A Policy Analysis of Biodiversity Offsetting: Benchmarking Against International Best Practice Principles

A Policy Analysis of Biodiversity Offsetting: Benchmarking Against International Best Practice Principles | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A Policy Analysis of Biodiversity Offsetting: Benchmarking Against International Best Practice Principles Rocío A. Cares, Alan Bond, Aldina M. A. Franco This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Given global threats to biodiversity, implementing effective biodiversity offset policies is increasingly recognised as being essential for delivering sustainable development. As research and practice on offsets has developed, so have international expectations of best practice principles, which set the benchmark for national systems in their efforts to protect biodiversity. This research aims to synthesise best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, developing a benchmark to assess the extent to which national policies align with international standards. Chile is selected as a suitable case study due to its biodiversity richness and emerging biodiversity offsets policy, to test this analytical framework. The analysis indicates that the benchmark provides a useful basis for assessing national biodiversity offset policies and shows that Chilean policy demonstrates an initial alignment with international best practices, though several areas for improvement remain. Biodiversity offset compensation of biodiversity Chile best practice principles benchmark Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Biodiversity offsetting involves compensating for ecological losses by creating ecological gains through measures such as ecological restoration, the creation of new protected areas, or various forms of habitat management (zu Ermgassen et al. 2019). The overall concept is that development projects should lead to ‘no net loss’ and even achieve a ‘net gain’ or ‘net positive impact’ on biodiversity (Moilanen and Kotiaho 2021). Biodiversity offsetting has been a common practice since at least the 1970s in Europe (Damiens et al. 2021), with the practice spreading globally through the adoption of a diverse range of governance approaches to biodiversity offsetting (GIBOP 2019). This evolution has been driven by the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, businesses, and academia (Souza et al. 2023). Policy advocates such as the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) have established standards and biodiversity offset mechanisms for projects that draw on the terminology and experiences of members (Damiens et al. 2021). In recent decades, biodiversity considerations have become integral to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes worldwide. Recognising the critical importance of ecosystems and biodiversity for sustaining life and mitigating climate change, many countries have adapted their EIA frameworks to explicitly include biodiversity impact assessments, as well as mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting and no net loss goals (Kiesecker et al. 2010; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; de Witt et al. 2019). This growing emphasis reflects a collective response to unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss due to human activities, as highlighted by various international frameworks and standards, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), the International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6 (IFC 2019), and other key guidelines. These policies reflect an increasing trend to incorporate biodiversity offsets into regulatory frameworks, particularly for projects located in ecologically sensitive areas. This paper aims to understand how to evaluate biodiversity offset policies in the context of project development. To achieve this aim, two objectives are established: to undertake a comprehensive synthesis of international best practice principles on biodiversity offsetting for development projects, in order to establish a benchmark for policy assessment; to apply this benchmark to evaluate the extent to which a selected national policy aligns with these international standards. By outlining current international best practice expectations for biodiversity offsets, this paper offers a clear benchmark to assess and guide the development or evaluation of national biodiversity offset systems. Chile is selected as an appropriate national policy for managing the biodiversity implications of projects against which to test this benchmark, with the next section justifying this selection. Section 3 sets out the methods for developing and operationalise the benchmark for policy comparison. Section 4 tests Chilean biodiversity offsetting policy against the benchmark before section 5 discusses the results and concludes. 2. Biodiversity offset policy in Chile Chile is renowned for its high biodiversity and endemism, shaped by unique biogeographic conditions (MMA 2019). It hosts diverse ecosystems—terrestrial, marine, coastal, and oceanic islands—that are vital for economic development, social well-being, and ecosystem services (Lara et al. 2009 ). Chile is home to one of five global Mediterranean-climate regions (McNally 1990 ), the Chilean Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forest—a global biodiversity hotspot (Mittermeier et al. 2011 )—and 88 of the planet’s 110 ecosystems (Keith et al. 2022 ). These ecosystems are under significant threat from activities such as mining, agriculture, and urban expansion (Pauchard et al. 2006 ). As a result, efforts to integrate biodiversity considerations into the EIA process supporting project decision-making have been advancing over the past decade. In Chile, a regulatory framework for biodiversity offsets (known as ‘appropriate compensation of biodiversity’ in Chile (Cares et al. 2023 )) is embedded within the Environmental Impact Assessment System (EIAS) and is continually evolving. In 2014 the first Guía para la compensación de biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS] was published by the Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental [Environmental Assessment Service] (SEA 2014), which detailed the minimum essential elements required for appropriate compensation for biodiversity loss. The Guide specified that the negative impacts on biodiversity which are identified must be balanced by a positive effect, hence development projects or activities indicated in the Law N°19,300 on Bases Generales del Medio Ambiente [General Environmental Bases], have to promote at least a zero net loss of biodiversity, or even a net gain (SEA 2014). This national guide, which standardises criteria, requirements, conditions, and technical specifications for implementing appropriate biodiversity compensation, as well as ensuring adherence to the regulatory framework in Chile, was updated in 2022 to reduce the scope for discretionary decision-making (SEA 2022). This update is consistent with the guidelines set out in the National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) 2017–2030, which is the public policy instrument that establishes the main strategic guidelines and national targets for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity up to 2030 (MMA 2018). The NBS implements the commitments of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) based on Chile being a signatory country since 1994. Additionally, responding to the need to establish a single methodology for the design and implementation of biodiversity offsetting measures, the first edition of the Guía metodológica para la compensación de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acuáticos continentales [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems] was published in 2022, establishing a specific and comprehensive methodology for the design and implementation of biodiversity compensation measures in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems. This Guide was updated to a second edition in 2023, providing the developers with new technical specifications that facilitate the practical application of the methodology (SEA 2023a). These Guides are binding on the EIA process, and demand that the design and methodology of compensation measured should be in line with the requirements set out in these guidelines. 3. Methods A benchmark was developed based on internationally recognised best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. The process involved the following steps: 3.1 Literature selection A literature review was conducted to identify and synthesise international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets, since a thorough review consolidates prior research and supports theory development (Snyder 2019 ). The review focused on international guidance documents and published literature on best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. While integrating biodiversity offset strategies into the EIA process is increasingly common (de Witt et al. 2019 ; Pope et al. 2021 ), the review aimed to identify key principles for effective biodiversity offset planning, applicable to both conservation outcomes and impact assessments. While some researchers conceptualise practice elements as goals, emphasizing their aspirational nature in guiding conservation outcomes (Maron et al. 2016 ; Souza et al. 2023 ), others, however, argue that these elements function as principles, providing structured and normative guidance that informs the implementation of offsetting in a consistent and transparent manner (Bull and Brownlie, McKenney and Kiesecker 2010 ; Chee 2015 ; 2017; Brownlie and Treweek 2018 ; Maron et al. 2018 ). This paper adopts the term ‘principles’ to describe best practice elements, aligning with the approach taken by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP, 2012b; 2018), which defines principles as fundamental rules that underpin effective biodiversity offsetting and which build on their original ten principles published in 2009 (BBOP, 2009). The research relied on Scopus and Google Scholar, two of the largest literature databases. Scopus, known for its broad coverage (Burnham 2006 ; Waltman 2016 ), was complemented by Google Scholar, which provides diverse results compared to Scopus (Bar-Ilan 2008 ), ensuring a more comprehensive and varied literature review. Following the approach outlined by Aromataris and Riitano ( 2014 ), a search string was developed through an iterative process of refinement, focusing on the research question and its key terms, resulting in a logical concept map. To identify best practice principles for biodiversity offsets, the following search strings were applied to both databases: “Biodiversity Offset” AND (“best practice” OR principles OR policy) (“No net loss” OR “NNL” OR “zero net loss”) AND (“best practice” OR principles OR policy) (“Biodiversity net gain” OR “BNG”) AND (“best practice” OR principles OR policy) Best practices and principles were included to encompass all the values and fundamental guidelines discussed in the literature that influence how biodiversity offsetting should ideally be carried out. This broad inclusion ensures that all types of guiding concepts—whether theoretical principles or practical best practices—are captured. Additionally, policy was also included in the search to make sure that any literature discussing formal rules, procedures, and legal frameworks for biodiversity offsetting was also reviewed. This approach ensures that sources related to regulatory requirements and structured approaches to offset implementation are covered, distinguishing between high-level guiding principles and actionable policy measures that enforce biodiversity offsets in practice. After conducting database searches, the results were examined to determine inclusion or exclusion based on their relevance. The rationale for selecting papers was driven by the need to evaluate the alignment of national policies with international principles and practices. Therefore, the review included papers that: Address multiple offsetting principles, even if they concentrated on specific aspects, to guide policies or practice. Discuss practical or theoretical aspects of implementation (and policy-making) of the biodiversity offset. Contribute to understanding the broader landscape of offset policy and practice. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) materials published in English, (ii) peer-reviewed publications (such as articles and book chapters) as well as grey literature (such as studies and guidance documents from federal agencies or non-government entities such as BBOP), (iii) works published between 2012 and 2024 to capture recent developments in the field, starting with the release of the first Standard on Biodiversity Offsets by BBOP in 2012 (including their 2009 Principles, BBOP (2009)), and (iv) literature that emphasised principles, policy, or practice in biodiversity offsetting. Literature analysing biodiversity offsetting from a purely methodological or scientific perspective, without reference to principles, policy, or practice, was excluded to maintain relevance to the research scope. Additionally, works that referenced the BBOP principles (including those published in 2009) or similar sources without further development of their principles were also excluded to avoid duplication of information. The search process was initially filtered by titles and keywords, followed by a second filter based on reading abstracts, excluding articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Full texts of the selected articles were then reviewed, with a snowballing approach (Wohlin 2014) used to identify additional relevant references. This involved examining references within key articles and tracking citing articles through citation indices, ensuring comprehensive coverage of relevant literature. Grey literature was identified through targeted online searches and manual screening of publications from organisations actively involved in biodiversity offsetting policy and practice. Organisations were considered relevant based on their recognised role in developing, implementing, or advising on biodiversity offset frameworks. Search strategies involved using combinations of key terms (“biodiversity offset,” “no net loss,” “mitigation hierarchy”, “net gain”) with organisation names to identify relevant documents such as policy reports, guidelines, and technical papers. Relevance was assessed based on whether the publication explicitly addressed biodiversity offsetting principles, provided practical guidance on implementation, or informed policy and regulatory frameworks related to no net loss or mitigation measures. Six guidelines were included, selected for their direct relevance to biodiversity offsetting and their contribution to understanding practical applications and implementation challenges. The process resulted in a final selection of 26 articles. Figure 1 illustrates the methodology used to identify best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. 3.2 Extraction of the Principles Following the literature selection, a systematic process was undertaken to extract relevant biodiversity offsetting principles from each source. This involved a detailed reading of each document to identify passages where best practice standards or guiding principles were explicitly stated or implicitly discussed. The extraction process included both deductive and inductive approaches: (i) Deductive extraction focused on identifying principles that were explicitly labelled in the literature. These were often found in policy guidance documents or academic reviews that listed and defined best practice principles. (ii) Inductive extraction involved identifying principles that were not explicitly labelled but were clearly discussed in the context of good practice. For example, some sources elaborated on the importance of early offset planning, or on addressing cumulative impacts, without labelling these as formal "principles". These discussions were thematically coded and included in the list of extracted principles where they reflected consistent and significant themes across sources. During this process, a matrix was constructed in Excel™ in which each row represented a source (academic or grey literature), and each column corresponded to an identified principle. For each cell, the associated text or definition of the principle was entered, along with a citation to its source. This enabled cross-comparison across literature and supported the identification of overlapping or closely related principles. Through thematic analysis (Ward et al. 2009 ) principles with equivalent or closely aligned definitions were consolidated into 16 overarching principles, allowing conceptual clarity, avoiding redundancy, and maintaining consistency in terminology based on existing usage in the literature. These principles collectively formed the benchmark for what constitutes international best practice in biodiversity offsetting. 3.3 Translation into Guiding Questions To operationalise the benchmark for policy comparison, each of the 16 principles was translated into one or two guiding questions. These questions were designed to support systematic document analysis, ensuring that each principle could be consistently and transparently assessed against biodiversity offsetting national policies. The development of guiding questions followed a deductive logic, drawing from thematic coding techniques common in qualitative policy analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006 ; Bowen 2009 ). For each principle, its core conceptual components were identified and translated into specific, answerable questions (Babbie 2020 ). These questions were phrased to reflect both the intent and operational conditions of each principle, allowing them to function as analytical criteria during document analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 2002 ; Bowen 2009 ). 3.4 Application to Policy Review This benchmark served as the analytical foundation for evaluating the Chilean policy framework. The use of clearly defined guiding questions enabled a systematic and repeatable approach to identifying the extent to which each principle was reflected or absent in national policy documents. The current Chilean policy for biodiversity offsets comprises the following guide: Guía para la compensación de biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS] (SEA 2022). Additionally, this national guide was complemented with the Guía metodológica para la compensación de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acuáticos continentales [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems] (SEA 2023a) and the Guía para la Participación Ciudadana Temprana en proyectos que se presentan al Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental [Guide for Early Citizen Participation in projects submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System] (SEA 2023b). Reference to the National Guides in the following text includes the content of the two complementary guides on compensation methodology and citizen participation. The National Guides were developed based on the principles established by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme established in 2009 (BBOP, 2009), as outlined in those guides (SEA 2022), but adapted to the Chilean context. 4. Results 4.1 Overview of Benchmark Principles and Guiding Questions To develop the benchmark used for policy comparison, best practice principles were identified through a systematic review of international literature. These sources include standards, policy guidelines, and peer-reviewed studies that have been influential in shaping global approaches to biodiversity offsetting. Table 1 summarises the documents included in the review and the specific principles derived from each. This process ensured that the benchmark was grounded in authoritative and diverse sources, providing a robust reference for evaluating Chilean policy. The following section presents the benchmark rationale for each principle alongside the guiding question it informed. This format provides transparency regarding how international standards were interpreted and applied for evaluating the Chilean policy framework. Principle 1. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy Benchmark rationale The review of literature identified that adherence to the mitigation hierarchy is a fundamental principle in biodiversity offsetting aimed at minimising the negative effects of development on biodiversity (BBOP 2018). This sequential approach mandates that attempts should be made to first avoid impacts through preventive measures and alternative project designs, applied broadly in environmental impact assessment (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; de Witt et al. 2019; Bergès et al. 2020). When complete avoidance is not feasible, steps must be taken to minimise and reduce impacts as much as possible, followed by on-site rehabilitation or restoration efforts (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Brunetti et al. 2023). Only after these measures have been thoroughly pursued should biodiversity offsets be considered, as a last resort, to compensate for significant residual impacts (Niner et al. 2017). Guiding questions 1.a) Does the policy explicitly reference the full mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, restore, offset)? 1.b) Is there a requirement to demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation have been fully considered before offsetting? Principle 2. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Benchmark rationale BNG refers to an approach to biodiversity conservation where developments leave biodiversity in a measurably better state than before the project began (CIEEM 2016). It goes beyond the principle of no net loss (NNL), which aims to quantify and balance biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere (BBOP 2018; IFC 2019). BNG explicitly seeks to achieve a net positive outcome for biodiversity, ensuring that the total biodiversity is enhanced as a result of human activities (Moilanen and Kotiaho 2021). Even though NNL has been widely recognised as a guiding principle in biodiversity offsetting (and was the starting point for the aims of this research), emphasising NNL as a minimum requirement for responsible development while aspiring for BNG (Fallding 2014; Quétier et al. 2014; IUCN 2016; Brownlie and Treweek 2018; BBOP 2018; Salès et al. 2023), a growing body of evidence and global consensus suggests that NNL, while valuable, is insufficient to address the scale of biodiversity loss facing the planet (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007; Bull Joseph W. and Brownlie 2017; Maron et al. 2018; Moilanen and Kotiaho 2018; Maron et al. 2020). Therefore, a shift toward BNG is not only desirable but necessary. Guiding questions 2.a) Does the policy set a goal of achieving net gain of biodiversity? 2.b) Does it specify metrics or methods to demonstrate whether net gain is achieved? Principle 3. Limits to what can be offset Benchmark rationale Best practice biodiversity offsets should incorporate the principle of limits to what can be offset (Chee 2015; BBOP 2018; de Witt et al. 2019). Firstly, projects should identify biodiversity values that are irreplaceable or vulnerable and avoid impacts that cannot be offset (CIEEM 2016; Souza et al. 2023). For irreplaceable or vulnerable values of biodiversity, no loss instead of no net loss should be the requirement (Maron et al. 2021a). Secondly, limits also apply in situations where implementing offsets may not be feasible due to legal, financial, institutional, or sociocultural constraints (BBOP, 2012a). Guiding questions 3.a) Are there criteria or thresholds defined to determine when biodiversity loss is unacceptable and cannot be offset? 3.b) Does the policy provide criteria or guidance to assess when offsets are not feasible or appropriate, including in cases of major uncertainty or high risk? Principle 4. Additionality Benchmark rationale Biodiversity offsets must deliver conservation outcomes that are above and beyond what would have occurred without the offset (Souza et al. 2023). This requires delivering measurable net gains for biodiversity that exceed existing obligations, legal requirements, or ongoing conservation activities (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Quétier et al. 2014). Offsets must provide additional benefits, which means that the gains from the offsets should exceed the losses, and biodiversity offsets must generate conservation outcomes that go beyond the results expected without its implementation (Niner et al. 2017; de Witt et al. 2019; Jacob et al. 2020; Evans 2023). Guiding question 4.a) Does the policy require biodiversity offsets to deliver conservation outcomes beyond those already mandated? Principle 5. Equivalence/Like-for-like Benchmark rationale The review identified that one of the most important principles of biodiversity best practice is equivalence (Benabou 2014). Offsets should ensure ecological equivalence and to generate gains that are equivalent to, and thus compensatory for, the ecological losses incurred by development projects (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Maron et al. 2021a). Offsets must adhere to the like-for-like or better standard (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019; IFC 2019), and aim to conserve the same biodiversity values that are being affected (i.e., "in-kind" offsets) (Salès et al. 2023). However, in instances where the impacted areas are deemed to hold little conservation value, "out-of-kind" offsets may be considered (Benabou 2014). Guiding question 5.a) Does the policy require offsets to match the type, structure, and function of impacted biodiversity? Principle 6. Proportionate in size and scale Benchmark rationale Biodiversity offsets should be proportionate in size and scale to the residual impacts on the affected environmental values (Evans 2023). This proportionality ensures that the offset effectively addresses the extent and severity of ecological damage caused by development projects (Fitzsimons et al. 2014). Guiding question 6.a) Does the policy require that the size and scale of biodiversity offsets be proportionate to the residual impacts? 6.b) Does the policy provide guidance or criteria for determining that proportionality? Principle 7. Offsets from earliest stages Benchmark rationale Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into development planning and EIA should commence at the earliest stages of project development to guide sustainable decision-making (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Offsets must be established before any activities that could cause biodiversity loss begin (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019), ensuring that suitable, direct offsets, and potentially other compensatory measures, are in place (Fallding 2014; Evans 2023). Offset measures should be timely and structured to achieve biodiversity gains as promptly as possible, ideally before the associated losses occur (Maron et al. 2021a; Souza et al. 2023). This approach helps prevent irreversible damage and mitigates the potential time lag between the occurrence of impacts and the realisation of offset benefits (Quétier et al. 2014). Guiding question 7.a) Does the policy require that biodiversity offsets be considered and planned from the earliest stages of project design and decision-making? Principle 8. Long-term outcomes Benchmark rationale Best practice principles in biodiversity offsets should incorporate the principle of long-term outcomes (BBOP 2018; de Witt et al. 2019; Souza et al. 2023). Biodiversity offsets must be designed to endure for as long as the residual impacts of development occur (Fallding 2014), and the benefits of offsets must be delivered for the duration of these impacts, ideally in perpetuity (WBG 2016; Grimm and Köppel 2019), focusing on achieving long-term strategic outcomes (Fitzsimons et al. 2014). Additionally, the duration of offset measures must be proportional to the impacts they are addressing (Quétier et al. 2014). Guiding questions 8.a) Does the policy require monitoring of offset outcomes over the long term? 8.b) Are there requirements to ensure biodiversity gains are maintained beyond the project duration? Principle 9. Precautionary approach Benchmark rationale The precautionary approach should be used in situations where the effects of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services are uncertain, especially when there is insufficient information to rule out the possibility of unacceptable, irreversible, or non-offsetable impacts (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; de Witt et al. 2019). It is crucial to anticipate and address foreseeable uncertainties and risks that could affect the achievement of ‘no net loss’ in the planning of offsets (Chee 2015; Evans 2023). Applying established methods to include contingencies in calculations of biodiversity losses and gains should compensate for potential risks and account for the time lag between the occurrence of losses and the full realisation of gains (CIEEM 2016). It is essential to effectively manage and address the risks associated with the potential failure of the offset (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Simmonds et al. 2022). Guiding question 9.a) Does the policy require precautionary measures when there is uncertainty about potential biodiversity impacts or offset effectiveness? Principle 10. Ecosystem approach Benchmark rationale In the specific context of biodiversity offsetting, the literature suggests that best practice should incorporate the ecosystem approach (BBOP 2018). This approach emphasises that biodiversity offsets should align with landscape and ecosystem strategies, integrating the ecosystem perspective throughout all stages of the mitigation hierarchy (IUCN 2016; de Witt et al. 2019; IFC 2019), allowing ecological changes to be assessed at spatial and temporal scales (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Establishing distinct net outcome goals for ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity will ensure that all critical aspects of biodiversity are adequately addressed (Maron et al. 2021b). Guiding question 10.a) Does the policy promote an ecosystem approach by considering ecological processes, functions, and interconnections beyond individual species or habitats? Principle 11. Adaptive management and monitoring Benchmark rationale A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system should be developed, based on clear indicators to track progress and enable corrective actions as needed for achieving NNL (Chee 2015; Souza et al. 2023). Offset measures must have performance-based ecological goals, accompanied by defined protocols to assess both their effectiveness (i.e., whether actions were taken) and efficacy (i.e., whether those actions achieved the desired results) (Quétier et al. 2014). Clearly defining responsibilities and establishing mechanisms for monitoring implementation is essential (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Guiding questions 11.a) Does the policy require the use of adaptive management strategies based on monitoring results? Principle 12. Cumulative, direct and indirect impacts Benchmark rationale The literature indicates that cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts should be considered to effectively manage environmental impacts (de Witt et al. 2019). Comprehensive impact assessments should be conducted that evaluate not only the direct impacts of a project but also its indirect and cumulative effects. This involves analysing how a project may influence surrounding ecosystems, communities, and resources over time (IUCN 2016; de Witt et al. 2019). Guiding question 12.a) Does the policy require consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative biodiversity impacts in the design and implementation of offsets? Principle 13. Compliance with monitoring and enforcement Benchmark rationale Oversight and compliance are vital (de Witt et al. 2019). According to Niner et al. (2017), a third party or regulatory body should maintain oversight to ensure adherence to biodiversity offset requirements. Additionally, it is important to identify and implement the necessary legal, institutional, and financial frameworks to ensure the long-term governance of all mitigation actions and offsets (IUCN 2016). This includes ensuring that offsets are enforceable and auditable, documented in sufficient detail, and governed by transparent arrangements that allow for effective measurement, monitoring, and enforcement (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019). Finally, effective management and governance are imperative to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes (Evans 2023). Guiding questions 13.a) Does the policy include mechanisms to ensure compliance with offset requirements through monitoring, reporting, and enforcement actions? 13.b) Are there enforcement mechanisms or sanctions in place to address non-compliance with biodiversity offset obligations? Principle 14. Participatory and transparent approach Benchmark rationale Best practice biodiversity offsetting should incorporate stakeholder rights, values, and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems for meaningful and fair decision-making, including throughout the EIA process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Projects impacting biodiversity and ecosystems should facilitate effective participation of stakeholders in evaluating, selecting, designing, implementing, and monitoring biodiversity offsets (BBOP 2018). Early engagement is crucial to foster collaboration, build trust, and integrate diverse perspectives into offset strategies (CIEEM 2016; Souza et al. 2023). By involving stakeholders in these processes, benefits can be fairly shared, and project outcomes can align better with community values and needs (Fallding 2014). The literature also reveals that transparency in planning, implementing, and reporting on biodiversity offsets is key (de Witt et al. 2019; Evans 2023). Clear communication regarding the design, implementation, and outcomes of the offset fosters trust among stakeholders and helps to ensure that everyone understands their roles and contributions (Fallding 2014). Guiding question 14.a) Does the policy promote a participatory and transparent approach by ensuring public access to information? 14.b) Does the policy promote a meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the offset process? Principle 15. Support evidence-based approaches Benchmark rationale Offsets should rely on robust environmental information and knowledge to deliver conservation outcomes that are measurable and sustainable (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; BBOP 2018). Science-based approaches that consider both environmental and social impacts—including the effects of mitigation measures on local livelihoods—are essential to developing responsible and effective offset strategies (IUCN 2016). The process of designing and implementing biodiversity offsets should be well-documented, drawing from established ecological principles and scientific rigor (Fallding 2014). Integrating sound science with traditional knowledge ensures that offsets are contextually appropriate and ecologically effective (BBOP 2018). Guiding question 15.a) Does the policy require the use of scientific evidence, data, and best available knowledge to inform biodiversity offset design, implementation, and evaluation? Principle 16. Equity and rights-based approach Benchmark rationale A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in an equitable manner, ensuring that the rights and responsibilities, risks, and rewards associated with the project and its offset are shared fairly among all stakeholders (BBOP 2018). Thus offsets should respect legal and customary arrangements and prioritise the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities recognised at both international and national levels (IUCN 2016; BBOP 2018). There is a need to ensure that all community engagement follows a free and prior informed consent (FPIC) approach, referring to the right of indigenous peoples to give or withhold their consent for any action that would affect their lands, territories or rights (IFC 2012). Guiding question 16.a) Does the policy ensure that biodiversity offsets are designed and implemented in ways that respect the rights, interests, and well-being of affected communities and promote equitable outcomes? 4.2 Development of the Benchmark for Policy Comparison This section presents the benchmark developed to evaluate Chilean biodiversity offset policy against international best practices. The benchmark is composed of 16 principles, each reflecting a core aspect of effective biodiversity offsetting as identified through the literature review (Table 2). 5. Discussion Building the benchmarking presented several challenges, since there is no universal agreement on what constitutes best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. Defining universally accepted principles depends on diverse stakeholder priorities and perspectives, which include conservation goals, economic interests, and social equity considerations (Bull et al. 2013 ; Maron et al. 2016 ). Additionally, there is no consistency in the literature regarding the definition and application of key principles. For instance, the concept of NNL is interpreted differently across contexts, largely depending on the reference scenario against which NNL is measured (Maron et al. 2018 ; Grimm and Köppel 2019 ). Similarly, the principle of additionality is often ambiguously defined in the literature, leading to varied implementation practices. In some cases, additionality is interpreted narrowly, focusing on direct ecological gains, while in others, it includes broader socioeconomic or policy outcomes (Gardner et al. 2013 ; Weissgerber et al. 2019 ). This lack of consistency complicates the establishment of standardised principles, highlighting the need for greater clarity, consensus, and standardisation in the literature. However, effort has been made to address these issues, providing a comprehensive set of principles aimed at harmonising best practices in biodiversity offsetting within projects. The analytical framework developed for the international best practice principles is intended to be globally applicable, serving as a benchmark for evaluating and enhancing biodiversity offset practices across various jurisdictions. Assessing the Chilean biodiversity offset policy against internationally recognized best practice principles demonstrates that this benchmarking approach can effectively evaluate and compare national policies. In the case example evaluated, considerable alignment was identified suggesting that Chile benefits from a good offsets policy, despite some key gaps. While most best practice biodiversity principles are comprehensively addressed in the Chilean policy, certain principles such as BNG, offsets from earliest stages, feasibility of the measures, the precautionary approach principle, and equity and rights-based approach, remain insufficiently integrated. To fully align with global advances in biodiversity conservation (Bull Joseph W. and Brownlie 2017; Maron et al. 2020 ; Simmonds et al. 2022 ), Chile’s policy needs to transition towards BNG and fully incorporate these principles. Finally, one principle was completely absent from the national guides, involving the consideration of cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, which have not been included within the design of compensation of biodiversity. Although the assessment of cumulative impacts is in the environmental regulation (MMA, 2012), some further guidance in needed to improve conservation outcomes specifically in term of compensation of biodiversity, and additional research is needed to explore why these aspects are not being addressed and to identify the limitations preventing a more comprehensive approach. Thus, this benchmarking approach is capable of highlighting opportunities for policy improvement. The existence of a considerable gap between the worldwide implementation of biodiversity offsets and NNL and the supporting evidence for its ecological effectiveness has been described in the literature (zu Ermgassen et al. 2019 ; Marshall et al. 2024 ). While biodiversity offsetting has become a widely implemented strategy aimed at mitigating biodiversity loss, there remains a lack of robust, long-term studies demonstrating that these offsets consistently achieve their intended conservation outcomes (Brownlie et al. 2013 ; Bigard et al. 2017 ; Bull Joseph W et al. 2017). Addressing the gap between offsets policy thus requires reinforcing these principles with stronger evidence of more rigorous application. Declarations The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Acknowledgements The first author gratefully acknowledges ANID (Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Chile) - Scholarship ID 72200153 for the support to this research. Author contributions statement Rocío A. Cares : Conceptualisation, Literature review, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Alan Bond : Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project administration. Aldina M.A. Franco : Conceptualisation, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project administration. References Aromataris E, Riitano D. 2014. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. Am J Nurs. 114(5):49-56. Babbie ER. 2020. The practice of social research. Cengage. Australia. Bar-Ilan J. 2008. Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 74(2):257-271. Benabou S. 2014. Making up for lost nature?: a critical review of the international development of voluntary biodiversity offsets. Environment and Society. 5(1):103-123. Bergès L, Avon C, Bezombes L, Clauzel C, Duflot R, Foltête J-C, Gaucherand S, Girardet X, Spiegelberger T. 2020. Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. Journal of Environmental Management. 256:109950. Bigard C, Pioch S, Thompson JD. 2017. The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. Journal of Environmental Management. 200:35-45. Bowen GA. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal. 9(2):27-40. Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2):77-101. Brownlie S, King N, Treweek J. 2013. Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 31(1):24-33. Brownlie S, Treweek J. 2018. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series No 3 Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Brunetti I, Sabatier R, Mouysset L. 2023. A spatial model for biodiversity offsetting. Ecological Modelling. 481:110364. Bull JW, Brownlie S. 2017. The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx. 51(1):53-59. Bull JW, Lloyd SP, Strange N. 2017. Implementation gap between the theory and practice of biodiversity offset multipliers. Conservation Letters. 10(6):656-669. Bull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2013. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx. 47(3):369-380. Burnham JF. 2006. Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr. 3:1. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP). 2009. Principles on Biodiversity Offsets Supported by the BBOP Advisory Committee. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/overview-phase-1-pdf.pdf. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012a. Resource Paper: Limits to What Can Be Offset. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Washington DC. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/BBOP_Resource_Paper_Limits_20_Mar_2012_Final_Rev.pdf. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012b. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Washington, D.C. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/BBOP_Standard_on_Biodiversity_Offsets_1_Feb_2013.pdf. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. The BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, D.C. Cares RA, Franco AMA, Bond A. 2023. Investigating the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy approach in environmental impact assessment in relation to biodiversity impacts. Environ Impact Asses. 102. English. Chee YE. 2015. Principles Underpinning Biodiversity Offsets and Guidance on their Use. Handbook of Road Ecology. p. 51-59. CIEEM. 2016. Biodiversity Net Gain: Good practice principles for development. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. Damiens FLP, Porter L, Gordon A. 2021. The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nature Sustainability. 4(2):170-179. de Witt M, Pope J, Retief F, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Steenkamp C. 2019. Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right. Environ Impact Asses. 75:1-12. Evans MC. 2023. Backloading to extinction: Coping with values conflict in the administration of Australia's federal biodiversity offset policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 82(2):228-247. eng. Fallding M. 2014. Biodiversity offsets: practice and promise. Environmental and Planning Law Journal. 31(1):11-33. Fitzsimons J, Heiner M, McKenney B, Sochi K, Kiesecker J. 2014. Development by Design in Western Australia: Overcoming Offset Obstacles. Land. 3(1):167-187. Gardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JMM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RTT, Treweek J, Ussher GT, Ward G, Ten Kate K. 2013. Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss. Conservation Biology. 27(6):1254-1264. Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management & Restoration. 8(1):26-31. Global Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (GIBOP). 2019. International Union for Conservation of Nature. The Biodiversity Consultancy, Durell Institute of Conservation & Ecology. https://portals.iucn.org/offsetpolicy/. Grimm M, Köppel J. 2019. Biodiversity offset program design and implementation. Sustainability. 11(24):6903. International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2012. Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. International Finance Corporation: World Bank Group, Washington DC. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/2012-ifc-performance-standards-en.pdf. International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2019. International Finance Corporation’s guidance note 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/20190627-ifc-ps-guidance-note-6-en.pdf. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Policy on Biodiversity Offsets. https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/iucn_biodiversity_offsets_policy_jan_29_2016_0.pdf. Jacob C, van Bochove J-W, Livingstone S, White T, Pilgrim J, Bennun L. 2020. Marine biodiversity offsets: Pragmatic approaches toward better conservation outcomes. Conservation Letters. 13(3):e12711. Keith DA, Ferrer-Paris JR, Nicholson E, Bishop MJ, Polidoro BA, Ramirez-Llodra E, Tozer MG, Nel JL, Mac Nally R, Gregr EJ. 2022. A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems. Nature. 610(7932):513-518. Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, McKenney B. 2010. Development by design: blending landscape‐level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(5):261-266. Lara A, Little C, Urrutia R, McPhee J, Álvarez-Garretón C, Oyarzún C, Soto D, Donoso P, Nahuelhual L, Pino M, Arismendi I. 2009. Assessment of ecosystem services as an opportunity for the conservation and management of native forests in Chile. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(4):415-424. Maron M, Brownlie S, Bull JW, Evans MC, von Hase A, Quétier F, Watson JE, Gordon A. 2018. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nature Sustainability. 1(1):19-27. Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJ, Bekessy S, Gordon A, Watson JE, Lentini PE, Gibbons P. 2016. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience. 66(6):489-498. Maron M, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Krueger L, Kiesecker J, Kümpel NF, ten Kate K, Milner‐Gulland E, Arlidge WN, Booth H, Bull JW. 2021a. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conservation Letters. 14(5):e12816. Maron M, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Krueger L, Kiesecker J, Kümpel NF, Ten Kate K, Milner‐Gulland EJ, Arlidge WNS, Booth H, Bull JW et al. 2021b. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conservation Letters. 14(5). Maron M, Simmonds JS, Watson JE, Sonter LJ, Bennun L, Griffiths VF, Quétier F, von Hase A, Edwards S, Rainey H. 2020. Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 4(1):46-49. Marshall E, Southwell D, Wintle BA, Kujala H. 2024. A global analysis reveals a collective gap in the transparency of offset policies and how biodiversity is measured. Conservation Letters. 17(1). McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM. 2010. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environmental Management. 45(1):165-176. McNally R. 1990. The great geographical atlas. Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, lliinois. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2012. Decreto Supremo Nº40 Reglamento del Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental [Supreme Decree Nº40 Regulation of the Environmental Impact Assessment System]. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1053563. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2018. Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad 2017–2030 [National Biodiversity Strategy]. https://mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Estrategia_Nac_Biodiv_2017_30.pdf. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2019. Sexto Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad de Chile ante el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB) [Sixth National Biodiversity of Chile Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)]. Santiago, Chile, 220 pp. https://biodiversidadrm.mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8-sexto-informe-nacional-de-biodiversidad.pdf. Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. Biodiversity hotspots: distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer; p. 3-22. Moilanen A, Kotiaho JS. 2018. Fifteen operationally important decisions in the planning of biodiversity offsets. Biological Conservation. 227:112-120. Moilanen A, Kotiaho JS. 2021. Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets. Conservation Biology. 35(1):197-205. Niner HJ, Milligan B, Jones PJS, Styan CA. 2017. A global snapshot of marine biodiversity offsetting policy. Marine Policy. 81:368-374. Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Peña E, Urrutia R. 2006. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biological Conservation. 127(3):272-281. Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Retief F. 2021. When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets. Environmental Management. 67(2):424-435. 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. Environmental Science & Policy. 38:120-131. Ritchie J, Spencer L. 2002. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge; p. 173-194. Salès K, Marty P, Frascaria-Lacoste N. 2023. Tackling limitations in biodiversity offsetting? A comparison of the Peruvian and French approaches [Article]. Regional Environmental Change. 23(4). Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental (SEA). 2014. Guía para la compensación de la biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS]. Santiago, Chile. Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental (SEA). 2022. Guía para la compensación de la biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS]. Santiago, Chile. https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2022/08/29/guia_teorica_compensacion_biodiversidad.pdf. Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental (SEA). 2023a. Guía metodológica para la compensación de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acuáticos continentales [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems]. Segunda edición, Santiago, Chile. https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2023/06/01/Guia-Compensacion-biodiversidad_SEA-2023_.pdf. Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental (SEA). 2023b. Guía para la Participación Ciudadana Temprana en proyectos que se presentan al Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental [Guide for Early Citizen Participation in projects submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System]. Segunda Edición, Santiago, Chile. . https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2023/11/24/Resolucion_202399101925_Guia_PCT_VF.pdf. Simmonds JS, Von Hase A, Quétier F, Brownlie S, Maron M, Possingham HP, Souquet M, Zu Ermgassen SOSE, Ten Kate K, Costa HM, Sonter LJ. 2022. Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity. Conservation Science and Practice. 4(3). Snyder H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104:333-339. Souza BA, Rosa JCS, Campos PBR, Sánchez LE. 2023. Evaluating the potential of biodiversity offsets to achieve net gain. Conservation Biology. 37(4):e14094. Waltman L. 2016. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics. 10(2):365-391. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. 2009. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. Journal of health services research & policy. 14(3):156-164. Weissgerber M, Roturier S, Julliard R, Guillet F. 2019. Biodiversity offsetting: Certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain. Biological Conservation. 237:200-208. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. 2014 2014: ACM. World Bank Group (WBG). 2016. Biodiversity offsets: A user guide. World Bank. . https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a7f4932d-7370-5da3-9cb1-99a1ff921e3b/content. zu Ermgassen SOSE, Baker J, Griffiths RA, Strange N, Struebig MJ, Bull JW. 2019. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: A global review. Conservation Letters. 12(6). Tables Tables 1 to 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 22 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 07 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 20 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 20 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 20 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 13 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7114898","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":488845385,"identity":"5fc94d8a-d489-4f34-a501-03cbdd922161","order_by":0,"name":"Rocío A. Cares","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of East Anglia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rocío","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Cares","suffix":""},{"id":488845386,"identity":"932d31a5-4a47-4f92-955b-65038f3e7e95","order_by":1,"name":"Alan Bond","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of East Anglia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alan","middleName":"","lastName":"Bond","suffix":""},{"id":488845387,"identity":"17568d8a-724a-4075-85cf-cc880796476d","order_by":2,"name":"Aldina M. A. Franco","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of East Anglia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aldina","middleName":"M. A.","lastName":"Franco","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-13 18:08:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02350-8","type":"published","date":"2025-12-27T15:58:13+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87663372,"identity":"3f56f170-44bf-4b20-b9e4-fa911208e9fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-27 10:53:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":74242,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlowchart of the methodology for detecting the international best practice guidance from the literature review\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114898/v1/03f9705d8879a5d69e3e2ab0.png"},{"id":99172377,"identity":"d5898372-ae21-4f7e-a2f3-c59c83dba4cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-29 16:08:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1129841,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114898/v1/d1f3a011-25ff-4671-8f0c-c17a6491d51a.pdf"},{"id":87663373,"identity":"6ecf319c-8b32-47c0-a65c-2aa9e34d8db6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-27 10:53:37","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":60743,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7114898/v1/1e6d45edd6dc6b5066e7c738.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Policy Analysis of Biodiversity Offsetting: Benchmarking Against International Best Practice Principles","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity offsetting involves compensating for ecological losses by creating ecological gains through measures such as ecological restoration, the creation of new protected areas, or various forms of habitat management (zu Ermgassen et al. 2019). The overall concept is that development projects should lead to ‘no net loss’ and even achieve a ‘net gain’ or ‘net positive impact’ on biodiversity (Moilanen and Kotiaho 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity offsetting has been a common practice since at least the 1970s in Europe (Damiens et al. 2021), with the practice spreading globally through the adoption of a diverse range of governance approaches to biodiversity offsetting (GIBOP 2019). This evolution has been driven by the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, businesses, and academia (Souza et al. 2023). Policy advocates such as the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) have established standards and biodiversity offset mechanisms for projects that draw on the terminology and experiences of members (Damiens et al. 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent decades, biodiversity considerations have become integral to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes worldwide. Recognising the critical importance of ecosystems and biodiversity for sustaining life and mitigating climate change, many countries have adapted their EIA frameworks to explicitly include biodiversity impact assessments, as well as mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting and no net loss goals (Kiesecker et al. 2010; McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; de Witt et al. 2019). This growing emphasis reflects a collective response to unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss due to human activities, as highlighted by various international frameworks and standards, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), the International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6 (IFC 2019), and other key guidelines. These policies reflect an increasing trend to incorporate biodiversity offsets into regulatory frameworks, particularly for projects located in ecologically sensitive areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper aims to understand how to evaluate biodiversity offset policies in the context of project development.\u0026nbsp;To achieve this aim, two objectives are established:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eto undertake a comprehensive synthesis of international best practice principles on biodiversity offsetting for development projects, in order to establish a benchmark for policy assessment;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eto apply this benchmark to evaluate the extent to which a selected national policy aligns with these international standards.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy outlining current international best practice expectations for biodiversity offsets, this paper offers a clear benchmark to assess and guide the development or evaluation of national biodiversity offset systems. Chile is selected as an appropriate national policy for managing the biodiversity implications of projects against which to test this benchmark, with the next section justifying this selection. Section 3 sets out the methods for developing and operationalise the benchmark for policy comparison. Section 4 tests Chilean biodiversity offsetting policy against the benchmark before section 5 discusses the results and concludes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Biodiversity offset policy in Chile","content":"\u003cp\u003eChile is renowned for its high biodiversity and endemism, shaped by unique biogeographic conditions (MMA 2019). It hosts diverse ecosystems\u0026mdash;terrestrial, marine, coastal, and oceanic islands\u0026mdash;that are vital for economic development, social well-being, and ecosystem services (Lara et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Chile is home to one of five global Mediterranean-climate regions (McNally \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), the Chilean Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forest\u0026mdash;a global biodiversity hotspot (Mittermeier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;and 88 of the planet\u0026rsquo;s 110 ecosystems (Keith et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These ecosystems are under significant threat from activities such as mining, agriculture, and urban expansion (Pauchard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, efforts to integrate biodiversity considerations into the EIA process supporting project decision-making have been advancing over the past decade.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Chile, a regulatory framework for biodiversity offsets (known as \u0026lsquo;appropriate compensation of biodiversity\u0026rsquo; in Chile (Cares et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)) is embedded within the Environmental Impact Assessment System (EIAS) and is continually evolving. In 2014 the first \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de biodiversidad en el SEIA\u003c/em\u003e [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS] was published by the \u003cem\u003eServicio de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n Ambiental\u003c/em\u003e [Environmental Assessment Service] (SEA 2014), which detailed the minimum essential elements required for appropriate compensation for biodiversity loss. The Guide specified that the negative impacts on biodiversity which are identified must be balanced by a positive effect, hence development projects or activities indicated in the Law N\u0026deg;19,300 on \u003cem\u003eBases Generales del Medio Ambiente\u003c/em\u003e [General Environmental Bases], have to promote at least a zero net loss of biodiversity, or even a net gain (SEA 2014). This national guide, which standardises criteria, requirements, conditions, and technical specifications for implementing appropriate biodiversity compensation, as well as ensuring adherence to the regulatory framework in Chile, was updated in 2022 to reduce the scope for discretionary decision-making (SEA 2022). This update is consistent with the guidelines set out in the National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) 2017\u0026ndash;2030, which is the public policy instrument that establishes the main strategic guidelines and national targets for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity up to 2030 (MMA 2018). The NBS implements the commitments of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) based on Chile being a signatory country since 1994. Additionally, responding to the need to establish a single methodology for the design and implementation of biodiversity offsetting measures, the first edition of the \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a metodol\u0026oacute;gica para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acu\u0026aacute;ticos continentales\u003c/em\u003e [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems] was published in 2022, establishing a specific and comprehensive methodology for the design and implementation of biodiversity compensation measures in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems. This Guide was updated to a second edition in 2023, providing the developers with new technical specifications that facilitate the practical application of the methodology (SEA 2023a). These Guides are binding on the EIA process, and demand that the design and methodology of compensation measured should be in line with the requirements set out in these guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eA benchmark was developed based on internationally recognised best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. The process involved the following steps:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Literature selection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA literature review was conducted to identify and synthesise international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets, since a thorough review consolidates prior research and supports theory development (Snyder \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The review focused on international guidance documents and published literature on best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. While integrating biodiversity offset strategies into the EIA process is increasingly common (de Witt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Pope et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the review aimed to identify key principles for effective biodiversity offset planning, applicable to both conservation outcomes and impact assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile some researchers conceptualise practice elements as goals, emphasizing their aspirational nature in guiding conservation outcomes (Maron et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Souza et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), others, however, argue that these elements function as principles, providing structured and normative guidance that informs the implementation of offsetting in a consistent and transparent manner (Bull and Brownlie, McKenney and Kiesecker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Chee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; 2017; Brownlie and Treweek \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Maron et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This paper adopts the term \u0026lsquo;principles\u0026rsquo; to describe best practice elements, aligning with the approach taken by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP, 2012b; 2018), which defines principles as fundamental rules that underpin effective biodiversity offsetting and which build on their original ten principles published in 2009 (BBOP, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research relied on Scopus and Google Scholar, two of the largest literature databases. Scopus, known for its broad coverage (Burnham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Waltman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), was complemented by Google Scholar, which provides diverse results compared to Scopus (Bar-Ilan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), ensuring a more comprehensive and varied literature review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the approach outlined by Aromataris and Riitano (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), a search string was developed through an iterative process of refinement, focusing on the research question and its key terms, resulting in a logical concept map. To identify best practice principles for biodiversity offsets, the following search strings were applied to both databases:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Biodiversity Offset\u0026rdquo; AND (\u0026ldquo;best practice\u0026rdquo; OR principles OR policy)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(\u0026ldquo;No net loss\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;NNL\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;zero net loss\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;best practice\u0026rdquo; OR principles OR policy)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(\u0026ldquo;Biodiversity net gain\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;BNG\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;best practice\u0026rdquo; OR principles OR policy)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBest practices and principles were included to encompass all the values and fundamental guidelines discussed in the literature that influence how biodiversity offsetting should ideally be carried out. This broad inclusion ensures that all types of guiding concepts\u0026mdash;whether theoretical principles or practical best practices\u0026mdash;are captured. Additionally, policy was also included in the search to make sure that any literature discussing formal rules, procedures, and legal frameworks for biodiversity offsetting was also reviewed. This approach ensures that sources related to regulatory requirements and structured approaches to offset implementation are covered, distinguishing between high-level guiding principles and actionable policy measures that enforce biodiversity offsets in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter conducting database searches, the results were examined to determine inclusion or exclusion based on their relevance. The rationale for selecting papers was driven by the need to evaluate the alignment of national policies with international principles and practices. Therefore, the review included papers that:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAddress multiple offsetting principles, even if they concentrated on specific aspects, to guide policies or practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscuss practical or theoretical aspects of implementation (and policy-making) of the biodiversity offset.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eContribute to understanding the broader landscape of offset policy and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) materials published in English, (ii) peer-reviewed publications (such as articles and book chapters) as well as grey literature (such as studies and guidance documents from federal agencies or non-government entities such as BBOP), (iii) works published between 2012 and 2024 to capture recent developments in the field, starting with the release of the first Standard on Biodiversity Offsets by BBOP in 2012 (including their 2009 Principles, BBOP (2009)), and (iv) literature that emphasised principles, policy, or practice in biodiversity offsetting. Literature analysing biodiversity offsetting from a purely methodological or scientific perspective, without reference to principles, policy, or practice, was excluded to maintain relevance to the research scope. Additionally, works that referenced the BBOP principles (including those published in 2009) or similar sources without further development of their principles were also excluded to avoid duplication of information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search process was initially filtered by titles and keywords, followed by a second filter based on reading abstracts, excluding articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Full texts of the selected articles were then reviewed, with a snowballing approach (Wohlin 2014) used to identify additional relevant references. This involved examining references within key articles and tracking citing articles through citation indices, ensuring comprehensive coverage of relevant literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrey literature was identified through targeted online searches and manual screening of publications from organisations actively involved in biodiversity offsetting policy and practice. Organisations were considered relevant based on their recognised role in developing, implementing, or advising on biodiversity offset frameworks. Search strategies involved using combinations of key terms (\u0026ldquo;biodiversity offset,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;no net loss,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;mitigation hierarchy\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;net gain\u0026rdquo;) with organisation names to identify relevant documents such as policy reports, guidelines, and technical papers. Relevance was assessed based on whether the publication explicitly addressed biodiversity offsetting principles, provided practical guidance on implementation, or informed policy and regulatory frameworks related to no net loss or mitigation measures. Six guidelines were included, selected for their direct relevance to biodiversity offsetting and their contribution to understanding practical applications and implementation challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process resulted in a final selection of 26 articles. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the methodology used to identify best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Extraction of the Principles\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the literature selection, a systematic process was undertaken to extract relevant biodiversity offsetting principles from each source. This involved a detailed reading of each document to identify passages where best practice standards or guiding principles were explicitly stated or implicitly discussed. The extraction process included both deductive and inductive approaches: (i) Deductive extraction focused on identifying principles that were explicitly labelled in the literature. These were often found in policy guidance documents or academic reviews that listed and defined best practice principles. (ii) Inductive extraction involved identifying principles that were not explicitly labelled but were clearly discussed in the context of good practice. For example, some sources elaborated on the importance of early offset planning, or on addressing cumulative impacts, without labelling these as formal \"principles\". These discussions were thematically coded and included in the list of extracted principles where they reflected consistent and significant themes across sources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring this process, a matrix was constructed in Excel\u0026trade; in which each row represented a source (academic or grey literature), and each column corresponded to an identified principle. For each cell, the associated text or definition of the principle was entered, along with a citation to its source. This enabled cross-comparison across literature and supported the identification of overlapping or closely related principles. Through thematic analysis (Ward et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) principles with equivalent or closely aligned definitions were consolidated into 16 overarching principles, allowing conceptual clarity, avoiding redundancy, and maintaining consistency in terminology based on existing usage in the literature. These principles collectively formed the benchmark for what constitutes international best practice in biodiversity offsetting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Translation into Guiding Questions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo operationalise the benchmark for policy comparison, each of the 16 principles was translated into one or two guiding questions. These questions were designed to support systematic document analysis, ensuring that each principle could be consistently and transparently assessed against biodiversity offsetting national policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe development of guiding questions followed a deductive logic, drawing from thematic coding techniques common in qualitative policy analysis (Braun and Clarke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Bowen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). For each principle, its core conceptual components were identified and translated into specific, answerable questions (Babbie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These questions were phrased to reflect both the intent and operational conditions of each principle, allowing them to function as analytical criteria during document analysis (Ritchie and Spencer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Bowen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Application to Policy Review\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis benchmark served as the analytical foundation for evaluating the Chilean policy framework. The use of clearly defined guiding questions enabled a systematic and repeatable approach to identifying the extent to which each principle was reflected or absent in national policy documents. The current Chilean policy for biodiversity offsets comprises the following guide:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de biodiversidad en el SEIA\u003c/em\u003e [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS] (SEA 2022). Additionally, this national guide was complemented with the \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a metodol\u0026oacute;gica para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acu\u0026aacute;ticos continentales\u003c/em\u003e [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems] (SEA 2023a) and the \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a para la Participaci\u0026oacute;n Ciudadana Temprana en proyectos que se presentan al Sistema de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n de Impacto Ambiental\u003c/em\u003e [Guide for Early Citizen Participation in projects submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System] (SEA 2023b). Reference to the National Guides in the following text includes the content of the two complementary guides on compensation methodology and citizen participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe National Guides were developed based on the principles established by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme established in 2009 (BBOP, 2009), as outlined in those guides (SEA 2022), but adapted to the Chilean context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e4.1 Overview of Benchmark Principles and Guiding Questions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo develop the benchmark used for policy comparison, best practice principles were identified through a systematic review of international literature. These sources include standards, policy guidelines, and peer-reviewed studies that have been influential in shaping global approaches to biodiversity offsetting. Table 1 summarises the documents included in the review and the specific principles derived from each. This process ensured that the benchmark was grounded in authoritative and diverse sources, providing a robust reference for evaluating Chilean policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following section presents the benchmark rationale for each principle alongside the guiding question it informed. This format provides transparency regarding how international standards were interpreted and applied for evaluating the Chilean policy framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770312\"\u003ePrinciple 1. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe review of literature identified that adherence to the mitigation hierarchy is a fundamental principle in biodiversity offsetting aimed at minimising the negative effects of development on biodiversity (BBOP 2018). This sequential approach mandates that attempts should be made to first avoid impacts through preventive measures and alternative project designs, applied broadly in environmental impact assessment (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; de Witt et al. 2019; Berg\u0026egrave;s et al. 2020). When complete avoidance is not feasible, steps must be taken to minimise and reduce impacts as much as possible, followed by on-site rehabilitation or restoration efforts (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Brunetti et al. 2023). Only after these measures have been thoroughly pursued should biodiversity offsets be considered, as a last resort, to compensate for significant residual impacts (Niner et al. 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.a) Does the policy explicitly reference the full mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, restore, offset)?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.b) Is there a requirement to demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation have been fully considered before offsetting?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770313\"\u003ePrinciple 2. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBNG refers to an approach to biodiversity conservation where developments leave biodiversity in a measurably better state than before the project began (CIEEM 2016). It goes beyond the principle of no net loss (NNL), which aims to quantify and balance biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere (BBOP 2018; IFC 2019). BNG explicitly seeks to achieve a net positive outcome for biodiversity, ensuring that the total biodiversity is enhanced as a result of human activities (Moilanen and Kotiaho 2021). Even though NNL has been widely recognised as a guiding principle in biodiversity offsetting (and was the starting point for the aims of this research), emphasising NNL as a minimum requirement for responsible development while aspiring for BNG (Fallding 2014; Qu\u0026eacute;tier et al. 2014; IUCN 2016; Brownlie and Treweek 2018; BBOP 2018; Sal\u0026egrave;s et al. 2023), a growing body of evidence and global consensus suggests that NNL, while valuable, is insufficient to address the scale of biodiversity loss facing the planet (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007; Bull Joseph W. and Brownlie 2017; Maron et al. 2018; Moilanen and Kotiaho 2018; Maron et al. 2020). Therefore, a shift toward BNG is not only desirable but necessary.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.a) Does the policy set a goal of achieving net gain of biodiversity?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.b) Does it specify metrics or methods to demonstrate whether net gain is achieved?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770314\"\u003ePrinciple 3. Limits to what can be offset\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBest practice biodiversity offsets should incorporate the principle of limits to what can be offset (Chee 2015; BBOP 2018; de Witt et al. 2019). Firstly, projects should identify biodiversity values that are irreplaceable or vulnerable and avoid impacts that cannot be offset (CIEEM 2016; Souza et al. 2023). For irreplaceable or vulnerable values of biodiversity, no loss instead of no net loss should be the requirement (Maron et al. 2021a). Secondly, limits also apply in situations where implementing offsets may not be feasible due to legal, financial, institutional, or sociocultural constraints (BBOP, 2012a).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.a) Are there criteria or thresholds defined to determine when biodiversity loss is unacceptable and cannot be offset?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.b) Does the policy provide criteria or guidance to assess when offsets are not feasible or appropriate, including in cases of major uncertainty or high risk?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770315\"\u003ePrinciple 4. Additionality\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity offsets must deliver conservation outcomes that are above and beyond what would have occurred without the offset (Souza et al. 2023). This requires delivering measurable net gains for biodiversity that exceed existing obligations, legal requirements, or ongoing conservation activities (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Qu\u0026eacute;tier et al. 2014). Offsets must provide additional benefits, which means that the gains from the offsets should exceed the losses, and biodiversity offsets must generate conservation outcomes that go beyond the results expected without its implementation (Niner et al. 2017; de Witt et al. 2019; Jacob et al. 2020; Evans 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.a) Does the policy require biodiversity offsets to deliver conservation outcomes beyond those already mandated?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770316\"\u003ePrinciple 5. Equivalence/Like-for-like\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe review identified that one of the most important principles of biodiversity best practice is equivalence (Benabou 2014). Offsets should ensure ecological equivalence and to generate gains that are equivalent to, and thus compensatory for, the ecological losses incurred by development projects (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Maron et al. 2021a). Offsets must adhere to the like-for-like or better standard (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019; IFC 2019), and aim to conserve the same biodiversity values that are being affected (i.e., \u0026quot;in-kind\u0026quot; offsets) (Sal\u0026egrave;s et al. 2023). However, in instances where the impacted areas are deemed to hold little conservation value, \u0026quot;out-of-kind\u0026quot; offsets may be considered (Benabou 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.a) Does the policy require offsets to match the type, structure, and function of impacted biodiversity?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770317\"\u003ePrinciple 6. Proportionate in size and scale\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity offsets should be proportionate in size and scale to the residual impacts on the affected environmental values (Evans 2023). This proportionality ensures that the offset effectively addresses the extent and severity of ecological damage caused by development projects (Fitzsimons et al. 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.a) Does the policy require that the size and scale of biodiversity offsets be proportionate to the residual impacts?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.b) Does the policy provide guidance or criteria for determining that proportionality?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770319\"\u003ePrinciple 7. Offsets from earliest stages\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into development planning and EIA should commence at the earliest stages of project development to guide sustainable decision-making (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Offsets must be established before any activities that could cause biodiversity loss begin (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019), ensuring that suitable, direct offsets, and potentially other compensatory measures, are in place (Fallding 2014; Evans 2023). Offset measures should be timely and structured to achieve biodiversity gains as promptly as possible, ideally before the associated losses occur (Maron et al. 2021a; Souza et al. 2023). This approach helps prevent irreversible damage and mitigates the potential time lag between the occurrence of impacts and the realisation of offset benefits (Qu\u0026eacute;tier et al. 2014).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.a) Does the policy require that biodiversity offsets be considered and planned from the earliest stages of project design and decision-making?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770321\"\u003ePrinciple 8. Long-term outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBest practice principles in biodiversity offsets should incorporate the principle of long-term outcomes (BBOP 2018; de Witt et al. 2019; Souza et al. 2023). Biodiversity offsets must be designed to endure for as long as the residual impacts of development occur (Fallding 2014), and the benefits of offsets must be delivered for the duration of these impacts, ideally in perpetuity (WBG 2016; Grimm and K\u0026ouml;ppel 2019), focusing on achieving long-term strategic outcomes (Fitzsimons et al. 2014). Additionally, the duration of offset measures must be proportional to the impacts they are addressing (Qu\u0026eacute;tier et al. 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.a) Does the policy require monitoring of offset outcomes over the long term?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.b) Are there requirements to ensure biodiversity gains are maintained beyond the project duration?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770322\"\u003ePrinciple 9. Precautionary approach\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe precautionary approach should be used in situations where the effects of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services are uncertain, especially when there is insufficient information to rule out the possibility of unacceptable, irreversible, or non-offsetable impacts (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; de Witt et al. 2019). It is crucial to anticipate and address foreseeable uncertainties and risks that could affect the achievement of \u0026lsquo;no net loss\u0026rsquo; in the planning of offsets (Chee 2015; Evans 2023). Applying established methods to include contingencies in calculations of biodiversity losses and gains should compensate for potential risks and account for the time lag between the occurrence of losses and the full realisation of gains (CIEEM 2016). It is essential to effectively manage and address the risks associated with the potential failure of the offset (Fitzsimons et al. 2014; Simmonds et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9.a) Does the policy require precautionary measures when there is uncertainty about potential biodiversity impacts or offset effectiveness?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770323\"\u003ePrinciple 10. Ecosystem approach\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the specific context of biodiversity offsetting, the literature suggests that best practice should incorporate the ecosystem approach (BBOP 2018). This approach emphasises that biodiversity offsets should align with landscape and ecosystem strategies, integrating the ecosystem perspective throughout all stages of the mitigation hierarchy (IUCN 2016; de Witt et al. 2019; IFC 2019), allowing ecological changes to be assessed at spatial and temporal scales (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Establishing distinct net outcome goals for ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity will ensure that all critical aspects of biodiversity are adequately addressed (Maron et al. 2021b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.a) Does the policy promote an ecosystem approach by considering ecological processes, functions, and interconnections beyond individual species or habitats?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770324\"\u003ePrinciple 11. Adaptive management and monitoring\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system should be developed, based on clear indicators to track progress and enable corrective actions as needed for achieving NNL (Chee 2015; Souza et al. 2023). Offset measures must have performance-based ecological goals, accompanied by defined protocols to assess both their effectiveness (i.e., whether actions were taken) and efficacy (i.e., whether those actions achieved the desired results) (Qu\u0026eacute;tier et al. 2014). Clearly defining responsibilities and establishing mechanisms for monitoring implementation is essential (Brownlie and Treweek 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.a) Does the policy require the use of adaptive management strategies based on monitoring results?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770325\"\u003ePrinciple 12. Cumulative, direct and indirect impacts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe literature indicates that cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts should be considered to effectively manage environmental impacts (de Witt et al. 2019). Comprehensive impact assessments should be conducted that evaluate not only the direct impacts of a project but also its indirect and cumulative effects. This involves analysing how a project may influence surrounding ecosystems, communities, and resources over time (IUCN 2016; de Witt et al. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.a) Does the policy require consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative biodiversity impacts in the design and implementation of offsets?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770326\"\u003ePrinciple 13. Compliance with monitoring and enforcement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOversight and compliance are vital \u0026nbsp;(de Witt et al. 2019). According to Niner et al. (2017), a third party or regulatory body should maintain oversight to ensure adherence to biodiversity offset requirements. Additionally, it is important to identify and implement the necessary legal, institutional, and financial frameworks to ensure the long-term governance of all mitigation actions and offsets (IUCN 2016). This includes ensuring that offsets are enforceable and auditable, documented in sufficient detail, and governed by transparent arrangements that allow for effective measurement, monitoring, and enforcement (Fallding 2014; de Witt et al. 2019). Finally, effective management and governance are imperative to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes (Evans 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13.a) Does the policy include mechanisms to ensure compliance with offset requirements through monitoring, reporting, and enforcement actions?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13.b) Are there enforcement mechanisms or sanctions in place to address non-compliance with biodiversity offset obligations?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770327\"\u003ePrinciple 14. Participatory and transparent approach\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBest practice biodiversity offsetting should incorporate stakeholder rights, values, and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems for meaningful and fair decision-making, including throughout the EIA process, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered (Brownlie and Treweek 2018). Projects impacting biodiversity and ecosystems should facilitate effective participation of stakeholders in evaluating, selecting, designing, implementing, and monitoring biodiversity offsets (BBOP 2018). Early engagement is crucial to foster collaboration, build trust, and integrate diverse perspectives into offset strategies (CIEEM 2016; Souza et al. 2023). By involving stakeholders in these processes, benefits can be fairly shared, and project outcomes can align better with community values and needs (Fallding 2014). The literature also reveals that transparency in planning, implementing, and reporting on biodiversity offsets is key (de Witt et al. 2019; Evans 2023). Clear communication regarding the design, implementation, and outcomes of the offset fosters trust among stakeholders and helps to ensure that everyone understands their roles and contributions (Fallding 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14.a) Does the policy promote a participatory and transparent approach by ensuring public access to information?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14.b) Does the policy promote a meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the offset process?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770328\"\u003ePrinciple 15. Support evidence-based approaches\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOffsets should rely on robust environmental information and knowledge to deliver conservation outcomes that are measurable and sustainable (Brownlie and Treweek 2018; BBOP 2018). Science-based approaches that consider both environmental and social impacts\u0026mdash;including the effects of mitigation measures on local livelihoods\u0026mdash;are essential to developing responsible and effective offset strategies (IUCN 2016). The process of designing and implementing biodiversity offsets should be well-documented, drawing from established ecological principles and scientific rigor (Fallding 2014). Integrating sound science with traditional knowledge ensures that offsets are contextually appropriate and ecologically effective (BBOP 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15.a) Does the policy require the use of scientific evidence, data, and best available knowledge to inform biodiversity offset design, implementation, and evaluation?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc183770329\"\u003ePrinciple 16. Equity and rights-based approach\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmark rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in an equitable manner, ensuring that the rights and responsibilities, risks, and rewards associated with the project and its offset are shared fairly among all stakeholders (BBOP 2018). Thus offsets should respect legal and customary arrangements and prioritise the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities recognised at both international and national levels (IUCN 2016; BBOP 2018). There is a need to ensure that all community engagement follows a free and prior informed consent (FPIC) approach, referring to the right of indigenous peoples to give or withhold their consent for any action that would affect their lands, territories or rights (IFC 2012).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuiding question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16.a) Does the policy ensure that biodiversity offsets are designed and implemented in ways that respect the rights, interests, and well-being of affected communities and promote equitable outcomes?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Development of the Benchmark for Policy Comparison\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the benchmark developed to evaluate Chilean biodiversity offset policy against international best practices. The benchmark is composed of 16 principles, each reflecting a core aspect of effective biodiversity offsetting as identified through the literature review (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBuilding the benchmarking presented several challenges, since there is no universal agreement on what constitutes best practice principles for biodiversity offsetting. Defining universally accepted principles depends on diverse stakeholder priorities and perspectives, which include conservation goals, economic interests, and social equity considerations (Bull et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Maron et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, there is no consistency in the literature regarding the definition and application of key principles. For instance, the concept of NNL is interpreted differently across contexts, largely depending on the reference scenario against which NNL is measured (Maron et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Grimm and K\u0026ouml;ppel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the principle of additionality is often ambiguously defined in the literature, leading to varied implementation practices. In some cases, additionality is interpreted narrowly, focusing on direct ecological gains, while in others, it includes broader socioeconomic or policy outcomes (Gardner et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Weissgerber et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This lack of consistency complicates the establishment of standardised principles, highlighting the need for greater clarity, consensus, and standardisation in the literature. However, effort has been made to address these issues, providing a comprehensive set of principles aimed at harmonising best practices in biodiversity offsetting within projects. The analytical framework developed for the international best practice principles is intended to be globally applicable, serving as a benchmark for evaluating and enhancing biodiversity offset practices across various jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessing the Chilean biodiversity offset policy against internationally recognized best practice principles demonstrates that this benchmarking approach can effectively evaluate and compare national policies. In the case example evaluated, considerable alignment was identified suggesting that Chile benefits from a good offsets policy, despite some key gaps. While most best practice biodiversity principles are comprehensively addressed in the Chilean policy, certain principles such as BNG, offsets from earliest stages, feasibility of the measures, the precautionary approach principle, and equity and rights-based approach, remain insufficiently integrated. To fully align with global advances in biodiversity conservation (Bull Joseph W. and Brownlie 2017; Maron et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Simmonds et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Chile\u0026rsquo;s policy needs to transition towards BNG and fully incorporate these principles. Finally, one principle was completely absent from the national guides, involving the consideration of cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, which have not been included within the design of compensation of biodiversity. Although the assessment of cumulative impacts is in the environmental regulation (MMA, 2012), some further guidance in needed to improve conservation outcomes specifically in term of compensation of biodiversity, and additional research is needed to explore why these aspects are not being addressed and to identify the limitations preventing a more comprehensive approach. Thus, this benchmarking approach is capable of highlighting opportunities for policy improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe existence of a considerable gap between the worldwide implementation of biodiversity offsets and NNL and the supporting evidence for its ecological effectiveness has been described in the literature (zu Ermgassen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Marshall et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While biodiversity offsetting has become a widely implemented strategy aimed at mitigating biodiversity loss, there remains a lack of robust, long-term studies demonstrating that these offsets consistently achieve their intended conservation outcomes (Brownlie et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Bigard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bull Joseph W et al. 2017). Addressing the gap between offsets policy thus requires reinforcing these principles with stronger evidence of more rigorous application.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003earticle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first author gratefully acknowledges ANID (Agencia Nacional de Investigaci\u0026oacute;n y Desarrollo Chile) - Scholarship ID 72200153 for the support to this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRoc\u0026iacute;o A. Cares\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualisation, Literature review, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Funding acquisition. \u003cstrong\u003eAlan Bond\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project administration. \u003cstrong\u003eAldina M.A. Franco\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualisation, Validation, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project administration. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAromataris E, Riitano D. 2014. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. Am J Nurs. 114(5):49-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabbie ER. 2020. The practice of social research. Cengage. Australia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBar-Ilan J. 2008. Which h-index? \u0026mdash; A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 74(2):257-271.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenabou S. 2014. Making up for lost nature?: a critical review of the international development of voluntary biodiversity offsets. Environment and Society. 5(1):103-123.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerg\u0026egrave;s L, Avon C, Bezombes L, Clauzel C, Duflot R, Folt\u0026ecirc;te J-C, Gaucherand S, Girardet X, Spiegelberger T. 2020. Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. Journal of Environmental Management. 256:109950.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBigard C, Pioch S, Thompson JD. 2017. The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. Journal of Environmental Management. 200:35-45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowen GA. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal. 9(2):27-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2):77-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrownlie S, King N, Treweek J. 2013. Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 31(1):24-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrownlie S, Treweek J. 2018. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series No 3 Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrunetti I, Sabatier R, Mouysset L. 2023. A spatial model for biodiversity offsetting. Ecological Modelling. 481:110364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBull JW, Brownlie S. 2017. The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx. 51(1):53-59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBull JW, Lloyd SP, Strange N. 2017. Implementation gap between the theory and practice of biodiversity offset multipliers. Conservation Letters. 10(6):656-669.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2013. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx. 47(3):369-380.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurnham JF. 2006. Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr. 3:1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusiness and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP). 2009. Principles on Biodiversity Offsets Supported by the BBOP Advisory Committee. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/overview-phase-1-pdf.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusiness and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012a. Resource Paper: Limits to What Can Be Offset. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Washington DC. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/BBOP_Resource_Paper_Limits_20_Mar_2012_Final_Rev.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusiness and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012b. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Washington, D.C. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/BBOP_Standard_on_Biodiversity_Offsets_1_Feb_2013.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusiness and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. The BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, D.C.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCares RA, Franco AMA, Bond A. 2023. Investigating the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy approach in environmental impact assessment in relation to biodiversity impacts. Environ Impact Asses. 102. English.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChee YE. 2015. Principles Underpinning Biodiversity Offsets and Guidance on their Use. Handbook of Road Ecology. p. 51-59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCIEEM. 2016. Biodiversity Net Gain: Good practice principles for development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamiens FLP, Porter L, Gordon A. 2021. The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nature Sustainability. 4(2):170-179.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Witt M, Pope J, Retief F, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Steenkamp C. 2019. Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right. Environ Impact Asses. 75:1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans MC. 2023. Backloading to extinction: Coping with values conflict in the administration of Australia\u0026apos;s federal biodiversity offset policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 82(2):228-247. eng.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFallding M. 2014. Biodiversity offsets: practice and promise. Environmental and Planning Law Journal. 31(1):11-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFitzsimons J, Heiner M, McKenney B, Sochi K, Kiesecker J. 2014. Development by Design in Western Australia: Overcoming Offset Obstacles. Land. 3(1):167-187.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JMM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RTT, Treweek J, Ussher GT, Ward G, Ten Kate K. 2013. Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss. Conservation Biology. 27(6):1254-1264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbons P, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management \u0026amp; Restoration. 8(1):26-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlobal Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (GIBOP). 2019. International Union for Conservation of Nature. The Biodiversity Consultancy, Durell Institute of Conservation \u0026amp; Ecology. https://portals.iucn.org/offsetpolicy/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrimm M, K\u0026ouml;ppel J. 2019. Biodiversity offset program design and implementation. Sustainability. 11(24):6903.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Finance Corporation (IFC). 2012. Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. International Finance Corporation: World Bank Group, Washington DC. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/2012-ifc-performance-standards-en.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Finance Corporation (IFC). 2019. International Finance Corporation\u0026rsquo;s guidance note 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/20190627-ifc-ps-guidance-note-6-en.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Policy on Biodiversity Offsets. https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/iucn_biodiversity_offsets_policy_jan_29_2016_0.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacob C, van Bochove J-W, Livingstone S, White T, Pilgrim J, Bennun L. 2020. Marine biodiversity offsets: Pragmatic approaches toward better conservation outcomes. Conservation Letters. 13(3):e12711.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeith DA, Ferrer-Paris JR, Nicholson E, Bishop MJ, Polidoro BA, Ramirez-Llodra E, Tozer MG, Nel JL, Mac Nally R, Gregr EJ. 2022. A function-based typology for Earth\u0026rsquo;s ecosystems. Nature. 610(7932):513-518.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, McKenney B. 2010. Development by design: blending landscape‐level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8(5):261-266.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLara A, Little C, Urrutia R, McPhee J, \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Garret\u0026oacute;n C, Oyarz\u0026uacute;n C, Soto D, Donoso P, Nahuelhual L, Pino M, Arismendi I. 2009. Assessment of ecosystem services as an opportunity for the conservation and management of native forests in Chile. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(4):415-424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaron M, Brownlie S, Bull JW, Evans MC, von Hase A, Qu\u0026eacute;tier F, Watson JE, Gordon A. 2018. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nature Sustainability. 1(1):19-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJ, Bekessy S, Gordon A, Watson JE, Lentini PE, Gibbons P. 2016. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience. 66(6):489-498.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaron M, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Krueger L, Kiesecker J, K\u0026uuml;mpel NF, ten Kate K, Milner‐Gulland E, Arlidge WN, Booth H, Bull JW. 2021a. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conservation Letters. 14(5):e12816.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaron M, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Krueger L, Kiesecker J, K\u0026uuml;mpel NF, Ten Kate K, Milner‐Gulland EJ, Arlidge WNS, Booth H, Bull JW et al. 2021b. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conservation Letters. 14(5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaron M, Simmonds JS, Watson JE, Sonter LJ, Bennun L, Griffiths VF, Qu\u0026eacute;tier F, von Hase A, Edwards S, Rainey H. 2020. Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution. 4(1):46-49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarshall E, Southwell D, Wintle BA, Kujala H. 2024. A global analysis reveals a collective gap in the transparency of offset policies and how biodiversity is measured. Conservation Letters. 17(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKenney BA, Kiesecker JM. 2010. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environmental Management. 45(1):165-176.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcNally R. 1990. The great geographical atlas. Rand McNally \u0026amp; Company, Chicago, lliinois.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2012. Decreto Supremo N\u0026ordm;40 Reglamento del Sistema de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n de Impacto Ambiental [Supreme Decree N\u0026ordm;40 Regulation of the Environmental Impact Assessment System]. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1053563.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2018. Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad 2017\u0026ndash;2030 [National Biodiversity Strategy]. https://mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Estrategia_Nac_Biodiv_2017_30.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Medio Ambiente (MMA). 2019. Sexto Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad de Chile ante el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biol\u0026oacute;gica (CDB) [Sixth National Biodiversity of Chile Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)]. Santiago, Chile, 220 pp. https://biodiversidadrm.mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8-sexto-informe-nacional-de-biodiversidad.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. Biodiversity hotspots: distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer; p. 3-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoilanen A, Kotiaho JS. 2018. Fifteen operationally important decisions in the planning of biodiversity offsets. Biological Conservation. 227:112-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoilanen A, Kotiaho JS. 2021. Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets. Conservation Biology. 35(1):197-205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiner HJ, Milligan B, Jones PJS, Styan CA. 2017. A global snapshot of marine biodiversity offsetting policy. Marine Policy. 81:368-374.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePauchard A, Aguayo M, Pe\u0026ntilde;a E, Urrutia R. 2006. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepci\u0026oacute;n, Chile). Biological Conservation. 127(3):272-281.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Retief F. 2021. When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets. Environmental Management. 67(2):424-435.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQu\u0026eacute;tier F, Regnery B, Levrel H. 2014. No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environmental Science \u0026amp; Policy. 38:120-131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRitchie J, Spencer L. 2002. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge; p. 173-194.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSal\u0026egrave;s K, Marty P, Frascaria-Lacoste N. 2023. Tackling limitations in biodiversity offsetting? A comparison of the Peruvian and French approaches [Article]. Regional Environmental Change. 23(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServicio de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n Ambiental (SEA). 2014. Gu\u0026iacute;a para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de la biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS]. Santiago, Chile.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServicio de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n Ambiental (SEA). 2022. Gu\u0026iacute;a para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de la biodiversidad en el SEIA [Guide for Biodiversity Compensation in the EIAS]. Santiago, Chile. https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2022/08/29/guia_teorica_compensacion_biodiversidad.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServicio de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n Ambiental (SEA). 2023a. Gu\u0026iacute;a metodol\u0026oacute;gica para la compensaci\u0026oacute;n de la biodiversidad en ecosistemas terrestres y acu\u0026aacute;ticos continentales [Methodological guide for the compensation of biodiversity in terrestrial and inland aquatic ecosystems]. Segunda edici\u0026oacute;n, Santiago, Chile. https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2023/06/01/Guia-Compensacion-biodiversidad_SEA-2023_.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServicio de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n Ambiental (SEA). 2023b. Gu\u0026iacute;a para la Participaci\u0026oacute;n Ciudadana Temprana en proyectos que se presentan al Sistema de Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n de Impacto Ambiental [Guide for Early Citizen Participation in projects submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System]. Segunda Edici\u0026oacute;n, Santiago, Chile. . https://sea.gob.cl/sites/default/files/imce/archivos/2023/11/24/Resolucion_202399101925_Guia_PCT_VF.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimmonds JS, Von Hase A, Qu\u0026eacute;tier F, Brownlie S, Maron M, Possingham HP, Souquet M, Zu Ermgassen SOSE, Ten Kate K, Costa HM, Sonter LJ. 2022. Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity. Conservation Science and Practice. 4(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSnyder H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104:333-339.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSouza BA, Rosa JCS, Campos PBR, S\u0026aacute;nchez LE. 2023. Evaluating the potential of biodiversity offsets to achieve net gain. Conservation Biology. 37(4):e14094.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaltman L. 2016. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics. 10(2):365-391.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard V, House A, Hamer S. 2009. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. Journal of health services research \u0026amp; policy. 14(3):156-164.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeissgerber M, Roturier S, Julliard R, Guillet F. 2019. Biodiversity offsetting: Certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain. Biological Conservation. 237:200-208.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. 2014 2014: ACM.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Bank Group (WBG). 2016. Biodiversity offsets: A user guide. World Bank. . https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a7f4932d-7370-5da3-9cb1-99a1ff921e3b/content.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ezu Ermgassen SOSE, Baker J, Griffiths RA, Strange N, Struebig MJ, Bull JW. 2019. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under \u0026ldquo;no net loss\u0026rdquo; policies: A global review. Conservation Letters. 12(6).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Biodiversity offset, compensation of biodiversity, Chile, best practice principles, benchmark","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGiven global threats to biodiversity, implementing effective biodiversity offset policies is increasingly recognised as being essential for delivering sustainable development. As research and practice on offsets has developed, so have international expectations of best practice principles, which set the benchmark for national systems in their efforts to protect biodiversity. This research aims to synthesise best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, developing a benchmark to assess the extent to which national policies align with international standards. Chile is selected as a suitable case study due to its biodiversity richness and emerging biodiversity offsets policy, to test this analytical framework. The analysis indicates that the benchmark provides a useful basis for assessing national biodiversity offset policies and shows that Chilean policy demonstrates an initial alignment with international best practices, though several areas for improvement remain.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Policy Analysis of Biodiversity Offsetting: Benchmarking Against International Best Practice Principles","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-27 10:53:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7114898/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-22T20:42:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-08T02:59:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-20T12:52:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49398088722369876232334774526521067965","date":"2025-08-02T09:44:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"85312973033044065436891312173089062551","date":"2025-07-24T03:53:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-21T02:05:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-21T02:03:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-15T11:02:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2025-07-13T17:56:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5eea8239-0b63-4159-8aa3-b251f5b5961e","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-29T16:02:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7114898","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02350-8","journal":{"identity":"environmental-management","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Environmental Management"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-27 15:58:13","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 27th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-27 10:53:30","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02350-8","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02350-8","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7114898","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7114898","identity":"rs-7114898","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}