Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods.

Biodiversity offset strategies are based on the explicit calculation of both losses and gains necessary to establish ecological equivalence between impact and offset areas. Given the importance of quantifying biodiversity values, various accounting methods and metrics are continuously being developed and tested for this purpose. Considering the wide array of alternatives, selecting an appropriate one for a specific project can be not only challenging, but also crucial; accounting methods can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of an offsetting strategy, and if not well-suited to the context and values being offset, a no net loss outcome might not be delivered. To date there has been no systematic review or comparative classification of the available biodiversity accounting alternatives that aim at facilitating metric selection, and no tools that guide decision-makers throughout such a complex process. We fill this gap by developing a set of analyses to support (i) identifying the spectrum of available alternatives, (ii) understanding the characteristics of each and, ultimately (iii) making the most sensible and sound decision about which one to implement. The metric menu, scoring matrix, and decision tree developed can be used by biodiversity offsetting practitioners to help select an existing metric, and thus achieve successful outcomes that advance the goal of no net loss of biodiversity.

[1]  J. Kiesecker,et al.  Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks , 2010, Environmental management.

[2]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[3]  Theodore P. Toombs,et al.  Thirty years of species conservation banking in the U.S.: Comparing policy to practice , 2017 .

[4]  Lucie Bezombes,et al.  Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? , 2017, Environmental Management.

[5]  R. Noss Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach , 1990 .

[6]  David Cheal,et al.  Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The 'habitat hectares' approach , 2003 .

[7]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice , 2013, Oryx.

[8]  Mark Botha,et al.  Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or ‘no net loss’? , 2009 .

[9]  R. Julliard,et al.  Sustain common species and ecosystem functions through biodiversity offsets: response to Pilgrim et al. , 2013 .

[10]  Harold Levrel,et al.  No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy , 2014 .

[11]  T. Gardner,et al.  Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[12]  Fabien Quétier,et al.  Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions , 2011 .

[13]  D. Tranfield,et al.  Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review , 2003 .

[14]  H. Pereira,et al.  Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics , 2015 .

[15]  R. Munn The design of integrated monitoring systems to provide early indications of environmental/ecological changes , 1988, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[16]  Chris Wilcox,et al.  FORUM: Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies , 2015 .

[17]  Coralie Calvet,et al.  Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting , 2016 .

[18]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Comparing biodiversity offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan , 2014 .

[19]  J. Fox,et al.  Status of Species Conservation Banking in the United States , 2005 .

[20]  R. Taplin,et al.  Mining and biodiversity offsets: a transparent and science-based approach to measure "no-net-loss". , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[21]  P. Mayring Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[22]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews , 1994, BMJ.