Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England

Sullivan, Sian; Hannis, M

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.009

Cited by 70 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section I consider some of the ontological assumptions infusing so-called green economy responses to accelerating anthropogenic alterations of ecosystems and the atmosphere (Steffen et al 2015). The 'green economy' here refers in particular to an emphasis on internalising environmental externalities through pricing mechanisms, so as to approach problems of environmental degradation mostly as market failures that can be solved through market instruments (discussed further in Pawliczek and Sullivan 2011;Sullivan and Hannis 2015). Such proposals of necessity frame (Lakoff 2010), calculate and perform (Callon 2006) the so-called 'natural environment' as a formally economic entity or set of entities, ontologically flattening diverse natures into "frameworks of undifferentiated 'orderings' yoked to global chains of commodity production" (Joronen 2013: 631).…”

Section: Ontology and 'The Green Economy'mentioning

confidence: 99%

What's ontology got to do with it? On nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the 'green economy'

Sullivan

2017

Journal of Political Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary market-based (i.e. neoliberal) 'green economy' approaches to environmental degradation emphasise exchanges whereby quantified units of environmental harm are traded or 'offset' for compensating units of environmental health. Also encouraged is a view that economic growth can be 'greened' through 'decoupling' economic value from material ecological realities. Such approaches tend to frame biophysical natures in terms of aggregates, such as an 'aggregate natural capital rule' and 'net zero carbon.' Naturesbeyond-the-human are thereby understood and enacted as calculable, exchangeable, substitutable and commensurable between different spatial and temporal sites, making up an 'aggregate' or 'net' value overall. This article uses a comparative cross-cultural engagement to problematize ontological assumptions regarding the nature of nature underscoring the rationality of these aggregating and offsetting 'solutions.' Drawing on literatures from environmental anthropology and environmental ethics, combined with ethnographic material from long-term field research in north-west Namibia, the article considers elements of alternative cultural ontologies and the ways these may give rise to a different array of practices with value for conceiving and generating 'sustainability.' It adheres to a critical political ecology perspective in understanding the ways that power structures the ontologies that become both privileged and occluded in neoliberal strategies for green economy governance. In doing so, the article argues that sensitivity to the ontological politics through which spaces and entities are defined and known and which thereby shape environmental conflicts, may be key to recognising with more depth the sometimes significantly different 'natures' being struggled over in such conflicts. Key words: ontology; green economy; offsetting; decoupling; sustainability; value; natures-beyond-thehuman; neoliberalism; political ecology Résumé Les approches de la dégradation de l'environnement fondées sur le marché et l'économie verte mettent l'accent sur les échanges, dans le cadre desquels des unités quantifiées de dommages à l'environnement sont échangées ou «compensées» pour compenser des unités de santé environnementale. On encourage également l'idée que la croissance économique peut être «vernie» par le biais du «découplage» de la valeur économique des réalités écologiques matérielles. De telles approches tendent à encadrer les natures biophysiques en termes d'agrégats, tels qu'une «règle du capital naturel agrégé» et un «carbone zéro net». Les natures-au-delà de l'humain sont ainsi comprises et promulguées comme calculables, échangeables, substituables et commensurables entre différents sites spatiaux et temporels, constituant une valeur «agrégée» ou «nette». Cet article utilise un engagement interculturel comparatif pour problématiser les hypothèses ontologiques concernant la nature de la nature, soulignant la rationalité de ces «solutions» d'agrégation et de compensation.

show abstract

Section: Ontology and 'The Green Economy'mentioning

confidence: 99%

What's ontology got to do with it? On nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the 'green economy'

Sullivan

2017

Journal of Political Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pacification of lively entities for exchange on biodiversity markets involves ordering market spaces such that certain things are emphasised within the frame of the market and others left out of or actively excluded from this frame (Hinchliffe et al 2007;Sullivan and Hannis 2014). In conventional economics, the latter are referred to as externalities.…”

Section: Pacifying Lively Agenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Species: The Continuities between Non-Market and Market Valuations in Biodiversity Conservation

Fredriksen

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores how the rise of new markets for biodiversity has been facilitated by existing, non-market-based valuation practices within the field of biodiversity conservation. Where others have considered biodiversity markets in terms of capitalist and/or neoliberal expansion, I argue that the abstraction of the value of living things in markets is made easier by the existing valuation practices of species-based biodiversity conservation. After briefly contextualising the terms 'species' and 'biodiversity' within the history of Western conservation, the article shows how biodiversity conservation-as science, policy and practice-subordinates the value of individual living organisms and emplaced ecologies to the abstract categories of species and habitat types. This conceptual move performs a condition of ethical commensurability between individual organisms and places, thereby prefiguring the equivalence of value between units of the same category needed to establish new markets for biodiversity. The article considers this link between the valuation practices of species-based biodiversity conservation and new markets for biodiversity as an instance of performative continuity. The article concludes by reflecting on the critical use of attending to the links between existing valuation practices in biodiversity conservation and new biodiversity markets.

show abstract

“…For further details and empirical examples, see DEFRA (2012), Sullivan (2013c) and Carver and Sullivan (2017). For conceptual engagement with BDO policy in England specifically see Hannis and Sullivan (2012), Lockhart (2015), Sullivan and Hannis (2015) and Apostopoulou and Adams (2017). Table 2 around here…”

Section: The Economics Of the Last Resort: A Case Of Biodiversity Offmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the English context BDO is also strongly linked to a reorientation of the land-use planning system aimed at making this system a driver of economic growth rather than a brake on it, through removing obstacles to new and intensified development in rural and peri-urban areas (see discussion in Sullivan and Hannis, 2015). Land-use planning policy for England and…”

Section: The Economics Of the Last Resort: A Case Of Biodiversity Offmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Mathematics maybe, but not money”

Sullivan

Hannis

2017

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider and compare different ways of using numbers to value aspects of nature-beyond-the-human through case analysis of ecological and natural capital accounting practices in the UK that create standardised numerical-economic values for beyond-human natures. In addition, to contrast underlying ontological and ethical assumptions of these arithmetical approaches in ecological accounting with those associated with Pythagorean nature-numbering practices and fractal geometry. In doing so, to draw out distinctions between arithmetical and geometrical ontologies of nature and their relevance for “valuing nature”. Design/methodology/approach Close reading and review of policy texts and associated calculations in: UK natural capital accounts for “opening stock” inventories in 2007 and 2014; and in the experimental implementation of biodiversity offsetting (BDO) in land-use planning in England. Tracking the iterative calculations of biodiversity offset requirements in a specific planning case. Conceptual review, drawing on and contrasting different numbering practices being applied so as to generate numerical-economic values for natures-beyond-the-human. Findings In the cases of ecological accounting practices analysed here, the natures thus numbered are valued and “accounted for” using arithmetical methodologies that create commensurability and facilitate appropriation of the values so created. Notions of non-monetary value, and associated practices, are marginalised. Instead of creating standardisation and clarity, however, the accounting practices considered here for natural capital accounts and BDO create nature-signalling numbers that are struggled over and contested. Originality/value This is the first critical engagement with the specific policy texts and case applications considered here, and, the authors believe, the first attempt to contrast arithmetical and geometrical numbering practices in their application to the understanding and valuing of natures-beyond-the-human.

show abstract

Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England

Cited by 70 publications

References 14 publications

What's ontology got to do with it? On nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the 'green economy'

What's ontology got to do with it? On nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the 'green economy'

Valuing Species: The Continuities between Non-Market and Market Valuations in Biodiversity Conservation

“Mathematics maybe, but not money”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About