Sep 15, 2014

New NSW biodiversity offset fund hits the news

Yesterday the news (at least in Australia) in the offsetting world were full of the announcement of the new biodiversity offset fund in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The policy was preceded by a public consultation and will enter into force from 1st October 2014.

Is it good news? Is it bad news? What do you think?

What is sure is that it is definitely good that this is so much taken up by the media and discussed in the public.

Read more on the NSW information portal on the New Offset Policy and in the official NSW media release: The Environment, Farmers & Industry to Benefit from New Offset Policy, and see all the news sources I have found below.

Furthermore, I have highlighted some bites and quotes from the news below:

For the benefit of farmers and miners? (and the environment?)

NSW Farmers president Fiona Simson said the new system would reduce tensions between ­farmers and miners:

“The scheme means miners no longer have to negotiate directly with farmers over land for conservation.”

NSW Farmers president Fiona Simson said the new system would reduce tensions between ­farmers and miners.

Environment minister Rob Stokes said changes would give landholders the opportunity to receive payments for managing biodiversity on their land through a fund paid into it by developers to ‘offset’ the impacts of large projects.

“A new fund will be set up, to enable stewardship payments to landholders wishing to participate in the biodiversity protections for major projects,” Mr Stokes said.

“Our aim is to use offsets as an opportunity for landholders to diversify their income and ensure they are a genuinely integrated part of the landscape.

“It will also provide significant environmental benefits by introducing a consistent, transparent and scientific assessment approach, which will put an end to ad hoc offsetting practices.

“The development of an offsets fund will enable a more strategic approach to offsetting.

“The fund will ease the burden on proponents by letting them make payments towards their offset, instead of finding offset sites themselves.

Source: The Singleton Argus: New rules for biodiversity

No more like-for-like offsets?

Currently developers or mining companies are required to find ‘like-for-like’ biodiversity offsets but the changes will allow them, if they cannot find suitable land, to fund other conservation work of equal or higher conservation priorities.

It will also enable mining companies to use rehabilitated sites at the mine as part of their offsets strategy where there are good prospects of biodiversity being restored.

Nature Conservation Council chief executive officer Kate Smolski said:

“For too long, the planning system has allowed for inadequate offsets.

“This policy does little to address this issue.

“It not only fails to protect biodiversity, it may actually hasten its loss by allowing developers simply to throw money into a biodiversity fund rather than pay to protect similar habitat elsewhere.

“Such ‘flexibility’ undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the entire system.”

Source: The Singleton Argus: New rules for biodiversity

Phil Gibbons from Australian National University is concerned about “leakages” and “paper offsets”

He says the NSW scheme may not stop the ongoing loss of biodiversity.

“Just putting a side an existing patch of vegetation is not a gain.

“There must be genuine improvement to that vegetation or there must be new vegetation that’s created, and that’s rarely undertaken…since the introduction of offsets in Australia.”

He says some land used as offsets could not have been used for anything else anyway.

“They can be paper gains because a lot of native vegetation is in existence because it’s no good for anything else.

He is also concerned at the number of out clauses or “leakages” in the offsets legislation that allow developers who can’t find “like for like” vegetation to offset something else.

“If their project is affecting a certain ecological community or threatened species habitat and they can’t find the same habitat elsewhere then there is flexibility in the system to find a different type of habitat.”

He says that leaves threatened habitats, which may have already been 90 per cent cleared, open to further clearing and that shouldn’t happen.

Source: ABC Rural: Academic warns of “paper gains” from NSW biodiversity fund

It could have been worse?

The most controversial aspect of the draft policy – the opportunity to reduce the value of the required offset if a project’s social or economic benefit is deemed significant enough, known as “discounting” – has been dumped.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald: Miners, developers get environmental damage leeway

Source