Technical issues in the design and implementation of biodiversity offsets

1
Technical issues in the design and implementation
of biodiversity offsets

• Jon Ekstrom
• BirdLife International
• and
• The Cambridge Conservation Forum

2
Acknowledgements

• Colleagues
• BBOP The Business and Biodiversity Offset
  Program
• The Rio Tinto Working Group on biodiversity
  offsets.
• The Cambridge Conservation Forum Working Group on
  biodiversity offsets

3
Outline issues for discussion

• Consensus a broad stakeholder panel required.
• Measuring values currencies and equivalence
• Biodiversity values 2. Ecosystem service
  values
• Where to offsetnear or far?
• What to offsetland parcels only?
• When to offsetbefore development only?
• Additionality and leakage
• Sustainability and financing.
• The need for pilot projects and experiments.

4
1. Consensus

• Full prior and informed consent is essential.
• If no consensus
• Is the development acceptable in the first
  place? This is a key go / no-go issue.
• Only a broad stakeholder panel can decide on a
  case by case basis.

5
2. Measuring values a) biodiversity

• Threatened species and habitats, the potential
  for evolutionary diversification.
• The problem is what to measure.

6
Wild nature is very complex there is no single
currency to use (compare carbon)
7
Biodiversity priority setting methods

• Species based - Threat status

Site based - Irreplaceability
8
2. Measuring values b) ecosystem services

• Things we get from nature food, fibre fuel,
  sacred groves, lovely woods to walk in.
• Often the most significant components of a
  biodiversity offset.

9
Scales and methods for ecosystem services
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Major types
Aesthetic, spiritual, recreational and
educational values
Regulation of climate, floods, disease and water
purification
Food, fresh water, wood and fibre, fuel.
Including
Mainly local
Local, national and global
Local, national
Major scales of relevance

• Mainly non-material values
• PRA
• RRA

• TEV framework
• EIA
• Modelling land-use change.
• Carbon sequestration methods.

• TEV framework
• PRA
• RRA
• Economic cost-benefit ranking
• Opportunity costs of protected areas.
• Etc

Some suggested methods
Social methods
Non-social methods
Social methods
Mainly
10
Irreplaceable cultural values

• Irreplaceability unique species, unique sites.
• Many sites of religious or cultural importance
  are irreplaceable.
• These are likely to be no-go areas.

11
3. Where to offset?
12
Why local offsets are preferable

• Local stakeholders are often most affected so
  need to be compensated locally.
• Ecosystem service values more likely to be
  similar and comparable, e.g. hydrological
  functions within watersheds.
• Biodiversity values more likely to be similar
  closer to impact site.
• Management and community participation issues

13

• But local offsets are not always possible

14
Can some offsets be distant from the impacted
site?

• In remote areas where local stakeholders are few.
• Global ecosystem services.
• Where better conservation outcomes can be
  achieved.
• Regional planning issues and land rights.

15
Stakeholder value exists within a regional context
Regional planning is essential
The offset is never alone.
16
4. What to offset?

• Land parcels
• The creation, rehab or conservation of land
  parcels
• Brasilian land rights trading
• US wetland mitigation
• Australian offset auctions
• Natura 2000 sites
• Benefits
• Tangible,
• Measurable,
• Proximity,
• Like-for-like

Sites/habitats
17
What if?

• A land parcel is not possible
• A land parcel is not the best outcome for
  biodiversity or ecosystem services?
• We need consensus from the stakeholder panel
  in each case

18
Land parcel not possible?

• Where no land is available to purchase or manage
  e.g. much of Ghana.
• consider investment in poorly financed
  protected areas system.
• other forms of conservation such as capacity
  building.

19
2. Land parcel unlikely to be viable?
Background matrix loss ecologically viable
offsets?
20
Like for like offsets
Like for like
Like for not like
Offset site
Impacted site
21
Like-for-like biodiversity offsets

• Are the first considered option.
• But sometimes a like-for-not-like option will
  result in better conservation outcomes.

22
Like for not like ecosystem service offsets.

• Are already widely practiced e.g. in opportunity
  costs of protected areas.
• Allows creativity in range of development
  options.
• Community requests....

23
5. When to offset?

• When to start offset?
• Before any impact has occurred?
• When impact commences?
• At maximum impact?
• When should offset benefits appear?
• Before impact? At maximum impact?
• Consensus required.
• Best Before
• Offsets prove themselves, and no net loss is
  incurred at any time.

24
6. The bona fide offset?

• Additionality
• Leakage

25
Additionality

• How do you know youve truly added value?
• Might the projects have happened anyway? Govt
  responsibility
• Learning from carbon offsets should we only
  count threatened habitat as an offset?

26
Leakage

• How do you know you are not displacing pressures
  somewhere else?
• e.g. unsustainable use practices can be displaced
  elsewhere.

27
7. Offset sustainability

• How long should an offset last? in perpetuity?
• Financing trust funds?
• Who should be responsible for maintaining the
  offset?
• Much to be learnt from protected areas
  management.

28
Change in staff and ownership of companies

• Solutions
• Entire offset packages are purchased from
  external bodies (conservation banks).
• Offsets are integrated into EIA / EMS process
  the only way to hold the company accountable long
  term.

29
8. We need pilot projects and experiments!

• Protected areas management has matured through
  practice, not prescription.
• We need to experiment with offsets to understand
  what works.
• And then provide guidance.