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.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations