Topic > Biodiversity Compensation Schemes - 2887

Introduction: Modern society faces the challenge of developing its infrastructure and economy while improving the quality of the environment and biodiversity. The UK Department for Agricultural and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has suggested that these competing aspirations can potentially both be achieved through a planning strategy known as biodiversity offsetting. Biodiversity compensation is a planning strategy that aims to compensate for biodiversity losses in one area by protecting an area elsewhere and generating gains that are ecologically equivalent to the loss in the developing area (Maron et al. 2012 ). In practice, this means that residual biodiversity losses that occur as a result of a development can be offset and offset in any area of ​​the UK, potentially even far from the one being developed. The UK Government has suggested that this strategy may be ideal on the basis that countries around the world, such as the USA, India, Australia and 21 others, have and are currently using this planning strategy to meeting the needs of society (DEFRA Green Paper.) On 5 September 2013, DEFRA published a public consultation document on biodiversity offsetting in England (also called a Green Paper) which set out a framework of options on how biodiversity offsetting in England could potentially operate. The consultation is written in a style that provides information and suggestions on how a compensation scheme might work, however it also asks 38 specific questions relating to execution compensation practices, from very basic questions such as asking whether compensation should be mandatory for developers , to more specific questions regarding potentially out...... middle of the document ......y compensation schemes indicate where the offsets should be placed and whether there should be constraints on this. In fact, a review article by Bull et al. (2013) noted that exchanging “unkind” compensations, such as exchanging a loss on a development site for a more distant site, can cause disagreements (Bull et al. 2013). Energy UK (2013) states that local offsetting is preferable to offsetting that is distant from the development site, as locals can benefit from the offset, which they would not be able to do so easily if it were located distantly. However, Energy UK (2013) also took a pragmatic position that if offsets are not available close to the site, more distant offsets should be permitted. Environmental organizations also support this position, however the Natural Capital Committee (2013) believes that this raises economic issues in relation to the market for the provision of compensation.