1. 1 Development in North Canberra 1984-2012

2. How do we know if we are “improving or maintaining”? Philip Gibbons Fenner School of Environment and Society The Australian National University Philip.Gibbons@anu.edu.au

3. 3 When it comes to evaluating the success of its interventions, the field of ecosystem protection and biodiversity conservation lags behind most other policy fields (e.g., poverty reduction, criminal rehabilitation, disease control) (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). Few well-designed empirical analyses assess even the most common biodiversity conservation measures (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

4. EPBC offsets in the ACT (2009-14) ~600ha of habitat for MNES cleared under EPBC offset policy 1900ha of offset established Offset ratio ~3.2:1 Does this = no net loss of MNES habitat? 4

5. Biodiversity offsets 5 Biodiversity value without impact Biodiversity value with impact Time Biodiversity Time Biodiversity Biodiversity value with offset Biodiversity value without offset Avoided loss Restoration LossGain ≤ Loss

6. Net change in area of MNES habitat within the ACT Clearing (2009- 2014) 6

7. Net change in area of MNES habitat within the ACT Clearing (2009- 2014) Background loss 7

8. Net change in area of MNES habitat within the ACT 8 Clearing with offsets Background loss Cumulative avoided loss of habitat from offsets

9. Net change in area of MNES habitat within the ACT 9 Clearing with offsets Background loss Cumulative avoided loss of habitat from offsets 50% net loss in 20 years Locks-in ongoing losses of habitat

10. 10 Justice Robert Hope Park assessed risk of loss in 20 years = 70% I calculated this risk as <1% Watson Neighbourhood Plan (2004) states “no changes to the Urban Open Space network”

11. Net change in habitat quality attributes (NSW methodology) Suggests net loss in key attributes of Box Gum Grassy Woodland (key MNES in ACT) 11 Source: Gibbons et al (in prep)

12. Some suggestions for ACT policy Would like to see ACT public register contain key data from initial assessments and annual reports Impact assessments & annual reports should be a standard template to facilitate easy data capture/auditing Outcomes (e.g., responses by species) should be assessed at a program level (e.g., via research partnerships) Support innovative offsets – even with risk (ACT doing this well) 12

13. No biodiversity offset program yet to achieve no net loss 63% of projects = no net loss in Canada (Quigley and Harper 2006) net loss of 9,990 habitat hectares per year in Victoria (DSE 2008) in Germany 33% of goals were achieved (Tichew et al. 2010) consensus in published literature that no net loss is feasible in a very narrow range of circumstances (e.g., 19- 50% of restoration successful within 100 years (Curren et al. 2014) 13

14. 14 “Ecosystem degradation can rarely be reversed without actions that address one or more indirect drivers of change” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) Indirect drivers Population growth Economic growth Climate change ACT in 2050 53% increase Economy will triple Annual temperature exceeds historic variability Source: ACT Population Projections: 2007 to 2056 and Mora et al. 2013 Nature