This is a presentation to EEB's Biodiversity working group on the scope for using habitat banking to ensure No net loss of ecosystems and their services. The presentation reviews EU's commitments to ensuring NNL of biodiversity and ecosystem services and discusses the contribution that offsetting and habitat banking could make to meeting this policy objective. This is complemented with the presentation of preliminary results from a case study on the use of the Eco-accounts schemes in the German Land of Baden-Wurttemberg to achieve a similar commitment introduced by the German Impact Mitigation Regulation.

1.
The
scope
for
using
habitat
banking
to
ensure
NNL
of
ecosystems
and
their
services
–
from
theory
to
prac:ce
Leonardo
Mazza
on
behalf
of
the
wider
study
team
17
May
2013,
Brussels
Presenta<on
to
EEB’s
Biodiversity
working
group

2. Structure
of
the
presenta:on
I. Background:
commitment
&
support
to
NNL
at
EU
level
II. Achieving
NNL
in
prac:ce:
a
role
for
offseHng
impacts
through
habitat
banking?
III. Preliminary
results
of
in-­‐depth
case
study:
Eco-­‐accounts
in
the
German
region
of
Baden-­‐WurNemberg
IV. Summary
of
preliminary
findings
V. Suggested
ques:ons
for
discussion

3.
I.
Background:
commitments
&
support
to
NNL
at
EU
level

4. I.
1.
Ra:onale
for
commitment
to
NNL
Pressures
on
biodiversity
have
con:nued
to
intensify:
land
use
changes,
urban
sprawl,
fragmenta:on
&
loss
of
natural
habitats
Consequences:
• EU’s
target
of
hal:ng
biodiversity
loss
in
Europe
by
2010
has
been
missed
• overall
health
of
ecosystems
has
deteriorated,
as
has
their
ability
to
provide
important
ecosystem
services
(e.g.
those
associated
with
water
resources,
soils,
carbon,
flood
management,
recrea:on
and
tourism).
Key
lesson
from
the
failure
to
achieve
the
2010
biodiversity
target:
• it
will
not
be
possible
to
halt
the
loss
of
biodiversity
in
future
years
without
adop:ng
policies
and
measures
that
can
offset
unavoidable
residual
impacts.

5. I.2.
Actual
commitments
:
EU
BD
Strategy
to
2020
• EU
BD
Strategy’s
headline
target:
‘halt
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
service
loss
by
2020,
to
restore
ecosystems
in
so
far
as
is
feasible
(…)’
• Sub-­‐target
2:
“By
2020,
ecosystems
and
their
services
are
maintained
and
enhanced
by
establishing
green
infrastructure
and
restoring
at
least
15%
of
degraded
ecosystems.”
• Ac:ons
to
help
achieve
each
of
the
sub
targets:
Ac:on
7
aims
to
“ensure
No
Net
Loss
(NNL)
of
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
services”
» Sub-­‐ac:on
7b,
“the
Commission
will
carry
out
further
work
with
a
view
to
proposing
by
2015
an
ini:a:ve
to
ensure
there
is
NNL
of
ecosystems
and
their
services
(e.g.
through
compensa:on
or
offseHng
schemes).”

6. I.3.
Support
to
EU
NNL
ini:a:ve:
EU
Council
conclusions
Council
conclusions
of
21
June
2011:
• stressed
the
importance
of
further
work
to
opera:onalise
the
NNL
objec:ve
(…)
&
ensuring
no
further
loss
or
degrada:on
of
ecosystems
&
their
services.
• provides
the
following
preliminary
defini:on
of
the
NNL
concept:
'that
conservaCon/biodiversity
losses
in
one
geographically
or
otherwise
defined
area
are
balanced
by
a
gain
elsewhere
provided
that
this
principle
does
not
entail
any
impairment
of
exisCng
biodiversity
as
protected
by
EU
nature
legislaCon'.
Council
Conclusions
of
19
December
2011:
• agreed
“that
a
common
approach
is
needed
for
the
implementa:on
in
the
EU
of
the
NNL
principle
and
invited
the
Commission
to
address
this
as
part
of
the
prepara:on
of
its
planned
ini:a:ve
on
NNL
by
2015…”
(…”taking
into
account
exis<ng
experience
as
well
as
the
specifici<es
of
each
Member
State,
on
the
basis
of
in-­‐depth
discussions
with
Member
States
and
stakeholders
regarding
the
clear
defini<on,
scope,
opera<ng
principles
and
management
and
support
instruments
in
the
context
of
the
common
implementa<on
framework
of
the
Strategy”).

7. I.4.
Support
to
EU
NNL
ini:a:ve:
EP
Resolu:on
EP
resolu:on
of
20
April
2012:
• urges
Commission
to
“develop
an
effec:ve
regulatory
framework
based
on
the
‘No
Net
Loss’
ini:a:ve,
taking
into
account
the
past
experience
of
the
Member
States
while
also
u<lising
the
standards
applied
by
the
Business
and
Biodiversity
Offsets
Programme”
• Report
also
refers
to
the
importance
of
applying
such
an
approach
to
all
EU
habitats
and
species
not
covered
by
EU
legisla:on

8. I.5.
Preparatory
work
for
2015
NNL
ini:a:ve
• To
obtain
views
of
stakeholders
on
this
issue
the
European
Commission
established
a
Working
Group
on
NNL
of
Ecosystems
and
their
Services
(NNL
Working
Group).
Its
objec:ve:
“collect
views
from
Member
State
representa5ves,
stakeholders
and
experts
on
the
way
forward
for
the
NNL
ini5a5ve
announced
for
2015,
within
the
mandate
of
the
2011
December
Council
conclusions,
taking
into
account
all
relevant
policies
and
instruments.
The
aim
is
to
support
the
European
Commission
in
its
prepara5on
of
a
NNL
ini5a5ve.
The
Working
Group
is
expected
to
develop
recommenda5ons
by
mid-­‐2013”.
• EC
also
launched
study
on
“Policy
op:ons
for
an
EU
NNL
ini:a:ve”
to
support
the
Commission
in
developing
the
NNL
ini:a:ve
foreseen
in
the
EU
BD
Strategy
to
2020
by
developing
poten:al
alterna:ve
op:ons
for
this
ini:a:ve
and
analysing
their
main
impacts
(–
ongoing
work,
led
by
IEEP)

9.
II.
Achieving
NNL
in
prac:ce:
a
role
for
offseHng
impacts
though
habitat
banking?

10. II.1.
What
are
offsets?
Compensa:on
measures
for
biodiversity
loss
may
arguably
be
achieved
through
payment
for
training,
capacity
building,
research
etc.
-­‐
in
our
work
compensa:on
is
considered
analogous
to
offseHng
Offsets
can
be
defined
as:
“Measurable
conserva:on
outcomes
resul<ng
from
ac<ons
designed
to
compensate
for
significant
residual
adverse
biodiversity
impacts
arising
from
project
development
(aRer
appropriate
preven<on
and
mi<ga<on
measures
have
been
taken).”
Business
and
Biodiversity
Offsets
Programme
(BBOP)
⇒ Offsets
can
take
the
form
of
posi:ve
management
interven:ons
such
as
restora:on
of
degraded
habitat,
arrested
degrada<on
or
averted
risk,
protec<ng
areas
where
there
is
imminent
or
projected
loss
of
biodiversity
⇒ Offsets
are
formalised
arrangements
for
delivering
compensa:on
and
are
designed
to
achieve
NNL,
i.e.
impacts
on
biodiversity
caused
by
a
project
are
balanced
or
outweighed
by
measures
to
offset
the
residual
impacts
so
that
no
loss
remains.
⇒ Goal
should
be
to
achieve
no
net
loss
and
preferably
a
net
gain
of
biodiversity
on
the
ground
(with
respect
to
species
composi<on,
habitat
structure,
ecosystem
func<on
and
people’s
use
and
cultural
values
associated
with
biodiversity)

11. II.1.
Offsets
in
the
mi:ga:on
hierarchy
Compensa<on
must
be
considered
in
the
context
of
the
‘mi<ga<on
hierarchy’
(BBOP)
-­‐
appropriate
ac:ons
to
achieve
no
net
loss
should
be
considered
in
the
following
order:
a. Avoidance:
measures
taken
to
avoid
crea<ng
impacts
from
the
outset
(e.g.
careful
spa<al
or
temporal
placement
of
elements
of
infrastructure)
b. Minimisa:on:
measures
taken
to
reduce
the
dura<on,
intensity
and
/
or
extent
of
impacts
that
cannot
be
completely
avoided.
c. Rehabilita:on/restora:on:
measures
taken
to
rehabilitate
degraded
ecosystems
or
restore
cleared
ecosystems
following
exposure
to
impacts
that
cannot
be
completely
avoided
and/
or
minimised.
d. Offset
(including
habitat
banking):
to
compensate
for
any
residual
significant,
adverse
impacts
that
cannot
be
avoided,
minimised
and
/
or
rehabilitated
or
restored,
in
order
to
achieve
no
net
loss
or
a
net
gain
of
biodiversity.

12. II.1.
OffseHng
via
habitat
banking
• Habitat
banking
enables
‘biodiversity
credits’
to
be
generated
by
landowners
who
commit
to
enhance
and
protect
biodiversity
values
on
their
land
through
a
habitat
banking
agreement.
• These
credits
can
then
be
sold,
genera:ng
funds
for
the
management
of
the
site.
• Credits
can
be
bought
by
developers
to
counterbalance
(or
offset)
the
impacts
on
biodiversity
values
that
are
likely
to
occur
as
a
result
of
their
development
Thus,
carefully
designed
habitat
banking
schemes
will
generally
include:
a) A
streamlined
biodiversity
assessment
process,
b) A
rigorous
and
credible
offseHng
scheme,
c) An
opportunity
for
rural
landowners
to
generate
income
by
managing
land
for
conserva:on
=>
The
Eco-­‐accounts
schemes
in
B-­‐W
share
some
of
the
features
described
above
and
might
therefore
be
considered
habitat
banking
schemes

13.
III.
Preliminary
results
from
in-­‐depth
case
study
work:
Eco-­‐accounts
in
the
German
region
of
Baden-­‐WurNemberg
Research
carried
out
in
the
context
of
the
Invaluable
project,
funded
through
BiodivERsa
network
(na<onal
funding
+
FP7
ERA-­‐NET
scheme

14. III.1.
Policy
context
at
federal
level
(1)
1976:
Adop:on
of
the
Impact
Mi:ga:on
Regula:on
(‘Eingriffsregelung’)
under
the
Federal
Nature
Conserva:on
Act:
• requires
that
the
status
quo
be
preserved
as
regards
the
ecosystem
func:ons/
services
and
landscape
features;
• is
not
primarily
concerned
with
biodiversity
but
covers
habitats/species,
soil
&
water
quality,
landscape
features,
etc.
2002:
amendment
to
the
Federal
Nature
Conserva:on
Act
• Requires
developers
to
avoid
avoidable
impacts
on
nature
and
the
landscape;
• Requires
developers
to
off-­‐set
(“Ausgleichsmaßnahmen”)
or
to
compensate
for
(“Ersatzmaßnahmen”)
all
unavoidable
impacts
from
developments
on
nature
and
the
landscape.
Challenges
in
mee:ng
above
requirements:
• Developers
could
not
find/didn’t
own
land
appropriate
for
adequate
compensa:on
• Land
on
which
compensa:on
measures
had
been
carried
out
got
converted
to
other
uses
⇒ Difficul:es
in
ensuring
legally
sa:sfactory
management,
control
and
implementa:on

15. III.1.
Policy
context
at
federal
level
(2)
Measures
to
overcome
problems:
1998:
amendment
of
Federal
Building
Code
(BauGB):
• flexibility
for
compensa:on
from
a
temporal
and
spa:al
perspec:ve
is
introduced,
allowing
compensa:on
measures
to
be
disconnected
from
specific
developments
⇒ triggered
municipali:es
to
introduce
Eco-­‐accounts
to
offset
impacts
from
own
developments
2002
+
2009
amendments
to
the
Federal
Nature
Conserva:on
Act:
• allows
to
offset
residual
impacts
in
a
more
flexible
way
–
introduc:on
of
the
possibility
to
set
up
Eco-­‐accounts
("naturschutzrechtliches
Ökokonto“)
(2002)
• crea:on
of
the
requirement
to
establish
a
“compensa:on
registry”
(2009)
⇒ More
precise
elabora:on
of
procedures
and
assessment
rules
lew
to
the
regions
(Laender)

16. III.2.
Evolu:on
of
policy
framework
at
regional
(B-­‐W)
level
Pilot
project
from
2002-­‐2005
to
help
municipali:es
set
up
‘building
law
eco-­‐
accounts
(‘baurechtliches
Oekokonto’)
following
1998
amendment
of
Federal
Building
Code
(BauGB)
– Mul:ple
actors
involved,
about
100
par:cipa:ng
municipali:es.
– Resulted
in
guidance
and
recommenda:ons
for
establishing
such
Eco-­‐accounts.
2006:
revision
of
regional
(B-­‐W)
nature
legisla:on
and
amendment
announcing
the
development
of
two
necessary
regula:ons
for
implementa:on
• 2006:
SeHng
up
of
two
working
groups,
dealing
in
par:cular
with:
1. compensa:on
measures
assessment
methods
and
2. development
and
trial
of
an
internet-­‐based
system
to
ensure
easy
to
manage
applica:on,
approval
and
management
of
the
compensa:on
measures
• 2010/2011:
Adop:on
of
two
regula:ons:
1. On
the
establishment
and
management
of
compensa:on
registries
at
district
level
(KompVzVO
-­‐
adopted
end
of
2010)
2. Outlining
rules
governing
the
Eco-­‐accounts
and
more
specifically
condi:ons
for
approval
and
lis:ng
of
an:cipated
compensa:on/Eco-­‐account
measures
in
the
compensa:on
registries
(ÖKVO
-­‐
adopted
early
2011)

17. III.3.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
the
Federal
building
code
(1998)
• To
offset
impacts
within
the
same
municipality.
Municipality
carries
out
the
compensa:on
measures
for
developers
to
use.
• Lots
appropriate
&
available
for
restora:on
measure
within
the
municipality
are
transferred
to
a
pool
(Pool
of
Appropriate
Lots
-­‐
PAL).
• As
soon
as
a
restora:on
measure
on
one
of
these
lots
is
realized,
it
can
be
transferred
onto/credited
to
an
Eco-­‐account
and
be
used
as
a
compensa:on
measure
for
any
residual
impacts
from
a
development
that
is
carried
out
within
the
municipality
(owen
by
the
municipal
authority).
• Such
Eco-­‐accounts
are
usually
developed
out
of
a
landscape
plan
which
covers
the
whole
surface
of
a
municipal
district.

18. III.4.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
the
nature
legisla:on
(1)
Responsibility
for
introducing
&
administering
compensa<on
registries
lies
with
Lower
Nature
conserva<on
authori<es
(at
district
level)
(“untere
Naturschtzbehoerde”/(‘Stadt-­‐
/
Landkreis’))
Registries
include
both:
1. compensa<on
measures
that
are
clearly
agributed
to
residual
impacts
from
a
specific
development;
2. an<cipated
compensa<on/Eco-­‐account
measures
that
have
been
approved
by
the
lower
nature
conserva<on
authori<es
but
not
yet
agributed
(with
info
including
habitat
type
(“naturraum”),
the
original
state
of
the
area
(+
associated
eco-­‐points)
as
well
as
the
descrip<on
of
state
aRer
implementa<on
of
compensa<on
measure,(+
associated
eco-­‐points),
etc.
“Compensa<on
agents”
(‘Massnahmetraeger‘)
submit
applica<ons
for
their
compensa<on
measures
to
be
approved
&
listed
as
Eco-­‐account
measures
in
the
compensa<on
registry
(‘Kompensa<onsverzeichnis’).

19. III.4.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
the
nature
legisla:on
(2)
Lower
Nature
Conserva<on
authori<es
can
only
approve
measures
for
which
all
required
informa<on
is
provided
and
which:
• achieve
some
of
the
following
(long-­‐term)
results:
• improve
the
quality
of
a
given
habitat,
• create
high
value
habitats,
• support
specific
species,
• re-­‐create
natural
reten<on
areas,
• re-­‐create
and
improve
the
func<ons
of
soils,
• improve
groundwater
quality
• meet
certain
criteria,
e.g.:
• Eco-­‐account
measure
must
result
in
an
improvement
equivalent
or
above
10000
Eco-­‐points
and
cover
area
of
at
least
2000
m2
(to
avoid
dispropor<onate
admin
burden
–
with
excep<ons)
• No
financial
support
from
public
sources
was
received
(ensures
addi<onality)
• Measure
must
be
voluntary
–
not
be
carried
out
to
meet
legal
requirements
• Measures
go
beyond
simply
ensure
preserva<on
of
the
status
quo
(conserva<on
of
exis<ng
nature/landscape)

20. III.4.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
the
nature
legisla:on
(3)
• The
implementa<on
of
the
restora<on
measures
becomes
binding
as
soon
as
the
impacts
of
a
development
have
been
agributed
to
the
compensa<on
measure
(i.e.
once
a
developer
has
selected
the
measure(s)
in
the
registry
to
compensate
the
residual
impacts
of
their
development).
• Trading
Eco-­‐points:
a
developer
may
offset
impacts
via
the
Eco-­‐account
but
must
buy
points
from
a
measure
implemented
within
the
same
eco-­‐region/habitat
(‘Naturraum’)
–
eco-­‐points
may
be
sold
together
with
the
land
or
separately
• temporal
disconnec<on
between
the
development
(‘Eingriff’)
and
the
compensa<on
measure
(‘Ausgleich’)
means
that
in
general,
the
compensa<on
measure
is
already
in
the
implementa<on
phase
or
finished
by
the
<me
the
residual
impacts
of
the
development
arise
• To
incen<vize
private
investment
in
compensa<on
measures,
an
interest
payment
of
3%
a
year
in
eco-­‐points
is
provided
once
a
compensa<on
measure
started
to
be
implemented
(un<l
it
gets
agributed
to
an
impact,
and
only
up
to
ten
years)

21. III.5.
General
principles
governing
the
alloca:on
of
Eco-­‐
points
in
both
types
of
Eco-­‐accounts
• For
compensa<on
measures,
eco-­‐points
are
agributed
across
different
“impact
categories”
(e.g.
water,
soil,
habitat/species
(‘Schutzgueter’).
• Within
each
points
get
agributed
to
sub-­‐categories
(habitat
type,
specific
species)
based
on
pre-­‐defined
method/scale
(e.g.
sealed
surface
=
0
points;
healthy
peatland:
64
points)
• Agribu<on
of
points
per
square
meter,
gets
mul<plied
with
overall
surface
• Evalua<on
to
agribute
eco-­‐points
to
a
compensa<on
measure:
(a) expected
eco-­‐point
value
of
land
aRer
measure
carried
out
(‘soll-­‐wert’)
(b) Eco-­‐point
value
of
land
before
measure
is
carried
out
(‘ist-­‐wert’)
⇒ (a)
–
(b)
=
value
of
the
compensa<on
measure
in
eco-­‐points
• In
principle,
eco-­‐points
should
be
“Schutzgutbezogen”,
i.e.
fungible
only
within
the
same
“impact
category”.
i.e.
=>
compensate
soil/water
related
impacts
via
soil/water
related
benefits
• In
prac<ce
there
is
flexibility
–
in
par<cular
when
the
available
land
to
carry
out
the
compensa<on
measure
does
not
allow
a
one-­‐to-­‐one
compensa<on
within
the
same
impact
category
(same
‘Schutzgut’)

22. III.6.
What
is
the
price
of
an
eco-­‐point
(Eco-­‐account
under
the
nature
legisla:on)?
• It
is
not
possible
to
know
the
price
of
a
compensa:on
measure
through
the
compensa:on
registry,
where
only
eco-­‐points
are
indicated
• Number
of
eco-­‐points
aNributed
to
a
measure/impact
can’t
be
nego:ated
but
developer
can
nego:ate
the
price
of
the
eco-­‐points
–
the
trade
is
a
private
transac:on
and
to
a
certain
extent,
the
price
depends
on
offer
of
&
demand
for
compensa:on
measures
• “Compensa:on
agents”
have
interest
in
selling
their
measure
at
a
price
that
is
at
least
equivalent
to
its
cost
• One
excep:on
where
there
is
a
fixed
price
(4
eco-­‐points
=
€1):
when
size
of
the
compensa:on
measure
area
is
too
small
to
reflect
its
added
value
(owen
for
species
related
measures,
e.g.
in
a
river)

23. III.7.
Eco-­‐accounts:
Advantages
and
challenges
–
preliminary
qualita:ve
assessment
based
on
SH
interviews
Advantages/Strengths
• Temporal
and
geographical
decoupling
of
compensa<on
measures
results
in
efficiency
&
effec<veness
gains:
offsets
in
compensa<on
of
residual
impacts
can
be
pooled
to
finance
larger
restora<on
projects;
• no
:mely
search
for
land
on
which
to
carry
out
compensa<on
=>
accelera<on
of
administra<ve
procedures
• Possibility
to
create
wildlife
corridors/green
networks/
infrastructure
• Scheme
takes
a
long-­‐term
perspec<ve
(increased
legal
certainty),
opportuni:es
for
beNer
monitoring/surveillance
• Compensa<on
registry
and
clear
methodologies
increase
fairness
&
transparency
&
accountability
(IT-­‐tool,
publicly
available
info),
• Interest
payments:
provides
an
incen:ve
for
up-­‐front/
an:cipated/Eco-­‐account
compensa:on
measures
while
reducing
financial
risk
• Compensa:on
measures
carried
out
by
professionals
with
due
exper<se
(emergence
of
compensa<on
professionals)
• Development
of
scheme
opportunity
to
brining
together
SHs
Challenges/Weaknesses
• Increasing
demand
for
land
makes
it
difficult
to
find
land
on
which
to
carry
out
compensa:on
measures
• Used
IT-­‐tools
can’t
adequately
account
for
the
complexity
of
certain
projects
• A
new
compensa:on
regula:on
being
prepared
at
na:onal
level
(‘Bundeskompenas<onsverordnung):
slows
down
the
implementa<on
of
the
new
Eco-­‐account
in
B-­‐W
• Complex
alloca:on
of
competencies
due
to
Federal
structure,
might
make
harmonising
procedures
more
difficult
• Given
limited
number
of
actors
involved
success/failure
might
depend
on
individual
actor’s
mo:va:on

24. IV.
Summary
of
preliminary
findings
• The
Eco-­‐accounts
schemes
in
place
in
Baden-­‐WuerNemberg
are
means
to
facilitate
the
offseHng
of
impacts
of
developments
on
the
environment
(&
biodiversity);
• They
can
be
considered
a
form
of
Habitat
banking
because
an:cipated
compensa:on
measures
can
serve
to
offset
impacts
from
developments
that
are
not
temporarily
or
spa:ally
linked
to
the
residual
impacts
from
a
development
requiring
compensa:on;
• Compensatory
measures
may
be
implemented
in
advance
of
a
development,
enabling
developers
to
”buy”
already
planned/implemented
compensa:on
(“Eco-­‐account”)
measures
to
offset
the
residual
impacts
arising
from
their
development;
• Eco-­‐points
are
aNributed
to
both
compensa:on
measures
and
residual
impacts
to
be
compensated
-­‐
ensures
equivalence
between
the
posi:ve
impacts
(compensa:on
measure)
and
residual
impacts
(development).
• Eco-­‐points
are
aNributed
to
different
“impact
categories”,
depending
on
whether
they
affect
habitats/species,
soil,
water,
climate/air,
landscape
features.
In
principle,
eco-­‐
points
“traded”
need
to
be
linked
to
the
same
impact
categories
(in
prac:ce,
there
is
flexibility).

25. V.
Suggested
ques:ons
for
discussion
1. Could
such
a
system
be
put
in
place
in
other
countries?
If
not,
what
barriers
do
you
see?
If
so,
what
role
could
ENGOs
play
in
the
process?
2. What
are
the
key
policies
that
contribute
to
NNL
in
your
country?
(e.g.
market
mechanisms,
spa:al
planning,
offsets).
3. Do
you
believe
it
is
possible
to
have
safeguards
to
ensure
offseHng
via
habitat
banking
schemes
do
not
result
in
weaker
protec:on
of
biodiversity
(ie
leads
to
offsets
when
the
impact
could
have
been
avoided
or
reduced)?

26.
Thank
you
for
your
aNen:on
Leonardo
Mazza
–
lmazza@ieep.eu
Daniela
Russi
–
drussi@ieep.eu
Julia
Schiller
–
jschiller@ieep.eu
IEEP
is
an
independent
not
for
profit
ins<tute
dedicated
to
advancing
an
environmentally
sustainable
Europe
through
policy
analysis,
development
and
dissemina<on.
For
further
informa<on
see:
hgp://www.ieep.eu
Follow
us
on
twiger:
@IEEP_EU

27. Annex:
Further
reading
ERec
and
IEEP
(2010)
The
use
of
market-­‐based
instruments
for
biodiversity
protec<on
–
Habitat
Banking
case
studies,
URL:
www.enetjarnnatur.se/sta<c/sv/245/images/eRecieep2010cappcasestudies.pdf
GHK
et
al.
(2013)
Exploring
poten<al
demand
for
and
supply
of
habitat
banking
in
the
EU
and
appropriate
design
element
for
a
habitat
banking
scheme,
A
study
for
DG
Environment,
European
Commission,
URL:
hgp://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxa<on/pdf/Habitat_banking_Report.pdf
LUBW
(2012)
Das
Ökokonto
im
Naturschutzrecht
–
Regelung
un
Hintergruende,
Geeignete
Massnahmen,
Kompensas<onsverzeichnis,
Natursschutzinfo
1/2012,
URL:
www.lubw.baden-­‐wuergemberg.de/servlet/is/217864/naturschutz_info_2012_1.pdf?
command=downloadContent&filename=naturschutz_info_2012_1.pdf
ÖKVO
(2010)
Verordnung
des
Ministeriums
für
Umwelt,
Naturschutz
und
Verkehr
über
die
Anerkennung
und
Anrechnung
vorzei<g
durchgeführter
Maßnahmen
zur
Kompensa<on
von
Eingriffsfolgen
(Ökokonto-­‐Verordnung
–
ÖKVO),
URL:
hgp://drs.baden-­‐wuergemberg.de/TEMP/C24E3FBA/Temp/01/69F64784.pdf
KompVzVO
(2011)
Verordnung
des
Ministeriums
für
Umwelt,
Naturschutz
und
Verkehr
über
die
Führung
von
Kompensa<onsverzeichnissen
(Kompensa<onsverzeichnis-­‐Verordnung
–
KompVzVO),
URL:
hgp://drs.baden-­‐wuergemberg.de/TEMP/C24E3FBA/Temp/00/48318D80.pdf

28. III.4.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
nature
legisla:on
-­‐
overview
Eco-­‐accounts
under
the
nature
protec:on
legisla:on
(in
B-­‐W
since
2011)
Spa:al
scope
Outside
urban
areas;
Offse}ng
within
the
same
habitat
(iden<fica<on
of
12
different
“Naturraume”
across
the
region)
Whose
an:cipated
compensa:on
measures
may
enter
the
scheme
Any
actor
whose
measure
fulfils
the
criteria
(farmers,
foresters,
other
landowners,
municipali<es,
developers
(e.g.
mining
company)
–
to
compensate
their
own
impacts
or
those
by
other
developers.
Impact-­‐compensa:on
rela:on
No
fixed
rela<on
between
impact
and
compensa<on.
Compensa<on
agents
have
incen<ve
to
carry
out
a
measure
before
its
agributed
because
of
a
3%
interest
rate
(paid
out
in
points).
Also
when
the
compensa<on
agent
and
the
developer
are
the
same
en<ty,
risk
is
lowered
and
an<cipated
implementa<on
of
the
compensa<on
measure
more
likely.
Who
may
offset
residual
impacts
via
this
type
of
Eco-­‐account
Wide
range
of
developers
–
in
prac<ce
oRen
farmers
but
also
mining
companies
Who
manages
Eco-­‐account
Lower
nature
conserva<on
authority
(at
district
level)
Harmonised
approach
to
aNribu:ng
eco-­‐points
(based
on
evalua:on
model)
Yes,
standardized
evalua<on
criteria
on
a
federal
state
level
via
the
Eco-­‐account
Regula<on
Main
actor(s)
in
charge
of
ensuring
quality
of
compensa:on
measures
and
adequate
aNribu:on
of
points
Lower
nature
conserva<on
authority,
regional
Ministry
for
Environment
(LUBW),
private
planning
offices
(‘Flaechenagentur,
Planungsbuero’)
that
may
plan
and
carry
out
the
conserva<on
measures
on
behalf
of
the
“compensa<on
agent”
(‘Massnahmentraeger’)

29. III.3.
The
Eco-­‐accounts
established
under
the
Federal
building
code
-­‐
overview
Eco-­‐accounts
under
the
Federal
building
code
(1998)
Spa:al
scope
Within
urban
areas/areas
covered
by
specific
types
of
land
use
plans
(‘Bebauungsplan
&
Flaechennutzungsplan’),
Offse}ng
within
the
same
municipality
Whose
an:cipated
compensa:on
measures
may
enter
the
scheme
Those
implemented
by
municipali<es
Impact-­‐compensa:on
rela:on
A
binding
documenta<on
about
the
implementa<on
of
compensa<on
measures
is
used
to
evaluate
their
func<on
for
the
building
planning.
An
impact
does
not
need
to
be
agributed
to
a
compensa<on
measure
before
its
implementa<on
Who
may
offset
residual
impacts
via
this
type
of
Eco-­‐account
Primarily
municipali<es,
but
not
exclusively
Who
manages
Eco-­‐account
Municipality
Harmonised
approach
to
aNribu:ng
eco-­‐points
(based
on
evalua:on
model)
No,
every
municipality
can
decide
on
an
own
evalua<on
model.
However,
the
use
of
the
federal
standardized
evalua<on
model
is
a
recommenda<on
Main
actor(s)
in
charge
of
ensuring
quality
of
compensa:on
measures
and
adequate
aNribu:on
of
points
Municipality,
within
municipality
either
departments
dealing
with
building/construc<on
and
or/
person
in
charge
of
environmental
magers
(e.g.
‘naturschutzbeauRragter/FachkraR
fuer
Umwel•ragen’).
Could
also
be
Compensa<on
Agency
(‘Planungsbuero).