Suchergebnisse

AbstractBiodiversity points are a quantitative measure for biodiversity. For over a decade, biodiversity points are being applied in the Netherlands for measuring the impact of roads, enclosure dams, and other water management projects on the non-use value of biodiversity. Biodiversity points are quite similar to the quality-adjusted life years used for cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare treatments. Biodiversity points can be calculated by multiplying the size of the ecotope (e.g., number of hectare), the ecological quality of the ecotope (0–100 %), and the ecological scarcity of each type of ecotope. For many infrastructure projects, the impact on the non-use value of biodiversity can be a principal purpose or a major co-benefit or trade-off, for example, for a park, a fish sluice, a road, an ecoduct, an enclosure dam, or a marine protected area. Biodiversity points are a simple, transparent, and standardized way to aggregate and quantify the qualitative or ordinal assessments by ecological experts. For measuring the non-use value of biodiversity, they are also more informative than valuation by revealed or stated preferences methods. This paper provides the first overview of the application of this method in the Dutch practice of cost–benefit analysis. It also discusses its merits and limitations. The calculation and use of biodiversity points are illustrated by four case studies.

Since 1997 the Netherlands has a tax allowance scheme introduced to promote investments in energy saving technologies and sustainable energy production. This Energy Investment Tax Allowance (EIA in Dutch) reduces up-front investment costs for firms investing in the newest energy saving and sustainable energy technologies. The basic design of the EIA has remained the same over the past 15 years. Firms investing in technologies listed in the annually updated Energy List may deduct some of the investment costs from their taxable profits. The EIA may also reduce search costs by investors to find particular technologies because of the Energy List which is used to consider eligibility for the subsidy. This Energy List contains generic technologies that meet a certain energy-saving standard or a selection of novel, but proven, technologies with a higher energy-saving potential than conventional technologies. Over the past 15 years, the use of the EIA has been affected by a number of changes, mainly due to exogenous factors, such as interactions with other policy instruments, rising oil and gas prices, and the economic crisis since 2007. Despite this turbulence and changes in government focus, the EIA is still part of the Dutch energy policy mix. Our evaluation of the EIA contains four lessons. First, the use of tax revenues to subsidise investment in energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy is not very different from using on-budget subsidies if budgetary rules require sufficient accountability of such tax expenditures. At the beginning of the scheme, a lack of accountability of tax expenditures contributed to budgetary turbulence. A number of budget overruns in later periods were not related to budget accountability issues, but to changes outside the EIA. Second, incentive compatibility problems of the EIA are of concern but seem to be manageable. The main weakness of the tax allowance is the difficulty to prevent free-riders from receiving subsidies, even though subsidy effectiveness has improved considerably over the years. Third, the use of a dynamic technology list makes the regulation flexible, allowing policy to refocus and apply tighter standards if necessary. The list also reduces the information asymmetry between supply and demand of new technologies and helps suppliers of energy-saving or sustainable energy technologies to overcome the well-known valley of death. Finally, the design of a subsidy scheme should pay sufficient attention to the likely interaction with other policy instruments, in particular other subsidy schemes aimed at complementary objectives. The turbulence with the EIA over the 2001-2007 period was mainly caused by fluctuations in the application of other instruments.

Rivers can be both givers of life and takers of life. Investments that provide protection against flooding are often beneficial during normal or low flows. Investments such as storage reservoirs are long lived, separating construction and management operations. With international rivers, the absence of enforcement mechanisms may preclude infrastructure collaboration. Where physical infrastructure is in an upstream nation, downstream impacts may be ignored after the structure has been completed. Using a game theoretic model, it is shown that downstream cooperation may only be rational when flooding is the primary downstream impact. A stylized arid developing region and humid developed region are compared. Potential gains from collaboration are greatest in arid regions, but may be difficult to achieve. There may be little scope for capturing the gains from basin level management if economic integration does not extend beyond water issues.

A growing number of countries is setting up natural capital accounts (NCA) based on the system of environmental-economic accounting (SEEA); however, actually using them for better policy making turns out to be complex. This paper synthesises lessons on the institutional mainstreaming of the SEEA and its use in improving policy decisions affecting natural capital. It draws on discussions held at two Policy Forums organised by the World Bank Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services program and the United Nations Statistical Division. Practical examples of how the SEEA helps to improve policy making are explored. Emerging from the Forums were ten principles for making NCA fit for policy. These principles promote a comprehensive NCA organisation, a purposeful use of accounts, trustworthy methods and institutionalisation of NCA mechanisms in government. To put these principles into practice, six strategies are outlined: (1) assure credibility of the accounts; (2) align supply and demand for NCA; (3) assure high level support for NCA; (4) encourage cooperation between institutions so NCA and policy are mutually constructive; (5) provide evidence that natural capital is economically important and; (6) assure policy-relevant communication of NCA results.

Adaptation to human-induced climate change is currently receiving a lot of attention in international development circles. But throughout human existence, natural resource-dependent people have exploited and coped with the effects of climate variability on the ecosystems from which they derive a living. Learning from this experience can help inform the design of appropriate policies for responding to human-induced climate change. This paper presents the results of a World Bank study which sought to better understand the role of local institutions in supporting adaptation to climate variability and change in Ethiopia, Mali and Yemen. The study raised three questions. First, what strategies have been adopted by rural households in the past to adapt to climate variability? Second, to what extent do institutions of various sorts assist households in adopting adaptation strategies? And third, what are the factors that prevent households from adopting appropriate adaptation strategies? For the purposes of this paper, institutions are defined as structured, formal or informal organizations. The study followed a three-step approach. First, drawing on original data from field surveys, focus group discussions and institutional stakeholder interviews, household vulnerability to climate variability was characterized in terms of its three constituent elements: exposure to climate-related shocks and stresses, and sensitivity and adaptive capacity in the face of such stressors. Sensitivity refers to the degree to which people are affected by climate variability and change. High levels of exposure and sensitivity and low levels of adaptive capacity generally result in high levels of vulnerability. But a high level of exposure need not necessarily result in a high level of vulnerability if the household's adaptive capacity is also high.

'In a world which increasingly requires place-based approaches to economic development, Regional Competitiveness and Smart Specialization in Europe offers a new methodology and a framework in order to promote the smart specialization of territories. Rich in examples and evidence, the book is an essential tool for the design of sound development strategies and a must read for policy-makers and development practitioners.' (Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, London School of Economics, UK). -- Regions economically differ from each other - they compete in different products and geographical spaces, exhibit different strengths and weaknesses, and provide different possibilities for growth and development. What fosters growth in one region may hamper it in another. This highly original book presents an accessible methodology for identifying competitors and their particular circumstances in Europe, discusses regional competitiveness from a conceptual perspective and explores both past and future regional development policies in Europe. The authors illustrate that for the concept of regional competition to be valued correctly it should not solely be identified by the structural asset characteristics of cities and regions. They therefore present a unique applied analytic framework that takes into account economically valued network relations between places of (mobile) production factors and traded goods. Underpinned with thorough analysis and theory, the framework uses actual networks of competing and economically valued relations between regions to help develop smart specialization strategies that are central in the place-based policy initiatives of the new European cohesion policy.