'The privatisation of biodiversity?'

Published On Mon 17 Feb 2014 by Roddy Isles

Should we pay farmers and land managers to accept flooding? Is it right to make biodiversity off-setting a mandatory part of land development?

These and other major issues in nature conservation across the UK will be addressed at a conference at the University of Dundee this week.

Conservation issues could not be more relevant across the UK right now, from water and flood management to off-setting the effects of land development. 'The Privatisation of Biodiversity?' event on Thursday February 20th will feature contributions from state agencies, land managers, and legal and environmental experts.

Speakers include representatives from Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Scottish Natural Heritage, the Environment Bank and the Law Commission, as well as academics and land managers.

'The current policies around nature conservation are not producing the desired results and there is a lot of discussion that needs to take place on how best we can prevent the continuing loss of biodiversity,' said Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee.

'This event brings together people from across the debate and will look at some of the key issues, such as biodiversity off-setting and payment for ecosystem services.

'In terms of the latter, a topical example would be whether we should pay farmers to accept their land is going to be flooded, or to leave certain areas of land which may be good for the insects that pollinate crops or provide water supply and not intensively farm them. These things all have benefits to society, so should we compensate farmers and landowners for fostering these areas?'

Professor Reid said the issue of biodiversity off-setting was another crucial one that would be debated at the event.

'Biodiversity off-setting is the principle that if we allow someone to develop a site that has adverse impact on biodiversity then we get them to provide something to offset that impact. However, that brings problems in practical and economic terms.

'This brings in issues around whether it should be mandatory or voluntary, how 'local' off-setting should be, and whether a market-based approach may produce better results.

'The current conservation arrangements are all based around the state agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England, designating sites, controlling land use and making agreements with landowners. One argument is that, as with happens with climate change, a market-based approach to offsetting could work for biodiversity offsetting and conservation, bringing in private money and allowing more efficiency.

'In terms of whether off-setting should be mandatory or voluntary, the arguments are that if it is mandatory it may be seen as a tax on development, which the Government, landowners and developers are obviously not keen on. If it is not mandatory then there is the major concern that people simply won't do it.

'Another argument is over how local offsetting should be. If someone cuts down a number of trees in a field in Dundee, is it enough to say they are planting new trees in Kent or even further afield, or should it be restricted to more local trade-offs?

'These are all significant issues that are going to have an impact across the UK for a long time to come.'

'The Privatisation of Biodiversity?' conference takes place in the School of Law at the University of Dundee on Thursday February 20th.

The conference is part of a two-year research project at the University of Dundee, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, entitled 'The Privatisation of Biodiversity? - New Approaches to Nature Conservation in the United Kingdom'.

For media enquiries contact:
Roddy Isles
Head, Press Office
University of Dundee
Nethergate, Dundee, DD1 4HN
TEL: 01382 384910
E-MAIL: r.isles@dundee.ac.uk
MOBILE: 07800 581902