As those following our series Race to the Bottom are learning, the sudden desire by some in government and industry to redefine and recast mitigation banking has grown from the fact that banking and mitigation bank credits are the regulatory priority and the gold standard for high-quality environmental offsets. It is occurring because inferior forms of environmental offset like PRM and ILF are being replaced across the U.S. by Mitigation Banks and by bank credits.
However, recasting projects as mitigation banks by discarding elements of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, or by changing the definition of a ‘credit’, or by enabling non-compliant, potentially illegal projects to move forward as ‘Mitigation Banks,’ puts at risk the long-won credibility of mitigation banking and stands to damage legitimate bankers.
The NEBA Board of Directors has recently become aware of projects in several places across the U.S. that deserve to be exposed by the banking industry and merit a more careful review by regulatory authorities. In some cases, large credit releases are planned for very small ‘pet’ projects. In others, standard policies for bank applicants are ‘exempted’ for special projects brought by non-profits or government. In fact there even projects already prepaid by government funding that are somehow being ‘converted’ to mitigation banks for credits, creating a situation commonly known as ‘double-dipping’.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Over the next several posts in the series, we’ll spotlight some current examples of mitigation banking gone bad – as a few bad actors and greed continue to chase one another in ‘The Race to the Bottom.’
NEBA is interested in hearing about any non-compliant so-called ‘Mitigation Banking’ projects that pop up in your area, so please contact us. All reports will be strictly confidential.