Biodiversity offsetting: what are the challenges, opportunities and research priorities for animal conservation?

Conservation finance: What are we not doing? A review and research agenda

Conservation finance embraces a series of innovative financing mechanisms aimed at raising and managing capital to be used for the conservation of biodiversity. The climate emergency and the pursuit of sustainable development underline the criticality of financial support for achieving this goal. Funding for the protection of biodiversity, in fact, has long been disbursed by governments in a residual form, only after they have dealt with social needs and political challenges. To date, the main challenge of conservation finance is to identify solutions that not only generate new revenue for biodiversity, but also effectively manage and allocate existing funding to provide a mix of social and community benefits as well. The paper, therefore, aims to act as a wake-up call, urging academics working in economics and finance to turn their attention to resolving the financial problems faced by conservation. Through a comparative bibliometric analysis, the study aims to outline the structure of scientific research on the topic of conservation finance, to understand the state of the art, and to identify open questions and new research trends. The results of the study show that the topic of conservation finance is currently a prerogative of scholars and journals of ecology, biology and environmental sciences. Finance scholars pay very little attention to the topic and yet there are many opportunities/needs for future research. The results are of interest to researchers in banking and finance, policy-makers and managers.

A Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Offsetting Strategies to Address Harm to Freshwater Fishes

Offsetting aims to compensate for negative impacts due to authorized anthropogenic impacts associated with development. While anchored into legislation, residual or chronic impacts can occur after offset establishment. Advice and best practice on how to approach these impacts is rare. To address this, we reviewed 30 projects based on a systematic review and meta-analysis in freshwater ecosystems dealing with residual or long-term negative impacts to provide application advice for: habitat creation, habitat restoration, and biological and chemical manipulation. Project information was obtained through Boolean search terms and web-scraping. Habitat creation projects had a pooled effect size of 0.8 and offsetting ratios of 1:5 with high biomass increases of >140% compared to pre-establishment, associated with them. Habitat restoration projects targeted a wide range of species and communities with a pooled effect size of 0.66, offset ratios ranging from 1:1.2 to 1:4.6, and biomass increases generally > 100% compared to pre-restoration. Biological manipulation had the lowest effect size (0.51) with stocking being highly variable both in terms of biomass benefits and project outcomes pointing towards being mostly applicable in cases of direct fish harm not related to habitat aspects. We conclude that (1) all three assessed approaches have a potential application use for offsetting residual or chronic harm with approach-specific caveats. (2) Implementation costs differ across offset methods, with connectivity and side-channel projects having the lowest biomass gain per area costs (3) Time to first benefits required one to two years with time lags needing to be accounted for in the implementation and monitoring process.

Trends in biodiversity and habitat quantification tools used for market-based conservation in the United States

Market-based conservation mechanisms are designed to facilitate the mitigation of harm to and conservation of habitats and biodiversity. Their potential is partly hindered, however, by the quantification tools used to assess habitat quality and functionality. Of specific concern are the lack of transparency and standardization in tool development and gaps in tool availability. To address these issues, we collected information via internet and literature searchers and through conversations with tool developers and users on tools used in U.S. conservation mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) and ecolabel programs, conservation banking, and habitat exchanges. We summarized information about tools and explored trends among and within mechanisms based on criteria detailing geographic, ecological, and technical features of tools. We identified 69 tools that assessed at least 34 species and 39 habitat types. Where tools reported pricing, 98% were freely available. More tools were applied to states along the U.S. West Coast than elsewhere, and the level of tool transferability varied markedly among mechanisms. Tools most often incorporated conditions at numerous spatial scales, frequently addressed multiple risks to site viability, and required 1-83 data inputs. Most tools required a moderate or greater level of user skill. Average tool-complexity estimates were similar among all mechanisms except PES programs. Our results illustrate the diversity among tools in their ecological features, data needs, and geographic application, supporting concerns about a lack of standardization. However, consistency among tools in user skill requirements, incorporation of multiple spatial scales, and complexity highlight important commonalities that could serve as a starting point for establishing more standardized tool development and feature-incorporation processes. Greater standardization in tool design may expand market participation and facilitate a needed assessment of the effectiveness of market-based conservation.