planning 4 biodiversity
TRANSCRIPT
Planning for Biodiversity:
Maximising the evidence
opportunity.
Alister Scott MRTPI
“It is a capital mistake to
theorise before you have data” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Scandal in Bohemia
Planning Challenge(s)
• Uncertainty
• Conflicting values
• Demographic change
• Economic growth
• Housing need
• Employment land
• Infrastructure
• Climate change
• Species decline
• Reduced diversity of natural and built assets
• Political football
• Scapegoats
Biodiversity Challenge
• < 33% of Development Plans have strategic approach to planning for biodiversity.
• > 33% of Dev Plans have no evidence of biodiversity being a core determinant of spatial strategy.
• NPPF’s polic(ies) for biodiversity at a landscape scale has not been widely embedded in Dev Plans (Natures voice, 2015)
Research evidence
Policy
Delivery
Closing Evidence-
Policy - Delivery Gap
(adapted from Waters, 2012 )
Talk Outline
1. Exposing Built vs Natural
Environment Divide
2. Whose Biodiversity policy do
we want: NPPF vs NEWP vs ?
3. Seizing new opportunities
Ecosystem Science meets
Spatial Planning
4. Hooks and Case Studies
5. Discussion
6. Questions
Exposing the divide
Natural Environment lens
1. Incentives
2. Natural Environment White Paper
3. Habitat and Landscape Scale
4. DEFRA
5. Ecosystem Approach
6. Classifying and Valuing
7. National Ecosystem Assessment
8. Catchment management Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas
10. Local Nature Partnerships
Built Environment lens
1. Control
2. National Planning Policy Framework
3. Local scale
4. DCLG
5. Spatial Planning
6. Zoning and Ordering
7. Cost Benefit Assessments
8. Development Plans
9. Enterprise Zones
10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
Whose biodiversity polic(ies)
do we want?
Department of Communities and Local Government HM Government
In pursuit of integration:
Legal Duties
• NERC 2006 Act Section 40 to have
regard, in the exercise of their functions,
to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.
• NEWP 2011 White Paper
• Biodiversity 2020 2011
But Defra Biodiversity 2020
• better wildlife habitats – quality goals for
priority habitat/SSSIs
• more, bigger and less fragmented areas
for wildlife –
• restoration of 15% of degraded
ecosystems – climate change mitigation
and adaptation
• establishing a Marine Protected Area
network
• Marine plans in place by 2022
• improvement in status of our wildlife and
prevention of further human induced
extinctions of known threatened species
• significantly more people engaged in
biodiversity issues, aware of its value
and taking positive action
Integration 2 NPPF/NPPG
6 The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
But : NPPF
17 Every effort should
be made objectively to
identify and then meet
the housing, business
and other development
needs of an area, and
respond positively to
wider opportunities for
growth.
• Priority growth lanes
Although NPPF
• 109 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:– protecting and enhancing
valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
– recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
– minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, …….. including by establishing coherent ecological networks
NPPG: Biodiversity
• Movable feast of policy priorities and updates
• Regularly changed.
• Role of ecological networks
• Role of LNPs
• Proportionality of ecological surveys
• Enhancement of biodiversity
• Reduced role for GI
• Local planning authorities ….should seek opportunities to work collaboratively with other partners, including Local Nature Partnerships, to develop and deliver a strategic approach to protecting and improving the natural environment based on local priorities and evidence.
• Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 8-008-20140306
ALERC’s role
• A Local Record Centre can be an effective mechanism for facilitating access to environmental information which may be held across many public and voluntary organisations. Such centres provide a one-stop information source, often serving a specific county or grouping of local authorities. Their main function is to collate, manage and disseminate biodiversity information but they may also hold other types of environmental data and can also advise on evidence gathering.
• NPPG Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 8-010-20140306
The Value of Nature
• “In many cases nature is ignored or trumped by other economic or social priorities, or seen as a barrier to growth to be overcome.
• Ecosystem services and natural capital help re-frame nature as an asset to society that delivers many benefits”.
• Scott 2014
The State of Nature (NEA
2011)
Ecosystem Science
Opportunity (NEAFO 2014)
Introducing the Ecosystem
Approach
Introducing Spatial Planning
• Working across
multiple scales and
sectors
• Evidence based
policy
• Plan led development
• Inclusive and
equitable
Eurocities 2004
Overcoming disintegration
Integrating NEAFO, NEWP
and NPPF
Built Environment Hooks
• Value Ecosystem Services (p109/114ff) – Green/Blue Infrastructure
– Ecological networks
– Biodiversity Impact Assessment
• Duty to Cooperate – Payments for ecosystem
services
– LNP /LEP
• Viability – Environmental limits
• Regulation – Environmental protection
– Designation
Value Ecosystem Services
109 The planning system
should contribute to and
enhance the natural and
local environment by:
• recognising the wider
benefits of ecosystem
services;
109-125: ecological
networks; landscape scale;
green infrastructure
Value Ecosystem Services
109 The planning system
should contribute to and
enhance the natural and
local environment by:
• recognising the wider
benefits of ecosystem
services;
Baseline Mapping
Opportunity Mapping
Assessing Trade Offs
Location determined by
Market values only:
food
+ timber
(i.e. ignoring
externalities)
Optimal land use case study: Where to plant Britain’s new forests
Cost benefit value:
- £66million p.a.
30
Source Bateman Church
and Fish 2014
Location determined by
Market values only:
food
+ timber
(i.e. ignoring
externalities)
Location determined by
Market + Non-Market
Values
food
+ timber
+ greenhouse gases
+ recreation
+ water quality improvement
+ biodiversity improvement
Optimal land use case study:
New forests
Cost benefit value:
- £66million p.a.
Cost benefit value:
+ £546million p.a.
31
Omitting non-market goods Including non-market
goods
32
Duty to Cooperate “To engage constructively,
actively and on an ongoing
basis to maximise the effectiveness
of Local Plan preparation
in the context of strategic
cross boundary matters”.
Housing
• IDENTIFY Objectively
assessed housing need
• 5 year housing supply
• REVISE via constraints
or neighbours
BUT
Catchment
Management Source: Jim Davies
Env Agency
Incentives: Payments for
Ecosystem Services
Birmingham
Green Living
Spaces Plan 2014
Spatial Layers
1.aesthetics and mobility
2.flood risk
3.local climate
4.education
5.recreation
6.biodiversity
39
South Downs National
Park: Draft Policy
• The Authority will take a positive approach to sustainable development provided it does not cause irreversible harm to the natural environment and its ability to contribute natural goods and services, where it is not possible to mitigate for this impact. Proposals that accord with other relevant policies will be permitted where they:
a) Conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife
and cultural heritage.
b) Improve the National Park’s resilience to climate
change.
c) Sustainably manage land and water environments.
d) Conserve high quality soils.
e) Mitigate the risk of flooding.
f) Conserve high quality drinking water resources.
g) Reduce pollution.
h) Improve opportunities for peoples’ health and wellbeing.
i) Stimulate sustainable economic activity.
j) Provide more and better joined up ecological habitats.
k) Propose high quality sustainable design.
l) Increase ability to store carbon through new planting or
other means.
Monitoring (weak)
• Ecosystem service
baselines
• Indicators to
measure
progress
ALERC Evidence
• Capturing and mapping data of key ecosystem services
• Role of measuring flows (demand and supply) of ecosystem services (benefits and disbenefits)
• Policy interventions assessment
Discussion
• Learning different languages to achieve your goals
• Ecosystem services threat or opportunity ?
• Evidence based Policy vs policy based evidence
• Meaningful partnerships (LEPS + LNPs)?
• Rethink viability and duty to cooperate
Duty to Cooperate
Biodiversity
• NEWP meets NPPF • Objective assessment
of biodiversity needs
• Link in with
environmental limits
• Plans must conform
with a 5 year no net
loss.
Completing the Jigsaw
Alternative
scenarios
Duty to
Cooperate
Monitoring
and
indicators
Valuation
Evidence NEWP
NPPF
Ecosystem
Approach
Guidance
Public
Participation
Local Plan
Development
Joined up planning
Lets be NEATER
@bcualisterscott