Assessing collaborative, privately managed biodiversity conservation derived from an offsets program: Lessons from the Southern Mallee of New South Wales, Australia

Drielsma, Michael; Foster, Else; Ellis, Marc H.; Gill, Roderic; Prior, Julian; Kumar, Lalit; Saremi, Hanieh; Ferrier, Simon

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.005

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Drielsma et al. () evaluated the Southern Mallee Guidelines scheme in western New South Wales, Australia. The authors modeled biodiversity change attributable to the scheme, concluding that it broadly achieved the aim of maintaining or improving native vegetation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drielsma et al. () justify the use of avoided loss on the grounds that biodiversity improvements on newly protected sites could offset the losses attributable to the reduction in overall habitat extent. Whether these condition gains are achieved in reality is questionable, especially considering the consistent ecological or implementation failure of conservation management interventions associated with offsets in our sample (Bezombes et al., ; Lindenmayer et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both found that total wetland area decreased over their study periods (2001-2011 and 1994-2001), despite considerable restoration efforts attributable to wetland mitigation policy. Drielsma et al (2016) evaluated the Southern Mallee Guidelines scheme in western New South Wales, Australia. The authors modeled biodiversity change attributable to the scheme, concluding that it broadly achieved the aim of maintaining or improving native vegetation.…”

Section: Outcomes Of Program-and Landscape-scale Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This issue is compounded if the "protection" afforded by offsets does not actually reduce the probability of loss, most commonly when sites that are not under threat of development receive "protection" (e.g., Thorn et al, 2018). Drielsma et al (2016) justify the use of avoided loss on the grounds that biodiversity improvements on newly protected sites could offset the losses attributable to the reduction in overall habitat extent. Whether these condition gains are achieved in reality is questionable, especially considering the consistent ecological or implementation failure of conservation management interventions associated with offsets in our sample (Bezombes et al, 2019;Lindenmayer et al, 2017).…”

Section: Exploring Unsuccessful Outcomes Of Avoided Loss and Forest Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Ermgassen

Baker

Griffiths

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

142

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No net loss (NNL) biodiversity policies mandating the application of a mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate, offset) to the ecological impacts of built infrastructure are proliferating globally. However, little is known about their effectiveness at achieving NNL outcomes. We reviewed the English‐language peer‐reviewed literature (capturing 15,715 articles), and identified 32 reports that observed ecological outcomes from NNL policies, including >300,000 ha of biodiversity offsets. Approximately one‐third of NNL policies and individual biodiversity offsets reported achieving NNL, primarily in wetlands, although most studies used widely criticized area‐based outcome measures. The most commonly cited reason for success was applying high offset multipliers (large offset area relative to the impacted area). We identified large gaps between the global implementation of offsets and the evidence for their effectiveness: despite two‐thirds of the world's biodiversity offsets being applied in forested ecosystems, we found none of four studies demonstrated successful NNL outcomes for forested habitats or species. We also found no evidence for NNL achievement using avoided loss offsets (impacts offset by protecting existing habitat elsewhere). Additionally, we summarized regional variability in compliance rates with NNL policies. As global infrastructural expansion accelerates, we must urgently improve the evidence‐base around efforts to mitigate development impacts on biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcomes Of Program-and Landscape-scale Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exploring Unsuccessful Outcomes Of Avoided Loss and Forest Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Ermgassen

Baker

Griffiths

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

142

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Combining vegetation condition measures with explicit species Figure 1. Hunter Valley region, New South Wales, Australia. assessments in an adaptive management framework can be an effective approach to offset management (Drielsma et al 2016). However, there has been little quantitative research on how vegetation-based offset metrics truly function in relation to species-persistence targets (Gelcich et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the impact of vegetation‐based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Marshall

Valavi

O’Connor³

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.

show abstract

Climate Change and Impacts on Biodiversity on Small Islands

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing collaborative, privately managed biodiversity conservation derived from an offsets program: Lessons from the Southern Mallee of New South Wales, Australia

Cited by 8 publications

References 38 publications

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review

Quantifying the impact of vegetation‐based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Climate Change and Impacts on Biodiversity on Small Islands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About