Transcript Slide 1

Developing biodiversity offsets
for promoting ‘no net loss’
impacts and positive gains for
biodiversity: Case studies from
around the world
Dr. V.B. Mathur
Dean, Faculty of Wildlife Sciences
Wildlife Institute of India
[email protected]
IAIA ’08 Pre-meeting training course – Perth, Australia
Biodiversity offsets: Case studies
 Hydropower development: India
 Road transportation: Australia
 Wetland conservation: USA
Biodiversity Offsets: Technical Issues
 Site: Onsite v/s Offsite
 Scale: Small v/s Larger than
area of impact
 Time: Beginning v/s End of the
project
 Equity: For whom and By whom
Case I :
Hydropower Development
on River Narmada, India
Location of the Study Area
Narmadasagar Dam Project Setting
Dam height
:
91.4 m
Dam length
:
576 m
Irrigation capacity : 123,758 ha
Power generation :
1,000 mw
contd…
Narmadasagar Dam Project Setting…
Forest area submerged
:
91,348 ha
Cultivable area submerged :
44,363 ha
Villages affected
:
254
Villages affected
:
(1981 census)
Source: Paranjapaye, 1989
contd…
The Study Area
Impacts of Narmadasagar Project

Primary

Secondary
Vegetation Associations likely to be Impacted
Zone
Associations
Nature
Submergence
Terminalia ArjunaSyzygium-Vitex
Primary
Impact
Harwickia-Gymnosporia
Secondary
Impact
Helicteres-AegleDiospyros-Choloroxylon
Secondary
Impacts of Aquatic Vertebrates
Local extinction of river otter
Impacts on Large Mammalian Fauna
Ungulates - Carnivores
 Ungulates:
Direct reduction in habitat
Chital: Loss of 99 habitat units
Sambar: Loss of 80 habitat units
Threats to dispersal from south bank
 Carnivores:
Territorial conflicts
Local extinction
Impacts on Avifauna
 Conversion of lotic riverine ecosystem
to lentic reservoir ecosystem would
impact many riverine birds
viz. cormorants, darters, egrets,
herons, storks, ibis and spoonbills
 Changes in the composition of aquatic
vegetation would affect the feeding
ecology of birds viz. pintails, gadwalls,
spotbill duck and shovellers
Impacts on Avifauna
 Inundation of small rivers and
streams will affect herons,
eqrets, bitterns, water hens and
kingfishers
 Loss of shallow feeding areas
on the banks would affect
lapwings, plovers, sandpipers
and shanks
Impacts on Avifauna
 Loss of riverine trees and shrubs
will lead to the loss to the loss of
perching and nesting sites for
flycatchers and owls
 Loss of bushes and dense
herbaceous vegetation, important
for feeding and nesting, may affect
warbles, babblers, munias and
weaver birds
Impacts on Avifauna
 Forest clearing would adversely affect
the ground dwelling birds
viz. partridges, quails, peafowls and
spurfowls
 Territorial conflicts in buzzards, hawks,
eagles and owls may occur
 Loss of old mature trees would affect
bark gleaning species viz., woodpeckers,
nuthatches, barbets, tits and hornbills
Impacts on Aquatic Reptiles
Local extinction of softshell turtle
`Chitra indica’
Impacts on the People of the Area
 Loss of occupation, income
and livelihood which is
presently predominantly
agriculture based
 Further economic losses due to
reduction in income from non-wood
forest produce (NWFP)
 Loss of grazing lands and reduction in
income from livestock
contd…
Impacts on the People of the Area…
 Severe impacts on the
fishing community
(DHIMARS)
 Further vitiation of man
to forest to land ratio
 Disruption in the symbiotic
relationship between man and
nature
 Social cost involved in
uprooting?
Mitigation Options
 Development of Speciesspecific Conservation Plans
 Rehabilitation of Local Human
Communities
Going Beyond Mitigation Options….
Developing Biodiversity Offsets….
 Establishing a network of Protected
Areas:
 Narmada National Park: 49770 ha
 Omkareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary: 12667 ha
 Surmanya Wildlife Sanctuary: 16520 ha
O
W mk
LS a r
e
Omkareshwar
Island
Narmada NP
S
W u rm
LS a
ny
sh
wa
r
a
rm
Na
r
ve
i
aR
ad
K itt i
D
am
Si
te
Proposed PAs as
Biodiversity Offsets
N
Na rm ada Na tio na l P ark
(496 .70 sq.km)
W
E
Om ka reshwar Wildlife Sanct ua ry (126 .67 sq.km)
Sur many a Wildlif e Sanctuary
No n Fo rest
For e st inside Submergence
S
(165 .20 sq.km)
5
0
5 km
Salient Biological Values of New PAs
 All vegetation communities
being lost in submergence
are represented
 All large mammalian
species present in the
project area have been recorded
 Incorporates the only
residual portion of free river
portion of Narmada between
Narmadasagar and
Omkareshwar projects
contd…
Salient Biological Values of New PAs…
 Contiguity of habitat,
low anthropogenic
pressures and
presence of
riparian stretches
 Includes artificially created
islands for future
ecological studies
Case II:
Karua Bypass Project,
Australia
 The name ‘Karua’ is an Australian aboriginal
word meaning ‘Big water hole’/ ‘Fast flowing
water’.
 The New South Wales State and Federal Govt.
proposed to construct a 9.8 km section of dual
carriageway to provide safe, better and
accident-free means of urban transportation.
 The preferred route for the bypass was
selected to avoid/ minimize environmental
impacts and to achieve a balance between
social, ecological and engineering costs and
also provide benefits to local communities.
 Nevertheless, the environmental and species site
assessments identified several potential environmental
impacts. These included the removal of 47 hectares of
vegetation, 16 of which were from the Karuah Nature
Reserve.
 The road project also affected mangroves and saltmarsh
in Karuah river.
Source : www.banksiafdn.com/index
Development of ‘Biodiversity Offset’ option
 The Road Transport Authority acknowledged that it could not avoid all the
impacts on habitat and a compensatory habitat package was proposed..
 An offset that would deliver an outcome of overall ecological gain was
conceived.
 An 89 ha block of privately owned land was identified near the proposed
road alignment which contained similar vegetation and many threatened
species affected by the road upgrade.
 The NPWS agreed to incorporate the land into the adjacent Karuah Nature
Reserve.
Source : www.banksiafdn.com/index
Development of ‘Biodiversity Offset’ option
 The RTA purchased the land and transferred it to NPWS.
 The process required parliamentary approval under the National Parks and
Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Act 2001.
 The RTA also agreed to contribute $15,000 towards initial management cost
such as weed control and active rehabilitation.
 The RTA negotiated with NSW Fisheries and the NSW Department of Planning
for a compensatory habitat package which included protecting mangrove areas
and cleaning up old oyster leases, which were creating debris.
 Additional mitigation measures such as ‘fauna underpasses’ and ‘glider over
crossing’ were implemented by the RTA.
Source : www.banksiafdn.com/index
Case III:
The Inland Sea Shorebird
Reserve, USA
 Kennewet Utah Copper Mine is North America’s largest copper mine owned by
Rio Tinto Plc.
 Until the mid 90s, the mine focused its effort on producing copper,
molybdenum, gold and silver.
 In late 90s, the company needed additional storage capacity for ‘tailings’
wastes and after exploring several options, it purchased an area of degraded
saltpans and industrial land, adjacent to Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA.
 This property contained designated wetland habitat and as per US law the
company had to offset, or mitigate the loss of wetlands by creation of an
agreed number and value of habitat units.
more...
Source : www.mii.org/Kennecott/Ken.html
 The company went beyond its regulatory
obligations to create a 2500 acre (1100 ha)
shorebird and waterfowl refuge on a voluntary
basis instead of a 1055 acre (427 ha) of wetland
on a one-to-one ratio. This wetland was less than
a km from the project site.
Source :
http://www.swca.com/jsps/
 A Wetland Mitigation Plan was developed in consultation with
USFWS, EPA, TNC, National Audobon Society and the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
 The site suitability was based upon the criteria of sufficient
acreage, geographical and ecological similarity to the impacted
area, water availability to sustain aquatic communities and
adequacy of food support.
 Construction of wetland mitigation site
started in May 1996 and was completed in
Jan. 1997.
 More than 100 species including avocets,
egrets, curlews, cinnamon teal and snowy
plowers (a species that is becoming scarce)
now use the wetlands that inundate a
landscape that was formerly used for
grazing and salt evaporation ponds.
Source :
http://www.peregrineprints.com/Bird
%20Photographs/Shorebirds/
Source :
http://www.mobirds.org/Galleries/i
mages/MGrantCA/
 Results from a 5 year monitoring against
baseline data indicates that the mitigation
plan has increased wildlife values
subsequently.
more...
Source :
http://www.birderblog.com/bird/Speci
es/Plovers/SnowyPlover/Photos/

Bird surveys point to a 1,000 fold increase in bird use over the baseline
numbers for the same site.

In 2005, Great Salt Lake – Gilbert Bay was identified as an Important Bird
Area (IBA), in which the ISSR is a significant contribution to bird use.

In the long term, the company plans to hand the site over to National
Audobon Society to become part of its large bird reserve and contiguous
shoreline habitat.
Source http://biodversityeconomics.org/business/hand-01.30.htm
http://www.audobon.org
http://www.manowet.org
Source :
http://www.nature.org/wherewew
ork/northamerica/states/utah/
Photo Copyright Marvis Collett 2004
The Key Conclusions…
 Increase in the understanding of the
concept
 Ideas about the scale of offsets
 Need more practical experience with
offsets
In conclusion…
Technical Issues
Relating to
Biodiversity Offsets
RESPONSES
Case I
Case II
Case III
Site
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Scale
Nearly equal to area
impacted
Area twice the area
impacted
Area twice the area
impacted
Time
Delay in
implementation
No Delay
No Delay
Equity
Positive benefits to
biodiversity but not
to local communities
Positive benefits to
Positive benefits to
biodiversity and local biodiversity and local
communities
communities
Nature
Voluntary
Voluntary
Voluntary and
Statutory
Ownership
Government Agency
Government Agency
Private (Industry)
Thank You