Book Review: Colin T Reid and Walters Nsoh, The Privatisation of Biodiversity? New Approaches to Conservation Law, New Horizons in Environmental and Energy Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Privatisation of Biodiversity? New Approaches to Conservation Law, written by Colin T Reid and Walters Nsoh, is a recently published addition to the Edward Elgar book series New Horizons in Environmental and Energy Law. The book explores how “private rights and market devices” may serve as an alternative to “direct ‘command and control’ regulation”, and so ensure that the use of natural resources remains within ecological limits, while preventing the loss of habitat, habitat degradation, and species extinctions. A diverse range of mechanisms are considered under the “privatisation” heading, with “an emphasis on private law frameworks” that enable private initiatives, choices, and funding, rather than viewing conservation as an enterprise predominantly “controlled and directed by public authorities”. The book consists of nine chapters. The Introduction defines key concepts such as biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature conservation law, market-based instruments, and commodification. Defining key concepts relating to the privatization of biodiversity is crucial for the readability of this book and its relevance to a wider audience. The legal tools covered in the latter chapters are very technical, but so are the non-legal concepts underpinning the legal structures. The authors are to be commended for clearly and painstakingly laying out foundational concepts. However, despite these efforts, it is surprising, at least to a Canadian reviewer, that almost no attention is given to how Indigenous perspectives might inform these foundational concepts. The challenges that might arise if the integration of Indigenous knowledge, laws, and institutions were taken seriously, as well as the importance of doing so, will be considered briefly towards the end of this review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.042 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".