Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities

Primmer, Eeva; Varumo, Liisa; Kotilainen, Juha; Raitanen, Elina; Kattainen, Matti; Pekkonen, Minna; Kuusela, Saija; Kullberg, Peter; Kangas, Johanna; Ollikainen, Markku

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.040

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Coherence with present policies and compliance with the institutional framework is meaningful as the existing framework reflects previously accepted societal arrangements and thus can help to evaluate whether a disposition for compensatory measures (Maestre‐Andrés et al, 2020) exists or is feasible to implement (Howlett & Rayner, 2007; Koh et al, 2019). In designing a novel conservation mechanism these previous arrangements also help to respond normative questions, such as what types of trade‐offs are acceptable practically and ethically (Burton et al, 2017; Ives & Bekessy, 2015; Sullivan & Hannis, 2015), how rights and responsibilities should be organised and reorganised through BO (Bidaud et al, 2018; Primmer et al, 2019), and what are the processes of participation to ensure procedural justice in policy design and formulation of policy objectives to ensure legitimacy of outcomes (Paloniemi & Vainio, 2011; Pascual et al, 2014). Exploring normative stances and the technical decisions made sheds light on the morals and values prioritised in society that influence acceptance of environmental policies (Stern et al, 1985; Sullivan & Hannis, 2015).…”

Section: Social Acceptance and Biodiversity Offsettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting: Motivations and practices in the designing of an emerging mechanism

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsetting is a governance mechanism proposed as a solution to ecosystem degradation and the underlying economic drivers. Biodiversity offsetting's potential is often evaluated and argued with ecological and economic criteria. These factors are intertwined with a multitude of social and ideological conditions for acceptance and legitimacy, which have received less systematic empirical attention especially from the perspective of the actors who implement the offsets. In this paper, we empirically analyse how companies and authorities, the central actors applying biodiversity offsetting in practice, perceive the social acceptance in the design and implementation of the emerging mechanism in Finland. The interview data analysed with three interlinked dimensions of social acceptance, namely sociopolitical acceptance, market acceptance and community acceptance reveal where the mechanism's implementation may face friction with the central actors. While the importance of social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting shows to be a priority for the actors that will be implementing the mechanism and carrying the responsibility of the offsets in practice, the division of roles and benefits remains a point of tension, in the political sphere, in the market and in the community. Our analysis points to the necessity of integrating social and local values alongside ecological and economic ones as a way to address social acceptance. Finding the limits to flexibility between ecological, economic and social aspects is important in order to reach the diverse objectives of a BO mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Social Acceptance and Biodiversity Offsettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…BO brings together a range of actors, from developers and landowners to public administration, intermediaries and restoration experts (Boisvert, 2015; Primmer et al, 2019). Companies and municipalities are central actors in this group as they apply BO in practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting: Motivations and practices in the designing of an emerging mechanism

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Landowner and water rights have arguably become conflated with freedom and independence within sectors of the United States (Harris et al 2012). Deeply held values about land (Primmer et al 2019) and water (Cosens et al 2017) rights can create powerful taboos that may trump otherwise well-reasoned laws or policies for conservation. Understanding what distinguishes a secular from a sacred value can be difficult, yet it is vitally important to conservation success (Daw et al 2015).…”

Section: Psychology Of Taboo Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deeply held values about land (Primmer et al. 2019) and water (Cosens et al. 2017) rights can create powerful taboos that may trump otherwise well‐reasoned laws or policies for conservation.…”

Section: Psychology Of Taboo Trade‐offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation lessons from taboos and trolley problems

Schwartz¹

2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biodiversity offsets are appealing to developers and often also to regulators, since they appear to offer a ‘best of all worlds’ solution to the trade-offs inherent in the vast majority of development approvals in which some level of adverse environmental impact is unavoidable. There are numerous increasingly insistent voices, however, arguing that there are fundamental issues with both the concept and the practice of biodiversity offsets, with grounds for challenge ranging from the ecological, to the practical, to the economic, to the moral and philosophical, all of which are connected to some extent (Spash 2015 ; Maron et al 2016a , b ; Apostolopoulou and Adams 2017 ; Levrel et al 2017 ; Primmer et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

Bond

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity offsets have become a widely accepted means of attempting to compensate for biodiversity loss from development, and are applied in planning and decision-making processes at many levels. Yet their use is contentious, and numerous problems with both the concept and the practice have been identified in the literature. Our starting point is the understanding that offsets are a kind of biodiversity compensation measure through which the goal of no net loss (or net gain) of biodiversity can be at least theoretically achieved. Based on a typology of compensation measures distinguishing between habitat protection, improvement (including restoration, habitat creation and improved management practices) and other compensation, we review the literature to develop a framework of conditions that must be met if habitat protection and improvement initiatives can be truly considered offsets and not merely a lesser form of compensation. It is important that such conceptual clarity is reflected in offset policy and guidance, if offsets are to be appropriately applied and to have any chance of fully compensating for biodiversity loss. Our framework can be used to support the review and ongoing development of biodiversity offset policy and guidance, with the aim of improving clarity, rigour and therefore the chances that good biodiversity outcomes can be achieved. Keywords Biodiversity offsets • Biodiversity compensation • Mitigation hierarchy • No net loss • Net gain • Offset policy

show abstract

Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities

Cited by 21 publications

References 42 publications

Social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting: Motivations and practices in the designing of an emerging mechanism

Social acceptance of biodiversity offsetting: Motivations and practices in the designing of an emerging mechanism

Conservation lessons from taboos and trolley problems

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About