Spatial analysis to inform the mitigation hierarchy

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.

[1]  S. Willcock,et al.  On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine , 2022, Nature Sustainability.

[2]  L. Cayuela,et al.  What feeds on Quercus ilex L.? A biogeographical approach to studying trophic interactions in a Mediterranean keystone species , 2021, Diversity and Distributions.

[3]  P. Stephenson,et al.  An inventory of biodiversity data sources for conservation monitoring , 2020, PloS one.

[4]  Y. Malhi,et al.  Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity , 2020, Nature Communications.

[5]  Thomas A. Worthington,et al.  Myanmar’s terrestrial ecosystems: status, threats and conservation opportunities , 2020, bioRxiv.

[6]  Joseph W. Gosling,et al.  A global mapping template for natural and modified habitat across terrestrial Earth , 2020, Biological Conservation.

[7]  Regan L. Smyth,et al.  Long-term loss in extent and current protection of terrestrial ecosystem diversity in the temperate and tropical Americas , 2020, PloS one.

[8]  J. Nel,et al.  More than just a (red) list: Over a decade of using South Africa's threatened ecosystems in policy and practice , 2020 .

[9]  D. Stralberg,et al.  Climate-change refugia: biodiversity in the slow lane , 2020, Frontiers in ecology and the environment.

[10]  R. Dubayah,et al.  The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography , 2020, Science of Remote Sensing.

[11]  Jessie A. Wells,et al.  Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals , 2020, Nature Communications.

[12]  V. Gond,et al.  Forest condition in the Congo Basin for the assessment of ecosystem conservation status , 2020, bioRxiv.

[13]  I. Losada,et al.  The Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[14]  Matthew K. Horton,et al.  Global effects of land use on biodiversity differ among functional groups , 2020, Functional Ecology.

[15]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  Assessing national human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation in Iran , 2020, Ambio.

[16]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change , 2019, Science.

[17]  O. Venter,et al.  Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action , 2019, Conservation Letters.

[18]  J. Bull,et al.  The Role of “No Net Loss” Policies in Conserving Biodiversity Threatened by the Global Infrastructure Boom , 2019, One Earth.

[19]  M. Hansen,et al.  Global humid tropics forest structural condition and forest structural integrity maps , 2019, Scientific Data.

[20]  A. Driver,et al.  National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: The status of South Africa’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Synthesis Report. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, an entity of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Pretoria , 2019 .

[21]  E. Regan,et al.  The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges , 2019, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[22]  J. Evans,et al.  Making space: Putting landscape‐level mitigation into practice in Mongolia , 2019, Conservation Science and Practice.

[23]  J. Lawler,et al.  Connectivity for species on the move: supporting climate‐driven range shifts , 2019, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[24]  Calvin K. F. Lee,et al.  Redlistr: tools for the IUCN Red Lists of ecosystems and threatened species in R , 2019, Ecography.

[25]  L. Joppa,et al.  Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches , 2018, Conservation Letters.

[26]  Niels Strange,et al.  The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[27]  E. Milner‐Gulland,et al.  Ensuring No Net Loss for people as well as biodiversity: good practice principles , 2018 .

[28]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk , 2018, Nature Communications.

[29]  C. Kerbiriou,et al.  A set of organized indicators to conciliate scientific knowledge, offset policies requirements and operational constraints in the context of biodiversity offsets , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[30]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  The Location and Protection Status of Earth’s Diminishing Marine Wilderness , 2018, Current Biology.

[31]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure , 2018, Science.

[32]  Christelle Vancutsem,et al.  Towards Operational Monitoring of Forest Canopy Disturbance in Evergreen Rain Forests: A Test Case in Continental Southeast Asia , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[33]  Lauren V. Weatherdon,et al.  Global screening for Critical Habitat in the terrestrial realm , 2018, PloS one.

[34]  P. Tittonell,et al.  Phases or regimes? Revisiting NDVI trends as proxies for land degradation , 2018 .

[35]  Susanne A. Fritz,et al.  Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements , 2018, Science.

[36]  Claire A. Runge,et al.  Quantifying the conservation gains from shared access to linear infrastructure , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[37]  Daniel Simpson,et al.  REMAP: An online remote sensing application for land cover classification and monitoring , 2017, bioRxiv.

[38]  Zhaofeng Wang,et al.  Mapping human influence intensity in the Tibetan Plateau for conservation of ecological service functions , 2017 .

[39]  D. Keith,et al.  Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria. Version 1.1 , 2017 .

[40]  R. Dirzo,et al.  Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Mark A. Botha,et al.  Biodiversity offsets in South Africa – challenges and potential solutions , 2017 .

[42]  M A J Huijbregts,et al.  The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations , 2017, Science.

[43]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm , 2017, Bioscience.

[44]  B. Vira,et al.  Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy , 2017, Oryx.

[45]  James Allan,et al.  Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets , 2016, Current Biology.

[46]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation , 2016, Nature Communications.

[47]  Victoria J. Burton,et al.  Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment , 2016, Science.

[48]  S. Polasky,et al.  Bigger is better: Improved nature conservation and economic returns from landscape-level mitigation , 2016, Science Advances.

[49]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C , 2016, Nature.

[50]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting , 2016 .

[51]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: A review , 2016 .

[52]  D. Keith,et al.  Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria , 2015 .

[53]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools: A case study on mining impacts in Australia , 2015 .

[54]  M. Githiru,et al.  Should biodiversity offsets help finance underfunded Protected Areas , 2015 .

[55]  J. Gerber,et al.  A World at Risk: Aggregating Development Trends to Forecast Global Habitat Conversion , 2015, PloS one.

[56]  Kendall R. Jones,et al.  Integrating human responses to climate change into conservation vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[57]  Lawrence N. Hudson,et al.  Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity , 2015, Nature.

[58]  D. Tittensor,et al.  A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries , 2015 .

[59]  James M. Omernik,et al.  Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework , 2014, Environmental Management.

[60]  J. Pilgrim,et al.  Will Biodiversity Offsets Save or Sink Protected Areas? , 2014 .

[61]  M. Cochrane,et al.  Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon , 2014 .

[62]  R. Dirzo,et al.  Defaunation in the Anthropocene , 2014, Science.

[63]  T. Gardner,et al.  Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[64]  K. Kate,et al.  A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts , 2013 .

[65]  Jarrett E. K. Byrnes,et al.  A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change , 2012, Nature.

[66]  C. Yates,et al.  Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change , 2012 .

[67]  Fabien Quétier,et al.  Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions , 2011 .

[68]  J. Pereira,et al.  Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services , 2011 .

[69]  Jeff A. Ardron,et al.  Cumulative impact mapping: Advances, relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation, using Canada's Pacific waters as a case study , 2010 .

[70]  L. Redd,et al.  International Union for Conservation of Nature , 2010, Permanent Missions to the United Nations, No. 309.

[71]  M. Ashcroft Identifying refugia from climate change , 2010 .

[72]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Phylogenetic, spatial and environmental components of extinction risk in carnivores , 2010 .

[73]  A. Apan,et al.  Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red‐tailed black‐cockatoo , 2010 .

[74]  W. Laurance,et al.  Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[75]  William G. Lee,et al.  Why bartering biodiversity fails , 2009 .

[76]  G. Zapata-Ríos,et al.  Oil industry, wild meat trade and roads: indirect effects of oil extraction activities in a protected area in north‐eastern Ecuador , 2009 .

[77]  Todd K. BenDor,et al.  A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy , 2009 .

[78]  Martha C. Anderson,et al.  Free Access to Landsat Imagery , 2008, Science.

[79]  David Cheal,et al.  Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The 'habitat hectares' approach , 2003 .

[80]  M. Tabarelli,et al.  Distance from roads and cities as a predictor of habitat loss and fragmentation in the caatinga vegetation of Brazil. , 2002, Brazilian journal of biology = Revista brasleira de biologia.

[81]  E. Sanderson,et al.  The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild , 2002 .

[82]  Xiaoxi Li Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: An Appeal of Global Cooperation for Building Green Civilization , 2020, Green Civilization.

[83]  Wu Jianyong,et al.  A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas and Recommendations on China’s Practice , 2019 .

[84]  Stewart Maginnis,et al.  A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM) , 2014 .

[85]  Jack Dangermond,et al.  A New Map of Global Ecological Land Units - An Ecophysiographic Stratification Approach , 2014 .

[86]  P. Comer,et al.  A New Map of Standardized Terrestrial Ecosystems of Africa , 2013 .

[87]  J. Kiesecker,et al.  Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks , 2010, Environmental management.

[88]  Amy Pocewicz,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Development by design : blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy , 2009 .

[89]  H. Wild,et al.  Flora Zam-besiaca. Suppl. Vegetation map of the Flora Zambesiaca area. , 1968 .