However, from an idealistic point of view which I still kind of can’t let go, it is sad to acknowledge that “commercial sense” might be an important shaping factor of a biodiversity offset. From a nature conservation point of view this is actually kind of absurd: the restoration activities intended to counterbalance the negative outcomes from commercial activities should themselves make commercial sense — where’s the benefit to the destroyed nature?

But of course, as an offset provider you need to take a pragmatic way as you say and consider what is working. And we have seen many offsets fail. So to me, any reasoning that helps to deliver viable biodiversity offsets (that deliver an additional benefit for nature) is a good one.

The evolution of biodiversity offsets over time is a crucial point which has both a positive (that you have pointed to) and a negative side of the coin: offsets can evolve over time, but they also need to be secured in perpetuity and also not sold several times for the same efforts.

I do strongly agree with you that such a complex and tricky (some would even call it dangerous) issue as biodiversity offsets is highly context-dependent and needs very specific and maybe also pragmatic ways to approach it. Yet, we should at any cost prevent that pragmatic means having the most simple at the least cost with the lousiest outcome for nature!