|
|||||
|
|
Exploring the risks and benefits of flexibility in biodiversity offset location in a case study of migratory shorebirds |
|
| Authors: | Nicole Shumway Megan I Saunders Sam Nicol Richard A Fuller Noam Ben-Moshe Takuya Iwamura Sun W Kim Nicholas J Murray James E M Watson Martine Maron |
| Institution: | 1. Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;2. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
Queensland Bioscience Precinct, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;3. Queensland Ecosciences Precinct, CSIRO Land and Water, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia;4. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;5. School of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel;6. Department F.-A. Forel for Aquatic and Environmental Sciences and Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland;7. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;8. College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia;9. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia School of Earth and Environmental Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia Global Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA;10. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia School of Earth and Environmental Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia |
| Abstract: | Biodiversity offsets aim to counterbalance the residual impacts of development on species and ecosystems. Guidance documents explicitly recommend that biodiversity offset actions be located close to the location of impact because of higher potential for similar ecological conditions, but allowing greater spatial flexibility has been proposed. We examined the circumstances under which offsets distant from the impact location could be more likely to achieve no net loss or provide better ecological outcomes than offsets close to the impact area. We applied a graphical model for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway as a case study to explore the problems that arise when incorporating spatial flexibility into offset planning. Spatially flexible offsets may alleviate impacts more effectively than local offsets; however, the risks involved can be substantial. For our case study, there were inadequate data to make robust conclusions about the effectiveness and equivalence of distant habitat-based offsets for migratory shorebirds. Decisions around offset placement should be driven by the potential to achieve equivalent ecological outcomes; however, when considering more distant offsets, there is a need to evaluate the likely increased risks alongside the potential benefits. Although spatially flexible offsets have the potential to provide more cost-effective biodiversity outcomes and more cobenefits, our case study showed the difficulty of demonstrating these benefits in practice and the potential risks that need to be considered to ensure effective offset placement. |
| Keywords: | biodiversity offset conservation policy migratory shorebirds no net loss aves costeras migratorias compensación de la biodiversidad pérdida neta nula políticas de conservación 生物多样性补偿 保护政策 迁徙滨鸟 无净丧失 |