The New Fair Metric

Current vs Proposed Metric - How Our Metric Is Adding Value?

 

The developers of the current offsetting metric state that ‘ensuring no net loss of biodiversity’¹ is the core value of their Proposed Scheme. Although the scope of the construction will affect fundamental natural habitats and species, they claim that through creating ‘biodiversity units’ and comparing the ‘biodiversity value of habitats created and the habitats lost’¹, they make the biodiversity offsetting metric environmentally just. The purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is being undertaken before a development project, is to ensure that the potential environmental harm caused by the construction and maintenance is minimised.¹ Furthermore, the EIA aims to consider other dimensions as well, such as ‘local feelings and culture’.² 

​

The current offsetting metric of HS2 appears to be quite simplistic in a sense that it does not value the socio-cultural values of nature properly, therefore locals’ health and social well-being might be affected when a development project goes through. In contrast, our metric is addressing this issue with increasing the ‘biodiversity units’ which need to be offset, by the amount of socio-cultural value given by locals.

 

Let’s take the example of ancient woodlands!

 

‘The Proposed Scheme will result in loss of 32ha of ancient woodland at 19 sites.’¹ 

​

After using the current offsetting metric, this will result in creating ‘280ha of new woodland’¹ at different sites. This implies that the habitat distinctiveness multiplied by the habitat quality gives us a score of approximately 8 (280/32~8.75), meaning that an ancient woodland’s habitat quality is set to be moderate with a value of 2, and its habitat distinctiveness is set to be medium with a value of 4.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

When using The New Fair Metric, we suggest multiplying the DEFRA score (in this case: 280ha) with the socio-cultural value, which varies depending on locals’ evaluation and connection with nature. As per our weighted categories, if the number of units being offset were dependent on a person who is emotionally connected to nature and their main concern was the loss of fond memories (socio-cultural value of 6), then it would imply that that the current biodiversity units should be multiplied by 6, giving (280x6=)1680ha of ancient woodland to be re-created elsewhere. When calculating our ‘biodiversity units’, we would take the aggregate value, set by all residents in the construction radius, and this would give the socio-cultural value of The New Fair Metric.

 

It is important to note that the example above was based on ancient woodlands, which are the most distinctive areas to offset. It is crucial to reuse the ancient woodlands’ soil in order to prove the offsetting successful at a different site.¹

 

Additionally, our model might suggest that there is an infinite amount of land available in the UK, where developers can re-create nature as a compensation for their development project. (Take the example seen above: developers would need to offset 280ha of ancient woodland with the current metric, whereas with ours, they would need to offset 1680ha.) It is crucial to note that the main aim of our metric is to disincentivise developers from undertaking environmentally and socially unfair development projects, therefore we admit that re-creating huge amounts of habitats might not be feasible given our current geophysical constraints.

 

Resources:

​

¹ High Speed Two (2012). Information Paper. E2: Ecological Impact.

 

² Carroll et al. (2009). Chapter One: Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessments. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook. London: Thomas Telford Ltd.