Biodiversity Offsetting Flashcards
Sala et al. (2000)
One of the most striking features of our planet is its great variety of life, and yet one of the most pervasive environmental changes of our time is the global loss of this biological diversity
Pimm et al., 1995
Human caused extinction rates are two or three orders of magnitude higher than past rates
Bull et al. (2016)
Economic development delivers societal benefits, but also incurs costs through negative biodiversity impacts
Therefore a balance must be found between development and biodiversity conservation
Gardner et al. (2013)
No net loss - NNL
Developers, having mitigated biodiversity impacts where possible, fully offset any residual losses through quantified gains elsewhere
When losses and gains are summed there is NNL
Maron et al., 2016
NNL biodiversity policies have existed since at least the 1970s and continue to emerge
One such policy is biodiversity offsetting
What is biodiversity offsetting?
A conservation tool that aims to counterbalance losses of biodiversity in one place by generating equivalent biodiversity benefits elsewhere
It acts as a way to reconcile competing objectives of conservation and development, and has been championed as a “win-win”, capable of mitigating development-related harm, while enhancing economic growth
Maron et al. (2016)
Example of BO from Global North
French company Oc’via has invested millions of euros since 2008 to manage 1700 hectares of farmland in the south of France and improve the habitat of Little Bustards, in compensation for a high speed rail project which will damage the bird’s habitat
(Maron et al., 2015)
Benabou, 2014
However BO is controversial
Many view it as a “license to trash” nature, whereby development projects can continue ahead without proven conservation gains
Gordon et al., 2015
Offsetting practices have increased over the past decade, institutionalised through mechanisms such as “species banks”
Madsen et al., 2011
BO is a growing policy tool around the world - at least 72 countries had a policy or were developing one by 2011
Carroll et al., 2008
Theory of BO
Market based incentive
Balance of biodiversity loss at one place by equivalent or great biodiversity gain elsewhere - NNL
Lands managed for conservation values are “conservation banks”, bank owner sell “credits” (off-sets) to compensate for environmental impacts (“debits”) of other parties’ development projects elsewhere
In this way development, and habitat destruction in one place, leads to protection of valuable biologically rich land elsewhere
Outline the mitigation hierarchy
Benabou, 2014
Offsetting is the last step of the “mitigation hierarchy”
MH is crucial for all development projects aiming to minimise/negate negative impacts
Based on a series of essential, SEQUENTIAL steps, limit any negative impacts on biodiversity
Avoid, minimise, restore, off-set - in this way offsetting should act to compensate any RESIDUAL, adverse impacts AFTER full implementation of the previous three steps
It should always be a last resort after all other measures have been put in place
Positives of BO
1) Appeals to both sides somewhat - for conservation it makes good of big developments, which likely would have happened anyway, and a practical way for developers to work around regulations
2) The idea of having NNL is very positive, not about reducing loss but about having no loss
Walker and Brower, 2009
BO has so far failed to achieve NNL, and in fact it may make biodiversity loss worse
Maron et al. (2016) (on complexity of biodiversity)
Nature itself is complicated and so is the action of defining it
Therefore implementing schemes meaningfully is difficult
How can biodiversity in one place really be equal to that in another? - offsetting has no sense of space (Apostolopoulou and Adams, 2015)
Brook et al., 2008
BO creates functional/spatial abstraction, separating biodiversity units from context - they are treated as static, independent
Overlooks established ecological concepts e.g. intra-species variation, role of key-stone species
If these are ignored could lead to trophic cascades of extinction
Spash, 2015
Biodiversity destruction now legitimised/institutionalised by offsetting rather than opening up the floor to alternatives
It is the final fail in the coffin for conservation
McKenney and Kiesceker, 2010
To be valid an offset must result in new and additional conservation outcomes that would not have been achieved in absence of offset funds - a widely accepted principle referred to as additionality
However, additionality is difficult to prove, and can be subject to risks such as cost-shifting
Pilgrim and Bennun, 2014
In the context of BO cost-shifting refers to the practice of governments using offset funds provided by developers to fulfill pre-existing conservation commitments, thus shifting the costs of their own conservation programs to the offsetting program
Because the offset benefits and the precommitted benefits do not both materialise, this type of cost shifting leads to double counting and a diminished overall conservation outcome
Narain and Maron (2018)
India’s national offsetting program is a case in point of cost-shifting
Recent legislation allows the diversion of offset funds to meet the country’s pre-existing commitments under the UNFCCC and UNCBD
With such diversions, no additionality occurs and development impacts remain uncompensated
Lemos and Ferreria, 2000
Offsets often fund “paper parks” where a protected area on paper is actually not helping conservation in reality - as exemplified in Brazil
Madsen et al., 2010
Offsetting opens up nature to the forces of the market
When species banks relies on credit sales, they may become vulnerable to falls associated with broader economic downturns
E.g. 20 species banks in N California exhibited “steady increase” from 2005-2008, followed by a decrease of almost 20% in 2009, in relation to the crisis
Bekessy et al., 2010
The losses from development are immediate, but the benefits may be delayed or may never happen
Gibbons et al. (2018)
Looked at an area in New South Wales
Although more vegetation area has been protected than destroyed it still has not yet resulted in NNL
NNL will only occur in many generations, which is not consistent with intergenerational equity, and by substituting different habitat attributes so gains are not equivalent to losses
Apostolopoulou and Adams, 2015
Most scholars focus on the technical aspects but there are also social and political issues that arise
BO is presented as a win-win but this obscures the contradictions occurring within it
For example the territorial inaction of land to offset legitimises control of land and claiming of authority of who can use/generate wealth from it
Buscher et al., 2012
BO is a neoliberal conservation technique - which promotes the commoditisation of conservation, and allows for the expansion of capitalism
Splash, 2009
BO is part of a new environmental pragmatism grounded on the caricature of “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968) - grounded in the belief that private is better suited than government to manage natural resource
Gordon et al. (2015)
BO often promotes fast-tracking through the mitigation hierarchy, whereby people do not attempt other prerequisites- this has been keen in wetland policy in Alberta, Canada (Clare et al., 2011)
Wunder, 2013
Presents BO as a “win-settle” situation for development/conservation
Bidaud et al., 2017
BO has both “sweet and bitter” effects
Kill et al. (2016)
Rio Tinto Mine BO
To compensate for ilmenite mining (used for paint), in Madagascar
Launched their offsetting strategy in 2004
6000ha ilmenite mining concession at Fort Dauphin
Yet villagers feel restrictions imposed without negotiation
Income-generating alternatives to compensate loss of access to forest promised but yet to materialise while severe restrictions on forest use already in place
By partnering with NGOs to try and protect this Rio Tinto is drawing attention away from its impacts of destroying unique coastal forest - presents itself as rescuing biodiversity
In contrast the locals are presented as being damaging - the destruction “other” - in order to appear as ecologically helpful the mine constructs an alternative of who is damaging
Talk about the impact of slash and burn agriculture and poverty in their brochures
The Bermangiddy area is already protected by State Decree, so therefore this is just cost-shifting anyway
Also a different type of frost, so not like for like
Spash and Aslaksen, 2015
Converting nature into exchangeable units is a fundamental violation of its intrinsic value
Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006
BO sees places without people
By moving conservation somewhere else, makes biodiversity independent of place and the people who depend on it, and reinforces the idea that landscapes are void of social or ecological histories
Apostolopoulou and Adams, 2017
Locks in biodiversity loss
“Reframed conservation as a pragmatic search for the least worst outcome in the face of development demands”
This process is allowing developers to push forward damaging schemes, which has warped the original intentions of conservation
BO exposes the crucial capitalist contradiction regarding nature; it must be conserved as a future resource, but also must be exploited and degraded in the present to support current accumulation
Ferguson, 1994
BO is an example of “anti politics in action”
The political act of doing away with politics
Dempsey and Collard, 2017
We need to “shame and tame capitalism” rather than accept it
Through divestment from companies involved in deforestation
And payments for historical ecological debt, rather than for ongoing ecosystem services
Phalan et al., 2017
Need to move back up the mitigation hierarchy towards avoiding in the first place
Possible solutions
1) Requiring replacement of biodiversity before development occurs (Walker and Brower, 2009)
2) Higher global standards (Maron et al., 2015)
3) Have specific local policies e.g. SA provincial governments have their own policy frameworks, “learning through doing” - methods tailored to local ecological, social and political realities (Jenner and Howard, 2015)
Quigley and Harper (2006)
63% of projects designed to fest fish habitat loss in Canada failed to achieve NNL even when projects were fully compliant with legal standards, suggesting that even properly implemented BO policy has its flaws
