Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting

Abstract

The rising popularity of biodiversity offsetting as a tool for balancing biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere has sparked debate on many fronts. The fundamental questions are the following: is offsetting good, bad, or at least better than the status quo for biodiversity conservation outcomes, and what do we need to know to decide?We present a concise synthesis of the most contentious issues related to biodiversity offsetting, categorized as ethical, social, technical, or governance challenges. In each case, we discuss avenues for reducing disagreement over these issues and identify those that are likely to remain unresolved. We argue that there are many risks associated with the unscrutinized expansion of offset policy. Nevertheless, governments are increasingly adopting offset policies, so working rapidly to clarify and-where possible-to resolve these issues is essential.

The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy

“…Determining an appropriate unit of exchange is often a non-trivial challenge, especially for approaches that address features such as biodiversity or ecosystems that defy precise measurement and vary along a continuum in both space and time 7 .…”

“…1). Such a reference scenario is called a counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of some intervention/s 7 . This counterfactual scenario will therefore depend on the broader policy context in the jurisdiction where the offset approach is being implemented.…”

“…Since the term NNL was first popularized during the 1988 United States presidential election campaign of George H. W. Bush 3,4 , such goals increasingly have become embedded within international pledges 5,6 , national and regional government policies 7 , voluntary corporate sustainability policy 8 and lending requirements for major financial institutions 9 . For example, the European Commission is exploring policy options for a European Union-wide NNL Initiative, and countries including France, Colombia and Peru have recently introduced legislation that includes such goals 10,11 .…”

“…For example, the European Commission is exploring policy options for a European Union-wide NNL Initiative, and countries including France, Colombia and Peru have recently introduced legislation that includes such goals 10,11 . Biodiversity offset policies that require NNL of biodiversity are now in place or enabled in over 80 countries 7 . No net loss of biodiversity or ecosystem services sounds like an appealing goal.…”

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

“…En parallèle, des travaux scientifiques sont menés pour analyser la contribution de la séquence en tant qu'outil de protection de la biodiversité en se focalisant sur les concepts et pratiques qui y sont liés, et notamment l'efficacité de la compensation écologique (Bull et al, 2013 ;Curran et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2016), l'objectif d'absence de perte nette ou no net loss (NNL) (Quétier et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2016) et de gain net de biodiversité (Bull et Brownlie, 2015 ;Rainey et al, 2015), le principe d'équivalence écologique (Quétier et al, 2012) ou encore l'état de référence (Benayas et al, 2009 ;Bullock et al, 2011 ;Bull et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2015). La séquence ERC est aussi largement controversée par différents travaux, notamment en termes d'efficacité écologique et de capacité à atteindre l'objectif de no net loss qui lui est associé (Maron et al, 2012 ;Aronson et Moreno-Mateos, 2015 ;Moreno-Mateos et al, 2015 ;Phalan et al, 2017) ou, plus récemment, en termes d'implications conceptuelles (Apostolopoulou et Adams, 2015 ;Bonneuil, 2015 ;Calvet et al, 2015 ;Spash, 2015 ;Martin et al, 2016).…”