Biodiversity in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(2), June 2010, pages 117133 DOI: 10.3152/146155110X498834; http://www.ingentaconnect.
com/content/beech/iapa
Biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Tarja Sderman and Sanna-Riikka Saarela
This article examines the current practices of Finnish SEA with regard to inclusion of biodiversity issues in land use planning. The study of local master planning revealed that impact predictions have a limited influence on final plans due to a missing link between baseline studies and impact prediction. Land use SEA is very baseline oriented. It overemphasizes certain narrow biodiversity elements in studies and consequently in the whole planning process in order to avoid legal appeals for approved plans. There is also a tension between the proactive, opportunities constraints approach and the reactive approach in assessing impacts of a drafted plan. A strong need was expressed by consultants, planners and authorities for more holistic data and assessment regarding ecosystem functions and ecological connections and networks, but this need has not been realized in practice. To change assessment practices, holistic approaches and tools, such as ecosystem services type and green infrastructure planning, should be used in SEAs of spatial planning.
Keywords:
SEA, biodiversity impact, ecological impact assessment, land use plans, ecological corridors
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT assessment at all levels has been regarded as an important tool for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into planning and development (e.g. Slootweg et al, 2006; Treweek, 1999). The main identified instruments are environmental impact assessment (EIA) at the project level and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) at plan, programme and policy level. They have an important role in putting into practice international conventions aiming at protection and sustainable use of biodiversity (e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, 1992). Article 14 of the CBD calls for the use of EIA and SEA procedures to ensure that impacts on
Tarja Sderman is Head of Unit and Sanna-Riikka Saarela is a Researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, Environmental Policy Centre, Built Environment Unit, PO Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland; Email: tarja.soderman@ymparisto. fi and sannariikka.saarela@gmail.com; Tel: +358 20 610 123 (operator); Fax: +358 9 5490 2391; Web: http://www. environment.fi/syke.
biodiversity are taken into account and adverse effects are avoided or minimized. Evaluation of impacts on biodiversity includes assessment of changes on the main aspects of biodiversity: composition, structure and key processes. These changes derive from social and economic interventions, which may lead to biophysical and social changes influencing biodiversity (Slootweg et al, 2006). The process of defining, quantifying and evaluating these potential impacts on biodiversity is referred to as ecological impact assessment (Treweek, 1999). This process of assessing impacts on biodiversity can include several partly overlapping phases: scoping, baseline studies, impact prediction and planning of monitoring. Environmental impact assessment at the project level has been less effective for ecological impact assessment than for any other impact assessment category. The internationally reported shortcomings of EIA with respect to biodiversity considerations are shown in Table 1, in which they are divided into three categories. The first category includes
1461-5517/10/020117-17 US$12.00 IAIA 2010
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010
117
Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Table 1. Problems of EIA in consideration of biodiversity in planning (Atkinson et al, 2000; Byron et al, 2000; Geneletti, 2002, 2006; Gontier et al, 2006; Jong de et al, 2004; Mandelik et al, 2005; Samarakoon and Rowan, 2008; Slootweg and Kolhoff, 2003; Sderman, 2005, 2006, 2009; Tanaka, 2001; Thompson et al, 1997; Treweek et al, 1993, 2005; Wegner et al, 2005)
Shortcomings due to the nature of EIA Tendency to: Disregard other than local impacts Disregard multiple alternative sites or planning options Consider short time perspective, limited temporal scope React at the end of the planning cycle Have high level of detail
Shortcomings due to poor use of EIA Tendency to: Define a study area on a non-ecological basis Concentrate on short-term impacts and data-sets Neglect population density and distribution Disregard spatial and temporal scales of ecological processes Neglect levels of biodiversity (genetic, species and ecosystem) Focus on protected areas and on single protected species on the absence/presence level Lack species group inventories Underrate field surveys Underrate baseline information Lack predictions Lack systematic and quantified predictions Not use prediction tools Have descriptive and vague predictions Lack connection between baseline studies and predictions Overlook description of the used (prediction) methods Lack monitoring and mitigation Use of GIS as display instead of analytical tool
Shortcomings due to both reasons Tendency to: Lack assessment at the ecosystem and landscape level Disregard of spatial landscape indicators (patch size, shape, distribution, connectivity) Neglect fragmentation and barrier effects Restrict to aesthetic values on the landscape level Disregard aspects of biodiversity (composition, structure and key processes) Overlook indirect and cumulative impacts, their identification and measurement
problems due to the character of EIA as a planning tool; the second includes those due to the lack of its proper use as a tool and the third includes shortcomings due to both reasons. Because of EIAs narrow time and geographical frame, limited number of alternatives and reactive character, it has been concluded that EIA cannot successfully treat longer term trends, ecosystem processes and interactions, cumulative threats, implications on uses of biodiversity or monitoring (Treweek et al, 2005). SEA has been seen to have significant potential to ensure that biodiversity is considered in the planning of new development, and to overcome many of the limitations of EIA in assessing impacts on biodiversity as a result of its extensive time and geographical frame and more strategic and proactive nature (Balfors et al, 2005; Byron and Treweek, 2005; Mrtberg et al, 2007; Treweek et al, 2005). SEA was defined by Sadler and Verheem (1996) as a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed policy, plan or programme initiatives in order to ensure that they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision-making on par with economic and social considerations. SEA has developed rapidly in recent years and it forms a family of multiple tools applied in varied processes structured to reflect specific situations (e.g. Dusik and Sadler 2004; Fischer 2007; Schmidt et al, 2005; Verheem and Tonk, 2000). It has been argued that the main ideas underlying SEA are that it should improve, not just analyse, the strategic actions, and
that it should consider different alternatives and compare them in the assessment context (Schmidt et al, 2005). The potential of SEA in assessing impacts on biodiversity is presented in Box 1.
Box 1.
Potential of SEA in consideration of biodiversity in planning (adapted from Slootweg et al, 2006; Treweek et al, 2005)
In assessing impacts on biodiversity, SEA has the opportunity to: Integrate biodiversity considerations in planning practices at all spatial levels in land use and sectoral planning. Consider biodiversity proactively at the beginning of the planning cycle. Apply iterative multistage planning processes. Consider basically endless potential alternative locations and solutions. Identify long-term trends and drivers of change. Emphasize meeting the objectives. Concentrate on the broader perspective. Concentrate on environmental characteristics affected by the lower level of detail. Handle ecosystem processes and interactions. Identify and manage cumulative threats and pressures in early stages. Prepare effective mitigation strategies. Develop varied and long-term monitoring programmes. Consider the needs and objectives of stakeholders for the use of biodiversity. Engage biodiversity experts, planners and decisionmakers. Encourage biodiversity partnerships and information networks.
118
Biodiversity is more broadly affected by spatial plans than by any other type of plans (Kolhoff and Slootweg, 2005), because spatial plans determine the extent and distribution of different land use functions (roads, industrial and commercial areas, green structures, residential areas etc.) that directly, indirectly or cumulatively affect biodiversity. Therefore, SEA of the spatial planning is an important tool to promote ecologically sustainable development. The principles of sustainable development require that in spatial planning ecological, social and economic functions are in balance in space and time to maintain and deliver goods and services to future generations (WCED, 1987). However, in decision-making processes about land use change, functions related to ecological integrity of the land (biodiversity, goods provided by ecosystems) and the quality of life (recreation, landscape scenery, environment) are often regarded as non-compatible with functions driven by expanding technology (Cairns, 1999). SEA is an appropriate instrument for addressing ecological values and their interactions with social and economic values in land use planning (Termorshuizen et al, 2007). However, it has been reported that impact assessment frameworks at all planning levels still fail to ensure implementation of balanced sustainable development, and socioeconomic priorities dominate due to prevailing planning traditions and cultures (Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadttir, 2007; Krnv and Thissen, 2000; Nykvist and Nilsson, 2009). Fischer et al (2009) concluded that use of the social learning potential of SEA, including change of attitudes, perceptions and routines of individuals and organizations, is necessary in order to improve SEAs effectiveness and generate a more balanced consideration of all pillars of sustainable development. Legal and procedural framework for spatial planning in Finland The Finnish spatial planning system defined in the Land Use and Building Act (1999) comprises three levels of spatial planning: regional plan, local master plan and local detailed plan levels. In addition, the national land use objectives are set by the Council of State. Regional land use plans are drawn up by 19 regional councils formed by coalitions of municipalities. These plans are ratified by the Ministry of the Environment. Local master plans and local detailed plans are compiled and approved by municipalities. The current number of municipalities is 348. One of the stated objectives of the Act is promotion of ecologically sustainable development, biodiversity and natural values (Land Use and Building Act 1999, Sections 1 and 5). The planning system is hierarchical and higher level plans must be regarded in lower level planning. The national land use objectives steer preparation of land use plans, and government authorities must take them into account and
promote their implementation (Land Use and Building Act 1999, Section 24). The first national land use objectives were approved in 2000 and they were revised in 2008. Objectives concerning biodiversity include promotion of preservation of valuable and sensitive nature areas, ecological connections between protected areas, and use of the network of protected areas in recreation without compromising the conservation objectives. In the revision, preservation of ecological connections between protected and other valuable nature areas were added (Decision of the Council of State 31 August 2008 on national land use guidelines). In the EU member states, impacts of plans are assessed according to the SEA Directive (CEC, 2001), which was implemented in Finland mainly through the SEA Act (Act on the Assessment of the Impacts of the Authorities Plans, Programmes and Policies 2005). This Act concerns other plans, programmes and policies but not land use plans. The impacts of all land use plans are assessed as a part of the planning procedure laid down in the Land Use and Building Act (1999), which has been in force since 2000. The Act was prepared in parallel with the SEA Directive so that it fulfils the requirements of the Directive. The SEA procedure for land use plans is very similar to the assessment procedure of the Directive but has some additional features concerning, for example, the requirement for a scoping scheme. When this SEA Act came into force in Finland, several amendments were added in the Land Use and Building Act as well (e.g. concerning analysis of alternatives and prevention of adverse effects on the environment). The majority of European SEAs focus on spatial plans. For example, in the Netherlands European SEAs account for over half of all SEAs (Kolhoff and Slootweg, 2005). In Finland the number of SEAs assessed according to the SEA Act is 1020 per year (Sderman and Kallio, 2009), whereas the number of approved land use plans is 1,500 plans annually (1,400 local detailed plans, 100 local master plans and three regional land use plans) (HERTTA, 2008). The Land Use and Building Act (1999, Section 9) states that Plans must be founded on sufficient studies and reports. When a plan is drawn up, the environmental impact of implementing the plan and its alternatives, including socio-economic, social, cultural and other impacts, must be assessed to the necessary extent. Such an assessment must cover the entire area where the plan may be expected to have material impact. The Land Use and Building Decree (1999, Section 1) defines that in impact assessment the necessary data must be provided for assessing the significant direct and indirect impact of the plans implementation (e.g. on plants and animals, biodiversity and natural resources). Content for plans of different spatial levels are defined but in rather broad terms requiring, for instance, ecological sustainability and protection of natural values.
119
The Natura 2000 sites and nature protection programmes are mentioned specifically but detailed content of impact assessment is based on special legislations concerning natural values (Forest Act 1996, Land Extraction Act 1981, Nature Conservation Act
1996, Water Act 1961). The legal framework for SEA in land use planning is presented in Figure 1. Municipalities draft their own land use plans and the plans are approved by local municipal councils without ratification by the environmental authorities.
SEA Directive
International Conventions e.g. CBD
Habitats Directive
Land Use and Building Act
Nature Conservation Act Protected areas and protection programmes -governmentally approved programmes on national parks and strict nature reserves, mires, bird wetlands, eskers, herbrich woodlands, shores, old-growth forests Strictly protected species Protected species of Annex IV (a) of the Habitats Directive Habitats of special importance Natura 2000 sites
Objectives Promotion of ecologically sustainable development, biological diversity and other natural values
Impact assessment Sufficient studies and reports, assessing impacts to the necessary extent covering entire area of expected material impacts
Required contents for plan levels Regional Plan: ecological sustainability of land use, protection of natural values, use of nature conservation programmes and decisions as a guideline Local Master Plan: ecological sustainability, protection of natural values Local Detailed Plan: preservation of natural environment; its special values must not be destroyed Other legislation concerning nature conservation Natura 2000 sites Taking into account legislation on Natura 2000 sites when approving and ratifying land use plans
Forest Act Special habitats
Planning procedure and interaction Drawing up a participation and negotiation scheme; plan proposal between parties; preparing plans important in terms of natural values
Water Act Habitat types of aquatic environments Land Extraction Act Specific natural values
National land use objectives Preservation of nature areas and ecological connections
Figure 1. Legal framework for ecological impact assessment of land use planning in Finland
120
The Land Use and Building Act (1999) requires realization of necessary scoping phase in the form of a participation and assessment scheme prepared by a municipality. The scheme should address interaction of stakeholders, public participation opportunities, all major assessment needs and the required information for impact assessment. The Land Use and Building Act (1999, Sections 6266) requires collaboration between authorities during planning procedures. Regional plans always require negotiations between authorities, including the Ministry of the Environment and a regional environment centre. The regional environment centres are environmental authorities under the Ministry of the Environment. There are 13 regional environment centres in Finland. All local plans important in terms of nature values, for example, must have an official negotiation between a municipality and a regional environment centre in the plan drafting phase to clarify how national objectives, regional and other key goals pertain to the proposed plan. In addition, a municipality may negotiate with a regional environment centre on the adequacy and implementation of the participation and assessment scheme and a plan proposal. The other authorities and organizations whose spheres of activities are also affected must be invited to these negotiations. The regional environment centres give advice during the local planning process and verify that the baseline studies and related information are adequate. In local planning the regional environment centres do not have a supervisory role as in Finnish EIA (Act on Amendment to the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure 2006) or Natura 2000 impact assessments (Nature Conservation Act 1996), but merely a supporting and guiding role. A typical planning cycle of local master planning in Finland is presented in Figure 2. The phases may vary depending on the planning practices of municipalities. Methods for studying impact assessment in spatial planning The aim of this study is to examine how the potential of SEA is and can be used in Finland for promotion of ecological sustainability. The first objective was to study present impact assessment practices in spatial planning. The second objective was to expose views of involved parties on how this potential can best be utilized. The final objective was to develop recommendations for the best practices in SEA taking into consideration ecological sustainability. Experiences of poor handling of biodiversity issues in Finnish EIAs (e.g. Sderman, 2005, 2006, 2009) emphasize these objectives by creating a need to survey the current SEA practices in order to find solutions to challenges and shortcomings that have not been met by EIA tools and practices.
Land use planning was chosen as the studied planning process because the largest number of SEAs is used in land use planning. In addition, land use planning is one of the most important and decisive administrative processes affecting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Kettunen et al, 2007; Slootweg et al, 2006). Local master planning was chosen as the studied land use planning process because decisions of specific locations of municipal land use, their alternatives and assessment of impacts are made mainly on the local master plan level and they can cover a whole municipality or a part of it. Local master plans have alternative options for development, and land use type allocations are concrete but not too detailed for strategic decision-making (e.g. areas for housing are located but exact locations of individual buildings are not specified). By contrast, regional plans are rather non-specific and have very generic spatial allocations of land use. Detailed master plans usually comprise small areas covering, for instance, some blocks of part of the city, so that impact assessment is completed and defined in more detail in these areas but there is little room for alternative options. In Finland the local master plans cover 7,020,900 hectares, which is 21% of the total area of the country including areas in urban regions, centres of the municipalities and shore areas where the threats to biodiversity are the greatest. The number of new accepted local master plans varied from 106 to 124 per year in 20022006. The area of a single plan varied from 2,000 to 5,000 hectares annually (HERTTA, 2008). The assessment practices were studied by examining how different phases of impact assessment were performed and what kinds of issues were treated. The specific research questions were developed and divided under six themes dealing with scoping, baseline studies, impact prediction, and use of ecological studies and consideration of biodiversity in planning, monitoring and collaboration. These questions and themes were derived from Finnish and international good practice principles and criteria (e.g. IAIA, 2004; Paldanius et al, 2006; Slootweg and Kolhoff, 2003; Sderman, 2003; Treweek, 1999). The themes, their short definitions and questions are presented in Table 2. To find out answers to these questions, expert interviews were carried out. The method of expert interview was chosen, because it was considered to reveal more information on common practices than choosing some individual case studies or a selection of reports from hundreds of local master plan SEAs. In addition, there is no legally defined format for reporting impact assessment in land use planning, and therefore reporting differs considerably between individual local master plans. In expert interviews an individual expert represents a group of specific experts, and can therefore provide relevant information on a research topic (Flick, 1998). The experts were selected using the
121
The municipality starts preparation of the plan
Provision of information to the public, landowners, authorities and organizations
Negotiation between the municipality and the regional environment centre, at least in important plans
The municipality prepares the participation and assessment scheme covering participation and interactions and assessment of the plan's impacts
Negotiation on the participation and assessment scheme on its adequacy, initiated by the municipality, regional environment centre or interested parties
Baseline studies commissioned by the municipality and carried out by consultants
Arrangement of optional participation events and informal negotiations between
Alternative plan options and the plan proposal drafted by the municipality
Impact prediction and preparation of the plan statement by the municipality (or by consultants in large plans)
Statements from the authorities
Presenting the plan proposal and the plan statement (corresponding SEA environmental report) in public
Opinions of the public, landowners, and organizations
The municipality sends reasoned opinions to objectors, negotiation on the plan proposal between authorities if necessary
Approval of the plan by the municipality Figure 2. Typical planning cycle of local master planning in Finland
snowball sampling method (Berg, 2001), in which a few key informants relating to the topic were first interviewed and these key informants suggested experts who could be relevant to the research. The first key informants were selected on the grounds of their working position. Key informants were the heads of the land use departments at five regional environment centres and had wide understanding of current planning processes in the region, and they were familiar with the experts working in the field. The interviewed experts represented three different parties of local master planning: authorities of the regional environment centre (referred to later as authorities), land use planners of municipalities (planners) and ecologists in nature survey consultant
companies (consultants). The total number of expert interviews was 14, of which six were group interviews and eight were individual ones. Thus, the total number of interviewed experts was 20 of which ten persons represented authorities, five represented planners and five represented consultants. The interviewees were located in different towns in southern Finland, where the development pressure is greatest and thus most of the SEA processes are executed. Most of the experts had been working with spatial planning and related topics for over ten years. They were asked to describe both the present state of practices and development needs. The interview questions were sent to the experts prior to the meetings. The actual interviews were semi-structured,
122

Table 2. Research themes and interview questions
Research theme 1. Scoping Defining appropriate study boundaries and studied biodiversity elements given the nature of potential interactions between a plan proposal and receiving environment (Treweek, 1999)
Interview questions What is the proportion of ecological studies of all studies carried out in local master planning? In what phase of the planning cycle is the need for ecological studies screened? How (when, how and by whom) is scoping performed? Are there problems in timing of ecological studies? How are the biodiversity elements to be studied chosen?
2. Baseline studies What are the typical biodiversity baseline studies in local master Collecting and analysing of information on biodiversity of the area planning? where a plan may have impacts. The studies include both desk jobs How (when, how and by whom) are studies performed? and field work What data and methods are used? What biodiversity elements are studied? Are biodiversity elements evaluated? If so, how? 3. Impact prediction Identifying and evaluating impacts on biodiversity of a plan and its alternatives including identification and assessment of mitigation measures 4. Use of ecological studies and consideration of biodiversity in planning use of baseline studies in subsequent planning, quality of information In what phase of planning are the impacts on biodiversity elements assessed? How (when, how and by whom) is the impact prediction performed? Are alternative options assessed? Is impact significance determined? How are the results of ecological studies used in land use planning? Does impact assessment improve consideration of biodiversity in local master planning? What is the quality of ecological studies? What are the professional skills of ecologists performing studies? Is the planning of monitoring included in the impact assessment process? How do planners, ecologists and environmental authorities collaborate?
5. Monitoring Post-planning activity testing predictions and providing information (Treweek, 1999) 6. Collaboration interaction between different parties in the process of ecological impact assessment
which allowed the interviewer to change the order or the exact phrasing of the questions. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed and the data was also classified according to the research themes. This kind of study has some uncertainties, linked to the reliability and validity of the results. The method of snowball sampling can result in too positive representation of the planning practices, because the informant might recommend only the best known, most qualified experts. In addition, the interviewed experts are not necessarily objective and unbiased in assessing the success of SEA and planning processes. Furthermore, a larger and spatially more extensive sample would possibly have given different results because the planning practices and reflections of experts in smaller and more sparsely built areas in Finland are probably different from those based in southern Finland. Results All the views expressed in the following sections represent those of interviewees unless stated otherwise. We present the views shared by all interviewed expert groups by referring merely to interviewees. In cases when the views represent the perceptions of a certain group, we refer separately to authorities, planners or consultants. The key findings are presented in Table 3 and they are elaborated further below.
Scoping
Ecological studies are included in almost all local master planning processes and they are commissioned by municipalities at a very early stage in the planning process. The authorities thought that ecological studies are the largest group of surveys carried out in local master planning. However, the consultants considered that the amount of money allocated to ecological studies is still small compared to other surveys such as municipal engineering and transport issues. The formal negotiations required by the Land Use and Building Act (1999) were considered useful and important for scoping of ecological studies by authorities and planners. In cases in which no negotiations have been made, planners rely heavily on the judgment of consultants, who work autonomously. The normal procedure is to tender a biodiversity study with vague and open assignment or with the list of some central biodiversity elements, and for the consultants to define the scope, methods and form of the report by themselves. Variation exists. Sometimes the bids are detailed, with a list of far more species than it would be possible to survey with the time and money allocated, and in these cases it is usually up to consultants to define the actual scope of study. Additionally, the scoping (e.g. temporal and spatial considerations) of field study is performed by an ecology consultant and normally rapidly, without any definite procedure.
123

Table 3. Main results from the expert interviews
Research theme 1. Scoping
Authorities Regard definition of the impact area as difficult Demand that areas of severe land use change must be studied in detail
Planners Rely on the expertise of consultants
Consultants See that money constraints strongly affect the scope of study area and amount of studies
2. Baseline studies
Argue that ecological connections and larger units are not treated in studies
Rely on the expertise of consultants Demand more consideration on larger ecological units See that impacts of different planning drafts should be considered in the early phase. Argue that impact prediction does not always connect to baseline studies Have positive impression of the use of the study reports and recommendations Argue that monitoring should be a natural part of the planning process
Argue that too much focus is given to species at the expense of other biodiversity elements
3. Impact prediction
Require development of methods for impact prediction
Do not participate in impact prediction process at present
4. Use of ecological studies and consideration of biodiversity in planning 5. Monitoring
See that recommendations affect the plan, but argue that protection of specific species or habitats is not enough Demand that monitoring guidelines should be developed nationally Address their advisory role during the process Address lack of collaboration between consultants and planners
Do not participate in the planning process at present
See that monitoring should provide important information for further planning and impact assessments
6. Collaboration
Do not call for more collaboration Want more collaboration and discussion both in the early phase of the process and during the planning
Some consultants criticized that the study budget usually allows for only a certain number of inventories, which cannot guarantee that all endangered species will be identified (see also Treweek, 1996). Furthermore, a number of consultants complained that they cannot use their best expertise in the studies, because most of the studies are designed by a land use planner to cover only the most common species, although the consultants may have knowledge and skills to survey other species and biodiversity elements as well. During planning, cooperation between consultants and planners is weak or absent. In those cases in which cooperation exists, land use planners often present consultants with objectives of the land use plan which may affect the kind of surveys that are needed. Two different approaches of planners were identified. Some planners stressed the need to survey biodiversity elements situated in areas where land use changes will be greatest, while others emphasized the need to survey the biodiversity of areas which will be left outside development (e.g. parks and areas dominated by forestry and agriculture). By contrast, all representatives of regional environment centres felt that the areas where the most severe land use changes may occur must be surveyed in greatest detail. Timing of ecological studies was not generally regarded as a problem by interviewees, due to the rather long history of these studies. Municipalities
are accustomed to commissioning the studies early in the planning process before any plan drafting. The planning process of the local master plans is relatively long, which enables properly timed surveys. Some timing challenges are connected to species or species groups with narrow annual survey periods (e.g. Siberian flying squirrels in early spring). In some cases this has affected the time schedule of the whole plan preparation. Some consultants considered that they have been engaged in the planning process too late, when several drafts of the plan have already been prepared. Two specific problems on the topic of scoping are mentioned here. Firstly, there have been problems in deciding which areas belong to the actual impact area to be surveyed and which areas fall outside this area. Usually the impact area is broader than the actual building area, but the tendency is for the study area both in field studies and impact assessments to be regarded in the same way as the planning area. Secondly, according to the Land Use and Building Act (2009, Section 9) plans must be founded on sufficient studies and reports and impacts must be assessed to the necessary extent; in practice this sufficiency is difficult to determine. This has in some cases led to underestimation of field study needs and consequently to inadequate or inappropriate impact prediction. According to interviewees, some nature surveys have been outsourced without proper consideration beforehand, because the Act
124
As the most pressing development needs in scoping, authorities mentioned better use of participation and assessment schemes for negotiations between parties for selection of the biodiversity elements to be surveyed, and delineation of the survey area to cover the possibly impacted areas outside the master plan area in order to identify the total effect of the development
does not define any specific requirements on such studies. As the most pressing development needs in scoping, authorities mentioned better use of participation and assessment schemes for negotiations between parties for selection of the biodiversity elements to be surveyed, and delineation of the survey area to cover the possibly impacted areas outside the master plan area in order to identify the total effect of the development. The consultants stressed the need to increase discussions between planners and consultants in the very early phases of the assessment process.
Baseline studies
According to the interviewees the baseline studies are carried out by consultants specialized in ecological surveys. The studies include firstly a survey of written material, maps, aerial photographs, existing studies and databases and, secondly, field studies. The interviewees considered that the field work covers from one-third to two-thirds of the time spent on the whole study. The studies usually cover only the planning area, despite the fact that the Land Use and Building Act (1999) specifically requires that assessment must cover the entire area where the plan may be expected to have material impact (Section 9). Typically, a study includes a basic study aiming to locate the most valuable habitats and nature sites, which are considered to describe the general biodiversity of the study area, and a vegetation survey, which can be general or detailed, resulting in a vegetation map of the study area. In addition, legally protected species and their habitats are surveyed. According to the interviewees, in the past ten years ecological studies of local master planning have followed a certain pattern concentrating on species under strict protection (Nature Conservation Act 1996, Section 47), protected species referred to in the Annex IV(a) of the European Habitats Directive (CEC,
1992; Nature Conservation Act 1996, Section 49), certain natural habitat types protected by the Nature Conservation Act (1996, Section 29) and habitats of special importance defined in the Forest Act (1996). Furthermore, areas which are legally protected or designated to be protected are identified, including for example national parks, different nature reserves and sites of nature protection programmes and Natura 2000 sites of the European network of protected areas. Some studies also include a survey of special habitat types specified in the Forest Act (1996). The main motivation for this selection of surveyed elements of biodiversity is to avoid allocating development in such areas where it is legally restricted and not to leave grounds for legal appeal in the final approved plans. In addition to or after this, supplementary surveys are infrequently carried out at the recommendation of the consultant who performed the basic study or by the requirement of the authority of a regional environment centre. The most frequently performed inventories have been vegetation/habitat type, birds and the Siberian flying squirrel inventories. Although the Siberian flying squirrel has a strict conservation status in the European legislation (CEC, 1992; Nature Conservation Act 1996, Section 49), and it is thought that the squirrel population has declined (Hanski, 2006), it is rather common in well-developed spruce and deciduous dominated forest in southern Finland, where the building pressure is also heaviest. Many interviewees felt that too much consideration is given to the Siberian flying squirrel and in many cases to birds as well, at the cost of other biodiversity aspects. Because most of the baseline studies focus on species inventories, no special attention is paid to other aspects of biodiversity, for example at the genetic or ecosystem level. The interviewees were asked about practices concerning non-protected forested areas and ecological corridors. The ecological connections were considered as a regional-level issue and important for the joint master plans of several municipalities or urban regions. According to one interviewee, baseline studies do handle connections between valuable nature sites, but others considered that most typically the connectivity of the landscape is not treated as an ecological issue but rather in relation to recreational use of nature. Many authorities were critical that ecological connections are not treated sufficiently at the regional level, and that many connections defined by regional plans are broken or narrowed in local master planning. The consolidation of urban structures, including completing scattered urban housing with new construction in order to avoid urban sprawl, was regarded as one reason for this. Some authorities argued that the building pressure in some areas is simply too strong and legal requirements too weak. The level of detail of different studies varies considerably. The broader the planning area, the more
125
Evaluation of biodiversity elements is treated in the planning process through an established approach derived from the legislation. This has led to emphasizing of the species and natural habitat types designated in the Nature Conservation Act (1996)
broad-spectrum and generic are the ecological studies, except in areas where the pressures both to build and preserve nature are strong, in which case the impact assessment process is detailed in the master planning phase regardless of the size of the planning area. This is the case, for example, in the largest urban regions in Finland. Evaluation of biodiversity elements is treated in the planning process through an established approach derived from the legislation. This has led to emphasizing of the species and natural habitat types designated in the Nature Conservation Act (1996). Nature sites of a planning area are evaluated and results are presented on three levels: internationally/nationally, regionally and locally valuable sites. The value of sites is assessed through a qualitative analysis carried out by a consultant. On the basis of this site value categorization, recommendations for land use options are given by the consultant. Along with a map presentation, these recommendations represent the most important part of the studies. The most wanted recommendations of the planners were those for buffer zones and ecological connections. Interviewees emphasized the importance of studying only the most relevant elements of biodiversity (e.g. nature sites and species relevant for the area under development). In particular, the authorities considered that protection restricted to species and habitats with a legal status is not sufficient for maintaining biodiversity. The planners stressed that more consideration should be given to large ecological units and connections instead of individual sites or species occurrences.
Impact prediction
The impact prediction is regularly performed in the draft phase of a master plan. Frequently impact prediction also raises new, additional survey needs. The authorities and planners stressed that the potential impacts should be considered in the early phase of the planning, and that the impact prediction should guide the planning process. In practice this has not been realized. The relationship between the baseline surveys and impact prediction appears to be unclear. The interviewees mentioned that in some cases the impact prediction has been directly based on ecological studies, but most frequently the impact prediction has been an independent report without any connection to baseline studies except in cases where there has been a remarkable nature protection site very close to the planning area. The biodiversity considerations do not receive any special attention in impact predictions, and the role of ecological impact prediction is weak, although the data and land use recommendations of study reports are used in the planning process and affect planning decisions. Some authorities considered that in addition to the legal requirements a broader view on biodiversity and ecosystems should also be adopted in impact prediction. The authorities emphasized the need for development of impact prediction practices because the methods, reports and their quality vary extensively. There is no established practice and consensus on who should carry out the impact predictions: the ecologist responsible for an ecological baseline study, the planner responsible for the plan or some other party. At present all three alternatives are in use. The report including predictions has usually been qualitative, consisting mainly of expert opinions. The Land Use and Building Act (1999, Section 9) requires that there should be drafts of different planning alternatives and predictions of their impacts. The authorities criticized the absence of the planning alternatives in many plans. Interviewees wanted more discussion on good impact prediction practices in planning. The authorities stressed impact predictions as an integral part of the planning process from the very beginning. In addition, they required that the impact prediction methods and outcomes should be properly documented in planning documents. At present the quantity and quality of documentation varies widely.
Use of ecological studies and consideration of biodiversity in planning
All interviewees confirmed that actual impact assessment is often performed by the planner him/herself, especially in small municipalities or when contracted out to another external consultant. This consultant is usually a large consultant company handling all the impacts of the master plan at the same time. The consultant responsible for the ecological baseline study is only rarely a part of the impact assessment.
All the interviewees were of the view that baseline study reports are frequently used successfully in planning processes and that their results and recommendations affect land use allocation in draft master planning and in final planning decisions. According to the authorities, at least the most valuable sites have been set aside from development, although
126
some compromises have been made in almost all plans. The planners had a more positive impression of the use of the recommendations than that of the other groups. The users are nowadays satisfied with the quality and usefulness of the reports. The baseline study reports habitually consist of a written part and a map presentation. For the planners, the most important part is an electronic map, which represents the most important results in a GIS form that can be directly utilized in planning. The written part complements the map presentation. Most planners reported that in master planning the description of habitat level information is sufficient, although some species need to be addressed in more detail. The planners mentioned that it is also useful for them to be familiar with the ecological features of some species for arguing the planning and building restrictions to the public. Some authorities and consultants mentioned that the field study methods have been described only rarely in study reports, which has weakened the reliability and usability of the studies. The results of the study rely heavily on the methods used. Due to vagueness of the impact predictions, they do not have much effect on planning, and the main input for biodiversity considerations comes from the baseline studies. One planner considered that there is no need or use for specific ecological impact assessment if all the recommendations of the baseline phase are taken into account in planning. Some biodiversity elements were seen as neglected in planning. Although the restrictions set by legally designated elements of biodiversity are considered in the planning process, safeguarding of locally important sites varies. There are commonly a number of locally important biodiversity spots in the planning area that are not legally designated. The authorities felt that they were not able to require planners to take them into account or protect them beyond the legal obligations, but could merely appeal to good planning practices. In practice, sites of locally important biodiversity are mainly allocated for recreation in the local master plans. In addition to locally important sites, biodiversity is maintained indirectly by creating recreational routes which can also function as ecological corridors (Jongman and Kamphorst, 2002). Only rarely, if ever, are the linear routes planned merely for the purpose of ecological corridors. Many interviewees, especially the authorities, felt that more attention should be paid to ecosystem wholeness of the planned area and to the ecological connectivity (Kettunen et al, 2007) between different sites. According to the authorities, the group of consultants carrying out ecological impact assessment is diverse, including ecologists, architects and also experts without ecological expertise. The authorities also stressed that a qualified ecologist is not necessarily a good expert in ecological impact assessment without knowledge in land use planning
practices, legislation and impact assessment in general. The interviewees regarded the usual tendering procedure in which the cheapest bid always wins as a problem and felt that as a consequence the quality of studies is unnecessarily low and some aspects important for a thorough survey of biodiversity are not included in the bids. This does not relate to the professional expertise of consultants but rather to the whole planning process. Similar results were obtained from the study exploring possibilities to certificate ecological consultants, which concluded that certification or upgrading of professional skills of consultants would not affect the quality of ecological impact assessment without changes in the planning process and tendering (Sderman, 2004).
Impact monitoring
Impact monitoring was without exception considered as an important issue by interviewees. However, hardly any monitoring, not to mention ecological monitoring, in connection with land use planning has been carried out. Some individual land use plans have included monitoring of strictly protected species and impacts on Natura 2000 sites after realization of the plan. These have been large and controversial land use plans. The authorities considered that their resources are fully used in guiding planning processes in practice, and that there are no resources left for the support of monitoring. In addition, there are no explicit guidelines on how monitoring should be performed properly in connection with SEA. In SEA, literature and research monitoring has been much neglected until very recently (Nilssson et al, 2009). According to the authorities, monitoring should be developed in detail in cooperation between the authorities and the municipalities. The interviewees perceived that monitoring should have a role in securing the sites of legally protected species and habitats. In addition, it should provide research information on how the valuable nature sites are affected in heavily built areas, and so improve the quality and reliability of future planning
Impact monitoring was without exception considered as an important issue by interviewees. However, hardly any monitoring, not to mention ecological monitoring, in connection with land use planning has been carried out
127
recommendations made by consultants (see also Glasson and Hanusch, 2008). As one planner expressed it, monitoring could become a natural part of master planning which guides future community structure and development. Monitoring aims to ensure that the impacts and mitigation actions will operate as planned in the long run, and to provide information for future planning. One reason for weak monitoring in land use planning can be that the Land Use and Building Act (1999) does not require impact monitoring of individual plans, although the SEA Directive (CEC, 2001) refers to it. Instead, monitoring of the general state of the environment is required in the Land Use and Building Act, but the interviewees questioned whether this could ever fulfil the needs of monitoring of impacts on biodiversity.
Collaboration
Conclusions and recommendations: towards better use of potential of SEA in land use planning The perceptions of the interviewees varied considerably according to their role in the master planning process. However, we identified a number of common features, problems and development needs arising from the results.
More holistic view on biodiversity
The authorities emphasized the importance of formal negotiations and their own role in securing quality issues of impact assessment in the early stages of the planning. In the first negotiation the necessary studies, studied elements of biodiversity and the extent of studies are discussed. If the plan is not important in terms defined by the Land Use and Building Act and negotiation is not arranged, the regional environment centre will give one or several statements on the plan during the planning process, the first preferably at the beginning of the process. In large urban regions there are also monthly meetings between regional environment centres and municipalities, dealing with minor land use plans not requiring these formal negotiations. The authorities considered that there is a lack of real collaboration between the planners and consultants during the planning process and in large municipalities also between different administrative branches (e.g. environmental and land use offices) which significantly hampers transfer of ecological information to decision-making. The consultants request data on the study area from regional environment centres but act otherwise rather independently and deliver a report of baseline studies with recommendations for land use allocation as a result of their work. They cooperate with planners commissioning the study but mentioned problems in the initial phase of the study in obtaining the requisite information for the study (e.g. maps and aerial photographs of the plan area). They hoped for more cooperation during the planning with the planners but also with environmental officers of municipalities. The planners considered relationships between all parties to be good and functioning. However, the studies were usually considered as consultants work not needing any specific cooperation. Only one planner did not share this view and expressed a need for more interaction between planners and consultants throughout the planning process.
All interviewees shared the concern of too narrow handling of biodiversity and the need for a more holistic view. The biodiversity elements currently considered are mainly some common or key indicator species, species groups or habitats, such as vegetation, birds or the Siberian flying squirrel. By contrast, the richness of everyday landscape, ecosystem services, ecosystem functions, ecological networks and connections and green infrastructure are not in focus. The dominant role of vegetation surveys is justified by the fact that vascular plants are well known and easily studied in the field. Furthermore, the abundance of vascular plant species has been found to correlate with the abundance of many other species groups, such as insects, and with the nutrient content and humidity of the soil (Stersdal et al, 2003). To overcome the practical problems of holistic treatment of biodiversity, which can be difficult and time-consuming, Gontier et al (2006) suggested a new approach, namely the habitat suitability approach, which takes into account habitat quality, quantity and connectivity for species, communities and populations. One new practice in Finland is a combined landscape and nature study, in which the aim is to identify the valuable environments through a holistic study. This approach was supported by Lee (2006), who used the term integrated assessment (IA), which covers integration of separate impact assessments and different types of impacts. One useful, although demanding, method for a more holistic biodiversity view could be systematic conservation planning, which provides a structured systematic approach to conservation planning in order to ensure an adequate amount and quality of biodiversity reserves (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Pearce et al, 2005). In this study the experts regarded the best and most useful part of the baseline studies to be the valuation of nature sites and the land use
All interviewees shared the concern of too narrow handling of biodiversity and the need for a more holistic view
128
recommendations. The sites are valued through qualitative expert analysis, which is based on legislation. There is three-level value scale: nationally, regionally and locally valuable sites. According to Erikstad et al (2008), this three-level scale can simplify the values of an area too much. One solution is to use the same three-level scale, but to make two subdivisions into upper and lower categories. Too few categories may lead to insufficient information for land use decisions, and to a situation in which only the candidates for legal protection receive attention, whereas locally valuable sites attract no or only minor attention. This was also found in this study: the planners tend to concentrate on legally protected species/ habitats in order to avoid any grounds for appeal. On the whole the legal requirements set by the Nature Conservation Act dominate the studies and impact prediction of local master planning. The only legally based references to more holistic treatment of biodiversity in the form of ecological connections are found in national land use objectives. These should be incorporated into more detailed planning in practice and included as more detailed requirements of the Nature Conservation Act. Thus there is also a need to change the legislation away from the traditional nature conservation approach of categorization of nature into species, habitats and individual protected sites of different spatial levels, to interlinked concepts and elements of biodiversity dealing with landscapes, ecological processes and multifunctional networks covering both ecological and recreational benefits.
Towards new planning approaches: ecosystem services and green infrastructure in planning
One more holistic approach which regards biodiversity not as ecological features, but through the goods and benefits it provides to society, is the ecosystem services approach (MA, 2003; Slootweg et al, 2006). This approach has been used in some SEAs (van Beukering et al, 2008) and it has helped to put biodiversity in the perspective of social and economic needs and to make values of the parties transparent. Through ecosystem services the parties involved in planning and impact assessment can explore which biodiversity elements are important for the required services (provisioning e.g. food and water; regulating e.g. flood control; supporting e.g. crop pollination; and cultural e.g. recreational and scenic benefits) and which elements are interlinked to provide these services. To realize the dependence of these services on the spatially bound network of biodiversity elements another approach, green infrastructure, is useful. One definition of green infrastructure is the physical environment within and between our cities, towns and villages. It is a network of multifunctional open spaces including formal parks, gardens, woodlands,
green corridors, waterways, street trees and open countryside. It comprises all environmental resources, and thus a green infrastructure approach also contributes towards sustainable resource management (Davies et al, 2009). However, green infrastructure is a term with multiple definitions, since for some it refers to urban green areas, for others supportive structures that enable different ecosystem services (Benedict and McMahon, 2002, 2006) and for yet others it emphasizes the multiple purposes of urban green space (Sandstrm, 2002). Ecological corridors are landscape structures of various size, shape and habitat composition that connect broader nature areas. Again, the definitions of ecological corridors vary, and design purposes of corridors (e.g. ecological or cultural) have also varied in different areas (Jongman and Kamphorst, 2002). Both ecosystem services and green infrastructure can be seen as planning tools to localize biodiversity and the benefits gained from it which are valued or in jeopardy because of the new land use plan. These approaches offer opportunities for social learning and sharing of opinions and values, discussing different land use scenarios and developing cooperation. The approaches should be in use from the very beginning of the scoping phase. In general more emphasis should be given to the scoping phase and to starting it with a clean slate, discussing with stakeholders of that particular plan area and the possibly affected area important questions related to what ecosystem services are needed in respect to their needs, values and objectives for the use of biodiversity and ecosystem processes. This is also needed for understanding which ecosystem functions (composition, structure and key processes of biodiversity) and elements of biodiversity are providing these services and how they are spatially and temporally distributed and linked. Linkages between concepts are presented in Figure 3.
Linking baseline studies with impact prediction
It has been demonstrated that the practices and quality of impact prediction vary considerably (Gontier et al, 2006; Lawrence, 2007a,b). The biodiversity impacts are not estimated sufficiently in land use planning, other SEA processes or EIA projects (e.g. Gontier et al, 2006). Based on our study and an earlier SEA study, the quality of impact prediction appears to be even weaker in Finnish SEAs than EIAs (Sderman, 2005, 2006; Sderman and Kallio, 2009). Our results confirm that in a typical impact assessment, baseline studies and impact prediction components are treated as distinct and discrete studies and they are performed independently by different experts. If the predictions are undertaken they are timed for the late phase of planning. The missing link between impact assessment components causes impact prediction to have a limited influence on the final plan. This is a significant shortcoming.
129
In SEA, identification and assessment of: Biodiversity levels and aspects Elements and spatial levels of green infrastructure Goods and services wanted by parties and stakeholders
Figure 3. Linked use of concepts and approaches in SEA for better inclusion of biodiversity in spatial planning
There are many underlying reasons for this. Partly it is due to unclear distribution of work in the impact assessment process. The parties are unsure who the impact prediction belongs to, and as a consequence no one carries it out properly. Partly this has much to do with a perceived minor role of impact prediction and tension between proactive and reactive approaches of SEA in Finnish land use planning in general. One of the advantages of SEA over EIA has been argued to be its proactive and integrative, rather than reactive approach, where the opportunities (translated into potential benefits of the plan) and constraints of the environment (translated into potential adverse effects of a plan) iteratively inform a plan (e.g. Slootweg et al, 2006). It appears that current SEA practice suffers from many of the shortcomings of impact assessment noted in EIA at project level, as listed in Table 1. The current impact assessment approaches in local master planning illustrate at many levels the tension between a proactive approach, with the boundaries of the biodiversity studies encompassing the entire area where the plan could have an impact, as prescribed in the Land Use and Building Act (1999), and a reactive approach focusing only on areas where land use change will be greatest and/or areas which will be left outside development. Therefore, there is a proactive opportunities and constraints approach reflected in the preparation of a plan indicating suitable land uses and informing the land use plan, and an end of pipe approach which looks at assessing impacts of an already drafted plan. The first approach, if effective, could theoretically result in a plan which would have no residual adverse impacts on biodiversity or ecosystem services, reflected in the comment by one interviewee that there is no need for ecological impact assessment if all the recommendations of the baseline survey are
taken into account. However, in Finnish practice this proactive approach appears to have been interpreted as narrowly defined baseline studies concentrating on legally set restrictions and small, clearly delineated protected areas. To be really proactive these studies should also cover ecosystem services, ecological connectivity and landscape-level issues fit to this approach. In addition, links between different plan levels baseline data and impact predictions should transfer from one level to another, but this is not realized in practice (e.g. ecological connections surveyed and defined in regional plans are neglected in local master planning). The proactive approach also requires high quality baseline studies, which according to the interviewees are limited in current practice. In addition, it is very difficult to ensure the quality of the studies because a description of the baseline study methods is often absent, or only a summary description can be found in the study reports. Although the end user (usually the planner) might not be interested in the study methods, it is crucial for reliability and adequacy assessment that the methods are described in detail. The description of methods is a part of general scientific practice as well. An impact assessment of good quality is possible only with good baseline information (Geneletti et al, 2003; Treweek, 1996). Several special estimation models have been developed for the prediction of impacts on biodiversity. Gontier et al (2006) admitted that the models require abundant numerical, empirical or theoretical data and special software skills, which can limit the application possibilities of these models. It should be remembered that the impact prediction is only an assessment (Geneletti et al, 2003). Assessment always includes subjectivity, uncertainty, value dependence and context dependence (HildingRydevik and Bjarnadttir, 2007; Lawrence, 2007a), which have to be accepted. Thus the assessment
130
process can never be repeated in the same form. The reliability of impact assessment can increase through transparency and clear assessment criteria (e.g. a distinction between value and vulnerability or between subject and object assessment criteria) (Erikstad et al, 2008). Geneletti et al (2003) argued that the uncertainty factors are only occasionally considered in impact assessment. Good impact assessments also prepare ground for monitoring, although methods and concrete tools for SEA monitoring are still underdeveloped (Nilsson et al, 2009).
Recommendations
The results of this study underline several useful ways to improve the quality of land use planning SEA. We present some recommendations including changes to planning practices which could be appropriate to address the main challenges. The central challenge of incorporating biodiversity in land use planning in Finland is to clarify the roles of different parties, especially in scoping. At present scoping is variously influenced by authorities, planners, the consultants and other stakeholders on a case by case basis. The particular roles and responsibilities for setting appropriate boundaries and the scope of ecological impact assessment should be clearer. One solution is to strengthen the guiding role of the authorities. From the beginning of 2010, the governmental regional administration has been reorganized, and environmental, road and employment and economy administration have been merged into 15 new centres. The new centres should take a strengthened role in ensuring systematic consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in scoping of the impact assessment of land use planning. This does not necessarily require changes in legislation but a more effective implementation of the requirements of the present Land Use and Building Act (1999). The responsibilities for undertaking the baseline biodiversity study and subsequent impact assessment should also be clarified. The distribution of work should be planned and agreed upon in an early phase of planning. The impact assessment process should be planned, guided and carried out by the same planners, authorities and consultants in strengthened cooperation from the beginning to the approval of the plan. In strengthening cooperation, different opportunities for formal and informal negotiations and
The central challenge of incorporating biodiversity in land use planning in Finland is to clarify the roles of different parties, especially in scoping
stakeholder events in the planning cycle enabled by the Land Use and Building Act (1999) should be fully utilized (Figure 2). Sufficient resources must be invested for collaboration and interaction in the scoping phase (preparation of assessment and participation scheme) including discussions on the baseline study and assessment area, biodiversity elements to be assessed and methods to carry them out and reporting the scheme thoroughly. This early investment may also save resources in later phases by avoiding baseline and prediction studies that do not have a connection to the potential benefits or adverse impacts of the plan. Furthermore, it could be beneficial to draw up model terms of reference (ToR) for several different types of local master plans for the ecological studies and impact assessment. This would stipulate desired outcomes and clear objectives, the scope of such studies and assessment including time and spatial boundaries, and would specify those aspects that it is essential to address. Even though some guidance exists, examples based on real-world realized studies and predictions could serve as models or be refined as models and be helpful to ensure that all relevant aspects were addressed and that the level of detail was appropriate for the purpose of assessing the biodiversity impacts of a plan. The tension between proactive and reactive approaches on ecological impact assessment should be reduced by ensuring that baseline surveys inform and are linked to the impact assessment, and that both of these exercises inform the drafting and finalization of land use plans in an iterative way, to exploit the potential of SEA (Table 2) and avoid repeating the shortcomings of EIA (Table 1). The ecological impact assessment should be integrated into the planning approach, and comprise both a robust proactive approach and a strongly linked evaluation of residual negative impacts of different plan alternatives, with mitigation and monitoring recommendations in each planning case. Inclusion of design and comparison of different planning options and alternatives should be ensured by emphasizing the requirement of alternatives in guidance given by the authorities, and in negotiations and scoping. At least rough ideas for possible planning options or alternative ways to foster benefits and avoid adverse effects on biodiversity and how to assess impacts of these options should already be covered in the assessment and participation scheme. These options should be refined into more detailed alternatives in drafting the plan proposal. In a proactive integrative impact assessment approach biodiversity should be considered holistically in all phases of the planning process. In addition to legally protected species, ecosystem functions, ecological networks on different spatial levels, locally important biodiversity and everyday green spaces should be studied in sufficient detail by using ecosystem services type and/or systematic conservation planning (Cowling et al, 2008; Margules and
131
Pressey, 2000; Pierce et al, 2005). There needs to be a shift away from a species focus to a more holistic biotope/ecological function approach that takes into account the need for ecological corridors in the landscape to enable the persistence of ecological and evolutionary processes, particularly in the face of climate change (Wilson and Piper, 2008). The new concepts of ecosystem services and green infrastructure should be used by authorities, planners and consultants to make concrete holistic approaches and enhance cooperation and sharing of values among involved parties. Furthermore, translating benefits of biodiversity into ecosystem services requires integrating simultaneous treatment of both ecological and recreational benefits of biodiversity. Links between different plan levels should be reinforced and it should be ensured that baseline and assessment results of the higher level plan are utilized and taken into consideration in the local master planning. This can be promoted by strengthening of cooperation between planning and environmental authorities and other stakeholders, especially between local and regional levels. The objective of the Land Use and Building Act (1999) and the SEA Act (2005) is sustainable development. Improvement of SEA practices is one means towards attaining ecologically sustainable development. Reviews such as this help SEA practitioners and authorities to reinforce positive tendencies and offset the negative tendencies and also send messages to legislators concerning renewal needs. There is a positive tendency arising in land use SEA a holistic view expressed by the interviewees (e.g. in calls for taking into consideration ecological connections and buffer zones). At present, regarding biodiversity issues, a need for holistic approaches is expressed strongly by all parties (consultants, authorities and planners) but without much practical application. This tendency should be strengthened by training and good exemplified practice guidance. Requirements for the content of SEA come mostly from sectoral legislation; in the case of ecological impact assessment mainly from the Nature Conservation Act. Sections of this Act giving substance to SEA should be updated to encourage more holistic treatment and conservation of biodiversity.
References
Act on Amendment to the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure 2006. Statutes of Finland 458/2006. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Act on the Assessment of the Impacts of the Authorities Plans, Programmes and Policies on the Environment 2005. Statutes of Finland 200/2005. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Atkinson S F, S Bhatia, F S Schoolmaster and W T Waller 2000. Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(4), 271282. Balfors, B, U Mrtberg, M Gontier and P Brokking 2005. Impacts of region-wide urban development on biodiversity in SEA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(2), 229246.
Benedict, M A and E T McMahon 2002. Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(3), 1217. Benedict, M A and E T McMahon 2006. Green Infrastructure Linking Landscapes and Communities. Arlington: Island Press. Berg, B L 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Needham Heights, USA: Allyn and Bacon. van Beukering P J H, R Slootweg and D Immerzeel 2008. Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Strategic Environmental Assessment Influential Case Studies. Utrecht: Commission for Environmental Assessment. Byron H and J Treweek 2005. Strategic environmental assessment great potential for biodiversity? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(2), vxii. Byron H J, J R Treweek, W R Sheate and S Thompson 2000. Road developments in the UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between 1993 and 1997. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 71 97. Cairns J 1999. Balancing ecological impairment and repair for sustainability. Hydrobiologia, 416(0), 7783. CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. Available at: <http://www.biodiv.org> last accessed 6 February 2009. CEC, Commission of the European Communities 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal, L206, 22 July. CEC, Commission of the European Communities 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment of the effect of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal, L197, 21 July. Cowling R M, B Egoh, A T Knight, P J OFarrell, B Reyers, M Rouget, D J Roux, A Welz and A Wilhelm-Rechman 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(28), 94839488. Davies C, R MacFarlane, C McGloin and M Roe 2009. Green Infrastructure Planning Guide, Version 1.1. Available at: <http://www.greeninfrastucture.eu> last accessed 5 May 2009. Dusik, J and B Sadler 2004. Reforming strategic environmental assessment systems: lessons from Central and Eastern Europe. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(2), 8997. Erikstad, L, I Lindblom, G Jerpsen, M A Hanssen, T Bekkby, O Stabbetorp and V Bakkestuen 2008. Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary EIA setting. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(23), 131143. Fischer, T B 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment Towards a More Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. Fischer T B, P Gazzola, J-T Urmila, S Kidd and D Peel 2009. Learning through EC Directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 421428. Flick, U 1998. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications. Forest Act 1996. Statutes of Finland 1093/1996. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Geneletti, D 2002. Ecological Evaluation for Environmental Impact Assessment. Netherlands Geographical Studies 301. Geneletti, D 2006. Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(3), 257267. Geneletti, D, E Beinat, C F Chung, A G Fabbri and H J Scholten 2003. Accounting for uncertainty factors in biodiversity impact assessment: lessons from a case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(4), 471487. Glasson, J and M Hanusch 2008. Much ado about SEA/SA monitoring: The performance of English Regional Spatial Strategies, and some German comparisons. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), 601617. Gontier, M, B Balfors and U Mrtberg 2006. Biodiversity in environmental assessment current practice and tools for prediction. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(3), 268286. Hanski, I K 2006. Liito-oravan Pteromys volans Suomen kannan koon arviointi. Loppuraportti. (Estimation of the Siberian flying squirrel Pteromys volans population in Finland. Final Report. Helsinki. HERTTA 2008. Environmental Information System (HERTTA). Information System for Monitoring Land Use Planning. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute. Hilding-Rydevik, T and H Bjarnadttir 2007. Context awareness
132

and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(7), 666684. IAIA, International Association for Impact Assessment 2004. Best Practice Principles for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment (Fargo). Available at: <http://www.iaia.org> last accessed 7 March 2009. Jong de J, A Oscarsson and G Lundmark 2004. Hur behandlas biologisk mngfald i MKB? (How biodiversity is treated in EIA?). Uppsala: Centrum fr biologisk mngfald, Sveriges lantbruksunivesitet. Jongman, R H and D Kamphorst 2002. Ecological Corridors in Land Use Planning and Development Policies. Nature and Environment, No. 125, Council of Europe Publishing. Kettunen, M, A Terry, G Tuvker and A Jones 2007. Guidance on Maintenance of Landscape Features of Major Importance for Wild Flora and Fauna Guidance on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive /79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). Kolhoff, A and R Slootweg 2005. Biodiversity in SEA for spatial plans Experiences from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management, 7(2), 267286. Krnv, L and W A H Thissen 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implication for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 191200. Land Extraction Act 1981. Statutes of Finland 555/1981. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Land Use and Building Act 1999. Statutes of Finland 132/1999. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Land Use and Building Decree 1999. Statutes of Finland 895/1999. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Lawrence, D P 2007a. Impact significance determination. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(8), 730754. Lawrence, D P 2007b. Impact significance determination Back to basics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(8), 755769. Lee, N 2006. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), 5778. MA, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC: 7 Island Press. Mandelik, Y, T Dayan and E Feitelson 2005. Issues and dilemmas in ecological scoping: scientific, procedural and economic perspectives. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(1), 5563. Margules, C R and R L Pressey 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243253. Mrtberg, U M, B Balfors and W C Kol 2007. Landscape ecological assessment: a tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 82(4), 457470. Nature Conservation Act 1996. Statutes of Finland 1096/1996. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Nilsson, M, H Wiklund, G Finnveden, D K Jonsson, K Lundberg, S Tyskeng and O Wallgren 2009. Analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 186199. Nykvist, B and M Nilsson 2009. Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(1), 1524. Paldanius, J, L Tallskog, O Maijala, J Riipinen and R Sairinen 2006. Vaikutusten arvionti kaavoituksessa (Impact assessment in planning), Environmental Administration Guidelines 10/2006. Helsinki: (Ministry of the Environment. Pierce, S M, R M Cowling, A T Knight, A T Lombard, M Rouget and T Wolf 2005. Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation, 125(4), 441458. Sadler, B and R Verheem 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions, Report vol. 53. Den Haag: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Samarakoon, M and J S Rowan 2008. A critical review of environmental impact statements in Sri Lanka with particular reference to ecological impact assessment. Environmental Management, 41(3), 441460. Sandstrm, U 2002. Green Infrastructure Planning in Sweden. Planning, Practice and Research, 17(4), 372385. Stersdal, M, I Gjerde, H H Blom, P G Ihlen, E W Myrseth, R Pommeresche, J Skartveit, T Solhy and O Aas 2003. Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementarity site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biological Conservation, 115(1), 2131. Schmidt, M, E Joao and E Albrecht (eds.) 2005. Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment. New York: Springer. Slootweg, R and A Kolhoff 2003. A generic approach to integrate biodiversity considerations in screening and scoping for EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(6), 657681. Slootweg, R, A Kolhoff, R Verheem and R Hft 2006. Biodiversity in EIA and SEA, Background Document to CBD Decision VII/28: Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment. Commission for Environmental Assessment, Government of the Netherlands. Available at: <http://www. sprep.org/att/irc/ecopies/global/228.pdf> last accessed 1 September 2008. Sderman, T 2003. Luontoselvitykset ja luontovaikutusten arviointi (Biodiversity impact assessment), Environment Guide, vol. 109 (Edita, Helsinki). Sderman, T 2004. Luontokonsulttien sertifiointiselvitys (Study for certification of consultants for ecological impact assessment). Helsinki: Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 309. Sderman, T 2005. Treatment of biodiversity issues in Finnish environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(2), 8799. Sderman, T 2006. Treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assessment of electricity power transmission lines: A Finnish case review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 319338. Sderman, T 2009. Natura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(2), 7986. Sderman, T and T Kallio 2009. Strategic environmental assessment in Finland: an evaluation of the SEA Act application. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(1), 128. Tanaka, A 2001. Changing ecological assessment and mitigation in Japan. Built Environment, 27(1), 3541. Termorshuizen, J W, P Opdam and A van der Brink 2007. Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(34), 374384. Thompson, S, J R Treweek and D J Thurling 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(2), 157171. Treweek, J 1996. Ecology and environmental impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 191199. Treweek, J 1999. Ecological Impact Assessment. London: Blackwell Science. Treweek, J R, S Thompson, N Veitch and J Japp 1993. Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 36(3), 295307. Treweek, J, R Therivel, S Thompson and M Slater 2005. Principles for the use of strategic environmental assessment: a tool for promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(2), 173200. Verheem, R A A and J A M N Tonk 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: one concept, multiple forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 177182. Water Act 1961. Statutes of Finland 264/1961. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice. Wegner, A, S A Moore and J Bailey 2005. Consideration of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia: practitioners perceptions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2), 143162. Wilson E and J Piper 2008. Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europes changing climate. European Environment, 18(3), 135151. WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
133
Copyright of Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal is the property of Beech Tree Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Biodiversity in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Finland

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Biodiversity in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Finland

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(2), June 2010, pages 117133 DOI: 10.3152/146155110X498834; http://www.ingentaconnect.

Biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

International Conventions e.g. CBD

Land Use and Building Act

Forest Act Special habitats

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

The municipality starts preparation of the plan

Provision of information to the public, landowners, authorities and organizations

Baseline studies commissioned by the municipality and carried out by consultants

Arrangement of optional participation events and informal negotiations between

Statements from the authorities

Opinions of the public, landowners, and organizations

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Research theme 1. Scoping

Planners Rely on the expertise of consultants

Require development of methods for impact prediction

Do not participate in impact prediction process at present

4. Use of ecological studies and consideration of biodiversity in planning 5. Monitoring

Do not participate in the planning process at present

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

Biodiversity in SEA of municipal spatial plans in Finland

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2010

S-ar putea să vă placă și