Safeguards for enhancing ecological compensation in Sweden

Abstract

Ecological compensation (EC) is being explored as a policy instrument for the European Union's 'No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' initiative. EC is commonly associated with the Polluter-Pays Principle, but we propose the Developer-Pays Principle as a more appropriate principle. Safeguards that are relevant to local and national contexts are needed when addressing social-ecological resilience in the face of risks associated with EC. The operationalisation of EC in Sweden is assessed through two case studies, the E12 highway and Mertainen mine. The institutional design and implementation procedures are investigated through semi-structured interviews as well as an analysis of legal and other written documents. Using a multi-level governance framework, we examine four key disputed issues within compensation. Our results suggest that (i) Risk of a licenseto-trash can be minimised; (ii) Complementary quantitative and qualitative ecological valuation methods are needed to achieve additionality and No Net Loss; (iii) Compensation pools may be a promising strategy to secure land availability; and (iv) Social safeguards are vital for EC in highincome countries as well, where they are currently understudied. We conclude that EC cannot be the main instrument for nature conservation, but rather complementary to a strong legal framework that protects biodiversity and ecosystems in addition to the sustained and equitable benefits of ecosystem services.

A State‐of‐the‐Art Review of Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Pollution

“…Other IPs remain unsupported in their legal battles against polluting corporations operating in their lands (MacDonald 2015; Tsosie 2015; Shipton 2017), often due to a lack of legal recourse in states insufficiently supportive of IP rights (Holden and Ingelson 2007; Langton and Mazel 2008). This has led many to argue for an international legal framework for compensation for social and environmental damages to IPs (Nuttall 2010; Orta‐Martínez and Finer 2010), given that IPs still face barriers to receiving full compensation for pollution impacts (Martínez‐Alier et al 2014; Koh et al 2017).…”

Net Gain: Seeking Better Outcomes for Local People when Mitigating Biodiversity Loss from Development

“…32 Particularly significant well-being impacts are likely to arise from offsets that require local people to lose, or have restricted access to, biodiversity and ecosystem services on which they depend for their livelihoods (Figure 3, quadrant a). Avoided loss offsets have prevented small-scale farmers in Madagascar, 33 and Sami reindeer herders in Sweden, 34 from carrying out their traditional agricultural practices. However, the risk that avoided loss offsets pose to well-being depends very much on local context (Figure 3).…”

“…46 A mining company operating in Sami reindeer herder territory, signed a legally binding document committing to continued dialogue to ensure interference from the mine on local livelihoods was minimized. 34 The uncertainty in delivering biodiversity gains from restoration or avoided loss offsets is often accounted for by requiring a larger area of offset than the area lost by development. 47 Similarly, uncertainties in measuring impacts on well-being could be accounted for by taking a precautionary approach and aiming above the target.…”

Incorporating local nature-based cultural values into biodiversity No Net Loss strategies

“…landscapes, rocks, waterfalls). Losses and gains in nature under projectlevel NNL strategies can significantly impact people both positively and negatively, at both the development and offset sites, often affecting nature's provision of cultural values (Koh et al 2017).…”