Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future

Nature Reviews Biodiversity volume 1, pages 183–196 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism for addressing the impacts of development projects on biodiversity, but the practice remains controversial and its effectiveness generally poor. In the context of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the emergence of new approaches for mitigating damage, we need to learn from the past. In this Review, we explore biodiversity offsetting, its effectiveness and its future prospects, especially in relation to ‘nature positive’ goals. Offsets often fall short of their stated goal: to achieve at least no net loss of affected biodiversity. However, such failures are prominent because offsets have more explicit quantitative objectives than most other conservation approaches, whose effectiveness is also variable. These clear objectives provide the potential for the transparency that alternative approaches to addressing negative human impacts on biodiversity lack. Unfortunately, promising alternatives are scarce, so offsetting and offset-like mechanisms remain a necessary component of strategies to halt and reverse nature loss. However, improving their performance is essential. No quick and easy solution exists; instead, upholding best practice principles and rigorous implementation — including in the face of challenges from opposing narratives and interest groups — remains key.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Biodiversity offsets in the context of the mitigation hierarchy.
Fig. 2: Contrasting trajectories for biodiversity emerging from different frames of reference for no net loss and net gain.
Fig. 3: Actors and organizations involved in delivering biodiversity offsets through different delivery pathways.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Global Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (GIBOP) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) https://iucn.org/resources/related-website/global-inventory-biodiversity-offset-policies (2019).

  3. Maron, M. et al. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66, 489–498 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Utamiputri, P., Bennun, L., Edwards, S. & Bull, J. W. The role of “no net loss” policies in conserving biodiversity threatened by the global infrastructure boom. One Earth 1, 305–315 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Josefsson, J. et al. Compensating for lost nature values through biodiversity offsetting—where is the evidence? Biol. Conserv. 257, 109117 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clough, B. K. License to trash: can biodiversity offsetting adequately protect England’s natural habitats and facilitate development. Transnat. Law Contemp. Problems 24, 193 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pascoe, S., Cannard, T. & Steven, A. Offset payments can reduce environmental impacts of urban development. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 205–210 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Devenish, K., Desbureaux, S., Willcock, S. & Jones, J. P. G. On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine. Nat. Sustain. 5, 498–508 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pickett, E. J. et al. Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 157, 156–162 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Working for biodiversity net gain: an overview of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) 2004–2018. Forest Trends https://www.forest-trends.org/bbop_pubs/overview2018/ (2018).

  12. Moilanen, A. & Kotiaho, J. S. Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets. Conserv. Biol. 35, 197–205 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Locke, H. et al. A nature-positive world: the global goal for nature. The Nature Conservancy https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/NaturePositive_GlobalGoalCEO.pdf (2021).

  16. Narain, D. et al. A step change needed to secure a nature-positive future—is it in reach? One Earth 5, 589–592 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Obura, D. O. et al. Achieving a nature- and people-positive future. One Earth 6, 105–117 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor, I. et al. Nature-positive goals for an organization’s food consumption. Nat. Food 4, 96–108 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. White, T. B. et al. The nature-positive journey for business: a conceptual research agenda to guide contributions to societal biodiversity goals. One Earth 7, 1373–1386 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  20. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134798 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morrison-Saunders, A. & Sánchez, L. Conceptualising project environmental impact assessment for enhancement: no net loss, net gain, offsetting and nature positive. Aust. J. Environ. Manag. 31, 386–403 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bush, A., Simpson, K. H. & Hanley, N. Systematic nature positive markets. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14216 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  23. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early-adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12820 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Evans, M. C. Backloading to extinction: coping with values conflict in the administration of Australia’s federal biodiversity offset policy. Aust. J. Publ. Admin. 82, 228–247 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 4397–4411 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Apostolopoulou, E. Beyond post-politics: offsetting, depoliticisation, and contestation in a community struggle against executive housing. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 45, 345–361 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ruggiero, P. G. C., Metzger, J. P., Reverberi Tambosi, L. & Nichols, E. Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: effective but not enough. Land Use Policy 82, 283–291 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wunder, S., Börner, J., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Feder, S. & Pagiola, S. Payments for environmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12, 209–234 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Droste, N. et al. A global overview of biodiversity offsetting governance. J. Environ. Manag. 316, 115231 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ghosh, R. & Wolf, S. Evaluating offsetting as a component of biodiversity governance. Environ. Policy Gov. 34, 598–609 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Salès, K., Marty, P. & Frascaria-Lacoste, N. Tackling limitations in biodiversity offsetting? A comparison of the Peruvian and French approaches. Region. Environ. Change 23, 145 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jacob, C. et al. Marine biodiversity offsets: pragmatic approaches toward better conservation outcomes. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12711 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Maron, M. et al. ‘Nature positive’ must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 14–17 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Maron, M. et al. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 155, 141–148 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bidaud, C. et al. The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset. Conserv. Soc. 15, 1–13 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Griffiths, V. F., Bull, J. W., Baker, J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. No net loss for people and biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 33, 76–87 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Leseberg, N. P. et al. Establishing effective conservation management strategies for a poorly known endangered species: a case study using Australia’s night parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis). Biodivers. Conserv. 32, 2869–2891 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. IUCN policy on biodiversity offsets. International Union for Conservation of Nature https://iucn.org/resources/file/iucn-policy-biodiversity-offsets (2016).

  41. Damiens, F. L. P., Backstrom, A. & Gordon, A. Governing for “no net loss” of biodiversity over the long term: challenges and pathways forward. One Earth 4, 60–74 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., Bond, A. & Retief, F. When is an offset not an offset? A framework of necessary conditions for biodiversity offsets. Environ. Manag. 67, 424–435 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pilgrim, J. D. & Bennun, L. Will biodiversity offsets save or sink protected areas? Conserv. Lett. 7, 423–424 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Buschke, F. T., Brownlie, S. & Manuel, J. The conservation costs and economic benefits of using biodiversity offsets to meet international targets for protected area expansion. Oryx 53, 732–740 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maron, M., Gordon, A., Mackey, B. G., Possingham, H. P. & Watson, J. E. M. Interactions between biodiversity offsets and protected area commitments: avoiding perverse outcomes. Conserv. Lett. 9, 384–389 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Maron, M. et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 19–27 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gardner, T. A. et al. Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1254–1264 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bull, J. W. et al. Quantifying the “avoided” biodiversity impacts associated with economic development. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 370–378 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Maron, M., Rhodes, J. R. & Gibbons, P. Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conserv. Lett. 6, 359–367 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Virah-Sawmy, M., Ebeling, J. & Taplin, R. Mining and biodiversity offsets: a transparent and science-based approach to measure “no-net-loss”. J. Environ. Manag. 143, 61–70 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Maseyk, F. J. F., Maron, M., Gordon, A., Bull, J. W. & Evans, M. C. Improving averted loss estimates for better biodiversity outcomes from offset exchanges. Oryx 55, 393–403 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Maron, M., Bull, J. W., Evans, M. C. & Gordon, A. Locking in loss: baselines of decline in Australian biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 192, 504–512 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gordon, A., Bull, J. W., Wilcox, C. & Maron, M. FORUM: perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 532–537 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Simmonds, J. S. et al. Aligning ecological compensation policies with the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12634 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Northern Territory offsets framework. Department of Lands, Planning and Environment https://environment.nt.gov.au/environment/northern-territory-offsets-framework/northern-territory-offsets-framework (2022).

  57. Brownlie, S. et al. Biodiversity offsets in South Africa–challenges and potential solutions. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 35, 248–256 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  59. ten Kate, K., Bishop, J. & Bayon, R. Biodiversity offsets: views, experience and the business case. International Union for Conservation of Nature https://iucn.org/content/biodiversity-offsets-views-experience-and-business-case (2003).

  60. Pilgrim, J. D. et al. A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts. Conserv. Lett. 6, 376–384 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Biodiversity Offset Cost–Benefit Handbook. Forest Trends https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/bbop/biodiversity-offset-cost-benefit-handbook-pdf.pdf (2009).

  62. Sonter, L. J. et al. Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ambio 49, 892–902 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Koh, N. S., Hahn, T. & Boonstra, W. J. How much of a market is involved in a biodiversity offset? A typology of biodiversity offset policies. J. Environ. Manag. 232, 679–691 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. International Finance Corporation (IFC) https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standard-6 (2012).

  65. Boisvert, V. Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: an institutional analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 15, 134–142 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Karlsson, M. & Edvardsson Björnberg, K. Ethics and biodiversity offsetting. Conserv. Biol. 35, 578–586 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gao, S., Bull, J. W., Baker, J., zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Analyzing the outcomes of China’s ecological compensation scheme for development-related biodiversity loss. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e13010 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gelot, S. & Bigard, C. Challenges to developing mitigation hierarchy policy: findings from a nationwide database analysis in France. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109343 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Inkinen, V., Coria, J., Vaz, J. & Clough, Y. Using markets for environmental offsetting: evaluation of wetland area gains and losses under the US Clean Water Act. Univ. Gothenburg https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/2022-11/JMP_Ville_Inkinen.pdf (2022).

  70. Rampling, E. E., Zu Ermgassen, S. O., Hawkins, I. & Bull, J. W. Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps underpinning ecological compensation policies. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14198 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Theis, S. & Poesch, M. S. Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14, 6652 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Weissgerber, M., Roturier, S., Julliard, R. & Guillet, F. Biodiversity offsetting: certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain. Biol. Conserv. 237, 200–208 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kujala, H. et al. Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers to confirm no net loss. One Earth 5, 650–662 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Grimm, M. Conserving biodiversity through offsets? Findings from an empirical study on conservation banking. J. Nat. Conserv. 57, 125871 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sonter, L. J., Barnes, M., Matthews, J. W. & Maron, M. Quantifying habitat losses and gains made by U.S. Species Conservation Banks to improve compensation policies and avoid perverse outcomes. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12629 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Clare, S., Krogman, N., Foote, L. & Lemphers, N. Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy? Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 19, 165–182 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sinclair, S. The Role of Social Factors in Complex Decision-Making Processes. PhD thesis, Imperial College London (2018).

  78. Levrel, H., Scemama, P. & Vaissière, A.-C. Should we be wary of mitigation banking? Evidence regarding the risks associated with this wetland offset arrangement in Florida. Ecol. Econ. 135, 136–149 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Vaissière, A.-C., Quétier, F., Calvet, C., Levrel, H. & Wunder, S. Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: clarifying the family ties. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106428 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. & Pfaff, A. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12, 45–64 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Burivalova, Z. et al. What works in tropical forest conservation, and what does not: effectiveness of four strategies in terms of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e28 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Langhammer, P. F. et al. The positive impact of conservation action. Science 384, 453–458 (2024).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Rasolofoson, R. A., Ferraro, P. J., Jenkins, C. N. & Jones, J. P. G. Effectiveness of community forest management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biol. Conserv. 184, 271–277 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Snilsveit, B. et al. Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 15, e1045 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Alix-Garcia, J. M., Sims, K. R. E. & Yañez-Pagans, P. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7, 1–40 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Börner, J. et al. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 96, 359–374 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wiik, E. et al. Mechanisms and impacts of an incentive-based conservation program with evidence from a randomized control trial. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1076–1088 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. & Robalino, J. A. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16089–16094 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Hernandez, S., Barnes, M. D., Duce, S. & Adams, V. M. The impact of strictly protected areas in a deforestation hotspot. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e479 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Giakoumi, S. et al. Revisiting “success” and “failure” of marine protected areas: a conservation scientist perspective. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 223 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Desbureaux, S. et al. Collaborative management partnerships strongly decreased deforestation in the most at-risk protected areas in Africa since 2000. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2411348121 (2025).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24188–24194 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Wunder, S. et al. Modest forest and welfare impacts from initiatives for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 394 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Pacheco, A. & Meyer, C. Land tenure drives Brazil’s deforestation rates across socio-environmental contexts. Nat. Commun. 13, 5759 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Dawson, N. M. et al. The role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Swinfield, T., Shrikanth, S., Bull, J. W., Madhavapeddy, A. & zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. Nature-based credit markets at a crossroads. Nat. Sustain. 7, 1217–1220 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  99. BenDor, T. K. & Riggsbee, J. A. A survey of entrepreneurial risk in U.S. wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 301–314 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Campbell, K., Bennett, K., Adams, C., Collier, D. & Messerly, V. The state of compensatory mitigation. Biol. Conserv. 192, 492–503 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Keiser, D. A. et al. The evolution of the “waters of the United States” and the role of economics. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 16, 146–152 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Pidot, J. R. Compensatory mitigation and public lands. Boston College Law Rev. 16, 1046 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  104. Varumo, L., Kotilainen, J. M. & Primmer, E. Social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting: motivations and practices in the designing of an emerging mechanism. Environ. Policy Gov. 33, 301–312 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Miller, K. L. et al. The development of the Australian environmental offsets policy: from theory to practice. Environ. Conserv. 42, 306–314 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Damiens, F. L. P., Porter, L. & Gordon, A. The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nat. Sustain. 4, 170–179 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Sonter, L. J. et al. Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve no net loss goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 2072 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Phalan, B. et al. Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy. Oryx 52, 316–324 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  109. The definition of nature positive. Nature Positive Initiative https://www.naturepositive.org/app/uploads/2024/02/The-Definition-of-Nature-Positive.pdf (2023).

  110. Thomas, H. et al. Achieving “nature positive” requires net gain legislation. Science 386, 383–385 (2024).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Simmonds, J. S. et al. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12695 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its fifteenth meeting 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf (2022).

  113. Deutz, A. et al. Financing nature: closing the global biodiversity financing gap. Paulson Institute https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final-with-endorsements_101420.pdf (2020).

  114. Step 3: Measure, Set & Disclose: Land. Version 0.3 Science Based Targets Network https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Technical-Guidance-2023-Step3-Land-v0.3.pdf (2023).

  115. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) recommendations TNFD https://tnfd.global/publication/recommendations-of-the-taskforce-on-nature-related-financial-disclosures/ (2023).

  116. Topic standard for biodiversity. GRI https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/topic-standard-for-biodiversity/ (2024).

  117. Bromwich, T. et al. Navigating uncertainty in LCA-based approaches to biodiversity footprinting. Preprint at OSFPreprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/th8j6 (2024).

  118. Rossberg, A. G., O’Sullivan, J. D., Malysheva, S. & Shnerb, N. M. A metric for tradable biodiversity credits quantifying impacts on global extinction risk. J. Ind. Ecol. 28, 1009–1021 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Nature repair market. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental-markets/nature-repair-market (2024).

  120. Wunder, S. et al. Biodiversity credits: learning lessons from other approaches to incentivize conservation. Preprint at OSFPreprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/qgwfc_v1 (2024).

  121. TNFD. Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. TNFD https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations-of-the-Taskforce-on-Nature-related-Financial-Disclosures.pdf?v=1734112245 (2023).

  122. Ducros, A. & Steele, P. Biocredits to finance nature and people: emerging lessons. International Institute for Environment and Development https://www.iied.org/21216iied (2022).

  123. State of voluntary biodiversity credit markets. Pollination Foundation https://pollinationgroup.com/global-perspectives/state-of-voluntary-biodiversity-credit-markets/ (2023).

  124. Exploring Design Principles For High Integrity And Scalable Voluntary Biodiversity Credits. The Biodiversity Consultancy https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/fileadmin/uploads/tbc/Documents/Resources/Exploring_design_principles_for_high_integrity_and_scalable_voluntary_biodiversity_credits_The_Biodiversity_Consultancy__1_.pdf (2022).

  125. Biodiversity credits: unlocking financial markets for nature-positive outcomes. World Economic Forum https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credit_Market_2022.pdf (2022).

  126. Can ‘Biodiversity Credits’ boost conservation? World Resources Institute https://www.wri.org/insights/biodiversity-credits-explained (2024).

  127. Demand-side sources and motivation for biodiversity credits. Biodiversity Credit Alliance https://www.biodiversitycreditalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/BCAIssuePaper_DemandOverview06122023-final.pdf (2023).

  128. Biodiversity credits: a guide to support early use with high integrity. World Economic Forum https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credits_A_Guide_to_Support_Early_Use_with_High_Integrity_2023.pdf (2023).

  129. Building biodiversity: Australian nature credit markets beyond the TNFD. Clayton Utz https://www.claytonutz.com/insights/2023/september/building-biodiversity-australian-nature-credit-markets-beyond-the-tnfd (2023).

  130. Stark, A. & Head, B. Institutional amnesia and public policy. J. Eur. Publ. Policy 26, 1521–1539 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Framework for high integrity biodiversity credit markets. The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) https://www.iapbiocredits.org/framework (2024).

  132. Crenna, E., Marques, A., La Notte, A. & Sala, S. Biodiversity assessment of value chains: state of the art and emerging challenges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 9715–9728 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Lécuyer, L. et al. The importance of understanding the multiple dimensions of power in stakeholder participation for effective biodiversity conservation. People Nat. 6, 1407–1420 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  134. Hache, F. 50 Shades of Green. Part II: The Fallacy of Environmental Markets. Policy Report (Green Finance Observatory, 2019).

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

    Google Scholar 

  136. Cherry, T. L., Kallbekken, S. & Kroll, S. The acceptability of efficiency-enhancing environmental taxes, subsidies and regulation: an experimental investigation. Environ. Sci. Policy 16, 90–96 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  137. Carson, R. Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962).

  138. US National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, as amended. US Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf (1969).

  139. Summary of the Clean Water Act. US Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (1972).

  140. Endangered Species Act. US Fish and Wildlife Service https://www.fws.gov/law/endangered-species-act (1973).

  141. Loi n° 76-629 du 10 juillet 1976 relative à la protection de la nature. LegiFrance https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGITEXT000006068553 (1976).

  142. Environmental Impact Assessment: evaluating the effects of public and private projects on the environment. European Union https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-assessments/environmental-impact-assessment_en (1985).

  143. Wende, W., Tucker, G. M., Quétier, F., Rayment, M. & Darbi, M. (eds) Biodiversity Offsets—European Perspectives on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Springer, 2018).

  144. The Habitats Directive: EU measures to conserve Europe’s wild flora and fauna. European Union https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/habitats-directive_en (1992).

  145. The Forest (Conservation) Act. IndiaCode https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19381/1/the_forest_%28conservation%29_act%2C_1980.pdf (1980).

  146. Narain, D. & Maron, M. Cost shifting and other perverse incentives in biodiversity offsetting in India. Conserv. Biol. 32, 782–788 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  147. DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS EIGHTH MEETING VIII/17: Private-sector engagement. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-08/cop-08-dec-17-en.pdf (2006).

  148. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting IX/18. Protected areas. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-18-en.pdf (2008).

  149. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting IX/11. Review of implementation of Articles 20 and 21. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-11-en.pdf (2008).

  150. Narain, D. et al. Global assessment of the biodiversity safeguards of development banks that finance infrastructure. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14095 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  151. Bull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  152. de Silva, G. C., Regan, E. C., Pollard, E. H. B. & Addison, P. F. E., The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28, 1481–1495 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  153. Muradian, R. & Pascual, U. Ecological economics in the age of fear. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106498 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Starkey from The Biodiversity Consultancy for feedback on sections of this manuscript. S.O.S.E.z.E. is funded by Horizon 2020 project SUPERB (‘Systemic solutions for upscaling of urgent ecosystem restoration for forest-related biodiversity and ecosystem services’; GA-101036849).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Martine Maron & Laura J. Sonter

  2. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Martine Maron & Laura J. Sonter

  3. Wildlife Conservation Society, Cape Town, South Africa

    Amrei von Hase

  4. Rewilding Europe, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Fabien Quétier

  5. The Biodiversity Consultancy, Cambridge, UK

    Laura J. Sonter

  6. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Sebastian Theis

  7. Nature-positive hub, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen

  8. Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen

Authors
  1. Martine Maron
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amrei von Hase
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabien Quétier
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura J. Sonter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sebastian Theis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors researched data for the article, made a substantial contribution to discussion of content, wrote the article and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Maron.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M.M., F.Q., S.O.S.E.z.E., L.J.S. and A.v.H. have advised government, non-government organizations and industry bodies on nature positive and the mitigation hierarchy, and are members of the IUCN’s Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation Thematic Group, under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. Rewilding Europe (F.Q.) has a commercial arm that invests in ecosystem restoration projects in Europe.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Biodiversity thanks Richard Field, who co-reviewed with Susan de Witt; Heini Kujala; and Angus Morrison-Saunders for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Glossary

Absolute net outcome

As applied to biodiversity, an overall outcome in which the state of the targeted biodiversity is measured relative to a fixed point in the past, or a fixed former state.

Biodiversity credit

A measurable unit of biodiversity gain, sometimes distinguished explicitly from units of gain used as offsets, that can be exchanged between a seller and a buyer (including both public and private actors) in a biodiversity market.

Biodiversity offset

An action beneficial to biodiversity that is used to compensate for an ecologically equivalent negative impact on biodiversity in another location so that at least ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity occurs.

Mitigation hierarchy

The hierarchical sequence of actions applied to mitigate negative environmental impacts, usually rendered as: avoid, minimize, restore and offset.

Nature positive

According to the Nature Positive Initiative, nature positive refers to a global societal goal defined as “Halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 on a 2020 baseline, and achieve full recovery by 2050”, involving measurable absolute gains in biodiversity over time by improving the abundance, diversity, integrity and resilience of species, ecosystems and natural processes.

Relative net outcome

As applied to biodiversity, an overall outcome in which the state of the targeted biodiversity is measured relative to a counterfactual scenario — usually one in which neither the impact nor the offset occurred.

Value chain

The full range of activities conducted by a business in supplying and supporting a product or service, from procuring raw materials to waste management.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maron, M., von Hase, A., Quétier, F. et al. Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 183–196 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00023-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00023-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene