Biodiversity offsetting - Anyone done it?

[steveR]

Yes. I spoke to them at the Low Carbon Show at Stoneleigh earlier this year. They seem very clued up but I'm still not convinced.

Their model, and one preferred by government, is that they sign up landowners and build a bank of ready made offset which they can effectively sell a share in to developers who need them.

I don't see genuine delivery of additionally in that, do you?

Couple of old pit mounds... job sorted!

A VERY long spoon will be needed with some of the start-up companies. I suspect.

As a Landowner I prefer the model of my being paid a lump sum, then annual payments. If payments stop, so does the BioD.

As said above, smells like the old carbon offsetting game....

 

[steveR]

Most of it is those evil wildlife trusts so far!!

What a great business model.....

Govt money and Developer money, and probs some other funds from other sources. Noit a wonder they are big employers!

 

[steveR]

as a final update on the issue while I read through lots of info -
Italian alder can be planted to provide Nitrogen - apparently its resistant to alot of diseases killing our natives, supports 90% the same insects etc so meets the diversity requirements, not considered invasive and contributes to flood mitigation which means its seen as a +.

Looking at planting 6- 10 a hect which will add around 60-100kg N a year to the soil for grass plus autum return after leaf drop (apparently they don't drop till December too).
Im looking at options to allow cycling of the PK reserves in the subsoil and clay under the land - as they could meet grazing requirements at least for the 30 years while still providing the offset needed.

Going to involve alot of out of box thinking, but also It does look like alot of what is termed "regenerative" agriculture, can be incorporated into the management. It appears that so long as the diversity measurements at 2 yearly intervals stack up and show an increase and then sustained habitat, that while the farming may be incidental to the prime land use, the productive output of said farming could be relatively stable at 80% of that without offsetting.

I have been giving this a lot of thought over the past few days and feel that if it can be treated within an Agreement as a form of arable reversion on the "right land", it could well work as a zero input grassland farming for sheep, and/or trad cattle, as well as the net gain biodiversity thgat will follow. Say Dexter or Galloway, if the prescription allows? Stick cattle in the mix, and straight away, there is a whole new array of insect and beetle life about from larger grazing animals.

The alder growing for N production is interesting... You are not looking at many trees/ha though, then? But that will be considered enough trees for the agreement I guess? Planted to facilitate easier machinery access I hope Couild well suit heavy, marginal land or equally some brash that barely grows a crop, one year in 3

 

[keith armitage]

Alder is pretty useless as commercial timber, but it is good for making coffins. So when half the population dies off from starvation due to an avocado and oatmilk shortage you will be able to bury them properly. That’s a win win situation

 

[farmerm]

Couple of old pit mounds... job sorted!

A VERY long spoon will be needed with some of the start-up companies. I suspect.

As a Landowner I prefer the model of my being paid a lump sum, then annual payments. If payments stop, so does the BioD.

As said above, smells like the carbon offsetting game....

You can bet if one is not careful what they sign up to that these agreements will be fixed such that should the payments stop the land owner will still be responsible for delivering the agreed BioD service... there are three parties in this, 1) developer -payer, 2) the land owner -provider and 3) the local authority - enforcer. If or more likely when a developer defaults on the payment agreement I doubt it will be allowed to invalidate what will be a separate legal agreement between land owner and local authority! It should be expected any land going into such schemes should be expected to remain out of production indefinitely so avoid any options that will require some indefinite management costs.

 

[Coximus]

I have been giving this a lot of thought over the past few days and feel that if it can be treated as a form of arable reversion on the "right land", it could well work as a zero input grassland farming for sheep, and/or trad cattle. Say Dexter or Galloway, if the prescription allows. Stick cattle in the mix, and straight away, there is a whole new array of insect and beetle life about.

The alder growing is interesting... You are not looking at many trees/ha then? But that will be considered enough trees for the agreement I guess? Planted to facilitate easier machinery access I hope Couild well suit heavy, marginal land or equally some brash that barely grows a crop, one year in 3

The alder fixes nitrogen and after 10 years the trees would be matching the normal local input of N from clover or bag - which is interesting as I can see a future for Alder in some wet areas for holding the soil together and providing grazing. Ecologist estimate the alders would increase overall grass yield by 30 to 40% as the constantly provide Nitrogen to the pasture, thats after factoring in the shading.

The gold standard would be biodiversity offsetting while maintaining productive output - IE Grazing and occasional cutting.

Its also accepted that the alders will each lift around 500g to 1kg of PK respectively from the subsoil and dropped as leaves each year.

Ideally I want to avoid the hay cutting every year and go for every 3rd year, as spreadsheet modeling indicates that this could prevent the collapse of the land into acid rush over the 30 years. Ironically grazed well managed grassland being better for the environment than the econazi close the gate and don't farm it brigade believe. It looks like its going to be a fine balancing act, as while given the price I will probably take any deal, but obviously dont want to end up in year 15 with a field of rushes in the middle of otherwise good ground, just sitting and waiting until it can be returned to good heart in year 30.
Obviously 2 tonnes of coarse lime just went on hoping the larger bits will help buffer going forwards.

 

[Huno]

Alder is pretty useless as commercial timber, but it is good for making coffins. So when half the population dies off from starvation due to an avocado and oatmilk shortage you will be able to bury them properly. That’s a win win situation

Or you use the alder for a natural funeral pyre and save on staff to make coffins? It burns well if seasoned but spits a bit so stand back

 

[Coximus]

You can bet if one is not careful what they sign up to that these agreements will be fixed such that should the payments stop the land owner will still be responsible for delivering the agreed BioD service... there are three parties in this, 1) developer -payer, 2) the land owner -provider and 3) the local authority - enforcer. If or more likely when a developer defaults on the payment agreement I doubt it will be allowed to invalidate what will be a separate legal agreement between land owner and local authority! It should be expected any land going into such schemes should be expected to remain out of production indefinitely so avoid any options that will require some indefinite management costs.

Youve nailed it - the councils are firmly of the opinion the planning applies to the land irrespective of the contract even though they are not party to it.

My solicitor is of the opinion I am contracting the developer to provide and sell an offset of a certain specification for £x

I have already said their is not way on gods green earth I will sign anything with the parasites in the LA planning dept. Good news is their isnt much legal framework they can use to force it as offsetting is optional in many regards.

Im insisting that if the payment is more than 3 months late, their is a penalty payment of 50% applied and after 6 months the contract automatically terminates releasing liability with no paybacks due, and a clear indemnity to the effect of;

"The (purchaser of the offset) shall indemnify the landowner of any liabilities arising to any party to the contract for the non deliverance of the agreed outcomes should the contract be terminated due to non payment, or non performance on the part of the purchaser. The landowner at all times maintains that no liability is accepted or contracted into with respect to third parties and any representations made by said parties based on contracts with the purchaser shall be non binding without the explicit acceptance and acknowledgement of the landowner. It is the purchasers responsibility to acquire equivalent offset provision to discharge their liabilities in the event of dissolution of the contract due to non performance"

The other are happy with that but want 6 and 12 months respectively (I felt that was telling about their mindset going forwards).

 

[Coximus]

Or you use the alder for a natural funeral pyre and save on staff to make coffins? It burns well if seasoned but spits a bit so stand back

Good biomass with a sslightly higher rate per tonne drymatter than willow....

 

[Huno]

Planted 1.5 metres apart alders make the best livestock fences and shelter ever after 10yrs.. just add electric wire!! and a livestock farmer!!

 

[steveR]

Youve nailed it - the councils are firmly of the opinion the planning applies to the land irrespective of the contract even though they are not party to it.

My solicitor is of the opinion I am contracting the developer to provide and sell an offset of a certain specification for £x

I have already said their is not way on gods green earth I will sign anything with the parasites in the LA planning dept. Good news is their isnt much legal framework they can use to force it as offsetting is optional in many regards.

Im insisting that if the payment is more than 3 months late, their is a penalty payment of 50% applied and after 6 months the contract automatically terminates releasing liability with no paybacks due, and a clear indemnity to the effect of;

"The (purchaser of the offset) shall indemnify the landowner of any liabilities arising to any party to the contract for the non deliverance of the agreed outcomes should the contract be terminated due to non payment, or non performance on the part of the purchaser. The landowner at all times maintains that no liability is accepted or contracted into with respect to third parties and any representations made by said parties based on contracts with the purchaser shall be non binding without the explicit acceptance and acknowledgement of the landowner. It is the purchasers responsibility to acquire equivalent offset provision to discharge their liabilities in the event of dissolution of the contract due to non performance"

The other are happy with that but want 6 and 12 months respectively (I felt that was telling about their mindset going forwards).

Some great info there. Thank you, as although this is purely academic from my POV, things do change....

Interesting, but hardly surprising that the Developer is OK with the Agreement as you have described. I guess big question, is will the LA agree... I enjoyed you point about the penalty clause! I invoked it with the first Owners of the Solar Farm here who "forgot" to pay me the once... sadly no penalty here due though.

Also, what would happen in the event of the early sale of the Agreement land, maybe as a result of Death? I guess this will depend on how the Agreement is linked to the land itself, which mught require registration with the Land Registry? Not sure how these work... I suspect, if I look at my Solar agreement, it'll be covered.

 

[steveR]

The alder fixes nitrogen and after 10 years the trees would be matching the normal local input of N from clover or bag - which is interesting as I can see a future for Alder in some wet areas for holding the soil together and providing grazing. Ecologist estimate the alders would increase overall grass yield by 30 to 40% as the constantly provide Nitrogen to the pasture, thats after factoring in the shading.

The gold standard would be biodiversity offsetting while maintaining productive output - IE Grazing and occasional cutting.

Its also accepted that the alders will each lift around 500g to 1kg of PK respectively from the subsoil and dropped as leaves each year.

Ideally I want to avoid the hay cutting every year and go for every 3rd year, as spreadsheet modeling indicates that this could prevent the collapse of the land into acid rush over the 30 years. Ironically grazed well managed grassland being better for the environment than the econazi close the gate and don't farm it brigade believe. It looks like its going to be a fine balancing act, as while given the price I will probably take any deal, but obviously dont want to end up in year 15 with a field of rushes in the middle of otherwise good ground, just sitting and waiting until it can be returned to good heart in year 30.
Obviously 2 tonnes of coarse lime just went on hoping the larger bits will help buffer going forwards.

Ever more interesting....! Will they insist on sheep, or is that more your wishes, as I mentioned, "conservation grazing" cattle are great, especially mixed with some sheep.... Tons of experience and advice on this all, over the UK.

ONLY, 2 tonnes of lime grits??? Not able to take a bit more....?

 

[steveR]

So far the basics are pretty simple - no improvement of the land, IE no new drainage, Lime or fertilizer.
Max one herbicide application per 5 year period, requiring justification IE overwhelming thistle or rush issue.

Grazing to be "prescribed" IE no grazing march to end of June, Hay can be cut once every 3rd year (field hasnt been cut for 40 years but could be).

Looks like the aim is basically a form of minimum management with grazing to gradually depelete PK reserves and to manage grass while allowing around 40 to 50 trees per HA to grow, and the grassland to revert to a form of rough pasture or a wildflower meadow.

I have a 10ha block of heavy arable land that is growing bumblebird mix for 2 years. It's challenging land as arable, and IAH needs to go back to grass again. It was very successful as an arable reversion with light Dexter grazing on it, from 2000-2010, at which time the funding plug was pulled, so I ploughed it and went back to arable the day after the agreement stopped.

Thing is, Trees planted on that land would have been a no-no from the perspective of the breeding Curlews and Peewits, and also the large numbers of raptors hunting for prey, especially the Barnies, I had on the block of land... Too many spots for a Predator to lurk. I point this out, as it would seem to me, that different areas will need intelligent ecologists who understand the realities and demands of different species, and get the best out of the land.

 

[steveR]

Now THAT'S a good question.

To ecologists it is the number of different species inhabiting a site (all species, not just plants or just birds or just mammals or just insects or just fungi......), the population of each one, their resilience and stability and the degree to which they all function together as a community within the physical space being described.

To a town planner (and, thus, a developer) it's the score according to the "DEFRA Biodiversity metric 2.0".

Hmmmm

 

[steveR]

Yes. I spoke to them at the Low Carbon Show at Stoneleigh earlier this year. They seem very clued up but I'm still not convinced.

Their model, and one preferred by government, is that they sign up landowners and build a bank of ready made offset which they can effectively sell a share in to developers who need them.

I don't see genuine delivery of additionally in that, do you?

Check out the Investors.... Probably find half the Cabinet have a few quid in this and similiar organisations??

 

[Huno]

Check out the Investors.... Probably find half the Cabinet have a few quid in this and similiar organisations??

Screw it then..like SFI i'm out haha!!

 

[farmerm]

Youve nailed it - the councils are firmly of the opinion the planning applies to the land irrespective of the contract even though they are not party to it.

My solicitor is of the opinion I am contracting the developer to provide and sell an offset of a certain specification for £x

I have already said their is not way on gods green earth I will sign anything with the parasites in the LA planning dept. Good news is their isnt much legal framework they can use to force it as offsetting is optional in many regards.

Im insisting that if the payment is more than 3 months late, their is a penalty payment of 50% applied and after 6 months the contract automatically terminates releasing liability with no paybacks due, and a clear indemnity to the effect of;

"The (purchaser of the offset) shall indemnify the landowner of any liabilities arising to any party to the contract for the non deliverance of the agreed outcomes should the contract be terminated due to non payment, or non performance on the part of the purchaser. The landowner at all times maintains that no liability is accepted or contracted into with respect to third parties and any representations made by said parties based on contracts with the purchaser shall be non binding without the explicit acceptance and acknowledgement of the landowner. It is the purchasers responsibility to acquire equivalent offset provision to discharge their liabilities in the event of dissolution of the contract due to non performance"

The other are happy with that but want 6 and 12 months respectively (I felt that was telling about their mindset going forwards).

Sounds sensible.. Will the council want the indemnity insured? Watch as the developer suddenly jump out of this proposal with you when they find someone else offering land who is, lets just say a bit more of a mug. As I understand it Agricultural Property Relief would still apply to land in biodiversty offset schemes? If APR gets pulls out will BPS provide apply, particularly if the land is in a wild/semi wild condition in 30 years time and no longer receiving payment? It is very hard to have confidence in long term schemes when Government struggles to commit to any kind of consistency even within a 4 year election cycle!

 

[Huno]

Sod APR... BPR is key to keeping the chancellor poor so long as you register offshore.. its a joke thus far... just be careful... and i'm just a peasant tenant without land thus far... they will hook you.. land you.. and throw you back to the sharks if you are not wary of their plans.. Offset away... hope you get lucky and land the shark first from your rowing boat... excuse the analogies...

 

[Huno]

Sounds sensible.. Will the council want the indemnity insured? Watch as the developer suddenly jump out of this proposal with you when they find someone else offering land who is, lets just say a bit more of a mug. As I understand it Agricultural Property Relief would still apply to land in biodiversty offset schemes? If APR gets pulls out will BPS provide apply, particularly if the land is in a wild/semi wild condition in 30 years time and no longer receiving payment? It is very hard to have confidence in long term schemes when Government struggles to commit to any kind of consistency even within a 4 year election cycle!

Screw the council... they are advised by Natural England the unelected quango who advise DEFRA and the rest of them... sharks..sharks...sharks

 

[Huno]

Sounds sensible.. Will the council want the indemnity insured? Watch as the developer suddenly jump out of this proposal with you when they find someone else offering land who is, lets just say a bit more of a mug. As I understand it Agricultural Property Relief would still apply to land in biodiversty offset schemes? If APR gets pulls out will BPS provide apply, particularly if the land is in a wild/semi wild condition in 30 years time and no longer receiving payment? It is very hard to have confidence in long term schemes when Government struggles to commit to any kind of consistency even within a 4 year election cycle!

Just wait until 2025 when this all calms down.. just like crypo mining....quote from our reigning monarch.. not the heirs to the throne.... Regency anyone??