This document discusses lessons learned from biodiversity offsets associated with the Ambatovy project in Madagascar. It finds that (1) while offsets can provide biodiversity benefits by reducing threats, they will also have local social costs unless accompanied by significant and well-targeted micro-development investments. It also finds (2) there is poor understanding of how social performance standards apply to offsets. Specifically, the standards require addressing social impacts and providing compensation for loss of assets and livelihoods. The conclusion is that conservation has local social costs, and companies need to consider these costs for offsets in the same way as for main projects to achieve environmental justice and comply with regulations.

1. The local impacts of biodiversity offsets:
lessons from the Ambatovy experience
julia.jones@bangor.ac.uk
@juliapgjones

4. What happens here….
Influences what happens here…...

6. 6
http://phoenixxintl.com/ambatovy/

7. 30 international stakeholder
interviews
12 Focus Groups
following sharing results
30 key informant
interviews
Intensivefieldwork
17 Focus Group
Discussions
170 household
interviews
Document review
Bidaud et al 2016, Bidaud et al 2018

8. 1) Offsets which produce biodiversity benefit by reducing
threats due to land expansion, wild harvesting etc WILL
have local costs
Issues (and solutions) relating to people and offsets

10. Solution: Significant investment (well targeted to the most
affected) in micro-development projects associated with
the offset is needed
Positive
impact
56%
Expect a
positive
impact
28%
No impact
13%
Negative
impact
3%
Locally perceived impacts of
micro-development projects
(n=116)

11. 2) There is poor understanding of the requirements
of the performance standards
Issues (and solutions) relating to people and offsets

12. PS5: “When displacement [includes economic displacement and
physical displacement] cannot be avoided, the client WILL offer
displaced communities and persons compensation for loss of assets
at full replacement cost and other assistance to help them improve
or restore their standards of living or livelihoods.”
PS6: “where socioeconomic and cultural uses of biodiversity (i.e.,
ecosystem services) are at issue, biodiversity offsets MAY include the
provision of compensation packages for Affected Communities
impacted by the development project and offset.”
Guidance notes, and IFC themselves are clear that
PS5 applies to those affected by offsets

13. “In IFC standards, local people directly affected by the
project are called PAPs. Does this term apply to those
affected by the offset?” (n=27)
Yes (11) No (3)
2
2
Don’t
know (9)

14. Solution: Greater awareness needed that social costs of
offsets need to be considered in the same way as social
costs of the project

15. Conservation has local costs.
Companies need to address these for environmental justice
reasons, pragmatic reasons, and regulatory reasons.
Biodiversity offsets are conservation projects funded in a radically
different way-this poses a opportunity for transfer of ideas and
best practice into the conservation field.
Conclusions……

16. Bidaud, C., Schreckenberg, K., Rabeharison, M., Ranjatson, P., Gibbons, J. M., & Jones, J. P. G.
(2016). The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity
offset. Conservation and Society.
Bidaud, C., Schreckenberg, K., & Jones, J. P. G. (2018). The local costs of biodiversity offsets:
comparing standards, policy and practice. Land Use Policy.
Please contact me for the papers presented today
Julia.jones@bangor.ac.uk
@juliapgjones

17. 1) Greater investment (and MUCH better targeting) in micro-development projects
associated with the offset
2) Greater awareness needed that social costs of offset need to be considered in
the same way as social costs of the project
Solutions……