Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

References

• 16 U.S.C. § 1539(j), 1982 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News, at 2834.
   Google Scholar
• 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-43 (1973) Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884.
   Google Scholar
• 16 USC §§ 1533(b)(1)-(2), §1536(a)(2) (1973) Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
   Google Scholar
• 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332-35 (1970) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, P. (2011). Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: Principles and approaches for policy and project development. The Center for People and Forests & GIZ.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1371919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, E. (2012). Which science? Whose science? How scientific disciplines can shape environmental law. University of Chicago Law Review, 79(2), 471–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boltes, J. (2015). North Carolina wants feds to end red wolf rewilding program. Earth Island Journal.
   Google Scholar
• Brosi, B., & Biber, E. (2012). Citizen involvement in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Science, 337, 802–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1220660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. (2018, November 12). Study: Carnivores’ return helps park streams. Greenwire.
   Google Scholar
• Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). (2009a). Biodiversity offset implementation handbook. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). (2009b). Biodiversity offsets and stakeholder participation: A BBOP resource paper. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Carrington, D. (2014, September 18). World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – With 70% chance of continuous rise. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1, e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conniff, R. (2014, January 24). Pastoral icon or Woolly Menace? New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Constanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I. … Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cracknell, S. (2016). Brown bear arrives in catalan pyrenees rewilding project. La Senda Pieraica. Retrieved from http://www.lasenda.net/brown-bear-arrives-in-catalan-pyrenees-rewilding-project/#more-326
   Google Scholar
• Doremus, H. (1997). Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: Why better science isn’t always better policy. 75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1029, 1086.
   Google Scholar
• Doremus, H., & Tarlock, D. (2005). Science, judgment, and controversy in natural resource regulation. Public Land & Resources Law Review, 26, 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2014). Institutions for the anthropocene: Governance in a changing earth system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 937–956. doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durbin, J., Lhumeau, A., & Franks, P. (2016). Progress towards and results of a participatory, transparent and comprehensive approach to REDD+ Safeguards. REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards Initiative, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Eckersly, R. (2011). Representing nature. In S. Alonso, J. Keane, & S. Alonso. (Eds.), The future of representative democracy (pp. 236–257). Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fincke, A. (2010). ‘International union for conservation of nature indigenous peoples and REDD-Plus: Challenges and opportunities for the engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in REDD-Plus’, International Union for Conservation of Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, E. (2014). Wolf delisting: Old wine in new bottles. Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, 44, 10413–10425.
   Google Scholar
• Foti, J., & de Silva, L. (2010). A seat at the table: Including the poor in decisions for development and environment. World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (1992). Green political theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• International Finance Corporation. (2012). IFC performance standards on environmental and social sustainability.
   Google Scholar
• International Science Council. (2018). Global biodiversity continues to decline, according to new reports from IPBES. Retrieved from https://council.science/current/news/global-biodiversity-continues-to-decline-according-to-new-reports-from-ipbes
   Google Scholar
• International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2019). The IUCN list of threatened species. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/iucn-red-list-threatened-species
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey, M. (2002). Intervenor funding as the key to effective citizen participation in environmental decision-making: Putting the people back into the picture. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 19(1), 643.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, S. (2016). Bison found poisoned and decapitated on Spanish reserve. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Knox, J. (2018). Framework principles on human rights and the environment. United Nations Human Rights Special Procedures.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchenko, S. (2007). The Aarhus convention and innovations in compliance with multilateral environmental agreements. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, 18(1), 1.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchenko, S. (2010). Procedural rights as a crucial tool to combat climate change. Georgia Journal on International and Compliance Law, 28(1), 613.
   Google Scholar
• Kysar, D. (2011). Regulating from nowhere: Environmental law and the search for objectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, B., Soule, M. E., & Terborgh, J. (2014). ‘New conservation’ or surrender to development? Animal Conservation. doi:10.1111/acv.12127. Retrieved from http://www.esf.edu/efb/parry/Invert_Cons_14_Readings/Miller_etal_2014.pdf
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milman, O. (2015). ‘Rewilding’ Dingoes could help reverse decline of Australia’s native wildlife. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Monbiot, G. (2014). Feral: Rewilding the land, the sea, and human life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, M., Caravani, A., & Nakhooda, S. (2014) Climate finance thematic briefing: REDD+ Finance. Overseas Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2016). Biodiversity offsets: Effective design and implementation. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas, S. (2014, May 29). Extinction rates soar to 1,000 times normal (but there’s hope). LiveScience. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/45964-extinction-rates-1000-times-normal.html
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, J. (2019). Ecological reflexivity: Characterising an elusive virtue for governance in the Anthropocene. Environmental Politics, 28, 1145–1166. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1487148
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Schlosberg, D. (2018, November 5–8). Between environmental and ecological democracy: Theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. Paper for Earth System Governance Conference, Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• REDD+ SES. (2012). REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. Version 2.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, C., & Nsoh, W. (2016). The privatisation of biodiversity. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Rewilding Europe. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.rewildingeurope.com/about/
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, J. (2018, November 30). A famous alpha wolf’s daughter, spitfire, is killed by a hunter. NY Times.
   Google Scholar
• Savaresi, A. (2018). Traditional knowledge and climate change: A new legal frontier? Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 9, 32–50. doi: 10.4337/jhre.2018.01.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. (2007). Climate change: An overview. UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs: Division of Social Policy and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, D. (2015). Whiplash and backlash—Reflections on a human rights approach to environmental protection. Santa Clara Journal on International Law, 13(1), 11–29.
   Google Scholar
• Shrouds, J. (2002). Information: Management of Endangered Species Act (ESA) environmental analysis consultation process. Memorandum to Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers, U.S. Dept. of Transportation).
   Google Scholar
• Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), 405 U.S. 727.
   Google Scholar
• Soulé, M., & Noss, R. (1998). Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth Fall: Agriculture and Biodiversity Rewilding, 8(3), 19–28.
   Google Scholar
• Stohr, W. (2012). Trophic cascades and private property: The challenges of a Regulatory Balancing Act and lessons the UK can learn from the reintroduction of the American gray wolf. University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development, 2(1), 15–51.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (2009a). Carbon into gold: Forest carbon offsets, climate change adaptation, and international law. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 15(1), 39–88.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (2009b). Forest carbon: Law+property rights. Conservation International.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (2010). Forest carbon projects and international law: A deep equity legal analysis. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 22(1), 521–574.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (2013). Forest carbon (REDD+), repairing international trust, and reciprocal contractual sovereignty. Vermont Law Review, 37(1), 653–737.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (2014). Environmental democracy and forest carbon (REDD+). Environmental Law, 44(1), 71–134.
   Google Scholar
• ten Kate, K., & Crowe, M. (2014). Biodiversity offsets: Policy options for governments, input paper for the IUCN technical study group on biodiversity offsets. Gland: IUCN.
   Google Scholar
• The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance. (2008). Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (2008) 16-17 (2d ed. 2008). Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/Upload/ccb_standards_second_edition_december_2008+(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. United Nations Treaty Series, 2161, 447. Aarhus, Denmark: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2016a). Countries advance in forging a regional agreement on access to environmental information, participation, and justice. UN, Press Release.
   Google Scholar
• UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2016b). Society, rights, and the environment: International human rights standards applicable to access to information, Public Participation and Access to Justice. UN Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner.
   Google Scholar
• UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2018). Regional agreement on access to information, public participation and justice in enviornmental matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://www.cepal.org/en/escazuagreement
   Google Scholar
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2010). The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Conference of the Parties, Cancun, Mex.
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples: Resolution. A/RES/61/295.
   Google Scholar
• UN-REDD Programme. (2012). Lessons learned: Vietnam UN-REDD Programme Phase 1.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden, S. (2001). Habitat conservation plans and the promise of deliberative democracy. Public Integrity, Summer.
   Google Scholar
• Voigt, C., & Ferreira, F. (2015). The Warsaw Framework for REDD+: Implications for national implementation and access to results-based finance. Carbon and Climate Law Review, Special Issue on Implementing REDD+ in Context: Developing National and Sub-national Legal Frameworks (August/September).
   Google Scholar
• Watts, J. (2018, November 6). Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN, The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, E. (1992). In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony, and inter-generational equity. American University International Law Review, 8(1), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, C. (2014). What future for bears in Western Europe? British Association of Nature Conservation, ECOS: A Review of Conservation, 35(1), 44–51.
   Google Scholar
• Wolosin, M., Breitfeller, J., & Schaap, B. (2016). The geography of REDD+ Finance deforestation, emissions, and the targeting of forest conservation finance. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, J. (2016). A dilemma of green democracy. Political Studies, 64(Suppl. 1), 136–155. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12189
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2015a). Environmental and social standard 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources. Second Draft for Consultation, World Bank Safeguard Policies.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2015b). Outcomes from COP21: Forests as a key climate and development solution. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/18/outcomes-from-cop21-forests-as-a-key-climate-and-development-solution
   Google Scholar
• Yearley, S. (1991). The green case: A sociology of environmental issues, arguments and politics. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick, S. (2015). REDD+ in the Paris Climate Accord: A summary. Ecosystem Marketplace: A Forest Trends initiative. Retrieved from http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/redd-in-the-paris-climate-accord-a-summary/
   Google Scholar