104: Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) – ARUP's Tom Butterworth

We're all familiar with the concept of Net Zero – but what about Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)? Joining Matt and Jen to explain BNG and its implications is Tom Butterworth, Nature Lead at ARUP for the UK, India, the Middle East and Africa.

Links:

Episode 74 with nature writer and journalist Kate Bradbury: how can our gardens protect the environment?: https://www.localzeropod.com/episodes/74-how-can-our-gardens-protect-the-environment

UK Government guidance on Biodiversity Net Gain: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-biodiversity-net-gain

Transcript:

Jen: I need to do some like vocal warming up.

Matt: La la la la.

Jen: La!

Matt: Hello, I'm Matt.

Jen: And I'm Jen. Welcome to Local Zero.

Matt: So I think we're all pretty familiar by now with the concept of net zero when it comes to tackling the greenhouse gas emissions that are fuelling the climate crisis. But as we know, we're also in the midst of another global crisis: the biodiversity crisis. So in this episode, we'll be getting to grips with a concept that's newer and less well-known to some: Biodiversity Net Gain, or BNG for short.

What is it? How does it work? How effective might it be and what risks might it also bring with it? 

Jen: And what does it mean for communities, too? To help us answer those questions we'll be joined a little bit later in the episode by Tom Butterworth, Nature Leader at the global consultancy ARUP. Tom is an author of several national, international biodiversity standards, and he sits on the International Advisory Panel of Biodiversity Credits. 

Matt: So I think it's fair to say he knows what he's talking about. A quick reminder to follow us on LinkedIn if you'd like to stay up-to-date with all things local Zero. That's also the best place to let us know about people, projects, and topics you'd like us to feature in the future. “Just search for Local Zero podcast”. 

Jen: Wherever you listen to Local Zero, remember to subscribe so you never miss an episode. And if you listen on Spotify, you can now leave comments directly on episodes. So tell us what you think.

Matt: Absolutely. And thank you to Nick for already having done so – recently reviewed Local Zero on Apple Podcasts. Nick said the podcast “is really well structured, researched. Great speakers. Just listened to the episode on shared ownership of renewables. So much I didn't know before”. Well, thank you Nick. And if you haven't listened to that episode on shared ownership of renewables, please check out our episode list and give it a listen.

Jen: So, Matt, biodiversity: what does that word mean to you? What sort of things does it conjure up in your mind? 

Matt: It means wellbeing, I think, and it means personal wellbeing, first and foremost, but it's also a sort of global or uh, natural wellbeing. I think when I'm in a place that feels biodiverse, it feels balanced, it feels well, it feels well put together, shall we say, humming along, thriving well. And I think I just automatically find myself feeling happier, more grounded in a more biodiverse landscape than one that is denuded of nature and is, uh, biodiverse poor.

So sometimes it's just a gut feeling. It's, it's sort of driven by all of your, you know, different senses. Um, how, how about you? 

Jen: I'm exactly the same. I think it's really joyful. So I guess when I see the word, I think of kind of a bit like a big food web, but I also get really like strong visual kind of memories of peatlands. So I think some of the most biodiverse areas that I've been have been in peatland habitats that are, you know, restored, really, really thriving. When I'm bending down and I'm doing up my shoe or something and there's just like little creatures everywhere, to then looking up and then seeing, you know, golden eagles or whatever. Yeah so it's like from the micro to the macro.

Matt: Yeah.

Jen: And the sundews. To me, it's like when, biodiverse is kind of, yeah, like you said, humming, it's thriving.

Matt: Yeah, there's an interesting book I, I've cited this book a number of times, but Isabella Tree’s Wilding and the, the more recent, uh, one she wrote with her husband, Charlie Burrell, a sort of Book of Wilding.

And that's really interesting 'cause I think what it does is it, for me, it starts to put some of the science behind what biodiversity means, and it starts to visualise it. There's some fantastic portraits that, that, that’re in there, illustrations that kind of give you a sense of what a biodiverse landscape should look like.

And what shocked me, I think, is that it was different to what I maybe imagined. And as I read on, I realised that my sense, my understanding of a biodiverse landscape, is grounded in what I have seen and felt in my own country.

Jen: Mm.

Matt: And we live in the UK, in one of the least biodiverse nations on planet Earth, basically.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: And so this notion of shifting baselines is talked a lot about, um, in, in these, uh, two books. And we only know what is familiar to us and what we've experienced. And so I think what I was considering to be some of the most biodiverse landscapes were actually far from what they could potentially be.

So biodiversity again, I think is subjective in that sense.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: And the potential for biodiversity and biodiversity gain is actually unimaginable to some, because they haven't had any direct experience of it. 

Jen: If we imagine a, a biodiversity environment. I wonder how much of our visual imagery is affected by that shifting baseline.

Matt: I think this is where oral histories are so important and you hear from, you know, former generations, grandparents sort of say, “Well, you know, back in my day…”, and you know, some of this will be rose-tinted, but a lot of it isn't. A lot of it's just backed up by basic objective data. What, what I would also say, Jen, is I know you and I are both keen hill walkers.

I've been up mountains with folks you know, who've done far more climbing than I, and they regard that landscape as a truly wild one. And for me, I spend a lot of time traipsing the hills and climbing Munros and looking around going, I am so sad. There's no trees. And when I eventually end up on a hill where there has been some rewilding – or shall we just call it Biodiversity Net Gain in the context of this, uh, episode – and you see a small sapling at 850 or 900 meters of a Scot's pine or birch or willow, whatever it is, and you're like, “Yes. Get in. That's, that's what we wanna see”.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: You know, that's taking root. So again, subjective. What, what is wild? 

Jen: When you go to a landscape that is biodiverse…

Matt: Mm-hmm.

Jen: That is healthy, you then realise how frequent those suffering landscapes are around and, I, I feel like I can kind of feel it.

Matt: I mean, you can see it, but I always think you can hear it, because you can hear the silence.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: Whereas if you go to somewhere, places that really have stayed with me, say Glenfeshie or the Carrifran, in the, and the Borders there, between Scotland and England, the first thing that strikes me is the noise, the cacophony of bird song. And then you get hit by the smells and it's, that's almost hit you before you're seeing anything. 

Jen: I wonder how many of our listeners have really experienced a truly bio-, I wonder if I have experienced a truly biodiverse habitat in the UK? But I'm also trying to bring this maybe a bit more into our towns, villages, and cities. Like, we live in, in Glasgow. Biodiversity can also be on our doorstep.

Matt: Yeah.

Jen: Very literally, if you're lucky enough to have a garden space, but also with the local parks and so on. And quite often these local parks, the biodiversity are managed out of it. The species that are easy to, to look after and maintain. I have a shared garden. And, um, the factor used to care for it.

Matt: Yeah.

Jen: But essentially they'd just come and just…

Matt: Blitz it. 

Jen: Just shave everything off. 

Matt: Yeah. Blitz, give it a haircut. 

Jen: Yeah. They weren't gardening for nature at all. And one of the first things we did when we moved in was stop that. It saves everyone money, but also we can garden in a way that can bring nature and bring birds. We now have a a blackbird in our garden, you know? And that, that's the thing is that biodiversity to me, although I think of being outside in the great outdoors, actually, I also think about parks, the green space and the areas that I walk past, the river, along my street, you know? 

Matt: So I think for, for listeners who haven't had chance to listen to our episode with Kate Bradbury, we'll put that in the shownotes. That’d be well worth listening to. I, and I think where this episode compliments that, is that it steps beyond say, you know, your apartment balcony or window box or garden, if you're looking enough to have one, private or shared. What it starts to, um, Aak the question is, well, how do we encourage greener landscapes, not just in the urban domain, but also in rural settings?

So this is really where, you know, enter stage left, Biodiversity Net Gain is trying to put down some rules around planning, you know, for, for developments, and where – ideally – you're gonna have developments that are more biodiverse, or encourage more biodiversity. And where that isn't possible, you can offset that elsewhere.

Now, I'm not gonna steal Tom's thunder ‘cause he’s gonna talk in far more detail than I, but the point being is that we are not really doing that, right? If I walk down a street or a park where people have let their gardens go a bit and there's a bit more bird life, or if you go to the park and they haven't scalped the, you know, grass to, you know, quarter of an inch or insecticide and pesticide everywhere.

Those round of softer edges, more life…

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: Drawn in.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: I feel like I can breathe a little better.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: And for me, Jen, you know, and we talk a lot about systems thinking and co-benefits, there's a huge piece here about if we make our, our neighbourhoods – rural, urban – uh, little bit greener, or a lot greener, more biodiverse, what's in it for us is, is bottomless really. 

Jen: It brings me a lot of joy to see unman grass and meadows in parks, but I know that there's a lot of people that really don't like that and see it as, as really messy. They see it as the council cutting corners. So also kind of, there's a, there's a conversation here about what does that mean in our local environment, in our spaces, and also what does that mean in terms of that transition of expectations of what nature – and I guess it's part of that shift from conserve to restore? 

Matt: Well, so I, I think what we have to connect the, the Biodiversity Net Gains specifically to, is new developments. These might be replacing properties on the same, uh, location. It might be about building a new housing development or supermarket on a flood plain. You know, there's a whole wide range of, of things, but I guess it's about trying to leave these places.

Not just these places, but adjacent areas, in, in a better place in terms of biodiversity than they are currently or, or prior to that development. And I think that is a, a change in mindset to what we have typically done to planet Earth, uh, certainly roundabout my way, which is, you know, build, build, build asphalt, bricks and mortar. Nature is really very much secondary, a secondary consideration.

So, you know, the purpose of this episode is to talk to our esteem guest about what BNG is, what it means, and I think, Jen, it sets the scene for some future episodes where I would really like to dig into, right, that's Biodiversity Net Gain. That's some of the key principles. What does this mean now for our neighbourhoods, for our communities, for the likes of you and I, for our listeners?

Jen: Yeah, 100%. We know that this links also into kind of water management, air quality, these other co-benefits, I think would be great to, to dig into those, uh, a little bit more in future episodes as well. 

Matt: Ab-, absolutely. And I think maybe just one of the examples that came up for, for the research, for the episode was about building a new school. You know, there's a number of ways of satisfying these BNG requirements, but one of them, and kind of the first and foremost is trying to do stuff on-site, trying to make it more biodiverse. And they started to list all the things that they, they put up and you know, there was creation of woodlands, ponds, hedgerows, nest boxes for bats, swifts, sparrows, barn owls, grassland management regimes.

You know, I was like, "That sounds like a nice school. That sounds like the kind of place I'd love my kids to go. Heck, it sounds like the place I would've liked to have gone, gone to school in”. So we're talking about this community benefits, those co-benefits. I mean, even just in that case, educational, you know?

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: Being able to, for kids to grow up in that space, there's no better place to learn about how nature works and, and how valuable it is. So anyway, those are all the other episodes we're gonna do after this. So shall we, shall we bring Tom in and learn a little bit more? 

Jen: Let's bring Tom in. 

Tom: Hello, my name is Tom. I am the Nature Lead for ARUP, looking after nature on all of our projects across the uk, India, Africa, and Middle East. ARUP is a large multidisciplinary engineering, sustainable development organisation.

Matt: Welcome, Tom. Before we kick off onto today's subject matter, just wondered if you could let the listeners know a little bit about your background and how you became such an expert in the area of biodiversity.

Tom: My background is that I'm an ecologist, I trained in ecology, working first on land snails in Sri Lanka and then in charities in the UK doing conservation work, coordinating the conservation work across counties and then the country. And then worked for Natural England, which is a government statutory agency on nature, for about 10 years.

And then moved into consultancy about, uh, eight, 10 years ago. First with WSP and now with ARUP, where I’ve settled to lead our work on nature. 

Jen: It's really great to have you here on the pod to explore this topic, Biodiversity Net Gain. So actually before we go any further, can I just ask, what do we actually mean by “biodiversity”?

Tom: Well, biodiversity is simply all of the living stuff in the world. So it's the, uh, fungi, the bacteria, the mammals, the reptiles, the plants, and all of their interrelationships. So that's huge. That encompasses the soil, the oceans, the air, sea, land, and of course, humans are part of that too. 

Matt: Fantastic. So it's it's a big deal. It's expansive, it's complex. Jen and I were asking ourselves a question before you jumped in. What, what does a biodiverse landscape look and feel like to you?

Tom: So I think that a biodiverse landscape is one where natural systems and processes are allowed to shape and create the places that we are within. What I mean by that is the rivers are allowed to flow across their floodplain.

The forests are allowed to move across the landscape. The animals are shaping and creating the place around them. So for example, in Yellowstone, reintroducing wolves actually allowed the rivers to change course, because of the way the animals interrelated with the landscape, and the landscape interrelated with the animals.

And if we really get a biodiverse landscape working well, we are absolutely at the heart of that as well. 

Matt: That's a lovely description. And I think it'd be useful for our listeners, particularly the UK listeners, to, to offer a bit of a benchmark. So, you know, is, how biodiverse is our landscape today? I mean, I've, I've certainly seen various league tables and it doesn't look too pretty for us sitting here.

Jen: It’s not too good. Yeah.

Tom: No. Um, we have one of the most degraded landscapes and ecosystems in the world, in the UK. We have lost something like 70% of the biodiversity, in terms of the abundance of species, in the last 50 years. If we'd lost 70% of anything else – if we'd lost 70% of Mozart compositions in the last 50 years – we'd be very worried, wouldn't we?

So this is really significant. We're starting to see, across the UK, certain ecosystems collapse. We're starting to see, uh, the knock-on impacts that has on people, whether it be lakes that are starting to become toxic, or ecosystems like river ecosystems that aren't able to manage the flows in the same way. We are living in a degraded environment, sadly. 

Jen: How might things feel or hear or look or be different if I stand outside now, versus say 35, 40 years ago?

Tom: So when I was growing up, I lived in a housing estate in Devon, so it was a new housing estate, and when I moved in, I found lizards in my garden, and there were owls moving across the landscape, and frogs and toads all over the place. I found a toad in my welly one day that had somehow got in, I don't know how, got into my house and crawled into my boots. 

There was a point where some years where you would go out into the countryside and at similar time of year to this, so February, March, you would go to any piece of wet area and there'd be frog spawn and toad spawn in it.

Even if it was only temporarily wet, the frogs would've gone mad and put frog spawn everywhere. Now it's special if we find it. When my mum grew up, she went out and won a prize in her school, picking wild flowers and naming them all. At the time, they were called “arable weeds”. They're now called “rare arable plants”. And that's not just an change in advertising. That's because they've changed in their status. 

Jen: Yeah, I, I actually came across some frog spawn at the weekend and exactly that, Tom, like, really excited. Haven't seen it for ages. Wow! Like re, you know, and I was, you know, an Arran. I wasn't in the city, you know, it was a real rarity to come across it.

So, yeah, I think it's very harsh and stark listening. But I guess we're here today to talk about some positive policy, we hope, in helping things get better. We're in a stark position. We need a way forward for many, many reasons. So we've heard about this biodiversity net gain concept or policy. For the uninitiated, what does Biodiversity Net Gain concept or policy. For the uninitiated, what does Biodiversity Net Gain mean?

Tom: You are absolutely right, Jen, that this is challenging to look at and painful and, and that emotional response is actually really important. We need to continue to be shocked by this. We may not be surprised by some of the loss that we have been living through. But we need to continue that shock, because that can drive us into action.

And I'm just gonna give one more stat about the level of loss that we've had, and then we can talk about Biodiversity Net Gain as part of a solution. But if you look at all of the mammals across the world, all of the mammals that we have, the proportion that are wild – so all the elephants, all the wolves, all the, the beavers, all of the foxes that are running through our cities – that's about 4% of the mammals on our world. The rest are humans and farm animals. 4%. So that's where we're starting from. This is why this transition to shift towards a nature-positive world is so critical. It is not gonna be the same thing to be human in a world where we've lost all of that.

Imagine telling our children or our grandchildren, “Yeah, once upon a time there were elephants” or “Once upon a time there were polar bears”. That would tear me apart. You know, what would it be like growing up in that world? It would be different. So we need to act now. And part of that action is Biodiversity Net Gain.

So what is it? Well, actually, it's a much bigger piece of work than what we've seen in policy in England. It's a piece of work that came out of a whole load of activities held by the Business and Biodiversity Offsetting Programme, an international group that came together to bring together businesses, NGOs, civil society governments, to think about how we address our impacts on nature, and specifically how we address them through development.

So when a project aims to assess the biodiversity that's there at the start of that project, let's say a development project, and then work to deliver a positive outcome for nature through that development project, that's Biodiversity Net Gain.

I'll just reiterate that just to make sure that's really clear. It's a development project, or a conservation project, that delivers a positive benefit for biodiversity at the end of that project. So in England, we've got the policy for biodiversity net gain in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland it does differ. We've got a fantastic approach in Wales looking at the diversity of the habitats, their distinctiveness, how important they are, and building that out into a more holistic approach.

In Scotland, they're looking at developing metrics to see how we can build a net gain approach that works for Scotland. So this is something that's evolving and growing over time. What I think is important is that we don't think that Biodiversity Net Gain is just what's done in England. Actually, it's much broader than that, and what we've got in England is one interpretation of that.

Jen: Development does not go hand-in-hand with biodiversity in my mind. So this is a departure from that obliteration of nature through development, towards supporting nature to thrive as part of that development. Is that right? 

Tom: Absolutely. We know that habitat loss, destruction of habitats, it’s one of the major drivers for loss of biodiversity. And what this is doing is saying, actually that doesn't need to be the case for development.

We can deliver an overall gain for biodiversity through development. Now, there's some key pieces here. This is a net gain, so it does mean that there'll still be an impact. But we need to manage that impact. We need to avoid the impact wherever we can. We then need to minimise those impacts. Then what we can't avoid and minimise, we find that we can restore on-site and then we may go wider to then rebuild, recreate habitats elsewhere.

There's a whole load of rules that underpin that, and these were developed internationally. 

Matt: So how does this play out in, in reality? And I guess by “reality” I mean the marketplace, right? Because we have a policy here, which is meant to guide developers, if we can call, call them that for the moment. And that might be the development of, of new properties, uh, new infrastructure, as you said.

Also new conservation projects. And as I understand it, Tom, you kind of have two schools of projects that are emerging on the back of this. One are the developments that were gonna kinda happen anyway, but they're, they're trying, certain cases succeeding, absolutely, in, in providing this 10% uplift. Okay.

But then you've got other projects which are not related necessarily to those, say, property developments, which are trying to offer that offset.

Tom: Mm-hmm.

Matt: There’s an uplift elsewhere. So I just wondered if you could talk through that for, for our listeners about the Biodiversity Net Gain on-site – the supermarket, the school – versus offsite, and the relationship between the two.

Tom: So let's just frame this first of all, globally. We have global standards and approaches on Biodiversity Net Gain, and those were developed under this Business and Biodiversity Offsetting Programme. We then have international standards being developed. And then we have the policy in England, which is this 10% requirement.

So the policy in England is very specific, and that's where we start to get the requirements for developers, in law, to deliver this 10% gain, using a standard methodology, a standard approach. What's really critical for Biodiversity Net Gain is it's a comparison from before the development, with after. What that means is that if you’re starting from a very low base – and we just said a lot of England has a very low base in terms of its ecological value, its biodiversity value – What we're looking for is an uplift on that very low base.

And as a 10%, that means that the uplift will be relatively smaller. It will still be an improvement for biodiversity, but it's much smaller. What this means is that large numbers of developers are first avoiding those high quality habitats. 

Matt: Mm-hmm. Say green belt in that kind, kind of area. 

Tom: Green belt, uh, woodlands, reed beds, fens, nice species-rich grasslands. They won't go anywhere near those, because the 10% net gain requirement means that you then have to deliver that much more elsewhere. So the first thing this does is it targets developments into the low-value – from an ecological point of view, from a biodiversity point of view – the low-value sites, and this is really, really important. The first step is avoiding those high-quality sites. Critical.

Now, what that means is that a lot of those developers can then deliver great gains on-site. You're starting from a low-value grassland, from an ecological point of view. You absolutely can put in some nicer grassland, some hedgerows, some other bits of habitats and ponds and deliver again on-site. And it's really important that we do that, because it's really important that people are able to find lizards in their back garden again. Yes?

That we have access to these high-value nature spaces in amongst where we are living. But to come to the second half of your question about the offset, Matt, the step there is first avoid, then let's see if we, what we can do to minimise and then restore on-site.

Matt: Mm-hmm.

Tom: It's only after that that you then get to enhancing and delivering gains for biodiversity elsewhere. Now, when we say elsewhere, it's not just a free-for-all. It has to still be within that local area. 

Matt: Ah, okay. 

Tom: So it needs to be within the local, local planning authority area or something called the National Character Area, which is geographies across England that have similar characters. So it's still bound, and if you are going to go further afield, you actually have to deliver more.

So the requirement increases as you go further away. So there's a massive incentive to make sure that it's local. There's also a requirement to make sure that if you're losing woodland, you're putting back woodland. If you're losing a pond, you're putting back a pond. You know, if we lose a pond and put back a woodland, the species that are in that pond aren't gonna be very happy.

So we need to make sure that we're supporting the species, the communities, the ecological communities that we're impacting. 

Matt: That local element, Tom is, is so important and I think that, that's starts to make sense. One of the case studies I was reading was of a new school that was being built, sort of floodplain area, marshland, and I think it was on council property. They then made the offset adjustment, shall we say. They couldn't do it easily on-site, so they just did it at a kilometre north.

Tom: Mm-hmm.

Matt: Up the catchment

Tom: Yeah.

Matt: And did it there. And that makes sense why they did it there and not, say, on the Isle of Raasay or Cornwall or wherever it was.

Tom: Absolutely. And not only that, but it'll be in another wetland site, because they're trying to support the same communities of species.

Matt: Yes.

Tom: Rather than saying, “Well, we'll put some chalk grassland at the top of a hill", which might be lovely, but doesn't actually support the same species. 

Matt: Very interesting. 

Jen: It is really interesting. And I guess when we're talking about that example with the school, I was bit kind of upset and concerned that the, then the school children wouldn't be getting the benefits. We know that school children engage more, thrive more at school if they've walked to school or they've interacted with nature. So I was concerned that that wasn't gonna be the case, but it has to be either on-site where possible, or as local as possible. And like-for-like.

I'm curious what sort of timeframes we are talking about, because from my knowledge of biology, it takes a while to establish flora and fauna. So what sort of timeframes of measuring the net gain are we talking about? 

Tom: That's a great question, and this is a significant shift. So in all of the international work, it talks about “for the long-term”, or sometimes “for the life of the development”.

Now that life of the development could be a very long time. But what we have in England is very specific. And it says that you need to put in place the management and the monitoring of that site that's delivering those gains, for the off-site area, for 30 years. It needs to be in place and there for 30 years at least.

Now we can talk about what happens at the end of that 30 years, but I think it's really important to understand where we were just a few years ago, a year-and-a-half ago, before Biodiversity Net Gain came in. We were looking at three or five-year management plans at most, with next to no monitoring. We now have a requirement to set up legal agreements to put in place the management and monitoring for 30 years after the development is completed.

Matt: That's really interesting, Tom. Uh, and again, so this is the classic juncture where we could be uber-critical of this – “30 years doesn't sound like a long time” – but also it could be super kind of, uh, praising and optimistic of, of this policy. So, so maybe I'll give the option of taking either route here. How much of a departure is this, I think from, from policies that have gone before? Is this an incremental or a radical innovation in terms of ecological and development policy? Is this a real step change in your eyes or, or is there still significant work to be done? 

Tom: The answer to that probably is “both”, Matt. And let me open that up a little bit. We've designed this work specifically to be an incremental change from what the ecologists have to go out and do on site, the assessments they have to do, and the process they have to go through. And that's really important because we don't wanna add a tonne of extra effort into a whole load of consultants going out and assessing things.

We need to make sure that that's streamlined as possible. So it's incremental in that sense. It's a seismic shift compared to where the planning policy was. So if we have a look at, let's say, that area of scrub that might be supporting those reptiles that I was finding and the rough grassland that they might like, previously, those would not be considered within planning at all.

They would not meet the threshold for an important habitat, and they would just be put to one side. Not significant impacts. Job done. We can get rid of them without a problem. Not only that, but if you look at all of the previous compensation agreements that we might have got for the higher quality habitats, you might get to a ratio of one hectare lost to two hectares put back.

What we see in biodiversity net gain is all habitats are taken into consideration, from arable land to the most beautiful chalk grassland. And that the ratio of loss to gain for the higher quality habitats is much higher than that. And there's reasons for that within how it's calculated and so on. But it's to address the risks of creating it. We need to be absolutely certain that we're creating that 10% net gain.

So if there's a chance that some of our woodland won't be the beautiful woodland we're aiming for, we actually need to create a bit more to buffer that, and that's built into the metric and the way this is assessed. So it's a seismic shift in that sense. But is it enough? Is it doing everything we need it to do? No, of course not. It's a really good step forward, but it's not the final step. 

Jen: I've got so many questions I need to work out which order to get them out in, because one of my thoughts was if you restore, if you add 10% onto a system, how much do ecosystems look after themselves? If you support 10%, how likely is it, you know, given that you have to demonstrate a minimum, how likely is it that we could actually – I'm very reluctant to use the word “overdeliver” because it's not overdelivering at all – but do you see what I mean? How much of this could also be supported by nature itself eventually?

Tom: I want to answer that question in two pieces. One is, what happens if we overdeliver? Well, if we overdeliver and we say we're going to create a medium-quality grassland, but we actually create something that's beautiful, at the end of that 30-year agreement, you can sell the additional stuff that you've created, the additional gains you've created.

So coming back to Matt's question I didn't quite answer earlier, at the end of that 30 years, you could end up setting up another 30 year agreement, selling the additional units you've already created and then managing that for another 30 years. You know, fantastic outcome. And then what do we do at the end of that 30 years?

Well, by then, hopefully we've restored a load of nature and it can start looking after itself. I think it's really important to understand that we humans have been working, living, affecting, shaping nature for a very long time. And that there are no ecosystems in the world that don't have that impact and that relationship. That is not always negative.

There's plenty of examples of it being incredibly positive. The first people to go into the Amazon from the West went in and said, “Oh my goodness, how come these bananas were all growing in groves? What an odd setup”. What was actually happening was that the indigenous peoples were purposefully planting them and creating these plantations of bananas.

We thought it was a natural way that bananas grew. It's not at all. This is all too evident in the UK as well. Our most beautiful habitats – our chalk grasslands, our woodlands – are as diverse as they are because of the relationship with people. And so when we say “nature look after itself”. We need to come back to that definition of biodiversity and recognise that we are part of that.

Matt: Yeah, that's really interesting, Tom. With my Business School hat on, I'm gonna take a slight diversion back into markets and credits and all that um, what can be quite boring, but actually is the, the, you know, the, the cogs and grease that sort of makes this machine work.

Tom: Yep.

Matt: So many of our listeners will be familiar with carbon credits, but here under Biodiversity Net Gain, we're talking biodiversity credits.

Tom: Mm-hmm.

Matt: So I wondered if you could just give us a bit of an explainer on, on what these are, and how they relate to the types of projects we were talking, where these adjustments, these, these biodiversity uplifts may be happening off-site – in the local area, but, but elsewhere. So, and I know there's also statutory biodiversity credit, so I'll hand over to you to try and do justice to this pretty complex and murky landscape.

Tom: I think the first point, Matt, is it is a complex murky landscape, because it's still evolving, it's still developing. So the whole work around biodiversity credits is very young. Within the UK, and particularly within England, we have a standardised way of measuring change for biodiversity under Biodiversity Net Gain.

It's a standardised toolkit, a spreadsheet that you can fill the data in based on habitats and their quality. And that gives you a biodiversity unit score. And when you then sell those units, you can talk about them as credits. Now that means that what you can do as a landowner is create a beautiful piece of habitat, measure the habitat that there at the beginning, assess that – do an ecological assessment on that – measure the change that you are delivering by looking after it so it becomes a nice piece of chalk grassland, or planting up trees to create a beautiful woodland.

The change that's assessed there, from the starting, poor-quality grassland to the beautiful woodland, will give you a number of units using this calculator, this spreadsheet that DEFRA have produced. Those units can then be sold on the market as biodiversity credits, as biodiversity units, to the developers that are looking for that compensation for that work, to offset the impact they're having on a woodland.

Matt: And, and these would be in within the same local area. 

Tom: Absolutely. So that all applies to the same rules that we've talked about.

Matt: Yeah. 

Tom: “Like-for-like or better” is the terminology we use around the habitat. So if you're losing a woodland, you put back a woodland. It's got to be ideally in the local area. If it's not in the local area, you have to deliver significantly more to compensate for the fact that you are moving further afield.

So that's what's happening within England. Globally, there's a separate discussion about biodiversity credits, and that's under something called the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits. They produced a report back in November that you can have a look at online, and it's actually quite straightforward.

Tom: It's a really good summary of some of the international thinking on biodiversity credits, and we need to separate that from what's happening in England, which is one little bubble of this. But internationally, we're not saying you have to measure it with one tool. It's not saying that you have to use a, a habitat metric that the government have produced, but it is saying that we need to think about how we trade in biodiversity credits and learn from what's happened in the carbon world.

And that means that, at the moment, we are not advocating for global markets in biodiversity credits. What that paper sets out is that actually they should be local, they should be country level, and follow some of the rules that we've been talking about already. So it's more like the housing market than like some global carbon market.

Jen: There must be then an interaction, or is there an interaction between biodiversity credits, carbon credits? Could I, as a landowner, implement change on my land that allows me to benefit from both? 

Tom: Well, let's be clear. We already have systems where, let's say we've got a meadow that's species-rich, and we are already able to sell the hay from that and the lamb and the wool.

So we already have systems where we sell multiple things from the same piece of land, from the same actions. What’s set out in the approaches at the moment is that we need to be absolutely transparent about what we're going to sell from that land at the outset. So yes, you could get carbon credits and biodiversity credits and potentially water quality credits, as well as selling the lamb and the hay and the so on, but you need to be really clear about that upfront.

So when you sell the biodiversity credits, you need to have communicated what you're gonna sell, how you're measuring it, so that it's clear what the organisation buying those credits is getting.

Jen: So I've got lots of additional questions, Tom, but I'm gonna bring it back to what this means for our listeners and what this means for communities. So how might this change things for people? What might look or be or feel different going forward within local communities because of these policies? 

Tom: Well, ideally, what we aim for is for all of our developments to recognise that the biodiversity, that nature is part of the infrastructure we need. Part of the infrastructure for our flood risk management, part of the infrastructure for the cooling of our cities, but also critical for our health and wellbeing. So rather than just thinking about an infrastructure plan that talks about roads and energy, we really need to think about an infrastructure plan from a nature perspective as well. And then what does that mean for an individual living in these spaces? Well, I hope it means that they're living in a space that they love, that it's vibrant, full of wildlife, and that they're able to actually interact with that wildlife in and and around their home.

There's some lovely examples, pre Biodiversity Net Gain, of greening spaces in the city. Using what previously had been the spraying license for pesticides and so on, and the cutting requirements, using the money for that to actually re-green parts of the city. Now, the people that were doing that got some of the largest number of complaints from the local community to start with than they'd ever had.

But after a little while of working with the community to shape that, to allow the community to shape what's coming through and what's being created, I've now seen those same people in that local community standing up and saying, “I love my local space”. And this is really critical, because there's a risk here that nature becomes something that the rich can afford. And it's really, really important that this isn't another divide between the wealthy and the less wealthy.

It's got to be something for everybody. And the examples I'm talking about are poor estates in London. You know, we cannot, we must not deprive Tower Hamlets of green space and put an offset in the Chilterns. That is not what this policy is about. It's about creating local, vibrant green spaces for everybody.

Matt: Tom, my understanding is that BNG has been in action for a little while now. Uh, my research has pulled back a few cases of properties, developments that have, have now come, come to the fore through this new policy landscape. I just wondered if you could finish maybe on some lessons, some reflections on where you think BNG is is working well.

Where it's maybe worked even better than you, you might have imagined. And also where it's maybe not worked as well and there might be some unintended consequences. Because policy is obviously an evolving thing – tThis policy will be implemented now on, on the understanding there's a 30-year legal agreement.

The likelihood is the policy is gonna evolve many, many, many, many times and many iterations between now and then. So we should always be receptive to these lessons. What are they in your view so far? Or is it too early to say? 

Tom: Well, it's only a year since it's been a legal requirement in England, so it is quite early. You know, it's a toddler, just – just walking. But the real boon from Biodiversity Net Gain, the first real boon, is avoiding those high quality sites, and that never gets into the press. It doesn't get into the research and so on, because it's behind the doors of the developer going and looking at a site, working out that they're not gonna buy it in the first place.

They're not going to go out and publicly say, “Oh, by the way, we were going to destroy this local wildlife site, but now we're not”. So that doesn't get any press, but it's really critical and it's happening, and I see it happening everywhere. So that's the first win.

The downside, or one of the downsides at the moment is that we don't have the market running for the biodiversity offsets locally. So once you get through that mitigation hierarchy of avoiding, minimising, and so on, and the last step, you can't do anything on-site, the last step is to put something nearby. We don't have that market set up. That's a real problem for the smaller developers when they're looking for a small amount of woodland restoration to get the 0.5 of a biodiversity unit that they need.

There is an absolute potential for new approaches there. Whether it be a government levy that allows those small developers to step through this process and then demonstrate that they've done everything they can on-site and pay for something locally, or whether it's actually allowing the market to grow and private organisations, NGOs and others to provide that opportunity.

At the moment, we've got a real stumbling block there and we need to get past that. So that we can allow developments of all scales to actually deliver positive outcomes for people and nature. 

Matt: Thank you, Tom. Well listen, I know Jen and I could talk about this at length and we'll hope to have you back on again, uh, maybe once the policy's matured from a toddler to a, uh, you know, moody teenager and we'll see where, where we've got to then. But thank you for your insights. It's really, really, uh, insightful and, and uplifting. So thank you very much. 

Jen: Yeah. Generated many, many questions, but also I feel like I've had a real light bulb moment, Tom, when you talked about biodiversity as infrastructure. That's a way of framing it and phrasing it that I know will be different to many of our listeners as well. I feel like I had a bit of a shift in my brain at that moment and I'm very, yeah, very thankful for, for turning on that light bulb in my head.

Tom: Well, real pleasure to be here and thank you so much. 

Jen: That was fascinating. 

Matt: Yeah. Lots to digest. I've got reams of notes here. What were your big takeaways then, Jen? 

Jen: I mean, I have so many other questions I'd love to explore with Tom, but I suppose one thing for me is that realisation, it's this one policy that sits amongst a nest of other policies as well. So this isn't the be all and end all. And I know that Tom didn't really touch on that, particularly, but what he did instil for sure was how we, our development, the things we do are in partnership, are part of nature.

Matt: Mm-hmm.

Jen: We’re not separate. That nature and biodiversity is part of infrastructure and that kind of – you know, we delve in this all the time, Matt –the systems of systems, that we're part of that system and that to some extent also likely explains why we feel happy and content in areas that are more biodiverse. I have to say though, given our very low baseline, I do feel slightly discontented about the, just the 10% uplift. It's like because we've destroyed our habitats so much that we have an an easier ride. Um, and I did have questions around some of the power imbalances and justice issues, but Tom tackled that.

Matt: Yeah.

Jen: Right at the very end of our discussion. So lots to digest. How about, how about you? 

Matt: Yeah, a lot. A lot. So, I mean, I guess on the injustices, again, it goes back to the carbon credit discussions we've, we've had in the past. If, for those, wanting a bit of background on this, just go to Local Zero episodes and look for “carbon offsetting", “communities” because…

Jen: And “land”, “land ownership”.

Matt: Land. It’s all, yeah, it’s all the land reformers, um, all the, the, the experts on this that have been probably screaming into their radios saying, "Yeah, but the folk with the land, you know, are going to potentially benefit from, from these uplifts in terms of the, the provision of those credits”.

Okay, fine. Let's, I, I don't disagree with those points, but I think that they deserve further scrutiny, because I, I think it sounds to me like the biodiversity market, well, I know the biodiversity credit market is coming after the carbon credit market, and you'd hope some of the lessons will be learned.

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: Also, in the context of England's interpretation, as Tom says, of Biodiversity Net Gain, there is a very strong local dimension there. Now that that isn't the case in the, in the carbon credit market – that you know, I could potentially be buying credits from somewhere entirely different to, to offset my, 

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: My, uh, emissions here. So that local dimension's really exciting. I think what's really interesting is just to see how these international accords, uh, and agreements…

Jen: Yeah.

Matt: And panels, all these kind of stuff that you and I are vaguely aware of, but most folk day-to-day won't be aware of. They actually lead to things. You know, things happen on the back of this.

Jen: Yeah, yes.

Matt: And this is, you know, and they're all slow burn and they're good news stories. There's been a panel of experts have talked long and hard about this and there's been political buy-in and eventually, eventually, something good has happened. And I, I think it's just a shame that this kind of good news story isn't carried as much as it as it could be in, in, yeah, I don't wanna use the sort-of Trumpism of “mainstream media”, but you know what I'm saying. There's a good news story somewhere here. Why? Why aren't we more aware of it?

Jen: And the fact this is so new. I had a lot of, a lot of feelings during that conversation because I'm so passionate about nature and biodiversity. I do find some of those stats incredibly, you know, hurtful, and it's almost like why has it not happened earlier, particularly when the climate crisis and biodiversity crisis go hand-in-hand?

And I think there's something interesting there as well around the fact that I know, anecdotally, friends and family members who really struggle to be motivated on climate action around climate change for climate's sake. The things that motivate them is plants and animals.

Matt: Mm-hmm.

Jen: If climate action involves protecting species, and stopping species decline, then they're on board. If it's about stopping carbon emissions, they're just not so interested. So I also think this is, we've been maybe missing a trick in not acting on this sooner because of the climate benefits it brings. 

Matt: And isn't that because biodiversity is so much more tangible? I yeah, we could go into a whole ‘nother episode on this, but there's, there's a whole point here. I think that, you know, a carbon emission, a molecule of CO2, is not something that you can kind of hold in your hand, but a butterfly or a newt, or one of Tom's, welly frogs is very much, is very much one of these things.

Jen: Toads!

Matt: Um, so, so, yes. And I don't see them as divisible. Because I think if you've got a healthy biome and a biodiverse landscape, you are locking up carbon as, as you very much said so, yeah, I think we are missing a trick. Why aren't we talking about Biodiversity Net Gain and, and carbon, um, net zero, you know, in the same sentence? So listen, uh, we we're already stacking up the next episodes.

Jen: Yep. Much more to talk about on this topic. So yeah, for the listeners who are really motivated by that, let us know and let us know what other aspects of this topic you'd be keen for us to delve into. 

Matt: A hundred percent. 

Jen: So thanks, as always, for listening to Local Zero.

Matt: Yes. And if you'd like what we do, we'd love you to help us spread the word. Do you know someone who'd be interested in this episode or another? Well, please send it on to them and let them have a listen. 

Jen: If you listen to Local Zero on Apple Podcasts, please leave a review, and if you listen on Spotify, you can leave a comment with anything you want to share, questions or suggestions.

Matt: Yeah, and we are always keen to hear from you, our listeners. Is there a subject, an initiative, or a question you think we should be covering on the pod? Well, if you think so, get in touch at localzeropod@gmail.com. Find us over on LinkedIn. 

Jen: We'll see you next time. 

Matt: See you then. Bye-bye.