Development by design in Colombia: making mitigation decisions consistent with conservation outcomes

PLoS One. 2013 Dec 5;8(12):e81831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081831. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

Mitigation policy and regulatory frameworks are consistent in their strong support for the mitigation hierarchy of: (1) avoiding impacts, (2) minimizing impacts, and then (3) offsetting/compensating for residual impacts. While mitigation frameworks require developers to avoid, minimize and restore biodiversity on-site before considering an offset for residual impacts, there is a lack of quantitative guidance for this decision-making process. What are the criteria for requiring impacts be avoided altogether? Here we examine how conservation planning can guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address this issue. In support of the Colombian government's aim to improve siting and mitigation practices for planned development, we examined five pilot projects in landscapes expected to experience significant increases in mining, petroleum and/or infrastructure development. By blending landscape-level conservation planning with application of the mitigation hierarchy, we can proactively identify where proposed development and conservation priorities would be in conflict and where impacts should be avoided. The approach we outline here has been adopted by the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to guide licensing decisions, avoid piecemeal licensing, and promote mitigation decisions that maintain landscape condition.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Colombia
  • Endangered Species*
  • Environment Design* / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Environment Design* / standards
  • Urban Renewal* / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Urban Renewal* / methods
  • Urban Renewal* / organization & administration
  • Urban Renewal* / standards

Grants and funding

Funding was provided by the Colombian Ministry of Environment, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.