Mining and biodiversity offsets: a transparent and science-based approach to measure "no-net-loss".

Mining and associated infrastructure developments can present themselves as economic opportunities that are difficult to forego for developing and industrialised countries alike. Almost inevitably, however, they lead to biodiversity loss. This trade-off can be greatest in economically poor but highly biodiverse regions. Biodiversity offsets have, therefore, increasingly been promoted as a mechanism to help achieve both the aims of development and biodiversity conservation. Accordingly, this mechanism is emerging as a key tool for multinational mining companies to demonstrate good environmental stewardship. Relying on offsets to achieve "no-net-loss" of biodiversity, however, requires certainty in their ecological integrity where they are used to sanction habitat destruction. Here, we discuss real-world practices in biodiversity offsetting by assessing how well some leading initiatives internationally integrate critical aspects of biodiversity attributes, net loss accounting and project management. With the aim of improving, rather than merely critiquing the approach, we analyse different aspects of biodiversity offsetting. Further, we analyse the potential pitfalls of developing counterfactual scenarios of biodiversity loss or gains in a project's absence. In this, we draw on insights from experience with carbon offsetting. This informs our discussion of realistic projections of project effectiveness and permanence of benefits to ensure no net losses, and the risk of displacing, rather than avoiding biodiversity losses ("leakage"). We show that the most prominent existing biodiversity offset initiatives employ broad and somewhat arbitrary parameters to measure habitat value and do not sufficiently consider real-world challenges in compensating losses in an effective and lasting manner. We propose a more transparent and science-based approach, supported with a new formula, to help design biodiversity offsets to realise their potential in enabling more responsible mining that better balances economic development opportunities for mining and biodiversity conservation.

A comparison of baseline methodologies for 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation'.

BACKGROUND: A mechanism for emission reductions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) is very likely to be included in a future climate agreement. The choice of REDD baseline methodologies will crucially influence the environmental and economic effectiveness of the climate regime. We compare three different historical baseline methods and one innovative dynamic model baseline approach to appraise their applicability under a future REDD policy framework using a weighted multi-criteria analysis. RESULTS: The results show that each baseline method has its specific strengths and weaknesses. Although the dynamic model allows for the best environmental and for comparatively good economic performance, its high demand for data and technical capacity limit the current applicability in many developing countries. CONCLUSION: The adoption of a multi-tier approach will allow countries to select the baseline method best suiting their specific capabilities and data availability while simultaneously ensuring scientific transparency, environmental effectiveness and broad political support.

The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia.

During the last decade, forest certification has gained momentum as a market-based conservation strategy in tropical forest countries. Certification has been promoted to enhance forest management in countries where governance capacities are insufficient to adequately manage natural resources and enforce pertinent regulations, given that certification relies largely on non-governmental organisations and private businesses. However, at present there are few tropical countries with large areas of certified forests. In this study, we conducted semi-structured stakeholder interviews in Ecuador and Bolivia to identify key framework conditions that influence the costs and benefits for companies to switch from conventional to certified forestry operations. Bolivia has a much greater relative area under certified forest management than Ecuador and also significantly more certified producers. The difference in the success of certification between both countries is particularly notable because Bolivia is a poorer country with more widespread corruption, and is landlocked with less access to export routes. Despite these factors, several characteristics of the Bolivian forest industry contribute to lower additional costs of certified forest management compared to Ecuador. Bolivia has stronger government enforcement of forestry regulations a fact that increases the cost of illegal logging, management units are larger, and vertical integration in the process chain from timber extraction to markets is higher. Moreover, forestry laws in Bolivia are highly compatible with certification requirements, and the government provides significant tax benefits to certified producers. Results from this study suggest that certification can be successful in countries where governments have limited governance capacity. However, the economic incentives for certification do not only arise from favourable market conditions. Certification is likely to be more successful where governments enforce forestry laws, provide financial incentives for certified forestry, and provide land tenure security, and where large-scale and vertically integrated forestry operations are commercially feasible. For this reason, at present, there are few developing countries where forest certification is likely to achieve widespread success.

Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits.

Recent proposals to compensate developing countries for reducing emissions from deforestation (RED) under forthcoming climate change mitigation regimes are receiving increasing attention. Here we demonstrate that if RED credits were traded on international carbon markets, even moderate decreases in deforestation rates could generate billions of Euros annually for tropical forest conservation. We also discuss the main challenges for a RED mechanism that delivers real climatic benefits. These include providing sufficient incentives while only rewarding deforestation reductions beyond business-as-usual scenarios, addressing risks arising from forest degradation and international leakage, and ensuring permanence of emission reductions. Governance may become a formidable challenge for RED because some countries with the highest RED potentials score poorly on governance indices. In addition to climate mitigation, RED funds could help achieve substantial co-benefits for biodiversity conservation and human development. However, this will probably require targeted additional support because the highest biodiversity threats and human development needs may exist in countries that have limited income potentials from RED. In conclusion, how successfully a market-based RED mechanism can contribute to climate change mitigation, conservation and development will strongly depend on accompanying measures and carefully designed incentive structures involving governments, business, as well as the conservation and development communities.