233
But HEA couldn’t (1) help to choose the “best”
compensatory mitigation option nor to (2) take
account of the landscape effect (3) or anticipate
the future use dynamics of the area.
Nevertheless, the score given to assess the
gains or losses of ecosystem services can promote negotiations on surfaces to compensate in
nature and not on issues related to fi nancial
losses, unrelated to the restoration of a natural
environment or achieving the goal of “no net
loss.” This fi nancial compensation may be done
under accompanying measure proposals, but it
cannot be used as part of compensatory mitigation by ecological equivalency, as it could be seen
in several projects. Finally, passing through a
method aims to assess the surface to restore in
equivalency the losses of nature, with ecological
engineering techniques, rather to put a price on
nature or assess the monetary losses from ecosystemic services destruction, avoiding a sense of
“entitlement to destroy” when the applicant simply pays to offset the economic impacts of its
ecosystem destruction, for instance.
In offshore windmill projects, for fi shermen,
we assume that it is more valuable to (1) negotiate in-kind mitigation for sandy bottom with
scallop enhancement and (2) even additional out
of kind restoration with artifi cial reef (hard substratum) dedicated to lobsters or valuable fi shes
over-targeted by fi sheries or conservation actions
for their fi shing grounds (BBOP 2009 ). We propose this hierarchy in compensatory mitigation
sized with Visual_HEA, rather than monetary
compensatory income which is diffi cult to
explain for the next generation of fi shermen as a
“fair” offset for the destruction of their “working
tool”: the fi shing ground.
Nature has no price, but it has a value!
Acknowledgments Our thanks to Hélène Gaubert and
Doris Nicklaus from MEDDEM–CGDD (French Ministry
of Environment). We also would like to thank the NOVA
Oceanographic Center team members who helped share
their network of relations. For testing and helpful remarks,
we thank Adeline Bas and Anne-Charlotte Vaissière from
IREMER/UBO – AMURE and Celine Jacob From
UM3–CEFE.
The bases of this communication for the French–
Japanese symposium in Marseille and its proceedings are
also developed in a submitted article, in review for
publication at the time of this communication: Pioch, S.,
Johnston, M., Vaissière, A.C., Berger, F., Jacob, C., Dodge,
R. (in review) “Scoring method to sizing ecological mitigation projects based on rapid ecological function assessment: Visual_HEA V2.6 free software.”
References
Bas A, Gaubert H (2010) La directive « responsabilité
environnementale » et ses méthodes d’équivalence.
Etudes et documents n°19, Service de l’Economie, de
l’Evaluation et de l’Intégration du Développement
Durable (SEEIDD) du Commissariat Général au
Développement Durable (CGDD), MEDDAT, 92 p
BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme)
(2009) Business, biodiversity offsets and BBOP: an
overview. BBOP, Washington, DC, 45 p
CWA (Clean Water Act) (1972) 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.
Décret n°2009-468 du 23 avril 2009 relatif à la prévention
et à la réparation de certains dommages causés à
l’environnement, Journal Offi ciel de la République
Française, 26 avril 2009, texte 1 sur 42 p
Directive 2004/35/CE L143: 56–75, European Commission
Dunford RW, Ginn TC, Desvousges WH (2004) The use
of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource
damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48(1):49–70
Fifas S (2004) La Coquille Saint-Jacques en Bretagne.
Direction des ressources vivantes, Ifremer:15
Gaubert H, Hubert S (2013) The Environmental Liability
Law (ELL) and the equivalency methods.
Methodological Guide, 213 p
Kohler KE, Dodge RE (2006) Visual_HEA: Habitat
Equivalency Analysis software to calculate compensatory restoration following natural resource
injury. In: Proceedings of 10th international coral reef
symposium, Japan, pp 1611–1616
Lacroix D, Pioch S (2011) The multi-use in wind farm
projects: more confl icts or a win-win opportunity?
Aquat Living Resour 24:129–135
Levrel H, Pioch S, Spieler R (2012) Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and
ecological functions? Mar Policy 36(6):1202–1210
Loi n°2008-757 du 1er août 2008 relative à la responsabilité environnementale et à diverses dispositions
d’adaptation au droit communautaire dans le domaine
de l’environnement. Journal offi ciel de la République
Française, 2 août 2008, texte 2 sur 107
Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ, Grigalunas TA (1994) Natural
resource damage assessment: the role of restoration.
Nat Resour J 34(Winter):153–178
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, DC, 155 p. MEA, 2005b
Milon JW, Dodge RE (2001) Applying habitat equivalency analysis for coral reef damage assessment and
restoration. Bull Mar Sci 69(2):975–988
Monnery J, Hubert S, Gaubert H (2011) Application des
méthodes d’équivalence à la pollution accidentelle du
Gave d’Aspe. Etudes et documents n°47, Service de
How to Size “Fair” Compensatory Mitigation Due to Coastal Area Destruction…
But HEA couldn’t (1) help to choose the “best”
compensatory mitigation option nor to (2) take
account of the landscape effect (3) or anticipate
the future use dynamics of the area.
Nevertheless, the score given to assess the
gains or losses of ecosystem services can promote negotiations on surfaces to compensate in
nature and not on issues related to fi nancial
losses, unrelated to the restoration of a natural
environment or achieving the goal of “no net
loss.” This fi nancial compensation may be done
under accompanying measure proposals, but it
cannot be used as part of compensatory mitigation by ecological equivalency, as it could be seen
in several projects. Finally, passing through a
method aims to assess the surface to restore in
equivalency the losses of nature, with ecological
engineering techniques, rather to put a price on
nature or assess the monetary losses from ecosystemic services destruction, avoiding a sense of
“entitlement to destroy” when the applicant simply pays to offset the economic impacts of its
ecosystem destruction, for instance.
In offshore windmill projects, for fi shermen,
we assume that it is more valuable to (1) negotiate in-kind mitigation for sandy bottom with
scallop enhancement and (2) even additional out
of kind restoration with artifi cial reef (hard substratum) dedicated to lobsters or valuable fi shes
over-targeted by fi sheries or conservation actions
for their fi shing grounds (BBOP 2009 ). We propose this hierarchy in compensatory mitigation
sized with Visual_HEA, rather than monetary
compensatory income which is diffi cult to
explain for the next generation of fi shermen as a
“fair” offset for the destruction of their “working
tool”: the fi shing ground.
Nature has no price, but it has a value!
Acknowledgments Our thanks to Hélène Gaubert and
Doris Nicklaus from MEDDEM–CGDD (French Ministry
of Environment). We also would like to thank the NOVA
Oceanographic Center team members who helped share
their network of relations. For testing and helpful remarks,
we thank Adeline Bas and Anne-Charlotte Vaissière from
IREMER/UBO – AMURE and Celine Jacob From
UM3–CEFE.
The bases of this communication for the French–
Japanese symposium in Marseille and its proceedings are
also developed in a submitted article, in review for
publication at the time of this communication: Pioch, S.,
Johnston, M., Vaissière, A.C., Berger, F., Jacob, C., Dodge,
R. (in review) “Scoring method to sizing ecological mitigation projects based on rapid ecological function assessment: Visual_HEA V2.6 free software.”
References
Bas A, Gaubert H (2010) La directive « responsabilité
environnementale » et ses méthodes d’équivalence.
Etudes et documents n°19, Service de l’Economie, de
l’Evaluation et de l’Intégration du Développement
Durable (SEEIDD) du Commissariat Général au
Développement Durable (CGDD), MEDDAT, 92 p
BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme)
(2009) Business, biodiversity offsets and BBOP: an
overview. BBOP, Washington, DC, 45 p
CWA (Clean Water Act) (1972) 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.
Décret n°2009-468 du 23 avril 2009 relatif à la prévention
et à la réparation de certains dommages causés à
l’environnement, Journal Offi ciel de la République
Française, 26 avril 2009, texte 1 sur 42 p
Directive 2004/35/CE L143: 56–75, European Commission
Dunford RW, Ginn TC, Desvousges WH (2004) The use
of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource
damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48(1):49–70
Fifas S (2004) La Coquille Saint-Jacques en Bretagne.
Direction des ressources vivantes, Ifremer:15
Gaubert H, Hubert S (2013) The Environmental Liability
Law (ELL) and the equivalency methods.
Methodological Guide, 213 p
Kohler KE, Dodge RE (2006) Visual_HEA: Habitat
Equivalency Analysis software to calculate compensatory restoration following natural resource
injury. In: Proceedings of 10th international coral reef
symposium, Japan, pp 1611–1616
Lacroix D, Pioch S (2011) The multi-use in wind farm
projects: more confl icts or a win-win opportunity?
Aquat Living Resour 24:129–135
Levrel H, Pioch S, Spieler R (2012) Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and
ecological functions? Mar Policy 36(6):1202–1210
Loi n°2008-757 du 1er août 2008 relative à la responsabilité environnementale et à diverses dispositions
d’adaptation au droit communautaire dans le domaine
de l’environnement. Journal offi ciel de la République
Française, 2 août 2008, texte 2 sur 107
Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ, Grigalunas TA (1994) Natural
resource damage assessment: the role of restoration.
Nat Resour J 34(Winter):153–178
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, DC, 155 p. MEA, 2005b
Milon JW, Dodge RE (2001) Applying habitat equivalency analysis for coral reef damage assessment and
restoration. Bull Mar Sci 69(2):975–988
Monnery J, Hubert S, Gaubert H (2011) Application des
méthodes d’équivalence à la pollution accidentelle du
Gave d’Aspe. Etudes et documents n°47, Service de
How to Size “Fair” Compensatory Mitigation Due to Coastal Area Destruction…