Improving Environmental and Social Targeting through Adaptive Management in Mexico's Payments for Hydrological Services Program

Natural resource managers are often expected to achieve both environmental protection and economic development even when there are fundamental trade‐offs between these goals. Adaptive management provides a theoretical structure for program administrators to balance social priorities in the presence of trade‐offs and to improve conservation targeting. We used the case of Mexico's federal Payments for Hydrological Services program (PSAH) to illustrate the importance of adaptive management for improving program targeting. We documented adaptive elements of PSAH and corresponding changes in program eligibility and selection criteria. To evaluate whether these changes resulted in enrollment of lands of high environmental and social priority, we compared the environmental and social characteristics of the areas enrolled in the program with the characteristics of all forested areas in Mexico, all areas eligible for the program, and all areas submitted for application to the program. The program successfully enrolled areas of both high ecological and social priority, and over time, adaptive changes in the program's criteria for eligibility and selection led to increased enrollment of land scoring high on both dimensions. Three factors facilitated adaptive management in Mexico and are likely to be generally important for conservation managers: a supportive political environment, including financial backing and encouragement to experiment from the federal government; availability of relatively good social and environmental data; and active participation in the review process by stakeholders and outside evaluators. Mejorando los Objetivos Ambiental y Social Mediante el Manejo Adaptativo en el Programa de Pagos por Servicios Hidrológicos en México     

Trends in biodiversity and habitat quantification tools used for market-based conservation in the United States

Market-based conservation mechanisms are designed to facilitate the mitigation of harm to and conservation of habitats and biodiversity. Their potential is partly hindered, however, by the quantification tools used to assess habitat quality and functionality. Of specific concern are the lack of transparency and standardization in tool development and gaps in tool availability. To address these issues, we collected information via internet and literature searchers and through conversations with tool developers and users on tools used in U.S. conservation mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) and ecolabel programs, conservation banking, and habitat exchanges. We summarized information about tools and explored trends among and within mechanisms based on criteria detailing geographic, ecological, and technical features of tools. We identified 69 tools that assessed at least 34 species and 39 habitat types. Where tools reported pricing, 98% were freely available. More tools were applied to states along the U.S. West Coast than elsewhere, and the level of tool transferability varied markedly among mechanisms. Tools most often incorporated conditions at numerous spatial scales, frequently addressed multiple risks to site viability, and required 1–83 data inputs. Most tools required a moderate or greater level of user skill. Average tool-complexity estimates were similar among all mechanisms except PES programs. Our results illustrate the diversity among tools in their ecological features, data needs, and geographic application, supporting concerns about a lack of standardization. However, consistency among tools in user skill requirements, incorporation of multiple spatial scales, and complexity highlight important commonalities that could serve as a starting point for establishing more standardized tool development and feature-incorporation processes. Greater standardization in tool design may expand market participation and facilitate a needed assessment of the effectiveness of market-based conservation.     

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.     

Policy challenges and approaches for the conservation of mangrove forests in Southeast Asia

Many drivers of mangrove forest loss operate over large scales and are most effectively addressed by policy interventions. However, conflicting or unclear policy objectives exist at multiple tiers of government, resulting in contradictory management decisions. To address this, we considered four approaches that are being used increasingly or could be deployed in Southeast Asia to ensure sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. First, a stronger incorporation of mangroves into marine protected areas (that currently focus largely on reefs and fisheries) could resolve some policy conflicts and ensure that mangroves do not fall through a policy gap. Second, examples of community and government comanagement exist, but achieving comanagement at scale will be important in reconciling stakeholders and addressing conflicting policy objectives. Third, private‐sector initiatives could protect mangroves through existing and novel mechanisms in degraded areas and areas under future threat. Finally, payments for ecosystem services (PES) hold great promise for mangrove conservation, with carbon PES schemes (known as blue carbon) attracting attention. Although barriers remain to the implementation of PES, the potential to implement them at multiple scales exists. Closing the gap between mangrove conservation policies and action is crucial to the improved protection and management of this imperiled coastal ecosystem and to the livelihoods that depend on them.