Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice (original) (raw)

Towards Unpacking the Theory Behind, and a Pragmatic Approach to Biodiversity Offsets

Environmental Management, 2019

The use of biodiversity offsets to compensate for residual impacts on biodiversity resulting from a development or land-use change, is becoming more prevalent. While much has been published on this topic, there has been little published on the theoretical foundation on which biodiversity offsets are based. This paper seeks to unpack the theoretical and practical tenets of biodiversity offsets in relation to the public trust doctrine, responsibilities of the developer and the State, and significant unmitigable impacts on biodiversity. It was reasoned that the responsibility of the developer and the life of a biodiversity offset are finite, and that the concept of ‘in perpetuity’ may not exist practically and in law. It was further discovered that a sound understanding of the public trust doctrine is critical for consistent offset-based decision-making – particularly in those circumstances where an impasse between the potential significant loss to biodiversity and an indispensable need for a development or land-use change arises.

Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation

Sustainability

Biodiversity offsets are applied in many countries to compensate for impacts on the environment, but research on regulatory frameworks and implementation enabling effective offsets is lacking. This paper reviews research on biodiversity offsets, providing a framework for the analysis of program design (no net loss goal, uncertainty and ratios, equivalence and accounting, site selection, landscape-scale mitigation planning, timing) and implementation (compliance, adherence to the mitigation hierarchy, leakage and trade-offs, oversight, transparency and monitoring). Some more challenging aspects concern the proper metrics and accounting allowing for program evaluation, as well as the consideration of trade-offs when regulations focus only on the biodiversity aspect of ecosystems. Results can be used to assess offsets anywhere and support the creation of programs that balance development and conservation.

The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsets aim to achieve a " nonet loss " of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services due to development. The " nonet less " objective assumes that the multi-dimensional values of biodiversity in complex ecosystems can be isolated from their spatial, evolutionary, historical, social, and moral context. We examine the irreplaceability of ecosystems, the limits of restoration, and the environmental values that claim to be compensated through ecosystem restoration. We discuss multiple ecological, instrumental, and non-instrumental values of ecosystems that should be considered in offsetting calculations. Considering this range of values, we summarize the multiple ecological, regulatory, and ethical losses that are often dismissed when evaluating offsets and the " nonet loss " objective. Given the risks that biodiversity offsets pose in bypassing strict regulations, eroding our moral responsibility to protect nature, and embracing misplaced technological optimism relating to ecosystem restoration, we argue that offsets cannot fulfil their promise to resolve the trade-off between development and conservation. If compensation for biodiversity loss is unavoidable, as it may well be, these losses must be made transparent and adequate reparation must embrace socio-ecological uncertainty, for example through a Multi-Criteria Evaluation framework. Above all, strict protection legislation should be strengthened rather than watered down as is the current trend.

Biodiversity Offsets: Policy options for governments

The paper defines key terms associated with the mitigation hierarchy, No Net Loss, Net Gain, and biodiversity offsets and reviews the number of governments with related policies and the multi-year processes under which these evolve and are implemented. It outlines the basic concepts in NNL/NG policy, including the underlying principles, typical statements of policy and their scope and limits, exchange rules according to which the kind of biodiversity needed for an offset is defined, the metrics that quantify losses and gains, land-use (and marine) planning, and definition of the activities that create additional conservation outcomes and qualify as the ‘gains’ to offset the residual losses of biodiversity. The paper introduces typical policy options for implementing biodiversity offsets, considers the data and capacity needs if government is to run effective NNL/NG polices and offsetting systems, and stresses the vital role of government in monitoring and enforcement. It sets out the broad range of potential roles of government in designing and administering NNL/ NG policies and offsetting systems and identifies the principal categories of cost for government in developing and implementing NNL/NG policy. Finally, it sets out some of the lessons that have been learnt from the experience in various countries from designing and operating NNL/NG and biodiversity offset policy and programmes and outlines suggested ways forward for governments interested in exploring NNL/NG policy options.