Public Incentives Harmful to Biodiversity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORTS & DOCUMENTS Public Incentives Harmful to Biodiversity Sustainable Development Report of the commission chaired by Guillaume Sainteny Public Incentives Harmful to Biodiversity Guillaume Sainteny Chairman Jean-Michel Salles Vice-Chairman Peggy Duboucher, Géraldine Ducos, Vincent Marcus, Erwan Paul Rapporteurs Dominique Auverlot, Jean-Luc Pujol Coordinators October 2011 March 2015 for the English version Foreword Public debate has sometimes tended to equate preservation of biodiversity with the emblematic fate of certain endangered species. We now know the importance of protecting fauna and flora as a whole, not only in certain “hotspots” upon the earth, but even in our local meadows and lawns. Of course, this involves not only the variety of species – and thereby the planet’s genetic heritage –, but also the many interactions between the latter (through pollination, predation and symbiosis) and the full scope of “services rendered” to mankind. For even though we are not always aware of it, mankind benefits from the immense services freely provided by ecosystems. This is the source from which we draw our food, as well as fuel and building materials. Apart from these “appropriable” goods, biodiversity enables the purification of water, climate stabilisation and mitigation, and the regulation of floods, droughts and epidemics. In short, biodiversity is vital for us. Yet, throughout the world, an increasingly rapid rate of decline in biodiversity has been observed for several decades, giving rise to fears of serious upheavals in our environment. Responsibility for this decline falls, in the first place, to mankind, which is also a potential victim thereof. The principal factors of deterioration of natural habitats originate from human activity: the increasing sealing of soils, which roads, car parks and airports cover with waterproof surfaces; the fragmentation of terrestrial habitats caused by transport infrastructures and the intensification of agricultural practices; the overexploitation of renewable natural sources and, at the forefront, fishing stocks and freshwater; pollution by nitrates, pesticides and other heavy metals; the introduction of invasive alien species and climate change etc. So many pressures that are progressively reducing biodiversity. All, or almost all, of the sectors of our economy are concerned: industry, agriculture, drilling and quarrying activities, transport, tourism, housing, local recreational activities, etc. Although all have already undertaken significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, initiatives with regard to the preservation of biodiversity continue to lag behind. It is the duty of the authorities to contribute to bridging this gap. Moreover, they have a field of investigation at their disposal that has still been little explored: with a view to both virtue and effectiveness, they are able to closely scrutinise all public subsidies which, due to their side-effects or pernicious impacts, may prove harmful to biodiversity. Such a change was etablished as a priority by the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nagoya in 2010. In its communication of 20 September 2011, the European Commission also calls for the adoption of the “phasing-out”, by 2020, of “environmentally harmful subsidies”, “with due regard to the impact on people in need”. At the national level, this objective is included among the undertakings made at the time of the “Grenelle de l’environnement” (the French national consultation process on environment) and in the National Strategy for Biodiversity presented by the Minister of Ecology on 19 May 2011. 3 Public Incentives Harmful to Biodiversity This provides the context for the proceedings of the working group chaired by Guillaume Sainteny. The group of experts was assigned the task of listing subsidies for which a proven causal link with the decline of biodiversity can be shown to exist, and to propose possible courses of reform. I would like to extend my warm thanks to the Chairman and to all of the members of the mission who took up this vast and complex task. Firstly, because public subsidies originate from many different sources – the State, regional authorities, Europe – and are also diverse in nature – they may involve subsidies, tax expenditure and extensions or partial application of regulations, etc. Last but not least, because it is not always easy to prove their impact upon biodiversity, and still less to assess it. The working group has the merit of opening up numerous possible courses of reform, with regard to both general guidelines and concrete, achievable short-term recommendations. Each of the latter oblige public decision-makers to change their outlook, and raise the question of the difficulty of reconciling the defence of biodiversity with economic and social imperatives. We may therefore be sure that this work, which follows on from the reference report of Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis on the value of biodiversity1, will provide “food for thought for many debates and reforms in the up coming years. 1 Centre d’analyse stratégique (2009), L’approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes (The economic approach to biodiversity and services related to eco systems), report of the commission chaired by Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, Paris, La Documentation française, 400 p. 4 Contents Foreword_________________________________________________________________ 3 Introduction________________________________________________________ 7 Summary__________________________________________________________ 13 Recommendations__________________________________________________ 23 Chapter 1 – Definitions, methods and limits ______________________________ 87 1 • Definitions _______________________________________________________________ 87 2 • Methodological elements__________________________________________________ 94 3 • Attempt to characterise a causality link between public incentives and biodiversity_____________________________________________________ 98 4 • The accepted approach___________________________________________________ 116 Chapter 2 – The five main drivers of biodiversity loss In France_______________________________________________ 117 1 • An exceptional but threatened natural capital____________________________________________________________ 117 2 • The destruction and deterioration of habitats: a predominant and multi-faceted impact_______________________________________________ 124 3 • Overexploitation of renewable natural resources: an alarming situation for some of them______________________________________ 126 4 • Pollution: a pressure that affects the environment as a whole_______________________________________________________________ 127 5 • Invasive alien species: a poorly-known but increasing factor of biodiversity loss__________________________________________________ 130 6 • Climate change: direct effects and indirect effects via other pressures_______________________________________________________ 132 Chapter 3 – Public incentives encouraging the destruction or deterioration of natural habitats________________________________________ 135 1 • Artificialisation of habitats__________________________________________________ 135 2 • Partial development of habitats____________________________________________ 152 3 • The fragmentation of habitats______________________________________________ 160 4 • An illustration of a combination of factors linked to the deterioration of a habitat: the increasing rarity of the European Hamster in the Alsace Region___________________________________________________ 177 Chapitre 4 – Public incentives encouraging the overexploitation of renewable natural resources _________________________ 181 1 • Soils ____________________________________________________________________ 181 2 • Fishery resources ________________________________________________________ 197 3 • Water _________________________________________________________220 5 Public Incentives Harmful to Biodiversity Chapitre 5 – Public incentives that encourage pollution _____________________ 233 1 • The air __________________________________________________________ 233 2 • Soils ____________________________________________________________ 253 3 • Water ___________________________________________________________ 259 Chapitre 6 – Public incentives that promote the introduction and dissemination of invasive alien species __________________ 275 1 • Harmful activities _________________________________________________ 275 2 • Identified public subsidies _________________________________________ 278 3 • An attempt to quantify the effects for the best known cases __________________________________________ 287 APPENDICES ____________________________________________________ 293 Appendix 1 – Referral letter_________________________________________________295 Appendix 2 – List of members ______________________________________________ 297 Appendix 3 – Persons interviewed__________________________________________301 Appendix 4 – Acronyms ____________________________________________________303 Bibliography ______________________________________________________307 6 Introduction By letter of 27th July 2010, appended to this report, the Secretary of State for Ecology asked the Secretary of State for Forward Planning and the Development of the Digital Economy: • to “draw up an exhaustive list of subsidies and fiscal incentives having an impact on the environment; • to analyse possible harm caused to biodiversity by each of these measures