Date:
2018/06/14
Time:
10:45
Room:
K305 Alvar
A comparison of offsets policies and mitigation banking approaches in natural and cultural heritage management
(Oral)
,
SEE PEER REVIEW
Conservation policies have evolved from wilderness preservation to include the protection of certain places 'in exchange for' destruction of other areas. So-called 'offsets', 'offsite mitigation' or 'mitigation banking' approaches are designed to compensate for the deleterious consequences of land use change and provide that development may convert sites of value on the condition that similar areas are preserved elsewhere. There is unprecedented pressure being placed on natural and cultural heritage landscapes as a result of population growth, escalating development activity and resource extraction and consumption worldwide and offsets approaches are promoted as mechanisms by which the multiple values of heritage landscapes may be managed more sustainably. However, the approach is not without risks, most obviously the challenge of equivalence and comparing and exchanging 'apples and oranges'. Rigorous oversight is essential to ensure that offsets do not become a 'license to destroy' and remain a low priority option on the mitigation hierarchy. Previous experience in biodiversity conservation suggests that extension of the approach to other fields, including cultural heritage, may be premature. The case studies conducted for this research demonstrate that significant policy failures have occurred and public good objectives thwarted. Past practice indicates that reforms are required in both parameters as well as the philosophies underpinning offsets approaches. Comparing cultural heritage management to biodiversity preservation may also be another case of comparing unlike categories. A policy that may work for a certain set of values in particular circumstances, may not work for all. However, integration of the management of cultural and heritage may provide benefits, including respect for Indigenous co-creation of landscapes. Integration of the consideration of natural and cultural values through a landscape approach may achieve better outcomes for both, considering that such a frame would reflect the reality of human and environment inter-relationships and embeddedness. This may also lead to useful reforms of offsets approaches. Shifting to an integrated focus at a landscape scale would facilitate much-needed regard for cumulative damage and legacy issues. Future offset policies could go beyond compensation for current losses, and incorporate treatment of the debts incurred by harmful practices in the past.