Net Loss Of Biodiversity Research Articles

ERC: from ecological issues to practical considerations to achieve the objective of no net loss of biodiversity

La sequence Eviter-Reduire-Compenser (ERC) est un outil de preservation de la biodiversite largement utilise de par son attrayante capacite theorique a concilier developpement et biodiversite. En pratique, l'efficacite de la sequence ERC est une quete non resolue en raison de la complexite de la biodiversite, les nombreuses imbrications reglementaires, l'objectif ambitieux d'atteinte d'absence de perte nette de biodiversite, etc. L'approche « projet par projet », qui reste la plus employee en France, atteint des limites et ne permet pas d'enrayer l'erosion de la biodiversite. Il est alors temps de repenser l'application de la sequence ERC pour qu'elle puisse effectivement atteindre une absence de perte nette de biodiversite. Nous proposons de repartir des enjeux ecologiques a la base de l'application de la sequence ERC pour montrer la pertinence de l'organiser a l'echelle des territoires. Nous detaillerons les questionnements que cette nouvelle organisation implique a travers quelques grands enjeux.

Biodiversity offsetting: Certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain

Biodiversity offsetting is usually the last step in the mitigation hierarchy and aims to compensate for impacts of development projects on biodiversity. It is supposed to contribute to the key environmental objective of “no net loss” of biodiversity by delivering gains equivalent to losses. We hypothesize that such gains can only be attained through ecological restoration of degraded sites: the restored ecosystem should not only equal the original or reference ecosystem as usually assumed, but rather the original state of degradation of the ecosystem used for offsetting should be of the same level as the impacted ecosystem after development. We built on this starting assumption to determine whether impacts and gains were considered equally in the offsetting measures of 24 infrastructure projects, and to infer the potential gains in offset sites, based on an analysis of procedure and administrative documents. The analysis showed that impacts were presented in much more detail than the offsetting measures. In addition, out of 577 ha that was intended to offset areas being artificialized, only 3% of the area was artificial prior to offsetting work, i.e. delivering high potential gains, while 81% could be considered semi-natural habitats, thus with lower potential gains. Little information on the ecological quality of offset sites was available. When described, their good quality was used as an argument to justify their selection, resulting in relatively uncertain gains in comparison to certain impacts. Our results suggest that including multiple comparisons of multiple ecosystem states is a way forward to better evaluate the equivalence between gains and losses, and thus would ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

Advancing environmental mitigation on the Bretagne–Pays de la Loire railway, France

The new 182 km Bretagne–Pays de la Loire high-speed rail line in France has pioneered the use of an environmental mitigation hierarchy, leading to significant sustainability benefits. As this paper describes, the project has gone beyond regulatory obligations and contractual provisions for sustainability, particularly regarding biodiversity and carbon dioxide emissions. It has opened up a more sustainable way of conceiving and building transport infrastructure, with extensive collaboration, innovative organisation, technical and operational tools and a long-term, efficiency-based offsetting approach. Early adoption of the mitigation hierarchy principle on this project enabled the worksite footprint to be reduced by 8% and avoided the emission of 4·5% of greenhouse gases associated with the line’s construction. It also accounted for biological cycles during work planning and secured the ecological offsetting sites before construction started, which in turn ensured their functionality over a 20-year period to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

The use of biodiversity data in spatial planning and impact assessment in Europe

This review identifies successful approaches to collating and using biodiversity data in spatial planning and impact assessment, the barriers to obtaining and using existing data sources, and the key data gaps that hinder effective implementation. The analysis is a contribution to the EU BON project funded by the European Commission FP7 research programme, which aimed to identify and pilot new approaches to overcome gaps in biodiversity data in conservation policy at European and national levels.The consideration of biodiversity in impact assessments and spatial planning requires spatially explicit biodiversity data of various types. Where spatial plans take account of biodiversity, there are opportunities through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of development plans and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of individual development proposals to ensure that consented activities are consistent with no net loss of biodiversity or even a net gain, and help to maintain or develop coherent ecological networks. However, biodiversity components of SEAs and EIAs have often been found to be of insufficient quality due to the lack of data or the inadequate use of existing data.Key obstacles to providing access to biodiversity data include the need for data standardisation and data quality governance and systems, licensing approaches to increase data access, and lack of resources to target gaps in data coverage and to develop and advertise policy-relevant data products. Existing data platforms differ in the degree to which they successfully provide a service to spatial planners and impact assessment practitioners. Some local governments, for example Somerset County Council in the UK and the Bremen federal state in Germany, have invested in integrated data collection and management systems that now provide intensively used tools for spatial planning and impact assessment informed by local data collection and monitoring.The EU BON biodiversity data portal aims to provide a platform that is an access point to datasets relevant to essential biodiversity variables on species, habitats and ecosystems. The EU BON taxonomic backbone provides an integrated search function for species and taxa according to different classifications, and also provides a range of tools for data analysis and decision-support. This will increase the accessibility of the vast range of biodiversity data available in different sources and allow the targeting of future data collection to address current gaps.

Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods

Biodiversity offset strategies are based on the explicit calculation of both losses and gains necessary to establish ecological equivalence between impact and offset areas. Given the importance of quantifying biodiversity values, various accounting methods and metrics are continuously being developed and tested for this purpose. Considering the wide array of alternatives, selecting an appropriate one for a specific project can be not only challenging, but also crucial; accounting methods can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of an offsetting strategy, and if not well-suited to the context and values being offset, a no net loss outcome might not be delivered. To date there has been no systematic review or comparative classification of the available biodiversity accounting alternatives that aim at facilitating metric selection, and no tools that guide decision-makers throughout such a complex process. We fill this gap by developing a set of analyses to support (i) identifying the spectrum of available alternatives, (ii) understanding the characteristics of each and, ultimately (iii) making the most sensible and sound decision about which one to implement. The metric menu, scoring matrix, and decision tree developed can be used by biodiversity offsetting practitioners to help select an existing metric, and thus achieve successful outcomes that advance the goal of no net loss of biodiversity.

Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers

Biodiversity offsetting (BO) is aimed at achieving no net loss of biodiversity in the context of economic development. Through a choice experiment in Northern France, we show that farmers have a clear preference for not signing up BO contracts. The contracts they accept may only be suitable for offsetting temporary impacts on already degraded areas of natural habitat but not for permanent impacts on high-quality habitat. We find that the introduction of a conditional monetary bonus can improve the organisational and ecological efficiency of BO because it increases the enrolled acreage in a BO contract per farmer albeit at an increased cost for developers.

Translating the terrestrial mitigation hierarchy to marine megafauna by‐catch

AbstractIn terrestrial and coastal systems, the mitigation hierarchy is widely and increasingly used to guide actions to ensure that no net loss of biodiversity ensues from development. We develop a conceptual model which applies this approach to the mitigation of marine megafauna by‐catch in fisheries, going from defining an overarching goal with an associated quantitative target, through avoidance, minimization, remediation to offsetting. We demonstrate the framework's utility as a tool for structuring thinking and exposing uncertainties. We draw comparisons between debates ongoing in terrestrial situations and in by‐catch mitigation, to show how insights from each could inform the other; these are the hierarchical nature of mitigation, out‐of‐kind offsets, research as an offset, incentivizing implementation of mitigation measures, societal limits and uncertainty. We explore how economic incentives could be used throughout the hierarchy to improve the achievement of by‐catch goals. We conclude by highlighting the importance of clear agreed goals, of thinking beyond single species and individual jurisdictions to account for complex interactions and policy leakage, of taking uncertainty explicitly into account and of thinking creatively about approaches to by‐catch mitigation in order to improve outcomes for conservation and fishers. We suggest that the framework set out here could be helpful in supporting efforts to improve by‐catch mitigation efforts and highlight the need for a full empirical application to substantiate this.

Outcomes from 10years of biodiversity offsetting.

We quantified net changes to the area and quality of native vegetation after the introduction of biodiversity offsetting in New South Wales, Australia-a policy intended to "prevent broad-scale clearing of native vegetation unless it improves or maintains environmental values." Over 10years, a total of 21,928ha of native vegetation was approved for clearing under this policy and 83,459ha was established as biodiversity offsets. We estimated that no net loss in the area of native vegetation under this policy will not occur for 146years. This is because 82% of the total area offset was obtained by averting losses to existing native vegetation and the rate that these averted losses accrue was over-estimated in the policy. There were predicted net gains in 10 of the 14 attributes used to assess the quality of habitat. An overall net gain in the quality of habitat was assessed under this policy by substituting habitat attributes that are difficult to restore (e.g. mature trees) with habitat attributes for which restoration is relatively easy (e.g. tree seedlings). Long-term rates of annual deforestation did not significantly change across the study area after biodiversity offsetting was introduced. Overall, the policy examined here provides no net loss of biodiversity: (i) many generations into the future, which is not consistent with intergenerational equity; and (ii) by substituting different habitat attributes, so gains are not equivalent to losses. We recommend a number of changes to biodiversity offsetting policy to overcome these issues.

Realising a vision of no net loss through marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used in policy frameworks to regulate the environmental impacts of development including projects located in marine environments. Scientific knowledge gaps and other practical challenges have necessitated flexibility concerning the manner in which key offsetting principles are implemented in policy frameworks relevant to such environments. The potential trade-off of such flexibility is that consequent marine offsetting practice may not be compatible with the ultimate objective of no net loss of biodiversity. Here we present a systematic review of marine and coastal development projects in Australia, examining how offsetting is being implemented in practice. Forty-two (42) projects were assessed, predominantly located in Queensland and Western Australia and associated with the development and operation of ports. We find that application of key biodiversity offsetting principles (e.g. ecological equivalence) was frequently incomplete or absent. For approximately 50% of reviewed projects we were unable to identify public information concerning how offsetting requirements were established. The current environmental outcomes of marine biodiversity offsetting in Australia are unclear but there are indications that it is unlikely to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.

Biodiversity trajectories and the time needed to achieve no net loss through averted-loss biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsetting is a conservation tool that compensates for the residual loss of biodiversity at one geographic locality with an equivalent gain elsewhere. The goal is generally to ensure no net loss of biodiversity after development. One path to no net loss is preventing the imminent loss of biodiversity at the offset location through increased conservation; a strategy known as averted-loss. No net loss is most feasible in these instances when (a) the initial loss of biodiversity is small, (b) the background decline in biodiversity is rapid and (c) conservation interventions are effective. This study, however, demonstrates that the functional form of the biodiversity trajectory also plays a considerable role in determining the feasibility of achieving no net loss. Using a simple framework of equations with fraction exponents, I demonstrate that the time required to reach no net loss is generally longer when background biodiversity trajectories are concave, compared to when they are convex. Moreover, the net effect of conservation must be greater for concave biodiversity trajectories if no net loss is to be reached within time-frames similar to convex trajectories. Incorporating different forms of biodiversity trajectories into existing frameworks may have major implications for the feasibility of averted-loss biodiversity offsets.

Safeguards for enhancing ecological compensation in Sweden

Ecological compensation (EC) is being explored as a policy instrument for the European Union’s ‘No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ initiative. EC is commonly associated with the Polluter-Pays Principle, but we propose the Developer-Pays Principle as a more comprehensive principle. Safeguards that are relevant to local and national contexts are needed when addressing social-ecological resilience in the face of risks associated with EC. The operationalisation of EC in Sweden is assessed through two case studies: the E12 highway and Mertainen mine. The institutional design and implementation procedures are investigated through semi-structured interviews as well as an analysis of legal and other written documents. Using a multi-level governance framework, we examine four key disputed issues within compensation. Our results suggest that (i) Risk of a license-to-trash can be minimised; (ii) Complementary quantitative and qualitative ecological valuation methods are needed to achieve additionality and No Net Loss; (iii) Compensation pools may be a promising strategy to secure land availability; and (iv) Social safeguards are vital for EC in high-income countries as well, where they are currently understudied. We conclude that EC cannot be the main instrument for nature conservation, but rather complementary to a strong legal framework that protects biodiversity and ecosystems in addition to the sustained and equitable benefits of ecosystem services.

Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss.

There is contentious debate surrounding the merits of de-extinction as a biodiversity conservation tool. Here, we use extant analogues to predict conservation actions for potential de-extinction candidate species from New Zealand and the Australian state of New South Wales, and use a prioritization protocol to predict the impacts of reintroducing and maintaining populations of these species on conservation of extant threatened species. Even using the optimistic assumptions that resurrection of species is externally sponsored, and that actions for resurrected species can share costs with extant analogue species, public funding for conservation of resurrected species would lead to fewer extant species that could be conserved, suggesting net biodiversity loss. If full costs of establishment and maintenance for resurrected species populations were publicly funded, there could be substantial sacrifices in extant species conservation. If conservation of resurrected species populations could be fully externally sponsored, there could be benefits to extant threatened species. However, such benefits would be outweighed by opportunity costs, assuming such discretionary money could directly fund conservation of extant species. Potential sacrifices in conservation of extant species should be a crucial consideration in deciding whether to invest in de-extinction or focus our efforts on extant species.

Biodiversity offsetting in dynamic landscapes: Influence of regulatory context and counterfactual assumptions on achievement of no net loss

Biodiversity offsets are used to mitigate the residual impacts of development on biodiversity. However, their ability to achieve no net loss is rarely evaluated, and factors leading to their success are mostly unknown. Here, we modelled the biodiversity outcomes of averted loss offsetting—in terms of vegetation extent and habitat quality—in the endangered brigalow woodlands of central Queensland, Australia. We found that biodiversity outcomes were highly sensitive to the time period used to inform counterfactual scenarios and to large differences in clearing pressures among vegetation types used for offsetting. Our results reveal major challenges for achieving no net loss of biodiversity in dynamic landscapes globally. Offsetting policies must develop plausible counterfactual scenarios—a difficult task in a volatile regulatory context—and allocate offsets according to spatially-explicit counterfactual biodiversity losses and gains. Failing to do so may drastically overestimate the expected outcomes of offsets and thus result in large net biodiversity losses.

Análisis de la gestión ambiental en las vías 4G en construcción en Colombia

ONTARE. REVISTA DE INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA
 En este artículo se pretende analizar la aplicación del manual para la asignación de compensaciones por pérdida de biodiversidad aplicado en el sector de infraestructura vial en Colombia. Para ello se desarrolló una revisión del estado del arte acerca de la biodiversidad, servicios ecosistémicos (SE), perdidas de biodiversidad, las compensaciones por pérdida de biodiversidad y los impactos ambientales ocasionados por las vías, con el fin de analizar los principios de compensación definidos por la normatividad colombiana a la luz de las transformaciones del paisaje ocasionados por la fragmentación de ecosistemas, teniendo en cuenta que durante la última década la fragmentación se ha convertido en un problema ambiental global. Con base en lo anterior, la metodología empleada incluye una revisión y análisis del estado actual del arte a la luz de las compensaciones en el sector de infraestructura vial. Luego, se plantea una propuesta de gestión para la infraestructura vial en Colombia que permita incluir la fragmentación de ecosistemas dentro del análisis de compensación para proyectos lineales de infraestructura vial, y que contribuya con la no pérdida neta de biodiversidad

Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity.

Global species extinction rates are orders of magnitude above the background rate documented in the fossil record. However, recent data syntheses have found mixed evidence for patterns of net species loss at local spatial scales. For example, two recent data meta-analyses have found that species richness is decreasing in some locations and is increasing in others. When these trends are combined, these papers argued there has been no net change in species richness, and suggested this pattern is globally representative of biodiversity change at local scales. Here we reanalyze results of these data syntheses and outline why this conclusion is unfounded. First, we show the datasets collated for these syntheses are spatially biased and not representative of the spatial distribution of species richness or the distribution of many primary drivers of biodiversity change. This casts doubt that their results are representative of global patterns. Second, we argue that detecting the trend in local species richness is very difficult with short time series and can lead to biased estimates of change. Reanalyses of the data detected a signal of study duration on biodiversity change, indicating net biodiversity loss is most apparent in studies of longer duration. Third, estimates of species richness change can be biased if species gains during post-disturbance recovery are included without also including species losses that occurred during the disturbance. Net species gains or losses should be assessed with respect to common baselines or reference communities. Ultimately, we need a globally coordinated effort to monitor biodiversity so that we can estimate and attribute human impacts as causes of biodiversity change. A combination of technologies will be needed to produce regularly updated global datasets of local biodiversity change to guide future policy. At this time the conclusion that there is no net change in local species richness is not the consensus state of knowledge.

A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union

The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union includes a target to “ensure no-net-loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020”. Many policy options can be envisioned to achieve such a no-net-loss target, mainly acting on land use and land management. To assess the effectiveness of such policies at a European Union (EU) scale, we simulated land use changes and their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators. We analysed a Business–as-Usual scenario, and three no-net-loss scenarios. The no-net-loss scenarios included measures that aim to reduce negative impacts of land use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services, by better implementation of existing biodiversity conservation measures (Scenario 1); and enhancement of existing measures (Scenario 2); and offsetting residual impacts on areas of high biodiversity and ecosystem service value (Scenario 3).Results show that none of the scenarios achieved overall no-net-loss. Compared to a Business-as-Usual scenario, the no-net-loss scenarios reduced the overall degree of land cover change at EU level, hence reducing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in large parts of the EU. The more comprehensive no-net-loss scenarios resulted in a gain of natural land cover. Moreover, natural areas became better connected, especially in peri-urban areas as a result of impact avoidance and offsetting. Richness of farmland bird species was projected to increase. Measures included in the no-net-loss scenarios had net positive effects on pollination and carbon sequestration, neutral effects on crop production, erosion prevention and flood regulation, and negative effects on nature-based recreation, compared to Business-as-Usual. In particular circumstances policy measures invoked displacement effects in land use allocation, reducing the effectiveness of the measures. This was primarily the case for flood regulation services throughout the EU.This study differentiates the potential effectiveness of a no-net-loss policy framework in three manners: (i) considering biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously; (ii) in the light of existing policies and land use pressures; and (iii) in different land use contexts across the EU. Taken together, we conclude that achieving no-net-loss for biodiversity and ecosystem services throughout the EU remains challenging given high land use demands. Nevertheless, in large parts of Europe there appears room for improvement for certain kinds of biodiversity and ecosystem services compared to Business-as-Usual, while still meeting other land use demands.

Optimizing regulatory requirements to aid in the implementation of compensatory mitigation

Optimizing regulatory requirements to aid in the implementation of compensatory mitigation

Inter-observer variation in habitat survey data: investigating the consequences for professional practice

Environmental assessments and land-use planning require reliable information on the botanical composition and distribution of habitats. There have been numerous academic studies of inter-observer variation in species-inventory and habitat mapping, but studies addressing the prevalence of inter-observer variation and consequences of poor quality data in professional practice are lacking. This paper addresses these questions via a questionnaire survey of environmental professionals, using the standard Phase 1 and National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey methods in the United Kingdom. The survey revealed that misidentification of habitat types within survey reports was relatively common (approximating to 20% of all reports seen by respondents over the previous five years). Approximately 40% of respondents who had encountered erroneous reports stated that these had led to inaccurate initial site ecological assessments. Additional field surveys and discussions with surveyors were commonly used to resolve these issues, but for Phase 1 and NVC 26% and 34% of respondents, respectively, had encountered one or more cases where errors resulted in negative consequences for clients commissioning surveys (in terms of extra costs and project delays). Net loss of biodiversity arising from inaccurate reports was reported in at least one instance by 32% and 38% of respondents for Phase 1 and NVC surveys, respectively – results that may contribute to the attrition of natural capital within the UK. The study highlights the need to extend studies of inter-observer variation to consider impacts on environmental assessments and decision-making in professional practice. The potential benefits of introducing an accreditation scheme (favoured by the majority of respondents to the questionnaire) are discussed.

FORUM: Indirect leakage leads to a failure of avoided loss biodiversity offsetting.

Summary Biodiversity offsetting has quickly gained political support all around the world. Avoided loss (averted risk) offsetting means compensation for ecological damage via averted loss of anticipated impacts through the removal of threatening processes in compensation areas.Leakage means the phenomenon of environmentally damaging activity relocating elsewhere after being stopped locally by avoided loss offsetting. Indirect leakage means that locally avoided losses displace to other administrative areas or spread around diffusely via market effects. Synthesis and applications. Indirect leakage can lead to high net biodiversity loss. It is difficult to measure or prevent, raising doubts about the value of avoided loss offsetting. Market demand for commodities is on the rise, following increasing human population size and per capita consumption, implying that indirect leakage will be a rule rather than an exception. Leakage should be accounted for when determining offset multipliers (ratios) even if multipliers become extremely high.

Le diable dans les détails : les défis de la régulation des marchés d’unités de biodiversité

La compensation écologique par l’offre, développée notamment aux États-Unis, vise à améliorer l’efficacité et l’efficience des mesures compensatoires imposées aux maîtres d’ouvrage tout en assurant une plus grande flexibilité dans le développement territorial. Ces « marchés d’unités de biodiversité » permettent aux promoteurs dont le projet risque de causer un dommage à la biodiversité de s’acquitter de leur obligation de compensation en achetant, auprès de gestionnaires de terres spécialisés, des titres correspondant à la réalisation anticipée d’actions bénéfiques pour la biodiversité sur des sites appelés « banques d’habitat », en proportion jugée équivalente aux atteintes causées. Au-delà du débat controversé sur la nature « marchande » de ces mécanismes, la question reste posée de savoir si les banques d’habitats permettent d’assurer effectivement l’absence de perte nette de biodiversité (no net loss) , soit l’objectif ultime de la compensation écologique. Nous nous sommes penchés sur le rôle de la régulation dans l’encadrement des facteurs qui conditionnent la performance écologique des marchés d’unités de biodiversité en prenant l’exemple du conservation banking aux États-Unis. Nous avons examiné les défis auxquels l’administration américaine est confrontée pour garantir l’efficacité des banques de conservation dans la préservation des espèces protégées dans le cadre de l’Endangered Species Act. Il ressort de l’étude que la tâche est particulièrement complexe, tant les facteurs écologiques à prendre en compte pour assurer le no net loss sont nombreux et les connaissances scientifiques lacunaires. L’analyse confirme l’importance d’un encadrement étroit de ce type de « marché » par une réglementation claire et précise, qu’elle soit unilatérale ou négociée, et par l’intervention d’une autorité de régulation indépendante et dotée de moyens de contrôle suffisants. Loin de l’image classique du marché, le banking nécessite, pour être à la fois efficace sur le plan biologique et viable économiquement, une intervention publique massive pour régler précisément l’étendue des exigences de compensation, le degré d’équivalence requis, les conditions de création des banques et de leur aire de service, la définition des crédits et le calcul des dommages à réparer, les modalités de protection et de gestion à long terme des banques ou encore l’intégration dans les plans d’aménagement du territoire. Mais la compensation, même si elle est rendue plus efficace et efficiente par un mécanisme de banking, restera toujours un pis-aller. Il faut éviter que le marché d’unités de biodiversité ne devienne une fin en soi pour faciliter et légitimer l’autorisation des projets et favoriser le développement. On ne peut l’envisager que comme un moyen parmi d’autres pour réaliser une compensation effective, lorsque celle-ci ne peut être évitée et que le caractère d’intérêt général supérieur du projet le justifie. À défaut, le risque est grand de sacrifier l’objectif du no net loss sur l’autel de la croissance socio-économique. Cela suppose non seulement une définition claire de la séquence éviter/réduire/compenser, mais aussi la restriction par le législateur des motifs d’octroi des autorisations. Il s’agit d’éviter au maximum les destructions plutôt que de compter sur la compensation et donc le déplacement des espèces et des habitats là où ils ne gênent pas pour assurer leur conservation. Une telle approche implique cependant d’accepter de considérer des solutions alternatives aux aménagements plus coûteuses, de prévoir une juste indemnisation des propriétaires dans certains cas et de mener une politique foncière ambitieuse pour pouvoir relocaliser les projets problématiques. C’est le véritable prix à payer pour préserver la biodiversité et les innombrables services qu’elle rend à la société.