Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

In this respect, biodiversity banks have a distinct advantage
if they store credits (restored or enhanced habitats)
in advance of possible impacts: this reduces
uncertainty and concerns over the feasibility and likely
quality of compensation, even if some long-term uncertainty
remains. however, the commercial risks and
long timescales involved in creating many habitat
banks are likely to restrict their establishment and the
supply of credits.
This summary again highlights the need for a strong
regulatory baseline to establish policies for biodiversity
offsets and banking systems. Without this, there are
significant risks that project proponents will use offsets
to avoid other more costly measures and project
delays. Proponents have a financial incentive to
underestimate potential impacts, overestimate the
reliability and benefits of offsets (or other mitigation
measures if these have lower costs) and avoid implementation
of agreed measures. It is therefore
critical to develop offset and habitat banking systems
alongside appropriate regulation and adequate administrative
capacities. A robust regulatory framework
makes it possible to ensure that biodiversity impacts
by programmes or projects are properly assessed and
that appropriate compensation measures are properly
implemented, monitored and managed for at least as
long as the period of residual impacts; which often
means in perpetuity.
The potential benefits and risks of offsets and biodiversity
banking have been widely recognised (e.g.
Bean et al. 2008; Carroll et al. 2007; ten Kate et al.
2004). The Biodiversity and Business offsets
Programme (BBoP) has developed a set of design
principles in consultation with stakeholders (see most
recent version in Box 7.7).
TEEB FoR NATIoNAL AND INTERNATIoNAL PoLICy MAKERS - ChAPTER 7: PAGE 15