Search

Biodiversity compensation policies have emerged around the world to address the ecological harms of infrastructure expansion, but historically compliance is weak. The Westminster government is introducing a requirement that new infrastructure developments in England demonstrate they achieve a biodiversity net gain (BNG). We sought to determine the magnitude of the effects of governance gaps and regulator capacity constraints on the policy's potential biodiversity impacts. We collated BNG information from all new major developments across six early‐adopter councils from 2020 to 2022. We quantified the proportion of the biodiversity outcomes promised under BNG at risk of noncompliance, explored the variation in strategies used to meet developers' biodiversity liabilities, and quantified the occurrence of simple errors in the biodiversity metric calculations. For large developments and energy infrastructure, biodiversity liabilities frequently met within the projects' development footprint. For small developments, the purchase of offsets was most common. We estimated that 27% of all biodiversity units fell into governance gaps that exposed them to a high risk of noncompliance because they were associated with better‐condition habitats delivered on‐site that were unlikely to be monitored or enforced. More robust governance mechanisms (e.g., practical mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement) would help ensure the delivery of this biodiversity on‐site. Alternatively, more biodiversity gains could be delivered through off‐site biodiversity offsetting. For the latter case, we estimated that the demand for offsets could rise by a factor of 4; this would substantially increase the financial contributions from developers for conservation activities on private land. Twenty‐one percent of development applications contained a simple recurring error in their BNG calculations. One‐half of these applications were approved by councils, which may indicate under‐resourcing in council development assessments. Our findings demonstrate that resourcing and governance shortfalls risk undermining the policy's effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While policies pile up in modern democracies, the effect of policy growth on policy implementation has not been addressed so far. Implementation research has focused on individual policies instead of studying the challenges implementation organizations face in dealing with growing policy stocks. In this paper, we address this research gap in three ways. First, we introduce the novel concept of organizational 'policy triage' which captures implementation effectiveness from an organizational rather than a policy-based perspective. Second, we develop a theoretical framework to account for variations in the prevalence of policy triage across organizations. We argue that policy triage is affected by the interplay of several factors related to (1) organizational overload vulnerability and (2) organizational overload compensation. Third, we provide an initial empirical test of our conceptual and theoretical considerations through four comparative case studies on environmental policy implementation in Ireland and England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Local actors have growing prominence in climate governance but key capacities and powers remain with national policymakers. Coordination between national and local climate action is therefore of increasing importance. Underappreciated in existing academic and policy literature, coordination between actors at different scales can be affected not only by politics and institutional arrangements, but also by methods of data analysis. Exploring two datasets of GHG emissions by local area in England-one of consumption-based emissions and the other of territorial emissions-this paper shows the potential for a data scaling problem known as the modifiable areal unit problem and its possible consequences for the efficacy and equity implications of climate action. While this analysis is conceptual and does not identify specific instances of the modifiable areal unit problem or its consequences, it calls attention to methods of data analysis as possible contributors to climate governance challenges. Among other areas, future analysis is needed to explore how data scaling and other aspects of data processing and analysis may affect our understanding of non-state actors' contribution to climate action., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This paper assesses how strategic planning for nature can be improved for England's built and natural environment using mainstreaming and landscape-scale concepts. Whilst both concepts feature in academic literature, there has been limited attention on their role as catalytic agents for strategic planning. Addressing this gap, evidence is used from two stakeholder workshops involving 62 senior policy experts managing a range of operational and hypothetical strategic spatial planning challenges. The results reveal a significantly weakened strategic planning arena characterised by policy disintegration, short termism and uncertainty. Key findings highlight the fallacy of pursuing strategic planning for nature in isolation from wider policy integration fusing environmental, economic and social components from the outset. Current barriers to progress include institutional inertia, technocratic vocabularies and neoliberalist priorities exacerbated by a weak underlying theory. Conversely opportunities for mainstreaming processes may help knowledge generation and exchange within transdisciplinary partnerships, whilst landscape scale thinking can improve understanding of issues using natures inherent geometry transforming processes and outcomes. The paper recommends the adoption of strategic planning pathways using mainstreaming and landscape-scale approaches working in tandem. Whilst focused on the English context, our findings are transferable to other planning systems in the Global North, especially those championing neoliberal market led policies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

• Nature policy may be integrated through Local Environmental Governance Organisations. • Two separate movements drive nature recovery: local initiatives and government policy. • Natural Cambridgeshire brings stakeholders together but needs secure core funding. • Central government should adopt a framework to support local environmental governance. There are demands on land to provide a variety of ecosystem services alongside agricultural products. In the absence of markets, delivery is generally overseen through separate agencies. However, synergies and trade-offs amongst ecosystem services and variation across space lead to different priorities and opportunities in different areas. This creates a complex challenge for governance and implies a need to devolve decision-making. The objective of this paper is to explore the devolution of decision-making through the introduction of Local Environmental Governance Organisations (LEGO). A LEGO would assemble evidence on natural capital and co-ordinate stakeholders to identify local priorities. It would search for synergies and collaborative partnerships and raise funds to support priority actions. The paper first sets out a theoretical framework to identify the elements required for local governance. It then proposes two alternatives: a 'national park' approach for areas of higher environmental quality and a 'local nature partnership' approach elsewhere. The paper then provides a case study of Natural Cambridgeshire, a local nature partnership in England, as a potential LEGO, assessing the extent to which it meets the requirements identified. It has already done much to develop a stakeholder community and has begun to establish priorities for nature enhancement. However, it lacks programmes and long term funding that can incentivise the necessary actions or a forum that can bring together partners for Nature-based Solutions at scale. Central government would need to establish a framework for the operation of a system of LEGOs. It would also continue to support national standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By embedding a spatially explicit ecosystem services modelling tool within a policy simulator we examine the insights that natural capital analysis can bring to the design of policies for nature recovery. Our study is illustrated through a case example of policies incentivising the establishment of new natural habitat in England. We find that a policy mirroring the current practice of offering payments per hectare of habitat creation fails to break even, delivering less value in improved flows of ecosystem services than public money spent and only 26% of that which is theoretically achievable. Using optimization methods, we discover that progressively more efficient outcomes are delivered by policies that optimally price activities (34%), quantities of environmental change (55%) and ecosystem service value flows (81%). Further, we show that additionally attaining targets for unmonetized ecosystem services (in our case, biodiversity) demands trade-offs in delivery of monetized services. For some policy instruments it is not even possible to achieve the targets. Finally, we establish that extending policy instruments to offer payments for unmonetized services delivers target-achieving and value-maximizing policy designs. Our findings reveal that policy design is of first-order importance in determining the efficiency and efficacy of programmes pursuing nature recovery. This article is part of the theme issue 'Bringing nature into decision-making'.