Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
financial flows involved. Building on existing transfer<br />
schemes and integrating suitable ecological criteria (e.g.<br />
protected area coverage in hectares as a percentage of<br />
territory covered) can help decision makers promote innovative<br />
solutions to raise funds for conservation.<br />
For Switzerland, Köllner et al. (2002) have developed a<br />
model for intergovernmental transfers to the local level,<br />
based on biodiversity indicators and cantonal benchmarking.<br />
For Germany, Ring (2008a) suggested ways of<br />
incorporating protected areas into the intergovernmental<br />
fiscal transfer system in Saxony (see Box 5.20).<br />
5.4.3 COMPENSATING LAND USERS<br />
FOR WILDLIFE DAMAGE<br />
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS<br />
Compensation payments are designed to indemnify<br />
land users, mostly farmers and fishermen, for the damage<br />
caused by particular wildlife species e.g. damage<br />
to livestock by wolves (Fourli 1999) or to fishing gear by<br />
seals (Similä et al. 2006). These kind of payments can be<br />
controversial but many have proven to be effective and<br />
are accepted by local stakeholders. Compensation schemes<br />
have been set up in many developed and developing<br />
countries (see example in Box 5.21 and also the India/<br />
elephants reward programme case in Chapter 8).<br />
Box 5.21: Goose Management Scheme,<br />
Scotland<br />
This scheme aims to promote conservation and a<br />
sustainable goose population by compensating farmers<br />
for damage to agricultural crops caused by<br />
wintering wild geese. It requires a specific area on<br />
each farm to be set aside for geese, which may then<br />
be scared away from the remaining farm areas.<br />
At the start of this initiative, payments were made<br />
on the basis of geese headage which involved high<br />
transaction costs. Payments are now made on an<br />
area basis. The maximum payment is £ 301.55<br />
(about 338 EUR) per hectare of rotational grass or<br />
arable land. The payments are made by the UK government<br />
according to the five-year agreement in<br />
place.<br />
Source: MacMillan et al. 2004<br />
Although compensation payments for wildlife damage<br />
are sometimes essential to prevent hunting or culling<br />
of protected and highly endangered species, they<br />
are often associated with – or may even create – a<br />
negative perception of wildlife. In many countries,<br />
perspective is shifting away from damage compensation<br />
schemes (i.e. seeing wildlife as a cost) towards<br />
developing public payments that reward the presence<br />
of wild animals on private lands or support measures<br />
to provide feeding habitats for protected species (i.e.<br />
seeing wildlife as positive and making related payments)<br />
(Similä et al. 2006; Suvantola in preparation;<br />
see Box 5.22 and the discussion on PES in Section<br />
5.1).<br />
Box 5.22: Rewarding conservation of golden<br />
eagles by the Sami in Finland<br />
The scheme provides compensation for losses<br />
caused by golden eagles to reindeer husbandry in<br />
Northern Finland. As recently amended, it aims to<br />
promote the conservation status of the species rather<br />
than focusing primarily on damage.<br />
Payments are now based on nesting and reproduction<br />
of the species and actively involve the Sami<br />
people in monitoring nesting sites. Participants<br />
have access to information on nesting sites and<br />
also provide information to conservation authorities<br />
on newly discovered sites. In this way, the scheme<br />
discourages disturbance of the eagles during nesting<br />
and encourages creation of nesting sites rather<br />
than their destruction. There is also ongoing followup<br />
to build trust between the authorities and those<br />
who are subject to the negative impacts of the species’<br />
recovery.<br />
Source: Similä et al. 2006; Suvantola in preparation<br />
<strong>TEEB</strong> FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 44