A site selection process for environmental offsetting purposes in Queensland

A method of selecting land in any region of Queensland for offsetting purposes is devised, employing uniform standards. The procedure first requires that any core natural asset lands, Crown environmental lands, prime urban and agricultural lands, and highly contentious sites in the region be eliminated from consideration. Other land is then sought that is located between existing large reservations and the centre of greatest potential regional development/disturbance. Using the criteria of rehabilitation (rather than preservation) plus proximity to those officially defined Regional Ecosystems that are most threatened, adjacent sites that are described as ‘Cleared’ are identified in terms of agricultural land capability. Class IV lands – defined as those ‘which may be safely used for occasional cultivation with careful management’,2 ‘where it is favourably located for special usage’,3 and where it is ‘helpful to those who are interested in industry or regional planning or in reconstruction’4 – are examined for their appropriate area, for current tenure and for any conditions such as Mining Leases that may exist. The positive impacts from offsets on adjoining lands can then be designed to be significant; examples are also offered in respect of riparian areas and of Marine Parks. Criteria against which to measure performance for trading purposes include functional lift, with other case studies about this matter reported separately in this issue. The procedure takes no account of demand side economics (financial additionality), which requires commercial rather than environmental analysis.

Measurement of the net environmental benefit of offsetting in Queensland

The process of offsetting land against unavoidable disturbance of development sites in Queensland will benefit from a method that allows the best possible selection to be made of alternative lands. With site selection now advocated through a combination of Regional Ecosystem and Land Capability classifications state-wide, a case study has determined methods of assessing the functional lift – that is, measures of net environmental gain – of such action. Outcomes with potentially high functional lift are determined, that offer promise not only for endangered ecosystems but also for managing adjacent conservation reserves.

Offsetting greenhouse gas emissions through biological carbon sequestration in North Eastern Australia

The Kyoto Protocol recognises trees as a sink of carbon and a valid means to offset greenhouse gas emissions and meet internationally agreed emissions targets. This study details biological carbon sequestration rates for common plantation species Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine), Eucalyptus cloeziana, Eucalyptus argophloia, Pinus elliottii and Pinus caribaea var hondurensis and individual land areas required in north-eastern Australia to offset greenhouse gas emissions of 1000tCO 2e. The 3PG simulation model was used to predict above and below-ground estimates of biomass carbon for a range of soil productivity conditions for six representative locations in agricultural regions of north-eastern Australia. The total area required to offset 1000tCO 2e ranges from 1ha of E. cloeziana under high productivity conditions in coastal North Queensland to 45ha of hoop pine in low productivity conditions of inland Central Queensland. These areas must remain planted for a minimum of 30years to meet the offset of 1000tCO 2e.

Offsetting methane emissions : an alternative to emission equivalence metrics

It is widely recognised that defining trade-offs between greenhouse gas emissions using ‘emission equivalence’ based on global warming potentials (GWPs) referenced to carbon dioxide produces anomalous results when applied to methane. The short atmospheric lifetime of methane, compared to the timescales of CO2 uptake, leads to the greenhouse warming depending strongly on the temporal pattern of emission substitution. We argue that a more appropriate way to consider the relationship between the warming effects of methane and carbon dioxide is to define a ‘mixed metric’ that compares ongoing methane emissions (or reductions) to one-off emissions (or reductions) of carbon dioxide. Quantifying this approach, we propose that a one-off sequestration of 1 t of carbon would offset an ongoing methane emission in the range 0.90–1.05 kg CH4 per year. We present an example of how our approach would apply to rangeland cattle production, and consider the broader context of mitigation of climate change, noting the reverse trade-off would raise significant challenges in managing the risk of non-compliance. Our analysis is consistent with other approaches to addressing the criticisms of GWP-based emission equivalence, but provides a simpler and more robust approach while still achieving close equivalence of climate mitigation outcomes ranging over decadal to multi-century timescales.

The ethics of carbon offsetting

Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization or individual contributes to a scheme that is projected either to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or to deliver carbon dioxide emission reductions on the part of other organizations or individuals. An activity that has been offset therefore purports to make no long-term net contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The ethical basis for using carbon offsetting as an approach to tackling climate change is very much contested. We seek to expose some of the underlying reasons for these ethical disagreements. We show that they relate both to empirical disagreements about what the likely benefits of offsetting are and, more fundamentally, to principled disagreements about the right way to discharge duties to deliver carbon reductions.

Biodiversity offsetting and restoration under the European Union Habitats Directive: balancing between no net loss and deathbed conservation?

Biodiversity offsets have emerged as one of the most prominent policy approaches to align economic development with nature protection across many jurisdictions, including the European Union. Given the increased level of scrutiny that needs to be applied when authorizing economic developments near protected Natura 2000 sites, the incorporation of onsite biodiversity offsets in project design has grown increasingly popular in some member states, such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Under this approach, the negative effects of developments are outbalanced by restoration programs that are functionally linked to the infrastructure projects. However, although taking into consideration that the positive effects of onsite restoration measures leads to more leeway for harmful project development, the EU Court of Justice has recently dismissed the latter approaches for going against the preventative underpinnings of the EU Habitats Directive. Also, the expected beneficial outcomes of the restoration efforts are uncertain and thus cannot be relied upon in an ecological assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Although biodiversity offsets can still be relied upon whenever application is being made of the derogation clause under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, they cannot be used as mitigation under the generic decision-making process for plans and programs liable to adversely affect Natura 2000 sites. We outline the main arguments pro and contra the stance of the EU Court of Justice with regards to the exact delineation between mitigation and compensation. The analysis is also framed in the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the EU nature directives. Although ostensibly rigid, it is argued that the recent case-law developments are in line with the main principles underpinning biodiversity offsetting. Opening the door for biodiversity offsetting under the Habitats Directive will certainly not reverse the predicament of the EU’s biodiversity. A reinforcement of the preventative approach is instrumental to avert a further biodiversity loss within the European Union, even if it will lead to additional permit refusals for unsustainable project developments.

An investigation of a process for environmental banking appropriate to Queensland

This thesis examines the advanced North American environmental mitigation schemes for their applicability to Queensland. Compensatory wetland mitigation banking, in particular, is concerned with in-perpetuity management and protection - the basic concerns of the Queensland public about its unique environment. The process has actively engaged the North American market and become a thriving industry that (for the most part) effectively designs, creates and builds (or enhances) environmental habitat. A methodology was designed to undertake a comprehensive review of the history, evolution and concepts of the North American wetland mitigation banking system - before and after the implementation of a significant new compensatory wetland mitigation banking regulation in 2008. The Delphi technique was then used to determine the principles and working components of wetland mitigation banking. Results were then applied to formulate a questionnaire to review Australian marketbased instruments (including offsetting policies) against these North American principles. Following this, two case studies established guiding principles for implementation based on two components of the North American wetland mitigation banking program. The subsequent outcomes confirmed that environmental banking is a workable concept in North America and that it is worth applying in Queensland. The majority of offsetting policies in Australia have adopted some principles of the North American mitigation programs. Examination reveals that however, they fail to provide adequate incentives for private landowners to participate because the essential trading mechanisms are not employed. Much can thus be learnt from the North American situation - where private enterprise has devised appropriate free market concepts. The consequent environmental banking process (as adapted from the North American programs) should be implemented in Queensland. It can then focus here on engaging the private sector, where the majority of naturally productive lands are managed.

The potential to mitigate global warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practised in the long term

No-tillage (NT) management has been promoted as a practice capable of offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because of its ability to sequester carbon in soils. However, true mitigation is only possible if the overall impact of NT adoption reduces the net global warming potential (GWP) determined by fluxes of the three major biogenic GHGs (i.e. CO2, N2O, and CH4). We compiled all available data of soil-derived GHG emission comparisons between conventional tilled (CT) and NT systems for humid and dry temperate climates. Newly converted NT systems increase GWP relative to CT practices, in both humid and dry climate regimes, and longer-term adoption (>10 years) only significantly reduces GWP in humid climates. Mean cumulative GWP over a 20-year period is also reduced under continuous NT in dry areas, but with a high degree of uncertainty. Emissions of N2O drive much of the trend in net GWP, suggesting improved nitrogen management is essential to realize the full benefit from carbon storage in the soil for purposes of global warming mitigation. Our results indicate a strong time dependency in the GHG mitigation potential of NT agriculture, demonstrating that GHG mitigation by adoption of NT is much more variable and complex than previously considered, and policy plans to reduce global warming through this land management practice need further scrutiny to ensure success.

Methods to achieve net environmental gain in the course of development in Queensland

To achieve best environmental management practice in Queensland, effort needs to be extended into the private sector. A Regional Landscape Strategy compiled for any substantial new proposal must identify the most promising technique(s) (from an available tool kit of 13) by which a developer (of any type) is more likely to sustain on-site resources while assisting government deliver its future plans in any region of the State. Offsetting may prove to be one of the most effective of these tools. However, policy must address‘offset land mitigation’, whereby the necessary financial incentives are introduced. Practicable methods by which offset sites can be selected, and measurement of their consequent environmental benefit, have now been devised and tested to assist this process.

Management of a tributyl tin issue in a marina development in Queensland

Tributyl tin (TBT) deposits in the sediments are one of many impacts that have been imposed on both the environment and the up-coming development of Boat Haven, Airlie Beach, Queensland. The current costly solution to this problem (that is, removal and re-burial) could be put in future to the credit of the developer rather than be treated (as at present) as a penalty. The Queensland Government’s Offsets Scheme provides an opportunity to promote effective conservation of regional landscapes. Because this scheme plans for offsetting in terrestrial vegetation systems through rehabilitation, so credits could be given to those approved developers who rehabilitate valuable marine habitats disturbed by TBT deposits.

Elements of an environmental offsets policy : a working paper towards a policy for an environmental banking scheme appropriate for Queensland

In the past eight years, Australia has adopted the use of environmental offsets as a means to compensate for environmental degradation from development. Queensland has more environmental offsetting policies than any other Australian State or Territory. The methodology has profound effects on development companies, landowners (both private and public), regional land planning, organizations, government agencies, monetary banking institutions and environmental conservation bodies.

Parking, parties and pets : disputes - the dark side of community living

In the last decade community living, in master planned communities or strata titled complexes, has increased. As land becomes scarcer, the popularity of these schemes is predicted to grow. Offsetting this popularity is the peculiarities of community living, in particular the often unthought-of difficulties arising from living in very close proximity to your neighbour. Such difficulties affect both amenity of life and property value. This paper seeks to inform practitioners of the issues arising from community living. It does this by identifying the more common forms of disputes and considering recent tribunal and court decisions. The paper concludes by identifying the dispute warning signs to assist to practitioners with the valuation process.

Issues in negotiating a Carbon Sequestration Agreement for a Biosequestration Offsets Project

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. To facilitate it, the Commonwealth has introduced the Carbon Farming Initiative, a scheme whereby carbon credits can be earned for biosequestration offsets projects. The project proponent must acquire under state law a ‘carbon sequestration right’ which confers the benefit of the sequestered carbon on the land. Each State provides for an agreement associated with the carbon sequestration right between the landowner and the holder of the right (‘carbon sequestration agreement’). This article identifies some key risks and issues that must be considered in the drafting of a carbon sequestration agreement to support the successful operation of a biosequestration offsets project.

The Use of Ecological Design to Achieve Sustainable Development in Queensland, Australia

This series of technical papers arose out of the action by a private entrepreneur to initiate a process beyond mere regulatory compliance in order to achieve best environmental practice at proposed large new visitor gateways to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Because of the complexity of issues involved at such urbanized downstream sites, the range of topics covered is wide – though still only those considered at this juncture to be of management priority. Included on this platform is one introductory paper reviewing the history of environmental management in the field in Queensland, and three papers which seek to appreciate the main techniques by which government contributes to the solutions viz. through the national park, threatened species list, and environmental impact assessment. The history paper was designed to allow the present series to be considered in broad context as well as performance to date. The work emphasizes that much of the fertile land that must be sustained nowadays lies in the province of the private sector, and that the initiative to create any new cost-effective paradigm in ecologically-sustainable practices lies mostly in their hands. In all instances, this strategic approach to large-scale property planning is through ecological design – using field case studies around the immediate biophysical catchment of the development, with attendant focus on the associated legal catchment (the actual development site) and the social catchment (the effective land managers). The first of these has given rise to a document termed a Regional Landscape Strategy, its implementation planned in concert with an Environmental Impact Assessment of the site and with a Strategic Regional Initiative (still being tested in the field) for community engagement. The first document takes into account the aspirations of government as expressed in its broad-scale regional plans.