Making biodiversity offsets work in South Africa – A governance perspective

Lukey, Peter; Cumming, Tracey L.; Paras, Sukie; Kubiszewski, Ida; Lloyd, Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.001

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With a decline in governmental support for conservation within and outside protected areas, a greater pressure to create innovative and maintainable solutions for endorsing and financing conservation is needed (Lukey et al, 2017). Biodiversity offsetting and Payments for Ecosystem Services are market-based mechanisms that have the potential for playing a vital role in reaching conservation goals and supporting ecosystem health in a more general sense (Blignaut et al, 2010;Lukey et al, 2017;Turpie et al, 2008). The aim of Payments for Ecosystem Services is to remunerate those who are providing ecosystem services as an incentive to protect the system from development, or to restore the system.…”

Section: Implications For Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem services provided by South African palmiet wetlands: A case for investment in strategic water source areas

Rebelo

Morris

Meire

et al. 2019

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetlands globally are highly threatened by agriculture, and damage associated with it, such as invasion by alien species and the impacts of fertilizers and pesticides. South African palmiet wetlands make an interesting case study to investigate this, as they are valuable valley-bottom, peat-forming systems, highly threatened by agricultural development. Currently most agriculture in these palmiet wetlands is marginal (low agricultural productivity) due to the challenges of farming a system that experiences severe floods and erodes rapidly, forming gullies, when wetland vegetation is disturbed. The current situation seems to be a lose-lose situation for nature and society. We aimed to assess this conflict between water-related services and agriculture objectively by comparing provision of fifteen ecosystem services by degraded and pristine sections of three palmiet wetlands using a rapid ecosystem service assessment tool (WET-Ecoservices). To validate this technique, we compared results to those obtained from examining three key ecosystem service complexes in slightly more detail. We found that pristine palmiet wetlands provide valuable ecosystem services to society, which are currently being compromised for private, marginal agricultural gain. These pristine wetlands sequester between 21 and 41 g.m −2 of carbon per year, have nitrogen and phosphorus uptake efficiencies of 62-85% and 16-89% respectively, and provide about 16 times more flood attenuation relative to degraded ones. The full impact of degradation on wetland ecosystem services was not entirely captured by the rapid ecosystem service assessment tool: WET-Ecoservices. We suggest some adaptations to this tool for the valley-bottom wetland hydro-geomorphic unit. Overall, these wetlands have high potential for incorporation into a Payments for Ecosystem Services scheme, due to the ecosystem services provided and their position above important municipal dams. We recommend collaboration between private landowners struggling with marginal agriculture, and decision makers in cities dealing with water shortages and debt to ensure the most efficient and judicious use of these palmiet wetland ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem services provided by South African palmiet wetlands: A case for investment in strategic water source areas

Rebelo

Morris

Meire

et al. 2019

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Commonly, the compromise will be about the short-term interest of stakeholders with flexibility (and losses) expected from nature. Also, due to the complexity of the topic, development of functional legislation and governance for offsets can be quite hard (Lukey et al 2017). Suspicions towards offsets are clearly justified based on scientific literature that has evaluated implementation of offsets.…”

Section: 7mentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning biodiversity offsets - Twelve operationally important decisions

Moilanen¹,

Kotiaho²

2018

TemaNord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological damage caused by infrastructure projects or other societal activity may be compensated by restoring or protecting habitats. This process is called ecological compensation or biodiversity offsetting. Conceptually biodiversity offsetting resembles the "polluter pays" principle, in which the polluter compensates the damage it causes. Biodiversity offsetting can be considered at different hierarchical levels from general principles to individual offsetting cases. This publication focuses on the overarching ecological principles and implementation risks that are common to all hierarchical levels. This publication reviews the concepts of offsetting and summarizes a dozen operational decisions that effectively determine how well ecological damage becomes compensated. Factors treated cover the three major axes of ecology, biodiversity, time and space as well as a host of additional important factors characteristic to biodiversity offsets. The framework described here allows systematic and well-informed planning and evaluation of biodiversity offsets. The recommendations given in the text are drafted from the perspective of environmental administration and organizations overseeing the credibility of offsets.

show abstract

“…In the paper on making biodiversity offsets work in South Africa -A governance perspective, Lukey, Cumming, Paras, Kubiszewski and Lloyd [1] identified the perception of offsetting as a mitigation option of 'last resort' as one of their theory-related barriers to offsetting. Lukey et al [1] suggest that describing offsetting as the last-resort in the mitigation hierarchy is often considered to mean that it is an 'undesirable' , as opposed to 'least desirable' , option and that the associated use of the 'last resort' phrase is seen by some as an indication of government's own ambivalence to the offsetting option.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lukey et al [1] suggest that describing offsetting as the last-resort in the mitigation hierarchy is often considered to mean that it is an 'undesirable' , as opposed to 'least desirable' , option and that the associated use of the 'last resort' phrase is seen by some as an indication of government's own ambivalence to the offsetting option. Lukey et al [1] then intimate that the dearth of offsetting requirements in the environmental authorizations that follow the consideration of the mitigation hierarchy may be evidence of this ambivalence as authorities appear to be more comfortable accepting residual impacts than they are in attempting to offset them. This paper describes the discussions and debates on this issue during a meeting of key members of the South African biodiversity offsetting community of practice and proposes one possible means of addressing the suspected policy ambivalence to offsetting that may be resulting from the general acceptance in South Africa of the environmental impact mitigation hierarchy as a hierarchy of desirability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Environmental Impact Mitigation Hierarchy as a Hierarchy of Risk

Lukey¹,

Paras²

2017

J Biodivers Biopros Dev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general acceptance in South Africa of the environmental impact mitigation hierarchy as a hierarchy of desirability has meant that offsetting, the final option in the hierarchy, is regarded, at best, as the least desirable option and often as an undesirable option. Indeed, in all of the published South African government guidelines on biodiversity offsetting, offsetting is referred to as the 'option of last resort'. This paper proposes that considering the environmental impact mitigation hierarchy as a hierarchy of risk may address the apparent current policy ambivalence and may contribute to the more efficient and effective consideration and use of all the options in the hierarchy.

show abstract

Making biodiversity offsets work in South Africa – A governance perspective

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Ecosystem services provided by South African palmiet wetlands: A case for investment in strategic water source areas

Ecosystem services provided by South African palmiet wetlands: A case for investment in strategic water source areas

Planning biodiversity offsets - Twelve operationally important decisions

The Environmental Impact Mitigation Hierarchy as a Hierarchy of Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About