Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

financial flows involved. Building on existing transfer
schemes and integrating suitable ecological criteria (e.g.
protected area coverage in hectares as a percentage of
territory covered) can help decision makers promote innovative
solutions to raise funds for conservation.
For Switzerland, Köllner et al. (2002) have developed a
model for intergovernmental transfers to the local level,
based on biodiversity indicators and cantonal benchmarking.
For Germany, Ring (2008a) suggested ways of
incorporating protected areas into the intergovernmental
fiscal transfer system in Saxony (see Box 5.20).
5.4.3 COMPENSATING LAND USERS
FOR WILDLIFE DAMAGE
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS
Compensation payments are designed to indemnify
land users, mostly farmers and fishermen, for the damage
caused by particular wildlife species e.g. damage
to livestock by wolves (Fourli 1999) or to fishing gear by
seals (Similä et al. 2006). These kind of payments can be
controversial but many have proven to be effective and
are accepted by local stakeholders. Compensation schemes
have been set up in many developed and developing
countries (see example in Box 5.21 and also the India/
elephants reward programme case in Chapter 8).
Box 5.21: Goose Management Scheme,
Scotland
This scheme aims to promote conservation and a
sustainable goose population by compensating farmers
for damage to agricultural crops caused by
wintering wild geese. It requires a specific area on
each farm to be set aside for geese, which may then
be scared away from the remaining farm areas.
At the start of this initiative, payments were made
on the basis of geese headage which involved high
transaction costs. Payments are now made on an
area basis. The maximum payment is £ 301.55
(about 338 EUR) per hectare of rotational grass or
arable land. The payments are made by the UK government
according to the five-year agreement in
place.
Source: MacMillan et al. 2004
Although compensation payments for wildlife damage
are sometimes essential to prevent hunting or culling
of protected and highly endangered species, they
are often associated with – or may even create – a
negative perception of wildlife. In many countries,
perspective is shifting away from damage compensation
schemes (i.e. seeing wildlife as a cost) towards
developing public payments that reward the presence
of wild animals on private lands or support measures
to provide feeding habitats for protected species (i.e.
seeing wildlife as positive and making related payments)
(Similä et al. 2006; Suvantola in preparation;
see Box 5.22 and the discussion on PES in Section
5.1).
Box 5.22: Rewarding conservation of golden
eagles by the Sami in Finland
The scheme provides compensation for losses
caused by golden eagles to reindeer husbandry in
Northern Finland. As recently amended, it aims to
promote the conservation status of the species rather
than focusing primarily on damage.
Payments are now based on nesting and reproduction
of the species and actively involve the Sami
people in monitoring nesting sites. Participants
have access to information on nesting sites and
also provide information to conservation authorities
on newly discovered sites. In this way, the scheme
discourages disturbance of the eagles during nesting
and encourages creation of nesting sites rather
than their destruction. There is also ongoing followup
to build trust between the authorities and those
who are subject to the negative impacts of the species’
recovery.
Source: Similä et al. 2006; Suvantola in preparation
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 44