Global biodiversity offsetting doesn’t work – keep schemes local, say experts

Destruction of nature allowed in one place if compensated for elsewhere.

Biodiversity offsetting is a controversial tool that allows destruction of nature in one place if it is compensated for elsewhere. The theory is that this can achieve a net gain in biodiversity, but schemes have led to losses.

According to a group of experts, global mitigation policies fail to halt the loss of global biodiversity and can have negative transfrontier spillovers into other areas. The experts say that efforts to halt biodiversity loss should instead focus on local schemes.

Evidence of failure

Writing in Nature Ecology & Evolution, they cite evidence of offsetting failure in six case studies across five continents.

For example, offsetting was used to justify destruction of the Great Barrier Reef for a coal port expansion. But the offset site has since been severely degraded, leaving a net loss of biodiversity.

In the European Union, offsetting has allowed destruction of wetlands for development. But the offsets have failed to compensate for the loss of these vital habitats.

"Our research shows the urgent need to reform offsetting policies," said lead author Dr. Timon McPhearson of The New School in New York City.

"We must prioritize local schemes and ensure that biodiversity is not simply traded away for economic development. Losing local ecosystems diminishes the capacity for nature-based solutions to address climate change and other environmental challenges."

Offsetting reform

• Make offset ratios more ambitious, requiring mitigation to exceed the impact of development.
• Limit temporal loss of biodiversity and require no net loss of ecosystem condition.
• Create time limits for delivery of compensation, with penalties for non-compliance.
• Strengthen independent monitoring and evaluation, with clear performance indicators.
• Prohibit offsetting for development projects that would result in significant residual impacts.

The authors also call for a shift away from global schemes towards local mitigation policies.

"Local schemes are more likely to be effective because they are more closely tied to the specific impacts of development," said McPhearson.

"They are also more likely to engage local communities and ensure that biodiversity is not simply traded away for economic development."

The research is a timely reminder that biodiversity offsetting is a complex and controversial issue.

While the concept of offsetting may be appealing, the reality is that it has often failed to deliver on its promises.

If we are serious about halting the loss of global biodiversity, we need to focus on local schemes and ensure that biodiversity is not simply traded away for economic development.