1
Building the evidence base for ecological impact assessment and mitigation.
J Appl Ecol. 2012; 49:6-9
All selected articles haveThis article has been added to your saved articles
You can follow/unfollow articles via MyF1000 or via the article or browse pages.
30 Mar 2012
Review / Commentary
DOI: 10.3410/f.14245958.15768126
Effective environmental management requires strong connections between ecological scientific research, ecological consultancy, and stakeholders. The three gears of this complex mechanism, however, are still far from being set efficiently, often compromising a real understanding of impacts related to development and compensatory interventions to restore and maintain the natural capital. This paper offers an interesting perspective, pointing out several communicative and operational gaps between ecologists, practitioners, developers, and policy makers that need to be filled for the achievement of an actual sustainable use of natural resources.
Ecological consultants are called upon to predict future changes to ecosystems and populations if ‘development’ is going to happen. These projections should be based on the best available evidence combined with collective experience and professional opinion. However, the available evidence may often not be exhaustive and may be based on over-simplification of ecological systems and responses. These issues may be common to ecological scientific research but, in this case, the aim can be at the best to reduce as much uncertainty as possible and not to provide assured predictions (e.g. see Coreau et al. {1} and the F1000 evaluations thereof {2}).
Inherent risks of erroneous conclusions are high and these potentially lead to undesirable consequences, given the impact of developments could be underestimated with inadequate effects of mitigation and compensation strategies on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
A critical issue, as pointed out by the authors, is the systematic lack of follow-up monitoring and assessment of impacts and mitigation intervention of developments with sufficient scientific rigour or duration. This relies on several factors. First, clients of ecological consultants are not generally interested in funding scientific studies on the effects of development, nor are they expected or imposed to promote such investigations by environmental regulation. Second, results of studies, once conducted, are not always easily available even when they indicate successful practices and even less when they demonstrate their failure. Systematic reviews of results of impact assessment and mitigation intervention are strongly needed, and perhaps anonymity may help promote sharing of results by private developers.
With this view, a potential solution is to sustain the idea that financing follow-up monitoring of impacts and mitigation interventions is a compensative strategy to offset potential environmental and societal costs. Developers could gain societal appreciation, reduce conflicts, and increase their own know-how on specific development and related environmental issues and potential solutions.
Above all, a change in the current view on the use of natural resources is required, starting from the societal understanding of environmental sustainability and its relationship with economic growth and development (see Harte J {3} and the F1000 evaluations thereof {4}). In fact, in spite of the inestimable value of nature for humans, to cite the authors, “…society attributes zero cost and hence zero value in the development balance sheet.”. A further needed effort is to increase exchange between ecological consultants and ecologists, which will bring the first to improve the application of suitable tools for the assessment of impact and mitigation strategies (that, thus, will provide real sustainable environmental solutions to developers) and the latter to demonstrate the societal and environmental benefits of scientific research.
References
1.
The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions.
Ecol Lett 2009 Dec; 12(12):1277-86
PMID: 19874385
2.
Faculty of 1000 evaluations, dissents and comments for (Coreau A et al. The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecol Lett. 2009 Dec; 12(12):1277-86; doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01392.x). Faculty of 1000. F1000.com/1269962.
3.
Human population as a dynamic factor in environmental degradation.
Popul Environ. 2007; 28: 223-236
4.
Faculty of 1000 evaluations, dissents and comments for (Harte J. Human population as a dynamic factor in environmental degradation. Popul Environ. 2007; 28:223-236; doi: 10.1007/s11111-007-0048-3). Faculty of 1000. F1000.com/11984959.
Disclosures
None declared
Add Comment
Boero F and Bevilacqua S: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Hill D and Arnold R, J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:6-9]. In F1000Prime, 30 Mar 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.14245958.15768126. F1000Prime.com/14245958#eval15768126
F1000Prime Recommendations, Dissents and Comments for [Hill D and Arnold R, J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:6-9]. In F1000Prime, 20 Jun 2013; F1000Prime.com/14245958
Only registered/signed-in users can make comments.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
Comment by:
David Norton,
University of Canterbury
04 Apr 2012, 6:05 AM
04 Apr 2012, 6:05 AM
The Hill and Arnold article is definitely worth reading and I felt the review by Boero and Bevilacqua made some important points around the interface between ecological consultancy and ecological research. I want to make a brief additional comment on the issue of biodiversity offsets.
Hill and Arnold note that “We believe offsetting of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems services will be the next ‘big thing’ to which ecological consultants might contribute.” In New Zealand, where I work, this is certainly the case with ecological researchers and consultants, and lawyers and planners, all involved in both researching and implementing biodiversity offsets. The challenge in New Zealand, and I suspect elsewhere, is that the legal/planning system is already having to deal with offset proposals in deciding on whether particular developments should or should not go ahead. Unfortunately many of the key questions around offsetting are still unresolved and there is much debate around such basic concepts as the limits of what can be offset and the best ways to quantify losses and gains.
I think the essential message of Hill and Arnold on the need for consultants and researchers to work together applies particularly to biodiversity offsets. Offsetting is a rapidly growing aspect of biodiversity conservation and one in which there is the potential to obtain some key gains for biodiversity. However, the application of offsets needs to be based on good science and ecological scientists and consultants need to work closely together to ensure that sustainable biodiversity outcomes firmly founded in the principle of ‘net-gain’ are included in all offset proposals.
Hill and Arnold note that “We believe offsetting of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems services will be the next ‘big thing’ to which ecological consultants might contribute.” In New Zealand, where I work, this is certainly the case with ecological researchers and consultants, and lawyers and planners, all involved in both researching and implementing biodiversity offsets. The challenge in New Zealand, and I suspect elsewhere, is that the legal/planning system is already having to deal with offset proposals in deciding on whether particular developments should or should not go ahead. Unfortunately many of the key questions around offsetting are still unresolved and there is much debate around such basic concepts as the limits of what can be offset and the best ways to quantify losses and gains.
I think the essential message of Hill and Arnold on the need for consultants and researchers to work together applies particularly to biodiversity offsets. Offsetting is a rapidly growing aspect of biodiversity conservation and one in which there is the potential to obtain some key gains for biodiversity. However, the application of offsets needs to be based on good science and ecological scientists and consultants need to work closely together to ensure that sustainable biodiversity outcomes firmly founded in the principle of ‘net-gain’ are included in all offset proposals.
Disclosures:
None beyond being involved in biodiversity offsetting in New Zealand.
