Maximizing benefits for biodiversity: the potential of enhancement strategies in impact assessment

Abstract

Our demands on natural systems outweigh the capacity of those systems to support us. This paper calls for an approach to development that consistently delivers 'net benefit' for biodiversity or 'ecological enhancement'. Examples of enhancement are presented through four case studies in India undertaken between 2005 and 2010. Actions focus on improving the overall ecological structure, composition and functions of sites; strengthening ecological networks by creating new habitats and buffer areas; and improving the services provided by the ecosystems, without jeopardizing biodiversity. While recognizing the importance of quantitative metrics of impacts and mitigation measures to determine outcomes, such measures were not available in these cases; enhancement is evaluated primarily in relation to pre-project conditions. The paper emphasizes the importance of considering alternatives that satisfy the mitigation hierarchy, and proposes a number of criteria for evaluating ecological enhancement.

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

“…On a more optimistic note, emerging opportunities for the future of impact assessment include: an increasing focus on climate change, incorporating both mitigation and adaptation concerns (Sok et al, 2011;Wende et al, 2012) and further incorporation of concepts such as systems dynamics, resilience and ecosystem services into impact assessment (Chen et al, 2011;Cooper, 2010;Rajvanshi et al, 2011;Slootweg and Jones, 2011). The greatest opportunity, however, may be deeper reflection upon the state of the art of impact assessment and perhaps confronting some less than comfortable truths about our field and our profession, particularly in the context of current global challenges.…”

Appraising offsets as a tool for integrated environmental planning and management

“…In particular, dynamically changing conditions means that net losses and gains must be carefully assessed against fixed or variable environmental baselines (factoring in background changes), limit losses, and comply with policy (Bull et al, 2014;Gordon et al, 2015;Maron et al, 2015a). Indeed, some experts argued that offsets should provide for additional contributions ('additionality') to conservation (over and above current protections) to counterbalance any accounting system flaws and problems (McKenney and Kiesecker, 2010;Rajvanshi et al, 2011;Pickett et al, 2013). Other exampled tensions focus on offsets scheduling and the requirement for long term funding and administration (note, temporal lagging between impacts and offsets outcomes may be several years); management of risks including the use of adaptive management practices (Maron et al, 2012;Curran et al, 2014); and inconsistencies in offsets terms and concepts that reduce the precision of robust policy design and offsets implementation (Bull et al, 2016).…”

Using offsets to mitigate environmental impacts of major projects: A stakeholder analysis

“…Others argued that offsets should provide additional contributions to conservation (i.e. 'additionality') (McKenney and Kiesecker, 2010;Rajvanshi et. al., 2011;Pickett et al, 2013), with other quantitative problems including the offsets program length, lags between impacts and outcomes, and offsets risk estimates (Gordon et al, 2011;Maron et al, 2012;Curran et al, 2014).…”