224
1
Introduction
How to offset biodiversity destruction due to infrastructures from growing human activities? The
rapid and tremendous losses of biodiversity known
since the last 15 years, especially in marine ecosystem, are the most problematic scientifi c and social
challenge for the next generation (Worm et al.
2006 ). The contradictory confl ict between the
human development from the end of the twentieth
century to the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century
called “concrete era” and the necessity to protect
biodiversity by a world “green garden” model
seems to be impossible in the long term, if our
development model, based on growing consumption and market-based theory, is not adapted to our
limited planet and its resources (MEA 2005 ).
Nonetheless, for the short term, a new way of thinking the land planning with biodiversity conservation
consideration, especially to offset human footprint,
could be interesting to explore. Since the early
1990s, the “no net loss” concept is the US government’s overall policy goal regarding wetlands and
coastal ecosystems ( Sibbing 2008 ). “No net loss”
was recommended in 1987 at the National Wetlands
Policy Forum to be adopted in 1989 by President
George H. W. Bush’s administration. The policy, “a
compromise between development and conservation,” was based on the needs to protect aquatic ecosystem by creating
1 and restoring replacement from
the same ecosystems. The overall objective is to
strive to maintain a global functional ecosystem balance by compensatory mitigation in the same quantity as a destroyed ecosystem: the losses equal the
gains. An additional positive impact could even be
produced like additional conservation actions
(called ACA, see Fig. 1 ).
Ideally, this is intended to compensate for the
same ecosystem as those which were lost; however,
this is ecologically impossible (Moreno-Mateos
1 Ecological glossary from Society for Ecological Restoration
International Science & Policy Working Group ( 2004 ).
et al. 2012 ). A best effort is to attempt to reach a
social compromise and standard of performance
with the restoration project (Levrel et al. 2012 ).
In early 1990, Dunford (et al. 2004 ), on behalf of
NOAA, developed a service/service method
called “Habitat Equivalency Analysis (NOAA
1995 ).” The method consists of sizing habitat
losses by scoring the level of ecosystemic services
(ES) lost by an authorized (NEPA 1969 ; CWA
1972 ) or non-authorized (National Resource
Damage Assessment protocol, under Oil Pollution
Act from 1990) operation, including ES gained
with a compensatory mitigation area. To help and
facilitate repetitive and fastidious calculations, the
National Coral Reef Institute created the HEA software in 2006 called Visual_HEA (Kohler and
Dodge 2006 ). In Europe, this approach is based on
“service to service” assessment and was introduced
into national law in 2006 with the passage of
Environmental Liability Law (Bas and Gaubert
2010 ). The idea is quite the same as the “no net
loss” in the USA, by mitigating human impact with
the offset of the same ecosystem plus the interim
losses calculated with an additional discount rate
(see Fig. 2 and Dunford et al. 2004 ).
The French government adopted the European
Directive in 2008
2 (implementing decree in
2009)
3 and, based on the European program
REMEDE results (REMEDE 2008 ), recommend
HEA as a standard method for scoring loss and
gain (Gaubert and Hubert 2013 ). Our objective,
in addition to comply with the French Ministry of
Environment (MEDDE), was to facilitate future
end users of the service/service approach for
Environmental Liability Law in France and
Europe. In this aim, we reform Visual_HEA
4 to
improve the software as well as adapt Visual_
HEA to the European context. The 2.6 version of
2 Loi n 2008-757 du 1er août 2008.
3 Décret n°2009-468 du 23 avril 2009.
4 The Visual_HEA V2.6 in English is a freeware; website
at the following location: https://www.nova.edu/webforms/
ocean/software_request.html?visualhea
offshore windmill fi ctitious authorized impact. A criticism of the approach
will be exposed to defi ne what could be the arguments to a “fair” mitigation
for fi sheries resources, as basis for future negotiation with fi shermen.
P. Sylvain
1
Introduction
How to offset biodiversity destruction due to infrastructures from growing human activities? The
rapid and tremendous losses of biodiversity known
since the last 15 years, especially in marine ecosystem, are the most problematic scientifi c and social
challenge for the next generation (Worm et al.
2006 ). The contradictory confl ict between the
human development from the end of the twentieth
century to the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century
called “concrete era” and the necessity to protect
biodiversity by a world “green garden” model
seems to be impossible in the long term, if our
development model, based on growing consumption and market-based theory, is not adapted to our
limited planet and its resources (MEA 2005 ).
Nonetheless, for the short term, a new way of thinking the land planning with biodiversity conservation
consideration, especially to offset human footprint,
could be interesting to explore. Since the early
1990s, the “no net loss” concept is the US government’s overall policy goal regarding wetlands and
coastal ecosystems ( Sibbing 2008 ). “No net loss”
was recommended in 1987 at the National Wetlands
Policy Forum to be adopted in 1989 by President
George H. W. Bush’s administration. The policy, “a
compromise between development and conservation,” was based on the needs to protect aquatic ecosystem by creating
1 and restoring replacement from
the same ecosystems. The overall objective is to
strive to maintain a global functional ecosystem balance by compensatory mitigation in the same quantity as a destroyed ecosystem: the losses equal the
gains. An additional positive impact could even be
produced like additional conservation actions
(called ACA, see Fig. 1 ).
Ideally, this is intended to compensate for the
same ecosystem as those which were lost; however,
this is ecologically impossible (Moreno-Mateos
1 Ecological glossary from Society for Ecological Restoration
International Science & Policy Working Group ( 2004 ).
et al. 2012 ). A best effort is to attempt to reach a
social compromise and standard of performance
with the restoration project (Levrel et al. 2012 ).
In early 1990, Dunford (et al. 2004 ), on behalf of
NOAA, developed a service/service method
called “Habitat Equivalency Analysis (NOAA
1995 ).” The method consists of sizing habitat
losses by scoring the level of ecosystemic services
(ES) lost by an authorized (NEPA 1969 ; CWA
1972 ) or non-authorized (National Resource
Damage Assessment protocol, under Oil Pollution
Act from 1990) operation, including ES gained
with a compensatory mitigation area. To help and
facilitate repetitive and fastidious calculations, the
National Coral Reef Institute created the HEA software in 2006 called Visual_HEA (Kohler and
Dodge 2006 ). In Europe, this approach is based on
“service to service” assessment and was introduced
into national law in 2006 with the passage of
Environmental Liability Law (Bas and Gaubert
2010 ). The idea is quite the same as the “no net
loss” in the USA, by mitigating human impact with
the offset of the same ecosystem plus the interim
losses calculated with an additional discount rate
(see Fig. 2 and Dunford et al. 2004 ).
The French government adopted the European
Directive in 2008
2 (implementing decree in
2009)
3 and, based on the European program
REMEDE results (REMEDE 2008 ), recommend
HEA as a standard method for scoring loss and
gain (Gaubert and Hubert 2013 ). Our objective,
in addition to comply with the French Ministry of
Environment (MEDDE), was to facilitate future
end users of the service/service approach for
Environmental Liability Law in France and
Europe. In this aim, we reform Visual_HEA
4 to
improve the software as well as adapt Visual_
HEA to the European context. The 2.6 version of
2 Loi n 2008-757 du 1er août 2008.
3 Décret n°2009-468 du 23 avril 2009.
4 The Visual_HEA V2.6 in English is a freeware; website
at the following location: https://www.nova.edu/webforms/
ocean/software_request.html?visualhea
offshore windmill fi ctitious authorized impact. A criticism of the approach
will be exposed to defi ne what could be the arguments to a “fair” mitigation
for fi sheries resources, as basis for future negotiation with fi shermen.
P. Sylvain