Biodiversity
Offsets
Biodiversity
Offsets
and Africa
and protected areas
Kerry ten Kate, Director of BBOP
Patrick Maguire, BBOP Program Manager
Forest Trends
www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram
[email protected]
Introduction to offsets and BBOP
Kerry
• What are biodiversity offsets?
• What are their potential benefits and risks? How might
they help Africa?
• What is the history of biodiversity offsets and existing
regulatory frameworks on biodiversity offsets worldwide?
Patrick
• What is BBOP?
• What have we produced to date?
• What are we planning for the next 3 years?
• What are the principles for biodiversity offsets?
Definition
Biodiversity offsets are measurable
conservation outcomes resulting from actions
designed to compensate for significant residual
adverse biodiversity impacts arising from
project development1 after appropriate
prevention and mitigation measures have been
taken.
The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no
net loss and preferably 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.
Mitigation hierarchy and offsets
(Rio Tinto)
Net Positive Impact
+ ve
ACA
Biodiversity Value
Ofs
PI
PI
PI
Ofs
PI
Rs
Residual Impact
Mt
Mt
PI = predicted impact
- ve
Av
Av
Av
Av = avoidance
Mt = mitigation
Elements of NPI
Rs = restoration
Ofs = offsets
ACA = additional conservation actions
Opportunities and risks
Opportunities & Risks
of biodiversity offsets
Opportunities:
Conservation (No net loss → Net gain)
Risks:
• more & better conservation, mainstreaming
mechanism, gives value to biodiversity
• No substitute for
“no go” areas
Business
• Slippery slope
(Economic efficiency)
• economically efficient means to secure license to
operate & reputation; influence policy: market
mechanism not regulation
Policy-makers (Sustainable development)
• involve private sector in achieving policy goals; use
market mechanism
Local communities (Social equity)
• means to minimise impact on livelihoods and secure
additional benefits
• Some
methodologies
inadequate
• Failure to deliver
• Controversy
• No credible
standards (yet)
A short history of biodiversity offsets
• USA
system of wetland mitigation: 1970s
• Legislation
in USA, Canada, Europe (27 countries),
Brazil, Switzerland, Australia,
China, Mexico, South Africa
• Policy development in several countries (e.g. Brazil, NZ, UK, EU)
• Investor interest
IFC, Equator Banks, fund managers
• Mining companies and associations:
RioTinto, AngloAmerican, Newmont, Sherritt
International Council of Mining and Metals.
(Rio Tinto policy: ‘net positive effect’ through biodiversity offsets.)
• Oil & gas:
• Other sectors:
Shell, BP, Chevron Texaco, Statoil.
Walmart, Du Pont
Why should developers implement
biodiversity offsets ?
1. Legal requirements:
•
•
Law requiring offsets (e.g. US, EU, Brazil, Australia)
Law enabling offsets (e.g. EIA, planning law)
2. The business case for voluntary biodiversity offsets:
Good practice:
•
•
Companies obtain permits rapidly and operate cost-effectively.
Competitive advantage: best companies are preferred partners.
•
Good relationships with government, local communities,
environmental groups, employees.
Bad practice:
•
•
Permit delays, liabilities, lost revenues.
Higher operating costs.
3. Investor Requirements
Key issues
How to establish whether and when an offset is appropriate?
 Go/No Go
 Values
 Offsetable/Not Offsetable
 Mitigation Hierarchy
Metrics: how to quantify impact losses and offset gains?
 Structure & Composition
 Ecological Process and Function
 Socioeconomic and Cultural aspects
Offset activities and location
 Landscape level planning
 Delivery
 Out of kind and trading up
Implementation: how to make an offset succeed in practice?
 Roles & responsibilities
 Financial assurance
 Legal structures, institutional arrangements
 Monitoring, enforcement
Introduction to offsets and BBOP
Kerry
• What are biodiversity offsets?
• What are their potential benefits and risks? How might
they help Africa?
• What is the history of biodiversity offsets and existing
regulatory frameworks on biodiversity offsets worldwide?
Patrick
• What is BBOP?
• What have we produced to date?
• What are we planning for the next 3 years?
• What are the principles for biodiversity offsets?
BBOP: Objectives and Structure
 SIX PILOT PROJECTS:
Portfolio of pilot projects worldwide demonstrating
“no net loss” of biodiversity and livelihood benefits.
Learning Network
 TOOLKIT:
Advisory Committee
“How to” toolkit on offset
design and implementation;
Principles.
Pilot
1
Pilot
2
Secretariat
 POLICY:
Influence policy on offsets
to meet conservation and
business objectives.
Pilot
3
Pilot
4
BBOP: Advisory Committee
Anglo American; Biodiversity Neutral Initiative; BirdLife International;
Botanical Society of South Africa; Brazilian Biodiversity Fund
(FUNBIO); Centre for Research-Information-Action for Development in
Africa; City of Bainbridge Island, Washington; Conservation
International; Department of Conservation New Zealand; Department of
Sustainability & Environment, Government of Victoria, Australia;
Ecoagriculture Partners; Fauna and Flora International; Forest Trends;
Insight Investment; the International Finance Corporation; International
Institute of Environment and Development; IUCN, The International
Union for the Conservation of Nature; KfW Bankengruppe; Ministry of
Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, and Spatial Planning,
France; the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment,
The Netherlands; National Ecology Institute, Mexico; National
Environmental Management Authority, Uganda; Newmont Mining
Corporation; Pact Inc.; Rio Tinto; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Shell
International; Sherritt International Corporation; Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve, Mexico; Solid Energy, New Zealand; South African
National Biodiversity Institute; Southern Rift Landowners Association,
Kenya; The Nature Conservancy; Tulalip Tribes; United Nations
Development Programme (Footprint Neutral Initiative); United States
Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wildlife Conservation Society; Wildlands,
Inc.; WWF; Zoological Society of London; and the following
independent consultants: Susie Brownlie; Jonathan Ekstrom; David
Richards; Marc Stalmans; and Jo Treweek.
Current BBOP pilot projects
• Shell International, GTL project, Qatar
• Newmont Ghana Gold, Ghana
• Anglo American platinum mine, South Africa
• Sherritt Int’nal nickel mine, Madagascar
• Residential construction, USA
• Maasai tourism lodges and road, Kenya
• Solid Energy coal mine, New Zealand
Ntronang
Akyem Deposit
BBOP publications, April 2009
BBOP’s work 2009-2011:
• Verification and auditing
protocols
• More & varied pilots
• Improved guidelines
• Country-level pilots, landuse/bioregional planning, policy
• Aggregated offsets;
conservation banking
• Training and capacity building
• Communications
Principles
1. 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.
2. Additional conservation outcomes:
A biodiversity offset should achieve
conservation outcomes above and beyond
results that would have occurred if the offset
had not taken place. Offset design and
implementation should avoid displacing
activities harmful to biodiversity to other
locations.
Key biodiversity
components matrix
Biodiversity
Component
Intrinsic
Values
Use Values
Cultural
Values
(Vulnerability,
irreplaceability)
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
Composite offsets
Mountain
habitat 1
Impact site
community
Protected
area 1
Ridge line
Proposed offset
site #1, close to
impact
Direct
impact site
Mountain
habitat 2
Offset site
community
Proposed offset
site #2, remote
Protected
area 2
How can ‘gain’ be delivered?
• Purchase land (or long lease)
• Covenant on land
• Contract with landholders (‘Payments
for Ecosystem Services’):
E.g. Australia:
• eg NSW & Vict: agreements registered
on land title
• Bushbroker: management plan:
(a) active management for 10-years.
(b) on-going use and maintenance
commitments in perpetuity.
What can be considered a ‘gain’?
(‘additionality’)
An offset must show measurable, additional conservation outcomes.
Potential gain is a product of the amount of biodiversity the offset
will generate and the likelihood of success:
amount
active restoration expected increase in
biodiversity per unit area
relative to benchmark
stopping
degradation
expected reduction of
existing decrease in
biodiversity per unit area
averted risk
expected magnitude of
loss of biodiversity if risk
is realised
probability
Probability of
success, given
environmental & mgt.
uncertainties
likelihood of risk
being realised
Principles
3. 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 onsite rehabilitation measures have been taken
according to the mitigation hierarchy.
4. Limits to what can be offset:
There are situations where residual impacts
cannot be fully compensated for by a
biodiversity offset because of the
irreplaceability or vulnerability of the
biodiversity affected.
Thresholds for offsets
Severity of impact on
biodiversity
High
Low
Impacts too severe to be
offset
What is the threshold?
Impacts can and should be
offset
Impacts too small to be
worth offsetting
What is the threshold?
Some impacts cannot be offset
Vulnerable:
Imminent threat
of extinction
Irreplaceable:
No options for
conservation
Limited extent,
highly localised,
few/ no options
Relatively
widespread,
many options
High rate of loss,
degradation,
fragmentation
Little loss,
degradation,
fragmentation
Like-for-like or
‘in kind’ offset
only
Trading up
may be
appropriate
Principles
5. Landscape Context: A biodiversity offset should be designed and
implemented in a landscape context 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.
Early, individual offsets
Developed
Preserved
Unplanned
development
Sources: 2004: Insight/IUCN; White; Maze.
Landscape-level
planning
Developed
Preserved
Principles
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.
Principles
8. Long-term outcomes:
The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset
should be based on 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.
Principles
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.
Biodiversity Offsets
Thank you
and protected areas
BBOP publications, April 2009
www.
forest–trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/
or contact: [email protected]
Pilots and policy
Kerry
• Pilot Projects:
Ghana;
South Africa
• Policy Work:
Uganda;
Madagascar
• Ideas for future pilot projects and policy work
Akyem pilot project
Newmont Golden Ridge Ltd, Ghana
Akyem pilot project (Ghana)
• Nature of project
• Status of project
• Likely components of the
offset
Akyem project
• 130 km Northwest of Accra
• Brim North District of the Eastern Region
• 3 km west of district capital New Abrim
• Development of an open pit mine, waste
rock disposal facility, tailing storage
facility, ore processing plant, water
storage dam and reservoir, water
transmission pipeline, sediment control
structures and diversion channels, haul
and access roads, and support facilities.
• NGRL proposes to process approx.
8.8 million tonnes of ore annually (on
average) to ultimately extract 7.7 million
ounces of gold over a projected 15-year
life-of-mine.
Akyem project
• Upper Guinean Forest, Moist Semi-deciduous
Zone. Steep hills, undulating landscape.
• Mine facilities would remove crops, fallow fields
and patches of secondary forest and wildlife
habitat.
• 1,428 hectares of disturbance. All but 162
hectares will be reclaimed.
• 74 hectares of Ajenjua Bepo Forest Reserve
(ABFR) in footprint.
• ABFR is primarily agricultural land converted
from original forest.
• Project site in ABFR is an area significantly
damaged by encroachment of local subsistence
farming, intensive logging, and plantations of
non-indigenous trees.
Akyem pilot: status
• Project and offset still in planning
stage.
• Project not yet approved by Ghanaian
government.
• NGRL submitted Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) November
2008
• Until approved by Ghanaian officials
and the Company directors, offset
design not finished.
• Stakeholder participation may result in
different offset design.
• Currently, ‘virtual’ exercise to assess
impacts and identify possible offset
options.
Akyem: mitigation hierarchy
•
Reforestation with agencies
•
Closure and decommissioning plan to
re-establish habitat throughout
disturbed areas.
•
Community education to develop
alternative means to secure bushmeat,
reduce pressure on fauna and create
farms to raise bushmeat and snails.
•
Policies prohibit employees and
contractors from hunting on all mine
properties.
•
Company to implement a Critical
Species Management Plan including
avoidance of nesting and broodrearing periods for raptors and other
species of high conservation priority
and endemic plant species
propagation programme.
Akyem project: biodiversity
•
Affected biodiversity: seven IUCN Vulnerable and Ghana
Scarlet Star tree species, three species of forest antelope
(Near Threatened Maxwell’s duiker, black duiker, royal
antelope), one flying squirrel species (Pel’s anomalure),
three bird species, two primate species, and two
Vulnerable or Near Threatened bat species. Wetland and
riparian communities in ephemeral drainages affected, but
not fish populations in downstream rivers and larger
tributaries.
•
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix:
Akyem: potential offset activities
Management activities in the offset area would
include:
•
Planting IUCN Vulnerable tree species at
densities commensurate with benchmark
conditions
•
Planting species with high ethnobotanical
values
•
Conversion of farm land within the forest
reserve (32 hectares) to native plant species
•
Controlling undesirable, invasive plant
species
•
Educating residents in sustainable practices
in utilising non-timber forest products
including bush-meat.
Akyem: Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan: offset site be managed to
enhance biodiversity values by:
•
Providing an important corridor linking offreserve areas, farm lands and other forest
reserves
•
Providing a refuge for animals leaving
Mining Area construction
•
Protecting and enhancing species of
conservation concern
•
Protecting seed banks
•
Protecting headwaters
•
Providing micro-climate modification and
•
Providing medicinal plants and other nontimber forest products.
Akyem: site selection
Five candidate offset options were screened according to 22 criteria in
four categories:
Mamang River Forest Reserve, Nsuensa Forest Reserve, Auro River Forest Reserve, Contribution to
Globally Significant Biodiversity Area Fund, establishment of District Assembly Environmental Fund.
Local community use:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community benefits,
Biodiversity Enhancement/benefit,
Social/cultural acceptance,
Avoidance of tribal conflict,
Conformity to local natural landscape plan
Ability to galvanise community support.
Ecological status:
Habitat status:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Suitable seed bank or refugia,
Land tenure compatibility,
Suitability for demonstration,
Structure of forest landscape,
Infrastructure availability and
Proximity to mining site and communities.
Organisational appropriateness:
• Species variability, diversity and use (e.g.
IUCN/Black Stars/local use),
• Ecological services delivery potential,
• Ability to achieve Global Conservation Concerns,
• Proximity to human disturbances (e.g., farming),
• Management suitability and capacity,
• Conformity to government objective and
• Addressing biodiversity problem.
• Credibility for NGRL,
• Cost effectiveness and
• Geo-political soundness.
PPRust pilot project
Anglo American, South Africa
PPRust pilot project
•
25 km north-west of Mokopane
town in the Limpopo Province of
South Africa.
•
Expansion of existing mine
platinum mine.
•
Opencast mining (pit ~400 ha),
concentrator complex (~50 ha),
waste residue facilities (1,412
ha), tailings dam (300 ha) and
infrastructure (100 ha).
•
Will produce up to 1 million
tonnes per month of platinum
bearing ore processed on-site
then transported to a local
smelter for further enrichment.
PPRust pilot project
•
In northern savanna area of
South Africa.
•
The ‘natural’ vegetation was
open to closed woodland with
diverse tree flora.
•
200 years ago, ‘charismatic African megafauna’ eg lion, elephant, buffalo,
rhino. Now disappeared except in protected areas and private reserves.
•
The land use is characterised by peri-urban settlement, subsistence dryland farming, communal livestock grazing (cattle and goats) and the
extractive use of other natural resources such as fuelwood.
•
Savanna Biome not threatened or sensitive at a national scale.
•
But significant impact at a local level: over-utilisation through wood
collection, grazing, dryland crop production. High unemployment rates
place further pressure.
•
People dependent on the local biodiversity for survival. So conservation
importance of the remaining undisturbed areas has increased.
PPRust project: mitigation
Avoidance
• Construction planned to avoid activities within
100m of Mohlasane and Sandsloot rivers.
• No road construction: use of existing roads.
• All sites determined to be sacred by the local
community were identified during impact
assessment and have been demarcated and will
be protected.
Minimisation
• Relocation site with low biodiversity values
selected to minimise footprint on undisturbed
land.
• Smelter in Polokwane town rather than on-site.
• Detailed management actions to mitigate
environmental impacts in Environmental
Management Program Report.
PPRust: loss/gain calculation
•
The habitat hectare approach was used to
quantify the amount of biodiversity lost
through the project and to be gained by
the offset.
•
The loss of habitat due to mining was
calculated taking into the account the
degraded nature of the habitat.
•
Six to ten attributes were used for each of
the four habitats affected to calculate a
current biodiversity score as well as the
expected score post impact.
•
The potential gains in the offset area were
calculated taking into account the
improvement that can be made following
better protection and management.
PPRust project: offset
•
Proposed offset located 8 km west
of impact area.
•
Comprises 5,398 ha of Makhado
Sweet Bushveld, Central Sandy
Bushveld and Waterberg Mountain
Bushveld in the Savanna Biome.
•
Similar environmental
characteristics to the impact area,
although a larger proportion is
mountainous. Subjected to much
less subsistence farming, so more
wooded.
•
Offset to include a wildlife reserve restocked with indigenous ungulates,
improved protection, active range management and rehabilitation.
•
Employment creation and benefits through the offset add to the total
social package associated with the mine development
Policy
Policy options on biodiversity offsets
Voluntary options
Regulated options
Voluntary
offsets
‘Voluntary
plus’
Triggered
offsets
‘Triggered
plus’
Banking
 Developers
undertake
offsets where
there’s a
Business
case to do so.
 No policy
intervention.
 Few offsets.
 1:1 may be
inefficient
(biodiv & $).
 Developers
Encouraged
to undertake
case-by-case
offsets.
 Incentives (eg
tax breaks).
 Minimal policy
intervention.
 Few offsets.
 1:1 may be
inefficient
(biodiv & $).
 Offsets
required for
certain level
of impacts.
 Through (eg)
planning/EIA
law.
 More offsets.
 Need clear
regulation.
 1:1 may be
inefficient
(biodiv & $).
 Triggered
offsets, plus:
 Aggregated
offsets. Site
selection by
regional and
landscape
level planning.
 Incentivise.
 More offsets.
 Efficient
(biodiv & $).
 Need clear
regulation.
 Need spatial
planning.
 Offsets
required and
Banks
established.
 Market-based
system of
banks
created.
 More offsets.
 Markets.
 Clarity on
liability.
 Need clear
regulation and
infrastructure,
including info.
Policy
1.
Triggers
2.
Thresholds of ‘offsetability’ (endemism,
cumulative impacts)
3.
Meaning of NNL: metrics (HH and spp) and
cumulative impacts (W.Cape multipliers?)
4.
Twin-track approach: simple method for
less significant impacts
5.
Additionality: (a) offsets on public land; (b)
duty of care
6.
Delivery mechanisms: credits on private
land?
7.
Bioregional and landscape-level planning
8.
Biodiversity and carbon: synergies or
double dipping?
9.
Role of govt (field assessments or
accredited assessors)?