Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy

Nature Sustainability volume 1, pages 19–27 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

‘No net loss’ is a buzz phrase in environmental policy. Applied to a multitude of environmental targets such as biodiversity, wetlands and land productive capacity, no net loss (NNL) and related goals have been adopted by multiple countries and organizations, but these goals often lack clear reference scenarios: no net loss compared to what? Here, we examine policies with NNL and related goals, and identify three main forms of reference scenario. We categorize NNL policies as relating either to overarching policy goals, or to responses to specific impacts. We explore how to resolve conflicts between overarching and impact-specific NNL policies, and improve transparency about what NNL-type policies are actually designed to achieve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Examples of potential trends in focal natural capital resulting from the implementation of NNL policies.
Fig. 2: Reviewed overarching and impact-specific policies with stated NNL or similar goals mapped against their specified or effective reference scenario.
Fig. 3: Components of the cost of achieving an overarching reference scenario that constitutes a favourable target.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Robertson, M. M. No net loss: Wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode 32, 463–493 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Salzman, J. & Ruhl, J. B. Gaming the past: The theory and practice of historic baselines in the administrative state. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 64, 1–57 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cowie, A. L. et al. Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for implementing land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy 79, 25–35 (2017).

  6. WWF Living Forests Report Ch. 3 (WWF, 2011).

  7. Maron, M. et al. Taming a wicked problem: Resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66, 489–498 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rainey, H. J. et al. A review of corporate goals of no net loss and net positive impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49, 232–238 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (International Finance Corporation, 2012).

  10. Villarroya, A., Persson, J. & Puig, J. Ecological compensation: From general guidance and expertise to specific proposals for road developments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45, 54–62 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Quétier, F., Regnery, B. & Levrel, H. No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 120–131 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Virah-Sawmy, M., Ebeling, J. & Taplin, R. Mining and biodiversity offsets: A transparent and science-based approach to measure ‘no-net-loss’. J. Environ. Manage. 143, 61–70 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maron, M., Bull, J. W., Evans, M. C. & Gordon, A. Locking in loss: Baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 192, 504–512 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gillenwater, M. What is Additionality? Part 1: A Long Standing Problem (Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, 2012).

  15. Bull, J. W., Gordon, A., Law, E. A., Suttle, K. B. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 28, 799–809 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Working Group on No Net Loss of Ecosystems and Their Services Scope and Objectives of the No Net Loss Initiative (European Commission, DG Environment, 2013).

  17. Bill 5—2010: Zero Net Deforestation Act (Government of British Columbia, 2010).

  18. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Environmental Offsets Policy (Australian Government, 2012).

  19. Hoag, D. L. K. et al. Policy utopias for nutrient credit trading programs with nonpoint sources. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53, 514–520 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephenson, K. & Shabman, L. Nutrient assimilation services for water quality credit trading programs: A comparative analysis with nonpoint source credits. Coastal Manage 45, 24–43 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brownlie, S. & Botha, M. Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or ‘no net loss’? Impact Assess. Proj. Appr. 27, 227–231 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Maseyk, F. et al. A disaggregated biodiversity offset accounting model to improve estimation of ecological equivalency and no net loss. Biol. Conserv. 204, 322–332 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Camaclang, A. E., Maron, M., Martin, T. G. & Possingham, H. P. Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 29, 482–92 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. IUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2016).

  25. Gordon, A., Bull, J. W., Wilcox, C. & Maron, M. Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 532–537 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seyller, C. et al. The ‘virtual economy’ of REDD+ projects: Does private certification of REDD+ projects ensure their environmental integrity? Int. For. Rev. 18, 231–246 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Angelsen, A. in Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications (ed. Angelsen, A.) Ch. 6 (CIFOR, Bogor, 2008).

  28. Maron, M., Rhodes, J. R. & Gibbons, P. Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conserv. Lett. 6, 359–367 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Maseyk, F. J. F., Evans, M. C. & Maron, M. Guidance for Deriving ‘Risk Of Loss’ Estimates When Evaluating Biodiversity Offset Proposals Under the EPBC Act (National Environmental Science Programme, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, 2017).

  30. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Policy for a Significant Environmental Benefit Under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and Native Vegetation Regulations 2017 2 (State of South Australia, 2017).

  31. Pana, A. C. & Gheyssens, J. Baseline choice and performance implications for REDD. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 5, 79–124 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, 2012).

  34. Fleischer, D. & Fox, J. in Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems (eds Carroll, N., Fox, J. & Bayon, R.) Ch. 4 (Earthscan, London, 2008).

  35. Wilcove, D. S. & Lee, J. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: Lessons learned from three new programs. Conserv. Biol. 18, 639–645 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government, 2012).

  37. Bull, J. W., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Suttle, K. B. & Singh, N. J. Comparing biodiversity offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan. Biol. Conserv. 178, 2–10 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Quétier, F., Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Pilgrim, J. D., von Hase, A. & Kate, K. T. Biodiversity offsets are one solution to widespread poorly compensated biodiversity loss: a response to Curran. et al. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1739–1741 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Githiru, M. et al. Should biodiversity offsets help finance underfunded Protected Areas? Biol. Conserv. 191, 819–826 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gibbons, P. et al. a loss-gain calculator for biodiversity offsets and the circumstances in which no net loss is feasible. Conserv. Lett 9, 252–259 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sonter, L. J., Tomsett, N., Wu, D. & Maron, M. Biodiversity offsetting in dynamic landscapes: Influence of regulatory context and counterfactual assumptions on achievement of no net loss. Biol. Conserv. 206, 314–319 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity (OECD Publishing, 2013).

  43. Spash, C. L. Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature. Biol. Conserv. 192, 541–551 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vaissière, A.-C., Levrel, H. & Scemama, P. Biodiversity offsetting: Clearing up misunderstandings between conservation and economics to take further action. Biol. Conserv. 206, 258–262 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hough, P. & Robertson, M. Mitigation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 17, 15–33 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency: The Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, 1989). 

  47. Levrel, H., Scemama, P. & Vaissière, A.-C. Should we be wary of mitigation banking? Evidence regarding the risks associated with this wetland offset arrangement in Florida. Ecol. Econ. 135, 136–149 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Guidance Document on Article 6 (4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC (European Commission, 2007).

  49. Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest Under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European Commission, 2007).

  50. McGillivray, D. Compensating biodiversity loss: The EU Commission’s approach to compensation under article 6 of the Habitats Directive. J. Environ. Law 24, 417–450 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schoukens, H. & Cliquet, A. Biodiversity offsetting and restoration under the European Union Habitats Directive : balancing between no net loss and deathbed conservation? Ecol. Soc. 21, (2016).

  52. Décret no 2016–1110 du 11 Août 2016 Relatif à la Modification des Règles Applicables à L’évaluation Environnementale des Projets, Plans et Programmes 2016–1110 (Legifrance, 2016).

  53. Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy (Government Gazette Notice No. 276, Department of Environmental Affairs, 2017).

  54. Quigley, J. T. & Harper, D. J. Compliance with Canada’s Fisheries Act: A field audit of habitat compensation projects. Environ. Manage. 37, 336–350 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Poulton, D. W. Offsetting for ‘serious harm’: The recent evolution of section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1985. J. Environ. Law Pract. 29, 19–40 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Favaro, B. & Olszynski, M. Authorized net losses of fish habitat demonstrate need for improved habitat protection in Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 285–291 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Version 1.1 (The State of Queensland, 2014).

  58. Biodiversity Offsetting Guidelines: Guidance for Developers and Offset Providers in Ghana (Ghana Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

  59. Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental Guia para la Compensacion de Biodiversidad en el Seia (Gobierno de Chile, 2014).

  60. Montenegro, S. S., Walschburger, T., Sarmiento, J. L. & Tamayo, J. C. G. Manual for Allocating Offsets for Loss of Biodiversity (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Republic of Colombia, 2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.M. is supported by Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship FT141000516. A.G. was supported by ARC Discovery Project DP150103122. F.Q. benefited from funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n8 308393 ‘OPERAs’ and the CoForSet project funded by the French Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité. M.C.E. and this project were supported by the Australian Department of the Environment National Environmental Research Programme through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. We thank H. Levrel and A.-C. Vaissière for useful comments on US policies and E. Bayraktarov for assistance with English translations of policy documents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Martine Maron, Megan C. Evans & James E. M. Watson

  2. deVilliers Brownlie Associates, Cape Town, South Africa

    Susie Brownlie

  3. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Joseph W. Bull

  4. Department of Food and Resource Economics & Centre for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Joseph W. Bull

  5. Forest Trends Association, Washington, DC, USA

    Amrei von Hase

  6. Biotope, Mèze, France

    Fabien Quétier

  7. Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, New York, NY, USA

    James E. M. Watson

  8. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Ascelin Gordon

Authors
  1. Martine Maron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susie Brownlie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph W. Bull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan C. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amrei von Hase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fabien Quétier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James E. M. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ascelin Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors developed the concepts. M.M. developed the initial idea and led the writing. All authors contributed experience and perspectives on reference scenarios, drawing from their familiarity with many offsets and NNL-type policies. A.G. led the section on type 1 and type 2 impacts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Maron.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maron, M., Brownlie, S., Bull, J.W. et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat Sustain 1, 19–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene