The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) is a partnership between companies, financial institutions, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets. Forest Trends and Wildlife Conservation Society provide the Secretariat for BBOP.
BBOP envisages a future in which the mitigation hierarchy is rigorously applied worldwide to a high standard by governments and the private sector for projects in all sectors, emphasizing avoidance and minimization, to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PUBLICATIONS AND TOOLS
12th Annual Meeting of the BBOP Advisory Group held in Barcelona
On 26-27 October, 75 people attended the twelfth annual BBOP Advisory Group meeting, representing companies, consultancies, financial institutions, civil society organizations and governments. The meeting was co-hosted with the Government of Catalonia which provided the marvelous venue, the historic Sant Pau Art Nouveau World Heritage Site. Participants took stock of trends and developments in the world of avoiding and mitigating the impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services, shared information on their work and updated BBOP's strategy and priorities. Their aim was to learn from each other's experience and to ensure that BBOP's work in the future helps its members and society more broadly to be effective in making progress in moving towards Net Gain.
The productive discussions in Barcelona benefitted from the involvement of many first time participants, and this enabled us to embark on an exciting new programme of work. A revised Vision, Mission, Goals and Strategy document for BBOP has been reviewed by the Advisory Group and approved by the Executive Committee and is available here. New areas of work include:
- developing a corporate roadmap
- developing a roadmap for governments
- short publications explaining the mitigation hierarchy and offsets and making them accessible to a wide range of groups
- case studies and training
- help with feasibility studies and the design and implementation of mitigation measures including offsets
BBOP announces new Advisory Group members
Several companies and organizations have joined the BBOP Advisory Group in the past few months. including the Government of Catalonia which is developing its approach to conservation banking and offsets; Earthmind, which aims to develop an international approach to verifying area-based conservation, the Verified Conservation Area (VCA) Approach; and EDF (Électricité de France), which is undertaking a number of actions to improve the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy, as well as funding a PhD on ecological equivalency.
Recent BBOP Community of Practice webinars
BBOP's monthly webinar series on topics of interest to the Community of Practice continue. Recent webinars have included topics such as "Biodiversity Offsets in Chile: from goals to reality" by Claudia Silva from WCS, "The Next Generation of Mitigation: Principles and New Policies for Achieving Sustainable Development" by Bruce McKenney of The Nature Conservancy; "Network Rail Infrastructure Projects' application of the mitigation hierarchy" by Amelia Woodley of Network Rail and Dr. Julia Baker from Parsons Brinkerhoff; and "The Impact of Biodiversity Offsets on Protected Areas" by Leon Bennun of The Biodiversity Conservancy. If you would like to suggest a topic for an upcoming webinar, please contact us at email@example.com! If you missed any of these webinars, you can listen to them at your convenience and see the presentations here.
Publications and Tools
Biological Conservation, Volume 192, December 2015: Special Section on Biodiversity Offsets
The recent issue of the journal Biological Conservation contains a special section focused on biodiversity offsets. Brief summaries of the nine articles are provided here, with links to the full articles. A paid subscription is required to access the full articles from Biological Conservation.
When conservation challenges biodiversity offsetting, Pages 483-484, by Vincent Devictor
In this opening editorial, the author provides the framework for the articles that follow, contending that, in his view, "The fundamental idea of biodiversity offsetting is to stop, or at least to slow, development projects by recognizing the need to compensate for their impacts on biodiversity" and that offsets obscure an underlying assumption "that it is possible to assess, compare and equate what is destroyed and what is repaired." Whether the quantification of biodiversity loss and gains is ethically, politically and technically possible is the central theme of this special section. This opening piece frames the articles that follow into three broad categories, the historical evolution and political context of biodiversity offsets; technological challenges; and ethical and social dimensions. It asks readers to consider whether compromise is always the best option to achieve conservation goals.
Tell me where you come from, I will tell you who you are: A genealogy of biodiversity offsetting mechanisms in historical context Pages 485-491, by Christophe Bonneuil
This article aims to trace the emergence of biodiversity offsets from the 1970s to the 1990s against the background of the historical factors, socio-environmental struggles and political-ideological battles that shaped them. The author contends that biodiversity offsets emerged not as a conservation tool, but from a political movement, primarily in the United States, which favored market-based solutions at the expense of environmental regulations, part of what the author sees as a broader shift towards a new "liberal environmentalism" policy paradigm.
Tracking the origins and development of biodiversity offsetting in academic research and its implications for conservation: A review Pages 492-503, by Coralie Calvet, Guillaume Ollivier, Claude Napoleone
In this article the authors examine the origins, characteristics and dynamics of biodiversity offsets in academic papers across three decades identifying three stages in the development of the concept in academia, and highlight the influence of specific countries, authors, research areas and articles. Findings include that non-academic institutions were particularly influential, particularly environmental NGOs. The review highlights the use of an economic rationale to frame offsets rather than an ecological one.
Locking in loss: Baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies Pages 504-512, by Martine Maron, Joseph W. Bull, Megan C. Evans, Ascelin Gordon
In this article the authors examine assumptions about baseline biodiversity decline scenarios in offset projects in Australia. Determining whether an offset can compensate for a given impact requires accurate assumptions about the counterfactual scenario (or "crediting baseline") – what would have happened without the offset. Accurate crediting baseline scenarios are therefore critically important to achieving no net loss. The paper looks at crediting baselines used in policies across Australia and compares them with recent estimates of vegetation decline and finds that assumed crediting baseline declines were more than 5 times steeper than recent rates of vegetation loss. The authors conclude that crediting baselines in Australia risk exacerbating biodiversity loss.
Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools: A case study on mining impacts in Australia Pages 513-521, by H. Kujala, A.L. Whitehead, W.K. Morris, B.A. Wintle
In this article the authors explore ways to improve offset outcomes through landscape level or "regional offset" approaches, underpinned by concepts of complementarity and irreplaceability. Irreplaceability essentially means that some sites cannot be offset due to their uniqueness. Complementarity means that mitigation measures are not taken in isolation but are identified in such a way as to improve the conservation status of key biodiversity features in the offset target area as efficiently as possible. The authors argue that although there is no optimal solution for all species, an improved understanding of regional-scale impacts will lead to a more efficient identification of offset sites and improved biodiversity outcomes.
Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation Pages 522-532, by J.W. Bull, M.J. Hardy, A. Moilanen, A. Gordon
In some cases it might be appropriate to relax the like-for-like compensation requirements of an offset if an out-of-kind offset can improve conservation outcomes for higher priority species. The authors of this paper explore this and other types of flexibility in implementing biodiversity offsets by first categorizing the different types of flexibility that can be found in offset schemes. They then explore ecological outcomes under two types of flexibility in biodiversity offsets policy, simulating policies that are flexible in time (offsets implemented before or after development) and flexible in type (out-of-kind offsets).
Biodiversity offsetting as a commodification process: A French case study as a concrete example
Pages 533-540, by Benoît Dauguet
In this article the author argues that biodiversity offsetting, by "relying upon the equity and exchangeability of habitats" represents a commodification process by itself, regardless of the institutional arrangements under which it is implemented. A French biodiversity offset management plan and related guidelines and regulations are analyzed. The author concludes that more than balancing losses and gains, biodiversity offsets assume a general fungibility of species, environments and habitats, with commodification occurring not during the quantification of biological parameters but when exchange value are defined between them.
Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature Pages 541-551, by Clive L. Spash
In this critique, the author rejects the use of biodiversity offsets, viewing them as the application of "mainstream economics" in order to legitimize rather than prevent habitat destruction. In this regard, they are viewed as part of the broader "neoliberal commodification and financialisation of ecosystems" typified by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) studies, and are an inferior means of achieving conservation outcomes compared to appeals to ethics and direct regulation. Ultimately, Spash argues, offsets and similar approaches, which he views as commodifying nature, will lead to an unending series of compromises that will prevent conservationists from protecting anything.
The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets Pages 552-559, by David Moreno-Mateos, Virginie Maris, Arnaud Béchet, Michael Curran
This article argues that, due to the complex nature of biodiversity, including its spatial, evolutionary, historical, social and moral context, no net loss is not an achievable goal. While considering the irreplaceability of ecosystems and the limits of restoration, they discuss multiple ecological, instrumental and non-instrumental values of ecosystems that they believe should be considered in offset calculations. They conclude that given the risks that biodiversity offsets pose, they cannot fulfil their promise to resolve the trade-off between development and conservation, and advocate that strict protection legislation should be strengthened.
Should biodiversity offsets help finance underfunded Protected Areas?
The topic of what role, if any, biodiversity offsets should play in funding protected areas is one of the most hotly debated issues surrounding offsets today. In this discussion paper in Biological Conservation, lead author Mwangi Githiru and co-authors including Ray Victurine from WCS and the BBOP Secretariat, wade into the debate by questioning whether biodiversity offsets should act as a complementary funding mechanism where funding for PAs is inadequate. The principle of additionality, which requires that conservation outcomes would not have occurred without the offset, would seem to rule out biodiversity offsets set in PAs since PAs are already protected by legal or other means, and in theory should be adequately financed and managed. This paper argues, however, that because many PAs are under increasing threat due to a lack of sufficient funding for staffing, infrastructure and other basic operational necessities, additionality from a financial perspective, if it can be demonstrated, can be sufficient to justify offsets in PAs. Four key challenges and three advantages of using offset finance for improving PA management are presented. On balance, the authors believe that offsets offer the potential to boost financing for conservation and help governments meet some of their national and international biodiversity conservation commitments.
FFI's assessment of biodiversity offset policy and practice
In July 2015, BBOP member Fauna & Flora International held a learning event entitled "Biodiversity Offsets: Lessons Learnt from Policy and Practice". The purpose of the event was to 1)build capacity for engaging in biodiversity offsets at site, landscape and national levels; 2) promote critical discussion about the potential of offsets to address residual impacts of development on ecosystems; and 3) explore the opportunities and risks that offsets present for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. A briefing report from the event along with a series of outputs from FFI's assessment of biodiversity offset policy and practice and relevant learning from FFI's REDD+ experience is now available on FFI's Business & Biodiversity resources library. The series includes the following reports:
A link to FFI's 5 minute biodiversity offsets film (which provides an introduction to offsetting and its place within the mitigation hierarchy) is also available from the main link above.
TNC Global Development Risk Assessment Study
The Nature Conservancy has developed a first-of-its-kind global development risk assessment study, which maps and estimates potential combined threats from multiple sectors, identifying the most at-risk regions worldwide for habitat conversion. The study provides a holistic view of future global development risk by evaluating multiple development drivers and sources of land conversion including agriculture, fossil fuels, mining, renewable energy, and urbanization. The study estimates how the expansion of new development around the world could potentially affect 20% of the earth's remaining natural lands (19.68 million km2) and could result in half of the world's biomes becoming more than 50% converted while doubling and tripling the extent of land converted in South America and Africa, respectively. With only 5% of the Earth's at-risk natural lands under strict legal protection, estimating and proactively mitigating multi-sector development risk is critical for curtailing the further substantial loss of nature.
The challenge of going from "no net loss" to "net gain"
Joe Bull and Susie Brownlie have published an article in Oryx entitled "The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial". Here, the authors argue that although the difference between No Net Loss and Net Gain is often perceived as a relatively straightforward boundary and a question of the amount of compensation provided, the transition from one outcome to the other is poorly understood and presents significant challenges. They present four arguments as to why this is the case, and summarize them as follows: (1) the two principles often represent different underlying philosophies on the part of policy-makers; (2) theoretical and practical sources of uncertainty make it unclear when the transition has occurred; (3) the transition is complicated by the question of whether the same frame of reference is appropriate in both cases; and (4) the two principles are likely to evoke different perceptions and expectations among stakeholders. Considering these challenges, the authors offer particular recommendations for regulators and policy-makers, consultants, businesses and financial institutions.
US Presidential Memo: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment
This memo, released on 3 November 2015, intends to strengthen and streamline landscape-level mitigation policy within five federal agencies, directing them to follow the mitigation hierarchy. The memo aims to increase public and private investment in conservation by giving preference to advanced compensation mechanisms like mitigation and conservation banking. These banks, which deliver environmental benefit prior to the negative impact and thus help ensure "no net loss," are often run by private companies. The memo also mentions another possible entry point for private sector investment by providing guidance to incorporate "restoration banking" as part of Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) restoration plans.
Coinciding with the Executive Office's announcement, the Department of Interior (DOI) released a new policy that highlights mitigation as a core part of public land management decisions. For a more comprehensive look at the Presidential memo, including how it is being perceived by the conservation banking community and conservation NGOs, as well as deadlines from implementation, see this article by the Ecosystem Marketplace and this one.
Status of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
The EU Biodiversity Strategy commits the European Commission, Parliament and the EU Member States to take action on all key drivers of biodiversity, halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Moreover, under Target 2 "Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services", Action 7 seeks to promote a wider no net loss approach to biodiversity and ecosystem services, "ensuring that any unavoidable residual impacts are compensated for or offset". In particular, Action 7b states that "The Commission will carry out further work with a view to proposing by 2015 an initiative to ensure there is no net loss of ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes". A mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy found uneven progress to date. It found that there had been no significant progress towards achieving the headline target of halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation by 2020. This assessment by BirdLife International found that insufficient progress was made towards Action 7b. The report makes several recommendations including improving the implementation of existing legislation such as the Birds and the Habitats Directives, and ensuring no net biodiversity loss by EU funded projects.
Improving application of the mitigation hierarchy in four African countries
The Wildlife Conservation Society, Forest Trends and Biotope are commencing a four year project (2016-2019) through the support of the Agence Francaise de Développement (AFD), Le Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial (FFEM) and The Mava Foundation to reduce the impacts of industry on biodiversity. The project will work with governments and industry to improve the application of the mitigation hierarchy in four African nations: Guinea, Madagascar, Mozambique and Uganda. The project partners and national stakeholders will support the development and implementation of improved legal and policy frameworks, biodiversity planning and measurement tools and implementation mechanisms to aid sustainable financing. The project also aims to provide direct support to the efforts of private sector developers implementing the mitigation hierarchy and to build capacity in the private and public sectors. More information on the project will be shared through this newsletter and the BBOP platform in the coming months.
Tullow Oil makes "no-go" commitment for World Heritage sites
British company Tullow Oil has publically committed not to explore for or exploit hydrocarbon resources within designated World Heritage areas. UNESCO's World Heritage Centre and IUCN, the official advisory body on natural World Heritage, have welcomed the commitment as Tullow had received a license to explore for oil in an area overlapping Kenya's World Heritage-listed Lake Turkana National Parks. In addition to the World Heritage no-go commitment, Tullow has also established a mandatory Protected Areas Assessment Procedure. This will help the company evaluate the potential impact of operations within protected areas by identifying risks to the local biodiversity, culture and ecosystems, prior to undertaking any new activity. More on these commitments can be found here.
CSBI Mitigation Hierarchy Guide
The Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI) is a partnership between IPIECA, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and the Equator Principles Association. A cross-sector guide for implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy was prepared by The Biodiversity Consultancy on behalf of CSBI. The guide defines the four steps of the mitigation hierarchy—avoid, minimize, restore and offset—and their application with regard to managing biodiversity throughout the life cycle of an extractive project; provides clear, systematic guidance for determining and demonstrating biodiversity loss or gain as a result of mitigation efforts, highlighting links to ecosystem services where available and appropriate; offers practical measures for predicting and verifying biodiversity conservation outcomes over time; and offers insight into documenting and comparing costs and savings resulting from mitigation action or inaction. The publication is aimed at environmental professionals working in, or with, extractive industries and financial institutions, who are responsible for overseeing the application of the mitigation hierarchy to biodiversity, while balancing conservation needs with development priorities.
CSBI welcomes feedback on how the guide at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
EU Business and Biodiversity Platform – Financing Opportunities and Needs: Biodiversity Offsetting and No Net Loss Measures
The European Commission's Business and Biodiversity (B@B) Platform aims to provide an EU level forum concerning the delivery of objectives under the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, which includes working with business to develop tools and approaches that promote the integration of biodiversity considerations into business practice. One of its three work streams, "Access to Finance and Innovative Finance Mechanisms" aims to identify and profile biodiversity investment opportunities, including biodiversity offsets. The final output of this work stream is now available online and includes the paper Financing Opportunities and Needs: Biodiversity Offsetting and No Net Loss Measures.
In this paper, which recognizes BBOP as "the most commonly recognised voluntary standard for biodiversity offsetting", authors David McNeil and Matt Rayment build on case studies that the finance stream undertook in 2014 (including Exploring long-term opportunities for biodiversity offsets by CDC Biodiversité and Growing the market for biodiversity offsets in Spain by Ecoacsa) and outline key findings and challenges relating to financing opportunities and needs with respect to biodiversity offsets. The paper provides short profiles of key players and their relevant work, including BBOP members The Environment Bank Ltd., The Biodiversity Consultancy, Ecoacsa and CDC Biodiversité. A taxonomy of biodiversity banks and offsetting arrangements is presented and the example of land pools in Germany is highlighted.
ASEAN Conference on Biodiversity 2016 – Bangkok, Thailand
The ASEAN Conference on Biodiversity 2016: (15-19 February 2016) will focus on the theme, 'Biodiversity for Sustainable Development'. The conference will discuss the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) progress on implementing their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including identification of areas where additional efforts are needed to achieve the Aichi Targets. The meeting will also discuss financing for biodiversity conservation in the ASEAN region, and will include a 'Business and Biodiversity Forum' with representatives from the private sector discussing the link between business and biodiversity. Read more here: http://nr.iisd.org/events/asean-conference-on-biodiversity-2016/
International Association of Impact Assessors - Aichi-Nagoya, Japan
IAIA16 will take place 11-14 May, with the theme of "Resilience and Sustainability". General sessions will include "Business-led approaches for promoting biodiversity in impact assessment" and "Tools and approaches for integrating biodiversity in impact assessment". Thematic sessions will include "Biodiversity and tropical agriculture and forestry". A two day training session, "Mainstreaming biodiversity in impact assessment for promoting resilience and sustainability" will focus on improving the role and scope of IA for connecting the dots between biodiversity, sustainable development, human well-being and climate change. Read more here: http://conferences.iaia.org/2016/index.php
US Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference
The US Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference is considered a "must attend event" for those in the US ecosystem banking market. Founded in 1997, the conference attracts leaders in the regulatory, banking and environmental community, as the only US-based conference focused on mitigation, conservation and ecosystem banking to protect wetlands, endangered species and other natural resources. The conference will take place from 10-13 May 2016 in Fort Worth TX, United States.
Society for Conservation Biology Oceania - Symposium on marine biodiversity offsets
The Society for Conservation Biology Oceania conference will be held 5-8 of July, 2016 in Brisbane with the theme of 'Science meets Action, Water meets Land.' It will include a symposium focusing on "Confronting threats to marine ecosystems through the use of biodiversity offsets". The theme of the workshop aims to address the imbalance between marine and terrestrial efforts on biodiversity offsets. The majority of offset research and policy remains focused on terrestrial ecosystems, while there continues to be a global increase in marine development and exploitation. Organizers believe addressing this gap is crucial to providing better outcomes for marine species and for better ocean management. The symposium will seek to address the following key issues:
- Development of novel and innovative marine offset actions and explore strategies that will best benefit people and biodiversity;
- Assessing current offset strategies in the marine environment;
- Challenges for identifying mitigation strategies and setting the research agenda;
- Policy issues related to governance and implementation;
- Case studies of marine biodiversity offsets in conservation planning;
- Discussion: what are the next steps forward?
2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) will host the world's largest conservation event this year, the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress, in Hawaii, United States of America. Held every four years, the Congress brings together leaders from government, the public sector, non-governmental organizations, business, UN agencies and indigenous and grass-roots organizations to discuss and decide on solutions to the world's most pressing environment and development challenges. The WCC Forum sessions which are open to the general public begin at 17:00 on 1 September and run until 5 September, followed by the General Assembly (which is limited to IUCN members) on 6-10 September. The IUCN Business and Biodiversity group will be managing a pavilion at the Congress. The mitigation hierarchy including biodiversity offsets are likely to figure prominently in discussions at WCC, as IUCN's draft global policy on biodiversity offsets will be discussed and voted upon by the General Assembly. Registration for WCC 2016 is now open, although the Call for Contributions is now closed.
Senior Fellow, Land Conservation, the United States Department of Interior
The United States Department of Interior announced on 15 December that it will establish The Natural Resource Investment Center in order to spur partnerships with the private sector to develop creative financing opportunities that support economic development goals while advancing the Department's resource stewardship mission. The Center will use market-based tools and innovative public-private collaborations to conserve natural resources, enhance efficient water allocation, and promote increased investments in critical infrastructure in conjunction with the Department's programs, bureaus and offices. A Senior Fellow, Land Conservation is being sought, a partial description follows.
The Senior Fellow for land conservation will sit in the Office of the Deputy Secretary and report to the Executive Director.
Responsibilities: The Senior Fellow for land conservation will be charged with shaping the activities of the Center with regard to promoting mitigation banking and other financing of conservation activities by:
- Supporting ongoing development and implementation of Departmental policies to support mitigation activities, especially with regard to Greater Sage Grouse
- Identifying and updating Departmental policies and regulations that can be used to support conservation financing
- Convening stakeholders to build support for mitigation banking and related activities
- Encouraging data collection and research into mitigation banking, both through the Departmental and by universities and nonprofit organizations
- Helping to facilitate mitigation deals between the public and private sector
- Participating in Departmental decision-making with regard to grants or other programs that can further the development of the mitigation banking market
- Collaborating with Federal colleagues in other agencies to advance the Center's policy objectives
For further information, contact: Jim Lyons, Jim_Lyons@ios.doi.gov
Coordinator, Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative
The Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI) is a partnership between IPIECA, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and the Equator Principles Association (EPA), for developing and sharing good practice related to biodiversity and ecosystem services in the extractive industries. CSBI would like to appoint a Coordinator to provide professional services to manage CSBI activities.
The CSBI Coordinator manages the day-to-day operation of CSBI's Steering Committee and two Working Groups and is accountable to the CSBI Chair. Given the cross-sectoral membership of CSBI and global nature of the industries involved, close coordination across the member associations, affiliate members, Chair and Steering Committee is required. More information on this opportunity is available here.
SEEKING AN END OF STUDIES INTERNSHIP (5 months) FOR FRENCH GRADUATE STUDENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
French graduate student Kelly Gouhoury is completing an M.Sc. in Environmental Economics and looking for a 5 months internship starting in April 2016 involving valuation of biodiversity. With a dual degree in Environmental Engineering, Kelly is particularly keen on participating in a project that will require both my skills: assessing environmental services or human impacts on ecosystems and studying implementation of compensation measures. She is very interested in BBOP and thinks people involved in developing the economics of biodiversity are the ones that might meet her interests. She is knowledgeable about environmental assessment methods, cost benefit analysis, public policies implementation and valuation of sustainable growth and already has experience in biodiversity and conservation policies with an internship at the French Ministry for Environment. She tells us she is a very curious person and a fast learner. From April 2016, she would be able to move to any country and work in English within your research team. Please feel free to contact her (see details below) if you need further information or have some research subjects to propose. Thank you.
Graduate student in Environmental Economics, Paris (France)
+ 33 18.104.22.168.04
- The BBOP Secretariat Team
(Kerry ten Kate, Patrick Maguire, Amrei von Hase, Ray Victurine, Sebastian Winkler)