The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy

Maron, Martine; Brownlie, Susie; Bull, Joseph W.; Evans, Megan C.; Hase, Amrei von; Quétier, Fabien; Watson, James; Gordon, Ascelin

doi:10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7

Cited by 173 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Thus, it is possible that our review may overestimate the probability of achieving NNL outcomes in countries with weaker environmental legislation. However, strong institutions far from guarantee a successful NNL policy—details of NNL design are vitally important (Maron et al., ). Therefore, without overstating our findings, we feel there are generalizable recommendations that can be derived from our review: policymakers should be aware that without significant improvements to existing policies, NNL policies in forested habitats or utilizing avoided loss offsets are unlikely to achieve NNL; improving compliance with NNL policies is essential for achieving improved ecological outcomes (which may come from mandating some form of penalty for noncompliance); and it is important to move beyond area‐based outcome measures when implementing NNL. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Ermgassen

Baker

Griffiths

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

146

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No net loss (NNL) biodiversity policies mandating the application of a mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate, offset) to the ecological impacts of built infrastructure are proliferating globally. However, little is known about their effectiveness at achieving NNL outcomes. We reviewed the English‐language peer‐reviewed literature (capturing 15,715 articles), and identified 32 reports that observed ecological outcomes from NNL policies, including >300,000 ha of biodiversity offsets. Approximately one‐third of NNL policies and individual biodiversity offsets reported achieving NNL, primarily in wetlands, although most studies used widely criticized area‐based outcome measures. The most commonly cited reason for success was applying high offset multipliers (large offset area relative to the impacted area). We identified large gaps between the global implementation of offsets and the evidence for their effectiveness: despite two‐thirds of the world's biodiversity offsets being applied in forested ecosystems, we found none of four studies demonstrated successful NNL outcomes for forested habitats or species. We also found no evidence for NNL achievement using avoided loss offsets (impacts offset by protecting existing habitat elsewhere). Additionally, we summarized regional variability in compliance rates with NNL policies. As global infrastructural expansion accelerates, we must urgently improve the evidence‐base around efforts to mitigate development impacts on biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Ermgassen

Baker

Griffiths

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

146

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unsurprisingly, this has also corresponded with a huge research effort to understand the effectiveness of compensation. Studies have scrutinized differences in policy goals (Maron et al., ) and project implementation (Sonter et al., ), predicted future effects of compensation on biodiversity (Gordon et al., ; Sonter, Barrett, & Soares‐Filho, ), and demonstrated outcomes of individual projects (Lindenmayer et al., ). However, with the exception of U.S. wetland compensation activities (Matthews & Endress, ), ex‐post assessments of policy‐wide outcomes are rare, and so policy effectiveness remains unclear and debate continues over whether compensation has positive or negative outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Estimating the effect of compensation is particularly challenging because counterfactual scenarios are complicated (Peterson, Maron, Moillanen, Bekessy, & Gordon, ). A treatment site might differ from a matched control site in terms of biodiversity losses—but if losses at the treatment site trigger compensatory requirements themselves, they should be excluded from counterfactual scenarios (Maron et al., ); failing to do so would overestimate the benefits of compensation (Maron, Bull, Evans, & Gordon, ). Further, compensation often occurs in a context of other environmental interventions, and might even reduce or crowd out their benefits (Gordon, Bull, Wilcox, & Maron, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying habitat losses and gains made by U.S. Species Conservation Banks to improve compensation policies and avoid perverse outcomes

Sonter

Barnes

Matthews

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compensation policies seek to counterbalance biodiversity losses caused by development; however, their effectiveness is rarely tested. We examined U.S. Species Conservation Banks (SCBs) in California, a compensation program initiated 30 years ago. We quantified the effect of 59 SCBs (15,350 ha) on habitat extent using statistical matching methods. SCBs averted a small, yet significant, amount of habitat loss (62 ha) between 2001 and 2011. However, unexpectedly, SCBs also averted significant habitat gains (1,424 ha). It is not possible to determine if losses averted by SCBs equaled losses caused by development for which credits were sold (because records of the latter do not exist), but estimated averted gains were 35 times greater than averted losses. To improve practice, SCBs must be designed to achieve outcomes that are additional and avoid crowding out other programs incentivizing statewide conservation goals.

show abstract

“…When offsets fund some restoration work, it is being done in order to allow 'equivalent' biodiversity to be destroyed somewhere else. The net environmental outcome of such a 'no net loss' approach is À by definition, and at best À zero (noting that the reference scenario against which no net loss is generally measured is one of decline, so even a 'no net loss' outcome means less biodiversity over time; Maron et al 2015Maron et al , 2018. This is because in any offset exchange, there are two places involved: the outcome is no longer only about what happens at the site where the restoration work is done.…”

Section: Does It Matter Who Pays?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does it matter why we do restoration? Volunteers, offset markets and the need for full disclosure

Maron¹,

Louis²

2018

Eco Management Restoration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Volunteers are behind much of the ecological restoration work done in Australia. Private landholders, environmental nongovernment organisations (ENGOs) and community groups all donate time and money to much‐needed restoration and revegetation efforts. Biodiversity offsetting has emerged as a potential source of financial support for such work. We consider the question: should it matter to practitioners of restoration, particularly landholders and volunteers, how it is financed? We argue it should, because when offsets fund restoration work, the net environmental outcome is usually intended to be neutral – not an environmental gain. This is often not clear, because only the localised environmental gain is seen by the restoration practitioner, not the associated loss. For mandated offsets, the restoration work is required to occur regardless of whether the volunteer contributes to it or not, so their contribution only replaces work that would otherwise be done by a commercial provider. We contend that informed involvement in offset provision requires full disclosure, particularly to volunteers and landholders. Unfortunately, however, such transparency does not always occur. We acknowledge that there are valid reasons why well‐informed practitioners might willingly subsidise offset provision, but they might equally choose not to. Furthermore, offsets are intended to cover the full cost of biodiversity damage, creating a disincentive for damage by developers. Yet, subsidies from offset providers work against sending market signals that reflect the true replacement cost of biodiversity. We recommend that all ENGOs, developers, offset funders and brokers commit to transparency, particularly to landholders, donors and volunteers, about the environmental impact that is to be offset and the fact that their involvement generates no additional environmental benefit, as the offset is a condition of approval for a permitted loss, much like the rehabilitation of a mine site. Providing restoration services in partnership with industry may be something that landholders, volunteers and ENGOs are happy to support. But this must be decided consciously, not through unnoticed incremental changes that contradict some volunteers’ values or donors’ understanding of an organisation's mission.

show abstract

The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy

Abstract: A s humanity struggles and fails to stay within a safe operating space 1,2

Cited by 173 publications

References 35 publications

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Quantifying habitat losses and gains made by U.S. Species Conservation Banks to improve compensation policies and avoid perverse outcomes

Does it matter why we do restoration? Volunteers, offset markets and the need for full disclosure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About