BioBanking: An environmental scientist's view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation

Shelley Burgin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

91 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Offsets, first formalised in the United States of America in the 1970s for wetland mitigation, are now widely used globally with the aim to mitigate loss of biodiversity due to development. Embracing biodiversity offsets is one method of governments to meet their commitments under the Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Resource extraction companies see them as a method of gaining access to land, while the community may perceive them as a way of enhancing environmental outcomes. In New South Wales, Australia, BioBanking legislation was introduced in late 2006 with the aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity associated with development, particularly expanding urban and coastal development. The strengths of the legislation are that it aims to enhance threatened species conservation, and raise the profile of conservation of threatened species and habitats. Weaknesses include (1) the narrowness of the definition of biodiversity; (2) the concepts are based on a flawed logic and immature, imprecise and complex science which results in difficulties in determining biodiversity values; (3) likely problems with management and compliance; and (4) an overall lack of resources for implementation and long-term monitoring. It is concluded that the legislation is a concerted effort to deal with biodiversity loss, however, stakeholders have concerns with the process, and it is unworkable with the complexity of such ecosystems (compared for example to carbon credit trading), and underdeveloped disciplines such as restoration biology and ecology. Despite these criticisms, there is a need for all stakeholders to work to improve the outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)807-816
Number of pages10
JournalBiodiversity and Conservation
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

banking
biodiversity
legislation
laws and regulations
threatened species
stakeholder
stakeholders
coastal development
species conservation
carbon markets
resource
pollution control
urban development
compliance
conservation banking
New South Wales
mitigation
wetland
wetlands
ecology

Cite this

@article{da068bc9892f46a4b7e72a5e296bbf19,
title = "BioBanking: An environmental scientist's view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation",
abstract = "Offsets, first formalised in the United States of America in the 1970s for wetland mitigation, are now widely used globally with the aim to mitigate loss of biodiversity due to development. Embracing biodiversity offsets is one method of governments to meet their commitments under the Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Resource extraction companies see them as a method of gaining access to land, while the community may perceive them as a way of enhancing environmental outcomes. In New South Wales, Australia, BioBanking legislation was introduced in late 2006 with the aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity associated with development, particularly expanding urban and coastal development. The strengths of the legislation are that it aims to enhance threatened species conservation, and raise the profile of conservation of threatened species and habitats. Weaknesses include (1) the narrowness of the definition of biodiversity; (2) the concepts are based on a flawed logic and immature, imprecise and complex science which results in difficulties in determining biodiversity values; (3) likely problems with management and compliance; and (4) an overall lack of resources for implementation and long-term monitoring. It is concluded that the legislation is a concerted effort to deal with biodiversity loss, however, stakeholders have concerns with the process, and it is unworkable with the complexity of such ecosystems (compared for example to carbon credit trading), and underdeveloped disciplines such as restoration biology and ecology. Despite these criticisms, there is a need for all stakeholders to work to improve the outcomes.",
author = "Shelley Burgin",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s10531-008-9319-2",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "807--816",
journal = "Biodiversity and Conservation",
issn = "0960-3115",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "4",

}

BioBanking : An environmental scientist's view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. / Burgin, Shelley.

In: Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 17, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 807-816.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - BioBanking

T2 - An environmental scientist's view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation

AU - Burgin, Shelley

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Offsets, first formalised in the United States of America in the 1970s for wetland mitigation, are now widely used globally with the aim to mitigate loss of biodiversity due to development. Embracing biodiversity offsets is one method of governments to meet their commitments under the Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Resource extraction companies see them as a method of gaining access to land, while the community may perceive them as a way of enhancing environmental outcomes. In New South Wales, Australia, BioBanking legislation was introduced in late 2006 with the aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity associated with development, particularly expanding urban and coastal development. The strengths of the legislation are that it aims to enhance threatened species conservation, and raise the profile of conservation of threatened species and habitats. Weaknesses include (1) the narrowness of the definition of biodiversity; (2) the concepts are based on a flawed logic and immature, imprecise and complex science which results in difficulties in determining biodiversity values; (3) likely problems with management and compliance; and (4) an overall lack of resources for implementation and long-term monitoring. It is concluded that the legislation is a concerted effort to deal with biodiversity loss, however, stakeholders have concerns with the process, and it is unworkable with the complexity of such ecosystems (compared for example to carbon credit trading), and underdeveloped disciplines such as restoration biology and ecology. Despite these criticisms, there is a need for all stakeholders to work to improve the outcomes.

AB - Offsets, first formalised in the United States of America in the 1970s for wetland mitigation, are now widely used globally with the aim to mitigate loss of biodiversity due to development. Embracing biodiversity offsets is one method of governments to meet their commitments under the Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Resource extraction companies see them as a method of gaining access to land, while the community may perceive them as a way of enhancing environmental outcomes. In New South Wales, Australia, BioBanking legislation was introduced in late 2006 with the aim of 'no net loss' of biodiversity associated with development, particularly expanding urban and coastal development. The strengths of the legislation are that it aims to enhance threatened species conservation, and raise the profile of conservation of threatened species and habitats. Weaknesses include (1) the narrowness of the definition of biodiversity; (2) the concepts are based on a flawed logic and immature, imprecise and complex science which results in difficulties in determining biodiversity values; (3) likely problems with management and compliance; and (4) an overall lack of resources for implementation and long-term monitoring. It is concluded that the legislation is a concerted effort to deal with biodiversity loss, however, stakeholders have concerns with the process, and it is unworkable with the complexity of such ecosystems (compared for example to carbon credit trading), and underdeveloped disciplines such as restoration biology and ecology. Despite these criticisms, there is a need for all stakeholders to work to improve the outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41149132133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10531-008-9319-2

DO - 10.1007/s10531-008-9319-2

M3 - Review article

VL - 17

SP - 807

EP - 816

JO - Biodiversity and Conservation

JF - Biodiversity and Conservation

SN - 0960-3115

IS - 4

ER -