FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy
BT 
AF QUETIER, Fabien
   REGNERY, Baptiste
   LEVREL, Harold
AS 1:1,2;2:3;3:4;
FF 1:;2:;3:PDG-RBE-EM;
C1 Biotope, F-34140 Meze, France.
   Univ Grenoble 1, CNRS, UMR 5553, Lab Ecol Alpine, F-38041 Grenoble 09, France.
   CNRS, Museum Natl Hist Nat, UMR, MNHN PARIS 6, F-75005 Paris, France.
   IFREMER, UMR AMURE, F-29280 Plouzane, France.
C2 BIOTOPE, FRANCE
   UNIV GRENOBLE, FRANCE
   CNRS, FRANCE
   IFREMER, FRANCE
SI BREST
SE PDG-RBE-EM
IN WOS Ifremer jusqu'en 2018
   copubli-france
   copubli-univ-france
IF 3.018
TC 91
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00168/27924/27267.pdf
LA English
DT Article
DE ;No net loss;Biodiversity offsets;Ecological compensation;EU Habitats Directive;European biodiversity strategy;Environmental impact assessment;Ecological equivalencies;France
AB French 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”.
PY 2014
PD APR
SO Environmental Science & Policy
SN 1462-9011
PU Elsevier Sci Ltd
VL 38
UT 000333720300010
BP 120
EP 131
DI 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.009
ID 27924
ER

EF