Dieter Mortelmans Session 7.5, ESEE Leeds. Opportunity analysis and evaluation of PES-like instruments for nature conservation in Flanders (Belgium) Photo: D.M.

Content About the project Aims & methods ES Stakeholder identification PES opportunity analysis Implications for PA Lessons learned

About the ISEP project… ‘Support of ES by current financial policy instruments for nature conservation in Flanders’ Support ecosystem managers Who are the ES-beneficiaries? Identify ES-stakeholders Focus: PES from a public agency perspective Goal: work towards practical implementation/policy relevance Questions: “Are we not doing PES already?” “How can policymakers evaluate when and where a PES (- like) approach can be beneficial?”

ISEP project in a nutshell Extensive literature review: Factors contributing to success of PES Defining characteristics of PES List of (selected) successfactors (#16) Method to identify ES-Stakeholders Opportunity analysis PES Applied in 3 case studies Steering group with policymakers & scientists

Case Studies Melsterbeek AEM Erosion control Gentse Kanaalzone AEM landscape features Additional private payments Dijlevallei Subsidy for nature areas Improve accessibility for recreation

Terminology issues Market Based Instruments (MBI) ‘Hard’ Regulation Voluntary Economic Instruments (for providers) Environmental services and ecosystem services, what difference? Consensus: Payment for ecosystem services, input measures (system)/ ES output (performance) Important legal consequences! Working definition “A PES scheme is a transparent system for the additional provision of environmental services trough conditional payments to voluntary providers.” (Tacconi 2012)

Who are the (ES) players?

Identify ES stakeholders Goal 1. Which ES are also impacted by the instrument? 2. Which stakeholders receive benefits or disservices? How? Practical guideline for stakeholder identification. 9 Other ES Policy instrument Stakeholders Goal (expressed in terms of ES) 1 2

Stakeholder identification What are the benefits and who delivers them? Who has benefits? Who has negative impacts? Who has the property rights?

Where could a PES approach create potential additional benefits?

Opportunity analysis A clear (enough) relationship between input measures and the delivery of ES Scientific evidence and/or stakeholder consensus Demand for ES Who benefits? How important are those benefits?

ESD (CICES-be)BenefitsDemand ES Link land use and ES ESD niet gedekt door het instrument ECOSYSTEM MANAGERS Waterzuivering en oxygenatie + nutriëntenregulatie Nutriënten worden vastgehouden in bodem Onbelangrijk voor landbouwersMatig Bodemvorming en compositiehumus vormingOnduidelijk Natuurlijke landschappen en soorten voor natuurervaring en educatie Indirecte baat: Draagvlak creëren, promoten van duurzaam imago, enz. Redelijk hoog in het geval van duurzame bedrijven (bv. milieu labels en certificering). Anders zeer context afhankelijk. Onduidelijk, moet onderzocht worden. Regulatie van globaal klimaat door reductie van broeikasgasconcentraties Behoud van het klimaatLaag. Effecten op lange termijn en grote schaal. Zwak ES USERS Waterzuivering en oxygenatie + nutriëntenregulatie WaterzuiveringWaterzuivering steeds belangrijker. Kostelijk grijs alternatief Onduidelijk, moet onderzocht worden. Regulatie van globaal klimaat door reductie van broeikasgasconcentraties Behoud van het klimaatBelang voor de maatschappij is groot, en stijgt naarmate de schaal. Overheid heeft hier een rol. Zwak (lokaal) Sterk (internationaal) Landschap voor buiten recreatieRecreatie (wandelen, paarden, enz.) Er is er belangrijke vraag naar ruimte voor recreatie in Vlaanderen Matig (weining additionele oppervlakte voor recreatie) Natuurlijke omgeving rond gebouwen voor wonen, werken en studeren Mooi landschap, uitzicht.De vraag naar gevarieerd groen is groot. Huisprijzen worden hierdoor beïnvloed. Sterk

Succesfactors Related to the nature of the ES eg geographical spread, pressure/scarcity, etc... Payment and costs eg Transaction costs, payment level/unit... Risk and trust eg contract lengh, mediation, insurances... Stategy/design eg bundling, stratifying...

Implications for protected areas

Payment level

-+ Other benefits & motivations (risk, insurance,...) Personal ES benefit Payment Opportunity cost BALANCE ECOSYSTEM MANAGER

-+ Other benefits & motivations ES benefits (economic and non economic values) Payment Opportunity cost (eg 'gray' solutions) B ALANCE ES BENEFICIARIES Both balances must be positive, for PES to make sense.

Motivation(s) Participation as first step towards effective results Motivations of ecosystem managers Two broad ‘financial motivations‘ Profit maximization Management costs (& infrastructure investments) Not only financial Religious, moral values Political etc

Implications for PA Low opportunity cost Legal boundaries for land use Motivations of ecosystem managers Little incentive to pay for ES benefits However: PA management leaves room for increased ES provisioning increased accessibility and recreation infrastructure improved water retention …

Lessons learned A PES approach can improve ES outputs of current instruments help to synchronize financial instruments and avoid perverse subsidies legitimize public spending help policymakers to account for budget choices

Many thanks! Questions?