Although policy requiring forms of environmental offsetting has existed since the 1970s, carbon offsetting has only become common since the turn of the century, and biodiversity offsetting is experiencing a rapid expansion (McKenney & Kiesecker 2009 Spash 2010 Madsen et al.
Reducing this risk requires coupling offset crediting baselines to measured trajectories of biodiversity change and understanding the potential interaction between offsetting and other environmental policies.Įnvironmental offsetting – compensation for environmental impacts with equivalent benefits generated elsewhere – is emerging as an important approach for balancing the competing demands of development and conservation (Madsen et al. Despite its goal of improving biodiversity outcomes, there is potential for best-practice offsetting to achieve the opposite result. These include incentives for (i) entrenching or exacerbating baseline biodiversity declines, (ii) winding back non-offset conservation actions, (iii) crowding out of conservation volunteerism and (iv) false public confidence in environmental outcomes due to marketing offset actions as gains.
Here, we suggest how biodiversity offset policies can generate behaviours that exacerbate biodiversity decline, and identify four perverse incentives that could arise even from soundly designed policies.Biodiversity offsets are designed to compensate for damage to biodiversity from development by providing biodiversity gains elsewhere. Offsetting is emerging as an important but controversial approach for managing environment–development conflicts.Book Title : Artificial Intelligence in Educationīook Subtitle : 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, June 27–30, 2018, Proceedings, Part IIĮditors : Carolyn Penstein Rosé, Roberto Martínez-Maldonado, H.
0 kommentar(er)
