First Things First – Empiricism, Ethics, and Conservation Banking

To manage conflicts between human dimensions and wildlife, many governments have implemented impact mitigation frameworks to avoid, minimize, and compensate adverse impacts of development on biodiversity. Such approaches can... [ view full abstract ]

To manage conflicts between human dimensions and wildlife, many governments have implemented impact mitigation frameworks to avoid, minimize, and compensate adverse impacts of development on biodiversity. Such approaches can have social, ethical, ecological and economic consequences that need to be considered in policy design and implementation. In the United States, one way to compensate for impacts under the Endangered Species Act is the use of conservation banks; owners conserve and manage sites to provide ecological benefits, for which they receive credits that can later be sold to developers to compensate for impacts to the same species. Offsets and biodiversity banks are associated with some risks, such as allowing otherwise impermissible impacts, spatial redistribution of nature, and with it the associated benefits for humans (leading to inequity), and ineffectiveness in conserving resources. Many researchers have discussed a number of design safeguards to negate such risks, including adhering to the mitigation hierarchy, ensuring equivalence of impact and compensation, and strict monitoring to ensure compliance.

Based on a thorough review of scientific and grey literature, reports, and legislation and guidelines concerning compensation, this paper establishes criteria for the design of an effective biodiversity banking framework. In a second step, I conduct a criteria-based analysis to find out if these design safeguards are required in conservation banking legislation and implementation, and highlight where empirical evidence of these safeguards and their benefits is missing. Results show that many design safeguards are legally required in U.S. conservation banking. However, a lack of empirical research in the field shows that actual compliance in practice is unclear. For example, the strictness of the avoidance requirement before resorting to compensation is an open question, and evidence of compliance and the success of banks is also lacking.

Overarching socio-economic and ethical questions are largely excluded from U.S. offset design, such as implications of redistributing ecosystem services, and of commodifying nature under neoliberal paradigms. This contribution provides an overview of conservation banking and highlights open questions regarding its risks, and its effectiveness in conserving species and the habitat on which they depend. Before banking is promoted further as a tool that combines development with species conservation, further empirical research concerning its successful implementation, as well as a framework considering social, ethical, and economic aspects, are needed. Findings can also be used to discuss the future application of similar approaches to further the goals of EU Natura 2000 site and species protection.