No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy
Introduction
The headline objective of the EU's most recent Biodiversity Strategy (European Commission, 2011) is to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020, and to restore them as far as feasible. In this context, the European Commission announced an initiative under Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy ‘to ensure there is no net loss of ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes)’ (EC, 2011). Determining what no net loss (henceforth NNL) actually means and how offsetting can contribute to it will be critical to designing appropriate policy instruments for reaching the strategy's goals.
Offsets are defined as the last step in a sequence of avoiding, reducing and offsetting or repairing impacts on the environment that is known as the mitigation hierarchy. This hierarchy is central in much of the environmental legislation of the European Union (Jiricka and Pröbstl, 2009, McGillivray, 2012). In France, the mitigation hierarchy was incorporated into environmental law in 1976 but offsets remained, for the most part, ignored or ill-applied until EU Directives were progressively transposed into French legislation from 2007 onwards. This has drawn the attention of both developers and public authorities to previously neglected “ecological compensation” requirements. Following various changes in the corresponding legislation, the French government published guidance on the mitigation hierarchy which explicitly outlines NNL as its goal (MEDDE, 2012a, MEDDE, 2013). Valuable lessons could be learned from this process.
Experience shows that effective implementation and enforcement of offsets is at least as important for achieving NNL as appropriate offset design, if not more so (Hough and Robertson, 2009, Morandeau and Vilaysack, 2012, Bull et al., 2013). Our assumption is that if no ambitious institutional arrangements are adopted in parallel with the new requirements for offsetting spelled out under the French NNL policy, this could lead to “paper offsets” – akin to “paper parks” where protected areas are not actually enforced on the ground, but with added twist of areas being protected as offsets that were not actually threatened.
To address this question, we describe France's most recent environmental policy developments around the NNL principle. Following a review of official policy documents, we critically discuss the coherence between these legal developments and the institutional and organizational needs for effective implementation and enforcement. Our analysis identifies some of the missing design elements for an effective NNL policy based on offsets, which is applicable to France as well as other jurisdictions.
Section snippets
The slow transposition of EU directives into French law (1992–2010)
As outlined above, the transposition of European directives has been a major driver in the recent reinforcement of the mitigation hierarchy in France. The EU directive 92/43/EC of May 21st 1992 (known as the ‘Habitats Directive’) was a major step for nature conservation in Europe (Ledoux et al., 2000). Through its articles 12 and 16, the Directive conditions the possibility of impacting protected species of plants and animals (those listed in Annex IV of the Directive) to a set of requirements:
Critical review of the French NNL policy
We use the French NNL policy as a running example to establish how it stands relative to some of the key challenges for achieving NNL through offsets.
Discussion
The current debate on NNL and offsets in France is focused on impacts caused by development (urban expansion, infrastructure, and industrial projects, including renewable energy, extractive industries, etc.), in the context of permitting procedures. Human activities that cause losses of biodiversity but for which permits are generally not required (e.g. farming and forestry practices or fisheries) are not currently required to achieve NNL. By design, the French NNL policy should therefore be
Acknowledgements
The ideas in this paper greatly benefited from fruitful discussions in the working group on setting guidelines for applying the mitigation hierarchy in France, chaired by the French Ministry of Environment, and discussions in the working group on no net loss, convened by the European Commission. Special thanks go to Marc Lansiart, Elen Lemaître – Curri, Delphine Morandeau and Michel Perret (French Ministry of Environment) as well as Michel Echaubard and Serge Muller (Conseil National de
References (65)
- et al.
Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2012) A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2009)- et al.
Determination of significance in ecological impact assessment: past change, current practice and future improvements
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2013) - et al.
Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2011) - et al.
Intermediaries in environmental offset markets: actions and incentives
Land Use Policy
(2013) Identifying critical natural capital: conclusions about critical natural capital
Ecological Economics
(2003)- et al.
Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2009) - et al.
One common way — the strategic and methodological influence on environmental planning across Europe
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2009) - et al.
Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences
Land Use Policy
(2000) - et al.
Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and ecological functions?
Marine Policy
(2012)
Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies
Biological Conservation
Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability
Ecological Economics
Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring
Biological Conservation
Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management
Biological Conservation
Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: key issues and solutions
Biological Conservation
Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis
Ecological Economics
The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance
Geoforum
Species in a dynamic world: consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning
Biological Conservation
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets
Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis
Science
Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice
Oryx
Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species
Les conditions du développement des banques d’actif naturels en France – Analyse du régime institutionnel de la première réserve d’actifs naturels française
Développement Durable et Territoires
Signature du plan d’actions en faveur des zones humides (PAFZH) de Chambéry métropole
Transferable mitigation of environmental impacts of development: two cases of offsets in Australia
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
Décision n 2012-269 QPC du 27 juillet 2012 – Commentaire
Trading connectivity improvement for area loss in patch-based biodiversity reserve networks
Biological Conservation
Biodiversity offsetting Pilots
Technical Paper: The Metric for the Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot in England
Does proactive biodiversity conservation save costs?
Biodiversity and Conservation
Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest Under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
Guidance Document on Article 6 (4) of the “Habitats Directive” 92/43/EEC
Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 3. 5. 2011. COM (2011) 244
Cited by (133)
Big Cities, Big Impacts? A spatial analysis of 3,335 ecological offsets in France since 2012
2024, Journal of Environmental ManagementStakeholder insights into embedding marine net gain for offshore wind farm planning and delivery
2024, Environmental ChallengesThe place of spatialized ecological information in defining and implementing biodiversity offsets policies. A comparative study of Colombia and France
2023, Environmental Science and PolicyA spatial model for biodiversity offsetting
2023, Ecological Modelling