Search

Human activities such as urbanization, infrastructure and agriculture are driving global biodiversity declines. In an attempt to balance economic development goals with biodiversity conservation, governments and industry apply a decision‐making framework known as the mitigation hierarchy, with a goal of achieving no net loss or net gain outcomes for biodiversity. Successful application of the mitigation hierarchy requires biodiversity assessments and spatial planning to inform the design of mitigation policies, identify priority areas for biodiversity conservation and impact avoidance, assess the biodiversity impacts of developments, and identify appropriate mitigation measures including offsetting residual impacts. However, guidance on the necessary data and assessment techniques is often lacking, especially in countries where formal mitigation policies do not exist or are in their infancy. Here, we discuss and demonstrate analyses that can help answer some key questions for formulating effective mitigation policies and applying the mitigation hierarchy. We focus on data and analyses that can inform the avoidance and offset steps in particular, and demonstrate these techniques using a case study in Mozambique. While these analyses will not replace field‐based assessments for projects, they offer rapid, low‐cost approaches to support scoping and development of mitigation policy, planning and decision‐making, especially in relatively data‐poor regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assess the magnitude and the extent of recent change of significant human footprint within protected areas, key biodiversity areas and the habitat range of 308 lowland forest specialist birds in Sundaland, a global hotspot of biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Using the most recent human footprint dataset, we find that 70% of Sundaland has been heavily modified by humans. This represents a 55% increase in areas under intense human pressure since 1993. Areas under intense human pressure covered on average 50% of the extent of key biodiversity areas, 78% of each protected area and 38% of the range of lowland forest specialist birds. The results imply that the actual level of protection by protected areas is only one‐third to half of that on paper once human footprint is accounted for. While all protected areas were impacted by human pressures, those managed strictly for biodiversity conservation presented the largest increases. These results highlight an exceptionally high human footprint across Sundaland and an impending further deepening of the biodiversity crisis across the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]