Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward

When is an Offset Not an Offset? A Framework of Necessary Conditions for Biodiversity Offsets

Biodiversity offsets have become a widely accepted means of attempting to compensate for biodiversity loss from development, and are applied in planning and decision-making processes at many levels. Yet their use is contentious, and numerous problems with both the concept and the practice have been identified in the literature. Our starting point is the understanding that offsets are a kind of biodiversity compensation measure through which the goal of no net loss (or net gain) of biodiversity can be at least theoretically achieved. Based on a typology of compensation measures distinguishing between habitat protection, improvement (including restoration, habitat creation and improved management practices) and other compensation, we review the literature to develop a framework of conditions that must be met if habitat protection and improvement initiatives can be truly considered offsets and not merely a lesser form of compensation. It is important that such conceptual clarity is reflected in offset policy and guidance, if offsets are to be appropriately applied and to have any chance of fully compensating for biodiversity loss. Our framework can be used to support the review and ongoing development of biodiversity offset policy and guidance, with the aim of improving clarity, rigour and therefore the chances that good biodiversity outcomes can be achieved.

Study on the quantification of ecological compensation in a river basin considering different industries based on water pollution loss value

The study on the quantification of ecological compensation (eco-compensation) in a river basin can help to make environmental protection more compatible with ecological construction. In this paper, the upstream and downstream of the river basin were treated as the subjects and objects of eco-compensation, and the mechanism of eco-compensation was clarified. The emergy analysis theory (EMA) was used to calculate the values of water resources in sub-industries (agriculture, industry, life, and recreation). The pollution loss rate theory (PLR) was adopted to calculate the water pollution loss rate in sub-industries. According to the value of water resources and pollution loss rate in sub-industries, combined with the water consumption of sub-industries in the river basin, the Ecological Compensation Quantification Model of Sub-industries (ECQ-Is Model) was constructed. Under the guidance of the aforementioned theory and model, a comprehensive research was conducted on the Xiaohong River. The results showed that the eco-compensation values of the upstream area, industry, and agriculture in the river basin were higher. Therefore, it is essential that the water resources in the Xiaohong River basin be well conserved and managed. In addition, the research results point out the direction for water pollution control, which includes promoting the coordinated development of the upstream and downstream, and maximizing the ecological benefits of the river basin.

Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests

The Returning Farmland to Forest Program (RFFP) was implemented in China in 1999 with the goal of supporting environmental restoration by returning significant areas of cultivated land to forest. While afforestation supports long-term ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and the reduction of soil and water loss, it also reduces the amount of available arable land, putting financial pressure on those who depend on it for their livelihoods. In an effort to balance both ecological and economic benefits, regional governments offer financial compensation to farmers to offset these pressures in the form of a dollar amount per hectare of reforested land. The current study explores participants’ willingness to accept pay (WTA), along with the difference between the offered per hectare compensation and the amount deemed acceptable by RFFP participants in the region. To this end, 92 households from the representative afforestation area were surveyed in Huining County, Gansu Province, China - an area of strategic ecological importance in the Loess Plateau. The results showed 12.0% of the surveyed respondents to be satisfied with the current compensation policy, while 88.0% of respondents were not. The respondents’ lower and upper WTA limits were $221/ha/year and $1331/ha/year, respectively, with an average WTA of $777/ha/year. The compensation that respondents would be most willing to accept was distributed in the $444–888/ha/year and the $889–1331/ha/year ranges, accounting for 37.0% and 31.5% of the total responses, respectively. Gender, age, and education were found to be the main factors influencing a respondents’ WTA. Results of the survey suggest that the actual compensation amount ($355/ha/year) is much lower than respondents’ WTA, and that compensation measures and policies should be improved to guarantee a basic income.

Games between stakeholders and the payment for ecological services: evidence from the Wuxijiang River reservoir area in China

A gambling or “game” phenomenon can be observed in the complex relationship between sources and receptors of ecological compensation among multiple stakeholders. This paper investigates the problem of gambling to determine payment amounts, and details a method to estimate the ecological compensation amount related to water resources in the Wuxijiang River reservoir area in China. Public statistics and first-hand data obtained from a field investigation were used as data sources. Estimation of the source and receptor amount of ecological compensation relevant to the water resource being investigated was achieved using the contingent valuation method (CVM). The ecological compensation object and its benefit and gambling for the Wuxijiang River water source area are also analyzed in this paper. According to the results of a CVM survey, the ecological compensation standard for the Wuxijiang River was determined by the CVM, and the amount of compensation was estimated. Fifteen blocks downstream of the Wuxijiang River and 12 blocks in the water source area were used as samples to administer a survey that estimated the willingness to pay (WTP) and the willingness to accept (WTA) the ecological compensation of Wuxijiang River for both nonparametric and parametric estimation. Finally, the theoretical value of the ecological compensation amount was estimated. Without taking other factors into account, the WTP of residents in the Wuxi River water source was 297.48 yuan per year, while the WTAs were 3864.48 yuan per year. The theoretical standard of ecological compensation is 2294.39–2993.81 yuan per year. Under the parameter estimation of other factors, the WTP of residents in the Wuxi River water source area was 528.72 yuan per year, while the WTA was 1514.04 yuan per year. The theoretical standard of ecological compensation is 4076.25–5434.99 yuan per year. The main factors influencing the WTP ecological compensation in the Wuxi River basin are annual income and age. The main factors affecting WTA are gender and attention to the environment, age, marital status, local birth, and location in the main village.

Accounting for Uncertainty and Time Lags in Equivalency Calculations for Offsetting in Aquatic Resources Management Programs

Biodiversity offset programs attempt to minimize unavoidable environmental impacts of anthropogenic activities by requiring offsetting measures in sufficient quantity to counterbalance losses due to the activity. Multipliers, or offsetting ratios, have been used to increase the amount of offsets to account for uncertainty but those ratios have generally been derived from theoretical or ad-hoc considerations. I analyzed uncertainty in the offsetting process in the context of offsetting for impacts to freshwater fisheries productivity. For aquatic habitats I demonstrate that an empirical risk-based approach for evaluating prediction uncertainty is feasible, and if data are available appropriate adjustments to offset requirements can be estimated. For two data-rich examples I estimate multipliers in the range of 1.5:1 - 2.5:1 are sufficient to account for the uncertainty in the prediction of gains and losses. For aquatic habitats adjustments for time delays in the delivery of offset benefits can also be calculated and are likely smaller than those for prediction uncertainty. However, the success of a biodiversity offsetting program will also depend on the management of the other components of risk not addressed by these adjustments.