Ecological-ICMS as a public policy instrument for biodiversity preservation
A study conducted in small municipalitiesin ParanáState, Brazil
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5145872 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nelson Granados Moratta (0000-0001-7569-2636, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Santa Catarina), Christian Luiz Da Silva (0000-0002-4074-5184, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná), Alain Hernández Santoyo (0000-0003-2766-7019, Universidade Federal de Pelotas) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2023-12-14 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Sociedade & natureza (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0103-1570 • E-ISSN: 1982-4513 |
| Publisher | PPUFU - Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.14393/sn-v36-2024-70437x |
| OpenAlex | W4390275676 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 10 |
The Ecological Tax on the Circulation of Goods and Services for Biodiversity (ICMS-E) was created in 1991 as an initiative of the government of Paraná State. It is an important public policy instrument for the preservation of biodiversity in small municipalities that house Conservation Units. The aim of this article was to analyze whether resources from the ICMS-E, added to municipal tax revenues, improve sustainable development over time. As part of the methodological procedures, a descriptive-comparative analysis was conducted between municipalities that receive and do not receive ICMS-E. For this purpose, a sampling of the 399 municipalities that comprise Paraná State was conducted, involving 193 municipalities with a population of up to 50,000 inhabitants. The comparative analysis was based on the definition of two study groups, each constituted by 76 municipalities: one called the ICMS-E Recipient Group, municipalities that receive the ecological tax; and the Control Group, composed of those that do not receive it. The main results indicate that 19.80% of the municipalities are concentrated in the North Central mesoregion, while the Metropolitan Region of Curitiba is home to 33.45% of the population of Paraná. In relation to population loss, this factor represents 44.73% in the ICMS-E Recipient Group, while in the Control Group this number is 34.21%. In relation to the Environmental Management Function, 60.53% of the municipalities in the Recipient Group applied up to 75% of this tax to this function. It was concluded that the ICMS-E is an important incentive for the preservation of biodiversity and represents a significant increase in resources for the local governments of smallmunicipalities
Biodiversity · Biology · Business · Economics · Environmental health · Environmental planning · Environmental protection · Environmental resource management · Geography · Government (linguistics · Metropolitan area · Population · Revenue · Accounting · Agricultural and Food Sciences · Ecology · Environmental Sustainability and Education · Rural Development and Agriculture
Dificuldade de acesso a serviços de média complexidade em municípios de pequeno porte
The Brazilian intergovernmental fiscal transfer for conservation
Opportunity for change or reinforcing inequality? Power, governance and equity implications of government payments for conservation in Brazil
Incentive and coordination
Spatial Trends of Towns in Europe
Small and Medium‐Sized Towns in Europe
Territorial Arrangements of Small and Medium‐Sized Towns from a Functional‐Spatial Perspective
ICMS ecológico, pagamentos por serviços ambientais e as RPPN no estado do Paraná
ICMS Ecológico
Territorial Planning and Sustainable Development
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |