ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Poor compliance and exemptions facilitate ongoing deforestation.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A framework for maximizing the benefit from retaining regrowth on private land.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Poor compliance and exemptions facilitate ongoing deforestation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many nations are struggling to reduce deforestation, despite having extensive environmental protection laws in place and commitments to international agreements that address the biodiversity and climate crises. We developed a novel framework to quantify the extent to which contemporary deforestation is being captured under national and subnational laws. We then applied this framework to northern Australia as a case study, a development and deforestation hotspot with ecosystems of global significance. First, deforestation may be compliant under all relevant legislation, either through assessment and approval or because of exemptions in the legislation. Second, deforestation may be compliant under at least one relevant law, but not all. Third, there may be no evidence of deforestation assessment or exemption from assessment, despite their apparent requirement, which could mean the deforestation is potentially noncompliant. Finally, deforestation may occur in an area or under circumstances that are beyond the intended scope of any relevant legislation. All deforestation that we analyzed was hypothetically covered by one or more laws. However, 65% of deforestation was potentially noncompliant with at least one law. Because multiple laws could be relevant to a given clearing event, the majority of clearing was still compliant with at least one law, but of these events, only a small proportion was explicitly approved (19%). The remaining were permitted under various exemptions. Of all the legislation we analyzed, most of the exempt clearing occurred under one subnational law and most potentially noncompliant clearing occurred under one national law. Our results showed that even a nation with a suite of mature environmental protection laws is falling well short of achieving international commitments regarding deforestation. Our framework can be used to pinpoint the pathways of policy change required for nations to align local laws with these international accords.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.