Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services

A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting

Biodiversity offsets are commonly used to compensate for environmental impacts, but their effectiveness is often questioned. Estimations of expected losses and gains often rely on what we called condition metrics, which measure a site's quality or condition using certain ecological attributes. Condition metrics are central to most offset policies, but their attributes and calculations vary substantially. We reviewed the academic literature to draw a profile of existing condition metrics used in the offsetting context. We found 17 metrics that differed in how they included attributes from the three "dimensions of equivalence": biodiversity (present in 15 metrics), landscape (in 10 metrics) and ecosystem services (in 5 metrics). Most metrics included many ecological attributes and required fieldwork and GIS data to be calculated, but few used modeling and expert opinion. Generally, metrics aggregated the attributes into a single final value and were created in Global North countries. To favor more transparent and ecologically equivalent offset trades worldwide, we suggest condition metrics should include the three dimensions of equivalence in a disaggregated way, i.e. measurements done separately and analyzed in parallel. The use of modeling, expert opinion and GIS may facilitate the inclusion of the dimensions and reduce the need for intensive (and expensive) fieldwork. Testing synergies and trade-offs among attributes could indicate if metrics can be simplified without losing information. Finally, development of fit-for-purpose condition metrics is especially important in Global South countries, where few such metrics exist.

Regulation, the hybrid market, and species conservation: The case of conservation banking in California

Conservation Banking in California is a long-established offset program. Banks are hybrid instruments that hover between market autonomy and regulatory oversight. Challenges that may affect outcomes of the program include aligning regulation with the scales and objectives of the hybrid market and conservation and interaction with other compensation instruments. I use an analytical framework combining social-ecological fit (does the regulation fit the spatial, functional, and temporal scales of the market or conservation?) and instrument interaction (are compensation instruments redundant, synergetic, etc.?) to analyze the institutional framework of the conservation banking program. Results show that the program fails to reflect the hybrid market or species conservation objectives, creating a social-ecological mismatch. The institutional framework disincentivizes banking, while its contribution in conserving species cannot be measured. Competing and redundant instruments can lead to weaker compensation. The program needs equal standards that reflect conservation objectives for all compensation instruments. Findings on fit can be useful for other banking programs, and considerations on instrument interaction could improve offsets anywhere.

Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate

The two most urgent and interlinked environmental challenges humanity faces are climate change and biodiversity loss. We are entering a pivotal decade for both the international biodiversity and climate change agendas with the sharpening of ambitious strategies and targets by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Within their respective Conventions, the biodiversity and climate interlinked challenges have largely been addressed separately. There is evidence that conservation actions that halt, slow or reverse biodiversity loss can simultaneously slow anthropogenic mediated climate change significantly. This review highlights conservation actions which have the largest potential for mitigation of climate change. We note that conservation actions have mainly synergistic benefits and few antagonistic trade-offs with climate change mitigation. Specifically, we identify direct co-benefits in 14 out of the 21 action targets of the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, notwithstanding the many indirect links that can also support both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. These relationships are context and scale-dependent; therefore, we showcase examples of local biodiversity conservation actions that can be incentivized, guided and prioritized by global objectives and targets. The close interlinkages between biodiversity, climate change mitigation, other nature's contributions to people and good quality of life are seldom as integrated as they should be in management and policy. This review aims to re-emphasize the vital relationships between biodiversity conservation actions and climate change mitigation in a timely manner, in support to major Conferences of Parties that are about to negotiate strategic frameworks and international goals for the decades to come.

Metrics for environmental compensation: A comparative analysis of Swedish municipalities

Environmental compensation (EC) aims at addressing environmental losses due to development projects and involves a need to compare development losses with compensation gains using relevant metrics. A conceptual procedure for computing no net loss is formulated and used as a point of departure for a comparative analysis of metrics used by five Swedish municipalities as a part of their EC implementation in the spatial planning context of detailed development plans. While Swedish law does not require EC in this context, these municipalities have still decided to introduce EC requirements for development projects that occur on municipality-owned land and to promote voluntary EC among private actors in development projects on private land. There is substantial variation across the municipalities studied with respect to both metrics and attributes subject to measurement, but there are also similarities: The attributes considered when assessing the need for EC in conjunction with development are not only about nature per se, but also about recreational opportunities and other types ecosystem services; semi-quantitative metrics such as scores are common while quantitative or monetary metrics are rare; and metrics are rarely applied to assess compensatory gains, focusing instead on losses from development. Streamlining across municipalities might be warranted for increasing predictability and transparency for developers and citizens, but it also introduces considerable challenges such as a need for developing consistent guidelines for semi-quantitative metrics, and to handle substitutability issues if metrics are not only applied on individual attributes but also on groups of attributes. The broad scope of attributes used by the municipalities is in line with an international tendency to broaden EC to include not only biodiversity aspects but also ecosystem services. Moreover, the EC systems applied by the municipalities are of particular importance for highlighting the crucial role of environmental management for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services not only in areas having formal protection status but also in the everyday landscape. The municipalities' experience and strengths and weaknesses associated with their EC systems are therefore relevant also in an international perspective.

Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking

Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the US Endangered Species Act. This article provides a case study analysis of two conservation banks in the state of California, comparing the conservation gains provided by banks with the losses from development impacts. It provides an analysis of credits and metrics to determine whether the gains are equal to the losses in terms of type, condition, and amount. Results do show that the gains exceed the losses in terms of acreage. However, the program uses indirect metrics (acreage), and the equivalence of the losses and gains, besides habitat type and size, is not reflected. Banks provide a baseline in their documentation and conduct monitoring of species abundance and habitat quality, but they do not use it to measure additional conservation gains. More detailed metrics and transparent indices to certify the acres in production could allow for a quantification of conservation benefits and an evaluation of program success. However, selecting standardized metrics is challenging because they need to be species-specific to reflect the goal of species recovery, and still be operational in practice.