Introduction:
Modern society faces the challenge of developing its infrastructure and economy whilst improving the quality of the environment and biodiversity. The United Kingdom government’s Departments for Agricultural and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has suggested that these contending aspirations can potentially both be accomplished through a planning strategy known as Biodiversity Offsetting.
Biodiversity offsetting is a planning strategy that aims to compensate for losses of biodiversity in a given area by protecting an area elsewhere and generating gains that are ecologically equivalent to the loss in the area being developed (Maron et al. 2012.) In practice, this means that the residual losses in biodiversity that take place as a result of a development can be offset and compensated for in any area in the UK, potentially even far from the one under development. The UK government has suggested that this strategy may be ideal on the basis that countries all over the world, such as the United States, India, Australia and 21 others have and are currently using this planning strategy to meet its society’s needs (DEFRA green paper.) On the 5th of September 2013, DEFRA published a public consultation document on Biodiversity offsetting in England (also called the Green paper) which laid out a framework of options for how biodiversity offsetting in England could potentially operate. The consultation is written in a style that gives information and suggestions as to how an offsetting scheme could operate, however, it also asks 38 specific questions relating to the execution offsetting practices, from very basic questions such as asking if offsetting should be mandatory for developers, to more specific questions regarding potentially off...
... middle of paper ...
...y offsetting schemes is where offsets should be located, and if there should be constraints on this. Indeed, a review paper by Bull et al. (2013) noted that trading ‘out of kind’ offsets, such as trading a loss on a development site for a more distant site can cause disagreements (Bull et al. 2013.) Energy UK (2013) affirms that local offsetting is preferable to offsetting that is distant from the development site, as locals can benefit from the offset, which they wouldn’t be able to do so readily if it were located distantly. However, Energy UK (2013) has also adopted the pragmatic stance that if offsets are not available close to the site, more distant offsetting should be allowed. The environmental organisations also support this stance, however the Natural Capital Committee (2013) sees this posing economic issues in relation to the offset provision market.
As discussed previously, Kareiva and Marvier argue that focusing on human welfare does not have to sacrifice biodiversity (962-969). However, some find that the argument only holds when conservation itself is tied to a clearly outlined conservation agenda (Sanderson and Redford 389). For conservation efforts to be successful, multiple countries and agencies need to cooperate (“Lecture Week 13”). Conservationists, economists, and political strategists must find conservation issues that do not hinder efforts to alleviate issues of the human condition such as global poverty and world hunger. In actuality, biodiversity loss and poverty are linked, but conservation strategies that will reap success in integrating the two need clear conceptual frameworks (Adams et al. 1146). In order to find a balance and to foster stability for lasting and sustainable development and environmental health, it is important to take humans out of the equation when assessing the status of the environment, and to implement formal scientific strategies to conservation policies (Erwin
Time and time again it has been seen that human interaction with his/her environment and it’s ecosystems has shown to be increasingly arrogant and self-serving. These endless accounts are proven by the amount of important biological diversity that is being lost to the surrounding environment due to these threats of human development and population growth. There are two forms of these losses of diversity by human hand: direct and indirect. Direct losses would be the destruction of an area needed for human requirements be it social or economical. Examples of these losses would be housing, agriculture, and others. Indirect losses would be those caused by the destruction of an area also needed for the same requirements but the area’s commodities which are valued, water, food, land in general, is needed elsewhere. These losses are few in number compared with those of direct losses yet they are of the greatest importance. They are important because they involve the removal of resources of an area in which other inhabitants are dependent upon. A great example of this regrettable indirect expansion is the loss of the rich habitat of the area known as Owens Valley.
Landscape fragmentation can impose devastating and irreversible consequences on the biodiversity of ecosystems. Because of the conflicting interests between ecology and human economic benefit, it has become increasingly important to find solutions for a harmonic balance. It is imperative for people to recognize the impacts of biodiversity loss and increased extinction of many species. These impacts must be understood in order to protect landscapes and the immense biodiversity they contain. Raising environmental consciousness through education and public cooperative efforts, as well as promoting resource conservation and changing consumptive patterns, are just a few ways that we can begin to protect biodiversity.
Humans have played major roles in destroying and protecting a variety of ecosystems. Currently there are many people involved in changing others views on protective earth practices and aware of their impact on changing environments. This is best seen in climate change, conservation movements, and hunting and fishing practices and policies. However, there are already major impacts from climate change, particularly in northern areas, the future impact of a changing climate is rarely considered when determining land-use, including environmental assessments. With expanding resource removal behaviours, the impact of a changing climate and human activities on vulnerable wild life and ecosystems is a big problem. Adding to the problem is a lack of
Since the early days when Adam Smith coined the term “invisible hand of the market” in his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, it was typically believed among the general population that all goods can be distributed without any interference from the government. Contrary to the popular belief, however, this applies specifically to private goods, i.e. a type of good that is both rivalrous and excludable. It may seem that marine biodiversity is a type of public good, since they are in the vast ocean and everyone is entitled to their ownership. However, many marine biodiversity have tremendous economic values, and one person using it may constitute as another person not being able to use it. Thus, it is best described by the term “impure public goods”. Impure public goods, also known as “mixed public goods”, are “public goods whose benefits are particularly rival and/or partially excludable” and provides both private and public benefits. (Squires, Mixed Goods, 59) “International environmental public goods generate benefits that spill over national borders, so that the benefits (or costs) of those goods extend beyond the country of origin.” (Arriagada and Perrings, 800) Since many biodiversity, such as dolphins and coral reefs, are important to the public and yet could be exploited by citizen of any country, it is important for different countries’ governments to cooperate and conserve the marine biodiversity together. The conservation of marine biodiversity will depend on the externalities that are associated with impure public goods, and slo the technolog of public good supplies. We will also look at the incentives to conserve marine biodiversity in t...
The Convention on Biological Diversity (hereafter: “CBD”) is an international treaty adopted by United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and came into force on December 29, 1993. Initially when it came into force there were 168 members now it is 193 in total. The aim to protect biodiversity and the dramatic steps taken for conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits attracted the world communities to become members (History of the Convention, n.d). In principle the convention on biological diversity changed the ownership concept of biodiversity protection i.e. (“common heritage of humankind”) to the “sovereign right” of each member country (Hirsch, 2012). It is the responsibility of the each member to develop and implement policies in a way that helps in the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. It also recognizes the knowledge of local and indigenous people for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Brahmi et al., 2004).The article 8(j) of CBD has an important provision which gives the member state rights to “respect, preserve and maintain” traditional style and knowledge about the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The protection must promote the wider application of such knowledge and stimulate innovation and also ensure that the benefits are shared in fair and equitable manner to the communities.
Halpern and his team suggest that an EBM approach may be the best solution for addressing these issues. Chuenpagdee’s research also highlights the challenges and issues surrounding the implementation of effective MPAs. The study included an in-depth look into four case studies that focused on the design stages of MPAs, and the social issues that must be taken into consideration, and how the incorporation of local communities into management efforts could lead to increases in MPA network success and sustainability. The compilation of data presented in these studies, all highlight the fact that nations are increasing the number of MPAs, in order to reach international goals of conservation, however even if the global area goals of protection are met, it is clear that the success of these protected areas will be heavily dependent upon the socioeconomic issues surrounding the impacted areas, as well as the larger-scale issues that need to be simultaneously addressed such as pollution and climate change, both of which can not be resolved by the implementation of protected zones.... ...
1. What is the difference between a. and a. Destroying the habitat of different plants and animals, they no longer have a place to live. Their food sources and nutrients are taken away and have nowhere else to go. These organisms will die out and there will be a loss in the diversity of that ecosystem. That ecosystem can then start to crumble as the habitats are taken away and the plants and animals have no home.
Biodiversity conservation is about saving life on Earth in all its forms and keeping natural ecosystems functioning and healthy. Biodiversity is being depleted by the loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, over exploitation of resources, human sponsored ecosystems, climatic changes, pollution invasive exotic species, diseases, shifting cultivation, poaching of wild life etc. Since the human beings are enjoying all the benefits from biodiversity, they should take proper care for the preservation of biodiversity in all its form and should prevent the degradation as well as the destruction of the habitats thereby maintaining the biodiversity at its optimum level which will ultimately conserve the biodiversity for the future generation.
The Human Impact on Rainforests Human Impact on Rainforest is it a necessity? Rainforest are the beautiful gift of Mother Nature. It consists of the most magnificent species and plants in the world. 4.2% of the world’s animals live in the rainforest. This statistic it self shows how bad it would be to destroy such essential part of the worlds biodiversity.
Wood, G., Glasson, J. and Becker, J. (2006). EIA scoping in England and Wales: Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 221-241.
Deforestation, defined by biologist Charles Southwick as "the destruction of forests; may involve clear-cutting or selective logging" (p. 365), is a predominantly human-driven process that is dramatically altering ecosystems worldwide. "Clear-cutting" involves the indiscriminant removal of every single plant and tree species from within a selected area. The other major process of deforestation, "selective logging," focuses removal efforts on only specific, predetermined tree species within a chosen area. The statistics gathered about human deforestation over time are considerable, and they can be somewhat controversial. Depending on the source and the location selected, the magnitude of deforestation varies. Southwick estimates that, approximately 10,000 years ago, 6.2 billion hectares (23.9 million square miles) of forest existed on earth (p. 117). That figure is equivalent to 45.5% of the earth's total land. He further estimates that, by 1990, this amount had declined 30%, with only 4.3 billion hectares of forest remaining (p. 117). Southwick also acknowledges other estimates that place the total amount of deforestation between 50% and 75% (p. 117). NASA has similar deforestation statistics that confirm these trends. According to their website, 16.5% of the Brazilian Amazon forests have been destroyed. They also note similar magnitudes of deforestation in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam), despite the significantly smaller total area of forest within these countries. These grim figures are somewhat tempered by the NASA finding that, over the past ten years, the deforestation rate has declined from 6,200 square miles per year to 4,800 square miles per year. Though this trend is n...
Many of the issues of biodiversity loss can be traced back to human interaction to the environment. One of the issues is alteration and loss of habitats. A lot of this issue is based on the destruction of habitats and for the land to be used for human consumption. The land is either used up for agricultural use or for neighborhoods. Destroying habitats and building them for our own use can have a positive impact on our way of living but a negative impact on the environment. We would gain land for building land for crops and communities to be built. The habitat for the animals would be destroyed and the species local to the land would either relocate or die. There are restrictions to deforesting land and there are organizations to help protect the land.
One of the reasons for loss in biodiversity is alteration of habitats. A habitat is the natural environment in which a species of living organism lives. If the habitat of a species is changed, it will cause the species to die or migrate to other places where it can find its natural habitat. There are many ways in which the habitat of plants and animals can be altered. One of them is land use changes. Since the beginning of human life, human beings have been changing land use for farming. Large areas of forests have been cleared by humans to increase the area of farming to satisfy their growing needs. Many biodiversity-rich landscape characteristics have been lost due to intensive farming (Young, Richards, Fischer, Halada, Kull, Kuzniar, Tartes, Uzunov & Watt, 2007). For example, traditional farming was replaced by private farms in Europe after the First World War causing an immense change in land use patterns. Another major proble...
Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) refers to a tool that assists in limiting the potential environmental damage of various developments that are undertaken in an area (Handley & Handley, 2001). Other researchers and scholars consider EIA as a key aspect of many large-scale planning applications; whereby, the EIA is used as the technique that helps developers understand the potential environmental impacts of any major development proposal (Wathern, 1988). EIA entails information gathering practices that are carried out by both the developer and other relevant bodies to enable the Local Planning Authority to appreciate the potential environmental effects of any form of development before giving directions on its commencement or stoppage (Dougherty & Hall, 1995; Wathern, 1988). Therefore, EIA can simply be described as the scientific and public consultation process that helps identify the potential impacts of any proposed project on the environment; that is, the biophysical component of the physical environment. The stages of conducting the EIA process include scoping, analysis of the impacts, finding mitigation measures and impact management, evaluation of the significance and effective implementation of the project (Wathern, 1988).