‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Theoretical 
underpinning 
of scheme
Polluter pays for 
damage in order
to balance costs 
and benefits
Creates interest in 
reducing pollution 
(eg phasing out
old production 
plants)
Reduces cost of
impact reduction, 
but transfers
resources to
producers
Restores natural 
systems and
increases the
ecological base 
Objective and/
or outcomes
Requires end-
of-pipe controls 
– technology 
forcing
Reduces rate of
future harm 
through cleaner 
production 
Reduces ongoing 
and/or future harm 
in total
Reduces present, 
future and past 
harm
Type of action 
promoted
by scheme
End-of-pipe
measures shift
toxins to other 
media 
Measures reduce 
emissions under a 
cap at the plant or 
other factory 
Reduces the rate
of damage by
substitution or 
offsetting impacts
Motivates direct 
action by public and 
private sectors
for credits
Tools used to 
achieve aims
Licences, fines, 
fees, inspections
Reductions in 
‘licensed pollution’ 
over time
Offsets (eg carbon 
sequestration) 
anywhere
Ecological space, 
ecological waste, 
net metering, etc
Table 1 Typology of environmental trading systems
So what would the criteria for an eco-service credit system be?
At a minimum, to earn eco-service 
credits
, a project or development should:
•
Be net positive. For example, a carbon credit scheme should only allow credits for the
substitution of fossil fuels by ecologically responsible sources of energy (eg solar or wind
power). Again, complex trading schemes that create incentives to reduce – rather than 
replace – fossil fuels delay the conversion to solar resources.
• 
Be ‘re-distributive’. For example, by enabling farmers to obtain tradable credits for eco- 
services such as water, air and soil improvements, carbon sequestration, wind power, and
increased habitats and biodiversity, we could also foster the revitalization of declining rural
economies.
• 
Create actual 
improvements
to the ecological base and/or public estate. Credits should not be
given for the ‘substitution’ of social, built or manufacturing capital for natural systems, as
these do not increase eco-services.
An eco-service credit system would encourage direct actions by the government or community.
22

---

196
Positive Development
Market mechanisms tend to divert funds from potential direct actions, such as loans to install solar 
systems or the re-design of particular industries. Savings accrued from direct actions could be 
rolled over into a fund for ecological restoration programmes.
23
An eco-service credit system should 
contribute to sustainability without transferring wealth from poor to rich, resources from public to 
private interests, and so on. Instead of spending money on complex incentives, governments could 
instead invest in win–win–win eco-solutions that make everyone better off, or provide credits to 
government and non-government organizations that do.