‘Should’ and ‘can’ active restoration be used in biodiversity offsets? Stakeholder perspectives from New South Wales, Australia
- Publisher:
- WILEY
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- People and Nature, 2025
- Issue Date:
- 2025-01-01
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Despite their controversial nature, biodiversity offsets are often used as a regulatory tool to counterbalance the impacts of land clearing on biodiversity. Offsets usually aim to achieve no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity through protection and/or restoration of habitat. In the scientific literature, it is generally acknowledged that ecological restoration can improve biodiversity, subject to an understanding of how and under what circumstances it can be harnessed effectively. The perspectives of practitioners on the use of restoration, notably in the context of offsetting, remain understudied. We address this knowledge gap by providing insights into the views of stakeholders involved (directly or indirectly) in the New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme on the use of active restoration in the context of offsetting. Using a survey and semi-structured interviews, we developed a rich picture of stakeholder perspectives on whether active restoration ‘should’ and ‘can’ be used in this context. We found divergent perspectives on whether it ‘should’ be used, with some stakeholders arguing that protection of good-condition habitats has to be prioritised, while others argued that NNL can only be achieved through restoration on lower-condition sites. Regarding whether active restoration ‘can’ be used, stakeholders pointed out potential contradictions between active restoration and the functioning of offsetting. First, although the outcomes of active restoration are uncertain, offsetting requires accurate predictions of biodiversity improvements. Second, active restoration requires flexibility and creativity. This contrasts with the method used to calculate biodiversity gains in the NSW scheme, which was thought to be rigid and prescriptive. Within the context of offsets, our results suggest that active restoration is likely to be considered appropriate and feasible only if: (i) it is used on sites where less ‘intensive’ practices do not succeed, (ii) good-condition and irreplaceable habitats are adequately protected, and active restoration is not used to justify or enable the clearing of good-condition habitats; (iii) it is likely to succeed within reasonable margins of uncertainty and (iv) ample room is created for intelligent tinkering and experimentation (separately from generating gains) to help reduce scientific and operational uncertainties related to active restoration in the longer term. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: