Search

An evidence-based approach to the conservation management of a species requires knowledge of that species’ status, distribution, ecology, and threats. Coupled with budgets for specific conservation strategies, this knowledge allows prioritisation of funding toward activities that maximise benefit for the species. However, many threatened species are poorly known, and determining which conservation strategies will achieve this is difficult. Such cases require approaches that allow decision-making under uncertainty. Here we used structured expert elicitation to estimate the likely benefit of potential management strategies for the Critically Endangered and, until recently, poorly known Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis). Experts considered cat management the single most effective management strategy for the Night Parrot. However, a combination of protecting and actively managing existing intact Night Parrot habitat through management of grazing, controlling feral cats, and managing fire specifically to maintain Night Parrot habitat was thought to result in the greatest conservation gains. The most cost-effective strategies were thought to be fire management to maintain Night Parrot habitat, and intensive cat management using control methods that exploit local knowledge of cat movements and ecology. Protecting and restoring potentially suitable, but degraded, Night Parrot habitat was considered the least effective and least cost-effective strategy. These expert judgements provide an informed starting point for land managers implementing on-ground programs targeting the Night Parrot, and those developing policy aimed at the species’ longer-term conservation. As a set of hypotheses, they should be implemented, assessed, and improved within an adaptive management framework that also considers the likely co-benefits of these strategies for other species and ecosystems. The broader methodology is applicable to conservation planning for the management and conservation of

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victorias Native Vegetation Framework (2002-2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover (avoided loss, 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover (regeneration, 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%-3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138-180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%-1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19-97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of net gain (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of considering

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002–2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover (“avoided loss”, 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover (“regeneration”, 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%–3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138–180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%–1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19–97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of ‘net gain’ (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of cons, Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002–2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover (“avoided loss”, 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover (“regeneration”, 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%–3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138–180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%–1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19–97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of ‘net gain’ (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of c

Bioacoustics offers new ways to monitor wildlife populations. Understanding vocal changes related to age can provide demographic data that are valuable but difficult to collect for threatened species. Here, we present the vocal signals of ontogeny and fledging in nestlings for two endangered black-cockatoos, the Kangaroo Island glossy black-cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus, and the south-eastern red-tailed black-cockatoo, C. banksii graptogyne. Using sound recordings taken at wild nests (n = 3 for the red-tailed black-cockatoo; n = 7 for the glossy black-cockatoo), we examined changes in nestling vocalisations through to fledging. Nestlings vocalised from 4 weeks of age, but calls were soft and infrequent until about 6 weeks. Daily call rate increased significantly in the final week of nesting. Peak amplitude increased significantly with development for both subspecies. Call duration increased significantly for the glossy black-cockatoo. Likewise, low frequency increased significantly for the glossy black-cockatoo. Average entropy decreased significantly for both subspecies. Aggregate entropy decreased significantly for the red-tailed black-cockatoo. Fledging was associated with a loud and distinct vocal event. Together, these changes in call rate and structure, and the presence or absence of fledging vocalisations, provide useful ways to broadly categorise nest age and determine nest outcome from sound recordings.

Ecologists are increasingly using bioacoustics in wildlife monitoring programs. Remote autonomous sound recorders provide new options for collecting data for species and in contexts that were previously difficult. However, post-processing of sound files to extract relevant data remains a significant challenge. Detection algorithms, or call recognizers, can aid automation of species detection but their performance and reliability has been mixed. Further, building recognizers typically requires either costly commercial software or expert programming skills, both of which reduces their accessibility to ecologists responsible for monitoring. In this study we investigated the performance of open-source call recognizers provided by the monitoR package in R, a language popular among ecologists. We tested recognizers on sound data collected under natural conditions at nests of two endangered subspecies of black-cockatoo, the Kangaroo Island glossy black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus (n = 23 nests), and the south-eastern red-tailed black-cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne (n = 20 nests). Specifically, we tested the performance of binary point matching recognizers in confirming daily nest activity (active or inactive) and nesting outcome (fledge or fail). We tested recognizers on recordings from nests of known status using 3 × 3-h recordings per nest, from early, mid and late stages of the recording period. Daily nest activity was correctly assigned in 61.7% of survey days analysed (n = 60 days) for the red-tailed black-cockatoo, and 62.3% of survey days (n = 69 days) for the glossy black-cockatoo. Fledging was successfully detected in all cases. Precision (true positive / true positive + false positive) of individual detections was 70.2% for the south-eastern red-tailed black-cockatoo and 37.1% for the Kangaroo Island glossy black-cockatoo. Manual verification of outputs is still required, but it is not necessary to verify all detections to confir

Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g., offsetting) are requiring “net gain” outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Conven-tion on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) proposed ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in net gain policy to align outcomes with biodiversity recovery goals: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains,which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where(3) gains are demonstrably feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, which risks undermining efforts to achieve the proposed Post-2020 GBF milestones and goals, as well as other jurisdictional policy imperatives to halt and reverse biodiversity decline. To guide future decision-making, we provide a supporting decision tree outlining net gain compensation feasibility.

Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g., offsetting) are requiring “net gain” outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Conven-tion on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) proposed ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in net gain policy to align outcomes with biodiversity recovery goals: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains,which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where(3) gains are demonstrably feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, which risks undermining efforts to achieve the proposed Post-2020 GBF milestones and goals, as well as other jurisdictional policy imperatives to halt and reverse biodiversity decline. To guide future decision-making, we provide a supporting decision tree outlining net gain compensation feasibility.

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.Sustaining ecosystems is essential for biodiversity conservation and human well-being. This Perspective synthesizes the scientific basis for an effective goal for ecosystem conservation, and associated indicators of progress, that can be applied from global to local scales.

The upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, and adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, including mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in society. We present a framework that could support this: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This places the Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the biodiversity impacts of developments (1, avoid; 2, minimize; 3, restore; and 4, offset, toward a target such as "no net loss" of biodiversity) within a broader framing encompassing all conservation actions. We illustrate its application by national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the city of London, a fishery, and Indigenous groups), companies, and individuals. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. It can guide actions toward a sustainable future for people and nature, supporting the CBD's vision.

The dataset is a CSV file that includes the yes/no and multiple choice questions used in the paper by Driscoll et al, published in Conservation Letters in 2020. Each row represents a de-identified respondent, and not text responses are included in the dataset to ensure no risk to anonymity of the survey respondents. The columns are labelled by question number (eg. Q1 etc), and this aligns with the questions in Appendix S1 of Driscoll et al 2020 Conservation Letters. The questions are repeated below. No. Question Sub-question Q1 Which statement best describes your attitude towards the role of scientists in public policy debates and advocacy? Q2 Which one of the following would you consider to be the minimum necessary for you to be knowledgeable enough about a topic to enable you to make public commentary? Q3 Have you ever experienced ‘undue modification’ to your work by your organisation, such as substantive changes to a text or story that downplays, masks, or misleads about environmental impacts? Q4 Please indicate for which kinds of communications you have experienced ‘undue modification’. (Select all that apply) Q5 Have you ever been prohibited by your organisation from providing public communication in regard to a matter about which you are knowledgeable? Q6 Please indicate which kinds of communication you have been prohibited from providing. (Select all that apply) Q7 Which option below best describes your general view about how the constraints on public commentary by scientists has changed over recent years. Q8 Do you consider that the current constraints on communication in your workplace are excessive? Q9 Do you believe written policies that require approval of public communications is reasonable? Q10 Please briefly explain your reasons Q11 Please indicate which topic areas you have experienced constraints on communication, in mainstream or social media. (check only those options that are applicable) "Constraints on communication" refers to any pressure appli

Australia’s 2019–2020 mega-fires were exacerbated by drought, anthropogenic climate change and existing land-use management. Here, using a combination of remotely sensed data and species distribution models, we found these fires burnt ~97,000 km2 of vegetation across southern and eastern Australia, which is considered habitat for 832 species of native vertebrate fauna. Seventy taxa had a substantial proportion (>30%) of habitat impacted; 21 of these were already listed as threatened with extinction. To avoid further species declines, Australia must urgently reassess the extinction vulnerability of fire-impacted species and assist the recovery of populations in both burnt and unburnt areas. Population recovery requires multipronged strategies aimed at ameliorating current and fire-induced threats, including proactively protecting unburnt habitats.

Market-like mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting have emerged globally as supposedly cost-effective approaches for mitigating the impacts of development. In reality, offset buyers have commonly found that required credits are scarce and/or expensive. One response has been to seek improved market functionality, increasing eligible offset supply by allowing greater flexibility in the offset trading rules. These include increasing the size of geographical trading areas and expanding out-of-kind trades (‘geographical’ and ‘ecological’ flexibility). We summarise the arguments for and against flexibility, ultimately arguing that increasing flexibility undermines the achievement of No Net Loss (or Net Gain) of biodiversity where high-quality governance is lacking. We argue expanding out-of-kind trading often increases the pool of potentially eligible offsets with limited conservation justification. This interferes with vital information regarding the scarcity of the impacted biodiversity feature, thereby disincentivising impact avoidance. When a biodiversity feature under threat of development is scarce, expensive offsets are an essential feature of the economics of offsetting which communicate that scarcity, not a problem to be regulated away. We present examples where increasing ecological flexibility may be justifying the loss of conservation priorities. We also discuss how increasing geographical flexibility might compromise the additionality principle. We highlight alternative mechanisms for enhancing offset supply without the risks associated with increasing flexibility, including reducing policy uncertainty and improving engagement and awareness to increase landholder participation. Although there are legitimate reasons for increasing offsetting flexibility in some specific contexts, we argue that the biodiversity risks are considerable, and potentially undermine ‘no net loss’ outcomes.

The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). - Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. - Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. - If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. [...]

Market-like mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting have emerged globally as supposedly cost-effective approaches for mitigating the impacts of development. In reality, offset buyers have commonly found that required credits are scarce and/or expensive. One response has been to seek improved market functionality, increasing eligible offset supply by allowing greater flexibility in the offset trading rules. These include increasing the size of geographical trading areas and expanding out-of-kind trades (‘geographical’ and ‘ecological’ flexibility). We summarise the arguments for and against flexibility, ultimately arguing that increasing flexibility undermines the achievement of No Net Loss (or Net Gain) of biodiversity where high-quality governance is lacking. We argue expanding out-of-kind trading often increases the pool of potentially eligible offsets with limited conservation justification. This interferes with vital information regarding the scarcity of the impacted biodiversity feature, thereby disincentivising impact avoidance. When a biodiversity feature under threat of development is scarce, expensive offsets are an essential feature of the economics of offsetting which communicate that scarcity, not a problem to be regulated away. We present examples where increasing ecological flexibility may be justifying the loss of conservation priorities. We also discuss how increasing geographical flexibility might compromise the additionality principle. We highlight alternative mechanisms for enhancing offset supply without the risks associated with increasing flexibility, including reducing policy uncertainty and improving engagement and awareness to increase landholder participation. Although there are legitimate reasons for increasing offsetting flexibility in some specific contexts, we argue that the biodiversity risks are considerable, and potentially undermine ‘no net loss’ outcomes.

Market-like mechanisms for biodiversity offsetting have emerged globally as supposedly cost-effective approaches for mitigating the impacts of development. In reality, offset buyers have commonly found that required credits are scarce and/or expensive. One response has been to seek improved market functionality, increasing eligible offset supply by allowing greater flexibility in the offset trading rules. These include increasing the size of geographical trading areas and expanding out-of-kind trades (‘geographical’ and ‘ecological’ flexibility). We summarise the arguments for and against flexibility, ultimately arguing that increasing flexibility undermines the achievement of No Net Loss (or Net Gain) of biodiversity where high-quality governance is lacking. We argue expanding out-of-kind trading often increases the pool of potentially eligible offsets with limited conservation justification. This interferes with vital information regarding the scarcity of the impacted biodiversity feature, thereby disincentivising impact avoidance. When a biodiversity feature under threat of development is scarce, expensive offsets are an essential feature of the economics of offsetting which communicate that scarcity, not a problem to be regulated away. We present examples where increasing ecological flexibility may be justifying the loss of conservation priorities. We also discuss how increasing geographical flexibility might compromise the additionality principle. We highlight alternative mechanisms for enhancing offset supply without the risks associated with increasing flexibility, including reducing policy uncertainty and improving engagement and awareness to increase landholder participation. Although there are legitimate reasons for increasing offsetting flexibility in some specific contexts, we argue that the biodiversity risks are considerable, and potentially undermine ‘no net loss’ outcomes.

Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature and climate show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved. Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature and climate show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved. Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

Biodiversity offsetting aims to achieve at least ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity by fully compensating for residual development-induced biodiversity losses after the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, remediate) has been applied. Actions used to generate offsets can include securing protection, maintaining condition, or enhancing condition of targeted biodiversity at an offset site. Protection and maintenance actions aim to prevent future loss of biodiversity, so such offsets are referred to as ‘averted loss’ offsets. However, the benefits of such approaches can be highly uncertain and opaque, because assumptions about the change in likelihood of loss due to the offset are often implicit. As a result, the gain generated by averting losses can be intentionally or inadvertently overestimated, leading to offset outcomes that are insufficient for achieving no net loss of biodiversity. We present a method and decision tree to guide consistent and credible estimation of the likelihood of loss of a proposed offset site with and without protection, for use when calculating the amount of benefit associated with the ‘protection’ component of averted loss offsets. In circumstances such as when a jurisdictional offset policy applies to most impacts, plausible estimates of averted loss can be very low. Averting further loss of biodiversity is desirable, and averted loss offsets can be a valid approach for generating tangible gains. However, overestimation of averted loss benefits poses a major risk to biodiversity.

Biodiversity offsetting aims to achieve at least ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity by fully compensating for residual development-induced biodiversity losses after the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, remediate) has been applied. Actions used to generate offsets can include securing protection, maintaining condition, or enhancing condition of targeted biodiversity at an offset site. Protection and maintenance actions aim to prevent future loss of biodiversity, so such offsets are referred to as ‘averted loss’ offsets. However, the benefits of such approaches can be highly uncertain and opaque, because assumptions about the change in likelihood of loss due to the offset are often implicit. As a result, the gain generated by averting losses can be intentionally or inadvertently overestimated, leading to offset outcomes that are insufficient for achieving no net loss of biodiversity. We present a method and decision tree to guide consistent and credible estimation of the likelihood of loss of a proposed offset site with and without protection, for use when calculating the amount of benefit associated with the ‘protection’ component of averted loss offsets. In circumstances such as when a jurisdictional offset policy applies to most impacts, plausible estimates of averted loss can be very low. Averting further loss of biodiversity is desirable, and averted loss offsets can be a valid approach for generating tangible gains. However, overestimation of averted loss benefits poses a major risk to biodiversity.

The popularity of bioacoustics for threatened species monitoring has surged. Large volumes of acoustic data can be collected autonomously and remotely with minimal human effort. The approach is commonly used to detect cryptic species and, more recently, to estimate abundance or density. However, the potential for conservation-relevant information to be derived from acoustic signatures associated with particular behavior is less well-exploited. Animal vocal behavior can reveal important information about critical life history events. In this study, we argue that the overlap of the disciplines of bioacoustics, vocal communication, and conservation behavior—thus, “acoustic conservation behavior”—has much to offer threatened species monitoring. In particular, vocalizations can serve as indicators of behavioral states and contexts that provide insight into populations as it relates to their conservation. We explore the information available from monitoring species' vocalizations that relate to reproduction and recruitment, alarm and defense, and social behavior, and how this information could translate into potential conservation benefits. While there are still challenges to processing acoustic data, we conclude that acoustic conservation behavior may improve threatened species monitoring where vocalizations reveal behaviors that are informative for management and decision-making.

Since European occupation of Australia, human activities have caused the dramatic decline and sometimes extinction of many of the continent's unique species. Here we provide a comprehensive review of threats to species listed as threatened under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Following accepted global categories of threat, we find that invasive species affect the largest number of listed species (1257 species, or 82% of all threatened species); ecosystem modifications (e.g. fire) (74% of listed species) and agricultural activity (57%) are also important. The ranking of threats was largely consistent across taxonomic groups and the degree of species' endangerment. These results were significantly different (P < 0.01) from recent analyses of threats to threatened species globally, which highlighted overexploitation, agriculture and urban development as major causes of decline. Australia is distinct not only in the biodiversity it contains but also in the extent and mixture of processes that threaten the survival of these species. Notably, the IUCN threat classification scheme separates the numerous threats (e.g. urban development, agriculture, mining) that cause habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, hence further research is required to quantify the net impact of these types of habitat change. We provide feasible suggestions for a more coordinated national approach to threatened species conservation, which could provide decision makers and managers at all levels with improved resources and information on threats and management. Adequate policy, legislative support and funding are critical for ensuring that on-ground management is successful in halting the decline of Australia's threatened species.

Thresholds in the relationship between species richness and natural land cover can inform landscape-level vegetation protection and restoration targets. However, landscapes differ considerably in composition and other environmental attributes. If the effect of natural land cover on species richness depends on (i.e., interacts with) these attributes, and this affects the value of thresholds in this relationship, such dependencies must be considered when using thresholds to guide landscape management. We hypothesized that the amount of natural land cover at which a threshold occurs would differ in predictable ways with particular anthropogenic, abiotic, and biotic attributes of landscapes. To test this, we related woodland bird species richness in 251 landscapes, each 100 km 2 , to natural land cover in south-east Australia. We compared the fit of exponential and threshold models of the richness–natural land cover relationship, focussing on the extent of natural land cover at which thresholds presented among landscapes that differed in matrix land use intensity, heterogeneity, productivity, and the prevalence of strong biotic interactors. We used linear mixed modelling to examine how interactions between natural land cover and the various landscape attributes affected the fit of models of species richness. Threshold models of the richness–natural land cover relationship were always a better fit than exponential models. Threshold values did not vary consistently with specific landscape attributes, with the exception of landscapes that were classified by the prevalence of strong biotic interactors (hypercompetitive native birds of the genus Manorina). Natural land cover had a more positive effect on species richness in landscapes when Manorina prevalence was higher. This positive interaction provided the biggest improvement in explanatory power of models of species richness. Synthesis and applications. While we detected an interaction between Manorina pre

When development impacts a broad landscape and causes the loss of multiple ecosystem services, decisions about which of these impacts to offset must be made. We use industrial oil-palm developments in Kalimantan and quantify the potential for restoration to offset oil-palm impacts on carbon storage and biodiversity. We developed a unique backcasting approach combined with a spatial conservation prioritisation framework to identify priority areas for restoration offsetting. We calculated the past impacts of oil-palm development, quantified the future benefits of restoration for carbon storage and biodiversity over one oil-palm planting cycle of 25 years, and prioritised areas for restoration to balance the impacts and benefits for the least cost. We estimate that offsetting the carbon emissions attributable to the existing 4.6 Mha of industrial oil-palm plantation in Kalimantan is most cost-effectively achieved by restoring 0.4-1.6 Mha of degraded peatlands, including failed agricultural projects, at a cost of US$ 0.7-2.9 billion. On the other hand, offsetting biodiversity losses would require at least 4.7 Mha of degraded areas to be restored (equating to 8.7 of Kalimantan) at a cost of US$7.7 billion. We show that priority areas for offsetting biodiversity losses overlap poorly with those for compensating carbon emissions. Our analysis suggests that reconciling multiple impacts at landscape scales will necessitate difficult choices among contested socio-political preferences. Our findings also clarify the fundamental importance of conserving biodiversity-rich primary forests and peatlands in the tropics and the need to avoid converting these areas in the future. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Interspecific aggression by the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), a highly despotic species, is homogenizing woodland avifaunas across eastern Australia. Although a native species, the noisy miner's aggressive exclusion of small birds is a Key Threatening Process under national law. Large-scale removal of noisy miners has been proposed as a management response to this threat following increases in miner presence due to anthropogenic land use practices. We tested this proposal by experimentally removing noisy miners from eucalypt woodland remnants (16-49 ha), assigned randomly as control (n = 12) or treatment (miner removal) sites (n = 12). Standardized bird surveys were conducted before and after removal, and generalized linear mixed models were used to investigate the effect of miner removal on bird assemblage metrics. Despite removing 3552 noisy miners in three sessions of systematic shooting, densities of noisy miners remained similarly high in treatment and control sites, even just 14 days after their removal. However, there was evidence of an increase in richness and abundance of small birds in treatment sites compared to controls-an effect we only expected to see if noisy miner densities were drastically reduced. We suggest that miner removal may have reduced the ability of the recolonizing miners to aggressively exclude small birds, even without substantially reducing miner densities, due to the breakdown of social structures that are central to the species' despotic behaviour. However, this effect on small birds is unlikely to persist in the long term. Synthesis and applications: Despite evidence from other studies that direct removal of noisy miners can result in rapid and sustained conservation benefit for bird communities at small scales, our findings cast doubt on the potential to scale-up this management approach. The circumstances under which direct control of noisy miners can be achieved remain unresolved.

‘No net loss’ is a buzz phrase in environmental policy. Applied to a multitude of environmental targets such as biodiversity, wetlands and land productive capacity, no net loss (NNL) and related goals have been adopted by multiple countries and organizations, but these goals often lack clear reference scenarios: no net loss compared to what? Here, we examine policies with NNL and related goals, and identify three main forms of reference scenario. We categorize NNL policies as relating either to overarching policy goals, or to responses to specific impacts. We explore how to resolve conflicts between overarching and impact-specific NNL policies, and improve transparency about what NNL-type policies are actually designed to achieve., ‘No net loss’ is a buzz phrase in environmental policy. Applied to a multitude of environmental targets such as biodiversity, wetlands and land productive capacity, no net loss (NNL) and related goals have been adopted by multiple countries and organizations, but these goals often lack clear reference scenarios: no net loss compared to what? Here, we examine policies with NNL and related goals, and identify three main forms of reference scenario. We categorize NNL policies as relating either to overarching policy goals, or to responses to specific impacts. We explore how to resolve conflicts between overarching and impact-specific NNL policies, and improve transparency about what NNL-type policies are actually designed to achieve.

When development impacts a broad landscape and causes the loss of multiple ecosystem services, decisions about which of these impacts to offset must be made. We use industrial oil-palm developments in Kalimantan and quantify the potential for restoration to offset oil-palm impacts on carbon storage and biodiversity. We developed a unique backcasting approach combined with a spatial conservation prioritisation framework to identify priority areas for restoration offsetting. We calculated the past impacts of oil-palm development, quantified the future benefits of restoration for carbon storage and biodiversity over one oil-palm planting cycle of 25 years, and prioritised areas for restoration to balance the impacts and benefits for the least cost. We estimate that offsetting the carbon emissions attributable to the existing 4.6 Mha of industrial oil-palm plantation in Kalimantan is most cost-effectively achieved by restoring 0.4–1.6 Mha of degraded peatlands, including failed agricultural projects, at a cost of US$0.7–2.9 billion. On the other hand, offsetting biodiversity losses would require at least 4.7 Mha of degraded areas to be restored (equating to 8.7% of Kalimantan) at a cost of US$7.7 billion. We show that priority areas for offsetting biodiversity losses overlap poorly with those for compensating carbon emissions. Our analysis suggests that reconciling multiple impacts at landscape scales will necessitate difficult choices among contested socio-political preferences. Our findings also clarify the fundamental importance of conserving biodiversity-rich primary forests and peatlands in the tropics and the need to avoid converting these areas in the future.

When development impacts a broad landscape and causes the loss of multiple ecosystem services, decisions about which of these impacts to offset must be made. We use industrial oil-palm developments in Kalimantan and quantify the potential for restoration to offset oil-palm impacts on carbon storage and biodiversity. We developed a unique backcasting approach combined with a spatial conservation prioritisation framework to identify priority areas for restoration offsetting. We calculated the past impacts of oil-palm development, quantified the future benefits of restoration for carbon storage and biodiversity over one oil-palm planting cycle of 25 years, and prioritised areas for restoration to balance the impacts and benefits for the least cost. We estimate that offsetting the carbon emissions attributable to the existing 4.6 Mha of industrial oil-palm plantation in Kalimantan is most cost-effectively achieved by restoring 0.4–1.6 Mha of degraded peatlands, including failed agricultural projects, at a cost of US$0.7–2.9 billion. On the other hand, offsetting biodiversity losses would require at least 4.7 Mha of degraded areas to be restored (equating to 8.7% of Kalimantan) at a cost of US$7.7 billion. We show that priority areas for offsetting biodiversity losses overlap poorly with those for compensating carbon emissions. Our analysis suggests that reconciling multiple impacts at landscape scales will necessitate difficult choices among contested socio-political preferences. Our findings also clarify the fundamental importance of conserving biodiversity-rich primary forests and peatlands in the tropics and the need to avoid converting these areas in the future.

Interspecific aggression by the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), a highly despotic species, is homogenizing woodland avifaunas across eastern Australia. Although a native species, the noisy miner's aggressive exclusion of small birds is a Key Threatening Process under national law. Large-scale removal of noisy miners has been proposed as a management response to this threat following increases in miner presence due to anthropogenic land use practices. We tested this proposal by experimentally removing noisy miners from eucalypt woodland remnants (16-49 ha), assigned randomly as control (n = 12) or treatment (miner removal) sites (n = 12). Standardized bird surveys were conducted before and after removal, and generalized linear mixed models were used to investigate the effect of miner removal on bird assemblage metrics. Despite removing 3552 noisy miners in three sessions of systematic shooting, densities of noisy miners remained similarly high in treatment and control sites, even just 14 days after their removal. However, there was evidence of an increase in richness and abundance of small birds in treatment sites compared to controls-an effect we only expected to see if noisy miner densities were drastically reduced. We suggest that miner removal may have reduced the ability of the recolonizing miners to aggressively exclude small birds, even without substantially reducing miner densities, due to the breakdown of social structures that are central to the species' despotic behaviour. However, this effect on small birds is unlikely to persist in the long term. Synthesis and applications: Despite evidence from other studies that direct removal of noisy miners can result in rapid and sustained conservation benefit for bird communities at small scales, our findings cast doubt on the potential to scale-up this management approach. The circumstances under which direct control of noisy miners can be achieved remain unresolved.

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific‐integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific‐integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence‐based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective‐bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations in the public interest

Poaching for ivory has caused a steep decline in African elephant (Loxodonta africana, see the photo) populations over the past decade (1). This crisis has fueled a contentious global debate over which ivory policy would best protect elephants: banning all ivory trade or enabling regulated trade to incentivize and fund elephant conservation (2). The deep-seated deadlock on ivory policy consumes valuable resources and creates an antagonistic environment among elephant conservationists. Successful solutions must begin by recognizing the different values that influence stakeholder cognitive frameworks of how actions lead to outcomes (“mental models”) (3), and therefore their diverging positions on ivory trade (4). Based on successful conflict resolution in other areas, we propose an iterative process through which countries with wild elephant populations may be able to understand their differences and develop workable solutions in a less confrontational manner.

Ecological restoration of modified and degraded landscapes is an important challenge for the 21st century, with potential for major gains in the recovery of biodiversity. However, there is a general lack of agreement between plant- and animal- based approaches to restoration, both in theory and practice. Here, we review these approaches, identify limitations from failing to effectively integrate their different perspectives, and suggest ways to improve outcomes for biodiversity recovery in agricultural landscapes. We highlight the need to strengthen collaboration between plant and animal ecologists, to overcome disciplinary and cultural differences, and to achieve a more unified approach to restoration ecology. Explicit consideration of key ecosystem functions, the need to plan at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and the importance of plant-animal interactions can provide a bridge between plant- and animal- based methods. A systematic approach to restoration planning is critical to achieving effective biodiversity outcomes while meeting long- term social and economic needs.

Ecological restoration of modified and degraded landscapes is an important challenge for the 21st century, with potential for major gains in the recovery of biodiversity. However, there is a general lack of agreement between plant- and animal-based approaches to restoration, both in theory and practice. Here, we review these approaches, identify limitations from failing to effectively integrate their different perspectives, and suggest ways to improve outcomes for biodiversity recovery in agricultural landscapes. We highlight the need to strengthen collaboration between plant and animal ecologists, to overcome disciplinary and cultural differences, and to achieve a more unified approach to restoration ecology. Explicit consideration of key ecosystem functions, the need to plan at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and the importance of plant–animal interactions can provide a bridge between plant- and animal-based methods. A systematic approach to restoration planning is critical to achieving effective biodiversity outcomes while meeting long-term social and economic needs.

The rising popularity of biodiversity offsetting as a tool for balancing biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere has sparked debate on many fronts. The fundamental questions are the following: Is offsetting good, bad, or at least better than the status quo for biodiversity conservation outcomes, and what do we need to know to decide? We present a concise synthesis of the most contentious issues related to biodiversity offsetting, categorized as ethical, social, technical, or governance challenges. In each case, we discuss avenues for reducing disagreement over these issues and identify those that are likely to remain unresolved. We argue that there are many risks associated with the unscrutinized expansion of offset policy. Nevertheless, governments are increasingly adopting offset policies, so working rapidly to clarify and-where possible-to resolve these issues is essential., The rising popularity of biodiversity offsetting as a tool for balancing biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere has sparked debate on many fronts. The fundamental questions are the following: Is offsetting good, bad, or at least better than the status quo for biodiversity conservation outcomes, and what do we need to know to decide? We present a concise synthesis of the most contentious issues related to biodiversity offsetting, categorized as ethical, social, technical, or governance challenges. In each case, we discuss avenues for reducing disagreement over these issues and identify those that are likely to remain unresolved. We argue that there are many risks associated with the unscrutinized expansion of offset policy. Nevertheless, governments are increasingly adopting offset policies, so working rapidly to clarify and-where possible-to resolve these issues is essential.

Biodiversity conservation policies incorporating a no net loss (NNL) principle are being implemented in many countries. However, there are linguistic and conceptual inconsistencies in the use of terms underlying these NNL policies. We identify inconsistencies that emerge in the usage of eight key terms and phrases associated with NNL policies: biodiversity, frames of reference (i.e. baselines, counterfactuals), no net loss, mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offset, in-kind/out-of-kind, direct/indirect and multipliers. For each term, we make recommendations to support conceptual convergence, reduce ambiguity and improve clarity in communication and policy documentation. However, we also warn of the challenges in achieving convergence, especially given the linguistic inconsistencies in several of these key concepts among countries in which NNL policies are employed. Policy implications. The recommendations made in this article, on improving clarity and supporting convergence on key no net loss (NNL) concepts, should help eliminate ambiguity in policy documentation. This is crucial if policymakers are to design robust policies that are (i) transparent, (ii) translatable into practice in a consistent manner and (iii) sufficiently understood and supported by stakeholders to be effective in practice., Biodiversity conservation policies incorporating a no net loss (NNL) principle are being implemented in many countries. However, there are linguistic and conceptual inconsistencies in the use of terms underlying these NNL policies. We identify inconsistencies that emerge in the usage of eight key terms and phrases associated with NNL policies: biodiversity, frames of reference (i.e. baselines, counterfactuals), no net loss, mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offset, in-kind/out-of-kind, direct/indirect and multipliers. For each term, we make recommendations to support conceptual convergence, reduce ambiguity and improve clarity in communication and policy documentation. However, we also warn of the challenges in achieving convergence, especially given the linguistic inconsistencies in several of these key concepts among countries in which NNL policies are employed. Policy implications. The recommendations made in this article, on improving clarity and supporting convergence on key no net loss (NNL) concepts, should help eliminate ambiguity in policy documentation. This is crucial if policymakers are to design robust policies that are (i) transparent, (ii) translatable into practice in a consistent manner and (iii) sufficiently understood and supported by stakeholders to be effective in practice.

Offsetting is a policy instrument intended to provide flexibility for development. We developed a simple calculator to predict when no net loss is feasible using biodiversity offsetting. Assuming offset ratios ≤10:1 are indicative of operational feasibility and employing a discount rate of 3%, we predicted that no net loss is feasible where biodiversity can be restored within 55 years, which restricts the impacts on biodiversity that can be offset using restoration. Alternatively, no net loss is feasible by avoiding loss to biodiversity that is declining under the counterfactual at an annual rate ≥6%. However, this is considerably higher than typical background rates of biodiversity loss so restricts where avoided-loss offsets are feasible. No net loss is theoretically feasible in the broadest range of circumstances if biodiversity gains are provided in advance of development. However, these gains are procured by restoration or avoided loss, so constraints presented by these approaches also apply. We concluded that no net loss is feasible in a limited range of development scenarios unless offset ratios greater than 10:1 are more widely tolerated.

Biodiversity offset trades usually aim to achieve 'no net loss' of biodiversity. But the question remains: no net loss compared to what? Determining whether an offset can compensate for a given impact requires assumptions about the counterfactual scenario-that which would have happened without the offset-against which the gain at an offset site can be estimated. Where this counterfactual scenario, or 'crediting baseline', assumes a future trajectory of biodiversity decline, the intended net outcome of the offset trade is maintenance of that declining trajectory. If the rate of decline of the crediting baseline is implausibly steep, biodiversity offset trades can exacerbate biodiversity decline. We examined crediting baselines used in offset policies across Australia, and compared them with recent estimates of decline in woody vegetation extent. All jurisdictions permitted offset credit generated using averted loss-implying an assumption of background decline-but few were explicit about their crediting baseline. The credit calculation approaches implied assumed crediting baselines of up to 4.2% loss (of vegetation extent and/or condition) per annum; on average, the crediting baselines were >5 times steeper than recent rates of vegetation loss. For these crediting baselines to be plausible, declines in vegetation condition must be rapid, but this was not reflected in the approaches for which assumptions about decline in extent and condition could be separated. We conclude that crediting baselines in Australian offset schemes risk exacerbating biodiversity loss. The near-ubiquitous use of declining crediting baselines risks 'locking in' biodiversity decline across impact and offset sites, with implications for biodiversity conservation more broadly.

Environmental offsetting involves compensating for the residual adverse impacts of an action on the environment by generating an equivalent benefit elsewhere. As the prevalence of environmental offsetting grows, so does the challenge of translating no-net-loss goals to workable policy. From 2011–2012, the Australian Government developed an Environmental Offsets Policy and an accompanying metric (the Offsets Assessment Guide) to support decision making about offset requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Through extensive stakeholder consultation and in collaboration with academic researchers, the Guide was developed with the aim of accounting appropriately for ecological equivalence in a transparent and flexible manner. This paper outlines the Australian Government's environmental offset policy development process, and describes the approach adopted for evaluating the suitability of proposed offsets in meeting the policy goals. The Guide explicitly estimates the extent to which an offset will improve the target biota and/or avert future losses, the degree of confidence that the offset will be implemented successfully, and the time it will take to deliver a conservation benefit. Since implementation of the Environmental Offsets Policy and the Guide, there has been a shift in focus from estimating offset requirements based on simplistic area ratios, toward directly evaluating the components of an offset action that determine its environmental performance. Achieving a balance between scientific robustness and policy workability is an ongoing challenge. The Environmental Offsets Policy and Guide represent an important step towards consistency and transparency in environmental offset decision-making.

The benefit (or additionality) attributable to a conservation action is the difference between the outcomes of two scenarios: (1) the scenario with the conservation action, and (2) the alternative scenario, in which action did not occur. However, many con

The science and practice of ecological restoration are increasingly being called upon to compensate for the loss of biodiversity values caused by development projects. Biodiversity offsetting-compensating for losses of biodiversity at an impact site by generating ecologically equivalent gains elsewhere-therefore places substantial faith in the ability of restoration to recover lost biodiversity. Furthermore, the increase in offset-led restoration multiplies the consequences of failure to restore, since the promise of effective restoration may increase the chance that damage to biodiversity is permitted. But what evidence exists that restoration science and practice can reliably, or even feasibly, achieve the goal of 'no net loss' of biodiversity, and under what circumstances are successes and failures more likely? Using recent reviews of the restoration ecology literature, we examine the effectiveness of restoration as an approach for offsetting biodiversity loss, and conclude that many of the expectations set by current offset policy for ecological restoration remain unsupported by evidence. We introduce a conceptual model that illustrates three factors that limit the technical success of offsets: time lags, uncertainty and measurability of the value being offset. These factors can be managed to some extent through sound offset policy design that incorporates active adaptive management, time discounting, explicit accounting for uncertainty, and biodiversity banking. Nevertheless, the domain within which restoration can deliver 'no net loss' offsets remains small. A narrowing of the gap between the expectations set by offset policies and the practice of offsetting is urgently required and we urge the development of stronger links between restoration ecologists and those who make policies that are reliant upon restoration science.