Among those that are being discussed, ‘biodiversity offsetting’ has been proposed as a cost-effective means for sharing this burden. Indeed, offsets also featured in the Conservative Party’s 2010 Election Manifesto. Proponents argue that measuring the impact of development on nature, and encouraging developers to take responsibility for their footprint, may be the only way to address biodiversity degradation.

Typically, the process involves buyers, sellers, and, in the case of habitat banking, third-party intermediaries. The buyers are developers requiring land for agriculture, industry, housing or other development projects, whereas the sellers are suppliers of the land to be used as an offset for the property to be developed.

A range of third-party organisations, including local government, NGOs, insurers, brokers, traders and technical experts, may facilitate interactions between these two parties.

Biodiversity offsetting can be executed in three principal ways:

• The developer or its partners (such as an NGO) implement the offset

• The developer pays the government the amount needed to implement the offset ‘in lieu’ of implementation itself

• The developer buys ‘credits’ from a landowner or conservation bank sufficient to offset its impacts.

England

A review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological networks entitled Making Space for Nature, was carried out for DEFRA by a panel chaired by Sir John Lawton. It notes that: "In England, mandatory offsetting is currently only required where development of overriding public interest has significant impacts on the Natura 2000 network or sites occupied by European protected species. Planning policy encourages, but does not absolutely require, local authorities to ensure compensation for development impacts on biodiversity (e.g. PPS9 through s106 agreements)."

It notes that "there are risks that biodiversity offsetting could undermine ecological networks if they lead to any reduction in the levels of protection afforded to wildlife sites and habitats. It may be possible to mitigate these risks by ensuring that a system of biodiversity offsets is underpinned by a clear set of principles, as proposed above.

"However, a well-managed scheme can bring benefits to the ecological network by effectively pooling a number of offsets required for separate small developments into a larger and more beneficial habitat block. This can be done without imposing additional burdens on developers."

It concludes that "the operation of a system of biodiversity offsets could deliver net gains for wildlife by providing an opportunity for developers (or other interested organisations) to buy additional conservation credits as part of their social responsibility commitments.

"The financial value of the credits could also reflect the value of other ecosystem services such as carbon storage."

Pilot studies

In the UK, offsetting schemes are currently only applied on a site-by-site basis, notes POST, including examples such as one element of a pilot study currently underway at the Thames headwaters.

Though details of loss/gain calculations and potential delivery mechanisms have yet to be decided, at least one habitat banking organisation is in place and possible strategies of offset quantification have been published.

This is in line with the Sir John Lawton’s review, which concluded that if a formal offsetting system is to be introduced in the UK, "pilot schemes should be first established to test and refine its operation, to ensure it meets the conditions set out for a safe and effective system."

www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_369-biodiversity-offsetting.pdf

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/offsets.php

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf

Principles of biodiversity offsetting The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) – a partnership between companies, governments, financial institutions and conservation experts – has set out a series of principles underpinning successful offsets. In their view, offsets should: • be designed and implemented to result in no net loss, and preferably gain, of biodiversity •achieve additional conservation outcomes above and beyond results that would have occurred anyway •be used only after impacts have been avoided, minimised and biodiversity restored on-site •recognise limits to what can be offset (highly irreplaceable or vulnerable biodiversity is hard or impossible to offset) •be implemented in a landscape context, taking into account biological, social, and cultural values •involve stakeholders effectively in design and implementation; •be designed and implemented in an equitable manner •planned to secure outcomes that last at least as long as the development project’s impacts, and preferably in perpetuity •be undertaken in a transparent and timely manner, with results communicated to the public •document the appropriate use of scientific methodology and traditional knowledge in offset design.