Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance

Handbook of Ecological Economics

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 413-449

  Ring, Irene ^a   Barton, David N ^b  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85087694132     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781783471416.00021     Document Type: Chapter

References (98)

1. Andam, K.S., Ferraro, P.J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Robalino, J.A., 2008. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 16089-94.
2. Bagnoli, P., Goeschl, T., Kovacs, E., 2008. People and Biodiversity Policies. Impacts, Issues and Strategies for Policy Action. Paris: OECD.
3. Barton, D.N. and Adamowicz, W.L.V., 2013. Path-dependent policyscapes: a theoretical approach to the evaluation of policymixes for biodiversity conservation. Special session: Biodiversity: valuation, conservation and policy. Paper presented at 10th International Conference of the European Society of Ecological Economis (ESEE), Lille, 17-21 June.
4. Barton, D.N., Blumentrath, S. and Rusch, G., 2013. Policyscape - A spatially explicit evalu collabation of voluntary conservation in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Society & Natural Resources 26, 1185-201.
5. Barton, D.N., Primmer, E., Chacon-Cascante, A. and Caixeta Andrade, D., 2014. Cross case comparison of payments for ecosystem services in forest (PES), in: Santos, R., May, P., Barton, D.N. and Ring, I. (eds), Comparative Assessment of Policy Mixes across Case Studies: Common Design Factors and Transferability of Assessment Results. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 1/2014, pp. 23-52. Available at: http://policymix.nina.no.
6. Borie, M., Mathevet, R., Letourneau, A., Ring, I., Thompson, J.D. and Marty, P., 2014. Exploring the contribution of fiscal transfers to protected area policy. Ecology and Society 19(1), 9.
7. Bressers, H.T.A. and Kuks, S.M., 2003. What does governance mean? From concept to elaboration, in: Bressers, H.T.A. and Rosenbaum, W.A. (eds), Achieving Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 65-88.
8. Bressers, H.T.A. and O'Toole Jr, L.J., 2005. Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context, in: Eliadis, P., Hill, M.M. and Howlett, M. (eds), Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 132-53.
9. Cassola, R.S., 2011. Ecological fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation: Options for a federal-state arrangement in Brazil. Master's Thesis. Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences. Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau.
10. Corbera, E., Soberanis, C.G. and Brown, K., 2009. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68, 743-61.
11. Czybulka, D. and Luttmann, M., 2005. Die Berucksichtigung von Leistungen der Lander fur das Naturerbe im Finanzausgleichssystem des Bundes. Natur und Recht 27, 79-86.
12. Droste, N., Lima, G.R., May, P.H., Ring, I., 2015. Ecological Fiscal Transfers in Brazil - incentivizing or compensating conservation? Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), Leeds, 30 June-3 July.
13. Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663-74.
14. Ewers, H-J., Rehbinder, E. and Wiggering, H., 1997. Umweltbezogene Erweiterung des Finanzausgleichs. Zeitschrift fur Gesetzgebung 12, 135-47.
15. Farley, J., Aquino, A., Daniels, A., Moulaert, A., Lee, D. and Krause, A., 2010. Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecological Economics 69, 2075-84.
16. Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E. and Laranja, M., 2010. The 'policy mix' for innovation: rethink innovation policy in a multi-l evel, multi-actor context. Manchester Business School Working Paper 599, Manchester.
17. Gawel, E., 1991. Umweltpolitik durch gemischten Instrumenteneinsatz - Allokative Effekte instrumentell diversifizierter Lenkungsstrategien fur Umweltguter. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
18. Grieg-Gran, M., 2000. Fiscal incentives for biodiversity conservation: The ICMS ecologico in Brazil. Discussion Paper No. 00-01. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
19. Gunningham, N., 1998. Introduction, in: Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (eds), Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-36.
20. Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (eds), 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Gunningham, N. and Sinclair, D., 1998. Designing environmental policy, in: Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (eds), Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 375-453.
22. Gunningham, N. and Sinclair, D., 1999. Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law & Policy 21, 49-76.
23. Gunningham, N. and Young, M.D., 1997. Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly 24, 243-98.
24. Irawan, S. and Tacconi, L., 2009. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degra collabdation (REDD) and decentralized forest management. International Forestry Review 11, 427-38.
25. Irawan, S., Tacconi, L. and Ring, I., 2013. Stakeholders' incentives for land-use change and REDD + The case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics 87, 75-83.
26. Irawan, S., Tacconi, L. and Ring, I., 2014. Designing intergovernmental fiscal transfers for conservation: The case of REDD+ revenue distribution to local governments in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 36, 47-59.
27. Joppa, L.N. and Pfaff, A., 2009. High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. Plos One 4, e8273.
28. Joppa, L.N. and Pfaff, A., 2010. Reassessing the forest impacts of protection. The challenge of nonrandom location and a corrective method. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185, 135-49.
29. Kollner, T., Schelske, O. and Seidl, I., 2002. Integrating biodiversity into intergovernmental fiscal transfers based on cantonal benchmarking: A Swiss case study. Basic and Applied
30. Ecology 3, 381-91.
31. Kumar, S. and Managi, S., 2009. Compensation for environmental services and intergovern collabmental fiscal transfers: The case of India. Ecological Economics 68, 3052-9.
32. Legrand, T., Froger, G. and Le Coq, J.F., 2013. Institutional performance of payments for environmental services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program. Forest Policy and Economics 37, 115-23.
33. Lehmann, P., 2012. Justifying a policy mix for pollution control: A review of economic literature. Journal of Economic Surveys 26, 71-97.
34. Loureiro, W., 2002. Contribuifao do ICMS Ecologico a Conserva^ao da Biodiversidade no Estado do Parana. Doctoral thesis. Universidade Federal do Parana, Curitiba.
35. MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
36. Matzdorf, B., Sattler, C. and Engel, S., 2013. Institutional frameworks and governance struc collabtures of PES schemes. Forest Policy and Economics 37, 57-64.
37. May, P.H., Andrade, J., Vivan, J.L., Kaechele, K., Gebara, M.F. and Abad, R., 2012. Assessment of the role of economic and regulatory instruments in the conservation policy- mix for the Brazilian Amazon - a coarse grain analysis. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 5/2012, available at: http://policymix.nina.no.
38. May, P.H., Veiga Neto, F., Denardin, V. and Loureiro, W., 2002. Using fiscal instruments to encourage conservation: Municipal responses to the 'ecological' value-added tax in Parana 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. London: Earthscan, pp. 173-99.
39. May, P.H., Ring, I., Santos, R., Barton, D.N., Schroter-Schlaack, C., Clemente, P. and Antunes, P., 2014. Cross-case comparison of ecological fiscal transfers (EFT), in: Santos, R., May, P.H., Barton, D.N. and Ring, I. (eds), Comparative Assessment of Policy Mixes across Case Studies - Common Design Factors and Transferability of Assessment Results. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 1/2014, pp. 66-83. Available at: http://policymix. nina.no.
40. Michaelis, P., 1996. Okonomische Instrumente der Umweltpolitik. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
41. Mumbunan, S., 2011. Ecological fiscal transfers in Indonesia. PhD Dissertation 02/2011. University of Leipzig and UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig.
42. Mumbunan, S., Ring, I. and Lenk, T., 2012. Ecological fiscal transfers at the provincial level in Indonesia. UFZ Discussion Papers 06/2012. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig.
43. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. and May, P.H., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for envi collabronmental services. Ecological Economics 69, 1202-208.
44. OECD, 1997. Evaluating Economic Instruments for Environmental Policy. Paris: OECD.
45. OECD, 1999. Handbook of Incentive Measures for Biodiversity. Design and Implementation. Paris: OECD.
46. OECD, 2007. Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy. Paris: OECD.
47. OECD, 2013. Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity. Paris: OECD.
48. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Ostrom, E. (ed.) 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419-22.
51. Pannell, D.J., 2008. Public benefits, private benefits, and policy mechanism choice for land- use change for environmental benefits. Land Economics 84, 225-40.
52. Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S. and Ferraro, P.J., 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Symposium: Environmental Quality and Economic Development. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4, 254-74.
53. Perner, A. and Thone, M., 2005. Naturschutz im Finanzausgleich. Erweiterung des natur- schutzpolitischen Instrumentariums um finanzielle Anreize fur Gebietskorperschaften. FiFo-Berichte 3. Finanzwissenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut an der Universitat zu Koln, Cologne.
54. Perrings, C. and Gadgil, M., 2003. Conserving biodiversity: Reconciling local and global public benefits, in: Kaul, I., Conceifao, P., le Goulven, K. and Mendoza, R.U. (eds), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 532-56.
55. Pfaff, A. and Robalino, A., 2012. Protecting forests, biodiversity, and the climate: Predicting policy impact to improve policy choice. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28, 164-79.
56. Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Andam, K.S. and Ferraro, P.J., 2009. Park location affects forest protection: Land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy 9(2), 5.
57. Porras, I. and Grieg-Gran, M., 2008. All that glitters. A review of payments for watersheds services in developing countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
58. Porras, I., Barton, D.N., Miranda, M. and Chacon-Cascante, A., 2013. Learning from 20 Years of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
59. Prokofieva, I. and Gorriz, E., 2013. Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain). Forest Policy and Economics 37, 104-14.
60. Ring, I., 2002. Ecological public functions and fiscal equalisation at the local level in Germany. Ecological Economics 42, 415-27.
61. Ring, I., 2008a. Biodiversity governance: Adjusting local costs and global benefits, in: Sikor, T. (ed.), Public and Private in Natural Resource Governance: A False Dichotomy? London: Earthscan, pp. 107-26.
62. Ring, I., 2008b. Compensating municipalities for protected areas: Fiscal transfers for biodi collabversity conservation in Saxony, Germany. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 17, 143-51.
63. Ring, I., 2008c. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy 25, 485-97.
64. Ring, I. and Schroter-Schlaack, C. (eds), 2011a. Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environnmental Research, Leipzig. Available at: http://policymix.nina.no.
65. Ring, I. and Schroter-Schlaack, C., 2011b. Justifying and assessing policy mixes for biodi collabversity and ecosystem governance, in: Ring, I. and Schroter-Schlaack, C. (eds), Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environnmental Research, Leipzig, pp. 14-35. Available at: http://policymix. nina.no.
66. Ring, I., Drechsler, M., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Irawan, S. and Venter, O., 2010a. Biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation: What role can economic instruments play? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 50-58.
67. Ring, I., Hansjurgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H. and Sukhdev, P., 2010b. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 15-26.
68. Ring, I., May, P.H., Loureiro, W., Santos, R., Antunes, P. and Clemente, P., 2011. Ecological fiscal transfers, in: Ring, I. and Schroter-Schlaack, C. (eds), Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, pp. 98-118. Available at: http://policymix. nina.no.
69. Robalino, J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Alpizar, F., Leon, C. and Rodriguez, C.M., 2008. Deforestation impacts of environmental services payments. Costa Rica's PSA Program 2000-2005. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series, August 2008, EfD DP 08-24.
70. Santos, R., Antunes, P., Ring, I., Clemente, P., 2015. Engaging local private and public ac collabtors in biodiversity conservation: The role of agri-environmental schemes and ecological fiscal transfers. Environmental Policy and Governance 25, 83-96.
71. Santos, R., Ring, I., Antunes, P. and Clemente, P., 2012. Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation: The Portuguese Local Finances Law. Land Use Policy 29, 261-73.
72. Sattler, C. and Matzdorf, B., 2013. PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice - Approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosystem Services 6, 2-11.
73. Schomers, S. and Matzdorf, B., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and com collabparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6, 16-30.
74. Schroter-Schlaack, C. and Ring, I., 2011. Towards a framework for assessing instru collabments in policy mixes for biodiversity and ecosystem governance, in: Ring, I. and Schroter-Schlaack, C. (eds), Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, pp. 175-208. Available at: http://policymix.nina.no.
75. Schroter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I., Mockel, S., Schulz-Zunkel, C., Lienhoop, N., Klenke, R. and Lenk, T., 2013. Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodi collabversity conservation in Germany: The role of ecological fiscal transfers. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 1/2013. UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Available at: http://policymix.nina.no.
76. Schroter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I., Koellner, T., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Clemente, P., Mathevet, R., Borie, M., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., 2014. Intergovernmental fiscal trans collabfers to support local conservation action in Europe. The German Journal of Economic Geography 58(2-3), 98-114.
77. Schwarze, R., 1995. Haftungsrecht und Auflagen als Policy-Mix. Wirtschaftswissenschaft 46, 306-26.
78. Shah, A., 2007. A practitioner's guide to intergovernmental fiscal transfers, in: Boadway, R. and Shah, A. (eds), Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: Principles and Practices. Washington, DC: World Bank, pp. 1-53.
79. Silva, M., 2000. Cria reserva do Fundo de Participa^ao dos Estados e do Distrito Federal - FPE para as Unidades da Federa^ao que abrigarem, em seus territorios, unidades de conserva^ao da natureza e terras indigenas demarcadas. Projeto do lei do senado, No. 53 de 2000 - Complementar, Brasilia.
80. Sorrell, S. (ed.) 2003. Interaction in EU climate policy, final report. Project No.: EVK2-CT- 2000-0067. University of Sussex, UK.
81. Sorrell, S. and Sijm, J., 2003. Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19, 420-37.
82. Sterner, T., 2003. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: RFF Press.
83. Tacconi, L., 2012. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 73, 29-36.
84. TEEB, 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An Interim Report. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: www.teebweb.org.
85. TEEB, 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, Brussels: European Commission. Available at: www.teebweb.org.
86. TEEB, 2011. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Ed. P. ten Brink. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.
87. TEEB, 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy and Management. Eds H. Wittmer and H. Gundimeda. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.
88. The Nature Conservancy, 2014. ICMS Ecologico. Available at: http://www.icmsecologico. org.br, accessed 24 November 2014.
89. Tinbergen, J., 1952. On the Theory of Economic Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
90. Turner, R.K. and Opschoor, J.B., 1994. Environmental economics and environmental policy instruments: Introduction and overview, in: Opschoor, J.B. and Turner, R.K. (eds), Economic Incentives and Environmental Policies: Principles and Practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer pp. 1-38.
91. Urwin, K. and Jordan, A., 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change 18, 180-91.
92. Van Gossum, P., Arts, B. and Verheyen, K., 2010. From 'smart regulation' to 'regulatory arrangements'. Policy Sciences 43, 245-61.
93. Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69, 1245-52.
94. Vatn, A., Barton, D.N., Lindhjem, H., Movik, S., Ring, I. and Santos, R., 2011. Can markets protect biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms. Noragric Report No. 60. Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB.
95. Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor.
96. Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65, 834-52.
97. Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard, B., Grabosky, P. and McCrone, E., 1996. Reimbursing the future: An evaluation of motivational, voluntary, price-based, property-right, and regulatory incentives for the conservation of biodi collabversity. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, the Australian Centre for Environmental Law, and Community Solutions, Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.
98. Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.