|
When the conservation agencies (in the Solent, English Nature and the Environment Agency) are presented with a string of piecemeal projects, they can ask only for piecemeal compensation which may or may not be effective. They fear ‘salami slicing’ of the environment, sometimes called “death by a thousand cuts”.
We must NOT compromise. The goal should be net environmental GAIN.
If the Relevant Authorities have agreed a broad development strategy for the public good, then the scale is such that strategic compensation of any adverse environmental impacts can be addressed on a strategic scale. But it would be difficult to attribute component costs of such compensation to individual projects. Instead it should be seen as a public ‘good’, and funded from public sources. Examples of these could include:
- the National Lottery, on the grounds that the public as a whole would benefit from amenity, for sport, and for environmental improvement.
- the European Union, as this strategic approach would represent a major and serious attempt to implement their aims with regard to integrated coastal zone management
- individual agencies that stood to benefit directly (e.g. The Environment Agency where compensation contributes directly to flood defence, or ports where port efficiency is being improved.)
Development of such a strategic compensation programme would require great clarity of thought by the conservation agencies to decide what they want the Solent to look like, taking account of the developments, human impacts, and external factors such as global warming. It is unlikely that the ecology would be unchanged, but biodiversity and species resilience might be improved.
|
