Case studies / Portugal
Coarse Grain Case Study Summary Portugal
The Portuguese case study will be developed at both national and local level. While the coarse-grain analysis considered the whole continental Portugal, the fine grain study will focus on a selected area in the southeast portion of the country.Contact: Paula Antunes, CENSE
Case study location and conservation characteristics
Forest biodiversity in Portugal is mostly associated to human-shaped habitat/landscape, such as montados or cork oak (Quercus suber) and holm oak (Quercus rotundifolia) forests. Montados are multifunctional systems that, besides forming a diversity of habitats of high conservation value, contribute to climate regulation, water cycle regulation, soil quality, protection against fire and provision of cork and other products. Thus, the protection of montados is fundamental to national goals related to climate regulation, biodiversity conservation and maintenance of socio-economic activities in rural areas.Besides agriculture and infrastructure expansion, montados are currently threatened by pine and eucalyptus monoculture, which associated to a scarce and fragmented native forest and to high frequency of fires has had high negative impacts on species diversity. Increases in land abandonment rates may also jeopardize montados, as the conservation value of this ecosystem depends on the maintenance of the shrub‐grassland matrix through human management. In addition, poor agriculture practices are increasing the spread of diseases (e.g. pathogenic fungi), and preventing montados natural regeneration with new oak trees, which threatens it sustainability in the long-run.
Current economic instruments in biodiversity conservation
In Portugal policies regarding forest/biodiversity conservation are mainly based on command-and-control instruments (e.g. the national network of protected areas, Natura 2000 Network) imposing land-use restrictions or impacting agricultural and forest management practices in some territories. For this reason, conservation costs are usually unevenly spread, with some public and private actors facing costs related to protected areas or conservation activities. Compensatory measures are required for reconciling the local costs and global benefits of biodiversity conservation. Two particular economic instruments that may fulfill this role were selected and analyzed in the coarse grain case study: Agri-environment measures (AEM), which are financial incentives designed to encourage farmers to protect the environment on their farmland – including forest and agroforest systems (specifically directed to private actors); and Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFT), which since 2007 integrate the annual transfers from the national general budget to the municipalities in order to compensate them for land‐use restrictions imposed by protected areas (specifically directed to local public actors).
No concrete evidences of the effectiveness of these instruments were found on the national case study. The EFT effectiveness has been threatened by changes simultaneously introduced in other funds and allocation criteria in the 2007 amendments of the Local Finances Law. Crossover effects that arise as a result of the different changes, the introduction of smoothing rules to avoid drastic fluctuations and the small magnitude of the ecological component, contribute to hide the financial incentive offered to municipalities by the ecological signal. In regards to AEM, the coarse grain analysis showed evidences of low implementation due to, among other factors, unfavourable economic scenario, complex eligibility requirements, insufficient financial compensation, lack of technical support and administrative constraints.
New and potential economic instruments
The coarse grain analysis did not focus on proposing new economic instruments at a national level, but on proposing changes to the EFT scheme in order to improve their effectiveness and/or cost-efficiency. The ecological criterion considered in the EFT is based on a single indicator, the amount of Classified Areas. Therefore, aspects related to the “relevance” (e.g. representativeness) or “quality of management” of protected areas, or to the environmental benefits provided by areas outside networks for nature conservation are not taken into account. In this context, it was proposed the inclusion of new ecological indicators that could better link financial compensations to the positive externalities (e.g. ecosystem services) each municipality provides to society, and several scenarios for different magnitudes of the ecological signal were simulated. For example, scenarios for the allocation of public funds were developed considering as alternative indicator the sum of the mean provision of cultural, regulating and supporting services by each municipality.Changes will also be proposed to the AEM during the fine grain analysis. The effectiveness and efficiency of this instrument can be enhanced through the inclusion of new measures and/or target ecological features, as well as through the introduction of new criteria for the allocation of incentives (improve targeting). Lack of data at national scale hindered impact evaluation of this instrument and, consequently, the proposal of changes and scenarios in the coarse grain assessment.Lessons from the implementation of EFT in Brazil (ICMS Ecológico) for several years (e.g. “quality” criterion in Paraná) are relevant for the analysis and proposal of changes to the Portuguese instrument. Also the simulations results on the implementation of a new EFT scheme in Germany, will be relevant namely to propose alternative ecological criteria in intergovernmental fiscal transfers. The German study suggests that both area-based and qualitative indicators should be taken into account to assess conservation responsibilities of each State, and a set of ecological indicators were presented, which can be inspiring for the Portuguese case. In regards to the AEM, it is expected that voluntary contracts designed by Finland and Norway and the Costa Rica experience can be a source of lessons for the changes that will be proposed in the Portuguese scheme.
Instrument interactions in the federal/national/state Policymix
The policy strategy for biodiversity conservation is mainly based, since the 1980’s, in command-and-control instruments, namely the establishment of ecological reserves and natural parks and the protection of endangered species and habitats. The costs arising from restrictions imposed by command-and-control policies, as well as the need to increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity of conservation policies led to the introduction of complementary economic instruments. The new policies started to recognize the central role of private and public stakeholders as land managers and proactive actors, and tried to align their interests to conservation goals. The first instruments implemented were subsidy-based (i.e. forest development subsidies, followed by the introduction of AEM), and focused on compensating local actors for conservation costs. In 2007, an ecological criterion was incorporated in intergovernmental fiscal transfers in order to compensate also local public actors (municipalities).We did not find any evidence that policymakers and policies in Portugal dealing with the application of economic instruments have been visibly influenced by experiences (e.g. PES, TDR, EFT) in other states/countries.The fine grain case study will focus on the potential of EFT, AEM, and Classified Areas (i.e. Fundamental Network for Nature Conservation, and Natura 2000 Network) to complement each other. The demarcation of protected areas is considered one of the essential regulatory instruments for biodiversity conservation in Portugal. However, it creates several restrictions to land use both for private actors (Natura 2000 does not exclude human activity, but restricts management practices) and public actors, who then have to bear the costs of conservation. EFT based on the amount and restriction level imposed by Classified Areas in each municipality can, if effectively applied, compensate public actors for the limitations imposed and increase acceptance of new and existing protected areas. Complementarily, AEM addressing local private actors within protected areas (e.g. measures oriented to landowners in within Natura 2000 sites) may compensate private actors for their conservation costs.
Local fine grain analysis – research questions and challenges
The Site of Community Interest Moura-Mourão-Barrancos and the Birds Special Protection Area Moura-Barrancos will be the core area to develop the fine grain analysis, representing around 900 km2 (30% of the total local area) .
Local case study area. A) Land use according to CORINE Land Cover 2006; B) Classified areas: AP = National Protected area; SIC= Site of Community interest; ZPE = Bird special Protection Area.
Economic instrument effectiveness
The coarse grain analysis showed that, in general, implementation of AEM has been low. Thus, the ecological effectiveness of this instrument at local level is not expected to be high. EFT are not expected to be highly effective at local level either, since the national case study showed that the criteria and algorithm adopted for the allocation of transfers end up eroding the ecological signal in play.
The fine grain assessment will focus on identifying constrains in the current design of the AEM scheme that may be preventing this instrument from achieving its full conservation potential. Improvements will be proposed in order to ensure spatial continuity of conservation actions and guarantee minimum area requirements for specific conservation goals, therefore increasing AEM ecological effectiveness.
In this stage of the fine grain analysis the Marxan software, which provides decision support to a range of conservation planning problems, will be used. Marxan was primarily designed to address a class of reserve design problems known as “the minimum set”, where the goal is to ensure a given representation of biodiversity features for the smallest possible cost. To date, Marxan has been used mostly with the purpose of helping design reserve systems. In Portugal, however, biodiversity is many times associated to ecosystems highly dependent on human management, for which reserve systems are not a suitable conservation approach. For this reason, the present work aims to use Marxan for a conservation planning task other than setting protected areas, which is optimizing the distribution of AEM that address conservation of particular human-shaped systems. The main methodological challenge for the tasks proposed is to obtain refined spatial data on the distribution of AEM and ecological features.
Economic instrument costs and benefits
Estimating costs and benefits at local level of both AEM and EFT is an important step to better assess the impact of these instruments, as well as to propose changes to increase their cost-effectiveness. In regards to the EFT, the aim of the fine grain analysis is to identify opportunity, management and transaction costs associated with PAs for municipalities, as well as how do they relate to amounts received as compensation through the EFT-LFL scheme. In addition, we will assess the effects of introducing new ecological criteria for municipalities in the case study area. For the AEM the idea is to assess the opportunity costs for local landowners and their relation with currently received compensations, as well as estimating acceptable compensation payments based on the WTP/WTA of landowners for the new proposed AEM actions/measures.The central methodological approach to carry on the tasks proposed above is conducting choice experiments with private actors (landowners), benefiting from the previous work developed for the German and Dutch cases, and cooperating with the Costa Rica team.
Economic instrument equity and legitimacy
Equity and legitimacy of the economic instruments considered were poorly assessed during the coarse grain phase due to limitation of conducting such analysis at national level. For this reason, we plan to better investigate these aspects directly with the main stakeholders for the local case study. For the EFT, we will try to assess the perceived fairness by the local public actors, and the scheme contribution to change their perceptions and attitudes towards biodiversity conservation. We also want to identify the main beneficiaries of AEM and, with these answers make proposals to improve fairness (procedural and outcome) in the scheme.Interviews and focus groups will be the methodologies employed to help estimating equity and legitimacy of EFT and AEM at local level.
Institutional opportunities and constraints for economic instruments
The coarse grain analysis showed that there are several institutional constrains undermining the effectiveness of AEM. For the local case study we want to interview local actors in order to identify the institutional factors affecting participation in AEM in the local area. With a clear idea of these factors, we plan to propose a more effective scheme by identifying target actors and management entities, as well as proposing new rules and guidelines.
Integrated Policymix assessments
Analysis of EFT and AEM effectiveness, cost efficiency and social legitimacy will be performed considering interactions between the three instruments mentioned (PA, EFT and AEM). Conclusions will be derived regarding the way instruments effectiveness can be enhanced through design changes, in light of their co-existence with other current conservation instruments.
Abebe, S. et al. (2011) A review of the cost-effectiveness and performance of selected Verifiable Emission Reduction (VER) carbon offsets. Joint Technical Brief POLIYCMIX and FUNCiTREE No. 1
Project publications • Ecosystem service values
Andrade, J. et al., compensation for Legal Reserves in Northwest Mato Grosso: a policymix to reduce deforestation
Project publications • Modelling
Balvanera, P. et al.(2012). Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art . Ecosystem Services, In Press
Peer reviewed • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Policy instruments - AEM
Barton et al. (2014) Guidelines for multi-scale policy mix assessments. POLICYMIX Technical Brief No. 12
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes
Barton, D. N. et al. (2010) Assessing the Role of Economic Instruments in a Policy Mix for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Provision: A Review of Some Methodological Challenges. Discussion Paper 1-2010
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes
Barton, D. N. et al. (2012)Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Report 1/2012
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes
Barton, D. N. et al. (2013) Guidelines for opportunity cost evaluation of conservation policy instruments. Technical Brief Issue no. 11 (rev.)
Project publications • Ecosystem service values
Barton, D.N. , I. Ring, G. Rusch (2014) Policyscape: Nature-based policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes
Barton, D.N. et al. (2013) Policyscape—A Spatially Explicit Evaluation of Voluntary Conservation in a Policy Mix for Biodiversity Conservation in Norway. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26:10, 1185-1201
Peer reviewed • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Modelling;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - PES
Begossi, A., May, P. H., Lopes, P. F., Oliveira, L.E.C., Vinha, V. and Silvano, R.A.M. 2011. Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: Policy and technical strategies. Ecological Economics, 71:25- 32.
Peer reviewed
Bernasconi, P.; S. Blumentrath; D.N. Barton; G. Rusch & A. R. Romeiro (2013) Policyscape— The potential of Tradable Development Rights (TDR) to improve effectiveness and reduce the costs of biodiversity conservation: study case in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Modelling
Bittner, S. and Lienhoop, N., 2013: Understanding non-participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes for afforestation. The case of West Saxony.
Project publications • Ecosystem service values
Blumentrath, S. (2011) Site prioritisation models and their suitability for assessing and designing policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision: a comparison of software packages. Technical Brief Issue no.4
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Modelling
Brouwer, R. and Simon, T. (2011) Review of the Biodiversity Valuation Literature and Meta-Analysis. Report 5/2011
Project publications • Ecosystem service values;Modelling
Brouwer, R. et al. (2013) Guidelines for biodiversity valuation and benefits assessment of economic instruments. Tecnical Brief Issue no. 10
Project publications • Ecosystem service values
Brouwer, R., Tesfaye, A., and Pauw, P. (2011). Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 380-392.
Peer reviewed • Ecosystem service values;Modelling
Bunikyte, R., G. M. Rusch, and B. J. Graae. 2012. A time-line analysis of the public biodiversity conservation mix: Changes in conservation gains in the county of Sør-Trøndelag.
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Cassola, R.S. 2011. Ecological Fiscal Transfers for Biodiversity Conservation: Options for a federal-state arrangement in Brazil. Master thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau.
Project publications • Institutional fit;Modelling;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Chacón-Cascante et al. 2013. Evaluating the policymix path dependency of PES using socio-ecological system characteristics: the case of Hojancha, Nicoya and Nandayure
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Chacón-Cascante et al. 2014. Social Impact evaluation of forest conservation and reforestation PES contracts in Hojancha
Project publications • Social impact;Policy instruments - PES
Chacón-Cascante, A.et al. (2012). Costa Rica: National level assessment of the role of economic instruments in the conservation policymix. Report 2/2012
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM
Clemente, P., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Pinto, R. Assessing farmers’ perceptions and performance of agri-environmental schemes in a multifunctional agro-forest system: lessons for instrument design in a conservation policymix.
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Social impact;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM
Cárdenas et al. 2014. Costa Rica: Effectivity of PES carbon balance in livestock systems in Nicoya peninsula, Costa Rica
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Policy instruments - PES
Dang Phan, T. et al. (2014) The economic costs of avoided deforestation in the developing world: A meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 20 (2014) 1-16
Peer reviewed
Del Arco, P., May P. H., Rusch, G.. 2013. The effect of forest proximity on biological control of pasture in Northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil: an economic analysis for land use policy. ESEE Conference, Lille.
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Droste, N. 2013. Naturschutz im föderalen System Deutschlands. Eine ökonomische Perspektive auf einen ökologischen Länderfinanzausgleich. Masterarbeit, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg und Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung - UFZ, Leipzig, Oldenburg.
Project publications • Institutional fit;Modelling;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Droste, N., Ring, I., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Lenk, T. Ecological Fiscal transfers in Germany. Discussion paper draft.
Project publications • Institutional fit
Fasiaben, M.C.R., Gori, A., Andrade, D.C., Ângelo, J.A. Costs of environmental protection in different types of agricultural production units: the case of Cantareira-Mantiqueira Corridor Region.
Project publications • Ecosystem service values;Policy instruments - PES
Grieg-Gran, M. et al. (2011) Guidelines for Assessing Social Impacts and Legitimacy in Conservation. Technical Guide Issue no. 1
Project publications • Social impact
Grieg‐Gran, M. et al. (2013) Best practice guidelines for assessing social impacts and legitimacy of conservation policy instruments. Technical Brief Issue no.8
Project publications • Social impact
J. Vivan (in memoriam), R. Davenport, P.C. Nunes, R. Abad, P.H. May, D.N. Barton, L.P. Amaral. 2013. Pilot projects and agroenvironmental measures in northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil: impacts and lesson for REDD+ policy “mixes.” Paper presented at ESEE Conference, Lille.
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Kachele, K. et al. (2012) Forest certification: a voluntary instrument for environmental governance. In: Bandyopadhyay, J.; Chopra, K.; Ghosh, N. (eds.) Environmental governance: Approaches, imperatives and methods. Bloomsbury, Mumbai, p. 281-300, 2012.
Peer reviewed
Klassert, C., und Möckel, S. (2013). Improving the Policy Mix: The Scope for Market-Based Instruments in EU Biodiversity Policy. Environmental Policy and Governance (EPG) 23: 311-322
Peer reviewed • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
Lienhoop, N., Brouwer, R., 2014: Agrienvironmental policy valuation: Farmers‘ design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Planning
Peer reviewed • Ecosystem service values
Lindhjem, H ., K. Grimsrud, S. Navrud and S. O. Kolle (forthcoming) "The Social Benefits and Costs of Preserving Forest Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services".
Peer reviewed
Lindhjem, H. and Mitani, Y. (2012) Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach. Journal of Forest Economics 18 (2012) 290–302
Peer reviewed
May P. H., M. F. Gebara, G. Lima, C. Jordão, P. Nogueira, M. Grieg-Gran. 2013. The effectiveness and fairness of the “Ecological ICMS” as a fiscal transfer for biodiversition conservation. A tale of two municipalities in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Paper presented at ESEE Conference, Lille.
Project publications • Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
May, P. et al. (2012) Assessment of the role of economic and regulatory instruments in the conservation policymix for the Brazilian Amazon – a coarse grain study. Report 5/2012
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
May, P.H. et al (2012) The "Ecological" Value Added Tax (ICMS-Ecologico) in Brazil and its effectiveness in State biodiversity conservation: a comparative analysis
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
May, P.H. et al (2013) The effectiveness and fairness of the "Ecological ICMS" as a fiscal transfer for biodiversity conservation. A tale of two municipalities in Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Project publications • Social impact;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Mitani, Y. and H. Lindhjem (2014) "Forest owners' participation in voluntary biodiversity conservation in Norway: What does it take to forego forestry for eternity?"... Resubmitted and under review, Revised April 2014.
Peer reviewed
Möckel, S. 2013 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 2013 (11), p. 85 - 94
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit
Paloniemi, Riikka and Vainio, Annukka (2011) 'Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two conceptual approaches for explaining forest owners' willingness to cooperate in nature conservation', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8: 2, 123 - 138
Peer reviewed • Social impact;Policy instruments - AEM
Pinto, R., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Blumentrath, S., Clemente, P. Evaluating spatial targeting and planning effectiveness of policies: Illustrative example of an agri-environmental measure application in a multifunctional system. (in preparation)
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Modelling;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement
Porras, I. , A. Chacon Cascante, D.N.Barton, D. Tobar (2014) Ecosystems for Sale. Land prices and payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica
Project publications • Ecosystem service values;Modelling;Policy instruments - PES
Porras, I., Barton, D.N, Miranda, M. and Chacón-Cascante, A. (2013). Learning from 20 years of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Policy instruments - PES
Primmer (2011), Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 16, 1822 - 1832
Peer reviewed • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement
Primmer, E. et al. (2011) Draft Guidelines for the analysis of institutions shaping biodiversity policy instrument applicability. Technical Brief Issue No. 2
Project publications • Institutional fit
Primmer, E. et al. (2013) Best practice guidelines on the role of multi‐level governance institutions in policy. Technical Brief Issue No. 9
Project publications • Institutional fit
Primmer, E. et al. (2013) Finland: Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation at national level POLICYMIX Report Issue No 2/2013. This report replaces POLICYMIX Report 4/2012.
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM
Primmer, E. et al.(2013) Evolution in Finland's Forest Biodiversity Conservation Payments and the Institutional Constraints on Establishing New Policy, Society and Natural Resources, 0:1-18
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., Tainio A. 2014. Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out. Ecological Economics 103, 1-10.
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Puga, B.P., Chiodi, R., Sarcinelli, O., Andrade, D.C., Romeiro, A.R. Institutional aspects of PES schemes in Cantareira System Region.
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Raitanen, E. et al. (2013) Economic Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Conservation & the EU State Aid. Regulation. Journal for european environmental & planning law 10(1), 6-28.
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Ramos-Bendaña et al. 2014. Evaluating spatial targeting of payments for forest ecosystem services: Using ‘policy benchmark scenarios’ derived from conservation planning tools
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Policy instruments - PES
Ring, I. et al. (2011) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. Report 2/2011
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
Ring, I. et al. (2011) Recommendations for assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity and ecosystem governance. Technical Brief Issue no. 5
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Trade policy;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
Robalino et al. Substitutability and complementarity of forest conservation policies
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Modelling;Policy instruments - PES
Romeiro, A.R. et al. (2012) Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in São Paulo -Brazil: a coarse grain analysis. Report 3/2012
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
Rugtveit, S.V., D. N. Barton, S. Navrud, A. Chacón Cascante (2013) Transaction and compliance costs of payments for ecosystem services in a public-private benefits framework - a case study from Peninsula de Nicoya, Costa Rica. Submitted to Ecosystem Services
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Rusch,G.M. et al. (2011) Existing data and adequacy of the datasets for the national and local scales analyses for assessing gains in maintaining biodiversity. POLICYMIX Report Issue 3/2011
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Rusch,G.M. et al. (2011) Policy outcomes: A guideline to assess biodiversity conservation and ESS provision gains. Technical Brief Issue no.3
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Rusch,G.M. et al. (2013) Best practice guidelines for assessing effectiveness of instruments on biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision. Technical Brief Issue no. 7
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Sanchez, Oscar (2014): Arreglos Institucionales del Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales (PSA) en Costa Rica
Policy instruments - PES
Santos, R. et al. (2012) Assessment of the role of economic instruments in the Portuguese conservation policymix – a national coarse grain analysis. Report 6/2012
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM
Santos, R., Antune,s P., Ring, I., Clemente, P., Ribas, T., Directing economic instruments at public and private local stakeholders for biodiversity conservation. The case of agrienvironment schemes and ecological fiscal transfers. Environmental Policy and Governance
Peer reviewed
Santos, R., Clemente, P., Brouwer, R., Antunes, P., Pinto, R., Landowners Preferences for Agri-Environmental Agreements to Improve the Conservation Value of the Montados’ Ecosystem in Portugal (to be submitted in May 2014)
Project publications • Modelling
Santos, R., May, P., Barton, D.N., and Ring, I. (eds.) 2014. Comparative assessment of policy mixes across case studies - common design factors and transferability of assessment results. Report 1/2014.
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - PES
Santos, R., Ring, I., Antunes, P., Clemente, P., 2012. Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation: the Portuguese Local Finances Law. Land Use Policy, 29, 261-273 Acknowledgement: SCALES EC-FP7 project, which funded part of the research
Peer reviewed • Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Schröter et al. (2014) Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 36, 539-551.
Peer reviewed • Ecosystem service values
Schröter et al. (2015) Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversity. PLOS ONE November 13, 2014
Peer reviewed • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - PES
Schröter et al.(2014) Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosystem Services. Available online 1 August 2014.
Project publications • Ecosystem service values;Modelling;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - PES
Schröter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I., Koellner, T., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Clemente, P., Mathevet, R., Borie, M., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2014): Intergovernmental fiscal transfers to support local conservation action in Europe. The German Journal of Economic Geography
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit
Schröter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I., Koellner, T., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Clemente, P., Mathevet, R., Borie, M., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2014): Intergovernmental fiscal transfers to support local conservation action in Europe. The German Journal of Economic Geography 58(2-3). Special Issue on “The economics of protected areas – a European perspective”, 98-114
Project publications • Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Schröter‐Schlaack,C.et al.(2013) Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Germany The role of ecological fiscal transfers. Report 1/2013
Project publications • Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Schulz- Zunkel, C., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I. & Klenke, R. (2014): Selecting biodiversity indicators for implementing ecological fiscal transfers at state level in GermanySubmitted to Ecological Indicators
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers
Simila, J. et al. (2014) Biodiversity Protection in Private Forests: An Analysis of Compliance Journal of Environmental Law, 2014, 0, 1–21
Peer reviewed • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - PES
Similä, J. et al. (2012) Legal analysis of the relationship between European state aid and nature conservation law, and economic instruments for biodiversity protection. Report 7/2012
Project publications • Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Trade policy;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS
Svarstad, H. et al. (2011) Three types of environmental justice - From concepts to empirical studies of social impacts of policy instruments for conservation of biodiversity. Report No 1
Project publications • Social impact
Sverdrup-Thygeson et al. (2015) Spatial Overlap between Environmental Policy Instruments and Areas of High Conservation Value in Forest
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Policy instruments - PES
Vatn et al.(2014) Payments for Nature Values Market and Non-market Instruments
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Ecosystem service values;Social impact;Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - PES
Vatn, A. et al. (2011) Can markets protect Biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms
Project publications • Biodiversity and ecosystem impact;Social impact;Institutional fit;Policy instruments - Comparisons & mixes;Policy instruments - REDD PLUS;Policy instruments - Ecological fiscal transfers;Policy instruments - Protected area enforcement;Policy instruments - AEM;Policy instruments - Tradable rights & offsets
