Sierra Club Home Page


Sonoma Group
Sierra Club Redwood Chapter

EXPLORE, ENJOY AND PROTECT THE PLANET

Home
Contact
News
Outings
Join/Give


Forest Protection Campaign

April 1, 2005

What's Wrong with "No Net Loss"?

"No Net Loss" sounds innocuous, but it may be a dangerous loophole.

First, it is not well defined either by legal precedent, or by tight language in the proposed County ordinance. Thus, there is the potential that it will in practice turn out to be an ineffectual mitigation for forest destruction.

As well as we do understand it, the meaning of the phrase in the proposed ordinance is that a landowner who has two thousand badly over-harvested acres of forests will be able to convert one thousand of those acres to vineyards, in exchange for the promise to let the other thousand acres recover. (The extent and permanence of the protection on the other thousand acres is one of the key uncertainties.) Our point is that all over-harvested forests should be allowed to recover; by offering not to destroy one thousand of the acres, the landowner isn't offering anything more than he ought to be doing anyway. It is misleading to describe such an arrangement as "No Net Loss".

"No net loss" and the associated concept of "mitigation banking" have been used for many years at the federal and state levels. In addition to the USA, Canada and Great Britain (& probably other countries as well) have used the concepts.

President George Bush (the First) announced a "no net loss" policy for wetlands in 1989. As a philosophical goal, "no net loss" sets a minimum standard -- protecting the last few percent of a severely depleted resource is obviously not an aggressive environmental policy. A study prepared by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001 reported that even the minimal goal of "no net loss" was not being achieved for wetlands.

One of the main problems is how to measure "loss." It's easy to measure acreage, so that's what they do, but the real key is ecologic function. Does one acre of newly created wetland (forest) compensate for the loss of an acre of mature wetland (forest) with complex hydrologic and ecologic linkages? Advocates of the policy argue that over a sufficiently long time scale the distinction between "newly created" and "mature" becomes moot. Moderate environmentalists argue for higher mitigation ratios (several new acres to mitigate the loss of each existing acre) to compensate for the loss in quality.

Another problem with "no net loss" is the all too common inadequacy of long-term monitoring and enforcement. If it takes, say, 50 years to create a healthy wetland (forest), then clearly monitoring must continue for 50 years. Developments must have a long-term monitoring plan by an independent third party (land conservancy?) and be bonded in case the mitigation bank fails to produce the required ecological functions over time.

Redwood Forest
Courtesy of National Park Service 

The "No Net Loss" proposal fits hand in glove with the William Hill proposal to convert 1900 acres of forest to vineyards. (He owns 19,000 acres, so finding 1900 that he can promise to let recover should be easy.) Thus, the "No Net Loss" version of Option3 will facilitate this massive conversion. This 1900 acre proposal isn't an abstract threat, but an actual concrete proposal with major investors.