Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil

Land Use Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 485-497

  Ring, Irene ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Brazil; Conservation benefits; Environmental federalism; Fiscal transfers; Local ecological services; Spillover effects

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL TAX; FISCAL POLICY; LAND USE CHANGE; LAND USE PLANNING; NATURE CONSERVATION; PROTECTED AREA; SPILLOVER EFFECT;

BRAZIL; SOUTH AMERICA;

EID: 42149177171     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arantes, A., 2006. ICMS Ecológico, uma oportunidade histórica de Goiás. Article by the secretary of state of the State Environmental Ministry of Goiás SEMARH (Secretário do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Hídricos), 1 February 2006. Accessed at 〈www.semarh.goias.gov.br〉 on 26 May 2006.
2. Azzoni C.R., and Isai J.Y. Estimating the costs of environmental protection in Brazil. Ecological Economics 11 2 (1994) 127-133
3. Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Sumpsi Vinas, J.M., 2002. Environmental integration and the CAP. A Report to the European Commission, DG Agriculture, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, September 2002.
4. Bauer S., Abresch J.-P., and Steuernagel M. Gesamtinstrumentarium zur Erreichung einer umweltverträglichen Raumnutzung (1996), Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart
5. Bergmann E. Lenkung der Flächenausweisung über Zuweisungen?. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 9 (1999) 555-564
6. Bernardes A.T. Some mechanisms for biodiversity protection in Brazil, with emphasis on their application in the State of Minas Gerais (1999), World Bank, Washington, DC
7. Buchanan J.M. Federalism and fiscal equity. American Economic Review 40 (1950) 583-599
8. Court of Auditors, 2000. Special Report No. 14/2000 on 'Greening the CAP' together with the Commission's replies, Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C 353/01, 8.12.2000.
9. CPRH (State Agency of the Environment of Pernambuco), 2003. Decret Nr. 25.574 of June 2003. 〈http://www.cprh.pe.gov.br/ctudo-secoes-sub.asp?idsecao=178〉, accessed 27 May 2004.
10. Döring T. Subsidiarität und Umweltpolitik in der Europäischen Union (1997), Metropolis, Marburg
11. Echavarría, M., 2000. Valuation of water-related services to downstream users in rural watersheds: determining values for the use and protection of water resources. FAO Background Paper No. 4, presented at the Electronic Workshop "Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds", 18 September-27 October 2000, Rome.
12. Ewers H.-J., Rehbinder E., and Wiggering H. Umweltbezogene Erweiterung des Finanzausgleichs. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 2 (1997) 135-147
13. Freitas A. ICMS Ecológico-Um Instrumento Econômico para Conservação da Biodiversidade (1999), WWF Brasil, Brasilia
14. Gowdy J. The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Economics 73 1 (1997) 25-41
15. Grieg-Gran, M., 2000. Fiscal incentives for biodiversity conservation: the ICMS Ecológico in Brazil. Discussion Paper 00-01, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
16. Hansjürgens, B., 1996. Föderalismustheorie und europäische Umweltpolitik. Ökonomische Kriterien für die Verteilung umweltpolitischer Kompetenzen in der EU. In: Postlep, R.-D. (Ed.), Aktuelle Fragen zum Föderalismus: Ausgewählte Probleme aus Theorie und politischer Praxis des Föderalismus. Metropolis, Marburg, pp. 73-98.
17. Hansjürgens, B., Messner, F., 2002. Die Erhebung kostendeckender Wasserpreise in der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. In: von Keitz, S., Schmalholz, M. (Eds.), Handbuch der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie-Inhalte, Neuerungen und Anregungen für die nationale Umsetzung. Erich-Schmidt-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 293-319.
18. Horton B., Colarullo G., Bateman I.J., and Peres C.A. Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental Conservation 30 2 (2003) 139-146
19. Köllner T., Schelske O., and Seidl I. Integrating biodiversity into intergovernmental fiscal transfers based on cantonal benchmarking: a Swiss case study. Basic and Applied Ecology 3 (2002) 381-391
20. Leite, F.H.F., 2001. O ICMS Ecológico no Rio de Janeiro. Monografia de Bacharelado, Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
21. List J.A., Bulte E.H., and Shogren J.F. "Beggar thy Neighbor": testing for free riding in state-level endangered species expenditures. Public Choice 111 3 (2002) 303-315
22. Loureiro W. Incentivos Econômicos para Conservação da Biodiversidade no Brasil: ICMS Ecológico (1998), IAP, Curitiba
23. Loureiro W. Contribuição do ICMS Ecológico à Conservação da Biodiversidade no Estado do Paraná. Tese Doutorado (2002), Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba
24. May P.H., Veiga Neto F., Denardin V., and Loureiro W. Using fiscal instruments to encourage conservation: municipal responses to the 'ecological' value-added tax in Paraná and Minas Gerais, Brazil. In: Pagiola S., Bishop J., and Landell-Mills N. (Eds). Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development (2002), Earthscan, London 173-199
25. de Melo, J.J., Prates, J., 2007. EcoTerra Model-economic instruments for sustainable land-use management in Portugal. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Leipzig, 5-8 June 2007.
26. Mesquita C.A.B. RPPN da Mata Atlântica (2004), Conservação Internacional, Belo Horizonte
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (2005), Island Press, Washington, DC
28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (2005), World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
29. Minas Gerais, 2005. Deliberação Normativa COPAM no. 86, de 17 de junho de 2005. Estabelece os parâmetros e procedimentos para aplica-ção do Fator de Qualidade, referente às unidades de conservação da natureza e outras áreas especialmente protegidas, previsto no Anexo IV, III, d), da Lei no. 13.803, de 27 de dezembro de 2000, que dispõe sobre a distribuição da parcela da receita do produto da arrecadação do ICMS pertencente aos municípios. Diário Oficial do Estado de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
30. MMA (Ministry of the Environment), Biodiversity and Forest Secretariat-SFB, 2002. National program for the conservation of biodiversity-DCBIO. Second National Report of Brazil to the Convention on Biological Diversity, preliminary version, Brasilia.
31. Musgrave R.A. The Theory of Public Finance (1959), McGraw-Hill, New York
32. Oates W.E. Fiscal Federalism (1972), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York
33. Oates W.E. Environmental policy in the European Community: harmonization or national standards?. Empirica 25 (1998) 1-13
34. Oates W.E. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature 37 (1999) 1120-1149
35. Oates, W.E., 2001. A reconsideration of environmental federalism. Discussion Paper 01-54, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
36. Olson Jr. M. The principle of "fiscal equivalence": the division of responsibilities among different levels of government. American Economic Review 59 (1969) 479-487
37. Perner, A., Thöne, M., 2005. Naturschutz im Finanzausgleich. Erweite-rung des naturschutzpolitischen Instrumentariums um finanzielle Anreize für Gebietskörperschaften. FiFo-Berichte, No. 3, Mai 2005, Finanzwissenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut an der Universität zu Köln, Köln.
38. Perrings C., and Gadgil M. Conserving biodiversity: reconciling local and global public benefits. In: Kaul I., Conceição P., Le Goulven K., and Mendoza R.U. (Eds). Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford 532-555
39. Postlep, R.-D., Döring, T., 1996. Entwicklungen in der ökonomischen Föderalismusdiskussion und im föderativen System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Postlep, R.-D. (Ed.), Aktuelle Fragen zum Föderalismus: Ausgewählte Probleme aus Theorie und politischer Praxis des Föderalismus. Metropolis, Marburg, pp. 7-44.
40. Ring I. Ökologische Aufgaben und ihre Berücksichtigung im kommunalen Finanzausgleich. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung Sonderheft 13 (2001) 236-249
41. Ring I. Ecological public functions and fiscal equalisation at the local level in Germany. Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 415-427
42. Ring I. Naturschutz in der föderalen Aufgabenteilung: zur Notwendigkeit einer Bundeskompetenz aus ökonomischer Perspektive. Natur und Landschaft 79 11 (2004) 494-500
43. Rose M.T. Überlegungen zur Berücksichtigung der ökologischen Ausgleichsfunktion ländlicher Räume im kommunalen Finanzaus-gleich-dargestellt am Beispiel des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Zeit-schrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung 12 2 (1999) 267-279
44. SEPLAN (Secretário do Planejamento e Meio Ambiente), 2003. ICMS Ecológico Tocantins. SEPLAN, Palmas, Tocantins.
45. Sigman H. Transboundary spillovers and decentralization of environmental policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2005) 82-101
46. Similä J., Thum R., Varjopuro R., and Ring I. Protected species in conflict with fisheries: the interplay between European and national regulation. Journal of European Environmental Planning and Law 5 (2006) 432-445
47. SRU (Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen). Konzepte einer dauerhaft-umweltgerechten Nutzung ländlicher Räume. Sondergutachten (1996), Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart
48. Stoll-Kleemann S. Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 4 (2001) 369-385
49. Tiebout C.M. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64 (1956) 416-424
50. Unnerstall, H., 2004. Rechtliche Grundlagen gegenwärtiger und zukünftiger ökonomischer Instrumente im Naturschutz und in der Flächenhaushaltspolitik. In: Döring, R., Rühs, M. (Eds.), Ökonomische Rationalität und Praktische Vernunft. Gerechtigkeit, Ökologische Ökonomie und Naturschutz. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp. 249-274.
51. Unnerstall, H., 2006. Die verursachergerechte Kostendeckung für Wasserdienstleistungen als neues Instrument der Europäischen Umweltpolitik-Einordnung, Gehalt und Umsetzung. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 449-480.
52. Young C.E.F. Financial mechanisms for conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology 19 3 (2005) 756-761