IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v11y2020i1d10.1038_s41467-020-15861-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals

Author

Listed:
  • Laura J. Sonter

    (The University of Queensland
    The University of Queensland)

  • Jeremy S. Simmonds

    (The University of Queensland
    The University of Queensland)

  • James E. M. Watson

    (The University of Queensland
    The University of Queensland
    Global Conservation Program)

  • Julia P. G. Jones

    (College of Engineering and Environmental Science, Bangor University)

  • Joseph M. Kiesecker

    (The Nature Conservancy)

  • Hugo M. Costa

    (Global Conservation Program)

  • Leon Bennun

    (3E King’s Parade, Cambridge CB2 1SJ, UK and Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge)

  • Stephen Edwards

    (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

  • Hedley S. Grantham

    (Global Conservation Program)

  • Victoria F. Griffiths

    (University of Oxford, Zoology Research and Administration Building)

  • Kendall Jones

    (Global Conservation Program)

  • Kei Sochi

    (The Nature Conservancy)

  • Philippe Puydarrieux

    (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

  • Fabien Quétier

    (Biotope, 22 Boulevard Maréchal Foch)

  • Helga Rainer

    (Arcus Foundation, CB1 Business Centre, Leda House)

  • Hugo Rainey

    (Global Conservation Program)

  • Dilys Roe

    (International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED))

  • Musnanda Satar

    (Yayasan Konservasi Alam Nusantara)

  • Britaldo S. Soares-Filho

    (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais)

  • Malcolm Starkey

    (3E King’s Parade, Cambridge CB2 1SJ, UK and Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge)

  • Kerry ten Kate

    (Forest Trends)

  • Ray Victurine

    (Global Conservation Program)

  • Amrei von Hase

    (Forest Trends)

  • Jessie A. Wells

    (The University of Queensland)

  • Martine Maron

    (The University of Queensland
    The University of Queensland)

Abstract

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura J. Sonter & Jeremy S. Simmonds & James E. M. Watson & Julia P. G. Jones & Joseph M. Kiesecker & Hugo M. Costa & Leon Bennun & Stephen Edwards & Hedley S. Grantham & Victoria F. Griffiths & Kenda, 2020. "Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:11:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-020-15861-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15861-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15861-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-020-15861-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junran Dong & Desheng Wu & Jingxiu Song & Jie Lu, 2022. "Gauging the environmental efficiency with ecological compensation in presence of missing data using data envelopment analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 5451-5472, April.
    2. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Barral, Stéphanie & Guillet, Fanny, 2023. "Preserving peri-urban land through biodiversity offsets: Between market transactions and planning regulations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Thomas B. White & Leonardo R. Viana & Geneviève Campbell & Claire Elverum & Leon A. Bennun, 2021. "Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3502-3516, December.
    5. Fassina, Caroline & Jarvis, Diane & Tavares, Silvia & Coggan, Anthea, 2022. "Valuation of ecosystem services through offsets: Why are coastal ecosystems more valuable in Australia than in Brazil?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Mello, Kaline de & Fendrich, Arthur Nicolaus & Borges-Matos, Clarice & Brites, Alice Dantas & Tavares, Paulo André & da Rocha, Gustavo Casoni & Matsumoto, Marcelo & Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro & Joly, , 2021. "Integrating ecological equivalence for native vegetation compensation: A methodological approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:11:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-020-15861-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.