Blake Lapthorn's green breakfast with the Environment Bank
-
Upload
blake-morgan -
Category
Technology
-
view
240 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Blake Lapthorn's green breakfast with the Environment Bank
A role for biodiversity offsetting?
Tom Tew
Chief Executive
What is biodiversity offsetting?
Green field Development Receptor site
Why?Planning delivery – Defra analysis*
• System ineffective at delivering no net loss ‐ failure
• Analysis of 10,000, then 500 major, then 50 detailed planning applications – failure
• Compared the biodiversity results and costs of applying PPS9 with applying the offset metric – offsetting better and cheaper
• 2007/8: £95bn industry, £5bn agreed through S106 agreements, only £5m to ‘nature conservation’
• Environment constantly seen as blocker by industry and politicians
* Tyldesley et al (2010) Defra website
National Planning PolicyNPPF 2011 ‐ demands ‘sustainable development’•Para 118 ‐ Planning authorities should aim to enhance biodiversity throughavoidance, mitigation and compensation measures sand should refuse permission if they cannot do so•Para 152 – If adverse effects are unavoidable… then compensatory measures can be used•Para 176 – Where [such measures] are necessary…. [they must be] secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.
Natural Environment White Paper 2011 – policy announcementBiodiversity offsetting pilots – 6 county pilots, 2012‐2014Conservation covenants – Law Commission consultation 2012Biodiversity offsetting Green Paper – consultation closed Nov 2013, Defra statement Dec 2013, possible legislation 2014
How?Offsetting through planning
• Offsetting ‘metrics’ allow for estimation of both loss and gain
• Simply a tool for planners – guarantees no net loss –accountable, transparent, consistent
• Enables development and delivers biodiversity protection i.e. sustainable development
• Observes mitigation hierarchy
Offsetting metric
• Based on habitat hectares model – a standardised system to evaluate the biodiversity value of land
• Detailed in Defra technical guidance
• Biodiversity units = area x habitat distinctiveness x habitat condition – for both development (impact) and receptor (gain) sites
• Multipliers applied to receptor sites account for risks associated with time lags, technical difficulties & spatial literacy in offset delivery
• Hedgerows treated separately (creation only)
Offsetting metricMatrix showing how distinctiveness and condition are combined to give
habitat value
• Target condition options (optimum and moderate)• Multipliers (creation>restoration)
Biodiversity distinctiveness
Low Medium High
Condition
Poor 2 4 6
Moderate 4 8 12
Good 6 12 18
Mitigation Hierarchy
Why? ‐ and where
To dateResidual impact unaccounted
With offsettingResidual impact offset
Why? ‐ and where
To dateS106 on‐site ineffective
With offsettingS106 delivered off‐site
How does it work?
• LPA offers offsetting as option, developer chooses offsetting, impact assessed
• Land managers offer receptor sites• Developer seeks to purchase credits – consults national registry, chooses receptor site (with LPA)
• Environment Bank brokers deal ‐ signs legal agreements to purchase with developer, and to manage with receptor site land manager
• Money transferred, over time, to the land manager against specific conservation management
• Monitoring and reporting systems for LPAs & Government
What’s needed?• Hooks in local plans
• Pre‐app guidance and validation checklists
• Appropriate planning responses
• Permission or commencement? Conditions vs. s106 obligations
• Ready receptor site supply
• Legal agreements to underpin and assure
• Ongoing monitoring & compliance
Local plan hooks• Collated examples
Ribble Valley Borough Council‘New developments will only be permitted if proper consideration is given to the nature conservation value of the development site. Negative impacts on biodiversity should be avoided, mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for. Compensation for impacts on non statutorily designated sites should be managed through a mechanism such as biodiversity offsetting.’
Planning conditionsGrampian condition ‐ negative condition ‐ planning permission granted subject to conditions obliging certain requirements to be discharged before development can commence.
No development shall commence unless and until a scheme ("the offsetting scheme") for the offsetting of biodiversity impacts at the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The offsetting scheme shall include:
‐ A methodology for the identification of receptor site(s);
‐ The identification of receptor site (s);
‐ Details of the offset requirements of the development (in accordance with the recognised offsetting metrics standard outlined in the Defra Metrics Guidance dated March 2012);
‐ The provision of arrangements to secure the delivery of the offsetting measures (including a timetable for their delivery); and
‐ A management and monitoring plan (to include for the provision and maintenance of the offsetting measures in perpetuity).
The written approval of the LPA shall not be issued before the arrangements necessary to secure the delivery of the off‐setting measures have been executed. The offsetting scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the requirements of the approved scheme.
S106 obligations
Land supply ‐ receptor sites• Habitat creation or restoration• Credit calculations reflect the difference between the baseline and target habitat condition
• Multipliers applied• Delivery risk• Years to target condition• Spatial risk
• Land managers set price of credits
Legal Agreements
Essex offsetting strategy
Warwickshire strategic areas To target restoration and creation of new core areas
Case study example ‐ development
• Biodiversity value of existing 12.96ha site = 48.68 units
• Biodiversity value of the proposed development = 16.78 units
• Biodiversity Offset units = ‐31.90 units
• Large areas of low value habitats, but significant impact due to small areas of mitigation to allow development to meet housing need.
Case study example ‐ development
• Biodiversity value of existing 5.10ha site = 41.04 units
• Biodiversity value of proposed development = 34.89 units
• Biodiversity Offset units = ‐6.15 units
• Scheme amended to retain and enhance best existing habitats to reduce biodiversity loss.
Case study example ‐ provider
Potential Credits
To enhance the Species Poor Grassland to Semi‐improved Grassland
in 10 years would generate
5.86 credits gain.
To enhance the species‐poor
Semi‐improved Grassland
to species‐rich Semi‐improved Grassland in 10 years would generate
9.90 credits gain
The Total Grassland units available on the site = 15.76 credits
Existing UnitsExisting biodiversity value of 4.1ha Species Poor Grassland = 8.2 units (4.1ha)Existing biodiversity value of 10.4ha Poor Semi-improved Grassland = 41.6 units
Benefits
For Planning Authorities‐Transparent, consistent and auditable
‐Removes compliance monitoring needs but retains decision making locus and enforcement capability
‐Removes obligations but increases accountability
Benefits
For developers– Reduces planning delays and consultant costs ‐greater clarity, predictability and consistency
– Potential increase in net developable area with strategic compensation planning
– Long‐term liability discharged, no long‐term management costs
– Transparent and accountable delivery of SD
Benefits
For conservation– Environmental value accounted for in all planning decisions
– Gives financial disincentives to habitat destruction
– Mainstreams land management value
– Enable long‐term and large‐scale habitat conservation
(Projected) English Market
Range of offset costs in England (Defra 2011) – assuming 10,000 ha land needed for development, with a risk multiplier, assuming land developed is in moderate condition, assuming 50:50 brownfield:greenfield land development, etc….
Including coastal habitat Excluding coastal habitat
Management agreement only
£140m ‐ £230m £75m ‐ £125m
Land purchase and management
£400m ‐ £470m £210m ‐ £240m
Biodiversity offsetting
www.environmentbank.com
INTRODUCING BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
As a policy ini a ve in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper, released in June 2011, Defra invited local planning authori es to test biodiversity offse ng through na onally recognised pilot projects. The Environment Bank is involved in two such pilots (Essex, and Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull), and elsewhere where there is interest.
Why are we trying out biodiversity offse ng in England?
The UK will con nue to experience high‐levels of growth in some areas and we need to ensure that development is contribu ng to both environmental, as well as economic, recovery. The current system of compensa ng for the environmental impacts of development isn’t working very well, either for the environment (poor quality and short‐term compensa on) or for those managing or adhering to the process (expensive, complicated, slow). Done well, offse ng provides an efficient, transparent, accountable and effec ve way of delivering sustainable development. Quan fying impacts of development as a credit requirement enables ‘banking’ of credits at larger, strategic and more sustainable sites and provides new funding for habitat crea on and restora on.
Why use the Environment Bank?
The Environment Bank is an independent broker that will:
calculate conserva on credit requirements for developers calculate conserva on credits available at ‘receptor’/offset sites register offset providers/receptor sites on an open and transparent trading pla orm facilitate the crea on, purchase and tracking of credits, using legal agreements and cer ficates ensure the long‐term management, monitoring and repor ng of receptor sites
Independent brokerage removes conflicts of interest from the planning system – The Environment Bank brings na onal and interna onal biodiversity offse ng exper se.
Some defini ons
A biodiversity offset is the measurable conserva on outcome that results from ac ons designed to compensate for development projects’ impacts ‐ defini on from the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) – The Environment Bank is a BBOP member.
A conserva on credit is a measure of the quan ty and quality of habitat, or poten al habitat. Developers require different types of conserva on credits depending on their impacts.
Receptor sites are the conserva on/restora on sites where conserva on credits are generated and sold to developers as offsets. Receptor sites are protected and managed in the long‐term.
Habitat banking happens at large receptor sites from where purchases can be made to offset impacts from poten ally numerous small developments.
A no net loss policy or ini a ve aims to prevent further reduc ons in habitat and ecosystem resources through replacing unavoidable losses.
Biodiversity O
f
fse ng
Informa on sh
eet 1
August 2013
GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES
This informa on sheet is intended to assist Local Planning Authori es (LPAs) in taking part in biodiversity offse ng, a government ini a ve being trialed in six pilot areas and elsewhere where there is interest.
For an introduc on to the principles of biodiversity offse ng please refer to Informa on sheet 1 or our Guide to Biodiversity Offse ng booklet.
Where will offse ng be applied?
Delivering compensa on for a high‐nature‐value habitat, that is not statutory protected. The need for this already exists within the planning process, but current compensa on ac vi es are o en inconsistent and complex. A simpler, streamlined process, such as biodiversity offse ng, where a standard metric is used to quan fy impacts and offsets, provides benefit to all par cipants. In these cases the use of offse ng is voluntary however the need to deliver compensa on for lost habitat is not.
Addressing no‐net‐loss in biodiversity and achieving environmentally sustainable development associated with incremental impacts to the wider countryside. Under the Defra offse ng metric all land has, from the outset, an ecological value and therefore the impacts on the biodiversity value of that land (through loss to development or agricultural prac ce), which may have never been previously assessed and compensated for, can now be measured, quan fied and offset. This new system offers LPAs and developers the chance to account for all of the impacts on local habitats, in order to deliver and demonstrate more environmentally 'sustainable development' consistent with the Na onal Planning Policy Framework.
How to implement biodiversity offse ng within your planning system:
If your authority’s Local Development Framework/Local Plan is undergoing revision, the referencing of biodiversity offse ng (as a voluntary op on) for delivering compensa on should be reflected within the new or revised environmental policy wording thus encouraging uptake. Example wording can be provided by the Environment Bank on request. Similarly, pre‐applica on guidance and valida on checklists could also incorporate similar wording to make it clear to applicants that biodiversity offse ng will be considered as an op on for delivering off‐site compensa on where site circumstances allow and where it can be agreed with your authority that this is an appropriate response to iden fied constraints.
At any stage, but preferably during the considera on of land alloca ons and the pre‐planning applica on stage (par cularly during the EIA stages and prepara on of Environmental Statements), if a development proposal appears to be appropriate for offse ng and the promoter is interested in exploring it as an op on, the Environment Bank can assess the development’s impact, calculate the offset requirement in conserva on credits and provide the developer with a brief offset report. This can normally be achieved quickly using the informa on in an exis ng EIA. If an EIA is not available (i.e. because the development is exempt, or is on poor condi on arable land or has been assessed at the screening stage as not requiring EIA), an offset requirement can s ll be calculated based on the area site loss to the development.
Biodiversity O
f
fse ng
Informa on sh
eet 2
August 2013
GUIDANCE FOR LANDOWNERS
This informa on sh ee t is ai med at landowners who ar e interested in taking pa r t in bi odiversity offse ng as ‘offset providers’.
For a
n
introduc on to the principles of bi odiversity offse ng pl ease se e informa on sh e et 1: ‘Introducing Biodiversity Offse ng’.
A landowner bo oklet is al so available to download fr om our website or as a pa p er co py which can be mailed out on request (see contact de t ai ls be l ow).
What are the benefits to crea ng a biodiversity offse t receptor site?
Income for p
r
otec ng, improving an d crea ng na tu ral fe atures on your pr operty.
Long‐term funding – over 25 years ‐ for management.
Offse ng do es not change the o
w
n ership of the land or the pu blic access rights.
How does it work ‐ what’s the process?
Registra on
Landowners interested in registering their pr o perty with th e Environment Ba nk can re quest an ini al Ex pression of In terest (EOI) form (see contact details be l ow) or visit www.environmentbank.com to fill in the form online . Su bmi ng an EOI allows the Environment B
ank to list the land on the Environmental Markets Exchange (EME), our online registry an d trading
pla orm, as
a ‘Bronze’ si te that can then be considered du ring offset searches. Si tes listed on the EME are gi ven code names and no contact informa on or de t ai l ab out the loca on of the property is visible to members of the EME. This informa on is kept within a da t ab ase that is us ed exclusively by the Environment Ba nk.
At this point a landowner may re ceive a br i ef si te visit to collect further informa r re gistra on ‐ although, us u ally, an EOI is all that is ne e ded un l a local de veloper shows interest in th e si te. During a si te visit, informa on is collected on the habitats present an d the habitats a landowner is interested in crea ng an d /or restoring.
The benefit that could be created at a si te by conserva on management will ini ally be es mated an d gi ven a value in conserva on credits ‐ bringing the site up to a ‘Silver’ level. Registra on of a site (and su b sequent es ma on of cr edit value) does n
ot commit the landowner to an y on in an y way, nor does it affect the status of the land in any way. If th e
site is selected for the ne
xt ‘Gold’ stage (if a developer i ely interested in purchasing credits), the exact number of credits will be confirmed fo llowing su b mission of a de t ailed management pl an an d si te visit by an experienced re s t ora on ecologist. This ca n be commissioned by the landowner, or the de veloper, with the costs accounted for in the final credit price.
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informa on sh ee t 3
September 2013
GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPERS
This informa on sheet is aimed at developers, developer’s agents, and consultants who are interested in taking part in biodiversity offse ng. For an introduc on to the principles of biodiversity offse ng, please see Informa on Sheet 1: Introducing Biodiversity Offse ng.
How can biodiversity offse ng benefit you?
Provides greater clarity for developers naviga ng through the planning system.
Saves me and money by providing a simple, streamlined and secure process when compared with the current system. At present, developers can accrue various costs associated with the delivery of off‐site compensa on including;
numerous mee ngs with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and/or regulatory authori es mee ngs with poten al compensa on site owners habitat suitability surveys and design/drawings of poten al sites supplementary surveys of poten al sites in rela on to ground condi ons, contamina on, underground services and archaeology management plans legal fees costs associated with land purchase.
Biodiversity offse ng involves making an upfront payment which compensates for the loss of an area of habitat without the need to go through the process outlined above.
Provides predictable costs and outcomes that aid future project planning.
Liability for compensa on delivery is discharged once permission is received.
No long‐term management costs and liabili es for offsite compensa on.
In the right circumstances offse ng can lead to increased net developable area because any significant habitat crea on can be done off‐site.
You will be an exemplar company that is part of an innova ve na onal scheme.
How does it work ‐ what’s the process?
Biodiversity offse ng is (currently) a voluntary process for delivering compensa on – you only do it if you want to.
Ideally at the pre‐applica on stage, a developer, a er working through the mi ga on hierarchy with their LPA, finds they need to compensate for unavoidable (residual) impacts and chooses to explore voluntary biodiversity offse ng.
They lodge their interest with the relevant LPA who refers the enquiry to the Environment Bank (independent credit brokers).
Alterna vely, a developer can contact the Environment Bank directly (details below).
Biodiversity O
f
fse ng
Informa on sh
eet 4
September 2013
AGRI‐ENVIRONMENT VS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
Comparing the levels of pa yment re ceived un der Environmental St ewardship schemes with th e po ten al income from biodiversity offse ng fu n ding is not straigh orward. The income fr o m offse ng will depend gr ea tly on the type and condi on of the habitat that landowners or fa r mers can create on their land. N e vertheless, we ha v e prepared th e following analysis to pr ovide general informa on on the likely sc ale of bo th types of income st ream.
Agri‐environment funding
A f
a
r mer in the UK will typically re ceive annual payments of £30 per hectare if pa rt of an En
t
r y Level St ewardship (ELS)scheme. Fo r this, they might be managing di tches, maintaining fe nces, an d se ng up sk ylark pl ots. Un d er Higher Level Stewardship (HLS), landowners sign up to a legally binding 10 year ag r eement an d un dertake more intensive management to d
el iver environmental be nef i ts, in re turn fo r capital fun ding an d an n ual payments.
For example, if a landowner de ci ded to create a small woodland on their pr o perty, pl an ng at a de ns i ty su i ted to wi ldlife conserva on ra ther than mber produc on, then un der HLS th ey might ini ally receive up to £3,500 per hectare to pr ep are and p
lant the site, with be tween £100 an d £300 pa i d annually to maintain the si te over 10 years. Thus, ov e r 100 years, if
rolling 10‐year ag
r eements were theore cally awarded, a landowner might receive a total of be tween £13,200 an d £33,200 per ha.
For larger woodlands over 3 ha , th e Forestry Commission offers Woodland Cr ea on Gr an ts, where a maximum of £2,000 per ha is available if the project agrees with re gi onal priori ‐ 80 pe r c ent pa i d on comple on of pl an ng and 20 percent a er five years. Woodland Management Grants then help with maintenance, at £30 pe r ha pe r year while a Woodland Planning G
ran t can contribute to the cost of pr oducing a management pl an, pr oviding £20 pe r ha
f or the first 100 ha . Over 100 years, this al l might total a maximum of £4,870 per ha to create and manage a woodland.
restora on of lowland grassland can be funded by HLS at be t ween £130 to £355 pe r ha pe r year ‐ the up per amount being for wet gr a ssland crea on for br eeding waders. Adding su p plement and capital costs for reintroducing livestock, for example, might bring the total am ount a landowner could re ceive over a 100 year pe r i od up fr om ar o und £20,000 to a
maximum of around £26,500 pe r ha .
For lowland he ath, £150 to £450 po unds pe r ha pe
r
year ca n be sought from HL S, the lower end be i ng for cr ea on on a worked mineral si te, the upper for conversion fr om arable land, totalling be t ween £19,500 to £22,500 over 100 years.
The crea on of ponds is pa id un der HLS at £3 pe r metre2 for the first 100m2 and £1 per m2 over 100m2 ,with £180 maintenance paid pe r po nd pe r year if over 100m2. Fo r a 5 ha ar ea with ar ound 30 ponds, that adds up to a total of £55,600 over 100 years. Compare this with es mates pr ovided by experts in pond crea on an d re stora on where po nd crea on alone can cost between £50,000 an d £190,000 fo r 30 ponds ov e r 5 ha , excluding maintenance and monitoring over 100 years.
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informa on sh ee t 5
September 2013
GUIDANCE FOR LANDOWNERS ‐ HOW TO COST YOUR CREDITS
This informa on sh ee t will be useful to you if you ha ve a management pl an fo r a poten al offset si te on your pr operty an d need to calculate the costs of de l ivering that management pl an. Th ese costs will of course determine the pr ice of your credits for sa l e to de velopers an d so an ac c urate pr i ce must be developed th at gu arantees the agreed commitments in your management pl an can be met ‐ these will be a pa r t of the Environment Bank’s Conserva on Bank Agreement with you. You set your own p
rice, an d it is cri cal tha t you do no t underes mate your costs ‐ we will not accept sc hemes with cos ngs
that ar
e too low.
Costs to consider when developing a price
Labour costs f
o
r implemen the management ac ons over the long term. For example:
contractor fe es fo vi es su ch as gr ass cu ng, tree pl an ng, st ock‐proof fe n cing, or pond di gging,
staffing costs for other maintenance ac vi es e.g. pruning of fr u it trees, he dg erow management, di tch clearance, br ack en an d sc rub re moval, re ed an d se dge removal or pes cide applica on,
me associated with your own monitoring of the site to de monstrate management targets ar e met ‐ this might include taking ph otos of the site,
site assessment fe es—e.g. so il or water an al ysis (e.g. £100‐£200 pe r sa mple),
removal of topsoil or waste fr o m the site.
Cost of materials as sociated with ea ch ac on. For example;
woodland crea on ‐ cost of sa pl ings/seeds an d as s ociated su p ports and gu ards, bat or bi rd boxes and an y other equipment required on si te,
pond crea on—cost of water level monitoring equipment.
Costs a
s
s ociated with stock ex clusion or introduc on. Su ch as ;
fencing, watering po ints, ca le gr i ds or sh el ter construc on,
tree gu ards and ad d i onal fencing re quirements.
Purchase or h
i
r e of eq uipment to un dertake ac vi es, such as ; weed sp r ayi ng (e.g. £120 / ha ) , excava on equipment and si lt/topsoil removal (e .g. £4‐£6,000), soil re moval fo r a large po nd.
Use of consultants to un dertake ac vi or pr o vide advice on ma ers, su ch as ; po nd crea on, hor cultural services, seed ba n ks.
Other costs, such as the cost of al terna ve su p plies of fi rewood if currently collected fr om the site (e.g. £60‐£80 pe r 1m3 ‐ around 300 logs).
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informa on sh ee t 6
September 2013
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING—THE SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM
The recent launch of a Government Green Paper on biodiversity offse ng a racted some nega ve coverage in the press – superficial repor ng of the issue threatens to s fle an opportunity to turn the ‘lose‐lose’ of our current planning system into ‘win‐win’. First ‐ the issue. Generally, the current planning system copes with the environment either by ignoring it or, where that’s impossible, then by se ng up an adversarial process that pits developers against conserva onists. Lengthy ba les are waged, at great me and expense to everyone, with ul mately a winner and loser. Usually, it’s the environment that loses (albeit at a financial cost to the developer), and that’s one of the reasons why our wildlife is seriously declining. But ‘development vs. environment’ is a false, as well as a damaging, dichotomy. We need development, and we should instead be asking the ques on “how do we make sure it’s sustainable?” Biodiversity offse ng is simply a tool for planners – no more and no less. It allows society to accurately quan fy any environmental impact in one place, account for it, compensate for it financially, and use the money to bring back to glory wildlife habitats somewhere else (usually very close to the impact site). In return for making sure that there is a net gain in wildlife the developer gets his planning permission quickly and effec vely – and this is what developers want from the system. This simple tool, based on Government‐agreed metrics that calculate both loss and gain of biodiversity, turns the exis ng lose‐lose into a win‐win. It is not ‘an ‐environment’ nor is it ‘an ‐development’ – it works for both, it delivers sustainable development, development that produces the economic recovery the country needs whilst at the same me the environmental recovery that is, in the long term, every bit as vital. Myths about offse ng
“Offse ng undermines exis ng environmental protec on” – no it doesn’t, it’s simply a tool for planners to use when they are calcula ng environmental impact. It’s a safety‐net to increases environmental protec on, not diminish it.
“Offse ng is a ‘licence to trash’” – no it isn’t, the fundamental principle behind offse ng is that developers must first avoid impact, then minimise any impact on site, and only then compensate for it off‐site. Offse ng is a last resort, not the first op on ‐ but it is a very important last resort, because it gives developers more op ons to make sure that what they do is sustainable.
“Offse ng is a tax on developers” – no it isn’t, it actually saves developers money because it speeds everything up, and treats environmental impact in a transparent, measured and non‐confronta onal way. Developers that respect the environment will be rewarded by ge ng efficient and transparent decisions.
Biodiversity O
f
fse ng
Informa on sh
eet 7
September 2013
THE ADVANTAGES OF BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
The current planning system is ‘lose‐lose’ ‐ developments are frequently held up or refused because of environmental concerns, and yet the environment con nues to decline because it is not properly accounted for and compensated for. Biodiversity offse ng transforms the system into ‘win‐win’ because environmental impact is properly accounted for, and then compensated for quickly and efficiently allowing development to be both delivered and sustainable. Biodiversity offse ng helps:
Land managers and the environment – because the na onal metrics (when universally adopted) properly account for the environmental impacts of development, and funds are created for compensatory wildlife crea on projects all over the country
Planning authori es – who are able to demonstrate transparently and auditably the sustainability of their decision, delivering real biodiversity gain whilst at the same me reducing their long‐term obliga ons for monitoring and enforcement
Developers – who are treated fairly and consistently, by a responsive and transparent planning process, and who are able to discharge their environmental obliga ons transparently, and all in one go, at either permission or commencement.
Biodiversity offse ng can (and is star ng to) work on a voluntary basis, no legisla ve changes are necessary, but uptake is patchy and inconsistent and the system is slowed by lack of understanding and inefficiencies of a small market.
The advantages of a mandatory scheme for the UK
Interna onal experience suggests that mandatory offse ng regimes provide the most cost‐effec ve delivery mechanism, benefi ng both the development industry and nature conserva on, because mandatory schemes best ensure scale‐up of both supply and demand and allow efficient markets to operate. Scaling‐up under a mandatory regime has the following benefits:
Improved planning systems
ensures a level playing field for developers across the country, especially important for na onal house builders
ensures consistent na onal applica on of the key metric, alongside opportunity for local market‐based modifica ons tailored to place and need
Biodiversity O
f
fse ng
Informa on sh
eet 8
September 2013
Biodiversity offsetting
www.environmentbank.comhtttps://environmentbank.mmearth.com