Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling.

Biodiversity loss is accelerating because of unceasing human activity and land clearing for development projects (urbanisation, transport infrastructure, mining and quarrying …). Environmental policy-makers and managers in different countries worldwide have proposed the mitigation hierarchy to ensure the goal of "no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity" and have included this principle in environmental impact assessment processes. However, spatial configuration is hardly ever taken into account in the mitigation hierarchy even though it would greatly benefit from recent developments in habitat connectivity modelling incorporating landscape graphs. Meanwhile, national, European and international commitments have been made to maintain and restore the connectivity of natural habitats to face habitat loss and fragmentation. Our objective is to revisit the mitigation hierarchy and to suggest a methodological framework for evaluating the environmental impact of development projects, which includes a landscape connectivity perspective. We advocate the use of the landscape connectivity metric equivalent connectivity (EC), which is based on the original concept of "amount of reachable habitat". We also refine the three main levels of the mitigation hierarchy (impact avoidance, reduction and offset) by integrating a landscape connectivity aspect. We applied this landscape connectivity framework to a simple, virtual habitat network composed of 14 patches of varying sizes. The mitigation hierarchy was addressed through graph theory and EC and several scenarios of impact avoidance, reduction and compensation were tested. We present the benefits of a habitat connectivity framework for the mitigation hierarchy, provide practical recommendations to implement this framework and show its use in real case studies that had previously been restricted to one or two steps of the mitigation hierarchy. We insist on the benefits of a habitat connectivity framework for the mitigation hierarchy and for ecological equivalence assessment. In particular, we demonstrate why it is risky to use a standard offset ratio (the ratio between the amount of area negatively impacted and the compensation area) without performing a connectivity analysis that includes the landscape surrounding the zone impacted by the project. We also discuss the limitations of the framework and suggest potential improvements. Lastly, we raise concerns about the need to rethink the strategy for biodiversity protection. Given that wild areas and semi-natural habitats are becoming scarcer, in particular in industrialised countries, we are convinced that the real challenge is to quickly reconsider the current vision of "developing first, then assessing the ecological damage", and instead urgently adopt an upstream protection strategy that would identify and protect the land that must not be lost if we wish to maintain viable species populations and ecological corridors allowing them the mobility necessary to their survival.

Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

In many countries, biodiversity compensation is required to counterbalance negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity by carrying out ecological measures, called offset when the goal is to reach "no net loss" of biodiversity. One main issue is to ensure that offset gains are equivalent to impact-related losses. Ecological equivalence is assessed with ecological equivalence assessment methods taking into account a range of key considerations that we summarized as ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty. When equivalence assessment methods take into account all considerations, we call them "comprehensive". Equivalence assessment methods should also aim to be science-based and operational, which is challenging. Many equivalence assessment methods have been developed worldwide but none is fully satisfying. In the present study, we examine 13 equivalence assessment methods in order to identify (i) their general structure and (ii) the synergies and trade-offs between equivalence assessment methods characteristics related to operationality, scientific-basis and comprehensiveness (called "challenges" in his paper). We evaluate each equivalence assessment methods on the basis of 12 criteria describing the level of achievement of each challenge. We observe that all equivalence assessment methods share a general structure, with possible improvements in the choice of target biodiversity, the indicators used, the integration of landscape context and the multipliers reflecting time lags and uncertainties. We show that no equivalence assessment methods combines all challenges perfectly. There are trade-offs between and within the challenges: operationality tends to be favored while scientific basis are integrated heterogeneously in equivalence assessment methods development. One way of improving the challenges combination would be the use of offset dedicated data-bases providing scientific feedbacks on previous offset measures.