De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

La séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) est devenue un instrument réglementaire important visant à concilier aménagement et préservation de l’environnement. Le succès de son application dépend notamment de l’interprétation des textes normatifs nationaux par les acteurs du territoire. Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons à l’interprétation des définitions des étapes ERC inscrites dans la doctrine nationale. L’analyse de 42 études d’impact permet de montrer qu’il existe une forte hétérogénéité d’interprétation : 60 % des mesures proposées ne correspondent pas aux définitions normatives. Ces confusions pouvant réduire l’efficacité écologique de la séquence, nous suggérons des voies d’amélioration en faveur d’une plus grande cohésion entre les définitions et les mesures proposées.The mitigation hierarchy has become a major regulatory tool to balance urban development with environmental interest. Notably, the success of its implementation is based on the interpretation of such politics by practitioners. In this manuscript, we focus on the interpretation of French normative definitions of the three steps in the mitigation hierarchy : i.e. avoidance, reduction et offsetting. The analysis of 42 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) highlights important heterogeneity among interpretations : 60 % of the proposed measures in EIAs do not fit with the normative definitions. These confusions could have a negative impact on the ecological efficiency of the mitigation hierarchy. Therefore, we suggest several solutions to improve cohesion between the normative definitions et proposed measures in practice

De la théorie à la pratique de la séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) : éviter ou légitimer la perte de biodiversité ?

La séquence Éviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) est devenue un instrument réglementaire important visant à concilier aménagement et préservation de l’environnement. Le succès de son application dépend notamment de l’interprétation des textes normatifs nationaux par les acteurs du territoire. Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons à l’interprétation des définitions des étapes ERC inscrites dans la doctrine nationale. L’analyse de 42 études d’impact permet de montrer qu’il existe une forte hétérogénéité d’interprétation : 60 % des mesures proposées ne correspondent pas aux définitions normatives. Ces confusions pouvant réduire l’efficacité écologique de la séquence, nous suggérons des voies d’amélioration en faveur d’une plus grande cohésion entre les définitions et les mesures proposées.The mitigation hierarchy has become a major regulatory tool to balance urban development with environmental interest. Notably, the success of its implementation is based on the interpretation of such politics by practitioners. In this manuscript, we focus on the interpretation of French normative definitions of the three steps in the mitigation hierarchy : i.e. avoidance, reduction et offsetting. The analysis of 42 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) highlights important heterogeneity among interpretations : 60 % of the proposed measures in EIAs do not fit with the normative definitions. These confusions could have a negative impact on the ecological efficiency of the mitigation hierarchy. Therefore, we suggest several solutions to improve cohesion between the normative definitions et proposed measures in practice

Lack of Correlation of Sinonasal and Otologic Reported Symptoms With Objective Measurements Among Patients With Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: An International Study.

peer reviewedSinonasal and otologic symptoms are common among patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) of all ages. We used baseline data from the ENT Prospective International Cohort of PCD patients (EPIC-PCD), the first PCD cohort focused on ENT disease manifestations. We assessed agreement between patient- or parent-reported symptoms and relevant examination findings, and calculated unweighted Cohen’s kappa to adjust for agreement by chance. We included 404 participants, from 12 centres. We found no correlation between patient-reported sinonasal symptoms and relevant clinical examination findings. Otologic symptoms correlated poorly or weakly with otoscopy and audiometry findings, with age and centre identified as determinants of agreement

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Contract AFOSR-90-0200National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-M-1213U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0083U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-4005U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-119

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2 and reports on five research projects.National Institutes of Health Contract 2 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 1 R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC22402National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC001001National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-1198National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Ames Research Center Grant NCC 2-77

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01-DC22402National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-93-1-1399U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-94-1-1079U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NCC 2-771U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-94-1-0236U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Agreement with Brandeis Universit

The inclusion of biodiversity in impact assessment for urban development: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion

International audienceNatural habitat loss and fragmentation, as a result of development projects, are major causes of biodiversity erosion. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most commonly used site-specific planning tool that takes into account the effects of development projects on biodiversity by integrating potential impacts into the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, and offset measures. However, the extent to which EIA fully address the identification of impacts and conservation stakes associated with biodiversity loss has been criticized in recent work. In this paper we examine the extent to which biodiversity criteria have been integrated into 42 EIA from 2006 to 2016 for small development projects in the Montpellier Metropolitan territory in southern France. This study system allowed us to question how EIA integrates biodiversity impacts on a scale relevant to land-use planning. We examine how biodiversity inclusion has changed over time in relation to new policy for EIA and how the mitigation hierarchy is implemented in practice and in comparison with national guidelines. We demonstrate that the inclusion of biodiversity features into EIA has increased significantly in relation to policy change. Several weaknesses nevertheless persist, including the continued absence of substitution solution assessment, a correct analysis of cumulative impacts, the evaluation of impacts on common species, the inclusion of an ecological network scale, and the lack of monitoring and evaluation measures. We also show that measures for mitigation hierarchy are primarily associated with the reduction of impacts rather than their avoidance, and avoidance and offset measures are often misleadingly proposed in EIA. There is in fact marked semantic confusion between avoidance, reduction and offset measures that may impair stakeholders’ understanding. All in all, reconsideration of stakeholders routine practices associated with a more strategic approach towards impact anticipation and avoidance at a land-use planning scale is now necessary for the mitigation hierarchy to become a clear and practical hierarchy for “no net loss” objectives based on conservation priorities

Wetland mitigation banking: Negotiations with stakeholders in a zone of ecological-economic viability

International audienceWetland mitigation banking (WMB) is an organizational form that attempts to balance the ecological goals of wetland conservation and the economic goals of development with the aim of improving the implementation of wetland offsetting. Given the resulting tension, it is important to understand how the way stakeholders employ the WMB regulatory framework affects the goal of No Net Loss of wetlands. In this study, we interviewed WMB stakeholders in Florida in the United States to identify their strategies during negotiations around different aspects of defining wetland mitigation credits (e.g. service areas, types of credit and credit release schedules). Using the approach of New Institutional Economics, we found that within a framework of well-defined rules that nonetheless allow flexibility, WMB enables a field of action for negotiating within a zone of ecological-economic viability – in part due to the stakeholders’ interest in maintaining a good reputation in this field. Outside of this zone of viability a wetland mitigation bank proposal collapses for economic or ecological reasons

Strategic landscape-scale planning to improve mitigation hierarchy implementation: An empirical case study in Mediterranean France

International audienceContinued urban development is a major cause of the loss of biodiversity. In this context, the objective of a No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity has been adopted in many countries worldwide. Reaching such an objective requires the application of the mitigation hierarchy, an environmental policy that aims to minimise the impact of urban development. It consists of a hierarchy transposed in France by a sequence of avoidance, reduction and, as a last resort, offsetting of residual impacts on biodiversity that have not been avoided or reduced. Currently, a project-by-project approach with little avoidance, much investment in the reduction of impacts and piecemeal efforts to offset biodiversity losses, significantly limits the effectiveness of the application of the mitigation hierarchy. This difficulty is largely due to a lack of both anticipation and more strategic planning of the mitigation hierarchy by decision-makers at the landscape scale. The purpose of this study is to propose a method that "scales up" the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy from the project-level to a landscape-scale approach. Based on an empirical study, we propose an operational framework for implementation of the mitigation hierarchy at this landscape scale on the basis of spatial indices that are used to (1) set priorities for impact avoidance and (2) pre-identify sites as candidates for offset provision. This methodology provides a much-needed tool to anticipate for the avoidance step and integrate offsetting into the planning process in a more Strategic Environmental Assessment type approach. We show how the use of this method is relevant in a territory that is currently undergoing rapid population growth and urbanization (Montpellier Metropolitan Territory in the south of France). Finally, this paper illustrates the importance of conducting such research in close collaboration with practitioners and public decision-makers to facilitate interactions between developers and conservation stakeholders and improve implementation by land-use planners