Search

In many countries, complex environmental problems such as biodiversity decline are regulated at the national level by a disparate range of laws and nonstatutory policy instruments variously described by terms including plans, strategies, guidelines, statements of intent, and/or incentives. Such instruments are often grouped together by conservation policymakers and scientists under the umbrella term "policy." However, from a legal perspective, there are critical differences between these so‐called policy instruments. In this paper, we focus on what we consider to be the critical difference: whether a policy instrument is binding, and therefore whether an administrative decision (e.g., about a development proposal) can be legally challenged due to noncompliance with that policy instrument. Drawing from international examples, the aim of this paper is to give conservation policymakers and scientists the guidance needed to critically differentiate between laws and nonstatutory policy, assess current or proposed policies, and determine whether a nonstatutory instrument gives rise to binding obligations, thus allowing for decisions to be challenged before a court. In doing so, we encourage conservation scientists, policymakers, activists, and practitioners to reflect critically on what is possible and not possible when nonstatutory "policy" instruments are designed and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the urgent need for policy solutions to address the future of coral reefs in the face of climate change. It highlights the unprecedented degradation of coral reefs worldwide due to climate change and other anthropogenic stressors. The article emphasizes the importance of limiting carbon emissions and proposes unconventional interventions, such as restoration and adaptation, to build resilience in coral reef ecosystems. It also discusses the challenges and limitations of current policy frameworks and calls for the development of robust governance systems to support and assess innovation in coral reef conservation. The article specifically mentions the Great Barrier Reef as a case study and the need for policy decisions to balance uncertain risks with climate futures. [Extracted from the article]