The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) is a partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets.
BBOP envisages a future in which biodiversity offsets are globally applied to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity relative to development impacts.
Dear BBOP Learning Network,
Where next? As more companies, regulators, banks and civil society groups focus on biodiversity offsets and the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) completes the first four years of its work, where should we now focus our efforts? In July, BBOP held its seventh programme meeting in Paris, France. There, the group initiated a new governance structure for BBOP and defined the priorities for an ambitious and exiting work plan which will be executed over the next 30 months, 2009-2011. We are looking for new partners. See below for more details.
As well as offering an update on recent BBOP activities, this newsletter highlights other relevant meetings, publications, and news in the biodiversity offsets community. We hope you find it interesting and relevant. Please send us articles, information, ideas and suggestions to include, and feel free to contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
with questions and feedback. We always enjoy hearing from you.
The BBOP Secretariat Kerry ten Kate, Ray Victurine, Patrick Maguire, Tommie Herbert and newcomer Amrei von HaseIn This Newsletter: MEETINGS
RECENT BBOP NEWS
OFFSETS IN THE NEWS
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme: Aggregated Offsets and Conservation Banking Workshop 29 June, 2009 Paris, France
The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme held a workshop on 29 June, 2009 in Paris to discuss the viability of conservation banking and aggregated offsets outside the current regulatory systems in the United States and Australia. Best practices and necessary preconditions for biodiversity banking and aggregated offsets were presented, and the group identified the steps needed to help countries and potential offset providers determine the appropriateness of banking/ aggregation models in different settings. The opportunities and risks of both regulated and voluntary schemes were examined by the group. Presentations from the meeting are available at: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/ln_meetings.php Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme: Seventh Programme Meeting 30 June to 2 July, 2009 Paris, France
BBOP convened to finalize a governance model and develop work plan ideas for BBOP Phase II. Sessions were built around agreed priorities for our future work and focused on:
- assuring the quality of biodiversity offsets;
- developing a broader portfolio of biodiversity offset experiences;
- preparing better guidelines on biodiversity offset design and implementation;
- working at the national level in a number of countries to support policy-makers in the field of biodiversity offsets, landscape-level and regional planning;
- exploring the potential of aggregated offsets and conservation banking;
- training and capacity building; and
- improving communications
A priority work area in Phase II will be expanding the offset pilot portfolio – the Advisory Committee recommended specifically exploring the tourism, mining, agribusiness, oil and gas, forestry, and coastal development sectors. BBOP members also agreed on the pursuit of country partnerships. These national-level collaborations will assist in the development of policy frameworks incorporating no net loss of biodiversity. They are also an opportunity for BBOP to support the assimilation of offsets into eco-regional and landscape-scale planning. Lessons learned (from more pilot projects and regional partnerships) will help us refine and improve the biodiversity offset design methodology.
Another outcome of the Paris meeting was agreement to model and conduct a training and capacity building programme for professionals designing and implementing biodiversity offset projects and policy frameworks. The training materials will draw on the BBOP Toolkit (http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/index.php
) and our future products. The vision is to create an in-person classroom training module to implement in a series of regional workshops. We hope these courses will start in mid 2010. Please let us know if you are interested in participating in such training.
During the meeting, the BBOP Advisory Committee established a new BBOP governance structure which is intended to provide a more responsive, effective and participatory programme. An Executive Committee with strategic decision making authority was established to represent the various groups that comprise the newly reconstituted ‘Advisory Group’.
The elected members of the Executive Committee for the first 15 months of work are:
- Preston Hardison, Tulalip Tribes
- Daniela Lerda, FUNBIO, The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund
- Theo Stephens, Department of Conservation, New Zealand
- Stuart Anstee, Rio Tinto
- Sachin Kapila, Shell
- Juan Jose Dada, International Finance Corporation
- Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends
The BBOP Secretariat will continue to coordinate and execute the program of work of BBOP under the guidance of the Advisory Group (particularly its Executive Committee), liaising with members of the Advisory Group, the Executive Committee and other technical committees, country partnerships, and the Learning Network. The purpose of the Advisory Group is to:
- Contribute advice on BBOP’s work on biodiversity offsets, based on a wide a range of expertise and perspectives.
- Demonstrate, by supporting or adopting particular BBOP products (e.g. the Principles), that there is widespread support within many organisations across a range of groups in society and countries for emerging best practice on biodiversity offsets.
- Provide technical input into the design and development of BBOP tools and policies and to offer guidance, when requested, by BBOP pilot projects.
- Promote and foster offset best practice
If you are interested in learning more about becoming a BBOP Advisory Group member, please contact us at: email@example.com. OECD Expert’s Workshop on Innovative International Financing for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use 2 July, 2009 OECD Headquarters, Paris, France
The OECD convened an expert workshop on Innovative International Financing for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable use on 2 July, 2009. The workshop was attended by more than 40 participants, including delegates from the OECD Working Group on the Economic Aspects of Biodiversity (WGEAB), developing country participants (including Brazil, Peru and Uganda), experts from the CBD, IUCN, UNEP and the GEF, as well as other NGOs and the private sector. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss: (i) existing investment gaps and the need for an international biodiversity financing mechanism; (ii) how to scale-up funding for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; (iii) methods for cost-effective biodiversity finance, including targeting; and (iv) a strategy for moving forward. A BBOP member, Joshua Bishop from IUCN, presented during a session on ‘Options for Scaling-Up Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use’. His presentation, entitled, ‘Approaches for generating demand on biodiversity conservation: Framing the issue’ included a description of biodiversity offsets and their role in international conservation finance. Josh was joined by several other participants from the BBOP meetings in Paris. We’re grateful to OECD colleagues for helping us arrange an evening reception for the delegates of both meetings at the OECD headquarters.http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/52/43285997.pdf
(List of Participants) http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3343,en_2649_34309_43313671_1_1_1_1,00.html
RECENT BBOP NEWS
New Addition to the BBOP Team
On 1 September, 2009, BBOP welcomed its new Science Coordinator. Dr Amrei von Hase arrives with extensive experience in environmental conservation and agricultural research. Her most recent expertise lies in developing and coordinating landscape-scale conservation planning processes; facilitating the implementation of conservation plans; and monitoring and evaluating environmental projects and conservation interventions. Based in Cape Town, South Africa, Amrei brings to BBOP a sound knowledge of international policy and legislation relevant to sustainable development and biodiversity. Before joining BBOP, she consulted widely for NGOs, business, and government clients. Both her undergraduate degree in Botany and Zoology and her post-graduate degree in Botany (BSc. Honours) were completed with distinction. Her Doctorate in Conservation Science and Ecology is from the University of Cape Town. The BBOP Secretariat is thrilled to have Amrei on board.
Biodiversity Offsets, the Mitigation Hierarchy and Conditions for Credit: A Review of the Business Case, Loan Conditions and Current Practice in Financial Institutions
UNEP-FI and BBOP
Many development and commercial banks have adopted performance standards or requirements which oblige clients to seek to avoid and minimise harm caused to biodiversity by development projects, and finally to compensate for residual impacts. The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and BBOP are collaborating to complete a systematic analysis of current practice in the financial sector with respect to the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets. The study will investigate performance requirements and offset loan conditions used by banks, particularly the Equator banks. Initial results are to be presented at the UNEP – FI meeting in Cape Town from 22 to 23 October.
BBOP is GOOD
‘A Better Kind of Offset’, BBOP profiled in 13 July 2009 issue of GOOD Magazine
Earlier this month, BBOP was featured in GOOD Magazine. In this article aimed at the general public, author Bonnie Tsui introduces biodiversity offsets and outlines the BBOP approach to achieving ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity and way of working.
The article acknowledges some controversy surrounding the concept of offsetting, but clarifies that BBOP participants strictly adhere to the mitigation hierarchy - which calls for developers to avoid, minimize, restore, and finally offset negative biodiversity impacts. The article describes the ‘habitat hectares’ biodiversity loss/gain quantification approach in simple terms and presents the business case for seeking no net loss. BBOP’s pilot projects in the South Island of New Zealand and on Bainbridge Island, Washington are briefly described to reveal how two different sites are approaching offset design with support from BBOP. This piece concludes by mentioning BBOP’s recent achievements, with a forecast for what readers can expect from BBOP in Phase II of its work plan.
For the full article in GOOD Magazine, see: http://www.good.is/post/a-better-kind-of-offset/
BBOP Featured on Reuter’s and PlanetSave
‘Jazzing up Business’ Impact on Biodiversity’, 11 August 2009, Chris Milton
In an article entitled, ‘Jazzing up Business’ Impact on Biodiversity’ author Chris Milton describes the progress of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program and the programme’s goals. Milton singles out BBOP’s, ‘willingness to address human ecology alongside environmental ecology’ as a massive step forward – and the ‘no net loss’ standard is presented as an advancement in sustainable planning. He expresses a degree of unease at the concept of mitigating impacts rather than completely avoiding environmental harm, but appreciates that, properly done, biodiversity offsets are, ‘not a market mechanism which allows industry to green-wash its way through normal operations.’
For the full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/mnCorporateResponsibility/idUS222902002220090811
Changing Business Perceptions Regarding Biodiversity: From Impact Mitigation Towards New Strategies And Practices
Houdet, Trommetter, Weber. Ecole Polytechnique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. hal-00412875, Version 1, 2 September 2009
This paper proposes an analysis of business perceptions regarding biodiversity. It first discusses how biodiversity is usually perceived as an external environmental constraint on business activities, and how economic tools may be used for arbitrages in that context. Building upon the author’s work on the Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator (BBII), the publication then discusses how assessing a firm's interdependences with biodiversity may bring about new business strategies and practices. The report presents a typology of firm behavior regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES), reviews business opportunities and property rights issues pertaining to markets for ecosystem services and proposes preliminary conceptual foundations of new business standards needed to reverse current biodiversity trends.
Full Publication: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/28/75/PDF/2009-29.pdf
Can Biodiversity Offsets and Conservation Banking Help the British Countryside?
Future Countryside, August 2009. Kerry ten Kate
In this article, BBOP Director Kerry ten Kate asks whether it is possible to conserve the British countryside, biodiversity and ecosystem services even as the small island is faced with growth in house-building, renewable energy projects and other major infrastructure development. Drawing on the conclusions of the report to Defra to which she contributed, she suggests that biodiversity offsets offer one potential mechanism to balance the impacts of development activities with the conservation of biodiversity, simultaneously generating the means to pay farmers, landowners, Wildlife Trusts and others to deliver the biodiversity outcomes the country needs. She argues that existing policy, the detailed knowledge of the UK’s biodiversity and familiarity with agri-environment schemes give the UK a head start. Properly conceived, biodiversity offsets could save time and money by introducing clarity to the British planning process; strengthen the protected area system and help it adapt to climate change; move beyond the present loss of biodiversity in the wider countryside through the cumulative impact of ‘death by 1000 cuts’; and give individuals an economic incentive to conserve the biodiversity on their land.
If you would like to read more, please use the following link:http://www.futurecountryside.com/articles.php/resourcesandregulations/20/can-biodiversity-offsets-and-conservation-banking-help-the-british-countryside
Simple Modelling to Assess if Offsets Schemes Can Prevent Biodiversity Loss, Using Examples from Australian Woodlands
Bedward, Ellis, and Simpson. Biological Conservation 142 (26 July 2009) 2732-2742.
Offset schemes are advocated as a way that continued development and environmental restoration can be achieved concurrently. These authors used a simple modelling approach to evaluate proposed offsets schemes, with scenarios that required offsetting the impacts of clearing woodlands either by re-vegetation of cleared land or by improving the habitat value of degraded woodland. Each simulation used the attribute table of a single GIS polygon layer to obtain data and record results. Likely consequences of these schemes for three groups of species with different foraging resource requirements were investigated: shrub-dependent; canopy-dependent and old tree-dependent. The simulation results demonstrate that assessing only the eventual benefit score of a scheme can hide the losses sustained by some elements of biodiversity. Bedward, Ellis, and Simpson recommend this type of simple modelling approach as the first step in determining whether a proposed offsets scheme is worth investigating further. In particular, the ability to represent the scheme’s predicted consequences as maps and graphs assists decision makers in judging whether the scheme has sufficient merit to warrant a full assessment and subsequent implementation; or needs some adjustments to achieve its aims, or is seriously flawed.
Journal Homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context
Treweek et al., April 2009, Final Report to Defra (Contract NE 0801)
In 2007, the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) identified the need to explore new policy options, including market creation in biodiversity or incentives for biodiversity “such as biodiversity offsets”, particularly to reduce rates of loss of non-designated sites and features. In 2008, Defra commissioned a scoping study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English context. The report, available at https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/env.asp, reviews experience of biodiversity offsets worldwide; considers whether offsets would benefit biodiversity in England; assesses how offsets might complement existing policy; reviews some economic considerations that might influence the costs of offset arrangements; and discusses some changes that might be needed to increase use of offsets as a mechanism to compensate for biodiversity loss. Two BBOP members, Jo Treweek and Kerry ten Kate, were members of the study team, Jo being the lead author.
The report reviews relevant law and policy in England, such as the EU Habitats, Birds and Environmental Liability Directives, Duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) and associated planning policy. It concludes that biodiversity offsets are unlikely to be implemented to any great extent under current EU law and associated regulations, particularly for biodiversity which is not designated or protected at European level. Further, the UK ‘Biodiversity Duty’ is open to interpretation with respect to requirements to compensate for residual adverse effects of any given development proposal. Under the current system in England, some offsets have been implemented, but there is no consistency in requirement or approach. They have only occasionally been used for ‘wider biodiversity’ – i.e. for the full range of biodiversity components (beyond listed species and habitats) that comprise the richness of English wildlife and which are increasingly lost to cumulative impacts and fragmentation of habitat. The report concludes that the remaining, principal question is whether additional law and policy would be required in order to ensure a regular, consistent integration of a ‘no net loss of biodiversity’ requirement into development proposals, or whether this could be accomplished with the current regulatory framework if supplemented by new, clearer guidance. The authors recommend further work to answer this; a series of pilot projects to test how biodiversity offsets can best be implemented in England, including through the use of credits and banking; better ‘when and how’ guidance on biodiversity offsets for England; and a study of the costs of administering a system of biodiversity offsets in England.
Need for a Clear and Fair Evaluation of Biodiversity Offsets for Fisheries Bycatch
C. Wilcox and C. Josh Donlan, Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No 3 (2009), 770-772
Wilcox and Donlan respond to a critique of their work by Zydelis et al (2009) on the use of biodiversity offsets in managing fisheries bycatch. The authors assert that offsets should only be used after mitigation measures have been undertaken and stress that fisheries should be responsible for ensuring their impacts are kept below sustainable levels. They suggest that offset programs should be implemented on a species by species basis. The article notes a range of activities in addition to predator species eradication that could serve as potential offsets. The authors emphasize that offsets are a viable tool for industries to reduce their impacts to acceptable levels without unnecessary public burden.
View this article in its entirety: http://www.advancedconservation.org/library/wilcox_
A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale
Kiesecker et al., BioScience Vol 59 No1, January 2009, 77 – 84
Once the decision has been made to offset biodiversity impacts, multiple issues arise regarding how to do so in practice. A key concern is site selection. In light of the general aim to locate offsets close to the affected sites and ensure that benefits accrue in the same area, what is the appropriate spatial scale for identifying potential offset sites (e.g., local, ecoregional)? The authors of ‘A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale’ use the Marxan site-selection algorithm to address conceptual and methodological challenges associated with identifying a set of potential offset sites and determining an appropriate spatial scale for them. To demonstrate this process, the design of offsets for impacts from development on the Jonah natural gas field in Wyoming was examined.
OFFSETS IN THE NEWS
Offsets can’t address visual intrusion, says REA
‘Biodiversity offsets for renewables a no-go, claims REA’, NewEnergyFocus.com, 27 August, 2009, Will Nichols
This article documents the Renewable Energy Association’s (REA) opinion on conservation banking for wind developers in Britain and interviews Gaynor Hartnell, chief policy officer with REA. Ms. Hartnell explains that the impacts of wind turbines are visual rather than environmental, and therefore are difficult to measure and offset. She suggests that offsets are more compatible with other types of renewable energy projects, but raises a concern that local governments frequently do not have ecologists on staff to give advice in the project approval process – so incorporating conservation banking or offsets into district level planning would not be feasible.
Conservation banking as a means to overcome local planning objections
‘Objectors to wind farms to be bought off: A scheme to reward local people is being considered’, The Sunday Times, 23 August 2009, Tricia Holly Davis
In order for the UK to harness its valuable wind power and meet challenging greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2010, the country will need to find ways to overcome barriers to approval for renewable energy projects. This article suggests that conservation banks may offer a partial solution to the problem. It proposes that conservation banks and a system of biodiversity ‘credits’ could help energy companies offset their impacts and finance restoration and conservation work by local organizations, which may go some way to addressing local environmental objections. Projects planning for no net impact may enjoy faster project approvals from local authorities, so, the author concludes, conservation banking could streamline the infrastructure development process – allowing Britain to protect its resources, lower its emissions, and secure its share of the wind energy market.
Read the full article: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6806408.ece
Environmentalists Demand Biodiversity Offsets in Uganda
‘Uganda: Environmentalists Want Biodiversity Offsets’, allAfrica.com, 12 August 2009, Gerald Tenywa
In a recent article, ‘Uganda: Environmentalists Want Biodiversity Offsets,’ Gerald Tenywa reports that biodiversity offsets are a new topic of discussion among stakeholders in Ugandan protected areas - and oil companies are taking notice. While environmental bodies in Uganda are not opposed to oil mining in protected areas, they are adamant that negative effects on biodiversity be addressed. Conservationists have re-affirmed their desire for EIAs to be conducted prior to oil mining to determine and value environmental, social, and ecological project impacts. Many suggest that impacts such as species displacement be mitigated through offsets. The goal is to incorporate offsets into environmental regulation – requiring each company in a protected area to mitigate the impacts of their operations. Oil companies have therefore, ‘found it necessary to address environmental concerns, hoping to turn Uganda into a case study, showing good conservation and business practices’.
Link to full article: http://allafrica.com/stories/200908121006.html
Conservatives propose Conservation Credits in the UK
‘Cameron sets out plans to improve biodiversity’, Conservatives.com, 17 April 2009
‘Cameron: Create new parks to offset development’, 24dash.com, 17 April 2009, Jon Land
A study commissioned by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and articles in 'Future Countryside', ‘The Sunday Times’, and ‘New Energy Focus’ all covered in this newsletter, indicate that conservation banking and biodiversity offsets are high on the agenda in the UK. In a recent speech to the Wildlife Trust, David Cameron, leader of the UK’s opposition Conservative Party, proposed a new approach to balancing development with biodiversity preservation. He described a ‘conservation credits’ scheme, where biodiversity costs incurred in development would be compensated by equivalent gains elsewhere. Rather than focusing completely on regulation, Mr. Cameron’s proposed solution is to use the market to incentivize the conservation of natural habitat. His hope is that the system will lead to the pooling of resources for large tracts of intact biodiversity. Acknowledging that there are many practical challenges to consider before establishing ‘conservation credits’ in the UK, the Conservatives have initiated a review that is being conducted by the Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, Nick Herbert.
To read more:
First Biodiversity Bank in France Launched (5/11/09)
Liberation – FR, 5 November 2009
In May 2009, CDC Biodiversité (a subsidiary of the French financial institution "Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations") launched the first biodiversity bank in France, intended to sell biodiversity credits in advance of impacts. The site comprises 357 hectares of abandoned orchards near Saint Martin de Crau in the south of France. The site will be restored to semi-arid steppe habitat using a reintroduction of traditional sheep grazing methods. The area is home to rare and threatened birds, insects, and plants (Pin-tailed Sandgrouse, Little Bustard, Lesser Kestrel, endemic grasshopper). France has had a law on the books since 1976 which requires avoidance, minimization, and compensation of impacts to the environment. The biodiversity bank will offset development in the semi-arid steppe.
Read Article (in French): http://www.liberation.fr/terre/0101566503-un-premier-site-pour-compenser-les-degats
11th Annual BIOECON Conference on ‘Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity’
21 – 22 September, 2009
Centro Culturale don Orion Artigianelli – Venice, Italy
An increasing number of businesses responsible for biodiversity loss in the past are now supporters of its conservation. Markets for organic agriculture and sustainably-harvested timber are developing at double-digit rates, while rapid growth is observed in the demand for climate mitigation services, such as the protection of forests and wetlands to absorb carbon dioxide. In response to these developments, The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, in association with Conservation International, DEFRA, Department of Land Economy of Cambridge University and European Investment Bank, has convened the Eleventh International BIOECON Conference on ‘Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity’. The Conference will be held at the Centro Culturale Don Orione Artigianelli, in Venice, Italy, on September 21st-22nd, 2009.
The BIOECON Conference is targeted at researchers, environmental professionals, international organizations and policy makers working for biodiversity conservation and management. Participants will identify effective and efficient instruments for biodiversity conservation. The following tools will be discussed: auctions of biodiversity conservation contracts, payment-for-services contracts, taxes, tradable permits, voluntary mechanisms and straightforward command and control. Special emphasis will be given to policy reforms aimed at increasing commercial rewards for conserving biodiversity and penalties for biodiversity loss. Policies for circulating information on the biodiversity performance requirements of firms will also be reviewed.
For registration and payment of the fee, please go to http://bioecon.meetingvenice.it/
Further information about the Conference programme will be posted on: http://www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk/04_11_ann-conf.htm.
If you need more information, please contact Ms. Ughetta Molin Fop, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org, fax +39.041.2711461.
UNEP – FI 2009 Global Roundtable: 'Financing Change, Changing Finance’
Cape Town International Convention Center
22 – 23 October 2009
Cape Town, South Africa
2009 is a critical year for the world with the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December that will produce a new global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the road to Copenhagen, the Cape Town Roundtable will help frame discussions on international climate policy that will have resounding impacts on the financial sector and international carbon markets. The event, ‘Financing Change, Changing Finance’, will be the first-ever Global Roundtable in the African continent. UNEP-FI expects hundreds of professionals from the global financial sector to discuss the latest developments and emerging issues of finance and sustainability. As well as touching on UNEP-FI and BBOP’s joint research (mentioned above in ‘Recent BBOP News’), the Cape Town Roundtable will offer interactive panel sessions, in-depth debates, and expert training on:
- Responsible investment
- Sustainable banking
- Low-carbon economy
- Financing renewables
- Sustainable insurance
- Transparency, reporting and accountability
- Responsible property investment
- Finance and water
- Valuing natural capital
- Financing for sustainable development
For more information on UNEP-FI 2009, see: http://www.unepfi.org/events/2009/roundtable/index.html
Conference: Business and the 2010 Biodiversity Challenge: Convention for Biological Diversity
30 November – 3 December 2009
At the end of November, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in conjunction with UNEP Business and Industry Global Dialogue will host the third meeting on Business and the 2010 Biodiversity Challenge. The conference will open with an overview of current government and business perspectives on the biodiversity challenge in a time of global economic recovery. The subsequent session will provide an outline of the business case for biodiversity, including business impacts and dependence on biodiversity and ecosystem services, a recap of private sector engagement under the CBD, identification of main drivers for biodiversity, and presentations from key sectors highlighting innovative initiatives. In depth discussions on the following sectors will take place: tourism, agri-food, fisheries, construction, forestry, cosmetics, energy, mining, and finance. The third session explores, ‘Operationalizing Biodiversity in the Business Context’. Participants will investigate emerging biodiversity risks and opportunities in business – with a focus on aligning profitability with biodiversity conservation. Challenges in measuring, valuing, and reporting business impact/ dependence on ecosystem services will also be considered. An examination of management tools for linking biodiversity and business follows, with individual sessions covering: biodiversity offsets and banking, standards and verification, biodiversity impact assessment and life cycle analysis, and biodiversity value chain management. The final session will offer an update on international science and policy. A closing debate will address how to push the agenda forward, advance biodiversity, and increase awareness and action among businesses.
CBD Events List: http://www.cbd.int/doc/lists/events-scbd.pdf
Programme Officer, Business and Industry Unit
Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch
UNEP: Division of Technology Industry and Economics
15 rue Milan, 75441 Paris Cedex 09 France
- The BBOP Secretariat Team
(Kerry ten Kate, Ray Victurine, Patrick Maguire, Tommie Herbert )