The Ox-Cam Arc: an Environmental Catastrophe - Friends of the River Cam Meeting 28th April 2021, 1900 hrs - No Expressway ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Friends of the River Cam Meeting
28th April 2021, 1900 hrs
The Ox-Cam Arc: an Environmental Catastrophe
David Rogers
Secretary, No Expressway Group
The Arc started life as a London-centric growth plan, a
‘Golden Doughnut’ around the capital
It was outside London’s green belt but within easy reach of the city, so that ‘a high
degree of connectivity and integration with the capital is possible’
Cambridge
Oxford
SQW/Cambridge Econometrics (2016). Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Northampton Growth Corridor. Final
Report for the National Infrastructure Commission , p. 17 (map att. Sir Peter Geoffrey Hall)
The Arc started life as a London-centric growth plan, a
‘Golden Doughnut’ around the capital
It was outside London’s green belt but within easy reach of the city, so that ‘a high
degree of connectivity and integration with the capital is possible’
Cambridge
Oxford London-Oxford-
Cambridge
‘Golden
Triangle’ 2005
SQW/Cambridge Econometrics (2016). Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Northampton Growth Corridor. Final
Report for the National Infrastructure Commission , p. 17 (map att. Sir Peter Geoffrey Hall)
The Arc started life as a London-centric growth plan, a
‘Golden Doughnut’ around the capital
It was outside London’s green belt but within easy reach of the city, so that ‘a high
degree of connectivity and integration with the capital is possible’
Cambridge
Oxford London-Oxford-
Cambridge
‘Golden
Triangle’ 2005
Oxford - Milton
Keynes -
Cambridge Arc
2016
SQW/Cambridge Econometrics (2016). Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Northampton Growth Corridor. Final
Report for the National Infrastructure Commission , p. 17 (map att. Sir Peter Geoffrey Hall)
The National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC’s)
‘Partnering for Prosperity’ 2018
Key headlines:
1) East-West Railway
2) Ox-Cam Expressway
3) c. 1 million new houses by
2050 (30,000 p.a. ct 14,300 delivered
in 2016/17)
4) 1.1 million new jobs
5) £163 billion increase in
economic output
Figures are all for the ‘transformational growth’ scenario
The National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC’s)
‘Partnering for Prosperity’ 2018
Key headlines:
1) East-West Railway
2) Ox-Cam Expressway
3) c. 1 million new houses by
2050 (30,000 p.a. ct 14,300 delivered
in 2016/17)
4) 1.1 million new jobs
5) £163 billion increase in
economic output
Figures are all for the ‘transformational growth’ scenario
The National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC’s)
‘Partnering for Prosperity’ 2018
Key headlines:
1) East-West Railway
2) Ox-Cam Expressway
3) c. 1 million new houses by
2050 (30,000 p.a. ct 14,300 delivered
in 2016/17)
4) 1.1 million new jobs
5) £163 billion increase in
economic output
Figures are all for the ‘transformational growth’ scenario
The National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC’s)
‘Partnering for Prosperity’ 2018
Key headlines:
1) East-West Railway
2) Ox-Cam Expressway
3) c. 1 million new houses by
2050 (30,000 p.a. ct 14,300 delivered
in 2016/17)
4) 1.1 million new jobs
5) £163 billion increase in
economic output
Figures are all for the ‘transformational growth’ scenario
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative?
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative?
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative?
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative?
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative?
Myth 1. The Ox-Cam Arc. There is No Alternative? Myth 2. The Ox-Cam Arc can ‘Save Nature’
NIC’s distribution of one million new houses by
2050
‘Cambs’
‘Northants’
‘Bucks/Beds’
Oxon
The total of all the additional new houses (all pie-charts) across the Arc is 1,021,000NIC’s distribution of one million new houses by
2050
Currently planned
homes
‘Cambs’
‘Northants’
‘Bucks/Beds’
Oxon
The total of all the additional new houses (all pie-charts) across the Arc is 1,021,000NIC’s distribution of one million new houses by
2050
Currently planned
homes
‘Cambs’
‘Northants’
London commuter
homes
‘Bucks/Beds’
Oxon
The total of all the additional new houses (all pie-charts) across the Arc is 1,021,000NIC’s distribution of one million new houses by
2050
Currently planned
homes
‘Cambs’
‘Northants’
London commuter
homes
‘Bucks/Beds’ Additional Ox-Cam ‘Arc’
homes
Oxon
The total of all the additional new houses (all pie-charts) across the Arc is 1,021,000
23% of ALL new houses are ear-marked for London commutersNIC’s distribution of one million new houses by
2050
Currently planned
homes
‘Cambs’
‘Northants’
London commuter
homes
‘Bucks/Beds’ Additional Ox-Cam ‘Arc’
homes
Oxon
The total of all the additional new houses (all pie-charts) across the Arc is 1,021,000
23% of ALL new houses are ear-marked for London commutersTwo key documents appeared in
February 2021
The ‘Arc Spatial Framework’
(economics, housing, environment)
HM Government and the Ministry of Housing
Communities and Local Government, MHCLG
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/2/19/at-last-the-arc-spatial-plan
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/4/17/neg-talk-at-the-coalition-for-healthy-streets-and-
active-travel-cohsat-webinar-150421Two key documents appeared in
February 2021
The ‘Arc Spatial Framework’
(economics, housing, environment)
HM Government and the Ministry of Housing
Communities and Local Government, MHCLG
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/2/19/at-last-the-arc-spatial-plan
The ‘Regional Transport Strategy’ (rail,
roads)
England’s Economic Heartland (EEH) – Department for
Transport.
The EEH area is the Ox-Cam Arc area plus Hertfordshire & Swindon
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/2/27/eehs-regional-transport-strategy
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/4/17/neg-talk-at-the-coalition-for-healthy-streets-and-
active-travel-cohsat-webinar-150421Two key documents appeared in
February 2021
The ‘Arc Spatial Framework’
(economics, housing, environment)
HM Government and the Ministry of Housing
Communities and Local Government, MHCLG
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/2/19/at-last-the-arc-spatial-plan
The ‘Regional Transport Strategy’ (rail,
roads)
England’s Economic Heartland (EEH) – Department for
Transport.
The EEH area is the Ox-Cam Arc area plus Hertfordshire & Swindon
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/2/27/eehs-regional-transport-strategy
https://www.noexpressway.org/news-updates/2021/4/17/neg-talk-at-the-coalition-for-healthy-streets-and-
active-travel-cohsat-webinar-150421To date there has been absolutely no
democratic engagement whatsoever
……..not a single public meeting anywhere, with any of the c. 3.7
million people who live in the Arc at present.
“It’s a Whitehall plan………..”
Kris Krasnowski, Portfolio Director for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, February 2021The ONS predicts an increase in the UK population of about 16% to 2050, requiring
approximately 3.0 million more houses.The ONS predicts an increase in the UK population of about 16% to 2050, requiring
approximately 3.0 million more houses.
Up to 1 million of those
new houses will go into
the Ox-Cam Arc (NIC
figures).The ONS predicts an increase in the UK population of about 16% to 2050, requiring
approximately 3.0 million more houses.
Why should
one third of
UK housing
Up to 1 million of those growth to 2050
new houses will go into
go into less
the Ox-Cam Arc (NIC
figures). than one
twentieth
(4.7%) of the
UK’s land area ?
(with only 5.7% of the
UK’s population)The Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Possible
development zonesThe Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Environmental + Offsetting Opportunities
Opportunity area
”Areas that might offer
Possible
offsetting opportunities
development zonesto
developers” (Local Nature
Partnerships)The Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Environmental + Offsetting Opportunities
Opportunity area
”Areas that might offer
Possible
offsetting opportunities
development zonesto
developers” (Local Nature
Partnerships)
OR
“Core areas of existing
high value for Nature”
(BBOWT)The Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Environmental + Offsetting Opportunities
Opportunity area + Nature Recovery Networks
”Areas that might offer
Possible
offsetting opportunities
development zonesto
developers” (Local Nature
Partnerships)
OR
“Core areas of existing
high value for Nature”
(BBOWT)The Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Environmental
England’s Economic + Offsetting Opportunities
Opportunity area
Heartland’s road + Nature Recovery Networks
corridor
”Areas that might offer
Possible + Road Corridors
improvement
offsetting map to
opportunities
development zones
developers” (Local Nature
Partnerships)
OR
“Core areas of existing
high value for Nature”
(BBOWT)The Over-development of the Ox-Cam Arc
Possible Development Zones
Environmental
England’s Economic + Offsetting Opportunities
Opportunity area
Heartland’s road + Nature Recovery Networks
corridor
”Areas that might offer
Possible + Road Corridors
improvement
offsetting map to
opportunities
development zones
developers” (Local Nature
Partnerships)
OR
“Core areas of existing
high value for Nature”
(BBOWT)
We can’t have it all. But how much of each do we want or need?The commodification of Nature
1) Early protection of the environment (rare species) was
through legislation (SSSIs, SACs etc.).
2) Planning laws protected other areas such a Green Belts for
their public health and amenity values.
3) Pressure on land for infrastructure (HS2) or housing (Green
Belts) was often resolved by relaxing or ignoring the rules
(e.g. HS2 as an NSIP and Green Belt ‘exceptional
circumstances’ clause.)
4) Could inevitable habitat destruction in some places be
compensated for by protection elsewhere? ‘Offsetting’ and
‘Net Biodiversity Gain’ approaches.
5) Each needed a metric, e.g. DEFRA’s Biodiversity Metric (v. 2).
6) Natural Capital Accounting puts a monetary value on gains
and losses (e.g.Woodlands with a similar biodiversity metric may have
different Natural Capital Values).DEFRA Net Gain Consultation 2018
DEFRA Net Gain Consultation 2018
DEFRA Net Gain Consultation 2018
DEFRA Net Gain Consultation 2018
For the Ox-Cam Arc, No development = No funds for Nature DEFRA Net Gain Consultation 2018
Biodiversity offsetting is like taking Westminster Abbey…..
Biodiversity offsetting is like taking Westminster Abbey…..
…..demolishing it…..Biodiversity offsetting is like taking Westminster Abbey…..
…..demolishing it…..…..moving the pile of stones elsewhere……..
…..and saying “It’s the same”Offsetting is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for the uncertain hope of reconstructing them elsewhere. Offsetting has been official policy in Austria and Germany for 40 years: “a substantial proportion of offsetting has failed to achieve the stated objectives with another significant number either not being implemented or taking place but failing to meet the aim of compensating for harm”.
Offsetting is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for the uncertain hope of reconstructing them elsewhere. Offsetting has been official policy in Austria and Germany for 40 years: “a substantial proportion of offsetting has failed to achieve the stated objectives with another significant number either not being implemented or taking place but failing to meet the aim of compensating for harm”. ….. and in Australia (NSW) for 10 years: “the policies being pursued would not provide no net loss of biodiversity, as proponents had advocated, for 146 years”.
Offsetting is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for the uncertain hope of reconstructing them elsewhere. Offsetting has been official policy in Austria and Germany for 40 years: “a substantial proportion of offsetting has failed to achieve the stated objectives with another significant number either not being implemented or taking place but failing to meet the aim of compensating for harm”. ….. and in Australia (NSW) for 10 years: “the policies being pursued would not provide no net loss of biodiversity, as proponents had advocated, for 146 years”. The UK has limited/no experience of offsetting: A 2014 review of 2-year pilot offset projects (either theoretical or retrospective studies) concluded that “the markets for offsets was immature” Shortage of expertise, or of suitable offset sites, and an unwillingness of developers to pay for the full impacts identified by the biodiversity metric, were all contributors to this outcome.
Offsetting is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for
Athe uncertain
2019 survey by hope
DICE ofof15,715
reconstructing them
articles globally elsewhere.
revealed 32 studies (from 5
countries) that could be assessed properly for No Net Loss (NNL); these
Offsetting
studies were has been ha
of 300,000 official policy
of offsets andin Austria
180,000 and
ha of Germany
impacts, ~ 2% for
of
global offset areas.
40 years:
“a substantial proportion of offsetting has failed to achieve the stated
objectives with another significant number either not being implemented or
taking place but failing to meet the aim of compensating for harm”.
….. and in Australia (NSW) for 10 years:
“the policies being pursued would not provide no net loss of biodiversity,
Zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Baker, J., Griffiths, R.A.,
as proponents had advocated, for 146 years”. Strange, N., Struebig, M.J., & Bull, J.W. (2019).
Conservation Letters. doi 10.1111/conl.12664)
The UK has limited/no experience of offsetting:
A 2014 review of 2-year pilot offset projects (either theoretical or
Only one third of
retrospective projects
studies) achievedthat
concluded NNL“the(green);
markets twoforthirds
offsetsdidwasnot, had
mixed outcomes
immature” or could not be determined. Wetlands tended to have good
Shortage of expertise, or of suitable offset sites, and an unwillingness of developers to
outcomes; there
pay for the full was
impacts Net by
identified Loss in all forest
the biodiversity habitats/species
metric, studied
were all contributors to this outcome.Offsetting is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for
Athe uncertain
2019 survey by hope
DICE ofof15,715
reconstructing them
articles globally elsewhere.
revealed 32 studies (from 5
countries) that could be assessed properly for No Net Loss (NNL); these
Offsetting
studies were has been ha
of 300,000 official policy
of offsets andin Austria
180,000 and
ha of Germany
impacts, ~ 2% for
of
global offset areas.
40 years:
“No-one has yet achieved net
“a substantial proportion of offsetting has failed to achieve the stated
objectives with another significant number either not being implemented or
taking place but failing to meet the aim of compensating for harm”.
environmental
….. and in Australia (NSW) forgain
10 years:at scale”
“the policies being pursued would not provide no net loss of biodiversity,
Zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Baker, J., Griffiths, R.A.,
as proponents had advocated, for 146 years”. Strange, N., Struebig, M.J., & Bull, J.W. (2019).
Dieter Helm, Chair of the Natural Capital Committee, November
Conservation 2019
Letters. doi 10.1111/conl.12664)
The UK has limited/no experience of offsetting:
A 2014 review of 2-year pilot offset projects (either theoretical or
Only one third of
retrospective projects
studies) achievedthat
concluded NNL“the(green);
markets twoforthirds
offsetsdidwasnot, had
mixed outcomes
immature” or could not be determined. Wetlands tended to have good
Shortage of expertise, or of suitable offset sites, and an unwillingness of developers to
outcomes; there
pay for the full was
impacts Net by
identified Loss in all forest
the biodiversity habitats/species
metric, studied
were all contributors to this outcome.And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
compensation = 8)
3. Habitat condition , I, (Poor = 1, Good = 3)
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
5. Strategic significance, O, (Not in local strategy = 1, High strategic
significance = 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*OAnd the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
compensation = 8)
3. Habitat condition , I, (Poor = 1, Good = 3)
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
5. Strategic significance, O, (Not in local strategy = 1, High strategic
significance = 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
189.7. Do the same for off-site habitat creation (here we’ll try to create an
identical habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
7. Temporal, T, (1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
compensation = 8)
3. Habitat condition , I, (Poor = 1, Good = 3)
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
5. Strategic significance, O, (Not in local strategy = 1, High strategic
significance = 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
189.7. Do the same for off-site habitat creation (here we’ll try to create an
identical habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
7. Temporal, T, (1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
compensation = 8)
3. Habitat condition , I, (Poor = 1, Good = 3)
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
5. Strategic significance, O, (Not in local strategy = 1, High strategic
significance = 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
189.7. Do the same for off-site habitat creation (here we’ll try to create an
identical habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
7. Temporal, T, (1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
1) It’s NOT a biodiversity metric because biodiversity is
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
not measured.
compensation = 8)
Habitat
3. Habitat type ,isI, (Poor
condition taken = 1,as a proxy
Good = 3) for biodiversity.
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
5. Strategic significance, O, (Not in local strategy = 1, High strategic
significance = 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
189.7. Do the same for off-site habitat creation (here we’ll try to create an
identical habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
7. Temporal, T, (1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
1) It’s NOT a biodiversity metric because biodiversity is
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
not measured.
compensation = 8)
Habitat
3. Habitat type ,isI, (Poor
condition taken = 1,as a proxy
Good = 3) for biodiversity.
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
2)
5. Offset
Strategicareas will O,
significance, be(Not
managed under
in local strategy = 1,covenants
High strategic of 30+
years, paid for
significance by developers, and carried out by wildlife
= 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
NGOs.
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
189.7. Do the same for off-site habitat creation (here we’ll try to create an
identical habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
7. Temporal, T, (1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
1) It’s NOT a biodiversity metric because biodiversity is
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
not measured.
compensation = 8)
Habitat
3. Habitat type ,isI, (Poor
condition taken = 1,as a proxy
Good = 3) for biodiversity.
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
2)
5. Offset
Strategicareas will O,
significance, be(Not
managed under
in local strategy = 1,covenants
High strategic of 30+
years, paid for
significance by developers, and carried out by wildlife
= 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
NGOs.
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
3)189.7
Offset
. Doland
the same willforbe unavailable
off-site for (here
habitat creation any we’ll
other purpose.
try to create an
Aidentical
farmer habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
will lose control of offset land, i.e. as if she’d
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
sold it (forever)
7. Temporal, T, .(1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
metric of A*G*I*L*O*D*T = 30.7.
To achieve 10% Net Gain (metric = 208.7) you must offset 68 ha (74ha
for a 20% net gain).
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!And the DEFRA Biodiversity metric?
1. Identify development site habitat type, and area, A (133 types defined)
1) It’s NOT a biodiversity metric because biodiversity is
2. Habitat distinctiveness, G, (Compensation not required = 0, Esp.
not measured.
compensation = 8)
Habitat
3. Habitat type ,isI, (Poor
condition taken = 1,as a proxy
Good = 3) for biodiversity.
4. Ecological connectivity, L, (Unconnected = 1, Highly connected = 1.15)
2)
5. Offset
Strategicareas will O,
significance, be(Not
managed under
in local strategy = 1,covenants
High strategic of 30+
years, paid for
significance by developers, and carried out by wildlife
= 1.15)
Total Habitat Units (the metric ) = A*G*I*L*O
NGOs.
e.g. 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland has a metric (6, 2.5, 1.15, 1.1) of
3)189.7
Offset
. Doland
the samewillforbe unavailable
off-site for (here
habitat creation any we’ll
other purpose.
try to create an
Aidentical
farmer habitat) which requires TWO additional factors.
will lose control of offset land, i.e. as if she’d
6. Difficulty, D, (Very difficult = 0.1, Not difficult = 1) …here it is 0.33
sold it (forever)
7. Temporal, T, .(1 year = 0.965 , 32+ years = 0.32) ..here it is 0.49
So creating 10 ha of upland calcareous grassland on an offset site gives a
4)metric
It seems unlikely =that
of A*G*I*L*O*D*T 30.7.enough offset land will be
available
To achievelocally.
10% NetCommunities will
Gain (metric = 208.7) youlose
musttheir
offsetamenities,
68 ha (74ha
and seenetnogain)
for a 20% offset
. benefits.
Like-for-Like offset is NOT Area-for-Area!William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’ Ullswater “I wandered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”
William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’ Imagine that…..‘Eco-burns’, a company ‘with fantastic green credentials’, wishes to build a waste incinerator in Ullswater. “I wandered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”
William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’ A Natural Capital approach “I wandered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”
William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Flood
prevention
value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Flood
prevention
value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Water Flood
company prevention
value £1000 value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Water Flood
company prevention
value £1000 value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd, Timber +
amenity
A host of golden daffodils; value £200
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.”William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Water Flood
company prevention
value £1000 value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd, Timber +
amenity
A host of golden daffodils; value £200
Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Public
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.” Health
(pollution
avoidance)
value £100William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Water Flood
company prevention
value £1000 value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd, Timber +
amenity
A host of golden daffodils; value £200
Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Public
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.” Health
(pollution
avoidance)
TOTAL Natural Capital Value = £1,850 p.a. value £100William Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’
Amenity +
Water Flood
company prevention
value £1000 value £500
A Natural Capital approach
“I wandered lonely as a cloud Market
That floats on high o'er vales and hills, value £50
When all at once I saw a crowd, Timber +
amenity
A host of golden daffodils; value £200
Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Public
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.” Health
(pollution
avoidance)
TOTAL Natural Capital Value = £1,850 p.a. value £100
‘Eco-burns’ Waste Incinerator Benefit= £2,500 p.a.Spatial Framework Aims
“….growing the £2.27 billion of
value the Arc’s natural
environment provides each year
in ecosystem services.” (p.2)Spatial Framework Aims
“….growing the £2.27 billion of
value the Arc’s natural
environment provides each year
in ecosystem services.” (p.2)
“…..economic output growing by
between £80.4 billion and £163
billion per annum.” (p.3)Spatial Framework Aims
“….growing the £2.27 billion of
value the Arc’s natural
environment provides each year
in ecosystem services.” (p.2)
“…..economic output growing by
between £80.4 billion and £163
billion per annum.” (p.3)Spatial Framework Aims
“….growing the £2.27 billion of
value the Arc’s natural
environment provides each year
in ecosystem services.” (p.2)
“…..economic output growing by
between £80.4 billion and £163
billion per annum.” (p.3)
So why bother to save nature across the Arc?The difference between yields and stock
The difference between yields and stock
Capital Stock
Human Stock
Natural StockThe difference between yields and stock
Yield
Capital Stock
Human Stock
Yield
Yield
Yield
Natural StockThe difference between yields and stock
Yield
Capital Stock
Human Stock
Yield
Impact
Impact
Yield
Yield
Natural StockThe difference between yields and stock
Yield
GDP/GVA
Capital Stock
Human Stock
Yield
Impact
Impact
Yield
Yield
Natural StockThe difference between yields and stock
Yield
GDP/GVA
1) We have concentrated on GDP as the soleCapital
measureStock of
Human Stock
economic success and ‘sustainability’.
Yield
Impact
Impact
Yield
Yield
Natural StockThe difference between yields and stock
Yield
GDP/GVA
1) We have concentrated on GDP as the soleCapital
measureStock of
Human Stock
economic success and ‘sustainability’.
Yield
Impact
2) The Impact
race for GDP growth has blinded us to the impacts
on all other aspects of our
Yieldlife on Earth.
Yield
Natural StockThe effect of concentrating on GDP as the sole
measure of economic success.
Capital Stock
Human Stock
Natural StockThe effect of concentrating on GDP as the sole
measure of economic success.
3) ‘Wealth’ = Stocks + Yields is a better measure of how
well we are doing on planet Earth. ProperCapital Stock
sustainability will only be reached when total wealth
Human Stock
is maintained or increased.
Natural StockThe Arc’s promise to ‘double nature’
The Arc’s promise to ‘double nature’
“Putting nature at the heart of
Cambridgeshire’s agenda
To place nature at the heart of
our agenda by doubling the
area of rich wildlife and green-
space, ensuring that
Cambridgeshire has the highest
quality of life and environment
where people thrive and
businesses prosper.
…developed in CambridgeThe Arc’s promise to ‘double nature’
“Putting nature at the heart of
Cambridgeshire’s agenda
To place nature at the heart of
our agenda by doubling the
area of rich wildlife and green-
space, ensuring that
Cambridgeshire has the highest
quality of life and environment
where people thrive and
businesses prosper.
…developed in Cambridge
…to be applied across the ArcCambridge’s Protected Habitats and Priority Habitats
Not much to double!Cambridge’s Protected Habitats and Priority Habitats
‘Priority Habitats are “the most threatened
and require conservation action under the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan”
Not much to double!Cambridge’s Protected Habitats and Priority Habitats
‘Priority Habitats are “the most threatened
and require conservation action under the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan”
Not much to double!Cambridge’s Protected Habitats and Priority Habitats
‘Priority Habitats are “the most threatened
and require conservation action under the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan”
Not much to double!% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat …. but the average patch size is very small
% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
…. but the average patch size is very small
One Rugby pitch% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
…. but the average patch size is very small
One Rugby pitch
…. and the smaller the patch size, the fewer the species% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
In 2010 John Lawton’s ‘Making Space for Nature’ asked
…. but the average patch size is very small
for up to £1.1 billion annually – no strings attached - to
protect and enhance Nature - to make it ‘bigger, better
and more joined up.’
One Rugby pitch
…. and the smaller the patch size, the fewer the species% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
In 2010 John Lawton’s ‘Making Space for Nature’ asked
…. but the average patch size is very small
for up to £1.1 billion annually – no strings attached - to
protect and enhance Nature - to make it ‘bigger, better
and more joined up.’
Exactly 10 years later John Lawton wrote again to the
Prime Minister pointing out how little has been achieved
One Rugby pitch
in the interim and repeating his request for ‘no strings
attached’ funding for Nature.
…. and the smaller the patch size, the fewer the species% of each Arc county that is Protected Habitat
In 2010 John Lawton’s ‘Making Space for Nature’ asked
…. but the average patch size is very small
for up to £1.1 billion annually – no strings attached - to
protect and enhance Nature - to make it ‘bigger, better
and more joined up.’
Exactly 10 years later John Lawton wrote again to the
Prime Minister pointing out how little has been achieved
One Rugby pitch
in the interim and repeating his request for ‘no strings
attached’ funding for Nature.
With Net Gain and Natural Capital approaches, some
parts of Nature may improved, but only at the cost of
losing other parts of Nature to development.
…. and the smaller the patch size, the fewer the species
The yield might increase (that 10% gain) but the stock will diminish.Conclusions
Conclusions 1) The Ox-Cam Arc is not unique. There are other areas in the UK with equal or better potential. 2) Squeezing one third of housing growth to 2050 into < 5% of the UK land area will put huge pressure on existing resources, communities and Nature across the Arc. 3) The ‘silo mentality’ of developing new communities, preserving Nature, providing offsetting opportunities, creating Nature Recovery Networks and enhancing the transport network creates irreconcilable conflicts. More holistic and joined-up thinking is required. 4) Biodiversity Net Gain metrics are suspect; Natural Capital Accounting concentrates on yields rather than stock. The global experience with BNG and NNL is poor. UK experience is very limited, and outcomes poor. 5) Proper methods of accounting for Human, Natural and Capital Yield and Stock will lead to real sustainability. ‘Silo thinking’ suggests we can have it all. We can’t. 6) ‘Doubling Nature’ from a very sparse and fragmented base requires more than just doubling the present areas of protected habitats. 7) We need “Bigger, Better and more Joined-up” Nature, and Arc thinking.
“For the many not the few”
money view
“For the many not the few”
© Moor Laughter, 2019
Pericles would not support the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (probably)You can also read
