Net Gain: Seeking Better Outcomes for Local People when Mitigating Biodiversity Loss from Development

Abstract

Economic development projects are increasingly applying the mitigation hierarchy to achieve No Net Loss, or even a Net Gain, of biodiversity. Because people value biodiversity and ecosystem services, this can affect the well-being of local people; however, these types of social impacts from development receive limited consideration. We present ethical, practical, and regulatory reasons why development projects applying the mitigation hierarchy should consider related social impacts. We highlight risks to local well-being where projects restrict access to biodiversity and ecosystem services in biodiversity offsets. We then present a framework laying out challenges and associated opportunities for delivering better biodiversity and local well-being outcomes. Greater coordination between social and biodiversity experts, and early and effective integration of local people in the process, will ensure that efforts to reduce the negative impacts of development on biodiversity can contribute to, rather than detract from, local people's well-being.

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

“…Best performing compensation policy for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Compensation policies increasingly seek also to address other goals related to biodiversity, such as securing the provision of ecosystem services 13,14,26 for human wellbeing 27,28 . However, rarely do they target both goals (e.g.…”

The suggestion that landscapes should contain 40% of forest cover lacks evidence and is problematic

“…Restoring 40% of forest cover in highly populated areas could displace marginalised and vulnerable people to more forested areas, thereby driving deforestation elsewhere. It is not adequate to suggest that loss of access to land‐based resources (whether that be for conservation or development) can be offset by an improvement in ecosystem services in the remaining areas (Jones et al ., 2019). Instead, there are approaches to spatial planning which work with land‐users to directly address the trade‐offs and synergies between human development and biodiversity conservation in a participatory and respectful way (Heiner et al ., 2019).…”

Creating a culture of caretaking through restoring ecosystems and landscapes

“…6 Moreover, attempts to offset biodiversity loss fail to avoid, minimize, or mitigate other impacts on climate change and social justice. 7 A further limitation is that the mitigation hierarchy is generally not used by agriculture and forestry sectors, which account for the greatest share of deforestation and land degradation globally. These productive sectors also have responsibilities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity, climate, and social justice.…”

“…10,11 (3) Aim for net positive outcomes of restoration on multiple fronts, including environmental and social conditions. 7 In cases where restoration is an appropriate mitigation strategy, we should adopt a multifactor mitigation hierarchy that encompasses climate change and socio-economic impacts on local communities (Table 1). Spatial prioritization approaches can identify restoration locations where multiple benefits can be simultaneously…”

“…This evidence can be used for developing specific guidelines and practices for implementing a wide range of restoration actions across different local and regional contexts. (7) Leverage the capacity for natural regeneration when possible and feasible. Under suitable conditions, removing obstacles to natural regeneration can promote ecosystem recovery without requiring costly active approaches.…”