Payments for Environmental Services (PES)
Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is a scheme implemented by the Ministry of Ecological Transition and Water Agencies to remunerate farmers who commit to environmentally friendly practices.
Objective
The objective of PES is to value the environmental services provided by farmers and to encourage them to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices. It aims to reward farmers' efforts to protect biodiversity, preserve water resources, store carbon in soils, etc.
Types of environmental services
When supported by the ministry and water agencies (public PES), the scheme focuses on two categories of environmental services provided by farmers:
- Management of landscape structures: concerns non-agricultural areas, notably agroecological infrastructures such as hedges, ponds…
- Management of agricultural production systems: particularly the management of cover crops (soil cover, lengthening rotations, permanent grasslands…) and the management of agroecosystem resources (management of nitrogen, carbon…)
There are four main categories of ecosystem services:
- Provisioning services, including food production, freshwater, wood, etc.
- Regulating services, which stabilize climate, water quantity and quality, pollination, etc.
- Cultural services related to our natural heritage, landscape quality, and support for tourism, recreational activities, etc.
- Supporting services necessary for ecosystem functioning, such as the nutrient cycle, soil formation, and primary production.
Operation
PES are implemented within the framework of territorial collective projects led by local actors (local authorities, water unions, associations, etc.).
The project is initially set up to address a specific environmental issue (water, biodiversity, climate). The issue may be specific to the territory and the way to address it as well.
Within the project, the various actors (including farmers) define the indicators on which the success of the PES will be measured (and the payment released).
It is the Ministry of Ecological Transition that ultimately validates the PES and its indicators.
See list of indicators.
Choice of indicators
Indicators are identified during project setup. Indicators can be monitoring indicators of means implemented (e.g., IFT or percentage of UAA covered) or results (amount of nitrogen in the soil).
Once indicators are chosen, an evaluation of regional averages is made, which defines minimum values to enter the PES, and threshold values for triggering payments. Payments are only made for elements going beyond regulatory requirements.
A number of indicators can be found in the description of projects already implemented, such as this one.
PES remuneration
Financial aids from a PES are limited to eligible costs with the following ceilings:
- €450/ha/year for landscape structures.
- €600/ha/year for management of agricultural production systems.
- €900/ha/year for specialized perennial crops
In practice, observed amounts are around €100 to €120 per ha per year.
Factors influencing remuneration
- The territorial PES project may provide weightings for scores obtained based on territorial stakes.
- Collective bonuses can be set up to encourage participation of as many farmers as possible.
- Eligibility criteria, such as a minimum area in the priority zone, may be defined by the project leader.
Cumulative aid with others, such as AECS (Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures) or aid for Organic Farming is not possible.
Aid simulator
The Ministry of Ecological Transition has set up a aid simulation tool for project leaders and to support project construction, accessible here: https://pse-environnement.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ (requires free account creation).
List of indicators
The list below of indicators has been consolidated to serve as a base for future PES projects. They provide a reference to save time during project setup, without being mandatory (a PES project can identify its own indicators). In all cases, each territory must adopt threshold values according to averages and PES objectives.
| Domain/
sub-domain |
National
indicator |
Definitions | Meaning of the indicator regarding the provision of environmental services | Threshold values (examples) | Bibliographic references | Possible means
(non-exhaustive list) |
PES management rules related to the new CAP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mini | maxi | ||||||||
| Management of
landscape structures |
% IAE (Agroecological Infrastructure) within UAA sustainably managed | IAE = topographical features, sustainably managed (e.g., for hedge, according to the specifications of the bocage wood label)
% IAE = IAE area x 100/UAA |
Development of IAE within the landscape and quality of their management in favor of biodiversity | 5 % | 15.00% | OILB | Hedge planting, sustainable management of IAE, including hedge management according to the hedge label specifications | No cumulation of the PES indicator with the hedge bonus of the eco-scheme | |
| Density of sustainably managed hedge | Sustainable hedge management ensuring the provision of environmental services | No cumulation of the PES indicator with the hedge bonus of the eco-scheme | |||||||
| Parcel fragmentation | Average size of farm parcels (parcel = coherent unit with homogeneous cover) | Positive impact on biodiversity linked to parcel fragmentation | 6 ha | 3 ha | IBEA | Functional parcel division coupled with crop diversification. | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from the higher certification level of the eco-scheme (HVE) | ||
| Characteristics of agricultural production systems | Management of cover crops | % permanent grasslands in UAA | Permanent grasslands = area where grass or other herbaceous forage plants (sown or natural) predominate for five consecutive years or more. | Maintenance or development of ecosystem services related to grasslands (biodiversity, C storage, soil protection, water resource preservation…) | To be defined by territory | To be defined by territory | Orientation towards production systems valuing permanent grasslands | ||
| % of legumes not receiving phytosanitary products within the cultivated area | Pure legumes (forage or seed-bearing) or in mixture (3 ha of mixture equivalent to 1 ha of pure legumes). The cultivated area includes catch crops. The legume cover does not receive phytosanitary product inputs | Positive impacts of legume presence in the crop rotation, optimizing several ecosystem services (increased biodiversity, symbiotic nitrogen fixation, weed population control…) | 5 % | 25 % | Main crops pure or mixed. Companion crops. Intercrop cover | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from the specific certification level of the eco-scheme (Organic Farming) | |||
| % soil cover | % cover on a parcel = number of days covered x 100/365 | Positive impacts of soil cover on several ecosystem services (soil protection, water resource protection, soil C storage…) | — In nitrate vulnerable zones: minimum % imposed by compliance with PAN and PAR | 100% | IBEA/RAD/CIVAM | Intercrop covers, undersown crops… For perennial crops: inter-row grassing. | Addition by project leaders of complementary management criteria regarding cover management (favorable to pollinators or absence of phytosanitary products). | ||
| % cover for the farm = weighted average cover by parcel size | — outside vulnerable zone: 80 % | ||||||||
| % UAA in intercropping | Number of hectares in simultaneous cultivation of several cash crops not sensitive to the same pests (at least for part of their cycle), sown mixed in rows or in alternate rows / total UAA of the farm | Crop associations help regulate diseases, weeds and insect pests and thus limit phytosanitary product inputs. Positive impacts on water quality and biodiversity | To be defined by territory | To be defined by territory | INRAE ESCO Natural regulation | Association of several species | |||
| % UAA in BNI (Low Impact Level) | Number of hectares in BNI crop / total UAA of the farm | Positive impacts on water quality and biodiversity | To be defined by territory | To be defined by territory | Water Agencies | Choice of BNI crops in the rotation | |||
| Valorization of agroecosystem resources | Ratio organic N / mineral N | Total organic N input (type I livestock effluents: manure, compost, biowaste…) / total N input for the entire farm | Closing the nitrogen cycle at the farm level (valorization of farm livestock effluents, excluding type II effluents: slurry) or territory level (type I livestock effluents, sewage sludge composts, source-separated biowaste…) | 0.2 | 0.5 | IBEA | Partnership with livestock farms, sewage sludge, etc. | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from higher and specific certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE and Organic Farming) | |
| Average mineral nitrogen quantity per hectare | Total mineral N input on the entire farm / UAA | Level of intensification of crop production, inversely correlated with the production of ecosystem services regulating water resource quality and pest population control | 100 kg N/ha to be adjusted according to territorial context | 20 kg N/ha to be adjusted according to territorial context | IBEA/RAD/CIVAM | Development of legumes within the cultivated area – Acceptance of lower raw product inputs per ha to maximize net added value per ha | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from higher and specific certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE and Organic Farming) | ||
| % UAA non-irrigated | Low mobilization of territorial water resources, allowing preservation of natural water "uses" (preservation of aquatic habitats and biodiversity) | 100 % | 0 % | Choice of water-efficient crops | |||||
| Irrigated water volume m3/ha | Low mobilization of territorial water resources, allowing preservation of natural water "uses" (preservation of aquatic habitats and biodiversity) | To be defined locally, according to agroclimatic contexts | To be defined locally, according to agroclimatic contexts | Choice of efficient irrigation systems and irrigation management | |||||
| TeqCO2/ha | Recognize and encourage energy / input sobriety of farms | 5.5 TeqCO2/ha | 1.50 TeqCO2/ha | RAD | TCS… | ||||
| % UAA untreated (herbicides) | Result indicator, related to the adequacy of the production system to weed population control without herbicide use | 30 % | 100 % | IBEA | Production system characteristics requiring only moderate herbicide use. Crop rotations, companion crops, mechanical weeding…, etc. | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from higher and specific certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE and Organic Farming)
The PES indicator does not count sensitive grasslands. | |||
| % UAA untreated (excluding herbicides) | Result indicator, related to the adequacy of the production system to control crop pest or parasite populations without phytosanitary product use | 30 % | 100 % | IBEA | Production system characteristics requiring only moderate phytosanitary product use. Crop rotations, biocontrol, development of IAE…, etc. | No remuneration of the PES indicator for farmers benefiting from higher certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE).
The PES indicator does not count sensitive grasslands. | |||
| IFT herbicides (excluding grasslands) | Number of herbicide product doses per year, weighted average by the areas of different farm crops (excluding grasslands) | Result indicator, related to the adequacy of the cropping system to weed population control without herbicide use. | Reference IFT (30th percentile) | 0 | Crop rotations, companion crops, mechanical weeding…, etc. | No remuneration for farmers benefiting from higher and specific certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE revised 2023 and Organic Farming) | |||
| IFT insecticides (excluding grasslands) | Number of insecticide phytosanitary product doses per year, weighted average by the areas of different farm crops | Result indicator, related to the adequacy of the cropping system to insect pest population control without phytosanitary product use. | Reference IFT (30th percentile) | 0 | Crop rotations, biocontrol, development of IAE…, etc. | No remuneration of the indicator for farmers benefiting from higher certification levels of the eco-scheme (HVE) | |||
PES feedback
Autres articles traitant des PSE
Sources
- List of PES projects and simulator: https://pse-environnement.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
- Guide to setting up a PES (Banque des Territoires): https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/sites/default/files/2022-11/Guide%20PSE%20-%20Paiement%20Services%20Environnementaux.pdf
- Starting a PES approach with farmer collectives (Trame) https://trame.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/GUIDE-METHODO.pdf
- CAP PES Project - documenting PES approaches (Chambers of Agriculture): https://rd-pays-de-la-loire.chambres-agriculture.fr/climat-environnement/biodiversite/projet-cap-pse-eco-services/
