THE | BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANCY Assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts BBOP webinar, 18th July 2013 John Pilgrim Head ConsultantA 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 CONSULTANCYBackground 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 CONSULTANCYOffsetability: 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 CONSULTANCYKey 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 CONSULTANCYOverview 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 CONSULTANCYAssess 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 CONSULTANCYAssess 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 CONSULTANCYAssess 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 CONSULTANCYAssess 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 rmagnicederTHe BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANCYBurden 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 CONSULTANCYClass 4 Class 3 Class 2 Likelihood of offset success Class 1 THe BIODIVERSITY CONSULTANCY Low Medium High ‘Very High ity conservation concern Extremely HighThank 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 CONSULTANCYAny 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