LA VERDADERA PÉRDIDA CAUSADA POR LAS POLÍTICAS DE COMPENSACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD

The document argues that biodiversity offsets are based on reductionist theories that fail to account for the uniqueness of ecosystems. It identifies multiple types of losses—ecological, normative, and moral—that occur when restoration is used to justify habitat destruction. The authors conclude that 'no net loss' is a false goal and advocate for a 'no more loss' approach combined with multi-criteria evaluation and increased social participation.

• Ecosystems are fundamentally unique and irreplaceable due to three environmental attributes: spatiality (specific characteristics of the environment), historicity (the history of the site), and complexity (complex ecological processes and interactions).
• Current biodiversity offset policies are reductionist, relying on simple metrics like habitat hectares that fail to capture critical ecosystem attributes such as stability, resilience, resistance, and evolutionary potential.
• The shift toward valuing biodiversity through 'ecosystem services' (instrumental value) creates risks because services are more substitutable than ecosystems, are difficult to evaluate (especially cultural services), and can simultaneously provide benefits and harms.
• Ecological losses occur through several mechanisms: residual loss (time lag between project life and actual recovery), comparative loss (restoring areas already more diverse than the impacted site), loss of reference (using degraded ecosystems as benchmarks), collateral loss (noise and light pollution), and evolutionary loss (destruction of diversification potential).
• Normative losses include the erosion of strict conservation policies, the use of 'sustainable growth' as a slogan to legitimize continued development without reform, and the displacement of public funding for conservation toward private companies.
• Moral losses result from institutionalizing the idea that nature can be destroyed if compensated, treating restored ecosystems as artificial human designs rather than natural entities, and relying on a 'technological solution' mentality.
• The authors reject the 'offsets or nothing' dichotomy and suggest replacing the 'no net loss' objective with a 'no more loss' goal, utilizing a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) framework that incorporates stakeholder participation and transparency.

APA

Moreno-Mateos, D., Maris, V., Béchet, A., & Curran, M. (2015). LA VERDADERA PÉRDIDA CAUSADA POR LAS POLÍTICAS DE COMPENSACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD. Basque Centre for Climate Change. https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/201601080139481887042062.pdf

Chicago

Moreno-Mateos, David, Virginie Maris, Arnaud Béchet, and Michael Curran. LA VERDADERA PÉRDIDA CAUSADA POR LAS POLÍTICAS DE COMPENSACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD. Basque Centre for Climate Change, 2015. https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/201601080139481887042062.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Moreno-Mateos |first1=David |last2=Maris |first2=Virginie |last3=Béchet |first3=Arnaud |last4=Curran |first4=Michael |title=LA VERDADERA PÉRDIDA CAUSADA POR LAS POLÍTICAS DE COMPENSACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD |publisher=Basque Centre for Climate Change |date=2015 |url=https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/201601080139481887042062.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{morenomateos2015verdadera, author = {Moreno-Mateos, David and Maris, Virginie and Béchet, Arnaud and Curran, Michael}, title = {{LA VERDADERA PÉRDIDA CAUSADA POR LAS POLÍTICAS DE COMPENSACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD}}, institution = {Basque Centre for Climate Change}, year = {2015}, url = {https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/201601080139481887042062.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }