chartered institute of ecology and environmental ... · chartered institute of ecology and...

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Mitigation Workshop Report

January 2014

Workshop Report


Future Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop

January 16th 2014

13 Coates Crescent

Edinburgh EH3 7AF

Telephone: 0131 220 6121 Facsimile: 0131 220 6131

Email: [email protected] Website: www.naturalcapital.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.naturalcapital.co.uk/

Workshop Report


Future Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop

For and on behalf of Natural Capital Ltd Approved by: Dr Annie Say Signed: Position: Director Date: 18 February 2014

This report has been prepared by Natural Capital Ltd. with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk. In line with our company environmental policy we purchase paper for our documents only from suppliers who supply recycled and/or sustainably sourced paper. Registered Office: Natural Capital Ltd, 3 Ormidale Terrace, Edinburgh, EH12 6DY. Registered in Scotland. No: 185394

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP 1 1.1 PREAMBLE 1 1.2 THE WORKSHOP 1 1.3 LAYOUT OF THE WORKSHOP REPORT 1

2 WORKSHOP 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2 2.2 WORKSHOP AGENDA 2 2.3 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION, PRESENTATIONS AND EXERCISES 3 2.3.1 Introduction 3 2.3.2 Workshop Introduction (Scotland Vice President) 3 2.3.3 Workshop Introduction (Facilitator) 3 2.3.4 Presentations 3 2.3.5 Questions 4 2.3.6 Summary and Actions 5 2.3.7 Concluding Remarks 5 2.3.8 Workshop Feedback 5

3 OUTPUTS FROM THE WORKSHOP 6 3.1 INTRODUCTION 6 3.2 MITIGATION MEASURES – EXAMPLES OF WHAT WORKED WELL AND OF

CHALLENGES 6 3.2.1 Examples considered as worked well 6 3.2.2 Examples considered as Challenges 7 3.3 WORKSHOP EXERCISE 1: MAIN QUESTION: PERCEPTIONS OF FUTURE

CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION 7 3.3.1 Introduction 8 3.4 WORKSHOP EXERCISE 2: MITIGATION: OTHER KEY QUESTIONS 9 3.4.1 Introduction 9 3.4.2 Group Discussions and Plenary Feedback 9

4 RECOMMENDATIONS 15

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS 16

6 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK 17

APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP DELEGATE LIST APPENDIX B: PRESENTATIONS APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP QUESTIONS APPENDIX D: WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop

Natural Capital Ltd 1 CIEEM

1 PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

1.1 PREAMBLE This is the report of the CIEEM Scottish Section second discussion workshop on mitigation. The first, in January 2008, was focussed on exploring best practice in mitigation in relation to environmental and ecological impact assessment. The second workshop (the first in the Scottish Section’s planned programme of ‘Naturally Professional Discussion Series’) was designed to reflect on lessons learnt from past experience but focus on the challenges for the future and how some of this might best be addressed.

1.2 THE WORKSHOP The workshop was held in the Apex International Hotel in Edinburgh following the Section AGM. All CIEEM members were invited to the workshop and the invitation was extended outside CIEEM. Over 50 people participated in the workshop of which six were not members. Sally Hayns (CIEEM Chief Executive Officer) and Vicky Bowskill (CIEEM Geographic Sections Coordinator) joined the workshop. A list of attendees is included in Appendix A. The workshop ran from 5.00pm to about 8.00pm. It was facilitated by Dr Annie Say of Natural Capital with help from Kathy Dale (the CIEEM Vice President for Scotland) and members of the Scottish Section Committee. Annie is a trained facilitator who frequently facilitates workshops and other participative processes for research studies and projects. Presentations were led by Annie Say, Dr Andy Mackenzie (MBEC) and Steve Jackson-Matthews (LUC).

1.3 LAYOUT OF THE WORKSHOP REPORT The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 sets out the agenda and exercises which were used for the workshop;

• Section 3 presents the outputs from the exercises; • Section 4 makes recommendations about how CIEEM may consider taking

some actions forward; • Section 5 is a summary of the concluding remarks made by the Scotland

Vice President; and • Section 6 summarises feedback from those who attended the workshop.

The main report is supported by the following appendices:

• Appendix A is a list of the people who attended the workshop;

• Appendix B includes the presentation slides used at the workshop;

• Appendix C provides copies of the questions used to stimulate discussions at the workshop; and.

• Appendix D is a collation of feedback from participants at the workshop.



2 WORKSHOP

2.1 INTRODUCTION The workshop format and agenda are summarised in this section. The questions explored are provided and references given to outputs.

2.2 WORKSHOP AGENDA The workshop agenda as designed is presented below. Agenda Item Lead Time

• Introduction: o Introductions and Introduction to Workshop

KD 5pm (~5mins)

o Purpose of the Workshop AS 5.05-5.10pm (~5mins)

o Outputs o H & S o Workshop Format

AS 5.10-5.15pm (~5mins)

• Presentations: o Mitigation: What’s it all about?

AS 5.15-5.20pm (~5mins)

o Mitigation: Where is it going? AMc 5.20-5.25pm (~5mins)

o Mitigation: The role of the ECoW and Monitoring in Improving Mitigation

SJ-M 5.25-5.30pm (~5mins)

• Perceptions of Future Challenges to achieving Successful Mitigation:

AS 5.30-6.15pm (45mins)

o Table Brainstorm Roaming facilitators

5.30-5.45pm (15mins)

o Plenary Discussion AS 5.45-6.15pm (30mins)

• BREAK 6.15-6.20pm (~5mins)

• Mitigation other Key Questions: AS 6.20-7.30pm (70mins)

o Table Discussions Roaming facilitators

6.20-6.40pm (20mins)

o Feedback in Plenary Groups with AS

6.40-7.10pm (30mins)

o Plenary Discussion AS 7.10-7.30pm (20mins or combine with above)

• Summary and Actions o Key Issues o Commitments

AS/KD 7.30-7.40pm (10mins)

• Concluding Remarks KD 7.40-7.45pm (5mins)



2.3 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION, PRESENTATIONS AND EXERCISES 2.3.1 Introduction The workshop was designed to be interactive and to provide all participants with opportunities to share ideas, in groups and also in discussion in plenary sessions. The outputs from all workshop exercises were collated on flipcharts during the workshop (participants’ contribution in their own words and those from plenary sessions) and are presented in this report (see Section 3). 2.3.2 Workshop Introduction (Scotland Vice President) Kathy Dale welcomed everyone to the workshop and expressed how pleased the committee were in the response to the event. She spoke of how as a professional institute, CIEEM is constantly striving to raise standards amongst its members and deliver positive outcomes for biodiversity and the wider environment. The mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement) is a key part of this delivery mechanism in the development process. As resources are stretched in the statutory agencies and the planning authorities, ecological consultants have an even more pivotal role in making sure that mitigation is carefully planned and carried out on the ground. Kathy explained how the workshop was aimed at providing a report and list of recommendations, so that CIEEM can promote research and best practice and lobby for changes where these are required. Examples of novel initiatives and of barriers would be invited in order to stimulate discussion.

2.3.3 Workshop Introduction (Facilitator) The facilitator gave a brief overview of the purpose of the workshop and introduced the agenda. It was explained that the format was designed to encourage all to participate and that all points raised would not be attributed to individual participants or companies. An introduction to a series of short presentations (see Section 2.3.4) and a list of questions collated by the workshop Working Group to consider in group discussions (see Section 2.3.5) was given.

2.3.4 Presentations Introduction Three CIEEM members gave short presentations to help focus participants on the key questions for the workshop: what have we learnt in recent years, what are the challenges for the future and how can these best be met. The presentation slides are included in Appendix B.

Mitigation: What’s it all about? (Annie Say) This presentation reflected on key findings from the 2008 mitigation workshop and the actions that were suggested for IEEM. Participants were asked to write on post-its their biggest success and biggest challenge/failure in the last five years. The outputs were collected and collated for reference in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Questions were asked about ‘where we are now and where we are going’ in relation to mitigation. The presentation raised challenges presented by the legal framework; the importance of effective mitigation commitments in achieving development consent; the weaknesses in written mitigation; the need to reflect on what effective mitigation is rather than a dash to complex mitigation and of how commitments can best be translated into realty and the importance of sharing lessons learnt.



Mitigation: Where is it going? (Andy Mackenzie) The speaker started with a light-hearted positive. Ecological mitigation has become mainstream with a slide showing Bob the Builder building a mammal passage below a train line! Andy then briefly looked at the negatives that is why the theory and the practice do not get translated to regular on the ground successes. There are many competing interests within the whole planning process and indeed right the way through the whole design and build process. Some industries are more proactive and have done a much better job than others. It is however fair to say that ecological mitigation often gets progressively watered down, perhaps does not get put explicitly into planning conditions, does not get adequately supported by statutory agencies and can end up a bit of a disappointment from what was originally envisaged. This can and does lead to frustration. This theme led on to, where is mitigation going? Three main themes were covered briefly. These were intended to be thought provoking and add to the discussion elements of the workshop: 1) ecologists need to take greater control of mitigation; 2) there are early indications of quite powerful changes to legislation from

Europe – Review and Draft Directive amending the EIA Directive; and 3) could Biodiversity Offsetting assist in becoming an effective delivery

mechanism for mitigation/compensation goals? There is current uncertainty in relation to where ecological mitigation is going. The speaker suggested that we need to take more control of mitigation to ensure the correct outcomes for biodiversity: as a profession we need to actively influence the future of mitigation both individually and collectively.

Mitigation: The Role of the ECoW and Monitoring in Improving Mitigation (Steve Jackson-Matthews) This presentation reflected on a recent study commissioned by Natural England which looked to identify the evidence base for standard ecological mitigation measures adopted on road and rail schemes in England. The study identified that due to inconsistent monitoring and a lack of systematic recording, there is almost no evidence base in support of the mitigation measures we as an industry routinely propose through EIA and other planning mechanisms. Comparisons were drawn between this study and the speaker’s recent experience in Scotland, through Scottish Badgers, which demonstrated even the most basic of badger mitigation, badger-proof fencing, is routinely mis-delivered, unknown to consultants, designers and clients who assume its efficacy is guaranteed. Having identified a lack of ‘baseline’ information regarding the success and efficacy of mitigation, the speaker suggested that the Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) role offered a unique opportunity to better the industry’s understanding of mitigation measures and their relative success. However, while the ECoW role provides scope to improve standards in mitigation, important improvements need to be made, including better standardisation of the ECoW’s role, scope of works and, importantly, the skills of those fulfilling the role.

2.3.5 Questions The questions presented in Appendix C were used to stimulate discussions in two workshop exercises.



Workshop Exercise 1: Main Question: Perceptions of Future Challenges to achieving Successful Mitigation The purpose of the workshop was to reflect and learn from the past but look to the future - what is successful mitigation - what is changing - what do we as professionals need to be aware of - what challenges are we going to meet as professionals in the near future. The first question was provided to stimulate initial wide ranging discussion. Participants were asked to first discuss the question in groups and feedback was then in plenary. A record of the key discussion points is provided in Section 3.3.

Workshop Exercise 2: Mitigation: Other Key Questions Each group was provided with a question from the list in Appendix C to discuss and asked to collate their feedback on flipchart paper. Each group then presented their findings and a wider plenary discussion took place. The outputs from each group and the wider plenary discussions on each question are summarised in Section 3.4.

2.3.6 Summary and Actions At the end of the workshop a list of actions CIEEM and individuals as professionals could consider further was discussed and collated (see Section 4).

2.3.7 Concluding Remarks Concluding remarks made by Kathy Dale (the Scotland CIEEM Vice President) are provided in Section 5.

2.3.8 Workshop Feedback Feedback received on the workshop from participants is summarised in Section 6.



3 OUTPUTS FROM THE WORKSHOP

3.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the report presents the outputs from the plenary sessions and individual group outputs (not attributed) from the exercises. Outputs are as recorded at the workshop with a few additions from the facilitator’s commentary.

3.2 MITIGATION MEASURES – EXAMPLES OF WHAT WORKED WELL AND OF CHALLENGES

This section provides the feedback from the post-it notes (see Section 2.3.4) on examples of mitigation that worked well and of challenges. Wording is as provided.

3.2.1 Examples considered as worked well

• Hydro Scheme at remote designated site, very scenic. ECoW employed site staff keen and interested. Problem solving. Worked well

• Acquiring SSSI in unfavourable condition for long term management

• Writing measure which can be lifted directly from ES to condition of consent. Reduced risk of misinterpretation

• Birds nest relocation to a more sustainable location

• Badgers sett relocation for a housing development

• Contractor built an artificial otter holt when it wasn’t required – got a housing developer to implement G.I with significant ecological value instead of a strip of amenity grassland

• We moved a wood and nest for Highland Council. We consulted on the methodology as widely as possible, and method included a commitment to monitoring. Ants seem happy enough over one year later. Haven’t found time to finalise as article for In Practice. A factor may have been the client being keen to explore wider benefits. Translocation was to accommodate a school, and opportunities to link to curriculum etc. were seen as positive by client

• Being included as part of “the construction project” team rather than an extra. Being the communicator between Statutory Bodies & construction colleagues

• Promotion of and acceptance by the client for a wide scale mitigation on a road scheme. Mitigation included SUDS ponds – Habitat creation (including specialised planting), wide scale planting of native tree species (woodland and hedges), otter hedges on underpasses

• Artificial sand martin wall and adjacent wetland creation – Immediate success with sand martin in the wall but also increased numbers of wader on the wetland

• As an ECoW, workers inspired to conserve, without the need for threats/enforcement

• Encouraged re-alignment of forest track away from freshwater pearl mussels, with consideration of other interests (eg engineering, landowner, commercial)

• Designing a project around a species so mitigation/compensation isn’t needed. Leave them unaffected

• Re-using “waste” timber on a hydro scheme to create weirs in wee burn to create or enhance habitats of which water voles then colonised



3.2.2 Examples considered as Challenges

• Re-meandering of watercourse round landfill site. Poorly planned on sandy soil so had to be re-designed. Now area restoring well but lessons learnt

• Contractor failed to implement mitigation measures within an EMP. ES – No mechanism for enforcement

• Ensuring that importance of mitigation measure is carried through tendering Build. Doesn’t lose significance in the process

• Whilst protected species mitigation requirements are well understood and announced, habitat reinstatement of eg tracks or cable routes, batters etc. is often barely acknowledged. Most of my issues are with reinstatement

• International EIAs paper exercise. Structure can be built and running, with no EIA mitigation simply a tick box but ignored

• Having innovative mitigation measures and change some practices

• Poor peat reinstatement on development but no way of forcing better practice

• Clients see “innovative” ideas as unnecessary and in some cases a threat as, if successful, may encourage greater species populations

• Put up many bat boxes and bird boxes. No monitoring to see if they were used

• On an OHL project, an ECoW was not onsite when needed. An EnvCoW was utilised and sedimentation fences were not installed correctly. Fencing had to be re-installed – costly and sedimentation occurred

• Lack of influence as ECoW on a site which despite constant supervision and repeated insistence led to repeated poor practice in water crossing construction effectively bisecting the watercourse habitat of an upland region (new haul roads)

• Confirming exactly what a client/developer is planning on doing – not always easy to pin down. Need to have confirmed plans to drew up suitable mitigation measures

• A mature oak tree being felled in the LMA (Land Made Available) for a road scheme. This was unnecessary and because the constructor wanted a temporary store in a ravine. But nothing in the ES or contract done to stop it

3.3 WORKSHOP EXERCISE 1: MAIN QUESTION: PERCEPTIONS OF FUTURE CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION



3.3.1 Introduction The question participants were asked was (see Section 2.3.5): What are your perceptions of the future challenges to achieving successful mitigation based on your experience and what you have read/discussed elsewhere? Feedback in the plenary discussion session (summary only) about the future challenges included the following:

• How to get mitigation delivered

• Lack of funds

• Cumulative effects of smaller non-EIA projects

• Appropriate research of ecological processes

• Local differences in behaviour and ecology of wildlife

• Not enough guidance for offsetting projects

• Language barriers

• Getting Quantitative Surveyors and others to buy in to mitigation

• Ways to build relationships with clients/developers etc.

• We need to keep economics in mind

• Ecologists need to stay realistic with what can be achieved

• Local Authorities having reduced ecological capacity

• Developers ignoring mitigation

• Need mitigation actions to be ‘set in stone’

• Accept we should learn from our mistakes

• Over complexity of process and working with lots of groups

• Inexperienced and inappropriate surveys and reporting

Additional Comments1

• Challenges with getting client buy-in ie financial. Need to explain that mitigation can save money

• Business issues – environment is the last priority in the agenda

• Lesson learnt are happening too slowly

• Cut backs are affecting number of visits etc

• Need to ensure mitigation is being delivered on sites

• Research needs to be done to inform better understanding of appropriate mitigation – What is acceptable in Highlands is completely different from what is going to worked on the coast

• Passing knowledge down – How will graduates know what works if senior practitioners are only now becoming aware of what works and what doesn’t

• Language issues, jargon, lost in translation

1 From notes taken at the workshop by participants



• Learning from past experiences. Can sometimes take a long time to feed through and gain from lessons learnt

3.4 WORKSHOP EXERCISE 2: MITIGATION: OTHER KEY QUESTIONS 3.4.1 Introduction This section summarises the feedback from the group discussions and plenary session where different questions were discussed by each group at the workshop (see Section 2.3.5 and Appendix C). In the sections below the question which was considered by the group is copied followed by the group feedback and then additional plenary discussion points noted. Feedback on Question 8 (which was about land banking / biodiversity off-setting) was provided in a different format by Sally Hayns who provided a CIEEM perspective drawing on the work that CIEEM has been doing and discussions the organisation has been involved in.

3.4.2 Group Discussions and Plenary Feedback Group 1 (Question 1)

What works well and what goes wrong in implementation and delivery of mitigation? What are the barriers to delivering successful mitigation? Are we considering and effectively achieving avoidance strategies in the first instance? What are the challenges to achieving such strategies?

• When considered at the beginning

• Avoidance

• Clear language/communication

• Good development engagement

• What goes wrong?

o Putting national solutions into local situations

o Proportionality – Affects confidence that developers may have in consultations. It looks like generating more work

• Are we considering avoidance strategies?

o No – sometimes jump into mitigation

o Need dialogue with developers to instigate benefits of avoidance

• Challenges to achieve such strategies

o Finance: Support from planning local/ authorities

o Not enough enforcement

o Not enough staff/ lack of time



Additional Notes

• Considering at the beginning of the project – Avoid risk possibilities, clear communication (no jargon, easily understandable), client relationship is important (can be a challenge). Building trust is crucial so that they consider your input

• Taken more seriously. Developers are becoming more accepting that mitigation by design is critical to getting the development through to consent

Group 2 (Question 2)

There has been an increasing requirement to submit all sorts of plans, such as Habitat Management Plans, Environmental Management Plans, Species Protection Plans, Peat Management Plans, and Construction Method Statements etc. How can these best be linked together and be practical working documents on site for all parties that deliver the desired outcomes? What lessons have been learnt from their use to date? At what stage are they best developed?

• Single over-arching environmental documents

• Clarity/specifics, no woolly language

• Consistency of personnel

• Step-by-step guide/bullets (but comprehensive)

• Detail in figures/pictures of issues

• Specialist of ECoW: Experience/assertive (not an engineer)

• What’s practical in real life

• Written by people with experience of being on site/contractor facing

• Some form of mechanism for enforcement

• Biosecurity plans

• Same time as EIA

• Share good practice/examples

• Post construction monitoring

Additional Notes

• Have measurable parameters (eg footpath remediation if found to be outwith certain width)

• Regulators need to get on site

• Make documents easy and concise (bullets, images, reduce scope for misinterpretation)

• Written with what is practical in real life


There is increasing awareness that ECoW services have improved implementation and adaptation of pre-construction and construction mitigation commitments. Do you agree? What more can be done to ensure success? What challenges do ECoWs face?

• YES and No

o Implementation must happen anyway : not necessarily ECoW job

o Have a team not a single person: needs feedback



o Thorough understanding of legislation

o Accreditation (CIEEM)

o Raising awareness of ecology and its complexities

o Ensuring success by publishing results

• Challenges

o The unexpected

Additional Notes

• Need the correct person as an ECoW – Personality, knowledge, skills

• Need the ECoW to have high enough contact within the development/authorities

• How often ECoW on site?

• Objectivity is important

• ECoW training is offered

• Considering avoidance strategies not just jumping straight into mitigation

• Challenges in achieving success – money, time, staff of all involved (local authorities, developers, consultants)


Are we communicating mitigation requirements effectively and thinking of the end user during construction? What is the ecologist’s role in bringing together all relevant parties?

• Convince developers of positivity of ownership of mitigation

• Mitigation procedures in the ES and the planning conditions CLEAR

• Promote awareness of legal protection

• Project manager on board with mitigation throughout project

• ECoW responsible for monitoring mitigation throughout work and has legal teeth to intervene/lease work

• It is not the ecologists role to bring all parties together but falls to project manager role

Additional Notes

• Transfer the ecological aspects into the contract document

• Big projects are often so complex that ecology gets lost

• Unambiguity of information that is given is important. Buy-in to mitigation from project managers, clients, engineers etc. is critical

• Process of mitigation – What is the role of each party, clearly defined role is fundamental, contract documents need to make this clear

• So many contract documents that it is difficult to recollect anything. How do we make this manageable so that nothing is missed?

• No mechanism of enforcement

• Written same time as EIA and by same people

• EIA people should be aware that these plans will be written from their base work ie ES




In the current absence of a central evidence base repository, how can best practice and lessons learnt be collected and shared by professionals, clients and agencies? What are CIEEM’s and individual professional’s roles here?

• Internal forum – Membership website. A working group could decide what was published

• Swap with other professional bodies?

• Success stories/ failures

• Workshops of examples. What is happening in the profession? Is it working?

• Innovation is needed

• Moving with what lessons have been learnt

• Questioning the norm, moving things forward. ‘Better than last time’

• Library of measures that have worked. How they were implemented, where etc – Pictures, tangible and able to be used by all (clients, contractors etc)

• Links to CIRIA (toolbox tools)

• Demonstration sites

Additional Notes

• CIEEM having good practice workshop would help

• Get together days in your organisation

• Success stories/failures

• Sharing with other professional bodies

• Feedback from SNH on what works etc.

• Libraries of measures that have worked (text and images) accessible to clients and contractors as well to create buy-in


Has monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation improved in the last few years? What more can be done? How can a commitment to monitoring be realised and achieved?

• No obvious improvement (within 5 years) however, longer term (10 years) it has significantly improved

• More to be done:

o Increased post monitoring

o At present no collation of data

o Need central recording of data

o Who has data? Data lost at present

o Who decides on its effectiveness? (need for criteria)

o Data can be withheld by developers (freedom information)

• Commitment to monitoring

o Legislation reform

o Planning conditions

o Raise awareness of this weakness



o Performance bond (example)

Additional Notes

• Ecologists should have an active role in rewriting

• Unless in a contract monitoring is not enforceable


Is enforcement of effective mitigation adequate and if not why not? Are there weaknesses in current legislation?

• Difficult to enforce if what is considered effective is not clear and not evidence based

• Not enough ‘buy-in’ to mitigation

• Very little legislation to support mitigation

• Lack of monitoring of mitigation by those responsible for enforcement

• Legislation allows some species/habitats to slip through the net. ie: non EPS

• Is it clear who’s job it is for ‘enforcement’

• Consent/licence issuing body (ie SNH,LA) have insufficient funds to carry through

Additional Notes

• Take mitigation more seriously

• We need to share experiences and learn from others

• Little monitoring of mitigation

• Who is responsible for enforcement of mitigation measures?

• Not just a tick box exercise


Land banking / biodiversity off-setting is a key issue in the profession. What concerns are there and how can these be addressed?

• Biodiversity offsetting is ‘compensation’ so already in the legislation. Land banking (or habitat banking) is more about ‘banking’ offsetting credits with a broker to be used strategically rather than a direct habitat creation scheme to offset a loss

• DEFRA pilots: Set up in April 2012 as two-year pilots but, encouraged by the Ecosystem Markets Taskforce, Defra was sufficiently persuaded that good evidence of benefits/improvements to the process was emerging to move to a Green paper consultation in 2013 before the pilots are concluded. Initial proposals were reportedly unpopular/could have resulted in adverse publicity – revised proposals more measured

• Offsetting from CIEEM view has potential but needs proper guidance and there are certain situations/habitats etc where offsetting would not work

• Lots of issues – timescales, location, deciding on value of habitat, irreplaceable habitats

• Downgrading not acceptable – small area of high value being replaced with a large area of low value habitat



• Retainment of receptors sites in the long term not yet clear

• Tenure for 15 years but what happens then?

• Little enthusiasm amongst developers for idea and particularly now the economy is picking up

• Disagreement as to whether should be a mandatory or voluntary scheme

• See CIEEM consultation response:

http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Policy/Consultation_Responses/CIEEM_offsetting_response_FINAL.pdf





4 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on consideration of the feedback at the workshop it is recommended that: • the feedback from the workshop is carefully considered by CIEEM staff and

taken into account when planning future events and guidance; • that further events are planned in Scotland as feedback was favourable and

suggestions made in discussion to do this and promote more sharing of the detail of best practice;

• CIEEM considers producing further best practice in relation to mitigation at a strategic level and a specific level taking account of UK differences. Feedback from the post-it exercise (see Section 3.2) indicates that much best practice was suggested in implementing mitigation rather than avoidance by iteration of the design. The challenges presented did however indicate that this can be difficult to achieve. Emphasis on avoiding impacts should be considered best practice particularly in the likely challenges of changes ahead (eg biodiversity off-setting and land banking);

• Section members could be part of a wider task force in taking this forward; • that all best practice is regularly reviewed; its relevance checked and that it is

updated as necessary on a regular basis. Feedback at the workshop indicated that the success of mitigation was relatively rarely monitored other than as part of larger research studies;

• that CIEEM lobbies for means of better enforcement and monitoring of success of mitigation;

• that this is taken forward in partnership with relevant statutory bodies; • that CIEEM prepares a guidance document setting out legal issues and

making clear the legal framework within which mitigation can be delivered; the guide should include best practice examples and draw attention of how to best deal with legal loopholes so that the importance of effective mitigation is raised at all levels;

• that CIEEM members are asked to consider the way they address and present mitigation (including mitigation measures) and to consider whether in the light of shared experience this represents best practice or whether there are ways that current practice can be improved;

• that CIEEM members are encouraged to participate in sharing best practice events including local discussions and Institute events;

• that CIEEM considers how it can best as an organisation feedback the importance of ecological conservation and mitigation in the local development plan process at a strategic level rather than in individual consultations which would be too time consuming; and

• that CIEEM continues to work to raise the profile of ecologists including their role in local authorities. Findings of ALGE research may be relevant.



5 CONCLUDING REMARKS Kathy Dale rounded off the event by expressing her thanks to the speakers, the facilitator and the Scottish Section Committee for the excellent organisation and delivery of the workshop. She commented that the discussion had been more positive and more wide-ranging than the discussion at the similar event in 2008 and had therefore resulted in a number of clear recommendations that can be taken forward by CIEEM. The first priority should be to avoid impacts but, if mitigation is required, the measures need to be considered at an early stage in the development process if they are to be implemented successfully. Relationships need to be built with other stakeholders throughout the iterative design stages. Enforcement of mitigation is clearly an issue but many developers and contractors can be persuaded to implement it either because they are genuinely interested and feel it is ‘a good thing’ or as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Public Relations (PR) exercises. CIEEM Members are looking to promote best practice and the Institute will be looking into ways in which greater knowledge sharing can be encouraged and facilitated, such as events in partnership with contractors. Finally, monitoring of mitigation and its effectiveness is obviously very important, and this will continue to be a priority in the Institute’s discussions with the statutory bodies. We have learnt a lot in the last few years and the quality of mitigation has certainly improved but there is still a lot more that can be done. As such, one of the Raising Standards Priority Actions is to develop mechanisms for sharing knowledge regarding the success of mitigation, and the report from this workshop will be passed on to the Professional Standards Committee for their consideration.



6 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK Feedback forms were provided to attendees at the workshop and also subsequently electronically and feedback on the workshop invited. The findings are collated in Appendix D and summarised below. • 23 people responded; • most of the feedback was from full members (61%) and non-members (22%)

of the feedback; • direct email and word of mouth were the most common forms of event

awareness (48 % and 26 % respectively); • most people travelled by train (52%) to the event, with 26% traveling by car; • 70% of the feedback forms recorded journeys of between 0 and 49 miles were

travelled (each way) to get to this event. With 17 % travelling between 100 and 199 miles;

• 61% of the respondents rated the hotel as 5 (very good). There were no ratings lower than 3 (satisfactory);

• pre-event communication had the largest range of ratings with 52% rating the venue as 5 (very good). One feedback form rated the pre-event communication as 2 (fair), this was a non-member;

• 70% of the respondents rated the registration and management of the day as 5 (very good);

• 87% of the respondents rated the talks / presentations as good or very good: 4 (good) (43.5 %) and 5 (very good) (43.5%);

• 52% gave the overall rating of the event as 4 (good) 43% with giving a rating of 5 (very good); and

• comments on feedback forms about the event included: o Very interesting – good discussion points; o It’s a pity the workshop hadn’t been longer. Interesting workshop – not

enough opportunity to cover all points; o Venue – acoustics not good and tables too large for conversations to be

heard easily;and o Evening session was well timed-didn’t eat into the work day too much.

Appendix A Workshop Delegate List

Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop Appendix A

Natural Capital Ltd A-1 CIEEM

Appendix A: Delegate Name Organisation Iain Adderton Jacobs UK Ltd James Allison Scottish Wildlife Trust F.Elaine Anderson Ian Bainbridge Scottish Natural Heritage Mike Beard Scottish Wildlife Trust Tiffany Bienfait Natural Capital Ltd Alan Booth Central Environmental Surveys Adam Butler Scottish Wildlife Trust Kirsten Campbell Bear Scotland Mary Elliott Mary Elliott Karen Findlay Karen Findlay Alex Gardiner Natural Capital Ltd Claudia Gebhardt Scottish Wildlife Trust Peter Gilchrist Jacobs UK Ltd Anita Hogan Amec Environmental & Infrastructure UK Ltd Andrea Hudspeth Direct Ecology Ltd Richard King Atmos Consulting Ltd Simon Knott Claire Lacey Scottish Windfarm Bird Steering Group E. Simon Lawrence Lawrence Environmental Consultants Cameron Maciver Cameron Ecology Ltd Tony Marshall RPS Group Fraser Maxwell Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Ruth McGuire Gavia Environmental Ltd Eilidh McNab Direct Ecology Ltd Brian Minshull BCM Environmental Services Ltd Garry Mortimer Garry Mortimer Innes Muir Hardslacks Ltd Ann O'Leary Ch2m Hill Robert Oliver Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd Rebecca Osborn Direct Ecology Ltd Matthew Pannell RPS Group Shirley Paterson Landmarc Support Services Ltd Thomas Plant Scottish Wildlife Trust Graham Rankin Energised Environments Limited Graham Russell Royal Yachting Association Scotland Annie Say Natural Capital Ltd Catriona Scriven Scottish Natural Heritage Helen Simmons Christian Smillie Nottingham Trent University Richard Smith Fife Council Anthony Taylor-Pigott Scottish Wildlife Trust

Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop Appendix A

Natural Capital Ltd A-2 CIEEM

Name Organisation Irene Tierney IMT Ecological Consultancy Nicola Tyrell RST Environment Ltd Alistair Watson Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Francis Williams Scottish and Southern Energy

Appendix B Presentations

www.cieem.net @InstEcolEnvMan

Mitigation: What’s it all About?

CIEEM Scottish Section Workshop

Dr Annie Say Director Natural Capital Ltd


Mitigation: CIEEM Events in Scotland

• IEEM Workshop 2008:

• ‘What, whys and hows’

• Good and bad practice

• Barriers to delivering mitigation

• Glasgow IEEM Annual Conference

• Today

• Look to the future

• Learn from the past


Mitigation: What have we learnt?

• 2008: some of the Key Findings

• Achieving realistic and effective mitigation

• Barriers to delivering effective mitigation

• Poorly written mitigation measures

• Weaknesses in the legal framework? Problems with enforcement

• Presentation of mitigation in ESs etc

• Suggested Actions for IEEM in 2008

• Post-its: What is you biggest success; biggest

challenge/failure in last 5 years


Mitigation in 2014: Where are we now?

Where are we going?

• Questions to consider and ask what CIEEM Members

can do

• Legal framework for mitigation hasn’t changed?

• More awareness of best practice requirements?

• Importance of mitigation in achieving consent

• Remain weaknesses in presentation of mitigation

• What is effective mitigation? Rush to complex mitigation?

• Translating commitments into reality and monitoring

effectiveness: EMPs, ECoWs etc

• Sharing what we have learnt


Mitigation: Where is it going?


Dr Andy Mackenzie, MBEC

The Present Negatives

It is not easy to take mitigation all the way from inception to

successful implementation. Half the battle is recognising this and

being determined.

This complexity often leads to frustration and can lead to a lack of

engagement by ecologists. Mitigation can be slowly watered down

and not get implemented in the way anticipated, planned or assessed.

A Positive Outlook

Three Examples of the Potential for Future Improvement:

1) Ecologists have the power - We need to take greater control of

mitigation;

2) There are indications of quite powerful changes to legislation

from Europe – the EIA Directive;

3) There are political moves, with early trials occurring in England

and Wales at present, which have the potential to deliver

ecological benefits directly related to

mitigation/enhancement/compensation - Biodiversity

Offsetting.

The EIA Directive

Specifically in relation to mitigation:

“mandatory post-EIA monitoring of significant adverse effects”

The proposals state that “mandatory ex-post monitoring is introduced

only for projects that will have significant adverse environmental effects,

according to the consultations carried out and the information gathered

(including the environmental report), with the purpose of assessing

the implication and effectiveness of mitigation and compensation

measures.”

The words “halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem

services” are also mentioned in the explanatory text.

An Established SUDS: Working Ecological Mitigation/Enhancement


The Role of The ECoW and Monitoring in Improving Mitigation


Steve Jackson-Matthews - Head of Ecology @ LUC


LUC Natural England Contract : Review of Mitigation Efficacy

To undertake a literature review, summarising the evidence of the efficacy of mitigation measures designed to alleviate the impacts of road and rail schemes in the UK, Europe and beyond

Findings

• Limited empirical evidence of successful mitigation. Most evidence related to the efficacy of wildlife tunnels under road schemes

• Limited enforcement of monitoring recommendations. Novel mitigation measures not monitored for success

• No central resource for collecting mitigation information, including within the licensing system (no co-ordination of licence return information)

• The review included a national survey of CIEEM members – less than 30 responses received


Scottish Badgers – Mitigation Monitoring

• Early – mid-noughties, routinely visited large infrastructure projects across Scotland to ‘spot check’ the efficacy of mitigation

• Highlighted the importance of mitigation being installed correctly. We found many miles of fencing was ineffective as, instead of deterring badgers, it actually provided a badger climbing frame

• Same applied to underpasses, many of which spent most of the year flooded

• Importantly, designers and land managers and consultants were unaware of issues

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=d3Gfx598tsXADM&tbnid=GTDTHy-mOZ3dFM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.tonbridgefencing.co.uk/mesh_or_wire_fencing/badger_fencing_mesh.php&ei=ccnSUpi7H4ix0AXumICQBA&bvm=bv.59026428,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNEn1O0ovspH87VNhNN0p3qfbWMOIw&ust=1389632220185365


Ecological Clerk of Works

• Becoming a common means of monitoring compliance with mitigation

• Provides a unique opportunity to monitor and track the efficacy of mitigation measures, however before the role can be really useful, there are important issues to tackle:

• Is the role auditing or advisory?

• What skills are needed? Does the ECoW understand the construction process?

• Is the ECoW sufficiently experienced? (cost vs. ability)

• How can the experiences of the ECoW be shared with the industry in a constructive way?

• AEECoW attempting to address these issues through new guidance document (with support from Scottish Government)


Key Questions and Thoughts

• As an industry, we have a fragmented understanding of how mitigation performs in the field. How can we collect and store information such that we all benefit for our individual experiences?

• Where mitigation falls down, it can be due to errors in it’s installation. How can we address this? Does the proliferation of the ECoW role help in this situation?

• The ECoW role has developed quickly in recent years. Does the ongoing involvement of ecologists during the construction process represent an opportunity to develop, guide and correct mitigation and would a central repository for this information benefit us?

Appendix C Workshop Questions

Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop Appendix C

Natural Capital Ltd C-1 CIEEM

Future Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop 16.1.14: Workshop Questions Main Question: What are your perceptions of the future challenges to achieving successful mitigation based on your experience and what you have read/discussed elsewhere? Other Key Questions: 1. What works well and what goes wrong in implementation and delivery of

mitigation? What are the barriers to delivering successful mitigation? Are we considering and effectively achieving avoidance strategies in the first instance? What are the challenges to achieving such strategies?

2. There has been an increasing requirement to submit all sorts of plans, such as Habitat Management Plans, Environmental Management Plans, Species Protection Plans, Peat Management Plans, and Construction Method Statements etc. How can these best be linked together and be practical working documents on site for all parties that deliver the desired outcomes? What lessons have been learnt from their use to date? At what stage are they best developed?

3. There is increasing awareness that ECoW services have improved

implementation and adaptation of pre-construction and construction mitigation commitments. Do you agree? What more can be done to ensure success? What challenges do ECoWs face?

4. Are we communicating mitigation requirements effectively and thinking of the end user during construction? What is the ecologist’s role in bringing together all relevant parties?

5. In the current absence of a central evidence base repository, how can best

practice and lessons learnt be collected and shared by professionals, clients and agencies? What are CIEEM’s and individual professional’s roles here?

6. Has monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation improved in the last few

years? What more can be done? How can a commitment to monitoring be realised and achieved?

7. Is enforcement of effective mitigation adequate and if not why not? Are

there weaknesses in current legislation? 8. Land banking / biodiversity off-setting is a key issue in the profession. What

concerns are there and how can these be addressed?

Appendix D Workshop Feedback

Challenges of Mitigation Discussion Workshop Appendix D

Natural Capital Ltd D-1 CIEEM

Summary of feedback on the workshop (by Elaine Anderson)

NB (%s rounded up / down to nearest whole number).

Most of the feedback came from Full members (61%) and non-members (22%) of the feedback.

Direct email and word of mouth were the most common forms of event awareness with 48 % and 26 % respectively.

Most people travelled by train (48%) to get to this event, whilst 26% used a car.

70% of the feedback forms recorded journeys of between 0 and 49 miles were travelled (each way) to get to this event. With 17 % travelling between 100 and 199 miles.

61% of the respondents rated the hotel as 5 (very good). There were no ratings lower than 3 (satisfactory).

Pre-event communication had the largest range of ratings with 52% rating the venue as 5 (very good). 1 feedback form rated the pre-event communication as 2 (fair), this was a non-member.

70% of the respondents rated the registration and management of the day as 5 (very good).

87% of the respondents rated the talks / presentations as 4 (good) (43.5%) and 5 (very good) (43.5%).

52% gave the overall rating of the event as 4 (good) 43% with giving a rating of 5 (very good).

Feedback (23 forms returned)

Number of people

Additional information % of feedback

Membership status Full 14 60.87

Associate 1 4.35

Affiliate 1 4.35

Graduate 2 8.70

Non member 5 21.74

Heard of event via

Direct email 11 47.83

In Practice 1 4.35

Word of Mouth 6 26.09

CIEEM Linked In 1 4.35



E-newsletter 3 13.04

Scottish Committee member 1 4.35

Travelled to event by Bike / walk 4 17.39

Train 11 47.83

Car 6 26.09

Bus 2 8.70

Distance travelled to event 0 – 49 miles 16 16 (of these 16 - 5 came by car, 5 by

train and 4 by foot/bike, 2 by bus) 69.57

50 – 99 mile 3 3 (all by train) 13.04

100 – 149 2 2 (both by train) 8.70

150 – 199 2 2 (1 by train the other by car) 8.70

Venue rating

3 5 21.74

4 4 17.39

5 14 60.87

Pre – event communication rating

2 1 non member 4.35

3 4 17.39

4 6 26.09

5 12 52.17

Rating of registration / management of day

3 1 4.35

4 6 26.09

5 16 69.57

Rating of Talks / presentations

3 2 8.70

4 10 43.48



5 10 43.48

No rating for this question. 1 4.35

Overall rating of event

3 1 4.35

4 12 52.17

5 10 43.48

Comments

Comments about the event included:

• Very interesting – good discussion points. • It’s a pity the workshop hadn’t been longer. Interesting workshop – not enough

opportunity to cover all points. • Venue – acoustics not good and tables too large for conversations to be heard

easily. • Maybe more advertising outside CIEEM. • Good facilitation. • Evening session well timed-didn’t eat into the day too much.

Themes for future section events

*Most popular event themes in bold.

• Implications of Climate Change on EIA’s • Biodiversity offsetting x 4 (How can we make it what we want?) • ECoW • Skills development discussions x 3 • Conservation – how consultancy can help • Demonstration of good / bad mitigation practice and techniques x 3 • Licensing system • Working in and protection of water environment – particularly in relation to

protected freshwater species and qualifying species of designated sites • Solutions what is being done? (I am not sure if this is relation to mitigation or in

relation to skills development as this comment was a second bullet point under skills development)

• Translocations • Follow on event on similar subject – not 6 years apart. • Survey design and reporting

Natural Capital Ltd13 Coates CrescentEdinburghEH3 7AFTel: 0131 220 6121Fax: 0131 220 6131Email: [email protected]

chartered institute of ecology and environmental ... · chartered institute of ecology and...

Documents