Fees and charges can be described as obligatory payments to the government in exchange for specific government services. As such, they differ from taxes in that they are often (but not entirely) “requited” or that payments and benefits returned are at least somewhat proportional to each other and directed to specific uses. As some taxes can be earmarked for specific uses or for funds, the general distinction between taxes and fees is that the latter is tied to a service cost or some value gained. Permits and licenses are generally considered fees and charges when there is a charge associated with the issuance of the permit or license. The use of fees and charges is common for a wide range of governmental services including many that are environmental and related to conservation. Examples for nature include fishing licenses, protected areas entrance fees, stumpage fees, and biosecurity fees. Water and energy tariffs can be used to finance environmental objectives and in many cases, water tariffs are earmarked for Water Funds (very similar to Conservation Trust Funds) that provide subsidies and grants for watershed maintenance.
Bio-security Fee
The fee charged to the importer of biological material into a country. It can be used to recover the expenditures of the national agency mandated with preventing alien invasive species (AIS), health threats and other agricultural pests from entering certain geographical areas. Mostly used in island states. It can also be part of an import duty or fee.
In the state of Western Australia, a system of fees and charges for biosecurity services came into effect on July 1, 2018. Western Australia is free of many pests and diseases found in other parts of Australia, and its sound biosecurity system including border inspection and fees helps to maintain this freedom. To review in detail the Biosecurity fees and charges of Western Australia, please visit here.
Conservation or wildlife themed items
Special commercial products featuring wildlife are sold at an extra price to costumers and the extra revenues are channelled to environmental causes and projects illustrated by the product/item, mostly related to conservation and the protection of wildlife. Examples include, licence plates, special ringtones and screensavers (mobile communication), gifts sold at zoos, etc.
The Department of Motor Vehicles in the state of Pennsylvania (USA) has a long history of producing license plates for conservation. The two license places currently available date back to 1999 and 1996, respectively, with proceeds being used to either support the management of the Commonwealth’s unique flora and fauna, or to benefit the Pennsylvania Zoological Council’s six member zoos. To read more about the Pennsylvania license places, visit this website.
Conservation License plates
Special license plates featuring wildlife images that are sold at a higher price to car owners. The extra income is channelled to environmental causes and projects illustrated by the plate, mostly related to conservation and protection of wildlife. This practice is used in many states in the USA.
The Department of Motor Vehicles in the state of Pennsylvania (USA) has a long history of producing license plates for conservation. The two license places currently available date back to 1999 and 1996, respectively, with proceeds being used to either support the management of the Commonwealth’s unique flora and fauna, or to benefit the Pennsylvania Zoological Council’s six member zoos. To read more about the Pennsylvania license places, visit this website.
Fees, penalties, and management expenditures for Environmental (and Social) Impact Assessment
Environmental (and Social) Impact Afeesssessments (EIA) are conducted to evaluate the environmental and social risks of a development project including mining, hotels, and other large infrastructure projects. A range of expenditures and investment to preserve nature are associated with the EIA process including permitting fees, expenditures for the assessment itself, expenditures for implementation of the environmental and social management plans, performance bonds, insurance products, biodiversity offsets etc. Additionnally, penalties may be directly triggered by non-compliance to the EIA and its associated management plans.
Studies have been conducted by the European Union to assess the relative costs and benefits associated with implementation of Environmental Impact Assessments in selected countries within the European Union. The study found that by far the main cost component (between 60% and 90% of the cost of EIAs) is incurred in carrying out environmental studies and writing the Environmental Impact Statement. It was found that these costs were borne largely by the developer or project promoter.
It should also be noted that for 60% of the projects examined, EIA costs amounted to less than 0.5% of the overall capital cost, with the actual costs of EIA raising in direct relation to the capital cost of the project.
More details regarding this study can be found here. Unfortunately the studies themselves are out of print.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs-benefit-en.htm
Environmental Impact Assessment Permitting and Review Fees
Environmental (and Social) Impact Afeesssessments (EIA) are conducted to evaluate the environmental and social risks of a development project including mining, hotels, and other large infrastructure projects. A range of expenditures and investment to preserve nature are associated with the EIA process including permitting fees, expenditures for the assessment itself, expenditures for implementation of the environmental and social management plans, performance bonds, insurance products, biodiversity offsets etc. Additionnally, penalties may be directly triggered by non-compliance to the EIA and its associated management plans.
Studies have been conducted by the European Union to assess the relative costs and benefits associated with implementation of Environmental Impact Assessments in selected countries within the European Union. The study found that by far the main cost component (between 60% and 90% of the cost of EIAs) is incurred in carrying out environmental studies and writing the Environmental Impact Statement. It was found that these costs were borne largely by the developer or project promoter.
It should also be noted that for 60% of the projects examined, EIA costs amounted to less than 0.5% of the overall capital cost, with the actual costs of EIA raising in direct relation to the capital cost of the project.
More details regarding this study can be found here. Unfortunately the studies themselves are out of print.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs-benefit-en.htm
Payment for Ecosystem Services
Beneficiaries/users of an ecosystem service, such as water regulation, make a direct or indirect payment to the provider of that service in exchange for service provision and maintenance. This "user pays" concept is that whoever preserves or maintains an ecosystem service should be paid for doing so. Beneficiaries/users of an ecosystem service can make a direct payment to the provider of that service through a private contract or an indirect payment through the intermediation of the State who charges the users through a tax or fee. Payments for ecosystem services are mostly found in the water, forest, agriculture and energy sectors. Also known as "Payment for Environmental Services".
An excellent example of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme can be found in the Indian Himalayas. A newly constructed reservoir in the village of Kuhan was collecting large amounts of silt, halving its capacity. It was found that most of the silt came from the grazing land of the upstream Ooch village. An agreement was found, with the Ooch village banning grazing for eight years on its four-hectare common land in addition to planting saplings of frit and fodder bearing trees. In exchange, Kuhan paid for the saplings and worked out an arrangement to sell irrigation water to Ooch when required. This led to a reduction in silt load.
Read more about this example here.
Payment for Ecosystem Services-private to private
Beneficiaries/users of an ecosystem service make a direct payment to the provider of that service. The system can be voluntary using a private contract. Payments are mostly found in the water, forest, agriculture and energy sectors. For example, Nestle (formerly Vittel) pays farmers to refrain from using chemicals in north-eastern France and the City of New York pays farmers and other land owners to protect watersheds in the Catskill mountains, thus saving billions of dollars by aoviding the construction of major water treatment systems.
In response to an increasing risk of nitrate contamination which threatened the production of ‘natural mineral water’, Nestle (the producer) proposed to farmers to transform their intensive dairy farming system into a system with no pesticides and chemicals. This was done through the use of incentives to encourage farmers to permanently change their farming practices. The buyer of the ecosystem service is Nestle Waters, with the sellers being the 37 farmers active in the catchment when the PES program was first implemented. To read a more detailed review on the Nestle PES, please visit here.
Payment for Ecosystem Services - state intermediation and/or fee
Beneficiaries/users of an ecosystem service make a indirect payment to the provider of that service through an intermediary such as the state where the public authority disburses the compensation to the service provider for conservation for maintenance. To fund the compensations, countries either rely on the general budget or introduce PES-like taxation systems with special-purpose taxes and fees, targeting the tourism, water, electricity, transport and extractives sectors (i.e. the beneficiaries of the ecosystem services). Mexico has a national level scheme that also encourages the establishment of private to private PES systems.
Between 1990 and 2010, Mexico lost 5.5 million hectares (or 7.8 percent) of its forest cover. In response to this, Mexico’s National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) introduced a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program in 2003. This PES encourages forest conservation by making payments to owners of ecologically valuable land. The program has grown to encompass 2.5 million hectares of forests as of the end of 2013, making it by far the largest PES program in Latin America. Read more about this PES program here.
Pasture (and grazing) Fees
Fees for access to rangelands on public lands including in Protected Areas. Fees and permits are used to regulate usage and avoid overgrazing and rangeland degradation.
In the United States, a formula calculating a grazing fee was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act and has remained in use under a 1986 presidential Executive Order. In 2019, the federal grazing fee in the United States was $1.35 per head month (HM( for lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service and $1.35 per animal unit month (HM) for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This is decrease from the 2018 fee, which was $1.41. Read more about the USDA’s grazing fees here.
Forestry Stumpage Fees
A fee paid for the right to harvest timber from a given area. Typically paid to a private land owner or the government (if the land is public land). Stumpage fees are determined by a combination of fixed or market prices and the volume harvested (e.g. cubic metres, board feet, tons).
The New York State Timber Harvest Statistics consolidates data on the stumpage fees for various species throughout the State. In New York, prices are determined using market prices and the volume harvested. The prices for the year 2018 range from a low of $2-4 for Pine, to a high of $1000 for Black Cherry.
Forestry Concession Fees
Fees paid for access to exploit forestry areas usually under public ownership and government control. Often there is a requirement for the concessionaire (holder of the concession) to produce a management plan that is approved by the land owner. Concession fees and systems allow for private long term planning if the concessions are of adequate length to make a rotational forestry practice feasible. Concession fees are based on an economic assessment of the value of the timber or other forest resources (which can include non-use values such as recreation).
Canada’s forest concessions have been overwhelmingly successful in economic terms, even if not in direct revenue terms. Canada, having approximately 265 million ha (76% of its total forest cover) under forest concessions is second only to Russia, that has over 600 million ha, or 68% of its total forest cover under concessions. The Canadian forest sector makes an annual contribution to Canadian GDP of CAD 20 billion. The forest sector in Canada employs about 300,000 people with a payroll of CAD 8 billion (2014 figures). However, despite its success, critiques have been levied against the Canadian forest concessions. One of the critiques concern the fact that most concessions are allocated by negotiation rather than by competitive tender. This has led to cases of overlapping tenures which become problematic, and there has been a criticism regarding the low stumpage prices effectively acting as a subsidy to Canadian forest companies. Read more about Forestry Concession Fees and examples from around the world here.
Other Forestry Royalties
Other types of royalties can be paid for forests and forestry products including collection fees for Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP, see below) such as mushrooms, fruit, honey, etc. recreational exploitation (hotels, restaurants, etc.), access (pipelines, telephone towers, electricity, etc.), and real estate (e.g. home ownership).
It is known to be difficult to interest governments in effective NTFP law and policy because NTFPs fall into institutional and sectoral cracks, and are usually part of information or loosely organized trade. When governments do engage with this sector and draft laws, it is common for implementation, monitoring and compliance to be poor since resources and capacity are rarely allocated to what are perceived as minor products.
In Fiji, for example, the government recently sought to regulate the NTFP sector more effectively through the 2007 National Forest Policy and the Endangered and Protected Species Act of 2002. Despite good intentions, however, implementation has been weak; few traders know of the laws, and monitoring and enforcement is nonexistent.
To read more about NTFP and related regulation throughout the world, consult “Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context” Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., Shanley, P. Chapter 11.4.4 Inconsistent and Often Underfunded Policy Implementation (2011)
Forestry Transportation Fee
Forestry transportation fees can be used in addition to stumpage or other fees as either a cost recovery tool to pay for roads and other transport infrastructure, or as a means to improve regulation and control of the industry. It should be noted that any fee that raises cost of production or transport may influence the market price and trading volumes. For example, export levies capture forestry revenue and have been used to encourage increased domestic value-added wood industries by charging much higher levies on raw wood as compared to furniture.
Non-Timber Forest Product Harvesting licenses and fees
Licenses and other fees associated with the collection, transport and sale of Non-Timber Forest Products including mushrooms, latex (sap), honey, flowers, tubers, etc.
Taxes, fees and quotas in the Fishery Sector
The taxation of the fishery sector and/or the introduction of fees and quotas can provide ring-fenced financing for conservation as well as influence market behavior in order to reach a biologically and economically sustainable level of fish stocks and harvests (i.e. reduce over-fishing).
New Zealand introduced an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system in 1986 in order to aid the replenishment of local fish stocks. The Quota Management System (QMS) was introduced in 1986 because of the perception that many, if not most, of the inshore fish stocks were suffering from high levels of biologic and economic overfishing. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the overexploited inshore species were set at levels from 25% to 75% of the pre-QMS catch levels, depending on the biological status and management objectives for each Fishstock.
Since the implementation of the ITQ and Quota Management System (QMS), most of the major Fishstocks that are below the Biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) are now being rebuilt. To read more about the New Zealand case of quotas in the fishery sector, please refer to this link. The New Zealand section begins on page 342.
Fisheries Landing Fee
As an alternative from quotas the fisherfolk pays a fee to an authority based on the quantity of fish caught. The landing fee ensures that the true economic price is paid for the fish, thereby removing any incentive for overfishing. The money raised by the landing fee could be allocated to sustainable fishery or marine conservation activities.
In Alaska, the Fisheries Resource Landing Tax, in the Federal Year of 2013, was valued at a total of $13,381,669. The tax is based on the unprocessed value of the resource, which is determined by multiplying a statewide average price by the unprocessed weight. The Fishery Resource Landing Tax is collected primarily from factor trawlers and floating processors which process fishery resources outside of the state’s 3-mil limit and bring their products into Alaska for transshipment. To read more about the Alaska Seafood Industry Taxes and Fees to State, Local and Federal Government, visit here.
Fisheries licensing fee
In the state of Alaska, the Commercial Fishing Vessel License revenue from FY 2014 amounted to $678,400. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission administers permitting for commercial fishing and commercial fishing vessels. Commercial fishery entry permits and Crew license fees include a mandatory fee that is transferred to the Fishermen’s Fund, administered by the Department of Labor, which provides for medical coverage up to $10,000 for treatment of injuries in commercial fishing. Read more.
Refining incentives and other regulations in the fishery sector
A wide range of supporting policies and regulations can have an economic impact on the fishery sector including regulating the number of support vessels per fishing vessel, reducing subsidies for fuel and equipment, boats, ice etc. The sector and specific fisheries should be explored from a systems perspective to identify underlying policy, subside, and regulatory opportunities.
Water Tariffs
Also called "water rates," fees collected through water utilities and other suppliers of water to consumer including households and businesses. The tariffs are a cost recovery mechanism and are targeted to pay for the costs of water treatment, storage, transport, recovery and treatment of wastewater, and administrative costs. Water tarrifs can also be applied to cover the costs of watershed and wetland maintenance and protection, adding significant additional financing for biodiversity.
The State of Maryland instituted a Bay Restoration Fee which collects $15.00 per quarter charge ($6) per year) on the sewer or water bills of property owners served by public utilities. The Bay Restoration Fee increases to $60 per year on property owners who have private septic systems and are not served by public water. The funds will be used to upgrade facilities statewide. Read more about the Bay Restoration Fee here.
Water Abstraction Charges
A user fee charged for the diversion or use of water from lakes, rivers, and underground sources and applied to decrease waste and increase regulation and measurement. Where water abstraction is regulated, there is greater opportunity for water supply markets.
For more than 50 years water abstraction charges have been levied by the Water Agencies in France. The revenues from these levies are spent by the Agencies on investments in the protection and improvement of water resources (surface water and groundwater). The charge has to be paid by all those who abstract water (with some exemptions). The rates differ by Water Agency. The highest rates (up to a maximum of 0.10 euros per meter-cubed) are levied on water used for drinking water.
The water abstraction charge reflects the ‘water pays for water’ principle and is generally accepted as a fair payment for the use of a scarce resource. The levy itself is too small to have a significant incentive impact on water consumption, but together with the water pollution levy (which is about three times higher) and the fact that a substantial part of the water bill is charged at a variable (per m3 ) rate it provides an incentive for efficient water use. Read more about the water abstraction charges in France here.
Wastewater fees
Fees charged for sewer and wastewater discharge that are designed for cost recovery. The fee structure may include differential fees for private vs commercial users. Wastewater discharge permit fees may include some economic costs of ecosystem damage.
In Pennsylvania, a distinction is made between residential and commercial customers for water and wastewater services. Residential and Commercial customers pay $1.2217 and $1.2205 respectively for the first 16,000 gallons per month, and $1.2217 and $0.9153 respectively for all in excess of 16,000 gallons per month. Read more about Wastewater Fees in Pennsylvania here.
Developer Fees / Water Infrastructure
Development or "Tap" fees are fees charged often by the water utility for new housing or industrial developments to cover the cost of infrastructure to serve the new development and can include requirements for water supply permits (in markets with water supply controls) or in lieu payments to cover the costs of acquiring additional supply permits. These one-time fees are often integrated into the building permitting process. The fee structure can be designed to influence water demand.
Storm water runoff and incentive systems
Tariffs and other financial mechanisms designed to incentivize private property owners to install measures to increase ground permeability during precipitation events in order to reduce runoff and the resulting need to build additional water treatment facilities. Some cities have been testing offset systems that allows trading of water absorption credits among urban and periurban areas operating in the same watershed.
Wastewater Fees
Fees charged for sewer and wastewater discharge that are designed for cost recovery. The fee structure may include differential fees for private vs commercial users. Wastewater discharge permit fees may include some economic costs of ecosystem damage.
In Pennsylvania, a distinction is made between residential and commercial customers for water and wastewater services. Residential and Commercial customers pay $1.2217 and $1.2205 respectively for the first 16,000 gallons per month, and $1.2217 and $0.9153 respectively for all in excess of 16,000 gallons per month. Read more about Wastewater Fees in Pennsylvania here.
Wetland Use Fees
Fees and permit expenses allowing access for commercial and non-commercial use of wetlands.
Instead of instituting a Fee system, Minnesota has established a wetland banking program that includes both private and state-sponsored wetland banks which have “credits” that are used to offset (mitigate) authorized wetland impacts. More information can be found on the Minnesota wetland banking program here.
Other Water Fees and Charges
Water related fees and charges for use and management other than those described elsewhere in this catalogue.
Hunting Permits or Concessions
Includes fees for licenses to hunt or fish wildlife as well as permits for hunting selected species. Also includes permits to operate commercial hunting concessions in a certain natural area. Fee revenue may be used to support natural area management.
Throughout the United States, State Hunting licenses are required in order to legally hunt. Hunting licenses can generally be purchased at any retail outlet that deals in hunting and fishing equipment, such as sporting goods stores. The linked page contains information regarding state licenses and hunting regulations. If you’re hunting on a national wildlife refuge, some also require their own permits and/or user fees.
Entrance Fees
Fees charged to tourists for entering or the use of facilities in a park or protected area, such as a parking fee.
Entrance fees are commonly found in many national parks throughout the world. Here is an example of the various fees associated with entering the Galapagos Islands.
Fee on International Travel (Air/Cruise)
Fees charged to the consumer when buying an international air ticket or cruise package. Fees can also be charged by a country or locality for disembarking. The revenue can be directly allocated for protected area management, biodiversity conservation or carbon offset costs. Fee scales can be set to charge higher fees for business and elite travel packages.
In Europe, a recent evaluation of a directive on Airport Charges (Directive 2009/12/EC) revealed that approximately 60% of the busiest EU28+EFTA airports have implemented environmental charges. However, the fees were targeted towards local noise and/or air quality impacts and not global climate change impacts. To read more about the various environmental charges from EU28+EFTA airports, please visit here.
Climbing Fees
Fees charged for the permit of climbing in a certain site, park or protected area, with collected revenues often assigned to support protected area management or other biodiversity conservation costs.
The Nepalese government has in place individual fees relating to the climbing of various Himalayan peaks during various seasons of the year. Ranging from Mount Everest to smaller peaks, the fees differentiate between climbing from 7000 to 75000 meters, climbing up to 7999 meters, and climbing over 8000 meters. To get an idea of the various fees themselves, please visit here.
Diving Fees
Fees charged for a permit to snorkle or dive in a certain local, marine park or protected area, with collected revenues often assigned to support protected area management or other biodiversity conservation costs.
In Bonaire National Marine Park in the Caribbean, divers must obtain a Marine Park tag in order to legally dive in Bonaire’s waters. The cost of the tag is US$45.00, and proceeds help support park management and services. If not scuba diving, the fee is reduced to US$25.00. This fee is charged to those who use the National Park to kayak, snorkel, windsurf or swim. Read more about the Bonaire National Marine Park and its fee system by clicking here.
Filming and Photography Fees
Fees charged for taking commercial photos, video, or filming in certain parks or protected areas, with collected revenues often often assigned to support protected areas management or other biodiversity conservation costs.
Commercial filming and Still Photography permits are available for purchase and use throughout the US National Park network. The fees range from $0/day if 1-2 people with only a camera and a tripod to $750/day if over 50 people. To find out more about the Filming and Photography fees in the US National Park system, please click here.
Camping Fees
Fees charged for a permit to camp in a certain park or protected area, with collected revenues often assigned to support protected area management or other biodiversity conservation costs.
In many US National Parks, camping fees are applied when attempting camp in the Backcountry, or in an area that is not near any designated camping grounds. In the Everglades National Park for example, a 14 day maximum Wilderness Permit is available for a fee of $15.00 per permit plus $2.00 per person, per night. Find out more regarding camping fees at the Everglades National Park by clicking here.
Tourism, Real Estate and Commercial Concessions
Detailed guide entry
Fees charged for permission to open and operate a business in a protected area, for example a hotel, restaurant or artisanal shop. The right to open a business maybe also auctioned. The category also includes fees charged for private homes, rights of way for electrical lines, communication infrastructure, pipelines, or similar infrastructure or utility services.
In protected areas in Queensland, one must apply and be approved for a Commercial Activity Permit (CAP) to conduct activities for commercial gain. A CAP can be offered for a minimum of 3 months or less, up to a maximum of 3 years. Activities requiring a CAP include guided tours, events, motorized activities and vending (mobile food vending). More information can be found here.
Mooring Fees
Fees charged for marine vehicles to moor inside or near a protected area, with collected revenues assigned to support protected area management or other biodiversity conservation costs.
In order for a boat to use dive site moorings in Saint Maarten, a fee of USD 250 per year per boat must be paid to the Nature Foundation. Funds generated through the sales of user tags and mooring fees are being used directly towards the management and maintenance of the moorings and the marine protected area. Read more about the Mooring fees here.
Other PA and Tourism Fees
Fees and charges other than those listed in other categories
Taxes, Fees and Royalties in the Forestry Sector
Taxes, fees, royalties and other charges on the extraction, transport and/or use of forests and forestry activities. Following the user-pays principle (and polluter pays), these levies help to capture the benefits of production services from nature and internalize the true cost of ecosystem degradation by influencing the price of the "consumed" natural capital. Revenues may or may not be allocated to environmental purposes. The most used forms of taxation are stumpage fees, concessions fees, royalties based either on the volume or the value of the timber harvested and export levies (e.g. Ghana has applied rates from 1 to 2 per cent on timber exports).
Several countries around the world have put in place a system of taxes, fees and/or royalties in the forestry sector. Washington State enacted an excise tax, known as the timber tax, in 1971. In place of a property tax on tress, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982 the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from state and federal land, in addition to private land. Read more about the Washington State timber tax here.
Tariffs, Fees and Taxes in the Water Sector
General (local and national) taxes and special levies charged in exchange for a service, for example water and wastewater bills, property assessments, or fees/charges applied to improve the quality of the water, and developer fees which may fund water infrastructure and watershed rehabilitation.
The Netherlands has in place two different kinds of taxes on water; a tap water tax and VAT. The stated aim of these taxes is to encourage companies and households to use water more sparingly. Tap water suppliers pay tap water tax to the Tax and Customs Administration, recharging the tax to their customers. The government charges VAT on the consumption of tap water. This has been set at the low VAT rate of 9%. To learn more about the water taxes in the Netherlands, click here.
Taxes and Fees in the Wildlife Sector
Taxes, fees, royalties, quotas, and permits for wildlife capture, hunting, and trade. These mechanisms can be used to generate revenue and to support the sustainable use of wildlife including wild animals, plants, and fungi.
In the state of Mississippi, conservation programs run by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) are almost entirely financially supported from hunters and anglers. License fees and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment generates $17 million and $11.4 million, respectively, for the state. Revenue from Waterfowl Stamps, which all waterfowl hunters are required to buy, contribute directly towards helping the state and federal governments to manage waterfowl habitat. To learn more about the Taxes and fees in the wildlife sector of Mississippi, or about the Waterfowl stamps specifically, please click here.
Taxes and Fees in the Tourism Sector
The collection of taxes and fees (or comparable instruments such as the sale or auctioning of concessions) from the tourism sector and/or directly from tourists. This revenue can provide guaranteed financing for protected areas or other biodiversity conservation measures either through retaining fees, revenue sharing agreements with communities, or receiving earmarked transfers from the central government.
Known as the quintessential example of a successful, transparent green tourist fee, the Pristine Paradise Environmental Fee (PPEF) of Palau was developed to support conservation and effective management of natural resources. The fee consists of a $100 PPEF on all international airline tickets to Palau. In addition to this fee, visitors are not issued a visa until they sign a pledge promising to respect the environment and culture Palau. In the Fiscal Year of 2018, the PPEF presumably generated annual revenue well over $10M. The fee is spent in the following ways:
a. Fisheries Protection Fund: $10
b. State Government: $12.50
c. Operations of Palau International Airport: $25
d. National Treasury: $22.50
e. Protected Areas Network (PAN): $30
· To get a more detailed assessment of the PPEF, please visit here
