The Impact of Biodiversity Offsets on Protected Areas. Leon Bennun BBOP webinar, 30 July 2015

Transcription

1 The Impact of Biodiversity Offsets on Protected Areas Leon Bennun BBOP webinar, 30 July 2015

2 Three issues 1. Additionality 2. Equivalence 3. Permanence

3 Biodiversity offsets: new finance for Protected Areas? World Bank 2015: Biodiversity Offsets in Mozambique - A Roadmap for Implementation National Parks National Reserves Coutadas Forest Reserves

4 Using the existing PA network for biodiversity offsets in Mozambique Network of coordinated, aggregated offsets already created Existing protected areas have buy-in from stakeholders Avoids equity issues in assigning new areas for conservation Helps guarantee permanence (ensures long-term outcome) Focuses on conservation priorities. [Reduces uncertainty and time lags]

5 Good for Government PAs already identified to protect the most important biodiversity in the country Already gazetted no more formal process Structures and processes for finance, management and monitoring established Community presence and access rights already determined and addressed Helps fulfil national goals and international commitments Projects can advance rapidly without sacrificing environmental integrity nationally Economy can grow while conserving natural assets tourism potential & critical ecosystem services.

6 Good for business Quicker, simpler [& cheaper] to implement: Baseline biodiversity assessment already done Already gazetted ensures permanence Someone else does the management Established systems to channel funds and monitor outcomes Community issues already addressed. [High-profile and positive] [Helps level the playing field]

7 Good for local communities Issues of presence and access rights to biodiversity & ecosystem services already determined and addressed No additional resettlement issues raised Greater funding for conservation areas likely to improve relations with local communities Mechanisms for benefit-sharing already established.

8 Good for biodiversity? Not necessarily Key question: are offsets in PAs additional? WPC participant: If companies are subsidising what people are expecting governments to do, that is cost-shifting. We should be funding our PAs better!

9 Cost shifting: a real concern New funds could displace not add to current or future funding for conservation. Not just a theoretical issue e.g. international development assistance and military spending Governments are looking to offset funding to support PAs Developed countries capping/cutting PA funding, expecting offset funding to fill the gap (e.g. Australia).

10 Nature 23 July 2015, 523:

11 Commitment to preexisting agreements maintained? Maron et al Governments must not meet existing conservation targets using offset funds Offset must yield conservation benefits that would otherwise not have occurred Yes PA offset valid? No Yes No PAs funded by offsets, and additional to agreed targets Justifiable withdrawal from commitment (e.g. aid-dependent nations) Cost-shifting offsets fund already agreed actions Unjustifiable withdrawal from commitment (e.g. by wealthy nations) Maron et al. in prep.

12 This is not the perspective of CBD Parties CBD COP Decision XII/3 financial targets (e): Mobilize domestic financial resources from all sources to reduce the gap between identified needs and available resources at domestic level, for effectively implementing by 2020 Parties national biodiversity strategies and action plans. Strategy for Resource Mobilization, Target 4.2: Consider biodiversity offset mechanisms where relevant and appropriate, while ensuring that they are not used to undermine unique components of biodiversity.

13 Aichi Target 11 six targets in one By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape.

14 Aichi Target 11 area of PAs UNEP-WCMC Protected Planet report 2014

15 Global trends in PA coverage UNEP-WCMC Protected Planet report 2014

16 PAs worldwide are under-resourced and struggling Global review of 4000 PAs finds 40% have major deficiencies in management effectiveness (Leverington et al. 2010) Half of West African parks with management plans have no money for implementation (Henschel et al. 2014) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: 2012 strategic assessment finds resources inadequate, management lagging behind cumulative impacts Recent Parks Canada budget cuts reduced conservation spending by 15%, 23% of conservation staff and 33% of scientific staff retrenched 99% of Coral Triangle MPAs not effectively managed (Burke et al. 2012) US National Parks Service operational budget down 13% , with deferred maintenance backlog of over $9 billion Biodiversity declining in over half of 60 tropical forest PAs (Laurance et al. 2012)

17 Biodiversity offsets A cap and trade mechanism Level pegging or managed drawdown on natural capital Development: opportunity costs of conservation high Offset: opportunity costs of conservation low For Governments, a rational re-allocation to achieve T11 If trading up, even better

18 however, could undermine other targets? Aichi Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. Could this still be achieved via properly implemented PA offsets?

19 A purist approach could be counterproductive Don t want countries to back away from CBD commitments Don t want to penalise planning Don t want to penalise PA designation Many PA networks still severely underfunded

20 Moral hazard? Poor outcome if rich Governments fail to invest, or even reduce PA investments, on account of offset funds And could be perverse incentive to permit developments and raise funds for PAs Yet many poor countries can t afford to invest in PAs

21 Conservation Letters 2014, 7: Underfunding will persist, despite the Aichi Target Define and accept temporary additionality? Offsets in protected areas additional for lower-income countries Familiar approach in development aid Long-term, requires mechanism to refocus funding as national economies improve (practicality?)

22 Where to draw the line? low income mid income OECD mean

23 Equivalence: risk of trading down? If focus on PAs biodiversity may not be comparable to impact site Could trade most threatened habitats for those that are already more secure Equity issues for local communities or stakeholders ecosystem services Maximise benefits via large-scale planning, aggregated offsets

24 South Africa: landscape planning integrated into offset guidance Higher offset-area multipliers for threatened habitats: help meet targets, discourage development

25 S. Africa: priorities for offset targets J. Manuel

26 A step further for national biodiversity offset frameworks? Identify conservation targets for each ecosystem Prioritise aggregated offsets to support new (or better-managed) protected areas where they are most needed Consider connectivity and climate change adaptation Trading up approach focus conservation on the highest biodiversity priorities.

27 How to calculate compensation for aggregated PA offsets? Scaled fee based on the project budget Does not account for residual impact or offset costs Does not incentivise applying the MH Scaled fee based on the development footprint e.g. e.g. Brazil tax for protected area conservation; Queensland (Aus), offset payment = land value + administration costs + management costs Does not account for offset costs May not adequately reflect impact Valuation study of residual impacts May be time-consuming and expensive May not fully account for biodiversity values Cost of PA offsets Needs detailed conversion framework. Could include multipliers and species weightings (e.g. S Africa system), rules for trading up, predicted/actual costs for gains from PA investments Requires sound, costed management plans for PAs

28 Permanence (longevity) Need offset gains to last at least as long as development impacts PAs: responsibilities passed to PA authority Need solid guarantee of appropriate longterm funding for offset implementation.

29 Funding for longevity Compensation to cover start-up costs, ongoing management costs (from investment), monitoring and compliance costs Portion of all offset payments to improve biodiversity information and management in-country (e.g. through a national biodiversity institute) Funds not direct to PA authorities/government, but managed by a third-party, independent fund.

30 Conservation Trust Funds "Private, legally independent grant-making institutions that provide sustainable financing for biodiversity conservation and often finance part of the long-term management costs of a country s protected area (PA) system Financing mechanisms not implementing agencies For aggregated PA offsets, need transparent governance with wide stakeholder base (Government and civil society), and clear rules and procedures, audit and reporting Funds only flow if Government contributions to PAs or maintained or increased With an independent fund, may still be some risks: Distortion of priorities High overheads/running costs

31 Mozambique CTF Created in 2011 as an independent, private notfor-profit entity Granted public benefit status in March 2012 Government represented on Board, but state representation capped at 25% of Directors Mission: to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource use, including consolidation of the national system of conservation areas Developing a monitoring and evaluation system to track biodiversity outcomes

32 Offsets in Protected Areas are a reality Voluntary offsets being designed in PAs worldwide In many countries, recent or planned policy and law drives offset funds towards protected areas.

33 Realising the promise of offsets for PAs No cost-shifting! maintained/increased Government contribution a criterion for offset funding Sound science-based plans for aggregated offsets consolidating, extending and connecting PAs, addressing conservation priorities Well-structured framework to determine compensation, incentivising application of the MH Independent Conservation Trust Funds with clear mandate and inclusive governance

34