logo
Habitat banks: how law to boost wildlife in England is faring one year in

Habitat banks: how law to boost wildlife in England is faring one year in

The Guardian14-02-2025

To most people driving through the waterlogged fields of West Sussex, a patch of muddy land dotted with scrubby trees would not warrant a second glance. But this former farmland is being given a new lease of life as part of a government scheme to boost wildlife.
Ardingly habitat bank is one of the pilot sites for the biodiversity net gain (BNG) scheme. Under legislation that came into force in February 2024, new roads, houses and other building projects must achieve a 10% net gain in biodiversity if nature is damaged on a site. So if a forest is bulldozed to make way for a block of flats, the developer must recreate a similar habitat, plus 10%.
But there are concerns the policy may not achieve what it promised. One year in, an assessment suggests it has so far delivered less than half the minimum amount of habitat expected. Can it be made to work?
Finding space for nature is supposed to be the priority for developments, but if that is not possible, habitats must be created elsewhere, ideally in the local area. This is where the habitat banks come in: developers can buy biodiversity units from these banks, which are located around England, to meet their BNG conditions. Habitat banks can be placed in key areas to help build ecological networks across whole landscapes, allowing nature to recover and thrive.
If all goes well, says Matthew Dodds, an associate ecologist at Environment Bank, a biodiversity gains specialist company that is responsible for 18 of the habitat bank sites that are already up and running, within 30 years, the muddy field in which the Guardian is standing could be teeming with wildlife.
This particular bank covers 40 hectares (99 acres). On a tour around the fields, Dodds and his colleague, a fellow ecologist, Sam Knowles, showed me where each pond, grassland or meadow area would be. There was a small patch of ancient woodland in the middle. Nearby was a big crop of early purple orchids that, until recently, had been contained to the forest area. These and other ancient woodland indicator species are expected to spread out and expand their populations.
A year on from the legislation coming into force (for England only at this stage), Environment Bank said that, since the start of 2025, demand had boomed, with sales in January this year matching all sales from the second half of 2024, and live inquiries standing at a value of £210m.
There are a selection of sites around England, including areas in Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Devon and Northumberland.
Knowles said half of the Ardingly site had already been sold: 'Once all the units on this bank have been bought, if the demand in this area needs to be met then another habitat bank will be situated, and hopefully the dream will be to have almost a stepping stone of habitat banks in the area.'
Environment Bank said it was keen to look for land that was not as productive as it could be – land like Ardingly, which was heavy clay, making it difficult to farm. 'We always look at the least productive land like this that's struggling to make an income itself and not really providing as much as it could be,' Dodds said.
But there have been concerns about the system too. Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of UK environmental organisations, released data earlier this month that showed the BNG scheme had delivered just 50% of the minimum amount of habitat expected and 13% of the amount deemed 'likely' to be created.
Six hundred and eighty hectares of land have been secured for offsite habitat creation and enhancement by local authorities, with a further 93 hectares of onsite habitat reported under freedom of information requests. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) estimated that 5,428 hectares was likely to be generated annually by BNG, and the minimum estimate was 1,551 hectares.
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'This first year has got the system running with some great projects, but in other areas low ambition, loopholes and weak enforcement have meant missed opportunities … This anniversary is a good time for government to up its ambition for net gain in local communities by closing loopholes, boosting local planning and regulator resource, and boosting gains beyond 10% to deliver more woodlands, wetlands, wildflower meadows and wildlife.
'This is a question of public trust as well as better rules. Much more investment is needed in local authorities and regulators to ensure that developers' promises are actually delivered.'
A Defra spokesperson said: 'For too long, nature and development have been unnecessarily pitted against each other. Communities and the environment deserve better than this broken status quo. That is why this government is working closely with the sector to make BNG work effectively to protect our natural world.'
Defra also said the number of offsite units being created did not necessarily signify the policy was not a success, as it did not account for onsite biodiversity gain.
But who will keep tabs on these banks? Emma Toovey, the ecology director at Environment Bank, said regulation by outside bodies would hold them accountable on their 30-year biodiversity pledge. Every site the company owns is bound through a legal agreement between the landowner and a third party – either the local authority or another responsible body – who will verify the site's progress.
'We've seen huge change in the last year,' Toovey said. 'We've seen a huge increase in capacity and skilling up across both the local government and sector developers themselves, big and small, and operators like us. We're at a point, a year on, where none of us expected it to be quite so successful.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The real reason birth rates are falling
The real reason birth rates are falling

Spectator

time6 hours ago

  • Spectator

The real reason birth rates are falling

Last week the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released its State of World Population report. According to the Guardian: 'Millions of people are prevented from having the number of children they want by a toxic mix of economic barriers and sexism, a new UN report has warned.' Dr Natalia Kanem, executive director of UNFPA, said: 'The answer lies in responding to what people say they need: paid family leave, affordable fertility care and supportive partners.' Nonsense, of course. Does Africa (4.1 births per woman) have better family leave and fertility care and more supportive partners than Sweden (1.4)? The reason for UNFPA's counter-intuitive findings is simple. They have not 'found' (the word almost every report uses) the reasons people don't have babies. They've found the reasons people say they're not having babies. People say all kinds of things. Against a background of concern at low fertility, and asked why they're not contributing more to maintaining population numbers, most people are unlikely to reply: 'Because babies are hard work, and restrict my freedom to live the life of my choice.' Of course they won't! 'I don't want children' sounds selfish. They'll instead say that they'd like to have more children, but for one reason or another beyond their control are prevented from having a bigger family. Even taking that into account, I note from the figures for respondents' answers to the survey's core questions that only one in five said they expected to have fewer children than they'd like. 'What they'd like' is key. Face it. Modern couples are making a lifestyle choice in curbing procreation. Babies are thoroughly inconvenient. Pets (say reports) are substituting for children as they're less trouble. Dog ownership is increasing. I doubt that the science of polling could provide the honest answers we need, but I'll take an intuitive stab at 'explaining' why the 21st-century world is having fewer children. Birth rates are falling not (pace UNFPA) because people feel less free to have bigger families, but because they feel more free not to. And it's women I'm mostly talking about. The reason for falling birth rates is the emancipation of women. Those thousands of years when hearth, home and motherhood were the limits of what a young woman could aspire to are gone. The cultural blocks on careers for women are being lifted, and that's a good thing. But it has consequences. Even after making every effort to harmonise career with reproduction, even after nudging men into sharing domestic duties, after extending maternity and paternity leave (480 days in Sweden) and penalising employers for discriminating against mothers who interrupt work to care for babies, after state help with nurseries and daycare centres and the financial incentives some countries are now offering for having more children, even after all that, modern women want a life beyond the front door. This is especially so for younger women starting out on a career. Later, with more seniority in the workplace, can come more flexibility and power to dictate terms. This is surely one reason professionally successful modern women now choose motherhood towards the end of the female reproductive lifespan. My mother was in her early twenties when her firstborn (me) came along. This allowed time for another five children, regularly puncturing the possibilities of career. This is backed up by a stubborn failure to reverse fertility trends through governmental attempts to incentivise childbirth. South Korea, Hungary and France have offered families a shedload of goodies – tax breaks and bounties of every kind – to grow. The effects have been negligible. The doubling of available talent for the modern economy must be vastly beneficial both to productivity and the sum of human happiness, but it doesn't encourage procreation. Why, though, do UNFPA and a host of other official voices call falling birth rates a crisis? It's only about ten minutes since world overpopulation, not underpopulation, was the popular cause for anxiety. Economists may answer that low birth rates mean either a contracting young workforce to support expanding numbers of an ageing population, or the continuous importation of young immigrant workers to fill the gap. True enough. But more babies mean – in the end – more oldies; and so do more immigrants, after a time lag. We can't indefinitely keep shovelling more births and more immigrants into the economy to feed a (consequentially) swelling care sector. If, then, we cannot fuel economic growth through babies and migrants, why assume we should be trying to grow the size of the economy in the first place? Let the country face a deficit of workers until employers pay more to bring more of the native population into gainful employment; let the increase in longevity level off, as it is doing. With later retirement, we could stabilise the proportions of contributors and beneficiaries and distribute the spoils of increased productivity among fewer people than if we carry on sucking in immigrants or succeed in cranking out more babies. Of course, if world birth rates stayed below 2.1, humankind would eventually become extinct. But that's for generations hence to ponder. For our own, there is no shortage of people – quite the reverse. And the fewer of us there are, the greater for each will be our share; and the more easily we could halt the despoilation of the planet. The world might become a nicer place to bring children into. My thinking here is not new, and has been argued more capably by others for decades, but the current panic about depopulation, the suspect underlying premise that more people means more for each of them, and the political mantra that everything must depend upon 'growth', prompt me to pose again some very big questions.

Wild orchid flourishing in woodland near Ardingly in West Sussex
Wild orchid flourishing in woodland near Ardingly in West Sussex

BBC News

time15 hours ago

  • BBC News

Wild orchid flourishing in woodland near Ardingly in West Sussex

A company creating "habitat banks", spaces designed to increase biodiversity, says it hopes that a rare orchid species found growing at its site in West Sussex will spread to neighbouring part of its work delivering habitat restoration in line with the government's Biodiversity Net Gain policy, Environment Bank manages a stretch of woodland near was there that a thriving population of early purple orchids, with links to both Shakespeare and Christianity, has been Dodds, associate ecologist at Environment Bank, has spoken glowingly about this "beautiful find". "They're quite strongly associated with ancient habitat bank that we have at Ardingly encompasses a small strip of ancient woodland and that's where we found the orchids," he told BBC Radio Dodds explained that the company created "colonisation points" in the hope of expanding this habitat is part of the wider aim of restoring habitats - in this case, an orchid which remains quite, albeit not "wildly", Bank's work is funded by the Biodiversity Net Gain policy which requires developers to achieve a 10% minimum biodiversity net gain on any Dodds said: "If the company can't deliver the biodiversity net gain on the site that they're developing, then we take the money from them and deliver habitats which are then secured for 30 years on our habitat banks."While rare in modern times, this orchid is mentioned in Shakespeare's Hamlet and also has an association with Christianity."They were believed to be the orchid that grew at the bottom of Christ's meant that they've got little spots on their leaves, and that was thought to be from the drops of blood from the crucifixion," added Mr Dodds.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store