Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:35:16.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2023

Callum Brockett
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Katie Woolaston*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Felicity Deane
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Fran Humphries
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Ethan Kumar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Amanda Kennedy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Justine Bell-James
Affiliation:
TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Katie Woolaston; Email: katie.woolaston@qut.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Around the world, countries have introduced laws and policies designed to prevent species extinction. While there have been some success stories, overall, these laws and policies are routinely failing. Extinction rates continue to climb. However, the law is necessary to regulate the human-environment interactions that form the basis of the drivers of extinction and biodiversity loss, including land-clearing, the discharge of greenhouse gases and the introduction of invasive species. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the literature specifically on biodiversity conservation law, to review and describe the commonalities in laws and legal systems that can be considered successful, or unsuccessful. Laws for the conservation of biodiversity form a critical component for minimising the drivers of extinction, with species extinction being an extreme outcome of biodiversity loss. We reviewed 128 publications from around the world to ascertain and synthesise best practices in law and policy that aim to protect and conserve biodiversity (herein termed ‘biodiversity conservation law’). The literature demonstrated that when it comes to biodiversity conservation law, the concept of ‘best practice’ is elusive, and does not necessarily equate to a reversal in species decline. Further, most western countries utilise the same legal mechanisms (also known as policy tools) for biodiversity conservation, although some countries implement these laws more effectively than others. In this paper, we explore and explain several common legal mechanisms discussed across the range of literature, including species listing and recovery plans, protected area regulation, stewardship, restoration, and offset and no net loss schemes. We also explore the necessity of biodiversity and climate mainstreaming across all laws and highlight the need to engage in genuine partnerships and collaborations with First Nations communities. This paper, and the principles explored herein, should assist law and policymakers to regulate more effectively and explain to those in the conservation sciences where research should be directed to improve the science-policy interface.

Type
Overview Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

The principles and mechanisms explored in this paper should assist law and policymakers to regulate against extinction with greater success and explain to those in the conservation sciences where research should be directed. In particular, researchers should associate their work with the law and policy governing their area of conservation, so that more research can be directly related to the effectiveness of legal mechanisms designed to reduce extinction rates. This will help ensure that appropriate feedback loops can be implemented in governance structures.

Introduction

The global community is in the midst of a mass extinction event, with human actions to blame (IPBES, 2019). Human behaviours are behind key threatening processes of extinction, including deforestation and other clearing of habitat, pollution, the introduction of invasive species, and the effects of climate change, including increased natural disasters (Cresswell et al., Reference Cresswell, Janke and Johnston2021). Law is a key tool for restricting these human behaviours that lead to biodiversity decline and extinction (IPBES, 2019), and around the world, national and sub-national governments have attempted to stem the tide of rising extinction rates by introducing laws and policies to address these threatening processes.

The focus of this paper is biodiversity conservation law, which we define broadly to refer to the range of legal instruments that aim to maintain or increase species diversity and ensure the sustainable and equitable use of the resources and benefits that flow from biodiversity. Within this definition, we include laws that are targeted at conserving biodiversity rather than species extinctions as we acknowledge that laws may be more effective at reducing extinctions where this is an explicit object of legislation (see e.g., Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017). However effective biodiversity conservation laws can play a key role in reducing extinctions (see e.g., Wintle et al., Reference Wintle, Wintle, Cadenhead, Morgain, Legge, Bekessy, Cantele, Possingham, Watson, Maron, Keith, Garnett, Woinarski and Lindenmayer2019).

Legal obligations related to biodiversity conservation exist at an international level through treaties and conventions (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), and through domestic law (at national/state/regional levels of government). These obligations exist in legislation specifically and directly designed to conserve biodiversity and prevent biodiversity loss and extinction, as well as in laws and policies that indirectly meet biodiversity conservation goals: for example, laws that govern industries whose activities commonly result in biodiversity loss, such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries, water management, land management and planning. With such a wide range of actors and industries contributing to the degradation of biodiversity, it is difficult to define an exhaustive list of laws relevant to biodiversity conservation. Rather, all laws that may have an impact on a species’ status or the environment in which they exist can be categorised under the umbrella of ‘biodiversity conservation laws’ and are consequently susceptible to critique regarding their ability to prevent actions that ultimately could lead to extinctions. This broad spectrum of relevance, along with the multiple levels of governance at which these laws operate, results in a complex legal network susceptible to overlap, legislative gaps (McCormack, Reference McCormack2018), conflicts of values (Reside et al., Reference Reside, Beher, Cosgrove, Evans, Seabrook, Silcock, Wenger and Maron2017), misdirection of or inadequate resources (Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017), and a lack of proper implementation (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Leuzinger and da Silva2016).

Biodiversity conservation law has a distinct role to play in preventing species extinction by embedding values and principles to guide actors and establishing and implementing mechanisms that rectify past behaviour and regulate future harmful activities, both before and after species are identified as ‘at risk’ of extinction. However, biodiversity conservation law generally has not been effective in reducing extinction levels (Razzaque et al., Reference Razzaque, Visseren-Hamakers, McElwee, Rusch, Kelemen, Turnhout, Williams, Gautam, Fernandez-Llamazares, Chan, Gerber, Islar, Karim, Lim, Liu, Lui, Mohammed, Mungatana, Muradian, Brondízio, Settele, Díaz and Ngo2019), and the evidence suggests that most nations are not currently shaping their legal systems in a manner that provides species with the best chance against extinction (Santangeli et al., Reference Santangeli, Wistbacka, Hanski and Laaksonen2013; Martin et al., Reference Martin, Leuzinger and da Silva2016; Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021). Traditionally, western legal systems have been underpinned by conceptual frameworks like Ecologically Sustainable Development (Peel, Reference Peel2008), which means efforts to mitigate biodiversity loss and prevent a species extinction are often balanced with competing social and economic interests. Furthermore, even where laws are drafted to specifically address species extinction (see e.g., Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016) and conserve biodiversity, there is often a shortfall in implementation due to factors such as a lack of resources (see e.g., Wintle et al., Reference Wintle, Wintle, Cadenhead, Morgain, Legge, Bekessy, Cantele, Possingham, Watson, Maron, Keith, Garnett, Woinarski and Lindenmayer2019) and insufficient targets, monitoring, enforcement, and adaptation to changing science and social circumstances (see, e.g., Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017). Whilst recognising that truly effective biodiversity conservation requires addressing these regulatory and governance factors that exist alongside law, the purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the scholarship regarding best practices in biodiversity conservation law and policy, with particular attention to idenitifying principles and mechanisms needed to prevent biodiversity loss. To this end, we undertook a review of the literature to determine what is considered ‘best practice’ biodiversity conservation law, regulation or policy. This article commences by outlining the methodology we used for this literature review and the themes that were distilled from our review of 128 papers. These themes were that best practice biodiversity laws included the identification of five key principles: (1) threat-based laws, (2) target-based laws, (3) transparency and independence, (4) inclusive decision-making, and (5) evaluation and review, and eight key mechanisms: (1) mainstreaming biodiversity and climate change, (2) indigenous collaborations and partnerships, (3) protected areas, (4) listing and recovery plans, (5) stewardship and private protected areas (PPAs), (6) land restoration, (7) offsets and no net loss schemes, and (8) legal rights of nature.

We then address the results of the literature according to these principles and mechanisms.

We anticipate that the results of this literature review will be of use to anyone involved in the formulation or review of biodiversity conservation law, including governments, law and policymakers, scientists and conservation groups.

Methodology

To understand the state of the scholarship concerning best practice in biodiversity conservation law, we undertook a review of the published literature. We chose Google Scholar and Scopus for our literature searches to cover two of the three most extensive literature databases, with the third being Web of Science. Previous studies have found that Scopus and Web of Science cover substantially the same content (Waltman, Reference Waltman2016) therefore we deemed our choice of databases as sufficient to obtain an accurate picture of the breadth of literature.

Our next step was to develop a search string strategy (see Aromataris and Riitano, Reference Aromataris and Riitano2014). We formulated the following search strings and used them to search both databases:

Biodiversity AND conservation AND “best practice” AND (law OR policy OR regulation or governance) AND (agriculture OR farming OR pollution OR ecosystem OR habitat OR threat OR urban OR infrastructure OR climate).

As there is a large body of literature on biodiversity conservation generally, we included the limiters to ensure that only literature related to law and policy was found. We included agriculture and farming as search terms to capture laws and policies that regulate these known drivers of biodiversity loss. Further, we excluded any evaluation of biosecurity laws. Although invasive species are ‘particularly destructive’ in all ecosystems (McCreless et al., Reference McCreless, Huff, Croll, Tershy, Spatz, Holmes, Butchart and Wilcox2016), we excluded biosecurity law and practice as these are laws that require specific principles and mechanisms for effectiveness. Once the databases had been searched, we reviewed the results for inclusion or exclusion. Our criteria for inclusion of literature within our review were: (1) publications that were peer-reviewed (articles, book chapters) as well as grey literature (e.g., reports), (2) material published in English, (3) material published during the period 2012–2022 to limit our analysis to relatively recent developments in the topic; and (4) material that focused on law and policy discussion. To this end, we excluded literature purely analysing biodiversity conservation from a scientific perspective or other disciplinary perspective, or that did not mention law or policy, or only in passing. Each database’s results were reviewed by two members of the research team to negate the risk of relevant papers being omitted. Each member of the research team also made individual judgements on the relevance of literature based on the common criteria described and with the objective of understanding best practice principles in biodiversity conservation law.

To ensure that we found the most relevant literature we supplemented our searches with a ‘backward snowball method’ (Wohlin, Reference Wohlin2014) where we reviewed the reference lists of articles and included relevant articles from those lists. Again, we used the criteria above and excluded articles that did not, from their titles, meet these criteria. We also excluded articles that had already appeared on our search lists or that included a discussion of biosecurity (as this was outside the scope of the analysis). We also considered the context in which the paper was cited in the primary paper under review to assist with determining relevance (Wohlin, Reference Wohlin2014).

Finally, if a paper was still included following the application of the inclusion or exclusion factors, we proceeded to read its abstract and determine whether to include it, with the exclusion of best practice principles being the most common eliminating factor.

After this process, we had our final list of 128 articles (see column 1 of Appendix). To support multi-author analysis of the articles, each team member was assigned a group of articles to initially read, and keywords were distilled from these articles (see Appendix). As per a conventional content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon, Reference Hsieh and Shannon2005) we inductively developed coding during the review by using keywords that commonly appeared. After this initial review, we then revisited these codes and ultimately determined that the relevant themes spanned five key principles and eight mechanisms (see columns 2 and 3 of Appendix).

Results of the literature review

Our specific area of enquiry in our literature review was to determine best practice in biodiversity conservation law. Broadly, the literature demonstrated that best practice biodiversity conservation law is underpinned by two things: the incorporation of key principles, and their implementation in particular mechanisms. To be effective, a biodiversity conservation law must generally consist of both principle/s and mechanism/s. For example, a law may set a target for biodiversity conservation outcomes (a principle). However, this target is unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a mechanism to achieve this (e.g., the creation of a protected area). A law will not necessarily need to include all the principles and mechanisms identified in our literature review: rather, this will be context-dependent.

Further, a law needs to go further than simply setting out a principle or creating a mechanism. For instance, a review of the conservation literature might suggest that the ability to list ‘threatened ecological communities’ is an essential component of a biodiversity conservation legal framework (Dorrough et al., Reference Dorrough, Tozer, Armstrong, Summerell and Scott2021; Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021). However, simply including an avenue to list threatened ecological communities may not actually result in threatened ecological communities being listed within a given framework, and so may fail to meet a conservation objective. The policy tool or mechanism, in this case, listing processes for threatened ecological communities, needs to go beyond the science and be designed and implemented in a way that ensures the tool itself is not meaningless. Additionally, effective laws need to be designed in a way that ensures compliance (sometimes this means that public support is necessary, and there are relevant incentives for compliance) and are compatible with existing legal frameworks (such as those that regulate private property).

This section outlines the results of our literature review, grouped around the five key principles and eight mechanisms that may form part of an effective biodiversity conservation legal framework. The principles are: (1) designing laws to address threats, (2) ensuring laws are based on or embed conservation targets, (3) integrating transparency and independent decision-making and review options, (4) designing laws and legal systems that are inclusive, and (5) ensuring effective evaluation and review mechanisms. We also acknowledge other important principles of environmental laws (e.g., the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity), but these principles did not naturally emerge in this literature review as necessary to incorporate explicitly in law and policy. Hence, we recognise this limitation.

The mechanisms are (1) mainstreaming biodiversity and climate change, (2) indigenous collaborations and partnerships, (3) protected areas, (4) listing and recovery plans, (5) stewardship and PPAs, (6) land restoration, (7) offsets and no net loss schemes, and (8) legal rights of nature.

Although the literature review revealed some differences in the analysis of these mechanisms, we suggest that within a best practice biodiversity conservation legal framework each mechanism will have a different role and function in furthering the general principles listed above. Whilst each individual law is unlikely to incorporate every mechanism, the literature suggests that best practice is characterised by a system that incorporates a range of mechanisms to ensure a cohesive approach to preventing the different drivers of species extinction.

We also acknowledge that this literature review does not provide an exhaustive synthesis of every possible mechanism, but rather it focuses on a limited list that incorporates mechanisms identified most often in the literature reviewed. Other developing mechanisms, such as extinction declarations and ecotourism, and the incorporation of these in law and policy are worthy of future analysis, but outside the scope of this paper.

Principles found in best practice biodiversity conservation law and policy

Threat-based laws

Our review of the literature indicated that best practice principles require the law to address threats to biodiversity (Scheele et al., Reference Scheele, Legge, Armstrong, Copley, Robinson, Southwell, Westgate and Lindenmayer2018) with the identification of threats and the necessary actions to address them based on scientific input (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016) and Traditional and local knowledges (Artelle et al., Reference Artelle, Zurba, Bhattacharyya, Chan, Brown, Housty and Moola2019). Best practice also means that threat abatement should also occur simultaneously with protection policies and laws, with processes in place to mitigate the threat source (Hutchings et al., Reference Hutchings, Stephens and VanderZwaag2016).

Our review also found that laws should adopt a scaled approach, and biodiversity conservation law and relevant policies should accommodate different species’ threat levels and incorporate varying responses depending on that threat. For example, species with a small population and narrow habitat are specifically vulnerable to land use change (Sykes et al., Reference Sykes, Santini, Etard and Newbold2020) which enhances extinction risk (Staude et al., Reference Staude, Navarro and Pereira2020). The law should also provide for decision-makers and authorities to undertake a science-based assessment of the level of threat to a species (e.g., vulnerable, endangered) and the specific source of the threat (e.g., land clearing), with species that face a higher risk of extinction to be the focus of immediate and concerted conservation actions (Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021).

Law and policy should also allow for threat-based laws to adapt to changing circumstances and threats that arise in the future, adequately abating the drivers of species extinction as they evolve. For example, incidental catching of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations was listed as a key threatening process under the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, but successful threat abatement plans have reduced the deaths of albatross and petrels in Australia (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Gales, Hamilton and Wilkinson2002). Elements recognised as contributing to the success of this threat abatement plan included semi-regular updates, implementation through regulations and management plans, wide support from stakeholders (especially government departments), criteria against which outcomes are measured, specific enforcement mechanisms, and a strong NGO advocate (Invasive Species Council and Bush Heritage Australia, 2020). The funding available to support the instrument is also likely to be critical to success (Bottrill et al., Reference Bottrill, Walsh, Watson, Joseph, Ortega-Argueta and Possingham2011).

Target-based laws

Our review identified that one of the most important features of best practice biodiversity conservation is the inclusion of goals, targets and indicators within biodiversity conservation laws (Maseyk et al., Reference Maseyk, Dominati and Mackay2019). Appropriate and explicit targets and indicators allow the effectiveness and efficiency of the law or policy to be measured, as well as ensure accountability for the success of prevention measures (Scheele et al., Reference Scheele, Legge, Armstrong, Copley, Robinson, Southwell, Westgate and Lindenmayer2018). Targets should communicate clear benchmarks for assessing whether objectives, principles or rules around a legal biodiversity mechanism have been met, which leads to further evaluation and adaptation (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016). While specific targets and indicators may vary depending on a range of circumstances, biodiversity laws can still legislate avenues for these targets and indicators to be established. For example, the Australian state of Victoria has legislated a requirement that a Biodiversity strategy is prepared, which must include targets to measure achievements (Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 section 17), without legislating the specific targets in the law itself.

Broad targets and indicators have been proposed or implemented on an international scale, which can be reinforced in domestic or national law. The proposed Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an example of this, providing a framework for the development of national and regional goals and targets that further the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (‘CBD’) (CBD Working Group, 2021). A biodiversity framework that incorporates an integrated system of goals, targets, and indicators is a best practice approach to biodiversity conservation. For example, Canada’s government released the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada in response to global Aichi Biodiversity Targets. These included a range of quantitative and qualitative targets to be met by 2020, including percentages of land to be conserved through protected areas (17% of terrestrial areas and inland water and 10% of coastal marine areas protected by 2020), implementing priority adaption measures, reduction of pollution levels, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge regularly, meaningfully, and effectively informing biodiversity conservation and decision-making processes (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016).

Transparent and independent decision-making and review

The decision-making process in laws that aim to prevent species extinction should reflect transparency, accountability, and participation (van Doeveren, Reference van Doeveren2011). Laws should ensure that government and ministerial decision-making processes are scrutinised by independent review, with triggers in place for intervention in ineffective management processes. Independent or quasi-independent scientific authorities (such as an Environmental Protection Authority) may minimise ministerial discretion and prioritise evidence-based policy over political influences (Department of Environment and Science (Qld), 2022). Decision processes prescribed by law should be based on empirical scientific data and understanding, and be informed by independent scientific authorities (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016; Dorey and Walker, Reference Dorey and Walker2018; Bethlenfalvy and Olive, Reference Bethlenfalvy and Olive2021). For this best practice principle to be reflected in law and policy, provisions should limit the discretion of decision-makers to carry out their functions based on social and economic factors that do not prioritise species extinction prevention.

The literature also suggests that biodiversity conservation law and policy should be transparent and made publicly available (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016; Scheele et al., Reference Scheele, Legge, Armstrong, Copley, Robinson, Southwell, Westgate and Lindenmayer2018; Hilty et al., Reference Hilty, Worboys, Keeley, Woodley, Lausche, Locke, Carr, Pulsford, Pittock, White, Theobald, Levine, Reuling, Watson, Ament, Groves and Tabor2020). This includes any law or decision-making process, as well as any monitoring, evaluation, triggers for intervention, costs and burdens, and terminology. Publication of these elements should also be accompanied by public consultation and review processes. Public consultation ensures participation in the decision-making process, with open invitations to the public to make submissions on legal mechanisms that aim to prevent species extinction (with accompanying provisions that require the decision-maker to properly consider these submissions). Best practice is also indicated by law that enables avenues for the review of these decisions, not only for those immediately affected by a decision (e.g., those prevented from performing an activity) but also instilling broader provisions for reviews for a wide range of parties who have an interest in preventing species extinction (Tsioumani, Reference Tsioumani and Faure2018).

Effective biodiversity conservation law should also be backwards-looking, and it has been argued that where a species extinction does occur there should be a public inquiry to examine the causes and actions that contributed to it (Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017; see also McCormack in this special issue). This can ensure accountability and review of previous decisions, and ensure that future decisions are informed by any identified shortcomings (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Allan, McGowan, Szymanski, Rogers-Oetker and Bell2018).

Inclusive decision-making

Best practice biodiversity conservation law should incorporate the principle of inclusive decision-making. Whilst this overlaps to an extent with public consultation in transparent decision-making as discussed above, inclusive decision-making as a distinct principle expands upon the former by reinforcing the need for laws to include all relevant members of the public or specific groups involved in decisions that affect the environment. Public participation is reflected in human rights law, for example, the inclusion of the right to effective participation of a minority population as part of the right to culture (Human Rights Committee, 1994). Public participation promotes democratic values within a governance system, with benefits including stakeholder empowerment, as they can influence matters that affect them, which leads to greater community cooperation and an increase in behavioural change, including a greater conservation ethic (Cattino and Reckien, Reference Cattino and Reckien2021; Hao et al., Reference Hao, Nyaranga and Hongo2022).

In the specific context of biodiversity conservation law, the literature suggests that best practice biodiversity conservation laws and policies should develop and maintain Indigenous collaborations and partnerships. These partnerships extend beyond mere participation and require the recognition of Indigenous authority in traditional ecological knowledge systems (Artelle et al., Reference Artelle, Zurba, Bhattacharyya, Chan, Brown, Housty and Moola2019). Literature suggests that biodiversity law and policy should not limit Indigenous rights and access to land and should aim to enhance the position of Indigenous peoples through the preservation of language and culture (Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, Reference Berkes and Davidson-Hunt2006; Reimerson, Reference Reimerson2013; Satterfield et al., Reference Satterfield, Gregory, Klain, Roberts and Chan2013). This principle is further discussed below.

The literature also notes that best practice inclusive decision-making in biodiversity law is also reflected in effective efforts to develop and maintain partnerships between private landholders and regulators (Langpap et al., Reference Langpap, Kerkvliet and Shogren2018; Lee and Wakefield-Rann, Reference Lee and Wakefield-Rann2021; Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Buckley, Case and Norton2021).

Effective evaluation and review

Best practice biodiversity law and policy should include provisions that allow for effective evaluation and review of the law itself, as well as any function, activity, or program carried out under the law (Verschuuren et al., Reference Verschuuren, Mallarach, Bernbaum, Spoon, Brown, Borde, Brown, Calamia, Mitchell, Infield and Lee2021). Measuring the effectiveness of biodiversity mechanisms, through monitoring and evaluation, results in laws being adapted to changing circumstances, new scientific findings, and any ineffective management processes identified through the evaluation process (Hutchings et al., Reference Hutchings, Stephens and VanderZwaag2016). Monitoring and evaluation are integral to the effectiveness of international biodiversity frameworks. This is essential to provide baseline data against which to determine ‘effective’ implementation, promote accountability, track the progress of the conservation targets and promote policy and decision-making that is informed by evidence (Mascia et al., Reference Mascia, Pailler, Thieme, Rowe, Bottrill, Danielsen, Geldmann, Naidoo, Pullin and Burgess2014; Cardesa-Salzmann, Reference Cardesa-Salzmann and Faure2016). The literature also suggests that laws must also provide timely and public systems of review to the law and any programs carried out under the law, with monitoring and evaluation informing this review process. Operating in conjunction with established targets and indicators, monitoring and review programs are outlined in the proposed Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD Working Group, 2021). Legislated dates for the review of frameworks, as well as provisions for adaptive management principles, can assist with provisioning for this principle (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016; Dimitropoulou, Reference Dimitropoulou2018; Scheele et al., Reference Scheele, Legge, Armstrong, Copley, Robinson, Southwell, Westgate and Lindenmayer2018).

Mechanisms found in best practice biodiversity conservation law and policy

Climate and biodiversity mainstreaming

One prominent theme that emerged from the literature was that biodiversity conservation requires mainstreaming in law and policy. Mainstreaming can be achieved through different means but in general, it is supported when a particular issue, in this case, climate change and biodiversity conservation, becomes a core consideration of the government, and government processes and systems are redesigned and re-organised from the perspective of addressing those issues (Forester and Bleby, Reference Forester and Bleby2022). Mainstreaming in biodiversity law – also referred to as horizontal policy integration (e.g., Lafferty and Hovden, Reference Lafferty and Hovden2003) – mainly involves placing one issue more centrally on the agenda of another domain. For example, species extinction prevention becomes a core concern of the legislation governing industries that typically affect biodiversity (i.e., forestry, agriculture, fisheries, water management, land management and planning) (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., Reference Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Kok, Visseren-Hamakers and Termeer2017). The literature diverges on the extent to which mainstreaming must be implemented in law and policy to constitute ‘best practice’. The argument that environmental factors must take priority over other concerns to constitute mainstreaming (Lafferty and Hovden, Reference Lafferty and Hovden2003) is contrasted with the notion that mainstreaming involves the process of merging the concerns of two domains (Jordan and Lenschow, Reference Jordan and Lenschow2008). As a best practice approach to mainstreaming, legislation should include an intention to make species extinction prevention a core priority of the law, forming a primary and compulsory directive or guiding principle, rather than only one factor to be considered. Social, cultural or economic considerations should be ancillary to the main goal of preventing species extinction to constitute biodiversity conservation mainstreaming (Tallis et al., Reference Tallis, Kennedy, Ruckelhaus, Goldstein and Kiesecker2015; Maseyk et al., Reference Maseyk, Dominati and Mackay2019). Threat and target-based laws, with objective criteria that are underpinned by scientific evidence and scrutiny, can ensure species extinction is prioritised over social or economic influences, with only very limited exceptions where environmental or social justice requires it. This means biodiversity and environmental concerns must not only be present in the broad objectives and principles of law, but also in the specific functions of authorities under the act.

Any function or activity which further prioritises species extinction prevention may constitute ‘mainstreaming’, with no exhaustive list of actions that may evince ‘mainstreaming’ and further the above principles. For example, mainstreaming may include the establishment of a central climate or biodiversity conservation agency that other departments will report to, reflecting structural integrity principles through enhancing coordination between government agencies for decision-making and reducing the cost of conservation bureaucracy (see, e.g., the Climate Change Act 2017 in the Australian state of Victoria). Other examples range from introducing compliance reporting, and developing Ministerial guidelines that direct proper consideration of species status in decision-making, to the inclusion of key performance indicators in executive contracts, performance plans and training modules – all of which reflect effective evaluation and review principles (Forester and Bleby, Reference Forester and Bleby2022). Mainstreaming can be furthered through a range of other, specific mechanisms, and as a result of this scope, reflect and further a range of best practice principles.

Indigenous collaborations and partnerships

The literature was clear that biodiversity law and policy that provides avenues for Indigenous collaborations and partnerships reflect inclusive decision-making best practice principles. However, biodiversity law and policy that promotes these collaborations should aim to balance conservation goals and human rights goals (i.e., the rights of recognition, and well-being of Indigenous peoples) to ensure mutual benefit for both parties (Artelle et al., Reference Artelle, Zurba, Bhattacharyya, Chan, Brown, Housty and Moola2019). Recognising Indigenous ecological knowledge can empower Indigenous peoples through joint decision-making (Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, Reference Berkes and Davidson-Hunt2006), as well as contribute to recovery from colonial assimilation, state violence, and ecological degradation (Satterfield et al., Reference Satterfield, Gregory, Klain, Roberts and Chan2013). In furthering conservation efforts, Indigenous peoples have an in-depth knowledge of land or place and are often well-positioned to provide effective monitoring and evaluation in biodiverse areas, with traditional knowledge informing biodiversity assessment and conservation priorities (Ban et al., Reference Ban, McDougall, Beck, Salomon and Cripps2014; Artelle et al., Reference Artelle, Zurba, Bhattacharyya, Chan, Brown, Housty and Moola2019).

These collaborations and partnerships, as a best practice mechanism, must recognise the authority and rights that Indigenous people can have about preventing species extinction while ensuring these partnerships benefit the position of Indigenous peoples (Goolmeer et al., Reference Goolmeer, Skroblin and Wintle2022b). The Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs funded by the Australian Federal Government are examples of these goals being balanced. Such programs aim to advance biodiversity conservation and protect natural resources while also creating substantial employment and economic opportunities for Indigenous people, as well as improving the well-being of these communities through a wide range of social and cultural benefits (Larson et al., Reference Larson, Stoeckl, Jarvis, Addison, Grainger and Watkin Lui2020). Best practice Indigenous collaborations should also extend beyond rights to natural resources and land management in traditionally owned areas, but also incorporate traditional ecological knowledge in assessment processes and combine with western sciences to underpin decision-making processes.

Protected areas

Empirical evidence has suggested that identifying an area as protected can provide additional protection for biodiversity conservation. However, legislative provisions that establish and provide for the management of these protected areas must incorporate certain aspects to constitute best practice, including broad representation, size and connectivity and co-existence with other laws including species listing (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Stolton, Bezaury-Creel, Bingham, Cumming, Dudley, Fitzsimons, Malleret-King, Redford, Solano and Groves2018).

Reflective of the inclusive and transparent decision-making principles, input into the nomination of areas should extend beyond government authorities and scientific bodies to NGOs and community groups (Scott, Reference Scott2016). The New Zealand Marine Reserves Act demonstrates a particularly wide approach, with applications open to universities, private bodies, scientific research groups, Indigenous people who have tangata whenua status over the area, as well as the Director-General of Conservation (Marine Reserves Act 1971 s 5; Scott, Reference Scott2016). This could be broadened further by legislating that applications may be open to anyone with a special interest in nominating a protected area.

Law and policy must also recognise a need for larger and interconnected protected areas, specifically providing connectivity with existing protected areas, ecological corridors and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) (Hilty et al., Reference Hilty, Worboys, Keeley, Woodley, Lausche, Locke, Carr, Pulsford, Pittock, White, Theobald, Levine, Reuling, Watson, Ament, Groves and Tabor2020). Law and policy surrounding protected areas should provide avenues for interim protection measures, so that areas and the inhabiting species not yet legally listed may still be protected. For example, in New Zealand, land not designated as protected but has also not been fully assessed for its conservation value can be designated as ‘stewardship land’, allowing for greater or lesser protection measures once the assessment is complete (Koolen-Bourke and Peart, Reference Koolen-Bourke and Peart2021).

The principle that requires law and policy to be designed to address threats is particularly relevant for protected area laws. Threatened species can only benefit from the establishment of protected areas if the threat abatement of pervasive threats beyond land use, such as fire patterns, exotic plants, animals and pathogens, and visitors, occurs (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Sattler, Evans, Fuller, Watson and Possingham2011). Protected areas cannot exist in isolation to constitute best practice, but rather work in conjunction with other mechanisms to ensure these areas remain completely protected.

Listing and recovery plans

The listing of threatened species, and associated recovery plans for these species, were identified in the literature as best practice mechanisms when law and policy incorporate specific markers. The IUCN Red List categories and criteria are an example of a best practice for the listing process. This process provides an objective criterion as well as a standardised and transparent approach to evaluating a species’ status, with constant updates and improvements being implemented (Braby, Reference Braby2018). Species being associated with a distinct category (i.e., extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered) is reflective of the threat-based law principle, recognising the level of threat of each species based on population size reduction, geographic range, and other science-based criteria (Moir and Nand Brennan, Reference Moir and Nand Brennan2020). Using empirical scientific data as the basis for categorising a species was a prominent aspect of best practice, limiting considerations for socio-economic considerations and political influence (e.g., not listing a species as it may impact economic growth for a certain primary industry) (Dorey and Walker, Reference Dorey and Walker2018).

Other markers for best practice in listing include the need to list ecological communities, as well as individual species, broadening the impact listing processes can have (Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021). Law that provides for the listing processes to identify and protect critical habitats is also considered an element of best practice, as is evident in the United States’ Endangered Species Act requiring that a listed species have a designated habitat (Henson et al., Reference Henson, White and Thompson2018). Law that considers listing of critical habitat and ecological communities allows for recovery to address threats to an area rather than a specific species (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Watson, Bottrill, Joseph and Possingham2013; Braby, Reference Braby2018; Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021), which is reflective of law that is threat-based and serves to further this principle in the best practice mechanism. Walsh et al., argued that the concept of a national threatened species list, rather than specific state or provincial lists improves the listing processes’ efficiency, knowledge and data-sharing capabilities and effectively utilises limited funding (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Watson, Bottrill, Joseph and Possingham2013), although we acknowledge that this may also be contingent on this national list being accompanied by implementing legislation. Implementing this would further the structural integrity of the mechanism, with consolidated legislation ensuring more efficient coordination of resources and reducing any overlap or unnecessary bureaucracy that delays urgent action (although there may be discrepancies in a species’ level of risk in one area vs. another).

The literature described a range of best practice markers for the recovery plan mechanism. These included (Dee Boersma et al., Reference Dee Boersma, Kareiva, Fagan, Alan Clark and Hoekstra2001; Li et al., Reference Li, Malcom, Che-Castaldo and Neel2020):

  • legal avenues for adaptative plans that adjust to new information or changed conditions, with changes based on systematic monitoring and review;

  • legal requirements for implementation of monitoring; target-based laws that allow for timely and appropriate goals to be set and defined;

  • single-species focus to be balanced with multi-species and ecosystem-based recovery to ensure effective analysis is not sacrificed for efficiency;

  • and laws that strengthen inclusivity through non-government participation in the recovery of threatened species.

Recovery planning should also incorporate threat-based laws as a best practice principle, as recovery is likely to be most effective when aiming to ameliorate primary threats driving decline (Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017). In the past, recovery measures have failed to prevent species extinction in instances where primary threats to a species were not identified and not subject to threat-abatement measures, rendering recovery ineffective (Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017). The US Endangered Species Act (‘ESA’) implements some of these factors, including recovery plans that estimate the time and cost of recovery, descriptions of location-specific recovery actions, and criteria for recovering a species. However, recovery measures under the US System do not require an explanation of the causes behind a species’ decline, hindering the ability to mitigate the drivers of species extinction (Li et al., Reference Li, Malcom, Che-Castaldo and Neel2020).

Other issues with listing and recovery processes have also been raised, and these can indicate what best practice should incorporate. Some literature refers to a bias in these listing mechanisms, with less charismatic species receiving little attention regardless of their status (Dorey and Walker, Reference Dorey and Walker2018). Walsh et al. also identified the problem of bias in the listing of more charismatic species and noted that this may overlook some that are nevertheless vital for ecosystem function such as invertebrates, plants and fungi (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Watson, Bottrill, Joseph and Possingham2013). Some literature also identified a lack of accountability for or allocation of responsibility for the implementation of recovery measures (Woinarski et al., Reference Woinarski, Garnet, Legge and Lindenmayer2017).

Stewardship and PPAs

Stewardship, while varying in its formality (ranging from ‘hand-shake agreements’, to formalised programs) and PPAs, can generally be characterised by collaboration with private landowners, with efficient inclusivity a key principle in determining the best practice of this mechanism. Lee and Wakefield-Rann argue that this collaboration mechanism is a high priority due to the significant portion of natural resources located on private land, with the accessibility of this land and permissible management practices largely determined by landowners (Lee and Wakefield-Rann, Reference Lee and Wakefield-Rann2021). For example, the effectiveness of the US ESA is largely attributed to provisions that foster partnerships between government and private landowners, implementing conservation on private land through ‘Habitat Conservation Plans’ (Langpap et al., Reference Langpap, Kerkvliet and Shogren2018; Kraus et al., Reference Kraus, Murphy and Armitage2021).

The literature revealed that engaging landowners in species extinction prevention on private land is dependent upon close-working relationships as well as clear and accessible information on the benefits and costs of conservation (Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Buckley, Case and Norton2021). Issues in the design and implementation of PPAs and stewardship arise due to the voluntary nature of this mechanism, relying on the willingness of landowners to participate in any conservation programs (Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Buckley, Case and Norton2021). Embedding these ‘soft law’ programs in legislation can allow for greater institutional support. The mutual benefits of these mechanisms must be clearly communicated. Permits under the ESA enable landowners to develop lands inhabited by endangered species contingent on an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which aims to mitigate harm to that species, while the ‘Conservation Banking’ programs allow landowners to protect habitat for endangered species and then sell conservation credits to developers to mitigate habitat alteration (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016). The ‘Safe Harbour’ and ‘Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances’ programs also allow landowners to gain assurance that their voluntary actions to improve habitat or increase species numbers will not result in additional regulation (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016). While limited in its effect, best practice of this mechanism is dependent on transparency and appropriate engagement with stakeholders, balancing compensation payments and regulatory assurances with conservation benefits (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Che-Castaldo, Crouse, Davis, Epanchin-Niell, Flather, Frohlich, Goble, Li, Male, Master, Moskwik, Neel, Noon, Parmesan, Shwartz, Scott and Williams2016). The ‘voluntary’ nature of these mechanisms means that ‘best practice’ generally requires that other actions, such as direct acqusition and protection of private land by conservation managers, are encouraged (Kearney et al., Reference Kearney, Carwardine, Reside, Adams, Nelson, Coggan, Spindler and Watson2022).

Ecosystem restoration

While the term ‘ecosystem restoration’ may cover a broad range of practices occurring in terrestrial spaces, there were general markers of best practice identified in the literature. This includes establishing legislative frameworks with clear and consistent terminology, including statutory definitions, to ensure greater public accessibility that enhances accountability (Nzyoka et al., Reference Nzyoka, Minang, Wainaina, Duguma, Manda and Temu2021). Clear and appropriate statutory goals should also be evident in the legislation, to ensure efforts are focused, targeted, and can be monitored to measure success (which can lead to adaption if deemed to be unsuccessful) (Gann et al., Reference Gann, McDonald, Waler, Aronson, Nelson, Jonson, Hallett, Eisenberg, Guariguata, Liu, Hua, Echeverria, Gonzales, Shaw and Dixon2019; Nzyoka et al., Reference Nzyoka, Minang, Wainaina, Duguma, Manda and Temu2021). Ecosystem restoration as a best practice mechanism also requires avenues for public participation and stakeholder support (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016; Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Alexandra and Curtis2017; Gann et al., Reference Gann, McDonald, Waler, Aronson, Nelson, Jonson, Hallett, Eisenberg, Guariguata, Liu, Hua, Echeverria, Gonzales, Shaw and Dixon2019). This is a result of ecosystem restoration programs displacing people, which risks generating opposition that may hinder success (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016). Negating this effect relies on increasing social acceptability, which may involve legal avenues for offsetting disproportionate costs for a community or financial compensation, as well as sharing of experience and expertise (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016; Gann et al., Reference Gann, McDonald, Waler, Aronson, Nelson, Jonson, Hallett, Eisenberg, Guariguata, Liu, Hua, Echeverria, Gonzales, Shaw and Dixon2019). Implementing clear and consistent target-based laws, inclusive decision-making, and furthering general social acceptability is essential to garnering support for the demanding workload involved in ecosystem restoration. The literature also raised the dependency ecosystem restoration projects have on financial capital through public funding, with the suggestion that tax law is ‘reworked to stimulate philanthropic commitments while business law may overcome barriers to commercial approaches to eco-restoration’ (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016; Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Alexandra and Curtis2017).

There are examples of these principles in ecosystem restoration projects. In the US, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 2009 defines the specific ‘environmental baseline’ that the Collaborative Landscape Restoration Program aims to restore (the structure and composition of old-growth stands according to pre-fire suppression old growth conditions characteristic of the forest type), as well as outlining general ecological outcomes (improving fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and preventing invasions of exotic species) (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016). In contrast, statutory goals and targets under New Zealand law are broad and unspecified (i.e., ‘restoring and enhancing the area and its heritage features, restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes’ (Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008)). However, there are examples of local community participation in New Zealand restoration projects, with Māori and environmental groups establishing individual ‘eco-sanctuaries’, as well as private sectors shouldering the financial burden in the wake of budget cuts in the public sector (Richardson, Reference Richardson2016).

Offsets and no net loss schemes

The literature we reviewed was predominantly critical of offset and no net loss schemes (NNL), suggesting that offsets should only be used as a last resort by developers to compensate for unavoidable damage (Bull et al., Reference Bull, Suttle, Gordon, Singh and Milner-Gulland2013; Simmonds et al., Reference Simmonds, Sonter, Watson, Bennun, Cost, Dutson, Edwards, Grantham, Griffiths, Jones, Kiesecker, Possingham, Puydarrieux, Quetier, Rainer, Rainery, Roe, Savy, Souquet, Kate, Victurine, von Haxe and Maron2020a; Schoukens and Van Hoorick, Reference Schoukens, Van Hoorick, Pozzo and Jacomett2021). This is because offsets have suffered from persistent implementation failures due to weak compliance or regulatory enforcement, inconsistencies with governance arrangements (Zu Ermgassen et al., Reference Zu Ermgassen, Utamiputri, Bennun, Edwards and Bull2019), high costs for participation, and administrative delays (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Hamman, Leuzinger, Qin, Daya-Winterbottom and Du Plessis2022), as well as NNL policies being subject to the influence of uneven power dynamics or vested interests (Zu Ermgassen et al., Reference Zu Ermgassen, Utamiputri, Bennun, Edwards and Bull2019). As a result, environmental markets are largely viewed as not adequately addressing socio-ecological issues (Lockhart and Rea, Reference Lockhart and Rea2019), with minimal regard for their practicality (Zu Ermgassen et al., Reference Zu Ermgassen, Utamiputri, Bennun, Edwards and Bull2019). This suggests that offsets and NNL schemes may not be considered a best practice mechanism in biodiversity law and policy.

However, offsets and NNL policies are becoming increasingly relied upon by countries to mitigate the impact developments have on biodiversity (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Hase, Brownlie, Estrom, Pilgrim, Savy, Theo Stephens, Treweek, Ussher, Ward and Kate2013; Zu Ermgassen et al., Reference Zu Ermgassen, Utamiputri, Bennun, Edwards and Bull2019). This means recognising that potential best practice markers are important to develop and improve biodiversity offset outcomes. To understand, define and action these markers more research is needed and should be prioritised in circumstances where regulators wish to introduce offset policies. Examples of these best practice aspects include the need for offsets to always be accompanied by a no-net loss policy to be effective, the adoption of a precautionary approach to offset design, access to adequate data and technical expertise, economic and financial safeguards, and strong monitoring and enforcement, as well as outlining strict and explicit thresholds where impacts cannot be offset (Bull et al., Reference Bull, Suttle, Gordon, Singh and Milner-Gulland2013; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Hase, Brownlie, Estrom, Pilgrim, Savy, Theo Stephens, Treweek, Ussher, Ward and Kate2013; Benabou, Reference Benabou2014; Bergman et al., Reference Bergman, Binley, Murphy, Proctor, Ngyuyen, Urness, Vala, Vincent, Fahrig and Bennet2020).

Legal rights of nature

The literature recognised that both property rights and the sustainable development paradigm (or the misunderstanding of it) have resulted in a disproportionate emphasis on positive economic outcomes, leading to widespread environmental degradation (Riley, Reference Riley2019). Many commentators argued that adopting either an environmental personhood approach or recognising legal rights for the environment would be an effective means for overcoming these problems. The differences between the two approaches can be subtle, but important when considering how they can support genuine conservation. A limitation of the rights approach is that the protection offered by providing legal rights will be limited to the specific rights that are granted to either the environment or nature in general or to distinct ecosystems (Riley, Reference Riley2019). For instance, the rights granted could potentially include the right to restoration for any actions that cause environmental damage (Athens, Reference Athens2018). The alternative, which is recognising ‘legal personhood’ for the environment means that ‘an entity exists for its own interests and not for the value it contains for others’ (Athens, Reference Athens2018). There are several practical examples where jurisdictions have extended legal rights to the environment. The recognition of environmental legal personhood has been both sporadic and jurisdiction-specific however, which makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of this as a legal mechanism to support conservation (Putzer et al., Reference Putzer, Lambooy, Jeurissen and Kim2022).

The first constitutional recognition of rights to the environment was in 2008 when Ecuador passed a constitutional amendment acknowledging the rights of nature (Athens, Reference Athens2018). However, arguably a more effective (but less general approach) was taken in New Zealand when the Parliament passed the Te Urewera Act in 2014. This Act embraced the traditional values of the Māori people in support of adopting legal personhood for Te Urewera national park and the Whanganui River. In this instance, the rights were attached to particular ecosystems but gave those ecosystems all the “rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person” (Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ) s 14(1)) Overall the literature suggests that although this approach aligns with a recognition of the intrinsic value of the environment, it is by no means a panacea for biodiversity conservation (Putzer et al., Reference Putzer, Lambooy, Jeurissen and Kim2022).

Despite recognising this, ecocentric approaches to ownership could be a useful mechanism for environmental protection laws (Hoops, Reference Hoops2022). Commentators considered this (and the limits of western legal systems’ property rights) both for the environment and for fauna impacted by environmental degradation (Best, Reference Best2021). Indeed, some commentators argue that the legal status of animals as property has significantly increased their vulnerability in times of disaster (Best, Reference Best2021).

In terms of best practice markers, these are difficult to articulate across jurisdictions generally as different nations have different requirements for constitutional amendments and likewise may approach rights differently. The New Zealand example demonstrated that common law systems can indeed provide the flexibility to support legal personhood for the environment. Where conservation of biodiversity can sit outside regulations (such as through constitutional recognition), a rights-based approach may indeed lead to long-term benefits.

Conclusion

The United Nations has identified that minimising or reversing the risk of species extinction is a priority for law and policy in the coming decades (CBD Working Group, 2021). Accurate and timely assessment of the processes to prevent this extinction is of utmost importance. Our literature review has sought to provide an overview of the literature on best practice biodiversity conservation law. We have presented these findings through the best practice principles identified, and the degree to which these principles have been reflected in mechanisms necessary to support best practice biodiversity conservation.

Despite identifying these principles and mechanisms, we found that the specific concept of ‘best practice’ law and policy for mechanisms to prevent biodiversity loss was elusive in the literature. There are several reasons for this, including the constantly evolving nature of threats to species extinction and the corresponding mechanisms designed to prevent extinction. This difficulty is compounded by the disconnect between law and policy and the degree to which legislated measures are implemented in a practical sense (whether this is a result of limited financial resources, political influences, or social pushback and lack of enforcement in response to noncompliance). However, the literature demonstrated that when biodiversity law and policy implements best practice principles the risk of ineffective implementation is mitigated, for example, through provisions that allow for public consultation to ensure stakeholder engagement, or laws based on real and perceived threats to maximise effectiveness and efficiency. Mechanisms that aim to prevent species extinction can be considered best practice only when these core principles are reflected and enhanced in biodiversity law and policy (or any functions or programs that are carried out under these laws).

We note our literature review had some limitations. First, the jurisdictional scope was restricted as the databases we searched were focused on Western legal systems, predominantly North America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Europe. As such, our discussion is of best practice in western legal systems and may not necessarily reflect best practice from other parts of the world. Second, biosecurity was excluded from the analysis to limit the scope of the review. Although invasive species are a driver of extinction, it was outside the analysis of this project to consider laws with this objective. We acknowledge that this is a significant omission from our analysis and suggest it is an important topic for future research projects. Finally, consideration of best practices necessarily limited the analysis to a select body of literature. This search term meant that there were many articles relevant to biodiversity conservation law and policy that were not analysed in this review, which could have limited the principles and the mechanisms that we considered. For instance, any future project would necessarily consider some of the more relevant principles of sustainable development, such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this review are important in terms of understanding principles and mechanisms for best practice biodiversity conservation law and policy. In particular, to ensure ‘best practice’ in combating the threats to species, cooperation and mutual understanding between relevant fields of understanding and knowledge are vital. Scientific research, evidence, and input must inform the function of government decision-makers and regulators, while conservation science must understand how law and policy (and the social and economic dimensions of these) can operate effectively so that future research can be directed in the most practical and efficient manner.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2023.14.

Data availability statement

A list of all reviewed publications is available from the corresponding author.

Author contribution

K.W., F.D. and F.H. were responsible for the conception and design of the research underpinning this article. C.B. wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to revised drafts and approved the final version for publication.

Appendix

References

Aromataris, E and Riitano, D (2014) Systematic reviews: Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. AJN, American Journal of Nursing 114(5), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, C, et al. (2020) Research note: Spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia – Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 196, 103741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artelle, KA, Zurba, M, Bhattacharyya, J, Chan, DE, Brown, K, Housty, J and Moola, F (2019) Supporting resurgent indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conservation 240, 108284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athens, AK (2018) An Indivisible and Living Whole: Do We Value Nature Enough to Grant It Personhood? Available at https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128638 (accessed 4 February 2023).Google Scholar
Baker, GB, Gales, R, Hamilton, S and Wilkinson, V (2002) Albatrosses and petrels in Australia: A review of their conservation and management. Emu – Austral Ornithology 102(1), 7197. http://doi.org/10.1071/MU01036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ban, NC, McDougall, C, Beck, M, Salomon, AK and Cripps, K (2014) Applying empirical estimates of marine protected area effectiveness to assess conservation plans in British Columbia, Canada. Biological Conservation 180, 134148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benabou, S (2014) Making up for lost nature? A critical review of the international development of voluntary biodiversity offsets. Environment and Society 5, 103124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, JN, Binley, A, Murphy, RE, Proctor, CA, Ngyuyen, TT, Urness, ES, Vala, MA, Vincent, JG, Fahrig, L and Bennet, JR (2020) How to rescue Ontario’s endangered species act: A Biologist’s perspective. FACETS 5, 423431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F and Davidson-Hunt, IJ (2006) Biodiversity, traditional management systems, and cultural landscapes: Examples from the boreal forest of Canada. International Social Science Journal 58, 3547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, A (2021) The legal status of animals: A source of their disaster vulnerability. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 36(3), 63. http://doi.org/10.47389/36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethlenfalvy, A and Olive, A (2021) Recent amendments to the endangered species act and an uncertain future for species at risk: A case study of Ontario’s Niagara region. FACETS 6, 11681183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boakes, Z, et al. (2022) Coral reef conservation in Bali in light of international best practice, a literature review. Journal for Nature Conservation 67, 126190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottrill, MC, Walsh, JC, Watson, JEM, Joseph, LN, Ortega-Argueta, A and Possingham, HP (2011) Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144, 1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braby, MF (2018) Threatened species conservation of invertebrates in Australia: An overview. Austral Entomology 57, 173181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, JW, Suttle, KB, Gordon, A, Singh, NJ and Milner-Gulland, EJ (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, RT, et al. (2020) Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring. Nature Communications 11(1) 4668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camaclang, AE, et al. (2015) Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species: Identifying critical habitat. Conservation Biology 29(2) 482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, C, Alexandra, J and Curtis, D (2017) Reflections on four decades of land restoration in Australia. The Rangeland Journal 39, 405416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardesa-Salzmann, A (2016) Monitoring and compliance mechanisms. In Faure, M (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 455.Google Scholar
Cattino, M and Reckien, D (2021) Does public participation lead to more ambitious and transformative local climate change planning? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 52, 100110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convention of Biological Diversity Working Group (2021) First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Available at https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/1st-draft-post-2020-global-biodiversity-framework#:~:text=The%20draft%20framework%20proposes%20four,(10%20milestones%20in%20all (accessed 17 December 2022).Google Scholar
Cresswell, I, Janke, T and Johnston, E (2021) Australia State of the Environment 2021: Overview. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia, pp. 82124.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review: Abridged Version (HM Treasury, Updated: 2 February 2021).Google Scholar
Dee Boersma, P, Kareiva, P, Fagan, WF, Alan Clark, J and Hoekstra, JM (2001) How good are endangered species recovery plans? The effectiveness of recovery plans for endangered species can be improved through incorporation of dynamic, explicit science in the recovery process, such as strongly linking species’ biology to recovery criteria. Bioscience 51, 643649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Conservation (2020) Te Mana o Te Taiao: Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020.Google Scholar
Department of Environment and Science (QLD) (2022) Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consultation: Discussion Paper. Queensland Government.Google Scholar
Dimitropoulou, A (2018) Addressing Ecological Uncertainty and Nature Conservation Conflicts: Adaptive Management Models for English Nature Conservation Law and Policy and Practice: A Case Study of the Humberhead Levels Nature Improvement Area (PHD). University of York. Available at https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21943/ (accessed 15 July 2022).Google Scholar
Dorey, K and Walker, TR (2018) Limitations of threatened species lists in Canada: A federal and provincial perspective. Biological Conservation 217, 259268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorrough, J, Tozer, M, Armstrong, R, Summerell, G and Scott, ML (2021) Quantifying uncertainty in the identification of endangered ecological communities. Conservation Science and Practice 3, e537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, N, et al (2018) The essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. Global Ecology and Conservation 15, e00424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016) 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada, Biodivcanada. Available at https://www.biodivcanada.ca/national-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan/2020-biodiversity-goals-and-targets-for-canada (accessed 13 July 2022).Google Scholar
Evans, DM, Che-Castaldo, JP, Crouse, D, Davis, F, Epanchin-Niell, R, Flather, C, Frohlich, R, Goble, D, Li, Y, Male, T, Master, L, Moskwik, M, Neel, M, Noon, B, Parmesan, C, Shwartz, M, Scott, J and Williams, B (2016) Species recovery in the United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the endangered species act. Issues in Ecology 20, 128.Google Scholar
Evans, MC (2018) Effective incentives for reforestation: Lessons from Australia’s carbon farming policies’ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32, 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, C (2017) The contested instruments of a new governance regime: Accounting for nature and building markets for biodiversity offsets. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30(7), 1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimons, JA (n.d.) Urgent Need to Use and Reform Critical Habitat Listing in Australian Legislation in Response to the Extensive 2019–2020 Bushfires.Google Scholar
Forester, A and Bleby, A (2022) Climate mainstreaming: What role for legislation? Presented at the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Colloquium Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
Frantz, T (n.d.) Sustainable use and the laws regulating trade in threatened species in South Africa: Lessons from the USA.Google Scholar
Gallardo, F, Casteli, AL, et al. (2022) Translating best practice principles into criteria for evaluating the consideration of biodiversity in SEA practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40(5), 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gann, GD, McDonald, T, Waler, B, Aronson, J, Nelson, CR, Jonson, J, Hallett, JG, Eisenberg, C, Guariguata, MR, Liu, J, Hua, F, Echeverria, C, Gonzales, E, Shaw, N and Dixon, KW (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, TA, Hase, AV, Brownlie, S, Estrom, JMM, Pilgrim, JD, Savy, CE, Theo Stephens, RT, Treweek, J, Ussher, GT, Ward, G and Kate, KT (2013) Biodiversity offsets and the challenge of achieving no net loss. Conservation Biology 27, 12541264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelcich, S, et al (2017) Achieving biodiversity benefits with offsets: Research gaps, challenges, and needs. Ambio 46(2), 184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geldmann, J, et al. (2015) Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis. Biological Conservation 191, 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Githiru, M, et al. (2015) Should biodiversity offsets help finance underfunded protected areas? Biological Conservation 191, 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolmeer, T, et al. (2022a) Recognizing culturally significant species and indigenous‐led management is key to meeting international biodiversity obligations. Conservation Letters 15(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolmeer, T, Skroblin, A and Wintle, BA (2022b) Getting our act together to improve indigenous leadership and recognition in biodiversity management. Ecological Management & Restoration 23, 3342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hao, C, Nyaranga, MS and Hongo, DO (2022) Enhancing public participation in governance for sustainable development: Evidence from Bungoma County, Kenya. SAGE Open 12, 21582440221088856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, P, White, R and Thompson, SP (2018) Improving implementation of the endangered species act: Finding common ground through common sense. Bioscience 68, 861872.Google Scholar
Hilty, J, Worboys, GL, Keeley, A, Woodley, S, Lausche, BJ, Locke, H, Carr, M, Pulsford, I, Pittock, J, White, JW, Theobald, DM, Levine, J, Reuling, M, Watson, JEM, Ament, R, Groves, C and Tabor, GM (2020) Guidelines for Conserving Connectivity through Ecological Networks and Corridors. Gland: IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoops, B (2022) What if the Black Forest owned itself? A constitutional property law perspective on rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law 11(3), 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H-F and Shannon, SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Human Rights Committee (1994) CCPR General Comment No 21: The Right of Minorities to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 50th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5.Google Scholar
Hutchings, JA, Stephens, T and VanderZwaag, DL (2016) Marine species at risk protection in Australia and Canada: Paper promises, paltry progressions. Ocean Development & International Law 47, 233254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Invasive Species Council, & Bush Heritage Australia (2020) Australia’s System for Abating Major Threats to Biodiversity: A Priority for Reform of the EPBC Act. Available at https://invasives.org.au/publications/australias-system-for-abating-major-threats-to-biodiversity-submission-to-the-epbc-act-review/ (accessed 20 July 2022).Google Scholar
IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.Google Scholar
Jordan, A and Lenschow, A (2008) Innovation in Environmental Policy?: Integrating the Environment for Sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S, Kok, MTJ, Visseren-Hamakers, IJ and Termeer, CJAM (2017) Mainstreaming biodiversity in economic sectors: An analytical framework. Biological Conservation 210, 145156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kati, V, et al. (2015) The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas natura 2000: Implementing natura 2000. Conservation Biology 29(1) 260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kearney, SG, Carwardine, J, Reside, AE, Adams, VM, Nelson, R, Coggan, A, Spindler, R and Watson, JEM (2022) Saving species beyond the protected area fence: Threats must be managed across multiple land tenure types to secure Australia’s endangered species. Conservation Science and Practice 4, e617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolen-Bourke, D and Peart, R (2021) Conserving Nature: Conservation Reform Issues Paper. Auckland, New Zealand: Environmental Defence Society Incorporated.Google Scholar
Kraus, D, Murphy, S and Armitage, D (2021) Ten bridges on the road to recovering Canada’s endangered species. FACETS 6, 10881127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafferty, W and Hovden, E (2003) Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics 12, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langpap, C, Kerkvliet, J and Shogren, JF (2018) The economics of the U.S. endangered species act: A review of recent developments. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 12, 6991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, S, Stoeckl, N, Jarvis, D, Addison, J, Grainger, D and Watkin Lui, F (2020) Indigenous land and sea management programs (ILSMPs) enhance the wellbeing of indigenous Australians. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, EA, et al. (2015) Better land-use allocation outperforms land sparing and land sharing approaches to conservation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 186, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K-C and Yan, S-Y (2019) Participatory planning and monitoring of protected landscapes: A case study of an indigenous rice paddy cultural landscape in Taiwan. Paddy and Water Environment 17(3), 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T and Wakefield-Rann, R (2021) Improving landholder engagement in biodiversity conservation: What can be learned from literary theory and design. People and Nature 3, 587596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Malcom, JW, Che-Castaldo, JP and Neel, MC (2020) Recovery plans need better science to support decisions that allow species to decline in abundance but be recovered. bioRxiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D, et al. (2020) A checklist of attributes for effective monitoring of threatened species and threatened ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Management 262, 110312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, M (2016) Governance criteria for effective transboundary biodiversity conservation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16(6), 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, A and Rea, C (2019) Why there and then, not here and now? Ecological offsetting in California and England, and the sharpening contradictions of neoliberal natures. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2, 665693.Google Scholar
Mann, C (2015) Strategies for sustainable policy design: Constructive assessment of biodiversity offsets and banking. Ecosystem Services 16, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, NJ and Ulibarri, N (2022) The tensions of transparency in urban and environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 42, 401412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P, et al. (eds.) (2020) Achieving Biodiversity Protection in Megadiverse Countries: A Comparative Assessment of Australia and Brazil, 1st Edn. Routledge. Available at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781000052275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P, Hamman, E, Leuzinger, M, Qin, T, Daya-Winterbottom, T and Du Plessis, E (2022) An Independent Multi-Country Examination of the Implementation of the United Nations 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Gland: IUCN Academy of Environmental Law.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Leuzinger, MD and da Silva, ST (2016) Improving the effectiveness of legal arrangements to protect biodiversity: Australia and Brazil. Brazilian Journal of International Law 13, 2538.Google Scholar
Mascia, MB, Pailler, S, Thieme, ML, Rowe, A, Bottrill, MC, Danielsen, F, Geldmann, J, Naidoo, R, Pullin, AS and Burgess, ND (2014) Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation 169, 258267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maseyk, F, Dominati, E and Mackay, A (2019) More than a “Nice to have”: Integrating indigenous biodiversity into agroecosystems in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 43, 3372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, L, Tinch, R and Provins, A (2018) Catchment management in England and Wales: The role of arguments for ecosystems and their services. Biodiversity and Conservation 27(7), 1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormack, PC (n.d.) The legislative challenge of facilitating climate change adaptation for biodiversity.Google Scholar
McCormack, PC (2018) Conservation introductions for biodiversity adaptation under climate change. Transnational Environmental Law 7, 323345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCreless, EE, Huff, DD, Croll, DA, Tershy, BR, Spatz, DR, Holmes, ND, Butchart, SH and Wilcox, C (2016) Past and estimated future impact of invasive alien mammals on insular threatened vertebrate populations. Nature Communications 7, 12488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, J, et al. (2016) Rethinking legal objectives for climate-adaptive conservation. Ecology and Society 21(2), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickwitz, P, Aix, F, Beck, S and Carss, DN (2009) Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance (No. 2). Helsinki: Partnership for European Environmental Research.Google Scholar
Migliorini, P and Wezel, A (2017) Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37(6), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B, Stolton, S, Bezaury-Creel, J, Bingham, HC, Cumming, TL, Dudley, N, Fitzsimons, JA, Malleret-King, D, Redford, KH and Solano, P (2018) Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas, Groves, C ed., 1st Edn. Fontainebleau: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47916 (accessed 17 July 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, ML and Nand Brennan, KEC (2020) Incorporating coextinction in threat assessments and policy will rapidly improve the accuracy of threatened species lists. Biological Conservation 249, 108715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narain, D, et al. (2020) Best-practice biodiversity safeguards for belt and road initiative’s financiers. Nature Sustainability 3(8), 650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
No’kmaq M’, et al. (2021) “Awakening the sleeping giant”: Re-indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and Beyond. FACETS 6, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nzyoka, J, Minang, PA, Wainaina, P, Duguma, L, Manda, L and Temu, E (2021) Landscape governance and sustainable land restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania. Sustainability 13, 7730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S and Stokke, OS (2011) Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2013) Accountability (in Management Theory) Definition. Available at https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=4757 (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
Olive, A and McCune, JL (2017) Wonder, ignorance, and resistance: Landowners and the stewardship of endangered species. Journal of Rural Studies 49, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otero, I, et al. (2020) Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pannell, JL, Buckley, HL, Case, BS and Norton, DA (2021) The significance of sheep and beef farms to conservation of native vegetation in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 45, 111.Google Scholar
Peel, J (2008) Ecologically sustainable development: More than mere lip service? Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy 12(1), 1.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, H, et al. (n.d.) Lessons and best practice of landholder collaboration for landscape-scale conservation and production.Google Scholar
Pirard, R (2012) Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A Lexicon. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putzer, A, Lambooy, T, Jeurissen, R and Kim, E (2022) Putting the rights of nature on the map. A quantitative analysis of rights of nature initiatives across the world. Journal of Maps 18(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quétier, F, Regnery, B and Levrel, H (2014) No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy. Environmental Science & Policy 38, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razzaque, J, Visseren-Hamakers, J, McElwee, P, Rusch, GM, Kelemen, E, Turnhout, E, Williams, MJ, Gautam, AP, Fernandez-Llamazares, A, Chan, I, Gerber, LR, Islar, M, Karim, S, Lim, M, Liu, J, Lui, G, Mohammed, A, Mungatana, E and Muradian, R (2019) Chapter 6. Options for decision makers. In Brondízio, ES, Settele, J, Díaz, S and Ngo, HT (eds.), Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat, pp. 880964.Google Scholar
Reimerson, E (2013) Between nature and culture: Exploring space for indigenous agency in the convention on biological diversity. Environmental Politics 22, 9921009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reside, AE, Beher, J, Cosgrove, AJ, Evans, MC, Seabrook, L, Silcock, JL, Wenger, AS and Maron, M (2017) Ecological consequences of land clearing and policy reform in Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 23, 219230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosin, C (2013) Food security and the justification of productivism in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 29, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, BJ (2016) The emerging age of ecological restoration law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 25, 277290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, S (2019) Sustainable development and the United Nations dialogues. Victoria University Law and Justice Journal 9(1), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, MB, Haider, W and Stronghill, J (2015) Conservancies in coastal British Columbia: A new approach to protected areas in the traditional territories of first nations. Conservation and Society 13(1), 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, JC, Grimm, J and Olive, A (2021) The biodiversity crisis in Canada: Failures and challenges of federal and sub-national strategic and legal frameworks. FACETS 6, 1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santangeli, A, Wistbacka, R, Hanski, IK and Laaksonen, T (2013) Ineffective enforced legislation for nature conservation: A case study with Siberian flying squirrel and forestry in a boreal landscape. Biological Conservation 157, 237244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterfield, T, Gregory, R, Klain, S, Roberts, M and Chan, KM (2013) Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 117, 103114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheele, BC, Legge, S, Armstrong, DP, Copley, P, Robinson, N, Southwell, D, Westgate, MJ, and Lindenmayer, DB (2018) How to improve threatened species management: An Australian perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 223, 668675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoukens, H and Van Hoorick, G (2021) No net loss and forest offsets in the Flemish region: A cautionary tale of how not to reconcile science-based conservation policies with economic interests and vested rights? In Pozzo, B and Jacomett, V (eds.), Environmental Loss and Damage in a Comparative Law Perspective. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 499533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, R, et al. (2018) Tax shifting and incentives for biodiversity conservation on private lands: Conservation incentives on private land. Conservation Letters 11(2), e12377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, KN (2016) Evolving MPA management in New Zealand: Between principle and pragmatism. Ocean Development and International Law 47, 289307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, JS, Sonter, LJ, Watson, JEM, Bennun, L, Cost, HM, Dutson, G, Edwards, S, Grantham, H, Griffiths, VF, Jones, JPG, Kiesecker, J, Possingham, HP, Puydarrieux, P, Quetier, F, Rainer, H, Rainery, H, Roe, D, Savy, CE, Souquet, M, Kate, KT, Victurine, R, von Haxe, A and Maron, M (2020a) Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation. Conservation Letters 13, e12695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, JS, et al. (2020b) Vulnerable species and ecosystems are falling through the cracks of environmental impact assessments. Conservation Letters 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, DR, Allan, NL, McGowan, CP, Szymanski, JA, Rogers-Oetker, S and Bell, HM (2018) Development of a species status assessment process for decisions under the U.S. endangered species act. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 9(1), 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staude, IR, Navarro, LM and Pereira, HM (2020) Range size predicts the risk of local extinction from habitat loss. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29, 1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, L, Santini, L, Etard, A and Newbold, T (2020) Effects of rarity form on species’ responses to land use. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 34, 688696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallis, H, Kennedy, CM, Ruckelhaus, M, Goldstein, J and Kiesecker, JM (2015) Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55, 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayleur, C, et al. (2017) Global coverage of agricultural sustainability standards, and their role in conserving biodiversity: Certification standards and biodiversity. Conservation Letters 10(5), 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, MFJ, Sattler, PS, Evans, M, Fuller, RA, Watson, JEM and Possingham, HP (2011) What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 767777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsioumani, E (2018) Public participation in environmental decision-making. In Faure, M (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 366378.Google Scholar
Turcotte, A, et al (2021) Fixing the Canadian species at risk act: Identifying major issues and recommendations for increasing accountability and efficiency. FACETS 6, 1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (2009) Governance for Sustainable Human Development, United Nations. Available at www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp.Google Scholar
United Nations (n.d.-a) The 17 Goals: Sustainable Development. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
United Nations (n.d.-b) What is the Rule of Law. Available at https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/ (accessed 12 October 2022).Google Scholar
van Doeveren, V (2011) Rethinking good governance. Public Integrity 13, 301318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuuren, B, Mallarach, J-M, Bernbaum, E, Spoon, J, Brown, S, Borde, R, Brown, J, Calamia, M, Mitchell, N, Infield, M and Lee, E (2021) Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature. Gland: IUCN. Available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49268 (accessed 11 July 2022).Google Scholar
Walsh, JC, Watson, JEM, Bottrill, MC, Joseph, LN and Possingham, HP (2013) Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: An Australian case study. Oryx 47, 134143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, MS, et al. (2019) Lots of loss with little scrutiny: The attrition of habitat critical for threatened species in Australia. Conservation Science and Practice 1(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltman, L (2016) A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics 10(2), 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W, et al. (2020) Biodiversity conservation in China: A review of recent studies and practices. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology 2, 100025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, AR, et al (2019) Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: recommendations for developing species at risk legislation. FACETS 4(1) 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windle, J and Rolfe, J (2008) Exploring the efficiencies of using competitive tenders over fixed price grants to protect biodiversity in Australian Rangelands. Land Use Policy 25(3) 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wintle, BA, Wintle, BA, Cadenhead, NCR, Morgain, RA, Legge, SM, Bekessy, SA, Cantele, M, Possingham, HP, Watson, JEM, Maron, M, Keith, DA, Garnett, ST, Woinarski, JCZ and Lindenmayer, DB (2019) Spending to save: What will it Cost to halt Australia’s extinction crisis? Conservation Letters 12(6), e12682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlin, C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 1, 38. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2601248.2601268.Google Scholar
Woinarski, JCZ, Garnet, ST, Legge, SM and Lindenmayer, DB (2017) The contribution of policy, law, management, research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 31, 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zu Ermgassen, SOSE, Utamiputri, P, Bennun, L, Edwards, S and Bull, JW (2019) The role of “no net loss” policies in conserving biodiversity threatened by the global infrastructure boom. One Earth 1, 305315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Author comment: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editors,

Thank you kindly for your invitation to submit an Overview Review article for the inaugural edition of your journal. We are pleased to attach our article, titled ‘Preventing Species Extinction: Best Practice Mechanisms in Law and Policy’. The paper is a collaboration between authors, and the result of a wider research project. As the title suggests, the article is a literature review of best practice mechanisms (also known as policy tools) that exist in legal frameworks, to conserve biodiversity and prevent extinction.

Ae note the current Figure is a placeholder only, and is currently being appropriately designed. This paper is not being considered by any other journal, and there are no author conflicts of interest.

Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to receiving the reviews.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Woolaston and co-authors

Review: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

Referee report: EXT-22-0031 ‘Preventing Species Extinction: Best Practice Mechanisms in Law and Policy’

This manuscript addresses an important topic – that law should provide a critical foundation for preventing extinction. It is also very timely, given the recent (December 2022) global commitments from CoP 15, including the goal ‘Human induced extinction of known threatened species is halted’.

The manuscript approaches the issue through a review and distillation of 120 (English language) publications, and through broad application of general ‘best practice’ principles. From this approach, it distils a ‘theoretical framework’ and a set of five principles that should underpin law relating to biodiversity conservation efforts more broadly.

My misgivings about the manuscript are:

(1) It seems to overlook completely the issue of assigning legal rights to biodiversity, as one possible foundation mechanism for preventing extinction. I suspect there is a substantial body of innovative policy and law relating to this topic. As one example, in recent assessments of the impacts of the Australian Black Summer wildfires on animals, Best (2021) concluded that , the ‘property status [of animals] allows them to be treated in ways that elevate their risk during disasters. It also relegates them to a status of legal inferiority’. I think it would be useful to add a consideration of the extent to which legal rights for nature have been applied, whether these have been successful in reducing extinction risk, and how they can be applied more broadly.

(2) Likewise, there is no consideration of legal application of intergenerational equity – the obligation of our generation to leave to our descendants a world that is as biodiverse as that which we inherited. If such a principle was to be embedded in legislation, then it should substantially influence decisions taken that could otherwise lead to extinctions.

(3) There seems to be no quantitative or analytical treatment of the 120-odd references collated for this paper. There is no assessment of what seems to be working well and where, or evidence base supporting the espoused principles – e.g., in which legal settings has the rate of extinction been shown to be consequently reduced. This limited treatment is disappointing especially given that the Introduction (at line 62) recognised the need to determine ‘what is and is not working’.

(4) The principles described across pp. 8-13 describe routine biodiversity conservation considerations very generally, rather than being sharply attuned to prevention of extinction itself.

(5) While listing of species as threatened is recognised appropriately in this manuscript as a fundamental component of the armoury for preventing extinctions, there is little consideration of the pervasive weakness of such listing – that it biases against undescribed and poorly known species and groups, for which knowledge gaps subvert likelihood of listing and hence protection (Walsh et al. 2013; Taylor et al. 2018). Some consideration of ‘dark extinctions’ [the loss of a species even before it is described] (Boehm and Cronk 2021), and how law can be used to reduce their likelihood, would be warranted. The issue is especially germane given the CoP wording of its extinction commitment, that it applies to ‘known threatened species’: that is cold comfort to unknown species and those poorly known species for which knowledge shortcomings mean that they are unlikely to ever be included in lists of threatened species.

(6) At various points in the manuscript, there is appropriate recognition of the need for accountability (what person or agency is responsible if a species becomes extinct, and what should be the consequences to them of such failure?). Elsewhere, Woinarski et al. (2017) recommended that an Inquiry (akin to a coronial inquest) be mandated to assess any extinction event, to determine accountability and penalty, and to seek to remedy the shortcomings such that future extinctions are less likely. I would like to see this issue given some consideration in this manuscript.

(7) There is only a single reference given to the precautionary principle, explicitly solely in respect of offsets. I suggest it has scope for far more use in law with reference to reducing the likelihood of extinctions. For example, a recent thoroughly worked case of this was the Richards J decision of November 2022 in the Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to greater gliders and VicForests. In this case, the ruling was that timber-harvesting should be prevented, with this finding largely on the basis of the precautionary principle and the possibility that the activity would make some contribution to the likelihood of the species’ extinction.

(8) Although I recognise that the aspects of law involved in relation to extinction are very diverse, I was surprised that there is no consideration in the manuscript of biosecurity. There is a substantial legal underpinning of biosecurity, with bias largely towards agricultural impacts rather than biodiversity. However, the introduction of non-native diseases, plants and animals continues to have devastating consequences to biodiversity (especially so for Australia and other islands), and the inadequate legal settings for biosecurity was a major factor in several recent extinctions in Australia, and is likely to be the cause of many more in the near future (Fensham et al. 2020).

(9) Targets. The manuscript appropriately recognises that one necessary ingredient is the need for targets (lines 200-219). It would have been interesting and useful to know the extent to which a target of no extinctions is a key objective in laws in different countries, and the extent to which the legal settings support and require reporting on this target.

(10) Research. The Introduction foreshadowed (lines 70-73) that the overview provided in this manuscript would help ‘direct scientific research’. I could find nothing in the manuscript that followed up on this objective.

Minor considerations.

It seems a bit odd to describe the findings and conclusions within the Introduction (e.g., lines 79-95).

There are some examples of references out of alphabetical order (e.g., 407, 603).

The sole figure is not especially revealing.

Refences cited

Best A (2021) The legal status of animals: a source of their disaster vulnerability. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 36, 63-68.

Boehm MMA, Cronk QCB (2021) Dark extinction: the problem of unknown historical extinctions. Biology letters 17, 20210007.

Fensham RJ, Carnegie AJ, Laffineur B, Makinson RO, Pegg GS, Wills J (2020) Imminent extinction of Australian Myrtaceae by fungal disease. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35, 554-557.

Taylor GS, Braby MF, Moir ML, Harvey MS, Sands DPA, New TR, Kitching RL, McQuillan PB, Hogendoorn K, Glatz RV, Andren M, Cook JM, Henry SC, Valenzuela I, Weinstein P (2018) Strategic national approach for improving the conservation management of insects and allied invertebrates in Australia. Austral Entomology 57, 124-149.

Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Possingham HP (2013) Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study. Oryx 47, 134-143.

Woinarski JCZ, Garnett ST, Legge SM, Lindenmayer DB (2017) The contribution of policy, law, management, research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species. Conservation Biology 31, 13-23.

Review: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This article aims to determine best practice mechanism (and principles) in preventing species extinctions. The scope and scale of this objective is quite daunting, so I appreciate the difficulty the authors had in executing this task. The resulting best practice principles and mechanisms, summarised in Figure 1, are nothing particularly new or surprising – which is probably fine for a Review article.

My main concern with the piece is its lack of methodological rigor. The authors conduct a literature review, using a set of keywords and search two online databases. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are fairly vague, and there’s scant details of how judgements were made and resolved in a multi-author team. There’s no details of how many articles were identified initially, excluded via criteria, and added via snowball (as per PRISMA guidelines https://prisma-statement.org/). Now the authors conduct a qualitative review, so a strict quantitative method doesn’t need to be followed – but some detail would be nice, and unfortunately the qualitative rigor is also low.

The authors indicate they use a “manual thematic analysis of the literature” based on principles of good governance (accountability, transparency, inclusiveness, participation, efficiency and effectiveness, rule of law; van Doeveren (2011)). The authors then somehow use these good governance principles to identify best practice principles and mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and law. There are no details on qualitative methodology or method (e.g see Moon et al. 2019). There are no details on the “manual thematic analysis” method – did they adopt a specific style of coding, or was it a general vibe? I include a list of potential methodological resources the authors could draw on at the end of my review.

The unclear coding method and unclear lit review method combines to cast doubt on exactly why and how the authors determined their best practice principle and mechanisms. E.g line 303 “One prominent theme that emerged from the literature “. How was this identified as a prominent theme? Was it the relative strength of the theme (qualitative coding/thematic analysis) or the number of codes to indicate strength (quantitative content analysis)? Further, because the authors included both academic literature and grey literature (e.g NGO reports) it’s not possible to determine the validity of the strength of this theme. E.g if strength was determined according to a bunch of NGO reports saying something, this could be less valid than a bunch of academic papers saying something. The authors do not provide their list of 120 articles contained in their final database or any details about their geographic coverage (apart from indicating they largely cover Western legal systems) or which specific countries/jurisdictions are covered.

One glaring omission from the list of best practice principles/mechanisms for me was adequate resourcing. E.g in Australia, a series of Australian National Audit Office reports highlight the lack of resources made available to enable EPBC Act implementation. I’m sure the OECD highlights lack of resourcing to implement environmental laws in a recent report too. Another issue that occurs in Australia, and likely elsewhere, is ambiguity and discretion. It would be good to understand why these issues were not picked up by the review, and if it’s because they’re not important or if it’s an omission due to method.

Some more detailed comments below.

Line 32: “Biodiversity conservation law” - is this a term you are defining or are citing from elsewhere? If the former, make this explicit.

Line 48: both Woinarski 2016 and 2017 are referred to, but only 2017 is in reference list

Line 56: “Even laws drafted to specifically address species extinction….(see for example Woinarski et al. 2016)” - this seems to be referring to the EPBC Act - which has an object relating to conserving biodiversity, but not specifically about extinction, so suggest revising sentence. I think the USA endangered species act may have specific reference to extinction.

Line 181: “threat levels” - is this referring to conservation status? i.e vulnerable, endangered etc?

Line 261 and line 292: “Commentators” - commentators? or authors/scholars? how much of the literature was academic and how much NGO/grey?

Line 304: “mainstreaming” - may also be referred to as horizontal policy integration in the policy literature

Line 361: “Empirical evidence has suggested that protected areas provide the most effective legal mechanism for large-scale biodiversity conservation (Evans, 2016).” - this is an incredible claim, and the reference cited does not provide this evidence

Line 409: “Walsh et al. argued…” - doesn’t this assume there is a federal biodiversity law in addition to/instead of subnational biodiversity laws?

Line 449: unsure why the Reside reference is used to support a statement about private land conservation. Pannell et al. 2017 not included on reference list

Line 447: Land Restoration – need to make explicit that you seem to be considering biodiversity conservation in the terrestrial, not marine or freshwater realm?

Suggested references

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., Sutton, A., 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 10, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110

Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res 15, 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., Aromataris, E., 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Moon, K., Blackman, D.A., Adams, V.M., Colvin, R.M., Davila, F., Evans, M.C., Januchowski‐Hartley, S.R., Bennett, N.J., Dickinson, H., Sandbrook, C., Sherren, K., John, F.A.V.S., Kerkhoff, L. van, Wyborn, C., 2019. Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13126

Moon, K., Brewer, T.D., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Adams, V.M., Blackman, D.A., 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08663-210317

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., Bondas, T., 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences 15, 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Recommendation: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Dr David Roberts

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to revise our paper entitled “Preventing species extinction: Best Practice Mechanisms in Law and Policy”. The comments provided by the reviewers have been very useful in improving the argument and purpose of the paper. We have considered the requests and comments very carefully and we have detailed our responses in the table attached to this submission. Further, we have included a track changes version of our file that demonstrates how each of the comments have been addressed.

Although we have aspired to respond to each comment thoroughly, we have made a significant number of changes to the methodology of the paper. These changes reflect the actual methodology undertaken in the project, and we can appreciate how our previous methodology left the reviewers with some questions. We had deliberately kept this section succinct due to the word limit, however, we have been able to add detail without adding a significant number of words to the original article.

We also added in a section on the rights of nature. Although this was not included in the original paper, it was certainly something addressed by the literature in this area and therefore we felt it was important to include it. We hope you feel that this adds a further dimension to the paper’s findings.

If there are any further changes needed we will be happy to amend the paper further. Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to these comments.

Best wishes,

Katie Woolaston, Callum Brockett, Felicity Deane, Justine Bell-James, Fran Humphries and Amanda Kennedy

Review: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

Referee report: EXT-22-0031.R1 Preventing species extinction: Best practice mechanisms in law and policy.

I reviewed the original submission of this study. This revised version is improved: it has clarified some methodological and interpretational issues, and added some text on matters that were missing or underdone in the original submission.

However, there still seems to be a fundamental mis-match between the objectives (as indicated in the ‘preventing species extinctions’ title) and the approach of the study and interpretation of its results. This study is essentially a trawl through published papers on conservation law, from which some common mechanisms and principles are distilled. My major concerns remain:

(i) there is little in the study explicitly about preventing extinction;

(ii) the justification of ‘best practice’ (mechanisms and principles) is obscure;

(iii) there is no linking of the putative ‘best practice’ mechanisms or principles with an evidence base that these mechanisms or principles affect or determine rates of success or failure in preventing extinction. This lack of presented evidence in relation to extinction outcomes is notwithstanding the explicit claim (lines 11-12) that the paper would highlight linkages to success; and

(iv) there are fatal omissions.

There seems to be retro-fitting of the study to the objective of ‘preventing species extinctions’.

For example, one concern I raised in my previous review was the lack of consideration of biosecurity law. This omission is now referenced in the revision at lines 113, 129, 600-602, with the belated rationale now that ‘it was outside the analysis of this project’ (line 602). Biosecurity law and practice is critical for preventing extinction. 75% of vertebrate species extinctions have been of island species, along with vast numbers of invertebrate extinctions, and 40% of threatened species are island endemics (Régnier et al. 2015a; Régnier et al. 2015b; McCreless et al. 2016). The driving factor of these extinctions has been, and continues to be, the introduction of pest and weed species; and the mechanism to address this threat is biosecurity law. Any review of legislation relating to extinction will be inadequate if this issue is not appropriately considered.

My previous review also noted that legal treatment or inclusion of the principle of intergeneration equity and the precautionary principle was also likely to be foundational for preventing extinction. The omission of these from this study is now noted (at lines 169-171), with the rationale that instead ‘we focus specifically on those principles relevant to biodiversity conservation’. This logic seems wayward given the non-specificity of other principles that are included, such as transparency, inclusivity and review (e.g., lines 167-168). Again, I think the treatment in this submission falls short of the standard required in a review of legal options and mechanisms relevant to preventing species extinction.

One concern I had in my review of the original submission was the lack of consideration of legal rights for biodiversity. The authors have done a good job (lines 540-576) in now rectifying that omission

Minor comments

Lines 21-27. The Abstract would be more informative if it explicitly described the conclusions relating to best practice, rather than vaguely state that these matters will be explored.

Lines 64-65 (and possibly elsewhere). The ordering of references appears haphazard.

Lines 329-338. I like the discussion around ensuring prevention of species extinction as a core priority of law

Lines 483-484: improve on ‘Due to the limited nature imposed by the ‘voluntary’ nature of these mechanisms ...’

Line 519. Replace ‘predominately’ with ‘predominantly’

References cited

McCreless EE, Huff DD, Croll DA, Tershy BR, Spatz DR, Holmes ND, Butchart SH, Wilcox C (2016) Past and estimated future impact of invasive alien mammals on insular threatened vertebrate populations. Nature Communications 7.

Régnier C, Achaz G, Lambert A, Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B (2015a) Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 7761-7766.

Régnier C, Bouchet P, Hayes KA, Yeung NW, Christensen CC, Chung DJD, Fontaine B, Cowie RH (2015b) Extinction in a hyperdiverse endemic Hawaiian land snail family and implications for the underestimation of invertebrate extinction. Conservation Biology 29, 1715-1723.

Review: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank-you for providing me the opportunity to review this manuscript again. I think it is much improved following the authors revisions. I have a few final comments on the revised manuscript.

I was going to say that, despite the author’s inclusion of a clear definition of what they mean by best practice, and good discussion of how best practice doesn’t necessarily mean effective, I’ve still been a bit unsure about the term. I was more assured when I realised best practice was included explicitly in the search string – suggest making a brief explicit flag to this. But the title of “Preventing Species Extinction: Best Practice Mechanisms in Law and Policy” isn’t really consistent with the author’s finding that “the concept of ‘best practice’ law and policy for mechanisms to prevent species extinction was elusive in the literature” and “does not necessarily equate to a reversal in species decline” and “Further, most western countries utilise the same legal mechanisms (also known as policy tools) to reduce extinction”. Given these findings, I’d suggest just shortening the title to “Best Practice Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation Law and Policy” or something that points to the ambiguity in the term, or the broad scope of how you define biodiversity conservation law in lines 36 to 105.

Line 693: “successful threat abatement plans have reduced the deaths of albatross and petrels in Australia.” – there’s no citation provided with evidence to support this statement. There’s also likely conflation between the presence of the instrument (threat abatement plan) and funding available to implement the plan. For example Bottrill et al. 2011 found there was no difference in recovery outcomes for species with or without a recovery plan in Australia – they were unable to assess funding data but this is likely a major contributor.

Line 809: “objective/target” note that in the conservation planning literature, an objective is an overall goal – e.g to prevent species extinctions, whereas a target is a quantitative measure put in place to help evaluate progress, e,g to protect 30% land area – these are two different things. I suggest just clarifying and potentially simplifying the sentence from lines 807 to 811 as it’s quite long. My feeling is you’re referring more to progress against targets. Generally there’s a few too many forward slashes in the manuscript, suggest replacing with “or” as much as possible if that’s the intended meaning.

Line 940: “Empirical evidence has suggested that protected areas can provide an effective legal mechanism for biodiversity conservation: for example, a study monitored populations of manatee in Florida before and after an area was closed to boating, and it found fewer manatee were killed once the area was protected (Evans et al, 2016).”

I’m actually not sure this specific example is that helpful here. The general idea is that an effective protected area deliver an outcome that wouldn’t have occurred in absence of the protection mechanism – that is, there is additionality. i’m guessing if your search was broader you would have gotten into the paper parks/protected area evaluation literature discussion, for example work by Geldmann, Barnes, Rodrigues. I understand that’s out of your scope, but there’s been a huge amount of work evaluating protected area effectiveness at global and national scales using quasi-experimental designs and satellite imagery, that is somewhat trivialised the single manatee in Florida example. So suggest bringing it back to the general idea around additionality.

Line 1066: My comment on the original manuscript referring to land restoration occurring in terrestrial areas may have been unclear. What I meant is, it is not until this section (but actually, the previous section on Land Stewardship) that there is a suggestion that your review is focussing on biodiversity conservation law in the terrestrial realm only. Protected areas and restoration can occur in both the terrestrial and marine realm, but you refer specifically to “land restoration here”. But note you refer to a seabird example early in the manuscript. So I actually think you’ve been fairly agnostic over whether you’re interested in terrestrial, marine or freshwater realms – so I would instead just change “Land restoration” to ecosystem restoration, and perhaps just stewardship instead of land stewardship, or potentially land and sea stewardship. Perhaps you might have gotten more marine results if you added “overexploitation” to your search strings. Whatever your choice, just be clear about your scope and be consistent with terminology.

Recommendation: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R1/PR9

Comments

Both reviewers are concerned that the title and promise of the paper ‘preventing species extinctions’ is mismatched from the mode and scope of the research. I concur and suggest better matching and narrowing the promise in the framing. This referee makes a compelling case that invasive species and hence biosecurity law is a significant omission, as are intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. Please reconsider and / or make the case that these are significant ’future directions’ beyond the scope of this review. Both reviewers make additional important points of clarification that the authors would do well to pay attention to in their review.

Decision: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Referee report: EXT-22-0031.R2 ‘Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy’

I reviewed two previous iterations of this manuscript. To a reasonable extent, the current version has now addressed my major concerns. This draft acknowledges that more consideration of biosecurity law, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle is warranted, but not readily incorporated into the existing study.

I still have some qualms about how ‘best practice’ has been defined. The abstract notes that ‘The purpose of this paper was to evaluate ... legal systems that can be considered successful, or unsuccessful’. However, the paper provides no robust evidence about success or failure, or assessment of the individual and collective contribution of the derived principles and mechanisms to reducing the rate or likelihood of extinction or contributing to biodiversity recovery. Instead, self-identified ‘best practice’ seems to be treated as success, and all principles and mechanisms appear to be treated as equally important. There is also no consideration of the overall extent to which these best practice principles and mechanisms are actually represented in law. It would be useful to include an additional sentence or two on these issues in the introduction or discussion.

Minor comment:

Line 56. Change ‘commonly biodiversity loss’ to ‘commonly cause biodiversity loss’

Recommendation: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R2/PR13

Comments

The reviewers make the final point that needs to be addressed, and that is of the definition of success, and in this MS it is self-defined. This is a low-bar and should be acknowledged as such. Please dd the sentences suggested.

“However, the paper provides no robust evidence about success or failure, or assessment of the individual and collective contribution of the derived principles and mechanisms to reducing the rate or likelihood of extinction or contributing to biodiversity recovery. Instead, self-identified ‘best practice’ seems to be treated as success, and all principles and mechanisms appear to be treated as equally important. There is also no consideration of the overall extent to which these best practice principles and mechanisms are actually represented in law. It would be useful to include an additional sentence or two on these issues in the introduction or discussion.”

Decision: Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.