Economic impact of nature conservation RSPB Experience Aniol. Esteban@rspb. org. uk The Royal Society for the protection of Birds RSPB EEA Copenhaguen 5 th October
Le Menu • Nature vs Economy – The omnipresent myth • RSPB work and findings • Methodology • Economic impact of Natura 2000 • Conclusions
The omnipresent myth Nature conservation constrains economic development Nature conservation implies closing an area and not allowing anyone nor any activity to take place there.
The omnipresent myth “Buy a sporting estate and outlaw deer, grouse, sheep, cattle and commercial forestry and you make keepers, beaters, shepherds, farmers and foresters redundant. They use the pubs and shops, their wives provide b&b, their children fill the local schools, the guns leave heavy tips and stay in hotels. One warden and a couple of scientists are not going to fill this economic or social vacuum. ” The Field, Oct 2000
Nature constraints the economy? RSPB reserves employ stalkers, farmers, foresters, reserves managers. . . etc Habitat management and restoration requires lots of work related to habitat maintenance, habitat restoration. . . etc. Wildlife tourism can bring substantial benefits Growing number of studies illustrate significant levels of employment supported by natural environment
RSPB work - Nature Reserves RSPB reserves support more than 1000 FTE jobs in UK local economies £ 19 million spending by RSPB and a million visitors / year. 7. 1 jobs / 1, 000 ha of productive land Many of these jobs in remote rural areas – most in less productive land. All reports available from: www. rspb. org. uk
RSPB Work – Spectacular species The presence of sea eagles brings £ 1. 5 -1. 7 million to the Isle of Mull (West Scotland) every year 290, 000 people visit Osprey watching sites per year bringing £ 3. 5 million to nearby areas.
Other relevant bits of info In Scotland’s € 6, 610 million / year tourism economy, 14% of visitors are specifically interested in wildlife Natura 2000 has had a significant positive regional economic impact in four Austrian regions 4 National Parks in Spain receive 6. 5 million visits / year
Methodology Collection of visitors data - spending, movements, motivations, etc - number of visitors to site - definition of ‘local economy’
Methodology Use of economic multipliers • £ 1 spent supports 23 – 33 p of local income • Expenditure £ 30 -40, 000 supports 1 FTE in local economies in the UK // £ 37, 000 = 1 job
Economic impact of N 2000 What level of economic activity could be supported by properly managed N 2000? Need to quantify: - employment supported by N 2000 sites (staff, contractors, agriculture, forestry. . . ) - employment supported by visitors
Economic impact of N 2000 Contribution of such study to EU Biodiversity strategy: - Aid / ease implementation of Natura 2000 by dispelling the myth - Improve communication with key sectors by putting Natura 2000 into Lisbon agenda terms - Contribute to secure adequate funding by informing EU budget review 2008 (? )
Economic impact of N 2000 – Next steps Define/discuss methodology: - develop multipliers for representative set of EU habitats & states - are there better ways to do this? (ie. annual turnover of N 2000 dependant business)
Conclusions Nature conservation can make a positive contribution to economic activity. Nature conservation protects wildlife AND economic assets: • • positive impact on local economies attracts visitors and their money enables investment supports jobs in remote rural areas
Conclusions Managing land to preserve EU natural heritage is compatible with other economic sectors and supports long term employment for EU citizens Gaining an idea of the level of economic benefits of Natura 2000 would make a valuable contribution to EU biodiversity conservation
Скачать презентацию Economic impact of nature conservation RSPB Experience Aniol
ae888c6c2a8aec59206ecdc74e0fec53.ppt