MARON REVIEW HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

CLARITY
Rec. 1: Improve the clarity with which information is presented in the FBA document through judicious streamlining, some restructuring, and inclusion of further reasoning and justification for each step within a separate technical report. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (BOPMP) and the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (FBA) are still very complex and difficult to understand.
If the recommended “separate technical report” has was produced, it is not available online with the BOPMP and FBA on the OEH website. / The BOPMP and the FBA are still highly technical and difficult to navigate, which means there are significant risks biodiversity losses would occur because of faulty implementation.
Rec. 2: Develop a user-friendly operational manual for communication of the approach to end-users. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
If the recommended “separate technical report” was produced, it is not available online with the BOPMP and FBA on the OEH website. / The BOPMP and the FBA are still highly technical and difficult to navigate, which means there are significant risks biodiversity losses would occur because of faulty implementation.
TRIALS
Rec. 3: Test objectivity and repeatability of the FBA approach by having multiple independent assessors attempt apply the calculations to a real or hypothetical project, from on-ground measures through the calculation of impact and offset credits. The outcomes for the assessors could then be compared; and if they were similar, it would give improve confidence that the rules and procedures specified in the FBA could be applied unambiguously. / NOT EVIDENT
The BOPMP and FBA do not reference “multiple independent assessors” and we are not aware of any “multiple independent” assessments of the policy.
Page 6 BOPMP states: “the practical operation of the policy will be considered during the transitional implementation period to ensure there are no perverse outcomes or any implementation issues arising. This work will be informed by further testing and ongoing stakeholder consultation. At the conclusion of the transitional implementation period, any changes that are considered necessary will be incorporated into the policy (and FBA) prior to legislative implementation.”
It is not evident that these things have happened. / If the operation of the BOPMP was reviewed – and we believe it has not - conservation groups were not consulted and the results have not been made public.
This lack of transparency suggests that either:
a) it has failed and the government does not want to share the results; or
b) it has not conducted a review as it stated it would.
The lack of empirical testing of the models raises the question:
Why did the Independent Panel recommend using the BOPMP as the basis the offsets policy for the new regime before a proper review of the system was conducted to see whether would have negative biodiversity outcomes?
AIMS,OBJECTIVES, BASELINES
Rec. 4: The net ecological outcome, or standard, that the approach outlined in the FBA aims to achieve when exemptions do not apply must be explicitly stated, in order to improve clarity and transparency. For example, a clear statement that the amount of required credit and the amount of offset credit generated must at least be equivalent, notwithstanding specific exemptions, would clarify the standard required. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
The net ecological outcome is not clearly stated in the BOPMP.
Page 6 of the BOPMP states:
“The policy has three key objectives:
1. to provide clear, efficient and certain guidance for stakeholders
2. to improve outcomes for the environment and communities
3. to provide a practical and achievable offset scheme for proponents.”
Page 6 of the BOPMP states:
This objective will be achieved through:
  • stewardship payments for managing land; and
  • promoting measures that achieve better environmental outcomes

Rec. 5: State explicitly the type of crediting baseline in order to improve clarity and transparency. This information could be included in a Technical Report that accompanies the FBA. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
If this has been actioned, it is not evident inb the BOPMP or FBA.
MONITORING OUTCOMES
Rec. 8: Consider safeguards that could be used to ensure that trades among types of biota do not lead to undesirable consequences, such as accumulation of losses of one endangered species for another for which offsets are difficult to find. / NOT EVIDENT
If this has been implemented this Rec. - which we doubt - it is not evident and has not been reported.
Rec. 11: The inability to identify a suitable direct offset for a particular matter according to the offset rules should itself be a trigger for further assessment of the potential residual impact, rather than a trigger for the removal of the requirement for a direct offset. Impacts on species and habitat for which direct offsets were not available should be tracked and reviewed annually to determine if specific biota are being systematically impacted without associated offsets†. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
Species substitution is permitted. Further assessment is not triggered. (see Sections 10.5.4 and 10.5.7 of the FBA)
Rec. 17: Monitor the extent to which undesirable substitution of one habitat element for another occurs, and revise the FBA accordingly if this is found†. / NOT EVIDENT
If this Rec. has been implemented - which we doubt - it is not evident and has not been reported.
Rec. 19: Review the extent to which unintended substitution occurs over an initial period of implementation of the FBA within regions for which PCTs are mapped, and ensure that it remains within acceptable bounds†. / NOT EVIDENT
This could not have happened because it relies on the existence of reliable maps for Plant Community Types that currently do not exist, as you have reported previously.
Rec. 29: Incorporate a monitoring scheme that ensures monitoring of outcomes for the target biota occurs at the offset and impact sites into the future and feeds back this information into future revisions of the FBA†. / NOT EVIDENT
If this Rec. has been implemented - which we doubt - it is not evident and has not been reported.
MODELS / FORMULAE / ACCOUNTING
Rec. 25: Examine for which ‘species credit species’ existing knowledge about responses to particular site attributes (e.g. density of suitable tree hollows) can be used to derive more ecologically-based estimates of benefit from offset actions. This could be used to replace the 0.71 multiplier for deriving credits for these species with more realistic estimates of benefit from management actions at offset sites. / NOT EVIDENT
Rec. 30: Record offset trade details – at both impact and offset sites - in a publically available offsets register with information released in a timely manner on development and offset impacts as well as the results of future monitoring of the impact and offset sites. / NOT IMPLEMENTED / Note: Currently offsets are negotiated between individual parties with no public oversight and no monitoring of offset sites to ensure they are meeting the targets that have been promised.
Quote:
“We are calling for a comprehensive database that tracks offset trades and monitors the offset site conditions to ensure targets are met. Without this, the community can have not confidence this system is adding extinction pressure to our already threatened wildlife.”
Rec. 32: Include the landscape value score as part of the credit profile. This would then require that offsets have a landscape context score that is at least as high as the landscape context score of the impact. Using this approach there is no scope for trading between area/condition and landscape value. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
This Rec. calls for the landscape value scores for impact sites and credit sites to be at least equivalent – essentially the landscape value equivalent of “like-for-like” – to ensure that high quality impacts sites are not traded for low-quality offsets sites that are near national parks, etc.
Rec. 33: If it is not feasible to change the way that landscape values are incorporated into the metric, we recommend significantly reducing the weighting of the landscape values. At present, a lack of clarity around the objectives for inclusion of the Landscape Value Score, and limited evidence of responses by target biota to elements of the score, limits our ability to advise what the weighting of the landscape value should be. Nonetheless, reduction to at least half of its current weighting would reduce the potential for trading between landscape value and area/condition, and more accurately reflect the relative importance of habitat context for many species. This would comprise a score out of 25 (which is one quarter of the score possible for vegetation condition). / NOT IMPLEMENTED
See formula page 40 of the FBA. Maximum score of 50 still available for landscape attributes.
Rec. 34: Undertake a meta-analysis of published research to derive an evidence base around whether and to what extent landscape value can be traded for vegetation area/condition. / NOT EVIDENT
Rec. 35: Rather than encouraging offsets into areas of strategic value by allowing these areas to generate a higher landscape value score, consider other approaches to provide the same incentive. For example, a financial incentive (such as via a subsidy on the cost of offset provision) for offsets located in areas of strategic value could be used. This still provides the same incentive to locate offsets in strategic areas but prevents reduces the possibility of trading between area/condition and landscape value. Another alternative is to require ‘improvement’ as the net outcome from an offset trade, unless the landscape value preference is met, in which case only ‘maintain’ is required as the next outcome – in effect a discount system that does not undermine achievement of no net loss standards. / NOT EVIDENT
Rec. 37: Provide guidance on how the sizes of the inner and outer circles should be chosen when assessing the landscape impact. One option would be to specify how the assessment circle sizes should be related to the size of the impact, as larger impacts should use larger assessment circles. Another option could be to require the assessor to check all circle sizes and use the one with the larger value or use the average value. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
See page 80 of the FBA.
Rec. 38: Where possible, reduce the complexity of the process for calculating the Landscape Value Score. Ideally, build in GIS capability to online FBA calculation tool in order to automate calculation of LVS or at least some of its components and ensure consistency. / NOT EVIDENT
If this Rec. has been implemented - which we doubt - it is not evident and has not been reported.
EQUITY
Rec. 16: In order to ensure equity among landholders and industries, as well as to avoid discounting of offset requirements that would allow deviation from an improve or maintain outcome, credits generated on rehabilitated mine sites should be subject to the same rules as those generated elsewhere. / NOT IMPLEMENTED
Mining rehabilitation sites have been accorded a special status in the BOPMP, as you have reported recently.