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

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

“…In relation to the situation of no suitable offset sites being available to protect, Blackmore ( 2020 ) makes the argument that sometimes a proposed development may be essential or at least clearly in the public good, in which case like for better offsets may be acceptable and appropriate. The public good is also invoked in the EU test of IROPI (Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest), which must be demonstrated in cases in which proposed developments represent a threat to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, designated under either the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive, in any state of the EU (Council of the European Communities 1992 ).…”

“…The public good is also invoked in the EU test of IROPI (Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest), which must be demonstrated in cases in which proposed developments represent a threat to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, designated under either the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive, in any state of the EU (Council of the European Communities 1992 ). Blackmore ( 2020 ) goes on to argue that the offset itself must be a public good, going beyond additional conservation outcomes (Principle 2) to be ‘overwhelmingly in the public’s best long-term biodiversity conservation interest’ (p 94).…”

“…In turn, this means that only Type 2 threats should be considered in the likely trajectory for the reference case, and that offsets resulting from Type 1 impacts can offset Type 2 threats, and potentially slow the rate of biodiversity losses from unregulated threats (Maron et al 2018 ). A corollary to this argument is offered by Blackmore ( 2020 ) who suggests that regulators would be required to refuse applications for development on previously established offset sites; in other words, regulators should ensure no future Type 1 threats apply to established offset sites (Principle 8).…”

“…Sonter et al ( 2017 ) point out how rarely the counterfactuals that underpin offset determinations are made transparent. There are many factors that may affect the trajectory of biodiversity value, including changes in regulation or in management practices, climate change and natural regrowth (Sonter et al 2017 ; Blackmore 2020 ). Sonter et al 2017 , p 318 conclude that, ‘Biodiversity offset policies must explicitly define plausible counterfactual scenarios… if they are to genuinely achieve their no net loss objectives’.…”

“…In any case, the question is raised as to who manages the offset sites over their required lifetime. While developers are considered responsible for offsets under the ‘Developer Pays Principle’ (analogous to the Polluter Pays Principle), it is also recognised that developers are unlikely to have expertise in conservation (Blackmore 2020 ). In practice, this often means that developers purchase land as an offset and contribute it to the conservation estate, which in turn requires that conservation agencies need to be resourced to manage it over long time periods (Guillet and Semal 2018 ).…”