Assignment First

Personal statement 代写:坡地转换计划的研究分析

目前,中国政府正在实施的“坡地转换计划”(SLCP)是全球最大的生态系统服务付费项目。到2013年底,中国发布了44728,总共7000亩造林任务,累计投资3541亿元已经花在超过25个项目的项目覆盖省份和2279个县(市、区)新疆生产建设工程兵团。有1.24亿农民直接受益于这个世界上最大的PES项目。坡地改造项目已经实施并巩固了14年。未来几年,中国将启动新一轮SLCP。中国作为一个发展中国家,有着非常独特的国家治理方式。

Personal statement 代写:坡地转换计划的研究分析

一些研究抵消了美国所宣称的志愿精神原则。此外,他们似乎还表明,该项目没有完全实现支付环境服务(PES)项目所承诺的效率收益。与传统的命令和控制方法相比,通过使用基于市场的、自愿的参与机制,PES有很多好处。在SLCP的情况下,由于不存在使支付方利益与参与方成本最佳匹配的投标机制,参与至少应是自愿的。这将通过确保机会成本最低的家庭能够参与,并将某些参与者得到的补偿低于机会成本的可能性降至最低,从而提高成本效益。

Personal statement 代写:坡地转换计划的研究分析

The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP), which is currently implemented by China’s government, is the largest Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program in the worldwide. By the end of 2013, China has issued a total of 44,728,7000 acres of afforestation tasks, a total cumulative investment of 354.1 billion yuan has been spent on the project that is covering for more than 25 project provinces and 2279 counties (cities, districts) of Xinjiang Production and Construction Engineering Corps. There are 124 million farmers who are seen to benefit directly from this world’s biggest PES program. The Sloping Land Conversion Program has already been implemented and consolidated for 14 years. In the coming years, China will step to launch a new round of SLCP.  China, as a developing country, has a very special and unique state’s governance approach.

Personal statement 代写:坡地转换计划的研究分析

Some of the studies counteract the nation’s stated principals of volunteerism. In addition, they also seem to suggest that the program has not fully obtained the efficiency gains promised by payment for environmental services (PES) programs. There are benefits argued in PES as compared to traditional command-and-control approaches via use of a market-based, voluntary mechanism of participation . In the case of SLCP, since no bidding mechanism exists to optimally match payer benefits with participant costs, participation should, at minimum, be voluntary. This would improve cost effectiveness by ensuring that households with the lowest opportunity costs, would be able to participate, and would minimize the possibility that some participants are being compensated less than their opportunity cost.