DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity Offsets: IUCN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity Offsets: IUCN Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case Kerry ten Kate, Josh Bishop and Ricardo Bayon November 200 Executive Summary The Executive Summary of this report is available at: http://www.insightinvestment.com/Documents/ responsibility/Executive_ Summary_Biodiversity_Offsets_Report.pdf, and from IUCN at: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/offsets/execsum.htm Acknowledgements This report was written by Kerry ten Kate, Director, Investor Responsibility, Insight Investment; Joshua Bishop, Senior Advisor, Economics and Environment, IUCN-The World Conservation Union; and Ricardo Bayon, an independent consultant. Caroline Barraclough of Insight Investment provided invaluable help in corresponding with all those involved and compiling their comments. The report is based primarily on interviews and discussions with the individuals listed in Appendix 1 (see page 88) and the authors are extremely grateful to them for the information, views and insights that they shared and for their comments on the draft report. Interviewees were speaking in their personal capacity and their views may not be the official policy of the organisations for which they work. Many other individuals have kindly contributed information on particular boxes and information included in the report and the authors would like to thank them as well. The authors have made their best efforts to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report and apologise for any inadvertent errors. Publication details The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or Insight Investment concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or Insight Investment. This publication has been made possible in part by funding from Insight Investment. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK Copyright: © 2004 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd, London, UK Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: ten Kate, K.., Bishop, J., and Bayon, R. (2004). Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK. ISBN: 2-8317-0854-0 Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK Tel: +44 1223 277894 Fax: +44 1223 277175 E-mail: [email protected] www.iucn.org/bookstore And also: http://biodiversityeconomics.org/offsets and http://www.insightinvestment.com/Documents/responsibility/Biodiversity_Offsets_Report.pdf 2 Table of contents 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Methodology 7 1.2 Structure of this report 8 2 What is a biodiversity offset? 9 Offset or mitigate? 9 Offset and the environmental mitigation hierarchy 9 Offset or compensate? 9 Onsite or offsite? 10 The value of biodiversity and conservation in the context of sustainable development 10 No net loss (or net positive impact) 11 Biodiversity offsets compared with carbon and other offsets 12 3 Why biodiversity offsets? The conservation case 14 3.1 More conservation 14 3.2 Better conservation 16 3.3 Cost effective conservation 18 3.4 Giving value to conservation: creating value for undeveloped land 20 4 Why biodiversity offsets? The regulatory case 21 4.1 Policy context 21 4.2 Law requiring offsets 22 4.2.1 Wetland Banking in the US under the Clean Water Act 22 4.2.2 Conservation Banking in the US, under the Endangered Species Act 25 4.2.3 Habitats and Birds Directives and implementing regulations in the EU 28 4.2.4 Offsets in Brazil under the Forest Regulation & National System of Conservation Units 29 4.2.5 Federal Law for the Protection of Nature and Landscape in Switzerland 31 4.2.6 No net loss of fisheries habitat in Canada under the Fisheries Act 31 4.3 Facilitating law that can trigger negotiations on offsets 32 4.3.1 Environmental Impact Assessments 32 4.3.2 Planning law 33 4.3.3 Concession agreements 33 4.3.4 Policy that builds on a number of legal provisions 34 4.4 Mandatory or voluntary systems? 36 5 Why biodiversity offsets? The business case 38 5.1 The business case 38 5.1.1 License to operate, reputational risk, and regulatory goodwill 38 5.1.2 Access to capital 40 5.1.3 Lower costs of compliance 42 5.1.4 New market opportunities 43 5.1.5 First mover competitive advantage and the power to influence regulation 44 5.1.6 Clean break 44 5.1.7 Employee satisfaction and retention 45 5.2 Barriers to more voluntary offsets 45 5.2.1 Suspicion of companies’ motivations 45 5.2.2 Increased scrutiny 46 5.2.3 Unfulfilled promise 48 5.2.4 Legal liabilities and new responsibilities 49 5.3 Implementation of biodiversity offsets by companies 49 5.3.1 Signals of industry interest in biodiversity offsets 50 5.3.2 Corporate policies 50 The case until now: purely aspirational goals 50 Ad hoc contributions by charismatic individuals 52 Moves towards the offset mindset: demonstrating net positive effect and transcending environment/development trade-offs 52 3 6 How to offset: technical issues 55 6.1 Measuring impacts and establishing “no net loss” 55 6.1.1 Measuring impacts 56 6.1.2 Establishing equivalence for offsets 57 Ecological proxies 57 Economic valuation 60 6.2 Optimising conservation benefits 61 6.3 Location 62 6.3.1 Proximity to the site affected 62 6.3.2 The bigger picture: offsets further afield 63 6.3.3 International trade 65 6.3.4 Should “no net loss” for companies be at the site or corporate level? 65 6.4 Timelines 66 6.4.1 Duration of offsetting obligations 66 6.4.2 Should offsets be implemented in anticipation of development projects? 67 6.5 What kind of activities count as legitimate “offsets”? 68 6.5.1 Additionality 68 6.5.2 Conservation or capacity building? 69 6.5.3 Conservation or development? 71 7 How to offset: stakeholder issues 72 7.1 Who should be involved in designing an offset and who decides it is acceptable? 72 7.2 Who should implement a biodiversity offset? 73 7.3 National systems to define and administer biodiversity offsets 74 7.4 Who judges success? 75 8 Conclusions 77 8.1 Views on offset 77 8.1.1 Growing momentum and interest in biodiversity offsets 77 8.1.2 Possible advantages of biodiversity offsets 78 8.1.3 Associated risks 79 8.1.4 Lack of clear vision 80 8.2 Key conclusions 80 8.2.1 The meaning of biodiversity offsets and the mitigation hierarchy 80 8.2.2 The Offset Spectrum 81 8.2.3 Flexibility 82 8.2.4 Depends on stakeholders 83 8.2.5 Offsets benefit from clear priorities 83 8.2.6 Further work is needed 84 8.3 What would be needed to make it work? 84 8.3.1 Encourage more dialogue and a shared vocabulary 84 8.3.2 Ensure all stakeholders play their part 84 8.3.3 Pilot projects and case studies to experiment and demonstrate net benefits 86 8.4 Next steps for Insight and IUCN 87 Appendix 1: Interviewees and other informants 88 Appendix 2: Issues discussed during the interviews 90 References 92 4 List of boxes and tables Box 1: No net loss in Uganda 11 Box 2: The definition of “biodiversity offset” 13 Box 3: Ten newts and their £250,000 pond 17 Box 4: Cost-effectiveness arguments in New South Wales 19 Box 5: Legal requirements for biodiversity offsets and compensatory conservation activities 22 Box 6: Growth of wetland mitigation banking in the USA 23 Box 7: The Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve: a wetland offset to mitigate on-site habitat losses associated with Rio Tinto's Kennecott Utah Copper mine 24 Box 8: Potential benefits of conservation banks 26 Box 9: International Paper and the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 26 Box 10: Conservation Banking in California 27 Box 11: Using chapter 106 for biodiversity offsets in the UK 33 Box 12: Summary of some recent policy on offsets in Australia 34 Box 13: Principles for Green Offsets in New South Wales 35 Box 14: The Equator Principles 40 Box 15: IFC and offsets: From Safeguard Policies to Performance Standards 41 Box 16: EBX: Making a Business out of Offsets 43 Box 17: The Chad-Cameroon pipeline 46 Box 18: The Heavy Crude Pipeline (OCP) in Ecuador 47 Box 19: One approach to enforcement 49 Box 20: Examples of voluntary corporate commitments related to offset 51 Box 21: NAM Protocol for determining the extent of biodiversity compensation 56 Box 22: Habitat Hectares as the basis for the State of Victoria’s “Net Gain Principle” 58 Box 23: Brazilian “Units of Conservation” 64 Box 24: Some company views on the prognosis for biodiversity offsets 77 5 1 Introduction Biodiversity1 offsets are conservation2 activities intended to compensate for the residual, unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development projects. Recent experience with regulatory regimes, such as wetland and conservation banking in the USA, tradable forest conservation obligations in Brazil and habitat compensation requirements in Australia, Canada and the EU, has been supplemented by growing interest in the potential of voluntary biodiversity offsets. This experience suggests that biodiversity offsets may be of value to business, government, local communities and conservation groups alike.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • KEY ISSUES in BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW and POLICY a Comparison of Six Jurisdictions
    KEY ISSUES IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW AND POLICY A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions Ontario Nature’s Greenway Guide Series | June 2015 Key Issues in Biodiversity Offset Law and Policy: A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions June 2015 by David W. Poulton, M.A., LL.M. Poulton Environmental Strategies for Ontario Nature Acknowledgements I am grateful to several people who have contributed to this report. First and foremost, the work was the inspiration of Anne Bell of Ontario Nature, who was unfailingly positive and encouraging. Several experts did me the service of reviewing drafts of the summaries of their respective jurisdictions of focus. For that thanks to Laurence Barea (New Zealand,) Marianne Darbi (Germany), Carrie Nugent and Jennifer Psyllakis (British Columbia), and Nicholas Winfield (Canada). Any distortion of the details in those jurisdictions in the commentary of this report is entirely inadvertent and my own responsibility. DWP This report was made possible through the generous support of The George Cedric Metcalf Foundation. Author: David W. Poulton Review: Dr. Anne Bell Copy-editor: Geri Savits-Fine Design: Lisa Rebnord Cover photo: Don Johnston Download this guide free of charge at: ontarionature.org/publications Copyright @2015: Ontario Nature Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................... 3 2. Biodiversity Offsets and Key Issues ......................................... 7 a. Mitigation Hierarchy .................................................... 7 b. Goals of Offsetting ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot
    Defra project code: WC 1051 Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Programme Final Report Volume 1: June 2014 Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited in partnership with The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 1 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 Project title: WC1051: Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting pilot programme Contracting Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) organisation: Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QY, UK Contact: Dr William Sheate (Project Director) Jonathan Baker (Project Manager) Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk Partner organisations: The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Address: IEEP Offices, Floor 3, 11 Belgrave Road, London SW1V 1RB, UK Contact: Dr Graham Tucker Tel: +44 (0)20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ieep.eu Report details: Report title: Volume 1: Final Report Date issued: June 2014 Purpose: To provide a synthesis of the information collected across the two year evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilot programme Version no.: 2.4 Author(s): Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Bennett, T., Payne, D., Tucker, G. White, O and Forrest, S. Reviewed by: Eales, R. and Ten Brink, P. Acknowledgements The Steering Group would like to thank the pilots for being so generous with their time and insights. They would also like to thank the Complementary Projects, the Natural England advisers and to all of those who provided their time and expertise to the evaluation, including the team at CEP.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulated Destruction: How Biodiversity Offsetting Enables
    REGULATED DESTRUCTION How biodiversity offsetting enables environmental destruction Author Jutta Kill The research for this publication was carried out between February and October 2018. Design Somerset Bean Image credits Cover, p5, p24 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia. Members of the women’s group picking vegetables. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p11 Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association (PIFWA), Mangrove Education Centre, Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang, Malaysia. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p21 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia, Members of the women’s group including the two women leaders. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International Friends Of The Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network with 73 member groups and over two million members and supporters around the world. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalisation, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study
    Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study Location Bainbridge Island, USA Year 2009 – ongoing Project A 12 home single family residential development and a public infrastructure description project (relocation of a shoreline road). This is a pilot project in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. Actors active in the case City of Bainbridge Island – conducts the development and the offsetting project Department of Planning and Community Development – encourages developers to implement biodiversity offsets Upper Blakely LLC – the development company Bainbridge Island Land Trust – responsible for long term conservation success Private landowner – participating voluntarily, exploring the potential to offset the development impacts citizens affected by the offsetting – attended public hearing See detailed table of stakeholder identification in Table 3. Background and activities involved The pilot programme is a cooperation between a private landowner and the City of Bainbridge. The project intends to show how a forest and a shoreline habitat can be protected even as a development occurs. 2 types of activities involved: Public infrastructure project: It contains of a relocation of a shoreline road. This area is in the property of a private landowner. Portions of this road are located very close to the water. The road with the bulkhead increases wave energy, thereby altering the substrate of the beach and threatening intertidal habitat. The location of the road also replaces natural riparian vegetation, further threatening the potential marine riparian functions. The City agreed to move the road inland, away from the shoreline, which would impact marine riparian area and a forested wetland. Moving the road inland involves some impacts to a small wetland, which will trigger a regulatory requirement to offset the wetland impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Biodiversity Offsets
    Planning biodiversity offsets TWELVE OPERATIONALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho TemaNord 2018:513 Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho ISBN 978-92-893-5406-6 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-5407-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-5408-0 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-513 TemaNord 2018:513 ISSN 0908-6692 Standard: PDF/UA-1 ISO 14289-1 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2018 Cover photo: unsplash.com Print: Rosendahls Printed in Denmark Disclaimer This publication was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the Nordic Council of Ministers’ views, opinions, attitudes or recommendations. Rights and permissions This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Translations: If you translate this work, please include the following disclaimer: This translation was not pro- duced by the Nordic Council of Ministers and should not be construed as official. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the translation or any errors in it. Adaptations: If you adapt this work, please include the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with its author(s). The views and opinions in this adaptation have not been approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Third-party content: The Nordic Council of Ministers does not necessarily own every single part of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • BBOP – Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook About This Document 2
    Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society provided the Secretariat for BBOP during the first phase of the programme's work (2004 - 2008). Publication Data Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. BBOP, Washington, D.C. Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh.pdf © Forest Trends 2009. ISBN 978-1-932928-31-0 (PDF) Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Cover and graphic design by Rima Design. 1 About this document The Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and accompanying supporting materials1 such as this Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook2 have been prepared by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) to help developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and financial institutions that wish to consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets. They were developed by members of the BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee3 during the first phase of the programme’s work (2004 – 2008) and have benefited from contributions and suggestions from many of the 200 people who registered on the BBOP consultation site and numerous others who have joined us for discussions in meetings. The Advisory Committee members support the Principles and commend the other working documents to readers as a source of interim guidance on which to draw when considering, designing and implementing biodiversity offsets.
    [Show full text]
  • Postnote 369 'Biodiversity Offsetting'
    POSTNOTE Number 369 January 2011 Biodiversity Offsetting Overview Biodiversity offsetting is a market-based conservation tool that measures negative impacts on biodiversity, replacing the loss through improvements usually nearby. Offsets aim to compensate for residual biodiversity loss incurred by development projects by maintaining an equivalent amount of biodiversity elsewhere that would otherwise be lost, or by enhancing Given growing recognition of the importance of biodiversity at an alternate location. biodiversity, all sectors are looking for ways to Several countries currently implement offset mitigate the environmental costs of law and policy with different levels of development activity. Biodiversity offsetting regulation and varying success. refers to market-based schemes designed to compensate for losses of biodiversity due to Offsets aim to achieve ‘no net loss’ or a ‘net development projects. This POSTnote gain’ of biodiversity. summarises biodiversity offsetting and Offsetting remains largely undervalued, examines opportunities and risks of offsets especially with regard to undervalued or as within a UK context. yet unknown biodiversity. recognised, this strategy has proved unable to stop the Biodiversity persistent and widespread loss and degradation of Biodiversity is the genetic diversity within species, species biodiversity in almost all regions. Participants to the recent diversity within ecosystems, and ecosystem diversity across intergovernmental meeting of the 193 parties at the landscapes. It supports ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • Review Biodiversity Offsets in Theory and Practice
    Review Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice J OSEPH W. B ULL,K.BLAKE S UTTLE,ASCELIN G ORDON,NAVINDER J. S INGH Q1 and E . J . M ILNER-GULLAND Abstract Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular Introduction yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity he conservation of global biodiversity alongside conservation and of economic development in tandem; Teconomic development is a key challenge for the the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses 21st century. Human societies depend on diverse, fun- in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is ctioning ecosystems in innumerable ways that are not being widely adopted, even though its methodologies fully understood (Lubchenco, 1997), yet there are few and the overriding conceptual framework are still under mechanisms that facilitate the accounting of biodiversity development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates within development activities. Consequently, con- ff implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theor- servation concerns are ine ectively integrated into de- etical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the velopment and risk being perceived as incompatible ff ff criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then with economic growth. Biodiversity o sets o er an explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from approach that links conservation with industry, potentially these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We providing improved ecological outcomes along with find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent development. in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge Legislation mandating compensatory biodiversity ff of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring conservation mechanisms (including o sets) exists in and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on Net Gain in EIA Thought Pieces from UK Practice
    Impact Assessment Outlook Journal Volume 4: October 2019 Perspectives on net gain in EIA Thought pieces from UK practice Guest Editor Emma Magee GUEST EDITORIAL Emma Magee Senior Environmental Project Manager Environment Agency and IEMA IA Steering Group member Perspectives on net gain in EIA I am delighted to be able to bring to you a selection of articles on the theme of Net Gain, that amongst other things explore how an ecosystem services approach can help EIA embrace developments in this area. This is a subject that challenges us to innovate and develop our practice in order to produce work and projects that have multiple benefits. I hope you will find, in these articles, the same motivation to learn more that they prompted in me. Net Gain Evolution from offsetting In March 2019 the Government confirmed that the To understand the evolution from offsetting we can dig forthcoming Environmental Bill will mandate ‘biodiversity back through the QMark archives to explore some of net gain’ with on-site measures given priority above the challenges that offsetting has faced and how the habitat creation elsewhere. Biodiversity net gain is approach has developed from ‘no net loss’ to ‘net gain’ an approach to development that leaves biodiversity as a consequence of the Lawton review1 (2010) which in a better state than before the project. While the quite simply stated that offset efforts needed to be “more, National Planning Policy Framework already includes bigger, better and joined”. In their articles Brookes and a requirement for the identification and pursuit of Davis discuss the pros and cons of biodiversity offsetting opportunities for securing measurable net gains in and an international case study to explore these themes.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation
    sustainability Review Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation Marie Grimm * and Johann Köppel Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Technical University of Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-(0)-30-314-27388 Received: 10 October 2019; Accepted: 2 December 2019; Published: 4 December 2019 Abstract: Biodiversity offsets are applied in many countries to compensate for impacts on the environment, but research on regulatory frameworks and implementation enabling effective offsets is lacking. This paper reviews research on biodiversity offsets, providing a framework for the analysis of program design (no net loss goal, uncertainty and ratios, equivalence and accounting, site selection, landscape-scale mitigation planning, timing) and implementation (compliance, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy, leakage and trade-offs, oversight, transparency and monitoring). Some more challenging aspects concern the proper metrics and accounting allowing for program evaluation, as well as the consideration of trade-offs when regulations focus only on the biodiversity aspect of ecosystems. Results can be used to assess offsets anywhere and support the creation of programs that balance development and conservation. Keywords: biodiversity offsets; no net loss; offset design; offset implementation; compensation; mitigation 1. Introduction Noticing an increasing pressure on ecosystems due to development, governments have implemented various policy approaches to
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Impact Calculator
    BIODIVERSITY IMPACT CALCULATOR - GUIDANCE FOR USE FOR LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 05 July 2019 To accompany The Environment Bank Biodiversity Impact Calculator - v2 July 2019. Environment Bank e: [email protected] w: www.environmentbank.com 1 CONTENTS 1. Accounting for impacts on biodiversity .......................................................................... 3 1.2 How it works .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Ecologically important sites and protected species ................................................ 4 2. Biodiversity Impact Calculator guidance ......................................................................... 5 2.2 Required information ............................................................................................ 6 2.3 Habitat assessment ................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Area and length ..................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Distinctiveness categories ...................................................................................... 7 2.6 Condition assessments .......................................................................................... 7 2.7 Development impacts and the calculator ............................................................... 9 2.8 Risk factors ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offsetting – What Does the Science Say?
    BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING – WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY? Summary report from a meeting of the British Ecological Society Biodiversity offsetting has been heralded as a tool to balance economic growth and environmental protection. By identifying and quantifying the environmental impact of development on biodiversity, offsetting could help bring the cost of impacting nature into projects where it is currently left out. The British Ecological Society believes that it is essential that offsetting policy is evidence-based and that offset systems are grounded in the best ecological science. The BES notes the limited reference to science in the Green Paper and considers this to be an important omission. Summary 1. Any biodiversity offsetting policy implemented in England must be evidence-based. Offsetting decisions and protocols are underpinned by both scientific and value judgements, and for ecological science to be used effectively, Defra must distinguish between these and treat them accordingly. 2. Ecological science is integral to the development and implementation of an offsetting policy in England. Offsets must be both designed based on best available scientific knowledge, and monitored effectively to ensure performance is objectively assessed and any offsetting approach is therefore improved where necessary. We highlight several areas where the contribution of ecological science is particularly key to the development of an effective offsetting policy. 3. Current ecological knowledge that is applicable to offsetting needs to be organised in an open manner using consistent and compatible approaches, at an appropriate scale to reflect local and national values. This paper begins to identify areas where this might be possible, but further work is needed to map current and potential habitat and to confirm reliable indicators of habitat condition.
    [Show full text]