IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v77y2018icp43-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The local costs of biodiversity offsets: Comparing standards, policy and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Bidaud, Cécile
  • Schreckenberg, Kate
  • Jones, Julia P.G.

Abstract

Biodiversity offsets seek to counterbalance loss of biodiversity due to major developments by generating equivalent biodiversity benefits elsewhere, resulting, at least in theory, in ‘no net loss’ (or even a ‘net positive gain’) in biodiversity. While local costs of major developments themselves receive significant attention, the local costs of associated biodiversity offsets have not. In low income countries, where local populations often depend heavily on natural resources and access to land for their livelihoods, the conservation restrictions introduced around biodiversity offsets can have significant local costs. We consider the international standards which underpin the development of biodiversity offsets around the world and look at the biodiversity offset programme of the Ambatovy nickel mine in eastern Madagascar: a company at the vanguard of biodiversity offset development. Using document review and interviews with key international and national stakeholders (as well as previous fieldwork on local impacts of the Ambatovy biodiversity offset) we identify a mismatch between policies which make clear commitments to avoiding harm to local people, and somewhat weaker implementation on the ground. We explore this policy-practice gap and suggest that it is due to: 1) different interpretations of the meaning of international standards, 2) weak incentives for companies to comply with policies, 3) separation of responsibilities for social and environmental impacts of interventions in operating companies, 4) assumptions that conservation is a ‘good thing’ causing reduced scrutiny of biodiversity offsets relative to other activities of major developments. Biodiversity offsets are resulting in a rapid increase in protected areas funded by corporations (and their international lenders). Many conservation projects in low income countries have local costs. The existence of stringent standards which recognise these costs in the case of biodiversity offset projects is very positive. Biodiversity offsets have the potential to be a successful addition to the conservationist’s toolkit but the real challenges of addressing the local costs of this novel conservation approach need to be resolved.

Suggested Citation

  • Bidaud, Cécile & Schreckenberg, Kate & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "The local costs of biodiversity offsets: Comparing standards, policy and practice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 43-50.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:43-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717316587
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sullivan, S. & Hannis, M., 2015. "Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 162-173.
    2. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 0. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    2. Souza, Barbara A. & Rosa, Josianne C.S. & Siqueira-Gay, Juliana & Sánchez, Luis E., 2021. "Mitigating impacts on ecosystem services requires more than biodiversity offsets," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2024. "Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 22473-22498, September.
    4. Katie Devenish & Sébastien Desbureaux & Simon Willcock & Julia P. G. Jones, 2022. "On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 498-508, June.
    5. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 2020. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 359-375, June.
    7. Jing, Zhaorui & Wang, Jinman & Tang, Qian & Liu, Biao & Niu, Hebin, 2021. "Evolution of land use in coal-based cities based on the ecological niche theory: A case study in Shuozhou City, China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Kotilainen, Juha M. & Raitanen, Elina & Kattainen, Matti & Pekkonen, Minna & Kuusela, Saija & Kullberg, Peter & Kangas, Johanna A.M. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 776-784.
    9. Ola Lindroos & Malin Söderlind & Joel Jensen & Joakim Hjältén, 2021. "Cost Analysis of a Novel Method for Ecological Compensation—A Study of the Translocation of Dead Wood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Solomon Zena Walelign & Martin Reinhardt Nielsen & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Roads and livelihood activity choices in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Rasolofoson, Ranaivo A. & Nielsen, Martin R. & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "The potential of the Global Person Generated Index for evaluating the perceived impacts of conservation interventions on subjective well-being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 107-118.
    3. Sponagel, Christian & Back, Hans & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Bahrs, Enno, 2020. "b. Development of supply curves for environmental compensation measures on farmland on the example of the Stuttgart Region in Germany," Land, Farm & Agribusiness Management Department 308132, Harper Adams University, Land, Farm & Agribusiness Management Department.
    4. Jacob, Céline & Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte & Bas, Adeline & Calvet, Coralie, 2016. "Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 92-102.
    5. Senda, Trinity S. & Robinson, Lance W. & Gachene, Charles K.K. & Kironchi, Geoffrey & Doyo, Jaldesa, 2020. "An assessment of the implications of alternative scales of communal land tenure formalization in pastoral systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Benjamin Neimark & Sango Mahanty & Wolfram Dressler, 2016. "Mapping Value in a ‘Green’ Commodity Frontier: Revisiting Commodity Chain Analysis," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(2), pages 240-265, March.
    7. Zorondo-Rodríguez, Francisco & Díaz, Marion & Simonetti-Grez, Gabriela & Simonetti, Javier A., 2019. "Why would new protected areas be accepted or rejected by the public?: Lessons from an ex-ante evaluation of the new Patagonia Park Network in Chile," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Kotilainen, Juha M. & Raitanen, Elina & Kattainen, Matti & Pekkonen, Minna & Kuusela, Saija & Kullberg, Peter & Kangas, Johanna A.M. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: An analysis of rights and responsibilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 776-784.
    9. Evangelia Apostolopoulou & Elisa Greco & William M Adams, 2019. "Biodiversity Offsetting and the Production of 'Equivalent Natures': A Marxist Critique," Post-Print halshs-02441026, HAL.
    10. Katherine Simpson & Frans P de Vries & Paul Armsworth & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Designing markets for biodiversity offsets: lessons from tradable pollution permits," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-04, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    11. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    12. Sponagel, Christian & Back, Hans & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Bahrs, Enno, 2020. "b. Development of supply curves for environmental compensation measures on farmland on the example of the Stuttgart Region in Germany," Agri-Tech Economics Papers 308132, Harper Adams University, Land, Farm & Agribusiness Management Department.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:43-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.