1 / 18

Marianne Darbi, IÖR Dresden PLPR Conference, 10-12 February 2010, Dortmund

Compensation agencies in Germany – a tool to facilitate development and to safeguard environmental protection and restoration. Marianne Darbi, IÖR Dresden PLPR Conference, 10-12 February 2010, Dortmund. 1/18. Outline. Background Goal and Definition Methodology

leona
Download Presentation

Marianne Darbi, IÖR Dresden PLPR Conference, 10-12 February 2010, Dortmund

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. Compensation agencies in Germany – a tool to facilitate development and to safeguard environmental protection and restoration Marianne Darbi, IÖR Dresden PLPR Conference, 10-12 February 2010, Dortmund 1/18

  2. Outline • Background • Goal and Definition • Methodology • Why do compensation agencies emerge? • Core parameters of compensations agencies • Suggestion to cluster types • Advantages and potentials • Obstacles and criticism • Conclusion • The way ahead 2/18

  3. Background Impact Mitigation Regulation (“Eingriffsregelung”) is the major landscape conservation instrument to address mitigation and compensation for impacts from developments and projects in Germany: entered into force as part of the Federal Nature Conservation Act 1976 comprehensive approach (for all impacts, on all scales, not restricted to specific areas) deficiencies in the proper implementation of compensation measures 2002 and 2009 amendments to the Federal Nature Conservation Act loosening of the spatial and functional connection between impact and compensation compensation pools: provision and bundling of compensation sites and measures • Planning yes, implementation maybe, control no?* * ANL – Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (ed.) (1999): Ausgleich und Ersatz. Planung ja, Umsetzung vielleicht, Kontrolle nein? Laufener Seminarbeiträge 1/99. 3/18

  4. Goal and definition Goal: Survey on procedural and financial aspects of compensation agencies in Germany* How are compensation agencies • How are compensation agencies established / implemented in practice? • Which barriers and difficulties does the creation of compensation agencies face? • Which potentials do compensation agencies have? Compensation agencies (‘Flächenagenturen’) “Compensation agencies are new service providers in the field of nature conservation, which establish compensation pools and procure sites and measures for developers“ (BFAD e. V. 2008). Compensation agencies are experts on compensation pools – including planning, implementation and long-term management. They provide services and support to investors, authorities and all local partners“ (BFAD e. V. 2008). * Financed by KfW Banking Group 4/18

  5. Methodology blabla Empirical study: 25 compensation agencies throughout Germany (almost all federal states, the so-called ‘Länder’ are covered) Examined compensation agencies are not evenly spread (differences in compensation demand due to e.g. population density and economic growth) Questionnaire and telephone expert interviews 5/18

  6. Why do compensation agencies emerge? * * multiple mentions possible 6/18

  7. Core parameters of compensation agencies blabla • What are the core parameters that influence the functioning and financing of compensation agencies? • form of organisation / legal form • number of employees • focus solely on compensation vs. compensation as one of a multitude of fields of action • more nature conservation orientation vs. more economic orientation • area of influence and clients • availability and safeguarding of compensation sites • financing and cost recovery 7/18

  8. 1. Form of organisation / legal form legal form number of employees * non-profit organisations for rural development at the level of the 'Länder', under form of a limited liability company (ltd.) 8/18

  9. 2. Area of influence and clients great differences of scale and location interrelation between area of influence and possible clients (small area  acting locally) * * multiple mentions possible 9/18

  10. 3. Availability and safeguarding of compensation sites different states of the examined compensation agencies regarding stocksourcing of compen-sation sites and measures vs. on demand mostly sites in stock but implementation on demand of compensation measures (high costs) * * multiple mentions possible 10/18

  11. Are there any barriers for cost recovery? 4. Financing and cost recovery Differences in the overall business orientation (profit, cost recovery, no cost recovery expected) What costs occur and what are financial means used for? * * multiple mentions possible 11/18

  12. blabla The heterogeneity of the examined compensation agencies reflects the current situation.  There is not one new homogeneous compensation services provider but a multitude of different types. 12/18

  13. Suggestion to cluster types Type 1: “Compensation agencies” Type 2: Landgesellschaften* Type 3: Nature conservation foundations and associations Type 4: Municipal and district administration Type 5a: Public utilities 5b: Property managers * non-profit organisations for rural development at the level of the 'Länder', under form of a limited liability company (ltd.) 13/18

  14. Advantages and potentials blabla steered development / inclusion into an overall concept is beneficial both economically and ecologically (simpler and speed up lincensing procedure, creation of ecological networks, measures are implemented where it is most useful from a nature conservation point of view) can lead to a reduction of land consumption bundling increases the efficiency of the implementation and maintenance of measures recovery of complex ecosystems and possibility to implement also cost-intensive measures diminution of time lag effects bundling of capacity and technical know-how broad participation and acceptance (reduction of land use conflicts etc.) 14/18

  15. Obstacles and criticism blabla risk that the appropriateness to compensate may not always be considered advance financing uncertainty (refinancing of sites and measures cannot be guaranteed) need for trained personnel preference for low cost measures price dumping can have a negative effect on the quality of the measures to date: lacking transparency and transferability (valuation techniques to balance impact and compensation and cost calculation differ very much) 15/18

  16. Conclusion IMR according to law remains the overall framework and defines the basic principles  requires on-the-ground measures (mere preservation, environmental education etc. is not sufficient) Compensation agencies can improve the implementation both quantitatively (overcoming lack in enforcement) and qualitatively (common quality standards) Market dynamics: further development? (no unification expected) 16/18

  17. The way ahead – what needs to be done? • In particular: • identify and address the potentials and deficits of the different types of compensation agencies • In general: • work on common quality standards (nature conservation point of view) • Work on transparent full costing (economic / business-management point of view) http://www.verband-flaechenagenturen.de/index.html 17/18

  18. Thank you for your attention! Leibniz Institute of ecological and regional development Marianne Darbi Weberplatz 1 Fon: 0351 463 42356 01217 Dresden Fax : 0351 4679 212 www.ioer.de E-Mail: M.Darbi@ioer.de 18/18

More Related