Biodiversity Offsetting for Mining, Energy and Infrastructure Development‘How biodiversity offsets can potentially impact projects and how to achieve offsets in a cost effective

Aaron Organ – Director / Principal Ecologist

Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Geelong

Ph (07) 3221 3352, Mob. 0425 873 159

Biodiversity offset policies (State comparison)

Key Issues

Brief examples

Solutions

Concluding thoughts

Overview

6

Hierarchy

Development proposals need to demonstrate:

◦ Avoidance of impacts

◦ Minimisation of impacts

◦ Mitigation of impacts

Residual (unavoidable) negative environmental impacts from a development are subject to offsets

Introduction

7

Queensland Government Environmental Offset Policy (2008) (QGEOP) – overarching framework for environmental offsets in QLD.

Four specific offset policies support the QGEOP:

1. Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets;

2. Mitigation and Compensation for Works or Activities Causing Marine Fish Habitat Loss;

3. Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat (2010); and

4. Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (2011).

Each policy specifies the manner in which offsets can be provided (i.e. a land based offset and/or a monetary contribution).

Offset Policies - Qld

8

A biobanking statement obtained for development assessed under Parts 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act, also Part 3A applications

Precludes the need for additional assessment of impacts to threatened species

Limited implications under the TSC Act - voluntary offset scheme (no requirement to source any offsets using the scheme or register offsets under the scheme)

Methodology highly complex

BioBanking and Offset Scheme - NSW

9

Two types of biodiversity credits – species credits and ecosystem credits

Small number of projects have been finalised (offsets have been achieved in other ways)

Cost of offsets and funding for management of offset sites are negotiated

Offsite offsets are managed by landowner not the developer

BioBanking and Offset Scheme - NSW

10

Victoria’s policy on native vegetation is the document, Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (2002)

Primary goal is the reversal of decline in extent and quality of native vegetation i.e. Net Gain

BushBroker Scheme administered by Department of Sustainability and Environment

Offsets need to be quality ‘like for like’

Net Gain calculator, 10yr OMP (although needs to be permanently secured)

Currently being reviewed (incorporate risk and proportionality, increasing options to offset on site or pooling multiple small offsets at larger sites through over-the-counter offset schemes)

Net Gain - Victoria

11

NSW - no assessments for threatened species when using BioBanking

NSW - consent authority includes the conditions of the biobanking statement in the development consent – differs to Vic where it states an approved Offset Management Plan (OMP), Qld Offset Area Management Plan (ceases when mapped as remnant native veg.)

Vic - emphasis on vegetation offsets, minimal focus/process and options for threatened species offsets

Qld - lack of empirical data on species distribution and accuracy of RE mapping (large State), offsets cannot be remnant vegetation

Qld - exemptions for certain projects, also and doesn't apply to all vegetation communities or species (typically only State significant biodiversity values)

Main differences between the States

12

Inaccurate advice - overestimating or understating ecological values

Currently high expectation of level of survey effort for offset analysis

Project size and complexity (multiple values across a larger area)

Poor communication and negotiation with regulators

Project Risks - ‘the issues’

13

Poor negotiation between broker and landowner

Duplication of offset process

Security of offset site prior to commencement

Land based offset requirements restrictive

Complex and evolving legislation and policies

Practical management of offset site(s) (in perpetuity)

Project Risks - ‘the issues’

Problems

Understating the impact

Overstating the impact

Messing up offsets

No problems

Pre-empting problems

Working with regulators

Ornamental snakes and genetic fragmentation ◦ Vulnerable EPBC Act / NC Act

◦ Why genetic fragmentation is difficult to cause for such a species

◦ Whole reason for the project being a ‘controlled action’ under the Act

◦ Project delays, conditions placed on approval leading to additional costs

◦ Large habitat offsets required

16

Clearing of vegetation prior to offsets and ecological equivalence ◦ Automatic scores of 100 for cleared vegetation

◦ The vegetation would have only scored ~60 if properly surveyed

◦ No vegetation in offset area scores >70

◦ If surveys had been completed (with a realistic score) the total offset liability would have been less

18

19

I’m concerned about the costs and delays for my mining, energy and infrastructure projects, what are the solutions?

Get the right advice early

Locate and secure offsets prior to the lodgement of EIS/DA

Look for legal precedents associated with offset requirements (ratios, areas)

Don’t be afraid to work with regulators

Get the lawyers involved (ensure you check the finer details under the State and Commonwealth conditions of approval)

Ensure specialist botanists and zoologists undertake assessments and review the draft conditions (peer review of reports)

Issues with combined offsets from the clients perspective (timing, compliance)

Don’t try and circumvent the process!

Solutions

20

Are offsets hear to stay – yes, they are.

Increased complexity – although all Governments are attempting to streamline the process

Difficult for regulators to validate the offset areas (rely on their consultants and spatial data)

Harder to locate offsets – habitat recreation/revegetation

Practical management – who manages and audits the offset (compliance). Developer often doesn’t have the desire or expertise to manage the offset in the short term and in perpetuity

Future Considerations

21

Use of spatial and satellite data to improve your confidence in potential offset sites prior to field

Environmental loss is immediate – restoration/rehabilitation outcome is not as certain and has inherent difficulties

Early investment by Government - lack of funding?

Large offsets can be facilitated in a coordinated way (strategic approach)

Future Considerations

22

23

Aaron Organ Director / Principal Ecologist

0425 873 159

Adelaide - (08) 8372 7829 Brisbane – (07) 3221 3352 / Geelong – (03) 5221 8122 / Melbourne – (03) 9377 0100

www.ehpartners.com.au