6 results on '"ten Kate, Kerry"'
Search Results
2. Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss.
- Author
-
Gardner TA, VON Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RT, Treweek J, Ussher GT, Ward G, and Ten Kate K
- Subjects
- Risk, Time Factors, Biodiversity, Conservation of Natural Resources methods
- Abstract
Businesses, governments, and financial institutions are increasingly adopting a policy of no net loss of biodiversity for development activities. The goal of no net loss is intended to help relieve tension between conservation and development by enabling economic gains to be achieved without concomitant biodiversity losses. biodiversity offsets represent a necessary component of a much broader mitigation strategy for achieving no net loss following prior application of avoidance, minimization, and remediation measures. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate use of biodiversity offsets. We examined what no net loss means as a desirable conservation outcome and reviewed the conditions that determine whether, and under what circumstances, biodiversity offsets can help achieve such a goal. We propose a conceptual framework to substitute the often ad hoc approaches evident in many biodiversity offset initiatives. The relevance of biodiversity offsets to no net loss rests on 2 fundamental premises. First, offsets are rarely adequate for achieving no net loss of biodiversity alone. Second, some development effects may be too difficult or risky, or even impossible, to offset. To help to deliver no net loss through biodiversity offsets, biodiversity gains must be comparable to losses, be in addition to conservation gains that may have occurred in absence of the offset, and be lasting and protected from risk of failure. Adherence to these conditions requires consideration of the wider landscape context of development and offset activities, timing of offset delivery, measurement of biodiversity, accounting procedures and rule sets used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains and guide offset design, and approaches to managing risk. Adoption of this framework will strengthen the potential for offsets to provide an ecologically defensible mechanism that can help reconcile conservation and development. Balances de Biodiversidad y el Reto de No Obtener Pérdida Neta., (© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.) more...
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
3. Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity.
- Author
-
Simmonds, Jeremy S., von Hase, Amrei, Quétier, Fabien, Brownlie, Susie, Maron, Martine, Possingham, Hugh P., Souquet, Mathieu, zu Ermgassen, Sophus O. S. E., ten Kate, Kerry, Costa, Hugo M., and Sonter, Laura J. more...
- Subjects
CORPORATE profits ,CONVENTION on Biological Diversity (1992) ,ECOLOGICAL modernization ,BIODIVERSITY - Abstract
Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g., offsetting) are requiring "net gain" outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) proposed ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in net gain policy to align outcomes with biodiversity recovery goals: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains, which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where (3) gains are demonstrably feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, which risks undermining efforts to achieve the proposed Post‐2020 GBF milestones and goals, as well as other jurisdictional policy imperatives to halt and reverse biodiversity decline. To guide future decision‐making, we provide a supporting decision tree outlining net gain compensation feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Setting robust biodiversity goals.
- Author
-
Maron, Martine, Juffe‐Bignoli, Diego, Krueger, Linda, Kiesecker, Joseph, Kümpel, Noëlle F., ten Kate, Kerry, Milner‐Gulland, E.J., Arlidge, William N. S., Booth, Hollie, Bull, Joseph W., Starkey, Malcolm, Ekstrom, Jonathan M., Strassburg, Bernardo, Verburg, Peter H., and Watson, James E. M. more...
- Subjects
GENETIC variation ,GOAL (Psychology) ,NET losses ,BIOLOGICAL extinction ,BIODIVERSITY ,ECOSYSTEMS ,CORPORATE profits - Abstract
The new global biodiversity framework (GBF) being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity must drive action to reverse the ongoing decline of the Earth's biodiversity. Explicit, measurable goals that specify the outcomes we want to achieve are needed to set the course for this action. However, the current draft goals and targets fail to set out these clear outcomes. We argue that distinct outcome goals for species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity are essential and should specify net outcomes required for each. Net outcome goals such as "no net loss" do, however, have a controversial history, and loose specification can lead to perverse outcomes. We outline seven general principles to underpin net outcome goal setting that minimize risk of such perverse outcomes. Finally, we recommend inclusion of statements of impact in action targets that support biodiversity goals, and we illustrate the importance of this with an example from the draft GBF action targets. These modifications would help reveal the specific contribution each action would make to achieving the outcome goals and provide clarity on whether the successful achievement of action targets would be adequate to achieve the outcome goals and, in turn, the 2050 vision: living in harmony with nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target‐based approach for ecological compensation.
- Author
-
Simmonds, Jeremy S., Sonter, Laura J., Watson, James E.M., Bennun, Leon, Costa, Hugo M., Dutson, Guy, Edwards, Stephen, Grantham, Hedley, Griffiths, Victoria F., Jones, Julia P.G., Kiesecker, Joseph, Possingham, Hugh P., Puydarrieux, Philippe, Quétier, Fabien, Rainer, Helga, Rainey, Hugo, Roe, Dilys, Savy, Conrad E., Souquet, Mathieu, and ten Kate, Kerry more...
- Subjects
BIODIVERSITY ,NET losses ,BIODIVERSITY conservation ,WAGES ,ENVIRONMENTAL impact analysis - Abstract
Loss of habitats or ecosystems arising from development projects (e.g., infrastructure, resource extraction, urban expansion) are frequently addressed through biodiversity offsetting. As currently implemented, offsetting typically requires an outcome of "no net loss" of biodiversity, but only relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline. This type of "relative" no net loss entrenches ongoing biodiversity loss, and is misaligned with biodiversity targets that require "absolute" no net loss or "net gain." Here, we review the limitations of biodiversity offsetting, and in response, propose a new framework for compensating for biodiversity losses from development in a way that is aligned explicitly with jurisdictional biodiversity targets. In the framework, targets for particular biodiversity features are achieved via one of three pathways: Net Gain, No Net Loss, or (rarely) Managed Net Loss. We outline how to set the type ("Maintenance" or "Improvement") and amount of ecological compensation that is appropriate for proportionately contributing to the achievement of different targets. This framework advances ecological compensation beyond a reactive, ad‐hoc response, to ensuring alignment between actions addressing residual biodiversity losses and achievement of overarching targets for biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Correct framing of biodiversity offsets and conservation: a response to Apostolopoulou & Adams.
- Author
-
von Hase, Amrei and ten Kate, Kerry
- Subjects
- *
BIODIVERSITY , *CONSERVATION & restoration - Abstract
We read with great interest the opinions of Apostolopoulou & Adams (2015) on biodiversity offsetting. We agree with the authors that offsetting has more profound implications than a technical approach to the subject would suggest. Our experience with developments on the mitigation of impacts on biodiversity in government policy, financial lenders’ safeguards and corporate practice is that the political, economic, social and financial implications weigh just as heavily in decision-makers’ minds as the technical ones that Apostolopoulou & Adams raise (IFC, 2012; BBOP, 2012b; ten Kate & Crowe, 2014; IUCN, 2016; Maron et al., 2016b). The governments, companies and communities working with scientists on the mitigation hierarchy regard biodiversity offsets as one of many tools available not only for conservation but also for risk management, social and economic engagement and benefit-sharing, land-use and landscape-level planning, and sustainable development (IFC, 2012; CSBI, 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.