evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Charge — Compensatory Restoration Fund (South Korea)

South Korea · Seoul · See the South Korea profile · See the Seoul profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2001 South Korea has charged developers a per-square-metre fee for ecosystem damage, funding 277 restoration projects by 2022 — though a 2024 academic review found scant evidence assessing whether restored sites actually recovered biodiversity.

250 KRW/m²
Ecosystem conservation charge rate (2001) (2001)
300 KRW/m²
Ecosystem conservation charge rate (current)
5 billion KRW
Cap per project
277
ECCRP restoration projects completed (2003-2022)
~3
Projects per year at outset (early 2000s)
~30
Projects per year by 2022 (2022)
78.3 %
Projects specifying target species
157
Target species covered
36
Endangered species among targets
67 projects (24.2%)
Gyeonggi province share of projects
105 projects (37.9%)
Han River Basin Environmental Office share
83 projects (30%)
Wetland projects share
69 projects (24.9%)
Urban-area projects share
47 projects (17%)
Forestry-land projects share
1,300-3,500 KRW/m²/year
Estimated real ecosystem-service value

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea — Han River Basin Environmental Office
Period
2001-present
Keywords
biodiversity offset fee, ecological restoration, environmental impact charge, compensatory mitigation

Context

Under South Korea's Natural Environment Conservation Act, developers whose projects damage a threshold area of natural ecosystems must pay an Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Charge into a restoration fund administered by the Ministry of Environment. The charge, introduced in 2001, is calculated by multiplying the destroyed area by a per-square-metre rate (250 KRW/m² at introduction, since raised to 300 KRW/m²) and a regional ecological coefficient, capped at 5 billion KRW per project.

Activities

Revenue funds 'Ecosystem Conservation Charge Return Projects' (ECCRP) that restore damaged habitats, typically prioritising sites near existing source populations of target species. Guidelines revised in 2010 pushed project designers to specify target species explicitly; by the study period, 78.3% of projects did so, spanning 157 distinct species including 36 endangered ones.

Results

Between 2003 and 2022, 277 ECCRP restoration projects were completed nationwide, rising from around 3 per year at the outset to roughly 30 per year by 2022. Gyeonggi province led with 67 projects (24.2% of the total) and the Han River Basin Environmental Office alone administered 105 (37.9%); 83 projects (30%) took place in wetlands, 69 (24.9%) in urban areas and 47 (17%) in forestry land.

Conclusions

A 2024 peer-reviewed study found 'a substantial lack of academic research assessing outcomes' and called for decade-long post-restoration monitoring. A separate valuation study found the statutory charge rate significantly undervalues real ecosystem-service worth (estimated at roughly 1,300-3,500 KRW/m² per year), suggesting the fee charged to developers may be too low to fully offset the biodiversity damage it is meant to compensate.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Funded via a statutory per-square-metre developer charge (250 KRW/m² at introduction, now 300 KRW/m²) capped at 5 billion KRW per project, rather than direct government budget.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Operating since 2001; 277 restoration projects completed 2003-2022, growing from ~3/year at the outset to ~30/year by 2022.
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, Han River Basin Environmental Office (administers largest single share of projects), Developers (fee payers under the Natural Environment Conservation Act)

Conditions for success

  • Statutory charge formula (area × per-m² rate × regional ecological coefficient) with a per-project cap
  • 2010 guideline revision requiring projects to specify target species explicitly, raising the species-targeting rate to 78.3%
  • Prioritising restoration sites near existing source populations of target species

Common failure modes

  • A 2024 peer-reviewed review found a substantial lack of academic research assessing whether restoration outcomes were achieved, calling for decade-long post-restoration monitoring
  • An independent valuation study found the statutory charge rate significantly undervalues real ecosystem-service worth, suggesting the fee may be too low to fully offset biodiversity damage

Where it fits

Governance type
national statutory biodiversity offset fee
Scale
national
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful