Skip to main content

The hidden biodiversity risks of increasing flexibility in biodiversity offset trades

zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E., Maron, Martine, Corlet Walker, Christine M., Gordon, Ascelin, Simmonds, Jeremy S., Strange, Niels, Robertson, Morgan, Bull, Joseph W. (2020) The hidden biodiversity risks of increasing flexibility in biodiversity offset trades. Biological Conservation, 252 . Article Number 108861. ISSN 0006-3207. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108861) (KAR id:84127)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English

Download (2MB) Preview
[thumbnail of 1-s2.0-S0006320720309198-main.pdf]
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
XML Word Processing Document (DOCX) Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only

Contact us about this Publication
[thumbnail of offset_markets_kar.docx]
Official URL


Market-like mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting have emerged globally as supposedly cost-effective approaches for mitigating the impacts of development. In reality, offset buyers have commonly found that required credits are scarce and/or expensive. One response has been to seek improved market functionality, increasing eligible offset supply by allowing greater flexibility in the offset trading rules. These include increasing the size of geographical trading areas and expanding out-of-kind trades (‘geographical’ and ‘ecological’ flexibility). We summarise the arguments for and against flexibility, ultimately arguing that increasing flexibility undermines the achievement of No Net Loss (or Net Gain) of biodiversity where high-quality governance is lacking. We argue expanding out-of-kind trading often increases the pool of potentially eligible offsets with limited conservation justification. This interferes with vital information regarding the scarcity of the impacted biodiversity feature, thereby disincentivising impact avoidance. When a biodiversity feature under threat of development is scarce, expensive offsets are an essential feature of the economics of offsetting which communicate that scarcity, not a problem to be regulated away. We present examples where increasing ecological flexibility may be justifying the loss of conservation priorities. We also discuss how increasing geographical flexibility might compromise the additionality principle. We highlight alternative mechanisms for enhancing offset supply without the risks associated with increasing flexibility, including reducing policy uncertainty and improving engagement and awareness to increase landholder participation. Although there are legitimate reasons for increasing offsetting flexibility in some specific contexts, we argue that the biodiversity risks are considerable, and potentially undermine ‘no net loss’ outcomes.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108861
Uncontrolled keywords: Biodiversity offsets; No Net Loss; market-based instruments; conservation policy; Australian native vegetation; biodiversity trading
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Depositing User: Sophus Zu-ermgassen
Date Deposited: 16 Nov 2020 12:30 UTC
Last Modified: 05 Mar 2021 12:37 UTC
Resource URI: (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E.:
Bull, Joseph W.:
  • Depositors only (login required):


Downloads per month over past year