Skip to main content

Choosing prevention or cure when mitigating biodiversity loss: trade-offs under ‘no net loss’ policies

Bull, Joseph W., Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2020) Choosing prevention or cure when mitigating biodiversity loss: trade-offs under ‘no net loss’ policies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57 (2). pp. 354-366. ISSN 0021-8901. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13524) (KAR id:77609)

PDF Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English
Download (716kB) Preview
Microsoft Word Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication
Official URL
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13524

Abstract

1. Biodiversity cannot always be conserved. Economic development activities can result in biodiversity losses, but also increase human wellbeing, so trade-offs must sometimes be made between conservation and development. An alternative strategy to avoidance of impacts through the strict protection of biodiversity (‘prevention’) is to permit certain biodiversity losses and fully compensate for them through offsets elsewhere (‘cure’). 2. Here, we build a stochastic simulation model to explore trade-offs between biodiversity loss prevention and cure, in the context of development under ‘no net loss’ (NNL) biodiversity policies. Our model implements a Management Strategy Evaluation framework, monitoring outcomes using four different performance metrics: total biodiversity, net biodiversity, total economic activity, and development activity. 3. We find that a "cure" strategy can potentially perform just as well as a prevention strategy in terms of biodiversity objectives, whilst outperforming the latter from an economic perspective. However, this does not undermine the need for a mitigation hierarchy, and the best-performing strategy depends strongly upon both the degree of compliance with the NNL policy and upon underlying ecological parameters. 4. Perhaps counterintuitively, when evaluated as advised by the technical literature (i.e. against an appropriate counterfactual scenario), we find that net biodiversity outcomes are highest when natural ecosystem recovery rates are slow (so long as development rates are also slow). 5. Finally, using the illustrative example of US wetlands, we suggest that real-world NNL policies could already be driving landscape-scale avoidance of development impacts under a "prevention" approach. 6. Policy implications. No net loss (NNL) biodiversity policy is currently being developed or implemented by over 100 countries worldwide and incorporated into environmental safeguards by multinational lenders. The socio-ecological model presented here can be used to advise decision makers about the best structure for nascent NNL policy on the basis of region-specific ecosystem recovery rates, development activity, legal compliance and monitoring uncertainty. Further, the model presents a means for estimating the degree to which biodiversity impacts are avoided by developers under NNL – an important monitoring consideration given that ensuring high levels of avoidance is crucial to robust NNL policy, but which has to date evaded assessment through purely empirical means.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1111/1365-2664.13524
Uncontrolled keywords: Biodiversity, biodiversity offsets, development, impact avoidance, management strategy evaluation, net gain, no net loss
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > Human Ecology
Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > Biodiversity Conservation Group
Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Depositing User: Joseph Bull
Date Deposited: 18 Oct 2019 22:01 UTC
Last Modified: 20 Oct 2020 23:00 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/77609 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Bull, Joseph W.: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-8977
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year