Biodiversity offsets in limestone quarries: Investigation of practices in Brazil

Souza, Barbara Almeida; Sánchez, Luís Enrique

doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.03.007

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to Gardner et al’s ( 2013 ) view, the practitioners considered the measure’s potential to attain NNL only theoretical. A similar perception was also held among environmental practitioners in Western Australia (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders 2007 ) and Brazil (Souza and Sánchez 2018 ). The practitioners attributed inability to attain NNL to several constraints including the inability to attain spaces with similar biodiversity as the impacted sites; inability to create similar spaces as those impacted due to location specific attributes; irreplaceability of some biodiversity components; and time lags between occurrence of environmental impacts and environmental benefits.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Consequently, there is lack of a clear boundary between BOs measures and other mitigation and compensatory measures (Darbi et al 2009 ). These findings are not exceptional for Uganda, as several BOs projects have also been reported to lack the NNL goal (Souza and Sánchez 2018 ; Weissgerber et al 2019 ; Silva et al 2019 ). According to Brownlie et al ( 2013 ), implementation of BOs that do not fully compensate for residual biodiversity impacts is the most common scenario, and it is anticipated to continue that way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…However, there exists a wide range of conservation compensatory initiatives in Uganda that are locally considered to be BOs (Nabanyumya et al 2017 ) despite the lack of the NNL goal. An investigation of BO practices in Brazil (Souza and Sánchez 2018 ) revealed that key legislation governing BOs do not require demonstrating NNL. In South Africa, BOs implementation focuses on maintaining a total amount of natural habitat as opposed to achieving NNL in the strictest sense (Brownlie and Botha 2009 ; Brownlie et al 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…BOs have been deemed technically unrealistic (Walker et al 2009 ) and largely implemented without appropriate scientific backing (Burgin 2008 ). To some, BOs cannot achieve NNL in practice (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders 2007 ; Souza and Sánchez 2018 ). The concept of NNL is also considered flawed, without practical realizations and merely a buzz phrase 1 (Burgin 2008 ; Walker et al 2009 ; Maron et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

‘Old wine in a new bottle’: conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda

Kigonya

2022

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly adopted to mitigate the negative impacts of development activities on biodiversity. However, in practice, there are inconsistencies in how biodiversity offsets are understood and implemented. Based on interviews with environmental practitioners, the study sought to explore the conceptual understanding of biodiversity offsets among personnel involved in the design and implementation of offset schemes in Uganda. The study employed a ‘technical use analysis’ to seek personal interpretation and operationalization of the concept of biodiversity offsets. The results revealed that the concept tends to be simplified and adjusted to individual, project, and country contexts. The respondents had varied perceptions of biodiversity offsets in practice as compared to the theoretical concept. Biodiversity offsets were classified under five terms: trade-offs, payments, substitutes, compensations, and mitigation measures. The terms were derived from perceived inability of the measure to attain no net loss, and similarities of biodiversity components and services across impact and offset sites. Biodiversity offsets were thus considered no different from ordinary environmental conservation measures, contributing nothing unique to the conservation agenda. The study concludes that widespread implementation of biodiversity offsets under prevailing perceptions will escalate biodiversity loss. The study recommends emphasis on attaining no net loss through implementing outcome-based offsets as opposed to purpose-based offsets, that require delivering of ‘no net loss’ gains prior to projects being considered biodiversity offsets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

‘Old wine in a new bottle’: conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda

Kigonya

2022

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is an alternative argument that offsets should last ‘in perpetuity’, often defined as 50–75 years when suitable discounting is applied (BBOP 2012 ). Some authors use the term ‘permanence’ (Virah-Sawmy et al 2014 ; Moilanen and Kotiaho 2018 ; Souza and Sánchez 2018 ), but BBOP ( 2012 ) states a preference to avoid this term and instead specify the duration of an offset explicitly.…”

Section: Identifying Necessary Conditions For Biodiversity Offsetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

Bond

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets have become a widely accepted means of attempting to compensate for biodiversity loss from development, and are applied in planning and decision-making processes at many levels. Yet their use is contentious, and numerous problems with both the concept and the practice have been identified in the literature. Our starting point is the understanding that offsets are a kind of biodiversity compensation measure through which the goal of no net loss (or net gain) of biodiversity can be at least theoretically achieved. Based on a typology of compensation measures distinguishing between habitat protection, improvement (including restoration, habitat creation and improved management practices) and other compensation, we review the literature to develop a framework of conditions that must be met if habitat protection and improvement initiatives can be truly considered offsets and not merely a lesser form of compensation. It is important that such conceptual clarity is reflected in offset policy and guidance, if offsets are to be appropriately applied and to have any chance of fully compensating for biodiversity loss. Our framework can be used to support the review and ongoing development of biodiversity offset policy and guidance, with the aim of improving clarity, rigour and therefore the chances that good biodiversity outcomes can be achieved. Keywords Biodiversity offsets • Biodiversity compensation • Mitigation hierarchy • No net loss • Net gain • Offset policy

show abstract

A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting

Borges-Matos

Maron

Metzger

2023

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets in limestone quarries: Investigation of practices in Brazil

Cited by 22 publications

References 23 publications

‘Old wine in a new bottle’: conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda

‘Old wine in a new bottle’: conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About