Using Analytical Tools in Biodiversity Offsets

5/30/20232 min read

white long beak bird on water
white long beak bird on water

Biodiversity offsets seek to measure the impact of human development on biological diversity in order to compensate for those impacts elsewhere and presumably achieve ‘no net loss’ (of biodiversity).

To this end a number of analytical methods may be adopted, such as the surface area of lost habitat, the area of lost habitat multiplied by the quality of that habitat (‘habitat hectares’), the conservation significance of the habitat, and species-specific evaluation (World Bank 2016). The planning stages of biodiversity offset programs and policies commonly prioritise metrics of habitat and surface area, arriving at a habitat condition score to determine compensable lost area (Marshall et al 2020).

Some limitations are inherently involved in the use of such measurement tools for biodiversity offsets.

A pure surface-area assessment would probably not account for variations in habitat quality (World Bank 2016) and is likely the most simplistic offset measurement tool. Quality- or size-based evaluations may also unfairly prejudice smaller or atrophied habitats which may nonetheless be crucial for sustaining fragile or endangered species (Marshall et al 2020). Metrics which focus solely on population numbers and habitat areas may also fail to account for the ecological processes within affected habitats, such as the connectivity, diversity, and persistence of species and/or populations (Marshall et al 2020).

It is often challenging to establish equivalence between, on one hand, the biodiversity loss at the site of development and, on the other hand, the expected gain at the site of offset and conservation (OECD 2016). Indeed, some loss of biological diversity is inevitable given that no two habitat or populations are so similar as to be interchangeable (IUCN 2021). Compensation may not even be feasible if the affected biodiversity will be permanently lost, or if there are no possible offset sites or conservation methods (OECD 2016).

Given the present emphasis on habitat characteristics and categories of vegetation, the metrics presently employed in biodiversity offsets may not sufficiently reflect and address the ecological needs of species in terms of individual scales or the interplay of landscape-level impacts (Marshall et al 2020).

Apart from clear and consistent defined objectives from end to end, stringent monitoring and verification, and dynamic management, effective biodiversity offset policies should also be transparently tracked via digital databases (OECD 2016).

(373 words)

References: