Uncovering opportunities for effective species conservation banking requires navigating technical and practical complexities

Abstract

In the USA, Species Conservation Banking is a prominent example of compensatory biodiversity impact mitigation, with an annual market value estimated at US$354.2 million. Species Conservation Banking represents a useful case study of a well-established program that can provide empirical insights into the practicalities of implementing quantitative compensatory biodiversity mitigation on-the-ground. Using semi-structured key-informant interviews structured around well-established technical challenges to compensatory mitigation, this study aimed to understand (i) how and why these challenges are or are not addressed in practice; and (ii) how these challenges relate to practical challenges faced by conservation banking stakeholders on-the-ground. Challenges identified included: (i) defining trading currencies and equivalence, (ii) regulatory and political uncertainty, (iii) regulatory agency capacity, will and knowledge, (iv) lack of policies, standards, and competition with other mitigation mechanisms, (v) long-term uncertainty/longevity, and (vi) lack of species knowledge and data transparency. These challenges are numerous, diverse, interlinked and transdisciplinary, and collectively inhibit the ability of practitioners to resolve underlying technical challenges-a finding likely applicable to related biodiversity offset programs. To help address challenges and navigate this complexity, we formulate several recommendations for conservation banking stakeholders to improve the chances of beneficial biodiversity outcomes being achieved.

Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity

“…Where measures are designed, there may be a lack of monitoring to ensure success after implementation (Tischew et al, 2010). Taking offsets as a specific example, there are often technical challenges quantifying impacts to biodiversity, or determining whether or not impacts can be offset (Bull et al, 2013; Pilgrim et al, 2013), and practical challenges during implementation such as changing regulations, lack of stakeholder support, or lack of skills or capacity (e.g., Brownlie et al, 2017; White et al, 2021). Technology cannot solve these issues, but it could be an important tool in helping improve the success of measures in practice.…”

Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking

“…Therefore, crediting in the conservation banking program walks a line between species conservation and incentivizing private entities to enter the market [48]. White et al (2021) identify defining unit measure and equivalence as a major challenge of the program [54]. Selecting metrics is challenging, as the conservation status of different species is affected by different factors.…”

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

“…Researchers and agencies have studied program design or the ecological contribution of individual banks (Bunn et al 2014;Carreras Gamarra and Toombs 2017;Sonter et al 2019;Grimm 2021), but due to limited tracking and data on species ecology, none have evaluated its actual success in conserving species. However, scholars agree that the institutional setting, including legislation and market arrangements, affects offsets' effectiveness (Boisvert 2015;Gelcich et al 2016;Sonter et al 2020;White et al 2021).…”

“…The main challenges of conservation banking (CB) include a lack of standards and competition with other market-based compensation instruments (White et al 2021). This raises the "problem of governance" (p. 362), which is rooted in the di culty of tting scales of ecological processes with scales of market activity and regulation (Robertson 2004).…”

“…Conservation banking takes place in a social-ecological system (SES) (Mann and Absher 2014;White et al 2021). An SES perspective allows for a systemic view of the regulatory, ecological, and market sphere.…”