Guy Duke

268 views
197 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
268
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Guy Duke

  1. 1. Policy mechanisms for internalising the externalities: the example of biodiversity offsetting SFT Workshop December 2013 Guy Duke Principal Investigator, EMTF Research Phase I & II Director Europe & Research, The Environment Bank Ltd Senior Visiting Research Associate, Oxford University ECI
  2. 2. England - biodiversity loss • 492 species extinct in last 200 years • 7 species with Species Action Plans gone in last decade • All taxa - 25% butterflies, 20% amphibians, 10% bees, 2% plants extinct • Quantity and distribution as well – 60% of all species declining • Most loss outside protected areas
  3. 3. Natural Environment White Paper 2011 • Triggered by CBD Nagoya, Lawton review, National Ecosystem Assessment & evidence of biodiversity decline • Three themes – Growing a green economy – Reconnecting people and nature – Protecting natural environment • Four policy initiatives for environment – – – – Local Nature Partnerships Nature Improvement Areas Ecologically coherent planning (NPPF) Biodiversity offsetting
  4. 4. UK Ecosystem Markets Task Force Research and Findings
  5. 5. EMTF - BACKGROUND REMIT: To review the opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect nature’s services. REPORTING: To senior ministers through the Green Economy Council
  6. 6. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/evidence/
  7. 7. EMTF - FINDINGS 5 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS • OTHER OPPORTUNITIES http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/publications-reports/
  8. 8. EMTF – RESEARCH FINDINGS on BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING • SCALE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR UK BUSINESS • • • • • Market approach – scale, transaction costs, nature £90-470m/yr Mandatory for  liquidity, brokers to balance supply & demand Good scalability, good practice transferable Risks acknowledged – but well-designed market can overcome them • POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO NATURE • • 1100-3400 km2 new habitat over 20 years Larger, ecologically more viable sites; funding for l/t management
  9. 9. EMTF – RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING SEPTEMBER 2013 • • GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO EMTF PUBLISHED GREEN PAPER ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING PUBLISHED
  10. 10. UK Government analysis of planning • Phase 1 - Desk-top study on effectiveness of PPS9 in delivering no net loss - failure • Phase 2 - Analysis of 570 planning applications (major developments), looking closely at how PPS9 was applied in 46 of those cases (including interviews of planning officers) - failure • Phase 3 - Predicted the biodiversity results and costs of applying PPS9, compared to those when applying the offsetting metric, using a sample of real-life historic cases – offsetting cheaper
  11. 11. National Planning Policy NPPF 2011 - demands ‘sustainable development’ • Para 118 - Planning authorities should aim to enhance biodiversity • Para 152 – If adverse effects are unavoidable… then compensatory measures can be used • Para 176 – Where [such measures] are necessary…. [they must be] secured through appropriate conditions or agreements. Offsetting pilots – 6 county pilots, 2012-2014 Conservation covenants – Law Commission consultation 2012 Green Paper – September 2013
  12. 12. Biodiversity offsetting through planning • • • • • Compensating for impact in one place with gain in another Offsetting ‘metrics’ allow for estimation of both loss and gain Simply a tool for planners – guarantees no net loss Measurable – accountable, transparent, consistent Enables development and delivers biodiversity protection i.e. sustainable development • Observes mitigation hierarchy • Additional/complementary to statutory site protection
  13. 13. Biodiversity offsetting – global principles • • • • • • • • Net biodiversity gain (no net loss at minimum) Follows the mitigation hierarchy Recognises limits – not within protected areas Large-scale and long-term Equity – especially locality Like-for-like or like-for-better (trade up) Multipliers to account for risk and lag Transparent, documented and evidenced
  14. 14. Mitigation hierarchy
  15. 15. The Environment Bank An independent broker that will: – calculate Credit requirements for developers – calculate Credit availability at ‘receptor’ sites – register offset receptor sites on a live trading platform – facilitate the creation, purchase and tracking of credits, using certificates – ensure the long-term management, monitoring and reporting of receptor sites, using legal agreements – ensure site long-term protection using covenants.
  16. 16. EBL Infrastructure • Guidance notes – Introduction, Planning Authorities, Developers, Landowners – County specific versions • Trading platform – Launched on-line Feb 2012; National registry • Metrics – Delivering national frameworks, accreditation & validation – Developing software • Legal agreements – Legal planning advice – COPA & Conservation Bank Agreement – Conservation credit certificates & letters of sale
  17. 17. Essex offsetting strategy
  18. 18. How does it work? • • • • LPA offers offsetting as option Developer chooses offsetting, impact assessed Land managers register receptor sites Developer seeks to purchase credits – consults national registry, chooses receptor site (with LPA) • Environment Bank brokers deal - signs legal agreements to purchase with developer, and to manage with receptor site land manager • Money transferred, over time, to the land manager against specific conservation management • Monitoring and reporting systems for LPAs
  19. 19. What’s needed? • Willing LPAs & developers and a network of receptor sites – buyers and sellers • Metrics for assessing credit requirements of developments and credit value of ‘receptor sites’ • Trading systems e.g. brokers, platforms • Delivery systems e.g. legal assurance, fiscal assurance, registries, monitoring and reporting systems
  20. 20. Benefits • For Planning authorities – Transparent, consistent & auditable – Enables rigorous ecological input – Removes compliance monitoring needs but retains decision-making locus and enforcement capability – Removes obligations but increases accountability • For developers – – – – • Reduces planning delays and consultant costs, Greater clarity, predictabiity and consistency Potential increase in net developable area Long-term liability discharged, no long-term management costs Transparent and accountable delivery of SD For conservation – – – – – Ensures environmental value accounted for in all planning decisions Gives financial disincentives to habitat destruction Mainstreams land management value Enable long-term and large-scale habitat conservation Increased funding to NGOs
  21. 21. Biodiversity offsetting www.environmentbank.com https://environmentbank.mmearth.com

×