‘SINGAPORE
HAZE’ - Submission
to the Senate Inquiry into Environmental Offsets
Appendix
6 - a number of relevant reports
---------------------------o0o--------------------------
Biodiversity offsetting will unleash a new
spirit of destruction on the land
by George Monbiot Dec 7, 2012
A place of
outstanding wildlife value may be destroyed if in return someone is paid to create
a habitat elsewhere.
Picture: Common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos): their highest
concentration in the UK is found near Gillingham in north Kent, where the
council is proposing to build 5,000 houses.
This post is about the
dangerous new concept the government has seeded in the minds of developers and
planners. The idea is called biodiversity offsetting. It involves trading
places: allowing people to destroy wildlife and habitats if, in return, they
pay someone to create new habitats elsewhere. In April, the UK government
launched six pilot projects to test the idea, which would run for two years. Four months ago, I wrote this:
"The government warns
that these offsets should be used only to compensate for 'genuinely unavoidable
damage' and 'must not become a licence to destroy'; but once the principle is
established and the market is functioning, for how long do you reckon that line
will hold?"
The answer, it seems, is
"not very long". A year and a half before the pilot projects have
been completed, the new spirit of destruction is roaming the land. A place of
outstanding wildlife value is now being considered for demolition, and
biodiversity offsetting is being mooted as the means by which it can be
justified. It's hard to believe that this scheme would still be receiving
serious consideration if the mother of all excuses had not been proposed by the
government.
Lodge Hill, close to
Gillingham in north Kent, contains what could be the UK's highest concentration
of nightingales. The species has suffered an astonishing decline in this
country – over 90% in just 40 years – partly as a result of the destruction of
its habitat. This site – of just 325 hectares – contains roughly 1% of the
remaining population. It is one of the very few places where, on a summer's
night, you can still hear the full nightingale orchestra, a sound that would
once have been familiar to people across much of the country.
Medway council has proposed
that the land at Lodge Hill be turned into a development of 5,000 houses. This,
according to a report by the British Trust for Ornithology, could destroy the
area's entire population of nightingales. Even if some birds continue to use
the adjoining woods, they are extremely vulnerable to cats, as they nest close
to the ground. The pets arriving with the new homes are likely to snuff out
what John Clare called "the old woodland's legacy of song."
So how do you justify the
unjustifiable? You commission a consultancy (the Environment Bank) to
investigate the potential for offsetting: in effect moving the habitat and its
nightingales somewhere else. It reported that:
"Offsetting could work in
principle for nightingales in Kent – it is technically feasible but it is
neither straightforward nor guaranteed"
If a site of around 500 hectares
were found and stocked with suitable habitat, a similar number of nightingales
might establish itself there. But no one can be sure it will work. If it
doesn't, by the time we find out it will be too late: the new habitat will take
at least a decade to establish, while the existing habitat will be destroyed
and the houses built in just two or three years. If the experiment fails it
cannot be reversed.
The report suggests two
principal means by which new nightingale habitat could be created in Kent. One is
to coppice existing woodland: cutting the trees at ground level so that they
resprout to create the shrubby growth that nightingales use. The other is to
take an area of agricultural land and either plant it with scrub or allow scrub
to regenerate naturally.
This invites two obvious
responses. If woods are chosen, the offsetting process would not be creating
wildlife habitat, but merely changing an existing habitat into something
different. Coppicing favours some species at the expense of others, particularly
those which require large trees, dead wood and an undisturbed understorey.
What's good for nightingales may be bad for woodpeckers.
If 500 hectares of fields – a
bigger site than Lodge Hill – can be taken out of agricultural use to
compensate for the destruction of the nightingales' homes, why not spare Lodge
Hill and build the houses in the fields?
The prospect of offsetting in
this case looks to me like the "licence to destroy" that the
government warned against. Rather than compensating for "genuinely
unavoidable damage" it looks as if it could be used to justify avoidable
destruction: trashing a remarkable place for an unremarkable project which
could be built elsewhere.
This case illustrates the
danger inherent in the principle of offsetting. It makes nature as fungible as
everything else. No place is valued as a place: it is broken down into a list
of habitats and animals and plants, which could, in theory, be shifted
somewhere else. It subjects our landscape and wildlife to the same process of commodification
that has blighted everything else the corporate economy touches.
The notion of a "like for
like" replacement is bogus. No two places are the same. No place that has
been planned and measured and designed and planted as a wildlife habitat is the
same as one that has arisen spontaneously, or that has always been there. Much
of the delight of nature is that it is unscripted, spontaneous, unofficial,
that it owes little or nothing to human design.
Accept the principle of
biodiversity offsetting and you accept the idea that place means nothing. That
nowhere is to be valued in its own right any more, that everything is
exchangeable for everything else, and nothing can be allowed to stand in the
way of the graders and degraders. That is not an idea I find easy to swallow.
Monbiot.com
SOME RELEVANT RESPONSES:
Indicative
of short sighted, modern governmental policy. It's amazing that the idea that
humans can offset environmental destruction by trying to mimic nature and
centuries of biotic and environmental interactions is laughable. I thought this
idea had disappeared in the 70s? No consideration that the habitats of high
biodiversity value are that because they have unique characteristics, (not
easily reproduced) that make them suitable for supporting such diversity. Or,
they've escaped centuries of development of the UK countryside and are little
more than biodiversity islands. Planting a few thousand trees wont offset
anything for decades, will absolve the government of all blame (in their mind)
and result in considerably poorer British countryside. Look forward to seeing
some ancient woodlands being ripped up, then a few thousand trees planted on a
brown-field site with the cries of "Ah, but we're offsetting this
development 50 miles away...".
Seriously,
there is nothing in this piece with which I disagree. The scheme is a scandal
and is clearly a question of convenience and money, which is no way to wildlife
conservation. If you don't know what to do about it, the answer is to take the
trouble to make yourself familiar with the detail and then protest in your own
name and join in with the representations made by every conservation
organisation, write to the government, find a credible politician who will make
this a personal crusade, engage the attention of local councils, and generally
make this case a cause celebre in the way that Greenpeace did with whales. Just
do it!
The true
unique "value" of a habitat and the biodiversity therein is always
left out of the equation, whether the sums be about development or carbon. The
same sort of thinking is used by those promoting big biomass projects. "We
chop down this forest and burn the trees to produce energy, but don't worry
we'll plant more trees thereby replacing what was lost" say the energy companies.
"That makes it green and carbon neutral too". Err, it's not, see
reports here. They replace old biodiverse forests which fulfil a whole host of
functions, from managing water and soil cycles, to providing home to people,
plants and animals that live and rely on it as an intact system, with sterile
monoculture. Destroying wild places means less wilderness, more corporate
management, more accounting, less diversity, less wonder. Is that really what
we want? For most people the answer is a resounding no. Can we please just be
smarter about this? Reduce our energy consumption, and overconsumption of so
many resources. Stop allowing so many second homes and houses for investment
purposes in our communities. Not allow developers to dictate policy... the list
is endless. But the fight-back should start with each of us in our communities,
each of which has something monstrous being planned to destroy the uniqueness
of the place we call home and replace it with sterile monoculture.
We have
exactly the same issue with exactly the same bird in fields next to our village
in West Sussex. I counted 5 territories of singing males for the BTO
nightingale survey this spring in some of the hedges threatened by development.
They return faithfully to the same spots every year. Neighbouring fields and
hedgerows are too heavily cut back, grazed, or disturbed to attract them. Once
they're gone, they won't be back. I don't hold out much hope. One nightingale
used to sing by our local rubbish tip until the Council 'improved' the land by
cutting back the trees and brambles for people and their dogs to enjoy. The
bird hasn't returned. Incidentally, I learned of one example of 'mitigation'
nearby offered by developers, where the solution to destroying a peregrine nest
site was to place a 10-foot-high metal post in the middle of a nearby field!
Excellent
article George. Thank you for highlighting this. This is truly shocking, and
the whole idea is based on profound ignorance of the biodiversity concept. It
is not in any way, shape or form a genuine anything. It is an invitation to
disingenuous justification. Where developers, the government and local
authorities can assuage their guilt, with token gestures.The only thing that
makes this idiocy possible, is the general lack of knowledge about
biodiversity, natural history, and the basics of ecology in our society. So the
damage we cause tends to be out sight, out of mind. This government is an
environmental abomination. They should be prosecuted for fraud for their
‘greenest government ever’ whopping great lie.
The whole
idea of offsetting is ludicrous. It basically boils down to carrying on as
usual but paying. So CO2 continues to be emitted and biotopes destroyed but the
perpetrators get a clean conscience and good press.
Must have
missed this concept before. First reaction was 'sounds like a load of bollocks
to me'. Now, having considered the concept, I can say 'What a total load of
bollocks this is'. Monbiot hits the nail on the head when he says, 'The notion
of a "like for like" replacement is bogus. No two places are the
same. No place that has been planned and measured and designed and planted as a
wildlife habitat is the same as one that has arisen spontaneously, or that has
always been there'.These animals do not just choose a place to live like we
choose a new house, they are often the result of environmental factors which
are imperceptible to humans. This is pure human hubris, ignorance of nature and
doomed to fail - unless success is defined as getting rid of populations of animals
for human gain.
This would
not be my choice of a strong example to challenge the benefits or otherwise of
offsetting - or built development versus nature conservation. Protection
against development for the nightingale in Chattenden Woods SSSI could have
been given by designating the SSSI as a Special Protection Area. That this SSSI
is not an SPA is because there are certain migrants or partial migrants like
the nightingale that JNCC consider generally have a wide distribution, and
which rarely aggregate in large numbers. You might throw your hands up in
horror at that decision, but the statutory agencies don't seem much concerned,
and the usual (unholy) alliance between them and the third sector doesn't seem
to operate in the case of the nightingale.However, had this been heathland and
nightjar/Dartford warbler, then Medway would be ripping up their Core Strategy
Development Allocation, bringing in zoning that wouldn't allow any development
within 400m (the Lodge Hill revision actually moved it from 50m out to 200m)
and any development within 400m - 1,500m would have required compensatory
habitat creation - for people! This would have been the Suitable Accessible
Natural Green Space that would have been funded by developers contributions
from each house, and which supposedly would take the recreational pressure off
the heathlands. Moreover, these same third sector organisations in seeking even
greater heathland restoration, responded to a suggestion for compensatory tree
planting in the developing policy on deforestation to open habitats in England,
that it would be OK if the compensatory planting was in ........Scotland! As
always, wild nature will be the loser under the nonsense systems of values we
have, and our presumption that wild nature is safe within farmland or any
managed land. As will be the highly likely outcome of the Govs. response to the
Independent Panel on Forestry report, there will be no slackening in the pace
of shrugging off responsibilities for the natural environment onto the third sector,
and using European funds to pay for that. They will also go ahead with their
plans of merging NE, FC and EA, cutting staff by 90% - watch this space! Here's
the Govs. latest wheeze in their strategy for ash die back, becoming an
"ObservaTREE" (geddit?!) Can I be an "ObservaTREE" head
monitor? Is there a badge?
George -
excellent article that highlights some of the potential pitfalls and
deficiencies of offsetting. However, Jowwbull and MarkNFisher (above) also
raise some very pertinent issues that render the arguments far less cut and
dried.The unique qualities of particular areas of habitat, and the many
uncertainties and time lags with habitat creation, coupled with the possible
unwillingness of target species to frequent created habitat, mean that like-for-like
is a tenuous concept. However, we live in times where development,
destruction,modification, etc., of natural/semi-natural areas is frequent, and
unless legislation on a given species or vegetation type is watertight (and
sometimes, even when it does appear to be thus), such areas can be destroyed or
degraded with relative administrative ease. Offsetting may seem like the thin
end of the wedge, but at least it is a wedge of some sort. Yes, the existence
of offsetting may provide a more traversable path for a developer in some
cases, but the destruction of habitats and ecosystems has taken place, and will
continue, regardless of offsetting. Offsetting does at last provide an
opportunity to make developers pay for their actions at one site by undertaking
a range of actions at another. How does one possibly establish equivalent
biodiversity 'value' though? I can't speak for mechanisms in the UK, but
Australia has been grappling with this issue for a while and has an approach
called biobanking, whereby a suite of conservation actions by a company or
individual will allow them to earn biodiversity 'credits' that they can then
use to offset damaging actions at another site. Your nightingale example seems
to indicate that the offsets would be abitrarily selected and inadequate as
'compensation' (500 ha of arable land do not equal 325 ha of coppice woodland
for nightingales). However, biobanking has a specifically developed metric that
scores for features such as site size, condition (e.g. plant species richness,
percentage weed cover, grazing impacts), landscape context, rarity of
vegetation type(s), management actions to be undertaken, etc. No metric is
ideal, but it does at least provide a transparent and objective (and
scientifically underpinned http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/09476biobankingscience.pdf)
assessment of what like-for-like might resemble. You were right to raise the
issues with offsetting, but they are still a legitimate tool for
conservationists to make some gains or at least minimise losses. This is
particularly the case when they are done well (objective, transparent,
quantitative) and where they raise the effective price of a development such
that In many cases, it may be too expensive to continue.
In
Queensland in Australia the concept of biodiversity offsetting is glibly
included in Environmental Impact Statements based on reports by ecologists in
the employ of resource exploiting companies. No detailed and extensive research
on the feasibility of offsetting what in some cases is a unique ecosystem (such
as Bimblebox Nature Refuge, currently threatened by a huge opencast coal mine)
is required for project approval at either state or federal levels of
government. Neither are adequate follow-up monitoring procedures insisted upon
to ensure compliance or success. Surely an offset should be established, and
its success calculable, before permission for destruction and development of a
habitat is given? That would never be a viable option for developers though,
would it?
The idea
that ecosystems that take centuries to develop can be recreated in a year or
two shows a failure to understand what ecology is all about. Not only are the
interactions between species immensely complicated, but they are usually
unknown except in very broad terms. This is true of even well-studied species
such as birds and mammals, but even truer of the smaller and far more numerous
denizens - invertebrates, plants and fungi etc.: each with a role, but often an
unknown one. It is sheer arrogance to think that a replica of an existing
ecosystem can be created in a different place and in a short space of time,
when knowledge is so limited. Any attempt will fail in some measure unless all
the thousands of components can be (a) recognised in the old site, (b)
captured, and (c) successfully introduced to the new site. And even if some
semblance of the original does emerge, what guarantee is there that it is true
facsimile. It simply won't be. The soil of an old woodland is heaving with
life, and an utterly different thing to the sterility of an agricultural soil
The idea of
"biodiversity offsetting" is not only self-evidently batsh*t crazy,
but a sad example of the monetizing of the environment and wildlife, and where
it leads. You don't have to be a full-on eco-warrior to realise that what's
happening here is a convergence of interests between big government bureaucracy
and corporate greed which, taken to to its logical conclusions, would lead to
the privatisation and exploitation of every single resource and space in the
world.
The
stupidity of the notion of creating a habitat elsewhere, to offset the loss of
habitat, is that no one has ever fully described a habitat or ecosystem, even a
small one. Our knowledge is always imcomplete as natural ecosystems are so
complex. Only those who see habitat and biodiversity in a very shallow way
could think this would work. I think this government could do with some idiot
offsetting, being they are depriving so many villages of their idiots.
The most
vociferous proponents of biodiversity offsetting tend to be those with the
greatest vested interest in destroying habitat coupled with the least degree of
understanding about the intricate complexity of ecosystems. Essentially the
ethos of such projects involves the utterly arrogant assumption that we can
simply move important habitats to different locations when their existing
position is of the slightest inconvenience. For a relatively recent review of
the limitations of offsetting, one could do worse than examining the contents
of this review:
MARON et al., 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation 155 (2012) 141–148.
http://www.lerf.esalq.usp.br/divulgacao/recomendados/artigos/maron2012.pdf
MARON et al., 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation 155 (2012) 141–148.
http://www.lerf.esalq.usp.br/divulgacao/recomendados/artigos/maron2012.pdf
Readers concerned with the 'offsetting nature'
implications of biodiversity offsets might be interested in the following Green
House report. Hannis, M. and Sullivan, S. 2012
Offsetting Nature? Habitat Banking and Biodiversity Offsets in the English Land
Use Planning System. Dorset: Green House. Abstract: New planning rules, currently
being piloted, allow the environmental impacts of increased development to be
offset by purchasing conservation credits from habitat banks. This ‘green
economy’ measure is presented as reconciling economic growth with environmental
protection. Mike Hannis and Sian Sullivan explain where this controversial idea
has come from, before asking what effects it might have and who stands to gain
from it. They argue that by encouraging us to think that one bit of nature is
much like another, biodiversity offsetting undermines the unique place-based
relationships between people and nature, moving us further away from ecological
sustainability. Offsetting has been going on for the last twenty
years, at least [translocation]. For example, you can rip out an ancient hedge
as long as you offset it with some new planting elsewhere. Sometimes the
planners don't even ask for offsetting for the destruction to go ahead. Before
'offsetting', the destruction would go ahead without any recompense. Ecological
consultants work within a system where there is no sanctity of any part of the
natural world eg. Trump Golfing. Yes, of course, as offsetting is now a central plank of
planning/development then it can be abused for destroying anything - doesn't
matter, just offset it. However, ecological science for the last thirty years
has shown that translocation/offsetting rarely works satisfactorily. Anyway, with this government, nature conservation in this country is
dying on its feet as well.
If they really insist on the
principle of like for like replacement of habitats then they should carry out
the work in the reverse order. i.e. first send in an independent team to assess
what lives in the present habitat with regard to soil, bacteria, fungi,
insects, worms, animals, birds, vegetation etc. Then build the new habitat as
closely as possible to the existing one, transferring wildlife progressively to
the new habitat. Leave it long enough to be certain that all lifeforms are
thriving and migrating birds etc. are breeding and returning to the site. Only
when the independent team have established that the transfer is complete and
working should destruction of the existing site be considered.
"the dangerous new concept the government has
seeded in the minds of developers and planners" So that’s what government has become, wholesalers and marketers of
intellectually respectable justifications for a corrupt polity and in this
instance incredible nonsense, nonsense that surely will be discarded and
replaced with marketed rationalisations fresh and new when the old one has
collapsed. Perhaps in the interests of persiflage this Trojan concept of
offsetting could be applied to other areas, say for instance literature,
councils could be encouraged to promote mass book burnings of selected classics
and rare titles, but not to worry because even if all copies of a book
disappear they will be offset because we will be encouraging writers to produce
new works over there somewhere. If government policies in say the NHS cause
your family to die, well don't worry about that because thats offset by our
population policies and if we blockade and invade a country leading to deaths
of millions of people guess what? Offsets. Offsets are not a policy but simply
pernicious marketing.
6 May 2013,
6.35am AEST
Can we offset biodiversity losses?
CClive Palmer’s China First Coal Project is entering the last stages of
review for its proposed coal mine in Queensland’s Bimblebox Nature Refuge. As
part of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement…
Authors Megan Evans
PhD Candidate in Environmental Policy & Economics at Australian
National University
Clive Palmer’s China First
Coal Project is entering the last stages of review for its proposed coal mine
in Queensland’s Bimblebox Nature Refuge. As part of the Supplementary
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the proposal suggests protecting about
two hectares of remnant bush for every one hectare of the nature refuge that is
affected by the mine. That sounds like we’re getting two for one - but
biodiversity offsets aren’t that simple.
Biodiversity offsetting is an
increasingly popular means to balance out the impact developments have on the
environment. Just as many of us will purchase a carbon offset to compensate for
the emissions we generate when we take an overseas flight, biodiversity
offsetting aims for “no net loss” of biodiversity values from a development
project.
Like carbon offsets,
biodiversity offsetting is a controversial topic. Recent media in the UK has
highlighted how contentious it can be, with the UK government’s trial of its
new biodiversity offsetting scheme decried by some as “a license to trash
nature”.
One of the problems for
biodiversity offsetting is working out whether “no net loss” is actually being
achieved. Despite the widespread and growing use of offsets, very little
evidence is available to demonstrate what those offsets deliver.
A recent paper is one of few
to evaluate the outcomes from a biodiversity offset. When frog habitat was
destroyed during development in Sydney Olympic Park, more habitat was created
as an offset. The authors monitored the population size of the vulnerable green
and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) before and after development. They
found that an area of habitat 19 times larger than the habitat area
affected had to be created to ensure there was a no net loss of frogs.
This is an example of an
offset working. But the amount of habitat that had to be created relative to
the habitat lost (known as the “offset ratio”) was 19:1 - much greater than
initially expected, and this was only discovered after intensive monitoring
over more than a decade.
Often, proposed offset ratios
are closer to 2:1, such as what has been proposed for the loss of the 8,000
hectare Bimblebox Nature Refuge. Is this enough? We can estimate whether an
offset ratio is likely to be sufficient by calculating its conservation
benefit.
To do this, we need to know
two things: what is the risk the offset habitat would be lost if we don’t
protect it? And what is the risk of its loss if we do protect it?
We’ll assume that the risk of
loss of the offset site is about 1% over the next 20 years (based on the
current rate of loss of remnant vegetation in Queensland). If the offset site
is protected, we assume the risk of loss is zero (although this might be a bit
optimistic).
The difference between the
expected area of the offset site with protection, and the expected area of the
offset site without protection, must equal the impact of 8,000 ha if we are to
achieve no net loss. Based on this model, about 800,000 hectares would need to
be protected to offset the loss of Bimblebox Nature Refuge. That means an
offset ratio closer to 100:1!
We make a number of
assumptions to get this figure, like the risk of losing a patch of remnant bush
if is unprotected or protected. If, for example, we had considered regrowth
vegetation with its 20-year risk of loss at about 10%, this would bring the
offset ratio down closer to 10:1 (although the quality of the offset would be
lower).
But even with the most
generous assumptions, a simple exchange of two hectares protected for every
hectare destroyed is unlikely to achieve a no net loss outcome in our example.
Unfortunately this illustrates that in many cases, we are pushing the limits of
what can realistically be considered “offsettable”.
With any major development,
the proponent must detail in its Environmental Impact Statement how threatened
environmental values contained within the project area (in this case, within
Bimblebox) are to be avoided, mitigated, rehabilitated or offset. The total sum
of offsets required by State and Federal policies for individual environmental
values, such as the black-throated finch and the koala, may provide a very
large offset area when combined. But without calculating the conservation
benefit of offsets like we have here, its not clear whether it will be enough
to achieve no net loss.
If the China First Coal
Project goes ahead, it will be the first time an entire protected area is lost
to development in Australia, so there’s currently no policy that requires an
offset for a protected area in its own right. Based on our example, a 2:1
offset would likely not achieve the “no net loss” standard for the loss of
Bimblebox Nature Refuge.
Ultimately, governments can
revoke the protected status of any conservation area, and compensation isn’t
necessarily required. The question is whether the Australian public considers
the loss of publicly-funded conservation areas to be a fair exchange for the
benefits provided by a development. But to make this judgement, we need to
fully understand and acknowledge the limitations of biodiversity offsetting.
Otherwise, we may unknowingly accept an exchange that could result in the loss
of effectively irreplaceable biodiversity.
3 comments
As an ecologist working in private industry for the
last 25 years, the simple answer to the headline question is "NO".
The concept is very sound and should work, but..........A loss is a loss and
there is a increasing body of anecdotal and published evidence (eg., Hayes and
Morrison-Saunders 2007, Bekesy et al. 2010) showing that offsets are often of
less ecological value, not managed or badly managed, and tend not to offset the
local and regional loss of biodiversity (it is often the case that offsets are
just areas of scrub that would not have been cleared anyway - therefore only
contribute to a net loss in biodiversity). There are some attempts to reduce
the corruption of the offsetting process but for every attempt to fix the
problem seems to result in a means to circumvent it. If there is finger
pointing to be done, I would suggest we ALL stand in front of the mirror and
point
The creation of the Bimblebox
Nature Refuge, an island of uncleared biodiversity, surrounded by a sea of
cleared paddocks, was supported by both Federal and State governments. lt
represents an important exercise in habitat protection, its unique
environmental attributes co-existing sustainably with low key beef production .
Now, the State seems ambivalent about its destruction. Why?
How will (or can) the State replace the underground waters that may be reduced, contaminated, or lost altogether, by landholders adjacent to the mine, who have no actual mining on their land?
Even if Bimblebox is 'saved' from Palmer's mine, surrounding mines will surely suck the groundwater from beneath, effectively emasculating it.
Mining poses many critical questions. Perhaps the biggest is, why does everyone expect, and accept, that mining (which is, despite its supposed vital role, self-limiting and ultimately unsustainable) should trump all other dealings with land.
Because the bulk of our money supply is created into existence as a debt to the private banks, and the money to pay the interest on those debts must come mainly from loans to be made in the future, exporting goods is seen as a good thing. Although we appear to be exporting coal, we are also, in effect, 'importing' debt free Australian dollars. A small percentage of these dollars, left over after the overseas investors have taken their cut, can be spent into our local economy.
This is the miner's carrot to the government donkey.
The obscene haste to exploit our mineral resources is seen by politicians and others as a quick (albeit temporary ) fix for our artificial shortage of money, the very 'lubricant' that all modern economies rely on to function. Not tackling this crucial problem has made our environment, and our planet, the victim.
Now, the State seems ambivalent about its destruction. Why?
How will (or can) the State replace the underground waters that may be reduced, contaminated, or lost altogether, by landholders adjacent to the mine, who have no actual mining on their land?
Even if Bimblebox is 'saved' from Palmer's mine, surrounding mines will surely suck the groundwater from beneath, effectively emasculating it.
Mining poses many critical questions. Perhaps the biggest is, why does everyone expect, and accept, that mining (which is, despite its supposed vital role, self-limiting and ultimately unsustainable) should trump all other dealings with land.
Because the bulk of our money supply is created into existence as a debt to the private banks, and the money to pay the interest on those debts must come mainly from loans to be made in the future, exporting goods is seen as a good thing. Although we appear to be exporting coal, we are also, in effect, 'importing' debt free Australian dollars. A small percentage of these dollars, left over after the overseas investors have taken their cut, can be spent into our local economy.
This is the miner's carrot to the government donkey.
The obscene haste to exploit our mineral resources is seen by politicians and others as a quick (albeit temporary ) fix for our artificial shortage of money, the very 'lubricant' that all modern economies rely on to function. Not tackling this crucial problem has made our environment, and our planet, the victim.
Any potential Sea Grass loss from the Yarwun 3TL proposal, should be
considered as WHA biodiversity values , which will require 'offsetting' under
the EPBC EOP 2012, so far , sea grass offsets such as replanting are proving
unsustainable. The tenure of the sea bed is the question, who owns the seabed
in the narrows? Can a simple protective covenant ensure that the dugongs and
turtles which utilise the 'lost seagrass meadow' , be enough?, A requirement should be that 3TL acquire a
suitable offset ratio area and spend 5 years monitoring the 'net biodiversity
gains' from that offset ,to scientifically prove that the offset has worked ,
BEFORE any EPBC 1999 approval is given. Approvals should not be given for
merely 'legally securing' offsets, on the contrary , offsets should be proven
viable , BEFORE approvals are given. Only then should dredging occur, not
before or during the 5 years , only after it is categorically proven that the
MNES values have not been compromised. Given that it is highly likely that Greg
Hunt will be the NEW Federal Environment Minister , it is likely that the
project will be given the 'tick and flick EI assessment protocol'.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/can-we-offset-biodiversity-losses-20130507-2j49t.html#ixzz2xsoGmDpy
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/can-we-offset-biodiversity-losses-20130507-2j49t.html#ixzz2xsoGmDpy
6 June 2013,
2.29pm AEST
Biodiversity offsets could be locking in species
decline
In a recent interview, the
Opposition environment spokesperson Greg Hunt promised to reverse biodiversity
decline in five years if the Coalition wins the forthcoming election.
Is this goal achievable? Not
the way we’re going. Our investment in enhancing biodiversity is not keeping
pace with the factors driving biodiversity declines.
We continue to lose
biodiversity by clearing vegetation for mining, urban development and farm
management. Queensland’s rate of clearing alone has recently averaged about
100,000 hectares each year, and looks set to increase. Even our national parks
have come under attack.
Is it possible to continue to
clear land, but also stop biodiversity decline? In theory, perhaps. This is the
apparent promise of biodiversity offsetting, an increasingly popular policy
approach. But are our current offset policies really designed to halt declines?
We argue the answer is no.
No net loss compared to what?
In Australia, the federal government
and all state governments have biodiversity offset policies either in place, or
in development. Offsetting is done by trading a biodiversity loss in one
location with an equivalent gain in another. Biodiversity offset policies
usually aim to achieve “no net loss” of biodiversity.
To what extent can
biodiversity offsets contribute to halting biodiversity decline? As usual, the
devil is in the detail.
Leaving aside the vexed issue
of how we actually measure biodiversity, let’s consider what is actually meant
by “no net loss” of biodiversity.
The crucial question here is,
“no net loss compared to what?” Most people probably imagine that the
answer is no net loss of biodiversity compared to what was there before the
impact. But this is not usually the case.
Instead, the real intention of
most biodiversity offset policies is to achieve no net loss compared to what
would have happened in the absence of the impact and the offset. This is
often referred to as the counterfactual.
Calculating the compensation
We can see why this definition
of “no net loss” emerges if we consider the two ways that offsetting can be
done.
First, gains can be achieved
through improving existing habitat, or creating habitat from scratch. For
example, we could create new wetland habitat for a threatened frog to
compensate for a development that destroys its current wetland habitat.
Although there are many
limitations to such restoration offsets, they can neutralise damage to some
elements of biodiversity.
Threatened native grasslands
to the west of Melbourne, a place where offsets require ongoing biodiversity
declines to work Ryan Chisholm
Second, we can protect
existing habitat as an offset. This is known as an “averted loss” offset, and
is the more commonly-used approach.
The assumption here is that
protecting against clearing or degradation results in a gain for biodiversity compared
to what would have happened without the protection. Calculating this gain
requires choosing some sort of “business as usual” rate of decline, based on
data on vegetation clearing or degradation of habitat quality.
The gain then occurs because
the offset results in better outcomes than would have occurred under the
counterfactual “business as usual” scenario. This gain, together with the loss
from an impact, provides the “no net loss” outcome.
One of the challenges with
this approach is in estimating the counterfactual. It is often (unfortunately)
a reasonable assumption that biodiversity will continue to decline. The problem
arises when estimating what that rate of decline might be. Since we do very
little biodiversity monitoring in Australia, there can be considerable
uncertainty around the “business as usual” baseline to which we might compare
our offset outcome.
But there are is another
important consequence of averted loss offsetting that might not be immediately
obvious.
Averted loss offsets only work if biodiversity keeps declining
The crucial point about
averted loss offsetting is that it can entrench the baseline rate of decline.
That is because the gains from the offset and the losses from the impact are
only required to add up to the decline that would otherwise have occurred.
So without additional
conservation actions, this approach to offsetting simply ensures current
declines continue, at the same rate. This outcome is not a policy failure — it
is the way the policy is designed to work.
Allowing this type of averted
loss offsetting is therefore an admission that ongoing decline is the norm for
our biodiversity. Worryingly, policies structured this way could also provide a
perverse incentive to ensure declines continue. This is because without
declines, offsets based on “protection” are not possible.
For example, part of the
disquiet around increasing protection of vegetation, such as through the Wild
Rivers declarations on Cape York, is linked to the potential loss of
opportunity to sell offset “credits”. The less of our vegetation we protect,
the easier it is to find offsets.
So biodiversity offsets
policies that rely heavily on “averted loss” offsetting cannot in themselves
reverse declines; they are not designed to. Whether it is fair to expect
developers to be responsible not only for negating their impact, but also
contributing to improving the lot of biodiversity, is debateable. But we should
be aware that offsets are not a panacea. At best, our averted loss offsets will
achieve a continuing decline of biodiversity.
At worst, they may provide an
incentive for the decline to continue.
RESPONSES:
Director - "In a recent interview, the Opposition
environment spokesperson Greg Hunt promised to reverse biodiversity decline in
five years if the Coalition wins the forthcoming election." What an insult to anyone with a background in biology and ecology,
considering the policies of the conservative side. We only have to look at
Campbell Newman's policies in Queensland to see that there is more destruction
to come with an Abbott government - and no amount of spin and hype will change
that.
Thanks for this piece - the
emergence of offsets, like some papal dispensation, is extremely worrying. You
have pointed out the locking in of decline - but there are other problems with
offsets. Offset policy (federal and Qld) allows indirect offsets - meaning you
simply pay for the damage to an authority, which will use it in ways that
offset the damage. Offsets are frequently developed after approvals are given -
with no certainty that they will work (see for instance the Federal approval
for the Alpha mine). Some offsets are just inane. How about this one from
Townsville - an offset for damage to marine habitat was the building of a boat
ramp. Or from the Marine Park Authority - the offset for destroying sea grass
beds was for the proponent to protect sea grass beds...They are already in
theory protected, so the Authority says they will be 'better' protected - again
the detail doesn't exist yet. Finally, there is a giant black hole in the whole
offsets sham - offsets aren't currently registered, monitored or assessed...In
fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that offsets have been created in
order to allow all developments to proceed behind a patina of conservation that
simply won't bear scrutiny.
In reality, there is no such
thing as an offset. Destroying habitat by protecting other unprotected habitat
is still a loss. It is impossible to recreate the original biologically diverse
habitat as well. Replanting can never reinstate the complexity, associations
and the interdependencies of a natural vegetation community. Offsets are an excuse for business as usual.
31 October
2013, 12.15am AEST
Biodiversity offsets may drive growth, but duck
the problem
By Carlos Ferreira,
University of Manchester
Carlos Ferreira received
funding from the University of Manchester's Sustainable Consumption Institute
to undertake a PhD on the topic of biodiversity offsets. This PhD is now
finished and has been submitted.
The idea behind biodiversity
offsets is to develop a new way of preserving nature that more accurately
accounts for the value to us of the natural world.
The abundance and diversity of
plants and animals, and their role in ecosystems – known as biodiversity – can
be damaged or destroyed by building and development. But this is what economic
growth generally involves: roads, houses, offices and industrial plants have to
go somewhere, and sometimes the environment is damaged or destroyed as a
consequence.
Ideally, it would be possible
to generate economic growth in a way that avoids biodiversity loss and
preserves nature. One way this could be achieved is biodiversity offsets. This
mechanism would require developers to provide compensation for the damages
which result from their actions.
For example, destroying a wood
to make way for new houses would mean the developer would have to provide
another wood somewhere else to replace it, or pay a third party to do so. These
offsets, proponents argue, should result in “no net loss” of biodiversity from
development.
The concept of biodiversity
offsets is being discussed by the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee.
If proposals are taken forward, biodiversity offsets could become one of the
most important changes to how decisions affecting the environment are made in
Britain.
Supporters claim this would
create a better way of making decisions. Modern societies appear to have a
broken economic compass: we don’t value nature enough compared to development
and economic growth. Biodiversity offsets would put a price on nature, and
force developers to pay for the damage they inflict. This would make
development more expensive and conservation more appealing.
Offsets and planning
There are other ways of
choosing between development or conservation. In Britain this is governed by
the need for planning permission, which is granted or denied, or granted with
conditions, by local authorities. One of the aspects they must consider is
impact on biodiversity, and through conditions known as Section 107 agreements
they have the power require compensation in cases where a project would have a
negative impact on nature.
The Department for the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned the Ecosystem Markets Task
Force (EMTF), to examine this and other market mechanisms that affected the
environment. The EMTF identified biodiversity offsets as the most promising in
terms of promoting economic growth, with the potential to simplify the planning
process, and reduce the time it takes to obtain planning permission. These
comments were echoed by the secretary of state, Owen Patterson, who said it
would allow the economy to grow, while protecting nature. But it is not clear
how the biodiversity offset mechanism would be integrated into the existing planning
system.
Licence to trash
Despite these claimed
advantages, environmental activists and NGOs have raised concerns about the
feasibility and potential consequences of biodiversity offsets.
Biodiversity is complex and
biologists have generally been critical of claims that biodiversity can be
easily measured and quantified in a single location, let alone then usefully
compared to biodiversity elsewhere. It is not possible to assure that
biodiversity in two locations is the same, or qualitatively equivalent. And
without this, the principle of ensuring no net loss of biodiversity collapses.
The displacement of damages
also raises problems, as it allows the possibility of damages in an area with
high land prices, such as London and the South East, to be offset in an area
where land prices are much lower, such as the North East of England. This would
lead to an unfair and uneven distribution of damages and biodiversity, and
again would not ensure no net loss of biodiversity in any meaningful way.
A final question raised is
about power. Critics of offsetting suspect that it would render the planning
process toothless, allowing rich and powerful companies to simply buy their way
out of the proper planning process. Biodiversity offsetting, could easily
become a licence to trash.
Questions remain
The idea underpinning offsets
is appealing, and could at least be used to spark debate about the value - the
literal, economic worth - of nature and the need to conserve it. But the rules
and regulations parliament is considering must ensure that the maximum distance
between damage and offset is limited and that the limits to measuring
biodiversity are compensated for. And, most importantly, biodiversity
offsetting must work as a part of the existing planning regulations, not
supersede it.
Biodiversity offsetting has
the potential to change the way we think of nature in Britain. It should be
discussed and analysed by the public before becoming compulsory. But it should
not be allowed to become the main way by which we, as a society, govern nature.
Justified and ancient: our best woodland is
irreplaceable
By Keith Kirby, University
of Oxford
The threat
to Britain’s ancient woodland has been much discussed recently, the suggestion
being that where they are lost to housing development they might be replaced
with new woods through biodiversity…
The National Planning Policy
Framework includes a stronger statement against development than for most other
habitats:
Planning permission should be
refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable
habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found
outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development
in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
An amphibian-eye-view of environmental
offsetting
By David Lesbarrères,
Laurentian University
In its
report published last week, the UK Parliament’s green watchdog, the
Environmental Audit Committee, was far from convinced by the government’s
proposed policy of biodiversity offsetting. The committee’s…
England’s
green and pleasant land: will biodiversity offsetting help or hinder it?
England’s green and pleasant land: will biodiversity offsetting help or hinder
it? Gareth Fuller/PA
In many
other instances newly manufactured habitats have not met Lavoisier’s principle
and wildlife populations, species diversity and even whole ecosystems have been
lost. In fact, in this business, and despite being under-reported, failures are
as abundant as successes. This is especially the case for wetland habitats, one
of the more common ecosystems brought under tentative offsetting. For instance,
one study showed that of 31 mitigation sites in Indiana, 71% of forested sites,
87% of wet meadow areas, and 42% of shrub areas failed.
But, if the policy is used as
a fig leaf by developers as a means to an end, and if failing to achieve the
goal of “no net loss” brings no consequences or penalties, then one has to
consider who offsetting really benefits. And, more broadly, the question must
be asked as to whether such a policy is acceptable at all, at a time when
biodiversity is under unprecedented pressure.
Biodiversity offsets: solving the habitat-saving
equation
By Ascelin Gordon, RMIT
University
Biodiversity
offsets are touted as a new tool for protecting our natural environment. While
they have the potential to deliver real gains, understanding the possible
consequences of these polices over…
Can we
continue to grow while still protecting our natural heritage? Can we continue
to grow while still protecting our natural heritage?
Biodiversity offsets are
touted as a new tool for protecting our natural environment. While they have
the potential to deliver real gains, understanding the possible consequences of
these polices over the long-term raises many challenges.
These policies aim to balance
biodiversity loss arising from habitat destruction at one location by enhancing
and/or protecting similar but separate habitat at another location.
Many countries around the
world are embracing biodiversity offset policies. In Australia, the
Commonwealth Government and most state governments have either implemented or
are in the process of implementing biodiversity offset policies.
Defining our terms
Two important questions come
up when designing these policies:
·
What do we want the policy to
achieve?
·
How will we know if the policy
has achieved its objectives?
Many biodiversity offset
policies have a stated aim of delivering a “net gain” or “no net loss” in
environmental values. These values can include native vegetation, species
habitat or ecosystem services. While this is certainly a worthy objective, in
practice it may be difficult to achieve for a whole raft of reasons that are
beyond the scope of this article.
Regarding the second question,
it can be a huge challenge to actually establish whether an offset policy is
meeting its objectives.
The first task is to determine
how to measure losses and gains - the “currency” the offsets will deal in. We
mostly don’t know the full extent of biodiversity lost at one site, or gained
at another. Thus we have to use surrogate measures that we hope will be good
indicators of the real things we are trying to preserve.
Is it possible to balance
habitat lost and habitat gained?
In Australia the area and
condition of native vegetation is a commonly used surrogate. Gains from an
offset are measured in changes to the condition and area of the native
vegetation contained in the offset.
Other subtle issues arise once
we have chosen our “currency”. For example, at some point in the future, do we
count the gains from an offset site relative to what was there originally, or
relative to what would have been there at if the offset had not been created.
In other words, from what baseline do we measure gains?
Doing the maths
A simple example can be useful
to illustrate these issues. Assume a single site is developed and all
vegetation is cleared. Simultaneously, an offset is implemented. Here we will
assume the “score” of a site is calculated from its area multiplied by a
measure of its native vegetation condition.
The development and offset
sites have scores of D and O just before these actions occur.
After some years of management the offset has, or is expected to have, a new
(hopefully higher) score of O’.
To achieve a net gain using
the current condition as the baseline would require O’ > O + D.
This means the condition of the offset site has improved so its score is now
greater than the initial scores of the offset and development sites. This could
be interpreted as a real gain relative to what we have now.
To achieve a net gain using
the status quo as the baseline is a little more complicated. We
introduce O” and D” which represent the score that the offset and development
sites that would have if no development or offsetting had occurred. Now we
instead require O’ > O” + D”.
If we assume that the condition
of the vegetation on the offset and development site would have been degrading
without any sort of intervention (a reasonable assumption in many parts of
Australia) then O’ > O” + D” might still hold even if the offset site
has no change in condition (O = O’). This is because O” and D” are now
smaller than O and D and the offset can be seen to deliver a net
gain though avoiding degradation that would have otherwise occurred at the
offset site.
What would have happened if
the environmental values hadn’t been destroyed in the first place? brewbooks
Finally, the least stringent
requirement is that the offset delivers a net gain relative to what we could
call a worst case scenario. Using this baseline assumes that development
will occur with or without the offset and that the offset policy should only
deliver a gain relative to development without the offset policy.
In this situation we would
only require O’ > O or O’ > O” which potentially delivers
the smallest gain compared to the other two baselines.
Choosing a baseli
There are some practical
considerations in choosing the baseline from which to measure policy
performance. For example, using a baseline other than the current condition
involves predicting what would have happened without the offset (and
development) occurring. This adds some “fuzziness”, as we can never be
completely sure of what would have happened without these actions being
implemented
The most important driver in
our choice of baselines is our values. Requiring an offset policy to deliver
“no net loss” using the worst-case baseline would result in a very
different outcome compared to using the current conditio
There is no right or wrong
answer to which baseline we use, but the choice should in part be driven by how
we value retaining our biodiversity relative to economic development.
Whatever our values, we should
at least be transparent about what we want our policy to achieve and how we
will go about measuring this. This involves clearly articulating the baseline
we are measuring from and the assumptions this implies.
The recently released draft
biodiversity offset policy from the Commonwealth Government outlines how
offsets would be used under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. Although not stated in the draft policy document, the
Department has clearly stated that the goal of their policy is to maintain or
improve compared to what is likely to have occurred under the status quo.
Thus it looks like we will be stuck with the inherent uncertainty associated
with using this baseline to evaluate the performance of the EPBC Act offset
policy.
David Low Project Manager - The Weed's Networ
The offset discussion would
benefit from a thorough examination of the concept of irreversibility. There is
an excellent paper on the topic by Perrings & Brock (2009), see:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cperring/Perrings%20and%20Brock,%20ARRE%20%282009%29.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cperring/Perrings%20and%20Brock,%20ARRE%20%282009%29.pdf
Ben Carr Landscape Ecologis
A good article Ascelin - there
is a dearth of analysis of biodiversity offset policy and practice.
A few comments that follow some of the issues you raise.
Firstly there is very little published review and analysis of the outcomes of offsets programs. Hopefully this will change as the various state based and EPBC programs develop and mature over coming years.
Secondly and this related to irreversibility - the losses causes by development are generally complete and permanent while the required gains are promised i.e. developers don't have to demonstrate actual gain, just enter into an agreement that is intended to produce the required gain. I suggest that real gains ie outcomes on sites that have been produced, measured and verified should also be used and possibly required in some instances. A requirement for real gains will result in more certainty that no net loss or even net gain has occurred.
Thirdly I suggest that the gains should be measured using an outcome based approach, rather than just assuming that if certain outputs are carried out the gains will occur. This would involve measuring the final outcomes at an offset site and only once the offset site actually meets the required level is the offset approved as being completed and the developers obligation met.
A few comments that follow some of the issues you raise.
Firstly there is very little published review and analysis of the outcomes of offsets programs. Hopefully this will change as the various state based and EPBC programs develop and mature over coming years.
Secondly and this related to irreversibility - the losses causes by development are generally complete and permanent while the required gains are promised i.e. developers don't have to demonstrate actual gain, just enter into an agreement that is intended to produce the required gain. I suggest that real gains ie outcomes on sites that have been produced, measured and verified should also be used and possibly required in some instances. A requirement for real gains will result in more certainty that no net loss or even net gain has occurred.
Thirdly I suggest that the gains should be measured using an outcome based approach, rather than just assuming that if certain outputs are carried out the gains will occur. This would involve measuring the final outcomes at an offset site and only once the offset site actually meets the required level is the offset approved as being completed and the developers obligation met.
Ascelin
Gordon Research Fellow, Global Studies,
Social Science & Planning at RMIT University In reply to Ben Carr
Thanks for you comment. I
agree with the points you have raised.While there has been little published
analysis of offset program outcomes, I'm optimistic that this will gradually
improve (though not necessarily about what such studies might find!).Regarding
your second point, I agree that a key issue with biodiversity offsetting (as
it's currently implemented) is that permanent immediate losses are traded for
uncertain future gains. We have undertaken some modelling to start to explore
this issue (Gordon et al., 2011) and plan further work on this topic. A
requirement demonstrating real gains have been achieved before a development
occurred would be ideal and would certainly increase the likelihood that a real
"net gain" had been achieved (this point has also been argued by
colleagues of mine (Bekessy et al., 2010)). Though there might be considerable
resistance to such requirements due to the time and expense of achieving gains
before development (which in itself says something important).Regarding your
third point, I agree and think there are some interesting issues around whether
a policy should be paying/stipulating for inputs or outputs. This is really
about who owns the risk if required gains fall short. I know that in Victoria
the Department of Sustainability and Environment has been trialling an outcomes
based approach with their BushTender program (which pays landholders to mange
native vegetation on their land, see
http://www.marketbasedinstruments.gov.au/MBIsinaction/Currentcasestudies/BushTendertriallingoutcomebasedcontracts/tabid/379/Default.aspx).
Finally I was pleased to see the draft EPBC biodiversity offset policy states
"proponents, or their contractors, must report on the success of the
offsets so that conditions of approval can be varied if the offsets are not
delivering the desired outcome." It also states that there will be a
monitoring, compliance and audit program for each offset with the information
being publicly available on the department’s website.Papers citedBekessy S,
Wintle B, Lindenmayer DB, Mccarthy M, Colyvan M, Burgman M (2010) The
biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conservation Letters 3:
151-158.Gordon A, Langford WT, Todd JA, White MD, Mullerworth DW, Bekessy SA
(2011) Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environmental
Modelling and Software 144: 558–566.
A tree for a tree: can biodiversity offsets
balance destruction and restoration?
By Philip
Gibbons, Australian National University
When my
children are my age they will be living in a country with an economy that’s
three times larger, and a population that’s twice as large as today. And, on
current trends, my children will be living…
When my
children are my age they will be living in a country with an economy that’s
three times larger, and a population that’s twice as large as today.
And, on
current trends, my children will be living in a country with around 10 million
hectares less of native bushland.
So, how can
we stem the loss of our distinctive natural heritage in the face of continuing
economic growth?
The Federal
Government is currently seeking public comment on a controversial solution to
this problem.
Their plan
is to nationalise “biodiversity offsets” to halt the loss of our significant
biodiversity. Biodiversity offsets are actions at one site that compensate for
losses at another.
Natural
bushland needs to be protected. _tom_
For example,
a company might destroy native habitat to create an open cut mine and offset
this impact by planting vegetation in another area.
On face
value this seems to be a win-win outcome, which probably explains why
governments around the world are embracing biodiversity offsets.
But will
biodiversity offsets halt the loss of biodiversity?
Not
according to most ecologists.
The key
criticism of biodiversity offsets is that there is only a narrow range of
circumstances in which impacts on biodiversity can be offset with any kind of
certainty.
An ecologist
named Keith Bradby put it nicely in a documentary called “A Million Acres a
Year” when he said, while looking over a piece of Western Australian bushland:
“We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t recreate that.”
Another
problem with the policy proposed by the Australian Government is that
biodiversity offsets are not established before the impacts occur.
It can take
200 years before an offset will replace a nest tree for Carnaby’s
Black-Cockatoo, a species threatened by urban development. We should be
establishing offsets well in advance of impacts on our biodiversity.
The fault
with many offset programs, including the Australian Government’s recent
offering, is they promote the protection of high quality habitats as suitable
offsets. If you think about it, a site that is already in good condition has
little scope for improvement. So, this strategy actually results in a net loss
of bushland.
Carnaby’s
Black-Cockatoos are threatened by urban development. Ralphs photographs
Despite
these issues, I offer guarded support for biodiversity offsets for the same
reason I believe we should place a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Biodiversity
offsets effectively place an economic value on biodiversity, thus discouraging
its destruction in the first place. This is because offsets represent an
economic impost to developers: it takes considerable resources to identify,
establish and manage an offset.
This was
demonstrated in New South Wales where the number of approvals to clear native
vegetation dropped by about 80% after the introduction of offsets.
So, while
offsets will not stop the loss of biodiversity, they might reduce the rate of
loss.
That said,
the Australian Government’s proposed policy will subvert this market effect.
This is because the policy is riddled with exemptions. “Minor” losses,
“non-signficant impacts”, and “economic and social factors” are all reasons a
project can proceed without offsets under the current proposal.
At at time
when mining industries have significant clout, when governments are doing
everything in their power to maintain economic growth and when we have a
rapidly growing population coupled with a housing shortage, you can bet these exemptions
will be like cracks in a dam wall.
Meeting
environmental and economic needs is a tough balancing act. James Jordan
This was
demonstrated recently in New South Wales. While the number of approvals to
clear native vegetation dropped by about 80% after the introduction of
biodiversity offsets, the area of clearing only decreased by 30%.
Exemptions
in the legislation discouraged developers from finding alternatives to
clearing.
And this
takes us to the nub of the problem with land clearing policy. The current
proposal from the Australian Government, like others before it, seeks to
minimise the impacts of development on biodiversity, while making no attempt to
address the causes.
We keep
trying to plug the cracks in the dam rather than drain the water.
If we really
want to stem the erosion of our natural heritage we must divorce economic
growth from its attendant impacts on biodiversity.
That is, we
need to de-couple food security from land clearing, achieve population growth
without urban expansion, find transport solutions without widening roads and
supply utilities without clearing easements.
Only then
can we pursue economic growth without continuing to erode Australia’s
distinctive natural heritage.
And only
then are our children likely to enjoy the same natural heritage that we did.
RESPONSES:
Greg Hay Science and Teaching stude
Biodiversity offsets are
better than nothing but often only 'replacements' on paper, one hectare for
another. The inherent complexity in any ecosystem and food web interactions
therein mean plant communities are far more than an account of the obvious
species present. A true forest is more than the trees and to think we can
offset a loss by planting some species in an area is somewhat fanciful. And
that is without considering the complesities required by animals.
We have to accept these losses or change acceptable protocols for relevant industries. Decoupling, as the article suggests, seems the only viable long term solution, but that probably means 'Building Farms' and 'fake meat' potentially, and not everyone is ready for that.
We have to accept these losses or change acceptable protocols for relevant industries. Decoupling, as the article suggests, seems the only viable long term solution, but that probably means 'Building Farms' and 'fake meat' potentially, and not everyone is ready for that.
Megan Evans PhD Candidate in Environmental Policy & Economics at Australian
National University
Thanks for this article. I'd
be interested in your thoughts on the role of financial contributions made to
an offset fund either additional to or in lieu of finding a suitable
biodiversity offset, as is the case in Queensland. I've yet to read the Federal
draft offset policy, but it would be interesting to see what degree of security
is placed on offsets - for example, whether an offset itself may be subject to
future development (and whether an offset it required for this).I am a bit
skeptical about the possibility of absolute decoupling of economic growth from
environmental impact. There's evidence of relative decoupling – that is,
efficiency gains in converting natural resources to GDP – but this can be
swamped by resulting increases in absolute consumption. Given that it's not
possible to make something out of nothing, and that there are limits to efficiency,
is it a realistic expectation to maintain continuous economic growth while also
improving biodiversity protection.
Tom Barrett Research Fellow, Landscape Ecologist at
University of New Englan
Hi Phil, There's another issue
here.. The old adage that 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts' is
ignored in most biodiversity offset schemes. These schemes usually treat each
'loss' and 'offset' as two islands without consideration of the any of the
processes that may be operating at larger scales including interactions between
the proposed loss and surrounding ecosystems. We are now seeing the impacts of
ignoring these larger scale processes with continuing declines in many bird
populations in fragmented landscapes (extinction lag), increased salinity in
our rivers, declines in rainfall, loss of soil fertility etc. I believe there
is a need for more 'holistic' planning at landscape scales in recognition of
the processes that operate at these scales. The following UNEP report sums this
up by stating:“..This means shifting from a focus on the protection of discrete
ecosystems to management of larger landscapes—addressing them in bundles of
interlinked services, including those that support food production.” (Boelee
et.al., 2011).Keep up the good work!
Reference:Boelee E., Chiramba
T. and Khaka E. (eds) 2011. An ecosystem services approach to water and food
security. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; Colombo: International
Water Management Institute.
Ben Carr Landscape Ecologist
Thanks Phil, That's a good
article and covers many of the issues that offset policy and programs raise for
me. The key underlying issues are spatial and temporal conditions of the impact
and offset areas. In regards to the spatial issues the offset site/s are often
some distance away from the impact sites and will have different landscape
contexts. Often the technical assessment criteria for offset calculation do not
adequately deal with this complexity and the landscape context that Tom raises
is not considered or lost in trying to develop a 'workable' set of offset
criteria ( That workable in the view of the development industry).The temporal
issues are more important in many ways and are in my view the single biggest
failing of current offset programs in Australia. In general terms the losses
are allowed well before any of the supposed commensurate gains have been
achieved and often with no or very little capacity for redress if the gains
actually can't be produced. hence permanent and total loss of habitat values is
permitted based on very little security that the required gain will every be
achieved and these losses are allowed well before ant of the gains are achieved
. ie the losses are assures while the gains are promised. In financial terms
it's like establishing a loan that is immediately and fully drawn down without
having to prove that you can repay. The net effect of all of these withdrawals
from the habitat pool is continued loss.
I'd like to see actual real habitat gains be given greater value that the promised gained and that offsets be required to be met with a mixture of some achieved gains as well as promised gain. Now that would stimulate the landscape reconstruction / restoration industry! The various 'like for like' or 'like for better' criteria that have been developed are generally good but not comprehensive when it comes to considering the cumulative picture of offsetting. It will soon be time to undertake a detailed and independent review of those offset schemes that have been operating longest in Australia and to learn from this - perhaps before designing a national scheme. I also believe that there needs to be greater provision for ongoing funding from the beneficiaries of the loss ie the developers for the long term management of the offset sites. Current schemes have been allowed to develop with short term ie 10 year funding often due to the intense lobbing campaign of the development industry.There is also the fallacy that has been allow to develop that increasing the security of the underlying land tenure somehow produces a habitat gain. This is often done through placing conservation covenants over habitats or added them to the public protected area system.Increasing the underlying land security in itself does not result in any changes to habitat quality and its should not be allowed to count towards gain alone. Increasing security should only be allowed to be considered as part of a package that includes long term management and requirement to demonstrate that habitat quality has been increased to the necessary amount. Any gain that arise from increasing security should also contribute small amount to any habitat gain scoring system ie less that 10 % of the overall score as a maximum.
Cheers Ben Carr
I'd like to see actual real habitat gains be given greater value that the promised gained and that offsets be required to be met with a mixture of some achieved gains as well as promised gain. Now that would stimulate the landscape reconstruction / restoration industry! The various 'like for like' or 'like for better' criteria that have been developed are generally good but not comprehensive when it comes to considering the cumulative picture of offsetting. It will soon be time to undertake a detailed and independent review of those offset schemes that have been operating longest in Australia and to learn from this - perhaps before designing a national scheme. I also believe that there needs to be greater provision for ongoing funding from the beneficiaries of the loss ie the developers for the long term management of the offset sites. Current schemes have been allowed to develop with short term ie 10 year funding often due to the intense lobbing campaign of the development industry.There is also the fallacy that has been allow to develop that increasing the security of the underlying land tenure somehow produces a habitat gain. This is often done through placing conservation covenants over habitats or added them to the public protected area system.Increasing the underlying land security in itself does not result in any changes to habitat quality and its should not be allowed to count towards gain alone. Increasing security should only be allowed to be considered as part of a package that includes long term management and requirement to demonstrate that habitat quality has been increased to the necessary amount. Any gain that arise from increasing security should also contribute small amount to any habitat gain scoring system ie less that 10 % of the overall score as a maximum.
Cheers Ben Carr
Philip Gibbons Senior Lecturer at Australian
National University In reply to Ben Carr
Thanks Ben. Some really good
points you've raised and difficult to disagree with any of them. You should be
raising these issues with the Australian Govt. I feel as though we handled the
regional and landscape issues reasonably well in the NSW NV Act, whereby site,
landscape and regional values had to be offset separately (no trading between
them) for the offset to be approved (see Gibbons et al. 2009. An operational
method to assess impacts of land clearing on terrestrial biodiversity.
Ecological Indicators, 9, 26-40). I'm not saying it's perfect though. You will
also note in this paper that we permitted offsets in only a restricted set of
circumstances, which I think is important (see Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007.
Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological
Management and Restoration, 8, 26-31).
Regards, Phil
Tackling the moving-target
problem - Can biodiversity offsets capture moving-conservation targets
Intro: How do we conserve
something when it won’t stand still? It’s a question we are only just beginning
to grapple with in conservation science. Fixed protected areas are an example
of a classic conservation tool, but traditional interventions like these can be
ineffective for ‘moving targets’: for instance, a species that is so mobile
that it doesn’t stay within a reserve. Biodiversity offsets, despite the
suspicion they are often treated with by conservationists, may provide some
answers to this question.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A .PDF OF THIS ARTICLE
E-mail
j.bull10@imperial.ac.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment