Written by Michael Crowe, NatureTask, State of Victoria, Australia

1. Biodiversity Offsets in Canada Conference
Biodiversity offsetting in Victoria
Michael Crowe
February 2014

2. Native Vegetation Controls
Year: 1788 to 2012

3. Evolution of Offsetting in Victoria
1989 – Initial regulation of native vegetation clearing
• an end to large scale clearing
However offsetting was sporadic and not codified
1998 - Biodiversity mapping
• Extant vegetation, 1750 vegetation, bioregions, threatened species
Provided state-wide information base
2002 - Policy - the Native Vegetation Management Framework
• No net loss, like-for-like, metrics …..
However developers found it hard to find their offsets
2007 – Offset market based on credit trading
• Third party suppliers, brokers, credit register
2013 – Some policy amendments and technical improvements

4. The Regulation
Regulation of native vegetation clearing:
• A planning permit required to clear native vegetation
• Assessment of permit applications based on the biodiversity
significance of the impact
• Applications must demonstrate ‘avoid’ and ‘minimise’ steps
of the mitigation hierarchy
• The permit (if granted) requires an offset

5. Offset policy in Victoria - 2002
The nature and size of the offset was set by Native Vegetation
Management Framework policy (statutory document):
– Avoid, minimise, offset
– No Net Loss
– Quality/area metric - habitat hectares
– Offsets to be secure and ongoing
– Additionality
– Like for like rules
– Biodiversity importance

6. No net loss – quality is important

7. Measuring site quality – 10 attributes in habitat hectares
reduced cover
of trees
reduced
recruitment
reduced
understorey
diversity
increased cover
of weeds
Habitat score = 0.50

8. Increased quality at the offset site
tree
canopy
cover
size & connectivity
of the patch
large
old
trees
understorey
diversity
recruitment of
young trees
logs & organic litter
Habitat score = 0.90

9. Estimating Gain
Total gain = area x quality increment/ha
• Improvement gain
Increments in quality attribute scores resulting from
restoration actions (eg revegetation)
• Management gain
Increments in quality attribute scores resulting from actions to
control threatening processes (eg pest & weed control)
• Security gain
Increments in overall quality score depending on the changes
in land use (eg establish protected areas)
• Gain scoring includes rules for additionality

10. Secure and ongoing
• The landowner agreement – private land
− permanent statutory contract
− binds future landowners – on title
− actions and commitments in the management plan
− reporting and monitoring
• Land surrender
− private land donated to a permanent protected area
• Upgrade to Protected Area
− government re-classifies public land to higher security
category through legislation

11. The offsetting process - summary
Developers
Developers required to
provide offsets
• first party
• third party (market)
Loss site assessment,
Permit application
Local Government
Determine small
impacts
Refer large impacts
to
State Government
Permit may be granted
Permit includes offset conditions – offset plan

12. BushBroker price history Offset market
Bioregion
Number of
Agreements
credit prices
Total number of
Habitat
Hectares
Average price per
Habitat
Hectare *
(of total
Agreements)
Habitat Hectare
price range *
(more than
80% of
Agreements)
Central Victorian
Uplands
8
10
$110,000
$46,000 - $143,000
Gippsland Plain
21
29
$149,000
$85,000 - $250,000
Goldfields
39
38
$45,000
$25,000 - $66,000
Victorian Riverina
10
11
$101,000
$80,000 - $110,000
Victorian Volcanic
Plain
29
54
$170,000
HighlandsSouthern Fall
14
74
$34,000
Other bioregions
11
25
$370,000
•
$20,000 - $38,000
$206,000 $380,000
Third party offsets estimated 25-50% savings over first party
•
$49,000 $267,000
Estimated market turnover up to $100m
Prices vary by bioregion, EVC, location, rarity, demand and urgency of developer, landowner needs. Also initial trade, small or large trades

13. 2013 Revisions
New provisions were recently announced:
• Like for like
 Threatened species – distribution models
 Everything else – increased flexibility
• Use of maps for site assessment
 reduced transaction cost
 assessment consistency
 accuracy of maps?
• Transaction cost reduction
 more ‘over the counter’

14. Biodiversity offsets in Canada Conference
Biodiversity offsetting in Victoria
Thank you
mlacrowe@gmail.com