Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation

The Present and Future of Insect Biodiversity Conservation in the Neotropics: Policy Gaps and Recommendations

Emerging evidence suggests that insect populations may be declining at local and global scales, threatening the sustainability of the ecosystem services that insects provide. Insect declines are of particular concern in the Neotropics, which holds several of the world's hotspots of insect endemism and diversity. Conservation policies are one way to prevent and mitigate insect declines, yet these policies are usually biased toward vertebrate species. Here, we outline some key policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in the Neotropics and discuss their potential contribution and shortcomings for insect biodiversity conservation. These include species-specific action policies, protected areas and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), sectoral policies, biodiversity offsetting, market-based mechanisms, and the international policy instruments that underpin these efforts. We highlight that although these policies can potentially benefit insect biodiversity indirectly, there are avenues in which we could better incorporate the specific needs of insects into policy to mitigate the declines mentioned above. We propose several areas of improvement. Firstly, evaluating the extinction risk of more Neotropical insects to better target at-risk species with species-specific policies and conserve their habitats within area-based interventions. Secondly, alternative pest control methods and enhanced monitoring of insects in a range of land-based production sectors. Thirdly, incorporating measurable and achievable insect conservation targets into international policies and conventions. Finally, we emphasise the important roles of community engagement and enhanced public awareness in achieving these improvements to insect conservation policies.

New indicator of habitat functionality reveals high risk of underestimating trade-offs among sustainable development goals: The case of wild reindeer and hydropower

Although biodiversity is crucial for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), following the current trajectory, we risk failing SDG 15. Using a new indicator quantifying the loss of functional habitat (habitat that is simultaneously suitable and well-connected), we show that the real impact of renewable energy is far larger than previously assumed. Specifically, we estimate that the construction of hydropower reservoirs in south Norway caused a loss of ca. 222 km² of functional habitat for wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus)-which is far larger than assumed based on land inundation indices (110 km²). Fully mitigating these impacts is challenging: scenario analyses reveal that the measures proposed by societal actors would yield only a fraction of the habitat lost (2-12 km²) and could cause trade-off risks with other SDGs. Using indices of functional connectivity is crucial for environmental impact assessments, as entire ecological networks for several species can be affected far beyond the reservoirs.

Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States

Conservation and mitigation banks allow their proponents to buy credits to offset the negative residual impacts of their development projects with the goal of no net loss (NNL) in the ecosystem function and habitat area. However, little is known about the extent to which these bank transactions achieve NNL. We synthesized and reviewed 12,756 transactions in the United States which were related to meeting area and ecological equivalence (n = 4331) between the approved negative impact and offset. While most of these transactions provided an offset that was equal to or greater than the impacted area, approximately one quarter of the transactions, especially those targeting wetlands, did not meet ecological equivalence between the impact and offset. This missing ecological equivalence was often due to the significantly increasing use of preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation over creating new ecosystems through establishment and re-establishment. Stream transactions seldom added new ecosystem area through creation but mainly used rehabilitation in order to add offset benefits, in many cases leading to a net loss of area. Our results suggest that best practice guidance on habitat creation as well as the incentivization of habitat creation must increase in the future to avoid net loss through bank transactions and to meet the ever-accelerating global changes in land use and the increased pressure of climate change.

Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California

Habitat conservation banking is a policy instrument for conserving endangered species by providing financial incentives for the landowners in the United States. This policy instrument aims to protect habitat, but little or no thought has been given to its financial performance. A financial analysis of habitat conservation banks (HCB) informs policymakers and conservation biologists of the long-term success of this policy and the future of HCBs. This paper evaluates 26 habitat conservation banks (HCB) in California by calculating their Net Present Values (NPV). We do so by compiling the cost and revenue data for habitat conservation banks. The average annual cost of operating HCBs was $42.78/acre (median: $22.58/acre), and the average credit price or revenue from credit sale was $6014.72/acre (median: $553.65/acre). The average NPV for 26 HCBs was $4205.90/acre at a 4% rate of return, indicating an overall positive return from such an easement instrument. However, only 14 HCBs out of 26 produced a positive return. With the inclusion of land acquisition costs, three of eight HCBs performed financially well. On the brighter side, the number of HCBs has increased with time. But there is not enough evidence to ascertain financial certainty from their revenues. A right selection of space (land acquisition costs can make or break finances for HCB) and species could encourage landowners to establish HCBs. This could build confidence on those who may have been discouraged from lack of knowledge and fear of losing revenue due to regulatory compliance to conserve endangered species habitat in their land. The findings are helpful in identifying lands and prioritizing investments to generate conservation credits.

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.

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.

Can Constructed Wetlands be Wildlife Refuges? A Review of Their Potential Biodiversity Conservation Value

The degradation of wetland ecosystems is currently recognized as one of the main threats to global biodiversity. As a means of compensation, constructed wetlands (CWs), which are built to treat agricultural runoff and municipal wastewater, have become important for maintaining biodiversity. Here, we review studies on the relationships between CWs and their associated biodiversity published over the past three decades. In doing so, we provide an overview of how wildlife utilizes CWs, and the effects of biodiversity on pollutant transformation and removal. Beyond their primary aim (to purify various kinds of wastewater), CWs provide sub-optimal habitat for many species and, in turn, their purification function can be strongly influenced by the biodiversity that they support. However, there are some difficulties when using CWs to conserve biodiversity because some key characteristics of these engineered ecosystems vary from natural wetlands, including some fundamental ecological processes. Without proper management intervention, these features of CWs can promote biological invasion, as well as form an ‘ecological trap’ for native species. Management options, such as basin-wide integrative management and building in more natural wetland components, can partially offset these adverse impacts. Overall, the awareness of managers and the public regarding the potential value of CWs in biodiversity conservation remains superficial. More in-depth research, especially on how to balance different stakeholder values between wastewater managers and conservationists, is now required.