Institutional conditions for biodiversity offsetting

Transkriptio

1 Institutional conditions for biodiversity offsetting Eeva Primmer, Finnish Environment Institute Ecological compensation: Greenwashing or washingproof green? Scientific, societal and cultural approaches to biodiversity offsetting 9-10 June 2017

2 Institutions Rules: what can, should or should not be done Compensations imply changes in rules Or in the interpretations of existing rules Expectations on these changes depend on the current and historical rights and positions of different actors This presentation draws on: The Habitat Bank of Finland workshops A review of habitat bank regulation and mechanism A Bioeconomy survey An EU Public consultation Earlier work on conservation payments and mechanisms2

3

4 Biodiversity continues to decline Source: WWF Gobal living planet index. 4

5 5

6

7 7

8 8

9 Biodiversity conservation is a public goal and activity but is increasingly scarce 1000 Eur Biodiversity Convention Aichi Targets: Offset EU Biodiversity Strategy No net loss through compensations or offsets Environmental administration Environemental and nature protection Protected area establishment Source: Finnish state budget 9

10 Ecological compensation The actors degrading habitats compensate the damage they generate by conserving biodiversity or restoring nature 10

11 11

12 Rules set roles for actors: mitigation hierarchy and no net loss Citizens and consumers generate demand Biodiversity degradation impact+ Research provides metrix Remaining impact Mitigation No net loss Offset Authorities control - Companies mitigate and compensate Prevention Habitat Bank mediates Land-owners conserve and restore 12

13 Finnish bioeconomy authorities more interested than permit holding companies Do you see that practices reducing sustainability could be compensated? % of respondents Voluntary Mandatory No compensation Authorities (n=52) Companies (n=68) Holma, A., Leskinen, P., Primmer, E Lainsäädännön esteet ja pullonkaulat viranomaisten ja toiminnanharjoittajien näkökulmista. Julkaisussa: Punta, Eeva Alaranta, Joonas (toim.) Niukat resurssit 13 viisaasti käyttöön - sääntelystä biotalouden edistäjä Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 6/2016.

14 EU consultation on no net loss shows sectoral divergence on role division expectations Government (n=24) Business (n=177) Very important Important No opinion Not very important Not at all important NGO (n=154) Research (n=9) Source: EC 2014 No Net Loss of Biodiversity 14public consultation

15 Matching institutions and expectations 15

16 Institutional challenges we need to meet From a system that serves different sectors, different gradients of habitat loss to much more: Managing expectations: easing regulatory burden generating additionality in biodiversity conservation Choosing governance mechanisms: voluntary offsets & reputational benefits mandatory compensations & requirements Drawing the line between: existing precautionary or sustainable management principles and new compensation requirements Negotiating fairly between different: actors Administrative levels geographical areas Identifying rights and changing and rules 16

17 More on institutional constraints on conservation policy Holma, A., Leskinen, P., Primmer, E Lainsäädännön esteet ja pullonkaulat viranomaisten ja toiminnanharjoittajien näkökulmista. Taustaraportti. Julkaisussa: Punta, Eeva Alaranta, Joonas (toim.) Niukat resurssit viisaasti käyttöön - sääntelystä biotalouden edistäjä Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 6/ ulat+viranomaisten+ja+toiminnanharjoittajien+n%c3%a4k%c3%b6kulmista.pdf/754e9722-2eb7-492d-850d- 8a7a2cee43ce Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK. Primmer, E Institutional constraints on conservation auction: organizational mandate, competencies and practices. Land Use Policy 63, Pages Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin, M A framework for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance. Ecosystem Services 16, Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., Tainio A Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out. Ecological Economics 103, Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., Barton, D.N Evolution in Finland's forest biodiversity conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Society & Natural Resources 26(10), Primmer, E., Similä, J., Salokannel, V., Raitanen, E Habitaattipankkiin liittyvä sääntely ja toimintamalli Selvitys Raitanen, E., Similä, J., Siikavirta, K., Primmer, E Economic Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Conservation & the EU State Aid Regulation. European Environmental & Planning Law 10(1), DOI: Rinne, J., Primmer, E A Case Study of Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning in Finland: Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 18:3,

18 Thank you, kiitos! The Habitat Bank of Finland project The Helsinki Challenge award by the University of Helsinki Ministry of the Environment Finnish Environment Institute Colleagues: Jukka Similä Elina Raitanen Veera Salokannel Jussi Kauppila Olli Ojala Markku Ollikainen Minna Pekkonen Janne Kotiaho Anne Holma BANK Habitat