The offset offering (3): an update on RSPB thinking

I’ve commented on biodiversity offsets a couple of times already this year (see here and here). Since then we’ve had Defra’s Green Paper, I've participated in a debate at the Royal Society and today the Environmental Audit Committee published the report of its inquiry into the issue.

As a principle, we have always said that biodiversity offsetting offers potential to deal with the ongoing losses of wildlife the planning system is currently failing to address.  We put a spotlight on this issue in our Financing Nature in an Age of Austerity report in 2010 and, indeed, we have significant experience of helping to provide compensatory habitat when the law obliges (eg working with Environment Agency at Medmerry). 

But, this is complicated stuff and in the current economic climate, you can understand why there is some sceptics from the environmental community about how this system will be rolled out.  Perhaps more than ever, we need to ensure the checks and balances are in place to avoid this becoming a developers’ charter.

Today’s Select Committee report is therefore right to highlight the benefits of a mandatory system with strong national standards.  We need a system that works from outset, rather than making matters worse for wildlife.  The system needs to be transparent so it commands the respect of all involved, including the public.  We are also pleased that the Committee appreciates the need to respect the full complexity of habitats and species so that in an effort to “simplify” our natural world we don’t “dumb down”.

We hope the Government will take the Committee’s advice and ensure that biodiversity offsetting plays its part in truly helping to stem these losses.

We have also provided Defra with detailed comments. We hope that ministers will bear in mind our significant experience of engaging with the planning system; of managing one of the largest conservation estates in the UK (more than 150,000 ha), and of habitat creation and restoration (for example, since 1994 we have created or restored 2,350 ha of lowland wet grassland, 1,040 ha of reedbed and 470 ha of intertidal habitat).

It is important to remember that the fundamental rationale for introducing a biodiversity offsetting system is that it can contribute to its commitments in the Natural Environment White Paper and England Biodiversity Strategy.   If you read the Green Paper and indeed our response, you'll appreciate the complexity of the topic. This shouldn’t surprise us – biodiversity is complex, and the way we interact with it via development and the planning system is necessarily complex. An offsetting system brings potential benefits, both for developers and for nature, but also brings significant risks. Our support for any new biodiversity offsetting system will depend on its ability to optimise any potential benefits and minimise potential risks. Our full response sets out in detail the criteria needed to do this.

In summary, our key points are:

• Offsetting has to be fit for purpose at the point of introduction, even if we do learn as we go along.
• It must always respect the mitigation hierarchy – avoid harm, then mitigate, and only compensate as a last resort. We need clear guidance on each stage.
• Local planning authorities must have the right ecological expertise to decide offsetting proposals; this independent arbitration is crucial for public confidence.
• Conservation benefits depend on a new system being mandatory for developers and applicable to all new residential and commercial buildings, as this will capture the smaller developments that currently often fail to compensate for harm.
• A mandatory system based on a uniform approach is also essential for a simpler, more efficient planning system.
• Offsetting sites must be protected and managed over appropriate timescales, with clear legal arrangements for liability and funding, and planning protection for the offsetting site.
• Offsetting must always be additional to any other policy or statutory conservation obligations. There must be a public register of offsets to ensure transparency and avoid double-selling.
• Offsets must be monitored for the duration of any agreement, and the data should be publicly available.

Now that the offsetting debatet has matured, have your views changed?

It would be great to hear your views.