Environmental offsets

Question

1. Does the Department agree that paying an offset is not the same thing as replacing destroyed habitat, particularly for endangered koalas, greater gliders and hollow dependent species? 2. What total amount of offset money has been collected or required in relation to renewable energy, transmission and associated infrastructure projects assessed under the EPBC Act, and how much of that will produce verified habitat gains for the exact species impacted? 3. When a developer pays money after clearing habitat, where is the evidence that the actual ecological function of the destroyed habitat is replaced within the survival timeframe of the affected species? 3. How can the Department claim ''no net loss'' where habitat destroyed today may take decades to centuries to recreate, if it can be recreated at all? 5. Will the Department provide species by species evidence showing that offset payments have increased population numbers, not merely funded administrative programs, land purchases or general conservation activity? 6. Does the Department accept that monetising habitat destruction risks creating a system where developers can budget for biodiversity loss as a cost of doing business? 7. If a habitat is critical to the survival or recovery of an endangered species, how is payment reconciled as a substitute for refusing a project to save the koalas/whales and other animals that are being killed?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000648.pdf (opens in a new tab)