WP3 EX-POST Case studies Comparative Analysis Report Deliverable no.: 3.2 Comparative Analysis Report 03 February 2012
Deliverable Title D3.2 – Comparative Analysis Report Filename WP3 EX-POST Case studies: Comparative Analysis Report Responsible authors Manuel Lago and Jennifer Möller-Gulland (Ecologic Institute) Contributors: (order based on the number of the ex-post case study review): Gonzalo Delacámara, Carlos Mario Gómez, Estefanía Ibáñez , Carlos D. Pérez, Marta Rodríguez, Miguel Solanes (IMDEA) - Christophe Viavattene, Joanna Pardoe, Simon McCarthy, Colin Green (Flood Hazard Research Centre - Middlesex University) - Anders Branth Pedersen, Helle Ørsted Nielsen and Mikael Skou Andersen (Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University) - Gábor Ungvári, Péter Kaderják, András Mezősi, András Kiss - Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem – Regionális Energiagazdasági Kutató Központ (BCE-REKK) – Sardonini Laura, Viaggi Davide and Raggi Meri (UNIBO) – Francesc Hernández-Sancho; María Molinos-Senante, and Ramón Sala-Garrido (University of Valencia) - Marianne Schuerhoff, Hans-Peter Weikard, David Zetland (WUR) - Thomas Dworak, Katriona McGlade, Mathilde Mansoz and Paul Senker (Ecologic Institute) - Jaroslav Mysiak, Fabio Farinosi, Lorenzo Carrera, Francesca Testella, Margaretha Breil, Antonio Massaruto (FEEM) - Pierre Defrance, Verena Mattheiß (ACTeon) - Maggie Kossida, Anastasia Tekidou (NTUA) Tiho Ancev, Ariel Dinar, Guillermo Donoso, Charles W. (Chuck) Howe, Mike Young, Iddo Kan and Yoav Kislev, Mark S. Kieser and Jamie L. McCarthy, Carolyn Kousky, Yang Xiaoliu, and Andrew J. Yates Prepared under contract from the European Commission Grant Agreement no. 265213, FP7 Environment (including Climate Change) Start of the project: 01/01/2011 Duration: 36 months Project coordinator organisation: FEEM Deliverable title: Comparative Analysis Report Deliverable no. : DEL3.2. Due date of deliverable: Month 13 Actual submission date: Month 13 Dissemination level X PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Deliverable status version control Version data Author 1.0 January 20th, Manuel Lago, Ecologic Institute 2012 2.0 February 1st, Manuel Lago and Jennifer Möller-Gulland, Ecologic Institute 2012 3.0 February 3rd, Manuel Lago, Ecologic Institute 2012 3.2 ii
Preamble Little empirical evidence is available about the actual performance of economic policy instruments (EPIs) in water resource management, collected in a systematic way across a number of different policy issues. The assessment exercise synthesised in this document is one of a few attempts to fill the knowledge gap. Based on an ex- post review assessment of some thirty EPIs in Europe and elsewhere, described in depth in the deliverable 3.1 (Lago et al, 2011), this report provides the results of the first screening for insights gained and lessons learned. It is a hard task to synthesise a more than thousand pages-long report. This synthesis does not claim to be exhaustive. Initially, it as been produced for, and the final version draws on, the first EPI-WATER review conference which took place in Berlin, January 26-27th. There are different legitimate ways how to analyse EPIs. The EPI-WATER ’s WP3 scrutinised single economic instruments and tried to analyse their performance and the drivers behind independently. The collected knowledge will inform the ex-ante assessment of an innovative pool of policy instruments designed to tackle four different policy issues: water scarcity and droughts; excess water and floods; preservation/restoration of good environmental health and ecosystem services; and improving quality of water bodies. This is an ultimate challenge of the EPI-WATER project: based on the past evidence and judgements, to demonstrate the role of EPIs for meeting environmental policy goals, boosting innovation and unfolding competition between different water uses. The final synthesis drawing on the lessons learned from WP3 and WP4 exercises will be produced in September 2013. Before then, the second EPI-WATER review conference will take place in Spain, January 2013. Ja roslav Mysiak, project’s coordinator Biobliography Lago M., J. Möller-Gulland, C. M. Gómez, G. Delacámara, C. D. Pérez, E. Ibáñez, M. Solanes, M. Rodríguez, C. Viavattene, J. Pardoe, S. McCarthy, C. Green, A. B. Pedersen, H. Ørsted Nielsen and M. Skou Andersen, G. Ungvári, P. Kaderják, A. Mezősi, A. Kiss, L. Sardonini, F. Viaggi, M. Raggi F. Hernández -Sancho, M. Molinos- Senante, R. Sala-Garrido, M. Schuerhoff, H.P. Weikard, D. Zetland, T. Dworak, K. McGlade, J. Mysiak, F. Farinosi, L. Carrera, F. Testella, M. Breil, A. Massaruto, P. Defrance, V. Mattheiß, M. Kossida, A. Tekidou, T. Ancev, C. W. Howe, M. Young, I. Kan, Y. Kislev, M. S. Kieser, J. L. McCarthy, C. Kousky, A. Dinar, Y. Xiaoliu, A. J. Yates (2011): EPI-Water Review Reports , Deliverable 3.1 (accessible at www.epi- water.eu) 3.2 i
Figure 1. Road map of EPI - WATER project (this deliverable is highlighted in red) 2011 2012 2013 RT D 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 D2.3 D2.1 WP2 Guidance for ASSESS Guidance for D2.2 D3.1 WP3 D3.2 EX-POST MS3 Syntesis The two deliverables have MS4 been put in a single document Give advice for WP4 Draw lessons EX-ANTE WP5 LESSONS MS5 D6.1 WP6 POLICY Review D6.2 3.2 ii
Executive Summary The EPI-Water project applies an evidence-based approach to the assessment of Economic Policy Instruments (EPIs) for water management. In this report, the 30 ex- post case study reviews from the EPI-Water Deliverable 3.1 Review Studies 1 are synthesized and cross-compared to extract a first set of common features from and formulate hypotheses about the conditions under which EPIs contribute to sustainable water management. This synthesis report draws conclusions built on the ex-post assessment of case studies from Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as from Australia, Chile, China, Israel, and the USA. A wide range of types of EPIs has also been covered: water- pricing schemes (tariffs, environmental taxes, environmental charges or fees, subsidies on products and practices), trading schemes (tradable permits for abstraction and pollution), cooperation mechanisms and liability instruments. The synthesis also benefits from the fertile discussions held between EPI-Water consortium partners and other attendees to the First FP7 EPI-Water Conference (‘ Understanding the application of economic policy instruments – EPIs – in Water Management: Review of Empirical Evidence, Experiences and Lessons Learned from Europe and Elsewhere ’), that was held in Berlin (January 26 th -27 th , 2012). Participants to this event included members from academia, consultancy, NGOs, water managers, international organisations, EU institutions and government representatives. This report does not have the objective to set out the basis for decision makers to choose a particular form of EPI in specific circumstances, nor does it aim to make bold statements about the conditions required for broad categories or individual types of EPIs to be adequate and successful. The aim of the exercise is to lay down a benchmark for other deliverables of the project, which will build upon the assessment developed within WP3 ( ex-post ) and WP4 ( ex-ante ). In the process, some key messages to assist the development of current water policy streams have been identified. EPIs and water policy goals The assessment of some the EPIs analysed leads to uneven results and a sense of failure of some of the instruments. This can be due to different reasons: 1 In this exercise the performance of 30 EPIs was individually analysed and assessed against an assessment framework containing a set of environmental, economic, social, institutional, and political criteria. The full case studies undertaken to fulfill the reporting requirements of Deliverable 3.1 of WP3 and the report containing only their executive summaries can be accessed in the public area of the EPI- water project web site at: http://www.feem-project.net/epiwater/docs/epi-water_DL_3-1+DL6-1.zip 3.2 iii
Recommend
More recommend
