Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 265 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-13

The Sweet and the Bitter: Intertwined Positive and Negative Social Impacts of a Biodiversity Offset


1 School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Gwynedd, UK
2 Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, Southampton University, Southampton, UK
3 Département des Arts, Lettres et Sciences Humaines, University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar
4 Département des Eaux et Forêts, Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar

Correspondence Address:
Cécile Bidaud
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Gwynedd
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.196315

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1770    
    Printed100    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded520    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal