Biodiversity offsetting
Biodiversity offsetting is a system used predominantly by
Individuals or companies involved in arranging biodiversity offsets will use quantitative measures to determine the amount, type and quality of
Relevant conservation activities
Biodiversity offset projects can involve various management activities that can be demonstrated to deliver gains in biodiversity. These activities very often include active
Any activities that do not result in a positive and measurable gain for biodiversity would not generally be counted as part of a biodiversity offset. For instance, if a developer funds ecological conservation research in a region that they are impacting through a project, would not count as an offset (unless it could be shown quantitatively how specific fauna and flora would benefit). instead, this would be a more general form of compensation. Note that biodiversity offsets can be considered a very specific, robust and transparent category of ecological compensation.
Receptor sites
Under many offset systems, receptor sites are areas of land put forward by companies or individuals looking to receive payment in return for creating (or restoring) biodiversity habitats on their property. The biodiversity restoration projects are financed by compensation from developers looking to offset their biodiversity impact. The resulting change in biodiversity levels at the new receptor sites should be equal to, or greater than, the losses at the original ‘impact site’; in order to achieve no net loss – and preferably gain – of overall biodiversity. Such systems often rely on the buying (by developers) and selling (by landowners) of conservation credits.
However, characteristics of receptor sites can vary across different jurisdictions. In some countries, for instance, land is primarily state-owned, and so it is the government that owns and manages biodiversity offset projects. For biodiversity offsets in marine environments, receptor sites might be subject to multiple management organisations and not necessarily owned by anyone. Controversially, some biodiversity offsets use existing protected areas as receptor sites (i.e. improving the effectiveness of areas that are already managed for biodiversity conservation).
Requirement to offset biodiversity
Biodiversity offsets are required by law in many jurisdictions.[6]
Countries including the US, Australia,[7] New Zealand,[8] UK and parts of Europe use biodiversity offsetting as an optional or mandatory (depending on the country) biodiversity conservation management tool within their planning systems.
Biodiversity offsetting is also being considered by some Latin American countries (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile)[9] and by South Africa.
Another key driver of biodiversity offset projects globally are the Performance Standards required by the International Finance Corporation (IFC). For any projects which the IFC or any of the Equator Banks finance, under Performance Standard 6,[10] developers must deliver No Net Loss (or in some cases, a Net Gain) of biodiversity.
Finally, a number of companies implement biodiversity offsets after setting voluntary policy commitments to achieve 'no net loss' or a 'net positive impact' for biodiversity overall associated with their operations.[11] This is part of a broader effort for the private sector to manage biodiversity.[12]
Compensatory mitigation in the US
No Net Loss policy (and consequently, biodiversity offsetting) has its origin in US legislation, specifically in the Water Act from the 1970s. This piece of legislation required 'no net loss of wetland acreage and function', leading eventually to the creation of mitigation banks, where wetland credits are bought and sold.[13]
The US also has a
In the US, offsetting tends to be called 'compensatory mitigation'.
Offsetting in Australia
Much of the scientific research into biodiversity offsetting outside of the US has been conducted by Australia, especially organisations such as CEED and CSIRO.
Biodiversity offset policies have become established in a number of Australian states (especially Victoria and New South Wales), and there is also a federal biodiversity offset policy.[15] States tend to operate biodiversity banking mechanisms at the regional level. Major species include koalas, the red‐tailed black‐cockatoo, and the green and golden bell frog which required 19 times more habitat to achieve no net loss.[16]
Offsetting in the UK
In the
Biodiversity offsetting is only applicable to land that has been approved for development, which means it does not often apply to protected sites such as
In 2011, six biodiversity offsetting pilot schemes were started in England by the British Government to test the process. They were run in partnership with local groups and private companies and are located in Warwickshire,[19] Essex,[20] the Ribble Valley,[21] at three sites in Devon,[22] in Nottinghamshire.[23] and Doncaster.[24]
In September 2013, the British Government published a Green Paper containing plans for further incorporation of biodiversity offsetting in the UK planning system.[25] (Public consultation period: 5 September – 7 November 2013).
In March 2019, the British Government announced that it will mandate biodiversity net gain in England as part of its forthcoming Environment Bill, requiring 'developers to ensure habitats for wildlife are enhanced and left in a measurably better state than they were pre-development.'[26] Initially planned to come into force by the end of 2023, it was announced in September 2023 that implementation of the bill had been delayed until early 2024.[27]
Economic value
Biodiversity is increasingly seen as having
Financial gain from biodiversity offsetting is brought about through the sale of conservation credits by landowners. Individuals or companies who are looking to receive financial payment in return for creating or enhancing particular wildlife habitats on their property can have their land valued in conservation credits by a biodiversity offsetting broker[29] who will then register their credits for sale[30] to developers looking to offset any residual impact to biodiversity from their approved developments.
Developers can also find the business of biodiversity offsetting appealing financially as the compensation payment for their project's residual biodiversity impact is handled in one agreement and the landowner receiving that payment (and therefore the habitat re-creation duties) is responsible for the biodiversity restoration and management thereafter. The cost may represent a small proportion of a developer's budget and is often outweighed by a project's long-term gains. As corporate social responsibility is often part of larger companies’ business priorities, being able to demonstrate environmentally responsible practices can be an additional incentive.
Biodiversity offsetting based upon showing the
Conservation credits
The cost of re-creating an area of habitat affected by a development proposal (impact site) can be calculated and represented as a number of conservation credits that a developer could purchase in order to offset their biodiversity impact. Land put forward for investment to re-create impacted biodiversity (receptor site) is also calculated in conservation credits (to account for the cost of creating or restoring biodiversity at that particular site and to cover the cost of its long-term conservation management). This situation enables the buying (by developers) and selling (by landowners) of conservation credits. Government approved (quantitative and qualitative) metrics should be used to calculate the number of conservation credits that can be applied to each site, in order to maintain accuracy and consistency in the value of a conservation credit.
Motivation
A decline in global biodiversity[34] due, in part, to land use changes[35] is the motivation for creating a system within the planning process that tackles unavoidable and residual impact to biodiversity. Formal evaluation of impact to habitat, wildlife and other natural considerations is often required of developers ahead of receiving approval for a project to go ahead. This can often be in the form of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which are commonplace within the work of Government planning authorities. EIAs look at how proposed projects may impact upon the environment in its broadest sense, covering the traditional ‘green’ aspects alongside any social and economic issues; and can result in mitigating and compensatory packages which form part of a project's overall proposal for approval. The topic of biodiversity is likely to be looked at as part of an EIA, but in conjunction with many other overriding elements. Biodiversity offsetting, as an assessment and compensatory process, can either sit inside or outside of EIA and aims, specifically, to tackle
See also
- Biodiversity
- Biodiversity banking
- Cross-sector biodiversity initiative
- Economics of biodiversity
- Ecosystem services
- Mitigation banking
- No net loss
References
- S2CID 3005499.
- ^ "Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss" (Gardner et al., 2013) [1] Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review" (zu Ermgassen et al. 2019) [2] Archived 2019-11-14 at the Wayback Machine
- .
- hdl:10072/430090.
- ^ Madsen, Becca; Carroll, Nathaniel; Kandy, Daniel; Bennett, Genevieve (2011). "2011 Update: State of Biodiversity Markets" (PDF). Washington, DC: Forest Trends. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2012. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
- ^ "Biodiversity offsetting in Australia". Archived from the original on 2013-05-15.
- ^ "Biodiversity Offsets programme in New Zealand". Archived from the original on 2014-04-06. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "Colombia Takes LeadIn Latin American Biodiversity Offsetting". Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-10-07.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "A review of corporate goals of NNL or NPI on biodiversity" (Rainey et al., 2014) [3] Archived 2015-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Report on Business & Biodiversity (Bull et al., 2015)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
- ^ US EPA, OW (June 16, 2015). "Mitigation Banks under CWA Section 404". www.epa.gov. Archived from the original on October 6, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
- ^ "US Fish & Wildlife Service factsheet" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
- ^ "EPBC Act environmental offsets policy | Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment". Archived from the original on 2019-04-13. Retrieved 2015-05-27.
- ISSN 0006-3207.
- ^ "National Planning Policy Framework". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-10-07.
- ^ "Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme – Mitigation Hierarchy". Archived from the original on 2014-05-17. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2014-08-08.
- ^ "Essex biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2014-01-10.
- ^ "Ribble Valley biodiversity offsetting pilot". Archived from the original on 2012-08-29. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "South Hams, North Devon UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and Exeter Growth Point". Natural Devon. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2015-11-30.
- ^ "Piloting biodiversity offsetting in Nottinghamshire". www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk. Nottinghamshire County Council. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 7 March 2016.
- ^ Council, Doncaster. "Biodiversity offsetting in Doncaster – Doncaster Council". www.doncaster.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2020-09-29. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
- ^ "Defra Green Paper (Sept 2013) on Biodiversity Offsetting". Archived from the original on 2013-09-10. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "Government to mandate 'biodiversity net gain". Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain: Government delays introduction until 2024". Birketts. Retrieved 2023-11-06.
- ^ "Defra; Valuing the benefits of biodiversity" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-27.
- ^ "The Environment Bank". Archived from the original on 2013-11-05. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "The Environmental Markets Exchange". Archived from the original on 2013-08-07. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "Spash, C. L. 2011. Terrible economics, ecosystems and banking. Environmental Values, vol. 20, no. 2, 141–145" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-04.
- ^ "S. Sullivan & M. Hannis, "Nets and Frames, Losses and Gains: Value Struggles in Engagement with Biodiversity Offsetting Policy in England" (The Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2014)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-12-30. Retrieved 2016-04-17.
- .
- ^ "WWF Living Planet report – Health of our planet". Archived from the original on 2013-11-26. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "Causes and Consequences of Biodiversity Declines | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Archived from the original on 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-07.
Further reading
- "Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme"
- Conservation when nothing stands still: moving targets and biodiversity offsets; Joseph Bull, Kenwyn B Suttle, Navinder J Singh, EJ Milner-Gulland – Imperial College London, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Defra Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots: guidance for developers
- Exploring the potential demand for and supply of habitat banking in the EU and appropriate design elements for a habitat banking scheme
- Realising nature's value: the final report of the Ecosystem Markets Task Force (March 2013)
- Builders: The saviours of meadows? Sunday Telegraph, 25 Oct 2013