Biodiversity Offsetting in England: Deepening the Neoliberal Production of Socionatures

  • Elia ApostolopoulouEmail author


Let’s now move to the exploration of the emergence and evolution of biodiversity offsetting in a specific country, the UK and explore two major aspects of offsetting that are deeply intertwined: how its emergence relates to the deepening of neoliberal conservation (this chapter) and to governmental attempts to facilitate economic development, often in the form of urban development (next chapter). This chapter, as well as Chapters 6, 7, and 8, largely draws on empirical data obtained through ethnographic research across England from the summer of 2014 until the autumn of 2019. During these five years I conducted more than 80 interviews with governmental officials, environmental administrations and public bodies, including Natural England and Defra, members of several environmental NGOs, conservation brokers (including the Environment Bank), representatives of industries, as well as various economists, regulators, conservation scientists and environmentalists. Interviewees came from very different backgrounds, but they were all involved in the designation and implementation of offsetting in the UK.


  1. Adams, W. M., Hodge, I. D., & Sandbrook, L. (2014). New spaces for nature: The re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39, 574–588.Google Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apostolopoulou, E. (2019). Beyond post-politics: Offsetting, depoliticization and contestation in a community struggle against executive housing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Scholar
  4. Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2015). Neoliberal capitalism and conservation in the post-crisis era: The dialectics of ‘green’ and ‘un-green’ grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode, 47, 15–35.Google Scholar
  5. Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2017a). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: Reframing nature to save it. Oryx, 51, 23–31.Google Scholar
  6. Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2017b). Biodiversity offsetting and the reframing of conservation: A reply to ten Kate & von Hase and Dempsey & Collard. Oryx, 51, 40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2019). Cutting nature to fit: Urbanization, neoliberalism and biodiversity offsetting in England. Geoforum, 98, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Paloniemi, R., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., et al. (2014). Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: The case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21, 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arler, F. (2006). Ethics and cost-benefit analysis (Research Report 4). Aalborg, Denmark: Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  10. BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). (2009). Biodiversity offset design handbook (Appendices). Washington, DC: BBOP.Google Scholar
  11. BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). (2012). Resource paper: No net loss and loss-gain calculations in biodiversity offsets. Washington, DC: BBOP.Google Scholar
  12. Bennett, G., Gallant, M., & ten Kate, K. (2017). State of biodiversity mitigation 2017. Markets and Compensation for Global Infrastructure Development. Ecosystem Marketplace, Forest Trends, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  13. Bormpoudakis, D., Tzanopoulos, J., & Apostolopoulou, E. (2019). The rise and fall of biodiversity offsetting in the Lodge Hill large-scale housing development, South East England. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space.
  14. Carver, L., & Sullivan, S. (2017). How economic contexts shape calculations of yield in biodiversity offsetting. Conservation Biology, 31, 1053–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited. (2013). Evaluation of the biodiversity offsetting pilot phase, WC 1051. Summary of Interim Report Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited in partnership with The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).Google Scholar
  16. Conway, M., Rayment, M., White, A., & Berman, S. (2013). Exploring potential demand for and supply of habitat banking in the EU and appropriate design elements for a habitat banking scheme (Final Report Submitted to DG Environment). UK: ICF GHK and BIO Intelligence Service.Google Scholar
  17. Coplan, K. S. (2017). The missing element of environmental cost-benefit analysis: Compensation for the loss of regulatory benefits. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 30, 281.Google Scholar
  18. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2007a). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  19. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2007b). Securing a healthy natural environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  20. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: A short introduction. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  21. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2012). An overview of the local nature partnership role. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  22. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2013). Biodiversity offsetting in England green paper. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  23. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2016). Defra’s payments for ecosystem services pilot projects 2012–15: Review of key findings. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. Available at:
  24. England Biodiversity Group. (2011). ThinkBIG: How and why landscape-scale conservation benefits wildlife, people, and the wider economy. Available at:
  25. Harvey, D. (1996). Nature, justice and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. HM Government. (2011). The natural choice: Securing the value of nature. Available at:
  27. HM Government. (2013). Biodiversity offsetting (p. 1126). Defra: Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  28. HM Treasury. (2006). Long-term opportunities and challenges for the UK: Analysis for the 2007 comprehensive spending review. London, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Lawton, J. H., Brotherton, P. N. M., Brown, V. K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A. H., Forshaw, J., et al. (2010). Making space for nature: A review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra.Google Scholar
  30. Lefebvre, H. (1976). Reflections on the politics of space. Antipode, 8, 30–37 (M. J. Enders, Trans.).Google Scholar
  31. Lockhart, A. (2015). Developing an offsetting programme: Tensions, dilemmas and difficulties in biodiversity market-making in England. Environmental Conservation, 42, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D., & Bennett, G. (2011). State of biodiversity markets report: Offset and compensation programs worldwide. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
  33. Muradian, R., & Rival, L. (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2012). Neoliberalism resurgent? Market rule after the great recession. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 111, 2.Google Scholar
  35. Re:Common. (2019). Turning forests into hotels: The true cost of biodiversity offsetting in Uganda. Available at:
  36. Seagle, C. (2012). Inverting the impacts: Mining, conservation and sustainability claims near the Rio Tinto/QMM ilmenite mine in Southeast Madagascar. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39, 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, N. (2006). Nature as accumulation strategy. In L. Panitch & C. Leys (Eds.), Socialist register 2007: Coming to terms with nature (pp. 16–36). London: Merlin.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, N. (2010). Uneven development (3rd ed.). New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Spash, C. L. (2015). Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in nature. Biological Conservation, 192, 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sullivan, S., & Hannis, M. (2015). Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England. Ecosystem Services, 15, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In M. Cerreta, M. Concillio, & G. Monno (Eds.), Making strategies in spatial planning (pp. 185–205). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swyngedouw, E. (2015). Politicizing urban political ecologies. In T. Perreault, G. Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of political ecology (p. 609). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Thoft-Christensen, P. (2012). Infrastructures and life-cycle cost-benefit analysis. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Treweek, J. with contributions from: Ten Kate, K., Butcher, B., Venn, O., Garland, L., Wells, M., Moran, D., Thompson, S. (2009). Scoping study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English Context. Final Report to Defra (Contract NE 0801). Available at:
  45. UK NEA. (2011). The UK national ecosystem assessment: Technical report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, J., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2014). The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticization, spectres of radical politics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  47. WRM & Re:Common. (2016). Rio Tinto in Madagascar: A mining destroying the unique biodiversity of the littoral zone of Fort Dauphin. WRM and Re:Common.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations