Respondent 12 (Environmental Campaigner)
Interviewer(s): Me
Interviewee(s): Respondent

Me: So as you know the project seeks to elicit stakeholder perceptions to biodiversity offsetting in the UK. I have choose to study biodiversity offsetting because it is a tool in rapid policy development but, as you know, early theoretical development. I am particularly interested in your insight because you have a wealth of experience working at the interface of science, policy and campaigning - and hopefully you can provide me with good insight into the design and implementation aspects, both from the perspective of policy makers and policy takers. So, if I can start with maybe the most divisive debate around offsetting which concerns its implications for development red tape and ask you whether you think biodiversity offsets are likely to lead to tighter or less stringent regulations around infrastructure development projects?

Respondent: Of course what we are afraid of concerning avoiding the impact that was let up because you have the new opportunity to make up for what you have destroyed. You can always argue - and this is our main concern - that because you can make it up you are entitled to destroy nature, you've bought the right to do it. We are afraid this may turn out to be a license to trash. So, indeed it will lead to a less strict implementation of protections.

Me: And do you see it leading to less focus at the start of the mitigation hierarchy as a risk?

Respondent: Yes, definitely. My background, I originally come from Germany and as you probably know there has been similar regulation in place for the last 30-40 years. It is a different one that has been discussed in Britain and is still under discussion because it is not going to be a market, it is something that happens under strict state supervision and fulfilling the requirements of compensation is an integral implement of the permit. So, if you can't compensate, you can't get the permit. But the fact is, there is, in the mitigation hierarchy, the first step of avoidance is in the legislation as well but it is just a formalism, it is never really looked at. People will always argue it is not possible avoid it because we need the supermarket, that is enough. So, the Germans were very happy when Natura 2000 came up, its article 6, which has stricter regulations, in article 6.3 the Habitats Directive says if this project is likely to have significant negative impacts on the site then it cannot be permitted, so stop. But then of course as you probably know it goes on to say, if you have important reasons of overriding public interest or whatever following reason and at the same time the impact can be compensated and there is no other alternative feasible option then... But in practice, it's hard to overcome that obstacle so there is a lot being done before to design the project in a way that it doesn't harm or avoid the area in which it is going to take place and look for a different place to do what you can. So, it's been much stronger. So in Germany, this regulation has been most welcomed because the German national legislation was at that time comparatively soft.

Me: I think that's an interesting point about the additionality of the regulation on top of what was already there. In the UK it is currently voluntary - so I was wondering if biodiversity offsetting was implemented in the UK, do you think it should be mandatory or voluntary?

Respondent: So, I was part of this working group at the EU level and we discussed that question as well and our common take was voluntary is even worse than mandatory because then, in the company that wants itself to be seen as a green and ecological company can do offsets and will do it to an extent and in a way that won't really hurt them. So, it will not influence their way of choosing the site or it won't help to avoid the project. Whereas, if you have a really bad impact and really need a high compensation, there is the choice of not doing it - that is where it is needed most. So, you have to have a clear regulation. If you have such a regulation, it has to be clear and mandatory. But yes, our concern is of course one step before that, that if you have such a regulation it still will make it easier for people to go along with new developments in sites which are important for nature.

Me: Looking at the progression of the European Action Programmes, in these reports, recently there has been a subtle shift from the goals, or milestone from no loss to no net loss, what are your opinions regarding the adoption of a no net loss policy goal, as opposed to a no loss policy goal?

Respondent: I mean, that's at different levels. I mean, the no loss policy goal, the 2020 overall goal that is still valid at the EU biodiversity strategy. The no net loss is just an action and a target too of the EU biodiversity strategy to achieve that goal, but it doesn't say... I mean, no loss doesn't say it's no growth or no net loss, it's just say no loss. And of course we interpret that as no loss at all but of course it is understandable a no net loss component has been in this and as NGOs we also have to say we haven't thought this through because we have let it slip in there, we have accompanied the development of the biodiversity strategy and at that time there was not a huge dispute about it, it only appeared later when we got more into the matter, that we saw, hey, this can really lead to problems and open up a real biodiversity bizarre.

Me: and how participatory has the consultation been with the EU?

Respondent: You are referring to the EU online consulation?

Me: Yes

Respondent: Well, quite, everyone was invited to participate. So, we did, we had long conversations amongst ourselves and with other NGOs that answered the questions which was tricky because many of the questions were clearly geared to have compensation or an offsetting mechanism which we would have preferred to have a much broader view on no net loss, to look at other options such as having clear targets, having spatial planning in there, maybe a soil directive to come back in, because we felt this was on the one hand has the dangers we have just discussed, on the other hand wouldn't cover everything. You can't really grasp, from a purely technical point of view, you can't really do anything against slow agricultural degradation, you need other instruments to get there other than compensation or an offsetting mechanism. So, can you remind me what the question was?

Me: It was just, what level of participation...

Respondent: So, the participation is good and we encourage others to participate as well. We recently had a conversation with the commission on that and there was around 750 people that responded and lots of organisations, but only 8 countries among that, quite interesting. We didn't get a detailed analysis yet because it is quite fresh so nobody could give us overview statistics at that point, that was interesting. But the questionnaire was not well done, because one thing, it was too much geared on offsetting and the other point is they put two different statements in one question, so you had to answer 'do you like this combined with that' then you had to answer yes or no and there was no choice 'yes ok I like the first part and I don't like the second one'. There were lots of questions like that. So you weren't able to answer properly, you had to answer yes. I don't know how to explain, if you have a look you will see the latter part was really not well done.

Me: On the actual set of questions I noticed there was no question relating to the treatment of social equity and justice concerns necessarily and I was wondering when undertaking biodiversity offsetting do you think compensating the affected communities, i.e. social communities as well as ecological communities is always necessary and practical?

Respondent: Well, of course the social dimension has to be looked at, that is one of arguments we're making because it is... a part of this mechanism is of course to compensate for environmental loss on a more scientific objective basis, which is difficult enough, but you also, in some cases, in many cases it's not possible. But, what also has to be taken into account is the whole value the natural environment has for people, for recreation...

Me: for health?

Respondent: For psychological health. I mean, you can't overestimate the ability to have a look into the greenery around you rather than concrete walls. So, this has to play a role definitely. On the other hand I think it is very difficult to do that so... The best way of course is to try and avoid it as much as possible.

Me: Yes, and has there been discussion of this treatment of social aspects of biodiversity offsetting?

Respondent: Well, we have raised it, ourselves we did and FERN did so even stronger pointing out... many of the local movements against major development projects there are of course no biodiversity experts, it is just their home that is being destroyed. Of course, it is very obvious from that that you have to take this into account. But, again, the key outcome from that discussion is we shouldn't do it at all because this is a problem. We didn't think about operationalising this in order to get a way how this could be also compensated.

Me: Yes, definitely. And what do you think the increasing role of market based instruments such as biodiversity offsetting have in reversing biodiversity loss? Broadly speaking - do you think it can advance progress towards the NATURA 2000 goals or it might undermine progress?

Respondent: We are rather afraid of the latter because: one thing we are afraid of - you might have also heard we have the so called fitness check of the NATURA 2000 network coming up. We have a new EU commission who is very growth orientated and has deregulation as a great headline on their agenda so they are going to evaluate the Nature Directives and see if they can be made into a more modern piece of legislation which can also make it more business friendly and a less powerful tool than it is at the moment. So, we are quite afraid that this might happen and if this happens one of the elements could also be...what can happen is the legislation gets opened up, you get a new drafting process…at the end something that is much worse and we can assume some of the elements that are made under no net loss will be fed into that. So, instead of having a clear mechanism that protects certain areas you will have something that regulates how you shove nature around.

Me: I have had interviews with biodiversity offsetters in the UK as brokers and they have emphasised this is a great tool for engagement of business. I was wondering what risks and opportunities do you think can arise with engaging with business. It seems now we are kind of caught in a vice between 'we need to engage with business' but 'we need to maintain the integrity of existing legislation'. So I wondering what risks and opportunities do you think are posed by greater private sector involvement in conservation, both as the conservers of nature and as the brokers between developers and offsetters?

Respondent: Well, I think involving business and mainstreaming biodiversity issues in business is something that at some point should happen, but you very strongly have to avoid and be aware that the business will ask you to adopt your rules to their game and it has to be the other way round. So, I think what we need is a very strong set of regulation that gives the same playing ground for all business actors and makes them do what they do in alignment with biodiversity - and everyone has to play by the same rules, it will not be a distortion of competition. So, I think the state has a big role to play there, but in those terms then business can of course engage if it wants to pay for the management of important sites or wants to develop sites for nature that's great. With offsetting, I am really cautious because business will demonstrate what they did - create a new pond or whatever - and they will only show that on one side - they will show what they produced, they will not show what they destroyed, so it's a bit of greenwashing. So, there are even some perverse developments. I was at this no net loss event in London in June and there was Tom Tew. He is responsible for the British Environment Bank, yes - I think he was from the Environment Bank. He really said he welcomed offsetting because finally the credits from the offsetting would finally enable him to connect habitats to each other - to do some hedgerows and to do all the development for nature in the country. He was planning to get the finance but i felt it was absolutely perverse because the whole credits come from destroying nature in the first place. So destroying established nature just to get some new elements that at some point will grow into being something substantial. I mean nature, look at an old growth forest, it is not there overnight, it seems crazy.

Me: Like a game reserve for conservation perhaps.

Respondent: Yes

Me: That's really interesting, mabye the point on the private sector involvement as a last question - do you think access (public access) between the development site and the offset site should be maintained over time once the offset has actually been developed and matured?

Respondent: Yes, of course, that alone comes from an offsetting logic, if you want to compensate, then if the people previously were allowed to have access then at the new site aren't able to do that, that is not compensated obviously is it. So, that is quite clear and as (organisation name) its important that people have access to nature and also we think it should be within reach, it shouldn't be nature anywhere, but it should be somewhere within walking or cycling distance if possible. So, turning the landscape - that is also one of the threats offsetting has - into areas where nature is (big areas of nature) on the other hand, big areas for development and big settlements, cities and so on, to have a sort of segregative approach is also what we don't think is really helpful. We need to have nature, of course we need big nature areas and there will be big cities, but it has to be green areas in the cities and there has to be green elements in the countryside rather than endless corn fields which are very monotonous. So, we want to mix, we want to have a diversity in the landscape which is important for people and biodiversity as well.

I think it's interesting because in the UK context the issue of access or even social compensation just hasn't been considered within the context of offsetting. I was wondering whether it has been considered within Germany, France or Australia? If you know.

Me: I think it is partly in the German regulation, I don't know the others. But, for example, in Germany, when you destroy rights of way, you have to re-establish them so if a hiking path crosses somewhere and you build a road then you have to build an underpass so people can still go from one side to the other. That goes a bit in that direction - I mean, other things can not really be compensated but the German regulation is broader than just nature, it is also about other aspects, so it does take other aspects of the environment into account such as noise pollution or effects of water, even air, that all gets considered. As I said, there is some specific human objectives.