In recent decades, markets have become widely used for environmental resources. Prime examples include water rights where trade enables water to be allocated to the most profitable crops, and allows farmers more flexibility to cope with climatic variability (Bjornlund 2003). Similarly, tradable rights for air pollution minimize the cost of meeting air quality targets (Stavins 1998). The same principles can potentially be widely applied to biodiversity conservation. In this issue, we are fortunate to have a short but diverse series of papers on tradable rights in conservation.

In many developing countries, people rely on natural resources for subsistence and cash income. The trade ban on species listed as critically endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List may be counter-productive, as increasing the rarity and thus price of these species acts as a stimulus to illegal markets rather than a deterrent. Since illegal markets cannot have legal property rights, there is no basis for any form of sustainable harvesting based on property rights. The Malagsy radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata) is an example of a species that is threatened by domestic and international trade; legalizing international trade could, under certain circumstances, provide financial incentives that might effectively reduce the domestic trade and subsistence harvest of this animal. This paper argues this critically-endangered species may be more effectively conserved by assigning trading rights to local communities, rather than demanding a trade ban that cannot be enforced successfully.

Habitat banking and tradable development rights (TDR) have gained considerable currency as a way of achieving ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity and of reconciling nature conservation with economic development goals. This paper reviews the use of these instruments for biodiversity conservation and assesses their roles in the policy mix. The two instruments are compared in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, social impact, institutional context and legal requirements. The role in the policy mix is discussed highlighting sequential relationships, as well as complementarities or synergies, redundancy and conflicts with other instruments, such as biodiversity offsets and land-use zoning.

Habitat banking and TDR have the potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation objectives and attain cost-effective solutions with positive social impacts on local communities and landowners. They can also help to create a new mind-set more favourable to public-private cooperation in biodiversity conservation. At the same time, these policy instruments face a number of theoretical and implementation challenges, such as additionality and equivalence of offsets, endurance of land-use planning regulations, monitoring of offset performance, or time lags between restoration and resulting conservation benefits.

A clear, enforceable regulatory approach is a prerequisite for the success of habitat banking and TDR. In return, these schemes provide powerful incentives for compliance with regulatory norms and ensure a more equitable allocation of the benefits and costs of land-use controls and conservation. Environmentally harmful subsidies in other policy sectors as well as alternative offset options, however, reduce the attractiveness and effectiveness of these instruments. Thus, the overall performance of habitat banking and TDR hinges on how they are integrated into the biodiversity conservation policy mix and fine-tuned with other sectoral policies.

Environmental offsetting involves compensating for the residual adverse impacts of an action on the environment by generating an equivalent benefit elsewhere. As the prevalence of environmental offsetting grows, so does the challenge of translating no-net-loss goals to workable policy. From 2011–2012, the Australian Government developed an Environmental Offsets Policy and an accompanying metric (the Offsets Assessment Guide) to support decision making about offset requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Through extensive stakeholder consultation and in collaboration with academic researchers, the Guide was developed with the aim of accounting appropriately for ecological equivalence in a transparent and flexible manner. This paper outlines the Australian Government's environmental offset policy development process, and describes the approach adopted for evaluating the suitability of proposed offsets in meeting the policy goals. The Guide explicitly estimates the extent to which an offset will improve the target biota and/or avert future losses, the degree of confidence that the offset will be implemented successfully, and the time it will take to deliver a conservation benefit. Since implementation of the Environmental Offsets Policy and the Guide, there has been a shift in focus from estimating offset requirements based on simplistic area ratios, toward directly evaluating the components of an offset action that determine its environmental performance. Achieving a balance between scientific robustness and policy workability is an ongoing challenge. The Environmental Offsets Policy and Guide represent an important step towards consistency and transparency in environmental offset decision-making.

To conserve biodiversity on forest landscapes, it is necessary to understand how incentives in an offset market affect the dynamics of habitat loss and restoration. In this study, a model of firm behaviour in a temporary biodiversity offset market is developed to understand the impact of offset rules on the dynamics of land use and offset policy costs and benefits for Alberta's boreal forest. Policy treatments include eligibility rules for restoration versus avoided loss; time lags for crediting restoration benefits; and geographic trading restrictions. The analysis highlights the assumptions and trade-offs embedded in offset principles such as additionality. Restoration-based policies, which require biodiversity benefits to be established prior to development, are over 200 times more costly than policies that include avoided loss. Geographic trading restrictions result in a significant redistribution of policy costs and ecological risks between regions, with little impact on aggregate policy costs and benefits. Including avoided loss results in a decline in biodiversity intactness by 2% to 2.2% compared to a decline of 3.6% under a no-offset policy. Increasing time lags for crediting restoration to match ecological recovery trajectories reduces restoration effort when policies include both restoration and avoided loss.

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.

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.

Conservation is at a critical juncture because of the increase in poaching which threatens key species. Poaching is a major public concern, as indicated by the rises in rhino and elephant poaching, the United for Wildlife Initiative and the London Declaration, signed by 46 countries in February 2014. This is accompanied by an increasing calls for a more forceful response, especially to tackle the involvement of organized crime in wildlife trafficking. However, there is a risk that this will be counter-productive. Further, such calls are based on a series of assumptions which are worthy of greater scrutiny. First, calls for militarization are based on the idea that poverty drives poaching. Yet, poaching and trafficking are changing because of the shifting dynamics of poverty in supply countries, coupled with changing patterns of wealth in consumer markets. Second, the ways increases in poaching are being linked to global security threats, notably from Al Shabaab are poorly evidenced and yet circulate in powerful policy circles. There is a risk that militarization will place more heavily armed rangers in the centre of some of the most complex regional conflicts in the world (such as the Horn of Africa and Central Africa/Sahel region).

In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin (‘nativeness’), as well as their behaviour and impacts (‘invasiveness’). In many instances, however, the term ‘non-native’ has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species’ origin) shapes people's attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species’ origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species’ perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species’ origin.

Appropriate legislation based on in-depth ecological evidence is essential for ecosystem conservation. Wetland areas in the Brazilian Cerrado hotspot are facing difficulties in terms of status under environmental law: only those wetlands with the palm Mauritia flexuosa (veredas) are recognized as protected. Comprehensive fieldwork in central-western Brazil (72 50-m transects) coupled with both exploratory and confirmatory analyses showed that communities with (MP) and without (MA) M. flexuosa are similar in terms of the floristics and ecology. The results demonstrate that the analysed wetlands are part of a continuum, in which a gradual replacement of species and community structure occurs without a pattern related to physiognomy. Considering such floristic and structure patterns when legally defining the ecosystem would promote a more comprehensive and realistic view of the ecosystem's characteristics and functions, and result in laws with a stronger scientific support. Conservationists should further examine the lack of consistent separation of plant community attributes between the MP and MA areas, and reconsider the scientific definition of veredas.

To address human–wildlife conflicts and the related threat of extinction of the African lion, in 2003, the Maasailand Preservation Trust established a fund at the Mbirikani Group Ranch in southern Kenya to provide monetary compensation for livestock killed by wildlife. In this paper, the policy arrangement approach (PAA) is used to analyse this arrangement as a form of payment for environmental services (PES). Although there has been a considerable reduction in the number of lions killed, the analysis reveals several limitations of this arrangement, including three main side effects, namely it has initiated a process that is difficult to sustain or reverse, created a new cycle of dependence and widened the gap between different groups in the community. In conclusion, the drawbacks of this type of compensation fund must be addressed by combining such arrangements with other public and private policies and initiatives. Careful examination and comparison of different kinds of experiments with PES-like arrangements are required to further build understanding of the potential and different contributions of public and private, market-based initiatives in biodiversity governance.

The influence of protected areas on childhood education is often assumed to be positive, and integrated conservation and development programmes (ICDPs) typically support childhood education by building schools, providing scholarships and improving education quality, which in turn helps build conservation attitudes. In this paper, the impact of a protected area on childhood education is examined within the broader socioeconomic context of villages bordering Kibale National Park (Uganda). Survey data from households and primary schools indicated ICDPs improved primary school enrolment and education for girls. However, crop raiding by Park-protected animals reduced the probability of boys completing four years of primary education because they were preferentially held back from school to guard crops. Since population growth around protected areas is a threat to conservation, and since extending education for both boys and girls helps reduce birth rates and improve future employment opportunities, helping children attain primary school completion supports both conservation and development objectives. The findings highlight the need to continue supporting childhood education near protected areas; however, additional focus should be placed on boys’ educational attainment, and the need for wildlife authorities, governments and conservation organizations to invest in crop-raiding defences to mitigate crop-raiding losses.