Environmental mitigation

Last updated

Environmental mitigation refers to the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied. [1] In the context of planning processes like Environmental Impact Assessments, this process is often guided by applying conceptual frameworks like the "mitigation hierarchy" or "mitigation sequence". [2] This generally includes the steps avoid, reduce, restore, and offset. [3] In some countries, environmental mitigation measures, including biodiversity offsetting, may be required by law. [4]

Contents

In practice, environmental mitigation measures might be implemented by establishing new habitat, restoring degraded habitat, and preserving or enhancing existing habitats to offset impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced. [5] It is also often applied with certain objectives for biodiversity levels or specific ecosystems in mind, such as "no net loss" or "net gain". [6]

Terminology

Environmental mitigation can be defined in various ways depending on the institutions and countries where the term is applied, or on the framework that is used to guide mitigation. For example, it may be defined as the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied. [1]

According to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, mitigation is defined as "measures to reduce impacts to the point where they have no adverse effects", including avoidance, minimisation, restoration, offsetting and compensation. [7]

The term mitigation is used synonymously with biodiversity offsetting in some countries. For example, in the US, what is referred to as "biodiversity offsetting" in Australia, the UK, and South Africa comes under the term compensatory mitigation. [8] Biodiversity offsets are classified as a type of mitigation measure and are defined in the United Nations' biodiversity glossary as "measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken." [9]

Climate change mitigation focuses specifically on actions to limit climate change by reducing net greenhouse gas emissions, while the scope of environmental mitigation is broader.

Background

Living Planet Index, global extent, from 1970, with 95% confidence interval, showing decline in species population. 1970- Decline in species populations - Living Planet Index.svg
Living Planet Index, global extent, from 1970, with 95% confidence interval, showing decline in species population.

Biodiversity loss is occurring on a global scale and humans are driving this through changes in land use, exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasive species. [10] According to WWF's Living Planet Report, these drivers are underpinned by rapid economic growth and human population growth over the past 50 years. [11]

The need to address biodiversity loss and to reconcile this with economic development so that sustainability and conservation goals can be met has motivated the development of environmental mitigation measures, like biodiversity offsetting and mitigation banking. [12] A growing awareness of this has led to the expansion of legal requirements for environmental mitigation globally - 191 of the United Nations member states have Environment Impact Assessment legislation and more than 108 countries now have policies for biodiversity offsetting, a form of environmental mitigation. [13] [14]

Aims

Environmental mitigation is often applied with the aim of achieving a specific goal such as "no net loss" (NNL) or a "net positive impact" (NPI) by using frameworks like the mitigation hierarchy. [15] Depending on requirement, aims might be applied on the level of a single development site or on the level of landscapes, regions, and whole countries.

Working towards these aims using the mitigation hierarchy (see § Mitigation hierarchy below) as a tool to guide environmental mitigation measures like biodiversity offsetting has been put forward as a way of contributing to broader societal goals for biodiversity and conservation, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework or nature positive. [18] [19] This is debated and the role of aims like NNL and tools like biodiversity offsetting to achieve or undermine conservation goals is disputed. [20]

Mitigation hierarchy

The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that is commonly used to guide the application of environmental mitigation measures. It aims to manage risks by applying a sequence of steps. [21] The steps of the mitigation hierarchy (and terms used to describe them) vary regionally and across fields. [22] In Environmental Impact Assessments, to which it is commonly applied, the mitigation hierarchy generally includes the following steps: [23] [24]

The importance of applying these steps in order to effectively achieve conservation goals or policy aims (such as no net loss and net gain) has been emphasised. [27]

Application of the mitigation hierarchy as a tool to deal with food waste. Hiearchy of recovery options for mitigating food waste to landfills.JPG
Application of the mitigation hierarchy as a tool to deal with food waste.

An increasing number of policies apply the principles of the mitigation hierarchy to environmental impact assessments that address the impacts of businesses and governments on the environment, including on biodiversity and ecosystem services. [28] In this context, the mitigation hierarchy is usually applied with the goal of achieving no net loss. In some jurisdictions, the application of the mitigation hierarchy is required by law. [29] Requirements for compliance with the mitigation hierarchy are often embedded within regulations to govern Environmental Impact Assessments and environmental licensing systems to evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts of economic development. [30]

Variations to the classical mitigation hierarchy have been proposed, like the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy and the Science Based Target Network's AR3T framework. [31] [32] In addition to its use for biodiversity, alternate versions of the mitigation hierarchy have been proposed for different sectors, such as waste, food waste, energy, and carbon. [22]

Environmental mitigation in the United States

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in 1934 included the first legal expressions of the duty to minimise and compensate for negative environmental impacts. [33] [34] The act was a response to the impacts of rapid urban expansion and dam building in the US on salmon and other migratory fish. [33] [34] These efforts were later expanded on with the introduction of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and with other regulations that require compensatory mitigation for some projects.

In the United States, compensatory mitigation is a commonly used form of environmental mitigation and, for some projects, it is legally required under the Clean Water Act 1972. Compensatory mitigation is defined by the US Department of Agriculture as "measures to restore, create, enhance, and preserve wetlands to offset unavoidable adverse impacts." [35] Early wetland compensatory mitigation was regarded as a failure.

One of the main methods of compensatory mitigation in the US is mitigation banking, a market-based method to offset adverse impacts to wetlands (or streams and other bodies of water) that cannot be either avoided or reduced. [36] This is done by selling credits from mitigation banks, which are sites where activities to preserve, enhance, create, or restore aquatic habitat are conducted and valued in the form of credits. Developers can purchase credits from mitigation banks to offset the "debit" of negative environmental impacts with the aim of achieving no net loss of wetlands. No net loss is the policy objective used to guide compensatory mitigation in the United States, but has since expanded to other countries, where no net loss of biodiversity may be required as the aim of environmental mitigation measures like biodiversity offsets. [20]

Conservation banking is also used in the United States in the context of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as a form of compensatory mitigation. [37]

Biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting is an environmental mitigation measure defined by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme as "measurable conservation outcomes of actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken." [7] It is put forward as the final step of the mitigation hierarchy and regulations require that it is applied only after measures to avoid or reduce impacts. [3]

It is an increasingly popular method of environmental mitigation for businesses and developers, though its suitability and success is debated. [38] More than 100 countries worldwide have biodiversity offsetting requirements and, elsewhere, biodiversity offsetting may be applied as part of lending requirements from international financial institutions like the World Bank or as a voluntary commitment by businesses. [14]

Environmental crediting systems

Environmental mitigation might be conducted using an environmental crediting system (like a biodiversity banking framework) established by governing bodies that allocate debits and credits. Examples of such systems include biodiversity banking (a way to carry out biodiversity offsetting) and its various forms, including mitigation banking, habitat banking, species banking, or conservation banking, dependent on region or the goals of the system for conservation. [39] [12] This might be done with a specific objective, such as no net loss of wetlands for mitigation banking in the United States or no net loss of biodiversity for habitat banks in Colombia. [40] [41]

Credits are generated by banks where a natural resource has been deemed to be improved through conservation or preservation activities at the bank site. [42] Debits arise where significant adverse environment impacts (such as degradation of a habitat or damage to a natural resource) are planned at a permitted site. [43] Where a business or individual has a debit, they might be required to purchase a credit to offset an impact that cannot be otherwise avoided or reduced. [43] For example, England's Biodiversity Net Gain policy requires that developers purchase biodiversity credits from the government if they are unable to achieve a 10% gain in biodiversity by creating or enhancing habitat on their development site. [44] Some entities might also purchase credits form these systems voluntarily. [45]

An example of an environmental crediting system is the mitigation banking system in the United States. [46] This system tends to be used to compensate for impacts on wetlands and other aquatic habitats in advance of their occurrence. [46] It is the preferred method for compensatory mitigation under guidelines set by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and US Army Corps of Engineers - the agencies tasked with regulating mitigation banking in the United States. [47] As part of this system, credits are purchased from mitigation banks by anyone who incurs a debit from impacts to wetlands and other aquatic habitats that cannot otherwise be avoided or reduced. [40] Mitigation banks are sites where mitigation projects have been carried out, such as preservation, enhancement, restoration, or habitat creation. [48]

Separate from biodiversity offsetting, nature credits might be purchased as a way for companies to achieve environmental commitments (such as commitments to work towards a nature positive economy) by helping to fund initiatives like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework or national biodiversity strategies. [49] [50]

Issues

Determining the currency that a system will be based on and ensuring that debits and credits are ecologically equivalent are considered challenging issues for environmental crediting systems. [51] There is no single agreed upon method for determining the value of credits to ensure that biodiversity lost and gained have an equivalent value. [52] Ensuring that the outcomes of conservation projects used to generate credits are better for biodiversity than if the projects had not happened (a concept called additionality) is another challenge. [53]

One reason for this is the complexity of assessing the value of biodiversity, such as in terms of ecosystem services, both across different habitats and over time in the same habitat. [54] The principle of quantifying biodiversity value by using credit and debit units is debated, with some people considering it an impossible task or reject the idea for ethical reasons. [55] [56]

The use of credit ratios has been proposed as a method to address uncertainties. [12] In the United States, regulators often assign 'mitigation ratios' in the case of compensatory mitigation agreements. The ratio is used to compare the acres of wetland impacted at a development site with the gains at the proposed mitigation bank to determine how many mitigation credits are needed to achieve no net loss or better. [43] For example, coverage ratios of 3:1 would require 3 compensatory mitigation credits for each unit of "debit" caused by an ecological disturbance.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Resource depletion</span> Depletion of natural organic and inorganic resources

Resource depletion is the consumption of a resource faster than it can be replenished. Natural resources are commonly divided between renewable resources and non-renewable resources. The use of either of these forms of resources beyond their rate of replacement is considered to be resource depletion. The value of a resource is a direct result of its availability in nature and the cost of extracting the resource. The more a resource is depleted the more the value of the resource increases. There are several types of resource depletion, including but not limited to: mining for fossil fuels and minerals, deforestation, pollution or contamination of resources, wetland and ecosystem degradation, soil erosion, overconsumption, aquifer depletion, and the excessive or unnecessary use of resources. Resource depletion is most commonly used in reference to farming, fishing, mining, water usage, and the consumption of fossil fuels. Depletion of wildlife populations is called defaunation.

Conservation status is a measure used in conservation biology to assess an ecoregion's degree of habitat alteration and habitat conservation. It is used to set priorities for conservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat conservation</span> Management practice for protecting types of environments

Habitat conservation is a management practice that seeks to conserve, protect and restore habitats and prevent species extinction, fragmentation or reduction in range. It is a priority of many groups that cannot be easily characterized in terms of any one ideology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land development</span> Landscape alteration

Land development is the alteration of landscape in any number of ways such as:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat destruction</span> Process by which a natural habitat becomes incapable of supporting its native species

Habitat destruction occurs when a natural habitat is no longer able to support its native species. The organisms once living there have either moved to elsewhere or are dead, leading to a decrease in biodiversity and species numbers. Habitat destruction is in fact the leading cause of biodiversity loss and species extinction worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon offsets and credits</span> Carbon dioxide reduction scheme

Carbon offsetting is a carbon trading mechanism that enables entities to compensate for offset greenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credit or offset credit, which account for the net climate benefits that one entity brings to another. After certification by a government or independent certification body, credits can be traded between entities. One carbon credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e).

Mitigation is the reduction of something harmful that has occurred or the reduction of its harmful effects. It may refer to measures taken to reduce the harmful effects of hazards that remain in potentia, or to manage harmful incidents that have already occurred. It is a stage or component of emergency management and of risk management. The theory of mitigation is a frequently used element in criminal law and is often used by a judge to try cases such as murder, where a perpetrator is subject to varying degrees of responsibility as a result of one's actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biodiversity action plan</span>

A biodiversity action plan (BAP) is an internationally recognized program addressing threatened species and habitats and is designed to protect and restore biological systems. The original impetus for these plans derives from the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). As of 2009, 191 countries have ratified the CBD, but only a fraction of these have developed substantive BAP documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mitigation banking</span> Market-based system to compensate for environmental impacts to wetlands

Mitigation banking is a market-based system of debits and credits that involves restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for unavoidable impacts to a wetland in another location. It involves a system of mitigation banks, sites where projects to restore, create, or enhance wetlands can be carried out in advance of impacts. The outcomes of these projects are valued through the creation of compensatory mitigation credits that can be purchased from mitigation banks to offset the negative impacts of developments or agriculture expansion on wetlands and aquatic habitats. This process is generally conducted with the aim of achieving no net loss of function and value for specific aquatic habitats, such as in terms of the biodiversity or ecosystem services provided by a wetland.

This is a glossary of environmental science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wetland conservation</span> Conservation of wet areas

Wetland conservation is aimed at protecting and preserving areas of land including marshes, swamps, bogs, and fens that are covered by water seasonally or permanently due to a variety of threats from both natural and anthropogenic hazards. Some examples of these hazards include habitat loss, pollution, and invasive species. Wetland vary widely in their salinity levels, climate zones, and surrounding geography and play a crucial role in maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem services, and support human communities. Wetlands cover at least six percent of the Earth and have become a focal issue for conservation due to the ecosystem services they provide. More than three billion people, around half the world's population, obtain their basic water needs from inland freshwater wetlands. They provide essential habitats for fish and various wildlife species, playing a vital role in purifying polluted waters and mitigating the damaging effects of floods and storms. Furthermore, they offer a diverse range of recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, photography, and wildlife observation.

Biodiversity banking, also known as biodiversity trading, conservation banking, mitigation banking, habitat banking, compensatory habitat, or set-asides, describes a market-based framework for biodiversity offsetting where offsets can be traded in the form of credits to offset negative environmental impacts of development projects or activities. This involves biodiversity banks, areas with biodiversity value. On the site of a biodiversity bank, conservation activities may be carried out to preserve, restore, enhance, or conserve biodiversity. The outcomes of projects carried out at biodiversity banks are valued in the form of credits, which can be purchased as a way to offset unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, often with the aim of achieving no net loss of biodiversity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No net loss wetlands policy</span> Environmental policy goal for wetland conservation in the United States

"No net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact of mining</span> Environmental problems from uncontrolled mining

Environmental impact of mining can occur at local, regional, and global scales through direct and indirect mining practices. Mining can cause erosion, sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, or the contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water by chemicals emitted from mining processes. These processes also affect the atmosphere through carbon emissions which contributes to climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biodiversity offsetting</span> System to mitigation negative development impacts

Biodiversity offsetting is a system used predominantly by planning authorities and developers to fully compensate for biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, through the planning process. In some circumstances, biodiversity offsets are designed to result in an overall biodiversity gain. Offsetting is generally considered the final stage in a mitigation hierarchy, whereby predicted biodiversity impacts must first be avoided, minimised and reversed by developers, before any remaining impacts are offset. The mitigation hierarchy serves to meet the environmental policy principle of "No Net Loss" of biodiversity alongside development.

The Lacassane Company is a land management company, with a goal of sustainable land management using an environmental management scheme that involves a host of tools including holistic management. Located primarily in Jefferson Davis and Cameron parish, with property in Ragley, Louisiana, the company headquarters is in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation banking</span>

Conservation banking is an environmental market-based method designed to offset adverse effects, generally, to species of concern, are threatened, or endangered and protected under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the creation of conservation banks. Conservation banking can be viewed as a method of mitigation that allows permitting agencies to target various natural resources typically of value or concern, and it is generally contemplated as a protection technique to be implemented before the valued resource or species will need to be mitigated. The ESA prohibits the "taking" of fish and wildlife species which are officially listed as endangered or threatened in their populations. However, under section 7(a)(2) for Federal Agencies, and under section 10(a) for private parties, a take may be permissible for unavoidable impacts if there are conservation mitigation measures for the affected species or habitat. Purchasing “credits” through a conservation bank is one such mitigation measure to remedy the loss.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wetlands and wetland policies in Canada</span>

Canadian wetlands account for approximately one quarter of the world's total wetlands and is ranked with the highest surface area of wetlands on the Ramsar Conventions List of Wetlands of International Importance. Canada holds 37 designated areas of International Importance which equates to approximately 13,086,767 hectares of land.

A Biodiversity Impact Credit (BIC) is a transferable biodiversity credit designed to reduce global species extinction risk. The underlying BIC metric, developed by academics working at Queen Mary University of London and Bar-Ilan University, is given by a simple formula that quantifies the positive and negative effects that interventions in nature have on the mean long-term survival probability of species. In particular, an organisation's global footprint in terms of BICs can be computed from PDF-based biodiversity footprints. The metric is broadly applicable across taxa and ecosystems. Organisations whose overall biodiversity impact is positive in terms of the BIC metric contribute to achieving the objective of the Global Biodiversity Framework to "significantly reduce extinction risk".

Nature positive is a concept and goal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, and to achieve full nature recovery by 2050. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the aim is to achieve this through "measurable gains in the health, abundance, diversity, and resilience of species, ecosystems, and natural processes." Progress towards this goal is generally measured from a biodiversity baseline of 2020 levels.

References

  1. 1 2 "Mitigation | Caltrans". dot.ca.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  2. ↑ "Mitigation hierarchy - The Biodiversity Consultancy". www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  3. 1 2 "Mitigation Hierarchy". Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  4. ↑ "Mitigation and onsite works | Ecology by Design". | Ecology by Design. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  5. ↑ US EPA, OW (2015-06-22). "Background about Compensatory Mitigation Requirements under CWA Section 404". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  6. ↑ "Biodiversity offsets". www.iucn.org. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  7. 1 2 "Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Glossary 2018". Forest Trends. 2018-11-02. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  8. ↑ Bull, Joseph W.; Gordon, Ascelin; Watson, James E. M.; Maron, Martine (2016). Carvalho, Silvia (ed.). "Seeking convergence on the key concepts in 'no net loss' policy". Journal of Applied Ecology. 53 (6): 1686–1693. Bibcode:2016JApEc..53.1686B. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12726. ISSN   0021-8901.
  9. ↑ "Biodiversity offsets definition| Biodiversity A-Z". biodiversitya-z.org. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
  10. ↑ IPBES (2019-11-25). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Report). doi:10.5281/zenodo.3553579.
  11. ↑ Ledger, Sophie E. H.; Loh, Jonathan; Almond, Rosamunde; Böhm, Monika; Clements, Christopher F.; Currie, Jessica; Deinet, Stefanie; Galewski, Thomas; Grooten, Monique; Jenkins, Martin; Marconi, Valentina; Painter, Brett; Scott-Gatty, Kate; Young, Lucy; Hoffmann, Michael (2023-06-01). "Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index". npj Biodiversity. 2 (1). doi:10.1038/s44185-023-00017-3. ISSN   2731-4243.
  12. 1 2 3 Carroll, N., Fox, J. (Jessica A. ), & Bayon, R. (2008). Conservation and biodiversity banking : a guide to setting up and running biodiversity credit trading systems. Earthscan.
  13. ↑ Morgan, Richard K. (2012). "Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art". Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 30 (1): 5–14. Bibcode:2012IAPA...30....5M. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557. ISSN   1461-5517.
  14. 1 2 Bull, Joseph William; Strange, Niels (2018). "The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies". Nature Sustainability. 1 (12): 790–798. Bibcode:2018NatSu...1..790B. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0176-z. ISSN   2398-9629.
  15. ↑ "'No Net Loss' and 'Net Gain' of biodiversity". Forest Trends. 2018-09-07. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  16. ↑ "No-net loss definition| Biodiversity A-Z". www.biodiversitya-z.org. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  17. ↑ "Net positive impact (NPI) definition| Biodiversity A-Z". www.biodiversitya-z.org. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  18. ↑ Unit, Biosafety. "Target 19". www.cbd.int. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  19. ↑ Maron, Martine; Quétier, Fabien; Sarmiento, Mariana; ten Kate, Kerry; Evans, Megan C.; Bull, Joseph W.; Jones, Julia P. G.; zu Ermgassen, Sophus O. S. E.; Milner-Gulland, E. J.; Brownlie, Susie; Treweek, Jo; von Hase, Amrei (2024). "'Nature positive' must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 8 (1): 14–17. doi:10.1038/s41559-023-02199-2. ISSN   2397-334X.
  20. 1 2 zu Ermgassen, Sophus Olav Sven Emil; Utamiputri, Pratiwi; Bennun, Leon; Edwards, Stephen; Bull, Joseph William (2019). "The Role of "No Net Loss" Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom". One Earth. 1 (3): 305–315. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.019. ISSN   2590-3322.
  21. ↑ BBOP & UNEP (2010) Mitigation Hierarchy. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme & United Nations Environment Programme, Washington DC, USA, https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20230311043000/https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec_habitat_exec_sum.pdf
  22. 1 2 WWF (2020-04-27). "First Things First: Avoid, Reduce … and only after that–Compensate". WWF. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  23. ↑ Arlidge, William N S; Bull, Joseph W; Addison, Prue F E; Burgass, Michael J; Gianuca, Dimas; Gorham, Taylor M; Jacob, Céline; Shumway, Nicole; Sinclair, Samuel P; Watson, James E M; Wilcox, Chris; Milner-Gulland, E J (2018-05-01). "A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation". BioScience. 68 (5): 336–347. doi:10.1093/biosci/biy029. ISSN   0006-3568. PMC   5925785 . PMID   29731513.
  24. ↑ "Mitigation Hierarchy". Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  25. ↑ Phalan, Ben; Hayes, Genevieve; Brooks, Sharon; Marsh, David; Howard, Pippa; Costelloe, Brendan; Vira, Bhaskar; Kowalska, Aida; Whitaker, Samir (2018). "Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy". Oryx. 52 (2): 316–324. doi:10.1017/S0030605316001034. ISSN   0030-6053.
  26. ↑ Bullock, James M.; Aronson, James; Newton, Adrian C.; Pywell, Richard F.; Rey-Benayas, Jose M. (2011). "Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 26 (10): 541–549. Bibcode:2011TEcoE..26..541B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011. hdl: 10017/40628 . PMID   21782273.
  27. ↑ Mackie, Harriet (2024-04-30). "Mitigation Hierarchy: Explanation & Stages". Gaia. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  28. ↑ Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Addison, Prue; Arlidge, William N.S.; Baker, Julia; Booth, Hollie; Brooks, Thomas; Bull, Joseph W.; Burgass, Michael J.; Ekstrom, Jon; zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E.; Fleming, L. Vincent; Grub, Henry M.J.; von Hase, Amrei; Hoffmann, Michael; Hutton, Jonathan (2021). "Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework". One Earth. 4 (1): 75–87. Bibcode:2021OEart...4...75M. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011. ISSN   2590-3322.
  29. ↑ "Biodiversity offsets and the mitigation hierarchy: a review of current application in the banking sector" (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. 2010. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  30. ↑ Villarroya, Ana; Barros, Ana Cristina; Kiesecker, Joseph (2014-09-05). "Policy Development for Environmental Licensing and Biodiversity Offsets in Latin America". PLOS ONE. 9 (9): e107144. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j7144V. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107144 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4156437 . PMID   25191758.
  31. ↑ Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Addison, Prue; Arlidge, William N.S.; Baker, Julia; Booth, Hollie; Brooks, Thomas; Bull, Joseph W.; Burgass, Michael J.; Ekstrom, Jon; zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E.; Fleming, L. Vincent; Grub, Henry M.J.; von Hase, Amrei; Hoffmann, Michael; Hutton, Jonathan (2021). "Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework". One Earth. 4 (1): 75–87. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011. ISSN   2590-3322.
  32. ↑ "Act". Science Based Targets Network. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  33. 1 2 "Environmental Mitigation Regulations | U.S. Department of the Interior". www.doi.gov. 2016-10-04. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  34. 1 2 Veiluva, Michael. (1981). The fish and wildlife coordination act in environmental litigation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 9(3), 489-518.
  35. ↑ National Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture (2024-08-02). "Conservation compliance glossary". National Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  36. ↑ United States Environmental Protection Agency (2024-08-02). "Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation" (PDF). Retrieved 2024-08-02.
  37. ↑ White, Thomas B.; Bull, Joseph W.; Toombs, Theodore P.; Knight, Andrew T. (2021). "Uncovering opportunities for effective species conservation banking requires navigating technical and practical complexities". Conservation Science and Practice. 3 (7). Bibcode:2021ConSP...3E.431W. doi:10.1111/csp2.431. ISSN   2578-4854.
  38. ↑ "Does biodiversity offsetting work?". British Ecological Society. 2023-12-05. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  39. ↑ Froger, Géraldine; Ménard, Sophie; Méral, Philippe (2015-10-01). "Towards a comparative and critical analysis of biodiversity banks". Ecosystem Services. 15: 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.018. ISSN   2212-0416.
  40. 1 2 "Mitigation Trade: Making Up for Environmental Harm". Investopedia. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  41. ↑ Colombia, Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (2018). "Bancos de Hábitat" (PDF). Minambiente. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  42. ↑ "Conservation and Mitigation Banking". wildlife.ca.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  43. 1 2 3 "Mitigation Banking 101: How Does Mitigation Banking Work?". The Mitigation Banking Group. 2022-11-01. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  44. ↑ "Understanding biodiversity net gain". GOV.UK. 2024-02-22. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  45. ↑ Pollination (2023). "State of Voluntary Biodiversity Credit Markets" (PDF). Pollination Group. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  46. 1 2 US EPA, OW (2015-06-16). "Mitigation Banks under CWA Section 404". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  47. ↑ Hough, Palmer, and Rachel Harrington. "Ten years of the compensatory mitigation rule: reflections on progress and opportunities." Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 49 (2019): 10018.
  48. ↑ Washington State Department of Ecology (2007). "Frequently Asked Questions about Wetland Mitigation Banking" (PDF). Washington State Department of Ecology. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  49. ↑ "Nature Credit Markets". www.conservation.org. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  50. ↑ Swinfield, Tom; Shrikanth, Siddarth; Bull, Joseph W.; Madhavapeddy, Anil; zu Ermgassen, Sophus O. S. E. (2024-08-06). "Nature-based credit markets at a crossroads". Nature Sustainability: 1–4. doi:10.1038/s41893-024-01403-w. ISSN   2398-9629.
  51. ↑ White, Thomas B.; Bull, Joseph W.; Toombs, Theodore P.; Knight, Andrew T. (2021). "Uncovering opportunities for effective species conservation banking requires navigating technical and practical complexities". Conservation Science and Practice. 3 (7). doi:10.1111/csp2.431. ISSN   2578-4854.
  52. ↑ "Drivers of loss: a way forward for biodiversity claims?". BeZero Carbon. 2024-02-01. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  53. ↑ Galeano, Victoria (2024-06-17). "Nature's Currency: How Biodiversity Credits are Reshaping Conservation". Latin Trade. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  54. ↑ "Measuring Biodiversity: The Quest for a Common Metric". www.climateimpact.com. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
  55. ↑ "Biodiversity credits: everything you need to know". British Ecological Society. 2023-09-07. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  56. ↑ Maron, Martine; Ives, Christopher D.; Kujala, Heini; Bull, Joseph W.; Maseyk, Fleur J. F.; Bekessy, Sarah; Gordon, Ascelin; Watson, James E.M.; Lentini, Pia E.; Gibbons, Philip; Possingham, Hugh P.; Hobbs, Richard J.; Keith, David A.; Wintle, Brendan A.; Evans, Megan C. (2016-04-13). "Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting". BioScience. 66 (6): 489–498. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw038. ISSN   0006-3568.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.