Welcome to the Conservation Finance Guide. The overall goal is to provide practical tools to support the rapid expansion of sustainable finance mechanisms that generate long-term funding for biodiversity conservation.
Welcome to the Conservation Finance Guide. The overall goal is to provide practical tools to support the rapid expansion of sustainable finance mechanisms that generate long-term funding for biodiversity conservation.
This section presents five case studies that give an indication of the array of interesting fiscal instruments already in use. More case studies are available on the Internet, at sites such as the Biodiversity Economics Library (http://biodiversityeconomics.org).
Taxes for watershed protection services in Costa Rica
In 1998 Inversiones La Manguera Sociedad Anonima (INMAN), a Costa Rican hydro-electric company, signed a contract with the Monteverde Conservation League (MCL) to pay for ecological services provided by the protected area managed by MCL.
The Bosque Eterno de los Niños (Children’s Eternal Rain Forest) is a 22,000 ha private reserve managed by MCL. Approximately 3,000 ha of the protected forest is part of a watershed that is used by INMAN for generating electric power. Recognizing the benefits they receive from protection of this watershed, INMAN entered into an agreement with MCL to pay for the protection of the ecological services provided by Bosque Eterno de los Niños.
The contract recognizes services such as “stabilization of land, soil protection, humidity and nutrient retention, water protection, protection of species biodiversity” and more. INMAN pays MCL US$10 per hectare (a negotiated price) x (a factor that accounts for the amount of energy generated and sold by the hydro-electric plant) x 3000 (for the hectares in the watershed). The money from this tax is used directly to pay for reserve protection programs. Although this is an excellent example of a private organization recognizing and paying for environmental services, the process of developing a binding legal agreement took much effort on the part of both parties.
Source: Janzen, Daniel. “Gardenification of tropical conserved wildlands: multitasking, multicropping, and multiusers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(11):5987- 5994 in IUCN, 2000, Financing Protected Areas
For more details see Phillips, A. 2000. Financing Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN. Switzerland.
Using a lottery to help fund protected areas in the UK
Since its launch in 1994, the UK National Lottery has generated large sums of money for “good causes.” One of these is “heritage,” which includes conservation of nature and landscapes and their enjoyment and understanding by the public. Over £150 million (over USD350 m) has gone to projects of this kind in the first four years.
The funds are made available to bodies in the public and voluntary sectors, and paid on the basis of approved projects submitted to, and evaluated by Lottery Distributing Bodies (in effect, one of these, the Heritage Lottery Fund, has been responsible for most of the projects funded in this way). Funds have been used to acquire land for conservation (e.g. to create nature reserves), to improve their management, to improve public access and enhance public understanding, and to encourage and train volunteers to work on conservation schemes. An estimated 52,000ha of land of high conservation value have benefited from such projects.
Projects supported in this way include some which are specifically directed at helping the UK meet its CBD obligations (e.g. by improving the management of species-rich heathland, or creating new wetlands for endangered species of mammals and birds). Many of the sites so assisted will be Category IV nature reserves. Other projects have been directed to helping UK national parks (Category V areas) in landscape protection. A recent study of the impact of the lottery on countryside conservation concluded that it had had “a very significant and positive, if uneven, impact”. Without doubt, it has brought very much more money into conservation than would otherwise have been the case.
Source: IUCN, 2000, Financing Protected Areas
For more details see Phillips, A. 2000. Financing Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN. Switzerland.
Overview
1. Understanding Fiscal Instruments for Conservation
1.1 Overview
1.2 Key Actors and Motivations
1.3 Types of Fiscal Instruments
1.5 Success Factors
2. A Selection of Case Studies
2.1 Instruments for Raising Revenue
2.2 Instruments for Changing Behavior
3. Resources