Conservationists around the world are split over whether to let developers destroy green space in return for paying cash to restore equivalent space elsewhere, a meeting at London Zoo on Tuesday last week found.
Britain and 38 other countries have, or are in the process of setting in place, policies which are to allow “biodiversity offsetting,” a market system of conservation used in the US and Australia that aims to ensure that there is no net loss of nature from any development.
However, giant oil and mining companies, as well as conservationists and governments at the first global conference on offsetting, heard that evidence from projects where offsets have been used is conflicting, and that while they can be made to work, there are no guarantees of success and many examples of failures.
“There is a great deal of public distrust about offsetting biodiversity. The concept of ‘no net loss’ is seen as questionable,” said Kerry ten Kate, director of the Washington-based Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP), which works with corporations and others to develop offsets.
“It could generate an order of magnitude greater investment in biodiversity, but it must be done well,” she said at the meeting.
The offset debate is central to future British nature conservation because British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Owen Paterson intends to have laws passed in the nation that would allow ancient woods, wetlands and sites of special scientific interest to be destroyed to make way for road, housing and rail developments — in return for new woods being planted or areas being flooded.
The UK government, which is analyzing six pilot projects, has been taken aback by the public reaction.
“I don’t think I have ever seen so much suspicion on either side of a debate,” said Peter Unwin, director-general of the policy delivery group at the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. “Clearly we cannot trade some aspects of biodiversity for others, but business is getting engaged.”
Jonathan Baillie, conservation director at the Zoological Society of London, said: “Biodiversity offsetting is controversial. It polarizes the conservation community. There [are] going to be development and changes as world population increases from 7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. It may be appropriate to do offsets, but that should be as a last resort.”
Baillie gave the example of potential oil reserve exploitation in the world heritage-classified Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
“For this there should not be offsets. There are many other examples where offsets are just not applicable,” he said.
However, Julia Martin-Lefevre, director-general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said the rights of countries to develop should be respected.
“Mining is central to many developing country governments. Offsetting must only be used as a means of last resort. It must be like-for-like. We must recognize the limits of biodiversity offsetting,” she said. “We cannot compensate for loss in world heritage sites like Virunga. Nor can projects go ahead if it means the extinction of a species. We have to take a precautionary approach.”
UK Environment Bank director Tom Tew led calls for offsetting to be embraced by environmentalists.
“It is a great opportunity to fund landscape-scale restoration projects. There is little money in biodiversity. [Offsetting] can deliver local schemes or regional or landscape-scale ones,” he said.
He was backed by South African offset developer Susie Brownlie, who said offsets were a way for mining industries to contribute to conservation.
“When developers are told that they will have to offset their plans, they often back off. Offsets mean nature cannot be traded off so easily. They are an opportunity for developers to contribute to conservation, but we need to put in place very clear rules,” she said.
This was dismissed by several European-based organizations.
“It is a license to trash. It makes the assumption that you can swap nature. We lose things when we offset things. It reinforces the belief that we can keep going with business as usual,” said Hannah Mowat of FERN, which tracks EU forest policies. “Destruction of complex and site-specific biodiversity cannot be offset. It is time to be clear that offsetting will not tackle biodiversity loss, but may impoverish communities.”
“I am terrified,” said Ariel Brunner, head of EU policy at Birdlife International. “Offsetting very easily becomes an off-the-shelf way to trash biodiversity and allow developers to bypass regulations.”
Friends of the Earth and FERN have released details of several UK cases where offsetting is already being proposed by developers.
“One case is Smithy Wood, near Sheffield, an ancient woodland much loved by local people, which is now threatened by a motorway service station. The developer has proposed planting new trees and improving management of another woodland to offset the damage, but local campaigners say they would still lose a forest that it would take 850 years to re-establish,” Friends of the Earth’s Sandra Bell said.
“Developers are already gearing up to use biodiversity offsetting to bulldoze some of our most precious wildlife sites. There is no clear evidence that biodiversity offsetting works — attempts abroad have frequently ended in failure,” she said.
“It can be used as a tool of great benefit, but it can be dangerous,” former Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said. “Where there is no alternative, biodiversity offsets can be useful, but offsetting can be abused. If governments want to use this as a window-dressing for a pro-growth agenda, as I fear that Britain does, it can be very dangerous.”
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry