Offsets and biodiversity conservation in France: limits and perspectives

Transcription

1 CIEEM Spring Conference 18 March 2014 Baptiste Regnery a, Denis Couvet a, Fabien Quétier b, Harold Levrel c, Christian Kerbiriou a a Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle (Paris); b Biotope (Montpellier); c Institut Français de Recherche pour l Exploitation de la Mer (Brest) Offsets and biodiversity conservation in France: limits and perspectives

2 Contents I- Introduction II- Overview of the offset policy framework III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species IV- Prospects for improving biodiversity offsets

3 I- Introduction Which biodiversity in France? Overseas France Land area = 119,394 km² Several hotspots Source: Myers et al., 2000

4 I- Introduction Which biodiversity in France? Metropolitan France Land area = km 2 6 different biogeographical zones 40% of European flora 55% of European amphibians 58% of European breeding birds etc. Source: MNHN 2011, EEA 2007

5 I- Introduction As in many parts of the world, biodiversity undergoes several pressures in France For example, about ha are annually subject to land take Climate change Destruction and fragmentation Pollution Biological invasion

6 II- Overview of the offset policy framework In France, biodiversity offsets are mentioned (or recommended) through different policies: European policies: - EU Habitats (1992) and Birds Directive (2009) - EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004) - EU Directive on EIA (2011) - EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 National policies: - Decree about the derogations to the strict protection of species (2007) - National Water Act (1992) - Environmental Impact Assessment (2012),... - French government guidance ( Doctrine Éviter, Réduire, Compenser ) (2012)

7 II- Overview of the offset policy framework In practice, the protected species are the main issues that trigger biodiversity offsets, through the procedure of derogation According to Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive, derogations must not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) Least Concern (National Red List) Corn Crake (Crex crex) Endangered (National Red List)

8 II- Overview of the offset policy framework Number of derogation requests filed with the French Ministry of Ecology between 2006 and 2011 Source: Quétier, Regnery, Levrel, 2014

9 III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species How many development projects in France include offsets for protected species? What are the factors that most affect the presence/absence of offset? Methods - 85 derogation files available at the French Ministry of Ecology - period: 2009 (12) (73) - types of development projects: roads, sandpits, commercial centers, etc.

10 III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species Questions: how many development projects in France include offsets for protected species? What are the factors that most affect the presence/absence of offset? Methods - 85 derogation files available at the French Ministry of Ecology - period: 2009 (12) (73) - types of development projects: roads, sandpits, commercial centers, etc. The analyses examined the offset designing (and not the offset implementation)!

11 III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species 85 develoment projects No offset 19 projects (22%) Partial offset 36 projects (42%) Species equality 30 projects (35%) Positive impacts 6 projects Source: Regnery, Couvet, Kerbiriou, 2013

12 III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species Common species (LC, NT) are little taken into account through current offsets Least Concern (LC) Near Threatened (NT) Vulnerable (VU) - Endangered (EN) Extinction risk + Species loss offset as a function of conservation status (French National Red List) Source: Regnery, Couvet, Kerbiriou, 2013

13 Impacted species < 8 species > 8 species III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species Species at sites with a large number of protected species were less offset (17%) than species at sites that had a lower number of protected species (56%) inf8espece sup8espece Impacted species : number of protected species listed as present at the affected site Offset spécies : number of protected species targeted by offset measures Offset species (%) Source: Regnery, Couvet, Kerbiriou, 2013

14 III- Offsets and conservation of the protected species Otherwise, most offset measures (52%) aimed to increase habitat quality for species already present on offset sites Population level: potential increase of viability Species/Community level: gains?? Significant gains in species richness might rather be achieved by creating conditions for additional species (i.e., turning offset sites of low-species richness into sites of higher species richness) Source: Regnery, Couvet, Kerbiriou, 2013

15 Population (%) IV- Prospects for improving biodiversity offsets Can biodiversity offsets be restricted to rare and endangered species? Trends of two common species (LC, National and European Red List) Yellowhammer - 42% European Serin - 31% Source: European Bird Census Council (

16 IV- Prospects for improving biodiversity offsets Common species play an essential role in the structure and ecosystem functioning (e.g., Gaston & Fuller, 2007) Importance of biodiversity metrics integrating interactions among species, dynamics, and functions Source: François Ory

17 IV- Prospects for improving biodiversity offsets Other key challenges for achieving no net loss : timing, feasibility,... Official government guidance Experimental sites of habitat banking Since 2008 New site

18 Thank you

19 A few references Scientific literature ( - Regnery, B., Couvet, D., Kerbiriou, C., Offsets and conservation of the species of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Conservation Biology 27 : Regnery, B., Les mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité. Conception et perspectives d application. PhD thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie. - Quétier, F., Regnery, B., Levrel, H., No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environmental Science & Policy 38 : Official government guidance - Doctrine Eviter, Réduire, Compenser : (2012) - Technical guidance (2013):