Abstract
AbstractIn the USA, Species Conservation Banking is a prominent example of compensatory biodiversity impact mitigation, with an annual market value estimated at US$354.2 million. Species Conservation Banking represents a useful case study of a well‐established program that can provide empirical insights into the practicalities of implementing quantitative compensatory biodiversity mitigation on‐the‐ground. Using semi‐structured key‐informant interviews structured around well‐established technical challenges to compensatory mitigation, this study aimed to understand (i) how and why these challenges are or are not addressed in practice; and (ii) how these challenges relate to practical challenges faced by conservation banking stakeholders on‐the‐ground. Challenges identified included: (i) defining trading currencies and equivalence, (ii) regulatory and political uncertainty, (iii) regulatory agency capacity, will and knowledge, (iv) lack of policies, standards, and competition with other mitigation mechanisms, (v) long‐term uncertainty/longevity, and (vi) lack of species knowledge and data transparency. These challenges are numerous, diverse, interlinked and transdisciplinary, and collectively inhibit the ability of practitioners to resolve underlying technical challenges—a finding likely applicable to related biodiversity offset programs. To help address challenges and navigate this complexity, we formulate several recommendations for conservation banking stakeholders to improve the chances of beneficial biodiversity outcomes being achieved.
Highlights
Compensatory biodiversity mitigation is a mechanism designed to reduce the conflict between development and conservation goals by compensating for a development's residual impacts on species and habitats, and is increasingly applied world-wide
“Species Conservation Banking” or “Conservation Banking” has evolved from this concept and is one of multiple authorized mitigation mechanisms in the United States of America (USA) for mitigating impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act 1973 (ESA), with an annual market worth US$354.2 million (Bennett et al, 2017)
There are 154 Species Conservation Bank (SCB) registered in the US Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITs) database, 72% of which are in California, but with others distributed across the USA focused on a limited, but expanding set of listed species (Gamarra & Toombs, 2017)
Summary
Compensatory biodiversity mitigation is a mechanism designed to reduce the conflict between development and conservation goals by compensating for a development's residual impacts on species and habitats, and is increasingly applied world-wide. “Species Conservation Banking” or “Conservation Banking” has evolved from this concept and is one of multiple authorized mitigation mechanisms in the USA for mitigating impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act 1973 (ESA), with an annual market worth US$354.2 million (Bennett et al, 2017). Species Conservation Banking in the US is a mechanism by which a third party provides compensatory mitigation for impacts regulated by the US Endangered Species Act. An individual who owns land where an endangered species is present can establish a Species Conservation Bank (SCB) for the species, for which they are granted credits by either the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The same study showed banks prevented the passive restoration of degraded habitats which has occurred outside banks—a finding potentially indicating perverse outcomes (Sonter, Barnes, Matthews, & Maron, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
