No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England

Oliver Taherzadeh,Peter Howley

doi:10.1007/s10668-017-9967-z

Oliver Taherzadeh, Peter Howley

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9967-z

Copy DOI

Abstract

Market-based instruments (MBIs) have emerged as a popular approach to balance development and conservation objectives. However, their ability to accomplish this is often beset by poor implementation in practice. This is testament to a widening gap between the rate of policy development and implementation of MBIs and the maturity of research and evaluation on their design, and impact on affected stakeholders. Within this context, this paper examines multi-stakeholder perspectives to the adoption of Biodiversity Offsetting in England, an instrument designed to enable biodiversity losses in one place to be compensated through conservation improvements elsewhere. Analysis reveals issues associated with social and ecological compensation of biodiversity loss. Findings suggest that there is a need for a broader consideration of issues surrounding distributive justice, access to nature and the status of ownership over sites of common heritage when accounting for biodiversity loss and its compensation. This message is salient to both the study context as well as the burgeoning international practice of Biodiversity Offsetting.

Highlights

Markets are increasingly seen as both part of the problem and part of the solution in relation to contemporary environmental challenges
This paper examines multi-stakeholder perspectives to the adoption of Biodiversity Offsetting in England, an instrument designed to enable biodiversity losses in one place to be compensated through conservation improvements elsewhere
We identified one small (Save our Woods), one mediumsized (FERN), and one large (Friends of the Earth) environmental and social justice organisations all actively investigating the implications of Biodiversity Offsetting in England and the EU; this group was categorised as environmental campaigners (EC)

Summary

Introduction

Markets are increasingly seen as both part of the problem and part of the solution in relation to contemporary environmental challenges. Howley sheets of national accounting systems and the yardstick of the market (Robertson 2000, 2004) The former tries to package nature into neat categories and functional units while the latter helps to translate these into a price that can be understood and traded by markets across geographical space (Dempsey and Suarez 2016). Others believe that creating markets of environmental goods and services has tremendous potential for maximising the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity (Balmford 2002; Sutherland et al 2006; TEEB 2008; Kettunen and Vihervaara 2012; Helm and Hepburn 2014) They attest that, within the context of economic decision-making, nature has a null value, and is undervalued and over-exploited as a result (von Hase and ten Kate 2017). It follows, ascribing a value to nature presents a business cost to its extraction and bears a profit for its protection, placing markets, people and the planet on a corrective path for sustainable growth

Methods

Results

Conclusion