Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix

1. Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision Impact evaluation methods for biodiversity conservation policies: challenges in a policymix david.barton@nina.no

2. Overview POLICYMIX project in a nutshell POLICYMIX case studies and economic instruments Challenges in evaluating PES in a policymix Possiblediscussion

3. Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision 2010 –2014 Key aims Evaluating rolesof economic instruments in a policy mix cost-effectivenessof existing and proposed instruments missing, redundant, synergistic or conflicting instrument roles, comparing across case studies Transferability of policy lessons between Latin America and Europe Timeline 2010-2011: Review of economic instruments and framework development 2011-2013: 7 case studies at national and regional/local levels (contributing to TEEB follow-up) 2013-2014: Comparative analysis, synthesis, policy recommendations and dissemination http://policymix.nina.no

4. POLICYMIX Where? Finland Norway Netherlands UK Germany Portugal Costa Rica Mato Grosso Brazil Mata Atlántica Brazil ESV=Environmental Service Value REDES Source: Turner et al. (2007)

5. POLICYMIX case studies • Voluntaryforestconservation • publicauctioncontracts • agglomerationbonuses • comp.biodiversiyvalues • METSO PES modalities:=> fixed term • => permanent • => auctions • Ecologicalfiscal • Transfers (EFT) REDD+ PES Certification Certification PES BIOTAtargeted PES EFT REDD+; EFT; PES; minimum pricing NTFB

6. Challenges in evaluatingimpact of economic instruments in a policymix Dynamic drivers and baselines B&ES impact indicators Confounding & Matching criteria Policy path- dependency Intervention vs. policymix Cross-case transferability Mixed methods Source: Angelsen et al.(2009)

7. POLICYMIX EI challenge: cross-casetransferability Mato Grosso, Brazil States Mata Atlântica, São Paulo, Brazil Saxony, Germany Regional administrations Western Forest Region, Finland Case study scale (km2) South-Eastern Norway Hojancha, Costa Rica Municipalities Forest cover Moura-BarrancosPortugal Stage 1: Undisturbed/ little disturbed forests Stage 2: Forest frontiers; high deforestation/ extraction rates. Stage 3: Forest mosaics with stabilised cover; (low or zero net deforestation) Stage 4: Increasing forest cover and quality due to afforestation and reforestation Time / Space Source: adapted from Angelsen (2008)

8. Impact evaluation of Payments for Environmental Services (PSA) Costa Rica • Land cover, land use and institutional contextsappropriate for PES represent a minor part landscape and biodiveristy variation under threat. Protected area buffer zonesplay a key role in increasing PES effectiveness (Calvo-Alvarado et al. 2008) • PES is more effective in promoting forest recovery than preventing deforestation (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003; Arriagada 2008) • PES impact evaluation studies have not considered economic development context nor ex ante policy paths (Daniels et al. 2010)

9. Confoundingfactors in assessing PES effectiveness Source: Pagiola et al. 2005 • PES participation is not randomized: • elligibility • willingness • ability to participate • = f(location and landowner specific factors) • => observable?

10. Approach: GIS matching of location characteristics to generate a statisticallyefficient ’control’ group Factual (Treatment) Counterfactual (Untreated) Parcel X enrolled in PES Parcel Y not enrolled in PES Matching: forest cover, landuse, census data, environmental char. (biodiversity surrogates), prior incentives, neighbouring protected areas, etc. Examples: Robalino et al.(2008), Arriagada (2008)

11. Challenge: PES ’policy pathdependency’ MACRO NATIONAL POLICY PATH LANDSCAPE & FOREST STAND Ban Absolute PAs Multiple use PAs Clearing rights Multifunctional zoning Tax credit PES targeting & modalities Reforest.subs. PES Soft credit Sources: based on Flores Rodas, 1985; MINAE; FONAFIFO n.y. in Kleinn et al. 2002; CATIE). Certification Forest cover Stage 1: Undisturbed/ little disturbed forests Stage 2: Forest frontiers; high deforestation/ extraction rates. Stage 4: Increasing forest cover and quality due to afforestation and reforestation Stage 3: Forest mosaics with stabilised cover; (low or zero net deforestation) FOREST TRANSITION STAGES Time / Space

12. Pathdependency and dynamic drivers • National pathdependency: developmentcontextdeterminingnational ex ante deforestation trends • Localpathdependency: Spatial correlationbetween pre-PES reforestation incentives and early PES contracts. • Recentlandusechange drivers: coastal real estatedevelopment and urbanization • New landuse change drivers: biofuelsand 2021 carbon neutrality objective Source: Daniels et al. (2010)

13. Continual modifications of PES instrument • The forest conservation incentive has been studied in IEs, but it is the other modalities - management, reforestation and perhaps agroforestry(SAF) - that seem to have promoted the greatest effect on forest cover

14. Roles of PES in a policymix is spatiallyexplicit (complementarity, redundancy or conflict) increased targeting of unique and specific locations Represent-ation of landscape character-istics (biodiversity complementarity) Blanket ban ondeforestation Public protected areas? PES for forest conservation? Legend PES for reforestation? Instrument roles: redundancy complementarity Opportunity costs/ha of forest landuse High deforestation areas Lower deforestation areas

15. Impactevaluation indicators • Forest cover… • Biodiversity complementarity • Connectivity • Ecosystem services…

16. Conclusions: Mixed methods in IE Quantitative method: programme evaluation Participation in treatment (T) Treatmentoutcome (Y) theories of change Qualitative methods: alternative theories of participation confounders sample bias Observedindividualcharacteristics (X) Unobservedindividualcharacteristics external validity Observedexogenoussitecharacteristics (Z) Qualitative methods: case study boundaries Unobservedcontextcharacteristics

17. policymix.nina.no