How is biodiversity loss being addressed at a global level?

Given biodiversity does not respect boundaries, it would make sense for there to be global alignment in terms of measures in place at least to protect and perhaps even to enhance biodiversity. However, there is currently wide discrepancy in how different global players approach biodiversity loss.

What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms on Earth, including plants, animals, microorganisms and the ecosystems they form. It is foundational for maintaining ecosystem balance, providing resources for human survival, and ensuring environmental sustainability. It is a key factor not only in helping to mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change but also assisting with food security and water quality. But global efforts to mitigate biodiversity loss have taken different approaches.

At what stage are the UK, France, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in implementing biodiversity policies?  

Comparative international position

Country	Current principle protecting biodiversity from developments	Does this encourage a 'net gain'?	Does this encourage 'no net loss'?	Is an offset policy available?	Is there national legislation to protect biodiversity?
United Kingdom	Mandatory 10% net gain of biodiversity (BNG)
France	Objective of no biodiversity net loss (BNL)
United States of America	Mitigation banking scheme to protect biodiversity in waterways and procedural requirements		Indirectly through offsets	For waterways
Canada	Objective of no net loss (NNL) and mitigation hierarchy
Australia	Nationally: Environmental approval required for certain developments
	State-level: Biodiversity offset policies		Indirectly through offsets
	Victoria-specific: Biodiversity losses should be avoided and balanced against what could be gained	Encourages voluntary net gain
New Zealand	Legislation regulating land use and the provision of infrastructure to protect the environment.

What is the history of biodiversity loss mitigation globally?

UK

The UK originally paved the way with the idea of "no net loss": that any negative effects on biodiversity caused by the development are counterbalanced by measures that restore or create an equivalent amount of biodiversity, to result in no net loss. Unlike every other country considered in this Insight, it has since developed its approach to biodiversity mitigation further.

France

In France, developers were originally required to compensate for harmful consequences for the environment downstream of the project (Law of 10 July 1976 on the protection of nature).

This has since been expanded to require avoidance, reduction and compensation in a format similar to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy applicable in the UK.

USA

The USA does not have a direct equivalent to the UK's biodiversity policy. Instead, various federal and state-level initiatives and regulations have aimed to conserve biodiversity and promote ecological restoration.

The most notable was the National Environmental Policy Act 1970, requiring federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before making decisions. This was then expanded by the Clean Water Act 1972 which established mitigation banking for the protection of waterways.

Canada

Canada introduced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 which requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects, including effects on biodiversity, before they proceed (similar to the USA's position).

Biodiversity has been further protected by new policies in 2020 that establish "no net loss" as the goal for developments affecting biodiversity.

Australia

Australia has focused on protecting existing biodiversity and mitigating the impacts of developments through various offset and conservation measures.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires that developments potentially impacting matters of national environmental significance must be assessed and approved under this legislation, in addition to state-level legislation, before any development can commence.

New Zealand

New Zealand is perhaps the furthest away from any alignment with the UK approach to biodiversity mitigation. The Resource Management Act 1991 sets out a framework for the sustainable management of its natural resources, but does not even come close to the concept of "no net loss".

What is the current global position regarding biodiversity protection?

UK

The UK has taken a leading approach to biodiversity. The concept of biodiversity net gain (BNG) is set out in the government's 25-year environment plan (published in 2018). BNG goes further than "no net loss": the idea being that the measures to restore or create an equivalent amount of diversity should outweigh the negative impacts of the development. This was enshrined in the Environment Act 2021 and became mandatory in February 2024, with many developments now required to deliver 10% net gain.

With limited exemptions of permitted development, urgent Crown land, household applications and a de minimis threshold, BNG is set to encapsulate most development across the UK landscape. Developers must engage an environmental consultant who will need to use the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs metric to calculate the biodiversity baseline value for the site, consider the BNG hierarchy and ensure a 10% net gain is achieved. This can be done via on- or off-site gain or statutory credits.

France

Unlike the UK, France's objective through their biodiversity legislation is "no net loss" (where the UK used to be), with the potential for developers to voluntarily provide net gain.

Through the Avoid-Reduce-Compensation sequence, developers are required to ensure compensation measures are implemented on or near the damaged site and that they are effective throughout the duration of the damage. To meet such requirements, France has seen the rise of direct contracting to compensate, as well as the acquisition of offset units. However, the uptake use of offset units has been slow, with only three sites approved for compensation units since its establishment.

USA and Canada

Confined to the protection of waterways, the USA champions mitigation banking. This system allows developers to compensate for environmental damage to wetlands, streams, or other natural habitats by purchasing credits from a mitigation bank. However, like Canada, the impact to biodiversity should be net zero, rather than needing a positive implication (as the UK requires).

Australia

In Australia the focus at a national level has been on biodiversity preservation. At state level there are different biodiversity offset policies, with a rise in biodiversity offset schemes, which compensate for any negative effects of developments on biodiversity.

The state of Victoria has gone one step further in aligning closer to the UK-model with the promotion of achieving a net gain.

New Zealand

While New Zealand set out its strategy for protecting and restoring biodiversity in the 2020 Te Mana o te Taiao and supplemental policies/plans relating to biodiversity protection for indigenous species, there have been a number of suspensions and barriers to progress.

Where is global biodiversity protection going?

UK

The UK's BNG approach is far from perfect. Since its implementation, concerns have been expressed that the measures have been rendered less effective than initially hoped by allowing room for some developers to circumvent the principle. For instance, there have been reports of some developers locating build footprints below the de minimis threshold or exploiting the retrospective planning permission system. Some of these issues may be addressed as part of a Phase 2 of BNG, as well as the addition of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects into the regime.

With new planning reforms high up the government's agenda, we predict a tidal wave of legislative updates and refinements, which will likely cover BNG, and take the UK even further ahead of its global counterparts.

France

France has seen the introduction of the 2023 Green Industry Act which has updated the biodiversity compensation unit system. With an aim to simplify and make it more attractive, the measures require the compensation units to be functionally close to the damaged site, for the offset site to obtain a permit and for the relevant authority to be the regional prefect.

This system seems to align more closely with the UK BNG credit market, and make up for the current issues in the French system (including a lack of biodiversity metric) that is causing scepticism in its uptake.

USA

The USA has seen a rise in mitigation banking and the Biden-Harris administration signed up to multiple policies and initiatives that support the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including the "America is Beautiful" 30x30 policy and the Ocean Climate Action Plan. However, with the new 2025 Trump administration's scepticism of biodiversity policies, there may be some changes in this area.

Canada

Canada's Nature Accountability Bill 2024 is being introduced into Parliament. This bill has the intention of cementing the nature and biodiversity commitments that Canada has made internationally, further backing the global biodiversity framework (which requires active nature recovery by 2050) and the 2030 Nature Strategy. There is consequently the chance that Canada could move closer to a UK model requiring net gain, as opposed to no net loss.

Australia

Australia is increasingly committing to a targets-based system, as shown by the various policies and strategies that have been signed in favour of protecting national biodiversity. Like Canada, Australia has nationalised and shown its intention to comply with the global biodiversity framework, perhaps signalling a move closer to the UK model.

New Zealand

New Zealand remains behind the mark of the other countries considered, with a 2023 discussion around a biodiversity credit system never coming to fruition.

Osborne Clarke comment

As our snapshot of the complex regulatory landscape that clients are operating in illustrates, the UK is the only nation currently mandating biodiversity net gain, rather than focusing on offsetting and mitigation (like Australia and the USA). France's recent reforms aim to simplify and decentralise compensation measures, whereas Canada and Australia are increasingly aligning with international biodiversity frameworks.

And the UK is not stopping there. We anticipate that to facilitate BNG, there will be an increase in the number of BNG precedents, a revision of the DEFRA metric to encourage the locality of BNG benefits, and an evolution in the UK's biodiversity credit system, which other nations are increasingly recognising the value of.

Businesses' approach to biodiversity mitigation will have to adapt to the evolving environmental-protection landscape in each jurisdiction that they operate in. Biodiversity initiatives will have to be compatible with other environmental and sustainable targets and initiatives such as net zero, the Peatland Carbon Code (in the UK), and (potentially, in future) reporting aligned with the framework and guidelines published by the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures.

The effectiveness of each country's policies will depend on their implementation and enforcement, which alignment with other global initiatives may serve to facilitate. As global biodiversity challenges escalate, a consistent international approach to biodiversity would provide for easier compliance tracking for businesses. Given the disparity in global approach and the increasing importance of the planet's biodiversity, it is essential for businesses to keep track of developments to align effectively with the international stance.

This Insight was prepared with the assistance of Mollie Fagg, Trainee Solicitor at Osborne Clarke.