Search

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]

This article considers how "rolling covenants" (i.e., covenants on land title that can operate in a "rolling" geographic area to keep pace with sea‐level rise) can be used to permit productive use of land in the short term, while ensuring land use can shift over time to allow for coastal ecosystem migration in the medium to long term. We use Australia as a case study, and through analysis of legislation and a series of semistructured interviews, we demonstrate how land title‐based covenants can be used to give legal effect to "rolling covenant" arrangements where land is subject to existing use and occupation. We then consider practical issues associated with drafting a rolling covenant arrangement, including an analysis of the types of events or scenarios that could be used as a basis for land use changing (e.g., projected sea‐level rise, actual ecosystem migration), and the advantages and disadvantages of each. We conclude that rolling covenants are a viable option for land management in the coastal zone, especially in circumstances where funding sources are available to incentivize uptake. Rolling covenants may provide opportunities for coastal wetlands to be maintained and even enhanced in cover, thereby delivering important ecosystem services (e.g., blue carbon) into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems is essential to meet both national and global conservation targets and to counteract declines in coastal marine ecosystems. However, despite its status as a world leader in marine protection, Australia is lagging behind other countries in the implementation of coastal and marine restoration. Effective legislative frameworks that support the implementation of coastal and marine restoration as a management tool remains a key barrier to large-scale implementation of coastal and marine restoration in Australia and many other regions. We analyzed restoration projects and their policy frameworks in Australia, North America and Europe to identify the range of policy approaches for marine and coastal restoration. We then evaluated the legislative frameworks for coastal and marine restoration in two states in Australia (Queensland and New South Wales), to assess the current restoration permitting process and identify how different legislative and policy approaches could facilitate coastal and marine restoration projects. We identified two specific areas where improvements could be made to facilitate marine coastal restoration in Australia: increased transparency and better integration into coastal policy. Coastal and marine restoration in Australia is undertaken without appropriate and effective policy at the local, regional and national levels, which likely impedes its broader use as a management strategy. The policy and legislative changes and amendments outlined in this article can streamline the coastal and marine restoration process and thereby improve uptake of marine and coastal restoration in Australia. • Marine ecosystem restoration in Australia faces barriers because of inadequate and uncoordinated legislative frameworks. • Marine restoration could be better facilitated through increased transparency and integration into coastal planning policy. • Policy that supports the growing field of marine restoration for climate change mitigation will improve coastal resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]