Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Biodiversity offsetting makes dreams come true – for developers

Posted on 10 July 201410 April 2015
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Five years ago, the European environment commissioner Stavros Dimas warned that biodiversity loss posed a threat as serious as climate change. But the EU continues to lose biodiversity.

“The reasons that we are losing biodiversity are well known,” Dimas noted. “Destruction of habitats, pollution, over-exploitation, invasive species and, most recently, climate change.”

Instead of stopping the destruction of habitats, the EU is currently considering ways of allowing the destruction to continue while claiming to be addressing the loss of biodiversity. The plans is called “No Net Loss” and it relies on the hairbrained idea of biodiversity offsets. Developers will be allowed to destroy habitats as long as they pay to create a new habitat somewhere else.

Last year, more than 140 organisations signed a No to Biodiversity Offsetting statement.

Until 17 October 2014, the EU is holding a public consultation on biodiversity offsetting. Tell them why you oppose biodiversity offsetting.

The NGOs Carbon Trade Watch, Counterbalance, FERN, Re:Common and World Development Movement are campaigning against biodiversity offsetting. You can sign on to their letter to the European Commission here.

And they’ve produced this mockumentary to highlight the sheer lunacy of biodiversity offsetting:

While the video is fiction, several controversial biodiversity offset project are proposed in the UK. Last month, FERN and Friends of the Earth compiled a series of case studies of biodiversity offsets in the UK, France and Australia. Here are three of the UK cases:

Housing development, North Tyneside

The development will cause irreversible damage to Gosforth Park, a Site of Scientific Special Importance, one of the few remaining nearby green spaces not already converted to golf courses or other development. The housing plan was rejected by the planning authority, but Bellway Homes and the Environment Bank cooked up a biodiversity offsetting proposal that was approved by the Secretary of State.

High Speed 2 rail network

2014-07-10-134636_190x189_scrotForty ancient woodlands are threatened by the HS2. The developer behind the project has produced offsetting proposals. Sarah Walters, Local woodland manager of Alvecote Wood, points out, “Using offsetting to justify the destruction that HS2 will bring is simply wrong – you cannot replace these precious habitats.”

Motorway Service Station, Sheffied

2014-07-10-134647_349x371_scrotExtra Motorway Services has lodged an application to build a motorway service station, car park and slip road on top of Smithy Woods; new trees would be planted nearby as part of a biodiversity offsetting scheme. FERN and FoE point out that it will take more than 850 years before the new trees have the same ecological value as the ancient woodland that would be destroyed.
 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

1 thought on “Biodiversity offsetting makes dreams come true – for developers”

  1. Dennis Bours says:
    10 July 2014 at 9:22 pm

    I filled out the public consultation and in the end you get the question if you want to be contacted by the EC for follow-up. But you are never asked for your email address…
    Guess that is how the EC communicates with its citizens; in one direction only. And we’ll have to Google the results in a year from now. A pity to see this happening in public consultation on such an important topic.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“Eat less meat and fish, drink less milk. No request could be simpler, or more consequential. Nothing we do has greater potential for reducing our impacts on the living planet. Yet no request is more likely to elicit a baffled, hurt or furious response.”

— George Monbiot, The Guardian, October 2015

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!