Conservation initiatives ignore climate risks: Research

New research suggests many initiatives to prevent biodiversity loss on private land are ineffective as they typically ignore climate risks.

A group of researchers from The University of Queensland, University of New England, and Queensland University of Technology analysed the two most common means of preventing overall biodiversity loss on private land in Australia - biodiversity offsets and voluntary conservation programs.

The researchers looked at 77 policy documents related to nine biodiversity offset policies and 11 voluntary conservation programs. They found that the overwhelming majority (84%) did not consider the impact of climate change.

Of the 12 documents considered climate informed, most of which were from South Australia or New South Wales. Interestingly, none of the documents published by the Commonwealth of Australia, Tasmania, or Western Australia even mentioned climate change or related phrases.

Further, just 44% of biodiversity offset policies and 27% of the conservation programs considered climate risk. It was the more recent policy documents that tended to do so.

Just two policy documents considered extreme climate events, such as fire and drought.

Overall, just 23% of policy documents underpinning voluntary private land conservation frameworks and 11% underpinning biodiversity offset frameworks were considered by the researchers to be climate informed.

In the documents, the most common climate adaptation strategies were safeguarding climate refuges; connecting habitat so wildlife can escape extreme weather and other events; targeted funding; and avoiding offset sites vulnerable to climate threats.

However, the researchers said that where the policies did flag possible actions like these, most lacked the detail or tools required to ensure the policies could actually be implemented correctly.

The researchers offered three practical steps to ensure conservation efforts were effective and could result in lasting change.

First, in relation to identifying and protecting climate refuges, they said refuges need to be mapped, prioritised and supported with protections and incentives. Conservation programs could also be reworked to specifically incentivise landholders to restore refuges on their land.

This suggestion was made after the analysis found protecting climate refuges by restricting land clearing or other damaging activities to be one of the more popular climate adaptation strategies. It was featured in six policy documents, yet few documents explained where these places are or how to protect them. Others said investments should target these areas, but didn't explain how funding would be prioritised.

Second, they said more should be done to promote the actions that build resilience. This would include increased funding commitments and strengthened conservation guidelines. Financial incentives and technical support could also be offered to landholders. Actual activities could include planting species more likely to survive future climates, they said.

Finally, they said climate change needs must link policy to action.

"Our research found a clear gap between high-level intent and guidelines for on-ground actions. If they don't line up, then conservation efforts risk falling short. Field programs may lack legal backing, or legislation may not translate into action where it matters most," they said.

"Climate change should be considered at all levels of conservation policies - from high-level legislation to guidelines for implementing individual programs."

The researchers were Yi Fei Chung, Martine Maron, Michael Drielsma, and Jonathan R. Rhodes.