|
In this report we have examined the rationale for the HS2 aim of delivering 'no net biodiversity loss' and the mechanisms for environmental protection in the project. Our aim has been to inform the House on these matters ahead of the imminent second reading of the HS2 Hybrid Bill and the forming of a select committee soon after to examine petitions from those affected by the project.
The Government should aim higher than that objective of no net biodiversity loss. It has significant work to do to demonstrate that it has put the 'mitigation hierarchy' at the heart of its approach, given the environmental damage expected to ancient woodlands, SSSIs and local wildlife sites. Where such biodiversity loss is genuinely unavoidable and cannot be mitigated, compensation measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible. HS2 Ltd must carry out environmental surveys as much as possible of the 40% of the route yet to be examined and catalogue all ancient woodland and protected animal species.
The HS2 biodiversity offsetting metric in some respects provides additional protections compared to those in Defra pilot projects, but given the uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness of HS2 offsetting and the scale of the land to be taken by the project, the HS2 metric should be adjusted wherever possible to encompass the precautionary principle and be independently monitored. Where damage to ancient woodlands is inevitable the metric should bring forward the maximum possible compensatory habitats, but ancient woodlands should be treated separately from the overall 'no net loss' calculation. The Government should reconsider its requirement for biodiversity compensation to be provided directly alongside the HS2 route, to take opportunities for better offsetting measures further afield.
The HS2 Environmental Statement, and its associated documents and plans, published alongside the Hybrid Bill, provide a degree of environmental protection by specifying minimum requirements and standards, but only if adjustments are not avoided on the grounds they would not be 'reasonable' or 'practicable' and only if a separate budget is provided to meet the cost of environmental protections. The Government should establish a long-lasting process to monitor all aspects of environmental protections needed for HS2, overseen by an independent body, along with a ring-fenced separate environmental budget.
Carbon is diminishing as a factor in the debate on the case for the project, and the likely savings are likely to be relatively small. A bigger issue is the potential effect of the decarbonisation of the generation of the required electricity. The Government should examine the scope for requiring a reduced maximum speed for the trains until electricity generation has been sufficiently decarbonised.
In the absence of a formal Strategic Environmental Assessment process for HS2, the Government should ensure that its instructions to the Hybrid Bill Select Committee: (i) include sufficiently broad 'principles' to allow full consideration of the environmental impacts of options still available, and (ii) require it to consider and report on the environmental impacts of the project, including the issues we have highlighted in our inquiry. We hope and expect that the Government will do so. If it, or others in the House, do not, we will seek to ensure that that an appropriate instruction motion is tabled.
| 
