User:Manxshearwater/environmentalmitigation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''Environmental mitigation''' refers to the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Mitigation {{!}} Caltrans |url=https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/biology/mitigation |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=dot.ca.gov |language=en}}</ref> In the context of planning processes like [[Environmental impact assessment|Environmental Impact Assessments]], this process is often guided by applying conceptual frameworks like the "mitigation hierarchy" or "mitigation sequence".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mitigation hierarchy - The Biodiversity Consultancy |url=https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/our-work/our-expertise/strategy/mitigation-hierarchy/ |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com}}</ref> In some countries, environmental mitigation measures, including biodiversity offsetting, may be required by law.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mitigation and onsite works {{!}} Ecology by Design |url=https://www.ecologybydesign.co.uk/ecology-consultancy-services/mitigation-and-onsite-works |access-date=2024-08-01 |website={{!}} Ecology by Design |language=en-GB}}</ref> |
'''Environmental mitigation''' refers to the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Mitigation {{!}} Caltrans |url=https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/biology/mitigation |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=dot.ca.gov |language=en}}</ref> In the context of planning processes like [[Environmental impact assessment|Environmental Impact Assessments]], this process is often guided by applying conceptual frameworks like the "mitigation hierarchy" or "mitigation sequence".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mitigation hierarchy - The Biodiversity Consultancy |url=https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/our-work/our-expertise/strategy/mitigation-hierarchy/ |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com}}</ref> In some countries, environmental mitigation measures, including biodiversity offsetting, may be required by law.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mitigation and onsite works {{!}} Ecology by Design |url=https://www.ecologybydesign.co.uk/ecology-consultancy-services/mitigation-and-onsite-works |access-date=2024-08-01 |website={{!}} Ecology by Design |language=en-GB}}</ref> |
||
In practice, carrying out environmental mitigation might include measures to establish new habitat, restore degraded habitat, and preserve or enhance existing habitats. It may be applied with certain objectives in mind, such as "no net loss" or "net gain" for biodiversity and ecosystem functions. |
In practice, carrying out environmental mitigation might include measures to establish new habitat, restore degraded habitat, and preserve or enhance existing habitats. It may also be applied with certain objectives in mind, such as "no net loss" or "net gain" for biodiversity and ecosystem functions. |
||
== Terminology == |
== Terminology == |
||
Environmental mitigation can be defined in various ways depending on the institutions and countries where the term is applied, or on the framework that is used to guide mitigation. For example, it may be defined as the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.<ref name=":1" /> |
Environmental mitigation can be defined in various ways depending on the institutions and countries where the term is applied, or on the framework that is used to guide mitigation. For example, it may be defined as the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.<ref name=":1" /> |
||
According to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, mitigation is defined as "measures to reduce impacts to the point where they have no adverse effects", including avoidance, minimisation, restoration, offsetting and compensation."<ref>Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. Glossary. BBOP, Washington, D.C. 3rd updated edition. https://www.forest-trends.org/bbop_pubs/glossary_2018/</ref> |
According to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, mitigation is defined as "measures to reduce impacts to the point where they have no adverse effects", including avoidance, minimisation, restoration, offsetting and compensation."<ref>Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. Glossary. BBOP, Washington, D.C. 3rd updated edition. https://www.forest-trends.org/bbop_pubs/glossary_2018/</ref> |
||
The term mitigation may be used synonymously with biodiversity offsetting in some countries. For example, in the US, what is referred to as "biodiversity offsetting" in Australia, the UK, and South Africa comes under the term compensatory mitigation. Biodiversity offsets may be classified as a mitigation measure and are defined in the UN's biodiversity glossary as "measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Biodiversity offsets definition{{!}} Biodiversity A-Z |url=https://biodiversitya-z.org/content/biodiversity-offsets |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=biodiversitya-z.org}}</ref> |
|||
== Motivation == |
== Motivation == |
||
Measures to mitigate negative impacts on the environment have been motivated by a global [[Biodiversity loss|decline in biodiversity]]. |
Measures to mitigate negative impacts on the environment resulting from economic activities (such as infrastructure development) have been motivated by a global [[Biodiversity loss|decline in biodiversity]] - since 1970, wildlife populations have declined by 69% according to WWF. Some of the drivers of biodiversity loss include habitat loss and overexploitation of species. |
||
This has led to the integration of environmental mitigation frameworks into the legal frameworks of some countries. For example, compensatory mitigation was developed in the United States with the aim of conserving wetlands while still allowing development of infrastructure. |
|||
== Mitigation hierarchy == |
== Mitigation hierarchy == |
||
| Line 31: | Line 35: | ||
== Environmental mitigation in the United States == |
== Environmental mitigation in the United States == |
||
{{Further information|Mitigation banking}} |
{{Further information|Mitigation banking|Conservation banking}} |
||
| ⚫ | In the United States, compensatory mitigation is a commonly used form of environmental mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is defined by the [[United States Department of Agriculture|US Department of Agriculture]] as "measures to restore, create, enhance, and preserve wetlands to offset unavoidable adverse impacts." |
||
| ⚫ | In the United States, compensatory mitigation is a commonly used form of environmental mitigation and, for some projects, it is legally required under the [[Clean Water Act|Clean Water Act 1972]]. Compensatory mitigation is defined by the [[United States Department of Agriculture|US Department of Agriculture]] as "measures to restore, create, enhance, and preserve wetlands to offset unavoidable adverse impacts." |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Environmental |
|||
One of the main methods of compensatory mitigation in the US is [[mitigation banking]], a market-based method to offset adverse impacts to wetlands (or streams and other bodies of water) that cannot be either avoided or reduced. This is done by selling credits from mitigation banks, which are sites where activities to preserve, enhance, create, or restore aquatic habitat are conducted and valued in the form of credits. Developers can purchase credits from mitigation banks to offset the "debit" of negative environmental impacts with the aim of achieving no net loss of wetlands. No net loss is the policy objective used to guide compensatory mitigation in the United States, but has since expanded to other countries, where no net loss of biodiversity may be required as the aim of environmental mitigation measures like biodiversity offsets. |
|||
Conservation banking is also used in the United States in the context of endangered species as a form of environmental mitigation. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Disadvantages == |
== Disadvantages == |
||
Revision as of 16:49, 1 August 2024
Environmental mitigation
Environmental mitigation refers to the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.[1] In the context of planning processes like Environmental Impact Assessments, this process is often guided by applying conceptual frameworks like the "mitigation hierarchy" or "mitigation sequence".[2] In some countries, environmental mitigation measures, including biodiversity offsetting, may be required by law.[3]
In practice, carrying out environmental mitigation might include measures to establish new habitat, restore degraded habitat, and preserve or enhance existing habitats. It may also be applied with certain objectives in mind, such as "no net loss" or "net gain" for biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
Terminology
Environmental mitigation can be defined in various ways depending on the institutions and countries where the term is applied, or on the framework that is used to guide mitigation. For example, it may be defined as the process by which measures to avoid, minimise, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment are applied.[1]
According to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, mitigation is defined as "measures to reduce impacts to the point where they have no adverse effects", including avoidance, minimisation, restoration, offsetting and compensation."[4]
The term mitigation may be used synonymously with biodiversity offsetting in some countries. For example, in the US, what is referred to as "biodiversity offsetting" in Australia, the UK, and South Africa comes under the term compensatory mitigation. Biodiversity offsets may be classified as a mitigation measure and are defined in the UN's biodiversity glossary as "measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken."[5]
Motivation
Measures to mitigate negative impacts on the environment resulting from economic activities (such as infrastructure development) have been motivated by a global decline in biodiversity - since 1970, wildlife populations have declined by 69% according to WWF. Some of the drivers of biodiversity loss include habitat loss and overexploitation of species.
This has led to the integration of environmental mitigation frameworks into the legal frameworks of some countries. For example, compensatory mitigation was developed in the United States with the aim of conserving wetlands while still allowing development of infrastructure.
Mitigation hierarchy
The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that is commonly used to guide the application of environmental mitigation measures. It aims to manage risks through application of a hierarchy of steps.[6] These steps vary but generally include: avoid, minimise, restore, and offset. An increasing number of policies apply the principles of the mitigation hierarchy to environmental impact assessments that address the impacts of businesses and governments on the environment, including on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this context, the mitigation hierarchy is usually applied with the goal of achieving no net loss. In some jurisdictions, the application of the mitigation hierarchy is required by law.
Variations to the classical mitigation hierarchy have been proposed. For example, the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy and the Science Based Target Network's AR3T framework. In addition to its use for biodiversity, alternate versions of the mitigation hierarchy have been proposed for different sectors, such as waste, food waste, energy, and carbon.[7]
The steps of the mitigation hierarchy (and terms used to describe them) vary regionally and across fields. In Environmental Impact Assessments, to which it is commonly applied, the mitigation hierarchy generally includes the following steps:
- Avoid - measures taken to avoid creating impacts. This step is widely regarded as the most important.[8]
- Minimise - measures to reduce impacts that cannot be avoided.
- Restore/rehabilitate - measures to restore or rehabilitate ecosystems that have been cleared or degraded, following a development project/activity that caused impacts that could not be avoided or minimised. Restoration involves assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed.[9]
- Offset - measures to compensate for residual negative impacts that cannot be avoided, minimised, or restored/rehabilitated, generally with the aim of no net loss or net gain of biodiversity.
The importance of applying these steps in order to effectively achieve conservation aims has been emphasised. However, critics have argued that the use of a mitigation hierarchy approach to dealing with the negative impacts of development means that biodiversity offsetting can become the default, rather than the last resort.
In some jurisdictions, the application of the mitigation hierarchy is required by law. Requirements for compliance with the mitigation hierarchy are often embedded within regulations to govern Environmental Impact Assessments and environmental licensing systems to evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts of economic development.
Environmental mitigation in the United States
In the United States, compensatory mitigation is a commonly used form of environmental mitigation and, for some projects, it is legally required under the Clean Water Act 1972. Compensatory mitigation is defined by the US Department of Agriculture as "measures to restore, create, enhance, and preserve wetlands to offset unavoidable adverse impacts."
One of the main methods of compensatory mitigation in the US is mitigation banking, a market-based method to offset adverse impacts to wetlands (or streams and other bodies of water) that cannot be either avoided or reduced. This is done by selling credits from mitigation banks, which are sites where activities to preserve, enhance, create, or restore aquatic habitat are conducted and valued in the form of credits. Developers can purchase credits from mitigation banks to offset the "debit" of negative environmental impacts with the aim of achieving no net loss of wetlands. No net loss is the policy objective used to guide compensatory mitigation in the United States, but has since expanded to other countries, where no net loss of biodiversity may be required as the aim of environmental mitigation measures like biodiversity offsets.
Conservation banking is also used in the United States in the context of endangered species as a form of environmental mitigation.
Advantages
Disadvantages
See also
- Mitigation banking
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Biodiversity offsetting
- Biodiversity banking
- Biodiversity loss
External links
References
- ^ a b "Mitigation | Caltrans". dot.ca.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
- ^ "Mitigation hierarchy - The Biodiversity Consultancy". www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
- ^ "Mitigation and onsite works | Ecology by Design". | Ecology by Design. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
- ^ Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. Glossary. BBOP, Washington, D.C. 3rd updated edition. https://www.forest-trends.org/bbop_pubs/glossary_2018/
- ^ "Biodiversity offsets definition| Biodiversity A-Z". biodiversitya-z.org. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
- ^ BBOP & UNEP (2010) Mitigation Hierarchy. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme & United Nations Environment Programme, Washington DC, USA, https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20230311043000/https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec_habitat_exec_sum.pdf
- ^ WWF (2020-04-27). "First Things First: Avoid, Reduce … and only after that–Compensate". WWF. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
- ^ Phalan, Ben; Hayes, Genevieve; Brooks, Sharon; Marsh, David; Howard, Pippa; Costelloe, Brendan; Vira, Bhaskar; Kowalska, Aida; Whitaker, Samir (2018-04). "Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy". Oryx. 52 (2): 316–324. doi:10.1017/S0030605316001034. ISSN 0030-6053.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Bullock, James M.; Aronson, James; Newton, Adrian C.; Pywell, Richard F.; Rey-Benayas, Jose M. (2011-10). "Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 26 (10): 541–549. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)