Quantifying the “avoided” biodiversity impacts associated with economic development

Abstract

Achieving global sustainability objectives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals or Aichi Targets, including remaining within planetary boundaries, necessitates proactively avoiding a proportion of the environmental impacts otherwise expected to result from economic development. Quantifying these "avoided" impacts is important for monitoring progress toward meeting sustainability objectives, but doing so in a consistent way is fraught with difficulty. Using the mitigation of biodiversity impacts by development projects as an example, we explored the challenges of defining and measuring impact avoidance. Avoidance can be defined as either action-based or outcome-based, and classified by whether it is achieved through project cancellation, spatial avoidance, design-based avoidance, or temporal avoidance. We also examined what drives different types of project proponents to implement avoidance measures. To support empirical quantification of the contribution that avoidance makes toward conservation goals, we present a framework for structuring assessments of biodiversity impact avoidance. Our framework has widespread applicability in conservation science, policy, and practice, as well as relevance for broader policies that seek to avoid environmental and social impacts.

Evaluating the potential of biodiversity offsets to achieve net gain

“…To connect these principles, we developed a management work flow (Figure 5). The application of the specific offset principles (Figure 5, green boxes) starts by seeking adherence to the mitigation hierarchy in project development and determining whether there are biodiversity values so important that they cannot be offset, which should lead to strict avoidance measures (Brownlie et al., 2013; Bull et al., 2022) and determination of limits of acceptability to what can be offset (Pope et al., 2021; Witt et al., 2019). Irreplaceability, a measure of how essential a site is to meeting conservation targets for conservation features (Pressey et al., 1994); vulnerability; or the importance of the affected biodiversity value may be thresholds of acceptability.…”

Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers to confirm no net loss

“…The reasoning behind such decisions, or records of avoidance, reduction, and ll OPEN ACCESS One Earth 5, June 17, 2022 659 Perspective restoration through, e.g., EIAs could, in theory, also be stored in these registers. 82 This would allow assessing adherence to the mitigation hierarchy and whether biodiversity offsets enable development that would have otherwise not been approved-another contested aspect of biodiversity offsets. 31,43,83 Although avoidance is more difficult to measure than offsets, 50,82 it is a far more effective way of reducing biodiversity decline.…”

“…82 This would allow assessing adherence to the mitigation hierarchy and whether biodiversity offsets enable development that would have otherwise not been approved-another contested aspect of biodiversity offsets. 31,43,83 Although avoidance is more difficult to measure than offsets, 50,82 it is a far more effective way of reducing biodiversity decline. 60,62,84 EIAs also suffer from regulatory weaknesses and discretion that lead to large variability in practices and outcomes.…”

Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges

“…A key component of this will be forgoing business activities which are inconsistent with naturepositive outcomes (equivalent to the 'avoidance' step of the mitigation hierarchy or conservation hierarchy; (Bull, Sonter, et al, 2022;Milner-Gulland et al, 2021). Such restrictions are already implemented by many businesses and financing institutions: for example, some technology firms have signed up to the deep-sea mining moratorium (Reuters, 2021), and the main principles behind zero deforestation commitments are to forgo the consumption of agricultural commodities which are responsible for forest loss.…”