Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems

The commonly expressed goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss of specific biological features affected by development. However, strict equivalency requirements may complicate trading of offset credits, increase costs due to restricted offset placement options, and force offset activities to focus on features that may not represent regional conservation priorities. Using the oil sands industry of Alberta, Canada, as a case study, we evaluated the economic and ecological performance of alternative offset systems targeting either ecologically equivalent areas (vegetation types) or regional conservation priorities (caribou and the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion). Exchanging dissimilar biodiversity elements requires assessment via a generalized metric; we used an empirically derived index of biodiversity intactness to link offsets with losses incurred by development. We considered 2 offset activities: land protection, with costs estimated as the net present value of profits of petroleum and timber resources to be paid as compensation to resource tenure holders, and restoration of anthropogenic footprint, with costs estimated from existing restoration projects. We used the spatial optimization tool MARXAN to develop hypothetical offset networks that met either the equivalent‐vegetation or conservation‐priority targets. Networks that required offsetting equivalent vegetation cost 2–17 times more than priority‐focused networks. This finding calls into question the prudence of equivalency‐based systems, particularly in relatively undeveloped jurisdictions, where conservation focuses on limiting and directing future losses. Priority‐focused offsets may offer benefits to industry and environmental stakeholders by allowing for lower‐cost conservation of valued ecological features and may invite discussion on what land‐use trade‐offs are acceptable when trading biodiversity via offsets. Resultados Económicos y Ecológicos de Sistemas de Compensación de Biodiversidad Flexible Habib et al.     

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management‐context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context‐specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision‐making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.     

From Population Viability Analysis to Coviability of Farmland Biodiversity and Agriculture

Substantial declines in farmland biodiversity have been reported in Europe for several decades. Agricultural changes have been identified as a main driver of these declines. Although different agrienvironmental schemes have been implemented, their positive effect on biodiversity is relatively unknown. This raises the question as to how to reconcile farming production and biodiversity conservation to operationalize a sustainable and multifunctional agriculture. We devised a bioeconomic model and conducted an analysis based on coviability of farmland biodiversity and agriculture. The coviability approach extended population viability analyses by including bioeconomic risk. Our model coupled stochastic dynamics of both biodiversity and farming land‐uses selected at the microlevel with public policies at the macrolevel on the basis of financial incentives (taxes or subsidies) for land uses. The coviability approach made it possible for us to evaluate bioeconomic risks of these public incentives through the probability of satisfying a mix of biodiversity and economic constraints over time. We calibrated the model and applied it to a community of 34 common birds in metropolitan France at the small agricultural regions scale. We identified different public policies and scenarios with tolerable (0–0%) agroecological risk and modeled their outcomes up to 2050. Budgetary, economic, and ecological (based on Farmland Bird Index) constraints were essential to understanding the set of viable public policies. Our results suggest that some combinations of taxes on cereals and subsidies on grasslands could be relevant to develop a multifunctional agriculture. Moreover, the flexibility and multicriteria viewpoint underlying the coviability approach may help in the implementation of adaptive management. Del Análisis de Viabilidad Poblacional a la Co‐Viabilidad de la Agricultura y la Biodiversidad de las Tierras de Cultivo     

Investment and the Policy Process in Conservation Monitoring

Despite decades of discussion and implementation, conservation monitoring remains a challenge. Many current solutions in the literature focus on improving the science or making more structured decisions. These insights are important but incomplete in accounting for the politics and economics of the conservation decisions informed by monitoring. Our novel depiction of the monitoring enterprise unifies insights from multiple disciplines (conservation, operations research, economics, and policy) and highlights many underappreciated factors that affect the expected benefits of monitoring. For example, there must be a strong link between the specific needs of decision makers and information gathering. Furthermore, the involvement of stakeholders other than scientists and research managers means that new information may not be interpreted and acted upon as expected. While answering calls for sharply delineated objectives will clearly add focus to monitoring efforts, for practical reasons, high‐level goals may purposefully be left vague, to facilitate other necessary steps in the policy process. We use the expanded depiction of the monitoring process to highlight problems of cooperation and conflict. We critique calls to invest in monitoring for the greater good by arguing that incentives are typically lacking. Although the benefits of learning accrued within a project (e.g., improving management) provide incentives for investing in some monitoring, it is unrealistic, in general, to expect managers to add potentially costly measures to generate shared benefits. In the traditional linear model of the role of science in policy decisions, monitoring reduces uncertainty and decision makers are rational, unbiased consumers of the science. However, conservation actions increasingly involve social conflict. Drawing insights from political science, we argue that in high‐conflict situations, it is necessary to address the conflict prior to monitoring. Las Inversiones y el Proceso de Políticas en el Monitoreo de la Conservación Sanchirico et al.     

Extrapolating cetacean densities to quantitatively assess human impacts on populations in the high seas

As human activities expand beyond national jurisdictions to the high seas, there is an increasing need to consider anthropogenic impacts to species inhabiting these waters. The current scarcity of scientific observations of cetaceans in the high seas impedes the assessment of population‐level impacts of these activities. We developed plausible density estimates to facilitate a quantitative assessment of anthropogenic impacts on cetacean populations in these waters. Our study region extended from a well‐surveyed region within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone into a large region of the western North Atlantic sparsely surveyed for cetaceans. We modeled densities of 15 cetacean taxa with available line transect survey data and habitat covariates and extrapolated predictions to sparsely surveyed regions. We formulated models to reduce the extent of extrapolation beyond covariate ranges, and constrained them to model simple and generalizable relationships. To evaluate confidence in the predictions, we mapped where predictions were made outside sampled covariate ranges, examined alternate models, and compared predicted densities with maps of sightings from sources that could not be integrated into our models. Confidence levels in model results depended on the taxon and geographic area and highlighted the need for additional surveying in environmentally distinct areas. With application of necessary caution, our density estimates can inform management needs in the high seas, such as the quantification of potential cetacean interactions with military training exercises, shipping, fisheries, and deep‐sea mining and be used to delineate areas of special biological significance in international waters. Our approach is generally applicable to other marine taxa and geographic regions for which management will be implemented but data are sparse.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas

Globally expanding human land use sets constantly increasing pressure for maintenance of biological diversity and functioning ecosystems. To fight the decline of biological diversity, conservation science has broken ground with methods such as the operational model of systematic conservation planning (SCP), which focuses on design and on‐the‐ground implementation of conservation areas. The most commonly used method in SCP is reserve selection that focuses on the spatial design of reserve networks and their expansion. We expanded these methods by introducing another form of spatial allocation of conservation effort relevant for land‐use zoning at the landscape scale that avoids negative ecological effects of human land use outside protected areas. We call our method inverse spatial conservation prioritization. It can be used to identify areas suitable for economic development while simultaneously limiting total ecological and environmental effects of that development at the landscape level by identifying areas with highest economic but lowest ecological value. Our method is not based on a priori targets, and as such it is applicable to cases where the effects of land use on, for example, individual species or ecosystem types are relatively small and would not lead to violation of regional or national conservation targets. We applied our method to land‐use allocation to peat mining. Our method identified a combination of profitable production areas that provides the needed area for peat production while retaining most of the landscape‐level ecological value of the ecosystem. The results of this inverse spatial conservation prioritization are being used in land‐use zoning in the province of Central Finland.     

A Landholder‐Based Approach to the Design of Private‐Land Conservation Programs

Abstract: Many ecosystems exist primarily, or solely, on privately owned (freehold) or managed (leasehold) land. In rural and semirural areas, local and regional government agencies are commonly responsible for encouraging landholders to conserve native vegetation and species on these private properties. Yet these agencies often lack the capacity to design and implement conservation programs tailored to rural and semirural landholdings and instead offer one program to all landholders. Landholders may elect not to participate because the program is irrelevant to their property or personal needs; consequently, vegetation–retention objectives may not be achieved. We differentiated landholders in Queensland, Australia, according to whether they derived income from the land (production landholders) or not (nonproduction landholders). We compared these two groups to identify similarities and differences that may inform the use of policy instruments (e.g., voluntary, economic, and regulatory) in conservation program design. We interviewed 45 landholders participating in three different conservation agreement programs (price‐based rate [property tax] rebate; market‐based tender; and voluntary, permanent covenant). Production landholders were more likely to participate in short‐term programs that offered large financial incentives that applied to <25% of their property. Nonproduction landholders were more likely to participate in long‐term programs that were voluntary or offered small financial incentives that applied to >75% of their property. These results may be explained by significant differences in the personal circumstances of production and nonproduction landholders (income, education, health) and differences in their norms (beliefs about how an individual is expected to act) and attitudes. Knowledge of these differences may allow for development of conservation programs that better meet the needs of landholders and thus increase participation in conservation programs and retention of native vegetation.     

Seventy‐One Important Questions for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity

The ocean provides food, economic activity, and cultural value for a large proportion of humanity. Our knowledge of marine ecosystems lags behind that of terrestrial ecosystems, limiting effective protection of marine resources. We describe the outcome of 2 workshops in 2011 and 2012 to establish a list of important questions, which, if answered, would substantially improve our ability to conserve and manage the world's marine resources. Participants included individuals from academia, government, and nongovernment organizations with broad experience across disciplines, marine ecosystems, and countries that vary in levels of development. Contributors from the fields of science, conservation, industry, and government submitted questions to our workshops, which we distilled into a list of priority research questions. Through this process, we identified 71 key questions. We grouped these into 8 subject categories, each pertaining to a broad component of marine conservation: fisheries, climate change, other anthropogenic threats, ecosystems, marine citizenship, policy, societal and cultural considerations, and scientific enterprise. Our questions address many issues that are specific to marine conservation, and will serve as a road map to funders and researchers to develop programs that can greatly benefit marine conservation. Setenta y Un Preguntas Importantes para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marina     

Prospects for Reconciling the Conflict between Economic Growth and Biodiversity Conservation with Technological Progress

Abstract: The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is understood in portions of academia and sometimes acknowledged in political circles. Nevertheless, there is not a unified response. In political and policy circles, the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is posited to solve the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. In academia, however, the EKC has been deemed fallacious in macroeconomic scenarios and largely irrelevant to biodiversity. A more compelling response to the conflict is that it may be resolved with technological progress. Herein I review the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation in the absence of technological progress, explore the prospects for technological progress to reconcile that conflict, and provide linguistic suggestions for describing the relationships among economic growth, technological progress, and biodiversity conservation. The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is based on the first two laws of thermodynamics and principles of ecology such as trophic levels and competitive exclusion. In this biophysical context, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. Reconciling the conflict via technological progress has not occurred and is infeasible because of the tight linkage between technological progress and economic growth at current levels of technology. Surplus production in existing economic sectors is required for conducting the research and development necessary for bringing new technologies to market. Technological regimes also reflect macroeconomic goals, and if the goal is economic growth, reconciliatory technologies are less likely to be developed. As the economy grows, the loss of biodiversity may be partly mitigated with end‐use innovation that increases technical efficiency, but this type of technological progress requires policies that are unlikely if the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation (and other aspects of environmental protection) is not acknowledged.     

Carbon Payments and Low‐Cost Conservation

Abstract: A price on carbon is expected to generate demand for carbon offset schemes. This demand could drive investment in tree‐based monocultures that provide higher carbon yields than diverse plantings of native tree and shrub species, which sequester less carbon but provide greater variation in vegetation structure and composition. Economic instruments such as species conservation banking, the creation and trading of credits that represent biological‐diversity values on private land, could close the financial gap between monocultures and more diverse plantings by providing payments to individuals who plant diverse species in locations that contribute to conservation and restoration goals. We studied a highly modified agricultural system in southern Australia that is typical of many temperate agriculture zones globally (i.e., has a high proportion of endangered species, high levels of habitat fragmentation, and presence of non‐native species). We quantified the economic returns from agriculture and from carbon plantings (monoculture and mixed tree and shrubs) under six carbon‐price scenarios. We also identified high‐priority locations for restoration of cleared landscapes with mixed tree and shrub carbon plantings. Depending on the price of carbon, direct annual payments to landowners of AU$7/ha/year to $125/ha/year (US$6–120/ha/year) may be sufficient to augment economic returns from a carbon market and encourage tree plantings that contribute more to the restoration of natural systems and endangered species habitats than monocultures. Thus, areas of high priority for conservation and restoration may be restored relatively cheaply in the presence of a carbon market. Overall, however, less carbon is sequestered by mixed native tree and shrub plantings.     

Comparing Spatially Explicit Ecological and Social Values for Natural Areas to Identify Effective Conservation Strategies

Abstract: Consideration of the social values people assign to relatively undisturbed native ecosystems is critical for the success of science‐based conservation plans. We used an interview process to identify and map social values assigned to 31 ecosystem services provided by natural areas in an agricultural landscape in southern Australia. We then modeled the spatial distribution of 12 components of ecological value commonly used in setting spatial conservation priorities. We used the analytical hierarchy process to weight these components and used multiattribute utility theory to combine them into a single spatial layer of ecological value. Social values assigned to natural areas were negatively correlated with ecological values overall, but were positively correlated with some components of ecological value. In terms of the spatial distribution of values, people valued protected areas, whereas those natural areas underrepresented in the reserve system were of higher ecological value. The habitats of threatened animal species were assigned both high ecological value and high social value. Only small areas were assigned both high ecological value and high social value in the study area, whereas large areas of high ecological value were of low social value, and vice versa. We used the assigned ecological and social values to identify different conservation strategies (e.g., information sharing, community engagement, incentive payments) that may be effective for specific areas. We suggest that consideration of both ecological and social values in selection of conservation strategies can enhance the success of science‐based conservation planning.     

Motivations Influencing the Adoption of Conservation Easements

Abstract: The use of conservation easements as a conservation mechanism for private land has increased greatly in the past decade; conservation easements now protect over 15 million ha across the United States from residential and commercial development. We used a mailed survey and in‐depth telephone interviews to determine factors that motivate private landowners in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (U.S.A.) to place conservation easements on their properties. The mailed survey asked about characteristics of landowners, their properties, and their opinions on 9 factors related to the decision to place an easement. A follow‐up telephone interview was completed with 19 mail‐survey participants to gain an in‐depth understanding of the action and to triangulate the results with the questionnaire. Place attachment, which is a measure of personal connection to a location or property, was the greatest motivation for implementation of an easement. Results of a principal components analysis suggested contributing to the public good underlaid several of the strong motivational factors for participation. Financial reasons were the lowest ranked motivational factor; however, financial concerns may facilitate placement of an easement that would otherwise not be realized. We believe that our results may be transferable to places where land protected by easements is not dominated by traditional farming (row crops, pastures, and hay), timber harvesting, or nonextractive uses (e.g., habitat for wild animals, recreation, and protection of ecosystem services).     

Conservation Development Practices,Extent, and Land‐Use Effects in the United States

Abstract: Conservation development projects combine real‐estate development with conservation of land and other natural resources. Thousands of such projects have been conducted in the United States and other countries through the involvement of private developers, landowners, land trusts, and government agencies. Previous research has demonstrated the potential value of conservation development for conserving species, ecological functions, and other resource values on private lands, especially when traditional sources of conservation funding are not available. Nevertheless, the aggregate extent and effects of conservation development were previously unknown. To address this gap, we estimated the extent and trends of conservation development in the United States and characterized its key attributes to understand its aggregate contribution to land‐conservation and growth‐management objectives. We interviewed representatives from land trusts, planning agencies, and development companies, searched the Internet for conservation development projects and programs, and compiled existing databases of conservation development projects. We collected data on 3884 projects encompassing 1.38 million ha. About 43% of the projects targeted the conservation of specific plant or animal species or ecological communities of conservation concern; 84% targeted the protection of native ecosystems representative of the project area; and 42% provided buffers to existing protected areas. The percentage of protected land in conservation development projects ranged from <40% to >99%, and the effects of these projects on natural resources differed widely. We estimate that conservation development projects have protected roughly 4 million ha of land in the United States and account for about 25% of private‐land conservation activity nationwide.     

Mapping opportunities and challenges for rewilding in Europe

Farmland abandonment takes place across the world due to socio‐economic and ecological drivers. In Europe agricultural and environmental policies aim to prevent abandonment and halt ecological succession. Ecological rewilding has been recently proposed as an alternative strategy. We developed a framework to assess opportunities for rewilding across different dimensions of wilderness in Europe. We mapped artificial light, human accessibility based on transport infrastructure, proportion of harvested primary productivity (i.e., ecosystem productivity appropriated by humans through agriculture or forestry), and deviation from potential natural vegetation in areas projected to be abandoned by 2040. At the continental level, the levels of artificial light were low and the deviation from potential natural vegetation was high in areas of abandonment. The relative importance of wilderness metrics differed regionally and was strongly connected to local environmental and socio‐economic contexts. Large areas of projected abandonment were often located in or around Natura 2000 sites. Based on these results, we argue that management should be tailored to restore the aspects of wilderness that are lacking in each region. There are many remaining challenges regarding biodiversity in Europe, but megafauna species are already recovering. To further potentiate large‐scale rewilding, Natura 2000 management would need to incorporate rewilding approaches. Our framework can be applied to assessing rewilding opportunities and challenges in other world regions, and our results could guide redirection of subsidies to manage social‐ecological systems.     

Estimating the Value of Non‐Use Benefits from Small Changes in the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Abstract: The unit of trade in ecosystem services is usually the use of a proportion of the parcels of land associated with a given service. Valuing small changes in the provision of an ecosystem service presents obstacles, particularly when the service provides non‐use benefits, as is the case with conservation of most plants and animals. Quantifying non‐use values requires stated‐preference valuations. Stated‐preference valuations can provide estimates of the public's willingness to pay for a broad conservation goal. Nevertheless, stated‐preference valuations can be expensive and do not produce consistent measures for varying levels of provision of a service. Additionally, the unit of trade, land use, is not always linearly related to the level of ecosystem services the land might provide. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a method to estimate the value of a marginal change in the provision of a non‐use ecosystem service—in this case conservation of plants or animals associated with a given land‐cover type. Our method serves as a tool for calculating transferable valuations of small changes in the provision of ecosystem services relative to the existing provision. Valuation is achieved through stated‐preference investigations, calculation of a unit value for a parcel of land, and the weighting of this parcel by its ability to provide the desired ecosystem service and its effect on the ability of the surrounding land parcels to provide the desired service. We used the water vole (Arvicola terrestris) as a case study to illustrate the method. The average present value of a meter of water vole habitat was estimated at UK£12, but the marginal value of a meter (based on our methods) could range between £0 and £40 or more.     

Costs of Integrating Economics and Conservation Planning

Abstract: Recent literature on systematic conservation planning has focused strongly on economics. It is a necessary component of efficient conservation planning because the question is about effective resource allocation. Nevertheless, there is an increasing tendency toward economic factors overriding biological considerations. Focusing too narrowly on economic cost may lead us back toward solutions resembling those obtained by opportunistic choice of areas, the avoidance of which was the motivation for development of systematic approaches. Moreover, there are many overlooked difficulties in incorporating economic considerations reliably into conservation planning because available economic data and the free market are complex. For instance, economies based on free markets tend to be shortsighted, whereas biodiversity conservation aims far into the future. Although economic data are necessary, they should not be relied on too heavily or considered separately from other sociopolitical factors. We suggest focusing on development of more‐comprehensive ecological‐economic modeling, while not forgetting the importance of purely biological analyses that are needed as a point of reference for evaluating conservation outcomes.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.     

Offsets and Conservation of the Species of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives

Biodiversity offsets are intended to achieve no net loss of biodiversity due to economic and human development. A variety of biodiversity components are addressed by offset policies. It is required that loss of protected species due to development be offset under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives in Europe. We call this type of offset a species‐equality offset because the offset pertains to the same species affected by the development project. Whether species equality can be achieved by offset design is unknown. We addressed this gap by reviewing derogation files (i.e., specific files that describe mitigation measures to ensure no net loss under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) from 85 development projects in France (2009–2010). We collected information on type of effect (reversible vs. irreversible) and characteristics of affected and offset sites (i.e., types of species, total area). We analyzed how the type of effect and the affected‐site characteristics influenced the occurrence of offset measures. The proportion of species targeted by offset measures (i.e., offset species) increased with the irreversibility of the effect of development and the conservation status of the species affected by development (i.e., affected species). Not all effects on endangered species (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List) were offset; on average, 82% of affected species would be offset. Twenty‐six percent of species of least concern were offset species. Thirty‐five percent of development projects considered all affected species in their offset measures. Species richness was much lower in offset sites than in developed sites even after offset proposals. For developed areas where species richness was relatively high before development, species richness at offset sites was 5–10 times lower. The species‐equality principle appears to have been applied only partially in offset policies, as in the EU directives. We suggest the application of this principle through offsets is highly important for the long‐term conservation of biodiversity in Europe. Compensaciones y Conservación de las Especies de las Directivas de Hábitats y Aves de la UE