IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/17-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study in Southern France »

Author

Listed:
  • Coralie Calvet
  • Philippe Le Coënt
  • Claude Napoleone
  • Fabien Quetier

Abstract

Environmental policies increasingly refer to biodiversity offsets (BO) as a way to slow or halt biodiversity losses caused by development projects, including infrastructure and urban development, that could not be avoided or minimized through adequate mitigation. In many cases, ecological gains for offsets are obtained through restoration activities conducted on ecologically degraded land, including agricultural land specifically acquired for this purpose by developers. This leads to competition with other land-uses and social conflicts over land availability. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the opportunity of implementing biodiversity offsets by involving farmers in producing ecological gains through contracts akin to agri-environmental schemes, we call Agri-environmental Biodiversity Offsets Schemes (ABOS). Using actual offsets designed and implemented for a new railway line under construction in Southern France, this paper examines (1) the acceptability of ABOS contracts by farmers, and (2) the effectiveness of ABOS design and actual implementation. A survey carried out with 145 farmers reveals that the main determinants of acceptability are: i) usual economic factors whereby farmers with lowest compliance levels and opportunity costs, as well as farms facing economic difficulty, are more likely to engage, and ii) social factors, such as the importance given to other farmers’ decision to engage and the perception of the position of farming organisations (peer pressure). In terms of effectiveness, ABOS is shown to be effective in meeting the legal requirements of the developer, but concerns are raised about additionality and long-term duration of actions, and about non-compliance with contract requirements. We particularly highlight problems with contract enforcement – especially due to weak sanctions and monitoring – and farmers’ selection that do not allow minimizing moral hazard and adverse selection which are inherently attached to agrienvironmental schemes. We suggest policy improvements and research perspectives to enhance the implementation of offsets through ABOS. Overall, with current implementation arrangements, this analysis leads us to question the use of ABOS in meeting BO objectives

Suggested Citation

  • Coralie Calvet & Philippe Le Coënt & Claude Napoleone & Fabien Quetier, 2017. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study in Southern France »," Working Papers 17-05, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
  • Handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:17-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/DR2017-05.pdf
    File Function: First version, 06-2017
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:ags:frraes:188048 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Preget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2015. "Préférences individuelles et incitations collectives : quels contrats agroenvironnementaux pour la réduction des herbicides par les viticulteurs ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 95(1).
    3. Gilles Allaire & Eric Cahuzac & Michel Simioni, 2009. "Contractualisation et diffusion spatiale des mesures agro-environnementales herbagères," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 23-50.
    4. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoléone & Jean-Michel Salles, 2015. "The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(6), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Lionel Delvaux & Bruno Henry de Frahan & Pierre Dupraz & Dominique Vermersch, 1999. "Adoption d'une MAE et consentement à recevoir des agriculteurs en région wallone," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 249(1), pages 71-81.
    6. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    7. Pierre Scemama & Harold Levrel, 2013. "L'émergence du marché de la compensation des zones humides aux États-Unis : impacts sur les modes d'organisation et les caractéristiques des transactions," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 123(6), pages 893-924.
    8. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    9. Chongwoo Choe & Iain Fraser, 1999. "Compliance Monitoring and Agri-Environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 468-487.
    10. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    11. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    12. Laure Kuhfuss & Julie Subervie, 2015. "Do agri-environmental schemes help reduce herbicide use? Evidence from a natural experiment in France," Post-Print hal-01199067, HAL.
    13. Rob Fraser, 2002. "Moral Hazard and Risk Management in Agri-environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 475-487.
    14. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Bastian, Chris & Kivi, Paul & Donner, Jennifer & Smith, Rodney B. W., 2002. "Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 305-328, May.
    15. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers' Participation in Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    16. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
    17. Rob Fraser, 2004. "On the Use of Targeting to Reduce Moral Hazard in Agri-environmental Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 525-540.
    18. Laure Kuhfuss & Florence Jacquet & Raphaële Preget & Sophie Thoyer, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(4), pages 395-422.
    19. Alger, Ingela & Albert Ma, Ching-to, 2003. "Moral hazard, insurance, and some collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 225-247, February.
    20. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    21. Muradian, Roldan, 2001. "Ecological thresholds: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-24, July.
    22. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri-environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511.
    23. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    24. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    25. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    26. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank & Johst, Karin & Shogren, Jason F., 2010. "An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 261-275, April.
    27. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Sven Wunder & Paul J. Ferraro, 2010. "Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 254-274, Summer.
    28. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    29. Charles Perrings & David Pearce, 1994. "Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 13-28, February.
    30. F. Bonnieux & P. Rainelli & D. Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the Supply of Environmental Benefits by Agriculture: A French Case Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 135-153, March.
    31. Jack Peerlings & Nico Polman, 2009. "Farm choice between agri-environmental contracts in the European Union," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 593-612.
    32. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    33. repec:ags:frraes:207796 is not listed on IDEAS
    34. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:ecolec:v:142:y:2017:i:c:p:120-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:17-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Patricia Modat). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/lamplfr.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.