biodiversity offset design handbook appendices

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: Appendices. BBOP, Washington, D.C.

Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh-appendices.pdf.

© Forest Trends 2009.

ISBN 978-1-932928-32-7 (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

BBOP – Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook: Appendices

About this document

The Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and accompanying supporting materials1 such as these Appendices2 to the Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook 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 website 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. Best practice in biodiversity offsets is still in its infancy, and the concepts and methodologies presented here need to be further discussed, developed, tested and refined based on more practical experience and broad debate within society.

All those involved in BBOP are grateful to the companies who volunteered pilot projects in this first phase of our work and for the support of the donors listed overleaf, who have enabled the Secretariat and Advisory Committee to prepare these documents.

BBOP is embarking on the next phase of its work, during which we hope to collaborate with more individuals and organisations around the world, to test and develop these and other approaches to biodiversity offsets more widely geographically and in more industry sectors. BBOP is a collaborative programme, and we welcome your involvement. To learn more about the programme and how to get involved please:

See: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/

Contact: [email protected]

1 The BBOP Principles, interim guidance and resource documents, including a glossary, can be found at: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/. To assist readers, a selection of terms with an entry in the BBOP Glossary has been highlighted thus: BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS. Users of the Web or CD-ROM version of this document can move their cursors over a glossary term to see the definition.

2 This paper was prepared by Susie Brownlie, Jo Treweek and Kerry ten Kate with contributions from Jon Ekstrom, Theo Stephens, Toby Gardner, David Parkes and other individuals cited in the various Appendices.

3 The BBOP Advisory Committee currently comprises representatives from: 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; 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; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands; National Ecology Institute, Mexico; National Environmental Management Authority, Uganda; Newmont Mining Corporation; Private Agencies Collaborating Together (Pact); 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; 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.

During Phase 1 of BBOP, the BBOP Secretariat was served by Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

About this document 2


We thank those organisations that have provided financial support for BBOP’s work4: the Alcoa Foundation; Anglo American; City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, USA; Conservation International; Department for International Development, United Kingdom; Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia; Forest Trends; International Finance Corporation; KfW Bankengruppe; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands; Newmont Mining Corporation; the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; Rio Tinto; Shell International; Sherritt International Corporation; Solid Energy New Zealand; the Surdna Foundation; the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility; United States Agency for International Development5; and Wildlife Conservation Society.

4 Endorsement of some or all of the BBOP documents is not implied by financial support for BBOP’s work.

5 This document is made possible in part by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

3


Contents

The BBOP Offset Design Handbook presents information on a range of issues, approaches, methodologies and possible tools from which OFFSET PLANNERS can select the approaches best suited to their individual circumstances when designing a biodiversity offset. It describes a generic process that offset planners could use in designing a biodiversity offset, from initial conception of a development project to the selection of offset sites and activities. This involves describing the project; exploring the policy context; engaging stakeholders; undertaking biodiversity surveys and applying the MITIGATION HIERARCHY; quantifying RESIDUAL IMPACTS; identifying and comparing potential offset sites; calculating CONSERVATION GAINS for preferred offset sites; and deciding upon the final scope, scale, nature and location of offset.

This companion volume of Appendices does not aim to provide comprehensive coverage of offset methodologies, but instead to offer readers a summary of a sample of approaches relevant to biodiversity offsets and some references on them for further reading. Some approaches are required or recommended by government policies; some are the subject of the lending requirements of banks; some are still under development (the approach adapted and tested by BBOP in its pilot projects, REMEDE, the New Zealand Risk Index Method and Averted Risk Formulae) and some other supportive or supplementary methodologies.

The following aspects of each approach or methodology are described where relevant (since some of the approaches or methodologies are not specific to offset design, it is not possible in all cases to provide information on every aspect):

� The target or subject of biodiversity offsets (e.g. threatened species, wetlands, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, etc.);

� Offsets in the mitigation hierarchy;

� The upper and lower thresholds for considering biodiversity offsets (i.e. offsets would not be considered above the ‘upper threshold’ or below the ‘lower threshold’);

� The desired or required outcome of biodiversity offsets;

� Options that could be considered for biodiversity offsets (e.g. land, management, restoration, compensatory payment, etc.);

� Offset methodology, including the basis and CURRENCY used to calculate BIODIVERSITY LOSS at the IMPACT SITE and GAIN through offset(s), consideration of landscape level and site selection in planning and locating the offset, and the use of any MULTIPLIERS or ratios to address uncertainty or risk;

� Biodiversity offsets in relation to ecosystem services (e.g. provisioning, cultural, regulating, supporting services);

� Stakeholder or interested and affected party engagement;

� Implementation, including timing, duration, management and any checks on effectiveness; and,

� Broad comments on the level of information, time and expertise that the methodology (i.e. where relevant) would require.

Contents 4


Table of contents

Appendix A: Approaches and methodologies in use and / or available as drafts, and associated policy requirements 5

A.1 US wetlands compensatory mitigation (see also Appendix A.3) 5

A.2 US Fish and Wildlife Services: Habitat Evaluation Procedures 8

A.3 US wetland and stream assessment methods in practice 11

A.4 Birds and Habitats Directives 14

A.5 European Liability Directive 16

A.6 Victoria (Australia): habitat hectares method 18

A.7 Western Australia: Net Environmental Benefit 22

A.8 South Australia: Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) methods 25

A.9 Western Cape of South Africa’s Draft Provincial Guideline 29

Appendix B: Approaches relevant to biodiversity offsets by banks 32

B.1 World Bank Operational Policy 4.04: Natural Habitats 32

B.2 International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management 35

B.3 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Performance Requirement 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources 38

Appendix C: Methodologies currently being developed 41

C.1 The approach and methodology adapted and developed by BBOP, and currently being tested at the BBOP pilot sites 41

C.2 REMEDE Toolkit – Resource Equivalency Method 59

C.3 New Zealand Risk Index Method 62

C.4 New Zealand: Averted Risk Formulae 65

Appendix D: Supportive or supplementary approaches and methodologies 67

D.1 Zonation 67

D.2 Marxan and Marzone 69

D.3 Biological Territorial Capacity 70

D.4 Emerging ecosystem services assessment tools and their corporate applicability 72

5


Appendix A: Approaches and methodologies in use and / or available as drafts, and associatedpolicy requirements

A.1 US wetlands compensatory mitigation (see also Appendix A.3)The primary law conserving wetlands in the United States is the Clean Water Act (CWA), passed in 1972. Section 404 authorises the Secretary of the Army to “issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters at specified disposal sites”. These permits, administered principally through the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and known as ‘404 permits’, ‘wetland permits’, or ‘Corps permits’, are the cornerstone of federal efforts to encourage protection of wetland resources through market-based means.

This is the most mature of the offset frameworks, having been initiated in the 1970s. The policy objective is to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands through compensatory mitigation that replaces wetland functions and values. Federal guidance on wetland mitigation banking was issued in 1995, and policy development continues under the auspices of the Federal Interagency Mitigation Workgroup. On March 31, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) announced innovative new regulatory standards that supersede the 1995 guidance. These new standards are designed to promote NO NET LOSS of wetlands by improving wetland restoration and protection policies, increasing the effective use of wetland mitigation banks and strengthening the requirements for the use of in-lieu fee mitigation.

Useful references

2008 Compensatory Mitigation Regulations: Department of Defense (Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) Environmental Protection Authority (40 CFR Part 230 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources); Federal Register 10 April 2008. For more information see: http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/

See also: Appendix A.3.

App

endi

x A

6

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

s W

etla

nd h

abita

t and

func

tion.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

The

hier

arch

y m

ust b

e fo

llow

ed, n

amel

y (1

) avo

id fi

lling

wet

land

reso

urce

s; (2

) min

imis

e ad

vers

e im

pact

s to

thos

e w

etla

nds

that

ca

nnot

reas

onab

ly b

e av

oide

d; a

nd (3

) pro

vide

com

pens

ator

y m

itiga

tion

for t

hose

una

void

able

adv

erse

impa

cts

that

rem

ain

afte

r all

min

imis

atio

n m

easu

res

have

bee

n ex

erci

sed

(oth

er w

etla

nds

have

bee

n re

stor

ed to

com

pens

ate

for t

he w

etla

nds

dest

roye

d; k

now

n as

‘com

pens

ator

y m

itiga

tion’

).

Thre

shol

ds fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

App

lies

to a

ny w

etla

nd re

sour

ce.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eN

atio

nal g

oal o

f ‘‘n

o ne

t los

s’’ o

f wet

land

acr

eage

and

func

tion.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsM

easu

res

that

rest

ore

prio

r wet

land

are

as a

re fa

vour

ed m

ost,

follo

wed

by

ENH

AN

CEM

ENT

of lo

w-q

ualit

y w

etla

nds

and

crea

tion

of n

ew

wet

land

s.

Leas

t-fav

oure

d of

all

is th

e pr

eser

vatio

n of

exi

stin

g w

etla

nds.

Und

er th

e ne

w ru

le th

ese

met

hods

of c

ompe

nsat

ion

are

know

n as

: re

stor

atio

n, e

stab

lishm

ent (

crea

tion)

, enh

ance

men

t and

pre

serv

atio

n. T

here

are

thre

e m

echa

nism

s fo

r pro

vidi

ng th

is c

ompe

nsat

ion

in th

e S

ectio

n 40

4 pr

ogra

mm

e: o

btai

ning

cre

dits

from

a m

itiga

tion

bank

, obt

aini

ng c

redi

ts fr

om a

n in

-lieu

fee

prog

ram

me

or

cond

uctin

g a

perm

ittee

-res

pons

ible

com

pens

atio

n pr

ojec

t (i.e

. the

trad

ition

al a

nd s

till m

ost c

omm

on fo

rm o

f com

pens

atio

n).

Und

er th

e ne

w 2

008

regu

latio

ns, u

se o

f cre

dits

from

a m

itiga

tion

bank

is th

e pr

efer

red

com

pens

atio

n m

etho

d be

caus

e th

e C

orps

and

E

PA

vie

w m

itiga

tion

bank

s as

the

leas

t ris

ky fo

rm o

f com

pens

atio

n. S

econ

d in

the

com

pens

atio

n hi

erar

chy

is u

se o

f cre

dits

from

an

in-li

eu fe

e pr

ogra

mm

e w

ith p

ursu

it of

a p

erm

ittee

-res

pons

ible

com

pens

atio

n pr

ojec

t thi

rd.

Reg

ardl

ess

of th

e m

echa

nism

, miti

gatio

n sh

ould

gen

eral

ly ta

ke p

lace

with

in th

e sa

me

wat

ersh

ed a

s th

e pe

rmitt

ed im

pact

and

IN-

KIN

D m

itiga

tion

is p

refe

rabl

e to

miti

gatio

n th

at u

ses

a su

bsta

ntia

lly d

iffer

ent t

ype

of w

etla

nd.

App

endi

x A

7

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-gai

n: th

e cu

rren

cy

Req

uire

s m

easu

rabl

e an

d en

forc

eabl

e ec

olog

ical

per

form

ance

sta

ndar

ds fo

r all

type

s of

com

pens

atio

n so

that

pr

ojec

t suc

cess

can

be

eval

uate

d. T

he C

orps

has

gra

nted

bro

ad d

iscr

etio

n to

sta

te a

nd lo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

sel

ect

curr

enci

es. R

ough

ly fo

rty d

iffer

ent w

etla

nds

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds h

ave

been

dev

elop

ed, v

aryi

ng in

term

s of

the

type

of h

abita

ts in

whi

ch th

e m

etho

d is

use

d, th

e ba

sic

targ

ets

of a

sses

smen

t, an

d th

e fu

nctio

nal a

nd s

ocia

l val

ues

enco

mpa

ssed

in th

e as

sess

men

t. O

ver h

alf o

f the

met

hods

go

beyo

nd a

sses

smen

t of h

abita

t sui

tabi

lity

to

enco

mpa

ss s

ome

asse

ssm

ent o

f wet

land

func

tion,

but

man

y of

thes

e fu

nctio

n-ba

sed

met

hods

are

bou

nded

by

limita

tions

on

type

of h

abita

t for

whi

ch th

e m

etho

d ca

n be

use

d (e

.g. c

oast

al w

etla

nds

only

) and

lim

ited

in te

rms

of

the

func

tions

ass

esse

d (e

.g. l

imite

d to

avi

an s

peci

es fu

nctio

ns).

That

is, m

ost o

f the

met

hodo

logi

es u

sed

focu

s on

th

e ar

ea o

f wet

land

impa

cted

and

a n

arro

w in

terp

reta

tion

of fu

nctio

ns.

The

met

hodo

logi

es a

nd a

ppro

ache

s di

ffer:

�S

impl

e in

dice

s ar

e de

rived

from

qui

ckly

and

eas

ily o

bser

ved

char

acte

ristic

s of

a w

etla

nd, a

nd u

sual

ly s

erve

as

SURR

OG

ATE

‘IN

DIC

ATO

RS’ o

f one

or m

ore

ecol

ogic

al fu

nctio

ns (f

or e

xam

ple,

per

cent

cov

er o

f aqu

atic

veg

etat

ion,

ar

ea o

f wet

land

). �

Nar

row

ly ta

ilore

d sy

stem

s at

tem

pt to

mea

sure

dire

ctly

a li

mite

d ra

nge

of w

etla

nd s

ervi

ces,

suc

h as

wild

life

habi

tat,

thro

ugh

a de

taile

d pr

oced

ure

focu

sing

on

that

par

ticul

ar w

etla

nd s

ervi

ce (f

or e

xam

ple,

per

cent

duc

k ha

bita

t).

�B

road

ly ta

ilore

d sy

stem

s ex

amin

e a

rang

e of

wet

land

func

tions

cov

erin

g a

num

ber o

f obs

erva

ble

char

acte

ristic

s.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Site

sel

ectio

nan

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pla

nnin

g

The

proc

ess

of s

elec

ting

a lo

catio

n fo

r com

pens

atio

n si

tes

shou

ld b

e dr

iven

by

asse

ssm

ents

of w

ater

shed

nee

ds

and

how

spe

cific

wet

land

rest

orat

ion

and

prot

ectio

n pr

ojec

ts c

an b

est a

ddre

ss th

ose

need

s.S

iting

/ la

ndsc

ape

– th

e se

rvic

e ar

ea is

the

wat

ersh

ed, E

CORE

GIO

N, p

hysi

ogra

phic

pro

vinc

e, a

nd /

or o

ther

ge

ogra

phic

are

a w

ithin

whi

ch th

e m

itiga

tion

bank

or i

n-lie

u fe

e pr

ogra

mm

e is

aut

horis

ed to

pro

vide

com

pens

ator

y m

itiga

tion

requ

ired

by D

A p

erm

its. T

he s

ervi

ce a

rea

mus

t be

appr

opria

tely

siz

ed to

ens

ure

that

the

aqua

tic

reso

urce

s pr

ovid

ed w

ill e

ffect

ivel

y co

mpe

nsat

e fo

r adv

erse

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s ac

ross

the

entir

e se

rvic

e ar

ea.

Rel

atio

n to

eco

syst

em

serv

ices

Eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

are

addr

esse

d th

roug

h m

aint

aini

ng w

etla

nd fu

nctio

n.

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tN

o sp

ecifi

c re

fere

nces

foun

d.

Impl

emen

tatio

nTh

e nu

mbe

r of c

redi

ts a

vaila

ble

for w

ithdr

awal

(i.e

. deb

iting

) sho

uld

gene

rally

be

com

men

sura

te w

ith th

e le

vel o

f aqu

atic

func

tions

at

tain

ed a

t a b

ank

at th

e tim

e of

deb

iting

. Fed

eral

regu

latio

ns th

us a

llow

s so

me

leew

ay in

the

timin

g re

quire

men

t, al

low

ing

cred

it w

ithdr

awal

bef

ore

equa

l wet

land

val

ues

are

esta

blis

hed,

if th

e ba

nk p

osse

sses

ade

quat

e fin

anci

al a

ssur

ance

and

has

exh

ibite

d a

high

pro

babi

lity

of s

ucce

ss.

Req

uire

s re

gula

r mon

itorin

g to

doc

umen

t tha

t com

pens

atio

n si

tes

achi

eve

ecol

ogic

al p

erfo

rman

ce s

tand

ards

.R

eal e

stat

e in

stru

men

ts th

at p

rote

ct th

e si

te, f

inan

cial

ass

uran

ces

for n

ear-

and

long

-term

site

ste

war

dshi

p, m

onito

ring

and

cont

inge

ncy

plan

ning

, and

iden

tific

atio

n of

par

ties

resp

onsi

ble

for p

roje

ct ta

sks,

are

requ

ired

by th

e re

gula

tor.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

Ther

e is

no

one

met

hodo

logy

in u

se, a

s no

ted

abov

e. T

he le

vel o

f res

ourc

es (t

ime

and

fund

s) re

quire

d co

uld

be fr

om lo

w to

hig

h,

depe

ndin

g on

the

scop

e of

ana

lysi

s us

ed to

det

erm

ine

the

offs

et.

Appendix A 8


A.2 US Fish and Wildlife Services: Habitat Evaluation ProceduresHabitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) were developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in response to numerous legal mandates in the United States requiring that impact assessments should quantify the extent and status of natural resource components, their susceptibility to loss, and the implications of development alternatives and mitigation measures on those components. The procedure was drawn up for use by regulators and ecologists. In the HEP Handbook (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980), it is stated that “‘Application of Habitat Units (the principal units of comparison in HEP) includes impact assessments, compensation studies and human use analyses. In such analyses, one HU lost for a species must be directly comparable to one HU gained for that species”. HEP attempts to quantify habitat value for selected wildlife species based on the assumptions that these species are relative indicators of habitat value. The HEP is also seen as a habitat based approach to the design and implementation of mitigation for key species. It can also be applied as a quantitative approach to designing offsets for individual species, although it was not specifically designed for this purpose.

HEP combines theoretical knowledge of a species’ habitat needs with field survey to document the quantity and quality (in terms of carrying capacity) of habitat available and to compare it with ‘ideal’ or ‘optimum’ conditions. It can be used to compare the relative value of different areas for a selected wildlife species at a given point in time or to compare the relative value of the same area at different times. HEP addresses habitat availability and carrying capacity for selected evaluation species and do not address changes in species composition of BIOTOPES. It is based on the assumption that certain habitat variables can be measured (e.g. vegetation height) which are strongly correlated with the ability of an area to support a given species. Measurements of these variables are used to derive numerical habitat suitability indices (HSIs) which range from 0.0 to 1.0 and can be multiplied by the area of available habitat to obtain Habitat Units (HUs). The reliability of the method depends strongly on the ability of the practitioner to assign an accurate HSI and to identify clear relationships between carrying capacity and specific environmental variables. HUs do not represent a proven cause-and-effect relationship and are not an actual physical parameter that can be seen in the field, but reflect a hypothesis of species-habitat relationships.

Useful reference

US Fish and Wildlife Service (1980). Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). ESM 102. Division of Ecological Services, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

App

endi

x A

9

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s Th

is a

ppro

ach

is fo

cuse

d on

spe

cies

and

spe

cies

PER

SIST

ENCE

val

ues,

and

is u

sed

to a

sses

s th

e va

lue

of a

reas

of h

abita

t for

par

ticul

arsp

ecie

s in

term

s of

thei

r car

ryin

g ca

paci

ty.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Not

spe

cific

ally

add

ress

ed, b

ut H

EP

is a

tool

use

d in

con

junc

tion

with

the

appl

icat

ion

of th

e m

itiga

tion

hier

arch

y in

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes.

Th

e pr

oduc

t of a

spe

cific

HE

P a

pplie

d to

a p

roje

ct m

ay le

ad to

con

side

ratio

n of

add

ition

al A

VOID

AN

CE o

r min

imis

atio

n m

easu

res.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

HE

P id

entif

ies

resi

dual

, una

void

able

impa

cts

to s

peci

es /

habi

tat b

ased

on

HS

Is a

nd c

an h

elp

deve

lop

a bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

to s

eek

no

net l

oss.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eN

o ne

t los

s in

car

ryin

g ca

paci

ty o

f hab

itat f

or s

peci

es th

at a

re s

igni

fican

t for

BIO

DIV

ERSI

TY C

ON

SERV

ATI

ON

.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsIn

situ

‘LIK

E-FO

R-LI

KE’ o

r ‘in

-kin

d’ h

abita

t wou

ld c

onst

itute

the

only

acc

epta

ble

offs

et.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-gai

n: th

e cu

rren

cy

The

appr

oach

focu

ses

on p

riorit

y or

sig

nific

ant s

peci

es a

nd th

eir h

abita

t req

uire

men

ts fo

r per

sist

ence

. Tha

t is,

it s

eeks

to

repl

ace

habi

tat l

ost a

s a

resi

dual

impa

ct o

f dev

elop

men

t thr

ough

a b

iodi

vers

ity o

ffset

, to

ensu

re n

o ne

t los

s of

ha

bita

t for

affe

cted

spe

cies

. It

uses

Hab

itat U

nits

(HU

s) a

nd H

abita

t Sui

tabi

lity

Indi

ces

(HS

Is).

HU

s ar

e de

rived

by

mul

tiply

ing

the

HS

I of a

spe

cies

by

the

area

of t

he h

abita

t in

ques

tion.

The

HU

s co

nsid

er h

abita

t sui

tabi

lity

(incl

udin

g m

easu

res

of s

truct

ure

and

func

tion)

for t

he c

hose

n sp

ecie

s (c

ompo

sitio

n). T

hat i

s, H

ABI

TAT

STRU

CTU

RE a

nd fu

nctio

n ar

e in

terp

rete

d in

term

s of

the

spec

ies

they

sup

port

rath

er th

an fo

r the

ir ow

n sa

ke. T

he H

Us

look

at b

oth

the

qual

ity a

nd q

uant

ity o

f sui

tabl

e ha

bita

t fo

r par

ticul

ar s

peci

es; t

hese

HU

s ch

ange

as

a re

sult

of n

egat

ive

impa

cts

on b

iodi

vers

ity. T

he m

etho

dolo

gy re

lies

on a

go

od u

nder

stan

ding

of t

he re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n sp

ecie

s an

d th

eir h

abita

t, an

d th

e ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity o

f tha

t hab

itat.

The

HS

I is

effe

ctiv

ely

a m

easu

re o

f the

ben

chm

ark

optim

um h

abita

t for

a p

artic

ular

spe

cies

; an

HS

I of 1

.0 is

the

benc

hmar

k ha

bita

t for

that

spe

cies

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pla

nnin

g

This

app

roac

h do

es n

ot c

onsi

der l

ands

cape

-leve

l pla

nnin

g or

opt

ions

for c

onse

rvat

ion

in a

wid

er L

AN

DSC

APE

CO

NTE

XT.

Rel

atio

n to

eco

syst

em

serv

ices

Th

is a

ppro

ach

only

con

side

rs th

e IN

TRIN

SIC

VALU

ES o

f bio

dive

rsity

.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

Not

spe

cific

ally

add

ress

ed.

Impl

emen

tatio

nIt

is a

ssum

ed th

at th

e of

fset

wou

ld la

st in

PER

PETU

ITY,

alth

ough

this

issu

e is

not

exp

licitl

y ad

dres

sed.

App

endi

x A

10

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

This

met

hodo

logy

onl

y lo

oks

at s

peci

es th

at b

est r

epre

sent

the

biod

iver

sity

in a

rea

that

the

impa

ct w

ill o

ccur

and

thei

r hab

itat

requ

irem

ents

; tha

t is,

it d

oes

not a

ddre

ss w

ider

com

pone

nts

of b

iodi

vers

ity th

at m

ay b

e im

pact

ed. I

t req

uire

s re

lativ

ely

deta

iled

know

ledg

e of

the

spec

ies’

hab

itat r

equi

rem

ents

to d

eriv

e a

relia

ble

Hab

itat S

uita

bilit

y In

dex,

and

thus

det

erm

ine

the

num

ber o

f Hab

itat

Uni

ts n

eede

d to

offs

et re

sidu

al im

pact

s.

The

met

hod

coul

d be

app

lied

in a

ny c

ount

ry w

here

rela

tions

hips

bet

wee

n ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity fo

r ind

ivid

ual s

peci

es a

nd th

eir h

abita

t are

w

ell u

nder

stoo

d. D

etai

led

wor

k an

d co

nsid

erab

le e

colo

gica

l kno

wle

dge

are

requ

ired

to d

evel

op th

e H

SIs

and

Hus

. Mor

e kn

owle

dge

is

need

ed fo

r dev

elop

ing

the

HS

Is th

an c

alcu

latin

g th

e H

Us

base

d on

them

); si

gnifi

cant

eco

logi

cal r

esea

rch

and

ofte

n so

me

mat

hem

atic

al

mod

ellin

g m

ay b

e re

quire

d. T

he le

vel o

f res

ourc

es re

quire

d co

uld

thus

be

med

ium

to h

igh,

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

app

ropr

iate

in

form

atio

n.

Appendix A 11


A.3 US wetland and stream assessment methods in practiceAfter thirty years of experience with wetland and conservation banking, the United States is home to perhaps the world’s most comprehensive set of methods for assessing projects’ impacts and offsets’ gains on wetlands, streams and listed endangered species. Concerning wetland mitigation, over 40 assessment methodologies are listed in Bartoldus (1999) and a compendium on stream assessment methodologies lists 51. Many of these assessment methodologies involve rigorous and repeatable frameworks for analysis of wetland and stream functionality that involve, and can demonstrate, consistent application not only at impact and offset sites, but across many projects. They allow practitioners in the field to use rapid assessment methods to come to consensus on the BASELINE status of sites and also on projects’ impacts and offsets’ conservation GAINS using rapid protocols.

However, in the large majority of cases (and the US authorities process some 70,000 to 80,000 decisions on wetland and stream mitigation a year), loss / gain calculations are based on the acres of land impacted, coupled with a simple ratio and sometimes with an approximate estimate of the acres’ condition, based on expert review. For instance, an ecologist working for a regulatory agency might verify the assessment of the project developer’s consultant, and might categorise the project’s residual impact as ‘impact on 5 acres of medium quality wetland’. The characterisation of the wetland in question as ‘medium quality’ would be based on the individual’s best professional judgement as an expert, and may be based on an overall impression on a field visit, or on their assessment of the condition of a list of key characteristics of a wetland of that type. The ecologist would likely be familiar with the wetland type concerned along a disturbance gradient from highly disturbed to what is known as the ‘reference standard’, in optimum condition, and able to make a rapid assessment as to whether the impact or offset site was of high, medium or low quality.

Simple ratios are applied by the regulators to the areas impacted to arrive at the scale of the offset required of the developer, according to the method used and the specific circumstances of the case. For instance, if the offset (‘compensatory mitigation’ in US parlance) involves ‘restoration’, and the impact was on 5 acres of wetland, the regulator may require restoration of 8 or 10 acres (typically using ratios between 1:1 and 2:1). While if the offset involves ‘preservation’, the regulator would only allow partial credit for the offset and might require conservation of 30 acres (typically using ratios up to 10:1).

1. Restoration means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural / historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. For the purpose of tracking NET GAINS in an aquatic resource area, restoration is divided into two categories: re-establishment and rehabilitation.

a. Re-establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural / historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions.

b. Rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural / historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.

2. Enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.

Appendix A 12


3. Establishment (creation) means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions.

4. Preservation means the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or near those aquatic resources. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions.

The approach taken and replacement ratios vary around the country. For instance, the states of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida use standard assessment tools that are quantitative or semi-quantitative and go beyond the basic assessment of area of impact and best professional judgement as to quality. And the preservation ratio in Ohio is 2:1, while in Michigan is it 10:1.

Countrywide, it is common for smaller projects to rely on acres as a surrogate for functional level and quality, either because there are no rapid assessment tools available or the impacts are so small that the more detailed approaches are not practicable. Functional assessment tools with more objective and detailed METRICS tend to be used for larger projects and the trend nationwide is towards using them more regularly.

As well as varying geographically and according to the scale of the project, the assessment methods vary according to the nature of the habitat affected. There is panoply of wetland assessment tools tailored to different wetland types in different parts of the country, and a similar range of methodologies has more recently been developed for impacts on streams. The aim for these tools is that they are robust, rapid to apply and usable by a variety of people who are not experts in the ecology of the site in question.

The more rigorous approaches provide better quality results, but take more time, resources and expertise. They tend to be used in two circumstances: (a) where the scope and scale of the likely project impact is large, the agencies are likely to scrutinise the project more closely and ask for better data and (b) consultants working for project proponents know they are likely to be asked to present such detailed information, so they elect to use more quantitative methods.

It is interesting to note that developers sometimes choose to use the more rigorous methods because these may result in a substantially more modest offset investment than if a purely area-based approach was used. For instance, if the project will have an impact on 20,000 acres, but the impact will only be small, it is in the interests of the developer to quantify the impact using a more detailed metric than area alone, since a small offset creating significant conservation gains on (for instance) 5,000 acres may demonstrably offset the small impacts spread across a big area. This will likely be a much more cost effective outcome for the developer than purchasing and conserving 20,000 acres, and it may create more valuable CONSERVATION OUTCOMES, too. Indeed, since 1990 and again in 2008, the regulations have affirmed that an acceptable outcome is for a good functional assessment to demonstrate that NO NET LOSS can be achieved by conserving an area that is smaller than the impact area.

Could the US methods be used by practitioners outside the USA? Some methods could easily be adapted for use around the world in the design of voluntary offsets. However, the challenge is in identifying, among the plethora available, which assessment methodology might be suited to the circumstances of the case. The 2004 EPA review (noted below) could be useful for those interested in identifying methodologies most suited to their circumstances.

Appendix A 13


Sources

� Pers. comm. Hough, Environmental Scientist, EPA, Oct 2008.

� http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/links.html

� 2004 EPA review of commonly used wetland assessment protocols: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/monitor/RapidMethodReview.pdf

� 2003 Compendium of Stream Assessment Protocols: http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/stream%20comp%20page.htm

� Bartoldus, C.C. 1999. A Comprehensive Review of Wetland Assessment Procedures: A Guide for Wetland Practitioners. Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland.

� King, D.M. and Price, E.W. 2007. Developing Defensible Wetland Mitigation Ratios: Standard tools for “scoring” wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and conservation. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, A report prepared for NOAA, Office of Habitat Protection, Silver Spring, MD; February, 2007.

� King, D.M. and Price, E.W. 2004. Developing Defensible Wetland Mitigation Ratios: A Companion to the Five-Step Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator. University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science; a report prepared for the NOAA, Habitat Protection Division, September 30, 2004.

� McKenney, B. 2005. Environmental Offset Policies, Principles, and Methods: A Review of Selected Legislative Frameworks. Biodiversity Neutral Initiative.

� As examples, Georgia’s and South Carolina’s Standard Operating Procedures and Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, all used to evaluate impact and offset sites, can be found at:

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Compensatory.htm

http://www.sac.usace.army.mil/?action=permits.forms

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/mitigation/umam.htm

� Source for definitions of restoration (including re-establishment and rehabilitation), enhancement, establishment and preservation: 33 CFR 332.2 (Corps Regs) and 40 CFR 230.92 (EPA Regs).

Appendix A 14


A.4 Birds and Habitats DirectivesSpecial Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the Habitats Directive, together with the Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the Birds Directive, make up the Natura 2000 network for nature conservation. Each Member State of the European Community is to identify and designate these areas. The policy goal is to maintain the overall (ecological) coherence of the sites.

Useful reference

European Commission, Environment DG. 2002. Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly affecting Natura 2000 Sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. November 2001. Impacts Assessment Unit, School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University. ISBN 92-828-1818-7. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf

App

endi

x A

15

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s To

be

acce

ptab

le, c

ompe

nsat

ory

mea

sure

s sh

ould

add

ress

, in

com

para

ble

prop

ortio

ns, t

he h

abita

ts a

nd s

peci

es n

egat

ivel

y af

fect

ed.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Ther

e m

ust b

e cl

ear e

vide

nce

that

the

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

have

bee

n as

sess

ed a

gain

st th

e ‘m

itiga

tion

hier

arch

y’ (w

ith th

e A

VOID

AN

CE o

f ad

vers

e im

pact

on

the

site

bei

ng th

e pr

efer

red

outc

ome)

.

Upp

er th

resh

old

No

uppe

r thr

esho

ld a

s th

e D

irect

ive

cove

rs s

ever

e im

pact

s th

at a

re p

roce

edin

g be

caus

e of

impe

rativ

e re

ason

s of

ov

errid

ing

publ

ic in

tere

st. H

owev

er, a

dver

se e

ffect

s on

the

inte

grity

of s

ites

are,

by

way

of e

xcep

tion,

per

mitt

ed u

nder

ce

rtain

circ

umst

ance

s, b

ut o

nly

if ‘c

ompe

nsat

ory

mea

sure

s’ a

re ta

ken:

“…th

e M

embe

r sta

te s

hall

take

all

com

pens

ator

y m

easu

res

nece

ssar

y to

ens

ure

that

the

over

all c

oher

ence

of N

atur

a 20

00 is

pro

tect

ed.”

The

com

pens

ator

y co

nser

vatio

n re

quire

men

t is

only

trig

gere

d fo

r im

pact

s th

at w

ill c

ause

an

adve

rse

effe

ct o

n th

e in

tegr

ity

of a

site

that

pas

ses

a te

st o

f “no

ALT

ERN

ATI

VES”

; and

whe

re th

ere

are

“impe

rativ

e re

ason

s of

ove

rrid

ing

publ

ic

inte

rest

”…. A

rticl

e 6(

4) o

f the

Hab

itats

Dire

ctiv

e

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

Low

er th

resh

old

Site

s no

t lis

ted

as p

art o

f the

Nat

ura

2000

net

wor

k w

ould

fall

belo

w th

is th

resh

old.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eTh

e m

aint

enan

ce a

nd e

nhan

cem

ent o

f the

ove

rall

cohe

renc

e of

Nat

ura

2000

will

be

the

key

test

on

whi

ch to

ass

ess

whe

ther

com

pens

ator

y m

easu

res

prov

ide

func

tions

com

para

ble

to th

ose

whi

ch ju

stifi

ed th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria o

f the

orig

inal

site

Offs

et o

ptio

nsC

ompe

nsat

ory

mea

sure

s ap

prop

riate

to a

dver

se e

ffect

s on

Nat

ura

2000

site

s co

nsis

t of:

�R

esto

ratio

n: re

stor

ing

the

habi

tat t

o en

sure

the

mai

nten

ance

of i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

valu

e an

d co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

of

the

site

.�

Cre

atio

n: c

reat

ing

a ne

w h

abita

t on

a ne

w s

ite o

r thr

ough

the

enla

rgem

ent o

f the

exi

stin

g si

te.

�E

nhan

cem

ent:

impr

ovin

g th

e re

mai

ning

hab

itat p

ropo

rtion

al to

that

whi

ch is

lost

due

to th

e pr

ojec

t or p

lan.

�P

rese

rvat

ion

of h

abita

t sto

ck: m

easu

res

to p

reve

nt fu

rther

ero

sion

of t

he c

oher

ence

of t

he N

atur

a 20

00 n

etw

ork.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyN

o sp

ecifi

c of

fset

met

hodo

logy

is a

dvoc

ated

. Com

pens

ator

y m

easu

res

shou

ld, h

owev

er, r

elat

e to

the

sam

e bi

ogeo

grap

hica

l reg

ion

in th

e sa

me

Mem

ber S

tate

and

be

in a

s cl

ose

prox

imity

as

poss

ible

to th

e ha

bita

t tha

t has

bee

n ad

vers

ely

affe

cted

by

the

proj

ect o

r pla

n.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

in re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

s

The

area

sel

ecte

d fo

r com

pens

atio

n sh

ould

pro

vide

func

tions

com

para

ble

to th

ose

whi

ch h

ad ju

stifi

ed th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria o

f the

orig

inal

si

te. T

he a

rea

sele

cted

for c

ompe

nsat

ion

mus

t hav

e –

or m

ust b

e ab

le to

dev

elop

– th

e sp

ecifi

c fe

atur

es a

ttach

ed to

the

ecol

ogic

al s

truct

ure

and

func

tions

, and

requ

ired

by th

e ha

bita

t and

spe

cies

pop

ulat

ions

. Con

side

ratio

n m

ust a

lso

be g

iven

to h

uman

hea

lth o

r saf

ety

cons

ider

atio

ns, o

r im

porta

nt e

nviro

nmen

tal b

enef

its.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

The

com

pete

nt a

utho

rity

iden

tifie

s ap

prop

riate

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

and

thes

e m

ust b

e as

sess

ed in

term

s of

thei

r lik

ely

impa

cts.

Pro

pose

d m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s m

ust h

ave

the

supp

ort o

f the

rele

vant

nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

agen

cies

.

Impl

emen

tatio

nC

ompe

nsat

ory

mea

sure

s m

ust h

ave

clea

rly d

efin

ed im

plem

enta

tion

and

man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

so

that

the

com

pens

ator

y m

easu

res

can

achi

eve

the

mai

nten

ance

or e

nhan

cem

ent o

f Nat

ura

2000

coh

eren

ce. T

his

requ

ires

the

secu

rity

of s

ite te

nure

to b

e gu

aran

teed

, m

anag

emen

t pla

ns to

be

draw

n up

with

cle

ar, a

chie

vabl

e sh

ort-,

med

ium

- and

long

-term

obj

ectiv

es, a

nd fo

r lon

g-te

rm m

onito

ring

mec

hani

sms

to b

e in

pla

ce.

Ther

e m

ust b

e cl

ear e

vide

nce

that

the

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

can

be s

ecur

ed o

ver t

he s

hort-

, med

ium

- and

long

-term

thro

ugh

lega

l or

finan

cial

mec

hani

sms.

Appendix A 16


A.5 European Liability DirectiveThe European Union (EU) Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/E2 21 April 2004) goes beyond existing national and European Commission environmental protection legislation by establishing a framework of environmental liability requiring the prevention and, where that fails, remediation of various categories of environmental damage. The directive refers to damage that has significant adverse effects on achieving or maintaining favourable conservation status of species and NATURAL HABITATS protected under EU legislation. Biodiversity damage is required to be remedied by returning the environment to its baseline condition; in the case of damage to land, the risk to human health must be removed. If the harm to biodiversity cannot be reversed, then 'complementary remediation' by improvement of a similar resource or service may be required to be undertaken to the extent the original resource cannot be fully restored. 'Compensatory remediation' may also be required to compensate society for the loss or enjoyment of the resource or service.

App

endi

x A

17

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s Th

ose

com

pone

nts

of th

e na

tura

l env

ironm

ent d

amag

ed, f

ocus

ing

on s

peci

es a

nd n

atur

al h

abita

ts p

rote

cted

und

er E

U la

w.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Pre

vent

ion

is e

mph

asis

ed a

nd re

med

iatio

n is

requ

ired

whe

re p

reve

ntio

n fa

ils.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

Dam

age

to p

rote

cted

spe

cies

and

nat

ural

hab

itats

will

onl

y be

reco

vera

ble

if th

e da

mag

e is

of s

uch

a na

ture

that

it h

as ‘s

igni

fican

t adv

erse

ef

fect

s on

reac

hing

or m

aint

aini

ng th

e fa

vour

able

con

serv

atio

n st

atus

’ of t

he h

abita

ts a

nd s

peci

es c

once

rned

. The

sig

nific

ance

of s

uch

effe

cts

is to

be

asse

ssed

with

refe

renc

e to

the

base

line

cond

ition

, tak

ing

acco

unt o

f the

crit

eria

set

out

in A

nnex

I of

the

Dire

ctiv

e.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eR

etur

ning

the

natu

ral e

nviro

nmen

t to

its b

asel

ine

cond

ition

.

Offs

et o

ptio

ns‘IN

-KIN

D’ O

FFSE

T A

CTIV

ITIE

S to

rem

edia

te d

amag

e; c

ompr

isin

g re

stor

atio

n or

reha

bilit

atio

n. If

the

harm

to b

iodi

vers

ity c

anno

t be

reve

rsed

, th

en 'c

ompl

emen

tary

rem

edia

tion'

by

impr

ovem

ent o

f a s

imila

r res

ourc

e or

ser

vice

may

be

requ

ired

to b

e un

derta

ken

to th

e ex

tent

the

orig

inal

reso

urce

can

not b

e fu

lly re

stor

ed.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-gai

n:

the

curr

ency

Whe

n de

term

inin

g th

e sc

ale

of c

ompl

emen

tary

and

com

pens

ator

y re

med

ial m

easu

res,

the

use

of re

sour

ce-to

-re

sour

ce o

r ser

vice

-to-s

ervi

ce e

quiv

alen

ce a

ppro

ache

s sh

all b

e co

nsid

ered

firs

t. U

nder

thes

e ap

proa

ches

, ac

tions

that

pro

vide

nat

ural

reso

urce

s an

d / o

r ser

vice

s of

the

sam

e ty

pe, q

ualit

y an

d qu

antit

y as

thos

e da

mag

ed

shal

l be

cons

ider

ed fi

rst.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

‘Geo

grap

hica

l lin

kage

to th

e da

mag

ed s

ite’ i

s on

e cr

iterio

n in

sel

ectin

g re

med

ial o

ptio

ns.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd ra

tios

Whe

re it

is n

ot p

ossi

ble

to p

rovi

de re

sour

ce-to

-res

ourc

e or

ser

vice

-to-s

ervi

ce e

quiv

alen

ce, t

hen

alte

rnat

ive

natu

ral r

esou

rces

and

/ or

ser

vice

s sh

all b

e pr

ovid

ed; e

.g. a

redu

ctio

n in

qua

lity

coul

d be

offs

et b

y in

crea

sing

the

quan

tity

of re

med

ial m

easu

res.

Offs

ets

in re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

sC

ompe

nsat

ion

for l

oss

of e

njoy

men

t of t

he e

nviro

nmen

tal r

esou

rce

or s

ervi

ces

may

be

requ

ired.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

Not

spe

cific

ally

add

ress

ed.

Impl

emen

tatio

nN

ot s

peci

fical

ly a

ddre

ssed

.

Appendix A 18


A.6 Victoria (Australia): habitat hectares methodThis method was first elaborated during the public consultation phase for the Victorian Native Vegetation Management Framework as one of several improvements in identifying priorities and quantifying outcomes for the protection of native vegetation on private land, and was subsequently endorsed by the Victorian Government (Department of Natural Resources and the Environment 2002, in Parkes et al. 2003). The approach was drawn up for use by regulators and investors, particularly by agency and consultant ecologists working within these processes.

The Framework represents a landscape approach to planning native vegetation management. Goals for native vegetation management are based on biodiversity, land and catchment protection and are set within the context of bioregions and implemented by Catchment Management Authorities, the State Department and Local Government. The conservation significance of a patch of vegetation (from Very High to Low) is determined according to: the conservation status of vegetation types present; the quality of the vegetation; the conservation status of species present (and the potential habitat value) and other recognised site-based criteria. The Framework provides a strong focus on the protection and net improvement of higher conservation significance vegetation and a flexible but accountable approach for lower conservation significance vegetation to enable landholders to move towards more sustainable land use options. The method has been designed specifically in a native vegetation management context; it is recognised that the conservation of many fauna species is influenced by factors other than vegetation as physical habitat (for example, predation by invasive mammals, ABIOTIC habitat features such as rocks and roosting sites) and these additional considerations will need to be taken into account.

Useful references

Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management and Restoration Vol 4 Supplement.

Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 2002. Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action. Available from: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/C2E5826C9464A9ECCA2570B400198B44/$File/Native+Vegetation+Management+-+A+Framework+for+Action.pdf

App

endi

x A

19

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

s (s

peci

es, h

abita

ts,

land

scap

es)

HA

BITA

T ST

RUCT

URE

(bas

ed o

n am

ount

s re

leva

nt to

eac

h H

ABI

TAT

TYPE

) is

the

prin

cipa

l mea

sure

d SU

RRO

GA

TE o

f BIO

DIV

ERSI

TY L

OSS

or

GA

IN. H

abita

t typ

es a

re u

sual

ly b

road

veg

etat

ion

type

s bu

t hab

itat s

truct

ure

ATT

RIBU

TES

can

be c

hose

n to

repr

esen

t par

ticul

ar

spec

ies

of v

alue

whe

re n

eces

sary

. Alth

ough

mea

sure

men

t is

base

d on

veg

etat

ion

char

acte

ristic

s, o

ther

bio

dive

rsity

com

pone

nts

such

as

pres

ence

of s

peci

es a

nd c

onsi

dera

tion

of e

colo

gica

l pro

cess

es a

re u

sed

as E

XCH

AN

GE

CRIT

ERIA

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

The

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

mus

t be

appl

ied:

to a

void

adv

erse

impa

cts,

par

ticul

arly

thro

ugh

vege

tatio

n cl

eara

nce;

to m

inim

ise

impa

cts

thro

ugh

appr

opria

te c

onsi

dera

tion

in p

lann

ing

proc

esse

s an

d ex

pert

inpu

t to

proj

ect d

esig

n or

man

agem

ent w

here

impa

cts

cann

ot b

e av

oide

d; to

iden

tify

appr

opria

te o

ffset

opt

ions

to a

chie

ve c

omm

ensu

rate

gai

ns.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

Upp

er a

nd lo

wer

th

resh

olds

Apa

rt fro

m c

lear

ing

asso

ciat

ed w

ith fi

re s

afet

y an

d ro

utin

e in

frast

ruct

ure

man

agem

ent,

offs

ets

are

requ

ired

on

priv

ate

and

publ

ic la

nd fo

r all

clea

ring

abov

e m

inim

um a

rea

thre

shol

ds. T

hese

thre

shol

ds v

ary

acco

rdin

g to

the

cons

erva

tion

sign

ifica

nce

of th

e ve

geta

tion.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

e‘N

ET G

AIN

’: th

is ‘w

hole

of l

ands

cape

’ asp

iratio

nal o

bjec

tive

com

pris

es th

ree

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts

to e

nsur

e an

ove

rall

incr

ease

in th

e ex

tent

and

qua

lity

of n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

in V

icto

ria: a

redu

ctio

n in

loss

es in

the

exte

nt o

f exi

stin

g na

tive

vege

tatio

n; a

redu

ctio

n in

lo

sses

in th

e qu

ality

of e

xist

ing

nativ

e ve

geta

tion

due

to th

reat

enin

g pr

oces

ses,

and

the

achi

evem

ent o

f gai

ns in

ext

ent a

nd q

ualit

y of

na

tive

vege

tatio

n th

roug

h its

reha

bilit

atio

n an

d re

vege

tatio

n w

ith in

dige

nous

spe

cies

for B

IOD

IVER

SITY

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N a

nd la

nd a

nd

wat

er re

sour

ce o

utco

mes

. Offs

ettin

g of

cle

arin

g is

just

one

par

t of t

his

polic

y ob

ject

ive.

Whe

n ap

plyi

ng th

e N

et G

ain

polic

y ob

ject

ive

to in

divi

dual

act

s of

cle

arin

g, th

ere

is a

gra

ded

requ

ired

outc

ome

from

‘sub

stan

tial n

et

gain

’ (i.e

. 2x)

whe

re th

e co

nser

vatio

n si

gnifi

canc

e is

ver

y hi

gh to

‘net

gai

n’ (1

.5x)

and

‘equ

ival

ent g

ain’

(1x)

for h

igh

and

med

ium

co

nser

vatio

n si

gnifi

canc

e of

fset

s. A

lso

whe

n ch

oosi

ng o

ffset

opt

ions

, sim

ilar o

r mor

e ef

fect

ive

land

pro

tect

ion

func

tion

and

ecol

ogic

al

func

tion

as im

pact

ed b

y th

e lo

ss is

requ

ired

for ‘

very

hig

h’ c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

offs

ets,

sim

ilar o

r mor

e ef

fect

ive

land

pro

tect

ion

func

tion

or e

colo

gica

l fun

ctio

n fo

r ‘hi

gh’ c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

offs

ets,

and

sim

ilar o

r mor

e ef

fect

ive

land

pro

tect

ion

func

tion

for

‘med

ium

’ and

‘low

’ con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e of

fset

s.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsO

nly

in s

itu c

onse

rvat

ion

optio

ns a

re a

llow

ed, t

hrou

gh h

abita

t man

agem

ent t

o pr

otec

t, en

hanc

e an

d / o

r res

tore

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n.

Ther

e is

a g

rade

d re

spon

se to

ens

urin

g an

app

ropr

iate

link

bet

wee

n th

e ch

arac

teris

tics

(e.g

. bio

dive

rsity

val

ue, f

unct

iona

lity)

of t

he

vege

tatio

n or

hab

itat t

ype

that

is lo

st th

roug

h cl

earin

g an

d th

e su

bseq

uent

miti

gatio

n: fr

om a

dire

ct li

nk b

etw

een

loss

and

offs

et fo

r hi

gher

sig

nific

ance

, dow

n to

mor

e fle

xibi

lity

for l

ower

sig

nific

ance

(at t

he d

iscr

etio

n of

the

plan

ning

aut

horit

y) le

adin

g to

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

opt

imis

e CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N O

UTC

OM

ES.

For e

xam

ple,

veg

etat

ion

prop

osed

as

the

basi

s fo

r an

offs

et fo

r im

pact

s on

‘ver

y hi

gh’ c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce

habi

tat m

ust b

e at

le

ast 9

0% o

f the

qua

lity

in th

e ar

ea b

eing

lost

, and

the

‘reve

geta

tion’

com

pone

nt o

f the

offs

et (H

ABI

TAT

HEC

TARE

S) is

lim

ited

to 1

0%,

whe

reas

for ‘

med

ium

’ con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e of

fset

s th

e qu

ality

requ

irem

ent a

nd re

vege

tatio

n lim

it is

50%

. Thi

s av

oids

exp

osin

g ‘v

ery

high

’ con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e va

lues

to th

e in

here

nt ri

sks

of e

xcha

ngin

g sm

all a

reas

of h

igh

qual

ity h

abita

t with

larg

e ar

eas

of

imm

atur

e or

low

qua

lity

habi

tat (

offs

ets

mus

t be

loca

ted

in a

reas

of s

imila

r site

-leve

l fun

ctio

nalit

y).

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyTh

e of

fset

is to

be

‘LIKE

-FO

R-LI

KE’ o

r ‘in

-kin

d’, b

ased

on

the

Vic

toria

Sta

te n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

clas

sific

atio

n. T

RAD

ING

UP

is s

peci

fical

ly

allo

wed

and

‘rew

arde

d’ b

y af

firm

ativ

e ra

tios.

Use

of a

ben

chm

ark

for e

ach

vege

tatio

n ty

pe o

n th

eir o

wn

term

s, a

llow

s fo

r tra

ding

eq

uiva

lenc

e i.e

. if t

he e

xcha

nge

acro

ss ty

pes

is a

ccep

tabl

e, th

en it

is a

ssum

ed th

at a

loss

of 1

hab

itat h

a of

type

A c

an b

e co

nsid

ered

to b

e of

fset

with

a g

ain

of 1

hab

itat h

ecta

re o

f typ

e B

.

App

endi

x A

20

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he c

urre

ncy

This

app

roac

h is

bas

ed o

n ‘h

abita

t hec

tare

s’, u

nits

of m

easu

rem

ent t

hat t

ake

into

acc

ount

the

area

affe

cted

and

the

qual

ity o

r con

ditio

n of

the

vege

tatio

n im

pact

ed (d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e qu

antit

ies

of a

num

ber o

f cho

sen

attri

bute

s re

late

d to

the

stru

ctur

e of

that

hab

itat).

It w

as o

rigin

ally

des

igne

d to

focu

s on

hab

itat s

truct

ure,

and

th

us p

rovi

de p

roxi

es fo

r com

posi

tion

and

func

tion.

In p

ract

ice,

som

e as

pect

s of

com

posi

tion

and

func

tion

have

be

en in

clud

ed a

s at

tribu

tes

and

are

thus

mea

sure

d di

rect

ly. T

he a

ttrib

utes

can

be

chos

en to

repr

esen

t pa

rticu

lar s

peci

es o

f val

ue, i

f nec

essa

ry.

The

appr

oach

use

s a

‘ben

chm

ark‘

: the

com

paris

on o

f rem

nant

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n to

a re

fere

nce

site

hav

ing

the

sam

e ve

geta

tion

type

in a

mat

ure

and

long

-und

istu

rbed

sta

te. T

he fi

rst s

tep

in th

is p

roce

ss is

the

iden

tific

atio

n of

the

vege

tatio

n co

mm

uniti

es li

kely

to b

e af

fect

ed (t

erm

ed E

colo

gica

l Veg

etat

ion

Cla

sses

(EV

C))

. Eac

h E

VC

ha

s a

char

acte

ristic

ass

embl

age

of p

lant

spe

cies

and

stru

ctur

al v

aria

tion

and

cond

ition

is m

easu

red

usin

g th

ese

char

acte

ristic

s. W

here

a s

uita

ble

benc

hmar

k ca

nnot

be

foun

d, b

ench

mar

k va

lues

are

dev

ised

to

repr

esen

t the

pre

sum

ed lo

ng-u

ndis

turb

ed c

ondi

tion

of th

at E

VC

usi

ng h

isto

rical

info

rmat

ion

and

a kn

owle

dge

of

how

sim

ilar v

eget

atio

n ty

pes

have

bee

n af

fect

ed b

y hu

man

dis

turb

ance

regi

mes

. The

fina

l sco

re fo

r a p

artic

ular

un

it / B

IOTO

PE is

det

erm

ined

by

reco

rdin

g an

d ta

llyin

g co

nditi

on s

core

s fo

r key

bio

dive

rsity

attr

ibut

es. M

ultip

lyin

g th

is s

core

by

area

giv

es a

mea

sure

term

ed a

‘hab

itat h

ecta

re’.

For e

xam

ple,

10

hect

ares

of m

atur

e, fu

lly n

atur

al

(100

% s

core

) wet

hea

thla

nd c

ould

be

coun

ted

as 1

0‘h

abita

t hec

tare

s’, w

here

as 1

0he

ctar

es o

f thi

s E

VC

with

a

‘hab

itat s

core

’ of 5

0% w

ould

be

scor

ed a

s 5

‘hab

itat h

ecta

res’

.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

Som

e of

the

habi

tat h

ecta

re a

ttrib

utes

are

LAN

DSC

APE

CO

NTE

XT, s

uch

as p

atch

siz

e an

d ne

ighb

ourh

ood.

The

se

prov

ide

mea

sure

s of

the

land

scap

e-le

velC

ON

NEC

TIVI

TY-b

ased

val

ue o

f the

impa

ct a

nd o

ffset

site

s. O

ther

fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s th

e st

rate

gic

cons

erva

tion

impo

rtanc

e of

par

ticul

ar lo

catio

ns a

re in

clud

ed a

s ex

chan

ge c

riter

ia

in th

e br

oade

r offs

ettin

g pr

oces

s.

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd

ratio

sV

icto

ria S

tate

use

s a

CURR

ENCY

-bas

ed m

ultip

lier b

ased

on

the

habi

tat h

ecta

res

met

hod,

as

adap

ted

by B

BO

P

in th

is g

uida

nce

docu

men

t. Th

e ‘A

rea

x Q

ualit

y‘ c

alcu

latio

n cr

eate

s th

e cu

rren

cy b

ased

on

a nu

mbe

r of

indi

vidu

ally

cho

sen

and

case

-spe

cific

attr

ibut

es o

r var

iabl

es o

f (m

ainl

y) h

abita

t con

ditio

n w

hich

are

sur

roga

tes

for t

he b

iodi

vers

ity o

f par

ticul

ar in

tere

st o

r im

porta

nce

in th

e im

pact

ed e

cosy

stem

. In

addi

tion

to th

e cu

rren

cy-

base

d m

ultip

lier i

nher

ent i

n th

e ha

bita

t hec

tare

cal

cula

tions

, the

sta

te o

f Vic

toria

als

o re

quire

s m

ultip

les

of th

is

quan

tity

to b

e ap

plie

d ac

cord

ing

to th

e co

nser

vatio

n si

gnifi

canc

e of

the

habi

tat i

mpa

cted

. Thi

s ra

nges

from

at

leas

t 2x

the

calc

ulat

ed lo

ss o

f hab

itat h

ecta

res

for v

ery

high

con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e of

fset

s to

par

tially

ad

dres

s ris

k of

som

e le

vel o

f offs

et fa

ilure

(reg

arde

d as

‘sub

stan

tial n

et g

ain‘

), a

1.5x

mul

tiplie

r for

hig

h co

nser

vatio

n si

gnifi

canc

e an

d a

1x fo

r med

ium

to lo

w c

onse

rvat

ion

sign

ifica

nce.

TIM

E D

ISCO

UN

TIN

G, i

n te

rms

of

the

low

er p

rese

nt v

alue

of f

utur

e H

ABI

TAT

HEC

TARE

S, is

not

spe

cific

ally

dea

lt w

ith, a

lthou

gh o

nly

gain

s es

timat

ed

at 1

0ye

ars

post

-trea

tmen

t are

use

d in

cal

cula

tions

(eve

n th

ough

gai

ns w

ill o

ften

accr

ue a

fter t

his

time)

so

this

m

itiga

tes

this

issu

e to

som

e ex

tent

.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

(e.g

. pr

ovis

ioni

ng, c

ultu

ral,

regu

latin

g, s

uppo

rtin

g se

rvic

es)

The

appr

oach

spe

cific

ally

add

ress

es th

eIN

TRIN

SIC

VALU

ES o

f bio

dive

rsity

. Lan

d (i.

e. s

oil s

tabi

lity

and

cond

ition

) and

cat

chm

ent (

i.e.

surfa

ce w

ater

qua

lity

and

grou

ndw

ater

flow

s) p

rote

ctio

n ar

e al

so d

irect

ly re

leva

nt in

the

polic

y an

d in

pra

ctic

e.

App

endi

x A

21

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tS

take

hold

ers

are

prin

cipa

lly th

e la

nd m

anag

emen

t / d

evel

opm

ent s

cien

tific

and

con

serv

atio

n co

mm

uniti

es o

f Vic

toria

Sta

te.

Tim

ing

A g

rade

d re

spon

se: f

rom

form

ally

initi

atin

g of

fset

s pr

ior t

o cl

earin

g ta

king

pla

ce, t

o in

itiat

ing

offs

ets

as s

oon

as

seas

onal

ly p

ract

icab

le a

fter c

lear

ing

has

take

n pl

ace.

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Dur

atio

nTh

e of

fset

sho

uld

last

in P

ERPE

TUIT

Y.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

A p

ract

ical

app

roac

h de

velo

ped

for a

pplic

atio

n in

Vic

toria

Sta

te a

nd in

tend

ed to

ens

ure

that

per

mitt

ed c

lear

ing

and

asso

ciat

ed

offs

ets

mak

e an

app

ropr

iate

con

tribu

tion

to th

e ‘w

hole

of l

ands

cape

’ pol

icy

obje

ctiv

e to

arr

est /

reve

rse

decl

ine

in n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

clas

ses

and

habi

tats

. The

app

roac

h us

es h

abita

t qua

lity

/ con

ditio

n m

easu

res

that

are

not

nec

essa

rily

rela

ted

to a

ctua

l occ

upan

cy o

f ha

bita

t by

spec

ies.

Pro

vide

d th

at s

igni

fican

t kno

wle

dge

and

info

rmat

ion

exis

ts to

ena

ble

use

of h

abita

t stru

ctur

e as

a P

ROXY

for

biod

iver

sity

val

ue, a

nd s

o lo

ng a

s is

sues

suc

h as

inva

sive

spe

cies

and

mic

roha

bita

ts fo

r key

spe

cies

are

incl

uded

in th

e ap

proa

ch,

this

met

hodo

logy

may

be

able

to b

e us

ed re

liabl

y el

sew

here

in th

e w

orld

. Th

e le

vel o

f res

ourc

es re

quire

d co

uld

be h

igh

to m

ediu

m, d

epen

ding

on

the

avai

labi

lity

of a

ppro

pria

te a

nd re

liabl

e ec

olog

ical

in

form

atio

n.Th

e B

BO

P a

ppro

ach

draw

s on

asp

ects

of t

his

met

hodo

logy

.

Appendix A 22


A.7 Western Australia: Net Environmental BenefitThis approach was first broadly described in 2006 by Western Australia’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in its Position Statement No. 9 on Environmental Offsets. Subsequently in 2008, specific Guidance on Biodiversity Offsets (No. 19) was made available by the EPA.

The EPA focuses on protecting critical (the State’s most important) environmental assets and high value assets (see EPA 2006 page 19; and Final Guidance No.19 published in September 2008). Position Statement No. 9 defined a broad list of ‘critical’ assets. In this context, environmental offsets are defined as environmentally beneficial activities undertaken to counterbalance an adverse environmental impact and achieve a ‘net environmental benefit’ (EPA 2008).

Useful references

EPA. 2006. Position Statement No. 9. Environmental Offsets. January 2006. Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia.

EPA. 2008. Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance with Environmental Protection Act 1986). No. 19. Environmental Offsets – Biodiversity. September 2008. Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia. Available at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/2783_GS19OffsetsBiodiv18808.pdf

App

endi

x A

23

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

Offs

ets

focu

s on

env

ironm

enta

l val

ues

and

attri

bute

s in

rela

tion

to a

n ‘e

nviro

nmen

tal a

sset

’. In

the

cont

ext o

f bio

dive

rsity

, an

envi

ronm

enta

l as

set m

ay c

ompr

ise

a pa

rticu

lar e

cosy

stem

, hab

itat,

com

mun

ity o

r ass

ocia

tions

of s

peci

es, s

peci

es, o

r bio

logi

cal c

orrid

ors

or li

nkag

es.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Env

ironm

enta

l offs

ets

shou

ld o

nly

be c

onsi

dere

d af

ter a

ll re

ason

able

atte

mpt

s to

miti

gate

adv

erse

impa

cts

have

bee

n ex

haus

ted.

Upp

er th

resh

old

The

EP

A, i

n pr

ovid

ing

its a

dvic

e to

the

Min

iste

r, w

ill a

dopt

a p

resu

mpt

ion

agai

nst r

ecom

men

ding

app

rova

l of

prop

osal

s or

sch

emes

whe

re s

igni

fican

t adv

erse

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s af

fect

‘crit

ical

’ ass

ets.

In s

ome

case

s, a

pro

ject

like

ly to

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct o

n a

‘hig

h’ v

alue

ass

et m

ay b

e fo

und

to b

e en

viro

nmen

tally

un

acce

ptab

le w

heth

er o

r not

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

offs

ets

pack

age

is p

ropo

sed.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

tyof

fset

s

Low

er th

resh

old

The

EP

A d

oes

not g

ener

ally

und

erta

ke E

IA in

rela

tion

to ‘l

ow to

med

ium

’ val

ue a

sset

s (in

less

than

goo

d to

exc

elle

nt

cond

ition

as

reco

gnis

ed b

y go

vern

men

t age

ncie

s an

d co

mm

uniti

es).

Impa

cts

to th

is c

lass

of a

sset

s ar

e us

ually

dea

lt w

ith b

y re

leva

nt g

over

nmen

t age

ncy

appr

oval

s pr

oces

ses.

Des

ired

or

requ

ired

outc

ome

The

succ

essf

ul in

tegr

atio

n an

d ap

plic

atio

n of

OFF

SET

ACT

IVIT

IES

shou

ld a

im to

pro

duce

a ‘n

et e

nviro

nmen

tal b

enef

it’ o

utco

me.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsB

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

s at

the

offs

et s

ite s

houl

d be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

bein

g im

pact

ed. T

hat i

s, o

ffset

s sh

ould

idea

lly b

e ‘li

ke-fo

r-lik

e or

bet

ter’.

B

iodi

vers

ity re

late

d of

fset

site

s sh

ould

hav

e si

mila

r or b

ette

r env

ironm

enta

l val

ues

and

attri

bute

s in

the

vici

nity

of t

he im

pact

ed s

ite o

r in

the

sam

e bi

oreg

ion

if a

bette

r env

ironm

enta

l out

com

e co

uld

be a

chie

ved.

B

oth

‘dire

ct’ (

off-s

ite e

cosy

stem

rest

orat

ion,

off-

site

eco

syst

em re

habi

litat

ion,

land

acq

uisi

tion

for c

onse

rvat

ion)

and

‘con

tribu

ting’

(mat

eria

lly

add

to e

nviro

nmen

tal k

now

ledg

e, re

sear

ch, o

ngoi

ng m

anag

emen

t and

pro

tect

ion,

cov

enan

ting)

offs

ets

can

be in

clud

ed in

an

offs

ets

pack

age.

P

riorit

y sh

ould

be

give

n to

form

ulat

ing

a pa

ckag

e th

at w

ill d

eliv

er th

e m

axim

um lo

ng-te

rm e

nviro

nmen

tal b

enef

it w

ith a

hig

h le

vel o

f cer

tain

ty

that

it c

an b

e su

cces

sful

ly im

plem

ente

d in

the

cont

ext o

f ‘lik

e-fo

r-lik

e or

bet

ter’

(ref

errin

g to

sim

ilar o

r bet

ter e

nviro

nmen

tal v

alue

s an

d at

tribu

tes

– sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

ns, v

eget

atio

n co

mpl

ex, l

ands

cape

func

tions

).

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he c

urre

ncy

The

appr

oach

ess

entia

lly fo

llow

s th

e fo

llow

ing

step

s:

�Id

entif

y th

e ke

y va

lues

and

attr

ibut

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

sset

s to

be

impa

cted

.

�Id

entif

y po

tent

ially

sig

nific

ant r

esid

ual a

dver

se im

pact

s ha

ving

app

lied

the

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

/ seq

uenc

e.

�D

evel

op a

n of

fset

s pa

ckag

e (c

onsi

derin

g bo

th d

irect

and

con

tribu

ting)

for s

igni

fican

t adv

erse

resi

dual

impa

cts.

No

spec

ific

met

hodo

logy

is a

dvoc

ated

.

Offs

et

met

hodo

logy

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

Prio

rity

wou

ld b

e gi

ven

to a

n of

fset

s pa

ckag

e in

the

sam

e lo

cal a

rea

or s

ame

bior

egio

n (if

a b

ette

r env

ironm

enta

l ou

tcom

e co

uld

be a

chie

ved)

and

/ or

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith re

gion

al b

iodi

vers

ity s

trate

gies

that

add

ress

regi

onal

de

velo

pmen

t and

prio

rity

area

s fo

r pro

tect

ion.

App

endi

x A

24

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd ra

tios

POSI

TIVE

OFF

SET

RATI

OS

shou

ld a

pply

whe

re ri

sk o

f fai

lure

is a

ppar

ent a

nd /

or w

here

ther

e is

a re

ason

able

risk

that

the

offs

et w

ill n

ot fu

lly s

ucce

ed o

ver t

he lo

ng te

rm. T

hat i

s, th

e si

ze o

f the

offs

et to

impa

ct ra

tio s

houl

d be

larg

er th

an 1

:1

and

be p

ropo

rtion

al to

bot

h th

e im

porta

nce

of th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

sset

bei

ng im

pact

ed, a

nd th

e lik

elih

ood

that

the

offs

et is

unl

ikel

y to

ach

ieve

a ‘n

et e

nviro

nmen

tal b

enef

it’ o

utco

me.

Offs

et ra

tios

shou

ld b

e ba

sed

on p

ast f

indi

ngs,

su

cces

s ra

tes,

cur

rent

rese

arch

or o

ther

sim

ilar p

roje

cts

bein

g un

derta

ken.

Ris

k of

failu

re c

ould

be

redu

ced

thro

ugh,

fo

r exa

mpl

e, p

uttin

g of

fset

s in

mor

e th

an o

ne lo

catio

n.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to e

cosy

stem

se

rvic

es

The

emph

asis

of t

his

appr

oach

is o

n th

e in

trins

ic v

alue

s of

bio

dive

rsity

, alth

ough

use

and

CU

LTU

RAL

VALU

ES a

re m

entio

ned.

Env

ironm

enta

l val

ues

are

defin

ed a

s ec

olog

ical

val

ues

(e.g

. eco

syst

em h

ealth

whi

ch re

late

s to

the

prot

ectio

n of

the

inhe

rent

com

posi

tion,

st

ruct

ure

and

func

tioni

ng o

f the

nat

ural

eco

syst

em) o

r ben

efic

ial u

ses

(con

duci

ve to

pub

lic b

enef

it, A

MEN

ITY,

saf

ety,

hea

lth o

r aes

thet

ic

enjo

ymen

t, cu

ltura

l or s

pirit

ual u

se).

Env

ironm

enta

l attr

ibut

es m

ay in

clud

e ty

pes

/ uni

ts in

rela

tion

to v

eget

atio

n, la

ndsc

ape

etc,

EN

DEM

ISM

, na

tive

vege

tatio

n st

ruct

ural

inte

grity

, sca

le, s

hape

and

link

ages

of n

atur

al a

reas

rele

vant

to e

colo

gica

l pro

cess

es, r

arity

, nat

ural

div

ersi

ty,

impo

rtant

faun

a ha

bita

t, si

gnifi

canc

e re

late

d to

bio

phys

ical

or s

ocio

-cul

tura

l con

text

and

oth

er s

peci

al a

ttrib

utes

.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

Con

sulta

tion

with

sta

keho

lder

s, c

omm

uniti

es, g

over

nmen

t age

ncie

s an

d sp

ecia

lists

in id

entif

ying

the

key

valu

es a

nd a

ttrib

utes

to b

e im

pact

ed

Tim

ing

Offs

ets

mus

t be

clea

rly d

efin

ed, p

ublic

ly re

gist

ered

, tra

nspa

rent

, aud

itabl

e an

d en

forc

eabl

e. A

dditi

on o

f lan

d to

the

cons

erva

tion

esta

te s

houl

d be

in li

ne w

ith c

onse

rvat

ion

stra

tegi

es a

nd p

rovi

ded

with

up-

front

fund

ing

to e

nabl

e its

pr

otec

tion

and

reha

bilit

atio

n to

a s

tate

that

requ

ires

min

imum

act

ive

man

agem

ent o

ver t

ime.

An

offs

ets

pack

age

mus

t be

able

to p

rodu

ce e

nviro

nmen

tal b

enef

its in

an

agre

ed ti

mef

ram

e an

d be

in p

lace

(inc

ludi

ng a

ny b

onds

or

guar

ante

es, w

here

app

licab

le) b

efor

e de

velo

pmen

t com

men

ces.

Dur

atio

nO

ffset

s m

ust b

e un

derta

ken

on th

e un

ders

tand

ing

that

the

activ

ities

and

out

com

es m

ust b

e lo

ng-te

rm. T

he o

ffset

site

sh

ould

be

lega

lly p

rote

cted

with

cov

enan

ts o

r con

serv

atio

n ag

reem

ents

or t

rans

ferr

ed in

to th

e co

nser

vatio

n es

tate

to

ensu

re th

at th

e po

sitiv

e en

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

it is

long

last

ing.

Leg

al a

gree

men

ts m

ay b

e re

quire

d in

som

e in

stan

ces

to id

entif

y re

spon

sibi

litie

s an

d to

ens

ure

the

ongo

ing

man

agem

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f the

offs

et s

ite o

ver a

n ec

olog

ical

ly m

eani

ngfu

l tim

efra

me

(per

haps

dec

ades

).

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Man

agem

ent

Offs

et a

ctiv

ities

mus

t be

mon

itore

d ov

er ti

me

to c

heck

that

pro

gres

s is

bei

ng m

ade

and

desi

red

outc

omes

are

ac

hiev

ed b

oth

in im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e of

fset

and

in it

s on

goin

g m

anag

emen

t nee

ds.

Appendix A 25


A.8 South Australia: Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) methodsThe first edition of the South Australian Strategic Plan (SASP)6, an overarching State policy document, included a target that all clearance of native vegetation would be offset by a significant biodiversity GAIN. The target was based on the premise that clearance of native vegetation will result in the further loss (even temporary) of habitat, biodiversity and environmental values in a landscape that has been substantially modified by European settlement. The provisions for offsets also support other SASP targets including no species loss. The main legislative mechanism to require significant environmental gains in South Australia is the Native Vegetation Act, 1991. This Act requires that a significant environmental benefit is attained in lieu of the clearance of native vegetation. The method was developed for use by government ecologists and environmental consultants when assessing the impacts of proposed projects in the agricultural, mining, property / housing development and infrastructure industries.

Amendment to native vegetation legislation will shortly be introduced to State Parliament that will provide, in limited circumstances, that an SEB offset may be achieved outside of the region of impact. The proposed amendments recognise that it may be desirable to undertake restoration or revegetation of habitat that will support threatened species recovery, and that this might be achieved where it is most needed anywhere in the state.

6 See http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/.

App

endi

x A

26

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s N

ativ

e ve

geta

tion:

eco

syst

ems,

com

mun

ities

, hab

itats

, spe

cies

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

The

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

shou

ld b

e ap

plie

d: e

.g. p

ropo

sed

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent /

min

ing

/ pet

role

um /

geot

herm

al o

pera

tions

sho

uld

ensu

re

that

ther

e is

no

prac

ticab

le A

LTER

NAT

IVE

that

wou

ld a

void

the

clea

ranc

e of

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n, th

e cl

eara

nce

of le

ss n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

or th

e cl

eara

nce

of le

ss s

igni

fican

t nat

ive

vege

tatio

n. W

here

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n cl

eara

nce

is u

navo

idab

le, m

easu

res

are

unde

rtake

n to

co

unte

rbal

ance

the

loss

of t

hat v

eget

atio

n to

ach

ieve

an

Sig

nific

ant E

nviro

nmen

tal B

enef

it (S

EB

) eith

er o

n th

e si

te o

r with

in th

e sa

me

regi

on.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

Cle

aran

ce o

f nat

ive

vege

tatio

n in

Sou

th A

ustra

lia re

quire

s th

e ap

prov

al o

f the

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Cou

ncil

(NV

C) u

nles

s th

e cl

eara

nce

is

exem

pted

by

the

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Reg

ulat

ions

200

3. In

ess

ence

, the

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Act

199

1 do

es n

ot p

erm

it th

e cl

eara

nce

of n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

that

is p

artic

ular

ly s

igni

fican

t for

its

biod

iver

sity

val

ues

(spe

cies

, hab

itat o

r ECO

SYST

EM F

UN

CTIO

N),

or it

s se

rvic

e fu

nctio

n in

pr

otec

ting

sign

ifica

nt s

oil o

r wat

er re

sour

ces.

Thi

s pr

ovis

ion

effe

ctiv

ely

sets

the

uppe

r thr

esho

ld fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets.

A n

umbe

r of e

xem

ptio

ns fr

om th

e A

ct p

rovi

ded

by th

e R

egul

atio

ns a

re a

lso

cond

ition

al o

n cl

eara

nce

bein

g av

oide

d or

min

imis

ed, a

nd th

e pr

opon

ent a

chie

ving

an

SE

B o

ffset

(e.g

. cle

aran

ce in

cide

ntal

to m

inin

g op

erat

ions

, the

pro

visi

on o

f inf

rast

ruct

ure

in th

e pu

blic

inte

rest

, and

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of h

ousi

ng).

Whe

re n

o su

ch c

ondi

tions

app

ly, o

ffset

s w

ould

not

be

cons

ider

ed.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eP

ositi

ve c

onse

rvat

ion

outc

omes

are

enc

oura

ged:

the

desi

red

outc

ome

is S

EB

thro

ugh

the

esta

blis

hmen

t, re

gene

ratio

n or

pro

tect

ion

of n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

on la

nd s

peci

fied

by th

e N

ativ

e V

eget

atio

n C

ounc

il.Th

e cl

eara

nce

of h

ighe

r val

ue v

eget

atio

n sh

ould

be

offs

et b

y a

high

er S

EB

whi

ch s

houl

d su

ppor

t the

hig

hest

pos

sibl

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

utco

mes

in

term

s of

qua

lity,

pos

ition

in th

e la

ndsc

ape,

and

ong

oing

man

agem

ent.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsA

n S

EB

may

be

achi

eved

thro

ugh:

man

agem

ent o

f exi

stin

g re

mna

nt n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

(e.g

. con

trol o

f pes

t pla

nts

and

anim

als)

; pos

sibl

y pr

otec

tion

unde

r a H

erita

ge A

gree

men

t (co

nser

vatio

n co

vena

nt);

rest

orin

g de

grad

ed n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

to a

func

tioni

ng e

cosy

stem

; re

vege

tatin

g cl

eare

d ar

eas

to re

crea

te a

func

tioni

ng e

cosy

stem

. An

SE

B d

oes

not n

eces

saril

y re

quire

‘lik

e-fo

r-lik

e’ o

ffset

s (h

owev

er it

is

enco

urag

ed) a

nd d

oes

allo

w ‘t

radi

ng u

p’: t

he S

EB

ratio

can

be

adju

sted

acc

ordi

ng to

the

cons

erva

tion

valu

e of

the

ECO

TYPE

in q

uest

ion,

usi

ng

stat

e an

d na

tiona

l dat

a on

com

mun

ity /

ecot

ype

prio

ritis

atio

n.A

land

hold

er m

ay u

nder

take

the

SE

B w

orks

, or m

ay s

eek

to m

ake

a pa

ymen

t to

the

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Cou

ncil

(pai

d in

to th

e N

ativ

e V

eget

atio

n Fu

nd),

whi

ch th

e C

ounc

il w

ill u

se to

fund

a s

imila

r wor

ks e

lsew

here

. In

addi

tion,

a n

umbe

r of o

ther

offs

et a

ctiv

ities

may

be

cons

ider

ed, i

nclu

ding

acq

uirin

g la

nd, p

rote

ctin

g an

d fu

ndin

g on

goin

g m

anag

emen

t of t

hose

are

as (m

ay in

clud

e th

e do

natio

n to

org

anis

atio

ns

for c

onse

rvat

ion)

and

/ or

und

erta

king

reve

geta

tion/

rest

orat

ion

activ

ities

on

that

land

to re

-est

ablis

h ha

bita

ts; s

uppo

rting

rele

vant

rese

arch

or

rem

oval

of t

hrea

ts /

man

agem

ent o

f exi

stin

g ve

geta

tion,

fund

/ un

derta

ke p

roje

cts

in C

row

n es

tate

par

ks a

nd re

serv

es, a

nd a

ny o

ther

ap

prov

ed a

ctiv

ities

as

iden

tifie

d by

the

prop

onen

t tha

t are

like

ly to

hav

e an

SE

B, p

rovi

ded

it co

mpl

ies

with

legi

slat

ive

and

polic

y re

quire

men

ts.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyTh

ere

are

curr

ently

a ra

nge

of m

etho

dolo

gies

in u

se in

Sou

th A

ustra

lia to

det

erm

ine

an a

ppro

pria

te S

EB

offs

et, o

r pay

men

t int

o th

e N

ativ

e V

eget

atio

n Fu

nd. S

epar

ate

SE

B g

uide

lines

, app

rove

d by

the

NV

C, h

ave

been

pre

pare

d fo

r the

cle

aran

ce a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e m

inin

g an

d pe

trole

um in

dust

ry7 a

nd th

e cl

eara

nce

of s

catte

red

padd

ock

trees

. The

se g

uide

lines

are

use

d by

the

NV

C to

det

erm

ine

an a

ppro

pria

te S

EB

of

fset

for c

lear

ance

in th

ese

indu

strie

s an

d fo

r the

cle

aran

ce o

f sca

ttere

d tre

es. M

etho

dolo

gies

con

sist

ent w

ith th

ese

guid

elin

es e

xist

for o

ther

ci

rcum

stan

ces

that

are

not

cap

ture

d by

thes

e gu

idel

ines

.

7G

uide

lines

for a

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Sig

nific

ant E

nviro

nmen

tal B

enef

it P

olic

y Fo

r the

cle

aran

ce o

f nat

ive

vege

tatio

n as

soci

ated

with

the

min

eral

s an

d pe

trole

um in

dust

ry, S

epte

mbe

r 200

5.

Gov

ernm

ent o

f Sou

th A

ustra

lia D

epar

tmen

t of W

ater

, Lan

d an

d B

iodi

vers

ity C

onse

rvat

ion.

http

://w

ww

.dw

lbc.

sa.g

ov.a

u/as

sets

/file

s/nv

_min

ing_

guid

elin

es_f

inal

_Sep

t_20

05.p

df.

App

endi

x A

27

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he c

urre

ncy

Two

path

way

s ar

e av

aila

ble

for d

eter

min

ing

a S

EB

offs

et:

�Fo

r sca

ttere

d tre

es th

e ap

proa

ch re

lies

on s

corin

g th

e ty

pe, s

ize,

rela

tive

heal

th, w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t, la

ndsc

ape

and

cons

erva

tion

attri

bute

s of

the

tree

usin

g a

Poi

nts

Sco

ring

Sys

tem

(PS

S).

The

scor

e ge

nera

ted

is m

ultip

lied

by a

fact

or

to d

eter

min

e th

e S

EB

offs

et re

quire

men

t val

ue. T

he n

ext s

tep

in th

e pr

oces

s re

quire

s an

ass

essm

ent o

f the

SE

B

valu

e / h

a of

the

prop

osed

offs

et. T

he p

rodu

ct is

fed

into

a fo

rmul

a th

at c

onsi

ders

the

attri

bute

s of

the

SE

B o

ffset

are

a su

ch a

s a

Hab

itat S

igni

fican

ce R

atin

g (H

SR

) and

Lan

dsca

pe C

onte

xt R

atin

g (L

CR

), w

hich

are

bas

ed o

n th

e qu

ality

/ co

nditi

on o

f the

SE

B s

ite a

nd it

s re

latio

n to

oth

er la

ndsc

ape

elem

ents

. The

resu

ltant

pro

duct

obt

ains

the

final

SE

B

offs

et a

rea

requ

ired.

�Fo

r the

cle

aran

ce o

f deg

rade

d pa

tche

s of

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n th

e S

EB

offs

et is

det

erm

ined

by

the

rela

tive

qual

ity o

f the

ve

geta

tion

prop

osed

to b

e cl

eare

d, b

y w

ay o

f app

lyin

g a

set a

side

ratio

(a s

lidin

g sc

ale

from

2:1

to 1

0:1

whe

re 2

eq

uate

s to

low

qua

lity

and

10 to

hig

h qu

ality

veg

etat

ion

with

littl

e de

grad

atio

n / w

eed

inva

sion

).�

Cal

cula

tion

of th

e pa

ymen

ts to

the

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

Cou

ncil

incl

udes

the

area

cle

ared

, the

set

-asi

de ra

tio (a

slid

ing

scal

e fro

m 2

:1 to

10:

1), l

and

valu

es fo

r the

dis

trict

(bas

ed u

pon

advi

ce p

rovi

ded

by th

e V

alue

r-G

ener

al's

offi

ce) a

nd

incl

udes

an

amou

nt to

allo

w fo

r the

futu

re m

aint

enan

ce o

f the

se p

rote

cted

are

as.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

Offs

ets

may

be

loca

ted

with

in th

e sa

me

regi

on (N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent B

oard

) of t

he S

tate

or o

n th

e af

fect

ed

site

. Con

side

ratio

n is

giv

en to

land

scap

e-sc

ale

issu

es th

roug

h th

e us

e of

a L

CR

in d

eter

min

ing

the

SE

B o

ffset

.

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd

ratio

sR

isk

is c

over

ed th

roug

h th

e us

e of

inno

vativ

e R

ehab

ilita

tion

Sec

urity

Bon

ds th

at c

over

the

risk

to th

e go

vern

men

t sho

uld

prop

onen

ts b

ecom

e in

solv

ent o

r the

reha

bilit

atio

n is

insu

ffici

ent.

In th

e S

EB

met

hod,

risk

of l

ikel

ihoo

d of

con

serv

atio

n ou

tcom

es is

cat

ered

for t

o so

me

degr

ee b

y ch

angi

ng th

e S

EB

ratio

requ

ired

of th

e of

fset

. Thi

s is

don

e ba

sed

on a

va

riety

of c

riter

ia, s

ome

of w

hich

cov

er ri

sk, s

uch

as th

e lik

ely

cons

erva

tion

valu

e of

reha

bilit

ated

are

a.Th

e m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r cal

cula

ting

SE

B re

quire

men

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith m

inin

g op

erat

ions

is d

eter

min

ed b

y a

func

tion

of th

e ar

ea a

nd th

e co

nditi

on o

f the

veg

etat

ion

to b

e cl

eare

d, ra

ngin

g fro

m a

n of

fset

of t

wo

times

the

clea

red

area

(2:1

) for

cl

eara

nce

of p

oor q

ualit

y na

tive

vege

tatio

n th

roug

h to

an

offs

et o

f ten

tim

es th

e ar

ea c

lear

ed (1

0:1)

for c

lear

ance

of

inta

ct n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion.

The

pro

pone

nt m

ay s

eek

to re

duce

the

SE

B re

quire

men

t to

take

into

acc

ount

rest

orat

ion

of th

e ar

ea a

fter m

inin

g if

effo

rts a

re c

onsi

dere

d gr

eate

r tha

n no

rmal

site

reha

bilit

atio

n an

d ot

her e

fforts

to m

itiga

te th

e im

pact

s.

The

latte

r are

ass

esse

d on

a c

ase

by c

ase

basi

s.Th

e m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r cal

cula

ting

SE

B re

quire

men

ts fo

r sca

ttere

d pa

ddoc

k tre

es a

lso

the

valu

e of

the

vege

tatio

n (tr

ees)

to

be

clea

red

mul

tiplie

d by

a fa

ctor

to a

chie

ve a

larg

er S

EB

for c

lear

ance

of m

ore

sign

ifica

nt tr

ees.

A s

core

(tre

e sc

ore)

is

det

erm

ined

for e

ach

tree

base

d on

its

over

all w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t val

ue8 . T

he tr

ee s

core

is m

ultip

lied

by a

mul

tiplic

atio

n fa

ctor

to d

eter

min

e th

e S

EB

offs

et re

quire

men

t val

ue. T

he m

ultip

licat

ion

fact

or in

crea

ses

(ste

pped

) as

the

tree

scor

e in

crea

ses.

The

SE

B o

ffset

sco

res

for i

ndiv

idua

l tre

es a

re s

umm

ed to

det

erm

ine

the

tota

l SE

B o

ffset

requ

irem

ent s

core

. Th

e ne

xt s

tep

in th

e pr

oces

s re

quire

s an

ass

essm

ent o

f the

SE

B v

alue

/ ha

of t

he p

ropo

sed

offs

et. T

his

is p

rodu

ced

by

mul

tiply

ing

a H

SR

for a

pro

pose

d S

EB

offs

et b

y a

LCR

. An

offs

et w

ith a

goo

d LC

R w

ill re

sult

in a

hig

her S

EB

offs

et p

oint

sc

ore.

A h

ighe

r SE

B v

alue

/ ha

will

resu

lt in

a s

mal

ler o

ffset

are

a.

8C

utte

n, J

.L. a

nd H

odde

r, M

.W. 2

002.

Sca

ttere

d tre

e cl

eara

nce

asse

ssm

ent i

n S

outh

Aus

tralia

: stre

amlin

ing,

gui

delin

es fo

r ass

essm

ent a

nd ru

ral i

ndus

try e

xten

sion

. DW

LBC

, Ade

laid

e.

App

endi

x A

28

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Offs

ets

in re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

s Th

e ap

proa

ch fo

cuse

s on

the

intri

nsic

val

ue o

f nat

ive

habi

tats

and

spe

cies

, as

wel

l as

on la

ndsc

ape

valu

es. T

he fo

cus

on n

ativ

e ha

bita

ts a

nd

spec

ies

will

als

o fa

vour

man

y cu

ltura

l and

eco

nom

ic v

alue

s of

bio

dive

rsity

in th

e A

ustra

lian

cont

ext.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

No

spec

ific

refe

renc

e fo

und

in d

ocum

ents

.

Impl

emen

tatio

nN

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

plan

ted

as p

art o

f the

SE

B o

ffset

is p

rote

cted

und

er th

e le

gisl

atio

n as

thou

gh it

was

nat

ural

ly o

ccur

ring

nativ

e ve

geta

tion.

Th

e ex

iste

nce

of a

n S

EB

offs

et is

flag

ged

as a

n en

cum

bran

ce a

gain

st th

e la

nd ti

tle d

ocum

ents

for t

he p

rope

rty to

ens

ure

futu

re la

ndow

ners

ar

e aw

are

of th

e re

quire

men

t to

cont

inue

the

prot

ectio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t of t

hese

site

s. A

lthou

gh n

ot s

peci

fical

ly s

tate

d, it

is a

ssum

ed th

at

the

offs

et w

ould

per

sist

in p

erpe

tuity

.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

Ther

e is

no

one

met

hodo

logy

in u

se, a

lthou

gh th

e fo

cus

on h

abita

t sig

nific

ance

and

land

scap

e co

ntex

t pro

vide

s a

sens

ible

bas

is fo

r an

offs

et

appr

oach

. The

app

licat

ion

of a

ratio

to a

djus

t hec

tare

s of

land

requ

ired

as a

n of

fset

allo

ws

for e

ffect

ive

posi

tioni

ng o

f the

offs

et w

ithin

a

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy.

Alth

ough

the

crite

ria a

nd ra

tios

are

desi

gned

for u

se in

Sou

th A

ustra

lia, t

he p

rinci

ples

und

erpi

nnin

g th

is a

ppro

ach

wou

ld

be a

pplic

able

els

ewhe

re.

The

met

hod

is re

lativ

ely

sim

ple

to u

se, c

ompa

red

with

oth

ers

curr

ently

bei

ng d

evel

oped

. The

sco

ring

syst

em fo

r hab

itat q

ualit

y an

d la

ndsc

ape

cont

ext i

s ba

sed

on k

now

n va

lues

and

way

s to

mea

sure

them

. For

this

reas

on, t

he le

vel o

f res

ourc

es (t

ime

and

fund

s) re

quire

d co

uld

be lo

w

to m

ediu

m, d

epen

ding

on

the

avai

labi

lity

of s

uffic

ient

rele

vant

info

rmat

ion

on th

e im

pact

ed h

abita

t and

spe

cies

.

Appendix A 29


A.9 Western Cape of South Africa’s Draft Provincial GuidelineThe Western Cape province of South Africa harbours many restricted range threatened ecosystems and species of global significance which require careful policy to protect from cumulative encroachment. In the province’s Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets, OFFSET RATIOS have been determined primarily in relation to the proportion of habitat remaining and its THREAT STATUS. The initial CURRENCY is hectares of ECOSYSTEM TYPE adjusted according to ecosystem status (threat level). Offset ratios are intended to prevent significant decline in level of endangerment or threat and to ensure that offsets make a commensurate contribution to meeting conservation targets for the affected ecosystem.

Useful reference

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2007. Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. Available at: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2007/3/pgwcoffsetsguidelinedraft_5march_07.pdf

App

endi

x A

30

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

sTh

reat

ened

eco

syst

ems

and

spec

ies,

spe

cial

hab

itats

, val

ued

ECO

SYST

EM S

ERVI

CES

and

impo

rtant

eco

logi

cal a

nd e

volu

tiona

ry p

roce

ss

area

s in

a L

AN

DSC

APE

CO

NTE

XT.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Bio

dive

rsity

offs

ets

are

seen

as

a la

st re

sort

optio

n in

the

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy,

afte

r a d

evel

oper

has

pro

ven

that

(a) a

ll fe

asib

le a

nd

reas

onab

le a

ltern

ativ

es h

ave

been

con

side

red

in a

rriv

ing

at th

e pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ent a

nd (b

) rea

sona

ble

and

resp

onsi

ble

actio

ns

have

bee

n ta

ken

in th

e lo

catio

n, s

iting

, sca

le, l

ayou

t, te

chno

logy

and

des

ign

of th

e pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ent t

o av

oid,

min

imis

e an

d re

pair

/ res

tore

ass

ocia

ted

impa

cts.

Upp

er th

resh

old

Offs

ets

wou

ld g

ener

ally

not

be

cons

ider

ed fo

r im

pact

s on

crit

ical

ly e

ndan

gere

d ec

osys

tem

s or

spe

cies

, spe

cial

ha

bita

ts, a

nd /

or in

are

as id

entif

ied

by c

onse

rvat

ion

agen

cies

or i

n bi

oreg

iona

l / b

iodi

vers

ity p

lans

as

esse

ntia

l to

mee

t con

serv

atio

n ta

rget

s. O

ffset

in th

ese

circ

umst

ance

s co

uld

only

be

cons

ider

ed in

exc

eptio

nal c

ircum

stan

ces

(e.g

. whe

re p

roba

bilit

y of

PER

SIST

ENCE

or v

iabi

lity

is v

ery

low

).

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

Low

er th

resh

old

Impa

cts

on e

cosy

stem

s or

spe

cies

that

wer

e no

t thr

eate

ned

or id

entif

ied

as im

porta

nt to

mee

t con

serv

atio

n ta

rget

s (e

.g. i

n an

eco

logi

cal c

orrid

or) w

ould

not

requ

ire a

n of

fset

.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eTh

e CU

MU

LATI

VE IM

PACT

of t

he d

evel

opm

ent a

utho

risat

ion

and

asso

ciat

ed E

IA p

roce

ss d

oes

not c

ause

any

eco

syst

em to

bec

ome

mor

e th

reat

ened

than

‘end

ange

red’

9 or t

he c

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us o

f spe

cies

and

the

pres

ence

of ‘

spec

ial h

abita

ts’ t

o de

clin

e;

cons

erva

tion

effo

rts a

risin

g fro

m th

e de

velo

pmen

t app

licat

ion

proc

ess,

and

con

tribu

ting

to im

prov

ed p

rote

ctio

n of

the

Wes

tern

Cap

e’s

uniq

ue s

peci

es a

nd e

cosy

stem

s ar

e fo

cuse

d in

are

as id

entif

ied

as p

riorit

ies

for B

IOD

IVER

SITY

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N; a

nd, e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s pr

ovid

ed b

y af

fect

ed b

iodi

vers

ity a

nd o

n w

hich

loca

l or v

ulne

rabl

e hu

man

com

mun

ities

– o

r soc

iety

as

a w

hole

– a

re d

epen

dent

for

LIVE

LIH

OO

DS,

hea

lth a

nd /

or s

afet

y, a

re s

afeg

uard

ed.

Offs

et o

ptio

ns‘LI

KE-F

OR-

LIKE

’ hab

itat w

ould

gen

eral

ly b

e re

quire

d, a

lthou

gh ‘T

RAD

ING

UP’

cou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

whe

re re

leva

nt to

the

parti

cula

r ci

rcum

stan

ces.

Alth

ough

the

focu

s of

offs

ets

is o

n ac

quiri

ng a

nd s

ecur

ing

habi

tat,

mon

etar

y co

mpe

nsat

ion

may

be

cons

ider

ed a

s an

in

terim

mea

sure

to s

ecur

ing

habi

tat i

n so

me

case

s.E

ither

on-

site

or o

ff-si

te o

ffset

s w

ould

be

cons

ider

ed; o

n-si

te o

ffset

s w

ould

be

acce

ptab

le o

nly

if th

ey c

ould

mak

e a

mea

ning

ful

cont

ribut

ion

to a

chie

ving

bio

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n ta

rget

s in

the

area

.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he c

urre

ncy

The

ecos

yste

m s

tatu

s (th

reat

ened

sta

tus)

of t

he im

pact

ed h

abita

t is

used

to d

eriv

e a

basi

c of

fset

ratio

requ

ired

to

ensu

re th

at c

onse

rvat

ion

targ

ets

for t

he im

pact

ed e

cosy

stem

wou

ld b

e m

et. O

ffset

s ar

e ca

lcul

ated

by

mul

tiply

ing

the

area

lost

by

the

offs

et ra

tio w

hich

has

bee

n pr

e-as

sign

ed to

the

affe

cted

eco

syst

em a

ccor

ding

to it

s co

nser

vatio

n st

atus

in te

rms

of th

e N

atio

nal S

patia

l Bio

dive

rsity

Ass

essm

ent.

The

area

det

erm

ined

by

this

bas

ic

offs

et ra

tio is

then

adj

uste

d by

a ra

nge

of c

onte

xt-s

peci

fic c

onsi

dera

tions

, inc

ludi

ng: t

he c

ondi

tion

of th

e af

fect

ed

habi

tat;

the

sign

ifica

nce

of R

ESID

UA

L IM

PACT

S on

thre

aten

ed s

peci

es; t

he s

igni

fican

ce o

f res

idua

l im

pact

s on

sp

ecia

l hab

itats

; the

sig

nific

ance

of r

esid

ual i

mpa

cts

on im

porta

nt e

colo

gica

l cor

ridor

s or

pro

cess

are

as; a

nd th

e si

gnifi

canc

e of

resi

dual

impa

cts

on b

iodi

vers

ity u

nder

pinn

ing

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

with

soc

ioec

onom

ic v

alue

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

The

appr

oach

take

s in

to a

ccou

nt e

cosy

stem

link

ages

, gra

dien

ts a

nd C

ON

NEC

TIVI

TY a

spec

ts in

the

larg

er

land

scap

e, a

s w

ell a

s th

e lo

catio

n of

the

impa

ct a

nd o

ffset

site

(s) i

n re

latio

n to

spa

tial b

iodi

vers

ity p

lans

and

co

nser

vatio

n pr

iorit

ies.

It is

inte

nded

to s

uppo

rt bi

oreg

iona

l pla

nnin

g an

d en

sure

that

dev

elop

men

t doe

s no

t

9S

outh

Afri

ca’s

Nat

iona

l Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent B

iodi

vers

ity A

ct 2

004

mak

es p

rovi

sion

for l

istin

g th

reat

ened

eco

syst

ems

and

spec

ies

(crit

ical

ly e

ndan

gere

d, e

ndan

gere

d an

d vu

lner

able

).

App

endi

x A

31

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

nco

mpr

omis

e co

nser

vatio

n op

tions

or u

nder

min

e ta

rget

s.O

ffset

s sh

ould

be

loca

ted

in th

e la

ndsc

ape

to (i

n or

der o

r prio

rity)

to: m

ake

the

max

imum

con

tribu

tion

to

secu

ring,

pro

tect

ing

and

/ or l

inki

ng b

iodi

vers

ity p

riorit

y ar

eas,

and

con

solid

atin

g ec

olog

ical

cor

ridor

s in

the

land

scap

e id

entif

ied

in b

iodi

vers

ity, b

iore

gion

al o

r con

serv

atio

n pl

ans.

The

se a

reas

are

bro

adly

gro

uped

as

‘key

re

ceiv

ing

area

s’ fo

r offs

ets.

Offs

et s

ites

shou

ld p

rovi

de c

ompa

rabl

e ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

s to

thos

e de

liver

ed b

y im

pact

ed s

ite, s

houl

d m

inim

ise

FRA

GM

ENTA

TIO

N o

f hab

itat a

nd b

e cl

ose

to th

e im

pact

ed s

ite.

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd

ratio

sTh

is s

yste

m c

alcu

late

s m

ultip

liers

bas

ed o

n en

surin

g th

at th

e pe

rsis

tenc

e of

thre

aten

ed e

cosy

stem

s in

the

land

scap

e do

es n

ot d

rop

belo

w c

erta

in th

resh

olds

set

as

a po

licy

targ

et (e

.g. ‘

4,00

0 ha

of h

abita

t A’).

Fol

low

ing

calc

ulat

ion

of th

e re

sidu

al lo

ss in

term

s of

hec

tare

s al

one,

the

mul

tiplie

r cal

cula

tion

follo

ws

two

step

s:a)

Use

a b

asic

mul

tiplie

r lin

ked

to th

e co

nser

vatio

n st

atus

of a

ffect

ed e

cosy

stem

s. T

his

invo

lves

mul

tiply

ing

the

resi

dual

loss

impa

ct a

reas

by

a fa

ctor

acc

ordi

ng to

the

enda

nger

men

t of t

he e

cosy

stem

: a 3

0x ‘b

asic

ratio

’ (i.

e. fo

r eve

ry h

ecta

re lo

st, 3

0 he

ctar

es o

f offs

et o

f tha

t eco

syst

em w

ould

hav

e to

be

secu

red)

for c

ritic

ally

en

dang

ered

‘ eco

syst

ems

(onl

y in

ext

raor

dina

ry c

ircum

stan

ces;

in m

ost c

ases

thes

e ec

osys

tem

s ar

e irr

epla

ceab

le a

nd n

ot ‘o

ffset

able

‘); 2

0x fo

r ‘en

dang

ered

‘ eco

syst

ems;

5x

for ‘

vuln

erab

le‘ e

cosy

stem

s; n

o of

fset

for ‘

leas

t thr

eate

ned‘

eco

syst

ems.

b)

Adj

ust t

he re

vise

d fig

ure

base

d on

the

habi

tat c

ondi

tion,

impa

cts

on s

peci

al h

abita

ts, e

colo

gica

l cor

ridor

s or

pr

oces

s ar

eas,

and

impa

cts

on e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s or

the

biod

iver

sity

und

erpi

nnin

g th

ese

serv

ices

. For

ex

ampl

e, im

pact

s on

deg

rade

d ha

bita

t mea

n th

e m

ultip

lier c

an b

e ha

lved

.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

The

initi

al fo

cus

is o

n th

e IN

TRIN

SIC

VALU

E of

bio

dive

rsity

(i.e

. its

con

serv

atio

n si

gnifi

canc

e), b

ut a

dditi

onal

con

side

ratio

ns re

late

to

impo

rtant

use

and

cul

tura

l val

ues.

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tTh

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of o

ffset

s m

ust i

nvol

ve a

sta

keho

lder

eng

agem

ent p

roce

ss th

at ta

kes

into

acc

ount

sci

entif

ic k

now

ledg

e ab

out t

he

uniq

uene

ss o

f the

are

a im

pact

ed a

s w

ell a

s th

e va

lues

asc

ribed

to it

by

loca

l com

mun

ities

. Key

sta

keho

lder

s (c

onse

rvat

ion

agen

cies

, au

thor

ities

, the

pro

pone

nt, a

ffect

ed p

artie

s, n

on-g

over

nmen

t org

anis

atio

ns, s

peci

alis

ts) m

ust b

e in

volv

ed in

the

iden

tific

atio

n an

d ev

alua

tion

of p

oten

tial o

ffset

s, a

nd th

ere

shou

ld b

e br

oad

acce

ptan

ce o

f the

ulti

mat

e of

fset

pro

pose

d

Dur

atio

nTh

e of

fset

is in

tend

ed to

be

in p

lace

in p

erpe

tuity

, thr

ough

con

tribu

tion

to th

e pu

blic

con

serv

atio

n es

tate

.

Man

agem

ent

A m

anag

emen

t (an

d, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, a re

stor

atio

n) p

lan

with

cle

ar o

bjec

tives

, tar

gets

, act

ions

, re

spon

sibi

litie

s, a

nd ti

min

g sh

ould

be

draw

n up

. Per

form

ance

aud

iting

and

repo

rting

requ

irem

ents

sho

uld

be

spel

t out

. An

adeq

uate

ly re

sour

ced

END

OW

MEN

T FU

ND

for t

he o

ffset

wou

ld h

ave

to b

e se

t up,

dire

ctly

rela

ted

to

the

cost

s of

man

agin

g, m

onito

ring

and

audi

ting

the

offs

et, a

s w

ell a

s ob

tain

ing

spec

ialis

t adv

ice

whe

re

appr

opria

te. A

sch

edul

e of

cos

ts li

nked

to th

e m

anag

emen

t pla

n an

d as

soci

ated

act

iviti

es, s

peci

alis

t inp

ut,

man

agem

ent o

f offs

et b

ond

or T

RUST

FU

ND

sho

uld

be p

rovi

ded.

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Tim

ing

No

spec

ific

refe

renc

e fo

und

in d

ocum

ents

.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

Rel

ativ

ely

easy

to d

eter

min

e th

e ba

sic

offs

et ra

tio re

quire

d fo

r the

impa

cted

eco

syst

ems

whe

re th

ere

is re

liabl

e re

gion

al in

form

atio

n on

th

eir c

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us. T

he c

ompl

exity

of t

his

met

hodo

logy

wou

ld la

rgel

y de

pend

on

the

avai

labi

lity

of (a

nd n

eed

to g

athe

r)

info

rmat

ion

on s

igni

fican

t spe

cies

on

the

affe

cted

site

and

thei

r par

ticul

ar h

abita

t and

offs

et re

quire

men

ts. F

or s

igni

fican

t eco

syst

ems

cont

aini

ng s

peci

al h

abita

ts a

nd th

reat

ened

spe

cies

, the

leve

l of r

esou

rces

(tim

e an

d fu

nds)

requ

ired

coul

d be

hig

h w

here

info

rmat

ion

is

lack

ing.

Con

vers

ely,

whe

re th

e im

pact

ed a

rea

is w

ell-r

esea

rche

d, th

is m

etho

dolo

gy w

ould

be

rela

tivel

y si

mpl

e an

d qu

ick

to a

pply

.

32


Appendix B: Approaches relevant to biodiversity offsets by banks

A number of financing institutions have developed, or are currently in the process of developing, operational or safeguard policies on, amongst others, the environment and its biodiversity. This appendix presents a summary of the policies of three major financing institutions as an indication of the main trends in the requirements of borrowers for dealing with biodiversity.

B.1 World Bank Operational Policy 4.04: Natural HabitatsWorld Bank projects and activities are governed by Operational Policies10, which are designed to ensure that they are economically, financially, socially and environmentally sound. The Bank’s Safeguard Policies include Environmental Assessments (EA) and policies designed to prevent unintended adverse effects on third parties and the environment. Specific safeguard policies address NATURAL HABITATS (OP 4.04), pest management, cultural property, involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, the safety of dams, projects on international waterways, and projects in disputed areas. OP 4.04 addresses mitigation of impacts on biodiversity. There is overlap between the Bank’s Operational Policy 4.04 and 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) with regard to the potential values of impacted biodiversity. These Operational Policies must be seen in relation to the Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01).

The Team Leader identifies any natural habitat issues, including any significant conversion or degradation that would take place under the project, as well as any other forms of mitigation measures proposed, in the initial Project Information Document (PID) and in the early versions of the Environmental Data Sheet. Updated PIDs reflect changes in the natural habitat issues. The Project Appraisal Document indicates the types and estimated areas (in hectares) of affected natural habitats; the significance of the potential impacts; the project’s consistency with national and regional land use and environmental planning initiatives, conservation strategies and legislation; and the mitigation measures planned.

10 See http://go.worldbank.org/WTA1ODE7T0.

App

endi

x B

33

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

The

focu

s of

this

pol

icy

is o

n im

porta

nt n

atur

al h

abita

t site

s, th

e ec

olog

ical

func

tions

they

per

form

, the

deg

ree

of th

reat

to th

e si

tes,

and

prio

ritie

s fo

r co

nser

vatio

n.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

If th

e E

A in

dica

tes

that

a p

roje

ct w

ould

sig

nific

antly

con

vert

or d

egra

de n

atur

al h

abita

ts, t

he p

roje

ct m

ust i

nclu

de m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s ac

cept

able

to

the

Ban

k. A

pro

pose

d pr

ojec

t is

clas

sifie

d as

Cat

egor

y A

if it

is li

kely

to h

ave

sign

ifica

nt a

dver

se e

nviro

nmen

tal i

mpa

cts

that

are

sen

sitiv

e, d

iver

se,

or u

npre

cede

nted

. The

se im

pact

s m

ay a

ffect

an

area

bro

ader

than

the

site

s or

faci

litie

s su

bjec

t to

phys

ical

wor

ks. E

A fo

r a C

ateg

ory

A p

roje

ct m

ust

exam

ine

the

proj

ect’s

pot

entia

l neg

ativ

e an

d po

sitiv

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

cts,

com

pare

them

with

thos

e of

feas

ible

ALT

ERN

ATI

VES

(incl

udin

g th

e ‘w

ithou

t pro

ject

’ situ

atio

n), a

nd re

com

men

d m

easu

res

to p

reve

nt, m

inim

ise,

miti

gate

, or c

ompe

nsat

e fo

r adv

erse

impa

cts

and

impr

ove

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

.A

Cat

egor

y B

pro

ject

’s p

oten

tial a

dver

se im

pact

s on

env

ironm

enta

lly im

porta

nt a

reas

(inc

ludi

ng w

etla

nds,

fore

sts,

gra

ssla

nds,

and

oth

er n

atur

al

habi

tats

) are

less

adv

erse

than

thos

e of

Cat

egor

y A

pro

ject

s. T

hese

impa

cts

are

site

-spe

cific

; few

if a

ny o

f the

m a

re ir

reve

rsib

le; a

nd in

mos

t cas

es

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

can

be d

esig

ned

mor

e re

adily

than

for C

ateg

ory

A p

roje

cts.

A

ppro

pria

te m

itiga

tion

wou

ld d

epen

d on

the

char

acte

ristic

s of

the

give

n si

te, b

ut m

ay in

clud

e fu

ll si

te p

rote

ctio

n th

roug

h pr

ojec

t red

esig

n; s

trate

gic

habi

tat r

eten

tion;

rest

ricte

d co

nver

sion

or m

odifi

catio

n; re

intro

duct

ion

of s

peci

es; m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s to

min

imis

e th

e ec

olog

ical

dam

age;

pos

t-de

velo

pmen

t res

tora

tion

wor

ks; r

esto

ratio

n of

deg

rade

d ha

bita

ts; a

nd e

stab

lishm

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f an

ecol

ogic

ally

sim

ilar p

rote

cted

are

a of

‘s

uita

ble

size

and

con

tigui

ty’.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

The

Ban

k do

es n

ot s

uppo

rt pr

ojec

ts th

at, i

n its

opi

nion

, inv

olve

the

sign

ifica

nt c

onve

rsio

n (e

limin

atio

n or

sev

ere

dim

inut

ion

of th

e in

tegr

ity o

f a

criti

cal o

r oth

er n

atur

al h

abita

t cau

sed

by a

maj

or, l

ong-

term

cha

nge

in la

nd o

r wat

er u

se) o

r deg

rada

tion

(mod

ifica

tion

of a

crit

ical

or o

ther

nat

ural

ha

bita

t tha

t sub

stan

tially

redu

ces

the

habi

tat's

abi

lity

to m

aint

ain

viab

le p

opul

atio

ns o

f its

nat

ive

spec

ies)

of ‘

criti

cal n

atur

al h

abita

ts’.

Thes

e pr

ojec

ts

wou

ld in

clud

e th

ose

with

in le

gally

pro

tect

ed a

reas

, are

as o

ffici

ally

pro

pose

d fo

r pro

tect

ion,

and

unp

rote

cted

are

as k

now

n to

hav

e hi

gh c

onse

rvat

ion

valu

e. T

hey

wou

ld c

oinc

ide

with

‘upp

er th

resh

olds

’ bey

ond

whi

ch o

ffset

s w

ould

not

be

cons

ider

ed.

‘Crit

ical

nat

ural

hab

itats

’ are

def

ined

as:

�E

xist

ing

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

and

area

s of

ficia

lly p

ropo

sed

by g

over

nmen

ts a

s pr

otec

ted

area

s (e

.g. r

eser

ves

that

mee

t the

crit

eria

of t

he IU

CN

cl

assi

ficat

ions

), ar

eas

initi

ally

reco

gnis

ed a

s pr

otec

ted

by tr

aditi

onal

loca

l com

mun

ities

(e.g

. sac

red

grov

es),

and

site

s th

at m

aint

ain

cond

ition

s vi

tal f

or th

e vi

abili

ty o

f the

se p

rote

cted

are

as (a

s de

term

ined

by

the

EA

pro

cess

); or

�S

ites

iden

tifie

d on

sup

plem

enta

ry li

sts

prep

ared

by

the

Ban

k or

an

auth

orita

tive

sour

ce d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e R

egio

nal E

nviro

nmen

t Sec

tor U

nit.

Suc

h si

tes

may

incl

ude

area

s re

cogn

ised

by

tradi

tiona

l loc

al c

omm

uniti

es; a

reas

with

kno

wn

high

sui

tabi

lity

for b

iodi

vers

ity c

onse

rvat

ion;

and

si

tes

that

are

crit

ical

for r

are,

vul

nera

ble,

mig

rato

ry, o

r end

ange

red

spec

ies.

Lis

tings

are

bas

ed o

n sy

stem

atic

eva

luat

ion

of s

uch

fact

ors

as

spec

ies

richn

ess;

the

degr

ee o

f EN

DEM

ISM

, rar

ity a

nd /

or V

ULN

ERA

BILI

TY o

f com

pone

nt s

peci

es; r

epre

sent

ativ

enes

s; a

nd, i

nteg

rity

of E

COSY

STEM

PR

OCE

SSES

.

For C

ateg

ory

A o

r B p

roje

cts

whe

re th

ere

wou

ld n

ot b

e si

gnifi

cant

con

vers

ion

or d

egra

datio

n, m

itiga

tion

– in

clud

ing

offs

ets

– w

ould

be

cons

ider

ed.

Cat

egor

y C

pro

ject

s w

ould

hav

e m

inim

al o

r no

adve

rse

impa

ct; t

hey

wou

ld c

oinc

ide

with

‘low

er th

resh

olds

’ whe

re o

ffset

s w

ould

not

be

requ

ired.

Des

ired

or

requ

ired

outc

ome

The

cons

erva

tion

of n

atur

al h

abita

ts, t

he m

aint

enan

ce o

f eco

logi

cal f

unct

ions

and

reha

bilit

atio

n of

deg

rade

d na

tura

l hab

itats

.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsE

stab

lishi

ng a

nd m

aint

aini

ng a

n ec

olog

ical

ly s

imila

r pro

tect

ed a

rea

of ‘s

uita

ble

size

and

con

tigui

ty’.

App

endi

x B

34

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Offs

et

met

hodo

logy

No

spec

ific

met

hodo

logy

is a

dvoc

ated

.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

se

rvic

es

Ther

e is

no

spec

ific

men

tion

of u

se o

r cul

tura

l val

ues

in O

P4.

04. H

owev

er, t

hese

asp

ects

are

add

ress

ed in

the

OP

4.10

on

Indi

geno

us P

eopl

es,

whe

re it

is n

oted

that

“ind

igen

ous

Peo

ples

are

clo

sely

tied

to la

nd, f

ores

ts, w

ater

, wild

life,

and

oth

er n

atur

al re

sour

ces,

and

ther

efor

e sp

ecia

l co

nsid

erat

ions

app

ly if

the

proj

ect a

ffect

s su

ch ti

es. I

n th

is s

ituat

ion,

whe

n ca

rryi

ng o

ut th

e so

cial

ass

essm

ent,

the

borr

ower

mus

t pay

par

ticul

ar

atte

ntio

n to

(a) t

he c

usto

mar

y rig

hts

of th

e In

dige

nous

Peo

ples

, bot

h in

divi

dual

and

col

lect

ive,

per

tain

ing

to la

nds

or te

rrito

ries

that

they

trad

ition

ally

ow

ned,

or c

usto

mar

ily u

sed

or o

ccup

ied,

and

whe

re a

cces

s to

nat

ural

reso

urce

s is

vita

l to

the

sust

aina

bilit

y of

thei

r cul

ture

s an

d liv

elih

oods

; (b)

the

need

to p

rote

ct s

uch

land

s an

d re

sour

ces

agai

nst i

llega

l int

rusi

on o

r enc

roac

hmen

t; (c

) the

cul

tura

l and

spi

ritua

l val

ues

that

the

Indi

geno

us P

eopl

es

attri

bute

to s

uch

land

s an

d re

sour

ces;

and

(d) I

ndig

enou

s P

eopl

es’ n

atur

al re

sour

ces

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

and

the

long

-term

sus

tain

abili

ty o

f su

ch p

ract

ices

”.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

The

Ban

k ex

pect

s th

e bo

rrow

er to

take

into

acc

ount

the

view

s, ro

les,

and

righ

ts o

f gro

ups

(incl

udin

g lo

cal N

GO

s an

d lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es) a

ffect

ed

by B

ank-

finan

ced

proj

ects

invo

lvin

g na

tura

l hab

itats

, and

to in

volv

e su

ch p

eopl

e in

pla

nnin

g, d

esig

ning

, im

plem

entin

g, m

onito

ring,

and

eva

luat

ing

such

pro

ject

s. In

volv

emen

t may

incl

ude

iden

tifyi

ng a

ppro

pria

te c

onse

rvat

ion

mea

sure

s, m

anag

ing

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

and

othe

r nat

ural

hab

itats

, and

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g sp

ecifi

c pr

ojec

ts.

Impl

emen

tatio

nIn

dec

idin

g w

heth

er o

r not

to s

uppo

rt a

proj

ect w

ith p

oten

tial a

dver

se im

pact

s on

a n

atur

al h

abita

t, th

e B

ank

take

s in

to a

ccou

nt th

e bo

rrow

er’s

ab

ility

to im

plem

ent t

he a

ppro

pria

te c

onse

rvat

ion

and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res.

If th

ere

are

pote

ntia

l ins

titut

iona

l cap

acity

pro

blem

s, th

e pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s co

mpo

nent

s th

at d

evel

op th

e ca

paci

ty o

f nat

iona

l and

loca

l ins

titut

ions

for e

ffect

ive

envi

ronm

enta

l pla

nnin

g an

d m

anag

emen

t. Th

e m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s sp

ecifi

ed fo

r the

pro

ject

may

be

used

to e

nhan

ce th

e pr

actic

al fi

eld

capa

city

of n

atio

nal a

nd lo

cal i

nstit

utio

ns. T

he B

ank

take

s in

to

acco

unt r

ecur

rent

fund

ing

and

capa

city

-bui

ldin

g ne

eds

linke

d to

the

cons

erva

tion

of n

atur

al h

abita

ts a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f eco

logi

cal f

unct

ion.

Appendix B 35


B.2 International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource ManagementThe International Finance Corporation (IFC) has a number of Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability. Based on the assessment of risks and impacts and the vulnerability of the biodiversity and the natural resources present, the requirements of Performance Standard 6 (PS6) are applied to projects in all habitats, whether or not those habitats have been previously disturbed and whether or not they are legally protected.

In order to avoid or minimise adverse impacts to biodiversity in the project’s area of influence, the client will assess the significance of project impacts on all levels of biodiversity genetic, species, or ecosystem level, as an integral part of the Social and Environmental Assessment process. The Social and Environmental Impact Assessment (S&EA) process is a way to identify, predict and assess the type and scale of potential biodiversity impacts, and opportunities to benefit conservation, associated with any business activities or projects. Biodiversity assessment should begin as early as possible, as effective assessment of the biodiversity characteristics of an area – and the potential impacts – may require months or even years, to account for seasonal and migration issues. Early attention to biodiversity issues means that potential impacts can be identified and avoided or mitigated in the earliest stages of planning.

There is overlap between the PS6, and Standards 7 (Indigenous Peoples) and 8 (Cultural Heritage) with regard to the potential values of impacted biodiversity. All of these standards must be seen in relation to Performance Standard 1 on Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems.

It is useful to note that the IFC and World Bank standards are consistent and fully aligned in terms of their environmental and social objectives, but the IFC's Performance Standards are tailored to the role and responsibilities of the private sector. The IFC Performance Standards, revised in 2006, have been incorporated into revised EQUATOR PRINCIPLES, so as to provide a single, consistent standard for private sector project financing. The Equator Principles were first launched in June 2003 with the goal of ensuring that projects financed by participating financial institutions were developed in a manner that is socially responsible and reflective of sound environmental management practices. The aim of these Principles is to avoid where possible negative impacts on project-affected ecosystems and communities; where impacts are unavoidable, they should be reduced, mitigated, and / or compensated for appropriately. The Principles have been adopted by more than sixty financial institutions (as of April 2009), known as the Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs).

Useful reference

IFC. 2006. Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability(see www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EnvSocStandards).

App

endi

x B

36

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

All

leve

ls o

f bio

dive

rsity

, fro

m s

peci

es to

eco

syst

em le

vel,

as w

ell a

s an

y ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

s th

at m

ight

hav

e lo

cal,

regi

onal

or g

loba

l im

pact

s or

impl

icat

ions

. The

pre

senc

e of

sig

nific

ant b

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

cov

ers

the

rang

e an

d st

atus

of t

he m

ain

spec

ies

grou

ps th

at li

ve in

the

area

(e.g

. en

dang

ered

spe

cies

) and

the

prox

imity

of t

he s

ite to

pro

tect

ed a

reas

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

Miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

shou

ld b

e de

sign

ed to

ach

ieve

NO

NET

LO

SS o

f bio

dive

rsity

and

favo

ur im

pact

AVO

IDA

NCE

and

pre

vent

ion

over

redu

ctio

n an

d co

mpe

nsat

ion.

Miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

will

be

desi

gned

to a

chie

ve n

o ne

t los

s of

bio

dive

rsity

whe

re fe

asib

le, a

nd m

ay in

clud

e a

com

bina

tion

of a

ctio

ns, s

uch

as:

post

-ope

ratio

n re

stor

atio

n of

hab

itats

with

app

ropr

iate

nat

ive

spec

ies

and

cons

iste

nt w

ith lo

cal e

colo

gica

l con

ditio

ns, o

ffset

ting

biod

iver

sity

lo

sses

thro

ugh

the

crea

tion

of e

colo

gica

lly c

ompa

rabl

e ar

ea(s

) els

ewhe

re (c

ompa

rabl

e in

siz

e, q

ualit

y an

d fu

nctio

n) th

at is

man

aged

for

biod

iver

sity

, and

fina

ncia

l or I

N-K

IND

com

pens

atio

n to

dire

ct u

sers

of b

iodi

vers

ity

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

‘Crit

ical

hab

itat’

ofte

n co

inci

des

with

the

uppe

r thr

esho

ld fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets.

‘Crit

ical

hab

itat’

is a

sub

set o

f bot

h na

tura

l and

M

OD

IFIE

D H

ABI

TAT.

It in

clud

es a

reas

with

hig

h bi

odiv

ersi

ty v

alue

, inc

ludi

ng h

abita

t req

uire

d fo

r the

sur

viva

l of c

ritic

ally

end

ange

red

or

enda

nger

ed s

peci

es; a

reas

hav

ing

spec

ial s

igni

fican

ce fo

r EN

DEM

IC o

r res

trict

ed-r

ange

spe

cies

; site

s th

at a

re c

ritic

al fo

r the

sur

viva

l of

mig

rato

ry s

peci

es; a

reas

sup

porti

ng g

loba

lly s

igni

fican

t con

cent

ratio

ns o

r num

bers

of i

ndiv

idua

ls o

f con

greg

ator

y sp

ecie

s; a

reas

with

uni

que

asse

mbl

ages

of s

peci

es o

r whi

ch a

re a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith k

ey e

volu

tiona

ry p

roce

sses

or p

rovi

de k

ey e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s; a

nd a

reas

hav

ing

biod

iver

sity

of s

igni

fican

t soc

ial,

econ

omic

or c

ultu

ral i

mpo

rtanc

e to

loca

l com

mun

ities

. C

onse

quen

tly, a

s P

S6

is c

urre

ntly

writ

ten,

impa

cts

on a

reas

of c

ritic

al h

abita

t wou

ld, i

n th

e fir

st in

stan

ce, n

ot b

e co

nsid

ered

by

the

IFC

to b

e of

fset

able

. Thi

s is

bec

ause

, in

orde

r for

dev

elop

men

t to

proc

eed

in c

ritic

al h

abita

t, th

e cl

ient

mus

t dem

onst

rate

com

plia

nce

with

the

follo

win

g re

quire

men

ts, w

hich

incl

ude

‘no

mea

sura

ble

adve

rse

impa

cts’

:In

are

as o

f crit

ical

hab

itat,

the

clie

nt w

ill n

ot im

plem

ent a

ny p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ities

unl

ess

the

follo

win

g re

quire

men

ts a

re m

et:

�Th

ere

are

no m

easu

rabl

e ad

vers

e im

pact

s on

the

abili

ty o

f the

crit

ical

hab

itat t

o su

ppor

t the

est

ablis

hed

popu

latio

n of

spe

cies

or t

he

func

tions

of t

he c

ritic

al h

abita

t des

crib

ed a

bove

.�

Ther

e is

no

redu

ctio

n in

the

popu

latio

n of

any

reco

gnis

ed c

ritic

ally

end

ange

red

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

Any

less

er im

pact

s ar

e m

itiga

ted

as fo

r are

as o

f nat

ural

hab

itat,

whe

re th

e cl

ient

will

not

sig

nific

antly

con

vert

or d

egra

de s

uch

habi

tat,

unle

ss

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

on is

met

: miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

will

be

desi

gned

to a

chie

ve n

o ne

t los

s of

bio

dive

rsity

whe

re fe

asib

le, a

nd m

ay in

clud

e a

com

bina

tion

of a

ctio

ns s

uch

as (i

) pos

t-ope

ratio

n re

stor

atio

n of

hab

itats

, (ii)

offs

et o

f los

ses

thro

ugh

the

crea

tion

of e

colo

gica

lly c

ompa

rabl

e ar

ea(s

) tha

t is

man

aged

for b

iodi

vers

ity, a

nd (i

ii) c

ompe

nsat

ion

to d

irect

use

rs o

f bio

dive

rsity

.In

are

as o

f nat

ural

hab

itat,

an u

pper

thre

shol

d is

def

ined

in te

rms

of ‘n

o si

gnifi

cant

con

vers

ion

or d

egra

datio

n’ u

nles

s: th

ere

are

no te

chni

cally

an

d fin

anci

ally

feas

ible

alte

rnat

ives

; the

ove

rall

bene

fits

of th

e pr

ojec

t out

wei

gh th

e co

sts,

incl

udin

g th

ose

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t and

bio

dive

rsity

; an

d, a

ny c

onve

rsio

n or

deg

rada

tion

is a

ppro

pria

tely

miti

gate

d, a

s de

scrib

ed a

bove

.N

o lo

wer

thre

shol

d fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

is s

peci

fied.

Des

ired

or

requ

ired

outc

ome

In b

road

term

s, th

e ob

ject

ives

are

to p

rote

ct a

nd c

onse

rve

biod

iver

sity

, pro

mot

e th

e su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t and

use

of n

atur

al re

sour

ces

thro

ugh

the

adop

tion

of p

ract

ices

that

inte

grat

e co

nser

vatio

n ne

eds

and

deve

lopm

ent p

riorit

ies.

For

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res,

incl

udin

g of

fset

s, th

e de

sire

d ou

tcom

e is

‘no

net l

oss

of b

iodi

vers

ity w

here

feas

ible

’.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsM

ay in

clud

e a

com

bina

tion

of a

ctio

ns, s

uch

as p

ost-o

pera

tion

rest

orat

ion

of h

abita

ts, o

ffset

of l

osse

s th

roug

h th

e cr

eatio

n of

eco

logi

cally

co

mpa

rabl

e ar

ea(s

) tha

t is

man

aged

for b

iodi

vers

ity, a

nd /

or c

ompe

nsat

ion

to d

irect

use

rs o

f bio

dive

rsity

.

App

endi

x B

37

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Offs

et

met

hodo

logy

No

spec

ific

offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy is

adv

ocat

ed.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to e

cosy

stem

se

rvic

es

The

Ass

essm

ent m

ust t

ake

into

acc

ount

impa

cts

on e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s or

the

com

mun

ities

dep

ende

nt o

n th

ese

good

s an

d se

rvic

es. F

ores

ts

and

aqua

tic s

yste

ms

are

spec

ifica

lly id

entif

ied

as b

eing

prin

cipa

l pro

vide

rs o

f nat

ural

reso

urce

s an

d th

us s

igni

fican

t.EC

OSY

STEM

SER

VICE

S ar

e de

fined

as

the

bene

fits

that

peo

ple

obta

in fr

om e

cosy

stem

s, a

nd in

clud

e pr

ovis

ioni

ng s

ervi

ces

(suc

h as

food

, fib

re,

fresh

wat

er, f

uel w

ood,

bio

chem

ical

s, g

enet

ic re

sour

ces)

; reg

ulat

ing

serv

ices

(suc

h as

clim

ate

regu

latio

n, d

isea

se re

gula

tion,

wat

er re

gula

tion,

w

ater

pur

ifica

tion,

deg

rada

tion

of p

ollu

tant

s, c

arbo

n se

ques

tratio

n an

d st

orag

e, n

utrie

nt c

yclin

g); a

nd c

ultu

ral s

ervi

ces

(spi

ritua

l and

relig

ious

as

pect

s, re

crea

tion

and

ECO

TOU

RISM

, aes

thet

ics,

insp

iratio

n, e

duca

tiona

l val

ues,

sen

se o

f pla

ce, c

ultu

ral h

erita

ge).

Per

form

ance

Sta

ndar

d1

emph

asis

es th

e im

porta

nce

of in

tegr

ated

ass

essm

ent t

o id

entif

y th

e so

cial

and

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s, ri

sks,

and

op

portu

nitie

s of

pro

ject

s.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

The

Ass

essm

ent m

ust t

ake

into

acc

ount

the

diffe

ring

valu

es a

ttach

ed to

bio

dive

rsity

by

spec

ific

stak

ehol

ders

, as

wel

l as

iden

tify

impa

cts

on

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces.

Con

sulta

tion

with

loca

l sta

keho

lder

s is

vita

l at t

his

stag

e, a

nd p

artic

ular

atte

ntio

n sh

ould

be

give

n to

vul

nera

ble

or d

isad

vant

aged

com

mun

ities

an

d to

risk

s to

com

mun

ities

from

cha

nges

to e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s an

d qu

ality

. K

ey s

take

hold

ers

incl

ude

pote

ntia

lly a

ffect

ed c

omm

uniti

es, p

ublic

aut

horit

ies

and

inde

pend

ent e

xper

ts.

Impl

emen

tatio

nN

o sp

ecifi

c in

form

atio

n on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

offs

ets.

Sou

rces

:IFC

. 200

6. P

erfo

rman

ce S

tand

ards

on

Soc

ial a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal S

usta

inab

ility

(s

eew

ww

.ifc.

org/

ifcex

t/sus

tain

abili

ty.n

sf/C

onte

nt/E

nvSo

cSta

ndar

ds) a

nd p

erso

nal c

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith P

eter

Nea

me

(IFC

) in

Oct

ober

200

8.

Appendix B 38


B.3 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Performance Requirement 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural ResourcesIn May 2008 the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) adopted a new Environmental and Social Policy to replace its former Environmental Policy. The new policy is accompanied by ten Performance Requirements which outline the social and environmental responsibilities and specific practices that EBRD clients must follow with respect to a range of issues including labour, community health and safety, indigenous peoples, biodiversity, resettlement, protection of natural resources and cultural heritage.

Performance Requirement (PR) 6 addresses BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION and sustainable natural resource management. The objectives of PR 6 are: to protect and conserve biodiversity; to avoid, minimise and mitigate impacts on biodiversity and offset significant RESIDUAL IMPACTS, where appropriate, with the aim of achieving NO NET LOSS or a NET GAIN of biodiversity; to promote the sustainable management and use of natural resources; to strengthen companies’ license to operate, reputation and competitive advantage through BEST PRACTICE management of biodiversity as a business risk and opportunity; and to foster the development of pro-biodiversity business that offers alternative LIVELIHOODS in place of unsustainable exploitation of the natural environment. The EBRD supports a precautionary approach to the conservation, management and sustainable use of natural biodiversity resources (such as wildlife, fisheries and forest products) and will seek to ensure that its operations include measures to safeguard critical habitats and, where feasible, enhance natural habitats and the biodiversity they support. The EBRD highlights the survival of endangered or critically endangered species, endemic or geographically restricted species and sub-species, migratory or congregatory species, assemblages of species associated with key evolutionary processes, and species that are vital to the ecosystem as a whole (keystone species).

There is overlap between PR6, PR1 (Environmental and Social Appraisal) and PR7 (Indigenous Peoples) with regard to the potential values of impacted biodiversity.

Useful reference

www.ebrd.com/about/policies/enviro/policy/policy.pdf.

App

endi

x B

39

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s Th

e fo

cus

of th

is P

R is

on

mai

ntai

ning

eco

logi

cal i

nteg

rity

and

func

tioni

ng o

f the

eco

syst

em, a

nd v

iabl

e po

pula

tions

of n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

The

EB

RD

cat

egor

ises

pro

ject

s as

A, B

or C

, in

term

s of

the

likel

y si

gnifi

canc

e of

thei

r im

pact

s, a

s de

scrib

ed b

elow

. Whe

re b

iodi

vers

ity

impa

cts

are

crea

ted

by a

pro

ject

, the

requ

irem

ents

of P

R6

will

nee

d to

be

follo

wed

incl

udin

g th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e m

itiga

tion

hier

arch

y, a

nd th

e in

tegr

atio

n of

any

nec

essa

ry b

iodi

vers

ity a

ctio

ns in

to a

n E

nviro

nmen

tal a

nd S

ocia

l Act

ion

Pla

n (E

SA

P).

The

ES

AP

aim

s to

‘foc

us o

n av

oida

nce

of im

pact

s, a

nd w

here

this

is n

ot p

ossi

ble,

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

to m

inim

ise

or re

duce

pos

sibl

e im

pact

s to

ac

cept

able

leve

ls’.

�C

ateg

ory

A p

roje

cts

are

‘gre

enfie

ld’ o

r inv

olve

maj

or e

xten

sion

or t

rans

form

atio

n-co

nver

sion

. The

y re

quire

com

preh

ensi

ve

envi

ronm

enta

l and

/ or

soc

ial i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t, to

iden

tify

and

asse

ss th

e po

tent

ial i

mpa

cts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct,

iden

tify

pote

ntia

l im

prov

emen

t opp

ortu

nitie

s, a

nd re

com

men

d an

y m

easu

res

need

ed to

avo

id, o

r whe

re a

void

ance

is n

ot p

ossi

ble,

m

inim

ise

and

miti

gate

adv

erse

impa

cts.

�

Cat

egor

y B

pro

ject

s m

ay re

quire

a v

arie

ty o

f due

dili

genc

e in

vest

igat

ions

, dep

endi

ng o

n th

e pr

ojec

t’s n

atur

e, s

ize

and

loca

tion,

as

wel

l as

the

char

acte

ristic

s of

the

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s an

d ris

ks. D

ue d

ilige

nce

shou

ld id

entif

y an

d as

sess

any

pot

entia

l fut

ure

impa

cts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct, i

dent

ify p

oten

tial i

mpr

ovem

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties,

and

reco

mm

end

any

mea

sure

s ne

eded

to a

void

, or

whe

re a

void

ance

is n

ot p

ossi

ble,

min

imis

e, a

nd m

itiga

te a

dver

se im

pact

s.

�C

ateg

ory

C p

roje

cts,

hav

ing

min

imal

or n

o ad

vers

e im

pact

s, w

ill n

ot b

e su

bjec

t to

furth

er e

nviro

nmen

tal o

r soc

ial a

ppra

isal

.

If, a

fter a

ll re

ason

able

opt

ions

to a

void

, min

imis

e or

miti

gate

bio

dive

rsity

impa

cts

have

bee

n ex

haus

ted,

ther

e ar

e st

ill re

sidu

al im

pact

s af

fect

ing

biod

iver

sity

, offs

ets

may

be

requ

ired

in li

ne w

ith a

‘NO

NET

LO

SS’ a

ppro

ach.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

PR

6 di

vide

s ha

bita

ts in

to s

ever

al c

ateg

orie

s, w

ith th

ese

cate

gorie

s de

finin

g th

e ke

y re

quire

men

ts in

that

HA

BITA

T TY

PE. T

hese

cat

egor

ies

are

‘mod

ified

’, ‘n

atur

al’ a

nd ‘c

ritic

al’ h

abita

ts, a

nd ‘p

rote

cted

/ de

sign

ated

are

as’.

Irres

pect

ive

of th

e ca

tego

ry, i

t is

reco

gnis

ed th

at a

ll ha

bita

ts s

uppo

rt liv

ing

orga

nism

s an

d th

eref

ore

due

dilig

ence

mus

t con

side

r whe

ther

or n

ot th

ere

wou

ld b

e m

ater

ial b

iodi

vers

ity im

pact

s.

Whe

re m

odifi

ed (o

r new

ly c

reat

ed h

abita

ts) m

ay b

e im

pact

ed, t

he c

lient

sho

uld

aim

to m

inim

ise

any

furth

er d

egra

datio

n or

con

vers

ion

of

habi

tat.

That

is, w

here

ther

e is

mer

it on

con

serv

atio

n gr

ound

s an

d de

pend

ing

upon

the

natu

re a

nd s

cale

of t

he p

roje

ct, t

he c

lient

sho

uld

iden

tify

oppo

rtuni

ties

to e

nhan

ce h

abita

ts, p

rote

ct a

nd c

onse

rve

biod

iver

sity

or e

ncou

rage

sus

tain

able

har

vest

ing

or m

anag

emen

t of t

he

area

in q

uest

ion.

In a

reas

of ‘

natu

ral h

abita

t’ (d

efin

ed a

s la

nd a

nd w

ater

are

as w

here

the

biol

ogic

al c

omm

uniti

es a

re fo

rmed

larg

ely

by n

ativ

e pl

ant a

nd

anim

al s

peci

es, a

nd w

here

hum

an a

ctiv

ity h

as n

ot e

ssen

tially

mod

ified

the

area

’s p

rimar

y ec

olog

ical

func

tions

), th

ere

mus

t be

no

sign

ifica

nt d

egra

datio

n or

con

vers

ion

of th

e ha

bita

t to

the

exte

nt th

at (i

) the

eco

logi

cal i

nteg

rity

and

func

tioni

ng o

f the

eco

syst

em is

co

mpr

omis

ed o

r (ii)

the

habi

tat i

s de

plet

ed to

the

exte

nt th

at it

cou

ld n

o lo

nger

sup

port

viab

le p

opul

atio

ns o

f its

nat

ive

spec

ies,

unl

ess:

�Th

ere

are

no te

chni

cally

and

eco

nom

ical

ly fe

asib

le A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S, a

nd;

�Th

e ov

eral

l ben

efits

of t

he p

roje

ct o

utw

eigh

the

cost

s, in

clud

ing

thos

e to

the

envi

ronm

ent a

nd b

iodi

vers

ity; a

nd

�A

ppro

pria

te m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s ar

e pu

t in

plac

e to

ens

ure

no n

et lo

ss a

nd p

refe

rabl

y a

net g

ain

of b

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

in th

e ha

bita

t co

ncer

ned,

or,

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, a

hab

itat o

f gre

ater

con

serv

atio

n va

lue.

‘Crit

ical

hab

itat’

is d

efin

ed b

y vi

rtue

of (i

) its

hig

h bi

odiv

ersi

ty v

alue

, (ii)

its

impo

rtanc

e to

the

surv

ival

of e

ndan

gere

d or

crit

ical

ly

enda

nger

ed s

peci

es, (

iii) i

ts im

porta

nce

to e

ndem

ic o

r geo

grap

hica

lly re

stric

ted

spec

ies

and

sub-

spec

ies,

(iv)

its

impo

rtanc

e to

mig

rato

ry

or c

ongr

egat

ory

spec

ies,

(v) i

ts ro

le in

sup

porti

ng a

ssem

blag

es o

f spe

cies

ass

ocia

ted

with

key

evo

lutio

nary

pro

cess

es, (

vi) i

ts ro

le in

su

ppor

ting

biod

iver

sity

of s

igni

fican

t soc

ial,

econ

omic

al o

r cul

tura

l im

porta

nce

to lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es, o

r (vi

i) its

impo

rtanc

e to

spe

cies

that

ar

e vi

tal t

o th

e ec

osys

tem

as

a w

hole

(key

ston

e sp

ecie

s).C

ritic

al h

abita

t mus

t not

be

conv

erte

d or

deg

rade

d. C

onse

quen

tly, i

n ar

eas

of

criti

cal h

abita

t, th

e cl

ient

will

not

impl

emen

t any

pro

ject

act

iviti

es u

nles

s th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s ar

e m

et:

App

endi

x B

40

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

�A

ny d

ue p

roce

ss re

quire

d un

der i

nter

natio

nal o

blig

atio

ns o

r dom

estic

law

that

is a

pre

requ

isite

to a

cou

ntry

gra

ntin

g ap

prov

al fo

r pro

ject

ac

tiviti

es in

or a

djac

ent t

o a

criti

cal h

abita

t has

bee

n co

mpl

ied

with

. �

Ther

e ar

e no

mea

sura

ble

adve

rse

impa

cts,

or l

ikel

ihoo

d of

suc

h, o

n th

e cr

itica

l hab

itat w

hich

cou

ld im

pair

its a

bilit

y to

func

tion

in th

e w

ay(s

) not

ed in

the

prec

edin

g pa

ragr

aph

(whi

ch d

efin

es c

ritic

al h

abita

t).�

Taki

ng a

pre

caut

iona

ry p

ersp

ectiv

e, th

e pr

ojec

t is

not a

ntic

ipat

ed to

lead

to a

redu

ctio

n in

the

popu

latio

n of

any

end

ange

red

or c

ritic

ally

en

dang

ered

spe

cies

or a

loss

in a

rea

of th

e ha

bita

t con

cern

ed s

uch

that

the

PERS

ISTE

NCE

of a

via

ble

and

repr

esen

tativ

e ho

st e

cosy

stem

be

com

prom

ised

.In

all

case

s w

here

impa

cts

are

iden

tifie

d, w

here

atte

mpt

s ha

ve b

een

mad

e to

avo

id, m

inim

ise

and

miti

gate

thos

e im

pact

s an

d w

here

si

gnifi

cant

resi

dual

impa

cts

on b

iodi

vers

ity re

mai

n, th

e cl

ient

is re

quire

d to

iden

tify

actio

ns o

r pro

ject

s to

offs

et th

ose

impa

cts.

Any

suc

h of

fset

pro

ject

mus

t be

stru

ctur

ed in

agr

eem

ent w

ith th

e E

BR

D. E

BR

D d

oes

not s

et th

resh

olds

for w

hen

or w

here

an

offs

et is

app

licab

le,

but t

he P

R d

oes

mak

e a

stat

emen

t tha

t bio

dive

rsity

offs

ets

are

very

muc

h vi

ewed

as

a la

st re

sort

mea

sure

(see

Par

agra

ph 8

) whe

n al

l ot

her m

easu

res

have

bee

n ta

ken.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eN

o ne

t los

s an

d pr

efer

ably

a n

et g

ain

of b

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

in th

e ha

bita

t con

cern

ed o

r, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, a h

abita

t of g

reat

er

cons

erva

tion

valu

e.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsA

n of

fset

in th

e ha

bita

t con

cern

ed, o

r, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, a h

abita

t of g

reat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

valu

e. A

ny o

ffset

pro

ject

s m

ust b

e st

ruct

ured

an

d ag

reed

with

EB

RD

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyN

o sp

ecifi

c m

etho

dolo

gy is

adv

ocat

ed.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

in

rela

tion

to e

cosy

stem

se

rvic

es

The

EB

RD

take

s in

to a

ccou

nt th

e us

e an

d CU

LTU

RAL

VALU

ES o

f bio

dive

rsity

by

spec

ifica

lly a

ddre

ssin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

f sig

nific

ant s

ocia

l, ec

onom

ical

or c

ultu

ral i

mpo

rtanc

e to

loca

l com

mun

ities

.Th

e E

BR

D re

quire

s th

at th

e cl

ient

com

pens

ate

the

affe

cted

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es d

irect

ly fo

r any

loss

of l

ivel

ihoo

d in

curr

ed a

s a

resu

lt of

pr

ojec

t rel

ated

act

iviti

es a

nd re

inst

ate

any

land

use

d to

its

prev

ious

sta

tus.

In a

dditi

on, i

f the

clie

nt p

ropo

ses

to lo

cate

the

proj

ect o

n, o

r co

mm

erci

ally

dev

elop

nat

ural

reso

urce

s lo

cate

d w

ithin

, cus

tom

ary

land

s un

der u

se, a

nd a

dver

se im

pact

s ca

n be

exp

ecte

d on

the

livel

ihoo

ds, o

r cul

tura

l, ce

rem

onia

l, or

spi

ritua

l use

s th

at d

efin

e th

e id

entit

y an

d co

mm

unity

of t

he In

dige

nous

Peo

ples

, the

clie

nt w

ill

resp

ect t

heir

use

and

offe

r cul

tura

lly a

ppro

pria

te d

evel

opm

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties;

land

-bas

ed c

ompe

nsat

ion

or c

ompe

nsat

ion-

in-k

ind

in li

eu o

f ca

sh c

ompe

nsat

ion

whe

re fe

asib

le. F

REE,

PRI

OR

AN

D IN

FORM

ED C

ON

SEN

T is

an

impo

rtant

com

pone

nt o

f the

EB

RD

’s P

R7

and

PR

10.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

PR

10 c

over

s st

akeh

olde

r eng

agem

ent.

Clie

nts

mus

t ide

ntify

sta

keho

lder

s po

tent

ially

affe

cted

by

thei

r pro

ject

s, d

iscl

ose

suffi

cien

t in

form

atio

n ab

out i

ssue

s an

d im

pact

s ar

isin

g fro

m th

e pr

ojec

ts a

nd c

onsu

lt w

ith s

take

hold

ers

in a

mea

ning

ful a

nd c

ultu

rally

app

ropr

iate

m

anne

r. Th

e E

BR

D m

ay, i

n so

me

case

s, c

ondu

ct it

s ow

n pu

blic

con

sulta

tion

activ

ities

for C

ateg

ory

A p

roje

cts.

Impl

emen

tatio

nE

BR

D’s

env

ironm

enta

l and

soc

ial a

ppra

isal

incl

udes

con

side

ratio

n of

thre

e ke

y el

emen

ts: (

i) th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd s

ocia

l im

pact

s an

d is

sues

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

prop

osed

pro

ject

, (ii)

the

capa

city

and

com

mitm

ent o

f the

clie

nt to

add

ress

thes

e im

pact

s an

d is

sues

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

is P

olic

y, a

nd (i

ii) th

e ro

le o

f thi

rd p

artie

s in

ach

ievi

ng c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

is P

olic

y.

Thro

ugh

its te

chni

cal c

oope

ratio

n ac

tiviti

es, E

BR

D w

ill s

eek

to m

obili

se s

uppo

rt to

pro

vide

cap

acity

bui

ldin

g pr

ogra

mm

es a

nd o

ther

form

s of

ass

ista

nce

to e

nhan

ce th

e pr

ojec

ts it

fina

nces

; for

exa

mpl

e by

bui

ldin

g th

e ne

cess

ary

capa

city

for c

onsi

dera

tion

and

man

agem

ent o

f en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd s

ocia

l iss

ues

in it

s co

untri

es o

f ope

ratio

n, o

r inc

reas

ing

equi

tabl

e ac

cess

to th

e po

tent

ial b

enef

its o

f EB

RD

-fund

ed

proj

ects

.

Sou

rces

:ww

w.e

brd.

com

/abo

ut/p

olic

ies/

envi

ro/p

olic

y/po

licy.

pdfa

nd p

erso

nal c

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith M

ark

Hug

hes

(EB

RD

) in

Oct

ober

200

8.

41


Appendix C: Methodologies currently being developed

C.1 The approach and methodology adapted and developed by BBOP, and currently being tested at the BBOP pilot sitesThis Appendix is structured as follows:

� Context and background for the development of methods and tools for use at the BBOP PILOT PROJECTS.

� A broad overview of the approach.

� Some illustrations of the kind of tools that can be used at various steps in the process, including an approach to calculating LOSS and GAIN.

C.1.1 Context and background for the development of methods and tools for use at the BBOP pilot projects

The approach and methodology described here have been designed for voluntary biodiversity offsets, which are primarily the responsibility of the companies developing them. Parts of the tools are based on methodologies that have been used in countries such as Australia and the USA for many years. Some of the tools (or modified versions) have been applied at the BBOP pilot projects. The tools are designed to be applied in conjunction with stakeholders, who could offer an opinion on whether the offset has successfully applied the BBOP PRINCIPLES ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS, and is adequate.

BBOP started its work at the end of 2004, when the Shell Pearl project and Newmont Akyem project were the first pilot projects to join the programme. Early meetings of the BBOP Advisory Committee (Bangkok, November 2004; Washington DC, June 2005; Brazil, March 2006 and South Africa, September 2006) discussed different approaches to offset design which are often used in a regulatory context, particularly in the US and Australia. Participants commented on early prototype drafts of offset methodologies and guidance for the design of voluntary biodiversity offsets that the BBOP Secretariat had prepared with input from Advisory Committee members. Drafts of methods following the basic steps outlined in this Handbook have been developed by the BBOP Secretariat with contributions by many members of the Advisory Committee since 2006 and available to the pilot project partners. However, the draft methodologies have been evolving in parallel with early progress at the pilot projects, based on experience and suggestions from the Advisory Committee. In addition, drafts of potential elements of principles for biodiversity offsets have been discussed since September 2006, but the first draft of the set of principles laid out in Part 1 of this document was only prepared in February 2008, since which time it has been the basis for consultation culminating in final text in December 2008. Consequently, the methodology described here was not available in its entirety to the pilot projects when they started work on the design of their pilot offsets, nor were the underlying principles.

Some of the pilot projects joined BBOP comparatively recently (e.g. Solid Energy New Zealand only joined with its Strongman pilot in October 2007) and, for others, the process of obtaining government consent to initiate the development project concerned has taken years longer than initially anticipated, which has slowed

Appendix C 42


the process of offset design. None of the companies has yet worked through all the steps involved in offset design and described in this Handbook. Finally, Phase 1 of BBOP has involved just five pilot projects with large companies (Shell, Newmont, AngloAmerican, Sherritt, Solid Energy New Zealand), and a sixth involving a small real estate development working with a local authority (Bainbridge). BBOP’s seventh pilot, a small, community-led project in Kenya (SORALO), is still outlining the scope of the project and seeking project finance, so has not yet started offset design. With such a small sample size and only partial experience on the part of the pilots in using and testing the draft BBOP tools, the approach in this Appendix is best described as experimental and evolving. Indeed, its guidance on some aspects of voluntary offset design (such as TRADING UP, accounting for changes in the persistence of individual species and the use of MULTIPLIERS) is hesitant and preliminary, since there has not been much public and expert discussion on these topics internationally, and thus little ‘BEST PRACTICE’ upon which BBOP can draw.

With these caveats, the approach described here offers some optional guidance on which developers planning voluntary biodiversity offsets can draw, alongside the other approaches described in this Handbook. The approach is intended to be pragmatic and flexible and offer one method for offset design, from initial conception to selection of offset locations and activities. (At that point, OFFSET PLANNERS could turn to the OFFSET IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK to define the way the offset will be implemented.) The method has been developed to be applicable in all countries and biomes, from desert to tropical and temperate forest to the marine environment. Its suitability will depend upon the availability of adequate data, human and financial resources to apply it meaningfully. A qualified ecologist and local communities’ knowledge is needed to complete the offset design, but the approach can be understood by a non-expert.

C.1.2 A broad overview of the approach developed and adapted for use in the design of biodiversity offsets and by the pilot projects

Broadly, the approach follows the steps described in the Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook, namely: describing the project; exploring the policy context; engaging stakeholders; undertaking biodiversity surveys and applying the MITIGATION HIERARCHY; quantifying residual impacts; identifying and comparing potential offset sites; calculating CONSERVATION GAINS for preferred offset sites; and deciding upon the final scope, scale, nature and location of offset.

The premise of the approach is to plan an offset whose aim is to achieve NO NET LOSS of biodiversity as a whole, and to use various methods to be as sure as is reasonably practicable that this will be the outcome, recognising that it is not possible to quantify every last component of biodiversity. The approach involves:

� Using comprehensive BASELINE data on biodiversity, generally prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, to be familiar with the breadth and significance of the biodiversity in the area of the development project and the project’s likely impact upon it. Checking available data for any gaps, and filling these through additional desk- and field-based research.

� Identifying and describing the ‘KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS’ in a matrix: all those components of biodiversity at the species, ecological communities and assemblages and ecosystem levels that stand out as conservation priorities for their intrinsic, use and cultural values. (Note: the BIODIVERSITY OFFSET COST-BENEFIT HANDBOOK offers suggestions on identifying these use and cultural values.) Local stakeholders as well as national and international experts contribute to this process, to ensure that their priorities (which are likely to be related to uses for livelihoods and AMENITY and cultural aspects, such as aesthetic and religious values) are embraced. The purpose of the Key Biodiversity Components Matrix is to:

i) Capture those biodiversity components that are regarded as high priorities for beneficial outcomes through the biodiversity offset. The ability of potential offset sites and activities to deliver conservation gain for each of these components is checked during the site selection process. Since this matrix

Appendix C 43


covers not only species but the communities / assemblages and ecosystems levels, an offset that delivers benefits for the components prioritised in the matrix should also deliver benefits for other components of biodiversity within the same communities and ecosystems.

ii) Inform the selection of the components of biodiversity to be used to calculate LOSS and GAIN.

� Assessing the residual adverse impact on biodiversity after the ‘avoid, minimise and restore’ steps in the mitigation hierarchy have been applied, and checking whether the impacts can be offset.

� Quantifying the residual loss of biodiversity using the method described in the table and text below. This is primarily based on an area x quality approach, using a BENCHMARK approach to calculating ‘HABITAT HECTARES’, supplemented where necessary with a calculation of species population / occupancy for certain species. (This second approach is a recent addition and is still being developed and tested at one of the pilot projects.) Other biodiversity SURROGATES or economic evaluation methods focussed on people’s cultural and USE VALUES are also used to establish a package of benefits needed to motivate stakeholders to support the offset, compensating them for residual impacts on their livelihoods and amenity and engaging them in OFFSET IMPLEMENTATION (e.g. through sustainable livelihood activities from which they benefit).

� Determining whether the offset should be IN-KIND or OUT-OF-KIND, based on national and regional biodiversity priorities. ’LIKE-FOR-LIKE’ is the first presumption, but the best CONSERVATION OUTCOME is encouraged, so ‘trading up’ to an out-of-kind offset can be justified, provided there is evidence to support this decision. ‘Like-for-like’ is defined through a combination of quantitative techniques, expert opinion and checking during the site selection procedure that the Key Biodiversity Components are present at the offsetsite.

� Selecting and comparing potential offset sites and activities to choose those that are sufficient to offset the losses caused by the project’s impacts, taking into account the probability of the offset’s being fully implemented, and that the offset will be feasible, accepted by stakeholders, and likely to succeed in the long term. This involves comparing how each Key Biodiversity Component and benchmark ATTRIBUTE is predicted to change under the status quo scenario with how it is predicted to change following the specific offset interventions, to check ‘ADDITIONALITY’. The probability of successful change through the OFFSET ACTIVITIES is assessed for each of the attributes that comprise the offset METRICS, so that the scale of the offset is planned to reflect a real likelihood of achieving no net loss.

� Calculating (using the same approaches used to calculate the residual losses at the project site) the amount of biodiversity that could be gained through the offset(s) at the preferred site(s), and considering which (if any) ‘multipliers’ may be appropriate to use to plan a ‘no net loss’ offset in the face of risk and uncertainty; considering issues of scale and landscape-level planning to ensure the offset will be viable and fit into broader spatial and conservation plans; integrating the conservation activities with sustainable use projects and COMPENSATION addressing use and cultural values; determining whether a single offset site or a ‘composite’ offset is preferable and necessary ; and checking acceptance, feasibility and likelihood of success.

Some of the key features of the approach are described in the following table.

App

endi

x C

44

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

he a

ppro

ach

used

at B

BO

P pi

lot s

ites

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Offs

et ta

rget

A

ll: in

trins

ic, e

cono

mic

and

cul

tura

l val

ues

are

cove

red

acro

ss a

ll BI

OTI

C le

vels

and

spa

tial s

cale

s of

org

anis

atio

n, in

clud

ing

to s

ome

degr

ee th

e in

tera

ctio

ns b

etw

een

thes

e le

vels

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

The

miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

mus

t be

appl

ied.

The

met

hod

revi

ews

step

s to

avo

id a

nd m

inim

ise

impa

cts,

rest

ore

biod

iver

sity

afte

r the

impa

cts,

and

on

ly o

ffset

the

resi

dual

effe

cts.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

Upp

er a

nd lo

wer

th

resh

olds

Low

er: A

ccor

ding

to th

e BB

OP

PRIN

CIPL

ES, a

n of

fset

sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d fo

r ‘si

gnifi

cant

’ res

idua

l adv

erse

impa

cts

on

biod

iver

sity

, but

it is

up

to d

evel

oper

s an

d th

eir s

take

hold

ers

to d

eter

min

e w

hat i

s ‘s

igni

fican

t’ on

a c

ase

by c

ase

basi

s.U

pper

: The

app

roac

h in

volv

es a

n an

alys

is o

f whe

ther

it is

pos

sibl

e to

offs

et th

e pr

ojec

t’s im

pact

s on

diff

eren

t com

pone

nts

of b

iodi

vers

ity, b

ased

on

a co

nsid

erat

ion

of th

eir I

RREP

LACE

ABI

LITY

and

VU

LNER

ABI

LITY

, as

disc

usse

d in

Ste

p 4

of th

is

Han

dboo

k.

Des

ired

or

requ

ired

outc

ome

The

goal

of b

iodi

vers

ity o

ffset

s is

to a

chie

ve n

o ne

t los

s or

a N

ET G

AIN

of b

iodi

vers

ity o

n th

e gr

ound

with

resp

ect t

o sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n,

HA

BITA

T ST

RUCT

URE

and

ECO

SYST

EM F

UN

CTIO

N, i

nclu

ding

LIV

ELIH

OO

D a

spec

ts.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsTo

cou

nt a

s pa

rt of

the

offs

et, a

ctiv

ities

mus

t inv

olve

mea

sura

ble

‘on

the

grou

nd’ c

onse

rvat

ion

outc

omes

(i.e

. ‘in

situ

’ con

serv

atio

n, a

s de

fined

by

the

Con

vent

ion

on B

iolo

gica

l Div

ersi

ty).

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g, e

duca

tion

and

rese

arch

to s

uppo

rt th

is c

an b

e ex

trem

ely

valu

able

but

are

not

re

gard

ed a

s pa

rt of

the

calc

ulat

ion

of th

e co

re o

ffset

, unl

ess

they

als

o gi

ve ri

se to

mea

sura

ble

on th

e gr

ound

con

serv

atio

n ou

tcom

es.

The

offs

et is

des

igne

d to

del

iver

‘no

net l

oss’

or a

‘net

gai

n’ o

f bio

dive

rsity

, thr

ough

a ‘l

ike-

for-

like

or b

ette

r’ of

fset

that

dem

onst

rate

s ad

ditio

nalit

y. T

he a

im o

f the

app

roac

h is

to d

eliv

er a

dditi

onal

con

serv

atio

n ou

tcom

es fo

r bio

dive

rsity

to a

chie

ve n

o ne

t los

s ov

eral

l, bu

t pa

rticu

larly

by

dem

onst

ratin

g ga

ins

for ‘

Key

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nts’

iden

tifie

d ea

rly in

the

offs

et d

esig

n pr

oces

s (o

r hig

her p

riorit

y ke

y bi

odiv

ersi

ty c

ompo

nent

s, if

‘tra

ding

up’

can

be

just

ified

). O

ffset

site

s an

d ac

tiviti

es a

re s

elec

ted

that

will

:�

Be

appr

opria

te to

del

iver

gai

ns o

f eac

h K

ey B

iodi

vers

ity C

ompo

nent

thro

ugh

man

agem

ent i

nter

vent

ions

(pos

itive

man

agem

ent,

ARR

ESTE

D

DEG

RAD

ATI

ON

or A

VERT

ED R

ISK)

at t

he c

hose

n of

fset

site

(s);

�R

esul

t in

an a

dequ

ate

amou

nt o

f gai

n fo

r bio

dive

rsity

ove

rall,

bas

ed o

n th

e lo

ss /

gain

cal

cula

tions

des

crib

ed b

elow

; and

�M

otiv

ate

stak

ehol

ders

to s

uppo

rt th

e of

fset

, by

com

pens

atin

g th

em fo

r RES

IDU

AL

IMPA

CTS

on th

eir u

se a

nd c

ultu

ral v

alue

s as

soci

ated

with

bi

odiv

ersi

ty a

nd e

ngag

ing

them

in o

ffset

impl

emen

tatio

n (e

.g. t

hrou

gh s

usta

inab

le li

velih

ood

activ

ities

from

whi

ch th

ey b

enef

it).

Offs

et

met

hodo

logy

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he c

urre

ncy

This

app

roac

h dr

aws

on th

ree

othe

rs:

1.

The

fund

amen

tal b

asis

for t

he lo

ss /

gain

cal

cula

tion

is th

e ad

apte

d ‘h

abita

t hec

tare

s’ m

etric

that

take

s in

to a

ccou

nt

the

area

affe

cted

and

the

qual

ity o

r CO

ND

ITIO

N o

f the

bio

dive

rsity

impa

cted

. Thi

s w

as b

ased

on

the

Vic

toria

, Aus

tralia

ha

bita

t hec

tare

s m

easu

re, b

ut w

hile

the

latte

r foc

used

on

vege

tatio

n, th

is c

over

s fa

una,

too.

2.

This

can

be

supp

lem

ente

d, if

nee

d be

, with

a m

etric

bas

ed o

n sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion

viab

ility

. 3.

A

ctiv

ities

and

mea

sure

s ne

eded

to c

ompe

nsat

e co

mm

uniti

es a

ffect

ed b

y th

e de

velo

pmen

t pro

ject

and

offs

et a

nd

invo

lve

them

in o

ffset

impl

emen

tatio

n ar

e ca

lcul

ated

as

part

of th

e of

fset

des

ign.

Muc

h of

the

met

hodo

logy

for t

his

is

cove

red

in th

e B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Cos

t-Ben

efit

Han

dboo

k, b

ut th

e re

sults

are

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

offs

et d

esig

n.

App

endi

x C

45

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

he a

ppro

ach

used

at B

BO

P pi

lot s

ites

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

Som

e of

the

BEN

CHM

ARK

attri

bute

s ca

n, a

nd s

houl

d, re

late

to L

AN

DSC

APE

CO

NTE

XT, s

uch

as p

atch

siz

e an

d de

gree

of

isol

atio

n or

FRA

GM

ENTA

TIO

N. T

hese

can

als

o be

use

d to

pro

vide

mea

sure

s of

the

land

scap

e-le

vel C

ON

NEC

TIVI

TY re

quire

d fo

r pot

entia

l offs

et s

ites

to a

dequ

atel

y of

fset

the

loss

es. I

n ad

ditio

n, c

ompa

rativ

e an

alys

is o

f a ra

nge

of o

ffset

opt

ions

ag

ains

t the

Key

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nts

Mat

rix e

nabl

es th

e of

fset

pla

nner

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er o

ne p

oten

tial o

ffset

site

or

a c

ombi

natio

n of

site

s w

ould

be

need

ed to

del

iver

con

serv

atio

n ga

ins

for a

ll th

e K

ey B

iodi

vers

ity C

ompo

nent

s, a

nd th

e lo

ss /

gain

cal

cula

tions

an

appr

opria

te a

mou

nt o

f add

ition

al c

onse

rvat

ion

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd

ratio

sTh

e pr

obab

ility

of s

ucce

ssfu

l cha

nge

thro

ugh

the

offs

et a

ctiv

ities

is a

sses

sed

for e

ach

of th

e at

tribu

tes

that

com

pris

e th

e of

fset

met

rics.

Site

sel

ectio

n he

lps

addr

ess

corr

elat

ed ri

sk. I

n ad

ditio

n, th

e ap

proa

ch s

ugge

sts

that

mul

tiplie

rs c

an h

elp

take

into

acc

ount

the

risk

of fa

ilure

or p

artia

l fai

lure

of t

he o

ffset

, tho

ugh

cann

ot b

e us

ed to

dea

l with

unc

erta

inty

abo

ut th

e fe

asib

ility

or e

ffica

cy o

f con

serv

atio

n m

easu

res.

Mul

tiplie

rs c

an a

lso

help

acc

ount

for d

isco

untin

g of

futu

re b

iodi

vers

ity

valu

es to

add

ress

tem

pora

l los

s. T

his

area

is s

till i

n its

infa

ncy

in te

rms

of a

pplic

atio

n in

vol

unta

ry o

ffset

s, s

o th

e gu

idan

ce

give

n is

qui

te b

asic

.

Rel

atio

n to

ec

osys

tem

se

rvic

es

This

app

roac

h fo

cuse

s on

intri

nsic

, use

and

CULT

URA

L VA

LUES

of b

iodi

vers

ity, w

hich

und

erpi

n re

gula

ting

and

supp

ortin

g se

rvic

es. P

rovi

sion

ing

and

cultu

ral s

ervi

ces

rela

ted

to b

iodi

vers

ity (c

ultu

ral a

nd U

SE V

ALU

ES in

the

term

inol

ogy

of th

is H

andb

ook)

are

con

side

red

in th

e B

iodi

vers

ity

Offs

ets

Cos

t-Ben

efit

Han

dboo

k an

d th

en in

corp

orat

ed in

the

final

offs

et d

esig

n. H

owev

er, t

he a

ppro

ach

does

not

see

k to

qua

ntify

eco

syst

em

serv

ices

suc

h as

soi

l sta

bilit

y an

d ca

rbon

and

wat

er c

yclin

g.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

The

stak

ehol

ders

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

pre

parin

g th

e K

ey B

iodi

vers

ity C

ompo

nent

s M

atrix

and

def

inin

g th

e be

nchm

ark

attri

bute

s th

at d

efin

e th

e CU

RREN

CY.

Tim

ing

This

app

roac

h ha

s be

en u

sed

on a

tria

l bas

is fo

r ind

ivid

ual p

roje

cts,

cal

cula

ting

the

impa

cts

mos

tly b

efor

e th

ey h

appe

n (th

ere

is o

ne re

trosp

ectiv

e pi

lot p

roje

ct) a

nd a

imin

g to

sta

rt th

e of

fset

impl

emen

tatio

n du

ring

the

proj

ect’s

ope

ratio

ns. I

t co

uld

be u

sed

to im

plem

ent o

ffset

s pr

ior t

o im

pact

s, a

s in

con

serv

atio

n ba

nkin

g.

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Dur

atio

nG

ood

prac

tice

is fo

r the

offs

et to

end

ure

at le

ast a

s lo

ng a

s th

e pr

ojec

t’s im

pact

s, a

nd p

refe

rabl

y in

PER

PETU

ITY.

The

B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Impl

emen

tatio

n H

andb

ook

offe

rs m

etho

ds th

at c

an b

e us

ed to

pla

n an

d m

onito

r offs

ets

for

impl

emen

tatio

n ov

er th

e lo

ng te

rm.

Impl

emen

tatio

n an

d po

licy

ques

tions

Targ

et a

udie

nce

The

prin

cipa

l use

rs a

re li

kely

to b

e th

ose

resp

onsi

ble

for e

nviro

nmen

tal p

erfo

rman

ce in

com

pani

es d

evel

opin

g vo

lunt

ary

offs

ets,

and

thei

r ec

olog

ist s

taff

/ con

sulta

nts.

Add

ition

al u

sers

may

incl

ude

com

mun

ities

, lan

dow

ners

and

pol

icy

mak

ers.

Als

o re

gula

tory

and

con

sent

ing

auth

oriti

es.

Res

ourc

es

need

ed

Dep

ends

on

avai

labi

lity

of e

xist

ing

info

rmat

ion.

Initi

al te

sts

sugg

est t

hat t

he m

etho

d ca

n re

ason

ably

be

impl

emen

ted

with

in e

xist

ing

proc

edur

es

and

budg

ets.

Appendix C 46


C.1.3 Some illustrations of the kind of tools that can be used at various steps in the process, including an approach to calculating loss and gain

For the first steps of the process (review project scope and activities, review the legal framework and / or policy context for a biodiversity offset, and initiate a stakeholder PARTICIPATION process), please refer to Steps 1 – 3 in the main Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. The following tables offer an example of some tools that can be used to help with subsequent steps, as described below. As can be seen from the BBOP PILOT PROJECT case studies, some of these have been used at the BBOP pilot sites.

Determine the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects (Step 4 in the main Offset Design Handbook)

The following ‘Key Biodiversity Components Matrix’ was developed to capture those biodiversity components that are regarded as high priorities for beneficial outcomes through the biodiversity offset. It can help check whether potential offset sites and activities deliver CONSERVATION GAIN for each of these components during site selection and to inform the selection of the components of biodiversity to be used to calculate LOSS and GAIN. More discussion on this step can be found in Step 4 of the main Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook.

INTRINSIC VALUES USEVALUES

CULTURALVALUES

VULNERABILITY / THREAT IRREPLACEABILITYBIODIVERSITYCOMPONENT

Global National Local Site endemic Localised Widespread

Species

Communities / Assemblages / Habitats

Whole landscape / Ecosystem*

* Record in the ‘Whole landscape / Ecosystem’ row:

� Landscapes / ecosystems that might be affected by the project and are vulnerable and / or irreplaceable;

� Key features of the landscape such as connectivity; and

� Regulating or supporting ecosystem services that are particularly important for maintaining key biodiversity components captured elsewhere in this table.

Table C.1-1 could be useful for identifying and recording key biodiversity components and their values, and how impacts on these values are to be mitigated, during Step 4 of the offset design process. Use of a table such as this can help to check the application of the MITIGATION HIERARCHY and identification of residual adverse effects.

App

endi

x C

47

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Tabl

e C

.1-1

: A

tabl

e su

ch a

s th

is c

an b

e us

ed to

con

side

r the

app

licat

ion

of th

e m

itiga

tion

hier

arch

y to

the

Key

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nts

and

whe

ther

the

offs

et fo

r eac

h co

mpo

nent

sho

uld

be ‘i

n-ki

nd’ (

rele

vant

to S

teps

4 a

nd 6

in th

e m

ain

Offs

et D

esig

n H

andb

ook)

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL

MN

OP

Q

1Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent &

Miti

gatio

n H

iera

rchy

2 3 4 5G

loba

lN

atio

nal

Loca

lS

ite

End

emic

Loca

lize

dW

ides

prea

d6 7

(e.g

. B

ird)

00

00

00

80

00

00

00

09

00

00

00

00

1 00

00

00

00

01 1

00

00

00

00

1 20

00

00

00

01 3

00

00

00

00

1 40

00

00

00

01 5

00

00

00

00

3 6To

add

mor

e ro

ws…

00

00

00

00

3 73 8(e

.g. D

egra

ded

Fore

st)

00

00

3 90

00

00

00

00

4 00

00

00

00

00

4 10

00

00

00

00

4 20

00

00

00

00

4 30

00

00

00

00

440

00

00

00

00

450

00

00

00

00

460

00

00

00

00

67To

add

mor

e ro

ws…

00

00

00

00

68 690

00

00

00

00

700

00

00

00

00

710

00

00

00

00

720

00

00

00

00

730

00

00

00

00

740

00

00

00

00

750

00

00

00

00

760

00

00

00

00

770

00

00

00

00

780

00

00

00

00

98To

add

mor

e ro

ws…

00

00

00

00

Hab

itats

Avo

idan

ce

or

miti

gatio

n st

rate

gy

Pro

ject

A

ctiv

ityS

ocio

econ

omic

V

alue

s

Use

and

Cul

tura

l Val

ues

Cul

tura

l V

alue

s

Just

ifica

tion

(inse

rt co

mm

ents

he

re e

xpla

inin

g da

ta e

nter

ed in

co

lum

ns J

to P

)

Who

le L

ands

cape

s/Ec

osys

tem

s

(che

ck th

e pr

inci

pal

step

)

Sig

nific

ance

Irr

epla

ceab

ility

(mar

k on

ly o

ne)

Offset

Mitigate

Avoid

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nt

Spec

ies

Miti

gatio

n H

iera

rchy

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

tB

iodi

vers

ity A

sses

smen

tIn

trin

sic,

'non

-use

' Val

ues

In-k

ind

rest

rictio

n on

offs

et?

(Y/N

)

Like

ly Im

pact

(q

ualit

ativ

e ba

sed

on

EIA

?)

App

endi

x C

48

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Cho

ose

met

hods

to c

alcu

late

loss

/ ga

in a

nd q

uant

ify re

sidu

al lo

sses

(Ste

p 5

in th

e m

ain

Bio

dive

rsity

Offs

et D

esig

n H

andb

ook)

This

sec

tion

desc

ribes

the

appr

oach

whi

ch is

bei

ng d

evel

oped

and

tria

lled

at th

e B

BO

P p

ilot s

ites

to q

uant

ify lo

sses

and

gai

ns o

f bio

dive

rsity

(d

escr

ibed

in S

tep

5 of

the

mai

n O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k). T

he a

ppro

ach

to q

uant

ifyin

g ga

ins

and

loss

es c

an d

eal w

ith h

abita

t (ty

pe, a

rea

occu

pied

an

d ‘q

ualit

y’);

and

spec

ies’

pop

ulat

ions

(via

bilit

y / P

ERSI

STEN

CE).

The

mai

n st

eps

sum

mar

ised

in T

able

C.1

-2 v

ary

slig

htly

acc

ordi

ng to

whe

ther

the

HA

BITA

T H

ECTA

RES

met

hod

(whi

ch c

an in

clud

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of p

artic

ular

spe

cies

) is

bein

g co

nsid

ered

alo

ne, o

r whe

ther

spe

cies

pop

ulat

ions

are

als

o co

nsid

ered

in a

sup

plem

enta

ry c

alcu

latio

n.

Tabl

e C

.1-2

: Su

mm

ary

of s

teps

for c

alcu

latin

g lo

ss a

nd g

ain

usin

g th

e em

ergi

ng B

BO

P ap

proa

ch

For b

ioto

pes

(the

basi

s of

the

appr

oach

)(If

nec

essa

ry) F

or s

peci

es h

abita

t (If

nec

essa

ry) F

or s

peci

es p

opul

atio

ns

QU

AN

TIFY

ING

RES

IDU

AL

LOSS

CA

USE

D B

Y TH

E PR

OJE

CT

(see

als

o Ta

bles

C.1

-4 a

nd C

.1-5

)

Iden

tify

a BE

NCH

MA

RK. F

ind

‘goo

d’ e

xam

ple

of c

omm

unity

or

ecos

yste

m a

ffect

ed (e

.g. u

ndis

turb

ed, ‘

pris

tine’

– o

r a ‘V

IRTU

AL’

(dat

a-ba

sed)

ben

chm

ark

if ne

cess

ary)

.

Iden

tify

a be

nchm

ark

exam

ple,

sup

porti

ng a

th

rivin

g sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion.

Iden

tify

a be

nchm

ark

spec

ies

popu

latio

n.

Sel

ect a

nd w

eigh

t BEN

CHM

ARK

ATT

RIBU

TES

and

reco

rd a

re

fere

nce

leve

l at t

he b

ench

mar

k si

te fo

r eac

h at

tribu

te.

Sel

ect a

nd w

eigh

t ben

chm

ark

attri

bute

s (a

rea,

ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity, h

abita

t sui

tabi

lity,

leve

l of

dist

urba

nce)

.

Sel

ect a

n ap

prop

riate

MET

RIC

for e

ach

spec

ies,

as

sess

like

lihoo

d of

per

sist

ence

of b

ench

mar

k po

pula

tion

(e.g

. pop

ulat

ion

size

, via

bilit

y, e

tc.)

Qua

ntify

pre

-pro

ject

CO

ND

ITIO

N o

f attr

ibut

es a

t the

pro

ject

site

.Q

uant

ify p

re-p

roje

ct c

ondi

tion

at th

e pr

ojec

t site

.A

sses

s lik

elih

ood

of p

ersi

sten

ce o

f the

pro

ject

si

te p

opul

atio

n (p

re-p

roje

ct).

Pre

dict

pos

t-pro

ject

con

ditio

n fo

r eac

h at

tribu

te a

t the

pro

ject

si

te.

Pre

dict

pos

t-pro

ject

con

ditio

n fo

r eac

h at

tribu

te

at th

e pr

ojec

t site

.A

sses

s im

plic

atio

ns o

f pro

posa

l for

per

sist

ence

of

spe

cies

pop

ulat

ion

(pos

t-pro

ject

).

Cal

cula

te th

e lo

sses

cau

sed

by th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct (p

ost-

proj

ect m

inus

pre

-pro

ject

) rel

ativ

e to

the

benc

hmar

k.C

alcu

late

the

loss

es c

ause

d by

the

prop

osed

pr

ojec

t (po

st-p

roje

ct m

inus

pre

-pro

ject

) rel

ativ

e to

the

benc

hmar

k.

Cal

cula

te /

estim

ate

chan

ge in

like

lihoo

d of

pe

rsis

tenc

e of

pop

ulat

ion

QU

AN

TIFY

ING

PO

TEN

TIA

L G

AIN

TH

AT

CO

ULD

BE

CA

USE

D B

Y TH

E O

FFSE

T

Rep

eat t

his

proc

ess

at p

oten

tial o

ffset

site

s, to

cal

cula

te th

e po

ssib

le g

ain.

Rec

ord

the

curre

nt s

core

for e

ach

attri

bute

prio

r to

the

offs

et in

terv

entio

n. (T

his

will

be

less

than

or e

qual

to th

e re

fere

nce

leve

l at t

he B

ENCH

MA

RKsi

te.)

Then

reco

rd th

e pr

edic

ted

post

-offs

et c

ondi

tion

of e

ach

attri

bute

– i.

e. h

ow e

ach

attri

bute

is e

xpec

ted

to

chan

ge w

ith th

e of

fset

inte

rven

tion

in p

lace

. An

adju

stm

ent s

houl

d th

en b

e m

ade

for r

isk

or th

e lik

elih

ood

of

succ

ess

of th

e of

fset

inte

rven

tion,

ATT

RIBU

TE b

y at

tribu

te. T

he p

oten

tial g

ain

is th

e di

ffere

nce

betw

een

the

pre-

offs

et a

nd th

e pr

edic

ted

post

-offs

et (r

isk

adju

sted

) sco

res,

The

offs

et p

lann

er c

an th

en fo

cus

effo

rts o

n su

itabl

e of

fset

site

s th

at c

ould

del

iver

the

nece

ssar

y ga

in in

‘hab

itat h

ecta

res’

.

In th

e ca

se o

f pop

ulat

ions

, pot

entia

l offs

et

loca

tions

wou

ld b

e id

entif

ied

and

revi

ewed

to

iden

tify

whi

ch c

ould

sup

port

a la

rger

or a

new

vi

able

pop

ulat

ion.

As

for i

mpa

cts,

pot

entia

l ga

ins

wou

ld b

e ca

lcul

ated

in te

rms

of

popu

latio

n pe

rsis

tenc

e w

ith /

with

out o

ffset

in

terv

entio

ns. A

n ad

just

men

t is

then

mad

e fo

r ris

k or

the

likel

ihoo

d of

suc

cess

of t

he o

ffset

in

terv

entio

n.

Appendix C 49


(a) Habitat hectares calculations

For habitat, equivalence of impacts and offsets is calculated on the basis of ‘habitat hectares’, taking into account area, type and quality of biodiversity as measured on the basis of key ATTRIBUTES. For certain species of conservation significance, detailed assessments of LOSS and GAIN may be required, particularly where these species might experience impacts other than, or in addition to, habitat degradation or conversion, suchas intensified hunting pressure, increased disturbance or interruption to migration or disturbance. In such cases, metrics based on habitat proxies may not be particularly informative and it may be necessary also to carry out population assessments. This quantifies losses with respect to key species using estimates of population persistence and predicts how this will change following project implementation. The main steps are broadly similar to the habitat-based approach, but different benchmarks and attributes would be used.

Put simply, losses and gains are calculated as follows:

� loss = predicted situation for affected area’s biodiversity with no project impact minus predicted situation for affected area after impact and restoration.

� gain = predicted situation for offset area’s biodiversity with offset intervention minus predicted situation for offset area with no intervention, adjusted for risk factors associated with these predictions.

Both loss and gain are referenced against an independent benchmark and it is the selection of this benchmark that forms the first step in the process of calculating losses / gains. The benchmark comprises a number of weighted ‘attributes’ that are representative and characteristic of type of biodiversity (the ecosystem, thebiodiversity components comprising it – the physical habitat, community structure and composition) that will be affected by the proposed development project. The BIODIVERSITY LOSSES at the IMPACT SITE and gains at the offset sites can be consistently and transparently measured against this benchmark. The benchmark site needs to be in a location where it is possible to carry out some relatively rapid fieldwork to identify, weight and score the attributes defined for it. Benchmark attributes are chosen to reflect the composition, structure and function of each ecosystem or habitat present in the area affected by the development project and its overall ‘health’ or condition. As well as serving as good SURROGATES or PROXIES for biodiversity overall, they should be readily measurable. They may be to do with structure, composition and function of individual species, features of communities / assemblages, or even characteristics that operate at the landscape scale, such as CONNECTIVITY. Since practical methods for dealing with ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES and ECOSYSTEM SERVICES are still under development, ecosystem function is generally covered by selecting more readily measurable attributes that are good proxies for ecological process and function, for example representation of key functional groups. Some BENCHMARK ATTRIBUTES may be more significant to the overall health of an ecosystem than others, so the different attributes are weighted accordingly. (In total, the weighted attributes of the benchmark will add up to 100%.) Reference levels are recorded for the presence of each benchmark attribute at the benchmark site.

Quantifying the biodiversity loss at the impact site involves assessing it against the benchmark, and predicting the nature and amount of damage that the project will cause. This measurement should be done (wherever possible) before the project goes ahead. The observed pre-impact score and predicted post-impact score for each attribute at the project site are recorded and added, to give the predicted habitat hectares of loss due to the project’s residual impact. The calculations to quantify conservation ADDITIONALITY (gains) at offset sites involve quantifying and mapping pre-intervention condition classes at shortlisted sites; assessing the threats currently facing each site; identifying interventions to address these threats and calculating the biodiversity to be gained at each site. This is done in a similar way to that in which loss was calculated at the impact site. Quantifying the biodiversity gain from a potential offset involves assessing the candidate offset site against the benchmark, prior to undertaking the offsetting activities, and predicting the likely improvements in habitat condition that can be accomplished with a specific set of conservation and management activities. Such a

Appendix C 50


calculation is made for each attribute, weighted according to the relative significance of the attribute concerned to the overall health of that HABITAT TYPE, and the probability of success of the offset intervention for each attribute, and the results summed to give the predicted gain in habitat hectares.

Table C.1-3 is an example of a format for describing benchmark attributes and WEIGHTING, and Table C.1-4 is a simplified example of how losses and gains are calculated. In this case there are only 3 ATTRIBUTES, by way of illustration. In reality, there would be more (typically between 10 and 20), the actual number depending on habitat diversity and species richness at the development site, and how comprehensively the biodiversity is characterised. Table C.1-5 similarly sets out how losses and gains can be calculated for species populations. Note that exchange rules can be established for attributes. It may be that some attributes are seen as essential to be catered for through the offset, whereas others are seen as exchangeable.

Use of the BENCHMARK approach can measure losses of individual species where these species are selected as attributes. However, the HABITAT HECTARES approach aggregates scores for all the different benchmark attributes into an overall habitat hectares score, reflecting the overall ecosystem 'health'. This allows for some exchange of loss and gain between attributes while still achieving adequate ‘habitat hectare’ scores. This means that losses with respect to a particular species could be masked by gains with respect to other attributes. Where OFFSET PLANNERS wish to ensure that CONSERVATION OUTCOMES are achieved for these particular species, they can identify and record any ‘NON-TRADABLE’ attributes, for which a specific gain in habitat hectares is required. Other methods to calculate losses and gains with respect to species are described in (b), below.

App

endi

x C

51

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

AB

CD

EF

G

1(e

.g. D

egra

ded

Fore

st)

2 3 4 5#

Uni

ts o

r Ban

dsTo

tal:

06 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

BEN

CH

MA

RK

ASS

ESS

MEN

TH

abita

t Typ

e 1:

Trad

eabl

e or

N

on-

Trad

eabl

e A

ttrib

ute?

Rat

iona

le, M

etho

ds(E

nter

com

men

ts e

xpla

inin

g th

e ra

tiona

le a

nd m

etho

ds u

sed

to c

hoo s

this

attr

ibut

e an

d ca

lcul

ate

the

refe

renc

e le

vel a

t ben

chm

ark

site

)

Ref

eren

ce L

evel

at B

ench

mar

k Si

te

(Eith

er u

nits

or b

ands

)

Attr

ibut

e 2

Attr

ibut

e 3

Attr

ibut

e 1

Attr

ibut

e 4

Attr

ibut

eW

eigh

t

Tabl

eC

.1-3

:Des

crib

ing

benc

hmar

k at

trib

utes

and

wei

ghtin

g

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

coul

d be

use

ful f

or re

cord

ing

the

(typi

cally

, bet

wee

n 10

and

20)

ATT

RIBU

TES

sele

cted

for t

he b

ench

mar

k, re

cord

ing

the

scor

e fo

r ea

ch fo

und

at th

e be

nchm

ark

site

, def

inin

g th

e w

eigh

ting

of e

ach

attri

bute

(tot

al to

add

to 1

00%

) and

dec

idin

g w

heth

er o

ne o

r mor

e of

the

attri

bute

s ar

e ‘n

on-tr

adab

le’.

(Thi

s m

eans

that

a s

peci

fic s

core

of e

ach

non-

trada

ble

attri

bute

is n

eede

d at

the

offs

et s

ite, i

n ad

ditio

n to

an

over

all s

core

of a

ll th

e at

tribu

tes

adde

d to

geth

er.)

In s

elec

ting

attri

bute

s, c

onsi

der:

(1) a

re th

ere

enou

gh a

ttrib

utes

that

are

goo

d pr

oxie

s fo

r the

Key

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nts

iden

tifie

d in

Tab

le C

1-1;

(2) a

re th

ere

enou

gh a

ttrib

utes

to b

e co

nfid

ent t

hat t

he o

vera

ll he

alth

of t

he e

cosy

stem

is m

easu

red

and

(3) a

re th

ere

enou

gh

attri

bute

s th

at a

re g

ood

surr

ogat

es fo

r eco

syst

em p

roce

ss a

nd fu

nctio

n?

App

endi

x C

52

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Tabl

eC

.1-4

: Si

mpl

ified

exa

mpl

e of

how

to q

uant

ify lo

ss a

t a p

roje

ct im

pact

site

usi

ng h

abita

t hec

tare

s

Tota

l Hec

tare

s af

fect

ed (A

) =10

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

Ben

chm

ark

cond

ition

/ le

vel

Pre-

proj

ect

habi

tat h

ecta

res,

pe

r hec

tare

Post

-pro

ject

ha

bita

t hec

tare

s,

per h

ecta

re

Net

loss

of

habi

tat h

ecta

res,

pe

r hec

tare

Hab

itat

hect

ares

lo

stA

ttrib

ute

#U

nit o

r B

ands

Wei

ghtin

g of

th

e at

trib

ute

Pre-

proj

ect

cond

ition

Post

-pr

ojec

t co

nditi

on

(D/B

)*C

(E/B

)*C

F-G

H*A

Attr

ibut

e 1:

stre

am

veg.

den

sity

10pl

ants

/ ha

0.4

52

0.2

0.08

0.12

1.2

Attr

ibut

e 2:

ca

nopy

cov

er10

0%%

0.3

80%

40%

0.24

0.12

0.12

1.2

Attr

ibut

e 3:

falle

n lo

g de

nsity

2lo

gs /

ha0.

31

00.

150

0.15

1.5

Tota

l:1

Tota

l hab

itat h

ecta

res

lost

:2.

7

Tabl

eC

.1-5

: Ex

ampl

e of

how

to q

uant

ify lo

ss a

t the

pro

ject

impa

ct s

ite u

sing

spe

cies

-spe

cific

mea

sure

s ag

ains

t a b

ench

mar

k

Impa

ct s

ite

Spec

ies

Met

ricB

ench

mar

k Pr

e-pr

ojec

t po

pula

tion

/ via

bilit

yPr

e-pr

ojec

t pop

ulat

ion

/ vi

abili

ty (a

djus

ted)

Post

-pro

ject

po

pula

tion

/ vi

abili

ty

Post

-pro

ject

po

pula

tion

(adj

uste

d)Lo

ss

Cod

eA

BC

D (=

100*

C/B

)E

F (=

100*

E/B

)G

(=D

-F)

Spe

cies

Ae.

g. p

opul

atio

n vi

abili

ty67

%50

%74

.63%

30%

44.7

8%29

.85%

Spe

cies

BP

opul

atio

n si

ze75

5066

.715

2046

.7

Spe

cies

Cet

c

Appendix C 53


(b) Complementary species calculations

In some cases, it may be appropriate to demonstrate ‘NO NET LOSS’ for a particularly significant species. This may be especially relevant where residual negative impacts are predicted for species of global conservation concern and / or concern to local stakeholders may be adversely affected.

Where impacts on such species are not linked directly with the structure and composition of habitat (e.g. intensified hunting pressure, increased disturbance or interruption to migration or dispersal, increased mortality due to road kill, decreased reproductive success due to disturbance to breeding animals, or reduced population viability due to barriers to dispersal of sub-populations), then metrics based on habitat proxies may not be particularly informative. In these cases, it is preferable to use metrics specifically tailored to the species concerned.

Table C.1-6 shows how losses and gains can be calculated for species using the BBOP approach. Table C.1-7 is an example of how a species-specific BENCHMARK could be defined. Supporting studies are likely to be necessary to provide the information needed to quantify losses using suitable metrics. Possible metrics include probability of persistence, levels of species occupancy, population size, population density and / or population viability. It may also be possible to obtain populations estimates based on habitat proxies. The methodology used should respond to the particular context and key factors influencing the persistence of species.

An example of an approach being developed to quantify impacts on species is the Risk Index approach being developed in New Zealand. This is described in Appendix C.3.

App

endi

x C

54

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Tabl

e C

.1-6

: D

escr

iptio

n of

pos

sibl

e st

eps

for c

alcu

latin

g SP

ECIE

S lo

ss a

nd g

ain

Step

Des

crip

tion

1.Id

entif

y pa

rticu

lar

spec

ies

requ

iring

qu

antif

icat

ion

of

loss

es

Whe

n qu

antif

ying

loss

es w

ith re

spec

t to

key

spec

ies,

it c

an b

e im

porta

nt to

eva

luat

e ea

ch s

peci

es s

epar

atel

y, ra

ther

than

use

indi

ces

that

ag

greg

ate

info

rmat

ion

on m

ultip

le s

peci

es in

to a

sin

gle

MET

RIC.

Thi

s ca

n he

lp e

nsur

e th

at n

o sp

ecie

s 'fa

ll th

roug

h th

e ga

ps',

as c

an h

appe

n w

ith a

ggre

gate

d in

dice

s, w

here

a lo

ss w

ith re

spec

t to

one

spec

ies

can

be m

aske

d by

gai

ns w

ith re

spec

t to

othe

r spe

cies

. Als

o, d

isag

greg

ated

re

sults

are

mor

e tra

nspa

rent

and

may

be

mor

e lik

ely

to s

atis

fy s

take

hold

ers

with

diff

eren

t con

cern

s.2.

Sel

ect a

n ap

prop

riate

met

ric

for e

ach

spec

ies.

The

met

rics

used

to q

uant

ify B

IOD

IVER

SITY

LO

SSES

with

resp

ect t

o sp

ecie

s sh

ould

rela

te to

like

lihoo

d of

PER

SIST

ENCE

of i

ndiv

idua

l pop

ulat

ions

. Tw

o al

tern

ativ

es a

re s

umm

aris

ed b

elow

:P

opul

atio

n V

iabi

lity

Ana

lysi

s or

PV

A: t

his

is a

pop

ular

app

roac

h am

ong

cons

erva

tion

biol

ogis

ts fo

r est

imat

ing

prob

abili

ty o

f per

sist

ence

of

spec

ies

popu

latio

ns. I

t inv

olve

s th

e ‘s

truct

ured

, sys

tem

atic

and

com

preh

ensi

ve e

xam

inat

ion

of th

e in

tera

ctin

g fa

ctor

s th

at p

lace

a p

opul

atio

n or

spe

cies

at r

isk’

11. C

entra

l to

PV

A is

the

conc

ept o

f ‘m

inim

um v

iabl

e po

pula

tion’

, bel

ow w

hich

EXT

INCT

ION

is c

onsi

dere

d lik

ely

to o

ccur

. H

owev

er, t

here

are

a n

umbe

r of l

imita

tions

to P

VA

as

a to

ol: d

ata

are

requ

ired

on a

rang

e of

pop

ulat

ion

para

met

ers

(e.g

. pop

ulat

ion

size

, ad

ult s

urvi

val r

ates

, age

of s

exua

l mat

urity

, fec

undi

ty, e

tc.),

whi

ch a

re n

ot a

lway

s re

adily

ava

ilabl

e or

stra

ight

forw

ard

to m

easu

re; P

VA

mod

els

can

gene

rate

wid

ely

diffe

ring

estim

ates

as

a re

sult

of d

iffer

ing

assu

mpt

ions

or i

nput

dat

a, p

artic

ular

ly w

hen

they

are

bas

ed o

n sm

all d

ata

sets

or

dat

a se

ts c

olle

cted

ove

r a s

mal

l num

ber o

f yea

rs; a

nd m

odel

s of

ten

do n

ot ta

ke a

ccou

nt o

f fac

tors

affe

ctin

g pr

obab

ility

of e

xtin

ctio

n, s

uch

as A

llee

effe

cts:

the

decl

ine

in s

urvi

val a

nd /

or b

reed

ing

succ

ess

at lo

w p

opul

atio

n de

nsiti

es. S

o, th

ere

may

not

be

suffi

cien

t tim

e an

d re

sour

ces

to c

olle

ct th

e ne

cess

ary

popu

latio

n an

d lif

e hi

stor

y in

form

atio

n fo

r PV

A, n

eces

sita

ting

othe

r app

roac

hes.

One

alte

rnat

ive

to P

VA

is th

e us

e of

Spe

cies

Occ

upan

cy (S

O)12

mea

sure

s. T

hese

are

bas

ed o

n co

mpa

ring

the

actu

al d

istri

butio

n of

taxa

with

th

e po

tent

ial d

istri

butio

n in

the

abse

nce

of h

uman

indu

ced

dist

urba

nces

. SO

mea

sure

s re

quire

few

er p

opul

atio

n pa

ram

eter

s th

an P

VA

(onl

y es

timat

es o

f abu

ndan

ce, r

ecru

itmen

t and

mor

talit

y ar

e re

quire

d) b

ut a

re s

uffic

ient

ly ro

bust

to b

e us

ed w

hen

only

pre

senc

e-ab

senc

e da

ta a

re

avai

labl

e.P

VA

and

SO

mea

sure

s ca

n be

effe

ctiv

e w

ays

of q

uant

ifyin

g lo

sses

with

resp

ect t

o sp

ecie

s, p

rovi

ded

that

det

aile

d in

form

atio

n on

pop

ulat

ion

para

met

ers

are

avai

labl

e, o

r tha

t suf

ficie

nt ti

me

and

reso

urce

s ar

e av

aila

ble

for o

ffset

pla

nner

s to

col

lect

them

. Whe

re th

ese

cond

ition

s ar

e no

t met

, an

alte

rnat

ive

appr

oach

may

be

to u

se e

stim

ates

of p

opul

atio

n si

ze, d

ensi

ty o

r rel

ativ

e ab

unda

nce

as p

roxi

es fo

r lik

elih

ood

of

pers

iste

nce

of in

divi

dual

pop

ulat

ions

, fol

low

ing

the

ratio

nale

that

larg

er (o

r den

ser)

pop

ulat

ions

are

, all

thin

gs b

eing

equ

al, l

ess

likel

y to

go

extin

ct o

ver a

giv

en ti

mes

cale

than

sm

alle

r (or

less

den

se) p

opul

atio

ns, p

rovi

ded

they

rem

ain

with

in th

e ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity o

f the

eco

syst

em.

Ther

e ar

e va

rious

met

hods

of m

easu

ring

the

size

, den

sity

or r

elat

ive

abun

danc

e of

spe

cies

pop

ulat

ions

(e.g

. tot

al c

ount

s, p

oint

cou

nts,

tra

nsec

ts, q

uadr

ats

and

plot

-less

tech

niqu

es).

Whi

chev

er m

etho

d is

sel

ecte

d fo

r a p

artic

ular

pop

ulat

ion,

the

need

for r

epea

ted

sam

plin

g (id

eally

ove

r a p

erio

d of

at l

east

5 y

ears

) sho

uld

be b

orne

in m

ind,

in o

rder

to a

ccou

nt fo

r cyc

lical

and

STO

CHA

STIC

cha

nges

in s

peci

es

popu

latio

ns, w

hich

can

ser

ious

ly d

isto

rt es

timat

es b

ased

on

sing

le s

ampl

es. I

ntro

duct

ions

to s

peci

es m

onito

ring

met

hods

are

pro

vide

d by

m

any

stan

dard

con

serv

atio

n te

xtbo

oks

and

hand

book

s. G

ood

sum

mar

ies

are

incl

uded

in th

e fo

llow

ing13

: Sut

herla

nd 2

000;

Hill

et a

l. 20

05;

and

Tuck

er e

t al.

2005

.In

cas

es w

here

it is

diff

icul

t to

obta

in re

liabl

e po

pula

tion

data

, for

exa

mpl

e w

ith ra

re, s

hy o

r cry

ptic

spe

cies

, it m

ay n

ot p

ossi

ble

to e

stim

ate

popu

latio

n si

ze, d

ensi

ty o

r rel

ativ

e ab

unda

nce

dire

ctly

. In

such

cas

es, i

t may

be

mor

e ap

prop

riate

to u

se h

abita

t ext

ent a

nd /

or C

ON

DIT

ION

as

a PR

OXY

for p

opul

atio

n si

ze (a

nd, h

ence

, lik

elih

ood

of p

ersi

sten

ce).

It sh

ould

be

born

e in

min

d, h

owev

er, t

hat h

abita

t con

ditio

n m

ay n

ot in

fer

pres

ence

, let

alo

ne p

ersi

sten

ce, o

f spe

cies

(Bek

essy

et a

l. in

pre

p.14

) par

ticul

arly

whe

re im

pact

s th

at m

anife

st th

emse

lves

with

out n

eces

saril

y ad

vers

ely

impa

ctin

g a

spec

ies

habi

tat(s

) are

in p

lay.

The

refo

re, t

he u

se o

f hab

itat m

easu

res

as p

roxi

es fo

r ind

ivid

ual s

peci

es m

ay o

nly

be

appr

opria

te in

cas

es w

here

pot

entia

l im

pact

s on

a s

peci

es m

anife

st th

emse

lves

thro

ugh

loss

and

/ or

deg

rada

tion

of it

s ha

bita

t.

11S

chaf

fer,

M.L

. 198

1. M

inim

um p

opul

atio

n si

zes

for s

peci

es c

onse

rvat

ion.

Bio

scie

nce

31: 1

31-4

; Sch

affe

r, M

.L. 1

987.

Min

imum

via

ble

popu

latio

ns: c

opin

g w

ith u

ncer

tain

ty. P

p 69

-86

in

Sou

lé, M

. ed.

Via

ble

popu

latio

ns fo

r con

serv

atio

n. C

ambr

idge

, UK

: Cam

brid

ge U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss; S

chaf

fer,

M.L

. 199

0. P

opul

atio

n V

iabi

lity

Ana

lysi

s. C

onse

rvat

ion

Bio

logy

4(1

), 39

; G

ilpin

,M. a

nd S

oulé

, M. 1

986.

Min

imum

via

ble

popu

latio

ns: p

roce

sses

of s

peci

es e

xtin

ctio

n. P

p 19

-34

in S

oulé

, M. e

d. C

onse

rvat

ion

Bio

logy

. Sun

derla

nd: S

inau

er.

App

endi

x C

55

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Step

Des

crip

tion

3.Id

entif

y a

benc

hmar

k po

pula

tion

for

each

spe

cies

Onc

e an

app

ropr

iate

met

ric h

as b

een

sele

cted

for e

ach

key

spec

ies

at th

e IM

PACT

SIT

E, b

iodi

vers

ity lo

sses

with

resp

ect t

o th

is s

peci

es a

re

quan

tifie

d us

ing

a si

mila

r (al

beit

sim

plifi

ed) a

ppro

ach

to th

at u

sed

for k

ey h

abita

ts. F

or e

ach

spec

ies,

a s

uita

ble

benc

hmar

k po

pula

tion

is

iden

tifie

d. T

his

is to

pro

vide

a p

oint

of r

efer

ence

aga

inst

whi

ch th

e im

pact

site

pop

ulat

ion

can

be a

sses

sed.

As

far a

s po

ssib

le, t

he b

ench

mar

k po

pula

tion

shou

ld m

eet t

wo

crite

ria. F

irst,

it sh

ould

be

at a

site

with

sim

ilar e

colo

gica

l cha

ract

eris

tics

to th

e im

pact

site

(i.e

. tot

al a

rea,

are

a an

d co

nditi

on o

f diff

eren

t BIO

TOPE

S, c

onne

ctiv

ity to

nei

ghbo

urin

g si

tes,

etc

). S

econ

d, it

sho

uld

be a

t a s

ite th

at h

as b

een

expo

sed

to m

inim

al

or n

o hu

man

indu

ced

dist

urba

nces

for a

ver

y lo

ng p

erio

d (a

t lea

st d

ecad

es, i

deal

ly c

entu

ries)

. Whe

re th

ese

cond

ition

s ar

e no

t met

, it m

ay b

e ne

cess

ary

to c

reat

e a

'SYN

THET

IC' B

ENCH

MA

RK p

opul

atio

n, e

ither

by

refe

renc

e to

his

toric

al d

ata

on s

peci

es p

opul

atio

n si

zes,

den

sitie

s or

re

lativ

e ab

unda

nce,

or t

hrou

gh c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith e

xper

ts o

n th

e sp

ecie

s.

4.A

sses

s lik

elih

ood

of p

ersi

sten

ce o

f th

e be

nchm

ark

popu

latio

n

Onc

e a

benc

hmar

k po

pula

tion

has

been

iden

tifie

d, th

e se

lect

ed m

etric

is a

pplie

d. W

hich

ever

met

ric is

sel

ecte

d, it

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

repe

ated

ly (i

deal

ly o

ver a

per

iod

of a

t lea

st fi

ve y

ears

), an

d se

ason

al fl

uctu

atio

ns s

houl

d be

acc

ount

ed fo

r (ei

ther

by

repe

at s

ampl

ing

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar o

r sam

plin

g at

a fi

xed

time

each

yea

r). M

easu

res

of p

opul

atio

n vi

abili

ty, f

or in

stan

ce, c

an b

e re

fere

nced

to a

ben

chm

ark,

ju

st a

s fo

r hab

itats

.5.

Ass

ess

likel

ihoo

d of

per

sist

ence

of

the

impa

ct s

ite

popu

latio

n (p

re-

proj

ect)

The

next

ste

p is

to u

se th

e sa

me

met

ric fo

r the

impa

ct s

ite p

opul

atio

n (b

efor

e th

e pr

ojec

t’s im

pact

take

s pl

ace)

as

was

use

d fo

r the

be

nchm

ark

popu

latio

n. O

nce

agai

n, re

peat

ed s

ampl

ing

shou

ld b

e us

ed to

acc

ount

for c

yclic

al a

nd s

toch

astic

var

iabi

lity

with

in a

nd b

etw

een

year

s. It

is im

porta

nt th

at th

e im

pact

site

pop

ulat

ion

is m

easu

red

prio

r to

the

proj

ect c

omm

enci

ng, i

n or

der t

hat a

BA

SELI

NE

can

be e

stab

lishe

d ag

ains

t whi

ch lo

sses

can

be

mea

sure

d. In

cas

es w

here

sho

rt pr

ojec

t tim

elin

es d

o no

t allo

w fo

r sev

eral

yea

rs o

f dat

a co

llect

ion

prio

r to

the

star

t of t

he p

roje

ct, i

t may

be

poss

ible

to u

se th

e re

sults

of p

ast s

tudi

es o

f the

spe

cies

at t

he im

pact

site

, pro

vide

d th

at th

ese

use

a co

mpa

rabl

e m

etho

dolo

gy to

the

one

that

will

be

used

to m

easu

re th

e po

pula

tion

met

ric.

The

met

ric fo

r the

pre

-pro

ject

pop

ulat

ion

shou

ld th

en b

e ca

libra

ted

on a

sca

le o

f 0 to

100

, aga

inst

the

benc

hmar

k po

pula

tion.

If, f

or a

ny

reas

on, t

he m

etric

for t

he p

re-p

roje

ct p

opul

atio

n is

hig

her t

han

that

for t

he b

ench

mar

k po

pula

tion,

the

adju

sted

met

ric s

houl

d st

ill b

e se

t at 1

00

(the

max

imum

). Th

is re

flect

s th

e fa

ct th

at, f

or m

ost s

peci

es, t

here

is a

poi

nt a

bove

whi

ch in

crea

sed

popu

latio

n si

ze, d

ensi

ty o

r rel

ativ

e ab

unda

nce

does

not

tran

slat

e in

to in

crea

sed

likel

ihoo

d of

per

sist

ence

(ind

eed,

the

reve

rse

coul

d ev

en b

e tru

e, if

the

carr

ying

cap

acity

of t

he

ecos

yste

m fo

r the

spe

cies

was

exc

eede

d).

6.C

alcu

late

loss

es

with

resp

ect t

o th

e sp

ecie

s at

the

impa

ct s

ite

Ste

p 5

is th

en re

peat

ed fo

r the

pre

dict

ed p

ost-p

roje

ct p

opul

atio

n at

the

impa

ct s

ite (i

.e. t

he p

redi

cted

pop

ulat

ion

afte

r the

impa

cts)

. Fin

ally

, lo

sses

with

resp

ect t

o th

e sp

ecie

s ar

e ca

lcul

ated

by

subt

ract

ing

the

adju

sted

met

ric fo

r the

pos

t-pro

ject

pop

ulat

ion

from

the

adju

sted

met

ric

from

the

pre-

proj

ect p

opul

atio

n. T

he fi

nal f

igur

e ca

n ve

ry ro

ughl

y be

thou

ght o

f in

term

s of

redu

ctio

n in

like

lihoo

d of

per

sist

ence

of t

he

popu

latio

n.

12D

r. Th

eo S

teph

ens

of N

ew Z

eala

nd’s

Dep

artm

ent o

f Con

serv

atio

n is

pre

sent

ly d

evel

opin

g ap

plic

atio

ns fo

r a s

et o

f mea

sure

s ca

lled

Spe

cies

Occ

upan

cy (S

O) m

easu

res

to q

uant

ify th

e am

ount

of b

iodi

vers

ity re

mai

ning

, to

mea

sure

con

serv

atio

n pe

rform

ance

, dev

elop

men

t im

pact

s, to

com

pare

diff

eren

t offs

et o

ptio

ns a

nd to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

no

net l

oss

will

be

achi

eved

by

a s

peci

fied

offs

et p

acka

ge.

13S

uthe

rland

, W.J

. 200

0. T

he c

onse

rvat

ion

hand

book

: res

earc

h, m

anag

emen

t and

pol

icy.

Oxf

ord:

Bla

ckw

ell;

Hill

, D.,

Fash

am, M

. Tuc

ker,

G.,

She

wry

, M.C

. and

Sha

w, P

. eds

. 200

5.

Han

dboo

k of

bio

dive

rsity

met

hods

: sur

vey,

eva

luat

ion,

and

mon

itorin

g. C

ambr

idge

, UK

: Cam

brid

ge U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss; T

ucke

r, G

., B

ubb,

P.,

de H

eer,

M.,

Mile

s, L

., La

wre

nce,

A.,

van

Rijs

oort,

J.,

Baj

rach

arya

, S.B

., N

epal

, R.C

., S

herc

han,

R. a

nd C

hapa

gain

, N. 2

005.

Gui

delin

es fo

r bio

dive

rsity

ass

essm

ent a

nd m

onito

ring

for p

rote

cted

are

as. K

athm

andu

, Nep

al, a

nd

Cam

brid

ge, U

K: K

ing

Mah

endr

a Tr

ust f

or N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

UN

EP

-Wor

ld C

onse

rvat

ion

Mon

itorin

g C

entre

.

14B

ekes

sy, S

.A.,

Win

tle, B

.A.,

Lind

enm

ayer

, D.B

., M

cCar

thy,

M.A

., C

olyv

an, M

. and

Pos

sing

ham

, H. P

. In

prep

. The

bio

dive

rsity

ban

k ca

nnot

be

a le

ndin

g ba

nk.

App

endi

x C

56

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Tabl

e C

.1-7

: Ex

ampl

e of

a c

ompl

eted

spe

cies

-spe

cific

loss

qua

ntifi

catio

n m

atrix

Impa

ct s

iteSp

ecie

sM

etric

Ben

chm

ark

popu

latio

nPr

e-pr

ojec

t po

pula

tion

Pre-

proj

ect

popu

latio

n (a

djus

ted)

Post

-pro

ject

po

pula

tion

Post

-pro

ject

pop

ulat

ion

(adj

uste

d)Lo

ss

Cod

eA

BC

D (=

100*

C/B

)E

F (=

100*

E/B

)G

(=D

-F)

Spe

cies

XP

roba

bilit

y of

pe

rsis

tenc

e in

100

ye

ars

(PV

A)

9075

8360

6716

Spe

cies

YP

opul

atio

n de

nsity

(m

atur

e in

divi

dual

s /

km2 )

200

150

7550

2550

Spe

cies

ZR

elat

ive

abun

danc

e (in

divi

dual

s /

trans

ect)

4020

505

1337

Fina

lly, p

oten

tial g

ains

are

cal

cula

ted

for p

oten

tial o

ffset

site

s. T

able

s C

.1-8

and

C.1

-9 a

re e

xam

ples

of s

prea

dshe

ets

that

can

be

used

to s

umm

aris

e re

sults

of c

ompa

rativ

e re

view

so

that

a fi

nal s

elec

tion

can

be m

ade.

App

endi

x C

57

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

AB

CD

EF

GH

1O

ffset

Com

pone

nts

Eval

uatio

n2 3 4

Site

1S

ite 2

Site

3S

ite 4

5[In

sert

Nam

e][In

sert

Nam

e][In

sert

Nam

e][In

sert

Nam

e]6 7

(e.g

. Bird

)8

09

010

011

012

013

014

015

036

To a

dd m

ore

row

s…37 38

(e.g

. Deg

rade

d Fo

rest

)39

040

041

042

043

044

045

046

067

To a

dd m

ore

row

s…68 69

070

071

072

073

074

075

076

077

078

098

To a

dd m

ore

row

s…**

** A

dd q

ualit

ativ

e as

sess

men

t of l

ikel

y ga

in

Who

le L

ands

cape

s/Ec

osys

tem

sIn-K

ind

Nec

essa

ryO

ut o

f Kin

d is

an

Opt

ion

Hab

itats

Spec

ies

(TO

ED

IT C

ON

TEN

TS O

F G

REY

CEL

LS, G

O T

O W

OR

KSH

EETS

"(1

) Bio

dive

rsity

Ass

essm

ent"

and

"(2

) Im

pact

Ass

& M

it H

iera

rchy

")

Offs

et T

ype

Site

Sel

ectio

n***

*R

atio

nale

(Inse

rt co

mm

ents

her

e ex

plai

ning

dat

a en

tere

d in

col

umns

D to

G)

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nt

Rev

iew

pot

entia

l offs

et lo

catio

ns a

nd a

ctiv

ities

and

ass

ess

the

biod

iver

sity

gai

ns w

hich

cou

ld b

e ac

hiev

ed a

t eac

h (S

tep

7 in

the

mai

n B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k –

see

ww

w.fo

rest

-tren

ds.o

rg/b

iodi

vers

ityof

fset

prog

ram

/gui

delin

es/o

dh.p

df)

Tabl

eC

.1-8

: A

tabl

e or

spr

eads

heet

suc

h as

this

cou

ld b

e us

ed to

reco

rd a

nd c

ompa

re w

heth

er p

oten

tial o

ffset

site

s co

uld

deliv

er

cons

erva

tion

gain

s fo

r Key

Bio

dive

rsity

Com

pone

nts

durin

g si

te s

elec

tion

(see

Ste

p 7

of th

e m

ain

Bio

dive

rsity

Offs

et D

esig

n H

andb

ook)

App

endi

x C

58

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Cal

cula

te o

ffset

gai

ns a

nd s

elec

t app

ropr

iate

offs

et lo

catio

ns a

nd a

ctiv

ities

(Ste

p 7

in th

e m

ain

Bio

dive

rsity

Offs

et D

esig

n H

andb

ook)

Tabl

eC

.1-9

: A

tabl

e or

spr

eads

heet

suc

h as

this

cou

ld b

e us

ed to

reco

rd a

nd c

ompa

re th

e co

nser

vatio

n ga

ins

that

cou

ld b

e ge

nera

ted

at

pote

ntia

l offs

et s

ites

durin

g si

te s

elec

tion

(see

Ste

p 7

of th

e m

ain

Bio

dive

rsity

Offs

et D

esig

n H

andb

ook)

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL

MN

OP

1C

alcu

latio

n of

Hab

itat H

ecta

res

to b

e ga

ined

for

Hab

itat t

ype

1 at

Pro

pose

d O

ffse

t Site

12 3 4 5

Hab

itat t

ype

1, a

ttrib

ute

1 (e

.g. p

lant

s/ha

):15

0.5

58%

550

%7.

52

8.96

12.5

3.54

6H

abita

t typ

e 1,

attr

ibut

e 2:

100.

36

5%6

38%

8.25

29.

4512

.38

2.93

7

Hab

itat t

ype

1, a

ttrib

ute

3:12

0.2

85%

838

%11

37.

009.

172.

17

[Add

as

man

y ro

ws

as

need

ed fo

r rem

aini

ng

attri

bute

s ]8

TO

TAL

09

In th

is s

cena

rio, t

here

are

th

ree

attri

bute

s. T

he

refe

renc

e le

vel (

ie s

core

for

each

of t

hese

attr

ibut

es a

t the

pr

istin

e be

nchm

ark

site

) is

ente

red

here

.

50

Pro

pose

d O

ffset

S

ite 1

Hab

itat

conv

ersi

on.

Incr

ease

d pa

trolli

ng b

y lo

cal

com

mun

ity

rang

ers.

This

is th

e sc

ore

the

offs

et p

lann

er

coun

ts in

the

field

fo

r eac

h at

tribu

te

at th

e of

fset

site

. It

will

be

less

than

or

equ

al to

the

refe

renc

e le

vel a

t th

e be

nchm

ark

site

.

The

offs

et p

lann

er b

elie

ves

the

offs

et a

ctiv

ities

will

ach

ieve

a

10%

impr

ovem

ent i

n at

tribu

te 1

w

ith a

75%

pro

babi

lity

of s

ucce

ss.

Mul

tiplie

d to

geth

er, t

hat m

akes

8%

, whi

ch is

ent

ered

her

e.

The

wei

ght o

f ea

ch a

ttrib

ute

is

ente

red

here

. In

to

tal,

the

wei

ghtin

gs fo

r all

the

attri

bute

s fo

r th

is h

abita

t typ

e sh

ould

add

up

to

1.

Hab

itat h

ecta

res

gain

ed:

1

No.

of

ha o

f ha

bita

t ty

pe

Ben

chm

arki

ngH

abita

t ty

peA

ttrib

ute

Ben

ch-

mar

k R

ef.

Leve

l

Wei

ght

Tota

l P

redi

cted

G

ain

(L-J

)

Pre

-offs

et

(cur

rent

) co

nditi

on

Off

set S

ite A

sses

smen

tP

ost-o

ffset

ha

bita

t he

ctar

es(L

/D*E

)*F

Hab

itat

Hec

tare

s G

aine

d(O

-N)

Pre

-offs

et

habi

tat

hect

ares

(J/D

*E)*

F

Pre

-inte

rven

tion

(cur

rent

con

ditio

n m

inus

pre

dict

ed

chan

ge w

ithou

t pr

ojec

t) (G

*I+G

)

Pre

dict

ed G

ain

with

pro

ject

(%

cha

nge

* %

pr

obab

ility

)

Pre

dict

ed

chan

ge w

ithou

t pr

ojec

t(%

chan

ge *

%

prob

abili

ty)

Thre

ats

at s

ite

and

prop

osed

co

nser

vatio

n in

terv

entio

n to

ad

dres

s th

em

Pos

t-of

fset

C

ondi

tion

For t

he fi

nal s

teps

of t

he p

roce

ss (d

ecid

ing

upon

the

final

OFF

SET

ACT

IVIT

IES

and

site

s, re

cord

ing

the

offs

et d

esig

n an

d en

terin

g th

e O

FFSE

T IM

PLEM

ENTA

TIO

N p

roce

ss) p

leas

e re

fer t

o S

teps

7 –

8 in

the

mai

n B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k.

Appendix C 59


C.2 REMEDE Toolkit – Resource Equivalency MethodThe REMEDE project (Resource Equivalency Methods for Assessing Environmental Damage in the EU) is developing a toolkit (not yet published) to provide users with an overview of resource equivalency methods in the context of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD), the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. The Toolkit outlines analytical steps that can be used to assess and remediate different types of environmental damages and incidents covered by these Directives. It will assist the reader in answering two fundamental questions: how are losses of, or damages to, natural resources or services assessed and quantified? And, how much complementary and compensatory remediation is needed to make the public whole for those losses or damages?

The methods described in the Toolkit can be applied in three different types of damage scenarios: (a) where there is expected damage, as in the context of the Habitats, Wild Birds and EIA Directives; (b) where there is significant imminent threat of damage in the context of the ELD; or (c) after damage has occurred and has been deemed significant in the context of the ELD. The Toolkit consists of four parts:

� Part I provides an overview of the central concepts relevant to Resource Equivalency methods.

� Part II describes in detail the five steps of a resource equivalency analysis.

� Part III focuses on a select number of issues discussed in Part II for which some readers may require a more detailed explanation (e.g. discounting, economic theory of environmental compensation, and environmental quality standards in the EU). It also contains the full text of relevant Directives.

� Part IV provides case study examples and summaries developed as part of the REMEDE project.

‘Equivalency analyses’ are methods and approaches that are used to determine the type and amount of resources and services that are lost over time as a result of an environmental damage, and the type and amount of actions needed to offset the loss. Equivalency analyses take into account the chemical, physical, biological and, sometimes, social and economic, nature of an environmental impact and remediation options.

App

endi

x C

60

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s H

abita

ts a

nd e

cosy

stem

s, p

rimar

ily, b

ut th

e m

etho

d is

flex

ible

eno

ugh

to in

clud

e so

me

spec

ies.

The

met

hod

can

addr

ess

indi

vidu

al a

nim

al

eval

uatio

n (g

row

th, r

epro

duct

ive

succ

ess,

etc

.), c

hang

es in

pop

ulat

ion

usin

g ha

bita

t pro

xies

, spe

cies

den

sity

and

div

ersi

ty, s

peci

es

occu

patio

n an

d po

pula

tion

varia

bles

(siz

e, d

ensi

ty, d

iver

sity

, hab

itat a

vaila

bilit

y). T

he m

odel

inco

rpor

ates

con

side

ratio

n of

the

func

tion

of

indi

vidu

als

or s

peci

es in

gen

eric

eco

logi

cal p

roce

sses

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

No

spec

ific

refe

renc

e fo

und

in d

ocum

ents

.

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty o

ffset

s

This

app

roac

h do

es n

ot h

ave

any

thre

shol

ds fo

r con

side

ring

biod

iver

sity

offs

ets

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eTh

e de

sire

d ou

tcom

es a

re o

ffset

s of

a s

imila

r typ

e an

d qu

antit

y as

thos

e lo

st d

ue to

dev

elop

men

t or c

onta

min

atio

n. T

he m

etho

d fo

cuse

s on

de

term

inin

g th

e qu

antit

y of

offs

ets

nece

ssar

y ba

sed

on a

djus

tmen

ts fo

r tim

e of

impl

emen

tatio

n of

offs

ets,

and

rela

tive

qual

ity o

f the

offs

et

whe

n co

mpa

red

to th

e re

sour

ces

lost

.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsO

nly

in s

itu c

onse

rvat

ion

outc

omes

are

allo

wed

. Thi

s ap

proa

ch is

not

infle

xibl

e, h

owev

er, i

n re

quiri

ng ‘L

IKE-

FOR-

LIKE

’ or ‘

IN-K

IND

’ offs

ets

it al

low

s fo

r out

-of-k

ind

adju

stm

ents

thro

ugh

the

use

of h

abita

t / s

peci

es m

easu

res

to a

djus

t rem

edia

tion

requ

ired

betw

een

diffe

rent

hab

itats

or

spe

cies

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyTh

ere

are

seve

ral t

ypes

of e

quiv

alen

cy a

naly

ses.

Of p

artic

ular

rele

vanc

e to

offs

ets

is H

abita

t Equ

ival

ency

Ana

lysi

s ( H

EA),

in w

hich

loss

es

are

expr

esse

d in

term

s of

hab

itat a

nd a

re o

ffset

by

rem

edia

tion

of s

imila

r hab

itat,

and

Res

ourc

e E

quiv

alen

cy A

naly

sis

(REA

), in

whi

ch

loss

es a

re e

xpre

ssed

in te

rms

of re

sour

ce u

nits

(suc

h as

num

bers

of f

ish

or b

irds)

.G

ener

ally

, a H

EA o

r REA

incl

udes

est

imat

ion

of th

e lo

ss in

term

s of

a q

uant

ity o

f res

ourc

e or

ser

vice

ove

r tim

e (th

e ‘d

ebit’

), es

timat

ion

of th

e qu

antit

y of

reso

urce

or s

ervi

ce g

ain

prod

uced

by

a re

med

iatio

n pr

ojec

t (th

e ‘c

redi

t’), a

nd ‘s

calin

g’ o

f com

plem

enta

ry a

nd c

ompe

nsat

ory

rem

edia

tion

proj

ects

(but

not

prim

ary

rem

edia

tion)

to e

nsur

e th

at th

e to

tal a

ntic

ipat

ed g

ain

is a

ppro

xim

atel

y eq

ual t

o th

e ca

lcul

ated

loss

.Th

e ty

pe o

f env

ironm

enta

l dam

age

and

oppo

rtuni

ties

for r

emed

iatio

n in

fluen

ce th

e ch

oice

of a

spe

cific

equ

ival

ency

app

roac

h an

d m

easu

re

of lo

ss (d

ebit)

and

gai

n (c

redi

t).�

The

loss

or d

ebit

is o

ften

mul

ti-di

men

sion

al, s

ince

an

envi

ronm

enta

l dam

age

can

have

adv

erse

impa

cts

on m

any

spec

ies,

hab

itats

, EC

OSY

STEM

FU

NCT

ION

S, a

nd h

uman

use

and

NO

N-U

SE V

ALU

ES. I

n ad

ditio

n, th

e da

mag

e ca

n va

ry o

ver s

pace

and

tim

e. T

ypic

ally

in a

HE

A

or R

EA

, one

or m

ore

mea

sure

s ar

e de

fined

to s

erve

as

indi

ces

of k

ey re

sour

ces

or s

ervi

ces

that

wer

e da

mag

ed. I

t is

assu

med

that

re

med

iatio

n th

at a

ddre

sses

thes

e ch

osen

mea

sure

s w

ill a

lso

bene

fit a

spec

ts o

f the

deb

it th

at w

ere

not s

peci

fical

ly tr

eate

d in

the

equi

vale

ncy

anal

ysis

. �

The

gain

or c

redi

t in

an e

quiv

alen

cy a

naly

sis

is th

e am

ount

of r

esou

rce

or s

ervi

ce b

enef

it th

at w

ill b

e ga

ined

thro

ugh

com

plem

enta

ry a

nd

com

pens

ator

y re

med

iatio

n. T

he n

umbe

r, ty

pe a

nd s

ize

of p

roje

cts

are

scal

ed s

o th

at th

e ex

pect

ed a

mou

nt o

f ben

efit

gene

rate

d ap

prox

imat

ely

equa

ls th

e de

bit,

quan

tifie

d in

term

s of

the

sam

e M

ETRI

C us

ed to

qua

ntify

the

debi

t. R

EA

can

inco

rpor

ate

the

bene

fits

of

cons

erva

tion

in a

regi

onal

LA

ND

SCA

PE C

ON

TEXT

in th

is a

naly

sis.

Sim

ply

stat

ed, e

nsur

ing

equi

vale

ncy

betw

een

the

loss

es a

nd g

ains

invo

lves

the

follo

win

g:�

Qua

ntify

ing

the

loss

es c

ause

d by

the

dam

age;

�D

eter

min

ing

the

amou

nt o

f ben

efit

expe

cted

per

uni

t of g

ains

or r

emed

iatio

n; a

nd�

Div

idin

g th

e lo

sses

by

the

per-

unit

gain

s to

yie

ld th

e to

tal a

mou

nt o

f rem

edia

tion

need

ed.

A b

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

s an

alys

is is

use

d to

dev

ise

whi

ch c

urre

ncie

s w

ould

be

mos

t app

ropr

iate

to c

over

the

mos

t im

porta

nt v

alue

s lik

ely

to b

e af

fect

ed. U

se c

an b

e m

ade

of b

ench

mar

ks, r

efer

ence

site

s, b

asel

ine

data

or m

odel

ling

to d

eter

min

e th

e de

gree

of c

hang

e at

the

IMPA

CT S

ITE.

App

endi

x C

61

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Offs

ets

in re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

sTh

e in

trins

ic, e

cono

mic

and

cul

tura

l val

ues

of b

iodi

vers

ity a

re c

over

ed a

cros

s al

l bio

tic le

vels

and

spa

tial s

cale

s of

org

anis

atio

n.

Stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

Con

sulta

tion

with

com

pete

nt a

utho

ritie

s, te

chni

cal e

xper

ts a

nd s

take

hold

ers

is a

n im

porta

nt p

art o

f det

erm

inin

g th

e ke

y va

lues

to b

e im

pact

ed, a

nd to

fine

-tune

the

appr

oach

in e

ach

case

.

Impl

emen

tatio

nTh

e be

nefit

s of

the

offs

et in

crea

se w

ith in

crea

sing

dur

atio

n.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

Sig

nific

ant e

colo

gica

l kno

wle

dge

wou

ld b

e re

quire

d to

use

reso

urce

equ

ival

ency

met

hods

as

a pr

oxy

for b

iodi

vers

ity v

alue

. The

met

hod

relie

s on

prio

r eco

logi

cal k

now

ledg

e th

at c

an li

nk th

e re

lativ

e ch

ange

s in

the

biod

iver

sity

with

the

antic

ipat

ed o

ffset

s. Q

uant

ifyin

g th

e de

bit

and

cred

it ty

pica

lly re

quire

s ex

perti

se a

nd p

rofe

ssio

nal j

udgm

ent o

n th

e pa

rt of

the

equi

vale

ncy

anal

ysis

team

. A ra

nge

of e

xper

tise

is o

ften

requ

ired

with

spe

cial

ist k

now

ledg

e di

rect

ly re

leva

nt to

the

type

of r

esou

rces

and

ser

vice

s da

mag

ed.

The

leve

l of r

esou

rces

requ

ired

wou

ld d

epen

d on

the

avai

labi

lity

of re

leva

nt in

form

atio

n. W

ith e

xten

sive

ava

ilabl

e in

form

atio

n, ti

me

and

cost

s w

ould

be

fairl

y lo

w; w

ith li

mite

d in

form

atio

n, re

sour

ce re

quire

men

ts c

ould

be

high

.

Appendix C 62


C.3 New Zealand Risk Index MethodThis method uses a risk index to calculate BIODIVERSITY LOSSES and GAINS and is intended to inform the design of biodiversity offsets to ensure no regional scale biodiversity loss as a result of a development project. It is still under development.

Biodiversity offsets aim fully to compensate risk to biodiversity PERSISTENCE caused by development impacts. Relevant achievement measures reflect effects on biodiversity persistence of both impacts and offsets. Biodiversity persistence is eroded by two processes: loss of habitable area and depletion of populations within habitable areas. These processes are described using the survival-area and survival-abundance relationships. These are combined to estimate the rate of persistence probability change and compare impacts and offsets. A proxy persistence measure, Susceptibility to Biodiversity Loss, or SBL, provides the CURRENCY of exchange to compare loss at the impacted site with gain at offset sites. Input data can be supplied at any level of sophistication, from local expert opinion to detailed systematic regional scale inventory.

The spreadsheet includes options for accounting for cost effectiveness assessment intended to help with fine-tuning design of both offset and impact AVOIDANCE at the project site. However, important exchange equity issues such as recognising fair exchanges of loss now for future gain, certain loss for uncertain gain, or loss in one place for gain somewhere else, have not been addressed.

App

endi

x C

63

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

s E

cosy

stem

(or b

ioto

pe),

com

mun

ities

, spe

cies

and

thei

r hab

itats

.

Miti

gatio

n hi

erar

chy

It is

inte

nded

that

the

miti

gatio

n se

quen

ce w

ould

be

addr

esse

d fo

r eac

h an

d ev

ery

valu

e at

tach

ed to

bio

dive

rsity

(e.g

. int

rinsi

c,

diffe

rent

use

val

ues,

cul

tura

l).

Upp

er th

resh

old

Offs

ets

wou

ld n

ot b

e co

nsid

ered

whe

n it

wou

ld n

ot b

e te

chni

cally

pos

sibl

e to

offs

et d

amag

e w

ithin

a fe

w (<

10)

year

s. E

xam

ples

wou

ld b

e fo

r des

truct

ion

of m

id-la

te s

eral

sta

ge c

omm

uniti

es; d

amag

e to

spe

cies

pop

ulat

ions

for

whi

ch th

e ‘h

ow to

’ of c

ompe

nsat

ion

is u

nkno

wn

(e.g

. hyd

ro p

ower

sch

emes

on

mig

rato

ry fi

sh).

Thre

shol

ds fo

r co

nsid

erin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

offs

ets

Low

er th

resh

old

An

offs

et w

ould

be

requ

ired

whe

n th

e ar

ea o

ccup

ied

or a

bund

ance

of a

bio

dive

rsity

com

pone

nt w

ould

be

redu

ced

by a

pro

pose

d de

velo

pmen

t act

ivity

.

Des

ired

or re

quire

d ou

tcom

eN

o re

gion

al s

cale

bio

dive

rsity

loss

as

a re

sult

of a

dev

elop

men

t pro

ject

.

Offs

et o

ptio

nsTh

is a

ppro

ach

does

not

requ

ire a

‘lik

e-fo

r-lik

e’ o

r ‘in

-kin

d’ o

ffset

. Rat

her,

it re

quire

s as

sura

nce

that

ther

e w

ould

be

no n

egat

ive

chan

ge

in p

roba

bilit

y of

per

sist

ence

of b

iodi

vers

ity. H

owev

er, r

ules

to c

onst

rain

the

solu

tion

to li

ke-fo

r-lik

e of

fset

s (o

r any

oth

er g

oal)

coul

d be

ad

ded.

The

offs

et d

esig

n m

ust e

nsur

e a

net i

mpr

ovem

ent i

n se

curit

y fo

r im

pact

ed c

ompo

nent

s.

In s

itu o

ffset

s ar

e re

quire

d; c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

wou

ld n

ot q

ualif

y as

an

offs

et.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-ga

in: t

he

curr

ency

This

app

roac

h is

bas

ed o

n an

inde

x of

‘per

sist

ence

pro

babi

lity’

. A p

roxy

per

sist

ence

mea

sure

(Sus

cept

ibili

ty to

B

iodi

vers

ity L

oss,

or S

BL)

pro

vide

s th

e cu

rren

cy o

f exc

hang

e to

com

pare

loss

at t

he im

pact

ed s

ite w

ith g

ain

at

offs

et s

ites.

An

Exc

el s

prea

dshe

et p

rovi

des

a te

mpl

ate

for t

he c

alcu

latio

n, e

nabl

ing

the

user

to id

entif

y w

hat s

patia

l ex

tent

and

inte

nsity

of c

onse

rvat

ion

man

agem

ent i

s re

quire

d to

offs

et b

iodi

vers

ity lo

ss c

ause

d by

the

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ect.

To u

se th

is m

etho

dolo

gy, i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t the

pro

ject

is re

quire

d, n

amel

y: th

e im

pact

‘foo

tprin

t’ of

the

proj

ect;

an

inve

ntor

y of

spe

cies

and

BIO

TOPE

S; a

nd th

e st

atus

and

are

a cu

rren

tly o

ccup

ied

by e

ach

spec

ies

and

biot

ope.

A

lthou

gh b

ench

mar

k si

tes

do h

elp

to s

peci

fy o

utco

me

targ

ets,

they

are

not

crit

ical

to th

e ap

proa

ch.

In a

dditi

on, i

nfor

mat

ion

rela

ted

to th

e ‘b

igge

r lan

dsca

pe’ i

s re

quire

d, n

amel

y: th

e cu

rren

t sta

tus

and

area

occ

upie

d by

eac

h sp

ecie

s an

d bi

otop

e; a

nd th

e po

tent

ial (

hist

oric

) are

a oc

cupi

ed b

y ea

ch s

peci

es a

nd b

ioto

pe.

For e

ach

pote

ntia

l offs

et s

ite, i

t is

nece

ssar

y to

kno

w th

e ta

rget

are

a to

be

occu

pied

by

each

spe

cies

and

bio

tope

; an

d th

e st

atus

for e

ach

spec

ies

and

biot

ope

with

in th

at ta

rget

are

a.Th

ere

is a

stro

ng s

ocia

l com

pone

nt to

this

app

roac

h w

hich

influ

ence

s of

fset

des

ign;

the

cons

ider

atio

n of

the

valu

es

– an

d th

eir r

elat

ive

prio

ritie

s –

atta

ched

to b

iodi

vers

ity p

lays

an

impo

rtant

role

.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pla

nnin

g

The

impa

ct a

nd o

ffset

are

vie

wed

in th

e w

ider

land

scap

e co

ntex

t, as

des

crib

ed a

bove

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd

ratio

sN

o m

ultip

liers

or d

isco

untin

g ar

e cu

rren

tly u

sed,

alth

ough

thei

r use

wou

ld b

e an

opt

ion

shou

ld it

be

appr

opria

te.

App

endi

x C

64

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

The

appr

oach

is in

tend

ed to

iden

tify

all r

elev

ant v

alue

s as

soci

ated

with

the

affe

cted

bio

dive

rsity

: int

rinsi

c, u

se (i

nclu

ding

eco

nom

ic,

com

mer

cial

and

soc

ial c

ohes

ion)

, and

cul

tura

l val

ues.

The

goa

l of t

he e

nvis

aged

par

ticip

ator

y pr

oces

s is

to e

stab

lish

the

likel

y RE

SID

UA

L IM

PACT

S on

par

ticul

ar v

alue

s as

soci

ated

with

bio

dive

rsity

, and

then

to d

ecid

e on

any

'bot

tom

line

s' a

nd th

e ge

nera

l app

roac

h fo

r dea

ling

with

eac

h. (O

ffset

s ar

e se

en a

s th

e pe

nulti

mat

e op

tion,

with

‘ign

ore

/ acc

ept’

the

dam

age

bein

g th

e la

st o

ptio

n.)

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tTh

e id

entif

icat

ion

of v

alue

s at

tach

ed to

impa

cted

bio

dive

rsity

, dec

idin

g on

the

rela

tive

WEI

GH

TIN

GS

or im

porta

nce

of th

e di

ffere

nt

biod

iver

sity

val

ue s

tream

s, a

nd d

evel

opin

g ac

cept

able

‘rul

es’ f

or c

ombi

ning

or p

riorit

isin

g th

em in

det

erm

inin

g an

app

ropr

iate

offs

et(s

), w

ould

invo

lve

stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

t; re

leva

nt s

take

hold

ers

wou

ld h

ave

to b

e id

entif

ied

in e

ach

case

(e.g

. aut

horit

ies,

com

mun

ities

, sp

ecia

lists

, NG

Os)

. It i

s im

porta

nt in

this

app

roac

h to

reco

gnis

e th

at fo

r diff

eren

t cas

es in

diff

eren

t con

text

s, th

e va

lues

atta

ched

to

biod

iver

sity

cou

ld v

ary

wid

ely

(e.g

. the

use

ver

sus

INTR

INSI

C VA

LUES

).

It is

inte

nded

that

a c

omm

ittee

of N

GO

repr

esen

tativ

es a

nd e

colo

gist

s w

ould

pub

licly

adv

ise

the

deve

lope

r and

con

sent

ing

agen

cy o

n w

heth

er o

r not

a fa

ir an

d fe

asib

le b

iodi

vers

ity o

ffset

has

bee

n pr

opos

ed.

Impl

emen

tatio

nTh

e of

fset

sho

uld

last

in P

ERPE

TUIT

Y, o

r at l

east

unt

il th

e bi

otop

e is

fully

rest

ored

.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

The

leve

l of r

esou

rces

(tim

e an

d fu

nds)

requ

ired

coul

d be

from

low

to h

igh,

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

suf

ficie

nt re

leva

nt

info

rmat

ion

on b

ioto

pes

and

spec

ies.

Appendix C 65


C.4 New Zealand: Averted Risk FormulaeThese formulae are being developed in New Zealand15 to calculate the size of offset required to achieve ‘NO NET LOSS’ of biodiversity through protecting priority areas for biodiversity from conversion. These so-called ‘AVERTED RISK OFFSETS’ are appropriate where the background rate of loss is high, there is ample opportunity to protect relatively large intact areas from clearance, and there is no desire to actively manage these areas beyond enforcing their protected status. The formulae take into account the background or historic rate of loss of biodiversity, and incorporate DISCOUNT RATES as deemed most appropriate to the particular context. They either assume that unsustainable use of resources in these protected areas would be prevented and thus that the rate of loss within these areas would be zero, or they can incorporate some anticipated rate of biodiversity loss within the protected area compared with the loss rate outside that area in calculating the required size of the offset. This formula does not take into account enhanced management or restoration of the protected areas, i.e. it assumes ‘benign neglect’.

The basic formula is as follows:

Ax = )L-L(r)L(Apu

pi �

Where:

Ax is the area for a ‘no net loss’ averted risk offset.

Ai is the area impacted by the project.

r is the discount rate. The base rate should be 5% to 10% with uncertainty risk premium (2% to 10%) added.

Lp is the clearance loss rate of legally protected areas (ideally, this is zero).

Lu is the loss rate of unprotected areas. Loss rate is calculated thus: if 80% of an unprotected habitat remains after 5 years, then Lu = -(LN(0.8))/5 = 0.045, where LN is the natural logarithm.

15 Dr. Theo Stephens (Department of Conservation, New Zealand) and Jake Overton of LandCare Research, New Zealand (in preparation).

App

endi

x C

66

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

s B

ioto

pes.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-gai

n:

the

curr

ency

The

met

hodo

logy

cal

cula

tes

the

area

of o

ffset

requ

ired

to c

ompe

nsat

e fu

lly fo

r the

are

a lo

st a

s a

resu

lt of

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ent,

taki

ng in

to a

ccou

nt b

ackg

roun

d ra

tes

of lo

ss o

f the

impa

cted

bio

tope

and

rele

vant

di

scou

nt ra

tes.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

The

met

hodo

logy

is d

evel

oped

to d

eal w

ith o

ffset

s at

land

scap

e-le

vel.

It co

uld

be in

form

ed b

y sy

stem

atic

co

nser

vatio

n pl

anni

ng (Z

onat

ion,

Mar

xan,

as

desc

ribed

in A

ppen

dix

D).

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd ra

tios

The

form

ulae

can

take

into

acc

ount

ant

icip

ated

rate

s of

bio

dive

rsity

loss

with

in a

pro

tect

ed a

rea

com

pare

d w

ith th

ose

outs

ide

a pr

otec

ted

area

, usi

ng re

leva

nt d

isco

unt r

ates

. Tha

t is,

ther

e is

effe

ctiv

ely

a ‘b

uilt

in’

mul

tiplie

r.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

The

appr

oach

cou

ld b

e ap

plie

d to

any

bio

tope

of v

alue

.

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tE

ngag

emen

t with

loca

l exp

erts

and

/ or

com

mun

ities

rega

rdin

g ra

tes

of lo

ss o

f NA

TURA

L H

ABI

TAT,

and

with

con

serv

atio

n st

akeh

olde

rs

rega

rdin

g pr

iorit

y ar

eas

for B

IOD

IVER

SITY

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N, i

s im

plic

it.

Impl

emen

tatio

nN

o sp

ecifi

c re

fere

nce

foun

d in

doc

umen

ts.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

This

met

hodo

logy

doe

s no

t req

uire

det

aile

d bi

odiv

ersi

ty in

form

atio

n an

d is

rela

tivel

y si

mpl

e to

app

ly. I

t req

uire

s sp

atia

l inf

orm

atio

n on

la

nd te

nure

and

kno

wn

prio

rity

area

s fo

r bio

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n (if

ava

ilabl

e). A

lso,

it re

quire

s ei

ther

land

cov

er o

r his

toric

dat

a, lo

cal

com

mun

ity a

nd /

or e

xper

t inp

ut o

n ba

ckgr

ound

rate

s of

cle

aran

ce o

f nat

ural

hab

itat.

The

leve

l of r

esou

rces

is li

kely

to b

e lo

w to

m

ediu

m, d

epen

ding

on

the

read

y av

aila

bilit

y of

suc

h in

form

atio

n.

67


Appendix D: Supportive or supplementary approaches and methodologies

D.1 ZonationZonation is a reserve selection framework for spatial conservation planning. It identifies areas important for retaining habitat quality and CONNECTIVITY for multiple species, indirectly aiming at species’ long-term PERSISTENCE. Zonation can be used for various purposes such as spatial conservation prioritisation, conservation assessment, reserve selection and reserve network design. That is, it is not a tool designed specifically for offsets, but it can help to locate offsets in the most appropriate places in the landscape in order for them to make the best possible contribution to biodiversity conservation in the long term.

Zonation is most appropriate for data-based regional-scale planning of offsets where compensation can occur elsewhere from where the loss takes place, and where compensation may come from other biodiversity values than from those that are being lost (‘TRADING UP’, e.g. balancing the loss of populations of a more common species by siting an offset in an area that includes rare or threatened species). It therefore potentially deals with trade offs at the landscape scale and can be used to rank prospective compensation areas. The Zonation leaflet16 is a useful two page summary of the method.

16 See www.helsinki.fi/bioscience/consplan.

App

endi

x D

68

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

sTh

e fra

mew

ork

focu

ses

on s

peci

es, s

peci

es c

ompo

sitio

n pe

r uni

t of a

rea,

and

hab

itats

.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gyTh

e ap

proa

ch w

as n

ot d

evel

oped

spe

cific

ally

to d

eter

min

e of

fset

s; ra

ther

, it i

s a

broa

d, la

ndsc

ape-

scal

e to

ol fo

r con

serv

atio

n pl

anni

ng

that

can

be

used

to th

is e

nd. I

t dra

ws

on m

etho

ds o

f det

erm

inin

g co

nnec

tivity

bet

wee

n ec

osys

tem

s an

d ha

bita

ts, a

naly

sing

un

certa

inty

, spe

cies

prio

ritis

atio

n (w

eigh

ting)

, spe

cies

inte

ract

ions

and

trad

eoffs

bet

wee

n sp

ecie

s. S

peci

es in

form

atio

n ca

n be

inpu

t as

poin

t occ

urre

nce

data

.Th

e to

ol d

oes

not m

ake

use

of a

ben

chm

ark.

The

mos

t stra

ight

forw

ard

way

of u

sing

Zon

atio

n fo

r offs

ettin

g is

to u

se it

to id

entif

y ar

eas

that

wou

ld b

e go

od fo

r con

serv

atio

n an

d co

uld

be p

rote

cted

to c

ompe

nsat

e fo

r are

as th

at w

ould

be

lost

(i.e

. ave

rted

risk

type

offs

ets)

. Onl

y ar

eas

that

are

not

alre

ady

inte

nded

fo

r ret

entio

n or

con

serv

atio

n w

ould

be

acce

ptab

le a

s an

offs

et (t

here

by s

atis

fyin

g th

e cr

iterio

n of

‘AD

DIT

ION

ALI

TY’).

In s

impl

e te

rms,

an

alys

is w

ould

pro

ceed

as

follo

ws:

�D

eter

min

e th

e ar

ea to

be

lost

e.g

. 10

units

of h

abita

t (e.

g. fo

rest

type

);

�C

arry

out

Zon

atio

n an

alys

is a

t a re

solu

tion

of o

ne u

nit o

r les

s;

�Id

entif

y to

p lo

catio

ns th

at h

ave

no c

urre

nt o

r pla

nned

pro

tect

ion;

�R

evie

w le

vels

of t

hrea

t to

the

pers

iste

nce

of b

iodi

vers

ity in

thes

e lo

catio

ns; a

nd,

�C

alcu

late

the

pote

ntia

l bio

dive

rsity

‘div

iden

d’ th

at w

ould

be

secu

red

from

inve

stin

g in

an

offs

et in

alte

rnat

ive

loca

tions

.

Ass

ume

that

by

prot

ectin

g th

ese

area

s re

tent

ion

wou

ld in

crea

se to

from

60%

to 8

5%, m

eani

ng a

25%

rete

ntio

n ga

in in

the

long

term

. A

ssum

ing

sim

ilar c

onse

rvat

ion

valu

es fo

r im

pact

and

offs

et a

reas

, and

the

offs

et w

ould

be

impl

emen

ted

exac

tly a

ccor

ding

to p

lan,

the

area

nee

ded

to c

ompe

nsat

e fo

r los

s w

ould

be

(1/0

.25)

*10

= 40

are

a un

its o

f the

‘top

loca

tions

’ of l

and

with

no

curr

ent o

r pla

nned

pr

otec

tion.

One

cou

ld fu

rther

spe

cula

te o

n th

e tra

nsfe

rabi

lity

of th

reat

; if t

he 2

5% g

ain

com

es fr

om s

topp

able

thre

at, t

hen

the

40un

its

wou

ld h

old.

If h

owev

er, t

he th

reat

is o

nly

parti

ally

sto

ppab

le (e

.g. 8

0% o

f thr

eat w

ould

tran

sfer

els

ewhe

re –

ofte

n te

rmed

‘LEA

KAG

E’),

then

the

NET

GA

IN w

ould

onl

y be

20%

of t

he a

bove

, im

plyi

ng a

furth

er m

ultip

licat

ion

by (1

/(1-0

.8))

end

ing

at 2

00 a

rea

units

nee

ded

for

fair

com

pens

atio

n.

Add

ress

ing

biod

iver

sity

of

fset

s in

rela

tion

to

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

The

met

hodo

logy

focu

ses

on th

e in

trins

ic v

alue

s of

bio

dive

rsity

, loo

king

at I

RREP

LACE

ABI

LITY

and

thre

at.

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

t, im

plem

enta

tion

No

spec

ific

refe

renc

e fo

und

in d

ocum

ents

; not

a s

peci

fic o

ffset

met

hodo

logy

.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

The

leve

l of r

esou

rces

(tim

e an

d fu

nds)

requ

ired

coul

d be

hig

h to

med

ium

, dep

endi

ng o

n th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

suf

ficie

nt re

leva

nt

info

rmat

ion

on h

abita

ts a

nd s

peci

es.

Appendix D 69


D.2 Marxan and MarzoneSimilar to Zonation, Marxan is a software tool to determine reserve selection framework for spatial conservation planning. It is target-based and best used in a proactive manner to help identify conservation priorities within the landscape. Once identified, these priorities can inform and direct spatial development to avoid or minimise negative impacts on biodiversity, and to highlight what could be considered as ‘offset receiving areas’. That is, although Marxan was not designed for selecting offsets, it can help to locate offsets in the most appropriate places in the landscape in order for them to make the best possible contribution to biodiversity conservation in the long term.

Marxan is arranged around defined planning units, for which information on species and environmental features (e.g. vegetation types), existing reserve or protection status, land-price (etc.) must be supplied. Species information is entered together with the specific area or habitat targets needed to conserve different species (e.g. how many hectares containing this species or habitat are required to be protected in a reserve). These models, in addition to generating options for reserve selection, can also help to identify the most cost effective and efficient spatial location of protected land parcels to meet conservation objectives and targets.

Different from Zonation, Marxan allows the incorporation of land prices and conservation management costs which can help guide an offset strategy to identify those areas that will allow targets to be achieved for the least cost. By helping users evaluate how well each option meets both conservation and socioeconomic objectives, the program can facilitate the exploration of tradeoffs amongst different candidate sites for an offset. Both tools can be used as part of a wider spatial planning exercise and involve stakeholder engagement to focus on key biodiversity issues and help to prioritise conservation options in the landscape17. Like all reserve planning software, Marxan, like Zonation, is not designed to act as a stand-alone reserve design solution. Its effectiveness is dependent upon the involvement of people, the adoption of sound ecological principles, the establishment of scientifically defensible conservation goals and targets, and the construction of spatial datasets.

�� the level of resources (time and funds) required could be high to medium, depending on the availability of sufficient relevant information on habitats, species and other variables. In addition, the effectiveness of these models relies on conservation targets for particular BIOTOPES, habitats and species; the exercise in determining these targets may require time and funds.

It should be re-emphasised that these software programs were not designed for biodiversity offsets. Their specific limitation is that they focus on capturing the best ‘biodiversity return’ based on existing species distributions in a landscape. However, offsets are dynamic and the end-goal is the enhanced retention of biodiversity in the long-term. Frequently this can be achieved through interventions other than reserve creation – e.g. offsets that are based on changes in land-management practices, eradication of invasive species etc. Conventional reserve planning software like Marxan is not designed to solve this larger set of optimisation problems.

Marzone is a new program based on Marxan, that does allow consideration of multiple land (or sea) management zones (e.g. including multiple use areas or extractive reserves that confer some biodiversity benefits but also allow certain human activities), such that conservation objectives can be achieved through a wider suite of management options than reservation alone. Given this feature, it applies more readily to ‘real world’ situations and may offer advantages over earlier models to BIODIVERSITY OFFSET PLANNERS.

17 e.g. Driver, A., Cowling, R.M. and Maze, K. 2003. Planning for Living Landscapes: Perspectives and Lessons from South Africa. Botanical Society of South Africa.

Appendix D 70


D.3 Biological Territorial CapacityThis method adopts a landscape, energetic approach to understanding the ecological state of ecosystems, in order to improve their management and regulate their use. The method is based on Biological Territorial Capacity (BTC). BTC is a synthetic function referred to a vegetation ‘ecocoenotope’ (habitat unit), based on the concept of resistance stability, the principal types of ecosystems of the ecosphere, and their metabolic capacity (biomass, gross primary production, respiration). In essence, BTC represents the state of an ecological system and it is proportional to the meta-stability of the vegetated biotope units. This approach was not specifically developed for use in designing offsets, but the CURRENCY can be applied to loss-gain calculations.

Useful reference

Ingegnoli, V. 2002. Landscape Ecology: A Widening Foundation. Springer Verlag, Berlin, New York.

App

endi

x D

71

BB

OP

– B

iodi

vers

ity O

ffset

Des

ign

Han

dboo

k: A

ppen

dice

s

Bro

ad o

verv

iew

of t

his

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

ticD

escr

iptio

n

The

targ

et o

f bio

dive

rsity

of

fset

s S

peci

es, c

omm

uniti

es a

nd e

cosy

stem

s, fo

cusi

ng o

n bi

otop

e pa

ram

eter

s an

d qu

ality

/ co

nditi

on.

Cal

cula

ting

loss

-gai

n:

the

curr

ency

The

met

hodo

logy

cal

cula

tes

cove

r, st

ruct

ure

and

age

of h

abita

t; pl

ant b

iom

ass;

dom

inan

t spe

cies

, spe

cies

ric

hnes

s, k

ey a

nd th

reat

ened

spe

cies

pre

senc

e; a

nd, t

he fu

nctio

nal r

ole

of la

ndsc

ape

units

, lev

els

of

dist

urba

nce,

and

con

tigui

ty o

f sim

ilar h

abita

ts. T

he m

etho

d is

use

d in

ord

er to

mod

el th

e im

pact

s re

sulti

ng

from

a p

roje

ct. T

he d

iffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e ac

tual

sta

te a

nd th

e fu

ture

impa

cted

sta

te is

mod

elle

d us

ing

com

para

ble

case

s. T

he m

odel

ena

bles

a q

uant

itativ

e as

sess

men

t of i

mpa

cts

and

prov

ides

a m

easu

re o

f th

e of

fset

nee

ded.

The

impa

cted

site

is c

ompa

red

with

‘nor

mal

’ or b

ench

mar

k va

lues

for t

he a

ffect

ed

biot

ope.

Bio

logi

cal T

errit

oria

l Cap

acity

(BTC

) is

used

as

an IN

DIC

ATO

R of

veg

etat

ion

stat

e an

d pr

oduc

tivity

, m

easu

ring

the

chan

ge re

sulti

ng fr

om R

ESID

UA

L IM

PACT

S. O

ffset

s ai

m to

del

iver

the

sam

e qu

antu

m o

f BTC

ga

ins,

to c

ompe

nsat

e or

offs

et re

sidu

al lo

ss. L

oss

in B

TC in

one

are

a is

thus

mad

e up

for b

y ga

in

else

whe

re. T

he c

urre

ncy

of e

xcha

nge

is M

cal/m

2 /yea

r, dr

awin

g on

resp

iratio

n, g

ross

pro

duct

ivity

and

bi

omas

s va

riabl

es.

Site

sel

ectio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

leve

l pl

anni

ng

The

met

hodo

logy

is s

peci

fical

ly d

evel

oped

to d

eal w

ith la

ndsc

ape-

leve

l uni

ts a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d bi

odiv

ersi

ty. I

t th

us ta

kes

into

acc

ount

suc

h th

ings

as

cont

igui

ty o

f sim

ilar h

abita

ts, a

nd la

ndsc

ape

leve

l eco

logi

cal

proc

esse

s.

Offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy

Mul

tiplie

rs a

nd ra

tios

A p

reca

utio

nary

app

roac

h is

take

n to

cal

cula

ting

the

offs

et; a

rela

tivel

y la

rge

offs

et is

indi

cate

d w

here

ther

e is

unc

erta

inty

abo

ut th

e su

cces

s of

the

offs

et a

nd /

or a

bout

the

assu

mpt

ions

mad

e in

the

met

hodo

logy

.

Offs

ets

in re

latio

n to

ec

osys

tem

ser

vice

s Th

e ap

proa

ch c

ould

be

appl

ied

to a

ny b

ioto

pe o

f val

ue, e

ither

in te

rms

of in

trins

ic, u

se o

r CU

LTU

RAL

VALU

E.

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

tN

o sp

ecifi

c re

fere

nce

foun

d in

doc

umen

ts.

Impl

emen

tatio

nN

o sp

ecifi

c re

fere

nce

foun

d in

doc

umen

ts.

Bro

ad c

omm

ents

This

met

hodo

logy

is fa

irly

com

plex

and

requ

ires

rela

tivel

y de

taile

d in

form

atio

n on

hab

itats

and

spe

cies

, as

wel

l as

on ‘n

orm

al’ v

alue

s fo

r bio

tope

s. (T

he m

etho

d of

BTC

cal

cula

tion

is b

ased

on

a ch

eck-

list d

epen

ding

larg

ely

on th

e ve

geta

tion

type

. Ana

lysi

s ca

n be

ex

pedi

ted

usin

g si

mpl

ified

tabl

es, b

ut p

ract

ical

exp

erie

nce

is re

quire

d in

ord

er to

sim

plify

the

met

hodo

logy

.) Th

e le

vel o

f res

ourc

es is

th

us li

kely

to b

e m

ediu

m to

hig

h, d

epen

ding

on

the

avai

labi

lity

of s

uch

info

rmat

ion.

Appendix D 72


D.4 Emerging ecosystem services assessment tools and their corporate applicabilityThis appendix gives an introduction to some tools explored in Business for Social Responsibility’s comparative assessment of emerging environmental services tools.

The aim of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment18, released in 2005, was to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being. The Assessment was conducted by over 1,300 scientists from 95 countries and was designed to meet some of the assessment needs of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and other users including the private sector, civil society, and indigenous peoples.

In response, efforts are underway to create environmental service assessment and measurement tools. Since 2007, a number of tools have emerged or are currently being developed to assess multiple ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, and several of these were reviewed by Sissel Waage, Emma Stewart and Kit Armstrong on behalf of Business for Social Responsibility in November 200819. Ecosystem services covered in these models typically include services such as purification of air and water, regulation of water flow, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of agricultural pests, dispersal of seeds and translocation of nutrients, maintenance of biodiversity, partial climatic stabilisation, moderation of temperature extremes, wind breaks, support for diverse human cultures, and aesthetic beauty and landscape enrichment.

The emergent tools for conducting integrated ecosystem assessments analysed in the Synthesis Report are:

� ARIES (Assessment and Research Infrastructure for Ecosystem Services)20, which is under development by the University of Vermont’s Ecoinformatics Collaboratory (within the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics), Conservation International and Earth Economics as well as with collaboration from experts at Wageningen University. This is a computer model and decision-support infrastructure to assist decision-makers and researchers by estimating and forecasting ecosystem services provision and their correspondent range of economic values in a specific area. Features of the tool are that it is a probabilistic, non-deterministic model designed for continual updating; transparent, so users know information sources; has a user-friendly interface despite complexity of the model; and it builds on University of Vermont’s Ecosystem Services Database that contains spatially-explicit, peer-reviewed valuation data as well as methods of analysis, publications and project models. It will be pilot tested with Conservation International and Earth Economics.

� ESR (Corporate Ecosystem Services Review)21, which was launched in March 2008 by the World Resources Institute (WRI), the Meridian Institute, and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). This is a decision-support tool that provides a sequence of questions that helps managers develop strategies to manage risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence

18 See http://www.millenniumassessment.org/.

19 Waage, S., Stewart, E. & K. Armstrong (2008) A Comparative Assessment of Emerging Ecosystem Services Tools & their Corporate Applicability, BSR Environmental Services, Tools and Market Working Group http://www.bsr.org/membership/working-groups/environmental-markets.cfm.

20 See http://esd.uvm.edu/.

21 See http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review.

Appendix D 73


on ecosystems. Features of the tool are that it offers a methodical, logical sequence of guiding questions; is the most advanced in terms of ‘road-testing’ with companies; and there are plans to provide guidance on integration into existing ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS as well as valuation techniques.

� InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)22, which is in development by The Natural Capital Project – a joint venture among Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund – with the goal of issuing a manual in the Summer / Fall 2008 and software in Fall / Winter 2008. It is a decision-making aid to assess how distinct scenarios might lead to different ecosystem service and human well-being related outcomes in particular geographic areas. Features of the tools are that it enables users to input their own site-specific data; allows for expert opinion as data to address data gaps; enables consideration of present and future trade offs from alternative resource management; is user-friendly with few data requirements; and identifies where ecosystem service benefits originate.

� MIMES (Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services)23, which is currently available in an early version (‘beta plus’) from the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. This is a multi-scale, integrated suite of models that assess the true value of ecosystem services, their linkages to human welfare, and how their function and value might change under various management scenarios. Features of the tool are that value can denominated in dollars, land area, or other such parameters; it is already populated with reliable, publicly available data; it can be scaled for additional data input; and the model is open source and has run successfully.

� NVI (Natural Value Initiative) assessment approach24, which is being created by Fauna & Flora International, Brazilian business school FGV, and the United Nations Environmental Programme’s Finance Initiative as a financial service sector focused tool for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem service risks. The tool is an evaluation benchmark methodology for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem-services related risks and opportunities in companies. NVI’s work is initially within the food the food, beverage and tobacco sectors, and it builds on past FFI – Insight Investment work on a similar benchmarking methodology that was piloted for oil and gas, mining and metals and utilities sectors. Features of the tool are that it: promotes greater awareness within the finance sector of the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and investment value, including the risks associated with mismanagement; and creates a company risk profile and offers case studies based on both publicly available information and direct corporate engagement.

In addition to these tools focused on multiple ecosystem services, BSR notes that a number of other biodiversity related tools that are also relevant given (a) the role of biodiversity in ecosystem structure and function and (b) the broad range of environmental parameters being considered, which include elements of ecosystem services. Two other relevant assessment approaches – which are in various stages of development – include:

� BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme) Toolkit25: a toolkit for assessing whether or not biodiversity offsets are appropriate and providing guidance on their design and implementation (the subject of this document and other Handbooks –see www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines); and

22 See http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html.

23 See http://www.uvm.edu/giee/mimes/.

24 See http://www.fauna-flora.org/newsnvi2.php.

25 See http://www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/index.php.

Appendix D 74


� IBAT (Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool)26, which is in development by Conservation International, following on their ‘Initial Biodiversity Assessment & Planning’ (IBAP)27 approach that draws on Rapid Ecological Assessment methodologies for use within a corporate development context. This is a screening tool to help companies incorporate biodiversity into their risk analysis, decision-making and planning processes. Features of the tool are that it builds on locally collected scientific knowledge and data; delivers a cost effective product in a timely manner; and is limited to biodiversity high biodiversity value areas and protected areas.

BSR’s Synthesis Report focuses on all of these tools. For further information and the full report, please seehttp://www.bsr.org/membership/working-groups/environmental-markets.cfm.

26 See http://www.biodiversityinfo.org/ibat/.

27 See http://www.celb.org/ImageCache/CELB/content/energy_2dmining/ibap_2epdf/v1/ibap.pdf.

biodiversity offset design handbook appendices

Documents