Blueprints for a Greener Footprint...Potential Impact Avoid Residual Impact Avoid Minimize Restore Offset Follow the Mitigation Hierarchy Potential Impact No Net Loss Kiesecker, J.M,

Blueprints for a Greener Footprint: Achieving Sustainable Development at a Landscape Scale

Bruce McKenney Director, Development by Design The Nature Conservancy

Nicholas Ins=tute November 6, 2015

GLOBAL REACH & SCALE

LARGEST CONSERVATION NOT-FOR-PROFIT IN THE WORLD

PLACE-BASED EXPERIENCE AT WORK IN THE US AND IN MORE THAN

35 COUNTRIES

SCIENCE-BASED KNOW-HOW

HOME TO MORE THAN

600 SCIENTISTS

NETWORK OF RELATIONSHIPS

POWERED BY 1,350 TRUSTEES AND 1 MILLION MEMBERS

INTRODUCTION TO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Presentation overview

•  Global challenge •  Transforming development planning: Development by Design •  Case 1: Sustainable development in Mongolia •  Case 2: Accelerating renewable energy in the US •  Case 3: Mitigating cumulative impacts to biodiversity and

ecosystem services in the US •  Key needs going forward

Zambia

Patagonia Solomon Islands

Australia

Development by Design

Development by Design

The Problem Bandages instead of blueprints

Global Challenge Population to reach 9 billion by 2050 (United Nations 2012)

Global economic growth to double by 2030 (World Bank 2013)

Global energy demand to rise 35% by 2040 (Exxon, Outlook for Energy 2013)

Food crop demand up >100% in 2050 (Tilman et al. 2012)

Global mineral demand to rise 60% by 2050 (Kesler 2007)

Future footprint: Cumulative development threat

Oakleaf et al. (2015) A World at Risk: Aggregating Development Trends to Forecast Global Habitat Conversion. PLoS ONE 10 (10)

20%

DEVELOPMENT THREAT

CATEGORIES

NATURAL LANDS

OF LANDS AT HIGH RISK

5%

OF LANDS PROTECTED

Global Assessment: Lands at Risk

Oakleaf et al (2015) A world at risk: Aggrega=ng development trends to forecast global habitat conversion

Source: ICMM 2015

INCREASING CONFLICT




Tradi=onal development approach: Cumula=ve impacts

Vision: Landscape-‐scale planning for sustainable development

ABCs of landscape-‐level planning benefits

Landscape)level, Project)level,

Site)level,,EIA,

Advance,planning:,,Planning,at,a,landscape,scale,before,ini;al,project,investments,supports,pro)ac;ve,and,comprehensive,risk,assessment,for,projects.,,

Bigger,scale:,,Planning,for,development,at,a,larger,scale,moves,beyond,a,project)by)project,approach,,making,clear,the,poten;al,cumula;ve,impacts,for,a,region.,,

Comprehensive:,Developing,landscape)scale,strategies,supports,avoiding,impacts,to,high)value,areas,and,incen;vizing,development,in,low)conflict,areas.,,

Potential Impact

Avoid

Residual Impact

Avoid

Minimize

Restore

Offset

Follow the Mitigation Hierarchy

Potential Impact

No Net Loss

Kiesecker, J.M, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, N. Nibbelink, B. McKenney J. Dahlke, M. Holloran and D. Stroud 2009 A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale. BioScience 59:77-84. Kiesecker, J.M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, B. McKenney 2010. Development by Design: Blending Landscape Level Planning with the Mitigation Hierarchy. Frontiers In Ecology and the Environment 8(5):261-266

Development by Design Framework

1.  Setting Priorities Conservation, ecosystem services, other values

2.  Projecting Impacts Cumulative impacts, early warning, avoidance, opportunities for sustainable outcomes

3.  Identifying Best Options For impacts that do occur, opportunities for mitigation strategies and offsets

4.  Measuring Progress Extent to which mitigation actions support conservation goals

Landscape-Level Analysis

Project-Level Analysis

FINE FILTER Species Other Goals i.e. Eco. Services

Social/Cultural

(X) Acres of habitat needed to maintain viability

( Y ) Acres of habitat or point locations (i.e. nests) needed to maintain viability

Select BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS Set GOALS

assess ECOLOGICAL CONDITION Conservation Portfolio Design: Development Portfolio Design:

Cost / Suitability Index

• Road & RR Density •  Population Density •  Converted Land Cover •  Irrigated Land Cover •  Housing density

Future development pressure

automated site selection (MARXAN with ZONES)

COARSE FILTER Vegetation Types

( Z ) Amount of production

Science

Policy

10 countries

Kiesecker, JM, H Copeland, A Pocewicz, N Nibbelink, B McKenney, J Dahlke, M Holloran, and D Stroud 2009. A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining scale. BioScience 59:77-84 Kiesecker, JM, H Copeland, A Pocewicz, and B McKenney 2010. Development by Design: Blending Landscape Level Planning with the Mitigation Hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 261-266 Copeland HE, Doherty KE, Naugle DE, Pocewicz A, Kiesecker JM (2009) Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species. PLoS ONE 4(10): e7400. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007400 McDonald R, Fargione J, Kiesecker J, Miller WM, Powell J (2009) Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLOS One 4: 8. McKenney, B. Kiesecker J.M. 2010. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environmental Management 45:165–176. Sochi, K. Evans, J. and J. M. Kiesecker . 2010. Conservation in the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion: Planning Today by Assessing Future Scenarios . Gap Analysis Bulletin 17: 23-25 Doherty KE, DE Naugle, H Copeland, A Pocewicz, and JM Kiesecker 2009 Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for sage-grouse in their eastern range. Studies in Avian Biology In Press Copeland, HE, A Pocewicz, and J Kiesecker (In Press) Geography of energy development in Western North America: Potential impacts to terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter in: Energy development and wildlife conservation in Western North America (Edited by DE Naugle) Copeland, HE, KE Doherty, DE Naugle, A Pocewicz, and J Kiesecker (In Press) Forecasting development scenarios to aid in conservation design. Chapter in: Energy development and wildlife conservation in Western North America (Edited by DE Naugle) Kiesecker, JM, H Copeland, B McKenney, A Pocewicz, and K Doherty (In Press) Energy by Design: Making mitigation work for conservation and development. Chapter in: Energy development and wildlife conservation in Western North America (Edited by DE Naugle) Kiesecker, J.M. McKenney, B. Copeland, H. and D. Stroud. (In Prep) Accounting 101: Assessing no-net-loss for biodiversity offsets. Target Journal: Conservation Biology Kiesecker JM, Evans JS, Fargione J, Doherty K, Foresman KR, et al. (2011) Win-Win for Wind and Wildlife: A Vision to Facilitate Sustainable Development. PLoS ONE 6(4): e17566. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017566 Evans, J. Kiesecker, J.M. Fargione, J. et al. Mapping human disturbance for bio diver conservation in the contiguous US. Target Journal: Conservation Letters Obermeyer B, Manes R, Kiesecker J, Fargione J, and K Sochi. 2011. Development by Design: Mitigation of Wind Development’s Impacts on Wildlife in Kansas. PLoS One 6(10): e26698. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026698 Cameron DR, Cohen BS, Morrison SA (2012) An Approach to Enhance the Conservation-Compatibility of Solar Energy Development. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038437

Development by Design Publications:

US policy: “The next generation of mitigation”

White House

• Executive Order 13604 (March 2012)

• Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment (Nov 2015)

DOI

• Secretarial Order on Mitigation (Oct 2013)

• Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of DOI (Apr 2014)

• Departmental Manual: Implementing Mitigation at a Landscape Scale (Nov 2015)

FWS

• Update to 1981 Mitigation Policy

• Update to 2003 Banking Policy

• Policy on Mitigation for Candidate Species

BLM

• Regional Mitigation Policy (draft 2013, final late-2015)

• Handbook for Implementing Regional Mitigation Policy (late 2015)

USFS

• USFS Chief Letter: National Landscape-Scale Mitigation Framework

Global Momentum

•  56 countries have or are developing national mitigation policies requiring or enabling biodiversity offsets (TBC 2013).

•  Lending performance standards for multi-lateral institutions and 80 private financial institutions require projects they finance to avoid, minimize, and compensate for biodiversity impacts for net gain or no net loss (IFC 2012, EBRD 2014, EPFI 2013).

•  At least 32 companies have established no net loss or net positive impact goals for biodiversity to guide their corporate practices (Rainey et al. 2014).




Age old Mongolian nomadic heritage under threat due to mining Friday, November 30th, 2012

Booming Mongolia

Mine, all mine The country that is likely to grow faster than any other in the next decade, and how it is changing, for be=er or worse

Mongolia Gold Rush Destroying Rivers, Nomadic Lives Na=onal Geographic News October 17, 2008

Mongolia: NaDonal ConservaDon Blueprint Mongolia: Mineral Leases

Mining leases

ac=ve mines

applica=on / explora=on leases

Conserva=on porYolio

Na=onal PAs

Aimag borders


Na=onal PAs

Aimag borders

conflict with conserva=on porYolio

Mining leases

ac=ve mines



Na=onal PAs

Aimag borders

Herder Household Density

High

Low

Benefits of Landscape-‐Scale Planning •  Iden=fies conservaDon prioriDes in the context of

future development scenarios •  Provides early warning of possible development-‐

conserva=on conflicts and risks •  Incorporates tradiDonal use & social/cultural values •  Supports compliance with na=onal policies and

lending standards (IFC Performance Standard 6) •  Provides a vision for sustainable development;

offsets finance conserva=on goals

Mining leases

ac=ve mines



GOBI REGION

TOOLS TO INFORM BETTER LAND-USE DECISIONS

New Protected Areas

!

Empowered Communi=es


•  Global Challenge •  Transforming development planning: Development by Design •  Case 1: Sustainable development in Mongolia •  Case 2: Accelerating renewable energy in the US •  Case 3: Mitigating cumulative impacts to biodiversity and





18% (n=360) of “sensitive” watersheds will transition into a higher impact status 7% (n=130) will move into a “nonsupporting” or “urban” drainage impact status. 1,490,732 acres of impervious surfaces and upwards of 1,224,053 acres of affected forest.

Assessing Future Energy Development in the Appalachians




Key needs

•  Integrating ecosystem services – Beyond ES production to human benefits – Community-defined social and cultural values – Land-based climate solutions: reducing emissions and

increasing sequestration •  Practical/defensible compensatory mitigation approaches

(e.g., crediting methods for US and other countries) •  Economic benefits of restoration •  Support for new approaches to endangered species

management (e.g., Sage Grouse) •  Others?

Documents

Blueprints for a Greener Footprint...Potential Impact Avoid Residual Impact Avoid Minimize Restore Offset Follow the Mitigation Hierarchy Potential Impact No Net Loss Kiesecker, J.M,