Search

Atmospheric nitrogen pollution has severe impacts on biodiversity, but approaches to value them are limited. This paper develops a spatially explicit methodology to value the benefits from improvements in biodiversity resulting from current policy initiatives to reduce nitrogen emissions. Using the UK as a case study, we quantify nitrogen impacts on plant diversity in four habitats: heathland, acid grassland, dunes and bogs, at fine spatial resolution. Focusing on non-use values for biodiversity we apply value-transfer based on household's willingness to pay to avoid changes in plant species richness, and calculate the benefit of projected emission declines of 37% for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and 6% for ammonia (NH 3 ) over the scenario period 2007–2020. The annualised benefit resulting from these pollutant declines is £32.7 m (£4.4 m to £109.7 m, 95% Confidence Interval), with the greatest benefit accruing from heathland and acid grassland due to their large area. We also calculate damage costs per unit of NO 2 and NH 3 emitted, to quantify some of the environmental impacts of air pollution for use alongside damage costs for human health in policy appraisal. The benefit is £103 (£33 to £237) per tonne of NO 2 saved, and £414 (£139 to £1022) per tonne of NH 3 saved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2011, the UK government set in motion a process to establish a formal biodiversity offsetting programme in England, as an attempt to tackle biodiversity loss as a result of development. Drawing on critical approaches to the commodification of nature, this article traces the dilemmas encountered by the UK government in its endeavours to roll out a biodiversity offsetting programme in the English planning system. Based on 34 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and participant observation at policy-focused events, the paper aims to show how the promise of reconciling development and conservation proved difficult to deliver. In government attempts to enrol sympathetic actors, disputes emerged over the purpose and fine detail of the proposals. Deeper tensions were revealed in clashes between governmental emphasis on deregulation and advocates’ calls for strong mandatory rules and well-resourced oversight, while efforts to balance complex ecology with market demands for simplicity and certainty undermined the promise of objective biodiversity metrics delivering uncontroversial hard numbers. Though the English case is in many ways context-specific, the problems experienced raise wider political questions around establishing meaningful offsetting schemes in any part of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The novel articulations between the state, markets and civil society arising from the shift to networked environmental governance highlight the importance of creating equal participation opportunities. Relevant questions from an environmental justice perspective are not only who participates, but also with whom, in what, why and how. In this paper, we explore public participation in biodiversity governance that has emerged after the initial designation of a Natura 2000 network in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK by focusing on distributive and procedural justice. Our analysis, based on focus groups and document analysis, shows that new participatory arrangements have taken the modes of project-based, market, interest group and e-governance. These arrangements have been marked by problems in power and knowledge sharing, and in the distribution of conservation costs and benefits, reflecting serious deficits regarding environmental justice. Calls for public participation and wider stakeholder engagement in conservation across Europe should be followed by an acknowledgment of the diversity of perspectives, conflicting interests and social positions and their integration into biodiversity governance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses whether biodiversity offsetting is an effective means of preserving natural environments. It discusses specific provisions of the biodiversity offsetting scheme that would likely produce the favorable results for England. It explores reasons why biodiversity offsetting has experienced criticism.

Insects provide key ecosystem services for our sustainable future, which rely upon effective conservation policies to protect insect biodiversity. To date, however, we still do not know how effective current conservation policies are for protecting insect biodiversity, opening up the possibility that policies are unfit-for-purpose. Given the considerable debate and public awareness on the potential global decline of insect species, it is important to understand whether or not current policies can protect insect biodiversity. Here, we used IUCN listing of species status and developed a quantitative framework to analyse the potential effectiveness and coverage of current conservation policies pertaining to insect biodiversity in the UK and Ireland. We contrasted this against coverage for a well-known group – mammals – as a benchmark, to find that while the vast majority of the UK mammalian species in the European IUCN red list are directly protected by current policies, insects remain largely unprotected. Moreover, for those insect species that are explicitly protected by current policies, there is a taxonomic bias whereby the majority (>50%) of insect species are Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies), while a minority are Coleopterans (beetles), and none are Hymenopterans (bees, ants, wasps). Similar trends were observed in the UK priority biodiversity lists. Based on our data, we conclude that current biodiversity policies in the UK and Ireland have significant gaps in their protection of insect biodiversity and, there is a taxonomic bias that may skew some conservation efforts toward butterflies and moths. We anticipate that our findings are likely to occur worldwide, highlighting the need for more directive policies to manage and protect insect biodiversity for the sustainability of ecosystem services. • UK policies show biases toward Lepidoptera over other large insect orders. • Policy protection of mammals shows greater uniformity between orders than insects. • Policies in Ireland lack protection for any insect species. • UK priority lists do not prioritise all insects assessed as at risk of extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]