Exploring the risks and benefits of flexibility in biodiversity offset location in a case study of migratory shorebirds.

Biodiversity offsets aim to counterbalance the residual impacts of development on species and ecosystems. Guidance documents explicitly recommend that biodiversity offset actions be located close to the location of impact because of higher potential for similar ecological conditions, but allowing greater spatial flexibility has been proposed. We examined the circumstances under which offsets distant from the impact location could be more likely to achieve no net loss or provide better ecological outcomes than offsets close to the impact area. We applied a graphical model for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway as a case study to explore the problems that arise when incorporating spatial flexibility into offset planning. Spatially flexible offsets may alleviate impacts more effectively than local offsets; however, the risks involved can be substantial. For our case study, there were inadequate data to make robust conclusions about the effectiveness and equivalence of distant habitat-based offsets for migratory shorebirds. Decisions around offset placement should be driven by the potential to achieve equivalent ecological outcomes; however, when considering more distant offsets, there is a need to evaluate the likely increased risks alongside the potential benefits. Although spatially flexible offsets have the potential to provide more cost-effective biodiversity outcomes and more cobenefits, our case study showed the difficulty of demonstrating these benefits in practice and the potential risks that need to be considered to ensure effective offset placement.

Estudio de los riesgos y beneficios de la flexibilidad en la ubicación de compensación de la biodiversidad en el estudio de caso de aves costeras migratorias Resumen Las compensaciones de la biodiversidad buscan contrabalancear el impacto residual que tiene el desarrollo sobre las especies y los ecosistemas. Los documentos guía recomiendan explícitamente que las acciones de estas compensaciones estén ubicadas cerca del lugar del impacto debido al potencial elevado de que haya condiciones ecológicas similares, aunque ya hay propuestas de una mayor flexibilidad espacial. Analizamos las circunstancias bajo las cuales las compensaciones alejadas del lugar de impacto tendrían mayor probabilidad de lograr pérdidas netas nulas o de proporcionar mejores resultados ecológicos que las compensaciones cercanas al área de impacto. Aplicamos un modelo gráfico para las aves costeras migratorias en el corredor aéreo asiático-australasiático del este como estudio de caso para estudiar los problemas que surgen cuando se incorpora la flexibilidad espacial a la planeación de las compensaciones. Las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles pueden mitigar los impactos más efectivamente que las compensaciones locales; sin embargo, los riesgos que esto involucra pueden ser considerables. En nuestro estudio de caso hubo datos insuficientes para concluir contundentemente sobre la efectividad y equivalencia de las compensaciones basadas en los hábitats distantes para las aves costeras migratorias. Las decisiones en torno a la ubicación de las compensaciones deberían estar impulsadas por el potencial para obtener resultados ecológicos equivalentes; sin embargo, al considerar compensaciones más alejadas, existe la necesidad de evaluar el incremento probable de riesgos junto a los beneficios potenciales. Aunque las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles tienen el potencial para proporcionar resultados más rentables y más beneficios colaterales, nuestro estudio de caso mostró la dificultad para demostrar estos beneficios en la práctica y los riesgos potenciales que necesitan considerarse para asegurar una ubicación efectiva de las compensaciones.

The Location and Protection Status of Earth's Diminishing Marine Wilderness.

As human activities increasingly threaten biodiversity [1, 2], areas devoid of intense human impacts are vital refugia [3]. These wilderness areas contain high genetic diversity, unique functional traits, and endemic species [4-7]; maintain high levels of ecological and evolutionary connectivity [8-10]; and may be well placed to resist and recover from the impacts of climate change [11-13]. On land, rapid declines in wilderness [3] have led to urgent calls for its protection [3, 14]. In contrast, little is known about the extent and protection of marine wilderness [4, 5]. Here we systematically map marine wilderness globally by identifying areas that have both very little impact (lowest 10%) from 15 anthropogenic stressors and also a very low combined cumulative impact from these stressors. We discover that ∼13% of the ocean meets this definition of global wilderness, with most being located in the high seas. Recognizing that human influence differs across ocean regions, we repeat the analysis within each of the 16 ocean realms [15]. Realm-specific wilderness extent varies considerably, with >16 million km2 (8.6%) in the Warm Indo-Pacific, down to <2,000 km2 (0.5%) in Temperate Southern Africa. We also show that the marine protected area estate holds only 4.9% of global wilderness and 4.1% of realm-specific wilderness, very little of which is in biodiverse ecosystems such as coral reefs. Proactive retention of marine wilderness should now be incorporated into global strategies aimed at conserving biodiversity and ensuring that large-scale ecological and evolutionary processes continue. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

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.