Biodiversity offsets are an important part of ecologically sustainable development, but biodiversity protection is the priority. Offsets are the last option after avoidance and mitigation.

Ecology Consulting assessors follow the professional guidance provided by the Environment Institute of Australian and New Zealand.

Biodiversity offsetting is a system used in environmental planning and regulatory systems to compensate for significant residual impacts to biodiversity (such as on native vegetation and species habitat) arising from development.

Offsetting is the final stage in the application of the mitigation hierarchy whereby biodiversity impacts must, in strict order, be avoided and then minimised and mitigated before any remaining impacts are offset.

The following, sometimes overlooked principles, are important components of biodiversity offset frameworks:

• Identification of significant biodiversity values using legislated or best practice methods to ensure that impacts to values are avoided.
• Offset identification and delivery timeframes and costs should be incorporated into the impact assessment processes to ensure that offsets can be used to deliver avoidance and minimization.
• True avoidance of biodiversity value impacts comes with fully considered land use planning at a regional scale. The plans need to demonstrate significant improvements in security, area, condition and functioning of the range of natural values, ecosystem services and biodiversity.
• Biodiversity protection is a priority. It isessential to ensure biodiversity offsets are not inappropriately emphasised or prioritised.
• The mitigation hierarchy adopted should clearly demonstrate and articulate how projects must fully exhaust avoidance and minimisation.
• Biodiversity offsets are to be agreed, secured (including all necessary funding), initiated and committed prior to the loss or an appropriate amount held in escrow to be forfeited if offsets cannot be secured following project construction.
• Offsetting should protect biodiversity values for the timeframe of the impact (usually in perpetuity). Use of alternative offset arrangements such as broad-scale predator control programs are limited to circumstances where such arrangements provide greater benefit to impacted biodiversity values.
• Delivery of ‘like for like’ biodiversity values and clear definition by regulators is encouraged, while noting that this should also be balanced with achieving a functional and practical scheme and biodiversity offset market.
• Traditional landholders’ knowledge, engagement and consent are essential components of offset design and implementation.
• The absence of suitable offsets with ‘like for like’ biodiversity values generally should mean the impact is not approved.
• Monitoring, data gathering, and transparent data sharing is necessary to ensure that the measures taken are achieving the outcomes sought.
• There needs to be transparency with regards to demand and supply in biodiversity markets and offset trades (or sites).
• Facilitation of ethical biodiversity market practices is required through regulation, policy, guidelines, accreditation and training.
• Adequate regulatory resourcing and fit for purpose systems need to be in place to allow biodiversity offsets to operate effectively and to achieve their intended goals.
• There must be the provision of simple, accessible, and transparent guidelines for the public, practitioners, and other decision makers.

You can view the complete EIANZ Position Statement on Biodiversity Offsets on the EIANZ website.