A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting.

Biodiversity offsets are commonly used to compensate for environmental impacts, but their effectiveness is often questioned. Estimations of expected losses and gains often rely on what we called condition metrics, which measure a site's quality or condition using certain ecological attributes. Condition metrics are central to most offset policies, but their attributes and calculations vary substantially. We reviewed the academic literature to draw a profile of existing condition metrics used in the offsetting context. We found 17 metrics that differed in how they included attributes from the three "dimensions of equivalence": biodiversity (present in 15 metrics), landscape (in 10 metrics) and ecosystem services (in 5 metrics). Most metrics included many ecological attributes and required fieldwork and GIS data to be calculated, but few used modeling and expert opinion. Generally, metrics aggregated the attributes into a single final value and were created in Global North countries. To favor more transparent and ecologically equivalent offset trades worldwide, we suggest condition metrics should include the three dimensions of equivalence in a disaggregated way, i.e. measurements done separately and analyzed in parallel. The use of modeling, expert opinion and GIS may facilitate the inclusion of the dimensions and reduce the need for intensive (and expensive) fieldwork. Testing synergies and trade-offs among attributes could indicate if metrics can be simplified without losing information. Finally, development of fit-for-purpose condition metrics is especially important in Global South countries, where few such metrics exist.

Science and environmental policy establishment: the case of the Forest Act in the State of São Paulo, Brazil / Ciência e implementação de política ambiental: o caso do Código Florestal no Estado de São Paulo, Brasil

Abstract Natural ecosystems are under severe threat worldwide and environmental policies are essential to minimize present and future impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and climate change. The New Forest Act in Brazil is the main policy to protect native vegetation in private lands, which comprise 54% of the remaining Brazilian native vegetation. However, conflicts between environmental and agricultural concerns in its implementation demand for balanced solutions based on scientific evidence. To face the challenge of applying science in environmental policy establishment, we developed a scientific project funded by the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP) to support the implementation of the New Forest Act in São Paulo State, as part of the Biota/FAPESP Program. The project was conducted differently from a regular research project: the broad objective was to provide scientific support to the State's implementation of the New Forest Act, based on a participatory interaction among stakeholders to build specific objectives, methods, and discussion of results, within an interdisciplinary and intersectoral research team. Here, we present the lessons learned during and after the four years of the research project development to evaluate how scientific knowledge can be produced and adopted in the implementation of a specific environmental policy. We present the main outcomes and the challenges faced in trying to include scientific data in the decision-making process. We also present current and future challenges in the New Forest Act implementation that could be solved with scientific evidence. The lessons learned showed that even designing the project in order to meet the needs to support the implementation of the environmental policy, avoiding difficulties normally pointed out by similar projects, there was a great difficulty for scientific contributions to be adopted in the decision-making process. Most of the scientific information and advice, even after discussion and common understanding among a diverse stakeholder group, were ignored or over-ruled in the final decision-making phases.

Resumo Os ecossistemas naturais estão sob grave ameaça em todo o mundo e as políticas ambientais são essenciais para minimizar os impactos presentes e futuros na biodiversidade, nos serviços ecossistêmicos e nas mudanças climáticas. O Novo Código Florestal no Brasil é a principal política de proteção da vegetação nativa em terras privadas, que compreende 54% da vegetação nativa remanescente brasileira. No entanto, os conflitos entre as preocupações ambientais e agrícolas na sua implementação exigem soluções equilibradas e baseadas em evidências científicas. Para enfrentar o desafio de aplicar a ciência no estabelecimento de políticas ambientais, desenvolvemos um projeto científico financiado pela Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) para apoiar a implementação do Novo Código Florestal no Estado de São Paulo, como parte do Programa Biota/FAPESP. O projeto foi conduzido de forma diferente de um projeto de pesquisa regular: o objetivo amplo foi fornecer suporte científico para a implementação do Novo Código Florestal pelo Estado, a partir de uma interação participativa entre as partes interessadas para construir objetivos específicos, métodos e discussão de resultados, dentro de uma equipe de pesquisa interdisciplinar e intersetorial. Aqui, apresentamos as lições aprendidas durante e após os quatro anos de desenvolvimento do projeto de pesquisa para avaliar como o conhecimento científico pode ser produzido e adotado na implementação de uma política ambiental específica. Apresentamos os principais resultados e os desafios enfrentados na tentativa de incluir dados científicos no processo decisório. Apresentamos também desafios atuais e futuros na implementação do Novo Código Florestal que podem ser resolvidos com evidências científicas. As lições aprendidas mostraram que mesmo concebendo o projeto de forma a atender as necessidades de apoio à implementação da política ambiental, evitando dificuldades normalmente apontadas por projetos semelhantes, houve uma grande dificuldade para que contribuições científicas fossem adotadas no processo decisório. A maioria das informações e conselhos científicos, mesmo após discussão e entendimento comum entre um grupo diversificado de partes interessadas, foi ignorada nas fases finais de tomada de decisão.