Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078694›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023

Best practice mechanisms for biodiversity conservation law and policy.

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

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Callum BrockettFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Katie WoolastonFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7652-9347
Felicity DeaneFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Fran HumphriesFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ethan KumarFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Amanda KennedyFaculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Justine Bell-JamesTC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

best practicegood governancelawpolicyregulation

Identifiers

PMID40078694
PMCPMC11895744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.