Reaching No Net Loss: policy recommendations to improve Canada’s federal biodiversity offsetting policy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Biodiversity, the variability among living organisms, is at risk across the globe. The threat of biodiversity loss does not get the same level of attention as topics such as climate change but will have severely detrimental impacts if not addressed. The relative lack of recognition that biodiversity loss receives could be because biodiversity is incredibly complex, making it difficult to fully understand and protect. Another reason could be that some people do not see the value that biodiversity brings to their lives and the lives of others. Regardless of why biodiversity loss is not front-page news, it poses a major threat to our planet, but few policy options exist that sufficiently address biodiversity loss, particularly the losses caused by economic project developments. The often-massive economic developments have direct negative impacts on large areas, resulting in major losses of biodiversity. There is no indication that the rate of economic project developments will slow, so what few policy options to address biodiversity loss exist must be as effective as possible. The leading policy mechanism used around the world to slow biodiversity loss is the use of biodiversity offsetting. Biodiversity offsetting requires that proponents of economic project developments implement measures that address, or offset, the negative impacts caused by the project. The intended outcome of biodiversity offsetting is that there is no net loss of biodiversity. While it may appear simple in theory, biodiversity offsetting in practice is as complex as biodiversity itself. It requires careful planning, extensive data collection, long-term commitment, stakeholder engagement, and much more to be successful, and these factors do not guarantee success. Organizations such as the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme have developed principles and best practices that are intended to bring greater rates of success to biodiversity offsetting. Measures similar to biodiversity offsetting have been used in Canada through different federal and provincial policies. The 2012 Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances currently stands as the federal government’s key policy to address biodiversity losses caused by economic project developments. An analysis of this policy demonstrated that the policy does not meet the standards that are considered best practices in the international community, putting Canada’s biodiversity at risk of greater losses. Recommendations are provided throughout this paper based on these international best practices. By implementing the recommendations through an updated or new policy on biodiversity offsetting, Canada has an opportunity to become a leader in preventing biodiversity loss.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,067 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,043 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,042 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».