Facultad de Ciencias
COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN LA EVALUACIÓN DE IMPACTO
AMBIENTAL EN ESPAÑA: SITUACIÓN Y PROPUESTAS DE ACCIÓN
Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in
Spain: current practice and recommendations for improvement
Ana Villarroya Ballarín
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra
ISBN 978-84-8081-299-3
Facultad de Ciencias
COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN LA EVALUACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL EN ESPAÑA: SITUACIÓN Y PROPUESTAS DE
ACCIÓN
Memoria presentada por Dª Ana Villarroya Ballarín para aspirar al grado de Doctor por la
Universidad de Navarra
El presente trabajo ha sido realizado bajo mi dirección en el Departamento de Zoología y
Ecología y autorizo su presentación ante el Tribunal que lo ha de juzgar.
Pamplona, Junio de 2012
Dr. Jordi Puig i Baguer
“We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its
vulnerable reserves of air and oil; all committed for our safety to its security and
peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work and, I will say, the
love we give our fragile craft.”
Adlai Stevenson, Embajador de EEUU en las Naciones Unidas, en 1965, tras la toma de las primeras imágenes
de la Tierra desde el espacio
AGRADECIMIENTOS
Durante una tesis se aprenden muchas cosas, pero no son necesariamente los
libros o los artículos los que más enseñan. En mi caso he tenido la suerte de coincidir con
muchas personas que me han ayudado a crecer, y a las que debo por ello todo mi
agradecimiento. Intentaré nombrar aquí a todas, aunque de antemano pido disculpas si mi
memoria no hace justicia como debiera.
Gracias al Departamento de Zoología y Ecología de la Universidad de Navarra, no
sólo por darme la oportunidad de hacer la tesis sino por haberme acogido desde el
principio y por haber creado un ambiente en el que siempre me he sentido bien. Gracias
especialmente a mi director, Jordi, por haberme dado siempre más de lo que esperaba, y
por no haber tenido ningún reparo en “perder el tiempo” conmigo. Gracias a Mari, Javi
Oscoz, Ana y María por vuestra alegría y humanidad. A Ángel y David por vuestra
disponibilidad, incluso en el último minuto. A Luis Sanz por el material fotográfico. A los
compañeros de tesis por los buenos ratos compartidos. A Arturo por inventarse horas
para dedicarlas a los demás. A Enrique y Rafa por el entusiasmo transmitido. A Fernando
por su compañía y apoyo todoterreno. A Eva por dar el brazo entero cuando se le pide
una mano.
A todos los alumnos a los que he tenido la suerte de dar prácticas, porque fui yo
quien más aprendió.
A Enrique, Sheila y Melissa por los buenos momentos que siempre me hacéis
pasar.
Gracias a Elisa, Rubén, Diego, Asier, Iratxe, Ixai, Maite, David y los demás, porque
esta tesis os debe más de lo que creéis. Y yo también.
Gracias a María Iraburu, Miriam Latorre y quienes nos apoyaron desde el principio
con el grupo de Voluntarios Ambientales, y a los integrantes del mismo, puesto que este
proyecto ha sido un reto apasionante.
Gracias a Alicia Ederra, por su confianza y sus enseñanzas valiosísimas mis años de
alumna interna en Botánica, y por seguir estando ahí todo este tiempo. A Ricardo Ibáñez
por su interés, apoyo y simpatía, y por los repasos de botánica recorriendo el Camino de
Santiago. A Ricardo Marco por sus consejos y orientaciones con ArcGIS.
A Jesper (y familia) por su acogida en la SLU, y por su hospitalidad durante las
estancias en Suecia. Tack så mycket.
A mis amigos que me han apoyado aún sin una explicación en condiciones de a
qué dedicaba mi tiempo, especialmente a Fátima, Bea, Sara, Patri, Sandra y Ángel. A Adri y
Clara por hacer de la distancia una mera anécdota. A Míriam por su cariño sincero y por
su ejemplo de cómo no rendirse nunca. A Pedro por ponerme siempre una sonrisa en la
boca. A Peibol por las largas conversaciones.
Mi mayor agradecimiento para mi familia, para los que están y para los que ya
marcharon. A Pilar por su vitalidad contagiosa, a mi yaya Presen y a mi tío Celso por su
apoyo tranquilo. Gracias a mi familia más reciente, Jose, Aurora, Amaia y el Aitona,
porque desde el primer momento me hicisteis sentir en casa. Gracias a mi hermana por
su cariño incondicional, y a Leandro por su ejemplo inspirador. Gracias especialmente a
mis padres por su infinita paciencia, y porque sin ellos nada de nada hubiera podido ser.
Y por supuesto a Javi. Por todo.
Esta tesis se realizó gracias a una beca predoctoral del Departamento de Ciencia,
Tecnología y Universidades del Gobierno de Aragón.
Esta tesis doctoral es una colección de manuscritos en diferentes estados de
publicación, cada uno de los cuales constituye un capítulo. Los manuscritos se reproducen
íntegros y en el idioma en el que fueron publicados o enviados para su publicación,
incluyendo siempre un resumen en castellano. Los artículos publicados han sido
reproducidos con el permiso de las editoriales.
En cumplimiento de la normativa para la presentación de tesis doctorales en la
Facultad de Ciencias de la Universidad de Navarra se incluyen los siguientes apartados en
castellano: (1) un resumen integrador del contenido de la tesis doctoral; (2) una
introducción general que sitúa el trabajo realizado en su contexto teórico; (3) una
relación de los objetivos de la tesis doctoral; (4) una discusión general; y (5) un apartado
de conclusiones generales.
En cumplimiento de la normativa para optar a la mención de Doctorado Europeo
en la Universidad de Navarra, se incluye la traducción a inglés del resumen y las
conclusiones generales.
ÍNDICE
Resumen .................................................................................................................................................................................1
Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................2
Prólogo ....................................................................................................................................................................................3
Introducción general ........................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................13
Estructura y Objetivos .................................................................................................................................................20
Objectives and Structure ...........................................................................................................................................21
Primera Parte ....................................................................................................................................................................23
Estudio del papel de la compensación ecológica en los procedimientos de EIA en España
y de las dificultades a las que se enfrenta
Capítulo I.........................................................................................................................................................................26
Una visión general sobre la compensación ecológica en España
Capítulo II .......................................................................................................................................................................44
La dificultad de identificar algunos impactos a compensar
Capítulo III ......................................................................................................................................................................75
La pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
Segunda Parte...................................................................................................................................................................92
Propuestas para promover la compensación ecológica en la EIA en España
Capítulo IV .....................................................................................................................................................................94
Un método adecuado para la valoración ecológica del medio y de los impactos residuales
Capítulo V ...................................................................................................................................................................115
La conveniencia de subrayar los impactos ecológicos residuales
Capítulo VI ..................................................................................................................................................................136
Selección de medidas compensatorias para impactos ecológicos en la EIA
Discusión general.........................................................................................................................................................161
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................169
Conclusiones generales............................................................................................................................................176
General conclusions...................................................................................................................................................180
Bibliografía general / References ........................................................................................................................184
RESUMEN
La Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) es una herramienta que persigue
mejorar la sostenibilidad ambiental de proyectos con una incidencia ambiental significativa.
Para ello, durante este procedimiento se identifican y analizan los impactos que una
actividad sometida al proceso de EIA puede causar sobre el entorno, y se proponen
medidas para revertirlos. Para lograr un objetivo de sostenibilidad que evite la pérdida
neta de calidad ambiental debida a la ejecución de un proyecto, las medidas
compensatorias juegan un papel crucial, ya que son la única manera de contrarrestar los
impactos residuales, que son aquellos impactos que permanecen después de haberse
aplicado todas las medidas preventivas y correctoras. Pero, ¿cuál es el grado de
compensación que se aplica en el marco de la EIA?
Esta tesis analiza el caso de la compensación ecológica en la EIA en España y de
las dificultades a las que se enfrenta, y propone maneras de promover su práctica.
La primera parte del trabajo (capítulos I, II, y III) estudia el grado en que la EIA
propone la adopción de medidas compensatorias para impactos ecológicos en este país,
principalmente de vías de transporte. Además, se indaga en algunas de las posibles causas
de la escasa práctica compensatoria actual. Entre las causas técnicas, se destaca la
dificultad de atribuir ciertos impactos residuales a un proyecto en concreto, y de
valorarlos. Entre las conceptuales, la mentalidad aparentemente predominante de admitir
pérdidas de calidad ecológica como inevitables.
En la segunda parte de la tesis (capítulos IV, V y VI), se estudia la manera en que
actualmente se valoran, registran y muestran los impactos residuales ecológicos, así como
las guías que existen para proponer medidas compensatorias adecuadas. En respuesta a
los resultados de este estudio, se elaboran propuestas para mejorar la práctica de la
compensación ecológica en la EIA en España.
-1-
SUMMARY
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) aims at improving the environmental
sustainability of those projects with significant effects on the environment. During this
procedure, environmental impacts caused by an EIA regulated activity are identified and
analyzed, and proposals are advanced to counter them. When the sustainability goal is set
in avoiding net losses in environmental quality by a project implementation, compensatory
measures have a crucial role to play, as they are the only way to counter residual impacts,
those that remain after all impact avoidance and minimization measures have been
implemented. But, what is the level of compensation implemented in EIA frameworks?
This doctoral dissertation analyzes the case of ecological compensation in
Spanish EIA and the difficulties that it faces, and advances some proposals to increase
practice levels. The first section (chapters I, II, and III) focuses on how frequently ecological
compensation is present in EIA procedures, mainly for roads and railways. It studies as
well some of the potential difficulties that explain the low ecological compensation
practice level found. Among the technical difficulties, the attention focuses in the difficulty
of identifying and valuing all residual impacts possibly caused by any given project. Among
the conceptual ones, the status-quo of a prevailing social mindset that accepts ecological
quality losses as inevitable stands up.
The second section (chapters IV, V, and VI) studies how ecological residual
impacts are valued, registered and shown, as well as the existing guidelines on how to
choose the specific measures to be implemented. As a response to the results of this
study, several proposals to improve and foster ecological compensation practice in EIA in
Spain are advanced.
-2-
PRÓLOGO
Esta tesis nace de la percepción de que el uso por parte del ser humano del
medio que lo acoge y del que forma parte, con frecuencia repercute negativamente sobre
el valor ambiental del mismo.
El acierto de esta premisa, o la dimensión de verdad que encierre, interesa no sólo
al marco socioeconómico en el que nos movemos a diario, de cara a hacerlo sostenible,
sino a la profundidad del análisis cultural y antropológico de cómo se expresa el Hombre
en el territorio. Territorio que a su vez, refleja y revela la conducta humana.
Lógicamente, no se abordarán los aspectos sociales, económicos y culturales
desde enfoques sociológicos, económicos o humanistas propios de otras disciplinas ajenas
al ámbito científico-técnico que nos acoge académicamente, aunque se permanezca
atento a ellos. Pero sí interesa destacar que hablar de compensación, aunque sea de suyo
un tema concreto, implica entrar a considerar el fondo de la inevitable convivencia que
mantienen el Hombre y la Tierra.
¿Y si nos convenciéramos mayoritariamente de que está en nuestra mano no sólo
cuidar lo natural recibido, sino mejorarlo? ¿Y si la naturaleza esperara de nosotros, para
regalarnos todo su potencial, un dominio rendido a su modo de ser natural?
De momento nuestra conducta global parece asumir que lo natural alimenta la
sociedad y la economía, y acaso la cultura, a costa de un inevitable desgaste. Pero no
parece estar escrito así en la esencia de lo vivo y lo vivido.
-3-
INTRODUCCIÓN
SOSTENIBILIDAD
En 1987 la WCED1 (World Commission on Environment and Development)
definió “desarrollo sostenible” como “aquél que satisface las necesidades de la generación
presente sin comprometer la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para satisfacer sus
propias necesidades” (WCED, 1987). Aunque esta definición es la más frecuentemente
citada en la bibliografía relativa a sostenibilidad (Beder, 2006), no se puede afirmar que
exista un acuerdo universal en cuanto al significado de este concepto, que ha sido y
continúa siendo ampliamente discutido (e. g. Mebratu, 1998; Norton, 2005; Fischer et al.,
2007; Voinov & Farley, 2007).
Esto no es de extrañar, puesto que la sostenibilidad es un concepto intuitivamente
sencillo de comprender, pero difícil de concretar y de poner en práctica (e.g. Fenech et
al., 2003), y aún más de una manera ampliamente acordada. Por un lado, la tarea de
concreción requiere trabajar a diversas escalas de forma complementaria (Kates, 2000;
Kates et al., 2001), ya que es necesario tanto trasladar los grandes objetivos a ideas
concretas, como dirigir las pequeñas acciones locales hacia el logro de metas globales.
Además, se hace necesario abordar la sostenibilidad integrando distintas perspectivas de
estudio, ya que ésta concierne a las esferas social, ecológica y económica, que están a su
vez interconectadas de distintas maneras (Gibson, 2001; Pope et al., 2004).
EVALUACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL
Una de las herramientas que tiene como objetivo la mejora de la sostenibilidad en
los proyectos con una incidencia ambiental significativa es la Evaluación de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA), especialmente en lo relativo a los aspectos sociales y ecológicos (IAIA &
UK Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1999).
1
La WCED, comúnmente conocida como la Comisión Brundtland, se constituyó en 1983 tras una
resolución de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en la que se apuntaba la necesidad de crear un
órgano independiente que examinara los principales problemas ambientales y de desarrollo existentes en
distintos lugares del mundo, y formulara propuestas realistas para afrontarlos (United Nations, 1983). Tras la
publicación del Informe Brundtland (‘Our Common Future’) en 1987, la Comisión fue oficialmente disuelta.
En su lugar, en 1988 se creó el Centro para Nuestro Futuro Común (‘Center for Our Common Future’).
-5-
Introducción
La EIA es el procedimiento por el cual se identifican y evalúan los efectos de
ciertos proyectos de desarrollo sobre el medio físico y social (IAIA & UK Institute of
Environmental Assessment, 1999; Wood, 2003; Jay et al., 2007). Su objetivo es proponer
la forma más adecuada de llevar a cabo un proyecto, minimizando el impacto sobre el
mismo (Garmendia et al., 2005). Aunque por principio el procedimiento no busca
paralizar las propuestas de desarrollo, permite no autorizar aquellos proyectos cuyas
repercusiones ambientales inevitables se juzguen como inaceptables. En otras palabras,
“una EIA eficaz modifica la naturaleza de las acciones que se implementan para reducir los
perjuicios ambientales que causan y hacerlas más sostenibles. Si no lo logra, la EIA es un
desperdicio de tiempo y dinero.” (Wood, 2003).
Desde que fuera implantada por primera vez en EEUU en los años 70 a través de
la National Environmental Policy Act (United States Congress, 1969), la EIA se ha
extendido a otros muchos lugares, incluyendo países en vías de desarrollo (Garmendia et
al., 2005; Glasson et al., 2005; Jay et al., 2007). En Europa, la Directiva 2011/92/UE regula
actualmente cómo ha de llevarse a cabo la EIA y en qué proyectos. En España, el Real
Decreto Legislativo 1/2008 transpone la normativa europea a la legislación nacional, y
junto con el Real Decreto 1131/1988 y la Ley 6/2010 establecen las fases en que debe
realizarse la EIA, que aquí se resumen en la Figura 1 y la Caja 1.
-6-
Introducción
Memoria-resumen
inicial
Administración
CONSULTAS PREVIAS
Público
Elaboración EIS
Administración
INFORMACIÓN PÚBLICA
Público
Declaración de
Impacto Ambiental
Ejecución y seguimiento
Figura 1. Esquema que resume las distintas fases del proceso administrativo de la Evaluación de Impacto
Ambiental en España, una vez se ha decidido que el proyecto ha de someterse a ella.
Caja 1. Resumen del procedimiento de EIA en España
Cuando un proyecto debe someterse a EIA, el promotor debe
iniciar el procedimiento y enviar a la Administración competente una
memoria-resumen del proyecto que se propone ejecutar.
Tras la presentación de este primer documento, y atendiendo al
resultado de las consultas al público y organismos afectados, el promotor
debe elaborar un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIS por sus siglas en
inglés). Este documento recoge las principales características del proyecto,
así como una exposición de las alternativas estudiadas, una evaluación de
los impactos previsibles y la correspondiente propuesta de medidas para
contrarrestarlos, y un plan de vigilancia ambiental dirigido a controlar la
aplicación de dichas medidas (RDL 1/2008). Tras su elaboración, el EIS se
somete a información pública con el fin de que cualquier persona pueda
revisarlo y presentar las alegaciones que considere oportunas. Basándose
en los resultados del EIS y de la fase de información pública, la
Administración competente elabora una Declaración de Impacto
Ambiental (DIA), en la que se resumen los principales puntos del EIS y de
la fase de participación pública y se concede o deniega la aprobación del
proyecto desde el punto de vista ambiental. El cumplimiento de las
condiciones establecidas por la DIA para la ejecución del proyecto, en su
caso, deberá ser comprobado durante la fase de seguimiento.
-7-
Introducción
Se podría decir que el EIS es el documento central de todo este proceso ya que
recoge la información necesaria para evaluar los posibles daños al entorno y proponer las
medidas necesarias para contrarrestarlos, lo que constituye el núcleo de la EIA.
En este trabajo se ha decidido estudiar la sostenibilidad desde el ámbito de la EIA
por dos razones principales. Primera, porque siendo uno de los múltiples ámbitos en los
que la sostenibilidad debe ser concretada en la práctica, la EIA cuenta ya con unos años
de experiencia internacional y es oportuno ver qué ha conseguido. Y también porque si
en algún lugar hay que ser exigentes con la pérdida de valor natural, es cuando nos
enfrentamos a la decisión de si autorizar o no un proyecto ambientalmente adverso.
UN OBJETIVO PARA LA EIA: LA ‘NO PÉRDIDA NETA’ DE
VALOR ECOLÓGICO
Según indica la legislación, las medidas que se proponen en el EIS para integrar en
lo posible los aspectos ambientales en el proyecto pueden ser de tres tipos: preventivas,
correctoras y compensatorias (Directiva 85/337/CEE; RDL 1/2008). Este orden no es
aleatorio, sino que corresponde a la denominada ‘secuencia de mitigación’ o ‘jerarquía de
mitigación’ (‘mitigation sequence’ o ‘mitigation hierarchy’ en inglés), que consta de 3 pasos:
evitar/minimizar (medidas preventivas), corregir/reducir lo que no ha podido ser evitado
(medidas correctoras), y compensar lo que no ha podido ser evitado ni reducido
(medidas compensatorias) (ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Dolan et al., 2006;
Escorcio Bezerra, 2007; Darbi et al., 2009; Moilanen et al., 2009).
La aplicación de medidas siguiendo esta secuencia se propone, desde un punto de
vista teórico, como la forma de neutralizar el impacto negativo del proyecto sobre el
entorno, o incluso de conseguir un impacto final positivo mejorando las condiciones
iniciales del medio en el que se desarrolla la actividad: son los denominados objetivos de
‘no pérdida neta’ y ‘ganancia neta’ (Iuell et al., 2003; ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005;
Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007; Moilanen et al., 2009; Rowe et al., 2009). Que el logro de
esos objetivos en procedimientos de EIA concretos se alcance o no es otra cuestión. Y
precisamente este contraste, entre los objetivos teóricos de la EIA y sus logros en los
casos reales, urge más al estudio de cómo aplicar el concepto de sostenibilidad en
procesos de decisión ambiental reales.
-8-
Introducción
La lógica subyacente a estas metas, utilizando una terminología más común en
enfoques socioeconómicos, parte de la idea de que mantener constante el capital natural
es clave para lograr un desarrollo sostenible desde una perspectiva ecológica, económica
y social (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Aronson et al., 2006). En el ámbito de la economía
ecológica el capital natural designa al conjunto de bienes y servicios que proporcionan los
recursos naturales al ser humano; lo que más comúnmente se designa como naturaleza o
medio natural (Rees, 1995; Goodland & Daly, 1996; Aronson et al., 2007). La visión
predominante durante los últimos veinte años es que el capital natural es el factor
limitante del que dependen no sólo la sostenibilidad económica y el bienestar de la
población, sino la propia vida (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995; Goodland & Daly,
1996; Aronson et al., 2006; Farley & Daly, 2006).
Actualmente no se conoce, o no se llega a un acuerdo sobre qué nivel de capital
natural es necesario para mantener la vida humana en condiciones adecuadas. De hecho,
la medida del capital natural es una tarea que plantea importantes dificultades (Azqueta &
Sotelsek, 2007). Aunque las consecuencias de las actividades humanas nunca se han
conocido con total certeza, y aunque no esté resuelto el debate sobre la definición y
medida del capital natural, la duda es ahora más significativa, puesto que tales actividades
tienen mayor alcance y complejidad que en el pasado (Beder, 2006). Dada esta
incertidumbre, y las consecuencias fatales de una posible predicción errónea, mantener
constante el capital natural se presenta como el requisito mínimo necesario para caminar
hacia la sostenibilidad (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995).
El enfoque de esta tesis no es económico y, por ello, términos como “capital
natural” resultan limitados para abordar la totalidad de la riqueza, calidad o valor
ecológico de un entorno. Sin embargo, el razonamiento que justifica la necesidad de
mantener constante, al menos, el capital natural es paralelo al que justifica los principios
de no pérdida neta y ganancia neta ecológica en el campo de la EIA. Así, el
mantenimiento o incluso la mejora de la calidad ecológica del entorno para las
generaciones venideras, objetivo ético o moral, confluye con la necesidad a más corto
plazo de preservar la propia vida y los recursos necesarios para mantenerla, lo que
constituye habitualmente un argumento más eficaz en los contextos en que se desarrolla
la práctica de la EIA.
A efectos prácticos, y centrándonos en una perspectiva ecológica dentro de la
EIA, se puede decir que solamente consiguiendo que no haya pérdidas netas tras la
-9-
Introducción
ejecución de proyectos se puede evitar la progresiva degradación del medio natural que
resultaría de la acumulación de impactos provocados por distintos proyectos en una
misma región. Dentro de la “secuencia de mitigación”, las medidas compensatorias juegan
un papel importante para conseguir este objetivo, puesto que son el último recurso para
contrarrestar aquellos impactos que no pueden ser evitados ni corregidos; los
denominados impactos residuales, presentes en todos los proyectos sometidos a EIA.
COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN LA EIA
En términos muy generales, compensar puede definirse como “igualar en opuesto
sentido el efecto de una cosa con el de otra” y/o como “dar algo o hacer un beneficio en
resarcimiento del daño, perjuicio o disgusto que se ha causado” (RAE, 2010). Se puede
decir que el término “compensación” tiene un cierto sentido de buscar un balance entre
efectos de sentido contrario (positivo-negativo, ganancia-pérdida…).
Esto puede lograrse por distintos medios. Un recurso es la compensación
monetaria, en la que se trata de reparar el daño mediante el pago de una suma de dinero.
En el campo de la EIA esta es una medida habitual en el caso de impactos sobre
propiedades o actividades económicas, puesto que se plantea como una solución directa.
En relación a impactos ambientales, sin embargo, no siempre se considera apropiada la
compensación monetaria, sino que a menudo se requiere una intervención concreta en el
medio físico y biológico, sobre un lugar o elemento determinado (compensación no
monetaria). La compensación ambiental no monetaria es un campo que abarca impactos
de muy distinta naturaleza, gran parte de los cuales podrían denominarse de tipo
“ecológico”.
Aunque en ocasiones los términos “ambiental” y “ecológico” se emplean como
sinónimos, compensación ambiental y compensación ecológica no siempre son tales, y
por ello conviene distinguirlas. En esta tesis, se entiende por “compensación ambiental”
aquella que tiene como objetivo cualquier elemento del medio ambiente, lo que incluye
tanto los elementos naturales como aquellos que derivan de la acción humana
(construcciones, patrimonio cultural, usos sociales de un lugar o elemento…). En cambio,
se entiende por “compensación ecológica” la dirigida específicamente a los elementos
naturales (o en lo que retengan de natural); aquellos que, aunque pueden ser modificados
por la acción humana, no tienen su origen en ella. Este tipo de compensación conlleva
- 10 -
Introducción
acciones de creación, restauración o mejora de elementos naturales para sustituir aquellas
funciones o valores ecológicos que han sido afectados por proyectos de desarrollo
(Cuperus et al., 2001; Iuell et al., 2003).
La compensación ecológica se presenta como una herramienta para lograr la
sostenibilidad de forma proactiva, generando cambios positivos en el entorno; un
contrapunto necesario a limitarse simplemente a minimizar los negativos (Pope et al.,
2004; McKenney, 2005; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk & Daddo, 2007; Weaver et al., 2008;
BBOP, 2009). De forma similar a lo que ocurre con el concepto de sostenibilidad, la
compensación también presenta dificultades en su ejecución, que hacen que sea un
concepto más fácil de comprender que de poner en práctica. Como se verá a lo largo del
desarrollo de la tesis, esta es una idea recurrente, que está presente de fondo en
prácticamente todos los aspectos del trabajo en torno a la compensación ecológica.
Por otro lado, ya en el plano teórico existe cierta controversia y división de
opiniones en torno al papel de la compensación ecológica en la EIA. Los principales
argumentos que cuestionan el papel de las medidas compensatorias son la imposibilidad
(técnica o ética) de reemplazar los valores naturales perdidos (Katz, 2000; Morris et al.,
2006), y la incertidumbre que existe tanto en la medida de los daños y de las
compensaciones necesarias (Burgin, 2008) como en torno al éxito de las medidas
ejecutadas (PENGO, 2002; Morris et al., 2006; Burgin, 2008). También ciertos autores
advierten del riesgo de que la compensación pueda ser utilizada para justificar proyectos
ambientalmente no viables (ten Kate et al., 2004; Rundcrantz, 2007), cuando no se
respetan las exigencias de la “secuencia de mitigación”: no se debería compensar más que
lo que no se ha podido evitar ni minimizar.
Si bien es cierto que la compensación ecológica tiene puntos débiles, en parte por
haberse empezado a desarrollar recientemente, es por el momento la única herramienta
para tratar de revertir los impactos residuales que inevitablemente causa un desarrollo
actualmente imparable. Siempre que se aplique como una solución de último recurso
para compensar impactos residuales y no para justificar una gestión ambiental deficiente
(Damarad & Bekker, 2003; Escorcio Bezerra, 2007, Burgin, 2008), e incluso aunque no
ofrezca unos resultados óptimos, la implantación de medidas compensatorias será una
opción mejor que la simple admisión de pérdidas ecológicas (Hayes & Morrison-Saunders,
2007). Además de sus efectos ambientales directos, la normalización de esta práctica
puede ayudar a promover una mayor conciencia sobre el deber de respetar nuestro
- 11 -
Introducción
entorno, reforzando la idea de que tenemos no sólo el poder de dañar el medio, sino
también la obligación de colaborar en su mantenimiento y enriquecimiento.
A pesar de estas incertidumbres y de los problemas prácticos que plantea, el uso
de la compensación se ha ido extendiendo y actualmente está presente en legislaciones
de distintos lugares del mundo, como EEUU, Europa, Australia, Brasil o Canadá
(Rundcrantz & Skärbäck, 2003; ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Hayes & MorrisonSaunders, 2007; Burgin, 2008; Darbi et al., 2009). En el caso de España, la obligación de
compensar impactos ecológicos se aplica a nivel nacional a las áreas incluidas en la Red
Natura 2000, como ordena la Directiva Hábitats (92/43/CEE) que transpone a la
legislación española el Real Decreto 1997/1995. Solamente en algunas Comunidades
Autónomas existen leyes que extienden esta obligación a otros lugares o elementos
naturales (ver capítulo I).
Esta tesis se desarrolla en torno a la compensación ecológica no monetaria de
impactos, dentro del marco general de la EIA en España, y principalmente en torno al
caso de infraestructuras lineares de transporte, generalmente carreteras y autopistas2.
Estos elementos tienen una importante presencia en el territorio, y su construcción y uso
generan impactos significativos en el entorno (Forman & Alexander, 1998; Spellerberg,
1998; Trombulak & Frisell, 2000; Forman et al., 2003). Muchos de estos impactos no
pueden ser evitados ni corregidos, lo que hace de estos proyectos un objetivo habitual en
la bibliografía acerca de compensación ecológica (e.g. Penny Anderson Associates, 1993;
Cuperus et al., 1996; Kuiper, 1997; Cuperus et al., 1999; Cuperus et al., 2001; Cuperus et
al., 2002; Rundcrantz, 2006; Thorne et al., 2009). En esta tesis se quiso aprovechar esa
tradición, ya que recoge buena parte de los problemas a los que se enfrenta el desarrollo
teórico y práctico de la compensación, que este trabajo presenta y aborda.
2
Bajo la categoría de autopistas se incluyen tanto autopistas de peaje como autovías (sin peaje), puesto que
para el propósito de la tesis no se considera necesario distinguir entre ambos tipos de vía.
- 12 -
INTRODUCTION
SUSTAINABILITY
In 1987, the WCED3 (World Commission on Environment and Development)
defined “sustainable development” as the development that “meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(WCED, 1987). Although this definition is the most frequently quoted in the specific
literature (Beder, 2006), at present time there remains an on-going discussion on the
meaning of this term (e.g. Mebratu, 1998; Norton, 2005; Fischer et al., 2007; Voinov &
Farley, 2007).
Such controversy may be related to the very nature of the concept ‘sustainability’,
for this term is easily understood but putting it into practice becomes a harder task (e.g.
Fenech et al., 2003), especially when trying to do so in a widely agreed way. On the one
hand, translating the theoretical concept onto specific actions requires working at different
scales in combination with each other (Kates, 2000; Kates et al., 2001), since it is necessary
both to transform general objectives into specific ideas and to direct local actions towards
the fulfilment of global goals. On the other hand, working on sustainability requires
integrating different viewpoints, mainly regarding social, ecological and economic aspects
(Gibson, 2001; Pope et al., 2004).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool which seeks to improve the
sustainability of projects which have significant negative effects on the environment,
especially regarding social and ecological issues (IAIA & UK Institute of Environmental
Assessment, 1999).
EIA may be defined as the procedure that identifies and evaluates the effects of
certain development projects on the physical and social environment (IAIA & UK Institute
of Environmental Assessment, 1999; Wood, 2003; Jay et al., 2007). Its aim is to minimize
3
The WCED, also known as the ‘Brundtland Commission’, was constituted in 1983 after a resolution of the
United Nations General Assembly that pointed out the need of creating an independent organism to study
and propose ways to face the main environmental and development problems in the world (United
Nations, 1983). After publishing the Brundtland Report (‘Our Common Future’) in 1987, the Commission
was officially dissolved. In 1988, the ‘Center for Our Common Future’ was created to take its place.
- 13 -
Introduction
the negative impact that a certain project may cause on the affected environment
(Garmendia et al., 2005). Although its objective is not to stop development proposals, EIA
can deny the authorization of projects which are expected to cause unacceptable harms
on the environment. In other words, “effective EIA alters the nature of decisions or of the
actions implemented to reduce their environmental disbenefits and render them more
sustainable. If it fails to do this, EIA is a waste of time and money” (Wood, 2003).
Since the passing of National Environmental Policy Act (United States Congress
1969), EIA has spread worldwide, even to numerous developing countries (Garmendia et
al., 2005; Glasson et al., 2005; Jay et al., 2007). European Directive 2011/92/EU stipulates
how and in which cases EIA has to be carried out in EU countries. This regulation has
been transposed into Spanish regulation by the RDL 1/2008, which is complemented by
the RD 1131/1988 and Law 6/2010 that specify the steps to follow during the EIA
process (see Figure 1 and Box 1).
Environmental
authority
Summary of the
project
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Public
Environmental
Impact Statement
Environmental
authority
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCESS
Public
Record of Decision
Implementation and monitoring
Figure 1. Summary of the steps to be followed when a project must undergo EIA in Spain.
- 14 -
Introduction
Box 1. Summary of the EIA process in Spain
When a project must undergo EIA, the developer must initiate the
process by sending a summary of the project to the environmental
authority.
After that, and taking into account the results of the public
consultation and the suggestions of the affected entities, the developer
must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This document
gathers the specifications of the project, the different alternatives for it, the
evaluation of the potential impacts and the measures proposed to counter
them, and the elaboration of an Environmental Surveillance Plan to
monitor the implementation of such measures (RDL 1/2008). This EIS is
made public so that any person can look through it and suggest any
changes. Depending on the EIS and on the results of the public
participation process, the environmental authority prepares a Record of
Decision (ROD) that summarizes the main aspects of the EIS and of the
public participation process and concedes or denies the environmental
authorization for the project. When the activity is carried out it must fulfil
the environmental requirements as stated in the ROD. This fulfilment shall
be checked during the monitoring stage.
The EIS is considered to be the central document of the whole EIA process, since
it gathers all the information that is necessary to evaluate the potential damages to the
environment and to propose the actions needed to counter them, which actually
constitute the core of EIA.
This thesis chose to approach sustainability from the viewpoint of EIA for two
main reasons. First, because among the many different frameworks that should put this
concept into practice, EIA has been for long implemented worldwide, and it is opportune
to gauge what has been accomplished to date. In addition, because decision-making on
environmentally adverse projects demands of itself especial efforts to minimize and
counteract environmental losses.
AN OBJECTIVE FOR EIA: ‘NO NET LOSS’ OF ECOLOGICAL VALUE
According to current Spanish legislation, three kinds of actions may be proposed
within the EIS to integrate environmental issues into the development project: preventive,
mitigative and compensatory measures (Directive 85/337/EEC; RDL 1/2008). This order
responds to the so-called ‘mitigation sequence’ (also called ‘mitigation hierarchy’), which
consists of three consecutive steps: avoid (measures to prevent impacts from happening),
minimize what cannot be avoided (measures to mitigate the harm, ‘mitigation’ here
understood as trying to restore the damaged place to its former state), and
offset/compensate what cannot be avoided nor minimized (measures to compensate for
- 15 -
Introduction
the impacts that cannot be avoided or reversed) (ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005;
Dolan et al., 2006; Escorcio Bezerra, 2007; Darbi et al., 2009; Moilanen et al., 2009).
Theoretically, this mitigation sequence is proposed as a way to counteract the
negative environmental impact of a development project, or even to achieve a net
positive impact that improves the original state of the affected environment. These are
the so-called ‘no net loss’ and ‘net gain’ objectives, respectively (Iuell et al., 2003; ten Kate
et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007; Moilanen et al., 2009; Rowe
et al., 2009). However, the achievement of these goals in EIA practice is not automatically
granted. The contrast between theoretical objectives and practical achievements in EIA
spurs the need of studying how to apply better the concept of sustainability to actual
decision-making processes.
From a socioeconomic standpoint, these ‘no net loss’ and ‘net gain’ goals depart
from the idea that keeping natural capital constant is key to achieve ecological, economic
and social sustainability (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Aronson et al., 2006). ‘Natural capital’ is
an economic term for the stock of natural resources that provide different goods and
services; what is broadly called ‘nature’ (Rees, 1995; Goodland & Daly, 1996; Aronson et
al., 2007). For the last twenty years, natural capital is increasingly being considered as the
limiting factor to human well-being and economic sustainability (Costanza & Daly, 1992;
Goodland & Daly, 1996; Aronson et al., 2006; Farley & Daly, 2006). At the end, it is not
to be forgotten that natural capital is what supports life (Prugh, 1995).
At present time, there is no agreement upon which stock of natural capital would
be enough to support human life. In fact, such measurement entails important difficulties
(Azqueta & Sotelsek, 2007). The uncertainties on the reach and magnitude of the effects
of human activities on the environment have always been there, but they grow more
significant at present time as such activities are bigger and more complex than they were
in the past (Beder, 2006). Given this uncertainty, and the dire consequences of guessing
wrong, keeping natural capital intact comes up as a prudent minimum condition for
achieving sustainability (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995).
This thesis is not built from an economic standpoint, and for that reason ‘natural
capital’ turns out a too-limited term to refer to the whole ecological richness, quality or
value of an environment. Nevertheless, we have recalled here the reasoning behind the
natural capital constancy principle for it is parallel to the argument that justifies the ‘no net
ecological loss’ and ‘net ecological gain’ goals within EIA. Thus, what can be argued as an
- 16 -
Introduction
ethical or moral principle, i.e. the preservation or even enhancement of the ecological
quality of the environment for future generations, meets the practical need of preserving
natural resources and life quality in the short run, an utilitarian argument that seems more
easily accepted within EIA contexts.
From an ecologic, practical standpoint within EIA, it can be argued that the only
way of avoiding a continuous loss of natural quality within a given region is to ensure that
no net losses result from the implementation of each development project. Of the three
steps of the mitigation sequence, compensation plays a key role to achieve ‘no net loss’
for it is the last option to counteract those impacts that can not be avoided or reversed,
and which are associated to all projects subject to EIA: the residual impacts.
ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION IN EIA
In general terms, compensating may be defined as the balancing of the effects of a
certain action with the effects of another action, and/or as to give or make something to
repair some damage previously caused (RAE, 2010).
This balancing effect may be achieved through different means. A common option
is monetary compensation, which seeks to repair the damage through the payment of a
certain amount of money. This mechanism is commonly used within EIA to compensate
for impacts on private properties or economic activities, for it is a direct solution.
However, monetary compensation is not always a proper way to offset environmental
impacts. Most often, these impacts demand some intervention on physical or biological
elements in specific places to be compensated (non-monetary compensation). And
among all the different environmental impacts, this applies especially to ecological ones.
Although the terms ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ may be employed as
synonyms in some contexts, environmental and ecological compensation are not always
equivalent. In this thesis, ‘environmental compensation’ refers to offsets aimed to counter
any damage caused on any element of the environment, either natural or human-made
(such as buildings, artistic or cultural heritage, social assets…). ‘Ecological compensation’ is
understood as those actions aimed to offset specifically natural assets; those elements that
have not been created by humans, although they can be modified by us. Ecological
compensation usually entails creation, restoration or enhancement of natural assets in
order to replace the impaired ecological functions or values (Cuperus et al., 2001; Iuell et
al., 2003).
- 17 -
Introduction
Ecological compensation is a tool to promote sustainability in a proactive way, by
generating positive changes instead of simply minimising the negative (Pope et al., 2004;
McKenney, 2005; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk & Daddo, 2007; Weaver et al., 2008; BBOP,
2009). Comparably to what was previously described for the concept of sustainability, it is
easy to understand the concept of compensation but its practice proves harder. This idea
is recurrent when working on ecological compensation, and lays behind many of the
questions this thesis deals with.
Complementarily to practical problems, there is also some controversy and
discussion on the role of ecological compensation within EIA. Main arguments questioning
the reach and efficiency of compensatory measures recall the technical or ethical
impossibility of replacing some natural values or elements (Katz, 2000; Morris et al., 2006),
the difficulty of measuring natural damage and the offsets that would be necessary to
counter it (Burgin, 2008), and the uncertainty on the success of the implemented
measures (PENGO, 2002; Morris et al., 2006; Burgin, 2008). Other authors are concerned
about the risk of using compensation to justify environmentally unacceptable projects (ten
Kate et al., 2004; Rundcrantz, 2007) when the mitigation sequence is not properly applied,
and compensation is proposed prior to avoidance or correction.
Even though ecological compensation has some weaknesses (partly because it has
been developed quite recently), it is for now the only tool that allows counteracting
somehow the residual impacts that unavoidably cause our currently unstoppable
development. As long as it is always used as a last-term resource for compensating
residual impacts, and not as a way to justify poor environmental management (Damarad
& Bekker, 2003; Escorcio Bezerra, 2007; Burgin, 2008), compensation should be
promoted within EIA. Even if they do not provide optimal results, attempting to establish
ecological offsets is a better option than simply admitting ecological losses (Hayes &
Morrison-Saunders, 2007). In addition to its ecological effects, the practice of
compensation may send a message about the duty of respecting the environment where
we live, and may reinforce the idea that we have the obligation of preserving and
improving nature.
In spite of the uncertainties and practical problems around it, ecological
compensation is being increasingly included in environmental regulations from different
places, such as the United States, Europe, Australia, Brazil or Canada (Rundcrantz &
Skärbäck, 2003; ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Hayes & Morrison-Saunders, 2007;
- 18 -
Introduction
Burgin, 2008; Darbi et al., 2009). The Spanish legislation establishes the duty to
compensate for significant damages on areas that belong to the Natura 2000 network
(Royal Decree 1997/1995, transposing European Directive 92/43/EEC). Only certain
regional laws extend this duty to other spaces or natural features (see chapter I).
This thesis studies non-monetary ecological compensation in the context of EIA in
Spain. Different kinds of projects are regarded, but special attention is paid to transport
infrastructures, mainly roads and motorways. These elements are present across all
humanized landscapes, and their construction and use cause significant impacts on the
environment (Forman & Alexander, 1998; Spellerberg, 1998; Trombulak & Frisell, 2000;
Forman et al., 2003). Since many of those impacts cannot be avoided nor reversed, roads
and motorways have traditionally been in the focus of studies on ecological compensation
in different places (e.g. Penny Anderson Associates, 1993; Cuperus et al., 1996; Kuiper,
1997; Cuperus et al., 1999; Cuperus et al., 2001; Cuperus et al., 2002; Rundcrantz, 2006;
Thorne et al., 2009). This thesis takes advantage of this expertise that gathers most
theoretical and practical problems that compensation development has to face, and which
will be tackled also in the following chapters.
- 19 -
ESTRUCTURA Y OBJETIVOS
Los objetivos generales de esta tesis son dos: estudiar el papel de la
compensación ecológica en los procedimientos de EIA en España y de las dificultades a las
que se enfrenta, y proponer, en función de de los resultados obtenidos, maneras de
promoverla. Estos objetivos determinan la estructura general del trabajo, que se desarrolla
en dos partes coordinadas, dentro de las cuales se abordan objetivos parciales.
La primera parte desarrolla un objetivo principal en cada uno de sus tres capítulos,
que sirven al propósito general de la sección:
1.
Conocer cómo se integran actualmente en España las propuestas de
compensación ecológica dentro del procedimiento de EIA. ... Capítulo I
2.
Mostrar la dificultad de atribuir algunos impactos residuales a un proyecto
concreto y, por tanto, la de decidir la compensación correspondiente.
...................................................................................................................................... Capítulo II
3.
Contrastar la tolerancia de pérdida de calidad ecológica, frente a la alta
exigencia de compensaciones socioeconómicas a los daños causados por un
proyecto.................................................................................................................Capítulo III
Los resultados de esta primera parte conforman el marco sobre el que se
desarrolla la segunda, que consta también de tres capítulos, en cada uno de los cuales se
aborda principalmente un objetivo:
4.
Mostrar la utilidad de que los métodos de valoración de impactos dentro de
la EIA revelen los impactos ecológicos residuales, para promover así la
práctica de la compensación.....................................................................Capítulo IV
5.
Evaluar la visibilidad actual de la valoración del impacto residual en
los procesos de EIA de vías de transporte para mejorar la
compensación..................................................................................................... Capítulo V
6.
Revisar las orientaciones generales publicadas para la definición de medidas
compensatorias, con el fin de complementarlas mediante propuestas
específicas para los proyectos de carreteras y autopistas en EspañaCapítulo
VI
Para subrayar la unidad entre los distintos capítulos, antes de cada artículo se
incluye una breve presentación del mismo, que resume sus principales objetivos y
contenidos, y explica su integración en el conjunto de la tesis. Esta estructura procura
clarificar lo que no podía hacerse desde cada uno de los artículos de forma individual,
ayudando a generar una discusión general y a obtener conclusiones que van más allá de lo
apuntado en cada uno de ellos, y con las que se cierra la tesis.
- 20 -
OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE
This thesis is divided in two complementary parts, each one addressing one
general objective. The first one studies the role of ecological compensation within EIA
processes in Spain and the obstacles it faces. The second part develops proposals to
promote ecological compensation practice in this context, according to the results of the
former.
Each general objective is addressed through three secondary objectives, each one
corresponding to a separate chapter.
The first part, entitled ‘On the role of ecological compensation in Spanish EIA
processes and the obstacles it faces’, is divided in the three following chapters:
7.
Chapter I: on the way ecological compensation is currently proposed within
EIA processes in Spain.
8.
Chapter II: on the difficulties that may arise when trying to identify and
attribute certain residual impacts to a specific project, which may constitute
an obstacle to the estimation of the corresponding offsets.
9.
Chapter III: on the difference between the efforts we put to demand socioeconomic compensation and the acceptance of ecological losses when facing
a project.
The second part of the thesis (‘Some proposals to promote ecological
compensation within Spanish EIA’) is based on the results obtained in the first one, and is
also divided in three chapters:
10.
Chapter IV: on the convenience of highlighting ecological residual impacts
within EIA processes to promote ecological compensation practice.
11.
Chapter V: on the way ecological residual impacts are currently addressed
within EIA processes and how this may be improved to promote
compensation.
12.
Chapter VI: on current guidance to design ecological offsets, and a
complementary proposal for the specific case of roads and motorways in
Spain.
- 21 -
To unify the different chapters and integrate them in the general structure of the
thesis, a brief presentation precedes each paper that explains its objective and content.
This structure clarifies the role each chapter has for the general purposes of the thesis,
and makes possible to develop a general discussion and to obtain general conclusions that
go over and above the conclusions of each paper.
- 22 -
PRIMERA PARTE
ESTUDIO DEL PAPEL DE LA COMPENSACIÓN
ECOLÓGICA EN LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS DE EIA
EN ESPAÑA Y DE LAS DIFICULTADES A LAS QUE
SE ENFRENTA
- 23 -
El objetivo de esta primera parte de la tesis es explorar cómo se lleva a cabo
actualmente la compensación ecológica en España dentro del marco de la EIA, tanto
desde la perspectiva general que otorga el estudio de las declaraciones de impacto
ambiental (artículo I), como más en detalle, a través del estudio de dos casos concretos
que permiten comprender mejor algunos problemas a los que se enfrenta la concreción
práctica de la compensación, y que el enfoque general del primer artículo no permite ver.
El primer artículo se ocupa de buscar, en las declaraciones de impacto ambiental,
indicadores de la frecuencia con la que se recurre a la compensación en la EIA. A través
de la revisión del grado en que se aplican medidas compensatorias en diferentes tipos de
proyectos nacionales y autonómicos, ofrece una aproximación general al tema, buscando
confirmar la intuición de que la práctica de la compensación se encuentra en unos niveles
muy bajos. Concretando un poco esta visión global, en el mismo artículo se analiza con
más detalle la compensación ecológica en proyectos de carreteras y autopistas, puesto
que la tesis se centra principalmente en este tipo de infraestructuras, por las razones
expuestas en la introducción.
Los dos siguientes artículos exploran algunas posibles causas técnicas y
conceptuales de la baja práctica compensatoria que registra el primero. Desde temáticas
aparentemente dispares, contribuyen a completar la visión del primero a través del
cambio en la escala y en la perspectiva desde la que se construyen.
El artículo II estudia uno de los obstáculos técnicos que pueden afectar a la
aplicación de medidas compensatorias: la dificultad de identificar y evaluar los impactos
residuales de un proyecto. A través del estudio de las causas de los impactos inducidos en
torno a una carretera, explora la dificultad que presenta en ocasiones la simple atribución
de algunos de los impactos residuales a un proyecto concreto. Esta dificultad para atribuir
ciertos efectos sobre el entorno como causados exclusivamente por un proyecto supone
un importante obstáculo para su compensación en el marco de la EIA. El cambio en la
escala de estudio complementa la perspectiva del artículo I y aporta nueva información en
torno a la dificultad de abordar la compensación de impactos en proyectos de carreteras
y autopistas.
El artículo III, por último, se centra en explorar algunos de los posibles obstáculos
conceptuales que pueden estar detrás de la escasa práctica de la compensación detectada
en el artículo I. A través de la comparación de la compensación ecológica y la
compensación socioeconómica alrededor de un caso concreto, pone de relieve algunas
- 24 -
de las razones que pueden contribuir a la escasa puesta en práctica de la primera. Es,
además, el único artículo que no se centra en proyectos de carreteras, sino que se
desarrolla en torno a un proyecto costero, lo que permite contrastar los resultados
obtenidos para este caso con los recabados para vías de transporte en los otros artículos.
Esta complementariedad de casos y escalas de estudio se plantea como una forma
de abordar una cuestión amplia, como es la compensación ecológica de impactos,
profundizando en algunos de sus aspectos pero sin perder la visión de conjunto.
- 25 -
CAPÍTULO I
UNA VISIÓN GENERAL SOBRE LA COMPENSACIÓN
ECOLÓGICA EN ESPAÑA
Villarroya A, Puig J. 2010.
Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 30(6):357-362.
doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.11.001
Compensación ecológica en España
Como se adelantaba en la Introducción a la tesis, la compensación ecológica
resulta un concepto más fácil de entender que de poner en práctica. En un contexto de
toma de decisión administrativa como la EIA, sujeto a limitaciones específicas de tiempo y
recursos, esta dificultad para trasladar una idea teórica a acciones concretas puede acabar
provocando que las propuestas de medidas compensatorias no se ajusten a lo que sería
necesario para evitar la pérdida neta de calidad natural.
Partiendo de la hipótesis de que la compensación ecológica en la EIA en España
se aplica en pocas ocasiones, el artículo I recoge datos de la EIA de distintos proyectos
para evaluar de forma general cómo es la práctica actual de la compensación en España, y
si realmente se aplica en todos los casos en que debería aplicarse para conseguir el
objetivo de evitar pérdidas netas de calidad natural.
Los datos utilizados se obtuvieron a partir de la revisión sistemática de
declaraciones
de
impacto
ambiental
(DIAs)4,
elegidas
como
indicadores
del
procedimiento de EIA por ser documentos accesibles que recogen la información más
relevante del proceso. Además, al incorporar un resumen en el que se incluyen los
elementos considerados clave para justificar la toma de decisión, aportan indicios sobre la
importancia que se da a cada parte de la EIA.
En este artículo se buscaron y analizaron referencias a compensación ecológica en
1302 DIAs correspondientes a distintos proyectos. Se distinguió entre los documentos
que solamente hacían mención a la propuesta de medidas compensatorias, y los que
incluían una descripción de tales acciones. De esta manera se calculó la proporción de
casos en que se proponía la aplicación de compensación ecológica, obteniendo también
una indicación de la importancia que parece otorgarse a estas acciones en base al nivel de
detalle con que se describen en el documento final de la EIA (la DIA).
La revisión reveló que la mayor parte de los documentos no incluían ni tan
siquiera referencias a compensación ecológica, algo que se registró también en revisiones
posteriores de DIAs de proyectos de carreteras (artículo V) y de proyectos costeros
(artículo III). Y de manera similar a lo observado en este primer artículo, no en todos los
4
La DIA es el documento público elaborado por la Administración competente en el que se resumen los
principales factores tenidos en cuenta para tomar la decisión sobre la viabilidad ambiental de un proyecto,
incluyendo las medidas necesarias para prevenir o contrarrestar sus efectos negativos. Por ser el documento
que justifica esta resolución final ante el público, la DIA refleja las prioridades establecidas por la
Administración, constituyendo así un indicador fiable del papel que se atribuye a la compensación ecológica
dentro del proceso de la EIA.
- 27 -
Compensación ecológica en España
casos en que se mencionaba la compensación se describían las acciones concretas. Sin
embargo, las medidas preventivas y correctoras no sólo aparecían mencionadas, sino que
además eran descritas en casi todos los documentos revisados.
Estos datos confirman la intuición que motivó la investigación presentada en este
primer artículo, y refuerzan la conclusión apuntada en él de que la compensación
ecológica es actualmente una práctica poco extendida en España en el marco de la EIA, y
que, generalmente, no recibe la misma atención que las medidas preventivas y
correctoras. Si se ha desarrollado una “cultura de la corrección”, falta por desarrollar una
“cultura de la compensación”. Como se ha indicado en la introducción, el logro de
objetivos de no pérdida neta en cuanto al medio natural o semi-natural pasa por la
aplicación completa de la secuencia de mitigación. Si no se otorga la misma importancia a
todos los pasos de esta secuencia, la neutralización total de los impactos no es posible, y
al menos una parte del daño permanece en el medio.
Esta baja aplicación de medidas compensatorias, que contrasta con los datos
registrados para prevención y corrección de impactos, puede tener su origen en distintos
puntos. Los capítulos II y III tratan de arrojar algo de luz sobre esta cuestión a través del
estudio de dos casos concretos.
- 28 -
Compensación ecológica en España
ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION
ASSESSMENT IN SPAIN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA Y EVALUACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL EN ESPAÑA
ABSTRACT
To achieve meaningful sustainable development, Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) should avoid the net losses in the environment resource
base. But EIA practice does not always avoid the losses caused by the
implementation of the projects under EIA regulation. Some environmental
impacts are, simply, admitted, even without enforcing any form of
compensation. When applied, compensation is sometimes just a monetary
payment to offset the environmental loss.
This paper looks for evidence on the role that compensation is given
at present in EIA practice in Spain, and for some of its conceptual and
regulatory roots. Specifically, it explores how compensation is addressed in
1302 records of decision (RODs) on those projects subject to the Spanish
EIA regulation published during the years 2006 and 2007, to know how far
Spain is from preserving the environmental resource base managed through
this particular aspect of EIA practice.
As a result, it is concluded that the practice of ecological
compensation in EIA in Spain is much lower than it could be expected in a
theoretical sustainability context committed to avoid net losses in the
environment resource base, mainly due to an EIA practice focused on on-site
mitigation that allows these net losses.
KEYWORDS: EIA; sustainability; Records of Decision.
RESUMEN
Para promover un desarrollo más sostenible, la Evaluación de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA) debería evitar pérdidas netas de recursos ambientales. Pero
la práctica de la EIA no siempre evita las pérdidas causadas por la
implementación de proyectos sujetos a este procedimiento. Algunos impactos
ambientales son, simplemente, admitidos, incluso sin exigir ningún tipo de
compensación a cambio. Y cuando se aplica, con frecuencia la compensación
se limita a un pago monetario.
Este artículo estudia el papel que actualmente se le da a la
compensación en la práctica de la EIA en España, explorando al mismo
tiempo algunas de sus raíces conceptuales y legales. De forma más específica,
se evalúa cómo se aborda la compensación en 1302 Declaraciones de
Impacto Ambiental (DIAs) correspondientes a proyectos sujetos a la
legislación de EIA en España, publicadas durante los años 2006 y 2007, para
estimar hasta qué punto esta práctica se utiliza para preservar los recursos
ambientales en este país.
- 29 -
Compensación ecológica en España
Los resultados obtenidos muestran que la práctica de la compensación
ecológica en España es mucho más baja de lo que sería esperable en un
contexto teórico de sostenibilidad en el que primase el objetivo de evitar
pérdidas netas de recursos ambientales, principalmente debido a una práctica
de la EIA enfocada hacia la corrección de impactos, que permite este tipo de
pérdidas.
PALABRAS CLAVE: EIA; sostenibilidad; Declaración de Impacto
Ambiental.
1. INTRODUCTION
The interest in effective means of protecting environmental values is growing
wherever human developments increase environmental degradation. Land use changes
such as urbanization or road development, for example, usually reduce the value of the
landscapes and habitats they occupy, by altering some of the functions of these
environmental assets (Hueting, 1974 in Kuiper, 1997). All this happens even as the new
developments are implemented, under the control of Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), intended “to promote development that is sustainable and optimizes resource use
and management opportunities” (IAIA and Institute of Environmental Assessment of UK,
1999).
Most of the projects under EIA regulation result eventually in an onsite net
depletion of the natural resource base, even after all the possible mitigating measures are
implemented. The impacts of new roads, dams, railways or urban developments cannot
be completely reversed on-site. They may be accepted by decision makers, when EIA
practice is understood so that it should reduce the environmental disbenefits of projects
and render them more sustainable (Wood, 2003). This prevalent understanding of EIA
may be inevitable, even the only option at hand, in certain EIA decision-making contexts,
countries or periods. As a result, the sustainability of landscapes is not ensured just
because the projects implemented in them undergo thorough EIA processes. Should EIA
be understood or carried out differently?
Compensation has been put forward in EIA practice as a tool to keep whole the
natural value of landscapes. It may not be sufficient, a straightforward way of delivering
sustainable development. But, it is increasingly perceived as necessary to attain
sustainability. The role of compensation in EIA is a subject for debate (Section 2). Yet,
- 30 -
Compensación ecológica en España
improved levels of sustainability could be achieved through the improvement of
compensation in EIA practice.
This paper looks for evidence on the role that compensation is given at present
in EIA practice in Spain, and for some of its conceptual and regulatory roots. Specifically, it
explores how compensation is addressed in the records of decision (ROD) produced by
EIA practice, and how far Spain is from preserving the environmental resource base
managed through this particular aspect of EIA practice. The answer to these questions
may cast light on the degree of sustainability attributable to each development project
implemented under EIA regulation, and on the sustainability of the habitats and landscapes
in the long run.
Section 2 overviews briefly the role of compensation in EIA. Section 3 addresses
how compensation is regulated in Spain. In Section 4, 1302 records of decision (RODs)
publicized during the years 2006 and 2007 on those projects subject to the Spanish EIA
regulation are analyzed, regarding some particular aspects of compensation practice.
Finally (Section 5) conclusions are drawn on how compensation practice is working in
Spain at present within EIA frameworks, and suggestions are made for the future.
2. THE ROLE OF COMPENSATION PRACTICE IN EIA
Environmental compensation has been put forward as a tool to prevent the net
loss of environmental values within EIA frameworks. Since the 1970s, many countries have
given a growing role to environmental compensation in decision-making processes on
land use (i.e. Rundcrantz and Skärbäck, 2003; Wilding and Raemaekers, 2000a,b). It has
been linked to the concept of natural capital, and proposed as a means to achieve
sustainability. But it remains discussed to what extent the erosion of environmental values
may possibly be restored or reversed by environmental compensation (Cowell, 1997).
Moreover, the very meanings of “natural capital” and “environmental compensation”, and
their efficiency in protecting environmental values or the environmental resource base, are
still open to discussion, either within EIA procedures (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders,
2007) or in other decision-making contexts. What is the meaning of “environmental”
compensation? To what extent is it possible to distinguish “natural” values from the
“human-made” or cultural ones in each environment? Is it “natural capital” a good tool to
- 31 -
Compensación ecológica en España
take care of environmental values? How can we maintain natural capital if environments
are repositories of plural and incommensurable values (Cowell, 1997)?
Some clarifying conceptualizations on how to understand and make good use of
compensation practices in EIA contexts have been developed. For instance, it has been
argued that sound compensation practice should adhere to the mitigation sequence of
avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce and then utilize offsets or compensation as a last resort,
assuming that the acceptability and manageability of impacts have to be considered before
offsets are brought into the equation. Complementarily, a hierarchy of approaches has
been identified within the concept of compensation itself, where the preferred order of
methods would be restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation. Even the net
environmental gain, through compensation, of every implemented project has been put
forward as a goal for EIA practice. Multiple other issues involved in compensation practice
might be brought to discussion, as the concept of “like for like” compensation, the
difficulties in the valuation of lost biodiversity, the time lags between project impact and
offset deliverance, and the gap between the real and intended environmental outcomes
resulting from practice, among others (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007). The scope
for potential research in compensation is very broad.
The avoidance of net losses in the environment resource base seems
inescapable to achieve meaningful sustainability in EIA contexts. Environmental
compensation should offset the environmental impact of human developments by
avoiding a net loss in the environment resource base, and not by paying for its depletion.
We use the term “ecological compensation” rather than “environmental compensation”
to stress this option, as the latter is used sometimes to refer to situations when the
depletion of the environment resource base has been compensated through payments.
Ecological compensation has been defined as the substitution of ecological functions or
qualities that are impaired by development (Cuperus et al., 1996 in Cuperus et al., 1999).
By using this term we intend to reject the idea that “natural capital” can be paid for in
compensation for its loss, or be readily substituted by “human-made capital” during a
sustainable EIA practice.
As Rundcrantz and Skärbäck (2003) have stated, the term ‘ecological
compensation’ is not used in the same way in all countries. In this paper, ecological
compensation will be understood as the set of measures carried out to substitute the
habitats, ecological values and functions that remain definitively damaged or lost, even
- 32 -
Compensación ecológica en España
after the measures to reverse the damage caused by a given infrastructure have been
implemented. Compensation may range from the ecological improvement of damaged
areas to the creation of entirely new habitats, generally the same as or at least similar to
the lost ones. Following Cuperus et al. (2002), we distinguish between mitigation (those
measures minimizing, rectifying and reducing adverse impacts, and so tied to the
infrastructure causing them) and compensation (the replacement of natural habitat that
takes place generally elsewhere) as separate terms.
3. A REVIEW ON THE SPANISH REGULATION REGARDING COMPENSATION
Regulation is an important formal step to integrate and attain ecological
compensation in the decision-making process of projects with environmental side effects.
In the European Union, compensation measures have their regulatory basis mainly in
three Directives: the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC and
97/11/EC (European Union, 1985 and 1997), the Birds Directive, 79/409/EEC (European
Union, 1979) and the Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC (European Union, 1992) (Rundcrantz
and Skärbäck, 2003). Special pre-eminence is given in the EU to the integrity of the
Natura 2000 network, in order to preserve its overall coherence as a network of
protected land.
The EU Member States, such as Spain, have to comply with the EU Directives in
their own national regulations, and they retain the right to lay down stricter rules
regarding scope and procedure when assessing environmental effects. In Spain, two main
regulatory levels can be found: national regulation, which has a general scope and applies
to the whole of the national territory, and “autonomous” regulation, which applies to just
one of the 17 “autonomous regions” into which the country is divided, and usually
includes rules complementary to the national ones, which are frequently stricter.
Spanish national regulations do comply with the EU Directives. But, regarding
compensation, they do not go much further. No reference can be found, for example, on
how to define the extent of the areas where compensation should be applied, or the
detailed circumstances under which compensation measures should be carried out.
Nothing concrete is said on how to integrate environmental compensation in the decision
making processes, or on how to monitor compensation work and its efficiency, etc.
- 33 -
Compensación ecológica en España
The term “compensation” does appear in regulations derived from EU
Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), nature conservation and other
similar fields. EIA regulation establishes that the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
must include the prevention, mitigation and/or compensation measures to be carried out
when a project is finally implemented (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo, 1988;
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2008). But not even a definition for “compensation” is
provided in any of these laws.
The autonomous regulation, on the other hand, has to comply with the national
one. But in some of the regions, stricter regulations can be found. They are in force only
in the autonomous region that promulgates each regulation. Some of the 17 so-called
“autonomous regions” in Spain have passed regulatory provisions to foster the practice of
compensation. Law 7/2007 in the autonomous region of Andalucía (Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía, 2007), i.e., empowers the competent authority to enforce
compensation when the damage caused to the natural values cannot be reversed in the
affected place. It also allows the developer to pay a fine, which will be used for carrying
out compensating measures. In the region of Aragón, Order of 4th April 2006 establishes
the obligation to implement measures to compensate for environmental damage in
potential wind farm areas that are ecologically sensitive. Law 11/2006 in the Balearic
Islands (Comunidad Autónoma de las Illes Balears, 2006) forces developers to carry out
ecological compensation, both in protected and in non-protected areas. Autonomous law
in the region of Extremadura establishes the duty to compensate for measures taken to
prevent bird nesting on power line infrastructures (Consejería de Economía y Trabajo de
Extremadura, 2004). In the autonomous region of Navarra a reduction in forested land
must be compensated by a reforestation area equivalent to the one lost (Comunidad
Foral de Navarra, 1990).
Other autonomous laws indicate the contents on compensation measures that
must be specified in the EIS, such as maps (Departamento de Ordenación del Territorio y
Medio Ambiente del País Vasco, 2003), or the budget and implementation schedule to be
followed (Presidència de la Generalitat de Catalunya, 1988; Comunidad Autónoma de
Madrid, 2002). The design of compensation measures in the Environmental Statement in
the region of Aragón (Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón, 2006) must include the
indicators to monitor their implementation and effectiveness. Decree 93/2006 in Navarra
(Comunidad Foral de Navarra, 2006) enforces the Environmental Statement to specify
- 34 -
Compensación ecológica en España
the exact amount of the deposit to be paid by the developer to provide for the
implementation of the compensatory measures to be carried out in the project.
4. A REVIEW OF THE PUBLIC EIA RECORDS OF DECISIONS (RODS) IN SPAIN
The regulatory framework is important or even necessary to promote
compensation practices, but it does not give an account of their actual implementation.
The understanding of the meaning and efficiency of the letter of regulation requires of
data on its implementation. Of the multiple questions that could be inquired regarding
compensation in EIA, the focus in this paper is on whether compensation is addressed in
EIA RODs in Spain every time it should be to prevent a net loss in the environment
resource base. To answer this question 1302 records of decision (RODs) from the EIA
procedure of projects ranging from January 1st 2006 to December 31st 2007 have been
studied.
A ROD is the publicly available document where the approving agency presents
the main factors that were contemplated to reach the final decision on every project,
including the practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. The RODs in
Spain contain an account of the EISs prepared during the EIA procedure. As the
document justifying to the public the final resolution adopted on project implementation,
it reflects the priorities set down by each environmental authority, and provides a solid
indication of the role that they give to compensation.
A total of 1088 of the RODs selected belong to “nonlinear” projects or
infrastructures (like farms, quarries or dams), 27 to rail infrastructures, and 187 to roads.
The RODs of six autonomous regions and cities have had to be excluded from the
review (Andalucía, Baleares, Ceuta, Madrid, Melilla and Valencia), because it was not
possible to access the information required to conduct the study.
The 1302 RODs belong to a variety of project types. None of the 2006 and
2007 RODs concerning “linear projects” (roads or railways) was left out of the sample.
The impossibility to reverse on-site the environmental impacts of roads and railways built
on environmentally valuable land is self-evident. This is the main reason why these
projects have been given separated attention. Noise, habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation have been frequently quoted as some of the most important road and
railway environmental impacts (Forman and Alexander, 1998; Forman et al., 2003). They
- 35 -
Compensación ecológica en España
may be minimized at best, but never completely avoided. As a consequence, sustainable
EIA practice regarding the approval of any of these projects should make provisions for
compensation practice, to avoid a net loss in the environmental resource base. Habitat
loss may be compensated by transforming an off-site degraded area into a habitat
comparable to the lost one. Fragmentation, as any other functional aspect of habitats, is
more difficult to tackle with seemingly, and it may demand not only off-site but also “outof-kind” compensation (Rundcrantz and Skärbäck, 2003). In most countries road projects
have become main projects where ecological compensation is applied (i.e. Cuperus et al.,
1999; Rundcrantz, 2006).
As to the nonlinear project types, a maximum of 10 projects (five per year,
when possible) were selected randomly for each kind of project in each region (e.g. only
ten farm projects, five from 2006 and five from 2007, were revised in the autonomous
region of Aragón). Once the 1302 RODs had been selected, a search for any references
or terms related to environmental compensation was conducted. As a result, the project
RODs were classified into three categories, as regards compensation practices:
‐
No compensation measures (“No CM” category): including those projects whose
RODs do not even mention environmental compensation.
‐
Unspecified compensation measures (“Unspecified CM” category): including those
projects whose RODs do mention compensation measures, but do not describe
them at all.
‐
Specific compensation measures (“Specific CM” category): including those projects
whose RODs specify and describe the compensation measures to be carried out
as part of the project implementation.
4.1. MAIN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It was found that only 407 out of the 1302 RODs reviewed (31%) mention
environmental compensation, and only 117 of these (9% of the total) describe the
compensatory measures to be carried out (Fig. 1). This ratio is maintained within the
subgroup of nonlinear projects. The results for linear infrastructures can be seen in Figs. 2
and 3. The importance of all these data grows when compared with mitigation practice
data: almost 100% of the RODs make provisions for mitigation. Data from road and
railway RODs, which are projects with self-evident and unavoidable residual impacts,
- 36 -
Compensación ecológica en España
stress that the lack of reference to compensation practice in these RODs is not due to a
sustainable implementation of these projects, but to an understanding of EIA that allows a
net loss of the environment resource base.
9%
26%
22%
No CM
No CM
Unspecified
Unspecified
Specific CM
Specific CM
69%
74%
Fig. 1. Results of the review of the RODs. 22% of the RODs
Fig. 2. Results of the review of railway project RODs. No
(290 out of 1302) mention but not describe compensation
RODs with specific compensation measures were found for
measures, while an extra 9% more (117 out of 1302)
railway infrastructure projects, while 26% (7 out of a total 27)
describe them.
of these records mention environmental compensation.
13%
No CM
Unspecified
28%
Specific CM
59%
Fig. 3. Results of the review of road projects RODs. 28% of reviewed RODs
(52 out of 187) just mention environmental compensation, while an extra
13% more (24 out of 187) also describe compensation measures (adding up
to a total of 76 records out of 187, a 41% of the total RODs).
The proportion of projects belonging to each of the three categories above
mentioned (‘No CM’, ‘Unspecified CM’, and ‘Specific CM’) varies from one autonomous
region to another. Unexpectedly, this variation is not always in keeping with the degree of
development of the regulatory framework regarding compensation practice in every
region. Law 6/ 2002 in the autonomous region of Canarias (Comunidad Autónoma de
Canarias, 2002) is a demanding one as compared to other regulations. But only one of
the ten RODs reviewed for this region mentions environmental compensation, and it
does not describe the specific measures to be implemented. This does not seem a
demanding approach to compensation practice, particularly if we remember that
alternatively almost 100% of the RODs make provisions for mitigation.
- 37 -
Compensación ecológica en España
It has been noticed also that there is no homogeneity or standardization in the
way environmental compensation is dealt with in the RODs. Given a year, type of project
and region, some RODs have been found that describe compensation measures
specifically, while others belonging to the same year, type of project and region and that
should seemingly make provisions for compensation, for no apparent reason, do not even
mention this practice.
4.2. COMPENSATION MEASURES IN ROAD PROJECTS
Compensation practices regarding road projects were studied intentionally in
more detail to identify future areas of research on compensation within EIA. Specifically,
the 24 RODs on road projects describing to any extent the compensation measures to
be implemented were reviewed. The specific measures are shown in Table 1, as they
appear in the RODs. This table also indicates the kind of natural features to provide
compensation for, as specified in each ROD.
An initial review of the cases summarized in the table shows that the terms
“compensatory” and “compensation” are used occasionally in the RODs in a confusing
way, even to refer to measures that should rather be labelled as “mitigating” or
“mitigation”.
Compensation measures are described in the RODs quite heterogeneously.
Their description varies in detail from one ROD to another. These descriptions do not
seem to follow any common pattern in their design. For example, in some projects the
compensatory measure “reforestation” appears only mentioned as ‘compensatory
reforestation’, with no further specification (see Table 1, Navarra NA-178 road). Other
RODs specify the proportion of the area to be reforested and the species to be used
(see Table 1, Castilla la Mancha CM-4106 road).
The way compensation is implemented varies from one region to the other, and
also within the same region (e.g. Table 1 Castilla la Mancha, Alovera—Azuqueca road and
CU-9161 road: they compensate the damage to an SPA by reforesting in different
proportions). As a result, similar impacts may be compensated to different degrees.
- 38 -
Competent
Authority
Central Government
Roads
Natural feature to provide compensation for
Compensation measures in the ROD
A-11 motorway, Aranda
del Duero west bypass Valladolid
A-66 motorway, Benavente
- Zamora
Woodland and shrubland
Replacement of woodland and shrubland removed by the road construction
Mediterranean temporary ponds habitat (Habitat Type nº
3170, Council Directive 92/43/EEC)
ES0000207 SPA (Special Protection Area)
Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus)
Replacement of an area equivalent to 100% of the damaged Mediterranean temporary ponds habitat
area
Replacement of an extension equivalent to 50% of the SPA damaged area.
Payments to keep temporarily unharvested some selected Montagu’s harrier breeding areas of cereal
crops.
Improvement of a 5km-long stretch of riparian vegetation alongside Purón river.
Promote a fern restoration programme in “Sierra Plana de la Borbolla” SCI .
Develop an exotic species eradication programme, focused mainly in Eucalyptus globulus.
A-32 motorway, Linares Albacete
A-8 motorway, Unquera Llanes
N-232 road, Agoncillo Logroño
N-435 bypass, Beas —
Trigueros
N-I bypass, M-40 — Molar
Cantabria
autonomous region
Castilla y León
autonomous region
Castilla la Mancha
autonomous region
ES1200034 “Purón river” SCI (Site of Community Interest)
“Sierra plana de la Borbolla” SCI
“Ribadesella-Tina Mayor” SCI, and ES0000319 SPA (Special
Protection Area)
Riverbank
Green corridor
Streams
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardina)
Improvement of the nearby green corridor already built on a former railway. Removal of abandoned
road stretches, and revegetation.
Vegetation replacement. The new planted area has to have an extension equivalent to at least four times
that of the affected SCI area.
Restoration of degraded riverside areas. Shutdown of a nearby scrapyard, and of several unauthorized
dump areas.
Woodland and shrubland replacement and handover of an area equal to twice the piece of land
expropriated from the “Arroyadas” estate, crossed by the new road. Apply forest management
techniques to minimize the induced fire risk alongside the road.
Rare vegetation replacement. The newly planted area has to have an extension equal to at least three
times the damaged SCI area.
Riparian vegetation improvement alongside twice the length of the damaged stream stretch.
Rabbit habitat improvement (main prey species to Iberian lynx)
ES0000167 SPA
Riverbanks and riparian vegetation
Replacement of an area of riparian forest equivalent to the lost one.
Riverbank cleaning. Riparian vegetation improvement on the riversides close to the damaged area.
SCI ES3110001 and ES3110003 vegetation
Pisueña river lane
Riverside areas
CL-600 road to Boecillo
Woodland and shrubland
A-5 (N-V) — A-4 (N-IV)
main road
ES4250009 SCI
CM-3216 road, AlcarazVianos
Alovera-Azuqueca road
A-45 road, access to BegNerpio
Riverbank improvement, from the river crossing point by the road, to the confluence with the Ebro river.
Table 1 (I) Compensation measures for road projects as described in the reviewed RODs.
Competent
Authority
Roads
Natural feature to provide compensation for
Compensation measures in the ROD
Guadalajara — A-3 main
road
Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni)
‘Vulnerable’ and ‘particular attention’ bird species,
Woodland and shrubland
Restoration of damaged Lesser Kestrel nests, and construction of new ones.
Leguminous plantations to compensate for the steppe avifauna habitat alteration.
Vegetation replacement. The newly planted shrubland and woodland has to have an extension equivalent
to four times that of the damaged area.
Riparian forest restoration of an area alongside the river twice as long as the damaged riverbank area.
Restoration and cleaning of the Holm Oak public interest forest.
Power line impact mitigation measures for avifauna.
Dump site reclamation, by planting the predominant oak and juniper species corresponding to the
habitat.
CM-5051 road, Nombela Pelahustán
Castilla la Mancha
autonomous region
Riverbanks, riparian forest
Public interest Holm Oak (Quercus ilex) forest
Avifauna
Habitat loss
CM-2023 road, PriegoAlbendea - Salmeroncillos
Woodland and shrubland
Reforestation. The planted forest has to have an extension equivalent to at least twice the area occupied
by the project.
CU-9161 road, CM-2106
junction — Puerto del
Cubillo
CM-4106 road, Sevilleja de
la Jara - Anchuras
Prospective SCI (ES4230014) and ES0000162 SPA
Revegetation. The planted area has to have an extension equivalent to at least three times the total SCI
and SPA damaged areas.
SPA and SCI ES4250013 and ES4220003, and critical area
for Black Stork (Ciconia nigra)
Puertollano bypass
Forest area (Habitat Type nº 9340 Quercus ilex and
Quercus rotundifolia forests, Council Directive 92/43/EEC)
Woodland and shrubland
Dump site reclamation (including planting of native vegetation; the environmental statement sets the
species to be used).
Reforestation of an area at least twice as large as the damaged non-protected forest area.
Revegetation. The planted area has to have an extension equivalent to at least three times the damaged
area. Native species have to be used.
Ponds have to be created alongside the road, mainly near wildlife crossings.
Riverbank reforestation with native species of crossing streams.
Old dump and extractive areas reclamation.
Plantation of ten native trees per each one that has to be cut down.
Plantation of ten native trees per each one that has to be cut down.
EX-A I motorway, Plasencia
- Portugal
Extremadura
autonomous region
Navarra
autonomous region
EX-A3 motorway, Zafra Jerez
N-121-A road, Bera de
Bidasoa - Endarlatsa
Woodland and shrubland. Riverbanks.
NA-134 road, Lodosa
bypass
NA-178 road, Puerto de
Iso
Woodland and shrubland (pine reforestation)
Substitution of non-native plantations by Alnus glutinosa forests.
Construction of an upstream fish passage.
Spawning area creation.
Plantation of three coniferous trees per cut-down tree
Vegetation
Reforestation
SCI ES2200014
Table 1 (II) Compensation measures for road projects as described in the reviewed RODs.
Compensación ecológica en España
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS
The practice of ecological compensation in EIA in Spain is much lower than it
could be expected in a theoretical sustainability context committed to avoid net losses in
the environment resource base. Less than one-third of the 1302 EIA RODs reviewed in
this paper make some reference to compensation measures, while almost 100% make
provisions for mitigation. These proportions are maintained within the subset of road and
railway projects, indicating that the absence of compensation provisions in the RODs
reviewed is not due to a sustainable implementation of the approved projects, but to an
EIA practice that allows a net loss in the environment resource base. This loss takes place
both in protected areas where EIA fails to provide mandatory ecological compensation
(as demanded by EU and national regulations), and in other areas where compensation is
optional from a regulatory point of view (so revealing potential deficiencies in the
underlying policy towards natural environments).
To make EIA in Spain a better tool towards sustainability such practice should
change, making of compensation a necessary (even though it is not sufficient) condition to
be integrated within every project approved through any EIA procedure generating
impacts that cannot be completely reversed on-site. If this change should be promoted
through changes in the Spanish and EU EIA regulations and policies, is an interesting
subject for debate and further research.
The practice of ecological compensation in EIA in Spain is not registered in the
RODs as a consistent aspect of EIA decision making. The term “compensation” is used
sometimes to refer to mitigation measures. On occasion, the measures are described
more as suggestions than as mandatory conditions attached to the project approval
decision. The description of the compensation measures to be implemented is rarely
found in the RODs as mitigation measures are, endangering a sound public participation in
EIA procedures. The way compensation is implemented varies from one region to the
other, and also within the same region, as similar impacts are compensated to different
degrees.
All these data suggest that the way compensation measures are addressed in the
RODs is not standardized. Although this seems a secondary question compared to the
low rate of compensation practice, it demands also attention. A guidance document on
- 41 -
Compensación ecológica en España
how to deal with compensation in EIA, focused on the consistent selection of
compensation measures for any project undergoing EIA could be helpful in this context.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We want to thank Prof. Jesper Persson for comments on earlier drafts of this
paper. The corresponding author is supported by a doctoral fellowship provided by the
Department of Science, Technology and Universities of the Government of the
Autonomous region of Aragón.
REFERENCES
Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, 2007. Ley 7/2007, de Gestión Integrada de la Calidad Ambiental.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/08/09/pdfs/A34118-34169.pdf (01/04/2008).
Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón, 2006. Ley 7/2006, de 22 de junio, de protección ambiental de Aragón.
http://www.boe.es/ccaa/boa/2006/081/d09819-09854.pdf (21/02/2008).
Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias, 2002. Ley 6/2002, de 12 de junio, sobre medidas de ordenación
territorial de la actividad turística en las islas de El Hierro, La Gomera y La Palma.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/08/06/pdfs/A29016-29021.pdf (22/04/2008).
Comunidad Autónoma de las Illes Balears, 2006. Ley 11/2006, de 14 de septiembre, de evaluaciones de
impacto ambiental y evaluaciones ambientales estratégicas en las Illes Balears.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/10/13/pdfs/A35382-35405.pdf (22/04/2008).
Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2002. Ley 2/2002, de 19 de junio, de Evaluación Ambiental de la
Comunidad
de
Madrid.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/07/24/pdfs/A27195-27220.pdf
(15/04/2008).
Comunidad Foral de Navarra, 1990. Ley Foral 13/1990, de 31 de diciembre, de protección y desarrollo del
Patrimonio Forestal de Navarra. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1991/03/22/pdfs/A09073-09080.pdf
(25/04/2008).
Comunidad Foral de Navarra, 2006. Decreto Foral 93/2006, de 28 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el
Reglamento de desarrollo de la Ley Foral 4/2005, de 22 de marzo, de Intervención para la
Protección Ambiental. http://www.lexnavarra.navarra.es/detalle.asp?r=5485 (26/02/2008).
Consejería de Economía y Trabajo de Extremadura, 2004. Decreto 47/2004, de 20 de abril, por el que se
dictan Normas de Carácter Técnico de adecuación de las líneas eléctricas para la protección del
medio ambiente en Extremadura. http://doe.juntaex.es/pdfs/doe/2004/480O/04040050.pdf
(31/03/2008).
Cowell R. Stretching the limits: environmental compensation, habitat creation and sustainable development.
Trasact Inst Br Geogr 1997;22(3):297—306.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated
with highways. Biol Conserv 1999;90:41—51.
Cuperus R, Kalsbeek M, Udo de Haes HA, Canters KJ. Preparation and implementation of seven ecological
compensation plans for Dutch highways. Environ Manag 2002;29(6):736—49, doi:10.1007/s00267001-2504-7.
Departamento de Ordenación del Territorio y Medio Ambiente del País Vasco, 2003. Decreto 183/2003,
de 22 de julio, por el que se regula el procedimiento de evaluación conjunta de impacto ambiental.
http://www.euskadi.net/cgi-bin_k54/bopv_20?c&f=20030904&a=200304936 (26/02/2008).
European Union, 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1979:103:0001:005:EN:HTML
(28/03/2008).
- 42 -
Compensación ecológica en España
European Union, 1985. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31985L0337:EN:HTML (31/03/2008).
European Union, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML (28/03/2008).
European Union, 1997. Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0011:EN:HTML (31/03/2008).
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 1998;29:207—31.
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, et al. Road ecology: science
and solutions. First ed. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact assessment:
practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2007;25(3):209—18.
IAIA & Institute of Environmental Assessment of UK. Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment best
practice; 1999. http://www.iaia.org/modx/assets/files/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf (15/05/2009).
Kuiper G. Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. Eur Environ
1997;7:118—25.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2008. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008, de 11 de enero, por el que se
aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2008/01/26/pdfs/A04986-05000.pdf (01/05/2009).
Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo, 1988. Real Decreto 1131/1988 de 30 de septiembre, por el que
se aprueba el Reglamento para la ejecución del Real Decreto Legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de
junio, de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1988/10/05/pdfs/A2891128916.pdf (23/04/2008).
Presidència de la Generalitat de Catalunya, 1988. Decreto 114/1988, de 7 de abril, de evaluación de
impacto ambiental. http://www.miliarium.com/Paginas/Leyes/eia/ccaa/Catalunya/decreto114-88.asp
(31/03/2008).
Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E. Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with
major emphasis on the German system. Eur Environ 2003;13:204—26, doi:10.1002/eet.324.
Rundcrantz K. Environmental compensation in Swedish road planning. Eur Environ 2006;16:350—67,
doi:10.1002/eet.429.
Wilding S, Raemaekers J. Environmental compensation for Greenfield development: is the devil in the detail?
Plan Pract Res 2000a;15(3):211—31.
Wilding S, Raemaekers J. Environmental compensation: can the British planning regime learn from Germany?
Plan Theory Pract 2000b;1(2):187—201.
Wood C. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. Second ed. Harlow: Pearson-Prentice
Hall; 2003.
- 43 -
CAPÍTULO II
LA DIFICULTAD DE IDENTIFICAR ALGUNOS IMPACTOS A
COMPENSAR
Villarroya A, Puig J.
Urban and industrial land-use changes alongside motorways within the
Pyrenean area of Navarre, Spain.
Aceptado en Environmental Engineering and Management Journal
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Pese a que en las DIAs de proyectos de carreteras y autopistas se detectó una
proporción de referencias a compensación ecológica algo mayor que en otros proyectos,
los datos para el período 2006-2010 (recogidos en los artículos I y V) revelan que en la
mayoría de los casos estas medidas no son ni siquiera mencionadas.
Estos datos contrastan con el hecho de que la construcción y uso de vías de
transporte originan diversos impactos residuales en el entorno (ver Introducción), de cuya
compensación depende el logro de los objetivos de no pérdida neta o ganancia neta.
Algunos ejemplos comunes de estos efectos sobre la calidad ecológica del medio son la
pérdida de superficie natural, la fragmentación de hábitats, la mortalidad de fauna por
atropellos, la emisión de elementos y partículas contaminantes, y la afección a poblaciones
animales por los ruidos del tráfico (Forman & Alexander, 1998; Spellerberg, 1998; Forman
et al., 2003).
Aparte de estos impactos, cuya identificación y evaluación han sido (y son)
bastante estudiadas, existen otros efectos de las carreteras y autopistas sobre el entorno
que todavía no son bien conocidos. La compensación de tales efectos en su totalidad es,
por tanto, inabordable, puesto que no es posible siquiera estimar la pérdida de calidad
natural que suponen para el medio. Uno de los ejemplos escogidos para este trabajo es el
crecimiento urbano en torno a vías de comunicación. Entre los múltiples factores que
pueden influir en este fenómeno se encuentra la construcción y mejora de carreteras y
autopistas, pero el alcance y naturaleza concreta de la parte que se debe a estas
infraestructuras son todavía poco conocidos.
El artículo II se desarrolla en torno a este tema a través del caso de tres autopistas
construidas en la misma región (Navarra) pero en distintos entornos (zona montañosa
escarpada, zona montañosa de valles amplios y área no montañosa). Partiendo de la
premisa de que cuando el crecimiento urbano se da en entornos naturales o
seminaturales, le sigue por lo general una pérdida de calidad ecológica, el estudio compara
la evolución del crecimiento urbano alrededor de las tres vías, para buscar datos que
permitan conocer algo mejor cómo puede ser la influencia de estas infraestructuras sobre
la inducción de este fenómeno.
Como se deriva de este trabajo, y como indica la bibliografía existente en torno al
tema, es difícil establecer una relación causal entre mejora de vías de comunicación y
crecimiento urbano, así como discernir qué influencia tiene cada uno de los factores que
afecta a este último. De acuerdo con la bibliografía, también existe una influencia de la
- 45 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
distribución y características de las zonas urbanas sobre la demanda y patrones de uso de
carreteras y autopistas (e.g. Badoe & Miller, 2000), lo que añade otra dificultad al estudio
del fenómeno: la red de centros urbanos “requiere” de nuevas infraestructuras que los
enlacen.
En el contexto en que se desarrolla la tesis este artículo permite un acercamiento,
desde el caso concreto de las vías de transporte, a la complejidad de la identificación y
evaluación de impactos, en este caso inducidos. Aparte de las conclusiones específicas
que se puedan derivar de él, este artículo permite explorar la dificultad de atribuir algunos
de los impactos residuales a un proyecto concreto y, por tanto, de decidir las medidas
compensatorias que le corresponderían. Mientras ciertos efectos son fácilmente
perceptibles y hasta cierto punto mensurables (pérdida de superficie natural, emisión de
contaminantes…), y atribuibles en exclusiva a la construcción y funcionamiento de la
carretera, otros siguen planteando incógnitas respecto a sus causas que por ahora hacen
casi imposible su evaluación. En base a esto se podría pensar que el impacto real de un
proyecto viario sobre el medio natural posiblemente sea mayor que el que podamos
atribuirle sin discusiones, puesto que puede haber efectos difíciles de asignar en exclusiva,
de abordar o incluso de detectar. Ante esto, la necesidad de compensar al menos los
impactos que conocemos como provocados exclusivamente por el proyecto en cuestión
en cada caso se ve reforzada, puesto que las pérdidas de calidad ecológica que pueden
causar aquellos que escapan a nuestro conocimiento aumentan la brecha que hay que
salvar para lograr la no pérdida neta.
Puesto que el formato de artículo científico impone ciertas restricciones en
cuanto al número de tablas y figuras a incluir en un trabajo, aquellas que no han podido
ser recogidas en la publicación pero que pueden resultar de interés para la lectura se
adjuntan en el Anexo al final de este capítulo.
- 46 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
URBAN
AND INDUSTRIAL LAND-USE CHANGES ALONGSIDE
MOTORWAYS WITHIN THE PYRENEAN AREA OF NAVARRE, SPAIN
CAMBIOS A USOS DE SUELO URBANOS E INDUSTRIALES EN TORNO A AUTOVÍAS EN
EL ÁREA PIRENAICA DE NAVARRA (ESPAÑA)
ABSTRACT
Road construction and improvement have long been studied as
precursors of new development. The environmental impact assessment (EIA)
of roads needs to gauge the phenomenon as long as possible, particularly
across mountainous areas, because new urban and industrial uses on these
valuable and fragile environments may cause significant impacts that should be
counteracted to preserve their environmental quality. The aim of this article is
to study and compare the occurrence of urban and industrial land-use
changes, their rate and their distribution, between 1998 and 2010 and along
two newly-built mountain motorways in Navarre (Spain), as a way to
approximate the induction phenomenon.
First, urban and industrial land-use changes have been identified,
registered and mapped alongside each motorway. From these data, the
maximum induction rate has been directly obtained, by hypothetically
assuming that all of the new developments that took place alongside a route
over a period of time had been induced by the newly-built motorway. This
rate may be valuable in future environmental impact assessment scenarios.
Land-use change data have been also set against the distance of the
new developments to the motorway, the distribution of formerly existing
urban and industrial settlements, and the steepness of the terrain, in order to
make a preliminary approximation to how these factors may intervene in land
use change processes around the studied motorways.
KEYWORDS: Environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental
management, induced impact, land-use change, Pyrenees, road impact.
RESUMEN
Desde hace algún tiempo, distintos estudios analizan el papel de los
proyectos de construcción y mejora de carreteras como precursores del
desarrollo urbano. La Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de estos proyectos
debe ser capaz de estimar el alcance de este fenómeno en la medida de lo
posible y especialmente en áreas montañosas, puesto que éstas son
particularmente sensibles a los impactos que estos cambios de usos de suelo
pueden ocasionar y que deben ser contrarrestados para preservar la calidad
ecológica del entorno. El objetivo de este artículo es estudiar y comparar los
datos acerca de la magnitud y la tasa de cambio a usos urbanos e industriales
entre 1998 y 2010 en los alrededores de dos autopistas localizadas en áreas
montañosas de Navarra (España), para obtener indicios sobre este hipotético
fenómeno de inducción.
- 47 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
En primer lugar, se identifican, registran y delimitan los cambios a usos
urbanos e industriales en las zonas próximas a cada autopista. A partir de
estos datos se calcula la tasa de inducción máxima, que asume
hipotéticamente que la construcción de una nueva vía es la única causa del
desarrollo que tiene lugar durante un cierto periodo en torno a la misma. Esta
tasa se propone como una herramienta útil de cara a futuras evaluaciones de
impacto en proyectos de similares características.
Los datos recogidos se analizan también en relación a la distancia a la
vía, la distribución de los asentamientos preexistentes y la pendiente del
terreno, para explorar la posible influencia de estos factores en los procesos
de cambio de uso de suelo alrededor de las autopistas estudiadas.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA); gestión
ambiental; impacto inducido; cambio de uso de suelo; Pirineos; impactos de
carreteras.
1. INTRODUCTION
Do newly developed motorways induce urban and industrial land-use changes
alongside their route after their completion? And, if so, at what a rate they do it, and what
environmental variables are involved, particularly in mountain areas? These questions are
of high interest, among others, for those involved in assessing the indirect impact of roads,
particularly across valuable and sensitive environments, wherein significant impacts should
be either avoided or compensated.
It is common believe that the construction and improvement of roads can be a
precursor of landscape change by stimulating new development (Bürgi et al., 2004; Riitters
and Wickham, 2003; Zenou and Patacchini, 2006). More specifically, it has been argued
that the construction of transportation facilities causes both direct and indirect impacts,
such as those resulting from land used for transportation infrastructures (direct impacts)
or those derived from the effects an improvement of transportation has on development
patterns (indirect impacts) (Litman, 1995). In fact, some authors consider urbanization to
be the last phase of road development (Angermeier et al., 2004). There is a strong link
between transportation and urban and industrial facilities, since accessibility is one of the
most important success factors for the development of urban, commercial and industrial
projects (Antrop, 2000). For this reason, investment in better accessibility through road
and highway improvement will influence where the growth occurs (Handy, 2005; Hansen,
1959).
- 48 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
In order to gauge the phenomenon of land-use change induction for impact
assessment purposes, the occurrence of land-use changes that had place after a given
road was completed should first be identified, registered and mapped alongside the route.
Once the occurrence of changes is confirmed, further research could focus on exploring
what environmental features may be associated with them. But even though declining
trends with the distance from motorways have been described for urban growth in some
places (Müller et al., 2010), we may find difficult or even impossible to isolate the
motorway as the leading causal factor of change. Many possible causes, apart from roads,
may converge in causing changes alongside certain routes (Lambin et al., 2001; Handy,
2005; Verburg et al., 2004). In addition, the methodological problems that arise when
designing a research for establishing causalities make this task even more difficult (Giuliano,
2004).
In any case, as long as cause-effect links remain unclear, landscape managers and
those involved in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) may keep the cause-effect
debate aside and still get valuable insight for impact assessment, by focusing on land-use
changes that have actually been verified after a given motorway has been built, over a
certain period. Once the actual land-use changes have been registered, the maximum
induction rate for a certain period may be directly obtained by hypothetically assuming
that all of the new land use changes of some specific sort that have occurred alongside a
route have been induced by the newly-built motorway.
Land-use changes to urban and industrial uses stand out as some of the most
significant impacts on the environmental value of natural and semi-natural areas (Dale et
al., 2000; Hansen et al., 2005; Kalnay and Cai, 2003; Meyer and Turner, 1992; Pielke et al.,
2002; Vitousek et al., 1997). At present, the constant growth of built areas (especially
urban areas) is a matter of major concern across many countries (Zenou and Patacchini,
2006). Consequently, the maximum induction rate of these uses by newly-built roads may
offer to environmental managers guidance in anticipating potential induced impacts for
future motorways, e.g. during EIA processes, which have been sometimes criticized for
ignoring such indirect impacts (Wheeler et al., 2005). In any case, even though data on
past changes are valuable, impact assessment professionals must bear in mind that past
potential induction data do not set strict rules on how the future will evolve, least of all
alongside different roads.
- 49 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
The assessment of potential urban and industrial induction may be of particular
interest for those motorways crossing ecologically sensitive zones, such as mountain areas.
These areas have significance not only for those living there, but also for people living
beyond (Schild, 2008), and they actually provide the life-support base for about 10% of
humankind (Jansky, 2000). Due partly to their low accessibility (Jodha, 1992), mountain
areas are frequently characterized by a high natural richness (Lynch and Maggio, 1997;
UNCED, 1992) and environmental vulnerability (Virginia, 2009; United Nations, 1992), for
example to the impacts caused by human developments. In fact, “access [and]
communications […] are very powerful agents of change, not only (but especially) in
mountain areas” (Kohler et al., 2004). In the Pyrenees, the development of transport
facilities has accelerated land-use change processes in the last years (Comín and MartínezRica, 2007). At the same time, improvements in accessibility to mountain areas also carry
positive outcomes for people living in those areas (Kohler et al., 2004). Consequently,
their inhabitants may alternatively fear or desire the potential land transformation that
might come with the development of a new motorway.
The primary aim of this article is to study and compare main urban and industrial
land-use change rates that had place between 1998 and 2010 alongside two newly-built
mountain motorways in Navarre, Spain, both completed in 1995. Land-use changes will
be identified, registered and mapped. The maximum induction rate will be obtained for
each of the studied motorways and is proposed as a good means of anticipating and
assessing what might be the extent of future road impacts. Complementarily, land-use
change data will be set against the distance of the new developments to the motorway,
the distribution of formerly existing urban and industrial settlements, and the steepness of
the terrain, in order to make a preliminary approximation to how these factors may
intervene in land use change processes around the studied motorways.
2. CASE STUDY
2.1.
STUDY AREA
A-10 and A-15 motorways cross the mountainous area of northwest Navarre,
between the westernmost side of the Pyrenees and the Basque Mountains. AP-15
motorway, completed in 1980 (see Figure 1) has been also selected to serve as a
counterpoint to the A-10 and A-15 features and surroundings, in search of a sounder
- 50 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
interpretation of data from the motorways completed in 1995. Forests across the area
crossed by A-10 and A-15 motorways consist mainly of beech (Fagus silvatica), with
common oaks (Quercus robur) in the valleys and white oaks (Quercus humilis) on the
sunniest slopes. A-10 runs along the flat bottom of a wide valley surrounded by steep
mountain sides, and A-15 across a rugged topography. Figure 1d shows the different
orography for A-10 and A-15. Conversely, the AP-15 motorway runs along the
Mediterranean area of Navarre, dominated by crops, and holm oak (Quercus ilex) and
Kermes oak (Quercus coccifera) forests and shrublands. The frequency of exits from and
entrances to this motorway is much lower than for the A-10 and A-15 motorways (see
Figure 1c).
A-10 and A-15 motorways have been studied from nearby the town of Irurtzun
to the Navarre border, completing 30 and 28 km-long stretches, respectively. A small
portion of the A-15 watershed close to Irurtzun has been excluded because of its
topographical continuity with A-10 watershed (see Figure 3). Beyond this excluded area,
the A-15 and A-10 stretches run along sharply divided neighboring watersheds. The AP15 stretch under study starts near the town of Tiebas, in order to make the three areas
under study equally distant to Pamplona, by far the biggest city in Navarra. The AP-15
stretch is 42 km-long because a 30 km-long stretch would end far away from any of the
exits of the motorway, making the stretch much shorter.
- 51 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Fig. 1. A and B: location of the studied areas. C: topography surrounding AP-15 motorway, and exit
locations along the studied stretch. D: Main mountainous formations in the A-10 and A-15 study areas, and
motorway exits within each stretch.
Fig. 2. a. Landscape surrounding A-10 motorway. b. Landscape surrounding A-15 motorway. Photos: Luis
Sanz Azcárate.
- 52 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Fig. 3. Delimitation of the study areas for A-10 and A-15 motorways, and delimitation of proximity classes
within A-15 motorway study area.
The extent of the impact of a road alongside its route may vary with the
environmental factor under study in each case. Impact area has been said to reach from
the 100 m closest to the edge of the road to even some kilometers from it, when dealing
with such impacts as noise and its effects on animal populations, pollution on aquatic
ecosystems, or invasive species dispersal. (e.g.: Forman and Alexander, 1998; Forman et
al., 2003).
The extent to which a motorway may induce land-use changes alongside its
route remains unclear. In this study, we have looked for them up to a maximum of 10 km
away from each motorway exit, provided the respective areas so delimited for each of
the motorways did not overlap. To avoid overlapping, the sharp topographical divide
between the A-10 and A-15 neighbouring watersheds has been taken as a limit of each of
the motorway’s potential area of influence over industrial and urban land-use change.
Regarding AP-15, no overlap limited the 10 km-wide band along each side of the
motorway. Data have been retrieved from the IDENA regional government geographic
database.
- 53 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
2.2.
METHODOLOGY
ArcGIS 9.1 (ESRI) was employed to identify, register, map and eventually
compare the urban and industrial settlements across the study area in 1998 and 2010.
Urban and industrial land units occurring within 10 km from any exit/entrance motorway
junction were delimited. The land-use classification followed the criteria set by the
CORINE Land Cover database, a component of the CORINE (Co-ordination of
Information on the Environment) Program, proposed in 1985 by the European
Commission, and amply used in scientific literature (Müller et al., 2010; Zenou and
Patacchini, 2006).
Thus, urban land uses correspond to CORINE land cover class 1.1 (urban
fabric), and industrial/commercial land uses correspond to class 1.2 (industrial, commercial
and transport units) (Bossard et al., 2000). Instead of using available CORINE maps, these
were newly drawn using orthophotographs provided by the regional government of
Navarra (Gobierno de Navarra, n.d.), in order to work at a suitable scale. This work of
mapping was executed at a 1:5000 scale.
Each of the mapped urban and industrial units was assigned to a “proximity class
to the motorway”, ranging from the “0 to 1 km”, to the “9 to 10 km” proximity classes.
Distances were not calculated to the motorway route, but to its accesses, since this was
considered a more realistic approach. Thus, distance classes were built around the road as
buffers using ArcMap, taking motorway exits and entrances as their central points.
Following the criteria set by Müller et al. (2010) an exit and an entrance to the motorway
separated by less than 1 km were considered together as a sole exit/entrance point.
Whenever homogeneous distance classes, or buffers, of neighboring junctions intersected,
they were combined using the ArcMap “Merge” tool, in order to make sure that every
unit was assigned just once to a proximity class, and to the distance class closest to the
motorway (see Figure 3).
Finally, the total surface of urban and industrial uses alongside each of the
motorways for every proximity class was calculated for 1998 and 2010. Land-use change
data so obtained were set against the distribution of formerly existing urban and industrial
areas, and the steepness of the terrain. On one hand, as Antrop (2000) stated, not only
road accesses but also central places are considered as the ‘initiators’ of urbanization
processes in the countryside, a phenomenon already registered in other studies (Verburg
- 54 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
et al., 2004; Müller et al., 2010). On the other hand, not all of the area within 10 km of
the motorway junctions is suitable for urban and industrial developments, due to the
steepness of the mountain sides. Müller et al. (2010) consider that those slopes steeper
than 15% are not suitable for new industrial and urban developments. As available land is
a prerequisite of new construction, induced changes to urban and industrial land-uses are
more likely to occur in areas with vacant land that is physically suitable for this kind of
development (Giuliano, 2004). Since induced urban and industrial land-use changes
happen mainly on lower inclines, we choose to relate maximum induction rates to the
area under 20% incline, not taking into account the area represented by steeper terrain.
3. RESULTS
While delimiting the new urban and industrial areas on the map, we realized
that, from 1998 to 2010, urban and industrial growth alongside the studied A-10, A-15
and AP-15 stretches occurred only adjacent to already existing settlements. No new
settlement was developed during this time period. Figure 4 shows the total area of land
(in hectares) that changed into urban and industrial uses around each of the motorways,
and within each of the ten proximity classes.
Fig. 4. Total area of land that changed into urban and industrial uses.
Industrial and urban growth around the mountain motorways, A-10 and A-15,
clusters within the three first proximity classes. This is not the case for AP-15, where no
apparent link can be found between land use change total area, and distance class to the
road.
- 55 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Urban and industrial land use change around AP-15 is notably higher than for
any of the other motorways in almost all of the distance classes considered except for the
first one, where it is equaled by the data for the A-15 and doubled by the results for the
A-10.
Figure 5 shows the total growth within each proximity class as a percentage of
the area of each buffer. So, we see that for A-15 motorway and during the period of
study, around 1% of the total area closer to 1km of any of the junctions has been
developed into new urban and industrial uses. As we move away from the junctions, the
rate of new developments (expressed as a percentage of the total area of the proximity
class) drops notably for A-10 and A-15. AP-15 case differs from the mountain motorways.
Fig. 5. Increase in urban and industrial land uses as a percentage of the total area of the proximity class.
Complementarily to these results, and having in mind that available land is a
prerequisite for construction (Giuliano, 2004; see section 2.2), Figure 6 shows the rate of
land-use change as a function of the area below 20% incline within the different proximity
classes. So, we see that for A-15 motorway and during the period of study, around 3,5%
of the area under 20% incline and closer to 1km of any of the junctions has been
developed into new urban and industrial uses. As we move away from the junctions, the
rate of new developments (expressed as a percentage of the area below 20% incline of
the proximity class) drops notably for A-10 and A-15. AP-15 case differs from the
mountain motorways.
- 56 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Fig. 6. Increase in urban and industrial land uses as a percentage of the total area suitable for them.
The highest rates for the three motorways were obtained for the first proximity
classes. Values for buffers 1 to 3 are shown in Table 1, expressed now as percentage of
newly develop hectares per year. So we see that within A-10 proximity class “1”, 0,102
hectares are transformed into urban and industrial uses each year for every 100 hectares
of land under 20% incline. It can be noticed that the maximum land-use change rates
were all obtained for the first distance class to the motorway; this is to say, across the land
closer to 1km to the motorway junctions.
Motorway
Proximity class
A-10
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
A-15
AP-15
Absolute land-use change rate
(ha/100ha·year)
0,096
0,01
0,001
0,085
0,036
0,004
0,129
0,085
0,037
Relative land-use change rate
(ha/100ha·year)
0,102
0,017
0,003
0,29
0,125
0,014
0,142
0,101
0,044
Table 1. Land-use change rates for the first three proximity classes. The rate in the third column expresses
the growth in relation to the total area of the buffer (ha/100ha·year), while the rate in the fourth column
expresses the growth in relation to the area under 20% incline within each buffer (ha/100ha·year).
Due to the fact that urban and industrial growth alongside the studied A-10, A15 and AP-15 stretches occurred only next to already existing settlements, land use
change rates have been also set against the number of existing urban and industrial
settlements. After dividing the total newly developed area within each distance class by
the number of settlements within it, we obtained the data presented in Figure 7. We see
that, for A-15 and A-10 motorways, the mean growth in urban and industrial area for
each settlement decreases with the distance to motorway exits, generally. Once again,
- 57 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
data for AP-15 around distance classes 7 and 8 stand out, demanding a particular
interpretation.
Fig. 7. Average land use change per existing settlement.
4. DISCUSSION
Albeit preliminary, this study has allowed us to gain interesting insights and a first
set of data on how new urban and industrial developments occur alongside newly built
motorways across mountain areas in the Pyrenean area of Navarre. Data here obtained,
even limited due to their very own nature, can be counted among the very few sets of
data available that may help in anticipating and assessing the potential impact of new
roads across the Pyrenees, and how it compares to other environments.
Main urban and industrial land-use changes that had place between 1998 and
2010 alongside two newly-built mountain motorways in Navarre, Spain, have been
identified, registered and mapped. This task is a prerequisite for any attempt at assessing
these potential indirect impacts of roads on the environment they cross, and is
undertaken using of different GIS tools and databases (see e.g. Aljoufie et al., 2011; Day,
2006; Hess et al., 2001; Jianzhong et al., 2002; Müller et al., 2010).
Urban and industrial growth alongside the studied A-10, A-15 and AP-15
stretches occurred only adjacent to already existing settlements. No new settlement was
developed during this time period. This is the first result that we noticed and that
confirms results registered in other studies (Müller et al., 2010; Serneels and Lambin,
- 58 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
2001; Verburg et al., 2004). The least urbanized and industrialized areas around the
motorways have a lower probability of experiencing changes.
The urban and industrial land-use change rates obtained show us the maximum
induction rate alongside the three studied motorways, for the 1998-2010 interval. A-10
and A-15 rates show that no intense urban and industrial land-use change may be
automatically anticipated immediately after a new mountain motorway has been
completed. Even though highly variable, all these data together provide some criteria on
what may be the range of maximum induction rates across varying environments, and so
help in anticipating and assessing how variable might be the extent of these potential road
impacts.
As different studies have shown, the physical characteristics of the landscape
have a great influence on the land-use changes that may occur in a certain area (e.g. Pan
et al., 1999). A rugged topography may influence the change to urban and industrial landuses nearby a motorway in two different ways, as our data seem to show. On the one
hand, AP-15 does not follow the declining trend of land-use change as distance to the
motorway grows that A-10 and A-15 show (see Figures 5, 6 and 7), already described for
other mountainous places (Müller et al., 2010). This contrast would support the
hypothesis that the steepness of topography limits the extent of the area affected by the
potential inductive power of a new motorway crossing mountain areas, acting differently
close to the motorways than away from them. A rugged topography may be limiting
completely urban and industrial uses away from the motorway, and only gradually when
close to it.
On the other hand, rates for the land-use change in relation to the area below
20% incline (Figure 6) seem to point out that the lower absolute rates observed for
mountainous motorways within the first distance classes may be explained mainly by a
lower availability of land suitable for urban and industrial uses in this kind of landscape. For
that reason, although the absolute land-use change around A-15 is small when compared
to the other motorways, the calculated rates across the area under 20% incline within the
3 km closer to the mountain motorway junctions are higher for that motorway than for
the other two. This means that all of the available land for urban and industrial use around
A-15 might be completely occupied before the available land around A-10 and AP-15 is.
- 59 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
All in all it can be said that, although physical constraints have an important
influence on land-use change, there may be other different factors influencing this
phenomenon (Reger et al., 2007).
Interestingly, the hypothesis of the limiting effect of rugged topographies over
land use change finds its own limitations when A-10 and A-15 are compared to each
other. A-10 land use change rates (related to the total area of the buffer, see Figure 5)
surpass A-15 rates for distance class 1, as could be expected due to the flatness of
immediate A-10 surroundings, and the steep slopes of the A-15. Nevertheless, the results
are the opposite for distance class 2, where land use change rate for A-15 is higher than
the rate for A-10. An unexpected outcome, having in mind that topography within buffer
2 for A-15 is more abrupt than for A-10. This finding corroborates, once more, the idea
that some other mechanisms are at work, apart from topography, regarding land use
change rates.
The land-use change across AP-15 distance classes 7 and 8 cluster around the
regional center for logistics and transport activities, and around Beriain (a dormitory town
of Pamplona). As a consequence, it is reasonable to state that some other areas that have
changed into urban and industrial land uses around the relatively flat surroundings of AP15 may be more associated with previously existing settlements than with the distance to
the motorway. As well as this two mentioned factors, other mechanisms may be
intertwining with the potential inductive effect of the motorway proximity (Reginster and
Rounsevell, 2006).
5. CONCLUSIONS
One of the few sets of data on urban an industrial land-use change alongside
two recently built Pyrenean motorways has been obtained. They reduce the uncertainty
on the impacts potentially induced by these or similar motorways, but can not guarantee
completely the impact assessment accuracy.
From 1998 to 2010, urban and industrial growth alongside the studied
motorway stretches in Navarre took place only adjacently to already existing settlements,
confirming a phenomenon that has already been registered in other studies.
- 60 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
The maximum induction rates obtained within the area under 20% incline were:
0,29 ha/100ha·year for A-15 motorway; 0,142 ha/100ha·year for AP-15 motorway, and
0,102 ha/100ha·year for A-10.
Exclusively from the point of view of land use, and for the period of time under
study, the impact of the studied mountain motorways on the land they cross has been
mainly direct, caused by the land occupation and transformation implemented already
during the motorways construction. These recently-built motorways have directly
transformed and occupied a much wider area than the maximum potential induction rates
obtained for them. This is a very meaningful outcome for environmental impact
assessment purposes.
The study of urban and industrial land use change around the motorways
confirms that the potential induction effect caused by the proximity to the motorways, if
existing, cannot easily be set apart from other influencing factors such as topography and
pre-existing settlements.
A consistently higher land use change has been registered within the 3 km closer
to the mountain motorway junctions. The steep topography areas showed no new urban
and industrial uses at a certain distance from the mountain motorways.
Land use change data for AP-15, which crosses an area not surrounded by steep
topographies, suggest a stronger relation of new developments to pre-existing settlements
than to the proximity to the motorway.
These first conclusions confirm that it may be not possible to prove an isolated
induction phenomenon by the road, but provide useful information to environmental
assessment, and back the opportunity of using the concept of maximum induction rate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mr. Arturo H. Ariño and Mr. David Galicia for their
advice on data management. Special thanks to Mr. Javier Otegui for his dedication and
help with data processing, and to Mr. Luis Sanz for his photos of the study area. The
corresponding author is supported by a doctoral fellowship provided by the Department
of Science, Technology and Universities of the Government of the Autonomous region of
Aragón.
- 61 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
REFERENCES
Angermeier P.L., Wheeler A.P., Rosenberger A.E., (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Impacts
of Roads on Aquatic Biota, Fisheries, 29 (12), 19-29.
Antrop M., (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe, Landscape Ecology,
15 (3), 257—270.
Bossard M., Feranec J., Otahel J., (2000). CORINE land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. European
Environment Agency. On line at:
http://www.dmu.dk/fileadmin/Resources/DMU/Udgivelser/CLC2000/technical_guide_addenum.pdf
Bürgi M., Hersperger A.M., Schneeberger N., (2004). Driving forces of landscape change-current and new
directions, Landscape Ecology, 19 (8), 857—868.
Comín F.A., Martínez-Rica J.P., (2007). Los Pirineos en el contexto de las montañas del mundo: rasgos
generales y peculiaridades. (In Spanish), Pirineos, 162, 13-41.
Dale V.H., Brown S., Haeuber R.A., Hobbs N.T., Huntly N., Naiman R.J., Riebsame W.E., Turner M.G.,
Valone T.J., (2000) Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land, Ecological
Applications, 10 (3), 639-670.
Forman R.T.T., Alexander L.E., (1998). Roads and their major ecological effects, Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 29, 207-231.
Forman R.T.T., Sperling D., Bissonette J.A., Clevenger A.P., Cutshall C.D., Dale V.H., Fahrig L., France R.,
Goldman C.R., Heanue K., Jones J.A., Swanson F.J., Turrentine T., Winter T.C., (2003). Road
ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington DC.
Giuliano G., (2004). Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments. In: The Geography of Urban
Transportation, Hanson S., Giuliano G. (Eds.), The Guilford Press, New York, 237-273.
Gobierno de Navarra (n.d.). Infraestructura de Datos Espaciales de Navarra (IDENA). On line at:
http://idena.navarra.es/busquedas/catalog/main/home.page
Handy S., (2005). Smart Growth and The Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research
Tell Us? International Regional Science Review, 28 (2), 146-167.
Hansen W.G., (1959). How Accesibility Shapes Land Use, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25
(2), 73-76.
Hansen A.J., Knight R.L., Marzluff J.M., Powell S., Brown K., Gude P.H., Jones K., (2005). Effects of Exurban
Development on Biodiversity: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Research Needs, Ecological Applications,
15 (6), 1893-1905.
Jansky L., (2000). UNU and Sustainable Mountain Development, Mountain Research and Development, 20
(2), 188—189.
Jodha N.S., (1992). Mountain perspective and sustainability: a framework for development strategies, In:
Sustainable Mountain Agriculture, Jodha N.S., Banskota M., Partap T. (Eds.), Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co, New Delhi, 42-82 .
Kalnay E., Cai M., (2003). Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate, Nature, 423, 528-531.
Kohler T., Hurni H., Wiesmann U., Kläy A., (2004). Mountain infrastructure: Access, communications and
energy, In: Key Issues for Mountain Areas, Price M.F., Janksy L., Iastenia A.A. (Eds.) United Nations
University Press, Tokyo, 38-62.
Lambin E.F., Turner B.L., Geist H.J., Agbola S.B., Angelsen A., Bruce J.W., Coomes O.T., Dirzo R., Fischer G.,
Folke C., George P.S., Homewood K., Imbernon J., Leemans R., Li X., Moran E.F., Mortimore M.,
Ramakrishnan P.S., Richards J.F., Skanes H., Steffen W., Stone G.D., Svedin U., Veldkamp T.A., Vogel
C., Xu J., (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths, Global
Environmental Change, 11 (4), 261—269.
Litman T., (1995). Land use impact costs of transportation, World Transport Policy and Practice, 1 (4), 9-16.
Lynch O.J., Maggio G.F., (1997). Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving towards sustainable development and
recognition of community-based property rights, Proc. Mountain Policy and Law E-Conference:
Promising Examples and Innovative Legal Mechanisms for Conservation and Sustainable
- 62 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Development.
Washington
DC.
On
http://europe.mtnforum.org/rs/econfreports/MountainLawsAndPeoples.pdf
line
at:
Meyer W.B., Turner B.L., (1992). Human Population Growth and Global Land-Use/Cover Change, Annual
Reviev of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 39-61.
Müller K., Steinmeier C., Küchler M., (2010). Urban growth along motorways in Switzerland, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 98 (1), 3-12.
Pan D., Domon G., Blois S.D., (1999). Temporal (1958 — 1993) and spatial patterns of land use changes in
Haut-Saint-Laurent (Quebec , Canada) and their relation to landscape physical attributes,
Landscape Ecology, 14, 35-52.
Pielke R.A., Marland G., Betts R.A., Chase T.N., Eastman J.L., Niles J.O., Niyogi D.S., Running S.W., (2002).
The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to
climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases, Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360
(1797), 1705-1719.
Reger B., Otte A., Waldhardt R., (2007). Identifying patterns of land-cover change and their physical
attributes in a marginal European landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81 (1-2), 104-113.
Reginster I., Rounsevell M., (2006). Scenarios of future urban land use in Europe, Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design, 33 (4), 619-636.
Riitters K.H., Wickham J.D., (2003). How far to the nearest road? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
1 (3), 125—129.
Schild A., (2008). ICIMOD’s Position on Climate Change and Mountain Systems, Mountain Research and
Development, 28 (3/4), 328-331.
Serneels S., Lambin E.F., (2001). Proximate causes of land-use change in Narok District, Kenya: a spatial
statistical model, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 85 (1-3), 65—81.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), (1992). Agenda 21. Chapter 13:
Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development. On line at:
http://www.regency.org/earth_summit_92/chapter13.pdf
United Nations, (1992). Convention on biological diversity. On line at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbden.pdf
Verburg P.H., Eck J.R.R.V., Nijs T.C.M.D., Dijst M.J., Schot P., (2004). Determinants of land-use change
patterns in the Netherlands, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31 (1), 125-150.
Virginia R.A., (2009). An Ecosystem Approach to Mountain Resorts, In: Mountain Resorts Ecology and the
Law, Milne J.E., Lemense J., Virginia R.A. (Eds), Ashgate Publishing Group, Abingdon, 23-38.
Vitousek P.M., Mooney H.A., Lubchenco J., Melillo J.M., (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems,
Science, 277 (5325), 494.
Wheeler A., Angermeier P., Rosenberger A., (2005). Impacts of New Highways and Subsequent Landscape
Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Biota, Reviews in Fisheries Science, 13 (3), 141-164.
Zenou Y., Patacchini E., (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. European Environment Agency. On line at:
http://swepub.kb.se/bib/swepub:oai:DiVA.org:su-45034?tab2=abs&language=en
- 63 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
ANEXO CAPÍTULO II
Figura 1. Detalle de la identificación y delimitación de los cambios a usos urbanos e industriales.
Figura 2. Registro del crecimiento urbano e industrial alrededor de la A-15.
- 64 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Figura 3. Registro del crecimiento urbano e industrial alrededor de la A-10.
Figura 4. Registro del crecimiento
urbano e industrial alrededor de
la AP-15.
- 65 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Figura 5. Localización de los núcleos urbanos e industriales existentes alrededor de la A-15 antes de la
construcción de la autovía.
Figura 6. Localización de los núcleos urbanos e industriales existentes alrededor de la A-10 antes de la
construcción de la autovía.
- 66 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Figura 7. Localización de los núcleos
urbanos e industriales existentes
alrededor de la AP-15 antes de la
construcción de la autopista.
Figura 8. Clasificación de pendientes
mayores y menores del 20% alrededor de la A-15.
- 67 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Figura 9. Clasificación de pendientes mayores y menores del 20% alrededor de la A-10.
Figura 10. Clasificación de
pendientes mayores y menores
del 20% alrededor de la AP-15.
- 68 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Albiasu
Aldatz
Alli
Areso
Arrarats
Arribe
Arruitz 1
Arruitz 2
Arruitz 3
Arruitz 4
Astitz
Atallu
Azpirotz
Baraibar
Beramendi
Beruete
Betelu
Eraso
Erbiti
Errazkin
Etxaleku 1
Etxaleku 2
Etxarri 1
Etxarri 2
Etxeberri
Gaintza
Gartzaron
Goldaratz
Gorriti 1
Gorriti 2
Igoa
Ihaben
Illarregi
Inbas
Itxaso
Jauntsarats
Latasa
Leitza
Lekunberri
Lezaeta
Mugiro 1
Mugiro 2
Muskitz
Oderitz
Orokieta
Oskotz 1
Oskotz 2
Pol. Ind. de Lekunberri 1
Pol. Ind. de Lekunberri 3
Pol. Ind. de Lekunberri 4
Pol. Ind. Eluseder 1
Pol. Ind. Eluseder 2
Pol. Ind. Landa
Suarbe
Udabe
Uitzi
Urritza
Uztegi 1
Uztegi 2
Zarrantz
Rango de
distancia a salida
3
3
2
2
8
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
6
4
2
7
5
4
4
2
2
1
6
7
1
1
1
9
4
9
3
4
5
1
3
2
3
1
1
7
4
9
4
5
2
2
2
1
1
3
10
2
4
1
5
5
4
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
0,71
4,81
1,98
5,25
2,26
2,97
3,17
0,20
0,69
0,44
1,92
2,06
2,46
4,40
1,35
5,91
14,47
1,49
1,00
1,76
3,99
0,72
3,75
0,52
1,04
1,44
1,71
1,63
3,18
0,36
1,75
1,63
2,02
2,31
1,65
2,73
1,98
27,64
24,51
0,37
1,59
0,00
1,67
2,40
1,15
2,61
2,76
0,66
24,85
1,56
4,53
3,00
14,69
0,97
1,82
4,07
0,65
0,68
0,42
0,64
0,71
5,04
2,26
5,72
2,31
3,11
3,17
0,44
0,83
0,47
2,27
1,35
2,46
4,46
1,45
6,34
14,58
1,74
1,04
1,76
4,25
0,72
3,89
0,67
1,18
1,74
1,88
2,17
3,44
0,46
1,87
1,63
2,02
2,31
2,11
3,41
2,53
30,38
50,68
0,37
1,59
0,44
2,31
2,49
1,21
2,72
3,09
0,66
33,34
3,18
13,68
3,00
19,49
0,97
1,84
4,52
0,65
0,68
0,49
0,65
0,00
0,23
0,28
0,47
0,05
0,14
0,00
0,24
0,14
0,04
0,35
-0,71
0,00
0,06
0,10
0,43
0,12
0,25
0,04
0,00
0,26
0,00
0,14
0,15
0,14
0,31
0,17
0,54
0,25
0,09
0,11
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,46
0,69
0,55
2,74
26,17
0,00
0,00
0,44
0,64
0,09
0,05
0,11
0,33
0,00
8,49
1,62
9,15
0,00
4,81
0,00
0,02
0,45
0,00
0,00
0,07
0,01
Tabla 1. Datos sobre el crecimiento de los distintos asentamientos y su distancia a la salida de autovía más
próxima para la A-15.
- 69 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Aguinaga
Aizpún
Alsasua 1
Alsasua 2
Alsasua 3
Alsasua 4
Alsasua 5
Alsasua 6
Alsasua 7
Alsasua 8
Arakil 1
Arakil 2
Arbizu
Ariz
Arruazu
Arteta
Azanza
Bakaiku 1
Bakaiku 2
Beasoain
Compañía
Dorrao
Egiarreta
Egilor
Ekai
Erice
Etxarren
Etxarri-Aranatz 1
Etxarri-Aranatz 2
Etxarri-Aranatz 3
Etxarri-Aranatz 4
Etxeberri
Goñi
Gulina
Ihabar 1
Ihabar 2
Irañeta
Iturmendi 1
Iturmendi 2
Izurdiaga
Lakuntza 1
Lakuntza 2
Lakuntza 3
Lakuntza 4
Lakuntza 5
Lakuntza 6
Lakuntza 7
Larumbe 1
Larumbe 2
Lete
Lizarraga 1
Lizarraga 2
Lizarragabengoa
Madotz
Ochovi
Olazti 1
Olazti 2
Olazti 3
Olazti 4
Olza
Osinaga
Pol. Ind. Arkinorruti
Pol. Ind. Ibarria 1
Pol. Ind. Ibarria 2
Pol. Ind. Ibarria 3
Pol. Ind. Isasia
Pol. Ind. Ondarria
Pol. Ind. Ulzubar 1
Pol. Ind. Ulzubar 2
Pol. Ind. Ulzubar 3
Pol. Ind. Zumurdineta
Saldise
Sarasa 1
Sarasa 2
Rango de
distancia a salida
7
9
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
6
10
1
1
9
8
5
2
9
1
9
1
1
2
2
2
2
8
6
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
4
3
2
3
8
4
3
4
5
9
9
5
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
8
9
9
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
0,88
2,02
10,40
44,07
3,26
4,35
1,80
3,19
4,18
4,07
0,23
0,12
19,13
0,97
3,23
2,17
4,13
8,93
2,74
1,03
1,03
3,02
1,87
4,05
1,17
2,63
3,28
24,21
1,98
4,91
4,07
1,23
2,61
1,08
3,65
2,16
5,33
8,70
0,54
1,10
1,42
19,16
3,83
3,65
0,48
0,54
0,99
0,68
0,70
1,22
6,40
2,04
1,16
1,08
1,50
24,83
16,23
23,97
26,05
2,23
0,92
18,03
26,16
1,56
0,59
3,52
22,66
4,45
3,83
1,08
8,97
0,70
2,56
1,80
0,88
2,02
10,40
48,56
3,26
4,39
1,80
3,19
4,18
4,07
0,36
0,12
22,73
1,03
3,37
2,21
4,23
9,82
2,77
1,03
1,03
3,64
2,83
4,69
1,17
3,42
3,53
27,10
1,98
4,99
6,75
3,29
2,70
1,08
4,02
2,16
6,70
10,35
0,94
1,10
4,46
20,45
7,05
3,65
1,13
0,83
1,71
0,95
0,78
1,24
6,46
2,04
1,19
1,08
2,39
25,48
16,23
26,53
42,70
2,26
0,92
18,03
26,16
1,56
0,59
5,65
22,85
Joins PI Ulzubar 2
18,47
Joins PI Ulzubar 2
11,11
0,70
4,29
2,14
0,00
0,00
0,00
4,49
0,00
0,04
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,13
0,00
3,60
0,06
0,14
0,05
0,09
0,89
0,03
0,00
0,00
0,61
0,96
0,64
0,00
0,80
0,26
2,89
0,00
0,08
2,68
2,06
0,09
0,00
0,37
0,00
1,37
1,65
0,40
0,00
3,05
1,29
3,22
0,00
0,65
0,29
0,72
0,27
0,08
0,03
0,06
0,00
0,03
0,00
0,88
0,65
0,00
2,56
16,65
0,04
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2,12
0,20
-4,45
14,64
-1,08
2,14
0,00
1,73
0,34
- 70 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Sarasate
Satrustegi
Uharte-Arakil 1
Uharte-Arakil 2
Uharte-Arakil 3
Uharte-Arakil 4
Ultzurrun
Unanu
Urdánoz
Urdiain 1
Urdiain 2
Urdiain 3
Urdiain 4
Urdiain 5
Urritzola
Villanueva 1
Villanueva 2
Ziordia 1
Ziordia 2
Zuasti
Zuhatzu
Rango de
distancia a salida
8
1
1
1
1
1
7
4
9
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
6
7
9
1
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
2,04
1,80
12,10
2,68
7,68
8,90
1,77
4,04
1,98
11,01
0,97
3,33
0,67
2,59
0,69
3,81
0,88
7,63
27,88
7,13
0,92
2,04
1,95
12,21
2,68
8,25
13,37
2,30
4,55
1,98
12,02
0,97
3,33
0,67
2,70
0,88
4,86
0,88
9,05
38,18
7,13
1,19
0,00
0,15
0,11
0,00
0,57
4,47
0,54
0,51
0,00
1,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,10
0,19
1,06
0,00
1,42
10,30
0,00
0,27
Tabla 2. Datos sobre el crecimiento de los distintos asentamientos y su distancia a la salida de autovía más
próxima para la A-10.
- 71 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Adiós
Amátriain
Amunarrizqueta
Añorbe 1
Añorbe 2
Arlegui
Artajona
Artariáin
Barásoain / Garinoain
Barásoain 1
Barásoain 2
Bariáin
Barrio de la Azucarera
Beire
Benegorri
Beriáin 1
Beriáin 2
Beriáin 3
Beriáin 4
Beriáin 5
Beriáin 6
Beriáin 7
Bézquiz
Biurrun
Campanas 1
Campanas 2
Campanas 3
Camping Olite
Caparroso 1
Caparroso 2
Caparroso 3
Caparroso 4
Centro Comercial La Toscana
Ciudad del Transporte
Echagüe
Elorz
Enériz
Esparza de Galar 1
Esparza de Galar 2
Ezperun 1
Ezperun 2
Ezperun 1
Ezperun 2
Falces 1
Falces 2
Falces 3
Falces 4
Falces 5
Funes 1
Funes 2
Funes 3
Funes 4
Guerendiáin
Imárcoain 1
Imárcoain 2
Iracheta
La Estación 1
La Estación 2
La Torre
Maquirriain
Marcilla 1
Marcilla 2
Marcilla 3
Marcilla 4
Marcilla 5
Marcilla 6
Marcilla 7
Mendivil 1
Mendivil 2
Mendivil 3
Muruarte de Reta
Muruzábal 1
Muruzábal 2
Olaz Subiza 1
Rango de
distancia a salida
7
8
10
5
5
8
10
9
6
6
6
8
2
8
4
7
7
8
7
8
8
8
5
3
3
2
2
3
7
7
7
7
1
7
6
10
6
10
10
8
8
8
8
9
9
8
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
8
8
10
9
9
2
7
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
7
7
6
1
10
10
4
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
8,36
1,00
0,40
12,14
0,80
5,84
1,97
1,33
25,00
1,40
1,22
1,17
7,99
11,00
0,46
10,80
0,75
19,21
42,68
3,85
47,17
18,13
0,59
8,37
3,55
6,44
2,63
4,47
1,76
50,58
1,21
3,41
4,84
31,80
1,25
1,45
17,11
5,19
2,37
0,94
0,85
1,24
1,23
42,73
1,74
12,46
1,03
2,41
12,72
16,86
4,59
1,34
0,63
1,51
3,66
1,48
2,41
0,00
5,42
1,28
35,41
0,93
0,54
7,66
1,30
4,07
0,41
2,10
1,11
0,57
2,82
10,56
5,40
1,46
8,84
1,07
0,38
17,48
0,80
6,26
1,97
1,51
30,73
1,40
1,22
1,17
6,59
12,32
0,46
46,42
1,22
27,20
66,22
Joins Beriáin 4
61,86
Joins Beriáin 6
0,59
10,06
3,55
7,82
3,49
5,91
2,82
51,00
1,21
3,41
4,97
67,64
1,25
1,97
22,11
7,66
2,37
0,94
0,85
1,71
1,39
43,26
1,74
14,41
1,03
2,41
15,02
17,86
4,59
1,34
0,88
9,00
Joins Imárcoain 1
2,14
2,41
4,66
7,49
1,28
37,53
0,93
0,54
9,65
14,63
5,17
0,41
2,38
1,11
0,57
2,86
10,99
6,01
1,51
0,48
0,06
-0,01
5,35
0,00
0,42
0,00
0,18
5,73
0,00
0,00
0,00
-1,40
1,32
0,00
35,62
0,47
7,99
23,54
-3,85
14,69
-18,13
0,00
1,70
0,00
1,38
0,86
1,43
1,05
0,42
0,00
0,00
0,13
35,84
0,00
0,52
4,99
2,47
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,47
0,16
0,53
0,00
1,95
0,00
0,00
2,30
1,00
0,00
0,00
0,25
7,48
-3,66
0,66
0,00
4,66
2,06
0,00
2,13
0,00
0,00
1,99
13,33
1,10
0,00
0,28
0,00
0,00
0,04
0,43
0,61
0,05
- 72 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Olaz Subiza 2
Olcoz / Olkotz 1
Olcoz / Olkotz 2
Olite 1
Olite 2
Olite 3
Olite 4
Olite 5
Olite 6
Olite 7
Olite 8
Olleta
Olóriz
Oricin
Orisoain
Otano
Peralta 1
Peralta 2
Peralta 3
Peralta 4
Peralta 5
Peralta 6
Peralta 7
Pitillas
Pol. de los Almacenes
Pol. Ind. Abaco
Pol. Ind. Barranquiel
Pol. Ind. de Barásoain
Pol. Ind. Garantúa/Escopar 1
Pol. Ind. Garantúa/Escopar 2
Pol. Ind. La Nava
Pol. Ind. Torres de Elorz 1
Pol. Ind. Torres de Elorz 2
Pueyo 1
Pueyo 2
San Martín de Unx 1
San Martín de Unx 2
Sánsoain 1
Sánsoain 2
Sansomáin
Solchaga
Subiza
Tafalla 1
Tafalla 2
Tafalla 3
Tafalla 4
Tafalla 5
Tiebas 1
Tiebas 2
Tiebas 3
Tiebas 4
Tiebas 5
Tiebas 6
Tiebas 7
Tiebas 8
Tirapu
Torres de Elorz 1
Torres de Elorz 2
Torres de Elorz 3
Traibuenas 1
Traibuenas 2
Ucar 1
Ucar 2
Unzué 1
Unzué 2
Uterga
Villafranca 1
Villafranca 2
Villafranca 3
Villafranca 4
Villafranca 5
Villafranca 6
Yárnoz
Zabalegui 1
Rango de
distancia a salida
5
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
5
1
10
6
5
6
9
7
7
6
5
5
4
5
10
7
3
1
7
8
8
1
10
10
2
2
8
9
5
4
4
8
5
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
5
9
9
9
10
10
4
4
3
4
10
7
6
8
4
4
6
10
9
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
1,85
2,62
0,59
54,01
0,85
3,83
0,70
2,85
6,81
0,66
6,81
2,06
2,89
1,46
2,56
0,77
48,93
4,29
1,65
1,99
2,13
1,27
1,15
0,51
1,35
9,05
5,14
4,84
60,62
0,50
13,25
6,93
2,53
13,60
1,18
12,24
0,28
0,48
0,94
1,25
2,47
4,64
88,01
1,48
5,69
1,04
2,60
8,16
9,84
23,20
21,17
25,49
5,37
6,74
2,73
3,12
6,50
2,75
1,03
2,37
1,06
7,02
2,60
5,32
4,08
8,63
43,05
4,00
5,75
0,87
5,22
1,30
0,79
2,30
1,51
2,96
0,68
77,60
0,85
3,83
2,21
3,20
9,27
0,66
9,73
2,12
3,97
1,46
2,65
0,81
64,85
Joins Peralta 1
2,62
5,61
Joins Peralta 4
6,32
1,24
0,78
4,88
9,05
12,21
9,88
87,92
0,50
30,36
9,29
4,95
16,50
Joins Pueyo 1
13,97
0,90
1,07
0,94
1,25
2,67
6,20
104,36
1,48
5,69
1,19
7,49
10,16
14,06
49,49
36,05
36,53
6,93
Joins Tiebas 6
Joins Tiebas 6
3,22
9,89
2,75
1,03
2,37
1,06
9,98
3,18
5,54
5,05
9,22
44,38
5,78
12,57
1,15
8,66
1,69
0,92
3,24
-0,34
0,34
0,08
23,60
0,00
0,00
1,52
0,35
2,46
0,00
2,92
0,07
1,08
0,00
0,08
0,04
15,92
-4,29
0,97
3,62
-2,13
5,05
0,09
0,27
3,52
0,00
7,07
5,04
27,31
0,00
17,11
2,36
2,42
2,90
-1,18
1,73
0,62
0,60
0,00
0,00
0,20
1,56
16,35
0,00
0,00
0,16
4,89
2,00
4,22
26,30
14,88
11,04
1,57
-0,35
-2,73
0,09
3,39
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2,96
0,58
0,21
0,97
0,59
1,32
1,78
6,81
0,28
3,44
0,39
0,13
0,94
- 73 -
Dificultad en la identificación de impactos
Lugar
Zabalegui 2
Zabalegui 3
Zabalegui 4
Zariquiegui 1
Zariquiegui 2
Zariquiegui 3
Rango de
distancia a salida
9
9
9
10
10
10
Área 1998 (ha)
Área 2010 (ha)
Diferencia 1998-2010 (ha)
0,28
0,49
0,34
1,34
0,00
0,38
Joins Zabalegui 1
0,49
0,34
2,39
3,08
Joins Zariquiegui 1
-0,28
0,00
0,00
1,04
3,08
-0,38
Tabla 3. Datos sobre el crecimiento de los distintos asentamientos y su distancia a la salida de autopista más
próxima para la AP-15.
- 74 -
CAPÍTULO III
LA PÉRDIDA ACEPTADA DE CALIDAD ECOLÓGICA
Puig J, Villarroya A.
Ecological quality loss and damage compensation in estuaries: clues from a
lawsuit in the Basque Country, Spain.
Enviado a Ocean and Coastal Management
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
La escasa puesta en práctica de la compensación ecológica observada para
proyectos que habitualmente provocan impactos residuales en el entorno hace que el
logro del objetivo de no pérdida neta sea esperable en muy pocos casos. Sin embargo, la
baja aplicación de medidas compensatorias no parece ser percibida como un problema en
la mayoría de las ocasiones, puesto que muchos proyectos son aprobados por la EIA sin
incluir ningún tipo de compensación ecológica. Así, habitualmente los impactos residuales
parecen ser admitidos como algo inevitable o, simplemente, pasados por alto. Los
resultados obtenidos a partir de las revisiones de DIAs de los artículos III (no incluidos en
el texto del artículo, ver anexo a este capítulo) y V parecen apoyar esta hipótesis, puesto
que solamente un pequeño porcentaje de los documentos (12% y 9%, respectivamente)
hace referencia a estos impactos.
El artículo III trata de poner el foco sobre esta aparente admisión de pérdidas
ecológicas, una de las posibles causas conceptuales (es decir, derivada de cómo es
concebido el desarrollo) que puede haber detrás de la escasa puesta en práctica de la
compensación ecológica detectada en el capítulo I. Por otro lado, los datos sobre
compensación ecológica en proyectos costeros que recoge este estudio ofrecen un
contrapunto a los resultados descritos para compensación ecológica en torno a carreteras
(ver capítulos I y II).
Con la intención de obtener algún indicio sobre las causas de esta aparente
aceptación de pérdida ecológica, se compara la compensación ecológica y la
compensación socioeconómica para un mismo proyecto, teniendo en cuenta la distinta
percepción de ambas que parece reflejarse en las anteriores revisiones de DIAs. El caso
descrito muestra un ejemplo de cómo el esfuerzo por contrarrestar impactos ecológicos
no siempre es equivalente al empleado para paliar otros efectos, como los
socioeconómicos. Ante un proyecto que provocó daños tanto económicos como
ecológicos, los afectados por los primeros pusieron gran empeño en conseguir una
compensación, mientras que no se realizó ningún esfuerzo comparable para lograr
contrarrestar los impactos sobre el medio natural.
La comparación del modo en que se gestionan ambos tipos de impactos puede
aportar algún indicio sobre el tipo de obstáculos que pueden originar la baja
compensación de impactos ecológicos registrada en tantos casos. Por un lado, cuando un
proyecto provoca pérdidas económicas éstas afectan a un grupo concreto de personas,
que perciben el problema como propio y de gran importancia, y de tal forma buscan los
- 76 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
medios para remediarlo. En cambio, los daños ecológicos afectan a todo el mundo por
igual y a nadie en concreto, por lo que la responsabilidad de trabajar por su
compensación queda diluida y a merced, en última instancia, de las obligaciones que
establezca la ley (en los casos en que corresponda) o de la voluntad del promotor del
proyecto. A este primer obstáculo se le añade habitualmente el problema del cálculo de
impactos y, por consiguiente, de medidas compensatorias, como ya se apuntaba en el
artículo II.
En el caso presentado, podría decirse que el daño económico causado por la
construcción del dique pudo ser fácilmente estimado una vez admitida judicialmente
como plausible la relación causa-efecto. Y esa estimación, realizada en términos
económicos, se traduce con cierta facilidad en una compensación de la misma naturaleza.
Sin embargo, los daños ecológicos no son fácilmente mensurables, y aunque se lograse
esbozar una medida, probablemente no sería sencillo decidir qué acciones
compensatorias serían necesarias y suficientes (Rowe et al., 2009). Subyace en toda esta
cuestión el problema de cuál es el valor de los valores ambientales.
Este último problema de valoración de impactos y cálculo de medidas
compensatorias constituye el centro de la siguiente parte, donde se estudia más a fondo y
se elaboran propuestas para buscar posibles soluciones.
- 77 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
ECOLOGICAL QUALITY LOSS AND DAMAGE COMPENSATION IN
ESTUARIES: CLUES FROM A LAWSUIT IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY, SPAIN
PÉRDIDA
DE CALIDAD AMBIENTAL Y COMPENSACIÓN DEL DAÑO EN ESTUARIOS:
CLAVES DE UN JUICIO EN EL PAÍS VASCO (ESPAÑA)
ABSTRACT
This article presents an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
controversial case, which was finally settled by the passing of a sentence. The
sentence enforced a payment to compensate for the economic damage
caused to a fish farm through local environmental changes in Urola river
estuary, located in the Basque Country. The damage was allegedly caused by
a breakwater extension built at the mouth of an estuary nearby the farm, and
linked to a recreation port project located within the estuary. While the
sentence settled the meaning of compensation from an economic
perspective, it raised by contrast some questions on the difficulty of
undertaking ecological compensation within EIA practice, using of this
particular case. Maybe these difficulties account for the lack of compensation
in coastal development projects, which we have observed in a variety of cases
in Spain, particularly for coastal development projects.
KEYWORDS: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); ecological
compensation; economic compensation; coastal development; turbot fish
farm.
RESUMEN
Este artículo describe un caso polémico de Evaluación de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA), finalmente resuelto tras la aprobación de una sentencia legal.
La sentencia imponía a la compañía promotora un pago como compensación
al daño económico que los cambios ambientales originados por el proyecto
causaron a una piscifactoría localizada en el estuario del río Urola, en el País
Vasco. El daño fue supuestamente ocasionado por la ampliación de un dique
construido en dicho estuario, proyectado para mejorar el acceso a un puerto
recreativo próximo. A raíz de este caso se plantean y discuten ciertas
cuestiones en torno a la dificultad de implantar medidas de compensación
ecológica a través de la EIA, utilizando lo ocurrido en torno a la
compensación económica como contrapunto. Tales dificultades pueden ser la
causa de la escasa compensación que se aplica en proyectos costeros,
registrada en este artículo para varios casos en España.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Evaluación
de Impacto Ambiental (EIA);
compensación ecológica; compensación económica; desarrollo costero;
piscifactoría de rodaballo.
- 78 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims at improving the sustainability of
certain environmentally regulated projects, by identifying and valuing their significant
environmental impacts and proposing measures to counter them (IAIA, 2009; IAIA and
UK Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1999; Jay et al., 2007). Once they are identified
and valued in advance, impacts may be counteracted through avoidance, minimization or
compensation techniques. Of these techniques, compensation aims at achieving
environmental positive outcomes after impacting projects have been implemented
(BBOP, 2009; EPA, 2006; Finkelstein et al., 2008; Pope et al., 2004; van Merwyk and
Daddo, 2007; Weaver et al., 2008).
The concept of “compensation” shares some formal similarity with the concept of
“sustainability”: both are at first glance easier to be understood from a conceptual point of
view, than to be translated into practical implementations on particular cases. Several
articles may be found, among the current literature, that refer to some practical difficulties
that arise when trying to implement compensatory measures (Hayes and MorrisonSaunders, 2007; Kiesecker et al., 2009; Kiesecker et al., 2010a; Kiesecker et al., 2010b;
McKenney, 2005). Consequently, the choice and design of specific offsets to be
implemented in each development project usually becomes a harder task than that of
simply pointing out their need. This constraint is inherent to the nature of compensation,
as there is always a wide, open range of suitable measures potentially fitting in each
particular compensation case.
In order to eventually compensate for them, impacts caused on the environment
may be valued using of two main complementary approaches: ecological valuation, and
socio-economic valuation (Efroymson et al., 2008; Smith and Theberge, 1986; Van der
Ploeg and Vlijm, 1978). Seemingly, environmental compensation may be understood and
implemented in either one of two broad complementary ways. The monetary approach
foresees payments as a compensation to balance out damages caused mainly to the
socio-economic values of the impacted environment, but also to its ecological quality
(Hendriks, 2001; Wood, 2003). From a different perspective, ecological compensation can
be implemented attempting at “the substitution of ecological functions or values that are
impaired by development” (Cuperus et al., 2001). This approach does not use the
monetary solution to counterbalance the ecological impacts caused by the project
- 79 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
implementation, seeking to preserve as far as possible the overall ecological quality of the
environment, as a way to approach or attain sustainability.
This article presents an EIA controversial case, which was finally settled by the
passing of a sentence. The sentence enforced a payment to compensate for the economic
damage caused to a fish farm through local environmental changes. The damage was
allegedly caused by a breakwater extension built at the mouth of an estuary nearby the
farm, and linked to a recreation port project located within the estuary. While the
sentence settled the meaning of compensation from an economic perspective, it raises by
contrast some questions on the difficulty of undertaking ecological compensation within
EIA practice, using of this particular case. Maybe these difficulties account for the lack of
compensation in coastal development projects, which we have observed in a variety of
cases in Spain (see Section 5).
2. STUDY AREA: FISH FARM AND BREAKWATER PROJECT LOCATIONS
The turbot farm (Psetta maxima Linnaeus, 1758 [Scophthalmidae]) started
operating in 1992. It was located in a hollow by the coastline, close to the town of
Zumaia, and nearby the mouth of the small estuary of Urola river, (Basque Country,
Spain, Figure 1). The farm was built after obtaining from the regional government the
permit required to make use of the marine water to operate.
Apart from the building containing the pools to feed and grow the fish, a small
pumping facility supplied the marine water along two underground pipes. The water
intake was originally build North of the farm, some 400 m further away than the main
facility from the estuary mouth, seeking to reduce the potential and variable influence of
the river water on the quality of the marine water to be taken into the farm (Figure 1, d).
The 59 km-long Urola River shows a torrential character of variable volume of flow
ranging from around 1 to 196 m3s-1.
- 80 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
Fig. 1. Location of the study area.
The breakwater was intended to enlarge the sheltered area for those boats and
small vessels intending to access or leave the Zumaia river port during rough-sea
conditions, which are quite frequent around the mouth of the Urola estuary, mainly in
winter time. Figure 2 shows the breakwater that was finally completed in 1995, and
compares it to the reach of the pre-existing one.
Fig. 2. Overview of the study area before (1991) and after (2001) the completion of the new breakwater.
Significantly, the image of 1991 was taken during a lower tide than the image of 2001. An even so, the
beach extension is clearly shown.
- 81 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
3. EVENTS, CONTROVERSY, SENTENCE.
The first notable anomalies in fish productivity were recorded by the farm
managers in summer 1994. They were coincident in time with the progressive
development of the breakwater extension works. Significant amounts of turbot died with
no apparent reason to the owners but the change in water quality associated to, and
allegedly caused by, the new breakwater under construction. Changes in the farm were
registered as growingly important, although not in a constant way, as the mixing of fresh
and marine waters varies heavily depending on the changing Urola river flow and water
temperature, the weather and, particularly, on the wind conditions and the sea roughness
at the area, and the beating strength of the waves against the shore.
As problems began to grow in the farm (decrease in water salinity, blocking of
pumps by sand intakes…) their managers decided to demand funds to relocate the water
intake mouth, as a way to ensure future productivity. The new intake mouth would be
further away from the shoreline, and opening into a deeper level in the sea. The request
was not granted, and problems for the fish farm repeated in July 1995. Finally they
reached their peak in August 1995, when the farm managers denounced that around 95%
of the turbot stock growing in their production pools had suddenly perished due to a
critical change in the quality of coastal water at the intake point, allegedly caused by the
breakwater extension newly built, and its related works. The mortality of the turbot stock
was independently verified.
A discussion on the cause of the turbot mortality ensued, and finally litigation
began. It was a long process. All of the possible standpoints could be reduced to two
main approaches: was the breakwater construction to be held responsible, or not, of the
critical change in water quality, and so of the registered turbot mortality? The farm
managers alleged that the construction of the breakwater had changed the variable quality
of the waters at the intake to a critical point where new occasional low quality episodes
caused the turbot mortality. Alternative arguments pointed out at causes other than any
change caused by the building of the breakwater, such as pre-existing variable conditions
in water quality, occasionally critical, that were not originated by the newly built structure
and had not showed themselves up during the first operating years of the farm. Had these
critical conditions been detected and taken into account by the farm managers, the intake
should have been located elsewhere. There were also allegations of mortality being
caused by an epidemic spread across the pools due to bad management at the facility.
- 82 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
Litigation ended up with a sentence passed in July 2004 that enforced the insurance
company for the breakwater construction works to pay around 12.5 million € to the farm
managers, in compensation for the economic damage caused at the farm.
4. ECONOMIC VS. ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION
Ecological changes along the shorelines, particularly in estuaries, may pass even
more unnoticed than on land, particularly when located underwater. Perception is a prerequisite for reaction to damage or value loss. The ocean and estuarine waters seem to
cast a blanket hiding most of the local ecological impacts other than water pollution,
hampering not only perception, but also estuary ecology knowledge.
In our case, during the litigation process, a good feasible picture of how the
estuary processes operated during the mortality peak was put together. The unfolding of
the case gave the opportunity to improve perception, and direct general knowledge on
estuarine ecology to detail how the particular estuary under study works. Actually, all this
knowledge was instrumental in passing the final sentence.
The link between the breakwater works and the damage suffered by the fish farm
could only be legally demonstrated using of the knowledge on the allegedly impacted
dynamic ecological features of the estuary, as linked to turbot physiology. To pass the
sentence it had to be known that the sand level at the intake point was raising (as it was
blocking the pumps and pipes) and that the shoreline of the nearby beach was also
advancing to the sea (allegedly, as a consequence of the shelter effect provided by the
breakwater), that the volume of water at the now more enclosed mouth of the estuary
had probably been reduced due to sand deposition (Figure 2) and that, in a calm ocean
during summertime, fresh water from the river may build up at the mouth of the estuary
to a surface layer of significant low salinity separated sharply by a halocline from the
denser layer below, made up mainly of sea water. Both layers of water, on these
stratification conditions, could now alternatively reach the turbot farm intake depending
on the tide. Low salinity water entrance during low tide followed the higher salinity water
pumping during high tide. The sudden changes in salinity registered at the water intake
point, which coincided with the tide schedule and rhythm, evidenced this water
stratification. The repeated sharp changes in the water salinity interfered critically with the
turbot physiology, causing a stress worsened by the high water temperature, which
- 83 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
increases the metabolism of fish and reduces the dissolved oxygen contents, even to
reach eventually a physiological stress death point.
And yet, no compensation other than the economic to the farm has been thought
of along the process. Interestingly, none of the ecological mechanisms operating in court
were effective, not even eventually, in developing a derived practical care for the ecology
of the area, and for those residual impacts other than economic, which remained uncared
for after the completion of the breakwater and the passing of the sentence. Why so?
5. ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION PRACTICE AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS UNDER SPANISH EIA REGULATION
This is not an isolated case. Ecological compensation is not a common practice in
EIA implementation in Spain (Villarroya and Puig, 2010). The review of 75 EIA records of
decision (RODs)5 publicized during the last 10 years revealed a worsened situation for
coastal development projects (see Figure 3). If ecological compensation is neglected in
EIA, we can scarcely hope to find it elsewhere.
Fig. 3. Results of the review of coastal development projects RODs in Spain publicized between 2001 and
2011. Most of the documents did not even mention the term “ecological compensation” or any other
equivalent expression.
The argument of this paper is not that ecological changes or even damages have
to be always avoided. We intend to point out that currently we simply accept their
accumulation doing nothing but take advantage of the quality of the coastal environments
to foster development, while rending them less valuable in ecological terms. We keep
5
An ROD is the document where the main factors to reach the final environmental authorization decision
on a project are presented by the approving agency.
- 84 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
taking up the ecological values, using them, and not thinking of how to keep them at least
at an overall constant quality level. As long as low levels of compensation practice last, it
seems timely to remind that ecological compensation is necessary to fight back impact
occurrence and accumulation, to attain the preservation of ecological values eventually
(Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007; ten Kate et al., 2004).
What are the reasons leading to compensation practice neglect, particularly in
coastal development projects? Arguably, low levels of compensation practice gauge how
much (or little) we value in fact ecological values as compared to alternative ones,
particularly to those that come around development projects. Environmental values are
not felt as urging us to preserve them, and much less as the prevalent when compared to
alternative ones, sometimes grouped as socio-economic, particularly when facing
development decision-making. In most cases, ecological compensation is not thought of as
a way to fight back present-day accumulating impacts. Unfortunately, not even when we
have or get a fairly good knowledge of how the ecology of an area has been impacted.
Alternatively, coastal environments may be developed, perhaps somehow
unconsciously, as if they were very far away from depletion and safe from any significant
loss. Partly due to the hiding effect of marine waters on all that happens underneath them,
or to the fact that observation points from the coastline to open sea prevail over those
allowing to observe the development on the coastline itself. So has development been
implemented along the Mediterranean coast in Spain, up to the point of earning a
particularly formal warning from the European Union on the impressive accumulated loss
of the quality of these environments6.
The accumulation mechanisms work also at a local scale over longer periods of
time (European Commission, 1999; Race and Fonseca, 1996; Therivel and Ross, 2007).
Even when projects and other human developments transforming the shoreline seem not
to change the land significantly when separately considered, the change is evident
6
“whereas the natural Mediterranean island and coastal areas of Spain have suffered extensive destruction
in the last decade as cement and concrete have saturated these regions in a way which has affected not
only the fragile coastal environment — much of which is nominally protected under the Habitats/Natura
2000 and Birds Directives, such as urbanisations in Cabo de Gata (Almería) and in Murcia — but also the
social and cultural activity of many areas, which constitutes a tragic and irretrievable loss to their cultural
identity and heritage as well as to their environmental integrity, and all this primarily because of the absence
of supra-municipal planning or regional planning guidelines placing reasonable limits on urban growth and
development, set on the basis of explicit criteria of environmental sustainability, and because of the greed
and speculative behavior of certain local and regional authorities and members of the construction industry
who have succeeded in deriving massive benefits from their activities in this regard, most of which have
been exported” (European Parliament 2009).
- 85 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
eventually, as small impacts build up. A sequence of old photographs up to the present
shows how the Urola estuary was in 1870, and how it compares to present day. (Figure
4).
Fig. 4. Urola estuary: past and present. (A) 1870; (B) around 1910, low tide; (C) around 1910, high tide; (D)
around 1930; (E) and (F) at present time. Source for figures 4A to 4D:
http://usuarios.multimania.es/fotoantigua/index.html
Similar processes have transformed in the past decades many of the estuaries in
the Basque Country, to their present state (Figure 5).
But the drawbacks may be found not only in the way present-day society deals
with ecological losses. They are also internal to the theory (and practice) of
compensation, whose frailties show up mainly when some particular cases, or particular
impacts, are faced. In the case here presented, how to compensate for the damage
caused in the studied area? Moreover, what is ecological damage, and what is ecological
change? Up to what a point an environmental change is an ecological damage? The
building of the seawall has changed the water dynamics in the estuarine area, the areas
and rate of sand deposition, the shoreline front at the nearby beach, and the way
freshwater and marine water mix when meeting at the mouth of the estuary. The coastal
landscape has changed also, as well as the views and viewsheds, particularly from the
beach. How to measure the loss of value, and how to measure the value to compensate
them, especially if we do not have detailed studies of the ecological state of the estuary
prior to the last development?
- 86 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
Fig. 5. Current appearance of different estuaries in the Basque Country, including the studied area and
places nearby: (A) Urdaibai, one of the best preserved estuaries (B) Deba, (C) Urola, (D) Oria, (E) Urumea,
(F) Oiarzun.
It seems that we keep reverting to socio-economic compensation only, when any.
Apart from environmental opponents, the breakwater construction and port
improvement were well received by the local population, as they expected an improved
quality of the port facilities and accesses. And, complex as we are as a society, this is but a
new example of how we build our development upon the quality loss of the
environment.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The historical ecological quality loss of the small Urola River estuary in the Basque
Country, Spain, has been graphically shown as an example of the progressive ecological
quality loss experienced along coastal environments in this country, enlightening some
potential reasons that underlay this phenomenon.
The ecological quality loss takes place both during long-lasting periods of time
acting on small places, and during shorter periods over long stretches of coastline, even to
the point of completely changing the original environments.
The contrast between how we react, as a society and in the case-study presented,
either to economic value loss or to ecological value loss may gauge the relative weight we
assign to each of these value classes.
- 87 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
The relatively lower importance we assign to ecological values, as compared to
economic ones, may be linked either to a lack of perception of ecological impact,
particularly on estuarine environments, or to the assumption of being far away from any
risk of significant loss or depletion.
In any case, ecological compensation seems to be underdeveloped partly because
we do not think in terms of recovering the overall ecological value of impacted
environments; we act, rather, transforming ecological values into economic ones,
frequently at the expense of the former.
This explanation is consistent with the data obtained on the low ecological
compensation performance for coastal development projects in Spain. Overall, ecological
compensation is not practiced as a necessary component of sustainability, as the low rates
of it that we have found in Spanish EIA procedures confirm.
But even if ecological compensation was accepted as a necessity, it would
encounter new obstacles to overcome. Given the complexity of natural dynamisms, it is
not easy either to distinguish between ecological change and ecological damage, or to
assess or appraise the ecological value lost, and how to replace it.
Further development on ecological valuation methodologies would facilitate the
assessment of those residual impacts that currently go unnoticed in most cases, thus
setting a first necessary step for the implementation of compensatory measures.
REFERENCES
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), 2009. Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP. An
Overview. Washington, D.C. URL: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/overview.pdf [last
accessed 21 February 2012]
Cuperus, R., Bakermans, M.M.G.J., Udo de Haes, H.A., Canters, K.J., 2001. Ecological Compensation in Dutch
Highway Planning. Environ. Manage. 27(1), 75-89. doi:10.1007/s002670010135
Efroymson, R.A., Peterson, M.J., Welsh, C.J., Druckenbrod, D.L., Ryon, M.G., Smith, J.G., Hargrove, W.W.,
Giffen, N.R., Kelly Roy, W., Quarles, H.D., 2008. Investigating habitat value to inform contaminant
remediation
options:
Approach.
J.
Environ.
Manag.
88,
1436-1451.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.023
Environmental Protection Authority, 2006. Environmental Offsets Position Statement No. 9. Environmental
Protection Authority, Perth. URL: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1863_PS9.pdf [last accessed 21
February 2012]
European Commission, 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as
Impact
Interactions.
Brussels.
URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-andreports/guidel.pdf [last accessed 21 February 2012]
European Parliament, 2009. Report on the impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain on individual rights of
European citizens, on the environment and on the application of EU law, based upon petitions
received (2008/2248(INI)).
- 88 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
Finkelstein, M., Bakker, V., Doak, D.F., Sullivan, B., Lewison, R., Satterthwaite, W.H., McIntyre, P.B., Wolf, S.,
Priddel, D., Arnold, J.M., Henry, R.W., Sievert, P., Croxall, J., 2008. Evaluating the potential
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation strategies for marine bycatch. PloS one. 3(6):e2480. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0002480
Hayes, N., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2007. Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact
assessment: practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal. 25(3), 209-218. doi:10.3152/146155107X227126
Hendriks, C.F., 2001. Sustainable Construction. Æeneas, Boxtel.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), 2009. What Is Impact Assessment? URL:
http://www.iaia.org/publications/ [last accessed 21 February 2012]
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), UK Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1999.
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment best practice. URL: http://www.iaia.org/publications/
[last accessed 21 February 2012]
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., Wood, C., 2007. Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect.
Environ. Impact Asses. 27, 287-300. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001
ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., Bayon, R., 2004. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK. URL:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bdoffsets.pdf [last accessed 21 February 2012]
Kiesecker, J.M., Copeland, H.E., McKenney, B.A., Pocewicz, A., Doherty, K.E., 2010a. Energy by Design:
Making Mitigation Work for Conservation and Development, in Naugle, D.E. (Ed.), Energy
Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington,
D.C., pp. 157-182.
Kiesecker, J.M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., McKenney, B., 2010b. Development by design: blending
landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers Ecol. Env. 8(5), 261-266.
doi:10.1890/090005
Kiesecker, J.M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., Nibbelink, N., McKenney, B., Dahlke, J., Holloran, M., Stroud, D.,
2009. A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale.
BioScience. 59(1), 77-84. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.11
McKenney, B., 2005. Environmental offset policies, principles, and methods: a review of selected legislative
frameworks. Biodiversity Neutral Initiative. URL: http://www.forest-trends.org/publications.php [last
accessed 21 February 2012]
Van Merwyk, T., Daddo, S., 2009. Structuring environmental offsets for a sustainable advantage. Forest
Trends. URL: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/library.php [last accessed 21 February 2012]
Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ.
Impact Asses. 24, 595-616. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001
Race, M.S., Fonseca, M.S., 1996. Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take? Ecol. Appl. 6(1), 94101.
Smith, P.G.R., Theberge, J.B., 1986. A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environ. Manage. 10(6),
715-734.
Therivel, R., Ross, B., 2007. Cumulative effects assessment: Does scale matter? Environ. Impact Asses. 27(5),
365-385. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.001
Van der Ploeg, S.W.F., Vlijm, L., 1978. Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with
particular reference to methods used in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation. 14, 197-221.
Villarroya, A., Puig, J., 2010. Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain.
Environ. Impact Asses. 30(6), 357-362. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.11.001
Weaver, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., Lochner, P., 2008. Contributing to sustainability as an
environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 26(2), 9198. doi:10.3152/146155108X316423
Wood, C., 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Harlow.
- 89 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
WEB REFERENCES
http://usuarios.multimania.es/fotoantigua/index.html [last accessed 21 february 2012]
- 90 -
Pérdida aceptada de calidad ecológica
ANEXO CAPÍTULO III
Proyectos costeros 2001-2011
Proyectos de carreteras 2009-2011
No mencionados
Mencionados
Figura 1. Referencias a impactos residuales en las DIAs de proyectos costeros y de carreteras.
- 91 -
SEGUNDA PARTE
PROPUESTAS PARA PROMOVER LA
COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN LA EIA EN
ESPAÑA
Como se desprende de los primeros artículos de la tesis, y como afirman algunos
autores, parte del problema de la puesta en práctica de la compensación ecológica puede
derivarse de las dificultades que surgen en torno a la valoración del impacto residual
(ecológico), y la subsiguiente estimación de las medidas compensatorias necesarias para
contrarrestarlo (Darbi et al., 2009; Rowe et al., 2009).
En esta parte se tratan con más profundidad estos temas a través de tres artículos
que, continuando la línea iniciada en la primera parte de la tesis, giran en torno a
proyectos de vías de transporte, aunque en muchos aspectos son aplicables a otros tipos
de proyectos.
La propuesta concreta de medidas de compensación ecológica necesarias para
acercar un proyecto al objetivo de sostenibilidad debe fundamentarse en el valor de su
impacto ecológico residual. A su vez, éste último se basa en la valoración ecológica del
medio, antes y después de la actuación prevista. En cada uno de los capítulos que siguen,
se ha centrado la atención, sucesivamente, en uno de tres grandes temas, diferenciados
pero siempre tratados según la estrecha relación recíproca que sostienen.
El artículo IV se centra en el papel del método de valoración ecológica del medio
dentro de la EIA, especialmente en cuanto a su utilidad para revelar los impactos
ecológicos residuales de forma que constituyan una base sólida a partir de la que
promover la compensación. Complementariamente, el artículo V analiza el grado de
atención a los impactos ecológicos residuales mismos, en una selección de Declaraciones
de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos de vías de transporte en España, señalando posibles
puntos a mejorar. Finalmente, el artículo VI se centra en torno a la propuesta concreta de
medidas de compensación ecológica, revisando las orientaciones que existen actualmente
en la bibliografía y elaborando una propuesta para complementarlas en el caso de
proyectos de carreteras y autopistas.
- 93 -
CAPÍTULO IV
UN MÉTODO ADECUADO PARA LA VALORACIÓN
ECOLÓGICA DEL MEDIO Y DE LOS IMPACTOS RESIDUALES
Villarroya A, Puig J. 2012.
Valuation of residual impacts of roads on landscape ecological units in
Navarre, Spain.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management; 55(3):339-353.
doi: 10.1080/09640568.2011.597974
Método de valoración ecológica
Este capítulo presenta un método de valoración ecológica por unidades de
paisaje, y su potencial para abordar la valoración de impactos residuales en el marco de la
EIA. Sin embargo, la atención no está centrada en el método concreto que se presenta,
sino en cómo alcanzar los requisitos de sencillez y transparencia que debe cumplir. Lo que
se busca con el artículo es ilustrar cómo un método de valoración puede emplearse para
reforzar, en especial de cara al público y su deseable intervención, los argumentos a favor
de la práctica de la compensación, facilitando la percepción, registro y valoración de
impactos ecológicos residuales, mediante un método que busca ser lo sencillo y
transparente que el complejo objeto de valoración (los elementos naturales de un lugar)
permite. En cualquier caso, el capítulo propone, teniendo en cuenta el marco de decisión
para el que lo hace (la EIA), un modo de trabajo que busca sencillez y transparencia en la
evaluación, ejemplificadas mediante un método concreto. No busca, de ningún modo,
“establecer” un método único de evaluación.
El trabajo parte de la observación, a través de la bibliografía, de que durante los
últimos 25 años se han desarrollado numerosos métodos de valoración ecológica del
medio (ver, p. ej., Tabla 1 en artículo IV). A la hora de buscar formas de valorar
adecuadamente los impactos (residuales) ecológicos, una primera idea podría haber sido
recurrir a estos métodos, que buscan —por lo general— la precisión e idoneidad científica
en las estimaciones de los valores que obtienen.
Sin embargo, la EIA se desarrolla en un contexto de participación y de toma de
decisiones, condicionada habitualmente por limitaciones de tiempo y recursos propias de
este procedimiento. Todo esto hace que metodologías demasiado complejas no sean
adecuadas para este procedimiento, como ocurre a menudo con los métodos de
valoración propuestos desde el ámbito científico.
Por este motivo, el artículo IV, así como los que le siguen, trata de elaborar
propuestas que buscan, en la medida de lo posible, un equilibrio entre la precisión
científica que la toma de decisiones requiere y las exigencias prácticas del procedimiento
de EIA.
- 95 -
Método de valoración ecológica
VALUATION OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF ROADS ON LANDSCAPE
ECOLOGICAL UNITS IN NAVARRE, SPAIN
VALORACIÓN
DE IMPACTOS RESIDUALES DE
ECOLÓGICAS DE PAISAJE EN NAVARRA (ESPAÑA)
CARRETERAS
EN
UNIDADES
ABSTRACT
Road construction generally reduces the ecological value of the
environment. To recover it, the value of the residual ecological impacts should
be counterbalanced by compensation measures, within the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure. Ecological valuation and impact valuation
are central to EIA performance. As long as residual impacts are valued, the
rationale behind specific compensation proposals may be strengthened. This
paper proposes a simple, transparent and adaptable approach to ecological
and impact valuation. It aims at improving the perception, compilation and
valuation of certain residual ecological impacts, as a means to encourage
compensation practice within EIA.
KEYWORDS:
ecological valuation; residual impacts; ecological
compensation; environmental impact assessment (EIA); impact valuation;
landscape units.
RESUMEN
La construcción de carreteras reduce el valor ecológico del medio.
Para recuperarlo, los impactos ecológicos residuales han de ser
contrarrestados a través de la aplicación de medidas compensatorias, dentro
del procedimiento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) que tiene como
núcleo la valoración ecológica y la valoración de impactos. Así, la valoración
de impactos residuales es la base para la propuesta de medidas
compensatorias adecuadas. Este artículo elabora una propuesta simple,
transparente y adaptable de valoración ecológica del medio y los impactos,
con el objetivo de mejorar la percepción, registro y valoración de ciertos
impactos residuales y fomentar así la práctica de la compensación dentro de
la EIA.
PALABRAS
CLAVE:
valoración ecológica; impactos residuales;
compensación ecológica; Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA); valoración
de impactos; unidades de paisaje.
1. INTRODUCTION
Road construction causes notable impacts on the ecological value of the
environment. Some of these impacts (such as noise, pollutant emissions or land use
changes) cannot be completely avoided or reversed through the implementation of either
- 96 -
Método de valoración ecológica
preventive or corrective measures, thus becoming what we call residual impacts. Road
construction should provide for appropriate ecological compensation of these impacts, in
order to preserve the overall ecological value undiminished.
The valuations are simply the relative weights we give to the various aspects of
the decision problem (Costanza 2000). When decisions have to be made on whether or
not a project ought to be implemented, the environment and the impacts caused on it
may be valued using of two main complementary approaches: ecological valuation, and
socio-economic valuation (Van der Ploeg and Vlijm 1978; Smith and Theberge 1986,
Efroymson et al. 2008). This article focuses in the ecologic side of the value of the
environment and of the impacts on it.
Once the decision to compensate is taken, the definition of ecological
compensatory measures faces an added problem to that of selecting either preventive or
corrective measures. Compensation practice should counterbalance the residual impact,
the lost ecological value. Yet, the rationale behind the proposal of compensatory
measures lacks frequently systematization, such as an appropriate reference to residual
impacts, as it has been occasionally reported in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
frameworks (Villarroya and Puig 2010).
The selection and design of compensation measures should seek to balance the
value of the residual ecological impacts. Correspondingly, the value assigned to the
residual impacts should match the irretrievable loss of ecological value after the project
and all of the possible corrective measures have been implemented. Both ecological
evaluation and impact evaluation have long been under discussion (Beattie 1995, Bingham
et al. 1995, Geneletti 2002, Nakagoshi and Kondo 2002, Cloquell-Ballester et al. 2006,
Efroymson et al. 2008, Niemeijer and de Groot 2008). But, as Costanza et al. (1997)
point out:
“[…] although ecosystem valuation is certainly difficult and fraught
with uncertainties, one choice we do not have is whether or not to do it.
[…] as long as we are forced to make choices, we are going through the
process of valuation.”
Ecological valuation and ecological impact valuation are central to EIA
performance. The difference between the ecological value of the environment with or
without the project implementation shows us the value of the ecological impact. As long
- 97 -
Método de valoración ecológica
as residual ecological impacts are valued, the rationale behind specific compensation
proposals may be strengthened.
Focusing on roads, this paper proposes a simple, transparent and adaptable
approach to ecological valuation and impact valuation. Based on land units valuation (see
section 3) and orthophotograph interpretation, it aims to improve the perception,
compilation and valuation of residual impacts, as a means to encourage compensation
practice within EIA. In any case, no attempt is made in this article at systematizing the
choice of compensation measures once the residual impact has been pointed out.
Our approach does not pay attention to all of the residual impacts. It rather
focuses on the record and graphic representation of some ecological values and impacts
that can be expressed through mappable land units. We focus on those residual impacts,
as they can be easily perceived, understood, and presented to the public through maps
and orthophotography. More ambitious and demanding attempts that might prove
impractical at present should be reserved for EIA contexts more committed to the
preservation of the overall ecological value. This approach, although limited, may foster
the practice of well-reasoned compensation initiatives in those EIA frameworks where
residual impacts are frequently admitted, or even unnoticed, and remain uncompensated.
2. ECOLOGICAL VALUATION IN EIA
Subjectivity is a main challenge any valuation approach has to face. It is an inherent
component of each evaluation and cannot be eliminated (Geneletti 2003). But it can be
delimited, distinguishing as much as possible objective components (as those allowing to
prepare classifications) from subjective components (as those assessing the relative value
of each category) throughout the valuation process, as Wathern et al. (1986) advise to
do.
Not being a problem in itself, the subjective components of the valuation process
ought to be made as transparent as possible in participatory frameworks such as EIA.
Assuming that all assessment decisions, and their basis, should be open and accessible
(Ridgway et al. 1996 cited Morrison-Saunders and Bailey 2000), we adopt the approach
that the reader should be able to follow the investigation step by step (Hylmö and
Skärbäck 2006), as we agree with Costanza (2000) that “Society can make better choices
about ecosystems if the valuation issue is made as explicit as possible.”
- 98 -
Método de valoración ecológica
Transparency calls for simple methods (i.e., easy to be understood and to be
implemented), because “In short, transparency assumes the availability of “user-friendly”
information that is not misleading, cannot be misunderstood, nor is easily misinterpreted”
(Kakonge 1998). In EIA practice, transparency in the decision making process becomes
one of the fundamental principles to reach an effective implementation (Sadler 1996). In
addition, although subjectivity can never be eliminated, the results of an evaluation may
become more credible to the public if they are obtained by the application of an a-priori
defined methodology (Antunes et al. 2001), provided it is made entirely explicit to the
public.
Any environment contains unique and specific ecological features, people and
values. It seems not possible or sensible to propose a completely standardized, closed or
rigid valuation approach. In 2002 Nakagoshi and Kondo came even to state that “Standard
methods for the evaluation of natural environments […] have not been established”.
Valuation systems should adapt to the particularities of the ecology, the people and the
values of every particular environment.
Many methodologies have been proposed to assess the value of the environment.
A review of selected approaches that might be of use in EIA (even though they might
have been designed primarily for other purposes) has been conducted (see Table 1).
Bearing particular aspects of these methodologies in mind, we designed a valuation
approach to strengthen the rationale behind impact evaluation and compensation practice
in EIA.
Our proposal presents its results both as valued land units (see section 3) on
orthophotographs and as data tables, to fit within the EIA framework. Maps and
orthophotographs allow impact location and provide a basis for impact quantification, as
well as for public participation1. The proposal seeks also to be easily implemented, while
avoiding an oversimplification beyond the minimum acceptable requirements of precision
and resolution. Following Munda et al. (1994):
“In choosing a set of evaluation criteria, two main tendencies can be
distinguished. On one hand, one may wish to build a decision model as
close as possible to the real-world problem; this may increase the number
of evaluation criteria to a level such that its applicability becomes almost
impossible. On the other hand, one may wish to use a small number of
- 99 -
Método de valoración ecológica
criteria so that the model is simpler and faster to use; this may bring to an
oversimplification of the model used.”
The coming sections clarify the criteria and rationale followed to proceed with the
valuation approach here presented.
What seeks to value the method?
Ecology and ecosystems
Landscape
Conservation suitability
Biodiversity
Impacts
Examples
Tubbs and Blackwood 1971
Yapp 1973
Ten Brink et al 1991 — General Method for Description and Evaluation
of Ecosystems (AMOEBE)
Rossi and Kuitunen 1996
IUCN 1991 in Ruijgrok 2000 — Ecosystem Classification Method (ECM)
Bureau Waardenburg 1993 in Ruijgrok 2000 — Visualisation of Quality
of Roadsides method (VQRS)
Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries 1996
in Ruijgrok 2000 — Ecological loss due to roads method A73
Ruijgrok 2000 — Multi-Criteria Valuation method (MCV)
Gómez-Sal et al 2003
White and Maurice, u.d. in Efroymson et al 2008 — Critical Ecosystem
Assessment Model (CrEAM)
Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, 2004 in Efroymson et al
2008 — Critical Ecosystem Assessment Model (CrEAM)
Efroymson et al 2008 — Habitat Evaluation Procedures
Efroymson et al 2008
Anglieri and Toccolini 1993
Lee et al 1999
Martínez-Vega et al 2003
Martínez-Vega et al 2007
Gehlbach 1975
Goldsmith 1975
Wright 1977
Giménez-Luque and Gómez-Mercado 1999
Nakagoshi and Kondo 2002
Ten Brink 2000; Van der Perk and de Groot 2000; ten Brink 2007—
Natural Capital Index (NCI)
Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries 1996
in Ruijgrok 2000 — Ecological loss due to roads method A73
Nunes et al 2001 — Ecological effect measurement method
Table 1. Valuation methods and approaches selected.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL VALUATION APPROACH
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Usually, no piece of land is internally homogeneous. Consequently, within any
delimited area, zones of different assigned ecological value can be pointed out and
mapped or drawn on orthophotographs. Our approach starts by enclosing the land
directly affected by the proximity of the road project within a band alongside the road.
Secondly, smaller zones are delimited within it, usually irregular in shape. Each of these
zones shares an important ecological trait that makes it different from those around. The
ecological feature chosen to delimit these smaller and relatively homogeneous zones has
- 100 -
Método de valoración ecológica
been the dominating vegetation and/or land use, which deeply characterize their
ecological quality (see Figure 2).
Each zone is differently perceived to the surrounding ones, and can be readily
mapped or drawn. People with no particular environmental expertise may do it, as well as
understand and interpret the resulting map or orthophotograph to the extent of their
knowledge of the land. These zones have been called land units, and are delimited either
by the surrounding units or by the limits of the band.
An ecological value is assigned to each land unit, through two consecutive steps:
(1) As we deal with natural and semi-natural environments, each land unit is
assigned a base value class according to the dominant vegetation.
(2) When necessary, the base value is modified to obtain a final value class,
according to secondary traits that may add up to the formerly assigned base
value, or take away from it.
Ecological value classes have been defined ranging from class “A” (maximum
ecological quality value) to class “J” (minimum value). This classification does not apply to
urban environments and similar ones (a small fraction of our study area), which are
assigned a specific class, “U”. Those units having been assigned the lowest class may still
have some ecological value, and they keep the potential to be ecologically improved. The
specific valuation criteria may be changed, as above mentioned, to adapt to specific
ecological features that differ from the ones we face in our particular case application.
3.2. BASE VALUE
Table 2 shows the base value assigned to the land units within the area of study.
Base values range from class “B” to class “I”. “A” (maximum value) and “J” (minimum
value) classes are excluded here. Class “A” and “J” may not be assigned paying attention
only to dominant vegetation, but also to some of the value modifiers dealt with below.
Again, alternative tables might be elaborated for differing environments.
- 101 -
Método de valoración ecológica
BASE VALUE CLASS ASSIGNMENT
Vegetation characteristics
Climax
Sub-climax
Other
High land cover
(neither climax nor
sub-climax
vegetation)
Medium land cover
Forest and woodland
Shrub land
Pasture / herbaceous
Forest and woodland
Shrub land
Pasture / herbaceous
Low land cover
Scant land cover
Value Class
B
C
D
E
G
E
F
G
H
I
Table 2. Base value classes assigned to the land units within the area of study.
The highest base values apply to those units showing climax vegetation, which
may be defined for our purposes as the most mature state that vegetation would
eventually reach on a given site in the absence of human action. Sub-climax vegetation
units follow them in assigned value, as sub-climax vegetation may be understood as the
stage immediately preceding a climax. The recovery after the loss of the climax and subclimax vegetation in any of these units would either be very difficult, or take a long period
of time to restore, thence their assigned high value. Even though real land units could
rarely meet the climax or sub-climax definition requirements, we do find in our region
vegetation areas that are usually tagged as “climax vegetation”, as it happens with wellpreserved forests (even though they may have experienced some use in the past), in
contrast to crops or pastures.
The remaining units are classified paying attention firstly to the vegetation cover
rate they present (see Table 3). Four categories can be distinguished:

Scant vegetation cover: Vegetation covers less than 15% of the unit.

Low vegetation cover: Vegetation covers between 15% and 30%.

Medium vegetation cover: Vegetation covers between 30% and 70%.

High vegetation cover: Vegetation covers more than 70%.
Those units with scant or low vegetation cover (≤30%) are assigned the lowest
base value. When the vegetation cover exceeds 30%, the base value is assigned according
to the vegetation physiognomy within the unit. Three physiognomies have been
distinguished in our case, following the criteria set by the available vegetation map of the
area (Olano et al. 2003):
- 102 -
Método de valoración ecológica

Forest: tree species cover > 20% of the land surface.

Shrub land: shrubs cover > 20%, tree cover  20%.

Pasture: herbaceous formations dominate; tree and shrub cover  20%.
Land Cover / Physiognomy
High (+ +)
Medium (+)
Forest and Woodland (+ +
+ + + + + (D)
+)
+ + + + (E)
Shrub land (+ +)
+ + + + (E)
+ + + (F)
Pasture / Herbaceous
+ + (G)
+ (G)
Table 3. Base value assignment criteria. The sign “+” indicates comparative added contribution to ecological
quality. “High” land cover adds ecological quality when compared to “medium” land cover. Seemingly,
forests and woodland usually add ecological quality when compared to shrub land.
Setting aside other criteria, usually the bigger the size of the vegetation, the longer
it has taken to reach its present appearance, the higher its ecological complexity, and the
longer it takes to recover it when lost. So the highest value is assigned to forest, followed
by shrub land. The lowest value is assigned to pasture.
The value assigned to those units showing high and medium vegetation cover has
been obtained by combining the variables ‘land cover’ and ‘dominating vegetation
physiognomy’, as detailed in Table 3. ‘Land cover’ acts as a modifier of the value set
primarily by ‘physiognomy’, except for pastures, which are always assigned the same base
value.
3.3. BASE VALUE MODIFIERS
The base value class of each unit is assigned by its dominating vegetation. But the
final value class depends also on complementary criteria, elements or features that do not
exclude each other. They may complement, and add up together and to the base value
to get the final value for each unit. Notwithstanding, and in order to simplify the following
explanations, each modifier is going to be considered by itself.
i. Elements, criteria and features that may add up ecological value to land
units.
a. Ecological protection status. When a unit belongs to land protected for
ecological reasons (wildlife, biodiversity…), it may be assigned to a higher
ecological value class, even the highest (class ‘A’).
- 103 -
Método de valoración ecológica
b. Natural features of ecological interest. They may add up to the base value
class because they improve, e.g., the habitat characteristics (caves that may
act as a shelter place for highly valuable wildlife species, ponds and lakes,
streams and rivers…). The value assigned to a unit will increase with the
number, extension or importance of such features (see Table 4).
ii. Elements, criteria and features that may take away ecological value to land
units.
b. Poor phytosanitary state. Plant diseases, pests, recent wildfires, and other
causes may diminish the ecological value of a unit in varying degrees:
i. Plant diseases / Pests. When incidental, they may lower the unit value
from the base value to a lower class. If prevalent across the area, they
may lower the value to any of the two following classes.
ii. Recent wildfire. If the unit shows no evident and prevalent signs of
regeneration after a wildfire, its value may be lowered to any of the 5
classes following the base value class. If widespread regeneration can be
observed, the value assigned will be lowered in up to two classes.
c. Presence of invasive species. Following IUCN (2010), they are “species
introduced outside its normal distribution. Its establishment and spread
modify ecosystems, habitats, or species”. In an incipient state of invasion,
they may lower the value to a lower class. If prevalent across the area, they
may lower the value in two classes.
d. Impacting human activities. Some human activities diminish the naturalness
and ecological value of the unit. The human impact depends on the activity
and its timing. Three cases are considered here:
i. Tree plantation of non-native species.
1. When native species have almost completely and naturally
substituted the non-native species originally planted, the assigned
base value is not modified.
2. Recent non-native tree plantations are assigned up to two quality
classes lower than the base value class.
- 104 -
Método de valoración ecológica
ii. Grazing. When the unit hosts grazing cattle, the final value class assigned
may be up to two quality classes lower than the base value class.
iii. Agriculture. When the unit contains crops or farm fields, the final value
class assigned may be up to two quality classes lower than the base value
class.
iv. Housing and other buildings and infrastructures, other than roads (see
following section) and urban areas (which are assigned ‘U’ class).
1. When they are scarce in number and area occupied, the base
value class remains as the final value class of these units.
2. When they are frequent either because of their relative size or for
any other reason, the class assigned to the unit by the base value
may be lowered to the following class.
v. Distance to the nearest road. Roads are mentioned apart because they are
a special concern of this work. Many of their effects fade as the distance to
the road increases. No agreement has been reached on how to map such
decreasing influence. Having in mind this background, we distinguish
between three categories:
1. When the unit is located farther away than 75 m from the road,
the base value remains as the final value (75 m is the smallest
distance of affection proposed for high density traffic roads,
following Reijnen et al. 1997).
2. When the unit is located within 75 m from the road, the final value
class may be lowered to the following class.
3. When the unit is crossed by the road, the final value class may be
lowered to the two following classes.
At this point we would like to insist on the adaptability of the approach. We do
not intend these criteria should be strictly followed. We rather wish to reason and make
our criteria explicit, to make possible to change them when needed.
- 105 -
Método de valoración ecológica
BASE VALUE POTENTIAL MODIFIERS
Environmental feature / element
Ecological protection
status (variable
regulatory frameworks)
Natural features of
interest
Phytosanitary state
e.g.: National Parks, Nature reserves, Protected landscapes, Sites of
Community Importance (SCIs), Special Areas of Conservation
(SACs), Important Plant Areas (IPAs), Special Protection Areas
(SPAs), (…)
Singular rock outcrops, waterfalls, special features improving the
habitat characteristics for wildlife valuable species…
Diseases / pests
Incidental or non-prevalent
Prevalent
Recent wildfire
No widespread regeneration
observed
Widespread regeneration in
process
Presence of invasive
species
Incidental or non-prevalent
Prevalent
Some impacting human
activities
Tree plantation of non-native
species
Already close to a natural state
Non close to a natural state
Grazing
Agriculture
Housing, buildings…
Distance to the nearest road
Occasional
Frequent
>75 m
<75 m
The road crosses the unit
Assigned Final Value
Class (FVC)
FVC: Class “A”
FVC: BV, BV+1 or
BV+2
(FVC: Base Value
Class, BV, or up to 2
classes higher: BV+1,
BV+2)
FVC: BV or BV-1
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV, BV-1, BV-2,
BV-3, BV-4 or BV-5
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV or BV-1
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
FVC: BV
FVC: BV or BV-1
FVC: BV
FVC: BV or BV-1
FVC: BV, BV-1 or BV2
Table 4. Some base value potential modifiers. FVC = Final Value Class. BV: Base Value. The signs (+) and (-)
indicate the class change range caused by the modifiers. So BV+2 indicates that a given land unit may be
assigned to a final value class two classes above the base value class, due to the presence of modifiers.
- 106 -
Método de valoración ecológica
3.4. PRESENTATION OF THE VALUATION RESULT: NA-411 ROAD CASE STUDY
As it has been anticipated, the results of the valuation approach are presented
both in orthophotograph, and table formats. As above mentioned, maps and orthophotos
allow the visualization and understanding of results, and locate those units with the highest
and lowest ecological values and residual impacts. Tables complement the orthophotos,
and sum up some of their features, such as the number of land units fragmented by roads.
Figure 1 locates the area of study in the NW of Navarre (Spain), and shows a
general view of the area. The road stretch selected unites the points of coordinates
42º57’48”N; 1º49’37”W and 43º0’21’N; 1º46’49”W. We have delimited ninety-nine land
units within two 500 m-wide bands alongside the road. The units are shown in Figure 2. A
distinction is made between riparian area (RP), natural forest (NF), tree plantations (TP),
crops and pastures (CP), rural building areas (RB), uncultivated land patches (UN) and
urban areas (UR) units. The valuation of each delimited land unit has been done following
the above mentioned directions, and using of the information provided by orthophotos
and field trips. As a result, every type of unit is coloured differently, according to their
ecological value. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show an application example of the approach here
outlined. A sample of the valuation results is shown in Table 5.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area.
- 107 -
Método de valoración ecológica
Fig. 2. Land units within the study area.
Fig. 3. Value assigned to each land unit before project implementation.
- 108 -
Método de valoración ecológica
Fig. 4. Value assigned to each land unit after project implementation.
Fig. 5. Changes in value class caused by the project implementation.
- 109 -
Unit Id
NF06
TP04
CP16
RP03
RP04
RP05
RP06
RP07
RP08
CP17
CP18
CP19
NF07
CPG20
CP21
CP22
CP23
RP05
NF08
CP24
NF09
CP25
CP26
UR04
CP27
CP28
TP06
CP29
Base value
B
D
F
B
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
F
B
E
F
F
F
D
B
F
B
F
F
--F
F
D
F
Value modification rate
+1
-2
-1
+1
0
-1
+1
-2
+1
0
-2
-1
0
-1
-3
0
0
-1
-1
0
+1
0
0
---2
-1
-2
0
Table 5. Some examples of the land unit valuation approach.
Causes of value addition
River proximity
Causes of value subtraction
Tree plantation
Agriculture
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
River proximity
Phytosanitary condition
Phytosanitary condition
Phytosanitary condition; rural buildings; road proximity
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture; road proximity
Agriculture
Agriculture
Tree plantation, phytosanitary condition
Tree plantation
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture; road proximity
Tree plantation
Agriculture
Final value
A
F
G
A
B
C
A
D
A
F
H
G
B
F
I
F
F
E
C
F
A
F
F
--H
G
F
F
Método de valoración ecológica
Residual ecological impact is the loss of the ecological value caused by a project
once all the corrective measures have been implemented. In our case-study we
approximate part of it. By applying the ecological valuation approach twice, with and
without project implementation, we can register which units will be affected, and to what
a degree. We only reach impact approximations, as no methodology can take into
account all of the residual impacts caused by project implementation. But even though
they are approximations, they may be efficient in fostering residual impact awareness and,
consequently, ecological compensation practice.
Two differently drawn orthophotos can represent the assigned value for every
land unit, either with (Figure 4) or without (Figure 3) the project implementation. The
differences between those orthophotos show and locate some of the particularities of the
ecological impact.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The ecological evaluation and impact evaluation approach presented may
efficiently contribute to highlight ecological residual impacts.
Orthophotographs provide important ecological value data that may be efficiently
used in ecological valuation and impact valuation within EIA participatory frameworks.
Dominant vegetation, as recorded on orthophotographs, has proved an adequate
ecological feature to delimit land units affected by the impacting activity, and to
approximate their ecological value, which has to be refined with complementary criteria
appropriate of each environment.
Land units have been proved a useful tool to represent some of the main
ecological values and ecological impacts contained within the area of study. The definition
of land units characterized by dominant vegetation allows our approach to be adopted in
different environments, and adapted to their ecological value particularities. The detailed
explanation of the criteria used in our case study to assess the ecological value of land
units allows the discussion and modification of the approach.
Land units delimited on orthophotographs give a quick and precise location of
areas with different ecological value, so indicating where the ecological value concentrates
or distributes across the area under study. Seemingly, they have been used satisfactorily to
- 111 -
Método de valoración ecológica
show those areas where the ecological value changes as a result of the impacting activity,
and where they concentrate or distribute. As the ecological value changes recorded on
the orthophotographs reflect ecological impacts, the use of land units allow to locate
them.
The maps produced from orthophotographs in our case study increase the
awareness of road ecological residual impacts that at present go mostly unnoticed. These
maps provide a base for future ecological impact quantification, even though we have not
explored this option in this work. The data tables presented help in interpreting the maps.
Finally, we hope that the display of ecological impacts through land units drawn on
orthophotographs may help in increasing the awareness of residual ecological impacts, and
provide a firm basis to promote ecological compensation practice.
NOTES
1. Natori et al. (2004) propose the use of maps to narrow the communication
gaps between research, policy formation, and policy implementation. Maps allow “for
clearer delivery of messages from researchers to government officials and residents”,
contain “much less ambiguity than written administrative policies” and provide “a graphical
presentation that allows for intuitive understanding of what will be attempted”. Maps
“allow the government to invite local participation in nature conservation” and “allow
residents to feel it would be easier to get involved, as a map would help them to consider
the policy in the context of their daily lives more readily”. We understand that
orthophotographs share all of these advantages for our purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ana Villarroya is supported by a doctoral fellowship provided by the Department
of Science, Technology and Universities of the Government of the Autonomous region of
Aragón. Special thanks to Mr Carlos Villarroya for his help and support with field work.
REFERENCES
Angileri, V., Toccolini, A., 1993. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural
landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24, 105-112.
Antunes, P., Santos, R., Jordão, L., 2001. The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine
environmental impact significance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 511-535.
- 112 -
Método de valoración ecológica
Beattie, R.B., 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but don't often admit). Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 15, 109-114.
Bingham, G., et al., 1995. Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecological
Economics, 14, 73-90.
Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., et al., 2006. Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social
impact quantitative assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 79-105.
Costanza, R., 2000. Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Ecosystems, 3, 4-10.
Costanza, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253260.
Efroymson, R.A., et al., 2008. Investigating habitat value to inform contaminant remediation options:
Approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 1436-1451.
Gehlbach, F.R., 1975. Investigation, evaluation, and priority ranking of natural areas. Biological Conservation,
8, 79-88.
Geneletti, D., 2002. Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Utrecht: Netherlands
Geographical Studies.
Geneletti, D., 2003. Biodiversity Impact Assessment of roads: an approach based on ecosystem rarity.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 343-365.
Giménez-Luque, E., Gómez-Mercado, F., 1999. Valoración naturalística del Paraje Natural Punta Entinas Sabinar. In: E. Cano-Carmona et al., eds. Valoración y gestión de espacios naturales. XVII Jornadas
de Fitosociología. 21-24 September 1999 Jaén. Jaén: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de
Jaén, 143-151.
Goldsmith, F.B., 1975. The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes.
Biological Conservation, 8, 89-96.
Gómez-Sal, A., Belmontes, J.A., Nicolau, J.M., 2003. Assessing landscape values: a proposal for a
multidimensional conceptual model. Ecological Modelling, 168, 319-341.
Hylmö, K., Skärbäck, E., 2006. Transparency in Road Planning Documents: A Case Study of Two Swedish
Projects. Environmental Practice, 8, 49-57.
IUCN, 2010. Biodiversity Glossary [online]. Available from: http://www.iucn.org/iyb/about/bio_glossary/
[Accessed 20 December 2010].
Kakonge, J.O., 1998. EIA and good governance: issues and lessons from Africa. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 18, 289-305.
Lee, J.T., Elton, M.J., Thompson, S., 1999. The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using land-use-based
criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Land Use Policy, 16,
23-32.
Martínez-Vega, J., Martín-Isabel, M.P., Romero-Calcerrada, R., 2003. Valoración del paisaje en la Zona de
Especial Protección de Aves Carrizales y Sotos de Aranjuez (Comunidad de Madrid). GeoFocus
(Artículos), 3, 1-21.
Martínez-Vega, J., Romero-Calcerrada, R., Echavarría, P., 2007. Valoración paisajística y ecológica de la
Comunidad de Madrid: su integración en un índice sintético de riesgo de incendios forestales.
Revista de Teledetección, 28, 43-60.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Bailey, J., 2000. Transparency in environment impact assessment decision-making:
recent developments in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(4), 260270.
Munda, G., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 1994. Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental
management. Ecological Economics, 10, 97-112.
Nakagoshi, N., Kondo, T., 2002. Ecological land evaluation for nature redevelopment in river areas.
Landscape Ecology, 17(Suppl 1), 83-93.
Natori, Y., Fukui, W., Hikasa, M., 2005. Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning
strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70,
315-324.
- 113 -
Método de valoración ecológica
Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets.
Ecological Indicators, 8, 14-25.
Nunes, P.A.L.D., Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Nijkamp, P., 2001. Integration of economic and ecological indicators
of biodiversity. In: OECD, ed. Valuation of Biodiversity Studies: Selected Studies. Paris: OECD, 153182.
Olano, J.M., et al. 2003. Cartografía de hábitats en los Lugares de Importancia Comunitaria (LICs) de
Navarra (Red Natura 2000). In: VII Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de Ecología
Terrestre. 2-4 July 2003 Cerdanyola del Vallès. Barcelona: 1094-1110.
Reijnen, R., Foppen, R., Veenbaas, G., 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect
and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 567581.
Rossi, E., Kuitunen, M., 1996. Ranking of habitats for the assessment of ecological impact in land use planning.
Biological Conservation, 77, 227-234.
Ruijgrok, E.C.M., 2000. Valuation of nature in coastal zones. Thesis (PhD). Free University of Amsterdam.
Sadler, B., 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, Final Report,
Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance.
Canada: Minister of Supply and Services.
Smith, P.G.R., Theberge, J.B., 1986. A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environmental
Management, 10(6), 715-734.
Ten Brink, B.J.E., 2000. Biodiversity indicators for the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy: a
feasibility study. Globo Report Series no. 25. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the
Environment.
Ten Brink, B.J.E., 2007. Contribution to Beyond GDP "Virtual Indicator Expo": The Natural Capital Index
framework (NCI). In: Beyond GDP International Conference, 19-20 November 2007 Brussels.
Ten Brink, B.J.E., Hosper, S.H., Colijn, F., 1991. A Quantitative Method for Description & Assessment of
Ecosystems: the AMOEBA-approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 23, 265-270.
Tubbs, C.R., Blackwood, J.W., 1971. Ecological Evaluation of Land for Planning Purposes. Biological
Conservation, 3(3), 169-172.
Van der Perk, J., de Groot, R., 2000. Towards a Method to estimate Critical Natural Capital: An inventory of
methods to determine critical natural capital in the Netherlands. Discussion paper for second
meeting of the CRITINC-project. 30 November — 1 December 1998 Saint Quentin en Yvelines,
Paris.
Van der Ploeg, S.W.F., Vlijm, L., 1978. Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with
particular reference to methods used in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation, 14, 197-221.
Villarroya, A., Puig, J., 2010. Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 357-362.
Wathern, P., et al., 1986. Ecological evaluation techniques. Landscape Planning, 12, 403-420.
Wright, D.F., 1977. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves.
Biological Conservation, 11, 293-305.
Yapp, W.P., 1973. Ecological Evaluation of a Linear Landscape. Biological Conservation, 5(1), 45-47.
- 114 -
CAPÍTULO V
LA CONVENIENCIA DE SUBRAYAR LOS IMPACTOS
ECOLÓGICOS RESIDUALES
Villarroya A, Puig J.
A proposal to improve ecological compensation practice in road and railway
projects in Spain.
Enviado a Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Método de valoración ecológica
El artículo V revisa cómo se aborda la valoración de impactos ecológicos
residuales en la EIA de proyectos de vías de transporte, relacionando este aspecto con la
propuesta de medidas compensatorias en estos casos.
Para ello, se recurre de nuevo a las DIAs como indicadores tanto de lo que
ocurre a lo largo del procedimiento de EIA como de la importancia que se le da a cada
parte del proceso.
En este caso, se prestó especial atención a las alegaciones presentadas por el
público, buscando detectar referencias a la valoración ecológica del medio y los impactos
residuales. Asimismo, se evaluó también el peso otorgado al valor del impacto residual en
la toma de decisiones.
Tras evaluar estos aspectos, el artículo elabora propuestas que se centran en
promover la percepción y valoración de los impactos residuales dentro de los procesos
actuales de EIA, siempre con el fin de fomentar la compensación.
Por un lado, la participación del público en la valoración podría verse favorecida
por la utilización de metodologías relativamente sencillas y transparentes, que permitan
comprender el proceso de principio a fin, como la vista en el capítulo anterior. Este modo
de proceder facilitaría la propuesta por parte del público interesado de mejoras relativas a
la valoración de impactos, abriendo más la puerta a la posibilidad de enriquecer este
aspecto de la EIA, dirigida por personal técnico, con los conocimientos locales y la
perspectiva de los afectados por el proyecto. En relación a la posterior propuesta de
medidas compensatorias, las aportaciones del público en materia de valoración ayudarían
a discernir aquellos valores o elementos prioritarios que merecen un mayor esfuerzo
compensador.
Por otro lado, para facilitar la propuesta de medidas compensatorias adecuadas la
valoración de impactos debe ofrecer una estimación clara del impacto ecológico residual.
Puesto que no todos los efectos de un proyecto sobre el medio presentan las mismas
dificultades en cuanto su evaluación, se propone empezar en una primera etapa por los
impactos más fácilmente identificables y mensurables, como son aquellos con
representación geográfica. Una vez logrado esto, en un siguiente paso se puede abordar
paulatinamente la valoración de impactos más complejos.
- 116 -
Impactos residuales
A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION PRACTICE IN
ROAD AND RAILWAY PROJECTS IN SPAIN
PROPUESTA
DE MEJORA DE LA PRÁCTICA DE LA COMPENSACIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN
PROYECTOS DE CARRETERAS Y VÍAS FERROVIARIAS EN ESPAÑA
ABSTRACT
To reduce ecological impacts caused by development projects,
avoidance, minimization and compensation techniques have to be taken
together into consideration along Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
procedures. This paper explores the particular role that ecological
compensation has had in recent road and railway EIA processes in Spain, as
seen through the review of a set of recent EIA Records of Decision (RODs)
that confirms precedent findings. Noticing indicators that residual impacts are
not paid much attention, and that there is no evidence of a solid public
participation in ecological impact evaluation, it advances a reasoned proposal
focused particularly in promoting an increased awareness of residual impacts,
as a way to make easier the access to public participants to the allegedly most
sensitive moment of EIA implementation: (residual) impact evaluation.
KEYWORDS: Impact evaluation; public participation; transparency;
sustainability; residual impact.
RESUMEN
Dentro del procedimiento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA)
se incluye la aplicación de medidas preventivas, correctoras y compensatorias
para neutralizar los impactos ecológicos causados por la implementación de
proyectos de desarrollo. Este artículo explora el papel actual de la
compensación ecológica a través de la revisión de una serie de Declaraciones
de Impacto Ambiental (DIAs) de proyectos recientes de carreteras y vías de
tren, que confirma resultados anteriores en este campo. Los resultados
indican que en la mayoría de los casos no se presta atención a los impactos
residuales, y que la participación del público no aborda la valoración ecológica
de impactos. Partiendo de esto, se elaboran propuestas centradas en
promover una valoración más explícita y visible de los impactos residuales,
como forma de facilitar el acceso del público al núcleo de la EIA: la valoración
de impactos (residuales).
PALABRAS CLAVE: evaluación de impactos; participación pública;
transparencia; sostenibilidad; impacto residual.
- 117 -
Impactos residuales
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims at improving the sustainability of
certain environmentally regulated projects, by identifying their significant environmental
impacts and proposing measures to counter them (IAIA and UK Institute of
Environmental Assessment, 1999). This last step may be achieved through impact
avoidance, minimization or compensation techniques. Of these, compensation is the only
tool capable to counter residual impacts: those impacts that will remain after the project
and all impact avoidance and minimization techniques have been implemented. EIA
practice cannot spare compensation practice, if it really aims at increasing levels of
sustainability.
Impact compensation practice within EIA has been reported as the most neglected
technique in Spain when compared to avoidance and minimization ones (see Villarroya
and Puig, 2010). Recent data have corroborated the precedent ones (see Section 3).
How an EIA system where compensation practice is occasional, as compared to an
always-present minimization effort, could be spurred into implementing increasing levels
of compensation, starting almost from nought? How could the “minimization culture” of
certain EIA contexts evolve through compensation techniques into a “no net loss”
culture?
To engage well-established, even inertial administrative procedures and personnel
into new practices is not an easy task, even when no new concepts are involved.
Certainly, compensation is not a new concept for EIA professionals in Spain. But its
habitual implementation across Spanish EIA procedures at comparable levels to those of
minimization would certainly be a novelty, the one that is here pursued. This is a point to
insist on: new practices in EIA have to be fostered together with new conceptualizations if
we want to attain more sustainable projects. We do not need only new concepts, but
also new practices, and specific proposals to push them to be undertaken across real EIA
contexts. Impact avoidance and minimization are presently not only in the mindset of EIA
professionals in Spain but also in their everyday practice. Something similar should be
promoted for compensation.
How to push present EIA practice in Spain, or in other comparable EIA contexts,
towards increased levels of compensation? The aim of this article is to advance a reasoned
proposal in this direction, which focuses particularly in promoting an increased awareness
- 118 -
Impactos residuales
of residual impacts, as a way to make easier the access to public participants to the
allegedly most sensitive moment of EIA implementation: (residual) impact evaluation.
Before putting forward the proposals some conceptual clarifications will be made, with
the aim to clarify all the conceptual background required to justify and frame the
proposals here advanced, aimed at fostering compensation in Spanish EIA.
1.1. THE MEANING OF “COMPENSATION”
Different definitions are provided for the term ‘compensation’ within the existing
literature. Kuiper (1997) defined environmental compensation as the creation of new
values, which are equal or as similar as possible to the lost ones. Complementary views
would label this approach as “in-kind” compensation, while admitting the creation of
other kinds of values than those lost (“out-of-kind” compensation) (Brinson and
Rheinhardt, 1996; Cuperus et al., 1999).
Within the context of EIA, compensation measures (also called offsets or mitigation
measures, depending on the context) are the last step of the so-called ‘mitigation
hierarchy’ (avoid, reduce/minimise, offset/compensate) (CEC, 1985; Darbi et al., 2009;
Dolan et al., 2006; ten Kate et al., 2004; United States Congress, 2002). We should avoid
all avoidable impacts. When avoidance is not possible, we should reduce or minimise
them. Finally, we should compensate only those impacts remaining after avoidance and
reduction possibilities have been fully implemented. Compensation should not be a tool
to compromise with those inadmissible impacts that can be avoided (Burgin, 2008).
1.2. SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES OF COMPENSATION PRACTICE IN EIA
Sustainability has been proposed as one of the main pursuits of EIA practice
worldwide (IAIA and UK Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1999; IAIA, 2009).
Sustainability is a fuzzy concept, not easy to define neither to address in practice. The
adoption of compensatory measures is proposed as a means to get down to specifics in
EIA contexts, by compensating for the residual, unavoidable harm caused by development
projects to the environment (Norton, 2009; ten Kate et al., 2004; Treweek, 2009). To the
extent that these impacts are not compensated, sustainability will remain partially
meaningless in EIA practice.
At present, it is becoming increasingly accepted the idea of achieving sustainability
through positive change, rather than only by minimisation of the negative effects of human
activities (Pope et al., 2004). There is the new challenge of promoting positive outcomes
- 119 -
Impactos residuales
when projects with significant effects on the environment are implemented in spite of
their unavoidable residual impacts (BBOP, 2009; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk and Daddo,
2007; Weaver et al., 2008). Although it is not mainstream yet, offset implementation is
increasingly employed for achieving net environmental gains in specific cases in many
countries (McKenney, 2005, Middle and Middle, 2010).
1.3. THE FOCUS OF THIS PAPER: ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION. ROADS AND
RAILWAYS
Many are the potentially impacted environmental features that may require
compensation in EIA: ecological, economic, social… The ecological component of the
environment plays one of the main sustainability roles within the overall compensation
practice, and it is the one that has been paid attention in this article. Ecological
compensation may be defined as “the substitution of ecological functions or values that
are impaired by development” (Cuperus et al., 2001), or also as the action of “creating,
restoring or enhancing nature qualities in order to counterbalance ecological damage
caused by infrastructure developments” (Iuell et al., 2003).
Transport infrastructure projects have long been studied as activities causing
significant ecological impacts that cannot be completely avoided or minimized (Forman
and Alexander, 1998; Forman et al., 2003; Spellerberg, 1998; Trombulak and Frissell,
2000). For this reason, road and railway projects have been a common target for
ecological compensation proposals within scientific literature (e.g. Cuperus et al., 2001).
We decided to follow this line of expertise.
1.4. ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION PRACTICE REQUIRES OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
EVALUATION
When the decision is taken to implement ecological compensation, the attention
has to be turned into residual impacts and their ecological value. Residual impacts (those
that remain after mitigation measures have been fully undertaken) may jeopardize the
pursuit of meaningful sustainability, and more so when projects, and their uncompensated
ecological impacts accumulate in a given environment or region (Hayes and MorrisonSaunders, 2007).The higher the definitive loss of ecological value caused upon an
environment due to a project implementation, the worst the residual ecological impact on
it. The ecological significance of residual impacts indicates how important should be the
- 120 -
Impactos residuales
actions required to compensate for them, in order to preserve the overall value of the
environment in the long run.
Burger (2008) defined ecological evaluation as the process of “evaluating natural
resources within a community and ecosystem context”. Ecological evaluation may be
performed
through
different
methods
(monetary,
non-monetary,
quantitative,
qualitative…) responding to specific needs and contexts (MA, 2005), but it will always
include irreducible subjective components (Antunes et al., 2001; Geneletti, 2003;
Lawrence, 1993; Wathern et al., 1986). For these reasons, it can be said that there are no
standard methodologies for the ecological evaluation of the environment, as Nakagoshi
and Kondo (2002), and Geneletti (2006) observed. In fact, the number of valuation
exercises keeps growing, as Wathern et al. and Pearce already noticed in 1986 and 1993.
Even though the terms “evaluation” and “valuation” have been and remain amply
discussed, we will use “evaluation” to refer to the whole process undertaken to obtain
eventually a given “value”, or a “valuation” result. In any case, quotations will respect the
terms originally chosen by the authors in their writing contexts.
1.5. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT EVALUATION, AT THE CORE OF EIA PRACTICE
Generally speaking, it can be said that “the valuations are simply the relative weights
we give to the various aspects of the decision problem” (Costanza, 2000). Focusing on
the specific case of EIA, impact evaluation may be defined as “the systematic identification
of the effects positive or negative, intended or not on individual households, institutions,
and the environment caused by a given development activity such as a program or
project” (The World Bank, 2007). A parallel definition is provided by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (2011), which specifies that “impact evaluation is a form
of outcome evaluation that assesses the net effect of a program by comparing program
outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of a program”.
With this context in mind, in this work we identify ecological impact evaluation primarily
with the process of weighing the significance of the main ecological impacts caused by a
project.
It is evident then that ecological impact evaluation, which we pointed out formerly
as a pre-requisite for ecological compensation, has a more important role assigned than
that of just evaluating residual impacts. It belongs to the core of EIA theory and practice:
the rationale that precedes decision making. As Geneletti (2002) pointed out, ecological
- 121 -
Impactos residuales
evaluation may be of use at least in three different aspects of EIA performance:
determining the pre-project ecological significance of the area (baseline study), selecting
suitable indicators to express changes in such an ecological significance (impact
prediction), and estimating the post-project ecological significance (impact assessment). It
can so be said that ecological evaluation influences the entire impact assessment
procedure.
1.6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MUST REACH THE CORE OF EIA
The importance of public participation in decision-making was first emphasized in
Europe through the Aarhus Convention (UNECE, 1998), and later on in European
Directives 2003/4/EC and 2003/35/EC. Within this context, it can be said that
environmental problems may and should no longer be solved only by small groups of
experts, as they also need the participation of the affected communities (Evans et al.,
2006; Ludwig, 2001), what is also a precondition to good governance (Ianni et al., 2009).
Moreover, public involvement in decision-making is a requirement for achieving
sustainable development (Iyer-Raniga and Treolar, 2000; Morrison-Saunders and Early,
2008). Public participation is thus essential to EIA (André et al., 2006; Hartley and Wood,
2005), as it is stated in European specific regulation from its inception (CEC, 1985). To
serve this purpose, ecological impact evaluation methodologies in EIA should be
transparent, simple and manageable, and so contribute to decision-making performance.
To avoid creating perceptions of subjectivity, assessors must base their judgements
and explain their positions clearly (Bojórquez-Tapia and García, 1998). And precisely
because subjectivity can not be completely avoided in ecological evaluation (Antunes et
al., 2001; Geneletti 2003; Lawrence, 1993; Wathern et al., 1986), it has to be controlled
and debatable inasmuch as possible. Too often, wrong management of subjectivity
throughout the different stages of the decision-making process has damaged the image of
the EIA process (Wilkins, 2003). At the end, as stated by Lawrence (1993), “the issue is
not objectivity or subjectivity, but how well the subjective judgements are substantiated”.
Transparency is a particularly important principle to achieve effective EIA (Palerm,
1999; Sadler, 1996), and it is claimed to be an attribute of legitimate processes (Webler
et al., 2001). Transparency assumes the availability of ‘user-friendly’ information that is easy
to understand and to interpret (Kakonge, 1998). To make possible a good participation
process, information has to be shared openly and readily (Plottu and Plottu, 2009; Webler
- 122 -
Impactos residuales
and Tuler, 2006), including the way decisions are reached (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey,
2000). In short, transparency means that the reader should be able to follow the process
step by step (Hylmö and Skärbäck, 2006).
1.7. FRAMING THE RESEARCH TOPIC AND PROPOSAL
If sustainability is an important goal of EIA practice, should not residual impacts be
considered a main aspect of project implementation analysis? As impact evaluation is
conceptually situated at the core of EIA, residual impact evaluation should seemingly be.
But, are ecological residual impacts valued and shown to the public with transparency, so
as to reach decision making duly? We think they are not, at least for some EIA contexts.
The announced aim of this article was to advance a reasoned proposal to push
present EIA practice in Spain, or in other comparable EIA contexts, towards increased
levels of compensation. We knew that ecological compensation practice in Spanish EIA
was low. After confirming that this remains true, and noticing also indicators that residual
impacts are not paid much attention, and that there is no evidence of a solid public
participation in impact evaluation (Sections 3 and 4), we decided (Section 5) to focus our
proposal particularly in promoting an increased awareness of residual impacts, as a way to
make easier the access to public participants to the allegedly most sensitive moment of
EIA implementation: (residual) impact evaluation.
2. METHODOLOGY:
ECOLOGICAL
EVALUATION
AND
ECOLOGICAL
COMPENSATION IN ROAD AND RAILWAY RODS IN SPAIN
As Rundcrantz (2006) stated, the implementation of compensatory measures (as
well as of preventive and minimization ones) depends on those measures appearing in
legally binding documents that set the bases for more sustainable practices. Following this
line of thought, and in order to get an indication on how ecological evaluation and
ecological compensation are respectively made transparent and addressed within EIA
decision making in Spain, 72 Records of Decision (RODs) on transport infrastructure
projects publicized during the years 2009 and 2010 were reviewed.
An ROD is the public document where the approving agency presents the main
factors contemplated to reach the final environmental authorization decision on a project.
Apart from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it is the main and only publicly
available documentary source on EIA decision making, and it is also legally binding. In
- 123 -
Impactos residuales
Spain, it usually contains a summary of the EIS prepared during the EIA procedure, a
summary of the allegations received during public participation, and those impact
mitigation measures to be adopted beyond the ones specified by the EIS. The ROD
reflects the priorities set down by each environmental authority, and so provides an
indirect indication of the role given to ecological evaluation and compensation within the
EIA decision making process. At the same time it is the most concrete legally binding
document on environmental issues at project-level.
Following the line of expertise in compensation for transport infrastructure projects
above announced, we decided to select all the 2009 and 2010 accessible RODs on road
and railway projects in Spain. Of the 72 RODs obtained (41 national-level, and 31
regional-level RODs), 12 referred to railway projects, and 60 to roads and highways.
Three were the main questions made during the review of the selected RODs: (1)
to what an extent did they show that EIA public participants explicitly engage in or refer
to ecological evaluation and impact evaluation; (2) were residual impacts or not explicitly
addressed, and to what an extent; and (3) how frequently was the practice of impact
avoidance and minimization made explicit as compared to that of impact compensation?
3. RESULTS
Regarding the first inquiry (to what an extent did the analyzed RODs show that EIA
public participants explicitly engage in or refer to ecological evaluation and impact
evaluation) we found that 10% of the projects undergoing EIA received no allegations
during the public participation period, 18% received them, but these were not included in
the ROD, and 59% received allegations whose summary in the ROD made no explicit
mention to ecological evaluation or impact evaluation. Finally, only the remaining 13%
received allegations whose summary in the ROD made explicit reference to some of the
evaluations performed within the EIS (see Figure 1).
- 124 -
Impactos residuales
Fig. 1. Results of the review of RODs regarding public engagement in ecological evaluation and impact
evaluation.
Beyond the public participation summaries contained in the RODs, we found not
any direct mention to the value of the potentially affected environment in any ROD, and
only 18% of these records made use of the categories set by the national law to
categorize the value of impacts (RDL 1/2008).
Fig. 3. Proportion of RODs with some explicit
reference to compensatory measures in the
RODs, or none.
Fig. 2. Proportion of RODs with some explicit
reference to avoidance and minimization
measures in the RODs, or none.
- 125 -
Impactos residuales
Regarding question 2, it was found that only 6 of the reviewed RODs (9% of the
total) mentioned the term ‘residual impacts’, and just 2 of them valued these impacts in
some way. When it comes to question 3, almost all the documents (71 out of 72)
included some description of avoidance and minimization measures, as shown in Figure 2.
By contrast, only 16 of the 72 reviewed RODs made reference to the adoption of
compensatory measures (see Figure 3).
All in all these findings show not only that most RODs (and, consequently, EIA
procedures) in Spain prioritize the description of impact avoidance and minimization
measures over compensation, but also that residual impact evaluation, which should
provide the base and measure for compensation practice, is weaker than desirable, if not
missing. Complementarily, public participation regarding all these issues is very low, which
may constitute an important weakness of the EIA process.
4. DISCUSSION
The evidence of public involvement in ecological and impact evaluation, the core
of EIA decision making, is very low across the reviewed RODs. In addition, if one of the
two main publicly available documentary sources on EIA decision making in Spain makes
explicit references to ecological evaluation and impact evaluation only occasionally, there
is a strong indication that they are not considered as relevant as they should to decision
making publicity. A rather stronger derivation could suggest that, similarly to what was
reported some time ago in other countries such as Sweden (Seiler et al., 1997) and Italy
(Geneletti, 2006), often ecological impacts tend to be just described, but not valued.
Similarly, it could be suggested with some basis that, in general, there is a risk that
evaluation issues are not given a central role in EIA processes in Spain.
Avoidance and minimization measures got much greater attention than
compensatory measures did, the last usually being not even mentioned across the
publicized EIA decision making (the RODs). This last result might confirm some of the
boldest interpretative suggestions mentioned above: it would not be surprising that if the
values of the affected environment and the residual impacts are paid little attention, the
resulting lack of guidance to assess and define specific ecological offsets would result in
compensation neglect. How to change these tendencies? We propose to take exactly the
- 126 -
Impactos residuales
opposite way to improve compensation practice: evaluate residual impacts, counting as
well with public participation.
When compensation practice is somehow neglected in a given EIA framework, to
focus on some of the most obvious and undeniable residual impacts of the project under
scrutiny, opening them and their evaluation to public scrutiny, may be a good strategy in
the long run. Even if it may be provisionally limited in present-day environmental gains, as
we do not know always how to make transparent the ecological value of all residual
impacts, such a strategy may be progressively effective. More ambitious attempts,
impractical at present, could be reserved for a more environmentally-demanding future
(to be reached as a consequence of our limited present-day step).
Following this line of thought, we propose to systematically register and show (e.g.,
as a table, or a series of maps or orthophotographs) the main residual losses of ecological
value caused by every project implementation, providing to all of the stakeholders a quick
and clear report of some of the residual impacts that may be accepted in some EIA
contexts without implementing any compensation effort (e.g.: the total natural or
productive area lost when a new dam is filled, or the soil lost to a new extensive
suburban development). We may so contribute to awaken among all of the stakeholders
a deeper perception of residual impacts and of the need of compensation.
This proposal may not seem much innovative from a conceptual point of view,
unless we notice that it pursues innovation not in concepts, but rather in practice. And
practice, not sole theory, is what it counts in attaining sustainability eventually. At this
point it may be remembered what it was stated above: to engage administrative
procedures and personnel into new practices is not an easy task, even when no new
concepts are involved. This reasoned and simple proposal on ecological residual impact
evaluation keeps it in mind. And, if habitually implemented across Spanish EIA procedures,
would certainly be a novelty towards the aim of sustainability, the one that is here
pursued.
4.1. EXAMPLE APPLICATION
As an example application of the above proposal, we used a land-unit ecological
evaluation method (Villarroya and Puig, 2012) to obtain table and cartographic outputs
evidencing the residual impacts of a road project implementation. Although it is not the
object of attention here, the method delimits and classifies land units in ecological quality
- 127 -
Impactos residuales
classes, according basically to the land use and vegetation present in each unit, while
complementary criteria may raise or lower the land unit quality class firstly assigned. As
the construction of a new road changes both some of the land uses and some of the
criteria that may rise or lower the land unity class, so some land units change their value
class accordingly.
The area of application was delimited immediately around a 5-km long stretch of
the A-10 highway located in Navarra (Spain) (see Figure 4). This figure compares the area
in 2006 and 2010, before and after the construction of the highway. The ecological value
of the land units across the study area was estimated both before and after the project
was completed. The valuation results were represented in maps to allow a quick and easy
visualization (see Figures 5 and 6).
Fig. 4. Location of the study area and orthophotographs before and after the construction of the highway.
- 128 -
Impactos residuales
Fig. 5. Land units and their value-classes alongside the future highway. The tags on each land unit indicate
the land-use and the ecological value class.
Fig. 6. Land-units and their value-classes alongside the recently-built highway.
- 129 -
Impactos residuales
In order to highlight the residual impacts, the assigned land-unit value-classes before and
after the project implementation were compared. Thus, a new table and map were
generated (see Table 1 and Figure 7), which showed the variation (loss) in ecological
value-class that resulted eventually, after avoidance and minimization measures had been
implemented, i.e. the residual impact.
Fig. 7. Mapping of the changes in value-class of each land-unit caused by the project implementation. The
colour indicates the value-class drop.
Value class variation
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
Area (ha)
52,40
276,97
102,95
29,31
6,87
22,85
0
0
0
0,89
Table 1. Total value class variations due to the project construction, and after the implementation of the
avoidance and minimization measures (where “-x” means a “drop from the original land-unit ecological
value class to x classes lower”). Right column indicates the total amount of hectares that have dropped ”x”
value classes.
We wish to insist that our focus in not in advancing this evaluation method, but
rather in using it to our purpose. Apart from this land-unit ecological evaluation method,
- 130 -
Impactos residuales
many other methods may serve to the purpose of approaching the ecological value of an
area, and estimate or represent the significance of residual impacts. So, the focus of this
proposal is not the specific method and criteria here presented as an application and
described elsewhere, but rather how to use an evaluation methodology to make more
visible to the public eyes the existence of residual impacts, and the ecological evaluation
criteria underlying their evaluation. Unless we highlight residual impacts first, we will find
difficulty in promoting compensation and, in the end, meaningful sustainability in EIA
contexts.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The central role of ecological evaluation and the way it operates in EIA procedures
may pass more unnoticed than it should, mainly to the public. As a result, ecological
impact remains partly shadowed, particularly regarding residual impacts, and ecological
compensation neglected in some EIA contexts, as it has been proved to be the case in
Spain.
The review of 72 road and railway Records of Decision (RODs) in Spain showed
that most RODs (and, consequently, EIA) in Spain prioritize impact avoidance and
minimization measures over compensation, and also that ecological evaluation and
residual impact evaluation, which should provide the base and measure for ensuing
compensation practice, are very weak, if not missing in one of the main legally binding,
publicly available documentary sources on EIA decision making.
To respond to this situation and promote improved sustainability through
compensation practice, a recommendation has been advanced, which may be of use to
other EIA contexts: that the ecological value of residual impacts be explicitly shown to the
public, allowing all of the stakeholders to reach this core aspect, frequently neglected, of
EIA.
This proposal derives from an original analysis of the relationship between
sustainability, residual impacts, compensation practice, and ecological impact evaluation.
But the ensuing proposal itself may be considered not new from a conceptual point of
view, as it intends to improve compensation practice in a real EIA context that lags behind
theory development.
- 131 -
Impactos residuales
In this sense, the systematic and explicit register of residual impacts through
orthophotographs, albeit debatable in the method used and their assigned value, is
proposed as a way to spread the consciousness of the residual impacts we actually admit
and (contrarily to current practice in a variety of contexts) we should compensate.
Finally, a possible way to follow this recommendation has been shown, through a
case study application. But it has to be reminded that the focus of this paper are not the
specific ecological evaluation method and criteria used, but rather the need to develop
methods to make more visible to the public eyes the existence of residual impacts and
the ecological criteria used to evaluate them. Unless we highlight residual impacts and
how they are valued, we will find difficulty in promoting and justifying the compensation
measures to counter them and, in the end, meaningful sustainability in EIA contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The corresponding author is supported by a doctoral fellowship provided by the
Department of Science, Technology and Universities of the Government of the
Autonomous region of Aragón.
REFERENCES
André PB, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. Public participation: International Best Practice Principles. 2006.
Available at http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP4 web.pdf. Last accessed:
16 November 2011.
Antunes P, Santos R, Jordão L. The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine
environmental impact significance. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2001;21: 511-35.
BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP: An
Overview. 2009. Available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/overview.pdf. Last accessed
20 March 2012.
Bojórquez-Tapia LA, García O. An approach for evaluating EIAs - deficiencies of EIA in Mexico. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 1998;18:217-40.
Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R. The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation. Ecol
Appl 1996;6(1):69-76.
Burger J. Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural
resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Sci Total Environ
2008;400(1-3): 6-19.
Burgin S. BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in
conservation. Biodivers Conserv 2008;17(4):807-16.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing
Council Directive 90/313/EEC. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:041:0026:0032:EN:PDF Last accessed: 20
March 2012.
- 132 -
Impactos residuales
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of
certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public
participation. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:156:0017:0024:EN:PDF Last accessed: 20
March 2012.
CEC (Council of the European Communities). Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC). Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/full-legal-text/85337.htm Last accessed: 20 March 2012.
Costanza R. Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Ecosystems 2000;3:4-10.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated
with highways. Biol Conserv 1999;90:41-51.
Cuperus R, Bakermans MMGJ, Udo de Haes HA, Canters KJ. Ecological Compensation in Dutch Highway
Planning. Environ Manag 2001; 27(1):75-89.
Darbi M, Ohlenburg H, Herberg A, Wende W, Skambraks D, Herbert M. International Approaches to
Compensation for Impacts on Biological Diversity: Final Report. 2009. Available at:
http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=522.
Last
accessed
16
November 2011.
Dolan LMJ, van Bohemen HD, Whelan P, Akbar KF, O’Malley V, O’Leary G et al. Towards the sustainable
development of modern road ecosystems. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL, editors. The Ecology of
Transportation: Managing mobility for the Environment. Netherlands: Springer; 2006. p. 275-331.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority). Environmental Offsets Position Statement No. 9. Government
of Western Australia. 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1863_PS9.pdf. Last
accessed: 12 March 2012
Evans K, de Jong W, Cronkleton P, Sheil D, Lynam T, Kusumanto T et al. Guide to Participatory Tools for
Forest Communities. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research; 2006. Available at:
http://sfrc.ifas.ufl.edu/geomatics/courses/SUR6427/evans_2006_CIFOR_participatory_methods.pdf.
Last accessed 9 November 2011.
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1998;29:207-31.
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, et al. Road ecology. Science
and Solutions. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003.
Geneletti D. Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical
Studies; 2002.
Geneletti D. Biodiversity Impact Assessment of roads: an approach based on ecosystem rarity. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 2003;23:343-65.
Geneletti D. Ecological evaluation of land: some considerations on approaches and shortcomings. Int J
Sustain Dev Plan 2006;1(5):419-28.
Hartley N, Wood C. Public participation in environmental impact assessment–implementing the Aarhus
Convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2005;25(4):319-40.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact assessment:
practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2007;25(3):209-18.
Hylmö K, Skärbäck E. Transparency in Road Planning Documents: A Case Study of Two Swedish Projects.
Environ Pract 2006;8:49-57.
IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment). What Is Impact Assessment? 2009. Available at:
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/What%20is%20IA_web.pdf. Last accessed
16 November 2011.
IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment), UK Institute of Environmental Assessment. Principles
of
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
best
practice.
1999.
Available
at:
http://www.iaia.org/modx/assets/files/Principles of IA_web.pdf. Last accessed 16 November 2011.
Ianni E, Feoli E, Marin VH, Delgado LE. Quantifying public perceptions on socio-economic development—an
example from the Aysen Watershed, Chile. Int J Sustain Dev 2009;12(2):303—20.
- 133 -
Impactos residuales
Iuell B, Bekker H, Cuperus R, Dufek J, Fry G, Hicks C, et al. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for
Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions. Brussels: COST, European Co-operation in the Field
of Scientific and Technical Research; 2003.
Iyer-Raniga U, Treolar G. FORUM: A Context for Participation in Sustainable Development. Environ Manag
2000;26(4):349-61.
Kakonge JO. EIA and good governance: issues and lessons from Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev
1998;18:289-305.
Kuiper G. Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. Eur Environ
1997;7:118-25.
Lawrence DP. Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: a false dichotomy? Environ Impact Assess Rev
1993;13:3-11.
Ludwig D. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 2001;4(8):758-64.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2005. Concepts of Ecosystem Value and Valuation Approaches.
Washington DC: Island Press. Available at: http://www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx. Last
accessed 16 November 2011.
McKenney B. Environmental offset policies, principles, and methods: a review of selected legislative
frameworks. Amherst: Biodiversity Neutral Initiative; 2005.
Middle G, Middle I. A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental
impact assessment process (EIA) in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2010;28(4):31322.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008, de 11 de enero, por el que se aprueba el
texto refundido de la Ley de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos. 2008;965(ii):49865000. Available at: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2008/01/26/pdfs/A04986-05000.pdf. Last accessed:
20 March 2012
Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. Transparency in environment impact assessment decision-making: recent
developments in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(4):260-70.
Morrison-Saunders A, Early G. What is necessary to ensure natural justice in environmental impact
assessment decision-making? Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2008;26(1):29-42.
Nakagoshi N, Kondo T. Ecological land evaluation for nature redevelopment in river areas. Landsc Ecol
2002;17(Suppl 1):83-93.
Norton D. Biodiversity offsets: two New Zealand case studies and an assessment framework. Environ
Manag 2009;43(4):698-706.
Palerm JR. Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. Impact
Assess Proj Apprais 1999;17(4):259-71.
Pearce DW . Valuing the Environment: Past Practice, Future Prospect. In: Serageldin I, Steer A, editors.
Valuing the Environment. Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference on
Environmentally Sustainable Development. Washington DC: The World Bank; 1993. p. 47-57.
Plottu B, Plottu E. Approaches to Participation in Evaluation: Some Conditions for Implementation.
Evaluation 2009;15(3):343-59.
Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 2004;24:595-616.
Rundcrantz K. Environmental compensation in Swedish road planning. Eur Environ 2006;16:350-67.
Sadler B. Environmental Assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment.
1996. Available at: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/EAE/EAE_10E.PDF. Last accessed 20
March 2012.
Seiler A, Eriksson IM, Canters KJ, Piepers AAG, Hendriks-Heersma A 1997. New approaches for ecological
consideration in Swedish road planning. In: Canters K, Piepers A, Hendriks-Heersma A, editors.
Proceedings of the International Conference on ‘Habitat Fragmentation, Infrastructure and the Role
- 134 -
Impactos residuales
of Ecological Engineering’. Delft: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
Road and Hydraulic Engineering Division; 1995. p. 253—64.
Spellerberg I. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 1998;7(5):317—
33.
ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. Cambridge:
IUCN; 2004.
The World Bank. Impact Evaluation. 2007. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/ie/. Last accessed 16
November 2011.
Treweek J. Scoping study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English Context: Final Report.
London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra); 2009.
Trombulak SC, Frissell CA. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities.
Conserv Biol 2000;14(1):18-30.
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). Convention on access to information, public
participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, 25 June 1998
(Aarhus Convention). Geneva: UNECE; 1998
United States Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through P.L. 107-303,
November 27, 2002). 2002. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1981970. Last
accessed 16 November 2011.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Program Evaluation Glossary. 2011. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/glossary.htm, last accessed 16 November 2011.
van Merwyk TV, Daddo S. Structuring environmental offsets for a sustainable advantage. 2007. Available at:
http://forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=582. Last accessed 16 November
2011.
Villarroya A, Puig J. Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 2010;30:357-62.
Villarroya A, Puig J. Valuation of residual impacts of roads on landscape ecological units in Navarre, Spain. J
Environ Plan Manag 2012;55(3):339-53.
Wathern P, Young SN, Brown IW, Roberts DA. Ecological evaluation techniques. Landsc Plan 1986;12:40320.
Weaver A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Lochner P. Contributing to sustainability as an environmental
impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2008;26(2):91-8.
Webler T, Tuler S. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and
decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Stud J 2006;34(4):699—722.
Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R. What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the
Public. Environ Manag 2001;27(3):435-50.
Wilkins H. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 2003;23:401-14.
- 135 -
CAPÍTULO VI
SELECCIÓN DE MEDIDAS COMPENSATORIAS PARA
IMPACTOS ECOLÓGICOS EN LA EIA
Villarroya A, Persson J, Puig J.
Ecological compensation: from general guidance and expertise to specific
proposals for road developments.
Enviado a Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Tras la valoración del impacto ecológico residual, las medidas compensatorias han
de proponerse de manera que contrarresten suficiente y adecuadamente tales efectos. Sin
embargo, la traducción de impacto estimado a medida compensatoria no es fácil, puesto
que las posibilidades son muy variadas y no siempre se sabe con certeza cuál es la mejor
opción. Además, de nuevo surge el problema de cómo concretar un objetivo general,
como es la no pérdida neta de calidad ecológica, en acciones puntuales y condicionadas
por las circunstancias de cada proyecto particular.
El artículo VI aborda ambas cuestiones de forma general y aplicada a proyectos de
vías de transporte. Por un lado, revisa las orientaciones generales existentes en la
bibliografía actual en torno a cómo resolver dos de las principales cuestiones a la hora de
proponer medidas compensatorias: dónde deben localizarse respecto al proyecto, y qué
semejanza deben tener con los elementos afectados. Complementariamente, propone
objetivos concretos para facilitar la aplicación de la meta general de no pérdida neta a
proyectos de carreteras y autopistas.
La idea de fondo es que, para promover un campo como la compensación
ecológica, para el que no existen protocolos ni procedimientos estándar, la definición de
pautas técnicas generales no basta, sino que conviene explorar y discutir propuestas que
indiquen cómo proceder ante determinados tipos de proyectos. Por esto, la provisión de
orientaciones más concretas, específicas de ciertos lugares y/o proyectos, puede
complementar a las guías generales existentes sobre la compensación en la literatura
científica especializada, y ayudar a la concreción de objetivos generales en acciones
puntuales.
Al proponer unas metas básicas en materia de compensación, dirigidas a un cierto
tipo de proyectos (vías de transporte), se pretende facilitar la puesta en práctica de este
concepto que, como se señalaba en la Introducción, resulta más fácil de comprender en el
plano teórico que de aplicar en los casos reales.
- 137 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION: FROM GENERAL GUIDANCE AND
EXPERTISE TO SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR ROAD DEVELOPMENTS
COMPENSACIÓN
ECOLÓGICA: DE LAS RECOMENDACIONES
PROPUESTAS ESPECÍFICAS PARA PROYECTOS DE CARRETERAS
GENERALES
ABSTRACT
General guidance on ecological compensation has been examined
through the review of main scientific literature addressing the rationale behind
its practice. The literature reviewed contains interesting general guidance on
how to implement compensation, and provides the basis for future
compensation practice development. This paper proposes a further step in
compensation practice, advancing compensation proposals or rules for specific
kinds of projects and contexts, and it focuses on road projects in Spanish
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Three main residual impacts of roads are identified that usually remain
uncompensated for: the loss of natural and semi-natural land use area, the
increase in emissions that any new road favours, and the fragmentation
severance or barrier effect on the landscape and its wildlife. In line with these,
four proposals, or “rules”, have been advanced to start counteracting them:
natural and semi-natural land use area conservation, dominant plant species
physiognomy conservation, emissions compensation, and the rule of positive
defragmentation.
KEYWORDS: Environmental Impact Assessment; offsets; sustainability;
no net loss; net ecological gain.
RESUMEN
El artículo comienza con una revisión de las recomendaciones
generales disponibles en la literatura científica para la implementación de la
compensación ecológica y el desarrollo de prácticas compensatorias.
Complementariamente, se propone un paso más en el desarrollo de la
práctica de la compensación, elaborando una serie de reglas básicas para
proyectos y contextos específicos, en este caso los proyectos de carreteras
en la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) en España.
Se identifican tres tipos principales de impactos causados por
carreteras que habitualmente no son compensados: pérdida de terreno
natural y semi-natural, aumento en las emisiones derivado del aumento de
tráfico que conlleva la construcción de una vía, e incremento de la
fragmentación o efecto barrera en el paisaje y las poblaciones silvestres. Para
avanzar en la compensación de estos efectos, se proponen cuatro “reglas”:
conservación del área natura o semi-natural total, conservación de la
fisionomía vegetal dominante, compensación de emisiones, y
desfragmentación positiva.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; compensación;
sostenibilidad; no pérdida neta; ganancia ecológica neta.
- 138 -
A
Selección de medidas compensatorias
1. INTRODUCTION
Human development often causes negative impacts on natural assets. Land use
changes such as urbanization or road construction inevitably cause damage to the natural
or ecological side of the environment, in a greater or lesser extent (Dale et al., 2000;
Forman and Alexander, 1998; Forman et al., 2003; Hansen et al., 2005; Kalnay and Cai,
2003; Vitousek et al., 1997). For some areas it may be said that “we are creating a built
infrastructure at the expense of natural infrastructure” (Madsen et al. 2010).
Existing regulation on nature conservation and Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), among other regulatory tools, seek to restrict these negative impacts. Moreover,
there is a growing sense that promoting positive change is a better way to walk towards
sustainability than the mere minimization of the negative effects that development may
cause on the natural environment (Pope et al., 2004).
Following this line of thought, it is growingly argued that development should
attain ‘no net losses’ or even ‘net gains’ on the natural quality of the environment, so
counteracting the cumulative impact of development that would otherwise gradually
reduce this quality (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007; van Merwyk and Daddo,
undated). Even if these impacts are not quite significant when regarded separately, their
progressive accumulation in the environment leads to greater losses in the long term
(Race and Fonseca, 1996).
The so-called ‘mitigation hierarchy’ has been widely advised as a way to seek nonet-loss on the natural quality of areas supporting development projects. It establishes that
the optimal sequence to confront environmental impacts should be: (1) avoid, (2)
minimize, and (3) compensate the damage that the project is expected to cause
(European Union, 2001; Darbi et al., 2009; Dolan et al., 2006; United States Congress,
2002).
Compensatory measures are the last sequential step of this mitigation hierarchy.
Thus, they are the last, unavoidable chance to achieve the ‘no net loss’ or ‘net gain’ goals
(Gibbons and Lindenmayer, 2007; Iuell et al., 2003; McKenney, 2005; Moilanen et al.,
2009; Rowe et al., 2009; ten Kate et al., 2004). Compensation may either recover the
natural value that remains lost even after avoidance and minimisation have been
thoroughly implemented (Cuperus et al., 1996; Iuell et al., 2003), or improve the original
quality of the harmed environment (EPA, 2006; Kuiper, 1997; McKenney, 2005).
- 139 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Although growingly accepted as an idea, present-day compensation practice is far
from reaching these goals. E.g., recent studies on EIA Records of Decision (RODs)7 in
Spain observed that compensation was frequently overlooked. And, when actually
implemented, compensatory measures were not designed, chosen or selected in an
adequately argued way (Villarroya and Puig, 2010). For instance, no attempt was found
across the RODs at justifying the degree of equivalence between residual impacts (i.e.
those impacts which cannot be avoided nor reversed) and the measures proposed to
compensate them.
Although the concept and rationale of compensation may be easy to understand,
the choice and design of specific offsets to be implemented in each development project
usually becomes a harder task. This constraint is inherent to the nature of compensation,
as there is a wide, open range of suitable measures for each case. When it comes to
specify compensation measures, some of the main problems arise regarding two issues:
a. Location. Cuperus et al. (2002) stated that while mitigation measures are
physically tied to the infrastructure, compensation may take place anywhere.
May the reader agree or not with this view, an adequate place to implement
compensatory measures has to be found, adapted to each case.
b. Equivalence to the damaged feature. The correspondence between the
negative effects and the compensatory measures to counterbalance them
may be difficult to argue (van Bohemen, 1998). It will depend on several
factors (including environmental goals, impact characteristics…) which are
not always easy to value and balance.
The design of compensatory measures seems to demand a case-by-case solution.
At the same time, to address compensation practice as consistently as possible, some
general accepted guidance and expertise is needed to somehow justify in a greater or
lesser extent the decisions that are taken along the compensation process (see Kuiper,
1997).
This article focuses on ecological compensation, which can be defined as “the
substitution of ecological functions or values that are impaired by development” (Cuperus
et al., 2001). It examines published recommendations given to guide its implementation,
7
A ROD is the publicly available document where the approving agency presents the main factors that
were contemplated to reach the final decision on every project, including the practical means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm.
- 140 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
and the rationale behind them. It aims at collecting and discussing the guidance and
expertise in compensation to channel it towards particular compensation processes. Even
though mainly after the general discussion we will get down to specific problems that
have been registered for Spain, our approach addresses general issues that may be of
application to other contexts.
2. THEORY: LITERATURE GUIDANCE AND EXPERTISE ON THE DESIGN OF
COMPENSATORY MEASURES
The design of compensatory measures has to fit the particularities of each case.
Therefore, it is not easy to find valid and general guidance, suitable for a wide range of
particular cases, on how to select the kind of compensation to implement. In fact, what
Race and Fonseca (1996) observed several years ago remains true today, since it cannot
be said that there is a universally accepted standard regarding this matter.
Several authors have provided some guidance on the design, choice or
implementation of compensatory measures. With this aim, they have explained different
rationale for choosing one option or another when it comes to offsets location and
equivalence to the damaged features. Some recommend one option over the rest, while
others just explain the advantages and/or disadvantages of each choice.
Regarding these issues (location and equivalency), current literature describes the
following options:
o When it comes to the location of the offsets to implement, compensation
may be labelled as “in-site” or “off-site”, depending on whether the
measures are located within or outside the effect zone of the project
(Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996; Cuperus et al., 1999).
o Regarding the equivalency of habitats or species, compensation may be
either in-kind or out-of-kind, depending on whether it involves
replacement of the same habitat, species or functions that were impaired,
or with different ones (Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996; Cuperus et al.,
1999).
With the aim of gathering the advantages and disadvantages that have been
identified for each of these options, a bibliographic review was conducted.
- 141 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
16 scientific publications were found that included explanations of pros/cons and
sometimes also recommendations on at least one of these issues. Only those documents
arguing their proposals were selected. Other papers not specifying the rationale behind
the proposals were set aside.
As a consequence, legal texts were not taken into account in this case, since
although they sometimes provide some recommendations on offset location and/or
equivalence, they do not focus on the rationale behind such guidance.
It was observed that general rules tend to be avoided in the reviewed texts.
Commonly, authors do not give a priori preference to any specific kind of compensation.
Most of them argue or exemplify separately individual compensation choices or proposals;
either expressing their own point of view or gathering the reasoning from other sources.
Thirteen publications addressed how to choose the location of compensatory
measures. While seven advise on-site over off-site compensation, two advise to the
contrary.
Among the 16 documents reviewed, 8 were found to address what might be the
equivalency for impacted habitats or species. Six of them included some clear
recommendation, always prioritising in-kind over out-of-kind compensation.
The implementation of in-kind and on-site offsets, whenever possible, is the most
widely advised recommendation among the reviewed publications. Nevertheless, no
consensus has been reached, and discussion will continue on this matter.
Arguments for or against alternative compensation options, briefly summarized in
Table 1, are reviewed below in more detail. Even when opposed to each other when
considered in abstract, the joint consideration and final choice of which of these
arguments should be prioritized in each case may contribute to strengthen the rationale
for compensation proposals on specific cases.
- 142 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Advantages of in-kind offsets:
o They have the greatest potential to minimize local disruption of ecological
functions, especially when located on-site. This is of great importance in
areas where significant ecological linkages and functions have not been
completely lost (Race and Fonseca, 1996). This approach may be
particularly of use when compensation seeks to prevent that certain
species, habitats, or ecosystems be progressively degraded whereas other
get all the gains of the compensatory measures (Hayes and MorrisonSaunders, 2007).
o They compare easily to the original situation. It is easier to dimension the
adequate measures to implement when the proposed offsets are
ecologically similar to the damaged features (ten Kate et al., 2004). It has
been proposed, e.g., that the product of the surface of the impacted area
by its natural value should remain constant, through compensation, when
we compare this value before and after intervention. This kind of rules are
easier to apply (including calculations) through in-kind compensation (van
Bohemen, 1995). Also, when compensation aims at no-net-loss (Iuell et al.,
2003), in-kind compensation seems the easier way to propose, justify and
follow-up a full and equivalent replacement of losses (McKenney, 2005),
also when carrying out offsets through conservation banks (Latimer and
Hill, 2007)
o It is easier for the public to understand the rationale behind them. The
more dissimilar the compensatory measure is to the impaired asset, the
more justifying will be necessary before the public. Even straight-forward
like-for-like offsets need frequently of scientific inputs and third party
valuations to ensure their credibility. Out-of-kind measures will generally
demand of a broader justification effort (ten Kate et al., 2004).
- 143 -
Compensation option
Equivalence
In-kind
damage compensation
Out-of-kind
Location of the
compensatory
measures
In-site
Perspective
Ecological
Technnical
Political
Arguments in favor
It has the greatest potential to minimize disruption of ecological
remaining functions
They compare easily to the original situation
It is easier for the public to understand
Ecological
Technical
Allows further flexibility to focus on conservation priorities
Ecological
It has the greatest potential to minimize disruption of ecological
remaining functions
Habitat conditions are already in place, which increases the
possibilities of success
Benefits accrue to the affected area
Depends completely on the availability of adequate places
within the affected area
Political
It is easier to get public acceptance
Ecological
Allows further flexibility to focus on conservation priorities and
connecting to larger systems
Compensation sites are not adversely influenced by proximity to
human-altered places
Increases the chances of success through careful selection of
suitable areas and the linkage of several compensation projects in
one single larger one
Technical
Not easy to define in practice what “in-kind” means
Difficulties to establish the correspondence between
damaged features and compensatory measures
Technical
Off-site
Arguments against
There are natural elements which cannot be re-created
Table 1. Summary of arguments for or against each compensation option, following the reviewed bibliography.
Difficulties when choosing the location
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Shortcomings regarding in-kind offsets:
o It may not be easy to define, in practice, what “in-kind” means. How
similar should the implemented measure be to the damaged feature to be
considered in-kind compensation? The technical difficulty for measuring
some parameters (e.g. biodiversity values) may hamper the comparison
between damaged features and offsets (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders,
2007).
o There are natural elements which cannot be technically re-created (Morris
et al., 2006), wherein in-kind compensation is not possible at all.
Advantages of out-of-kind offsets:
o They allow conservation options other than strict replacement of the
damaged values. Out-of-kind measures may be the only option when inkind compensation is not possible, or be more appropriate when they
offer the opportunity to concentrate all the compensation efforts either on
one most important natural value among the damaged by the
development (Iuell et al., 2003), or on boosting any natural value not even
damaged by the development but of greater importance for the region
than the recovery of the damaged ones (McKenney, 2005; ten Kate et al.,
2004).
Shortcomings of out-of-kind offsets:
o The main difficulty regarding out-of-kind compensation usually arises when
trying to assess the correspondence between the damaged feature and
the compensatory measure. Usually, elaborated justifications are used.
There are no fixed ratios for out-of-kind compensation, and most existing
methods are not fully developed yet (McKenney, 2005; Morris et al., 2006;
ten Kate et al., 2004). This problem may also affect in-kind compensation
(see above), although less importantly.
- 145 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Advantages of on-site offsets:
o They hold a big potential to recover precisely the disrupted ecological
functions (Race and Fonseca, 1996). Location, in landscape, may be of
utter importance to recover the impaired values (Race and Fonseca,
1996), as it is the case when we try to re-connect severed environments
or wildlife routes (Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996).
o They take advantage of the habitat conditions a priori demanded for inkind compensation, which increase the possibilities of success. These
conditions may be necessary to get the best like-for-like replacement
(Latimer and Hill, 2007).
o Compensation benefits accrue to the affected area. A rule widely accepted
by most offset policies (McKenney, 2005), and other authors (Morris et al.,
2006).
o They get public acceptance or support more easily. Even when focused on
recovering natural values, the compensation process should pay attention
to social issues such as fairness and the sense of ownership by local
communities, to increase its chances of success (ten Kate et al., 2004).
Shortcomings of on-site offsets
o The carrying out of on-site compensation will depend always on the
availability of adequate places where to implement it within the affected
area. Since the range of locations may be very limited, to find an
appropriate one cannot always be guaranteed.
Advantages of off-site offsets:
o They may boost ecological values beyond the affected area (McKenney,
2005; ten Kate et al., 2004). The enlargement of valuable off-site
ecosystems through compensation may yield more ecological benefits than
the mere sum of ‘patchy’ or isolated on-site compensation practices
(Hashisaki, 1996; McKenney, 2005; Reijnen et al., 2006). Moreover, off-site
compensation makes it possible to bring together into a chosen area of
ecological value the compensation effort corresponding to several projects,
which has been proposed as a potentially successful strategy (Cuperus,
2004; Reijnen et al., 2006) that may be put into practice also through
- 146 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
mitigation banking (NRC, 2001). Landscape-level planning of conservation
priorities is a key element to decide the location in these cases.
o They allow locating compensation sites away from present or future
human-altered places. Some species are sensitive to anthropogenic
disturbances such as visual contact, noise, fires, and domestic pet
encounters (Cuperus, 2004; Latimer and Hill, 2007; McKenney, 2005;
Mitsch and Wilson, 1996). The attempt at improving bird habitat nearby a
road, e.g., may have limited effect (Reijnen et al., 2006). Future nearby
developments induced by present-day projects may threaten today’s onsite compensation efforts (Latimer and Hill, 2007).
Shortcomings of off-site offsets
o The difficulty of location choice. A central question when designing off-site
compensatory measures is how to decide their location. It is frequently
advised to choose it in accordance with national or regional conservation
plans or initiatives (Kiesecker et al., 2010), which should (ideally) identify
and prioritize the best locations for nature conservation or improvement.
But actually few countries have developed functional tools to link
compensation practice to conservation strategies effectively (Blundell and
Burkey, 2006). The same problem may be applied to out-of-kind
compensation in most cases. Habitat banking could be another useful tool
in this sense, but it has not been developed in many countries yet.
- 147 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
3. DISCUSSION: FROM GENERAL GUIDANCE AND EXPERTISE TO MORE SPECIFIC
PROPOSALS
The above-described arguments may be summarized in two broad, general
recommendations:
o In-kind and on-site compensation may be more adequate when the
priority is to keep or retrieve the local natural or ecological conditions as
close as possible to their original state. This option gets commonly a higher
local public acceptance, and so it is more easily put into practice.
o Out-of-kind and off-site compensation provides the flexibility to make
measures converge with broader (i.e. national, regional…) conservation
strategies. They also allow compensation when in-kind and on-site
compensation is not possible.
But the reach of these general recommendations grows limited, as long as we
focus on specific situations.
To translate the ‘no-net-loss’ or ‘net-gain’ general objectives into specific
compensation practice in particular projects, it must be further clarified how these general
goals have to be particularly interpreted and applied.
When specific cases are confronted, “one-size-fits-all” solutions may not be
desirable since they would not be realistic (BBOP, 2009b). But some guidance may be of
help insofar as it may clarify the rationale behind specific proposals (why, how, and to
what an extent compensation is necessary), and so strengthen gradually the practice of
compensation. In any case the compensation process should be flexible and allow coming
up with solutions that are site-specific to some extent (ten Kate et al., 2004).
How can, then, general guidance be further specified into considering particular
circumstances of country, scale, ecology, project, public or site?
Although less frequently than it may be desirable, certain regulations do provide
some recommendations on the location and/or equivalency of ecological compensation
measures for certain projects or places, by giving preference to some of the options
described above (Madsen et al., 2010; McKenney and Kiesecker, 2010; ten Kate et al.,
2004).
- 148 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
In Europe, Directive 2004/35/CE (on environmental liability) specifies that when
designing offsets (which are referred to as ‘compensatory remediation’), in-kind
compensation must be considered first, thus prioritising those actions which provide
“natural resources and/or services of the same type, quality and quantity as those
damaged” (European Union, 2004).
On the other hand, Directive 92/43/EEC establishes that compensatory measures
shall guarantee the overall coherence of Natura 2000, what is mostly interpreted as a
demand for in-kind compensation (European Union, 1992; Madsen et al., 2010).
These attempts, debatable as they may be, provide a second level of guidance to
the examined scientific literature on compensation practice, which might be of application
for certain projects (see Annex III in Directive 2004/35/CE) and across Natura 2000
spaces in Europe, respectively.
But these cases do not seem to be much frequent. In fact, it has been recently
reported that current laws and public policies rarely provide the explicit interpretation of
‘no-net-loss’ or ‘net-gain’ broad objectives (BBOP, 2009a; Brownlie and Botha, 2009).
Moreover, in order to move towards improved sustainability, effective
compensation should be progressively extended to all projects that cause residual impacts
on natural assets, and not only to certain projects or areas (see Penny Anderson
Associates, 1993).
If we do not get down to specifics, general objectives (e.g. “sustainability”) remain
meaningless. Further specification on the objectives of ecological compensation should be
developed for each of those impacting project types that currently lack well-developed
guidance or practice. For as long as we contribute to clarify the way ‘no-net-loss’ or ‘netgain’ broader aims may be interpreted into practice, it will become easier to choose and
justify appropriate compensatory actions to attain these general objectives. And in case
these specific proposals, or other equivalent ones, are not followed, we will have clear
indicators of how we keep away from attaining sustainability in particular projects, due to
compensation neglect.
In the following section we make some proposals on this direction, choosing and
focusing specifically, as an example, on proposals for road construction projects that cause
negative residual impacts on areas not belonging to Natura 2000 network. As specific
recommendations may vary from one country to another, we have designed the
- 149 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
proposals having in mind the case of Spain. They may need to be adapted to the needs or
contexts of other countries. For instance, wetlands are common natural features in
countries like Sweden, but not in Spain. If this approach was made for Sweden, basic goals
would probably regard wetlands more specifically.
4. PROPOSALS ON COMPENSATION PRACTICE FOR ROAD PROJECTS IN SPAIN.
Generally speaking, projects of the same kind usually affect a characteristic set of
natural functions or features of the areas where they are developed, which may be more
or less vulnerable depending on the specific natural and geographical context. Roads
impact the environment they cross, as new dams, or irrigation projects do, but each of
them impact the environment in a characteristic way.
In order to set basic goals towards the achievement of ‘no-net-loss’ or ‘net-gain’
objectives, we propose to identify those impacted natural features or functions that can
be most easily assessed and are most frequently or deeply damaged by the kind of project
we are dealing with (i.e.: road development) and set them as priority targets for
compensation. Having roads in mind, we identify three main residual impacts easily agreed
as such: the loss of natural and semi-natural land use area, the increase in emissions that
the new road favours, and the fragmentation or barrier effect on the landscape and its
wildlife.
Although compensation should eventually meet ‘no-net-loss’ or ‘net-gain’ ultimate
goals and address all of the impacts, less ambitious objectives may be a more feasible
target as a first stage of compensation practice development for specific projects, while
leaving stricter demands for the future. Because although present practice needs to be
improved, we agree with Hayes and Morrison-Saunders (2007) in saying that “attempting
to establish offsets, even if they do not live up the idea of no net loss must be more
desirable environmentally than development in the absence of any attempt at
conservation”.
With this context in mind, four basic rules are proposed to be followed at every
road project causing residual impacts (that do not affect Natura 2000 network) in Spain.
They do not ensure sustainability, but their implementation would certainly make progress
in this direction; and their neglect would point out more sharply those occasions when we
deny the pursuit of sustainability.
- 150 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
4.1. THE RULE OF NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL LAND USE AREA
CONSERVATION
The construction of a road transforms the land where it is located, both directly
and indirectly, causing habitat loss and changes in land uses among other effects
(Forman and Alexander, 1998; Riiters and Wickham, 2003). And it is commonly
argued that changes from natural scenarios towards more anthropic land-uses usually
lead to negative ecological impacts (Allan, 2004; Foley et al., 2005; Poschold et al.,
2005; Sala et al., 2000; Tong and Chen, 2002).
If these transformations accumulate in the environment, the area of natural and
semi-natural land use (i.e. natural habitats, or land uses that support some forms of
wildlife) is diminished as the overall percentage of built area increases. From an
ecological standpoint, this leads to a decrease in the total quality of the area.
Ecological compensation should seek to counteract this effect by keeping the
proportion “natural and semi-natural surface/built surface” as constant as possible.
As a more specific proposal, we advance that at least, the total area directly
occupied by the new road (i.e. the surface that is paved or reshaped, and physically
transformed into a road and its adjacent new slopes) should be retrieved somewhere
else (e.g., in some adjacent uncultivated land area) to their former and more natural
uses (e.g. forest or shrub land), in return for the original ones already lost. In other
words, we should retrieve somewhere all the hectares of forest, shrub land or
grassland, pastures or crop land that have been taken up and replaced by the new
road… or else justify how we will compensate for them.
In short, the proposal consists of not taking for granted any loss in area of any
kind of natural or semi-natural land use, but rather measuring the area lost to the new
road, and replacing it. If we remove ten hectares of mature forest, then we should
create ten new hectares of mature forest… or their equivalent. In applying this rule
we should also pay due attention to the vegetation physiognomy of the lost areas,
particularly to its maturity degree or, at least, to its size, which takes us to the next
rule proposed.
When surfaces conservation proves not feasible, effort might be put into the
improvement of the ecological quality of selected areas, in a similar way to what
Cuperus et al. recommended in 1999.
- 151 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
4.2. THE RULE OF DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES PHYSIOGNOMY CONSERVATION
Vegetation is a basic component of ecosystems, and a key feature to appraise
their value. Although each kind of vegetal formation holds a different ecosystem,
ecological and economic values that are not always shared by other formations (see
Costanza et al., 1997), it usually depends heavily in its quality on the species
composition and the plant physiognomy. Dominant species physiognomy indicates in
most cases the minimum span of time required for the associated ecosystem to
establish. This is of relevance to compensation practice as “generally the longer the
time required for the habitat to develop, the more difficult it will be to compensate
for impacts” (Cuperus et al., 1999). Forest restoration and regeneration are processes
that require long time to develop, and that may have a high rate of failure if not
carefully designed (Chazdon, 2008). This means that compensation for impacts of
impacted mature habitats such as forests require far more effort in terms of time and
money to succeed than for grassland.
To fit the purpose of this simple, first approach to compensation practice, a raw
classification may be used focusing just on the overall vegetation physiognomy of each
formation (e.g., forest, woodland, shrub land, and grassland). We propose that, at
least, compensatory measures should ensure that the global proportions of vegetation
physiognomies are kept constant (unless any external conservation priorities require
the contrary). Roughly speaking, if ten hectares of mature forest are removed, then
hectares of mature forest should be effectively created in compensation: not just ten
hectares of shoots or newly planted small trees. The systematic demand of this goal
might well act as a deterrent, to prevent unnecessary damage to high-size vegetation
during project implementation.
4.3. THE RULE OF EMISSIONS COMPENSATION
Air quality is a major concern nowadays, especially what relates to the increase
of greenhouse gases, such as CO2 (IPCC, 2007).
Road construction does not cause significant increases in gas emissions by itself,
but it may induce raises in traffic volume (Cervero, 2001; Goodwin, 1996; Goodwin,
2003) that at the end lead to higher emissions which have major effects on air quality
and atmosphere (Hoor et al., 2009; Koffi et al., 2010).
- 152 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Precisely because it is an induced impact more than a direct one, the increase in
gas emissions is often forgotten as a target for compensation (see Villarroya and Puig,
2010).
Due to the negative effects of traffic emissions on air quality, and also to the
global reaching of this kind of impact, we find it key to propose the offsetting of
emissions as a basic goal in compensation associated to road projects.
4.4. THE RULE OF POSITIVE DEFRAGMENTATION
Roads cause the fragmentation of those landscapes they cross. Fragmentation has
repeatedly been pointed out as one of the main threats to biodiversity (Fahrig, 2003;
Jongman, 2002; Saunders et al., 1991; Trocmé, 2006; Trocmé et al., 2003). Although
mitigation measures are increasingly implemented to reduce this impact (e.g., through
wildlife passages), the net effect of a new road will always be a higher level of
fragmentation.
As a final rule, we propose to take some distinctive action beyond mitigation, and
make sure that any new road project implements a positive defragmentation initiative. An
example could clarify the proposal.
A-10 motorway is located in the Euro Siberian area of northwest Navarre, Spain. It runs
along the flat bottom of a wide valley surrounded by steep forested mountain sides.
Forests across the area consist mainly of beech (Fagus sylvatica), with common oaks
(Quercus robur) in the valleys and white oaks (Quercus humilis) on the sunniest slopes.
The forested areas of Urbasa-Andia and Aralar (Figure 1) have been long intersected by
the agrarian uses, local roads, and the railway. The construction of A-10 motorway
worsened the separation between the Aralar and the Urbasa-Andia forests, especially
because one of the remaining forested patches stretching across the gap between the
mountain sides was fenced off by the motorway (Figures 2 and 3). A positive
defragmentation initiative could have consisted of using of a small viaduct or false tunnel
to get alongside the patch (a fragmentation minimization measure), and so avoid its
severance, and also in extending the forested patch to narrow or even close the gap
between Aralar and Urbasa-Andia forests (a positive defragmentation initiative), as shown
in Figure 3.
- 153 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Fig. 1. Location and general view of the area. The orthophotography shows the division that human activities
have caused between Aralar and Urbasa-Andia forested areas.
Fig. 2. The photography shows clearly how the A-10 motorway crosses one of the remaining forested
patches stretching across the gap between the mountain sides. Photographer: Luis Sanz Azcarate.
- 154 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Fig. 3. A: detail of the selected area that shows how the A-10 motorway acts like a fence and even crosses
at some point a forested patch between Aralar and Urbasa-Andia forested areas. B: outline of a possible
positive defragmentation initiative, including minimization and compensation measures.
5. CONCLUSIONS
General guidance on ecological compensation can be found in scientific literature,
usually promoting alternative and complementary ways to reach the “no net (ecological)
loss” or “net (ecological) gain” principles. The rationale behind each of the general
compensation guidelines helps in developing ecological compensation theory, a necessary
step which will eventually result in increased levels of compensation practice.
But present-day practice is far from attaining the “no net loss” or “net gain”
theoretical aims. There is a gap between theory and practice which should be
progressively solved. One of the indicators of this gap is that in fact we usually
compromise with residual impacts acceptance on a daily basis during project
implementation, even in EIA contexts, as in Spain.
To fill this gap between theory and practice, to approach more sustainable ways
of development, we propose that general guidance on compensation should be
progressively developed into more concrete proposals on particular kinds of projects,
whenever they prove to be usually implemented in an unsustainable way. To improve the
sustainability of projects by kinds, we propose to identify those impacted natural features
- 155 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
or functions that can be most easily assessed and are most frequently or deeply damaged
by the kind of project we are dealing with, and set them as priority targets for
compensation.
Focusing on road projects three different kinds of residual impacts have been
identified: the loss of natural and semi-natural land use area, the increase in emissions that
the new road favours, and the fragmentation or barrier effect on the landscape and its
wildlife. Four proposals, or “rules”, have been advanced to start counteracting these
residual impacts in Spain: natural and semi-natural land use area conservation, dominant
plant species physiognomy conservation, emissions compensation, and the rule of positive
defragmentation. As these rules have been thought for the Spanish EIA context, they may
require change or adaptations for alternative countries and contexts. As well, current
regulations in some other countries may be more demanding than those in our country,
so it might be necessary to propose stricter goals than the ones above in order to
promote a real change.
In case the attempt at promoting better compensation practices for road projects
fails, or as long as it is delayed, the proposed rules may help at any rate in reminding us
how far we find ourselves of true sustainability at project implementation level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Dr. Luis Sanz for his photography of the study area. The
corresponding author is supported by a doctoral fellowship provided by the Department
of Science, Technology and Universities of the Government of the Autonomous region of
Aragón.
REFERENCES
Allan JD. Landscapes and riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol
Syst. 2004;35(1):257-84.
Blundell AG, Burkey T. Setting biodiversity priorities for biodiversity offsets (open draft for comment).
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative; 2006.
Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R. The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation. Ecol
Appl. 1996;6(1):69-76.
Brownlie S, Botha M. Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or “no net loss”? Impact Assess
Proj Apprais. 2009;27(3):227-31.
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP. An
Overview. 2009a. Available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/overview.pdf.
- 156 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. 2009b.
Available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/odh.pdf.
Cervero R. Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. 2001. Available at:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/05x370hr;jsessionid=D167C06A192B5F85CF50470FA84A5B49#
Chazdon RL. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science.
2008;320(5882):1458-60.
Costanza R, Folke C, Daily GC. Valuing Ecosystem Services with Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability as
Goals. In: Daily GC, editor. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Washington DC: Island Press; 1997. p. 49-68.
Cuperus R, Bakermans MMGJ, Udo de Haes HA, Canters KJ. Ecological Compensation in Dutch Highway
Planning. Env Manag. 2001;27(1):75-89.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated
with highways. Biol Conserv. 1999;90:41-51.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Piepers AAG. Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road. Preliminary method
for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands). Ecol Eng. 1996;7:327-49.
Cuperus R, Kalsbeek M, Udo de Haes HA, Canters KJ. Preparation and Implementation of Seven Ecological
Compensation Plans for Dutch Highways. Env Manag. 2002;29(6):736-49.
Cuperus R. Ecological compensation of highway impacts: Negotiated trade-off or no-net-loss? Dissertation
(PhD), Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Sciences; 2004.
Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs NT, Huntly N, Naiman RJ, et al. Ecological principles and guidelines
for managing the use of land. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(3):639-70.
Darbi M, Ohlenburg H, Herberg A, Wende W, Skambraks D, Herbert M. International Approaches to
Compensation for Impacts on Biological Diversity. Final Report. Leibniz Institute of Ecological and
Regional Development and Berlin University of Technology, Berlin. 2009. Available at:
http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=522.
Dolan LMJ, van Bohemen HD, Whelan P, Akbar KF, O’Malley V, O’Leary G, et al. Towards the sustainable
development of modern road ecosystems. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL, editors. The Ecology of
Transportation: Managing mobility for the Environment. Netherlands: Springer; 2006. p. 275-331.
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Environmental Offsets Position Statement No. 9. Government
of Western Australia, January 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1863_PS9.pdf
European Union. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora. May 1992. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101:EN:NOT
European Union. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. June 2001. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0042:EN:NOT
European Union. Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.
April 2004. Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur43202.pdf
Fahrig L. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34(1):487-515.
Foley J a, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use.
Science. 2005;309(5734):570-4.
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1998;29:207-31.
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, et al. Road ecology. Science
and Solutions. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003.
Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecol Manag
Restor. 2007;8(1):26-31.
Goodwin PB, Noland RB. Building new roads really does create extra traffic: a response to Prakash et al.
Appl Econ. 2003;35:1451-7.
- 157 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Goodwin PB. Empirical evidence on induced traffic. Transportation. 1996;23(1):35-54.
Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, et al. Effects of Exurban Development on Biodiversity: Patterns,
Mechanisms, and Research Needs. Ecol Appl. 2005;15(6):1893-905.
Hashisaki S. Functional wetland restoration: an ecosystem approach. Northwest Science. 1996;70(4): 34851.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact assessment:
practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2007;25(3):209-18.
Hoor P, Borken-Kleefeld J, Caro D, et al. The impact of traffic emissions on atmospheric ozone and OH:
results from QUANTIFY. J Atmos Chem Phys. 2009;9:3113-36.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. 2007.
Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html [Last accessed 14
March 2012].
Iuell B, Bekker H, Cuperus R, Dufek J, Fry G, Hicks C, et al. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for
Identifying
Conflicts
and
Designing
Solutions.
2003.
Available
at:
https://www.milieuinfo.be/productie/beheerplone/nietacm/iene/cost-341/european-handbook. [Last
accessed 14 March 2012]
Jongman R. Landscape planning for biological diversity in Europe. Landsc Res. 2002;27(2):187—95.
Kalnay E, Cai M. Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature. 2003;423(May):528-31.
ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN. 2004.
Available at: http://www.iucn.org/search.cfm?uNewsID=471 [Last accessed 14 March 2012]
Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, McKenney B. Development by design: blending landscape- level
planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Front Ecol Environ. 2010;8(5):261-6.
Koffi B, Szopa S, Cozic A, Hauglustaine D, van Velthoven P. Present and future impact of aircraft, road traffic
and shipping emissions on global tropospheric ozone. J Atmos Chem Phys. 2010;10:11681-705.
Kuiper G. Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. Eur Environ.
1997;7:118-25.
Latimer W, Hill D. Mitigation banking: Securing no net loss to biodiversity? A UK perspective. Plan Pract Res.
2007;22(2):155-75.
Madsen B, Carroll N, Moore Brands K. State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation
programs worldwide. Ecosystem Marketplace. 2010. Available at:
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf [Last accessed 14 March
2012]
McKenney B. Environmental offset policies, principles, and methods: a review of selected legislative
frameworks. Biodiversity Neutral Initiative. 2005. Available at: http://www.foresttrends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=541 [Last accessed 14 March 2012].
McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks.
Environ Manag. 2010;45(1):165—76.
Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF. Improving the Success of Wetland Creation and Restoration with Know-How, Time
and Self-Design. Ecol Appl. 1996;6(1):77-83.
Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S. How Much Compensation is Enough? A Framework
for Incorporating Uncertainty and Time Discounting When Calculating Offset Ratios for Impacted
Habitat. Restor Ecol. 2009;17(4):470-8.
Morris RKA, Alonso I, Jefferson RG, Kirby KJ. The creation of compensatory habitat–Can it secure
sustainable development? J Nat Conserv. 2006;14:106-16.
National Research Council (NRC). Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
Penny Anderson Associates. Roads and nature conservation: guidance on impacts, mitigation and
enhancement. Peterborough: English Nature Publicity; 1993.
- 158 -
Selección de medidas compensatorias
Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 2004;24:595-616.
Poschlod P, Bakker JP, Kahmen S. Changing land use and its impact on biodiversity. Basic Appl Ecol.
2005;6(2):93-8.
Race MS, Fonseca MS. Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take? Ecol Appl. 1996;6(1):94-101.
Reijnen R, Foppen R. Impact of road traffic on breeding bird populations. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL,
editors. The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment. Vol 10. Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 255-274.
Riitters KH, Wickham JD. How far to the nearest road? Front Ecol Environ. 2003;1(3):125—9.
Rowe DK, Parkyn S, Quinn J, Collier K, Hatton C, Joy MK, et al. A rapid method to score stream reaches
based on the overall performance of their main ecological functions. Environ Manag.
2009;43(6):1287-300.
Sala OE, Stuart Chapin III F, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, et al. Global biodiversity scenarios
for the year 2100. Science. 2000;287(5459):1770.
Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review.
Conserv Biol. 1991;5(1):18-32.
Tong S, Chen W. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. J Environ Manag.
2002;66(4):377-93.
Trocmé M. Habitat Fragmentation due to Linear Transportation Infrastructure: An overview of mitigation
measures in Switzerland. Proceedings from the 6th Swiss Transport Research Conference; 15/17
March 2006. Available at: http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/Trocme_fragmentation
switzerland.pdf. [Last accessed 14 March 2012]
Trocmé M, Cahill S, de Vries HJG, Farrall H, Folkeson L, Fry G, et al. COST 341. Habitat Fragmentation due
to Transport Infrastructure. The European Review. European Commission Directorate General for
Research. 2003. Available at: http://www.iene.info/COST341/COST341_excsummary.pdf. [Last
accessed 14 March 2012]
United States Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through P.L. 107-303,
November 27, 2002). 2002. Available at: http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf [Last accessed 14 March
2012].
van Bohemen HD. Habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng. 1998;11:199207.
van Merwyk T, Daddo S. Structuring Environmental Offsets for a Sustainable Advantage. Undated. Available
at http://forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=582 [Last accessed 14 March
2012]
Villarroya A, Puig J. Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 2010;30(6):357-62.
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science.
1997;277(5325):494.
- 159 -
DISCUSIÓN
Para asegurar la sostenibilidad de los proyectos con efectos ambientales
significativos, la calidad ecológica del medio debería, como mínimo, permanecer constante
(Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995). En otras palabras, se debería conseguir que estas
actividades humanas no causen pérdidas netas en este aspecto (Iuell et al., 2003; ten Kate
et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007; Moilanen et al., 2009; Rowe
et al., 2009). Para lograrlo, aquellos daños ecológicos que no pueden ser evitados ni
corregidos de modo que se recupere la situación de calidad original (los llamados
impactos residuales), deberían ser contrarrestados mediante la aplicación de medidas
compensatorias (Pope et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk & Daddo,
2007; Weaver et al., 2008; BBOP, 2009).
En la práctica, sin embargo, la compensación no se aplica en todos los casos en
que sería necesaria según este razonamiento, puesto que son habituales los proyectos
que, aunque ocasionan impactos residuales en el entorno, cuentan con una EIA favorable
sin incluir medidas compensatorias (capítulo I). Las causas de este fenómeno son diversas,
y pueden radicar tanto en factores técnicos como conceptuales. Se va a empezar por
abordar estos últimos.
De entrada, este modo de entender la sostenibilidad es exigente. La conducta
humana tiende con frecuencia a no condicionar o cuestionar su nivel de consumo de lo
que percibe como recursos naturales hasta que, por ejemplo, el aumento de los precios
de mercado señala una escasez para atender la demanda (Daily, 2000; Daily et al., 2000).
Y si es verdad que ciertos entornos están fuertemente protegidos frente a los usos o
actividades humanas que puedan alterarlos, también es cierto que no es así en la mayoría
de los espacios de la Tierra. Comúnmente, no se tiene asimilado en forma de conducta
que la sostenibilidad, para significar algo, exija mantener sin pérdida neta la calidad
ecológica del entorno que usamos. Y sin embargo, ¿podría conseguirse de otra manera
que ésta que nos sugieren de la mano principios de ética ambiental tan básicos como el
de incertidumbre, el de precaución y el de prevención, el de equidad intergeneracional, el
de reconocimiento y preservación de la diversidad, o los de internalización de costes o de
integración multisectorial (ver p. ej. Cameron & Abouchar, 1991; IAIA, 2003; Vanclay,
2003; Beder, 2006)?
- 161 -
Discusión
Por otra parte, siempre se podrá discutir qué significa, en concreto y en el fondo,
evitar la pérdida neta de calidad ecológica. Para algunos planteamientos teóricos, una
actuación humana implicaría siempre e inevitablemente, de suyo, una disminución de la
calidad ecológica. Esta postura sitúa al Hombre como un completo extraño frente a la
naturaleza, de la que se le excluye conceptualmente. Frente a esta concepción excluyente,
separadora, se alza en completa oposición la de aceptar cualquier acto humano, por
entenderlo como inevitablemente natural, precisamente por proceder de un ser
(humano) que, se entiende, no puede no ser natural.
Entre los extremos conceptuales esbozados, caben innumerables visiones a las
que respondería el trabajo de quienes procuran vivir lo natural respetándolo, tanto en
uno mismo (ajustando la propia conducta) como en el entorno (procurando el cuidado
de la calidad de su existencia). Múltiples son las posturas que coinciden en buscar, desde
las dimensiones de naturalidad que haya en el ser humano, una armonía en la convivencia
en y con la Tierra (p.ej. McCauley, 2006), que permita el desarrollo de la vida en los dos
polos opuestos con los que con frecuencia se sitúa (con mayor o menor acierto) a los
principales actores del drama ambiental contemporáneo, tal y como es visto con
frecuencia en occidente: ser humano y naturaleza.
En este contexto, el debate cultural actual sigue planteando si atender a los
valores ecológicos no será sólo una exigencia socioeconómica, sino una expresión del
espíritu humano, que busca en lo natural realidades y valores más allá de los meros
recursos materiales. Desde este punto de vista, actualmente compartido por varias
culturas, el término “recursos naturales” se queda corto para hacer referencia a todos los
aspectos del medio natural. Y es que los valores no materiales y no utilitarios del medio
natural (como los valores espirituales, religiosos, culturales, etc) siempre serán difíciles de
encajar en una mentalidad orientada a medir y ordenar todo aquello que nos rodea,
precisamente (y entre otras razones) por la dificultad (o imposibilidad) de su medición.
Además de este fondo conceptual, y pasando ya a un punto de vista técnico, un
primer obstáculo para aplicar la compensación reside en la dificultad de valorar (e incluso
en algunos casos, de identificar) los impactos residuales que ocasiona un proyecto (Darbi
et al., 2009; Rowe, 2009). Tal dificultad es, por un lado, intrínseca al propio proceso de
valoración, que conlleva incertidumbres que impiden obtener resultados objetivos e
indiscutibles acerca de la significatividad de los impactos (capítulo IV). Por otro lado, la
- 162 -
Discusión
naturaleza y características de algunos impactos los hacen más difícilmente evaluables que
otros, a menudo por las complicaciones que implica medir su alcance o magnitud. Por
ejemplo, en el caso de proyectos de carreteras y autopistas la fragmentación de hábitats y
poblaciones es más difícil de medir que la pérdida de superficie natural, puesto que esta
última puede expresarse en unidades de área, mientras que la primera requiere métodos
más complejos (p. ej. Jaeger, 2000). De hecho, ciertos efectos de proyectos de desarrollo
sobre el medio todavía no son bien conocidos, en algunos casos ni siquiera en cuanto a
su relación causa-efecto (capítulo II).
A las dificultades debidas a la propia naturaleza de los impactos y del proceso de
valoración, se suman ciertas deficiencias en el modo en que actualmente se lleva a cabo
este paso en la EIA, habitualmente más orientado hacia la corrección que hacia la
compensación (capítulo V). Juega aquí un papel importante el concepto de impacto
residual que, en la medida en que se ignora en los procedimientos de EIA (como señalan
Dolan et al. (2006) para el caso de proyectos de carreteras), señala el alcance del valor
ecológico que aceptamos perder definitivamente, sin ni siquiera intentar evitarlo con los
recursos valorativos y técnicos de los que se dispone. Además, tras la valoración del
impacto residual, el cálculo de las acciones necesarias para compensarlo suele constituir
otro obstáculo que, en cambio, no existe a la hora de diseñar medidas preventivas o
correctoras, que además son aplicadas con mucha más frecuencia que las compensatorias
(capítulo V). Por último, el modo en que se desarrolla (o se omite) actualmente la
identificación y valoración de impactos residuales hace que el diseño de medidas
compensatorias no siempre cuente con una base sólida que justifique las propuestas
concretas que se hacen, lo que supone un impedimento añadido a la escasez de guías o
indicaciones (capítulo VI) que faciliten tanto esta tarea como la evaluación posterior de la
idoneidad de las acciones compensatorias propuestas. Todo esto, a su vez, repercute
negativamente en el proceso de participación pública, que constituye una parte
fundamental de la EIA (André et al., 2006; Hartley & Wood, 2005).
Aunque el análisis de estos aspectos se realice desde una perspectiva teórica o
científica, para elaborar propuestas de mejora efectivas éstas han de adaptarse al
contexto en que se desarrolla la EIA, habitualmente sujeto a las limitaciones de tiempo y
medios específicas de este procedimiento. En este sentido, es tan importante proponer
acciones que supongan una solución a los problemas detectados como procurar que tales
medidas sean aplicables en la práctica (McKenney, 2005). Así, aunque la mentalidad
- 163 -
Discusión
teórica o científica tiende a elaborar propuestas exigentes y dirigidas a asegurar el logro
de los objetivos finales de la compensación, el intento de lograr esos objetivos demasiado
rápido sería seguramente difícil de llevar a cabo en un escenario real. Por contra, la
búsqueda de la eficacia a largo plazo puede alcanzarse poniendo en práctica de inicio
objetivos de compensación inicialmente menos ambiciosos, pero más adaptados a la
situación actual. Tales objetivos pueden suponer sin embargo mayores avances a corto
plazo, puesto que permiten ser aplicados con mayor facilidad. Además, al ser puestos en
práctica permiten promover una mentalidad que, a su tiempo, aceptará medidas más
exigentes que las que admite el contexto de la EIA en España actualmente.
Complementariamente, la elaboración de propuestas demanda sencillez también para
facilitar la transparencia del procedimiento de EIA, condición indispensable para facilitar la
necesaria participación del público (Sadler, 1996; Morrison-Saunders & Bailey, 2000;
Webler & Tuler, 2006; Plottu & Plottu, 2009). El contraste de los datos empíricos sobre la
práctica de la compensación en la EIA en España (capítulos I, III y V) con la bibliografía
científica existente relativa a compensación ecológica permite ver de algún modo la
distancia que separa la práctica actual del ideal teórico, y que no puede recorrerse en un
solo paso, pues exige cambios tan complejos como el del contexto real en que se
desarrolla la EIA.
Las propuestas para promover la práctica de la compensación presentadas en los
artículos anteriores siguen este razonamiento, en un intento de tender un puente entre
dos ámbitos (el de la ciencia y el de la práctica cotidiana de la EIA y de la compensación)
habitualmente distanciados, acaso por la dificultad de hacerse cargo recíprocamente del
marco en que trabaja el profesional de un campo ajeno al propio. Así, primar en la EIA la
elección de metodologías de valoración sencillas y claramente explicadas, e incluir un
registro y evaluación explícito de aquellos impactos residuales con representación
geográfica (capítulos IV y V) son ideas que, aunque de partida no abarquen todos los
impactos residuales, tratan de dar un paso más respecto a la situación actual de
sostenibilidad que parecen revelar los estudios de casos reales realizados en varios de los
artículos presentados.
La sencillez de estas propuestas, además de responder al objetivo de adaptarse a
la situación actual, tiene una segunda lectura. Puede que su simplicidad sorprenda desde
una mentalidad científica, pues claramente su implantación no solucionaría per se la baja
práctica de la compensación ecológica que se detecta actualmente. Pero el hecho de que
- 164 -
Discusión
sea éste, y no uno más complejo, el primer paso necesario para mejorar la situación actual
nos revela en cierto modo lo lejos que estamos de alcanzar la situación ideal que
propone la teoría. Y desde una perspectiva más general, este contraste entre
percepciones de la misma propuesta da un indicio de la distancia que con frecuencia
separa el mundo de la ciencia y la teoría del mundo práctico, que es al fin y al cabo del
que depende la asimilación e implantación de los avances que prevé el primero. De ahí
que convenga recordar que lo novedoso de las propuestas no tendrá su patrón de
medición más eficaz desde el mundo científico, que siempre se propone objetivos que
trascienden la realidad presente, sino desde el mundo profesional y administrativo de la
práctica de la EIA, para quienes unos cambios teóricamente poco novedosos, pueden
serlo mucho si se tiene en cuenta lo que se hace (u omite) en la realidad. No es una
novedad teórica presentar la idea de compensación. Sí lo es hacerlo para un marco
escogido (la EIA en España), y más lo sería si lo fuera de modo que, al fin, se lograra
cambiar la práctica, objetivo al que desea este estudio contribuir, pero que le trasciende,
al estar la práctica de la EIA en manos de otros profesionales.
Dejando a un lado la cuestión acerca de la complejidad de las propuestas, hay que
señalar también que la mejora de aspectos técnicos, como aquellos relacionados con la
valoración de impactos y el diseño de medidas compensatorias adecuadas, no garantiza
por sí sola una mayor aplicación de compensación ecológica en la EIA. Para lograr este
objetivo, y siguiendo en cierto modo lo que propone McCaulay (2006) para las acciones
de conservación, los progresos técnicos han de ir acompañados por cambios
conceptuales, especialmente en cuanto a la percepción de la compensación ecológica
como una necesidad lógica y no como una carga o responsabilidad accesoria (en la línea
de lo propuesto por Skärbäck en 2007 para los valores recreativos del medio natural).
Este tema, sin embargo, no suele aparecer de forma explícita en los capítulos
precedentes de esta tesis, aunque ha sido abordado al iniciarse este apartado y ahora se
retoma para recordar la idea de que las propuestas de cambio particulares responden a
un contexto teórico profundo, en el que buscan su fundamentación más necesaria,
aunque por ello no deje de ser discutida o discutible.
Como se señalaba en el capítulo III, la compensación de impactos ecológicos no
parece despertar tanto interés o preocupación como la compensación de otros impactos
(los económicos en el caso estudiado). Esto puede ser debido en parte a que los efectos
de ciertos proyectos sobre la esfera ecológica no son tan fácilmente perceptibles como
- 165 -
Discusión
los que afectan al ámbito socioeconómico, pero puede haber otras muchas causas. Como
se observa en el caso descrito en este artículo, cuando un impacto económico no es
contrarrestado por parte de quien lo causó, los afectados buscan los medios para cambiar
esa situación. Sin embargo, tal fenómeno rara vez se observa ante un impacto ecológico.
Si éste no afecta a personas concretas, cuando el promotor no lleva a cabo medidas
compensatorias y la ley no obliga a ello, no es frecuente que alguien tome la
responsabilidad de asegurarse de que los daños sean contrarrestados.
El medio natural es un bien de todos y de nadie, y como tal puede estar sujeto a
lo que Garrett Hardin describió en 1968 como “la tragedia de los comunes”, una
situación en la que la utilización de un bien colectivo para satisfacer los intereses
particulares de varios individuos puede acabar destruyendo tal recurso. Este fenómeno
observado en cuanto a la preservación de la calidad ecológica del medio no es nuevo,
pues no son raros los ejemplos en que surgen importantes dificultades para asignar la
responsabilidad de reparar los daños causados sobre recursos públicos, a menudo con el
resultado de que el perjuicio queda sin remediar.
Ante esta situación, la legislación puede ser una herramienta útil para indicar
claramente quién debe responder y poner los medios para remediar los daños causados
al entorno, siguiendo la recomendación del propio Hardin (1998) de utilizar acuerdos
comunes (leyes) para prevenir la sobreexplotación de recursos comunes. Si bien las leyes
actuales establecen estos términos en la mayoría de las situaciones de contaminación,
mediante la aplicación del principio “quien contamina, paga”8, parece que la situación
actual demanda algunos ajustes en materia de compensación ecológica de daños
ambientales distintos a la contaminación.
En España, la legislación sólo obliga a compensar impactos que afecten a lugares
pertenecientes a la Red Natura 2000 (RDL 1997/1995), o cuando se llevan a cabo
determinadas actividades (previstas por la Ley 26/2007) (ver capítulo I). Aunque es cierto
que la preservación de zonas catalogadas bajo algún estatus de protección requiere
especial atención, el resto de áreas no deben ser descuidadas si se quiere conservar de
forma efectiva la calidad ecológica global del medio (Farina, 2000). Por ello, sería
8
El principio de “quien contamina, paga” (PPP por sus siglas en inglés; “Polluter-Pays Principle”) establece
que el responsable del proyecto o actividad que causa un daño al medio ambiente debe hacerse cargo de
los costes de las medidas necesarias para devolver el entorno a un estado aceptable. Este principio fue
establecido en 1972 por la OECD con la intención de limitar los daños causados al entorno y establecer las
responsabilidades en cuanto a la recuperación de los impactos originados (JWPTE, 2002; Beder, 2006).
- 166 -
Discusión
recomendable estimular desde la legislación la compensación de los impactos residuales
significativos sobre el medio natural, aunque éstos no afecten directamente a áreas
protegidas, de modo que se vaya desarrollando una cultura de respeto al medio que se
exprese en compensar, cada vez más, lo que en el pasado se hubiera dejado
permanentemente alterado.
Como
recomiendan
Barbero-Rodríguez
y
Espigares-Pinilla
(2010),
la
obligatoriedad de implantar medidas compensatorias cobra especial importancia para
ambientes que, como ocurre con los ecosistemas de ribera, se encuentran más
deteriorados y/o son más frágiles que otros. También conviene señalar que, según las
leyes actuales, la decisión final de aplicar medidas compensatorias depende en la mayoría
de los casos de si los impactos son considerados significativos o no. Puesto que, como se
ha tratado en secciones anteriores, la determinación de la significatividad es un tema que
siempre plantea incertidumbres, podría ser de utilidad establecer un acuerdo sobre qué
se debe considerar como impacto residual significativo para estos casos, teniendo
presente que varios impactos residuales de escasa entidad pueden acabar resultando en
importantes impactos acumulativos (Race & Fonseca, 1996).
Si bien es cierto que la significatividad de muchos efectos depende del caso
concreto, determinados tipos de proyecto provocan siempre ciertos impactos residuales,
independientemente de las condiciones en que se lleven a cabo. Como ejemplo se ha
presentado el caso de las carreteras, que conllevan daños al entorno (como la pérdida de
superficie natural, el aumento de emisiones y la fragmentación paisajística y ecológica)
siempre inevitables e imposibles de corregir totalmente (ver segunda parte). Por esto, la
elaboración de listados de actividades que siempre, bajo cualquier condición, ocasionan
impactos residuales podría también ayudar a determinar en qué casos es necesaria la
aplicación de compensación ecológica.
En resumen, la amplitud de enfoques de estudio empleada en esta tesis ha
permitido sondear en distintos frentes la dificultad de implementar la compensación
ecológica. Si bien el trabajo se ha realizado desde el plano teórico, los obstáculos
encontrados tienen su reflejo en el terreno práctico, quizás con más fuerza. Podría decirse
que la escasa aplicación de medidas compensatorias radica a partes iguales en la falta de
herramientas que permitan presentarla y justificarla adecuadamente, y en una mentalidad
más o menos extendida de admisión de pérdidas de calidad ecológica. Por esto, aunque
- 167 -
Discusión
la ciencia y la técnica juegan un importante papel en la propuesta de mejoras, sólo
pueden propiciar parte del cambio necesario, que requiere inevitablemente de acciones
desde otros frentes.
Los métodos para valorar los impactos ecológicos residuales y para calcular las
medidas compensatorias correspondientes, deben continuar siendo objeto de estudio
para lograr herramientas verdaderamente manejables y útiles para la compensación
dentro de la EIA. Y al mismo tiempo, se deben buscar mecanismos para facilitar un
cambio de mentalidad en cuanto a la concepción del entorno ecológico, de manera que
su conservación no continúe estando a expensas del desarrollo humano.
- 168 -
DISCUSSION
Keeping constant the ecological quality of the environment is a minimum
requirement to attain the sustainability of projects which cause significant ecological
impacts (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995). In other words, human development
should not cause net ecological losses (Iuell et al., 2003; ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney,
2005; Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007; Moilanen et al., 2009; Rowe et al., 2009). In order
to do so, those impacts that cannot be avoided nor reversed to recover the original
situation (i.e. the residual impacts) should be counteracted through the implementation of
compensatory measures (Pope et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk &
Daddo, 2007; Weaver et al., 2008; BBOP, 2009).
Nevertheless, data show that ecological compensation is not put into practice as
often as it would be theoretically necessary to attain sustainability, since usually EIA
approves development projects that cause ecological residual impacts even though they
do not plan any offsets to counteract those negative effects (chapter I). Such
phenomenon may be caused both by technical and conceptual factors. These last ones
will be approached first.
Requiring no net loss of ecological quality as a goal for EIA reflects a quite
demanding concept of sustainability. More often than not, we do not care about our rate
of consumption of natural resources until there is some evident sign of shortage, as an
increase in market prices (Daily, 2000; Daily et al., 2000). And although some
environments are strongly protected against human intervention, they represent only a
small percentage of all the environmentally valuable places on Earth that are sensitive to
anthropogenic disturbances. Is it possible to meet some basic principles of environmental
ethics (like uncertainty, precautionary, inter-generational equity, biodiversity preservation,
cost internalisation or multi-sector integration principles), without understanding that
sustainability demands to ensure no net ecological losses in the environment? (see e.g.
Cameron & Abouchar, 1991; IAIA, 2003; Vanclay, 2003; Beder, 2006). However, the
avoidance of net ecological losses is not a common attitude currently.
Complementarily, as an added obstacle to compensation, there is (and there
always will be) a wide discussion on the theoretical and practical meaning of no net
ecological loss. Some theories would maintain that all human activities inevitably entail a
- 169 -
Discussion
loss of ecological quality, since they consider that human beings are conceptually excluded
from nature, strangers to it. Contrarily, other trends understand that human activities are
inevitably natural since they come from human beings, who cannot be non-natural.
Nevertheless, there may be countless viewpoints that respond to some middle
ground between the described extreme theories. An example of this may be represented
by all those people who look for ways to live and respect nature, both adjusting their own
behaviour to its rules and taking care of its quality. Several theories try to find ways of life
and development that are more respectful towards the Earth (see e.g. McCauley, 2006),
in order to reconcile what many westerners may actually perceive somehow as
opponents: human development and nature.
In this context, current debate tries to ascertain whether taking care of ecological
values is not only a socio-economic pressing need, but an expression of human spirit as
well, which seeks, within nature, certain values beyond economic resources. From this
point of view, actually shared by several cultures, the term ‘natural resource’ does not
include all natural aspects of the environment. Non-material, non-utilitarian natural values
(such as spiritual, religious or cultural values) are hard to handle for some scientific
mindsets which try to measure and classify everything, mainly because such values are
hard or even impossible to measure.
From a technical viewpoint, a first obstacle to put ecological compensation into
practice arises when trying to value (or even to identify) the residual impacts caused by a
project (Darbi et al., 2009; Rowe, 2009). On the one hand, such difficulties are inherent
to the valuation process, which has to deal with uncertainties that do not allow getting
objective, straight-forward results on the significance of the impacts (chapter IV). On the
other hand, certain impacts are harder to evaluate than others, often because it is difficult
to measure their reach or magnitude. Taking the effects of roads and motorways on
nature as an example, habitat loss is easier to measure than fragmentation, since
transformed surfaces are easily identified and measured while the barrier effects need
more complex methodologies to be estimated (e.g. Jaeger, 2000). In fact, there are certain
effects of development projects on the environment that are not yet well known, not
even enough to attach them to a certain cause (chapter II).
In addition to the valuation of the residual impact, the estimation of which are the
offsets to compensate it is an added difficulty that does not exist when designing
- 170 -
Discusion
preventive or mitigation measures, which are in fact much more frequently proposed than
compensatory ones (chapter V). The way identification and valuation of residual impacts is
currently carried out (or overlooked) does not provide a solid base to justify the proposal
of ecological offsets, which is also hampered by the scarcity of guidelines on how to make
this proposal in a sound way (chapter VI). At the same time, all these gaps and difficulties
have negative consequences in public participation, which is actually a core part of EIA
(André et al., 2006; Hartley & Wood, 2005). In addition to the difficulties that may be due
to the varying typology of the impacts and the valuation process, some deficiencies may
be found on the way valuation within EIA is currently carried out, usually directed towards
favouring impact mitigation much more than impact compensation (chapter V). The value
of the residual impact plays a key role in the proposal of compensation measures. As long
as it is overlooked in EIA processes (as Dolan et al., (2006) point out for road projects),
residual impact represents the ecological value we agree to loss without even trying to
recover it somehow.
Although all these aspects are studied from a scientific or theoretical viewpoint,
the proposals to improve current procedures must adapt to the practical context in which
EIA is undertaken, which is usually subject to time and budget constraints. In this sense,
the practical applicability of the proposals is as important as the improvements they may
entail (McKenney, 2005). Thus, although some scientific proposals may be technically
sound enough to overcome the existing deficiencies on compensation issues, they may
frequently entail too demanding efforts that may not be possible to carry out at present in
pressing decision-making scenarios such as EIA. At the end, proposing too big changes in
order to reach compensation broad objectives immediately would prove an inadequate
strategy to foster compensation in the real EIA scenario On the contrary, initially less
ambitious, more practical proposals may gradually lead to the achievement of broader
objectives in the long-term. Since they may be easily put into practice their small
achievements could promote new attitudes regarding compensation that will accept, at
the end, more demanding measures. Complementarily, proposals on EIA need to be kept
also as simple as possible to facilitate the transparency of the whole process, an essential
condition to ensure public participation (Sadler, 1996; Morrison-Saunders & Bailey, 2000;
Webler & Tuler, 2006; Plottu & Plottu, 2009). The gulf between the registered data on
ecological compensation practice within Spanish EIA (chapters I, III and V) and current
- 171 -
Discussion
scientific literature proposals shows somehow the dimension of the gap between actual
practice and theoretical goals. A gap that cannot be covered in a single step, for it
demands to accomplish as complex improvements as the change of the real context
where EIA is developed.
The proposals presented in chapters I to VI follow this reasoning, with the aim to
build bridges between two fields (science and daily practice on EIA and compensation)
that are usually distant to each other, maybe because they both find difficulty at taking
one another’s role. Thus, prioritising in EIA simple and clearly explained valuation
methodologies, and explicitly registering and evaluating geographically represented
residual impacts (chapters IV and V) are some proposals that, although may not cover all
the existing deficiencies in ecological compensation practice, try to advance some initial
steps towards the improvement of the actual situation that real data show.
Such simplicity has a second meaning. The described proposals may be regarded
as too simple by a scientific mind, since their implementation would not solve per se the
current lack of compensation practice. But this simplicity responds to the needs of the
current context, and points out the gap that separates actual practices from theoretical
objectives. From a broader viewpoint, the contrast between the different ways in which
the described proposals are perceived from the scientific or practical viewpoints shows
also the gap that separates the theoretical and scientific sphere from the practical field.
But, at the end, it is the practical sphere which ‘brings to life’ the ideas that scientists
envision. This way, the real innovation of a certain proposal may not be properly
evaluated from a theoretical or scientific perspective, but rather from the practical sphere
of EIA, which may find significant progress in scientifically non-innovative proposals, as long
as they mean a true, achievable step-forward in real practice. The concept of
compensation is not a scientific innovation. But to propose to improve it in the Spanish
EIA context may certainly be an innovative proposal. And more so if this attempt ends up
changing compensation practice, a goal this thesis aims to contribute to, while bearing in
mind that, at the end, such achievement depends only on the work of EIA professionals.
Setting now aside the issue of the complexity or simplicity of the compensation
proposals, it is to be reminded that the improvement of EIA technical aspects does not
guarantee by itself a higher practice of ecological compensation. In order to achieve this
goal, technical progress should be implemented along with conceptual changes (as also
suggested by McCaulay (2006) for conservation activities) that foster a general perception
- 172 -
Discusion
of ecological compensation as a logical need and not as an incidental responsibility (see
Skärbäck (2007) for recreational values of natural environment). Although this idea has
not been specifically addressed in the presented chapters it is actually behind the
proposals they make.
As chapter III pointed out, ecological compensation seems not to get as much
attention or concern as socio-economic compensation. The difficulty to perceive certain
ecological impacts may partly cause that phenomenon, but there may be some other
factors behind it. As the paper describes, when an economic impact is not balanced the
affected people look for ways to get the corresponding compensation. However, this
hardly ever happens when ecological values are lost; if the developer does not propose
offsets and the environmental regulations do not enforce to do so, usually nobody
demands the compensation of the ecological damage.
The natural environment belongs to nobody and at the same time everybody can
use it. For that reason it may be subject to what Garret Hardin described in 1968 as the
‘tragedy of the commons’; a situation where the continuous and accumulative use of a
collective good for different individual purposes leads to the destruction of the resource.
This phenomenon can be observed in relation to the ecological quality of the
environment, but also in other cases when we find it hard to ascertain who is responsible
for repairing the damages collectively caused upon public resources. And, usually, the end
of the story is that such damages remain un-repaired.
Environmental legislation can be a useful tool to face this situation, if it clearly
states who must remedy the damages caused upon the environment, as Hardin (1998)
already recommended to prevent the over-exploitation of common resources. Although
current regulations have started to clarify this question for pollution problems by applying
the ‘polluter pays’ principle9, it seems that some changes may be necessary to enforce
ecological compensation for other environmental problems.
Spanish current legislation only enforces to compensate significant ecological
impacts that affect Natura 2000 areas (RDL 1997/1995) or that are caused by certain
activities (Law 26/2007) (see chapter I). Although protected areas need special effort to
9
The ‘Polluter-Pays’ principle establishes that the developer of a project or activity that causes any negative
impact on the environment must carry out the necessary measures to counteract it so as to bring the
affected environment back to an acceptable state. This principle was established in 1972 by the OECD to
limit the impacts on the environment and to establish who must be responsible for the recovery of the
damaged environment (JWPTE, 2002; Beder, 2006).
- 173 -
Discussion
ensure their integrity, non-protected zones must also be cared for to some degree if we
want to effectively avoid net ecological losses in the environment (Farina, 2000). For that
reason, legislation should enforce to compensate any significant ecological residual
impacts, even if they do not damage protected areas. This would also help to develop a
more respectful mind towards the natural environment, one that would seek to
compensate what in past times would have been accepted as a permanent loss.
As Barbero-Rodríguez and Espigares-Pinilla (2010) recommend, enforcing the
implementation of compensatory measures is especially important for fragile habitats
and/or very damaged environments, such as riparian ecosystems. It has to be noticed that,
according to current Spanish regulation, the decision on the implementation of offsets
depends on the significance of the residual impacts. But, as it has been already discussed,
establishing the significance of an impact always entails a certain uncertainty. For this
reason, it may seem a good idea to clarify what should be considered as a significant
residual impact, keeping in mind that several small impacts within a certain area can add
up to an important cumulative impact (Race & Fonseca, 1996).
Although the significance of most impacts depends on the characteristics of each
particular case, certain kinds of projects always entail certain residual impacts, regardless of
the circumstances. As it has been described in previous chapters (see second part of the
thesis), road projects always cause ecological impacts that cannot be avoided nor
completely reversed, such as habitat loss, increase of gas emissions and ecological and
landscape fragmentation. Thus, identifying those projects which always cause ecological
residual impacts could help to decide in which cases ecological compensation should be
enforced.
All in all, the variety of focuses and study scales adopted in the different parts of
the thesis has allowed exploring several difficulties that the implementation of ecological
compensation has to face. Although the approach has been made mostly from a
theoretical standpoint, the described obstacles affect real practice even more deeply. It
may be said that the low practice of ecological compensation is rooted both in a lack of
tools for properly proposing and justifying offsets, and in a quite common acceptance of
ecological quality loss. For this reason, although science and technique should make
proposals to improve current practice, additional changes in the way we perceive our
duty to preserve the environment are necessary to attain real improvements.
- 174 -
Discusion
Methodologies for valuating residual impacts and for calculating their
corresponding offsets should be developed in such a way that they constitute useful tools
to promote ecological compensation within EIA. And, at the same time, a new perception
of the natural environment should be promoted, so that the preservation of ecological
assets be no longer at the expense of human development.
- 175 -
CONCLUSIONES GENERALES
1.
Cuando el número y la magnitud de los proyectos con incidencia ambiental
significativa se multiplican, aumenta la necesidad de considerar el respeto del
entorno natural como parte integral de esos proyectos, en especial en aquellos
lugares donde se concentran.
2.
Un enfoque indispensable para reducir los efectos ambientales negativos de la
actividad humana es el desarrollo de acercamientos más amplios que los análisis
proyecto a proyecto. Pero al mismo tiempo, el análisis ambiental e individual de
esos proyectos a través de la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) es clave para
alcanzar los objetivos ambientales generales en el momento de ejecutar los
proyectos.
3.
Como es el caso de otras muchas disciplinas, el acercamiento entre el trabajo de los
investigadores y el de otros profesionales de la EIA (como los consultores
ambientales o los técnicos de la administración), facilita la propuesta de avances en
materia de sostenibilidad en la EIA.
4.
Aunque se mejoren los métodos para evaluar los impactos y para proponer las
acciones necesarias para revertir sus efectos, la realidad natural es compleja, y se
hace imposible medir los impactos negativos de la actividad humana en todos sus
aspectos. La gestión del entorno, por lo tanto, ha de estar atenta a esta
incertidumbre ineludible, y priorizar enfoques sencillos que permitan mejorar la
sostenibilidad, sobre perspectivas más complejas o precisas que difícilmente puedan
llevarse a la práctica en el marco de la EIA.
5.
La compensación de impactos ecológicos residuales originados por proyectos con
una incidencia ambiental significativa permite mejorar su sostenibilidad dentro del
marco de la EIA, habilitada por la legislación específica como una herramienta de
singular importancia para promover la práctica de la compensación.
- 176 -
Conclusiones generales
6.
En España, la compensación ecológica no se aplica actualmente en la mayoría de los
proyectos sometidos a EIA que ocasionan impactos residuales sobre el entorno. Las
causas de este fenómeno son múltiples y difíciles de discernir, e implican tanto
factores técnicos como conceptuales o de percepción, que se han analizado
particularmente para el caso de vías de transporte, aprovechando la experiencia
compensadora ya existente en otros lugares para estos proyectos.
7.
La práctica de la compensación en la EIA en España requiere interpretaciones de la
legislación de EIA más ajustadas al objetivo de la sostenibilidad que persigue, o
incluso cambios que promuevan e incluso exijan la aplicación de medidas
compensatorias en todos los proyectos que ocasionen impactos ecológicos
residuales significativos, afecten o no a zonas protegidas.
8.
Para alcanzar mayores cotas de sostenibilidad a través de la práctica de la
compensación en la EIA se propone promover, a la vez, una evaluación de los
impactos accesible al público, una elevada visibilidad de los impactos residuales que
generan los proyectos, y guías para concretar las medidas a aplicar para cada tipo de
proyecto. En esta dirección van las propuestas presentadas en los distintos capítulos
de esta tesis.
9.
Sea cual sea la altura de los objetivos últimos de sostenibilidad hacia los que se
dirijan, las propuestas de evaluación ecológica elaboradas desde el mundo científico
han de estar adaptadas, de inicio, a las condiciones actuales del procedimiento de
EIA para poder ser aplicadas eficazmente en ese contexto práctico.
10.
La dificultad que se encuentra para definir cómo lograr y justificar ante una cultura
de la corrección de impactos las propuestas de compensación en el marco de la
EIA, pone en cuestión el rumbo que lleva lo que denominamos desarrollo. No se
trata solamente de que cueste acordar cómo alcanzar la sostenibilidad, sino de que
no hay un acuerdo en cuanto a su nivel de exigencia en lo referente al medio
natural ni, por lo tanto, en cuanto al significado del concepto de desarrollo y en
cómo debería expresarse en el territorio ante la ejecución de proyectos concretos.
11.
Las propuestas para favorecer la compensación ecológica serán aceptadas
socialmente en la medida en que vayan acompañadas de un progresivo cambio de
mentalidad, de forma que el no causar un daño neto al medio se perciba no como
- 177 -
Conclusiones generales
una posibilidad, ni como una obligación legal, sino como la manera humana de
comportarse ante la base natural de la que depende la misma vida, aunque su
limitación o agotamiento esté lejos de percibirse. Empezando por la EIA, conviene
pasar progresivamente de una cultura de la corrección de impactos, que de hecho
admite los impactos residuales, a otra que la incluya y la supere: la de la
compensación.
12.
Aunque la aplicación del concepto de sostenibilidad a acciones concretas sea una
tarea compleja, la identificación a través de la EIA de actividades no sostenibles que
requieran compensación es una labor más sencilla, un punto de partida hacia formas
de proceder más sostenibles y hacia una nueva mentalidad en lo referente al uso
del territorio.
13.
Esta tesis arranca desde un modo exigente de entender la sostenibilidad: en el
marco de la EIA, no deberíamos admitir pérdidas netas de calidad ecológica. De ese
enfoque depende su debilidad conceptual, principalmente ante quienes no asignan
tanto valor al medio natural. Pero también radica en él la fuerza de sus propuestas,
principalmente ante quienes entienden que los valores naturales deben ser más
respetados. Porque si es cierto que la interpretación de la sostenibilidad es discutida,
es más difícil que pueda alcanzarse admitiendo una pérdida progresiva de calidad
ecológica en el medio.
- 178 -
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1.
As the number and magnitude of projects with significant environmental effects
grow, seemingly the need grows of considering the care for the natural environment
as an integral aspect of these projects performance, mainly where they concentrate.
2.
To reduce the negative effects of human activities on any aspect of the
environment, it is necessary to use of wider approaches than project-centered
analyses. Notwithstanding, project-scale environmental performance analysis through
environmental impact assessment (EIA) remain crucial to attain general
environmental aims through project implementations.
3.
As in many other fields, bringing together the work of EIA researchers (who
develop their activity mainly in universities and alternative research centers) and of
other EIA-involved professionals (such as environmental consultants or public
administrators) makes easier the proposal of how to foster sustainability within EIA.
4.
Even though impact assessment methodologies and the proposals to counter them
may be progressively improved, there remains the complexity of the natural reality
and the impossibility to assess all the negative effects of human activity on the
environment. Environmental management, therefore, must take notice of this
unavoidable uncertainty, and prioritize those straightforward approaches that allow
improving sustainability over those more complex or precise ones that would be
hardly operative in real EIA management frameworks.
5.
The compensation of residual ecological impacts caused by projects with significant
environmental effects allows improving their sustainability through the EIA
framework, empowered by the EIA specific regulation as a singularly good tool to
foster compensation practice.
- 180 -
General conclusions
6.
In Spain, ecological compensation is overlooked in most projects under EIA
regulation that cause residual impacts on the environment. The causes of such
phenomenon are multiple and difficult to discern, as there converge technical,
conceptual and perceptual reasons, which have been analyzed in particular for roads
and railways, to take advantage of the compensation expertise already developed
for these kind of projects in other countries.
7.
Compensation practice within EIA in Spain needs of regulatory implementations to
be closer to its own sustainability aim, or even of regulatory changes that foster or
enforce the application of compensatory measures in all projects that cause
significant residual ecological impacts, both within environmentally protected areas
and out of them.
8.
Throughout the different chapters of this doctoral dissertation, an impact evaluation
methodology accessible to public participation, a high visibility of residual ecological
impacts, and the development of guidance for ecological compensation of specific
types of projects are proposed together as coordinate measures to reach higher
sustainability levels through compensation practice in EIA.
9.
No matter how ambitious the ultimate sustainability goals intended are, ecological
evaluation proposals from the scientific community must, first, adapt to present-day
EIA performance. Only so will these proposals integrate efficiently in EIA contexts.
10.
The difficulty found to define and justify, before a well-established impact mitigation
culture, any ecological compensation proposals in EIA raises doubts on the direction
that present-day development follows. There is not only difficulty in agreeing how to
reach sustainability, as we do not agree either in how demandingly have
sustainability goals to be understood regarding the natural environment in the
particular EIA context. At the end, there is lack of agreement in the meaning of
development itself, and in how it should be applied on the territory when particular
projects are implemented.
- 181 -
General conclusions
11.
The proposals to foster ecological conservation will be socially accepted as long as a
change in mentality develops, so that avoiding a net environmental loss may be
perceived not only as a possibility or a legal necessity, but also as the way to be true
to our humanity in dealing with the natural base that sustains life itself, even though
its decrease or exhaustion may be far from being perceived. Getting started through
EIA, a development is required from the “impact mitigation culture”, which in fact
compromises with residual impacts, to a more demanding “impact compensation
culture”.
12.
Even though the practical implementation of sustainability is not an easy task, the
identification of non-sustainable activities in need of compensation through EIA may
be easier to apply, a departing point towards more sustainable standards, which may
help in awakening a new mentality regarding land-use.
13.
This doctoral dissertation stems from a demanding way of understanding the
meaning of sustainability: in EIA frameworks, we should not accept net ecological
value losses. From this standpoint springs up also a source of potential criticism,
mainly from those who may deem natural values as more dispensable. But in it is
rooted at the same time the strength of the proposals here presented, mainly
before the eyes of those who think that natural values should be more respected. If
it is true that the concept of sustainability is debatable in its interpretation, it is more
difficult to state that it could be reached accepting a progressive loss of ecological
quality in the environment.
- 182 -
BIBLIOGRAFÍA GENERAL
André PB, Enserink B, Connor D, Croal P. 2006. Public participation: International Best Practice Principles.
Fargo, USA. Disponible en: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/specialpublications/SP4%20web.pdf
Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Milton SJ, Clewell AF. 2006. Natural capital: The limiting factor. Ecological
Engineering, 28: 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.012
Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN. 2007. Restoring Natural Capital: Definitions and Rationale. In Aronson J,
Milton SJ, Blignaut JN (Eds.). Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press,
Washington D.C. Pp 3-9.
Azqueta D, Sotelsek D. 2007. Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital. Ecological
Economics. 63: 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.029
Badoe DA, Miller EJ. 2000. Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and
their implications for modeling. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 5(4):
235—263.
Barbero-Rodríguez J, Espigares-Pinilla T. 2010. Aplicación de la evaluación de impacto ambiental en España
en el periodo 1989-2008 : El caso de los proyectos de carreteras. Ingeniería Civil. 157: 57-67.
Beder S. 2006. Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. Earthscan, London.
Burgin S. 2008. BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in
conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 17(4): 807-816. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9319-2
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP: An
Overview. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Washington, D.C. Disponible en:
http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3125.pdf
Cameron J, Abouchar J. 1991. The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for
the Protection of the Global Environment. Boston College International and Comparative Law
Review. 14(1). Disponible en: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol14/iss1/2/
Costanza R, Daly HE. 1992. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology. 6(1): 3746.
Cuperus R, Bakermans MMGJ, de Haes HAU, Canters KJ. 2001. Ecological Compensation in Dutch Highway
Planning. Environmental Management. 27(1): 75-89. doi:10.1007/s002670010135
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Piepers AAG. 1996. Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road. Preliminary
method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands). Ecological Engineering. 7: 327349.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, de Haes HAU, Friedman DS. 1999. Guidelines for ecological compensation
associated with highways. Biological Conservation. 90: 41-51.
Cuperus R, Kalsbeek M, de Haes HAU, Canters KJ. 2002. Preparation and Implementation of Seven
Ecological Compensation Plans for Dutch Highways. Environmental Management. 29(6): 736-749.
doi:10.1007/s00267-001-2504-7
Daily GC. 2000. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science &
Policy. 3: 333-339.
Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, et al. 2000. The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science.
289(5478): 395-396.
Damarad T, Bekker GJ. 2003. COST 341 - Habitat Fragmentation due to Transportation Infrastructure:
Findings of the COST Action 341. Office for official publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Darbi M, Ohlenburg H, Herberg A, et al. 2009. International Approaches to Compensation for Impacts on
Biological Diversity. Final Report. Dresden, Berlin. Disponible en: http://www.foresttrends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=522
- 184 -
Dolan LMJ, van Bohemen HD, Whelan P, et al. 2006. Towards the sustainable development of modern
road ecosystems. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL (Eds.). The Ecology of Transportation: Managing
mobility for the Environment. Springer, Netherlands. pp. 275-331.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority). 2006. Environmental Offsets Position Statement No. 9.
Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Disponible en:
http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1863_PS9.pdf
Escorcio Bezerra LG. 2007. Biodiversity Offsets in National (Brazil) and Regional (EU) Mandatory
Arrangements: Towards an International Regime? MSc Dissertation, University College London,
Department of Laws.
Farina A. 2000. Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands. pp. 317.
Farley J, Daly H. 2006. Natural capital: The limiting factor. A reply to Aronson, Blignaut, Milton and Clewell.
Ecological Economics. 28: 6-10.
Fenech A, Foster J, Hamilton K, Hansell R. 2003. Natural capital in ecology and economics: an overview.
Environmental monitoring and assessment. 86(1-2): 3-17.
Fischer J, Manning AD, Steffen W, et al. 2007. Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
22(12): 621-624. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.016
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics. 29: 207-231.
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, et al. 2003. Road
ecology. Science and Solutions. Island Press. Washington DC. pp. 481.
Garmendia-Salvador A, Salvador-Alcalde A, Crespo-Sánchez C, Garmendia-Salvador L. 2005. Evaluación de
Impacto Ambiental. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Madrid. pp. 396.
Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog?
Ecological Management & Restoration. 8(1): 26-31. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00328.x
Gibson RB. 2001. Specification of sustainability-based environmental assessment decision criteria and
implications for determining “significance” in environmental assessment. Canadian Environmental
Assessment
Agency
Research
and
Development
Programme.
Disponible
en:
http://static.twoday.net/NE1BOKU0607/files/Gibson_Sustainability-EA.pdf
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwi A. 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Routledge. New
York. pp. 423.
Goodland R, Daly H. 1996. Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-Negotiable. Ecological
Applications. 6(4): 1002-1017.
Hardin G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 162: 1243-1248.
Hardin G. 1998. Extensions of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science. 280(5364): 682-683.
Hartley N, Wood C. 2005. Public participation in environmental impact assessment–implementing the
Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 25(4): 319-340.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. 2007. Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact
assessment: practitioner perspectives from Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 25(3): 209-218. doi:10.3152/146155107X227126
IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment). 2003. International Principles for Social Impact
Assssment. IAIA Special Publication Series No. 2.
IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment), UK Institute of Environmental Assessment. 1999.
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment best practice. Disponible en:
http://www.iaia.org/publications/
- 185 -
Iuell B, Bekker H, Cuperus R, et al (Eds.). 2003. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying
Conflicts and Designing Solutions. European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical
Research. Disponible en: https://www.milieuinfo.be/productie/beheerplone/nietacm/iene/cost341/COST 341-handbook.pdf
Jaeger JAG. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape
fragmentation. Landscape Ecology. 15: 115-130.
Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27: 287-300. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001
Jefatura del Estado. 2007. Ley 26/2007, de 23 de octubre, de Responsabilidad Medioambiental. Boletín
Oficial del Estado, 255: 43229-43250.
Jefatura del Estado. 2010. Ley 6/2010, de 24 de marzo, de modificación del texto refundido de la Ley de
Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos, aprobado por el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008,
de 11 de enero. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 73 (I): 28590-28597.
JWPTE (Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment). 2002. The Polluter-Pays Principle as It Relates to
International Trade. OECD, Paris.
Kates R. 2000. Sustainability science. World Academies Conference Transition to Sustainability in 21st
Century. May 2000; Tokyo, Japan.
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, et al. 2001. Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517): 641-642.
Katz E. 2000. Another look at restoration: technology and artificial nature. In: Gobster PH, Hull RB (Eds.).
Restoring Nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Island Press, Washington,
D.C. pp. 37-48.
Kuiper G. 1997. Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. European
Environment. 7: 118-125.
McCauley DJ. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature. 443(7107): 27-8.
McKenney B. 2005. Environmental offset policies, principles, and methods: a review of selected legislative
frameworks.
Biodiversity
Neutral
Initiative.
Disponible
en:
http://www.foresttrends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=541
Mebratu D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 18: 493-520.
Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. 1995. Real Decreto 1997/1995, de 7 de diciembre, por el
que se establece medidas para contribuir a garantizar la biodiversidad mediante la conservación de
los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 310: 37310-37333.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 2008. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008, de 11 de enero, por el que se
aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos. Boletín
Oficial del Estado, 23: 4986-5000.
Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo. 1988. Real Decreto 1131/1988, de 30 de septiembre, por el que
se aprueba el Reglamento para la ejecución del Real Decreto legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de junio,
de evaluación de impacto ambiental. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 239: 28911-28916.
Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S. 2009. How Much Compensation is Enough? A
Framework for Incorporating Uncertainty and Time Discounting When Calculating Offset Ratios
for Impacted Habitat. Restoration Ecology. 17(4): 470-478. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00382.x
Morris RKA, Alonso I, Jefferson RG, Kirby KJ. 2006. The creation of compensatory habitat–Can it secure
sustainable
development?
Journal
for
Nature
Conservation.
14:
106-116.
doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2006.01.003
Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 2000. Transparency in environment impact assessment decision-making:
recent developments in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 18(4): 260270.
Norton BG. 2005. Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem Management. The University of
Chicago Press. Chicago.
- 186 -
PENGO (Peak Environment Non-Government Organizations) 2002. Submission on green offsets for
sustainable development concept paper.
Penny Anderson Associates. 1993. Roads and nature conservation: guidance on impacts, mitigation and
enhancement. English Nature Publicity, Peterborough.
Plottu B, Plottu E. 2009. Approaches to Participation in Evaluation: Some Conditions for Implementation.
Evaluation. 15(3): 343-359.
Pope J. Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 24: 595-616. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001
Prugh T. 1995. Natural capital and human economic survival. International Society for Ecological Economics
Press, Solomons.
Race MS, Fonseca MS. 1996. Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will it Take? Ecological Applications.
6(1): 94-101.
Real Academia Española. 2001. Diccionario de la lengua española. Vigésima segunda edición. Disponible en:
http://www.rae.es/rae.html
Rees WE. 1995. Cumulative environmental assessment and global change. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. 15: 295-309.
Rowe DK, Parkyn S, Quinn J, et al. 2009. A rapid method to score stream reaches based on the overall
performance of their main ecological functions. Environmental management. 43(6): 1287-1300.
doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9302-z
Rundcrantz K. 2006. Environmental compensation in Swedish road planning. European Environment. 16:
350-367. doi:10.1002/eet.429
Rundcrantz K. 2007. Environmental Compensation for Disrupted Ecological Functions in Swedish Road
Planning and Design. PhD Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Disponible en:
http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00001551/01/Mallen071113-1.pdf
Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E. 2003. Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries
with major emphasis on the German system. European Environment. 13: 204-226.
doi:10.1002/eet.324
Sadler B. 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency & International Association for Impact Assessment. Disponible
en: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/EAE/EAE_10E.PDF
Skärbäck E. 2007. Urban forests as compensation measures for infrastructure development. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening. 6: 279-285.
Spellerberg I. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and
Biogeography. 7(5): 317—333.
ten Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN,
Gland. Disponible en: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bdoffsets.pdf
Thorne JH, Girvetz EH, McCoy MC. 2009. Evaluating Aggregate Terrestrial Impacts of Road Construction
Projects for Advanced Regional Mitigation. Environmental Management. 43: 936-948.
doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9246-8
Trombulak SC, Frissell CA. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic
Communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1): 18-30.
Unión Europea. 1992. Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo de 21 de mayo de 1992 relativa a la conservación
de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres. Diario Oficial L 59 de 8.3.1996, p. 63.
Unión Europea. 1985. Directiva 85/337/CEE del Consejo, de 27 de junio de 1985, relativa a la evaluación de
las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente. Diario
Oficial L 175 de 5.7.1985, p. 40-48.
Unión Europea. Directiva 2011/92/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 13 de diciembre de 2011
relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre
el medio ambiente. Diario Oficial L 26 de 28.1.2012, p. 1-21.
- 187 -
United Nations General Assembly. 1983. Process of preparation of the Environmental Perspective to the
Year 2000 and Beyond. Disponible en: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r161.htm.
United States Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act. Disponible en:
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm
van Merwyk T, Daddo S. 2009. Structuring environmental offsets for a sustainable advantage. Forest Trends.
Available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org
Vanclay F. 2003. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal. 21(1): 5-11.
Voinov A, Farley J. 2007. Reconciling sustainability, systems theory and discounting. Ecological Economics. 63:
104-113. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.005
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Disponible
en: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm
Weaver A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Lochner P. 2008. Contributing to sustainability as an
environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 26(2): 9198. doi:10.3152/146155108X316423
Webler T, Tuler S. 2006. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and
decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Studies Journal. 34(4): 699—722.
Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Pearson-Prentice Hall. p.
405.
- 188 -

Pachappa Elementary School

Jornada de Formación Bilingüe

Esta es la segunda vez que te mudas a México. ¿Cómo ha

Ethnicity and Race Data Collection Recopilación de datos Étnicos y

231850 - 3rd Sunday of Easter

February 8, 2015 - St. Catherine Church, Santa Catalina Island

¿Cómo influye la cultura en la personalidad de

LORETO BAY PROXY FORM FOR 2015 SUBCONDOMINIUM

cuando deba decidir dónde y cómo negociar, tome en cuenta qué

St. Edward Catholic Church

Ms. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., unit – I ,Ex Summary in English