Suchergebnisse

Deforestation threatens the earth's biodiversity and the ecosystem services upon which humans depend. Formal regulation is a key mechanism by which governments seek to protect forests. However, whether regulation can effectively protect remaining areas of the most threatened and most heavily cleared forests is unknown. We addressed this question using forest loss data for Queensland, Australia between 2000 and 2014 under existing vegetation clearing regulation (Vegetation Management Act 1999). This regulation is specifically designed to provide the greatest protection for threatened forest types that have already lost the greatest amount of their original extent. Importantly, enforcement and governance of this regulation is relatively strong allowing an assessment of regulation design. We applied path analysis to model the direct and indirect effects (mediated by variables representing deforestation pressure) of forest protection level on clearing rates. There was strong evidence for a decline in clearing rates over time, except of clearing for non-agricultural purposes. However, threatened forest types, which have already lost > 70% of their original extent and should have the greatest level of protection under the regulation, continue to be cleared 2.7–2.9 times faster than non-threatened forest types. There was also little evidence that the regulation has driven greater reductions over time in the clearing rates of threatened versus non-threatened forests types. There was much greater support for the indirect than direct effect of protection level. This is because protection level was correlated with variables associated with deforestation pressure, resulting in higher clearing rates for threatened compared to non-threatened forest types. We hypothesise that this arises because the additional protection afforded to threatened relative to non-threatened forests is insufficient to counter the continuing higher level of deforestation pressure on threatened forests. We argue that a potential solution is to build explicit targets for forest retention into regulation, below which no further forest loss is permitted. This could be combined with spatially targeted enforcement and incentive strategies where threats are highest.

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature—one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals—ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems—and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature—one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals—ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems—and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.

The upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, and adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, including mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in society. We present a framework that could support this: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This places the Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the biodiversity impacts of developments (1, avoid; 2, minimize; 3, restore; and 4, offset, toward a target such as "no net loss" of biodiversity) within a broader framing encompassing all conservation actions. We illustrate its application by national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the city of London, a fishery, and Indigenous groups), companies, and individuals. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. It can guide actions toward a sustainable future for people and nature, supporting the CBD's vision.