Search

Australia has proposed a legislated market for biodiversity based on an existing carbon credits scheme which generates Australian carbon credit units (ACCU) from land-based projects. This provides a unique opportunity to assess the potential for markets to benefit biodiversity. We assessed the extent to which projects under the ACCU scheme overlap potential threatened species habitat, compared that to overlap afforded by protected areas, and compared the ability of different project types to deliver potential benefits to species most impacted by habitat loss. Projects are primarily located in low-cost, marginal arid lands, a pattern that reflects that of the protected area estate. Projects are smaller and fewer in number in more productive lands close to human populations. These lands also overlap most threatened species habitat, hence those species most in need of habitat restoration are the least likely to have their habitat restored under the ACCU scheme. Projects, however, do overlap the geographic range of 32% of the 1,660 threatened species assessed, including for 275 species with <17% of their range in protected areas. Biodiversity markets must incentivize actions in areas of high biodiversity value underpinned by regulations that align with national priorities for biodiversity conservation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: P.v.O. is a Director of Biome5, which generates ACCUs based on a restoration and research project in the Wet Tropics of Australia. J.E.E. declares no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Australia is a global leader in land clearing and biodiversity loss. The overwhelming majority of land clearing within Australia and, globally, is driven by agricultural conversion. The importance of agricultural lands also leads to the concentration of habitat protection in landscapes that do not support productive land uses, which might contribute to species conservation in marginal habitat. Using an integrated agricultural capability map and threatened vertebrate fauna range maps, we show that observed biases in protected area location have varied impacts at the species level. Specifically, threatened vertebrate fauna with habitat capable of supporting high‐value productive lands received less protection and experienced greater habitat loss. Similarly, almost all species assessed received protection in the portions of their ranges less conducive to productive land uses. Finally, we identify regions of Australia at risk of future land clearing and the species likely to bear the brunt of the impacts. Our results demonstrate the importance of protecting land capable of supporting productive uses to conserve the most affected threatened species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]