Biodiversity offset plan a 'box-ticking exercise'

14th November 2013

Related Topics

Related tags

  • Local government ,
  • Construction ,
  • Agriculture ,
  • Consultancy ,
  • Stewardship



Defra proposals for a biodiversity offsetting scheme are "overly simplistic" and don't offer enough protection for important habitats, warns the environment audit committee (EAC)

After hearing evidence from the environment secretary, developers and wildlife groups, the parliamentary committee has concluded that, while a market in biodiversity offsets could compensate for damage caused to England’s ecosystems by construction projects, the government’s plans are too simplistic.

“The assessment process [to calculate biodiversity loss at a site] proposed by government appears to be little more than a 20-minute box-ticking exercise that is simply not adequate to assess a site’s year-round biodiversity,” warned Joan Walley MP, chair of the EAC.

The committee concludes that the proposed assessment is not sophisticated enough to evaluate the complexity of habitats, particularly the impact on individual species and the interconnectivity of ecosystems.

It also warns that Defra’s proposals do not offer enough protection to important habitats, such sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and ancient woodlands. “There is a danger that an overly simplistic offsetting system would not protect these long-established ecosystems,” commented Walley.

“Biodiversity offsetting could improve the way our planning system accounts for the damage developments do to wildlife, if it is done well. But ministers must take great care to get offsetting right or they risk giving developers carte blanche to concrete over important habitats.”

The EAC concludes that the weightings in the metric for assessing biodiversity loss should be changed to consider the national importance of SSSIs and other important sites, as well as their importance locally.

The committee also recommends that biodiversity offsetting should be mandatory, arguing that the poor uptake of Defra’s ongoing pilots suggests that a voluntary approach would not work.

The EAC’s conclusions closely echo IEMA’s response to Defra’s proposals. Research by the Institute revealed that the majority of members did not believe that developers would take up biodiversity offsetting unless it was mandatory. They also demanded further safeguards for the environment, fearing that government’s suggested scheme could actually cause more harm than good.

IEMA urged the government to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy is applied in the offsetting process to ensure that it developers do not automatically move straight to offsetting.

It also warned that biodiversity offsetting was not a straightforward process and any scheme had to demonstrate that offsets were providing habitats of equal value to that being lost.

“The government’s biodiversity policy approach itself needs to be bigger, better and more joined up,” said Nick Blyth, IEMA’s policy and practice lead. “Biodiversity offsetting has a role to play, but the mitigation hierarchy must be followed to avoid and reduce impacts as far as possible in the first instance.

“Lessons should be learned from earlier experience with carbon offsetting – a practice that has previously suffered some significant lack of confidence. A transparent and robust approach will be required, and with safeguards put in place to avoid the risk of developers ‘jumping’ to an offset solution.”

Reacting to the EAC’s report, Barry Gardiner MP, Labour’s shadow minister for the natural environment, argued that an independent broker was needed to provide the level of assurance needed by developers and the public.

“The EAC has identified a serious problem with the simplistic approach proposed by this government. Biodiversity offsetting must be transparent and take full account of the interconnectedness of habitats, species and ecosystems,” he said. “An independent broker … will be an essential element of any successful scheme.”


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

The biophilic effect

Vanessa Champion reveals how biophilic design can help you meet your environmental, social and governance goals

4th April 2024

Read more

Regulatory gaps between the EU and UK are beginning to appear, warns Neil Howe in this edition’s environmental legislation round-up

4th April 2024

Read more

Five of the latest books on the environment and sustainability

3rd April 2024

Read more

A hangover from EU legislation, requirements on the need for consideration of nutrient neutrality for developments on many protected sites in England were nearly removed from the planning system in 2023.

2nd April 2024

Read more

The UK’s new biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements could create 15,000 hectares of woodlands, heath, grasslands, and wetlands and absorb 650,000 tonnes of carbon each year.

13th March 2024

Read more

All major housing developments in England will be required by law to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity under new rules that came into force today.

12th February 2024

Read more

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Born Free Foundation, co-founder Will Travers OBE tells Chris Seekings how a new approach to conservation is needed to end animal suffering

1st February 2024

Read more

Ajirioghene Samuel looks at some exciting tree-planting initiatives, offering nature-based solutions to climate change impacts

1st February 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close