Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facultad de Ciencias
Memoria presentada por D Ana Villarroya Ballarn para aspirar al grado de Doctor por la
Universidad de Navarra
AGRADECIMIENTOS
Durante una tesis se aprenden muchas cosas, pero no son necesariamente los
libros o los artculos los que ms ensean. 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. Intentar nombrar aqu a todas, aunque de antemano pido disculpas si mi
memoria no hace justicia como debiera.
Gracias al Departamento de Zoologa y Ecologa de la Universidad de Navarra, no
slo 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 ms de lo que esperaba, y
por no haber tenido ningn reparo en perder el tiempo conmigo. Gracias a Mari, Javi
Oscoz, Ana y Mara por vuestra alegra y humanidad. A ngel y David por vuestra
disponibilidad, incluso en el ltimo minuto. A Luis Sanz por el material fotogrfico. A los
compaeros de tesis por los buenos ratos compartidos. A Arturo por inventarse horas
para dedicarlas a los dems. A Enrique y Rafa por el entusiasmo transmitido. A Fernando
por su compaa 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 prcticas, porque fui yo
quien ms aprendi.
A Enrique, Sheila y Melissa por los buenos momentos que siempre me hacis
pasar.
Gracias a Elisa, Rubn, Diego, Asier, Iratxe, Ixai, Maite, David y los dems, porque
esta tesis os debe ms de lo que creis. Y yo tambin.
Gracias a Mara 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 enseanzas valiossimas mis aos de
alumna interna en Botnica, y por seguir estando ah todo este tiempo. A Ricardo Ibez
por su inters, apoyo y simpata, y por los repasos de botnica 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 s mycket.
A mis amigos que me han apoyado an sin una explicacin en condiciones de a
qu dedicaba mi tiempo, especialmente a Ftima, Bea, Sara, Patri, Sandra y ngel. A Adri y
Clara por hacer de la distancia una mera ancdota. A Mriam por su cario sincero y por
su ejemplo de cmo 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 estn y para los que ya
marcharon. A Pilar por su vitalidad contagiosa, a mi yaya Presen y a mi to Celso por su
apoyo tranquilo. Gracias a mi familia ms reciente, Jose, Aurora, Amaia y el Aitona,
porque desde el primer momento me hicisteis sentir en casa. Gracias a mi hermana por
su cario 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.
NDICE
Resumen .................................................................................................................................................................................1
Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................2
Prlogo ....................................................................................................................................................................................3
Introduccin general ........................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................13
Estructura y Objetivos .................................................................................................................................................20
Objectives and Structure ...........................................................................................................................................21
Primera Parte ....................................................................................................................................................................23
Estudio del papel de la compensacin ecolgica en los procedimientos de EIA en Espaa
y de las dificultades a las que se enfrenta
Captulo I.........................................................................................................................................................................26
Una visin general sobre la compensacin ecolgica en Espaa
Captulo II .......................................................................................................................................................................44
La dificultad de identificar algunos impactos a compensar
Segunda Parte...................................................................................................................................................................92
Propuestas para promover la compensacin ecolgica en la EIA en Espaa
Captulo IV .....................................................................................................................................................................94
Un mtodo adecuado para la valoracin ecolgica del medio y de los impactos residuales
Captulo V ...................................................................................................................................................................115
La conveniencia de subrayar los impactos ecolgicos residuales
Captulo VI ..................................................................................................................................................................136
Seleccin de medidas compensatorias para impactos ecolgicos en la EIA
Discusin general.........................................................................................................................................................161
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................169
Conclusiones generales............................................................................................................................................176
General conclusions...................................................................................................................................................180
Bibliografa general / References ........................................................................................................................184
RESUMEN
La Evaluacin 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 prdida
neta de calidad ambiental debida a la ejecucin de un proyecto, las medidas
compensatorias juegan un papel crucial, ya que son la nica manera de contrarrestar los
impactos residuales, que son aquellos impactos que permanecen despus de haberse
aplicado todas las medidas preventivas y correctoras. Pero, cul es el grado de
compensacin que se aplica en el marco de la EIA?
Esta tesis analiza el caso de la compensacin ecolgica en la EIA en Espaa y de
las dificultades a las que se enfrenta, y propone maneras de promover su prctica.
La primera parte del trabajo (captulos I, II, y III) estudia el grado en que la EIA
propone la adopcin de medidas compensatorias para impactos ecolgicos en este pas,
principalmente de vas de transporte. Adems, se indaga en algunas de las posibles causas
de la escasa prctica compensatoria actual. Entre las causas tcnicas, 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
prdidas de calidad ecolgica como inevitables.
En la segunda parte de la tesis (captulos IV, V y VI), se estudia la manera en que
actualmente se valoran, registran y muestran los impactos residuales ecolgicos, as como
las guas que existen para proponer medidas compensatorias adecuadas. En respuesta a
los resultados de este estudio, se elaboran propuestas para mejorar la prctica de la
compensacin ecolgica en la EIA en Espaa.
-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-
PRLOGO
Esta tesis nace de la percepcin 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 dimensin de verdad que encierre, interesa no slo
al marco socioeconmico en el que nos movemos a diario, de cara a hacerlo sostenible,
sino a la profundidad del anlisis cultural y antropolgico de cmo se expresa el Hombre
en el territorio. Territorio que a su vez, refleja y revela la conducta humana.
Lgicamente, no se abordarn los aspectos sociales, econmicos y culturales
desde enfoques sociolgicos, econmicos o humanistas propios de otras disciplinas ajenas
al mbito cientfico-tcnico que nos acoge acadmicamente, aunque se permanezca
atento a ellos. Pero s interesa destacar que hablar de compensacin, 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 convenciramos mayoritariamente de que est en nuestra mano no slo
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 economa, y acaso la cultura, a costa de un inevitable desgaste. Pero no
parece estar escrito as en la esencia de lo vivo y lo vivido.
-3-
INTRODUCCIN
SOSTENIBILIDAD
En 1987 la WCED1 (World Commission on Environment and Development)
defini desarrollo sostenible como aqul que satisface las necesidades de la generacin
presente sin comprometer la capacidad de las generaciones futuras para satisfacer sus
propias necesidades (WCED, 1987). Aunque esta definicin es la ms frecuentemente
citada en la bibliografa 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
contina siendo ampliamente discutido (e. g. Mebratu, 1998; Norton, 2005; Fischer et al.,
2007; Voinov & Farley, 2007).
Esto no es de extraar, puesto que la sostenibilidad es un concepto intuitivamente
sencillo de comprender, pero difcil de concretar y de poner en prctica (e.g. Fenech et
La WCED, comnmente conocida como la Comisin Brundtland, se constituy en 1983 tras una
resolucin de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en la que se apuntaba la necesidad de crear un
rgano 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
publicacin del Informe Brundtland (Our Common Future) en 1987, la Comisin fue oficialmente disuelta.
En su lugar, en 1988 se cre el Centro para Nuestro Futuro Comn (Center for Our Common Future).
-5-
Introduccin
al., 2005; Glasson et al., 2005; Jay et al., 2007). En Europa, la Directiva 2011/92/UE regula
actualmente cmo ha de llevarse a cabo la EIA y en qu proyectos. En Espaa, el Real
Decreto Legislativo 1/2008 transpone la normativa europea a la legislacin nacional, y
junto con el Real Decreto 1131/1988 y la Ley 6/2010 establecen las fases en que debe
realizarse la EIA, que aqu se resumen en la Figura 1 y la Caja 1.
-6-
Introduccin
Memoria-resumen
inicial
Administracin
CONSULTAS PREVIAS
Pblico
Elaboracin EIS
Administracin
INFORMACIN PBLICA
Pblico
Declaracin de
Impacto Ambiental
Ejecucin y seguimiento
Figura 1. Esquema que resume las distintas fases del proceso administrativo de la Evaluacin de Impacto
Ambiental en Espaa, una vez se ha decidido que el proyecto ha de someterse a ella.
-7-
Introduccin
Se podra decir que el EIS es el documento central de todo este proceso ya que
recoge la informacin necesaria para evaluar los posibles daos al entorno y proponer las
medidas necesarias para contrarrestarlos, lo que constituye el ncleo de la EIA.
En este trabajo se ha decidido estudiar la sostenibilidad desde el mbito de la EIA
por dos razones principales. Primera, porque siendo uno de los mltiples mbitos en los
que la sostenibilidad debe ser concretada en la prctica, la EIA cuenta ya con unos aos
de experiencia internacional y es oportuno ver qu ha conseguido. Y tambin porque si
en algn lugar hay que ser exigentes con la prdida de valor natural, es cuando nos
enfrentamos a la decisin de si autorizar o no un proyecto ambientalmente adverso.
-8-
Introduccin
Introduccin
ejecucin de proyectos se puede evitar la progresiva degradacin del medio natural que
resultara de la acumulacin de impactos provocados por distintos proyectos en una
misma regin. Dentro de la secuencia de mitigacin, las medidas compensatorias juegan
un papel importante para conseguir este objetivo, puesto que son el ltimo recurso para
contrarrestar aquellos impactos que no pueden ser evitados ni corregidos; los
denominados impactos residuales, presentes en todos los proyectos sometidos a EIA.
Introduccin
Introduccin
entorno, reforzando la idea de que tenemos no slo el poder de daar el medio, sino
tambin la obligacin de colaborar en su mantenimiento y enriquecimiento.
A pesar de estas incertidumbres y de los problemas prcticos que plantea, el uso
de la compensacin se ha ido extendiendo y actualmente est presente en legislaciones
de distintos lugares del mundo, como EEUU, Europa, Australia, Brasil o Canad
(Rundcrantz & Skrbck, 2003; ten Kate et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; Hayes & MorrisonSaunders, 2007; Burgin, 2008; Darbi et al., 2009). En el caso de Espaa, la obligacin de
compensar impactos ecolgicos se aplica a nivel nacional a las reas incluidas en la Red
Natura 2000, como ordena la Directiva Hbitats (92/43/CEE) que transpone a la
legislacin espaola el Real Decreto 1997/1995. Solamente en algunas Comunidades
Autnomas existen leyes que extienden esta obligacin a otros lugares o elementos
naturales (ver captulo I).
Esta tesis se desarrolla en torno a la compensacin ecolgica no monetaria de
impactos, dentro del marco general de la EIA en Espaa, 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 construccin 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 bibliografa acerca de compensacin ecolgica (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
tradicin, ya que recoge buena parte de los problemas a los que se enfrenta el desarrollo
terico y prctico de la compensacin, que este trabajo presenta y aborda.
Bajo la categora de autopistas se incluyen tanto autopistas de peaje como autovas (sin peaje), puesto que
para el propsito de la tesis no se considera necesario distinguir entre ambos tipos de va.
- 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).
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
- 14 -
Introduction
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.
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.
al., 2003).
- 17 -
Introduction
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
compensacin ecolgica en los procedimientos de EIA en Espaa y de las dificultades a las
que se enfrenta, y proponer, en funcin 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 captulos,
que sirven al propsito general de la seccin:
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
Para subrayar la unidad entre los distintos captulos, antes de cada artculo se
incluye una breve presentacin del mismo, que resume sus principales objetivos y
contenidos, y explica su integracin en el conjunto de la tesis. Esta estructura procura
clarificar lo que no poda hacerse desde cada uno de los artculos de forma individual,
ayudando a generar una discusin general y a obtener conclusiones que van ms all de lo
apuntado en cada uno de ellos, y con las que se cierra la tesis.
- 20 -
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.
11.
12.
- 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 COMPENSACIN
ECOLGICA EN LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS DE EIA
EN ESPAA Y DE LAS DIFICULTADES A LAS QUE
SE ENFRENTA
- 23 -
de las razones que pueden contribuir a la escasa puesta en prctica de la primera. Es,
adems, el nico artculo 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 vas de transporte en los otros artculos.
Esta complementariedad de casos y escalas de estudio se plantea como una forma
de abordar una cuestin amplia, como es la compensacin ecolgica de impactos,
profundizando en algunos de sus aspectos pero sin perder la visin de conjunto.
- 25 -
CAPTULO I
UNA VISIN GENERAL SOBRE LA COMPENSACIN
ECOLGICA EN ESPAA
de
impacto
ambiental
(DIAs)4,
elegidas
como
indicadores
del
La DIA es el documento pblico elaborado por la Administracin competente en el que se resumen los
principales factores tenidos en cuenta para tomar la decisin 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 resolucin final ante el pblico, la DIA refleja las prioridades establecidas por la
Administracin, constituyendo as un indicador fiable del papel que se atribuye a la compensacin ecolgica
dentro del proceso de la EIA.
- 27 -
- 28 -
ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION
ASSESSMENT IN SPAIN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
RESUMEN
Para promover un desarrollo ms sostenible, la Evaluacin de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA) debera evitar prdidas netas de recursos ambientales. Pero
la prctica de la EIA no siempre evita las prdidas causadas por la
implementacin de proyectos sujetos a este procedimiento. Algunos impactos
ambientales son, simplemente, admitidos, incluso sin exigir ningn tipo de
compensacin a cambio. Y cuando se aplica, con frecuencia la compensacin
se limita a un pago monetario.
Este artculo estudia el papel que actualmente se le da a la
compensacin en la prctica de la EIA en Espaa, explorando al mismo
tiempo algunas de sus races conceptuales y legales. De forma ms especfica,
se evala cmo se aborda la compensacin en 1302 Declaraciones de
Impacto Ambiental (DIAs) correspondientes a proyectos sujetos a la
legislacin de EIA en Espaa, publicadas durante los aos 2006 y 2007, para
estimar hasta qu punto esta prctica se utiliza para preservar los recursos
ambientales en este pas.
- 29 -
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 -
- 31 -
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 Skrbck (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 -
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.
- 33 -
- 34 -
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.
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%
describe them.
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).
- 38 -
Competent
Authority
Central Government
Roads
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 Montagus harrier breeding areas of cereal
crops.
Improvement of a 5km-long stretch of riparian vegetation alongside Purn river.
Promote a fern restoration programme in Sierra Plana de la Borbolla SCI .
Develop an exotic species eradication programme, focused mainly in Eucalyptus globulus.
Castilla la Mancha
autonomous region
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
Riverside areas
ES4250009 SCI
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
Reforestation. The planted forest has to have an extension equivalent to at least twice the area occupied
by the project.
Revegetation. The planted area has to have an extension equivalent to at least three times the total SCI
and SPA damaged areas.
Puertollano bypass
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.
Navarra
autonomous region
Vegetation
Reforestation
SCI ES2200014
Table 1 (II) Compensation measures for road projects as described in the reviewed RODs.
- 41 -
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 Aragn.
REFERENCES
Comunidad Autnoma de Andaluca, 2007. Ley 7/2007, de Gestin Integrada de la Calidad Ambiental.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/08/09/pdfs/A34118-34169.pdf (01/04/2008).
Comunidad Autnoma de Aragn, 2006. Ley 7/2006, de 22 de junio, de proteccin ambiental de Aragn.
http://www.boe.es/ccaa/boa/2006/081/d09819-09854.pdf (21/02/2008).
Comunidad Autnoma de Canarias, 2002. Ley 6/2002, de 12 de junio, sobre medidas de ordenacin
territorial de la actividad turstica 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 Autnoma de las Illes Balears, 2006. Ley 11/2006, de 14 de septiembre, de evaluaciones de
impacto ambiental y evaluaciones ambientales estratgicas en las Illes Balears.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/10/13/pdfs/A35382-35405.pdf (22/04/2008).
Comunidad Autnoma de Madrid, 2002. Ley 2/2002, de 19 de junio, de Evaluacin 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 proteccin 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 Intervencin para la
Proteccin Ambiental. http://www.lexnavarra.navarra.es/detalle.asp?r=5485 (26/02/2008).
Consejera de Economa y Trabajo de Extremadura, 2004. Decreto 47/2004, de 20 de abril, por el que se
dictan Normas de Carcter Tcnico de adecuacin de las lneas elctricas para la proteccin 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):297306.
Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated
with highways. Biol Conserv 1999;90:4151.
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):73649, doi:10.1007/s00267001-2504-7.
Departamento de Ordenacin del Territorio y Medio Ambiente del Pas Vasco, 2003. Decreto 183/2003,
de 22 de julio, por el que se regula el procedimiento de evaluacin 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 -
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;29:20731.
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):20918.
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;7:11825.
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 Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos.
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2008/01/26/pdfs/A04986-05000.pdf (01/05/2009).
Ministerio de Obras Pblicas y Urbanismo, 1988. Real Decreto 1131/1988 de 30 de septiembre, por el que
se aprueba el Reglamento para la ejecucin del Real Decreto Legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de
junio, de Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1988/10/05/pdfs/A2891128916.pdf (23/04/2008).
Presidncia de la Generalitat de Catalunya, 1988. Decreto 114/1988, de 7 de abril, de evaluacin de
impacto ambiental. http://www.miliarium.com/Paginas/Leyes/eia/ccaa/Catalunya/decreto114-88.asp
(31/03/2008).
Rundcrantz K, Skrbck E. Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with
major emphasis on the German system. Eur Environ 2003;13:20426, doi:10.1002/eet.324.
Rundcrantz K. Environmental compensation in Swedish road planning. Eur Environ 2006;16:35067,
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):21131.
Wilding S, Raemaekers J. Environmental compensation: can the British planning regime learn from Germany?
Plan Theory Pract 2000b;1(2):187201.
Wood C. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. Second ed. Harlow: Pearson-Prentice
Hall; 2003.
- 43 -
CAPTULO 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
et al., 2003).
Aparte de estos impactos, cuya identificacin y evaluacin han sido (y son)
bastante estudiadas, existen otros efectos de las carreteras y autopistas sobre el entorno
que todava no son bien conocidos. La compensacin de tales efectos en su totalidad es,
por tanto, inabordable, puesto que no es posible siquiera estimar la prdida de calidad
natural que suponen para el medio. Uno de los ejemplos escogidos para este trabajo es el
crecimiento urbano en torno a vas de comunicacin. Entre los mltiples factores que
pueden influir en este fenmeno se encuentra la construccin y mejora de carreteras y
autopistas, pero el alcance y naturaleza concreta de la parte que se debe a estas
infraestructuras son todava poco conocidos.
El artculo II se desarrolla en torno a este tema a travs del caso de tres autopistas
construidas en la misma regin (Navarra) pero en distintos entornos (zona montaosa
escarpada, zona montaosa de valles amplios y rea no montaosa). Partiendo de la
premisa de que cuando el crecimiento urbano se da en entornos naturales o
seminaturales, le sigue por lo general una prdida de calidad ecolgica, el estudio compara
la evolucin del crecimiento urbano alrededor de las tres vas, para buscar datos que
permitan conocer algo mejor cmo puede ser la influencia de estas infraestructuras sobre
la induccin de este fenmeno.
Como se deriva de este trabajo, y como indica la bibliografa existente en torno al
tema, es difcil establecer una relacin causal entre mejora de vas de comunicacin y
crecimiento urbano, as como discernir qu influencia tiene cada uno de los factores que
afecta a este ltimo. De acuerdo con la bibliografa, tambin existe una influencia de la
- 45 -
- 46 -
URBAN
RESUMEN
Desde hace algn tiempo, distintos estudios analizan el papel de los
proyectos de construccin y mejora de carreteras como precursores del
desarrollo urbano. La Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental de estos proyectos
debe ser capaz de estimar el alcance de este fenmeno en la medida de lo
posible y especialmente en reas montaosas, puesto que stas son
particularmente sensibles a los impactos que estos cambios de usos de suelo
pueden ocasionar y que deben ser contrarrestados para preservar la calidad
ecolgica del entorno. El objetivo de este artculo 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 reas
montaosas de Navarra (Espaa), para obtener indicios sobre este hipottico
fenmeno de induccin.
- 47 -
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 (Brgi 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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 Azcrate.
- 52 -
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 motorways 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 -
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 (Mller 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 Mller 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 -
et al., 2004; Mller 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. Mller 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 -
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.
- 56 -
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
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/100hayear), while the rate in the fourth column
expresses the growth in relation to the area under 20% incline within each buffer (ha/100hayear).
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 -
data for AP-15 around distance classes 7 and 8 stand out, demanding a particular
interpretation.
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; Mller 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 (Mller et al., 2010; Serneels and Lambin,
- 58 -
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 (Mller 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 -
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 -
The maximum induction rates obtained within the area under 20% incline were:
0,29 ha/100hayear for A-15 motorway; 0,142 ha/100hayear for AP-15 motorway, and
0,102 ha/100hayear 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. Ario 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
Aragn.
- 61 -
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), 257270.
Bossard M., Feranec J., Otahel J., (2000). CORINE land cover technical guideAddendum 2000. European
Environment Agency. On line at:
http://www.dmu.dk/fileadmin/Resources/DMU/Udgivelser/CLC2000/technical_guide_addenum.pdf
Brgi M., Hersperger A.M., Schneeberger N., (2004). Driving forces of landscape change-current and new
directions, Landscape Ecology, 19 (8), 857868.
Comn F.A., Martnez-Rica J.P., (2007). Los Pirineos en el contexto de las montaas 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), 188189.
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., Kly 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), 261269.
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 -
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.
Mller K., Steinmeier C., Kchler 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), 125129.
Schild A., (2008). ICIMODs 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), 6581.
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 Earths 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 -
ANEXO CAPTULO II
- 64 -
- 65 -
Figura 5. Localizacin de los ncleos urbanos e industriales existentes alrededor de la A-15 antes de la
construccin de la autova.
Figura 6. Localizacin de los ncleos urbanos e industriales existentes alrededor de la A-10 antes de la
construccin de la autova.
- 66 -
- 67 -
- 68 -
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
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 autova ms
prxima para la A-15.
- 69 -
Lugar
Aguinaga
Aizpn
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
Compaa
Dorrao
Egiarreta
Egilor
Ekai
Erice
Etxarren
Etxarri-Aranatz 1
Etxarri-Aranatz 2
Etxarri-Aranatz 3
Etxarri-Aranatz 4
Etxeberri
Goi
Gulina
Ihabar 1
Ihabar 2
Iraeta
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
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 -
Lugar
Sarasate
Satrustegi
Uharte-Arakil 1
Uharte-Arakil 2
Uharte-Arakil 3
Uharte-Arakil 4
Ultzurrun
Unanu
Urdnoz
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
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 autova ms
prxima para la A-10.
- 71 -
Lugar
Adis
Amtriain
Amunarrizqueta
Aorbe 1
Aorbe 2
Arlegui
Artajona
Artariin
Barsoain / Garinoain
Barsoain 1
Barsoain 2
Bariin
Barrio de la Azucarera
Beire
Benegorri
Beriin 1
Beriin 2
Beriin 3
Beriin 4
Beriin 5
Beriin 6
Beriin 7
Bzquiz
Biurrun
Campanas 1
Campanas 2
Campanas 3
Camping Olite
Caparroso 1
Caparroso 2
Caparroso 3
Caparroso 4
Centro Comercial La Toscana
Ciudad del Transporte
Echage
Elorz
Enriz
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
Guerendiin
Imrcoain 1
Imrcoain 2
Iracheta
La Estacin 1
La Estacin 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
Muruzbal 1
Muruzbal 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
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 Beriin 4
61,86
Joins Beriin 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 Imrcoain 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 -
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
Olriz
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 Barsoain
Pol. Ind. Garanta/Escopar 1
Pol. Ind. Garanta/Escopar 2
Pol. Ind. La Nava
Pol. Ind. Torres de Elorz 1
Pol. Ind. Torres de Elorz 2
Pueyo 1
Pueyo 2
San Martn de Unx 1
San Martn de Unx 2
Snsoain 1
Snsoain 2
Sansomin
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
Unzu 1
Unzu 2
Uterga
Villafranca 1
Villafranca 2
Villafranca 3
Villafranca 4
Villafranca 5
Villafranca 6
Yrnoz
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
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 -
Lugar
Zabalegui 2
Zabalegui 3
Zabalegui 4
Zariquiegui 1
Zariquiegui 2
Zariquiegui 3
Rango de
distancia a salida
9
9
9
10
10
10
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 ms
prxima para la AP-15.
- 74 -
CAPTULO III
LA PRDIDA ACEPTADA DE CALIDAD ECOLGICA
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
medios para remediarlo. En cambio, los daos ecolgicos afectan a todo el mundo por
igual y a nadie en concreto, por lo que la responsabilidad de trabajar por su
compensacin queda diluida y a merced, en ltima 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 obstculo se le aade habitualmente el problema del clculo de
impactos y, por consiguiente, de medidas compensatorias, como ya se apuntaba en el
artculo II.
En el caso presentado, podra decirse que el dao econmico causado por la
construccin del dique pudo ser fcilmente estimado una vez admitida judicialmente
como plausible la relacin causa-efecto. Y esa estimacin, realizada en trminos
econmicos, se traduce con cierta facilidad en una compensacin de la misma naturaleza.
Sin embargo, los daos ecolgicos no son fcilmente mensurables, y aunque se lograse
esbozar una medida, probablemente no sera sencillo decidir qu acciones
compensatorias seran necesarias y suficientes (Rowe et al., 2009). Subyace en toda esta
cuestin el problema de cul es el valor de los valores ambientales.
- 77 -
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.
RESUMEN
Este artculo describe un caso polmico de Evaluacin de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA), finalmente resuelto tras la aprobacin de una sentencia legal.
La sentencia impona a la compaa promotora un pago como compensacin
al dao econmico que los cambios ambientales originados por el proyecto
causaron a una piscifactora localizada en el estuario del ro Urola, en el Pas
Vasco. El dao fue supuestamente ocasionado por la ampliacin de un dique
construido en dicho estuario, proyectado para mejorar el acceso a un puerto
recreativo prximo. A raz de este caso se plantean y discuten ciertas
cuestiones en torno a la dificultad de implantar medidas de compensacin
ecolgica a travs de la EIA, utilizando lo ocurrido en torno a la
compensacin econmica como contrapunto. Tales dificultades pueden ser la
causa de la escasa compensacin que se aplica en proyectos costeros,
registrada en este artculo para varios casos en Espaa.
- 78 -
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 -
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).
- 80 -
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 -
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.
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?
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
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 -
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
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 (Almera) 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 -
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
- 86 -
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.
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 -
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 -
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. eneas, 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 -
WEB REFERENCES
http://usuarios.multimania.es/fotoantigua/index.html [last accessed 21 february 2012]
- 90 -
No mencionados
Mencionados
- 91 -
SEGUNDA PARTE
PROPUESTAS PARA PROMOVER LA
COMPENSACIN ECOLGICA EN LA EIA EN
ESPAA
- 93 -
CAPTULO IV
UN MTODO ADECUADO PARA LA VALORACIN
ECOLGICA DEL MEDIO Y DE LOS IMPACTOS RESIDUALES
- 95 -
DE IMPACTOS RESIDUALES DE
ECOLGICAS DE PAISAJE EN NAVARRA (ESPAA)
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:
RESUMEN
La construccin de carreteras reduce el valor ecolgico del medio.
Para recuperarlo, los impactos ecolgicos residuales han de ser
contrarrestados a travs de la aplicacin de medidas compensatorias, dentro
del procedimiento de Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) que tiene como
ncleo la valoracin ecolgica y la valoracin de impactos. As, la valoracin
de impactos residuales es la base para la propuesta de medidas
compensatorias adecuadas. Este artculo elabora una propuesta simple,
transparente y adaptable de valoracin ecolgica del medio y los impactos,
con el objetivo de mejorar la percepcin, registro y valoracin de ciertos
impactos residuales y fomentar as la prctica de la compensacin dentro de
la EIA.
PALABRAS
CLAVE:
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 -
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 -
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.
- 99 -
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)
Gmez-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
Martnez-Vega et al 2003
Martnez-Vega et al 2007
Gehlbach 1975
Goldsmith 1975
Wright 1977
Gimnez-Luque and Gmez-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
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 -
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.
- 101 -
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.
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 -
High (+ +)
Medium (+)
+ + + + (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.
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 -
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 -
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 -
Phytosanitary state
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
Grazing
Agriculture
Housing, buildings
Distance to the nearest road
Occasional
Frequent
>75 m
<75 m
The road crosses the unit
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 -
- 107 -
- 108 -
- 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
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
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 -
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
Aragn. 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., Jordo, L., 2001. The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine
environmental impact significance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 511-535.
- 112 -
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.
Gimnez-Luque, E., Gmez-Mercado, F., 1999. Valoracin naturalstica del Paraje Natural Punta Entinas Sabinar. In: E. Cano-Carmona et al., eds. Valoracin y gestin de espacios naturales. XVII Jornadas
de Fitosociologa. 21-24 September 1999 Jan. Jan: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de
Jan, 143-151.
Goldsmith, F.B., 1975. The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes.
Biological Conservation, 8, 89-96.
Gmez-Sal, A., Belmontes, J.A., Nicolau, J.M., 2003. Assessing landscape values: a proposal for a
multidimensional conceptual model. Ecological Modelling, 168, 319-341.
Hylm, K., Skrbck, 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.
Martnez-Vega, J., Martn-Isabel, M.P., Romero-Calcerrada, R., 2003. Valoracin del paisaje en la Zona de
Especial Proteccin de Aves Carrizales y Sotos de Aranjuez (Comunidad de Madrid). GeoFocus
(Artculos), 3, 1-21.
Martnez-Vega, J., Romero-Calcerrada, R., Echavarra, P., 2007. Valoracin paisajstica y ecolgica de la
Comunidad de Madrid: su integracin en un ndice sinttico de riesgo de incendios forestales.
Revista de Teledeteccin, 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 -
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. Cartografa de hbitats en los Lugares de Importancia Comunitaria (LICs) de
Navarra (Red Natura 2000). In: VII Congreso Nacional de la Asociacin Espaola de Ecologa
Terrestre. 2-4 July 2003 Cerdanyola del Valls. 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 -
CAPTULO V
LA CONVENIENCIA DE SUBRAYAR LOS IMPACTOS
ECOLGICOS 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
- 116 -
Impactos residuales
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.
RESUMEN
Dentro del procedimiento de Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental (EIA)
se incluye la aplicacin de medidas preventivas, correctoras y compensatorias
para neutralizar los impactos ecolgicos causados por la implementacin de
proyectos de desarrollo. Este artculo explora el papel actual de la
compensacin ecolgica a travs de la revisin de una serie de Declaraciones
de Impacto Ambiental (DIAs) de proyectos recientes de carreteras y vas de
tren, que confirma resultados anteriores en este campo. Los resultados
indican que en la mayora de los casos no se presta atencin a los impactos
residuales, y que la participacin del pblico no aborda la valoracin ecolgica
de impactos. Partiendo de esto, se elaboran propuestas centradas en
promover una valoracin ms explcita y visible de los impactos residuales,
como forma de facilitar el acceso del pblico al ncleo de la EIA: la valoracin
de impactos (residuales).
PALABRAS CLAVE: evaluacin de impactos; participacin pblica;
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.
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).
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.
- 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.
Impactos residuales
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 (Hylm and Skrbck, 2006).
2. METHODOLOGY:
ECOLOGICAL
EVALUATION
AND
ECOLOGICAL
- 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).
- 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
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.
- 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 Aragn.
REFERENCES
Andr 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, Jordo 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.
Bojrquez-Tapia LA, Garca 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 scientists 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, OMalley V, OLeary 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 assessmentimplementing 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.
Hylm K, Skrbck 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 developmentan
example from the Aysen Watershed, Chile. Int J Sustain Dev 2009;12(2):30320.
- 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 Evaluacin 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. 25364.
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):699722.
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 -
CAPTULO VI
SELECCIN DE MEDIDAS COMPENSATORIAS PARA
IMPACTOS ECOLGICOS EN LA EIA
Tras la valoracin del impacto ecolgico residual, las medidas compensatorias han
de proponerse de manera que contrarresten suficiente y adecuadamente tales efectos. Sin
embargo, la traduccin de impacto estimado a medida compensatoria no es fcil, puesto
que las posibilidades son muy variadas y no siempre se sabe con certeza cul es la mejor
opcin. Adems, de nuevo surge el problema de cmo concretar un objetivo general,
como es la no prdida neta de calidad ecolgica, en acciones puntuales y condicionadas
por las circunstancias de cada proyecto particular.
El artculo VI aborda ambas cuestiones de forma general y aplicada a proyectos de
vas de transporte. Por un lado, revisa las orientaciones generales existentes en la
bibliografa actual en torno a cmo resolver dos de las principales cuestiones a la hora de
proponer medidas compensatorias: dnde deben localizarse respecto al proyecto, y qu
semejanza deben tener con los elementos afectados. Complementariamente, propone
objetivos concretos para facilitar la aplicacin de la meta general de no prdida neta a
proyectos de carreteras y autopistas.
La idea de fondo es que, para promover un campo como la compensacin
ecolgica, para el que no existen protocolos ni procedimientos estndar, la definicin de
pautas tcnicas generales no basta, sino que conviene explorar y discutir propuestas que
indiquen cmo proceder ante determinados tipos de proyectos. Por esto, la provisin de
orientaciones ms concretas, especficas de ciertos lugares y/o proyectos, puede
complementar a las guas generales existentes sobre la compensacin en la literatura
cientfica especializada, y ayudar a la concrecin de objetivos generales en acciones
puntuales.
Al proponer unas metas bsicas en materia de compensacin, dirigidas a un cierto
tipo de proyectos (vas de transporte), se pretende facilitar la puesta en prctica de este
concepto que, como se sealaba en la Introduccin, resulta ms fcil de comprender en el
plano terico que de aplicar en los casos reales.
- 137 -
COMPENSACIN
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.
- 138 -
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 -
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 -
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.
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 -
- 142 -
- 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
Ecological
Political
Ecological
Technical
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.
- 145 -
- 147 -
- 148 -
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.
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 -
- 152 -
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.
- 153 -
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 -
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 -
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
Aragn.
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 -
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, OMalley V, OLeary 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 -
- 158 -
- 159 -
DISCUSIN
Para asegurar la sostenibilidad de los proyectos con efectos ambientales
significativos, la calidad ecolgica del medio debera, como mnimo, permanecer constante
(Costanza & Daly, 1992; Prugh, 1995). En otras palabras, se debera conseguir que estas
actividades humanas no causen prdidas 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 daos ecolgicos que no pueden ser evitados ni
corregidos de modo que se recupere la situacin de calidad original (los llamados
impactos residuales), deberan ser contrarrestados mediante la aplicacin de medidas
compensatorias (Pope et al., 2004; McKenney, 2005; EPA, 2006; van Merwyk & Daddo,
2007; Weaver et al., 2008; BBOP, 2009).
En la prctica, sin embargo, la compensacin no se aplica en todos los casos en
que sera necesaria segn 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 (captulo I). Las causas de este fenmeno son diversas,
y pueden radicar tanto en factores tcnicos como conceptuales. Se va a empezar por
abordar estos ltimos.
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 seala una escasez para atender la demanda (Daily, 2000; Daily et al., 2000).
Y si es verdad que ciertos entornos estn fuertemente protegidos frente a los usos o
actividades humanas que puedan alterarlos, tambin es cierto que no es as en la mayora
de los espacios de la Tierra. Comnmente, no se tiene asimilado en forma de conducta
que la sostenibilidad, para significar algo, exija mantener sin prdida neta la calidad
ecolgica del entorno que usamos. Y sin embargo, podra conseguirse de otra manera
que sta que nos sugieren de la mano principios de tica ambiental tan bsicos como el
de incertidumbre, el de precaucin y el de prevencin, el de equidad intergeneracional, el
de reconocimiento y preservacin de la diversidad, o los de internalizacin de costes o de
integracin multisectorial (ver p. ej. Cameron & Abouchar, 1991; IAIA, 2003; Vanclay,
2003; Beder, 2006)?
- 161 -
Discusin
et al., 2009; Rowe, 2009). Tal dificultad es, por un lado, intrnseca al propio proceso de
valoracin, que conlleva incertidumbres que impiden obtener resultados objetivos e
indiscutibles acerca de la significatividad de los impactos (captulo IV). Por otro lado, la
- 162 -
Discusin
- 163 -
Discusin
- 164 -
Discusin
sea ste, y no uno ms complejo, el primer paso necesario para mejorar la situacin actual
nos revela en cierto modo lo lejos que estamos de alcanzar la situacin ideal que
propone la teora. Y desde una perspectiva ms 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 teora del mundo prctico, que es al fin y al cabo del
que depende la asimilacin e implantacin de los avances que prev el primero. De ah
que convenga recordar que lo novedoso de las propuestas no tendr su patrn de
medicin ms eficaz desde el mundo cientfico, que siempre se propone objetivos que
trascienden la realidad presente, sino desde el mundo profesional y administrativo de la
prctica de la EIA, para quienes unos cambios tericamente poco novedosos, pueden
serlo mucho si se tiene en cuenta lo que se hace (u omite) en la realidad. No es una
novedad terica presentar la idea de compensacin. S lo es hacerlo para un marco
escogido (la EIA en Espaa), y ms lo sera si lo fuera de modo que, al fin, se lograra
cambiar la prctica, objetivo al que desea este estudio contribuir, pero que le trasciende,
al estar la prctica de la EIA en manos de otros profesionales.
Dejando a un lado la cuestin acerca de la complejidad de las propuestas, hay que
sealar tambin que la mejora de aspectos tcnicos, como aquellos relacionados con la
valoracin de impactos y el diseo de medidas compensatorias adecuadas, no garantiza
por s sola una mayor aplicacin de compensacin ecolgica en la EIA. Para lograr este
objetivo, y siguiendo en cierto modo lo que propone McCaulay (2006) para las acciones
de conservacin, los progresos tcnicos han de ir acompaados por cambios
conceptuales, especialmente en cuanto a la percepcin de la compensacin ecolgica
como una necesidad lgica y no como una carga o responsabilidad accesoria (en la lnea
de lo propuesto por Skrbck en 2007 para los valores recreativos del medio natural).
Este tema, sin embargo, no suele aparecer de forma explcita en los captulos
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 terico profundo, en el que buscan su fundamentacin ms necesaria,
aunque por ello no deje de ser discutida o discutible.
Como se sealaba en el captulo III, la compensacin de impactos ecolgicos no
parece despertar tanto inters o preocupacin como la compensacin de otros impactos
(los econmicos en el caso estudiado). Esto puede ser debido en parte a que los efectos
de ciertos proyectos sobre la esfera ecolgica no son tan fcilmente perceptibles como
- 165 -
Discusin
los que afectan al mbito socioeconmico, pero puede haber otras muchas causas. Como
se observa en el caso descrito en este artculo, cuando un impacto econmico no es
contrarrestado por parte de quien lo caus, los afectados buscan los medios para cambiar
esa situacin. Sin embargo, tal fenmeno rara vez se observa ante un impacto ecolgico.
Si ste 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 daos sean contrarrestados.
El medio natural es un bien de todos y de nadie, y como tal puede estar sujeto a
lo que Garrett Hardin describi en 1968 como la tragedia de los comunes, una
situacin en la que la utilizacin de un bien colectivo para satisfacer los intereses
particulares de varios individuos puede acabar destruyendo tal recurso. Este fenmeno
observado en cuanto a la preservacin de la calidad ecolgica del medio no es nuevo,
pues no son raros los ejemplos en que surgen importantes dificultades para asignar la
responsabilidad de reparar los daos causados sobre recursos pblicos, a menudo con el
resultado de que el perjuicio queda sin remediar.
Ante esta situacin, la legislacin puede ser una herramienta til para indicar
claramente quin debe responder y poner los medios para remediar los daos causados
al entorno, siguiendo la recomendacin del propio Hardin (1998) de utilizar acuerdos
comunes (leyes) para prevenir la sobreexplotacin de recursos comunes. Si bien las leyes
actuales establecen estos trminos en la mayora de las situaciones de contaminacin,
mediante la aplicacin del principio quien contamina, paga8, parece que la situacin
actual demanda algunos ajustes en materia de compensacin ecolgica de daos
ambientales distintos a la contaminacin.
En Espaa, la legislacin slo 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 captulo I). Aunque es cierto
que la preservacin de zonas catalogadas bajo algn estatus de proteccin requiere
especial atencin, el resto de reas no deben ser descuidadas si se quiere conservar de
forma efectiva la calidad ecolgica global del medio (Farina, 2000). Por ello, sera
El principio de quien contamina, paga (PPP por sus siglas en ingls; Polluter-Pays Principle) establece
que el responsable del proyecto o actividad que causa un dao 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 intencin de limitar los daos causados al entorno y establecer las
responsabilidades en cuanto a la recuperacin de los impactos originados (JWPTE, 2002; Beder, 2006).
- 166 -
Discusin
recomiendan
Barbero-Rodrguez
Espigares-Pinilla
(2010),
la
Discusin
- 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.
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
(Andr 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 anothers 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
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-Rodrguez 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
- 175 -
CONCLUSIONES GENERALES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Aunque se mejoren los mtodos 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 gestin del entorno, por lo tanto, ha de estar atenta a esta
incertidumbre ineludible, y priorizar enfoques sencillos que permitan mejorar la
sostenibilidad, sobre perspectivas ms complejas o precisas que difcilmente puedan
llevarse a la prctica en el marco de la EIA.
5.
- 176 -
Conclusiones generales
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sea cual sea la altura de los objetivos ltimos de sostenibilidad hacia los que se
dirijan, las propuestas de evaluacin ecolgica elaboradas desde el mundo cientfico
han de estar adaptadas, de inicio, a las condiciones actuales del procedimiento de
EIA para poder ser aplicadas eficazmente en ese contexto prctico.
10.
La dificultad que se encuentra para definir cmo lograr y justificar ante una cultura
de la correccin de impactos las propuestas de compensacin en el marco de la
EIA, pone en cuestin el rumbo que lleva lo que denominamos desarrollo. No se
trata solamente de que cueste acordar cmo 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
cmo debera expresarse en el territorio ante la ejecucin de proyectos concretos.
11.
Conclusiones generales
una posibilidad, ni como una obligacin legal, sino como la manera humana de
comportarse ante la base natural de la que depende la misma vida, aunque su
limitacin o agotamiento est lejos de percibirse. Empezando por la EIA, conviene
pasar progresivamente de una cultura de la correccin de impactos, que de hecho
admite los impactos residuales, a otra que la incluya y la supere: la de la
compensacin.
12.
13.
- 178 -
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
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.
- 180 -
General conclusions
6.
7.
8.
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.
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.
- 182 -
BIBLIOGRAFA GENERAL
Andr 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):
235263.
Barbero-Rodrguez J, Espigares-Pinilla T. 2010. Aplicacin de la evaluacin de impacto ambiental en Espaa
en el periodo 1989-2008 : El caso de los proyectos de carreteras. Ingeniera Civil. 157: 57-67.
Beder S. 2006. Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. Earthscan, London.
Burgin S. 2008. BioBanking: an environmental scientists 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, Sderqvist 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-Snchez C, Garmendia-Salvador L. 2005. Evaluacin 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 assessmentimplementing 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. Boletn
Oficial del Estado, 255: 43229-43250.
Jefatura del Estado. 2010. Ley 6/2010, de 24 de marzo, de modificacin del texto refundido de la Ley de
Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos, aprobado por el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008,
de 11 de enero. Boletn 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 Alimentacin. 1995. Real Decreto 1997/1995, de 7 de diciembre, por el
que se establece medidas para contribuir a garantizar la biodiversidad mediante la conservacin de
los hbitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres. Boletn 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 Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos. Boletn
Oficial del Estado, 23: 4986-5000.
Ministerio de Obras Pblicas y Urbanismo. 1988. Real Decreto 1131/1988, de 30 de septiembre, por el que
se aprueba el Reglamento para la ejecucin del Real Decreto legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de junio,
de evaluacin de impacto ambiental. Boletn 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 habitatCan 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 Espaola. 2001. Diccionario de la lengua espaola. Vigsima segunda edicin. 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, Skrbck 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
Skrbck 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): 317333.
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.
Unin Europea. 1992. Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo de 21 de mayo de 1992 relativa a la conservacin
de los hbitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres. Diario Oficial L 59 de 8.3.1996, p. 63.
Unin Europea. 1985. Directiva 85/337/CEE del Consejo, de 27 de junio de 1985, relativa a la evaluacin de
las repercusiones de determinados proyectos pblicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente. Diario
Oficial L 175 de 5.7.1985, p. 40-48.
Unin Europea. Directiva 2011/92/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 13 de diciembre de 2011
relativa a la evaluacin de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos pblicos 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): 699722.
Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Pearson-Prentice Hall. p.
405.
- 188 -