As you’ll be all-too-aware if you’re a regular reader of this blog, in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year he announced a review that would ‘make sure that the gold-plating of EU rules on things such as habitats do not place ridiculous costs on British businesses’.
Yesterday the conclusions of the Habitats Regulations review were published. They show, as I confidently (ha!) predicted, that there is no evidence of gold-plating of these rules. Far from being the barrier to economic recovery that some have framed them as, the report clearly shows the economic value of the sites and species they protect. And, many of the problems arise due to lack of implementation rather than over-implementation.
Defra’s website, announcing the report, states: “The Government strongly supports the aims of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives to protect our rarest and most threatened habitats and species, which contribute to the economic value of our natural environment”.
So, good news for great crested newts, for bats, and for many of our best loved birds and special places.
I am pleased (as I hope are the Directors of the Bat Conservation Trust and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation who contributed to this blog last week). As reported here, it's not all good, but I think that the Defra team have done well to ensure that the report reflects evidence rather than anecdote.
Just remember that the Directives were born out of a desire for no Member of the European Union to gain competitive environment by trashing the environment. And also remember that the United Kingdom has the smallest percentage of its land protected compared to all other 26 Member States.
There were clearly rumours that others in the Cabinet wanted the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to do more to free up business. As with debates about planning reform and the red tape challenge, some within government have chosen to place the blame for lack of economic growth at the door of environmental regulations.
We get a few days to draw breath now before the next instalment in this run of major government announcements: the National Planning Policy Framework next Tuesday. Rumour and counter-rumour about the final state of this last piece in the reform of England’s planning system abound. Some state that the central definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is still being hotly debated between the Treasury and the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles. Whatever the outcome, the true test of these new planning rules will come in real places, in real communities. But one thing is now certain - if important wildlife sites get damaged as a result of these reforms, it is clear who should take responsibility.
If you have taken the time to read the results of the Habitats Regulations review, what did you think about its conclusions?
It would be great to hear your views.
I have always felt that we will need to harness the tidal power of the Severn in order for us to decarbonise electricity supplies by 2030 (which the Cmmittee on Climate Change advises). But the challenge to the engineering community is come up with a design which takes into account the environmental challenges (of loss of intertidal habitats and fish mortality). If only the last government had launched its Severn Tidal Power challenge with those terms of reference. Next time perhaps, because one thing is for sure - debate about Severn tidal power has not gone away for ever.
Very good blog Martin. I agree largely. However I would note that we need to move rapidly towards some sort of energy self sufficiency; I suspect that here we disagree re urgency of some large infrastructures; again I would note that The Severn Barrage has a similar CO2 "right off" as a wind turbine. The power is predictable and with peak oil some 6 years behind us we need to move fast as carbon costs will accelerate; in my view the Barrage is preferable and more predictable than the costs of nuclear particularly uncertainty re build costs and security issues, the still unachieved decommissioning of a single unit and the parallel unresolved storage issues of nuclear waste.
As an aside should the French term 'Mistral' now enter the lexicon ? A view of this week's European pressure chart would tend to lead to that conclusion. Has this now meteo phenomena now shifted 1000 miles north (along with the northern fringe of the mediterranean assemblage ie cattle egrets, glossy ibis etc )?
Redkite - thanks so much for this really helpful comment. We shall equally be looking for contructive outcome from the establishment of the new Unit.
At least it is good news, SO FAR. I think DEFRA and Caroline Spelman deserve a deal of credit for being so objective, as they must have been under a deal of pressure from certain quarters to come up with a less definite conclusion. The proposed creation of the Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit will as you say Martin need carefully monitoring. Talking to a member of a local Wildlife Trust staff last night I gather that DEFRA are already encouraging the local WildlifeTrust to establish a working basis with local businesses.
From my time in industry, as an Environmental Manager, the two key aspects of all this is firstly, almost always the total ignorance of business and industry of wildlife needs and of environmental/ wildlife regulations and land designations. Secondly, the usual tendency of business is to plan all their development and associated costs in some detail and then at the last minute decide that they perhaps should talk to the relevant wildlife organisations. The problem then arises because they realise that potentially their plans could be subject to major modification, extra cost and delay, whereas if they had approached the wildlife groups early on none or few of these problems would have arisen.
So, in my view , these are two of the important issues that this new Unit would need to address. This means both very early discussions on the applicable regulations and land designations, and having all the necessary wildlife information and survey data to hand at the earliest opportuniy BEFORE a developer develops his plans in any detail. Also, good communication is essential between the parties from day one and onwards.
If the new Unit seeks to address these issues amonst others then I think there is potential in a majority of cases for a win win situation at the end of the day.