M de Witt
23869992
Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree
Magister
in Environmental Management at the
Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University
Supervisor:
Ms CS Steenkamp
Co-supervisor:
Dr J Pope
ABSTRACT
Biodiversity offsets are widely considered to offer a workable solution to the environment versus development dilemma by allowing development with residual biodiversity loss to continue, in turn for protection of equal biodiversity elsewhere. Offsets have been used in South Africa for at least a decade, but without formal regulatory guidance. The practical implications of this have not yet been explored. This research aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities experienced in the conceptualisation and planning phases of offsets that could impact on the quality and implementability thereof. It was also investigated what impact the timing of when an offset is introduced in the EIA process, has on the quality of offsets. A methodology to measure quality of offsets was developed. Five case studies were analysed by using document analysis and interviews. The research revealed that the offset quality is considered acceptable, but that there are various challenges experienced in the conceptualisation and planning phases. A lack of transparency, trust and understanding between parties of the purpose of offsets and the availability of land for offset sites were some of the challenges mentioned. A lack of understanding about offsets in government, but also among developers, is the cause of many of these challenges. The research reflected a desperate need for national policy guidance. Interestingly, interviewees had diverse opinions on when an offset should be introduced in the EIA process. The timing of the introduction of the offset was found to have an impact on the application of the mitigation hierarchy, the ability to have an agreement in place before the activity starts, the consideration of long-term effects and the enforceability of the offset – it could have detrimental consequences when an offset is only introduced at the very end of project planning. The national policy for offsets that is currently under development should make it clear when in the EIA an offset should be introduced. It should have a focus on capacity development for all parties involved in offsets to improve trust and transparency. An opportunity exists to use the significant amount of biodiversity information available in South Africa to strategically identify offset sites.
LIST OF TABLES ... VI
LIST OF FIGURES ... VII
PREFACE ... III
CHAPTER 1 ... 4
INTRODUCTION ... 4
1.1 The challenge: development versus environmental protection ... 4
1.2 Why care about biodiversity? ... 4
1.3 Using EIA to protect biodiversity ... 5
1.4 Biodiversity offsets: a solution to the development versus environment dilemma? ... 7
1.5 Offsets in EIA ... 9
1.6 Introduction to offsets in South Africa ... 9
1.7 Problem statement ... 10 1.8 Research questions ... 11 1.9 Report structure ... 12 CHAPTER 2 ... 13 METHODOLOGY ... 13 2.1 Literature review ... 15 2.2 Case studies ... 15
2.2.2 Document analysis ... 17
2.2.3 Interviews ... 18
2.3 Limitations of methodology ... 19
CHAPTER 3 ... 21
LITERATURE REVIEW ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS ... 21
3.1 Purpose and definitions of offsets ... 21
3.2 An assessment of key principles of biodiversity offsets ... 23
3.2.1 Principles not included for the analysis ... 30
3.2.2 The mitigation hierarchy: offsets as part of the EIA process... 31
3.2.3 The offset should be secured before the activity commences ... 32
3.2.4 The offset design process should be transparent and stakeholders must be engaged ... 33
3.2.5 No net loss, net gains and enhancement ... 33
3.2.6 The offset considers long-term effects ... 34
3.2.7 The offset is enforceable ... 34
3.2.8 Cumulative, direct and indirect impacts were considered ... 35
3.3 Types of offsets ... 35
3.4 Offsets in the EIA process: when should it be considered? ... 37
CHAPTER 4 ... 39
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW AND EIA ... 39
4.1 Environmental law framework in South Africa ... 39
4.2 History of EIA ... 40
4.5 Offsets in South African environmental law ... 45
4.6 Guidelines for the use of offsets in South Africa ... 47
CHAPTER 5 ... 48
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 48
5.1 Case study analysis ... 48
5.1.1 Case study A: Proposed construction of a toll highway in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces ... 48
5.1.2 Case study B: Proposed construction of a cement plant, quarries and associated infrastructure in Saldanha Bay, Western Cape ... 54
5.1.3 Case study C: Proposed construction of a zinc mine and associated infrastructure in the Northern Cape Province ... 58
5.1.4 Case study D: Proposed construction of the Mooi-Mgeni Transfer Scheme Phase 2: Spring Grove Dam and appurtenant works ... 64
5.1.5 Case study E: Proposed construction of a wind energy facility near Springbok in the Northern Cape ... 69
5.2 To what extent do South African biodiversity offsets adhere to good quality offset principles? ... 74
5.3 What challenges and opportunities do practitioners experience in the conceptualisation and planning stages of offsets that influence their ability to create offsets that adhere to the good-quality principles? ... 75
5.3.1 Elements of offsets that were perceived positively ... 75
5.3.2 Challenges experienced in the conceptualisation and planning of offsets ... 77
5.4 Impact of timing of offset in case studies (Research Question 3) ... 93
5.4.2 Conclusion ... 101
CHAPTER 6 ... 104
CONCLUSION ... 104
6.1 Methodology for measuring quality of offsets ... 104
6.2 Research Question 1 ... 105
6.3 Research Question 2 ... 105
6.4 Research Question 3 ... 106
6.5 Overall conclusions and recommendations ... 107
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 109
ANNEXURE 1 ... 122
Table 3-1: Some definitions of biodiversity offsets in the international literature ... 22 Table 3-2: An analysis to determine the most common principles offsets are
required or recommended to adhere to, to ensure success ... 24 Table 3-3: A summary of some of the different types of offsets that have been
documented ... 36 Table 4-1: Summary of the provision for the use of offsets in South African law. The
table is informed mainly by Elliot (2015) and DEADP (2011). ... 46 Table 5-1: Case study A: Proposed construction of a toll highway (Offset
introduced by consultant in final EIR, and then by competent authority as condition of authorisation) ... 52 Table 5-2: Case study B: Proposed construction of a cement factory in Saldanha
Bay (Offset introduced after rejection of second EIA) ... 56 Table 5-3: Case study C: Proposed construction of a zinc mine and associated
infrastructure in the Northern Cape (offset introduced pre-EIA application phase) ... 62 Table 5-4: Case study D: Proposed construction of the Spring Grove Dam and
appurtenant works (offset introduced at end of EIA process and in RoD conditions) ... 67 Table 5-5: Case study E: Proposed construction of a wind energy facility near
Springbok in the Northern Cape (offset introduced at end of EIA process and in RoD conditions) ... 72 Table 5-6: Summary of challenges during the conceptualisation of offsets, raised by
interviewees ... 77 Table 5-7: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: A map of South Africa depicting the case studies that were chosen and analysed, illustrated against the backdrop of biodiversity hotspots in
South Africa. ... 17 Figure 3-1: Illustration of the mitigation hierarchy (taken from DEADP, 2011:9) ... 32 Figure 5-1: The scores for each case study were combined to get an overall score
for adherence to the good-quality principles. No net loss was omitted from the analysis due to the few answers received (see section 5.3.1
below)……… ... 74 Figure 5-2: Of the 17 interviewees asked this question it is clear that there is no one
view on when offsets should be introduced, not even amongst
government representatives. The 0.5 values are from one person who
gave two opinions based on different circumstances (Interviewee 1). ... 94 Figure 5-3: This illustration shows that the principles around the mitigation hierarchy,
offset agreement, enforceability and cumulative impacts are most
BBOP Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DEADP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
DENC Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation DME Department of Minerals and Energy
DMR Department of Mineral Resources DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EA Environmental Authorisation
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMPr Environmental Management Programme
GDACE Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and the Environment GDP Gross Domestic Product
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IFC International Finance Corporation
IPP Independent Power Producers Procurement Process KfW German Development Bank
MPRDA Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan
NEM:PA National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act RoD Record of Decision
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification USA United States of America
interviewed for this research; sharing their knowledge and opinions with me. Without them this research would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my supervisors, Ms Carli Steenkamp and Dr Jenny Pope for their guidance, support and motivation to the very end. Their inputs to improve the contents of this dissertation have been invaluable.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The challenge: development versus environmental protection
What is more important: building a new dam to provide security to people in a water-scarce area, or protecting the critically endangered habitat and wetlands that lie at the precise spot that will be the perfect location for the dam? Building a new mine with a 50-year lifespan that will save the economic future of the residents of the small, surrounding towns, or saving the mountain ‒ under which the mineral deposits lie ‒ that is covered with exceptionally rich, internationally important biodiversity? Getting a new power station up and running to relieve pressure on the national grid, or protecting the wetlands on which the ash dump has to be built?
Add even further complexity to these scenarios: imagine if these developments were planned in a developing country where mining is a key contributor to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), the country has an unemployment rate of 25%, is experiencing a severe shortage of electricity, as well as a water crisis… Under these circumstances, “people’s needs come first” would be the response from many, because nature does not have a tangible or monetary value coupled to it and as such its value is not widely understood (Stratford, 2013:10).
These scenarios are not fictional, but are actual developmental challenges that South Africa is currently facing. Development in South Africa is critical to ensure social well-being. Finding ways to ensure that this development proceeds more sustainably from an environmental perspective is crucial.
1.2 Why care about biodiversity?
Biodiversity, defined as the variability of living organisms and the diversity among species, between species and between ecosystems (CBD, 1992:3), forms the backbone of healthy
which include clean air, food, drinking water, energy resources, biological control, climate regulation, recreation, tourism, and protection from natural disasters, amongst many others (Biggs et al., 2006:277; Costanza et al., 1997:254; Driver et al., 2011:4), have been valued to be worth trillions of dollars annually (Costanza et al., 1997:253) and are considered to be vital to human well-being, health, and economic livelihoods (Biggs et al., 2006:277; Brownlie et al., 2013:24). Ensuring the resilience of ecosystems in terms of habitat, species composition and genetic diversity is therefore important to ensure proper delivery of these ecosystem services (Biggs et al., 2006:277).
The concept of ecosystem services is considered to have been developed as early as the 1970s an effort to put a value on biodiversity so that it can be properly considered when decisions have to be made regarding new developments (Stratford, 2013:10). Despite these efforts, the valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is still being debated today (Stratford, 2013:11) and judging from the state of biodiversity world-wide, it appears as if decision-makers do not understand or support the values coupled to natural systems (Brownlie
et al., 2013:24).
1.3 Using EIA to protect biodiversity
Over the past few decades, biodiversity loss has been happening at an “unprecedented”, “alarming” rate (Scholes & Biggs, 2005:434, WWF, 2014:10). Activities such as agriculture, infrastructure, housing and industrial development, amongst others, require land clearance, which causes habitat destruction, fragmentation, disturbance of ecosystems and species loss (Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007:26; Maron et al., 2010:348; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014:24; WWF, 2014:34).
Acknowledging this biodiversity loss brought on by development, the United Nations (UN) established the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 to get countries world-wide to commit to protecting their nations’ biodiversity (CBD, 1992:1). The CBD, through Article 14a, identified Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as one of the tools that should be used to prevent further biodiversity loss (CBD, 1992:9). EIA can be defined as:
“… the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action. It is used to ensure that policies, plans, programmes and projects are economically viable, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable.” (BBOP,
2009:6)
EIA as a project-level tool has been widely recognised as being essential for biodiversity protection as areas with the highest biodiversity values often lie outside of formally protected areas and are at risk for being lost through development (Byron & Treweek, 2005:4; Lewis et
al., 2011:193; Slootweg & Kolhoff, 2003:269; Treweek, 1996:191). As the world’s population
grows and pressures on natural resources and ecosystem services increase, EIA has become an important tool to reduce biodiversity loss at project level (Retief et al., 2011:155).
Despite the wide uptake of EIA world-wide (Retief et al., 2011:155) and approximately 200 countries being signatories to the CBD (CBD, 2015), the rate of biodiversity loss through habitat destruction, in the name of development, is still increasing (Hilderbrand et al., 2005:1; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014:24; WWF, 2014:65).
EIA practitioners are tasked with identifying impacts that the project will have and advising the project proponent on better design to minimise these impacts. The practitioner can do everything possible to minimise the impact of developments on biodiversity at a site level, but when authorities are faced with a “yes” or “no” decision on a strategically important project that will still have significant biodiversity losses after the EIA practitioner’s best efforts to minimise the loss, the economic and/or social benefits still seem to outweigh the importance of the
process (Morrison-Saunders & Pope, 2013:54). From an environmental perspective some areas shouldn’t be sacrificed, but development goes ahead because of social or economic pressures (Brownlie et al., 2013:24).
1.4 Biodiversity offsets: a solution to the development versus environment dilemma?
Out of this decision-making dilemma a concept called “biodiversity offsets” was born. Offsets are seen as an opportunity to reduce the conflict between conservation and development (Burgin, 2008:809; Maron et al., 2012:141; Overton et al., 2013:100): authorities will approve a development that will cause biodiversity loss, in turn for the protection, rehabilitation or creation of similar habitat or ecosystems elsewhere to “offset” the loss (Gordon et al., 2011:1481; McKenney & Kiesecker, 2010:166). Offsets are not exclusive to EIA, but EIA provides a useful mechanism through which the need for offsets can be identified (BBOP, 2009:8).
There are two theories in the literature on how offsets evolved. One is that it has its origin in restoration ecology, evolving from this concept in the 1960s into a tool for EIA (Middle & Middle, 2010:314). The more widely reported theory is that it was born in the 1980s when the US first introduced a concept of “no net loss” to address wetland losses, requiring compensation for losses to wetlands incurred through development (Burgin, 2008:807; Hillman & Instone, 2011:412; Hough & Robertson, 2009:23). Nevertheless, offsets have over the past few decades grown in popularity (Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007:27; Maron et al., 2012:142). Originating and being shaped in developed countries such as the USA, Canada, European Union countries. Australia, New Zealand and the UK (Middle & Middle, 2010:313), it later spread to developing countries, including Uganda, China, Russia, Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina and more (Gordon et al., 2011:1481; Madsen et al., 2010:viii; McKenney, 2005:i).
Offsets particularly gained traction when the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) was established in 2004 and published the now widely read and cited paper
Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and the Business Case (Ten Kate et al., 2004). BBOP
is a collaboration of companies, government institutions and other organisations that work to create best practice on offsets worldwide. It by now has over 80 members in its advisory group (BBOP, 2015). This paper collected the views from high-level officials in various multinational companies and for the first time outlined the benefits that biodiversity offsets could hold for businesses.
A number of key principles define biodiversity offsets. Definitions and key principles of offsets will be explored in detail in Chapter 3. Most notably, offsets are meant to be a “last resort” in EIA: it should only be considered after all efforts have been made to reduce, minimise and remedy potential impacts of the development. The offset should only be used to compensate for “residual loss” of biodiversity (Ten Kate et al., 2004:9).
This wide uptake of offsets as part of EIA can be attributed to the belief from many corners that it serves as a tool that helps reduce the number of difficult trade-off decisions between development and environment that competent authorities face during EIAs (e.g. Bedward et al., 2009:2732; Brown et al., 2013:34; Cowell, 1997:293; Kiesecker et al., 2009:77). By allowing developments with social and economic gains to go ahead, and getting environmental gains out through offsets on top of it, can be interpreted as offsets contributing to sustainable development (Gibson, 2013:3).
Apart from the potential benefits that offsets hold for government, society and the environment (e.g. Ten Kate et al., 2004:6), they have many theoretical and practical challenges that threaten their success (Bull et al., 2013:370). The BBOP, academics and the countries that have incorporated offsets into its legal regime (e.g. USA, Australia, Brazil), have developed principles that offsets should adhere to in order to ensure its success (e.g. McKenny & Kiesecker, 2005;
better chance of successful implementation.
1.5 Offsets in EIA
Offsets can be recommended by anyone involved in the EIA, although it is most likely to be recommended, or ‘introduced’, by the consultant responsible for managing the EIA process whose task it is to ensure impacts are minimised (BBOP, 2009:13). It can also be requested by the authority responsible for granting authorisation for the project proposal (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2010:10). Once it has been identified that an offset could be needed, an investigation into the offset is done – still as part of the body of knowledge gathered during EIA. The offset report, with detailed recommendations of what the offset should be and how it should be implemented, will be submitted with the EIA documentation for approval (BBOP, 2009:13-14; DEADP, 2011:x).
1.6 Introduction to offsets in South Africa
South Africa is one of the countries in the world with the richest biodiversity (Biggs et al., 2006:277). According to Biggs et al. (2006:277), this country contains approximately 10% of the world’s plant species, 7% of the world’s mammals, birds and reptiles, as well as 3 of the world’s 34 declared biodiversity hotspots. Grassland, fynbos and forests are the biomes that have been most affected by development over the years (Biggs et al., 2006:279).
South African environmental law captures the need to protect this biodiversity and various efforts have been made at different levels of government to work towards this goal. For example, cities have integrated biodiversity into their spatial planning to influence where development can or cannot take place (Elliot, 2015:33), and extensive information on South Africa’s biodiversity and its protection status has been produced (Driver et al., 2011; SANBI,
2015). But, according to the latest National Biodiversity Assessment (SANBI, 2013), most of the country’s ecosystems are not adequately protected and many are in a critically endangered state (Driver et al., 2011:3-5; SANBI, 2013:5). Human activities and development (causing habitat destruction) are the main threats.
Although it is uncertain when the first offset was included in an EIA in South Africa, some EIA approval conditions from the early 2000s contained the concept of asking for some form of compensation for the biodiversity that will be lost in the development. It is estimated that approximately 50 biodiversity offsets have been introduced as part of EIA processes in South Africa (Manuel, 2015: personal communication). However, there is no national law or policy governing the use of offsets as yet, only provincial guidelines in three provinces, and there is no systematic record of all the offsets that have been done thus far (Manuel, 2015: personal communication). The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) is currently attempting to compile such a register in order to document the details of existing offsets. A national policy to govern the use of offsets is currently under development.
Offsets are generally recommended before submission of an EIA for approval – the offset should be based on sound specialist opinion gathered during the EIA process (BBOP, 2009:8). A quick look by this researcher at available South African offset reports reveals that they are introduced at various stages of the EIA process.
1.7 Problem statement
The practical challenges and opportunities of offsets in South Africa are not well documented in the literature. A quick look at some offsets in South Africa reveals that few offsets have reached implementation stage, which suggests that there may be challenges experienced in the conceptualisation and planning of offsets that may impact on the quality of the offsets and hinder it from being implemented. It is also noted that offsets are being introduced at various stages of the EIA process, which could also impact on the quality of the offset. Since a national
the implications it has on the quality thereof could make a valuable contribution to the baseline information for the policy.
1.8 Research questions
Three research questions will be asked in an attempt to find answers to the problems stated in the Problem Statement.
The first question will explore the conceptualisation and planning phase of offsets (up until implementation), gauging the level of adherence to the principles that are believed to deliver successful offsets.
Research Question 1:
To what extent do South African biodiversity offsets adhere to good quality1
offset principles?
The second question will explore the challenges and opportunities experienced in the conceptualisation and planning of offsets that may hinder practitioners from creating offsets that adhere to these good-quality principles.
Research Question 2:
What challenges and opportunities do practitioners experience in the
conceptualisation and planning stages of offsets that influence their ability to
create offsets that adhere to the good-quality principles?
The third question will seek to explore what impact, if any, the timing of the introduction of the offset has on the quality of offsets produced:
Research Question 3:
How does the timing of when an offset was introduced in the EIA process,
impact on the ability of role players to create an offset that adheres to
good-quality principles?
1.9 Report structure
The report will start with outlining the methodology that will be used to answer the above-mentioned research questions. This is followed by a review of available international literature on offsets in Chapter 3. The outcome of this literature review is the questionnaire that was used to find answers for the research questions. Chapter 4 is an extension of the literature review to give the reader context to South Africa’s environmental law and how its environmental impact assessment process works, as all further discussions on offsets are embedded in these details.
Chapter 5 presents the results for each research question and discussions on the challenges and opportunities identified. Chapter 6 concludes the research by making recommendations based on the findings.
This chapter will describe the methodology and methods used in the research to answer the three research questions:
Research Question 1:
To what extent do South African biodiversity offsets adhere to good quality
offset principles?
Research Question 2:
What challenges and opportunities do practitioners experience in the
conceptualisation and planning stages of offsets that influence their ability to
create offsets that adhere to the good-quality principles?
Research Question 3
How does the timing of when an offset was introduced in the EIA process,
impact on the ability of role players to create an offset that adheres to
good-quality principles?
The purpose of the study is to better understand the process of offsets as experienced by practitioners; to identify challenges of offsets and the causes thereof, as well as opportunities based on the better understanding of the offset process. These research questions therefore lend themselves to qualitative research methods (Hennink et al., 2011: 9, 10, 16; Merriam, 2009:12, 14) which could deliver outcomes that will improve our understanding and knowledge of offsets. An inductive and descriptive approach was followed to gather and analyse data and to formulate answers to the research questions (Hennink et al., 2011: 42; Silverman, 2004:37)
This chapter starts with an outline of the research methods that were used to answer the questions (Table 2-1). Thereafter the methodology is explored to detail why each of these research methods were chosen.
Table 2-1: Outline of the research methods used to answer the research questions
Method Purpose Research question
Chapters 3 and 4 Literature review
To establish what is considered to be a “good quality” or “best-practice” offset internationally, as well as locally according to the provincial guidelines
Establishing what can be
considered “good quality” or “best practice” offsets are necessary to formulate interview questions to answer all three research
questions.
Chapter 5 Case study analysis
To gain an understanding of the complexities of offsets in practice in terms of challenges, opportunities and offsets in the EIA process. Two methods will be used to analyse case studies:
Analysis of final EIA documents, authorisations and/or offset reports.
Interviews with individuals that were involved in the cases: To obtain personal perspectives and experiences in dealing with offsets in South Africa.
An in-depth analysis of case studies, using document analysis and interviews, will be used to answer all three research questions.
Supplementary interviews (those conducted for case studies which were not featured in the end) were used for Research Questions 2 and 3.
conceptualise the study, build a foundation for discussion and to provide the basis for research design (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009:121; Webster & Watson, 2002:xiii). In this research effort the literature review was used to:
Explore the purpose, definitions and key concepts of offsets and to set the basis for discussions in this dissertation.
A measure for quality was needed to find answers to all three research questions. A literature review was used to define this measure. As alluded to in the introduction to this dissertation, “quality” of offsets is considered the extent to which an offset adheres to certain principles that are considered to influence the success thereof. This literature review analysed the various principles that are considered necessary to ensure offset success.
The outcome of the literature review chapter was selected principles against which the quality of offsets could be measured.
2.2 Case studies
Case study research is a way in which to address the research questions of “why” and/or “how” (Anderson,1993, quoted in Noor, 2008:1602). By looking in-depth into a number of cases, one can obtain a better understanding of a specific situation or problem (Noor, 2008:1603). There are a number of ways in which case studies can be chosen, in order to get the most value out of the research (Gerring, 2007:91). Gerring (2007:91) describes the “typical” case study as one chosen according to specific values or elements in order to represent a broad range of cases with the similar set of values or elements. This was the aim in choosing case studies for this research.
Case studies can be used a variety of ways. In this dissertation, interviews of people that were involved in the cases, as well as a document analysis of the EIA reports, EAs (or RoDs in older cases) and/or offset reports were used to generate data from the case studies. The following paragraphs describe how the researcher chose case studies and interviewees and how the data were analysed.
2.2.1 Case study selection
Case studies for this research were chosen opportunistically, based on publically available information and the willingness of parties involved in the offsets to be interviewed. However, an effort was made to identify and choose cases where offsets were recommended at different stages of the EIA process, in order to allow some degree of extrapolation to other cases in the discussion part of this dissertation (Eisenhardt, 1989:537; Gerring, 2007:91).
For case study research, it is recommended to use between four and ten cases to obtain optimal data for analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989:545). A total of nine case studies were pursued for this research, knowing that enough information may not be obtained for all nine cases. In the end only five case studies have been included for discussion, as enough information on the other four could not be obtained.
The researcher was satisfied with this number of cases for the following reasons: The five cases represent a broad geographic spectrum
The circumstances in which they were developed differ enough to allow interesting discussions
Enough data were obtained to understand the context of the cases
Figure 2-1 shows where the chosen case studies are located in South Africa, against the background of the location of biodiversity hotspots. The case studies will be described in detail in Chapter 5.
Figure 2-1: A map of South Africa depicting the case studies that were chosen and analysed, illustrated against the backdrop of biodiversity hotspots in South Africa.
Map adapted from AdaptationCommunity,net:
https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/index.php/knowledge/monitoring-evaluation/examples-from-application/south-africa-participatory-me-for-sustainable-land-use/)
2.2.2 Document analysis
The researcher analysed the available reports for these five studies (final EIR, authorisation and/or offset report) to obtain the background information on the cases, reasons that an offset was recommended, and details of the offset in the environmental authorisation.
Case Study A:
Construction of a national road between East London and Durban*
*the line drawn is for illustrative purposes and is not the exact route of the road
Case Study B:
Construction of lime and clay quarries and a cement plant
Case Study E:
Construction of a wind energy facility
Case Study D:
Construction of the Spring Grove Dam
Succulent Karoo biodiversity hotspot
2.2.3 Interviews
The reports referred to above, namely the final EIR, authorisation and offset reports, do not contain the context of discussions that took place and the details of how, why and when an offset was recommended for the specific case. Interviews as a research method are a way of gaining a better, deeper understanding of topics (Gill et al., 2008:292). It was therefore decided to supplement the researcher’s document analysis on the case studies with interviews with people that were involved in different roles in the cases. An effort was made to interview at least three people, from different roles (see explanation on roles in Chapter 4), for each case. In the end this was only achieved for four cases (A – D). Two people were interviewed for each of the other five cases. The initial investigations into potential case studies already revealed that there are relatively few people involved in offsets in South Africa – some individuals have been involved in over 20 offsets to date. It could therefore not be avoided to include case studies that involved the same people, thus some people interviewed were involved in more than one of the case studies featured in this research.
The people interviewed for the case studies were asked to rate the adherence of the offset they worked on, against the principles in the questionnaire. A similar approach was successfully followed by Hayes and Morrison-Saunders (2007). A Likert Scale with five levels was used. Likert Scales are commonly used in research that seeks to evaluate “attitudes” or opinions (Jamieson, 2004:1212). A score of 0 meant the offset does not adhere to the principle at all, a score of 5 meant the offset adheres completely. The researcher also rated each of the case studies against all the principles, based on the analysis of documents (EIA reports, authorisations and offset reports) and the combined impression gained from interviews.
After this rating, interviewees were asked to answer two questions related to their ratings: Which positive and negative factors (other than timing) in this particular case had an
impact on their ability to create an offset that adheres to the principles? (to inform Research Question 2)
inform Research Question 3).
A total of 18 people were interviewed. Only 14 of these were involved in the five case studies that were selected and as such their interviews contributed toward the case study analysis. Information from all 18 interviews was used to answer the general questions pertaining to the offsets. Annexure 1 stipulates which role players were interviewed and when. The composition of the 18 interviewees is 3 government, 7 project proponents, 4 consultants/advisors, 4 policy input (1 only policy input, 3 shared by government and consultancy/advisory roles), 1 academic and 2 implementers.
The interviews were conducted in semi-structured (Gill et al., 2008:292), conversation style and as such these questions were in many cases not asked explicitly, because the answers were already given at some point in the conversation. Having a conversation instead of only asking pre-defined questions allowed for the gathering of additional information – as the conversation progressed, interviewees opened up about their work and opinions. These comments were all subsequently captured and grouped according to themes under each of the research questions.
2.3 Limitations of methodology
A reluctance to be interviewed was experienced at the start of this research. It was therefore decided to revert to anonymity, because the purpose of this research is to get practitioners’ personal and honest opinions, particularly related to the challenges related to offsets. It is normal to expect that interviewees will not want to be open and honest about the challenges experienced in their work, as the offset community in South Africa is still small and openly criticising each other is not conducive for keeping good professional relations. Obtaining honest reflections were considered more important here than mentioning interviewees by name. This
All efforts have been made to add to the trustworthiness of the data collected through case studies by gathering substantial detail on each case (Baxter & Jack, 2008:556) and choosing individuals with good knowledge on the cases for interviews (Yin, 2009:33). However, the document review conducted by the researcher was supplemented by the opinions of only a handful of practitioners, although the people interviewed mostly had significant experience with offsets. Responses from government are in the minority here. This is because of a lack of responsiveness from government employees to participate in the research, despite numerous efforts being made to interview them. It is possible that the outcomes of some of the findings could differ, should more government representatives have been forthcoming.
In the next chapter the principles of good-quality offsets will be identified. The researcher decided after the first couple of interviews to not include all the identified principles to measure the quality of offsets, but to focus on less in order to improve the effectiveness of the interviews (this is explained in further detail on page 30). Future research may consider including all principles when measuring the quality of offsets.
This next chapter explores the purpose, definitions and key concepts of offsets, as well as principles that are considered to contribute to their success. The outcome of the chapter was to select principles against which the quality of offsets could be measured.
3.1 Purpose and definitions of offsets
The term “offsets” is often used interchangeably with the terms “biodiversity compensation”, “ecological compensation”, “net conservation benefits”, “environmental compensation”, “compensatory habitats”, “net conservation benefits”, amongst others (Bull et al., 2013:370; Middle & Middle, 2010:313; Quintero & Mathur, 2011:1121). However, there are some key concepts that define offsets. These will be discussed in this section.
The most widely used and cited definition for offsets is that of Ten Kate et al. (2004:13), published in the paper Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and the Business Case (bold is author emphasis):
“Biodiversity offsets are conservation actions intended to compensate for the
residual, unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development projects,
so as to ensure no net loss of biodiversity. Before developers contemplate offsets, they should have first sought to avoid and minimise harm to biodiversity.”
Table 3-1 provides some further definitions and terminologies that are interchangeably used for offsets in the literature.
Table 3-1: Some definitions of biodiversity offsets in the international literature
Brown et al., 2013:35
“…ecological compensation is defined in the present research as: Positive conservation actions required by resource
consent, and intended to compensate for residual adverse effects of development and resource use.”
Kiesecker et al., 2009:82
“Biodiversity offsets, the last step in the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, restore, offset), are conservation actions that
seek to counterbalance residual impacts resulting from development with measurable conservation outcomes, with the aim of no net loss for biodiversity.”
Quétier et al., 2014:2
“Offsets are defined as the last step in a sequence of avoiding, reducing and offsetting or repairing impacts on the
environment that is known as the mitigation hierarchy.”
Maron et al., 2012:141
“… we define ‘biodiversity offsetting’ as compensating for losses of biodiversity components at an impact site by generating
(or attempting to generate) ecologically equivalent gains, or ‘credits’, elsewhere.”
Brownlie et al., 2013:26
“Offsets are activities which are carried out to mitigate, and in order to counterbalance, adverse environmental impacts; the
purpose is to achieve a ‘no net environmental loss’ or a ‘net environmental benefit’ outcome”.
Kiesecker et al., 2009:77
“Biodiversity offsets are one important tool for maintaining or enhancing environmental values in situations where
development is sought despite detrimental environmental impacts… Offsets are intended to be an option for addressing environmental impacts of development after efforts have been undertaken to minimize impacts on-site through application of the three other steps of the mitigation hierarchy… They seek to ensure that inevitable negative environmental impacts of development are balanced by environmental gains, with the overall aim of achieving a net neutral or positive outcome”
Middle & Middle, 2010:313
“Environmental offsets are indirect compensatory measures used as mitigation for the unavoidable environmental impacts of
principles in these policies or laws, or guidance documents that offsets should adhere to, to ensure its success.
Table 3–2 provides an analysis of 11 different laws, policies, guidelines and academic analyses of these, to summarise some of the most common principles in international and local documents. Because the South African provincial guideline documents for offsets were drafted with international best-practice in mind, and many of the projects for which offsets are required are tackled by international corporations, it was decided to extend this analysis to international best-practice instead of limiting it to South African guidelines. This list of principles is not exhaustive – there are more principles not contained in this summary – but preference was given to include the principles contained in the South African guidelines.
The 11 most mentioned principles that were established from these documents are: Principle 1: Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy
Principle 2: No net loss
Principle 3: Focused on long-term outcome
Principle 4: Transparency and stakeholder participation
Principle 5: Offset follows landscape and ecosystem approach Principle 6: Limits to what can be offset
Principle 7: Offset should be guaranteed before activity starts Principle 8: Additionality
Principle 9: Like for like
Principle 10: Offset is enforceable
Table 3-2: An analysis to determine the most common principles offsets are required or recommended to adhere to, to ensure success BBOP Offset design guidebook (BBOP, 2012:10) IFC Perfor-mance Standard 6 (IFC, 2012:1-4) EPA Western Australia (EPA, 2006:8-12) New South Wales (NSW, 2014:10-13) New Zealand Dept of Con-servation (Gardner & Von Hase, 2012:3-10) A review of selected legislative frameworks (McKenny, 2005:i-61) NZ assessment framework (Norton, 2009:702-206) Wetland offset guideline for SA (Macfarlane et al., 2014:14-16) KZN biodiversity offset guidelines (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2010:3-4) Western Cape Offset guideline (DEADP, 2011:14-15) SA Draft National Framework for offsets (SANBI, 2012:8-9) 1. A dhere nce t o m it igat ion h ie ra rc hy “A biodiversity offset is a commitment to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on biodiversity identified after appropriate avoidance, minimization and on-site rehabilitation measures have been taken according to the mitigation hierarchy.” “For the protection and conservation of biodiversity, the mitigation hierarchy includes biodiversity offsets, which may be considered only after appropriate avoidance, minimization, and restoration measures have been applied”. (p2) “Offsets should only be considered after all reasonable attempts to mitigate adverse impacts have been exhausted.” (p8) “…impacts must first be avoided and unavoidable impacts minimised through mitigation measures. Only then should offsets be considered for the remaining impacts” (p10) “…the potential success of an offset depends on the extent to which prior steps in the mitigation hierarchy are designed and implemented so that they limit residual impacts to those that are possible to offset” (p3)
“All policies make clear that offsets are intended as an option of “last resort,” to be considered in addressing any residual impacts after efforts to avoid and minimize have been undertaken” (p14) “Biodiversity offsets should only be used as part of a hierarchy of actions in which a development project must first seek to avoid impacts and then minimise the impacts that do occur” (p702) “Impacts should first be avoided and minimised using all cost-effective and reasonable prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation measures… offsets should only be considered after other steps have been exhausted.” (p14) “Impacts must first be avoided or minimised… Offsets are only used to address residual impacts.” (p3) “Impacts must first be avoided by using all cost-effective prevention and mitigation measures. Offsets are only used to address residual impacts.” (p14) “Biodiversity offsets should only be considered as a mitigation option once all feasible actions and alternatives to avoid or prevent, minimize and/ or repair or rehabilitate damage caused by development have been taken into account” (p8)
2010:3-4) 2. N o net l oss “A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented to achieve in situ, measurable conservation outcomes that can reasonably be expected to result in no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity.” “The project’s mitigation strategy will be described in a Biodiversity Action Plan and will be de-signed to achieve net gains of those biodiversity values for which the critical habitat was de-signated” (p4) “Positive environmental offset ratios should apply where risk of failure is apparent” (p11) “To achieve no net loss an explicit biodiversity loss-gain calculation is required…” (p4) “Policy goals… vary from no net loss to net gain to more general statements on the need to address adverse impacts” (p:ii) Not specifically mentioned in principles, but the principles are based on the goal to achieve no net loss or a net gain. “Offsets need to secure sufficient improved condition or protection of wetlands to fully offset remaining residual impact on biodiversity, ecosystem services and water resources.” (p15) Offsets should “ensure that conservation targets are attainable… and that the size of the offset is commensurate with the residual impact on biodiversity” (p3) “Offsets… should conserve biodiversity of at least as high significance as that impacted by the proposed development.” (p15) “Biodiversity offsets should be designed in such a way that they result in no net loss of biodiversity beyond the scientific targets established for a particular biodiversity feature or ecosystem.” (p8) 3. Focus e d on lon g -t e rm outc om e “The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should… secure outcomes that last at least as long as the project’s impacts and preferably in perpetuity.” “Offset must ensure a long-lasting benefit.” (p12) “Offsets must be enduring, enforceable and auditable.” (p12) “…gains are lasting and protected against significant risk” (p3) “Offset policies are in consensus that offset protection in perpetuity is preferable, but at the very least offsets should be operable for the duration of any project impacts.” (p:v) “Most offset policies call for offsets to be established in perpetuity, or at least as long as the residual impacts last (BBOP, 2009a). (p16) “Offsets should last for the duration of the project’s impacts or in perpetuity.” (p3) “Offset must provide long-term security for tenure” and “offset must be enduring and should be monitored and managed adaptively to achieve conservation objectives in long term.” (p15) “The offset should endure at least for the duration of the residual impact on biodiversity, but preferably in perpetuity.” (p9)
BBOP Offset design guidebook (BBOP, 2012:10) IFC Perfor-mance Standard 6 (IFC, 2012:1-4) EPA Western Australia (EPA, 2006:8-12) New South Wales (NSW, 2014:10-13) New Zealand Dept of Con-servation (Gardner & Von Hase, 2012:3-10) A review of selected legislative frameworks (McKenny, 2005:i-61) NZ assessment framework (Norton, 2009:702-206) Wetland offset guideline for SA (Macfarlane et al., 2014:14-16) KZN biodiversity offset guidelines (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2010:3-4) Western Cape Offset guideline (DEADP, 2011:14-15) SA Draft National Framework for offsets (SANBI, 2012:8-9) 4. Tra nspa re ncy & s ta k e -hol der par ti c ipat ion “The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset, and communication of its results to the public, should be undertaken in a transparent and timely manner.” “Offsets must be clearly defined, transparent and enforceable” (p12) “Offset requirements should be based on a reliable and transparent assessment of losses and gains.” (p10) “Transparent stakeholder engagement in offset design and imple-mentation” is required (p4) “Effective participation of stakeholders (in affected area) should be ensured” in all decision-making.” (p9) “Design, implementation and commu-nication to public must be transparent and timely manner.” (p9) “Offsets should be designed and implemented in a transparent and timely manner, engaging with interested and affected parties.”(p4) “Must take precautionary approach” in terms of “stakeholder engagement that takes scientific knowledge” about area into account… and “offset should provide opportunity to engage with developers.” (p15) “The design and implementation of biodiversity offsets should be undertaken in an open and transparent manner… seeking positive outcomes for affected parties.” (p9) 5. Of fs e t fol lows l a n dsc a pe & e c osy s te m a ppr oac h “A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in a landscape context…taking into account available information on the full range of biological, social and cultural values of biodiversity and supporting an ecosystem approach.”
“The risks and impacts identification process… should consider direct and indirect project-related impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services and identify any significant residual impacts.” (p2) “A wider landscape and regional perspective is needed to identify the most rewarding and cost‐ effective opportunities for securing adequate, additional and ecologically viable biodiversity gains” (p6) “Increasingly, policy guidance calls for compensatory mitigation to be designed and constructed in a manner that maximizes the ecological contribution to the landscape/ watershed” (p62) “Wetland offsets take an ecosystem approach (as opposed to a species approach) to biodiversity conservation” (p14) “Offsets should contribute to conservation in a landscape context, supporting an ecosystem approach, taking into consideration corridors and connectivity.” (p4) “Offsets must be located appropriately, according to biodiversity priorities in the area and in support of strategic biodiversity plans.” (p15) “Biodiversity offsets take an ecosystem approach (as opposed to a species approach) to biodiversity conservation.” (p8)
2010:3-4) 6. Li m it s t o wha t c a n be of fs e t “There are situations where residual impacts cannot be fully compensated for by a biodiversity offset because of the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the biodiversity affected”. “The most important restriction in any biodiversity exchange is to recognise that there are limits to what can be offset” (p10) “Biodiversity offsets are inappropriate for certain ecosystem types because their rarity or the presence of particular species… makes the clearance of these ecosystems inappropriate.” (p702) “Impacts on water resources, biodiversity or ecosystem services of very high significance may not be able to be remedied or offset.” (p14)
“Offsets are not appropriate to compensate for impacts on irreplaceable biodiversity.” (p3) “There may be thresholds where development cannot proceed because offsets cannot compensate for residual impacts on biodiversity.” (p14) “Impacts on biodiversity of ‘very high’ significance may not be able to be remedied or offset, because of the conservation status, irreplaceabilityo r level of threat to that biodiversity, or the risk of preventing scientific targets for conserving that biodiversity from being met” (p8) Of fs e t s houl d be guara nt e e d bef ore a c ti v it y s ta rt “The safest way of limiting the risk of offset failure is to secure biodiversity gains before impacts occur.” (p12) “Offset policies call for offsetting activities to be operational and proven prior to allowing project impacts.” (p40) “Some form of guarantee must be provided that the offset proposed will occur.” (p702) “Offsets… must preferably be secured before development commences.” (p4) “Offset… must be secured before development commences to give assurance of effectiveness.” (p15) “The biodiversity offset design and plans for its implementation should be approved by the competent authority before the proposed activity starts.” (p8)
BBOP Offset design guidebook (BBOP, 2012:10) IFC Perfor-mance Standard 6 (IFC, 2012:1-4) EPA Western Australia (EPA, 2006:8-12) New South Wales (NSW, 2014:10-13) New Zealand Dept of Con-servation (Gardner & Von Hase, 2012:3-10) A review of selected legislative frameworks (McKenny, 2005:i-61) NZ assessment framework (Norton, 2009:702-206) Wetland offset guideline for SA (Macfarlane et al., 2014:14-16) KZN biodiversity offset guidelines (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2010:3-4) Western Cape Offset guideline (DEADP, 2011:14-15) SA Draft National Framework for offsets (SANBI, 2012:8-9) 8. A ddi ti o nal it y “Offsets must provide an actual addition to biodiversity rather than something that was going to occur anyway.” (p11) “To ensure no net loss of biodiversity, offsets need to… ensure that gains are additional to what would have resulted in the absence of an offset.” (p4) “Offset frameworks call for offsets t represent new or additional contributions to conservation.” (p:iv) “Offsets need to be a new contribution to conservation outcomes.” (p16) “Offsets must be ‘new’ conservation activities, over and above outcomes that would have occurred without the offset.” (p3) “Offsets should not comprise actions or activities already required by law.” (p14) “Biodiversity offsets should achieve gains above and beyond measures that are already required by law or would have occurred had the offset not taken place.” (p9) 9. Li k e f or l ik e “The design of a biodiversity offset must adhere to the “like-for-like or better” principle” (p2) “Environmental offsets should ideally be ‘like for like’ or better” (p10) “Offsets must be targeted to the biodiversity values being lost or to higher conservation priorities.” (p10) “Biodiversity gains are comparable to losses insofar they are appropriate (in kind or type) and adequate (amount)” (p3) “Assessment of biodiversity lost… and gained… must use the same currency and be based on sound ecological principles.” (p15) “Biodiversity offsets should preferably comprise or benefit the same ecosystems and combination of biodiversity features that would be negatively affected.” (p8) 10. Of fs e t is e nf orc a bl e “Offsets must be clearly defined, transparent and enforceable” (p12) “Offsets must be enduring, enforceable and auditable.” (p12) “All offset policies reviewed address the need for… legal and financial assurances… to secure site tenure...” (p:v) “Legal and financial assurances (should be) in place to ensure that sites are legally protected” (p16) “Offsets should be legally enforced through explicitly worded conditions, covenants or contracts.” (p4) “Offset must be enforceable – through conditions, covenants or contracts” (p15)
2010:3-4) 11. C um u la ti v e , di re c t a nd ind ire c t im pac ts a re c onsi der e d “Offset should address both direct offsets and contributing effects.” (p8) “Estimates of biodiversity losses and gains… need to account for the regional significance of biodiversity values, including patterns of irreplaceability and endemism, and the use and cultural biodiversity values held by local people” (p6) Offsets need to target all values (pattern, process/functio n and ecosystem service… that are residually affected by a project’s direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.(p16) “Offsets should address all significant residual impacts on biodiversity – direct, indirect and cumulative.” (p4) “Offset must consider all significant impacts on biodiversity: direct, indirect and cumulative.” (p15)
