Accounting for biodiverse wildlife corridor plantations

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the feasibility of implementing the natural inventory model (NIM) developed by Jones (1996, 2003) in biodiverse wildlife corridor plantations, from a non-government organisations’ (NGO) perspective. Design/methodology/approach Undertaking the first cycle of an action research approach, the project involves collaboration with Greening Australia Tasmania (GAT). GAT is endeavouring to establish native wildlife corridors throughout the Tasmanian midlands, using science-based biodiverse plantations. The majority of the areas identified by GAT as essential for the establishment of these wildlife corridors are on privately owned land, primarily used for agricultural purposes. This paper explores whether stewardship of the land “sacrificed” by landowners may be demonstrated via the quantification and communication of improvements in biodiversity using the NIM. Findings Results suggest that the existing NIM is impractical for use by an NGO with limited resources. However, with some adaptations incorporating science-based measurements, the NIM can be used to account for biodiverse wildlife corridor plantations. Practical implications The findings have implications for not-for-profit, corporate and government sectors in terms of how accounting may facilitate the quantification and communication of conservation and restoration efforts. Social implications Biodiversity loss is now considered to be a greater threat to the planet than climate change. Efforts to account for biodiversity are consistent with the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the Australian Government’s “Biodiversity Conservation Strategy” (2010). Originality/value While prior studies have successfully implemented the NIM using secondary data, this is the first known to test the feasibility of the model using primary data in collaboration with an NGO.

Organisational and professional challenges amid the evolution of sustainability reporting: a theoretical framework and an agenda for future research

“…The paper by Claire Horner and Neil Davidson (Horner and Davidson, 2021) explores the feasibility of implementing the natural inventory model (NIM) developed by Jones (1996, 2003) in biodiverse corridor plantations, from a non-government organisation (NGO) perspective. The majority of areas identified by Greening Australia Tasmania (GAT) as being essential for these wildlife corridors are on privately owned land, used for agricultural purposes; thus, the paper explores whether stewardship of the land sacrificed by landowners may be demonstrated via the quantification and communication of improvement in biodiversity by using the NIM.…”

Unlocking environmental accounting for healthy future landscapes

“…However, as society becomes more environmentally concerned, environmental credentials are increasingly becoming a minimum requirement for farmers to maintain their legitimacy and market access both Therefore, whether such schemes ultimately lead to healthy future landscapes is dubious (Isenhour, 2011). OEMA tool to assist farming organisations to track their natural capital assets alongside their financial assets (Ogilvy, 2015); the 'Natural Inventory Model', an AEMA tool explored as a method for tracking the health of a natural capital asset over time (Horner & Davidson, 2020); and the 'Accounting for Nature' method (Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, 2016), an AEMA tool which has recently been developed and implemented in agricultural landscapes-https://www.accou nting forna ture.org/. However, most environmental accounting research has been conducted at larger scales and as such, these farm-scale tools remain underdeveloped (Marais et al, 2019;Ogilvy, 2015).…”

“…Environmental accounting tools which are used for physical areas and internal audiences we term Area Environmental Management Accounting (AEMA). Physical areas used for AEMA tools have included geopolitical boundaries at national and sub‐national scales and finer, less easily defined scales including landscapes and ecosystems (see Horner and Davidson (2020) and United Nations (2021b) in Table 2). These tools generally use the ‘Natural Capital Model’, which we now discuss.…”

“…Equally, not all AEMA research refers to the natural capital model (e.g. Horner and Davidson (2020) do not consider the tree planting for which they are accounting, in these terms). As such, so as not to create confusion, the term AEMA is used to describe any environmental accounting tool which uses physical areas for internal audiences.…”

“…Horner and Davidson (2020) explored the 'Natural Inventory Model' as an AEMA tool for accounting for biodiversity in corridor plantings spanning across multiple properties, but did not explore its use as a tool for collective action between landholders. Research which explores AEMA and AERA tools as mechanisms for collective action governance would further develop the concept of the ecosystemscale environmental accounting and assist in operationalising this scale of accounts to deliver healthy future landscapes.…”