SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

An intriguing social study into acceptability, amoungst farmers, for combining biodiversity offsets for infrastructure development with agri-environment schemes.

The study is built around existing offset schemes in France, and involved surveys of farmers in the region.

MERITS:

The study explors an interesting concept, which is relatively new for the field of No Net Loss (NNL) research - that is, whether a link can be established etween agri-environment schemes and offsetting.

We need more empirical studies in the field of NNL, including around social perceptions of offsetting from key stakeholders.

CRITIQUE:

I would like to understand slightly more about the type of survey carried out (questionnaires with closed questions? Semi-structured interview? How large was the population sampled? Etc.).

DISCUSSION:

The research is an important addition to the emerging body of literature on the social aspects of NNL policy.

A key issue will be to sufficiently discuss questions around additionality if combining offseting and agri-environment schemes - see recent paper by Maron et al. (2018) on ways for demonstrating additionality in NNL.

- - -
INTRO:

The manuscript focuses on the use of agri-environmental schemes to implement biodiversity offsets, the factors that influence farmer's participation, and the effectiveness of this tool as an offset implementation mechanism.

MERITS:

In most European countries, one of the major problem faced by developers in the implementation of offsets is the availability, accessibility, and affordability of land. Developing tools to facilitate the participation of landowners and farmers is therefore essential if biodiversity offsets are to be used broadly. ABOS are interesting as they rely on existing agri-environmental schemes and adapt them to biodiversity offsets implementation. It further provides a way to incentivize farmers to get involved in nature conservation activities without altering ownership arrangements. An empirical analysis on the way it works, the weaknesses and strengths of such tool contribute therefore significantly to the effective implementation of biodiversity offsets. It can improve the practice in France and serve as an inspiration for other countries. 

CRITIQUE:

The abstract is well constructed, first providing an introduction of the issue, then explaining the research question and methodology, and already presenting the main results. It could be interesting to add a sentence on the methodology for the second research question: "the effectiveness of ABOS design and actual implementation". Did the authors had access to the contracts? How was implementation assessed ?

DISCUSSION:

As stated in the merits, this analysis is really important to improve the implementation of biodiversity offsets in many European countries. The result could even improve agri-environmental schemes per se. An interesting analysis that could be developed is the linked between the results of the first and second research questions. To what extend stronger monitoring obligations and sanctions would influence the willingness of farmers to participate in the program? Additionally, it would be worth highlighting the differences between traditional agri-environmental schemes and ABOS in order to show how traditional agri-environmental contracts need to be adapted to the specificities of biodiversity offsets

- - -
INTRO:

This is a survey study on the acceptability and potential outcomes of biodiversity offsetting in a agri-environment like offset schemes called agri-environmental biodiversity offsetting schemes ABOS. 

MERITS:

The case is a real offsetting case and the number of farmers interviewed, although not excessively large, is nevertheless large enough to provide reliability for the results. It can also be considered a merit that here ideas are developed about how the agri-environmental schemes could be developed towards more positive environmental impacts.

CRITIQUE:

There is no detail about the survey or the analyses.

DISCUSSION:

The conclusions of the study are not very encouraging given that there are doubts that the additionality and permanence of the offsets would be realised. Failing these aspects simply mean the harmful ecological impacts are not being offset.