Accounting and Accountability for Rewilding, De-extinction and Biodiversity Protection

About

There is a burgeoning academic literature in the areas of accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting (for example, Jones and Solomon, 2013; Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Corvino et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2022). This evolving literature approaches accounting and accountability from a multitude of perspectives. Some seek to assess the quantity and quality of accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting across all sectors and in geographic regions across the globe. Research also addresses how these reporting forms are emancipatory or captured by impression management and greenwashing (Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Zhao and Atkins, 2021). Concerning the latter, the empirics suggest that efforts to account for, and report on, species are limited among the business community in both developed (for example, Adler et al., 2018; Hassan et al., 2020) and developing economies (for example, Usher and Maroun, 2018; Zhang and Noronha, 2023; Sun and Lange, 2023).

Concerning greenwashing, more than a decade ago, Jones and Solomon (2013) discussed the problems associated with accounting for biodiversity being anthropocentric in nature and potentially characterised by impression management. More recently, Carnegie et al. (2021a, 2021b) proposed redefining accounting as a multidimensional technical, social and moral practice "to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature" (2021a, p.69) as a global and proactive approach for shaping a better, more sustainable world. Boiral (2016) and Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria (2017) presented evidence of impression management activities in accounting for biodiversity. Studies also seek to identify various initiatives and strategies organisations implement to enhance biodiversity and save species. These include, for example, biodiversity offsets, the creation of biodiversity corridors, remote sensing used in biodiversity audits, and efforts to increase endangered species populations. To date, however, there has been no attempt to explore accounting and accountability for rewilding and de-extinction within the context of accounting for biodiversity, preventing species extinctions and enhancing ecosystems and habitats. This may be, at least in part, due to rewilding and de-extinction being relatively new scientific projects. Further, exploring new developments in science and conservation requires significant investment in interdisciplinary research approaches, which involves significant time and research resources. A recent study of the scientific and practical processes of rewilding asserts that rewilding "…does not have a single simple definition. Instead, it has proved useful as a way of describing an approach to conservation that seeks to maintain or even increase biodiversity and reduce or reverse past and present human impacts by restoring more functional ecosystems" (Lorimer et al., p. 54). Furthermore, rewilding has been, "…proposed as a new potential panacea for restoring not only biodiversity but also wilderness" (Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016, p. 87).

The urgent need for "rewilding" aligns broadly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially the emphasis placed on conserving ocean and land-based ecosystems to conserve critical ecological processes and contribute to improved living standards for the world's growing population. Rather than being seen as "anti-globalism" or premised on a claimed effort to reverse substantially or even completely the effects of industrialisation, rewilding may be seen as a "visionary new agenda for conservation" which balances environmental goals with pragmatism (Jepson and Blythe, 2020, p.45). One element of rewilding is the de-extinction of species which can assist in rewilding landscapes through their reintroduction, as illustrated by the de-extinction and rewilding of aurochs across Europe (Jepson and Blythe, 2020; Atkins et al., 2023).

Significant financial and human investment are required for scientific de-extinctions. Similarly, rewilding projects involve sourcing substantial financing from various sources. Financing de-extinction and rewilding involves an extensive network of stakeholders, including government, NGOs, charities, universities, philanthropic donations, and increasingly the creation of novel, innovative financial mechanisms. Indeed, new financial markets are developing quickly to provide the sources of finance required to rewild massive tracts of land, as well as small-scale ecosystem regeneration and rewilding. New developments in the financial markets point to the emergence of 'extinction finance' defined as "…the integration of species protection, extinction prevention and biodiversity enhancement into financial market mechanisms" (Atkins and Macpherson, 2022, p.22). There has been some attempt to catalogue the sources of finance behind rewilding projects outside the accounting and finance literature (Pereira and Navarro, 2015), but the financing requires more critique and analysis of the intended and necessary effectiveness. New forms of accounting and accountability will become necessary to complement and accompany these developments in extinction finance.

The published Biological Diversity Protocol (2021) calls for companies to transform their reporting and activities to preserve and enhance biodiversity. The forthcoming Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework and the new European Union (EU) sustainability reporting framework anticipates reporting on nature-positive organisational strategies and outcomes. Such new frameworks act as a driving force behind commitments to invest in rewilding by companies, financial institutions, and other organisations. Developments in legal frameworks such as the EU Nature Restoration Law, passed by the European Parliament in July 2023 (Niranjan, 2023), are also intended to provide an impetus for companies and financial institutions to make firm and timely commitments to rewilding efforts as well as to a plethora of biodiversity-enhancing and species-saving strategies.

Biodiversity and rewilding cannot be extracted from the political environment in which stakeholder groups with ostensibly diametrically opposite agendas compete for the attention of legislators. This was manifested in the narrow vote by which the EU Nature Restoration Law passed into the EU legal, environmental framework. Stakeholder attitudes towards rewilding are far from homogenous; failure to reconcile disparate perspectives may result in legal frameworks in a constant state of flux as governments embracing the so-called green agenda are replaced by those advocating a laissez-faire approach. The latter, to date, prioritise economic and industrial development, even if at the cost of environmental degradation and species extinction. In these settings, Carroll's pyramid (Carroll, 1991, 1999) and the contrary literature which invert it are primed for review to take account of biodiversity's relationship to its principal building blocks (Brown and Fraser, 2006; Ruka and Rashidirad, 2019). Countries where species and natural habitats are under severe stress, especially where economic development has become totemic, seemingly regardless of the adverse consequences for the natural environment, provide a useful reference point for exploring and implementing "win-win" scenarios for all humans and non-humans alike.

Submissions

The submission deadline for this special issue is 01 December 2024.

Manuscripts are to be submitted using the AAAJ online submission management system ScholarOne. If you would like to discuss the AAAJ special issue and your potential contribution, please contact the guest editors by email: Jill Atkins ([email protected]), Garry Carnegie ([email protected]), Warren Maroun ([email protected]), Simon Norton ([email protected]). All submissions will be reviewed in accordance with the AAAJ journal's regular procedures and protocols.

Submit via ScholarOne

Author Guidelines