The	  scope	  for	  using	  habitat	  banking	  to	  ensure	  NNL	  of	  ecosystems	  and	  their	  services	  –	  from	 ...
Structure	  of	  the	  presenta:on	  I.  Background:	   commitment	   &	  support	  to	  NNL	  at	  EU	  level	  II.  Achi...
 	  I.	  Background:	  commitments	  &	  support	  to	  NNL	  at	  EU	  level	  	  
I.	  1.	  Ra:onale	  for	  commitment	  to	  NNL	  Pressures	   on	   biodiversity	   have	   con:nued	   to	   intensify:...
I.2.	  Actual	  commitments	  :	  EU	  BD	  Strategy	  to	  2020	  •  EU	   BD	   Strategy’s	   headline	   target:	   ‘ha...
I.3.	  Support	  to	  EU	  NNL	  ini:a:ve:	  EU	  Council	  conclusions	  Council	  conclusions	  of	  21	  June	  2011:	 ...
I.4.	  Support	  to	  EU	  NNL	  ini:a:ve:	  EP	  Resolu:on	  EP	  resolu:on	  of	  20	  April	  2012:	  	  	  •  urges	  ...
I.5.	  Preparatory	  work	  for	  2015	  NNL	  ini:a:ve	  •  To	   obtain	   views	   of	   stakeholders	   on	   this	   ...
 	  II.	  Achieving	  NNL	  in	  prac:ce:	  a	  role	  for	  offseHng	  impacts	  though	  habitat	  banking?	  	  	  
II.1.	  What	  are	  offsets?	  Compensa:on	  measures	  for	  biodiversity	  loss	  may	  arguably	  be	  achieved	  throu...
II.1.	  Offsets	  in	  the	  mi:ga:on	  hierarchy	  Compensa<on	   must	   be	   considered	   in	   the	   context	   of	 ...
II.1.	  OffseHng	  via	  habitat	  banking	  •  Habitat	  banking	  enables	  ‘biodiversity	  credits’	  to	  be	  generate...
 	  III.	  Preliminary	  results	  from	  in-­‐depth	  case	  study	  work:	  	  Eco-­‐accounts	  in	  the	  German	  regi...
III.1.	  Policy	  context	  at	  federal	  level	  (1)	  1976:	  Adop:on	  of	  the	  Impact	  Mi:ga:on	  Regula:on	  (‘Ei...
III.1.	  Policy	  context	  at	  federal	  level	  (2)	  Measures	  to	  overcome	  problems:	  	  1998:	  amendment	  of	...
III.2.	  Evolu:on	  of	  policy	  framework	  at	  regional	  (B-­‐W)	  level	  Pilot	   project	   from	   2002-­‐2005	  ...
III.3.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  the	  Federal	  building	  code	  (1998)	  •  To	  offset	  impacts	 ...
III.4.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  the	  nature	  legisla:on	  (1)	  Responsibility	   for	   introduci...
III.4.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  the	  nature	  legisla:on	  (2)	  Lower	   Nature	   Conserva<on	   ...
III.4.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  the	  nature	  legisla:on	  (3)	  •  The	  implementa<on	  of	  the	...
III.5.	  General	  principles	  governing	  the	  alloca:on	  of	  Eco-­‐points	  in	  both	  types	  of	  Eco-­‐accounts	...
III.6.	  What	  is	  the	  price	  of	  an	  eco-­‐point	  (Eco-­‐account	  under	  the	  nature	  legisla:on)?	  	  •  It...
III.7.	  Eco-­‐accounts:	  Advantages	  and	  challenges	  –	  preliminary	  qualita:ve	  assessment	  based	  on	  SH	  i...
IV.	  Summary	  of	  preliminary	  findings	  •  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  schemes	  in	  place	  in	  Baden-­‐WuerNemberg	  a...
V.	  Suggested	  ques:ons	  for	  discussion	  1.  Could	   such	   a	   system	   be	   put	   in	   place	   in	   other...
 	  	  Thank	  you	  for	  your	  aNen:on	  	  Leonardo	  Mazza	  –	  	  Daniela	  Russi	  –	  drussi@iee...
Annex:	  Further	  reading	  ERec	  and	  IEEP	  (2010)	  The	  use	  of	  market-­‐based	  instruments	  for	  biodiversi...
III.4.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  nature	  legisla:on	  -­‐	  overview	  Eco-­‐accounts	  under	  the	...
III.3.	  The	  Eco-­‐accounts	  established	  under	  the	  Federal	  building	  code	  -­‐	  overview	  	  	  Eco-­‐accou...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

The scope for using habitat banking to ensure NNL of ecosystems and their services - from theory to practice


Published on

This is a presentation to EEB's Biodiversity working group on the scope for using habitat banking to ensure No net loss of ecosystems and their services. The presentation reviews EU's commitments to ensuring NNL of biodiversity and ecosystem services and discusses the contribution that offsetting and habitat banking could make to meeting this policy objective. This is complemented with the presentation of preliminary results from a case study on the use of the Eco-accounts schemes in the German Land of Baden-Wurttemberg to achieve a similar commitment introduced by the German Impact Mitigation Regulation.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The scope for using habitat banking to ensure NNL of ecosystems and their services - from theory to practice

  1. 1.  The  scope  for  using  habitat  banking  to  ensure  NNL  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  –  from  theory  to  prac:ce      Leonardo  Mazza  on  behalf  of  the  wider  study  team    17  May  2013,  Brussels  Presenta<on  to  EEB’s  Biodiversity  working  group    
  2. 2. Structure  of  the  presenta:on  I.  Background:   commitment   &  support  to  NNL  at  EU  level  II.  Achieving  NNL  in  prac:ce:  a  role  for  offseHng   impacts   through   habitat  banking?  III.  Preliminary  results  of  in-­‐depth  case  study:  Eco-­‐accounts  in  the  German  region  of  Baden-­‐WurNemberg    IV.  Summary  of  preliminary  findings    V.  Suggested  ques:ons  for  discussion    
  3. 3.    I.  Background:  commitments  &  support  to  NNL  at  EU  level    
  4. 4. I.  1.  Ra:onale  for  commitment  to  NNL  Pressures   on   biodiversity   have   con:nued   to   intensify:   land   use  changes,  urban  sprawl,  fragmenta:on  &  loss  of  natural  habitats    Consequences:  •  EU’s  target  of  hal:ng  biodiversity  loss  in  Europe  by  2010  has  been  missed  •  overall  health  of  ecosystems  has  deteriorated,  as  has  their  ability  to   provide   important   ecosystem   services   (e.g.   those   associated   with  water  resources,  soils,  carbon,  flood  management,  recrea:on  and  tourism).      Key  lesson  from  the  failure  to  achieve  the  2010  biodiversity  target:  •  it  will  not  be  possible  to  halt  the  loss  of  biodiversity  in  future  years  without   adop:ng   policies   and   measures   that   can   offset  unavoidable  residual  impacts.      
  5. 5. I.2.  Actual  commitments  :  EU  BD  Strategy  to  2020  •  EU   BD   Strategy’s   headline   target:   ‘halt   biodiversity   and   ecosystem  service  loss  by  2020,  to  restore  ecosystems  in  so  far  as  is  feasible  (…)’    •  Sub-­‐target  2:  “By  2020,  ecosystems  and  their  services  are  maintained  and   enhanced   by   establishing   green   infrastructure   and   restoring   at  least  15%  of  degraded  ecosystems.”    •  Ac:ons   to   help   achieve   each   of   the   sub   targets:   Ac:on   7   aims   to  “ensure  No  Net  Loss  (NNL)  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services”    »  Sub-­‐ac:on   7b,   “the   Commission   will   carry   out   further   work  with  a  view  to  proposing  by  2015  an  ini:a:ve  to  ensure  there  is   NNL   of   ecosystems   and   their   services   (e.g.   through  compensa:on  or  offseHng  schemes).”  
  6. 6. I.3.  Support  to  EU  NNL  ini:a:ve:  EU  Council  conclusions  Council  conclusions  of  21  June  2011:      •  stressed  the  importance  of  further  work  to  opera:onalise  the  NNL  objec:ve  (…)  &  ensuring  no  further  loss  or  degrada:on  of  ecosystems  &  their  services.      •  provides  the  following  preliminary  defini:on  of  the  NNL  concept:         that   conservaCon/biodiversity   losses   in   one   geographically   or   otherwise  defined   area   are   balanced   by   a   gain   elsewhere   provided   that   this   principle   does   not  entail  any  impairment  of  exisCng  biodiversity  as  protected  by  EU  nature  legislaCon.        Council  Conclusions  of  19  December  2011:    •  agreed  “that  a  common  approach  is  needed  for  the  implementa:on  in  the  EU  of  the  NNL  principle  and  invited  the  Commission  to  address  this  as  part  of  the  prepara:on  of  its  planned  ini:a:ve  on  NNL  by  2015…”        (…”taking  into  account  exis<ng  experience  as  well  as  the  specifici<es  of  each  Member  State,  on  the  basis  of  in-­‐depth  discussions  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  regarding  the  clear  defini<on,  scope,  opera<ng  principles  and  management  and  support  instruments  in  the  context  of  the  common  implementa<on  framework  of  the  Strategy”).    
  7. 7. I.4.  Support  to  EU  NNL  ini:a:ve:  EP  Resolu:on  EP  resolu:on  of  20  April  2012:      •  urges   Commission   to   “develop   an   effec:ve   regulatory   framework  based   on   the   ‘No   Net   Loss’   ini:a:ve,   taking   into   account   the   past  experience  of  the  Member  States  while  also  u<lising  the  standards  applied  by  the  Business  and  Biodiversity  Offsets  Programme”  •  Report  also  refers  to  the  importance  of  applying  such  an  approach  to  all  EU  habitats  and  species  not  covered  by  EU  legisla:on  
  8. 8. I.5.  Preparatory  work  for  2015  NNL  ini:a:ve  •  To   obtain   views   of   stakeholders   on   this   issue   the   European  Commission  established  a  Working  Group  on  NNL  of  Ecosystems  and  their  Services  (NNL  Working  Group).  Its  objec:ve:    “collect  views  from  Member  State  representa5ves,  stakeholders  and  experts  on  the  way  forward   for   the   NNL   ini5a5ve   announced   for   2015,   within   the   mandate   of   the   2011   December  Council  conclusions,  taking  into  account  all  relevant  policies  and  instruments.  The  aim  is  to  support  the  European  Commission  in  its  prepara5on  of  a  NNL  ini5a5ve.  The  Working  Group  is  expected  to  develop  recommenda5ons  by  mid-­‐2013”.      •  EC  also  launched  study  on  “Policy  op:ons  for  an  EU  NNL  ini:a:ve”  to  support  the  Commission  in  developing  the  NNL  ini:a:ve  foreseen  in  the  EU  BD  Strategy  to  2020  by  developing  poten:al  alterna:ve  op:ons  for  this  ini:a:ve  and  analysing  their  main  impacts  (–   ongoing  work,  led  by  IEEP)  
  9. 9.    II.  Achieving  NNL  in  prac:ce:  a  role  for  offseHng  impacts  though  habitat  banking?      
  10. 10. II.1.  What  are  offsets?  Compensa:on  measures  for  biodiversity  loss  may  arguably  be  achieved  through  payment  for  training,   capacity   building,   research     etc.   -­‐   in   our   work   compensa:on   is   considered  analogous  to  offseHng    Offsets  can  be  defined  as:     “Measurable   conserva:on   outcomes   resul<ng   from   ac<ons   designed   to  compensate   for   significant   residual   adverse   biodiversity   impacts   arising   from   project  development  (aRer  appropriate  preven<on  and  mi<ga<on  measures  have  been  taken).”  Business  and  Biodiversity  Offsets  Programme  (BBOP)    ⇒  Offsets  can  take  the  form  of  posi:ve  management  interven:ons  such  as  restora:on  of  degraded  habitat,  arrested  degrada<on  or  averted  risk,  protec<ng  areas  where  there  is  imminent  or  projected  loss  of  biodiversity    ⇒  Offsets  are  formalised  arrangements  for  delivering  compensa:on  and  are  designed  to  achieve  NNL,  i.e.  impacts  on  biodiversity  caused  by  a  project  are  balanced  or  outweighed  by  measures  to  offset  the  residual  impacts  so  that  no  loss  remains.    ⇒  Goal  should  be  to  achieve  no  net  loss  and  preferably  a  net  gain  of  biodiversity  on  the  ground  (with  respect  to  species  composi<on,  habitat  structure,  ecosystem  func<on  and  people’s  use  and  cultural  values  associated  with  biodiversity)      
  11. 11. II.1.  Offsets  in  the  mi:ga:on  hierarchy  Compensa<on   must   be   considered   in   the   context   of   the   ‘mi<ga<on  hierarchy’  (BBOP)  -­‐  appropriate  ac:ons  to  achieve  no  net  loss  should  be  considered  in  the  following  order:    a.  Avoidance:  measures  taken  to  avoid  crea<ng  impacts  from  the  outset  (e.g.  careful  spa<al  or  temporal  placement  of  elements  of  infrastructure)  b.  Minimisa:on:  measures  taken  to  reduce  the  dura<on,  intensity  and  /  or  extent  of  impacts  that  cannot  be  completely  avoided.  c.  Rehabilita:on/restora:on:  measures  taken  to  rehabilitate  degraded  ecosystems  or  restore  cleared  ecosystems  following  exposure  to  impacts  that  cannot  be  completely  avoided  and/  or  minimised.    d.  Offset  (including  habitat  banking):  to  compensate  for  any  residual  significant,  adverse   impacts   that   cannot   be   avoided,   minimised   and   /   or   rehabilitated   or  restored,  in  order  to  achieve  no  net  loss  or  a  net  gain  of  biodiversity.        
  12. 12. II.1.  OffseHng  via  habitat  banking  •  Habitat  banking  enables  ‘biodiversity  credits’  to  be  generated  by  landowners  who  commit  to  enhance  and  protect  biodiversity  values  on  their  land  through  a  habitat  banking  agreement.    •  These  credits  can  then  be  sold,  genera:ng  funds  for  the  management  of  the  site.    •  Credits   can   be   bought   by   developers   to   counterbalance   (or   offset)   the  impacts   on   biodiversity   values   that   are   likely   to   occur   as   a   result   of   their  development    Thus,  carefully  designed  habitat  banking  schemes  will  generally  include:  a)  A  streamlined  biodiversity  assessment  process,  b)  A  rigorous  and  credible  offseHng  scheme,  c)  An  opportunity  for  rural  landowners  to  generate  income  by  managing  land  for  conserva:on    =>   The   Eco-­‐accounts   schemes   in   B-­‐W   share   some   of   the   features   described  above  and  might  therefore  be  considered  habitat  banking  schemes    
  13. 13.    III.  Preliminary  results  from  in-­‐depth  case  study  work:    Eco-­‐accounts  in  the  German  region  of  Baden-­‐WurNemberg      Research  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  Invaluable  project,  funded  through  BiodivERsa  network  (na<onal  funding  +  FP7  ERA-­‐NET  scheme    
  14. 14. III.1.  Policy  context  at  federal  level  (1)  1976:  Adop:on  of  the  Impact  Mi:ga:on  Regula:on  (‘Eingriffsregelung’)  under  the  Federal  Nature  Conserva:on  Act:  •  requires   that   the   status   quo   be   preserved   as   regards   the   ecosystem   func:ons/services  and  landscape  features;  •  is   not   primarily   concerned   with   biodiversity   but   covers   habitats/species,   soil   &  water  quality,  landscape  features,  etc.    2002:  amendment  to  the  Federal  Nature  Conserva:on  Act  •  Requires  developers  to  avoid  avoidable  impacts  on  nature  and  the  landscape;  •  Requires   developers   to   off-­‐set   (“Ausgleichsmaßnahmen”)   or   to   compensate   for  (“Ersatzmaßnahmen”)  all  unavoidable  impacts  from  developments  on  nature  and  the  landscape.      Challenges  in  mee:ng  above  requirements:  •  Developers   could   not   find/didn’t   own   land   appropriate   for   adequate  compensa:on    •  Land   on   which   compensa:on   measures   had   been   carried   out   got   converted   to  other  uses    ⇒  Difficul:es   in   ensuring   legally   sa:sfactory   management,   control   and  implementa:on    
  15. 15. III.1.  Policy  context  at  federal  level  (2)  Measures  to  overcome  problems:    1998:  amendment  of  Federal  Building  Code  (BauGB):    •  flexibility   for   compensa:on   from   a   temporal   and   spa:al   perspec:ve   is  introduced,   allowing   compensa:on   measures   to   be   disconnected   from  specific  developments    ⇒  triggered  municipali:es  to  introduce  Eco-­‐accounts  to  offset  impacts  from  own  developments        2002  +  2009  amendments  to  the  Federal  Nature  Conserva:on  Act:  •  allows  to  offset  residual  impacts  in  a  more  flexible  way  –  introduc:on  of  the  possibility  to  set  up  Eco-­‐accounts  ("naturschutzrechtliches  Ökokonto“)  (2002)  •  crea:on  of  the  requirement  to  establish  a  “compensa:on  registry”  (2009)    ⇒  More   precise   elabora:on   of   procedures   and   assessment   rules   lew   to   the  regions  (Laender)    
  16. 16. III.2.  Evolu:on  of  policy  framework  at  regional  (B-­‐W)  level  Pilot   project   from   2002-­‐2005   to   help   municipali:es   set   up   ‘building   law   eco-­‐accounts  (‘baurechtliches  Oekokonto’)  following  1998  amendment  of  Federal  Building  Code  (BauGB)    –  Mul:ple  actors  involved,  about  100  par:cipa:ng  municipali:es.    –  Resulted  in  guidance  and  recommenda:ons  for  establishing    such  Eco-­‐accounts.    2006:  revision  of  regional  (B-­‐W)  nature  legisla:on  and  amendment  announcing  the  development  of  two  necessary  regula:ons  for  implementa:on    •  2006:  SeHng  up  of  two  working  groups,  dealing  in  par:cular  with:    1.  compensa:on  measures  assessment  methods  and    2.  development  and  trial  of  an  internet-­‐based  system  to  ensure  easy  to  manage  applica:on,  approval  and  management  of  the  compensa:on  measures    •  2010/2011:  Adop:on  of  two  regula:ons:  1.  On  the  establishment  and  management  of  compensa:on  registries  at  district  level  (KompVzVO  -­‐  adopted  end  of  2010)  2.  Outlining   rules   governing   the   Eco-­‐accounts   and   more   specifically   condi:ons   for  approval   and   lis:ng   of   an:cipated   compensa:on/Eco-­‐account   measures   in   the  compensa:on  registries  (ÖKVO  -­‐  adopted  early  2011)  
  17. 17. III.3.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  the  Federal  building  code  (1998)  •  To  offset  impacts  within  the  same  municipality.  Municipality  carries  out  the  compensa:on  measures  for  developers  to  use.    •  Lots   appropriate   &   available   for   restora:on   measure   within   the  municipality  are  transferred  to  a  pool  (Pool  of  Appropriate  Lots  -­‐  PAL).    •  As  soon  as  a  restora:on  measure  on  one  of  these  lots  is  realized,  it  can  be  transferred  onto/credited  to  an  Eco-­‐account  and  be  used  as  a   compensa:on   measure   for   any   residual   impacts   from   a  development  that  is  carried  out  within  the  municipality  (owen  by  the  municipal  authority).      •  Such  Eco-­‐accounts  are  usually  developed  out  of  a  landscape  plan  which  covers  the  whole  surface  of  a  municipal  district.        
  18. 18. III.4.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  the  nature  legisla:on  (1)  Responsibility   for   introducing   &   administering   compensa<on  registries   lies   with   Lower   Nature   conserva<on   authori<es   (at     district  level)  (“untere  Naturschtzbehoerde”/(‘Stadt-­‐  /  Landkreis’))    Registries  include  both:  1.  compensa<on   measures   that   are   clearly   agributed   to   residual  impacts  from  a  specific  development;  2.  an<cipated  compensa<on/Eco-­‐account  measures  that  have  been  approved   by   the   lower   nature   conserva<on   authori<es   but   not  yet  agributed  (with  info  including  habitat  type  (“naturraum”),  the  original  state  of  the  area  (+  associated  eco-­‐points)  as  well  as  the  descrip<on  of  state  aRer  implementa<on  of  compensa<on  measure,(+  associated  eco-­‐points),  etc.    “Compensa<on  agents”  (‘Massnahmetraeger‘)  submit  applica<ons  for  their  compensa<on   measures   to   be   approved   &   listed   as   Eco-­‐account  measures  in  the  compensa<on  registry  (‘Kompensa<onsverzeichnis’).      
  19. 19. III.4.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  the  nature  legisla:on  (2)  Lower   Nature   Conserva<on   authori<es   can   only   approve   measures   for  which  all  required  informa<on  is  provided  and  which:    •  achieve  some  of  the  following  (long-­‐term)  results:    •  improve  the  quality  of  a  given  habitat,    •  create  high  value  habitats,    •  support  specific  species,    •  re-­‐create  natural  reten<on  areas,    •  re-­‐create  and  improve  the  func<ons  of  soils,    •  improve  groundwater  quality    •  meet  certain  criteria,  e.g.:  •  Eco-­‐account  measure  must  result  in  an  improvement  equivalent  or  above  10000  Eco-­‐points  and  cover  area  of  at  least  2000  m2  (to  avoid  dispropor<onate  admin  burden  –  with  excep<ons)  •  No  financial  support  from  public  sources  was  received  (ensures  addi<onality)  •  Measure   must   be   voluntary   –   not   be   carried   out   to   meet   legal  requirements  •  Measures   go   beyond   simply   ensure   preserva<on   of   the   status   quo  (conserva<on  of  exis<ng  nature/landscape)  
  20. 20. III.4.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  the  nature  legisla:on  (3)  •  The  implementa<on  of  the  restora<on  measures  becomes  binding  as  soon  as  the  impacts  of  a  development  have  been  agributed  to  the  compensa<on  measure  (i.e.  once  a  developer  has  selected  the  measure(s)  in  the  registry  to  compensate  the  residual  impacts  of  their  development).    •  Trading  Eco-­‐points:  a  developer  may  offset  impacts  via  the  Eco-­‐account   but   must   buy   points   from   a   measure  implemented   within   the   same   eco-­‐region/habitat  (‘Naturraum’)  –  eco-­‐points  may  be  sold  together  with  the  land  or  separately    •  temporal  disconnec<on  between  the  development  (‘Eingriff’)  and   the   compensa<on   measure   (‘Ausgleich’)   means   that   in  general,   the   compensa<on   measure   is   already   in   the  implementa<on  phase  or  finished  by  the  <me  the  residual  impacts  of  the  development  arise    •  To   incen<vize   private   investment   in   compensa<on  measures,  an  interest  payment  of  3%  a  year  in  eco-­‐points  is  provided   once   a   compensa<on   measure   started   to   be  implemented  (un<l  it  gets  agributed  to  an  impact,  and  only  up  to  ten  years)      
  21. 21. III.5.  General  principles  governing  the  alloca:on  of  Eco-­‐points  in  both  types  of  Eco-­‐accounts  •  For   compensa<on   measures,   eco-­‐points   are   agributed   across   different   “impact  categories”  (e.g.  water,  soil,  habitat/species  (‘Schutzgueter’).    •  Within  each  points  get  agributed  to  sub-­‐categories  (habitat  type,  specific  species)  based   on   pre-­‐defined   method/scale   (e.g.   sealed   surface   =   0   points;   healthy   peatland:   64  points)  •  Agribu<on  of  points  per  square  meter,  gets  mul<plied  with  overall  surface      •  Evalua<on  to  agribute  eco-­‐points  to  a  compensa<on  measure:    (a)  expected  eco-­‐point  value  of  land  aRer  measure  carried  out  (‘soll-­‐wert’)    (b)  Eco-­‐point  value  of  land  before  measure  is  carried  out  (‘ist-­‐wert’)    ⇒ (a)  –  (b)  =  value  of  the  compensa<on  measure  in  eco-­‐points      •  In  principle,  eco-­‐points  should  be  “Schutzgutbezogen”,  i.e.  fungible  only  within  the  same   “impact   category”.   i.e.   =>   compensate   soil/water   related   impacts   via   soil/water  related  benefits  •  In   prac<ce   there   is   flexibility   –   in   par<cular   when   the   available   land   to   carry   out   the  compensa<on  measure  does  not  allow  a  one-­‐to-­‐one  compensa<on  within  the  same  impact  category  (same  ‘Schutzgut’)    
  22. 22. III.6.  What  is  the  price  of  an  eco-­‐point  (Eco-­‐account  under  the  nature  legisla:on)?    •  It   is   not   possible   to   know   the   price   of   a   compensa:on   measure  through   the   compensa:on   registry,   where   only   eco-­‐points   are  indicated    •  Number   of   eco-­‐points   aNributed   to   a   measure/impact   can’t   be  nego:ated  but  developer  can  nego:ate  the  price  of  the  eco-­‐points  –   the   trade   is   a   private   transac:on   and   to   a   certain   extent,   the  price  depends  on  offer  of  &  demand  for  compensa:on  measures    •  “Compensa:on  agents”  have  interest  in  selling  their  measure  at  a  price  that  is  at  least  equivalent  to  its  cost    •  One   excep:on   where   there   is   a   fixed   price   (4   eco-­‐points   =   €1):  when  size  of  the  compensa:on  measure  area  is  too  small  to  reflect  its  added  value  (owen  for  species  related  measures,  e.g.  in  a  river)  
  23. 23. III.7.  Eco-­‐accounts:  Advantages  and  challenges  –  preliminary  qualita:ve  assessment  based  on  SH  interviews          Advantages/Strengths  •  Temporal  and  geographical  decoupling  of  compensa<on  measures  results  in  efficiency    &  effec<veness  gains:  offsets  in  compensa<on  of  residual  impacts  can  be  pooled  to  finance  larger  restora<on  projects;    •  no  :mely  search  for  land  on  which  to  carry  out  compensa<on  =>  accelera<on  of  administra<ve  procedures  •  Possibility  to  create  wildlife  corridors/green  networks/infrastructure    •  Scheme  takes  a  long-­‐term  perspec<ve  (increased  legal  certainty),  opportuni:es  for  beNer  monitoring/surveillance  •  Compensa<on  registry  and  clear  methodologies  increase  fairness  &  transparency  &  accountability  (IT-­‐tool,  publicly  available  info),    •  Interest  payments:  provides  an  incen:ve  for  up-­‐front/an:cipated/Eco-­‐account  compensa:on  measures  while  reducing  financial  risk  •  Compensa:on  measures  carried  out  by  professionals  with  due  exper<se  (emergence  of  compensa<on  professionals)  •  Development  of  scheme  opportunity  to  brining  together  SHs  Challenges/Weaknesses  •  Increasing  demand  for  land  makes  it  difficult  to  find  land  on  which  to  carry  out  compensa:on  measures  •  Used  IT-­‐tools  can’t  adequately  account  for  the  complexity  of  certain  projects  •  A  new  compensa:on  regula:on  being  prepared  at  na:onal  level  (‘Bundeskompenas<onsverordnung):  slows  down  the  implementa<on  of  the  new  Eco-­‐account  in  B-­‐W  •  Complex  alloca:on  of  competencies  due  to  Federal  structure,  might  make  harmonising  procedures  more  difficult  •  Given  limited  number  of  actors  involved  success/failure  might  depend  on  individual  actor’s  mo:va:on  
  24. 24. IV.  Summary  of  preliminary  findings  •  The  Eco-­‐accounts  schemes  in  place  in  Baden-­‐WuerNemberg  are  means  to  facilitate  the  offseHng  of  impacts  of  developments  on  the  environment  (&  biodiversity);    •  They  can  be  considered  a  form  of  Habitat  banking  because  an:cipated  compensa:on  measures  can  serve  to  offset  impacts  from  developments  that  are  not  temporarily  or    spa:ally  linked  to  the  residual  impacts  from  a  development  requiring  compensa:on;    •  Compensatory  measures  may  be  implemented  in  advance  of  a  development,  enabling  developers  to  ”buy”  already  planned/implemented  compensa:on  (“Eco-­‐account”)  measures  to  offset  the  residual  impacts  arising  from  their  development;    •  Eco-­‐points  are  aNributed  to  both  compensa:on  measures  and  residual  impacts  to  be  compensated  -­‐  ensures  equivalence  between  the  posi:ve  impacts  (compensa:on  measure)  and  residual  impacts  (development).    •  Eco-­‐points  are  aNributed  to  different  “impact  categories”,  depending  on  whether  they  affect  habitats/species,  soil,  water,  climate/air,  landscape  features.  In  principle,  eco-­‐points  “traded”  need  to  be  linked  to  the  same  impact  categories  (in  prac:ce,  there  is  flexibility).  
  25. 25. V.  Suggested  ques:ons  for  discussion  1.  Could   such   a   system   be   put   in   place   in   other   countries?   If   not,   what  barriers  do  you  see?  If  so,  what  role  could  ENGOs  play  in  the  process?  2.  What  are  the  key  policies  that  contribute  to  NNL  in  your  country?  (e.g.  market  mechanisms,  spa:al  planning,  offsets).  3.  Do  you  believe  it  is  possible  to  have  safeguards  to  ensure  offseHng  via  habitat   banking   schemes   do   not   result   in   weaker   protec:on   of  biodiversity   (ie   leads   to   offsets   when   the   impact   could   have   been  avoided  or  reduced)?  
  26. 26.      Thank  you  for  your  aNen:on    Leonardo  Mazza  –    Daniela  Russi  –  Julia  Schiller  –            IEEP  is  an  independent  not  for  profit  ins<tute  dedicated  to  advancing  an  environmentally  sustainable  Europe  through  policy  analysis,  development  and  dissemina<on.      For  further  informa<on  see:    hgp://  Follow  us  on  twiger:  @IEEP_EU      
  27. 27. Annex:  Further  reading  ERec  and  IEEP  (2010)  The  use  of  market-­‐based  instruments  for  biodiversity  protec<on  –  Habitat  Banking  case  studies,  URL:<c/sv/245/images/eRecieep2010cappcasestudies.pdf      GHK  et  al.  (2013)  Exploring  poten<al  demand  for  and  supply  of  habitat  banking  in  the  EU  and  appropriate  design  element  for  a  habitat  banking  scheme,  A  study  for  DG  Environment,  European  Commission,  URL:  hgp://<on/pdf/Habitat_banking_Report.pdf    LUBW  (2012)  Das  Ökokonto  im  Naturschutzrecht  –  Regelung  un  Hintergruende,  Geeignete  Massnahmen,  Kompensas<onsverzeichnis,  Natursschutzinfo  1/2012,  URL:  www.lubw.baden-­‐    ÖKVO  (2010)  Verordnung  des  Ministeriums  für  Umwelt,  Naturschutz  und  Verkehr  über  die  Anerkennung  und  Anrechnung  vorzei<g  durchgeführter  Maßnahmen  zur  Kompensa<on  von  Eingriffsfolgen  (Ökokonto-­‐Verordnung  –  ÖKVO),  URL:  hgp://drs.baden-­‐    KompVzVO  (2011)  Verordnung  des  Ministeriums  für  Umwelt,  Naturschutz  und  Verkehr  über  die  Führung  von  Kompensa<onsverzeichnissen  (Kompensa<onsverzeichnis-­‐Verordnung  –  KompVzVO),  URL:  hgp://drs.baden-­‐        
  28. 28. III.4.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  nature  legisla:on  -­‐  overview  Eco-­‐accounts  under  the  nature  protec:on  legisla:on  (in  B-­‐W  since  2011)  Spa:al  scope   Outside  urban  areas;  Offse}ng  within  the  same  habitat  (iden<fica<on  of  12  different  “Naturraume”  across  the  region)  Whose  an:cipated  compensa:on  measures  may  enter  the  scheme  Any  actor  whose  measure  fulfils  the  criteria  (farmers,  foresters,  other  landowners,  municipali<es,  developers  (e.g.  mining  company)  –  to  compensate  their  own  impacts  or  those  by  other  developers.  Impact-­‐compensa:on  rela:on   No  fixed  rela<on  between  impact  and  compensa<on.  Compensa<on  agents  have  incen<ve  to  carry  out  a  measure  before  its  agributed  because  of  a  3%  interest  rate  (paid  out  in  points).  Also  when  the  compensa<on  agent  and  the  developer  are  the  same  en<ty,  risk  is  lowered  and  an<cipated  implementa<on  of  the  compensa<on  measure  more  likely.  Who  may  offset  residual  impacts  via  this  type  of  Eco-­‐account  Wide  range  of  developers  –  in  prac<ce  oRen  farmers  but  also  mining  companies  Who  manages  Eco-­‐account   Lower  nature  conserva<on  authority  (at  district  level)  Harmonised  approach  to  aNribu:ng  eco-­‐points  (based  on  evalua:on  model)  Yes,  standardized  evalua<on  criteria  on  a  federal  state  level  via  the  Eco-­‐account  Regula<on  Main  actor(s)  in  charge  of  ensuring  quality  of  compensa:on  measures  and  adequate    aNribu:on  of  points  Lower  nature  conserva<on  authority,  regional  Ministry  for  Environment  (LUBW),  private  planning  offices  (‘Flaechenagentur,  Planungsbuero’)  that  may  plan  and  carry  out  the  conserva<on  measures  on  behalf  of  the  “compensa<on  agent”  (‘Massnahmentraeger’)  
  29. 29. III.3.  The  Eco-­‐accounts  established  under  the  Federal  building  code  -­‐  overview      Eco-­‐accounts  under  the  Federal  building  code  (1998)  Spa:al  scope   Within  urban  areas/areas  covered  by  specific  types  of  land  use  plans  (‘Bebauungsplan  &  Flaechennutzungsplan’),  Offse}ng  within  the    same  municipality  Whose  an:cipated  compensa:on  measures  may  enter  the  scheme  Those  implemented  by  municipali<es  Impact-­‐compensa:on  rela:on   A  binding  documenta<on  about  the  implementa<on  of  compensa<on  measures  is  used  to  evaluate  their  func<on  for  the  building  planning.  An  impact  does  not  need  to  be  agributed  to  a  compensa<on  measure  before  its  implementa<on  Who  may  offset  residual  impacts  via  this  type  of  Eco-­‐account  Primarily  municipali<es,  but  not  exclusively  Who  manages  Eco-­‐account   Municipality  Harmonised  approach  to  aNribu:ng  eco-­‐points  (based  on  evalua:on  model)  No,  every  municipality  can  decide  on  an  own  evalua<on  model.  However,  the  use  of  the  federal  standardized  evalua<on  model  is  a  recommenda<on  Main  actor(s)  in  charge  of  ensuring  quality  of  compensa:on  measures  and  adequate  aNribu:on  of  points  Municipality,  within  municipality  either  departments  dealing  with  building/construc<on  and  or/  person  in  charge  of  environmental  magers  (e.g.  ‘naturschutzbeauRragter/FachkraR  fuer  Umwel•ragen’).  Could  also  be  Compensa<on  Agency  (‘Planungsbuero).