Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding. Issue 1 (2nd January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Takacs, David
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental policy and planning. Volume 22:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 43
• Page End: 58
• Publication Date: 2020-01-02
• Subjects: Ecological democracy -- environmental democracy -- biodiversity offsetting -- REDD+ -- rewilding -- deep equity; Environmental policy -- Europe -- Periodicals; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.7
• DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1661234
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-908X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Ecological democracy seeks environmentally sustainable ends through broad, active democratic participation. What happens when laws fostering participation in environmental decision-making and biodiversity preservation lead to differing results? What is best for biodiversity may not be what for local citizens believe is best. I examine conflicts and congruencies in the context of Biodiversity Offsetting, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), and the Rewilding movement. I ask questions that are legal (Who has what legal rights to speak for or against programs that enhance biodiversity?), epistemological (Whose expertise and knowledge matters when scientists and non-scientists don't agree?), axiological (Are some values objectively better, and why?), and normative (Whose opinions about biodiversity should count?). Many people have the right to participate in an ecological democracy: But when protecting biodiversity, who does and should have the right to be heard? I problematize the role that 'local' actors play in decision-making and describe the variegated role that experts – particularly biologists – play in ecological democracy when biodiversity preservation matters. To determine whose values and voices should be prioritized, I describe 'deep equity, ' an axiological and normative groundwork for determining when biodiversity-promoting policies may be preferable even if affected citizens don't agree.