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 ..............................................................................................