![]() ![]() So even where it would be misleading to claim a ‘no net loss’ outcome is being achieved, perhaps other forms of compensation could still reduce net environmental harm. If these losses could provide compensation that protected substantial areas elsewhere, then we are at least placing some limits to the loss. Many parts of the world are facing development imperatives so that even a best-case scenario is likely to involve some conversion of natural systems. But it is often used in misleading ways, and in some cases, it is simply infeasible. ‘No net loss’ of biodiversity is an appealing concept – and an important one. But offsets themselves are, by definition, a very strict standard: like-for-like replacement of the biodiversity impacted so that there is no net loss of that biodiversity, compared to what would have occurred without the impact and the offset. The most well-known, and controversial, example of this is biodiversity offsets, also called compensatory mitigation. MM: One of my main research programs at the moment is on compensatory conservation: approaches whereby development that impacts biodiversity can compensate for that impact through doing, or funding, conservation or restoration elsewhere. ![]() What is your current research focus, and how does your work relate to people and biodiversity? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |