A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting is increasingly being used to reconcile the objectives of conservation and development. It is generally acknowledged that there are limits to the kinds of impacts on biodiversity that can or should be offset, yet there is a paucity of policy guidance as to what defines these limits and the relative difficulty of achieving a successful offset as such limits are approached. In order to improve the consistency and defensibility of development decisions involving offsets, and to improve offset design, we outline a general process for evaluating the relative offsetability of different impacts on biodiversity. This process culminates in a framework that establishes the burden of proof necessary to confirm the appropriateness and achievability of offsets, given varying levels of: conservation concern for affected biodiversity; residual impact magnitude; opportunity for suitable offsets; and feasibility of offset implementation in practice. Rankings for biodiversity conservation concern are drawn from existing conservation planning tools and approaches, including the IUCN Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas, and international bank environmental safeguard policies. We hope that the proposed process will stimulate much-needed scientific and policy debate to improve the integrity and accountability of both regulated and voluntary biodiversity offsetting.

Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

“…Priorities and thresholds for impact are often based on two key factors: irreplaceability (or uniqueness) and vulnerability (or threat) (Margules and Pressey, 2000;BBOP, 2012a;Pilgrim et al, 2013). In a biodiversity mitigation context, irreplaceability refers to the spatial extent of options that will be lost if a particular site is impacted by development.…”

“…4) (BBOP, 2012a;IFC, 2012;Margules and Pressey, 2000). In simple terms, the irreplaceability of an area increases with the percentage of the global range or overall population of biodiversity target(s) it contains (Langhammer, 2007;Pilgrim et al, 2013).…”

Habitat suitability and protection status of four species of amphibians in the Dominican Republic

“…However, a current critical aspect of biodiversity offsets as an effective mechanism for biodiversity conservation is that, although guidelines exists (BBOP, 2013;IFC, 2012), peer-reviewed methodologies to evaluate changes to target habitat based on business as usual pressures, or the potential benefits from targeted offset protection, are not yet available. Pilgrim et al (2013) proposed a framework to assess biodiversity offsetability without specifying a particular methodology. The methodology proposed here can contribute to the application of Pilgrim's framework at a local level by identifying areas of biodiversity conservation concern, as well as identifying the extent of the impact of deforestation on the target species (e.g.…”

Development by Design in Western Australia: Overcoming Offset Obstacles

“…There is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, and regulators that the first and most important step in the mitigation hierarchy, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented (i.e., [28]). Developing criteria to determine whether impacts should be avoided altogether will be a key challenge when offsets are an available option, as there are limits to what can be offset [29].…”