Financing ecosystem restoration.

The global community has outlined ambitious ecosystem restoration targets. Yet implementation is slow, and a lack of funding is a key barrier to upscaling restoration activities. Most restoration projects are funded by public institutions and recent high-level initiatives have emphasised the need to scale private finance in restoration. Private finance can be channelled into restoration through various financial mechanisms but is held back by a lack of return-making investment opportunities. Various institutions have now been created to commodify previously non-market ecosystem services and make them investable, most prominently voluntary carbon markets and biodiversity compliance market-like mechanisms, such as biodiversity-offsetting systems targeting the achievement of 'no net loss' of biodiversity for a given regulated sector. However, attracting private finance into restoration comes with risks, as private finance objectives in restoration often are misaligned with wider social and ecological objectives. Private finance mechanisms to date have tended to underinvest in monitoring and impact evaluation mechanisms and to favour investments in cost-effective nature-based solutions such as plantation monocultures over naturally regenerated ecosystems. Many technological and institutional solutions have been proposed, but these cannot mitigate all risks. Therefore, scaling of ecosystem restoration through market-like mechanisms requires substantial fundamental investments in governance and civil society oversight to ensure that ecological integrity and social equity is safeguarded. Here, we outline the high-level policy landscape driving restoration finance and explore the roles and potential of both public and private investment in restoration. We explain how some common mechanisms for drawing private investment into restoration work in practice. Then, we discuss some of the shortcomings of past private finance initiatives for ecosystem restoration and highlight essential lessons for how to safeguard the ecological and social outcomes of private investments in ecosystem restoration.

Mining threats in high-level biodiversity conservation policies.

Amid a global infrastructure boom, there is increasing recognition of the ecological impacts of the extraction and consumption of construction minerals, mainly processed as concrete, including significant and expanding threats to global biodiversity. We investigated how high-level national and international biodiversity conservation policies address mining threats, with a special focus on construction minerals. We conducted a review and quantified the degree to which threats from mining these minerals are addressed in biodiversity goals and targets under the 2011-2020 and post-2020 biodiversity strategies, national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Mining appeared rarely in national targets but more frequently in national strategies. Yet, in most countries, it was superficially addressed. Coverage of aggregates mining was greater than coverage of limestone mining. We outline 8 key components, tailored for a wide range of actors, to effectively mainstream biodiversity conservation into the extractive, infrastructure, and construction sectors. Actions include improving reporting and monitoring systems, enhancing the evidence base around mining impacts on biodiversity, and modifying the behavior of financial agents and businesses. Implementing these measures could pave the way for a more sustainable approach to construction mineral use and safeguard biodiversity.

Amenazas de la minería a las políticas de alto nivel para la conservación de la biodiversidad Resumen Enmedio del auge global del desarrollo de infraestructura, hay un mayor reconocimiento de los impactos ecológicos de la extracción y consumo de materiales para construcción, procesados predominantemente como concreto. Estos materiales representan amenazas significativas y en expansión para la biodiversidad global. Investigamos cómo son abordadas las amenazas de la minería por las políticas nacionales e internacionales de alto nivel para la conservación de la biodiversidad, con enfoque especial en los minerales para construcción. Realizamos una revisión exhaustiva y cuantificamos el grado en el cual son abordadas las amenazas de la extracción de estos minerales en los objetivos y metas para la biodiversidad bajo estrategias 2011­2020 y post 2020, las estrategias y planes de acción nacionales para la biodiversidad, y las evaluaciones de la Plataforma Intergubernamental Científico­normativa sobre Diversidad Biológica y Servicios de los Ecosistemas. La minería raramente apareció en los objetivos nacionales, pero fue más frecuente en las estrategias nacionales. Sin embargo, fue abordada superficialmente en la mayoría de los países. La cobertura de minería de agregados fue mayor que la cobertura de la minería de caliza. Describimos ocho componentes clave, adaptados para una amplia gama de actores, para incorporar eficazmente la conservación de la biodiversidad en los sectores extractivo, desarrollo de infraestructura y construcción. Las acciones incluyen la mejora de los sistemas de informes y monitoreo, el reforzamiento de la base de evidencias en torno a los impactos de la minería sobre la biodiversidad y la modificación del comportamiento de los agentes financieros y comerciales. La implementación de estas medidas podría allanar el camino para un enfoque más sostenible en el uso de minerales para la construcción y la salvaguarda de la biodiversidad.

Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps underpinning ecological compensation policies.

Biodiversity compensation policies have emerged around the world to address the ecological harms of infrastructure expansion, but historically compliance is weak. The Westminster government is introducing a requirement that new infrastructure developments in England demonstrate they achieve a biodiversity net gain (BNG). We sought to determine the magnitude of the effects of governance gaps and regulator capacity constraints on the policy's potential biodiversity impacts. We collated BNG information from all new major developments across six early-adopter councils from 2020 to 2022. We quantified the proportion of the biodiversity outcomes promised under BNG at risk of noncompliance, explored the variation in strategies used to meet developers' biodiversity liabilities, and quantified the occurrence of simple errors in the biodiversity metric calculations. For large developments and energy infrastructure, biodiversity liabilities frequently met within the projects' development footprint. For small developments, the purchase of offsets was most common. We estimated that 27% of all biodiversity units fell into governance gaps that exposed them to a high risk of noncompliance because they were associated with better-condition habitats delivered on-site that were unlikely to be monitored or enforced. More robust governance mechanisms (e.g., practical mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement) would help ensure the delivery of this biodiversity on-site. Alternatively, more biodiversity gains could be delivered through off-site biodiversity offsetting. For the latter case, we estimated that the demand for offsets could rise by a factor of 4; this would substantially increase the financial contributions from developers for conservation activities on private land. Twenty-one percent of development applications contained a simple recurring error in their BNG calculations. One-half of these applications were approved by councils, which may indicate under-resourcing in council development assessments. Our findings demonstrate that resourcing and governance shortfalls risk undermining the policy's effectiveness.

sObtención de la ganancia neta de biodiversidad mediante el abordaje de las lagunas en la gobernanza que apuntalan las políticas de compensación ecológica Resumen Las políticas de compensación por biodiversidad han surgido en todo el mundo para abordar los daños ecológicos de la expansión infraestructural, aunque su cumplimiento histórico es deficiente. El gobierno de Westminster está introduciendo un requerimiento para que las nuevas infraestructuras en Inglaterra demuestren que obtienen una ganancia neta de biodiversidad (GNB). Buscamos determinar la magnitud que tienen los efectos de las lagunas de gobernanza y las restricciones de la capacidad regulatoria sobre los impactos potenciales de la política en la biodiversidad. Recopilamos la información de GNB de todos los desarrollos principales en seis consejos pioneros entre 2020 y 2022. Cuantificamos la proporción de los resultados de biodiversidad prometidos bajo la GNB en riesgo de no ser cumplidos, exploramos la variación de estrategias usadas para cumplir las responsabilidades de biodiversidad de los desarrolladores y cuantificamos la incidencia de errores simples en el cálculo de las medidas de biodiversidad. En los grandes desarrollos y en la infraestructura energética, las responsabilidades de biodiversidad fueron cumplidas con frecuencia dentro de la huella de desarrollo del proyecto. En los pequeños desarrollos, la compra de compensaciones fue más común. Estimamos que el 27% de todas las unidades de biodiversidad caen dentro de las lagunas de gobernanza que las exponen a un riesgo elevado de no ser cumplidas porque se asociaban con hábitats en mejores condiciones entregados en sitios con mayor probabilidad de no ser monitoreados o implementados. Tener mecanismos de gobernanza más robustos (mecanismos prácticos para el monitoreo y la implementación) ayudaría a asegurar la entrega de esta biodiversidad en sitio. Como alternativa, una mayor ganancia de biodiversidad podría entregarse a través de las compensaciones de biodiversidad fuera de sitio. Para el último caso, estimamos que la demanda de compensaciones podría aumentar en un factor de 4; esto incrementaría sustancialmente las contribuciones económicas de los desarrolladores para las actividades de conservación en suelo privado. El 21% de las aplicaciones de desarrollo incluyeron un error simple recurrente en los cálculos de su GNB. La mitad de estas aplicaciones fueron aprobadas por consejos, lo que podría indicar una escasez de evaluaciones en los consejos. Nuestros resultados demuestran que la insuficiencia en la dotación de recursos y la de gobernanza arriesga la efectividad de las políticas.

Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation.

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002-2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover ("avoided loss", 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover ("regeneration", 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%-3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138-180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%-1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19-97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of 'net gain' (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of considering self-selection bias in the design and evaluation of regulatory biodiversity offsetting policy, and the challenges of conducting robust impact evaluations of jurisdictional biodiversity offsetting policies.