Net positive outcomes for nature

Bull, Joseph W.; Milner‐Gulland, E.J.; Addison, Prue; Arlidge, William N. S.; Baker, Julia; Brooks, Thomas M.; Burgass, Michael J.; Hinsley, Amy; Maron, Martine; Robinson, John G.; Sekhran, Nik; Sinclair, Samuel P.; Stuart, Simon N.; Ermgassen, Sophus zu; Watson, James

doi:10.1038/s41559-019-1022-z

Cited by 70 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, expanding policy scope will increase compensation requirements, which our results suggest are already limited by land availability. A second option is to design policies to achieve biodiversity targets 36,37 , rather than to maintain a counterfactual scenario of decline. This would require more challenging policy decisions about the division of responsibility for achieving conservation outcomes between industry and government, but would improve clarity on how compensation activities contribute to conservation outcomes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These approaches must be translated to the organizational level to help businesses assess their contributions to the strategic goals. The BBOP Roadmap for Business (BBOP, ) and the Conservation Hierarchy (Bull et al., ) are possibilities, each providing simple, practical frameworks for businesses to trace actions from the site‐level to the global scale. While still under development, the Conservation Hierarchy is particularly relevant as it aims to translate actions by any organization, in any sector at any scale, to global conservation outcomes which could be accounted for under a post‐2020 biodiversity framework (Bull et al., ).…”

Section: Accounting For the Impacts Of Business On Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity means business: Reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector

Smith

Beagley

Bull

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Convention on Biological Diversity strategic goals direct the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity from global to local scales. Yet business’ role in meeting the strategic goals and being accountable for their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity are still not fully and coherently outlined. We demonstrate how business actions can contribute to the strategic goals using 10 publicly available case studies, covering businesses of various sizes, from multiple sectors, operating in different contexts. The case studies show some businesses already contribute to meeting biodiversity goals, often without realizing. We consider the drivers of business engagement with biodiversity; problems in interpreting the scale of impacts through corporate reporting; the implications for changing the way businesses engage with biodiversity goals; and how businesses could contribute more under the post‐2020 framework for biodiversity. We call for increased business accountability for nature and that all in conservation—policymakers, practitioners, researchers, communities—do more to connect businesses with the strategic goals. Clearer business roles and responsibilities within international targets form a critical step toward the fundamental systems‐level change required to reverse biodiversity loss.

show abstract

“…However, as the evidence grows for the biodiversity and ecosystem service value of habitats that have not classically received much protection, such as isolated habitat fragments, 55 urban nature, 56 and abandoned land, 57 allowing unmitigated biodiversity loss across any habitats now seems increasingly incompatible with achieving a minimum of NNL of biodiversity at landscape scales. 58 Additionally, even when regulation should in theory apply, many regions grant ex-emptions for specific infrastructure developments deemed to be strategically important, reflecting an underlying political prioritization of economic over biodiversity values. For example, numerous national governments have circumvented the EU Habitats Directive's nominal NNL policy for the Natura 2000 network of protected areas by arguing that the associated infrastructures are in the ''overriding public interest,'' granting them an exemption even though the justifications for this designation often fall far short of what is legally required.…”

Section: Figure 1 Infrastructure-related Threats To Species and Globmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of “No Net Loss” Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom

Ermgassen

Utamiputri²,

Bennun

et al. 2019

One Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over US$60 trillion is predicted to be spent on new infrastructure globally by 2040. Is it possible to meet UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 (develop infrastructure networks) without sacrificing goals 14 and 15 (ending biodiversity loss)? We explore the potential role of ''no net loss'' (NNL) policies in reconciling these SDGs. We assess country-level overlaps between planned infrastructure expansion, infrastructure-threatened biodiversity, and national biodiversity compensation policies and find that around half of predicted infrastructure and infrastructure-threatened biodiversity falls within countries with some form of mandatory compensation policy. However, these policies currently have shortcomings, are unlikely to achieve NNL in biodiversity, and could risk doing more harm than good. We summarize policy transformations required for NNL policies to mitigate all infrastructure impacts on biodiversity. To achieve SDGs 9 alongside 14 and 15, capitalizing on the global coverage of mandatory compensation policies and rapidly transforming them into robust NNL policies (emphasizing impact avoidance) should be an urgent priority.

show abstract

Net positive outcomes for nature

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 70 publications

References 27 publications

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

Biodiversity means business: Reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector

The Role of “No Net Loss” Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About