Planning biodiversity offsets - Twelve operationally important decisions

Abstract

Ecological damage caused by infrastructure projects or other societal activity may be compensated by restoring or protecting habitats. This process is called ecological compensation or biodiversity offsetting. Conceptually biodiversity offsetting resembles the "polluter pays" principle, in which the polluter compensates the damage it causes. Biodiversity offsetting can be considered at different hierarchical levels from general principles to individual offsetting cases. This publication focuses on the overarching ecological principles and implementation risks that are common to all hierarchical levels. This publication reviews the concepts of offsetting and summarizes a dozen operational decisions that effectively determine how well ecological damage becomes compensated. Factors treated cover the three major axes of ecology, biodiversity, time and space as well as a host of additional important factors characteristic to biodiversity offsets. The framework described here allows systematic and well-informed planning and evaluation of biodiversity offsets. The recommendations given in the text are drafted from the perspective of environmental administration and organizations overseeing the credibility of offsets.

Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation

“…Despite the potential benefits of temporary credits, the ability of temporary credits to offset impacts may be less certain than that of permanent credits (Moilanen & Kotiaho, 2018). For example, some programs allow for dynamic permanent offsets, in which sequential temporary credit agreements are used to offset a long‐term or permanent impact but the locations of these credits can change (Bean, 2017; Pindilli & Casey, 2015).…”

“…However, it is unknown whether the program will be able to enroll enough landowners during each enrollment cycle to generate the mandated number of credits (Calvet et al., 2019). The availability of eligible lands from which to generate temporary credits for the duration of a long‐term impact or a permanent impact always will be uncertain, and if availability is not sufficient, temporary credits could result in net loss over time (Moilanen & Kotiaho, 2018). Additionally, it may be more difficult to estimate and evaluate the cumulative effects of intermittent conservation actions than a single permanent action, and the outcomes of intermittent conservation actions only may become evident given sufficient monitoring and after multiple enrollment cycles (Moilanen & Kotiaho, 2018).…”

“…Increasing credit duration likely would decrease the flexibility of temporary credits and be less appealing to landowners (Calvet et al., 2019; Wolfe et al., 2012), and other habitat exchange programs in the United States do not appear to dictate the duration, transaction methods, or financial sustainability of temporary credits generated throughout the debit project. Therefore, it remains unclear whether a series of temporary offsets can mitigate a long‐term impact (Moilanen & Kotiaho, 2018).…”

Ekologisten haittojen hyvittäminen suojelualueita ennallistamalla

“…Kompensaation kannalta tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että monimuotoisuudelle aiheutetut haitat eivät ole koskaan korvattavissa täsmälleen samanlaisella monimuotoisuudella (in-kind offset) (Hanski 2011, Bos ym. 2014, Moilanen & Kotiaho 2017, Moilanen & Kotiaho 2018. Luonnon ainutlaatuisuudesta johtuvaa menetystä voidaan osin ottaa huomioon hyvityskertoimen avulla.…”

“…2015;Bull ym. 2016;Moilanen & Kotiaho 2017, 8, 14-15;Moilanen & Kotiaho 2018). Kokonaisheikentymättömyyden saavuttamiseksi on suositeltu käytettäväksi lievennyshierarkiaa (mitigaatiohierarkia), eli haittojen lieventämisen arvojärjestystä (esim.…”