Wetlands are among the most ecologically productive lands in the world, but every year they continue to be lost due to increasing pressures from agriculture, industrial development, urbanization and the lack of effective mitigation to deal with such pressures. Despite environmental assessment processes, policies, and regulations to ensure the mitigation of affected wetlands, wetlands continue to experience a loss in areal extent, but more importantly, a functional net-loss. This is attributed, in large part, to the lack of incorporating cumulative effects principles into project-based wetland impact assessment and mitigation. The majority of activities that affect wetlands are either assessed at the screening level, where cumulative effects are rarely considered, or are deemed insignificant and do not trigger any formal environmental assessment process. As a result, the mitigation of cumulative effects on wetlands is often insufficient or completely lacking in development planning and decision-making. Part of the challenge is that there currently does not exist methodological guidance as to how to identify wetland cumulative effects and corresponding mitigation needs early in the project design process. This research presents a methodological framework and guidance for the integration of cumulative effects in decision-making for project-based, wetland impact mitigation. The framework provides a means for the early indication, assessment, and mitigation of the potential cumulative effects of project developments on the wetland environment, with the objective of ensuring a no-net-loss of wetland functions.

Wetlands are among the most ecologically productive lands in the world, but every year they continue to be lost due to increasing pressures from agriculture, industrial development, urbanization and the lack of effective mitigation to deal with such pressures. Despite environmental assessment processes, policies, and regulations to ensure the mitigation of affected wetlands, wetlands continue to experience a loss in areal extent, but more importantly, a functional net-loss. This is attributed, in large part, to the lack of incorporating cumulative effects principles into project-based wetland impact assessment and mitigation. The majority of activities that affect wetlands are either assessed at the screening level, where cumulative effects are rarely considered, or are deemed insignificant and do not trigger any formal environmental assessment process. As a result, the mitigation of cumulative effects on wetlands is often insufficient or completely lacking in development planning and decision-making. Part of the challenge is that there currently does not exist methodological guidance as to how to identify wetland cumulative effects and corresponding mitigation needs early in the project design process. This research presents a methodological framework and guidance for the integration of cumulative effects in decision-making for project-based, wetland impact mitigation. The framework provides a means for the early indication, assessment, and mitigation of the potential cumulative effects of project developments on the wetland environment, with the objective of ensuring a no-net-loss of wetland functions.

Förlust av biologisk mångfald och tillhörande ekosystemtjänster klassas idag som en av de allvarligaste globala miljöutmaningarna mänskligheten står inför. Till följd av den globala urbaniseringen ökar efterfrågan på fastigheter, där städer växer till sig genom förtätning och utglesning. Utfallet blir en latent samhällsekonomisk kostnad i form av förlust av bostadsnära natur och urbana ekosystemtjänster. Ekologisk kompensation är ett framträdande koncept som tillämpas för att motverka förlust av biologisk mångfald. I denna studie har möjligheterna med ekologisk kompensation i samband med fastighetsutveckling i Sverige analyserats. Resultaten visar att incitament för frivilliga investeringar i ekologisk kompensation kan komma att öka i samband med förändringarna av EU:s taxonomiförordning och adopteringen av miljöcertifieringar. Vidare påvisas sambandet mellan ökade bostadsvärden och ekosystemtjänster. De största utmaningarna som stagnerar normalisering av ekologisk kompensation förefaller att grunda sig i avsaknaden av intern målsättning, skepticism och brister i samverkan med svenska kommuner. / Biodiversity loss and deprivation of ecosystem services are one of the most significant global environmental challenges that humanity faces today. As a consequence of global urbanization, the demand for housing and real estate in urban areas grow through urban densification and urban sprawl. This results in a latent societal cost which manifests itself through loss of greenspace and urban ecosystem services. Ecological compensation is a prominent tool that can be utilized to counteract losses of natural capital. In this study the possibilities of ecological compensation in the context of real estate development in Sweden has been analyzed. The results convey that incentives for voluntary investments in ecological compensation may increase due to the amendments of the EU Taxonomy as well as the adaptation of environmental certifications. Furthermore, correlations between property values and ecosystem services have been elucidated. Moreover, the biggest challenges that seem to impede normalization of ecological compensation underlie in perceptual factors, the lack of internal goal-setting and the shortcomings of collaboration with the Swedish municipalities.

The concept of ecological compensation (EC) assumes that ecological values are substitutable across spatial units. EC is increasingly recognised in Sweden as a novel policy instrument for land-use planning, however, it suffers from inconsistency in application and outcome. For example, there are no legal provisions to require EC for urban development or new roads and railways. This study shows that there are many context dependent variables affecting the performance of EC in Sweden, which can partly be explained by authorities’ lacking experience in administrating these questions, and by the absence of a standardised structure for handling the full EC process. These shortcomings together with an inadequate legislation may cause EC to result in “license-to-trash” and fails to guarantee no net loss of ecological values. The performance of EC in Sweden was assessed through two case studies: the Sigtuna trading estate and the Aitik mine expansions. Implementation procedures and compensation designs were investigated by analysis of written documents and semi-structured interviews. The data was structured in an analytical framework, displaying similarities and context dependent disparities. The results suggest that, for the Aitik-case, licence-to-trash is a risk if compensation schemes are reviewed by the regulatory authorities during the processing of the application. The Sigtuna case suggests, opposed to earlier findings, that the Plan and Building Act can be utilised for EC if the compensation measures are regulated in a development agreement between the municipality and the landowner/developer. Both cases suggest that additionality can be met by appropriate institutional design, whereas no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services hardly can be achieved within the existing Swedish legal framework. To improve the performance of EC, structures for handling the process from quantification of social and ecological values, to monitoring of compensation outcomes must be implemented in all development projects affecting nature.

A predicted loss of agricultural rice-wetlands and increasing urbanization and development threatens the remaining freshwater wetlands along the upper Texas coast. To avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is directed to enforce Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1975 amendment) by administering permits for development. Furthermore, a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a national goal of no net wetland loss (NNL). My goals were to identify the frequency of occurrence of freshwater wetland loss due to dredge or fill, assess final plans to mitigate wetland loss, and verify the persistence of the created compensatory wetlands. I created a database of 96 individual, Section 404 permits issued from 1981 to 2001 in the counties of Chambers, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto (Galveston District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Descriptive statistics were calculated for permit characteristics in relation to issue date (pre- or post-NNL). Public comments received from national and state agencies were rank ordered against mitigation plan type to determine Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. Visual identification (via site visits and 1996 aerial photos) was used to validate compensatory wetland persistence. Shoreline protection of private property and oil and gas drilling (64% of permit applicants and 59% of impacts) had the greatest effect on wetland loss in the region, particularly Chambers, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties. Overall, 79.3 ha of freshwater wetlands were gained; however, gain was overestimated due to large projects for habitat enhancement. Permits issued post-NNL were more likely to have formal mitigation plans (58% vs. 13% pre-NNL) and allowed no net wetland loss. Although agency comments recommending more formal mitigation plans increased after NNL, only a weak positive correlation was detected (Spearman's r less than or equal to 0.4). Six of seven created wetlands remained in existence through 2006 though they are freshwater ponds replacing more diverse aquatic systems. I recommend the development of a comprehensive method to track wetland loss, mitigation, and changes in watersheds over time.

Wetlands cover a broad of areas, including aquatic and terrestrial ecological systems. Many people and agencies are attracted the natural resources value and begin the action to protect it. In 2007, the Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior¡]CPAMI¡^in Taiwan announced 75 sites as ¡§National Wetlands of Importance¡¨. Currently the Wetland Conservation Law draft completed of 2010. In the future the wetlands conservation and mitigation mechanism will be definite. Wetland conservation is not only a government duty but also the resporsibility of the Private Sector and Citizen. Sometimes non-government organization and community often face private land ownership, lack of income and problems with Taiwan¡¦s current laws and regulation. Many wildlife habitats and critical wetlands are not owned by government, such as Aogu Wetland, therefore many researchers begin to promote the idea of "public trust" as one of the models for wetland sustainable management. In this study use public trust management model to combine wetland conservation maintain wetland ¡§no net loss¡¨. The common consensus and co-management mechanism between public and private sectors become crucial issues. Major research methods used Depth-Interview with different field experts to find the solution and feasibility of the proposed framework. Wetland public trust is a tool advocating the collaboration and cooperation among public, non-profit organizations, enterprise, government to improve the outcomes of environmental conservation, which can be oversee by particular authorities This study proposes wetland public trust as an appropriate framework and integrates tax system to improve the wetland conservation models in Taiwan.

A predicted loss of agricultural rice-wetlands and increasing urbanization and development threatens the remaining freshwater wetlands along the upper Texas coast. To avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is directed to enforce Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1975 amendment) by administering permits for development. Furthermore, a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a national goal of no net wetland loss (NNL). My goals were to identify the frequency of occurrence of freshwater wetland loss due to dredge or fill, assess final plans to mitigate wetland loss, and verify the persistence of the created compensatory wetlands. I created a database of 96 individual, Section 404 permits issued from 1981 to 2001 in the counties of Chambers, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto (Galveston District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Descriptive statistics were calculated for permit characteristics in relation to issue date (pre- or post-NNL). Public comments received from national and state agencies were rank ordered against mitigation plan type to determine Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient. Visual identification (via site visits and 1996 aerial photos) was used to validate compensatory wetland persistence. Shoreline protection of private property and oil and gas drilling (64% of permit applicants and 59% of impacts) had the greatest effect on wetland loss in the region, particularly Chambers, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties. Overall, 79.3 ha of freshwater wetlands were gained; however, gain was overestimated due to large projects for habitat enhancement. Permits issued post-NNL were more likely to have formal mitigation plans (58% vs. 13% pre-NNL) and allowed no net wetland loss. Although agency comments recommending more formal mitigation plans increased after NNL, only a weak positive correlation was detected (Spearman's r less than or equal to 0.4). Six of seven created wetlands remained in existence through 2006 though they are freshwater ponds replacing more diverse aquatic systems. I recommend the development of a comprehensive method to track wetland loss, mitigation, and changes in watersheds over time.

Biodiversity losses are occurring at an unprecedented rate, with ongoing environmental degradation at the expense of expanding economic activities. A transformative change is needed away from business-as-usual development and towards prioritizing the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. For the effective governance of biodiversity, a well-designed mix of policy instruments are needed that are suited to the local context. This PhD project examines the social-ecological implications of policy instruments for biodiversity governance, with an emphasis on biodiversity offsets. Offsets are a policy instrument where actions are taken to compensate for negative impacts to biodiversity caused by developments. I discuss how such policy instruments must be carefully designed and implemented to ensure positive outcomes for people and biodiversity. In Paper I, I examined how biodiversity offset policies, which have been commonly misunderstood as a market-based mechanism, can be designed with various levels of involvement from market and state. I presented an ideal-typical typology based on the institutions from which biodiversity offsets are organised: Public Agency, Mandatory Market and Voluntary Offset. I identified the institutional arrangements of six offset policies using cross-case comparison and stakeholder mapping to analyse how the biodiversity losses and conservation measures are decided. Based on these results, I determined how the six policies relate to the ideal types. The results found that the government plays a key role not just in enforcing mandatory policies but also in controlling the supply and demand of biodiversity units, supervising the matching of biodiversity values or granting legitimacy to the offset. The paper concluded that commensurability of natural capital is restricted in offsets (biodiversity is always exchanged with biodiversity), while different degrees of commodification are possible depending on the policy design and role of price signals when trading credits. In Paper II, I examined the implementation gap of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) objectives and global biodiversity targets at a (sub)national level. I identified obstacles to achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and challenges faced in interpreting the CBD guidelines through a content analysis of biodiversity policy documents, participant observation as well as semi-structured interviews with experts at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD. As compliance was found as a key challenge in the CBD, I presented insights for fostering the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity policies by drawing from concepts in international human rights law. In particular, I examined review mechanisms of human rights law and biodiversity agreements to determine the strategies used for compliance. The paper concluded that recognising the synergies between human rights and biodiversity can help strengthen review mechanisms for implementing the objectives of the CBD.The findings from Paper I provided a foundation for understanding the institutional design of national and local offset policies. In Paper II, I then broadened out to discuss the challenges faced in interpreting and implementing global biodiversity targets into national regulatory frameworks. Together, both papers analysed the institutional design and implementation of policy instruments, and examined their contributions to a transformation for the sustainable use of biodiversity.

Biodiversity loss has been stated as one of the greatest risks for the future society according to the World Economic Forum (2018, p. 5). A million species is risking extinction due to current societies’ practices according to a report published during the conduction of this study(Brondizio et al., 2019, p. 3). This situation of biodiversity has led an increasing amount of countries to enforce legislation which requires companies that work with land development to comply with no net loss goal. In Sweden, no such legislation existed with regards to biodiversity. Against this background, a group of seven companies in Sweden voluntarily chose to strive toward the goal of biodiversity net gain. According to BNG strategy, a company does not only avoid, minimise, restore and offset to reach the point where zero net loss of biodiversity is achieved, but goes farther to create a net gain. As it is not sufficient for companies to stop emissions in order to halt the loss of biodiversity, BNG practices can help mend and even reverse the negative impacts until a gain of biodiversity is attained. A greater understanding of the opportunities that companies can benefit from implementing BNG helps spread this practice across industries. No previous research within the business literature explains companies’ voluntary initiatives to embrace BNG. Therefore, this explorative study suggested the research question of what the drivers are encouraging companies to voluntarily work towards achieving biodiversity-net-gain in Sweden. Due to the lack of previous research about companies’ drivers to engage with BNG, our theoretical framework was found based on the drivers from business case for sustainability and CSR approaches as a factor to generate change. To be able to answer the research question, it was necessary to establish what BNG is and how it has developed from the concept of ecosystem services. Having an interpretivistic standpoint, this study was completed according to an inductive and deductive approach. This was in order to facilitate the exploratory nature that our qualitative and comparative study. We conducted a multiple-case study through semi-structured interviews with seven large companies in the context of Sweden. These businesses are considered as the most ambitious in working towards BNG’s goal. The findings from the primary data was complemented by secondary data about the companies, the status of current legislation in Sweden and the sustainability status in Sweden. As a result of this thesis, we found that cost and cost reduction, risk and risk reduction, sales and profit margin, reputation and brand value, attractiveness as employer, innovative capabilities, stakeholders and health and well-being of future society to all be drivers for BNG. By applying our theoretical framework in the Swedish context, the seven companies were identified to engage in a proactive corporate biodiversity behaviour. Business cases for biodiversity were identified in some of the companies.

Le territoire est le support d’interactions entre les êtres vivants et leur espace de vie. Parmi ces interactions, il est aujourd’hui reconnu que les activités anthropiques sont une cause déterminante de l’érosion de la biodiversité. Dans ce contexte, la séquence « Eviter-Réduire-Compenser» (ERC) est un instrument réglementaire visant l’absence de perte nette de biodiversité (no net loss) en aménagement du territoire. Or, il semblerait qu’elle ne permette pas de remédier à la perte chronique de biodiversité. Au-delà de ses limites pratiques et théoriques, parmi les causes de cette inefficacité on peut mentionner : la focalisation sur la « compensation » et sur l’échelle « projet » ou encore la convergence des études vers la problématique des grands projets d’aménagement. Ainsi, en partant de questions issues du terrain, en adoptant une posture à l’interface entre recherche et action, et en choisissant une démarche pluridisciplinaire, cette thèse repose sur l’hypothèse que les difficultés actuelles sont liées à des défis scalaires et qu’un changement d’échelle spatiale, temporelle et fonctionnelle est nécessaire pour permettre à l’instrument de prétendre à son objectif. A travers une analyse qualitative et quantitative de l’application de la séquence ERC dans le cadre de petits projets d’aménagement, nous identifions une série de limites associées à l’échelle « projet ». Cela nous amène à analyser, tout d’abord théoriquement puis empiriquement grâce à l’étude de collectivités territoriales responsables de la planification de l’aménagement, les implications d’un changement d’échelle vers une mise en œuvre de la séquence ERC à l’échelle territoriale et stratégique de la planification. Enfin, nous conduisons une réflexion sur l’élaboration d’une démarche méthodologique d’anticipation de la séquence ERC dès la planification, appliquée au cas concret de Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole.In fine, ces recherches nous permettent d’apporter des compléments de réponse à la question des fins effectives de l’instrument : éviter ou plutôt légitimer la perte de biodiversité ? Nos propositions et perspectives pour les praticiens et les chercheurs vont dans le sens d’une mise en œuvre de la séquence ERC plus en phase avec son objectif de no net loss. / Territory provides the support for interactions between humans avec their living environment. Among these interactions, it is well known that anthropic activities are a major cause of biodiversity erosion. In this respect, the mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, reduction and offsetting impacts) is a regulatory tool whose objective is to achieve a “no net loss” of biodiversity following urban development. However, the efficiency of the tool is questioned because of its practical and theoretical limits, and the recurring focus on biodiversity offsets and on the “project” scale, or the convergence of studies on large development projects.Based on questions arising from practical action and by adopting a multi-disciplinary approach and posture at the knowledge-action interface, this thesis hypothesizes that the current lack of efficiency is the result of a problem of scale and that a temporal, spatial and functional switch in scale could help the mitigation hierarchy to reach its objectives. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mitigation hierarchy implementation for small-scale development projects, we identify a set of limits associated with studies done at scale of individual projects. These findings illustrate the need to upscale towards a territorial and strategic approach to the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy. Finally, we initiate a reflexion on the development of a methodological framework to anticipate the mitigation hierarchy implementation at the urban planning stage, and we test it on the Montpellier metropolitan territory.Finally, these research studies provide new answers to the question of the effective purpose of the tool: is its aim to avoid or legitimise biodiversity loss? Our propositions and perspectives for practitioners and scientists are in line with a mitigation hierarchy implementation that is more likely to reach no net loss objectives.