Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges

  • Fleur J. F. Maseyk (a1), Martine Maron (a2), Ascelin Gordon (a3), Joseph W. Bull (a4) and Megan C. Evans (a2)...

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting aims to achieve at least no net loss of biodiversity by fully compensating for residual development-induced biodiversity losses after the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate) has been applied. Actions used to generate offsets can include securing site protection, or maintaining or enhancing the condition of targeted biodiversity at an offset site. Protection and maintenance actions aim to prevent future biodiversity loss, so such offsets are referred to as averted loss offsets. However, the benefits of such approaches can be highly uncertain and opaque, because assumptions about the change in likelihood of loss as a result of the offset action are often implicit. As a result, the gain generated by averting losses can be intentionally or inadvertently overestimated, leading to offset outcomes that are insufficient for achieving no net loss of biodiversity. We present a method and decision tree to guide consistent and credible estimation of the likelihood of biodiversity loss for a proposed offset site with and without protection, for use when calculating the amount of benefit associated with the protection component of averted loss offsets. In circumstances such as when a jurisdictional offset policy applies to most impacts, plausible estimates of averted loss can be very low. Averting further loss of biodiversity is desirable, and averted loss offsets can be a valid approach for generating tangible gains. However, overestimation of averted loss benefits poses a major risk to biodiversity.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

(Corresponding author) E-mail fleur@thecatalystgroup.co.nz

Footnotes

Hide All
*

Also at: Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

§

Also at: Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Arlidge, W.N., Bull, J.W., Addison, P.F., Burgass, M.J., Gianuca, D., Gorham, T.M. et al. (2018) A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. Bioscience, 68, 336347.
Australian Government (2018) EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy. environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-act-environmental-offsets-policy [accessed 16 April 2018].
Bull, J., Singh, N., Suttle, K., Bykova, E. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2015) Creating a frame of reference for conservation interventions. Land Use Policy, 49, 273286.
Bull, J.W., Lloyd, S.P. & Strange, N. (2017) Implementation gap between the theory and practice of biodiversity offset multipliers. Conservation Letters, 10, 656669.
Burgin, S. (2010) ‘Mitigation banks’ for wetland conservation: a major success or an unmitigated disaster? Wetlands Ecology and Management, 18, 4955.
Buschke, F.T. (2017) Biodiversity trajectories and the time needed to achieve no net loss through averted-loss biodiversity offsets. Ecological Modelling, 352, 5457.
Carver, L. & Sullivan, S. (2017) How economic contexts shape calculations of yield in biodiversity offsetting. Conservation Biology, 31, 10531065.
Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (2017) Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual Version 2. Victoria State Government, Melbourne, Australia.
Esmail, N. (2017) Stakeholder and Institutional Analysis: Achieving No Net Loss for Communities and Biodiversity in Uganda. Wild Business Ltd. for University of Oxford. Wild Business Ltd., London, UK.
Evans, M.C. (2016) Deforestation in Australia: drivers, trends and policy responses. Pacific Conservation Biology, 22, 130150.
Ferraro, P.J. (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 65, 810821.
Ferraro, P.J. (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 2009, 7584.
Ferraro, P.J. & Pattanayak, S.K. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology, 4, e105.
Gibbons, P., Evans, M.C., Maron, M., Gordon, A., Le Roux, D., von Hase, A. et al. (2016) A loss-gain calculator for biodiversity offsets and the circumstances in which no net loss is feasible. Conservation Letters, 9, 252259.
Golden Kroner, R.E., Qin, S., Cook, C.N., Krithivasan, R., Pack, S.M., Bonilla, O.D. et al. (2019) The uncertain future of protected lands and waters. Science, 364, 881886.
Gordon, A., Langford, W.T., Todd, J.A., White, M.D., Mullerworth, D.W. & Bekessy, S.A. (2011) Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26, 14811488.
Gordon, A., Bull, J.W., Wilcox, C. & Maron, M. (2015) Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 532537.
Hemming, V., Burgman, M.A., Hanea, A.M., McBride, M.F. & Wintle, B.C. (2018) A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 169180.
IUCN (2016) WCC-2016-Res-059-EN IUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets. iucn.org/theme/business-and-biodiversity/our-work/business-approaches-and-tools/biodiversity-offsets [accessed 17 August 2018].
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. & Thaler, R.H. (1991) Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193206.
Maron, M., Rhodes, J.R. & Gibbons, P. (2013) Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conservation Letters, 6, 359367.
Maron, M., Bull, J.W., Evans, M.C. & Gordon, A. (2015) Locking in loss: baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation, 192, 504512.
Maron, M., Ives, C.D., Kujala, H., Bull, J.W., Maseyk, F.J.F., Bekessy, S. et al. (2016) Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. Bioscience, 66, 489498.
Maron, M., Brownlie, S., Bull, J.W., Evans, M.C., von Hase, A., Quétier, F. et al. (2018) The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nature Sustainability, 1, 1927.
Maseyk, F.J.F., Barea, L.P., Stephens, R.T.T., Possingham, H.P., Dutson, G. & Maron, M. (2016) A disaggregated biodiversity offset accounting model to improve estimation of ecological equivalency and no net loss. Biological Conservation, 204, 322332.
Maseyk, F.J.F., Evans, M.C. & Maron, M. (2017) Guidance for Deriving ‘Risk of Loss’ Estimates When Evaluating Biodiversity Offset Proposals Under the EPBC Act. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme Department of the Environment and Energy. Centre of Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
May, J., Hobbs, R.J. & Valentine, L.E. (2016) Are offsets effective? An evaluation of recent environmental offsets in Western Australia. Biological Conservation, 206, 249257.
Miller, K.L., Trezise, J.A., Kraus, S., Dripps, K., Evans, M.C., Gibbons, P. et al. (2015) The development of the Australian environmental offsets policy: from theory to practice. Environmental Conservation, 42, 306314.
Montenegro, S.S., Walschburger, T., Sarmiento, J.L. & Tamayo, J.C.G. (2012) Manual for Allocating Offsets for Loss of Biodiversity. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Bogotá, Colombia.
Quigley, J.T. & Harper, D.J. (2006) Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management, 37, 351366.
Rhodes, J.R., Cattarino, L., Seabrook, L. & Maron, M. (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of regulation to protect threatened forests. Biological Conservation, 216, 3342.
Ruhl, J. & Salzman, J. (2011) Gaming the past: the theory and practice of historic baselines in the administrative state. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 157.
Simmons, B.A., Law, E.A., Marcos-Martinez, R., Bryan, B.A., McAlpine, C. & Wilson, K.A. (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of land clearing during policy change. Land Use Policy, 75, 399410.
Sonter, L., Barrett, D. & Soares-Filho, B. (2014) Offsetting the impacts of mining to achieve no net loss of native vegetation. Conservation Biology, 28, 10681076.
Sonter, L., Tomsett, N., Wu, D. & Maron, M. (2017) Biodiversity offsetting in dynamic landscapes: influence of regulatory context and counterfactual assumptions on achievement of no net loss. Biological Conservation, 206, 314319.
Sunstein, C.R. (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 121136.
Temple, H., Anstee, S., Ekstrom, J., Pilgrim, J. & Rabenantoandro, J. (2012) Forecasting the Path Towards a Net Positive Impact on Biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM. IUCN and Rio Tinto, Gland, Switzerland.
The Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC) & Flora & Fauna International (FFI) (2012) Biodiversity Offsets Strategy for the Oyu Tolgoi Project. Unpublished draft report of The Biodiversity Consultancy Ltd. and Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.
The State of New South Wales & The Office of Environment and Heritage (2014) BioBanking Assessment Methodology. Office of Environment and Heritage for the New South Wales Government, Sydney, Australia.
The State of Queensland (2014) Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Version 1.1. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, Australia.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 11241131.
Wende, W., Tucker, G., Quétier, F., Rayment, M. & Darbi, M. (eds) (2018) Biodiversity Offsets–European Perspectives on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Springer International Publishing, Basel, Switzerland.

Keywords

Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges

  • Fleur J. F. Maseyk (a1), Martine Maron (a2), Ascelin Gordon (a3), Joseph W. Bull (a4) and Megan C. Evans (a2)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.