Over-Regulation? Comparing England’s Statutory Biodiversity Net-Gain (BNG) with Wales’ Non-Statutory Net-Benefit for Biodiversity (NBB)

Global biodiversity has declined significantly since the 20th century, driven largely by habitat loss from land-use change. In England and Wales, two of the United Kingdom’s four nations, development pressures continue to threaten biodiversity levels. This study compares England’s statutory Biodiversity Net-Gain (BNG) with Wales’ non-statutory Net-Benefit for Biodiversity (NBB), assessing whether BNG constitutes over-regulation. Using regulatory theory as a basis of assessment, the analysis evaluates both approaches based on effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, and enforceability. England’s BNG mandates a 10% biodiversity ‘net-gain,’ measured via a statutory metric. Conversely, Wales’ NBB, which is embedded in national planning policy, adopts a non-metric, qualitative approach that emphasises ecosystem resilience. This article suggests that both frameworks rely on similar planning mechanisms and face comparable governance issues. It finds that BNG is not more effective or enforceable than its Welsh counterpart and, while NBB is not without issue, it offers a more flexible and efficient means to achieving biodiversity protection and enhancement in the context of development. This, therefore, indicates that BNG’s prescriptive nature may constitute over-regulation. These findings challenge traditional assumptions that statutory approaches inherently lead to greater environmental outcomes. The study offers new insights into environmental regulation and devolution, and its findings are highly relevant to policymakers globally.