IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i6p7357-7378d50899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Coralie Calvet

    (Université d'Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, UMR CNRS IRD 7263/237 IMBE, Site Agroparc, BP 61207, 84911 Avignon, Cedex 09, France
    INRA, UR0767 Ecodeveloppement, Site Agroparc, Domaine St Paul, CS 40509, 84914 Avignon, Cedex 09, France)

  • Claude Napoléone

    (INRA, UR0767 Ecodeveloppement, Site Agroparc, Domaine St Paul, CS 40509, 84914 Avignon, Cedex 09, France)

  • Jean-Michel Salles

    (CNRS, UMR5474 LAMETA, Campus SupAgro, 2 place Pierre Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 2, France)

Abstract

Although many countries have included biodiversity offsetting (BO) requirements in their environmental regulations over the past four decades, this mechanism has recently been the object of renewed political interest. Incorporated into the mitigation hierarchy in three steps aimed at avoiding, reducing and offsetting residual impacts on biodiversity arising from development projects, BO is promoted as the way to achieve the political goal of No Net Loss of biodiversity (NNL). The recent success of BO is mainly based on its ability to provide economic incentives for biodiversity conservation. However, the diversity of BO mechanisms (direct offsets, banking mechanism and offsetting funds) and the various institutional frameworks within which they are applied generate substantial confusion about their economic and ecological implications. In this article, we first analyze the rationale for the BO approach from the welfare and ecological economics. We show that both these frameworks support the use of BO to address environmental externalities, but that they differ in how they consider the substitutability issue and levels of sustainability with regard to natural and manufactured capital, and in how they address ecological concerns. We then examine the economic and ecological performance criteria of BO from conceptual and empirical perspectives. We highlight that the three BO mechanisms involve different economic and ecological logics and inherent benefits, but also potential risks in meeting biodiversity conservation targets. We lastly investigate the ecological constraints with respect to the BO practice, and economic and organizational limitations of the BO system that may impede achievement of NNL goals. We then reveal the existence of a tension between the economic and ecological rationales in conducting BO that requires making choices about the NNL policy objectives. Finally, this article questions the place of BO in conservation policies and discusses the trade-off between political will and ecological opportunities involved in the BO approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoléone & Jean-Michel Salles, 2015. "The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:6:p:7357-7378:d:50899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7357/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7357/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Hartwick, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investment of Rents from Exhaustible Resources in a Two Sector Model," Working Paper 281, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    2. Ribaudo, Marc & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Greene, Catherine R., 2008. "The Use of Markets To Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship," Economic Research Report 56473, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Sustainable Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1818.
    4. Fabien Prieur, 2009. "The environmental Kuznets curve in a world of irreversibility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(1), pages 57-90, July.
    5. R. M. Solow, 1974. "Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 29-45.
    6. Hartwick, John M, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 972-974, December.
    7. Vatn, Arild, 2014. "Markets in environmental governance — From theory to practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 97-105.
    8. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    9. Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "The biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments in global governance: Origins, success and controversies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 143-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    2. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Economic Insights in Ecological Compensations: Market Analysis With an Empirical Application to the Finnish Economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-67.
    3. Brunetti, Ilaria & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Mouysset, Lauriane, 2023. "A spatial model for biodiversity offsetting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    4. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    5. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Marie Grimm & Johann Köppel, 2019. "Biodiversity Offset Program Design and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Schulz, Tobias & Eggenberger, Tanja & Olschewski, Roland & Lieberherr, Eva, 2023. "Allowing for compensating lost habitats in the forest: Comparing institutional change in Germany and Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    8. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Levrel, Harold & Pioch, Sylvain, 2017. "Wetland mitigation banking: Negotiations with stakeholders in a zone of ecological-economic viability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 512-518.
    9. Jacob, Céline & Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte & Bas, Adeline & Calvet, Coralie, 2016. "Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 92-102.
    10. Chiara Catalano & Mihaela Meslec & Jules Boileau & Riccardo Guarino & Isabella Aurich & Nathalie Baumann & Frédéric Chartier & Pascale Dalix & Sophie Deramond & Patrick Laube & Angela Ka Ki Lee & Pasc, 2021. "Smart Sustainable Cities of the New Millennium: Towards Design for Nature," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    11. Charlotte Bigard & Sylvain Pioch & John D Thompson, 2017. "The inclusion of biodiversity in impact assessment for urban development: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion," Post-Print hal-02448719, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan Randall, 2020. "On Intergenerational Commitment, Weak Sustainability, and Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Nancy E. Landrum & Brian Ohsowski, 2018. "Identifying Worldviews on Corporate Sustainability: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 128-151, January.
    3. Alan Randall, 2022. "How Strong Sustainability Became Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Alessandro De Matteis, 2019. "Decomposing the anthropogenic causes of climate change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 165-179, February.
    5. McGrath, Luke & Hynes, Stephen & McHale, John, 2019. "Augmenting the World Bank's estimates: Ireland's genuine savings through boom and bust," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Padmanabha Hota & Bhagirath Behera, 2016. "Opencast coal mining and sustainable local livelihoods in Odisha, India," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 29(1), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Luke McGrath & Stephen Hynes & John McHale, 2020. "Linking Sustainable Development Assessment in Ireland and the European Union with Economic Theory," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 51(2), pages 327-355.
    8. Adrian Boos, 2015. "Genuine Savings as an Indicator for “Weak” Sustainability: Critical Survey and Possible Ways forward in Practical Measuring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-37, April.
    9. Thomas Aronsson & Karl-Gustaf Löfgren (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of Environmental Accounting," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12796.
    10. Alessio Emanuele BIONDO, 2010. "A Growth Rate for a Sustainable Economy," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(2(12)/Sum), pages 7-20.
    11. Klauer, Bernd & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Manstetten, Reiner & Petersen, Thomas, 2017. "Sustainability as a Fair Bequest: An Evaluation Challenge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 136-143.
    12. Hoberg, Nikolai & Baumgärtner, Stefan, 2017. "Irreversibility and uncertainty cause an intergenerational equity-efficiency trade-off," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 75-86.
    13. Fatma El-Hamidi, 2007. "Early Retirement in the Government Sector in Egypt: Preferences, Determinants and Policy Implications," Working Papers 721, Economic Research Forum, revised 01 Jan 2007.
    14. C. Feger & Harold Levrel & Alexandre Rambaud, 2022. "Three complementary accounting methods to put ecological issues at the heart of public affairs [Trois méthodes comptables pour mettre les problèmes écologiques au coeur de la chose publique]," Post-Print hal-03977774, HAL.
    15. Alan Randall, 2021. "Monitoring Sustainability and Targeting Interventions: Indicators, Planetary Boundaries, Benefits and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 1999. "Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 547-561.
    17. Seyhan, Demet & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "An economic model of long-term phosphorus extraction and recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 103-108.
    18. Cairns, Robert D. & Del Campo, Stellio & Martinet, Vincent, 2019. "Sustainability of an economy relying on two reproducible assets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 145-160.
    19. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    20. Tatiana Anopchenko & Olga Gorbaneva & Elena Lazareva & Anton Murzin & Gennady Ougolnitsky, 2019. "Modeling Public—Private Partnerships in Innovative Economy: A Regional Aspect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:6:p:7357-7378:d:50899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.