Executive summary

This report presents the findings of a research project, commissioned by the Minerals Industry Research Organisation (MIRO) on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and was funded through the ‘Aggregates Strategic Research Programme’ (ASRP), which forms part of Defra’s Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF). The research was carried out between May 2009 and March 2010 by Capita Symonds Ltd, Cuesta Consulting Ltd and David Jarvis Associates.

The main objective of the research was to “develop an ecosystems approach to inform decisions on the planning and restoration of quarries and design a tool to assist local authority decision-making”. Adoption of an ecosystems approach in England is linked directly to the delivery of Public Service Agreement (PSA) 28, which is to “Secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future”. Defra is committed to developing and embedding an ecosystems approach within policy- and decision making so that, in future, this will allow us to live within environmental limits, to mitigate and adapt
more successfully to climate change and other pressures on the natural environment, and to achieve more sustainable development.

Adopting an ecosystems approach means looking at whole ecosystems during decision-making and valuing the ‘ecosystem services’ which they provide. These are the various aspects of an ecosystem which have value to people. They can be grouped into four main categories:

• Supporting services: those which are necessary for the functioning of all other ecosystem services e.g. nutrient cycling, soil formation and photosynthesis;
• Regulating services: benefits obtained from the regulation of natural processes e.g. climate regulation, flood regulation and water purification;
• Provisioning services: the products (including those derived from both renewable and finite resources) that can be obtained from ecosystems e.g. food, fresh water, wood and fibre, fuel and minerals; and
• Cultural services: including the availability of land suitable for development but also nonmaterial or intrinsic benefits e.g. educational and recreational opportunities, aesthetic and spiritual values.

The study has refined and tested an innovative method of Ecosystem Services Assessment to inform decisions on the planning and restoration of quarries, based upon the comparison of two or more alternative future development scenarios within the Mendip Hills case study area. The concept being investigated in this case study is that, by comparison with existing planning policies and approaches, a better overall outcome might be achieved through the implementation of a long term, holistic quarrying and restoration strategy that is guided by the principles of the Ecosystems Approach.

The method being tested, as originally developed in the earlier (Phase 1) feasibility study (Thompson & Birch 2009), involves a sequence of seven steps, as listed below:

• Step 1: Prepare an inventory of relevant ecosystem services
• Step 2: Devise an appropriate framework for assessment
• Step 3: Decide the policy basis for the alternative scenarios which are to be compared
• Step 4: Construct the likely consequences of each scenario
• Step 5: Prepare descriptive characterisations for each scenario
• Step 6: Compare the scenarios
• Step 7: Identify and modify (as necessary) the preferred option

Of these, Steps 1 to 6 (only) were carried out. Step 7 would, if the exercise were being carried out ‘for real’, be undertaken by the Mineral Planning Authority, following a process of public consultation. It was considered not appropriate to involve such consultation for a research project, at a time when the MPA is already consulting on its emerging Minerals Core Strategy.

For the purpose of the research, the illustrative alternative scenarios were developed by Cuesta Consulting Ltd through detailed liaison with the quarry operators, taking account of the various constraints and opportunities identified through liaison with a wider range of stakeholders in an earlier An Ecosystems Approach to Long Term Minerals Planning in the Mendip Hills (Phase II) ‘Phase 1’ study. The scenarios were illustrated through 3-dimesional modelling and photo-real
simulations by landscape technicians at Capita Symonds and David Jarvis Associates. The professional Ecosystem Services Assessments were then carried out by a team of experts from Capita Symonds. In order to provide an independent check on the robustness and consistency of the assessments, and also to tap into additional depths of local knowledge and experience, the findings were then scrutinised by members of the project steering group

The study has shown the method to be effective in distinguishing between the pros and cons of each scenario in delivering individual ecosystem services, and in highlighting those differences which are seen to be of particular importance. It enables the ‘trade-offs’ between gains in some ecosystem services and losses in others to be readily identified as a basis for informing decisions on which is the preferred scenario.

The method allows for both qualitative and quantitative assessment, thereby greatly simplifying the process of taking ecosystem services into account. It allows for quantification to be included where this is necessary (e.g. for issues which are considered to be of critical importance to the selection of a preferred option) and where suitable quantitative data can be obtained at reasonable cost. Where this can be done it will clearly enable a more robust comparison to be made, and should therefore be encouraged. Quantitative data may, in some cases, include monetary valuation of ecosystem services
and/or the results of various deliberative or participatory techniques which capture the views of local communities and other stakeholder groups. Ongoing research in all of these areas is being funded by Defra and others. Subject to one or more of these approaches being able to command the confidence of those involved in the planning process (as well as overcoming an insufficiency of data in the case of monetary valuation), they may provide a useful means of comparing services which otherwise could only be quantified in different units. This study has demonstrated, however, that much can be achieved by relatively simple, qualitative analysis, particularly as a means of highlighting critical differences, on which further investigations can be focussed.

Steering Group members noted that the process could usefully complement, rather than unnecessarily complicate, existing (statutory) forms of assessment, i.e. Sustainability Appraisals (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA). The solution to embedding an ecosystems approach into the planning system may therefore lie in re-focussing guidance to SA and SEA practitioners, such that both are encouraged to take account of ecosystem services (rather than in replacing or adding further to existing, statutory requirements). At the regional scale, such thinking may usefully inform the scoping
stage of the SA process. At the sub-regional scale, where site-specific detail is being considered in the selection of preferred policy options, the method outlined in this report could provide a very useful way of comparing the alternative options in terms of ecosystem services.

A basic understanding of the Ecosystems Approach also has the potential to inform the baseline assessment stage of any EIA, thereby assisting in the identification and better understanding of sensitive receptors for subsequent assessment. Equally, an understanding of the same concepts should provide a powerful tool for the development of quarry (and other infrastructure) designs prior to their detailed assessment through EIA.

The planning system relies upon the combination of technical assessment, consultation, community engagement and democratic accountability to reach decisions. Whilst such decisions will undoubtedly be better informed through an understanding of ecosystem services, they must be made by the relevant authorities, taking account of the differences in weighting between the various different services which are deemed by them (and by their consultees) to be appropriate in different areas.

With regard to the concept of a long term strategy for future quarrying and quarry restoration in the Mendip Hills, this case study has examined two illustrative scenarios within a much wider range of possibilities. It has shown how a strategy which embodies the principles of the Ecosystems Approach could enhance the overall delivery of ecosystem services through the use of more holistic and sympathetic design concepts. It has also shown, however, that, by comparison with alternative future scenarios, this would entail reduced quantities of extraction in some existing areas of quarrying (subject to thresholds set by environmental limits), and the allocation of new areas for future extraction in one or more less sensitive areas, elsewhere within the Mendips. Any new sites would be subject to testing through the normal planning process in future iterations of the emerging Minerals Development Framework, and may only help to achieve a net improvement in ecosystem services delivery if they are able to be accessed by the rail network, or other sustainable forms of transport.