Abstract
Offsetting 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).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agence de l’eau Loire-Bretagne and DREAL de bassin Loire-Bretagne (2015) Schéma directeur d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux 2016–2021. Bassin Loire-Bretagne:360
Alidor B (2017) Compensation et services écosystémiques. Droit et Ville N 84:223–241. https://www.cairn.info/revue-droit-et-ville-2017-2-page-223.htm
Andreadakis A, Bigard C, Delille N, Sarrazin F, Schwab T (2021) Approche standardisée du dimensionnement de la compensation écologique. Guide de mise en œuvre. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique, Commissariat général au développement durable, Paris. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Approche_standardis%C3%A9e_dimensionnement_compensation_%C3%A9cologique.pdf
BBOP (2009) Business, biodiversity offsets and BBOP: an overview. In: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), Forest Trends, Washington, D.C
Bezomes L, Gaucherand S, Kerbiriou C, Reinert M-E, Spiegelberger T (2017) Ecological equivalence assessment methods: what trade-offs between operationality, scientific basis and comprehensiveness? Environ Manage 60:216–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5
Bezombes L, Gaucherand S, Spiegelberger T, Gouraud V, Kerbiriou C (2018) A set of organized indicators to conciliate scientific knowledge, offset policies requirements and operational constraints in the context of biodiversity offsets. Ecol Ind 93:1244–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.027
Bigard C, Pioch S, Thompson JD (2017) The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. J Environ Manage 200:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057
Bull JW, Strange N (2018) The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat Sustain 1:790–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0176-z
Bull JW, Suttle B, Gordon A, Singh N, Milner-Gulland E (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47:369–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172X
Bull JW, Milner-Gulland EJ, Suttle KB, Singh NJ (2014) Comparing biodiversity offset calculation methods with a case study in Uzbekistan. Biol Cons 178:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.006
Bull JW, Lloyd SP, Strange N (2017) Implementation gap between the theory and practice of biodiversity offset multipliers. Conserv Lett 10:656–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12335
Calvet C, Ollivier G, Napoléone C (2015) Tracking the origins and development of biodiversity offsetting in academic research and its implications for conservation: a review. Biol Cons 192:492–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.036
Carreras Gamarra MJ, Lassoie JP, Milder J (2018) Accounting for no net loss: a critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods. J Environ Manage 220:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.008
CBD (2022) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. In: CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
CGDD (2013) Lignes directrices nationales sur la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur les milieux naturels. - Temis - Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer. In: Commissariat général au développement durable, Direction de l’eau et de la biodiversité, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Energie, Paris. https://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0079/Temis-0079094/20917.pdf
CGDD (2017) Comment réparer des dommages écologiques de moindre gravité ? Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer, Théma Analyse, Commissariat général au développement durable, p 86. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Thema%20-%20Comment%20reparer%20les%20dommages%20ecologiques%20de%20moindre%20gravite.pdf
CGDD (2018a) Évaluation environnementale. Guide d’aide à la définition des mesures éviter, réduire, compenser (ERC). Théma Balises, Commissariat général au développement durable. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire:134. https://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0087/Temis-0087232/23757.pdf
CGDD (2018b) Préjudice écologique, bien dimensionner la réparation des dommages. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire, Théma Essentiel, Commissariat général au développement durable, p 4. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma-%20Pr%C3%A9judice%20%C3%A9cologique.pdf
CGDD (2018c) Comment réparer des dommages écologiques graves ? Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire, Théma Analyse, Commissariat général au développement durable, p 88. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-%20Comment%20r%C3%A9parer%20des%20dommages%20%C3%A9cologiques%20graves_0.pdf
CGDD, Cerema, AFB (2018) Compensation écologique des cours d’eau. Exemples de méthodes de dimensionnement. Théma Balises, Commissariat général au développement durable, Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire, p 188. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-%20Compensation%20%C3%A9cologique%20des%20cours%20d%E2%80%99eau.pdf
Cour de cassation (2012) Affaire Erika. Chambre criminelle, 25 septembre 2012, 10-82.938. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000026430035/
Devictor V (2018) La compensation écologique : fondements épistémiques et reconfigurations technoscientifiques. Nat Sci Soc 26:136–149. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2018032
Doussan I (2018) Quand les parlementaires débattent de la compensation écologique : des occasions manquées. Natures Sciences Sociétés 26:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2018029
Dupont V, Lucas M (2017) La loi pour la reconquête de la biodiversité : vers un renforcement du régime juridique de la compensation écologique ? Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies:143–165. https://doi.org/10.4000/cdst.548
European Union (2004) Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. OJ L:143. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/35/oj/eng
Fèvre M (2017) Les « services écosystémiques », une notion fonctionnelle. Droit et Ville N 84:95–118. https://www.cairn.info/revue-droit-et-ville-2017-2-page-95.htm
France (1976) Loi n° 76–629 du 10 juillet 1976 relative à la protection de la nature. JORF du 13 juillet 1976. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000684998?isSuggest=true
France (2016) Loi n° 2016–1087 du 8 août 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages. JORF n°0184 du 9 août 2016. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000033016237/
France (2021) Loi n°2021–1104 du 22 août 2021 portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement de la résilience face à ses effets. JORF n°0196 du 24 août 2021. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000043956924
France (2022) Décret n° 2022–1673 du 27 décembre 2022 portant diverses dispositions relatives à l’évaluation environnementale des actions ou opérations d’aménagement et aux mesures de compensation des incidences des projets sur l’environnement. JORF n°0300 du 28 décembre 2022. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000046820954
Gardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JM, Pilgrim JD et al (2013) Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conserv Biol 27:1254–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12118
Gayet G, Baptist F, Baraille L, Caessteker P, Clément J-C et al (2016a) Méthode nationale d’évaluation des fonctions des zones humides - Version 1.0. In: Fondements théoriques, scientifiques et techniques. Office National de l'Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques (ONEMA). Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (MNHN), p 310. https://www.zones-humides.org/sites/default/files/images/methode%20ZH/meth-nat-eval-fonctions-zh-fondements-theor-scient-et-techn-2016-vf_0.pdf
Gayet G, Baptist F, Baraille L, Caessteker P, Clément J-C et al (2016b) Office National de l'Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques (ONEMA), Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (MNHN), p 190. https://www.zones-humides.org/sites/default/files/images/methode%20ZH/guidezh-complet.pdf
Gelot S, Bigard C (2021) Challenges to developing mitigation hierarchy policy: findings from a nationwide database analysis in France. Biol Cons 263:109343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109343
Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecol Manag Restor 8:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00328.x
GIBOP (2019) Global Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (GIBOP). International Union for Conservation of Nature, The Biodiversity Consultancy, Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology. https://portals.iucn.org/offsetpolicy/
Gonçalves B, Marques A, Soares AMVDM, Pereira HM (2015) Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.008
IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, p 56. https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf
Karlsson M, Edvardsson Björnberg K (2021) Ethics and biodiversity offsetting. Conserv Biol 35:578–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13603
Laitila J, Moilanen A, Pouzols FM (2014) A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12287
Levrel H (2020) Les compensations écologiques. La Découverte, Paris
Lucas M (2015) Étude juridique de la compensation écologique. LGDJ, lextenso éditions, Issy-les-Moulineaux, p 629
Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A, Matthews JW, Christie K et al (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Cons 155:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.003
Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk F et al (2016) Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. Bioscience 66:489–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw038
Marshall E, Wintle BA, Southwell D, Kujala H (2020) What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges. Biol Cons 241:108250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108250
Maseyk F, Barea L, Stephens R, Possingham H, Dutson G et al (2016) A disaggregated biodiversity offset accounting model to improve estimation of ecological equivalency and no net loss. Biol Cons 204:322–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.016
McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage 45:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9396-3
McVittie A, Faccioli M (2020) Biodiversity and ecosystem services net gain assessment: a comparison of metrics. Ecosyst Serv 44:101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101145
MEDDE (2012) Doctrine relative à la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur le milieu naturel. In: Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Energie, Paris, p 9. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Doctrine%20ERC.pdf
Moilanen A, Van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S (2009) How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restor Ecol 17:470–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00382.x
Moreno-Mateos D, Maris V, Béchet A, Curran M (2015) The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets. Biol Cons 192:552–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.016
Moulherat S, Soret M, Gourvil P-Y, Paris X, de Roincé C (2023) Net loss or no net loss? Multiscalar analysis of a gas pipeline offset efficiency for a protected butterfly population. Environ Impact Assess Rev 100:107028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107028
Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manag Restor 4:S29–S38. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x
Peru, MINAM (2009) Decreto Supremo N° 019–2009-MINAM, Aprueban el Reglamento de la Ley No 27446, Ley del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 25 de septiembre de 2009. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ds-019-2009-minam-a.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2015) Lineamientos para la Compensación Ambiental en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (SEIA). Resolución Ministerial (R. M.) N°398–2014-MINAM. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Dirección General de Evaluación, Valoración y Financiamiento del Patrimonio Natural, Lima, Perú. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 5 de diciembre de 2014. https://www.minam.gob.pe/patrimonio-natural/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2013/09/Lineamientos-de-Compensacion-Ambiental-170915.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2016a) Guía General para el Plan de Compensación Ambiental. Resolución Ministerial (R. M.) N°066–2016-MINAM. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Dirección General de Evaluación, Valoración y Financiamiento del Patrimonio Natural, Lima, Perú. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 14 de marzo de 2016. https://www.minam.gob.pe/patrimonio-natural/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2013/09/Lineamientos-de-Compensacion-Ambiental-170915.pdfhttps://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RM-N%C2%B0-066-2016-MINAM.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2016b) Guía complementaria para la compensación ambiental: Ecosistemas Altoandinos. Resolución Ministerial (R. M.) N°183–2016-MINAM. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Dirección General de Evaluación, Valoración y Financiamiento del Patrimonio Natural, Lima, Perú. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 20 de julio de 2016. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RM-N%c2%b0-183-2016-MINAM1.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2016c) Decreto Supremo N° 005–2016-MINAM que aprueba el Reglamento del Título II de la Ley N° 30327, Ley de Promoción de las Inversiones para el Crecimiento Económico y el Desarrollo Sostenible, y otras medidas para optimizar y fortalecer el Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 19 de julio de 2016. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DS_005-2016-MINAM.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2018a) Guía para la elaboración de la línea base en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental - SEIA. Peru, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 233. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Guia-Linea-Base.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2018b) Guía para la identificación y caracterización de impactos ambientales en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental - SEIA. Peru, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 47. https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/309873/Identificacion_y_Caracterizacion_de_Impactos.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2018c) Resolución Ministerial (R. M.) N° 455-2018-MINAM - Aprueban la Guía para la Elaboración de la Línea Base y la Guía para la identificación y caracterización de impactos ambientales, en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental - SEIA. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 4 de enero de 2019. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/normas/aprueban-guia-elaboracion-linea-base-guia-identificacion-caracterizacion
Peru, MINAM (2019a) Conociendo nuestra biodiversidad. In: Mapa Nacional de Ecosistemas del Perú. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Viceministerio de Desarrollo Estratégico de los Recursos Naturales, Dirección General de Ordenamiento Territorial Ambiental, Lima, Perú, p 22. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/conociendo-nuestra-biodiversidad-mapa-nacional-ecosistemas-peru
Peru, MINAM (2019b) Guía de evaluación del estado del ecosistema de bofedal. Perú, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 61. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/guia-evaluacion-estado-ecosistema-bofedal
Peru, MINAM (2019c) Guía de evaluación del estado de ecosistemas de bosque seco: Bosque estacionalmente seco de llanura, bosque estacionalmente seco de colina y montaña. Perú, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 60. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/guia-evaluacion-estado-ecosistemas-bosque-seco-bosque-estacionalmente
Peru, MINAM (2019d) Guía de evaluación del estado del ecosistema de yunga: bosques basimontano y montano. Perú, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 60. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/guia-evaluacion-estado-ecosistemas-yunga-bosques-basimontano-montano
Peru, MINAM (2020) Resolución Ministerial (R. M.) N° 019-2020-MINAM - prepublicación del proyecto "Guía para la elaboración de la Estrategia de Manejo Ambiental en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental". Diario Oficial El Peruano del 20 de enero de 2020. http://siar.minam.gob.pe/puno/sites/default/files/archivos/public/docs/rm._n_019-2020.pdf
Peru, MINAM (2022a) Guía para la elaboración de la línea base en el marco del SEIA. Peru, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 267
Peru, MINAM (2022b) Guía para la identificación y caracterización de impactos ambientales en el marco del SEIA. Peru, Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima, p 77
Peru (1990) Código del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales. Decreto Legislativo N° 613, Diario Oficial El Peruano del 8 de septiembre de 1990. http://www.oas.org/dsd/fida/laws/legislation/peru/peru.pdf
Peru (1993) Constitución política del Perú, 13° edición oficial. Diario Ofical El Peruano. https://www.congreso.gob.pe/Docs/constitucion/constitucion/index.html
Peru (2001) Ley No 27446, Ley del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 23 de abril de 2001. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Ley-N%C2%B0-27446.pdf
Peru (2005) Ley No 28611, Ley General del Ambiente. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 15 de octubre de 2005. https://www.gob.pe/institucion/congreso-de-la-republica/normas-legales/3569-28611
Peru (2015) Ley No 30327, Ley de Promoción de las Inversiones para el Crecimiento Económico y el Desarrollo Sostenible. Diario Oficial El Peruano del 21 de mayo de 2015. https://www.gob.pe/institucion/congreso-de-la-republica/normas-legales/3577-30327
Quétier F, Lavorel S (2011) Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions. Biol Cons 144:2991–2999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.002
Quétier F, Regnery B, Levrel H (2014) No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environ Sci Policy 38:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.009
Regnery B (2017) La compensation écologique: concepts et limites pour conserver la biodiversité. Publications scientifiques du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris
Regnery B, Kerbiriou C, Julliard R, Vandevelde J-C, Le Viol I et al (2013) Sustain common species and ecosystem functions through biodiversity offsets: response to Pilgrim et al. Conserv Lett 6:385–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12027
Saura S, de la Fuente B (2017) Connectivity as the amount of reachable habitat: conservation priorities and the roles of habitat patches in landscape networks. In: Gergel SE, Turner MG (eds) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer, New York, NY, pp 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_14
Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C, Rodríguez-Freire M (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Ind 11:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.011
Semal L, Guillet F (2017) Chapitre 6. Compenser les pertes de biodiversité. Entre absence de perte nette et moindre mal. In: Les politiques de biodiversité. Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, pp 149–169. https://www.cairn.info/les-politiques-de-biodiversite--9782724621709-page-149.htm?contenu=resume
State of Florida (n.d.) Chap. 62–345: uniform mitigation assessment method. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=62-345. Accessed 31 Dec 2022
TA Strasbourg (2021) Alsace Nature, 20 juillet 2021, req. 1805541
Tarabon S, Calvet C, Delbar V, Dutoit T, Isselin-Nondedeu F (2020) Integrating a landscape connectivity approach into mitigation hierarchy planning by anticipating urban dynamics. Landsc Urban Plan 202:103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103871
Tarabon S, Dutoit T, Isselin-Nondedeu F (2021) Pooling biodiversity offsets to improve habitat connectivity and species conservation. J Environ Manage 277:111425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111425
Acknowledgements
We thank all the individuals in Peru who agreed to be interviewed, and shared their time, experience, and knowledge. We would also like to thank the company ALIAE, part of the Eiffage group, for providing documentation relating the RCEA (A79) case study.
Funding
This work was carried out with the financial support of the BEGI (Biodiversité Environnement et Grandes Infrastructures) corporate chair of the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. BEGI is funded by Eiffage. The sponsor had no involvement in the study (design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; writing; article submission). The manuscript was communicated to the sponsor prior to its submission for publication, solely for information purposes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Wolfgang Cramer
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Salès, K., Marty, P. & Frascaria-Lacoste, N. Tackling limitations in biodiversity offsetting? A comparison of the Peruvian and French approaches. Reg Environ Change 23, 145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02143-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02143-x