Green compensation proposals outlined-By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website

The UK government has outlined its proposals on compensating for the loss of biodiversity through development.

Government proposals would mean developers would have to pay compensation equal to any damage to habitats

The idea of "biodiversity offsetting" is controversial, with some campaigners dubbing it a "licence to trash".

It means developers planning to build houses in environmentally sensitive areas would be allowed to go ahead if they could offset damage by paying for conservation activities elsewhere.

The environment department Defra has published a green paper on the scheme.

"Offsetting is an exciting opportunity to look at how we can improve the environment as well as grow the economy," said environment secretary Owen Paterson.

Commenting on the consultation, which will conclude on 7 November, he said: "We want to hear from developer and wildlife groups alike on how we can simplify the existing planning process while enhancing our natural environment.

"There is no reason why wildlife and development can't flourish side by side."

In England, six pilot areas were selected in 2012 for two year trials of a voluntary approach to offsetting through the planning system.

In March this year, a report from the government's Ecosystems Markets Task Force recommended that the offsetting scheme should be rolled out nationwide as a matter of priority.

Offsetting, it said, would "revolutionise conservation in England by delivering restoration, creation and long term management on in excess of 300,000 hectares of habitat over 20 years".

'Irreplaceable' habitats

Similar schemes have been up and running for many years in other parts of the world. But environmental groups have highlighted problems with the idea.

The Woodland Trust has campaigned against the inclusion of ancient woodlands in any offsetting scheme and it rejects the suggestion that the future of these habitats should rest on the proposed economic benefit of a given development.

The Trust's chief executive Sue Holden said she welcomed the fact this green paper recognised the "irreplaceable" nature of these woodlands. But she added: "We need to see a more robust use of planning law to support this, ensuring that irreplaceable habitats are treated as such.

"Offsetting should only ever be a last resort when all other avenues have been explored to avoid loss or damage.

"It is critical that any habitats created to compensate for loss are placed within the local area that suffered the original impact. Unfortunately, this still appears open to debate."

The Trust says that, in theory, losses to biodiversity in Kent, for example, could be compensated for in Derbyshire - ignoring the local value of habitats.

'Sound concept'

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth described the plans as a licence to "trash nature". FOE's nature campaigner Sandra Bell said that nature was "not something that can be bulldozed in one place and recreated in another at the whim of a developer.

"Instead of putting nature up for sale, the government should strengthen its protection through the planning system and set out bold plans to safeguard and restore wildlife across the UK."

Some critics also suggest that developers could be tempted to put money on the table to pay for offsetting and not feel obliged to go through the preliminary steps of trying to avoid damage.

Supporters say that despite potential difficulties, the overall concept is sound. They point to the fact that money received from developers for relatively minor damage could be pooled to create a much larger conservation area.

Mike Clarke, chief executive of the RSPB, also said offsetting should only be considered when other options have been exhausted. He said: "If government want to get this right, they will have to listen very carefully to the conservation community and heed our warnings.

"They will also need to ensure that planning authorities have the expertise to assess proposals for offsetting, otherwise, it will go horribly wrong for wildlife."

Water voles 'decline by a fifth'

Water voles have declined by a fifth in the UK since 2011, a survey suggests.

Conservationists say that habitat loss, being hunted by American mink, and changeable weather are to blame.

The research was carried out by the Environment Agency and Wildlife Trusts, who are working to create more vole-friendly waterways.

Earlier reports had suggested that the animals were making a comeback. Conservationists say more needs to be done to save this species.

Alastair Driver, National Conservation Manager from the Environment Agency, said: "This creature is part of our waterway systems. People love walking along a canal and hearing the plop of a water vole into the canal. They are part of the food chain... part of the ecosystem.

"It would be a real shame to let that go."

Scientific name: Arvicola amphibius

Rank: Species

Common names:

 

• Eurasian water vole,
 
• Water rat,
• Water vole

Water voles are widespread around Europe, living in the banks of slow moving rivers, streams and other waterways. The waterside burrows of these strong swimmers have many floor levels that hinder flooding, as well as nesting chambers and a food store for the long winter months. Although water voles are a quick meal for many predators, the UK population suffered a catastrophic level of predation by the American mink. Water voles are often mistaken for rats. Ratty, in Kenneth Grahame's 'The Wind in the Willows', was actually a water vole.

CBBC  BBC Nature

related articles

Alien species threaten Europe's cities, say experts

Europe's towns and cities are particularly vulnerable to the threat posed by species from other continents and environments, say experts.

Examples include how raccoons, a North American native mammal, are spreading through the German capital, Berlin.

It's thought towns and cities are at higher risk from invasive alien species (IAS) because of more transport links.

IAS are non-native plants or animals that have no natural predators, spread rapidly and overwhelm native species.

"The problem is that invasive species take over resources and space from the indigenous species", explained conservationist Chantal van Ham.

"Urban areas are quite vulnerable to these species. Often they are introduced, for example, through the trade in plants but also through accidental arrivals in ports and airports."

"These non-indigenous species represent one of the main threats to the world's biodiversity," explained Chantal van Ham, European program officer for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)."This threat is set to increase unless meaningful action is taken to control their introduction and establishment," she added.

City limits

In order to address the issue, the IUCN is hosting a conference on the topic in Gland, Switzerland on Thursday.Participants will include local authorities, policymakers, NGOs and scientists."Municipalities or local authorities have a really key role in possible action to reduce the risk of these species [becoming established]," Ms van Ham told BBC News.

"But it is also important that local authorities have the support needed in order to take that action."What we aim to do with this conference is to bring together experts - not only scientists but also different governmental levels and NGOs to see how we can strengthen collaboration and exchange knowledge on how to combat invasive species at the urban level."Recently, the IUCN published a report highlighting a number of case studies on how EU nations were tackling invasive species.Examples included how raccoons, a North American native mammal, were spreading through the German capital city, Berlin.It also highlighted a number of pan-European threats, such as the spread of Japanese knotweed, which is described by experts as one of the mosthigh-profile and damaging invasive weeds in Europe and North America.

Next week, the European Commission is expected to publish it plans to tackle invasive species. It is expected to announce pan-EU legislative measures as part of the EU's biodiversity strategy."There is a proposal for a legal framework that will require action in all EU  member states to prevent the entry and establishment   of invasive species," said Ms van Ham.

"It is also expected to focus on what control methods are available and how to manage already established invasive species populations."We also hope the European Commission strongly supports the promotion of sharing best practices and lessons learned by different European countries, and help promote awareness of the issue."

Listed as an invasive species, Europe's population of rose-ringed parakeets continues to inctrease

From CBBC newsround / BBC SCI/ Environment

Second badger cull begins in Gloucestershire

A cull of thousands of badgers in Gloucestershire has begun - a week after the first stage of the government pilot got under way in Somerset.

Gloucestershire Police said its badger cull policing operation was at "full capacity" but no arrests had been made.

About 5,000 badgers are expected to be killed in controlled shootings over six weeks to try to stop the spread of an illness called bovine tuberculosis (TB).

Anti-cull protesters say they'll disrupt the shootings and more than 100 campaigners have gathered in Gloucestershire.

Supporters claim culling badgers is the only way to tackle the disease, which they say is spread from infected badgers to livestock.

But animal charity, the Badger Trust, say that shooting the animals won't solve the problem

Controversial cull

Campaigners have fought the plans since the test areas were revealed last year.

Some protestors and wildlife groups have tried to disrupt the cull by digging up bait laid by farmers and disturbing the ground near traps, so that the animals will be scared to come out.

An online petition against the cull has been signed by over 250,000 names.

But the National Farmers' Union president, Peter Kendall, repeated his claim that the cull was necessary.

He said: "Thirty-eight thousand cattle were slaughtered last year in Britain because of TB. For beef and dairy farmers dealing with TB on their farms, these badger culls are an essential part in the fight against this terrible disease."

From CBBC newsround

Q&A: The badger cull

Badgers are being shot in the south west of England in an attempt to control TB in cattle.

The badger is a protected species under British law

Under the proposals, about 5,000 badgers will be culled in two pilot zones - Somerset and Gloucestershire.

The government says the action is needed to help tackle bovine TB, a disease of cattle that has been steadily rising since the 1980s.

Campaigners against the cull say it will have no impact on bovine TB, and could lead to local populations of badgers being wiped out.

Q: What is taking place?

A: The trials are taking place in areas where there are a high number of TB infections in cattle to assess whether badgers can be culled humanely, safely and effectively.

The precise areas where badgers will be shot by trained marksmen have not been revealed.

One area is in West Somerset and the other is in and around West Gloucestershire.

A third area - Dorset - is being considered for a cull, but a licence is not yet in place.

The cull will aim to kill at least 70% of badgers across areas about the size of the Isle of Wight in each zone.

Q: How will the success of the pilot culls be measured?

A: The pilots will not look at scientific data. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will review:

• How humane the cull is. A government agency will carry out sample post mortems to see if the badgers have been shot humanely. The carcasses will not be tested for signs of TB infection.
• How effective (in terms of badger removal) the two badger pilots are. In West Gloucestershire, a target has been set for killing between 2,856 and 2,932 badgers over the six-week period - around 70 badgers a day. The target in West Somerset is between 2,081 and 2,162 badgers - around 50 badgers a day.
• How safe the two badger culling pilots are.

On the basis of this evidence, ministers will make a decision about whether or not to extend the pilots to other areas in England.

Q: What is the scientific evidence for and against a cull?

A: Scientific evidence suggests sustained culls of badgers under controlled conditions could reduce TB in local cattle by 12-16% after four years of annual culls, and five years of follow-up, although it could be lower and it could be higher.

The randomised badger culling trial in England found that killing badgers disrupted their social groups, with surviving animals moving out to establish new groups, taking TB with them. This perturbation effect led to an increase in cases of bovine TB outside of the cull zone, although the impact diminished over time.

The pilot culls are attempting to use borders such as rivers and motorways to reduce the risk of badgers spreading TB to neighbouring areas, but this approach has not been fully tested.

The trial trapped badgers in cages for the cull, while the main method planned for Gloucestershire and Somerset is free shooting. Any deviation from methods used in the original trial will decrease or increase the expected impact on bovine TB, according to scientists.

Q: What is cattle TB?

A: Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is an infectious disease of cattle. It presents a serious problem for the cattle industry, causing financial and personal hardship for farmers.

The disease is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis), which can also infect and cause TB in badgers, deer and other mammals.

Cattle are regularly tested for TB and destroyed if they test positive.

Q: Why are badgers implicated in spreading TB?

A: Scientific evidence has shown that bovine TB can be transmitted from cattle to cattle; from badgers to cattle and cattle to badgers; and from badger to badger.

Badgers are thought to pass on the disease to cattle through their urine, faeces or through droplet infection, in the farmyard or in cattle pastures.

However, it is not clear how big a role badgers play in the spread of bovine TB since the cows can also pass the disease on to other members of the herd.

Data from the randomised badger culling trials found that 16% of badgers were infected.

According to one estimate, in areas where TB cattle infections are high, about 50% of infections in cattle are from badgers, although this figure is disputed.

Q: What are the costs of TB?

A: TB has cost the taxpayer in England £500m to control the disease in the last 10 years.

According to Defra, each pilot cull will cost about £100,000 a year, with these costs met by farmers who want badgers killed on their land.

This figure does not include policing costs, which have been estimated at £0.5m per area per year, according to a written answer to parliament.

According to Mary Creagh, shadow secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, other costs include:

• Over £300,000 for costs related to licensing the cull

• £750,000 for sett monitoring

• £17,000 for independent panel to monitor the cull

• £700,000 estimated costs for humaneness monitoring

• £750,000 for carrying out post mortems on badgers.

Q: How are the badgers shot?

Most of the shooting is likely to be carried out at dusk or at night, since the animals are largely nocturnal. There are two main methods used to shoot badgers: The first involves searching over an area with a spotlight and rifle; the second entails placing bait at a fixed point, then lying in wait for the badger.

It requires a team of two or three people: the shooter, a spotter and a potential third person to drive a vehicle or act as an additional safety lookout. Shooting must be avoided if the teams are near rights of ways, or close to rural dwellings in order to prevent accidental injury to the public.

To comply with humane standards, the person using the firearm must endeavour to kill the animal quickly with the first shot. As such, they must be able to accurately locate the heart-lung area on the badger's body and be confident of a "clean" kill up to a range of 50-70m.

But there are inherent problems in shooting the animals at distance in the dark. Coloured filters can be used with spotlights in order to reduce a badger's awareness of the spotlight, allowing teams to approach more closely, or take more time on a shot. But they also reduce visibility for the shooter. Night vision sights can be used if certain conditions are met.

Officials accept that second shots may sometimes be necessary. Though it makes sense to select a site near a badger sett, the shooting must not take place so close to the entrance (at least 30m away) that a wounded badger could quickly retreat inside before a follow-up shot could be taken.

Licensed operators must pass a Defra-approved marksmanship course and must have received training on humane shooting. There are restrictions on firearms and ammunition: For rifles, Defra stipulates a minimum calibre, bullet weight and muzzle energy, because less powerful weapons cannot be relied upon for a "clean" kill. The use of shotguns is allowed, but only at close range (no more than 10 metres away from the animal).

Q: What is happening in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

A: Scotland is classified as free of TB. The Welsh Assembly Government has chosen to vaccinate badgers, with trials underway in North Pembrokeshire.

Northern Ireland is conducting research into an eradication programme involving vaccination and selected culling of badgers with signs of TB infection.

The Republic of Ireland has been culling badgers since the 1980s.

Q: Can badgers or cows be vaccinated?

A: There is a vaccine for badgers - the BCG jab, which has been used by a number of wildlife and conservation bodies in England, including the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the National Trust.

Badger vaccination is also underway in Wales, and there are plans to introduce it in Northern Ireland.

Cattle can also be vaccinated with the BCG vaccine. Vaccination of cattle against TB is currently prohibited by EU legislation, mainly because BCG vaccination of cattle can interfere with the tuberculin skin test, the main diagnostic test for TB.

Vaccination is not effective in badgers or cattle that are infected with TB.

In Wales, the cost of vaccinating each badger is put at £662.