Urban Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Offsets



With the adoption of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the EU has made a commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. EU-wide actions include the development of an initiative to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity, ecosystems and their services e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes by 2015 (Action 7b; initiated by the European Commission). In this chapter we intend to examine one relatively new and innovative instrument that can be applied to achieve no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: biodiversity offsets. We focus on the German system as a kind of role model and example that shows challenges and advantages of a biodiversity offsetting system within the European context. However, a brief outlook on comparable offsetting systems in other countries will also be raised. Particularly, the urban stage is to be addressed.


Impact mitigation regulation Biodiversity offsets Ecosystem services Biodiversity Planning and assessment tools 


  1. Albrecht, J., Schumacher, J., & Wende, W. (2014). The German impact-mitigation regulation—A model for the EU’s no-net-loss strategy and biodiversity offsets? Environmental Policy and Law, 44(3), 317–325.Google Scholar
  2. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program. (BBOP 2012): Resource paper: Limits to what can be offset. Washington DC: BBOP.Google Scholar
  3. Darbi, M., Albrecht, J., & Schumacher, J. (2016). Die europäische No Net Loss-Initiative und Biodiversity Offsets: Einblicke in die aktuelle Diskussion zur Kompensation von Eingriffen aus deutscher Perspektive. In: T. Hebeler, E. Hofmann, A. Proelß, P. Reiff (Eds.), Jahrbuch des Umwelt- und Technikrechts 2016. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2016, S. 141–171.Google Scholar
  4. Darbi, M., Ohlenburg, H., Herberg, A., & Wende, W. (2010). Impact mitigation and biodiversity offsets—Compensation approaches from around the world. Federal Nature Conservation Agency Germany, Landwirtschaftsverlag Muenster. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt No. 101.Google Scholar
  5. Eftec. (2009). The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protectionThe case of habitat banking. Draft Final Summary Report, Submitted to the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, Env.G.1/Etu/2008/0043.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, T. A., von Hase, A., Brownlie, S., Ekstrom, J. M. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Savy, C. D., et al. (2013). Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1254–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (Eds.). (2015). Ecosystem services—Concept, methods and case studies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Herbert, M. (2015). German impact mitigation regulation—National, European, international. A comparison from the viewpoint of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (UVP-report. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 149–151).Google Scholar
  9. Ito, H., Ota, T., Hayashi, K., Yoshida, K., & Hu, S. (2014). The importance of estimation and economic value on ecosystem services. Journal of Japan Society for Impact Assessment, 12(2), 63–71.Google Scholar
  10. Quétier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011). Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 2991–2999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. (2004). Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Shimizu, H., & Murayama, A. (2014). Basic and clinical environmental approaches in landscape planning. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wende, W., Herberg, A., & Herzberg, A. (2005). Impact mitigation regulation. Journal: Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Taylor & Francis Publishing House. 23(2) pp. 101–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional DevelopmentDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations