Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability

Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity, and report this in sustainability reports. The top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports were assessed to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Many companies acknowledged biodiversity, but corporate biodiversity accountability is in its infancy. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 could be considered specific, measureable and time?bound. A variety of biodiversity?related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts, and are achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can help advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability through developing science?based biodiversity commitments, meaningful indicators, and more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the “biodiversity policy super?year” of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses to play a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet, with biodiversity at its heart

The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies

‘No net loss’ (NNL) biodiversity policies, which seek to neutralize ongoing biodiversity losses caused by economic development activities, are applicable worldwide. Yet there has been no global assessment concerning practical measures actually implemented under NNL policies. Here, we systematically map the global implementation of biodiversity offsets (‘offsets’) – a crucial yet controversial NNL practice. We find, firstly, that offsets occupy an area up to two orders of magnitude larger than previously suggested: 12,983 offset projects extending over ?153,679?_(-64,223)^(+25,013) km2 across 37 countries. Secondly, offsets are far from homogeneous in implementation, and emerging economies (particularly in South America) are more dominant in terms of global offsetting area than expected. Thirdly, most offset projects are very small, and the overwhelming majority (99.7%) arise through regulatory requirements rather than prominent project finance safeguards. Our database provides a sampling frame via which future studies could evaluate the efficacy of NNL policies

Best-practice biodiversity safeguards for Belt and Road Initiative’s financiers

With thousands of projects being built along eight transcontinental corridors, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is driving the global infrastructure boom. BRI is likely to have a sizeable biodiversity footprint as its corridors overlap several priority areas for conservation and 150,000 km2 of critical habitat. Biodiversity safeguards for the initiative therefore warrant scrutiny. Biodiversity safeguards are policies or standards (adopted by regulators, project proponents or financiers) that specify biodiversity impact mitigation measures. Here we examine a key source of safeguards—lending requirements of BRI’s financiers. We compare them with International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standard 6, which is often regarded as international best practice and which requires projects affecting ‘critical habitat’ to achieve a ‘net gain’ of biodiversity through impact mitigation. We find that of the 65 financiers identified (35 Chinese and 30 international), just 17 require biodiversity impact mitigation and 12 require a ‘net gain’. Among those with biodiversity safeguards, 16 are international, and despite the Chinese financiers accounting for over 90% of BRI’s financing (by quantum of investment), only 1 of the 35 we identified has biodiversity safeguards. Because most BRI finance is not subject to biodiversity safeguards, we conclude that potential impacts of BRI linear infrastructure projects may remain unmitigated, despite approximately 369,000 km2 of critical and natural habitat occurring within the 25 km buffer zone of such projects. We therefore argue for urgent adherence to best-practice safeguards for all institutions financing the BRI