A review of biodiversity offsets implemented in the Australian Capital Territory under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting is a widely adopted policy mechanism that attempts to balance the environmental impacts at one site, with promised gains at another. In theory, offsets are able to compensate for irreversible environmental impacts by protecting and/or enhancing biodiversity. However, studies indicate that there are several issues and risks associated with the application of offset policies. Since predicted future trends of population growth, urbanisation and agricultural production indicate that adverse environmental impacts are likely to intensify, we can expect that slowing biodiversity loss will remain a key global challenge. It is vital that the mechanisms intended to balance biodiversity impacts, such as biodiversity offsetting, are subject to robust evaluations. Otherwise, it is difficult to preform adequate policy learning and adaption. In this thesis, I provide the first review of offsets delivered under Australia’s federal biodiversity offset policy by exploring the extent to which three key offsetting principles are being achieved. To do this, I focus on offsets implemented in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and evaluate the extent to which these offsets are: (1) equivalent, or ‘like-for-like’, (2) have achieved ‘no net loss’, and (3) are additional. Using the limited data available, I demonstrate: 1. In attempt to make losses and gains equivalent, simplification and substitution may be occurring, in particular: a. I observed a greater amount of native grassland was lost at development sites than gained through offsetting, which could impact on grassland reliant fauna. b. At the landscape scale, my analysis suggests that development sites usually occur in more fragmented landscapes while offsets occur in more intact. Because of this difference, I predicted a greater impact per ha on species richness from development than gained through offsetting. 2. It is only possible to achieve no net loss within a suitable timeframe when offsets are largely based on restoration (rather than ‘averted losses’) and restoration success is infeasibly high. I also consider the implications of applying averted loss in the context of recent guidance. 3. There are two key issues hindering the successful implementation and evaluation of additionality: a. The EPBC offset policy frames additionality in a way that confuses the aim of this principle and incorrectly encourages the calculation of gains from averted loss. b. There is inadequate transparency regarding site counterfactual scenarios. Particularly, the existing financial and management commitments within various land-use zones and protected areas which offsets have been applied. In light of these findings, I propose key areas for future research and highlight recommendations based on empirical evaluations and literature to date.