A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J.E. Schulp ◽  
A.J.A. Van Teeffelen ◽  
G. Tucker ◽  
P.H. Verburg
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. 104840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Orsi ◽  
Marco Ciolli ◽  
Eeva Primmer ◽  
Liisa Varumo ◽  
Davide Geneletti

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Glicksman ◽  
Thoko Kaime

AbstractMarkets in ecosystem services have the potential to provide financial incentives to protect the environment either in lieu of or in addition to more traditional regulatory programmes. If these markets function properly, they can provide enhanced levels of environmental quality or more efficient mechanisms for protecting natural resources that provide vital services to humans. The theoretical benefits of ecosystem services markets may be undercut, however, if care is not taken in creating the legal infrastructure that supports trading to ensure that trades actually provide the promised environmental benefits. This article identifies five essential pillars of an ecosystem services market regime that are necessary to provide operational accountability safeguards. These include financial safeguards, verifiable performance standards, transparency and public participation standards, regulatory oversight mechanisms, and rule of law safeguards. The article assesses whether the laws of the United States (US) and European Union (EU) are well designed to provide such accountability. It concludes that despite recognition of the risk of market manipulation and outright fraud, regulators in the US and the EU to date have responded to these risks largely in an ad hoc and incomplete fashion, rather than embedding the mechanisms for operational accountability discussed in this article into the regulatory framework that governs ecosystem services trading markets.


Author(s):  
Yukon Huang

Ongoing negotiations of bilateral investment treaties between China and the United States and European Union serve as the primary means for both sides to engage in economic policy discussions. Many believe that US firms are investing a lot in China, although the amounts have been modest in comparison with the flows between China and the European Union. This is largely due to the composition of their respective trade with each other and not just political sensitivities. Both the United States and the European Union are confronting China with concerns about its restrictive investment practices, pressures for technology transfer, and intellectual property theft at a time when China seeks to become more innovative by moving up the technology ladder. China complains about being subjected to excessive scrutiny by agencies such as the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Views differ significantly, making it difficult to reach agreement on policy options.


10.1068/c17r ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Blay-Palmer

A case study of innovation in organic agriculture in Ontario, Canada, illustrates the merits of multiscaled analysis as a tool to identify relevant policy options for the European Union and North America. Policy recommendations that emerged from interviews included the need to: develop and reinforce local networks and associational capacity; address inequities that result from global subsidies; and develop national research funding and standards to support organics. These policy changes would provide production and marketing alternatives, making the sector more resilient. Theoretically, the research highlights the dynamic and interconnected facets of innovation and the need for multiscaled analysis to capture interscale linkages.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document