Search

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, minimize, remediate) has been applied. Actions used to generate offsets can include securing site protection, or maintaining or enhancing the condition of targeted biodiversity at an offset site. Protection and maintenance actions aim to prevent future biodiversity loss, 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 as a result of the offset action 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 biodiversity loss for 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fulfilment of the benefits resulting from services provided by nature requires an integrated framework that combines appropriate ecosystem service governance with spatially explicit models of service provision.Here, we propose using a social‐ecological network approach to develop a 'landscape governance framework' that identifies how different types of governance can act on supply, demand and flow of ecosystem services through changes in landscape structure and connections.Starting from undesirable situations where demand exceeds supply, we exemplify the application of this conceptual model considering hierarchical (e.g. creation of protected areas), market (e.g. payments for environmental services) and community‐based (e.g. enhancing links between stakeholders) governance approaches.We show how interventions associated with each of these approaches act in distinct ways to regulate different components of the service provision chain in heterogeneous landscapes. Filling such knowledge gaps can help identify appropriate governance interventions depending on factors that limit provision: restricted supply, demand or flow.The application of the landscape governance framework entails challenges related to availability of data and limited understanding of key underlying mechanisms. However, it opens important new research questions at the interface between governance and ecosystem services, with great potential as a tool for landscape management that aims to achieve ecosystem service sustainability. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Applied Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature—one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals—ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems—and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies. The long-term success of area-based conservation—including both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures—after 2020 will depend on governments securing adequate funding and prioritizing biodiversity in land, water and sea management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Understanding how landscape fragmentation affects functional diversity, defined as the distribution of functional traits in an assemblage, is critical for managing landscapes for biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Despite some scattered evidence, we lack a clear understanding of how patterns of fragmentation drive changes in functional diversity, and its relationship with species richness as habitat is lost from a landscape. Objectives: To develop testable predictions about how landscape fragmentation, relative to the effects of habitat loss, impacts functional diversity and its relationship with species richness. Methods: We used a spatially explicit metacommunity model that evaluates communities that vary in the distribution of response traits (traits involved in species responses to environmental change) and the correlation between response and effect traits (traits associated with species' effects on ecosystem functioning). Results: Compared to effects of habitat loss, relative effects of fragmentation on functional diversity increased as the variance in the distribution of response traits was high and the correlation among traits was high. Functional richness decreased faster than species richness in highly fragmented landscapes as habitat was lost. However, functional diversity remained unchanged or even increased in fragmented landscapes when either response and effect traits were not correlated (or weakly correlated), or when the proportion of generalist species with high dispersal capacities was high. Conclusions: Compared to effects of habitat loss, the relative effects of fragmentation on functional diversity and species richness are more dependent on the type of community evaluated. A careful evaluation of the variance in the distribution of response traits within a community, as well as the correlation among response and effect traits, can help to determine when it is important to manage landscape fragmentation to protect functional diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]