Biodiversity offsets:

possibilities for Man and Biosphere Reserves and introduction to BBOP

Monica Barcellos Harris (UNEP-WCMC) and Kerry ten Kate (BBOP)

• What are biodiversity offsets?

• Potential approach for UNESCO and MAB

• Next steps and finding out more

Contents

Residual Impact

- ve

+ ve

Bio

dive

rsity

Val

ue

Elements of NPI

PIPI PI PI

Av Av Av

MtMt

Rs

Ofs Ofs

ACANet Positive Impact, NPI

PI = Predicted Impact

Av = Avoidance

Mt = Mitigation

Rs = Restoration

Ofs = Offsets

ACA = Additional Conservation Actions

Source: Rio Tinto and Govt of Australia

The mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsets are measurableconservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residualadverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development 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.

DefinitionDefinition

1. No net loss

2. Additional conservation outcomes

3. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy

4. Limits to what can be offset

5. Landscape Context

6. Stakeholder participation

7. Equity

8. Long-term outcomes

9. Transparency

10. Science and traditional knowledge

Principles for biodiversity offsetsPrinciples for biodiversity offsets

• POLICY: Country-level partnerships, advice on offset policy development, land-use/bioregional planning, aggregated offsets, conservation banking. [Could cover MAB]

• PILOTS: More & varied pilots (sectors, countries) [Could include projects in MAB]

• GUIDELINES: Improved guidelines on offset design and implementation [Guidance for MAB]

• TRAINING: Training & capacity building [include UNESCO and MAB contacts]

• COMMUNICATIONS: Communications and BBOP’s work as a global forum [involve UNESCO]

• STANDARD: Draft standard (July 2012) on biodiversity offsets, with auditing protocols. Improved through broader company experience & internationally agreed by July 2015. [Get involved!]

BBOP’s work 2009-2011: Current priorities and possible UNESCO role

Trends:• More governments introducing or exploring policy on biodiversity offsets;• More companies undertaking offsets voluntarily for business reasons;• More banks and investors requiring biodiversity offsets as a condition for access

to credit or investment; • More NGOs and civil society groups encouraging developers to undertake

biodiversity offsets; and• BBOP set up to develop, share and encourage the use of best practice

Drivers of biodiversity offsets

Business case:• Access to land, sea and related natural

resources (directly, or through supply chains)

• Legal and social (functional) license to operate

• Access to capital and insurance• Access to markets for products (old & new)• Access to human capital• A seat at policy development table

Motivation:

1. Legal requirements in 30-50 countries and EIA/planning law in many more

2. The business case3. Investor Requirements

New lender requirements with implications for MAB

• Clients seeking project finance of over $10 million must comply with IFC’s loan conditions, including environmental and social ‘performance standards’ (PS)

• Since June 2003, 67 banks adopted the ‘Equator Principles’, espousing IFC PS.

• Adverse effects on people and the environment must be avoided to the greatest possible extent.

• PS 6 client obligations include:

Natural habitat: avoid, minimise, restore, then:Offset to achieve ‘No Net Loss’

Critical habitat: Emphasis on avoidance. Offset goal: ‘Net Positive Gain’

67 Banks & Financial Institutions

Operating in 100 Countries

90% of global project finance

(US$112 billion in first half of 2007)

MAB characteristics:• Promote sustainable development based on local community

efforts and sound science• Three interconnected functions: conservation, development and

logistic support• Zoning schemes, multi-stakeholder approach, local communities

in management

MAB Biodiversity Offset – Possible Vision: • All development in MAB demonstrates no net loss of biodiversity

• NNL planned through zoning of MAB according to mitigation hierarchy. Set-aside (avoidance), minimisation and restoration, then offsets (like for like or better for high conservation priorities)

• Developers within MAB pay for offsets within MAB implemented by local communities (generating conservation credits) or conservation banks (run by authorities or banking companies)

Biodiversity offsets for MAB

• Join the BBOP Advisory Group

• Join the BBOP Learning Network

Next steps for UNESCO and participants

www.forest-trends.org/ Biodiversityoffsetprogram

• Find out more about biodiversity offsets (strengths, weaknesses, tools):

www.forest–trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/

or contact: bbop@forest-trends.org

Thank you!Thank you

Biodiversity Offsets SPARE SLIDES

1. Legal requirements:• Law requiring offsets (e.g. 30+ countries,

including US, EU, Brazil, Australia)• Law enabling offsets (e.g. EIA, planning

law)

2.The business case

3. Investor Requirements

Why should companies implement biodiversity offsets ?

Biodiversity Offsets Elements of the Business Casee.g. Rio Tinto

Maintaining Access to Land and Resources is a key driver in the Biodiversity Strategy Business case

• Access to land, sea and related natural resources (directly, or through supply chains)

• Legal and social (functional) license to operate

• Access to capital and insurance

• Access to markets for products (old and new)

• Access to human capital

• A seat at policy development table

What is BBOP?

Aim: Working collaboratively, to develop best practice in biodiversity

offset design and implementation based on agreed principles and on-the-ground experience.

• Shell International, GTL project, Qatar• Newmont Ghana Gold, Ghana• Anglo American platinum mine, South

Africa • Sherritt Int’nal nickel mine, Madagascar• Residential construction, USA• Solid Energy coal mine, New Zealand

Akyem Deposit

Ntronang

Phase 1 BBOP pilot projectsPhase 1 BBOP pilot projects

AngloGold Ashanti, Ambatovy Project, Arup, CDC Biodiversité, Environmental Banc & Exchange, Golder Associates, Inmet Mining, Markit Environmental Registry, New Britain Group, Newcrest, Newmont, New Forests, Nollen Group, Rio Tinto, Response Ability, Inc., SLR Consulting, Solid Energy, New Zealand, Sveaskog, Wildlands Inc., Winstone AggregatesCiti; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Global Environment Fund; Inter-American Development Bank; International Finance Corporation ; KfW Bankengruppe; Mizuho Corporate BankDepartment of Conservation, New Zealand; Department of Sustainability & Environment,; Government of Victoria, Australia; Forestry Commission, Government of Ghana; Forestry Department, Sabah, Malaysia; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MARD), Viet Nam Directorate of Forestry; Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, and Spatial Planning, France; Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Namibia;Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment, The Netherlands; Ministry of Mines and Energy, Namibia; Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE), Government of Viet Nam; Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism, Government of Mongolia; National Ecology Institute, Mexico; National Environment Management Authority, Uganda; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; South African National Biodiversity Institute; United Nations Development Programme (Footprint Neutral Initiative); United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre; United States Agency for International DevelopmentBirdLife International; Biodiversity Neutral Initiative; Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO); Centre for Research-Information-Action for Development in Africa; Conservation International; Ecoagriculture Partners; EcoTopia Science Institute Nagoya University; Fauna & Flora International; Forest Trends; International Institute of Environment & Development; Rainforest Alliance; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; The Nature Conservancy; Tulalip Tribes, Us; Wildlife Conservation Society; WWF-UK; Zoological Society of London

BBOP Advisory Group

Executive Committee

PilotCompany

1

Learning Network

Advisory Group

Pilot Company

2

Pilot Company

3

Pilot Company

4

BBOP: Structure

Secretariat

Country Partner

1

Country Partner

2

Country Partner

3

Country Partner

4

≥1000 members

~ 50 members

7 ExComm: 2 companies, 1 govt, 2 NGOs, 1 bank, 1 Secretariat

2 Secretariat:

BBOP structure

Available guidance:

www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram

Products from Phase 1:

• Large-tonnage nickel project• Shareholders: Sherritt Incorporated,

Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores, SNC Lavalin

An example: Ambatovy project, Madagascar

• Components:– Mine site (approx 1,336 ha)– 218km largely buried slurry pipeline– Industrial complex: processing plant 2.6km2,

refinery, tailings 14km2, harbour 300m pier

• Construction began early 2007. Expected life-cycle 27(+) years/

• Proposed composite offset:

• Off-site at Ankerana (endangered forest ecologically equivalent to mine site);

• Improve conservation status of two forest conservation areas within mine lease;

• Conserve forest area around mine footprint; • Establish forest corridor between mine area

forests and nearby corridor; • Support implementation of management plan

of the neighbouring wetland.

Next challenge: NNL for the whole of the South Gobi

Consolidated critical natural habitat

Exploration licenses, 2008Source: World Bank, 2009

How to establish whether and when an offset is appropriate?Go/No Go Offsetable/Not OffsetableValues Mitigation Hierarchy

Metrics: how to quantify impact losses and offset gains?Structure & Composition Ecological Process and Function Socioeconomic and Cultural aspects

Offset activities and locationLandscape level planning Delivery Out of kind and trading up

Implementation: how to make an offset succeed in practice?

Roles & responsibilities Legal structures, institutional arrangementsFinancial assurance Monitoring, enforcement

Key issuesKey issues

Road

Mine

FactoryPlanned town

Unplanned settlement

Expanded Town

Access to new land e.g. forest

Direct impactsRoad

FactoryPlanned town

Expanded Town

Access to new land e.g. forest

Primary impacts

Indirect Impacts

Direct and indirect impacts

• EIA rarely planned to achieve ‘no net loss’.• 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 an offset can be integrated with the EIA process

to deliver ‘no net loss’!

Offsets compared with EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA)

Can’t EIA take care of it?

• Developer and/or partners (NGO, consultant, multi‐stakeholder group) undertake the offset

• Payment to a government authority ‘in lieu’

• Developer buys sufficient ‘credits’ from a landowner or conservation bank to offset its impacts.

Three ways to implement offsets or compensatory conservation:

We ask our members please to confirm that they will:

• join at least one of the Working Groups established for the priority areas of work, participating in its teleconferences approximately once every three or four months; 

– The Working Groups are on:  Assurance (Standards development); Pilot Projects; Guidelines; Policy; Capacity‐Building and Training.

• if possible, attend an annual BBOP meeting; and

• support the BBOP Principles, and strive to apply them if they design a biodiversity offset.

Implications of joining BBOP