Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies

J.W. Bull, Kerstin Brauneder, Marianne Darbi, Astrid van Teeffelen, F. Quétier, S. Brooks, S. Dunnett, N. Strange

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

‘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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages64–72
JournalBiological Conservation
Volume218
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018

Fingerprint

information transparency
transparency
biodiversity
peers
infrastructure
Sweden
Netherlands
conservation areas
researchers
France
Germany
case studies
loss
policy
protected area

Cite this

Bull, J. W., Brauneder, K., Darbi, M., van Teeffelen, A., Quétier, F., Brooks, S., ... Strange, N. (2018). Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies. Biological Conservation, 218, 64–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.002
Bull, J.W. ; Brauneder, Kerstin ; Darbi, Marianne ; van Teeffelen, Astrid ; Quétier, F. ; Brooks, S. ; Dunnett, S. ; Strange, N./ Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies. In: Biological Conservation. 2018 ; Vol. 218. pp. 64–72
@article{85b4fdff08f64ac380e939e4f452ef40,
title = "Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies",
abstract = "‘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.",
author = "J.W. Bull and Kerstin Brauneder and Marianne Darbi and {van Teeffelen}, Astrid and F. Qu{\'e}tier and S. Brooks and S. Dunnett and N. Strange",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.002",
language = "English",
volume = "218",
pages = "64–72",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

Bull, JW, Brauneder, K, Darbi, M, van Teeffelen, A, Quétier, F, Brooks, S, Dunnett, S & Strange, N 2018, 'Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies' Biological Conservation, vol. 218, pp. 64–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.002

Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies. / Bull, J.W.; Brauneder, Kerstin; Darbi, Marianne; van Teeffelen, Astrid; Quétier, F.; Brooks, S.; Dunnett, S.; Strange, N.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 218, 2018, p. 64–72.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Data transparency regarding the implementation of European ‘no net loss’ biodiversity policies

AU - Bull,J.W.

AU - Brauneder,Kerstin

AU - Darbi,Marianne

AU - van Teeffelen,Astrid

AU - Quétier,F.

AU - Brooks,S.

AU - Dunnett,S.

AU - Strange,N.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - ‘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.

AB - ‘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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.002

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.002

M3 - Article

VL - 218

SP - 64

EP - 72

JO - Biological Conservation

T2 - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

ER -