Metrics for assessing biodiversity losses and gains in tropical forests
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v16i3.2572Keywords:
environmental compensation, environmental governance, conservation, environmental impact, net gain, ecological indicatorsAbstract
Industrial growth places significant pressures on global biodiversity, threatening ecosystems, especially tropical ones. The United Nations, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, highlights the urgent need to preserve biodiversity. The recent Kunming-Montreal agreement commits to protecting 30% of the planet by 2030, and initiatives like the World Bank standards aim to avoid net biodiversity losses. However, the challenge remains in the lack of a synthesis and analysis of methods to quantify such impacts. Therefore, this study focused on analyzing and selecting effective metrics for assessing biodiversity losses and gains due to environmental impacts generated by various economic sector projects. A systematic literature review identified twenty usable metrics, of which five were selected: Biodiversity Significance Index (BSI), Biodiversity Metric 3.0 (Defra), Net Impact Assessment (WBCSD/CSI), Loss Gain Calculator, and Disaggregated Model. The analysis and selection of these metrics were based on their applicability in tropical forests. Grouping methods and metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of compensations supports governance and both public and private organizational initiatives for more sustainable economic development. Thus, we suggest parameters to support the assessment of impact mitigation on biodiversity in tropical forests. The use of metrics allows for calculating biodiversity losses and gains to size environmental compensation areas and evaluate their effectiveness, considering the environmental and ecosystem services lost over time, based on ecological indicators.
Downloads
References
1. Jacob C, Van Bochove J-W, Livingstone S, White T, Pilgrim J, Bennun, L. Marine biodiversity offsets: Pragmatic approaches toward better conservation outcomes. Conservation Letters 2020; 13(3): e12711. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12711
2. Rainey HJ, Pollard EHB, Dutson G, Jonathan MM, Ekstrom JMM, Livingstone SR, et al. A review of corporate goals of No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact on biodiversity. Oryx. 2015; 49(2): 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001476
3. Ma K. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: An important global agenda for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity Science. 2023; 31(4): 23133. https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2023133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2023133
4. Scarano FR, Ceotto P. A importância da biodiversidade brasileira e os desafios para a conservação, para a ciência e para o setor privado. In: Rolim SG, Menezes LFT, Srbek-Araujo AC. (Coord.) Floresta Atlântica de Tabuleiro: Diversidade e Endemismo na Reserva Natural Vale. Editora Rona. 2016. p. 483–495.
5. Brasil. Resolução CONAMA no 1, de 23 de janeiro de 1986. Disponível em: https://www.siam.mg.gov.br/sla/download.pdf?idNorma=8902. Acesso: 14 fev. 2024.
6. Sanchez LE. Avaliação de impacto ambiental: conceitos e métodos. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos, 2008.
7. Newbold T, Hudson L, Hill S, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015; 520: 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
8. Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management and Restoration. 2007; 8(1): 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00328.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00328.x
9. International Finance Corporation. Padrão de Desempenho 6 – Conservação da Biodiversidade e Gestão Sustentável de Recursos Naturais Vivos. 2012.
10. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nature protects if she is protected – Decisions of the eleventh meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2013.
11. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Forest Trends. 2009.
12. Conservation Strategy Fund (CSF-Brasil). Definição de níveis de equivalência ecológica para a lei de compensação ambiental [Internet]. São Paulo: CSF-Brasil; 2017. Disponível em: https://www.conservation-strategy.org/sites/default/files/field-file/PORT_ST_CSF_Equivalencia_Ecologica_2017.pdf
13. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, D.C.: Forest Trends. 2012.
14. The Biodiversity Consultancy. A cross-sector guide for implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy – Understanding biodiversity impacts. Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy. 2015.
15. Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJF, Bekessy S, et al. Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting. BioScience. 1º de junho de 2016; 66(6): 489–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw038
16. McVittie A, Faccioli M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services net gain assessment: A comparison of metrics. Ecosystem Services. 2020; 44: 101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101145
17. Bull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx. 2013; 47(3): 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172X
18. Wentworth J. POSTbrief 34: Net gain. London: UK Parliament. 2019.
19. Gardner T. Monitoring Forest Biodiversity. 1st ed. London: Earthscan; 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775106
20. Caro T. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. First ed. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.41003793
21. Bezombes L, Gaucherand S, Kerbiriou C, Reinert M, Spiegelberger T. Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? Environmental Management. 2017; 60: 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5
22. Orsato RJ, Alexandre Garcia A, Mendes-da-Silva W, Simonetti R, Monzoni M. Sustainability indexes: why join in? A study of the ‘Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE)’ in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 96: 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.071
23. Cousins LJ. Biodiversity assessment: moving towards an evidence-based index for biodiversity offsetting. [thesis], Colchester: University of Essex. 2016. 230 f.
24. Maron M, Brownlie S, Bull JW, Evans MC, Von Hase A, Quétier F, et al. The many meanings of No Net Loss in environmental policy. Nature Sustainability. 2018; 1: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0007-7
25. Rayment M, Haines R, McNeil D, Conway M, Tucker G, Underwood E. Study on specific design elements of biodiversity offsets: biodiversity metrics and mechanisms for securing long term conservation benefits. Brussels: European Commission, DG Environment; 2014. Disponível em: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/995706
26. Bull JW, Milner-Gulland EJ, Suttle KB, Singh NJ. Comparing biodiversity offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan. Biological Conservation. 2014; 178: 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.006
27. McVittie A, Faccioli M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services net gain assessment: A comparison of metrics. Ecosystem Services. 2020; 44: 101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101145 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101145
28. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 [Internet]. Disponível em: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
29. Conforto EC, Amaral DC, da Silva SL. Roteiro para revisão bibliográfica sistemática: aplicação no desenvolvimento de produtos e gerenciamento de projetos. Trabalho apresentado, v. 8, 2011.
30. Oliver I, Ede A, Hawes W, Grieve A. The NSW Environmental Services Scheme: Results for the biodiversity benefits index, lessons learned, and the way forward. Ecological Management and Restoration. 2005; 6(3): 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00237.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00237.x
31. Panks S, White N, Newsome A, Potter J, Heydon M, Mayhew E, et al. Biodiversity Metric 3.0: Auditing and accounting for biodiversity – User Guide. UK: Natural England and other parties. 2021.
32. WBCSD. Methodology for the Net Impact Assessment of Biodiversity in the Cement Sector. Geneva, SW: WBCSD. 2018.
33. Gibbons P, Evans MC, Maron M,Gordon A, Le Roux D, Von Hase A, et al. A Loss-Gain Calculator for Biodiversity Offsets and the Circumstances in Which No Net Loss Is Feasible. Conservation Letters. 2016; 9(4): 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12206
34. Maseyk FJF, Barea LP, Stephen RTT, Possingham HPG, Dutson G, Maron M. A disaggregated biodiversity offset accounting model to improve estimation of ecological equivalency and no net loss. Biological Conservation. 2016; 204: 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.016
35. IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services [Internet]. Bonn: IPBES; 2019. Available from: https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
36. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strein A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science. 2010; 328(5982): 1164-1168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
37. Almeida FS de, Pereira SH, Vassar MPB, Garrido F de SRG. Impactos ambientais causados por empreendimentos em unidades de conservação da natureza na região Sudeste do Brasil. Biodivers. Bras. [Internet]. 2023; 13(3). https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v13i3.2305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v13i3.2305
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sr. Rômulo Arantes, Sr. Henrique Dias, Daniel Medina Corrêa Santos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyright to the published works, which may be reused and disseminated in other media, provided that the original publication source (Biodiversidade Brasileira journal) is cited.
