Biodiversity Offsetting case studies in Germany Friedrich Wulf Head, International Biodiversity Policy Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland International Biodiversity Campaigner Friends of the Earth Europe
What to expect in this presentation: Scope and sources The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape General principle The regulation in the German Nature Conservation Act Some examples Comments on specific aspects Final Conclusions
3 Scope and source Own experience (1996-2008) Comments in the course of NGO participation (FoE, BL) Implementation assessment in 5 communities (2005-06) Quick survey among German practitioners: Administration (3) Interveners (Business, project owners) (2) Landscape architects, planning bureaeus (2) Lawyers (2) NGOs (2) University (1)
4 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape
5 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape Article 13 General principle Intervening parties shall primarily avoid any significant adverse effects on nature and landscape. Unavoidable significant adverse effects are to be offset via compensation measures (Ausgleichsmaßnahmen) or substitution measures (Ersatzmaßnahmen) or, where such offset is not possible, via monetary substitution.
6 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 1. Does the plan or Project cause significant impacts on nature and landscape (See EIA, SEA etc.)? no yes On with step 2 No objection - from a NC perspective, project can go ahead
7 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 2. Is the intervention happening as (part of) good agricultural, forestry or fishery practice ( 14(2))? no Regulation is applicable, on with step 3 yes No objection Good agri practice helps nature (per def.)
8 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 3. Can the impact be avoided (by minimisation or reasonable alternative solution/location) ( 15(1))? no yes Avoid impact and proceed with project explain and proceed to step 4
9 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 4. Can the impact be compensated (restoration of functions in same way) ( 15(2))? yes no proceed to step 5 Compensate for impact and proceed with project
10 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 5. Can the impact be substitued (restoration of functions in equivalent way) ( 15(2))? yes no proceed to step 6 Substitute for impact and proceed with project
11 The German legislation on Interventions in nature and landscape 6. Do the interests of the project override those of nature conservation yes no project may not proceed ( 15 (5)) Make a substitution payment and proceed ( 15(6))
12 Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV)
13 Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV) Built 2004-2010 Authorisation procedure and compensation: 2001 2013 Reason for project: capacities of Bremen port will soon be exhausted (3050m length), so additional 1700 m (room for 4 ships) needed. Otherwise, shipping companies and jobs will move somewhere else
14 Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV) Thorough EIA procedure: - Presentation of project and possible impacts on man and environment - Description of minimisation measures - Decription and Evaluation of Environmental impacts regarding people, air, climate, cultural and other goods, soil, water, habitats, species, protected areas Area was proposed by NGOs as Natura 2000, also contains several protected habitats
15 Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV) Alternatives: Capacity and technical optimisation in situ already done No other alternative location possible - no reuse of built-up land - Wilhelmshaven: is a supplement to existing ports, doesn t count - Building outside of the Land Bremen not acceptable for the city (no influence of the Land, (does not help jobs in Bremen)) NGOs: SEA for North German ports not done correctly!
16 Extension of Bremen port (Container Terminal IV) Land use on ca. 190 ha to be changed Mostly sublitotal and intertidal mud flats, but also reeds, halophilous grassland; 10 threatened plant species (red list); 6 red-listed breeding birds, 30+ migrating birds (of national importance for great ringed plover, black-headed gull, common gull, of regional importance for 7 more species)
17 Assessment of compensation need: state before
18 Assessment of compensation need: state after
19 Planned compensation:
20 Planned compensation: Compensation on site («Compensation»)
21 Planned compensation: Compensation on site («Compensation») Compensation off site («Substitution»)
22 Planned compensation: Compensation on site («Compensation») Compensation off site («Substitution») Major site for offsetting: Luneplate
23 Luneplate, Bremen
24 Luneplate, Bremen 1000 ha converted for Nature Conservation purposes 170 ha as compensation measures for CT IV
25 Luneplate, Bremen New protected area (2013) Formerly intensively used agricultural land
26 Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern Mitigation of fragmentation: Bridges over wetland valleys Animal passes over A 20
27 Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern
28 Minimisation and compensation measures for Motorway A 20, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern Creation of large peatland ecosystem New habitats for rare and protected species (White-tailed eagle, Spotted eagle, Crane) Measures: Hydraulic engineering Fencing (30 km, plus cattle grids) Extensive grazing management
29 Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate
30 Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate
31 Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate
32 Renaturation of the mouth of the Kyll near Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate 35 ha renaturation Aim: re-enable natural floodplain dynamics after one-time intervention Compensation measures for 4 infrastructure projects all in one
33 Final Conclusions Inventory of compensation areas - Bremen Compensation regulation is standard feature Does not stop projects or avoid impact on nature, but compensates
34 Implementation issues Compensation in 5 Communities in RLP All Building concessions from 1995-2000
35 Comments on the Regulation Regulation is part of any authorisation procedure which can have impacts on nature and landscape EIA is standard feature (at least for bigger projects) Assessment and planning documents have to be elaborated by Intervenant Process is supervised and plan authorized by competent authority important to have qualified staff there (Ideally certification) NGO participation often improves quality of assessment (gaps, data)
36 Comments on the Regulation No certificates or markets involved, areas cannot be traded, compensation is a governmentregulated, 1:1 exchange under clear conditions, according to an agreed plan.
37 Comments on the Regulation Avoidance: only the impact on nature should be avoided, not the project Real avoidance: by designing the project accordingly, mitigation Alternatives; Choosing best option
38 Motorway A 59 (Hessen) New itinerary: Saves crested newts Additional exit for city Saves 40 Mio EUR
39 Comments on the Regulation No question if the project makes sense or is in public interest Complete avoidance only if no compensation possible and interests of nature and landscape overriding. As long as you mitigate/compensate, you can go ahead with the intervention Interest in conserving nature is reduced if compensation is possible but this is not decisive for the project Strengthening of avoidance necessary
40 New developments Distinction between compensation (Ausgleich) and Substitution (Ersatz) becomes increasingly blurred Ex ante Compensation already qualifies as avoidance It gets increasingly harder to find areas for compensation: Compensation banking Ecopools production-integrated compensation Tendency towards far end of mitigation hierarchy
41 New developments Increasingly not so helpful measures proposed: Amphibian tunnels in direction of wind (A 445) Active Railroad tunnel as flyway for bats (B 173) Lizard corridor is border strip of National Road (B 173)
42 Large-scale Compensation projects Impressive Projects that really help nature But: what about the intervention? Ecopools: does this not deplete the remaining landscape? Does this not create perverse incentives? - nature destruction as a funding source for nature conservation, approved by authorities and sometimes also NGOs - segregation («Zoos and production land»)?
43 Example from Swiss Jura, 1971-1996 Source: Prof. Klaus C. Ewald, in Lachat T. et al. (2010): Wandel der Biodiversität in der Schweiz seit 1900
44 Final conclusions Compensation regulation is standard feature for dealing with nature protection outside of Natura 2000 and protected areas Does not stop projects or avoid impact on nature, but helps to minimise and compensate projects which take place anyway(but perverse incentives?) No evidence regulation has achieved no net loss Strengthen avoidance: Assessment whether the project overrides the interests of nature and biodiversity (and if not: red light) - as in 15 (5) and Art. 6 (3) HD should be at the beginning
45 Thank you!