Payment for Ecosystem Services

Gong, Yadong; Hegde, Ravi; Bull, Gary

doi:10.4324/9780203105290.ch14

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Implementing policies that increase investment in nature faces significant challenges. A growing literature has emerged analyzing the performance of PES and other policies ( 40 – 43 ). While such policies can be designed so that they efficiently protect natural capital ( 44 ), this is difficult to achieve in practice, due to limitations in information and governance ( 42 , 45 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investing in nature can improve equity and economic returns

Johnson

Baldos

Corong

et al. 2023

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable development requires jointly achieving economic development to raise standards of living and environmental sustainability to secure these gains for the long run. Here, we develop a local-to-global, and global-to-local, earth-economy model that integrates the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP)-computable general equilibrium model of the economy with the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model of fine-scale, spatially explicit ecosystem services. The integrated model, GTAP–InVEST, jointly determines land use, environmental conditions, ecosystem services, market prices, supply and demand across economic sectors, trade across regions, and aggregate performance metrics like GDP. We use the integrated model to analyze the contribution of investing in nature for economic prosperity, accounting for the impact of four important ecosystem services (pollination, timber provision, marine fisheries, and carbon sequestration). We show that investments in nature result in large improvements relative to a business-as-usual path, accruing annual gains of $100 to $350 billion (2014 USD) with the largest percentage gains in the lowest-income countries. Our estimates include only a small subset of ecosystem services and could be far higher with inclusion of more ecosystem services, incorporation of ecological tipping points, and reduction in substitutability that limits economic adjustments to declines in natural capital. Our analysis highlights the need for improved environmental–economic modeling and the vital importance of integrating environmental information firmly into economic analysis and policy. The benefits of doing so are potentially very large, with the greatest percentage benefits accruing to inhabitants of the poorest countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investing in nature can improve equity and economic returns

Johnson

Baldos

Corong

et al. 2023

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also aimed to see if the prices paid by a developer to compensate an area of natural habitat loss induced by its development project enable the recreation of the same area of natural habitat elsewhere. This study investigates the price levels of China's most widely applied compensation fee, the FVRF (Gong et al, 2014; Jeffrey & Qi, 2012; Zhen & Zhang, 2011), to see if the prices used can actually cover the total costs needed to enable NNL of forest areas in the same region. We thus calculated the unit cost of forest investment from 2016 to 2018 using different regions' annual total investments in forests, and the yearly increase of afforestation areas in each region, collected from China's National Statistics Data from 2017 to 2019 (http://www.stats.gov.cn).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the outcomes of China's ecological compensation scheme for development‐related biodiversity loss

Gao,

Bull,

Baker

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past three decades, China's government has implemented many projects under its ecological compensation policy, including paying compensation fees for habitat creation to redress natural habitat losses caused by development. However, a critical evaluation of both the policy design and its ecological outcomes, has not previously been carried out. We assemble diverse data sources to provide the first evaluation of China's eco‐compensation policy and practice, identifying several challenges. In policy, the pricing of forest restoration fees is insufficient in several provinces, and there is no requirement for use of biodiversity metrics or for ecological equivalence of compensation and losses. In practice, only 23% of a sample of 31 developments applied quantitative biodiversity metrics, and fewer than 1% of China's local governments have disclosed information regarding compensation implementation. Thus, to improve the validity of its compensation policy and practice to better secure biodiversity, China may need to embrace higher compensation standards, having first prevented ecological losses where possible. Equally important, China may also need to improve compensation governance for data tracking and conservation effectiveness monitoring.

show abstract

Payment for Ecosystem Services

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Investing in nature can improve equity and economic returns

Investing in nature can improve equity and economic returns

Analyzing the outcomes of China's ecological compensation scheme for development‐related biodiversity loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About