The role of ‘No Net Loss’ policies in conserving biodiversity threatened by the global infrastructure boom

Over US$60 trillion is predicted to be spent on new infrastructure globally by 2040. Is it possible to meet UN Sustainable Development Goal 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. Assessing country-level overlaps between planned infrastructure expansion, infrastructure-threatened biodiversity, and national biodiversity compensation policies, 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 summarise policy transformations required for NNL policies to mitigate all infrastructure impacts on biodiversity. To achieve SDGs 9 alongside 14 and 15, capitalising on the global coverage of mandatory compensation policies and rapidly transforming them into robust NNL policies (emphasising impact avoidance) should be an urgent priority

Ethics and biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. These ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions, 5 ethical objections in the scientific literature were identified: offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; too little is known to make adequate trades; offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and offsetting has negative justice implications. We examined these objections and arguments against them based on the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism, and deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical paradigms. Both nonanthropocentric and anthropocentric concerns were expressed in deontological, consequential, and virtue-ethical framings. Objections mostly had a deontological or virtue-ethical basis, whereas counterarguments were based on consequential reasoning, but common ground in practice is often conceivable. Based on our findings, we formulated 10 recommendations for policy makers and 5 questions for practitioners to consider. We propose, for example, that policy makers clarify aims, legislate on no-go areas, and govern the use of multipliers. We suggest that practitioners consider, for instance, how to improve case-specific knowledge and promote learning and stakeholder engagement. We hope these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets and ultimately strengthen the respect for biodiversity and human-welfare values at stake in offsetting projects.生物多样性补偿旨在补偿开发项目造成的环境破坏, 正日益得到应用。然而, 有批评者对补偿的有效性提出了担忧, 并对其道德基础和作用提出了质疑。以往研究很大程度忽视了这些伦理维度, 这可能导致生物多样性补偿系统没有尊重其旨在维护的价值。为了解决这些问题, 我们通过科学文献综述确定了五项伦理上的反对意见: 补偿机制违背了自然的内在价值; 人类干预不能补偿自然的损失; 人们所知甚少, 无法进行适当的交易补偿; 补偿损害了对自然的善意; 补偿会带来负面的影响。我们基于内在价值和工具价值的伦理概念、人类中心主义、非人类中心主义、道义论、结果论和美德 - 伦理范式, 检验了这些反对意见和对其的争论。非人类中心主义和人类中心主义的关注点都在道义论、结果论和美德 - 伦理框架中得到了表达。反对意见大多有道义论或美德 - 伦理基础, 而对它们的回应则基于结果论推理, 但通常在实践中双方存在可能的共同基础。基于我们的研究发现, 我们向政策制定者提出了 10 条建议, 并对实践者提出了 5 个问题供其考虑。例如, 我们建议决策者明确目标, 立法确定禁区, 管理乘数的使用。我们还建议实践者思考如何积累具体案例的知识、促进学习和推动利益相关者参与。我们希望这些建议和问题将鼓励人们进一步讨论生物多样性补偿的伦理问题, 并最终加强在补偿项目中对生物多样性和人类福利价值的尊重。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】La compensación de la biodiversidad es una herramienta que cada vez se aplica más a la búsqueda de la remuneración por el daño ambiental causado por proyectos de explotación. Sin embargo, hay quienes la critican basándose en la presunta efectividad de las compensaciones y cuestionan los sustentos éticos y las implicaciones de las compensaciones. Estas dimensiones éticas han sido ignoradas en la investigación, lo cual puede resultar en sistemas que no respetan los valores que se pretende salvaguardar. Para resolver estas dimensiones identificamos cinco objeciones éticas en la literatura: las compensaciones violan el valor intrínseco de la naturaleza; las pérdidas de la naturaleza no pueden compensarse mediante intervenciones humanas; se conoce muy poco para realizar intercambios adecuados; las compensaciones impiden las disposiciones virtuosas hacia la naturaleza; y las compensaciones tienen implicaciones de justicia negativa. Analizamos estas objeciones y los argumentos en su contra basados en los conceptos éticos de los valores intrínsecos e instrumentales, el antropocentrismo, el no antropocentrismo y los paradigmas deontológico, consecuencialista y de virtud ética. Tanto las preocupaciones antropocéntricas como las no antropocéntricas se expresaron mediante encuadres deontológicos, consecuencialistas y de virtud ética. Las objeciones principalmente tuvieron una base deontológica o de virtud ética, mientras que los contraargumentos estuvieron basados en el razonamiento consecuencial pero los puntos de coincidencia en la práctica con frecuencia son concebibles. Con base en nuestros hallazgos formulamos diez recomendaciones para los formuladores de políticas y cinco preguntas para los practicantes de la conservación para que las tomen a consideración. Por ejemplo, proponemos que los formuladores de políticas clarifiquen los objetivos, legislen las áreas prohibidas y determinen el uso de multiplicadores. Sugerimos que los practicantes consideren cómo mejorar el conocimiento específico por caso y promover el aprendizaje y la participación de los actores sociales. Esperamos que estas recomendaciones y preguntas fomenten una mayor discusión sobre la ética de las compensaciones de biodiversidad y, finalmente, fortalezcan el respeto por la biodiversidad y los valores de bienestar humano en juego en los proyectos de compensaciones

Biodiversity offsetting: what are the challenges, opportunities and research priorities for animal conservation?

[Extract] Governments, businesses, financial institutions and local communities are increasingly using biodiversity offsets, also known as compensatory mitigation, as a putative mechanism to achieve 'no net loss' (NNL) of biodiversity as a result of specific development projects (McKenney & Kiesecker, 2010; Quetier & Lavorel, 2011; Gardner et al., 2013). The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), an international collaboration for the development of offset methodologies, defines biodiversity offsets as 'the measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people's use and cultural values associated with biodiversity' (BBOP, 2009). Proposals are already proceeding in the European Union (EU) for a NNL initiative as part of the 'EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020' – with possible operational principles that include offsetting schemes (see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/nnl/index_en.htm). Madsen et al. (2011) identified legislation mandating compensatory biodiversity conservation mechanisms (including offsets) in 45 countries, with a further 27 under development and this number is likely to have grown since