美国“湿地信用”评估与交易及对中国湿地修复的启示

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.09.16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

引入湿地修复第三方、运用市场交易手段实现湿地修复和等效补偿是湿地生态管理模式的创新。湿地信用是湿地修复等价交换的媒介物,科学评估湿地信用并完成湿地功能的等效交易,是实施生态修复、保障湿地规模和生态系统服务功能不下降的技术依据。本文系统梳理了美国湿地修复补偿中基于面积规模和基于生态系统服务功能两类湿地信用评估模型与参数,阐释湿地市场化等效补偿交易规则与交易价格制定。研究发现：①两类湿地信用评估方法同时兼顾了生态服务的功能性和市场交易的灵活性,是湿地信用评估的有效手段;②湿地信用交易价格受建设成本、交易时效等影响,是在湿地修复市场供需关系中形成的均衡价格;③设定市场交易规则,制定规范的修复方式,是实现交易生态等效的重要保障。中国应逐步培育湿地修复第三方产业、探索湿地修复市场化补偿模式、开展湿地修复绩效评估,探索和完善如何保障与生态系统服务对等的湿地等效评估技术,为中国开展生态修复市场化改革及湿地修复绩效评价提供科学依据和技术支撑。

关键词: 湿地信用, 湿地修复, 评估方法, 等效交易, 市场化补偿

Abstract:

The introduction of a third party for wetland restoration and the use of market transactions is a medium of equivalent exchange in wetland restoration. Scientific evaluation of wetland credit provides a technical support to sustain the spatial scales and ecosystem service functions of wetlands and is a key link in establishing wetland restoration market transactions. In this study, the wetland credit evaluation models and parameters were systematically reviewed based on the spatial scales and ecosystem service functions in wetland restoration compensation of the United States. The wetland market-based compensation transaction rules and the pricing for transactions are expounded and analyzed. This research found that: First, the two kinds of wetland credit assessment methods simultaneously take into account the functionality of ecosystem services and the flexibility of market transactions, providing an effective means for wetland credit assessment. Second, the prices in wetland credit transactions are subject to construction costs, transaction timing, and so on, and the equilibrium prices are formed based on the supply and demand balance of wetland restoration market. Third, market trading rules should be set up and standardized restoration methods should be devised in order to ensure the ecological equivalent compensation transactions as much as possible. China should gradually cultivate the wetland restoration third-party industry, and explore market-oriented compensation models for wetland restoration. It should also advance the performance evaluation of wetland restoration, and explore and improve ecological equivalent compensation assessment techniques for securing ecological services. These efforts can help to provide a scientific basis and technical support for the market-oriented reform of ecological restoration and wetland restoration performance evaluation in China.

Key words: wetland credit, wetland restoration, evaluation methods, equivalent trading, market-oriented compensation

迂婕, 李京梅. 美国“湿地信用”评估与交易及对中国湿地修复的启示[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(9): 1918-1931.

YU Jie, LI Jingmei. Implications of the evaluation and transaction of “wetland credit” in the United States for wetland restoration in China[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(9): 1918-1931.

图/表 6

图1

表1

湿地功能分类及评估指标

功能	评估指标	评估模型
保持湿地水文	树冠底面积（ $V TREE$ ）、子冠层（ $V SUBC$ ）、微观地形复杂性（ $V MICR$ ）、是否含有沟渠（ $V DITC$ ）	$[V TREE + V SUBC + V MICR 3 × V DITC] 1 / 2$
维持营养物质循环	冠木的密度（ $V SNAG$ ）和体积（ $V CWD$ ）、凋落物深度（ $V LTR$ ）、树冠底面积（ $V TREE$ ）、子冠层（ $V SUBC$ ）、幼苗覆盖度（ $V SDLG$ ）、草本覆盖度（ $V GRAN + V FORB$ ）	$V TREE + V SUBC + V SDLG + (V GRAN + V FORB) 2 4 + (V LTR + V SNAG + V CWD) / 3 / 2$
维持植物群落	冠层重要性（ $V CVEG$ ）、下冠层重要性（ $V CVEQ$ ）、树丛覆盖度（ $V FORB$ ）、禾草植物覆盖度（ $V GRAM$ ）	$V CVEG + [V CVEQ + (V FORB + V GRAM) 2] / 2 / 2$
保持湿地特定结构	树冠直径（ $V TDIA$ ）、冠层树密度（ $V TDEN$ ）、子冠层密度（ $V SUBC$ ）、禾草植物覆盖度（ $V GRAM$ ）、树丛覆盖度（ $V FORB$ ）、冠木密度（ $V SNAG$ ）和体积（ $V CWD$ ）	$V CVEQ + V TDEN + [V SUBC + (V GRAM + V FORB) 2 + (V SNAG + V CWD) / 2] / 3$

表1

表2

表3

表4

图2

参考文献 68

[1]	国家林业局. 第二次全国湿地资源调查结果[J]. 国土绿化, 2014, (2):6-7.
	[The State Forestry Administration. Results of the second national survey on wetland resources[J]. Land Greening, 2014, (2):6-7.]
[2]	国家发展和改革委员会, 财政部, 自然资源部, 等. 建立市场化、多元化生态保护补偿机制行动计划[R/OL]. (2019-01-11) [2021-04-09]. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-01/11/content_5357007.htm.
	[National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Natural Resources, et al. Establishing a Market-Based and Diversified Action Plan for Ecological Protection Compensation Mechanism[R/OL]. (2019-01-11) [2021-04-09]. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-01/11/content_5357007.htm.]
[3]	刘晓莉. 我国市场化生态补偿机制的立法问题研究[J]. 吉林大学社会科学学报, 2019, 59(1):49-57.
	[ Liu X L. Research on the legislation of China’s market-based eco-compensation mechanism[J]. Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition, 2019, 59(1):49-57.]
[4]	缪若妮, 田信桥, 王萌. 美国缓解银行制度对我国生态补偿市场化运行的启示[J]. 世界林业研究, 2014, 27(6):65-70.
	[ Miu R N, Tian X Q, Wang M. Mitigation Banking in the United States and its enlightenment for market-oriented ecological compensation in China[J]. World Forestry Research, 2014, 27(6):65-70.]
[5]	徐丽媛. 生态补偿中政府与市场有效融合的理论与法制架构[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2018, (4):111-122.
	[ Xu Y L. The theory and legal system framework of the effective integration between government and market in ecological compensation[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, 2018, (4):111-122.]
[6]	Richard T W, Wui Y S. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis[J]. Ecological Economics, 2001, 37(2):257-270. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7
[7]	Connolly K D, Johnson S M, Williams D. Wetlands Law and Policy: Understanding Section404[M]. Washington DC: American Bar Association, 2005.
[8]	Robertson M M. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: Wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance[J]. Geoforum, 2004, 35(3):361-373. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002
[9]	Madsen B, Carroll N, Moore B K. State of Biodiversity Markets Report: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide[M]. Washington DC: Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010.
[10]	Stein E D, Tabatabai F, Ambrose R F. PROFILE: Wetland mitigation banking: A framework for crediting and debiting[J]. Environmental Management, 2000, 26(3):233-250. pmid: 10977879
[11]	Wainger L A, King D, Salzman J, et al. Wetland value indicators for scoring mitigation trades[J]. Science Inventory, 2001, 20(1):414-446.
[12]	BenDor T K, Riggsbee J A. A survey of entrepreneurial risk in U. S. wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2011, 14(3):301-314.
[13]	Wilkinson J, Thompson J. 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States[R]. Washington: Environmental Law Institute, 2006.
[14]	Mitigation Banking: A White Paper Submitted to the Governor Advisory Council for Georgia Land Conservation Partnership [R/OL]. (1999-09-15) [2021-04-09]. http://www.gadnr.Org/glcp/Assessts/Documents/Mitigation_Banking_White_Paper.
[15]	Robertson M, Hayden N. Evaluation of a market in wetland credits: Entrepreneurial wetland banking in Chicago[J]. Conservation Biology, 2008, 22(3):636-646. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00963.x pmid: 18577091
[16]	柳荻, 胡振通, 靳乐山. 美国湿地缓解银行实践与中国启示: 市场创建和市场运行[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018, 32(1):65-72.
	[ Liu D, Hu Z T, Jin L S. American Wetland Mitigation Bank practice and its implications for China: Market creation and operation[J]. China Land Science, 2018, 32(1):65-72.]
[17]	Young H S, Wood C L, Kilpatrick A M, et al. Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: Scientific evidence and policy implications[J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2017, 372:1-4.
[18]	Martin S, Brumbaugh R. Entering a new era: What will RIBITS tell us about mitigation banking?[J]. National Wetlands Newsletter, 2011, 33(3):16-26.
[19]	Connolly K D, Johnson S M, William D R. Wetland Law and Policy: Understanding Section 404[M]. Chicago: American Bar Asseciation, 2005.
[20]	Ruhl J B, Gregg R J. Integrating ecosystem services into environmental law: A case study of wetlands mitigation banking[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2009, 20(5):365-389.
[21]	Levrel H, Pioch S, Spieler R. Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: Which indicators for assessing the “no net loss”goal of ecosystem services and ecological functions?[J]. Marine Policy, 2012, 36(6):1202-1210. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.03.004
[22]	Lautin L. Roles & Responsibilites of Mitigation Banking[C]. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Fourth National Mitigation Banking Conference, 2001.
[23]	US Fish and Wildlife Service. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) ESM 102[M]. Washington DC: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980.
[24]	Choi J, Lee S. Application of habitat evaluation procedure with quantifying the eco-corridor in the process of environmental impact assessment[J]. International Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(8):1437-1437.
[25]	Dennison M S. Wetland mitigation: Mitigation banking and other strategies for development and compliance[J]. Water Environment & Technology, 1997, 13(2):60-67.
[26]	Gebo N A, Brooks R P. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessments of mitigation sites compared to natural reference wetlands in pennsylvania[J]. Wetlands, 2012, 32(2):321-331. doi: 10.1007/s13157-011-0267-3
[27]	Brooks R P, Brinson M M, Havens K J. Proposed hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA[J]. Wetlands, 2011, 31(2):207-219. doi: 10.1007/s13157-011-0158-7
[28]	Hauer F R, Smith R D. The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional assessment of wetlands: Evaluating impacts and mitigation on river floodplains in the USA[J]. Freshwater Biology, 2008, 40(3):517-530. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00382.x
[29]	Booth T E. Compensatory mitigation: What is the best approach?[J]. Baltimore Journal of Environmental Law, 2004, 11(2):214-218.
[30]	Kotze D C, Ellery W N, Macfarlane D M, et al. A rapid assessment method for coupling anthropogenic stressors and wetland ecological condition[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 13(1):284-293. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.023
[31]	Wilkinson J. In-lieu fee mitigation: Coming into compliance with the new compensatory mitigation rule[J]. Wetlands Ecology & Management, 2009, 17(1):53-70.
[32]	Reiss K C, Hernandez E, Brown M T. An evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation banking in Florida: Ecological success and compliance with permit criteria[J]. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2007, 152(2):299-305. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3812(98)00385-9
[33]	Reiss K C. Wetland and Stream Rapid Assessments: Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method[M]. Washington DC: Academic Press, 2018.
[34]	Wilen B O, Bates M K. The US fish and wildlife service’s national wetlands inventory project[J]. Vegetatio, 1995, 118(1):153-169. doi: 10.1007/BF00045197
[35]	Boyer T A. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Credit Market in Minnesota: A Spatial Economic Analysis of its Potential to Achieve Regulatory and Ecological Goals[D]. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2003.
[36]	Stein E D, Tabatabai F, Ambrose R F. Wetland mitigation banking: A framework for crediting and debiting[J]. Environmental Management, 2002, 26(9):233-250. doi: 10.1007/s002670010084
[37]	Kelly C R, Erica H, Brown M T. An evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation banking in Florida: Ecological success and compliance with permit criteria[J]. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2007, 152(2):299-305. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3812(98)00385-9
[38]	Vaissière A C, Levrel H, Pioch S. Wetland mitigation banking: Negotiations with stakeholders in a zone of ecological-economic viability[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017, 69(9):512-518. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.049
[39]	Kantor R A, Charelett D J. Computerized Monitoring System for Wetlands Mitigation Projects in New Jersey[R]. New Orleans, LA: Report on Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986.
[40]	Kruczynski W L. Options to Be Considered in Preparation and Evaluation of Mitigation Plans[M]. Washington D C: Island Press, 1990.
[41]	Cole C A. The assessment of herbaceous plant cover in wetlands as an indicator of function[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2002, 2(3):287-293. doi: 10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00064-X
[42]	Zedler J B. The challenge of protecting endangered species habitat along the southern California coast[J]. Coastal Management, 1991, 19(1):35-53. doi: 10.1080/08920759109362130
[43]	Rubec C D A, Hanson A R. Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience[J]. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2009, 17(1):3-14. doi: 10.1007/s11273-008-9078-6
[44]	Petrolia D R, Interis M G, Hwang A J. America’s wetland? A national survey of willingness to pay for restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands[J]. Marine Resource Economics, 2014, 29(1):17-37. doi: 10.1086/676289
[45]	Kusler J A. Proposed Creation Guidelines for Wetland Restoration, Creation and Enhancement[R]. New Orleans, LA: Report on Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986.
[46]	Mann C, Absher J D. Adjusting policy to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 36(8):73-82. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.007
[47]	Kruczynski W L. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science[M]. Washington DC: Island Press, 1990.
[48]	Koch E W. Beyond light: Physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements[J]. Estuaries, 2001, 24(1):1-17. doi: 10.2307/1352808
[49]	Kieser M. Developing Markets to Manage Ecosystems[C]. Washington: Fifth National Mitigation Banking Conference, 2002.
[50]	Waters S. Issues in the Economic Appraisal of Mitigation[C]. Washington: Fifth National Mitigation Banking Conference, 2002.
[51]	BenDor T, Brozović N. Determinants of spatial and temporal patterns in compensatory wetland mitigation[J]. Environmental Management, 2007, 40(3):349-364. pmid: 17602255
[52]	Levrel H, Scemama P, Vaissière A C. Should we be wary of Mitigation Banking? Evidence regarding the risks associated with this wetland offset arrangement in Florida[J]. Ecological Economics, 2017, 135(5):136-149. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.025
[53]	BenDor T, Sholtes J, Doyle M W. Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program[J]. Ecological Applications, 2009, 19(8):2078-2092. doi: 10.1890/08-1803.1
[54]	Lapeyre R, Froger G, Hrabanski M. Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2015, 15(10):125-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.010
[55]	Shabman L, Stephenson K, Scodari P. Wetland credit sales as a strategy for achieving no-net-loss: The limitations of regulatory conditions[J]. Wetlands, 1998, 18(3):471-481. doi: 10.1007/BF03161539
[56]	Muradian R, Rival L. Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2012, 1(1):93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009
[57]	Boisvert V, Méral P, Froger G. Market-Based instruments for ecosystem services: Institutional innovation or renovation?[J]. Society & Natural Resources, 2013, 26(10):1122-1136.
[58]	Kaplowitz M D, Lupi F, Bailey D. Wetland mitigation banking: The bankers’ perspective[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 63(3):162-172. doi: 10.2489/jswc.63.3.162
[59]	Thornton C, Shanahan M, Williams J. From Wetlands to Wastelands: Impacts of Shrimp Farming[J]. The Society of Wetland Scientists Bulletin, 2003, 20(5):48-53.
[60]	McElfish J, Goldberg K, Dycus J, et al. Wetland Mitigation Banking: Resource Document[M]. Washington: Environmental Law Institute, 1994.
[61]	McCrain G R. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) applied to mitigation banking in North Carolina[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 1992, 35(2):153-162. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80116-1
[62]	Robertson M M. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance[J]. Geoforum, 2004, 35(3):361-373. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002
[63]	Vaissiere A C, Leverl H. Biodiversity offset markets: What are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking[J]. Ecological Economics, 2015, 110(2):81-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.002
[64]	Castelle A J. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios: Defining Equivalency[M]. WA Lacey: Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992.
[65]	Kremen C. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology?[J]. Ecology of Ecosystem Services, 2005, 8(5):468-479.
[66]	Pirard R, Lapeyre R. Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2014, 9:106-114. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.005
[67]	Brown P H, Lant C L. The effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the achievement of No-Net-Loss[J]. Environmental Management, 1999, 23(3):333-345. doi: 10.1007/s002679900190
[68]	Scodari P F. Measuring the Benefits of Federal Wetland Programs[M]. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 1997.

变量	湿地开发项目		湿地银行项目
变量	受损前	受损后	补偿前	补偿后
保持湿地水文	0.71	0	0.64	0.91
维持营养物质循环	0.51	0	0.54	0.91
维持植物群落	0.15	0	0.16	0.50
保持特征性的生理结构	0.75	0	0.56	0.96
功能容量均值（FCI）	0.52	0	0.48	0.82
湿地面积	5.80		10.00
湿地功能容量（FCUs）	3.02	0	4.75	8.20
变化量	3.02		3.45
湿地信用	3.65		3.90

湿地开发项目		湿地银行项目
评估因素	评分	评估因素	评分
受损湿地类型	1.80	土壤条件	0.60
受损主导因素	2.00	水文条件	0.50
影响时间	1.50	植被覆盖情况	0.40
现状水平	0.10	修复情况	0.60
湿地稀有度	2.00	监测和应急计划	0.30
累积影响	1.00	修复时间计划	0.50
		湿地类型	0.70
		修复地点	0.80
AIF合计	8.40	CMF合计	4.40
受损湿地面积	5.00	修复湿地面积	10.00
信用需求量	42.00	信用供给量	44.00

补偿方式	湿地类型	交易比率
新建湿地	海草、珊瑚礁	2:1到4:1
	红树林、沼泽	2:1到5:1
	盐生植物或河口植被	1.5:1到4:1
修复湿地	海草、珊瑚礁	2:1到4:1
	红树林、沼泽	2:1到5:1
	盐生植物或河口植被	1.5:1到4:1
增强湿地	海草、红树林	4:1到20:1
增强湿地	其他	4:1到20:1
保存湿地	海草、珊瑚礁	大约60:1
	红树林、沼泽
	盐生植物或河口植被