THE
| BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY
Assessing the offsetability of
biodiversity impacts
BBOP webinar, 18th July 2013
John Pilgrim
Head ConsultantA collaborative effort: published in
Conservation Letters
POLICY PERSPECTIVE
A process for assessing the offseta y of biodiversity impacts
John D. Pilgrim! Susie Brownlie”, Jonathan M. M. Ekstrom!, Toby A. Gardner, Amrei von Hase‘,
Kerry ten Kate‘, Conrad E, Savy®, R. T. Theo Stephens®, Helen J. Temple!, Jo Treweek’, Graham T. Ussher®,
& Gerri Ward”
"The Biodiversity Consuitancy, 72 Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RR, UK
2 ¢e Vilirs Brownlie Associates, 21 Menin Avenue, Claremont 7708 South Arca
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Oowning Street, Cambridge CB2 38), UK
“Forest Trends, 1203 19th Street NW, dth Floor, Washington, DC 20036, USA
5 Center for Environmental Leadership in Business, Conservation ternational, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite S00, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
“Landcare Research, Private Bag 1930, Dunedin, New Zealand
Treweek Emvironmental Consultants, Chancery Cottage, Kentisbeare, Cullompton, Devan ®X15 205, UK
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, PO Box 5271, Wellesley Street, Auckiand 1141, New Zealand
Department of Conservation, 18:32 Manners St, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYBackground and aims
+ Many regulators are having to make subjective decisions about
developments that include offsets
+ Improved consistency and defensibility is important
+ The New Zealand Department of Conservation supported this work while
considering how to design their biodiversity legislation
+ Many offsetting issues require consideration (e.g. additionality, exchange
rules) but here we focus on one: relative offsetability of impacts
* We aimed to produce a practical process, not a scientific masterpiece
+ A globally-applicable process, but we recommend local tailoring
* Not intended as the ‘final word’, but as a stimulus for further discussion,
refinement and tailoring to local situations
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYOffsetability: the issue
+ It is generally accepted that there are limits to what can be offset ona
like-for-like basis (BBOP Principle 2)
* At the extreme, offsets would not be possible for impacts that cause
global extinction
+ There are other cases where they may be considered inappropriate
because risks to biodiversity persistence are too high
* These cases reflect levels of biodiversity loss that are unacceptable to
society (ideally defined by conservation goals within national or subnational
biodiversity strategies, policies or plans)
+ This is a grey-scale: there are few easy lines to draw between ‘ffsetable’
and ‘non-offsetable’
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYKey assumptions
(i) Conservation goals are essential: we assumed a minimum target of no
net loss at the global scale, compared to background rates of loss
Gi) We assumed desire for “like-for-like” offsetting
(iii) We only considered existence values of biodiversity because ecosystem
service values vary more widely among human societies and may be
substitutable
* The area of analysis should encompass all potential impacts
+ A precautionary approach should be taken to uncertainty
* Quantitative thresholds increase transparency and replicability
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYOverview of the process
(i) Assess biodiversity conservation concern
(i) Assess residual impact magnitude
{) Assess offset opportunity,
(Iv) Assess offset feasbity
(7) Combine residual impacts (i), offset opportunity (il) and offset
{easbiity (iv) to categorise likelihood of offset success
(Wi) Combine biodiversity conservation concern ()and ikelinood
of offset success (v] in a burden of proof framework
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY
DEVELOPMENT AREA
ae(i) Assess biodiversity conservation concern
Vulnerability: are already-threatened species or ecosystems at risk?
Irreplaceability: are large proportions of species or ecosystems at risk?
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYAssess biodiversity conservation concern
Yulnerabilty of biodiversity feature
Irreplaceatality of area Near Threatened! Data Deficient
of analysic Critical Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Least Concern Not Evaluated
295%, Extremely High ExremelyHigh Very High High ‘Assign toa threat level
S108 Extremely High Very High igh Megiurn fr apply precautionary
Bik Very High High Medium Low approach
201% High ‘Medium Low Low
<0.18 Medium Low Low low
+ Species and ecosystems (few data on ecological processes)
+ Irreplaceability and vulnerability as a proxy for local conservation targets
* Rankings drawn from existing conservation prioritisation approaches
* Irreplaceability rankings are based on the principle that susceptibility to
distribution/population impacts increases in a non-linear way
+ Weakest-link approach should be used
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY(ii) Assess residual impact magnitude
Severity: what is the intensity of impacts?
Extent: what proportion of each biodiversity feature is impacted?
Duration: how long will impacts last?
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYAssess residual impact magnitude
+ Focus on affected biodiversity of highest conservation concern
+ Three key components of impact (based on EIA):
* Severity (intensity at a defined scale)
* Extent (scale; proportional to population/range)
* Duration
+ Higher values of each component indicate higher impact magnitude
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY(iii) Assess offset opportunity
Natural distribution: will offsets be located where affected biodiversity is naturally found?
Functional area: does affected biodiversity (requiring offsets) perform any geographically-
restricted functions (e.g. connectivity)?
Availability of offset options: are sufficient comparable, additional offsets available for
biodiversity to be offset for appropriate timescales?
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYAssess offset opportunity
+ Practical opportunities for achieving comparable, additional, lasting gains
+ External limits to offsetability, largely outside of developer control
* Opportunity highest where biodiversity to be offset:
* Occurs naturally near the impact area
* Does not perform geographically-restricted functions
+ Has low-moderate irreplaceability but moderate-high vulnerability
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY(iv) Assess offset feasibility
Confidence in offset delivery techniques, adequacy of plans: how likely are offset methods
(e.g. restoration or conservation) to lead to required biodiversity gains?
Offset implementation capacity: are offset implementers likely to do a good job?
Developer capacity: are developers likely to do a good job?
: is sufficient funding secured for the offset duration?
an offsets be implemented without time lags between impacts and offset gains
affecting biodiversity viability?
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYAssess offset feasibility
+ Assessment of the practical feasibility of achieving comparable, additional,
lasting gains
* Internal limits to offsetability: factors which developers can improve in
order to increase chances of offset success
* Technical design
+ Funding
* Timing
* Capacity (developer and offset implementer)
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY(v) Combine residual impacts (ii), offset opportunity (iii) and offset
feasibility (iv) to categorise likelihood of offset success
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY‘lass 1 fonest Class ighest
bssue Subissve crteron Ietnood class 2 loss 3 hetood)
Residual impact Severty Dednes of each odverstyfeatue Severe Major Minor Very ited ot
‘magnitude atasetscae leg persquare sti significant)
kicmete)
‘Stent Proportion frangepopuiation of Morty large smal Very mal (but i
each bowers featur impacted signin
Duration Length ofimpacts,relacve tovalty Permanent Longer Mediumterm Shorter
of tected adversity
(Offset opportunity Options Potentialforrestonng affected None Possible Possible Possible
biodtersty functions elsewhere
offset options within natural ange Lined Lures Reasonable Great
Forrestaratonoffests, condition to Wiorse Worse Fqualor Better Better
‘which ofet canbe restored
compared to mgacted feature
For averted loss offsets, ‘Avornear original; Good: decreasing Reasonable; Poor, decreasing
landscapetevel condition of Increasing ‘decreasing apy
sffacted bodversty apy
Offs easy Techical Availabilty ofproven relevant Noproven Fewproven —_Someproven Many proven
methods for restoration, methods methods sath ‘methods
prtecton et
Adequacy of longterm offset Inadequate Creibleplan—Creibleplan Credible
implementation plans exists wists exists
Adequacy of lngterm ofset None Lacking deta Adequate Excellent
monitoring plans
Financ! Funding erlang term feet Postimpace Postimpacts= —SomaspreingactsFulypresmpacts
Implementation
Funding forlengtomm ofsot None Inadequate Lacks fundingfor Includes funding
monitoring Independent’ forirdependont
nat put
Temporal Tee after impacts unt set gains Longer Meciumterm —Shortterm Gans priorto
replace affected biodversty, ‘pacts
relativeta vibity
Capacity. Capacty of offset mplementerfor _Naghgitle Lurited Some High
Televane matnodestacessary
sesle
Capac of developer to keep residual Nogigible Lures some High
Impacts within precited
rmagnicederTHe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYBurden of proof
+ Should be central to development decisions (core to ‘polluter pays’ and
precautionary principles)
+ The obligation of a developer to present evidence showing there is limited
danger to biodiversity in shifting from the often lower-risk status quo (no
development) to a new position (development + offset)
* Civil Law (inc. Environmental Law) usually requires ‘balance of probability’
* Criminal Law usually requires ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
+ Framework should be iteratively applied during design/implementation
+ Framework would produce incentives to reduce residual impacts
* Offsets have a much higher chance of success for more common and
widespread biodiversity
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYClass 4
Class 3
Class 2
Likelihood of offset success
Class 1
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY
Low
Medium
High ‘Very High
ity conservation concern
Extremely
HighThank you for attention, and to:
+ BBOP for hosting this webinar
+ New Zealand Department of Conservation for supporting the research
+ Jim Salzman for conceiving application of burden of proof to offsetting
* Study co-authors (Susie Brownlie, Jon Ekstrom, Toby Gardner, Amrei von
Hase, Kerry ten Kate, Conrad Savy, Theo Stephens, Helen Temple, Jo
Treweek, Graham Ussher & Gerri Ward)
* Study reviewers and others who provided technical inputs
www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com
john.pilgrim@thebiodiversityconsultancy.com
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCYAny questions?
(i) Assess biodiversity conservation concern
(i) Assess residual impact magnitude
{) Assess offset opportunity,
(Iv) Assess offset feasbity
(7) Combine residual impacts (i), offset opportunity (il) and offset
{easbiity (iv) to categorise likelihood of offset success
(Wi) Combine biodiversity conservation concern ()and ikelinood
of offset success (v] in a burden of proof framework
THe
BIODIVERSITY
CONSULTANCY
DEVELOPMENT AREA
ae