Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level

Annaêl Barnes (), Alexandre Ickowicz, Jean-Daniel Cesaro, Paulo Salgado, Véronique Rayot, Sholpan Koldasbekova and Simon Taugourdeau
Additional contact information
Annaêl Barnes: CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
Alexandre Ickowicz: CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
Jean-Daniel Cesaro: CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
Paulo Salgado: CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France
Véronique Rayot: Orano Mining, 125 Av. de Paris, 92320 Châtillon, France
Sholpan Koldasbekova: KATCO JV LLP, Sauran Street 48, Astana 020000, Kazakhstan
Simon Taugourdeau: CIRAD, UMR SELMET, F-34090 Montpellier, France

Land, 2023, vol. 12, issue 1, 1-25

Abstract: Biodiversity offsets aim to compensate the negative residual impacts of development projects on biodiversity, including ecosystem functions, uses by people and cultural values. Conceptually, ecosystem services (ES) should be considered, but in practice this integration rarely occurs. Their consideration would improve the societal impact of biodiversity offsets. However, the prioritisation of ES in a given area is still limited. We developed a framework for this purpose, applied in rangelands landscapes in Kazakhstan, in the context of uranium mining. We assumed that different landscapes provide different ES, and that stakeholders perceive ES according to their category (e.g., elders and herders) and gender. We performed qualitative, semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders. Using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, we identified 300 ES in 31 classes across 8 landscape units. We produced a systemic representation of the provision of ES across the landscapes. We showed a significant link between ES and landscape units, but not between ES and stakeholder categories or gender. Stakeholders mostly identified ES according to the location of their villages. Therefore, we suggest that the biodiversity offsets should target ES provided by the landscape unit where mining activities occur and would be most interesting in the landscapes common to all villages. By performing a systemic representation, potential impacts of some offset strategies can be predicted. The framework was therefore effective in determining a bundle of ES at a landscape scale, and in prioritising them for future biodiversity offset plans.

Keywords: ecosystem services; biodiversity offset; CICES; landscape units; stakeholders; rangelands (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/202/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/202/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:202-:d:1029043

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().