Guidelines for selecting an appropriate currency in biodiversity offset transactions.

When designing biodiversity offset transactions, selecting the appropriate currency for measuring losses and gains to biodiversity is crucial. Poorly designed currencies reduce the likelihood that the proposed offset will sufficiently compensate for the development impact on the affected biota. We present a framework for identifying appropriate offset currencies for terrestrial biodiversity features, either vegetation communities or particular species. The guidelines were developed based on a review of issues and solutions presented in the existing literature, including government policies and guidance. We assert that while benchmark-based condition scores provide a suitable offset transaction currency for vegetation communities, this approach is also commonly applied to individual species based on the often-unproven assumption that vegetation quality is a proxy for the value of a site to that species. We argue that species are better served by species-specific currencies based on either species abundance, or the suitability and amount of the habitat available. For species where it is practical and meaningful to measure the abundance on site, an abundance-based currency using either directly observable or proxy indicators is the most representative measure of the net impact on the species. In other instances, such as when species are difficult to locate, or not reliably present on site, a currency based on the quality and amount of habitat is preferable. The habitat-quality component should be measured relative to its value for the species, with the most important attributes weighted accordingly. Ensuring the currency used in biodiversity offset transactions is practical to measure, and relevant to the species or vegetation community is an important step in minimising the net biodiversity losses from unavoidable impacts.

Biological, ecological, conservation and legal information for all species and subspecies of Australian bird.

We introduce a dataset of biological, ecological, conservation and legal information for every species and subspecies of Australian bird, 2056 taxa or populations in total. Version 1 contains 230 fields grouped under the following headings: Taxonomy & nomenclature, Phylogeny, Australian population status, Conservation status, Legal status, Distribution, Morphology, Habitat, Food, Behaviour, Breeding, Mobility and Climate metrics. It is envisaged that the dataset will be updated periodically with new data for existing fields and the addition of new fields. The dataset has already had, and will continue to have applications in Australian and international ornithology, especially those that require standard information for a large number of taxa.

Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets.

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of conservation efforts and now cover nearly 13% of the world's land surface, with the world's governments committed to expand this to 17%. However, as biodiversity continues to decline, the effectiveness of PAs in reducing the extinction risk of species remains largely untested. We analyzed PA coverage and trends in species' extinction risk at globally significant sites for conserving birds (10,993 Important Bird Areas, IBAs) and highly threatened vertebrates and conifers (588 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, AZEs) (referred to collectively hereafter as 'important sites'). Species occurring in important sites with greater PA coverage experienced smaller increases in extinction risk over recent decades: the increase was half as large for bird species with>50% of the IBAs at which they occur completely covered by PAs, and a third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted to protected AZEs (compared with unprotected or partially protected sites). Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45-1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79-1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction, recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. We conclude that better targeted expansion of PA networks would help to improve biodiversity trends.