Biodiversity & land use: Policy issues, relevance of MBIs, key findings
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•418 views
This presentation was given at IEEP's capacity building for environmental tax reform conference on 5 October 2017 in Brussels, Belgium. Speaker: Dr. Daniela Russi
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Biodiversity & land use: Policy issues, relevance of MBIs, key findings
Ähnlich wie Biodiversity & land use: Policy issues, relevance of MBIs, key findings (20)
Mehr von Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
Mehr von Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Biodiversity & land use: Policy issues, relevance of MBIs, key findings
- 1. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Thematic session: Biodiversity and Land Use Dr. Daniela Russi (IEEP) 5 October 2017, Committee of the Regions, Rue Belliard 99/101, Brussels Final conference: Capacity building for environmental tax reform
- 2. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: issues & challenges • Loss of biodiversity very worrying -> Assessment of the Habitats Directive for 2007-2012: 60% of species and 77% of habitats in unfavourable conditions • Mid-term review of the Biodiversity Strategy (2015): biodiversity loss ongoing • Agricultural/forest land management needs to be improved to reduce environmental impacts/improve biodiversity • Economic instruments can complement (not replace) the legislation on required management practices by influencing the behaviour of individuals
- 3. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: instruments used • Taxes on environmentally harmful products • Taxes and fees on the use of natural resources • Forest and agricultural subsidies • Payment for Ecosystem Services • Ecological Fiscal Transfers • Biodiversity offsetting • Fishing quota and licences
- 4. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Instrument type Member State(s) Taxes on pesticides and fertilisers Denmark, Italy, Sweden Tax on animal feed mineral phosphorus Denmark Fishing and hunting fees Estonia, Ireland Fee for tree removal Austria Fishery management instruments Iceland Tax on the use of peat for energy Finland Result-based agri-environment measure Baden-Württemberg (Germany) Biodiversity offsetting Germany Forest subsidies Girona (Spain), Slovenia, Croatia Ecological fiscal transfers Portugal
- 5. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: revenues, effectiveness & efficiency • The revenues from most instruments are earmarked for environmental objectives (e.g. pesticide tax in Italy) • For many instruments some positive impact has been documented (e.g. fishing fee in Ireland) • Others have not been evaluated yet (e.g. hunting and fishing fees in Estonia) • The impact of others have been less than expected (e.g. Finnish peat energy tax) • Impact of subsidies to farmers/forest owners difficult to evaluate – how to assess additionality? Coverage as a proxy
- 6. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: stakeholder & civil society engagement • Most analysed instruments are part of a wider package of measures -> window of opportunity (e.g. Danish green tax reform, Slovenian and Yugoslavian Forest Act, Portuguese revision of the Local Finances Law, new EU Rural Development Plans) • Key role of one or more motivated person, e.g. result-based agri- environment measures in Baden-Württemberg (Germany); forest subsidies in Girona (Spain) • Support and help of public institutions, researchers and NGOs allows feasibility in technical terms and credibility in political terms (e.g. the NGOs Xarxa de Custodia del Territori and Acció Natura for Selvans)
- 7. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: stakeholder & civil society engagement • Opposition by those who face the costs is the key barrier for taxes/fees (e.g. farmers in Sweden, who managed to abolish the fertiliser tax) • Strategies to reduce opposition: public consultation/participation processes (e.g. Danish and Swedish taxes on fertilisers/pesticides) compensatory measures (e.g. Irish voluntary hardship scheme) negotiation (e.g. Slovenian Forest Act) good communication on the purpose and use of taxes/fees (bad example: Croatian Forest Public Benefit Fee) taxes low for the first years (e.g. Estonian hunting fee) burden sharing (e.g. salmon policy in Ireland) changes in the design (e.g. levy on Icelandic IQT)
- 8. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Policy Formulation Decision making Policy Implementation Monitoring Evaluation SE: Public consultation process for tax on fertilisers EE: Open public consultation to modify fees PT, SI: Evaluation exercise by independent researchers for Portuguese EFTs and Slovenian subsidies to private forests DE: Awareness raising initiatives related to RB-AEMs IE, EE, DE: Contributions from stakeholders re: Salmon Licencing Scheme, Estonian fees and offsetting DE, ES: Proposals from experts for the RB-AEMs in Baden–Württemberg and Selvans programme IE: Annual scientific advice and review for Salmon Licencing Scheme DK: Process of negotiation of Danish taxes DE, IE: Consultation processes to enable stakeholder participation in implementation of offsetting and fishing fees
- 9. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Biodiversity and land use: the way forward • Potential for expanding the use of economic instrument – many interesting examples to be replicated • Key elements: ‒ Consultation/negotiation processes is key, especially for taxes/fees ‒ Earmarking, compensatory measures and communication increase acceptability ‒ Smart design is important ‒ Scientific research is key for effectiveness and credibility • Taxes, fees and subsidies can be used as awareness raising instruments on the importance of environmental protection -> behavioural change
- 10. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Case study presentations • Fishing fees supporting salmon conservation and management in Ireland – Dr. Ciaran Byrne (Inland Fisheries Ireland) • The Danish pesticide tax – Jens Holger Helbo Hansen (Danish Ministry of Taxation)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- In EU-27 (2012): Woodland: 41.2 % Cropland: 24.7 % Grassland: 19.5%
- The result-based agri-environment measure (RB-AEM) in place in Baden-Württemberg (Germany), the Selvans programme in the province of Girona (Catalonia, Spain) and the Slovenian financing and co-financing investments in private forest management can be considered Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programmes, as they are voluntary transactions that remunerate owners or managers of natural resources for the ecosystem services they provide, where the payment is conditional on agreed rules of natural resource management.
- Little impact: the Finnish peat energy tax, the pesticide tax and phosphate fodder tax in Denmark (tax too low) Positive impact: the fishing fee in Ireland, fishery management system in Iceland, Swedish fertilizer tax, Croatian Forest Public Benefit Fee The impact of subsidies to farmers or forest owners difficult to assess - Decreased land covered: Slovenian and German programmes - Increased land covered: Spanish Selvans programme Environmental impact not estimated yet: hunting and fishing fees in Estonia, and the ETS in Portugal Italy: The revenues of the pesticide tax in Italy are used to support organic farming and quality products through a) the “Fund for the development of organic farming and quality products”, which provides farmers with incentives and technical assistance, and finances activities aiming at informing consumers about organic, typical and traditional foods; b) the “Fund for research in the sector of organic agriculture and quality products” Ireland: reduction of salmon fishing from over 250,000 salmon in 2001, the year when it was introduced, to over 20,000 in 2015 Iceland: Since the introduction of ITQs in Iceland, many stocks have slowly increased, in particular the valuable cod stock where TACs and scientific recommendations have gradually aligned Finland: The peat energy tax is decided based on political considerations, without taking into consideration peat’s energy content and level of CO2 emissions. Consequently, the tax is ineffective in internalising and reducing the environmental impacts of peat extraction and use Denmark the ineffectiveness of the pesticide tax and phosphate fodder tax is possibly due to the low level of taxes and also because the demand of the taxed products tends to be inelastic, i.e. it does not decrease significantly when the price increases
- Key experts played an important role in promoting and designing many instruments: RB-AEM in Baden-Württemberg was established thanks to the suggestion of three biodiversity experts, who were inspired by a similar measure in place in Switzerland. They designed the instrument and prepared the related list of 28 key indicator species/taxa of wildflowers. In 2014, together with the NGO Blumenwiesen-Alb e.V., they managed to convince the managing authority to increase the payment The two analysed Danish taxes were introduced following the recommendation of commissions of experts and civil servants. The Selvans programme was put in place thanks to the personal leadership and dedication of the person who suggested the creation of the programme, then provided scientific advice on its design and finally dealt with the cut in public funding in 2012-13 by dedicating the programme only to private forests and asking the NGO Acciónatura to manage it, thereby allowing an increase in the extension of the protected area and the types of instruments founded. The Slovenian payments for private forest management were introduced thanks to the efforts of forestry experts, who managed to negotiate the establishment of the Slovenian Forest Service, which had the right to develop forest management plans. The Portuguese EFTs were introduced following the suggestion of academics and NGOs, and was prompted by meetings of civil society representatives with the Portuguese Parliamentary Environment Committee and other members of the Parliament. Scientific evidence provided by the Standing Scientific Committee (the main scientific advisory body for salmon fisheries in Ireland) and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation on the decreasing status of salmon stocks was a strong driver for the reform of the Irish salmon fishing licences. In Italy the fertilizer tax was introduced mainly thanks to a MP of the Italian Green Party, who lobbied for its introduction and had cross-party political support and support from organic agriculture associations Support and help of public institutions and NGOs: The establishment of Selvans was supported by the NGOs Xarxa de Custodia del Territori (who managed the programme until 2013) and Acciónatura (who managed it afterwards) and of the Girona provincial council. Initiatives from civil society plays a key role in motivating farmers and spreading awareness on the importance of species-rich grassland in Baden Württemberg (e.g. the meadow championships), Offsetting in Germany was introduced following concerns raised by a number of scientists and NGOs, including the German Council for Landscape Maintenance.
- Ireland: The voluntary hardship scheme allowed commercial fishermen, and especially salmon fishermen, to exit the fishery sector thanks to compensation payments. The scheme had a budget of €25 million, and it granted fishermen a payment of six times their average annual catch over the period between 2001 and 2005, multiplied by the average price of salmon over the period, plus a payment equal to six times the 2006 licence fee over a three year period (2007-2009). In other words, there was a fixed part, and a variable part, the latter depending on the size of the business] Burden sharing: not only commercial fishermen were affected by the new regulation on salmon fishing, but also recreational fishermen. In fact, a Salmon Conservation Stamp was introduced on all angling licenses, which represented a 100% increase in the license fee. The revenue (50% of fees) from the sale of salmon fishing licenses is earmarked for the Salmon Conservation Fund, this way being channelled directly to support the conservation and sustainable management of salmon stocks and habitats they depend on. The fund is managed by Inland Fisheries Ireland with a range of actors (e.g. fishery owners and angling clubs) being responsible for implementing concrete projects on the ground Slovenia: The Slovenian Forest Act (1993) was established after a negotiation process that involved forest owners (who did not want to have forest management plans) and forestry experts (who claimed that management plans were needed in order on ensure forest sustainability) Iceland: As a result of the criticisms related to the unfair distribution of the Icelandic ITQs, a levy was introduced for their owners, whose revenues were used to finance the Fishery Development Fund and fisheries monitoring and surveillance. The fee was then replaced in 2002 with a General Resource Tax, which was in turn complemented in 2012 with a Special Resource Rent Tax (they were converted into the current annual fishing fee).