The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset
The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset
Major developments, such as mines, will often have unavoidable environmental impacts. In such cases, investors, governments, or even a company's own standards increasingly require implementation of biodiversity offsets (investment in conservation with a measurable outcome) with the aim of achieving 'no net loss' or even a 'net gain' of biodiversity. Where conservation is achieved by changing the behaviour of people directly using natural resources, the offset might be expected to have social impacts but such impacts have received very little attention. Using the case study of Ambatovy, a major nickel mine in the eastern rainforests of Madagascar and a company at the vanguard of developing biodiversity offsets, we explore local perceptions of the magnitude and distribution of impacts of the biodiversity offset project on local wellbeing. We used both qualitative (key informant interviews and focus group discussions) and quantitative (household survey) methods. We found that the biodiversity offsets, which comprise both conservation restrictions and development activities, influenced wellbeing in a mixture of positive and negative ways. However, overall, respondents felt that they had suffered a net cost from the biodiversity offset. It is a matter of concern that benefits from development activities do not compensate for the costs of the conservation restrictions, that those who bear the costs are not the same people as those who benefit, and that there is a mismatch in timing between the immediate restrictions and the associated development activities which take some time to deliver benefits. These issues matter both from the perspective of environmental justice, and for the long-term sustainability of the biodiversity benefits the offset is supposed to deliver.
1-13
Schreckenberg, Kathrin
d3fa344b-bf0d-4358-b12a-5547968f8a77
Bidaud, Cecile
a4b790cc-2adb-4105-a272-6085d9ed054d
Jones, Julia
f5ce4148-2441-4eb7-b593-adb468905485
Gibbons, James
3e2305d7-9729-4fcc-ae76-046b95fb1202
Rabeharison, M
f9e79262-c345-494a-8588-9393f307a4e6
Ranjatson, Patrick
97fdb1bc-d654-4b0c-9b4a-2bbfe9b31e8a
2017
Schreckenberg, Kathrin
d3fa344b-bf0d-4358-b12a-5547968f8a77
Bidaud, Cecile
a4b790cc-2adb-4105-a272-6085d9ed054d
Jones, Julia
f5ce4148-2441-4eb7-b593-adb468905485
Gibbons, James
3e2305d7-9729-4fcc-ae76-046b95fb1202
Rabeharison, M
f9e79262-c345-494a-8588-9393f307a4e6
Ranjatson, Patrick
97fdb1bc-d654-4b0c-9b4a-2bbfe9b31e8a
Schreckenberg, Kathrin, Bidaud, Cecile, Jones, Julia, Gibbons, James, Rabeharison, M and Ranjatson, Patrick
(2017)
The sweet and the bitter: intertwined positive and negative social impacts of a biodiversity offset.
Conservation and Society, 15 (1), .
(doi:10.4103/0972-4923.196315).
Abstract
Major developments, such as mines, will often have unavoidable environmental impacts. In such cases, investors, governments, or even a company's own standards increasingly require implementation of biodiversity offsets (investment in conservation with a measurable outcome) with the aim of achieving 'no net loss' or even a 'net gain' of biodiversity. Where conservation is achieved by changing the behaviour of people directly using natural resources, the offset might be expected to have social impacts but such impacts have received very little attention. Using the case study of Ambatovy, a major nickel mine in the eastern rainforests of Madagascar and a company at the vanguard of developing biodiversity offsets, we explore local perceptions of the magnitude and distribution of impacts of the biodiversity offset project on local wellbeing. We used both qualitative (key informant interviews and focus group discussions) and quantitative (household survey) methods. We found that the biodiversity offsets, which comprise both conservation restrictions and development activities, influenced wellbeing in a mixture of positive and negative ways. However, overall, respondents felt that they had suffered a net cost from the biodiversity offset. It is a matter of concern that benefits from development activities do not compensate for the costs of the conservation restrictions, that those who bear the costs are not the same people as those who benefit, and that there is a mismatch in timing between the immediate restrictions and the associated development activities which take some time to deliver benefits. These issues matter both from the perspective of environmental justice, and for the long-term sustainability of the biodiversity benefits the offset is supposed to deliver.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 31 August 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 2 March 2017
Published date: 2017
Organisations:
Centre for Environmental Science
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 408031
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/408031
ISSN: 0972-4923
PURE UUID: 11866a0d-4244-4c35-a8c4-e3700ce2706c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 10 May 2017 01:04
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 13:46
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Kathrin Schreckenberg
Author:
Cecile Bidaud
Author:
Julia Jones
Author:
James Gibbons
Author:
M Rabeharison
Author:
Patrick Ranjatson
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics