ECOS 44 (5.1)- Selling England by the pound

IAN D. ROTHERHAM

Biodiversity offset as conservation opportunity or clever scam?

This is an opinion piece based on long-term observations of ecological and environmental site practice in relation to developments requiring planning consent. The article is primarily about ethical issues when consultants work together with developers to challenge and undermine ecological and community arguments to safeguard sites. It is based on extensive experience, mostly in England, on both sides of planning inquiries, and with work both for local government, and with local communities. Despite the assurances given on, for example, the websites of businesses and even of professional institutes, many environmental practitioners become rich on the back of facilitating ecologically damaging developments. At the same time, opportunities to develop genuinely sustainable developments are ignored for short-term cost-saving schemes.

Ethics v ecology

The situation is by no means a new phenomenon but dates to the early days of professional practice with some consultants prepared or at least tempted, to fit their site assessments to suit a developer. Sometimes the pressures of ethics and ecology versus business and income are largely hidden in situations where interpretation of findings is subject inevitably to possible bias. Subjective assessments may lead to further lucrative contracts if the right result is obtained, or else future work going to a rival consultant if planning consent is not forthcoming. The possible susceptibility of a professional to the temptation to interpret a conservation case less strongly or even to withhold critical information which might adversely affect the client’s case is obvious.

However, with the current vogue for biodiversity offset, the possibilities suddenly become murkier and the issues more complex. Cuts to local planning authorities mean they often lack experienced and suitably qualified ecological and planning officers, and similar situations apply to statutory conservation agencies. The processes of environmental controls become riddled with questionable evaluations, claims, and practices which at least verge on unethical. If a case goes to an official ‘public inquiry’, then it is likely that a planning inspector will have very limited experience or knowledge of the subjects raised and the practices described. In this position their interpretation and understanding of information presented leads to their vulnerability to misinformation or biased reporting. They are easily swayed by robustly stated claims and Teflon-coated glossy reports, even if the contents are inaccurate or misleading. Some inspectors are of course well briefed and may have some relevant personal experience, but many do not.

Moreover, despite policies, strategies and statements on climate mitigation and adaptation, and on subjects such as biodiversity extinction, health, and wellbeing, and responding to extreme weather, our society today seems little closer to genuine sustainability than ever. Whilst there are extremely laudable projects and initiatives to enhance environmental performances and we possess the practices and technologies to deliver sustainability, we still fall short. A part of the reason for this failure seems to be an inability to address long-term social and environmental benefits when set against short-term financial gains. Despite the rhetoric, the economic modelling used to ‘inform’ decision-making still does not realistically or fairly account for long-term social, ecological, and heritage values and benefits. So, despite some progress with business, communities, local authorities, NGOs, and say universities, we are still losing critical wildlife, are increasingly at risk from inland and coastal inundation, are vulnerable to drought and even wildfires, and see agricultural soils simply washing off the land to pollute the seas. Most of these problems could be eased or even solved, but ‘we’ (society) choose not to take the necessary actions.

The limits of localism

Whilst politicians and planners talk of localism and Big Society, the reality at the grassroots level of community interest in the local environment is not so rosy. Issues of development for homes and businesses are at the core of this environmental paradigm but we fail to address them. Around 20 years ago there were positive moves towards genuinely more enlightened approaches through bodies such as the Regional Development Agencies and delegated responsibilities (and well resourced), but these were all abolished along with many local authority countryside planning services.¹ The replacement appears to be a cut-price Big Society with local communities less able to effectively influence their own environments and their own futures. One big positive in terms of community action is that through social media and the internet, local groups nationally can communicate and share worries, skills, and resources. An example is the not-for-profit Community Planning Alliance established in 2021. This network and shared resources help, at least to some extent, to level the playing field in combatting the big corporate actors.      

The slippery slope of enabling development

In this article I cannot name specific individuals, or organisations such as particular consultancies, agencies, or local authorities, and any apparent similarities to any of these are purely coincidental. Having been threatened with legal or professional action previously when questioning behaviour at planning inquiries, I base my arguments on the generalities of long-term experience and not on individual cases. Nevertheless, the arguments still hold true.

Furthermore, a starting point is that most ecologists are highly motivated and enter the profession with the intention of solving conservation problems and working to enhance the wildlife value of areas, both generally and in their personal work too. Similarly, most environmental consultancies are both competent and ethical. However, many lack the broader experience to place ecological assessments into a wider landscape heritage and historical context and this is a potentially serious flaw in many site evaluations. Indeed, as professions and as educators we tend to work in disciplinary silos and so broad issues which require collaboration and cross-disciplinary insights are frequently misjudged or overlooked.

Additionally, with a planning system driven primarily by economics and not genuinely delivering sustainability or ecosystem services, there is a significant pressure for consultants to produce results that will facilitate a positive result for a developer. Admittedly many will resist the temptation to bend interpretation too far, but financial necessity for many operators means producing what the client demands. Many developers will favour a consultancy that is a) relatively low costs, but b) works positively to get a development through and to minimize consequent delays or costs. Clearly, the pressure is there along with the opportunity and the means. Also, whereas in the early days most of those entering the profession as ecologists came via a strongly conservation-orientated route, today, many chose this as a business career choice. This may influence their wider interests in nature and ecology and their awareness of related environmental issues. More significantly perhaps, this might compromise their commitment to conservation ethics when business success is at stake. It feels like this is a new challenge for the nature conservation sector and one that we are not resourced to deal with.

These matters do not only apply to pure ecology, but to associated fields as well. I recall undertaking an environmental economics review for a major client wishing to demonstrate positive economic impacts of their proposals. However, what my economics team found was that the expected returns were significantly lower than those being claimed by the client. The methods employed to generate their initial ballpark figures were not robust and included obvious double counting. These matters were raised, and we did not get the follow-on major work and they engaged a more malleable consultancy.   

Glass half full, glass half empty

In any environmental assessment, the interpretation of information presented (sometimes facts, sometimes not) is key to achieving a satisfactory outcome. Furthermore, as professionals, ecologists as with other disciplines are often reluctant to admit that much of what we do involves the subjective evaluation of objectively gathered data and information. Additionally, the information garnered may vary in quality, influenced by survey techniques or methods, and by the experience and skill or knowledge of the surveyor. Nevertheless, once surveys or other materials are processed and regurgitated as finished, polished reports, then they achieve a degree of believability and credibility. Without sound professional interrogation such materials often remain unquestioned, and a less experienced planning officer or inspector may be misled. 

Fundamentally flawed – claims and counterclaims

To achieve their aims of credibility, consultants produce glossy brochures with which to hawk their wares to influence development decisions, and ecological consultancy is no different from the other disciplines. However, for the non-specialist, understanding the value or limitations of paper brochures and proposals is incredibly difficult and especially so without access to experienced, specialist, independent advisors. Yet at the same time, it is often the case that claims presented cannot and indeed will not be delivered as promised; they are simply not practical. Furthermore, for much biodiversity offset the reality is that the achievement of the promises will never be tested in any reasonable timescale.

The current UK-based system for resolving ecological planning conflicts is through the highly expensive, pseudo-legal process of a planning inquiry and this is primarily adversarial. In quasi-courtroom situations highly-paid barristers seek to promote the ideas of the developers’ consultants whilst at the same time challenging if not rubbishing evidence presented by community members, volunteers, and, for instance, bodies such as the Wildlife Trusts or the Woodland Trust.

A consequence of the system of claim and counterclaim is that local communities may misunderstand or even deliberately claim and present misinformation in an attempt to protect their patch and their lives. The system does not function to produce a beneficial outcome but serves to ferment conflict with winners and losers. It is not uncommon for local communities to claim the presence of badgers, voles, great crested newts, and bats for example, in often totally unsuitable habitat and merely because they have heard that these all carry special protection. However, they feel under threat, powerless, unsupported, and desperate. So much for localism and empowerment.

The economic modelling of ecosystem values is also vulnerable to misapplication. Models and calculations designed for urban landscape trees for instance are used to estimate replacement costs for naturally grown woodland or hedgerow trees. The calculations are fundamentally flawed by basic assumptions but especially the expected lifespan used which for say a 50 year old oak should be anything from around 500 to 800 years, not 50 to 100 years. The misuse of a specifically urban model designed for specimen trees radically underestimates the real value. Furthermore, with spontaneous (i.e. natural) secondary woodland mixing native and exotic colonising species, barely recognised in current assessment and valuations, this often ecologically rich habitat is radically undervalued. Indeed, such assessments are based almost solely on easily identified plant species. Site reports and planning inquiries pay little attention to associated invertebrate fauna for instance, even when these include local and national Red Data Book species. Furthermore, edge and ecotone habitats (which are frequently exceedingly rich habitat components), are given little value in most assessments. 

Withholding critical evidence and information

Deliberate misinterpretation is one thing, but the withholding of significant information such as records on site of rare or protected species, is surely another. I recall my first experience of this was when working for a local authority contesting a planning application by a major developer and which affected a significant protected site in the Green Belt. Following the end of the public inquiry (which we won), the ecological consultant for the developer approached me to apologize for withholding records of regionally rare orchids on the site and which would have weakened the developer’s case. He was a former officer of the then Nature Conservancy Council, turned independent consultant. More recently records of badger on proposed development sites have been overlooked, ignored, and not investigated. The consultant stated that they would check for badgers as the site’s thick scrub was being cleared for development, and this was an area where badger setts in the extensive, ancient hedgerows had been recorded for over 30 years.  

Institutes and oversight

Issues such as those introduced and discussed, are to some extent dealt with in part in the expectations of professional institutes, and for corporate business, in policies and legislation or guidance of commercial operations. However, these both fall short in many cases. Most such initiatives are largely self-policing, and many businesses can provide minimal statements along the lines of that biodiversity is not directly relevant to their core operations. Some  matters arising are noted in a review of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by Topping (2018).² The issues examined in the review include ecological positives in business practice, but some of these are quite limited and there is little sign of a joined-up, holistic approach. Furthermore, the achievements and shortfalls of CSR are considered but mostly in relation to large corporations and not to the environmental or ecological consultancies themselves. Yet it is in this area of activity that the offset problems and misreporting to inquiries become serious issues. This is in the context I think, of a tacit assumption that ecological consultancies have the best outcome for nature as their remit, which observations and arguments suggest is not always the case. This is particularly so when lucrative contracts are at stake.

The activities of consultancies take guidance and protocols from professional institutes (of which there are several), such as The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). The CIEEM’s Objectives are to:

•Advance the understanding and the standards of practice of ecology and environmental management for the benefit of the natural environment and the public good; and

•Further the conservation, management and enhancement of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and life support systems essential to a fully functional biosphere.

These statements seem clear and unambiguous but of course the underlying issue is once again, interpretation. The various institutes are self-governing / self-regulating bodies reliant on their leading members to oversee and chair meetings, membership, and performance, and so these bodies, not subject to independent external review, can themselves become complicit in the issues. Biodiversity offset and positive outcomes of planning applications can represent big earners for the members and therefore for the organisations themselves. Once again, the system does seem to have the potential to become a money-go-round and the opportunities of offset, translocation and establishment, and spurious compensation are growing. The governmental agencies responsible for overseeing these processes, along with local government, are under-resourced whilst big developers and their entourage of consultant advisers are equipped with resources to promote their case. In some cases, too, cash-strapped local authorities are landowners that stand to benefit from a permissive approach to planning applications and become gamekeepers turned poachers. In national, regional, and local policies there is much said about slowing the flow of floodwaters, of capturing carbon to mitigate climate change, of halting biodiversity extinctions, of promoting health and wellbeing through contact with nature, and of local environmental democracy and localism in decision-making. However, at the end of the day it seems like much of this is simply business as usual and many of the policies and statements amount to little more than hot air.

A key statement from the CIEEM for instance, asserts that their members will seek to ‘benefit the natural environment and the public good’, but this is hard to justify if their consultancies are combating local communities and facilitating the loss of nature and heritage. This is a tricky ethical conundrum with no happy outcome for either nature or indeed, for the public good.

Ending short-termism and applying independent scrutiny     

In Britain at least, we appear to be trapped in a situation where a lack of realistic, well-informed, long-term, land-use planning is triggering a knee-jerk response to housing need and demand and leading to increased commercial development on greenfield sites. The development goes ahead with little thought or consideration of future wildlife, heritage, flood-risk, climate resilience, community health and wellbeing, or even long-term food security. Politicians continually look to development in greenspaces, greenfield countryside, the Green Belt, and now even in National Parks. These areas are the low-hanging fruit of future developments unlike other more imaginative ways of rejuvenating declining regions and brownfield lands to provide housing and business opportunities.

What makes this worse though, is the reluctance to be honest about what this cavalier approach means in practice for the issues and problems noted above. It seems like the response to the problem is to pretend that we can build and develop to an unlimited extent but without adverse consequences, and the current vogue for offset falls into a trap of justifying the false claims. Indeed, the money-go-round of planning and development-related consultancy is a part of this process delivering big money outcomes at the expense of nature and of local communities. Despite claims of promoting sustainable development, of enhancing biodiversity, and working for local communities, this is generally nothing of the sort and is driven by corporate greed so that development targets the easiest sites where the maximum economic return can be gained for the least effort and expenditure. It is a simple model, but a more honest expression of the motivations and motives would make it more palatable.

Clearly in the future, we will need more housing and different styles of development, but the approaches should be more joined, more honest, and more genuinely sustainable. It is possible to build new housing and new business premises which incorporate historic features and ecology into newly created landscapes which deliver functionality and ecosystem services. This is the case with both relatively large housing schemes and smaller village edge developments. When this isn’t done, then the reason is a purely short-term business decision. However, so long as the guidance is ineffective, the stakeholders such as local communities are largely unsupported, and the agencies and local authorities are under-resourced, then we will continue to under-perform. Furthermore, in terms of process and of ethics, if the overseeing and review processes are not independent, then they too are compromised. Local people and nature will continue to be short-changed.

References

1. Rotherham, I.D. (2015) The Rise and Fall of Countryside Management. Routledge, London.

2. Topping, C. (2018) Corporate social responsibility: do companies care about biodiversity? British Wildlife, 29(3), 197-203.

Rotherham, I.D. (2014) Eco-history: An Introduction to Biodiversity and Conservation. The White Horse Press, Cambridge.

Ian Rotherham is with the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University.

Ianrotherham36@gmail.com