Search

In this comment, we scrutinize how research is being challenged by the 2030 Agenda and what may be required for research to contribute to transformative change toward sustainability. Building on the current debate and state of knowledge, we argue that we need a stronger engagement with norms and values within science. Conflicting goals, values and visions need to be made explicit and taken into account in the (co-)production of knowledge in a transparent way. This requires the ability for normative reflection on the part of scientists, both about the norms at play and their own role. To produce transformative-oriented knowledge needed for the implementation of the sustainable development goals, we argue, fundamental changes are required within the science system, from the production to the assessment of knowledge.

La compensation mutualisée en Allemagne (Ökokonto) s’est développée dès les années 1990. Dans la perspective d’une mise en regard des systèmes de compensation mutualisée français et allemand, les auteures de l'article proposent une analyse « Atouts, Faiblesses, Opportunités et Menaces » pour souligner les caractéristiques de la compensation par Ökokonto. Les principales implications écologiques, territoriales mais aussi organisationnelles sont mises en avant pour ensuite en tirer de premiers enseignements vis-à-vis de la pratique française de la compensation mutualisée.

As voluntary biodiversity offsets are a relatively new phenomenon, most evidence and literature relate to offsets under regulatory schemes. These are rooted in numerous compensation approaches worldwide, ranging from long-standing schemes such as US Wetland Mitigation, German Impact Mitigation Regulation, and Australian offset schemes to the recent uptake of biodiversity offsets in several European countries, e.g., France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, as well as the discussion on the introduction of an offset policy at supranational (EU) level in the scope of the EU’s no net loss initiative. These schemes are, on the one hand, discussed as role models and sources of information. On the other hand, they have been criticized for the inclusion of market-based mechanisms and the use of habitat banking for the implementation of offsets.

The applied research methodology was fit for purpose under the given research premises, and it can provide a model for future research. Nevertheless, one major limitation of the typology is that in practice mostly a combination of influences and motivations occurs, i.e., the individual types are represented in their purest form only to a limited extent in reality. Thus, intersections of these types are commonly encountered, especially for large-scale projects. In fact, the different cases or approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, they can even be of enhancing and reinforcing nature. For example, an existing regulatory frame will not prevent, but most likely foster, additional engagement of developers in offsets.

A typology of biodiversity offsets has been developed. Seven types (including four subtypes) were identified: (1) Regulatory biodiversity offsets: required by law and enforced; (2) Conditional biodiversity offsets: required by financial institutions; (3) Enabled biodiversity offsets: fostered by governments (case 3a: enabled biodiversity offsets—by government) and NGOs (case 3b: enabled biodiversity offsets—new global norms) through pilot schemes, guidance, etc.; (4) Sectoral biodiversity offsets: taking part in a voluntary self-commitment of a sector (e.g., mining); (5) Corporate biodiversity offsets: resulting from a voluntary self-commitment of a corporation; (6) Local biodiversity offsets: single offsets that are most likely developed at local level in a consensual process, including case 6a: local biodiversity offsets—reputational risk and case 6b: local biodiversity offsets—license to operate; and (7) Altruistic biodiversity offsets: truly voluntary offsets that are driven by the altruistic motivation to make a positive impact.

The results of this study are neither exhaustive nor representative. Nevertheless, global tendencies become visible, allowing for some generalized conclusions and recommendations for different locations and contexts, as well as for different stakeholders. For example, diversified roles and responsibilities of government bodies beyond the conventional understanding in terms of regulator and enforcing authority were observed under the different types. This also offers an enormous potential for new forms of private–public partnerships, etc.

An in-depth view and critical analysis of voluntary biodiversity require the operationalization and qualification of what voluntariness means under different contexts. In practice, voluntariness has a long tradition, i.e., it is anchored in societal and ethical discourses, with regard to solidarity, the provision of common goods and voluntary commitment. However, voluntariness is a relatively new phenomenon in a scientific context.

Despite their increasing recognition in selected public discourses, biodiversity offsets remain a highly specific subject in expert circles in various locations worldwide. However, these circles are increasingly connected and exchanging, in particular using information and communication technologies online. Therefore, an expert and Internet based research approach was chosen for this study. It follows a netnographic approach in terms of an “offering strategy” to start an interaction and to engage others in a research process. For this purpose, the “Biodiversity Offsets Blog” was created. It served as a content management system to store, structure, and comment information, and it provided the base for a personal learning network, together with exploratory qualified Internet research using the Google search engine as well as chosen social network sites (LinkedIn, ResearchGate, and Twitter) and online curation services (Scoop.it).

The state of the scientific knowledge and the practical evidence explored encourage the analysis and investigation of the various forms of (voluntary) biodiversity offsets. However, there are a number of critical aspects associated with them. Several of these have been extensively researched, e.g., the formulation of standards and methods for loss-gain calculations. Building on these premises, the present study has focused on the different types of implementation (i.e., governance, responsibilities, and drivers) of biodiversity offsets. Notwithstanding, three major research gaps persist: (1) The overarching question of appropriateness of and limits to offsets requires research at the interface of natural science, planning, and policy design on the one hand and social sciences on the other hand. (2) So far, little or no evidence exists where offsets have been evaluated, not at the individual project level, let alone systematically. An outcome oriented critical analysis of biodiversity offsets is needed both from a nature conservation point of view and to underpin the discourse on the question of appropriateness of offsets. (3) There is clearly a need for a broader evidence base at the global level as a prerequisite for the evaluation of the outcomes and effectiveness of offsets and consequently to delineate factors for success and failure and to establish best practice. Together with previous compilations of case studies, e.g., by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program, the evidence base compiled in this study could add to an international registry of biodiversity offsets and a global compilation of on-the-ground examples of biodiversity.

In light of ongoing global biodiversity loss, there is an increasing need for restoration-based activities to complement conventional nature conservation activities. Building on this premise, the paradigm of “no net loss” has risen to prominence in a worldwide context and particularly with respect to EU policy. In this scope, biodiversity offsets are increasingly explored and promoted to reach the no net loss goal.

A typology of biodiversity offsets was developed using four consecutive steps: (1) The starting point was an impressionistic classification of types (“intuitive types”) that was refined in several steps throughout the research process and over time. (2) Building on the theoretical analysis of the concept of voluntariness, attributes, or criteria were extracted from the literature that provided the theoretical frame of reference to analyze the degree or intensity of voluntariness of the types presented in this work. These criteria were grouped and rearranged into different categories (with distinctive functions), notably threshold criteria, descriptive criteria, performance criteria, and quality criteria. Thus, through a process of elimination two core criteria were identified: influence and initiators, and motivation and ultimate goal. (3) These core criteria, and the respective value categories assigned to them, were used to construct the underlying attribute space, i.e., a 3 × 7 matrix. (4) Finally, the impressionistic types that have been developed over time (building on the author’s own observation and experience) and the constructed attribute space (building on criteria derived from the literature) were integrated to obtain a more refined typology of seven types.

The European Union (EU) is committed to tackling the issue of climate change, which poses serious risks to the global environment and human well-being. Supporting renewable energy is a key policy direction for the EU to lower its contributions to climate change. However, renewable energy technologies have diverse effects on the environment and on society. These effects can be considered a complex system of interacting elements and are challenging to assess. Conceptual models are a way of synthesizing this information to obtain an overview of the system and essential insights. We present the results of an activity to assess the impacts of EU renewable energy policies on overseas biodiversity and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This was carried out as part of the EKLIPSE (EKLIPSE (Establishing a European Knowledge and Learning Mechanism to Improve the Policy-Science-Society Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) mechanism to synthesise environmental knowledge in response to specific requests by decision-makers at the European level. We carried out a participatory process to collate expert knowledge into a conceptual model using a Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Approach (Özesmi and Özesmi 2004), with the Mental Modeler software for mapping (Gray et al. 2013). The participants were guided to connect significant EU policies associated with renewable energy, the technologies they support, and known impacts of these technologies on biodiversity and the SDGs, drawing on a preliminary review of the literature. The individual models obtained were integrated into a single model (see Suppl. material 1 for images). This was then subject to network analysis, which reveals the collective effects of different renewable energy technologies (RETs) on the wider socioecological system. Our findings highlight that RETs have complex and at times disparate effects on biodiversity and the SDGs, acting through a variety of mediating processes. They benefit the SDGs on balance, particularly climate-related SDGs. Mitigation of biodiversity impacts remains a concern, and processes such as habitat change were found to be influential here. Our results suggest that policymakers must focus on implementing appropriate environmental impact assessments, guided by these mediating processes. This would minimize any negative environmental impacts of RETs, while maximizing the benefits.

The aim of EKLIPSE is to develop a mechanism to inform European-scale policy on biodiversity and related environmental challenges. This paper considers two fundamental aspects of the decision-support mechanism being developed by EKLIPSE: 1) the engagement of relevant actors from science, policy and society to jointly identify evidence for decision making; and 2) the networking of scientists and other holders of knowledge on biodiversity and other relevant evidence. The mechanism being developed has the potential not only to build communities of knowledge holders but to build informal networks among those with similar interests in evidence, be they those that seek to use evidence or those who are building evidence, or both. EKLIPSE has been successful in linking these people and in contributing to building informal networks of requesters of evidence, and experts of evidence and its synthesis. We have yet to see, however, significant engagement of formal networks of knowledge holders. Future success, however, relies on the continued involvement with and engagement of networks, a high degree of transparency within the processes and a high flexibility of structures to adapt to different requirements that arise with the broad range of requests to and activities of EKLIPSE.

In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselvesScientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland(Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead.

‘No net loss’ (NNL) conservation policies seek to address development impacts on biodiversity. There have been no peer-reviewed multinational assessments concerning the actual implementation of NNL policies to date. Such assessments would facilitate more informed debates on the validity of NNL for conservation, but assessing implementation requires data. Here, we explore data transparency concerning NNL implementation, with four European countries providing a case study.Biodiversity offsets (offsets) are the most tangible outcome of NNL policy. Using an expert network to locate all offset datasets available within the public domain, we collated information on offset projects implemented in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Implementation data for offsets were found to be non-transparent, but the degree of transparency varies widely by country. We discuss barriers preventing data transparency — including a perceived lack of necessity, lack of common protocols for collecting data, and a lack of resources to do so. For the data we collected we find that most offsets in Europe: are not within protected areas; involve active restoration; and, compensate for infrastructure development. The area occupied by European offsets is at least of the order ~ 102 km2.Transparent national NNL databases are essential for meeting good practice NNL principles, but are not currently available in Europe. We discuss what such databases might require to support evaluation of NNL policy effectiveness by researchers, the conservation community and policymakers.

It is clear that Europe is still far from its target to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (EEA 2010a, b; European Commission 2015), and this is in large part due to biodiversity impacts in the wider environment, i.e. outside protected areas. Many such impacts are the result of multiple small, scattered developments that individually often do not justify refusal on environmental grounds, but nonetheless have substantial incremental and cumulative impacts; thereby leading to ‘death by 1000 cuts’. To tackle this problem and halt biodiversity losses, it is becoming increasingly evident that complementary measures to strict protection are required that have the realistic ambition of achieving no net loss, through the avoidance, minimisation and offsetting of residual impacts. Such no net loss/offset policies can form a key component of sustainable development in that they can help to regulate and manage necessary trade-offs between economic development and the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Quetier et al. 2014).

One of today’s great challenges is to safeguard biodiversity for future generations. An increasing number of countries and economic sectors are adopting strategies to slow and stop biodiversity loss. In this book, we examine existing approaches to achieve no net loss of biodiversity in selected EU countries. Adopting an explicitly European perspective, our focus is on various options to compensate negative impacts on nature, ecosystem services and biodiversity. Although Europe is crisscrossed by a network of protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites, and the EU has a strict legal framework for offsetting within Natura 2000, this is not enough to conserve the continent’s biodiversity and the continued flow of benefits from nature to people. Europe is a fine-grained patchwork of natural and modified habitats which form varied and highly valued cultural landscapes. These provide vital ecosystem services as well as habitats for animals and plants, resulting in a high level of biodiversity outside of dedicated nature reserves. This book emphasizes the values of nature and biodiversity in landscapes shaped by human activity.

With the adoption of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the EU has made a commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. EU-wide actions include the development of an initiative to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity, ecosystems and their services e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes by 2015 (Action 7b; initiated by the European Commission). In this chapter we intend to examine one relatively new and innovative instrument that can be applied to achieve no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: biodiversity offsets. We focus on the German system as a kind of role model and example that shows challenges and advantages of a biodiversity offsetting system within the European context. However, a brief outlook on comparable offsetting systems in other countries will also be raised. Particularly, the urban stage is to be addressed.