Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
•
1 j'aime•253 vues
Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Similaire à Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (20)
Plus de Södertörn University
Plus de Södertörn University (9)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- 1. Romina Rodela Wageningen University and Research Centre Presetnation given on April 10th 2014 at Onderzoeksprogramma Biodiversiteit werkt Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht, Lange Nieuwstraat 106, Utrecht Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – INVALUABLE project no. 2011-EBID-003
- 2. The issue at hand http://osbsustainablefutures.files .wordpress.com/2010/09/halsey -article-figure-3.png Humans depend on healthy and functioning natural systems, but these are often under pressure and at risk. - The concept of ecosystem services (ES) highlights the benefits humans have from nature. - The ES concept helps to value nature for the purpose of management and conservation . Images from: http://osbsustainablefuture.org
- 3. Main foucs and disciplinary context The INVALUABLE project aims: to study how market based instruments (MBIs) can contribute at integrating biodiversity & ecosystem services (B&ES) into institutional arrangements and public policies. To this end it brings together knowledge from economics, law and other social sciences for theoretical and empirical investigations.
- 5. Research objectives 1. Clarify the nature and meaning of MBIs 2. Analyze societal discourses and theoretical foundations of MBIs 3. Investigate instruments of biodiversity offsets (BO) and payments for ecosystem services (PES) in empirical case studies 4. Investigate Science-Policy Interfaces with a focus on the use of scientific information for decision making 6. Study the role of legal / institutional frameworks in improving the use of scientific information for better implementation of MBIs
- 6. Policy objective to provide evidence and access to information for an informed use (and non-use) of market-based instruments and of economic valuations for ecosystem services and biodiversity. Dissemination activities: Web-page Policy briefs, Working papers, Newsletter Expert workshops and events (Barcelona, Dec 2013 on Impact Evaluation methodologies ; Freiburg, March 2014 on SPI and DSS ) Report and scientific articles Special sessions at scientific conferences Networking Stakeholder Engagement: Ministries, OECD, etc.
- 8. The partnership France: Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (Lead Partner), Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) and Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Spain: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Germany: University of Freiburg The Netherlands: Wageningen University United Kingdom: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Belgium: Université Catholique de Louvain, Matthieu Wemaëre Cabinet d’Avocats
- 9. Preliminary results: WP1 an analysis of theories and discourses of MBIs in research and political arenas (e.g. international conventions) showed terms being overused and abused in contrasting policy instruments a MBIs analytical typology was proposed. results suggest PES (often a transaction with poverty alleviation objectives) remain a bilateral relationship with no commoditization PES feature as either negotiated agreements btw providers and beneficiaries (Coasean-type agreements) or regulatory price changes (e.g., subsidies for better practices)- with the latter as most frequent → suggesting for obstacles due to transactions costs
- 10. Preliminary results: WP2 an analysis of biodiversity compensation schemes (done by M. Wemaëre) now emerging in France suggests these not being market- based although they are often presented as such. an empirical case on eco-accounts in Baden-Württemberg, done by the IEEP team, suggest these resulting in larger compensation measures compared to the size of the on-site compensation measures which would have been implemented in the absence of the eco-account schemes. These contribute to internalize external costs linked to negative impacts of development on B&ES (Mazza and Schiller, 2014)
- 11. Preliminary results: WP3 an analysis of scientific literature on Decision Support Systems, done by WUR, suggests these being developed with little, or no stakeholder involvement which hinders usefulness, relevance, legitimacy and up- take by its potential users e.g., policy-makers (Rodela et al., in preparation). the WUR team has done two simulations where a DSS, the Quick Scan tool, was used. Results suggests that QuickScan gives good opportunities for knowledge integration and development of shared understanding for the appraisal of alternative policy options.
- 12. QuickScan Tool 1. Difference map (linked views) 2. Multiple maps (linked views) 3. Area of qualitative categories in stacked charts 4. Quantities in bar charts 1 2 4 3
- 13. Future plans Bring together the empirical research & cross-case comparison. Finalize the theoretical studies. Write a collective book. Make research outcomes accessible to stakeholders. Organize further stakeholder events. Organize an end-of-project conference in Paris. Deliver take-home messages to non-academic stakeholders (e.g. CoP12 CBD in South Korea in October 14, the IUCN World Parks Congress in Australia in November 14,conference for DGs in Brussels, etc.)
- 14. Thank you for your attention ! For further information: romina.rodela@wur.nl Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funder NWO as part of the 2011 BiodivERsA call for research proposals. Detailed information on BiodivERsA accessible at: http://www.biodiversa.org/
Notes de l'éditeur
- Completed cases (data collection) are Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador, Germany, France, Costa Rica; On-going are Mexico, Guatemala, Cambodia. Madagascar was cancelledCriteria for cases selection: mostly based on researchers' networks. The choice was that cases should be terrestrial ecosystems, NOT marine. But for the actual choice between countries, it was based on networks but also on the fact that PES or compensation was ALREADY happening in the country and could be the subject of an expost/ongoing evaluation. Reports: most reports are not finalized (under revision), scientific articles are currently under review in international peer-reviewed journals. All these will mostly be released by September this year 2014 and by the begining of next year 2015. Also, we will organise in Iceland, 13-15 August 2014, a one-day special session at the ISEE (http://www.isecoeco.org/tag/isee-conference-2014/), where we will present results from most of those cases studies.
- Lapeyre and Pirard (2013) : argue that MBIs, including PES, as a term encompasses too large an ensemble of policy instruments. Rather, such diverse tools could usefully be split into either genuine market-based instruments with associated characteristics (commodification, market governance, fluidity of exchanges), or other types of policy instruments that exhibit features of monetary transactions (few agents with bilateral governance, usually designed to solve a specific problem). In this article we tried to position Payments for Environmental Services (PES) within market-based instruments (MBIs), departing from two previous findings: i) a typology of MBIs that attempts to clarify the concept; and ii) the assessment that PES and MBIs are next-of-kin policy instruments in discourses (i.e. part of the same family of instruments) but rarely presented as such in the scientific literature (where they look like false friends instead). To do so, we compiled a representative corpus of peer-reviewed scientific articles on PES. We then studied the distribution of these schemes within the categories of the typology of MBIs. We further studied the methods, approaches and conclusions of these studies. Four important messages result from this analysis. First, although PES examples are found in all categories of the typology but one, PES schemes stand as a specific instrument. They are mostly either Coasean-type agreements (typically negotiated agreements between providers and beneficiaries) or regulatory price changes (typically subsidies for better practices). This finding is interesting as it might empirically confirm the assumption that practical obstacles to the development of Coasean-type agreements (especially high transactions costs) have probably induced more regulatory and government-financed schemes (or alternatively experimental schemes supported by
- M. Wemaëre: regulatory framework nor the practicalities allow for standard units or offsets to be exchanged among project developers on one side, and those investing in restoration and ecosystem services production on the other, and it looks like this situation is not about to change any time soon. Many s t a keho l de r s consider PES as MBIs. This is true if only considering the “economic incentive” aspect of MBIs, since they serve to internalize the externality, but not if we take the market regulation aspect into account (regulation by prices through supply and demand), since it is only a contract and not a market transaction. Identify lessons that can be learnt from the ecoaccount offsetting schemes in Baden- Württemberg.These are meant to facilitate the offsetting of environmental impacts of developments. habitat banking because compensation measures do not offset residual impacts from specific developments and may be implemented in advance of anticipated developments. the aim being to ensure that positive impacts from compensation measures are at least equivalent to negative impacts arising from the development.