Incorporating ecosystem service assessments into development planning − impact from a dredging project in South Australia on seagrass

• An Ecosystem Service Assessment (ESA) was included in an Environmental Impact Assessment for a major dredging program. • The ESA incorporated social and economic factors resulting in a more equitable evaluation of risk. • The inclusion of ecosystem services improved engagement with stakeholders and assisted in gaining a social licence. • The process was understood by non-scientific decision makers assisting in improved environmental outcomes. • Monetary valuation of services at risk was a powerful tool in conveying risk of long term impact. Major infrastructure development is required for economic development and to improve human well-being, however conflict exists between developers and the community. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is used in over 100 countries to evaluate potential impacts of major developments across environment, economy, and social benchmarks. However, EIA has been criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, lack of consultation or participation and inadequate science. An ecosystem service assessment (ESA) recognizes the links between the environment and the socio-economic environment, resulting in a more holistic evaluation of potential impacts and effective community consultation. Despite this, its inclusion within EIA’s is rare. An ESA was trialled within the evaluation stage of an EIA for a large capital dredging project in Adelaide, South Australia, an area dominated by long-lived seagrass. The process highlighted significant value to society from seagrass meadows, delivering provisioning, regulating and cultural services and many of these were at risk from the dredging proposal causing conflict with the community. The ESA provided clarity in links between ecological and social economic systems, assisting genuine and transparent engagement with the stakeholders and community. Monetary valuation of services provided context to decision makers arguing for changes to proposed methodology to protect seagrass and ecosystem services. Changes to the proposal resulted in substantially less seagrass loss than originally proposed, helping protect ecosystem services. This case study demonstrated the benefit of including an ESA into major development planning, increasing transparency, reducing conflict with the community, and assisting in providing a social licence to operate.