Abstract
AbstractLoss of habitats or ecosystems arising from development projects (e.g., infrastructure, resource extraction, urban expansion) are frequently addressed through biodiversity offsetting. As currently implemented, offsetting typically requires an outcome of “no net loss” of biodiversity, but only relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline. This type of “relative” no net loss entrenches ongoing biodiversity loss, and is misaligned with biodiversity targets that require “absolute” no net loss or “net gain.” Here, we review the limitations of biodiversity offsetting, and in response, propose a new framework for compensating for biodiversity losses from development in a way that is aligned explicitly with jurisdictional biodiversity targets. In the framework, targets for particular biodiversity features are achieved via one of three pathways: Net Gain, No Net Loss, or (rarely) Managed Net Loss. We outline how to set the type (“Maintenance” or “Improvement”) and amount of ecological compensation that is appropriate for proportionately contributing to the achievement of different targets. This framework advances ecological compensation beyond a reactive, ad‐hoc response, to ensuring alignment between actions addressing residual biodiversity losses and achievement of overarching targets for biodiversity conservation.
Highlights
The 196 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are currently setting ambitious post-2020 biodiversity targets (Mace et al, 2018; Visconti et al, 2019)
It has been embedded into numerous government, lender, and corporate policies (Business and Biodiversity Offstes Progamme [BBOP], 2012; Gardner et al, 2013; International Finance Corporation [IFC], 2012; IUCN, 2018a; Rainey et al, 2014)
(“jurisdictional”) biodiversity targets that aim to halt species and ecosystem decline, or achieve biodiversity recovery. This is because no net loss of biodiversity at the level of individual development projects can mean something quite different to no net loss at the jurisdictional level (Maron et al, 2018)
Summary
The 196 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are currently setting ambitious post-2020 biodiversity targets (Mace et al, 2018; Visconti et al, 2019). Biodiversity offsetting, is almost never designed to align with the achievement of national or sub-national (“jurisdictional”) biodiversity targets that aim to halt species and ecosystem decline, or achieve biodiversity recovery In large part, this is because no net loss of biodiversity at the level of individual development projects can mean something quite different to no net loss at the jurisdictional level (Maron et al, 2018). When framed in relation to a jurisdictional biodiversity target, no net loss implies that the amount of a particular biodiversity feature (e.g., forest) should not fall below what we have ; in other words, it means no net loss relative to a “fixed reference scenario” (Maron et al, 2018) Under such a scenario, any lost forest (for example) would need to be replaced to achieve absolute no net loss—that is, to maintain the amount of forest at its current level (Figure 1). It provides conceptual clarity; the net outcome across impact and compensation sites for a particular project would align with the desired net outcome at the jurisdictional level
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
