Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands

2nd edition, 2004

Handbook 11

Impact assessment
Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues
into environmental impact assessment legislation
and/or processes and in strategic environmental
assessment

This 2nd edition of the Ramsar handbooks replaces the series

published in January 2000. It includes relevant guidance adopted by
several meetings of the Conference of the Parties, in particular COP7
(1999) and COP8 (2002), as well as selected background documents
presented at these COPs.

This second edition of the Ramsar handbooks series, like the first, has
been made possible through a generous contribution from the
Government of Spain, this time through the General Directorate for
Biodiversity, Ministry of Environment.

1
 Acknowledgements

Review of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Guidelines for

incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact
assessment legislation and/or processes and in strategic environmental
assessment was undertaken by the Scientific and Technical Review Panel’s
(STRP) 1999-2002 Expert Working Group on Impact Assessment, with
valuable input from Andrea Athanas (IUCN) and Jo Treweek (International
Association for Impact Assessment). Annotations to the CBD guidelines to
place them into the Ramsar Convention context were prepared by impact
assessment expert David Pritchard (BirdLife International).

Note. This Handbook is based on Resolution VIII.9 and its Annex, with an
introductory section prepared by the Ramsar Secretariat, but also brings
together additional information relevant to this issue. The views expressed
in this additional information do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Ramsar Convention Secretariat or the Contracting Parties, and such
materials have not been endorsed by the Conference of the Contracting
Parties.

All decisions of the Ramsar COPs are available from the Convention’s
Web site at http://www.ramsar.org/index_key_docs.htm#res. Background
documents referred to in these handbooks are available at
http://www.ramsar.org/cop7_docs_index.htm and
http://www.ramsar.org/cop8_docs_index_e.htm.

2
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Foreword 4

Section I
Introduction: Impact assessment and the Ramsar 5
Convention

Section II
CBD Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity related 8
issues into environmental impact assessment legislation
and/or processes and in strategic environmental
assessment
1. Purpose and approach 10
2. Biodiversity issues at different stages of environmental 11
impact assessment
3. Incorporation of biodiversity considerations in strategic 21
environmental assessments
4. Ways and means 21
Appendix 1: Questions pertinent to screening on biological 25
diversity impacts.
Appendix 2: The screening criteria. 26
Appendix 3: Indicative list (non-exhaustive) of examples of 29
functions of the natural environment that are directly
(flora and fauna) or indirectly (services provided by
ecosystems such as water supply) derived from
biological diversity.
Appendix 4: Biodiversity checklist on scoping for the 31
identification of the impacts of proposed projects on
components of biodiversity (Not exhaustive).

Section III
Strategic Environmental Assessment 32

Relevant Resolutions and Recommendations

Resolution VIII.9: Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity- 36
related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation
and/or processes and in strategic environmental assessment’
adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and
their relevance to the Ramsar Convention.
Recommendation 6.2: Environmental Impact Assessment 39
Resolution VII.16: The Ramsar Convention and impact 40
assessment: strategic, environmental and social

3
 Foreword

The Ramsar Convention has long recognized the importance of applying

impact assessment techniques to situations where the ecological
character of Ramsar sites and other wetlands may be threatened by
developments or broader policies and strategies. The Convention has
adopted several Recommendations and Resolutions (notably
Recommendation 6.2 in 1996 and Resolution VII.16 in 1999) which call
upon Parties to incorporate impact assessment into legislative frameworks
and ensure that impact assessments are undertaken where appropriate.

To support Parties with access to advice and expertise, the Ramsar

Secretariat has established a Memorandum of Cooperation with the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), which has
observer organization status on the Convention’s Scientific and Technical
Review Panel (STRP).

The Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP6 endorsed Guidelines for

incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact
assessment legislation and/or processes and in strategic environmental
assessment (Decision VI/7) in April 2002. In line with the CBD/Ramsar Joint
Work Plan, through which the Ramsar Convention carries out its role as
the lead implementation partner of the CBD for wetlands, the Scientific
and Technical Review Panel (STRP) reviewed the CBD Guidelines and
determined that they could be fully applied to wetland issues, and
therefore the Standing Committee proposed to Ramsar COP8 that the use
of those Guidelines be endorsed by the Ramsar Convention, with the
addition of explanatory notes to set the guidelines into the Ramsar
context. The endorsement of the Guidelines by both CBD and Ramsar
marks a significant step forward in ensuring that consistent guidance is
made available to Parties for their harmonized national implementation of
both conventions on issues of common ground.

The main focus of these Guidelines is on the important stages of scoping

and screening for project-based environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Both CBD and Ramsar Parties have recognized that there is a need to
develop further guidance on other aspects of impact assessment,
including the linkage between cultural, social and environmental impact
assessment. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) is
presently assisting the STRP in the preparation of further guidance for
consideration by Ramsar COP9 in 2005, notably on strategic
environmental assessment (SEA) and on the relationship between EIA,
SEA and risk assessment procedures.

The Introduction to this edition outlines the growing importance of EIA in

the Convention’s thinking and briefly describes the collaborative process
by which the work of Ramsar and other organizations have converged in
the present Guidelines. Following the text of the Guidelines, a brief
background text on Strategic Environment Assessment has been reprinted

4
from a resource paper written for Ramsar by Andrea Athanas and Frank
Vorhies, in order to fill out the partial picture on SEA presented in the
Guidelines themselves.

5
 Section I

Introduction

Impact assessment and the Ramsar Convention

In recent years, the concepts of environmental impact assessment (EIA)

and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) have increasingly come to
be seen as necessary components of international environmental policy
and law. Two important milestones in this process were Agenda 21 and the
Rio Summit Declaration from the UN Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992, both of which contained provisions calling for EIAs
to be undertaken for activities likely to impact adversely on the
environment. The successor World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg in 2002 produced a Plan of Implementation which calls for
using EIA procedures “at all levels”.

Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires its

Contracting Parties to introduce appropriate procedures for EIA of
proposals that might have effects on biological diversity, and to provide
mechanisms for taking the biodiversity impacts of programmes and
policies into account. Some other parts of the Convention may be read as
implying a requirement for impact assessment, such as Article 3, which
seeks to ensure that activities within one country’s jurisdiction do not
cause damage to another.

Such “implied” EIA requirements can be found in other international

treaties. Article 3.2 of the Ramsar Convention, for example, requires its
Contracting Parties to “arrange to be informed at the earliest possible
time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory and included
in the List has changed, is changing or is likely to change as the result of
technological developments, pollution or other human interference”. This
implies a need to have the ability to anticipate and predict the effects of
actions on wetland ecosystems, and, arguably, a need to go through a
process of the kind typically embodied by EIA.

Despite a clear role for impact assessment being spelt out in several
convention texts or otherwise encouraged among their Parties, for the
greater part of the history of both the conventions and EIA, there has been
little overlap between these two worlds in terms of their processes and
the people involved. Many individuals engaged internationally in
biodiversity conservation have been aware that EIA has value for them,
and many in the international community of EIA professionals have known
that biodiversity conservation is one of the fields which can benefit from
what they do. But only relatively recently have there been real
institutional or policy linkages between them.

6
Non-governmental organizations have been instrumental in building that
bridge, and BirdLife International and IUCN-the World Conservation Union
were responsible for some of the first initiatives. In March 1996, David
Pritchard of BirdLife International presented a groundbreaking paper to a
Technical Session of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting
Parties to the Ramsar Convention in Brisbane, Australia. This presentation,
“Environmental Impact Assessment: Towards Guidelines for Adoption
under the Ramsar Convention” (http://ramsar.org/archives_pritchard.htm),
described the need for greater attention to EIA in wetland policy and
included a set of potential guidelines on the use of EIA “as an aid to the
wise use of wetlands” for the consideration of the Parties. At that time, the
COP adopted Recommendation 6.2 (http://ramsar.org/key_rec_6.2.htm)
requesting the Standing Committee and the Scientific and Technical
Review Panel (STRP) to examine existing EIA guidelines relevant to
wetlands and, if necessary, to pursue the question of drafting Ramsar
guidelines on EIA and wetlands as an aid to the Parties.

Mr Pritchard also reported on progress in these matters to impact

assessment practitioners at the annual meeting of the International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in 1997, and, since then, a series
of collaborative processes, joint work programmes, and agenda debates
has developed in the conventions, with involvement from IAIA, IUCN, and
BirdLife International. An important paper by Andrea Athanas and Frank
Vorhies (then of IUCN’s Economics Service Unit), entitled “The Ramsar
Convention and Impact Assessment”
(http://ramsar.org/cop7_doc_19.1_e.htm), was presented to a Technical
Session at Ramsar’s COP7 in Costa Rica, 1999 – a section dealing with
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is reprinted in this Handbook –
and the conclusion and priorities of this presentation were embodied by
the Parties in their Resolution VII.16, The Ramsar Convention and impact
assessment: strategic, environmental and social
(http://ramsar.org/key_res_vii.16e.htm).

Resolution VII.16 calls upon the Contracting Parties to strengthen their

efforts to ensure that any projects, plans, programmes and policies with
the potential to alter the ecological character of wetlands in the Ramsar
List, or impact negatively on other wetlands within their territories, will be
subjected to rigorous impact assessment procedures, and it urges them to
formalize such procedures with policy, legal, institutional and
organizational arrangements. Moreover, the Resolution asks the Parties to
ensure that impact assessment procedures seek to identify the true
values of wetland ecosystems in terms of the many functions, values and
benefits they provide and to include these environmental, economic and
broader social values in decision-making and management processes. In
this Resolution, the Parties also requested the STRP members to work with
their counterparts from the CBD and other relevant conventions and
organizations to review existing information on environmental impact
assessment and economic valuation of wetlands.

7
The Convention’s first Strategic Plan, for 1997-2002 (adopted in 1996)
(http://ramsar.org/key_strat_plan_e.htm#oo25), devoted Operational
Objective 2.5 to increasing the visibility of EIA issues in the Convention’s
processes and, accordingly, the present Strategic Plan 2003-2008
(http://ramsar.org/key_strat_plan_2003_e.htm#a2o2o3) urges the Parties
to “develop and implement Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
legislation so as to ensure that an EIA is carried out, as appropriate, in
wetlands, including Ramsar sites, where adverse impacts may occur due
to a proposed development, change in land/water use, invasive species,
etc.”

This increasing attention to EIA and SEA within the Ramsar Convention
over the past eight years continues to be accompanied by the rapid
growth of synergies between Ramsar work and the work of other
conventions and organizations. The IAIA is a formally invited permanent
observer to the STRP (Resolution VIII.28) and has been contributing to its
work since the establishment of an STRP Working Group on impact
assessment in 1999. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between the IAIA and the Ramsar Secretariat in June 2001
(http://ramsar.org/key_iaia_mou.htm), and the most recent result of this
has been the workshop at the IAIA’s June 2003 annual meeting led by the
Association’s Biodiversity and Ecology Section, which for the first time
included contributions from staff of the secretariats of both the Ramsar
Convention and the CBD.

Through the Ramsar Convention’s Joint Work Plans with the CBD, the
members of both the secretariats and the subsidiary scientific bodies,
STRP and SBSTTA, have contributed to each other’s progress, in particular
in Ramsar’s input, as well as the IAIA’s, to SBSTTA’s development of
guidelines on the screening and scoping stages of EIA which the CBD
Parties adopted in Decision VI/7 at their 6th COP, April 2002. In May 2002,
the Ramsar Standing Committee determined to recommend that the
Conference of the Parties adopt a Resolution urging the Parties to make
use of the CBD’s Guidelines, with the addition of wetland-specific
annotations provided by the STRP Working Group, and in November 2002
this became Resolution VIII.9.

During the triennium 2002-2005, the STRP’s work plan calls for continued
progress in preparing advice and case studies for the Ramsar Contracting
Parties on applying impact assessment to the conservation and wise use
of wetlands. The IAIA has taken the lead in the STRP’s task in the context
of its three-year project on biodiversity and impact assessment, partially
funded by the Government of the Netherlands, which is intended to
support implementation of the CBD and Ramsar Convention principally
through capacity building in the developing world – the project, which has
representatives of Ramsar and the CBD on its Steering Committee, will
engage in in-country training, at first in selected countries and then
potentially in more, as well as in the development of training materials,

8
possibly including guidelines that will be directly appropriate to wetland
situations.

9
 Flowchart of key steps in the environmental impact
assessment procedure
(FROM UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/13, NOVEMBER 2001)
Initiation or
submission of
proposal
Screening

Impact assessment Initial No impact

required environmental assessment
examination required

Scoping

Assessing

Impact analysis/
prediction; Public involvement*
impact significance
Mitigation
* Public involvement should
Redesign; ideally occur at all stages of
planning for impact the impact assessment
management
Resubmit Reporting or the
environmental
impact statement

Reviewing
Redesign
Document quality; Public
Stakeholders input; involvement*
Proposal
Not
approved Decision-making Approved

Monitoring EIA audit

Impact
management

10
Section II

CBD Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity

related issues into environmental impact
assessment legislation and/or processes and in
strategic environmental assessment

(adopted as the annex to Resolution VIII.9 by the 8th Conference of the

Contracting Parties, Valencia, Spain,2002)

The following guidelines were prepared by the Subsidiary Body on

Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) and adopted (Decision VI/7) by CBD’s
Conference of the Contracting Parties at its 6th meeting (Den Haag,
Netherlands, April 2002). The CBD guidelines were reviewed by Ramsar’s
Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), which recommended that
they are fully appropriate for application for impact assessment
concerning wetlands in the Ramsar context.

The STRP has prepared supplementary guidance to assist Ramsar Parties

in their application, as appropriate, of the CBD Guidelines to impact
assessment on wetlands. This supplementary guidance is provided as
boxed italic text in the relevant parts of the CBD guidelines.

Ramsar: For the purpose of the use of these Guidelines in a Ramsar

Convention context, references to “biodiversity” as the scope of interest
covered, or of the type of expertise engaged, can be read as applying
equally to the conservation and wise use of wetlands, including
limnology and hydrology, addressed by the Ramsar Convention. In
applying the definitions given in paragraph 1 below, particular emphasis
should be given to analysis of alternatives and inclusion of decision-
making in the impact assessment process.

1. For the purpose of these guidelines, the following definitions are used
for environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic
environmental assessment (SEA):

(a) Environmental impact assessment is a process of evaluating the

likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or
development, taking into account inter-related socio-economic,
cultural and human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse.
Although legislation and practice vary around the world, the
fundamental components of an environmental impact
assessment would necessarily involve the following stages:

i) Screening to determine which projects or developments

require a full or partial impact assessment study;

11
 ii) Scoping to identify which potential impacts are relevant to
assess, and to derive terms of reference for the impact
assessment;
iii) Impact assessment to predict and identify the likely
environmental impacts of a proposed project or
development taking into account inter-related consequences
of the project proposal, and the socio-economic impacts;
iv) Identifying mitigation measures (including not proceeding
with the development, finding alternative designs or sites
which avoid the impacts, incorporating safeguards in the
design of the project, or providing compensation for adverse
impacts);
v) Deciding whether to approve the project or not; and
vi) Monitoring and evaluating the development activities,
predicted impacts and proposed mitigation measures to
ensure that unpredicted impacts or failed mitigation
measures are identified and addressed in a timely fashion.

(b) Strategic environmental assessment is the formalized,

systematic and comprehensive process of identifying and
evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed
policies, plans or programmes to ensure that they are fully
included and appropriately addressed at the earliest possible
stage of decision-making on a par with economic and social
considerations. 1/ Strategic environmental assessment, by its
nature, covers a wider range of activities or a wider area and
often over a longer time span than the environmental impact
assessment of projects. Strategic environmental assessment
might be applied to an entire sector, (such as a national policy
on energy for example), or to a geographical area, (for example
in the context of a regional development scheme). The basic
steps of strategic environmental assessment are similar to the
steps in environmental impact assessment procedures, 2/ but the
scope differs. Strategic environmental assessment does not
replace or reduce the need for project-level environmental
impact assessment, but it can help to streamline the
incorporation of environmental concerns (including biodiversity)
into the decision-making process, often making project-level
environmental impact assessment a more effective process.

(For further information about Ramsar and SEA, see Section III)

1. Purpose and approach

2. The objective of these draft guidelines is to provide general advice on

incorporation of biodiversity considerations into new or existing

1 / Based on Sadler and Verheem, 1996

2 / Saddler and Verheem, 1996; South Africa, 2000; Nierynck, 1997 ; Nooteboom,
1999.

12
 environmental impact assessment procedures, noting that existing
procedures take biodiversity into consideration in different ways. A
draft framework has been developed to address the screening and
scoping phases of environmental impact assessment. Further
development of the framework will be required to address the
incorporation of biodiversity into subsequent stages of the
environmental impact assessment process, including impact
assessment, mitigation, evaluation and monitoring, and into strategic
environmental assessment.

3. Individual countries may redefine the steps in the procedure to their

needs and requirements as befits their institutional and legal setting.
The environmental impact assessment process, in order to be
effective, should be fully incorporated into existing legal planning
processes and not be seen as an “add-on” process.

{See also Handbook 3}

4. As a prerequisite, the definition of the term “environment” in national

legislation and procedures should fully incorporate the concept of
biological diversity as defined by the Convention on Biological
Diversity, such that plants, animals and micro-organisms are
considered at the genetic, species/community and ecosystem/habitat
levels, and also in terms of ecosystem structure and function.

5. With regard to biodiversity considerations, the ecosystem approach,

as described in decision V/6 of the Conference of the Parties and
taking into account any further elaboration of the concept within the
framework of the Convention, is an appropriate framework for the
assessment of planned action and policies. In accordance with the
approach, the proper temporal and spatial scales of the problems
should be determined as well as the functions of biodiversity and
their tangible and intangible values for humans that could be
affected by the proposed project or policy, the type of adaptive
mitigation measures and the need for the participation of
stakeholders in decision-making.

Ramsar: In a Ramsar context, the appropriate spatial scale may

sometimes be wider than the ecosystem. In particular, the river basin
(water catchment) is an important spatial scale at which to address
aspects of wetland-related impacts. Also, where impacts on particularly
important species values, such as migratory fish or birds, are at stake,
assessment at the scale of the migratory range (flyway) of the relevant
populations will be very relevant. This may involve a chain of
ecosystems (perhaps disjunct ones), and therefore may need to take a
broader perspective than would normally be the case under the
ecosystem approach.

13
6. Environmental impact assessment procedures should refer to other
relevant national, regional and international legislation, regulations,
guidelines and other policy documents such as the national
biodiversity strategy and action plan documents, the Convention on
Biological Diversity and biodiversity-related conventions and
agreements including, in particular, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
and the related agreements, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, the
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context; the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the
European Union directives on environmental impact assessment, and
the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against
Pollution from Land-based Sources.

Ramsar: At the national level, reference should also be made to the

national wetland policy (see Resolution VII.6) where this exists.

{See also Handbook 2}

7. Consideration should be given to improving integration of National

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP) and National
Development Strategies using SEA as a tool for such integration to
promote the establishment of clear conservation targets through the
NBSAP process and the use of those targets for the screening and
scoping targets of EIA and for developing mitigation measures.

2. Biodiversity issues at different stages of environmental impact

assessment

(a) Screening

8. Screening is used to determine which proposals should be subject to

impact assessment, to exclude those unlikely to have harmful
environmental impacts and to indicate the level of environmental
appraisal required. If screening criteria do not include biodiversity
measures, there is a risk that proposals with potentially significant
impacts on biodiversity will be screened out.

9. Since a legal requirement for environmental impact assessment on

environmental grounds does not guarantee that biological diversity
will be taken into account, consideration should be given to
incorporating biodiversity criteria into existing or new screening
criteria.

10. Types of existing screening mechanisms include:

14
 (a) Positive lists identifying projects requiring environmental impact
assessment. A few countries use (or have used) negative lists,
identifying those projects not subject to environmental impact
assessment. These lists should be reassessed to evaluate their
inclusion of biodiversity aspects;

(b) Expert judgement (with or without a limited study, sometimes

referred to as “initial environmental examination” or “preliminary
environmental assessment”); and

(c) A combination of a positive list and expert judgement; for a

number of activities an environmental impact assessment is
more appropriate, for others an expert judgement may be
desirable to determine the need for an environmental impact
assessment.

11. The result of screening can be that:

(a) An environmental impact assessment is required,

(b) (i) A limited environmental study is sufficient because only

limited environmental impacts are expected; the screening
decision is based on a set of criteria with quantitative norms
or threshold values;
(ii) There is still uncertainty whether an environmental impact
assessment is required and an initial environmental
examination has to be conducted to determine whether a
project requires environmental impact assessment or not,
and

(c) The project does not require an environmental impact

assessment.

12. How to use these guidelines?

(a) Countries with a positive list identifying projects requiring

environmental impact assessment should use, as appropriate,
annexes I and II below for guidance on reconsidering their
existing positive list with respect to biological diversity
considerations. By assessing the possible impacts of categories
of activities on biological diversity the existing list can be
adjusted, if required;

(b) In countries where screening is based on expert judgement,

experience has shown that professionals make screening
decisions, often using “mini environmental impact assessment”
to come to this decision. These guidelines, its annexes and other
guidelines such as the information document submitted by the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) help

15
 provide these professionals with the means to come to a
motivated, transparent and consistent screening decision.
Furthermore, the expert teams should include professionals with
biodiversity expertise;

(c) In countries where screening is based on a combination of a

positive list and expert judgement, country-specific thematic or
sector guidelines, often including quantitative norms or
thresholds, facilitate the responsible people to make a well-
founded and defendable decision. For biodiversity, thematic
guidelines could be developed, 3/ sector guidelines need to be
reviewed on biodiversity considerations.

[Start Box
Banner should read “Additional information”
Include IAIA logo]

The International Association for Impact Assessment

(IAIA)

IAIA was established in 1980 to bring together researchers, practitioners,

and users of various types of impact assessment from all parts of the
world, and its members include corporate planners and managers, public
interest advocates, government planners and administrators, private
consultants and policy analysts, university and college teachers and their
students.

A unique feature of IAIA is the mix of professions represented, which

provides outstanding opportunities for interchange in order to:
• advance the state of the art and science of impact assessment in
applications ranging from local to global,
• develop international and local capability,
• anticipate, plan and manage the consequences of development, and
• enhance the quality of life for all.

IAIA members now number more than 2,500 and represent more than 100
countries. As of June 2003, IAIA Affiliates are operating in Beijing (China),
Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, Ontario (Canada),
Quebec (Canada), Western and Northern Canada, Senegal and South
Africa. IAIA's first Branch (a group comprised entirely of IAIA-International
members), the Washington (DC) Area Branch, was organized in September
2001. International conferences are held annually. Regional conferences
are organized to make information exchange and networking
opportunities available to those who might not be able to attend the
international conferences, as well as to focus attention to specific issues.

3 / Some concrete targets are proposed in the note by the Executive Secretary on
a proposal for a global strategy for plant conservation (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/10).

16
Training programmes, ranging from one day to one week in duration and
dealing with a variety of impact assessment issues, are held regularly in
conjunction with IAIA international conferences.

IAIA activities seek to:

• develop approaches and practices for comprehensive and integrated
impact assessment;
• improve assessment procedures and methods for practical
application;
• promote training of impact assessment and public understanding of
the field;
• provide professional quality assurance by peer review and other
means; and
• share information networks, timely publications, and professional
meetings.

To provide expert support for the implementation of multilateral

environmental conventions, the IAIA has established Memoranda of
Cooperation with the Ramsar Convention and CBD. Ramsar COP8
appointed the IAIA as an officially invited permanent observer
organization to the Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel.
Members of the IAIA’s Biodiversity & Ecology Section contributed to the
preparation of CBD’s Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related
issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes
and in strategic environmental assessment, adopted by CBD’s COP6 and
endorsed by Ramsar’s COP8 in 2002.

In 2003 the IAIA initiated a project, with funding from the government of
the Netherlands, on “Capacity building in Biodiversity and Impact
Assessment in Developing Countries”. This is designed to support
countries in their implementation of CBD and Ramsar through the
establishment of networks of trained impact assessment professionals,
capacity-building, and the provision of training materials for integrating
biodiversity into impact assessment processes.

For information about membership or answers to questions about IAIA,

contact the International Headquarters, info@iaia.org, or visit
http://www.iaia.org/.
[End Box]

The screening criteria

13. Screening criteria may relate to: (i) categories of activities, including
thresholds referring to magnitude of the activity and/or size of the
intervention area, duration and frequency or to (ii) a magnitude of
biophysical change that is caused by the activity, or to (iii) maps
indicating areas important for biodiversity with special legal status or
of high biodiversity value and endemism, species patterns, breeding
sites, or areas with species of high genetic value.

17
 Ramsar: Projects with possible implications for a listed Ramsar site are
an example of the third type of screening criterion given above. This
should extend to sites selected according to any of the Ramsar criteria,
and not just those relating to the biodiversity importance of the wetland.

14. Determining norms or threshold values is partly a technical and

partly a political process of which the outcome may vary for countries
and for ecosystems. The technical process should at least provide a
description of:

(a) Categories of activities that may affect biological diversity and

the direct and indirect biophysical changes likely to result from
these activities, taking into account characteristics like: type or
nature of activity, magnitude, extent/location, timing, duration,
reversibility/irreversibility, likelihood, and significance; possibility
of interaction with other activities or impacts;

(b) Area of influence. Knowing the biophysical changes that result

from an activity, the expected area of influence of these changes
can be modelled or predicted, including the probability of off-site
effects;

(c) Biodiversity maps indicating ecosystems and/or land-use types

and their use and non-use values (showing the use and non-use
values of biodiversity).

Ramsar: In addressing the likelihood of effects and their relevance and

significance for Ramsar-related values, reference should be made to
Ramsar guidance on ecological character and on risk assessment (see
e.g. Resolution VII.10).

{See also Handbook 8}

15. The process of developing a national biodiversity strategy and action

plan can generate valuable information such as conservation
priorities and targets which can guide further development of
environmental impact assessment screening criteria. 4/ Annex II below
presents a generic list of criteria, intended to be a practical reference
for further in-country development of criteria.

Ramsar: This also applies to the process for developing a national

wetland policy (see Resolution VII.6).

Pertinent questions for screening

4 / Summarized in the IAIA information document by Treweek, 2001, box 2.

18
16. Considering the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
i.e., in particular, conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing
of benefits derived from biological diversity, fundamental questions
need to be answered in an environment impact assessment study:

(a) Does the intended activity affect the physical environment in

such a manner or cause such biological losses that it influences
the chance of extinction of cultivars, varieties, populations of
species, or the chance of loss of habitats or ecosystems?

(b) Does the intended activity surpass the maximal sustainable

yield, the carrying capacity of a habitat/ecosystem or the
maximum and minimum 5/ allowable disturbance level of a
resource, population, or ecosystem?

(c) Does the intended activity result in changes to the access to

and rights over biological resources?

17. To facilitate the development of criteria, the questions above have

been reformulated for the three levels of diversity, reproduced in
annex I below.

Ramsar: The objectives of the Ramsar Convention should be considered

in the same way, i.e. promoting the conservation of wetlands, promoting
the wise use of wetlands, and the implied objective of maintaining the
ecological character of wetlands, as defined by Resolution VII.10.
Questions (a) and (b) above remain relevant, but two additional
questions should also be asked concerning wetlands:

(d) Does the intended activity cause an imbalance in any biological,

physical or chemical components of the wetland ecosystem, or in their
interactions, which maintain the wetland and its products, functions and
attributes? (i.e. does it cause a change in ecological character as defined
under the Convention), and

(e) Does the intended activity constitute a use which would be “unwise”
in the sense of conflicting with the tenets of “wise use of wetlands” as
defined under the Convention in e.g. Recommendation 3.3,
Recommendation 4.10 and Resolution V.6?

{See also Handbook 1}

(b) Scoping

18. Scoping narrows the focus of the broad issues found to be significant
during the screening stage. It is used to derive terms of reference
(sometimes referred to as guidelines) for environmental impact

5 / For example, fire can be too frequent and too infrequent to sustain the
integrity/health of a given ecosystem.

19
 assessment. Scoping also enables the competent authority (or
environmental impact assessment professionals in countries where
scoping is voluntary):

(a) To guide study teams on significant issues and alternatives to be

assessed, clarify how they should be examined (methods of
prediction and analysis, depth of analysis), and according to
which guidelines and criteria;

(b) To provide an opportunity for stakeholders to have their interests

taken into account in the environmental impact assessment;

(c) To ensure that the resulting environmental impact statement is

useful to the decision maker and is understandable to the public.

19. During the scoping phase promising alternatives can be identified for
in-depth consideration during the environmental impact assessment
study.

20. The following sequence provides an example of iterative mechanism

for scoping, impact assessment and consideration of mitigation
measures, which should be carried out with the help of existing
information and the available knowledge among stakeholders:

(a) Describe the type of project, its nature, magnitude, location,

timing, duration and frequency;

(b) Describe the expected biophysical changes in soil, water, air,

flora and fauna;

(c) Describe biophysical changes that result from social change

processes as a result of the proposed project;

(d) Determine the spatial and temporal scale of influence of each

biophysical change;

(e) Describe ecosystems and land-use types potentially influenced

by the biophysical changes identified;

(f) Determine for each ecosystem or land-use type if the

biophysical changes affect one of the following components of
biological diversity: the composition (what is there), the
temporal/spatial structure (how are biodiversity components
organised in time and space), or key processes (how is
biodiversity created and/or maintained);

(g) Identify in consultation with stakeholders the current and

potential use-functions, non-use functions and other longer-term
less tangible benefits of biological diversity provided by the

20
 ecosystems or land-use types and determine the values these
functions represent for society (see annex III for an indicative list
of functions);

(h) Determine which of these functions will be significantly affected

by the proposed project, taking into account mitigation
measures;

(i) For each alternative, define mitigation and/or compensation

measures to avoid, minimize or compensate the expected
impacts;

(j) With the help of the biodiversity checklist on scoping (see annex
IV below), determine which issues will provide information
relevant to decision making and can realistically be studied;

(k) Provide information on the severity of impacts, i.e. apply

weights to the expected impacts for the alternatives considered.
Weigh expected impacts to a reference situation (baseline),
which may be the existing situation, a historical situation, or an
external reference situation.

Ramsar: In the case of Ramsar sites, the “baseline” should relate to the
site’s ecological character, as distinct from the attributes which cause it
to qualify as internationally important. Hence the baseline should be the
target condition (ecological character) described in management plan
objectives. It will therefore not necessarily equate to the condition of the
site described at the time of listing (or subsequent updating of the
Ramsar Information Sheet) unless at such times the site happens to
have achieved its optimal (target) condition, or if there is no better
baseline available.

(l) Identify necessary surveys to gather comprehensive information

about the biological diversity in the affected area where
appropriate.

21. The expected impacts of the proposed activity, including identified

alternatives, should be compared with the selected reference
situation and with the autonomous development (what will happen
with biodiversity over time if the project is not implemented). There
should be awareness that doing nothing may in some cases also
have significant effects on biological diversity, sometimes even
worse than the impacts of the proposed activity (e.g. projects
counteracting degradation processes).

22. At present, evaluation criteria for biological diversity, especially at

ecosystem level, are under-developed and need serious attention
when developing in-country mechanisms to incorporate biodiversity
in environmental impact assessment.

21
(c) Impact analysis and assessment

23. Environmental impact assessment should be an iterative process of

assessing impacts, redesigning alternatives and comparison. The
main tasks of impact analysis and assessment are:

(a) Refinement of the understanding of the nature of the potential

impacts identified during screening and scoping and described
in the terms of reference. This includes the identification of
indirect and cumulative impacts, and of the likely causes of the
impacts (impact analysis and assessment). Identification and
description of relevant criteria for decision-making can be an
essential element of this period;

(b) Review and redesign of alternatives; consideration of mitigation

measures; planning of impact management; evaluation of
impacts; and comparison of the alternatives; and

(c) Reporting of study results in a environmental impact statement.

24. Assessing impacts usually involves a detailed analysis of their nature,

magnitude, extent and effect, and a judgement of their significance,
i.e., whether the impacts are acceptable to stakeholders, require
mitigation, or are just unacceptable. Biodiversity information
available is usually limited and descriptive and cannot be used as a
basis for numerical predictions. There is a need to develop or compile
biodiversity criteria for impact evaluation and to have measurable
standards or objectives against which the significance of individual
impacts can be evaluated. The priorities and targets set in the
national biodiversity action plan and strategy process can provide
guidance for developing these criteria. Tools will need to be
developed to deal with uncertainty, including criteria on using risk
assessment techniques, precautionary approach and adaptive
management.

Ramsar: In addressing the nature of effects and their relevance and

significance for Ramsar-related values, reference should be made to
Ramsar guidance on ecological character and on risk assessment (see
e.g. Resolution VII.10).

(d) Consideration of mitigation measures

25. If the evaluation process concludes that the impacts are significant,
the next stage in the process is to propose mitigation ideally drawn
together into an “environmental management plan”. The purpose of
mitigation in environmental impact assessment is to look for better
ways to implement project activities so that negative impacts of the
activities are avoided or reduced to acceptable levels and the

22
 environmental benefits are enhanced, and to make sure that the
public or individuals do not bear costs which are greater than the
benefits which accrue to them. Remedial action can take several
forms, i.e. avoidance (or prevention), mitigation (including restoration
and rehabilitation of sites), and compensation (often associated with
residual impacts after prevention and mitigation).

Ramsar: In certain circumstances relating to Ramsar sites, when the

consequences of impacts on the site include reduction or deletion of the
site, the provision of compensation is governed by Article 4.2 of the
Convention and the guidelines adopted under Resolution VIII.20 will
apply.

{See also Handbook 8}

(e) Reporting: the environmental impact statement (EIS)

26. The environmental impact statement is designed to assist: (i) the

proponent to plan, design and implement the proposal in a way that
eliminates or minimizes the negative effect on the biophysical and
socio-economic environments and maximizes the benefits to all
parties in the most cost effective manner; (ii) the Government or
responsible authority to decide whether a proposal should be
approved and the terms and conditions that should be applied; and
(iii) the public to understand the proposal and its impacts on the
community and environment and provide an opportunity for
comments on the proposed action for consideration by decision-
makers. Some adverse impacts may be wide ranging and have
effects beyond the limits of particular habitats/ecosystems or
national boundaries. Therefore, environmental management plans
and strategies contained in the environmental impact statement
should consider regional and transboundary impacts, taking into
account the ecosystem approach.

Ramsar: Concerning transboundary impacts, Ramsar Parties should have

regard to Article 5 of the Convention and the Guidelines for international
cooperation under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Resolution
VII.19).

{See also Handbook 9}

(f) Review

27. The purpose of review of the environmental impact statement is to

ensure that the information for decision-makers is sufficient, focused
on the key issues, scientifically and technically accurate, and if the
likely impacts are acceptable from an environmental viewpoint and
the design complies with relevant standards and policies, or
standards of good practice where official standards do not exist. The

23
 review should also consider whether all of the relevant impacts of a
proposed activity have been identified and adequately addressed in
the environmental impact assessment. To this end, biodiversity
specialists should be called upon for the review and information on
official standards and/or standards for good practice to be compiled
and disseminated.

28. Public involvement, including minority groups, is important in various

stages of the process and particularly at this stage. The concerns and
comments of all stakeholders are considered and included in the final
report presented to decision-makers. The process establishes local
ownership of the proposal and promotes a better understanding of
relevant issues and concerns.

Ramsar: For guidance on public involvement, refer to the Guidelines for

establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous
people’s participation in the management of wetlands (Resolution VII.8)
and the New Guidelines for management planning for Ramsar sites and
other wetlands (Resolution VIII.14).

{See also Handbooks 5 and 8}

29. Review should also guarantee that the information provided in the
environmental impact statement is sufficient for a decision maker to
determine whether the project is compliant with or contradictory to
the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ramsar: This paragraph should be applied mutatis mutandis to the

Ramsar Convention.

(g) Decision-making

30. Decision-making takes place throughout the process of

environmental impact assessment in a incremental way from the
screening and scoping stages to decisions during data-collecting and
analysis, and impact prediction to making choices between
alternatives and mitigation measures and finally the decision
between refusal or authorization of the project. Biodiversity issues
should play a part in decision-making throughout. This final decision
is essentially a political choice about whether or not the proposal is
to proceed, and under what conditions. If rejected, the project can be
redesigned and resubmitted. It is desirable that the proponent and
the decision-making body are two different entities.

31. The precautionary approach should be applied in decision-making in

cases of scientific uncertainty about risk of significant harm to
biodiversity. As scientific certainty improves, decisions can be
modified accordingly.

24
(h) Monitoring and environmental auditing

32. Monitoring and auditing are used to see what actually occurs after
project implementation has started. Predicted impacts on biodiversity
should be monitored, as should the effectiveness of mitigation
measures proposed in the environmental impact assessment. Proper
environmental management should ensure that anticipated impacts
are maintained within predicted levels, and unanticipated impacts
are managed before they become a problem and the expected
benefits (or positive developments) are achieved as the project
proceeds. The results of monitoring provide information for periodic
review and alteration of environmental management plans, and for
optimising environmental protection through good practice at all
stages of the project. Biodiversity data generated by environmental
impact assessment should be made accessible and useable by others
and should be linked to biodiversity assessment processes being
designed and carried out under the Convention on Biological
Diversity.

33. An environmental audit is an independent examination and

assessment of a project’s (past) performance, is part of the
evaluation of the environmental management plan and contributes to
the enforcement of EIA approval decisions.

[Start Box
Banner should read “Additional information”
Scan cover of text]

Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected Countries

of Latin America and the Caribbean: Methodology,
Results and Trends

Editors: Guillermo Espinosa and Virginia Alzina

As part of the Inter-American Development Bank’s Technical Cooperation

programme, Support for the Improvement of Environmental Management
in Latin America and Caribbean Countries, the Centre for Development
Studies designed and applied the Integrated Methodology for Reviewing
Environmental Impact Assessment (IMREIA) in 26 countries in Latin
America and the Caribbean (LAC) where the Bank is active. The present
92-page publication describes and reviews the major results of the
assessment, providing a broad perspective on Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) systems in the region.

Chapter one introduces IMREIA as a review tool, based on:

• the legal/institutional framework that supports EIA;

• on-the-ground experience in using EIA;

25
 • stakeholders’ perception of the tool;
• consistency with the internationally-recognized requirements for
EIA; and
• results of EIA’s effective use as a regulatory tool.

The IMREIA was implemented in LAC countries in three phases -

diagnostic, conclusions and recommendations.

The diagnostic phase included: a legal/procedural framework that

analysed environmental policy, law and EIA legislation in all 26 countries;
an application framework, related to indicators that detail the operation of
the EIA systems in the 26 countries; a perceptual framework, related to
691 stakeholders linked to the EIA in the 26 countries who shared their
views on how the EIA functions in their respective countries; and a
sustainability framework related to a sample of 200 EIA studies selected
from 10 priority countries (based on criteria representative of the IDB
regions), Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico,
Panama, Peru and Uruguay.

Chapter two presents the main results and observed tendencies from the
diagnostic phase with some useful subregional comparisons as well as
statistical analysis for the entire region. The results are helpfully
presented using tables, pie charts and bar charts.

The conclusions and recommendations in chapter three, whilst

highlighting many of the strengths related to EIA processes in the LAC
countries, also identifies areas or activities that need improving. It
concludes that EIA is broadly recognized as a management tool within the
LAC countries and that considerable experience has been gained in the
two decades of its use within the region. This chapter finally delivers 12
key recommendations to help EIA become a more effective tool in
managing negative environmental situations in the region.

Published by the Inter-American Development Bank and the Centre for

Development Studies, Santiago, Chile, 2001; copies can be downloaded in
PDF format in English at http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/ENV-
RevEnvImpactAssesslLAC-E.pdf, and in Spanish at
http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/ENVRevEvalImpactoAmbientalLAC-S.PDF.
Hard copies in English and Spanish are available from:
Virginia Alzina, Sustainable Development Department, Inter-American
Development Bank, 1300 New York Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20577,
United States of America.
[End Box]

3. Incorporation of biodiversity considerations in strategic

environmental assessments

34. The guidelines proposed for the integration of biodiversity in

environmental impact assessment are also applicable to strategic

26
 environmental assessment, taking into account that for the latter
type of assessment, biological diversity concerns should be
considered from the early stages of the drafting process, including
when developing new legislative and regulatory frameworks (decision
V/18, paras. 1(c) and 2 (a)), and at the decision-making and/or
environmental planning levels (decision V/18, para. 2 (a)), and that
strategic environmental assessments by their nature cover policies
and programmes, a wider range of activities over a wider area.

35. Strategic environmental assessment, while not a new process, is not

practised as widely as environmental impact assessment. As
experience accumulates in countries, it may then be necessary to
draw more specific guidelines for the incorporation of biodiversity in
the process.

4. Ways and means

(a) Capacity-building

36. Any activity aimed at the incorporation of biodiversity considerations

into national environmental impact assessment systems should be
accompanied by appropriate capacity development activities.
Expertise in taxonomy, 6/ conservation biology, ecology, and
traditional knowledge is required as well as local expertise in
methodologies, techniques and procedures. Environmental impact
assessments should involve ecologists with extensive knowledge on
the relevant ecosystem(s) in the assessment team.

37. It is also recommended to develop training workshops on biodiversity

and environmental impact/strategic environmental assessment for
both assessment practitioners and biodiversity specialists to build a
common understanding of the issues. School and university curricula
should be reviewed to ensure that they incorporate material on
biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and
environmental impact/strategic environmental assessment.

{See also Handbook 6}

38. Biodiversity relevant data should be organized in regularly updated

and accessible databases, making use of rosters of biodiversity
experts.

(b) Legislative authority

39. If environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental

assessment procedures are incorporated into legislation, and the
requirements for project/policy developers to find the most

6 / See the Global Taxonomy Initiative and the proposed programme of work
(decision V/9 of the Conference of the Parties and SBSTTA recommendation VI/6)

27
 environmentally sound, efficient options that avoid, reduce or
mitigate biodiversity and other adverse impacts are made explicit,
this will prompt developers to, at a very early stage, use
environmental impact assessment tools to improve the development
process prior to the project consent stage or in some cases prior to
screening procedures.

(c) Participation

40. Relevant stakeholders or their representatives, and in particular

indigenous and local communities should be involved in the
development of guidelines or recommendations for environmental
impact assessments as well as throughout the assessment processes
relevant to them, including decision-making.

Ramsar: Concerning stakeholder participation, including local

communities and indigenous peoples, refer here to the Guidelines for
establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous
people’s participation in the management of wetlands, adopted under
Resolution VII.8, and the New Guidelines for management planning for
Ramsar sites and other wetlands (Resolution VIII.14).

{See also Handbooks 5 and 8}

(d) Incentives

41. The possible link between impact assessment and incentive

measures is pointed out in decision III/18 of the Conference of the
Parties, on incentive measures. In paragraph 6 of that decision, the
Conference of the Parties encouraged Parties to incorporate
biological diversity considerations into impact assessments as a step
in the design and implementation of incentive measures. The
endorsement of the impact assessment process and its
implementation within a legislative framework can act as an
incentive, especially if applied at the policy level, to protect and, in
certain cases even restore and rehabilitate biological diversity. 7/
Financial or other incentives can also be part of a negotiated
approval package for a project.

[Start Box Additional information

Economic Valuation of Wetlands

by Edward B. Barbier, Mike Acreman and Duncan Knowler

Published in 1997, this 138-page handbook provides practical guidance to

policy makers and planners on applying economic valuation techniques in
wetland management.
7 / UNEP/CBD/COP/4/20 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/4/10.

28
Following a brief synopsis of the importance of wetlands and the many
causes of wetland loss, the authors explain the role of economic valuation
in decision-making. They discuss why wetland values are frequently
undervalued and emphasise the need for Contracting Parties to the
Ramsar Convention to use appropriate valuation techniques to ensure the
conservation and wise use of their wetlands. The authors provide a
detailed framework for assessing the economic benefits of alternative
uses of wetlands, presenting it as a three-stage process. In a later
chapter, the three stages are broken down into seven practical steps,
providing readers with detailed advice on choosing the most appropriate
methodology and conducting the valuation study.

Six case studies provide practical demonstrations of the application of the

various techniques in the field using a range of valuation methods and
covering contrasting wetland types and diverse geographical areas. The
utility of the book is further enhanced with the provision of a full glossary
and a 9-page bibliography.

The book is available in English, French and Spanish on the Ramsar

Convention Secretariat’s Web site at http://ramsar.org/index_lib.htm and
from IUCN Publication Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge
CB3 0DL, UK (Fax: +44 1223 277 175; E-mail: info@books.iucn.org).

[scan cover] The Socio-Economics of Wetlands

by M.A.M. Stuip, C.J. Baker, and W. Oosterberg

“Although the potential for wetlands to enrich human life and support
(often spectacular) ecosystems is generally acknowledged, the protection
of these values is often considered to be in conflict with what appear to be
more profitable economic uses. In the face of hard economics and the
need for governments to show tangible development achievements, it has
often been difficult to present persuasive evidence to help combat
unsustainable development options.”

In response to this difficulty, as described by Delmar Blasco, former

Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention, and Bart Fokkens, Director
of the Wetland Development and Restoration Department, RIZA, in the
Foreword, Wetlands International and RIZA (Institute for Inland Water
Management and Waste Water Treatment) have produced an attractive
36-page pamphlet entitled The Socio-Economics of Wetlands, launched at
Ramsar COP8 in November 2002.

Sections of the colorful brochure cover what wetland values are, how they
can be taken into account in decision-making, and how they can be
translated into incentives; in addition, six brief case studies, figures and
illustrations, and a list of references are included.

29
The pamphlet can be downloaded in PDF format from
http://www.wetlands.org/pubs&/SocioEcs.htm or purchased from NHBS
(http://www.nhbs.com) for £10.
End Box

(e) Cooperation

42. Regional collaboration is of particular importance, including for the

development of criteria and indicators for the evaluation of impact
and possibly criteria and indicators that can provide early warning of
potential threats and adequately distinguish the effects of
anthropogenic activities from natural processes, and the use of
standardized methods of collection, assembly and exchange of
information is needed to ensure regional compatibility and
accessibility of data. Guidelines and sharing of information and
experiences should be made available through inter-alia, the
Convention’s clearing-house mechanism.

{See also Handbook 9}

43. As a follow-up to the implementation of decision IV/10 C of the

Conference of the Parties, collaboration between this Convention and
other biodiversity-related conventions, including in particular the
Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species, which
have listed sites and binding agreements on certain species, and
other relevant organizations and bodies will facilitate the
development and implementation of any guidelines agreed upon for
the integration of biodiversity-related issues in environmental impact
assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Such a
collaborative approach, also embodied in resolution VII.16 of the
Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention (“The Ramsar
Convention and impact assessment: strategic, environmental and
social”), could lead to the development of an umbrella set of
guidelines on impact assessment for biodiversity-related
conventions.

44. Web-based resources such as the clearing-house mechanism of the

Convention on Biological Diversity may help to raise awareness about
best available methods and useful sources of information and
experience, and should be developed and used for the provision and
exchange of information on environmental impact assessment.

45. Communication between practitioners of environmental impact

assessment and scientists working in the biodiversity domain is in
urgent need of improvement and should be enhanced through
workshops, case-study assessments.

[Start Box]
References mentioned in these guidelines

30
Nooteboom, S. 1999. Environmental assessments of strategic decisions
and project decisions: interactions and benefits. Ministry of Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment of the Netherlands.

Sadler, B. and R. Verheem 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Status, challenges and future directions. Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands.

South Africa 2000. Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa.

Guideline document. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
Pretoria, South Africa.

Treweek, J. 2001. Biodiversity in development. Biodiversity and EIA for

development cooperation: workshop conclusions. EC/EU Tropical
Biodiversity Advisors’ Group, EU, DFID and IUCN.[End box]

31
 Appendix 1

Questions pertinent to screening on biological diversity

impacts

Biological diversity perspective

Level of Conservation of biological Sustainable use of

diversity diversity (Non-use values) biodiversity (Use values)
Genetic (I) Does the intended activity cause a local loss of
diversity (1) varieties/cultivars/breeds of cultivated plants and / or
domesticated animals and their relatives, genes or
genomes of social, scientific and economic importance?
Species (II) Does the intended (III) Does the intended
diversity (2)
activity cause a direct or activity affect the
indirect loss of a population sustainable use of a
of a species? population of a species?
Ecosystem (IV) Does the intended (V) Does the intended
diversity (2) activity lead to serious activity affect the
damage or total loss of (an) sustainable exploitation of
ecosystem(s) or land-use (an) ecosystem(s) or land-
type(s), thus leading to a use type(s) by humans in
loss of ecosystem diversity such manner that the
(i.e. the loss of indirect use exploitation becomes
values and non-use values)? destructive or non-
sustainable (i.e. the loss of
direct use values)?

(1) The potential loss of natural genetic diversity (genetic erosion) is

extremely difficult to determine, and does not provide any practical
clues for formal screening. The issue probably only comes up when
dealing with highly threatened, legally protected species which are
limited in numbers and / or have highly separated populations
(rhinoceros, tigers, whales, etc.), or when complete ecosystems
become separated and the risk of genetic erosion applies to many
species (the reason to construct so-called eco-ducts across major line
infrastructure). These issues are dealt with at species or ecosystem
level.

Ramsar: The Ramsar Convention does not currently directly address

issues of genetic diversity.

(2) Species diversity: The level at which “population” is to be defined

fully depends on the screening criteria used by a country. For
example, in the process of obtaining a special status, the
conservation status of species can be assessed within the boundaries
of a country (for legal protection), or can be assessed globally (IUCN

32
 Red Lists). Similarly, the scale at which ecosystems are defined
depends on the definition of criteria in a country.

Ramsar: As a reference for the definition of populations, for waterbirds

appropriate biogeographical populations are established in Wetlands
International’s Waterbird Population Estimates (3rd edition, 2002). Where
a site under consideration regularly supports >1% of one or more
waterbird populations, and additional question could be: does the
intended activity threaten to cause direct or indirect loss of the
international importance of waterbird populations?

33
 Appendix 2

The screening criteria

This is a suggested outline of a set of screening criteria, to be elaborated

on country level. It only deals with biodiversity criteria and thus is an add-
on to already existing screening criteria.

Category A: Environmental impact assessment mandatory:

Only in the case criteria can be based on formal legal backing,

such as:

• National legislation, for example in case of impact on protected

species and protected areas;
• International conventions such as CITES, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, etc.;
• Directives from supranational bodies, such as the European
Union directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and directive
79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds

Indicative list of activities for which an environmental impact

assessment could be mandatory:

(a) At the genetic level (relates to screening question I in annex I

above):

• Directly or indirectly cause a local loss of legally protected

varieties/cultivars/breeds of cultivated plants and / or
domesticated animals and their relatives, genes or genomes of
social, scientific and economic importance e.g. by introducing
living modified organisms that can transfer transgenes to legally
protected varieties/cultivars/breeds of cultivated plants and / or
domesticated animals and their relatives

(b) At species level (relates to screening question II and III in annex

I above):

• Directly affect legally protected species, for example by

extractive, polluting or other disturbing activities;
• Indirectly affect legally protected species, for example by
reducing its habitat, altering its habitat in such a manner that its
survival is threatened, introducing predators, competitors or
parasites of protected species, alien species or GMOs;
• Directly or indirectly affect all of the above for cases which are
important in respect of e.g. stop-over areas for migratory birds,
breeding grounds of migratory fish, commercial trade in species

34
 protected by CITES;
• Directly or indirectly affect non-legally protected, threatened
species.

(c) At ecosystem level (screening questions IV and V in annex I

above):

• Are located in legally protected areas;

• Are located in the vicinity of legally protected areas;
• Have direct influence on legally protected areas, for example by
emissions into the area, diversion of surface water that flows
through the area, extraction of groundwater in a shared aquifer,
disturbance by noise or lights, pollution through air.

Category B: The need for, or the level of environmental impact

assessment, is to be determined:

In cases where there is no legal basis to require an environmental impact

assessment, but one can suspect that the proposed activity may have a
significant impact on biological diversity, or that a limited study is needed
to solve uncertainties or design limited mitigation measures. This category
covers the frequently referred to but difficult to use concept of “sensitive
areas”. As long as so-called sensitive areas do not have any legal
protected status it is difficult to use the concept in practice, so a more
practical alternative is provided.

The following categories of criteria point towards possible impacts on

biological diversity, and further attention is thus required:

(a) Activities in, or in the vicinity of, or with influence on

areas with legal status having a probable link to
biological diversity but not legally protecting biological
diversity (relates to all five screening questions in annex I
above). For example: a Ramsar site has the official recognition of
having internationally important wetland values, but this
recognition does not automatically imply legal protection of
biological diversity in these wetlands). Other examples include
areas allocated to local and indigenous communities, extractive
reserves, landscape preservation areas, sites covered by
international treaties or conventions for preservation of natural
and / or cultural heritage such as the UNESCO Biosphere reserves
and World Heritage Sites;

(b) Impacts on biological diversity possible or likely, but the

environmental impact assessment is not necessarily
triggered by law:

(i) At the genetic level:

35
• Replacing agricultural, forestry or fishery varieties or breeds
by new varieties, including the introduction of living
modified organisms (LMOs) (screening questions I and II).

(ii) At the species level:

• All introductions of non-indigenous species (questions II and

III);

• All activities which directly or indirectly affect sensitive or

threatened species if or in case these species are not yet
protected (good reference for threatened species is provided
by the IUCN Red Lists); sensitive species may be endemic,
umbrella species, species at the edge of their range, or with
restricted distributions, rapidly declining species (question
II). Particular attention should be given to species which are
important in local livelihoods and cultures;

• All extractive activities related to the direct exploitation of

species (fisheries, forestry, hunting, collecting of plants
(including living botanical and zoological resources), etc.)
(question III)

• All activities leading to reproductive isolation of populations

of species (such as line infrastructure) (question II)

(iii) At the ecosystem level:

• All extractive activities related to the use of resources on

which biological diversity depends (exploitation of surface
and groundwater, open pit mining of soil components such
as clay, sand, gravel, etc.) (questions IV and V);

• All activities involving the clearing or flooding of land

(questions IV and V);

• All activities leading to pollution of the environment

(questions IV and V);

• Activities leading to the displacement of people (questions

IV and V);

• All activities leading to reproductive isolation of ecosystems

(question IV);

• All activities that significantly affect ecosystem functions

that represent values for society (see annex III below for a
list of functions provided by nature). Some of these functions

36
 depend on relatively neglected taxa;

• All activities in areas of known importance for biological

diversity (questions IV and V), such as areas containing high
diversity (hot spots), large numbers of endemic or
threatened species, or wilderness; required by migratory
species; of social, economic, cultural or scientific
importance; or which are representative, unique (e.g. where
rare or sensitive species occur) or associated with key
evolutionary or other biological processes.

Category C: no environmental impact assessment required

Activities which are not covered by one of the categories A or B, or are

designated as category C after initial environmental examination.

The generic nature of these guidelines does not allow for the positive
identification of types of activities or areas where environmental impact
assessment from a biodiversity perspective is not needed. At country
level, however, it will be possible to indicate geographical areas where
biological diversity considerations do not play a role of importance and,
conversely, areas where they do play an important role (biodiversity-
sensitive areas).

37
 Appendix 3

Indicative list (non-exhaustive) of examples of functions

of the natural environment that are directly (flora and
fauna) or indirectly (services provided by ecosystems
such as water supply) derived from biological diversity

Production functions • Suitability for power distribution

• Suitability for use of pipelines
Natural production • Suitability for leisure and tourism
• Timber production activities
• Firewood production • Suitability for nature conservation
• Production of harvestable grasses
(construction & artisanal use)
• Naturally produced fodder &
manure
• Harvestable peat
• Secondary (minor) products
• Harvestable bush meat (food)
• Fish & shellfish productivity
• Drinking water supply
• Supply of water for irrigation and
industry
• Water supply for hydroelectricity
• Supply of surface water for other
landscapes
• Supply of ground water for other
landscapes

Nature-based human production

• Crop productivity
• Tree plantations productivity
• Managed forest productivity
• Rangeland /livestock productivity
• Aquaculture productivity
(freshwater)
• Mariculture productivity
(brackish/saltwater)

Carrying functions
• Suitability for constructions
• Suitability for indigenous
settlement
• Suitability for rural settlement
• Suitability for urban settlement
• Suitability for industry
• Suitability for infrastructure
• Suitability for transport
infrastructure
• Suitability for shipping / navigation
• Suitability for road transport
• Suitability for rail transport
• Suitability for air transport

38
Processing and regulation functions
Land-based processing and
regulation functions
• Decomposition of organic material
(land based)
• Natural desalinisation of soils
• Development / prevention of acid
sulphate soils
• Biological control mechanisms
• Seasonal cleansing of soils
• Soil water storage capacity
• Coastal protection against floods
• Coastal stabilisation (against
accretion / erosion)
• Soil protection
Biodiversity-related regulation
functions
• Maintenance of genetic, species
and ecosystem composition
• Maintenance of horizontal and
vertical spatial structure, and of
temporal structure
• Maintenance of key processes for
structuring or maintaining
biological diversity
• Maintenance of pollinator services
Signification functions
• Cultural/religious/scientific/landsca
pe functions

Water related processing and

regulation functions
• Water filtering function
• Dilution of pollutants function
• Discharge of pollutants function
• Flushing / cleansing function
• Bio-chemical/physical purification
of water
• Storage for pollutants function
• Flow regulation for flood control
• River base flow regulation
• Water storage capacity
• Ground water recharge capacity
• Regulation of water balance
• Sedimentation / retention capacity
• Protection against water erosion
• Protection against wave action
• Prevention of saline groundwater
intrusion
• Prevention of saline surface-water
intrusion
• Transmission of diseases

Air-related processing and

regulation functions
• Filtering of air
• Carry off by air to other areas
• Photo-chemical air processing
(smog)
• Wind breaks
• Transmission of diseases
• Carbon sequestration

39
 Appendix 4

Biodiversity checklist on scoping for the identification of the impacts of proposed

projects on components of biodiversity (Not exhaustive)
COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Composition Structure (temporal) Structure (spatial: horizontal Key processes
and vertical)
LEVELS OF Genetic Minimal viable population Cycles with high and low Dispersal of natural genetic Exchange of genetic
BIOLOGICAL diversit (avoid destruction by genetic diversity within a variability Dispersal of material between
DIVERSITY y inbreeding / gene population. agricultural cultivars. populations (gene flow)
erosion) Local cultivars. Mutagenic influences
Living modified Intraspecific competition
organisms.

Species Species composition, Seasonal, lunar, tidal, Minimal areas for species to Regulation mechanisms
diversit genera, families etc, diurnal rhythms survive. Essential areas such as predation,
y rarity / abundance, (migration, breeding, (stepping stones) for migrating herbivory, parasitism,.
endemism / exotics flowering, leaf species. Interactions between
Population size and development, etc.) Niche requirements within species. Ecological
trends Known key species Reproductive rate, ecosystem (substrate function of a species
(essential role) fertility, mortality, growth preference, layer within
Conservation status rate. Reproductive ecosystem)
strategy. Relative or absolute isolation
Ecosyst Types and surface area of Adaptations to / Spatial relations between Structuring process(es) of
em ecosystems dependency on regular landscape elements (local and key importance for the
diversit Uniqueness / abundance rhythms: seasonal remote) maintenance of the
y Succession stage, Adaptations to / Spatial distribution (continuous ecosystem itself or for
existing disturbances and dependency of on or discontinuous / patchy); other ecosystems.
trends (=autonomous irregular events: Minimal area for ecosystem to
development) droughts, floods, frost, survive. Vertical structure
fire, wind Succession (layered, horizonts, stratified).
(rate)
Section III

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

(extract from “The Ramsar Convention and Impact Assessment,”
by Andrea Athanas and Frank Vorhies, IUCN Economic Service
Unit)

Note: The Ramsar Convention and Impact Assessment was prepared for Technical
Session IV of Ramsar COP7 (San José, Costa Rica, 1999); the full text is
available at http://ramsar.org/cop7_doc_19.1_e.htm.

SEA: a tool for legal and institutional review and for creating the
right incentives

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is the “formalised, systematic

and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental effects of a
policy, plan or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation
of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the
findings in publicly accountable decision-making” (Therivel et al 1992
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan Publications, London). It
provides a structured process of analysing the economic, social and
ecological impacts of programmes, plans and policies and of identifying
alternative economic incentives for conserving and wisely or sustainably
using wetlands. SEA differs from EIA in that it is applied to policies, plans
and programmes rather than to projects. It addresses a number of the
shortcomings of EIA in that it is capable of addressing the cumulative
impacts of projects, it is capable of addressing the issue of induced
impacts (where one project stimulates other development), it can address
synergistic impacts (where the impact of several projects exceeds the sum
of the individual project impacts), and it can address global impacts such
as biodiversity loss.

SEA and Convention objectives of reviewing and redesigning legal

and institutional frameworks

The structured procedure of SEA means that it can be used as a tool for
reviewing and amending legislation, institutions and practices to ensure
the wise use of wetlands (Operational Objective 2.1). Additionally, as a
part of this review process, SEA can provide a means of designing
appropriate incentive measures for wetland conservation and wise use.

The Parties to the Ramsar Convention have agreed under the wise use
concept to “formulate and implement their planning so as to promote . . .
as far as possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory” (Article 3.1).
The guidance for implementing the wise use concept (provided in the
Annex to Resolution 5.6) explicitly recognizes that social and economic
factors are the main reasons for wetland loss and suggests that Parties
create inter-ministerial boards or commissions to oversee coordination
and cooperation for wetland management. The guidelines suggest that
these National Ramsar Committees include government agencies dealing
with economic and social as well as environmental sectors (including
agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, hunting, fishing, shipping, tourism,
mining, industry, health and development assistance). Furthermore, the
guidance recommends the periodic review of existing legislation to ensure
its compatibility with wise use obligations and make adjustments where
necessary. Explicitly mentioned in this section is the need to adjust taxes
and subsidies which encourage the destruction of wetlands and to create
financial incentives to encourage activities compatible with the
maintenance of wetlands and which promote their conservation. In other
words, Parties have agreed to design and implement incentive measures
for the conservation and wise use of wetlands.

Both the CBD and Ramsar Conventions also recognize the role of SEA as a
tool for undertaking this review and redesign of policies, plans and
programmes in order to integrate the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity and wetlands. The CBD calls for Parties to “introduce
appropriate arrangements to ensure that the environmental consequences
of its programmes and policies that are likely to have significant adverse
impacts on biological diversity are duly taken into account” (CBD Article
14b). The first Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2002 Action 2.5.4 establishes
the role of SEA in this process by calling for the application of “Integrated
Environmental Management and Strategic Environmental Assessment (at
local, provincial and catchment/river basin or coastal zone levels) when
assessing impacts of development proposals or changes in land/water
use”. Action 2.2.3 of the Ramsar Strategic Plan 2003-2008 reaffirms the
call for SEA practices to be applied.

SEA in practice

Because SEA is still in the early stages of application, there are few
examples of complete SEA processes which have been applied to wetland
issues. Clare Brooke (1997) provides an overview of SEA as relevant to
water resources planning in Europe in a paper presented at the IAIA 1997
annual meeting (available at http://economics.iucn.org/kits-03-00.htm).
She concludes that elements of SEAs are apparent in a study of
hydrological planning in the Tajo river basin in Spain, but that hydrological
planning is still demand-driven and environmental protection is of
secondary importance. She does, however, identify a number of strengths
of SEA such as:

• allowing environmental issues to be considered earlier in decision-

making;
• enabling the identification of conflicting objectives within policies;
• identifying responsibilities for environmental protection;
• setting the context for lower-level assessments (such as project
EIAs);
• considering non-project related impacts;
• enabling the meaningful consideration of alternatives; and
• providing baseline information for lower-level assessments.

This last point is particularly interesting when considering the linkages

between impact assessment and wetlands assessment processes. Not
only can SEAs provide a baseline for EIA data collection and monitoring,
but an SEA can establish common collection and monitoring techniques so
that information collected by one EIA can be useful for other EIAs as well
as feed into ongoing wetland and biodiversity assessment processes.

[Start Box, no banner, shade box]

Stages in SEA

1. Decide whether the programme, plan or policy (PPP) needs an

SEA
2. Describe the PPP’s objectives and other objectives
a. Identify alternatives for the PPP
b. Describe the PPP
3. Identify key impacts and their boundaries
a. Establish indicators and targets
b. Describe current and likely future environmental baseline

c. Identify problem areas in consultation with the public

4. Predict impacts, cope with uncertainty
a. Evaluate impacts
b. Compare alternatives
5. Propose mitigation measures (including incentives)
a. Propose monitoring and assessment
6. Review SEA report, make ‘formal’ PPP decision
7. Implement PPP, monitor PPP’s impacts and achievement of its
objectives
from Therivel and Thompson 1996
[End Box]

Though UK-focused in their examples, Therivel and Thompson (1996)

provide a clear and concise overview of SEA as it relates to nature
conservation in general in Strategic Environmental Assessment and
Nature Conservation (Report to English Nature. Peterborough, UK). In
describing the stages of an SEA process (see box), Therivel and Thompson
demonstrate for each stage how nature conservation issues have been
and can be addressed.

For instance, in describing how nature conservation issues can be brought

into the objective setting stage of an SEA, Therivel and Thompson point
out that commitments to international agreements could be included
among the objectives and may even be considered binding objectives to
reflect an element of commitment. Additionally, Therivel and Thompson
recommend using a matrix to determine the compatibility between
programme, plan or policy objectives and sustainability aims. Such a
matrix could also be adapted to determine compatibility with
commitments to the Wise Use Guidelines. Scoping is a key stage for
ensuring that potential impacts on the ecological character of wetlands
are identified and examined in the SEA. It is then necessary to identify
relevant indicators for measuring and representing environmental trends
which can then help to set appropriate targets. These indicators can be
state of the environment indicators (i.e., related to the ecological
character descriptions of the wetlands), impact or pressure indicators (i.e.,
number of Ramsar-listed sites which are listed as on the Montreux
Record), or action indicators (i.e., policies reviewed and amended to
integrate wetlands conservation and wise use issues). In proposing
mitigation measures (stage 5), Therivel and Thompson highlight a number
of ways of incorporating nature conservation into the SEA including:

• planning future developments to avoid sensitive habitats (such as

wetlands);
• placing constraints on lower tier PPPs (such as projects);
• establishing new areas for nature conservation and controlled uses;
• managing existing areas of nature conservation or expanding them;
and
• public awareness.

Also, the design and implementation of incentive measures for the

conservation and wise use of wetlands should be included in this list of
possible mitigatory measures.

Hurdles to implementing SEA for wetland conservation and wise

use

Of course, there are a number of hurdles to overcome in the

implementation of SEA for wetlands conservation and wise use. SEA has
travelled through the legislative process slowly for a number of reasons.
Importantly, policy, plan and programme processes are often nebulous –
having no clear starting or stopping points – making it difficult to apply a
structured process of analysis to determine their potential impacts and
possible mitigation measures. The Ramsar Convention’s advocacy of a
legal and institutional review process would overcome this issue, in that it
provides the ‘starting point’ for policy review and development.

Additionally, there has been some debate about what level of policy, plan
or programme (PPP) to apply SEA to – whether it be applied only to those
PPPs which require consent and therefore go through an approval process,
or whether it be applied to the whole range of PPPs. This is related to the
issue of the nebulous planning process mentioned above, but is more
directly concerned with the stopping point or decision-making point of
PPPs. Again, other work under the Ramsar Convention suggests a way of
overcoming this hurdle. The Convention’s commitments to formulate
planning so as to promote the wise use of wetlands as well as the
recommendation to establish National Ramsar Committees under the legal
and institutional review and processes such as the National Biodiversity
Strategies suggest that a more holistic approach to SEA application is
compatible with Ramsar objectives.
 Relevant Resolutions and Recommendations

Resolution VIII.9
(adopted by the 8th Conference of the Contracting Parties, Valencia, Spain,
2002)

‘Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues

into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or
processes and in strategic environmental assessment’
adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), and their relevance to the Ramsar Convention

1. WELCOMING the adoption by COP6 of the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) of the Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-
related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation
and/or processes and in strategic environmental assessment and
Recommendations for the conduct of cultural, environmental and
social impact assessment regarding developments proposed to take
place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands
and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local
communities;

2. RECALLING Recommendation 6.2, in which the Contracting Parties

urged that environmental considerations for wetlands be integrated
into planning decisions in a clear and publicly transparent manner,
and in which they requested the Convention’s Scientific and Technical
Review Panel (STRP) to examine existing environmental impact
assessment (EIA) guidelines relevant to wetlands and, if necessary,
arrange for the drafting of Ramsar guidelines, as an aid to the wise
use of wetlands;

3. FURTHER RECALLING Resolution VII.16, which “calls upon Contracting

Parties to ensure that any projects, plans, programmes and policies
with the potential to alter the ecological character of wetlands on the
Ramsar List or impact negatively on other wetlands in their territory,
are subjected to rigorous impact assessment procedures and to
formalise such procedures under policy, legal, institutional and
organizational arrangements”; and which requested “the Scientific
and Technical Review Panel and the Ramsar Bureau to work in
cooperation with their counterparts from the CBD and other relevant
conventions and expert organizations, to review existing guidelines
and available information on environmental impact assessment and
economic valuation of wetlands”, and indicated that this could be
reported as an Internet-based resource kit on the use of these tools
for identifying opportunities to apply the wise use principle;

4. AWARE that the Joint Work Plan 2000-2001 of the CBD and Ramsar
encouraged close cooperation in taking forward their respective
 programmes on impact assessment and minimizing adverse impacts,
in consultation with IUCN -The World Conservation Union, the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), and others;

5. ALSO AWARE that CBD Decision V/18 requested the preparation of

further guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into
EIA legislation and/or processes and in strategic environmental
assessment, and referred to collaboration with the STRP on matters
of impact assessment;

6. ACKNOWLEDGING the adoption by COP7 of the Convention on

Migratory Species of Resolution 7.10 on Impact Assessment on
Migratory Species which, inter alia, requests the CMS Scientific
Council to cooperate with the Ramsar STRP in reviewing and
identifying gaps in relevant guidance;

7. WELCOMING the signing in June 2001 of a Memorandum of

Understanding between the Ramsar Bureau and the IAIA;

8. EMPHASIZING the importance of impact assessment in key processes

of the Ramsar Convention, including water allocations and
management, management planning, and cases of boundary change
and compensation for sites on the List of Wetlands of International
Importance, and NOTING that the additional guidance on these
matters adopted by this meeting of the Conference of the Parties
refers to the application of impact assessments, and that it stresses
the importance of the full involvement of local communities and
indigenous peoples in an open and transparent manner; and

9. RECOGNIZING the role of impact assessment in wetland restoration

and rehabilitation, including the identification of possibilities for
mitigation for lost wetlands;

THE CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES

10. URGES Contracting Parties to make use, as appropriate, of the

Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into
environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes and
in strategic environmental assessment, as adopted by Decision VI/7
of CBD COP6, with the assistance of the guidance prepared by the
STRP and imbedded in the text of the CBD Guidelines, as shown in
the annex to this Resolution; and to encourage full participation of
local communities and indigenous peoples in impact assessments, in
line with these guidelines, the Guidelines for establishing and
strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s
participation in the management of wetlands (Resolution VII.8), and
the New Guidelines for management planning for Ramsar sites and
other wetlands (Resolution VIII.14);
11. FURTHER URGES Contracting Parties to make use of the tools and
information on impact assessment compiled by IUCN in their
Biodiversity Economics Web site,
http://www.biodiversityeconomics.org/assessment/ramsar-503-
01.htm, created in response to Resolution VII.16 in order to assist in
their practical application of good practice in impact assessment
relevant to wetlands;

12. REQUESTS Contracting Parties to provide feedback to the Ramsar

Bureau on the extent to which materials available on the IUCN
Biodiversity Economics Web site are useful for their needs, and in
light of this to indicate more precisely the nature of their needs for
further information, advice and guidance on impact assessment
relevant to wetlands;

13. URGES Contracting Parties and others to provide relevant materials

to the Ramsar Bureau, including case studies indicating lessons
learned, guidelines, sources of advice, and other relevant materials
on impact assessment relevant to wetlands for incorporation into the
IUCN Biodiversity Economics Web site;

14. REQUESTS the Scientific and Technical Review Panel and the Ramsar
Bureau to prepare a synthesis of lessons learned from those case
studies submitted, including indications of linkages with existing
Ramsar guidance on other topics where relevant, to prepare a report
for COP9, and to provide expert assistance when appropriate;

15. ALSO REQUESTS the STRP, in collaboration with IAIA, to continue to

identify wetland-related elements of existing guidelines on impact
assessment, to identify important gaps where such guidance is failing
fully to meet the needs of Contracting Parties, and to investigate
possible ways of filling such gaps, taking into account the
Recommendations for the conduct of cultural, environmental and
social impact assessment regarding developments proposed to take
place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands
and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local
communities adopted by CBD’s COP6;

16. FURTHER REQUESTS the STRP, with the assistance of the Ramsar
Bureau, to conduct a review, as a supplement to that presented in
Technical Session A of Ramsar COP6 in 1996, of references to impact
assessment in Ramsar COP decisions, guidelines and other Ramsar
publications, and in particular to identify and seek to correct if
necessary any inconsistencies of approach, and to make the results
of such review available as an updated index of references to impact
assessment in Ramsar materials;

17. URGES Contracting Parties to establish contact with the relevant

national contact points from within the networks of the IAIA with a
 view to identifying sources of expertise and advice for assisting with
wetland-related impact assessment;

18. REQUESTS the STRP to prepare advice for Contracting Parties on

applying strategic environmental assessment in the context of the
Convention’s Guidelines on reviewing laws and institutions to
promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands (Ramsar
Handbook 3) and Guidelines for developing and implementing
National Wetland Policies (Ramsar Handbook 2); and

19. RECOMMENDS that Contracting Parties and impact assessment

practitioners seek to use impact assessments, particularly where
they are related to mitigation projects, as opportunities to stimulate
the adoption of, and to contribute to, strategically-determined targets
for wetland conservation, management, enhancement, rehabilitation
and restoration.
 Recommendation 6.2
(adopted by the 6 Conference of the Contracting Parties,
th

Brisbane, Australia, 1996)

Environmental impact assessment

1. CONCERNED that much loss and degradation of wetland functions
and values occurs without adequate prior assessment of the
potential environmental impact of the relevant plans and projects,
and that international standards and consistency of approach to the
assessment of environmental effects can help reduce this;

2. RECALLING that successive recommendations and resolutions of the

Conference of the Contracting Parties have encouraged the use of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures as one means of
fostering wise use of wetlands, and noting in particular the principles
contained therein which are summarized in the Annex to this
recommendation;

3. AWARE that many Contracting Parties already operate legal and

administrative systems to give effect to environmental appraisal in
various forms, but that many would benefit from new initiatives in
this field and in particular the adoption of guidelines on standards,
techniques and procedures; and

4. CONSIDERING that attention should be given to EIA objectives in

wetland policies, and to wetland conservation objectives in EIA
policies;

THE CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES

5. CALLS ON the Contracting Parties to integrate environmental

considerations in relation to wetlands into planning decisions in a
clear and publicly transparent manner;

6. INVITES Contracting Parties, national and international organizations

to submit to the Bureau available guidelines on environmental
appraisal and EIA which may be relevant to wetlands, so that the
Bureau may be able to maintain an overview and respond to
enquiries on the subject; and

7. REQUESTS the Standing Committee and the Scientific and Technical

Review Panel, in collaboration with the Bureau and partner
organizations, to examine existing EIA guidelines relevant to
wetlands and, if necessary, to arrange for the drafting of Ramsar
guidelines, as an aid to the wise use of wetlands, in a form suitable
for adoption by the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting
Parties.
 Resolution VII.16
(adopted by the 7 Conference of the Contracting Parties, San José, Costa
th

Rica, 1999)

The Ramsar Convention and impact assessment:

strategic, environmental and social

1. RECALLING Article 3.2 of the Convention which states that each

Contracting Party “shall arrange to be informed at the earliest
possible time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory
and included in the List [of Wetlands of International Importance] has
changed, is changing or is likely to change as the result of
technological developments, pollution or other human interference”,
and also Article 3.1 which states that Contracting Parties “shall
formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the
conservation of the wetlands included in the List, and as far as
possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory”;

2. FURTHER RECALLING Recommendation 6.2 which “calls on the

Contracting Parties to integrate environmental considerations in
relation to wetlands into planning decisions in a clear and publicly
transparent way”;

3. AWARE that Action 2.5.1 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 sets out to
“expand the Additional Guidance on Wise Use by preparing, for a
technical session at the 7th COP, the results of a review of
environmental appraisal guidelines and examples of current best
practice EIA”;

4. ALSO AWARE that Action 2.5.4 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 urges
Contracting Parties to “take account of Integrated Environmental
Management and Strategic Environmental Assessment (at local,
provincial and catchment/river basin or coastal zone levels) when
assessing impacts of development proposals or changes in
land/water use”;

5. RECOGNIZING Operational Objective 2.4 of the Strategic Plan 1997-

2002 which urges Contracting Parties “to provide economic
evaluations of the benefits and functions of wetlands for
environmental planning processes” and Recommendation 6.10 which
notes “that it is vital that all wetland economic values be identified,
measured and reported upon to increase national and international
awareness of the need for and benefits of wetland conservation;

6. REAFFIRMING the role of impact assessment and economic valuation

as key tools for assisting the Contracting Parties in their efforts to
achieve the objectives of the Convention, especially with respect to
the management of sites included in the List of Wetlands of
 International Importance (the Ramsar List) and in the implementation
of the wise use principle;

7. NOTING WITH APPROVAL that the issues of impact assessment and

economic valuation form elements of the Joint Work Plan between the
Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
(Resolution VII.4) and that this was endorsed by Decision IV/15 of
CBD’s 4th Conference of the Parties;

8. ALSO NOTING WITH APPROVAL that CBD’s Decision IV/10c on impact

assessment and minimizing adverse effects specifically encouraged
collaboration between the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), and IUCN-The
World Conservation Union on this matter; and

9. HAVING CONSIDERED the paper on The Ramsar Convention and

impact assessment presented to Technical Session IV of this
Conference, and in particular its advice regarding integrated
approaches to impact assessment at the policy, plan, programme
and project levels;

THE CONFERENCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES

10. CALLS UPON Contracting Parties to reinforce and strengthen their

efforts to ensure that any projects, plans, programmes and policies
with the potential to alter the ecological character of wetlands in the
Ramsar List, or impact negatively on other wetlands within their
territories, are subjected to rigorous impact assessment procedures
and to formalise such procedures under policy, legal, institutional and
organizational arrangements;

11. ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties to ensure that impact assessment

procedures seek to identify the true values of wetland ecosystems in
terms of the many functions, values and benefits they provide, to
allow these environmental, economic and broader social values to be
included in decision-making and management processes;

12. FURTHER ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties to ensure that impact

assessment processes relating to wetlands are undertaken in a
transparent and participatory manner which includes local
stakeholders, as encouraged through the Guidelines for establishing
and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s
participation in the management of wetlands (Resolution VII.8);

13. ALSO ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties, as part of their ongoing

monitoring and impact assessment practices for sites in the Ramsar
List, to apply the Framework for designing a wetland monitoring
 programme (Resolution VI.1) and the Wetland Risk Assessment
Framework (Resolution VII.10);

14. ALSO CALLS UPON Contracting Parties with shared wetlands and river
basins to seek cooperative approaches to impact assessment with
neighbouring countries as encouraged by the Guidelines for the
integration of wetland conservation and wise use into river basin
management (Resolution VII.18) and the Guidelines for international
cooperation under the Ramsar Convention (Resolution VII.19);

15. REQUESTS the Bureau to continue to work with the Secretariats of

the CBD and the CMS as well as with OECD, IAIA, IUCN, and other
relevant partners in exploring the use of impact assessments as tools
for developing and implementing incentive measures for conserving
and wisely using wetland ecosystems; and

16. FURTHER REQUESTS the Scientific and Technical Review Panel and
the Ramsar Bureau to work in cooperation with their counterparts
from the CBD and other relevant conventions and expert
organizations, to review existing guidelines and available information
on environmental impact assessment and economic valuation of
wetlands, in accordance with the high priority given during the last
triennium (Recommendations 6.2 and 6.10). This could be reported
as an Internet-based resource kit that examines the use of
environmental impact assessment and economic valuation as tools
for identifying opportunities to apply the wise use principle.