Strengthening conservation law enforcement: incorporating harm, remediation and plural nature value criteria into an individual-based assessment of biodiversity offence gravity
Biodiversity loss is a pressing global issue, necessitating effective conservation laws and compelling enforcement mechanisms. Yet, implementation issues persist. This study contributes to the development of an individual-based decision tool designed to help judicial authorities accurately assess the gravity of biodiversity offences and the harm inflicted on individual organisms or a specific habitat. Through an extensive survey of expert opinions from 105 conservation biologists, we investigate what harm, remediation, and plural nature value criteria are most critical for the individual-based assessment of the gravity of biodiversity offences. We also identify potential pitfalls involved in the design of a decision tool. Experts identified species-specific traits such as specialization, generation length, and dispersal ability, as well as habitat characteristics like connectivity and natural integrity, as crucial harm criteria. A majority of experts also stressed the importance of remediation criteria that reflect the potential of harm reversal. Nevertheless, key challenges emerged, including the limitations of using single criteria, data insufficiency or uncertainty, and the complexity of combining and weighting these criteria into an overarching gravity score. Experts emphasized the need for a well-defined, distinct, and transparent set of criteria, suggesting that a blend of general and specific criteria might offer a pragmatic solution. Finally, our analysis also addressed value-laden implications, revealing that a plurality of underlying reasons for valuing biodiversity profoundly shapes how biodiversity offences are perceived.