ISEP ‘Identification of Stakeholders and Evaluation of PESlike Instruments in Flanders (Belgium)’
Dieter Mortelmans Montpellier, Pesmix- 11,12 & 13 June 2014
Contents • PART I: Some background on ISEP • PART II: Key considerations for PES in Flanders
PART I: Some background on ISEP • • • •
Who are we? Goal ISEP What has been done Some ‘language’ issues
Who are we? Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Flemish government Headquarters in Brussels ~ 250 staff
Main role: Policy support Member of EU research networks
Goal ISEP ‘Support of ES by current financial policy instruments for nature conservation in Flanders’ Support ecosystem managers Who are the ES-beneficiaries? Identify ES-stakeholders
Focus: PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) Goal: work towards practical implementation Question: how do policymakers decide when and where PES is appropriate?
Government PES definitie
Tax Payers
Subsidies and PES
Important questions Why pay for no action? Only if there is an opportunity cost
Regulation and voluntary instruments Transaction costs, monitoring capacities Innovation, flexibility
Impact on intrinsic motivations
ISEP in a nutshell Extensive litterature review: Factors contributing to success of PES Defining characteristics of PES
List of (selected) successfactors Method to identify ES-Stakeholders 4 case studies Gentse Kanaalzone Agri-Env Landscape Features
Melsterbeek Agri-Env Erosion control
Doode Bemde Design nature areas & access for nature areas
Instrument: beheer- en monitoringsubsidie voor erkende natuurreservaten
Opportunity analysis PES
Language issues Market Based Instruments (MBI) <--> ‘Hard’ Regulation (Voluntary) Economic Instruments (for providers)
Environmental services and ecosystem services, what difference? Consensus: Payment for ecosystem services, input measures/ ES output
PART II: Key considerations for PES
• • • •
Defining characteristics Successfactors Opportunity analysis for PES Some potential implications
Defining characteristics of PES “A PES scheme is a transparent system for the additional provision of environmental services trough conditional payments to voluntary providers.” (Tacconi 2012) Additionality (≠ sustainability)
With PES
ES Provision
Conditionality
Without PES
Transparant Voluntary participation of ecosystem managers PES beyond legally compulsary! PES
Time
Successfactors Part 1: Dependency and relation to ES SC1: Is there a clear link between the land use practices and ES provision? SC2: To what extent the ES is under pressure? SC3: Is there a study ascertaining spatial provision of ES? SC4: Leakage and trade-offs
Successfactors Part 2: Costs & payments SC5: Is ES provision uniform (homogeneous) in the area? Is the cost of land use practices to maintain or improve ES provision uniform? SC6: Is the payment large enough? SC7: Transaction costs
Current situation Agriculture
Payments for ES Agriculture + additional ES Maximal payment (in theory)
ES benefits
Benefits farmers
Payment interval
Benefits farmers
Minimal payment = Opportunity cost
Successfactors Risks & trust SC8: Are there enough guarantees for ES managers and ES users within contractual agreements? SC9: To what extent are contracts enforcable? SC10: Is there a chance for high impact events to occur, which could impact ES provisioning? SC11: Is there enough adequate facilitation? SC12: Are ecosystem managers participating voluntary?
Successfactors Part 4: Strategy, structure of PES instrument SC13: Is there a clear goal and strategy for the PES instrument? SC14: Is there a risk for perverse incentives? SC15: Is there enough support for new land use practices? SC16: Property rights clearly established and enforced?
Erosion control
Mooi landschap
Landscape scenery
€ €
Landscape scenery
‘free’
Erosion control
pollination
Pollination
€
‘free’
€
Erosion control
Clean water
Clean water
Clean water
Flagship ES
Pollination
Stratify
Bundle
€
€
‘free’
Opportunity analysis PES A clear (enough) relationship between input measures and the delivery of ES by ecosystems. Demand for ES Identify ES stakeholders
Enough benefits for ecosystem managers and ES-beneficiaries Optional: ‘Is there room for additional or adapted land use practices that can improve ES delivery?’
Demand ES NOT EFFICIËNT FOR PES
b (v
Value increases rapidly with decreasing ES availability
Value ES stable
m rd a lw e p
Shift from individual value to total value (vb diamond-water paradox)
EFFICIËNT FOR PES
r) ltk s d e o v
m ,n e h c s fy io B
S ftE o e u lv in rg a M
b .v V . n i,g rh k lz s d e o
Demand ES
“Stock” of ecosystem services
Identify ES stakeholders Goal (expressed in Goal terms of ES)
Policy instrument 1
Stakeholders
Other ES 2
1. Which ES are also impacted by the instrument? 2. Which stakeholders receive benefits or disservices? How? Practical guideline for stakeholder identification.
ESD (CICES-be)
Benefits
ESD niet gedekt door het instrument
Demand ES
Link land use and ES
ECOSYSTEM MANAGERS Waterzuivering en oxygenatie + nutriëntenregulatie
Nutriënten worden vastgehouden in bodem
Onbelangrijk voor landbouwers
Matig
Bodemvorming en compositie
humus vorming
Onduidelijk
Onduidelijk
Natuurlijke landschappen en soorten voor Indirecte baat: Draagvlak natuurervaring en educatie creëren, promoten van duurzaam imago, enz.
Redelijk hoog in het geval van duurzame bedrijven (bv. milieu labels en certificering). Anders zeer context afhankelijk.
Onduidelijk, moet onderzocht worden.
Regulatie van globaal klimaat door reductie van broeikasgasconcentraties
Behoud van het klimaat
Laag. Effecten op lange termijn Zwak en grote schaal.
Waterzuivering en oxygenatie + nutriëntenregulatie
Waterzuivering
Waterzuivering steeds belangrijker. Kostelijk grijs alternatief
Regulatie van globaal klimaat door reductie van broeikasgasconcentraties
Behoud van het klimaat
Belang voor de maatschappij is Zwak (lokaal) groot, en stijgt naarmate de Sterk (internationaal) schaal. Overheid heeft hier een rol.
Landschap voor buiten recreatie
Recreatie (wandelen, paarden, Er is er belangrijke vraag naar enz.) ruimte voor recreatie in Vlaanderen
ES USERS
Natuurlijke omgeving rond gebouwen voor Mooi landschap, uitzicht. wonen, werken en studeren
Onduidelijk, moet onderzocht worden.
Matig (weining additionele oppervlakte voor recreatie)
De vraag naar gevarieerd groen Sterk is groot. Huisprijzen worden hierdoor beïnvloed.
-
+ Payment
Personal ES b enefit
Opportunity cost
Other benefits (risk, insuranc e,...)
balance ecosyst em manager
+
Payment
ES benefits (economic an d non economic valu es)
Opportunity cost (eg 'gray' solu tions)
Balance ES bene
Other benefit s
ficiaries
Both balances must be positive, for PES to make sense.
Mixed funds
Payment for ES Agriculture and ecosystem management for ES
For ES delivery “Theoretical” Maximumpayment
Value ESbenefits PAYMENT INTERVAL
Income LOSSfarmers
Other public funds
Subsidy
Minimal payment PES
Private funds Income farmers
Many thanks for your attention!
Questions?
Contact:
[email protected]
