A National Biodiversity Expenditure- Review for Ireland 2010-2015, Ciaran O'Keefe
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•283 views
The document summarizes a national biodiversity expenditure review for Ireland from 2010-2015. It found that a total of €1.49 billion was spent on biodiversity-related activities, mostly through state institutions and agricultural subsidy schemes. However, little of the expenditure went towards conservation activities like habitat restoration. While some positive incentives existed, like agri-environmental payments, many subsidies in agriculture, forestry and fisheries continue to harm biodiversity. The review concludes there is potential to increase funding through payments for ecosystem services and mobilizing new sources of financing to better support biodiversity goals.
Report
Share
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to A National Biodiversity Expenditure- Review for Ireland 2010-2015, Ciaran O'Keefe
Similar to A National Biodiversity Expenditure- Review for Ireland 2010-2015, Ciaran O'Keefe (20)
More from OECD Environment
More from OECD Environment (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
A National Biodiversity Expenditure- Review for Ireland 2010-2015, Ciaran O'Keefe
- 1. A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland 2010-2015 Ciaran O’Keeffe, Craig Bullock, Rachel Morrison, Deirdre Lynn OECD side event COP14 Copyright KAVANAGH PHOTOGRAPHY Copyright @Kavanagh Photography
- 2. About 66% of the country is farmed, mostly cattle and sheep grazing; very low cover of natural forest
- 6. Status and Trends in Habitats Protected Under the EU Habitats Directive in Ireland 2007-2013 Conservation status of habitats of European interest Biodiversity Decline in Europe and Ireland
- 7. Project objectives To identify biodiversity-related expenditure (for the first time for Ireland) covering the period 2010-15 Which should allow us to: ▪ Identify synergies and how expenditure could be more effective ▪ Identify positive and negative impact of current policies, including perverse incentives ▪ Identify new opportunities to mobilise more resources ▪ Improve design of existing policies. ▪ Identify potential of other instruments, e.g. regulation, Payments for Ecosystem Services, biodiversity offsets, etc. ▪ Report to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and EU A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland
- 8. Time, resource and cost 18 months 1 post-doctoral researcher 4 days pw and principal investigator 1 day pw €78,000 A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland
- 9. Methods Literature review Data collection ▪ Identify status of existing processes, e.g. Central Statistics Office, Irish Aid ▪ Identify expenditure by Government Departments and Agencies ▪ Identify expenditure by non-government bodies, including private sector and NGOs ▪ Agree methodology to apportion expenditure to biodiversity Evaluate future options ▪ Revisit literature, review data and consultation A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland
- 10. Data collection ▪ NATIONAL BUDGET DOCUMENTS ▪ MINISTRY/AGENCY/NGO ANNUAL REPORTS ▪ REQUESTSTO MINISTRIES/AGENCIES AND CONTACTS ▪ CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE: A number of modules produced by the CSO, such as the Environmental Subsidies andTransfers module, provide detailed programmatic level data which are of relevance to the BER ▪ MINISTRY OF FINANCE REVIEW ▪ THE CHARITIES REGULATOR &THE COMPANIES REGISTRATION OFFICE (CRO) A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland
- 11. Data collection –difficulties: ▪ The absence of a standard definition of both biodiversity and biodiversity expenditure ▪ Capturing allocations as well as actual expenditure ▪ Participation of data holders varied considerably ▪ Obtaining detailed data, and tracking its sources back to 2010 ▪ Disentangling complex combinations of public and private investment. ▪ Time demands on limited resources of ministry and NGO staff ▪ Consistency and double counting issues are also issues particularly for NGOs and smaller agencies ▪ Conflicting data between the CSO and government ministries due to differences in reporting approaches. A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland
- 12. Assign coefficients based on relevance of spend to biod. 100% • The sole purpose of the activity is the conservation, protection and/or restoration of biodiversity (or one of the other objectives of the CBD/INBSAP). 75% • The main emphasis or intent of the activity is the conservation, protection or restoration of biodiversity (or at least one of the CBD objectives coupled to a lessor degree with other related objectives). 50% • The conservation of biodiversity is operating in parallel with another non biodiversity related activity. An activity with a dual purpose contributing equally to biodiversity and another objective. 25% • Activities which have primarily been conducted for other purposes but have a clear element of relevance, stated relationship to the conservation of biodiversity stated or expected positive biodiversity impacts. 5% • Activities that only indirectly or theoretically link to the conservation of biodiversity or where small positive biodiversity impacts could be expected from much larger non-BD programmes with at least safeguards in place. 0% • No relevance to biodiversity conservation or immeasurable intent or positive impact on biodiversity.Where there is no evidence of any intent to benefit biodiversity.
- 13. Main findings for Ireland 2010-2015 ▪ Total spend of €1.49bn (equivalent to €250m/year or 0.31% of total government expenditure) ▪ Could also add spending on environmental services of €1.5bn 2010-2015. ▪ State institutions responsible for 97% of expenditure ▪ Central Govt (55%) and EU (42%). ▪ Mostly spent on terrestrial biodiversity (78%), with water (8.4%) and marine (just 1.3%). ▪ Only 2-4% spent on capital projects, e.g. land purchase, remediation, enhancement. ▪ Agricultural schemes had the lion’s share = 75%. Mostly agri-environmental payments. Forestry payments 3% ▪ Relates to NBAP target of “wider environment” = 78% total spend. ▪ Or CBDAichi “sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and forestry target” (70% spend).
- 14. CBD AichiTarget 3: Replacing harmful subsidies and positive incentives ▪ Positive: Biodiversity-positive subsidies ▪ Represent 80% of biodiversity expenditure (10% operational, 6% salaries) ▪ Harmful: Many other subsidies having a negative effect ▪ Project reported that sustainability or biodiversity related subsidies and expenditure is only correcting on the margins. Window dressing?
- 15. Biodiversity incentives ▪ Charges (few examples) ▪ Landfill levy & Plastic bag charge. ▪ Provides income for Environmental Fund of which biodiversity is one recipient. ▪ Salmon license ▪ Re-invested back into management of salmon stocks, including some habitat restoration. ▪ Few examples of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): ▪ Principally: agri-environmental schemes (mainly GLAS). ▪ NBER applied 75% biodiversity coefficient as payments also form a social transfer to smaller farms. ▪ PES are usually voluntary, should be clear and measurable outputs, need causal link between activity and outcome. ▪ Only real example is agri-environmental schemes. ▪ Measurable outputs for activities, but not always for biodiversity. Now piloting results based schemes. ▪ Little coordinated locational targeting of payments to maximise biodiversity. ▪ Could apply PES ▪ To upland management. For clean water supplies (with biodiversity pay-off) ▪ To flood risk management. Maintenance of wetlands (with biodiversity pay-off) ▪ To peatlands. For carbon storage (with biodiversity pay-off).
- 16. Subsidies and incentives that may be harmful ▪ Agricultural transfers: Production and (more recently) area-based income transfers: ▪ Result: Higher productivity, but more production and investment intensive ▪ Biodiversity and environmental consequences: Monocultures, fertiliser use, degradation and loss of habitats, impacts on water quality ▪ More productive farms still largely outside of environmental schemes. ▪ Forestry grants and payments: Subsiding cost of afforestation ▪ Result: Encourage long-term investment in forest resource: ▪ Biodiversity and envir consequences: Commercial conifer monoculture (low biodiversity value), loss of former habitats, increase in small predators in open landscapes; social costs.
- 17. Harmful subsidies and incentives ▪ Marine: Mainly regulatory instruments rather than production incentives, but allocated quotas, grants for boats, gear, etc. ▪ Past result: Increasing catch until early 2000s.. ▪ Biodiversity and envir consequences: 70% stocks over-fished, impacts on non-target species, damage to ecosystems, changes in marine ecosystem ▪ Improving situation. Now 26% fished >MSY, but grant incentives towards more sustainable management <1%. Low take-up. ▪ Peatland: Market price compensation for relative lack of competitiveness of commercial peat fuel ▪ Biodiversity and envir consequences: Loss of habitat, carbon store and water storage. ▪ Some rehabilitation of worked bogs commencing.Compensation to cessation of domestic household cutting of protected bogs.
- 18. Positive developments since 2016 include: ▪ Agri-environment schemes tending towards more results- based payments to farmers ▪ “European Innovation Partnership” projects through EU CommonAgriculture Policy funding used for agri schemes for conservation of hen harrier and freshwater pearl mussel; and implementation of national pollinator plan ▪ Increase in government-funded incentives to plant or manage native woodlands ▪ Business is increasingly adding to such incentives e.g. Microsoft
- 19. CBD AichiTarget 20: Increase mobilisation of financial resources from all sources. ▪ Cannot assume sustainability of Central Government resources – despite fast growing economy, only modest increase in biodiversity financing; slow recovery of staff resources ▪ Ecosystem services provide rationale for new sources for expenditure. In Ireland relevant ecosystem services include: flood/run-off moderation, water quality, storm protection, carbon storage and sequestration, health and amenity. All depend on biodiversity and ecosystem processes. ▪ Greater use of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) ▪ Biodiversity offsets to achieve ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity in exchange for inevitable new development ▪ Carbon finance - For example for storage or sequestration by peatlands, forests, etc. ▪ Green or impact bonds - For example investment in catchment management for water supplies and downstream flood mitigation ▪ Still crucial role for state funding.
- 20. Conclusions of study ▪ €1.49bn biodiversity-related spend 2010-15 ▪ Mostly indirect expenditure ▪ Transfer and grant payments in agriculture, forestry, etc (70%) ▪ Direct expenditure largely operational on protection and awareness. ▪ Very little spent on restoration/rehabilitation, enhancement. ▪ Expenditure largely compensating for transfers that encourage higher productivity ▪ Biodiversity expenditure relates to measures to encourage more sustainable management. ▪ Positive incentives ▪ Largely activity-related payments and grants rather than incentives related to biodiversity outputs. ▪ Few examples of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), etc. But opportunities do exist.
- 21. Thanks and credits to Rachel Morrison Craig Bullock (craig.bullock@ucd.ie ) Deirdre Lynn Reference: National Biodiversity Expenditure Review (NBER) Report can be accessed at http://research.ie/assets/uploads/2018/05/NBER- FINAL-COPY.pdf
Editor's Notes
- But Teagasc National Farm Surveys show that many farms in areas important for nature depend heavily on the Basic Payment Scheme and other RDP schemes for their income, as the farming itself is at best marginally profitable but on many farms operates even at a loss. So there are real opportunities to work with farmers and their representative organisations in regard to public goods and services including enhanced measures for biodiversity, provision of clean water, carbon sequestration and so on. Part of the dialogue will have to include the European Commission to ensure that farmers would not be penalised light-touch farming, where this is ecologically justified. We need to be considering a landscape approach to conservation to account for the dynamic nature of biodiversity and also to combat the impacts of climate change The landscape needs to permeable We must also continue to work with the Forest Service , Coillte and the increasing number of private foresters And fisheries?
- Photos: Yew Woodland, Garryland Galway, Turlough, Coole, Galway Dingle Peninsula, Kerry Our countryside is full of gems of habitats such as Yew woodlands, and turloughs, those mysterious disappearing lakes. There are still vast areas of relatively natural habitats along the west coast from the mountains to the marine, and of course our marine area is 90% of our national territory.