On Wednesday 4 December, Blake Lapthorn's climate change team hosted a green brekfast ith Dr. Tom Tew, Chief Executive of the Environment Bank. Tom talked about the role of bio-diversity off setting.

1. A role for biodiversity
offsetting?
Tom Tew
Chief Executive

2. What is biodiversity
offsetting?
Green field
Development
Receptor site

3. Why?
Planning delivery – Defra analysis*
• System ineffective at delivering no net loss ‐ failure
• Analysis of 10,000, then 500 major, then 50 detailed planning
applications – failure
• Compared the biodiversity results and costs of applying PPS9 with
applying the offset metric – offsetting better and cheaper
• 2007/8: £95bn industry, £5bn agreed through S106 agreements,
only £5m to ‘nature conservation’
• Environment constantly seen as blocker by industry and politicians
* Tyldesley et al (2010) Defra website

4. National Planning Policy
NPPF 2011 ‐ demands ‘sustainable development’
•Para 118 ‐ Planning authorities should aim to enhance biodiversity through
avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures sand should refuse permission if
they cannot do so
•Para 152 – If adverse effects are unavoidable… then compensatory measures can be
used
•Para 176 – Where [such measures] are necessary…. [they must be] secured through
appropriate conditions or agreements.
Natural Environment White Paper 2011 – policy announcement
Biodiversity offsetting pilots – 6 county pilots, 2012‐2014
Conservation covenants – Law Commission consultation 2012
Biodiversity offsetting Green Paper – consultation closed Nov 2013, Defra statement
Dec 2013, possible legislation 2014

5. How?
Offsetting through planning
• Offsetting ‘metrics’ allow for estimation of both loss and gain
• Simply a tool for planners – guarantees no net loss –
accountable, transparent, consistent
• Enables development and delivers biodiversity protection i.e.
sustainable development
• Observes mitigation hierarchy

6. Offsetting metric
• Based on habitat hectares model – a standardised system to
evaluate the biodiversity value of land
• Detailed in Defra technical guidance
• Biodiversity units = area x habitat distinctiveness x habitat
condition – for both development (impact) and receptor
(gain) sites
• Multipliers applied to receptor sites account for risks
associated with time lags, technical difficulties & spatial
literacy in offset delivery
• Hedgerows treated separately (creation only)

7. Offsetting metric
Matrix showing how distinctiveness and condition are combined to give
habitat value
Biodiversity distinctiveness
Low
Poor
Condition Moderate
Good
•
•
Medium
High
2
4
6
4
8
12
6
12
18
Target condition options (optimum and moderate)
Multipliers (creation>restoration)

8. Mitigation Hierarchy

9. Why? ‐ and where
To date
Residual impact unaccounted
With offsetting
Residual impact offset

10. Why? ‐ and where
To date
S106 on‐site ineffective
With offsetting
S106 delivered off‐site

11. How does it work?
• LPA offers offsetting as option, developer chooses
offsetting, impact assessed
• Land managers offer receptor sites
• Developer seeks to purchase credits – consults national
registry, chooses receptor site (with LPA)
• Environment Bank brokers deal ‐ signs legal
agreements to purchase with developer, and to
manage with receptor site land manager
• Money transferred, over time, to the land manager
against specific conservation management
• Monitoring and reporting systems for LPAs &
Government

13. What’s needed?
Hooks in local plans
Pre‐app guidance and validation checklists
Appropriate planning responses
Permission or commencement? Conditions vs. s106
obligations
• Ready receptor site supply
• Legal agreements to underpin and assure
• Ongoing monitoring & compliance
•
•
•
•

14. Local plan hooks
• Collated examples
Ribble Valley Borough Council
‘New developments will only be permitted if proper
consideration is given to the nature conservation value
of the development site. Negative impacts on
biodiversity should be avoided, mitigated, or as a last
resort, compensated for. Compensation for impacts on
non statutorily designated sites should be managed
through a mechanism such as biodiversity offsetting.’

15. Planning conditions
Grampian condition ‐ negative condition ‐ planning permission granted subject to conditions
obliging certain requirements to be discharged before development can commence.
No development shall commence unless and until a scheme ("the offsetting scheme")
for the offsetting of biodiversity impacts at the site has been submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The offsetting scheme shall include:
‐ A methodology for the identification of receptor site(s);
‐ The identification of receptor site (s);
‐ Details of the offset requirements of the development (in accordance with the
recognised offsetting metrics standard outlined in the Defra Metrics Guidance dated March
2012);
‐ The provision of arrangements to secure the delivery of the offsetting measures
(including a timetable for their delivery); and
‐ A management and monitoring plan (to include for the provision and maintenance of
the offsetting measures in perpetuity).
The written approval of the LPA shall not be issued before the arrangements necessary
to secure the delivery of the off‐setting measures have been executed. The offsetting scheme
shall be implemented in full accordance with the requirements of the approved scheme.

16. S106 obligations

17. Land supply ‐ receptor sites
• Habitat creation or restoration
• Credit calculations reflect the difference
between the baseline and target habitat
condition
• Multipliers applied
• Delivery risk
• Years to target condition
• Spatial risk
• Land managers set price of credits

19. Legal Agreements

20. Essex offsetting strategy

21. Warwickshire strategic areas
To target restoration and creation of new core areas

22. Case study example ‐ development
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity value of existing 12.96ha site = 48.68 units
Biodiversity value of the proposed development = 16.78 units
Biodiversity Offset units = ‐31.90 units
Large areas of low value habitats, but significant impact due to small areas
of mitigation to allow development to meet housing need.

23. Case study example ‐ development
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity value of existing 5.10ha site
= 41.04 units
Biodiversity value of proposed development
= 34.89 units
Biodiversity Offset units = ‐6.15 units
Scheme amended to retain and enhance best
existing habitats to reduce biodiversity loss.

24. Case study example ‐ provider
Existing Units
Existing biodiversity value of 4.1ha Species Poor Grassland = 8.2 units (4.1ha)
Existing biodiversity value of 10.4ha Poor Semi-improved Grassland = 41.6 units
Potential Credits
To enhance the Species Poor Grassland
to Semi‐improved Grassland
in 10 years would generate
5.86 credits gain.
To enhance the species‐poor
Semi‐improved Grassland
to species‐rich Semi‐improved Grassland
in 10 years would generate
9.90 credits gain
The Total Grassland units available on
the site = 15.76 credits

25. Benefits
For Planning Authorities
‐Transparent, consistent and auditable
‐Removes compliance monitoring needs but retains
decision making locus and enforcement capability
‐Removes obligations but increases accountability

26. Benefits
For developers
– Reduces planning delays and consultant costs ‐
greater clarity, predictability and consistency
– Potential increase in net developable area with
strategic compensation planning
– Long‐term liability discharged, no long‐term
management costs
– Transparent and accountable delivery of SD

27. Benefits
For conservation
– Environmental value accounted for in all planning
decisions
– Gives financial disincentives to habitat destruction
– Mainstreams land management value
– Enable long‐term and large‐scale habitat
conservation

28. (Projected) English Market
Range of offset costs in England (Defra 2011) – assuming 10,000 ha land
needed for development, with a risk multiplier, assuming land developed is in
moderate condition, assuming 50:50 brownfield:greenfield land
development, etc….
Including coastal habitat
Excluding coastal habitat
Management agreement £140m ‐ £230m
only
£75m ‐ £125m
Land purchase and
management
£210m ‐ £240m
£400m ‐ £470m

29. Biodiversity offsetting
INTRODUCING BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
Biodiversity Ofse ng
h
Informa on s eet 4
September 2013
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informah on see t 3
September 2013
Biodiversity Ofse ng
h
Informa on s eet 2
August 2013
Biodiversity Ofse ng
h
Informa on s eet 1
August 2013
GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES
Why are we trying out biodiversity offse ng in England?
The UK will con nue to experience high‐levels of growth in some areas and we need to ensure that development is
contribu ng to both environmental, as well as economic, recovery.
The current system of compensa ng for the environmental impacts of development isn’t working very well, either for the
environment (poor quality and short‐term compensa on) or for those managing or adhering to the process (expensive,
complicated, slow). Done well, offse ng provides an efficient, transparent, accountable and effec ve way of delivering
sustainable development.
Quan fying impacts of development as a credit requirement enables ‘banking’ of credits at larger, strategic and more
sustainable sites and provides new funding for habitat crea on and restora on.
Why use the Environment Bank?
GUIDANCE FOR LANDOWNERS
GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPERS
This informa on sheet is intended to assist Local Planning Authori es (LPAs) in taking part in biodiversity offse ng, a
government ini a ve being trialed in six pilot areas and elsewhere where there is interest.
This informa on see t is a med at landowners who a e interested in taking pr t in b odiversity offse ng an ‘offset
h
i
r
i
a
s
providers’.
For an introduc on to the principles of biodiversity offse ng please refer to Informa on sheet 1 or our Guide to
Biodiversity Offse ng booklet.
As a policy ini a ve in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper, released in June 2011, Defra invited local planning
authori es to test biodiversity offse ng through na onally recognised pilot projects. The Environment Bank is involved in two
such pilots (Essex, and Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull), and elsewhere where there is interest.
For a i ntroduc on to the principles of b odiversity offse ng p ease s e informa on se et 1: ‘Introducing Biodiversity
i
l
e
h
Offse ng’.
This informa on sheet is aimed at developers, developer’s agents, and consultants who are interested in taking part in
biodiversity offse ng. For an introduc on to the principles of biodiversity offse ng, please see Informa on Sheet 1:
Introducing Biodiversity Offse ng.
Where will offse ng be applied?
A landowner bl oklet is a so available to download f om our website or a a pp er c py which can b mailed out on
o
r
s
o
a
e
request (see contact deai ls bl ow).
e t
Delivering compensa on for a high‐nature‐value habitat, that is not statutory protected.
The need for this already exists within the planning process, but current compensa on ac vi es are o en inconsistent and
complex. A simpler, streamlined process, such as biodiversity offse ng, where a standard metric is used to quan fy impacts
and offsets, provides benefit to all par cipants. In these cases the use of offse ng is voluntary however the need to deliver
compensa on for lost habitat is not.
calculate conserva on credit requirements for developers
calculate conserva on credits available at ‘receptor’/offset sites
register offset providers/receptor sites on an open and transparent trading pla orm
facilitate the crea on, purchase and tracking of credits, using legal agreements and cer ficates
ensure the long‐term management, monitoring and repor ng of receptor sites
Independent brokerage removes conflicts of interest from the planning system – The Environment Bank brings na onal and
interna onal biodiversity offse ng exper se.
Addressing no‐net‐loss in biodiversity and achieving environmentally sustainable development associated with
incremental impacts to the wider countryside. Under the Defra offse ng metric all land has, from the outset, an ecological
value and therefore the impacts on the biodiversity value of that land (through loss to development or agricultural prac ce),
which may have never been previously assessed and compensated for, can now be measured, quan fied and offset. This
new system offers LPAs and developers the chance to account for all of the impacts on local habitats, in order to deliver and
demonstrate more environmentally 'sustainable development' consistent with the Na onal Planning Policy Framework.
Some defini ons
A biodiversity offset is the measurable conserva on outcome that results from ac ons designed to compensate for
development projects’ impacts ‐ defini on from the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) – The Environment Bank
is a BBOP member.
A conserva on credit is a measure of the quan ty and quality of habitat, or poten al habitat. Developers require different
types of conserva on credits depending on their impacts.
Receptor sites are the conserva on/restora on sites where conserva on credits are generated and sold to developers as
offsets. Receptor sites are protected and managed in the long‐term.
f
Habitat banking happens at large receptor sites from where purchases can be made to offset impacts from poten ally
numerous small developments.
A no net loss policy or ini a ve aims to prevent further reduc ons in habitat and ecosystem resources through replacing
unavoidable losses.
How to implement biodiversity offse ng within your planning system:
If your authority’s Local Development Framework/Local Plan is undergoing revision, the referencing of biodiversity offse ng
(as a voluntary op on) for delivering compensa on should be reflected within the new or revised environmental policy
wording thus encouraging uptake. Example wording can be provided by the Environment Bank on request. Similarly, pre‐
applica on guidance and valida on checklists could also incorporate similar wording to make it clear to applicants that
biodiversity offse ng will be considered as an op on for delivering off‐site compensa on where site circumstances allow
and where it can be agreed with your authority that this is an appropriate response to iden fied constraints.
numerous mee ngs with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and/or regulatory authori es
mee ngs with poten al compensa on site owners
habitat suitability surveys and design/drawings of poten al sites
supplementary surveys of poten al sites in rela on to ground condi ons,
contamina on, underground services and archaeology
management plans
legal fees
costs associated with land purchase.
w
Long‐term funding – over 25 years ‐ for management.
Offse ng d es not change the on ership of the land or the p blic access rights.
o
u
How does it work ‐ what’s the process?
Registra on
Landowners interested in registering their pohperty with te Environment Bnk can r quest a ini al Enpression of I terest
r
a
e
n
x
(EOI) form (see contact details bl ow) or visit www.environmentbank.com to fill in the form online . S I bmi ng a E
e
u
n
a
O
s
allows the Environment B nk to list the land on the Environmental Markets Exchange (EME), our online registry ad trading
n
i
u
i
i
pla orm, a a ‘Bronze’ s te that can then be considered d ring offset searches. S tes listed on the EME are g ven code
e
b
names and n contact informa on or dt ai l a out the loca on of the property is visible to members of the EME. This
o
a
s
y
a
informa on is kept within a dt ab ase that is ued exclusively b the Environment Bnk.
e r rs gistra on ‐ although, uu ally, a
n
At this point a landowner may rr ceive a bi ef s te visit to collect further informa
e
i
e
hi
i
EOI is all that is nended u l a local d veloper shows interest in te s te. During a s te visit, informa on is collected on the
e
habitats present ad the habitats a landowner is interested in crea ng ad /or restoring.
n
n
e
n
i
The benefit that could b created at a s te by conserva on management will ini ally b es mated ad g ven a value in
e
i
p
u
r
conserva on credits ‐ bringing the site u to a ‘Silver’ level. Registra on of a site (and sb sequent es ma on of c edit o
value) does n t commit the landowner to a y
n
on in ay way, nor does it affect the status of the land in any way. I t e
f
e
h
ely interested in purchasing credits), the exact number of
site is selected for the n xt ‘Gold’ stage (if a developer i
credits will be confirmed f llowing sb mission of a dt ailed management p an a d s te visit by a experienced rs t ora on
o
u
e
l
n
i
n
e
ecologist. This cn b commissioned b the landowner, or the d veloper, with the costs accounted for in the final credit
a e
y
e
price.
Saves me and money by providing a simple, streamlined and secure process when compared with the current system.
At present, developers can accrue various costs associated with the delivery of off‐site compensa on including;
Income for p otec ng, improving ad crea ng nt u ral f atures on your p operty.
a
n
e
r
At any stage, but preferably during the considera on of land alloca ons and the pre‐planning applica on stage (par cularly
during the EIA stages and prepara on of Environmental Statements), if a development proposal appears to be appropriate
for offse ng and the promoter is interested in exploring it as an op on, the Environment Bank can assess the
development’s impact, calculate the offset requirement in conserva on credits and provide the developer with a brief offset
report. This can normally be achieved quickly using the informa on in an exis ng EIA. If an EIA is not available (i.e. because
the development is exempt, or is on poor condi on arable land or has been assessed at the screening stage as not requiring
EIA), an offset requirement can s ll be calculated based on the area site loss to the development.
f
Provides greater clarity for developers naviga ng through the planning system.
r
What are the benefits to crea ng a biodiversity offs t receptor site?
e
The Environment Bank is an independent broker that will:
How can biodiversity offse ng benefit you?
Biodiversity offse ng involves making an upfront payment which compensates for the
loss of an area of habitat without the need to go through the process outlined above.
Provides predictable costs and outcomes that aid future project planning.
Liability for compensa on delivery is discharged once permission is received.
No long‐term management costs and liabili es for offsite compensa on.
In the right circumstances offse ng can lead to increased net developable area because any significant habitat crea on
can be done off‐site.
You will be an exemplar company that is part of an innova ve na onal scheme.
How does it work ‐ what’s the process?
Biodiversity offse ng is (currently) a voluntary process for delivering compensa on – you only do it if you want to.
Ideally at the pre‐applica on stage, a developer, a er working through the mi ga on hierarchy with their LPA, finds they
need to compensate for unavoidable (residual) impacts and chooses to explore voluntary biodiversity offse ng.
f
They lodge their interest with the relevant LPA who refers the enquiry to the Environment Bank (independent credit
brokers).
Alterna vely, a developer can contact the Environment Bank directly (details below).
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informah on see t 5
September 2013
Biodiversity Offse ng
Informah on see t 6
September 2013
Biodiversity Ofse ng
h
Informa on s eet 8
September 2013
Biodiversity Ofse ng
h
Informa on s eet 7
September 2013
AGRI‐ENVIRONMENT VS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
GUIDANCE FOR LANDOWNERS ‐ HOW TO COST YOUR CREDITS
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING—THE SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM
THE ADVANTAGES OF BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
Comparing the levels of p e
a
yment r ceived u der Environmental S h
n
t ewardship schemes with te p ten al income from
o
biodiversity offse ng fn ding is not straigh orward. The income fo m offse ng will depend gea tly on the type and
u
r
r
a
N
a
condi on of the habitat that landowners or fr mers can create on their land. e vertheless, we hv he prepared te following
t
analysis to p ovide general informa on on the likely s ale of b th types of income saream.
r
c
o
t
This informa on see t will be useful to you if you h ve a management p an f r a poten al offset s te on your p operty ad
h
a
l
o
i
r
n
need to calculate the costs of dl ivering that management ph
e
l an. Tes e costs will of course determine the p ice of your
r
credits for sl e to d velopers ad s a ac urate pi h
a
e
n
r
c
o
n
ce must be developed tat g arantees the agreed commitments in your
u
management p an can b met ‐ these will be a pr t of the Environment Bank’s Conserva on Bank Agreement with you. You
e
l
a
r
ha o
c
set your own p r n d it is cri cal t t you do n t underes mate your costs ‐ we will not accept s hemes with cos ngs
ice, a
that ae too low.
The recent launch of a Government Green Paper on biodiversity offse ng a racted some nega ve coverage in the
press – superficial repor ng of the issue threatens to s fle an opportunity to turn the ‘lose‐lose’ of our current
planning system into ‘win‐win’.
First ‐ the issue. Generally, the current planning system copes with the environment either by ignoring it or, where
that’s impossible, then by se ng up an adversarial process that pits developers against conserva onists. Lengthy
ba les are waged, at great me and expense to everyone, with ul mately a winner and loser. Usually, it’s the
environment that loses (albeit at a financial cost to the developer), and that’s one of the reasons why our wildlife is
seriously declining. But ‘development vs. environment’ is a false, as well as a damaging, dichotomy. We need
development, and we should instead be asking the ques on “how do we make sure it’s sustainable?”
Biodiversity offse ng is simply a tool for planners – no more and no less. It allows society to accurately quan fy any
environmental impact in one place, account for it, compensate for it financially, and use the money to bring back to
glory wildlife habitats somewhere else (usually very close to the impact site). In return for making s ure that there is
a net gain in wildlife the developer gets his planning permission quickly and effec vely – and this is what developers
want from the system.
This simple tool, based on Government‐agreed metrics that calculate both loss and gain of biodiversity, turns the
exis ng lose‐lose into a win‐win. It is not ‘an ‐environment’ nor is it ‘an ‐development’ – it works for both, it
delivers sustainable development, development that produces the economic recovery the country needs whilst at
the same me the environmental recovery that is, in the long term, every bit as vital.
Myths about offse ng
“Offse ng undermines exis ng environmental protec on” – no it doesn’t, it’s simply a tool for planners to
use when they are calcula ng environmental impact. It’s a safety‐net to increases environmental protec on,
not diminish it.
“Offse ng is a ‘licence to trash’” – no it isn’t, the fundamental principle behind offse ng is that developers
must first avoid impact, then minimise any impact on site, and only then compensate for it off‐site. Offse ng
is a last resort, not the first op on ‐ but it is a very important last resort, because it gives developers more
op ons to make sure that what they do is sustainable.
“Offse ng is a tax on developers” – no it isn’t, it actually saves developers money because it speeds
everything up, and treats environmental impact in a transparent, measured and non‐confronta onal way.
Developers that respect the environment will be rewarded by ge ng efficient and transparent decisions.
The current planning system is ‘lose‐lose’ ‐ developments are frequently held u p or refused because of
environmental concerns, and yet the environment con nues to decline because it is not properly accounted
for a nd compensated for. Biodiversity offse ng transforms the system into ‘win‐win’ because environmental
impact is properly accounted for, and then compensated for quickly and efficiently allowing development to
be both delivered and sustainable.
Biodiversity offse ng helps:
Agri‐environment funding
A fr mer in the U will typically r ceive annual payments of £30 per hectare if p rt of a E r y Level S ewardship (ELS)
K
e
a
t
n
n
scheme. F r this, they might be managing d tches, maintaining fnnces, ad se ng u s ylark p ots. Ud er Higher Level
o
i
e
n
l
k
p
Stewardship (HLS), landowners sign u to a legally binding 10 year ar eement a d u dertake more intensive management
p
g
n
e
to dl iver environmental bnef i ts, in r turn f r capital f ding ad an ual payments.
e
e
o
n
un
For example, if a landowner dci ded to create a small woodland on their pl perty, p an ng a a dns i ty si o
e
r
o
u
e
t
ted t w ldlife
i
a
her
h
r
l
conserva on rt n than mber produc on, then u der HLS t ey might ini ally receive up to £3,500 per hectare to pep are
and p ant the site, with b tween £100 ad £300 pi d annually to maintain the s te over 10 years. Thus, oe r 100 years, if
e
a
n
i
v
g
rolling 10‐year ar eements were theore cally awarded, a landowner might receive a total of b tween £13,200 ad £33,200
e
n
per ha.
For larger woodlands over 3 h, t e Forestry Commission offers Woodland C ea on Gan ts, where a maximum of £2,000
a
h
r
per ha is available if the project agrees with rgi onal priori e
e
‐ 80 pr caent pi d on comple on of p an ng and 20 percent
l
a er five years. Woodland Management Grants then help with maintenance, at £30 pr h pr year while a Woodland
e
a
r
Planning Gan t can contribute to the cost of p oducing a management p an, p oviding £20 pr h f or the first 100 h. Over
r
l
r
e
a
a
100 years, this a l might total a m aximum of £4,870 per h t create and manage a woodland.
l
a
o
y
restora on of lowland grassland can be funded b HLS a bt ween £130 to £355 pr h p r year ‐ the u per
t
e
e
p e
a
amount being for wet ga ssland crea on for b eeding waders. Adding sp plement and capital costs for reintroducing
r
r
u
livestock, for example, might bring the total a ount a landowner could r e
m
e
ceive over a 100 year pr i rod u f om ao und
r
p
£20,000 to a maximum of around £26,500 pr h.
e
a
For lowland h ath, £150 to £450 peunds pr h p year cn b e sought from HS, the lower end bi ng for c ea on on a
e
o
a
a
e
L
e
r
worked mineral s te, the upper for conversion f om arable land, totalling bt ween £19,500 to £22,500 over 100 years.
i
r
e
The crea on of ponds is p id u der HLS a £3 pr metre2 for the first 100m2 and £1 per m2 over 100m2 ,with £180
a
n
t e
maintenance paid pr p nd pr year if over 100m2. F r a 5 h a ea with a ound 30 ponds, that adds u to a total of £55,600
e
o
o
a
rr
p
over 100 years. Compare this with es mates p ovided b experts in pond crea on ad r stora on where p nd crea on
r
y
e
n
o
alone can cost between £50,000 ad £190,000 f r 30 ponds oe r 5 h, excluding maintenance and monitoring over 100
o
n
v
a
years.
o
Costs to consider when developing a price
Labour costs f r implemen
contractor fues fo
e
the management ac ons over the long term. For example:
vi es sch a g ass cu ng, tree ptan ng, s ock‐proof fn cing, or pond d gging,
s r
l e
i
e
r
staffing costs for other maintenance ac vi es e.g. pruning of fu it trees, hdg i erow management, d tch
clearance, back en ad s rub removal, rned ad s dge removal or pes cide applica on,
r n
c
e
e
me associated with your own monitoring of the site to d monstrate management targets ae met ‐ this
e
r
might include taking p otos of the site,
h
site assessment foes—e.g. s il or water aal ysis (e.g. £100‐£200 pr s mple),
e
n
e
a
removal of topsoil or waste fo m the site.
r
s
pond crea on—cost of water level monitoring equipment.
Cost of materials a sociated with e ch a on. For example;
s
c
a
a n
s
u
u
i
n
woodland crea on ‐ cost of spl ings/seeds ad as ociated sp ports and g ards, bat or b rd boxes and ay other
equipment required on s te,
i
Costs ax ociated with stock e clusion or introduc on. Ss ch a;
s
u
h
fencing, watering pr ints, ca le gi ds or sel ter construc on,
o
i
e
tree g ards and ad i onal fencing r quirements.
u
d
Purchase or hr e of e uipment to u dertake a vi es, such a ; weed sr ayi ng (e.g. £120 / h) , excava on
q
c
n
p
s
a
equipment and s lt/topsoil removal ( .g. £4‐£6,000), soil r moval f r a large p nd.
i
e
o
e
Use of consultants to u dertake a vi
n
c
services, seed bn ks.
a
ror po vide advice on ma ers, ss ch a; p nd crea on, hor cultural
u
o
u
i
r
e
Other costs, such a the cost of a terna ve sp plies of f rewood if currently collected f om the site (e.g. £60‐£80 pr 1m3 ‐
s
l
around 300 logs).
f
www.environmentbank.com
Land managers and the environment – because the na onal metrics (when universally adopted) properly
account for the environmental impacts of development, and funds are created for compensatory wildlife
crea on projects all over the country
Planning authori es – who a re able to demonstrate transparently and auditably the sustainability of their
decision, delivering real biodiversity gain whilst at the same me reducing their long‐term obliga ons for
monitoring and enforcement
Developers – who a re treated fairly and consistently, by a responsive and t ransparent planning process,
and who are able to discharge their environmental obliga ons transparently, and a ll in one go, at either
permission or commencement.
Biodiversity offse ng can (and is star ng to) work on a voluntary basis, no legisla ve changes are necessary,
but uptake is patchy and inconsistent and the system is slowed by lack of understanding and inefficiencies of a
small market.
The advantages of a mandatory scheme for the UK
Interna onal experience suggests that mandatory offse ng regimes provide the most cost‐effec ve delivery
mechanism, benefi ng both the development industry and nature conserva on, because mandatory schemes
best ensure scale‐up of both supply and demand and allow efficient markets to operate. Scaling‐up under a
mandatory regime has the following benefits:
Improved planning systems
ensures a level playing field for developers across the country, especially important for na onal house
builders
ensures consistent na onal applica on o f the key metric, a longside opportunity for local market‐based
modifica ons tailored to place and need
f

30. Biodiversity offsetting
www.environmentbank.com
htttps://environmentbank.mmearth.com