Next Article in Journal
Public Transport Modeling for Commuting in Cities with Different Development Levels Using Extended Theory of Planned Behavior
Previous Article in Journal
Consumer Trust in AI Algorithms Used in E-Commerce: A Case Study of College Students at a Romanian Public University
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511930
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation

by
Eshetu Yirdaw
*,
Markku Kanninen
and
Adrian Monge
Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI), Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11930; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511930
Submission received: 15 June 2023 / Revised: 30 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 3 August 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ecological compensation, which is widely applied, is presumed to be an important mechanism to address environmental degradation that commonly occurs due to activities related to development projects and resource use. The objectives of this review are to investigate synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon offset, the challenges in their implementation, and the potential of biodiversity and/or carbon offsets to be used as a proxy for other ecosystem functions in the implementation of ecological compensation. In comparison to carbon offsets, the implementation of biodiversity offsets are more challenging due to difficulties in biodiversity measurement, determining ecological equivalence, the relatively longer time taken, the higher level of uncertainty, the uniqueness of ecosystems, and the irreversibility of species loss. Generally, there is a positive relationship between biodiversity and carbon stocks; however, there are also cases where there are no clear or even negative relationships between biodiversity and carbon stocks. Ecosystem functions are directly or indirectly affected by environmental degradation, and ecological compensation measures usually compensate for only a few components of the ecosystem functions. Since biodiversity is interconnected and underpins ecosystem functions, it has the potential to be used solely or as one of the proxies. However, we recommend developing a sound methodology to rank the important ecosystem functions and identify the few ecosystem functions, which can be used as proxies to indicate the achievement of ecological compensation goals.

1. Introduction

Large development projects commonly cause damage to ecosystems, even after measures have been taken to avoid and reduce impacts on site. Infrastructure construction, building of dams for hydroelectricity generation, mining, and urban expansion are typical examples where ecological compensation is used to compensate for the negative side effects and externalities. Ecological compensation is presumed to be an important mechanism for addressing environmental degradation, which occurs due to activities related to development projects [1,2].
Ecological compensation is defined as a positive conservation action that is required to counter-balance ecological values lost in the context of development or resource use and is an intentional form of trade-off. In other words, ecological compensation is a set of actions that mitigate losses by promoting the restoration or conservation of ecosystems with similar structure and function elsewhere [3]. Ecological compensation goals are achieved by restoring ecologically equivalent degraded lands to that of the area where there is ongoing or past degradation. Ecological equivalence occurs when the biodiversity and ecosystem service values lost due to development and gained via the offset are the same in nature and magnitude [4]. Equivalence assessment methods (EAMs) are used by developers and authorities to evaluate biodiversity losses and gains in order to ensure that offset measures are sufficient to reach ecological equivalence [5]. Ecological compensation can be conducted through restoration, sustainable land management, or protection of habitats. The cost of ecological compensation is paid by the one who causes the damage (polluter pays), such as a company, municipality, or the state [6,7].
In order to implement ecological compensation, a benchmark of the community of organisms and the accompanying abiotic components or reference ecosystems are required. A reference ecosystem usually represents a non-degraded version of the ecosystem complete with its flora, fauna, abiotic elements, functions, processes, and successional states that would have existed on the restoration site had degradation, damage, or destruction not occurred—but should be adjusted to accommodate changed or predicted environmental conditions [8]. However, the use of dynamic baselines (for instance, which take climate change into account) against which to measure no net loss is very challenging. In general, predicting future biodiversity trajectories accurately is difficult and managing for them is perhaps impractical [9].
Governments in many countries are increasingly seeking to offset losses through ecological compensation programs to maintain overall levels of biodiversity and ecosystem services [2]. Many developing and developed countries have established or are in the process of creating offset policies in an attempt to scale environmental conservation efforts and help meet national biodiversity and carbon emission reduction goals [1,10]. In contrast to developing countries, there are well-established laws in industrialized countries requiring development projects to incorporate ecological compensation, and such laws are becoming increasingly prevalent in developing countries as well [2]. At present, although legislation mandating biodiversity offsets exist in many countries, biodiversity offsets are still under development [11,12].
Ecological compensation can be used as a way to address the inseparable challenges of biodiversity loss and land degradation, which overlap with the overall objectives of the CBD (The convention on biological diversity) and UNCCD (United Nations convention to combat desertification). Moreover, by restoring degraded lands and protecting habitats, ecological compensation has also the potential to enhance the ability of ecosystems to mitigate and adapt to climate change, which overlaps with the overall objectives of the UNFCCC (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Hence, ecological compensation can be an important avenue for the three conventions (biodiversity, climate, and desertification) to achieve their objectives [13].
Due to the novelty of the current concept of ecological compensation and the concepts it encompasses, there is little in the way of relevant research on methods and outcomes of ecological compensation [11]. In particular, the outcomes of restoration activities, which are undertaken within ecological compensation, take a long time and are difficult to predict. In other words, there are lots of uncertainties concerning the resulting landscape after restoration. Hence, by examining the uncertainties, risks, and sustainability, this study in general attempts to scrutinize the feasibility of ecological compensation and, in the process, contribute to filling the scientific information gap.
The aim of this review is to analyze the main characteristics of biodiversity and carbon offsets in ecological compensation. The objective is to analyze both synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon offsets in ecological compensation. Furthermore, we will explore the potential and challenges in the implementation of biodiversity and/or carbon offsets. Finally, we will analyze whether biodiversity and carbon offsets can be used as a proxy for other ecosystem functions in the implementation of ecological compensation.

2. Literature Review

A systematic review of mainly peer-reviewed publications from online databases was conducted using Scopus and ScienceDirect for the period 2000–2022, and complementary searches were performed using Web of Science and Google Scholar to cross-check results. The literature search was conducted by looking for words and phrases that appear in the title, abstract, and author-specified keywords. The publication selection criteria were English language publication, relevance, and publication year. The keywords used in the literature search were ecological compensation, biodiversity offset, carbon offset, ecosystem services, socioeconomic, policy, and ethics. In the literature search, all the keywords were used in combination with ecological compensation to narrow down and focus the search on the most relevant publications. Boolean operators were used in multiple keyword searches.
After the initial selection of the publications, they were screened for relevance, quality, and duplication. Initial search resulted in 525 hits, and out of these, 63 publications were retained. The number of articles found for the following keywords combined with ecological compensation (EC) were “biodiversity offset and EC” (59), “carbon offset and EC” (44), “ecosystem services and EC” (159), “socioeconomic and EC” (28), “policy and EC” (226), and “ethics and EC” (9). By far, the majority of the cited references, 80%, were from peer-reviewed scientific journals, while 9% were from books and 11% were from internet sources which are reliable and published by renowned international institutions.
The classification of the publications was hierarchical. Initially, the publications were classified into biodiversity and carbon offsets applied in ecological compensation. The publications in the second stage were classified into ecosystem services, socioeconomic, policy, and ethical aspects of ecological compensation.

3. Ecological Compensation and Ecosystem Function Offsets

3.1. Biodiversity Offsets

Land-use change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and other factors involved in land degradation processes are driving unprecedented losses in global biodiversity. The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, and around 1 million species face extinction [12]. Species extinction rates today are much higher than the background rates, and at present, what is known as the sixth mass species extinction is underway [14]. Land degradation and biodiversity loss are strongly related, and biodiversity underpins ecosystem functions [12], which are crucial for ecological integrity and the benefits which societies at large acquire. To mitigate the alarming global biodiversity loss, biodiversity offsets are becoming increasingly common in many countries and are implemented by various entities. Biodiversity offsets are mechanisms intended to balance development and environmental goals by compensating for adverse impacts of projects after appropriate steps have been taken to first avoid and minimize impacts [1]. Furthermore, the goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function, and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity [3]. Ecological compensation activities can involve the protection of areas that are otherwise at risk of degradation through ecological restoration or other positive management interventions and, in some circumstances, the re-creation of habitat that has been lost [11].
Moreover, the type of biodiversity offsetting that is relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline may result in a net loss of biodiversity compared to a fixed reference ecosystem [15]. In this type of biodiversity offsetting, it is assumed that the biodiversity will decline even without the disturbance that will be caused by the development project. In addition, the biodiversity decline trajectory cannot be accurately determined, although it can be predicted. Hence, it is prudent to ascertain what type of offsetting is used in order to determine the potential impact on biodiversity.

3.1.1. Biodiversity Offsets and Equivalence

In general, biodiversity offsets should conserve the same biodiversity values (species, habitats, ecosystems, or ecological functions) as those lost to the original project, following a principle known as like-for-like (ecological equivalence). In special cases, the biodiversity offset area might be ecologically quite different from the original project area, but with an ecosystem type or species composition that is widely acknowledged to be of higher conservation priority (perhaps in greater overall need of protection) than the biodiversity to be lost under the original project; this approach to offsetting is known as trading-up [16]. However, in addition to the uniqueness of natural habitats, it is particularly difficult, if not impossible, to have ecological equivalence between two sites which have different habitat types (ecological context), locations, site histories, socioeconomic contexts, etc. (out of kind). Furthermore, equivalence in biodiversity does not necessarily translate into equivalence in functional diversity. Hence, in addition to biodiversity, offsets should also incorporate some measure of functional diversity [9].

3.1.2. Uniqueness

By and large, any natural ecosystem is unique due to its social–economic–ecological complexity and cannot be replaced or perfectly substituted. Hence, no two sites are ecologically and socioeconomically identical. According to [17], ecological uniqueness emerges from at least three environmental attributes: (i) place-specific environment (spatiality), (ii) distinctive site history (historicity), and (iii) complex ecological processes and interactions among the ecosystem elements (complexity). Hence, uniqueness of ecosystems implies that the validity of the concepts of ecological equivalence and substitutability in ecological compensation are questionable.

3.1.3. Reversibility

At present, the rate of global species loss is accelerating, and the loss of species is an irreversible process which cannot be ecologically compensated. In general, there are habitats and ecosystems which contain rare and threatened species whose losses cannot be offset by compensation. Hence, reversibility should be considered as a prerequisite for the implementation of offset activities, and all biodiversity losses addressed through offsets should be reversible [9]. In general, in case of irreversible environmental degradation, some environmental components may be irretrievably lost and cannot be compensated through offsets. Hence, defining thresholds beyond which the use of offsets is considered as inappropriate helps to identify environmental degradations which are reversible or not.

3.1.4. Complexity and Challenges in Biodiversity Measurement

Biodiversity offset involves measuring both the losses to biodiversity caused by a development project and the commensurate conservation gains achieved by the offset. Biodiversity is hierarchical and scale-dependent, which makes it complex, poorly measurable, and non-interchangeable in its elements. Species are not substitutable by each other [18], and biodiversity is multidimensional, meaning it cannot be measured using one metric only. For instance, many studies use species richness alone as a measure of biodiversity. However, species richness does not take species composition into account and may lead to the neglect of particularly rare and threatened species, which are at risk of local extinction [19].
Furthermore, understanding the demography and genetic composition of local populations requires major work, time, and resources [20]. Hence, measurement of biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as predicting the outcomes of biodiversity offsets, presents a potentially insurmountable challenge. Consequently, biodiversity offsets can be made operational on the ground only if simplifications are allowed in the measurement of biodiversity. In general, biodiversity offsets rely on measuring few environmental parameters (proxies), and hence, they are inherently highly reductionist. Consequently, these measurements do not fully and accurately capture the biodiversity loss and gain achieved through offsets.

3.1.5. Time Lag in Biodiversity Offsets

While ecological losses will be immediate, often within a few years of the project commencing, it will typically take a long time for the offset actions to enable the recovery of a degraded site and produce the anticipated benefits [21]. Typically, offset gains (particularly restoration) may take decades or even centuries to deliver the desired outcomes [20]. For instance, in the restoration of degraded forestlands, plant species richness in secondary forests can approach old-growth forest values within a few decades after the commencement of restoration activities. However, returning to a species composition similar to old-growth forest will be a much longer process, particularly for canopy trees (late-successional species) due to their long turnover time [22,23]. In general, ecosystem or biodiversity recovery may take such a long time that it is very difficult to predict the outcome of the species successional trajectory, and consequently, it is beyond the range of meaningful policy planning [17].

3.1.6. Leakage

As a result of the offset actions, environmentally damaging activity may relocate elsewhere after being stopped locally by avoided loss offsetting, which is known as leakage [24]. However, evaluating leakage is not straightforward. Setting aside and protecting one area may also move pressures from the protected type of habitat into another; pressures could also move from one administration (country) to another (indirect leakage), making leakage difficult to detect [20]. For instance, if reducing small-scale mining inside an area targeted for biodiversity offsets is not combined with sustainable and profitable economic alternatives for miners, they may move outside the area and continue mining, thus affecting biodiversity in previously undisturbed areas cf. [25].

3.1.7. Additionality

For any offset to have an overall positive impact, it must be additional. Additionality means that one cannot count offset gains from (conservation and restoration) actions that would have been done in any case—double counting is not allowed [20]. In other words, biodiversity offsets must deliver conservation gains beyond those that would be achieved by ongoing or planned activities that are not part of the offset. Another concern related to additionality is the risk of cost-shifting, in which a government might reduce its budgetary allocation to protected areas, in response to the increased revenues from biodiversity offset payments made by a (private or public sector) project developer [16]. If offsets allow governments to quietly renege on their commitments, biodiversity offsets could cause more harm than good [26]. Following the aforementioned small-scale mining example, if part of the rural development strategy of a local government is to create economic alternatives for small-scale miners in certain districts, thus indirectly reducing human impact on biodiversity, then areas in these districts may not be suitable for biodiversity offsets as positive biodiversity impacts are expected to happen regardless of the offset’s interventions [25].

3.1.8. Longevity

Biodiversity offsets are normally expected to persist for at least as long as the adverse biodiversity impacts from the original project lasts; in practical terms, this often means a very long time period. Protection may be needed to [27] ensure the longevity of the offsets [20]. Permanent compensation is gained from, e.g., permanent protection as opposed to a temporary conservation contract [20]. Furthermore, lasting offset outcomes, such as conservation, will ultimately depend upon the actions of future generations as well as present-day decision-makers. Thus, project proponents often cannot credibly promise that a biodiversity offset will be maintained “forever”, but it should be for at least the operating life of the original project and ideally longer [16]. In addition, it is not always clear how offsets should be managed in the present era of climate change, by whom, and for how long [9]. For the long-term survival of the target ecosystems and species, as well as for a successful conservation outcome, biodiversity offset designers should seek to ensure the formal legal protection of the land, water area, and species involved, on-the-ground protection and management, and financial sustainability [16].

3.1.9. Uncertainty

Restoration is one of the main mechanisms of ecological compensation and its outcomes are based on the succession of species and their interactions, which are notoriously unpredictable and range from success to failure. Particularly, species composition may be more challenging to forecast than other ecosystem attributes. Seemingly similar restoration practices can result in substantial variation in outcomes, such as community diversity or composition, and, in many cases, we lack understanding of the processes that lead to these variations [28]. As part of an offset action, restored or created habitats might fail to establish or provide sufficient ecological function, or negative impacts may be greater and compensation less than planned [9]. Furthermore, climate change is another factor that increases uncertainty, and it is expected to affect all ecosystems [21]. In general, the future expected gains from biodiversity offsets contain significant uncertainties [9] and they should be accounted for when calculating offsets.

3.2. Carbon Offsets

3.2.1. Carbon Reservoirs and Sequestration

Land degradation is a driver of climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduced rates of carbon uptake [29]. An estimated 23% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions derive from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses, contributing to climate change [13].
In principle, any activity related to carbon flows between ecosystems and the atmosphere is simple in the sense that it is about two carbon pools (atmosphere and ecosystems) and flows of carbon between them. In terms of calculating or accounting for the changes in the two carbon pools, the location, type, or quality of the ecosystems in question does not matter. For instance, X tons of carbon emitted in burning of tropical rain forests in the Brazilian Amazon is equivalent to X tons of carbon sequestered by tree growth in the Russian boreal forest.
The role of terrestrial ecosystems as carbon reservoirs and sinks was recognized already in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and carbon sequestration in afforestation and reforestation (A/R) became a part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997. In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 13 of Bali in 2007, reduced emissions from deforestation were taken as a part of the negotiations, subsequently leading to the Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) mechanism, which was approved as a part of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The REDD+ mechanism allows parties of the UNFCCC to carry out the following five actions as part of their Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs): deforestation, forest degradation, conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks [30]. While tackling deforestation is related to land use change, the other four actions are related to forests and forest degradation directly or indirectly.
By 2018, 55 countries have included REDD+ in their NDCs [31]. During recent years, the value of annually approved REDD+ programs has been about 250–300 Million USD per year [32]. In voluntary carbon markets, the value of land use and forestry offsets was 270 million USD in 2020 [33].

3.2.2. Challenges in Carbon Monitoring and Reporting

To facilitate the accounting and reporting of the emissions and sinks of carbon from ecosystems, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined five terrestrial carbon pools: above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil organic matter [34]. There are two fundamentally different approaches for measuring the changes in the carbon pools and fluxes: (a) flow-based approach and (b) stock-based approach. The IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use and Land Use Change [34] uses the stock-based approach in inventories of the five above-mentioned carbon pools in land-based ecosystems and forests.
During the last decades, the accuracy of estimating ecosystem carbon has increased. However, uncertainties in estimating are still high depending on the location, scale, and methods used. For instance, for European biomass maps at the national level, the error ranged between 30% and 40% [35]. At the project level, when measurement is based on sampling in the field, the accuracy is a trade-off between sampling intensity and measurement cost [36]. According to [37], there are four potential sources of errors and biases associated with above-ground biomass (AGB) estimates of tropical forests:
  • Inaccurate measurements of variables, including instrument and calibration errors.
  • Wrong allometric models.
  • Sampling uncertainty (related to the size of the study sample area and the sampling design).
  • Poor representativeness of the sampling network.
The uncertainty in estimating soil organic carbon (SOC) remains high globally [38,39,40]. However, with the fast development of methods and tools for estimating and monitoring carbon stocks, the accuracy of the measurements is increasing [41].

3.2.3. Lag Time in Carbon Sequestration and Stocks

After rehabilitation of a deforested tropical site through afforestation/reforestation or natural regeneration, it may take between 40 and over 100 years to accumulate the biomass carbon stocks similar to the amount that existed before the degradation [42]. However, the carbon sequestration rate varies considerably between forest types, depending on climate, edaphic factors, species composition, occurrences of disturbances, etc. Similar to biomass carbon stocks, the recovery time of soil organic carbon stocks varies among different ecosystems and sites, ranging from 15 years to several centuries [43,44]. For instance, the time to reach the equilibrium of soil organic carbon (SOC) in grassland to forest conversion is 150 to 200 years, and in cropland to forest conversion it is 120 years [38]. Generally, total plant biomass carbon accumulates more rapidly in warmer and wetter biomes than in cooler and drier ones [45]. Thus, in practice, deforestation, i.e., conversion of forest to non-forest land (e.g., urban area), in place A and afforestation or restoration of degraded forest in place B cannot be fully compensated until the carbon stocks of the above-ground biomass and soil organic carbon (SOC) reach their equilibrium levels. In such cases, long commitment periods with periodical monitoring, reporting, and verifying of carbon stocks are needed. For instance, in the California Cap and Trade System, the commitment period is 100 years [46].

3.2.4. Leakage

Leakage occurs when the actions to reduce GHG emissions for a carbon offset project cause GHG emissions outside the project boundaries [47]. This shift in carbon emissions may be driven by a change in economic behavior, which adjusts to meet the market demand. For instance, if ecological compensation activities reduce the yields of the agricultural sector in a given area, that may force the agricultural production to shift to other lands in order to meet product demand. Because these other lands are generally located outside the ecological compensation areas, the corresponding emission will go unaccounted for [47].

3.2.5. Additionality

Additionality means that a carbon offset credit is granted only to the extent that the associated amount of emission reduced or sequestered within the project boundaries is additional to that which would occur without the project or under business as usual (BAU) conditions [47]. This definition implies that baselines are the key component of additionality, since carbon offset credits are only earned for project activities resulting in GHG emission reductions in excess of the business-as-usual scenario [48]. In practice, additionality has to be taken into account in project planning and design. For instance, using protected areas in a carbon compensation project is problematic, because the carbon stocks are in theory already protected—even without the planned project.

3.2.6. Longevity

Longevity means that GHG reductions or removals cannot be reversed, and that carbon, once sequestered, cannot be emitted back into the atmosphere [48]. Similar to biodiversity, carbon stocks stored in rehabilitated forest sites can be released to the atmosphere in a short period of time, e.g., in a forest fire or illegal logging. Unless properly implemented, local communities or private companies can easily convert restored forestland to a degraded site and release the CO2 accumulated in the aboveground vegetation and soil back to the atmosphere. Hence, the original benefits of carbon offset (ecological compensation) projects can be rapidly and easily reversed [47]. In practice, the long commitment periods and periodical monitoring, reporting, and verifying of carbon stocks described above are relevant here as well.

3.2.7. Uncertainty

Carbon offset projects based on afforestation/reforestation face the risk of reversal because of the intentional or unintentional release of carbon back to the atmosphere. This is due to (1) the severity, duration, and frequency of natural disturbances, such as fire, insect damage, and severe weather; (2) the response of trees to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes in climatic conditions; and (3) land use conversions [49]. These aforementioned factors are sources of the uncertainty of carbon offsets projects meeting their objectives within the planned period.

3.3. Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon Offsets

In comparison to carbon offsets, the implementation of biodiversity offsets are more challenging due to difficulties in biodiversity measurement, determining ecological equivalence, the relatively longer time taken (achieving similar species composition to pre-disturbance state), the higher level of uncertainty (species succession after restoration), the uniqueness of ecosystems, and the irreversibility of species loss (Table 1). Furthermore, there are factors that negatively affect both biodiversity and carbon offsets (leakage, lack of additionality, and longevity).
The biodiversity–carbon relationship is among others affected by taxonomic groups, biogeographic region, and spatial scale; hence, the nature of the relationship is context specific [50]. Although site specific, in general, there is a positive relationship between biodiversity and carbon stocks [51,52,53,54]. However, there are also cases where there are no clear or even negative relationships between biodiversity and carbon stocks (Figure 1). For instance, intensively managed afforestation or reforestation activities (for ecological compensation purposes) with few introduced tree species may result in an equivalent or higher carbon sequestration potential, but very low biodiversity compared to the reference ecosystem. Hence, ecological compensation projects which prioritize carbon sequestration potential, may not necessarily protect biodiversity [55]. On the other hand, although not in all cases, prioritizing biodiversity tends to enhance carbon sequestration potential and stocks [56,57].
Nonetheless, ecological compensation projects should aim at multiple benefits, which include, among others, biodiversity and carbon cf. [58]. However, there may be trade-offs when trying to optimize biodiversity and carbon within a landscape [59]. In spite of the possible trade-offs, ecological compensation should aim to have higher or at least no loss in biodiversity and carbon stocks compared to the original site.
Table 1. Comparison of biodiversity and carbon offsets in the implementation of ecological compensation.
Table 1. Comparison of biodiversity and carbon offsets in the implementation of ecological compensation.
Biodiversity OffsetCarbon OffsetReferences
Time lagFew decades to hundreds of yearsFew decades to hundreds of years[20,38,43,44]
Measurement difficultyHighLow[9]
Monitoring difficultyHighLow[38,60]
Restoration challengesHighLow[28]
Predictability of restoration outcomes LowModerate[17]
UncertaintyHighModerate[9]
Reversibility of degradationCan be irreversible (species loss)Reversible[17]
Major risksHighModerate[29]
Geographical scale and locationLocation specificTheoretically anywhere[21]
Ecological impactsHighModerate[29]
Socio-economic impactsHigh-moderateModerate-high[29]
Longevity/SustainabilityDepends on community support, funding, policy, etc., conditionsDepends on community support, funding, policy, etc., conditions[16]

3.4. Ecological Compensation of Ecosystem Functions

Ecosystem functions provide societies with vital services, such as regulation of the hydrological cycle and climate, nutrient cycling, erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility, pollination, biological pest control, etc., and provide wood and non-wood forest products. These important ecosystem services and products are directly or indirectly affected by land degradation and ecological compensation. Most ecological compensation measures compensate for a few components of ecosystem functions at a given site and do not achieve full equivalence (in terms of ecosystem functions) between the offset area and the undisturbed/reference site. Furthermore, the recovery time, measurability, restoration challenges, predictability of offset outcomes, etc., vary between different ecosystem functions (Table 1). Hence, these variations in ecosystem functions should be taken into consideration in the implementation of ecological compensation.
In principle, for ascertaining a successful ecological compensation, comprehensive and extensive quantitative information is required from the various ecosystem functions on gains and losses. However, because of the high cost and labor that is required to collect such data, it is realistic and cost-effective to use a few environmental functions as proxies. By and large, biodiversity underpins ecosystem functions, and there are strong linkages between the two [61]. Since biodiversity is interconnected and directly or indirectly affects various ecosystem functions [62], it has the potential to be used solely or as one of the proxies. If biodiversity is to be used as a proxy for ecosystem function, it is crucial to use appropriate metrics which capture all the important biodiversity attributes [63]. However, we recommend developing a sound methodology to rank the important ecosystem functions (preferably readily measurable) and identify the few ecosystem functions which can be used as proxies to indicate the achievement of ecological compensation goals.

4. Conclusions

The complexity of measuring and monitoring land degradation offsets for ecosystem function losses and gains, determining of ecological equivalence, and ensuring longevity of the offset measures among others creates an insurmountable challenge. Therefore, ecological compensation should be used as the last option if environmental degradation is completely unavoidable. In addition, protection of natural habitats and sustainable land management practices should be promoted and implemented to reduce the risk of land degradation in the first place.
It is unrealistic to assume that all environmental degradations are avoidable. Hence, the following are some of the aspects that needs to be taken into account, if ecological compensation is to be implemented:

4.1. For Researchers

  • Provide the scientific bases to define and establish thresholds for reversible or irreversible environmental degradation.
  • Improve our current knowledge on the uncertainties involved in ecological restoration on different environments and ecosystems, as well as the time lags (estimate if possible) expected before the impacts of interventions can be confirmed.
  • Use clearly defined, measurable, and multiple or compound metrics for biodiversity measurement.

4.2. For Practitioners

  • Sustainable land management practices should be promoted and implemented to reduce the risk of land degradation and the need for ecological compensation.
  • Offsets should be used only in the case of reversible environmental degradation. In general, in case of irreversible environmental degradation, offset areas cannot achieve ecological equivalence to the environmental condition prior to the degradation.
  • The outcome of restoration of degraded sites as an offset activity entails a lot of uncertainty. Hence, the protection of existing natural habitats, which are unprotected, should be included as one of the main offset activities. If possible, the offset areas should be located in a way that strengthens the existing network of protected areas and ecological corridors.
  • As much as possible, offset areas should be ecologically similar to the development site where there is planned, ongoing, or past degradation (like-for-like).
  • In areas affected by a development project and ecological compensation, the meaningful participation of local stakeholders should be ensured, particularly for the long-term sustainability of the compensation measures.
  • In ecological compensation, the uncertainty involved and the time lag should be taken into account. Long commitment periods and periodical measurement, monitoring, and verification are needed.

4.3. For Policy Makers

  • If environmental degradation is unavoidable, appropriate policy measures should be taken to minimize, as much as possible, the negative environmental impacts.
  • Ecological compensation policies should take into account the lost ecosystem services and their compensation before the offset projects mature and deliver all the environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
  • It is essential to establish a monitoring entity which oversees the long-term compliance by the body that carries out the compensation activities.
  • There is an overlap in the objectives of international conventions, such as UNCCD (land degradation neutrality), CBD, and UNFCCC, concerning environmental degradation, conservation, and restoration. Hence, in the implementation of ecological compensation, there should be an integrated policy and actions which is aligned with the international environmental initiatives.
If the aforementioned aspects are not addressed, the ecological compensation objectives will not be fully achieved, and may even have more adverse impacts than benefits.
In addition to ecological and socio-economic aspects, ecological compensation also raises ethical questions. It may give the impression that environmental (land) degradation is acceptable because it can be fixed. In other words, ecological compensation can be perceived as a license to degrade. However, because of the diversity of ecological, political, and socio-economic systems where offsets may be applied, the paucity of human knowledge, and the non-interchangeability of organisms and their interactions, it is very difficult or impossible to compensate fully. Furthermore, ecological compensation may undermine ethical or moral obligations of humans to protect the environment.
In conclusion, ecological compensation is not a panacea to solve the problem of pervasive global environmental degradation; rather, it is a pragmatic approach to minimize its impacts. In general, ecological compensation is in agreement with the goals of international environmental conventions on biodiversity, climate change, and desertification, and can be used as a tool for their implementation. Particularly, ecological compensation will contribute substantially to the achievement of the global land degradation neutrality initiative by UNCCD. For the long-term sustainability and success of offset measures, appropriate offset design and implementation, adequate oversight, judicious policies, and genuine inclusion of the relevant stakeholders is imperative.

Author Contributions

The initial idea for the article was expressed by E.Y.; Conceptualization, literature search and data analysis was conducted by E.Y., M.K. and A.M.; The article was drafted and critically revised by E.Y., M.K. and A.M.; The article writing process was led and coordinated by E.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sources included scientific papers and reports, policy documents, and books. All data sources are listed as references in the article.

Acknowledgments

The institutional support by the Department of Forest Sciences of the University of Helsinki is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gelcich, S.; Vargas, C.; Carreras, M.J.; Castilla, J.C.; Donlan, C.J. Achieving Biodiversity Benefits with Offsets: Research Gaps, Challenges, and Needs. Ambio 2017, 46, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Reid, J.; Bruner, A.; Chow, J.; Malky, A.; Rubio, J.C.; Vallejos, C. Ecological Compensation to Address Environmental Externalities: Lessons from South American Case Studies. J. Sustain. For. 2015, 34, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programm (BBOP). Standard on Biodiversity Offsets; Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programm (BBOP): Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Maron, M.; Hobbs, R.J.; Moilanen, A.; Matthews, J.W.; Christie, K.; Gardner, T.A.; Keith, D.A.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; McAlpine, C.A. Faustian Bargains? Restoration Realities in the Context of Biodiversity Offset Policies. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bezombes, L.; Gaucherand, S.; Kerbiriou, C.; Reinert, M.E.; Spiegelberger, T. Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Primmer, E.; Varumo, L.; Kotilainen, J.M.; Raitanen, E.; Kattainen, M.; Pekkonen, M.; Kuusela, S.; Kullberg, P.; Kangas, J.A.M.; Ollikainen, M. Institutions for Governing Biodiversity Offsetting: An Analysis of Rights and Responsibilities. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 776–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Koh, N.S.; Hahn, T.; Boonstra, W.J. How Much of a Market Is Involved in a Biodiversity Offset? A Typology of Biodiversity Offset Policies. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 679–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Mcdonald, T.; Gann, G.D.; Jonson, J.; Dixon, K.W. International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration—Including Principles and Key Concepts; Society for Ecological Restoration: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bull, J.W.; Suttle, K.B.; Gordon, A.; Singh, N.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Biodiversity Offsets in Theory and Practice. Oryx 2013, 47, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Huisingh, D.; Zhang, Z.; Moore, J.C.; Qiao, Q.; Li, Q. Recent Advances in Carbon Emissions Reduction: Policies, Technologies, Monitoring, Assessment and Modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Bonn, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–744. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lindroos, O.; Söderlind, M.; Jensen, J.; Hjältén, J. Cost Analysis of a Novel Method for Ecological Compensation—A Study of the Translocation of Dead Wood. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Land Degradation Neutrality for Biodiversity Conservation: How Healthy Land Safeguards Nature; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): Bonn, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Raven, P.H. Vertebrates on the Brink as Indicators of Biological Annihilation and the Sixth Mass Extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 13596–13602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simmonds, J.S.; Sonter, L.J.; Watson, J.E.M.; Bennun, L.; Costa, H.M.; Dutson, G.; Edwards, S.; Grantham, H.; Griffiths, V.F.; Jones, J.P.G.; et al. Moving from Biodiversity Offsets to a Target-Based Approach for Ecological Compensation. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. World Bank. Biodiversity Offsets: A User Guide; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–61. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moreno-Mateos, D.; Maris, V.; Béchet, A.; Curran, M. The True Loss Caused by Biodiversity Offsets. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Salzman, J.; Ruhl, J.B. Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law. Stanf. Law Rev. 2000, 53, 607–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Aggemyr, E.; Auffret, A.G.; Jädergård, L.; Cousins, S.A.O. Species Richness and Composition Differ in Response to Landscape and Biogeography. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 2273–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Moilanen, A.; Kotiaho, J.S. Planning Biodiversity Offsets—Twelve Operationally Important Decisions; TemaNord 2018:513; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; pp. 1–72. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tal, A. The Implications of Environmental Trading Mechanisms on a Future Zero Net Land Degradation Protocol. J. Arid Environ. 2015, 112, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guariguata, M.R.; Ostertag, R. Neotropical Secondary Forest Succession: Changes in Structural and Functional Characteristics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 148, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yirdaw, E.; Monge Monge, A.; Austin, D.; Toure, I. Recovery of Floristic Diversity, Composition and Structure of Regrowth Forests on Fallow Lands: Implications for Conservation and Restoration of Degraded Forest Lands in Laos. New For. 2019, 50, 1007–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Grimm, M.; Köppel, J. Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Moilanen, A.; Kotiaho, J.S. Fifteen Operationally Important Decisions in the Planning of Biodiversity Offsets. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 227, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maron, M.; Gordon, A.; Mackey, B.G.; Possingham, H.P.; Watson, J.E.M. Stop Misuse of Biodiversity Offsets. Nature 2015, 523, 401–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Maron, M.; Bull, J.W.; Evans, M.C.; Gordon, A. Locking in Loss: Baselines of Decline in Australian Biodiversity Offset Policies. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brudvig, L.A. Toward Prediction in the Restoration of Biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1013–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels Andrelated Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 1–616. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kanninen, M.; Brockhaus, M.; Murdiyarso, D.; Nabuurs, G.J. Harnessing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation through REDD+. In Forests and Society—Responding to Global Drivers of Change; International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO): Vienna, Austria, 2010; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pham, T.T.; Moeliono, M.; Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Gallo, P.; Hoang, T.L.; Dao, T.L.C.; Ochoa, C.; Bocanegra, K. Strategic Alignment: Integrating REDD+ in NDCs and National Climate Policies. In Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions; Angelsen, A., Martius, C., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Larson, A.M., Pham, T.T., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2018; pp. 69–80. [Google Scholar]
  32. Watson, C.; Schalatek, L. Climate Finance Regional Briefing: Sub-Saharan Africa; Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/CFF7%20-%20ENG%202020%20-%20Digital.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2022).
  33. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2021, Installment 1: Market in Motion; Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  34. Penman, J.; Gytartsky, M.; Hiraishi, T.; Krug, T.; Kruger, D.; Pipatti, R.; Buendia, L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; Tanabe, K.; et al. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies for the IPCC: Kanagawa, Japan, 2003; pp. 1–590. [Google Scholar]
  35. Avitabile, V.; Camia, A. An Assessment of Forest Biomass Maps in Europe Using Harmonized National Statistics and Inventory Plots. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 409, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brown, S.; Masera, O.; Ambia, V.; Braatz, B.; Kanninen, M.; Krug, T.; Martino, D.; Oballa, P.; Tipper, R.; Wong, J.L.P.; et al. 4 Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. In IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  37. Petrokofsky, G.; Kanamaru, H.; Achard, F.; Goetz, S.J.; Joosten, H.; Holmgren, P.; Lehtonen, A.; Menton, M.C.; Pullin, A.S.; Wattenbach, M. Comparison of Methods for Measuring and Assessing Carbon Stocks and Carbon Stock Changes in Terrestrial Carbon Pools. How Do the Accuracy and Precision of Current Methods Compare? A Systematic Review Protocol. Environ. Evid. 2012, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Poeplau, C.; Don, A.; Vesterdal, L.; Leifeld, J.; Van Wesemael, B.; Schumacher, J.; Gensior, A. Temporal Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon after Land-Use Change in the Temperate Zone—Carbon Response Functions as a Model Approach. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2415–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smith, P.; Soussana, J.F.; Angers, D.; Schipper, L.; Chenu, C.; Rasse, D.P.; Batjes, N.H.; van Egmond, F.; McNeill, S.; Kuhnert, M.; et al. How to Measure, Report and Verify Soil Carbon Change to Realize the Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Removal. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 219–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Maillard, É.; McConkey, B.G.; Angers, D.A. Increased Uncertainty in Soil Carbon Stock Measurement with Spatial Scale and Sampling Profile Depth in World Grasslands: A Systematic Analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 236, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bartholomée, O.; Grigulis, K.; Colace, M.P.; Arnoldi, C.; Lavorel, S. Methodological Uncertainties in Estimating Carbon Storage in Temperate Forests and Grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mackey, B.; Kormos, C.F.; Keith, H.; Moomaw, W.R.; Houghton, R.A.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Hole, D.; Hugh, S. Understanding the Importance of Primary Tropical Forest Protection as a Mitigation Strategy. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020, 25, 763–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Chen, L.C.; Wang, H.; Yu, X.; Zhang, W.D.; Lü, X.T.; Wang, S.L. Recovery Time of Soil Carbon Pools of Conversional Chinese Fir Plantations from Broadleaved Forests in Subtropical Regions, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 587–588, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jones, I.L.; DeWalt, S.J.; Lopez, O.R.; Bunnefeld, L.; Pattison, Z.; Dent, D.H. Above- and Belowground Carbon Stocks Are Decoupled in Secondary Tropical Forests and Are Positively Related to Forest Age and Soil Nutrients Respectively. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 697, 133987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cook-Patton, S.C.; Leavitt, S.M.; Gibbs, D.; Harris, N.L.; Lister, K.; Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Briggs, R.D.; Chazdon, R.L.; Crowther, T.W.; Ellis, P.W.; et al. Mapping Carbon Accumulation Potential from Global Natural Forest Regrowth. Nature 2020, 585, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kerchner, C.D.; Keeton, W.S. California’s Regulatory Forest Carbon Market: Viability for Northeast Landowners. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Murray, B.C.; Sohngen, B.; Ross, M.T. Economic Consequences of Consideration of Permanence, Leakage and Additionality for Soil Carbon Sequestration Projects. Clim. Chang. 2007, 80, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ruseva, T.; Marland, E.; Szymanski, C.; Hoyle, J.; Marland, G.; Kowalczyk, T. Additionality and Permanence Standards in California’s Forest Offset Protocol: A Review of Project and Program Level Implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Galik, C.S.; Jackson, R.B. Risks to Forest Carbon Offset Projects in a Changing Climate. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 2209–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sabatini, F.M.; de Andrade, R.B.; Paillet, Y.; Ódor, P.; Bouget, C.; Campagnaro, T.; Gosselin, F.; Janssen, P.; Mattioli, W.; Nascimbene, J.; et al. Trade-Offs between Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in European Temperate Forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Strassburg, B.B.N.; Kelly, A.; Balmford, A.; Davies, R.G.; Gibbs, H.K.; Lovett, A.; Miles, L.; Orme, C.D.L.; Price, J.; Turner, R.K.; et al. Global Congruence of Carbon Storage and Biodiversity in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 2010, 3, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hicks, C.; Woroniecki, S.; Fancourt, M.; Bieri, M.; Garcia Robles, H.; Trumper, K.; Mant, R. The Relationship between Biodiversity, Carbon Storage and the Provision of Other Ecosystem Services; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1–109. [Google Scholar]
  53. Labrière, N.; Locatelli, B.; Vieilledent, G.; Kharisma, S.; Basuki, I.; Gond, V.; Laumonier, Y. Spatial Congruence between Carbon and Biodiversity across Forest Landscapes of Northern Borneo. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2016, 6, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Adinugroho, W.C.; Prasetyo, L.B.; Kusmana, C.; Krisnawati, H.; Weston, C.J.; Volkova, L. Recovery of Carbon and Vegetation Diversity 23 Years after Fire in a Tropical Dryland Forest of Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Reside, A.E.; VanDerWal, J.; Moran, C. Trade-Offs in Carbon Storage and Biodiversity Conservation under Climate Change Reveal Risk to Endemic Species. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 207, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Poorter, L.; van der Sande, M.T.; Thompson, J.; Arets, E.J.M.M.; Alarcón, A.; Álvarez-Sánchez, J.; Ascarrunz, N.; Balvanera, P.; Barajas-Guzmán, G.; Boit, A.; et al. Diversity Enhances Carbon Storage in Tropical Forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2015, 24, 1314–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Gamfeldt, L.; Snäll, T.; Bagchi, R.; Jonsson, M.; Gustafsson, L.; Kjellander, P.; Ruiz-Jaen, M.C.; Fröberg, M.; Stendahl, J.; Philipson, C.D.; et al. Higher Levels of Multiple Ecosystem Services Are Found in Forests with More Tree Species. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Suding, K.; Higgs, E.; Palmer, M.; Callicott, J.B.; Anderson, C.B.; Baker, M.; Gutrich, J.J.; Hondula, K.L.; LaFevor, M.C.; Larson, B.M.H.; et al. Committing to Ecological Restoration. Science 2015, 348, 638–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Thomas, C.D.; Anderson, B.J.; Moilanen, A.; Eigenbrod, F.; Heinemeyer, A.; Quaife, T.; Roy, D.B.; Gillings, S.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Reconciling Biodiversity and Carbon Conservation. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Walker, S.; Brower, A.L.; Stephens, R.T.T.; Lee, W.G. Why Bartering Biodiversity Fails. Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Truchy, A.; Angeler, D.G.; Sponseller, R.A.; Johnson, R.K.; McKie, B.G. Linking Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and Services, and Ecological Resilience: Towards an Integrative Framework for Improved Management. In Advances in Ecological Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 53, pp. 55–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jochum, M.; Fischer, M.; Isbell, F.; Roscher, C.; van der Plas, F.; Boch, S.; Boenisch, G.; Buchmann, N.; Catford, J.A.; Cavender-Bares, J.; et al. The Results of Biodiversity–Ecosystem Functioning Experiments Are Realistic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 1485–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Marshall, E.; Visintin, C.; Valavi, R.; Wilkinson, D.P.; Southwell, D.; Wintle, B.A.; Kujala, H. Integrating Species Metrics into Biodiversity Offsetting Calculations to Improve Long-Term Persistence. J. Appl. Ecol. 2022, 59, 1365–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11930 g001
Figure 1. Degradation of a forest ecosystem and the potential scenarios of a compensation site in terms of biodiversity and carbon. BD = biodiversity, C = carbon, NGL = no gain or loss.
Figure 1. Degradation of a forest ecosystem and the potential scenarios of a compensation site in terms of biodiversity and carbon. BD = biodiversity, C = carbon, NGL = no gain or loss.
Sustainability 15 11930 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yirdaw, E.; Kanninen, M.; Monge, A. Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511930

AMA Style

Yirdaw E, Kanninen M, Monge A. Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511930

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yirdaw, Eshetu, Markku Kanninen, and Adrian Monge. 2023. "Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511930

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop