Policies without transparency don't work
By Andrew Cameron
Enlightened conservationists are justifiably concerned about the contempt in which the environment is held by those who have vested financial interests in destroying it. But there is nothing new here and society and government’s woeful responses to biodiversity loss have been enshrined in ‘law’ (more like guidance to be ignored) for years. The following quote makes depressing reading in the context of 2020.
‘No ecosystem in the UK has been unaffected by human activity, whether directly or indirectly; and most of the landscapes that we now regard as traditionally British have been created or heavily modified by man. This century has seen a formidable increase in the pace and scale of human intervention in the natural world and, as a result, an accelerated pace of loss of biodiversity.
There is also considerable uncertainty about the values, including economic values, that future generations may attach to biodiversity. For example few would have predicted that the Pacific Yew, a tree believed to be of little value, is now thought to contain one of the most promising potential cures for different forms of cancer.
The moral argument adds to this perspective the view that we should hand on to the next generation an environment no less rich than the one we ourselves inherited. We believe that a culture which encourages respect for wildlife and landscapes is preferable to one that does not. Human beings exercise a determinative power over other creatures.Whether hundreds of thousands of species survive depends on the decisions of humans.
OVERALL GOAL
To conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK and to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all appropriate mechanisms.
UNDERLYlNG PRINCIPLES
Where biological resources are used, such use should be sustainable.
Wise use should be ensured for non-renewable resources.
The conservation of biodiversity requires the care and involvement of individuals and communities as well as Governmental processes.
Conservation of biodiversity should be an integral part of Government programmes, policy and action.
Conservation practice and policy should be based upon a sound knowledge base.
The precautionary principle should guide decisions.’
The text above is a fine example of our inability to adapt as a nation. This was written in 1994 in a government document called The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. It was, and I quote: ‘the UK government’s response to signing the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Rio Earth Summit. It sets out a programme for the conservation of the UK’s biodiversity and led to the production of action plans to achieve the recovery of many of our most threatened species and habitats.’
Furthermore a key objective and measure of success was ‘a commitment to halt biodiversity decline with the aim of reaching this by 2010’
Needless to say the 2010 deadline was passed without halting biodiversity decline and we’re now in 2020.
A typical example of how ‘No Net Loss’ was applied in practice. Measures were supposed to have been taken to protect amphibians but as you can see the protective barriers and fencing has come down….
A letter to the EU commission in 2014 stated: ’Our 2020 mission is to halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people.’ Looks like a cut-and-paste job from the Lawton Report but nevertheless the letter went on to denounce biodiversity offsetting and declare ‘In summary, we do not think that offsetting is yet sufficiently advanced to be capable of supporting a No Net Loss strategy…’
Let’s summarise:
Our leaders and policy makers have known about the importance of biodiversity and human-induced biodiversity loss for at least 26 years
In the UK those same leaders have pledged to halt biodiversity by 2010 (and failed) and then by 2020 (and failed)
At this very moment precious biodiversity is being destroyed by a major infrastructure project, HS2. Is this destruction consistent with the statement from 1994: We believe that a culture which encourages respect for wildlife and landscapes is preferable to one that does not.?
It’s very apparent that we can’t trust our policy makers and leaders to halt biodiversity loss, which means that we, the people who are negatively impacted by this inaction, need to make our voices heard whilst supporting those organisations that are trying to prevent the destruction of our environment.
….the development itself and the road carrying site traffic is just a few metres away. This particular initiative undoubtedly resulted in biodiversity loss. Copyright Andrew Cleave.
Our government’s next big initiative is something called Biodiversity Net Gain. This doesn’t stop the destruction of wildlife, instead it asks those who are doing the destroying to measure what it is they are depriving people of, and then to somehow put back slightly more than they’ve destroyed. Some planning authorities are already applying Biodiversity Net Gain even though it doesn’t to come into law in 2022; however, there is already concern that it will fail to deliver.
If ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity has been an ambition since the 1990s and failed then surely we need a different approach, preferably one that includes greater transparency. All of us pay council tax to support the salaries and desk space of planning officers; would it be unreasonable to know exactly what decisions they are making and how those decisions were reached? Would it unreasonable to ask our local authorities to publish the annual amount of biodiversity lost, and gained, through development in their constituency? Might the publication of such data help us to really understand how we’re failed to address biodiversity loss for the past 26 years?
It would be a great idea if all local authorities published detailed data for how much and where biodiversity has been lost, as well as when and where the net gain is coming from. This would encourage local authorities to properly monitor and enforce initiatives that are designed to achieve biodiversity gain. As we can see from the pictures above, the planning authorities did nothing to enforce the measures to protect amphibians once the planning application had been approved. Hardly surprising that ‘No Net Loss’ was a failure.
It is also vital that all major house builders and developers, who routinely publish their accounts, include a section on the amount of biodiversity they have destroyed and details of how they have achieved net gain. Since these same companies reveal their profits, which don’t impact most of us, why not ask them to reveal the levels of biodiversity loss and gain through their operations? It seems a reasonable request, they should have all the data readily available and it would be in the public interest.