No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy

Abstract

International audienceFrench regulations concerning the mitigation of development impacts have been progressively strengthened with offsets now required for impacts on forests, wetlands, and protected species, among others. In 2012, following a national consultative process called Grenelle de l’Environnement, legal requirements in terms of monitoring and effective implementation of measures aimed at avoiding, reducing and offsetting impacts were strengthened. This has created strong “demand” for offsets.The workability of these new requirements has come under scrutiny, not least because of their strong legal and financial implications for developers. In this context, official government guidance on implementing the mitigation hierarchy was published in 2012. Under this guidance, the aim of the mitigation hierarchy is to achieve no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity, and preferably a net gain for currently threatened biodiversity and ecosystems. We discuss what NNL means in this context, and highlight some of the technical and governance issues raised by the French approach to NNL.Our analysis shows that the French guidance, in spite of its laudable ambition, does not address the institutional arrangements and science base needed to reach the policy's objective of NNL. The burden of designing and building adequate institutional arrangements is shifted down to local and regional permitting authorities, and even developers themselves. Consequently, and in spite of the increasing demand for offsets, the result is a highly variable and often ineffective project by project approach to offset supply, with minimal commitments. Unless the institutional and scientific challenges are tackled, the likely outcome will be an expansion of “paper offsets”

The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics

“…Indeed, the types of equivalence targeted in the BO system are closely linked to the goals of the NNL policies [3]. In line with Qué tier et al (2014), we examine from a conceptual perspective the various types of equivalence linked to NNL goals, and the associated BO baseline and metrics used to assess losses and gains in biodiversity (Table 1).…”

“…However, the level and type of ecological equivalence required between gains and losses depend on the equivalence criterion set in the NNL policy. The strict like-for-like equivalence represents for instance the highest levels of sustainability under BO regulations [3].…”

“…Seen as a way to provide economic incentives, the concept of biodiversity offsetting (henceforth BO) has recently enjoyed renewed political interest, and is endorsed in many political agendas [2]. Whilst BO requirements have been appearing in the environmental regulations of many countries since the 1970s (but rarely implemented in practice [3]), BO has recently re-emerged in biodiversity strategies across national and international policies as the main innovative tool for biodiversity conservation worldwide [4]. Embodying a regulatory requirement, BO is primarily incorporated by law into the mitigation hierarchy in three steps aimed at avoiding, reducing and offsetting residual impacts on biodiversity arising from development projects [5].…”

Interactions Between Biodiversity Offsets and Protected Area Commitments: Avoiding Perverse Outcomes

“…Rather, they involve counterbalancing the loss of a specific amount and type of biodiversity, the residual impact after appropriate avoidance, minimization and on-site rehabilitation measures have been taken. As such, some argue it is an example of a "strong sustainability" approach (Quétier et al 2014).…”

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

“…En parallèle, des travaux scientifiques sont menés pour analyser la contribution de la séquence en tant qu'outil de protection de la biodiversité en se focalisant sur les concepts et pratiques qui y sont liés, et notamment l'efficacité de la compensation écologique (Bull et al, 2013 ;Curran et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2016), l'objectif d'absence de perte nette ou no net loss (NNL) (Quétier et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2016) et de gain net de biodiversité (Bull et Brownlie, 2015 ;Rainey et al, 2015), le principe d'équivalence écologique (Quétier et al, 2012) ou encore l'état de référence (Benayas et al, 2009 ;Bullock et al, 2011 ;Bull et al, 2014 ;Maron et al, 2015). La séquence ERC est aussi largement controversée par différents travaux, notamment en termes d'efficacité écologique et de capacité à atteindre l'objectif de no net loss qui lui est associé (Maron et al, 2012 ;Aronson et Moreno-Mateos, 2015 ;Moreno-Mateos et al, 2015 ;Phalan et al, 2017) ou, plus récemment, en termes d'implications conceptuelles (Apostolopoulou et Adams, 2015 ;Bonneuil, 2015 ;Calvet et al, 2015 ;Spash, 2015 ;Martin et al, 2016).…”