As I have recently suggested, I am launching a new poll on the Biodiversity Offsets Blog. Thanks to all who have contributed to shaping this in the related LinkedIn discussion.
As a result the OUTCOME or SUCCESS of biodiversity offsets have been identified as a crucial factor (that also determines the credibility and reliability of offsets).
Like the last poll, this one consists of two related questions. Please vote on both of them and leave a comment below for any further explanation. Thanks!
Poll #2
Loading … Loading …
You can only measure success against a stated objective. Usually the problem is defining the objective not its measurement.
Very true, Mark. Thanks. That’s why I framed the second question around the definition of success or in your words the different objectives that an action thrives for, in order to be called “successful”. However, as long as the objective is kind of very general and abstract (who can tell exactly what “no net loss” of an ecosystem means?!), all evaluations of success remain vague…
Yes. This is a program evaluation question. How you assess success will depend to some extent on what the objective(s) of the offset is. But likely you would use a range of approaches — just as in any real world complex program evaluation.
Of course, Andrew, success is obviously shaped by the objectives that you set in the very beginning, i.e. whether you set low level or high level targets will give a different evaluation of success (even though the actual outcome on the ground may be the same)
The largest challenges have to do with baseline and leakage. We are on a trajectory of ever deceasing baselines. Even if you maintain or increase biodiversity on one site, typically project impacts are simply occur somewhere else. There is a similar problem with forest carbon offsets in managed forests. Even if you reduce the timber harvest levels in location A, global demand will often result in increased timber harvest elsewhere to compensate for reductions at location A.
very true, Andy! So would you call for a global No Net Loss target/scheme? It would most likely be very idealistic to have an overarching worldwide compensation requirement so that the shift from one location to another (because the demand stays the same as you have pointed out) does not occur. Or don’t you think that is ever possible?
Obviously, we need to reduce the demand and thus change our behaviour…
On a purely personal note — I’ve always thought nature worth valuing purely for its own sake and resist attempts to value this in monetary terms aka ecosystems approach etc. I recognise, however that our policy makers, governments and politicans have generally adopted and advocate this ‘modern’ approach so as to justify both policy and public expenditure !
That said, biodiversity offsets are likely to remain an important tool for the future but will need monitoring to ensure that any attempt to make do with a minimalistic approach. In the UK, I would profer the opinion that developers and planners mostly work to a ‘minimalistic’ standard.
I think it is best to provide a restored condition that is so much more than the degraded condition that it is obvious that there has been a benefit. I would be happy to share PowerPoint segments that illustrate this point for folks who are interested. Send me an e-mail at the above e-mail and I can send you the segments.
David, Thanks for sharing your insights. I’d be very interested in your Powerpoint Slides and probably many other people are. Please do send me the slides to m.darbi[at]ioer.de. Maybe this would also make a great post for the Biodiversity Offsets Blog — what do you think?