Appendix—Government
response
Introduction
The Government thanks the Environmental
Audit Committee (EAC) for its consideration of HS2 and welcomes
this opportunity to respond to their recommendations on this important
issue.
The response below follows the paragraph
numbering in the report.
10.
On HS2 the Government should aim higher than simply striving
for no net biodiversity loss. As it further develops its processes
and metrics for biodiversity offsetting, it should seek to weight
these to be more likely to produce biodiversity gains and take
explicit account of local communities' well-being. (Paragraph
12)
In its evidence to the EAC Defra acknowledged
that the objective of seeking no net loss to biodiversity is very
challenging for a major infrastructure project such as HS2 and
that this aim is as ambitious as for any similar infrastructure
project worldwide. Therefore, the Government feels that this
level of ambition is appropriate.
The Defra biodiversity offsetting metric
on which the HS2 metric is based is designed to ascribe the appropriate
weights for habitat losses and gains. The HS2 metric and the
weightings within it take account of the views of offsetting experts
in both Defra and Natural England. In the Government response
to the Environmental Audit Committee's recommendations on biodiversity
offsetting[3] Defra explained
that the biodiversity metric and consideration of other issues
such as public access were separate. As a result, Defra did not
include these factors in the pilot metric and nor have they been
included in the HS2 metric. Such issues were fully considered
in other parts of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
11. The HS2 Environmental Statement
must be revised to distinguish clearly between 'mitigation' and
'compensation' measures in respect of biodiversity, and to explain
the factors determining in which cases these should be applied.
If biodiversity loss is genuinely unavoidable and also cannot
be mitigated, compensation measures should be applied to the fullest
extent possible. (Paragraph 19)
The Government recognises the important
distinction between mitigation and compensation and believes that
the ES properly assesses and describes the likely significant
effects of the scheme on ecology and in relation to biodiversity.
In the ecology chapters of the ES the terms mitigation and compensation
are used correctly and properly reflect the fact that ancient
woodland is irreplaceable as regards its biodiversity. The meaning
of 'compensation' in the ecological sense is defined in the glossary
to the Environmental Statement.
Other disciplines consider ancient woodland
from other perspectives and therefore legitimately use the term
mitigation in different ways. For example, in landscape terms
the loss of ancient woodland can be mitigated because the asset
that is lost is the visual characteristics of the trees.
HS2 Ltd will consult with Natural England
on this and provide further clarification in an information note.
12. HS2 Ltd must carry out outstanding
environmental surveys as soon as possible. It should focus particularly
on cataloguing all ancient woodland and protected animal species,
and as much as possible of the 40% of the route yet to be examined
by involving local wildlife groups where possible. (Paragraph
22)
The environmental assessment took account
of a broad evidence base. This included existing data obtained,
for example, from local biological record centres and local experts
and aerial photography, as well as surveys where access allowed
and professional judgement. An appropriate baseline was therefore
developed to enable assessment to a sufficient level in the Environmental
Statement.
Further surveys will be undertaken in
due course as appropriate once additional access becomes available.
Surveys were undertaken for all woodlands to which we had access,
and this information was supplemented by reference to Natural
England's published list of ancient woodlands as well as with
information from local wildlife trusts and other sources. We
understand that Natural England is in receipt of additional information
on woodlands along the route that may qualify as ancient woodland.
We will continue to liaise closely with Natural England and local
wildlife trusts as appropriate as part of the process of improving
our evidence base as the project develops. If additional impacts
on ancient woodland are subsequently identified we will consult
with Natural England to consider appropriate outcomes.
HS2 Ltd is committed to a major programme
of surveys of European Protected Species as access becomes available.
Where new access became available late in 2013 these surveys
are being undertaken during 2014. The data obtained from these
and future surveys will inform future Habitats Regulations licence
applications.
13. Given the uncertainties surrounding
the effectiveness of offsetting on HS2, along with the scale of
the land to be taken by the project, the [HS2 offsetting] metric
should be adjusted wherever possible to encompass the precautionary
principle. It should for example only allow offset land to be
categorised as 'good' condition if there is a fully costed long-term
plan for the site's management and independent monitoring. As
Defra are still finalising the standard metric for offsetting,
HS2 should look to incorporate any additional learning from these
pilots into the metric for this project, to ensure it is robust
and reflects best available information. (Paragraph 35)
The draft Environmental Memorandum for
HS2 includes a commitment to manage newly created habitats for
a period appropriate for that habitat. This will be a commitment
made by the Secretary of State to Parliament and the nominated
undertaker will be contractually bound by this, as well as any
contractors employed by the nominated undertaker to undertake
the work.
The metric identifies the broad objective
for each parcel of land within Bill limits. Where the objective
is 'good' an appropriate management and monitoring regime will
be introduced to achieve this objective. The details of the monitoring
and management regime to achieve this objective will be developed
as the project evolves. If it becomes clear that an objective
of 'good' condition cannot be achieved for any reason, this would
be taken into account in future reviews of the no net loss calculation.
Defra have examined HS2's offsetting
metric in the light of early outputs from the offsetting pilot
projects and believe that it is consistent with these early findings.
14. If the offsetting metric is used
to determine compensation for ancient woodlands on the HS2 route,
these habitats should receive the maximum score possible on all
criteria (distinctiveness, condition and position within ecological
networks) to recognise their irreplaceability and to maximise
the extent of the offsetting provided. But ancient woodlands should
be treated separately from the overall biodiversity 'no net loss'
calculation. (Paragraph 36)
The metric has not been used to determine
mitigation and compensation measures. The approach used for mitigation
and compensation is set out in an appendix to the Environmental
Statement (Ecological Principles of Mitigation in Volume 5 Appendix,
SMR Addendum Section 9: CT-001-000/2). There are no set ratios
for habitat creation; rather the approach relies on professional
judgement. HS2 Ltd will continue to engage with Natural England
on this as the project develops.
The Defra biodiversity offsetting metric
specifically excluded ancient woodland as it did not accept projects
that would affect this habitat in its pilot projects. However,
HS2 is unable to avoid all ancient woodland, and its inclusion
in the metric was discussed with Defra and Natural England specialists,
who raised no objection.
The metric has been used to develop
scores for the biodiversity value of habitats lost and habitats
created. All ancient woodland automatically achieves the highest
score for distinctiveness. However, ancient woodland is of variable
quality and hence the condition score has to reflect the actual
quality. Where ancient woodland has become overrun with rhododendron,
for example, it would not be appropriate to give it a high condition
score. The connectedness score is designed to reflect the value
of a habitat in the ecological network both before and after the
railway has been constructed. An isolated woodland is of lower
connectedness than a woodland connected to other high quality
habitats and this affects its value to biodiversity. If a high
score was always given to ancient woodland irrespective of its
connectedness this would invalidate the benefit of the scoring.
Given our objective of aiming for no
net loss of biodiversity it is necessary to be able to show the
extent to which it is possible to achieve this for HS2. In order
to show the overall balance of the ecological value of losses
and gains, all habitats have to be considered, including ancient
woodland. However ancient woodland is considered to be irreplaceable
and loss of ancient woodland has therefore been categorised in
the Environmental Statement as significant residual effects. The
difference between mitigation and compensation in this respect
is understood and those compensation measures which are used in
respect of ancient woodland are not confused as mitigation in
the metric. However, substantial woodland creation has been included
in the project to help offset these losses.
Although ancient woodland is not part
of the Defra pilot, HS2 Ltd does not believe it would be helpful
to consider ancient woodland separately as it would then be impossible
to show the extent to which no net loss has been achieved.
15. The Government should commission
research on alternative discount factors for the HS2 offsetting
metric, to take into account the damage caused by any delays in
compensatory habitats reaching maturity. (Paragraph 40)
The time it takes for new habitats to
become properly established is already included when deciding
the appropriate amount of habitat to be created. In Defra's Biodiversity
offsetting metric this is factored in through a score which relates
to the type of habitat being created and the time it takes to
mature. Habitats that are relatively easy to create are given
a low score and habitats that are more difficult to create, or
take longer to become mature, are given a higher score. The HS2
metric uses the same figures as the Defra metric, which is based
on the discount rate in the Treasury green book.
16. The Government should re-examine
the scope for such off-site biodiversity compensation, taking
on board the emerging results from the Natural Capital Committee's
work to strike an appropriate balance between what is best for
nature and for the people affected. (Paragraph 45)
The HS2 Phase One Bill seeks the powers
to create all the mitigation and compensation habitats that are
needed. HS2 Ltd and DfT remain of the view that these powers
will enable creation of the habitats that are required to meet
the needs of the project. They include sufficient scope to ensure
that the delivery of such mitigation and compensation takes account
of the need to balance habitat creation requirements and recreational
opportunities. It is often necessary to locate new habitats close
to the railway in order to maintain the populations of protected
species such as bats and great crested newts that are affected
by it.
17. The Government should establish
a process to monitor all aspects of the environmental protections
needed for HS2 for the 60 years following the start of construction
and operation of the railway, including biodiversity mitigations,
compensations and offsets. This process must be managed by an
independent body, which should be tasked with monitoring and publicly
reporting progress against the 'no net biodiversity loss' objective.
The Government should also establish detailed costings for monitoring
and reporting and for the environmental protections being overseen,
and ring-fence those environmental protections and a budget for
them separate from the rest of the project. (Paragraph 52)
The Environmental Memorandum includes
a commitment to an appropriate monitoring and environmental management
regime. This is a commitment made by the Secretary of State to
Parliament and the nominated undertaker and contractors will be
contractually bound by it. In regard to created habitats, there
is a commitment to monitoring and managing new habitats for an
appropriate period to ensure that the objectives of the habitat
creation are met. For habitats that are relatively easy to create
a five year period may be appropriate. At the other end of the
scale, ancient woodland compensation areas will need to be monitored
and managed for much longer.
The use of a metric to measure losses
and gains to biodiversity for a major infrastructure project is
a major challenge. This is the first time any such attempt has
been made in the UK. As such it represents a significant step
forward in our understanding of the benefits and limitations of
using such an approach. Nevertheless, in view of the novelty
and complexity of the undertaking, we recognise that it is challenging
for consultees to understand the metric and its use, and therefore
to have confidence in it.
The Government, therefore, recognises
the benefits of having an independent body to oversee monitoring
of created habitats and the output from the biodiversity no net
loss calculations. In its questioning the Environmental Audit
Committee raised the potential for Natural England or local authorities
to fulfil such independent roles, and HS2 Ltd will consider these
options further.
The Government recognises that monitoring
costs should be met by the project.
HS2 Ltd will develop detailed cost estimates
for monitoring and reporting at the detailed design stage. However,
we do not believe that ring-fencing a budget for environmental
protection would be appropriate. There is greater flexibility
in including environmental costs in a wider budget as this would
enable the appropriate funds to be assigned as necessary.
18. The Department of Transport and
HS2 Ltd should put forward proposals for an emissions monitoring
system to help resolve, and bring transparency to, the likely
effect of HS2 on overall transport emissions. While the impact
of lower maximum train speed on reducing emissions is currently
not seen as substantial, the legally binding commitment to reduce
emissions makes even a small reduction desirable. HS2 Ltd and
the Department should therefore examine the scope for requiring
a reduced maximum speed for the trains until electricity generation
has been sufficiently decarbonised to make that a marginal issue,
and publish the calculations that would underpin such a calculation.
(Paragraph 62)
HS2 Ltd and DfT are committed to minimising
carbon emissions and HS2 Ltd has endorsed the Infrastructure Carbon
Review which sets out actions to address the UK's aspirations
(as set out in the Government's Construction Industry Strategy)
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment.
Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement (ES 3.1.0) reiterates
the commitment to minimising carbon emissions and sets out HS2
Ltd's intention to develop and apply a carbon management strategy.
The carbon management strategy sets out a hierarchy of actions
and the carbon footprint will be calculated at appropriate intervals
to monitor carbon emissions and determine progress in minimising
carbon emissions.
The technical development in 2009/10
concluded that a commercial maximum speed of 360kph could be adopted
based on the guiding principle of using the latest existing technology.
Accordingly, HS2 has been designed for a maximum speed, where
the balance of benefit, cost and impacts permits, of 360kph with
a passive provision, again where appropriate, of 400kph for future
proofing.
HS2 Ltd will undertake further examination
of the possible emissions benefits of changing the operational
specification. However, HS2 Ltd is clear that operating at lower
speed would reduce carbon emissions from the operation of rolling
stock by only a relatively small degree, and would increase journey
times, making HS2 a less attractive option to customers on roads
and using flights. This is likely to result in less mode shift
and potentially less carbon benefit associated with the operation
of HS2, which could lead to an overall increase in UK carbon emissions
compared to the existing proposed operating speed.
19. The Government should couch its
intended instructions to the Hybrid Bill Select Committee [so
as to be able to demonstrate that it has at least fully followed
the purposes and processes, to address environmental risks and
to prevent or mitigate them, that would be expected of any other
development of this scale.] It is vital that, when the HS2 Hybrid
Bill is given its Second Reading and referred to the Select Committee
to consider petitions, the House's instructions to it:
(i) do not overly constrain the 'principles'
of the Bill approved at Second Reading. The motion should list
only the key fixed features of the project such as terminals in
Birmingham and London. This would allow the Select Committee to
request information on measures that could avoid, reduce or remedy
environmental damage (an EIA process) of potential modifications
to the route and its infrastructure and consequential environmental
protections that might result, for example, from the trains being
required to operate at marginally slower speeds that currently
planned.
(ii) require it to consider and report
on the environmental impacts of the project. Unless the Government
or others in the House do so, Members of our Committee intend
to table a motion requiring the select committee "to comment
and report to the House for its consideration any issue relating
to the environmental impact of the railway transport system for
which the Bill provides that is raised in a Petition against the
Bill, including whether any reasonable or practicable environmental
protections and mitigations are not adopted". As modifications
are subsequently introduced, as a result for example of the Higgins
report or further environmental surveying, additional instructions
to the Select Committee to deal with these should be couched in
similar terms. (Paragraph 86)
This recommendation has now been overtaken
by the Instruction by the House to the Select Committee on 29
April. The Instructions can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140429/debtext/140429-0003.htm#14042952000003
It is now for the Select Committee to
decide how to approach the business it has been charged with in
the light of the instruction given to it by the House.
Insofar as a petition raises environmental
effects of the Bill project it is a matter that the Government
anticipates the Select Committee would consider, provided that
the subject matter of the petition does not touch on the principle
of the Bill. If the Select Committee considers that there is
a reasonable and practicable mitigation, that mitigation could
be introduced into the Bill on that basis. This is a key part
of their role and their conclusions will be included in their
special report to the House.
If the Select Committee process leads
to any new likely significant environmental effects, be it from
changes to the design or new information coming forward from petitioners
or further surveying, the procedures set out in Standing Order
224A of the Commons Standing Orders for Private Business require
a consultation to be held on this "supplementary environmental
information". The responses to this consultation will be
summarised by an independent assessor appointed by the House Authorities.
This summary report will be available for the House when it reconsiders
the principle of the Bill at Third Reading. In this way the process
ensures that all environmental information, whether it touches
on the principle of the Bill or not, is properly considered by
Parliament as decision maker.
3 Defra 2014: Biodiversity Offsetting: Government
Response to Environmental Audit Committee's Sixth report of Session
2013-14 Back
| 
