Evaluating offsetting as a component of biodiversity governance

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Ritwick Ghosh, Steven Wolf
{"title":"Evaluating offsetting as a component of biodiversity governance","authors":"Ritwick Ghosh,&nbsp;Steven Wolf","doi":"10.1002/eet.2103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biodiversity offsetting is considered to be an innovative policy instrument to balance land use changes with conservation priorities. Although advocates have pushed to establish biodiversity offset markets for over 20 years and critics have contested the social and ecological implications of such policy innovations, in practice, offsetting schemes have been difficult to set up, replicate, and sustain over time. Observing the underperformance of biodiversity offsetting, we argue that a critical analysis is urgently needed. We identify a need to analyze offsetting in relation to other features of biodiversity governance rather than focus on the merits and flaws of offsetting as a standalone policy instrument. Using a set-theoretic model, we consider how different institutional arrangements determine if and when biodiversity offsetting produces positive environmental outcomes. We find that offsetting adds to biodiversity governance only when three thorny challenges are met—muscular enforcement of environmental regulations, rigorous impact management aligned with the mitigation hierarchy, and the existence of evidence-based and cost-effective platforms for offsetting. Short of these conditions, outcomes are either uncertain or outright harmful to biodiversity. Reflecting more broadly on the prospects of institutionalizing offsetting mechanisms for protecting biodiversity, we conclude a need to recenter attention toward the supportive role of the state in facilitating effective policy innovations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"34 6","pages":"598-609"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Biodiversity offsetting is considered to be an innovative policy instrument to balance land use changes with conservation priorities. Although advocates have pushed to establish biodiversity offset markets for over 20 years and critics have contested the social and ecological implications of such policy innovations, in practice, offsetting schemes have been difficult to set up, replicate, and sustain over time. Observing the underperformance of biodiversity offsetting, we argue that a critical analysis is urgently needed. We identify a need to analyze offsetting in relation to other features of biodiversity governance rather than focus on the merits and flaws of offsetting as a standalone policy instrument. Using a set-theoretic model, we consider how different institutional arrangements determine if and when biodiversity offsetting produces positive environmental outcomes. We find that offsetting adds to biodiversity governance only when three thorny challenges are met—muscular enforcement of environmental regulations, rigorous impact management aligned with the mitigation hierarchy, and the existence of evidence-based and cost-effective platforms for offsetting. Short of these conditions, outcomes are either uncertain or outright harmful to biodiversity. Reflecting more broadly on the prospects of institutionalizing offsetting mechanisms for protecting biodiversity, we conclude a need to recenter attention toward the supportive role of the state in facilitating effective policy innovations.

将补偿作为生物多样性治理的一个组成部分进行评估
生物多样性补偿被认为是平衡土地使用变化与保护优先事项的创新政策工具。尽管 20 多年来,倡导者一直在推动建立生物多样性补偿市场,批评者也对此类政策创新的社会和生态影响提出了质疑,但在实践中,补偿计划一直难以建立、复制和长期维持。鉴于生物多样性抵消计划表现不佳,我们认为迫切需要对其进行批判性分析。我们认为有必要将抵消与生物多样性治理的其他特征联系起来进行分析,而不是专注于抵消作为独立政策工具的优缺点。利用集合理论模型,我们考虑了不同的制度安排如何决定生物多样性抵消是否以及何时产生积极的环境成果。我们发现,只有当三个棘手的挑战得到解决时,抵消才能增加生物多样性治理的效果--环境法规的严格执行、与减缓等级相一致的严格影响管理,以及基于证据且具有成本效益的抵消平台的存在。如果不具备这些条件,结果要么不确定,要么对生物多样性完全有害。在对保护生物多样性的抵消机制制度化的前景进行更广泛的思考后,我们得出结论,有必要重新关注国家在促进有效政策创新方面的支持作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信