权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

The Privatisation of Biodiversity?: New approaches to nature conservation law

生物多样性的私有化？：自然保护法的新方法

基本信息

批准号：
AH/I022884/1
负责人：
Colin Reid
金额：
$ 27万
依托单位：
University of Dundee
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2012
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2012 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FI022884%2F1
关键词：
Privatisation Biodiversity New approaches nature

项目摘要

Early this decade, governments made commitments at UN, EU and national levels to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. It is universally accepted that these targets are not being met. There are many factors behind the continuing degradation of our natural environment, but it is clear that the present legal mechanisms designed to protect biodiversity are not being effective. Nature conservation law in the UK has developed dramatically in the past thirty years, yet continues to use a fairly limited range of legal mechanisms to achieve its objectives. The aim of this project is to examine the potential for using other mechanisms to make the law more effective and efficient. Such specific measures can only ever be part of the story in tackling the deep-rooted economic, social and other drivers that threaten biodiversity, but there is scope to achieve more through utilising a wider range of legal devices. This project aims to build on the Principal Investigator's deep understanding of the current British law to identify other regulatory mechanisms that could be employed to further the aims of conservation and to examine in detail the potential for and obstacles to their adoption here. Such examination involves challenging some commonly held attitudes towards the natural environment, involving what can be seen as a 'privatisation' of conservation or the conversion of nature into an economic good akin to other goods given recognition within existing legal frameworks. Historically, wild creatures had no legal recognition at all (either in their own right or as anyone's property) and no-one had any standing to protect them. The present law rests largely on designating particular sites or species of value and then controlling activities that cause direct harm to them, through the use of criminal prohibitions and of agreements reached between public bodies and the occupiers of the land affected, supported by the operation of existing permit or approval systems. In other countries different devices are used. These include conservation easements (where private agreements to conserve habitat are given enduring legal effect), conservation banking (where development in one place is off-set by the developer providing for conservation elsewhere), tradable development rights (where a certain amount of development of a habitat is permitted and the right to undertake this allocated among occupiers who can then trade amongst themselves to alter their share of development or conservation) and various means of allowing the landowner to recover from those benefitting the value of the ecosystem services provided by undeveloped land (including water storage and purification, flood protection, leisure opportunities and amenity).At the practical level, assessing the potential of such devices in the British context requires an examination of how they might be fitted into the legal frameworks that apply here, not just in terms of conservation rules but also the fundamental structures of property law etc., and whether they are suitable for British conditions, where the goal is not protecting large areas of pristine prairies or forests but supporting biodiversity in a richly varied, densely packed and heavily managed environment created by human intervention over many centuries. Conceptually, accepting some of these mechanisms requires a major rethinking of the enterprise of biodiversity conservation, from a task that is primarily to be directed by the state to one that is a shared undertaking. More fundamentally, a different set of values is engaged when biodiversity is viewed not as something outside the commercial arena but brought within it through the recognition of valuations, tradable rights and offsetting arrangements. The implications of this 'commoditisation' of nature will be explored in contrast to views of nature as a 'common heritage'and the radical arguments of "Earth Jurisprudence" proponents such as Berry and Cullinan.

本世纪初，各国政府在联合国、欧盟和国家层面作出承诺，到2010年停止生物多样性丧失。人们普遍认为，这些目标没有实现。造成我国自然环境持续退化的因素很多，但目前旨在保护生物多样性的法律机制显然并不有效。英国的自然保护法在过去的30年里有了巨大的发展，但仍在继续使用相当有限的法律机制来实现其目标。该项目的目的是审查利用其他机制提高法律效力和效率的可能性。在解决威胁生物多样性的根深蒂固的经济、社会和其他驱动因素方面，此类具体措施只能是故事的一部分，但通过利用更广泛的法律手段，仍有取得更多成果的余地。该项目旨在加强首席调查员对英国现行法律的深入了解，以确定可用于促进保护目标的其他监管机制，并详细审查在这里采用这些机制的潜力和障碍。这种审查涉及挑战一些普遍持有的对自然环境的态度，涉及可以被视为自然保护的“私有化”，或将自然转化为类似于在现有法律框架内得到承认的其他商品的经济产品。从历史上看，野生动物根本没有法律承认(无论是它们自己的权利还是作为任何人的财产)，没有人有任何地位来保护它们。现行法律在很大程度上依赖于指定特定的地点或有价值的物种，然后通过刑事禁令和公共机构与受影响土地占有者之间达成的协议，在现有许可或批准制度的支持下，控制对其造成直接损害的活动。在其他国家，使用不同的设备。这些措施包括保护地役权(保护栖息地的私人协议被赋予持久的法律效力)、保护银行(在一个地方的开发由在其他地方提供保护的开发商抵消)、可交易的开发权(允许对栖息地进行一定数量的开发，并在居住者之间进行分配，以改变他们在开发或保护中的份额)，以及允许土地所有者从那些受益于未开发土地提供的生态系统服务价值的土地上恢复的各种手段(包括蓄水和净化、防洪、休闲机会和康乐设施)。在实践层面上，评估这种装置在英国的潜力需要审查它们如何适应适用于英国的法律框架，不仅是在保护规则方面，还包括财产法的基本结构等方面，以及它们是否适合英国的条件，因为英国的目标不是保护大片原始的草原或森林，而是在一个由许多世纪以来人类干预创造的丰富多样、密集和管理严密的环境中支持生物多样性。从概念上讲，接受其中一些机制需要对生物多样性保护事业进行重大反思，从一项主要由国家指导的任务转变为一项共同的任务。更根本的是，当生物多样性不被视为商业领域之外的东西，而是通过确认估值、可交易权和抵消安排而被纳入商业领域时，就会产生一套不同的价值观。我们将与把自然视为“共同遗产”的观点以及贝瑞和库利南等“地球法学”倡导者的激进论点形成对比，来探讨这种自然“商品化”的含义。