Presentation

Biodiversity offsets in Chile:
From goals to reality
Claudia Silva
Conservation Strategies Coordinator
WCS Chile
January 2016
WCS saves wildlife and wild places
worldwide through science,
conservation action, education, and
inspiring people to value nature
www.wcs.org
Evolution in managing impacts on biodiversity
No
Some
compensation
compensation
• Out of kind
• Little relationship
between loss and
gain
Offset
• Mitigation
hierarchy
• Equivalence
between impacts
and gains
Offset Scheme
• Coordinator
agency
• E.g. aggregated
offsets
• Implementation
by certified thirdparty
Evolution of managing impacts on biodiversity: Chile
2nd period
1st period
2008:
Regulatory
requirement to
reforest trees
1997:
Regulatory
requirement to
compensate
2012-2013:
Design of a
compensation
system for
mining sector
in Tarapacá
2014:
Regulatory
requirement
to offset
2014:
Guidelines for
biodiversity
offsetting
within EIA
2014:
Mining sector
adopts No Net
Loss Goal
3rd period
2015:
Energy sector
adopts No net
Loss Goal
2015:
Proposal of
metric for
forests
2015:
Proposal of
metric for
marine
habitats
1st period: “Trial and error”
• Law 19.300 (1994):
 EIA required for certain industries/activities with
significant impacts on natural resources or protected
areas/environmental value of the territory.
 Approval of EIA requires appropriate mitigation,
reparation and compensation measures.
• EIA system regulation (1997):
1997:
Regulatory
requirement to
compensate
 Natural resources includes biological diversity and its
regeneration capacity
 Mitigation = avoidance or minimization
1st period: “Trial and error”
• EIA system regulation (1997):
Compensation measures have as purpose to produce a positive and
equivalent effect alternative to a identified negative effect.
No Net Loss?
1997:
Regulatory
requirement to
compensate
But…
 No hierarchical relationship established between measures.
 Compensation needs to take place on impact site.
1st period: “Trial and error”
Diagnosis after 15 years:
Loose use of
mitigation and
compensation
concepts
• Loopholes allow to skip EIA
• Little or no avoidance
• Focus of actions on rescue and relocation and reforestation
• Compensation unrelated to impacts (qualitatively or quantitavely)
• Most frequent compensation measure: monitoring
1997:
Regulatory
requirement to
compensate
• Little enforcement or follow-up
Bovarnick et al. 2010, Guijón &Püschel 2012, Fundación Chile 2013
1st period: “Trial and error”
Results:
Bd compensations turned into social subsidies
Expensive and ineffective measures
Companies bound to unfeasible measures “carved in stone”
Companies being fined for breach
1997:
Regulatory
requirement to
compensate
Failure in complying with regulation, means increased risk for
business activity and failure to conserve national biodiversity
2nd period: Big goals
2008:
Regulatory
requirement to
reforest trees
2012-2013:
Design of a
compensation
system for
mining sector
in Tarapacá
2014:
Regulatory
requirement
to offset
2014:
Guidelines for
biodiversity
offsetting
within EIA
2014:
Mining sector
adopts No Net
Loss Goal
2015:
Energy sector
adopts No net
Loss Goal
2nd period: Big goals
Native Forest Law (2008):
 Requirement to reforest trees
Design of method for offsetting biodiversity in the mining sector FChile (2012-2013):
 Lack of sistematized biodiversity data
 Lack of ecosystem approach in EIA
 Training needed by EIA consultants, reviewers and civil society
 First Guide for biodiversity offsetting
2nd period: Big goals
New regulation for EIA system (2014):
 Introduces hierarchy: compensation applies only to impacts that can’t be
mitigated or restored.
 Compensation measures may take place outside site of impact
Guidelines for biodiversity compensation within EIA (2014):
 Defines “appropriate” compensation as offset
-Mitigation hierarchy
-No net loss as goal
-Equivalence in type and magnitude of losses and gains
2nd period: Big goals
Presidential Comission on the future of Mining (2014):
 Adopts No Net Loss as goal for 2035
Road Map for energy sector for 2050 (2015):
 Adopts No Net Loss of as a goal for 2035
Some
compensation
2nd period: Big goals
Conservation of biodiversity
Companies and consultants
State agencies
Offsets
3rd period: getting real
GOAL
Biodiversity offsetting scheme that is:
- Integrated and coordinated
- Effective for conservation and compliance
- Cost-efficient
3rd period: getting real
• Improve biodiversity data
• Refine guidelines (metrics, pilots)
• Training and outreach across sectors
• Develop tools and capacity for
coordinated efforts
3rd period: getting real
Some steps forward:
MMA/UNDP
• Proposal of metric for mediterranean forests (Magni et al. 2015)
• Proposal of metric for marine habitats (Gelcich et al. 2015)
MMA
• Working on classification of terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems
MMA/WCS
• Pilot application of offsets
Oportunities & Challenges
GOVERNMENT is
introducing offset
policies and working in
tools for implemetantion
COMPANIES are
implementing internal No
Net Loss policies and
figuring out how to
comply with regulation
PRIVATE CONSERVATION
Initiatives are in desperate
need for funding for active
conservation
CIVIL SOCIETY is demanding
best practice in biodiversity
management and will want
to have a saying
Oportunities & Challenges
COMPANIES are
implementing internal No
Net Loss policies and
figuring out how to
comply with regulation
GOVERNMENT is
introducing offset
policies and working in
implemetantion tools
Harmonization
PRIVATE CONSERVATION
Initiatives are in desperate
need for funding for active
conservation
CIVIL SOCIETY is demanding
best practice in biodiversity
management
References & bibliography
Bovarnick A, Knight C & Stephenson J (2010) Habitat Banking in Chile: A Feasibility Assessment Working Paper. United
Nations Development Programme, 2010.
Comisión Minería y Desarrollo de Chile (2014). Minería: una plataforma de futuro para Chile. Informe a la Presidenta de la
República, Michelle Bachelet. Consejo Nacional de Innovación y Competitividad. 78pp. Disponible en www.valorminero.cl
Comité Consultivo de Energía (2015). Hoja de ruta 2050 Hacia una energía sustentable e inclusiva para Chile. Ministerio de
Energía. 204 pp. Disponible en www.energia2050.cl
EIA System regulation and guidelines: www.sea.gob.cl
Fundación Chile (2013) Evolución histórica de las medidas de Compensación en biodiversidad del Cluster minero en Chile.
Informe proyecto FIC-GORE “Perfeccionamiento del mercado y desarrollo de la oferta de servicios especializados en
compensaciones de biodiversidad de la región
de Tarapacá para el cluster minero. Fundación Chile. 39 pp.
Gelcich S, Donlan J, Mansur L, Vargas L & Castilla JC (2015). Propuesta de protocolo de creditización para la creación de
esquemas de compensación en biodiversidad en la zona costera de Chile central” Informe Final para Programa de Naciones
Unidas para el Desarrollo y Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 41 pp.+anexos.
Magni C, Scherson R, Romero F & Martínez E (2015) Propuesta de protocolo para la definición de créditos por ganancias en
biodiversidad en ecosistemas mediterráneos de Chile central. Informe Final para Programa de Naciones Unidas para el
Desarrollo y Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 123 pp.
Püschel L, & Guijón R (2012) Compensación en biodiversidad en el Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. In S.
Montenegro et al., eds. Actas de las VI Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental. Abeledo Perrot Chile / Universidad de Chile, p. 18.
Gracias