Net gain is the term used to describe management that doesn’t undermine ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More. In theory, a ‘net gain’ is achieved, when an ecosystem starts to restore itself.
To achieve any kind of meaningful net gain, you can only expect returns to occur when degraded habitat is recovering. The problem is that this can lead to an undervaluing of existing or pristine habitatsWhat is habitat for animals and people? Habitat, hence the word "habitable" describes the natural surroundings in which any animal (or human) lives, that houses basic needs, such as food and shelter. Vegetation, for example, is habitat for animals. On its own, habitat is not necessarily stable or sustainable, which is why it differs from an ecosystem. Habitat in disrepair More.
Relatively pristine habitats have no net gain
Pristine ecosystems don’t, for example, store more carbon than they create. They are relatively stable and in balance, which means most measurable variables are steady. (The inputs roughly equal the outputs). This is pretty worthless to a developer who might want to offset a loss elsewhere. Hence, net gain ideas don’t always help us protect what already exists.
The desire to be paid to restore habitats can easily lead to erosion of biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More. THis can happen even though a net gain is shown on paper. People have destroyed habitat in one place, only to be given permission to offset further loss elsewhere [1], by improving what they previously degraded.
Dynamic habitats can also demonstrate net loss
Many habitats are dynamic and have a high turnover of carbon (and other measures). These can be part of sources and sinks for biodiversity.
Steady stable states can only be achieved if there is a balance between gain and loss. Sometimes this occurs at a large enough scale that it’s measurable. If the metric by which net gain is measured happens to be one that is lost at one site, and the measure is only done locally, it can appear to be a loss when in actual fact, it’s a gain on a larger or longer scale. For example, introducing a predator or herbivores might increase carbon loss. But this can be in the short term, or cause decline of a species on a local scale.
Net gain is a way for us to survive better
Net gain is essentially a human ideal. After all, it was only coined to mean a way for people to survive better.
Perhaps true ‘net gain’, therefore, is only achieved when a system is both balanced and creating enough additional value, that it can support people. There are three basic components to being healthy: food, water and air. As long as these are clean and in permanently good supply, a system is sustainable. For reasons described in Wildlife in the Balance, this also means an abundance of wildlife.
Net gain as a human ideal
For example, where a landscape is being lived on by a community who is looking after it well, food might grow faster than if it’s unsustainable. An example of this is the Budj Bim cultural landscape in Australia. This supported a population of people for 37,000 years, including through two ice-ages and sea level rises of 125m. Short-finned eels were farmed and the outcome was sustainable (it would have still been practiced today, if not for European settlement of Australia).
This landscape would have had to have produced more eels than it would have, without humans. The 37,000 year culture survived 30 times longer than any other known civilisation. No animal can exist in a place for that long unless it is in balance with everything around it. Which means humans would have needed to maintain clean water, fertile soil and landscape integrity, while enabling themselves to remove a quantity of eels, which were also having that impact.
in this case, a net gain is merely the part of the ecosystem that is made surplus to all other animals, that enables humans to exist.
A true definition of net gain
A true definition of net gain needs to consider the long-term sustainability of all life-support factors and ecosystem services. A numerical measure, based on carbon or other single factors, is not meaningful. This is where any use of net gain in offsets has to consider its wider socio-ecological effects.
- ‘Anger as Aussie developer spends $600 to offset damage to koala habitat’ https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/anger-as-aussie-developer-spends-600-to-offset-damage-to-koala-habitat-034234758.html
