Laura J. Sonter et. al.

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted.

Journal article
2020
Yes
Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals
aerial view of town Image: Daniel Lobo CC0

Impact mitigation, including avoidance and ecological compensation, is key for balancing development with environmental outcomes that benefit nature and people.

Here, you will find the latest research, guidance, and tools relating to application of the mitigation hierarchy and ecological compensation, and a community of practice that is actively engaged in applying and improving the mainstreaming of biodiversity into development plans, programs and projects.

Biodiversity video scene of forest

Training videos

We have developed a range of video training materials to help explain the concepts of biodiversity offsetting.

Watch now