DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulated Destruction: How Biodiversity Offsetting Enables

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulated Destruction: How Biodiversity Offsetting Enables REGULATED DESTRUCTION How biodiversity offsetting enables environmental destruction Author Jutta Kill The research for this publication was carried out between February and October 2018. Design Somerset Bean Image credits Cover, p5, p24 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia. Members of the women’s group picking vegetables. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p11 Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association (PIFWA), Mangrove Education Centre, Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang, Malaysia. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International p21 Community agroecology and agro-forestry project, Sungai Buri, Sarawak, Indonesia, Members of the women’s group including the two women leaders. Amelia Collins/Friends of the Earth International Friends Of The Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network with 73 member groups and over two million members and supporters around the world. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalisation, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because of what we do. www.foei.org [email protected] Follow us twitter.com/foeint facebook.com/foeint REGULATED DESTRUCTION How biodiversity offsetting enables environmental destruction Introduction 4 1 What is biodiversity offsetting? 5 2 Regulated destruction: How biodiversity offsetting undermines 11 environmental protection National approaches to compensation offsets 12 India | Compensatory afforestation 12 Uganda | National Environment Bill introduces biodiversity offsets 13 into national law Canada | Biodiversity offsetting opens up habitat of endangered 14 species to tar sand industry Colombia | Biodiversity offsets and domestic carbon markets 15 facilitate corporate destruction Brazil | Forest restoration credits and Environmental Services 17 Incentives System Costa Rica | Pioneering financialization of natural wealth 19 accounting and implementing the world’s first aquatic offset Different tools, same outcome 20 3 How offsetting enables continued destruction in areas of special 21 importance to biodiversity When perpetuity doesn’t last 23 4 Offsetting | Instrument of choice for corporations losing social license 24 to operate Global food corporations and agroindustry pledge to ‘end deforestation’ 25 REDD+ | A tool for greenwashing corporate land use 25 Green airports? Biodiversity and carbon offsetting in the aviation industry 27 5 Final reflections 29 Introduction This publication forms part of a series of two. It explores offsetting, even where it is not required by a country’s how financialization of nature1 as a central plank of the environmental regulation. The examples cited demon- green growth discourse has evolved since the turn of the strate how unreliable offsetting commitments are. millennium. With REDD+i, international forest policy has also been This report looks at how financialization of nature allows strongly influenced by financialization of nature. More corporate destruction to continue behind a smokescreen of than a decade ago, REDD+ was introduced at the UN cli- market-based environmental instruments. Compensation mate negotiations with the expectation that as a financing offsets, and biodiversity offsetting in particular, are the mechanism, it would generate large sums of private sec- most rapidly advancing of these instruments. They are tor funding from industries that profit from continued fossil increasingly linked with compensation trust funds and bio- fuel extraction and use. The money generated through diversity banks as implementing mechanisms.2 selling carbon credits (see chapter 1) was to be used to help end deforestation and finance forest conservation. Chapter 1 discusses key assumptions behind biodiver- sity offsetting and shows why offsetting leads to more, not In reality, conflicts abound,3 REDD+finance remains less, environmental destruction, and often amounts to a largely public sector funding for private sector enterprises double land grab where corporations control land use at and international consultants,4 and large-scale deforesta- two locations — the site of the corporate destruction and tion continues at alarming rates.5 Rather than ending the the location the company now claims as biodiversity offset. disastrous experiment, however, REDD+ is now increas- ingly presented as ‘payment-for-performance’ mecha- Chapter 2 outlines different ways in which biodiversity nism. Yet, its core architecture remains that of an offset offsetting or similar compensation offset schemes are mechanism. embedded in environmental regulations in different coun- tries, and the different mechanisms that companies can Chapter 4 looks at how the global food, agriculture and use to fulfil offsetting requirements. aviation industries are using biodiversity and carbon off- setting to maintain social license to continue their destruc- Chapter 3 examines how offsetting enables continued tive activities and ward off the threat of regulation destruction, particularly in areas of special importance to biodiversity. It looks at how Performance Standard 6 of the A final section reflects on emerging trends in the field of World Bank’s International Finance Corporation is driving biodiversity offsetting. i. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of Forests. The ‘plus’ indicates that activities involving forest conservation, forestry management and tree planting also qualify for REDD+ payments. 4 | REGULATED DESTRUCTION What is biodiversity offsetting? 6 1 Advocates of biodiversity offsetting claim that the instru- ment ensures corporations causing damage to biodiversity compensate for their impact by maintaining or improving biodiversity on another site. It is one of a range of financialization of nature instruments that proponents of market-based environmentalism and ‘green growth’ claim will enable nature to flourish while destructive corporate activities continue. They emphasize their expectation that the financialization of nature will help create new environmental assets — biodiversity-rich properties or land with high water filtration or carbon stor- age capacities — that can be rented out for compensa- tion. These assets, they promise, will one day become profitable investments. They also emphasize that a shift from regulation focused on limits, targets and restrictions on destruction or pollution to ‘flexible’ regulation based on compensation will relieve the state of the increasing costs of environmental protection and restoration. In essence, biodiversity Above all, corporate demand for ‘regulatory relief’ and offsetting and similar World Bank standards that weaken environmental protec- tion are driving the growing popularity of biodiversity off- compensation offset setting and compensation offset schemes more generally. schemes allow more pollution Offsetting schemes provide ‘regulatory flexibility’. Looked at from a different perspective, they undermine environ- and destruction today on mental protection, by giving companies an opportunity to the promise to restore or ignore pollution limits or nature protection rules at any par- ticular place of interest to them, while claiming that they prevent planned destruction are respecting environmental protection laws. Offsetting allows government agencies and financial institutions to elsewhere, in future maintain a dependable flow of environmental licenses and financing for corporate destruction despite the growing catalogue of environmental regulation that has evolved in response to public pressure for better environmental pro- tection since the 1970s. REGULATED DESTRUCTION | 5 To understand how offsetting schemes provide this reg- ulatory flexibility, it is important to recall what offsets are. Offsetting is based on the assumption that the ecological damage caused in one place can be cancelled out — off- set — by restoring or protecting biodiversity claimed to be at risk elsewhere. This assumption allows a company to exceed a pollution limit or circumvent a prohibition to destroy at any one particular place it wants for corporate profit-making. The only requirement: presenting a plan to authorities and financiers outlining how this damage that is over and above a legal limit or regulatory restriction will be cancelled out through avoiding planned destruc- tion or pollution elsewhere. This prevention of supposedly planned destruction elsewhere, or the promise for resto- ration of a ‘degraded’ habitat that otherwise would remain ‘degraded’, it is claimed, will cancel out the ecological damage at the site of corporate pollution or destruction. In essence, biodiversity offsetting and similar compen- sation offset schemes allow more pollution and destruc- tion today on the promise to restore or prevent planned destruction elsewhere, in future. Offsetting leads to more, not less ecological destruction, causes more pollution, and amounts to a double land grab because corporations end up controlling land use at two locations – the site they are destroying and the location they are claiming as offset.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Banking Nature? the Spectacular Financialisation of Environmental Conservation
    Banking Nature? The Spectacular Financialisation of Environmental Conservation Sian Sullivan Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In this paper I emphasise the financialisation of environmental conservation as 1. the turning of financiers to conservation parameters as a new frontier for investment, and 2. the rewriting of conservation practice and nonhuman worlds in terms of banking and financial categories. I introduce financialisation as a broadly controlling impetus with relevance for environmental conservation. I then note ways in which a spectacular investment frontier in conservation is being opened. I highlight the draw of assertions of lucrative gains, combined with notions of geographical substitutability, in creating tradable indicators of environmental health and harm. I disaggregate financialisation strategies into four categories—nature finance, nature work, nature banking and nature derivatives—and assess their implications. The concluding section embraces Marx and Foucault as complementary thinkers in understanding the transforming intensifications of late capitalism in environmental conservation, and diagnosing their associated effects and costs. Keywords: financialisation, environmental conservation, frontier, primitive accumulation, environmentality, Marx, Foucault Introduction: Nature’s Growing Financial “Value” Economic growth and the natural environment are mutually compatible. Sustainable economic growth relies on services provided by the natural environment, often referred to as “ecosystem services” ... [P]rotected natural areas can yield returns many times higher than the costs of their protection. There are multi-million pound opportunities available from greener goods and services, and from markets that protect nature’s services. Too many of the benefits we derive from nature are not properly valued.
    [Show full text]
  • KEY ISSUES in BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW and POLICY a Comparison of Six Jurisdictions
    KEY ISSUES IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSET LAW AND POLICY A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions Ontario Nature’s Greenway Guide Series | June 2015 Key Issues in Biodiversity Offset Law and Policy: A Comparison of Six Jurisdictions June 2015 by David W. Poulton, M.A., LL.M. Poulton Environmental Strategies for Ontario Nature Acknowledgements I am grateful to several people who have contributed to this report. First and foremost, the work was the inspiration of Anne Bell of Ontario Nature, who was unfailingly positive and encouraging. Several experts did me the service of reviewing drafts of the summaries of their respective jurisdictions of focus. For that thanks to Laurence Barea (New Zealand,) Marianne Darbi (Germany), Carrie Nugent and Jennifer Psyllakis (British Columbia), and Nicholas Winfield (Canada). Any distortion of the details in those jurisdictions in the commentary of this report is entirely inadvertent and my own responsibility. DWP This report was made possible through the generous support of The George Cedric Metcalf Foundation. Author: David W. Poulton Review: Dr. Anne Bell Copy-editor: Geri Savits-Fine Design: Lisa Rebnord Cover photo: Don Johnston Download this guide free of charge at: ontarionature.org/publications Copyright @2015: Ontario Nature Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................... 3 2. Biodiversity Offsets and Key Issues ......................................... 7 a. Mitigation Hierarchy .................................................... 7 b. Goals of Offsetting ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot
    Defra project code: WC 1051 Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Programme Final Report Volume 1: June 2014 Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited in partnership with The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 1 Volume 1: Final Report June 2014 Project title: WC1051: Evaluation of the Biodiversity Offsetting pilot programme Contracting Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) organisation: Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QY, UK Contact: Dr William Sheate (Project Director) Jonathan Baker (Project Manager) Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk Partner organisations: The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Address: IEEP Offices, Floor 3, 11 Belgrave Road, London SW1V 1RB, UK Contact: Dr Graham Tucker Tel: +44 (0)20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ieep.eu Report details: Report title: Volume 1: Final Report Date issued: June 2014 Purpose: To provide a synthesis of the information collected across the two year evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilot programme Version no.: 2.4 Author(s): Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Bennett, T., Payne, D., Tucker, G. White, O and Forrest, S. Reviewed by: Eales, R. and Ten Brink, P. Acknowledgements The Steering Group would like to thank the pilots for being so generous with their time and insights. They would also like to thank the Complementary Projects, the Natural England advisers and to all of those who provided their time and expertise to the evaluation, including the team at CEP.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: Using Carbon Investment to Grow the Biodiversity Bank
    The following submission argues for a recognition of the biodiversity A version of this submission has been accepted for publication in the journal Conservation Biology Title: Using carbon investment to grow the biodiversity bank Authors’ addresses: Sarah A. Bekessy* and Brendan A. Wintle † * School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia † School of Botany, University of Melbourne 3010, Australia Introduction The fervour with which carbon initiatives are being adopted (Capoor & Ambrosi 2007) presents a unique opportunity to restore biodiversity while creating new financial and marketing incentives for investors. We argue that current approaches to carbon offsetting that rely largely on investment in monoculture plantations will rapidly lose appeal as the public becomes aware of their dubious carbon benefits (Guo & Gifford 2002; Glenday 2006) and the related environmental and social harm that they may bring (Jackson et al. 2005; Lamb et al. 2005). Here we describe a scheme that is more robust to uncertainty about carbon sequestration and is guaranteed to have broad environmental benefits, including restoration of degraded natural systems and endangered species habitats. The proposed scheme provides a mechanism for investing in the worlds most threatened ecosystems that makes carbon, biodiversity, and financial sense. The idea is simple: investors should be allowed to reap the dual benefits of carbon and biodiversity credits from the one parcel of land and those credits could later be traded on the relevant markets. Current approaches place investors’ hopes in future carbon and timber values that may be risky given available evidence about the real sequestration value of short rotation plantations (Guo & Gifford 2002) and the rapid rise in monoculture plantation projects (FAO 2005) potentially leading to a reduction in demand and a slowing of the plantation timber market.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context
    Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context Scoping study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English Context Final Report to Defra (Contract NE 0801) NEE 0801 Final Report: April 2009 1 Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context Compiled by Jo Treweek (Treweek Environmental Consultants) With contributions from: Kerry ten Kate, freelance consultant Bill Butcher, WGB Environment Orlando Venn, Treweek Environmental Consultants Lincoln Garland and Mike Wells, Biodiversity by Design Dominic Moran, Scottish Agricultural College Stewart Thompson, Oxford Brookes University Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for input from the participants at the stakeholder workshops and for advice and comments provided by several people including Roger Morris, Ian Hepburn, Riki Therivel, David Hill, Derek Wilkinson, Paul Raven, Graham Tucker. David Parkes, Michael Crowe, Anne Buchan and their colleagues at the Victoria Department of Sustainability and the Environment in Australia generously shared their experience of designing and operating a system of biodiversity offsets. The Project Steering Committee (Sarah Lucking, Pete Brotherton, Andrew Dodd, Helen Dunn, James Vause, Julian Harlow, Phil Lewis, Sarah Webster), provided valuable input and constructive criticism throughout. NEE 0801 Final Report: April 2009 2 Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context Executive Summary Defra commissioned a scoping study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English context. The results of the study are summarised in this report and are intended to inform debate on the possible contribution of biodiversity offsets to conservation and sustainable development goals in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study
    Biodiversity Offsetting Case Study Location Bainbridge Island, USA Year 2009 – ongoing Project A 12 home single family residential development and a public infrastructure description project (relocation of a shoreline road). This is a pilot project in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme. Actors active in the case City of Bainbridge Island – conducts the development and the offsetting project Department of Planning and Community Development – encourages developers to implement biodiversity offsets Upper Blakely LLC – the development company Bainbridge Island Land Trust – responsible for long term conservation success Private landowner – participating voluntarily, exploring the potential to offset the development impacts citizens affected by the offsetting – attended public hearing See detailed table of stakeholder identification in Table 3. Background and activities involved The pilot programme is a cooperation between a private landowner and the City of Bainbridge. The project intends to show how a forest and a shoreline habitat can be protected even as a development occurs. 2 types of activities involved: Public infrastructure project: It contains of a relocation of a shoreline road. This area is in the property of a private landowner. Portions of this road are located very close to the water. The road with the bulkhead increases wave energy, thereby altering the substrate of the beach and threatening intertidal habitat. The location of the road also replaces natural riparian vegetation, further threatening the potential marine riparian functions. The City agreed to move the road inland, away from the shoreline, which would impact marine riparian area and a forested wetland. Moving the road inland involves some impacts to a small wetland, which will trigger a regulatory requirement to offset the wetland impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Biodiversity Offsets
    Planning biodiversity offsets TWELVE OPERATIONALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho TemaNord 2018:513 Planning biodiversity offsets Twelve operationally important decisions Atte Moilanen and Janne S. Kotiaho ISBN 978-92-893-5406-6 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-5407-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-5408-0 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-513 TemaNord 2018:513 ISSN 0908-6692 Standard: PDF/UA-1 ISO 14289-1 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2018 Cover photo: unsplash.com Print: Rosendahls Printed in Denmark Disclaimer This publication was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the Nordic Council of Ministers’ views, opinions, attitudes or recommendations. Rights and permissions This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Translations: If you translate this work, please include the following disclaimer: This translation was not pro- duced by the Nordic Council of Ministers and should not be construed as official. The Nordic Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the translation or any errors in it. Adaptations: If you adapt this work, please include the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with its author(s). The views and opinions in this adaptation have not been approved by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Third-party content: The Nordic Council of Ministers does not necessarily own every single part of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • BBOP – Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook About This Document 2
    Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society provided the Secretariat for BBOP during the first phase of the programme's work (2004 - 2008). Publication Data Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. BBOP, Washington, D.C. Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh.pdf © Forest Trends 2009. ISBN 978-1-932928-31-0 (PDF) Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Cover and graphic design by Rima Design. 1 About this document The Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and accompanying supporting materials1 such as this Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook2 have been prepared by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) to help developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and financial institutions that wish to consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets. They were developed by members of the BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee3 during the first phase of the programme’s work (2004 – 2008) and have benefited from contributions and suggestions from many of the 200 people who registered on the BBOP consultation site and numerous others who have joined us for discussions in meetings. The Advisory Committee members support the Principles and commend the other working documents to readers as a source of interim guidance on which to draw when considering, designing and implementing biodiversity offsets.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Biodiversity Business
    Building Biodiversity Business Joshua Bishop, Sachin Kapila, Frank Hicks, Paul Mitchell and Francis Vorhies 1. One of the 73 frog species found in the 1 Gamba Complex, Gabon © Carlton Ward Jr. 2. A water lily in Jacana, Botswana IUCN Photo Library © IUCN / Sue Mainka 3. Masked butterflyfish in the Red Sea, Egypt IUCN Photo Library © Christian Laufenberg 2 3 4. Chameleo dilepis © Carlton Ward Jr. 5. Alcedo leucogaster © Carlton Ward Jr. 6. Forest in the Garajonay National Park, Spain IUCN Photo Library © Jim Thorsell Carlton Ward Jr. is an environmental photojournalist from Florida, 4 5 6 USA with graduate training in ecology and anthropology. Through his photographs, he aims to promote conservation of natural environments and cultural legacies. Building Biodiversity Business Joshua Bishop1, Sachin Kapila2, Frank Hicks3, Paul Mitchell4 and Francis Vorhies5 2008 1 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2 Shell International Limited 3 Forest Trends 4 Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Limited 5 Earthmind Publication Data Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. and Vorhies, F. 2008. Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland. 164 pp. © Shell International Limited, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the authors 2008 ISBN: 978-2-8317-1019-8 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Postnote 369 'Biodiversity Offsetting'
    POSTNOTE Number 369 January 2011 Biodiversity Offsetting Overview Biodiversity offsetting is a market-based conservation tool that measures negative impacts on biodiversity, replacing the loss through improvements usually nearby. Offsets aim to compensate for residual biodiversity loss incurred by development projects by maintaining an equivalent amount of biodiversity elsewhere that would otherwise be lost, or by enhancing Given growing recognition of the importance of biodiversity at an alternate location. biodiversity, all sectors are looking for ways to Several countries currently implement offset mitigate the environmental costs of law and policy with different levels of development activity. Biodiversity offsetting regulation and varying success. refers to market-based schemes designed to compensate for losses of biodiversity due to Offsets aim to achieve ‘no net loss’ or a ‘net development projects. This POSTnote gain’ of biodiversity. summarises biodiversity offsetting and Offsetting remains largely undervalued, examines opportunities and risks of offsets especially with regard to undervalued or as within a UK context. yet unknown biodiversity. recognised, this strategy has proved unable to stop the Biodiversity persistent and widespread loss and degradation of Biodiversity is the genetic diversity within species, species biodiversity in almost all regions. Participants to the recent diversity within ecosystems, and ecosystem diversity across intergovernmental meeting of the 193 parties at the landscapes. It supports ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • Review Biodiversity Offsets in Theory and Practice
    Review Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice J OSEPH W. B ULL,K.BLAKE S UTTLE,ASCELIN G ORDON,NAVINDER J. S INGH Q1 and E . J . M ILNER-GULLAND Abstract Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular Introduction yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity he conservation of global biodiversity alongside conservation and of economic development in tandem; Teconomic development is a key challenge for the the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses 21st century. Human societies depend on diverse, fun- in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is ctioning ecosystems in innumerable ways that are not being widely adopted, even though its methodologies fully understood (Lubchenco, 1997), yet there are few and the overriding conceptual framework are still under mechanisms that facilitate the accounting of biodiversity development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates within development activities. Consequently, con- ff implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theor- servation concerns are ine ectively integrated into de- etical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the velopment and risk being perceived as incompatible ff ff criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then with economic growth. Biodiversity o sets o er an explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from approach that links conservation with industry, potentially these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We providing improved ecological outcomes along with find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent development. in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge Legislation mandating compensatory biodiversity ff of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring conservation mechanisms (including o sets) exists in and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics and the Ecosystem 19 March 2019
    sanity, humanity and science probably the world's most read economics journal real-world economics review Please click here to support this journal and the WEA - Subscribers: 26,210 subscribe RWER Blog ISSN 1755-9472 - A journal of the World Economics Association (WEA) 14,432 members, join back issues Issue no. 87: Economics and the Ecosystem 19 March 2019 Introduction: Economics and civilization in ecological crisis 2 Jamie Morgan and Edward Fullbrook Growthism: its ecological, economic and ethical limits 9 Herman Daly Producing ecological economy 23 Katharine N. Farrell Economics 101: Dog barking, overgrazing and ecological collapse 33 Edward Fullbrook Addressing meta-externalities: investments in restoring the Earth 36 Neva Goodwin Degrowth: a theory of radical abundance 54 Jason Hickel Environmental financialization: what could go wrong? 69 Eric Kemp-Benedict and Sivan Kartha Elements of a political economy of the postgrowth era 90 Max Koch Victim of success: civilisation is at risk 106 Peter McManners Economism and the Econocene: a coevolutionary interpretation 114 Richard B. Norgaard End game: the economy as eco-catastrophe and what needs to change 132 William E. Rees An ecosocialist path to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C 149 Richard Smith Toward sustainable development: democracy-oriented economics 181 Peter Söderbaum Like blending chalk and cheese – the impact of standard economics in IPCC scenarios 196 Joachim H. Spangenberg and Lia Polotzek Of ecosystems and economies: re-connecting economics with reality 213 Clive L. Spash and Tone Smith How to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals within planetary boundaries by 2050 231 Per Espen Stoknes The simpler way: envisioning a sustainable society in an age of limits 247 Ted Trainer and Samuel Alexander Board of Editors, past contributors, submissions, etc.
    [Show full text]