This scheme aims to replace complex wildlife protection legislation with a scheme to allow developers to destroy wildlife on their development and paying for that 'biodiversity' to be created elseware. On the surface this is actually a good idea and could enhance the overall biodiversity of the UK.
BUT! This is not what will happen, it is in fact just a massive scam (just like the Carbon Offsetting Scheme) to funnel ever more profits into the pockets of landowners and bankers. As you un-peel the onion of the economics of wildlife destruction we can get to the root problem. That destroying wildlife is very profitable as the profits go mostly untaxed into the hands of the lucky few who get permission to destroy Biodiversity & own the land. If we just taxed wildlife/land destruction (shifting the taxes off income tax and VAT so it would have no negative impact on the economy) we could square this circle and have better use of land, more economic activity and more wildlife! The best way to achieve this is by the tax shift to 'Land Value Tax' and specific taxes on the destruction of priority habitats and wildlife (economist call like to call these taxes on externalities or Pigovian Taxes )
Of course the landowners and bankers would loose their huge profits and be worse off, so we know why mainstream politicians avoid this solution. The loss of monopoly rental income would remove so much of the corruption inherent in our political and economic system, but that system will kick and scream like a spoilt child if we ever manage to achieve it.
Biodiversity
Offsetting
In theory Biodiversity Offsetting (BO) is far better than the
system than we have at present and one I wholly support. But, and it’s a big
but, who judges the quality of offsetting?
If it were to work it must have these characteristics:
- Not affect existing wildlife - it really must come from marginal farmland and not spent on wasteful habitat management schemes that are transitory in nature. (certainly not on paths and interpretation!)
- Administered by professional ecologists with no conflict of interest, independent of government or commercial pressure
- Be permanent and inailable. Unlimited time conservation covenants (legal charges on land – held by HMG through Natural England)
Myself & the wider Conservation Community
have justified fears that BO will just be manipulated to create more money
for banks, landowners and the other monopolists who own land and are looking
for private rental income of the ownership of natural assets through gaining
planning permissions. Government policy of the last 30 years while on the
surface looking reasonable, by sleight of hand, seams determined on increasing
the rental value and capital value of land. The fear is that BO will be no
different and will end up with complicated lease & brokerage arrangements
that only benefit landowners and the financial services industry in complicated
BO ‘banking’ arrangements and see little or no improvement to the quality of
wildlife habitat in the UK. Similar carbon offsetting arrangements have lost all
credibility due to fraud and abuse on a massive scale.
The real solution would be the tax shift to Land Value Tax,
with externality taxes, as a yearly charge on top of an Annual Land Value
assessment for loss of protected species, and create a general fund whereby
these Land Rents go to the fund which is used only to purchase land (at base
agricultural rates & on land which has little biodiversity value) which
will have an inaliable right in perpetually and be designed to strategically
create a large network of wildlife corridors linking large nature reserve
complexes. This would have little economic impact as this land will be marginal
land of little value to farming or developers.
If we analyse the development problem 'Dialectically'
between the two major economic counterparties that have force on the political
debate we better see these forces at play.
Forces Against
Development on New Sites:
By stopping development that harms nature we increase the
value of existing developed land as we have expanded use for it. Those who own
existing developed land wish to stop development (the Nimby Syndrome) as this
increases the capital and rental value of their land. This has a direct
economic impact on the country reducing productivity and the quality of life of
citizens but at the same time protecting some wildlife rich land.
Forces For
Development on New Sites
In general those with undeveloped land wish to see it
developed as the windfall profits of such planning permissions are huge.
Those without land want more land developed as this
reduces the overall price of getting access to land for their housing and
employment.
Wildlife is destroyed as new developments are often very
inefficient in land use and there is no pressure to better use existing brown
filed sites and underdeveloped sites.
The Solution:
The solution to this conundrum is the Land Value Tax.
Existing landowners will pay an annual charge based on the monopoly or
unimproved 'rental' value of their land, so if more land is developed they pay
less tax and if less land is developed they pay more tax thus taking away the
advantage and disadvantage and neutralising the vested interest they have. As
'nimbyism' works on the local scale this forces development to new areas, such
are the problems of green belt land creating environmentally damaging commuter
dormitory towns and built up areas very inefficiently utilised such as in
London.
Under Land Value Tax landowners of underdeveloped land
will not benefit from the granting of planning permission as that increased
rental value will be extracted in tax. Developers can still turn a modest
profit from construction but as no huge windfall gains are to be made there
will be no incentive for large lobbying efforts to gain planning permission.
Overall the effect of a land value tax will be to
concentrate development of existing land and make better use of it, Such as in
London improvement in the efficiency of the use of land could take away all the
pressure for dormitory towns and development in the South East, leaving more
for nature.
The overall effect of Land Value Tax will mean Instead of
massive windfall gains falling into the hands of those who own natural assets
like land if they manage to get planning permission, now there will be a cost
to the yearly use of such natural assets and thus much wiser use of it.
Land Value Tax also benefits industry as a whole as it
will promote development of land to its ‘best use’ creating more
efficient towns and transport infrastructure and allow other taxes such as VAT
and income tax to be reduced, so stimulating job creation and higher incomes.
We have a simple choice with land value tax, to adopt this economic system will make most of us wealthier, with more jobs and a better environment, not adopting it will mean that there are huge profits to be made from the destruction of our Biodiversity and on top of that ever more of the nations wealth disappearing into the hands (most often offshore secret bank accounts) of an elite group of landowners and bankers from the pockets of the rest of us.
