1 / 17

Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix

Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision. Impact evaluation methods for biodiversity conservation policies: challenges in a policymix. david.barton@nina.no. Overview. POLICYMIX project in a nutshell

gerardoj
Download Presentation

Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision Impact evaluation methods for biodiversity conservation policies: challenges in a policymix david.barton@nina.no

  2. Overview POLICYMIX project in a nutshell POLICYMIX case studies and economic instruments Challenges in evaluating PES in a policymix Possiblediscussion

  3. Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision 2010 –2014 Key aims Evaluating rolesof economic instruments in a policy mix cost-effectivenessof existing and proposed instruments missing, redundant, synergistic or conflicting instrument roles, comparing across case studies Transferability of policy lessons between Latin America and Europe Timeline 2010-2011: Review of economic instruments and framework development 2011-2013: 7 case studies at national and regional/local levels (contributing to TEEB follow-up) 2013-2014: Comparative analysis, synthesis, policy recommendations and dissemination http://policymix.nina.no

  4. POLICYMIX Where? Finland Norway Netherlands UK Germany Portugal Costa Rica Mato Grosso Brazil Mata Atlántica Brazil ESV=Environmental Service Value REDES Source: Turner et al. (2007)

  5. POLICYMIX case studies • Voluntaryforestconservation • publicauctioncontracts • agglomerationbonuses • comp.biodiversiyvalues • METSO PES modalities:=> fixed term • => permanent • => auctions • Ecologicalfiscal • Transfers (EFT) REDD+ PES Certification Certification PES BIOTAtargeted PES EFT REDD+; EFT; PES; minimum pricing NTFB

  6. Challenges in evaluatingimpact of economic instruments in a policymix Dynamic drivers and baselines B&ES impact indicators Confounding & Matching criteria Policy path- dependency Intervention vs. policymix Cross-case transferability Mixed methods Source: Angelsen et al.(2009)

  7. POLICYMIX EI challenge: cross-casetransferability Mato Grosso, Brazil States Mata Atlântica, São Paulo, Brazil Saxony, Germany Regional administrations Western Forest Region, Finland Case study scale (km2) South-Eastern Norway Hojancha, Costa Rica Municipalities Forest cover Moura-BarrancosPortugal Stage 1: Undisturbed/ little disturbed forests Stage 2: Forest frontiers; high deforestation/ extraction rates. Stage 3: Forest mosaics with stabilised cover; (low or zero net deforestation) Stage 4: Increasing forest cover and quality due to afforestation and reforestation Time / Space Source: adapted from Angelsen (2008)

  8. Impact evaluation of Payments for Environmental Services (PSA) Costa Rica • Land cover, land use and institutional contextsappropriate for PES represent a minor part landscape and biodiveristy variation under threat. Protected area buffer zonesplay a key role in increasing PES effectiveness (Calvo-Alvarado et al. 2008) • PES is more effective in promoting forest recovery than preventing deforestation (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003; Arriagada 2008) • PES impact evaluation studies have not considered economic development context nor ex ante policy paths (Daniels et al. 2010)

  9. Confoundingfactors in assessing PES effectiveness Source: Pagiola et al. 2005 • PES participation is not randomized: • elligibility • willingness • ability to participate • = f(location and landowner specific factors) • => observable?

  10. Approach: GIS matching of location characteristics to generate a statisticallyefficient ’control’ group Factual (Treatment) Counterfactual (Untreated) Parcel X enrolled in PES Parcel Y not enrolled in PES Matching: forest cover, landuse, census data, environmental char. (biodiversity surrogates), prior incentives, neighbouring protected areas, etc. Examples: Robalino et al.(2008), Arriagada (2008)

  11. Challenge: PES ’policy pathdependency’ MACRO NATIONAL POLICY PATH LANDSCAPE & FOREST STAND Ban Absolute PAs Multiple use PAs Clearing rights Multifunctional zoning Tax credit PES targeting & modalities Reforest.subs. PES Soft credit Sources: based on Flores Rodas, 1985; MINAE; FONAFIFO n.y. in Kleinn et al. 2002; CATIE). Certification Forest cover Stage 1: Undisturbed/ little disturbed forests Stage 2: Forest frontiers; high deforestation/ extraction rates. Stage 4: Increasing forest cover and quality due to afforestation and reforestation Stage 3: Forest mosaics with stabilised cover; (low or zero net deforestation) FOREST TRANSITION STAGES Time / Space

  12. Pathdependency and dynamic drivers • National pathdependency: developmentcontextdeterminingnational ex ante deforestation trends • Localpathdependency: Spatial correlationbetween pre-PES reforestation incentives and early PES contracts. • Recentlandusechange drivers: coastal real estatedevelopment and urbanization • New landuse change drivers: biofuelsand 2021 carbon neutrality objective Source: Daniels et al. (2010)

  13. Continual modifications of PES instrument • The forest conservation incentive has been studied in IEs, but it is the other modalities - management, reforestation and perhaps agroforestry(SAF) - that seem to have promoted the greatest effect on forest cover

  14. Roles of PES in a policymix is spatiallyexplicit (complementarity, redundancy or conflict) increased targeting of unique and specific locations Represent-ation of landscape character-istics (biodiversity complementarity) Blanket ban ondeforestation Public protected areas? PES for forest conservation? Legend PES for reforestation? Instrument roles: redundancy complementarity Opportunity costs/ha of forest landuse High deforestation areas Lower deforestation areas

  15. Impactevaluation indicators • Forest cover… • Biodiversity complementarity • Connectivity • Ecosystem services…

  16. Conclusions: Mixed methods in IE Quantitative method: programme evaluation Participation in treatment (T) Treatmentoutcome (Y) theories of change Qualitative methods: alternative theories of participation confounders sample bias Observedindividualcharacteristics (X) Unobservedindividualcharacteristics external validity Observedexogenoussitecharacteristics (Z) Qualitative methods: case study boundaries Unobservedcontextcharacteristics

  17. policymix.nina.no

More Related