Maintaining landholder satisfaction and management of private protected areas established under conservation agreements

Progress developing the concept of other effective area-based conservation measures

In 2010, the introduction of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) into international policy caused a paradigm shift in area-based conservation, which included consideration of areas outside formal protected areas and places where biodiversity conservation may not be a management objective for the site. Despite the importance of this shift for global conservation, conservation science and policy have been slow to engage with the concept of OECMs. As the world moves toward protecting 30% of the Earth by 2030, it is imperative to develop evidence-based guidance for how to identify effective conservation measures, especially tools to help evaluate and monitor the biodiversity outcomes associated with potential OECMs. To understand the current progress in developing the concept of OECMs, I evaluated the peer-reviewed literature to consolidate and synthesize current knowledge. I conducted a thematic analysis of papers to identify the types of challenges and opportunities being discussed and lessons from studies evaluating the effectiveness of OECMs. Only 105 studies mentioned OECMs, and those that did rarely move beyond superficial mention of OECMs as part of area-based conservation. Around one-half of studies listed potential risks or benefits of OECMs but none provided evidence these issues have materialized. Twenty-three studies attempted to identify potential OECMs, although specific case studies were rare. The 7 studies that evaluated existing OECMs were highly critical of how they had been implemented to date. Studies that evaluated conservation outcomes were extremely rare, and suggested effectiveness must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The current literature not only leaves many gaps in the science required to operationalize the concept of OECMs, but also often raises additional questions that need to be addressed. If these gaps are not filled by robust science, the promised benefits for biodiversity from OECMs may never be realized.

Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002-2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover ("avoided loss", 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover ("regeneration", 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%-3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138-180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%-1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19-97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of 'net gain' (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of considering self-selection bias in the design and evaluation of regulatory biodiversity offsetting policy, and the challenges of conducting robust impact evaluations of jurisdictional biodiversity offsetting policies.

A legal assessment of private land conservation in South America

Privately protected areas (PPAs) are a potentially innovative conservation tool. Legal recognition is necessary for their success, especially where there are institutional challenges to nature conservation, such as in South America. Although PPAs have increased in South America since the early 2000s, there is a critical information gap pertaining to their legal frameworks. We analyzed the level of landowner commitment to and governmental support for PPAs across countries in South America that officially recognize PPAs. We analyzed the legal framework governing PPAs and reviewed literature on them. This process was done in English and Spanish. The information we gathered was validated by 16 conservation experts from 10 South American countries. Because Peru is 1 of only 2 South American countries where local communities create and manage PPAs, we studied Peruvian PPAs in more detail by examining official creation documents and interviewing 13 local conservation professionals. We found inadequate minimum duration of PPAs and vague guidelines for conducting economic activities within them and a lack of governmental support (e.g., financial and technical support) for PPAs. Support was limited to the exemption from rural property taxes, which are relatively low compared with countries outside South America. In Peru, PPAs run by individuals and communities needed different legal frameworks because they were created with different objectives and had different sizes and duration of commitments. The prompt improvement of legal frameworks across South America is necessary for PPAs to achieve their aim of being places for enduring nature conservation in the region.

A Bibliometric Analysis on Conservation Land Trust and Implication for China

Modern land protection and biodiversity conservation depend greatly on the application of land trust. With the accelerated development of land trust organizations, the land trust has become the most effective land conservation method. Land trusts have been widely used in the ecological protection of nature reserves abroad and have achieved remarkable results. The research on international land trusts has important reference value for the innovation of ecological protection models of China's nature reserves. This study aims to explore the research hotspots of international land trust conservation, clarify the evolution of related knowledge, and provide a reference for domestically related theoretical research and practical work. The research results show the following: (1) From the perspective of the publication trend, the number of international research publications increased exponentially from 1997 to 2021, and the research involves a wide range of disciplines. (2) In terms of research hotspots, land trust and private land protection, the impact of and response to climate change, and the trust mechanism in collaborative governance constitute three hot research topics. (3) From the knowledge base of the research, the international land trust research has formed seven knowledge clusters with clear boundaries, and five key documents with the theme of conservation easements constitute an important knowledge base in this field. (4) Land trust conservation easement as private law can effectively make up for the deficiency of public law. These findings can provide help and reference for domestic land conservation, as well as the reform of China's ecological civilization system.