Curitiba's Solo Criado — Transferable Development Rights for Forest & Green-Space Preservation
Brazil
Since the 1990s, Curitiba has let landowners who preserve forest remnants sell their unused building rights to developers elsewhere in …
United States of America · Washington · See the United States of America profile · See the Washington profile
Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 32% 53/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice
Largest statutory wetland offset market: 1,800+ mitigation banks in RIBITS (2013), restoring aquatic habitats across the US under CWA Section 404. Banking established as preferred mechanism 1995; 2008 rule set performance standards. Ecological effectiveness mixed by region.
Under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404, developers and agencies whose projects unavoidably impact 'waters of the United States' must first avoid and minimise harm; remaining losses require compensatory mitigation equivalent to or greater than the ecological loss. Since federal guidance was issued in November 1995, mitigation banking — purchasing pre-verified credits from a third-party bank that has already restored, created, or enhanced wetlands — has become the preferred compensatory mechanism.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and EPA jointly oversee the programme through the RIBITS tracking system. The Transportation Equity Act (1998) designated banking as the preferred alternative for federally funded transport projects, and the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule established equivalent performance standards across banking, in-lieu fee programmes, and permittee-responsible mitigation.
By 2013, over 1,800 bank sites were registered — up from 46 in 1992 — of which 62% are privately operated. The 219 banks approved by 2001 encompassed approximately 139,000 acres, and credit prices range from a few hundred to over US$100,000 per credit depending on location and resource type.
Evidence of ecological effectiveness is nuanced: the 2001 National Research Council review found that mitigation sites reliably generate wetland acreage but documented inconsistent functional equivalence and long-term monitoring gaps at individual sites, and subsequent studies found outcomes vary markedly by geography, ecosystem type, and bank sponsor.
National / regional programmes
Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.
Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.
Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.
Brazil
Since the 1990s, Curitiba has let landowners who preserve forest remnants sell their unused building rights to developers elsewhere in …
Mongolia
Rio Tinto's Oyu Tolgoi mine runs an 80,000 km² landscape biodiversity offset (~880x its footprint); WCS-verified khulan (~36,000) and goitered …
Switzerland
Switzerland's statutory biodiversity payments compensate ~47,000 farms for maintaining over 184,000 ha of Biodiversity Promotion Areas — wildflower meadows, orchards, …
Spain
EU LIFE-funded project mapped carbon stocks across 13,000+ ha of Andalusian Posidonia oceanica meadows and salt marshes (13,085 ktCO2 stored), …
Open full copilot Grounded in cited practices — always check the sources.