Abstract:

Mitigation banking is part of the ever-expanding global environmental market framework that aims to balance negative approved anthropogenic impacts versus third-party provided ecosystem benefits, sold in the form of credits. Given the need to conserve freshwater biodiversity and habitat, banking has received great traction in freshwater systems. While extensive reviews and studies have been conducted on evaluating if equivalency between impacts and offset can be achieved, there is almost no research being done on the way credits are being generated. Synthesizing banking data through cluster analyses from 26 banks in the United States generating credits for freshwater species and systems, we show two dominant approaches: removing barriers and targeting whole communities. Both address crucial freshwater conservation needs but come with their risks and caveats. Using common characteristics and management practices within these two groups, we showcase and conclude that credit generation via barrier removal can be at risk of granting credit generation for too large of an area, leading to over-crediting. Banks targeting whole freshwater communities and accounting for landscape-level interactions and influences can potentially be detrimental for species on an individual level and large-scale credit availability as well as transfer can incentivize non-compliance with the mitigation hierarchy.

Citation: Theis S. and M. S. Poesch. (2024). What makes a bank a bank? Differences and commonalities in credit calculation, application, and risks in mitigation banks targeting freshwater fish species and associated ecosystems. Environmental Management.

• Link to Online Article

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Abstract:

Biodiversity and mitigation banking has become a popular alternative offsetting mechanism, especially for freshwater species and systems. Central to this increase in popularity is the need for sound control mechanisms to ensure offset functionality. Two commonly used mechanisms are monitoring requirements and staggered release of bank credits over time. We used data from 47 banks in the United States, targeting freshwater systems and species. Based on the 47 banks meeting our criteria we showed that control mechanisms generally scale with increased project complexity and that banks release most of their total credit amount within the first 3 years. We further showed that advance credits are common and can increase the potential for credit release without providing tangible ecological benefits. Physical and biological assessment criteria commonly used by banks let us identify three main bank types focusing on connectivity, physical aspects, and habitat and species and their application possibilities and caveats to provide different ecosystem benefits for freshwater species and systems affected by anthropogenic development.

Citation: Theis, S. and M. S. Poesch. (2024).  Mitigation bank applications for freshwater systems: Control mechanisms, project complexity, and caveats. PLOS One 19(2): e-292702.

• Link to Online Article

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!