Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2020
29 04 2020
Historique:
received:
20
06
2019
accepted:
30
03
2020
entrez:
1
5
2020
pubmed:
1
5
2020
medline:
1
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32350288
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15861-1
pii: 10.1038/s41467-020-15861-1
pmc: PMC7190705
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2072Références
International Council for Science (ICSU). Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective (Paris, 2015) https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SDG-Report.pdf .
Global Infrastructure Hub. Global Infrastructure Outlook (Oxford Economics, Oxford, UK, 2018). https://cdn.gihub.org/outlook/live/report/Global+Infrastructure+Outlook+reports.zip .
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52, 891–904 (2002).
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms12558
ICMM & IUCN. Independent Report on Biodiversity Offsets (Prepared by The Biodiversity Consultancy, UK, 2013). https://icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/biodiversity/biodiversity-offsets .
International Finance Corporation. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (World Bank Group, 2012). ifc.org/ps6 .
Gardner, T. A. et al. Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1254–1264 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12118
Global inventory of biodiversity offset policies (GIBOP). International Union for Conservaiton of Nature, The Biodiversity Consultancy, Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology (2019). https://portals.iucn.org/offsetpolicy/ .
Bull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0176-z
Maron, M. et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 19–27 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7
Maron, M., Bull, J. W., Evans, M. C. & Gordon, A. Locking in loss: baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 192, 504–512 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.017
Sonter, L. J., Barrett, D. J. & Soares-Filho, B. S. Offsetting the impacts of mining to achieve no net loss of native vegetation. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1068–1076 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12260
Sonter, L. J. et al. Biodiversity offsets may miss opportunities to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 143–148 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/fee.1781
Bidaud, C. et al. The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset. Conserv. Soc. 15, 1–13 (2017).
doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.196315
Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy029
Bennett, G, Gallant, M. & Kate ten, K. State of Biodiversity Mitigation 2017: Markets and Compensation for Global Infrastructure Development (Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, 2017) https://forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/doc_5707.pdf .
Sonter, L. J., Tomsett, N., Wu, D. & Maron, M. Biodiversity offsetting in dynamic landscapes: Influence of regulatory context and counterfactual assumptions on achievement of no net loss. Biol. Conserv. 206, 314–319 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.025
Gibbons, P., Macintosh, A., Constable, A. L. & Hayashi, K. Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Glob. Change Biol. 24, E643–E654 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13977
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. The anatomy of a failed offset. Biol. Conserv. 210, 286–292 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.022
Bull, J. W., Gordon, A., Law, E. A., Suttle, K. B. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 28, 799–809 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12243
Gibbons, P. et al. A loss-gain calculator for biodiversity offsets and the circumstances in which no net loss is feasible. Conserv. Lett. 9, 252–259 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12206
Bull, J. W., Lloyd, S. P. & Strange, N. Implementation gap between the theory and practice of biodiversity offset multipliers. Conserv. Lett. 10, 656–669 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12335
Suding, K. N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 465–487 (2011).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115
Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325, 1121–1124 (2009).
doi: 10.1126/science.1172460
Jones, H. P. et al. Restoration and repair of Earth’s damaged ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B. 285, 20172577 (2018).
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.2577
Mandle, L., Tallis, H., Sotomayor, L. & Vogl, A. L. Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 309–315 (2015).
doi: 10.1890/140337
Griffiths, V. F., Bull, J. W., Baker, J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. No net loss for people and biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 33, 76–87 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13184
Jones, J. P. G. et al. Net gain: seeking better outcomes for local people when mitigating biodiversity loss from development. One Earth 1, 195–201 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.007
Sonter, L. J. et al. Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ambio 49, 1–11 (2019).
Elledge, A. & Thornton, C. Effect of changing land use from virgin brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) woodland to a crop or pasture system on sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff over 25 years in subtropical Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 239, 119–131 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.031
Dwyer, J. M., Fensham, R. J., Butler, D. W. & Buckley, Y. M. Carbon for conservation: Assessing the potential for win-win investment in an extensive Australian regrowth ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 134, 1–7 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.06.003
Tallis, H., Kennedy, C. M., Ruckelshaus, M., Goldstein, J. & Kiesecker, J. M. Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 55, 21–34 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.005
Jacob, C., Vaissiere, A.-C., Bas, A. & Calvet, C. Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 92–102 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.010
Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.008
O’Connell, C. S. et al. Balancing tradeoffs: reconciling multiple environmental goals when ecosystem services vary regionally. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064008 (2018).
Simmonds, J. S. et al. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12695 (2019).
Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-1022-z
Soares-Filho, B., Rodrigues, H. & Follador, M. A hybrid analytical-heuristic method for calibrating land-use change models. Environ. Model. Softw. 43, 80–87 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.01.010
Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S. & Mueller, C. A new approach to modeling the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): case study of the Cape Fear catchment, North Carolina, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 524, 166–177 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.027
Hamel, P. et al. Sediment delivery modeling in practice: comparing the effects of watershed characteristics and data resolution across hydroclimatic regions. Sci. Total Environ. 580, 1381–1388 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.103
Simmonds, J. S., van Rensburg, B. J., Tulloch, A. I. T. & Maron, M. Landscape-specific thresholds in the relationship between species richness and natural land cover. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1019–1029 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13320
Gilroy, J. J. et al. Minimizing the biodiversity impact of Neotropical oil palm development. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1531–1540 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12696
Meijaard, E. et al. Oil Palm And Biodiversity: A Situation Analysis by the IUCN Oil Palm Task Force (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Oil Palm Task Force, Gland, Switzerland, 2018). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.11.en .
van Katwijk, M. M. et al. Global analysis of seagrass restoration: the importance of large‐scale planting. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 567–578 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12562
Maron, M. et al. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 155, 141–148 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.003