Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services
Offsetting—trading losses in one place for commensurate gains in another—is a tool used to mitigate environmental impacts of development. Biodiversity and carbon are the most widely used targets of offsets; however, other ecosystem services are increasingly traded, introducing new risks to the environment and people. Here, we provide guidance on how to “trade with minimal trade-offs”— i.e. how to offset impacts on biodiversity without negatively affecting ecosystem services and vice versa. We briefly survey the literature on offsetting biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem services, revealing that each subfield addresses unique issues (often overlooking those raised by others) and rarely assesses potential trade-offs. We discuss key differences between offsets that trade biodiversity and those that trade ecosystem services, conceptualise links between these different targets in an offsetting context and describe three broad approaches to manage potential trade-offs. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to strengthen the outcomes of offsetting policies that are emerging internationally.
KeywordsBiodiversity Ecosystem services Mitigation hierarchy Offsetting Trade-offs
This work was undertaken during a workshop on “linking landscape structure to ecosystem services”, supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP; n. 2017/50015-5), University of Queensland (UQ; Sprint 4/2016) and ARC Centre for Excellence in Environmental Decisions (CEED). LJS was supported by an ARC Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE170100684). M.M. is supported by ARC Future Fellowship FT140100516.
All authors designed the research and wrote the manuscript. CA, JSS and MW conducted the literature survey.
- BBOP. 2012. Standard on biodiversity offsets. Washington, DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program.Google Scholar
- Budiharta, S., E. Meijaard, D.L.A. Gaveau, M.J. Struebig, A. Wilting, S. Kramer-Schadt, J. Niedballa, N. Raes, et al. 2018. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environmental Change 52: 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fox, J., R.C. Gardner, and T. Maki. 2011. Stacking opportunities and risks in environmental credit markets. Environmental Law Reporter 41: 10121–10125.Google Scholar
- Gardner, R.C., and J. Fox. 2013. The legal status of environemtnal credit stacking. Ecology Law Quarterly 40: 713–758.Google Scholar
- Gordon, A., W.T. Langford, J.A. Todd, M.D. White, and D.W. Mullerworth. 2011. Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environmental Modelling and Software 144: 558–566.Google Scholar
- Greenhalgh, S., and M. Selman. 2012. Comparing water quality trading programs: What lessons are there to learn? The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 42: 104–125.Google Scholar
- Harper, D.J., and J.T. Quigley. 2005. A comparison of the areal extent of fish habitat gains and losses associated with selected compensation projects in Canada. Fisheries 30: 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2005)30[18:ACOTAE]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ICMM and IUCN. 2013. Independent report on biodiversity offsets. London, UK: International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Report prepared by The Biodiversity Consultancy, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- IFC. 2012. Performance standard 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.Google Scholar
- IPCC. 2014. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. In Working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, ed. O. Edenhofer et al. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- IUCN. 2016. Policy on biodiversity offsets. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).Google Scholar
- Mandle, L., J. Douglass, J. Sebsatian Lozano, R.P. Sharp, A.L. Vogl, D. Denu, T. Walschburger, and H. Tallis. 2016. OPAL: An open-source software tool for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into impact assessment and mitigation decisions. Environmental Modelling and Software 84: 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maron, M., J.R. Rhodes, and P. Gibbons. 2013. Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conservation Letters 6: 359–367.Google Scholar
- von Hase, A., and J. Cassin. 2018. Theory and practice of ‘stacking’ and ‘bundling’ ecosystem goods and services: A resource paper. Washington, DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Forest Trends.Google Scholar