Environmental offsets: are we really protecting what we’re losing?

Urban Bushland Council (UBC) recently made a submission to the Office of the Auditor General WA as part of its audit into the effectiveness of environmental offsets.  This current audit follows on from a series of reports dealing with the conservation of our threatened species and ecological communities. As quoted from the Auditor General’s website:

The objective of the audit is to assess whether environmental offset conditions are implemented effectively and achieve the intended environmental outcomes. Our criteria will include but are not limited to:

• Are environmental offset conditions implemented effectively?
• Do offsets achieve the desired environmental and biodiversity outcomes?

For many in our network, this audit matters deeply — because it goes to the heart of a growing concern: are offsets protecting nature, or simply enabling its loss?

Environmental offsets are meant to compensate for damage when clearing can’t be avoided. In theory, they are a last resort in the mitigation hierarchy — after efforts to avoid and minimise impacts. But across our Friends Groups, there is a strong and consistent view that this hierarchy is not being applied as intended. Too often, offsets appear to be treated as a convenient fallback rather than a genuine last step.

A key issue is that offsets frequently fail to reflect what is being lost. Sites are sometimes located far from the impacted area, or differ in ecological character. This raises a practical question: how can an offset meaningfully replace habitat or ecological function if it is disconnected from the original system? For species like black cockatoos — and for the ecological communities we work to protect — location and context matter.

There are also broader systemic concerns. The pricing of offsets may not reflect the true cost to nature, potentially making clearing appear artificially “affordable.” At the same time, there is limited publicly accessible information about how offsets are performing over time. Without transparent monitoring and reporting, it is difficult for the community to have confidence that promised outcomes are being delivered.

Perhaps most importantly, offsets do not appear to be addressing cumulative impacts. As development continues across the Swan Coastal Plain, the incremental loss of bushland adds up — especially under the pressures of climate change. Yet offsets are often considered on a project-by-project basis, without adequately accounting for this broader ecological decline.

UBC’s submission calls for a stronger focus on avoidance, better use of independent expertise, improved transparency, and a more rigorous approach to ensuring that offsets deliver genuine, additional environmental benefits.

This audit is an opportunity to reset expectations. Our community understands that development will continue — but it should not come at the ongoing expense of irreplaceable urban bushland. If offsets are to play a role, they must be credible, transparent, and demonstrably effective.

Otherwise, we risk losing far more than we gain.