The Ecological Context for Biodiversity Offsetting in Canada
Review of new Biodiversity Assessment and Offset Policy for Major Projects in NSW
1. The newBiodiversityAssessmentand OffsetPolicyfor Major Projectsin NSW: Have we tippedthe
balance betweenprotectingour environmentinorder to facilitate major development?
Late lastyear,the NSW Governmentreleaseda‘whole of government’ FrameworkforBiodiversity
Assessment’(FBA) and‘Biodiversity OffsetPolicyforMajorProjects’.Whenconductingof review of
the newpolicy,bothof these sisterdocuments needtobe consideredtogetherasone informsthe
otherinrelationtodecisionpathwaysforhow biodiversityistobe assessedandimpactsmitigated
and offset.Asanewpolicyframework,one wouldexpectthatthe intentof the three objectives and
six ‘principles’ of the newpolicywouldbe to improve biodiversityimpact assessmentanddecision
makingusingthe latesttechniquesandknowledge withoutcompromisingenvironmental outcomes
giventhe broadercontextof climate change.
There are some improvementstohowassessmentandmitigation istobe conductedinNSW as a
resultof the newpolicyandframework. Forone thing, followingthe 1st
Objective of the new policy,
the FBA enshrinesastandardisedassessmentmethodologyensuringaconsistentstandardformajor
projectbiodiversityassessmentreporting,aBiodiversityAssessmentReport(BAR),includingthe use
of the revised BioBankingAssessmentMethodology (BBAM),asthe tool to measure impactforall
majorprojects. As well, Objective 2of the policy establishesthe requirementtocreate offsetsites
usinga BioBankingAgreement,aninperpetuitymechanism, a mandatory requirementlackinginthe
previousinterimoffsetpolicy where itwasmerelyoptional.Howeverthe ‘transitional arrangements’
provide fora delayof the full policy andwill applyforthe durationof time thatis takento establish
the BiodiversityOffsetFund aswell asotheradministrative issues,the time-frameforwhichis
uncertain.
Despite some questionableassumptions whichremain withinthe FBA*,itshouldbe regardedasa
reasonablycredible tool for assessingbiodiversityloss andgainthroughthe use of biodiversity
credits,a systemwhichhasgainedrecognitionaroundthe world.Aswell thereismuchpromise that
witha functioningBiodiversityOffsetFund, andconsistentwithObjective2of the policy, that
significantconservationgainscanbe made onprivate land usingBioBankingAgreements,a
mechanismwhichhashaddisappointingtake upsince itsinceptionin2008.
But intermsof the capacity to detectandpreventbiodiversitylossandpopulationdecline,hasthe
newpolicyframeworksanctionedpathwaysforincreasedlevelsof biodiversityloss? Forone thing,
despite effortstoincorporate assessmentof Commonwealth-listedspeciesintothe new policy,this
new offsetpolicyforNSWcreatesa different- lower- standardthanthe offsetoutcomesthat are
*Under the old BBAM, there was no requirement to provide siteflora listsand cover-abundancedata,though
in practicethis was necessary in order to justify the identification of plantand ecol ogical communities. The
FBA has corrected this situation by makingthe collection of this data mandatory. However, the Biometric site
values still do not cover the range of habitatvariables which could beused for a more robust measure of fauna
habitatvalue.There arealso tensions in the somewhat arbitrary dichotomy between ‘ecosystem’ and ‘species’
creditspecies,particularly,thelack of the need to conduct surveys for ‘ecosystem credit’ threatened species
that will inhibitthe collection of data that may inform future assessments of their conservation status;the
assumption thatspecies creditspecies are regarded as not being present if targeted surveys are not successful
in identifyingthem onsite,despite various degrees of detectability is questionable.Itis also questionable
whether the habitatpreferences of ‘vagrant’ species couldn’tbe predicted. Lastly,it is an arbitrary threshold
to state that where the records of species presence areat least20 years old, they should not be considered.
This makes the assumption thatsurvey effort has been consistentover the last20 years when a lack of data is
more than likely an artefactof lack of survey effort in that location and should be used if verifiable.
2. currentlycontainedwithinthe Commonwealthstandard.Ibelievewe are enteringdangerous
territory forfuture biodiversityloss andthe new frameworkhasseriousscientificlimitations,by
increasing‘flexibility’pursuanttothe 3rd
Objective andreducingthe adequacyof future assessments
to be able to detectandmitigate againstbiodiversityloss. Central tothisargumentisthe following
pertinentfactsaboutthe newframeworkandpolicy;the lossof the ‘precautionaryprinciple’in
relationtobiodiversityloss,the terminationof the conceptof ‘redflags’orminimumretention
thresholdsforspeciesandecological communities,lossof the conceptof ‘nonetloss’,watering
downof the principle of ‘like-for-like’through‘variations’,lossof the conceptof ‘significantimpact’
for majorprojectsandlastly,the introductionof an unclearoffsetstandardwithinthe MiningSEPP.
I will brieflyreview eachof these issuesbelow.
The endof the concept of‘no net loss’
Objective 3of the newpolicystatesplainlythatitthe intentionto, “providea practicaland
achievableoffsetschemeforproponents"bythatitis, “… providing variousoffsetoptionswhile
ensuring thatthe bestand most credible offsetsareprovided.”
While the conceptof ‘nonet loss’waswidelyrecognisedtobe fraughtunderseveral offsetscenarios
(GibbonsandLindenmayer2007), the introductionof more ‘flexible’optionsforproponentshas
finallyseenthe officialdeathof thisconceptinNSW. These flexible optionsinclude ‘supplementary
measures’where proponentscanprovide funds whenoffsetsare notavailablethatwill, “…benefit
biodiversitybutdo notspecifically involveprotecting and managing a site.”While the policydetails
whatkindof supplementarymeasuresare mostsuitable foranyparticularmatter, essentially, it
involvesthe conversionof unretiredbiodiversitycreditstodollars tofund actionsthatare not
necessarily relatedtothe site orregionof the impact. ThoughPrinciple 6statesthat the
supplementarymeasure mayfund; actionsoutlinedinthreatenedspeciesrecoveryprograms;
actionsthat contribute tothreatabatementprograms; biodiversity researchandsurveyprograms;
and, rehabilitatingdegradedaquatichabitat,the verypresence of supplementarymeasures assumes
a net loss.
Another‘flexibility’innovationisthatof the introductionof upfrontcreditsfor mine site ‘ecological’
rehabilitation, “…in calculation of offsetswherethereare good prospectsof biodiversity being
restored”.Thisis an extremelycontentiousconcessiontominingproponentsbecause,asnoted
duringthe recentMiningRehabilitationConference inSingletonlastyear,the creationof Plant
CommunityTypes(PCTs) andindeeddiscreteecosystemsanywhere inAustraliaisnotsupportedby
any publishedscientificdata.
While some goodresultshave beenachievedunderthe bestconditionsforsome rehabilitation
projects,thatis,from rehabilitatedstripsandminingsitesinWesternAustraliaandthe Northern
Territory,the endresultstill cannotrecreate the indigenousvegetation community. Otherexamples
of rehabilitationprojectsinthe HunterValleyonmine spoil andgeofluvial landscapesshow
promisingbutmixed resultsand questionsremainwithrespect tothe persistence of thisvegetation
and the abilitytoestablish andretain native groundcoverandunderstoreygivenproblemswith
sodicand highlyerosivesubstrates. NSWEnvironmentandHeritage are currentlytrialling
rehabilitationtechniquesonmine spoil,thoughthe resultsare still out.
Whateverthe goodintentionsof some researchers,the factisthatto provide upfrontcreditsforun-
establishedrehabilitationonunnatural substratesmustbe consideredanetlossforthe removal of
remnantvegetation.A lossthatisunlikelytobe evermet.Itshouldalsobe notedthatRehabilitation
3. Guidelinesare beingpreparedatthe momentandinclude the use of nest-boxestooffsetthe lossof
hollows –at the verybestthisisa temporaryand non-targetedmeasure.
As the oldMine OperationPlansystem alreadyrequired the establishmentof vegetationon
rehabilitatedlandsinordertopreventpollution,one hastowonderif the concessiontobe able to
use mine rehabilitationasan offsetforthe removal of remnantvegetationisasteptoo far and
underminesthe credibilityof the BBAM.Thisis evenmore ironicwhenyouconsiderthe reluctance
of miningcompaniestoaccept a creditliabilityforthe removal of rehabilitatedareasduringpast
mine expansions(personal experience withsome majorprojects). One wouldhave toassume that
miningcompanieswouldnowacceptthatliability.
Wateringdown of ‘like-for-like’requirements
Giventhe retirementof the conceptof ‘nonetloss’,the wateringdownof ‘like-for-like’
requirementsseemstobe consistentwithinthiscontext. Thishasbeenachievedthroughthe
systemof ‘variations’tothe like-for-likerequirement, “…recognising thatexactly thesame
biodiversityis not alwaysavailableforan offset,thepolicy allowsforvariationsin the ‘like-for-like’
requirementso offsetsdo notalwaysneed to be strictly matched to thebiodiversity impacted on,but
can betargeted to relevantequal orhigher conservation priorities.”
While Principle3statesthat the defaultpositionisthatimpactsare offsetinalike-for-likemanner
and that offsetsmustbe targetedtothe biodiversityvaluesbeinglostorto higherconservation
priorities,the variationrulesare there tofacilitateoffsettingwhere like-for-like isnotavailable after
taking‘reasonable steps’.Thiswillallow offsetsforecosystemcreditswhichare fromwithinthe
same Keithformation,thoughmaybe outside the IBRA subregionandforspeciescreditswherethe
offsetcredits are fromthe same taxonomicorderforfaunaspeciesandfamilyforplantspecies and
fromwithinthe same IBRA region (butnotnecessarilyIBRA subregion).Suchconcessionsdonotin
any wayreduce the impacton locallyaffectedthreatenedspecies.
As a seemingconcessionforsensitive matters,these variationrulesdonotapplyto critically
endangeredspeciesandcommunitiesorthreatenedspeciesandecological communitiesthatare
considerednationallysignificant(listedunderthe Commonwealth EnvironmentalProtection and
BiodiversityConservation Act1999) whichmustbe offsetina like-for-likemanner.Principle 3states
that the aim of these rulesis toensure alternative offsetsare still reasonablysimilartothe entities
beingimpacted forthese matters. However,the offsetpolicystill allowsthe provisionof
supplementarymeasures should no suitableoffsetbeavailable!Ontopof thisthe policyintroduces
the conceptof ‘additional offsets’whichare offsetsthatdonot have to bearany relationshiptothe
matterbeingimpacted. Thisisineffectisthe final nail inthe coffinforanyrequirementfor‘like-for-
like’underthe newoffsetpolicyinNSWandineffectmeansthatthere isno impacton anymatter
regardlessof howthreateneditmaybe,whichcannotbe offset.
Nothingis off-limits
The FBA has retiredthe conceptof ‘redflags’as theyexistedunderthe oldBBAMand has been
replacedwiththe concept of ‘mattersrequiringfurtherconsideration’.The FBA alsoreplacesthe
requirementtoconsider‘significant impact’asperthe Assessmentof Significance test(or7 Part
test) foundinthe ThreatenedSpeciesConservationandthe Environmental PlanningandAssessment
Acts.Currentlythe FBA onlyappliestoassessmentof MajorProjectsas determinedbythe consent
authoritiesinNSWandso the 7 Part Testwill still applytoPart4 and5 matterswhere local
governmentisthe consentauthority.Howevergiventhe currentreview of biodiversitylegislationin
thisstate it appearsthat mostthingsare onthe table forreview.
4. As Principle 1of the offsetpolicystates,biodiversityoffsetssitwithinahierarchyof ‘avoid,
minimise,offset’,withnomechanismforrefusal exceptatthe discretionof the consentauthorityfor
‘severe’ impactson‘mattersrequiringfurtherconsideration’. Principle1statesthat,“If a project
proposesto havean impactrequiring furtherconsideration,theprima facieposition is thata project
should notproceed,given the severityof theimpact.The consentauthority may,however, considerif
there are otherfactorsthatmightallow the projectto proceed with these impacts.Thiscould include
consideration of socialand/oreconomicbenefitsof a projectand if the impactcan be appropriately
ameliorated through additionalconservation measures.” Thisseemingcontradictoryposition,isre-
iteratedinthe FBA, where the coursesof actionthat a consentauthoritymayconsiderinclude (a)
refusal of the project,(b) approval withmodificationof the project,or(c) approval withadditional
offsetsorsupplementarymeasures. Asthese are presentedasnon-hierachical options,there is,
therefore no‘primafacie’positionthatanydevelopmentshouldnotproceedunderthe new policy.
What does‘mattersrequiringfurtherconsideration’ meanforthe assessmentof sensitive andhighly
threatenedmatters? There are fourcriteria.Withrespecttothe firstcriterion regardingspecies
extinctionordecrease inviability, Principle 1makesthe misleadingassertionthatthis includes
impactswhich may,“… causeextinction of a species froma local area …” In fact the FBA statesthat
impactswhichrequire furtherconsiderationinclude,“… an impactthatis likely to causethe
extinction of a species froman IBRA subregion,including whereit will significantly reducethe
viability of a species, population orecologicalcommunity.”AnyIBRA sub-regionmayinfactcontain
several discrete or‘local’ populations.Whilethe BARasksthe proponenttodetail the characteristics
of the local population,the assessmentof impactaccordingtoa reasonable readingof thiscondition
wouldnotbe a matterfor furtherconsiderationif itdidnotmeanthe demise ordecrease the
viability all populations of anyspecies inanyIBRA sub-region. One thingisforcertain,these
statementsare notwell writtenandleave openanumberof interpretations.
The secondcriterionrelatestoa matterthat islistedonthe Register of Critical Habitatin NSW. This
registercontainsveryfewitems,aswell there wasconjecture thatthisregistermaybe sunkas itwas
not consistentwiththe definitionof ‘importanthabitat’ascontainedinthe EPBCAct. As itstands
thiscriterionwill accountforveryfewmattersinthisstate.
The third andfourthcriteriarelate toimpactsto the connectivityof riparianbufferzoneson
significantstreamsand‘identified’movementcorridorsprovidingsignificantlinkagesinthe state.
These are welcome attemptstodeal withlandscape connectivityissuesandimpactsonthe dispersal
of faunawhichwaslackinginpreviousassessmentsusingthe ‘7Part test’.Howeveratpresentthere
isno ‘identified’systemof linkagesinNSW,aside fromthose relatingtoimportantstreamsas
detailedinthe thirdcriterion.
Giventhe likelihoodof asignificantexpansioninmajorprojectsinNSW, unlesscorrected, these
loopholesinthe criteriaare likelytoresultinfurtherlossof populationsandgeneticdiversityamong
our mostthreatenedbiodiversity. Thishasto be consideredin contradictiontoourinternational
obligationsasoutlinedinArticle 8the UN ConventiononBiological Diversity(1992) whichstates:
(d) Promotetheprotection of ecosystems,naturalhabitatsand themaintenanceof viable
populationsof speciesin naturalsurroundings;and
(k) Develop or maintain necessary legislation and/orotherregulatory provisionsfortheprotection of
threatened speciesand populations.
Other issues
5. What seemstohave fallenbythe wayside inNSWisrecognitionthatecosystemsshouldhave
minimumretentionlevels.Sucharegulatorymechanismwouldbe asafeguardtopreventthe
extinctionof ecosystemswithinIBRA regionsorcatchments. The CatchmentManagementPlans
have such targets,butunfortunatelyhave noregulatoryteethandsohave beenconsistentlyignored
by state authorities. Theirfuture nowseemsuncertaingiventhe currentBiodiversityLegislation
Review.We seemtohave replacedthisapproachwithone of acceptingongoingbiodiversitydecline.
There are otherissueswiththe newoffsetpolicy itself,particularlyinrelationtoinconsistencieswith
the CommonwealthEPBCActwhichusesthe precautionaryprinciple initsSignificantImpact
GuidelinesforMattersof National Environmental Significance. InNSW,the precautionaryprinciple
was removedovermattersrelatingtobiodiversity,thoughisstill retainedinthe Protection of the
EnvironmentOperationsAct1997. The Commonwealth guidelinesalsotreatcriticallyendangered
and endangered speciesusingthe same significanceimpactcriteria,thoughnow inNSW,
endangeredandcriticallyendangeredspeciesare treateddifferently.Giventhe paucityof matters
listedascriticallyendangeredinNSW,surelyendangeredspeciesandpopulationswarrantspecial
considerationgiventheyare threatenedwithextinction?
In termsof duplicationof existingconservationmeasures, Principle4statesthat offsetsmustbe
additional tootherlegal requirementsandrequiresthatcreditsgeneratedonpubiclandsare
discounted byonly5-7.5% where managementactionsalreadyexistand carboncreditsdo notcount
and no discountisrequiredfor biodiversitycreditsoverthe same areas. These positionsare not
consistentwiththe CommonwealthOffsetPolicy.
It seemsthatthe NSW OffsetPolicyhasbeenwrittenwithaview totake accountof Commonwealth
matters,thoughlookingatthe inconsistenciesbetweenthe twooffsetpoliciesandimpact
assessmentguidelines,hasonlybeenpartiallysuccessful. Whatthe ramificationsare forthe
Bilateral Agreementsthatthe NSWand Commonwealth Governmentsare pursuingisoutsidethe
scope of thisarticle,these issues couldraise judicial questions.
Finallywithrespecttothe 2013 amendmenttothe MiningSEPPwhichallowsa‘certification’of an
offsetstrategyasbeing‘adequate’,whenappliedforthe firsttime tothe Warkworth Continuation
Project, thispathway allowedacertification usingunretiredbiodiversitycreditsandapoor
adherence tothe newpolicy. Thisprecedentinfactthreatenstounderminethe transparencyof the
newoffsetpolicyitself.
In our attemptsprovide transparencyandsuretyforgovernmentagenciesanddevelopersforan
improvedimpactassessmentandoffsetregime inNSW, have we thrownoutthe biodiversitybaby
withthe bathwater? We have acceptedfurtherlosswhenitisgenerallyacceptedinscientificcircles
that we needtorehabilitate the landscape inordertocope withfurtherwide-scale environmental
habitatdecline. Iforone wishto see anAustraliathatpreservesasmuchof our unique heritage for
future generationsaswe possiblycanand fearwe are on a path that may sacrifice ourbiodiversity
for short-termdevelopmentexpediency.
12 February2015
DavidC. Paull
Ethical Ecology
0455634160.
