impacts on the environment or threats to the biodiversity at landscape scales (OECD
2014; Salzman et al. 2018).
PES schemes involve payments to the managers of land or other natural resources in
exchange for the provision of specified ecosystem services (or actions anticipated to deliver
these services) over-and-above what would otherwise be provided in the absence of payment. (Smith et al. 2013, 9).
Water quality and quantity, biodiversity and habitats, well-being and recreation,
and the potential of soils for carbon sequestration, for example, are public goods and
services related to the physical nature of ecosystems, which normally are not an
object of the free-market economy. The aim of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no
species loss or even an improvement of the conditions of the native biodiversity with
a net gain of natural habitats and increasing populations especially of critically
endangered species.
The interest in payments for ecosystem services and the number of biodiversity
offset programmes has risen around the globe and is still rising, in both developed
and developing countries. This might have to do with the flexibility and diversity of
political and administrative schemes, with the success of related schemes, and with
the growing amount of money invested (Salzman et al. 2018).
Payments for impacts on landscapes and ecosystems such as resource use are
often private investments. Trophy hunting for example, is a huge global market.
Landowners or governments earn a lot of money from hunters. This money is
partially reinvested in favourable conditions of huntable wildlife. Should we kill
animals to save them? Michael Paterniti asks in his National Geographic article of
October 2017.
Many Biodiversity Offset Programmes are still compensation schemes for the use
of landscapes, for development projects and damage of the environment. Therefore,
the use of landscapes and development of industries and buildings support projects
on biodiversity net gain in compensation areas, and in turn the implementation of
biodiversity net gain programmes promotes or enables the use, development and
damage of ecosystems and landscapes.
However, species diversity net gain is also possible without any increase in the
use or development of building measures as an uncountable number of projects of
nature conservation NGOs shows. Furthermore, artificial buildings in the landscape
such as dams in a river valley can be dismantled by public money with causing an
increase in biodiversity. Reduced flooding might be a positive side effect. Thus,
Biodiversity Offset Programmes can also be used for decreasing human impacts
(Smith et al. 2013).
To strengthen the interest of communities and landowners in providing public
services, they should be paid. At the moment, the interest and amount of investments
of private persons, organisations and governments to support such projects is rapidly
growing. This might be a chance to invert the overall negative trends in biodiversity
at local scales at some point.
However, currently it is not possible to get reliable country-related numbers on
PES and BOPs. Furthermore, the indication of effects on the environment and
168
C. Hobohm
2014; Salzman et al. 2018).
PES schemes involve payments to the managers of land or other natural resources in
exchange for the provision of specified ecosystem services (or actions anticipated to deliver
these services) over-and-above what would otherwise be provided in the absence of payment. (Smith et al. 2013, 9).
Water quality and quantity, biodiversity and habitats, well-being and recreation,
and the potential of soils for carbon sequestration, for example, are public goods and
services related to the physical nature of ecosystems, which normally are not an
object of the free-market economy. The aim of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no
species loss or even an improvement of the conditions of the native biodiversity with
a net gain of natural habitats and increasing populations especially of critically
endangered species.
The interest in payments for ecosystem services and the number of biodiversity
offset programmes has risen around the globe and is still rising, in both developed
and developing countries. This might have to do with the flexibility and diversity of
political and administrative schemes, with the success of related schemes, and with
the growing amount of money invested (Salzman et al. 2018).
Payments for impacts on landscapes and ecosystems such as resource use are
often private investments. Trophy hunting for example, is a huge global market.
Landowners or governments earn a lot of money from hunters. This money is
partially reinvested in favourable conditions of huntable wildlife. Should we kill
animals to save them? Michael Paterniti asks in his National Geographic article of
October 2017.
Many Biodiversity Offset Programmes are still compensation schemes for the use
of landscapes, for development projects and damage of the environment. Therefore,
the use of landscapes and development of industries and buildings support projects
on biodiversity net gain in compensation areas, and in turn the implementation of
biodiversity net gain programmes promotes or enables the use, development and
damage of ecosystems and landscapes.
However, species diversity net gain is also possible without any increase in the
use or development of building measures as an uncountable number of projects of
nature conservation NGOs shows. Furthermore, artificial buildings in the landscape
such as dams in a river valley can be dismantled by public money with causing an
increase in biodiversity. Reduced flooding might be a positive side effect. Thus,
Biodiversity Offset Programmes can also be used for decreasing human impacts
(Smith et al. 2013).
To strengthen the interest of communities and landowners in providing public
services, they should be paid. At the moment, the interest and amount of investments
of private persons, organisations and governments to support such projects is rapidly
growing. This might be a chance to invert the overall negative trends in biodiversity
at local scales at some point.
However, currently it is not possible to get reliable country-related numbers on
PES and BOPs. Furthermore, the indication of effects on the environment and
168
C. Hobohm