Page 76 - Economia Azul - versão: inglês

Table 1. Economic instruments applied As for fees, the charge must be estab- use. This can lead to conflicts between local
to the Blue Economy
Instrument Description and main features
Taxes Based on the polluter pays principle, taxes place an ad-
ditional cost on using the natural resource or emitting a
pollutant to reflect the negative environmental externali-
ties they generate. As such, taxes create incentives for both
producers and consumers to behave in a more environ-
mentally sustainable manner. Examples include taxes on
dumping of waste and other pollutants at sea.
Fees and charges Consist of a payment requested from a general govern-
ment, that is, the payer of the fee receives something in
return that is approximatelly proportional to that fee. They
can be used to control access to resources through price
extraction, for example through a fishing license fee or en-
try fee to a marine protected area.
Subsidies Governments pay subsidies to producers to support the
production of certain goods or services. Subsidies can have
a negative environmental impact if they increase the level
of an environmentally harmful activity, for example sand
mining for construction. On the other hand, environmen-
tally motivated subsidies are intended to have a positive
impact by lowering the cost of economic activities that
have less environmental impact.
Payments for Ecosystem Based on the polluter-pays principle, PESs are voluntary
Services (PES) transactions between users and service providers that are
conditioned to agreed rules for the management of natu-
ral resources. An example would be a scheme that pays
for mangrove restoration to store carbon (e.g. blue carbon
payments) and improve coastal flood protection.
Offsets for Biodiversity Based on the mitigation hierarchy, offsetting is a process
whereby the unavoidable impacts of development are of-
fset by the creation of new habitat that is equivalent to
destroyed areas. Biodiversity offsets can be used, for exam-
ple, to offset the development of infrastructure related to
tourism, ports and the extraction of natural resources.
Source: OCDE (2017)
74 BLUE ECONOMIYBLUE ECONOMIY
74
lished at a level that can actually result in communities and these areas, jeopardizing
a change in behavior and thus must con- the enforcement of the protected area and,
sider the price elasticity of the product. therefore, its ecological impact (POLLNAC
It should also be taken into account that et al., 2010).
revenues raised through environmental Many countries use a two-tier fee sys-
taxation will not always directly finance tem and charge foreign visitors higher fees,
activities to protect marine ecosystems; such as entry fees into Marine Protected
fees established locally may result in the Areas in Kenya (OECD, 2017). In some ar-
displacement of impacts to other regions eas, tourists pay more than residents. Final-
(OOSTERHUIS et al., 2014). ly, institutional factors can also hinder or
As an application example, it can be- even prevent the implementation of user
highlighted that many protected areas fees. In Antigua and Barbuda, for example,
suffer from chronic underfunding (WAT- three government agencies share responsi-
SON et al., 2014; GILL et al., 2017), im- bility for managing marine protected areas.
pacting their ability to protect biodiversity One of them does not have the authority
and provide ecosystem services. Given the to charge fees in the region it manages,
direct correlation between funding levels like the other two government agencies,
and the effectiveness of conservation and so some maritime protection areas charge
sustainable use of biodiversity (WALDRON access fees and others do not. In addition,
et al., 2017), policies to address funding fees collected are often returned to the
shortfalls in maritime protected areas are central budget, weakening the incentive
a priority. In this regard, fees have proven for managers to collect them.
to be an effective instrument not only to
generate revenue to help cover the cost 2.2. Subsidies
of managing marine protected areas, but
also to control access to high-value marine Pollution emission reduction subsi-
areas (OECD, 2017). dies occur when a public authority pays
There are challenges and opportunities the polluter to reduce a certain amount,
in using fees and charges. The lack of de- for example, tons of pollution emitted,
fined access points to maritime areas can or when such authority encourages pol-
make it difficult to implement user fees luters to install equipment to abate their
in maritime protection areas. This creates emissions (PEARCE; TURNER, 1989; FIELD;
enforcement problems as they can usual- FIELD, 2014). This instrument works as an
ly be accessed from all sides and the cost opportunity cost analysis, because when
of enforcement can be high (OECD, 2017). the polluter chooses to emit a unit of pol-
Social factors can also reduce the effective-
lution, the waiver of receiving the subsidy
ness of fees on marine protected areas, for that he/she could have earned, if he/she
example, if they lead to the exclusion of had chosen to pollute this unit is in effect
local populations from areas of traditional (SANTOS, 2014).
Economic and Financial Instruments 75