Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon

Pirard, Romain

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.001

Cited by 208 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, while BO is often regarded as an MBI for biodiversity both in academic and political spheres (especially in the form of the banking mechanism), some recent articles have shown that BO mechanisms do not really share the characteristics of market or market-like instruments, either in theory or in practice [10,11]. However, most academics and policy-makers still value BO on economic grounds, the revival of BO in environmental policies largely resting on its ability to promote economic incentives for biodiversity conservation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

Calvet

Napoléone²,

Salles

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many countries have included biodiversity offsetting (BO) requirements in their environmental regulations over the past four decades, this mechanism has recently been the object of renewed political interest. Incorporated into the mitigation hierarchy in three steps aimed at avoiding, reducing and offsetting residual impacts on biodiversity arising from development projects, BO is promoted as the way to achieve the political goal of No Net Loss of biodiversity (NNL). The recent success of BO is mainly based on its ability to provide economic incentives for biodiversity conservation. However, the diversity of BO mechanisms (direct offsets, banking mechanism and offsetting funds) and the various institutional frameworks within which they are applied generate substantial confusion about their economic and ecological implications. In this article, we first analyze the rationale for the BO approach from the welfare and ecological economics. We show that both these frameworks support the use of BO to address environmental externalities, but that they differ in how they consider the substitutability issue and levels of sustainability with regard to natural and manufactured capital, and in how they address ecological concerns. We then examine the economic and ecological performance criteria of BO from conceptual and empirical perspectives. We highlight that the three BO mechanisms involve different economic and ecological logics and inherent benefits, but also potential risks in meeting biodiversity conservation targets. We lastly investigate the ecological constraints with respect to the BO OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 7358 practice, and economic and organizational limitations of the BO system that may impede achievement of NNL goals. We then reveal the existence of a tension between the economic and ecological rationales in conducting BO that requires making choices about the NNL policy objectives. Finally, this article questions the place of BO in conservation policies and discusses the trade-off between political will and ecological opportunities involved in the BO approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

Calvet

Napoléone²,

Salles

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In short, 'the market is not perfect, but it is the best solution to our ecological problems' (Smith, 1995, p. 72). In recent years, much environmental policy is based on two types of so-called market-based instruments (MBIs), namely markets for ecosystem services (MES) such as emission trading schemes, and payments for ecosystem services (PES) such as paying farmers for wildlife protection Pirard, 2012). These types of marketization consist in offering real monetary incentives for environmental protection but have received much criticism (Martinez-Alier, 2002;McCauley, 2006;O'Neill, 1997O'Neill, , 2001Sagoff, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection

Neuteleers

Engelen

2015

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we want to analyze conceptually whether and when merely using economic discourse -talking money -can crowd out people's positive attitudes towards environmental goods and their reasons to protect them. We concentrate on the specific case of market-based or monetary valuation (MV) as an instance of 'commodification in discourse' and argue that it can have the same moral problems as real commodification. We aim to bring together insights from philosophy (pluralistic value theory), ethics (corruption), economics and psychology (crowding-out) to argue that there are good reasons to think about how and when to apply MV in environmental cases. On the basis of this interdisciplinary analysis and in order to promote further empirical research, we develop four empirically falsifiable hypotheses. (i) Commodification in discourse can bring about real commodification. (ii) MV can have framing and crowding effects on those who come into contact with it. (iii) Intrinsic motivation is more robust than extrinsic motivation and leads less to freeriding. (iv) MV's framing and crowding effects can decrease (demand and support for) environmental protection.

show abstract

“…These services will also heighten a new local economy, providing an economic break for the remaining rural communities through the creation of jobs and income generated from incentives, including from payments for ecosystem services, carbon markets, biodiversity markets, and eco-tourism (e.g. Bishop et al 2008;Jack et al 2008;Pirard 2012;TEEB 2010). Although, the concept of rewilding is fairly recent in Europe, it has already been identified as a costeffective management strategy for traditional land uses in Scotland (Brown et al 2011;McMorran et al 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services: The Opportunities of Rewilding in Europe

Cerqueira

Navarro

Marta-Pedroso

et al. 2015

Rewilding European Landscapes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Halting the degradation and restoring the full capacity of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem services is currently a major political commitment in Europe. Although still a debated topic, Europe's on-going farmland abandonment is seen as an opportunity to launch a new conservation and economic vision, through the restoration of natural processes via rewilding as a land management option. Despite the ecological interest of restoring a wilder Europe, there is a need to develop evidencebased arguments and explore the broad-range impacts of rewilding. In this chapter

show abstract

Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon

Cited by 208 publications

References 9 publications

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection

Ecosystem Services: The Opportunities of Rewilding in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About