Environmental Development Plans: a precautionary approach for species

A new report by Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of 90 nature organisations including the IFM, has warned that there is no scientific evidence that the proposed “Nature Restoration Levy” will work for most wildlife. Applying the new system to protected species without rigorous evidence and effective field trials would pose serious risks for wildlife.

The proposed “Nature Restoration Levy” would allow housing and infrastructure developers to pay a fee rather than following existing laws to protect habitats and species. The funds would be used to pay for landscape-scale conservation measures in place of existing strict safeguards for individual animals or habitats. 

For some environmental issues (such as water pollution and water availability) there is good science and evidence that strategic action at a broader scale can be an effective way to protect nature. However, at present, there is no evidence that the Bill’s approach will work for any protected species, particularly those that are less mobile or reliant on very specific sites or habitats. 

Government cites the district level licensing approaches that have been developed or great crested newts as a model. Where these schemes have been taken forward with safeguards in place, there are signs of positive results. However, the Bill is looking at new ways of regulating, funding and delivering compensation measures, which has yet to be proven even for great crested newts, and many important details remain undefined, bringing uncertainty that provide risks for both wildlife and for developers.

The Government has agreed to follow “the best available scientific evidence” in designing new schemes, and the “need to achieve favourable conservation status” for affected wildlife.

The IFM have long advocated for strategic approaches to water quality and water resources and tools to deliver them. Part 3 of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill that gets EDP’s funded via levies on developers for catchment scale plans is welcome. However, allowing any risk of harm to fish habitat on the premise that it can be compensated for elsewhere must be resisted. The following from the WCL briefing for Lords Report stage echoes for fish:

“For species with complex ecological needs or highly localised distributions, the loss of even a single site can mean irreversible decline. The risk is that an unproven “strategic” model could replace effective, site-specific protection with paper-based offsets that fail to deliver in reality”

As such the IFM fully support amendment 130 which seeks to limit part 3 of the bill to proven approaches for environmental delivery plans.

Further information at https://www.wcl.org.uk/environmental-development-plans-a-precautionary-approach-for-species.asp “

Note:

Atlantic salmon, iconic in UK rivers, have declined by around 70% across the North Atlantic in a few decades. In Great Britain the species is endangered, having suffered a projected 50-80% decline between 2010-2025, driven by habitat loss, barriers to migration, and water pollution.