Work on HS2 continues amidst continuing controversy over whether it is really needed, if it will achieve its objectives, and the damage it is causing to nature and wildlife. Having been conceived in a different world to todays it might now be a white elephant: for example, pandemic related travel restrictions normalised on-line instead of face-to-face meetings involving long-distance travel. So Zoom, Skype, Facetime and the like may already be undermining the case for HS2, in the business world at least. And when people use train travel to work on their devices, short time savings are not so crucial as people’s productivity doesn’t suffer so much with slightly longer journey times.
The axis of destruction
As an infrastructure project HS2’s proponents justify it as a national necessity and, as with other such, it is long-term and large scale. Such ventures inevitably do some damage to wildlife and its habitats, and in this case that damage is considerable. For some irreplaceable habits, such as ancient woodland, and some endangered species, it is catastrophic. Three years ago The Wildlife Trusts claimed nearly 1,000 designated nature conservation sites would be “lost or significantly damaged” by construction, leading to “increased fragmentation of wild places, and the local extinction of endangered species”. These included five internationally designated sites, 33 SSSIs, 108 ancient woodlands, and 21 Local Nature Reserves. Species at risk include barn owls, white-clawed crayfish, willow tits, dingy skippers and lizard orchids.
Stopping HS2 in its tracks
The Trusts have recently published a report* which is highly critical of HS2’s approach to mitigating and compensating for this, saying that there are fundamental flaws in the process. Their arguments are based around the application of what is called the ‘metric’ which is used to to calculate the worth of replacement habitats. The data and calculations are complicated, but the Trusts’ conclusion is “that Phase 1, which covers 140 miles of track between London and the West Midlands, will cause at least 7.9 times more nature loss than accounted for by HS2 Ltd.” They are demanding that the Government insist on HS2 revising their approach and re-map affected habitats, recalculate the impacts, and pause construction work whilst the re-appraisal takes place.
The Trusts are also asking the Government to “Halt the passage of the Phase 2b Hybrid Bill whilst these new findings are assessed and while there is still time to change the scheme’s design and delivery to limit the adverse impacts, and enhance biodiversity in a way that is commensurate with the scale of the damage.”
HS2 has committed to no net-loss of biodiversity. It does not agree with the Trusts’ analysis, saying: “We don’t recognise the figures from the report nor do we believe them to be reliable. The Wildlife Trusts have undertaken limited desk research and have not accessed huge areas of land for undertaking ecological survey, in contrast to the ecologists who have compiled HS2’s data. Independent experts from Natural England have consulted on our methodology and it has been rigorously assessed by a team of professional ecologists, with the data shared with the independent Ecological Review Group”.
Dr Rachel Giles, Evidence and Planning manager Cheshire Wildlife Trust said: “Our objective was to reveal the true impacts to biodiversity as a result of HS2. We have carefully analysed all the available data including HS2 Ltd’s own survey data. We only amended HS2 Ltd’s survey data when it was very clear mistakes had been made, or to improve the accuracy. For example, HS2 Ltd applied a standard buffer on arable field margins, whereas we mapped actual arable margins.”
Perhaps the time has come for the conservation sector to change some terminology. We often refer to green (and blue) infrastructure in relation to the natural world. Would it be better to talk more about ‘natural infrastructure’ to place it in a wider context and promote better understanding of its role? Just like HS2, natural infrastructure is of national importance, it needs long-term management, and it is of large scale. Unlike HS2 though, it is necessary rather than desirable, being vital to our and the planet’s health and wellbeing. Changes to social behaviour and advances in technology will make no difference to this, but natural infrastructure requires constant care and renewal – it will never be a white elephant.
* The Report: HS2 Double Jeopardy, how the UK’s largest infrastructure project undervalued nature and overvalued its compensation measures, can be found at www.wildlifetrusts.org
With acknowledgement to Rick Minter in the completion of this article.
Feature image: Dylan Hayward, Unsplash
Precisely. However, the chances of stopping this folly are as near zero as no matter. The Great Central Railway that was closed in 1966 ran high speed (for the times) services from Marylebone to Sheffield and Manchester. Why this railway was not revived I do not know – but can guess.