From EIANZ Wiki

Forewords

Professor Mark Burgman, FAA Adrienne Clarke Chair of Botany & Director, Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne - This document sets out practitioners’ guidelines for ecological impact assessments. They are intended to apply, irrespective of the vagaries of local, state of federal laws and statutes. It represents a significant contribution to environmental management. Such guidelines are the hallmark of mature professional organisations, providing both pragmatic advice and professional credibility.

The guidelines are ambitious, covering the full spectrum of considerations in EcIA, including scoping, determining value, predicting ecological impacts, dealing with uncertainty and significance, and mitigation and management of impacts. Each one of these topics deserves a book in its own right. The challenge has been to distil the essential professional elements of each of these topics, to provide sufficient information for concise professional standards, without being prescriptive. In general, they have succeeded.

Of course, in a project as ambitious as this, there will always be opportunity for improvement. This is a draft document and it will benefit greatly from the careful review of experienced colleagues. Now is the opportunity to shape the document into something that turns the discipline from a loose-knit group of people with similar interests, into a fully fledged profession.

Dr Chris McGrath, Barrister-at-Law, Queensland- I commend the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand on proposing guidelines for ecological impact assessment (EcIA), particularly as a component of environmental impact assessment (EIA). I have reviewed the draft consultation document and in my opinion it will be a valuable contribution to improving the consideration of ecological impacts in development assessment and planning in Australia.

EIA in Australia takes many forms and, while legislation rarely prescribes the methodology or sets more than rudimentary standards, a number of guidelines already exist. A perennial problem in EIA is poor consideration of ecosystem effects by failing to properly consider cumulative impacts and by taking a piecemeal approach. In my opinion one of the main benefits of the EcIA guidelines is to emphasise the importance of taking an ecosystem approach to assessing impacts. As noted on page 9 of the draft consultation document, an ecosystem approach is based on an integrated assessment of a project in the context of the dynamic nature of ecosystems, uncertainty and the often unpredictable nature of ecosystem functions, behavior and responses. It inherently requires a consideration of cumulative impacts within a wider ecosystem and planning framework.

I consider that the draft consultation guidelines will be of benefit as a reference document for EIANZ members, the wider profession of environmental consultants and government.

Introduction

Purpose and Context

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is not in the common or legislative vocabulary of Australia and New Zealand. Whether knowingly or otherwise, ecological practitioners implement EcIA every day and it is not confined to environmental impact assessment (EIA). EcIA is a prominent tool of sustainable development and the profession needs to align itself with an agreeable, consistent and contemporary approach to EcIA, to facilitate better decision-making.

In ecology it is rarely possible, if ever, to prove that a particular outcome will definitely occur so differences in opinion are acceptable traits of an investigation. Variation in judgement may also reflect real environmental variation but opinions are only valid when they are based upon appropriate evidence. This means the information that is used to form an opinion must be collected in the right manner. EcIA provides is the basis of evidence and expert judgement, because it addresses the inherent uncertainties in making ecological predictions.

Guidelines for EcIA developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) in the UK were based on well-established best practice and have been adopted or reflected worldwide e.g. in Special Publications of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). This current (EIANZ) consultation document draws heavily on the content of the IEEM Guidelines and merges these with IAIA principles and practice. These days, legislation rarely prescribes the scientific approach for assessments. Even to apply rudimentary legal "minimum" requirements requires methodological foresight. Further, EcIA is not just used in statutory systems like EIA. It applies to all management decisions whether they are part of commercial development, strategic environmental assessment, habitat or species management, land or water management. Also, there is an increasing burden on developers to satisfy the requirements of third parties such as insurance companies and banks in the areas of sustainability or biodiversity protection. For example, where is a compelling case for applying best practice to address requirements of the Equator Principles. Similarly, legislative requirements are rarely enough to satisfy concern from local communities. There are substantial financial and opportunity costs for decisions that would have significant or uncertain consequences for local or indigenous communities. Ultimately, EIANZ Ecology aims to create Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand, to support implementation of best practice methods for creating biodiversity outcomes. This requirement has been identified in a number of consultation exercises by EIANZ Ecology. This document is the first step in that process. EcIA Guidelines will be just one of a range of tools available to biodiversity managers and decision-makers (see Figure 1).

The purpose of such guidelines will be to provide a reference, developed by the profession, describing what EcIA is and how it should be done. The Guidelines will help to:

• improve confidence in the profession's ability to independently and objectively implement environmental standards;
• guide the development of statutory policy, including raising expectation for professional standards;
• improve consistency in EcIA (as a component of EIA), so decision-makers can have more confidence in the accuracy of the information provided;
• fill some of the gaps in policy, where it may not necessarily be prudent to codify standards in law;
• address some of the common difficulties in EcIA;
• ensure that EcIA is given appropriate consideration within the broader EIA process; and
• provide a source of reference for new and upcoming consultants to learn about one of the key components of their trade, for their own professional development.

EIANZ Ecology is a Special Interest Section of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ). The Institute is the peak professional body for environmental practitioners in Australasia, and promotes independent and interdisciplinary discourse on environmental issues. EIANZ advocates that best environmental practice be delivered by competent and ethical environmental practitioners. EIANZ Ecology was set up specifically to provide an Australasian focus on professional standards for practising ecologists.

Figure 1. The role of ecological impact assessment guidelines in biodiversity decision-making. There are a range of tools commonly available for biodiversity management and all have a role to play in EcIA. It is vitally important that EcIA remains independent and objective. Problems can occur when EcIA is used instead of these other processes, or vice-versa. For example, if EcIA is used to determine criteria for acceptable change, or if expert witness opinion is used instead of EcIA. As well as the tools above, EcIA would usually be done alongside relevant social, economic and cultural studies, though some of this information would be expected to form part of the Ecosystem Services Assessment in a Biodiversity Action Plan.

What is Ecological Impact Assessment?

Ecological impact assessment (EcIA) is an independent, stand-alone, and specific scientific discipline that usually forms an integral part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Although it is commonly used for individually intensive developments, EcIA might equally apply to monitoring and management of reserves, or more broadly, in the monitoring of biodiversity across whole landscapes - anywhere there is a need to assess changes, including Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). EcIA is not just about understanding single topics such as avian mortality or predicting behavioural change in animals, it is about evaluating biodiversity loss, managing the loss and assessing the success of any ameliorative actions.

Treweek (1999) defines EcIA as the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components; and providing a scientifically defensible approach to ecosystem management. Impact assessment is defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) as the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action. It is used to ensure that policies, plans, programmes and projects are economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable.

EcIA is required at the following stages:

• in scoping - a broad assessment is needed which forms the basis for selecting those valued ecological resources to be subject to detailed assessment due to likely significant impacts;
• during the evolution of the project, in order to identify the need for impact avoidance and mitigation and opportunities for enhancement;
• after the mitigation strategies have been fully devised and their likely success considered, the residual impacts are assessed; and
• finally, if significant negative impacts are still likely, it may be necessary to consider the need for and value of ecological compensation. The positive impacts of such compensation proposals should be properly assessed.

As described in Ecological Impact Assessment (Treweek, 1999), "EcIA is firmly rooted in ecological science, drawing on traditional techniques of survey, monitoring, functional analysis and predictive modelling. In addition however, EcIA requires evaluation of the implications of any predicted outcomes. It is this aspect of evaluation which distinguishes EcIA from the pure science of ecology and which has created demand for new approaches to the ways in which ecological information is handled...Ecological outcomes must therefore be translated into a common language or scale for comparison with other findings, whether these are of a social, economic or political nature. In short, EcIA should provide a scientifically defensible rationale for decision making and for environmental management".

Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity

The IAIA Special Publication No. 3 Biodiversity in Impact Assessment says:

"biodiversity matters to everyone. Its loss impoverishes the environment and reduces its capacity to support people now and in the future. Impact assessment can help to ensure development is compatible with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity".

• Biodiversity is the total range of variability among systems and organisms.
• Biodiversity is the driver for the planet's life-support systems such as climate, water, nutrient cycles etc.
• Biodiversity provides essential ecosystem services that sustains human capital venture and supports all social, economic and cultural aspects of human existence.

Biodiversity is quantified by applying ecological methods and theory, so ecological impact assessment is the key to understanding biodiversity. Biodiversity (and ecology) are the over-riding factors in EIA / EcIA because biodiversity underpins all other processes that support human existence. Adequate ecological impact assessment is an imperative for sustainable development, because it creates biodiversity management outcomes. To provide an understanding of how biodiversity is likely to respond to a proposed activity, impacts at each level of diversity can be best assessed in terms of:

• Composition: what biological units are present and how abundant they are;
• Structure (or pattern): how biological units are organised in time and space;
• Function: the role different biological units play in maintaining natural processes and

The significance of these responses depends critically on uses and values of biodiversity (IAIA, 2005).

The Principles and Aims of Ecological Impact Assessment

Those involved in EcIA should seek to obtain the best possible biodiversity outcomes from land use changes. It is important that all interested parties can understand the process by which the assessment has been made, and how and by whom any actions needed to deliver biodiversity objectives will be implemented and monitored. Therefore, the EcIA must provide reliable information about, and interpretation of, the ecological implications of any project, from its inception to its operation and, where appropriate, its decommissioning.

It is the role of all ecologists involved in EcIA to:

1. provide an objective and transparent assessment of the ecological effects of the project to all interested parties, including the general public;
2. facilitate objective and transparent determination of the consequences of the project in terms of national, regional and local policies relevant to nature conservation and biodiversity; and
3. set out what steps will be taken to adhere to legal requirements relating to designated sites and legally protected or controlled species, communities.

Principles of EcIA incorporating principles for EIA and for integration of biodiversity in impact assessment are shown in Box 0.

The Process of EcIA

EcIA is a process that follows a series of steps, ultimately finishing in the evaluation of residual impacts and any necessary management approaches (Figure 2). The quality of the EcIA is to a very great degree dependent on thorough, inclusive and comprehensive project scoping and a determination of value.

For EcIA to work, each step must be done using procedures that are both rigorous and in keeping with the principles. However, EcIA is also iterative. For example, scoping is an essential prerequisite for viable EcIA but field investigations often reveal additional constraints that may mean revision of the project scope. Although experienced ecologists should closely predict the range of likely constraints, based on a desktop study and personal knowledge of natural history and ecology, this can never be done with 100% certainty. This is why community consultation and fieldwork are both essential and why adequate time needs to be given to preparing assessments in case a second round of fieldwork suddenly becomes necessary.

Figure 2. Process of EcIA. EcIA is central to the assessment of values lost but until investigations begin, the scope of the value is not always known. The scoping process itself is like a mini-EcIA and would draw on the content of BAPs and what is known about human values and ecosystem services. Once full EcIA begins, the impact assessment field studies may reveal additional constraints that require the scope to be revisited. Also, other environmental studies, such as contaminated land, water quality etc., may reveal vulnerabilities and these can have ecological consequences with social, economic and cultural knock-on effects. This too may result in an iteration of the scoping phase and further investigation. One of the final steps of the EcIA process is to determine residual impacts and this information needs to feed into social, economic and cultural studies, so the final ecological significance can be determined.

We have split EcIA into four phases: Preparation, Prediction, Mitigation and Net Gain / No Net Loss. EcIA is most commonly associated with predicting impacts but the other phases are vital to the integrity of the process, especially if the aim is to create a no-net-loss outcome. As discussed [#Relationship_with_State_Territ_01898398669436574 above], the creation of biodiversity outcomes is increasingly demanded by governments, companies, community groups and financiers, even in the absence of specific legislation.

In each of the following sections, we describe recommended methods of approach that are consistent with best practice.