Friedrich Wulf Head, International Biodiversity Policy Pro Natura - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

Biodiversity Offsetting case

studies in Germany Friedrich Wulf

Head, International Biodiversity Policy Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland International Biodiversity Campaigner Friends of the Earth Europe

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

What to expect in this presentation:

Scope and sources The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

General principle The regulation in the German Nature Conservation Act

Some examples Comments on specific aspects Final Conclusions

Scope and source Own experience (1996-2008)

Comments in the course of NGO participation (FoE, BL) Implementation assessment in 5 communities (2005-06)

Quick survey among German practitioners:

Administration (3) Interveners (Business, project owners) (2) Landscape architects, planning bureaeus (2) Lawyers (2) NGOs (2) University (1)

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

3

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

4

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

5

Article 13 General principle Intervening parties shall primarily avoid any significant adverse effects on nature and landscape. Unavoidable significant adverse effects are to be

• ffset via compensation measures

(Ausgleichsmaßnahmen) or substitution measures (Ersatzmaßnahmen) or, where such offset is not possible, via monetary substitution.

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

6

• 1. Does the plan or Project

cause significant impacts

• n nature and landscape

(See EIA, SEA etc.)? no yes No objection

• from a NC

perspective, project can go ahead On with step 2

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

7

• 2. Is the intervention

happening as (part of) good agricultural, forestry

• r fishery practice

(§14(2))? yes no No objection – Good agri practice helps nature (per def.) Regulation is applicable,

• n with step 3

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

8

• 3. Can the impact be

avoided (by minimisation

• r reasonable alternative

solution/location) (§15(1))? yes no Avoid impact and proceed with project explain and proceed to step 4

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

9

• 4. Can the impact be

compensated (restoration

• f functions in same way)

(§15(2))? yes no Compensate for impact and proceed with project proceed to step 5

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

10

• 5. Can the impact be

substitued (restoration of functions in equivalent way) (§15(2))? yes no Substitute for impact and proceed with project proceed to step 6

The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

11

• 6. Do the interests of the

project override those of nature conservation yes no Make a substitution payment and proceed (§15(6)) project may not proceed (§15 (5))

Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

12

Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)

Built 2004-2010 Authorisation procedure and compensation: 2001 2013 Reason for project: capacities of Bremen port will soon be exhausted (3050m length), so additional 1700 m (room for 4 ships) needed. Otherwise, shipping companies and jobs will move somewhere else

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

13

Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)

Thorough EIA procedure:

• Presentation of project and possible impacts on

man and environment

• Description of minimisation measures
• Decription and Evaluation of Environmental

impacts regarding people, air, climate, cultural and other goods, soil, water, habitats, species, protected areas Area was proposed by NGOs as Natura 2000, also contains several protected habitats

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

14

Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)

Alternatives: Capacity and technical optimisation in situ already done No other alternative location possible

• no reuse of built-up land
• Wilhelmshaven: is a supplement to existing

ports, doesn’t count

• Building outside of the Land Bremen not

acceptable for the city (no influence of the Land, (does not help jobs in Bremen)) NGOs: SEA for North German ports not done correctly!

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

15

Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)

Land use on ca. 190 ha to be changed Mostly sublitotal and intertidal mud flats, but also reeds, halophilous grassland; 10 threatened plant species (red list); 6 red-listed breeding birds, 30+ migrating birds (of national importance for great ringed plover, black-headed gull, common gull, of regional importance for 7 more species)

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

16

Assessment of compensation need: state before

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

17

Assessment of compensation need: state after

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

18

Planned compensation:

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

19

Planned compensation:

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

20

Compensation on site («Compensation»)

Planned compensation:

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

21

Compensation on site («Compensation») Compensation off site («Substitution»)

Planned compensation:

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

22

Compensation on site («Compensation») Compensation off site («Substitution») Major site for offsetting: Luneplate

Luneplate, Bremen

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

23

Luneplate, Bremen

• 1000 ha converted for Nature

Conservation purposes

• 170 ha as compensation

measures for CT IV

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

24

Luneplate, Bremen

• New protected area (2013)
• Formerly intensively used

agricultural land

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

25

Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern

Mitigation of fragmentation:

Bridges over wetland valleys Animal passes over A 20

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

26

Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

27

Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern

• Creation of large peatland ecosystem
• New habitats for rare and protected

species (White-tailed eagle, Spotted eagle, Crane)

• Measures:
• Hydraulic engineering
• Fencing (30 km, plus cattle grids)
• Extensive grazing management

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

28

Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

29

Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

30

Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

31

Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

32

• 35 ha – renaturation
• Aim: re-enable natural floodplain

dynamics after one-time intervention

• Compensation measures for 4

infrastructure projects – all in one

Final Conclusions

Compensation regulation is standard feature Does not stop projects or avoid impact on nature, but compensates

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

33

Inventory of compensation areas - Bremen

Implementation issues Compensation in 5 Communities in RLP

All Building concessions from 1995-2000

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

34

Comments on the Regulation

Regulation is part of any authorisation procedure which can have impacts on nature and landscape EIA is standard feature (at least for bigger projects) Assessment and planning documents have to be elaborated by Intervenant Process is supervised and plan authorized by competent authority  important to have qualified staff there (Ideally certification) NGO participation often improves quality of assessment (gaps, data)

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

35

Comments on the Regulation

No certificates or markets involved, areas cannot be traded, compensation is a government- regulated, 1:1 exchange under clear conditions, according to an agreed plan.

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

36

Comments on the Regulation

Avoidance: only the impact on nature should be avoided, not the project

Real avoidance: by designing the project accordingly, mitigation Alternatives; Choosing best option

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

37

Motorway A 59 (Hessen)

New itinerary: Saves crested newts Additional exit for city Saves 40 Mio EUR

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

38

Comments on the Regulation

No question if the project makes sense or is in public interest Complete avoidance only if no compensation possible and interests of nature and landscape

• verriding. As long as you mitigate/compensate,

you can go ahead with the intervention Interest in conserving nature is reduced if compensation is possible  but this is not decisive for the project  Strengthening of “avoidance” necessary

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

39

New developments

Distinction between compensation (Ausgleich) and Substitution (Ersatz) becomes increasingly blurred Ex ante Compensation already qualifies as avoidance It gets increasingly harder to find areas for compensation:

Compensation banking Ecopools “production-integrated” compensation Tendency towards far end of mitigation hierarchy

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

40

New developments

Increasingly not so helpful measures proposed:

Amphibian tunnels in direction of wind (A 445) Active Railroad tunnel as flyway for bats (B 173) “Lizard corridor” is border strip of National Road (B 173)

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

41

Large-scale Compensation projects

Impressive Projects that really help nature But: what about the intervention? Ecopools: does this not deplete the remaining landscape? Does this not create perverse incentives?

• nature destruction as a funding source for nature

conservation, approved by authorities and sometimes also NGOs

• segregation («Zoos and production land»)?

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

42

Example from Swiss Jura, 1971-1996

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

43 Source: Prof. Klaus C. Ewald, in Lachat T. et al. (2010): „Wandel der Biodiversität in der Schweiz seit 1900“

Final conclusions

Compensation regulation is standard feature for dealing with nature protection outside of Natura 2000 and protected areas Does not stop projects or avoid impact on nature, but helps to minimise and compensate projects which take place anyway(but perverse incentives?) No evidence regulation has achieved no net loss Strengthen avoidance: Assessment whether the project overrides the interests of nature and biodiversity (and if not: red light) - as in § 15 (5) and Art. 6 (3) HD should be at the beginning

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

44

Thank you!

CEEweb Academy Budapest, 08.10.2013

45