Discussion of the Development of a Typology of Biodiversity Offsets

Abstract

The applied research methodology was fit for purpose under the given research premises, and it can provide a model for future research. Nevertheless, one major limitation of the typology is that in practice mostly a combination of influences and motivations occurs, i.e., the individual types are represented in their purest form only to a limited extent in reality. Thus, intersections of these types are commonly encountered, especially for large-scale projects. In fact, the different cases or approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, they can even be of enhancing and reinforcing nature. For example, an existing regulatory frame will not prevent, but most likely foster, additional engagement of developers in offsets.

Despite these observed overlaps, differences were identified between the types of biodiversity offsets in terms of magnitude, location, and particularities. For example, a general gap in offset implementation was observed for most Asian countries. In addition, offset cases can differ with regard to the scale of the development impacts, the sectors/types of developments addressed, and the governance of their implementation. Throughout the screening of biodiversity offset cases, mainly large-scale development projects have been identified. Furthermore, a clear dominance for certain sectors was observed, most notably mining. Differences between the types also occur with regard to top down vs. bottom up organized processes. Whereas regulatory, conditional, sectoral, and corporate biodiversity offsets are by definition top down, induced by regulators, lenders, (sectoral) business associations and corporations, local and altruistic biodiversity offsets build on a collaborative bottom up process with local stakeholders.