Search

Biodiversity net gain is a policy focus worldwide, acknowledging ongoing losses of biodiversity to development, and a commitment to offsetting any residual impacts on biodiversity elsewhere. At least 37 countries have mandatory offsetting policies, and a further 64 countries enable voluntary offsets. Offsets rely on credible and evidence‐based methods to quantify biodiversity losses and gains.Following the introduction of the United Kingdom's Environment Act in November 2021, all new developments requiring planning permission in England must demonstrate a biodiversity net gain of at least 10% biodiversity net gain from 2024, calculated using a statutory biodiversity metric framework. The metric uses habitat as a proxy for biodiversity, scoring habitats' intrinsic distinctiveness and current condition.We carried out a study of the metric's performance across England in terms of outcomes for biodiversity. We used generalized linear mixed models to regress baseline biodiversity units against five long‐established single‐attribute proxies for biodiversity (species richness, individual abundance, number of threatened species, mean species range and mean species range/population change). Data were gathered for species belonging to three commonly used indicator taxa (vascular plants, butterflies and birds) from 24 sites, including all terrestrial broad habitats except urban.In baseline assessments, metric‐derived biodiversity units correlated with most plant biodiversity variables, but not with any of the bird or butterfly biodiversity variables used in this study. Plant species recorded in habitats with higher baseline biodiversity units had slightly more restricted ranges (slope −16.22 ± 1.52, p < 0.001) on average and had shown stronger past declines (slope −0.02 ± 0.00, p < 0.001) than those in habitats with lower baseline biodiversity units. Each additional baseline biodiversity unit was associated with a 1% increase in plant species richness (p < 0.01).Synthesis and applications: Using the statutory biodiversity metric to define 10% biodiversity net gain without additional species‐focused conservation management is likely to translate into small gains for plant biodiversity, and negligible gains for birds and butterflies. We make specific recommendations to improve the metric's efficacy in achieving desirable biodiversity outcomes. Our results provide a valuable case study for other countries interested in developing metrics to support biodiversity net gain policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ibis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Worldwide, human appropriation of ecosystems is disrupting plant-pollinator communities and pollination function through habitat conversion and landscape homogenisation. Conversion to agriculture is destroying and degrading semi-natural ecosystems while conventional land-use intensification (e.g. industrial management of large-scale monocultures with high chemical inputs) homogenises landscape structure and quality. Together, these anthropogenic processes reduce the connectivity of populations and erode floral and nesting resources to undermine pollinator abundance and diversity, and ultimately pollination services. Ecological intensification of agriculture represents a strategic alternative to ameliorate these drivers of pollinator decline while supporting sustainable food production, by promoting biodiversity beneficial to agricultural production through management practices such as intercropping, crop rotations, farm-level diversification and reduced agrochemical use. We critically evaluate its potential to address and reverse the land use and management trends currently degrading pollinator communities and potentially causing widespread pollination deficits. We find that many of the practices that constitute ecological intensification can contribute to mitigating the drivers of pollinator decline. Our findings support ecological intensification as a solution to pollinator declines, and we discuss ways to promote it in agricultural policy and practice.

Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations.

Sustainable soil management is essential to prevent agricultural soil degradation and maintain food production and core soil-based ecosystem services. Regenerative agriculture, one approach to sustainable soil management, is rapidly gaining traction in UK farming and policy. However, it is unclear what farmers themselves consider to be sustainable soil management practices, and how these relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture. Further, there is little insight into how sustainable soil management is currently promoted in agricultural knowledge and innovation services (AKIS). To address these knowledge gaps, we undertook the first national-scale survey of sustainable soil management practices in the United Kingdom and complemented it with targeted interviews. We found high levels of awareness (>60%) and uptake (>30%) of most sustainable soil management practices among mixed and arable farmers. Importantly, 92% of respondents considered themselves to be practising sustainable soil management. However, our analysis shows that farmers combine practices in different ways. Not all these combinations correspond to the full set of regenerative agriculture principles of reduced soil disturbance, soil cover and crop diversity. To better understand the relationship between existing sustainable soil management practices in the United Kingdom and regenerative agriculture principles, we derive a "regenerative agriculture score" by allocating individual practices among the principles of regenerative agriculture. Farmers who self-report that they are managing soil sustainably tend to score more highly across all five principles. We further find that sustainable soil management messaging is fragmented and that few AKIS networks have sustainable soil management as their primary concern. Overall, our study finds that there are multiple understandings of sustainable soil management among UK farmers and land managers and that they do not correspond to regenerative agriculture principles in a straightforward way. This diversity and variety in sustainable soil management needs to be taken into account in future policy and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]