TY - JOUR
T1 - Ecological Compensation to Address Environmental Externalities
T2 - Lessons from South American Case Studies
AU - Reid, John
AU - Bruner, Aaron
AU - Chow, Jeffrey
AU - Malky, Alfonso
AU - Rubio, José Carlos
AU - Vallejos, Cristian
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2015/8/18
Y1 - 2015/8/18
N2 - Large development projects commonly cause damage to ecosystems, even after measures have been taken to avoid and reduce impacts on site. Governments are increasingly seeking to offset losses through ecological compensation programs to maintain overall levels of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The key to successful programs are criteria that reduce uncertainty and transaction costs while enhancing ecological equivalency. In South America, the government of Brazil, and Colombia have implemented compensation programs, and Peru has recently published broad guidelines and is developing detailed rules. Brazil emphasizes regulatory simplicity, which mitigates cost uncertainty, over ecological equivalence. Colombia has sophisticated methods for establishing ecological equivalence, but has yet to develop institutions necessary to reduce transaction costs. These experiences suggest a trade-off between rules that rigorously compensate losses with ecologically equivalent areas, and simpler approaches that have low transaction costs but may fail to ensure specific biodiversity goals. The success of Peru’s system will depend on being practical enough to implement at scale and rigorous enough to deliver environmental benefits. We describe a series of mutually compatible recommendations to balance both needs. Ecological compensation is still a nascent effort in the neotropics and policy adjustments will be necessary as better information on success and failure becomes available.
AB - Large development projects commonly cause damage to ecosystems, even after measures have been taken to avoid and reduce impacts on site. Governments are increasingly seeking to offset losses through ecological compensation programs to maintain overall levels of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The key to successful programs are criteria that reduce uncertainty and transaction costs while enhancing ecological equivalency. In South America, the government of Brazil, and Colombia have implemented compensation programs, and Peru has recently published broad guidelines and is developing detailed rules. Brazil emphasizes regulatory simplicity, which mitigates cost uncertainty, over ecological equivalence. Colombia has sophisticated methods for establishing ecological equivalence, but has yet to develop institutions necessary to reduce transaction costs. These experiences suggest a trade-off between rules that rigorously compensate losses with ecologically equivalent areas, and simpler approaches that have low transaction costs but may fail to ensure specific biodiversity goals. The success of Peru’s system will depend on being practical enough to implement at scale and rigorous enough to deliver environmental benefits. We describe a series of mutually compatible recommendations to balance both needs. Ecological compensation is still a nascent effort in the neotropics and policy adjustments will be necessary as better information on success and failure becomes available.
KW - Brazil
KW - Colombia
KW - Peru
KW - South America
KW - biodiversity offset
KW - compensatory conservation
KW - compensatory mitigation
KW - ecological compensation
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000373571100006
UR - https://openalex.org/W1598998636
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84938295449
U2 - 10.1080/10549811.2015.1046081
DO - 10.1080/10549811.2015.1046081
M3 - Comment/debate
SN - 1054-9811
VL - 34
SP - 605
EP - 622
JO - Journal of Sustainable Forestry
JF - Journal of Sustainable Forestry
IS - 6-7
ER -