Plant Translocations in France: Identifying Gaps between Knowledge, Practice and Perception by Conservation Actors.

In the current context of global changes, threatened flora is declining and homogenising at the expense of rare and protected species. Among conservation biology and ecological restoration techniques, plant translocation is one of the recommendations increasingly used. However, translocation remains risky and is recommended as a last resort to conserve protected flora in land use planning. Furthermore, it raises ethical questions partly linked to genetic processes. In this context, we studied how plant translocations are perceived by conservation actors in France, including their genetic aspects. The analysis of translocation perception complements that of feedback on concrete translocation operations and allows us to provide a qualitative assessment of current practices. We have adopted an interdisciplinary approach to survey different types of actors in nature conservation, involved or not in at least one stage of translocation operations (preparation, implementation and monitoring). Three main types of translocation perception divide our sample quite strongly (50% favourable/ 45% unfavourable/ 5% undecided). Surprisingly, their professional activity or the level of involvement in such an operation have no influence on their opinion on translocation, nor on the proposals of alternative measures. Only 15% of the actors involved in translocations used genetic data at least once. To conclude, it would be necessary to promote the sharing of feedback from past experiences. This would allow an up-to-date list of species unacceptable for translocation. Comparing the results of different protocols and implementation conditions for the same species or group should improve overall translocation success rates.

Global assessment of the biodiversity safeguards of development banks that finance infrastructure.

Infrastructure development is a major driver of biodiversity loss globally. With upward of US$2.5 trillion in annual investments in infrastructure, the financial sector indirectly drives this biodiversity loss. At the same time, biodiversity safeguards (project-level biodiversity impact mitigation requirements) of infrastructure financiers can help limit this damage. The coverage and harmonization of biodiversity safeguards are important factors in their effectiveness and therefore warrant scrutiny. It is equally important to examine the extent to which these safeguards align with best-practice principles for biodiversity impact mitigation outlined in international policies, such as that of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We assessed the biodiversity safeguards of public development banks and development finance institutions for coverage, harmonization, and alignment with best practice. We used Institute of New Structural Economics and Agence Française de Développement's global database to identify development banks that invest in high-biodiversity-footprint infrastructure and have over US$500 million in assets. Of the 155 banks, 42% (n = 65) had biodiversity safeguards. Of the existing safeguards, 86% (56 of 65) were harmonized with International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6). The IFC PS6 (and by extension the 56 safeguard policies harmonized with it) had high alignment with international best practice in biodiversity impact mitigation, whereas the remaining 8 exhibited partial alignment, incorporating few principles that clarify the conditions for effective biodiversity offsetting. Given their dual role in setting benchmarks and leveraging private finance, infrastructure financiers in development finance need to adopt best-practice biodiversity safeguards if the tide of global biodiversity loss is to be stemmed. The IFC PS6, if strengthened, can act as a useful template for other financier safeguards. The high degree of harmonization among safeguards is promising, pointing to a potential for diffusion of practices.

Evaluación mundial de las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo que financian la infraestructura Resumen El desarrollo infraestructural es una de las causas principales de la pérdida mundial de biodiversidad. Con más de US$2.5 billones de inversión anual en la infraestructura, el sector financiero impulsa de forma indirecta esta pérdida. Al mismo tiempo, las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad (los requerimientos para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad a nivel proyecto) de los financiadores de la infraestructura pueden ayudar a limitar este daño. La cobertura y armonización de estas salvaguardas son factores importantes en su efectividad y por lo tanto requieren de escrutinio. Es igual de importante examinar en qué medida se ajustan estas salvaguardas con los principios de mejores prácticas para mitigar el impacto sobre la biodiversidad esbozados en las políticas internacionales, como las de la UICN. Analizamos las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo público y las instituciones de financiamiento para el desarrollo en cuanto a cobertura, armonización y ajuste con las mejores prácticas. Usamos las bases de datos mundiales del Institute of New Structural Economics y de la Agence Française de Développement para identificar los bancos del desarrollo que invierten en infraestructuras con una gran huella de biodiversidad y que tienen más de US$500 millones en activos. De los 155 bancos, el 42% % (n = 65) tenía salvaguardas para la biodiversidad. De éstas, el 86% (56 de 65) armonizaba con el Estándar de Desempeño 6 (PS6) de la Corporación Financiera Internacional (IFC). El PS6 de la IFC (y por extensión, las 56 salvaguardas que armonizan con él) tuvo un gran ajuste con las mejores prácticas internacionales para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad, mientras que las ocho faltantes exhibieron un ajuste parcial, pues incorporaban pocos principios que clarificaban las condiciones de una compensación efectiva de biodiversidad. Ya que los financiadores de la infraestructura tienen un papel doble estableciendo referencias e impulsando el financiamiento privado, también necesitan adoptar las mejores prácticas para salvaguardar la biodiversidad si se desea detener la pérdida de biodiversidad mundial. El PS6 de la IFC, si se fortalece, puede fungir como una plantilla útil para los demás financiadores de las salvaguardas. La gran armonización entre las salvaguardas es prometedora y apunta hacia un potencial de difusión de las prácticas.

Evaluating the potential of biodiversity offsets to achieve net gain.

Evaluating the outcomes and tracking the trajectory of biodiversity offsets is essential to demonstrating their effectiveness as a mechanism to conciliate development and conservation. We reviewed the literature to determine the principles that should underpin biodiversity offset planning and the criteria for offset evaluation at the project level. According to the literature, the core principles of equivalence, additionality, and permanence are used as criteria to evaluate conservation outcomes of offsets. We applied the criteria to evaluate offsets of a large iron ore mining project in the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. We examined equivalence in terms of the amount of area per biodiversity value affected and fauna and flora similarity, additionality in terms of landscape connectivity, and permanence in terms of guarantees to ensure protection and restoration offsets lasting outcomes. We found an offset ratio (amount of affected area:offset area) of 1:1.8 for forests and 1:2 for grasslands. Ecological equivalence (i.e., similarity between affected and offset areas) was found for forested areas, but not for ferruginous rupestrian grasslands or for fauna. Landscape metrics showed that connectivity improved relative to the preproject situation as a result of locating restoration offsets in the largest and best-connected forest patch. Permanence of offsets was addressed by establishing covenants and management measures, but financial guarantees to cover maintenance costs after mine closure were lacking. Offsets should be equivalent in type and size, provide conservation outcomes that would not be obtained without them (additionality), and be lasting (permanence). To monitor and evaluate offsets, it is necessary to determine how well these 3 principles are applied in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of offsets. Achieving measurable conservation outcomes from offsets is a long-term endeavor that requires sustained management support, and is information intensive. Thus, offsets require ongoing monitoring and evaluation as well as adaptive management.

Evaluación del potencial de las compensaciones por biodiversidad para obtener ganancias netas Resumen La evaluación de resultados y el rastreo de la trayectoria de las compensaciones por biodiversidad son esenciales para demostrar su efectividad como mecanismo de conciliación entre el desarrollo y la conservación. Revisamos la literatura para determinar los principios que deberían sustentar los planes de compensación y los criterios para evaluarla a nivel de proyecto. Según la literatura, se usan los principios nucleares de equivalencia, adicionalidad y permanencia como criterio para evaluar los resultados de conservación de las compensaciones. Aplicamos este criterio para evaluar las compensaciones de un gran proyecto minero de mineral de hierro en el Bosque Atlántico de Brasil. Analizamos la equivalencia en términos de cantidad de área por valor de biodiversidad afectado y similitudes entre la flora y fauna; la adicionalidad en términos de conectividad de paisaje; y la permanencia en términos de las garantías que aseguran que las compensaciones tengan resultados longevos de restauración y protección. Descubrimos una proporción en las compensaciones (cantidad del área afectada:área de compensación) de 1:1.8 para los bosques y de 1:2 en los campos naturales. Encontramos equivalencias ecológicas (es decir, la similitud entre las áreas afectadas y las de compensación) para las áreas boscosas, pero no para los campos rupestres ferruginosos ni para la fauna. Las medidas del paisaje mostraron que la conectividad mejoró en relación a la situación previa al proyecto gracias a la ubicación de las compensaciones por restauración en los fragmentos de bosque más grandes y mejor conectados. Establecimos Contractos y medidas de manejo fueron establecidos la permanencia de las compensaciones, pero las garantías económicas para cubrir los costos de mantenimiento después del cierre de la mina no están suficientemente garantizadas. Las compensaciones deberían ser iguales en tipo y tamaño (equivalencia), proporcionar resultados de conservación que no se obtendrían en su ausencia (adicionalidad) y ser duraderas (permanencia). Se necesita determinar cómo se aplican estos tres principios en la planeación, implementación y mantenimiento de las compensaciones para poder monitorearlas. Si se quieren lograr resultados medibles de conservación, se necesita que el manejo cuente con un apoyo mantenido y a largo plazo que contenga con información intensiva. Por lo tanto, las compensaciones requieren un monitoreo y evaluación continua además del manejo adaptativo.

Mitigation translocation as a management tool.

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorized by a crisis-responsive time frame and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with death. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer time frames and broader metapopulation- and ecosystem-level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations without adequate post hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. A total of 59 mitigation translocations were reviewed for their adherence to the adaptive scientific approach expected of other conservation translocations and for the testing of management options to continue improving techniques for the future. We found that mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science. Most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment- and persistence-level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less on metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes. Questions regarding the long-term impacts to the recipient ecosystem (12% of articles) and the carrying capacity of translocation sites (24% of articles) were addressed least often, despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Less than half (47%) of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise, and resources in the future.

La Translocación para Mitigación como una Herramienta de Gestión Resumen La translocación para mitigación es un subgrupo de la translocación para la conservación, caracterizada por un marco de tiempo que responda a la crisis y la meta inmediata de reubicar a individuos amenazados de muerte. Sin embargo, el éxito relativo de las traslocaciones para conservación con marcos de tiempo mayores y consideraciones a nivel metapoblación y ecosistema más amplias han sido utilizadas para justificar la implementación de translocaciones para mitigación sin monitoreo post hoc adecuado para confirmar su efectividad como herramienta de conservación. Las translocaciones para mitigación ahora son más numerosas que otras translocaciones, por lo que es fundamental entender la efectividad de las translocaciones para mitigación debido a las limitaciones en el financiamiento para la conservación global - especialmente si las translocaciones para mitigación socavan la conservación de la biodiversidad al fallar en salvar individuos. Evaluamos la efectividad de translocaciones para mitigación mediante una revisión cuantitativa de la literatura global. Revisamos un total de 59 translocaciones para mitigación para analizar su adhesión al método científico adaptativo esperado de otras translocaciones de conservación y para probar las opciones de gestión para mejorar las técnicas en el futuro. Encontramos que las mitigaciones para translocación no han alcanzado su potencial como una ciencia aplicada efectiva. La mayoría de las translocaciones se centraron predominantemente en preguntas relacionadas con el establecimiento y nivel de persistencia de la población, como se observa en translocaciones más generales, y menos en resultados a nivel metapoblación y ecosistema. Aspectos relacionados con los impactos a largo plazo sobre el ecosistema recipiente (12% de los artículos) y la capacidad de carga de los sitios de translocación (24% de los artículos) fueron poco abordados, no obstante que es más probable que estos factores influyan en el éxito final. Menos de la mitad (47%) de los estudios incluyó la comparación de métodos de gestión diferentes para facilitar que los practicantes selecciones las acciones de gestión más efectivas para el futuro. Para alinear las translocaciones para mitigación con el éxito relativo de otras translocaciones para conservación, es crítico que las futuras translocaciones para mitigación se apeguen a un método experimental establecido para incrementar su efectividad. Para ser efectivas, las translocaciones para mitigación requerirán una inversión de tiempo, conocimientos técnicos y recursos significativamente mayores.

Quality assessment of mitigation translocation protocols for protected plants in France.

Mitigation translocations are increasingly used worldwide in response to land planning pressures. The quality of translocation protocols and their adjustment to the ecological traits of the translocated populations are crucial to optimise translocation success. We studied the quality of translocation protocols presented in derogation requests, a mandatory step in France to translocate a protected plant species. We analysed 103 translocation proposals for 93 different species in 92 files examined between 2018 and 2020. After tracing the history of the place of translocations in legal procedures in France, we assessed each translocation proposal according to an evaluation grid, which involved the quantity and quality of information on plant species and translocation sites in the files and the quality of translocation protocols. We have shown that the translocation protocols are of low quality, with a lot of missing information. The biology and ecology of the species suggested for translocation are not sufficiently known, nor are the ecological characteristics of the host sites. Derogation requests that received a favourable opinion from the assessment body are more likely to propose a protected host site and post-translocation monitoring. We believe that, to optimise their outcome, mitigation translocations need to be improved upstream, with more detailed protocols and better species knowledge. We highly recommend following the same guidelines for mitigation translocations as for conservation translocations.

Ecological equivalence assessment: The potential of genetic tools, remote sensing and metapopulation models to better apply the mitigation hierarchy.

Within the framework of the mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offsetting is the main tool promoted to reach No Net Loss. One of the determining factors of offsetting success is the evaluation of ecological equivalence. Various equivalence assessment methods (EAMs) have been developed to provide a framework to evaluate the balance between expected biodiversity losses and gains. In the context of achieving No Net Loss, EAMs must address challenges of Operationality, Currency, Uncertainty, Spatial scale and Time frame. In this study, we investigated the way the most widely used EAMs address these challenges, positing that certain tools from ecological science could limit the trade-offs between these challenges and improve the ecological assessment process. To this end, we analysed the risks and benefits associated with the inclusion of genetic tools (landscape genetics and eDNA), remote sensing and metapopulation models in selected EAMs. Our results revealed trade-offs between these five challenges, in particular between Operationality and Currency. The EAMs varied strongly in these two aspects, depending on the general assessment approach and the biodiversity component they focus on. To a lesser degree, Time frame and Spatial scale also differed between the methods. We identified that the integration of the different tools differs among them, being easier for remote sensing and metapopulation models than for the genetic tools. Nevertheless, the integration resulted in benefits compared to the current use of the methods - benefits that included improving the objectivation of the assessment and the automatization potential. The tools also show potential for automatization, which could have major benefits for operationality. In terms of risks, the integration of these tools increases the technical complexity of the methods, requiring new skills, and would change the overall approach of the ecological assessment.

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets.

Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.

Tres Maneras de Proporcionar un Impacto Positivo Neto con Compensaciones por Biodiversidad Resumen La compensación por biodiversidad es una práctica que consiste en usar las acciones de conservación, como la restauración, manejo o protección del hábitat, para compensar las pérdidas ecológicas causadas por las actividades de desarrollo, incluidos los proyectos de construcción. La meta típica de la compensación es la nula pérdida neta (NNL), lo que implica que todas las pérdidas ecológicas están compensadas por las ganancias proporcionales. Nos enfocamos en una exploración conceptual y metodológica del impacto positivo neto (NPI), una meta ambiciosa que implica un compromiso más allá de la NNL y que recientemente ha recibido una mayor atención por parte de los grandes negocios y las organizaciones no gubernamentales ambientales. Identificamos tres maneras principales mediante las cuales se podría proporcionar el NPI: el uso de un multiplicador adicional de NPI; el uso de compensaciones permanentes de lento desarrollo para entregar ganancias adicionales después de que primero se haya logrado el NNL durante un intervalo de tiempo más corto para la evaluación de las compensaciones; y la combinación de las compensaciones permanentes con las pérdidas parcialmente temporales. Una variante importante y novedosa del último mecanismo es el uso de una jerarquía alterna de mitigación de tal manera que las ganancias provenientes del tradicional tercer paso de la jerarquía de mitigación (es decir, la rehabilitación in situ) ya no se contabilizan para los requerimientos reducidos de las compensaciones. El resultado de estos tres factores consiste en que para el mismo daño ecológico se requerirán compensaciones mayores a las necesarias previamente, aumentando así el éxito de las compensaciones. Como corolario, demostramos que las compensaciones sólo alcanzan el NNl durante un punto efímero en el tiempo, antes del cual tienen un saldo neto negativo y después del cual se transforman en un impacto neto positivo o un impacto neto negativo dependiendo de si las compensaciones permanentes se combinan con pérdidas parcialmente temporales o de si las ganancias temporales de las compensaciones se combinan con pérdidas parcialmente temporales. Para alcanzar el NPI, las compensaciones deben volverse permanentes y deben llegar al NNL durante un periodo acordado de evaluación de compensaciones. El uso de un multiplicador adicional de NPI y de una jerarquía alterada de mitigación proporcionará ganancias adicionales al NPI. La obtención del NPI es completamente dependiente de la obtención previa del NNL; se ha observado con frecuencia que las compensaciones por NNL fallan debido a los requerimientos inadecuados de las políticas, la pobre planeación o la implementación incompleta. Sin embargo, llegar al NPI se vuelve una tarea sencilla si primero se puede alcanzar el NNL de manera verosímil.

Pooling biodiversity offsets to improve habitat connectivity and species conservation.

Land developers can apply biodiversity offsetting in different ways, from a project-by-project approach to a pooled and proactive approach, this latter appearing to provide greater advantages both in terms of implementation and of the No Net Loss objective. Incorporating landscape connectivity into the mitigation hierarchy is commonly recommended, but the benefits of pooling and anticipating offsets have never really been demonstrated from modeling approaches. Here, we compare connectivity gains from two different offsetting scenarios, when interconnections at offset sites are taken and not taken into account. Assuming that gains can be increased by optimizing the location of offsets, we identified sites where biodiversity offsetting generates the greatest ecological gains in habitat connectivity. The method was applied to a study case in the suburbs of Lyon (Southern France) using several representative species and the landscape functional connectivity model Graphab. Pooling biodiversity offsets led to additional gains in overall habitat connectivity of +103% on average, which we show can be further improved (+8%) by using a patch addition process available in Graphab to plan spatially and ecologically coherent offsetting areas. Pooling and anticipating biodiversity offsets in this way can help preserve the biodiversity and the functionality of natural environments at the territorial scale.

Exploring the practical implementation of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia.

Biodiversity offsetting with associated aims of no net loss of biodiversity (NNL) is an approach used to align economic development with conservation. Biodiversity offsetting may be more challenging in marine environments, with recent evidence suggesting that the current application of the approach in Australian marine environments rarely follows 'best practice' and is unlikely to be meeting stated policy aims. To understand how and why this deviation from best practice is taking place in marine systems, we analysed current practice in Australia through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 31 participants with professional experience in the development and implementation of associated policy. Thematic analysis of results indicated that, despite commitment to best practice in principle, practitioners recognised that operationalisation of marine biodiversity offsetting was inconsistent and unlikely to be meeting stated goals such as NNL. Participants described the central barrier to the adoption of best practice as the technical complexity of assessing and quantifying biodiversity losses and gains, and uncertainty in restoration in marine contexts. With offsetting described as an integral part of development consent for marine economic development, both these barriers and their navigation presents threats to users setting off a chain of accepted activity leading away from best practice. These threats were perceived to arise from low governmental capacity or prioritisation for environmental management, institutional needs for a social licence to operate, and overarching demands for economic growth. We conclude that marine biodiversity offsetting has come to be ambiguous in its practical definition, with a range of conflicting factors influencing its use and preventing the standardisation required to meet rigorous interpretations of best practice necessary to ensure biodiversity protection and NNL.

Metrics for environmental compensation: A comparative analysis of Swedish municipalities.

Environmental compensation (EC) aims at addressing environmental losses due to development projects and involves a need to compare development losses with compensation gains using relevant metrics. A conceptual procedure for computing no net loss is formulated and used as a point of departure for a comparative analysis of metrics used by five Swedish municipalities as a part of their EC implementation in the spatial planning context of detailed development plans. While Swedish law does not require EC in this context, these municipalities have still decided to introduce EC requirements for development projects that occur on municipality-owned land and to promote voluntary EC among private actors in development projects on private land. There is substantial variation across the municipalities studied with respect to both metrics and attributes subject to measurement, but there are also similarities: The attributes considered when assessing the need for EC in conjunction with development are not only about nature per se, but also about recreational opportunities and other types ecosystem services; semi-quantitative metrics such as scores are common while quantitative or monetary metrics are rare; and metrics are rarely applied to assess compensatory gains, focusing instead on losses from development. Streamlining across municipalities might be warranted for increasing predictability and transparency for developers and citizens, but it also introduces considerable challenges such as a need for developing consistent guidelines for semi-quantitative metrics, and to handle substitutability issues if metrics are not only applied on individual attributes but also on groups of attributes. The broad scope of attributes used by the municipalities is in line with an international tendency to broaden EC to include not only biodiversity aspects but also ecosystem services. Moreover, the EC systems applied by the municipalities are of particular importance for highlighting the crucial role of environmental management for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services not only in areas having formal protection status but also in the everyday landscape. The municipalities' experience and strengths and weaknesses associated with their EC systems are therefore relevant also in an international perspective.

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets.

Biodiversity offsets have become a widely accepted means of attempting to compensate for biodiversity loss from development, and are applied in planning and decision-making processes at many levels. Yet their use is contentious, and numerous problems with both the concept and the practice have been identified in the literature. Our starting point is the understanding that offsets are a kind of biodiversity compensation measure through which the goal of no net loss (or net gain) of biodiversity can be at least theoretically achieved. Based on a typology of compensation measures distinguishing between habitat protection, improvement (including restoration, habitat creation and improved management practices) and other compensation, we review the literature to develop a framework of conditions that must be met if habitat protection and improvement initiatives can be truly considered offsets and not merely a lesser form of compensation. It is important that such conceptual clarity is reflected in offset policy and guidance, if offsets are to be appropriately applied and to have any chance of fully compensating for biodiversity loss. Our framework can be used to support the review and ongoing development of biodiversity offset policy and guidance, with the aim of improving clarity, rigour and therefore the chances that good biodiversity outcomes can be achieved.

The least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy with a focus on marine fisheries and bycatch issues.

Least-cost implementation of the mitigation hierarchy of impacts on biodiversity minimizes the cost of a given level of biodiversity conservation, at project or ecosystem levels, and requires minimizing costs across and within hierarchy steps. Incentive-based policy instruments that price biodiversity to alter producer and consumer behavior and decision making are generally the most effective way to achieve least-cost implementation across and within the different hierarchy steps and across all producers and conservation channels. Nonetheless, there are circumstances that favor direct regulation or intrinsic motivation. Conservatory offsets, introduced within the conservatory first three steps of the mitigation hierarchy, rather than the fourth step to compensate the residual, provide an additional incentive-based policy instrument. The least-cost mitigation hierarchy framework, induced through incentive-based policy instruments, including conservatory offsets, mitigates fisheries bycatch consistent with given targets, the Law of the Sea, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Alternatives to biodiversity offsets for mitigating the effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems.

Globally, offset schemes have emerged in many statutory frameworks relating to development activities, with the aim of balancing biodiversity conservation and development. Although the theory and use of biodiversity offsets in terrestrial environments is broadly documented, little attention has been paid to offsets in stream ecosystems. Here we examine the application of offset schemes to stream ecosystems and explore whether they suffer similar shortcomings to those of offset schemes focused on terrestrial biodiversity. To challenge the applicability of offsets further, we discuss typical trajectories of urban expansion and their cascading physical, chemical and biological impacts on stream ecosystems. We argue that the highly connected nature of stream ecosystems and urban drainage networks can transfer impacts of urbanization across wide areas, complicating the notion of like-for-like exchange and the prospect of effectively mitigating biodiversity loss. Instead, we identify in-catchment options for stormwater control, which can avoid or minimize the impacts of development on downstream ecosystems, while presenting additional public and private benefits. We describe the underlying principles of these alternatives, some of the challenges associated with their uptake, and policy initiatives being trialed to facilitate adoption. In conclusion, we argue that stronger policies to avoid and minimize the impacts of urbanization provide better prospects for protecting downstream ecosystems, and can additionally, stimulate economic opportunities and improve urban liveability.

Cost shifting and other perverse incentives in biodiversity offsetting in India.

Biodiversity offsetting aims to compensate for development-induced biodiversity loss through commensurate conservation gains and is gaining traction among governments and businesses. However, cost shifting (i.e., diversion of offset funds to other conservation programs) and other perverse incentives can undermine the effectiveness of biodiversity offsetting. Additionality-the requirement that biodiversity offsets result in conservation outcomes that would not have been achieved otherwise-is fundamental to biodiversity offsetting. Cost shifting and violation of additionality can go hand in hand. India's national offsetting program is a case in point. Recent legislation allows the diversion of offset funds to meet the country's preexisting commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). With such diversions, no additional conservation takes place and development impacts remain uncompensated. Temporary additionality cannot be conceded in light of paucity of funds for preexisting commitments unless there is open acknowledgement that fulfillment of such commitments is contingent on offset funds. Two other examples of perverse incentives related to offsetting in India are the touting of inherently neutral offsetting outcomes as conservation gains, a tactic that breeds false complacency and results in reduced incentive for additional conservation efforts, and the clearing of native vegetation for commercial plantations in the name of compensatory afforestation, a practice that leads to biodiversity decline. The risks accompanying cost shifting and other perverse incentives, if not preempted and addressed, will result in net loss of forest cover in India. We recommend accurate baselines, transparent accounting, and open reporting of offset outcomes to ensure biodiversity offsetting achieves adequate and additional compensation for impacts of development.

The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion.

Natural habitat loss and fragmentation, as a result of development projects, are major causes of biodiversity erosion. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most commonly used site-specific planning tool that takes into account the effects of development projects on biodiversity by integrating potential impacts into the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, and offset measures. However, the extent to which EIA fully address the identification of impacts and conservation stakes associated with biodiversity loss has been criticized in recent work. In this paper we examine the extent to which biodiversity criteria have been integrated into 42 EIA from 2006 to 2016 for small development projects in the Montpellier Metropolitan territory in southern France. This study system allowed us to question how EIA integrates biodiversity impacts on a scale relevant to land-use planning. We examine how biodiversity inclusion has changed over time in relation to new policy for EIA and how the mitigation hierarchy is implemented in practice and in comparison with national guidelines. We demonstrate that the inclusion of biodiversity features into EIA has increased significantly in relation to policy change. Several weaknesses nevertheless persist, including the continued absence of substitution solution assessment, a correct analysis of cumulative impacts, the evaluation of impacts on common species, the inclusion of an ecological network scale, and the lack of monitoring and evaluation measures. We also show that measures for mitigation hierarchy are primarily associated with the reduction of impacts rather than their avoidance, and avoidance and offset measures are often misleadingly proposed in EIA. There is in fact marked semantic confusion between avoidance, reduction and offset measures that may impair stakeholders' understanding. All in all, reconsideration of stakeholders routine practices associated with a more strategic approach towards impact anticipation and avoidance at a land-use planning scale is now necessary for the mitigation hierarchy to become a clear and practical hierarchy for "no net loss" objectives based on conservation priorities.

Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

In many countries, biodiversity compensation is required to counterbalance negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity by carrying out ecological measures, called offset when the goal is to reach "no net loss" of biodiversity. One main issue is to ensure that offset gains are equivalent to impact-related losses. Ecological equivalence is assessed with ecological equivalence assessment methods taking into account a range of key considerations that we summarized as ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty. When equivalence assessment methods take into account all considerations, we call them "comprehensive". Equivalence assessment methods should also aim to be science-based and operational, which is challenging. Many equivalence assessment methods have been developed worldwide but none is fully satisfying. In the present study, we examine 13 equivalence assessment methods in order to identify (i) their general structure and (ii) the synergies and trade-offs between equivalence assessment methods characteristics related to operationality, scientific-basis and comprehensiveness (called "challenges" in his paper). We evaluate each equivalence assessment methods on the basis of 12 criteria describing the level of achievement of each challenge. We observe that all equivalence assessment methods share a general structure, with possible improvements in the choice of target biodiversity, the indicators used, the integration of landscape context and the multipliers reflecting time lags and uncertainties. We show that no equivalence assessment methods combines all challenges perfectly. There are trade-offs between and within the challenges: operationality tends to be favored while scientific basis are integrated heterogeneously in equivalence assessment methods development. One way of improving the challenges combination would be the use of offset dedicated data-bases providing scientific feedbacks on previous offset measures.

Improving marine biodiversity offsetting: A proposed methodology for better assessing losses and gains.

Although the limitations of implementing the mitigation hierarchy have been widely discussed in scientific literature, these studies have drawn mainly on feedback concerning terrestrial ecosystems. In the case of development projects in marine and coastal environments, certain issues must be tackled to improve existing practice. This article focuses on the methodologies used to assess both the ecological losses resulting from a development project and the ecological gains generated by an offset measure. The originality of this article is to propose a standardized, operational approach regardless of the development project and the ecosystem impacted that (i) enhances avoidance and reduction efforts and (ii) assesses biodiversity offset needs based on data available in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The proposed hybrid method combines a multi-criteria analysis of the state of the environment, inspired by the Unified Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), and a more accurate assessment at indicator level inspired by Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA). The steps of the method, from the selection of biophysical indicators to offset sizing, are described and are then applied to two EIA case studies: one related to a port extension and the other to an offshore wind farm.

Drivers of bat activity at wind turbines advocate for mitigating bat exposure using multicriteria algorithm-based curtailment.

Wind turbine development is growing exponentially and faster than other sources of renewable energy worldwide. While multi-turbine facilities have small physical footprint, they are not free from negative impacts on wildlife. This is particularly true for bats, whose population viability can be threatened by wind turbines through mortality events due to collisions. Wind turbine curtailment (hereafter referred to as "blanket curtailment") in non-winter periods at low wind speeds and mild temperatures (i.e. when bats are active and wind energy production is low) can reduce fatalities, but show variable and incomplete effectiveness because other factors affect fatality risks including landscape features, rain, turbine functioning, and seasonality. The combined effects of these drivers, and their potential as criteria in algorithm-based curtailment, have so far received little attention. We compiled bat acoustic data recorded over four years at 34 wind turbine nacelles in France from post-construction regulatory studies, including 8619 entire nights (251 ± 58 nights per wind turbine on average). We modelled nightly bat activity in relation to its multiple drivers for three bat guilds, and assessed whether curtailment based on algorithm would be more efficient to limit bat exposure than blanket curtailment based on various combinations of unique wind speed and temperature thresholds. We found that landscape features, weather conditions, seasonality, and turbine functioning determine bat activity at nacelles. Algorithm-based curtailment is more efficient than blanket curtailment, and has the potential to drastically reduce bat exposure while sustaining the same energy production. Compared to blanket curtailment, the algorithm curtailment reduces average exposure by 20 to 29 % and 7 to 12 % for the high-risk guilds of long- and mid-range echolocators, and by 24 to 31 % for the low-risk guild of short-range echolocators. These findings call for the use of algorithm curtailment as both power production and biodiversity benefits will be higher in most situations.

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.