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

How could eco-service ‘credit’ systems be transformative then?
The invisible hand is not a magic wand. The public still needs to act, and they may need to bypass 
government and industry, or partner with them, to do so. Eco-service credit schemes should not 
be allowed to eclipse or delay direct action by communities to implement available eco-solutions.
Governments must ensure that developments do not receive credits unless they are designed to 
advance sustainability, through a net increase in natural and social capital. Thus, for example, industry 
should 
not
be able to continue to emit carbon by simply buying rights for the sequestration capacity 
of a forest and its soil – unless that forest is managed for 
multiple
eco-service values in perpetuity.
Likewise, industry should 
not
be able to invest in new coal-fired power stations by simply piping a 
portion of the new carbon emissions in a hole (ie geo-sequestration). We cannot reduce the total 
rate of carbon emissions by sweeping some of them under the carpet. Geo-sequestration would 

---

195
Eco-service Trading Schemes
increase emissions overall, even though more modern plants would replace existing ones (with high 
embodied energy costs). The role of government should not just be ‘quality control’, but to improve 
upon proposals through mechanisms like the eco-design reporting process [Chapter 5]. 
Conventional 
regulation
Conventional 
emissions
trading
Conventional 
eco-service 
trading
Proposed eco-
service credits
Type of
compensation 
for damage
Fiscal penalty:
Penalizes some 
negative impacts
of future develop-
ment
Fiscal incentive: 
Creates a com-
petitive advantage 
through impact 
reduction
Physical offsets:
Offset negative 
impacts with
reductions that
can be elsewhere
Physical positives: 
add positive impacts 
as well as reducing 
negatives (off- and 
on-site)