Search

Global perspectives on the pathways for developing capacity for conservation remain limited. Hindering the robustness of solutions is a dearth of opportunities to foster discussion and dialogue among capacity development practitioners, academics, partners, beneficiaries and donors. Additionally, little is known about donor perspectives on capacity development, and about pathways to developing a more sustainable investment in capacity development for conservation. The 2019 Capacity Building for Conservation Conference in London, UK, provided a unique opportunity to convene more than 150 capacity development practitioners from the global conservation community. The Conference included structured opportunities to hear donor perspectives on strengthening capacity development. Session leaders took detailed notes to document donor perspectives and the discussions around them. A thematic analysis of this empirical evidence resulted in the identification of four key themes with corresponding recommendations, consisting of (1) collaborative design of capacity development initiatives, (2) monitoring and evaluation, (3) longer-term and flexible investments, and (4) building strong relationships between donors and grantees. Given the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently drafting the long-term strategic framework for capacity development post-2020, and global calls to protect significant portions of our land- and seascapes, our recommendations are timely and may inform a way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss of habitats or ecosystems arising from development projects (e.g., infrastructure, resource extraction, urban expansion) are frequently addressed through biodiversity offsetting. As currently implemented, offsetting typically requires an outcome of "no net loss" of biodiversity, but only relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline. This type of "relative" no net loss entrenches ongoing biodiversity loss, and is misaligned with biodiversity targets that require "absolute" no net loss or "net gain." Here, we review the limitations of biodiversity offsetting, and in response, propose a new framework for compensating for biodiversity losses from development in a way that is aligned explicitly with jurisdictional biodiversity targets. In the framework, targets for particular biodiversity features are achieved via one of three pathways: Net Gain, No Net Loss, or (rarely) Managed Net Loss. We outline how to set the type ("Maintenance" or "Improvement") and amount of ecological compensation that is appropriate for proportionately contributing to the achievement of different targets. This framework advances ecological compensation beyond a reactive, ad‐hoc response, to ensuring alignment between actions addressing residual biodiversity losses and achievement of overarching targets for biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development and private sectors are increasingly considering “biodiversity offsets” as a strategy to compensate for their negative impacts on biodiversity, including impacts on great apes and their habitats in Africa. In the absence of national offset policies in sub-Saharan Africa, offset design and implementation are guided by company internal standards, lending bank standards or international best practice principles. We examine four projects in Africa that are seeking to compensate for their negative impacts on great ape populations. Our assessment of these projects reveals that not all apply or implement best practices, and that there is little standardization in the methods used to measure losses and gains in species numbers. Even if they were to follow currently accepted best-practice principles, we find that these actions may still fail to contribute to conservation objectives over the long term. We advocate for an alternative approach in which biodiversity offset and compensation projects are designed and implemented as part of a National Offset Strategy that (1) takes into account the cumulative impacts of development in individual countries, (2) identifies priority offset sites, (3) promotes aggregated offsets, and (4) integrates biodiversity offset and compensation projects with national biodiversity conservation objectives. We also propose supplementary principles necessary for biodiversity offsets to contribute to great ape conservation in Africa. Caution should still be exercised, however, with regard to offsets until further field-based evidence of their effectiveness is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei are Critically Endangered, with just two small populations: in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in south-western Uganda and the nearby Virunga Volcanoes on the borders with Rwanda and Uganda. A survey of the Bwindi population was carried out in 2002 and results were compared with the previous census in 1997. Our estimate of total population size increased over that period by c. 7% to 320 individuals and the structure and distribution of the population were largely unchanged. Signs of human disturbance were more common in 2002 than 1997, and gorillas tended to be found in areas of relative low disturbance. This suggested that disturbance could be a constramt on population growth and distribution but demographic stochasticity may also be responsible for the observed level of population change over a short time period. Other potential limiting factors, including habitat availability and disease, are discussed. While conservation activities in Bwindi have probably contributed to the stability of the population, strengthening of law enforcement and continued vigilance are needed to ensure the population's long-term growth and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the experiences of the International Gorilla Conservation Program (IGCP) obtained throughout the development of regional processes that are working towards establishing a transboundary-protected area. Threats from regional population pressure; Goal of the IGCP; Establishment of an international or local non-governmental organization that can centralize sources of funding as well as the management of a transboundary protected area.

The rapid growth of clean energy technologies is driving a rising demand for critical minerals. In 2022 at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15), seven major economies formed an alliance to enhance the sustainability of mining these essential decarbonization minerals. However, there is a scarcity of studies assessing the threat of mining to global biodiversity. By integrating a global mining dataset with great ape density distribution, we estimated the number of African great apes that spatially coincided with industrial mining projects. We show that up to one-third of Africa's great ape population faces mining-related risks. In West Africa in particular, numerous mining areas overlap with fragmented ape habitats, often in high-density ape regions. For 97% of mining areas, no ape survey data are available, underscoring the importance of increased accessibility to environmental data within the mining sector to facilitate research into the complex interactions between mining, climate, biodiversity, and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]