Aligning economic development and conservation through marine biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of perspectives, policy and practice in Australia

Biodiversity offsetting is increasingly used in diverse policy contexts to reduce, halt or reverse losses of biodiversity arising from development or other uses of the natural environment. To date, relatively little attention has been devoted to its use in marine environments. This thesis explores the policy basis for the marine application of the approach and its implementation in practice. A systematic review of documents evidencing the application or inclusion of biodiversity offset principles in global policy frameworks is first presented. Analysis focusses on the uptake of the principles for biodiversity offsetting success and indicates that globally there is a limited policy basis for the holistic application of the approach in marine environments. Using Australia as a case study, I explore how these principles are being applied in practice. Through a further systematic review of marine and coastal development projects I find little evidence to suggest that marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia is meeting stated aims of no net loss (NNL). In-depth interviews of participants with professional experience of the development and application of marine biodiversity offsetting policy were explored. Using two separate frameworks based around boundary objects and risk, interview data and participant perceptions were analysed to understand the influences governing current practice. Results indicate that marine biodiversity offsetting is not being applied with a view to meeting stated aims of NNL and that this trend is primarily driven by the challenges posed by marine environments and limited societal scrutiny. Current use of marine NNL seeks to maintain the legitimacy and credibility of government and industry alike, premised on ongoing trends of accepted marine biodiversity loss. I conclude that a significant change in the narrative surrounding the use of marine NNL is required to acknowledge the trade-offs and biodiversity loss implicated by much of marine economic development

The pandemic push: can COVID-19 reinvent conferences to models rooted in sustainability, equitability and inclusion?

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a change in conference formats for 2020. This shift offers a unique opportunity to address long-standing inequities in access and issues of sustainability associated with traditional conference formats, through testing online platforms. However, moving online is not a panacea for all of these concerns, particularly those arising from uneven distribution of access to the Internet and other technology. With conferences and events being forced to move online, this is a critical juncture to examine how online formats can be used to best effect and to reduce the inequities of in-person meetings. In this article, we highlight that a thoughtful and equitable move to online formats could vastly strengthen the global socio-ecological research community and foster cohesive and effective collaborations, with ecology and society being the ultimate beneficiaries

Addressing the ocean-climate nexus in the BBNJ agreement : strategic environmental assessments, human rights and equity in ocean science

The Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) opens a new path in international law towards addressing issues at the ocean-climate nexus, as well as considering implications for the protection of human rights and achieving equity among States in the context of ocean knowledge production and environmental management. Based on an interdisciplinary reflection, the new international obligations on strategic environmental assessments (SEAs), and new institutional arrangements, are identified as crucial avenues to addressing climate change mitigation and ensuring fair research partnerships, mutual capacity-building and technology co-development between the Global North and South. SEAs can also support integrated implementation of other parts of the BBNJ Agreement and contribute to the broader effectiveness of the general provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the protection of the marine environment, within and beyond national jurisdiction

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

Deep-Sea Mining With No Net Loss of Biodiversity—An Impossible Aim

Deep-sea mining is likely to result in biodiversity loss, and the significance of this to ecosystem function is not known. “Out of kind” biodiversity offsets substituting one ecosystem type (e.g., coral reefs) for another (e.g., abyssal nodule fields) have been proposed to compensate for such loss. Here we consider a goal of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity and explore the challenges of applying this aim to deep seabed mining, based on the associated mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate). We conclude that the industry cannot at present deliver an outcome of NNL. This results from the vulnerable nature of deep-sea environments to mining impacts, currently limited technological capacity to minimize harm, significant gaps in ecological knowledge, and uncertainties of recovery potential of deep-sea ecosystems. Avoidance and minimization of impacts are therefore the only presently viable means of reducing biodiversity losses from seabed mining. Because of these constraints, when and if deep-sea mining proceeds, it must be approached in a precautionary and step-wise manner to integrate new and developing knowledge. Each step should be subject to explicit environmental management goals, monitoring protocols, and binding standards to avoid serious environmental harm and minimize loss of biodiversity. “Out of kind” measures, an option for compensation currently proposed, cannot replicate biodiversity and ecosystem services lost through mining of the deep seabed and thus cannot be considered true offsets. The ecosystem functions provided by deep-sea biodiversity contribute to a wide range of provisioning services (e.g., the exploitation of fish, energy, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics), play an essential role in regulatory services (e.g., carbon sequestration) and are important culturally. The level of “acceptable” biodiversity loss in the deep sea requires public, transparent, and well-informed consideration, as well as wide agreement. If accepted, further agreement on how to assess residual losses remaining after the robust implementation of the mitigation hierarchy is also imperative. To ameliorate some of the inter-generational inequity caused by mining-associated biodiversity losses, and only after all NNL measures have been used to the fullest extent, potential compensatory actions would need to be focused on measures to improve the knowledge and protection of the deep sea and to demonstrate benefits that will endure for future generations

Ocean-based climate action and human rights implications under the international climate change regime

After drawing attention to the crucial role of marine biodiversity, including that of deep-sea ecosystems, in current scientific understanding of the ocean-climate nexus, this article highlights the limited extent to which the international climate change regime has so far addressed the ocean. The focus then shifts to how the international climate change regime could contribute to the protection of marine biodiversity as part of mitigation, adaptation and finance, taking into account human rights impacts and standards, drawing a comparison with REDD+. The article concludes with an original proposal, inspired by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, to develop urgent, synergistic approaches to ocean- and human rights-based climate action through a multi-actor coalition, including different international treaties and United Nations bodies, to ‘protect and restore the ocean’s contributions to climate regulation, human well-being and planetary health’

A global snapshot of marine biodiversity offsetting policy

Biodiversity offsetting is used in diverse policy contexts to reduce, halt or reverse losses of biodiversity arising from development or other uses of the natural environment. Despite increasing interest in the concept of biodiversity offsetting, relatively little attention has been devoted to investigating its use in marine environments. This paper presents a systematic review of documents evidencing the application or inclusion of biodiversity offset principles in policy frameworks concerning the marine environment, and in marine development projects. Biodiversity offsetting policies applicable to marine environments were found to exist in six countries (US, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Colombia) and have been actively considered in at least 27 others. Outside of these, a wide range of other approaches promoting uptake of biodiversity offsetting principles in a marine context were identified. These range from preliminary studies to identify potential compensatory habitat, to nascent biodiversity markets, and project-level application of corporate standards of no net loss. Evidence suggests that where offsetting policy is developed for specific marine application, the preferred approach is to pool financial contributions from developers into funds for strategic action for biodiversity benefit

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

Corrigendum: Deep-Sea Mining With No Net Loss of Biodiversity—An Impossible Aim

A corrigendum on Deep-Sea Mining With No Net Loss of Biodiversity—An Impossible Aim by Niner, H. J., Ardron, J. A., Escobar, E. G., Gianni, M., Jaeckel, A., Jones, D. O. B., et al. (2018). Front. Mar. Sci. 5:53. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00053 The terms “offset” and “reef balls” appear in the reference given in our paper, “International Marine Mitigation Bank” (IMMB, 2017), but our referencing is not precise. The following clarifications better direct readers to discussions held in relation to compensation and offsetting for deep-sea mining. • Managing impacts on deep-sea biodiversity, paragraph three: “We also consider the recent suggestion that biodiversity offsetting could be employed in the context of deep-seabed mining (ISA, 2016).” • Offset misuse, paragraph two: “For example, it has been suggested that damage in the deep sea from mining (which will inevitably involve biodiversity loss) might be compensated or offset through an “International Marine Mitigation Bank” (ECO, 2016; ISA, 2016; Fish Reef Project, 2017), which deploys “reef balls”—concrete substrata—to promote coral-reef habitat and biodiversity in shallow-water ecosystems.” The authors state that these clarifications do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated