The UK government could encourage developments in areas intended for nature recovery through changes to its biodiversity net gain (BNG) metric, though ecosystems may not lose out, market onlookers have said.

A change to the statutory BNG metric, published last November, removed the penalty for building in areas meant to be set aside for nature recovery, environmental policy magazine Ends Report said in an article on Tuesday.

Previously, there had been an extra cost for developers when building in these nature recovery areas linked to the BNG metric, Ends said. The change to the metric has yet to be finalised.

However, the incentive for developers to enhance habitat when developing in these zones was maintained in the metric.

This means it could be easier for developers to achieve their obligations under BNG with on-site gains in nature recovery areas, than on other land not earmarked for biodiversity, said Samuel Sinclair, director of consultancy Biodiversify.

Developers would be effectively “incentivised” to find sites for development in local nature recovery areas, Sinclair said.

A government email confirmed the updated metric would not make it more expensive to develop on land identified as part of Local Nature Recovery Strategies, as the indicator already accounted for developers’ impact on biodiversity in these areas, according to Ends.

“This is about as ridiculous a perverse incentive as it’s possible to get,” Sinclair said in a post on LinkedIn.

“A lot of the priority areas will be brownfield sites, which currently don’t do much for biodiversity, but which are critical areas for improving habitat connectivity.”

“Incentivising developers to build in these sites will make it harder to reconnect the archipelago of habitat fragments across our country, hampering our ability to restore nature and prepare for the impacts of climate change.”

Under the BNG rules, development projects need to achieve a net improvement of 10% biodiversity.

Observers are keenly watching the progression of the law as it could set a global standard for government nature requirements, while creating a market for statutory biodiversity credits that developers have to buy off-site as a ‘last resort’.

DEVELOPMENTS IN NATURE?

Emma Toovey, chief ecology officer at conservationist company Environment Bank, agreed that the change “potentially could incentivise development in nature recovery areas”, for schemes with on-site delivery of BNG as a core component. However, she questioned whether this would necessarily be worse for ecosystems.

“Another implication is that the higher yield of BNG units on these development sites creates an opportunity for developers to sell any excess units they don’t need to others – or use them elsewhere on other projects – further reducing the overall volume of BNG delivered,” she told Carbon Pulse.

However, one could argue that the UK wants BNG delivery in all its forms, whether on- or off-site, to areas where the benefits are maximised, she said.

“This is the premise of the mitigation hierarchy after all.”

The mitigation hierarchy aims to guide developers towards limiting their biodiversity impacts as much as possible.

“Realistically, every inch of a mapped nature recovery area won’t be returned to nature. Is it therefore OK that development is located there when it brings along with it high-quality, well-designed and implemented BNG delivery that really has a great outcome for nature?”

Environment Bank will generate off-site BNG units for developers to use from a national network of projects.

Last year, the UK announced the introduction of local nature recovery strategies throughout the UK to restore particular areas most valuable for nature.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

The impact of the UK government’s tweak depends on how much BNG factors into developers’ planning, and the scale of developments, Sinclair told Carbon Pulse.

“Given the high potential cost of developing in areas with nature, it could make quite a big difference,” he said.

“If done right, local nature recovery areas can make developers’ lives a lot easier as they can help developers figure out where they can both reduce impacts on nature, and avoid conflict with local communities.”

BNG is highly technical, so tweaking it is an important part of the process of getting it to work effectively, he said.

“There is a risk with anything this complicated that tweaks can have unintended consequences with negative outcomes for nature.”

“The UK has been really brave in putting in this piece of world-leading legislation. The Environment Act was a very positive step, and what they’re trying to do is hard but extremely important.”

Carbon Pulse asked the UK government for a response and had not received a reply when this article was published.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***