Biotope value method

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Germany, biotope value procedures are standardized assessment procedures for biotope or use types, especially for use in the intervention regulation according to the Federal Nature Conservation Act and in environmental impact assessments  (EIA). With such a procedure, the person responsible for an interference proves to the nature conservation authority that the compensation measures (compensatory and substitute measures) planned by him are sufficient and appropriate to compensate for the interference. Furthermore, biotope value methods serve to postpone compensation measures that have not been implemented or that can be implemented in the process itself. They are then used to determine appropriate measures as part of a pool of measures or an eco-account . If no measures are taken at all, the amount of the compensation payment (replacement money) can be determined using the procedure.

Calculation of the biotope value in ecopoints

“Currency” in biotope value methods are value points, which are usually (somewhat casually) referred to as “eco points”. The carrying out expert first determines the sum of the ecopoints in the (previously defined and agreed) effective area of ​​the intervention in the current state, i.e. H. before implementation of the project. The effects of the project on nature and the landscape are forecast and also converted into eco-points. On the basis of the difference between before and after, the expert determines the scope of the compensation measures required according to the procedure. Finally, the expert compares the “before” situation with a predicted “after” situation, which corresponds to the situation after the implementation of the project including the planned compensation measures. If the sum “after” is at least as large as “before”, proof of the legally required compensation is provided.

A simple and easily comprehensible procedure is used to determine the value points:

  • Step 1: The plan area is broken down into a mosaic of quasi-homogeneous partial areas so that each partial area corresponds to a biotope type . The biotope types are defined in a list that is an essential part of the procedure. Only biotope types on the list may be used.
  • Step 2: The area size (in square meters) of the partial areas is determined (with the help of a geographic information system ). Taken together, they correspond to the size of the plan area.
  • Step 3: The process according to the list assigns value points to each biotope type, which are different depending on the assumed value of the type. Many procedures contain supplementary regulations that allow individual revaluation or devaluation.
  • Step 4: The value of each homogeneous sub-area is calculated as "area in square meters" times "specific value points for the assigned biotope type". (E.g .: A meadow orchard is 5,000 square meters. Orchards receive 8 (out of a possible 10) points according to the procedure. The orchard under consideration then receives 40,000 eco points). The total is the value of the plan space.
  • Step 5: The same procedure is carried out for the plan area after the project has been implemented. Many procedures apply different (mostly lower) value points for newly created biotopes than for existing (2 lists).

If the compensation is not carried out in the procedure, the equivalent of areas and measures from an eco-account or area pool can easily be calculated using the same procedure. In addition, “excess” compensation measures can be booked on the credit side of the eco-account. To convert it into a replacement payment, one eco point is multiplied by a predetermined amount of money per point.

In principle, all biotope value processes work indiscriminately according to this scheme. The only relevant difference between the various common methods lies in the underlying list of biotope types and, if applicable, in the value points assigned to each biotope type. There are very simplified methods with short lists among others that have very long lists with e.g. Some types contain complex defined types. B. be defined as plant societies according to the plant sociological system.

Further differences can result from the fact that individual processes define effective zones, e.g. B. Ribbons along new roads to be built parallel to the road route. Within these bands, a general reduction in the biotope value (through multiplication with a constant factor) is assumed. Long-range effects such as noise, pollution or disturbance of the landscape should be taken into account in the process.

Individual proceedings

In Germany, there is an almost unmanageable variety of different biotope value methods in use. In accordance with the federal structure of German nature conservation law, there are hardly any procedures that are used outside of one federal state. But even within the federal states, there are often no uniform procedures in use. Most of the time, individual nature conservation authorities prefer a certain procedure that is common and familiar to them and block attempts to make standardized procedures binding. For certain types of projects (e.g. road construction, land-use planning, wind power plants), specific procedures have often become established. Some procedures are only common with a single lower nature conservation authority. Some are prescribed or at least recommended nationwide by the respective state ministry.

Situations before and after an intervention are always recorded as a mosaic of different biotope values ​​as Σ (Pt × m² partial area) before and after the intervention. If, according to the assessment of the user, “imbalances” occur, surcharges and deductions can be made. There are also additional evaluations, such as for the landscape.

Examples: "Bodenseekreis" procedure (extract, status 2000):

  • Orchard meadow 50 pt / m²
  • Willow 21 pt / m²
  • Field, intensively cultivated 13 pt / m²
  • Green area (meadow) along the street 14 pt / m²
  • Grassland (meadow) on the dirt road is intensively used 21 pt / m²

Procedure "Working aid for building land use planning", North Rhine-Westphalia

  • Orchard meadow (if with old trees) 9 pt / m²
  • Willow 4 pt / m²
  • Field, intensively cultivated 2 pt / m²
  • Green area (meadow) along the street 3 pt / m²
  • Grassland (meadow) on the dirt road used intensively 4 pt / m²

Procedure Ludwig (common in the Rhineland)

  • Orchard meadow (with old tall trunks) 20 pt / m²
  • Pasture (intensively fertilized pasture, moderately dry to fresh) 10 pt / m²
  • Field, intensively cultivated 6 pt / m²
  • Green area (meadow) along the road (grass corridors at the edges of roads and paths) 12 pt / m²
  • Grassland (meadow) on the dirt road used intensively 10 pt / m²

These few examples already show:

  • Transferring ecopoints between different biotope value methods is not permitted.
  • The ranking sequence between the processes (from the most valuable to the most worthless type of biotope) is generally comparable.

but

  • The value of a certain type of biotope depends on the process.

The ratio z. B. Field / pasture is 0.62 in the first example, 0.5 in the second example, and 0.6 in the third. Depending on the method used, different compensation obligations would arise.

The difference “before intervention” - “after intervention” is converted into a compensation charge with a cost index (KI) if a loss of points is determined and the intervention is not classified as functionally balanced, in Hesse for example 32 cents / pt. (As of 8/2005).

Origins

A major driving force behind the development of the biotope value process was to find processes that could be carried out or understood by administrative employees who were not specially trained. Within the procedure, the appropriateness of the compensation can be read off simply and schematically. In the case of a purely verbal argumentative justification, the examiner must be able to understand the details of the reviewer's arguments. The genesis of such procedures was initially based on the goal of obtaining a calculation key for replacement payments. It was therefore not a question of transferring intervention and compensation from the ecological functional analysis into a purely numerically abstract calculability. Rather, the biotope value procedure should only take effect, as explicitly stated in the first edition of the Hessian version introduced as a guideline in 1992, if an intervention could not be functionally compensated and this resulted in the need for compensation. It was only later that biotope value methods were also established in the intervention compensation analysis.

Criticism of the application

The "value" of intervention and compensation in all its damaging and welfare effects for the natural balance cannot be determined in the context of landscape planning , but also with the most complex scientific studies according to the current state of knowledge. Value decisions are also always normative, so they cannot be scientifically wrong or right, but only appropriate or inappropriate. Nevertheless, especially since the 1990s, under the pressure to put the scope of the compensatory measures in a fair relationship to the interference effects, a number of accounting procedures have been presented. Normative, generalizing procedures with the aim of "calculability" of the effects lead, in the opinion of the critics, to a lack of secure bases, to sham accuracy, with which, from a quasi-scientific point of view, calculations are carried out with remarkable numerical acrobatics up to the "proof" of a balanced balance. That is u. a. to counter that the entire intervention regulation is not a scientifically justifiable assessment, but rather a socio-political setting. In the context of this setting, further conventions are permissible as long as they are within the set framework.

The problem with all methods is that they are based on the definition of ranks with which the value is then calculated. Ordinal numbers are thus treated as cardinal numbers without justification . (Almost all experts can agree that a bog is more valuable in terms of nature conservation than a fat meadow, and that this in turn is more valuable than an unpaved parking lot. But: is the bog worth twice as much, or ten times, or a hundred times?). This problem is well known in the technical discussion. The procedures continue to be used because they are naturalized and you cannot agree on anything else.

As early as the 1980s, the illegitimacy of the approach was claimed in ecological specialist publications. The validity of such a procedure can therefore only be prepared politically and implemented legislatively (e.g. "Hessian biotope value procedure"). But those who submit to the internal logic of such a system, which assigns numerical values ​​to biotopes, structural characteristics and species, are also forced to follow ever finer ramifications of their value assignments, because nature itself has produced a highly differentiated ecological diversity in the evolutionary span. The user also does this in the knowledge that the "rough" original values cannot be in the right relationship to one another due to a lack of knowledge of the structure of effects in the natural balance . At least since the existence of biotope value procedures, administrative practice has shown that functionally balanced interventions can nevertheless lead to negative biotope value balances. For the result, the (euphemistic) term "planning compensation" has become common.

Legal assessment

On April 23, 1997, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG 4 NB 13.97) ruled (guiding principle) that the municipality is not bound by standardized assessment procedures when drawing up land-use plans that suggest interventions in nature and the landscape. Conversely, however, this does not prevent the method from being applicable.

The stipulations on the scope of compensation are included in the grounds for the development plan in the land-use planning and are therefore accessible to a norm review suit. Standardized balance sheets can withstand legal scrutiny in individual cases, despite their alleged sham accuracy. The national working group for nature conservation does not rule out that biotope value methods lead to valid results. From a nature conservation point of view, a verbal-argumentative intervention / compensation balance can usually do more justice to local conditions.

In the meantime, the validity of the Hessian biotope value procedure has been confirmed by various court decisions. In Hesse, the biotope value procedure is now to be applied in the form of the compensation ordinance of September 1, 2005 (GVBl. I p. 624, last amended by Article 4 of the ordinance of September 22, 2015 - GVBl. P. 339), which replaces the previous equalization tax ordinance.

However, studies clearly show that even specialist authorities often did not understand or did not implement the intervention regulation. A review of partial aspects of the intervention regulation for their implementation resulted in the following: "10 years after the introduction of the intervention regulation in Lower Saxony there is a frightening deficiency in the legally compliant handling of the intervention regulation both among those who caused the intervention (and their planning offices) and decision-making authorities, as well as within the Conservation administration. "

literature

  • K. Aicher, Th. Leyser: Biotope value method - Expert opinion on behalf of the Hessian Ministry for Agriculture, Forests and Nature Conservation - Supreme Nature Conservation Authority. March 1991.
  • K.-U. Battefeld: Explanations to Appendix 2 of the Compensatory Tax Ordinance . In: HENatR. Equation No. III.4.2 (loose-leaf collection, as of 10th edition, June 2001).
  • Elke Bruns: Evaluation and accounting methods in the intervention regulation. Analysis and systematisation of federal and state procedures and procedures. Berlin 2007. PDF
  • T. Kluge: Unsuitability of complex abstract parameters (EPV) as standards for extents of natural functions' restoration. VII. Congr. INTECOL, Florence 1998.
  • J. Köppel, U. Feickert, L. Spandau, H. Straßer: Practice of the intervention regulation - compensation for nature and landscape? Publishing house Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 1998
  • Cities and Municipalities Association of North Rhine-Westphalia; NWStGB notification 376/1997 v. July 20, 1997: Judgment of the BVerwG on the nature conservation law intervention regulation, Düsseldorf 1997
  • Schumacher, Fischer-Hüftle: Federal Nature Conservation Act - Comment . Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2003
  • Werner Dieter Spang, Sven Reiter: Eco accounts and compensation area pools in urban land use planning and specialist planning. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2007, ISBN 3-503-09034-7 .
  • S. Wagner: Eco accounts and area pools. The legal basis, possibilities and limits of the stocking of areas and measures as compensation methods within the framework of the intervention regulation in urban planning law. Berlin 2007

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ H. Hornstein: Intervention balance accounting - evaluation system and eco-account in the Lake Constance district. Überlingen 2000.
  2. ↑ Ministry for Urban Development and Housing, Culture and Sport / Ministry for Environment and Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (Ed.): Compensating for encroachments on nature and landscape. Community compensation concept: compensation planning, compensation pool, eco-account. Working aid for land use planning. 2001.
  3. ^ Dankwart Ludwig: Method for the ecological evaluation of the biotope function of biotope types. Bochum 1991.
  4. ↑ On the problem of calculating the KI, see T. Kluge: To calculate a cost index (KI) for the biotope value method (AVO to § 6b HENatG). Bad Homburg 1998.
  5. ↑ A. Ffr. v. Fritsch: Compensation area management based on the Leipzig model. Proceedings of the 5th Saxon Soil Protection Days. Dresden 2003. P. 71 ff.
  6. ↑ Cities and Municipalities Association of North Rhine-Westphalia 1997.
  7. ↑ Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, judgment of June 27, 1996. Az. 4UE1183 / 95 with further evidence.
  8. ↑ Hessian Administrative Court, judgment of February 25, 2004. Az. 9N3123 / 01
  9. ↑ last: VGH Hessen, judgment of February 25, 2004 - 9 N ​​3123/01: "The biotope value procedure, which is based on Annex 2 of the Hessian Compensation Tax Ordinance of February 9, 1995 (GVBl. I p. 120), represents an appropriate, from a nature conservation point of view, this is a plausible procedure for calculating the interference and compensation. "
  10. ↑ Hoffmann and Hoffmann, 1990, cit. in: W. Breuer: Success control for compensatory and replacement measures. Information service for nature conservation in Lower Saxony. Volume 13, 1993. Pages 181-186

Web links