DOCSLIB.ORG

Opportunities for Innovative Biodiversity Financing in the EU Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFT) Tax Reliefs Marketed Products Fees and Charges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opportunities for Innovative Biodiversity Financing in the EU Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFT) Tax Reliefs Marketed Products Fees and Charges Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing CASE STUDY REPORT Opportunities for innovative biodiversity financing in the EU Ecological fiscal transfers (EFT) Tax reliefs Marketed products Fees and charges CASE STUDY REPORT January 2017 Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing CASE STUDY REPORT DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. THE REPORT SHOULD BE CITED AS FOLLOWS Kettunen, M. and Illes, A. (eds.) (2017) Opportunities for innovative biodiversity financing: ecological fiscal transfers (EFT), tax reliefs, marketed products, and fees and charges. A compilation of cases studies developed in the context of a project for the European Commission (DG ENV) (Project ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Policy (IEEP), Brussels / London THE REPORT IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING STAND-ALONE DOCUMENTS Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Rayment, M., Primmer, E., Verstraeten, Y., Rekola, A., Ring, I., Tucker, G., Baldock, D., Droste, N., Santos, R., Rantala, S., Ebrahim, N. and ten Brink, P. (2017) Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of options for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG ENV) (Project ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Policy (IEEP), Brussels/ London Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Rayment, M., Primmer, E., Verstraeten, Y., Rekola, A., Ring, I., Tucker, G., Baldock, D., Droste, N., Santos, R., Rantala, S., Ebrahim, N. and ten Brink, P. (2017) Summary report - Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of options for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG ENV) (Project ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Policy (IEEP), Brussels / London CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Marianne Kettunen ([email protected]) PROJECT TEAM IEEP - Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Ratliff, A., Tucker, G., Baldock, D. and ten Brink, P. ICF - Rayment, M., Verstraeten, Y. and Ebrahim, N. SYKE - Primmer, E., Rekola, A. and Rantala, S. UFZ - Ring, I. and Droste, N. 2Eco - Santos, R. INSTITUTE FOR EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (IEEP) London Office 11 Belgrave Road IEEP Offices, Floor 3 London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Brussels Office Rue de la Science, 4 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004 @IEEP_eu The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent not-for-profit research institute. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas as well as engaging in our own research programmes. For further information about IEEP, see our website at www.ieep.eu or contact any staff member. Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing CASE STUDY REPORT Table of contents Table of contents ......................................................................................................................... 3 Tables and figures ........................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 2 Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFT) ............................................................................................ 8 2.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Description and basic features of ecological fiscal transfers (EFT) ................................................ 9 2.2.1 Definition and key design features ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Relevant actors ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Monitoring EFT effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Range of application of EFT .......................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Case studies of use of EFT for biodiversity financing ................................................................... 13 2.3.1 EU Member States having implemented EFT ............................................................................... 13 2.3.2 EU Member States considering implementation of EFT ............................................................... 13 2.3.3 Experience and proposals from outside the EU ............................................................................ 14 2.4 Policy analysis of existing schemes .............................................................................................. 18 2.4.1 Portugal ........................................................................................................................................ 18 2.4.2 France ........................................................................................................................................... 29 2.5 Policy analysis of schemes under discussion ............................................................................... 31 2.5.1 Germany ....................................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Poland ........................................................................................................................................... 34 2.6 Comparative analysis and conclusions for the relevant funding instrument .............................. 35 2.6.1 Compare different designs for implementation ........................................................................... 35 2.6.2 Transfer potential to other EU Member States ............................................................................ 36 2.6.3 Transfer potential to other governmental levels.......................................................................... 37 2.6.4 Potential for upscaling to EU level ............................................................................................... 38 2.6.5 Consideration of the actual / potential contribution of the instrument relative to the assessed financing needs for biodiversity and Natura 2000 in the case study countries .................................... 39 2.7 References .................................................................................................................................... 40 3 Tax reliefs for biodiversity conservation ............................................................................. 44 3.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 44 3.2 Description and basic features of the economic instrument ....................................................... 44 3.2.1 Definition and key design features ............................................................................................... 44 3.2.2 Relevant actors ............................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.3 Range of application of the instrument ....................................................................................... 45 3.3 Case studies of the use of the instrument for biodiversity financing .......................................... 46 Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing CASE STUDY REPORT 3.3.1 EU Member States having implemented the instrument ............................................................. 46 3.3.2 Wider experiences and proposals outside the EU ........................................................................ 48 3.4 Analysis of the French system ...................................................................................................... 49 3.4.1 Description, history and key features/design of the instruments ................................................ 49 3.4.2 Conservation effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 56 3.4.3 Efficiency or cost-effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 57 3.4.4 Social impacts ............................................................................................................................... 59 3.4.5 Institutional context and legal requirements ............................................................................... 60 3.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 61 3.5.1 Comparing the different designs for implementation with a focus on the French example ........ 61 3.5.2 Transfer potential to other EU Member States ............................................................................ 62 3.5.3 Transfer potential to other governmental levels.......................................................................... 62 3.5.4 Potential for upscaling to EU level ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and researched by: Ian Fitzpatrick, Richard Young and Robert Barbour with Megan Perry, Emma Rose and Aron Marshall. We would like to thank: Kath Dalmeny Adele Jones Christopher Stopes David Gould Stuart Meikle Marie Christine Mehrens Anil Graves Dominic Moran Thomas Harttung Jules Pretty Patrick Holden Hannah Steenbergen for helpful comments on draft versions or sections of the report. All interpretation, opinion and error is the responsibility of the authors alone. Designed by: Alan Carmody, Midas Design Consultants Ltd. and Blue Moon Creative Production Coordinator: Hannah Steenbergen Printed by Vale Press Ltd. First published November 2017 Revised and corrected July 2019 We would like to thank the following organisations for their invaluable support for our work on True Cost Accounting, as well as the Brunswick Group, who kindly hosted our report launch in November 2017: THE HIDDEN COST OF UK FOOD FOREWORD 3 PREFACE TO THE 2019 EDITION 5 PREFACE 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Hidden costs in 2015 ............................................................................................................................................8 Challenges to be overcome .............................................................................................................................10 Addressing the challenges ..............................................................................................................................10 The purpose of this report ...............................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Societal and Economic Impact Evaluation Relu (REFERENCE PS110020) PART TWO Submitted 18 June 2012
    Societal and Economic Impact Evaluation Relu (REFERENCE PS110020) PART TWO Submitted 18 June 2012 Dr. Laura R. Meagher, Technology Development Group RANGE OF TYPES OF IMPACTS (p.2-3) PROJECT CASE STUDIES (p.4-15) PROGRAMME CASE STUDY (p.16-21) ANALYSIS, PROGRAMME-LEVEL COMMUNICATIONS (p.22-28) VIGNETTE: MULTI-FACETED LEADERSHIP (p.29-13) KE OBSTACLES (p.32-33) LESSONS LEARNED BY PARTICIPANTS: ENHANCING IMPACTS (p.34-40) REFLECTIONS ON EVALUATION METHODOLOGY (p. 41-63) 1 RANGE OF TYPES OF IMPACTS Unusually, we have actually been able to elicit and compare researcher and stakeholder views as to types of impacts generated, through not only interviews but also quantifiable survey responses. For each of the five impact types (Conceptual, Instrumental, Capacity- building, Enduring Connectivity and Attitude/Culture Change), researchers and project-level stakeholders were asked about the role of their project, and researchers and programme- level stakeholders were asked about the role of the overall programme. In short, at both the Programme and the Project level, Researchers and Stakeholders saw a range of impacts as having been generated. The conclusion that Relu led to multiple, different types of impacts is robust. For instance, as noted in the Report, even the famously elusive Instrumental Impacts, seen by the lowest percentages, were still seen by a third (34.4%) of Project Stakeholder survey respondents and nearly half (48.6%) of Researchers as having been generated by projects and by over half (54.6%) of Programme Stakeholders and 83.3% of Researchers as having been generated by the Programme. Conceptual Impacts were seen by the highest percentages: as arising from projects by 70.6% of Project Stakeholders and 97.3% of Researchers, and as arising from the Programme by 95.3% of Programme Stakeholders and 88.9% of Researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Leaders 2019
    Emerging Leaders 2019 Janelle Anderson Scottish Enterprise Rural Leadership Janelle is from a farming family based in Aberdeenshire. Their farming enterprise includes breeding cattle, a small flock of sheep and forestry. Having completed her Batchelor of Technology Degree in Agriculture in 2000, she currently works as Regional Events Manager for the Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs based at Thainstone Agricultural Centre and also manages the SAYFC Agri and Rural Affairs Group. Janelle is a director of the Royal Northern Agricultural Society, having been the society President in 2017. She is also past chairman of the North East Farm Management Association (2017/18) and currently secretary of the North East Aberdeen Angus Breeders Club. As well as having a long association with SAYFC as a member, from club to national level, she is also a trustee of John Fotheringham Memorial Trust and Willie Davidson 75th Fund which promotes health and safety amongst young farmers. Since being selected to represent Scotland at the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth Conference in Calgary in 2006, Janelle has kept a close link to the RASC, attending conferences in New Zealand and Zambia on behalf of the Royal Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland, who hosted the conference in Scotland in 2010 where Janelle was their Next Generation Leader. Janelle is honoured to be attending the Oxford Farming Conference on behalf of the Scottish Enterprise Rural Leaders and is looking forward to meeting the other delegates. James Beary 38-year-old James (Jim) is an upland tenant farmer from the Peak District, producing prime lambs on contract for Tesco.
    [Show full text]
  • Seb's a Designer at Age of Five! Page 11 Industry Leaders at Farming
    .. R A B I newsWINTER 2015 THE MAGAZINE OF THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION Supporting farming families www.rabi.org.uk Seb’s a designer at age of five! Page 11 Industry leaders at farming summit Page 3 From the chairman Whichever way you look at it, it’s been an extremely tough year for farmers.From the chairman The plight of dairy and sheep farmers has been national news and even the most resilient have been forced to take stock and re-evaluate what they do and how they do it, largely because of low prices, food scares and concerns over reduced support payments. The flooding in Cumbria and other parts of northern England in early December also left many people in need of immediate assistance. A month's rain fell in 24 hours causing terrible scenes. R.A.B.I will fast-track the application process Providing for farming flood victims so we can get money to where it is needed much quicker. some festive Our charity relies on the goodwill of thousands of fundraisers throughout England and Wales, many of whom are directly cheer connected to farming themselves. Often, people are driven to raise funds for us because they know someone who we have helped in the past or because they realise that one See page 6 day, through no fault of their own, they might need our help too. That is the nature of our industry, where circumstances and sheer bad luck can quickly spiral against you – be it disease, bad weather, illness or accidents. No one should ever feel ashamed for asking for help when they need it most.
    [Show full text]
  • ORC Bulletin No
    In this issue: 2. News in brief 3. Editorial: A new era for ORC 4. Farmer-led innovation from the ground up 6. Ramial woodchip for soil health and fertility 8. Postgrad SRUC Organic Farming students: past and present 10. Sheep grazing within arable rotations 12. Reshaping the research agenda: 13. Soilwhere analysis do researchers and management fit in? for organic farming 14. Inspiring healthy farms 16. Events and announcements Cover photo Dominic Amos (ORC) and Alex Stephens (Riverford): Innovative Farmers Field Lab on hot water seed treatment of chard (pp4-5). Photo: Soil Association Subscribe to the Bulletin Organic Research Centre We aim to publish 3-4 issues per year for £25 in the UK (£30 overseas) from organicresearchcentre.com BulletinNo. 130 – Winter 2019 ORC Bulletin No. 130- Winter 2019 About us Editorial: A new era – and another 40 Years – begin for ORC ISSN 1367-6970 This coming January heralds a new era, with the Organic Research Centre taking up a Bulletin editor new home adjacent to the Royal Agricultural University in Cirencester. Phil Sumption ORC will reach 40 years of age next year, and is currently emerging successfully from The Organic Research Centre is a leading, independent, our long-standing and much respected Chief Executive, Nic Lampkin, presented an research charity working for a challenging year which has seen significant change. The departure last January of better farming, food and health, opportunity to conduct a radical rethink of ORC’s business model, including the range promoting environmental of activities we engage in and our relationship with the other main players in the UK sustainability, quality food organic world.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects and Insecticides
    House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Insects and Insecticides Written evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee for the inquiry into Insects and Insecticides and accepted as written evidence are included List of written evidence Page 1 Professor Dave Goulson, Stirling University 4 2 Brighton and Lewes Beekeepers 6 3 William Summers 7 4 Soil Association 8 5 Rosemary Mason and Palle Uhd Jepsen 19 6 Dr C Connolly, University of Dundee 51 7 Bee the Change 54 8 Dr Robert Paxton, Queens University, Belfast 56 9 Friends of the Earth 60 10 Bayer CropScience Ltd. 67 11 The Co-operative 71 12 Sussex Beekeepers Association 75 13 Scottish Wildlife Trusts 78 14 Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association 83 15 Pesticide Action Network UK 86 16 John Hoar 98 17 Dr Nigel Raine, University of London 103 18 National Farmers Union (NFU) 105 19 The Wildlife Trusts 113 20 Crop Protection Association 119 21 Buglife 124 22 Dr James Cresswell, University of Exeter 141 23 Syngenta 146 24 Research Councils UK 158 25 Amanda Williams 166 26 Dr Lynn Dicks, Cambridge University 177 27 RSPB 184 28 Georgina Downs, UK Pesticides Campaign 191 29 Professor Graham Stone, Edinburgh University 245 30 Defra 249 31 Advisory Committee on Pesticides 292 32 Paul Matthews 325 33 John Hoar (further submission) 332 34 Professor Simon Potts 333 35 Bayer CropScience (further submission) 337 36 Nonmenclature Committee of the International Union of Pharmacologists 339 37 Orchid Apiaries 340 38 Lord de Mauley, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Financial Statements 2015/16
    Annual Report & Financial Statements 2015/16 0 | P a g e Charity Number: 1147717 Company Number: 08049710 CONTENTS Chief Executive’s Report ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Strategic Review ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Report of the Governors and Corporate Governance Statement ...................................................................................... 14 Independent Auditor’s Report to the Board of Governors of Harper Adams University ......................................... 20 Statement of Accounting Policies................................................................................................................................................... 22 Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income and Expenditure ........................................................................... 27 Consolidated and University Statement of Changes in Reserves ...................................................................................... 28 Consolidated and University Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................... 29 Consolidated and University Cash Flow ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RESEACH and EVALUATION Who Will Look After England's Rural
    RESEACH and EVALUATION Who will look after England’s rural disadvantaged now? Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance Issue 16/17: June 2015 http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/cjlg Gordon Morris University of Exeter Centre for Rural Policy Research Abstract For more than 100 years, non-landed and non-Establishment interests in rural England were represented by a succession of three quasi-independent government bodies (quangos). These were the Development/Rural Development Commissions, the Countryside Agency, and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). Their roles embraced, to varying degrees, policy, practice, and advocacy. In 2013 the British government closed the CRC and absorbed aspects of its responsibilities into the civil service. The implications of this decision for the disadvantaged people and places of rural England are explored. The potential for land-related interest groups and traditional elites to increase their influence as a consequence, is considered. First, by way of context, the histories of the three quangos and the main interest groups are described. The views of the latter – and others with related interests - were sought (unsuccessfully), together with the opinions of people involved in one or more of the quangos, and, or, the civil service successor unit. These are presented and discussed. Conclusions relating to consequential ‘gaps’ in independent policy and research are drawn. The aim is to stimulate discussion about the implications for rural England of closing the CRC, for it is possible that the loss of this small organization may have unexpected long-term consequences. The eventual significance of this decision has yet to be determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Review
    BBC Trust Impartiality Review: BBC coverage of Rural Areas in the UK June 2014 A BBC Trust report on the BBC’s coverage of Rural Areas in the UK CONTENTS TRUST CONCLUSIONS 1 Summary 1 Full Conclusions 1 BBC COVERAGE OF RURAL AREAS IN THE UK 6 BY HEATHER HANCOCK 6 Preface 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 Recommendations 11 WHAT IS RURAL? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? 13 Where and who are we talking about? 14 Lives are lived in the countryside 15 THE JEWELS IN THE CROWN 19 Countryfile 20 Farming Today 23 The Archers 25 Other factual and current affairs programmes 25 CONTROVERSY, CONFLICT, REALITY 28 Binary and conflict-led reporting skews the audience’s impression of rural areas 29 Bovine TB and badgers: getting the balance right 31 Fracking coverage 34 It isn’t all sunlit uplands – or bleeding hearts 36 Achieving balance about country sports 38 REFLECTING RURAL IN NETWORK OUTPUT AND NEWS 41 Audiences expect rural content and understanding 42 Westminster casts a long shadow 43 A missed opportunity: the floods of winter 2013/14 45 “Difficult” but important stories 45 The rural component in network news 46 Rural-led news 46 Rural proofing in news output 49 June 2014 A BBC Trust report on the BBC’s coverage of Rural Areas in the UK Online content 50 Is it important to the audience? 51 WHOSE VOICE? 53 By default, there is a leaning towards a small number of NGOs 53 A tilt towards the environment lens 57 Country people don’t seek the limelight 58 THE DEVOLVED NATIONS – SHOWING THE WAY 61 GETTING IT RIGHT ALL THE TIME 69 Leveraging knowledge, networks and content
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Visits: Interdisciplinary Outdoor Learning for Primary School Pupils and Scotland’S Curriculum for Excellence
    n Mattu, Leanne McIver (2016) Farm visits: interdisciplinary outdoor learning for primary school pupils and Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/7715/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Farm Visits: Interdisciplinary outdoor learning for Primary School Pupils and Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence Leanne McIver Mattu M.A. (Hons) Psychology, M.Res Educational Research Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Interdisciplinary Studies College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow September 2016 Abstract There is concern around children’s lack of knowledge and understanding of food sources and production, and more broadly around their apparent disconnection from nature. Spending time in the outdoors has been shown to yield a range of benefits, although the mechanisms underpinning these are not well understood. Studies have suggested, however, that there has been a decline in time spent outdoors by children. The introduction of the ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ guidelines in Scotland was heralded as an opportunity to address this decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Cares About Rural England's Disadvantaged Now?
    Who cares about rural England’s disadvantaged now? The implications of the closure of the Commission for Rural Communities for the disadvantaged people and places of rural England (Preprint) Gordon Morris 12 February 2015 Abstract For more than 100 years, non-landed and non-Establishment interests in rural England were represented by a succession of three quasi-independent government bodies (quangos) whose roles embraced, to varying degrees, policy, practice, and advocacy. These were the Development/Rural Development Commission, the Countryside Agency, and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). In 2013 the British government closed the CRC, and absorbed aspects of its responsibilities into the civil service. This paper explores the implications of the change for the disadvantaged people and places of rural England whose interests the CRC was created to represent. First, by way of context, the histories of the three quangos and the main farming and landed sector membership groups are described. In order to inform the discussion the views of the latter were sought (unsuccessfully), together with the opinions of people involved in one or more of the quangos, and, or, the civil service successor unit. These are presented and discussed. Conclusions relating to consequential “gaps” in independent policy and research are drawn. The aim is to stimulate discussion about the implications for rural England of closing the CRC, for it is possible that the loss of this small organization may have unexpected long- term consequences. The eventual significance of this decision has yet to be determined. 1 Introduction In 2013 the British government closed the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), ending more than 100 years of support for rural England’s people and places.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Environmental Science & Technology
    IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON Faculty of Life Sciences (University of London) Department of Environmental Science & Technology Public Attitude Toward Mammal Reintroductions: A Highland Case Study By Lee Schofield A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc and/or the DIC September 2005-06-21 i DECLARATION OF OWN WORK I declare that this thesis [insert full title of thesis] …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… is entirely my own work and that where any material could be construed as the work of others, it is fully cited and referenced, and/or with appropriate acknowledgement given. Signature: ………………………………………………………………………………… Name of student (Please print): …………………………………………………………. Name of supervisor: ……………………………………………………………………... ii Abstract A survey of attitudes toward mammal reintroductions (using wolves and beavers as the two main examples) was carried out in and around an area of the Scottish Highlands earmarked for ecological restoration. Adapting methodologies used in previous studies of attitudes toward wolf restoration, a questionnaire was designed to give a numerical score to people’s attitudes, as well as investigating what factors affected these attitudes. Rural residents were surveyed at their homes using a random stratified spatial sampling method and drop off and collect means of delivery. In order to test for rural-urban contrasts, Edinburgh and Inverness residents were also surveyed, using a face to face introduction. Key stakeholder interviews and a media analysis were also carried out to further inform the investigation. The results showed that a majority of respondents had positive attitudes toward mammal reintroductions, in both rural and urban samples, so the recommendation is made that advocates should be less hesitant in making proposals.
    [Show full text]