Cargando…

No net loss for people and biodiversity

Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one lo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffiths, Victoria F., Bull, Joseph W., Baker, Julia, Milner‐Gulland, E.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30070731
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13184
_version_ 1783562751553044480
author Griffiths, Victoria F.
Bull, Joseph W.
Baker, Julia
Milner‐Gulland, E.J.
author_facet Griffiths, Victoria F.
Bull, Joseph W.
Baker, Julia
Milner‐Gulland, E.J.
author_sort Griffiths, Victoria F.
collection PubMed
description Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade‐offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial‐temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no‐worse‐off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity‐related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well‐being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project‐affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well‐being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that this level of well‐being should be maintained throughout the project life cycle. Employing this principle could help ensure people are no worse off as a result of interventions to achieve biodiversity NNL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7379924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73799242020-07-27 No net loss for people and biodiversity Griffiths, Victoria F. Bull, Joseph W. Baker, Julia Milner‐Gulland, E.J. Conserv Biol Essays Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade‐offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial‐temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no‐worse‐off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity‐related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well‐being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project‐affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well‐being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that this level of well‐being should be maintained throughout the project life cycle. Employing this principle could help ensure people are no worse off as a result of interventions to achieve biodiversity NNL. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-08-02 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7379924/ /pubmed/30070731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13184 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Essays
Griffiths, Victoria F.
Bull, Joseph W.
Baker, Julia
Milner‐Gulland, E.J.
No net loss for people and biodiversity
title No net loss for people and biodiversity
title_full No net loss for people and biodiversity
title_fullStr No net loss for people and biodiversity
title_full_unstemmed No net loss for people and biodiversity
title_short No net loss for people and biodiversity
title_sort no net loss for people and biodiversity
topic Essays
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30070731
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13184
work_keys_str_mv AT griffithsvictoriaf nonetlossforpeopleandbiodiversity
AT bulljosephw nonetlossforpeopleandbiodiversity
AT bakerjulia nonetlossforpeopleandbiodiversity
AT milnergullandej nonetlossforpeopleandbiodiversity