Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability.

Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity and report this in sustainability reports. We assessed the top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 were specific, measureable, and time bound. A variety of biodiversity-related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts and were achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability by helping businesses make science-based biodiversity commitments, develop meaningful indicators, and select more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the biodiversity policy super year of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses in playing a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet with biodiversity at its heart.

Uso de la Ciencia de la Conservación para Potenciar la Responsabilidad Corporativa hacia la Biodiversidad Resumen Las declinaciones de la biodiversidad amenazan a la sustentabilidad de las sociedades y economías globales. Los negocios han reconocido esto y han comenzado a comprometerse a mitigar y a responsabilizarse por su influencia sobre la biodiversidad y a reportar esto en informes sobre sustentabilidad. Evaluamos los informes sobre sustentabilidad de las 100 mejores compañías del reporte Fortune 500 Global del 2016 (el Fortune 100) para estimar el estado actual de la responsabilidad corporativa hacia la biodiversidad. Casi la mitad (49) del Fortune 100 mencionó a la biodiversidad en sus informes, y 31 dejaron claro sus compromisos con la biodiversidad, de los cuales sólo cinco fueron específicos, medibles y limitados por tiempo. Se divulgó una variedad de actividades relacionadas con la biodiversidad (p. ej.: manejo de impactos, restauración de la biodiversidad e inversión en la biodiversidad). Pero sólo nueve compañías proporcionaron indicadores cuantitativos para verificar la magnitud de sus actividades (p. ej.: área del hábitat restaurado). Ninguna compañía reportó resultados cuantitativos con respecto a la biodiversidad, lo que complica la determinación de si las acciones de las empresas fueron de una magnitud suficiente para tratar los impactos y si se están logrando resultados positivos para la naturaleza. La ciencia de la conservación puede potenciar los métodos para la responsabilidad corporativa hacia la biodiversidad ayudando a las empresas a realizar compromisos con la biodiversidad basados en la ciencia, desarrollar indicadores significativos y seleccionar actividades más enfocadas para tratar los impactos de las empresas. Con la rápida aproximación del súper año para la biodiversidad, el 2020, ahora es el momento para que los científicos de la conservación apoyen y se comprometan con las empresas para tener un papel significativo en el establecimiento de una nueva agenda con la biodiversidad como núcleo para el futuro sustentable del planeta.

Four priorities for new links between conservation science and accounting research.

Article impact statement: New collaborations with accounting research can improve conservation impact of ecosystem-based information systems.

A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation.

Efforts to conserve biodiversity comprise a patchwork of international goals, national-level plans, and local interventions that, overall, are failing. We discuss the potential utility of applying the mitigation hierarchy, widely used during economic development activities, to all negative human impacts on biodiversity. Evaluating all biodiversity losses and gains through the mitigation hierarchy could help prioritize consideration of conservation goals and drive the empirical evaluation of conservation investments through the explicit consideration of counterfactual trends and ecosystem dynamics across scales. We explore the challenges in using this framework to achieve global conservation goals, including operationalization and monitoring and compliance, and we discuss solutions and research priorities. The mitigation hierarchy's conceptual power and ability to clarify thinking could provide the step change needed to integrate the multiple elements of conservation goals and interventions in order to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes.

Towards quantitative condition assessment of biodiversity outcomes: Insights from Australian marine protected areas.

Protected area management effectiveness (PAME) evaluation is increasingly undertaken to evaluate governance, assess conservation outcomes and inform evidence-based management of protected areas (PAs). Within PAME, quantitative approaches to assess biodiversity outcomes are now emerging, where biological monitoring data are directly assessed against quantitative (numerically defined) condition categories (termed quantitative condition assessments). However, more commonly qualitative condition assessments are employed in PAME, which use descriptive condition categories and are evaluated largely with expert judgement that can be subject to a range of biases, such as linguistic uncertainty and overconfidence. Despite the benefits of increased transparency and repeatability of evaluations, quantitative condition assessments are rarely used in PAME. To understand why, we interviewed practitioners from all Australian marine protected area (MPA) networks, which have access to long-term biological monitoring data and are developing or conducting PAME evaluations. Our research revealed that there is a desire within management agencies to implement quantitative condition assessment of biodiversity outcomes in Australian MPAs. However, practitioners report many challenges in transitioning from undertaking qualitative to quantitative condition assessments of biodiversity outcomes, which are hampering progress. Challenges include a lack of agency capacity (staff numbers and money), knowledge gaps, and diminishing public and political support for PAs. We point to opportunities to target strategies that will assist agencies overcome these challenges, including new decision support tools, approaches to better finance conservation efforts, and to promote more management relevant science. While a single solution is unlikely to achieve full evidence-based conservation, we suggest ways for agencies to target strategies and advance PAME evaluations toward best practice.