For the second year in a row, Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, is kicking off the year by discussing the issue of biodiversity offsetting via comments in The Times – here’s our thoughts on his comments in 2013.
In 2014 ancient woodland is his subject, setting out an opinion that planting (at a ratio of 100 new trees to 1 ancient tree) is a good example of offsetting.
We disagree.
There is already too much ancient woodland lost to development activity - actually 388ha in the last 10 years. It is a finite resource as you can’t, in any meaningful way, recreate the association of trees, soil and wildlife that make up our ancient woods. These relationships have taken hundreds of years to develop.
Our current planning system gives ancient woodland some protection, allowing development to proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances should be just that, exceptional; the real risk in focusing on the option of offsetting ancient woodland is that trading off losses for tree planting makes offsetting more desirable than protecting such a finite and precious habitat where it has stood for centuaries.
Ancient woodland is a very bad example to choose. We don't support any circumstances where the loss of ancient woodland is acceptable.Of course where damage does occur it should be compensated (offset) and Mr Paterson’s ratio of 100:1 would be a start if it acted as a further disincentive to proposed damage to ancient woodlands – however, we would argue that quality of habitat is more important than quantity of trees.
Clearly some habitats are more able to be recreated and restored than others (and the conservation community in the UK is responsible for many great examples). Done well, with the right safeguards in place, biodiversity offsetting could be a useful tool in tackling some of the losses nature continues to suffer.
This is a complex issue (here’s Martin Harper, our Conservation Director, on the subject) – but focussing on those habitats that simply can’t be replaced is deeply unhelpful – the future of our ancient woodland is not safe if offsetting is seen as an opportunity to tackle the threats it faces.
For the record there are other habitats that can’t be replaced these are; aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies, lowland raised bog, blanket bog, chalk rivers, limestone pavement, inland rock outcrops and scree and maritime cliff and slopes. Protecting these essentially irreplaceable habitats where they occur is the essential first step – offsetting (compensation) must be the last resort with new sites properly managed and protected with the right level of investment to make this happen.
Follow me on twitter.
That's so much politer than my initial response - you didn't use profanity or the word muppet once ;-)I hope all the NGOs associated with the countryside/environment unite on this issue, it has the potential to cause considerable long-term damage.
"Let loose the Kraken!"