|
| The objectives of No Net Loss and Net Gain have
emerged as key principles in conservation policy. Both give
rise to mechanisms by which certain unavoidable biodiversity
losses associated with development are quantified, and
compensated with comparable gains (e.g. habitat restoration).
The former seeks a neutral outcome for biodiversity
after losses and gains are accounted for, and the latter seeks
an improved outcome. Policy-makers often assume that the
transition from one to the other is straightforward and essentially
a question of the amount of compensation provided.
Consequently, companies increasingly favour Net
Gain type commitments, and financial institutions make
lending conditional on either objective, depending on the
habitat involved. We contend, however, that achieving Net
Gain is fundamentally different to achieving No Net Loss,
and moving from one to the other is less trivial than is
widely realized. Our contention is based on four arguments:
(?) the two principles represent different underlying conservation
philosophies; (?) ecological uncertainties make it difficult
to know where the threshold betweenNo Net Loss and
Net Gain lies; (?) different frames of reference are more or
less appropriate in evaluating the ecological outcomes, depending
on the principle chosen; and (?) stakeholder expectations
differ considerably under the two principles. In
exploring these arguments we hope to support policymakers
in choosing the more appropriate of the two objectives.
We suggest that financial institutions should provide
greater clarity regarding the explicit requirements for each
principle. We conclude by highlighting questions of relevance
to this topic that would benefit from focused research. | |
|