This document discusses biodiversity offset policies across different Australian states and some key issues with offsets. It provides an overview of offset policies in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria. The main differences between the states' policies are discussed, such as NSW not requiring assessments for threatened species when using biobanking offsets. Common problems with offsets include understating or overstating environmental impacts and securing offset sites. Solutions proposed to reduce project risks include getting expert advice early, securing offsets before project approval, and working closely with regulators. Future considerations mentioned are improving methods for validating offset sites and ensuring their long-term management and compliance.

1. Aaron Organ – Director / Principal Ecologist
Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Geelong
Ph (07) 3221 3352, Mob. 0425 873 159

2.  Biodiversity offset policies (State
comparison)
 Key Issues
 Brief examples
 Solutions
 Concluding thoughts
Overview

3. 6
Hierarchy
 Development proposals need to demonstrate:
◦ Avoidance of impacts
◦ Minimisation of impacts
◦ Mitigation of impacts
 Residual (unavoidable) negative environmental
impacts from a development are subject to offsets
Introduction

4. 7
 Queensland Government Environmental Offset Policy (2008)
(QGEOP) – overarching framework for environmental offsets in
QLD.
 Four specific offset policies support the QGEOP:
1. Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets;
2. Mitigation and Compensation for Works or Activities
Causing Marine Fish Habitat Loss;
3. Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat (2010);
and
4. Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (2011).
 Each policy specifies the manner in which offsets can be
provided (i.e. a land based offset and/or a monetary
contribution).
Offset Policies - Qld

5. 8
 A biobanking statement obtained for development
assessed under Parts 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act, also
Part 3A applications
 Precludes the need for additional assessment of
impacts to threatened species
 Limited implications under the TSC Act - voluntary
offset scheme (no requirement to source any
offsets using the scheme or register offsets under
the scheme)
 Methodology highly complex
BioBanking and Offset Scheme - NSW

6. 9
 Two types of biodiversity credits – species credits
and ecosystem credits
 Small number of projects have been finalised
(offsets have been achieved in other ways)
 Cost of offsets and funding for management of
offset sites are negotiated
 Offsite offsets are managed by landowner not the
developer
BioBanking and Offset Scheme - NSW

7. 10
 Victoria’s policy on native vegetation is the document, Victoria’s
Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (2002)
 Primary goal is the reversal of decline in extent and quality of
native vegetation i.e. Net Gain
 BushBroker Scheme administered by Department of Sustainability
and Environment
 Offsets need to be quality ‘like for like’
 Net Gain calculator, 10yr OMP (although needs to be
permanently secured)
 Currently being reviewed (incorporate risk and proportionality,
increasing options to offset on site or pooling multiple small
offsets at larger sites through over-the-counter offset schemes)
Net Gain - Victoria

8. 11
 NSW - no assessments for threatened species when using
BioBanking
 NSW - consent authority includes the conditions of the biobanking
statement in the development consent – differs to Vic where it states
an approved Offset Management Plan (OMP), Qld Offset Area
Management Plan (ceases when mapped as remnant native veg.)
 Vic - emphasis on vegetation offsets, minimal focus/process and
options for threatened species offsets
 Qld - lack of empirical data on species distribution and accuracy of
RE mapping (large State), offsets cannot be remnant vegetation
 Qld - exemptions for certain projects, also and doesn't apply to all
vegetation communities or species (typically only State significant
biodiversity values)
Main differences between the States

9. 12
 Inaccurate advice - overestimating or understating
ecological values
 Currently high expectation of level of survey effort
for offset analysis
 Project size and complexity (multiple values across
a larger area)
 Poor communication and negotiation with
regulators
Project Risks - ‘the issues’

10. 13
 Poor negotiation between broker and landowner
 Duplication of offset process
 Security of offset site prior to commencement
 Land based offset requirements restrictive
 Complex and evolving legislation and policies
 Practical management of offset site(s) (in
perpetuity)
Project Risks - ‘the issues’

11. Problems
 Understating the impact
 Overstating the impact
 Messing up offsets
No problems
 Pre-empting problems
 Working with regulators

12.  Ornamental snakes and genetic
fragmentation
◦ Vulnerable EPBC Act / NC Act
◦ Why genetic fragmentation is difficult to cause for
such a species
◦ Whole reason for the project being a ‘controlled
action’ under the Act
◦ Project delays, conditions placed on approval
leading to additional costs
◦ Large habitat offsets required

13. 16

14.  Clearing of vegetation prior to offsets and
ecological equivalence
◦ Automatic scores of 100 for cleared vegetation
◦ The vegetation would have only scored ~60 if
properly surveyed
◦ No vegetation in offset area scores >70
◦ If surveys had been completed (with a realistic
score) the total offset liability would have been less

15. 18

16. 19
I’m concerned about the costs and delays for my mining,
energy and infrastructure projects, what are the solutions?
 Get the right advice early
 Locate and secure offsets prior to the lodgement of EIS/DA
 Look for legal precedents associated with offset requirements
(ratios, areas)
 Don’t be afraid to work with regulators
 Get the lawyers involved (ensure you check the finer details
under the State and Commonwealth conditions of approval)
 Ensure specialist botanists and zoologists undertake
assessments and review the draft conditions (peer review of
reports)
 Issues with combined offsets from the clients perspective
(timing, compliance)
 Don’t try and circumvent the process!
Solutions

17. 20
 Are offsets hear to stay – yes, they are.
 Increased complexity – although all Governments
are attempting to streamline the process
 Difficult for regulators to validate the offset areas
(rely on their consultants and spatial data)
 Harder to locate offsets – habitat
recreation/revegetation
 Practical management – who manages and audits
the offset (compliance). Developer often doesn’t
have the desire or expertise to manage the offset in
the short term and in perpetuity
Future Considerations

18. 21
 Use of spatial and satellite data to improve your
confidence in potential offset sites prior to field
 Environmental loss is immediate –
restoration/rehabilitation outcome is not as certain
and has inherent difficulties
 Early investment by Government - lack of funding?
 Large offsets can be facilitated in a coordinated way
(strategic approach)
Future Considerations

19. 22

20. 23

22. Aaron Organ
Director / Principal Ecologist
0425 873 159
Adelaide - (08) 8372 7829 Brisbane – (07) 3221 3352 / Geelong – (03) 5221 8122 /
Melbourne – (03) 9377 0100
www.ehpartners.com.au