Julien Bélair: I’m here with Luca Calarailli, an expert in construction with extensive knowledge in design and architecture. He also explores technology applications and tools that drive innovation in the industry. Today, we’ll be discussing the recent Arbtech report and its critical view on the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
What prompted Arbtech to produce the report ‘Growthwashing: Why a Nature Restoration Fund could be the worst thing to happen in ESG….Ever’? Can you explain the key issues you found with the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill? How do you define “growthwashing”?
Arbtech produced the report in response to the Government’s proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill for a new tax on development. These proposals include a single payment into a Nature Restoration Fund, which Arbtech argues could lead to the loss of green space and biodiversity in urban areas. “Growthwashing” refers to masking environmental harm with seemingly positive actions or initiatives that don’t address the core problems. In this case, it describes the Government’s approach of using a simplified funding mechanism to claim environmental stewardship while ignoring the localized impacts on biodiversity and communities.
How does the proposed nature restoration fund differ from the current process involving surveys and mitigation for biodiversity on development sites? Why do you believe a single payment into this fund is problematic? What were some of your concerns regarding the practicality of this tax?
Currently, developers must conduct surveys and put in place measures to mitigate biodiversity loss on development sites. The proposed fund allows developers to bypass these steps by making a single payment instead. This is problematic because it disconnects conservation efforts from the areas harmed by development, potentially leading to a net loss of local biodiversity. Practical concerns include the effectiveness of the fund’s allocation and whether the money will genuinely be used for impactful conservation projects near affected communities.
Can you elaborate on the potential consequences for urban and low-income communities if the Government’s proposals are enacted? How do you think these changes could affect mental and physical health in these communities? What specific examples can you cite from the Office for National Statistics or NHS Forest reports to support your claims?
Urban and low-income communities may lose local green spaces, which are crucial for physical activity and mental relaxation. Reduced contact with nature is linked to poorer health outcomes. The Office for National Statistics reported that a million fewer people are gaining health benefits from nature since 2020, while the NHS Forest’s evaluation confirmed that even modest green spaces promote well-being. When these spaces are lost, existing health inequalities could worsen, increasing stress and decreasing opportunities for recreation and community engagement.
How might the proposed measures impact affluent, rural, or suburban areas differently from lower-income urban neighborhoods? Are there existing legal or policy protections that shield these affluent areas from aggressive development? What makes these protections insufficient for urban and low-income communities?
Affluent, rural, or suburban areas often have green belt protections that safeguard them from aggressive development. These legal frameworks, such as green belt policies, aren’t as robust in urban and lower-income neighborhoods, leaving these areas more vulnerable to losing green spaces. This discrepancy stems from more substantial policy and financial resources available to affluent communities, allowing them to push back against developments that threaten their green spaces.
In terms of environmental conservation, what are the long-term risks associated with focusing on a few large nature reserves away from the areas affected by development? How could this impact the development of healthy and happy lives for children in those communities? What evidence supports the need for local green spaces in urban areas?
Focusing on a few large nature reserves can create unintended consequences, like leaving urban areas impoverished in terms of biodiversity. For children, a lack of local green spaces can hinder their physical, emotional, and psychological development. Studies have shown that regular interaction with nature fosters healthier and happier lives for children and helps develop a sense of environmental stewardship. Local green spaces provide essential daily access to nature, which is crucial for overall well-being.
What concerns do you have about the governance and transparency of the nature restoration fund? How should the fund’s investment and spending be overseen to ensure effectiveness and equity? Why is oversight from entities like the Office for Environmental Protection important?
I’m concerned about how the fund will be governed and whether its investments will be transparent and accountable. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure the fund achieves its conservation goals equitably. Bodies like the Office for Environmental Protection should monitor allocation and spending to ensure that the funds are used appropriately and benefit the communities most impacted by development. This oversight helps prevent misuse and ensures small businesses can also participate in conservation efforts.
Based on your understanding, how might the proposed measures impact the sense of ownership and responsibility for the environment among young people? Do you believe that a lack of local nature experiences could dampen the ESG-literacy of the upcoming generation? What role does proximity to green spaces play in fostering environmental responsibility?
If young people lack regular, local interactions with nature, their sense of ownership and responsibility for the environment may diminish. Local nature experiences are essential for fostering environmental literacy and a sense of stewardship. Without these experiences, the upcoming generation might not develop the skills and commitment needed to tackle environmental issues effectively.
How does Arbtech suggest reconciling development needs with the preservation of local biodiversity more effectively than the Government’s current proposals? What alternative measures would you recommend for balancing development and environmental conservation? How can developers and policymakers work together to protect green spaces within urban communities?
Arbtech suggests a more integrated approach that doesn’t decouple development from local conservation needs. Alternatives include enhancing policies that require on-site mitigation and promoting community-based conservation projects. Developers and policymakers can collaborate more effectively by including local communities in planning processes, ensuring developments incorporate green spaces, and prioritizing brownfield sites over greenfield areas.
How do you foresee social equity, biodiversity, and economic resilience being impacted if the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is enacted as currently proposed? What systemic inequalities might be further intensified?
If enacted as proposed, the Bill could exacerbate existing social inequalities, as the loss of green spaces would hit disadvantaged communities hardest. This scenario would further strain these communities’ mental and physical health, while biodiversity loss could reduce environmental resilience. Systemic inequalities in access to nature, health outcomes, and exposure to pollution are likely to widen, reinforcing a cycle of disadvantage.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
My advice is to stay informed and engaged with local planning processes. Advocate for the preservation of green spaces in your communities and support policies that balance development with environmental conservation. Collective community action can play a significant role in safeguarding the natural environment for future generations.
