Biodiversity Offsetting A general guide
|
|
- Emmeline McKenzie
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Biodiversity Offsetting A general guide
2 CONTENTS THE VALUE OF NATURE 3 WHY IS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING NEEDED? 3 WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING? 4 Sustainable development 4 Offsetting principles 5 Offsetting metrics 8 WHERE MIGHT BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING WORK? 9 Development sites 9 Receptor sites 11 HOW DOES BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING ACTUALLY WORK 12 NEXT STEPS 14 For Local Planning Authorities and Developers 14 For landowners site registration
3 THE VALUE OF NATURE Our wealth as a nation and our individual well-being depend critically upon the environment. It provides us with the food, water and air that are essential for life and with the minerals and raw materials for our industry and consumption. Less obviously, it provides the processes that purify air and water and which sequester or break down wastes. It is also in our environment where we find recreation, health and solace, and in which our culture finds it roots and sense of place. With ever increasing pressures on these natural resources, partly from growing populations but still more from growing levels of individual consumption, it is essential that we learn to take account of the full value of ecosystem services in our decision making. Foreword to UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC WHY IS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING NEEDED? Our native wildlife (our biodiversity ) has been in serious decline for the last 50 years, especially following the intensification of agriculture since the 1970s. England has lost nearly 500 species of animal and plant over the past 200 years, and extinctions are occurring in every group birds, butterflies, bees and flowering plants. Even when species are avoiding extinction, there are widespread reductions in range and abundance of plants and animals. It is estimated that an average English county is losing two species of wild flower every year. Tales of abundance from our historical past (when corncrakes were so numerous in rural England that their calls kept farmworkers a w a k e at night), or within living memory (when squashed insects blackened the car windscreen after a summer evening drive), seem fanciful to today s naturalists. It is an unpalatable truth, therefore, that the four cornerstones of nature conservation in England our protected areas, agrienvironment funding, biodiversity action planning and delivery by professional conservationists, and planning controls on development are failing in their overall purpose. Protected areas are now, after 60 years of legislative evolution, well-protected and financed but are too small to make a difference even with much of the uplands and several huge estuaries designated, they cover only 7% of England. Agri-environment funding is thinly spread and despite the best efforts of farmers the management it delivers struggles to produce real benefits in an intensively farmed landscape. The national Biodiversity Action Plan system has sometimes developed, against the best intentions of committed conservationists, into a bureaucratic sink for conservation funding. Finally, proenvironmental planning obligations are difficult and time-consuming to enforce, Local Planning Authority resources are increasingly stretched and, in any case, 3 3
4 the planning system does not currently recognise (let alone compensate for) the wildlife value of much of our undesignated land. Is there a better way forward? Biodiversity offsetting is a new way of recognizing and quantifying the environmental impact of development, and turning that recognition into extra investment for habitat creation; it is a mechanism that has huge potential to improve the planning system, complement agri-environment schemes, and provide funding to create habitat that buffers and connects protected areas. Biodiversity offsetting was announced as a new policy in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, alongside Nature Improvement Areas and the National Planning Policy Framework. Financing habitat creation through offsetting is widely recognized as a powerful option for Nature Improvement Areas. Similarly, offsetting provides a transparent and accountable mechanism for delivering biodiversity gain through planning that is the key component of sustainable development required of Planning Authorities and developers by the National Planning Policy Framework. The national policy was given direct support by Defra and Natural England with the announcement of six national biodiversity offsetting pilots in England, which run from April 2012 to April Within these pilots Local Planning Authorities will trial offsetting, with support from Natural England. The Environment Bank is a lead partner with Essex County Council in the Essex offsetting pilot. Offsetting is, however, not restricted to the six national pilots there are several other complementary schemes running with Defra support and indeed any Local Planning Authority is free to try offsetting at any time, irrespective of their location. Biodiversity offsetting is also being actively discussed in Scotland and Wales, and is specifically referenced in the draft Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING? Sustainable development Biodiversity offsets are conservation activities designed to deliver biodiversity benefits in one place, to compensate for losses in another, in a measurable way (Fig 1). They transform the existing situation, where there is biodiversity loss, into one where there is overall biodiversity gain. For example, a housing development that partially destroys an area of grassland in one place could provide compensation by paying for the Figure 1. Through offsetting, development of arable land delivers not only a housing scheme but also habitat creation and long-term management at a separate site 4 4
5 creation of a new area of grassland somewhere else. Although compensation of this sort through the planning system has been happening for some time, biodiversity offsets are distinguished by the requirement for measurable and transparent outcomes: the losses resulting from the impact of the development and the gains achieved through an offset are measured in the same way. If a developer and Local Planning Authority recognize that a development, despite implementation of all the usual on-site mitigation measures, still has some net residual impact on the environment, then the developer may purchase conservation credits that offset this damage. The monies paid to buy the conservation credits are then used to fund long-term environmental management, which delivers biodiversity gain at receptor sites elsewhere. sites. The Environment Bank recognizes these concerns but offsetting is tried and tested around the world and there are extensive guidelines and principles to determine how it should best operate in England. Biodiversity offsetting has been used for 30 years across the world, particularly in the USA and, over the last decade, in Australia. In that time not all of the offsetting schemes have worked, which has meant there is a great deal of experience to learn from. Internationally, this experience has been collated, analysed and summarized by BBOP (Business & Biodiversity Offsetting Programme) a consortium of environmental NGOs, businesses and statutory authorities with experience of The aim of biodiversity offsetting is to produce real environmental gain; offsetting will allow development that delivers houses and jobs to proceed, whilst ensuring that the environmental impact of that development is recognized and compensated for with large-scale and long-term habitat creation; this will be truly sustainable development development that delivers both ecological and economic recovery for England. Offsetting principles Offsetting is a new idea and some believe it could be a licence to trash for developers who will be able to damage sensitive wildlife Fig 2 Business & Biodiversity Offsets Programme international guiding principles for offsetting. 5 5
6 Starting with the international principles, Defra consulted widely to formulate national principles specifically to accompany the launch in April 2012 of offsetting pilots in England. These may be summarized as: 1. Offsetting will not change existing levels of protection for biodiversity. 2. Offsetting must deliver real benefits for biodiversity by: expanding and restoring habitats, not just protecting them enhancing England s ecological network by creating more, bigger, better and joined areas for biodiversity providing additionality to existing conservation actions creating habitat in perpetuity following the mitigation hierarchy 3. Offsetting is to be managed at a local level as far as possible: within national priorities for managing England s biodiversity within a standard framework to provide consistency through local partnerships at a level that makes sense spatially with national support and guidance to build capacity. 4. The system should be as simple and straightforward as possible. 5. The process should be transparent, so that there is clarity in how the offset calculations are derived and how offset resources are being used. 6. Offsetting needs to be good value for money. biodiversity offsetting. BBOP has published 10 international guiding principles for offsetting; (Fig 2) if these are followed rigorously then biodiversity gain and hence truly sustainable development is assured. These principles expand on the mitigation hierarchy and what can and can t be offset, require no net loss (and preferably net gain) of biodiversity, additionality at offset sites, stakeholder participation and equity, long term outcomes, transparency and accountability in calculations and delivery, and best use of science and local knowledge. The Environment Bank is a member of the BBOP family and sits on the BBOP Advisory Committee. The Environment Bank is fully supportive of all of these offsetting principles, recognizing that three of them are key for guaranteeing success in the UK. Firstly, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Local Planning Authorities are accustomed to following the mitigation hierarchy when considering potential e n v i r o n m e n t a l d a m a g e f r o m development. Initially, any potential damage must be avoided if at all possible; if it cannot be avoided then it must be reduced ( mitigated ) as much as possible. If damage remains after avoidance and mitigation, then it must be compensated for as much as possible on-site (although this must be done with rigour, on-site compensation has, to date, often been expensive and ineffective). Only after avoidance, mitigation and on-site compensation, can any residual environmental damage be considered for compensation off -site through biodiversity offsetting. Figure 3 6 6
7 summarises pictorially the chronology of offsetting the aim is to use off-site environmental gain to tip the balance from overall net residual loss to overall net environmental gain, turning every development from one that might cause damage to one that will produce gain. The second key principle is to recognise that there are limits to what can be Fig 3 Mitigation Hierarchy biodiversity offsetting should not be used to circumvent that. Furthermore, there are some habitats where offsetting is not appropriate even if they are outside a protected area habitats that are impossible to re-create ancient woodland is a good example. It is worth noting that for the most highly protected habitats and sites Natura 2000 sites that are designated under the European nature directives off-site compensation is in fact already enshrined in legislation. offset and when; this is best characterized by the rule of thumb that offsetting does not apply in situations where there is damage to a protected wildlife site (such as SSSIs). The existing legislation to protect nationally important sites is there for good reason, and In these special cases, though, the process applies only for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and must be specifically agreed by the Secretary of State. At present these matters are outside the remit of voluntary biodiversity offsetting. 7 7
8 The third key principle for England requires additionality of conservation outcome in other words, funds generated through offsetting must be used only to deliver land management that is extra to what already was, or was about to, happen. Generally, that will eliminate the spending of offsetting funds on designated protected areas, because these are already eligible for Government funding and are almost all under existing management plans. On the other hand, using biodiversity offsetting funding to buffer existing SSSIs, or increase the coherence of the SSSI network through the creation of habitat corridors or stepping stones, is likely to be a very costeffective opportunity to complement existing Government funding to isolated sites. In wider terms too offset funding should not be used to reward land managers for work that they are already paid for for instance, conservation outcomes under Higher Level Stewardship schemes via agri -environment funding. Again, however, there is nothing to stop land owners from receiving funding for schemes that deliver conservation outcomes that are additional to their agri-environment schemes, even if this applies to the same land. Strict observance of the three key principles mitigation hierarchy, limits to applicability and additionality of outcome will in practical terms ensure that offsetting delivers real environmental gain. Offsetting metrics A prerequisite to consistent offsetting is a reliable and transparent system of calculating the ecological value of both development impact and habitat creation using offset metrics. It is important t h a t offsets are c a l c u l a t e d consistently across the country, so that there is a level playing field for both buyers and sellers of conservation credits. But calculating the ecological value of a particular piece of land that is being lost is not straightforward, and nor is calculating the ecological value of a habitat creation scheme. In calculating both habitat loss and habitat creation The Environment Bank use the national metric that is recommended by Defra and which has been developed by Natural England in consultation with a range of experts this is set out fully in Technical paper: the metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England (Defra March 2012). The metric is based on an assessment of habitat type and condition. Habitat types are classified into three bands of distinctiveness which are, broadly: priority habitats as defined in the NERC Act 2006 (high), semi-natural habitats (medium) and managed habitats, such as arable farmland (low). Offsetting can only happen for like-for-like or trading up scenarios, i.e. one can offset the loss of semi-natural habitats only with the creation of priority or other semi-natural habitats, not through creating some lesser quality habitat elsewhere. Trading up 8 8
9 options allow for the loss of poor quality habitat, such as farmland, to be compensated for with the creation of a potentially smaller area of high quality habitat this can be both cost-effective and highly beneficial to wildlife. The ecological value of the habitat lost to development is a function of its distinctiveness, its condition and the area lost scores are assigned to all three variables and multiplied together to arrive at the number of units lost. To offset this loss, the same or more units ( conservation credits ) must then be delivered through habitat creation or restoration at another site which is going to be managed for wildlife (the receptor site). The number of credits delivered by the receptor sites are also a function of the type, condition and area of the habitat being created or restored. But additionally, there are a further range of multipliers applied to the creation of habitat because there are a number of risks to take account of either spatial, temporal and delivery risks. Habitats that are reliably easy and quick to create, and which are created close to the site of loss and within a local offsetting strategy all have low risk and therefore the multipliers used approach (parity) 1:1. On the other hand, receptor sites for habitats that are tricky or take a long time to restore, or are a long way from the original impact and outside the offset strategy have higher risk in these cases multipliers apply which could, in extremis, scale up to 90 times or, more normally, up to 5 times the habitat that was lost. The Defra metrics provide an excellent and critical framework to ensure a level playing field within and between different offsetting schemes. But applying the metric requires experience and ecological field skills. Firstly, this ensures consistency of application it is essential that different (perhaps neighbouring) Planning Authorities are asking for the metric to be applied consistently (for instance, in assessing what is or isn t in medium condition). Secondly, it ensures that calculations are independent and unbiased in all circumstances it would be tricky, either for a developer to assess the number of conservation credits his development would require, or for a conservation charity to assess the number of conservation credits its site would deliver. International experience illustrates that independent and consistent assessment is best delivered by an independent and experienced broker. WHERE MIGHT BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING WORK? Development sites The figure on the next page (figure 4) illustrates three scenarios where biodiversity offsetting is likely to introduce environmental gain to existing planning decisions. The first is to quantify the ecological value of land that has, to date, often been ignored especially intensively farmed arable land, intensively grazed grassland, and urban and suburban brownfield sites - land such as this has often been developed without any account being taken of ecological value but even the most intensively managed land has some ecological value. If such land is scored and assessed using offsetting metrics then the value can be offset by creating habitats elsewhere and net biodiversity gain will result. Furthermore, a history of high input fertilizer and pesticide use often means that on-site habitat creation 9 9
10 on the arable land is difficult, expensive and yields poor results there is much greater conservation gain to be had by directing those resources to existing seminatural habitats nearby. The second example is where the existing planning process has traditionally delivered some on-site mitigation via the obligations imposed under S106 agreements. Often, without the use of standardized metrics, extents of on-site loss have been underestimated, and extents of on-site gain have been overestimated. The net effect has been biodiversity loss. In many cases, in the absence of ecological estimates altogether, Planning Authorities have chosen to accept compensation for environmental damage in the form of wider benefits to the local community such as recreational space or transport infrastructure improvements. The third example is perhaps the greatest opportunity for both biodiversity gain, but requires careful calculation. This example describes the current situation where extensive on-site mitigation has been put in place, at significant expense to a cooperative developer, to meet the environmental requirements of the Planning Authority. Ponds have been built, grasslands recreated and woodland planted. The expense is great partly because the capital costs of habitat creation are high, but mainly because the land itself, with planning permission for development, is very expensive to give over to wildlife. The trouble then is threefold firstly, the land itself in its new context of part of a development site is simply not suitable for habitat restoration so even good management would struggle to maintain the wildlife interest; secondly, there is no long-term management anyway because it is expensive, and the original developer is often no longer present, and there is no long-term monitoring or compliance Figure 4 Offsetting scenarios 10 10
11 enforcement by the Local Planning Authorities; and thirdly no-one on site with responsibility for wildlife management has wildlife management as a skill or concern. In this circumstance large sums of money may be spent by developers on environmental improvement which is wasted the ponds fill up with rubbish, the grassland scrubs over and the trees are unmanaged. It is costly and there is no long-term benefit to the local community or to the environment. It would be far better for the local community and for the environment, and more cost-effective for developers (who would see an increase in developable area), if this funding were to be used, through biodiversity offsetting, to deliver long-term conservation management elsewhere, at a wildlife site that is set aside specifically for that purpose. Receptor sites Almost any land can be proposed as an offsetting receptor site there are no Government research on the planning system and offsetting Defra recently commissioned research to better understand the actual efficacy of planning policy in delivering the aims of the Government Planning Policy Statement on biodiversity (PPS9). The research (see CR042 at randd.defra.gov.uk) was conducted by independent planning experts and concluded, inter alia, that: current planning policies are failing to deliver the aims of PPS9 - for reasons that included weak biodiversity policies in Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), lack of Local Planning Authority (LPA) ecologists, biodiversity being seen as low priority by LPAs, conditions and obligations not enforced or monitored, and compensation that is infrequently required and, where it is, poorly implemented; biodiversity issues were recognised by LPAs as material considerations in less than 1% (90 of 10,235) of all types of planning application, although it was considered material in 29% of 570 'major' developments; there was poor understanding by LPAs of the differences between compensation and mitigation; and sometimes planning permission was refused in preference to negotiating complex compensation; in only 7 out of 23 major real life case-studies was no net loss achieved on site, so that biodiversity offsetting will be relevant in the majority of cases involving development and habitat loss; the Defra offsetting metric, including its use of 'multipliers', is valid and works; the additional cost of applying the metric [to developers] was lower than the additional cost of properly applying the principles of PPS9; application of the metric would have been likely to deliver more biodiversity value, in terms of more effective offsetting for development, than the compensation that would have been provided by properly applying the principles of PPS9; the biodiversity value of the offset land will be higher than the biodiversity value of the habitats lost and there is likely overall to be net benefit for biodiversity conservation
12 upper or lower barriers to the size of the site, nor to the ambition of the habitat restoration or creation project. Indeed, both modest sites delivering a few conservation credits relatively cheaply, and large ambitious sites delivering many conservation credits at significant expense, are likely to be in demand. For a site to be eligible to receive funding through biodiversity offsetting it must be able to demonstrate the intention for long -term land management that delivers reliable gain in biodiversity value. The steps to registering land as a receptor site are set out later in this guide. Land that is already receiving other conservation funding, of any sort, may not be eligible because offsetting must demonstrate additional direct benefits. The Environment Bank can answer any queries about whether your land would be eligible to receive offsetting funding. HOW DOES BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING ACTUALLY WORK? Biodiversity offsetting in England is, at present, entirely voluntary, it only operates if Local Planning Authorities choose to offer offsetting as an option for developers, if developers choose to select it as a preferred mechanism, and if receptor sites can be found that deliver the right number of conservation credits of the right habitat type in the right place at the right time for the right price. Offsetting will only work, therefore, if there are clear advantages for all three stakeholders the planners, the developers and the receptor site land managers. The voluntary process is illustrated in figure 5. Authority (LPA), finds they need to compensate for residual impacts and is advised by the LPA that offsetting is an option; the developer then chooses to explore voluntary biodiversity offsetting and they are referred to The Environment Bank (independent credit brokers). The Local Planning Authority may choose to specify the need to offset the residual environmental impact as a condition on the planning permission. The Environment Bank calculates the number of conservation credits required to offset the residual impact of the development. This is normally done using the existing analysis presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment that accompanies the planning application, although it may occasionally require a site visit. Separately, local land managers (farmers, landowners, conservation charities, etc) interested in attracting funding for conservation land management, have been registering their sites on The Environment Bank s national register (the Environmental Markets Exchange). The Environment Bank calculates the number, and type, of credits that the proposed site management will deliver. There is no A developer, after working through the normal mitigation hierarchy of the planning process with their Local Planning 12 12
13 charge for these services, nor for registering the site onto the national registry. The approximate price of the credits i.e. the price of the long-term land management, is set by the land manager, not by The Environment Bank. Thus, there is no set price for a grassland credit rather, the price at any particular site reflects the cost of delivering biodiversity gain at that site. Back with the developer s e e k i n g p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n, T h e Environment Bank then searches for a receptor site with matching credits of the right quantity, type and location. Sites may already be available on the national register or, if not, they are found using local contacts and regional and local habitat cre at ion/restorat ion priorities. Matching options will be provided to the developer with the estimated credit costs; the developer and LPA will agree on a receptor site to purchase credits from. If the developer and Local Planning Authority agree that a receptor site is suitable for offsetting, then at that stage the land manager, knowing that he has a likely buyer of his credits, will need to produce a relatively detailed long-term management plan that determines the exact Figure 5 Offsetting process costs and details the land management that he will put in place, now and in the future, to deliver the conservation credits. This will involve input from an ecologist and/or other relevant experts. Assuming the final number of credits and price is appropriate then the developer will purchase the credits from that site
14 The Environment Bank now instigates a set of legal agreements that assures the Local Planning Authority that long-term biodiversity gain will be delivered, assures the developer that he will receive conservation credits he can use to meet his planning condition in return for money, and assures the land manager that he will receive long-term funding in return for his management input. Using a Credit Offset Purchase Agreement and a Conservation Bank Agreement the Environment Bank brokers the credit purchase, formalising the obligations of the landowner, purchaser and the Environment Bank and detailing the number, type and price of credits being purchased. Once the full amount for the credit sale is received a letter of sale and Conservation Credit certificate is provided to the developer, to be presented to the relevant LPA. The LPA approves the offset and the development can proceed. The total sale amount, minus brokerage fees that cover the costs of the services, is held in a not-for-profit fund and progress payments are made annually to the landowner, as set out their Conservation Bank Agreement. At this time, implementation of the management plan, along with the associated monitoring and reporting requirements begin, so as to ensure the environmental gain will be achieved. NEXT STEPS For Local Planning Authorities and Developers The six Defra-sponsored national offsetting pilots will continue until April 2014, and will trial a variety of offsetting options, including with (as in Essex) or without use of The Environment Bank as an independent broker. Outside of these pilots, other Local Planning Authorities and developers in any part of the country may also choose to trial offsetting. The Environment Bank would be delighted to discuss offsetting, completely free of charge and at no obligation, with any Local Planning Authority or developer that would like to find out more. For landowners site registration Landowners interested in registering their property with The Environment Bank can request an expression of interest form (see contact details to follow) or visit to submit an online EOI. The type and number of conservation credits that may be created at a site will initially be estimated (and confirmed following a site visit only if the site is selected for the next stage). Registration of a site (and subsequent estimation of credit value) does not commit the landowner to any action in any way, nor does it affect the status of the land in any way
15 Environmental Markets Exchange - EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM Available for submission online at Contact details Landowner name Company name (if applicable) Do you own the freehold for this property? If not, do you have permission to enter into this scheme? Name of main contact for this registration (e.g. Land Manager/ or as above ) Contact address Contact phone number Contact Property details Property name (if applicable) Location (address of property) Size of property (specify ha/ac) Description (Please briefly describe the potential for creating or restoring natural areas for wildlife) If you already have an ecological assessment of the property/site, please attach or enclose it with your EOI. Demonstrating additionality (What will biodiversity offsetting funding achieve in terms of improvements/gain on top of any conservation actions already happening at the site?) What current land use exists on your property? (Delete YES or NO as appropriate) Are you, or have you been, involved in any environmental conservation schemes e.g. agri -environment? (If so, please list) Are you happy for us to list your property on the Environmental Markets Exchange? (Delete YES or NO below as appropriate) Agricultural land YES/NO Forestry and woodland YES/NO Grassland YES/NO Natural and semi-natural land YES/NO Water YES/NO Other - Please specify (if known): Yes (your contact details will remain hidden) No (we can still register your property without making it visible to purchasers) Optional - please attach any photos of your property that show where you are interested in land use change for nature conservation (please provide captions below). Photo 1 Caption: Photo 2 Caption: Photo 3 Caption: These details allow the Environment Bank to consider registration of your property on the Environmental Markets Exchange, but with no obligation from you to proceed further. If your property is suitable, more information may be needed to complete registration we will contact you if this is the case. 15
16 If you are interested in becoming involved in biodiversity offsetting please contact us: admin@environmentbank.com Phone:
Biodiversity Offsetting
Feature Article: Biodiversity Offsetting Biodiversity Offsetting David Hill CEnv FCIEEM Chairman, Environment Bank Arable field C Webster Background Back in 2004 I gave a Fellows lecture at the annual
More informationUpdating the Defra Biodiversity Metric
Updating the Defra Biodiversity Metric 1. Introduction We are proposing to update the metric approach to quantifying biodiversity net gain. The metric selected is an evolution of the one piloted by Defra
More informationBiodiversity Offsets as Conservation Policy. Jo Treweek
Biodiversity Offsets as Conservation Policy Jo Treweek Outline What are biodiversity offsets? Recent developments in the world of offsetting. How offsets fit into UK policy and planning frameworks. Possible
More informationBiodiversity Offsetting in Doncaster. Guidance on the Process
Biodiversity Offsetting in Doncaster Guidance on the Process 1 Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 What is biodiversity offsetting? Pg 3 1.2 Doncaster s role in the biodiversity offsetting pilot Pg 3
More informationACCOUNTING FOR BIODIVERSITY IN PLANNING A toolkit for Local Planning Authorities in England. March 2017
ACCOUNTING FOR BIODIVERSITY IN PLANNING A toolkit for Local Planning Authorities in England March 2017 Accounting for biodiversity in planning A toolkit for Local Planning Authorities in England THIS TOOLKIT
More informationBiodiversity Offsetting Pilots
www.defra.gov.uk Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots Guidance for developers March 2012 Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under
More informationGN36 BREEAM, CEEQUAL and HQM Ecology Calculation Methodology Route 2
www.breeam.com GN36 Version 0.0 PN343 BRE Global Ltd. May 2018 GN36 BREEAM, CEEQUAL and HQM Ecology Calculation Methodology Route 2 Page 2 of 24 Contents 1. Scope and Applicability 1.1. Applicability of
More informationEnclosed farmland: Arable and Horticultural, Improved and Neutral Grasslands
executive summary Executive summary 1 Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000) and the Northern Ireland Countryside Survey 2000 (NICS2000) have been designed to provide detailed information about the habitats
More informationCase Study of Payments for Environmental Services: the United Kingdom
Case Study of Payments for Environmental Services: the United Kingdom Thomas Dobbs, South Dakota State University (USA) Jules Pretty, University of Essex (UK) Workshop on Payments for Environmental Services
More informationMeasure fiche NATURA 2000 AND WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE PAYMENTS. Measure 12
Version January 2014 Measure fiche NATURA 2000 AND WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE PAYMENTS Measure 12 Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 This fiche is based on the text of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013
More informationSuggested responses to Future Farming Consultation
Suggested responses to Future Farming Consultation Part 1 Reform within the CAP 1. Please rank the following ideas for simplification of the current CAP. 2. Would you like to respond to further questions
More informationA toolkit for Local Planning Authorities in Wales
Accounting for biodiversity in planning A toolkit for Local Planning Authorities in Wales THIS TOOLKIT PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON: A quantitative assessment of impacts using a biodiversity metric introduced
More informationThe future of British farming outside the EU
The future of British farming outside the EU A discussion paper by the Soil Association for Molly Scott Cato MEP Executive summary This report sets out six proposals for domestic agricultural policy after
More informationRebuilding Nature in the Biosphere Reserve: North Devon UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy
Rebuilding Nature in the Biosphere Reserve: North Devon UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy 2013-2018 Page 1 North Devon UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy 2013-2018 1. Introduction
More informationNational Farmers Federation
National Farmers Federation Submission to the National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group for the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan 20 April 2012 Prepared by Charles McElhone General Manager,
More informationResponse to Defra s consultation: Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit. The Wildlife Trusts
Response to Defra s consultation: Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit The Wildlife Trusts May 2018 Executive Summary Contact: Ellie Brodie, Senior Policy
More informationBIODIVERSITY OFFSETS ISSUES PAPER AND POLICY April 2014
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS ISSUES PAPER AND POLICY April 2014 Definition of Biodiversity offsets Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant
More informationBedfordshire and Luton Habitat Action Plan: Arable Margins
Bedfordshire and Luton Habitat Action Plan: Arable Margins Updated September 2015 Bedfordshire & Arable field margin Photo by Michael Wilson Foreword We are fortunate in Bedfordshire to have a fantastic
More informationUK Environmental Law Association s response to the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs consultation on Biodiversity offsetting
UK Environmental Law Association s response to the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs consultation on Biodiversity offsetting UKELA UKELA is the UK's foremost membership organisation
More informationWelsh Assembly Government Written Response to the Sustainability Committee Report on its Inquiry into Access to Inland Water.
Welsh Assembly Government Written Response to the Sustainability Committee Report on its Inquiry into Access to Inland Water. August 2010 The Assembly Government s approach to water related recreation
More informationSUBMISSION GUIDE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. May
SUBMISSION GUIDE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT May 2017 1 CONTENTS Part 1: The new Biodiversity Offsets Scheme 5 What is the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? 6 Step 1: The proponent determines if the
More informationWoodland Carbon Code - Opportunities from carbon finance for forestry. Chris Waterfield Forestry Commission
Woodland Carbon Code - Opportunities from carbon finance for forestry Chris Waterfield Forestry Commission Woodland creation in the UK Country Aspiration Expressed in England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland
More informationParliamentary briefing: Second reading of the Agriculture Bill
Parliamentary briefing: Second reading of the Agriculture Bill 10 October 2018 Summary The Agriculture Bill is the UK s first major domestic agriculture policy in 45 years. It is an unprecedented opportunity
More informationBiodiversity certification and banking in coastal and growth areas
Biodiversity certification and banking in coastal and growth areas 1 Biodiversity certification and banking in coastal and growth areas This paper sets out the broad parameters of the new direction and
More informationCAP Post Key issues from the Environmental Pillar
CAP Post-2013 Key issues from the Environmental Pillar The Environmental Pillar is a coalition of 26 national environmental NGOS. The Pillar and its constituent organisations work on a range of policy
More informationBIODIVERSITY AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE FOR HAMPSHIRE
BIODIVERSITY AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE FOR HAMPSHIRE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY INTO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS Prepared by Mike Oxford On behalf of the Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership
More informationIUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets
IUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets 1. Purpose Statement The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework to guide the design, implementation and governance of biodiversity offset schemes and projects.
More informationDetermine Certainty Program Framework of a Market Based Conservation Initiative for Longleaf Pine Habitat Improvements in Eastern North Carolina
Determine Certainty Program Framework of a Market Based Conservation Initiative for Longleaf Pine Habitat Improvements in Eastern North Carolina Project March 31, 2016 Michelle Lovejoy, Project Leader,
More informationBiodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper November 2013
Biodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper November 2013 Response by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Introduction 1. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
More informationSouth West Peak Slowing the Flow Project Manager
South West Peak Slowing the Flow Project Manager 25,000pa plus pension, full time, fixed term contract for five years Cheshire Wildlife Trust is leading a five-year multi-partner slowing the flow project
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Spain Castilla y León Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Spain Castilla y León Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more
More informationBirdLife Position on Species Protection under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives
EU BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVE TASKFORCE BirdLife Position on Species Protection under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives For external use. Adopted by the Birds and Habitats Directives Task Force on
More informationAccounting for biodiversity in planning
Accounting for biodiversity in planning A toolkit for Local Planning Authorities THIS TOOLKIT PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON A quantitative assessment of impacts using the Government biodiversity metric Appropriate
More informationMeeting Local Planning Authorities needs from Mitigation & Monitoring Proposals
CIEEM Autumn Conference 2017 Meeting Local Planning Authorities needs from Mitigation & Monitoring Proposals Karen Colebourn FCIEEM Ecological Planning & Research Ltd November 2017 What are Local Authorities
More informationMaking use of Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (PPS12)
Making use of Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (PPS12) A CPRE campaign briefing October, 2008 1. In June 2008, the Government published a revised Planning Policy Statement 12: Local
More informationEnvironmental Markets for Ecosystem Services in the UK : scope, opportunity and challenge. Professor David Hill The Environment Bank Ltd
Environmental Markets for Ecosystem Services in the UK : scope, opportunity and challenge Professor David Hill The Environment Bank Ltd I shall outline. Importance of valuing nature Market intelligence
More informationUsing CAP to enhance farm biodiversity
@LynnDicks Using CAP to enhance farm biodiversity Dr Lynn Dicks University of East Anglia Workshop 'Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs' 23 March 2017 What does biodiversity mean
More informationBiodiversity Offsetting Pilots
www.defra.gov.uk Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots Guidance for offset providers March 2012 Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium,
More informationCEEweb Contributions to the Commission s CAP Health Check Consultation Budapest, 15 th January 2008
CEEweb Contributions to the Commission s CAP Health Check Consultation Budapest, 15 th January 2008 e-mail address: AGRI-G1-HC-IA@ec.europa.eu Tassos HANIOTIS Head of Unit Agricultural Policy Analysis
More informationFarming & the Delivery of Public Goods
Farming & the Delivery of Public Goods Prof. Thia Hennessy Dpt of Food Business, University College Cork, Ireland Overview Agriculture an important sector Economic benefits Non-economic benefits Public
More informationScottish Environment LINK s Response to the First Public Consultation on the CAP Health Check. January 2008
Scottish Environment LINK s Response to the First Public Consultation on the CAP Health Check January 2008 Scottish Environment LINK is the forum for Scotland's voluntary environment organisations - 36
More informationScottish Forestry Grants Scheme review: Consultation questions.
Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme review: Consultation questions. Use this document to provide your answers to the questions contained in the consultation document. Please use as much space as you require
More informationBuilding CSOs Capacity on EU Nature-related Policies EU Rural Development Policy
Building CSOs Capacity on EU Nature-related Policies EU Rural Development Policy Mark Redman Valjevo, 27 October 2011 Total of 11 different seminatural plant communities can be identified in
More informationThe Wildlife Trusts Biodiversity Benchmark Requirements
1 COMMIT 1.1 Policy Your organisation has a biodiversity policy in relation to its landholdings which is: a. a statement of your organisation s commitment to i. compliance with legal requirements relevant
More informationBIODIVERSITY OFFSETS: LESSONS LEARNT FROM POLICY AND PRACTICE
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS: LESSONS LEARNT FROM POLICY AND PRACTICE THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY Helen Nyul September 2015 BUSINESS & BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMME FAUNA & FLORA INTERNATIONAL Supported by the Arcus
More informationPesticide Action Network UK response to consultation on - Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit
Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD Tel +44 1273 964230 admin@pan-uk.org www.pan-uk.org An independent body working to eliminate the hazards of pesticides Pesticide Action Network UK response
More informationResponse to OEH draft Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects
Response to OEH draft Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects 1 Background Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand The Environment Institute of (EIANZ) is pleased to make comments on
More informationRECALLING the adoption of Resolution Biodiversity offsets and related compensatory approaches (Jeju, 2012);
WCC-2016-Res-059-EN IUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets RECALLING the adoption of Resolution 5.110 Biodiversity offsets and related compensatory approaches (Jeju, 2012); NOTING WITH APPRECIATION the consultative
More informationGN40: BREEAM, CEEQUAL, HQM Ecology Assessment Issues Reporting Template
Guidance te GN40 V0.0 August 2018 GN40: BREEAM, CEEQUAL, HQM Ecology Assessment Issues Reporting Template Applicability of this Guidance te (GN) to the BREEAM Family of Schemes (BREEAM, CEEQUAL, HQM) This
More informationNewsletter for Owners and Managers of Wildlife Sites
Newsletter for Owners and Managers of Wildlife Sites Welcome To the second issue of Bedfordshire s Wildlife Sites Newsletter. This newsletter has been made possible by the employment of Bedfordshire s
More informationSesSIon july Environment Agency. Tackling diffuse water pollution in England
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 188 SesSIon 2010 2011 8 july 2010 Environment Agency Tackling diffuse water pollution in England 4 Summary Tackling diffuse water pollution in England Summary
More informationPublic Consultation on the future EU Initiative on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Public Consultation on the future EU Initiative on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Key Contact: Rob Brooker rob.brooker@hutton.ac.uk Date of submission: 17 October 2014 Scope and Objectives
More informationStrategic Licensing for Great Crested Newts (formerly known as District Licensing)
Strategic Licensing for Great Crested Newts (formerly known as District Licensing) Gareth Dalglish, Partnership Manager, District Licensing Programme www.gov.uk/natural-england Objectives today Introduce
More informationA CTION PLAN FOR LEEDS
b i o d i v e r s i t y A CTION PLAN FOR LEEDS A VISION FOR BIODIVERSITY IN LEEDS A range of habitats, characteristic of the landscapes of Leeds, supporting both typical and rare species, contributing
More informationLEGISLATIVE CONSENT MEMORANDUM AGRICULTURE BILL
LEGISLATIVE CONSENT MEMORANDUM AGRICULTURE BILL Introduction 1. The Agriculture Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 12 September 2018. It gives the UK Government broad powers to provide support
More informationNatural Capital. 1. Introduction. APSE briefing 15-29
APSE briefing 15-29 Natural Capital This briefing is provided to APSE member authorities in England but will be of interest to the environment, parks, grounds and horticulture sector on a UK wide basis.
More informationFarming at Haweswater. An economic report Working together to give nature a home
Farming at Haweswater An economic report 2013 2016 Working together to give nature a home 1 Overview In 2012, the RSPB took on the tenancies of Naddle and Swindale Farms, near Haweswater, in the east of
More informationWelsh Transport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) 2017
Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) 2017 Consultation Response Form Your Name: Ruth Tipping Organisation Name (if applicable): Natural Resources Wales Email / telephone number: 4489 Your Address:
More informationEconomic value of biodiversity. in the UK. University of Glasgow. Economics Dept. Nick Hanley. Economic Value of Biodiversity
Economic value of biodiversity in the UK Nick Hanley Economics Dept University of Glasgow What is the meaning of Economic Value? Direct: utility impacts People care about biodiversity (BD) per se, or about
More informationEVALUATION OF THE CAP GREENING MEASURES
Evaluation carried out by: in collaboration with: The Thünen Institute EVALUATION OF THE CAP GREENING MEASURES What are the greening measures? The 2013 CAP reform introduced a payment for a compulsory
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Veneto Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Veneto Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more for the
More informationFrequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions What is the Peatland Code? The Peatland Code is a voluntary standard which provides a consistent approach for UK peatland restoration projects wishing to attract private finance.
More informationWe look forward to hearing from you soon. With best wishes. Charlotte Davidson Head of Governance and HR
Thank you for taking the time to find out about our current vacancy. It is great to know you are interested in working with Butterfly Conservation (BC). Included in this pack is a little background information
More informationBiodiversity governance characteristics and values
Biodiversity governance characteristics and values Report on a workshop held in Edinburgh, February 2018 Paula Novo, Anja Byg, Scott Herrett & Michela Roberts 1 Table of Contents Summary... 3 1. Introduction...
More informationASSESSING THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ACHIEVE THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS
ASSESSING THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020 AND ACHIEVE THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS Draft Methodology Paper Fourth draft, 14 June 2012 1 Context
More informationSW E N. South West Environment Network 2010 Environment Priorities
SW E N South West Environment Network 2010 Environment Priorities SWEN s 2010 Environmental Priorities The top four environmental priorities for the South West. At a time when the natural environment,
More informationThe Irish Wildlife Trust submission to the National Peat Strategy
The Irish Wildlife Trust submission to the National Peat Strategy The draft strategic plan is composed of a number of draft documents including a National Peatlands Strategy, a National Raised Bog SAC
More informationBiodiversity offset markets: current challenges and prospective developments: PhD thesis executive summary
Biodiversity offset markets: current challenges and prospective developments: PhD thesis executive summary Ferreira, C Published PDF deposited in CURVE September 2014 Original citation: Ferreira, C. (2014).
More informationManaging Country. Aboriginal Communities. Overview. Last updated: March 2013
Aboriginal Communities Managing Country Last updated: March 2013 These Fact Sheets are a guide only and are no substitute for legal advice. To request free initial legal advice on an environmental or planning
More informationExplanatory Memorandum to The Common Agricultural Policy Basic Payment and Support Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2015
Explanatory Memorandum to The Common Agricultural Policy Basic Payment and Support Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2015 This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Natural Resources
More informationTHE ROLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
THE ROLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING Jussi Lankoski OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate Environment Division Biodiversity Offsets: Opportunities and challenges for their effective
More informationLocal Government and Communities Committee. Planning (Scotland) Bill. Submission from Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
Local Government and Communities Committee Planning (Scotland) Bill Submission from Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP 1. Do you think the Bill, taken as a whole, will produce a planning system for Scotland that
More informationo o o o The NBN Gateway and LRCs How can they complement each other?
1 o o o o The NBN Gateway and LRCs How can they complement each other? National Biodiversity Netwo k The NBN Gateway and LRCs How can they complement each other? The National Biodiversity Network (NBN)
More informationSubmission Guide: Ecologically Sustainable Development
Submission Guide: Ecologically Sustainable Development A guide for making submissions on the NSW biodiversity reforms The biodiversity reforms will help deliver ecologically sustainable development in
More informationScottish Forestry Grants Scheme review: Consultation questions.
Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme review: Consultation questions. Use this document to provide your answers to the questions contained in the consultation document. Please use as much space as you require
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Piedmont Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Piedmont Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more for
More informationEcosystem Restoration Efforts on Private Lands: The Role of Farm-scale Planning and Delivery
Ecosystem Restoration Efforts on Private Lands: The Role of Farm-scale Planning and Delivery L. Wes Burger Dept. Wildlife & Fisheries Mississippi State University August 1 5, 2011, Baltimore, MD Global
More informationNewsletter for Owners and Managers of Wildlife Sites in Bedfordshire
WildPlaces Newsletter for Owners and Managers of Wildlife Sites in Bedfordshire Welcome to the third issue of Bedfordshire s Wildlife Sites Newsletter. This newsletter has been made possible by the employment
More informationAppendix 1: List of conservation mechanisms and survey results indicating effectiveness
Appendix 1: List of conservation mechanisms and survey results indicating effectiveness Items: 1. List of mechanisms for survey 2. Survey results 1.1 England Pg 2 1.2 Northern Ireland Pg 10 1.3 Scotland
More informationGuidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation in England
Guidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation in England Introduction The RSPB is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe with over 1 million members. With 168
More informationLocal Government and Communities Committee. Planning (Scotland) Bill. Submission from the Scottish Environmental Services Association
Local Government and Communities Committee Planning (Scotland) Bill Submission from the Scottish Environmental Services Association The Scottish Environmental Services Association (SESA) is the trade body
More informationComments on the ecological content of the HS2 Draft Environmental Statement and associated documents
HS2 Ecology Technical Group HS2 Ltd FREEPOST RTEC-AJUT-GGHH Draft Environmental Statement Consultation PO Box 70178 London WC1A 9HS Chair: Mr D. A. Lowe c/o Warwickshire County Council PO Box 43 Warwick
More informationBedfordshire and Luton Habitat Action Plan: Arable Margins
Bedfordshire and Luton Habitat Action Plan: Arable Margins Updated October 2007 Arable field margin Photo by Michael Wilson Arable field margins National lead organisation(s): Defra County lead organisation(s):
More informationOutcomes report. Review of the native vegetation clearing regulations
Outcomes report Review of the native vegetation clearing regulations November 2016 The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2016 This work is licensed under a Creative
More informationREPORT FROM THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
REPORT FROM THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT in support of the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on implementation
More informationBirds, bugs and bees: how organic farming benefits nature
Birds, bugs and bees: how organic farming benefits nature Content The food and farming challenge The state of nature The benefits for nature of organic farming Other approaches to delivering for nature
More informationTHE POST-2020 COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY: ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND SIMPLIFICATION
THE POST-2020 COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY: ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND SIMPLIFICATION 1 WHAT THE FUTURE CAP WILL BRING TO THE TABLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE - KEY ELEMENTS 1. A needs-based, targeted
More informationCommons Report Stage of the Agriculture Bill Briefing for MPs
Commons Report Stage of the Agriculture Bill Briefing for MPs February 2019 Greener UK is asking MPs to put their names to, support, and vote for the following amendments: Secure long-term funding for
More informationWE ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA
Introducing the WE ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA Peatlands are a prime example of a nature-based solution to global problems. Peatland restoration and conservation are the low hanging fruit for climate change
More informationPROPOSED CHANGES TO NSW BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION LAWS Biodiversity Conservation Bill and Local Land Services Amendment Bill
PROPOSED CHANGES TO NSW BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION LAWS Biodiversity Conservation Bill and Local Land Services Amendment Bill The NSW Government is proposing significant changes to NSW biodiversity
More informationLocally Led Agri Environment Scheme (LLAES) for Upland areas
Locally Led Agri Environment Scheme (LLAES) for Upland areas Wicklow Uplands Council To support the sustainable use of the Wicklow Uplands through consensus and partnership with those who live, work and
More informationhttp://www.pollinator.org October 19, 2009 By E-mail to CRPcomments@tecinc.com CRP SEIS c/o TEC Inc. 8 San Jose Drive, Suite 3-B Newport News, Virginia 23606 RE: Conservation Reserve Program Supplemental
More informationSUMMARY objective evaluation relevance financial effectiveness
SUMMARY The National Rural Development Strategy for 2007 2013 as well as the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme for 2007 2013 (hereinafter the Programme ) drafted for the implementation of the Strategy
More information1. Purpose and scope. 2. When to consult SEPA
Page no: 1 of 5 1. Purpose and scope 1.1 This guidance note provides advice to the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and forest managers (including Forest Enterprise Scotland) on how and when to consult
More informationCampaign for the Farmed Environment - Indicators of Progress. Approved by NIIF on 11 September Introduction: CFE Targets and Indicators
Campaign for the Farmed Environment - Indicators of Progress Approved by NIIF on 11 September 2013 Introduction: CFE Targets and Indicators The Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE) in its expanded
More informationTesting the effectiveness of climate change adaptation principles for biodiversity conservation
Testing the effectiveness of climate change adaptation principles for biodiversity conservation Natural England s summary and perspective on the project Michael B Morecroft, Simon J Duffield & Humphrey
More informationEXPLANATORY DOCUMENT: METHODS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT: METHODS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PREMIA CALCULATION TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE FUNDING (ART.28-30) 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF NON- DOUBLE FUNDING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS Rural development provides for
More informationVia online survey: Committee of University Chairs. 12 March CUC Consultation Draft Remuneration Code
Via online survey: Committee of University Chairs 12 March 2018 CUC Consultation Draft Remuneration Code ICSA: The Governance Institute is the professional body for governance. We have members in all sectors
More informationThe Environment in Rural Development: responding to UK environmental priorities through rural development measures
The Environment in Rural Development: responding to UK environmental priorities through rural development measures Vicki Swales and Martin Farmer with Clunie Keenleyside (IEEP) and Dr Janet Dwyer (CCRU)
More informationRURAL ECONOMY AND CONNECTIVTY COMMITTEE SUBMISSION FROM NFU SCOTLAND THE DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN (RPP3) Introduction
RURAL ECONOMY AND CONNECTIVTY COMMITTEE SUBMISSION FROM NFU SCOTLAND THE DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN (RPP3) Introduction 1. The farmers and crofters of Scotland are on the front line in experiencing the
More information