SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

The author proposes a typology of the different categories of biodiversity offsets regarding voluntary criteria. As a result, seven types of biodiversity offsets are drawn.

MERITS:

This study has the merit to shed lights on voluntariness which represents an emerging and growing part of biodiversity offsets but rarely investigated yet.

CRITIQUE:

The methodology and materials used to conduct such classification is vague and it appears difficult to well understand what is behind the different steps mentioned (deduction, derivation, substruction) and how they have been done.

DISCUSSION:

To be more solid, we expect an in-depth analysis on the implications of the seven types with respect to the implementation and results of biodiversity offsets (as it is mentioned at the end of the abstract). With an accurate analysis, this paper will provide a significant contribution to the academic literature on this topic.

- - -
INTRO:

The author proposes a new classification of voluntary and regulatory biodiversity offsets that goes further than this binary distinction. 

MERITS:

Better knowledge and information on several types of emergent voluntary offset might be useful to improve regulatory offsets implementation and incentive mechanisms. 

CRITIQUE:

Not really a critique but I wonder if each theoretical category of offset has an empirical example (e.g., for the altruistic offset). I would recommend to mention these pratical evidence collected during the study when giving the talk. 

DISCUSSION:

The dsicussion on the effectiveness of offsets is of major importance, especially for the types of offsets that are rather voluntary and for which more or less performance standards are available. It would be interesting to discuss the possible links and correlations between the several categories of offsets (e.g., sectoral offsets are often also conditional offset such as for the mining sector). 

- - -
INTRO:

The manuscript discusses the distinction between voluntary and mandatory biodiversity offsets and refines further the distinction by establishing 7 categories.  

MERITS:

The type of biodiversity offsets - whether they are regulatory or voluntary - has tremendous effects on the design, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of biodiversity offsets. The components of biodiversity, the applicable standards, the participation of the public, the monitoring and oversight capabilities of competent authorities, and enforcement means differ greatly from one type of biodiversity offset to the other. Better understanding these different types and refining the typology will help understand what one can expect from each type of offsets and which type should be favored.

CRITIQUE:

Two weaknesses may be put forward: 1) It may be worth explaining the relevance of developing such a typology more clearly, 2) for somebody not familiar with the research field of the author, the methodology is very difficult to understand. Given that the Conference is interdisciplinary, it would be beneficial to simplify it a little bit. 

DISCUSSION:

As explained in the abstract, biodiversity offsets are often simplistically categorized into two types : voluntary or mandatory. Such a classification does not provide a good account of existing practices, biases the assessment of biodiversity offsets and does not allow to highlight the weaknesses and strength of each types. Refining that existing typology will therefore greatly improve the understanding of biodiversity offsets and consequently their relevance of conservation tool.  One suggestion would be to further categorize regulatory offsets: in some instance, competent authorities are under a legal duty to impose biodiversity offsets on developers (mandatory offsets), in others they are the result of negotiation between competent authorities and developers (negotiated or optional offsets).