Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity

White, Thomas; Viana, Leonardo R.; Campbell, Geneviève; Elverum, Claire; Bennun, Leon

doi:10.1002/bse.2816

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 93 publications

(159 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biodiversity offsets (dark green and dark blue), such as ecological restoration in legacy or other degraded sites, are needed and considered as a last resort to compensate for any residual impacts remaining to achieve NNL or net gain. The timeline for mitigation relative to the project timeline is illustrative and can vary depending on the context (adapted from White et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

Young

Gann

Walder

et al. 2022

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive Summary Mining has been, and remains, an integral part of human existence from Stone Age quarries through to the iron and coal that fueled the industrial revolution, to the new materials needed to support the shift to renewable energy. Mining and mining products are major contributors to national economies with mining value tripling in the past two decades. As of 2020, the global mining footprint was 57,000 km2 and growing at a faster rate now than any other time in human history. Much of this footprint is operational, but in many areas where mining is now complete, the sites represent major environmental liabilities. Although site stabilization and managing waste materials remains a challenging part of mine closure in many parts of the world, the environmental liability of these sites means more than being just safe, stable, and nonpolluting, with companies increasingly expected to restore ecosystems that are representative of their pre‐mined (natural) state. The International Principles and Standards for the Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine Sites (Mine Site Restoration Standards, MSRS) present the first international framework for the delivery of socially and environmentally responsible ecological restoration after mining, regardless of whether restoration is legally mandated. The MSRS are designed to inspire and drive higher and better outcomes in post‐mining landscapes by both guiding and encouraging the highest level of restoration achievable that supports the global need for protecting and restoring nature. This comes at a time of unparalleled global human impacts where climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity loss threaten the very ecological fabric of the planet. Mining companies are a major global player in local and regional economies and by demonstrating leadership in protecting, enhancing, and restoring the environments in which they operate, they can maintain, and enhance their social license to operate. The MSRS aim to provide a framework for the mining industry, governments, and stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples and local communities, to address mining‐specific issues in delivering effective restoration of mine sites. The MSRS emphasize that achieving the highest possible ecological outcomes depends upon ingenuity, knowledge investment, and a supportive corporate ethos to build a culture of continuous improvement. This approach will maximize benefits for local communities, the environment, and ultimately the mining industry. For industry, the MSRS provide a framework that can be utilized to optimize restoration outcomes that will leave a positive legacy long after mining has ceased. Early adoption of the MSRS by industry can reduce environmental, financial, and corporate risk in achieving site relinquishment by demonstrating the highest possible commitment to stakeholders, increasing natural capital, responding to climate change and, recovering biodiversity, including threatened and culturally significant species. The agreed‐upon post‐mining land use (PMLU), ...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

Young

Gann

Walder

et al. 2022

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation provide helpful guidance on designing monitoring programs that link to objectives, and address key assumptions and uncertainties identified during the project planning (CMP 2020). There are also an increasing number of technologies available to business that can provide high quality monitoring data at lower cost (White et al 2021b).…”

Section: Monitoring Is Effectively Implemented and Supports Adaptive ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a specific opportunity for business to share the data collected during baseline and monitoring surveys with relevant local or large global biodiversity databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (White et al 2021b). This can provide access and prevent duplication of costly survey and monitoring work, whilst providing data useful to the wider community that can guide the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.…”

Section: Information Is Shared To Strengthen the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

“…TRASE). There are also technologies to help access and collect data on species, habitats and threats (Jones et al, 2022;White et al, 2021) et al, 2017). Local knowledge can also help to understand the relevance or transferability of scientific knowledge to local contexts and may fill important gaps in the scientific evidence base.…”

Section: Sources Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…may include, for example, consideration of appropriate controls and counterfactual assumptions, as well as the choice of indicators and monitoring techniques. There are also an increasing number of technologies available to business that can provide high-quality monitoring data at lower cost(White et al, 2021). The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation provide helpful guidance on designing monitoring programmes, using standardised techniques, that link to objectives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Principles for using evidence to improve biodiversity impact mitigation by business

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing expectation on the private sector to address biodiversity impacts and contribute towards global conservation goals. Appropriate evidence use can help businesses avoid biodiversity losses and realise gains, reduce resources wasted on ineffective or suboptimal action, whilst minimising biodiversity-related risks and securing opportunities from engaging with biodiversity.We review the status of evidence-based action in the private sector, where previous studies have identified concerning trends, and explore the barriers that may currently be hindering evidence use.To learn from this, and improve evidence use, we propose a set of principles for evidence-based biodiversity impact mitigation. We outline tools and resources that can help businesses move towards evidence-based practice and achieve each of these principles.Meeting these principles would improve the biodiversity outcomes from business' biodiversity related actions. However, for business action to contribute more fully to global conservation goals, broader political and socio-economic issues also need addressing.

show abstract

Biodiversity reporting by United Kingdom (UK)‐listed companies: A review of extent, content and readability of disclosures

Maroun,

Ecim

2024

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines biodiversity reporting by UK‐listed companies. An instrument is developed, based on earlier research, and used to analyse biodiversity‐related disclosures as either policy considerations or actions taken to conserve biodiversity. A mixed design is employed. The extent of reporting, information content of disclosures and their readability are used to provide an overarching perspective on how firms internalise biodiversity. Outliers are identified and their reports are examined interpretively to identify how leading reporters understand biodiversity as a policy imperative and factor it into their operational and managerial performances. This qualitative analysis highlights best practices that can be used by other entities interested in developing the accounting and management infrastructure necessary for reporting comprehensively on biodiversity. Best practices are, however, isolated and stand in stark contrast with how organisations are dealing with biodiversity on average. At the policy level, there is little on how biodiversity is defined and the rationale for wanting to protect biodiversity. When it comes to performance, few organisations are setting detailed biodiversity‐related targets linked clearly to operational plans, risk assessments and key performance indicators. Post‐implementation reviews of conservation initiatives are seldom conducted and biodiversity is not being factored into valuations, cost assessments and project appraisals. Understanding these limitations is timely given the international community's recent efforts to develop standards for extra‐financial reporting. The results will be relevant for regulators, scholars and practitioners interested in advancing the quality of biodiversity reporting and factoring biodiversity into mainstream business discourses.

show abstract

Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity

Cited by 13 publications

References 93 publications

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

Principles for using evidence to improve biodiversity impact mitigation by business

Biodiversity reporting by United Kingdom (UK)‐listed companies: A review of extent, content and readability of disclosures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About