Feasibility of Funding & Cost-Effectiveness Assessments

1. Feasibility of Funding & Cost-Effectiveness Assessments Peter Nowicki - ECNC - nowicki@ecnc.org Expert Workshop on Biodiversity and Economics EEA, Copenhagen, 5 October 2006

2. Funding: Market based instruments Market based instruments seek to address the market failure of ‘environmental externalities’ … (through) the establishment of a proxy market for environmental services. hhtp://glossary.eea.int/EEAGlossary/M/market-based_instrument

3. Biodiversity in the market place … … conserves a public good (water quality, stream flow, wild life), but the incentive to do this comes from the resulting enhanced ability to sell an associated private good. The presence of a public good means that the market incentives to conserve are less strong than required for overall economic efficiency, but by capturing some of the value of that good the market improves on the pre-existing situation. Geoffrey Heal, 1998: Markets and Sustainability

4. To date, markets have not performed notably well in conserving our planet’s environment. Indeed, they have done quite the opposite. But this is not intrinsic in markets. They can be reoriented in a positive direction, in which case their potential for good is immense. Markets need legal infrastructure…. Geoffrey Heal, 1998: Markets and Sustainability

5. International donors invest billions of dollars to conserve ecosystems in low-income nations. The most common investments aim to encourage commercial activities, such as ecotourism, that indirectly generate ecosystem protection as a joint product. We demonstrate that paying for ecosystem protection directly can be far more cost-effective. P.J. Ferraro & R.D. Simpson, 2002: The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments

7. Access rights Use rights Ownership Defining clear objectives Time-scale needs to be accounted for Prompt monitoring in order to be effective Evaluation after implementation Managing ‘markets’ for biodiversity

8. Break-down of MBIs DG Env (July 2006): The Use of Market Incentives to Preserve Biodiversity

9. Environmental Service Index FAO (May 2004): Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services in Agricultural Landscapes

10. Cost-effectivesness • Policy level: Sum of measures costs less than another array of measures • Individual measure: Generates a higher level of conservation for a given amount of costs DG Env (July 2006): The Use of Market Incentives to Preserve Biodiversity

11. Biodiversity financing: EU The cost (including income foregone) of those activities / investments which serve to protect or to enhance the favourable conservation status of species and habitats. In reference to Article 2 of the Habitats Directive

12. Actions beneficial for biodiversity • Add to territory • Manage territory • Promote conservation measures • Protect migration pathways • Regulate land use (positive)

13. Actions to avoid harm to biodiversity • Compensate past / future disruption • Reintroduce species • Forbid certain uses of biodiversity • Monitor species • Regulate land use (negative)

14. Metric of assessment - 1 • Ecological coherence • Habitat / species resilience over time • Conservation measures implemented • Perenity of migration assured • Land use maintained or enhanced

15. Metric of assessment - 2 • Restoration or substitution • Species implantation successful • Biodiversity deterioration prevented • Population dynamics registered • Land use stopped or diminished

16. Feasibility of funding andcost-effective assessment • Benchmarking and monitoring: indicators • Analyze objectives very carefully (target, target, target…) • Consider all costs, including transaction • Remember the relevant time horizon!