Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems

Habib, Thomas J.; Farr, Dan; Schneider, R.; Boutin, Stan

doi:10.1111/cobi.12098

Cited by 60 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Australian experience is illustrative of the challenges associated with marine application of biodiversity offsetting, in particular the challenge of reconciling the need for practical flexibility with the fundamental objective of NNL. Addressing these challenges in the context of intensifying ocean-based development is likely to require both focused effort to address outstanding scientific and technical challenges, and the possible re-interpretation of the concept of NNL, for example by allowing 'trading up' of biodiversity losses for gains of greater conservation value (Habib et al, 2013). Whilst this is currently unsupported by Australian offsetting policy, there have been preliminary indications that there may be societal support for such an increase in flexibility (Rogers and Burton, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Niner

Milligan

Jones

et al. 2017

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used in policy frameworks to regulate the environmental impacts of development including projects located in marine environments. Scientific knowledge gaps and other practical challenges have necessitated flexibility concerning the manner in which key offsetting principles are implemented in policy frameworks relevant to such environments. The potential tradeoff of such flexibility is that consequent marine offsetting practice may not be compatible with the ultimate objective of no net loss of biodiversity. Here we present a systematic review of marine and coastal development projects in Australia, examining how offsetting is being implemented in practice. Forty-two (42) projects were assessed, predominantly located in Queensland and Western Australia and associated with the development and operation of ports. We find that application of key biodiversity offsetting principles (e.g. ecological equivalence) was frequently incomplete or absent. For approximately 50% of reviewed projects we were unable to identify public information concerning how offsetting requirements were established. The current environmental outcomes of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia are unclear but there are indications that it is unlikely to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Niner

Milligan

Jones

et al. 2017

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Alberta province, western Canada, Habib et al . studied the need for flexibility in biodiversity offset schemes for the burgeoning oil shale industry in a region with large expanses of relatively intact (undeveloped) boreal forest with high conservation value.…”

Section: Sd Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics of restoration: looking back and leaping forward

Blignaut

Aronson

2014

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 there has been a surge of interest in ecological restoration (ER) to recover biodiversity, re-establish ecosystem functioning and connectivity, and reactivate the delivery of ecosystem services. In policy spheres, there have also been repeated calls for expansion of restoration efforts. In many countries, new legislation now requires some form of restoration and/or a form of offset investment. All of this will require major increases in financial allocations toward restoration science, technology, and implementation, and much more detailed valuation techniques. The economics of restoration is a new field emerging to support these needs. Our paper here starts with an analysis of the articles and reviews published on this broad subject from 1928 to 2012, as captured in the Scopus academic search platform. Our goal is to present and summarize what has been said and done in this area to date. Next, we map out one possible way forward, illustrated by examples and based on a coherent bundle of decision parameters related to the economics of ER and, more broadly, to the restoration of natural capital. The restoration of natural capital is defined as activities that integrate investment in, and replenishment of, natural capital stocks to improve the flows of ecosystem goods and services, and the preservation of biodiversity, while enhancing all aspects of human well-being. We give special attention to system dynamic approaches and other promising tools and techniques.

show abstract

“…3, 2018 not explicitly match losses and gains fall outside the definition of no-net-loss programs; nonetheless, no net loss is still a valuable benchmark for evaluating program performance. These include programs that use planning tools to prioritize restoration to sites of greatest ecological value such as Columbia's offset program (Mandle et al 2016) and the program proposed for oil sands development in Alberta Canada (Habib et al 2013). In all cases, agencies should incorporate the criteria and constraints identified in this analysis in assessing the scaled up implications of the offset program and include indicators of site complexity and landscape heterogeneity in evaluating restoration priorities and offset outcomes.…”

Section: Precautionary Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape consequences of aggregation rules for functional equivalence in compensatory mitigation programs

Accatino

Creed

Weber

2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mitigation and offset programs designed to compensate for ecosystem function losses due to development must balance losses from affected ecosystems with gains in restored ecosystems. Aggregation rules applied to ecosystem functions to assess site equivalence are based on implicit assumptions about the substitutability of functions among sites and can profoundly influence the distribution of restored ecosystem functions on the landscape. We investigated the consequences of rules applied to the aggregation of ecosystem functions for wetland offsets in the Beaverhill watershed in Alberta, Canada. We considered the fate of 3 ecosystem functions: hydrology, water purification, and biodiversity. We set up an affect-and-offset algorithm to simulate the effect of aggregation rules on ecosystem function for wetland offsets. Cobenefits and trade-offs among functions and the constraints posed by the quantity and quality of restorable sites resulted in a redistribution of functions between affected and offset wetlands. Hydrology and water purification functions were positively correlated with one another and negatively correlated with biodiversity function. Weighted-average rules did not replace functions in proportion to their weights. Rules prioritizing biodiversity function led to more monofunctional wetlands and landscapes. The minimum rule, for which the wetland score was equal to the worst performing function, promoted multifunctional wetlands and landscapes. The maximum rule, for which the wetland score was equal to the best performing function, promoted monofunctional wetlands and multifunctional landscapes. Because of implicit trade-offs among ecosystem functions, no-net-loss objectives for multiple functions should be constructed within a landscape context. Based on our results, we suggest criteria for the design of aggregation rules for no net loss of ecosystem functions within a landscape context include the concepts of substitutability, cobenefits and trade-offs, landscape constraints, heterogeneity, and the precautionary principle.

show abstract

Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems

Abstract: Palabras Clave: arenas aceiteras, banca de conservación, economía, MARXAN, planificación de la conservación, planificación del uso de suelo

Cited by 60 publications

References 36 publications

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

The economics of restoration: looking back and leaping forward

Landscape consequences of aggregation rules for functional equivalence in compensatory mitigation programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About