A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union includes a target to “ensure no-net-loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020”. Many policy options can be envisioned to achieve such a no-net-loss target, mainly acting on land use and land management. To assess the effectiveness of such policies at a European Union (EU) scale, we simulated land use changes and their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators. We analysed a Business–as-Usual scenario, and three no-net-loss scenarios. The no-net-loss scenarios included measures that aim to reduce negative impacts of land use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services, by better implementation of existing biodiversity conservation measures (Scenario 1); and enhancement of existing measures (Scenario 2); and offsetting residual impacts on areas of high biodiversity and ecosystem service value (Scenario 3). Results show that none of the scenarios achieved overall no-net-loss. Compared to a Business-as-Usual scenario, the no-net-loss scenarios reduced the overall degree of land cover change at EU level, hence reducing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in large parts of the EU. The more comprehensive no-net-loss scenarios resulted in a gain of natural land cover. Moreover, natural areas became better connected, especially in peri-urban areas as a result of impact avoidance and offsetting. Richness of farmland bird species was projected to increase. Measures included in the no-net-loss scenarios had net positive effects on pollination and carbon sequestration, neutral effects on crop production, erosion prevention and flood regulation, and negative effects on nature-based recreation, compared to Business-as-Usual. In particular circumstances policy measures invoked displacement effects in land use allocation, reducing the effectiveness of the measures. This was primarily the case for flood regulation services throughout the EU. This study differentiates the potential effectiveness of a no-net-loss policy framework in three manners: (i) considering biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously; (ii) in the light of existing policies and land use pressures; and (iii) in different land use contexts across the EU. Taken together, we conclude that achieving no-net-loss for biodiversity and ecosystem services throughout the EU remains challenging given high land use demands. Nevertheless, in large parts of Europe there appears room for improvement for certain kinds of biodiversity and ecosystem services compared to Business-as-Usual, while still meeting other land use demands.

[1]  H. Lotze-Campen,et al.  Description of the translation of sector specific land cover and land management information , 2013 .

[2]  Yakov Ben-Haim,et al.  How Much Compensation is Enough? A Framework for Incorporating Uncertainty and Time Discounting When Calculating Offset Ratios for Impacted Habitat , 2009 .

[3]  E J Milner-Gulland,et al.  Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  Erez Hatna,et al.  Assessing spatial uncertainties of land allocation using a scenario approach and sensitivity analysis: a study for land use in Europe. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Uncertainties in Ecosystem Service Maps: A Comparison on the European Scale , 2014, PloS one.

[6]  Jari Liski,et al.  Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget , 2003 .

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

[8]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Sensitising rural policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe , 2011 .

[9]  Policy impacts on regulating ecosystem services: looking at the implications of 60 years of landscape change on soil erosion prevention in a Mediterranean silvo-pastoral system , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[10]  Ola Olsson,et al.  Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? , 2014 .

[11]  Paracchini Maria-Luisa,et al.  A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services - Towards an atlas of ecosystem services , 2011 .

[12]  M. Pérez-Soba,et al.  Simulating Land Use Policies Targeted to Protect Biodiversity with the CLUE-Scanner Model , 2011 .

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

[14]  Chris Jacobs-Crisioni,et al.  More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use change in Europe , 2014, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Ineffective Biodiversity Policy due to Five Rebound Effects , 2012 .

[16]  P. Verburg,et al.  Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? , 2007 .

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

[19]  G A da Fonseca,et al.  Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. , 2001, Science.

[20]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe , 2014 .

[21]  Geoffrey E. Pociask,et al.  Tradeoffs among ecosystem services in restored wetlands , 2015 .

[22]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Protected Areas: Mixed Success in Conserving East Africa’s Evergreen Forests , 2012, PloS one.

[23]  Bruce B. Collette,et al.  The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates , 2010, Science.

[24]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes , 2014 .

[25]  D J Harper,et al.  No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: A Review and Analysis of Habitat Compensation in Canada , 2005, Environmental management.

[26]  P. Ciais,et al.  The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at country-scale – a European case study , 2004 .

[27]  P. Verburg,et al.  Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape , 2014 .

[28]  K. Overmars,et al.  Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[29]  Jared G. Underwood,et al.  Combining Landscape-Level Conservation Planning and Biodiversity Offset Programs: A Case Study , 2011, Environmental management.

[30]  Amy Pocewicz,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Development by design : blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy , 2009 .

[31]  T. BenDor,et al.  Moving Targets and Biodiversity Offsets for Endangered Species Habitat: Is Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat a Stock or Flow? , 2014 .

[32]  R. Julliard,et al.  Large‐scale trade‐off between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services , 2014 .

[33]  H. Levrel,et al.  Compensatory Mitigation in Marine Ecosystems: Which Indicators for Assessing the "No Net Loss" Goal of Ecosystem Services and Ecological Functions? , 2012 .

[34]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally , 2013, Current opinion in environmental sustainability.

[35]  Sergi Herrando,et al.  Indicators of the impact of land use changes using large-scale bird surveys: Land abandonment in a Mediterranean region , 2014 .

[36]  R. Green,et al.  Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Developing a methodology for a species-based and spatially explicit indicator for biodiversity on agricultural land in the EU , 2014 .

[38]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[39]  K. Kate,et al.  A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts , 2013 .

[40]  Markus Jenny,et al.  Impact of landscape improvement by agri-environment scheme options on densities of characteristic farmland bird species and brown hare (Lepus europaeus) , 2014 .

[41]  O. Venter,et al.  Reserves in Context: Planning for Leakage from Protected Areas , 2015, PloS one.

[42]  Astrid J. A. Van Teeffelen,et al.  Biodiversity offsets are one solution to widespread poorly compensated biodiversity loss: a response to Curran et al.. , 2015, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[43]  B. Soares-Filho,et al.  Offsetting the Impacts of Mining to Achieve No Net Loss of Native Vegetation , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[44]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[45]  Deborah S. Bower,et al.  Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring , 2013 .

[46]  V. Wolters,et al.  How High Nature Value (HNV) farmland is related to bird diversity in agro-ecosystems – Towards a versatile tool for biodiversity monitoring and conservation planning , 2014 .

[47]  Joshua Goldstein,et al.  Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services , 2015 .

[48]  R. Costanza,et al.  Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making , 2009 .

[49]  David A. Eitelberg,et al.  Report documenting the assessment results for the scenarios stored in the database , 2013 .

[50]  M. Pérez-Soba,et al.  Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU , 2014 .

[51]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Conservation: Stop misuse of biodiversity offsets , 2015, Nature.

[52]  H. Levrel,et al.  Selecting ecological indicators to compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services , 2013 .

[53]  Todd K. BenDor,et al.  A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy , 2009 .

[54]  K. Gaston,et al.  Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[55]  Willem Bouten,et al.  A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services , 2014 .

[56]  Ascelin Gordon,et al.  Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[57]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  The Convention on Biological Diversity's 2010 Target , 2005, Science.

[58]  L. Maiorano,et al.  Bioscore - Cost - effective assessment of policy impact on biodiversity using species sensitivity scores , 2010 .

[59]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Future carbon sequestration in Europe—Effects of land use change , 2008 .