The document discusses evaluating the avoidance of biodiversity impacts from development projects. It presents a mitigation hierarchy figure showing the progression from avoidance to remediation. It then examines challenges with assessing avoidance, such as defining impact prevention and capturing avoidance decisions, as multiple drivers not related to conservation can influence avoidance. The author acknowledges colleagues who provided input and concludes by thanking the audience and providing contact information.

1. The UK’s European university
Evaluating the avoidance of
biodiversityimpacts
JoeWBull
ICCB 2019
Photo: J W Bull

2. Biodiversity
(e.g.areaofnaturalhabitatleft)
Time
(e.g. years)
Original biodiversity
Remaining biodiversity
after development
Pastbaseline
Offset
Remediate
Minimize
Avoid
MITIGATIONHIERARCHY
Figure: J W Bull (unpublished)

3. Implementation (offsets)
3
Bull & Strange, 2018, Nature Sustainability

4. Effectiveness (offsets)
4
zu Ermgassen et al., 2019, Conservation Letters

5. Avoidance: simulation
5
Bull & Milner-Gulland, in review
REDACTED

6. Model results: US wetlands
Bull & Milner-Gulland, in review
REDACTED

7. Avoidance
• Defining impact prevention in the
first place is problematic
• Multiple drivers of impact avoidance on projects,
definitely not always conservation
• Evaluating avoidance – showing intention to impact?
Capturing decisions?
• Alternatives – ignore avoidance altogether?

8. Thank you
j.w.bull@kent.ac.uk
8
Acknowledgements:
EJ Milner-Gulland, Niels
Strange, Sophus zu
Ermgassen, Laura Sonter
and UQ workshop attendees
Photo: J W Bull