User:Manxshearwater/mitigationhierarchy

= Mitigation hierarchy = The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that aims to manage risks through application of a hierarchy of steps. These steps vary but generally include: avoid, minimise, restore, and offset. An increasing number of policies apply the principles of the mitigation hierarchy to environmental impact assessments that address the impacts of businesses and governments on the environment, including on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this context, the mitigation hierarchy is usually applied with the goal of achieving no net loss. In some jurisdictions, the application of the mitigation hierarchy is required by law.

Variations to the classical mitigation hierarchy have been proposed. For example, the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy and the Science Based Target Network's AR3T framework. In addition to its use for biodiversity, alternate versions of the mitigation hierarchy have been proposed for different sectors, such as waste, food waste, energy, and carbon.

Steps
The steps of the mitigation hierarchy (and terms used to describe them) vary regionally and across fields. In Environmental Impact Assessments, to which it is commonly applied, the mitigation hierarchy generally includes the following steps: The importance of applying these steps in order to effectively conserve biodiversity and prevent the use of offsetting as a default measure (rather than a last resort) has been emphasised.
 * Avoid - measures taken to avoid creating impacts. This step is widely regarded as the most important.
 * Minimise - measures to reduce impacts that cannot be avoided.
 * Restore/rehabilitate - measures to restore or rehabilitate ecosystems that have been cleared or degraded, following a development project/activity that caused impacts that could not be avoided or minimised. Restoration involves assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed.
 * Offset - measures to compensate for residual negative impacts that cannot be avoided, minimised, or restored/rehabilitated, generally with the aim of no net loss or net gain of biodiversity.

Variations
The application of the mitigation hierarchy and the terminology used to describe it vary regionally, across sectors, and across organisations. Variations of the mitigation hierarchy have also been proposed, both for application within the biodiversity sector and for application in other fields, such as energy, waste and food waste, and carbon.

Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy
In 2021, the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy (MCH) was proposed by conservationists. It widens the framework of the traditional mitigation hierarchy for biodiversity to include all conservation actions, with the aim of supporting the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and nature-positive (a global goal for nature) through mainstreaming. When applied to biodiversity, mainstreaming refers to the process of embedding biodiversity considerations into public and private practices/policies to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

The four steps of the MCH:


 * Refrain
 * Reduce
 * Restore
 * Renew

Action Framework (AR3T)
The Science-Based Targets Network introduced an Action Framework (AR3T) in 2020 to guide implementation of corporate targets for climate and environmental issues, including the nature-positive goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve full nature recovery by 2050.

The steps of the AR3T:


 * Avoid and reduce pressures on nature loss
 * Restore and regenerate to enable nature recovery
 * Transform systems to address loss of nature

Application beyond biodiversity
The mitigation hierarchy has been applied beyond Environmental Impact Assessments and biodiversity, through the proposal of hierarchies for waste, food waste, energy, and carbon.

Policy requirements
In some jurisdictions, the application of the mitigation hierarchy is required by law.

Criticisms and challenges
The mitigation hierarchy and its application to environmental impact assessments (EIAs) has been criticised. Critics have argued that the use of a mitigation hierarchy approach to dealing with negative impacts of development projects means that biodiversity offsetting can become the default, rather than the last resort.