The Role of “No Net Loss” Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom

Abstract

Over US$60 trillion is predicted to be spent on new infrastructure globally by 2040. Is it possible to meet UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 (develop infrastructure networks) without sacrificing goals 14 and 15 (ending biodiversity loss)? We explore the potential role of ''no net loss'' (NNL) policies in reconciling these SDGs. We assess country-level overlaps between planned infrastructure expansion, infrastructure-threatened biodiversity, and national biodiversity compensation policies and find that around half of predicted infrastructure and infrastructure-threatened biodiversity falls within countries with some form of mandatory compensation policy. However, these policies currently have shortcomings, are unlikely to achieve NNL in biodiversity, and could risk doing more harm than good. We summarize policy transformations required for NNL policies to mitigate all infrastructure impacts on biodiversity. To achieve SDGs 9 alongside 14 and 15, capitalizing on the global coverage of mandatory compensation policies and rapidly transforming them into robust NNL policies (emphasizing impact avoidance) should be an urgent priority.

Current and future trends in socio-economic, demographic and governance factors affecting global primate conservation

“…Assuming that continued human population expansion results in a significant increase in the demand for food, in tropical regions characterized by water scarcity, the cultivation of bioengineered drought-tolerant crops can result in increased production without expanding farming into forested areas ( Rosa et al, 2020 ). No net loss (NNL) biodiversity policies, which are design to reconcile the increased need for infrastructure development with biodiversity conservation are also being formulated ( Zu Ermgassen et al, 2019 ). Finally, at the local level, there exist numerous small-scale, but highly successful, interventions that have shown to mitigate the threats to biodiversity (reviewed in Sutherland et al (2019) ).…”

Implications of the World Bank's environmental and social framework for biodiversity

“…Biodiversity offsets aim to bring benefits to biodiversity by counterbalancing the losses from development; however, they remain controversial (Benabou, 2014;. There is currently insufficient empirical evidence to determine whether or not offsets are effective in delivering the required outcomes (zu Ermgassen et al, 2019). Their success is likely heavily dependent on their design, such as governance and funding arrangements, and local factors, such as land availability and biodiversity trends Sonter et al, 2020).…”

“…The mitigation hierarchy has been proposed as an effective means of dealing with negative impacts to biodiversity (Arlidge et al., 2018). No net loss policies and biodiversity offsets are increasingly prominent globally (zu Ermgassen, Utamiputri, Bennun, Edwards, & Bull, 2019) and the ESF mirrors the policies of the IFC, the private‐sector lending arm of the World Bank Group, which are widely considered best practice (IFC, 2012; Narain et al., 2020). Biodiversity offsets aim to bring benefits to biodiversity by counterbalancing the losses from development; however, they remain controversial (Benabou, 2014; Maron et al., 2016).…”

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets

“…At least on paper, biodiversity offsetting seems to be an increasingly adopted policy tool. There are at least 37 countries with mandatory biodiversity offsetting policies for at least some infrastructure sectors or habitat types and a further 64 countries that recommend or enable voluntary offsets (zu Ermgassen et al 2019b). Still, land use for biodiversity offsets is limited compared with the scale of human impacts on the world; in 2018, there were globally only just over 150,000 km 2 of variable-type offsets completed or in the process of being implemented (Bull & Strange 2018).…”