Biodiversity Policy Response Indicators

Abstract

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 20-Jul-2015 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English -Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE BIODIVERSITY POLICY RESPONSE INDICATORS -ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPER No. 90 by Christina Van Winkle and Katia Karousakis (OECD), Rosalind Bark (CSIRO) and Martijn van der Heide (LEI Wageningen UR) OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).

International benchmarking: policy responses to biodiversity and climate change in OECD countries

“…We reviewed the feasibility of developing a set of five indicators for Aichi Target 3 using the OECD/EEA Database as suggested by Van Winkle et al (2015) and described above. Secondly, we assessed if there was sufficient information in these five indicators to address the four attributes identified by the AHTEG that, if met, are intended to provide sufficient information for an operational indicator(s) on biodiversity policy responses, i.e.…”

“…3 The CBD defines positive incentives as economic, legal or institutional measure designed to encourage beneficial activities for instance incentive payments for organic farming, agricultural land set-aside schemes as well as public or grant-aided land purchases or conservation easements 4 Specifically our focus in this paper is on tracking positive incentives. For readers interested in an assessment of agricultural, fishery and energy subsidies in OECD countries, their impact on biodiversity, and opportunities to eliminate them, see Van Winkle et al, (2015). Van Winkle et al, (2015) also review the feasibility of developing a set of Aichi Target 3 indicators for positive incentives using an existing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/European Environment Agency Database, Instruments used for Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management 5 (the OECD/EEA Database).…”

“…For readers interested in an assessment of agricultural, fishery and energy subsidies in OECD countries, their impact on biodiversity, and opportunities to eliminate them, see Van Winkle et al, (2015). Van Winkle et al, (2015) also review the feasibility of developing a set of Aichi Target 3 indicators for positive incentives using an existing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/European Environment Agency Database, Instruments used for Environmental Policy and Natural Resources Management 5 (the OECD/EEA Database). Although the BIP has yet to develop indicator(s) for Target 3, the AHTEG has provided some guidance, suggesting four discrete attributes for any indicator developed, to track the: identification, establishment, assessment and strengthening of policy responses.…”

“…Although the BIP has yet to develop indicator(s) for Target 3, the AHTEG has provided some guidance, suggesting four discrete attributes for any indicator developed, to track the: identification, establishment, assessment and strengthening of policy responses. Van Winkle et al, (2015) take these four attributes and propose a set of five operational indicators. Note that unlike with harmful subsidies they do not undertake an assessment of positive incentives, rather they provide guidance on how such an assessment could be implemented.…”

“…Specifically, we use the OECD/EEA Database to implement four out of the five proposed operational indicators suggested by Van Winkle et al (2015). We find there is inadequate data in the OECD/EEA Database to address their Indicator 4.…”