差异化的生态公益林生态补偿标准——以北京市为例
|
摘要
生态补偿本质是生态系统服务的购买,因此生态补偿标准的制定必须基于生态系统所提供的生态服务价值。2004年开始,北京市逐步对生态公益林进行生态补偿,但补偿项目仍然采用了一刀切的标准制定模式。森林生态系统因树种和林龄的不同,提供的生态系统服务存在较大差异。另外,生态公益林所处的区域位置也决定着其生态系统服务价值发挥的稳定性和相对重要性,是生态补偿标准的制定中必须要考虑的因素。因而,有必要基于生态系统的生态服务价值量核算,并综合考虑生态系统的立地环境、区域定位和资源稀缺度因素,构建差异化的生态公益林生态补偿方案。依据该方案计算的北京生态公益林补偿标准范围在176元/hm~2到2168元/hm~2,其中延庆区和怀柔区的生态公益林补偿标准较高,中心城区和房山区的补偿标准较低。补偿标准的全市平均值为1265元/hm~2,与北京现行山区生态林生态补偿项目的补偿标准相当。构建的公益林生态补偿标准,体现了生态系统的生态服务价值以及生态服务的区位相对重要性差异,为动态化、多元化的公益林生态补偿方案建立提供了可能。
Forest ecosystem,the most important ecosystem in Beijing,covers 35% of the administrative area and plays a key role in the maintenance of urban ecological security by providing many fundamental ecosystem services to local and surrounding communities. In Beijing, co-compensation has been gradually considered a potentially valuable tool for policymakers to better address ecological conservation and environmental issues. Eco-compensation is distributed by policymakers to manage natural resources and to address the misalignments between socially and privately optimal levels of ecosystem service provisioning. Ecological forests play a key role in the maintenance of ecological security in Beijing,and two eco-compensation programs that target forest ecosystems have been implemented in Beijing since 2004. These ecocompensation programs for forest construction have contributed to the equal distribution of ecological and economic benefits between protectors and beneficiaries. However,these eco-compensation programs have issues in payment standards for several reasons. First,the current standards are based on the fiscal capability of the government rather than the magnitudesof forest ecosystem service value. Second,a one-size-fits-all standard is used for eco-compensation programs,which cannot reflect the contributions of different ecosystem services. Third,location diversity indicators are not taken into account in the current payment standard. To address these issues,a more reasonable and scientific determination of payment standards was established in this study. Because hydrological regulation is the primary sub-type of ecosystem services supported by the mountain ecological forests in Beijing,the economic values of hydrological regulation services in each sublot were calculated to represent the ecological forest ecosystem service value in the mountain areas in our study. The different geographical locations create different social and economic development dimensions in forest ecosystem services. Even if the ecosystem service values were the same,the relative importance of the forest ecosystem service would be different because of the different geographical locations. Therefore,three location indicators for the ecological forest sublot were considered for the determination of eco-compensation standards in this study,namely,eco-environment indicator,function-oriented zone indicator,and relative scarcity indicator. The value of the eco-environment indicator was based on the ecological importance level and ecological fragility level of each forest sublot. Function-oriented zone indicator value was assigned to each sublot according to the type of function zone in which the sublot was located. The relative scarcity indicator value was assigned according to the population density of each district. On the basis of the recommended eco-compensation standards,the ecocompensation standard was from 176 to 2168 RMB/hm~2. The first and second highest eco-compensation standards were in Yanqing and Huairou,and the two lowest ones were in Central Town and Fangshan. The average value of the ecocompensation standard of Beijing was about 1265 RMB/hm~2,which isclose to the total standards of the current two ecocompensation programs in Beijing. The results of our study would help in understanding the exact forest ecosystem service value and make recommendations for reasonable and feasible eco-compensation standards of mountain ecological forests. The recommended eco-compensation standards in this study,which reflect both the ecosystem services value and relative importance of forest ecosystem services on the basis of geographical location,would help policy and decision makers to design dynamic and diversified eco-compensation schemes for future eco-compensation initiatives with higher chances of success and contribute to the conservation and sustainability of forest resources.
Forest ecosystem,the most important ecosystem in Beijing,covers 35% of the administrative area and plays a key role in the maintenance of urban ecological security by providing many fundamental ecosystem services to local and surrounding communities. In Beijing, co-compensation has been gradually considered a potentially valuable tool for policymakers to better address ecological conservation and environmental issues. Eco-compensation is distributed by policymakers to manage natural resources and to address the misalignments between socially and privately optimal levels of ecosystem service provisioning. Ecological forests play a key role in the maintenance of ecological security in Beijing,and two eco-compensation programs that target forest ecosystems have been implemented in Beijing since 2004. These ecocompensation programs for forest construction have contributed to the equal distribution of ecological and economic benefits between protectors and beneficiaries. However,these eco-compensation programs have issues in payment standards for several reasons. First,the current standards are based on the fiscal capability of the government rather than the magnitudesof forest ecosystem service value. Second,a one-size-fits-all standard is used for eco-compensation programs,which cannot reflect the contributions of different ecosystem services. Third,location diversity indicators are not taken into account in the current payment standard. To address these issues,a more reasonable and scientific determination of payment standards was established in this study. Because hydrological regulation is the primary sub-type of ecosystem services supported by the mountain ecological forests in Beijing,the economic values of hydrological regulation services in each sublot were calculated to represent the ecological forest ecosystem service value in the mountain areas in our study. The different geographical locations create different social and economic development dimensions in forest ecosystem services. Even if the ecosystem service values were the same,the relative importance of the forest ecosystem service would be different because of the different geographical locations. Therefore,three location indicators for the ecological forest sublot were considered for the determination of eco-compensation standards in this study,namely,eco-environment indicator,function-oriented zone indicator,and relative scarcity indicator. The value of the eco-environment indicator was based on the ecological importance level and ecological fragility level of each forest sublot. Function-oriented zone indicator value was assigned to each sublot according to the type of function zone in which the sublot was located. The relative scarcity indicator value was assigned according to the population density of each district. On the basis of the recommended eco-compensation standards,the ecocompensation standard was from 176 to 2168 RMB/hm~2. The first and second highest eco-compensation standards were in Yanqing and Huairou,and the two lowest ones were in Central Town and Fangshan. The average value of the ecocompensation standard of Beijing was about 1265 RMB/hm~2,which isclose to the total standards of the current two ecocompensation programs in Beijing. The results of our study would help in understanding the exact forest ecosystem service value and make recommendations for reasonable and feasible eco-compensation standards of mountain ecological forests. The recommended eco-compensation standards in this study,which reflect both the ecosystem services value and relative importance of forest ecosystem services on the basis of geographical location,would help policy and decision makers to design dynamic and diversified eco-compensation schemes for future eco-compensation initiatives with higher chances of success and contribute to the conservation and sustainability of forest resources.
引文
[1] Zbinden S,Lee D R. Paying for environmental services:an analysis of participation in costaRica's PSA Program. World Development,2005,33(2):255-272.
[2] Sarkki S,Karjalainen T P. Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate:practitioners'strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland. EcosystemServices,2015,16:13-22.
[3]黄富祥,康慕谊,张新时.退耕还林还草过程中的经济补偿问题探讨.生态学报,2002,22(4):471-478.
[4]潘影,甄霖,杨莉,龙鑫,曹晓昌.宁夏固原市生态保育对农民福祉的影响初探.干旱区研究,2012,29(3):553-560.
[5]孙新章,谢高地,甄霖.泾河流域退耕还林(草)综合效益与生态补偿趋向——以宁夏回族自治区固原市原州区为例.资源科学,2007,29(2):194-200.
[6]孙传谆,甄霖,王超,杜秉贞,胡洁,李鹏.生态建设工程对鄱阳湖区域土地利用/覆被变化的影响.资源科学,2015,37(10):1953-1961.
[7]李国伟,赵伟,魏亚伟,方向民,高波,代力民.天然林资源保护工程对长白山林区森林生态系统服务功能的影响.生态学报,2015,35(4):984-992.
[8]崔向雨.北京市山区生态公益林补偿政策实施成效分析及评价[D].北京:北京林业大学,2008.
[9]欧阳志云,郑华,谢高地,杨武,刘桂环,石英华,杨多贵.生态资产、生态补偿及生态文明科技贡献核算理论与技术.生态学报,2016,36(22):7136-7139.
[10] Malinga R,Gordon L J,Lindborg R,Jewitt G.Using participatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in changing landscapes. Ecology and Society,2013,18(4):10.
[11]马长欣,刘建军,康博文,孙尚华,任军辉. 1999—2003年陕西省森林生态系统固碳释氧服务功能价值评估.生态学报,2010,30(6):1412-1422.
[12]李晓光,苗鸿,郑华,欧阳志云.生态补偿标准确定的主要方法及其应用.生态学报,2009,29(8):4431-4440.
[13]杨光梅,闵庆文,李文华,甄霖.我国生态补偿研究中的科学问题.生态学报,2007,27(10):4289-4300.
[14]汪锦辉,王菁黎,邓华锋.北京山区集体生态公益林管护情况调查分析.林业调查规划,2012,37(6):68-72.
[15]北京市林业勘察设计院.北京市森林资源规划设计调查操作技术细则.2014.
[16]王凤春,郑华,王效科,彭文佳.生态补偿区域选择方法研究进展.生态环境学报,2017,26(1):176-182.
[17]谢高地,曹淑艳,鲁春霞.中国生态资源承载力研究.北京:科学出版社,2011.
[18]李纯,袁汝兵,王彦峰.北京市水资源危机与可持续利用探讨.环境科学与技术,2009,32(6):533-535.
[19]北京市林业勘察设计院,中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所.北京市城区园林绿地生态资产评估. 2011.
[20] Zhang B,Li W H,Xie G D,Xiao Y. Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics,2010,69(7):1416-1426.
[21]甄霖,闫慧敏,胡云锋,吴睿子,曹晓昌,杜秉贞,龙鑫,李芬,刘雪林.生态系统服务消耗及其影响.资源科学,2012,34(6):989-997.
[22]甄霖,刘雪林,魏云洁.生态系统服务消费模式、计量及其管理框架构建.资源科学,2008,30(1):100-106.
[23]薛文,贾东东,彭强,袁士保,米锋.北京山区生态公益林补偿政策对农民收入的影响.北京林业大学学报:社会科学版,2015,14(3):59-62.
[24]赵雪雁.生态补偿效率研究综述.生态学报,2012,32(6):1960-1969.
[25]戴其文.中国生态补偿研究的现状分析与展望.中国农学通报,2014,30(2):176-182.
[26]王金南,万军,张惠远.关于我国生态补偿机制与政策的几点认识.环境保护,2006,(19):24-28.
[2] Sarkki S,Karjalainen T P. Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate:practitioners'strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland. EcosystemServices,2015,16:13-22.
[3]黄富祥,康慕谊,张新时.退耕还林还草过程中的经济补偿问题探讨.生态学报,2002,22(4):471-478.
[4]潘影,甄霖,杨莉,龙鑫,曹晓昌.宁夏固原市生态保育对农民福祉的影响初探.干旱区研究,2012,29(3):553-560.
[5]孙新章,谢高地,甄霖.泾河流域退耕还林(草)综合效益与生态补偿趋向——以宁夏回族自治区固原市原州区为例.资源科学,2007,29(2):194-200.
[6]孙传谆,甄霖,王超,杜秉贞,胡洁,李鹏.生态建设工程对鄱阳湖区域土地利用/覆被变化的影响.资源科学,2015,37(10):1953-1961.
[7]李国伟,赵伟,魏亚伟,方向民,高波,代力民.天然林资源保护工程对长白山林区森林生态系统服务功能的影响.生态学报,2015,35(4):984-992.
[8]崔向雨.北京市山区生态公益林补偿政策实施成效分析及评价[D].北京:北京林业大学,2008.
[9]欧阳志云,郑华,谢高地,杨武,刘桂环,石英华,杨多贵.生态资产、生态补偿及生态文明科技贡献核算理论与技术.生态学报,2016,36(22):7136-7139.
[10] Malinga R,Gordon L J,Lindborg R,Jewitt G.Using participatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in changing landscapes. Ecology and Society,2013,18(4):10.
[11]马长欣,刘建军,康博文,孙尚华,任军辉. 1999—2003年陕西省森林生态系统固碳释氧服务功能价值评估.生态学报,2010,30(6):1412-1422.
[12]李晓光,苗鸿,郑华,欧阳志云.生态补偿标准确定的主要方法及其应用.生态学报,2009,29(8):4431-4440.
[13]杨光梅,闵庆文,李文华,甄霖.我国生态补偿研究中的科学问题.生态学报,2007,27(10):4289-4300.
[14]汪锦辉,王菁黎,邓华锋.北京山区集体生态公益林管护情况调查分析.林业调查规划,2012,37(6):68-72.
[15]北京市林业勘察设计院.北京市森林资源规划设计调查操作技术细则.2014.
[16]王凤春,郑华,王效科,彭文佳.生态补偿区域选择方法研究进展.生态环境学报,2017,26(1):176-182.
[17]谢高地,曹淑艳,鲁春霞.中国生态资源承载力研究.北京:科学出版社,2011.
[18]李纯,袁汝兵,王彦峰.北京市水资源危机与可持续利用探讨.环境科学与技术,2009,32(6):533-535.
[19]北京市林业勘察设计院,中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所.北京市城区园林绿地生态资产评估. 2011.
[20] Zhang B,Li W H,Xie G D,Xiao Y. Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics,2010,69(7):1416-1426.
[21]甄霖,闫慧敏,胡云锋,吴睿子,曹晓昌,杜秉贞,龙鑫,李芬,刘雪林.生态系统服务消耗及其影响.资源科学,2012,34(6):989-997.
[22]甄霖,刘雪林,魏云洁.生态系统服务消费模式、计量及其管理框架构建.资源科学,2008,30(1):100-106.
[23]薛文,贾东东,彭强,袁士保,米锋.北京山区生态公益林补偿政策对农民收入的影响.北京林业大学学报:社会科学版,2015,14(3):59-62.
[24]赵雪雁.生态补偿效率研究综述.生态学报,2012,32(6):1960-1969.
[25]戴其文.中国生态补偿研究的现状分析与展望.中国农学通报,2014,30(2):176-182.
[26]王金南,万军,张惠远.关于我国生态补偿机制与政策的几点认识.环境保护,2006,(19):24-28.