Respondent 6 (Local Planning Authority)
Interviewer(s): Me
Interviewee(s): Respondent

Me: So as you know, this project is designed to elicit is stakeholder perspectives on biodiversity offsetting and I was quite interested in this topic because I've worked with SEI on a project with the Scottish construction industry on businesses' role in participating in conservation action and supplementing government provision of conservation services. I was also particularly interested of your insight because you've worked at the interface of policy, business and science, being a principal ecologist yourself. So, I think the best place to start is the license to trash rhetoric which biodiversity offsetting sometimes received. I was just wondering your opinion on whether biodiversity offsets are likely to lead to tighter or less stringent regulations around infrastructure?

Respondent: Biodiversity offsetting shouldn't, because it is literally a tool to be used within the current system, so, as a tool within planning you must still follow planning rules and regulations and policies first. So, there are areas to believe NPF should be followed in the first instance, followed by a local plans and if all that happens, biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism for dealing with net biodiversity loss if there is any.

Me: So do you think it afford species a higher or lower level of protection?

Respondent: Biodiversity offsetting only covers habitats, so species in my view are kept out of it. Basically there are considered in planning in their own right and that's how we are doing it here. So, you follow the mitigation hierarchy, then if you can't avoid, minimise, only as a last resort should you offset. So license to trash stuff shouldn't happen. If it's happening, then it's going to happen anyway.

Me: Yeah I was speaking to someone about the HS2 project and they were saying and there was some building on ancient woodlands that otherwise should have been protected under regulations.

Respondent: As with any mining operation next to a SSSI, that is just taken into consideration. HS2 is a major infrastructure project, so has special rules and regulations up towards the EU and government. It falls outside the national policy planning framework. So those national policy frameworks may be mentioned in HS2 and in fact they are. However, it's a different set of rules, so it is unfair to look at biodiversity offsetting in the pilots it's being used in at the moment as a mechanism for HS2, saying that... we are using it to monitor ecological impacts and calculate ecological impacts of HS2, but as you say, how do you deal with irreplaceable habitats? because the system wasn't built for that. I think there is no very high value, HS2 through Natural England have designated that value at 8 - whether that value is correct, I wouldn't like to say.

Me: are you referring to the Defra metric?

Respondent: Yes

Me: Do you think it's too simplistic, what's your perspective of the metric from an ecological basis?

Respondent: Well, we're piloted it in Warwickshire for one and a half to two years. We built our system around those metrics and I have 100% confidence in that they work . Those ones that are based on science are sound.

Me: At the moment it's voluntary, but should it be made mandatory for all infrastructure projects? Or should it be scaled up to national or EU Scale?

Respondent: Urm, it should be made mandatory, on the planning site, because that is what we are planning. Whether they are appropriate for HS2, obviously not. Because HS2 and Natural England have tweeked the metrics that were published to cater for the irreplaceable habitats. So, should it be wound up to international or EU functions, erm, very hard to say, because each nationality of the EU may have their own individual aspects, needs a nd pressures. We're a very small island, so our pressures on land values are different than France or Australia where offsetting is being used.

Me: Is it difficult in the planning system to integrate vertically to the EU level. With the Natura 2000 network and other regulations at the European level, is it quite hard the integration of UK and EU environmental policy?

Respondent: I'm a local authority ecologist, so I wouldn't have a clue. So I don't know how you would translate it upwards if you know what I mean.

Me: Does it affect anything at the local level, or is it independent?

Respondent: at the local level with the pilot we have looked at the metrics in Warwick and Solihill, so that's what we've done. Here we have been able to implement it very well, in as close to mandatory as you can possibly get and so it is a voluntary scheme nationally, but in Warwickshire and Solihull we are piloting it. We are going to test it properly therefore when all the local authorities have adopted it as a mechanism to determine gain or loss under NPTF and if there is a loss, you have to deal with that loss. Offsetting is an opportunity. So, in that sense it's mandatory.

Me: So going on to equity considerations, when you're undertaken a biodiversity offset do you think compensating the affected communities is always neccessary and practical, because at the moment, it is obviously focused on ecological compensation, but have you had any experience of the community scale compensation, or any scale of remuneration of the community?

Respondent: It has been raised internationally, of the community of it. If the metrics were to incorporate ecosystem services, then that would naturally bring in culture and community. But that would make it unwildly and too complicated. It is simply a biodiversity tool and that should fit into the biodiversity strategy of that area. So, my philosophy and this is only because it's a 2 year pilot, that biodiversity offsetting is purely annex A to our green infrastructure strategy. It is a mechanism for delivering a bigger picture. If that's understand, it is one small cog in loads of cogs.

Me: so should communities should be thought of in a different sense?

Respondent: It will always been taken into consideration. In the green infrastructure strategy we want to put the right habitat in the right place. So if you follow that train of thought, if you lose hectares in one area, but 50-60 miles away in another area. The primary importance would be to join other sites together in one place - therefore you create a huge core, y'know instead of lots of zoos everywhere you create a safari park. However this is a planning tool and the ultimate decision comes through at another committee. So councilors are keen to ensure that biodiversity loss and gain occurs in a nearby area so that a local residence aren't or communities aren't affected or impacted to much on that resource, i.e. a meadow somewhere. So ultimately, the community aspect is brought in through the planning committee, but scientifically, pluralistically, one could argue, if you are gonna save, the counties, the country's the world's ecological systems, you need to address the critical points first, but logging and noting that you still have some cultural debts still. If you're a scientist or not.

Me: It's interesting the tension between ecological and social compensation. Urm... and do you think letting people access these ecological networks, obviously its conducive towards community development and social cohesion, but is it conducive towards increasing biodiversity always.

Respondent: Hard to answer. It’s biodiversity gain, that's what the white paper is after and planning by 2026. I would should suggest, my response back to Defra was that you could have your cake and eat it, if you are losing an area, you can give some of that compensation back to that area. But you could also obtain resources and put it into the strategic area. So you could put the offsets in two places. So if you explore possibilities, you may be able to have your social inclusion, your community value and also have your scientific. That requires a bit more thought and strategic thought at the local and national level and depending on your infrastructure impacts, like HS2, could be national, local could be local, but that is a strategic question, a strategic philosophy.

Me: At the moment it's just at the local scale, but there is talk of there being a kind of biodiversity offsetting offsetting, in the same way as carbon offsetting, there being a market place for ecosystems or offsets to be traded between regions or between different developers or a land owner and a developer. I was wondering the extent to which you think these offsets can be banked and traded within a market system?

Respondent: This is philosophy again. I can see how it can work, so I have no great comment on that. It's all about, it still comes down to locality. If you're talking about the international scale of offsets, from something in Africa and Alaska, you have still got to consider ecosystem services at a local level, you can't. I wouldn't like to see even on a micro-scale, impacts of Warwickshire HS2 being offset in the Chilterns area because the cultural impacts on Warwickshire would be felt. So there still needs to be some balance. I would suggest if you're a multinational corporation doing a multinational project on oil, you're looking at a global impact and therefore that would be reasonable to offset it globally. If the impact is local you need to have it local. It may be a local impact on a global impact you need to do both.

Me: So, it seems proximity is a guiding principle in biodiversity offsetting, but is it written in to the planning and regulations of BO or is it just a principle?

Respondent: No, it's not yet, that's out for consultation, subject to the final pilot findings.

Me: But do you think proximity is a very important factor in the offsetting process?

Respondent: Define proximity. For me, it's looking at a local impact, on a local thing, on a local... if you look at 20 houses on site, it's completely different to a large oil depot on the humber which has a global impact because ships come from all over the world to go to it. So, yes I'm a local ecologist in the local authority. However, if I was Natural England, my local patch is called England. It depends who you're asking the question to. To me, when you say, does proximity matter, my argument is, what I did 2-3 questions before, I look at Warwickshire and preserving Warwickshire ecological resource. If I'm offsetting 20 houses in Rugby, I actually have no confusion to suggest that it should be in Solihul if it's needed to solve my big issues. If you scale that up to a Natural England philosophy they will be saying you can do something in Warwickshire, but I don't mind if I put something in Devon because that's where I really need it to go and I'll go that can't happen, of course I will.

Me: Are there limits to the scalability or can it be done at the regional national, and international level?

Respondent: Again, if it's my belief, if it's mandatory and every local authority must do something and use offsetting, they will have a generic type of strategy, led by data and science and connectivity mapping I know where I want to put my offsets to understand how to connect Warwick's ecological network. I have that data because I'm very lucky. I have that resource. Therefore, if the whole of the country has that resource, doing it locally, within 5-10-20 years, you would make some huge impacts. Then, if it all came from the same strategies and direction, then, I think that's a way to solve it. The biodiversity strategy at the moment quite wooly in many respects but if everyones is trying to follow the Lawton principle - define a wildlife corridor. The thing is, I would define a wildlife corridor as a hedge, but Natural England define a wildlife corridor as a 25km slip going over a countryside and saying in this area we would like to do these things to increase connectivity. Whereas, Yeah that's fine, it will work at that level, but what really matters, is understanding, what the green infrastructure biodiversity resources you've got, field by field, hedge by hedge, so that 25km area is actually going to work

Me: And has there been quite good dialogue between the different scales of government?

Respondent: Frankly, I would probably say no... for many reasons, far too long for this conservation.

Me: You're obviously going to know how this has been articulated at a local scale, but how have the cuts affected your job and how you run your everyday life.

Sorry, the austerity cuts that are being received that are being received by Defra and local authorities?

Respondent: They hit and are felt. They haven't affected me to greatly on my performance. I still have 11 people, which makes me one of the largest ecology units in the country. I'm surviving at the moment, but still got another 20% of cuts coming, so give me a call in four years time.

Me: I think there has been a slight emphasis on the EU level, within the context of austerity, the private sector can supplement the cuts and provide offsetting and obviously, this presents a lot of opportunities and risks. I was just wondering, if you could identify those opportunities and risks?

Respondent: Well the ecosystem task force was set up to try and engage with that debate and they came forward with some interesting results. They suggest that the private sector of the economy world... On businesses he said consciousness is awakening.

Me: Is there an interest in the financial value of these offsets and whether they can capitalise on them?

Respondent: Yes - from the perspective I've got, from the landowner perspective, a lot of land owners are very interested and positive for biodiversity offsetting as a general philosophy - but the actual delivery of it - timescales of agreements required to deliver offsets, i.e. 30 years or in perpetuity, they have serious concerns over and therefore will be - as a summary of the meeting I just came out of - everyone in the room was in favour of it, but had serious issues about the implementation and how it's going to be done and how many hectares. It will end up being that any application that comes forward will be unviable - they'll be asking too much

Me: I there a downward pressure on the price of the offsets if there is a market providing them?

Respondent: That's the thing - as soon as the market sets up, you'll get some cheaper values and some larger values and then it will start equating down as market forces always do. You will get that waving effect.

Me: If there is a volatile market?

Respondent: We don't know - those market forces are being felt. You need to ensure that there is a market out there that understands market forces and principles and to be quite honest I'm no where thinking at that level at the moment. The Environment Bank has those concerns.

Me: Do you think it can be a market and scaled up?

Respondent: There is definitely a market there - no one knows what the price is...