The Big Shake Up

We are about to witness the greatest shake up of UK environmental policy since the Second World War. A Rocha UK’s Head of Conservation, Andy Lester explains the implications of this shake up, from the good, the bad and the ugly. 

So let’s start with the “ugly”. The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) was set up in 2018 in anticipation of our final departure from the EU, when responsibility for protecting nature would shift from the EU back to the UK, or more specifically, parliament. The OEP was to be a flagship, independent body that could bring the worst polluters and breachers of environmental laws to public account. The original proposal was that large fines could be given out and the perpetrators named and shamed. However, recently a new parliament with a considerable Conservative Party majority has been proposing the OEP that it could be covered by disclosure legislation that could prevent those perpetrating environmental crime from being identified. The lack of disclosure will create an impression of secrecy rather than transparency. This would inevitably weaken the perception of the OEP being truly independent. 

A second and “bad” aspect of current new proposals is found in the highly unmemorable paper entitled The UK Forest Risk Commodities Framework. Although the paper suggests that there will be a new raft of rules preventing UK companies from trading with any organisation that is involved in illegal deforestation abroad, the reality is that it won’t prevent companies who deal with those deforesting virgin forest ‘legitimately’ with the framework of lax legal frameworks overseas. Currently around half of tropical forests are cut down ‘legally’. This is worrying because the companies responsible for the felling of virgin forest will not be boycotted, challenged or questioned by businesses based in the UK.

But it is not all bad news. A Rocha UK previously reported that a new environmental stewardship scheme for farmers and other landowners didn’t go far enough and funds were not always guaranteed. That has changed with the welcome announcement this summer of the new Tier 1 Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS).

ELMS will replace the existing stewardship schemes, which gave money to farmers for managing land in a sustainable way. These schemes were often complicated to apply for and did not cover some effective and imaginative ways of combining farming with good management of the ecology. ELMS Tier 1 will have three options: basic, intermediate and advanced and will pay landowners for taking approaches to managing their land which benefit people and nature. 

Focus areas will include soil restoration, wildflower corridors, hedgerow establishment and field margins. The application process will allow for a mix and match approach with some areas of land getting a basic payment and other areas receiving intermediate or higher level support. It will also mean farmers can apply for several payments in the same area at the same time. This is a positive start and will be great news for farmers needing clarity on future income streams and for the wildlife that will benefit from them.

Finally, there needs to be a measurable improvement in species or habitat diversity and extent after any development project. New rules include the concept of ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’. This is an attempt to ensure that all housing developers will have to demonstrate that an area of land that has been built on will be better for wildlife by at least 10%, after the development has been completed, when compared with the land before the development took place. 

In May 2021 it was also announced that this would include all major infrastructure projects, for example an airport extension or new trunk road. This is very good news and a response to concerted pleas from conservation charities, including A Rocha UK.  It could ensure that more land is protected for nature, even if large projects are allowed to proceed. 

However, it must not lead to projects proceeding on rare or unique habitats with the excuse that they can be ‘replaced’, like for like (no one can replace a 500 year old wood for example, with the complexity and richness of biodiversity that has developed over the centuries, any time soon!).  

So, net gain has its risks too, and is absolutely not the panacea to all the struggles facing the natural environment. It could, however, if applied rigorously, be an important regulatory step in the right direction.  

The key now is to get a really strong Environmental Bill through parliament. There should be no weakening of existing laws that protect species and habitats. Nor should there be any secrecy around the new Office of Environmental Protection. If the UK government is serious about ensuring that 30% of the UK landscapes are protected by 2030, then we will need a net gain scheme and Environmental Land Management Schemes programme that guard against some obvious risks, and maximise the opportunities to improve the quality and extent of nature in the UK. This requires not just robust legislation, but a truly independent oversight body with the powers and funds to ensure compliance, and total transparency about decisions. 

Time is short for nature charities and the nature-loving public to ensure we have the most effective, fair and transparent environmental governance for the UK. Please write to your MP raising these issues and asking them to support robust legislation and strong independent oversight of it.  

Written by Andy Lester, Head of Conservation for our August 2021 eNews.

Sign up to receive future eNews communications here.