Good enough for governance? Audit and marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Biodiversity offsetting is often presented as a way to manage competing demands of environmental protection and economic development. It is premised on the transparent demonstration of how aims of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL) or similar are met in practice. This is complicated in marine systems where ecological predictions are commonly highly uncertain, knowledge of ecological restoration is low and administrative governance is complex. Drawing on a case study of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia, this paper shows how these uncertainties pose practical challenges for both producers and consumers of marine biodiversity offsets, needing to progress with decision-making while meeting increasing societal pressure for demonstrable NNL. These competing needs are met through the centrality of an auditable decision-making process that contributes to establishing an organisation’s social licence to operate. The need for auditability drives the use of an imprecise measure of NNL through financial equivalency and the use of strategic offsetting projects. The coarse-grained interpretation of biodiversity offsetting best practice reduces the risks posed by explicit acknowledgement of biodiversity loss, offset failure or prohibitively large offset liabilities. Strategic relationship management across government, industry, academia and non-governmental organisations has raised the profile of biodiversity and its importance, but whether the auditing process has delivered on environmental protection is an open question. What is ‘good enough’ to meet governance standards may have become the over-riding goal. We conclude by acknowledging that the seemingly unattainable yet expected aim of NNL for marine systems prioritises auditability above discussions of ‘acceptable’ risk

Better for Whom? Leveling the Injustices of International Conferences by Moving Online

International conferences are an important component of the professional calendar of scientists and practitioners in many fields, and are valued as opportunities to establish, create and foster networks, wellbeing and knowledge. The 2020 global pandemic, in prohibiting large gatherings and travel, has provided an opportunity to test the feasibility and implications of a shift from in-person to online conference formats. Avoiding international travel and associated bureaucracy, time and expense could overcome many of the historic injustices preventing many from participating in and benefiting from international conferences, and also avoid the emissions associated with international air travel. However, prior to 2020, there has been resistance to moving these events online because of the perception that the value of conferences cannot be cultivated online. Here, we use the example of the 6th International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC6), which moved online in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to explore participants’ perceptions and experiences of an online conference and the potential effects on access and inclusion. Our results show that moving online substantially increased the accessibility of the conference for those who would be unable to attend an in-person event for financial or personal reasons. Results also indicate that the online experience was able to recreate some of the benefits of in-person events, and that many participants are interested in attending online or virtual events in the future. However, the degree of enjoyment experienced or perceived ‘value’ likely relates to the frame of reference of the individual participant and a commitment to actively engage in the program. Reflecting on the success of IMCC6, we conclude that holding international conferences online, or at least including an online element as part of a ‘hybrid’ model, is a significant improvement in the capacity of conferences to meet the moral imperatives of the conservation community by addressing the climate crisis and some of the systemic injustices within the field

Exploring the practical implementation of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Biodiversity offsetting with associated aims of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL) is an approach used to align economic development with conservation. Biodiversity offsetting may be more challenging in marine environments, with recent evidence suggesting that the current application of the approach in Australian marine environments rarely follows 'best practice' and is unlikely to be meeting stated policy aims. To understand how and why this deviation from best practice is taking place in marine systems, we analysed current practice in Australia through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 31 participants with professional experience in the development and implementation of associated policy. Thematic analysis of results indicated that, despite commitment to best practice in principle, practitioners recognised that operationalisation of marine biodiversity offsetting was inconsistent and unlikely to be meeting stated goals such as NNL. Participants described the central barrier to the adoption of best practice as the technical complexity of assessing and quantifying biodiversity losses and gains, and uncertainty in restoration in marine contexts. With offsetting described as an integral part of development consent for marine economic development, both these barriers and their navigation presents threats to users setting off a chain of accepted activity leading away from best practice. These threats were perceived to arise from low governmental capacity or prioritisation for environmental management, institutional needs for a social licence to operate, and overarching demands for economic growth. We conclude that marine biodiversity offsetting has come to be ambiguous in its practical definition, with a range of conflicting factors influencing its use and preventing the standardisation required to meet rigorous interpretations of best practice necessary to ensure biodiversity protection and NNL

Good enough for governance? Audit and marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Biodiversity offsetting is often presented as a way to manage competing demands of environmental protection and economic development. It is premised on the transparent demonstration of how aims of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL) or similar are met in practice. This is complicated in marine systems where ecological predictions are commonly highly uncertain, knowledge of ecological restoration is low and administrative governance is complex. Drawing on a case study of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia, this paper shows how these uncertainties pose practical challenges for both producers and consumers of marine biodiversity offsets, needing to progress with decision-making while meeting increasing societal pressure for demonstrable NNL. These competing needs are met through the centrality of an auditable decision-making process that contributes to establishing an organisation's social licence to operate. The need for auditability drives the use of an imprecise measure of NNL through financial equivalency and the use of strategic offsetting projects. The coarse-grained interpretation of biodiversity offsetting best practice reduces the risks posed by explicit acknowledgement of biodiversity loss, offset failure or prohibitively large offset liabilities. Strategic relationship management across government, industry, academia and non-governmental organisations has raised the profile of biodiversity and its importance, but whether the auditing process has delivered on environmental protection is an open question. What is ‘good enough’ to meet governance standards may have become the over-riding goal. We conclude by acknowledging that the seemingly unattainable yet expected aim of NNL for marine systems prioritises auditability above discussions of ‘acceptable’ risk

A risk assessment for the remote ocean: the case of the South East Atlantic

Degradation of the natural world and associated ecosystem services is attributed to a historical failure to include its ‘value’ in decision-making. Uncertainty in the quantification of the relationship between natural capital ‘assets’ that give rise to critical societal benefits and people is one reason for the omission of these values from natural resource management. As this uncertainty increases in marine systems and further still with distance from the coast, the connection between society and natural capital assets is less likely to be included adequately in decision-making. Natural capital assets of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), including those of the deep sea, are distant but are known to generate many benefits for society, from the diffuse and broad-scale benefits of climate regulation to the provision of wild fish for food. While our understanding of the precise relationships (the status of asset stocks, ecosystem functions and processes) that control the availability of ecosystem services and the flows of benefits is limited, this does not preclude opening a discourse on how these natural capital assets could best be managed to continue to benefit society. Here we apply a natural capital approach to the South East Atlantic ABNJ, one of the least scientifically understood regions of the planet, and develop a framework for risk assessment. We do this by describing the benefit flows from the natural capital assets of the region, appraising how activities are creating pressures on these flows and whether the controls for these pressures protect them. Our risk register highlights how governance currently favours the protection of direct (extractive) benefit flows from natural capital assets of the region, which are primarily targeted for financial benefit. Without a systems-based framework that can account for the cumulative pressures on natural capital assets their status, associated ecosystem services and benefits are at risk. Such an approach is essential to capture and protect the foundational and often diffuse connections between marine natural capital and global society.</jats:p

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used in policy frameworks to regulate the environmental impacts of development including projects located in marine environments. Scientific knowledge gaps and other practical challenges have necessitated flexibility concerning the manner in which key offsetting principles are implemented in policy frameworks relevant to such environments. The potential trade-off of such flexibility is that consequent marine offsetting practice may not be compatible with the ultimate objective of no net loss of biodiversity. Here we present a systematic review of marine and coastal development projects in Australia, examining how offsetting is being implemented in practice. Forty-two (42) projects were assessed, predominantly located in Queensland and Western Australia and associated with the development and operation of ports. We find that application of key biodiversity offsetting principles (e.g. ecological equivalence) was frequently incomplete or absent. For approximately 50% of reviewed projects we were unable to identify public information concerning how offsetting requirements were established. The current environmental outcomes of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia are unclear but there are indications that it is unlikely to achieve no net loss of biodiversity

A standardised ecosystem services framework for the deep sea

Despite its remoteness, human activity has impacted the deep sea and changes to the structure and function of deep-sea ecosystems are already noticeable. In terrestrial and shallow water marine environments, demonstrating how ecosystems support human well-being has been instrumental in setting policy and management objectives for sustainable resource use. Foundational to this approach is a framework of ecosystem service (ES) classification and a synthesis of the knowledge base, which can then be used to structure decision-support tools such as ecosystem accounts or Environmental Impact Assessments. At present, no such framework exists for the deep sea. There is thus an urgent need to determine and assess the ES provided by deep-sea habitats and species before (potentially irreversible) decisions are made about deep-sea habitat use and governance. As a first step towards the incorporation of ES in such decision-making, we undertake two systematic reviews of the scientific literature based on the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) systematic process. This was to define a comparative ES framework and synthesise the current evidence base for how deep-sea habitats support ecosystem services. Our framework proposes four supporting services, three regulating services, four provisioning services and three cultural services for which there is an established and growing body of evidence for the role of deep-sea habitats. The ES framework presented here provides a structure for deep-sea ecosystem services. In its next phase of development, this could provide the foundation for the development of habitat-ecosystem service matrices, which are a critical component for truly accounting for ES in decision-making, particularly spatial management. This framework has significant implications for deep-sea management, conservation and policy, as it provides an ecosystem services-based tool that can be used in any deep-sea ecosystems management across the planet, and it also shows how critical these data gaps are for today’s decisions and how seriously they should be considered in decision-making processes

A two way process – Social capacity as a driver and outcome of equitable marine spatial planning

Although stakeholder engagement is one of the founding principles of marine spatial planning (MSP), meaningful representation of people and their connections to marine resources within marine governance is still lacking. A broad understanding of how concepts surrounding social capital and capacity is translated into MSP practice is missing. With this article, we describe detailed case studies in the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa to build a better understanding of the ways in which MSP and other ocean governance initiatives operationalise the concepts of social capital and capacity. Drawing on insights from the cases, we call for a rethinking of capacitation as a two-way process. In particular, trust-building, social learning and efforts to build social capacity should be elaborated without imposing a hierarchy between people ‘who know’ and people ‘who don’t’. Innovative approaches to relationship building, knowledge development, and collaboration highlighted in the case studies highlight ways to build social capacity both among stakeholders and planners, as is necessary for more equitable and sustainable MSP development and implementation

Transdisciplinarity in transformative ocean governance research - reflections of early career researchers

This paper interrogates the concept of transdisciplinarity, both theoretically and practically, from a perspective of early career researchers (ECRs) in transformative ocean governance research. Aiming to advance research methodologies for future complex sustainability challenges, the paper seeks to illuminate some common uncertainties and challenges surrounding transdisciplinarity from a marine science perspective. Following a literature review on transdisciplinary research, workshops, and a series of surveys, we determine that transdisciplinarity appears to be a concept in search of definition, and that there is a need to explore transdisciplinarity specifically from an ocean research perspective. The paper discusses a number of challenges experienced by ECRs in conducting transdisciplinary research and provides recommendations for both ECRs wishing to undertake more equitable transdisciplinary research and for the UN Decade for Ocean Science to support ECRs in this endeavour (Figure 1). Based on our findings, we interrogate the role of non-academic collaborators in transdisciplinary research and argue that future transdisciplinarity will need to address power imbalances in existing research methods to achieve knowledge co-production, as opposed to knowledge integration

Issues of context, capacity and scale: Essential conditions and missing links for a sustainable blue economy

Funding: This work was supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI), Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), One Ocean Hub (Grant Ref: NE/S008950/1).The blue economy has roots in the international arena of sustainable development and sets out to unlock opportunities for economy and society whilst protecting and enhancing marine environments. To date there has been no analysis of how this overarching intention for sustainability has influenced the rapid development of blue economy policies at national and regional scales. In this article, we analyse the synergies and conflicts between blue economy policies from a diversity of national and regional policies and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We show that to maintain critical alignment with targets for sustainability, place-based contextual development of blue economies that meet the needs of all actors is necessary. These needs relate to ensuring resilience against future environmental and political shocks, the maintenance of the ecological basis for thriving blue economies, and capacity development at all levels to support effective and equitable governance. Results indicate that co-production will be important to achieve sustainable blue economies.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe