Does it matter why we do restoration? Volunteers,offset markets and the need for full disclosure

Volunteers are behind much of the ecological restoration work done in Australia. Private landholders, environmental nongovernment organisations (ENGOs) and community groups all donate time and money to much‐needed restoration and revegetation efforts. Biodiversity offsetting has emerged as a potential source of financial support for such work. We consider the question: should it matter to practitioners of restoration, particularly landholders and volunteers, how it is financed? We argue it should, because when offsets fund restoration work, the net environmental outcome is usually intended to be neutral – not an environmental gain. This is often not clear, because only the localised environmental gain is seen by the restoration practitioner, not the associated loss. For mandated offsets, the restoration work is required to occur regardless of whether the volunteer contributes to it or not, so their contribution only replaces work that would otherwise be done by a commercial provider. We contend that informed involvement in offset provision requires full disclosure, particularly to volunteers and landholders. Unfortunately, however, such transparency does not always occur. We acknowledge that there are valid reasons why well‐informed practitioners might willingly subsidise offset provision, but they might equally choose not to. Furthermore, offsets are intended to cover the full cost of biodiversity damage, creating a disincentive for damage by developers. Yet, subsidies from offset providers work against sending market signals that reflect the true replacement cost of biodiversity. We recommend that all ENGOs, developers, offset funders and brokers commit to transparency, particularly to landholders, donors and volunteers, about the environmental impact that is to be offset and the fact that their involvement generates no additional environmental benefit, as the offset is a condition of approval for a permitted loss, much like the rehabilitation of a mine site. Providing restoration services in partnership with industry may be something that landholders, volunteers and ENGOs are happy to support. But this must be decided consciously, not through unnoticed incremental changes that contradict some volunteers’ values or donors’ understanding of an organisation's mission.     

Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog?

Summary   Offsets (also known as mitigation banks, compensatory habitat, set-asides) is a policy instrument recently introduced in several States in Australia to permit some land clearing while striving for no net loss in the extent and condition of native vegetation overall. Offsetting is criticized with respect to the amount of gain required to compensate for losses from clearing, the equivalence of losses and gains, the time lag between losses and gains and a poor record of compliance. Despite these criticisms, we conclude that offsetting is a useful policy instrument while governments continue to permit some clearing of native vegetation. However, offsets will only contribute to no net loss if (i) clearing is restricted to vegetation that is simplified enough so that its functions can be restored elsewhere with confidence or clearing is restricted to vegetation that is unlikely to persist and is not practicable to restore irrespective of clearing; (ii) any temporary loss in habitat between clearing and the maturation of an offset, or differences between the habitat lost from clearing and gained through an offset, does not represent significant risk to a species, population or ecosystem process; (iii) there will be gains of sufficient magnitude on the offset site to compensate for losses from clearing; (iv) best practice adaptive management is applied to offsets; (v) offsets are in place for at least the same duration as the impacts from clearing; and (vi) there is adequate compliance. Land clearing with offsets outside these parameters is inconsistent with 'no net loss'.     

Environmental policy-making networks and the future of the Amazon

This article examines four periods of environmental policy-making in the Amazon region of Brazil. It specifically analyses the role of pro-environment and pro-development policy networks in affecting policy design and implementation. It argues that the efforts of environmentalist networks trying to advocate or block relative developmentalist policies in the Amazon depend on three critical factors-whether they are able to attract the support of elites (or at least block their developmentalist policy initiatives); the type and level of international support they have; and the organizational and financial resources that they are able to mobilize. In analysing the four periods, this article finds that while international influences and resources have been substantial in enabling environmentalist networks to flourish and influence the policy, their effectiveness has been nearly always outweighed by Brazilian developmentalist interests. The outcome in each phase has been a different form of stalemate on environmental protection, and the deforestation continued each time, albeit at slower rates. These findings suggest that the key for significantly lower rates of deforestation on the Amazon may be in the ability of pro-environment networks to neutralize opposition by creating an incentive structure that 'compensates' potential losers of policies that promote conservation.     

煤矿复垦地不同恢复阶段植物群落功能群结构与生物多样性变化

选取黄土高原区黑岱沟露天煤矿不同复垦阶段(1995～2010年)样地4块,以原地貌样地为对照,以时空替代的方法,对煤矿复垦地的植物群落的功能群结构及生物多样性进行研究.结果表明:(1)随着复垦时间的延长,植物群落功能群组成以多年生禾草和多年生杂类草为主,其累积优势度均呈现增加的趋势,而一、二年生草本的累积优势度减小;复垦初期,群落功能群单一、组成种类贫乏,多为一、二年生植物;复垦后期,羊草及冰草逐步出现,复垦地最终形成以克氏针茅、本氏针茅、赖草及糙隐子草为主的植物群落.(2)复垦过程中,中生植物及中旱生植物所占比例逐步增加,而旱生植物比例逐步减少;多年生禾草及多年生杂类草生物量随着复垦时间的增加而递增,而一、二年生草本植物生物量递减;群落总生物量呈先急剧增加、又急剧减少、后缓慢增加的规律.(3)群落的Shan-non-Wiener多样性指数(H)、Patrick丰富度指数(Pa)及Pielou均匀度指数(JP)随着复垦时间延长而增加.     

Effects of soil and wood depletion on biodiversity

Human depletion of soil and wood resources is dramatically altering the biodiversity of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This paper provides an overview of the numerous linkages between the depletion of soil and wood resources and the loss of biodiversity. While some of these linkages are well documented, others remain speculative or unexplored. In order to understand the full ramifications of resource depletion on biodiversity, additional research is required.     

Deforestation in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico): evidence for the declaration of the northernmost tropical hot-spot

To assess the conservation status of Lacandonia, a megadiversity area in Mexico, rates of deforestation were calculated for the periods 1974–1981 and 1981–1991, using a random sample of 38 5 × 5km sites. We evaluated: (i) the overall magnitude of, and spatial and temporal variation in deforestation; (ii) how spatial variation relates to human population density, terrain slope and the presence of the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve; (iii) the magnitude of potential plant species loss associated with deforestation. Overall deforestation was greater in the former than in the second period (1412 vs. 744ha/year), although mean rates (2.1 and 1.6%/year) were statistically indistinguishable due to a considerable spatial variation. The greatest spatial variation was related to the presence of the Montes Azules Reserve: deforestation outside the reserve was 20 and 6 times greater in the first and second period, respectively. Population density and terrain slope were related to deforestation but the relationship was considerably poor. Estimates of plant species committed to extinction (out of the expected total flora of 4314 species) were as high as 22% by year 2035, and 55% by year 2135. Such levels of potential species extinction associated to deforestation, and the great biological diversity of Lacandonia provide evidence to declare it as the northernmost tropical hot-spot and a priority goal in conservation efforts.