Environmental Audit Committee warn that biodiversity offsetting plans are too simplistic and a “box-ticking exercise”
The Environmental Audit Committee has said a plan to help developers to win permission to build housing on wildlife habitats by “offsetting” the impact is too simplistic and could turn into a licence to pour concrete on the countryside. The government scheme would involve very perfunctory assessments of species in the area being targeted for development, taking as little as 20 minutes. A developer would then offer to create a replacement habitat somewhere else. Many sites need to be studied over a year, to get a true record of the species using them. The Audit Committee said the scheme could deliver benefits if subjected to stricter rules, but as proposed it could diminish important habitats, such as ancient woodland or SSSis. They told the Government the scheme needs to be delayed till pilot projects have been independently evaluated. Owen Patterson does not like development schemes being held up for biodiversity reasons. Many valuable sites have ecosystems that have taken decades or centuries to develop – these cannot be instantly replicated.
.
Tweet
Biodiversity offsetting plans too simplistic, MPs warn
By Mark Kinver, Environment reporter, BBC News
12 November 2013
Biodiversity offsetting plans outlined by the government must be strengthened if they are to “properly protect Britain’s wildlife”, MPs have warned.
The scheme aims to ensure that when a development causes unavoidable damage to biodiversity, “new, bigger or better nature sites will be created”.
But the MPs say the assessment proposed by ministers appears to be little more than a “box-ticking exercise”.
Six areas are taking part in a two-year pilot, which began in April 2012.
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) chairwoman Joan Walley MP saidmany witnesses that gave evidence to the EAC’s inquiry had voiced concerns that key habitats – such as ancient woodlands and Sites of Special Scientific Interest – would be included in the government’s offsetting plans.
‘Not adequate’
“There is a danger that an overly simplistic offsetting system would not protect these long-established ecosystems,” she added.
“Biodiversity offsetting could improve the way our planning system accounts for the damage developments do to wildlife, if it is done well.
“The assessment process currently proposed by the government appears to be little more than a 20-minute box-ticking exercise that is simply not adequate to assess a site’s year-round biodiversity.
Ms Walley explained: “If a 20-minute assessment was carried out in a British wood in winter, for instance, it would be easy to overlook many of the migratory birds that may use it as habitat in summer.”
However, in their report, the MPs acknowledged that it was “too soon to reach a decision” on offsetting while the pilot schemes had yet to be completed and independently evaluated.
But they added that they were publishing their report now as ministers were considering submissions made during a public consultation on the proposals.
The consultation on how the scheme would be rolled-out across England closed last week and officials are now considering the submissions.
Responding to the EAC’s findings, National Trust natural environment director Simon Pryor said the MPs’ report showed that the government had to take its time to ensure to get the scheme right.
“Offsetting could be a positive way to help avoid the loss of wildlife that can result from development – but only if it is done properly,” he observed.
“If a system is introduced too rapidly, and without adequate testing and evidence, the prospect of a workable and supportable biodiversity offsetting system would be undermined for many years to come.”
In its consultation document, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said that England faced “the twin challenges of growing its economy and improving its natural environment”, adding: “We will not achieve these goals unless our planning system is fit-for-purpose.”
A Defra spokesman told BBC News: “Biodiversity offsetting could help improve our environment as well as boost the economy.
“This report, along with other consultation responses, will help us get the detail of the policy right,” he explained.
“We will formally respond to the report in due course.”
A number of reports, produced by the Ecosystem Markets Task Forceand the Natural Capital Committee, had identified biodiversity offsetting as a way of delivering a sustainable planning system.
However, an independent review of England’s wildlife sites, led by Prof Sir John Lawton, concluded in September 2010 that biodiversity offsetting must not become a “licence to destroy” or damage existing habitat of recognised value.
“In other words, offsets must only be used to compensate for genuinely unavoidable damage,” the review recommended.
Defra said that offsetting schemes had been adopted in more than 20 countries, including Australia, Germany, India and the US, as a means of protecting biodiversity.
Ms Walley also observed that the pilot schemes, which are scheduled to run until April 2014, had “not had a good take-up”.
“That suggests that these sorts of schemes need to be mandatory, but the government should exercise some caution about this because the pilots need to be rigorously and independently assessed first to make sure all the lesson are properly taken on board”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24899708
.
What is biodiversity offsetting?
Related BBC Stories
- Green compensation scheme outlined
- Set back for ‘licence to trash’ plan
- Ministers bid to stem nature loss
.
.
Earlier:
5 September 2013
Green compensation proposals outlined
By Paul RinconScience editor, BBC News website
The UK government has outlined its proposals on compensating for the loss of biodiversity through development.
The idea of “biodiversity offsetting” is controversial, with some campaigners dubbing it a “licence to trash”.
It means developers planning to build houses in environmentally sensitive areas would be allowed to go ahead if they could offset damage by paying for conservation activities elsewhere.
The environment department Defra has published a green paper on the scheme.
“Offsetting is an exciting opportunity to look at how we can improve the environment as well as grow the economy,” said environment secretary Owen Paterson.
Commenting on the consultation, which will conclude on 7 November, he said: “We want to hear from developer and wildlife groups alike on how we can simplify the existing planning process while enhancing our natural environment.
“There is no reason why wildlife and development can’t flourish side by side.”
In England, six pilot areas were selected in 2012 for two year trials of a voluntary approach to offsetting through the planning system.
In March this year, a report from the government’s Ecosystems Markets Task Force recommended that the offsetting scheme should be rolled out nationwide as a matter of priority.
Offsetting, it said, would “revolutionise conservation in England by delivering restoration, creation and long term management on in excess of 300,000 hectares of habitat over 20 years”.
‘Irreplaceable’ habitats
Similar schemes have been up and running for many years in other parts of the world. But environmental groups have highlighted problems with the idea.
The Woodland Trust has campaigned against the inclusion of ancient woodlands in any offsetting scheme and it rejects the suggestion that the future of these habitats should rest on the proposed economic benefit of a given development.
The Trust’s chief executive Sue Holden said she welcomed the fact this green paper recognised the “irreplaceable” nature of these woodlands. But she added: “We need to see a more robust use of planning law to support this, ensuring that irreplaceable habitats are treated as such.
“Offsetting should only ever be a last resort when all other avenues have been explored to avoid loss or damage.
“It is critical that any habitats created to compensate for loss are placed within the local area that suffered the original impact. Unfortunately, this still appears open to debate.”
The Trust says that, in theory, losses to biodiversity in Kent, for example, could be compensated for in Derbyshire – ignoring the local value of habitats.
‘Sound concept’
Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth described the plans as a licence to “trash nature”. FOE’s nature campaigner Sandra Bell said that nature was “not something that can be bulldozed in one place and recreated in another at the whim of a developer.
“Instead of putting nature up for sale, the government should strengthen its protection through the planning system and set out bold plans to safeguard and restore wildlife across the UK.”
Some critics also suggest that developers could be tempted to put money on the table to pay for offsetting and not feel obliged to go through the preliminary steps of trying to avoid damage.
Supporters say that despite potential difficulties, the overall concept is sound. They point to the fact that money received from developers for relatively minor damage could be pooled to create a much larger conservation area.
Mike Clarke, chief executive of the RSPB, also said offsetting should only be considered when other options have been exhausted. He said: “If government want to get this right, they will have to listen very carefully to the conservation community and heed our warnings.
“They will also need to ensure that planning authorities have the expertise to assess proposals for offsetting, otherwise, it will go horribly wrong for wildlife.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23972980
.
.
.
31 July 2013
Article written byMatt McGrathEnvironment correspondent
‘Licence to trash’ offsetting scheme set back until Autumn
There’s slightly less of a whiff of BO down at the Department of the Environment these days.
Nothing to do with sweltering civil servants; this BO is the nose wrinkling acronym for biodiversity offsetting – a concept that has been criticised by some environmentalists as a licence to “trash” the countryside.
The government is very keen on the idea, the offsetting, that is, not the trashing.
But despite their interest, new proposals on offsetting have now been kicked into the autumnal long grass.
The idea of biodiversity offsetting works like this : Developers who want to build houses in environmentally sensitive areas would be allowed to go ahead with their schemes if they could offset any damage by paying for conservation activities in other locations.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) believes the idea can help grow the economy and improve the environment at the same time.
Pilots on trialCertainly, similar schemes have been up and running for many years in other parts of the world. In the US a wetland banking idea has been active since the 1970s. In New South Wales, Australia, a bio bank was set up a decade ago, allowing land owners to generate credits through the improvement of biodiversity and these credits can then be sold to developers who are likely to damage a site.
In England, six pilot areas were selected in 2012 for two year trials of a voluntary approach to offsetting through the planning system.
In April this year, a report from the Government’s Ecosystems Markets Task Force recommended that the offsetting scheme should be rolled out nationwide as a matter of priority.
BO, it said, would “revolutionise conservation in England by delivering restoration, creation and long term management on in excess of 300,000 hectares of habitat over 20 years”.
Secretary of State Owen Paterson said he would outline his proposals in a green paper that was due to be published for consultation this week.
But BO has now been offset to the back end of the year.
Defra says it needs to take the time to get the proposals right,
“Biodiversity offsetting could help improve our environment as well as boost the economy and it is important that we get the detail right,” said a spokesman.
“We will continue to talk to interested groups and will launch a formal consultation in the Autumn.”
However environmental organisations have a different view of what is going on.
“I guess there wasn’t as much of a consensus around developing an approach as people might have thought was emerging,” said Austin Brady, head of conservation at the Woodland Trust.
He says there are considerable problems with the idea – the suggestion that ancient woodlands could be included in any scheme is something he says is a non-starter. And he is concerned that by making offsetting a statutory part of the planning process, developers will use it to their advantage.
“The concern is with the ‘licence to trash’ concept is that if a developer comes along with a major project they may be tempted to just put some money on the table to pay for offsetting and not feel obliged to go through the preliminary steps of trying to avoid damage.
“That might feel like a quicker fix for them and that’s a concern.”
Other organisations object to the concept that one bit of nature can be used to replace another. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of our environment says Neil Sinden from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
“In practice, how could a developer replace a mile of ancient hedgerow with three times the length of new planting and say that is sufficient mitigation? Many habitats are simply irreplaceable and integral to the character of our landscape.”
Supporters say that despite these difficulties, the overall concept is sound. They point to the fact that you could pool the money you might get from developers for relatively minor damage and use it to create a much larger conservation area.
“If we get it right it could benefit the economy and benefit wildlife,” said Nik Shelton from RSPB.
“But the early proposals that we saw weren’t going to achieve that. It sounds like they’ve listened.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23502362
.
.
.
.