Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-11T09:40:55.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local emergence and international developments of conservation trading systems: innovation dynamics and related problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2014

CARSTEN MANN  and
ARNO SIMONS
CARSTEN MANN*
Affiliation:
Innovation in Governance Research Group, Technische Universität (TU) Berlin, Secretariat FH9-1, Fraunhoferstrasse 33–36, 10587 Berlin, Germany
ARNO SIMONS
Affiliation:
Innovation in Governance Research Group, Technische Universität (TU) Berlin, Secretariat FH9-1, Fraunhoferstrasse 33–36, 10587 Berlin, Germany
*
*Correspondence: Dr Carsten Mann Tel: +49 30 31428872 Fax: +49 30 31426917 e-mail: carsten.mann@tu-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Conservation trading has developed as a policy instrument for biodiversity protection. This paper traces the emergence, development, and spread of conservation trading, focusing particularly on the formation and activities of an increasingly transnational policy instrument constituency, namely the actor group that has formed around the policy instrument in its support. The development of conservation trading was predominantly guided by a constituency of dominant business-oriented actors, beginning with mitigation measures in the USA and making later connections to international networks with a similar market-driven orientation for environmental protection. By strategically combining agenda-driven research with the mobilization of political support, this constituency helped to establish conservation trading as a widely acknowledged policy solution applicable to various ecological and sociopolitical contexts. Yet, this was achieved, in part, at the cost of neglecting critical issues, such as the recognition of policy alternatives or socioecological or cultural context particularities. Whereas the development of conservation trading is sometimes portrayed as a rational process of neutral policy learning, this process, through its constituency, has developed a life and political momentum of its own, which must be acknowledged when engaging with the design and implementation of better conservation policies. A forward-looking social policy assessment approach is required, which opens up policy design discourses for debate and reflexive engagement. Acknowledging possible shortcomings with a broad range of concerned societal actors can help to assure policy transparency, add specificity, and increase the sound ecological and societal embedding of conservation trading.

Keywords

constituencyinnovation dynamicspolicy instrumentsocial policy assessment

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 42 , Issue 4: Thematic section: Tradable Rights in Conservation , December 2015 , pp. 325 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bauer, M., Fox, J. & Bean, M.J. (2004) Landowners bank on conservation: the US Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance on conservation banking. Environmental Law Reporter 34 (8): 10717–22.Google Scholar
BBOP (2004) Who we are: about BBOP [www document]. URL http://bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/about_bbop Google Scholar
BBOP (2012) Biodiversity offset design handbook [www document] URL http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3101.pdf Google Scholar
Braun, D. & Capano, G. (2010) The missing link: policy ideas and policy instruments. Introductory Paper to the ECPR Joint Session Workshop on Policy Ideas and Policy Instruments, March 23–27, Münster, Germany [www document]. URL http://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/a4357e25-a9b2-4455-89f1-0d6c2ff9f2e2.pdf Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H. (2000) Discourse coalitions and the Australian Climate Change Policy Network. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18 (6): 727–48.Google Scholar
Carroll, N., Fox, J. & Bayon, R. (2008) Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems. London, UK: EarthScan.Google Scholar
COP 10 (2010) Report to the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011 [www document]. URL http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop-10-27-en.pdf Google Scholar
Crowe, M. & ten Kate, K. (2010) Biodiversity offsets: policy options for government. Draft report [www document]. URL http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=3079 Google Scholar
Daily, G. & Ellison, K. (2003) The New Economy of Nature: The Quest To Make Conservation Profitable. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Darbi, M., Ohlenburg, H., Herberg, A., Wende, W., Skambracks, D. & Herbert, M. (2009) International approaches to compensation for impacts on biological diversity. Final report [www document]. URL http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_522.pdf Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D., Downes, D. & Hernes, K.-H. (2002) Environmental transformation of the state: the USA, Norway, Germany and the UK. Political Studies 50 (4): 659–82.Google Scholar
Dunn, S. (2002) Down to business on climate change: an overview of corporate strategies. Greener Management International 39 (15): 27–41.Google Scholar
Ecosystem Marketplace (2010) Overview: about the Ecosystem Marketplace [www document]. URL http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/web.page.php?section=about_us&page_name=overview Google Scholar
Eden, S. (1998) Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment. Progress in Human Geography 22 (3): 425–32.Google Scholar
Eftec, IEEP, ten Kate, K., Treweek, J. & Ekstrom, J. (2010) The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection: the case of habitat banking. Appendix case studies [www document]. URL http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2410.pdf Google Scholar
ELI (2002) Banks and fees: the status of off-site wetland mitigation in the United States [www document]. URL http://www.eli.org/wetlands-compensatory-mitigation/banks-and-fees-study Google Scholar
Eliadis, F. P., Hill, M. M. & Howlett, M. (2005) Designing Government. From Instruments or Governance. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's Press.Google Scholar
Federal Guidance (1995) Federal guidance for the establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks. Federal Register 60 (43): 12286 [www document]. URL http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-1995-03-06/95-5280 Google Scholar
Fox, J. & Nino-Murcia, A. (2005) Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conservation Biology 19 (4): 996–1007.Google Scholar
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C. & Svedin, U. (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Institutions and Environmental Change, ed. Young, O.R., King, L.A. & Schroeder, H., pp. 147–186. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R. & Ahlstrom, D. (1997) Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14 (1): 25–48.Google Scholar
Haddad, B. M. (1997) Putting markets to work: the design and use of marketable permits and obligations. OECD Publishing [www document]. URL http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/1910849.pdf Google Scholar
Hagedorn, K. (2008) Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors. European Review of Agricultural Economics 35: 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain. In: The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, ed. Fischer, F. & Forester, J., pp. 43–76. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–96.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2007) Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance 20 (1): 127–44.Google Scholar
Hough, P. & Robertson, M. (2009) Mitigation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17 (1): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insight Investment (2004) Investor responsibility bulletin company engagement and voting reports. April to June 2004 [www document]. URL http://www.sgcc.com.cn/csr/gwqy/images/20071227/7234.pdf Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. & Zito, A. (2003) New Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. & Zito, A. (2005) The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies 53 (3): 477–96.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Human Studies 34: 43–65.Google Scholar
Klyza, C. G. & Sousa, D. (2010) Beyond gridlock: green drift in American environmental policymaking. Political Science Quarterly 125 (3): 443–463.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, P. & LeGales, P. (2007) Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments? From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance 20: 1–21.Google Scholar
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1998) The study of policy instruments: four schools of thought. In: Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, ed. Guy, P. B. & van Nispen, F. K. M.. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Madsen, B., Carroll, N. & Moore, B. (2010) State of biodiversity markets report: offset and compensation programs worldwide [www document]. URL http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf Google Scholar
Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D. & Bennet, G. (2011) 2011 update: state of biodiversity markets. Ecosystem Marketplace [www document]. URL http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/2011_update_sbdm Google Scholar
Mann, C. & Absher, J. D. (2014) Strategies for adjusting policies to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: the case of conservation banking in California. Journal of Land Use Policy 36: 73–82.Google Scholar
Mann, C. & Voß, J.-P. (2015) Articulating future scenarios of policy instrument development: enhancing sustainable innovation in governance by opening design processes for debate. In: Transdiciplinarity for Sustainability. Demand and Challenge, Routledge Series: Studies in Environment, Culture and Society, ed. Padmanabhan, M. (in press). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mann, C., Voß, J.-P., Simons, A., Amelung, N. & Runge, T. (2014) Challenging futures of biodiversity offsets and banking. Critical issues for robust forms of biodiversity conservation. A report based on an interactive, anticipatory assessment of the dynamics of governance instruments, 19 April 2013. Technische Universität (TU) Berlin, Berlin, Germany [www document]. URL http://www.innovation-in-governance.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Biodiversity_offsets_banking_challenging_futures_report_final.pdf Google Scholar
Mead, D. L. (2008) History and theory: the origin and evolution of conservation banking. In: Conservation and Biodiversity Banking. A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems, ed. Carroll, N., Fox, J. & Bayon, R., pp. 9–31. London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Meidinger, E. (1985) On explaining the development of ‘emissions trading’ in US air pollution regulation. Law and Policy 7 (4): 447–79.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [www document]. URL http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/MAgeneralsynthesis.pdf Google Scholar
OECD (1999) Handbook of biodiversity valuation. A guide for policy makers. OECD Publishing [www document]. URL http://earthmind.net/rivers/docs/oecd-handbook-biodiversity-valuation.pdf Google Scholar
OECD (2013) Scaling-up finance mechanisms for biodiversity. OECD Publishing [www document]. URL http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/scaling-up-finance-mechanisms-for-biodiversity_9789264193833-en Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104: 15181–15187.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39: 7–27.Google Scholar
Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Primmer, E., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Henle, K., Kettunen, M., Tzanopoulos, J., Potts, S. G., van den Hove, S., Marty, P., McConville, A. & Similä, J. (2012) Biodiversity conservation across scales: lessons from a science–policy dialogue. Nature Conservation 2: 7–19.Google Scholar
Peck, J. & Theodore, N. (2010) Mobilizing policy: models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum 41 (2): 169–74.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. & Van Nispen, F. K. (1998) Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Rip, A. & te Kulve, H. (2008) Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In: The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, ed. Fisher, E., Selin, C. & Wetmore, J. M., pp. 49–70. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Rip, A., Schot, J. W. & Misa, T. J. (1995) Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society. In: Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, ed. Rip, A., Misa, T.J. & Schot, J., pp. 1–12. London, UK and New York, NY, USA: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Robertson, M. M. (2004) The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 35 (3): 361–73.Google Scholar
Robertson, M. M. (2006) The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 (3): 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. K. R. (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (9): 1222–39.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance: A Guide to New Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. & Sidney, M. (2009) What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 103–19.Google Scholar
Schot, J. & Rip, A. (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.Google Scholar
Simons, A. (2013 a) Report on constituency formation and dynamics in the innovation of emissions trading and biodiversity trading. Working Paper. Department of Sociology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany [www document]. URL http://www.innovation-in-governance.org/publications.html (pdf copies available on request from the authors).Google Scholar
Simons, A. (2013 b) Report on design controversies in the innovation of emissions trading and biodiversity trading. Working Paper. Department of Sociology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany [www document]. URL http://www.innovation-in-governance.org/publications.html (pdf copies available on request from the authors).Google Scholar
Simons, A., Lis, A. & Lippert, I. (2014) The political duality of scale-making in environmental markets. Environmental Politics 23 (4): 632–649.Google Scholar
Simons, A. & Voß, J.-P. (2015) Politics by other means. The making of the emissions trading instrument as a ‘pre-history’ of carbon trading. In: The Politics of Carbon Markets, ed. Stephan, B. & Lane, R., pp. 51–68. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Soileau, D. M., Fruge, D. W. & Brown, J. D. (1984) Mitigation banking: a mechanism for compensating unavoidable fish and wildlife habitat losses. The Environmental Law Reporter 7 (3): 11.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (2004) Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (3): 545–66.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. (2012) Banking nature? The spectacular financialization of environmental conservation. Antipode 45 (1): 198–217.Google Scholar
TEEB (2008) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. An interim report [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf Google Scholar
TEEB (2010) Mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB [www document]. URL http://www.teebweb.org/TEEBSynthesis-Report/tabid/29410/Default.aspx Google Scholar
ten Kate, K., Bishop, J. & Bayon, R. (2004) Biodiversity offsets: views, experience, and the business case. Report. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and Insight Investment, London, UK [www document]. URL https://www.biodiv.org/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-IUCN-II-report-en.pdf Google Scholar
The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative (2003) Integrating biodiversity conservation into oil and gas development [www document]. URL http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdf Google Scholar
Tommel, I. & Verdun, A. (2008) Innovative Governance in the European Union: The Politics of Multilevel Policymaking. Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
UNCSD (2012) Rio+20 issues briefs [www document]. URL http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?menu=138 Google Scholar
US FWS (2009) Conservation banking. Incentives for stewardship [www document]. URL http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/conservation_banking.pdf Google Scholar
US FWS (2003) Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation banks, issued through a memorandum to regional directors, 2 May 2003, by the US Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Federal Register 60 (228): 58605–58614 [www document]. URL http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbankn.cfm Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R. & Venkataraman, S. (1999) The Innovation Journey. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voß, J.-P. (2007) Innovation processes in governance: the development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy 34 (5): 329–343.Google Scholar
Voß, J.-P. & Simons, A. (2014) Instrument constituencies and the supply-side of policy innovation. Environmental Politics 23 (5): 735–754.Google Scholar
Wheeler, D. P. & Strock, J. M. (1995) Official policy on conservation banks. The Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency [www document]. URL http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=628 Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S. & Lee, J. (2004) Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 639–645.Google Scholar
Wolff, F., Schleyer, C. & Arts, B. (2015) Discourses and politics of market-based instruments for ecosystem services. Environmental Policy and Governance (in press).Google Scholar
Yearley, S. (1994) Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: an overview. Public Understanding of Science 3 (3): 245–58.Google Scholar