Biodiversity Offsetting Schemes

2887 Words6 Pages

Introduction:

Modern society faces the challenge of developing its infrastructure and economy whilst improving the quality of the environment and biodiversity. The United Kingdom government’s Departments for Agricultural and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has suggested that these contending aspirations can potentially both be accomplished through a planning strategy known as Biodiversity Offsetting.
Biodiversity offsetting is a planning strategy that aims to compensate for losses of biodiversity in a given area by protecting an area elsewhere and generating gains that are ecologically equivalent to the loss in the area being developed (Maron et al. 2012.) In practice, this means that the residual losses in biodiversity that take place as a result of a development can be offset and compensated for in any area in the UK, potentially even far from the one under development. The UK government has suggested that this strategy may be ideal on the basis that countries all over the world, such as the United States, India, Australia and 21 others have and are currently using this planning strategy to meet its society’s needs (DEFRA green paper.) On the 5th of September 2013, DEFRA published a public consultation document on Biodiversity offsetting in England (also called the Green paper) which laid out a framework of options for how biodiversity offsetting in England could potentially operate. The consultation is written in a style that gives information and suggestions as to how an offsetting scheme could operate, however, it also asks 38 specific questions relating to the execution offsetting practices, from very basic questions such as asking if offsetting should be mandatory for developers, to more specific questions regarding potentially off...

... middle of paper ...

...y offsetting schemes is where offsets should be located, and if there should be constraints on this. Indeed, a review paper by Bull et al. (2013) noted that trading ‘out of kind’ offsets, such as trading a loss on a development site for a more distant site can cause disagreements (Bull et al. 2013.) Energy UK (2013) affirms that local offsetting is preferable to offsetting that is distant from the development site, as locals can benefit from the offset, which they wouldn’t be able to do so readily if it were located distantly. However, Energy UK (2013) has also adopted the pragmatic stance that if offsets are not available close to the site, more distant offsetting should be allowed. The environmental organisations also support this stance, however the Natural Capital Committee (2013) sees this posing economic issues in relation to the offset provision market.

Open Document