4.5 Review

Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation

期刊

CONSERVATION LETTERS
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12695

关键词

averted loss; biodiversity loss; Convention on Biological Diversity; counterfactual; environmental impact assessment; environmental policy; infrastructure development; mitigation hierarchy; net gain; no net loss

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE170100684, FT140100516]
  2. National Environmental Science Programme
  3. Science for Nature and People Partnership
  4. COMBO Project
  5. Australian Research Council [FT140100516, DE170100684] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of habitats or ecosystems arising from development projects (e.g., infrastructure, resource extraction, urban expansion) are frequently addressed through biodiversity offsetting. As currently implemented, offsetting typically requires an outcome of no net loss of biodiversity, but only relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline. This type of relative no net loss entrenches ongoing biodiversity loss, and is misaligned with biodiversity targets that require absolute no net loss or net gain. Here, we review the limitations of biodiversity offsetting, and in response, propose a new framework for compensating for biodiversity losses from development in a way that is aligned explicitly with jurisdictional biodiversity targets. In the framework, targets for particular biodiversity features are achieved via one of three pathways: Net Gain, No Net Loss, or (rarely) Managed Net Loss. We outline how to set the type (Maintenance or Improvement) and amount of ecological compensation that is appropriate for proportionately contributing to the achievement of different targets. This framework advances ecological compensation beyond a reactive, ad-hoc response, to ensuring alignment between actions addressing residual biodiversity losses and achievement of overarching targets for biodiversity conservation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据