Recover the second webinar of the BioValue series dedicated to transformation and spatial planning. During the online session, participants were introduced to the BioValue project’s first results, on the benchmark of findings related to different countries, based on Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
BioValue results
In total, 37 participants attended the meeting and actively took part in the discussion. The stakeholders invited came from Germany, Denmark, Spain and Portugal, as members of civil society, industry and primary sector, policymakers, urban planning and environmental professionals and other relations, with experience or interest in environmental assessments.
The discussion mainly focused on how biodiversity and ecosystem services are integrated and managed within SEAs and EIAs assessments. After a thorough introduction to the project and the webinar series, the discussion was divided in to 4 break-out rooms, each dedicated to one of the mentioned countries.
Findings were focused on the application of standards in Denmark, Spain and Portugal. No participants were present from Germany, so only 3 break-out sessions were held in the end.
Stakeholders dialogue
1. Denmark: Knowledge inclusion and multidisciplinarity
In Denmark, a limitation in the use of multidisciplinary knowledge was revealed, despite a cultural norm of integrating various disciplines in EIAs. However, Denmark benefits from a baseline of local knowledge, strengthened by the accessibility of digital infrastructures (e.g. citizen-sourced data on bird wildlife is significant nationwide).
Reflections from the room rose a need of agreement on multidisciplinary knowledge in order to close a gap among different understandings and goals for biodiversity.
2. Handling of biodiversity and ecosystem services
The discussions revealed a varying degree of inclusion and consideration of biodiversity impact and ecosystem services across the three countries. A gap was found in the explicit setting of biodiversity goals, which hinders progress towards enhancing biodiversity through EIAs.
3. Mitigation and trade-offs
The Danish participants noted a limited focus on significant impacts which may underplay the need for mitigation. Similarly in Spain, the urgency in approving renewable energy projects leads to inadequate studies, often overlooking significant environmental impacts due to time constraints and competitive pressures on environmental consultancies.
4. National differences and challenges
Spanish participants highlighted issues with greenwashing and the lack of stringent biodiversity consideration in EIAs processes. Danish participants also raised this concern in the context of the possibility of drawing in sociological perspectives and straying from technical expert knowledge. Moreover, Portuguese discussions focused on the potential benefits of integrating public participation early in the EIAs processes local knowledge and enhancing ecosystem service assessments.
Main points of attention
Recognition of patterns: In the three countries, the patterns found matched the participants’ experiences. However, there was some surprise in Denmark over the low use of multidisciplinary knowledge in EIAs, as they expected more varied expertise to be involved.
Gap identification: There is a clear need for specific biodiversity goals in environmental assessments. Without these goals, opportunities to improve biodiversity are often missed.
National-specific challenges: In Spain, the fast approval of projects, especially renewable energy projects, is affecting the quality of biodiversity studies and public input, leading to poor mitigation plans. In Portugal, issues like lack of transparency, poor coordination, and underuse of SEAs are preventing effective biodiversity conservation.
Read the full report and the slides here.
Watch the recordings of the II webinar session:
Photo credits: ArthurHidden on Freepik
