L'étude d'impact sur l'environnement : cadre juridique et fonctionnement pratique

Engineering schoo

[Case study] Egyptian Vulture, Cinereous Vulture, Bearded Vulture, Griffon Vulture - France

In the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the population of all four species of vultures declined drastically in France, as a result of intentional persecution and accidental poisoning as a consequence of the use of synthetic pesticides after World War II. Other causes included food shortages due notably to the abandonment of extensive livestock farming and transhumance, and habitat loss and fragmentation. The most common threats now are electrocution and collision with power lines and wind turbines. Recovery has occurred as a result of research into the key threats followed up by the development of European and national action plans (for all four species) that have been implemented through collaboration between authorities, NGOs, livestock farmers, electricity providers and hunters, including through a number of LIFE Nature projects. Key measures to reduce mortality rates have included modification of electricity structures and experimentation with lead-free ammunition. Supplementary feeding, habitat management and the protection of nesting birds from human disturbances has increased breeding productivity. Targeted reintroduction measures have reestablished populations in isolated areas and helped to address the need to increase genetic variability

Objectivation de l'évaluation environnementale : Regards croisés France -Colombie -Pérou

International audienc

Amélioration de la transparence écologique d’une infrastructure linéaire : le cas de la RCEA (A79)

International audienc

Étude d'impact et séquence ERC

Maste

[Case study] Egyptian Vulture, Cinereous Vulture, Bearded Vulture, Griffon Vulture - France

In the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the population of all four species of vultures declined drastically in France, as a result of intentional persecution and accidental poisoning as a consequence of the use of synthetic pesticides after World War II. Other causes included food shortages due notably to the abandonment of extensive livestock farming and transhumance, and habitat loss and fragmentation. The most common threats now are electrocution and collision with power lines and wind turbines. Recovery has occurred as a result of research into the key threats followed up by the development of European and national action plans (for all four species) that have been implemented through collaboration between authorities, NGOs, livestock farmers, electricity providers and hunters, including through a number of LIFE Nature projects. Key measures to reduce mortality rates have included modification of electricity structures and experimentation with lead-free ammunition. Supplementary feeding, habitat management and the protection of nesting birds from human disturbances has increased breeding productivity. Targeted reintroduction measures have reestablished populations in isolated areas and helped to address the need to increase genetic variability

The place of spatialized ecological information in defining and implementing biodiversity offsets policies. A comparative study of Colombia and France

International audienceThe objective of the research is to analyze whether the elaboration and implementation of biodiversity offsetting policies depend on the quality of spatialized ecological data. We compared the availability and use of such data in Colombia and France, at various stages of the process: (i) anticipation (policy elaboration), (ii) planning, and (iii) monitoring and control. We show that spatialized ecological data are used to implement offsetting policies (France), but may also be a tool to develop such policies, in particular through the elaboration of predetermined ratios based on available scientific data (Colombia). We also show, based on geographical, ecological and legal aspects of the data, that the geographical characteristics of a country and its legal framework are an important determinant of the efficiency of offsets. Where the offset ratio is high, the feasibility of the offsetting will likely depend on whether preservation, and not only restoration, measures are allowed, but also on space finiteness and availability. There is also a necessity to balance the need for legal certainty that predetermined ratios provide with policy effectiveness in terms of no net loss of biodiversity. We emphasize the need for a regularly updated public portal that centralizes environmental data. Further, we note that an important caveat is to ensure that the guidance purpose of offsetting-related land-use planning instruments is not diverted and used to replace fieldwork. We also show that the legal requirement of ‘ecosystem’ (Colombia) vs ‘ecological’ (France) equivalence has practical consequences

Tackling limitations in biodiversity offsetting? A comparison of the Peruvian and French approaches

International audienceOffsetting schemes to compensate biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change (e.g., urbanization, infrastructure expansion) suffer limitations, related notably to the requirement for ecological equivalence between losses and gains, which cover ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty considerations. Such limitations impair the effectiveness of biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsetting is nevertheless adopted by an ever-increasing number of countries. We analyze how Peru and France approach biodiversity offsetting and whether and how they address all or some of these limitations, which could serve to inform other countries adopting such mechanism. We show that, although both countries apply similar principles, their no net loss (NNL) objective differs (NNL of biodiversity and ecosystem functionality in Peru vs NNL of biodiversity in France) with consequences on the ecological equivalence approaches adopted. In Peru, the imposed assessment method is habitat-based and adapted to specific ecosystems. By contrast, there is no mandatory assessment methods in France and, with the exception of wetlands, the focus is strongly on protected species, and on species functional traits rather than ecosystems in their entirety. The Peruvian method does not systematically integrate the landscape context and temporal losses are not accounted for, whereas uncertainty could be considered as indirectly taken into account. In France, landscape connectivity is not necessarily included in assessment methods, although it can be taken into account in practice. Furthermore, although weighting assessment methods may address temporal losses and uncertainty, their variety prevents a comparison of outcomes. Additional elements would warrant further analysis (e.g., monitoring and compliance)