Voluntary vs. compliance regimes in environmental governance: the example of biodiversity offsets Marianne Darbi (UFZ)

Transcription

1 Voluntary vs. compliance regimes in environmental governance: the example of biodiversity Marianne Darbi (UFZ) ALTER-Net Conference, Augustinian Monastery, Ghent, 4 May 2017

2 Aim and Outline Is there a move in biodiversity offsetting from compliance regimes to voluntary approaches that somehow also stands exemplarily for a shift in nature conservation? 1. Voluntary environmental approaches 2. Biodiversity 3. Voluntariness of biodiversity 4. Development of a conceptual framework for voluntariness of biodiversity 5. Conclusions

3 1. Voluntary environmental approaches

4 Nature conservation in the good old times In the 1960s, 1970s and beginning of the 1980s regulation was considered crucial in environmental policy to ensure adequate environmental protection and control of environmental externalities. Command-and-control regulations (compulsory standards) that impose requirements or restrictions have been widely applied (encouraging end-of-pipe pollution controls). This government-push approach has proven to be effective, but economists have criticized not only its lack of flexibility, but also the high costs associated to it (i.e. lacking efficiency).

5 Nature conservation today broadening of responsibility for environmental protection beyond governmental action 2 aspects: first, economic incentives have become more common and market-based instruments have been increasingly used for environmental regulation by the late 1980s (market-based pressures that create demand for self-regulation by firms) Second, fundamental changes in the 1990s (mounting and increasingly complex legislation, technological innovation and scientific discoveries, regulatory budget cutbacks), especially in Europe, have led to the exploration of voluntary environmental approaches as a promising tool in future environmental policy and as alternative to traditional regulation

6 Are new voluntary forms of environmental governance replacing traditional environmental regulation and compliance regimes?

7 2. Biodiversity Offsets

8 Background: Ongoing drastic loss of biodiversity negatively affects human wellbeing Business No significant as usual progress is not an towards option! We need the target! new tools!

9 Subject: biodiversity a tool to address unavoidable residual negative impacts from development Impact = biodiversity loss Offset = biodiversity gain Rio Tinto QMM Ilminite Mine, Madagascar (Source: QMM 2007)

10 State of the Art: Milestones in Environmental and Biodiversity Offsetting US Wetland Mitigation after 404 Clean CBD Art. 14: Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Brazilian Project Developers Offsets after Protected Water Act Increasing Impacts number Areas Law ca German Impact Mitigation Regulation after Nature Conservation Act and diversity of biodiversity Australia: Offsets after Discussion about Environmenal Protection and Biodiversity Biodiversity (Voluntary) Conservation Act Offsets

11 3. Voluntariness of biodiversity

12 Growing controversy about mandatory vs. voluntary biodiversity Legal compliance Fines & sanctions Driven by government What is the way forward? Corporate responsibility Business case Driven by business mandatory voluntary

13 Some context e.g. the EU No Net Loss Initiative an initiative to ensure there is no net loss of ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting) by 2015 (European Biodiversity Strategy until 2020) 2015 public consultation Initiative postponed (Source: author s own, after European Commission 2015)

14 And in Practice: Mandatory? Voluntary? Or in between? Example 1: Biodiversity offset pilots by the UK government Example 2: Performance Standards by the International Finance Corporation Practical evidence no longer fits under the dichotomy of mandatory vs. voluntary (Source: Lowe 2014) (Source: Pilgrim and Murphy 2014)

15 4. Development of a conceptual framework for voluntariness of biodiversity

16 Theoretical and methodological baseline Exploration of theoretical concepts for voluntariness (Voluntary Environmental Approaches, Corporate Responsibility etc.) derivation of criteria and definition of key terms An expert and internet based research approach: qualitative, explorative, participant observational, (Cyber)Science 2.0 and research in Web 2.0 Integration of theory AND empirics: approach of Empirically Grounded Typification (Kluge 1999) Steps and tools of internet based research used in this study (Source: author s own)

17 Conceptual framework of seven biodiversity offset types 1. Regulatory : required by law and enforced. 2. Conditional : required by financial institutions (e.g. International Finance Corporation). 3. Enabled : fostered by governments and NGOs through pilot schemes, guidance etc. 4. Sectoral : taking part in a voluntary self-commitment of a sector (e.g. mining). 5. Corporate : driven by a voluntary self-commitment of a corporation. 6. Local : single, that are most likely developed at local level in a consensual process. 7. Altruistic : truly voluntary that are driven by the altruistic motivation to make a positive impact. Motivation and ultimate Pressure Influence goal (compliance) and initiators Government Financial institute Sector Corporation Local community NGOs Without major influence (Source: author s own) Type 1 regulatory Incentive (cost-benefit) Type 2 conditional Type 4 sectoral Type 5 corporate Type 6a local (reputational risk) Altruism / responsibility Type 3a enabled (by government) Type 6b local (license to operate) Type 3b enabled (new global norms) Type 7 altruistic

18 Empirical validation of the conceptual base - Screening of biodiversity offset cases worldwide

19 Empirical validation of the conceptual base - Screening of biodiversity offset cases worldwide 1. Regulatory 2. Conditional 3. Enabled 4. Sectoral (n=0) 5. Corporate 6. Local 7. Altruistic n = 72 (Source: author s own)

20 5. Conclusions

21 Getting back to the question Are new voluntary forms of environmental governance replacing traditional environmental regulation and compliance regimes?

22 Good old times are gone (if they ever existed) Let s face complexity! Interplay and context dependency A spectrum rather than distinct categories: no black and white, but many shades of grey Motivation and ultimate Influence goal and initiators Government Financial institute Sector Corporation Local community NGOs Without major influence Pressure (compliance) Type 1 regulatory Incentive (cost-benefit) Type 2 conditional Type 4 sectoral Type 5 corporate Type 6a local (reputational risk) Altruism / responsibility Type 3a enabled (by government) Type 6b local (license to operate) Type 3b enabled (new global norms) Type 7 altruistic

23 Trends: which of the offset types are promising? Offset regulation: 1. regulatory Cooperative approaches: 3. enabled Corporate responsibility: 5. corporate Lender requirements: 2. conditional 4. Lender requirements

24 Roles and responsibilites of actors types Actors 1. regulatory 2. conditional Governments NGOs Financial Actors Local types institutes communities Businesses governments 1. regulatory Regulator, enforcing authority 2. conditional Cooperation and mediation at national/local level, Foster and reinforce context sensitive implementation 3. enabled 4. sectoral 3. enabled 4. sectoral Enabling pilot schemes or incentives, guidance Cooperation and mediation at national/local level, Foster and reinforce context sensitive implementation 5. corporate 6. local 7. Altruistic 5. corporate Cooperation and mediation at national/local level, Foster and reinforce context sensitive implementation 6. local Structuring governance processes (bottom up) 7. Altruistic - Cross-cutting issues Cross-cutting issues Provide baseline data, set strategic nature conservation goals, landscape planning

25 Is there a move in biodiversity offsetting from compliance regimes to voluntary approaches that somehow also stands exemplarily for a shift in nature conservation? Offsetting not merely a neoliberal market based instrument applied by businesses, rather a tool in environmental policy to underpin and reach nature conservation goals Call for a more differentiated and less generalized approach towards for both policy and public debate, but also for developers and practitioners clearer and more specific context dependent conclusions More sophisticated understanding of the role of government beyond the conventional understanding as regulator and enforcing authority diversified roles and responsibilities of government bodies offer potential for more forms of private public partnerships etc.

26 Is there a move in biodiversity offsetting from compliance regimes to voluntary approaches that somehow also stands exemplarily for a shift in nature conservation? Most importantly, voluntary biodiversity or voluntary environmental approaches are not replacing traditional environmental regulation (rather complementary: voluntary environmental approaches may be more successful when backed by an underlying regulatory framework) People/Society Biodiversity Offsets at the interface of Government, Business and Society Regulation/Government Biodiversity Offsets Business/Market

27 Thank you for your attention! Discussion: Questions? Comments? today ongoing