As ecologists, it's time to up our game to maximise the potential benefits of biodiversity net gain

I’m sure I can’t be the only person, who when first entering the ecology consultancy profession, was left slightly confused at some of the methods and standards in place. Coming straight out of university to find that in just a few survey visits, you are expected to conclude whether bats are roosting within a structure, despite knowing they are a highly mobile group of species we still know relatively little about. Then to design mitigation that has not really been shown to be that effective.

But of course, after just a short time you realise you are constrained by the planning and development process. Ecology already has a bad reputation due to seasonality, can you imagine if we started requesting multiple surveys over multiple years? And would we even be any clearer in our conclusions at the end anyway?

So we are mostly aware of how we are constrained to work within the system. But that doesn’t mean we can’t strive to up our game. With biodiversity net gain set to be mandated through the upcoming environment bill, it is clear biodiversity will become more important in the planning process.

In this article I want to offer some (hopefully) constructive points to start a discussion, as we move to constantly improve as a sector. These are points that come up time and time again when talking to fellow ecologists and I thought it was time to get a few on paper. I must caveat this by saying I must also improve on all of the below points, and I also know many people are already excellent at many of these things.

1)     Improve the general standard of habitat survey and botany training

With such a focus on protective species, habitat survey training and particularly botanical training is something we have collectively neglected. When I started out in ecology all I wanted to do (and what I was encouraged to do) was to get my Great Crested Newt licence and then my Bat licence(s). I received great training and there was an abundance of knowledge in the industry and I quickly picked up a lot from other consultants and from training courses. With the requirement of a licence and legal issues around legislation, everyone knew the training had to be thorough.

For habitat surveying and botany no such licence requirement exists and beyond protected habitats, most habitats are not directly given any legislative protection. Perhaps it is this reason that I have been shocked that even graduate ecologists get thrown onto a site in December and are expected to map habitats and produce a species list. There was never any strong encouragement or mentoring available for these types of surveys, and any detailed botanical work was often the realm of one or two specialists within a company (if you’re lucky!)

With the introduction and soon to be requirement of the Defra Biodiversity Metric, this has to improve. If the data we put in is no good, the data, and thus the outcomes for biodiversity, will also be no good.

Anyone who has trained in this area will know that the more you learn the more you realise it is a vast and complicated area of study. In fact, the best botanists you meet will probably be the ones who say they feel like they know nothing at all. You learn that certain species are just not possible to spot at certain times of year. You start to have flashbacks to surveys in the past where you might have missed something important.

Consultants now have a duty to provide graduates with adequate botany training, whether that be in house or through CIEEM or other recognised bodies and then to constantly mentor. As consultants we now must commit to continued improvement in this area as a matter of priority if we are likely to be doing any habitat surveys.

2)     Improve the quality of mapping

My second point builds on point number 1. I will admit that I personally have literally had engineers and landscape architects laugh in my face when they have been passed a phase 1 habitat map.

Rough mapping on GIS (and sometimes what looks like Microsoft Paint) has been adequate most of the time up until now, but with the introduction of the metric this simply has to change.

Particularly for smaller schemes where a topographical survey is available, maps are still done on an OS layer. Not only does this means areas aren’t calculated as precisely, therefore not being entered into the calculator as accurately, but it makes comparison with landscape and planting plans much more difficult.

There is a big push in the construction industry to move towards better collaboration (BIM etc.). As ecologists, we don’t want to be left behind.

Does this mean we abandon GIS and move to CAD? Well that would probably make more sense. We are rarely conducting large scale spatial analysis on a development scheme and so GIS is probably not the best software for this. However, with many of us now trained or training in GIS, and with CAD being tricky to say the least, we are probably better finding a middle ground. That means utilising topographical surveys and developing tools to help us map more accurately on site.

3)     Being realistic in what we can achieve through habitat creation, restoration and management

When we start to use the metric to calculate habitat enhancements and creation we need to be realistic about what we can achieve.

Are you really going to be able to take that improved grassland with it’s years of intensive inputs and create a high distinctiveness, high condition meadow? In the middle of a housing estate?

With the requirement to now achieve a net gain, the temptation to strive for perfection will be higher than ever. This is fine, we should always strive for perfection, but we shouldn’t expect it. With all the uncertainties ecological processes bring, along with some of the uncertainties of long term management, we need to be realistic in our predictions.

Perhaps that means looking at different habitat types that have a higher chance of success. Or maybe that means looking at off-site options that can be more safely secured from the pressures of hundreds of new dog-walking residents.

The new biodiversity net gain British standard (currently in draft) will hopefully help cement these principles. As it looks to put a requirement on ecologists to prove their assumptions.

We need to see an increase in scientific method such as soil testing. Looking closely at hydrology and geology. Even simple things like asking a landowner about previous management.

It is not enough to simply hope for the best, we need as much certainty as we can get to get real tangible benefits for biodiversity.

4)     Getting on the project team as early as possible

As biodiversity net gain rolls out, it will be important to inform clients on how to use the metric to maximise gains whilst not unnecessarily increasing costs.

If left till the end of the design process, developers may have to undertake layout changes, which could cause delays or lose them developable area. It will also likely lead to sub optimal recommendations for biodiversity, perhaps adding wildflower seed into areas of amenity grassland to increase the value (which is fine) but maybe not as good as more strategically placed wildlife corridors that could have been incorporated if ecology was involved from the start.

The metric should ideally be applied multiple times during the development process. Ideally from site acquisition stage to allow the sites of highest ecological value to be avoided entirely.

Then, where possible, repeatedly throughout the process constantly feeding back to the masterplanning team and landscaping teams. With better planning, we can have much better outcomes for biodiversity.

We can always strive to do better, whatever stage of our career we are at. Part of this is about each of us taking a step back and acknowledging just how difficult the ecology profession is. We often get paid the least money to do some of the most complicated work that requires the most years of training to do well. I want us all to work together to collectively improve the industry as much as possible because I believe the vast majority of ecologists get into this line of work for the right reasons.

Hopefully, with the introduction of a mandate for biodiversity net gain, as well as an increasing awareness from the public of the importance of biodiversity, we can make the ecology consultancy industry an example for other sectors to follow.