The Wetland Book pp 2053-2058 | Cite as

Environmental Impact Assessment: Wetland Mitigation Banking

Reference work entry

Abstract

In some countries, policies may be in place requiring parties responsible for causing harm to wetlands to minimize their damage and compensate for any impacts that are unavoidable. There are three common means for carrying out compensatory actions: do it yourself or hire an expert (“permittee-responsible mitigation”), pay into a fund for the compensation to be done later (“in-lieu fee fund”), or buy credits from a third party that has already developed, or “banked” compensation, in anticipation of future demand for wetland mitigation. All three of these mitigation solutions can be found in various shapes and sizes around the world. But the mitigation credit banking model is particularly widespread and mature in the United States and Germany.

Keywords

Wetlands Mitigation Mitigation hierarchy Credit banking United States of America Germany Compensation Markets 

References

  1. ACE, USEPA. Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources: final rule (73 Fed. Reg. 70, 19594-19705). 2008. http://www.mitigationbankingservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Federal-Rule-Excerpts.pdf
  2. BBOP. Compensatory conservation case studies. Washington, DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Birnie K. State of the market: national market analysis and overview. Research presented at the National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference, Denver; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Federal Ministry for the Environment. Nature conservation and nuclear safety, reform of environmental law takes effect: new acts enter into force on 1 March 2010. News release. 2010. Available at: http://www.bmu.de/english/current_press_releases/pm/45821.php
  5. Heugel M. The new federal nature conservation act cohesive and close to citizens. Berlin: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety; 2010 .Available at: http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/broschuere_bnatschg_en_bf.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Madsen B, Carroll N, Brands KM. State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide. 2010.Available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf
  7. Morandeau D, Vilaysack D. Compensating for damage to biodiversity: an international benchmarking study. General Commission for Sustainable Development; 2012. Available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3209.pdf
  8. Naumann S. Resource equivalency methods for assessing environmental damage in the EU (REMEDE) project: compensation in the form of habitat banking – short case study report. Berlin: Ecologic Institute; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. The Biodiversity Consultancy. Private sector no net loss commitments. Cambridge: The Biodiversity Consultancy; 2012 .http://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Private-Sector-No-Net-Loss-commitments2.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. The Biodiversity Consultancy. Government policies on biodiversity offsets. Cambridge: The Biodiversity Consultancy; 2013 .http://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Government-policies-on-biodiversity-offsets3.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Trends’ Ecosystem MarketplaceWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations