In Europe, the European Union’s EIA Directive establishes the need for environmental impact assessment of certain types of port development. The Habitats Directive establishes robust protection for habitats and species of European importance and the formation of a European network of Sites of Community Importance, which are designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs); these, along with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive, form a network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. “Our experience shows that consent for major port development can be achieved, but this can require numerous technical and environmental assessments and public inquiry,” says Sian John, director of Royal Haskoning Environment.

“The environment is protected from port planning and dredging projects through the application of Council Directives as transposed into the law of member states; that is, legal mechanisms ensuring that potentially significant environmental effects are considered during the consenting process,” says Ms John.

Dredging-related environmental issues certainly have an influence on port planning, she says – particularly as more volume generally means deeper ships.

“Port planning typically takes place as a response to a market demand.For example,in recent years UK ports have responded to increasing container trade by proposing large new container terminals or extensions to existing terminals.Since containers are being moved by larger ships with larger draughts, dredging and dredging-related environmental issues have strongly influenced the planning of these ports.

“In the UK, container terminal proposals including the London Gateway, Bathside Bay, Felixstowe and Dibden Bay are all situated in or near protected European sites (i.e. SACs or SPAs), where the inter-tidal areas are protected under the Habitats Directive and other environmental designations.

“As dredging has the potential to adversely affect the integrity of the protected inter-tidal areas,amongst other environmental impacts, dredging-related issues have had a major influence on the planning of these ports, since all four of the proposed terminals were the subject of EIA, appropriate assessment, public inquiry and multiple consents.”

ABP’s plans for Dibden Bay were turned down by the government in 2004:“It is likely that the decision by the Secretary of State was influenced by the view that the proposed development would damage the integrity of the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site and SPA,”says Ms John.

According to Royal Haskoning Environment’s technical director Steve Challinor, the “winning formula” for gaining consent for dredging projects includes: regular compliance monitoring, overseen by an independent advisor; annual reporting, again by an independent advisor; a “Regulators Group” with decision-making authority, where the consent gives the regulators the power to vary, add and omit monitoring and mitigation measures, rather than fixing a regime in advance; the inclusion of nongovernmental organisations through structured stakeholder engagement; the coordination of all mitigation and monitoring initiatives within the impacted environmental system; ongoing monitoring and research; shared responsibility; and, finally, the acceptance of some (measured) risk as a result of the open exchange of information.