Essential Principles and Conditions for Habitat Banking

Habitat Banking, as one form of biodiversity offsetting* is a practice that has been around for a number of years in some countries (e.g USA, Australia, Germany) and defined in the Eftec report as “a market for the supply of biodiversity credits and demand for those credits to offset damage to biodiversity (debits). Credits can be produced in advance of, and without ex-ante links to, the debits they compensate for, and stored over time“.
Habitat Banking presents both threats as well as opportunities for biodiversity and is a potentially controversial and divisive issue. The EC has commissioned a consultancy (Eftec) to assess the potential for developing EU policy in this area which implies that the EC is considering a role for habitat banking in a new EU biodiversity policy post 2010. The purpose of this paper is to provide to members of the European Habitats Forum a series of basic principles to be advocated by NGO’s when debating this issue and to allow for a common approach. It does not however present a full and detailed analysis of and position on habitat banking. The draft report by the European Commission’s consultants already provides such an analysis and can be downloaded from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/Harmful%20Subsidies%20Report.pdf

Opportunities of using habitat banking:
• It becomes more easily possible to compensate for loss of biodiversity.
• Habitat banking can take advantage of economies of scale and markets.
• If effective, it would generate significant funding for habitat restoration and creation and also potentially for enhancing species populations or habitats.
• Achieving set ecological objectives in a more cost-effective way.
• Trading between equivalent habitat types is relatively straightforward.

Threats connected to habitat banking:
• Studies on ecological effectiveness, especially in the long term, are lacking but experience in the USA with wetland mitigation banking has shown that in 99.9% of the cases a permit is delivered while in only 20% of the cases mitigation has been successful .
• Habitat restoration or creation is in most cases extremely expensive compared to protecting biodiversity where it occurs.
• Need for sufficient ‘market activities’ (ie sufficient demand from destructive projects) before delivery of benefits at a sufficient scale.
• Trading between non-equivalent habitat types is less straightforward and requires a value judgment.
• It only works for habitats which develop in a short time period and for species which have high reproductive capacities and dispersal abilities, ie early succession habitats and species. Even in these circumstances, the species composition and quality of habitat offered by habitat banking will not be equivalent to those of the habitat lost and may be of lesser importance to biodiversity.
• It doesn’t work for the most valuable habitat types which take decades or even hundreds of years to develop such as old growth forest or peatlands or for habitats of the most highly threatened species as these should be “no-go” areas for development in the first place.

Basic principles relevant to habitat banking:
Although habitat banking has some important attractions and advantages, implementing it in practice will carry very significant risks. Successful habitat banking therefore requires a number of conditions to be met first:
• First of all it should be part of a legally binding EU policy framework that aims to ensure no-net-loss (NNL) or net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity to underpin the delivery of a new biodiversity target. In particular, impact assessment and planning processes should be strengthened to consistently require, at a minimum, no net loss through biodiversity compensation and offsets should achieve conservation outcomes that are genuinely additional to what would have occurred without the offset.
• A rigorous application of the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, restore, offset) as it is for example legally arranged in the EU in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive should be ensured.
• Any potential weakening of the legally binding offset system outlined in Art 6 of the Habitats Directive or national wildlife protection/conservation legislation through the introduction of a wider habitat banking system must be avoided.
• A system should be limited to an exhaustive list of species and habitats whose characteristics (e.g. high dispersal and reproduction rates, early succession habitat types) make them suitable for habitat banking, also taking into consideration previous restoration efforts. Research into which habitats are suitable targets for HB should be carried out first.
• In addition a list of EU Directive species for which offsets are not permitted (because there is doubt that the habitat for the species can be successfully recreated in a reasonable time period) should be defined. Member States should be encouraged to include additional nationally endangered species on such a list where they match the criteria.
• Offsets should be in place and fully functioning before the damaging activities go ahead.
• Compensation activities should be carried out in the same region and be concerned with the same habitat which is able to provide similar functions and services as the habitat lost.
• Sufficient monitoring and data collection by authorities and independent experts need to take place in order to identify baselines, set qualitative and quantitative targets for compensation and to assess the success or failure of the compensation measures.
• Sufficient administrative capacities are necessary to manage the habitat banking schemes, oversee the issuance of debits and credits, trading, auditing, verification, and for enforcement and ensuring long-term compliance.
• Full transparency and openness is needed in the system to allow for public scrutiny.
As a final point it should be stressed that ALL of the above conditions are necessary to be fulfilled in their totality for there to be any chance for habitat banking to be a success.


Final draft from March 30, 2010, prepared by Pieter de Pous, EEB and Helen Byron and Zoltan Waliczky, RSPB.


*offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity. (BBOP definition available from http://bbop.forest-trends.org/)
"From ten Kate, K, Bishop J, & Bayon, R (2004). Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK, quoting Julie Sibbing from the National Wildlife Federation.

Biodiversity: New Report Highlights Win-Win Business Practices that Do More for the Planet

A new report funded by the European Commission makes a strong case for integrating biodiversity into private sector business plans and core activities around the globe. The report reveals considerable recent growth in eco-certified products and services, growing consumer concerns for sustainable production, and shows how biodiversity can provide a substantial business opportunity in a market that could be worth US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050. It makes seven key recommendations for businesses, and calls on accounting professions and financial reporting bodies to develop common standards to assess biodiversity impacts, and develop new tools for this purpose. “TEEB for Business” will form part of the TEEB synthesis report to be launched at a meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010
European Commissioner for the Environment Janez Potočnik said: "Despite some local successes, and in spite of a growing awareness of the problem, the global rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing. But this report shows that businesses can help, and I am heartened to see these tangible examples of companies that are flourishing without damaging the only planet we have."
TEEB Study Leader Pavan Sukhdev said: “Through the work of TEEB and others, the economic importance of biodiversity and ecosystems is emerging from the invisible into the visible spectrum. It is clear that some companies in some sectors and on some continents are hearing and acting on that message in order to build more sustainable, 21st century businesses."
Key proposals for businesses
TEEB for business recommends a series of actions to help companies minimise their biodiversity risks and seize the business opportunities ecosystems services create:
1. Identify the impacts and dependencies of your business on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES)
2. Assess the business risks and opportunities associated with these impacts and dependencies
3. Develop BES information systems, set SMART targets, measure and value performance, and report your results
4. Take action to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks, including in-kind compensation (‘offsets’) where appropriate
5. Grasp emerging BES business opportunities, such as cost-efficiencies, new products and new markets
6. Integrate business strategy and actions on BES with wider corporate social responsibility initiatives

7. Engage with business peers and stakeholders in government, NGOs and civil society to improve BES guidance and policy.
Biodiversity is good for business
The report finds that while a majority of companies still treat biodiversity superficially in their reports, growing numbers are aware of the potential benefits. Biodiversity and ecosystem services offer opportunities for all business sectors, and their integration can bring significant added value by ensuring the sustainability of supply chains, generating new products, creating and penetrating new markets and attracting new customers.
Policies to manage biodiversity and ecosystem risks can also help to identify new business opportunities, such as reducing input costs through improved resource efficiency, developing and marketing low impact technologies, managing and designing projects to reduce ecological footprints, and providing professional services in risk assessment and management/adaptation.
Estimates developed by PricewaterhouseCoopers for “sustainability-related global business opportunities in natural resources (including energy, forestry, food and agriculture, water and metals)” suggest a potential market in the range of US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050 (at constant 2008 prices). About half of this is “additional investments in the energy sector related to reducing carbon emissions”. Markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services are growing, as shown by data compiled by Forest Trends and the Ecosystem Marketplace:
- The certified agricultural products market was valued at over US$ 40 billion in 2008 and is expected to reach up to US$ 210 billion by 2020, and may reach US$ 900 billion by 2050.
- Payments for Ecosystem Services for water-related ecosystem services and watershed management account for only US$5 billion in 2008, but are expected to total more than 30 billion by 2050.
Background
The planet’s natural and nature-based assets – from individual species to ecosystems such as forests, coral reefs, freshwaters and soils – are declining at an alarming rate. Biodiversity loss costs billions to the global economy every year, undermining economies; business prospects and opportunities to combat poverty.
TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – is a project funded by the European Commission and governments including Germany, Norway and the UK, dedicated to building the economic case to assist economies make transformational policy choices and changes in order to address this crisis and bring greater intelligence to the way nature-based assets are managed. TEEB will publish a final synthesis report in advance of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s meeting in Nagoya, Japan later in the year.

Further information:
The TEEB for Business report is available at
http://www.teebweb.org/
The EU Business and Biodiversity Platform:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html

Javne konsultacije o strategiji biodiverziteta EU

Evropska komisija je pokrenula proces javnih konsultacija o strategiji biodiverziteta do 2020. godine. Ukoliko želite da učestvujete u konsultacijama posetite sajt http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/biodecline.htm#lang_en.htm
Konsultacije su otvorene do 22.oktobra 2010.godine

***********
The European Commission has opened the public consultation on the new 2010-2020 Biodiversity Strategy. The consultation is open till the 22nd October. The consultation is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/biodecline.htm#lang_en.htm

Izveštaj sa treninga

Poštovane kolege,
juče je održan sastanak povodom izrade Trening programa za Naturu 2000, u okviru Twinning projekta Ministarstva životne sredine i prostornog planiranja: Jačanje adiministrativnih kapaciteta zaštićenih područja u Srbiji (Natura2000).
Sastanak je vodio Wolfgang Suske, austrijski ekspert za komunikacije u oblasti zaštite životne sredine.
Na samom početku predstavljena je prezentacija o svim poteškoćama kada je komunikacija sa različitim "stakeholder-ima" u pitanju. Nakon toga su se zajednički definisali relevantni sektori, koji su zatim grupisani u sledeće klastere:
1. Poljoprivreda+Vode
2. Infrastruktura, Prostorno planiranje, Vode i Turizam,
3. Šumarstvo
4. Zaštita prirode
5. Lovstvo, ribarstvo i "small scale" Turizam
Za ovih pet grupa biće organizovani treninzi. Ovom prilikom se utvrdilo i mesto, ali ne i vreme održavanja treninga.
Takođe, definisane su i neke ključne reči koje bi trebalo da stoje u pozivnicama za treninge.
Zaključeno je da bi NVO trebalo da budu uključene u svaki od ovih seminara, odnosno da prate dešavanja u svim sektorima.
Ostala je nedoumica da li treba organizovati i nezavisne treninge za NVO, kada je u pitanju izrada Shadow lista i priprema za Biogeografske seminare. Mislim da bi bilo dobro upoznati se sa iskustvima drugih zemalja, koje su prošle kroz ovaj proces i doneti odluku šta nam je najbolje činiti. Da li da sami organizujemo ove treninge ili da to uradimo u saradnji sa državnim institucijama?
Nakon ovih Sektorskih Treninga, biće organizovana 3 Intersektorska izleta (Uvac, Stara Planina i Gornje Podunavlje) i nakon toga jedna Intersektorska radionica. Potom će uslediti "National Training Seminar" koji će izroditi "Comm Strategy".
Planiran je i "Joker Training Seminar", ali tema nije definisana. Naime, ona će se upravo izroditi iz pitanja i problema na koje će se nailaziti tokom ovih osnovnih seminara (zato se i zove "joker")
Naravno, pričalo se i o ulozi naučnih institucija i uključivanja naučnika u čitav proces, kao i o problemima kada je u pitanju razmena podataka.
Više o samom Twinning projektu možete pogledati na
http://www.ekoplan.gov.rs/n2ktwinning/index.html
dok sam ja njima poslala link za deo sajta MISa posvećenog Naturi2000, newsletter i najsvežiji poziv za umrežavanje i pisanje bloga, kao i poslednju ažuriranu tabelu organizacija koje su članice Mreže.
Opšti utisak je da je jako dobro što svi sedimo za istim stolom i što je započet dijalog između različitih vladinih institucija i nevladinih organizacija. Nadam se da ćemo svi zajedno doprineti ovom procesu. Verujem da će izveštaj sa ovog sastanka biti uskoro postavljen na sajt, tako da možete videti ko su bili učesnici.
O daljim aktivnostima ćete biti blagovremeno obaveštavani.
Pozdrav,
Milica

Povežimo se regionalno!

Poštovani kolege NGO-ovci! U sklopu projekta „Partnerske akcije za zaštitu biodiverziteta na zapadnom Balkanu“, tijekom kojega je nastao i ovaj blog, zamišljena je povezanost nevladinih udruga iz cijele regije putem mailing-liste. Naime, osim što o ekološkoj mreži Natura 2000 te mnogim drugim vijestima vezanima uz okoliš pišemo u našim e-newsletterima, a sve tekstove možete pročitati i na blogu „Natura 2000 na zapadnom Balkanu“, projektnom se timu čini da bismo informacije i iskustva puno lakše dijelili kada bi postojala i povezanost putem e-maila.Srbija već ima NGO mrežu u kojoj je četrdesetak nevladinih udruga. I Crna Gora ima svoju, brojkom nešto manju mrežu. Ne bi li bilo odlično da se na slični način povežu i nevladine udruge u Bosni i Hercegovini i u Hrvatskoj? Kako takva inicijativa u ostalim zemljama Dinarskog luka još ne postoji, evo jedne od nas – ako ste zainteresirani da se „umrežimo“, javite nam se na ppetrac@wwfmedpo.org ili jednostavno ostavite svoj komentar ispod ovog posta!
Mailing lista kakvu smo zamislili svima bi nam mogla olakšati pristup informacijama.