Which governance for marine biodiversity offset? Céline JACOB, PhD student CREOCEAN – Center for Functional Evolutionary Ecology MSEAS – 31/05/2016 Thoughts/consideration

Mitigation objective : the No Net Loss of biodiversity components Net gain Offset Biodiversity impact Biodiversity impact Biodiversity impact Biodiversity impact  significant!!!‘Offset’ is considered as actions permitting the achievement of ecological equivalency. It could be direct actions on marine environment (e.g.: ecological engineering) or management actions to reduce human pressures on the marine environment (BBOP, 2012) Reduction Avoidance Avoidance Net loss

Marine offset practice Active recovery measures: keystone species and ecosystem engineers Passive recovery measures Ecological engineering techniques Transplantation (e.g. coral, seagrass) Management measures (MPAs) Knowledge acquisition

Offset governance in the marine realm Currently literature focuses on terrestrial offset systems (mitigation banking) In the marine realm: mechanisms in early stages, not yet studied  forward-looking vision

The Actor-Network Theory Knowledge utilisation: Common linear-rational models Translation models / actor-network theory Knowledge generation influenced not only by its internal merits but also by receptors strategies (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987)  Importance of message translation into agents’ stakes (for their incorporation into the actions, values and projects of others): obligatory passage point

ANT important features No distinction between human and non-human elements: ‘actants’ Positive and negative ‘modalities’ (argument that takes debate away from the contestable conditions under which knowledge was produced) Translation process

France & California France California Coastlines 5,600 km (Mainland France) EEZ: 11 million km2 5,600 km EEZ: US: 11.350 million km2 Regulations French Coastal Act (1986) CA Coastal Act (1976) Environmental agencies Conservatoire du littoral Agence des Aires Marines Protégées Coastal Conservancy Ocean Protection Council Coastal Commission

SONGS project 1974: permit approval from Coastal Commission, after its 1st denial in 1973 but under the conditions of the implementation of an independent Marine Committee Review - MRC for impact assessment and offset design 1991 and 1997: permit amendments to integrate offset

SONGS project Bight fish loss through entrainment and impingement (water cooling): creation and restoration of 150 acres of coastal wetlands San Dieguito lagoon (2011) Discharge impact on macroalgae beds and associated communities: artificial reef for the development of 150 acres of macroalgae (2008) and funding of a hatchery

California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines 1991: 1st document released for Zostera marina L. in SoCal 2014: new version more scientific throughout CA Parameters to be monitored to assess impacts Different offset solutions are displayed (management plans, in-kind, mitigation banking, In-Lieu Fee out-of-kind)

California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines ANT elements Element description SONGS California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines Non-human actants Impacted element Macroalgae and fish Eelgrass Pressure Macroalgae: Interference with hydrological processes, turbidity Fish: Entrainment and impingement / loss of fish habitat Any Human actants ‘Skilled intermediaries’ Coastal commission, Marine Committee Review National Marine Fisheries Service Potential modalities Status Macroalgae: Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern  Fish: no status Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and Special Aquatic Site Methodology to size offset Macroalgae: creation of a macroalgae surface equivalent to the one lost Fish: no standardized method Method similar to Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) Existing technical solutions Macroalgae: solution based on different experimental design Fish: out-of-kind solution based on feedbacks on wetlands restorations Feedbacks on transplantation projects over the past 25 years

California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines ANT features ANT elements Element description SONGS California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines Translation Key element Implementation of an independent committee Impacts and offset assessment by independent scientists Objectives of the different agencies aligned Obligatory passage point Developed instrument Offset solutions specially designed with an experimental phase required in the amendment of the permit (project-scale) Guidelines required in USACE permits (throughout the State)

Conclusions Importance of: ‘skilled intermediaries’ (Cowell and Lennon, 2014) translation process  Development of innovative instrument relying on: A reconfiguration of existing stakeholders A rescaling of spatial and time scales CAFWS escp

Thank you for your attention Céline JACOB, Celine.jacob@cefe.cnrs.fr