Exploring potential demand for and supply of habitat

Exploring Potential Demand For And Supply Of Habitat-Free PDF

  • Date:22 Sep 2020
  • Views:2
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:126
  • Size:2.31 MB

Share Pdf : Exploring Potential Demand For And Supply Of Habitat

Download and Preview : Exploring Potential Demand For And Supply Of Habitat


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Exploring Potential Demand For And Supply Of Habitat


Transcription:

This page is intentionally blank,Exploring potential demand for and supply of. habitat banking in the EU and appropriate,design elements for a habitat banking. Annexes submitted to DG Environment,A report submitted by ICF GHK. in association with,BIO Intelligence Service,Date 28 January 2013. Job Number 30258994,Matt Rayment,2nd Floor Clerkenw ell House.
67 Clerkenw ell Road,T 44 0 20 7611 1100,F 44 0 20 3368 6960. www ghkint com,Document Control, Document Title Exploring potential demand for and supply of habitat banking in th e EU and. appropriate design elements for a habitat banking scheme. Job number 30258994, Prepared by Mavourneen Conway ICF GHK Matt Rayment ICF GHK Andy White ICF. GHK and Sandra Berman BIO IS, Other contributors BIO IS Anne Turb Blandine Chenot Tanja M nchmeyer. Arianna De Toni Linda Johansson Andreas Mitsios Shailendra Mudgal. Checked by Matt Rayment,Date 28 January 2013, ICF GHK is the brand name of GHK Consulting Ltd and the other subsidiaries of GHK Holdings Ltd In.
February 2012 GHK Holdings and its subsidiaries were acquired by ICF International. The study team is grateful to Kerry ten Kate for providing helpful comments on the text Special. thanks also go to Fabien Qu tier for his inputs, We would also like to express our gratitude to all the authorities and stakeholders who provided inputs. for this study, Front cover image credits carsthets photobes asmik stock free images and dreamstime stock. Annex 1 Summary note of the Workshop 5, Annex 2 Notions of Biodiversity offsets no net loss and compensation in EU policies 13. Annex 3 Legislative framework relating to compensation for biodiversity loss in. EU Member States 20, Annex 4 Background information used to inform the demand assessment 108. Demand supply and design elements of habitat banking in the EU. Annex 1 Summary note of the Workshop,A1 1 List of Participants.
Table A1 1 List of Participants,First name Last name Organisation Affiliation. Laure Ledoux European Commission DG ENV,Alexandra Vakrou European Commission DG ENV. Strahil Christov European Commission DG ENV,Matt Rayment Project team ICF GHK. Mavourneen Conway Project team ICF GHK, Sandra Berman Project team BIO Intelligence Service. Marita B ttcher Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Germany. Ministry of Economic Affairs Agriculture and Innovation department of. Marnix Koopmans Nature and Biodiversity The Netherlands. J rgen Sundin Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Jaime Mu oz Igualada Ministry of Agriculture Food and Environment Spain. Olli Ojala Finnish Environment Institute SYKE,Ewa Dzi cio Ministry of Environment Poland.
Delphine Morandeau French Ministry for sustainable development. Fabien Qu tier BIOTOPE,Kerry ten Kate Forest Trends. Wolfgang Wende Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development. Rachel Asante Owusu IUCN,Andrew Dodd BirdLife Europe. Claus Mayr NABU,Guy Duke The Environment Bank Ltd, Jim Rushworth Chairman of Cembureau TF Biodiversity Lafarge. Marie Eve Stoeckel Eurelectric,Edward Perry OECD,Jan Brooke PIANC Institution of Civil Engineers. Anders Entjarn Enetj rn Natur AB,Annabelle Williams RISE ELO.
Matthew Arndt European Investment Bank,ICF GHK with BIO Intelligence. Demand supply and design elements of habitat banking in the EU. A1 2 Introduction, The workshop was organised around four main themes legislative instruments demand and. supply costs and benefits and design elements For each a presentation by the project. team was followed by invited contributions by participants to provide specific illustrations. The floor was opened to discussion The last two themes were presented together before. opening the discussion to all, The workshop was introduced by Alexandra Vakrou who welcomed the participants and. explained the context of the study The study follows on from the research needs identified in. the 2010 EC s study on Habitat Banking Its purpose is to collect more information on this. issue and define avenues of policy development in this area As such the study aims to. support the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and in particular its No. Net Loss NNL initiative One goal of this study is to perform a gap analysis by examining. the legislative framework in the EU and the MS and the extent to which it requires. compensation for biodiversity losses The study also examines the implications for the. demand and supply of offsets and habitat banking considers the costs and benefits and. examines key design elements including issues such as additionality metrics long term. sustainability land availability and the different circumstances and approaches in different. Laure Ledoux presented the recent policy developments in the field of biodiversity with. references to recent Council conclusions She also updated the participants on the work that. is being carried out in the recently established Expert Group on No Net Loss She indicated. that the experts have not yet reached a conclusion that the NNL initiative should focus on. areas outside the Natura 2000 network She also indicated that the discussion is. complicated when other issues are also taken into account for instance with regard to the. kind of compensation being delivered i e like for like and like for unlike She also pointed. out the importance of setting definitions for this work including not only defining NNL but. also defining instruments habitat banking offsets etc and other issues such as. compensation requirements and principles of offsetting. A1 2 1 Definitions, Matt Rayment firstly presented definitions and the scope of the study The study examines. biodiversity offsets in general and the role of habitat banking as a mechanism instrument to. deliver offsets, The question of definition of habitat banks was raised to distinguish between banks that.
are physical banks of habitats which may be established by developers for their own. purposes and those that are designed with the purpose of trading offset requirements. through the exchange of credits The main focus of this study is the role of habitat banking. as an innovative financial instrument designed to facilitate biodiversity offsetting For the. purpose of this study the definition of habitat banks that will be used is broad enough to. encompass these various types of habitat banks, The point was made that habitat banking can be based on both like for unlike and like for. like compensation while banks can also include species banks or a combinations of habitats. and species see for instance the 2010 Commission study. A1 2 2 Scope, It was clarified that marine biodiversity is out of the scope of this work This will be made. clearer in the report NB At EU level a new proposal from the Commission for a maritime. strategy and integrated coastal management is being prepared with proposals to take. account of good ecological status However there will be no explicit requirements for. environmental and ecosystem compensation within these proposals. ICF GHK with BIO Intelligence, Demand supply and design elements of habitat banking in the EU. A1 3 Legislative framework, Sandra Berman presented the findings of the analysis focused on EU policies and policies in. 13 selected MS Presentations followed from Marita B ttcher and Jaime Mu oz Igualada on. the German and Spanish policy frameworks respectively These presentations raised the. issues of spatial planning and the identification of corridors that both can help to make. the most of offsets The importance of benefiting the people being affected by development. i e proximity was also raised as a particular issue. The question of accessing private land for compensation was raised as an important one as. in many countries this land is key for delivering conservation goals e g Spain In some. circumstances e g the US biodiversity rather than being a constraint i e placing. restrictions on the management of land can become an asset with credits that may. be sold to developers, It was clear that there is considerable scope for learning and the sharing of experiences from.
the USA and Australia Some Member States are already making considerable progress in. establishing links and developing relationships e g Spain. A1 3 1 Voluntary vs Legislative requirements, A finding in Sweden is that since the framework currently does not require mandatory. offsets what compensation there is tends to be voluntary A question was raised whether. there is a risk that legislative requirements undermine voluntary offsets For instance in. Germany where the framework is strongest in the EU little voluntary compensation occurs. because developers already have a legal requirement to compensate for biodiversity loss. It was noted that there are three key drivers of voluntary compensation The first would be. CSR Corporate Social Responsibility The second and arguably more enduring is linked to. core business strategies including the license to operate and access to markets Lastly is. the case of access to finance through lenders Some lenders for instance e g the EIB. EBRD and EIF have specific criteria performance standards to be met regarding the. environment biodiversity For instance updated FCIPS6 requirements under the Equator. principles have had a significant impact Lenders are now increasingly requiring avoidance. mitigation and compensation which will be a strong driver for compensation especially in. developing countries, It was argued that these criteria should be incorporated and taken into account at EU level to. ensure harmonisation, It was noted that voluntary compensation happens most often in countries with weak existing. policy frameworks e g Madagascar Voluntary compensation is much less likely to occur. where there is an existing compliance framework e g the EU as businesses are less likely. to see the benefits of going beyond compliance,A1 3 2 Policy review and policy options. The WFD and ELD are important pieces of legislation There is a question of how to link the. favourable status in the WFD with that in the HD i e how good ecological status WFD. and favourable conservation status HD could be linked to NNL This would however need. to be clarified For example when physical modifications are made for navigation flood. defence etc purposes the WFD stops short of requiring compensation and the available. guidance only requires mitigation, In France habitat banking is recognised as a possible tool for organising compensation for.
cases in the context of the ELD, The review of the EIA was mentioned but there is no real legislative requirement for. compensation within the EIA neither could such a requirement be included given its current. scope Indeed the aim of the Directive is to inform decision making it has not been. developed as a tool for delivering NNL The EIA cannot therefore be relied upon to drive. ICF GHK with BIO Intelligence, Demand supply and design elements of habitat banking in the EU. biodiversity compensation another policy tool would be needed to require biodiversity. compensation outside of Natura 2000 sites, A new study will be launched in 2012 to specifically identify policy options for the NNL. initiative,A1 3 3 Species and habitats, It was also noted that it is important to consider not just habitats but also species In some. cases the latter may be a higher priority The HD explicitly requires compensation in certain. cases However the BD in its Article 3 requires protection of all birds which could be used to. require compensation and therefore warrants further exploration It is therefore important to. consider not only habitats and Natura 2000 sites but also requirements linked to species. protection that also trigger compensation and are often taken into account later habitats. are easier to map than species,A1 4 Demand and supply.
Mavourneen Conway presented the interim findings of the study on demand and supply. Anders Entjarn then presented some thoughts on the situation in Sweden In Sweden. compensation is not currently used as widely as it might be and a conference on the topic. concluded that clearer guidance and greater awareness would be necessary to stimulate. demand However more businesses seem to be looking to offset their impacts driven by a. number of different reasons see above including CSR Regulatory requirements access to. project finance etc A concern that compensation might lead to a license to trash has made. some people cautious the mitigation hierarchy and ensuring additionality are therefore key. In northern EU countries not only developments such as mining windfarms etc should be. considered but also changes in biodiversity quality when for instance natural forests are. converted into intensively logged and or planted forests In addition a lot of biodiversity is. outside of Natura 2000 and still needs protection Two studies from the UK examining t he. demand supply and costs of compensation schemes were presented by Andrew Dodd. In terms of demand it was noted by one participant that demand for compensation of losses. resulting from natural disasters cannot be uniformly applied across the EU forest fires in. northern countries e g Sweden are ecologically important and even prescribed when. necessary and should not be counted as causing damage It was also noted that the. significant losses of agricultural land provide a significant opportunity for t rading up although. Demand supply and design elements of habitat banking in the EU A1 2 supply costs and benefits and design elements For each a presentation by the project opening the discussion to all The workshop was introduced by Alexandra Vakrou who welcomed the participants and issue and define avenues of policy development in this area As such the study aims to the legislative framework in the EU

Related Books