scholarly journals Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or ‘no net loss’?

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Brownlie ◽  
Mark Botha
Keyword(s):  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets

scholarly journals Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (24) ◽  
pp. 6903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Grimm ◽  
Johann Köppel
Keyword(s):  
Program Design ◽  
Landscape Scale ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
No Net Loss ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Mitigation Hierarchy ◽  
Balance Development ◽  
Biodiversity Offset

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.

scholarly journals Local people's preferences for biodiversity offsets to achieve ‘no net loss’ for economic developments

2019 ◽  
Vol 236 ◽  
pp. 162-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria F. Griffiths ◽  
Oleg Sheremet ◽  
Nick Hanley ◽  
Julia Baker ◽  
Joseph W. Bull ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets ◽  
Economic Developments

Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1254-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOBY A. GARDNER ◽  
AMREI VON HASE ◽  
SUSIE BROWNLIE ◽  
JONATHAN M. M. EKSTROM ◽  
JOHN D. PILGRIM ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets

scholarly journals Modeling Alternative Approaches to the Biodiversity Offsetting of Urban Expansion in the Grenoble Area (France): What Is the Role of Spatial Scales in ‘No Net Loss’ of Wetland Area and Function?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 5951
Author(s):  
Anne-Charlotte Vaissière ◽  
Fabien Quétier ◽  
Adeline Bierry ◽  
Clémence Vannier ◽  
Florence Baptist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Urban Expansion ◽  
Wetland Area ◽  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets ◽  
Development Plans ◽  
Project Model ◽  
Implementation Models ◽  
And Function ◽  
Spatially Explicit Modeling

It is increasingly common for developers to be asked to manage the impacts of their projects on biodiversity by restoring other degraded habitats that are ecologically equivalent to those that are impacted. These measures, called biodiversity offsets, generally aim to achieve ‘no net loss’ (NNL) of biodiversity. Using spatially-explicit modeling, different options were compared in terms of their performance in offsetting the impacts on wetlands of the planned urban expansion around Grenoble (France). Two implementation models for offsetting were tested: (a) the widespread bespoke permittee-led restoration project model, resulting in a patchwork of restored wetlands, and (b) recently-established aggregated and anticipated “banking” approaches whereby larger sets of adjacent parcels offset the impacts of several projects. Two ecological equivalence methods for sizing offsets were simulated: (a) the historically-prevalent area-based approach and (b) recently introduced approaches whereby offsets are sized to ensure NNL of wetland functions. Simulations showed that a mix of functional methods with minimum area requirements was more likely to achieve NNL of wetland area and function across the study area and within each subwatershed. Our methodology can be used to test the carrying capacity of a landscape to support urban expansion and its associated offsetting in order to formulate more sustainable development plans.

Introduction: Biodiversity Offsets—The European Perspective on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Wende ◽  
Graham Tucker ◽  
Fabien Quétier ◽  
Matt Rayment ◽  
Marianne Darbi
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen ◽  
Julia Baker ◽  
Richard A. Griffiths ◽  
Niels Strange ◽  
Matthew J. Struebig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets

scholarly journals Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it

Oryx ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelia Apostolopoulou ◽  
William M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Land Development ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Technical Issue ◽  
Policy Frames ◽  
Environmental Destruction ◽  
No Net Loss ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets

AbstractBiodiversity offsetting involves the balancing of biodiversity loss in one place (and at one time) by an equivalent biodiversity gain elsewhere (an outcome referred to as No Net Loss). The conservation science literature has chiefly addressed the extent to which biodiversity offsets can serve as a conservation tool, focusing on the technical challenges of its implementation. However, offsetting has more profound implications than this technical approach suggests. In this paper we introduce the concept of policy frames, and use it to identify four ways in which non-human nature and its conservation are reframed by offsetting. Firstly, offsetting reframes nature in terms of isolated biodiversity units that can be simply defined, measured and exchanged across time and space to achieve equivalence between ecological losses and gains. Secondly, it reframes biodiversity as lacking locational specificity, ignoring broader dimensions of place and deepening a nature–culture and nature–society divide. Thirdly, it reframes conservation as an exchange of credits implying that the value of non-human nature can be set by price. Fourthly, it ties conservation to land development and economic growth, foreshadowing and bypassing an oppositional position. We conclude that by presenting offsetting as a technical issue, the problem of biodiversity loss due to development is depoliticized. As a result the possibility of opposing and challenging environmental destruction is foreclosed, and a dystopian future of continued biodiversity loss is presented as the only alternative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document