Literature DB >> 24033441

Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss.

Toby A Gardner1, Amrei VON Hase, Susie Brownlie, Jonathan M M Ekstrom, John D Pilgrim, Conrad E Savy, R T Theo Stephens, Jo Treweek, Graham T Ussher, Gerri Ward, Kerry Ten Kate.   

Abstract

Businesses, governments, and financial institutions are increasingly adopting a policy of no net loss of biodiversity for development activities. The goal of no net loss is intended to help relieve tension between conservation and development by enabling economic gains to be achieved without concomitant biodiversity losses. biodiversity offsets represent a necessary component of a much broader mitigation strategy for achieving no net loss following prior application of avoidance, minimization, and remediation measures. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate use of biodiversity offsets. We examined what no net loss means as a desirable conservation outcome and reviewed the conditions that determine whether, and under what circumstances, biodiversity offsets can help achieve such a goal. We propose a conceptual framework to substitute the often ad hoc approaches evident in many biodiversity offset initiatives. The relevance of biodiversity offsets to no net loss rests on 2 fundamental premises. First, offsets are rarely adequate for achieving no net loss of biodiversity alone. Second, some development effects may be too difficult or risky, or even impossible, to offset. To help to deliver no net loss through biodiversity offsets, biodiversity gains must be comparable to losses, be in addition to conservation gains that may have occurred in absence of the offset, and be lasting and protected from risk of failure. Adherence to these conditions requires consideration of the wider landscape context of development and offset activities, timing of offset delivery, measurement of biodiversity, accounting procedures and rule sets used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains and guide offset design, and approaches to managing risk. Adoption of this framework will strengthen the potential for offsets to provide an ecologically defensible mechanism that can help reconcile conservation and development. Balances de Biodiversidad y el Reto de No Obtener Pérdida Neta.
© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  evaluación de impacto; impact assessment; mitigación; mitigation; riesgo; risk

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24033441     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  18 in total

1.  Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

Authors:  Lucie Bezombes; Stéphanie Gaucherand; Christian Kerbiriou; Marie-Eve Reinert; Thomas Spiegelberger
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  The potential for double-loop learning to enable landscape conservation efforts.

Authors:  Brian Petersen; Jensen Montambault; Marni Koopman
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Precision, Applicability, and Economic Implications: A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes.

Authors:  Johanna Kangas; Peter Kullberg; Minna Pekkonen; Janne S Kotiaho; Markku Ollikainen
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.644

4.  'Old wine in a new bottle': conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda.

Authors:  Ritah Kigonya
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 3.644

5.  Great apes and biodiversity offset projects in Africa: the case for national offset strategies.

Authors:  Rebecca Kormos; Cyril F Kormos; Tatyana Humle; Annette Lanjouw; Helga Rainer; Ray Victurine; Russell A Mittermeier; Mamadou S Diallo; Anthony B Rylands; Elizabeth A Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  FORUM: Indirect leakage leads to a failure of avoided loss biodiversity offsetting.

Authors:  Atte Moilanen; Jussi Laitila
Journal:  J Appl Ecol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 6.528

7.  Bigger is better: Improved nature conservation and economic returns from landscape-level mitigation.

Authors:  Christina M Kennedy; Daniela A Miteva; Leandro Baumgarten; Peter L Hawthorne; Kei Sochi; Stephen Polasky; James R Oakleaf; Elizabeth M Uhlhorn; Joseph Kiesecker
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 8.  Policy development for environmental licensing and biodiversity offsets in Latin America.

Authors:  Ana Villarroya; Ana Cristina Barros; Joseph Kiesecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Addressing Potential Cumulative Impacts of Development on Threatened Species: The Case of the Endangered Black-Throated Finch.

Authors:  Eric Peter Vanderduys; April E Reside; Anthony Grice; Juliana Rechetelo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Conservation Planning for Offsetting the Impacts of Development: A Case Study of Biodiversity and Renewable Energy in the Mojave Desert.

Authors:  Jason Kreitler; Carrie A Schloss; Oliver Soong; Lee Hannah; Frank W Davis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.