A Potential Decision Framework for Conservation Areas – Offsets

Shell Canada Heavy Oil (HO) has made a commitment to ‘land neutrality’ and some stakeholders have been informed. However, the commitment is as yet undefined and thus presents several risks. To mitigate or remove these risks, HO needs to define what ‘land neutrality’ means, and what resources are needed to achieve this commitment. A decision framework is presented here by the Biodiversity Consultancy in Cambridge, UK , made up of important questions to consider when shaping the land neutrality commitment for HO. The choice of responses will result in different liabilities with greatly varying financial requirements. It is important to understand at least the outer boundaries of this financial offset liability and come up with a likely set of decisions (anticipating regulatory and stakeholder requirements/expectations) to (1) provide an estimate of offset costs, and (2) inform the HO land neutrality commitment. A defined commitment will be key to informing ongoing strategy, such as purchasing of offsets.

Note: This decision framework document presents questions for Shell to consider, but there is no record here of decisions made. Overarching Neutrality Decisions: (1) how much land should be offset? (2) what types of biodiversity should be included? (3) on which classification system should impact assessment and closure plans be based? (4) how should the condition/quality of each hectare disturbed or reclaimed be considered? (5) how should temporary loss be considered?; HO Offset Neutrality Decisions: (1) how similar should types of biodiversity found in offsets be? (2) spatial scope for offset site selection? (3) what mechanisms can be used to generate conservation gains ? (4) how should gains be accounted for? HO Offset Design/Site Selection Decisions: (1) what are biological offset spatial options? (2) which types of land are available for offsets? What risks and opportunities do each choice present? (3) to what degree is it worth predicting future offset requirements of different regulators to optimize offset selection strategy? Is it possible to have single sites which ‘kill two or three birds with one stone’ (i.e. credit stack across legislative regimes)? (4) what offset models are suitable? (5) what land title/legal approach is optimal? (6) how should permanence be considered? (7) what resources are needed?