Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts
Conservation Letters, Volume 6, No. 5, Year 2013
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Biodiversity offsetting is increasingly being used to reconcile the objectives of conservation and development. It is generally acknowledged that there are limits to the kinds of impacts on biodiversity that can or should be offset, yet there is a paucity of policy guidance as to what defines these limits and the relative difficulty of achieving a successful offset as such limits are approached. In order to improve the consistency and defensibility of development decisions involving offsets, and to improve offset design, we outline a general process for evaluating the relative offsetability of different impacts on biodiversity. This process culminates in a framework that establishes the burden of proof necessary to confirm the appropriateness and achievability of offsets, given varying levels of: conservation concern for affected biodiversity; residual impact magnitude; opportunity for suitable offsets; and feasibility of offset implementation in practice. Rankings for biodiversity conservation concern are drawn from existing conservation planning tools and approaches, including the IUCN Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas, and international bank environmental safeguard policies. We hope that the proposed process will stimulate much-needed scientific and policy debate to improve the integrity and accountability of both regulated and voluntary biodiversity offsetting. ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors & Co-Authors
Pilgrim, John D.
Unknown Affiliation
Brownlie, Susie
Unknown Affiliation
Ekstrom, J. M.M.
Unknown Affiliation
Gardner, Toby Alan
Unknown Affiliation
von Hase, Amrei
Unknown Affiliation
Kate, Kerry ten
Unknown Affiliation
Savy, Conrad E.
Unknown Affiliation
Stephens, R. T.Theo
Unknown Affiliation
Temple, Helen Jane
Unknown Affiliation
Treweek, Jo
Unknown Affiliation
Ussher, Graham T.
Unknown Affiliation
Ward, Gerri
Unknown Affiliation
Statistics
Citations: 117
Authors: 12
Affiliations: 10
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1111/conl.12002
e-ISSN:
1755263X
Research Areas
Health System And Policy