Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Unpacking the Theory Behind, and a Pragmatic Approach to Biodiversity Offsets

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of biodiversity offsets to compensate for residual impacts on biodiversity resulting from a development or land-use change, is becoming more prevalent. While much has been published on this topic, there has been little published on the theoretical foundation on which biodiversity offsets are based. This paper seeks to unpack the theoretical and practical tenets of biodiversity offsets in relation to the public trust doctrine, responsibilities of the developer and the State, and significant unmitigable impacts on biodiversity. It was reasoned that the responsibility of the developer and the life of a biodiversity offset are finite, and that the concept of ‘in perpetuity’ may not exist practically and in law. It was further discovered that a sound understanding of the public trust doctrine is critical for consistent offset-based decision-making, particularly in those circumstances where an impasse between the potential significant loss to biodiversity and an indispensable need for a development or land-use change arises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander J (2011) Saving the African heritage is a global priority: how can a new subdiscipline of rescue archaeology aid it?. Afr Archaeol Rev 28:93–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-011-9093-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBOP (2012) Biodiversity offsets: principles, criteria and indicators. BBOP, Washington, DC

  • BBOP (2009) Business and biodiversity offsets programme: biodiversity offset implementation handbook. BBOP, Washington, DC

  • Bekessy SA, Wintle BA, Lindenmayer DB, Mccarthy MA, Colyvan M, Burgman MA, Possingham HP (2010) The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conserv Lett 3:151–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Benabou S (2014) Making up for lost nature? A critical review of the international development of voluntary biodiversity offsets. Environ Soc Adv Res 5:103–123. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2014.050107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore A (2015) The relationship between the NEMA and the public trust doctrine: the importance of the NEMA principles in safeguarding South Africa’s biodiversity. S Afr J Environ Law Policy 20:89–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore A (2018) The application of and the prospects for the public trust doctrine in South Africa: a brief overview. S Afr Law J 18:631–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore AC (2014) The interplay between the public trust doctrine and biodiversity and cultural resource legislation in South Africa: the case of the Shembe Church Worship Site in Tembe Elephant Park in KwaZulu-Natal. Law Environ Dev J 10:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumm MC, Guthrie RD (2011) Internationalizing the public trust doctrine: Natural law and constitutional and statutory approaches to fulfilling the Saxion Vision. UCDL Rev 45:741

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumm MC, Wood MC (2013) The public trust doctrine in environmental and natural resources law. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown L (Ed.) (1993) The new shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie S, Botha M (2009) Biodiversity offsets: adding to the conservation estate, or ‘no net loss’?. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 27:227–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie S, King N, Treweek J (2013) Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss?. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 31:24–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie S, von Hase A, Botha M, Manuel J, Balmforth Z, Jenner N (2017) Biodiversity offsets in South Africa–challenges and potential solutions. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 35:248–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull J, Gordon A, Law E, Suttle K, Milner‐Gulland E (2014) Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Conserv Biol 28:799–809

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland E (2013a) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47:369–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Suttle KB, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland E (2013b) Conservation when nothing stands still: moving targets and biodiversity offsets. Front Ecol Environ 11:203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Clare S, Krogman N, Foote L, Lemphers N (2011) Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy? Wetl Ecol Manag 19:165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-011-9209-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coralie C, Guillaume O, Claude N (2015) Tracking the origins and development of biodiversity offsetting in academic research and its implications for conservation: a review. Biol Conserv 192:492–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson A, Lodge D, Alder J, Cumming GS, Keymer J, McGlade J, Mooney H, Rusak JA, Sala O, Wolters V (2006) Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87:1915–1924

    Google Scholar 

  • du Plessis A (2015) Climate change, public trusteeship and the tomorrows of the unborn. S Afr J Hum Rights 31:269–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira J, Aragão L, Barlow J, Barreto P, Berenguer E, Bustamante M, Gardner T, Lees A, Lima A, Louzada J (2014) Brazil’s environmental leadership at risk. Science 346:706–707

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flather CH, Bevers M (2002) Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. Am Nat 159:40–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RT, Treweek J, Ussher GT, Ward G (2013) Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv Biol 27:1254–1264

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecol Manag Restor 8:26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons P, Macintosh A, Constable AL, Hayashi K (2018) Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Glob Change Biol 24:e643–e654

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman KA (1993) Compensation for use of biological resources under the convention on biological diversity: compatibility of conservation measures and competitiveness of the biotechnology industry. Law Pol Int Bus 25:695

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves B, Marques A, Soares AMVDM, Pereira HM (2015) Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Goosen M, Blackmore A (2019) Hitchhikers’ guide to the legal context of protected area management plans in South Africa. Bothalia a2399 49:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v49i1.2399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon A, Langford WT, Todd JA, White MD, Mullerworth DW, Bekessy SA (2011) Assessing the impacts of biodiversity offset policies. Environ. Model Softw 26:1481–1488

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene DM (2004) Dynamic conservation easements: facing the problem of perpetuity in land conservation. Seatle Univ Law Rev 28:883

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare D, Blossey B (2014) Principles of public trust thinking. Hum Dimens Wildl 19:397–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth L (2013) A license to trash? Why biodiversity offsetting (BO) will be a disaster for the environment. Ecologist. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2048513/a_license_to_trash_why_biodiversity_off_setting_bo_will_be_a_disaster_for_the_environment. Accessed 1 Nov 2018

  • Kahn AE (1966) The tyranny of small decisions: market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. Kyklos 19:23–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh NS, Hahn T, Ituarte-Lima C (2017) Safeguards for enhancing ecological compensation in Sweden. Land Use Policy 64:186–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Kormos R, Kormos CF, Humle T, Lanjouw A, Rainer H, Victurine R, Mittermeier RA, Diallo MS, Rylands AB, Williamson EA (2014) Great apes and biodiversity offset projects in Africa: the case for national offset strategies. PLoS ONE 9:e111671

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitila J, Moilanen A, Pouzols FM (2014) A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1247–1254

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Coent P, Préget R, Thoyer S (2017) Compensating environmental losses versus creating environmental gains: implications for biodiversity offsets. Ecol Econ 142:120–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas M (2018) French case law on biodiversity offsets: 40 years of expectations and disappointments. Nat Sci Soc 26:193–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukey P, Cumming T, Paras S, Kubiszewski I, Lloyd S (2017) Making biodiversity offsets work in South Africa–a governance perspective. Ecosyst Serv 27:281–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Manus P (2000) To a candidate in search of an environmental theme: promote the public trust. Stanf Environ Law J 19:315

    Google Scholar 

  • Maron M (2015) Stop misuse of biodiversity offsets. Nature 523:401

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A, Matthews JW, Christie K, Gardner TA, Keith DA, Lindenmayer DB, McAlpine CA (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Conserv 155:141–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Maron M, Rhodes JR, Gibbons P (2013) Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conserv Lett 6:359–367

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manag 45:165–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller KL, Trezise JA, Kraus S, Dripps K, Evans MC, Gibbons P, Possingham HP, Maron M (2015) The development of the Australian environmental offsets policy: from theory to practice. Environ Conserv 42:306–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora C, Sale PF (2011) Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434:251–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Maris V, Béchet A, Curran M (2015) The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets. Biol Conserv 192:552–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Murcia C, Aronson J, Kattan GH, Moreno-Mateos D, Dixon K, Simberloff D (2014) A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’concept. Trends Ecol Evol 29:548–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz M (1996) Niaz Mohamed Jan Mohamed v Commissioner for Lands & 4 others. eKLR, Kenya

  • Noble B (2010) Cumulative environmental effects and the tyranny of small decisions: Towards meaningful cumulative effects assessment and management. Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George

  • Odum WE (1982) Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions. BioScience 32:728–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen D (2011) The mono lake case, the public trust doctrine, and the administrative state. UCDL Rev 45:1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett EJ, Stockwell MP, Bower DS, Garnham JI, Pollard CJ, Clulow J, Mahony MJ (2013) Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring. Biol Conserv 157:156–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilgrim JD, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JM, Gardner TA, von Hase A, Kate K, ten, Savy CE, Stephens RT, Temple HJ, Treweek J (2013) A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts. Conserv Lett 6:376–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton D (2015) Key issues in biodiversity offset law and policy: a comparison of six jurisdictions. Ont Nat Greenway Guide Ser 48:1–48

  • Quétier F, Lavorel S (2011) Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: key issues and solutions. Biol Conserv 144:2991–2999

    Google Scholar 

  • Quétier F, Regnery B, Levrel H (2014) No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environ Sci Policy 38:120–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayment M, Haines R, McNeil D, Conway M, Tucker G, Underwood E (2014) Study on specific design elements of biodiversity offsets: biodiversity metrics and mechanisms for securing long term conservation benefits. Rep Eur Comm DG Environ 169

  • Redpath SM, Gutierrez R, Wood KA, Sidaway R, Young JC (2015) An introduction to conservation conflicts. In: Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions, Cambridge University Press, pp 3–18

  • Republic of South Africa (1962) Income Tax Act 58 of 1962

  • Sax JL (1970) The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: effective judicial intervention. Mich Law Rev 68:471–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Schyff EVD (2011) South African natural resources, property rights, and public trusteeship–transformation in progress, In: Grinlinton D, Taylor P (eds), Property rights and sustainability: toward a new vision of property. Brill, Leiden, pp 323–340

  • Simes LM (1953) Is the rule against perpetuities doomed?: The “wait and see” doctrine. Mich Law Rev 52:179. https://doi.org/10.2307/1285047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME (1991) Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL (2015) Bulldozing biodiversity: the economics of offsets and trading-in Nature. Biol Conserv 192:541–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan S (2013) After the green rush? Biodiversity offsets, uranium power and the ‘calculus of casualties’ in greening growth. Hum Geogr 6:80–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan S, Hannis M (2015) Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England. Ecosyst Serv 15:162–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarlock A (1972) Defending the environment: a strategy for citizen action, by Joseph L. Sax. Indiana Law J 47:406–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DF (2010) Representing future generations: political presentism and democratic trusteeship. Crit Rev Int Soc Polit Philos 13:17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903326232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker S, Brower AL, Stephens RT, Lee WG (2009a) Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conserv Lett 2:149–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker S, Brower AL, Stephens RT, Lee WG (2009b) Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conserv Lett 2:149–157

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2016) Living planet: report 2016: risk and resilience in a new era. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Coral Birrs, Johan Kruger, Pamela Kershaw, Magda Goosen and Simon Bundy for their valuable insights and critical reviews of an earlier draft of this paper. The supportive environment of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the University of KwaZulu-Natal is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

    Andrew Blackmore

  2. School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

    Andrew Blackmore

Authors
  1. Andrew Blackmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Blackmore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The ideas, arguments and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife or the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blackmore, A. Towards Unpacking the Theory Behind, and a Pragmatic Approach to Biodiversity Offsets. Environmental Management 65, 88–97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01232-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01232-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation