F tests for offsetting

The year has started on an alliterative high: food, farming, floods and offsetting.  The latter was the subject of a lively debate at the end of the annual symposium of the Cambridge Conservation Forum.  The Secretary of State's comments at the weekend about offsetting ancient woodland (see here) provided a spicy backdrop.

I took part and tried to explain why the RSPB is, perhaps unfashionably, adopting a "yes, if..." stance.  It is, of course, a hugely complicated subject and is not suited to soundbites and the quality of the debate was good thanks to Tony Gent from Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Pippa Howard from Fauna and Flora International,  Edward Pollard from The Biodiversity Consultancy and an informed audience.

I started by showing some time-lapse footage of what an offset/compensatory habitat scheme can look (see here).   I wanted to remind people that we do already have a regulated offset system thanks to the Birds and Habitats Directive.  The film showed the breach of the shingle beech that took place on 10 September this year at Medmerry on the Sussex coast.  Regular readers of this blog will know that this is part of a major scheme undertaken by the Environment Agency which we now have the responsibility of managing.  It is first and foremost a flood risk management scheme, but the beauty of it is that it helps create intertidal wildlife habitat to replace internationally important areas being lost through coastal squeeze in the Solent.  

The Environment Agency is obliged under the terms of the Habitats Directive to recreate about 100ha a year to compensate for the loss of protected intertidal habitat.  The Medmerry scheme will make a contribution to address these losses.  

The reason I put a spotlight on Medmerry was that this scheme, and similar ones like it, offer some clues about how to do compensation schemes well and they are instructive in helping government design an offsetting scheme for lower quality habitats - the subject of the Defra consultation that ran late last year.  I have always felt that the mitigation hierarchy written into both international law and domestic policy eg through the National Planning Policy Framework is a good reflection of sustainable development: avoid damage, explore alternative less damaging options, mitigate and then as a last resort compensate for the damage that has been caused by the development.  

The threshold for consenting a project obviously increases with importance of the site – with damage to internationally important sites allowed only if there are overriding reasons of public interest or, in the case of domestic sites, the NPPF needs developers to demonstrate significant benefits to outweigh the costs.

Yet the context for the current consultation is that the natural environment is already under huge pressure.   Historically, we’ve lost a huge extent of habitats 97% of lowland meadow, 80% of lowland Heathland, 94% of lowland raised mires, thousands of square kilometres of wetlands went through drainage.  More recent assessments (through the UKNEA and the State of Nature report) have shown that the decline continue.

With this backdrop we need ensure that any offsetting consultation makes things better rather add to current pressures – that’s what the 2020 biodiversity commitment commits us to.  With real political pressure to kick start the economy and with anti-environment rhetoric you can imagine why the environmental community is nervous.  Yet, even I was surprised to hear that over 20,000 people have signed a petition against offsetting through 38 degrees.  We have lost 388 hectares of anicent woodland over the last ten years with minimal compensation.  While we would never support the destruction of ancient woodland, if the State decides to give damaging development the go ahead, surely it is better to have clear guidance to improve the standards of compensatory habitat schemes?

Let me be clear, the RSPB is not theologically against offsetting – how can we be, given our support of the text in the NPPF and Nature Directives?

Yet, through our own experience, we also know the tests for a successful scheme:

Yet, there are also some major bear traps that need to be avoided:

In conclusion, we’re in the “yes if” camp.  Yes, if...  the government listens to our concerns and designs the best scheme for wildlife in this country.