This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/04/ancient-woodland-cut-down-biodiversity-offsetting

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ancient woodlands could be cut down under 'biodiversity offsetting' proposal Campaigners attack proposals to allow destruction of ancient woodlands
(about 4 hours later)
Ancient woodlands can be cut down to make way for new construction if developers agree to plant 100 trees for every one they destroy, under new proposals by the environment secretary. Green campaigners have urged the government not to "gamble" with England's natural heritage after the environment secretary defended plans to allow developers to destroy ancient woodland.
Owen Paterson said that "biodiversity offsetting" could accelerate construction, providing jobs and easing the pressure on housing prices, but critics warn that the proposals could result in the destruction of forests dating from around 1600. Owen Paterson sparked anger after defending the "biodiversity offsetting" scheme that he plans to introduce under which woodlands could be cut down to make way for new construction if developers agree to plant 100 trees for every one they destroy.
Patterson said that developers could choose a site to replant trees up to an hour's drive away from the lost forest. Paterson said that "biodiversity offsetting" could accelerate construction, providing jobs and easing the pressure on housing prices. But critics warn that the proposals could result in the destruction of forests dating from around 1600 - around a third of all woodland in England.
He said the model for his scheme was the construction of the M6 toll road near Manchester. While destroying mature trees was a "tragic loss", replacing each with 100 new ones would "deliver a better environment over the long term", he said.
"I think it was 10,000 mature trees and they planted a million young ones. Now people will say that that's no good for our generation but over the long term that is an enormous increase in the number of trees. That is a practical example of a high amount of planting following a tragic loss of some wonderful trees," he told the Times. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said any move to build on ancient woodland would be restricted to major projects and would only get planning permission in exceptional cases.
"The point about offsetting is that it will produce a better environment over the longer term." Paterson conceded that the present generation of UK residents would lose out and that replacement sites could be up to an hour away by car.
Paterson also said that he wanted the scheme to be compulsory in order to get environment and wildlife groups involved in identifying sites where developers could invest their money. But he insisted the initiative – designed to ease the construction of homes, roads and major projects – would result in an "enormous increase" in trees.
"In the longer term, the more you can move towards a mandatory system the more you get a market. You do want people to come forward with offsettable sites, that's the key thing. You want a bank of sites [with groups saying:] 'come and improve our woodland'," he said. "The point about offsetting is it will deliver a better environment over the long term," he told the Times.
The coalition has suffered when it has attempted to legislate on forests. In 2011, the government abandoned plans to sell of 250,000 hectares of state-owned woodland in the face of public anger. He signalled that he would like to see offsetting become compulsory to encourage a market of sites that could be improved.
Major projects such as the London-Birmingham high-speed rail line from London to are a particular threat to ancient woodlands. The Woodland Trust says that 380 ancient woods in England are under threat from development including 40 along the route of the new trainline. That was one recommendation of a report by the Commons environmental audit committee, which also raised serious concerns.
It said the proposed system was too simplistic to take into account the full value of the lost sites and a full assessment of pilot projects was required.
While speeding up development was welcome, there was a risk developers were given "carte blanche" to concrete over valuable habitats, it concluded.
The report specifically highlighted fears ancient woodland and sites of special scientific interest would not be adequately protected.
Friends of the Earth nature campaigner Paul de Zylva said including ancient woodlands "highlights the absurdity" of the policy.
"It's the quality of forests that's important, not just the quantity of trees.
"Ministers should be protecting nature, instead of gambling with it by allowing Britain's best wildlife sites to be shifted around the country.
"The government's madcap biodiversity offsetting plans should get the chop – not our forests."
The Woodland Trust said more than 380 ancient woods were already under threat from projects including the HS2 high-speed rail line.
Offsetting should only be used as a "last resort", policy director Hilary Allison told the Times – criticising Paterson's suggestion that an hour's journey by car would be close enough to do compensatory work.
"It is critical that any habitats created to compensate for loss are placed within the local area that suffered the original impact," she said.
"Unfortunately, this still appears open to debate."
Three years ago, Paterson's predecessor Caroline Spelman was forced by public outcry into an embarrassing U-turn on plans to sell off England's public forests.
Campaigners are now warning that they too could be under threat again in the form of plans to introduce a new management organisation to "own and manage the public forest estate".
Defra insists there are no plans to sell or privatise England's forests following the establishment of the new arrangements.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.