Great Apes and Biodiversity Offset Projects in Africa: The Case for National Offset Strategies

The development and private sectors are increasingly considering “biodiversity offsets” as a strategy to compensate for their negative impacts on biodiversity, including impacts on great apes and their habitats in Africa. In the absence of national offset policies in sub-Saharan Africa, offset design and implementation are guided by company internal standards, lending bank standards or international best practice principles. We examine four projects in Africa that are seeking to compensate for their negative impacts on great ape populations. Our assessment of these projects reveals that not all apply or implement best practices, and that there is little standardization in the methods used to measure losses and gains in species numbers. Even if they were to follow currently accepted best-practice principles, we find that these actions may still fail to contribute to conservation objectives over the long term. We advocate for an alternative approach in which biodiversity offset and compensation projects are designed and implemented as part of a National Offset Strategy that (1) takes into account the cumulative impacts of development in individual countries, (2) identifies priority offset sites, (3) promotes aggregated offsets, and (4) integrates biodiversity offset and compensation projects with national biodiversity conservation objectives. We also propose supplementary principles necessary for biodiversity offsets to contribute to great ape conservation in Africa. Caution should still be exercised, however, with regard to offsets until further field-based evidence of their effectiveness is available

Prevalence and reporting of recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors in clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background/aims In clinical trials, it is not unusual for errors to occur during the process of recruiting, randomising and providing treatment to participants. For example, an ineligible participant may inadvertently be randomised, a participant may be randomised in the incorrect stratum, a participant may be randomised multiple times when only a single randomisation is permitted or the incorrect treatment may inadvertently be issued to a participant at randomisation. Such errors have the potential to introduce bias into treatment effect estimates and affect the validity of the trial, yet there is little motivation for researchers to report these errors and it is unclear how often they occur. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors and review current approaches for reporting these errors in trials published in leading medical journals. Methods We conducted a systematic review of individually randomised, phase III, randomised controlled trials published in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine and British Medical Journal from January to March 2015. The number and type of recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors that were reported and how they were handled were recorded. The corresponding authors were contacted for a random sample of trials included in the review and asked to provide details on unreported errors that occurred during their trial. Results We identified 241 potentially eligible articles, of which 82 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. These trials involved a median of 24 centres and 650 participants, and 87% involved two treatment arms. Recruitment, randomisation or treatment errors were reported in 32 in 82 trials (39%) that had a median of eight errors. The most commonly reported error was ineligible participants inadvertently being randomised. No mention of recruitment, randomisation or treatment errors was found in the remaining 50 of 82 trials (61%). Based on responses from 9 of the 15 corresponding authors who were contacted regarding recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors, between 1% and 100% of the errors that occurred in their trials were reported in the trial publications. Conclusion Recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors are common in individually randomised, phase III trials published in leading medical journals, but reporting practices are inadequate and reporting standards are needed. We recommend researchers report all such errors that occurred during the trial and describe how they were handled in trial publications to improve transparency in reporting of clinical trials