Backloading to extinction: Coping with values conflict in the administration of Australia's federal biodiversity offset policy

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2023-03-28 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12581
Megan C. Evans
{"title":"Backloading to extinction: Coping with values conflict in the administration of Australia's federal biodiversity offset policy","authors":"Megan C. Evans","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Policy-makers are frequently required to consider and manage conflicting public values. An example of this in the environmental domain is biodiversity offset policy, which governments worldwide have adopted as a mechanism to balance environmental protection with socio-economic development. However, little work has examined administrative practices underpinning biodiversity offset policy implementation, and how the adoption of coping strategies to manage value conflicts may influence resulting policy outcomes. This study fills this research gap using a case study of Australia's federal biodiversity offset policy under the <i>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation</i> (EPBC) <i>Act 1999</i>. Using data from 13 interviews of federal policy administrators, I show that the introduction of a new policy in 2012 enabled a shift from the use of precedent to a technical approach for setting offset requirements under the EPBC Act. Yet, multiple sources of policy ambiguity remain, and administrators have adopted post-approval condition-setting, or ‘backloading’—a form of cycling, facilitated by structural separation—to defer detailed assessments of offset requirements until after biodiversity losses are approved. Backloading thus undermines the effectiveness of environmental policy and will persist as coping strategy unless policy ambiguity is reduced via legislative amendments and adequate resourcing of biodiversity conservation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Biodiversity offset policy requires administrators to manage conflicting environmental and socioeconomic values.</li>\n \n <li>Technical decision tools reduce reliance on case-by-case decision-making, but multiple ambiguities persist.</li>\n \n <li>Backloading (post-approval condition-setting) defers values conflict, but reduces transparency, accountability, and policy effectiveness.</li>\n \n <li>Policy ambiguity must be reduced at the political level to facilitate effective biodiversity conservation.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12581","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12581","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Policy-makers are frequently required to consider and manage conflicting public values. An example of this in the environmental domain is biodiversity offset policy, which governments worldwide have adopted as a mechanism to balance environmental protection with socio-economic development. However, little work has examined administrative practices underpinning biodiversity offset policy implementation, and how the adoption of coping strategies to manage value conflicts may influence resulting policy outcomes. This study fills this research gap using a case study of Australia's federal biodiversity offset policy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. Using data from 13 interviews of federal policy administrators, I show that the introduction of a new policy in 2012 enabled a shift from the use of precedent to a technical approach for setting offset requirements under the EPBC Act. Yet, multiple sources of policy ambiguity remain, and administrators have adopted post-approval condition-setting, or ‘backloading’—a form of cycling, facilitated by structural separation—to defer detailed assessments of offset requirements until after biodiversity losses are approved. Backloading thus undermines the effectiveness of environmental policy and will persist as coping strategy unless policy ambiguity is reduced via legislative amendments and adequate resourcing of biodiversity conservation.

Points for practitioners

  • Biodiversity offset policy requires administrators to manage conflicting environmental and socioeconomic values.
  • Technical decision tools reduce reliance on case-by-case decision-making, but multiple ambiguities persist.
  • Backloading (post-approval condition-setting) defers values conflict, but reduces transparency, accountability, and policy effectiveness.
  • Policy ambiguity must be reduced at the political level to facilitate effective biodiversity conservation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
向灭绝倒退:应对澳大利亚联邦生物多样性补偿政策管理中的价值冲突
政策制定者经常被要求考虑和管理相互冲突的公共价值观。环境领域的一个例子是生物多样性抵消政策,世界各国政府已采用该政策作为平衡环境保护与社会经济发展的机制。然而,很少有工作审查支持生物多样性抵消政策实施的行政实践,以及采用应对策略来管理价值冲突如何影响最终的政策结果。本研究以1999年《环境保护和生物多样性保护法》下的澳大利亚联邦生物多样性补偿政策为例,填补了这一研究空白。通过对13位联邦政策管理人员的访谈数据,我发现2012年新政策的引入使得在EPBC法案下设定补偿要求的方法从使用先例转变为采用技术方法。然而,政策模糊的多重来源仍然存在,管理者采取了批准后条件设置或“后加载”——一种循环形式,由结构性分离促进——将对补偿要求的详细评估推迟到生物多样性损失得到批准之后。因此,除非通过立法修订和充分的生物多样性保护资源来减少政策的模糊性,否则反向加载会破坏环境政策的有效性,并将继续作为应对策略。生物多样性补偿政策要求管理者管理相互冲突的环境和社会经济价值。技术决策工具减少了对个案决策的依赖,但仍然存在多种歧义。反向加载(批准后的条件设置)推迟了价值冲突,但降低了透明度、问责制和政策有效性。必须在政治层面减少政策的模糊性,以促进有效的生物多样性保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices Issue Information - TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1