Biodiversity Banking in New South Wales: Biology or Bunkum?
The New South Wales Government recently set up a scheme for Biodiversity Banking, which is unique in the world. Significant areas of native vegetation are to be traded and offset for urban development, with a system of credits priced by the market. The purpose is claimed to be “conserving and restoring biodiversity”.
Appropriation of the term “Biodiversity” in this context raises questions of science, equity and ethics. The requisite methodology is said to be based on “sound scientific principles” but these have not been identified or discussed in the official literature. The biometric tool and surrogate factors adopted for valuation do not measure biological diversity, or represent any meaningful index of it. Vegetation types estimated to have equivalent value will be traded, according to the deemed scarcity of ecological communities, on a like for like or better basis. But such a market can have no equitable exchange based on realistic biological measurements. Rather, it is likely to deal in the dollar values of land speculation fed by an ever increasing demand for residential and commercial development on the edge of an expanding metropolis. Biodiversity Banking is not limited by local government boundaries. The effect may be to displace conservation management outwards to remote locations, while sacrificing urban bushland.
It is argued that this scheme has little grounding in biology and uses bunkum to disguise unrestrained development and rampant speculation. Providing scientific advice under these conditions has serious ethical implications. Conservation biologists working in government agencies and private practice may be asked to give credence to the monetary values of the market. However, their role remains unclear and subservient.