A review of recent biodiversity offsetting practice in...

Defra project code: WC 1051

Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Phase – Sub Report

A review of recent biodiversity offsetting

practice in Germany

Final Report

February 2014

Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited

in partnership with

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

Final Report February 2013

Project title: WC1051: Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting pilot phase A review of recent biodiversity offsetting practice in Germany

Contracting organisation:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge

Road, London, SE1 7QY, UK Contact: William Sheate (Project Manager) Jonathan Baker (Project Coordinator) Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk

Partner organisations: The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Address: IEEP Offices, Floor 3, 11 Belgrave Road,

London SW1V 1RB, UK Contact: Graham Tucker Tel: +44 (0)20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ieep.eu

Report details: Report title: A review of recent biodiversity offsetting practice in Germany

Date issued: February 2013 Purpose: To undertake an examination of offsetting

experiences in Germany Version no.: 2.5 Author(s): Underwood, E., Wende, W., Stein, C. and

Tucker, G. Edited by: Sheate, W., Baker, J., and ten Brink, P.

Acknowledgements The project team is particularly grateful to many people who are involved in offsetting in Germany, who provided key data on offsetting upon which this report is largely based. These are too numerous to mention, but include all the municipalities and district nature conservation agencies named in the tables of Appendix 1 of this report. The team is also grateful to James Vause, Helen Pontier and the project Steering Group for helpful advice during the project and comments on a draft of this report.

2

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.cep.co.uk/


http://www.ieep.eu/


Contents 0. Executive Summary ........................................................................ 4

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction to the Study ................................................................ 6 Policy relevance ................................................................................................................................. 6 Why Germany?................................................................................................................................... 6 Aims and objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7 Summary of the research approach ............................................................................................. 7

2. The German Impact Mitigation Regulation .................................. 9 The aims and scope of the Impact Mitigation Regulation ........................................................ 9 Implementation of the Impact Mitigation Regulation .............................................................. 12

3. Research Method .......................................................................... 19 Scope and approach ..................................................................................................................... 19 Data collection and analysis ......................................................................................................... 19

4. Results ............................................................................................ 21 Cost data ........................................................................................................................................... 21

5. Analysis .......................................................................................... 27 Costs per hectare in relation to habitat type and area .......................................................... 27 Costs per hectare in relation to market size and the amount of development in each

district ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Costs per hectare in relation to offset provider ......................................................................... 28 Comparison of costs with other standard costs data ............................................................... 28

6. Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................... 30 7. References ..................................................................................... 32 Appendix 1 – Information Obtained on the Assessed Plans .......... 35 Appendix 2 – Habitats Restored / Created by Offset Measures .... 45

Types of offset habitats created or restored .............................................................................. 45 Appendix 3 - Description of Cases and Costs of Offset Measures . 46

Description of the cases used in the analysis ............................................................................. 46

3


0. Executive Summary

Introduction

0.1 The research covered in this report seeks to complement the on-going evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilots1 by examining offsetting experiences in Germany. Particularly the study sought to establish: the costs of compensation as delivered through offsetting and habitat banking schemes; and the effects of market size, depth and liquidity on these costs.

0.2 The research examined offsetting and habitat banking in Germany as offsetting has been a mandatory requirement there since 1976, when the Impact Mitigation Regulation (IMR) was adopted as part of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. The German IMR requires the avoidance of significant negative effects, and the compensation for residual impacts on natural assets (i.e. habitats, soil, water, climate, air quality and the aesthetic quality of the landscape) and their functions. As a minimum, the policy aims to achieve no net loss of biodiversity assets and their functions.

0.3 This report compiles information on the costs of a sample of offsets, breaking these down as far as possible into key components (including the unit cost of the biodiversity outcome) and costs allocated to habitat types. The research set out to investigate whether offsetting costs in states with high demands for offsetting and large functional markets were lower than those with smaller markets. A comparison was also made of costs of offsetting through third party measures and habitat banking.

0.4 Preliminary investigations showed that due to confidentially constraints, information was not available on the costs of offsetting in rural areas. Therefore this study focussed on the costs of offsetting developments in designated settlement zones (i.e. existing or proposed urban areas) under the Building Code components of the IMR.

Results

0.5 The collation of cost data was based on an initial sample of 48 development plans from 23 districts selected randomly from 11 of the 16 German federal states. The responsible authorities were contacted and cost data extracted from publically available development plans, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and associated planning documents. The authorities were also asked to quantify the total number of development projects that fell under the IMR during the last year (i.e. 2012) within their district, as it was envisaged that this information would provide a proxy measure of demand for offsetting and market size.

0.6 In total 38 district authorities were contacted, of which 23 supplied information on the plans processed in 2012. Many plans did not include information on actual offsetting costs, as these are often only known after the offset is complete. Consequently, information on both the costs of offsetting and the demand for offsetting in the relevant districts was only obtained for 9 offsetting cases.

0.7 Analysis of the costs data indicated that, although there was a wide range of per Hectare (ha) costs, for woodland, hedgerows and grasslands, offset costs are relatively high compared to comparable restoration measures taken from other sources. It is not known why these costs are higher. Potential explanatory factors may be the fact that the offsets found are nearly all on small areas of land, or due to the lack of market pressures to reduce costs but this are unproven.

1 More information is available from: https://www.gov.uk/biodiversity-offsetting#biodiversity-offsetting-pilots-and-schemes

4

https://www.gov.uk/biodiversity-offsetting%23biodiversity-offsetting-pilots-and-schemes

https://www.gov.uk/biodiversity-offsetting%23biodiversity-offsetting-pilots-and-schemes


0.8 Examination of the costed offsets reveals that 7 of them were carried out within the local authority area and only 2 were carried out where there may be a district market for offsetting. This indicates that in practice the market for these offsets is highly geographically constrained despite offsetting not being restricted under legislation to the same local authority area - provided it is within the same (much larger) bio-geographical region. Due to this finding it was not appropriate to test the influence of the size of the market on offsetting costs by comparing them with the number of developments within the district.

Conclusions

0.9 Based on the assessment of the 9 costed offsetting local development plans it appears likely that the size of the offsetting market currently has little if any influence on the costs of offsetting within settlement zones. This is because offsetting is mostly carried out by local authorities within their own areas, probably for ecological, equity and practical reasons. This also tends to apply to private developments because offsetting of their residual impacts is often carried out on their behalf by the local authority.

0.10 Furthermore, the offset costs listed in development plans are often actually cost estimates based on ‘standard costs’ derived from reviews of empirical data on habitat re-creation / restoration costs. Thus they are based on historic average costs and, as such, are unlikely to reflect market influences closely. The actual offset costs are not compiled and fixed until the planning process is complete and the developer(s) is in possession of their development rights, and are final costs were rarely available when the environmental assessment of the development plan is published.

0.11 It is important to note that the collated cost data mostly relate to relatively small offsets in municipalities in the settlement zone. There may be more scope for larger-scale third party habitat banking in rural zones because there are fewer restrictions on the location of the offset.

0.12 Only 2 of the identified cases involved habitat banking, these were both strategic banks developed by the local authority to offset development plans. There was no third party involvement in offset delivery, and no opportunity to examine the potential impacts on offsetting costs of market competition amongst providers.

0.13 The paucity of cost data and characteristics of the German offsets system, particularly the fact that offsets in non-rural areas are provided by the local authority, meant that this project was unable to draw firm conclusions on the influence of market size and other factors on the costs of offsetting in Germany. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the principal implications of these results are relevant to offsetting in England because, as in Germany, it appears there is a justifiable preference to locate offsets close to the areas that they are compensating for. Consequently similar constraints on the size and liquidity of the offsetting market may occur in England as in Germany.

5


1. Introduction to the Study

Policy relevance 1.1 Biodiversity 2020 and the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) commit Defra and

partners to the exploration of biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism to improve the current system of compensating for residual impacts on biodiversity loss that occur as a result of developments governed by the planning process within England. In September 2013’s Defra Green Paper2 was released providing some options on the emerging policy. The on-going policy process has included identifying and commissioning evidence from numerous sources.

1.2 This report is one of several strands of evidence being gathered to explore the potential application of offsetting, including the Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies and a study of markets in the USA and Australia3 Various biodiversity offsetting systems have been running in countries across the world for many years. Lessons can be learnt from these systems for the application of biodiversity offsetting in England. The research covered in this report seeks to complement the on-going evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilots4 in England by examining offsetting experiences in Germany.

Why Germany? 1.3 The study examines offsetting and habitat banking in Germany because offsetting has

been a long standing mandatory requirement as part of the Impact Mitigation Regulation (IMR). The German IMR requires the avoidance of significant negative effects, and the compensation for residual impacts on natural assets (i.e. habitats, soil, water, climate, air quality and the aesthetic quality of the landscape) and their functions. As a minimum, the policy aims to achieve no net loss of biodiversity assets and their functions, and is therefore broadly equivalent to biodiversity offsetting as proposed in the Defra Green Paper. More detail on the policy is presented in Chapter 2.

1.4 Offsetting in Germany was selected for study because it was thought that there would be sufficient comparative information to enable an examination of the impact of market size and liquidity on costs. In addition no other EU Member State has similar long-standing experience of offsetting. Although there is greater experience of offsetting and habitat banking in the US and Australia, the legal framework and ecological characteristics are less comparable to England.

2 Defra (2012) Biodiversity Offsetting Green Paper [Online] Available from: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/biodiversity/biodiversity_offsetting

3 Phase 1 and Phase 2 are available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17509

Phase 3 is available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17831

USA/Australia Study:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=19152&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=WC1098&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description

4 More information is available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18229

6

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/biodiversity/biodiversity_offsetting

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17509







Aims and objectives 1.5 The overall aim of this study was to undertake an examination of offsetting experiences

in Germany to establish the costs of compensation that are delivered through offsetting, habitat banking schemes, and the effects of the market size, and liquidity on costs. In particular, the detailed objectives were to:

o Provide a summary of the German offsetting system.

o Gather information on the costs of sample offsets, breaking these down as far as possible into key components (including the unit cost of the biodiversity compensated for and transaction costs) and costs allocated to habitat types.

o Assess available evidence to see if it showed:

Any relationship between offset costs and the offsets market, taking number of plans requiring offsetting as a proxy;

If habitat banking regulations reduced market liquidity; and

Other factors that affect offsetting costs in Germany.

1.6 However, it was not possible to carry out a thorough analysis of the influence of market factors on offsetting because the development plans sampled are predominantly operating in very restricted market at the local authority level, whereas the (larger) development plans from the rural zone, which do operate in a regional level market, were unavailable due to data restrictions.

1.7 The study therefore uses the analysis of the German offsetting system to draw broader lessons for the English context.

Summary of the research approach 1.8 Studies of the costs of offsetting or the influence of market forces on their costs in

Germany have not been done before. Nor is there currently information available that indicates the scale of demand for habitat areas on which to carry out offsets, and therefore no indication of the potential market size for habitat banks. Therefore this study required the collation of primary data on the costs of offsetting from a sample of offsetting cases and an assessment of the scale of demand for offsetting.

1.9 The compilation of data was primarily carried out by Professor Wolfgang Wende and Christian Stein of the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development in Dresden, with support and analysis from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. Collingwood Environmental Planning carried out a quality review of the analysis and this report.

1.10 Initially it was considered that it might be possible to examine the influence of market size and the use of habitat banking on offsetting costs in Germany by these approaches:

A. Examining how costs have changed over time in a number of German states that successfully introduced habitat banking after 2002 and where IMR offsetting requirements are now mostly implemented through the development of habitat banking (or similar market based instruments).

B. Comparing costs in the German states that mostly use habitat banking, as examined in ‘A’, with a number of states that require restricted bespoke project-specific offsets.

C. Comparing costs in states with high demands for offsetting and large functional markets with those with smaller markets.

1.11 After an initial assessment of data availability and the examination of example data , it was found that method ‘A’ was not feasible because data on offsetting before 2002

7


are not readily available.

1.12 Method ‘B’ was also found to be unviable as habitat banking is now occurring to some extent in all states, and it was not possible to examine offsetting before this was the case.

1.13 Therefore the research adopted method ‘C’, to explore whether offsetting costs in states with high demands for offsetting and large functional markets are lower than those with smaller markets. The key interest relates to the cost of practical measures to restore, create or enhance habitats and to associated transaction costs and land purchase costs where available. Information was also sought to compare the costs of project specific offsets by developers with offsets provided through habitat banking, including third party habitat banks and habitat banks established by authorities.

1.14 For reasons of confidentially, nature conservation authorities (which are responsible for overseeing impact assessments and offsetting in designated rural zones) were unable to release information on offsetting in rural areas (which includes all areas outside built up and/or inner urban areas5, and not just remote regions). Therefore this research focused on offsetting in zones designated for human settlement, where offsetting is governed and often carried out by municipal authorities (see paragraph 2.5 for further explanation). Data on recent offsetting within settlement zones are fairly readily available, much being obtainable through planning documents and impact assessment reports that are published on the internet.

1.15 To place the offset data and analysis in context, an overview is provided of the German IMR and its implementation, based on published literature (e.g. Buess et al. 2013) and two parallel studies on the German situation currently being prepared by the consultants (Mazza & Schiller 2014, Tucker & Wende 2013).

5 Legally defined by Art. 34 and 35 of the German Federal Building Code.

8


2. The German Impact Mitigation Regulation

The aims and scope of the Impact Mitigation Regulation 2.1 Environmental impact mitigation and the offsetting of residual impacts has been a

mandatory requirement in Germany since 1976. The legal requirements are laid out in the Federal Nature Conservation Act (referred to as BNatSchG 1976 and BNatSchG 2010) and in the Federal Building Code (referred to as BauGB 1998, BauGB 2004 and BauGB 2007).

2.2 The sum of these legal requirements is widely referred to in Germany as the Impact Mitigation Regulation (IMR)6. Impact mitigation is a separate tool, but methodologically integrated into the overall environmental impact assessment process within the German planning system (Busse et al. 2013).

2.3 The German IMR requires the avoidance of significant negative effects, and the compensation of residual impacts on natural assets and their functions (see Box 1). The legal text includes a strong requirement to take avoidance measures first and foremost (Tucker & Wende 2013). As a minimum, the regulation aims to achieve no net loss of natural resources and the diversity, characteristic features and aesthetic qualities of nature and landscape, as well as their ecological functions and associated recreational values.

2.4 It is important to note that the term ‘mitigation’ has a broad meaning in the German IMR and does not just refer to avoidance and minimisation measures as is the typical meaning in England, but also includes compensation. Under the IMR ‘natural assets’ are flora and fauna, soil, water, climate and air quality, the aesthetic quality of the landscape, and their functions (such as soil processes and productivity, groundwater replenishment, and local climate regulation). Offsetting under the IMR therefore has a wider scope than currently proposed for England, as laid out in the 2013 Green Paper.

2.5 Impacts on biodiversity are generally assessed in terms of impacts on broad habitat types (biotopes)7 and priority species. Each federal state has its own list of habitats and their relative biodiversity values. Impacts on all species protected under the Habitats and Birds Directives8 must be addressed. There is currently no official national list of other – i.e. non Habitat / Bird Directive - protected species9 that should be offset, but many of the federal state regulations refer to state-level priority species. The government has legal powers to prepare a national list10, but this has not been done so far. In practice, impacts on national and regional priority species are generally considered in the offset rationale as well as in the environmental impact assessment.

2.6 At the same time, German forest law (BWaldG) protects all designated forest areas11 and requires losses to be replaced with afforestation on an equivalent area, independent of the IMR. This is usually carried out by the local forest authority

6 Eingriffsregelung

7 The word Habitat in German has the specific meaning of the living space of a species, and the word Biotope is used to indicate a habitat type as usually referred to English, eg lowland chalk grassland, riparian forest with alder and ash, or eutrophic lowland pond.

8 I.e. species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and Annex II and/or Annex IV and V of the Habitats Directive

9 Such as the list of ‘Habitats and species of principal importance in England’ draw up in accordance with the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act

10 Nationale Verantwortungsarten § BNatSchG 2010

11 Forest areas are defined as all areas covered with trees and identified in the spatial planning register, excluding small areas outside closed forest such as copses, tree lines or hedges and tree nurseries, but including open areas, tracks, meadows, etc within forest, and excluding afforested areas defined as agricultural and continuing under agricultural use (BWaldG §2, see http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwaldg/__2.html).

9


according to its sustainable forest management guidelines and ecological plans. Afforestation can only be considered to offset biodiversity and functions impacts, over and above impacts on the forest ecosystem services defined in the forest law, if it is also specified as a biodiversity offset in the development plan and includes additional specific measures (although biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits may of course arise from forest management goals).

2.7 The key impacts covered by the IMR are associated with buildings, housing, transport infrastructure (roads, railways and waterways), energy infrastructure (power lines, wind-turbines, power stations etc.) and mining. In an English context this would include development under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and the Planning Act (2008). Other project types may also fall under the scope of IMR based on the legal definition of an impact under the IMR scope:

“Interventions in nature and landscape, as defined in this Act, shall refer to any changes affecting the shape or use of areas, or changes in the groundwater level associated with the active soil layer, which may significantly impair the performance and functioning of the natural balance or landscape appearance” (Federal Nature Conservation Act).

2.8 The regulation specifically excludes the impacts of agriculture, forestry and fishing so long as they follow good practice standards (such as cross-compliance rules or sustainable forest management). A proposed new law (referred to as BKompV) published in draft in April 2013 (BMU 2013a) is designed to simplify and standardise some procedures at the national level, and to provide a new regulatory framework for renewable energy developments. It has not yet been voted through parliament.

2.9 The German planning system places emphasis on measures to reduce land take for new building and development12 and control urban sprawl. German planning therefore clearly distinguishes between the zones defined for human settlement, which are subject to detailed spatial planning13, and the rural zone14 in which developments are strictly limited (except certain priority activities15) and where land is not divided into development plan areas (see below). Each local authority area must clearly define the borders between settlement zone and rural zone in its area (Figure 1). Agricultural and forest areas should be included in rural zones. Developments in the rural zone are severely restricted except for a federally defined list of exemptions, such as transport corridors, energy installations (power lines, wind farms, biomass processing plants etc.).

12 Land take includes both the newly sealed areas and unsealed areas (such as private gardens) associated with development. The German national sustainability strategy (2003) sets a target to reduce land take for new building and development to 30ha per day by 2020 - in 2011 it was 74ha per day (UBA 2013a). Federal states must report annually on this indicator.

13 Innenbereich 14 Aussenbereich

15 These are defined in the Building Code section 35 as developments necessary to support agricultural, horticultural or forestry activities, developments associated with ensuring power supplies and telecommunications (powerlines, cables etc), or other public services (waste, heating etc), renewable energy generation, activities associated with nuclear energy, and a clause for other activities that are defined as being unsuitable to be carried out in settlement areas.

10


Figure 1 Mapping of inner zone (black), rural zone (cream) and development plan areas (red hatching) for the village of Suttorf

(Source: http://tinyurl.com/ojxf639)

2.10 An EU-wide comparison shows that Germany has achieved a notable decrease in annual land-take per capita whilst continuing economic growth (Prokop et al. 2011). However, this might also be due to the demographic change, and a shrinking population rate in Germany. A comparison between Germany and the UK concluded that the German system has been less successful than the UK in enforcing ‘green belt’ zones (Baing 2010). Some municipalities are currently trialling a pilot scheme whereby they are assigned and can trade soil surface sealing offset certificates for the rural zone, so that growing municipalities can expand their settlement into the rural zone by buying certificates for unsealed land elsewhere (UBA 2013b).

2.11 Planning changes, EIA, and associated biodiversity offsetting, can be carried out either at the local authority or the district level. The IMR encompasses three distinct procedures and scales, and therefore three types of offset ‘market’.

1. Mitigation for all planning processes in the settlement zone is defined by the procedure set out in the Building Code (e.g. for urban housing development). This is generally led by the local authority as both planner (i.e. developer) and provider of any necessary offsets. Though local authorities have the freedom to buy or exchange offsets with other local authorities. In practice most planning processes in the settlement zone are offset within the same local authority level, and without the involvement of third party or private offset providers.

2. Offsetting for all planning processes in the rural zone related to other sectoral laws (e.g. Federal Road Building Act rather than the Building Code) is defined directly by the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Because these are generally large-scale development projects crossing one or more local authority borders, the offsetting is planned and carried out at the district scale (or larger) by the developer or the district authority, which means that there is a functioning offset market at the district scale for these types of projects.

3. Impacts on Natura 2000 sites are regulated in a separate procedure corresponding to the appropriate assessment requirements of the Habitats Directive, and the

11

http://tinyurl.com/ojxf639


compensation measures under this process must be kept separate from the other two processes.

2.12 There is a requirement under the 2010 federal law16 for each offset to be located in the same bio-geographical region as the impact that it is compensating for. Germany is divided into 69 such natural regions17, ranging from thousands to hundreds of km2 in size. However, in practice, although it is not a federal legal requirement, local authorities generally choose to locate the offset within their own area (i.e. at a much more local level).

Implementation of the Impact Mitigation Regulation

The German planning system 2.13 Initially, the implementation of compensation in practice was slow as it was hampered

by requirements to carry out project-specific offsets on-site wherever possible (Pfaffenberger & Sedlak 2011). As a result of this restriction it was often difficult to find suitable sites that could provide good quality offsets, and therefore many compensation requirements were not delivered, leading to further biodiversity declines (Tischew et al. 2010). To address this, the Federal Nature Conservation Act was amended in 2002 to optimize enforcement and implementation of compensation measures and in 2009 to establish the option of storing potential offsets for future allocation.

2.14 As a result of these actions, and practitioners increasing familiarity with the requirements more innovative and efficient means of implementing offsets, including through habitat banking systems, were developed. This led to the establishment of ‘compensation pools’ (habitat banks). A pool (bank) seen from the German definition is a mapped-out collection and concentration of usable sites and measures for the compensation of residual impacts. The more flexible IMR policy increased offsetting opportunities and is felt to have resulted in more and higher quality offsets (Mazza & Schiller 2014).

2.15 Although offsetting must be carried out in accordance with the federal IMR, the IMR only sets out broad requirements and therefore in practice offsetting is organised and regulated through State level (i.e. Länder) regulations. Furthermore, the German governance system has tended to grant greater power and independence to local authorities than the English system (Baing 2010). This has resulted in a variety of approaches to offsetting and in turn varying market sizes and probably liquidity.

2.16 Under the IMR the assessment of offsets requirements is integrated with all stages and levels of the planning and environmental impact assessment process (as illustrated in Figure 1). The highest binding planning level is the federal state18 level planning programme19 and (in some states) the district20 level regional plan. At the more local level of the community or municipality21 the ‘municipal preparatory land use plan’22

16 §15 BNatSchG 2009

17 Naturräumliche Großlandschaften Deutschlands – see http://www.bfn.de/0311_image.html

18 Laender, of which there are 16 19 Landesentwicklungsplan

20 Kreise (including Landkreise, kreeisfreie Staedte and Stadtkreise), of which there are 402; they are roughly equivalent to English district councils or boroughs, Welsh principal areas, Scottish Councils, and Northern Irish districts

21 Gemeinde or Kommune (only outside the large cities) which are very roughly equivalent to English parishes and Scottish and Welsh Community councils; in the cities there is no authority below the district authority. These local authority areas range in area from 300 km2 (Nuthe-Urstromtal) down to 0.4 km2 (village of Martinstein), with a median of around 20km2.

22 Flaechenutzungsplan (vorbereitender Bauleitplan)

12

http://www.bfn.de/0311_image.html


defines land use zones, including desired future uses, and the ‘landscape plan’23 defines the objectives, areas and measures for nature conservation and landscape24. Local development plans25 - so called ‘local construction development plans’ or ‘binding land use plans’ - strictly specify land use in detail at the land parcel level, for example for a cluster of plots of land. This study focuses on offsetting at this local development plan level.

Figure 1: Illustration of the key steps in the assessment of offset requirements under the German IMR

2.17 All spatial plans must include an environment report26 which details the environmental

assessment and proposed impact mitigation and, if required, offsetting. The inner urban area that is already developed is exempt from the need for a detailed environmental assessment and offsetting27, up to a threshold of 7 ha. All regional and municipal plans are required to incorporate and illustrate all the sites that are potentially useable for offset measures, and these sites must contribute to the regional ecological network. Offset measures must be coherent with the local landscape plan28. However, the ecological network concept and its implementation is vaguely defined in the regulations, and in practice it is difficult to tell whether offsets are contributing to ecological coherence or not (Leibenath 2008).

23 Landschaftsplan

24 In the federal states Bayern and Baden-Wuerttemberg these two plans are combined into one plan

25 Bebauungsplan (verbindlicher Bauleitplan)

26 Umweltbericht (Bauleitplanung) 27 Beschleunigtes Verfahren fuer Bebauungsplaene der Innenentwicklung (§13a BauGB 2007)

28 §15 Absatz 2 BNatSchG 2009

13


2.18 The environmental assessment and associated offsetting is overseen by the local authority planning office29 in agreement with the local or district nature conservation authority, and in accordance with the rules on public participation, though the report itself may be prepared by a contractor. Any necessary offsets must then be identified30 in the development plan, although they may not be finalised until the final plan stage when there is an actual construction plan or plans (Busse et al. 2013).

2.19 Development plans may be modified as a result of an initiative of the local authority to open up an area for development, or because a private developer submits a development proposal31, which must include a plan32 outlining what measures they intend to implement to protect nature and the landscape. The local development plan area may be larger than any individual planned developments (e.g. buildings), and therefore leaves space for the local authority to plan additional land use change such as public amenity space or offset measures (see Box 1). In practice, because completely urban plans under 7 ha are exempt from the need to provide environmental statements, most of the plans requiring offsetting are situated at the edge of an urban area, or on a field or forest area within or between settlement areas. Thus they lie on the border between the defined settlement zone and the rural zone, and in effect are pushing the border of the settlement zone.

BOX 1. What is meant by a local development plan?

A development plan (Bebauungsplan) is a subset of the local authority spatial planning map that bundles a group of land parcels together with any in between elements (roads, paths, streams etc.). Most developments are formally initiated by the local authority rezoning one of these parcels, which may involve a particular proposed development on some of the area or may not yet be sold to the final developer(s).

(Source: http://www.hausbau.de/presse/aktuelles/browse/8.html)

29 Planungsamt der Gemeinde

30 Zuordnungsfestsetzung 31 vorhabenbezogener Bebauungsplan (BauROG 1998)

32 Landschaftspflegerischer Begleitplan

14

http://www.hausbau.de/presse/aktuelles/browse/8.html


Quantifying compensation 2.20 The total impact and the planned offset for the development are scored using a points

system, and the compensation must equal or better the impact score. If it is not possible to offset the total impact score on the land covered by the development plan, off-site offsets are needed33. The national legal framework does not provide any guidance on how to evaluate biodiversity losses and gains in order to ensure equivalence between the impacts and the offsetting measures. Federal states have developed guidelines, but in practice this is managed differently in each local authority. For example, in one district in Baden-Württemberg, 14 municipalities were found to use the Bavarian model, 5 the Baden-Württemberg model, and several others were using models from the federal states Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate (Mazza & Schiller 2014). This plethora of different metrics has created uncertainty as to whether biodiversity is being effectively offset, and creates uncertainty for developers (Bruns, 2007).

2.21 According to the ‘polluter pays‘ principle, the developer is legally responsible for financing all the necessary avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures attributable to the development. The developer funds and carries out the mitigation and compensation measures on the development site, but the local authority is responsible for planning and implementation of all external offsets for development plans, and then recovering the costs from developers. The local authority can implement specific offsets themselves, or pay for an offset delivered by a third party, or they can use an eco-account (see below). Although developers have the legal right to carry out external offsets themselves34, in reality almost all external offset measures for development plans within the settlement zone are carried out by the local authority because they are also the initiators of the planning revision (Busse et al 2013).

Habitat banking in Germany – ‘eco-accounts’ 2.22 German municipalities have been able since 2004 to set up eco-accounts to store and

use offsets that address their development impacts. Eco-accounts can be set up under the 2004 Federal Building Code or under the 2010 Federal Nature Conservation Act and these differ in scope. Eco-accounts set up under the Federal Nature Conservation Act are administered or at least supervised (e.g. if it is a private eco-account) by the regional nature conservation authority. They allow offsets within the defined German bio-geographical region, and allow trading in offsets. Local authorities have generally set up eco-accounts under the Federal Building Code, and these effectively allow offsets only within the area of the municipality and only for construction projects, although there is the option of joining up with neighbouring authorities within the regional plan (Mazza & Schiller 2014; Busse et al. 2013). Local authorities may also use offsets from the regional nature conservation authority eco-account, or exchange potential offsets. As this study is focussing on offsetting within the settlement zone, the eco-account scheme under the Federal Building Code is illustrated in Figure 2.

33 Because development plans may cover greater areas than the development, and may include areas for offsets, internal offsets are not necessarily analogous to on-site offsets, although external offsets are always off-site offsets.

34 §135a Absatz 1 BauGB (developer carries out offset) vs §135a Absatz 2 BauGB (local authority carries out offset)

15


Figure 2: The Eco-accounts scheme under the German Federal Building Law

(Source: Mazza and Schiller (2014))

2.23 Although local authorities are responsible for the administration of the municipal eco-account, they may pay third parties to plan and carry out the potential offset measures. Local authorities often need to find creative ways to obtain access to offset land, and there is often a political reluctance to buy up agricultural land. Instead of buying land, the authority can draw up a contract with the landowner either to undertake restoration measures, or allow the local authority to do so, including an exit clause in case the area is not used as an offset after all35. Once the area has been definitely assigned as an offset to a development plan, it is removed from the eco-account, and the local authority (as developer) must ensure the long-term maintenance of the created or restored habitat.

2.24 Eco-accounts are considered by many key stakeholders to have significantly improved offsetting in practice by providing a more efficient and effective process, simplifying and speeding up the development planning process (BRAD 2011; Jessel et al. 2006; Köppel et al. 2004; Mazza & Schiller 2014).

Contractual and financial arrangements for offsetting 2.25 In cases where a local authority is unable to identify a suitable offset, they can require

a monetary payment that corresponds to the average costs of a hypothetical suitable offset measure. This process is now defined in the 2010 federal law. The payment must be defined in the planning permit, and reclaimed before development begins (unless a suitable contract is used). The payment must be used for appropriate nature

35 Beschränkte persoenliche Dienstbarkeit §§ 1090 ff. BGB oder Reallast §1105 BGB

16


conservation measures with a demonstrable additionality within the same bio-geographical region.

2.26 The local authority can claim the offset costs from the developer (which may be a private developer(s) and/or themselves) either through an accounting of actual expenditure36, or through a contract37. The actual expenditure claim as defined by the Building Code38 only covers actual documented expenditure, but the use of a contract allows the local authority to charge costs to the developer as they arise, for example in association with the use of compensation from an eco-account. In other words, the local authority has the right to estimate the offset cost according to a list of standard measures and costs39, and this is usually the approach taken to provide an estimate when a contract is drawn up, or when a detailed accounting of costs would involve an unreasonable amount of effort. The local authority therefore often relies on a catalogue of standard costs and measures that they have predefined with the participation of local land managers, or that has been defined at federal state level (BLU 2011; Freistaat Thüringen, 2003; see Box 2).

2.27 The local authority must declare the costs for land purchase or the value of areas already in its own possession, and costs of initial land preparation (e.g. demolition or removal of sealed soil surfaces). Management actions must be divided into restoration management and subsequent management to maintain the required ecological condition of the offset, and the necessary time period for both types of action must be defined on a case-by-case basis (Busse et al. 2013). For offset areas taken from an eco-account, the costs must correspond to the actual costs at the time the area was purchased and restored, and interest on loans for restoration activities can only be reclaimed if the loan can be clearly associated with the potential offset (but not for example if local authority funds were used). General local authority personnel and management costs cannot be reclaimed. Each individual developer may also be assigned a proportion of the offsetting costs that arise from offsets for the public infrastructure on the site (e.g. roads or power lines).

2.28 The local authority is entitled to reclaim the full offset costs only when the developer(s) are in possession of their full development rights40, i.e. once the planning process is complete, and once the offset measure has been completed (Busse et al. 2013). As the local authority must be able to demonstrate successful completion this in effect delays the offset completion date until the last management payment. The final offset costs may therefore not be fixed until many years after the revision of the development plan. This explains why local authorities usually rely on contracts to define prepayments and the final payment date. However, prepayments can still only be requested once the developer has acquired full development rights, and therefore the actual offset cost accounting and payment process generally only begins a year or more after the development plan revision starts. To prevent excessively long contract periods, the long-term management costs are usually defined as a one-off payment, which must correspond to a reasonable estimate for that offset habitat type. The law ensures that the obligation is passed on if the landowner changes.

2.29 In summary, although offsetting under the IMR aims to achieve no net loss of biodiversity it differs from the proposals made in the Green Paper in a number of key aspects. In particular, offsetting is:

o Mandatory;

36 Kostenerstattungssatzung nach §135c BauGB

37 Abschluss von staedtebaulichem Vertrag

38 §135a,b,c BauGB 39 Einheitssaetze §135c Nr3 BauGB & §130 Absatz 1 BauGB

40 Bauliche oder gewerbliche Nutzbarkeit §135a Absatz 3 BauGB

17


o Covers a wider range of environmental assets as well as their functions;

o Carried out within a comprehensive strategic planning framework, which defines settlement zones and rural zones, as well as identifying biographical zones that offsets must fall within and areas that may be used for offsetting within these;

o Has differing requirements according to different national regulations within settlements zones and rural areas;

o Is in accordance with broad national regulations, but implemented through state-level regulations that also provide considerable flexibility to local authorities, as a result of which offsetting practices vary considerably, most notably in relation to the metrics used to measure development impacts and expected biodiversity outcomes from offsets;

o Mostly carried out by the local authority as they are most often also the developer, and this is frequently through local authority established habitat banks (eco accounts); and

o Paid for by the developer (whether local authority or private), but often estimated according to standard charges, rather than actual costs (which are only available at the end of the planning process).

BOX 2. Use of standard costs lists for estimating offset costs

A number of German federal states have compiled public lists of standard costs for specific conservation management or restoration actions, which are used for public contracts with land managers. The lists define several different levels and specific standards for the full range of activities relevant to that region. The lists are compiled through a public consultation process, for example based on cost estimates submitted by local farmer associations or cooperatives for sharing farm machinery, commercial farm support businesses, horticultural and landscape gardening businesses, and businesses offering specialised environmental technologies. The standard costs list the necessary equipment and inputs, time, person-days, hourly rate for different grades, etc., for each action under specific environmental conditions, eg sloping or flat land, poor access, presence of rocks.

(Sources: BLU (2011) and Freistaat Thuringen (2003))

18


3. Research Method

Scope and approach 3.1 This analysis of offsetting costs and the factors that affect them was carried out by

compiling information from development plans that incorporate offsetting for residual impacts. Due to the relatively short timescale for this explorative study (approximately ten weeks) a sampling approach was adopted that targeted readily available offsetting information. Furthermore, the focus was on offsetting in relation to settlement zone planning procedures and impacts, because offsetting for rural zone projects are usually subject to information confidentiality restrictions.

3.2 The study also attempted to assess the effect of market size on offsetting costs. However, it was not possible to directly measure the size of offsetting markets and so this was estimated using a proxy measure: the total number of development projects that fell under the IMR during the last year (i.e. 2012). Although the area of required offsets would be a much more appropriate measure of market size and depth, the estimation of this was not feasible within the scope of this study.

Data collection and analysis 3.3 A sample of 48 development plans was collected from 23 districts selected randomly

from 11 of 16 German federal states (excluding the city states and the Saarland41). The districts were selected by assigning a random number (MS EXCEL – RANDOM) to each district on the national list42, with an equal number per federal state to ensure at least one to two per federal state. The district nature conservation authority43 was contacted by telephone, followed up by email, and asked to provide two completed development plans that required offsetting, preferably the most recent ones to ensure they include up to date costs.

3.4 The cost analysis was carried out by examining the offset plans and breaking the costs down where possible into the unit cost per ha of for each distinct biodiversity measures (e.g. habitat restored / created / enhanced), transaction costs, land purchase, and long term management costs. The habitats created by the offset measures were classified according to the suggested German habitat classification list as set out in the latest available draft law (April 2013) (BMU 2013b). Costs were the allocated to broad habitat types for comparison.

3.5 The type of offset provision was identified (i.e. developer, bespoke offset by a third party for the developer, or local authority or third party habitat bank).

3.6 In order to provide an indication of the likely costs of offsetting for each plan, an estimate was made of the costs of each offset where these were not included in the collated data for each plan. These estimates are not used in the analysis, but are included in Appendix 1 for information. The estimates were made using the available information on the intended offsetting measures and the average costs of these taken from a list of standard costs (Freistaat and Thüringen, 2003).

3.7 The analysis assumed that the offset cost covers the costs of management for a sufficient time period to ensure the achievement of the offset goals, as this corresponds to the legal requirement. The law requires that management actions must be divided into restoration management and subsequent management to maintain the required

41 In the Saarland, the offset mitigation regulation is implemented by the Office for Environment and Employment at federal state level, and is therefore not comparable with the activity of the districts in the other federal states

42 Verzeichnis der Kreise und Kreisfreien Städte

43 Untere Naturschutzbehörde

19


ecological condition of the offset, and the necessary time period for both types of action must be defined case-by-case (Busse et al. 2013). The documentation provided for the cases analysed here did not always specify the proportion of the offset cost spent on long-term management, as distinct from the initial management activities necessary for the restoration. The final analysis therefore only separated out the land purchase costs and treated the other costs as part of the offset measure costs. Where information was available on long-term management requirements, this is included in Appendix 3.

20


4. Results

Cost data 4.1 In total 23 authorities supplied plans with cost information. Most of these plans are

municipal development plans44 which the local authority is obliged to make public and which are therefore freely available on the internet. It was possible to extract usable estimates of actual total offset costs from 9 of the 48 plans (Table 1). The lack of actual cost data for most of the plans was primarily due to the reasons explained in Chapter 2: i.e. the real costs of offset measures only become available after the offset has been carried out. Therefore where cost data were supplied they were often based on standard contract costs. Furthermore, when the local authority is the initiator of the development plan, as is often the case, the offset is often not costed but attributed by eco-points to an existing restoration scheme or a completed offset in the eco-account.

4.2 It was found that some of the districts already list their plans in a register45 and therefore have accurate statistics on the number of plans requiring offsetting. Others were still in the process of compiling their register and were only able to give an approximate estimate of the total number of processed plans that require offsets, whilst some could not supply the information at all. 18 of the 23 districts supplied information on how many plans they had processed, which related to a total of 38 of the development plans.

Table 1: Number of development plans examined per district and federal state, and number with adequate cost and demand information

Federal State District(s) sampled Number of plans examined

Number with adequate offset cost and demand information

Baden-Wuerttemberg 3 6 3 Niedersachsen 4 10 2 Bayern 2 5 2 Sachsen-Anhalt 2 3 1 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1 2 1 Brandenburg 3 4 0 Nordrhein-Westfalen 2 5 0 Hessen 2 4 0 Rheinland-Pfalz 2 4 0 Schleswig-Holstein 1 4 0 Thüringen 1 1 0 TOTAL 23 48 9

4.3 The results are presented as follows:

o Table 2 provides key collated information for each of the 9 development plans that included cost information for a physical offset. Table 2a provides general context information on the total costs including a breakdown of costs according to their location within the development plan area (internal) or external to the plan area (see 2.15 for details of plan areas). It also subdivides costs according to whether they were offset measures (i.e. actions that create, restore or enhance the habitats), or whether they were attributable to land purchase or long-term management cost. Although information on transaction costs was sought, no separate data were available on these. It should be noted that some costs for internal offsets may in fact relate to mitigation measures, as these are not always

45 Kompensationsverzeichnis; § 17 Abs. 6 BNatSchG

45 Kompensationsverzeichnis; § 17 Abs. 6 BNatSchG

21


clearly distinguishable in the documentation. However, many of the offsets relate to external actions (i.e. outside the development plan area), and can therefore all be reliably attributed to offset measures.

o Table 2b includes the total and per ha costs of the offset measures for grassland and woodland habitats.

o Table 2c provides an indication of the provider of each of the costed offsets and the whether or not it is to be implemented through a bespoke individual offset or through a habitat bank.

o All the collated data for each of the assessed 48 plans are provided in Appendix 1, with further information on the types of habitat restored or recreated given in Appendix 2 and details of the actions taken for the 9 fully costed offsets provided in Appendix 3. An example of the costs for one offsetting case is provided in Box 3.

22


Table 2 a: Summary of information from each development plan requiring offsetting for which offsetting per ha costs and the number of plans in the district requiring offsets is known

Federal State (code) District

No of plans with offsetting

in district in 2012 Municipality Impact type

Impact area [ha]

Costs of offset [Euro]

Total External Internal

Offset measures

Land purchase Note

9 Neustadt an der Waldnaab

460 Eschenbach Housing area 1.18

40,500

40,500 0

40,500 0

9 Neustadt an der Waldnaab

460 Weiden Housing area 0.36

48,525

28,358

20,167

35,744

10,740

3 Goslar 436 Clausthal-

Zellerfeld Housing area 1.3

25,760

1,500

24,260

25,760 0

8 Pforzheim 15

Büchenbronn Housing area n/a

82,908

82,908 0

24,737

58,171

8 Pforzheim 15

Pforzheim Industrial area 1.7

83,722

83,772 0

40,476

43,296

8 Ludwigsburg 63

Löchgau Industrial and housing area 4.25

96,674

80,975 0 80,975 0 1

13 Rostock 23

Warnemünde Beach lido & restaurant 1.12

18,864

18,864 0 18,864 0

3 Harburg 110

Seevetal Reservoir for seepage water 1

12,700

12,700 0 12,700 0

15 Halle 11

Halle Railway 71

166,817

166,817 0

166,817 0

Federal State: 3 = Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony); 8 = Baden-Württemberg; 9 = Bayern (Bavaria); 13 = Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg Pommerania); 15 = Sachsen-Anhalt (Saxony Anhalt); 16 = Thüringen (Thuringia). District: local authority at NUTS3 level (Kreis/Landeskreis/Stadtkreis). The local authorities were selected within each federal state using a random sampling technique. Plans with offset requirements in 2012: Total number of development plans requiring offsetting in each district. This includes both municipal and rural planning procedures and all sectors that have a legal requirement for impact mitigation. Municipality: local area (Gemeinde) within the district where the development is located. Impact type: type of development to which the plan refers. The analysed cases mostly deal with rezoning of municipal areas for the purposes of housing, industrial or commercial development. Impact area (ha): the area used as the basis for the calculation of offset requirements (NB the total plan area under review is sometimes larger). Costs of offset (Euro): Total = offset costs agreed under the development plan. External = total offset costs agreed under the development plan that fall outside the development plan area. Internal = total offset costs agreed under the development plan that fall inside the development plan area. Offset measures = share of the offset cost spent on the habitat restoration and creation actions and management measures. The period over which management is required depends on the habitat and is agreed individually between the offset provider and the local authority, and cannot generally be deduced from publically available documents. Land purchase = share of the offset cost spent on land purchase.

Note: 1. Total offset cost also includes payment of €15,699.

23


2.b: Summary of information about the habitat specific offset costs derived from the 9 plans that contained sufficient costing information

Offset area (ha) Offset land purchase costs (Euro

per ha) Offset measures cost (Euro per ha)

ID Municipality

Total offset cost (Euro) Grassland Wood Grassland Wood/Hedge Grassland Wood/Hedge Note

49 Eschenbach 40,500 0.81 0 0 0 50,093 0

26 Weiden 48,525 0 0.18 (hedge) 0 60,000 0 98,423 4

8 Clausthal-Zellerfeld 25,760 0.52 0.72 0 0 3,000 2,083 3

2 Büchenbronn 82,908 1.07 0 54,451 0 23,155 0 1

3 Pforzheim 83,722 0.83 0 52,309 0 48,902 0

7 Löchgau 96,674 3.01 0 0 0 26,908 0 2

29 Warnemünde 18,864 0.37 0.99 0 0 31,495 7,463

44 Seevetal 12,700 0 0.46 0 0 27,609

45 Halle 166,817 0.70 0.23 (hedge) 0 0 14,989 109,266 5

Key: Area / per ha costs of offset: grass/meadow = cost per ha of measures to create, restore and/or manage grassland/meadow, including costs of associated small habitat features e.g. tree planting, hedge planting, pond creation, and other associated measures e.g. adjustment of drainage/water level. Wood = cost per ha of measures to create or restore woodland, including hedge and other linear woody habitat. See habitat typology in Appendix 2 for further differentiation of habitat types.

Notes: 1. Actually 5 different offsets including wet meadow habitats but costs and area only available for total. 2. Total offset cost also includes payment of €15,699. 3. Total offset cost also includes tree planting for €2,100 and creation of amenity area to protect wetland feature for €22,700. 4 Total offset cost also includes bat boxes for €20,167. 5. Total offset cost also includes cost of species measures (€130,567). 6 €37,500 of this is long-term management, however we have no information on the time period over which the long term management is to be provided.

24


2c: Offset provider and mechanism

ID Municipality Provider of offset

Developer Third party Habitat bank (own or third

party)

2 Büchenbronn Yes No No

3 Pforzheim Yes - No

7 Löchgau Yes No Yes

8 Clausthal-Zellerfeld Yes Yes* No

26 Weiden Yes No No

29 Warnemünde Yes No No

44 Seevetal Yes No No

45 Halle Yes No No

49 Eschenbach Yes No Yes

*Part of the offsetting requirement is to be delivered by a local nature conservation organisation

25


BOX 3. Case 26: an example of a project-related development plan with detailed cost estimates

This rezoning in the local authority area of Weiden in Bavaria was done as a result of a submission by a developer to build a group of houses partly on agricultural land, and is an example of a project-related development plan revision, in which the developer is responsible for the offsetting. The EIA report determines that, after all possible mitigation on-site, there is still a residual impact on biodiversity primarily through loss of hedges and mature trees (and therefore impacts on bats and birds), and on the landscape, which requires external offsetting, as well as offsetting for the soil sealing. The plan specifies two external offsets: 1) hedge creation on 0.179 ha and 2) erection of bird and bat boxes, partly on the development site and partly in other woodland areas managed by the local authority.

The costs are estimated as follows: Land purchase of arable land (1790 m2 x 6€) € 10,740 Restoration activities

• Clearance of whole area (vegetation cutting) and removal of biomass €840

• Hedge planting (2 rows) and tree planting - 60 young (1.25 to 2.50 m tall), 8 medium (18-20 cm diameter), 6 older (20-25cm diameter (588m2 x 10€)

€5,880

• Animal fencing (deer etc.) (196 m x 10€) €1,960 Maintenance over 5 years

• 1st year management (588m2 x 1.50€) €882 • 2nd to 5th year management (588m2 x 6€) €3528

VAT €4527 Total cost of offset measure €28,357 100 bat boxes small (22.5€ each) €2250 35 bat boxes large (42.6€ each) €1491 Installation of bat boxes (2 people, 8 days, 40€/day) €5120 Control and maintenance of bat boxes over 15 years (1.5 days/yr at 40€/day) €7200

Repairs and replacements (10% of purchase and erection cost) €886.10

VAT €3051 Total cost of offset measure €19,112

26


5. Analysis

Costs per hectare in relation to habitat type and area 5.1 Table 2b presents the habitat-specific costs for the 9 offsetting cases where the

assessed plans included data that could be used to provide per ha costs attributable to a habitat type. This indicates that there is a wide range of per ha costs, especially amongst the woodlands. The two highest costs actually relate to hedgerow creation and are atypical of woodlands because they are linear habitats and therefore per hectare cost for these are not comparable with other woodland habitats. If the two hedgerow costs are ignored (cases 26 and 45), there appears to be no difference in costs between grassland and woodland offset measure costs, although the sample sizes are obviously too small to test statistically.

5.2 The `reasons for the cost variations amongst the grasslands are less obvious and could not be directly ascertained in this study. Examination of the habitat types being restored / re-created (see Appendix 3) in each of the offsets reveals that these variations in costs probably relate to the technical difficulty and work required to implement the offset. For example, the two highest cost grassland offsets include measures to restore grassland on brownfield, arable and afforested areas, and therefore involves expensive clearance, soil preparation and actions to reduce soil fertility etc. (cases 3 and 49). In contrast, the two lowest cost grassland offsets (cases 8 and 29) primarily require restoration management of existing grassland. This illustrates the complexities of analysing habitat creation / restoration costs with respect to comparing practical offset measures.

5.3 The area of an offset is an important factor that may affect its per ha cost, because per unit costs of restoration / re-creation typically decline greatly when carried out over large areas due to economies of scale (Armsworth et al. 2011). Consequently, pooled offsets or habitat banks may be more cost-effective. This possibility is therefore examined in Figure 1, which plots costs per ha in relation to the size of the offset being provided. This provides no indication that per ha offsetting costs is related to offset size, and this is not affected by the two hedgerow offsets. But it most of the offsets are very small, and with such a restricted size distribution it is very unlikely that any effect of area on offsetting costs would be detected.

Figure 1: Costs per hectare in relation to area (ha) of offset and habitat type

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Offs

et m

easu

res c

ost p

er h

a

Area of offset (ha)

Grassland

Woodland

27


Costs per hectare in relation to market size and the amount of development in each district 5.4 Analysis of the 9 costed offsets reveals that only 2 in the districts of Warnemuende and

Halle may be carried out where there is a district market for offsetting, with those in Warnemuende being a combination of offsets. The remaining 7 offsets are carried out within the local authority area. This indicates that in practice the market for these offsets is probably highly constrained although in theory offsetting is not restricted under legislation to the same local authority area provided it is within the same bio-geographical region.

5.5 Under these circumstances it would not be appropriate to test the influence of the size of the market on offsetting costs by comparing them with the number of developments within the district (as foreseen above). Nevertheless, although this relationship cannot now be statistically tested, it seems very unlikely that the size of the market (i.e. demand for offsetting) within local authority areas will have a substantial impact on costs.

Costs per hectare in relation to offset provider 5.6 As discussed in chapter 2, most developers within settlement zones are local authorities

that provide their own offsets, in most cases through contracts with landowners or in 2 of the 9 cases thorough their own habitat banks (e.g. eco-accounts). Only 1 of the 9 costed cases involved a third party (a nature conservation organisation which only provided part of the offset requirement). There was therefore very limited potential for competition between providers and related pressure on costs.

5.7 Although it might be expected that the development of third party banks would increase competition (within the tight constraints noted above) it should be borne in mind that offsetting and the establishment of banks by authorities themselves, or other developers, might include competitive tendering for land and or practical offsetting actions / management. Thus market forces could in theory impact on such offsets, but as noted above local authorities often implement offsets through contracts with landowners using standard costs for habitat restoration / enhancement measures. This suggests that in many situations there is no scope for competition between potential offset providers to influence costs. Testing this would require a more detailed assessment of offsetting implementation practices than was possible within the scope of this short exploratory study.

Comparison of costs with other standard costs data 5.8 The costs for individual management actions listed in the sampled plans were

compared with other standard costs sourced from the literature (see Table 3). There are many caveats to such a comparison, including the fact that the offsets are costed for an (often undefined) time period, and that many of the management activities are not sufficiently defined in the environmental reports or too wide ranging to be easily comparable with other payment packages. Nevertheless, some general conclusions are that the offset costs scaled up to a hectare tend to be high compared to costs from the literature or from agri-environment schemes. It is not known why these costs are higher. Potential explanatory factors may be the fact that the offsets found are nearly all on small areas of land, or due to the lack of market pressures to reduce costs but this are unproven. .

28


Table 3: Comparison of sampled offset costs with standard costs from agricultural payments and from the literature Offset habitat

Area (ha)

Municipalities Offset measures costs (Euro per ha)

Range of activities funded by offset

Comparable costs (€/ha) (AES = agri-environment scheme)

References

Species rich orchard meadow

0.81 Eschenbach €50,093 (estimated €2000 per yr for 25 yrs)

Grassland sowing on arable/ restoration mowing of previous intensive grassland, then biannual mowing. Planting and care of 30 fruit trees.

Grassland creation from arable (deep cultivation and species-rich seed sowing) €1,300 to €3,000 per ha; AES for habitat creation of grassland on arable €300 per ha; management of species-rich grassland from €600 to €2,000 per ha per yr; AES for mowing €70 to €700 per ha per yr;

Török et al (2011), Keenleyside et al (2012), BLU (2011), Freistaat Thüringen (2003), Verheijen, (2009), Galvánek and Janák, (2008), Tucker et al (2013)

Hedge 0.18 Weiden €98,423 (€19,685 per yr)

Hedge planting on arable land, grassland regeneration

Vegetation clearance €400/ha; fencing €10/m; hedge management 1st yr €25,000 per ha (€2.5/m2); hedge laying €400 per ha;

Scottish Govt (2012), BLN (2011)

Hay meadow restoration

0.52 Clausthal-Zellerfeld

€3,000 (€600per yr)

Restoration (mowing etc.) over 5 years

Management of species-rich grassland from €600 to €2,000 per ha per yr; AES for mowing €70 to €700 per ha per yr;

Verheijen, (2009), Keenleyside et al (2012), Galvánek and Janák, (2008)

Orchard meadow creation on brownfield

0.20 Pforzheim €46,456 Grassland creation from brownfield or arable site (soil preparation, sowing / plant material transfer, mowing); tree planting and pruning

Grassland creation from arable (deep cultivation and species-rich seed sowing) €1,300 to €3,000 per ha; AES for habitat creation of grassland on arable €300 per ha; hay meadow sowing €3,300 per ha

Török et al (2011), Keenleyside et al (2012), BLU (2011), Freistaat Thüringen (2003)

Orchard meadow from abandoned site

3.01 Löchgau €26,908 Tree planting, clear brambles, clear waste & building, removal of invasive trees in woodland edge, mowing and hay removal, hedge maintenance, on existing organically managed orchard (previously intensive up to 1997)

Grassland creation from forest plantation €500 to €10,000 per ha; scrub removal from abandoned species-rich grassland ranging from €1,000 to €3,000 per ha

Herremans et al (2013), Conrady et al (2012)

Species-rich Dry grassland

0.37 Warne-münde €31,495 (€7874 per yr)

Removal of pioneer trees, root clearance, vegetation clearance in open sand area

Scrub removal from abandoned species-rich grassland ranging from €1,000 to €3,000 per ha; management of species-rich grassland from €600 to €2,000 per ha per yr; AES for mowing €70 to €700 per ha per yr;

Conrady et al (2012), Verheijen (2009), Keenleyside et al (2012), Galvánek and Janák, (2008)

Woodland edge (trees and shrubs)

0.46 Seevetal €27,609 (€9203 per yr

Planting, fencing and maintenance for 3 years plus long-term management

Management of different forest types from €100 to €400 per ha per yr; AES for small woodland planting €3,125 per ha (one-off) and €100 per ha per yr for maintenance; restoration of beech forest €2,000 to €8,000 per ha

Verheijen (2009), Scottish Govt (2012), LIFE05 NAT/E/000067

NB agri-environment payments include only ongoing maintenance or restoration maintenance costs and do not include one-off capital costs such as fencing or hedge planting.

29


6. Discussion and Conclusions 6.1 Based on the assessment of 9 offsetting local development plans within settlement

zones under the German IMR and the Building Code, it appears likely that the size of the offsetting market currently has little if any influence on the costs of offsetting within settlement zones. This is because offsetting is mostly carried out by local authorities within their own areas. This characteristic also tends to apply to private developments as the offsetting of their residual impacts is often carried out, on their behalf, by the local authority.

6.2 Furthermore, practical offsetting measures are often implemented through contracts with landowners or land managers using estimates based on ‘standard costs’ derived from reviews of empirical data on habitat re-creation / restoration costs. Thus they are based on historic average costs and are unlikely to reflect market influences closely. Detailed costs may in practice be unknowable, given the way in which data are collected and the constraints imposed on data availability and access.

6.3 However, it is important to note that the collated cost data mostly relate to relatively small offsets in municipalities in the settlement zone. There may be more scope for larger-scale third party habitat banking in rural zones because there are fewer restrictions on the location of the offset.

6.4 Despite these constraints on data quantity and representivity the examination of the German offsetting system undertaken in this study (as summarised in Chapter 2) reveals that there is little reason to believe that costs are affected by the size of the offsetting market. The principal reason for this is that, for widely recognised ecological and equity reasons (e.g. the need to maintain spatial ecological functions and to ensure valuable cultural services are maintained for beneficiaries) under the German IMR and the Building Code offsets are on-site or within the development plan area if possible and at the very least within the same bio-geographic area. For practical reasons there is also a preference to place offsets from within the same local authority area. These locational constraints limit the size and liquidity of the offsets market.

6.5 Most of the offsets examined are the result of the local authority’s own development plans and therefore the local authorities have both development and offsetting responsibilities. As a result all the offsets examined in detail here were provided by the developer (in most cases the local authority), and in only two cases were habitat banks used. This may be due to the restrictions on the location of offsets, and other IMR rules, as described in Chapter 2, that constrain market size and liquidity.

6.6 It appears that the offset costs are relatively high compared to comparable restoration measures taken from other sources (see Table 3 for references). It is not known why these costs are higher. Potential explanatory factors may be the fact that the offsets found are nearly all on small areas of land, or due to the lack of market pressures to reduce costs but this are unproven.

Relevance of the findings to England 6.7 As a result of data limitations, which resulted in a small sample of offset costs, and a

restricted focus on offsetting within settlement zones, and the particular local constraints on offsetting under the IMR this study was unable to fully examine or draw firm conclusions on the factors affecting offsetting costs in German. Nevertheless, the study did provide useful insights into the German offsetting system that could be considered for application of offsetting in England.

6.8 It seems likely that the principle implications of these results are relevant to offsetting in England because, as in Germany, there is a justifiable preference to locate offsets close to the areas that they are compensating for (Baker et al, 2013a, b). Consequently similar constraints on the size and liquidity of the offsetting market might

30


occur in England as in Germany, although this will depend on the eventual English scheme’s locational and exchange rules.

6.9 This study focused on offsetting in municipal areas (as a result of confidentiality restrictions on data availability). Market forces may be more influential in rural areas, where there may be more options and advantages for locating offsets away from their related impact sites, for instance to help support the maintenance and enhancement of ecological connectivity.

6.10 The data constraints encountered in this study highlight the value of obtaining adequate robust data on the actual costs of offsetting and its efficacy in relation to the types of habitat covered and the various mechanisms for delivery and long-term management. Such information is essential to monitor and improve cost-effectiveness and it is important that information on the details and cost of specific offsetting schemes are provided online with the other relevant planning documentation that is currently available.

31


7. References Armsworth, P. R., Cantú-Salazar, L., Parnell, M., Davies, Z. G. and Stoneman, R. (2011)

Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation. Biological Conservation, 44, 423-429.

Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Bennett, T., Payne, D., Tucker, G. and White, O. (2013a) Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Phase. Interim Report. Report for Defra by Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited & Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.

Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Papadopoulou, L., Bennett, T., Payne, D., and Bull, J. (2013b) Indicative costs of current compensation arrangements for biodiversity loss: illustrative case studies. Report for Defra by Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited & Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.

Baing,A.S. (2010) Containing urban sprawl? Comparing brownfield reuse policies in England and Germany. International Planning Studies, 15, 25-35.

BFAD (2008a) Presseerklärung: Bundesverband der Flächenagenturen fordert Qualitätsstandards für Flächenpools, 18.02.2008. Bundesverband der Flächenagenturen Deutschlands, at: http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/%C3%BCber-uns/qualit%C3%A4tsstandards/

BFAD (2008b) Qualitätsstandards für Flächenpools. Bundesverband der Flächenagenturen Deutschlands, at:: http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/%C3%BCber-uns/qualit%C3%A4tsstandards/

BFAD (2011) Brief an den Vorsitzenden der Umweltministerkonferenz UMK: Aktuelle Diskussion zur Eingriffsregelung. Brandenburg an der Havel, 22.11.11. Bundesverband der Flächenagenturen Deutschlands, at: http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/aktuelles/stellungnahmen/

BLU (2011) Kostendatei fuer Massnahmen des Naturschutzes und der Landschaftspflege. Bayerisches Landesamt fuer Umwelt. At [http://www.lfu.bayern.de/natur/landschaftspflege_kostendatei/index.htm]

BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) (2013a) Entwurf: Verordnung über die Kompensation von Eingriffen in Natur und Landschaft (Bundeskompensationsverordnung – BkompV). 19 April 2013. Entwurf. Available at [http://www.bmu.de/service/publikationen/downloads/details/artikel/entwurf-verordnung-ueber-die-kompensation-von-eingriffen-in-natur-und-landschaft-bundeskompensationsverordnung-bkompv-1/]

BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) (2013b) Entwurf: Verordnung über die Kompensation von Eingriffen in Natur und Landschaft (Bundeskompensationsverordnung – BkompV). 23 April 2013. Anlage 2: Liste der Biotoptypen und Werte. Available at [http://www.bmu.de/service/publikationen/downloads/details/artikel/entwurf-verordnung-ueber-die-kompensation-von-eingriffen-in-natur-und-landschaft-bundeskompensationsverordnung-bkompv-1/]

Bruns, E (2007) Bewertungs-und Bilanzierungsmethoden in der Eingriffsregelung. Analyse und Systematisierung von Verfahren und Vorgehensweisen des Bundes und der Länder Dissertation an der Technischen Universität Berlin.

Busse, J, Dirnberger, F, Proebstl-Haider, U & Schmid, W (2013) Die Umweltpruefung in der Gemeinde mit Oekokonto, Umweltbericht, Artenschutzrecht, Energieplanung und Refinanzierung. Rehm verlag, Muenchen.

Keenleyside, Clunie, Allen, Ben, Hart, Kaley, Menadue, Hetty, Stefanova, Vyara, Prazan, J., Herzon, Irina, Clement, Thierry, Povellato, A., Maciejczak, Mariusz, and Boatman, Nigel D. (2012) Delivering environmental benefits through entry-level agri-environment

32

http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/%C3%BCber-uns/qualit%C3%A4tsstandards/

http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/%C3%BCber-uns/qualit%C3%A4tsstandards/

http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/aktuelles/stellungnahmen/

http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/aktuelles/stellungnahmen/


schemes in the EU. Report Prepared for DG Environment, Project ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0035. London, Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Freistaat Thüringen (2003) Die Eingriffsregelung in Thüringen. Kostendateien für Ersatzmassnahmen im Rahmen der naturschutzrechtlichen Eingriffsregelung [standard costs for conservation measures]. Thüringer Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Naturschutz und Umwelt, Germany.

Galvánek, D. and Janák, M. (2008) Management of Natura 2000 Habitats: 6230 Species-rich Nardus grasslands. Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Technical Report 2008 14/24. Brussels, European Commission. Management of Natura 2000 Habitats.

Jessel, B, Rudolf, W, Feickert, U, Wellhöfer, U (2003) Nachkontrollen in der Eingriffsregelung: Erfahrungen aus vier Jahren Kontrollpraxis in Brandenburg. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Brandenburg 12, pp 144-149.

Jessel, B, Schöps, A, Gall, B and Szaramowicz, M (2006) Flächenpools in der Eingriffsregelung und regionales Landschaftswassermanagement als Beiträge zu einer integrierten Landschaftsentwicklung am Beispiel der Mittleren Havel. Bonn: Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, vol. 33.

Köppel, J, Peters, W, Wende, W (2004) Eingriffsregelung, Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung. Ulmer Stuttgart, p. 367.

Leibenath, M (2008) SPEN – Interactions between Policy Concerning Spatial Planning and Ecological Networks in Europe. Country study for Germany. ECNC, at http://www.ecnc.org/projects/green-infrastructure/spatial-planning-and-ecological-networks-spen/

Louis, H W (2004) Rechtliche Grenzen der räumlichen, funktionalen und zeitlichen Entkoppelung von Eingriff und Kompensation (Flächenpool und Ökokonto). Natur und Recht vol. 26 no. 11, pp 714-719.

Mazza, L and Schiller, J (forthcoming) Case Study: The use of eco-accounts in Baden-Württemberg to implement the German impact mitigation regulation: A tool to meet the EU’s No-Net-Loss requirement? Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.

Monk, S, Whitehead, C, Burgess, G & Tang, C (2013) International review of land supply and planning systems. Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. At http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/land-supply-planning-full.pdf

Oltmer, K., van Bommel, K. H. M, Clement, J., Rudrum, D. P., and Schouwneberg, E. P. A. G. (2009) Kosten voor habitattypen in Natura 2000-gebieden. Toepassing van de methode Kosteneffectiviteit natuurbeleid. Werkdocument 152, pp. 1-65. Wageningen. Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu.

Pfaffenberger, K & Sedlak, M (2011) Flexibles Kompensationsmanagement im Rahmen der naturschutzrechtlichen Eingriffsregelung. Landkreis Nachrichten Baden-Württemberg Jahrgang 50, Heft 2, pp 121-124. At: http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/index.php?http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/aktuell/i_zeit.htm?m_akt

Prokop, G, Jobstmann, H, and Schönbauer, A (2011) Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27. Final report of a study contract for the European Commission, DG Environment. Environment Agency Austria. At: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20sealing%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

The Scottish Government (2012). Standard Cost Capital Items for Rural Development Contracts - Rural Priorities.

Tischew, S, Baasch, A, Conrad, M K and Kirmer, A (2010) Evaluating restoration success of frequently implemented compensation measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restoration Ecology, No 18, (4) pp467-480.

33

http://www.ecnc.org/projects/green-infrastructure/spatial-planning-and-ecological-networks-spen/

http://www.ecnc.org/projects/green-infrastructure/spatial-planning-and-ecological-networks-spen/

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/land-supply-planning-full.pdf

http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/index.php?http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/aktuell/i_zeit.htm?m_akt

http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/index.php?http://www.landkreistag-bw.de/aktuell/i_zeit.htm?m_akt


Török,P., Vida,E., Deák,B., Lengyel,S. & Tóthmérész,B. (2011) Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2311-2332.

Tucker, Graham M., Underwood, Evelyn, Farmer, Andrew, Scalera, R., Dickie, Ian A., McConville, A. J., and van Vliet, Wilbert (2013) Estimation of the financing needs to implement Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Report to the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy. At: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/Fin%20Target%202.pdf

Tucker, G M and Wende, W (2013) No Net Loss policies and offsetting in Germany. In: Tucker et al (forthcoming)

UBA (2013a) Umweltbundesamt: Flächeninanspruchnahme für Siedlungen und Verkehr reduzieren. 02.08.2013 http://www.umweltbundesamt.de//node/13361

UBA (2013b) Modellprojekt: Handel mit Flächenzertifikaten. 31.07.2013 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/boden-landwirtschaft/flaechensparen-boeden-landschaften-erhalten/handel-flaechenzertifikaten

Verheijen, L., Post, R., Mulder, T., van der Reest, P. J., Hummelen, L. A., Bos, J., de Boer, T. F., van der Zee, F., and Bal, D. (2009) Advies commissie-Verheijen herberekening standaardkostprijzen natuurbeheer. pp. 1-21. IPO/ LNV.

34

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/node/13361

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/boden-landwirtschaft/flaechensparen-boeden-landschaften-erhalten/handel-flaechenzertifikaten

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/boden-landwirtschaft/flaechensparen-boeden-landschaften-erhalten/handel-flaechenzertifikaten


Appendix 1 – Information Obtained on each of the Assessed Plans Cases in bold are the focus of the analysis in this report, and are further described in Appendix 3.

1a. Overall costs

KEY:

Federal State: 1 = Schleswig-Holstein; 3 = Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony); 5 = Nordrhein-Westfalen (North-Rhine Westfalia); 6 = Hessen (Hesse); 7 = Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland Palatinate); 8 = Baden-Württemberg; 9 = Bayern (Bavaria); 12 = Brandenburg; 13 = Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg Pommerania); 14 = Sachsen (Saxony); 15 = Sachsen-Anhalt (Saxony Anhalt); 16 = Thüringen (Thuringia). District: local authority at NUTS3 level (Kreis/Landeskreis/Stadtkreis). The local authorities were selected within each federal state using a random sampling technique. Municipality: local area (Gemeinde) within the district where the development is located. Impact type: type of development to which the plan refers. The analysed cases mostly deal with rezoning of municipal areas for the purposes of housing, industrial or commercial development. Impact area (ha): the area used as the basis for the calculation of offset requirements (NB the total plan area under review is sometimes larger). Costs of offset (Euro): Total = offset costs agreed under the development plan. External = total offset costs agreed under the development plan that fall outside the development plan area. Internal = total offset costs agreed under the development plan that fall inside the development plan area. Offset measures = share of the offset cost spent on the habitat restoration and creation actions and management measures. The period over which management is required depends on the habitat and is agreed individually between the offset provider and the local authority, and cannot generally be deduced from publically available documents. Land purchase = share of the offset cost spent on land purchase.

35


Offset costs (Euros)

ID Federal state Municipality District

Size of district [km²]

Number of

projects under IMR in 2012

Description of impact Impact

area [ha]


Offset measures

Land purchase

1 1 Neumünster Neumünster 72 5 Housing area, 50-60

building grounds 4.88 201,000 22,000 38,000 - 141,000

2 8 Büchenbronn Pforzheim 98 15 Housing area - 82,908 82,908 - 24,737

58,171

3 8 Pforzheim Pforzheim 98 15 Industrial area 1.7 83,722 83,772 - 40,426 43,296

4 3 several several Powerline Wahle–Lamspringe 4,668,672 212,077 - 70,490 65,100

6 5 Schermbeck Wesel 1,042 Housing area 0.4 16,180 16,180 - - -

7 8 Löchgau Ludwigsburg 43 63 Industrial and housing

area 4.25 96,674 80,975 - - -

8 3 Clausthal-Zellerfeld Goslar

965 436 Housing area 1.3 25,760 1,500 24,260 25,760 -

9 1 Neumünster Neumünster 72 5

Shopping center, 20.000qm with parking

fo 1,600 cars 9.9 298,810 166,500 77,840 244,340 54,470

10 3 Clausthal-Zellerfeld Goslar

965 436 Industrial area 23.7 199,100 199,100 - - -

11 5 Kamp-Lintfort Wesel 1,042

Expansion of industrial area, parking space

for 250 cars 0.8 28,600 28,600 - - -

12 8 Bietigheim-Bissingen Ludwigsburg

43 63 Store with 5.000 qm selling space 3.43 13,500 13,500 - - -

13 1 Neumünster Neumünster 72 5 Industrial area 40 1,900,000 - - - -

14 1 Neumünster Neumünster 72 5 Expansion of industrial

area 0.417 15,938 15,938 - 10,492

36





Number of



area [ha]


Offset measures

Land purchase

15 5 Kamp-Lintfort Wesel 1,042 Housing area 4 - 0 - - -

16 5 Königswinter Rhein-Sieg 1,153 no data Housing area 0.4 - 2,300 -

17 5 Bornheim Rhein-Sieg 1,153 no data Sports field 2.5 18,477 4,943 13,533 8,296

18 3 Hitzacker Lüchow-Dannenberg

1,220 300 Archaeological

museum 1.572 23,051 21,173 1,877 14,566 -

19 3 Neu Darchau Lüchow-Dannenberg

1,220 300 Camping site 1.88 - 0 - - -

20 7 Kadeln Germersheim 463 200 Housing area 6.4 39,648 9,257 30,391 14,207 -

21 7 Lingenfeld Germersheim 463 200 Housing area 0.7976 4,814 3,488 1,326 495 -

22 12 Bad Belzig Potsdam-Mittelmark

2,575 535 Conference centre 0.5462 81,393 64,414 16,979 25,707 -

23 12 Wusterwitz Potsdam-Mittelmark

2,575 535 Weekend home area 0.5411 54,020 51,350 2,670 30,390

24 9 Mainburg Kelheim 1,067 no data Housing area 0.75889 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 -

25 9 Bad Abbach Kelheim 1,067 no data Housing area 0.1887 7,229 7,229 - 4,128 -

26 9 Weiden Neustadt an der Waldnaab

1,430 460 Housing area 0.3582 47,470 28,358 19,113 17,618 10,740

27 9 Pirk Neustadt an der Waldnaab

1,430 460 Housing area for 9

grounds 0.947 28,111 28,111 - 26,952 -

28 13 Rostock Rostock 181 23 Housing area 3.6 7,174 5,226 1,948 468 -

29 13 Warnemünde Rostock 181 23 Lido with gastronomy 1.12 18,864 18,864 - 18,864 -

30 15 Naumburg Burgenlandkreis

1,413

Reduction of housing area 0 6,782 6,782 - 3,990 -

37





Number of



area [ha]


Offset measures

Land purchase

31 12 Cottbus Cottbus 164 20 Housing area

5.9 224,832 17,332 207,500 219,414 -

32 6 Linden Gießen 855 108 Housing area 1.3 18,046 16,098 1,948 5,298 -

33 6 Reiskirchen Gießen 855 108 Industrial area 1.4 34,219 8,987 25,232 20,667 -

34 3 Arnsberg Hochsauerlandkreis

1,960 200 Housing area 17 321,020 316,155 4,865 310,210 -

35 3 Winterberg Hochsauerlandkreis

1,960 200 Housing area 1.2 - 47,956 - 9,728 -

36 7 Cochem Cochem-Zell 719 750 Housing area 0.18 6,215 6,215 - 1,261 -

37 7 Forst Cochem-Zell 719 750 Housing area 0.4 1,502 1,502 - 1,033 -

38 3 Buchholz Harburg 1,245 110 Housing area 2.3 8,757 8,757 6,817 -

39 3 Seevetal Harburg 1,245 110 Street 1.5 135,844 135,844 81,956 -

40 6 Lahnau Lahn-Dill-Kreis 1,067 172 Cycle track

0.18 3,721 3,721 - 1,247 -

41 6 Schöffengrund Lahn-Dill-Kreis 1,067 172 Industrial area, gas

station

2.30 60,190 60,190 - - -

42 12 Königs Wusterhausen

Dahme-Spreewald

2,261 Shopping center 0.5 47,062 47,062 47,062 -

43 16 Tambach-Dietharz Gotha

936 Housing area 0.6219 31,654 - 31,654 31,654 -

44 3 Seevetal Harburg 1,245 110 Reservoir for seepage

water 12,700 12,700 - - -

45 15 Halle Halle 135 11 Rail road 166,817 166,817 - 166,817 -

46 15 Halle Halle 135,02 11 Golf course 284.17 180,815 - 180,815 104,022 -

38





Number of



area [ha]


Offset measures

Land purchase

47 8 Ravensburg Ravensburg 1,632 533 Housing area 1.97 425,000 - - - -

48 8 Braindt Ravensburg 1,632 533 Housing area 1.06 27,102 - 27,102 9,554 -

49 9 Eschenbach Neustadt an der Waldnaab

1,430 460 Housing area 40,500 40,500 - 40,500 -

39


1b. Habitat specific offset costs

Cost data in italics are our own estimates, based on standard cost data and not those of the contacted authorities. Key: Plans with offset requirements in 2012: Total number of development plans requiring offsetting in each district. This includes both municipal and rural planning procedures and all sectors that have a legal requirement for impact mitigation. Area / per ha costs of offset: grass/meadow = cost per ha of measures to create, restore and/or manage grassland/meadow, including costs of associated small habitat features e.g. tree planting, hedge planting, pond creation, and other associated measures e.g. adjustment of drainage/water level. Wood = cost per ha of measures to create or restore woodland. Wetland = cost per ha of measures to create, restore and/or manage wetland, excluding small wetland areas within grassland or woodland habitat creation. See habitat typology in Appendix 2 for further differentiation of habitat types.

Offset area (ha)

Offset land purchase (Euro per

ha)

Cost of offset

measures (Euro per

ha)

ID Municipality Grassland Wood Wet meadow Others Grassland Wood Wetland Others Grassland Wood Wet

meadow Others

1 Neumünster - - - - 2 Büchenbronn 1.07 54,451 23,155 2 Büchenbronn 1.07 54,451 23,155 3 Pforzheim 0.83 52,309 48,902

4 Several 6.13 10.47 2,266 67,200 - -

6 Schermbeck 0.28 0.01 - 57,786 - - 7 Löchgau 3.01 26,908

8 Clausthal-Zellerfeld 0.52 0.72

0.56 3,000 2,083 40,798

9 Neumünster 0.41 4.30 - - - -

10 Clausthal-Zellerfeld - - -

11 Kamp-Lintfort 1.68 - 17,016 - -

12 Bietigheim-Bissingen - - - 13 Neumünster 21.19 6.99 - - - -

14 Neumünster 0.17 0.85 8,843 17,016 - -

15 Kamp-Lintfort 1.14 0.27 - - - -

16 Königswinter 0.32 608 - - -

17 Bornheim 0.66 0.06 -

- 45,550 128,877 -

18 Hitzacker 0.19 1.38 7,666 13,302 - -

40


Offset area (ha)


ha)

Cost of offset

measures (Euro per

ha)


meadow Others

19 Neu Darchau 0.29 - - - -

20 Kadeln 0.47 0.27

0.14 32,726 12,888 - -

21 Lingenfeld 0.65 7,104 - - -

22 Bad Belzig 0.90 0.20 47,684 72,946 - -

23 Wusterwitz 0.01 0.01 8,912 128,403 - 177,716

24 Mainburg 0.38 13,158 - - -

25 Bad Abbach 0.06 - 128,403 - -

26 Weiden 0.18

- 60,000 98,425

27 Pirk 0.22 0.73 - - 23,806 32,813

28 Rostock 0.24 0.08 22,240 149,83

€/Stk. - -

29 Warnemünde 0.37 0.99 31,495 7,463 #! 30 Naumburg 117,940 - - -

31 Cottbus 1.02 - 17,016 - -

32 Linden 2.10 0.00 7,666 149,83€

/tree - -

33 Reiskirchen 0.72 0.11 8,443 268,290 - -

34 Arnsberg 1.95 8,843 - - - 35 Winterberg 8,843 - - -

36 Cochem 0.13 - 47,956 - -

37 Forst 0.09 - 17,016 - -

38 Buchholz 0.35 25,020 - - -

39 Seevetal 0.98 - 143,443 - -

40 Lahnau 0.17 7,666 - - - 41 Schöffengrund 1.64 23,124 2,007 - -

41


Offset area (ha)


ha)

Cost of offset

measures (Euro per

ha)


meadow Others

17.70

42 Königs Wusterhausen

0.00 0.47 - 115,500 - 100,000

43 Tambach-Dietharz 0.16 0.30 5 4 - -

44 Seevetal 0.46 27,609

45 Halle 0.70 0.23

- 14,989 109,266

46 Halle 1.62 - 72,946 - -

47 Ravensburg 4.30 0.70 0.32

0.03 - - - -

48 Braindt 0.47 57,886 - - - 49 Eschenbach 0.81 50,093

42


1c. Offset provider

ID Municipality Developer Bespoke third party Third party habitat bank

Habitat (own or thi general p

1 Neumünster Yes Yes No No 2 Büchenbronn Yes No No No 3 Pforzheim Yes - - No

4 Yes No Yes Ye

6 Schermbeck Yes No No No

7 Löchgau Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye 8 Clausthal-Zellerfeld Yes Yes No No 9 Neumünster Yes No Yes Ye

10 Clausthal-Zellerfeld No No General payment Ye

11 Kamp-Lintfort No Yes No No 12 Bietigheim-Bissingen Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye 13 Neumünster Yes No No No

14 Neumünster Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

15 Kamp-Lintfort Yes No No No

16 Königswinter Yes No No No

17 Bornheim Yes No No No 18 Hitzacker Yes No No No

19 Neu Darchau Yes No No No 20 Kadeln Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

21 Lingenfeld Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye 22 Bad Belzig Yes No No No 23 Wusterwitz Yes No No No

24 Mainburg Yes No No No

25 Bad Abbach Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

26 Weiden Yes No No No 27 Pirk Yes No No No

28 Rostock Yes No No No

29 Warnemünde Yes No No No

30 Naumburg Yes No No No

31 Cottbus Yes No No No

32 Linden Yes No No No 33 Reiskirchen Yes No No No

34 Arnsberg Yes No No No

35 Winterberg Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

36 Cochem Yes No No No

37 Forst Yes No No No

38 Buchholz Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

39 Seevetal Yes No No

40 Lahnau Yes No No No

41 Schöffengrund Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

42 Königs Wusterhausen Yes No General payment Ye

43 Tambach-Dietharz Yes No No No

44 Seevetal Yes No No No

43


ID Municipality Developer Bespoke third party Third party habitat bank

Habitat (own or thi general p

45 Halle Yes No No No

46 Halle Yes No No No

47 Ravensburg Yes No No No

48 Braindt Yes No No No

49 Eschenbach Yes, own habitat bank No No Ye

44


Appendix 2 – Habitats Restored / Created by Offset Measures

Types of offset habitats created or restored The plans were examined to identify as precisely as possible the target habitat types which the offsets are designed to restore or create. It was possible to specify the habitat type in 38 of the 48 plans. These were classified using the German habitat typology and corresponding biodiversity score published in Annex 2 of the draft offsetting regulation published in April 2013 (BMU 2013b). This regulation is the most recent national level habitat list available, and it assigns a standard biodiversity score to each habitat type. In the remaining 10 plans, 5 used a payment instead of an actual offset, one had not yet assigned an offset to the plan, and from 4 it was not possible to extract enough information.

Habitat type created Classification (BMU 2013b)

Biodiversity score

No of offsets (N=71)

%*

Species-rich hay meadow or wet meadow GT.7.1, GN.2.3.1 19 17 24%

Moderately species-rich grassland (mesophile, extensively managed) with trees/hedges/copse

GT.8.2, GH.2.2.1 13 16 23%

Orchard meadow (immature) GH.6.1.1 11 12 17%

Woodland edge GH.5.1.1 11 7 10%

Hedge GH.3.3.1 11 5 7% Mixed woodland (Beech/conifers) - immature LW.7.5.1 15 4 6%

Naturalised river section (grayling zone) FG.2.1 17 2 3% Riparian woodland (Willow/mixed) LW.4.2.1 14 2 3%

Amenity grassland (with pond/shrubs) GT.10 8 2 3%

Species-rich sandy grassland GT.4.2.1 20 1 1%

Species-rich chalk grassland GT.2.1 20 1 1%

Montane riparian forest (Alder, Ash) LW.7.1.1 18 1 1% Hedge bank GH.3.1.2 17 1 1%

NB. * Area of habitat type created as % of total area of offsets in sample

45


Appendix 3 - Description of Cases and Costs of Offset Measures The plans were examined to pick out all available information on the actual offset measures, including area, type of habitat created, costs of individual actions, and whether the costs reflect actual expenditure or an estimate by the local authority. The level of detail varies greatly however, and most development plans do not contain any costs information. If the local authority has estimated the costs, this is noted.

The tables below describe the 11 cases in which detailed cost information was found in the development plan. The tables include the following information:

• Case number of development plan, German federal state, local authority at NUTS3 level (Kreis/Landeskreis/Stadtkreis), municipality;

• Summary of biodiversity lost through development, plus other impacts considered in the evaluation;

• Offset rationale (biodiversity, soil, air, water and landscape offsets required under the Impact Mitigation Regulation; woodland offset required under the Forest Law);

• Total number of external offset measures associated with the development plan (NB the following offset measures are not listed in detail: offset measures not associated with a particular offset area e.g. individual tree planting, bat or bird boxes; offsets that only fulfil the requirements under the Forest Law; offsets in the form of a payment);

• Habitat type the offset aims to create (see above);

• Area of individual offset measure; restoration and maintenance actions (if described);

• Cost details if described.

Description of the cases used in the analysis Case 2 Baden-Württemberg, District Pforzheim, municipality Büchenbronn Biodiversity lost Wet meadows (no details) Offset rationale Woodland, biodiversity, soil, air quality, landscape Total no of offsets 2 (NB this division is only for planning purposes and is actually a patchwork of around six

offset areas and measures from the habitat bank) Offset type Lowland hay meadow, tall herb fringe vegetation (marshy), Nardus grassland HD 6430,

6510, 6230 Offset area 1.06 ha (NB total WITH second offset below) Offset actions Wet meadow restoration, species measures for Maculinea nausithous (but no

management plan for the SCI exists yet so no details) Offset cost 70,956 € (NB TOTAL of offset measures 77,607 €/ha, without land cost 2,3156 €/ha) Cost details Measure €16815, land purchase €54140 Comments This offset is actually a patchwork of various areas and measures from the habitat bank Offset type Orchard meadow & hedges, wet grassland (unspecified) Offset area 1.06 ha (NB total WITH first offset above) Offset actions Removal of conifers; creation of grassland from arable; wet meadow management; tree

& hedge planting; removal of artificial surfaces; restoration of water courses Offset cost 11,952 € Cost details Measure €7922, land purchase €4030 Comments This offset is actually a patchwork of various areas and measures from the habitat bank Case 3 Baden-Württemberg, District Pforzheim, municipality Pforzheim Biodiversity lost Hedge with native species (0.0775 ha); traditional orchard hay meadow with planted

(non-native) shrubs (0.6417 ha); young deciduous woodland/mixed woodland/reedbed (0.5222 ha); conifer woodland/young deciduous woodland (0.2998 ha). Some of

46


wooded area is planted with conifers, some is young natural succession of deciduous wood. No particularly protected species or habitats. Not very mature trees.

Offset rationale Biodiversity, soil, landscape (woodland offset separate & not counted, groundwater offset as building specifications e.g. green roofs)

Total no & cost of offsets 4 (96,674 €) Offset type Orchard meadow GH.6.1.1 Offset area 0.2023 ha Offset actions Creation from brownfield site (soil preparation, grassland sowing, tree planting, mowing

maintenance, pruning maintenance) Offset cost 17,564 € (86,822 €/ha, without land cost 46,456 €/ha) Cost details Measure €5989, maintenance €3409, land purchase €8166 Offset type Orchard meadow GH.6.1.1 Offset area 0.1542 ha Offset actions Restoration mowing of grassland, planting of fruit trees Offset cost 10,089 € (65,428 €/ha, without land cost 13,684 €/ha) Cost details Measure €926, maintenance €1184, land purchase €7979 Offset type Semi-natural grassland (undefined) GT.8.2 Offset area 0.2500 ha Offset actions Garden restoration Offset cost 17,558 € (70,232 €/ha, without land cost 7,968 €/ha) Cost details Measure €1992, land purchase €15566 Offset type Semi-natural grassland with trees GT.8.2 Offset area 0.2212 ha Offset actions Grassland creation from arable, afforestation Offset cost 38,561 € (174,326 €/ha, without land cost 121,953 €/ha) Cost details Measure €6520, maintenance €25049, land purchase €11585 Case 7 Baden-Württemberg, District Ludwigsburg, Municipality Löchgau Biodiversity lost Small area of orchard meadows has high biodiversity value; some mature trees; most of

area has low value (arable & intensively used grassland) Offset rationale Soil sealing, loss of groundwater replenishment, loss of biodiversity Total no of offsets 2 Offset type Orchard meadow GH.6.1.1 Offset area 3.093 ha Offset actions Tree planting, clear brambles, clear waste piles, remove building (shed?), removal of

invasive trees in woodland edge, mowing and hay removal, hedge maintenance, on existing organically managed orchard (previously intensive up to 1997)

Offset cost 80,975 € (26,180 €/ha) Cost details Clear brambles €3000, remove 20 dead (spalier) fruit trees €1000, plant new (tall) fruit

trees €8875, tree pruning - restoration prune of tall fruit trees €3960, follow-up prune €6600, pruning spalier trees €13500, follow up pruning €22500, tree removal for thinning €22500, tree removal to create grassland €6000, grassland creation (soil preparation, sowing) €16000

Comments Estimated costs (as the offset is compensating for soil sealing, the action costs are the only criteria used to set the offset cost and biodiversity value gain is not taken into account); the estimate does not include land purchase costs because the offset is contributing to an ongoing restoration project

Offset type Payment Offset cost 15,699 € Cost details Monetary payment for soil sealing impact calculated at €4166.66 per ha (total €96674

minus offset in orchard = €15699) Case 8 Niedersachsen, District Goslar, Municipality Clausthal-Zellerfeld Biodiversity lost Mountain hay meadows and grazed semi-natural grassland (1.7 ha, protected at federal

state level, SCI). Ditch and small marshy area - nationally protected habitat (Biotop NNatG).

Offset rationale Biodiversity, soil, landscape Total no of offsets 4 (including tree planting offset – see comments below) Offset type Hay meadow GT.7.1 Offset area 0.5200 ha Offset actions Maintenance of existing habitat (0.199 ha) and restoration to extensive grassland (0.498

ha) Offset cost 1,560 € (3,000 €/ha) Cost details Maintenance cost for 5 years; therefore annual cost = € 312 Offset type Montane riparian forest (alder, ash) LW.7.1.1

47


Offset area 0.7200 ha Offset actions Removal of conifer plantation to recreate native forest (no further details given) Offset cost 1,500 € (2,083 €/ha) Offset type Amenity area (with existing wetland) GT.10 Offset area 0.5564 ha Offset actions Conversion into a public space that includes the existing wetland habitat Offset cost 22,700 € (40,798 €/ha) Cost details €18400 for creation of gravel paths, €2200 for planting amenity grass Comments Total offset cost also includes tree planting - 21 trees at €100 each = €2100; offset ; does

not include value of land as for the hay meadow and amenity area it is being disappropriated by the local authority as part of the rezoning, and the other offset is a contribution to an ongoing restoration project

Case 26 Bayern, District Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Municipality Weiden Biodiversity lost Mature hedges with some mature trees (some of the mature deciduous trees will be

retained); soil sealing. Offset rationale Biodiversity, landscape Total no of offsets 2 (one is species offset – bird and bat boxes) Offset type Hedge GH.3.3.1 Offset area 0.1790 ha Offset actions Arable land clearance, hedge planting on 0.0588 ha, fencing, hedge maintenance,

natural colonisation of vegetation on the arable area Offset cost 28,358 € (158,423 €/ha, without land costs 98,423 €/ha) Cost details Land purchase €10740, vegetation clearance €840, hedge planting €5880, fencing

€1960, 1 year post-planting hedge management €882, 4 years (growing) hedge management €3528, VAT €4528

Comments Total offset cost includes cost of bat box offset - €19,113 Case 29 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, District Rostock, Municipality Warnemünde Biodiversity lost Some permanent constructions on the sand dunes and recreational use in the summer

will have a significant impact on insects and birds, particularly on grey dunes. Borders on a Natura 2000 site.

Offset rationale Biodiversity Total no of offsets 4 Offset type Wet meadow with orchids GN.2.3.1 Offset area 0.6167 ha Offset actions Restoration management including annual mowing (machine) with biomass removal Offset cost 5,797 € (9,400 €/ha) Offset type Wet meadow with orchids GN.2.3.1 Offset area 0.3746 ha Offset actions Restoration management including bi-annual mowing Offset cost 1,538 € (4,106 €/ha) Offset type Species-rich dry grassland on sand GT.4.2.1 Offset area 0.3660 ha Offset actions Removal of pioneer trees, root clearance, vegetation clearance in open sand area (four

years management) Offset cost 11,529 € (31,500 €/ha) Comments All offsets are cost estimates based on management predictions; they do not include

land purchase costs as local authority (who is responsible for both development and offset) has already acquired land rights through purchase or lease

Case 44 Niedersachsen, District Harburg, municipality Seevetal Biodiversity lost Woodland Offset rationale Woodland and species (amphibians) Total no of offsets 1 Offset type Deciduous woodland edge (trees and shrubs) GH.5.1.1 Offset area 0.46 Offset actions Planting, fencing and maintenance for 3 years Offset cost 12,700 € (27,609 €/ha) Comments Offset payment to take place over 15 years at €850 a year; no land purchase costs as

local authority has organised offset as a long-term management contract with the land owner (church organisation)

Case 45 Sachsen-Anhalt, District Halle, municipality Halle Biodiversity lost Loss of lizard habitat due to railway expansion, loss of railway embankment & siding

48


habitats including hedges, bushes, trees, ponds, vegetation of warm & dry areas, wetland & wet meadow, reedbed; gardens

Offset rationale Lizard habitat, loss of other linear dry and wet habitats; environmental impacts of noise, pollution, soil loss etc.

Total no of offsets 2 Offset type Grassland GT.8.2 Offset area 0.7005 ha Offset actions Sowing on 0.5 ha = €2500, placing of materials (gravel, dead wood) = €8000 (cost

estimate) Offset cost 10,500 € (14,989 €/ha) Offset type Hedge / scrub GH.3.3.1 Offset area 0.2288 ha Offset actions Shrub planting = €25000 (cost estimate) Offset cost 25,000 € (109,266 €/ha) Comments Total offset also includes 130,567 € in mitigation measures for other species impacts (and

an offset planting of a row of trees); no land purchase costs as developer owns the land (German railways)

Case 49 Bayern, District Neustadt an der Waldnaab, municipality Eschenbach Biodiversity lost Orchard meadow Offset rationale Biodiversity, trees, soil sealing Total no of offsets 1 Offset type Orchard meadow GH.6.1.1 Offset area 0.8085 Offset actions Grassland sowing on arable (half of area); restoration mowing of previous intensive

grassland (3x yearly) for 5 years, then biannual mowing; removal of biomass; no fertilisation. Planting and care of 30 fruit trees (yearly pruning for 10 years, then pruning every 2 years).

Offset cost 40,500 € (50,093 €/ha) Cost details €3000 measure, €37500 long term maintenance (cost estimate) (no land purchase costs) Comments Actually two areas from habitat bank, but cost is only given for total

49

A review of recent biodiversity offsetting practice in...

Documents

Transcript of A review of recent biodiversity offsetting practice in...