats and Marshes No transparent stakeholder groups. Risk Management Strategy, 2001 SPA Predictions of change had low confidence limits.
Harwich Haven Authority: Approach channel Stour and Orwell SPA, Success of SSSI, however, not possible to look at wider effects of the channel deepening on deepening, 1998 Hamford Water SPA birds and benthos. Even with comprehensive recording it may not be possible to disentangle development impact from natural cyclical or ad hoc disturbances. Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension Compensation mitigation and Monitoring Agreement, 2001 Saltmarsh did not establish at this site unlike all other sites in Essex Humber and on the Ribble and the difference has not been established to any degree of certainty. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration 2010 (reclamation and channel widening)
Page 43
Project Site Barriers Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Bay Flood Morecambe Bay SAC & New skear and cobble skear habitat translocation was successful. defence works 2005 Phase VI Phase II Coastal SPA Defence Works 2005
Port of Felixstowe Port Development (1988) Fagbury Flats and Lappel Not known if assemblage and numbers of birds represent a shift in usage of the mudflats at Bank Wallasea Island managed realignment or if numbers have been augmented. Port of Sheerness (1984) Observation of maturity of the saltmarsh showed some negative impacts. (Judgement against UK 1996)
Page 44
8.2 Consideration of Methods That Could Assist in Demonstrating Compliance
The ability to comply with the legal framework for compensatory measures is an important consideration for both developer and regulator when considering how appropriate various measures might be. There are a variety of legal requirements which the developer and regulator should be able to demonstrate have been met. Some of the cases in this review provide examples of having done this, other cases show that there can indeed be some flexibility in meeting some of these legal requirements as discussed above.
Coherence and additionality are two further methods required by the legislation to demonstrate compliance of the compensatory measure, especially in relation to the network of Marine Protected Areas. Firstly, compensatory measures should refer to the site’s conservation objectives and therefore also to the role played by the site in relation to the biogeographical distribution of the affected features, thus demonstrating coherence. Secondly, compensatory measures should be additional to the actions that are normal practice under the Habitats and Birds Directive, or obligations laid down in EU law. The measures should go beyond normal/standard measures required for the designation, protection, and management of the protected sites. However, the cases reviewed showed considerable scope for flexibility in this approach and many of the measures in the cases reviewed included management of habitats within existing sites (which could by some interpretation not be considered as ‘additional’).
Coordinating a compensatory measure around the precautionary principle may also be effective in demonstrating compliance. Due to the uncertainties and the difficultly at times of demonstrating no reasonable scientific doubt, a precautionary approach may be necessary. It may be necessary to err on the side of over-compensating in order to demonstrate compliance.
Securing compensatory measures (e.g. agreed objectives, land acquisition and relevant permissions can be a lengthy process) is another relevant method, as seen for the port developments at Felixstowe (1998) and Sheerness (1994). There was a significant time lag between the negative impacts of the developments (more than 20 years) and completion of the compensatory measures. This was due to the length of time it took for the assessment and subsequent consultation period to choose an appropriate site for the compensatory measures (large enough to ensure successful habitat creation). These together with the implementation of the proposal, meant that the project was not operational until 2006. However, the project was deemed a success as a result of taking the time to find a site that fully met the compensatory criteria.
As a principle, a site should not be damaged before the compensatory measures are in place, and as a minimum are meant to be secured thus seeking appropriate timing of measures. However, lags between the impact occurring and the measures being effective occurred for a variety of reasons including time for an appropriate site to be agreed, and in one case was over 20 years. Whilst ‘overcompensation’ might be anticipated if measures are not operational at the time of damage, there are cases which show that the measures were not entirely successful.
There are examples from this review which help to detail how these methods can be used:
Page 45
In the Port of Rotterdam/ Maasvlakte case, questions over additionality, especially in relation to the seabed protection area, were raised because management measures were carried out within the site as part of the compensatory measures package. However, the project was consented and is one of the very few examples of compensatory measures being applied successfully in the offshore marine environment. The La Brena Dam project is cited as an excellent example of a project being consented with compensatory measures which outweighed the impacts. Questions were raised as to whether a separate measure should be used (such as a LIFE-funded programme). The project was eventually consented with the specific request by the EC to ensure all measures and management of the sites in question were carefully co- ordinated by the Spanish authorities. For the Able Marine Energy Park, complex hydrological changes through natural and other man-induced pressures were all recognised by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State agreed that predicting how estuarine processes and ecosystems would respond to introduction of artificial structures, and the likelihood of success of the compensatory measures was not possible, and that it would not be reasonable to apply a test of no reasonable scientific doubt in the decision making. It was noted in this case that there must always be a risk that compensatory measures might fail. The Secretary of State agreed that adaptive management had to be built into the measures taken. Here the uncertainties did not prevent the case being consented. Similarly, uncertainty was effectively covered by a substantial multiplier of compensation to loss at the Hullbridge tidal flood defence scheme. For developments at the Port of Felixstowe and Sheerness (Lappel/Bagbury Flats) compensatory measures were agreed a long time after the consent was given (18-22 years), similarly the compensatory measures package was agreed after the EC opinion at both Sweden, Bothniabanen, near Umea Railway and Finkenwerder Aircraft factory Hamburg. 8.3 Summary
Demonstrating compliance with relevant legislation is an obligation on the developer. Ensuring that legal requirements can be reasonably demonstrated is the duty of the regulator. Uncertainty and lack of data for marine processes, species and habitats as well as underdeveloped knowledge of impacts to receptors may inhibit the extent to which a developer can demonstrate compliance. Questions remain as to how to demonstrate compliance reasonably in evidence-poor situations, and what level of burden should be placed on the developer as opposed to the regulator. Coherence and additionality are two important factors to consider when implementing compensatory measures so that eventual demonstration of compliance is accurate and precise. Ensuring that compensatory measures adhere to the precautionary principle can make demonstrating compliance more achievable, as developers will be working towards a higher compensation target, and thus, delivery may be more likely. A useful method of securing compensatory measures is to stipulate obligations within a marine licence or development consent order.
Page 46
Ensuring compensatory measures are time-relevant to the compensated feature may also assist in demonstrating compliance.
9 Discussion
This section summarises the results of this report and considers in greater detail the design, implementation, and management of compensatory measures in practice. 9.1 Defining and Implementing Effective Compensatory Measures
Design and implementation
From this review, we can determine that all compensatory measures deemed necessary in the UK were under the Habitats Directive because the compensated feature was within a designated area - SPA or a SAC. This was achieved mainly by managed realignment. We note that no case was identified within this review that fell under the compensatory obligation of MCAA (i.e. MEEB). Outside of the UK, there was a greater mix of compensated features, ranging from statutory designations to undesignated habitats or local populations of vulnerable species. The prevalence of Habitats Directive examples may be explained by the additional terrestrial scope of the Directive compared to the purely marine and coastal scope of MCAA or, that as a relatively new statutory instrument, it is yet to be tested. It is difficult to confidently assess this spread for cases outside of the UK due to the small sample size and the differing national legislative frameworks, so it should be noted that the review cannot be considered exhaustive.
Deeming compensatory measures necessary or triggering the process of assessment was conducted by different parties in the cases included in this review. In many cases, the relevant state authority was notified by a third party, often an NGO or concerned body. However, in others, the process was more actively led by the developer. In other cases, the need for compensatory measures was assessed by the state authority entirely, and thus largely driven by the state. This review could not inform an assessment of the most effective methods for determining whether compensatory measures are necessary. This point relates more so to the implementation of the relevant statutory instrument and should be considered in greater detail in future work.
The selection and design of the compensatory measures were, at a general level, well- associated with the respective impacted features. Those cases which deemed that there would be an impact to a certain habitat, typically included the creation of new habitat; restoration of degraded or impacted habitat; translocation or extension of existing protected habitat. This is broadly consistent with the relevant statutory instrument, the Habitats Directive, and indicates that the compensatory measures included in this review were generally targeted and appropriate. Cases which did not identify designated habitat as the compensated feature contained similarly targeted and generally appropriate compensatory measures predominantly with regards to numbers or abundance of birds. There was one European example where the reintroduction of spawning fish into an ecosystem to compensate for adverse impacts to fish abundance was found. Some cases such as Egmond aan Zee took a more consolidated approach that could be described as no net biodiversity loss of a broader area. This cannot
Page 47
be considered a targeted compensatory measure, as the identified feature of concern was not directly compensated for its associated impacts. However, overall, compensatory measures were largely targeted and appropriate to the identified feature of concern. The exception was in the UK of the compensatory measures for the Cardiff Bay Barrage. The creation of the Wetland Nature Reserve did not provide supporting habitat for the impacted species or use them as indicators of success in provision of the compensatory measures.
Looking at the international case studies collected in this review, habitat creation was the most prevalent compensatory measure (or offsetting measure) selected. Mostly, wetland habitat creation was conducted, as one of the most common receptors requiring compensatory measures as a result of being degraded or destroyed due to coastal or urban development. Projects that had a number of options for compensatory measures that went out to consultation and took time to consider the most appropriate design and site, were seen to be more ecologically beneficial (Wallasea Island managed realignment and the Cardiff Wetland Nature Reserve).
Sometimes the success of a few species does not indicate the complete extent, functionality, or quality of the species or habitat being measured and is only a measure for those species. Where managed realignment has provided a mosaic of habitats like Alkborough, although it fulfils requirements for a wide range of species of fish and birds the benthic communities are impoverished and the creation of the mudflat due to natural accretion and vegetation will cause the area over time to cease to be inundated (Manson et al., 2012; Brady and Boda, 2017). This will reduce the provision of compensatory habitat that is directly comparable. Also, with continual accretion it will reduce the capacity of the site to be able to act as flood protection. Intervention may be necessary, and the site may require modification to a regulated tidal exchange to be able to continue to provide adequate resource.
Observation of some projects indicated failure, and adaptive management measures could be implemented with the aid of stakeholder groups to improve situations. However, in some instances, the reasons for failure of habitats or species to thrive were not obvious.
Management and monitoring of compensatory measures
Designing and implementing a targeted and appropriate compensatory measure does not guarantee its effectiveness, which is critically dependent on the management of the measure e.g. how it is implemented, how it is deemed successful, and whether its effects are monitored going forward. Not effectively managing a measure’s implementation risks reducing its overall effectiveness. Furthermore, not effectively monitoring a measure’s implementation risks inaccurate conclusions being drawn.
It is hard to see how creation of additional habitat within an existing site boundary could be considered an effective compensatory measure, depending upon how large the site in question is. Consideration of extension of the protected site boundary, therefore, might be an alternative or additional measure, but one would need to know the specifics at the site in question, i.e. there would have been a reason (presumably including ecological/ biological) why a larger boundary was not considered originally at designation. Therefore, simply extending a boundary might not have the desired outcomes. The area would also likely require
Page 48
management according to its conservation objectives. New management measures could then bring about improvement for the additional area to then be of a quality to be included.
In many cases there was a lack of clarity in how the compensatory measures were implemented, either due to a lack of information available or due to there not being a strong or defined regulatory or stakeholder group role. Those cases in the UK where there were stakeholder groups had more beneficial outcomes for both developers and the environment. For the Habitats Directive, the European Commission has sight of compensatory measures, sometimes giving formal opinion, and in some cases retrospectively enforcing compensatory measures. Going forward, clarity on governance for developers and how this overview will be achieved needs to be determined.
The general lack of clarity is further detailed by the difficulty in ascertaining whether monitoring and evaluation of the compensatory measure was present or underway. There are good examples of archiving and dissemination of information like the Wallasea Island managed realignment, but this was not generally the rule and so dissemination of best practice may not be easily achieved. There is no post-consent repository for documentation, unlike planning projects such as NSIPS.
Monitoring the progress and impact of a compensatory measure is essential in maintaining habitat or feature-specific conservation goals. It is in the interest of the regulator to be accurately informed of the status of a compensatory measure so as not to fail national and international conservation targets. In those cases where the review was able to identify and describe the monitoring and evaluation of the measure, there was a mix of monitoring approaches. These ranged broadly in their scope, duration, and the involvement of the state authority. In the UK generally an initial 10-year period was described for monitoring. However, for some projects like the EA flood defence strategy, monitoring will be long-term and likely more than 50 years but is part of their statutory obligations. It was difficult to obtain and therefore determine where the regulators had discharged monitoring. Due to the nature of the reporting, it was hard to find agreements on whether monitoring had met all the objectives and was no longer required, within the scope of this project. Also, where monitoring had been halted after 10 years, fears were raised regarding subsequent decline in habitats and not maintaining purpose.
Several sites were said to be suitable for designation, but there is little evidence of these sites being consulted on and designated (e.g. Wallasea, Brandy Hole, Shotley Marsh, Paull Holme Strays, Chowder Ness, Alkborough and Welwick). Allfleets Marsh at Wallasea Island was confirmed in 2008 to have an extension to the Crouch and Roach SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site according to the citation. The inclusion of the area of managed realignment is not obvious in the citation. This information is perceived only from the map provided. For other realignments like those within the Humber Estuary, (where the citation has not been updated since 2004) it is presumed the areas are not yet part of the designated conservation network. The lack of information relating the monitoring and evaluation to the conservation objectives and specifically to the monitoring and evaluation of projects, makes any assessment of how appropriate the monitoring measures were very limited. For example, we know that certain measures included the monitoring of indicator species in relation to specified threshold values. However, the information available did not consistently describe how the species were selected, nor did it describe whether there was a strong baseline beforehand. There was only one example where it was specifically stated that monitoring had been undertaken for 10 years
Page 49
prior to development. Most often an historic comparison of variety in numbers and types of species present and extent was applied to the new site’s objectives. This was often hampered by geographic differences, either elevation (potential to effect use of a saltmarsh) or distance (species were not always going to go to the new site) or quality of the impact site to the compensation site.
Furthermore, there was very little information as to the duration of monitoring programmes. From the review often 10 years was seen to be used but, in one European case this was seen to be in perpetuity for the developer. Management of some sites have been given over to relevant management bodies (like the RSPB management of Hesketh Outmarsh and Trimely Marsh to the Suffolk Wildlife Trust). However, the future cost of long-term monitoring at these sites, who this responsibility will eventually fall to and in what anticipated time frame, are not clear. Whether this will be for the lifetime of the project, or until objectives are fulfilled, or in perpetuity are not easily resolved from the projects reviewed. Cost of management being taken over by charitable trusts and making enterprise solutions to facilitate monitoring and education are good examples of shared responsibility (e.g. Steart Wetland Nature Reserve created in response for compensation of projects of the EA and Bristol Ports Authority and its management by the Wetland Wildfowl Trust). The duration of monitoring was seen to be determined by the time predicted to achieve the objectives. It also depended on the impacts, the conservation objective(s), and the compensation location. There is difficulty in confidently stating how successful a measure has been. Too short a monitoring programme may not be able to account for chronic or long-term impacts. In some UK examples, where long-term objectives were not set at the beginning (Harwich Haven Authority developments), iterative management and research to inform later monitoring requirements were needed as part of the original compensatory measures package. Again, the likelihood and severity of such impacts can only be determined where necessary information concerning the impact itself and the surrounding environment is available. Where monitoring was interrupted or stalled, the success of objectives was not always discernible from natural variation. If monitoring had changed or was ongoing it was not easy to determine when or if success had been achieved.
Where stakeholder groups are seen to be undertaking iterative management of compensatory measures at sites, there is evidence that there are improved ecological and developer outcomes. However, where there are good ecological outcomes like Wallasea Island, Alkoborough Chowder Ness Welwick, Brandy Hole, Shotley Marsh and Paull Holme Strays, the monitoring of projects does not directly lead to designation, even when sites are said to be fully functioning. Where requirements for compensatory measures lead to habitat suitable for designation some considerable monitoring would have been undertaken prior to that point. Although, it is not known whether the monitoring undertaken to that point would be the same as that required for the assessment of designation, and in some cases where 10 years of monitoring has now ceased, it is not clear what the next steps are from the literature observed.
These points indicate a major limitation in the assessment of compensatory measures.
The need for effective compensatory measures
A focal point that we have identified in this review is the need for geographically and biologically relevant compensatory measures. Designing a geographically and biologically relevant compensatory measure must consider the local environment and context. As such, the limitations of defining generalist benchmarks, such as a 5-mile radius around a habitat or
Page 50
feature should be acknowledged, i.e. the compensatory needs of one feature may differ significantly to the other. Therefore, the spatial extent of a compensatory measure should be determined based on the nature and extent of the relevant impact, whilst considering the needs of the relevant feature. For example, if habitat restoration is deemed necessary to compensate for impacts on birds at an offshore wind farm, the necessary compensatory measure should consider the needs of the bird species in relation to the habitat degraded, such as whether there are associated or indirect impacts to food sources etc. In this respect, taking a holistic approach to assessing the interconnectivity of the bird feature and the degraded habitat should lead to a better-informed compensatory measures strategy.
Consideration of extension of the protected site boundary might be an alternative or additional measure. However, improvement or additional management would need to be included to ensure that this was adequate.
Options for compensatory measures also differ very much between species. For example, for a marine site classified for seabirds; providing additional breeding habitat near to the development as a form of “compensation” for loss of subtidal feeding habitat could potentially be an appropriate measure. However, equivalence is hard to assess and the full range of ecological requirements of a species at a site must be considered, rather than one or two in isolation and advice from the statutory nature conservation body would be critical. Receptor impacts may also depend on the location and time of the proposal, but also the resistance and resilience of the receptor involved. Considering management options on a case-by-case basis may allow better assessment of these different aspects than other methods mentioned.
In designing, implementing, and managing compensatory measures, it must be possible to demonstrate that the compensatory measure works. At the very least confidence in the effectiveness of the measure should be described. The success and efficiency of the compensatory measures should be clearly stated. This should include how they were derived and how the indicators, thresholds or means of defining the ecosystem (what metrics used for the ecosystem approach) were monitored, including any proxies used. The methods and success criteria used need to be traceable and transparent. This is essential as only dissemination of these metrics can ensure best practice is passed on and lessons learned as part of an iterative and adaptive management framework. Each plan or project will have a unique set of pressures and receptors to be assessed. If a set of compensatory measures were proposed for each receptor, irrespective of location i.e. set ratios, specific abundance of protected species etc., then this would prevent the use of best practice and for us to learn from the iterative process. In practice, especially in the marine environment when confidence in baseline data may be low, the ability to detect change may also be low.
Some compensatory measures incorporated within projects delivered, what were considered to be, wider biodiversity gains. Although it was noted in Cardiff Bay Barrage development that there was a risk that the specific compensatory measures requirements could be overlooked in pursuit of broader or bigger sets of objectives. The Cley/Salthouse flood management scheme showed that the chance of successful implementation, monitoring, and ongoing management of the compensatory measures can be much greater when included within a wider biodiversity initiative.
For compensatory measures like the managed realignment at Allfleet’s Marsh on the north bank of Wallasea Island, this site was to compensate for losses of intertidal at north Lappel
Page 51
Bank (Port of Sheerness) and Fagbury Flats (Port of Felixstowe). It also enhanced local flood protection potential for agricultural land behind the new sea wall.
It is not known/clear if the monitoring of the UK plans and projects undertaken in the case studies are sufficient to allow for assessments of designation of habitats. If the monitoring methods applied matched the requirements of the selection process, either under the Habitats regulations or MCAA or both depending on the compensatory measures required, then the copious quantity of data collected might be able to be used for future designations and save time and money. However, due to the lack of this transparency it is not possible to determine if the monitoring would fit with the assessment’s requirements. Ecological enhancement
During the review, several approaches were found that were not classed as compensatory measures per se, but instead as “ecological enhancement”. From the outset these approaches may not be able to provide confidence that the project on its own would compensate for the negative impacts of a planned development. However, the enhancement would be seen to potentially enrich an area. These examples are provided in Table 7 (Annex 5). Going forward, such ecological enhancements could potentially form compensatory measures provided the right objectives and implementation was used when coupled with appropriate policy.
9.2 Transferability of International into UK
Assessing the transferability of non-UK case studies in respect to whether they would be effective and appropriate in the UK is a multi-faceted question.
An important factor is the bio-geographic and environmental comparability of an approach with a different biome or region. The transferability of species-specific measures such as the replanting of marine angiosperms (grasses), are dependent on the similarities between the case-country and the transferee. The examples from the non-UK case studies which conducted eelgrass replanting (the Port of Gothenburg) would be a good candidate for compensatory measures that could be used in the UK. How transferrable an example is for the UK is likely dependent on how similar the example habitat is to that of the UK. Assessing or establishing a transferability-benchmark could take many forms and could define differences in habitats at either high or very specific levels. For example, it may seem sensible to classify examples from the North Sea as more appropriate examples than those from the Mediterranean, due to their differing environmental components. However, the North Sea can also be further separated into North, Central and South sections, and can then be even further classified by, for example, large features such as the Dogger Bank sandbank. It is therefore important to consider the context of the need for the question of transferability.
The question of transferability centres on a universal and non-specific premise: that habitats can become degraded and require interventions to compensate this degradation. Thus, not only is the comparability of the environment and biogeography between two regions important, but also the type and extent of degradation that has occurred. Considering the example of the Maasvlakte II Port development, the habitat degradation is attributed to land reclamation from the sea (van der Meulen, 2016). The principal measure selected was the restoration of dune
Page 52
habitat to compensate for lost habitat and displaced flora. Measures were also included to compensate for the damage to resting and foraging birds which primarily comprised the creation of a 25,000 ha marine protected area. Monitoring was then conducted to examine the progress of the dune restoration and the status of the species concerned.
This example appears a good fit when considering transferability into the UK. Land reclamation, whilst more prevalent in the Netherlands, is present in the UK, so too are dunes and the fen orchid. A more analytical approach would describe this example as sufficiently similar in human pressures, habitat/feature types and associated receptor species, to be deemed a good case for transfer to the UK. The critical component of this is determining the benchmark for what is sufficiently similar, and for this, a case-by-case approach may be more effective and flexible than a comprehensive approach. In terms of the measures used, this is likely to be an appropriate transferable case as it considers the direct impact of habitat loss in the marine environment, associated habitat impacts and impacts to species of concern.
If an associated feature of concern is present in the UK, then the measure is likely to be more effective and appropriate than where the species is not UK-resident. However, it is then important to consider local variability, including environmental conditions, to consider and control for the species’ condition in the UK. For example, differences in salinity and temperature may impact the resilience and recoverability of many fish, benthic and floral communities, whilst an individual population’s or community’s conservation status may indicate that they are more vulnerable to pressures than the example case study. This topic area can be incredibly complex, and it can be difficult to confidently ascertain how different a species’ vulnerability is between two regions (Yackulic et al., 2011). However, the key message is to recognise differences in environmental conditions and species’ vulnerability and include them in any assessment of transferability.
Comparing the results of the UK and non-UK case reviews and considering the principles of transferability discussed above show that compensatory measures used outside of the UK do not differ considerably from those used within the UK. A key point to note here, is that in some non-UK examples such as Finland, the national regulatory framework was equipped to mandate compensatory measures for those sites not covered under the Habitats Directive. As there were no examples of the UK equivalent (MEEB), this presents the main difference between the UK and international examples. The Oulijoki River case (Finland) is an example of a case that did not fall under the Habitats Directive: mandating the reintroduction of larvae/young of impacted features/species is a concept that could be transferred to the UK’s compensatory framework. However, it would need to be assured that this was relevant to the impacted receptor and not a case of additionality alone. Similarly, improving local environmental quality, including sediment recharge, and reducing soil erosion, at Búðarháls power plant in Iceland is a type of habitat restoration and enhancement that could and has been utilised in the UK. We deemed the Maasvlakte II case the most transferable international example included within this review, due to its marine compensatory components, habitats and features concerned, and additionality incorporated. 9.3 Applicability to Offshore Wind Farms
Successful, functioning compensation sites whether newly created, extended or improved sites, even where glacial material was recreated (cobble skear in the UK and dune habitat in the Netherlands) have been observed to be possible in the coastal environment.
Page 53
On the intertidal, where impacts either directly or cumulatively as a result of cable burial may require compensation, all the UK examples of compensation may be transferable. In the offshore some methods may have some applicability. For example, glacial cobble skear was removed from the direct area of impact and translocated to make a better habitat within the same site. Translocation might be applied to extend a site or improve an area to favourable status. The pilot study by a student at Swansea University to look at translocation of biogenic reef on boulders was undertaken with a five-week monitoring window (e.g. biogenic reef of the honeycomb worm (S. alveolata) (Marine Management Organisation, 2019). However, there is no indication of the success of this type of measure long term. Although listed as a compensatory measure for Harwich Haven Authority activities, enhancement or improvement alone may not be sufficient to provide adequate compensation for other projects. Management itself is not a compensatory measure.
For offshore wind farms, the habitat at the construction site is likely to incur long-term change. The turbines often require scour protection in the form of gabion baskets (bags of rock) or loose rock to prevent toppling because of erosion. Additionally, the cables between turbines or connection to land if exposed or crossing are covered with rock or mattresses.
Whilst monitoring has shown that habitat creation for realignment and extension or creation of intertidal and saltmarsh can be relatively successful (less than 20 years for Humber saltmarsh creation). It was also recognised that even the most detailed of monitoring plans was not sufficient to be able to fully assess success against natural variation or individual events.
Whilst there is potential for offshore habitats (beyond 12 nm) to be improved, extended or translocated as part of compensatory measures, some of these may be arguably only additive. Furthermore, the example of the Cardiff Bay Barrage highlights that it might not be possible to recreate habitat to perform a certain function to support a particular species. The two main issues with this, is that:
It is not always likely to be able to provide a like-for-like replacement of losses in the marine environment. Offshore receptors like marine mammals and migratory fish may not use the habitat in the same way and are difficult and expensive to survey and quantify due to their transient nature.
From this review, we identified no offshore compensatory measures for seabirds, although measures to provide roosting sites and feeding grounds on intertidal/ estuarine areas were observed. Similarly, no evidence of compensatory measures for marine mammals was identified in the marine environment. The current main concern for marine mammals is from underwater noise during construction and to date the focus has been to mitigate the impact. Concerning seabirds, Maasvlakte II (Table 3, Annex 2) provides a useful example of a measure that can be applied to the offshore environment, in that to ensure effective implementation of the habitat restoration measures, pressures such as trawling were prohibited. Identifying relevant pressures that may inhibit a compensatory measure is likely to be more effective and comprehensive if considered from the outset at the measure design phase. Such prohibition of relevant pressures is also likely to enable network coherence and good environmental status.
Page 54
Even in the coastal area, providing like-for-like habitat was not a guarantee that it would ever reach its full potential either from use of the intended species as expected or if local conditions did not allow. This may also be true offshore. This leads to the need for contingency planning for failure of compensatory measures and provision of adaptive management frameworks to ensure the sites objectives for favourable conservation status are not hindered.
Recreating, moving, or designating new MPAs will incur significant time and costs. The designation process can take many months or even years for a new site. A new site will typically require consultation and balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders and users of the area. In certain cases, this could include cross-border negotiations. The cost of surveying and monitoring a new site can be considerable; possibly several million pounds. For a small development/developer, these social and economic costs may prove too great a barrier in achieving successful compensatory measures. These points help emphasise the need to consider compensatory measures only where all other options have been exhausted. 9.4 Barriers and Gaps
The review has identified a number of practical barriers to effective, targeted and appropriate compensatory measures. These barriers range from the design and implementation of the measures, to monitoring, evaluation and success of the project.
Lack of available and accessible knowledge and data
Data collection for this report was challenging, in that much of the information relating to the case studies included were found in either grey or unpublished literature, governmental and regulatory reports etc. There was relatively little peer-reviewed material available on the topic. The peer-reviewed research that was available appeared to have been conducted independently rather than carried out in collaboration with regulatory bodies.
The literature and reporting for many projects were hard to find. There is good information available on some websites e.g. the planning portal for the documents required for prior to consent, however there is no similar repository for monitoring and evaluation reports. To be able to access these, knowledge of the case names is required. Even the use of keywords on some regulator or advisor websites where documents are held are either not possible or do not retrieve relevant documentation. In order to find and extract information one needed to follow iterations or years of reports for plans and projects which are found ad hoc, mainly on consultants, developer or information repository websites. The exceptions were Harwich Haven Authority and Wallasea Island compensatory measures, as the projects both had good websites providing documentation. Linking developments and their impacts with the named compensatory measures can be tricky. It is hampered by where the development is and where the compensation takes place, how the monitoring is reported and who it is sent to, as well as who undertook it. Although information can be found on regulator sites with regard to marine licences, PINS notifications, or even consultants’ websites, as the monitoring of compensatory measures are not often specifically separated from the mitigation, it is not always possible to resolve easily. The lack of a repository for post-monitoring data that is fully searchable makes for poor dissemination of best practice.
It was noticed within this project (and others) that many organisations now have data retention policies. These however, present a risk to future projects if relevant data are lost, or reports
Page 55
removed from public access. This is likely to hamper future projects that require compensatory measures as it may not be possible to adequately review previous examples. Whilst metadata standards like the Marine Environmental Data and Information Network (referred to as MEDIN) are improving there is little requirement for developers to put their data into open access repositories. Even though the data may eventually end up on databases like the data archive for marine seabed species and Habitats data (DASSH) and the marine environment monitoring and assessment national database (MERMAN), this may not be for some considerable time following collection. These data could be useful on a regional level if accessible over shorter time periods. Also, data links with monitoring from other sectors like the aggregate industry on the same platforms may help to provide better data and less burden in the long-term on developers.
Data gaps
Data gaps for compensatory measures and monitoring are an issue that is likely to cause considerable disagreement without a strategic approach to providing evidence. Where there are data gaps or large confidence limits, compensatory measures are larger to ensure that suitable successful compensation is provided. For example, a much larger ratio for replacement would need to be used where confidence in predicted models is low.
Uncertainty in the marine environment is a key barrier. Key gaps that we have identified comprise:
The certainty of the impact. Whether habitats are re-creatable. The speed of recovery. Population level effects. The impacts of permanent change of substrate causing changes in biodiversity. Introduction of chemicals. Non-native species.
Lack of information also makes it difficult to:
Implement specific, relevant, and precise compensatory measures. Determine frequency and duration of monitoring and potential for implementation of “in perpetuity” clause. 9.5 Compensatory Measures
For effective compensatory measures there needs to be regular constructive communications between competent authorities, assessment authorities and the proponents of the plan or project. Where there was a framework with clear objectives and target values provided in regard to the sites conservation objectives success was easier to observe. The description of how compensatory measures are to be achieved need to be supported by a scientifically robust explanation of how they compensate for the negative effects with regard to a sites conservation objectives. To be able to be implemented they have to be both legally and financially feasible in a reasonable (justified) and measurable timescale. For transparency the framework needs to have space for public information or consultation stages.
Page 56
To be able to specify when a measure was completed from the outset it was easier to observe from clear monitoring and reporting schedules, , where progress was based on indicators according to the objectives of the compensatory measures considered, including frequency and duration. To be transferable and allow for improvement reporting needs to be consistent and easily accessible. Strong regulator/stakeholder steering committees for monitoring provided a basis for measures to deliver good ecological outcomes and provided opportunities for adaptive management and sign off.
Best practice and principles for Compensatory Measures
From the case studies assessed, the following are identified as best practice in the use of compensatory measures:
1. To ensure a strategic approach, regular and constructive communication, co- ordination and co-operation between competent authorities, assessment authorities and the proponent of the plan or project will be required from conception to delivery of any compensatory measures and monitoring. 2. Description of any proposed compensatory measures should be informed and justified by a robust scientific explanation of how any associated negative impacts will be compensated, and to what extent damage or loss will be reversed or improved upon. 3. Compensatory measures should relate specifically to the negative impacts on the habitat or species concerned (i.e. the feature(s)), to ensure at least the same benefits provided as the feature/area that was damaged or lost. 4. Provide robust analysis of how suitable sites/measures can be secured. Confidence that the measure could be achieved (e.g. whether the technology is available, or land can be leased etc.) needs to be demonstrated prior to consent. 5. They should not be based on management alone and are required to be more than additional. Where further research to be able to determine decisions in the long term are required, or an adverse impact may occur viable options for alternative measures if compensatory measures prove inadequate should be outlined prior to the development being consented. 6. Ensure that documents are well named and archived to ensure communication on lessons learned are easily distributed and retrieved. 7. Adaptive management, facilitated by stakeholder groups comprised of regulators, advisors, SNCBs, NGOs and the public, with community engagement early on and regular monitoring meetings to steer change effectively when required. 8. Make provision for future management of site and site monitoring to ensure maintenance and coherence of conservation objectives. 9. Clear objectives and target values for the compensatory measures to be provided according to the site’s conservation objectives and wider network coherence. 10. Demonstration of the technical feasibility of the measures in relation to their objectives. 11. To achieve the best ecological outcomes, compensatory measures should be in place in time to address the negative effects and as a minimum should be secured before the plan or project proceeds. 12. Measures of success need to be well enough defined to demonstrate clearly when an objective has been achieved. 13. Demonstration of the legal and/or financial feasibility of the measures according to the timing required.
Page 57
14. Outline timeframe in which the compensatory measures are expected to be available and fulfil their objectives compared to that of the predicted timing of the development and the negative impacts at a site. 15. Where necessary, compensatory measures may be located outside or away from the site affected but should look to ensure that the coherence of the MPA network and the contribution to favourable conservation status are maintained.
9.6 Closing Thoughts
Finally, throughout the project a number of discussion points were raised. These were outside of the main scope of this project but were still relevant and could warrant future consideration:
Issues around boundaries. There is a hierarchy by which compensatory measures should be considered - ideally within, or near to, the site affected but ultimately within the same bio- geographic region.
Reasonable proportionality in determining what is an appropriate compensatory measure, it is important to consider the level of burden placed on the developer or compensating body in relation to the conservation goal of the compensated feature.
Inviable compensation i.e. departing from like for like - where there is no alternative habitat available, would diversifying the loss be appropriate?
Strategic planning for ecological consideration would reduce time taken for individual projects to get through consent. Undertaking analysis and planning-ahead for likely opportunities like the EA 50-year plan would help to lessen the burden on industry and potentially speed up consents.
Limited options. The range of opportunities to compensate for subtidal habitat impacts is limited particularly for delivering like-for-like habitat. The White Paper on UK Offshore Wind Expansion (ABPmer, 2020) suggested that the best opportunities were likely to relate to the removal of other human activity pressures impacting on MPAs e.g. fishing and aggregate extraction for which financial compensation payments might be required.
Failed compensation. There appear to be some projects deemed to have failed in their objective to apply Articles 6(3) and 6(4) and ensure the coherence of the network but, it is not clear what, if any, follow up has been taken to remedy this.
Time lag between negative impacts and delivery of compensatory measures. It is very likely that there are time lags between the damage occurring and compensation becoming fully functional. A critical consideration of the impact of damaging developments is the timing of damage and delivery of compensatory measures. This is especially important where water bird populations are displaced and have nowhere to go. It is highlighted by the case of redshank displaced from Cardiff Bay that were shown to lose condition and to experience higher levels of mortality within displaced flocks (Burton et al., 2006).
Additionally, for some projects where phased development occurs the implementation of the compensatory measures may be satisfactorily phased, to complement the timeline of the development and the observation of the negative impacts. Indeed, if impacts accrued over
Page 58
time then compensation could be designed to reflect this with incremental measures that are reflective of the need. Impact monitoring would be required to refine what remained to be compensated for and adaptive management measures leading the process.
Dissemination of information and best practice. Some good examples of arrangements to ensure monitoring and reporting have emerged however, there is no central repository of information which allows clear lessons to be learned.
Page 59
10 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their reviewer comments: Adrian Judd, Cefas; Laura Cornick, Matt Parsons and Kerstin Kober, JNCC and Steve Clifton, Natural England.
11 References
ABPmer. 2005. Morcombe Phase VI Coastal Defence Development Advice on Proposed Mitigation Measures. 13 pp. http://www.abpmer.net/morecambe/reports/baseline_survey_251005.pdf. ABPmer. 2020. White Paper UK Offshore Wind Expansion, 6. Armstrong, S., West, V. A., and Hull, S. C. 2019. Integrating opportunities to enhance ecosystem resilience through licenced activities in the marine area : supporting implementation of the Welsh National Marine Plan. Beck, M. 2014. Social-Ecological Marine Restoration: A New Vision of Benefits for Nature – And People. National Geographic Society Newsroom. BMAPA. (n.d.). Aggregates Levy Fund. https://www.bmapa.org/issues/aggregates_levy.php (Accessed 4 June 2020). Brady, A. F., and Boda, C. S. 2017. How do we know if managed realignment for coastal habitat compensation is successful? Insights from the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directive in England. Ocean and Coastal Management, 143: 164–174. Elsevier Ltd. Broekmeyer, M. E. A., Morris, R. K. A., and Walters, L. M. J.-. 2016. Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in Coastal Sites. WC1076. 78 pp. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13732_WC1076Europeanstudy.p df. Burton, N. H. K., Rehfisch, M. M., Clark, N. A., and Dodd, S. G. 2006. Impacts of sudden winter habitat loss on the body condition and survival of redshank Tringa totanus. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43: 464–473. CIWEM. 2018. Environmental Net Gain. In Environmental Net Gain: Measurement, Delivery and Application, pp. 1–10. Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management. Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited, and IEEP. 2014. Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Programme. Defra project code: WC 1051. 1–71 pp. Cowell, R. 2000. Environmental compensation and the mediation of environmental change: Making capital out of Cardiff Bay. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Defra, and Natural England. 2012. Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots Technical Paper: The Metric for the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot in England: 27. Defra. 2014. Biodiversity 2020 : A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services: 48. Defra. 2019. Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental
Page 60
Status. Defra. 2020. 30 January 2020: Environment Bill policy statement. Duke, G., and ten Kate, K. 2014. Exploring lessons learned from biodiversity offsetting markets in other countries that could inform appraisal of options for delivering offsets in England. Final report to Defra (project code WC1098). Washington D.C. Environment Agency. 2011. Steart Coastal Management Project Environmental Statement. European Commission. 2007. Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the’Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC. Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest, compensatory measures, overall coherence, opinion of the commission. 30 pp. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/guidance_ art6_4_en.pdf. European Commission. 2011. Wind energy developments and Natura 2000: Guidance document. 118 pp. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pd f. European Commission. 2018. Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. 86 pp. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/Provisions _Art_6_nov_2018_en.pdf. Fox, A. D., and Petersen, I. K. 2019. Offshore wind farms and their effects on birds, 113: 86– 101. Freeman, S. M., Hawkins, K. R., Kirby, A. D., McCall, R. A., Blyth-Skyrme, R. E., and Edhouse. 2013. Wave & Tidal Consenting Position Paper Series. Impacts on Fish and Shellfish Ecology. 11 pp. https://www.waveandtidalknowledgenetwork.com/wp- content/uploads/legacy-files/RenewableUK-Fish-Impacts.pdf. Halcrow. 2012. Assessment of siltation at Alkborough. ICE. 2015. Managed realignment at Steart, Somerset. https://ice.org.uk/knowledge-and- resources/case-studies/managed-realignmentat-steart-somerset (Accessed 20 July 2020). Justice & Environment. 2016. Appropriate Assessment and Natura 2000 Areas: Short Guide to Rules and Case Law. Kelly, R. P., Erickson, A. L., Mease, L. A., Battista, W., Kittinger, J. N., and Fujita, R. 2015. Embracing thresholds for better environmental management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370: 20130276. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2013.0276. Mackley. (n.d.). Pett Sea Defences. https://mackley.co.uk/capabilities/coastal-protection/pett- sea-defences/ (Accessed 12 July 2020). Manson, S., Pinnington, N., and Manson, S. 2012. ‘Paull Holme Strays Managed Realignment’ (Humber estuary) Measure analysis in the framework of the Interreg IVB project TIDE. Measure 31.: 24. Marine and Coastal Access Act. 2009. Chapter 23. UK. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/pdfs/ukpga_20090023_en.pdf. Marine Management Organisation. (n.d.). Overview of the Derogation Provisions under the Habitats Regulations. 8 pp.
Page 61
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme nt_data/file/799598/MMO_HRA_Derogations_Overview.pdf. Marine Management Organisation. 2014. Review of post-consent offshore wind farm monitoring data associated with licence conditions. 194 pp. Marine Management Organisation. 2019. Identifying sites suitable for marine habitat restoration or creation (MMO1135). 87 pp. Marques, A. T., Batalha, H., Rodrigues, S., Costa, H., Pereira, M. J. R., Fonseca, C., Mascarenhas, M., et al. 2014. Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation, 179: 40–52. Elsevier Ltd. Mazik, K., Franco, A., Brown, S., R., P.-D., Musk, W., Dawes, O., Smyth, K., et al. 2013. Ecological development of the Alkborough Flats managed realignment site: fifth year of monitoring, September 2011. Hull: Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull. Morris, R. K. A. 2013. Managed realignment as a tool for compensatory habitat creation - A re-appraisal. Ocean and Coastal Management, 73: 82–91. Elsevier Ltd. Natural Resources Wales. 2014. Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended) Regulation 22 - EIA Consent Decision. Niner, H. J., Milligan, B., Jones, P. J. S., and Styan, C. A. 2017. A global snapshot of marine biodiversity offsetting policy. Marine Policy, 81: 368–374. Elsevier Ltd. NOAA. 2008. Habitat Restoration. Silver Spring, MD. Norden. 2016. Environmental Compensation Key conditions for increased and cost effective application. 147 pp. Reach, I. S., Crabtree, R., Morris, R. K. A., Cottle, R. A., Blyth‐Skyrme, R. E., Bray, S., Latto, P., et al. 2015. Advice on Adaptive Management and Marine Biodiversity Enhancement Measures for Coastal Lagoon Developments. A report for Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru/Natural Resources Wales. Royal Haskoning. 2014. Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA Annual Review 2013. 119 pp. http://hha.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/Mitigation-and-monitoring-review-2013.pdf. The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations. 2019. No Title. 2019 No.579. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/579/contents/made. The Landmark Practice. 2011. Ecological Management Plan 2012 – 2016 For the Bristol Port Company. 36 pp. https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN020001/EN020001-003408-150226_EN020001_The Bristol Port Company_1st Qs Annex 1.pdf. Vaissière, A. C., Levrel, H., Pioch, S., and Carlier, A. 2014. Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe. Marine Policy, 48: 172–183. Elsevier. van der Meulen, F. 2016. Environmental compensation for port extension: the case of rotterdam harbor and nature compensation, policy and practice. Wright, A., Shipton, J., Carroll, B., and Armstrong, S. 2011. Lessons for designing managed realignment sites along hyper tidal estuaries - a case study on the Bristol port company’s Steart habitat creation scheme. Proceedings of the ICE Coastal Management 2011 Conference, November 2011.
Page 62
Yackulic, C. B., Sanderson, E. W., and Uriarte, M. 2011. Anthropogenic and environmental drivers of modern range loss in large mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108: 4024–4029.
Page 63
Annex 1: UK Cases Reviewed
Table 2. UK projects containing compensatory measures. “–“ indicates insufficient information was available to complete. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work.
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit Able Marine Energy Park Killingholme, south Unknown Arable Farmland To provide optimal terrestrial Example of approach when consented 2014, River bank of the requiring planning habitat for protected bird species. uncertainty over impacts – Humber. Application 2011. Humber. Humber consents, Humber complex conditions in the Marshes, 40 ha of Flats, Marshes and Works include development of Humber Estuary, highly intertidal habitat Coast SPA and 94.6 ha of wet grassland habitat to dynamic, habitats affected within Humber Humber Estuary provided feeding and roosting for also subject to continuous Flats, Marshes and SPA curlew and black-tailed godwits. change through natural and Coast SPA and man-induced pressures – Humber Estuary Comprising 73.4 ha of intertidal all recognised by SoS. SoS SPA, Ramsar site mudflat and 21.2 ha of sub tidal agreed that predicting how and SSI estuary for the SAC and 101.5 ha estuarine processes and for the SPA and the compensation ecosystems would respond must replace the functional losses to introduction of artificial of those habitats chich provide a structures and likely food larder for birds that are success of compensatory features of the SPA. measures not possible, and that it would not be
reasonable to apply a test of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’. Noted there must always be a risk that CM might fail and that this test does not apply to CM.
Three areas of uncertainty identified: in delivery of CM, in success of CM and in degree of achieving desired ecological outcomes. Considering these, SoS
Page 64
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit agreed that adaptive management is highly relevant. (and uncertainties did not prevent case being consented)
ABP Southampton Solent and Indirect loss of 2.1 ha Cobnor Point Create 2.1 ha intertidal mudflat Further monitoring reports Approach Channel Dredge, Southampton intertidal habitat. Managed and 1.5 ha of saltmarsh not found. 2013 Water SPA realignment. Environmental management plan stated the Solent European Marine Regulation 33 document provides information on key attributes of intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh habitats and these “attributes” should be monitored at an appropriate time and regularity due ensure habitat is delivering habitat as expected. The monitoring plan was to be produced shortly after first meeting of ESC.
Bird species using the site would also be monitored at an appropriate time and regularity to ensure site was functioning and providing necessary habitat.
Anglian Water Services: Rutland Water SPA Indirect impacts on habitat Rutland Water SPA 2016 report states “overall Functionality objectives (in Wing Water Treatment and SSSI quality and extent available objective was to offset the complete archive so unable Works for water birds, through Rutland Water possible effects of greatly reduced to clearly understand the increased rate of Ramsar site water levels within the reservoir.” objectives set originally). Site now managed by drawdown in Rutland Leicestershire and Rutland Water Timing: 2008 Without original objectives it was Final monitoring report compensation site assumed that waterbird 2014. was completed. abundance was taken as an
Page 65
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit Wildlife Trust but no specific Final monitoring indicator of the overall habitat Compensation within Stakeholder group. 2014. functionality. The new lagoons Rutland Water SPA- would achieve biological habitats are established and productivity like existing lagoons supporting designated in Rutland water. waterfowl. Robust monitoring has determined Two sets of freshwater wetland functionality of the lagoons were created as compensation areas compensation habitat (96 ha) (although may be untested outside but immediately adjacent in extreme drought?). to the SPA, together with an area of adjacent wet grassland. And numbers of waterfowl using new lagoons was below predicted levels. (2016).
Associated British Ports: Humber Estuary Quay: Permanent loss of Realignment project Quay: 6 ha of intertidal habitat at Sufficient compensation SPA and Ramsar 4ha intertidal mudflat, loss is within the Chowder Ness created in terms of extent of Quay, 2005, Green Port site and Humber of roosting structure used Humber approx. up intertidal consistent within Hull, 2007, and Immingham Flats Marshes and by wintering waterfowl. to 20 km from Green Port: 6 ha intertidal habitat the Humber Estuary and is Outer Harbour Coast SPA and impact but new site at Chowder Ness, 5 ha intertidal expected to maintain the Ramsar site Green Port: loss of 3 ha of adjacent to SPA habitat at existing Alkborough overall coherence of SAC ABPmer monitoring and subtidal habitat, loss of 4.5 and Ramsars as Flats managed realignment site habitat 1130 ‘Estuaries’ report results to ha of mudflat, longer-term they were land Environmental Steering loss of 0.6 ha intertidal before. Immimgham: 45 ha intertidal Sites are said to be at levels Group of regulators area due to indirect habitat creation at Welwick, 11 ha that could qualify for advisors and NGOs. changes to estuary Alkborough, intertidal habitat creation Chowder designation. hydrodynamics and Chowder Ness and Ness. morphological processes, Welwick Possible that in longer-term loss of roosting structure the Chowder Ness and used by wintering Chowder Ness (11 Welwick compensation sites
waterfowl. ha) and Welwick will fulfil objectives for (45 ha) inundation usage by migratory Immingham: Loss of 22 ha 2006 created waterfowl. intertidal mudflat, possible intertidal habitat loss 5 ha mudflat through Monitoring evidence indicates design objectives
Page 66
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit morphological response of So, habitat would met by the combined the estuary roughly be available populations of waterfowl at time of the using these compensation impacts. sites (together with Doigs Creek). Alkborough: (Project expected to Compensation for Green cost £11.1M with Port Hull delivered in future management advance of damage to the and maintenance of SAC/SPA/Ramsar interest £25,000 per year forecast this has on To note that Alkborough occasion been realignment is seen as a exceeded. (43% flood defence works, flood cost related to storage to reduce peak tide construction, levels in the estuary during although extreme events. environmental benefit was costed at £23,6 million). Over ten years the site operated twice in flood mode-once beyond its capacity.
370 ha in total of which 170 ha are in the intertidal.
Bathside Bay, 2007 Stour and Orwell Unknown Unknown Conversion of arable land to Unknown SPA intertidal habitat.
Cardiff Bay Barrage, 2001 Cardiff Bay To regenerate the area by Cardiff Bay Cardiff Bay Wetlands Nature The new reserve area is 2.5 Wetland Nature converting mudflats to a Wetlands Nature reserve (previously a SSSI) times larger than 160 ha Reserve and freshwater lake waterfront, reserve SSSI in Cardiff Bay and a 1.1 km barrage was was considered a minimum
Page 67
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit Severn Estuary constructed at the bay 86 ha wet reed bed at requirement to create a SPA entrance. Construction Uskmouth, to attract certain successful reserve because started May 1994, nationally rare breeding birds, artificial habitats may completed in 1999. 160 ha freshwater wet and sustain lower bird densities flooded grassland at the compared to natural habitat. ‘Saltmarsh’, and 31 ha of wet grassland at Uskmouth, to support nationally and internationally important numbers of some wintering waterfowl species.
London Gateway Container Thames Estuary Conversion of 5ha intertidal Stanford Wharf and At least 74 ha intertidal mudflat to Unknown. Terminal, 2010 and Marshes SPA to shallow subtidal. Cliffe Marshes be created at Stanford Wharf and Cliffe Marshes. Loss of 29 ha undesignated intertidal.
Loss of 68 ha undesignated subtidal.
Loss of benthic communities in dredging footprint.
Environment Agency North Norfolk Change in management Wissey Wetland Part of a wider biodiversity The compensation at Hilgay Cley/Salthouse Flood Coast SAC/SPA shingle vegetation with Creation project - initiative: the Wissey Wetland will deliver favourable Management Scheme, indirect impacts on Hilgay Creation project. Creation of 65 ha condition of the designated (date unclear) protected sp. wetland habitat; 40 ha reedbed shingle habitat.
Environment Agency Pett Dungeness to Pett - Rye Harbour Farm 6 ha of compensatory habitat at - Frontage Tidal Flood Levels SPA, Rye Harbour Farm, which was Defence Scheme, 2005 Dungeness SAC bought by EA for topsoil and exposure of underlying shingle to replace lost habitat
Page 68
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit Environment Agency: Essex Estuaries 2.95 ha Indirect loss inter- Brandy Hole 12 ha site at Brandy Hole, 1.5 km Package of measures Hullbridge Tidal Flood cSAC, Crouch and tidal habitats due to coastal from the main impact of the flood exceeds ongoing losses. Defence Scheme, (date Roach Estuaries squeeze and perpetuation defence scheme. Predicted this unclear) SPA of ongoing habitat loss. would yield 7 ha of inter-tidal Saltmarsh habitat now fully habitat (including transitional functional and remarkably 0.05 ha direct loss of inter- upper saltmarsh) and 5 ha of similar to older 'natural' tidal habitat as a result of rough grassland saltmarsh. placement of toe protection works and gabions. full transition from mudflat to terrestrial habitat has been created, allowing capacity for saltmarshes to gradually migrate landward.
Uncertainty effectively covered by a substantial multiplier of compensation to loss.
Environment Agency: Humber Flats and Loss of intertidal habitats Adjacent to the Compensation at Paull Holme First large-scale managed Humber Estuary Flood Risk Marshes SPA due to urgent flood defence Humber Estuary Strays through 80 ha new realignment on the Humber Management Strategy, works in combination with SPA and Ramsar intertidal by managed realignment was inundated in 2003. 2001 predicted losses due to and cSAC. 1st of site at Paull Holme Strays on coastal squeeze. EA’s managed opposite bank of estuary. Created The site met its initial realignments in after works carried out. to provide targets for usage of birds Humber estuary 45 ha of mudflat and 35 ha of although use remains lower Paull Holme Strays saltmarsh. than adjacent areas.
Targets for site was to create mudflat to support invertebrate assemblage similar to species population and abundance and biomass to reference site in the middle of the estuary.
At least 30 foraging wintering birds (including Redshank (Tringo
Page 69
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit tetanus), Dunlin (Calidris alpine), Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) and Curlew ( Numenius arquoata) must be present; and 12 roosting wintering birds (of which the Golden Plover (Pulvalis apricaria) must be present .
Harwich Haven Authority: Stour and Orwell 4 ha inter-tidal loss Trimley Marshes 16.5 ha intertidal habitats created The compensation at Approach channel SPA, Hamford at managed realignment site at Trimley site is fully deepening, 1998 Water SPA Trimley Marshes including 12.5 ha functional and has been of precautionary habitat creation designated as a SSSI, SPA Trinity III (Phase2) in case there was a delayed and Ramsar site. Extension Compensation response to the sediment feeding mitigation and Monitoring (provision for 5 years possible Sediment feeding to arrest Agreement, 2001 erosion). predicted acceleration of foreshore erosion has been Maximum footprint of 26 ha. 23 ha successful and it has been producing productive intertidal 4 possible to reduce volumes Felixstowe South ha of which was outside the SPA being fed into the Stour Reconfiguration, 2010 (at Shotley Point). Estuary. (reclamation and channel widening) Habitat enhancement expected to Monitoring has been provide improved quality of SPA in comprehensive and well this area. disseminated through the Regulator's Group and the wider Stour and Orwell partnership
Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Bay Phase VI: loss of 5.5 ha of Existing site The loss of glacially formed Sunnyslopes skear was Morecambe Bay Coastal SAC & SPA sandflat, 1.2 ha of cobble cobble skear was mitigated by translocated. Defence Works, 2005 skear (sub-feature of Large creation of new cobble skear Shallow Inlet and Bay) within existing site. This, in turn, Very large realignment site led to further loss of sandy has been created on Ribble Phase VII: loss of 2.393 ha intertidal habitat and consequently Estuary, making significant mudflat and sandflat, 2.405 contribution to biodiversity, reinforcing resilience to
Page 70
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit ha of natural boulder and the compensation site expected to change. The realignment cobble skear. focus solely on this habitat. also helps to restore estuary closer to pre-1980 EA contributed to buy up of 170 form. ha of habitat at Hesketh Outmarsh by RSPB to create new saltmarsh. A range of inter-tidal Site set up and managed by the habitats have been created, RSPB. including substantial areas of inter-tidal muddy sand.
Extensive new saltmarsh habitat has been created.
London Gateway Container Thames Estuary - Stanford Wharf and Two sites identified for - Terminal, 2007 and marshes SPA Cliffe Marshes realignment works to create and Ramsar intertidal habitat.
Port of Bristol development Severn SAC and 120 ha of new Steart Marshes The site at Steart Peninsula in The Steart Managed (berths and channel), 2008- SPA “compensatory habitat” for Severn Estuary Severn Estuary selected for Realignment project of 2013 wetland birds (20 ha of SAC and SPA are provision of compensation habitat which the Bristol Container Terminal development which must be mudflat and large enough to in conjunction with mitigation compensatory measures exist for five to ten years). compensate for up measures. The compensation are part of, has delivered a to 40% of the scheme enforceable under legal range of valuable new habitat losses in the agreement between Bristol Port wetland habitat managed by region this also Company, NE, the Environment the Wildfowl and Wetland includes Agency and RSPB trust comprising: Environment Agency 183ha of saltmarsh compensation for 40ha of intertidal mudflat intertidal habitat 69ha of transitional losses from coastal brackish habitat squeeze as well as 79ha of coastal compensation for grazing marsh the Bristol 32ha of brackish Container Port and saline lagoons developments. 26ha of freshwater lagoon
Page 71
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit Numerous ponds and ditches (The £21M Steart Coastal Management Project created a new wetland nature reserve by managed realignment of up to 400ha, also alleviating flood risk locally from sea level rise and increased storminess.
Port of Felixstowe Port Fagbury Flats 32 ha of inter-tidal mudflat Allfleet’s Marsh and Compensatory measures at The site has evolved Development, 1988 (Orwell Estuary and saltmarsh which Wallasea Island Allfleet’s Marsh and Wallasea substantially according to SSI Stour and supported water bird Island were determined long after predictions and broadly Port of Sheerness, 1984 Orwell Estuaries populations that would development consents were meets design objectives. Ramsar and SPA) have formed part of the granted. (Judgement against UK and overall designated The project has generated a 1996) populations of the Stour Wallasea (North) Managed substantial body of Lappel Bank and Orwell Estuaries SPA. Realignment 2006 monitoring data that makes (Medway Estuary it of considerable scientific and Marshes SPA 22 ha of inter-tidal mudflat, 115 ha intertidal habitat including, interest as a possible long- SSSI and Ramsar which supported water bird approx. 92 ha mudflat and 23 ha term study sit. and Medway populations that would saltmarsh. Estuary MCZ) have formed part of the Substantial public profile overall designated 2003 Objectives for site were to through dedicated website populations of the Medway provide intertidal habitat for the also links to webcam and Estuary and Marshes SPA. number and range of bird species live transmissions of activity displaced as a result of the loss of on the mudflats. Lappel Bank and Fagbury Flats: This project was funded by To offset any impacts on the Defra. integrity of the originally proposed Medway and Stour & Orwell SPAs caused by the developments at Lappel Bank and Fagbury Flats respectively,
Page 72
Development Project Impact Site Impact Compensation Site Measure/Objective Benefit for example adverse impacts of modified physical processes.
To ensure that the compensatory measures themselves do not have an adverse impact on the geomorphological or ecological functioning of the area in which they are located.
To construct a self-sustaining system (or systems) which can evolve in response to natural physical, chemical and biological changes and which is able to maintain the bird populations for which it was created over a period of at least 50 years.
To provide compensatory measures for the loss of wetland functions (if any) which cannot be adequately replaced.
RNLI slipway, St Pembrokeshire Columns supporting Pembrokeshire A Net Gain of 5 m2 of reef through Within Pembroke SAC Justinian’s, St David’s SAC slipway and lifeboat house, SAC the creation of a new reef using Pembrokeshire, 2014 slipway itself – direct reef rock material derived from the site habitat loss and some that is compatible with reef habitat disturbance during geology. This will result in no net construction. reduction in natural distribution of reef geology and a greater variation than at present.
Page 73
Page 74
Annex 2: International Cases Reviewed
Table 3. International projects containing compensatory measures.
Project Site Impact Measure Benefit Búðarháls hydro Surrounding land area at Degradation and Restoration of 6 km squared eroded Increase vegetation cover, decreasing soil power plant, Búðarháls destruction of well land erosion and restoring function and structure of Iceland. vegetated land. the ecosystem.
Egmond aan Zee Dutch North Sea Coast Impacts (avoidance, €535,000 Expansion of De Putten bird [Translated] Investing in restoration or Offshore Wind bivalve recruitment, food reserve; Fund establish fund for the development of biotopes of the affected Farm (NL) sources) to fish, benthic benefit of migratory birds; Dune migratory birds, breeding birds and shorebirds (1- communities, seabirds reclamation project; Diederik wet dune on-1 measures). Measures to improve the and marine mammals) valley restoration; support for fishing for general physical nature and environmental litter; Funding for a documentary quality of the North Sea. Measures to increase educating about nature. the appreciation and experience of the North Sea and coastal zone among the public.
Enlarging ship Mainaue zwischen Surface loss of habitat of Enlarged sites, habitat creation. One alternative would affect a different site. fairway River Main, Grafenrheinfeld und 9.460 m2 and 6.440 m2 Wipfeld to Kitzingen Another alternative would not meet objective of Ottendorf, (Bavaria, the project. Germany) Maintal bei Sennfeld und Weyer Both alternatives would still affect habitats.
Alluvial forests, lowland Continuous and improved navigation channel in hay meadows Trans Euro network.
Factory and Győr development plan Loss of 279 ha 343 habitat enlargements to Hungary’s Relocation of habitat and associated species associated Győrszentiván Fertő- Natura Network would avoid an overall decline in Hungary’s infrastructure, Hanság National Park Natura sites. Hungary, Directorate. Audi car 230 ha of the enlarged grasslands will 25/01/2011 factory and associated be subject to restoration measures infrastructure
Page 75
Project Site Impact Measure Benefit
Finkenwerder. Mühlenberger Loch SAC Loss of 171 ha Impacted Approx. 700 ha compensation areas, Not believed to have met objectives, significantly Aircraft factory and SPA, inc. dunes and area consisted of tidal including some tidal freshwater fewer wildfowl (some priority sp. Hamburg, estuary and sp. freshwater mudflats, mudflats. Germany, waterfowl populations, 19/04/2000 endemic plant sp. and Excavation of nearby terrestrial areas to provided nursery recreate wetland habitats; newly functions for fish sp. created “estuary” habitat on a nearby Natura 2000 site; and recreation of wetlands and wet meadows on another nearby site.
Granadilla Port Sebales del Sur de Disruption of natural Sand bypass – pumping sand round Unclear. (Tenerife, Spain Tenerife – sandbanks patterns of sand removal/ port 2006) slightly covered by deposition and impacts seawater at all times, on downstream habitats Prohibition of anchorage in sandbanks Construction of new loggerhead turtle SAC port Ship anchoring Montana Roja – hosts Designation of new site for rare dune fixed coastal dunes plant
Designation of two new sites for sandbanks feature
Dune restoration works to enhance conservation status within Montana Roja site
Highway E45 and Göta Älv River wetlands Destruction of 165 ha of Establish a compensation area of 320 Aim to increase animal and plant diversity and Göta Älv River wetland meadows. ha to promote habitat restoration abundance. railway, Sweden. including: creation of ponds, flooding of land, reed removal.
La Brena dam Flooding and enlarging Expropriate >2000 ha across 15 Questions asked if it was possible to compensate (Spain) existing dam landholding/estates, activities to for high quality habitat – EC agreed that CM proposed were substantial and should outweigh
Page 76
Project Site Impact Measure Benefit Compensation for loss of improve quality of habitat and food impacts, CM also reviewed by experts. habitat for Iberian lynx resources Additionality also questioned – existing LIFE project delivering some measures. EC Agreed Increase prey sp., habitat restoration there was some overlap but stated that co- and reforestation, construction of ordination was key – asked Spanish authorities refuges, monitoring. to put in place. Main action taken was co- operation agreements between public and private entities – largely deemed v successful and 2016 Natura 2000 European citizens award.
Long-distance and Glemswald und 1.1 ha of site encroached Site enlarged by approx. 50 ha, brought All alternatives would have equal or larger suburban railway Stuttgarter Bucht SAC – inc. loss of trees for into network resulting in two isolated impact. from Bad Cannstatt lowland hay meadows, beetle. Lowland hay sites becoming linked. Tree to Stuttgart hermit beetle meadow habitat impact management measures to be taken in Regional and long-distance transport services (Germany) not significant. new part of site. enhanced/ cross regional links strengthened.
Maasvlakte, The Voordelta: Shallow sea, Loss of 2,445 ha sea 24,550 ha seabed protection area. 2008: Voordelta: designation of seabed Netherlands common scoter, common habitat protection areas (where trawling is prohibited) tern, sandwich tern 15.8 ha new dune area to be and resting areas for birds – 3 species - and About 5.5 ha designated. (35 ha according to seals (where recreation is restricted). Dune habitat deterioration in the quality website): of dune habitat. Several years (?) up to 2009: development of create a marine protection area of new dune. 2,500x10 = 25,000 ha in the Voordelta and Area of 35 acres along the coast between Hoek van Holland's Gravenzande was completed in within the protected area, establish 2009. resting places for the three most sensitive seabird species, Common scoter, Sandwich tern and Common tern.
Page 77
Project Site Impact Measure Benefit Merikoski Hydro Oulujoki River Impacts fish migration “Fish stocking, yearly release of … Replenishment of fish populations. Power Station, from Oulujoki River to offspring. Later also fish passage has Oulu, Finland. Salonselka and been built” Oulunselka.
Port of Gothenburg, Eelgrass in and around Damage and degradation “Measures to reverse the historic Unclear. Sweden the Port of Gothenburg of 2 ha of eelgrass; this decline of eelgrass through off-site feature had declined eelgrass restoration”. significantly prior to this due to coastal Specifically, the measure comprised the development of building up of a deep bottom bay to Gothenburg. enable adequate light conditions for seagrass restoration.
This is the “largest replanting project in Sweden” – 1.7 ha.
Railway Bothnia Ume River delta Natura Impact on deciduous land 500 ha divided and legally protected. Target: to maintain the number of Bean geese Line, Ume River 2000 site (SCI and SPA) upheaval forests and on Temporarily flooded arable land. during migration. Delta. Vasterbotten, and Ramsar site arable land habitats for Installed five new nature reserves. Sweden wetland birds.
Widening of B173 Maintal von Theisau bis Loss of habitat and loss Habitat enlargement by 2 ha. All alternatives would have equal or larger Michelau-Zettlitz Lichtenfels SAC of ecological function. impact. section, Germany Eutrophic lakes, tall herb Development of reedbeds. fringe communities, Reducing traffic in certain municipalities. lowland hay meadows, alluvial forests Enhanced business opportunities.
Taler von Oberem Main SPA – marsh harrier
Page 78
Annex 3: Monitoring and Reporting
Table 4. Monitoring and Reporting. Only cases with sufficient information to review included. Projects were selected from those identified in the UK and international case studies in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work.
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
ABP Southampton Solent and Construction by ABP of an environmental compensation site at Cobnor Point in Chichester Harbour; and (iv) design Approach Channel Southampton Water and environmental studies and environmental monitoring. Dredge, 2013 SPA Environmental management plan described monitoring for 5 years following the breach. After which the steering comitte would review.
Anglian Water Services: Rutland Water SPA No group of stakeholders. Wing Water Treatment The ongoing management of site is by Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust. Works The compensation habitats are now established and are supporting designated waterfowl. Robust monitoring has determined the functionality of the compensation areas, but it has not been possible to test the effectiveness of the compensation during an extreme drawdown event.
Associated British Ports: Humber Estuary SPA Expected to deliver quality habitat to provide opportunity for full assemblage soft intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and Quay 2005, Green Port and candidate SAC islands Hull, 2007 and Compensation has been completed at same time as development. Immingham Outer Harbour Strong environmental steering committee (ABP, EA, NE, Dept. for Transport, Cefas, RSPB, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trusts.
Monitoring was long-term including site visit and observation of mudflat creation. Caveat: NE identified a practical way of addressing sub-tidal habitat loss by accepting that this could be compensated by extending the overall boundary of the Natura 2000 site. It should be stressed, however, that compensation in this case involved losses to the extent of habitat 1130 'Estuaries', rather than a specific sub-tidal habitat listed within the designation as SAC. Thus, the concept remains untested in a wider context of SAC habitats.
Saltmarsh was seen forming within 20years. Habitat created is consistent with other habitats in the Humber and expected to maintain overall coherence of SAC Alkborough: 5 yr. monitoring programme from 2007 looked at sediment characteristics accretion and mudflat development as well as infaunal and epi fauna fish and vegetation as well as bird abundance and communities
Page 79
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
(Mazik et al., 2013). Monitoring showed it was acting as a nursery area for fish and a feeding and roosting area for birds. (Monitoring initially estimated at about £10,000 per annum was not expected to continue at the required detail level (Halcrow, 2012).
Bathside Bay, 2007 Stour and Orwell SPA To avoid any impacts as a result of the works on the favourable conservation status of both habitats, as defined under Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive, and species, as defined under the Article 1(i); and, 2. To remove any adverse effects arising from the works in order to maintain site integrity in so far as this will be affected by the schemes. Where ‘favourable conservation status’ is defined as: Intertidal habitats (i.e. saltmarsh, soft muddy, and granular habitats) that, in combination, maintain the geomorphological form and functioning of the estuaries, so that they are capable of sustaining the populations of internationally and nationally important overwintering birds for which the site qualifies.
In 1997 and 2001, when the MMP and CMMA were produced, the qualification of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA as as follows: Populations of internationally / nationally important overwintering birds, based on: Notable numbers of golden plover (under Article 4.1); and important populations of dunlin; shelduck; dark-bellied geese; redshank; grey plover; black-tailed godwit; turnstone; ringed plover; wigeon; knot; curlew; pintail; mute swans; goldeneye and scaup (under Article 4.2). Since qualification in 2003, the boundaries of the constituent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) were extended and, in May 2005, the SPA boundary was extended to include an additional 360 hectares. The SPA boundary extensions coincide with areas incorporated within enlarged boundaries of the Orwell Estuary SSSI and Stour Estuary SSSI, as well as the whole of Cattawade Marshes SSSI. Following the renotification of SSSIs in 2003 and the SPA in 2005, the site now qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting 1% or more of the Great Britain population of avocet Recurvirostra avosetta. Over the period 1996 to 2000 the SPA supported 21 breeding pairs. It also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographical populations of a number of migratory species. The site further qualifies under Article 4.2 as it is used regularly by over 20,000 water birds in any season. In the non-breeding season, the site regularly supports around 63,000 individual water birds (based on the 5-year peak mean recorded between 1993/94 and 1997/98). Monitoring:
Page 80
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
Detailed objectives for monitoring have also been defined in order to determine whether or not any impacts on the favourable conservation status of the European site(s) arise as a result of the dredging, quay extension and their associated mitigation schemes. They can be summarised as: 1. To increase understanding of the processes operating in the Stour and Orwell estuaries and Hamford Water and to define those aspects that relate to the deepening. 2. To measure the change in habitat distribution and to understand the relationship between morphology, habitat and the populations and distribution of designated bird species. 3. To validate and refine the mitigation actions; and 4. To fully monitor the effect and thereby success of mitigation. Duration 2007-2014 and annual monitoring ongoing. Included bathymetric and topographic data and comparison of biotopes at specific sites in the estuary. Discussions of findings at annual meeting determined additional analysis of saltmarsh extent and quality to be undertaken. Comparison was to salt marsh prior to activity with current extent and quality. Functionality based. Monitoring was set at 10 years -after monitoring of habitat showed that it was unlikely to exceed the threshold for growth. However, monitoring clearly showed successional changes were successful after the 10-year report monitoring frequency was set to five yearly instead of annually.
Sedimentation monitoring was halted but bird counts showed levels varied and experts discussing trends suggested different ways of counting, or seasonal fluxes, could be responsible for large changes. An alert mechanism with percentage changes were used to trigger additional analysis and the alerts were reviewed every three years. The data were compared to regional and national trends (Royal Haskoning, 2014).
Cardiff Bay Cardiff Bay Wetland 1 km barrage extends from Cardiff docks to Penarth commenced in 1994 and was finished in 1999. The Harbour Reserve and Severn Authority developed and manages a Wetland Reserve on north shore of Cardiff Bay between St David’s Hotel and Barrage 2001 Estuary SPA the River Taff, created on a former saltmarsh. Work on the impacts of the barge during construction and now in operation looking at the passage of migratory fish. The authority also provides project funding dedicated to fish pass and habitat improvements along the rivers Taff and Ely to ensure the passage of fish and provide suitable breeding areas.
Page 81
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
Environmental consideration for water quality was with regard to recreational purposes as well as fish.
Construction of a Remote Plymouth Sound and Many environmental assessments were carried out prior to the commencement of the RAFT project starting in 1996, Ammunitioning Facility Estuaries cSAC including desktop archaeological studies to look at the potential effects on existing scheduled monuments at Tamar (RAFT), 2003 Bullpoint. Impacts on key habitats and species in the Sound and its estuaries and a baseline environmental survey of the estuarine sediment and benthic macrofauna to supplement the ecological study assessing the potential environmental effect of surface sediment dredging to worms. Hydraulic modelling and the impact of dredging on the river and migratory fish on the intertidal, saltmarsh and upper estuary were also undertaken on the whole tidal extent not just the local area of RAFT. In 2000, during the lifetime of RAFT project and following the award of the construction contract a conservation management plan was jointly produced with EN and EA and extensive mitigation measures including noise pollution monitoring and water quality during the dredging were applied. EA confirmed that as a result of this mitigation there have been no effects on fish stocks in the river.
Environment Agency N. Norfolk Coast Unclear if specific indicators were developed. Cley/Salthouse Flood SAC/SPA Measure of functionality is establishment of reedbed to support bittern and marsh harrier, water voles and otters. Management Scheme (Not yet completed at time of last review)
No stakeholder group but management comprises EA, NE and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. It is thought that works would be finished and habitat available at time of overtopping of ridge from time of no intervention. This non-intervention is expected to deliver favourable status shingle Habitat. It is yet to be seen if the wetland habitat will be of quality for Natura designation in its own right. Hilgay - shows how creation of wetland sites using bunds and water control structures can be slow- may be affected by bad weather - important management lessons.
Environment Agency Pett Dungeness to Pett No thresholds or indicators appear to have been set - however definition of stony banks would include all Frontage Tidal Flood Levels SPA, communities comparable to information in JNCC report on vegetated shingle structures. Defence Scheme, 2005 Dungeness SAC No stakeholder group although a management committee does run Rye Harbour nature reserve.
Recovery to shingle habitat was expected within 10 years.
Page 82
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
Environment Agency: Essex Estuaries No transparent thresholds or targets. Hullbridge Tidal Flood cSAC, Crouch and Only functionality indicator appears to be for development of the saltmarsh. Defence Scheme Roach Estuaries SPA Area difficult to access and assess however large area is thought will not only make up for squeeze here but a wider pool of measures in the Essex Estuaries SAC. No stakeholder groups. Case preceded Coastal Habitat Management Plans suffered from lack of guidance prior to the CHMPs .
Environment Agency: Humber Flats and Topographic and Saltmarsh composition surveys were undertaken initially every 2 weeks (2003-2004), quarterly from Humber Estuary Flood Marshes SPA 2004-2008 and then 5 years post-inundation with additional single surveys in 2013. Risk Management Invertebrate (prey species) were undertaken annually although additional surveys were undertaken in 2012 and 2013 Strategy, 2001 and some stations had to be moved as conditions were not appropriate. Waterfowl surveys were initially monitored monthly for the first five years and additional monthly winter surveys were undertaken from 2008 to 2013. All monitoring ended in 2013. Predictions of change had wide confidence limits and specific quantity of intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh habitat were required. Habitat creation of Intertidal mudflat to support invertebrate assemblage similar sp. in population abundance and biomass compared to a reference site in the middle of the estuary. Plus, a specified number with 30 foraging wintering birds comprised of four notary species and a minimum number of roosting wintering waterfowl 1- named species i.e. golden plover (~Site-specific thresholds for receptor). 50-year strategy does have stakeholder group but not transparent who they are. Spatial heterogeneity in terms of new habitat development and colonisation within created habitats did not allow a detailed understanding of the development site. Therefore, late monitoring aimed to assess the spatial and temporal distribution of invertebrates, vegetation and birds in relation to elevation and other physical factors of the habitat to determine if these factors governing colonisation and use.
Finkenwerder Aircraft Mühlenberger Loch Monitoring/reporting targets: Monitoring of fish, shellfish and birds proposed for five years. Oceanographic Factory Hamburg SAC and SPA, inc monitoring is also proposed to monitor ocean currents, salinity and temperature. dunes and estuary Status: Unknown, no information available. and *sp.
Page 83
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
Harwich Haven Authority: Stour and Orwell SPA, Monitoring implemented in 1999 included: Approach channel Hamford Water SPA Bathymetric and topographic data (informing an understanding of intertidal and subtidal morphological deepening, 1998 change). Trinity III (Phase2) Benthic invertebrate communities (to 2015 only); and, Trimley Marsh Extension Compensation Managed Realignment Bird distribution and abundance. mitigation and Monitoring Agreement, 2001 Top assess if HHA met the compensation mitigation and monitoring agreements. Deepening works finished in 2000. Felixstowe South In 2002, consent was granted for the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension at the Port of Felixstowe; this scheme Reconfiguration, 2010 was completed in September 2004. A Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement (CMMA) for the terminal (reclamation and channel extension was produced. widening) Primary objectives of the compensation and mitigation for both the deepening and the extension are:
1. To avoid any impacts as a result of the works on the favourable conservation status of both habitats, as defined under Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive, and species, as defined under the Article 1(i); and, 2. To remove any adverse effects arising from the works in order to maintain site integrity in so far as this will be affected by the schemes. Where ‘favourable conservation status’ is defined as:
Intertidal habitats (i.e. saltmarsh, soft muddy and granular habitats) that, in combination, maintain the geomorphological form and functioning of the estuaries, so that they are capable of sustaining the populations of internationally and nationally important overwintering birds for which the site qualifies. For the deepening sediment feeding programme to replenish mudflats a precaution in case there was a delayed response to sediment feeding - provision for 5 years possible erosion- Create intertidal no more of which should be 30% saltmarsh- within 2 years of commencement of deepening.
Sediment feeding has been reduced as it has been seen to be successful in arresting erosion example of adaptive management. Requirement was for a fully functional site that was designated as a SSSI SPA and Ramsar site. Qualification of the SPA had the following remit. Populations of internationally / nationally important overwintering birds, based on: • Notable numbers of golden plover (under Article 4.1); and, • Important populations of dunlin; shelduck; dark-bellied geese; redshank; grey plover; black-
Page 84
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
tailed godwit; turnstone; ringed plover; wigeon; knot; curlew; pintail; mute swans; goldeneye and scaup (under Article 4.2). Stakeholder group Harwich Haven Authority NE EA MMO IFCA Wildlife Trust and RSPB- info able to be acquired overlapping the management group and its meetings. Comprehensive monitoring covers wider aspects of impact of channel deepening over 15 years, however reports do not specifically split the monitoring that forms part of the mitigation from that for the compensatory measures.
Detailed objectives for compensation and mitigation of the effects in the Stour and Orwell estuaries associated with the 1998/2000 approach channel deepening have also been defined in order to ensure the achievement of the primary objectives (set out above). They can be summarised as follows:
To create 4 hectares of intertidal habitat (compensation) to replace predicted habitat loss due to the change in tidal range. To prevent the predicted loss of up to 5 hectares per annum of intertidal habitat due to increased rates of erosion, through sediment replacement (mitigation). To create 12.5 hectares of intertidal habitat (compensation) to replace habitat which might be lost before the mitigation becomes fully effective. Further research was required by the CMMA into the likelihood of the deepening having an impact on Hamford Water. The objectives for this can be summarised as: To define existing sand transport pathways offshore. To define existing fine sediment transport pathways in and out of Hamford Water. In the event that an impact was demonstrated, appropriate compensation and/or mitigation was to be implemented. Detailed objectives of the compensation and mitigation for the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension are as follows:
To provide an enhanced level of protection to the seawalls along the Shotley and Trimley frontages by raising the intertidal area. By creating additional protection for the seawalls, to enhance the ecological value of some 23 ha of the intertidal habitat (of which approximately 20 ha will be intertidal mud and 3 ha saltmarsh), replacing the feeding habitat lost due to the immediate effect of the quay extension and dredge over the short to medium-term. To raise the level of the intertidal mud, thereby increasing its exposure and providing a feeding habitat for waterfowl for a longer period in the tidal cycle (i.e. increasing the number of bird feeding hours), mitigating the effect of a reduced tidal range. To offset the predicted increase in the rate of erosion of the intertidal in the Stour and Orwell estuaries by increasing the existing sediment replacement programme by 5%.
Page 85
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
The habitat enhancement schemes proposed in conjunction with the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension also have the following objectives:
To increase the stability of the lower Orwell flood defences and provide the opportunity for the development of a long-term strategy for the sustainable management of the estuary. To compensate for any adverse effect on the integrity associated with the works, while not constraining future options for the sustainable management of flood defences and habitats in the estuarine system. It was accepted in the CMMA that the habitat enhancement schemes would erode over time and were intended to provide a medium-term solution to a long-term problem, whilst the key regulators developed a long-term sustainable solution. Bathymetry LIDAR for bathymetric and topographic data, extent of saltmarsh from high resolution photographs, benthic, bird distribution and abundance. The quality of the saltmarsh was measured using field quadrat surveys.
Monitoring lead by HHA was co-ordinated with the annual monitoring undertaken (initially over 5 years) as part of the EAs “Sustainable Flood Defence Programme”. Monitoring for bathymetry and LIDAR five yearly is still ongoing. The water bird counts are three yearly. 2017 HHA have commissioned a 3D computer model to look at sediment movement to be able to analyse a range of ongoing maintenance works in the harbour and this data was to be used to produce more focused benthic monitoring and sediment replacement and maintenance dredging works.
Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Bay SAC Investigation of methods and monitoring reports has highlighted that the work has been continually described as Morecambe Bay Coastal & SPA mitigation. Although there is compensation provided, this is not highlighted in the reports reviewed. Defence Works, 2005 The recreation of the habitat was deemed successful if it supported “moderately abundant assemblage of epibenthic (prey) organisms as described in a baseline ecological summary.”
As this area was continually disturbed by other users e.g. dog walkers etc. it was not known if this area would mean that the same assemblage and quantity of water birds would use the newly created area. Quadrat surveys on prey (Epibentyhic survey) were suggested at similar time of year were recommended (autumn) for the first three years. This was to look at post-construction recovery at the new skear site (replacement of sites lost on the Sunnyslopes skear). Fixed point photography annual surveys of overwintering birds and biannual site visits were to be carried out to look at quality and extent of biological richness of the replacement habitat. Although due to disturbance from dog walkers, numbers and results of monitoring were not thought to accurate.
Page 86
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
http://www.abpmer.net/morecambe/reports/baseline_survey_251005.pdf
London Gateway, 2007 Thames Estuary and Abundance Biomass and Diversity- no further information. marshes SPA
London Gateway Thames Estuary and Threshold levels of wintering waterfowl assemblage made up of three sp. of birds (same proportions as seen in lost Container Terminal, Marshes SPA habitat - 4 winter count periods) (Dubai Ports World), 2010 Within 15 years sites of breach are of sufficient quality to qualify for designation as an extension to Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA compensatory measures will provide a fish habitat to support fish populations- no precise existing data against which to compare abundance Stakeholder regulators group- Dubai world ports London Gateway Port Authority. PLA NE and EA Due to nature of the build for the project the compensatory measures were partly in place before/at same time as the damage.
Maasvlakte Voordelta: Shallow Monitoring/reporting targets: 30 years monitoring is proposed, however, no information that describes this sea, common scoter, monitoring is available common tern, Status: Unknown, no information available. sandwich tern Dune habitat
Merikoski Hydro Power Oulujoki River Monitoring/reporting targets: Decrease soil erosion / Increase vegetation cover Station, Oulu, Finland. Status: Unknown, no information available
Port of Bristol Severn SAC and SPA For budgeting the management objectives were split into essential and discretionary tasks. Essential were to avoid development (berths and further degradation or loss of notable habitat or species. Discretionary were defined as enhancing or extending channel), 2010 current habitats. Ecological motoring was to look at function and make adaptations and increase diversity (i.e. reduction of sea couch to improve quality of saltmarsh) with the approval of NE. Degradation in vole habitat was observed and conservation measures adopted to improve quality of habitat.
A vertical cliff was also cut into a bank to encourage nesting of sand martins where there was no suitable opportunity. This area had been monitored since 1993 including a range of indicator and protected species. Indicators were used to provide information on health of habitats and the effectiveness of the management measures/objectives undertaken.
Page 87
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
Indicator species, like vole numbers or newts etc, were used to provide information of quality of sites (The Landmark Practice, 2011).
Port of Felixstowe Port Fagbury Flats (Orwell EU ruling GB had to provide compensation after the construction on non-designated SPA. Development, 1988 Estuary) and Main requirement was for wintering waterfowl. Port of Sheerness, 1984 An assemblage of roosting waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 3600 waterfowl in similar (Judgement against UK Lappel Bank (Medway proportions to those historically supported by Fagbury Flats, in particular ringed plover, grey plover, dunlin and 1996) Estuary) turnstone and an assemblage of feeding waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 2800 waterfowl in similar proportions to those historically supported by Lappel Bank and Fagbury Flats, in particular shelduck. 18-22-year delay between construction and delivery of compensation at Wallasea (North) Managed realignment.
5-year peak increase more than 200% above compensation target achieved for overwintering feeding birds and 225% of expected for roosting birds. Set threshold levels. Observation of maturity of the saltmarsh showed some negative impacts. Wallasea realignment was also able to take advantage of material from Crossrail to avoid large amounts going to landfill and was used beneficially.
Port of Gothenburg Eelgrass in and Monitoring/reporting targets: “wetland birds” targets / These are not detailed but rather very briefly spoken about. It around the Port of is difficult to ascertain the how meaningful this target is, and how well the compensation achieved it Gothenburg Status: Unknown, no information available.
Railway Bothnia Line, Ume River delta Monitoring/reporting targets: Reed reduction / Species composition and diversity Ume River Delta. Natura 2000 site (SCI Status: Unknown, no information available. Vasterbotten, Sweden and SPA) and Ramsar site
RNLI slipway, St Pembrokeshire SAC The EIA assessment consent decision gave requirement for a construction environment management plan and the Justinians, St David’s statement below. Conditions did not include monitoring of the placed rock/reef habitat that could be found. Pembrokeshire, 2014 “Within three months of the construction of the piles for the boat house being completed, the compensatory measures set out in the note entitled “Proposed Compensatory Measures: RNLI St David’s” dated 25th October 2013 and the plans numbered 9X4250/01/008 – Location of Proposed boathouse and Pembrokeshire Marine SAC Reef Features
Page 88
Project Site Monitoring (& reporting)
(dated 24th October 2013) and X3197/005 Revision P3 - Proposed Boathouse and Pembrokeshire Marine SAC – Details of Habitat Compensation (dated 21st October 2013) shall be completed and approved by both the National Park Authority and Natural Resources Wales, and thereafter be so retained in perpetuity with the approved details. These are: 1. The re-use of the rock arising from the construction of the boat station sub-structure and cliff stabilisation works at the sub-tidal and intertidal locations identified on the above mentioned plans, and the Appropriate Assessment dated 18th November 2013 and positioned on the seabed intact to provide at least 22m2 of rock surface area to compensate for the anticipated habitat loss of 17m2. 2. Rocks of trapezoidal form (i.e. smaller base surface area than upper surface area) should be used.’ As such, we have not included this condition within the marine licence” https://naturalresources.wales/media/3233/environmental-impact-assessment-consent-decision-rnli-st-davids-life- boat-station.pdf
Page 89
Annex 4: Steering Groups
Table 5. UK case studies evidence of strong regulatory or stakeholder engagement and success and efficiency criteria. Note that grouped projects were part of a wider programme of work.
Project Site Steering Group Success Criteria Efficiency ABP Southampton Solent and Undetermined (Was stated Habitat Creation No further information found Approach Channel Southampton Water and Environmental Steering Dredge, 2013 SPA Committee comprised of 2.1 Ha intertidal mudflat and 1.5 ha saltmarsh Regulators and SNCBS), no further evidence found.
Anglian Water Rutland Water SPA NO No obvious targets for Functionality. Successful creation of Freshwater Services: Wing Water wetland to support designated Treatment Works Threshold used as proxy. numbers of species but no further test of effectiveness due to no extreme drawdown event.
Associated British Humber Estuary YES Threshold level of roosting and feeding specific birds Creation of intertidal* Ports: Quay, 2005, SPA and candidate on a 5-year peak basis. Green Port Hull, 2007 SAC Expected to deliver quality habitat to provide opportunity for FULL and assemblage soft intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and islands Immingham Outer Harbour Compensation has been completed at same time as development Bathside Bay, 2007 Stour and Orwell YES Designation of habitat. 10-year monitoring showed SPA successful successional changes. Alert mechanism for triggering threshold.
Trend analysis set against previous results.
Comparison of extent and quality of replacement site.
Page 90
Cardiff Bay Barrage, Cardiff Bay Wetland YES It took >10 years to agree suitable compensation. “Completion” 2001 Reserve and Severn Estuary Measurement was based on two indicator species Cowell (2000) SPA (Ducks, wigeon and shoveler) which were used to represent achievement for nationally important This was determined as a number numbers. These were thought to favour the Wetland to of birds over a limited time span. be created, rather than the nationally important dunlin and redshank that were being impacted. Criticism of the project was that monitoring was weak and the objectives to be measured were vague.
Construction of a Plymouth Sound Not known. Impact on migratory fish and ecological detailed EA said that migratory fish were not Remote Ammunitioning and Estuaries cSAC comparison biodiversity of areas. impacted. Facility Tamar (RAFT), 2003
Dubai Ports World: Thames Estuary YES Threshold levels of wintering waterfowl assemblage Mudflats created within 15 years of London Gateway and Marshes SPA made particular sp of birds (same proportions as seen breach. Container Terminal, in lost habitat- 4 winter count periods). Sufficient quality to qualify for Functionality designation SPA. Compensatory 2010 measures will provide a fish habitat to support fish populations - no precise existing data against which to compare abundance.
Due to nature of the build for the project the compensatory measures were partly in place before/at same time as the damage.
Environment Agency N Norfolk Coast NO Only Functionality indicator appears to be for It is yet to be seen if the wetland Cley/Salthouse Flood SAC/SPA development of the saltmarsh. habitat will be of quality for Natura Management Scheme designation. Area difficult to access and assess. Measure of functionality is establishment of reedbed to support bittern and marsh harrier, water voles and otters.
Page 91
(Not yet completed at time of last review).
Environment Agency Dungeness to Pett NO No thresholds or indicators appear to have been set - Recovery to shingle habitat was Pett Frontage Tidal Levels SPA, however definition of stony banks would include all expected within 10 years. Flood Defence Dungeness SAC communities comparable to information in JNCC report Scheme, 2005 on vegetated shingle structures.
Environment Agency: Essex Estuaries NO Only Functionality indicator appears to be for Package of measures exceeds Hullbridge Tidal Flood cSAC, Crouch and development of the saltmarsh. ongoing losses and Saltmarsh Defence Scheme Roach Estuaries Area difficult to access and assess. habitat assessed as fully functional (i.e. similar to old saltmarsh). SPA Uncertainty was effectively covered by substantial multiplier of compensation to loss.
Environment Agency: Humber Flats and YES, but not transparent Habitat creation of intertidal mudflat to support 50 Year Strategy. Humber Estuary Flood Marshes SPA who it is. invertebrate assemblage similar sp in population Risk Management abundance and biomass compared to a reference site in the middle of the estuary. Strategy, 2001
Thresholds for birds.
Green Port Substantial monitoring- no further information. Expected to deliver quality habitat development Hull, 2013 with full assemblage. Completed at same time as development.
Harwich Haven Stour and Orwell YES Precautionary measures habitat creation in case Designation of new habitat area. Authority: Approach SPA, Hamford feeding failed. channel deepening, Water SPA Specific percentage had to be formed within given time period. >15 years. 1998 Success was fully functional designated site.
Trinity III (Phase 2) Sediment feeding has been reduced as it has been Trimley Marshes Extension, 2002 seen to be successful in arresting erosion. realignment. Using Estuary management fora seemed to aid information transfer.
Page 92
Felixstowe South Trimley Marsh realignment site created in 2000 (as Reconfiguration, 2010 compensation for deepening) was initially required to be monitored for 10 years. After 10 years it was noted in the Royal Haskoning 2010 review that it was unlikely to exceed the 30% threshold for vegetative growth. But that successional changes withing the site are a clear sign of success of habitat realignment.
Trimley and Shotley Enhancement Scheme
Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Bay NO Monitoring of new skear and cobble skear habitat. Site was completed after damage. Morecambe Bay SAC & SPA Coastal Defence works, Whilst seen to be successful if it supported a >20 years or more. 2005 moderately abundant assemblage of epibenthic (prey) organisms (described in baseline survey), even if stable skear was created and retained in place this type of habitat could still suffer from sediment accretion over time and thus reduction in prey for birds.
London Gateway, 2007 Thames Estuary No further information and marshes SPA
Port of Bristol Severn SAC and Not known. Indicator species used as proxy for success. Measured against objectives for development (berths SPA site. and channel), 2010
Port of Felixstowe Port Fagbury Flats YES Threshold level of roosting and feeding specific birds 18-22-year delay between impacts Development, 1988 (Orwell Estuary) on a 5 yr. peak basis. and delivery of successful and compensation through the Port of Sheerness, Functionality Wallasea Island managed 1984 Lappel Bank Original objectives for site selection in table 4- realignment (July 2006). Measures. Innovative use of dredged material (Medway Estuary) at cost between Defra and Port of (Judgement against UK Felixstowe and Harwich Haven 1996) Authority.
Page 93
Worked with material from Crossrail for bunding.
RNLI slipway, St Pembrokeshire No further information Justinian’s, St David’s SAC Pembrokeshire, 2014
Table 6. Non-UK case studies evidence of strong regulatory or stakeholder engagement and success and efficiency criteria.
Project Site Steering Success Criteria Efficiency Group Bad Cannstatt to Glemswald und Stuttgarter Bucht SAC – UNCLEAR Unknown / no monitoring detailed. No further information. Stuttgart Railway lowland hay meadows, hermit beetle *
Búðarháls hydro power Surrounding land area at Búðarháls UNCLEAR Threshold values used as No further information. plant, Iceland monitoring success through habitat restoration.
Egmond aan Zee Dutch North Sea Coast UNCLEAR No detail or information found. No further information. Offshore Windfarm
Factory and associated Győr development plan Győrszentiván UNCLEAR Independent foundation established No further information. infrastructure, Hungary Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate. to monitor status and trends in local Audi car factory and associated biodiversity. infrastructure
Finkenwerder Aircraft Mühlenberger Loch SAC and SPA, inc UNCLEAR Threshold values for fish, shellfish No explicit detail is provided that confirms the Factory, Hamburg dunes and estuary and *sp and birds are proposed for five evaluation and assessment strategy. years.
Oceanographic monitoring is also proposed to monitor ocean currents, salinity and temperature.
Page 94
Granadilla Port, Tenerife Sebales del Sur de Tenerife – sandbanks UNCLEAR No information available. slightly covered by seawater at all times; *loggerhead turtle
Montana Roja – hosts *fixed coastal dunes
Highway E45 and Göta Göta Älv River wetlands YES No detail or information found. Älv River railway, Sweden.
Maasvlakte Voordelta: Shallow sea, common scoter, YES 30 years monitoring is proposed, common tern, sandwich tern however, no information that describes this monitoring is Dune habitat available.
Merikoski Hydro Power Oulujoki River YES Threshold values used as Station, Oulu, Finland. monitoring success through soil and vegetation recovery data.
Port of Gothenburg Eelgrass in and around the Port of YES Indicator species used as success These are not detailed but rather very briefly Gothenburg criteria through the monitoring of spoken about. It is difficult to ascertain the how wetland bird abundance and meaningful this target is, and how well the diversity. compensation achieved it.
Eelgrass abundance and cover also proposed as a criterion.
Railway Bothnia Line, Ume River delta Natura 2000 site (SCI YES Threshold value used through reed Ume River Delta. and SPA) and Ramsar site reduction targets and indicator Vasterbotten, Sweden species composition and diversity.
Ship fairway Mainaue zwischen Grafenrheinfeld und UNCLEAR Unknown / no monitoring detailed. enlargement River Main, Kitzingen Bavaria Maintal bei Sennfeld und Weyer
Alluvial forests*, lowland hay meadows
Widening of B173 Maintal von Theisau bis Lichtenfels SAC UNCLEAR Unknown / no monitoring detailed. Michelau-Zettlitz section Eutrophic lakes, tall herb fringe
Page 95
communities, lowland hay meadows, alluvial forests*
Taler von Oberem Main SPA – marsh harrier
Page 96
Annex 5: Marine Ecological Enhancement
Table 7. Examples of marine ecological enhancement (not compensatory measures per se).
Location Enhancement measure Effectiveness Key refs
Deposit of artificial Observations of high density and richness of species In 2009 OSPAR report that 56 artificial reefs had Numerous references including: OSPAR structures/artificial associated with shipwrecks and sunken man-made been constructed or were planned in OSPAR (2009) Assessment of construction or reef creation structures have been made worldwide to boost maritime area and concluded that the potential placement of artificial reefs. marine biodiversity and fisheries interests. benefits of reefs aiming to enhancement production of living marine resource and restore natural habitats outweigh their negative impacts. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for artificial reef structures to act as a vector for non-native species by providing a substrate for their colonisation, plus the loss of habitat from the footprint of the reef and halo effect caused to the surrounding area by increased predation. Boscombe reef in Bournemouth, created for surfing, is reported to have been colonised by a disproportionate amount of non-native species.
Gothenburg reefs, Creation of seven reefs within two protected areas, The purpose of the reef is to offset loss of habitat https://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessm Sweden. each 130-380m long, 3-45m wide and 4-14m high, caused by deepening of shipping channel into ents/p00438_supplements/p00438_suppl formed of 800,000m3 rocks excavated during harbour lobster habitat. _3_habitat_loss.pdf shipping channel dredge.
Hammerfest reefs, Installation of 24 units, each consisting of a central The purpose is to enhance and re-establish kelp http://www.seacult.com/files/13.3%20Ham Norway. concrete cylinder and 14 rows of 2.5 m long and seaweeds and to study the development of merfest%20Runde%20Reef%20Report% polyethylene pipes which radiate out. fouling organisms and sea urchin recruitment. 202009.pdf
HMS Scylla, Placement of decommissioned naval frigate on Primary purpose is recreational diving, but reef http://divescylla.com/ Cornwall seabed, 113 m long and 2,300 tonnes. has become an education and research location.
Page 97
Larvotto Marine 3D printed reefs, made of sand and binding agent, six To support fish and invertebrates both for https://magazine.boskalis.com/issue03/3d Reserve, Monaco, reef units 2x1 m conservation and commercial objectives. -printed-reefs https://magazine.boskalis.com/issue05/rev olutionary-reefvival
Le Havre ports The construction of an artificial island to offset for the The island has been effective in attracting a range https://boskalis.com/download-center.html expansion in Seine loss of bird habitat. of bird species, mainly as a roost site, and is Estuary, utilised by harbour seals.
Loch Linnhe, Reef complex of 20 modules each consisting of The reef’s purpose is to facilitate research, https://www.sams.ac.uk/facilities/artificial- Scotland ~4000 concrete blocks. Each reef is conical in shape including benefits to local fisheries and reef/ and stands 3-4.5 m above the seabed and is 10-15m biodiversity. diameter.
Marker Wadden Marker Wadden is one of the largest freshwater lakes The islands are for bird habitat but also https://www.ecoshape.org/en/projects/mar archipelago of in Western Europe. Since the lake was closed off recreation. ker-wadden/ islands. from another lake, the ecological condition has deteriorated, caused by turbidity. To improve the lake’s condition, silt is captured from the lake and is being used to build an archipelago of marsh islands, the construction of a 6000-ha island began in 2016.
Peberholm island, A large island built from dredged material between Mainly supports terrestrial habitats and species. https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/node/4 Sweden and Denmark created as part of the Oresund 570 Bridge project.
Re-use/retention of Potential reef structures or use as hotels or other As with artificial reef creation, will have negative artificial structures - commercial ventures like aquaculture. and positive impacts. Positive impact is to create Numerous something of benefit at end of life for these examples of this Or left simply as a food source for birds. structures. The negative impacts from either globally including chemicals, or materials they are composed of, or the ongoing rigs to from a future issue is not yet seen i.e. placement reefs projects of tyres in the marine environment. around the USA. Many decommissioning projects including
Page 98
for North Sea decommissioning.
Sancti Petri Artificial Complex, comprising three reef zones consisting of To protect fish populations from bottom trawling https://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/ch09_06.html Reef, Spain. three rectangular trawling barriers placed while avoiding damaged to artisan fishing gears perpendicular to trawling routes. Within the barriers and reduce social conflict. are reinforced concrete artificial reef units with steel girders.
The Scheld Estuary, The oyster reef pilot in The Scheldt Estuary aims to The long-term outcome or how long the reefs will https://www.ecoshape.org/en/projects/oyst Netherlands prevent erosion by using reef-forming Pacific oysters. persist, natural oyster reefs in Eastern Scheldt er-reefs/ A substrate of oyster shells is placed on the tidal flat are at least 30-years old. in wire gabions, the intention being that oyster larvae will settle and gradually build up a solid reef structure. Some reefs of this kind in the UK have decimated In 2099 small 10x4 m trials were placed, with three beaches and are being removed. They may also large reefs 200x10 m constructed in 2010. Larvae displace our native oysters as they are faster have been shown to settle and the reefs are growing. dissipating wave energy and preventing erosion of intertidal flats in their ‘shadow’. As a benefit, opportunities for harvesting these additional areas have not been looked at.
Page 99
Page 100
Innovative, world-class science is central to our mission. Our scientists use a breadth of surveying, mapping and sampling technologies to collect and analyse data that are reliable and valuable. We use our About us state-of-the-art Research Vessel Cefas Endeavour, autonomous marine vehicles, remotely piloted aircraft We are the Government’s marine and freshwater and utilise satellites to monitor and assess the health of science experts. We help keep our seas, oceans and our waters. rivers healthy and productive and our seafood safe and sustainable by providing data and advice to the UK In our laboratories in Lowestoft and Weymouth we: Government and our overseas partners. • safeguard human and animal health • enable food security We are passionate about what we do because our work • support marine economies. helps tackle the serious global problems of climate change, marine litter, over-fishing and pollution in This is supported by monitoring risks and disease in support of the UK’s commitments to a better future (for water and seafood; using our data in advanced computer example the UN Sustainable Development Goals and models to advise on how best to manage fish stocks and Defra’s 25 year Environment Plan). seafood farming; to reduce the environmental impact of man-made developments; and to respond to serious We work in partnership with our colleagues in Defra emergencies such as fish disease outbreaks, and to and across UK government, and with international respond to oil or chemical spills, and radioactivity leaks. governments, business, maritime and fishing industry, non-governmental organisations, research institutes, Overseas, our scientists currently work in universities, civil society and schools to collate and Commonwealth countries, United Kingdom Overseas share knowledge. Territories, South East Asia and the Middle East.
Together we can understand and value our seas to Our customer base and partnerships are broad, secure a sustainable blue future for us all and help spanning Government, public and private sectors, create a greater place for living. academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), at home and internationally. Head office Pakefield Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0HT Tel: +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 www.cefas.co.uk Weymouth office Barrack Road The Nothe Weymouth DT4 8UB
Tel: +44 (0) 1305 206600 Fax: +44 (0) 1305 206601
© Crown copyright 2020 Printed on paper made from a minimum 75% de-inked post-consumer waste