Environmentalists see red over UK government’s “biodiversity offsetting” proposals

The UK government has outlined compensation proposals for loss of biodiversity through development under ''biodiversity offsetting''.

The idea of "biodiversity offsetting" remained controversial, and some campaigners had slammed it as a "licence to trash", according to a BBC report.

Under the proposals, developers planning to build houses in environmentally sensitive areas would be allowed to go ahead if they could offset damage with conservation activities elsewhere.

The scheme has been detailed by the environment department Defra in a green paper on the scheme.

According to Owen Paterson MP environment secretary, offsetting was an exciting opportunity to look at how to improve the environment and also grow the economy.

He said while commenting on the consultation set to conclude on 7 Novemeber, that the government wanted to hear from developer and wildlife groups alike as to how the existing planning process could be simplified to enhance the natural environment.

There was no reason why wildlife and development could not flourish side by side, he said.

Six pilot areas were selected in 2012 for two year trials of a voluntary approach to offsetting through the planning system.

According to a report from the government's Ecosystems Markets Task Force, ''offsetting would "revolutionise conservation in England by delivering restoration, creation and long term management on in excess of 300,000 hectares of habitat over 20 years".

Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that ministers had been frustrated that a number of major schemes had been held up over wildlife concerns.

However, according to Sandra Bell, nature campaigner at Friends of the Earth (FoE), nature was unique and complex – not something that could  be bulldozed in one place and recreated in another at the whim of a developer.

She added, instead of putting nature up for sale the government needed to strengthen its protection through the planning system and set out bold plans to safeguard and restore wildlife across the UK.

According to The Woodland Trust chief executive, Sue Holden, it was critical that any habitats created to compensate for loss were placed within the local area that suffered the original impact. She added, unfortunately, that still appeared open to debate, in the proposals.

According to Tom Tew, chief executive of the Environment Bank, the company acting as the independent broker between planners and developers, who spoke to The Guardian newspaper, he thought FoE and others completely had completely misunderstood how biodiversity offsetting worked. He added, it was not a licence to trash, it was the complete opposite.

When one put a value on biodiversity, one was putting a financial incentive for developers not to trash it.