Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
The Privatisation of Biodiversity? - New Approaches to Nature Conservation Law
Dr. Walters NsohUniversity of Dundee
Background State of biodiversity loss Current approach and role of the state in
conservation Development of alternatives to “command-and-
control” in environmental contexts “Nudging” mechanisms
Environmental taxes Reporting and disclosure duties Eco-labelling
Trading and offset schemes Greenhouse gases and carbon
New Approaches Conservation covenants/burdens Payment for ecosystem services Biodiversity offsetting
Recognise value of biodiversity in a way that allows it to be traded or paid for private sector becomes involved in paying
and deciding what to pay for
Conservation Covenants Enduring restrictions on the use of land to
serve a conservation purpose binding on successors in title enforceable without any need for
neighbouring land Law Commission consultation paper Potential
set own prioritiesmechanism for payments from private sectormechanism for PES and offsetting
Payment for Ecosystem Services- What are these?
Provisioning services food, fibre, fuel, fresh
water Regulating services
climate regulation, air quality, purification of water, flood and erosion control, pest regulation
Cultural services recreation, aesthetic
and spiritual benefits Supporting services
soil formation, nutrient cycling
Immense cost to replace these
PES Schemes Provide a vehicle for the beneficiaries to
pay the providers incentive to ensure services are maintained or
restoredsaves vast cost of replacement
Need to identify:What is being paid forWho is entitled to receive paymentWho should be paying
Biodiversity Offsetting
Allow development that causes some harm in one place to go ahead so long as compensating benefits provided
somewhere else Ensure no net loss to biodiversity (at least) Allows flexibility to enable development Private sector pays for conservation
polluter pays
Green Paper
DEFRA: Biodiversity Offsetting in EnglandSeptember 2013Responses due by 7 November
“The Government does not want to delay the introduction of biodiversity offsetting … plans to set out [detailed proposals] by the end of 2013.”
Experience
Scottish Borders – windfarmsover £600,000 contribution from developersalmost 500 hectares of habitat created or
enhanced since 2006 co-ordinated by planning authority using
planning systemSee http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/ 0042/00426294.pdf
Challenges of Market Approach Definition of units/services to be
sold/tradednon-fungible; lack of data; priorities
Effectivenesspractical results – coherence, timing and
scaleneeds of a working market
Governance Ethical issues
Non-fungible
≠
Baseline data
Lack of basic data
- especially for less glamorous species
Local and global prioritiesOne is globally commonOne is endangeredWhich is widely seen as the priority?
Public sentiment
Public sentiment
Public sentiment
Coherence
Must join up action in lots of locations to achieve results
Migration routes of individual cuckoos. British Trust for Ornithology
Coherence Migration routes of individual woodcock:From Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
Timing
Habitat takes time to mature so as to deliver benefits “Credit” given before delivery?
Scale New habitat not so rich, so need more
Dynamic environments
Changing coastlines
Climate Change
St Andrews 2050?
DEFRA Proposals & Questions
Mandatory? Optional? Site-by-site or overall impact?
analogy of infrastructure levy
Planning guidance or legislation?
Metrics
Pilot study has simple matrix Habitat lost:
area; quality of habitat; distinctiveness of habitat (three point scales)
Offset provided:same factors, with discounts for: risk, time, location
Not for “irreplaceable” habitats
Exchangeability
Like-for-like or substitution?potential to allow “trading up”
Locationecological value of larger areas impact on residents
Note emphasis on well-being in 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity
Security
Quality of assessments Mechanism to ensure offset continues to
be providedconservation covenants
Fall-back provision financial guarantee, public trust fund,
insurance pool
Additionality
Ensure that offset is genuinely additionalvital to ensure no net loss (or actual gain)
Issues:existing conservation sitesbiobanksextending life of current fixed-term benefits
(e.g. agri-environment schemes)
Ethical Concerns Positive? biodiversity becomes part of the economic
system which dominates society does not get overlooked as decisions are being
made
Negative? transforms biodiversity from common heritage to
commodity fundamentally misconceived view of our
relationship with nature
The way forward? Private sector and market approaches
have potential for biodiversity Major challenges in designing effective
and enduring frameworks Cannot simply carry over schemes from
other contexts Likely to be a supplement to direct
regulation, not replacement for it
What difference for sites? Policy balance favours conservation
Should not be undermined by offset Policy balance favours development
Offset offers something in place of what would otherwise simply be lost
Policy balance uncertainHow far will availability of offset tip the
balance? Genuine concern for nature or “licence to
trash”?
Acknowledgements
AHRC Project: The Privatisation of Biodiversity?Principal Investigator: Professor Colin Reid
Pictures from BTO, GWCT, Clip Art, Anne Reid and Colin Reid