The Discussion Papers series presents results from ongoing research projects and other research and analysis by SSB staff, intended for international journals or books. The views and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s).
Numerous local authorities have adopted spatial planning frameworks that incorporate nature targets, such as “no net loss” (NNL) often operationalized through net area or net biodiversity principles (i.e., area neutrality, or no net loss in biodiversity).
This study employs a simplified analytical economic model to evaluate the welfare implications of both local offset schemes and coordinated offset strategies across adjacent regions, accounting for ecosystem services that benefit the local community. We show that a standalone offset market generally fails to achieve the first-best outcome as an offset market designed to ensure NNL in developed land will typically diverge from the welfare-optimal level of net development. However, an advantage of the offset market is that restoration can be achieved without any public transfers.
Interregional cooperation in achieving NNL targets can improve overall welfare compared to isolated regional strategies. If the target is set to NNL, the offset market ensures that this target is achieved in a cost-effective manner as marginal cost of restoration equals marginal profit from development. However, an offset markets targeting net gain or net loss result in inefficient levels of both development and restoration. Furthermore, we suggest that implementing a permit system based on environmental value metrics rather than strict area-based neutrality (ambient permits), may mitigate some of the inefficiencies inherent in area neutrality frameworks.