The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank

Bekessy, Sarah A., Wintle, Brendan A., Lindenmayer, David B., Mccarthy, Michael A., Colyvan, Mark, Burgman, Mark A. and Possingham, Hugh P. (2010) The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conservation Letters, 3 3: 151-158. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00110.x

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ207397.pdf HERDC combined - not publicly available application/pdf 6.47MB 26

Author Bekessy, Sarah A.
Wintle, Brendan A.
Lindenmayer, David B.
Mccarthy, Michael A.
Colyvan, Mark
Burgman, Mark A.
Possingham, Hugh P.
Title The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank
Journal name Conservation Letters   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1755-263X
Publication date 2010-06
Year available 2010
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00110.x
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 3
Issue 3
Start page 151
End page 158
Total pages 8
Place of publication United Kingdom
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Collection year 2011
Language eng
Subject C1
9606 Environmental and Natural Resource Evaluation
050205 Environmental Management
Formatted abstract
“Offsetting” habitat destruction has widespread appeal as an instrument for balancing economic growth with biodiversity conservation. Requiring proponents to pay the nontrivial costs of habitat loss encourages sensitive planning approaches. Offsetting, biobanking, and biodiverse carbon sequestration schemes will play an important role in conserving biodiversity under increasing human pressures. However, untenable assumptions in existing schemes are undermining their benefits. Policies that allow habitat destruction to be offset by the protection of existing habitat are guaranteed to result in further loss of biodiversity. Similarly, schemes that allow trading the immediate loss of existing habitat for restoration projects that promise future habitat will, at best, result in time lags in the availability of habitat that increases extinction risks, or at worst, fail to achieve the offset at all. We detail concerns about existing approaches and describe how offsetting and trading policies can be improved to provide genuine benefits for biodiversity. Due to uncertainties about the way in which restored vegetation matures, we propose that the biodiversity bank should be a savings bank. Accrued biodiversity values should be demonstrated before they can be used to offset biodiversity losses. We provide recommendations about how this could be achieved in practice.
Keyword Biobanking
Carbon trading
Habitat restoration
Habitat trading
Net gain
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: School of Mathematics and Physics
Official 2011 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 59 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 65 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 11 Jul 2010, 00:07:53 EST