Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How much of a market is involved in a biodiversity offset? A typology of biodiversity offset policies
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7657-3102
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6649-5232
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Number of Authors: 32019 (English)In: Journal of Environmental Management, ISSN 0301-4797, E-ISSN 1095-8630, Vol. 232, p. 679-691Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Biodiversity offsets (BO) are increasingly promoted and adopted by governments and companies worldwide as a policy instrument to compensate for biodiversity losses from infrastructure development projects. BO are often classified as 'market-based instruments' both by proponents and critics, but this representation fails to capture the varieties of how BO policies actually operate. To provide a framing for understanding the empirical diversity of BO policy designs, we present an ideal-typical typology based on the institutions from which BO is organised: Public Agency, Mandatory Market and Voluntary Offset. With cross-case comparison and stakeholder mapping, we identified the institutional arrangements of six BO policies to analyse how the biodiversity losses and gains are decided. Based on these results, we examined how these six policies relate to the BO ideal types. Our results suggested that the government, contrary to received wisdom, plays a key role not just in enforcing mandatory policies but also in determining the supply and demand of biodiversity units, supervising the transaction or granting legitimacy to the compensation site. Mandatory BO policies can be anything from pure government regulations defining industry liabilities to liability-driven markets where choice sets for trading credits are constrained and biodiversity credit prices are negotiated under state supervision. It is important to distinguish between two processes in BO: the matching of biodiversity losses and gains (commensurability) and the trading of biodiversity credits (commodification). We conclude that the commensurability of natural capital is restricted in BO policies; biodiversity is always exchanged with biodiversity. However, different degrees of commodification are possible, depending on the policy design and role of price signals in trading credits. Like payments for ecosystem services, the price of a biodiversity credit is most commonly based on the cost of management measures rather than the 'value' of biodiversity; which corresponds to a low degree of commodification.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 232, p. 679-691
Keywords [en]
Ecological compensation, Commensurability, Commodification, Market-based instrument, Habitat banking, Wetland mitigation
National Category
Economics and Business Political Science Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-167529DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.080ISI: 000459845200075PubMedID: 30522073OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-167529DiVA, id: diva2:1306109
Available from: 2019-04-23 Created: 2019-04-23 Last updated: 2022-03-23Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Safeguarding nature and people: Integrating economics, politics, and human rights to transform biodiversity policies and governance
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Safeguarding nature and people: Integrating economics, politics, and human rights to transform biodiversity policies and governance
2022 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

None of the world’s biodiversity goals from the last decade were fully met, as biodiversity losses are occurring at an unprecedented rate. Policies are not always effective; their use may have adverse effects on people and nature. Biodiversity offsets are an example of a policy that can be used to protect and restore biodiversity loss from economic development. Yet, offsets have been criticized for poor ecological outcomes, commodifying nature, and creating social inequality. To address this challenge, we need to learn from the shortcomings of biodiversity policies and governance as new goals are being drafted under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

This thesis examines how biodiversity policies can be designed and implemented for effective and equitable outcomes for people and biodiversity. I focus on the design (Paper I) and implementation (Paper II) by examining economic instruments in conservation. I then broaden to the governance landscape by analysing the implementation of policies in national (Paper III) and international regulatory contexts (Paper IV).

The 4 papers cover a diversity of cases across the globe at different governance levels. Paper I conducted a policy analysis of offsets from six countries (Australia, England, Germany, Madagascar, South Africa, and the US), through an economic framing of biodiversity trading and institutional arrangements. Paper II reviewed market instruments for conservation, ecotourism and sport hunting in eastern and southern Africa, to analyse whether these instruments can be compatible with new ideas for conservation such as conviviality. Paper III investigated the politics around Mekong hydropower development, through multi-stakeholder interviews and a discourse analysis of the social and environmental impacts of a dam in Laos. Paper IV examined the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and how review mechanisms of human rights law can improve compliance.

This thesis highlights that a human rights-based approach provides important conceptual and political support for biodiversity governance. It contributes to the science-policy interface with these insights. First, the institutional design and implementation are as important for the outcomes as the type of policy. In economic policies such as offsets, a high involvement of the market does not influence the level of commensurability, but increases the degree of commodification. Second, the contextual factors (politics and power relations) of policies should be acknowledged to address inequality. An institutional design and implementation that ensures meaningful participation and a balance of power is crucial for effective and equitable outcomes. Review mechanisms used in human rights help to navigate power inequities, by ensuring that all rights-holders have a substantial voice.

Third, offsets can be designed with different institutional arrangements (state, market, voluntary). If a market approach is chosen with biodiversity trading, effective monitoring and regulation is needed to safeguard biodiversity. Lastly, to foster compliance with policies, management and enforcement approaches can be used in a complementary manner through positive incentives, sunshine methods, and negative incentives. Overall, this thesis provides insights of how to meet our global goals for protecting and restoring biodiversity, while safeguarding people and nature.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 2022. p. 53
Keywords
global environmental governance, human rights review mechanisms, biodiversity offsets, commensurability, commodification, economic instruments, transformations, Convention on Biological Diversity, compliance, safeguards
National Category
Peace and Conflict Studies Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Sustainability Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-200666 (URN)978-91-7911-752-8 (ISBN)978-91-7911-753-5 (ISBN)
Public defence
2022-02-24, Vivi Täckholmsalen (Q-salen), NPQ-huset, Svante Arrhenius väg 20 and online via Zoom, public link is available at the department website, Stockholm, 09:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01556
Available from: 2022-02-01 Created: 2022-01-11 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Koh, Niak SianHahn, ThomasBoonstra, Wiebren J.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Koh, Niak SianHahn, ThomasBoonstra, Wiebren J.
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience Centre
In the same journal
Journal of Environmental Management
Economics and BusinessPolitical ScienceEnvironmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 226 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf