Biodiversity offsetting

Last updated
Bringing forward farmland sites to receive biodiversity offset credits will create the investment needed to improve biodiversity across large areas. High nature value farmland in England.jpg
Bringing forward farmland sites to receive biodiversity offset credits will create the investment needed to improve biodiversity across large areas.

Biodiversity offsetting is a system used predominantly by planning authorities and developers to fully compensate for biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, through the planning process. In some circumstances, biodiversity offsets are designed to result in an overall biodiversity gain. Offsetting is generally considered the final stage in a mitigation hierarchy, whereby predicted biodiversity impacts must first be avoided, minimised and reversed by developers, before any remaining impacts are offset. The mitigation hierarchy serves to meet the environmental policy principle of "No Net Loss" of biodiversity alongside development. [1] [2]

Contents

Individuals or companies involved in arranging biodiversity offsets will use quantitative measures to determine the amount, type and quality of habitat that is likely to be affected by a proposed project. Then, they will establish a new location or locations (often called receptor sites) where it would be possible to re-create the same amount, type and quality of habitat. The aim of biodiversity offsets is not simply to provide financial compensation for the biodiversity losses associated with development, although developers might pay financial compensation in some cases if it can be demonstrated exactly what the physical biodiversity gains achieved by that compensation will be. The type of environmental compensation provided by biodiversity offsetting is different from biodiversity banking in that it must show both measurable and long-term biodiversity improvements, that can be demonstrated to counteract losses. However, there is so far mixed evidence that biodiversity offsets successfully counteract the biodiversity losses caused by associated developments, with evidence that offsets are generally more successful in less structurally-complex and more rapidly-recovering habitats such as loss of biodiversity simplified wetland habitats. [3] For biodiversity offsets to successfully compensate for the loss of biodiversity elsewhere, it is necessary that they demonstrate additionality (i.e. the deliver an improvement in biodiversity that would not otherwise have occurred). While there are individual case studies of offsets that have successfully delivered additional outcomes, [4] other evaluations of large-scale biodiversity offsetting markets have demonstrated serious additionality shortcomings. [5]

Relevant conservation activities

Biodiversity offset projects can involve various management activities that can be demonstrated to deliver gains in biodiversity. These activities very often include active habitat restoration or creation projects (e.g. new wetland creation, grassland restoration). However, also viable are so-called "averted loss" biodiversity offsets, in which measures are taken to prevent ecological degradation from occurring where it almost certainly would have happened otherwise. Averted loss offsets might involve the creation of new protected areas (to conserve fauna species that would otherwise have disappeared), the removal of invasive species from areas of habitat (which otherwise would have reduced or displaced populations of native species), or positive measures to reduce extensive natural resource use (e.g. the offer of alternative livelihood creation to prevent activities leading to deforestation).

Any activities that do not result in a positive and measurable gain for biodiversity would not generally be counted as part of a biodiversity offset. For instance, if a developer funds ecological conservation research in a region that they are impacting through a project, would not count as an offset (unless it could be shown quantitatively how specific fauna and flora would benefit). instead, this would be a more general form of compensation. Note that biodiversity offsets can be considered a very specific, robust and transparent category of ecological compensation.

Receptor sites

Under many offset systems, receptor sites are areas of land put forward by companies or individuals looking to receive payment in return for creating (or restoring) biodiversity habitats on their property. The biodiversity restoration projects are financed by compensation from developers looking to offset their biodiversity impact. The resulting change in biodiversity levels at the new receptor sites should be equal to, or greater than, the losses at the original ‘impact site’; in order to achieve no net loss – and preferably gain – of overall biodiversity. Such systems often rely on the buying (by developers) and selling (by landowners) of conservation credits.

However, characteristics of receptor sites can vary across different jurisdictions. In some countries, for instance, land is primarily state-owned, and so it is the government that owns and manages biodiversity offset projects. For biodiversity offsets in marine environments, receptor sites might be subject to multiple management organisations and not necessarily owned by anyone. Controversially, some biodiversity offsets use existing protected areas as receptor sites (i.e. improving the effectiveness of areas that are already managed for biodiversity conservation).

Requirement to offset biodiversity

Biodiversity offsets are required by law in many jurisdictions. [6]

Countries including the US, Australia, [7] New Zealand, [8] UK and parts of Europe use biodiversity offsetting as an optional or mandatory (depending on the country) biodiversity conservation management tool within their planning systems.

Biodiversity offsetting is also being considered by some Latin American countries (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile) [9] and by South Africa.

Another key driver of biodiversity offset projects globally are the Performance Standards required by the International Finance Corporation (IFC). For any projects which the IFC or any of the Equator Banks finance, under Performance Standard 6, [10] developers must deliver No Net Loss (or in some cases, a Net Gain) of biodiversity.

Finally, a number of companies implement biodiversity offsets after setting voluntary policy commitments to achieve 'no net loss' or a 'net positive impact' for biodiversity overall associated with their operations. [11] This is part of a broader effort for the private sector to manage biodiversity. [12]

Compensatory mitigation in the US

No Net Loss policy (and consequently, biodiversity offsetting) has its origin in US legislation, specifically in the Water Act from the 1970s. This piece of legislation required 'no net loss of wetland acreage and function', leading eventually to the creation of mitigation banks, where wetland credits are bought and sold. [13]

The US also has a Conservation Banking policy in which credits representing areas of habitat for protected fauna species are traded. [14]

In the US, offsetting tends to be called 'compensatory mitigation'.

Offsetting in Australia

Much of the scientific research into biodiversity offsetting outside of the US has been conducted by Australia, especially organisations such as CEED and CSIRO.

Biodiversity offset policies have become established in a number of Australian states (especially Victoria and New South Wales), and there is also a federal biodiversity offset policy. [15] States tend to operate biodiversity banking mechanisms at the regional level. Major species include koalas, the red‐tailed black‐cockatoo, and the green and golden bell frog which required 19 times more habitat to achieve no net loss. [16]

Offsetting in the UK

In the UK, compensation (for environmental harm caused by development) in the form of biodiversity offsetting is currently an optional (non-compulsory) tool for developers unless compensation is legally required for impacts to protected sites or species. In England, biodiversity net gain is encouraged by planning policy. [17] Those developers choosing to incorporate biodiversity offsetting practices into their project plans can do so once the normal planning mitigation hierarchy [18] has been followed, which involves taking steps to avoid and reduce environmental harm, where possible, at the development, or 'impact', site.

Biodiversity offsetting is only applicable to land that has been approved for development, which means it does not often apply to protected sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or national nature reserves (NNRs). In addition to protected areas, vulnerable or irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) are also sometimes exempted from local policies for biodiversity offsetting.[ citation needed ]

In 2011, six biodiversity offsetting pilot schemes were started in England by the British Government to test the process. They were run in partnership with local groups and private companies and are located in Warwickshire, [19] Essex, [20] the Ribble Valley, [21] at three sites in Devon, [22] in Nottinghamshire. [23] and Doncaster. [24]

In September 2013, the British Government published a Green Paper containing plans for further incorporation of biodiversity offsetting in the UK planning system. [25] (Public consultation period: 5 September – 7 November 2013).

In March 2019, the British Government announced that it will mandate biodiversity net gain in England as part of its forthcoming Environment Bill, requiring 'developers to ensure habitats for wildlife are enhanced and left in a measurably better state than they were pre-development.' [26] Initially planned to come into force by the end of 2023, it was announced in September 2023 that implementation of the bill had been delayed until early 2024. [27]

Economic value

Biodiversity is increasingly seen as having economic value [28] due to growing recognition of the world's finite natural resources and through the benefits of ecosystem services (nature providing clean air, food and water, natural flood defences, pollination services and recreation opportunity). Placing financial value on biodiversity has created a marketplace for retaining and restoring habitats.

Financial gain from biodiversity offsetting is brought about through the sale of conservation credits by landowners. Individuals or companies who are looking to receive financial payment in return for creating or enhancing particular wildlife habitats on their property can have their land valued in conservation credits by a biodiversity offsetting broker [29] who will then register their credits for sale [30] to developers looking to offset any residual impact to biodiversity from their approved developments.

Developers can also find the business of biodiversity offsetting appealing financially as the compensation payment for their project's residual biodiversity impact is handled in one agreement and the landowner receiving that payment (and therefore the habitat re-creation duties) is responsible for the biodiversity restoration and management thereafter. The cost may represent a small proportion of a developer's budget and is often outweighed by a project's long-term gains. As corporate social responsibility is often part of larger companies’ business priorities, being able to demonstrate environmentally responsible practices can be an additional incentive.

Biodiversity offsetting based upon showing the economic value of lost habitat is highly controversial. [31] The schemes proposed for the UK have been regarded as failing to protect biodiversity and indeed leading to further losses in the prioritisation of development over conservation. [32] The basic economics has been described by ecological economist Clive Spash as leading to the “bulldozing of biodiversity” under an approach that regards optimal species extinction as being necessary to achieve economic efficiency. [33]

Conservation credits

The cost of re-creating an area of habitat affected by a development proposal (impact site) can be calculated and represented as a number of conservation credits that a developer could purchase in order to offset their biodiversity impact. Land put forward for investment to re-create impacted biodiversity (receptor site) is also calculated in conservation credits (to account for the cost of creating or restoring biodiversity at that particular site and to cover the cost of its long-term conservation management). This situation enables the buying (by developers) and selling (by landowners) of conservation credits. Government approved (quantitative and qualitative) metrics should be used to calculate the number of conservation credits that can be applied to each site, in order to maintain accuracy and consistency in the value of a conservation credit.

Motivation

A decline in global biodiversity [34] due, in part, to land use changes [35] is the motivation for creating a system within the planning process that tackles unavoidable and residual impact to biodiversity. Formal evaluation of impact to habitat, wildlife and other natural considerations is often required of developers ahead of receiving approval for a project to go ahead. This can often be in the form of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which are commonplace within the work of Government planning authorities. EIAs look at how proposed projects may impact upon the environment in its broadest sense, covering the traditional ‘green’ aspects alongside any social and economic issues; and can result in mitigating and compensatory packages which form part of a project's overall proposal for approval. The topic of biodiversity is likely to be looked at as part of an EIA, but in conjunction with many other overriding elements. Biodiversity offsetting, as an assessment and compensatory process, can either sit inside or outside of EIA and aims, specifically, to tackle habitat  – and therefore biodiversity  – loss.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat conservation</span> Management practice for protecting types of environments

Habitat conservation is a management practice that seeks to conserve, protect and restore habitats and prevent species extinction, fragmentation or reduction in range. It is a priority of many groups that cannot be easily characterized in terms of any one ideology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land development</span> Landscape alteration

Land development is the alteration of landscape in any number of ways such as:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon offsets and credits</span> Carbon dioxide reduction scheme

Carbon offsetting is a trading mechanism that allows entities such as governments, individuals, or businesses to compensate for (i.e. “offset”) their greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. In other words, carbon offsets focus on offsetting emissions through investments in emission reduction projects. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credits, i.e "tokens" used to account for net climate benefits from one entity to another. A carbon credit or offset credit can be bought or sold after certification by a government or independent certification body. One carbon offset or credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e).

Environmental mitigation, compensatory mitigation, or mitigation banking, are terms used primarily by the United States government and the related environmental industry to describe projects or programs intended to offset known impacts to an existing historic or natural resource such as a stream, wetland, endangered species, archeological site, paleontological site or historic structure. Environmental mitigation is typically a part of an environmental crediting system established by governing bodies which involves allocating debits and credits. Debits occur in situations where a natural resource has been destroyed or severely impaired and credits are given in situations where a natural resource has been deemed to be improved or preserved. Therefore, when an entity such as a business or individual has a "debit" they are required to purchase a "credit". In some cases credits are bought from "mitigation banks" which are large mitigation projects established to provide credit to multiple parties in advance of development when such compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or is not seen as beneficial to the environment. Crediting systems can allow credit to be generated in different ways. For example, in the United States, projects are valued based on what the intentions of the project are which may be to preserve, enhance, restore or create (PERC) a natural resource.

Environmental impact design (EID) is the design of development projects so as to achieve positive environmental objectives that benefit the environment and raise the stock of public goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biodiversity action plan</span>

A biodiversity action plan (BAP) is an internationally recognized program addressing threatened species and habitats and is designed to protect and restore biological systems. The original impetus for these plans derives from the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). As of 2009, 191 countries have ratified the CBD, but only a fraction of these have developed substantive BAP documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation development</span> Controlled-growth land use development

Conservation development, also known as conservation design, is a controlled-growth land use development that adopts the principle for allowing limited sustainable development while protecting the area's natural environmental features in perpetuity, including preserving open space landscape and vista, protecting farmland or natural habitats for wildlife, and maintaining the character of rural communities. A conservation development is usually defined as a project that dedicates a minimum of 50 percent of the total development parcel as open space. The management and ownership of the land are often formed by the partnership between private land owners, land-use conservation organizations and local government. It is a growing trend in many parts of the country, particularly in the Western United States. In the Eastern United States, conservation design has been promoted by some state and local governments as a technique to help preserve water quality.

Ecosystem Marketplace, an initiative of Forest Trends, is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC, that focuses on increasing transparency and providing information for ecosystem services and payment schemes.

Mitigation banking is the preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC) of a wetland, stream, or habitat conservation area which offsets, or compensates for, expected adverse impacts to similar nearby ecosystems. The goal is to replace the exact function and value of specific habitats that would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project. The public interest is served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation, often referred to as a mitigation ratio, than is adversely impacted by management or development of nearby acreage.

Biodiversity banking, also known as biodiversity trading or conservation banking, biodiversity mitigation banks, compensatory habitat, set-asides, biodiversity offsets, are conservation activities that compensate for the loss of biodiversity with the goal of biodiversity maintenance through a framework which allows biodiversity to be reliably measured, and market based solutions applied to improving biodiversity. Biodiversity banking provides a means to place a monetary value on ecosystem services. Typically this involves land protection, restoration, an/or enhancement. Biodiversity banking is often applied so that there is no "net loss of a particular biodiversity feature." According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, by 2004, interest in voluntary biodiversity offsets was growing in the United States, Brazil, Australia, Canada and the EU. Experience suggested that industry, governments, local communities and conservation groups all benefit from biodiversity offsets or biodiversity banking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No net loss wetlands policy</span> Government environmental goal

"No net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases. To achieve the objective of no net loss, the federal government utilizes several different environmental policy tools which legally protect wetlands, provide rules and regulations for citizens and corporations interacting with wetlands, and incentives for the preservation and conservation of wetlands. Given the public benefits provided by wetland ecosystem services, such as flood control, nutrient farming, habitat, water filtration, and recreational area, the estimations that over half the acreage of wetlands in the United States has been lost within the last three centuries is of great concern to local, state, and federal agencies as well as the public interest they serve.

<i>The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity</i>

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) was a study led by Pavan Sukhdev from 2007 to 2011. It is an international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity. Its objective is to highlight the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions. TEEB aims to assess, communicate and mainstream the urgency of actions through its five deliverables—D0: science and economic foundations, policy costs and costs of inaction, D1: policy opportunities for national and international policy-makers, D2: decision support for local administrators, D3: business risks, opportunities and metrics and D4: citizen and consumer ownership.

The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) is a partnership consisting of Conservation International, CARE, The Nature Conservancy, Rainforest Alliance, and the Wildlife Conservation Society that is primarily active in the field of land management activities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LIFE programme</span>

The LIFE programme is the European Union's funding instrument for the environment and climate action. The general objective of LIFE is to contribute to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation by co-financing projects with European added value. LIFE began in 1992 and to date there have been five phases of the programme. During this period, LIFE has co-financed some 4600 projects across the EU, with a total contribution of approximately 6.5 billion Euros to the protection of the environment and of climate. For the next phase of the programme (2021–2027) the European Commission proposed to raise the budget to 5.45 billion Euro.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forest Trends</span> American non-profit organization

Forest Trends is a non-profit organization founded in 1998 and based in Washington, DC, that connects with economic tools and incentives for maintaining ecosystems. Its mission is four-fold: to expand the value of forests to society, to promote sustainable forest management and conservation by creating and capturing market values for ecosystem services, to support innovative projects and companies that are developing these markets and to enhance the livelihoods of local communities living in and around those forests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat Conservation Plan</span>

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a required part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit, a permit issued under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) to private entities undertaking projects that might result in the destruction of an endangered or threatened species. It is a planning document that ensures that the anticipated take of a listed species will be minimized or mitigated by conserving the habitat upon which the species depend, thereby contributing to the recovery of the species as a whole.

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) is an agency that monitors and reports on biodiversity status throughout the province of Alberta, Canada, that is funded equally by the government of Alberta and the oil and gas industry. The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute is based in Edmonton, Alberta. According to Alberta Innovates-Technology Futures (AITF), a key partner in the ABMI, the ABMI, which acts as "an early warning system by monitoring the cumulative effects of biodiversity change in regions throughout Alberta" is "the largest project of its kind ever attempted in Canada." Collaborating agencies include the government-industry research agency Alberta Innovates-Technology Futures, the University of Alberta, University of Calgary and the Royal Alberta Museum. Along with the Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard, the ABMI are key components to implementing resource planning based on ecosystem management principles. Alberta Environment and Parks consults the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Agency's reports in monitoring and preservation of species, setting benchmarks for biodiversity for land use plans. If industry contributes to the endangerment of a species that falls below these benchmarks, the Government of Alberta can order remedial action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation banking</span>

Conservation banking is an environmental market-based method designed to offset adverse effects, generally, to species of concern, are threatened, or endangered and protected under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the creation of conservation banks. Conservation banking can be viewed as a method of mitigation that allows permitting agencies to target various natural resources typically of value or concern, and it is generally contemplated as a protection technique to be implemented before the valued resource or species will need to be mitigated. The ESA prohibits the "taking" of fish and wildlife species which are officially listed as endangered or threatened in their populations. However, under section 7(a)(2) for Federal Agencies, and under section 10(a) for private parties, a take may be permissible for unavoidable impacts if there are conservation mitigation measures for the affected species or habitat. Purchasing “credits” through a conservation bank is one such mitigation measure to remedy the loss.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon farming</span> Agricultural methods that capture carbon

Carbon farming is a name for a variety of agricultural methods aimed at sequestering atmospheric carbon into the soil and in crop roots, wood and leaves. The aim of carbon farming is to increase the rate at which carbon is sequestered into soil and plant material with the goal of creating a net loss of carbon from the atmosphere. Increasing a soil's organic matter content can aid plant growth, increase total carbon content, improve soil water retention capacity and reduce fertilizer use. Carbon farming is one component of climate-smart agriculture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wetlands and wetland policies in Canada</span>

Canadian wetlands account for approximately one quarter of the world's total wetlands and is ranked with the highest surface area of wetlands on the Ramsar Conventions List of Wetlands of International Importance. Canada holds 37 designated areas of International Importance which equates to approximately 13,086,767 hectares of land.

References

  1. ↑ Bull, Joseph W.; Suttle, K. Blake; Gordon, Ascelin; Singh, Navinder J.; Milner-Gulland, E. J. (July 7, 2013). "Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice". Oryx. 47 (3): 369–380. doi: 10.1017/S003060531200172X . S2CID   3005499.
  2. ↑ "Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss" (Gardner et al., 2013) Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ "The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review" (zu Ermgassen et al. 2019) Archived 2019-11-14 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ Devenish, Katie; Desbureaux, Sebastien; Willcock, Simon; Jones, Julia (2022). "On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar's biggest mine". Nature Sustainability. 5 (6): 498–508. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00850-7 .
  5. ↑ zu Ermgassen, Sophus; Devenish, Katie; Alexander Simmons, Blake; Gordon, Ascelin; Jones, Julia; Maron, Martine; Schulte to Buhne, Henrike; Sharma, Roshan; Sonter, Laura; Strange, Niels; Ward, Michelle; Bull, Joseph (2023). "Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation". Global Change Biology. 29 (15): 4397–4411. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16801 .
  6. ↑ Madsen, Becca; Carroll, Nathaniel; Kandy, Daniel; Bennett, Genevieve (2011). "2011 Update: State of Biodiversity Markets" (PDF). Washington, DC: Forest Trends. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2012. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  7. ↑ "Biodiversity offsetting in Australia". Archived from the original on 2013-05-15.
  8. ↑ "Biodiversity Offsets programme in New Zealand". Archived from the original on 2014-04-06. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  9. ↑ "Colombia Takes LeadIn Latin American Biodiversity Offsetting". Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-10-07.
  10. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2015-05-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. ↑ "A review of corporate goals of NNL or NPI on biodiversity" (Rainey et al., 2014) Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ↑ "Report on Business & Biodiversity (Bull et al., 2015)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
  13. ↑ US EPA, OW (June 16, 2015). "Mitigation Banks under CWA Section 404". www.epa.gov. Archived from the original on October 6, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
  14. ↑ "US Fish & Wildlife Service factsheet" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
  15. ↑ "EPBC Act environmental offsets policy | Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment". Archived from the original on 2019-04-13. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
  16. ↑ Pickett, Evan J.; Stockwell, Michelle P.; Bower, Deborah S.; Garnham, James I.; Pollard, Carla J.; Clulow, John; Mahony, Michael J. (2013-01-01). "Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring". Biological Conservation. 157: 156–162. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.09.014. ISSN   0006-3207.
  17. ↑ "National Planning Policy Framework". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-10-07.
  18. ↑ "Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme – Mitigation Hierarchy". Archived from the original on 2014-05-17. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  19. ↑ "Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2014-08-08.
  20. ↑ "Essex biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2014-01-10.
  21. ↑ "Ribble Valley biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2012-08-29. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  22. ↑ "South Hams, North Devon UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and Exeter Growth Point". Natural Devon. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2015-11-30.
  23. ↑ "Piloting biodiversity offsetting in Nottinghamshire". www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk. Nottinghamshire County Council. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 7 March 2016.
  24. ↑ Council, Doncaster. "Biodiversity offsetting in Doncaster – Doncaster Council". www.doncaster.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2020-09-29. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  25. ↑ "Defra Green Paper (Sept 2013) on Biodiversity Offsetting". Archived from the original on 2013-09-10. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  26. ↑ "Government to mandate 'biodiversity net gain". Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
  27. ↑ "Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain: Government delays introduction until 2024". Birketts. Retrieved 2023-11-06.
  28. ↑ "Defra; Valuing the benefits of biodiversity" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-27.
  29. ↑ "The Environment Bank". Archived from the original on 2013-11-05. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  30. ↑ "The Environmental Markets Exchange". Archived from the original on 2013-08-07. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  31. ↑ "Spash, C. L. 2011. Terrible economics, ecosystems and banking. Environmental Values, vol. 20, no. 2, 141–145" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-04.
  32. ↑ "S. Sullivan & M. Hannis, "Nets and Frames, Losses and Gains: Value Struggles in Engagement with Biodiversity Offsetting Policy in England" (The Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2014)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-12-30. Retrieved 2016-04-17.
  33. ↑ Spash, Clive L. (2015). "Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature". Biological Conservation. 192: 541–551. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.037.
  34. ↑ "WWF Living Planet report – Health of our planet". Archived from the original on 2013-11-26. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  35. ↑ "Causes and Consequences of Biodiversity Declines | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Archived from the original on 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-07.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.