A global analysis reveals a collective gap in the transparency of offset policies and how biodiversity is measured

• Published in: Conservation letters Vol. 17; no. 1
• Main Authors: Marshall, Erica, Southwell, Darren, Wintle, Brendan A., Kujala, Heini
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.01.2024; Wiley
• Subjects: Biodiversity; biodiversity metrics; biodiversity offsets; Currencies; Currency; global review; Guidelines; Jurisdiction; Legislation; Offsets; Policies; policy
• ISSN: 1755-263X; 1755-263X
• DOI: 10.1111/conl.12987

Offsetting policies have increased worldwide, utilizing a range of biodiversity metrics to compensate for development impacts. We conducted a global analysis of offset legislation by reviewing policies from 108 countries, which have voluntary offsets, or which require offsets by law. We sought to understand how well biodiversity metrics and offset currencies are documented in current policies. Where biodiversity metrics are documented we aimed to understand how metrics were scored, combined, and multiplied to create offset currencies. We found only 22 jurisdictions (from 14 countries) had guidelines documenting how biodiversity should be assessed during offsetting, representing a significant gap in the guidance available for offsets. Of the 22 guidelines, 14 (63%) documented use of aggregated currencies, eight (23%) did not aggregate biodiversity metrics into a single currency, and three (17%) did not specify either approach. Habitat type and condition, as well as area, were widely recommended across policies (>50%). Where species‐level metrics were considered, guidelines generally focused on habitat distributions rather than abundance or population metrics. The lack of consistent and clear guidance about how biodiversity should be measured in offsets reduces our ability to determine the effectiveness of offsets in compensating for development impacts long term.