Abstract
After explaining why agri-environmental measures (AEMs) can be regarded as payment for environmental services (PES), this chapter focuses on the governance issues arising from the introduction of AEMs in France. These issues are examined in several territorial contexts: a metropolitan region (Auvergne) and two overseas regions (Guadeloupe and Réunion). Analysis of the national governance of AEMs highlights the weak communication between the different administrations in charge of agriculture and environment. The design of the AEM instruments was led by a highly centralised administration, in cooperation with the majority farmers’ union, promoting a mass mechanism in favour of farmers. At the regional level, agricultural stakeholders are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of the measures and seek above all to maintain their income. The three case studies underline the strategic role of intermediate actors in the implementation of AEMs at the local level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Here, we are talking about completed agri-environmental contracts, in other words, those that preceded the TAEMs.
- 2.
The aim of AEMs is to “encourage farmers to protect and enhance the environment on their farmland by paying them for the provision of environmental services” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/measures/index_en.htm.
- 3.
Aid part financed – up to 50% for the most part – by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF – Guarantee section).
- 4.
French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDDM).
- 5.
Interviews conducted as part of the SERENA research programme, see Aznar O., Valette E., Amon G., Augusseau X., Bonin M., Bonnin M., Brétière G., Caron A., Daré W. s., Démené C., Déprès C., Décamps M., Gomes M., Hrabanski M., Jeanneaux P., Maury C., Queste J., 2010, Emergence de la notion de Service Environnemental en France, SERENA Programme, Working document n°2010-02, 66 p.
- 6.
“Pour une politique agricole durable en 2013. Principes, architecture et éléments financiers,” French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDDM) document, 2010, p. 5.
- 7.
See Rapport d’Evaluation à mi-parcours portant sur l’application en France du règlement CE n°1257/1999 du Conseil, concernant le soutien au développement rural, Chapter VI: “Soutien à l’agroenvironnement,” January 2004, CNASEA.
- 8.
The FNSEA is the majority agricultural union in France.
- 9.
Interview conducted in Paris in December 2009 as part of the SERENA research programme
- 10.
Interview conducted in 2010 with the president of the GMO seed commission for the Confédération Paysanne as part of the SERENA research programme.
- 11.
The CRAE is mainly made up of representatives of the DRAAF, the DREAL and the Agence de l’Eau. It also includes members of the DDTs, departmental councillors, the ASP, all the AEOs concerned and the ADASEAs.
- 12.
Circular DGPAAT/SDEA/C2010-3059.
- 13.
Apart from the replacement of AEMs for perennial high-altitude banana plantations by support for fallow practices.
- 14.
Linked to the discovery of water, soil and plant pollution by a very persistent molecule used until 1993 to control the banana weevil.
References
Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baylis, K., Peplow, S., Rausser, G., & Simon, L. (2008). Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecological Economics, 65, 753–764.
Bonnieux, F. (2009). Bilan critique de la politique agri-environnementale et perspectives d’évolution. In F. Aubert, V. Piveteau, & B. Schmitt (Eds.), Politiques agricoles et territoires (pp. 141–163). Versailles: édition Quae.
Boussaguet, L., & Jacquot, S. (2009). Les nouveaux modes de gouvernance. In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Politiques européennes (pp. 409–428). Paris: Presses de Science Po.
Cathelin, C. (2010). La conversion à l’environnement de la filière banane de la Guadeloupe. Mémoire de master 2, IEP de Lyon-Cirad, 163 p.
Chia, E., Dulcire, M., & Piraux, M. (2008, December 11). Le développement d’une agriculture durable a-t-il besoin de nouveaux apprentissages? Études caribéennes. Retrieved November 2011, from http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/3497. Accessed Oct 2012.
CNASEA. (2004). Evaluation à mi-parcours portant sur l’application en France du règlement CE n°1257/1999 du Conseil, concernant le soutien au développement rural, Chapitre VI: “Soutien à l’agroenvironnement”.
Daré, W., & Queste, J. (2011). Diversité de choix et inégalités d’accès aux services publics: le paradoxe de l’écologisation de la politique agricole à la Réunion. Lien Social et Politique, 66, 225–243.
Daré, W., Augusseau, X., Michalski, J., Antona, M., Bonin M., Queste, J., & Valette, E. (2011). Repenser les liens entre agriculture et environnement dans les territoires insulaires: intérêts et limites du concept de service environnemental (pp. 454–472). Paper presented at Insularité et développement durable. Marseille: IRD.
Dulcire, M., Piraux, M., & Chia, E. (2006). Stratégie des acteurs face à la multifonctionnalité: le cas de la Guadeloupe et de la Réunion. Cahiers Agricultures, 15(4), 363–370.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674.
French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDDM). (2010). Pour une politique agricole durable en 2013. Principes, architecture et éléments financiers. Paris.
French Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. (2009). La rémunération de services environnementaux rendus par les agriculteurs, document de travail n°2. Les publications du service de la statistique et de la prospective, 25 p.
Gassiat, A., Harreau, A., & Zahm, F. (2010). Quelle territorialisation de l’action publique pour améliorer la qualité de l’eau ? Exemple des MAE réduction des pesticides dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Cemagref Bordeaux, 13 pp.
Herrou, M. (2010). Appropriation des dispositifs agro-environnementaux par les agriculteurs Application sur deux BAC de l’île de la Réunion. Montpellier: Mémoire d’ingénieur, SupAgro Montpellier-IRC, CIRAD. 99 p.
Jobert, B., & Muller, P. (1987). L’Etat en action, politiques publiques et corporatismes. Paris: PUF.
Kohler-Koch, B., & Eising, R. (1999). The transformation of governance in the European Union. London: Routledge.
Lascoumes, P. (1993). L’Eco-pouvoir. Environnement et politiques. Paris: La Découverte.
Lascoumes, P., & Le Bourhis, J. P. (1997). L’environnement ou l’administration des possibles. La création des DIREN. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2005). L’action publique saisie par ses instruments. In P. Lascoumes & P. Le Galès (Eds.), Gouverner par les instruments (pp. 11–44). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Muller, P. (2010). Changement d’échelles des politiques agricoles. Introduction. In B. Hervieu, N. Mayer, P. Muller, F. Purseigle, & J. Rémy (Eds.), Les mondes agricoles en politique (pp. 339–350). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1202–1208.
Noulin, A. (2010). Le dispositif des mesures agro-environnementales territorialisées en Auvergne (Internship report, Serena Project). Clermont-Ferrand: AgroParisTech and Vetagrosup.
Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture. (2007). La Situation Mondiale de l’Alimentation et de l’Agriculture: Payer les agriculteurs pour les services environnementaux. Rome.
TEEB. (2009). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers – Summary: Responding to the value of nature (47 pp). Wesseling.
Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1245–1252.
Queste J., Augusseau X., and et Daré W. (2011). Articulation d’instruments d’action publique pour l’écologisation de l’agriculture réunionnaise, Colloque Ecologisation des politiques publiques et des pratiques agricoles, 16–18, INRA, Avignon.
Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts (Center For International Forestry research, CIFOR Occasional Paper, 42, 24 p.).
Acknowledgement
This chapter has been written in the framework of Serena Project (ANR-08-STRA-13), funded by the French National Research Agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maury, C. et al. (2013). Governance Across Multiple Levels of Agri-environmental Measures in France. In: Muradian, R., Rival, L. (eds) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5175-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5176-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)