“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
The Environment Secretary and MP for Oswestry, Owen (“Hill Fort? What hill fort?”) Paterson is not a man to change his mind merely because of evidence (ask the badgers and foxes!) So he’s sticking to his guns on biodiversity offsetting despite it’s efficacy being seriously challenged. He and the government had cited the success of schemes in Australia but those have now been branded “disappointing” by a leading expert over there – “I am very disappointed with the gap between the principles of biodiversity offsetting and practice. The science indicates that it is not feasible in the majority of circumstances to destroy biodiversity at site A and simply reinstate it at site B.” The Institute for European Environmental Policy suggested the same thing: “offsets more often than not provide ‘equivalent biodiversity’ that is grossly inferior to that which was destroyed.“
The suspicion. of course, is that pushing offsetting is a fig leaf to help developers. Sandra Bell, nature campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says “The government should pull the plug on these madcap ‘offsetting’ plans and get on with delivering its commitments to protect and boost wildlife through better planning.” A total of over 140 environment groups from around the world have now signed a statement condemning the policy: “Offsetting will not tackle biodiversity loss, but may impoverish communities. Its introduction allows, or even encourages, environmental destruction with the promise that the habitat can be recreated elsewhere. This is beneficial to the companies doing the damage, since they can present themselves as a company that invests in environmental protection, thereby greenwashing its products and services. It only serves to permit the commodification of nature”.
Beware the jaws that bite, eh?! 😉
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
25/03/2014 at 08:14
Diana Baur
The “Jaws” of development snapping all around us! Snapping everywhere unfettered in all directions because, as Paterson has again re-iterated in a second letter to me, in respect of the Old Oswestry Hillfort , and I quote
“I know just how important this issue is. I hope you will understand that neither Minister nor Government officials can intervene or comment on individual planning applications because of Ministers’ quasi-judicial role in the system”.
So what in heaven’s name actually IS his, or ARE ministers’ roles??
In respect of the Old Oswestry Hillfort we are not yet talking about a planning application, we are talking about whether or not the hillfort setting will be allowed to be desecrated in the SAMDEV process which involves satisfying Government targets on covering this land with ticky tacky 4 and 5 bedroom houses in prestigious places kick-starting the economy through the housing market and charging onwards into a housing boom bubble and bust that will mean first time buyers are even less likely to be able to afford to buy one.
We are now being invited by Shropshire Planning department to submit our views on the SAMDEV process a second time round via the Shropshire Council Website, but expressly to comment on the “soundness” of the idea of using the hillfort setting for housing development. It’s patently unsound on all fronts, but we are still waiting to hear what exactly they mean by “soundness” – it’s Alice in Wonderland talk where you will think you have answered the question, but will be hauled over the coals by the Red Queen for not so doing because you have no “understanding” of the question.
I looked up the definition of “sound” and the adjectives, of which there are many and include:
1. free from damage, injury, decay, etc
2. firm; solid; substantial: a sound basis
3. financially safe or stable: a sound investment
4. showing good judgment or reasoning; sensible; wise: sound advice
5. valid, logical, or justifiable: a sound argument
6. holding approved beliefs; ethically correct; upright; honest
7. (of sleep) deep; peaceful; unbroken
8. thorough; complete: a sound examination
9. informal ( Brit ) excellent
10. law (of a title, etc) free from defect; legally valid
11. constituting a valid and justifiable application of correct principles; orthodox: sound theology
12. logic
a. (of a deductive argument) valid
b. (of an inductive argument) according with whatever principles ensure the high probability of the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises
c. another word for consistent
From my point of view building on the setting of the Old Oswestry Hillfort is a completely unsound idea on all fronts.
25/03/2014 at 08:58
heritageaction
GREAT comment! Can we use it on the front page in a day or two?
25/03/2014 at 09:08
Diana Baur
Be my guest!
25/03/2014 at 09:13
Diana Baur
I am also extremely concerned that judging the ‘soundness’ of something is far too vague for most of us to make ny meaningful response. What , in other words are the criteria of ‘soundness’?
25/03/2014 at 09:14
Tish Farrell
Slimy toves comes to mind here. (I think you mean Owen BTW). Shropshire Council claims there have been no actual planning applications. SAMDev is about demarcating development land. On that basis, I do not see why Mr Paterson cannot stand up for what is right to protect a monument, and say ‘no development HERE.’ It’s not hard is it? Also his argument re Old Oswestry thus seems totally at odds with his pronoucements that ancient woodland can be destroyed for development, and reconstituted somewhere else. If he can speak on the one situation, why not on the other?
25/03/2014 at 11:52
heritageaction
Why indeed?
Sorry for having had Chris Patten in mind. A quite different sort of cove.
25/03/2014 at 13:14
Diana Baur
hmmm – Chris or Owen, makes little difference they all
Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe:
All mimsy were ye borogoves;
And ye mome raths outgrabe.