Marine and coastal biodiversity offsets framework for Belize A REPORT PRODUCED BY THE AUSTRALIA–CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF COLLABORATION THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE BELIZE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND INSTITUTE
Compiled by Peter McGinnity, Ameer Abdulla, Chantalle Clarke, Paul Marshall, Ray Victurine
Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre
T
he Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration brings together coral reef managers and policy makers from different sides of the planet to share expertise and knowledge, to explore new ideas and to initiate joint projects that can help improve the outlook for Caribbean coral reefs in the face of climate change. The Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration 2012 – 2014 was supported by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Australian Aid program. Implementation of the program was led by Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) in partnership with the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) under the auspices of the Caribbean Community Secretariat (CARICOM). Further information about the work of the Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration can be found at www.climateandreefs.org.
Published by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia on behalf of the Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration Copyright © Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2014 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Cataloguing in Publication data Marine and coastal biodiversity offsets framework for Belize / Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute and Australia-Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration. ISBN 978 1 922126 47 4 (eBook) Environmental policy—Economic aspects—Belize. Sustainable development—Government policy. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 333.7097282
This publication should be cited as: Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute and Australia-Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration 2014, Marine and coastal biodiversity offsets framework for Belize, GBRMPA, Townsville. Available online at www.climateandreefs.org
Project leader: Paul Marshall (paul.marshall00@gmail.com) Editors: Peter McGinnity, Ameer Abdulla, Paul Marshall, Ray Victurine, Chantalle Clarke, Vincent Gillett Production: Dieter Tracey, Paul Marshall Photography credited as follows:
All photography provided by Paul Marshall, excepting: Dmitri Ioudine – Cover (San Pedro aerial) Jason Valdez/Marine Photobank – Page ii and cover Mito Paz/Marine Photobank – Page 1 and cover (coral and fish) CZMAI – Page 9 This is a climate neutral publication. All greenhouse gases generated in the production have been offset by funding clean energy projects. Visit www.climatefriendly.com for further information.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
i
ii
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Partners and process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.
KEY CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. What are biodiversity offsets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Principles underpinning biodiversity offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. The benefits of offsets to different stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Identification and assessment of impacts and risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5. Engaging affected communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.6. Mitigation plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.7. Monitoring, reporting and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Integrated Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Environmental impact assessment legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. Roles and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Implementing offsets in the current policy and legislative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.
DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF OFFSETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. Achieving best conservation outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Establishment of an offsets scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. Habitat classification and equivalency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.4. Special consideration of aquatic habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.
NEXT STEPS AND FURTHER ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. Tools and resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. Operational sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.3. Program delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 REFERENCES AND KEY RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
iii
iv
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
1. INTRODUCTION
T
his Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Offsets Framework for Belize has been produced to guide the Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI) and partners in developing pilot offset projects as a key step toward a national Marine and Coastal Zone Biodiversity Offsets Policy. The Framework is based on international best practice for offset design and implementation, taking into account the Belize-specific legislative and policy setting, and feedback provided from three workshops held in Belize City with key organisations and stakeholders. The Framework outlines key principles and practices that will underpin efforts to establish a biodiversity offsets regime for marine and coastal areas in Belize. It describes the policy context in Belize for implementation of biodiversity offsets, reviews design and evaluation considerations and outlines the steps to progress from a trial phase to a comprehensive, sustainable biodiversity offsetting regime in Belize. It comprises five sections: 1. Introduction — explains the background and context for this Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Offsets Framework for Belize. 2. Key Concepts and Principles — describes the concepts and principles that underpin the framework; developed based on international best practice. 3. Policy and Legislative Setting — describes the existing legislation and policy setting that provides the basis for applying this offsets framework in the Belize Coastal Zone. 4. Design and Evaluation of Offsets — provides guidance for designing and evaluating biodiversity offsets as a basis for implementation of pilot offsetting projects in Belize. 5. Next Steps and Further Actions — The final section outlines next steps and further work required to develop a comprehensive and self-sustaining marine and coastal biodiversity offsetting program in Belize. For additional background to the Framework, the reader is referred to the antecedent discussion paper. Additional sources of information about biodiversity offsetting concepts and theory and international best practices are listed in the References and Key Resources section at the end of this document.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
1
1.1. Partners and process This Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Offsets Framework for Belize is a product of the Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration. It was developed in partnership between the Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with the support of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, IUCN World Conservation Union, Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme and the Wildlife Conservation Society. The Framework was developed through a multistage process (see Figure 1) involving regional policy makers, the business and finance sectors, resource users, conservation managers and international experts.
BACKGROUND PAPER
TECHNICAL WORKSHOP
DISCUSSION PAPER REVIEW WITH POLICYMAKERS & BUSINESS LEADERS FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT Figure 1: The process for developing the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Offsets Framework for Belize
An initial background paper was presented to a technical workshop held in Belize City in mid-2013. Building on workshop deliberations, a discussion paper was developed to explore key issues and opportunities for incorporating international best practices relating to biodiversity offsetting into existing policy and practices in Belize. In early 2014 two further workshops were held, with senior policy makers from Belize and with the business sector. Workshop participants and key officials strongly endorsed the concept of marine and coastal biodiversity offsetting. They welcomed further efforts to implement offsetting in Belize as a new and important opportunity for the private sector and society to work together to conserve and manage biodiversity while engaging in sustainable development. This Framework provides the mechanism for establishing projects to test and demonstrate the implementation of biodiversity offsetting in the Belize Coastal Zone through ongoing partnerships between private sector and government organisations in Belize.
The Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration is assisting CARICOM nations strengthen the foundations for sustainable development by helping coral reef managers build resilience of coral reef ecosystems. Led in the region by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, the partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority enhances networks, builds capacity and delivers new tools and approaches for helping coral reefs and reef-dependent communities cope with climate change.
2
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
2. KEY CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES
T
his section presents the concepts and principles that underpin the offsets framework. They are based on international best practice and standards. In particular, this Framework has been guided by: (i) the principles developed by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook 1 and (ii) the standards established by the International Finance Corporation and Equator Principles Financial Institutions (see text box). The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) is an international collaboration of more than 75 leading organisations and individuals including companies, financial institutions, government agencies and civil society organisations, who are members of its Advisory Group. Together, the members are testing and developing best practice on biodiversity offsets and conservation banking worldwide. BBOP’s vision and expectation is: “that biodiversity offsets will become a standard part of business practice for those companies with a significant residual impact on biodiversity. After avoiding and minimizing impacts, the routine mainstreaming of biodiversity offsets into development practice will result in long-term and globally significant conservation outcomes” 2. Given the important role the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Equator Principles Financial Institutions have in financing development in Belize, it is intended that the Framework will provide the basis for development of an offsets approach that is consistent with the IFC’s performance standards. Of most relevance are: Performance Standard 1 that relates to ‘Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts’; and Performance Standard 6 that relates to ‘Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources’ 3.
International Finance Corporation, the Equator Principles and biodiversity offsetting The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. It is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on for-profit and commercial projects in developing countries. The IFC’s Sustainability Framework articulates the Corporation’s strategic commitment to sustainable development and is an integral part of IFC’s approach to risk management. The Sustainability Framework includes Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which have become globally recognised as a benchmark for environmental and social risk management in the private sector. IFC Performance Standard 6 addresses risks associated with Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. Clients with an impact on “Natural Habitat” are required, where feasible, to demonstrate “no net loss” of biodiversity, and those affecting “Critical Habitat” are obliged to demonstrate ”net gains” in biodiversity. These requirements are met by applying the mitigation hierarchy (see Section 2.2) and, often, through some form of biodiversity offset. The IFC Performance Standards have been adopted by the 80 financial institution members of the Equator Principles Association. These institutions, covering 34 countries, are responsible for 70 per cent of international Project Finance debt in emerging markets.
1 BBOP, 2012. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook, Washington: Forest Trends. 2 BBOP, no date. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. [Online] 3 IFC, 2012
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
3
2.1. What are biodiversity offsets? Biodiversity offsets are defined as: “measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on biodiversity arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken”1. The goal is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity ‘on the ground’ with respect to species composition, habitat structure, population size, ecosystem function and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity. Offsets are applied through positive management interventions such as providing protection for an area of similar habitat to that found at the project site, or restoration of a similar habitat to that affected by the project that has been previously degraded, or averting other non-project related threats to biodiversity. The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme has also developed a Biodiversity Standard intended to assist with design and implementation of offset activities, and to support assessment and audit of biodiversity offsets.
Ten principles of biodiversity offsetting 1.
Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy: A biodiversity offset is a commitment to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on biodiversity identified after appropriate avoidance, minimisation and on-site rehabilitation measures have been taken according to the mitigation hierarchy.
2.
Limits to what can be offset: There are situations where residual impacts cannot be fully compensated for by a biodiversity offset because of the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the biodiversity affected.
3.
Landscape/seascape context: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in a landscape/seascape context to achieve the expected measurable conservation outcomes taking into account available information on the full range of biological, social and cultural values of biodiversity and supporting an ecosystem approach.
4.
No net loss: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented to achieve in situ, measurable conservation outcomes that can reasonably be expected to result in no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity.
5.
Additional conservation outcomes: A biodiversity offset should achieve conservation outcomes above and beyond results that would have occurred if the offset had not taken place. Offset design and implementation should avoid displacing activities harmful to biodiversity to other locations.
6.
Stakeholder participation: In areas affected by the project and by the biodiversity offset, the effective participation of stakeholders should be ensured in decision-making.
7.
Equity: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in an equitable manner, which means the sharing among stakeholders of the rights and responsibilities, risks and rewards associated with a project and offset in a fair and balanced way, respecting legal and customary arrangements. Special consideration should be given to respecting both internationally and nationally recognised rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
8.
Long-term outcomes: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be based on an adaptive management approach, incorporating monitoring and evaluation, with the objective of securing outcomes that last at least as long as the project’s impacts and preferably in perpetuity.
9.
Transparency: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset, and communication of its results to the public, should be undertaken in a transparent and timely manner.
10. Science and traditional knowledge: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be a documented process informed by sound science, including an appropriate consideration of traditional knowledge.
4
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
2.2. Principles underpinning biodiversity offsets The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme has established a set of principles for the design and implementation of biodiversity offsets. These principles are the foundations of the offset approach presented in this Framework.
The mitigation hierarchy An overarching principle for biodiversity offsetting is that all projects should adhere to the mitigation hierarchy. This ensures that offsets are only considered after all reasonable measures have been taken first to avoid, minimise and rehabilitate/restore the impact of a development project. The Environmental Protection Act of Belize provides the regulatory framework for applying the mitigation hierarchy. Under this Act, development projects are subjected to a formal environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, including community consultation. The EIA process aims to identify and assess all relevant environmental and social consequences, and provide the basis for modifying project designs to avoid and minimise biodiversity impacts. Offsets can be integrated into the existing EIA process in Belize by following a formal mitigation hierarchy in all relevant assessments (see text box)1.
The four steps in the mitigation hierarchy for biodiversity offsetting 1.
Avoid: in the first instance projects should avoid creating impacts from the outset, for example through careful spatial or temporal placement of elements of infrastructure, in order to take all reasonable steps to completely avoid all biodiversity impacts.
2.
Minimise: where complete avoidance of impacts cannot reasonably be achieved, measures should be taken to minimise the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts), as far as is practical.
3.
Rehabilitate/restore: where feasible, measures should be taken to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems or restore cleared ecosystems following exposure to impacts that cannot be completely avoided and/or minimised.
4.
Offset: in the final instance, after steps 1 to 3 have been addressed, offsets may be required 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.
1 Saddler and McCabe, 2002
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
5
2.3. The benefits of offsets to different stakeholders Offsets have been applied to a range of situations around the world for over two decades. They have been used for wetland restoration and conservation banking in the USA, tradeable forest conservation obligations in Brazil, and for habitat compensation requirements in Australia, Canada and the European Union. This experience has shown that biodiversity offsets may be of value to business, government, local communities and conservation groups alike (see text box).1
Stakeholder benefits from biodiversity offsetting Benefits to business — Biodiversity offsets can strengthen a company’s licence to operate by encouraging regulators to grant permission for new operations and by securing the support of local communities and non-governmental organisations. For companies, investment in biodiversity offsets can provide a cost-effective means to demonstrate that society should continue to trust them with access to the land and sea needed for their operations. Benefits to government — Biodiversity offsets offer regulators a mechanism to encourage companies to make significant contributions to conservation, in many cases without the need for new legislation and at less cost than alternative policies. Offsets can also help to ensure that development projects intended to meet growing demand for energy, minerals, metals, crops and transport are planned in the context of sustainable development, and accompanied by counterbalancing measures to secure the conservation of ecosystems and species affected by development. Benefits to conservation groups — Conservation organisations can use and influence biodiversity offsets to secure better conservation outcomes and obtain additional funding for conservation. For example, offsets can be used to establish properly financed ecological corridors or strengthen networks of protected areas. Offsets could also help ensure that national or regional conservation priorities are integrated into business planning. Benefits to communities — Local communities can use biodiversity offsets to ensure functioning and productive ecosystems during and after development projects, not only with properly rehabilitated project sites, but also with additional conservation outcomes outside the project’s borders, to support livelihoods and amenity.
2.4. Identification and assessment of impacts and risks2 A key element of the environmental impact assessment process is the identification and assessment of impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services. The process should consider all relevant environmental and social risks and impacts of the project, and those who are likely to be affected by such risks and impacts. This process also provides the foundational information required to assess offset requirements. Underpinning this step is the need to establish a benchmark against which biodiversity impacts and offsets can be assessed. Identification of benchmarks, impacts and risks should be based on recent environmental and social baseline data at an appropriate level of detail to establish baseline conditions and to assess what is being lost as a result of residual project impacts. The process should take into account the differing values attached to biodiversity and ecosystem services and the appropriate baselines for biodiversity in the affected area (historical condition versus current condition). These will need to be ascertained through development and application of appropriate metrics, and consultation with affected communities and, where appropriate, other stakeholders.
1 Kate, et al., 2004 2 This section based on: IFC, 2012
6
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
Ecosystem services— broadening the outcomes from biodiversity offsetting approaches Early work on the development of offset approaches focused on outcomes for biodiversity in the stricter definition of the term (see text box). However, in more recent times, offsetting has become more cognisant of the need to also consider broader environmental and social impacts and potential offsets. The approach of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which underpins the Framework for Belize, suggests that the impacts identification process should consider direct and indirect project-related impacts on ecosystem services and identify any significant residual impacts. Ecosystem services are a structured way of thinking about biodiversity and the community benefits that are derived from biodiversity. The approach recognises that people seek many services from ecosystems and thus perceive the condition of an eco system in relation to its ability to provide desired services.
The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biodiversity as the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.
Ecosystem services are organised into four types: (i) provisioning services, which are the products people obtain from ecosystems; (ii) regulating services, which are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes; (iii) cultural services, which are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems; and (iv) supporting services, which are the natural processes. The supporting services include biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem functions and underpin all ecosystem services (see Figure 2). Where a project is likely to adversely impact ecosystem services, as determined by the impacts identification process, the IFC approach suggests that priority ecosystem services should be identified. IFC identify priority ecosystem services in two categories: (i) those services on which project operations are most likely to have an impact and, therefore, which is likely to result in adverse impacts to affected communities; and (ii) those services on which the project is directly dependent for its operations (e.g. water). When affected communities are likely to be impacted, they should participate in the determination of priority ecosystem services (see further discussion on consultation with affected communities later in this section).
Provisioning services
Regulating services
Cultural services
Products or goods such as fish, shellfish and seaweed
Ecosystem functions such as shoreline protection and waste assimilation
Non-material benefits such as recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits
Supporting services Fundamental processes such as nutrient cycling and water exchange that support the other three categories
Figure 2: Ecosystem services — supporting services underpin all ecosystem services
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
7
The environmental and social impacts should be identified in the context of the project’s area of influence. A spatial definition of the impact is important to assist evaluation of social and economic implications of changes to biodiversity, although it is important that the spatial delineations have direct relevance to biodiversity or ecosystem services of relevance to the assessment. The project’s area of influence is thus defined as: • • • •
The spatial extent of biodiversity or ecosystem services likely to be directly impacted by the project’s activities and facilities The area over which the indirect1 impacts of the project on biodiversity or on ecosystem services may extend, beyond the site of the project’s facilities or site works The area affected by cumulative impacts that are the result of the impacts caused by the project interacting incrementally with the impacts from other existing, planned or reasonably foreseeable developments The area with associated facilities, which are facilities that are not funded as part of the project but that would not have been constructed or expanded if the project did not exist and without which the project would not be viable.
The identification of impacts and risks should also take into account the priorities established by relevant plans and strategies prepared by government authorities and other parties that set strategic direction to achieve conservation outcomes and maximise community wellbeing. Specifically relevant plans and strategies include the Belize Coastal Zone Management Plan and Belize’s national biodiversity strategies and action plans. In addition, consideration should be given to any national or regional master economic development plans, and cumulative, sectoral, or strategic environmental assessments where relevant. Previous impact assessments, scientific studies or other reports may also contain information and findings that can contribute information useful to the assessment of impacts or the identification of offset options.
2.5. Engaging affected communities Stakeholder consultation is fundamental to the requirements of the existing EIA regulations in Belize (see text box). This existing regulatory requirement provides a sound basis for engaging affected communities at the risk and impact stage of offset assessment. However, the implementation of offsets will require additional levels of engagement throughout the process, from offset identification through to offset implementation. Building strong, constructive and responsive relationships with affected communities is essential for the successful management of offsets. The nature, frequency and level of engagement efforts may vary considerably in line with the specific project-related risks and adverse impacts, and the project’s phase of development. However, there is a general set of elements that are essential to successful community engagement for designing and implementing offsets: • • • • •
Stakeholder consultation is required in order to provide information, concerning the proposed undertaking, to the people whose environment may be affected; and to record the concerns of the local community regarding the environmental impact of the proposed activity (Regulation 18 (1) (a) and (b) from the SI No. 107 of 1995 and its amendment SI No. 24 of 2007).
Stakeholder analysis and planning Disclosure and dissemination of information Consultation and participation Grievance mechanism Ongoing reporting to affected communities.
1 Indirect impacts are impacts that are foreseeable but consequential to the development. For example, a project to develop a deep-water port might, as a consequence of the port being available, attract a range of new shipping activities that have the potential to cause impacts beyond the project’s direct activities and facilities.
8
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
2.6. Mitigation plans Consistent with sub-regulation 19 of the Belize Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1995, a proponent of a project subject to an EIA is required to provide a ‘Mitigation Plan’. If the biodiversity offsets mitigation hierarchy were being followed, the Mitigation Plans would ideally already clearly describe the steps that would be taken to first avoid impacts; then minimise the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts); and then outline plans to further reduce impacts through rehabilitation/restoration of affected ecosystems where feasible. The final stage of the mitigation hierarchy is offsetting. This would outline how a project will offset or compensate for the residual impacts (those impacts that are remaining after the previous measures to avoid, minimise and further reduce impacts via restoration). Under the Offsets Framework, Mitigation Plans would specifically identify measures that would be required to offset any residual significant, adverse impacts so as to achieve no net loss, or a net gain of biodiversity.
Mitigation Plans developed under this Offsets Framework should specifically describe the stepwise approach used to ensure that the requirements under each step of the mitigation hierarchy are satisfied before finalising the design and implementation of the next step. The Plans will thus need to provide targets and metrics for evaluating project performance against each step in the mitigation hierarchy. In reference to the Offsets step in the process, the Mitigation Plan should define specific desired outcomes and actions to deliver any proposed offsets. As far as possible the offset outcomes and actions should be described in terms that can be readily measured and audited (see the following section for considerations relating to selecting metrics and methods for setting biodiversity offset targets and auditing offset project performance). The Plan should include elements such as performance indicators, targets or acceptance criteria that can be tracked over defined time periods. It should also include the management requirements to deliver the desired outcomes in an offsets management plan. That management plan should include a financial plan that can ensure that adequate financial resources are provided for the management of the offset for at least as long as the project impacts last, with a preference for permanent funding. Moreover the Plan should include a clear statement of roles and responsibilities for implementation. As appropriate, the Mitigation Plan should identify the arrangements for managing offset actions, including those that will be controlled by third parties. Recognising the dynamic nature of most projects, the Mitigation Plan should include a monitoring and evaluation component that supports an adaptive approach to implementation to ensure the project can deliver offsets despite possible changes in circumstances, unforeseen events and developments in new knowledge relevant to offset implementation.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
9
Legal arrangements will need to be in place to guarantee the permanence of the offset through transfer of responsibility for the offset to any party that assumes responsibility for the project in the case of a sale or other form of transfer. It is preferable that proponents deliver the required biodiversity offsets before the development or project commences to ensure that there is no time lag between the loss of biodiversity due to the project and the gain in biodiversity delivered through offsets. If this is not feasible, the offset design should include a multiplier to cover any lag between biodiversity impacts and delivery of on-ground biodiversity offsets. Additionally, it will be necessary for the proponent to provide security to ensure that the offset is adequately funded through to completion, unless the offset is delivered before the project commences. Appropriate security would normally include a requirement for the proponent to sign a legal agreement and to provide a bond or some other form of financial guarantee.
2.7. Monitoring, reporting and review Monitoring of offset delivery is a fundamental requirement of a successful offset scheme. The offset monitoring requirements should be set out in a Monitoring Plan in accordance with requirements of current legislation1. Wherever possible, monitoring of offset delivery should complement, or preferably be integrated with, a long-term monitoring plan for the development project. This integrated approach will facilitate a comparison of the actual impacts of the project against those foreshadowed at the outset, and will also allow review to evaluate whether the offsets have been effective in achieving the relevant target of no net loss or net gain in biodiversity. The offsets monitoring plan should describe the procedures proposed to monitor, measure and report on the effectiveness of implementation of the offsets, as well as to assess compliance with any related legal and/or contractual obligations and regulatory requirements (i.e. it should include data collection and evaluation). Where the government or other third party has responsibility for managing specific risks and impacts and associated offset measures, the Monitoring Plan should describe how the proponent would collaborate in establishing and monitoring those measures. In addition to undertaking scientific surveys to track offset performance over the longer term, the monitoring plan should incorporate dynamic mechanisms, such as triggers, inspections and audits, to verify compliance and progress toward the desired outcomes. The extent of monitoring should be commensurate with the project’s environmental and social risks and impacts and with compliance requirements. An offsets monitoring plan requires definition of metrics, benchmarks and specification of methods. These would normally be defined as part of the offset design process. Defining metrics relevant to the biodiversity being affected by the project can be challenging, but it is important for the fundamental task of measuring biodiversity loss and gain. Benchmark areas need to be identified for use as controls and reference points, which are required when impacts and offsets are to be assessed relative to current and/or local conditions. Field sampling methods need to be rigorous and replicable, and should be specified at the outset to ensure consistency and credibility of the measurement approach. It is desirable that external, independent experts are retained to undertake the monitoring, or at least to review and verify the monitoring information. Where appropriate, proponents should also involve representatives from affected communities to participate in monitoring and evaluation activities. Periodic reports should describe progress with implementation of the offsets. The frequency of these reports should be relevant to the schedule of monitoring and review. The reports should be made available to affected communities. Where the offsets implementation is addressing issues of particular concern to the affected communities, updates on relevant actions should also be communicated to them at the appropriate time.
1 Sub-regulation 19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1995 requires the proponent to establish a Mitigation Plan and a Monitoring Plan.
10
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
3. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE SETTING
T
his section outlines the existing sustainable development and impact assessment policies and legislation that provide the basis for implementing this marine and coastal biodiversity offsets framework in Belize. The policy and legislative system for EIA in Belize is conducive to implementing biodiversity offsets through either a voluntary or regulated approach.
3.1. Integrated Coastal Zone Management This biodiversity offsets framework has been developed to be applied within the Belize Coastal Zone and the adjacent Zone of Influence (see text box for definitions) and to support the biodiversity conservation and sustainable development priorities identified in the Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan2, which takes effect under the Coastal Zone Management Act 1998.3 The Coastal Zone Management Act 1998 was enacted to address threats to marine and coastal ecosystems and provide for sustainable development in Belize. The Coastal Zone Management Act mandates the development of a National Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Plan. A revised draft ICZM Plan4 was finalised in 2013 after extensive scientific study, stakeholder engagement and public consultation. Although national in scope, the ICZM Plan builds upon efforts at the local level to develop sustainable regional guidelines. These efforts are coordinated with Coastal Advisory Committees (CACs) for nine coastal planning regions along the coast and offshore cayes. As an important complement to written guidelines, the Plan includes a zoning scheme, which spatially designates permissible activities and uses. It was created in collaboration with the Natural Capital Project through the use of the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) modelling tool. The tool was used to examine the effects of human activities on the benefits people receive from coastal and marine ecosystems called ‘ecosystems services’. The fundamental goal of ICZM in Belize is to facilitate the improved management of coastal and marine ecosystems so as to maintain their integrity while ensuring the delivery of ecosystem service benefits for present and future generations of Belizeans and the global community. A defining feature of the ICZM Plan is that it seeks to balance economic development needs with conservation in a spatially defined area within a specified timeframe. This approach to the development of the Belize ICZM Plan also provides an ideal foundation and basis for developing a complementary marine and coastal biodiversity offsets scheme.
Definitions under the Belize Coastal Zone Management Act 1998 Coastal zone — is the area bounded by the shoreline up to the mean high-water mark on its landward side and by the outer limit of the territorial sea on its seaward side, including all coastal waters. Generally the territorial sea is 12 nautical miles, although for part of the southern territorial sea is limited to 3 nautical miles in recognition of proximity to Guatemala. Zone of influence — refers to the geographic area, measuring 3 kilometres (inland from highwater mark), where activities affect the properties and functions of the coastal ecosystem and the delivery of services*.
2 At the time of writing a final draft Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan is being considered by Cabinet for approval. 3 Clarke, et al., 2013 4 The revised draft ICZM Plan is under consideration by Cabinet at the time of drafting this framework (June 2014).
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
11
3.2. Environmental impact assessment legislation The Environmental Protection Act 1992, the Environmental Protection (Amendment) Act 1998, and specifically the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1995 are key, overarching legislative instruments relevant to conservation of biodiversity and environmental impact management in Belize. The approach to marine and coastal biodiversity offsets outlined in this Framework has been developed for application to projects that may have significant impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity, and that require an Environmental Impact Assessment or Limited Level Environmental Study under the Environmental Protection Act of Belize. The EIA process provides for consideration of mitigation strategies and for an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) that specifies the conditions under which a project may proceed. Biodiversity offsets are not a specific requirement under the current legislation, but offsetting can readily be incorporated as an element in a package of mitigation measures under the existing arrangements and companies could be encouraged to employ the mitigation hierarchy as part of the EIA process. Amendments to legislation may be required in the future if offsetting becomes a regulated requirement under the ECP.
3.3. Roles and responsibilities The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Authority and Institute and the Department of Environment together have key roles in the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the environmental protection and environmental impact assessment legislation. Given that these legislative instruments are also key to the implementation of this Framework, these agencies will also have key roles in the implementation of the Framework and ultimately in the development of national offsets policy and relevant statutory instruments for implementing that policy for the coastal zone of Belize.
Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute The CZM Authority and Institute are established under the Coastal Zone Management Act 1998. The Authority is comprised of a Board of Directors appointed by the Minister and a Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Board. The CZM Authority is an autonomous public statutory body charged with the responsibility of implementing and monitoring policies that govern the use and development of the coastal zone in Belize. The CZM Institute is a key marine scientific research organisation in Belize. It is headed by a Director with a technical staff responsible for monitoring, research and the technical functions of coastal management in coordination with the various agencies involved. Through the EIA process, the CZM Authority has a key role in advising on proposals for development projects potentially affecting the coastal zone. The CZM Institute would have responsibility for scientific studies relating to offset development and would play a key role in
The major functions of the Coastal Zone Management Authority
12
»»
Advise the Minister on all matters related to the coastal zone, and on the formation of policies
»»
Assist in development of programmes and projects
»»
Foster regional and international collaboration
»»
Commission research and monitoring
»»
In consultation with stakeholders, assist in preparation of development guidelines and review the CZM Plan prepared in accordance with the Act
»»
Maintain the national coral reef and coastal water quality monitoring programmes.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
monitoring, auditing and reviewing the implementation of mitigation and offset measures in the coastal zone. Explicit integration of this offsets framework into legislation would require the CZM Authority to work collaboratively with the Department of Environment to develop or amend national policy and legislation.
Department of Environment The Department of Environment (DOE) is responsible for administering the Environmental Protection Act. This includes examining and evaluating activities and carrying out environmental impact assessments and risk analyses if necessary. They make recommendations to mitigate the harmful effects of any proposed action on the environment. Ultimately, therefore, DOE is responsible for determining appropriate mitigation measures and for specifying them in an Environmental Compliance Plan. As biodiversity offsetting is a form of mitigation, including offsets as an element of ECPs appears to be the most efficient process for implementing this Framework. The National Environmental Appraisal Committee (NEAC) provides advice to DOE throughout the EIA process. The NEAC comprises representatives of relevant government departments, experts and stakeholders. Regulation 25 (1) establishes that the functions of the NEAC are: •
Review all EIAs
•
Advise the DOE of the adequacy or otherwise of EIA
•
Advise the DOE of circumstances where a public hearing is desirable or necessary
•
Make recommendations to the DOE on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the EIA process.
The NEAC bases its recommendation to the DOE on the applicable EIA legislation and the EIA procedures, taking into account the environmental issues involved, and with reference to the EIA report itself and any comments thereon from the public, non-government organisations or government agencies. The NEAC takes into consideration the existing policies or guidelines related to natural resource management and environmental protection and the meaningful inputs from citizens or organisations. If offsets are introduced as a further component of the EIA process, the NEAC would be an appropriate body to advise on the adequacy of any offsets proposed. The Project Evaluation and EIA Unit in the Department of Environment is responsible for administration of the EIA Regulations 1995. The Unit supervises and manages the environmental clearance of projects, programmes and plans that may have environmental impact. This process includes coordination of project evaluations and site assessment to improve the EIA process and establishing and developing strong working relationships with the private sector and nongovernment organisations. The Unit would be the appropriate group to work in collaboration with the CZM Authority to develop and implement offsets policy for the coastal zone (and nationally where appropriate).
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
13
3.4. Implementing offsets in the current policy and legislative setting This Framework has been developed to support a voluntary, negotiated approach to trial biodiversity offsetting in development projects that are currently under assessment or management under the existing EIA provisions. As a first step, this voluntary approach is proposed to demonstrate the application of the concept of offsetting, and to engage leaders from the business and finance sectors. Ultimately, however, it is proposed that the experiences and lessons from trial projects will provide practical guidance for the establishment of a marine and coastal biodiversity offsets policy and relevant legislative or regulatory amendments to codify offset requirements. The steps for implementing the Framework within the existing EIA provisions are illustrated in Figure 3. The following sections provide additional detail required to implement offsets. ASSESS PROJECT PROPOSAL Project is allowed to proceed
Impacts are not significant Project allowed conditional on implementation of approved Mitigation Plan
Impacts are significant but acceptable
Mitigation Plan (Avoid; Minimise; Restore)
Are there residual adverse impacts? Impacts are unacceptable and/or cannot be mitigated/ offset
YES NO
Design offsets activities
Issue Environmental Compliance Plan
Incorporate offsets into Mitigation Plan and Monitoring Plan
No net loss or preferably net gain in biodiversity/ ecosystem services
Implement Mitigation and Monitoring Plans
Project is allowed to proceed Implement legal instruments to support Mitigation Plan (deeds, bonds, etc)
YES
Mitigation (including offsets) Activities meet performance criteria?
Project is NOT allowed to proceed
NO
Figure 3: Process diagram for integrating the Biodiversity Offsets Framework into Environmental Impact Assessment
14
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
4. DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF OFFSETS
T
his section draws on current knowledge and best practices to provide initial guidance for designing and evaluating biodiversity offsets that can support implementation of pilot offsetting projects in Belize. Over the longer term it is desirable that the ‘general best-practice’ approach that is proposed here is reviewed and that more detailed and Belizespecific approaches are developed. There is a range of approaches to offsetting biodiversity loss resulting from a project or development activity. Offset measures that are contemplated for implementation in the coastal zone of Belize under this Framework are: 1. Protection of equivalent habitat — Creating protected areas over equivalent coastal habitat and/or buying land suitable for restoring equivalent degraded habitat (e.g. by purchasing or contracting with a landowner to protect an area of equivalent habitat). This approach is well suited to terrestrial habitats where land can be bought and managed, but is only a limited option in aquatic environments. The normally applied metric is habitat hectares. A key challenge is to set requirements for habitat quality, which is generally addressed through independent expert assessment involving benchmarking and defining biodiversity levels in non-impacted areas. 2. Threat abatement — Addressing key threats to biodiversity and habitats affected by the proposed development (e.g. water quality improvement, restructuring or further regulating fisheries etc.). This requires a metric for converting impact to a metric for reducing threat: either a statement of outcome (e.g. amount of nitrogen pollution removed or a percentage increase in fish biomass) or perhaps more pragmatically an agreed level of investment in monetary terms. 3. Surrogate measures — This essentially involves providing funds to support priority conservation-related actions (e.g. investment in Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) for increased protected areas/management, supporting research etc.). It requires an agreed metric or formula to convert the development impact to an offset value in monetary terms (e.g. a pre-determined dollar value for habitat hectares affected). This approach needs to be applied cautiously to ensure that the conservation actions are clearly defined; that they are sufficient to meet the criteria for an offset (no net loss or better); and that the finances are adequate to obtain the desired outcomes. The following subsections provide some guidance on factors to consider in choosing when and how these different types of offsets might most appropriately be applied.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
15
4.1. Achieving best conservation outcome The concept of no net biodiversity loss lies at the heart of biodiversity offsetting. No net loss refers to the point where biodiversity gains from targeted conservation activities match the losses of biodiversity due to the impacts of a specific development project, so that there is no net reduction overall in the type, amount and condition (or quality) of biodiversity over space and time. A net gain means that biodiversity gains exceed a specific set of losses (Figure 4). OFFSET
CONSERVATION ACTIONS
No compensation Business as usual
Some investment in conservation but no effort to quantify impacts or arrive at some equilibrium
Higher level of compensation: efforts to adequately address impacts
No Net Loss Objective reached
Net Gain or Net Positive Impact
TOWARDS NO NET LOSS – NET GAIN Figure 4: Conservation actions to achieve no net loss
The assessment of environmental impact and equivalent biodiversity offsets requires careful consideration of context-specific factors, including characteristics of the local biodiversity, human use and cultural values of biodiversity, background rates of loss, the ecological condition of potential offset sites, as well as legal, technical and socio-economic constraints on the kinds of offsets that can be developed. Achieving no net loss or a net gain of biodiversity through an offsets project requires some key considerations (see text box). International experience has shown that there are significant challenges in developing a system for measuring impacts and determining the offsets required for achieving no net loss, but these considerations can help with implementation of offsets under this Framework.
4.2. Establishment of an offsets scheme International experience suggests that a staged approach to establishment of an offsets scheme can greatly improve the prospects of its sustainability. The following section outlines a pragmatic approach for implementation of this Framework that begins with a voluntary approach to offsetting of biodiversity loss in Belize, and provides guidance for addressing some of the key challenges associated with establishment and operation of an offsets scheme. Begin with a negotiated approach to offsets — Initially, offset projects should be voluntary and negotiated, but still designed to utilise and showcase the best available metrics and approaches based on international precedents (e.g. habitat hectares, pre-determined monetary value per hectare of development site etc.). Over time, legislative requirements may be introduced and metrics will need to be more fully considered and defined so that outcomes more directly reflect policy goals and conservation priorities. This will help ensure that the process for applying offsets is equitable and closely reflects the scale or value of the offset necessary to address the residual impact. Offsetting should demonstrate tangible biodiversity outcomes — Impacts on a particular biotope or habitat should generally be offset through ‘like-for-like’ or ‘ecological equivalent’
16
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
actions benefitting the same type of biotope or habitat. However, marine and coastal ecosystems are highly dynamic, and it will not always be realistic or desirable to seek like-for-like. The extra challenges and considerations required for offsetting in marine and coastal systems are explored more fully in section 4.4). In general, for marine and coastal systems, offsets should be designed in terms of the desired ‘state’ or level of improvement to the system rather than in terms of addressing specific biotope characteristics in one location. Thus impacts might be expressed in terms of level of pressure and offsets in terms of reduced pressure, based on the assumption that damaging pressures or threats effectively act as a proxy for the condition or state of the ecosystem. The corollary is that a well-managed system will deliver biodiversity gains.
Considerations for achieving no net loss of biodiversity using offsets »»
Explicit calculation of loss and gain at impact and offset sites
»»
Ensure that gains are additional and can be linked directly to offset activity
»»
Account for uncertainty and the risk of failure in offset design
»»
Design offsets to take account of wider landscape context and patterns of biodiversity
»»
Recognise that there are ecological and scientific limits to what can be offset
»»
Combine multiple interventions across the full mitigation hierarchy
»»
Aim to achieve like-for-like biodiversity exchanges in an offset.
Trade-ups to be allowed and encouraged — This means that offsets should aim to address biodiversity of greater conservation priority. This could involve a focus on areas that are internationally recognised World Heritage Sites, Special Conservation Areas, or areas of national natural and cultural importance such as the Belize Barrier Reef. Any support for such areas would need to meet additionality criteria. Additionally to be achieved — This means that any benefits delivered by offsetting should be above and beyond what would have been delivered otherwise or by other means. Offsets from several projects may be combined or aggregated — Offsets should be managed to achieve the greatest net benefit, and this may involve strategically combining offsets from a variety of projects if cumulatively this will achieve a better net biodiversity outcome (i.e. rather than invest in a range of small discrete offset sites or actions, aggregating offsets may allow an investment in a larger more strategically valuable offset area or program of actions). Priority areas can be identified as key offset sites and could be recipients of offsets. Losses and gains should be measured in the same metric — To readily demonstrate both ecological equivalence and equity of the system. However, this may not always be feasible, particularly where offsets are described in terms of reduced pressure, the predictability of these gains will be difficult to quantify. In these cases the assessment of equivalency and equity will need to be based on the best available information and independent expert assessment. Disaggregated metrics are preferred — As offsets projects will initially be voluntary and negotiated, they are unlikely to include investment in development of rigorous metrics specific to the project or even the Belizean context. Instead, early demonstration projects should utilise proxy metrics that use simple currencies (e.g. area measured in ‘habitat hectares’ or pre-determined monetary value per hectare of development site, etc.). These are more widely applied and are proposed as the most reasonable approach for establishment of offsetting practices under this Framework. However, the offsetting scheme will aim over time to develop a set of metrics that capture the values of key biodiversity components (representing pattern, process and ecosystem services) that are transparent and based on disaggregated, direct and context-dependent measures.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
17
A high level of predictive certainty is desirable — Details of intended conservation outcomes should be predictable and defined with a reasonable degree of certainty. The InVEST suite of software that was used to support the development of the Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan has potential for use as an offset evaluation tool. Multiplier should be considered — To address the uncertainty often inherent in offset projects (such as risks to success of restoration activities or uncertainty in the timeframes for achieving biodiversity objectives), targets for offset projects are often set as a multiplier of the biodiversity impact. Initially, multipliers can be developed using general rules adapted from relevant international examples. However, with time a more sophisticated approach to multipliers will be developed that transparently and credibly reflects the levels of uncertainty in the offset design and delivery, and accounts for differences in habitat quality (see the following section).
4.3. Habitat classification and equivalency Internationally, habitat has formed the primary basis for calculating and evaluating biodiversity offsets in a construct known as ‘habitat equivalency’. The concept of habitats in this context is used to provide a way of characterising biodiversity that is amenable to spatial delineation for practical purposes. Habitat equivalency, at its simplest, involves classification of habitat types such that if a measured area of a particular habitat type is impacted by a development, an equivalent area of the same habitat type should provide the basis for the offset.
Classification of habitats
Habitat is defined as a terrestrial,
The types of habitats that occur in the coastal zone freshwater or marine geographical unit of Belize are defined in the national Integrated or airway that supports assemblages of Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Plan. The living organisms and their interactions major categories of habitat defined in the ICZM with the non-living environment. Plan are coral reefs, seagrass and mangrove. This classification was largely used to inform an analysis of threats to key coastal habitats, and the data sets that supported that work provide a starting point for assessing coastal habitat equivalency for this Framework. In addition to classification by type, habitats can also be evaluated on the basis of quality and vulnerability. The IFC have proposed a system of habitat evaluation that overlays classification of habitat types (e.g. coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves) and further categorises those habitats as modified, natural and critical. In this scheme, critical habitats are a subset of modified or natural habitats that have high biodiversity value. The IFC habitat value classifications are:
Modified Habitat: areas that may contain a large proportion of plant and/or animal species of non-native origin, and/or where human activity has substantially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition. Modified habitats may include areas managed for agriculture, forest plantations, reclaimed coastal zones and reclaimed wetlands. Natural Habitat: areas composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native origin, and/or where human activity has not essentially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition. Critical Habitat: areas with high biodiversity value, including (i) habitat of significant importance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered species; (ii) habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species; (iii) habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; (iv) highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or (v) areas associated with key evolutionary processes.
18
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
Using habitat classification as a basis for impact assessment and offset design This Framework adopts the IFC habitat classification overlay and offsetting approach to inform decisions about impacts and offsets. There are advantages to adopting a classification similar to that proposed by IFC. Since private sector enterprises would need to apply these same criteria when obtaining project financing from IFC or Equator Banks, private sector enterprises will not have to face different requirements or expectations when designing their projects. A set of five principles for integrating habitat value and equivalency in decisions about the acceptability of proposed environmental impact assessments and in the offset design process is provided below. 1. This Framework applies to those areas of modified habitat that include significant biodiversity value, as determined by the risks and impacts identification process. The development project should be designed to minimise impacts on such biodiversity and implement mitigation measures as appropriate. 2. The development project should not significantly convert or degrade natural habitats, unless all of the following are demonstrated: •
no other viable alternatives within the region exist for development of the project on modified habitat
•
consultation has established the views of stakeholders, including affected communities, with respect to the extent of conversion and degradation
•
any conversion or degradation is mitigated according to the mitigation hierarchy.
3. In areas of natural habitat, mitigation measures should be designed to achieve no net loss of biodiversity. Appropriate actions include: •
avoiding impacts on biodiversity through the identification and protection of ‘setasides’
•
implementing measures to minimise habitat fragmentation, such as biological corridors
•
restoring habitats during operations and/or after operations
•
implementing biodiversity offsets.
4. In areas of critical habitat, project activities should not be approved unless the following are demonstrated: •
the project will demonstrably have long-term benefits to the national interests of Belize
•
no other viable alternatives within the region exist for development of the project on modified or natural habitats that are not critical
•
the project does not lead to measurable adverse impacts on those biodiversity values for which the habitat is critical, and on the ecological processes supporting those biodiversity values
•
the project does not lead to a net reduction in the national population of any Critically Endangered or Endangered species assessed over a reasonable period of time (several generations).
5. In such cases where a project meets the requirements defined in point 4: •
the project’s Mitigation Plan should describe how the project will be designed to achieve net gains of those biodiversity values for which the critical habitat was designated
•
where biodiversity offsets are proposed as part of the mitigation strategy, the proponent should be required to demonstrate through an assessment that the project’s significant residual impacts on biodiversity will be adequately mitigated to meet the requirements of point 4
•
a robust, appropriately designed and long-term biodiversity monitoring and evaluation program should be integrated into the client’s Monitoring Plan.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
19
In terrestrial environments, where land is largely in private ownership, offsets generally involve the purchase of land of equivalent habitat type and size to that impacted by the project. The allocation of the IFC categorisation should be a relatively straightforward allocation of the above process. The offset site would then be incorporated into a protected area or otherwise managed under a form of conservation covenant. The IFC process would have equivalent application to aquatic environments. However, the identification of offset sites in aquatic settings is often more challenging and is further discussed in the next subsection.
4.4. Special consideration of aquatic habitats The ICZM Plan identifies sixteen major watersheds and several coastal stream catchments that drain into the continental coast of Belize. Sediments carried by these rivers are redistributed by wave and current action along the shoreline forming numerous depositional features including beach ridges, sand bars and deltas. These transported sediments and nutrients dictate the distribution of marine habitats such as seagrass beds, mangroves and coral reefs by either promoting or inhibiting ecosystem functions. Habitat along the coastline acts as nesting sites for many bird species and as nurseries for many juvenile marine and aquatic species. The wetlands, rivers and lagoons are home to manatees, crocodiles and many species of juvenile and adult fish. The wetlands are efficient buffers against storm surge, are important in flood control and can adapt to changing sea levels. They also thrive on nutrients and sediments derived from the land and, in so doing, help to trap them and limit transport to the sediment-sensitive reef systems of this blue water region. The many differences in composition, location, processes and functions between terrestrial and aquatic habitats create challenges in translating impact assessment and offset design approaches from land to sea (see text box). Aquatic habitats are also often more susceptible to degradation and loss from indirect and cumulative impacts, further complicating assessments and design. The identification of offset sites is also much more challenging in aquatic environments, as they are normally State-owned and often considered public resources. As a result, there is generally very limited, if any, scope for developers to directly purchase aquatic sites for habitat protection as part of an offset activity. Because of these special considerations, broadening the scope of offset options, beyond like-forlike, is often desirable to maximise conservation outcomes in aquatic systems. These broader offset approaches are more likely to involve investment in threat abatement or surrogate measures (as defined at the beginning of this Section).
Important differences between terrestrial and aquatic systems
20
»»
Disturbances on land can translate to disturbances to aquatic habitats, but the reverse is very rare. For example, sediments and pollutants carried by overland flow can enter aquatic environments, smothering habitats and reducing water quality.
»»
Aquatic habitats are much more prone to impacts from distant pollution sources and cumulative impacts than are terrestrial habitats.
»»
Direct impacts on aquatic habitats at one site can result in indirect impacts occurring large distances up-current or down-current. For example, a chemical spill can impact aquatic environments both at the spill site and downstream, while a weir can impact on fish passage and recruitment both at the site of the weir and for many kilometres upstream, downstream and out to sea.
»»
While rehabilitation of degraded aquatic habitats may be desirable in some circumstances, many methods are still experimental, expensive, require ongoing maintenance and may not fully replicate the ecosystem functions that are lost or degraded.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
Where these alternative offset approaches are identified as the preferred option, a formula is required to calculate an equitable offset value. Deriving a formula for use in regulated offset projects will require further development. However, the approach used by the state of New South Wales1, in Australia, can provide initial guidance for calculating voluntary offsets (see text box). The rate used in New South Wales provides a base value for all aquatic habitats; however, under this Framework further multipliers would apply in circumstances where the impact was on ‘critical habitat’.
Calculating aquatic offsets in NSW, Australia The NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management provides guidelines for calculating the value of aquatic offsets. A multiplication factor of 2 is applied to calculate the investment in aquatic offsets to take account of the area affected by both direct and indirect impacts of development. The rate per area used for impact calculations is AU$52/m2 (equivalent to AU$104/m2 for offsets), based on international valuations of aquatic ecosystem services 2. This rate is for the 2014 year and is subject to an annual increase in line with inflation.
1 Fairfull, 2013 2 Costanza, et al., 2013
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
21
5. NEXT STEPS AND FURTHER ACTIONS
B
elize has an opportunity to adopt biodiversity offsets as a tool to foster sustainable development, manage residual impacts and simultaneously create a scheme for financing conservation and management of biodiversity. Through the Australia–Caribbean Coral Reef Collaboration, Belize has evaluated the benefits and utility of offsetting, and produced this Framework as guidance for the development of an offsets policy and supporting framework. It recommends a staged approach beginning with a voluntary offsets scheme that will enable testing and demonstration of the offsets approach in Belize using existing best practice and methods from relevant international case studies. This will lay the foundations for additional information, experience and investment required to develop a more codified, and sustainable, offsets scheme for Belize. To support the implementation of the initial (voluntary) phase, and to enable further development of knowledge, tools and capacity required for further evolution of the scheme, further work will be required. Priority areas for follow-on work include pilot biodiversity offset projects through engagement with private sector partners, investment in relevant capacity within the public and private sector, exploring priority areas for conservation where offsets can be established and development avoided, and development of necessary policy, legislative and administrative systems. It is envisaged that the further development and implementation of a comprehensive marine and coastal biodiversity offsets approach for Belize will involve three key pillars of activity. Each pillar represents a collection of related tasks, which in combination will deliver a fully integrated, sustainable biodiversity offsets program for Belize. The three pillars of activity are: Tools and resources, Operational sustainability and Program delivery. Each of these is introduced below, together with a brief narrative outlining proposed major activities.
5.1. Tools and resources This pillar of activity addresses the technical tools and resources required to implement a marine and coastal biodiversity offsets program in Belize drawing on current and emerging science: Financing offset administration — It is likely that the CZM Authority and DOE will need to seek initial project funding and support expertise to meet the costs and provide the necessary experience to implement this Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Offsets Framework. However, once offsets are in place, the preferred approach is for the offsets implementation to be fully self-funding. Building a long-term funding mechanism working through PACT, if feasible, or if not, establishing a new trust fund to manage the revenue would provide a means of ensuring consistent funding over the time period required to implement offset management activities. Marine and Estuarine (Aquatic) Biodiversity Assessment Framework (Marine BAF) — This Framework describes an interim system that could be applied to pilot projects, but further work would enable a more comprehensive and specifically relevant approach. It would involve compilation of relevant case studies and research, production of system models and expert decision frameworks as underpinnings for what is envisaged as a simple but defensible tool for assessing marine and estuarine biodiversity, mapping actual or potential impacts and designing complementary offset activities. Biodiversity Offset Mapping and Planning System — This is required to enable an integrated approach to auditing biodiversity in the marine environment, and to support spatial analysis of biodiversity impacts and prioritisation of offset opportunities. Belize is uniquely positioned to develop a spatial decision-support system for biodiversity offsets given its recent development of a spatial data library and ecosystem services mapping system as part of the new integrated coastal zone management planning process. Utilising this mapping system to include single, cumulative and persistent impacts and potential offset locations or activities, taking into account climate change effects, would allow for a higher level of planning and strategic decision-making capability.
22
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
5.2. Operational sustainability This pillar of activity focuses on establishing and sustaining capacity for implementing a biodiversity offsets program. Main requirements include: Capacity building — Acquiring the funding and establishing a Biodiversity Offsets Unit, which is envisaged as the core structural unit for ongoing management of Belize’s biodiversity offsets program. As well as providing a hub of technical and administrative capacity, a key role of the Unit would be to maintain the capacity to apply the biodiversity mapping and planning tools and to provide training to government, EIA consulting companies and the private sector so that the tools developed are understood and can be applied locally and consistently. Stakeholder and policy engagement — Required to ensure that key stakeholders and relevant government agencies remain closely involved in the offsets policy and implementation arrangements. An engagement program should be developed to design and implement a communication strategy, provide outreach services and facilitate active involvement of stakeholders in relevant project activities (workshops, briefings, field trips, etc.). This would require a strong focus on engagement with the private sector community, including the financial and banking sector, with a view to building understanding and support for offsets amongst developers, industry groups and other business interests. This would include development of resources or frameworks for providing incentives for voluntary uptake of biodiversity offsetting by the private sector. Demonstration project(s) — To test and refine the principles, preliminary guidelines and administrative structures for biodiversity offset projects. Lessons should be collected to refine the EIA and offset processes.
5.3. Program delivery This pillar of activity will deliver the administrative and governance systems necessary for effective and sustainable administration of a biodiversity offsets program in Belize. Main activities include: Operational planning — Involves the development of a plan and strategies for implementing a voluntary offsets program, a regulatory offsets program and steps for transitioning from voluntary to regulatory. Auditing program — Involves development of a system for offset monitoring, evaluation, reporting and review. It should include strategies for compliance and enforcement of offset activities. Policy and legal review — Required to identify any significant gaps, and recommend policy and regulatory amendments required to ensure a comprehensive policy and legal framework for implementing biodiversity offsets in Belize. The activity should deliver a manual for offset implementation that will guide policy officers in applying relevant policies and regulations for offset projects. Administrative structures — A review is required to identify the most appropriate mechanisms for administering offset finances. The review would involve an audit of the suitability of existing structures in Belize (such as the Protected Areas Conservation Trust) and identify any supplementary administrative structures required.
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE
23
REFERENCES AND KEY RESOURCES Alcamo, J. et al., 2003. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment, Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), 2012. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook, Washington: Forest Trends. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), 2012. Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets., Washington D.C.: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), no date. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. [Online] Available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/ [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Clarke, C., Cantos, M. & Rosado, S., 2013. Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Belize City: Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI). Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. 1997, ‘The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital’, Nature, 387: pp. 253–260. Dickie, I., McAleese, L., Pearce, B. & Treweek, J., 2013. Marine Biodiversity Offsetting—UK Scoping Study, s.l.: Report to The Crown Estate. Department of Environment (DOE), 2011. Procedures Manual For The Preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Belize, Belize: Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Environment. Fairfull, S., 2013. Fisheries NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (2013 update), Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Primary Industries, a part of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services. International Finance Corportation (IFC), 2012. Guidance Note 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts, s.l.: International Finance Corporation. Kate, K., Bishop, J. & Banyon, R., 2004. Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience and the Business Case, London, UK: IUCN and Insight Investment. NSW Environment and Heritage, no date. Nature Conservation. [Online] Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/ [Accessed 10 May 2014]. Saddler, B. & McCabe, M., 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP. World Business Council For Sustainable Development, 2011. A Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Evaluation, Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council For Sustainable Development.
24
MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS FRAMEWORK FOR BELIZE