Harold Levrel

OECD pressure–state–response indicators for managing biodiversity: a realistic perspective for a French biosphere reserve

Sustainability is said to be the science of integration, be it integration of scale, discipline or of stakeholders’ interests. One way to integrate such diverse elements is to develop sustainable development indicators. Numerous national and international organizations have attempted to develop such indicators, among which interaction indicators are of critical importance because they enable us to link up human activities, ecological dynamics, and social goals. Among the various ways to develop such indicators, the most common ones are the pressure–state–response (PSR) indicators, as well as others coming from this framework. With realistic methodology one shall observe how PSR indicators might appear as an operational tool to face rapid social and ecological changes within a French biosphere reserve in Brittany. Results suggest that such a framework is insufficient to describe, understand and manage social and ecological interactions.

Green Marine Construction

ABSTRACT PIOCH, S., KILFOYLE, K., LEVREL, H and SPIELER, R., 2011. Green Marine Construction. In: Micallef, A. (ed.), MCRR3-2010 Conference Proceedings, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue, No. 61, pp. 257–268. Grosseto, Tuscany, Italy, ISSN 0749-0208. The oceans incorporate three-quarters of the Earths surface, and most of humanity lives in coastal regions. For example, more than half of the total U.S. population presently lives in coastal areas, and the coastal population is projected to increase by 7 million between now and 2015. Similar projections can be made for other developed countries many of which depend on the coastal zone as a major source of tourism-related income. The long-term ecological health and sustainability of the marine and coastal environments are obviously at risk. Coastal projects such as beach re-nourishment, housing developments, and pipe-line, harbor and marina construction can have negative impacts on the coastal environment that must be minimized and often mitigated. Typically, mitigation is done after the fact at considerable expense and often with a questionable return of ecosystem services. However, multiple research projects clearly show that species-specific and lifestage-specific habitat can be designed into artificial structure. Thus, with forethought, coastal construction can include structural designs that are not only ecosystem friendly but which also return ecosystem services impacted by construction. Structure incorporating fish and invertebrate habitat can often be integrated up front at little or no extra construction cost. This paper discusses the results of some of the artificial habitat research as well as recent examples of coastal construction and design that have incorporated these findings.

Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration Outcomes in Four Institutional Contexts

At the national level, with a fixed amount of resources available for public investment in the restoration of biodiversity, it is difficult to prioritize alternative restoration projects. One way to do this is to assess the level of ecosystem services delivered by these projects and to compare them with their costs. The challenge is to derive a common unit of measurement for ecosystem services in order to compare projects which are carried out in different institutional contexts having different goals (application of environmental laws, management of natural reserves, etc.). This paper assesses the use of habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) as a tool to evaluate ecosystem services provided by restoration projects developed in different institutional contexts. This tool was initially developed to quantify the level of ecosystem services required to compensate for non-market impacts coming from accidental pollution in the US. In this paper, HEA is used to assess the cost effectiveness of several restoration projects in relation to different environmental policies, using case studies based in France. Four case studies were used: the creation of a market for wetlands, public acceptance of a port development project, the rehabilitation of marshes to mitigate nitrate loading to the sea, and the restoration of streams in a protected area. Our main conclusion is that HEA can provide a simple tool to clarify the objectives of restoration projects, to compare the cost and effectiveness of these projects, and to carry out trade-offs, without requiring significant amounts of human or technical resources.

Stakeholder engagement and biodiversity conservation challenges in social-ecological systems: some insights from biosphere reserves in western Africa and France

Biosphere reserves are an example of social-ecological systems that combine biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development with knowledge generation and dissemination (both scientific and local). We review lessons learned from case studies biosphere reserves in western African and France, highlighting the importance of early stakeholder engagement to build knowledge for achieving sustainable development. We discuss the evolution of the concept of biosphere reserves and its application over time in different socioeconomic and cultural settings. The diversity of stakeholders and their different needs and perceptions about nature conservation complicate implementation processes, sometimes resulting in conflicts about the objectives and zonation of biosphere reserves. Dialogue among the different stakeholders must start at an early planning phase and be based on the principle of social and ecological solidarity. Dialogue must then be pursued, formalized, ritualized, and translated both in terms of biosphere reserve management and in terms of political support. Tools and methods exist that can facilitate such dialogue and colearning.

Dynamics of Ecosystem Services during Forest Transitions in Reventazón, Costa Rica

The forest transition framework describes the temporal changes of forest areas with economic development. A first phase of forest contraction is followed by a second phase of expansion once a turning point is reached. This framework does not differentiate forest types or ecosystem services, and describes forests regardless of their contribution to human well-being. For several decades, deforestation in many tropical regions has degraded ecosystem services, such as watershed regulation, while increasing provisioning services from agriculture, for example, food. Forest transitions and expansion have been observed in some countries, but their consequences for ecosystem services are often unclear. We analyzed the implications of forest cover change on ecosystem services in Costa Rica, where a forest transition has been suggested. A review of literature and secondary data on forest and ecosystem services in Costa Rica indicated that forest transition might have led to an ecosystem services transition. We modeled and mapped the changes of selected ecosystem services in the upper part of the Reventazón watershed and analyzed how supply changed over time in order to identify possible transitions in ecosystem services. The modeled changes of ecosystem services is similar to the second phase of a forest transition but no turning point was identified, probably because of the limited temporal scope of the analysis. Trends of provisioning and regulating services and their tradeoffs were opposite in different spatial subunits of our study area, which highlights the importance of scale in the analysis of ecosystem services and forest transitions. The ecosystem services transition framework proposed in this study is useful for analyzing the temporal changes of ecosystem services and linking socio-economic drivers to ecosystem services demand at different scales.

A Final Warning to Planet Earth

In Ripple et al. [1], 15 364 scientists from 184 countries issue a ‘warning to humanity’ and present a radical agenda to protect planet Earth. We, the billions of people believing in human exceptionalism, categorically reject this agenda and issue in return a stark warning to planet Earth. No amount of facts showing that planet Earth is in a dire state will have us changing our mindset, thank you very much. We do not care about planet Earth. We care about our next devices and their latest cool features. We want more stuff. The signatories of Ripple et al. [1] ignore the obvious facts that the era when poets could marvel at the diversity of flower or insect species is over, and that real-world wildlife has now become obsolete. We simply take our smartphones to overlay customized virtual creatures on our surrounding environment and dispose of them when new trends dictate. There is no longer a need to preserve filthy and dangerous wildlife that moreover lives in places where Amazon Prime does not deliver. More iPhones are sold in a few days [2] than there are tigers, elephants, and gorillas on the planet: this should alert the signatories to what really matters, were they not ideologically biased against human progress. Those scientists argue that we are approaching many of the planetary limits. We refuse to accept any type of limits: growth must indefinitely prevail unrestricted. We officially summon planet Earth to abandon its intransigent attitude and accept the inevitable: an extension of its biological and physical limits. Should planet Earth stick with its hardline ideological stance, it needs to be aware that mankind will never compromise and that we will seek a second planet. The universe is like our ambition: limitless. The new economy of nature, whereby ecosystem services such as pollination are monetarily valued, should not be understood as another dogmatic way of protecting planet Earth. It is instead a call to producers and shareholders to conquer new markets by outcompeting nature with better services at a cheaper price for consumers. Ecosystems must fight for their survival like any other business. Protecting nature would moreover give it an undue competitive advantage against our industries. If our agricultural practices endanger the bees that pollinate crops, this does not imply we should change these practices. Instead we will let bees disappear and replace them by AI-powered microdrones – which create many jobs and do not sting. The obvious ideological aim of Ripple et al. [1] is to inspire a generation of scientists to ask broader questions relevant to overconsumption and overpopulation, and how our institutions can meet the challenge of reducing human pressure on planet Earth. We find this unacceptable and call on the 15 364 signatories to join us on the side of winners against planet Earth, and hence to symbolically withdraw their signatures by not engaging in any of the research suggested in the warning to humanity. Fellow scientists, ask not what more you can do for planet Earth, ask what more planet Earth can do for you. And note how politicians on both the left and right are already united in this truly bipartisan issue that beautifully transcends the political divide: worshipping growth and denying that we depend on our environment. We therefore strongly oppose the agenda accompanying the warning to humanity and will not tolerate any obstacle to our way of life – be it tree-huggers or the trees themselves. At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the 41st US President claimed ‘our way of life is not up for negotiation’. Today, speaking in the name of billions of people, we proudly claim to all be US presidents. Planet Earth: consider yourself warned.

Satire for Conservation in the 21st Century

In Chapron et al. [1], we issued a warning to Planet Earth and opposed the ideological discourse of Ripple et al. [2]. For example, we suggested that instead of saving bees, we should develop microdrones to pollinate crops. Had we properly done our literature review before writing, we would have known that, indeed, our satiric recommendation had already been implemented through the ‘development of an innovative artificial pollinator against the global pollination crisis’ [3]. Ripple et al. [4] have explained that our satiric tone in Chapron et al. [1] should not be taken at face value, although it retrospectively appears that our text may not have been satiric enough.