PUBLIC INQUIRY DOCUMENT

Transcription

1 REFERENCE NO. : ID/220 PUBLIC INQUIRY DOCUMENT RAISED BY: Mathew Jones DATE: 06/03/18 RESPONDED BY: DATE: SUBJECT: New correspondence from James Byrne on behalf of Gwent Wildlife Trust (OBJ0270) Please find attached an dated 06/03/2018 from James Byrne and a note from Adam Dutton of RSPB submitted on behalf of Gwent Wildlife trust. Welsh Government have responded to this with rebuttal WG/REB/OBJ0270 GWT/RSPB, also attached to this ID. A copy of this document has been sent to James Byrne, Ian Rappell, Charley Pattison, Annie Smith and Adam Dutton

2 Annwen Laskey Subject: Attachments: Importance: GWT 7th March - M4 Public Inquiry RSPB Advice to GWT Economic review - M4 ES Assessment.pdf High From: James Byrne [mailto:jbyrne@wtwales.org] Sent: 06 March :50 To: Joanna Vincent <joannavincent@personaassociates.co.uk>; Brenda Taplin <btaplin@personaassociates.co.uk> Cc: Charley Pattison (cjp@qs c.co.uk) <cjp@qs c.co.uk>; Annie Smith (RSPB) (annie.smith@rspb.org.uk) <annie.smith@rspb.org.uk>; irappel@gwentwildlife.org Subject: GWT 7th March M4 Public Inquiry Dear Joanna and Brenda Our barrister, Charley Pattison, has become available for tomorrow and will be cross examining. Also, I have been given permission by RSPB to submit the attached, it is a 2 page note by RSPBs economist on the Welsh Gov Ecosystem Assessment to assist GWT with their evidence. Yours James James Byrne BSc, MSc, CEnv, MCIEEM Living Landscapes Manager / Rheolwr Eiriolaeth Tirwedd Byw Wildlife Trusts Wales/ Ymddiriedolaeth Natur Cymru Tel/Ffôn: Disclaimer: The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Wildlife Trusts Wales. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message immediately, you should not copy, use or distribute this message for any other purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its contents to any other person. Wildlife Trusts Wales is a company registered in England and Wales under Company Number and a Registered Charity Number with registered offices at 376 High Street, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL571YE. 1

3 Economic review of the : Ecosystem Services Assessment RSPB s economists consider the results of the : Ecosystem Services Assessment to be unreliable due to: A lack of consideration of uncertainty and risk exemplified by: o A lack of any sensitivity analysis. o No risk of failure associated with the habitat reconstruction or its long term preservation. Questionable policy assumptions particularly with respect to: o Welsh government commitments to meet environmental obligations. o The long term protection of the newly created, undesignated, habitat. Uncertainty and Risk Value Transfer Value transfer based ecosystem services assessments commonly lack detailed data and require a range of policy assumptions to be made. In response the official DEFRA methodology 1 includes a Sensitivity Analysis in stage 7 2. A sensitivity analysis would typically involve using different available economic values, policy assumptions or moving across the statistical range of some values in place of the values used in the central assessment. It is only through a sensitivity analysis that a desk based assessment such as this can transparently reflect both its own inaccuracy for the readers as well as the range of alternative possible outcomes. Without a sensitivity analysis this method is open to manipulation and misrepresentation with an assessor choosing a set of values and assumptions to best represent the will of the funder rather than the more accurate range of possible outcomes. It is a serious methodological failing which fundamentally undermines an assessment such as this. Biodiversity Offsetting Within the central assessment itself there are a range of outcomes which carry risk that is not properly considered. Most concerning is the implicit 3 assumption that the projects to rebuild habitat to offset losses will all be successful (section 5.2). Biodiversity Offsetting. Biodiversity offsets carry delivery and spatial risks. Delivery risks concern the ability of the provider to rebuild the kind of habitat required. Delivery risks include both risks of the competence or resourcing of the provider as well as unforeseen risks preventing successful completion of the habitat creation. Spatial risks consider the risk that the biodiversity value of the new habitat in that location will be of lower value given on site and wider landscape issues 4. The Ecosystem Assessment implicitly assumes that the habitats will be of equal (or in fact higher) biodiversity value than the existing site and will be delivered on time and budget. It is vital that a probability is assigned to the delivery of those habitats to weight its benefits. Such a probability could possibly be taken from existing multiplier metrics for biodiversity offsetting projects. That probability could then be altered in the sensitivity analysis. 1 referenced in the report on page implicit since there is no mention of potential failure. 4

4 Policy Assumptions Existing Habitat Quality The economic valuation does not include any weighting for the quality of habitat. In that respect their assumption that the poor quality of water courses and SSSIs (section 3.6.1) on the existing site does not affect the overall assessment. However it is worth stating that if this were the case it would mean that the Welsh government is explicitly stating that it would have no intention of meeting its statutory obligations to water quality and biodiversity. In that respect it is an assumption which should, as a minimum, be softened and the alternative covered in a sensitivity analysis. The Welsh government might also consider whether it is comfortable with this assertion. New Habitat Protection In addition to the concern that the new habitat creation projects may fail there consideration should be given to the fact that the new sites will not be protected by any designation. The assessment capitalises the benefits of the site over 100 years (section 7.1.4). It is over that timescale that the authors argue that the loss of habitat now will be outweighed by the creation of habitat in the future. However in this developed part of south Wales the assumption that no development would happen on low value unprotected land over a period of 90 years (given a 10 year development) is ambitious. The authors should consider the possibility that the unprotected habitat could be lost to another future development just as the currently protected habitat would be lost. For further information contact: Dr Adam Dutton D adamdutton@rspb.org.uk For further information contact:

5 Adran yr Economi a r Seilwaith Department for Economy and Infrastructure Objection Ref OBJ0270 File Ref WG/REB/OBJ0270 GWT/RSPB Response to Objector s Evidence: RSPB Adam Dutton March 2018 Page 1

6 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION 1.1. Details Dr Adam Dutton has submitted a Written Statement on behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) undated, though received on 6 th March in relation to the Welsh Government s Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA) for the. This is in addition to two submissions from GWT (from Professor Edward Maltby and James Byrne) on the ESA, also in March 2018; these are addressed in separate rebuttals. The Welsh Government understands the evidence submitted within Dr Dutton s Written Statement to be based on the following: 1. Concerns that a sensitivity analysis was not carried out on the monetary calculations; 2. Concerns about a lack of consideration of the risk of failure associated with the habitat reconstruction; and 3. Concerns about the Welsh Government s commitments to meet environmental obligations, including regarding the long-term protection of the newly-created, undesignated habitat. March 2018 Page 2

7 REBUTTAL 2.1. Points Raised The above points are dealt with by the relevant witness in the following sections. For ease of reference the places where the above points are addressed in this Rebuttal are listed in the table below: Objector s point reference 2.2. Steve Bussell (Economics) Rebuttal paragraph reference Response to Point 1 (Concerns that a sensitivity analysis was not carried out on the monetary calculations); 1. With regards to sensitivity analysis, Dr Dutton states the following: Sensitivity analysis would typically involve using different available economic values, policy assumptions or moving across the statistical range of some values in place of the values used in the central assessment. It is only through a sensitivity analysis that a desk-based assessment such as this can transparently reflect both its own inaccuracy for the readers as well as the range of alternative possible outcomes. Without a sensitivity analysis this method is open to manipulation and misrepresentation with an assessor choosing a set of values and assumptions to best represent the will of the funder rather than the more accurate range of possible outcomes. It is a serious methodological failing which fundamentally undermines an assessment such as this. 2. The authors of the Ecosystem Services Assessment have provided their best estimate of the ecosystem services impact based on the available evidence. The analysis has been transparent in setting out the values that have been used and the assumptions employed. Whilst there may indeed be a range of possible outcomes, it should be borne in mind that any sensitivity testing exercise would result in both higher and lower levels of impact; however, both GWT and RSPB appear only to consider that sensitivity testing will go in one direction. March 2018 Page 3

8 3. By extension, GWT s assessment that the Gwent Levels offers 67m of ecosystem services benefits may be higher or lower than quoted. It is not explained why this is not open to manipulation and misrepresentation as has been suggested of the Welsh Government s analysis. 4. Crucially the exercise that has been undertaken shows that the quantifiable impacts are very small in magnitude. This is the key outcome of the analysis and in this context sensitivity tests are of limited usefulness I confirm that the statement of truth and professional obligations to the inquiry from my main proof still applies Jon Davies (Ecology/Ecosystem Services) Response to Point 2 (Concerns about a lack of consideration of the risk of failure associated with the habitat reconstruction); 1. Under the heading of Biodiversity Offsetting, Dr Dutton questions the likely effectiveness of the habitat creation proposed within the ESA, stating that Most concerning is the implicit assumption that the projects to rebuild habitat to offset losses will all be successful. 2. As stated previously to the Inquiry, I do not believe that reens, ditches, woodland and species-rich grassland cannot be created, although clearly it takes time for such features to mature and assume ecosystem functions. For this reason, the calculations within the monetisation section of the ESA have specifically delayed the benefits that would accrue from the creation of these new habitats, so that they are not overstating the benefits. The delay has been measured at 5 years for grasslands, 8 years for wetlands and 35 years for woodlands. 3. Whilst I clearly recognise that habitat restoration can often be ineffective, it is important to note that this largely relates to habitats that are indeed very difficult, if not impossible, to recreate, such as unimproved grassland and ancient woodland (i.e. habitats that have taken many decades, or even longer, to develop). Whilst small areas of these habitats would be lost, the majority of the land under the footprint of the Scheme comprises highly modified man-made habitats, such as improved grassland, landscape planting and regularly-maintained drainage features. March 2018 Page 4

9 4. Therefore, the majority of the habitat due to be re-created as mitigation for the Scheme comprises reens and ditches, species-rich grassland and woodland, none of which are as complex to recreate. Furthermore, the ecosystem function of these habitats (e.g. the biodiversity and water flow/water quality regulation function of the reens and ditches, the pollination and aesthetic biodiversity function of the grasslands, and the biodiversity and recreational function of the woodlands) should also readily establish once the habitat is created. 5. Dr Dutton also notes that Delivery risks include both risks of the competence or resourcing of the provider as well as unforeseen risks preventing successful completion of the habitat creation and that It is vital that a probability is assigned to the delivery of those habitats to weight its benefits.. Notwithstanding that the habitats to be created are not particularly novel or challenging to create, the ESA does acknowledge that the outcome is not certain: The delivery and success of these benefits will be determined by the detailed Scheme design, implementation and subsequent management of the mitigation set out within the Environmental Statement, and in particular the three SSSI Mitigation Areas and additional woodland areas (including soils and coppice stools translocation). It is therefore vital that these mitigation designs and management proposals are evolved with all the relevant stakeholders to ensure that the ecosystem services benefits outlined in this report are optimised. This could include mapping ecosystem services benefits to stakeholders to contribute to the potential success of the mitigation areas. 6. I therefore recognise that successful habitat creation is not certain, but believe that the combination of the relative ease of establishment and the above commitments to careful design, consultation, implementation and monitoring means that success is highly likely. 7. Dr Dutton also suggests that The Ecosystem Assessment implicitly assumes that the habitats will be of equal (or in fact higher) biodiversity value than the existing site but the ESA does not say this. The reason that we believe there will be a net gain for biodiversity is largely related to the scale of the mitigation relative to the habitat loss, and to the relatively low nature conservation value of much of the habitat that is being offset. March 2018 Page 5

10 This is an overall summary assessment across the project; where small areas of unimproved grassland or ancient woodland are to be lost, clearly any replacement species-rich grassland or new woodland planting will not be of the same value, probably even after several decades. However, I believe that the very extensive total amount of new grassland, wetland and woodland (including not only within the landscape areas but also the Water Treatment Areas, SSSI Mitigation Areas and the woodland at Coed Mawr) will, over time, lead to a net increase in the total area of valuable biodiverse habitat. Response to Point 3 (Concerns about the Welsh Government s commitments to meet environmental obligations, including regarding the long-term protection of the newly-created, undesignated habitat); 1. Dr Dutton suggests that, by assuming a future baseline in which the condition of the SSSI qualifying features continues to decline the Welsh government is explicitly stating that it would have no intention of meeting its statutory obligations to water quality and biodiversity. 2. However, assuming this as the future baseline does not represent an acceptance that an ongoing decline is inevitable, rather that the conservation status of the SSSIs is significantly affected by land use across the whole area, and that this is unlikely to change so dramatically that the long-term decline (especially in the status of the reens) will be substantively reversed. Clearly, I would hope that the trend over the last 30 years towards intensive farming of the Levels, which has led to the eutrophication of many of the reens, will be reversed in time, but realistically this would require a fundamental shift in farming practices. 3. I certainly hope that the Living Levels project is successful in restoring large parts of the Levels to help contribute to a reversal, and proposals within that project regarding training and volunteering opportunities, habitat restoration, cultural benefits and tourism should certainly have significant beneficial effects on the ecosystem services of the Levels in the future, as well as on the status of the SSSIs. Indeed, I consider that the very extensive habitat restoration work proposed for the three SSSI Mitigation Strategy areas will also contribute substantially towards the aim of improving the status of the SSSIs. March 2018 Page 6

11 4. Finally, Dr Dutton is also concerned that because the newly-created habitats will not be designated they will be vulnerable to future development pressure, thus invalidating the monetisation exercise (which assumes long-term establishment and success). Firstly, it should be noted that the proposed works at Tatton Farm and Maerdy Farm will involve significantly enhancing habitat already protected within the Gwent Levels SSSIs designation; these new habitats will therefore be protected from future development by the national status of the SSSI designation. 5. Similarly, the intention is that the Mitigation Area at Caldicot Moor, which is currently outside the SSSI boundary, will be included within the Magor & Undy SSSI in due course and would thus also receive this added protection. Furthermore, the proposed woodland mitigation works at Coed Mawr would also be protected by policy, as this woodland is listed within the Ancient Woodland Inventory and is to be managed as broadleaved woodland in perpetuity by NRW. 6. However, notwithstanding whether or not the mitigation areas will be included within areas protected by national nature conservation policy, it should be emphasized that the Welsh Government is making a long-term commitment to the protection, and indeed nature conservation management, of all of the newly-created habitats within the Scheme. Therefore, even those habitats within the operational Scheme footprint that are not designated in any other way (e.g. the new woodland planting, species-rich grassland and Water Treatment Areas) will be afforded long term protection. Indeed, they will also be subject to long-term management and maintenance plans to ensure that their nature conservation value is maintained and enhanced. 7. In addition, Welsh Government, through two binding environmental commitments, are providing Natural Resources Wales with the opportunity and means to obtain additional funding to fulfil its internal drainage district function and its statutory responsibilities directly associated with the scheme. I confirm that the statement of truth and professional obligations to the inquiry from my main proof still applies March 2018 Page 7