This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Th ee ways o deli e a ne posi i e impac wi h biodi e si y o se s
© 2020 The Au ho s. Conse a ion Biology published by Wiley Pe iodicals LLC on behal o Socie y o Conse a ion Biology
Published e sion
Moilanen, A e; Ko iaho, Janne S.
Moilanen, A., & Ko iaho, J. S. (2021). Th ee ways o deli e a ne posi i e impac wi h
biodi e si y o se s. Conse a ion Biology, 35(5), 197-205. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/cobi.13533
2021
Essay
Th ee ways o deli e a ne posi i e impac wi h
biodi e si y o se s
A e Moilanen 1,2 ∗and Janne S. Ko iaho 3,4
1Finnish Na u al His o y Museum, Uni e si y o Helsinki, P.O. Box 17, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
2Depa men o Geosciences and Geog aphy, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
3Depa men o Biological and En i onmen al Science, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, P.O. Box 35, Jy äskylä, FI-40014, Finland
4School o Resou ce Wisdom, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, FI-40014, Finland
Abs ac : Biodi e si y o se ing is he p ac ice o using conse a ion ac ions, such as habi a es o a ion, man-
agemen , o p o ec ion, o compensa e o ecological losses caused by de elopmen ac i i y, including cons uc-
ion p ojec s. The ypical goal o o se ing is no ne loss (NNL), which means ha all ecological losses a e
compensa ed o by commensu a e o se gains. We ocused on a concep ual and me hodological explo a ion
o ne posi i e impac (NPI), an ambi ious goal ha implies commi men beyond NNL and ha has ecen ly
ecei ed inc easing a en ion om big business and en i onmen al nongo e nmen al o ganiza ions. We iden i ied
3 main ways NPI could be deli e ed: use o an addi ional NPI mul iplie ; use o slowly de eloping pe manen
o se s o deli e addi ional gains a e NNL has i s been eached du ing a sho e o se e alua ion ime in e al;
and he combina ion o pe manen o se s wi h pa ially empo a y losses. An impo an and no el a ian o he
las mechanism is he use o an al e na e mi iga ion hie a chy so ha gains om he adi ional hi d s ep o he
mi iga ion hie a chy (i.e., onsi e ehabili a ion) a e no longe be coun ed owa d educed o se equi emen s. The
ou come om hese 3 ac o s is ha o he same ecological damage, la ge o se s will be equi ed han p e iously,
he eby imp o ing o se success. As a co olla y, we show ha o se s a e NNL only a 1 epheme al poin in ime,
be o e which hey a e ne nega i e and a e which hey become ei he NPI o ne nega i e impac , depending
on whe he pe manen o se s a e combined wi h pa ially empo a y losses o i empo a y o se gains a e
combined wi h pa ially pe manen losses. To achie e NPI, o se s mus be made pe manen , and hey mus
achie e NNL du ing an ag eed-upon o se e alua ion pe iod. An addi ional NPI-mul iplie and use o he modi ied
mi iga ion hie a chy will deli e addi ional NPI gains. Achie ing NPI is ully condi ional on p io achie emen
o NNL, and NNL o se s ha e been equen ly obse ed o ail due o inadequa e policy equi emen s, poo
planning, o incomple e implemen a ion. Ne e heless, achie ing NPI becomes s aigh o wa d i NNL can be
c edibly eached i s .
Keywo ds: al e na e mi iga ion hie a chy, biodi e si y o se ing, ecological compensa ion, ne gain, ne nega-
i e impac , pe manence
T es Mane as de P opo ciona un Impac o Posi i o Ne o con Compensaciones po Biodi e sidad
Resumen: La compensación po biodi e sidad es una p ác ica que consis e en usa las acciones de conse -
ación, como la es au ación, manejo o p o ección del hábi a , pa a compensa las pé didas ecológicas causadas
po las ac i idades de desa ollo, incluidos los p oyec os de cons ucción. La me a ípica de la compensación es
la nula pé dida ne a (NNL), lo que implica que odas las pé didas ecológicas es án compensadas po las ganancias
p opo cionales. Nos en ocamos en una explo ación concep ual y me odológica del impac o posi i o ne o (NPI),
una me a ambiciosa que implica un comp omiso más allá de la NNL y que ecien emen e ha ecibido una mayo
a ención po pa e de los g andes negocios y las o ganizaciones no gube namen ales ambien ales. Iden i icamos
∗Add ess co espondence o Moilanen A., email [email p o ec ed]i
A icle impac s a emen : Achie ing a ne posi i e impac o biodi e si y o se ing is s aigh o wa d i no ne loss can be c edibly eached i s .
Pape submi ed May 31, 2019; e ised manusc ip accep ed Ap il 30, 2020.
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion
in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
1
Conse a ion Biology,Volume0,No.0,1–9
© 2020 The Au ho s. Conse a ion Biology published by Wiley Pe iodicals LLC on behal o Socie y o Conse a ion Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13533
2Biodi e si y O se s
es mane as p incipales median e las cuales se pod ía p opo ciona el NPI: el uso de un mul iplicado adicional
de NPI; el uso de compensaciones pe manen es de len o desa ollo pa a en ega ganancias adicionales después
de que p ime o se haya log ado el NNL du an e un in e alo de iempo más co o pa a la e aluación de las
compensaciones; y la combinación de las compensaciones pe manen es con las pé didas pa cialmen e empo-
ales. Una a ian e impo an e y no edosa del úl imo mecanismo es el uso de una je a quía al e na de mi igación
de al mane a que las ganancias p o enien es del adicional e ce paso de la je a quía de mi igación (es deci , la
ehabili ación in si u) ya no se con abilizan pa a los eque imien os educidos de las compensaciones. El esul ado
de es os es ac o es consis e en que pa a el mismo daño ecológico se eque i án compensaciones mayo es a las
necesa ias p e iamen e, aumen ando así el éxi o de las compensaciones. Como co ola io, demos amos que las
compensaciones sólo alcanzan el NNl du an e un pun o e íme o en el iempo, an es del cual ienen un saldo ne o
nega i o y después del cual se ans o man en un impac o ne o posi i o o un impac o ne o nega i o dependiendo
de si las compensaciones pe manen es se combinan con pé didas pa cialmen e empo ales o de si las ganancias
empo ales de las compensaciones se combinan con pé didas pa cialmen e empo ales. Pa a alcanza el NPI, las
compensaciones deben ol e se pe manen es y deben llega al NNL du an e un pe iodo aco dado de e aluación
de compensaciones. El uso de un mul iplicado adicional de NPI y de una je a quía al e ada de mi igación p opo -
ciona á ganancias adicionales al NPI. La ob ención del NPI es comple amen e dependien e de la ob ención p e ia
del NNL; se ha obse ado con ecuencia que las compensaciones po NNL allan debido a los eque imien os
inadecuados de las polí icas, la pob e planeación o la implemen ación incomple a. Sin emba go, llega al NPI se
uel e una a ea sencilla si p ime o se puede alcanza el NNL de mane a e osímil.
Palab as Cla e: compensación ecológica, compensación po biodi e sidad, ganancia ne a, impac o nega i o
ne o, je a quía al e na de mi igación, pe manencia
In oduc ion
Biodi e si y is almos uni e sally in a s a e o decline, and
he a e o ecosys em deg ada ion, which unde lies much
o biodi e si y loss, is accele a ing a he han s abilizing
(e.g., Mace e al. 2018; IPBES 2019; IPCC 2019). In as-
uc u e de elopmen is one o he majo causes o he
ecosys em deg ada ion and biodi e si y loss (Maxwell
e al. 2016), and i is p ojec ed ha he nex ew decades
will see an unp eceden ed u he expansion o i (e.g.,
zu E mgassen e al. 2019b).
Ecological losses om in as uc u e de elopmen as
well as om o he an h opogenic land uses could po en-
ially be cu bed by a la ge-scale adop ion o biodi e si y
o se ing (Rainey e al. 2015; IUCN 2016a; Willemen
e al. 2020). Biodi e si y o se ing (he ea e o se ing)
is he p ac ice o balancing ecological losses wi h eco-
logical gains gene a ed h ough ac ions, such as ecolog-
ical es o a ion, es ablishmen o new p o ec ed a eas,
o some o m o habi a managemen (Gibbons & Lin-
denmaye 2007; McKenney & Kiesecke 2010; Wende
e al. 2018). Habi a es o a ion is used o educe pas
ecological deg ada ion and he eby p o ides o se gains.
P o ec ed a ea es ablishmen is a common o m o so-
called a oided (a e ed) loss o se s, which aim o p o-
ide gains ia educ ion o p essu es ha would lead o
u u e habi a deg ada ion o popula ion declines unless
add essed (Gibbons & Lindenmaye 2007; Ma on e al.
2015). Simila o p o ec ion, habi a managemen ope -
a es by p e en ing o slowing he habi a de e io a ion
ha would occu wi hou conse a ion ac ion. Bo h p o-
ec ion and es o a ion come wi h complica ions, such
as pa ial gains, ime delays in he deli e y o gains, leak-
age, and ques ions o addi ionali y. Moilanen and Ko iaho
(2018) p o ide a uni ied ea men o hese unde lying
ac o s.
A leas on pape , biodi e si y o se ing seems o be
an inc easingly adop ed policy ool. The e a e a leas 37
coun ies wi h manda o y biodi e si y o se ing policies
o a leas some in as uc u e sec o s o habi a ypes
and a u he 64 coun ies ha ecommend o enable ol-
un a y o se s (zu E mgassen e al. 2019b). S ill, land use
o biodi e si y o se s is limi ed compa ed wi h he scale
o human impac s on he wo ld; in 2018, he e we e
globally only jus o e 150,000 km2o a iable- ype o -
se s comple ed o in he p ocess o being implemen ed
(Bull & S ange 2018). Despi e limi ed implemen a ion
so a , he ela i ely common global policy indica es ha
biodi e si y o se ing can ha e an impo an ole o
play in minimizing losses o e en deli e ing ne posi-
i e biodi e si y impac s o compensa e o in as uc-
u e de elopmen and land use. Nego ia ions a e ongoing
o include combined ecosys em es o a ion and no ne
loss (NNL) o ne posi i e impac (NPI) o ecosys ems
in he global pos -2020 global biodi e si y amewo k
(CBD 2020).
O se ing is p esen ly seen as he ou h s age o he
so-called mi iga ion hie a chy in which ecological loss
is i s a oided al oge he , hen minimized by app op i-
a e local p ojec design, co ec ed by onsi e ehabili a-
ion ( es o a ion), and inally o se o si e (e.g., IUCN
2016b; OECD 2016; A lidge e al. 2018). The commonly
s a ed goal o o se ing is NNL (i.e., ecological losses in-
cu ed by de elopmen a e ully balanced by commen-
su a e gains) (McKenney & Kiesecke 2010; Ma on e al.
2018; Maseyk e al. 2020). Despi e o se p og ams being
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020
Moilanen & Ko iaho 3
inc easingly adop ed all a ound he wo ld, he e is wide
a ia ion in wha an o se is aken o mean ope a ionally
(Bull & S ange 2018).
Al hough NNL is hough o be di icul o achie e,
and many NNL policies ha e indeed been shown o ail
hei in ended aims (Cal e e al. 2015; Lindenmaye
e al. 2017; Bezombes e al. 2019; zu E mgassen e al.
2019a), ecen ly an appeal was made s a ing ha a de-
si able ou come o economic de elopmen should be
he e en mo e ambi ious goal o NPI o biodi e si y. Ne
posi i e impac is gaining ac ion om businesses and
conse a ion NGOs alike (Gibbons & Lindenmaye 2007;
Rainey e al. 2015; IUCN 2016a; Bull & B ownlie 2017).
Al hough an o se p og am ha aims a NNL only com-
pensa es o he ecological losses, NPI aims o deli e
mo e, o imp o e he s a e o he en i onmen ela i e
o i s p ede elopmen s a e.
F om a co po a e pe spec i e, he social license o op-
e a e can bene i g ea ly om well-managed and epo ed
ne posi i e en i onmen al impac s (Riche e al. 2015;
IUCN 2016a; OECD 2016). Despi e he po en ial, and
some ini ial en husiasm o he implemen a ion o NPI
o se p og ams (Rainey e al. 2015), only 38 companies
ha e made commi men s o NPI policies o en i onmen
since 2001, and ou o hese jus 26 s ill had ac i e com-
mi men s in 2016 (de Sil a e al. 2019). Mo eo e , an
analysis o he sus ainabili y epo s o he op 100 global
companies e ealed ha al hough 49% o hese big busi-
nesses men ion biodi e si y, hey in gene al gi e i lim-
i ed ea men , and no company has epo ed quan i a-
i e ou comes o hei ac i i ies o biodi e si y (Addison
e al. 2019; Smi h e al. 2019). A conclusion ha bio-
di e si y impac s a e unde epo ed, and in mos cases
con ined o gene ic o ague s a emen s, has also been
made ecen ly (e.g., de Sil a e al. 2019; Skouloudis e al.
2019; Weissge be e al. 2019). One eason o he lack
o up ake by hese companies may be ha a clea ope a-
ional ecipe is missing and hus he e is signi ican con-
usion as o how––i a all––NPI can be achie ed (Walke
e al. 2009; Rainey e al. 2015; Bull & B ownlie 2017). We
de ised 3 ways o do so.
Th ee Ways o Achie e NPI wi h Biodi e si y O se s
Ne posi i e impac can be achie ed h ough he appli-
ca ion o an NPI mul iplie on op o he equi emen s
o NNL h ough long- e m gains ha g ow om slowly
de eloping pe manen o se s and h ough pe manen
o se s combined wi h pa ially empo a y losses. A e-
duc ion in long- e m losses can a ise in 2 ways, om ces-
sa ion o indi ec impac s and om he use o he gains
om he hi d s ep o he mi iga ion hie a chy (onsi e
es o a ion) owa d NPI a he han o educed NNL e-
qui emen s. Be o e examining hese ou es o NPI, we
ei e a e ha i NNL canno be achie ed o he p ojec ,
nei he can NPI. In his concep ual ea men , we as-
sumed ha o se ing e o s equi ed o achie e NNL
ha e i s been success ully p ede e mined and accoun
o all ele an conside a ions, such as pa ial es o a ion
and a oided loss gains, ime delays, leakage, simpli ied
biodi e si y measu emen , unce ain y, e c. (Moilanen
& Ko iaho 2018). (The common wisdom is o cou se,
ha o se s–– o wha e e eason––usually ail o achie e
NNL.) No ably, he le el o lexibili y in space, ime, and
biodi e si y allowed in he de e mina ion o NNL (Bull
e al. 2015; Moilanen & Ko iaho 2018) has no bea ing
on he achie emen o NPI. The same mechanisms apply
i espec i e o he deg ee o lexibili y allowed.
The i s and simples mechanism o achie ing NPI is
o apply an a ea mul iplie addi ional o he NNL o se -
ing e o , which hen p oduces he gi en deg ee o NPI
(Moilanen e al. 2009; Bull & B ownlie 2017; Moilanen &
Ko iaho 2018). When he o se ing e o o each NNL
has been co ec ly de e mined, hen applying an addi-
ional mul iplie o , o example, 1.3 would p oduce 30%
NPI ela i e o he o iginal esidual loss caused by he
p ojec . Applica ion o a la ge enough mul iplie is he
mos common eason o success o an NNL policy (zu
E mgassen e al. 2019a). Fundamen ally, i he equi e-
men s o NNL a e known, doing mo e will p o ide mo e
han NNL, which implies NPI.
The second mechanism o deli e NPI is he use
o slowly ma u ing pe manen o se s o deli e long-
e m NPI. The desi abili y o pe manen o se s has o
cou se been poin ed ou many imes (e.g., McKenney
& Kiesecke 2010; an Oos e zee e al. 2012; Moilanen
& Ko iaho 2018), bu less so in he con ex o NPI. Ne
posi i e impac om his mechanism builds on a ypi-
cal (hypo he ical), mono onically inc easing esponse o
habi a condi ion o es o a ion measu es (Figs. 1a & 1b).
(A oided loss gains ypically de elop slowly o e yea s,
jus like es o a ion gains, so he logic o he igu e also
applies o a oided loss o se s.) As backg ound, unless
all o se s a e a p io i pu chased om a habi a bank, an
o se e alua ion ime ame has o be se , o e which
NNL is achie ed, ha app op ia ely accoun s o he slow
de elopmen o es o a ion and a oided loss gains (Moila-
nen & Ko iaho 2018). Unless se explici ly, such a ime-
ame will be adop ed implici ly (e.g., ia how much gain
is assumed om habi a es o a ion). Because he e alua-
ion pe iod needs o be easonable and no so long ha
socie al c edibili y is los (e.g., 20–30 yea s) bu es o a-
ion bene i s ma u e mo e slowly, habi a condi ion will
in some cases con inue o slowly imp o e a e he end
o he e alua ion pe iod. Fo example, o es s ake many
decades o e en cen u ies o ully ma u e. This means
ha he o se will gene a e u he gains he eby ansi-
ioning o long- e m NPI condi ional on losses emaining
s able o dec easing o e ime (Fig. 1b). The deg ee o
NPI achie ed ia his mechanism can be es ima ed by
di iding long- e m a e age gains by sho - e m a e age
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020
4Biodi e si y O se s
Figu e 1. Illus a ion o es o a ion o se gains and he e alua ion ime ame: (a) habi a condi ion s a s o
eco e and gains (g ay a ea) accumula e a e es o a ion has been implemen ed (pe manence is c i ical o he
long- e m pe o mance o he o se ); (b) a e age o se gains (dashed lines) can be calcula ed o e di e en
e alua ion pe iods (Te), wi h gains ansi ioning om NNL o NPI o e ime; (c) pe manen o se s can deli e NPI
when coupled wi h pa ially empo a y loses; and (d) local ehabili a ion can also gene a e NPI ia he educ ion
o a e age long- e m losses, assuming ha i is no allowed o educe o se equi emen s.
gains, ma ked in Fig. 1 wi h gain(2Te) and gain(Te), e-
spec i ely.
The hi d mechanism o deli e NPI is combining pe -
manen o se s wi h (pa ially) empo a y losses (Figs. 1c
& 1d). Fo example, losses caused by indi ec dis u -
bance, such as noise, ligh , dus , human p esence, e c.,
may decline quickly a e he end o a empo a y p ojec ,
such as esou ce ex ac ion (Fig. 1c), allowing o NPI
o de elop, again ully condi ional on he pe manence
o he o se s and p o ided ha all losses ha e i s been
o se o NNL inside he ag eed-upon o se e alua ion
pe iod. O cou se, losses a e e ec i ely pe manen o
many ypes o p ojec s, such as oads, dams, o expanded
u ban a eas, la gely p ecluding NPI ia he second mech-
anism in hese cases. The deg ee o NPI achie ed ia his
mechanism can be es ima ed by di iding sho - e m a e -
age losses by long- e m a e age losses, ma ked in Fig. 1
by L(Te)andL(2Te), espec i ely.
An impo an a ian o he hi d mechanism o
achie e NPI is educ ion o long- e m losses ia a majo
ans o ma ion o he hi d s ep o he mi iga ion hie -
a chy. We p opose ha gains om local ehabili a ion
should no be deduc ed om he o e all esidual loss
caused by he new de elopmen . In o he wo ds, hey
should no be coun ed owa d educing he esidual im-
pac coun ed om he di ec oo p in o he p ojec .
Local ehabili a ion should ne e heless be implemen ed
ully. As a consequence, all losses a e i s o se o NNL,
and any la e gains om local ehabili a ion con ibu e
owa d NPI ins ead (Fig. 1d). E ec i ely, we ecas local
ehabili a ion as a p ice o be paid owa d NPI. Wha
we p opose is a eo ganiza ion o he mi iga ion hie -
a chy whe ein i s hi d s age becomes he las s ep and
p o ides NPI a he han educing equi emen s o NNL
(Fig. 2). This change in how he mi iga ion hie a chy is
pe cei ed also educes he signi icance o unce ain ies
inhe en in local ehabili a ion due o ime delays o di -
icul ies wi h he es o a ion o a signi ican ly damaged
habi a (Schoukens & Clique 2016). Addi ional ac ion
o NNL i sel is shi ed o wa d in ime, allowing mo e
immedia e moni o ing and e i ica ion o o se gains.
Ne e heless, local ehabili a ion is likely o eco e only
a ac ion o losses, leading o a smallish deg ee o NPI
only (Fig. 1d). As some hing o pay a en ion o, he e-
qui emen s o he quali y o local ehabili a ion should
no be signi ican ly educed i i is implemen ed o NPI
ins ead o NNL.
The message o he second and hi d mechanisms is
ha pe manen gains a e c i ical o o se ing o achie e
NPI. I o se s a e pe manen , i is likely ha gains will
con inue o acc ue h ough ime, e en i slowly, allowing
he ansi ion om NNL o NPI (Fig. 1a). Howe e , com-
bining pe manen o semipe manen losses wi h empo-
a y gains seems o ensu e ailu e o he o se ing, lead-
ing o ne nega i e impac (NNI) o ne loss (Fig. 1a).
Fo example, conside a 20-yea empo a y o se o a
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020

Moilanen & Ko iaho 5
Figu e 2. Re ised mi iga ion hie a chy o impac a oidance, minimiza ion, and o se ing in which gains om
local ehabili a ion a e no deduc ed om he o e all loss caused by he p ojec and o se s p o ide no ne loss
(NNL) wi hou eliance on local ehabili a ion, which la e con ibu es o ne posi i e impac (NPI) (black
backg ound, loss o ecological unc ion).
oad o u ban a ea ha could exis e ec i ely o e e . An
NNI om empo a y o se s can e en app oach comple e
loss o ecological alue i he o se is e alua ed o e a
e y long pe iod, sugges ing ha all pas , p esen , and
u u e o se p ojec s ha use empo a y o se s o o -
se pa ially o ully pe manen losses a e p ime candi-
da es o majo ailu e o NNL. In e es ingly, NNL i sel
occu s only a an epheme al poin in ime: be o e his
poin o se s a e ne nega i e, a his poin hey ha e im-
p o ed jus enough in ecological quali y o each NNL,
and a e his poin NPI ollows wi h u he ma u a ion
o gains, p o ided ha he o se is pe manen . O e all,
he dis inc ion be ween pe manen and empo a y is su -
icien by i sel o make he di e ence be ween po en ial
long- e m NPI and almos ce ain NNI, as illus a ed in
Fig. 1a. O cou se, pe manence alone canno gua an ee
NPI. The a ea and quali y o he o se needs o be o h-
e wise adequa e o achie e NNL inside he s a ed o se
e alua ion pe iod. Rele an o selec ion o o se ac ion,
he equi emen o pe manence is a se ious complica-
ion o o se s implemen ed ia habi a managemen o
main enance because i is di icul o gua an ee in pe -
pe ui y unding and pe manence o on- he-g ound op-
e a ions ha need epe i ion yea a e yea and decade
a e decade (No on & Wa bu on 2015).
Finally, Table 1 summa izes he deg ee and iming o
NPI p oduced by he me hods desc ibed abo e. Only
gains om an NPI mul iplie (MNPI)a egene a edsimul-
aneously wi h he NNL o se ing. The o he 2 o ms
o NPI can only be gene a ed a e he o se e alua ion
pe iod ends, which could coincide wi h he end o he
p ojec . A eal-wo ld o se case will p obably in ol e
many ypes o impac s and di e en o se ac ions imple-
men ed in di e en en i onmen s. I so, he e alua ion
o p ojec -le el NPI equi es agg ega ion o e all impac s
and hei o se s.
Requi emen ha NNL be Achie ed Fi s
The majo p e equisi e o achie ing NPI is ha NNL
be co ec ly speci ied i s , meaning ha all o he chal-
lenges o achie ing NNL need o be sol ed be o e mo ing
o NPI. We emphasize ha , in gene al, ailu e o o se -
ing has been mo e he ule han he excep ion, and way
bigge o se s (la ge mul iplie s) a e needed o achie e
NNL han he e is poli ical will o p esen ly. Failu e o
o se s can be a ibu ed o insu icien policy equi e-
men s (i.e., lack o adequa e speci ica ion and en o ce-
men ) (e.g., Cu an e al. 2013; Spash 2015; Guille &
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020
6Biodi e si y O se s
Table 1. Timing and deg ee o ne posi i e impac (NPI) p oduced by he 3 sou ces o NPI.∗.
Timing and deg ee o NPI, ela i e o NNL a he
end o he o se e alua ion ime ame (Te)
Th ee NPI componen s by Teby 2 ×Te
NPI mul iplie MNPI MNPI
Inc eased long- e m gains om slowly de eloping pe manen o se ac ions
(Fig. 1b)
0RP
Reduced long- e m losses combined wi h pe manen gains, including
educed indi ec losses om dis u bance and local ehabili a ion om
he al e na e mi iga ion hie a chy (Figs. 1c, d and 2).
0RL
Wi h all componen s used MNPI MNPI ×RP×RL
∗See Fig. 1 o g aphical explana ion o RP=gains(2Te)/gains(Te)andRL=L(Te)/L(2Te).
Semal 2018), poo design (e.g., Walke e al. 2009; Gib-
bons e al. 2018; Moilanen & Ko iaho 2018), incomple e
implemen a ion o he o se s (e.g., Gibbons e al. 2018;
Weissge be e al. 2019), o e en aud (Moilanen & Ko i-
aho 2018). Se e al e iews ha e been conduc ed on he
ecological ou comes o o se p ojec s (e.g., Bi keland &
Knigh -Lenihan 2016; Theis e al. 2020; zu E mgassen
e al. 2019a). In hei e iew o compliance wi h o se -
ing policy, Theis e al. (2020) conclude ha al hough
many p ojec s a e o icially labeled a success due o hei
high compliance wi h legisla i e equi emen s, he e is
only a weak posi i e ela ionship be ween compliance
and success in achie ing good ecosys em unc ion. This
sugges s ha he policy equi emen s do no suppo
c edible ecological equi emen s o NNL (Moilanen &
Ko iaho 2018).
The ope a ional decisions ha de ine he ecological
success o a biodi e si y o se ing p ojec ha e been dis-
cussed in he scien i ic and g ay li e a u e (e.g., OECD
2016; Ga dene e al. 2013; G imm & Köppel 2019).
Moilanen and Ko iaho (2018) g ouped impo an o se
design ac o s a ound objec i es, cha ac e is ics o o -
se ac ions, and 3 well-known undamen al axes o he
ecological eali y: space, ime, and biodi e si y. The ac-
o s ela ed o objec i es a e he deg ee o adhe ence o
he mi iga ion hie a chy; he de ini ion o NNL, including
e ec o unce ain y; and he desi ed deg ee o compen-
sa ion ela i e o NNL. Fo he spa ial axis, decisions o
be made include he ex en o he o se implemen a ion
a ea (how a om damage can o se s be implemen ed)
and he spa ial e e ence ame o biodi e si y alua ion
(e.g., local, na ional, and con inen al), which in luences,
o example,wha couldbeconside ed adingup.Fo
he empo al axis, he decisions a e whe he he o se is
empo a y o pe manen and wha he o se e alua ion
pe iod and s eng h o ime discoun ing o delayed gains
will be. Fo biodi e si y, decisions include how biodi e -
si y will be measu ed and whe he o how ading up
is allowed. Fo ac ions, addi ionali y o ac ions, habi a
es o a ion esponse unc ions, esponse o a oided loss
ac ion, baseline o a oided loss compa ison, and leakage
associa ed wi h a oided loss all need o be add essed.
Gains and losses should be balanced accoun ing o a
leas hese 15 design ac o s and quan i ies. Igno ing any
o hem du ing planning may lead o some unin ended
ou come o ailu e in o se ing. Fo ins ance, igno ing
o unde es ima ing ime delays in es o a ion gains, leak-
age, o unce ain ies can s aigh o wa dly lead o o se s
speci ica ions ha a e in eali y inadequa e o achie ing
NNL.
One eason o se s ail ecologically seems o be ha
o se s do no apply o all ypes o losses. Ano he is an
imbalance be ween he e alua ion o biodi e si y losses
and biodi e si y gains such ha he loca ion, na u e,
and ex en o impac s a e well documen ed, whe eas ex-
pec ed gains a e p edic ed in a compa a i ely ague and
unce ain manne (Weissge be e al. 2019; zu E mgassen
e al. 2019a). This imbalance is in pa una oidable be-
cause losses conce n obse able biodi e si y and can be
measu ed on he g ound, whe eas he gains will only oc-
cu in he u u e and hus can e e only be es ima ed
o p ojec ed wi h unce ain y. Ne e heless, we belie e
ha he science o es o a ion ecology is ma u e enough
o p o ide he means o p ojec he gains wi h eason-
able and su icien accu acy, a leas in many ecosys ems
(IPBES 2018). Thus, he imbalance in ope a ionaliza ion
is a ailu e ha can be add essed by inc eased emphasis
on capaci y building o allow compe en es ima ion o
gains in planning. I policy de elope s, consul an s, plan-
ne s, e c., we e knowledgeable abou he ope a ional e-
qui emen s o success ul o se s, he ha sh c i ique o
biodi e si y o se ing pe se migh be answe ed. In es -
ing in p ope knowledge ans e would likely build ca-
paci y and esul in mo e success ul o se s.
The Al e na e Mi iga ion Hie a chy
As a co e componen o his wo k, we p opose an al e -
na i e o he adi ional mi iga ion hie a chy (e.g., IUCN
2016b; A lidge e . al. 2018) ha is used o posi ion o -
se ing in he b oad scheme o en i onmen al impac
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020
Moilanen & Ko iaho 7
a oidance a he beginning o p e y much e e y pub-
lica ion abou o se s (Fig. 2). Fi s , al hough we do no
a all disag ee wi h he 2 i s s eps o he mi iga ion hi-
e a chy, we a e skep ical abou hei unc ionali y. S ep
one, a oidance, can ce ainly be implemen ed by mo -
ing a p ojec such as a oad in o an ecologically less
ha m ul loca ion, and land-use planning ools o doing
his a e eadily a ailable (e.g., Ka eksela e al. 2013).
Ne e heless, we belie e ha economic ac i i y is gen-
e ally encou aged and ha cancella ion o p ojec s is un-
common. I has indeed been ound ha he e is o en
a ailu e o a oid impac s (Phalan e al. 2017) and ha
en i onmen al impac assessmen s a ely ind signi ican
impac s, which hen allows p ojec s o go ahead despi e
some en i onmen al impac s (Mu ay e al. 2018). S ep 2
is minimiza ion o impac s, o example, ia planning o
echnical solu ions. P ojec impac s seem o be educed
o he le el o compliance wi h en i onmen al egula ion
(Theis e al. 2020), bu i is ques ionable whe he busi-
nesses a e willing o in es subs an ial ex a money in o
educing impac s e en u he . Pu ing hese ini ial mis-
gi ings aside, ou main a gumen he e is abou he hi d
le el o he mi iga ion hie a chy, local ehabili a ion. We
p opose ha i should become he las s ep in he hie a -
chy and ha i s ole be ecas in o a ime-delayed sou ce
o (ideally manda o y) NPI a he han allowing i o be
coun ed owa d he educ ion o he o iginal esidual im-
pac s o he p ojec ha need o be o se (Fig. 2).
The e is a logical ine i abili y ha he ans o ma ion
o he mi iga ion hie a chy would imp o e o se pe o -
mance, subjec o app op ia e egula ion and checks o
ensu e p ope implemen a ion. Fi s , because local e-
habili a ion would no longe coun owa d he educ-
ion o p ojec ed losses, mo e o se ac ion would be
equi ed o p oduce he gains needed o NNL. Second,
mo e conse a ion ac ion would be b ough o wa d in
ime. Inc eased o se s can be implemen ed immedia ely
o e en pu chased om a habi a bank, which could be
decades ea lie han ehabili a ion du ing o a e he end
o he p ojec . Thi d, unce ain y would be educed be-
cause he e would be less conce n abou he easibili y,
eliable implemen a ion, o e all success, and e i ica ion
and du abili y o es o a ion e o in a signi ican ly dam-
aged impac a ea a in he u u e du ing o a e he end
o he p ojec . Mo eo e , he e is he isk o any p ojec
ex ending om wha was expec ed o iginally, he eby
delaying u he he deli e y o gains om local eha-
bili a ion. Hence, he e a e mul iple easons o gi ing
up he p ac ice o allowing local ehabili a ion o educe
he size o he o se needed. In o he wo ds, we p o-
pose adop ion o he al e na i e mi iga ion hie a chy in
Fig. 2 ha mo es owa d NPI. We also p opose ha NPI
be compulso y, as he p ice paid o he p i ilege o he
o se s being allowed in he i s place, implying ull com-
mi men o local ehabili a ion on op o ini ial NNL and
NPI o se s ha should be pe manen .
F om NNL o NPI
Al hough NNL has been discussed ex ensi ely, he e is
no ha much li e a u e ocusing on he ansi ion om
NNL o NPI. In one o he ea lies ea men s, Bull and
B ownlie (2017) a gue ha achie ing NPI is undamen-
ally di e en om achie ing NNL and ha mo ing om
one o he o he p esen s signi ican challenges ha will
be less i ial han o en hough . They suppo his po-
si ion wi h 4 lines o a gumen s, which we do no ind
in luence ou easoning: i s , NNL and NPI ha e dis inc
unde lying conse a ion philosophies; second, he e is
unce ain y in achie ing NNL; hi d, app op ia e ames
o e e ence may depend on he case; and ou h, s ake-
holde expec a ions o NNL and NPI may di e . We con-
side ed each o hese a gumen s.
The i s a gumen e ol es exclusi ely a ound he in-
kind and ou -o -kind o se s and he deg ee o lexibili y
allowed (Bull & B ownlie 2017). O e all, he dis inc ion
be ween in-kind and ou -o -kind biodi e si y is an illusion
c ea ed by he accu acy, o lack he eo , wi h which bio-
di e si y is measu ed. Taken o he ex emes, e e y indi-
idual and ecological communi y is unique and hus i e-
placeable in he ully in-kind sense (Moilanen & Ko iaho
2018). Ou a gumen is ha doing mo e han equi ed
o NNL will p o ide NPI i espec i e o he deg ee o
lexibili y allowed in he NNL o se o in he addi ional
ac ions done o NPI. I would be pe ec ly easonable o
allow ele a ed lexibili y o addi ional ac ions ha a e
made wi h he in en ion o deli e ing NPI.
The second a gumen es s on he claim ha mee ing
he NNL objec i es al eady equi es o e compensa ing
o losses, which makes i di icul o speci y how la ge
he gains should be o mee he NPI objec i es (Bull &
B ownlie 2017). Acco ding o he p esen easoning, i
he le el o compensa ion needed o NNL is known,
he ansi ion o NPI is s aigh o wa d (e.g., by apply-
ing he NPI mul iplie ). We ei e a e ha he majo p e-
equisi e o achie ing NPI is ha he gains equi ed o
achie e NNL a e i s co ec ly speci ied, which na u ally
accoun s o ele an unce ain ies. I his is no he case,
he p oblem is no wi h he ansi ion om NNL o NPI
bu a he wi h he speci ica ion o NNL i sel .
The hi d a gumen is based on he ac ha he choice
o e e ence ame (ecological baseline; coun e ac ual)
can signi ican ly in luence he gains expec ed (Bull &
B ownlie 2017). Consequen ly, case-speci ic es ima es o
gain and he le el o compensa ion needed o NNL
will be a ec ed. Al hough his is a ac , in an o se -
ing p ojec , he gains needed o NNL and NPI bo h
depend on he same esidual loss caused by he de el-
opmen . The choice o e e ence ame in no way a -
ec s he easibili y o any o he 3 NPI mechanisms we
desc ibed.
The ou h a gumen is abou public o s akeholde
pe cep ion o he c edibili y o NPI objec i es (Bull &
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020
8Biodi e si y O se s
B ownlie 2017). We do no see public pe cep ion as a
undamen al ecological o logical p inciple ha de ines
wha can be achie ed wi h o se ing. Ce ainly, s ake-
holde suppo and b oad accep ance can gene a e own-
e ship ha acili a es good design, implemen a ion, and
moni o ing o o se s, bu i does no in luence, o exam-
ple, he abili y o habi a es o a ion o deli e ecological
gains needed o NNL o NPI.
Based on he e iews ci ed abo e, i is ne e heless
clea ha ue p oblems exis wi h inadequa e policy
equi emen s, design, and implemen a ion o o se s.
The e o e, a majo challenge o biodi e si y o se ing,
be he objec i e NNL o NPI, seems o be knowledge
ans e and capaci y building so ha unde s anding in
he scien i ic communi y is communica ed o socie y
and ope a ionalized in he implemen a ion o he o -
se s. Also, businesses would be equi ed o accep he
compa a i ely la ge o se a ea equi emen s and cos s
ha a ise when accoun ing o pa ial addi ionali y, pa -
ial and delayed gains o es o a ion and p o ec ion, ime
discoun ing, leakage, unce ain y, addi ional NPI equi e-
men s, and possible ex a mul iplie s ha compensa e
o lexibili y in space o biodi e si y (Moilanen & Ko-
iaho 2018). The equi emen o uly pe manen o -
se s, as p esen ed he e, would also cause p oblems in
con ex s whe e legisla i e o adminis a i e p ac ices do
no suppo pe manen land alloca ion o conse a ion
o he applica ion o o he e ec i ely pe manen mech-
anisms. Tha said, legisla ion is a human cons uc and
can be changed o allow pe manen o se s i he e is he
public desi e o do so.
O e all, he p esen a gumen emphasizes how NNL
and NPI a e una oidably dependen on he pe iod o e
which he balance o losses and gains is e alua ed
(Fig. 1), meaning ha ques ions o ime (i.e., o se e al-
ua ion pe iod), de elopmen o gains, pe manence, and
ime discoun ing become o p ima y impo ance o o -
se success ( o u he discussion o hese in he con ex
o achie ing NNL, see Moilanen and Ko iaho [2018]).
Fo simplici y, we p esen ed ma e ial wi hou he com-
plica ion o ime discoun ing, which can, howe e , be
implemen ed in calcula ions ha apply s anda d ime-
discoun ing echniques (Lai ila e al. 2014; Moilanen &
Ko iaho 2018). Ou a gumen and Fig. 1 a e p esen ed in
e ms o agg ega e gains in ela ion o agg ega e losses.
In on- he-g ound planning, calcula ion o agg ega e loss
needs an in e media e s ep o accoun o he size and
quali y o a ea a ec ed and ac ional ecological losses
he ein. Likewise, es ima ion o gains needs o accoun
o he size o o se a ea and ac ional gains he ein,
plus all he o he ac o s summa ized by Moilanen and
Ko iaho (2018). As a inal cau ion, he e a e some en-
i onmen s, such as slowly ma u ing la e successional
ecosys ems, o which c edible o se ing may be impos-
sible i any hing close o in-kind is equi ed (Pilg im e al.
2013). This means ha he abili y o o se ing o deli e
NNL and NPI in a c edible manne has o be examined
case by case.
Once he equi emen s o NNL ha e been speci ied
and once i has been e i ied ha adequa e implemen a-
ion op ions exis (which will no always be he case),
he ansi ion o NPI becomes simple enough. O se ing
is only one pa o he solu ion o global en i onmen-
al p oblems. Ne e heless, wi hin i s scope, i should be
made as good a ool as possible.
Acknowledgmen s
A.M. was suppo ed by he S a egic Resea ch Council
p ojec IBC-Ca bon, g an 312559. We hank I. R. Pe e -
son o cons uc i e commen s on he manusc ip .
Li e a u e Ci ed
Addison PF, Bull JW, Milne -Gulland EJ. 2019. Using conse a ion sci-
ence o ad ance co po a e biodi e si y accoun abili y. Conse a-
ion Biology 33:307–318.
A lidge WN, e al. 2018. A global mi iga ion hie a chy o na u e con-
se a ion. BioScience 68:336–347.
Bezombes L, Ke bi iou C, Spiegelbe ge T. 2019. Do biodi e si y o -
se s achie e no ne loss? An e alua ion o o se s in a F ench depa -
men . Biological Conse a ion 231:24–29.
Bi keland J, Knigh -Lenihan S. 2016. Biodi e si y o se ing and ne pos-
i i e design. Jou nal o U ban Design 21:50–66.
Bull JW, B ownlie S. 2017. The ansi ion om no ne loss o a ne gain
o biodi e si y is a om i ial. O yx 51:53–59.
Bull JW, Ha dy MJ, Moilanen A, Go don A. 2015. Ca ego ies o lexi-
bili y in biodi e si y o se ing, and hei implica ions o conse a-
ion. Biological Conse a ion 192:522–532.
Bull JW, S ange N. 2018. The global ex en o biodi e si y o se imple-
men a ion unde no ne loss policies. Na u e Sus ainabili y 1:790–
798.
Bull JW, e al. 2020. Ne posi i e ou comes o na u e. Na u e Ecology
and E olu ion 4:4–7.
Cal e C, Napoléone C, Salles JM. 2015. The biodi e si y o se ing
dilemma: be ween economic a ionales and ecological dynamics.
Sus ainabili y 7:7357–7378.
CBD (Con en ion on Biological Di e si y). 2020. Ze o d a o he pos -
2020 global biodi e si y amewo k. CBD/WG2020/2/3. CBD, Mon-
eal.
Cu an M, Hellweg S, Beck J. 2013. Is he e any empi ical suppo o
biodi e si y o se policy? Ecological Applica ions 24:617–632.
de Sil a GC, Regan EC, Polla d EHB, Addison PFE. 2019. The e olu-
ion o co po a e no ne loss and ne posi i e impac biodi e si y
commi men s: unde s anding appe i e and add essing challenges.
Business S a egy and he En i onmen 28:1481–1495.
Ga dne TA, e al. 2013. Biodi e si y o se s and he challenge o achie -
ing no ne loss. Conse a ion Biology 27:1254–1264.
Gibbons P, Lindenmaye DB. 2007. O se s o land clea ing: no ne loss
o he ail wagging he dog? Ecological Managemen and Res o a-
ion 8:26–31.
Gibbons P, Macin osh A, Cons able AL, Hayashi K. 2018. Ou comes
om 10 yea s o biodi e si y o se ing. Global Change Biology
24:e643-54.
G imm M, Köppel J. 2019. Biodi e si y o se p og am design and im-
plemen a ion. Sus ainabili y 11:6903.
Guille F, Semal L. 2018. Policy laws o biodi e si y o se ing as a
conse a ion s a egy. Biological Conse a ion 221:86–90.
Conse a ion Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2020