Biodiversity is the variety of life on earth, and includes all species of plants and animals and the natural systems that support them.

Some biodiversity yesterday.

So it was generally thought to be a good thing when in 2006, a new duty was placed on public authorities in England and Wales to 'have regard to' biodiversity.

[More:]

It went like this:

Local authorities have a Duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions. This Duty was introduced by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and came into force on 1 October 2006. The Duty affects all public authorities and aims to raise the profile and visibility of biodiversity, to clarify existing commitments with regard to biodiversity, and to make it a natural and integral part of policy and decision making.
(from DEFRA guidance, NB large PDF)

But what is a 'duty to have regard'? Sounds a bit woolly. In December 2006 the government clarified:

It is intended that the biodiversity duty will encourage a culture change so that biodiversity is taken into account across the functions of local authorities, rather than being prescriptive. Due to the diverse nature of local authorities, the Government are keen to allow them flexibility in the approaches used to implement the duty. (Hansard)

Not much enlightenment there. But still, a jolly good thing.

In the light of this a recent court case has caused some concern. The charity Buglife has for the first time actually put the new duty to the test in court- an expensive and courageous thing to do. The case concerned West Thurrock Marshes on the banks of the river Thames. This former power station site is now one of the richest and most important wildlife sites in the UK, home to over 1300 species of invertebrate, bird and plant. Many of the animals were once inhabitants of the now largely destroyed flower rich grasslands and upper saltmarsh of the Essex coast and are today extremely rare and endangered; there are 36 species listed in the Red Data Book of rare species and seven animals prioritised for UK conservation action, including the Distinguished Jumper (Sitticus distinguendus): a spider described by Buglife as 'charismatic', and found on only two sites in the UK – both threatened brownfield sites.

Charismatic - maybe. But, like most jumping spiders, it's got quite a cute face, with its big eyes and furry features. Sadly, after two years of work and some £30,000 of legal expenditure Buglife were not successful in trying to protect the home of the distinguished jumper. It seems that in the first case where the new duty was put to the test, it was found wanting. Worse, the judge dismissed the biodiversity duty as being a 'weak one'. That has implications for habitats and species all across the country.

This is a problem. Buglife have done us all a service by bringing this weakness to our attention: whilst we may imagine that the NERC Act and the new duty have improved the lot of biodiversity, it seems that there is still much to be done. Development and biodiversity need not be uncomfortable bedfellows - in many cases they can get along perfectly well, and even benefit one another. But not if the scales are always tipped in favour of development at any cost.

So, what can you do? Assuming you think something needs doing, of course. For a start, do what The Ranger has done, join Buglife. They need all the cash they can get after that massive case, and they're only a tiny charity. Then when you've done that, if you think something needs changing here, get onto your MP. Pester. Tell others. Moan on in the pub. Don't forget biodiversity and what it means to us all. Then maybe the distinguished jumper will prevail.