The Conservation Banking scheme in the United States, for example, requires offsets to conserve threatened species’ habitat “that contributes to the overall conservation strategy of the species, which may be located in a corridor or core area that supports essential breeding habitat” (USFWS, 2003). The use of out-of-kind compensation is complicated by the need to compare the relative conservation values of two dissimilar biodiversity sites. To address issues of comparability, programmes frequently require out-of-kind compensation to adhere to the principle of trading-up whereby compensation is limited to biodiversity that is at least as good or more valuable from a conservation perspective than that lost at the clearing site (Quetier and Lavorel, 2011). Under the Environmental Offsets scheme in Australia, for example, offsets for threatened species that contain a different habitat to that being lost at the development site (e.g. breeding habitat for foraging habitat) are only permitted when the proponent is able to demonstrate a greater conservation benefit (Flanigan, 2013).