No abstract

International audienceBiodiversity offsetting (BO) is increasingly adopted as a conservation tool by many countries while it has received several critics among which its possible links to several forms of Nature economicization. We believe that some of these concerns rest on misunderstandings generated by the difficulty to interpret economic principles from ecological viewpoints and the lack of a common language between conservationists and economists. Because this issue is vivid and the concepts not yet stabilized, key aspects of the potential advances and limits of BO to conservation practice must be clarified. This short communication (1) addresses the links between the BO concept and the central sustainability principle and (2) clarifies key assumptions regarding three potential Nature economicization roles recurrently attributed to BO. We show that the BO principle reflects a move from welfare equivalency mostly inherited from mainstream economic approach based on weak sustainability criteria toward an ecological economic approach based on strong sustainability criteria and the quest for ecological equivalence. However, the way the countries implement BO influences the possibility to reach strong sustainability. Although we show that BO could be linked to a certain acceptance of “commodification”, we suggest that BO can neither be considered as a “marketization” and nor generally as a “privatization” of Nature. We therefore argue that these conceptual misunderstandings should not hamper conservation objectives and that BO must be framed within interdisciplinary approaches combining ecology, economy and socio-political aspects. We conclude that conservation science has a major role to play in defining the boundaries of BO

International audienceIn the United States, the Clean Water Act requires compensatory measures for aquatic ecosystems damaged by development projects. From the 90’s to improve the quality of the system, we have seen the emergence of a market system to supervise the transactions related to the implementation of actions for compensation. The theoretical framework of neo-institutional economics states that the choice of the organization of a transaction is based on the minimization of transaction costs. These costs are related to the coordination mechanisms that are specific to each type of organization and which efficiency – in terms of transaction costs – depends on the characteristics of the transaction : asset specificity, uncertainty and frequency of the transactions.Transactions related to compensation involve a significant investment in natural capital – the aquatic ecosystem – to produce an environmental gain equivalent in quality and quantity, to the losses related to the damage. The application of the neo-institutional theory to the study of these transactions allows us to show that these transactions have original characteristics that require organizational modes of hybrid forms. The desire to include the compensation in a trading system involves an alignment of the characteristics of transactions with a risk reduction of the specificity of natural capital. Therefore it is necessary to maintain a strong regulatory system to ensure the quality of the compensation

One of the current major scientific challenges to sustain social-ecological systems is to improve our understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services. Here, we analyse the bundles of ecosystem services supplied by three coastal ecosystems (coastal lagoons, coral reefs and sandy beaches) along a gradient of eutrophication. Based on a state-and-transition model, we analyses the dynamic responses of ecological communities to environmental change and management actions. Although few exceptions are highlighted, increasing eutrophication in the three ecosystem types leads to a degradation of the ecosystem service bundles, particularly for nutrient and pathogen regulation/sequestration, or for the support of recreational and leisure activities. Despite few obstacles to their full use, state-and-transition models can be very powerful frameworks to integrate multiple functions and services delivered by ecosystems while accounting for their temporal dynamics. Highlights► Gradients of eutrophication modify bundles of coastal ecosystem services. ► Nutrient and pathogen regulation as well as cultural services are particularly impacted. ► State-and-transition model is a powerful framework for environmental management. ► Managers can balance the few gains of eutrophication with the losses of ecosystem services.