1 / 17

4 th BioEcon Workshop Venice (Italy), 28 th -29 th august 2003

Incentive Policies for Biodiversity Conservation and Protection in France: current practices and trends. 4 th BioEcon Workshop Venice (Italy), 28 th -29 th august 2003 Bénédicte Rulleau, Jean-Michel Salles LAMETA, Montpellier (France). Plan. Aim of this article

lorna
Download Presentation

4 th BioEcon Workshop Venice (Italy), 28 th -29 th august 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Incentive Policies for Biodiversity Conservation and Protection in France: current practices and trends 4th BioEcon Workshop Venice (Italy), 28th-29th august 2003 Bénédicte Rulleau, Jean-Michel Salles LAMETA, Montpellier (France)

  2. Plan • Aim of this article • Characteristics of economic incentive in favour of biodiversity protection in France • Study of their diversity • Study of their efficiency • Conclusions

  3. Aim of this article • In economic theory, incentive measures = most efficient way to incite agents (under strong constraints on information) • In the reality, more complicate because of asymmetry of information, administration characteristics and institutional trajectories • Objective: to determine • What kind of economic measures in favour of biodiversity protection are existing? • What can be implemented? • Goal of the Ministry of the Environment: to define the French strategy of biodiversity protection

  4. Categories of economic incentives • Contracts • Subsidies and loans with preferential rates • Dissuasive taxes • Tax advantages • Allowances and permits • Measure of economic support • Institution building • Formation • Information dissemination

  5. Contracts in France • Characteristics: finance investments expenditures or those bearing on management constraints => financial compensation of additional costs and income losses + incentive part • Relative importance: widely used • Sectors / actors targeted: agricultural sector in terms of funds as well as in terms of surfaces (can be altered with Natura 2000) • Funds: EAGGF, modulation funds • Pb:essentially control; continuity; definition of good management constraints • Ex: Agri-Environmental Measures, Territorial Contracts of Exploitation

  6. Subsidies / loans with preferential rates • Characteristics : help to finance investments expenditures, direct aids, loans with preferential rates… • Relative importance: widely used in France • Sectors / actors targeted: all sectors but each subsidy specifically targets one group of agents • Funds: national or European plans or programmes • Pb: pre-assignement of funds • Ex: Single Programming Document, French Rural Development plan, LIFE

  7. Dissuasive taxes / tax advantages • Characteristics : dissuasive taxes = envtal taxes, envtal charges (no performance bonds); tax advantages are coupled with regulations • Relative importance: widely used in France • Sectors / actors targeted: dissuasive taxes =water sector (consumers of water); tax advantages = forest sector (foresters and forest owners) • Pb: dissuasive taxes do not affect farmers; continuity; opposite effects of other policies • Ex: dissuasive taxes = pollution charges, charge for abstraction of water; tax advantages = Sérot-Monichon plan

  8. Other economic incentives • Allowances and permits: only one example not used • Measures of economic support: preserve traditional products and patterns of production in specific areas; few examples (are replaced by agri-environmental contracts); funded by the EU; question of “banal” biodiversity • Institution building: multiplicity of statutes => problem of coordination • Formation: important because can touch all members of the society • Information dissemination: usable by all institutions; cheap of local communities; labelling

  9. INCENTIVE MEASURES Tot. FUNDS EU French ministries Local Priv. or assoc. EAGGF Comm. initiative Ag Env Other Subsidies and loans 23 3 2 7 5 2 8 5 Contracts 21 8 - 12 5 2 5 1 Measures of economic support 4 4 - 4 1 1 - - Institution building 7 2 4 4 6 2 6 3 TOTAL 55 17 6 27 17 7 19 9 Institutional diversity

  10. Spatial diversity • Question of the decentralization • Competence of each group of institutions: • Regions = development of natural environment, management of rivers, public sensibilization • Departments = water management, delimitation of key natural areas, information dissemination • Towns = efficient link between governmental bodies and public agencies at the local level, environmental protection (as “town communities”)

  11. TARGETED AGENTS INCENTIVE MEASURES Users of ecosyst Tot. Consumers / taxpayers Local coll. Own. Assoc Tourists Dissuasive and incentive taxes 1 6 3 2 - - - - Tax advantages 8 5 4 - 2 - 1 Subsidies and loans 23 21 19 12 - 11 - Allowances and permits 1 - 1 - - - - Contracts 21 21 7 6 - 6 Measures of economic support - 4 4 1 1 - 1 - Institution building 7 5 6 7 - 7 - Formation 3 3 - - - - - Information provision 3 3 - - - - TOTAL 76 65 40 26 2 2 25 Diversity in terms of targeted actors

  12. Diversity in terms of instruments • Essentially contractual approach / French vision of biodiversity conservation that prioritises maintenance of men in ecosystems • But constraining and limits doubtless the number of probable interested recipients

  13. Efficiency • Effective objective to protect biodiversity? • Elements of biodiversity protected? • Directs effects on biodiversity?

  14. Yes Yes/no No TOT. European Commission 2 3 4 9 Ministry of the Environment 8 3 3 14 Ministry of the Agriculture 13 3 3 19 Other Ministries 2 1 1 4 Regional Councils 3 - - 3 Departmental Councils 5 1 - 6 Town Councils - 2 - 2 TOTAL 33 13 11 57 Effective objective to protect biodiversity?

  15. Species Ecosystems Both TOT. European Commission 1 4 4 9 Ministry of the Environment - 5 9 14 Ministry of the Agriculture 3 10 6 19 Other Ministries - 2 2 4 Regional Councils 1 1 1 3 Departmental Councils - 2 4 6 Town Councils - 1 1 2 TOTAL 5 25 27 57 Elements of biodiversity protected?

  16. Yes Ambig. No TOT. European Commission 2 3 4 9 Ministry of the Environment 9 4 1 14 Ministry of the Agriculture 14 1 4 19 Other Ministries 2 1 1 4 Regional Councils 3 - - 3 Departmental Councils 3 - 3 6 Town Councils - 1 1 2 TOTAL 32 10 14 57 Direct effects on biodiversity?

  17. Conclusions • Difficulty of appreciating the real effects of biological diversity conservation policies • Importance of agriculture and contractual approach • Even if existence of an important panel of tools usable for biodiversity conservation • Biodiversity conservation strategies, to be efficient, must conform to their object = be various and multiple

More Related