Ascelin Gordon

Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice

Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity conservation and of economic development in tandem; the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is being widely adopted, even though its methodologies and the overriding conceptual framework are still under development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theoretical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself. Evidence to support this conclusion comes primarily from developed countries, although offsets are increasingly being implemented in the developing world. We are at a critical stage: biodiversity offsets risk becoming responses to immediate development and conservation needs without an overriding conceptual framework to provide guidance and evaluation criteria. We clarify the meaning of the term biodiversity offset and propose a framework that integrates the consideration of theoretical and practical challenges in the offset process. We also propose a research agenda for specific topics around metrics, baselines and uncertainty.

FORUM: Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies

Offsetting is emerging as an important but controversial approach for managing environment-development conflicts. Biodiversity offsets are designed to compensate for damage to biodiversity from development by providing biodiversity gains elsewhere. Here, we suggest how biodiversity offset policies can generate behaviours that exacerbate biodiversity decline, and identify four perverse incentives that could arise even from soundly designed policies. These include incentives for (i) entrenching or exacerbating baseline biodiversity declines, (ii) winding back non-offset conservation actions, (iii) crowding out of conservation volunteerism and (iv) false public confidence in environmental outcomes due to marketing offset actions as gains. Synthesis and applications. Despite its goal of improving biodiversity outcomes, there is potential for best-practice offsetting to achieve the opposite result. Reducing this risk requires coupling offset crediting baselines to measured trajectories of biodiversity change and understanding the potential interaction between offsetting and other environmental policies.

Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity

There is an urgent need to improve the evaluation of conservation interventions. This requires specifying an objective and a frame of reference from which to measure performance. Reference frames can be baselines (i.e., known biodiversity at a fixed point in history) or counterfactuals (i.e., a scenario that would have occurred without the intervention). Biodiversity offsets are interventions with the objective of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL). We used biodiversity offsets to analyze the effects of the choice of reference frame on whether interventions met stated objectives. We developed 2 models to investigate the implications of setting different frames of reference in regions subject to various biodiversity trends and anthropogenic impacts. First, a general analytic model evaluated offsets against a range of baseline and counterfactual specifications. Second, a simulation model then replicated these results with a complex real world case study: native grassland offsets in Melbourne, Australia. Both models showed that achieving NNL depended upon the interaction between reference frame and background biodiversity trends. With a baseline, offsets were less likely to achieve NNL where biodiversity was decreasing than where biodiversity was stable or increasing. With a no-development counterfactual, however, NNL was achievable only where biodiversity was declining. Otherwise, preventing development was better for biodiversity. Uncertainty about compliance was a stronger determinant of success than uncertainty in underlying biodiversity trends. When only development and offset locations were considered, offsets sometimes resulted in NNL, but not across an entire region. Choice of reference frame determined feasibility and effort required to attain objectives when designing and evaluating biodiversity offset schemes. We argue the choice is thus of fundamental importance for conservation policy. Our results shed light on situations in which biodiversity offsets may be an inappropriate policy instrument Importancia de la Especificación de Línea de Base en la Evaluación de Intervenciones de Conservación y la Obtención de Ninguna Pérdida Neta de la Biodiversidad

Conservation: Stop misuse of biodiversity offsets

Governments should not meet existing conservation targets using the compensation that developers pay for damaging biodiversity, say Martine Maron and colleagues.

When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty

The rapid global loss of biodiversity has led to a proliferation of systematic conservation planning methods. In spite of their utility and mathematical sophistication, these methods only provide approximate solutions to real-world problems where there is uncertainty and temporal change. The consequences of errors in these solutions are seldom characterized or addressed. We propose a conceptual structure for exploring the consequences of input uncertainty and oversimpli?ed approximations to real-world processes for any conservation planning tool or strategy. We then present a computational framework based on this structure to quantitatively model species representation and persistence outcomes across a range of uncertainties. These include factors such as land costs, landscape structure, species composition and distribution, and temporal changes in habitat. We demonstrate the utility of the framework using several reserve selection methods including simple rules of thumb and more sophisticated tools such as Marxan and Zonation. We present new results showing how outcomes can be strongly affected by variation in problem characteristics that are seldom compared across multiple studies. These characteristics include number of species prioritized, distribution of species richness and rarity, and uncertainties in the amount and quality of habitat patches. We also demonstrate how the framework allows comparisons between conservation planning strategies and their response to error under a range of conditions. Using the approach presented here will improve conservation outcomes and resource allocation by making it easier to predict and quantify the consequences of many different uncertainties and assumptions simultaneously. Our results show that without more rigorously generalizable results, it is very dif?cult to predict the amount of error in any conservation plan. These results imply the need for standard practice to include evaluating the effects of multiple real-world complications on the behavior of any conservation planning method.

Social context and the role of collaborative policy making for private land conservation

Recent decades have seen a proliferation of conservation programmes designed to encourage private landholders to protect and enhance biodiversity on their land. This paper reviews research emphasising the role of social context in shaping private land conservation (PLC) outcomes. We examine the potential for a collaborative policy-making process incorporating design and implementation of PLC programmes to reduce conflict between conservation agencies and landholders and increase community consensus around PLC issues. Collaborative partnerships nested at the sub-watershed governance level may represent the most appropriate geographic scale for engaging community interest, whilst linking PLC efforts to higher-level institutional frameworks.

Raising the bar for systematic conservation planning

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) represents a significant step toward cost-effective, transparent allocation of resources for biodiversity conservation. However, research demonstrates important consequences of uncertainties in SCP and of basing methods on simplified circumstances involving few real-world complexities. Current research often relies on single case studies with unknown forms and amounts of uncertainty as well as low statistical power for generalizing results. Consequently, conservation managers have little evidence for the true performance of conservation planning methods in their own complex, uncertain applications. To build effective and reliable methods in SCP, there is a need for more challenging and integrated testing of their robustness to uncertainty and complexity, and much greater emphasis on generalization to real-world situations.

Environment:”True” conservation progress

Conservation performance in securing biodiversity can be evaluated better with metrics based on the concept of a conservation balance sheet.

Incorporating Socioeconomic and Political Drivers of International Collaboration into Marine Conservation Planning

International collaboration can be crucial in determining the outcomes of conservation actions. Here, we propose a framework for incorporating demographic, socioeconomic, and political data into conservation prioritization in complex regions shared by multiple countries. As a case study, we quantitatively apply this approach to one of the worlds most complex and threatened biodiversity hotspots: the Mediterranean Basin. Our analysis of 22 countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea showed that the strongest economic, trade, tourism, and political ties are clearly among the three northwestern countries of Italy, France, and Spain. Although economic activity between countries is often seen as a threat, it may also serve as an indicator of the potential of collaboration in conservation. Using data for threatened marine vertebrate species, we show how areas prioritized for conservation shift spatially when economic factors are used as a surrogate to favor areas where collaborative potential in conservation is more likely.

Seeking convergence on the key concepts in ‘no net loss’ policy

Summary Biodiversity conservation policies incorporating a no net loss (NNL) principle are being implemented in many countries. However, there are linguistic and conceptual inconsistencies in the use of terms underlying these NNL policies. We identify inconsistencies that emerge in the usage of eight key terms and phrases associated with NNL policies: biodiversity, frames of reference (i.e. baselines, counterfactuals), no net loss, mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offset, in-kind/out-of-kind, direct/indirect and multipliers. For each term, we make recommendations to support conceptual convergence, reduce ambiguity and improve clarity in communication and policy documentation. However, we also warn of the challenges in achieving convergence, especially given the linguistic inconsistencies in several of these key concepts among countries in which NNL policies are employed. Policy implications. The recommendations made in this article, on improving clarity and supporting convergence on key no net loss (NNL) concepts, should help eliminate ambiguity in policy documentation. This is crucial if policymakers are to design robust policies that are (i) transparent, (ii) translatable into practice in a consistent manner and (iii) sufficiently understood and supported by stakeholders to be effective in practice.