The construction or the enlargement of an impacting facility can justify the resort to compensatory measures.

Two main types can be analyzed: the ecological restoration that results from the implementation of national law or international conventions and are compulsory to obtain permits and authorizations (1), the community benefits more inclusive (2). The legitimacy of ecological compensation is a disputed and topical issue in the environmental ethics. As a matter of fact, this practice implies that man is able to recreate in the same way an ecosystem he destroyed. The community benefits are also contested, because they would be a way to silence the inhabitant in giving them economic compensation.

However the renewal of compensation agreements and the involvement of new stakeholders in the previous phase of consultation compel us to revise the underlying ethical principles. This approach is more respectful of the sustainability guidelines. The compensation package takes also into account the features of the local and multidimensional system. The connections between nature and human beings take the way of cooperation to implement social and environmental justice.

Yet some questions are not resolved: the interplay between geographical scales and the distribution/appropriation of power in the decision process