scholarly journals Dataset of costs of the mitigation hierarchy and plant translocations in France

Data in Brief ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107722
Author(s):  
Margaux Julien ◽  
Bruno Colas ◽  
Serge Muller ◽  
Bertrand Schatz
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (24) ◽  
pp. 6903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Grimm ◽  
Johann Köppel

Biodiversity offsets are applied in many countries to compensate for impacts on the environment, but research on regulatory frameworks and implementation enabling effective offsets is lacking. This paper reviews research on biodiversity offsets, providing a framework for the analysis of program design (no net loss goal, uncertainty and ratios, equivalence and accounting, site selection, landscape-scale mitigation planning, timing) and implementation (compliance, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy, leakage and trade-offs, oversight, transparency and monitoring). Some more challenging aspects concern the proper metrics and accounting allowing for program evaluation, as well as the consideration of trade-offs when regulations focus only on the biodiversity aspect of ecosystems. Results can be used to assess offsets anywhere and support the creation of programs that balance development and conservation.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale Squires ◽  
Victor Restrepo ◽  
Serge Garcia ◽  
Peter Dutton

This paper considers fisheries bycatch reduction within the least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy. It introduces conservatory offsets that are implemented earlier in the biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy than conventional compensatory offsets used as instruments of last resort. The paper illustrates implementation in an on-going sea turtle conservation programme by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation.


Oryx ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Phalan ◽  
Genevieve Hayes ◽  
Sharon Brooks ◽  
David Marsh ◽  
Pippa Howard ◽  
...  

AbstractThe mitigation hierarchy is a decision-making framework designed to address impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services through first seeking to avoid impacts wherever possible, then minimizing or restoring impacts, and finally by offsetting any unavoidable impacts. Avoiding impacts is seen by many as the most certain and effective way of managing harm to biodiversity, and its position as the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy indicates that it should be prioritized ahead of other stages. However, despite an abundance of legislative and voluntary requirements, there is often a failure to avoid impacts. We discuss reasons for this failure and outline some possible solutions. We highlight the key roles that can be played by conservation organizations in cultivating political will, holding decision makers accountable to the law, improving the processes of impact assessment and avoidance, building capacity, and providing technical knowledge. A renewed focus on impact avoidance as the foundation of the mitigation hierarchy could help to limit the impacts on biodiversity of large-scale developments in energy, infrastructure, agriculture and other sectors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 202 ◽  
pp. 103871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Tarabon ◽  
Coralie Calvet ◽  
Vincent Delbar ◽  
Thierry Dutoit ◽  
Francis Isselin-Nondedeu

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
William N. S. Arlidge ◽  
Dale Squires ◽  
Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto ◽  
Hollie Booth ◽  
Jeffrey C. Mangel ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.J. Milner-Gulland ◽  
Prue Addison ◽  
William Arlidge ◽  
Julia Baker ◽  
Hollie Booth ◽  
...  

The upcoming meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and future adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, but this will only succeed if biodiversity conservation can be mainstreamed in society. Here, we present an overarching framework that could support this mainstreaming: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This novel framework places the well-established four-step Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the impacts of developments on biodiversity (1: Avoid, 2: Minimise, 3: Restore, 4: Offset, towards a target such as No Net Loss of biodiversity) within a broader framing that encompasses all conservation actions. We illustrate the potential application of the framework in four cases; national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the City of London, a fishery, and indigenous groups), companies, and the general public. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports decisions about both the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. As such it can guide actions towards a sustainable future for people and nature in support of the CBD's vision.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document