Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Guy Duke
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Guy Duke

129

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
129
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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. 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. 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. UK Ecosystem Markets Task Force Research and Findings
  • 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. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/evidence/
  • 7. EMTF - FINDINGS 5 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS • OTHER OPPORTUNITIES http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/publications-reports/
  • 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. EMTF – RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING SEPTEMBER 2013 • • GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO EMTF PUBLISHED GREEN PAPER ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING PUBLISHED
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. Mitigation hierarchy
  • 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. 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. Essex offsetting strategy
  • 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. 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. 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. Biodiversity offsetting www.environmentbank.com https://environmentbank.mmearth.com

×