Global no net loss of natural ecosystems

A global goal of no net loss of natural ecosystems or better has recently been proposed, but such a goal would require equitable translation to country-level contributions. Given the wide variation in ecosystem depletion, these could vary from net gain (for countries where restoration is needed), to managed net loss (in rare circumstances where natural ecosystems remain extensive and human development imperative is greatest). National contributions and international support for implementation also must consider non-area targets factors such as the capacity to conserve and the imperative for human development

Measuring Global Trends in the Status of Biodiversity: Red List Indices for Birds

The rapid destruction of the planet's biodiversity has prompted the nations of the world to set a target of achieving a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, we do not yet have an adequate way of monitoring progress towards achieving this target. Here we present a method for producing indices based on the IUCN Red List to chart the overall threat status (projected relative extinction risk) of all the world's bird species from 1988 to 2004. Red List Indices (RLIs) are based on the number of species in each Red List category, and on the number changing categories between assessments as a result of genuine improvement or deterioration in status. The RLI for all bird species shows that their overall threat status has continued to deteriorate since 1988. Disaggregated indices show that deteriorations have occurred worldwide and in all major ecosystems, but with particularly steep declines in the indices for Indo-Malayan birds (driven by intensifying deforestation of the Sundaic lowlands) and for albatrosses and petrels (driven by incidental mortality in commercial longline fisheries). RLIs complement indicators based on species population trends and habitat extent for quantifying global trends in the status of biodiversity. Their main weaknesses are that the resolution of status changes is fairly coarse and that delays may occur before some status changes are detected. Their greatest strength is that they are based on information from nearly all species in a taxonomic group worldwide, rather than a potentially biased subset. At present, suitable data are only available for birds, but indices for other taxonomic groups are in development, as is a sampled index based on a stratified sample from all major taxonomic groups

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals.

Funder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE170100684) Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT140100516) The Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub Agence Française de Développement Fonds Français pour l'environnement Mondial Mava FoundationFunder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT140100516 National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery HubMany nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted

Protecting Important Sites for Biodiversity Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of conservation efforts and now cover nearly 13% of the world's land surface, with the world's governments committed to expand this to 17%. However, as biodiversity continues to decline, the effectiveness of PAs in reducing the extinction risk of species remains largely untested. We analyzed PA coverage and trends in species' extinction risk at globally significant sites for conserving birds (10,993 Important Bird Areas, IBAs) and highly threatened vertebrates and conifers (588 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, AZEs) (referred to collectively hereafter as ‘important sites’). Species occurring in important sites with greater PA coverage experienced smaller increases in extinction risk over recent decades: the increase was half as large for bird species with>50% of the IBAs at which they occur completely covered by PAs, and a third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted to protected AZEs (compared with unprotected or partially protected sites). Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45–1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79–1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction, recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. We conclude that better targeted expansion of PA networks would help to improve biodiversity trends

Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development

A review of raptor carcass persistence trials and the practical implications for fatality estimation at wind farms

Bird and bat turbine collision fatalities are a principal biodiversity impact at wind energy facilities. Raptors are a group at particular risk and often the focus of post-construction fatality monitoring programs. To estimate fatalities from detected carcasses requires correction for biases, including for carcasses that are removed or decompose before the following search. This is addressed through persistence trials, where carcasses are monitored until no longer detectable or the trial ends. Sourcing sufficient raptor carcasses for trials is challenging and surrogates that are typically used often have shorter persistence times than raptors. We collated information from raptor carcass persistence trials to evaluate consistencies between trials and assess the implications of using persistence values from other studies in wind facility fatality estimates. We compiled individual raptor carcass persistence times from published sources along with information on methods and location, estimated carcass persistence using GenEst and ran full fatality estimates using the carcass persistence estimates and mock datasets for other information. We compiled results from 22 trials from 17 sites across four terrestrial biomes, with trials lasting between 7 and 365 days and involving between 11 and 115 carcasses. Median carcass persistence was estimated at 420 days (90% confidence interval (CI) of 290 to 607 days) for the full dataset. Persistence time varied significantly between trials (trial-specific persistence estimates of 14 (5–42) days to 1,586 (816–3,084) days) but not between terrestrial biomes. We also found no significant relationship between either the number of carcasses in the trial or trial duration and estimated carcass persistence. Using a mock dataset with 12 observed fatalities, we estimated annual fatalities of 25 (16–33) or 26 (17–36) individuals using a 14- or 28-day search interval respectively using global dataset. When using trial-specific carcass persistence estimates and the same mock dataset, estimated annual fatalities ranged from 22 (14–30) to 37 (21–63) individuals for a 14-day search interval, and from 22 (15–31) to 47 (26–84) individuals for a 28-day search interval. The different raptor carcass persistence rates between trials translated to small effects on fatality estimates when using recommended search frequencies, since persistence rates were generally much longer than the search interval. When threatened raptor species, or raptors of particular concern to stakeholders are present, and no site-specific carcass persistence estimates are available, projects should use the lowest median carcass persistence estimate from this study to provide precautionary estimates of fatalities. At sites without threatened species, or where the risk of collision to raptors is low, the global median carcass persistence estimate from this review could be used to provide a plausible estimate for annual raptor fatalities