Biodiversity offset schemes in the Hunter are adding extinction pressure to the very species they are meant to protect. The schemes allow developers to clear bushland if they buy, protect or improve bushland elsewhere. However, the Nature Conservation report: biodiversity offsetting in NSW, found the areas set aside are often poorer quality or a different type of habitat than that being destroyed. It found that offsets resulted in ‘poor’ or ‘disastrous’ outcomes for wildlife in 75 per cent of cases. This is because of the biodiversity offsets law’s vague language allowing for loopholes. New offset laws passed by Berejiklian administration were intended to close these loopholes but experts say it will open more loopholes than close existing ones.
The Hunter region is just north of Sydney and is a valley with a climate similar to that of California valley with a large amount of biodiversity. These offsets seem like a good idea to preserve the biodiversity but in practice need strict language too work. With most of the Hunter region’s habitats being destroyed the biodiversity is as well. This article clearly examined the report and explained some of the loopholes developers use to their advantage.
It seems like loopholes in these sorts of environmental protection laws are not uncommon. I think environmental protection laws aught to be amended easily to respond to these legislative weaknesses in a timely manner. What were some of the loopholes in this regulation?
I think it is very common that people like to cheat their way out of things and say they are doing something when in reality, the way they are doing it is not really benefiting anyone.
I think if one can destroy land by protecting it elsewhere we are just running in circles. Protecting some land does not justify the destruction of other land.