Respondent 1 (Certified Offsetter)
Interviewer(s): Me
Interviewee(s): Respondent

Me: So as you know the project seeks to elicit stakeholder perceptions to biodiversity offsetting in the UK and I chose to study biodiversity offsetting because it has received relatively low scholarship and lies at the intersection of ongoing environmental discourse around justice, corporate social responsibility and also sustainability. I have also recently launched a project with Stockholm Environment Institute focusing on sustainable construction so I am quite interested in the role of businesses in conservation. I was particularly interested in you as a respondent because you have worked at the interface of policy, business and academia, so hopefully you can offer an interesting insight into the whole process within the UK and elsewhere. Probably the most divisive debate around biodiversity offsetting concerns its impact on regulations around infrastructure development. So, the first question in mainstreaming biodiversity offsetting or getting it institutionalized was, what affect will it have on kind of the policy planning regulations. I was wondering your opinion on that

Respondent: I think it is going to be incredibly positive for a number of reasons. Firstly, from the developers side of things there is a lot of very good developers who are honestly trying to do the right thing. The biodiversity offsetting approach and by the way you calculate the number of units and you have to demonstrate your adherence to the mitigation hierarchy will enable them to have a greater voice, but also enable them to really achieve what they want to achieve. Y'know at the moment if you do have an unavoidable loss the compensation process is very inconsistent, it varies between local planning authorities and so on one side of things they will try and do something but they have no way of really quantifying and knowing how good their work is. Especially for companies who have certain no net loss targets on biodiversity, wasted carbon is definitively easy, you've got targets and you can just go along and do it. So I think it will be very positive from that point of view, I also think it will be very positive by giving a new emphasis and a new spotlight on biodiversity. It is very very competitive out there, the commercial, the construction industry has really been hard hit by the recession and so everyone is desperate to be something slightly different - to have a kind of leading edge, to win the next thing, to build their reputation and y'know doing biodiversity offsetting, biodiversity in itself and right and taking on the challenge of an offset and y'know proving that what they are doing is having all these wonderful impacts, is a great incentive for companies to certainly do the right thing and look at all their processes.

Me: So, do you think it is kind of redefining the role of businesses within society, or the impacts, risks and opportunities that arise from their dependence on nature? Is their role within society changing do you think? Instead of just focusing on damage control to actually focus on giving something back?

Respondent: Yes, I really think it will do, but there is so much now about sustainable development, about enhancing local communities and businesses just want something y'know [unknown word] to what they're trying to do. Y'know they're inherently grappling with quite complex and challenging issues. Delivering a very tight budgeted construction program, that they sort of have tighter controls on, but also achieving these wonderful things for the environment and society that everyone expects them to. So, this, this is a solution and the people that I've spoken to have certainly recognized what they can and can't do with it. And I don't think it's, it's, urm... I think it will be handled in the right way with the right communication. What the industry needs at the moment is a solution to corporate commitment on sustainable development. I certainly think it will be very positive. It is less biodiversity offsetting in itself and. It is A) the way it is communicated and B) the way it's managed.

Me: So because of your kind of positive outlook on the biodiversity offsetting process, do you think it should be, instead of just making it kind of just an extension on corporate social responsibility, do you think it should be made mandatory for all infrastructure projects?

Respondent: I do. This is due to a number of things. Firstly, I think it will tighten up the mitigation hierarchy, not so much in that all companies do it to some degree, that it will just raise the spotlight on it. Y'know ecological tends to be, when you look at sustainable development, urm... it is all about recycling and zero waste and all that kind of stuff and biodiversity and ecology tend to be on the back pages. So I think it will raise a new interest and if it does that, then y'know, all the companies will want to be seen to be really out there, doing really positive things. The mandatory approach means companies might or might not use offsetting but they will calculate their biodiversity impact in terms of the units and that's positive from several aspects. Firstly, the power of using numbers to translate and communicate biodiversity to the business people has really transformed my work and I constantly try to engage with business people on this thing called biodiversity, now I have a number, it becomes so much, so much more powerful in term of getting them engaged. Y'know rather than this kind of fuzzy thing they can't really grasp, it is something very tangible and to have a number on that doesn't take away anything in terms of what I do in terms of protecting or enhancing it, it just means that communication with commercial sectors is much stronger.

Me: I suppose it is equipping the actual practitioners with the tools they need as well, like you said to communicate science to policy makers and business makers and within corporate circles. It's quite interesting.

Respondent: Absolutely, y'know, they've been bombarded with all this kind of stuff about green infrastructure and ecosystem services. And there are all these kind of clunky phrases that they don't really understand, whereas if they chose something like waste or carbon, it is a number. Having a number is incredibly important and doesn't take away anything about biodiversity or the importance of it. It is just a communication tool. The other good thing about the DEFRA metric is that it is habitat based and the ecology profession is heavily bias towards protecting species, they focus on y'know bats or door-mice and having a habitat based metric I think is going to be – well it is already - proving very important in terms of where we direct funding for compensation schemes and we will benefit from that. Because if you do it on a habitats based approach you will have far more biodiversity benefits than just thinking about great crested newts or door-mice.

Me: So it's a more holistic approach to ecosystem management, the management of the whole ecosystem and its interactions

Respondent: Definitely, definitely. The trick is at the moment, there are very few ecologists out there that have the relevant habitat and botanical skills to use the metric. When I first saw it, I thought, I need all of my staff and myself trained up to undertake habitat condition assessments. I have seen some shockingly bad reports by ecological companies, and I have seen some very good ones. So, I know there is a lot of discussion about the metric and how good it is, but with the right skills set and someone who really understands how it is supposed to be, it is certainly going to be... due to the fact that is habitat based.

Me: Assuming that the offset is achieved, what should be the overarching policy goal? Should it be no-net loss, giving the current state of biodiversity loss, should companies be required to kind of achieve no net loss or should there be some other kind of other guiding goal?

Respondent: Urm... I think, the thing about the UK is that we really gotta start fitting in with ... well we've got to develop a policy that fits in to our conservation agenda, but also isn't completely out of the Europe world, or the global movement with biodiversity offsets. And I know that there is - well you probably know more about this than I do - the EC is currently looking at a lot of policies to be mandated across the member states and if that is the case then we should certainly align ours now, if that is going to fit. Urm... I mean, the companies I've worked with I have moved them beyond no net loss, into a net gain and they have started on the no net loss and they are now targeting a net-gain, just because I can demonstrate it is very doable and the business benefits that will result from that. So it is a no net loss as a minimum, but no net loss is kind of so doable, so we can work towards a net gain. It communicates something much more positive than just kind of dragging our heals and just kind of doing a no net loss. So, I certainly think a policy should always be quite sort of doable, but challenging, y'know, especially if you give people the solution to be able to achieve no net loss in a cost effective way.

Me: I was just going to say, on idea of the EU Habitats Directive being transposed into UK law, do you think something like the no-net loss idea, or some other goal, should be calibrated to what's going on in the EU and what their conservation goals are? Or should the UK pursue in its own direction its goals?

Respondent: There's a balance, we have our very specific and unique set of sort of biodiversity features, but we also have sites that are linked with the Natura 2000 sites in Europe and we are part of Europe. There is no point in completely striding out on our own, only to be hit by some European policy, next year or a couple of years ago, so we have to reinvent things and sort of duplicate efforts. There should be a balance of acknowledging that we are part of Europe, within environmental legislation, whilst also, using that as a starting framework, while also being very specific to our needs, y'know. The white paper was very prescription in a good way about all the y'know challenges facing us and how we have to take forward the biodiversity strategy for England. Y'know, things like bringing people back to nature, growing the economy, improving the environment. That is something very specific to the UK, but that does need to sit with acknowledging what else is going on in Europe.

Me: That is should be contextual to where it is being implemented?

Respondent: Yes, Yes - very much so, which any good European legislation should do that anyway. It should just provide a framework and y'know, that's the way forward. But I think a no net loss policy - I would like to see a net positive goal. We have to start aiming for these things and biodiversity offsetting is the way to do that.

Me: That is really interesting because I’m working on the topic of net positive intent and I mean there is a lot of overlap in terms of the direction Corporate Social Responsibility - about moving beyond neutrality - or just focusing on damage control - and actually saying that businesses should contribute measurably towards society, the environment and the economy. It would be interesting to ask you because you have given a really good background on mainstreaming biodiversity into planning and policy and its salience within business. In terms of equity considerations, when you undertake the biodiversity offsets do you think that compensating the affected communities is always necessary - and if so - is it always practical to do?

Respondent: When I’m taking biodiversity… I would say… interesting question: when I’m taking biodiversity offsets do you think compensating affected communities is always necessary and practical. Do you mean the community - the local people - or the ecological communities?

Me: I mean the local people. So, completely from a social welfare point-of-view. To clarify, would you consider they are already compensated by the infrastructure that is actually there, so their loss in access to environmental amenities is kind of bridged by their access to new - manmade capital?

Respondent: Sorry could you say that again…

Me: So when you actually carry out the offsets the communities experience a loss in access to environmental amenities and depending on - well this is a future question - depending on where you have the offsets there might be a loss in social welfare, but equally you might suggest that they would be compensated by the infrastructure: the quarry, the building, the business complex that is built there. So, do you have to think about how affected communities are compensated or is it purely ecological compensation?

Respondent: Oh no, yes I see what you mean. I think the local communities… It is certainly very important and I think in principle compensating the affected communities erm… should be, where possible. But you have to do it on a case-by-case basis. It really, it should be a principle that is there for people to then apply on a case-by-case basis just because it is honestly so varied and I mean I have seen railway projects which - yeah y’know - you just simply can’t plant back erm on the railway line and so that there is a loss. But in terms of the - they might do a bit of wildflower planting or something like that and then look to recreate something in a local park. So I think in principle - Yes - I agree, but you have to look at the practicalities on a case-by-case basis, yes, you really do.

Me: The question after that was to ask you what extent do you think the benefits derived from ecosystems are amenable to economic value. This is focusing on - I think the idea and maybe even the fact - when you implement a biodiversity offsetting programme - you’ll have to correct me if I’m wrong - there might become a fully fledged market for biodiversity offsets, as it proliferates and becomes mainstreamed. After the pilots are carried out there is going to become - like businesses can buy these offsets on a market. So you have a market for biodiversity. But to what extent do you think that that market, in terms of nature, can represent its societal value?

Respondent: If it’s done right - absolutely. I mean everyone gets so complicated - overly complicated - about the whole economic value thing and it’s kind of emotionally charged. There are a lot of traditional conservationists out there who are very negative about these kind of things. Erm and to be honest I just think it is very doable, it is very possible and it something that business people are very interested in, if it’s done right. I’m working with a company at the moment that we secured a biodiversity offset. From purely the biodiversity point-of-view it is a woodland creation project in the middle of a park and they really want to know the other aspects of the benefits of that woodland creation to the local community - the pollinators, the carbon sequestering, they want the whole thing. To look at how much of their investment has contributed to the wider economy y’know if that is ever sort of possible. I think, it is, it is very possible, you just have to be sensible about it and I think it will really raise the stakes in terms of what companies will do, if they can so - oh - I contributed to this, this and this. It’s just, I know these things have to be based on science and a robust approach and whatever, but the stuff I’ve seen has been very very complicated. At the end of the day, I can give you the economic value of a bat roost - this is part of what I do on a daily basis. Companies will come to me - they want to take down a house with bats in it and they ask me how much it’s gonna cost. Y’know so there is a very practical way, looking at the work that is already doing, especially within the ecological profession about how much people do pay to collect bats and do bat mitigation as a sort of very specific example.

Me: So you think valuing is better than no assigning no value at all?

Respondent: Yes - I mean, benefits from ecosystem services are… y’know it is possible to value them , there’s a lot of ermm. I’m not sort of dumbing down any of the science because I think y’know there’s obviously been some fantastic work done, but sometimes you just need to take a step back and look at things practically and sort of take it that way.

Me: I mean, sometimes you might have to simplify - kind of - different complex ecosystem services to communicate them with businesses so it is quite interesting to see how that’s done in practice. And on that, biodiversity has been a tool for agenda building, and it has come to forefront of policy within the UK and the EU. What do you think the role of these kind of market based instruments for conservation is in reversing biodiversity loss compared to the more standard command and control or top-down regulatory approaches to conservation?

Respondent: I think absolutely key. It really is important - definitely. It’s all about - the more that we can talk in money terms to business people, the more that I certainly get stuff done. Putting it into a number, putting it into money terms. Erm - I mean the current system is failing at the moment - it really is and market based instruments used properly, appropriately and robustly can certainly… I just think it’s the solution, it really is. If I agreed to play monopoly with your friends and then refused to learn the rules. So if you want to work with business people and you want to engage with business people then you’ve got to think in business terms and we’ve got to bring biodiversity conservation into that arena and one way of doing it is market-based instruments.

Me: When you use the market-based instruments does it change the goalposts of conservation. Because you are simplifying it, you are communicating conservation in a different kind of language so it resonates with businesses. Do you think it in any way changes, discredits or enhances conservation goals as a whole.

Respondent: The only thing that is, it is in the hands of the people that do that. Firstly, I have found, it is extremely positive and it has given me much more strength and robustness to my arguments. Because when I show a graph of this sort of biodiversity baseline that a client has - they see numbers - they’re engaged and interested and want to know more and then it has this sort of ripple effect, because certainly, any… Put it this way - if a market based instrument has a negative on a conservation objective it is nothing to do with the market-based instrument, it is to do with the person that carries it out.

Me: Actually that was quite an interesting point, because who should be regulating? who should be the agents involved in market based instruments? Should it just be the market, the private sector, or should it be a range of different stakeholders?

Respondent: I think, me, the way that DEFRA is tending towards erm… the biodiversity offset process is implementing it… it is certainly one that I agree with. An offset provider would have to go through a verification process to be y’know certified. I also think ecologists who, or consultants who business people will employ to y’know do the calculation and the assessment should also be certified to do offsetting - which is the process they have in Australia. With the first checks in place and an overview from Natural England erm… I think it is very very possible and on that basis to have the kind of quality assurance from Natural England.

Me: Should there be,things in place to stop, in the same way that there is a market for carbon - I’m not insinuating biodiversity offsetting will be the same but if there are any parallels to be drawn, if the price of biodiversity fell lower than a certain level, would people stop offsetting, or would people favour the cheaper easier offsets or expensive ones which would insinuate a higher more distinct, more diverse habitat. Or do you think biodiversity offsetting doesn’t insinuate a market for nature?

Respondent: I’m just thinking, there’s so much to be gained from it, I mean at the moment, we’ve got a local council who’s budget is being stripped every single year and they own a lot of biodiversity spots that they have no money to manage, no money to do anything, they have a biodiversity action plan. Biodiversity offsetting to them is going to be incredibly powerful and incredibly positive. It is all about channeling this money… I mean businesses spend an absolute fortune on biodiversity initiatives or erm… y’know ecological mitigation and we should be channeling that money into this thing - biodiversity conservation strategies.

Me: Do you think the mitigation hierarchy - after biodiversity offsetting has been launched - has become a more well-recognised framework? Do developers go through this sequential process reduction and minimisation before they conduct the offset?

Respondent: You always get people, companies, who are better than others. But generally yes - the legislation has completely changed, it really has done. I mean there’s lots of.. yes there are still companies or individuals who will try and y’know take down a building with a batton. But generally, the major players - they all have sustainable development policies and they are all out there to work to the highest environmental standards. So they were certainly doing it, they didn’t call it the mitigation hierarchy. Erm… but the avoidance I have seen recently has definitely increased, just because of the amount of money that businesses will save from that. So normally, whenever I work with someone, they say: where, where, tell me where you want me to put this - this is my site - I have to do these things here but I’m quite flexible on where I put this or where I put that. Y’know, what is going to cost me less from the ecology side of things.

Me: Oh OK. So they are considering the actual ecological cost, it is now becoming a traditional cost in these developments.

Respondent: Oh god, for years, absolutely years. They have their fortune for great crested newts or bat mitigation surveys or anything and we had one site, a railway project, erm which, when I got to the site, the environmental manager said, I bet you’re gonna say, there was this huge kind of bushland on the edge of the boundary and he said, oh I already said they can’t touch that because it’s quite interesting to the earth. I mean, the, it is definitely there within industry, definitely.

Me: I mean this is obviously a difficult question to ask, because you’ve obviously stated the opportunities posed by the private sector provision of offsetting. Do you think there are certain risks - I am not saying these risks are inherent in the instrument - but are there certain risks that could emerge from an improper implementation of biodiversity offsetting.

Respondent: Yes - I think there are. I’ve seen - as I mentioned - I have seen shocking reports by members of my ecological profession who have no idea how to run the DEFRA metric. You get the numbers wrong and y’know it is shockingly bad. So there are risks, if people are not skilled enough to, to A) calculate the number of units that a developer needs to offset. B) then, I mean, I’ve also seen ecologists that simply can’t understand the wider picture. They look at a bunch of trees and say - that has to be an offset of trees - but it’s not. It has to be founded on the context of that site. Is it a perfect line of trees, but what else is its ecological function.

Me: So is there also concern about ecosystem services?

Respondent: I do that as part of my work and my team does. Not each ecological consultancy does. And the thing that I’ve liked about offsetting so far is that it’s really raising questions on the quality of work within ecological professions. So there are certainly risks and everyone tends to demonise developers, but developers generally do what their consultants tell them. The light really needs to be shined upon the ecological consultancy professionals.

Me: Ok…that’s quite interesting. So what kind of factors, in terms of your day to day work determine the location of an offset with respect to the community that the infrastructure development was within?

Respondent: I speak to my clients about, well firstly… there are always two main ones. One is proximity, so it’s the location of the offset, one is the type of habitat that is being created. I do speak to my clients about other criteria that are important to them. Such as bringing people - better connecting people - with nature, having their staff involved with the offsets, there may be a volunteer planting society, something like that. The type of organisation they want to partner with. They might have a Wildlife Trust, Woodland Trust, RSPB.

Me: So the actual process is as important as the outcome?

Respondent: Oh yes. Yes. The deciding process, I mean yes, it’s all. The people that I work with have become really engaged with that and it is very empowering. The more that they feel that they are constructing y’know, very specific, very tailor made offer, the more that they invest in it and the more money I have to be able to do it. So we always look at two key criteria, proximity and the type of habitat and whether we can upgrade that habitat from what we are using. But then just running through a range of different ideas that they would want seen, or they are interested in.

Me: Do you think, just from a whole point of view do you think there are any limits to offsetting these kind of like really distinct and rare habitats?

Respondent: Oh, well I think we have got into the Highspeed-two debate - they are devising an offset strategy for ancient woodlands. Which is interesting. Erm… I think when it’s… Given the economic climate and the economic priorities, something like highspeed-two, if it really is going to be of major economic significance to this country, it will go ahead. And offsetting ancient woodland is better than doing nothing at all. So I think… I think it depends on the threshold of your project, y’know a little project of no national economic significance, yes, there must be rules in place and there must be guidance. But for something of, y’know these majors projects you can’t obviously bend the rules, but realistically, if the government says it’s going to go ahead then it will go ahead and you are either on board with it and trying to do something, or you just leave it.

Me: I mean, I suppose this is where the ‘License to trash’ rhetoric came out, because it implies any single habitat is up for grabs. But do you think it is more based on case-by-case study and weighing up the kind of different benefits an infrastructure will have on society?

Respondent: Yes, it has to be on a case-by-case basis and I think the threshold factor is at quite a good level because that’s already there, that’s already there within the environmental assessment process - depending on the threshold, depending on the size of your project, dictates the level of environmental assessment that you had to do. So offsetting should just fit in with the existing process such as EIAs or strategic or sustainability appraisals, those kind of things and y’know look at it on a case-by-case basis. With the existing guidelines in place where offsetting does not apply for protected sites or habitats such as ancient woodlands it is very important to have because then develops know right from the outset. Something like a government priority, such as highspeed-two, if it does go ahead, you have to review it on a case-by-case basis.

Me: I mean, it is just the reason that the EU Habitats Directive or the Natura 2000 network now covers about 20, or 17 to 20 percent of the EU. So do you think we should set a perimeter around those and say, these are not OK for development, or we should kind of judge it?

Respondent: They have already, I mean I don’t think offsetting shouldn’t change anything, it should add strength to what is already there. Y’know the existing protection from Natura 2000 network is incredibly strong. The amount of - oh god - reports and impact assessments that I have to do for these sites for tiny projects. Put it this way - if a highways project is 29.9 kilometres away from a site designated for bats, I have to write this huge report on whether it is going to impact on that site. That is almost 30 kilometres away, if that’s what the legislation dictates.

Me: So there is quite stringent protection around…

Respondent: God, honestly, I wouldn’t want to rock the boat on that, because the rules are so strict on that anyway.

Me: Maybe just as a last point - and I don’t know how you perceived this when I asked it. But just if you were to think of the different stakeholders I’m interviewing. There is a fourth one of developers but I think you have covered most of that. But how do you think the goals of these different stakeholders can be promoted or enhanced by biodiversity offsetting and what do you think their positions are on market-based instruments for conservation?

Respondent: Well I think in terms of what they can do in terms of offsetting in terms of offsetting and market based instruments, it’s going to be an absolute god-send for most local authorities, it really is. I mean, the budgets are being slashed - as I mentioned - they have these sites and they are meant to have biodiversity action plans that they contribute towards and there’s no money for that. Erm… and the balance between… they simply have other priorities. Y’know if they direct offset funds, it can be incredibly powerful for them to achieve their biodiversity strategies. So there position - I don’t know - I’ve not talked to, I’ve only talked to a few local authorities. The ones involved in the pilot test are obviously very positive and a couple of them outside the pilot test - one that we currently have got the offset with is really positive about it, which is absolutely brilliant. Environmental campaign organisation and charities… It’s such a shame that there is so much negativity out there about offsetting without looking at the benefits that it can do. I went to a talk a couple of weeks ago, to the London Wildlife Trust and there’s a lot of there sort of members there talking about: oh well, I don’t know about offsetting, oh and I wouldn’t support it if this, this and this. But what they don’t actually realise is that they actually have the power. So if they work out what they want offsetting to look like, then they will directly engage with businesses and make sure that offsetting can actually deliver what we hope it is going to deliver. Again, it’s just a source of money, for people to do what they want to do. Erm, researchers and academics. I erm… I would hope that they would take a more practical approach to this. I mean I have had discussions with academics about the additionality issue which just drives me mad. If you really hold additionality and the principle of additionality in place you would never do an offset, because you could always argue that: if I have a conversation with wildlife trust and they say [name] we have been trying to get this project up and running and we have had a proposal to do say y’know we’ve had a proposal to do the Grey North wood, we should definitely try and get funding for it - they love it because it’s an offset and it gives them money. To me it’s great because it is part of an existing conservation strategy which is what offsetting is meant to deliver and I’ve spoken to academics about it and they said: oh no that’s not additionality because the London Wildlife Trust will eventually do that anyway. So, I hope that researchers and academics will take a far more practical view about the whole thing and actually come up with a solution to make it work rather than just these kind of wafty discussion points

Me: No, that’s really interesting. It’s interesting, I didn’t think about using biodiversity offsetting as a tool for engagement, erm and you’ve kind of raised some, yes, really interesting points about engagement of businesses and actually empowering businesses

Respondent: It’s not offsetting, it is having a number on biodiversity. They might or might not use offsetting, but they love a number - absolutely love it - and it really has transformed a lot of the work I have been doing just to get business people engaged. Thing is, there is a real hunger out there because they have done a lot of stuff according to their sustainable development plan. Everyone’s done carbon, they’ve done waste, there is this hunger for something new and exciting and now they can actually set a no net loss target or a net gain target and actually measure it. So, in my world, having a number of biodiversity has honestly improved my work.