DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Defra project code: WC 1051 Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Programme Final Report Volume 1: June 2014 Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited in partnership with The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 1 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 Project title: WC1051: Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting pilot programme Contracting Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) organisation: Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QY, UK Contact: Dr William Sheate (Project Director) Jonathan Baker (Project Manager) Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk Partner organisations: The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Address: IEEP Offices, Floor 3, 11 Belgrave Road, London SW1V 1RB, UK Contact: Dr Graham Tucker Tel: +44 (0)20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ieep.eu Report details: Report title: Volume 1: Final Report Date issued: June 2014 Purpose: To provide a synthesis of the information collected across the two year evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilot programme Version no.: 2.4 Author(s): Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Bennett, T., Payne, D., Tucker, G. White, O and Forrest, S. Reviewed by: Eales, R. and Ten Brink, P. Acknowledgements The Steering Group would like to thank the pilots for being so generous with their time and insights. They would also like to thank the Complementary Projects, the Natural England advisers and to all of those who provided their time and expertise to the evaluation, including the team at CEP. The Project Steering Group greatly valued the efforts and expert help of Ian Smith from Natural England in helping to guide this project and for his dynamic assistance with the production of this final report, on the brink of his retirement. He is most fondly and respectfully remembered. 2 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 0. Executive Summary 0.1 Introduction The evaluation project of the biodiversity offsetting pilot programme was a two year study commissioned by Defra which began in July 2012, undertaken by Collingwood Environmental Planning (CEP) in partnership with the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). This is the Executive Summary of the Final Report of the evaluation. The biodiversity offsetting pilot programme was established by Defra in April 2012, consisting of six voluntary pilot areas that agreed to establish pilot groupings of Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and other interested stakeholder organisations to pilot the concept of voluntary biodiversity offsetting in England. In so doing the pilot areas would also test the biodiversity offsetting metric developed by Defra. The six pilots were: Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire (CSWAPO). Devon (comprising three sub-pilots North, South and East Devon). Doncaster. Essex. Greater Norwich. Nottinghamshire. Although six pilot areas are described, in practice there were eight as the Devon pilot consisted of three sub-pilot areas. To distinguish between the three Devon sub-pilots, this report refers to eight pilot areas. The stated objectives of the evaluation were, to assess the extent to which the biodiversity offsetting pilots: A: Help to use resources more effectively to deliver greater benefits for biodiversity. B: Streamline the process of agreeing compensation for biodiversity loss as required by planning policy, in a cost effective way. 0.2 Key findings The key findings emerging from the evaluation, grouped under the thematic headings used across the evaluation are: Governance Every pilot was led by a pilot host who provided the majority of the leadership, momentum and decision making for the biodiversity offsetting pilot areas. The pilot hosts also provided ecological expertise; this was felt to be essential to implementing the biodiversity offsetting approach. Six of the eight pilots were supported by a group of stakeholders from different organisations, mainly LPAs and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). These pilot groups were reported to work well and to provide a useful forum for the discussion of issues and the provision of advice to the pilot hosts. Within the pilot programme Natural England’s role was to provide technical advice and to accredit offset providers and projects. The pilots welcomed the involvement of Natural England, although they would have appreciated more proactive support particularly with regard to promoting biodiversity offsetting within specific applications. Process and management Each pilot developed a biodiversity offsetting ‘strategy’ which varied in the level of detail and length. Developing these documents provided a focus around which the biodiversity offsetting metric (developed by Defra) could be tested and facilitated the discussion of 3 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 biodiversity offsetting within the pilot groups. The strategies also resulted in principles and/or specific areas where offset sites would be targeted. Seven of the eight pilots used the metric in ‘live’ applications. Where the metric was used, stakeholders felt that it was largely beneficial: providing a quantified, consistent, transparent and relatively simple process that accounted for a wider range of biodiversity impacts than current practice. There were numerous examples across the pilots where the use of the metric was considered to have led to improvements in the nature and extent of on-site mitigation and compensation (above what was likely to have happened without the metric). Despite broad support for the metric, some stakeholders had concerns. They noted that the metric omitted certain ecological aspects (e.g. species, habitat function and connectivity), it required additional processes and information requirements and, in the view of some, it over-estimated the importance of lower value habitats and the impact of their loss. Legal and development planning All but one of the pilots felt that within a voluntary system existing national policy was not sufficient to support biodiversity offsetting particularly for lower value habitats. The definition of ‘significant harm’ as referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was key to this with CSWAPO using the metric to support their interpretation of significant. Through this process, supported by good quality ecological data and substantial ecological expertise, this pilot was able to use the metric on over 60 applications and secure offsite compensation on six before the end of the pilot programme. Partly in response to the perceived insufficiency of national policy, the pilots worked with planning policy officers to include explicit reference to biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism to achieve no-net-loss/net-gain in local planning policy. Because of the time taken to prepare them, few plans with explicit reference to biodiversity offsetting were adopted during the pilot programme. Early engagement between applicants and planning authorities in the planning application process was regarded by participants as key to ensuring that the metric was used and, where appropriate biodiversity offsetting was considered as an option to compensate for residual losses. However, in all but one of the pilot areas, a lack of resources hindered a proactive approach to promoting the metric and biodiversity offsetting. Consistent with current practice, section 106 legal agreements (s.106) were to be used to require off-site compensation and long term management. Planning conditions were used for on-site enhancements. During the pilot programme no s.106 agreements were formalised, largely because of the time taken to determine applications, agree s.106s and commence development. Although none were legally in place as many as 16 applications were expected to result in s.106s including offsite compensation. Costs The time and costs to develop the biodiversity offsetting strategy varied depending on its complexity. Very simple, informal strategies only required a few days of time to be prepared whereas strategies that were complex or part of wider planning processes used significantly more resources, up to £13,000. Despite some inconsistency in the views of stakeholders, the general opinion was that biodiversity offsetting and the use of the metric had the potential to lead to a marginal reduction in time for planning decisions, but there was an initial learning period during which it took more time. Compared to current practice, in applications with residual biodiversity loss the use of the metric and biodiversity offsetting increased the costs of compensation. Increases to cost occurred because of the higher standards required by the metric compared to current practice, in particular requiring management ‘in perpetuity’ and using risk multipliers 4 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 In the pilot programme costs for offsets were subject to significant negotiation between applicants and LPAs, with applicants refusing to meet full costs and not pursue biodiversity offsetting (and therefore no-net-loss) in many instances. The lack of costed management plans and the insufficiency of existing evidence on the costs of habitat restoration and recreation meant developers and pilot hosts were not able to accurately predict the costs of specific offsets. Searching for and preparing appropriate offset sites entailed costs which developers were reticent to meet – these costs were sensitive to the exchange
Load more

Recommended publications
  • KEY ISSUES in BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW and POLICY a Comparison of Six Jurisdictions
    KEY ISSUES IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW AND POLICY A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions Ontario Nature’s Greenway Guide Series | June 2015 Key Issues in Biodiversity Offset Law and Policy: A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions June 2015 by David W. Poulton, M.A., LL.M. Poulton Environmental Strategies for Ontario Nature Acknowledgements I am grateful to several people who have contributed to this report. First and foremost, the work was the inspiration of Anne Bell of Ontario Nature, who was unfailingly positive and encouraging. Several experts did me the service of reviewing drafts of the summaries of their respective jurisdictions of focus. For that thanks to Laurence Barea (New Zealand,) Marianne Darbi (Germany), Carrie Nugent and Jennifer Psyllakis (British Columbia), and Nicholas Winfield (Canada). Any distortion of the details in those jurisdictions in the commentary of this report is entirely inadvertent and my own responsibility. DWP This report was made possible through the generous support of The George Cedric Metcalf Foundation. Author: David W. Poulton Review: Dr. Anne Bell Copy-editor: Geri Savits-Fine Design: Lisa Rebnord Cover photo: Don Johnston Download this guide free of charge at: ontarionature.org/publications Copyright @2015: Ontario Nature Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................... 3 2. Biodiversity Offsets and Key Issues ......................................... 7 a. Mitigation Hierarchy .................................................... 7 b. Goals of Offsetting ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regulated Destruction: How Biodiversity Offsetting Enables
    REGULATED DESTRUCTION How biodiversity offsetting enables environmental destruction Author Jutta Kill The research for this publication was carried out between February and October 2018. Design Somerset Bean Image credits Cover, p5, p24 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia. Members of the women’s group picking vegetables. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p11 Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association (PIFWA), Mangrove Education Centre, Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang, Malaysia. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p21 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia, Members of the women’s group including the two women leaders. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International Friends Of The Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network with 73 member groups and over two million members and supporters around the world. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalisation, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study
    Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study Location Bainbridge Island, USA Year 2009 – ongoing Project A 12 home single family residential development and a public infrastructure description project (relocation of a shoreline road). This is a pilot project in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. Actors active in the case City of Bainbridge Island – conducts the development and the offsetting project Department of Planning and Community Development – encourages developers to implement biodiversity offsets Upper Blakely LLC – the development company Bainbridge Island Land Trust – responsible for long term conservation success Private landowner – participating voluntarily, exploring the potential to offset the development impacts citizens affected by the offsetting – attended public hearing See detailed table of stakeholder identification in Table 3. Background and activities involved The pilot programme is a cooperation between a private landowner and the City of Bainbridge. The project intends to show how a forest and a shoreline habitat can be protected even as a development occurs. 2 types of activities involved: Public infrastructure project: It contains of a relocation of a shoreline road. This area is in the property of a private landowner. Portions of this road are located very close to the water. The road with the bulkhead increases wave energy, thereby altering the substrate of the beach and threatening intertidal habitat. The location of the road also replaces natural riparian vegetation, further threatening the potential marine riparian functions. The City agreed to move the road inland, away from the shoreline, which would impact marine riparian area and a forested wetland. Moving the road inland involves some impacts to a small wetland, which will trigger a regulatory requirement to offset the wetland impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Biodiversity Offsets
    Planning biodiversity offsets TWELVE OPERATIONALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho TemaNord 2018:513 Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho ISBN 978-92-893-5406-6 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-5407-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-5408-0 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-513 TemaNord 2018:513 ISSN 0908-6692 Standard: PDF/UA-1 ISO 14289-1 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2018 Cover photo: unsplash.com Print: Rosendahls Printed in Denmark Disclaimer This publication was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the Nordic Council of Ministers’ views, opinions, attitudes or recommendations. Rights and permissions This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Translations: If you translate this work, please include the following disclaimer: This translation was not pro- duced by the Nordic Council of Ministers and should not be construed as official. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the translation or any errors in it. Adaptations: If you adapt this work, please include the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with its author(s). The views and opinions in this adaptation have not been approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Third-party content: The Nordic Council of Ministers does not necessarily own every single part of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • BBOP – Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook About This Document 2
    Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society provided the Secretariat for BBOP during the first phase of the programme's work (2004 - 2008). Publication Data Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. BBOP, Washington, D.C. Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh.pdf © Forest Trends 2009. ISBN 978-1-932928-31-0 (PDF) Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Cover and graphic design by Rima Design. 1 About this document The Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and accompanying supporting materials1 such as this Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook2 have been prepared by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) to help developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and financial institutions that wish to consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets. They were developed by members of the BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee3 during the first phase of the programme’s work (2004 – 2008) and have benefited from contributions and suggestions from many of the 200 people who registered on the BBOP consultation site and numerous others who have joined us for discussions in meetings. The Advisory Committee members support the Principles and commend the other working documents to readers as a source of interim guidance on which to draw when considering, designing and implementing biodiversity offsets.
    [Show full text]
  • Postnote 369 'Biodiversity Offsetting'
    POSTNOTE Number 369 January 2011 Biodiversity Offsetting Overview Biodiversity offsetting is a market-based conservation tool that measures negative impacts on biodiversity, replacing the loss through improvements usually nearby. Offsets aim to compensate for residual biodiversity loss incurred by development projects by maintaining an equivalent amount of biodiversity elsewhere that would otherwise be lost, or by enhancing Given growing recognition of the importance of biodiversity at an alternate location. biodiversity, all sectors are looking for ways to Several countries currently implement offset mitigate the environmental costs of law and policy with different levels of development activity. Biodiversity offsetting regulation and varying success. refers to market-based schemes designed to compensate for losses of biodiversity due to Offsets aim to achieve ‘no net loss’ or a ‘net development projects. This POSTnote gain’ of biodiversity. summarises biodiversity offsetting and Offsetting remains largely undervalued, examines opportunities and risks of offsets especially with regard to undervalued or as within a UK context. yet unknown biodiversity. recognised, this strategy has proved unable to stop the Biodiversity persistent and widespread loss and degradation of Biodiversity is the genetic diversity within species, species biodiversity in almost all regions. Participants to the recent diversity within ecosystems, and ecosystem diversity across intergovernmental meeting of the 193 parties at the landscapes. It supports ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • Review Biodiversity Offsets in Theory and Practice
    Review Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice J OSEPH W. B ULL,K.BLAKE S UTTLE,ASCELIN G ORDON,NAVINDER J. S INGH Q1 and E . J . M ILNER-GULLAND Abstract Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular Introduction yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity he conservation of global biodiversity alongside conservation and of economic development in tandem; Teconomic development is a key challenge for the the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses 21st century. Human societies depend on diverse, fun- in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is ctioning ecosystems in innumerable ways that are not being widely adopted, even though its methodologies fully understood (Lubchenco, 1997), yet there are few and the overriding conceptual framework are still under mechanisms that facilitate the accounting of biodiversity development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates within development activities. Consequently, con- ff implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theor- servation concerns are ine ectively integrated into de- etical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the velopment and risk being perceived as incompatible ff ff criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then with economic growth. Biodiversity o sets o er an explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from approach that links conservation with industry, potentially these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We providing improved ecological outcomes along with find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent development. in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge Legislation mandating compensatory biodiversity ff of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring conservation mechanisms (including o sets) exists in and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on Net Gain in EIA Thought Pieces from UK Practice
    Impact Assessment Outlook Journal Volume 4: October 2019 Perspectives on net gain in EIA Thought pieces from UK practice Guest Editor Emma Magee GUEST EDITORIAL Emma Magee Senior Environmental Project Manager Environment Agency and IEMA IA Steering Group member Perspectives on net gain in EIA I am delighted to be able to bring to you a selection of articles on the theme of Net Gain, that amongst other things explore how an ecosystem services approach can help EIA embrace developments in this area. This is a subject that challenges us to innovate and develop our practice in order to produce work and projects that have multiple benefits. I hope you will find, in these articles, the same motivation to learn more that they prompted in me. Net Gain Evolution from offsetting In March 2019 the Government confirmed that the To understand the evolution from offsetting we can dig forthcoming Environmental Bill will mandate ‘biodiversity back through the QMark archives to explore some of net gain’ with on-site measures given priority above the challenges that offsetting has faced and how the habitat creation elsewhere. Biodiversity net gain is approach has developed from ‘no net loss’ to ‘net gain’ an approach to development that leaves biodiversity as a consequence of the Lawton review1 (2010) which in a better state than before the project. While the quite simply stated that offset efforts needed to be “more, National Planning Policy Framework already includes bigger, better and joined”. In their articles Brookes and a requirement for the identification and pursuit of Davis discuss the pros and cons of biodiversity offsetting opportunities for securing measurable net gains in and an international case study to explore these themes.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation
    sustainability Review Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation Marie Grimm * and Johann Köppel Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Technical University of Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-(0)-30-314-27388 Received: 10 October 2019; Accepted: 2 December 2019; Published: 4 December 2019 Abstract: Biodiversity offsets are applied in many countries to compensate for impacts on the environment, but research on regulatory frameworks and implementation enabling effective offsets is lacking. This paper reviews research on biodiversity offsets, providing a framework for the analysis of program design (no net loss goal, uncertainty and ratios, equivalence and accounting, site selection, landscape-scale mitigation planning, timing) and implementation (compliance, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy, leakage and trade-offs, oversight, transparency and monitoring). Some more challenging aspects concern the proper metrics and accounting allowing for program evaluation, as well as the consideration of trade-offs when regulations focus only on the biodiversity aspect of ecosystems. Results can be used to assess offsets anywhere and support the creation of programs that balance development and conservation. Keywords: biodiversity offsets; no net loss; offset design; offset implementation; compensation; mitigation 1. Introduction Noticing an increasing pressure on ecosystems due to development, governments have implemented various policy approaches to
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Impact Calculator
    BIODIVERSITY IMPACT CALCULATOR - GUIDANCE FOR USE FOR LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 05 July 2019 To accompany The Environment Bank Biodiversity Impact Calculator - v2 July 2019. Environment Bank e: [email protected] w: www.environmentbank.com 1 CONTENTS 1. Accounting for impacts on biodiversity .......................................................................... 3 1.2 How it works .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Ecologically important sites and protected species ................................................ 4 2. Biodiversity Impact Calculator guidance ......................................................................... 5 2.2 Required information ............................................................................................ 6 2.3 Habitat assessment ................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Area and length ..................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Distinctiveness categories ...................................................................................... 7 2.6 Condition assessments .......................................................................................... 7 2.7 Development impacts and the calculator ............................................................... 9 2.8 Risk factors ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offsetting – What Does the Science Say?
    BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING – WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY? Summary report from a meeting of the British Ecological Society Biodiversity offsetting has been heralded as a tool to balance economic growth and environmental protection. By identifying and quantifying the environmental impact of development on biodiversity, offsetting could help bring the cost of impacting nature into projects where it is currently left out. The British Ecological Society believes that it is essential that offsetting policy is evidence-based and that offset systems are grounded in the best ecological science. The BES notes the limited reference to science in the Green Paper and considers this to be an important omission. Summary 1. Any biodiversity offsetting policy implemented in England must be evidence-based. Offsetting decisions and protocols are underpinned by both scientific and value judgements, and for ecological science to be used effectively, Defra must distinguish between these and treat them accordingly. 2. Ecological science is integral to the development and implementation of an offsetting policy in England. Offsets must be both designed based on best available scientific knowledge, and monitored effectively to ensure performance is objectively assessed and any offsetting approach is therefore improved where necessary. We highlight several areas where the contribution of ecological science is particularly key to the development of an effective offsetting policy. 3. Current ecological knowledge that is applicable to offsetting needs to be organised in an open manner using consistent and compatible approaches, at an appropriate scale to reflect local and national values. This paper begins to identify areas where this might be possible, but further work is needed to map current and potential habitat and to confirm reliable indicators of habitat condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Net Gain
    Biodiversity Net Gain A new role for infrastructure and development in improving Britain’s wildlife. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We’d like to thank all participants in this study for their support and enthusiasm in preparing this white paper. We’d like to offer special thanks to the following Nick White Natural England Joe Bull Academic & Founder of Wild Business Nick Crouch Nottinghamshire County Council David Lowe Warwickshire County Council Jonny Miller Teignbridge District Council Louise Martland Environment Bank Emmanuel Deschamps Network Rail Julien Sclater Natural England Matthew Jackson Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust Victoria Griffiths PhD Student, University of Oxford EJ Milner-Gulland Professor, University of Oxford Neil Riddle Forestry Commission Claire Wansbury Atkins Julia Baker Balfour Beatty Adriaan Bekker Network Rail Adam White Network Rail Mark Iley Essex Wildlife Trust Helen Wickham Berkeley Group CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 IT MATTERS THAT BRITAIN’S BIODIVERSITY IS DECLINING 7 HOW DEVELOPMENT CAN ENHANCE RATHER THAN ENDANGER BIODIVERSITY 8 THE UK’S TAKEN SOME STEPS TO IMPLEMENT NET GAIN PRINCIPLES 14 CASE STUDY: EAST WEST RAIL 18 OTHER COUNTRIES PROVIDE VALUABLE LESSONS 20 PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE A BIODIVERSITY STEP CHANGE 24 APPENDICES 27 2 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A COMMITMENT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD ENHANCE, RATHER THAN DESTROY, NATURE IS NECESSARY IF THE UK IS TO MEET ITS GOAL OF REVERSING LONG TERM BIODIVERSITY LOSS BY 2020. Biodiversity concerns the variety of our wildlife, yet in the on avoiding the impact first of all, then following through UK in spite of existing nature protection policies and laws a hierarchy of minimising, restoring and, as a last option, that give protection to conservation priority species, wildlife creating new habitat elsewhere.
    [Show full text]