Location
Room 460
Start Date
4-7-2012 1:15 PM
End Date
4-7-2012 2:45 PM
Description
The contractual commitment is a tool now widely used in the environmental field. As part of payments for environmental services, this contractual obligation, however, raises many questions. These cover not only the legitimacy but also contractors and so intimately linked to the object of the contract, environmental services. Indeed, the provision of environmental services justifies financial rewards in return. Insofar as this concept of environmental services is uncertain because of a missing definition, it coexists with that of ecosystem services, environmental public goods, the subject of the contract and therefore its payment may appear questionable. Including the assumption that this problem is solvable, the legitimacy of contractors is also cause questions. Indeed, who is the payee ? Tha landowner or the land user ? This question involved here is the dimension of equitable participation in natural resource management on farmland. It also refers here directly to the nature of service rendered to qualify for this compensation. In addition, should the contractor who pays for a service ensure that the contract has been respected ?
Can it be a payment involving a certain property which was the subject of contractual exchange ? Its legitimacy is also an irritant and often subject to doctrinal differences. So, is a private person entitled to intervene, especially to identify environmental services likely to object to a fee ? Implicitly, the question of the monetary value of these services arises. What contractors is the value determined by? Unequal power relations may arise during contract negotiations. Therefore, to support opportunities for transactions to pay for environmental services, seems to compel the existence of a form of regulation. What might be the scale of action to take? By what authority? Would it necessarily be a legal regulation? Moreover, beyond "the proper functioning legal" logic of this contract, the same transposition of this legal architecture to any transaction intended to pay for environmental services also causes difficulties. Is this construction admissible to the contractors? Indeed, this generalization and / or pervasiveness of the contractual tool invites reflection on legal thought and to think of the standard.
Presentation
Included in
Critical Analysis of the Contractual Commitment to Serve the Protection of Ecological Services: Payments for Environmental Services
Room 460
The contractual commitment is a tool now widely used in the environmental field. As part of payments for environmental services, this contractual obligation, however, raises many questions. These cover not only the legitimacy but also contractors and so intimately linked to the object of the contract, environmental services. Indeed, the provision of environmental services justifies financial rewards in return. Insofar as this concept of environmental services is uncertain because of a missing definition, it coexists with that of ecosystem services, environmental public goods, the subject of the contract and therefore its payment may appear questionable. Including the assumption that this problem is solvable, the legitimacy of contractors is also cause questions. Indeed, who is the payee ? Tha landowner or the land user ? This question involved here is the dimension of equitable participation in natural resource management on farmland. It also refers here directly to the nature of service rendered to qualify for this compensation. In addition, should the contractor who pays for a service ensure that the contract has been respected ?
Can it be a payment involving a certain property which was the subject of contractual exchange ? Its legitimacy is also an irritant and often subject to doctrinal differences. So, is a private person entitled to intervene, especially to identify environmental services likely to object to a fee ? Implicitly, the question of the monetary value of these services arises. What contractors is the value determined by? Unequal power relations may arise during contract negotiations. Therefore, to support opportunities for transactions to pay for environmental services, seems to compel the existence of a form of regulation. What might be the scale of action to take? By what authority? Would it necessarily be a legal regulation? Moreover, beyond "the proper functioning legal" logic of this contract, the same transposition of this legal architecture to any transaction intended to pay for environmental services also causes difficulties. Is this construction admissible to the contractors? Indeed, this generalization and / or pervasiveness of the contractual tool invites reflection on legal thought and to think of the standard.