Pulling biodiversity offsetting in different directions – Stakeholder frames in the preparation of the Finnish nature conservation act

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting is a highly debated topic in biodiversity governance. On the one hand, offsetting provides a promising new conservation tool that can make the loss of ecological values visible and increasing conservation funding. On the other hand, increased role of market mechanisms and private actors poses a risk of commodifying nature or failing to meet the ecological outcome. Thus, offsetting can also be considered as an ethically problematic shift in nature conservation. Despite such controversies, biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly important biodiversity policy instrument globally. There is considerable variation in the types of offsetting policies adopted in different countries. However, the political debates related to offsetting policymaking have rarely been analyzed. To gain a more nuanced understanding on how these controversies can influence the adoption and formulation of offsetting policies, we analyzed the formal introduction of biodiversity offsetting policy in the Nature Conservation Act in Finland. We applied frame analysis on the statements issued during the public hearing process to understand how stakeholders, public administration and active citizens perceive biodiversity offsetting. We identified four frames promoting varying implementation of the offsetting system. All the frames indicated that biodiversity offsetting was generally a welcomed addition to Finnish biodiversity policy. However, the frames were contradictory regarding the goal of offsetting, the level of regulation and the role of authorities and markets in their implementation, which can result in varying conservation outcomes. The debate resulted in slight emphasis of the pro-business perspective. A voluntary offsetting system was adopted.