The COMBO Project Introductory Training: The Mitigation Hierarchy, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introductory Training: The Mitigation Hierarchy, Offsets and Planning for No Net Loss The COMBO Project

Launch meeting, Kampala 27-28 June 2016

1

Credit Tullow

2

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

Agenda

Session 1: The foundations – introduction to core concepts 8:30 Welcome & meeting objectives Introduction of core concepts 10:30 Coffee 11:00 Examples, case studies Exercise (‘Mitigation Hierarchy’) and Discussion 12:00 Lunch Session 2: Technical focus: Elements of best practice 13:30 Key scientific, technical, implementation issues Exercise (‘What counts as gain?’) and Discussion 15:30 Coffee 16:00 Roles of government; lessons learned; additional resources 17:00 Close of training and launch of COMBO Project

3

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

Purpose of the course

(1) Develop shared vocabulary on mitigation of impacts

• n biodiversity;

(2) Develop a common understanding of the basics of mitigation hierarchy; (3) Exchange information on international best practice

• n mitigation, including biodiversity offsets;

(4) Introduce “COMBO”; (5) Provide information about further resources

4

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

4

Introduction of participants

5

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

Session 1: The foundations

8:30 Welcome & meeting objectives Introduction of core concepts:

• Mitigation hierarchy, incl. biodiversity offsets
• Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
• Drivers & trends; State of the world on NNL, NPI
• BBOP Principles and IFC PS6
• Stakeholder involvement
• EIA and NNL

10:30 Coffee 11:00 Examples, exercise and discussion

• Examples: project level and system level
• Exercise (“Mitigation Hierarchy”)
• Q&A and discussion
• Introduction to short afternoon exercise

12:00 Lunch

Why the mitigation hierarchy and planning for No Net Loss?

Development - by 2050: Population 33% Food demand 100% Mining 60% Energy 80% Carbon emissions 50% ….all bringing impacts on biodiversity How to reconcile development with conservation?

• Avoid, to the extent possible, the impacts of biodiversity
• Minimise the impacts you can’t avoid
• Restore after unavoidable impacts have taken place
• Offset any remaining residual impacts
• Follow the ‘Mitigation hierarchy’ and Plan for ‘No Net Loss’ or a ‘Net Gain’.

Biodiversity: CBD Aichi targets – by 2020: “At least halve and, where feasible, bring close to

zero the rate of loss of natural habitats, including forests” 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10%

• f marine and coastal areas protected

At least 15% of degraded ecosystems restored through conservation and restoration

6

Predicted impact (PI) Offset

Net Gain / Net Positive Impact (NPI)

Avoid Mini- mise Avoid Mini- mise Restore Avoid

No Net Loss Residual Impact No Net Loss (NNL)

Source: BBOP, adapted from Rio Tinto and government of Australia

Offset Offset

• +

Biodiversity Impact Biodiversity Impact

Predicted impact (PI) Additional Conservation Actions

The Mitigation Hierarchy including Offsets

7

8

Road Mine Factory

Planned town Unplanned settlement Expanded Town

Access to new land e.g. forest

Direct impacts

Road Factory

Planned town Expanded Town

Access to new land e.g. forest

Primary impacts Indirect Impacts

Direct and indirect impacts

Cumulative impacts in Uganda

Source: Namibia SEA

Cumulative impacts: strategic approach

10

Landscape-level planning and the Mitigation Hierarchy

http://www.shadedrelief.com/

• The mitigation hierarchy is

applied at different scales, from regional to site-level.

• LLP important at regional

level (e.g. to identify alternatives, areas to avoid, conserve)

Regional biodiversity plan Site-level planning

• A. Skowno, 2009; Source: Biodiversity for Development, SANBI

2010.

11

Integration of the mitigation hierarchy at various levels and spatial scales

National scale Regional scale Landscape scale

14

Project scale

Landscape and land use planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment EIAs

Planning for biodiversity and NNL

Early planning of mitigation measures is important.

It helps with:

• Preventing harm from the outset, which is more effective than

mending afterwards (e.g. through restoration, offsetting)

• Early warning and good risk management
• Identifying the most suitable and cost effective mitigation measures
• Cost of avoidance and minimization often less than cost of offsets

Avoidance is better than remedy!

15

Drivers for better mitigation: recent advances

Laws Loan conditions and Standards

NNL - natural habitat Net Gain - critical habitat

Corporate commitments, projects, and case studies Methodologies

39 countries with laws or policies on NNL/NG, biodiversity offsets or compensation. 22 countries developing them. 40 companies with NNL or related commitments. 50 companies with Zero Net Deforestation commitments. Regulated systems Voluntary approaches

16

Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation

• utcomes

resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts due to project development after appropriate avoidance, minimisation and restoration measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss or a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity.

What are biodiversity offsets?

17 http://bbop.forest-trends.org/

Principles agreed by BBOP Members

1. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy 2. Limits to what impacts can be offset 3. Landscape context 4. No net loss 5. Additional conservation outcomes 6. Stakeholder participation 7. Equity 8. Long-term outcomes 9. Transparency

• 10. Science and traditional knowledge

18

Approach:

• Principles-based
• Flexible approach (any methods that meet principles)

Structure:

Principles: Fundamental statements about a desired outcome. Criteria: Conditions that need to be met to comply with a Principle. Indicators: Measurable states to tell whether a Criterion has been met. AND Guidance Notes

Purpose:

• To help auditors assess conformance .
• To help companies design & implement offsets.
• Interpretation of Indicator
• Key questions
• Conformance requirements
• Possible causes of non-conformance
• …. Explains terms, concepts
• …. What assessor needs to answer
• …. To meet the standard
• …. Examples of not meeting the Std

The Biodiversity Offset Standard

19

20

Biodiversity offset:

• Designed to achieve ‘no net loss’ or ‘net gain’

Compensatory conservation, e.g.:

• Not planned to achieve no net loss
• Doesn’t quantify loss/gain
• Not established for long term implementation
• Impossible to offset the impacts
• impacts too severe or pre-impact data

lacking

• Financial payment, not biodiversity result

Offset vs. Compensation

Compensation Offset No compen- sation Some investment in conservation but not quantified to balance the impacts Some investment in conservation, aim to address footprint, but

• nly based on

some values/impacts NNL (No net loss) Net gain Would satisfy ‘No Net Loss’ req’s and Standards, e.g. IFC PS6, BBOP Standard on Biodiversity Offsets

Offset vs. Compensation

21

State of Offsets

Globally:

• 2014: 39 countries with existing laws or policies on NNL/NG, biodiversity
• ffsets or compensation. 22 developing them.
• 2011: Annual market size (mostly USA!) min. US$ 2.4-4.0 billion. Likely

much more (80% of programs not transparent enough to estimate market size). Conservation impact: >187,000 hectares annually. US mitigation banking increasing: 1,044 active and sold-out wetland, stream and conservation banks.. >15,000 ha annually. 500,000 hectares cumulatively. Europe: Germany –

• banking. France, UK,

Sweden – initial steps Africa: South Africa state and national level under development. Namibia: integration into SEA. Work underway in Mozambique, Uganda, Madagascar and Guinea. Latin America: Brazil Forest Code & Compensation Law. Colombia: Compensation Guidelines; Peru: Ministerial Resolution on

• Compensation. Chile:

Compensation Guidelines. Australasia: Several Australian states (NSW, Victoria, Northern Territories, Queensland, Western Australia) and

• federal. NZ underway

Vietnam, Japan, Mongolia.

Madsen et al 2011 Ecosystem Marketplace Forest Trends ten Kate & Crowe, 2014 IUCN, Forest Trends

Natural Habitat: No net loss, where feasible Critical Habitat: Net gains

PS 6 on Biodiversity Offsets:

• Measurable conservation outcomes reasonably

expected to result in no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity. Net gain is required in critical habitats.

• The design of a biodiversity offset must adhere to the

“like-for-like or better” principle.

• Must be carried out in alignment with best available

information and current practices.

• External experts with knowledge in offset design and

implementation must be involved.

• Guidance Note 6 references the BBOP Principles as

an internationally recognized standard in biodiversity

• ffset design.

IFC-Performance Standard 6

24

• ‘No net loss’ includes no net loss of socioeconomic and

cultural values (as well as intrinsic biodiversity values like listed species)

• Local communities and indigenous peoples can have

several different roles in the process:

• At the level of the NATIONAL SYSTEM – they should be

consulted in the design of the system

• At the level of individual development PROJECTS –

many possible roles, e.g.

• Participation in assessing likely project impacts on

biodiversity (esp impacts on people’s cultural and livelihood values) and proposed mitigation measures

• Paid to implement mitigation measures
• Involved in governance/oversight of offsets
• Involved in monitoring and evaluation

Livelihoods and local people

25

Launch meeting – Conakry – 7-9 June 2016

• Local communities see the benefit of projects and their

mitigation measures

• Government supports the conservation outcomes

Stakeholder buy-in is crucial

• EIA rarely planned to achieve NNL.
• Typically only requires avoidance, minimisation for some impacts.
• Usually does not address residual impacts.
• Does not address all components of biodiversity affected.
• Often very site specific, without proper landscape scale.
• Often fails to address indirect and cumulative impacts.
• HOWEVER mitigation including offsets can be integrated with

the EIA process to deliver ‘no net loss’!

Can’t EIA take care of biodiversity?

27

Do you have any questions ?

Pause

29

• Large-tonnage nickel and cobalt project
• Key project components:

– Mine site (approx 1,336 ha) – 218km slurry pipeline – Industrial complex, Toamasina

• 2007: Construction began; 2014 Operations
• Expected life-cycle 27+ years

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/documents/files/bbop_ambatovy_cs.pdf

• Shareholders: Sherritt, Sumitomo, Kores, SNC Lavalin
• Financed by var. lenders incl. Equator banks
• Significant biodiversity impacts (EIA, 2006) 

To work towards the NNL commitment:

• Application of the mitigation hierarchy, including
• Development of composite offset
• Application of BBOP Standard

Example of a Project with NNL goal: Ambatovy, Madagascar

Avoidance:

E.g. Pipeline tunnels under forest.

Avoidance:

E.g. set-aside at mine site.

Avoidance:

E.g. Rerouting pipeline around specific forest patches.

Minimisation:

E.g. Paced directional clearing.

31

Examples of mitigation measures:

Offset: Conserving

threatened forest around the mine

Offset:

Protecting and managing other priority areas which

• ffer conservation jobs

for local communities

Offset: Protecting

threatened Ankerana Forest

Restoration:

On and around mine site and pipeline

32

• State law requires Native Vegetation Planning Permit (approval) to

clear native vegetation. Assessment of permit application follows mitigation hierarchy: avoid  minimise  offset.

• Applications are assessed by local planning authorities (if small) or

state Department of Environment and Primary Industries (if big).

• Offsets can be generated on applicant’s own property, but if

applicant has no suitable site (or can’t manage native vegetation

• ver the long term):
• Applicant can obtain a permanently protected offset

elsewhere that matches the impacts by purchasing the right type and number of ‘native vegetation credits’.

• A native vegetation credit is a gain in quality/extent of native

vegetation subject to a secure and permanent agreement registered on land title.

• Brokers exist to facilitate identification of offset sites to match

particular impacts.

• There’s a system to establish, register and trade native vegetation

credits.

Example of a NNL System: Victoria, Australia

33

“BUYERS”

• Brokers
• Conservation Banks
• Over the counter

Credit Register

Create credits

• landowner agreements
• land surrender
• upgrade protected areas

Landowners “SELLERS” Developers Government

• Record of ownership
• Provides transparency &

accountability to the market

• Provides market

confidence that the credits meet the standards

• Single place where

information about credits is recorded

• Ensures credits are only

‘used’ once

Third party supply of offsets:

Offset market

34

NNL systems take time to develop, e.g. Victoria:

1985 2015

1989: Regulation of native vegetation clearing 1998: Biodiversity mapping (state-wide information base) 2000: Auction-based incentive program – BushTender 2002: Native Veg Management Framework (NNL, metrics) 2007/8: Offset market based on credit trading (offset supply) 2013: Reform of Native Vegetation permitted clearing regs

35

In your experience, do mitigation measures always work ? e.g. What about the measures illustrated below?

36 Avoidance of impacts on a plant species? Underpass for fauna

Exercise on the mitigation hierarchy

Ecological restoration?

Do the mitigation measures illustrated below really work?

Exercise on the mitigation hierarchy

Continuing with frequently asked questions !

1. On what basis can we consider that protecting forests generates a "gain" of biodiversity? 2. What should we do to set-asides so that they can be considered as

• ffsets?

3. Does restoring part of the project site (e.g. part of the mine site) count towards an offset ? Why or why not ?

Exercise on the mitigation hierarchy

38

39

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

Do you have any questions?

Q&A and end of Session 1

LUNCH

40

41

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

13:30 Introduction to key scientific & technical issues:

• Key biodiversity values
• Vulnerable and irreplaceable biodiversity; non-offsetable impacts
• Exchange rules and metrics
• The principle of additionality and reference scenarios
• What counts as a gain?
• Implementation issues: what needs to be considered

15:30 Coffee break 16:00 Planning and governance

• Different roles of government and avoiding conflict of interest
• Evolution of mitigation systems over time; roadmaps
• Lessons learned from around the world
• Results of the exercise (“What counts as gain?”) and discussion
• Additional resources
• Q&A

17:00 Close of training sessions

Session 2: Technical focus on elements of best practice

Biodiversity Component Intrinsic Values

(Vulnerability, irreplaceability)

Use Values Cultural Values Species

Threatened species; restricted range and/or endemic species; congregatory species Species providing fuel, fiber, food, medicines, etc. Totem species

Habitats/ Communities/ Assemblages

Rare or threatened habitat types; exemplary habitats Recreational sites Sacred sites (e.g. sacred groves, burial grounds); sites of aesthetic importance

Whole Landscapes / Ecosystems

Climate regulation; seed dispersal; pollination Air and water quality regulation; soil fertility; pollination E.g. Landscape- scale sacred sites

What are key biodiversity components affected by the project?

Key biodiversity components matrix

42

Can all impacts be offset?

’ ’

Now let’s think about a biodiversity offset...

The last of their kind…..

Modified from Source: Tandberg, 1990; In: Turn over a new leaf – Green cartoons for CARE (ed. Mark Bryant). Publication of Earthscan, London.

44

Some impacts cannot be offset

Impacts on biodiversity found in very few places and biodiversity that’s highly threatened can generally not be offset.

Ecosystem found nowhere else Critically endangered cockatoo

45

Exchange rules & Metrics

‘Exchange rules’ ‘Metrics’ or ‘currencies’

Equivalence/ Like for Like (What kind?) & Net balance (How much/How many?)

Both are needed to establish No Net Loss/Net Gain !

46

The first part of NNL: WHAT KIND of biodiversity is exchanged?

“Like for like (or better)”

(The gains should be of the same type, or more important than the losses caused by residual impacts.)

Roller with Roller Lower montane forest with Lower montane forest

WHEN do you think it may be appropriate to ‘trade up’ and conserve a different kind of biodiversity to that affected?

• 1. Exchange rules

47

How can the residual biodiversity losses from a project and the gains due to an offset be quantified? ‘Metrics’ are used:

• HABITAT metrics:

area x condition (e.g. 5 ha x 50% = 4 ha x 75%)

• SPECIES metrics:

individuals/ breeding pairs/ part of a population

The second part of “NNL” is establishing the “net balance” – HOW MUCH?

48

• 2. Metrics

How to measure loss and gain?

Even within ‘like for like’, not all hectares are equal!

 ‘Area’ (extent of affected biodiversity) is a good start.

But, area alone is not a good measure of the ‘amount’ and quality of biodiversity

49

Residual impact area x Condition (pre-impact minus post-impact) needs to be balanced out by Offset area x Condition (post-offset minus offset) Basic Loss-Gain calculations

50 The actual impacts must be evaluated continuously ! Sound evaluation

• f predicted

impacts is crucial

Area of residual impact: 80 hectares Condition before project: 90% of potential Each hectare: LOSS: 90% GAIN: 20% Condition after project: 0% Condition before offset: 60% Condition after offset: 80% Loss = 90% x 80 ha = 72 habitat hectares Area needed for offset = 72 habitat hectares ÷ 20% = 360 hectares

Why you generally need a bigger area for the offset than the impact area

51

52

What do you think?

• A. Funding publication of conservation journal
• B. Contributions to an existing Protected Area
• C. Capacity building for Protected Area staff
• D. Awareness raising for local communities
• E. Conservation research
• F. Set-aside an area that is not to be developed
• G. Establishing a plant nursery of medicinal

plants with local communities

Exercise: Which activities count towards a biodiversity offset?

Additionality – what does it mean?

A core principle! A biodiversity offset should achieve conservation outcomes above and beyond results that would have occurred if the

• ffset had not taken place.

Why is additionality important?

Without additionality there is no real gain! If there is no additionality, the developer is paying for nothing.

53

54

Why is additionality important?

Remember: A project’s impacts will cause biodiversity loss here An offset here is only additional if: (a) It increases the value through positive management / restoration or (b) It stops this area from being degraded or transformed, if the area is at risk of being lost

55

• Government has an obligation to conserve protected

areas.

• So how can an offset take place in a protected area?

Surely there would be no additionality?

• This is quite controversial and there is no internationally

agreed answer.

• It probably depends: Can you can show that the

conservation outcomes through the offset in the protected area are additional to what would have happened in the area without the offset?

• That may be OK.
• How could this be proved?

Can offsets within protected areas be 'additional’?

Predicting and assessing benefit

Time Biodiversity value

T = 0 (e.g. NOW) T = 1 (e.g. in two years’ time)

The benefit of a conservation action is the difference between two scenarios, i.e. with and without the action.

Trend and outcomes WITH the conservation action WITHOUT the action

(Adapted from Maron, Rhodes & Gibbons, 2013)

56

57

 Do we accept a counterfactual/ baseline of decline?

NNL compared to what?

Time Biodiversity value Time Biodiversity value

Choosing a counterfactual/ baseline as reference:

e.g. NNL compared to ‘NOW’ e.g. NNL compared to a trend of biodiversity decline

Now Now

Two ‘types’ of offsets: What counts as ‘Gain’?

• A. Better MANAGEMENT to improve biodiversity condition:
• E.g. Actions to restore and enhance biodiversity (e.g. replant of

indigenous vegetation, remove invasive alien species)

• B. PROTECTION/ AVERTED LOSS where biodiversity is threatened

with loss (now and/or in the future) and offsets stop this:

• E.g. Increase legal protection of areas (e.g. new area, expansion,

better, additional outcomes in existing PAs)

• Reduce pressures from unsustainable/ illegal biodiversity use
• Create greater incentives for local people for conservation,

sustainable livelihood options N.B. ‘On-the- ground

• utcomes!

58

Design (short term) Implementation (long term) Two broad phases:

• Orientation & planning, with stakeholder

involvement;

• Applying the mitigation hierarchy;
• Quantifying residual impacts and offset needs;
• Determining offset options: sites, activities;
• Designing final offset: prepare Biodiversity Offset

Management Plan

• Establishing appropriate governance, roles &

responsibilities with stakeholder involvement;

• Ensuring adequate, sustainable financing and

resources;

• Establishing operations and management;
• Implementing management plan - adaptively
• Monitoring and evaluation.

Typical components of a biodiversity offset

59

Implementation: who & how?

1. Developer and/or partners (NGO, consultant, multi-stakeholder group) undertake the offset 2. 1. Developer buys sufficient ‘credits’ from a landowner or conservation bank to offset its impacts.

60

• On developer’s land, protected for long term (pref. in perpetuity)
• New or upgraded protected areas (incl. community protected areas)
• Contracts with other landholders (incl. use of PES - payments for

ecosystem services)

IMPORTANT FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION: Partnerships Engage local communities

Offset supply: where, how?

• Legal arrangements / Offset security
• Financing: Trust fund, or other long

term financial mechanism

• Biodiversity Offset Management Plan
• Monitoring, evaluation, adaptive

management

• Enforcement

61

Key aspects for successful implementation

• Clear roles and responsibilities and details

regarding:

• Offset management
• Governance/oversight
• Monitoring and enforcement
• Financing
• Management plan and agreements with
• rganisations implementing the offset
• Other legal and institutional arrangements (eg

contracts, easements, granting land to protected areas etc)

• Budget and financial arrangements (eg trust funds)

for funding the offset activities

Biodiversity Offset Management Plan

Introduction Project Impacts & Mitigation Residual Impacts Offset Design Implem ement entat atio ion n – What at, , when, n, who, , where re, , etc. . Reporting Etc.

$$$

63

Pause

64

Government can play many potential roles with respect to NNL. For example:

• Policy-maker
• Identifying biodiversity information

management priorities

• Decision-maker on allocation of land
• Buyer and seller of offsets
• Broker
• Endorsing standards for register of

credits,

• Provider of the process to ensure

permanence of offsets

• Monitor and enforcer

Potential roles of government

65

Roadmap: What’s needed

• Political / corporate will
• Good stakeholder engagement
• Standards
• Good governance (incl. enforcement)
• Accountability
• Land-use & landscape-level planning
• Awareness-raising
• Capacity building
• Partnerships
• Cooperation
• Good results to build public trust
• Research & tools
• Spatially explicit data

GOVERNANCE PARTNERSHIPS & TRAINING GUIDELINES & DATA EXPERIENCE & RESULTS

66

Training and capacity building

Preparatory phase

Pilot projects Training and capacity building Context, scope and

• ptions studies

(e.g.):

Land-use and biodiversity assessment and planning; policy options and scope

• f system;

impact analyses – e.g. economic; ‘supply side’ issues

Offset supply (Source, legal, financial mechanisms, etc)

Options for features of the system Define and implement system

Monitor, evaluate, adapt system

Roadmap for a NNL system

Policy/ Regulation Data, information Guideline s

67

68

Lessons learned: mitigation succeeds when…

• Measures in place to apply the whole mitigation hierarchy.
• Clear, consistent guidance for certainty and to avoid delays.
• Clear roles for national, state and local government and good

coordination between government departments.

• Performance monitoring and enforcement through good

governance and adequate budgetary provision.

• Clear principles and standards are in place.
• Legal and financial instruments available to secure long-

term implementation.

• Proportionate approaches planned: more streamlined

procedures, baseline studies and metrics for less significant impacts, and full assessments and metrics where impacts greater

69

Lessons learned: mitigation succeeds when…

• Realistic roadmap to develop the NNL/NG system and

improve it over a few years.

• Preparation for implementation (including supply) during

policy development.

• Good baseline data, mapping and landscape level

planning.

• Adequate methods & metrics to deliver NNL/NG are used.
• Several options for implementation identified, provided the

same standards are met.

• Perverse incentives are removed.
• Assistance is offered to developers and offset providers who

need to find each other.

.

Some of the resources available

• Standard & Guidelines
• Handbooks
• Case studies
• WEBINARS

http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business

• Draft Policy on Offsets
• Technical study paper
• Policy options

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/

• Performance Standards
• Guidance Notes
• Sector-specific guidance
• Various technical

documents and tools (e.g. timeline tool)

http://www.ifc.org/ http://www.csbi.org.uk/

70

The COMBO team

Team in Uganda :

• Team in Madagascar
• Team in Mozambique
• Team in Guinea

Équipe technique – internationale :

73

Results of the exercise

#

Measure taken Yes No A Funding publication of conservation journal B Contribution to an existing Protected Area C Capacity building for Protected Area staff D Awareness raising for local communities E Conservation research F Set-aside G Plant nursery with local communities

74

COMBO Launch meeting, Kampala – 27-28 June 2016

74

Do you have any questions?

SPARES: NO TIME

75

• 1. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy:

A biodiversity offset is a commitment to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on biodiversity identified after appropriate avoidance, minimization and on-site rehabilitation measures have been taken according to the mitigation hierarchy.

• 2. Limits to what can be offset:

There are situations where residual impacts cannot be fully compensated for by a biodiversity offset because

• f the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the

biodiversity affected.

BBOP Principles

76

• 3. Landscape context:

A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in a landscape context. This is to achieve the expected measurable conservation outcomes, taking into account available information on the full range of biological, social and cultural values of biodiversity and supporting an ecosystem approach.

Developed Preserved

Sources: 2004: Insight/IUCN; White; Maze

Developed Preserved

Early, individual offsets Unplanned development Landscape-level planning

BBOP Principles

77

• 4. No net loss: A biodiversity offset should be designed

and implemented to achieve in situ, measurable conservation outcomes that can reasonably be expected to result in no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity.

• 5. Additional conservation outcomes:

A biodiversity offset should achieve conservation

• utcomes above and beyond results that would have
• ccurred if the offset had not taken place. Offset

design and implementation should avoid displacing activities harmful to biodiversity to other locations.

BBOP Principles

78

6. Stakeholder participation: In areas affected by the project and by the biodiversity offset, the effective participation of stakeholders should be ensured in decision-making about biodiversity offsets, including their evaluation, selection, design, implementation and monitoring. 7. Equity: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in an equitable manner, which means the sharing among stakeholders of the rights and responsibilities, risks and rewards associated with a project and offset in a fair and balanced way, respecting legal and customary arrangements. Special consideration should be given to respecting both internationally and nationally recognised rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

BBOP Principles

79

• 8. Long-term outcomes:

The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be based

• n an adaptive management approach, incorporating monitoring and

evaluation, with the objective of securing outcomes that last at least as long as the project’s impacts and preferably in perpetuity.

BBOP Principles

80

• 9. Transparency: The design and

implementation of a biodiversity offset, and communication of their results to the public, should be undertaken in a transparent and timely manner.

• 10. Science and traditional knowledge: The

design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be a documented process informed by sound science, including an appropriate consideration of traditional knowledge.

81

BBOP Principles

How to identify Limits

Two main aspects of risk and feasibility:

1. Level of biodiversity conservation concern (linked to irreplaceability) 2. Likelihood of offset success Likelihood of offset success Level of Biodiversity conservation concern

See BBOP, 2012 Limits paper and Pilgrim et al., 2013

82

• Developers (eg through industry associations) – to ensure they can comply

with the policies and procedures

• Consultants – to ensure they can comply with the policies and procedures
• n behalf of their client developer companies
• Banks (development and commercial ) – to promote harmonization of

national requirements with international loan conditions and best practice

• Government (other departments, regional and local levels, protected areas

etc) – to ensure consistent, streamlined approach

• Conservation NGOs, universities, research institutions, botanic gardens,

herbaria, zoos, aquaria – to get scientific expertise to design exchange rules, metrics, undertake mapping, define conservation prioritisation, etc

• Civil society and indigenous peoples’ groups and organisations – to design

the basis for involving them in impact assessment (particularly with respect to impacts on biodiversity that affect their livelihoods and amenity) and mitigation design and implementation (since they may undertake offset activities) and monitoring.

Design of the national mitigation and offset system: consultation

83

• The developer
• Consultants and advisers to the developer (e.g. EIA

consultants, universities or research institutes doing baseline studies, NGOs advising on the mitigation hierarchy, conservation priorities and offset design)

• Government
• Local communities and indigenous peoples who may be

affected by the project and the offset

• Financial institutions whose loan conditions may affect

mitigation measures including offsets/compensation

• Civil society

Who are the main stakeholders when designing mitigation measures?

84

Who are the main stakeholders during implementation? Key Stakeholders

 Government  Developer  NGOs  Community Groups or Associations  Investors/lenders

Broad Roles

 Direction / oversight / management  Field-level activities (implementation)  Monitoring & Evaluation  Financing  Enforcement

→ Different stakeholders can play a number of roles,

depending on circumstances

85