Search

The Atlantic Forest is a global biodiversity hotspot and a significant provider of ecosystem services to 65% of the Brazilian population. Due to being highly threatened, it is protected by federal law 11,428/2006, which establishes forest use restrictions based on native vegetation successional stages in the Atlantic Forest, with more advanced stages receiving more protection. The classification parameters are established at the state level. However, the parameters employed to classify forest fragments in different successional stages are subjective and imprecise, negatively impacting environmental permitting and related offset policies. Here, we critically assessed the major limitations in applying the 11,428/2006 law and presented alternatives for establishing a more transparent, applicable, legally safe, and effective protocol for identifying the conservation value of forest fragments. We also highlight problems related to sampling, indicators, and methodologies and present guidelines for revising the parameters for applying the Atlantic Forest law and associated state-level resolutions. We suggest an inclusive two-step analysis based on vegetation structure, forest cover history, biodiversity, ecosystem services (social), and landscape indicators. By employing a more technological approach and transferring part of the assessment responsibility to the state-level environmental agencies instead of allowing self-declared reports by landowners, our proposal focuses on the potential for evaluating ecological integrity among different successional classes by forest types. As nearly 90% of the remaining Brazilian Atlantic Forest is located within private lands, improving this legal instrument is essential for protecting the vulnerable biodiversity of this unique and threatened biome.

Land management decisions frequently involve choices that reflect tradeoffs among ecosystem services. These tradeoffs are not always apparent, and land managers unknowingly may make decisions that diminish the value of some services while enhancing the value of others. Offset policies, such as wetland mitigation in the United States, rely on the assumption that ecosystems can be restored to provide a full suite of services. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services such as water quality maintenance, carbon storage, flood abatement, and biodiversity support. Our objectives were to describe tradeoffs among ecosystem services in mitigation wetlands and identify abiotic and biotic drivers underlying these tradeoffs. We measured denitrification potential, organic matter decomposition, herbaceous biomass, and soil organic content as indicators of nutrient storage and removal services in 30 mitigation wetlands in Illinois, USA. Additionally, we estimated surface-water storage potential, and, since wetlands provide valuable biodiversity support, we determined the species composition of plant, anuran, and avian communities. We found a positive relationship among biodiversity indicators for different taxa. Denitrification potential and surface-water storage potential were positively correlated. However, there was a tradeoff between biodiversity support and nutrient cycling processes; soil organic matter, biomass, decomposition rates, and potential denitrification were greater at less biodiverse sites. Our findings indicate that optimizing restored wetlands for nutrient storage and removal may come at the expense of biodiversity. It is unrealistic to expect all services to be maximized at a restoration site. Therefore, restoration practitioners should prioritize services based on needs and opportunities given local and watershed contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity offsets are intended to achieve no net loss of biodiversity due to economic and human development. A variety of biodiversity components are addressed by offset policies. It is required that loss of protected species due to development be offset under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives in Europe. We call this type of offset a species-equality offset because the offset pertains to the same species affected by the development project. Whether species equality can be achieved by offset design is unknown. We addressed this gap by reviewing derogation files (i.e., specific files that describe mitigation measures to ensure no net loss under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) from 85 development projects in France (2009-2010). We collected information on type of effect (reversible vs. irreversible) and characteristics of affected and offset sites (i.e., types of species, total area). We analyzed how the type of effect and the affected-site characteristics influenced the occurrence of offset measures. The proportion of species targeted by offset measures (i.e., offset species) increased with the irreversibility of the effect of development and the conservation status of the species affected by development (i.e., affected species). Not all effects on endangered species (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List) were offset; on average, 82% of affected species would be offset. Twenty-six percent of species of least concern were offset species. Thirty-five percent of development projects considered all affected species in their offset measures. Species richness was much lower in offset sites than in developed sites even after offset proposals. For developed areas where species richness was relatively high before development, species richness at offset sites was 5-10 times lower. The species-equality principle appears to have been applied only partially in offset policies, as in the EU directives. We suggest the application of this principle through offsets is highly important for the long-term conservation of biodiversity in Europe. Compensaciones y Conservación de las Especies de las Directivas de Hábitats y Aves de la UE [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]