IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v108y2021ics0264837721003173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers and opportunities facing the UK Peatland Code: A case-study of blended green finance

Author

Listed:
  • Moxey, Andrew
  • Smyth, Mary-Ann
  • Taylor, Emily
  • Williams, A. Prysor

Abstract

Blended finance offers a way of increasing total expenditure on tackling the twin climate and biodiversity global emergencies. However, this requires effective methods for combining private and public funding. As an example of the barriers and opportunities facing practical implementation of a blended finance approach, this Viewpoint paper presents a case-study of the UK Peatland Code which will have relevance to other instances of blended finance initiatives elsewhere. Restoration of degraded peatlands reduces their carbon emissions and can provide emission reductions and other environmental gains in a socially cost-effective manner. However, many benefits are public goods arising as externalities which are difficult to convert into financial returns to private investors. To address this problem, the Peatland Code has been developed as a voluntary certification standard for UK peatland projects wishing to seek additional private funding via the voluntary carbon market. However, uptake of the Peatland Code has been slow. Despite growing demand in the voluntary carbon market, we observe six main barriers to supply-side uptake: lack of awareness amongst land managers; resistance to land use change, particularly when measures are seen to potentially compromise agricultural production; high upfront capital costs; limited equipment and skills; uncertainty over ongoing costs and support; and, administrative bureaucracy/inflexibility. We offer recommendations for how such barriers could be reduced to increase supply-side uptake, including: increased effort to promote sustainable land management and blended financing of it, and restoration activities and the Peatland Code in particular; continued public funding of upfront capital investments, with private funding directed more at ongoing payments; and, simplified and more flexible administrative arrangements, with public and private schemes designed in tandem to improve their practical complementarity.

Suggested Citation

  • Moxey, Andrew & Smyth, Mary-Ann & Taylor, Emily & Williams, A. Prysor, 2021. "Barriers and opportunities facing the UK Peatland Code: A case-study of blended green finance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721003173
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105594
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721003173
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105594?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoff Bright & Emily Connors & Joe Grice, 2019. "Measuring natural capital: towards accounts for the UK and a basis for improved decision-making," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 88-108.
    2. Gabriele Mack & Andreas Kohler & Katja Heitkämper & Nadja El-Benni, 2019. "Determinants of the perceived administrative transaction costs caused by the uptake of an agri-environmental program," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(10), pages 1802-1819, August.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    5. Bonn, Aletta & Reed, Mark S. & Evans, Chris D. & Joosten, Hans & Bain, Clifton & Farmer, Jenny & Emmer, Igino & Couwenberg, John & Moxey, Andrew & Artz, Rebekka & Tanneberger, Franziska & von Unger, M, 2014. "Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 54-65.
    6. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    7. Terry L. Anderson & Dominic P. Parker, 2013. "Transaction Costs and Environmental Markets: The Role of Entrepreneurs," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 259-275, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xi Chen & Zhigang Chen, 2021. "Can Green Finance Development Reduce Carbon Emissions? Empirical Evidence from 30 Chinese Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    3. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    4. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    5. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    6. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    7. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    8. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    9. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    10. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    11. Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Eco-System Services in Agrarian Value Chains: Value Detection of Bio-Diversity as Public Good Provision, Problems, and Institutional Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    14. Loft, Lasse & Lux, Alexandra, 2010. "Ecosystem Services - Ökonomische Analyse ihres Verlusts, ihre Bewertung und Steuerung [Ecosystem Services - Economic Analysis of their loss, their valuation and regulation]," MPRA Paper 44259, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    16. Lucas Bretschger & Karen Pittel, 2020. "Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 725-750, December.
    17. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    18. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    19. Chenyang Xue & Chaofeng Shao & Junli Gao, 2020. "Ecological Compensation Strategy for SDG-Based Basin-Type National Parks: A Case Study of the Baoxing Giant Panda National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:108:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721003173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.