Abstract
AbstractThe mitigation hierarchy is a decision-making framework designed to address impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services through first seeking to avoid impacts wherever possible, then minimizing or restoring impacts, and finally by offsetting any unavoidable impacts. Avoiding impacts is seen by many as the most certain and effective way of managing harm to biodiversity, and its position as the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy indicates that it should be prioritized ahead of other stages. However, despite an abundance of legislative and voluntary requirements, there is often a failure to avoid impacts. We discuss reasons for this failure and outline some possible solutions. We highlight the key roles that can be played by conservation organizations in cultivating political will, holding decision makers accountable to the law, improving the processes of impact assessment and avoidance, building capacity, and providing technical knowledge. A renewed focus on impact avoidance as the foundation of the mitigation hierarchy could help to limit the impacts on biodiversity of large-scale developments in energy, infrastructure, agriculture and other sectors.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference61 articles.
1. Aurecon & SLR (2015) Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant Near Swakopmund, Namibia. Final SEIA Report, Report No. 9408/110914. Rio Tinto Rössing Uranium Limited, Swakopmund, Namibia.
2. Offsetability is highest for common and widespread biodiversity: response to Regnery et al;Pilgrim;Conservation Letters,2013b
3. Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England
4. Under the radar: mitigating enigmatic ecological impacts
Cited by
102 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献