Regional Biodiversity Strategy- Consultation Deadline Approaching

I have just recieved details of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy Consultation via the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Environment Forum e-newsletter (18/1/08).

The consultation documents can be viewed via:
http://microsite.yhub.org.uk/articledetail.aspx?article=EAA2F8AE-3915-4006-BF65-D9F1EDC9CF6F&dom=yorkshirehumberenvironmentforum

The deadline for responses is 25/1/08. I apologise for not informing you of this deadline sooner. I asked to be sent a copy of the documents as soon as they were availible but for some reason I didn't get them.

I mentioned the Regional Biodiversity Strategy (RBS) in my post about the Sustainable Development Advisory Board. Below is the write up of the workshop I participated in. Watch this space for information on the consultation.


WORKSHOP SESSION 1
How does biodiversity link with the IRF (Integrated Regional Framework) and the region’s landmark issues?
Attended by:
David Smith
Association of West Yorks Authorities
Arthur Barker
Hambleton District Council
George Munson
Leeds City Council
Steve Littlewood
Leeds Met University
Jon Holland
Leeds Voice
Rose Norris
Local Government Y&H
Richard Wilson (Facilitator)
Natural England
Andrew de Freitas
NE Lincs Council
Graham Joyce
Pennine Prospects
Brian Rooney
Wakefield MDC
Paul Mosley
WWF
Andy Horrocks (Facilitator)
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly
Chris Martin
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly
Richard Wood
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly

Landmark Issues
Sustainable transport
Climate change mitigation
Climate change adaptation
Productivity and innovation
Housing markets and affordability
Public health and obesity
Skills and education
Violent crime
Diversity and equality
Regional growth

What are the dangers to the natural environment that solutions to landmark issues might present?

- biodiversity struggles to achieve attention/resources against more immediate challenges.

-very generally, little understanding among policy makers and implementers of what biodiversity is, how it is important and what their role is.

- sustainable transport – big risk from setting aside too much land for production of biodiesel. Danger of increased industrial agriculture and extensive mono-cultures.

- sustainable transport – increased use of biofuels risks habitat destruction through more mono-cropping of fuel crops and the export of the same problem, e.g. sugarcane production in rainforest.

- growth in the region – the need for transport links – could increase traffic on roads until infrastructure catches up – increased carbon.

- renewable energy – wind power risks to biodiversity

- risks that “quick fix” responses to mitigate climate change/reduce CO2 might adversely impact environment (biofuels?? Wind and hydro power??) careful assessment needed.

- drive for biofuels (green) putting at risk existing networks or at least at odds with potential other land uses with greater biodiversity value.

- limate mitigation –ve /+ve - pressures/changes to land use linked to biofuels

- climate change adaptation – Poorly planned species selection not resistant to changing weather patterns, e.g. lack of frosts to trigger flowering in some tree species.

- climate change adaptation – changing climatic zones making protecting isolated and small ecosystems impossible

- climate change adaptation – damage to natural environment by flood defence

- productivity – biodiversity impact assessment not well enough understood and loads costs onto development projects – often unnecessarily when regulatory/regulator understanding is scant.

- increased productivity – could lead to same situation as South East in terms of env. Impact!

- will the greener solutions for housing be in the right places for jobs?

- over-development of some areas for economic/housing development may negatively impact on biodiversity.

- affordability and density of housing development. Can we develop affordable housing that gives people green space of value to wildlife, growing produce, leisure …

- housing development on Greenfield and brownfield sites.

- dangers – short-termism. Big push to find new sites for housing may squash out good biodiverse sites (including some brownfield!)

- obesity and health inequalities are largely based in urban areas – need to ensure that opening up the “great outdoors” for people to exercise, walk, etc, doesn’t lead to more cars in rural areas!

- the public’s engagement and buy-in on issues like biodiversity can reinforce inequalities (i.e. usually educated people)

- diversity and inequality – relegating the natural environment to an ‘acceptable cost’ to bear in
levelling up economic disparities.

- diversity & equality and regional growth - these two can be in conflict – need to try to avoid bland development.

- regional growth – necessary housing growth will destroy habitat and increase fragmentation of habitat.

- directing growth/managing growth needed to ensure biodiversity assets retained. Need new development linked to habitat creation?

- housing and growth – growth pressure = threat to biodiverse brownfield habitats; urban green
spaces and greenfield sites. Planning system used to secure appropriate planting and multi-level green space (green roofs and terraces)

How can the natural environment help to address the landmark issues?

- provision of green infrastructure network needs to include provision for non-vehicular transport.

- sustainable transport and public health – high quality, green space encouraging people to walk and cycle more

- climate change adaptation – considerable opportunity to provide links from ‘island’ sites in water retention/storage schemes, e.g., prevention of drying out wetland areas, etc, restoration/creation of flood plain and restoration of rainwater in upland catchments.

- climate change will both adversely and beneficially affect different species/habitats. Need a network of ‘routes’ and opportunities to allow change to take place.

- crossover between climate change adaptation and natural environment -> green infrastructure / flood risk mitigation.

- opportunities for carbon capture sequestration through changed land uses with greater biodiversity value.

+ve – Flood risk management solutions offer huge potential to create opportunities for natural env. enhancement, recreation, leisure and tourism.

- natural environment has central role in climate change adaptation. RBS needs to consider key elements of regional social adaptation and develop its role in responding.

- climate change adaptation – urban green infrastructure and green roofs promoted and enhanced to reduce flash flooding and urban heat island effect.

- climate change mitigation – high quality natural and semi-natural environments promoted to encourage more local holidays and less aviation. Need for well developed local tourism infrastructure.

- climate change mitigation – greater use of locally sourced natural building materials (e.g. wood, stone, etc). Skills and acceptability issues.

- climate change mitigation and adaptation – large-scale upland peat-bog protection and re-establishment. Mechanism to value downstream flood alleviation and carbon sequestration.

- ownership issues vital to resolve.

Climate change mitigation – carbon sequestration offers opportunities to restore/protect habitat, e.g. woodland/pasture.

Loss of biodiversity (or threat of) related to climate change has strong communication power.

Climate change mitigation – potential for new mixed woodlands to provide both locally sourced food (fruit and nuts) and biomass from thinnings.

Provides a focus for education and learning (resource)

Positive impacts on neighbourhoods from rich biodiversity/natural landscapes (feelings of wellbeing?)

RBS need to look at natural environment aspects of innovation in response to climate change, i.e., creation/engineering of natural environment to maximise cc adaptation potential.

Innovation – green solutions to building materials, energy use with reduced reliance on petro-chemical derived energy input and derived products.

Good stewardship and land management absorbs CO2 and can help manage water/drainage.

Role of habitats in slowing/reducing flooding.

Sustainable transport – develop more GI/transport corridors (greenways) to encourage walking and cycling as practical (and affordable) alternatives for short journeys.

Health/obesity – increase opportunities and incentives to utilise the natural environment as a ‘green gym’ to achieve individual health gains.

Public health and obesity – access to open space / local fields (landscape pressures)
+ve Innovation – Natural environment has huge potential for new ‘crops’ in the biochemical area replacing petro-chemical sources.

Open the outdoors up for people to help reduce obesity and health inequalities.

Outdoor activity, raising awareness of habitats.

Need to use urban greenspace creatively. Allotments can help engage people with the environment and can help meet health outcomes and can be positive re biodiversity.

Can obviously provide the backdrop for exercise/leisure

Public health and obesity – access to open space – local/fresh foods.

Rich natural environment promotes healthier lifestyles

Productivity/innovation – innovative use of natural resources within the region, e.g. renewables/biomass.

Does natural environment have a role in rehabilitation of violent criminals? Is this a way of sourcing ‘novel’ resources for biodiversity delivery?

Environmental enhancement can help and re-engage people at risk of entering into criminal activity. Can also help re-interest young people in education and gaining skills.

Housing markets, etc – ensure that developers (public and private) build GI into new (and existing, where possible) developments using S106 or other planning tariff type mechanisms.

Rich biodiversity and green infrastructure – resource attractive for inward investment and jobs.

Housing market affordability – attractiveness of natural environment

GI has a key role to play in community cohesion. This may well link into diversity and equality solutions.

Inclusion of green roofs/walls can enhance distinctiveness and bring environmental benefits (including biodiversity)

Climate change adaptation and mitigation – understand the potential role of the South Pennine (and other) Moors to prevent further CO2 emission (erosion, fire, etc) and sequestrate additional CO2 (eg aviation, road growth).

Regional growth – identify opportunities for benefiting the natural environment through new development and increasing focus on environmental sector as a growth sector.
+ve – Regional growth/productivity – the regional tourism economy has huge potential for growth based on its existing and enhanced natural assets. –ve – outside region visitors expending resources to visit.

A ‘whole system’ approach will help ensure this works and is sustainable in itself – solutions are often driven by a number of factors.

Regional growth – natural environment help to address negative implications, e.g., air quality, access to space, quality of life.

Natural environment can contribute to regional economic growth. RBS needs to i.d. a small number of demonstration events/cases/examples.