Contrasting Colonist and Indigenous Impacts on Amazonian Forests

Abstract: To examine differences in land use and environmental impacts between colonist and indigenous populations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, we combined data from household surveys and remotely sensed imagery that was collected from 778 colonist households in 64 colonization sectors, and 499 households from five indigenous groups in 36 communities. Overall, measures of deforestation and forest fragmentation were significantly greater for colonists than indigenous peoples. On average, colonist households had approximately double the area in agriculture and cash crops and 5.5 times the area in pasture as indigenous households. Nevertheless, substantial variation in land‐use patterns existed among the five indigenous groups in measures such as cattle ownership and use of hired agricultural labor. These findings support the potential conservation value of indigenous lands while cautioning against uniform policies that homogenize indigenous ethnic groups.     

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management‐context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context‐specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision‐making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.     

Alignment between values of dryland pastoralists and conservation needs for small mammals

Policies for conservation outside protected areas, such as those designed to address the decline in Australian mammals, will not result in net improvements unless they address barriers to proenvironmental behavior. We used a mixed‐methods approach to explore potential value‐action gaps (disconnects between values and subsequent action) for small mammal conservation behaviors among pastoralists in dryland Australia. Using semistructured surveys and open‐ended interviews (n = 43), we explored values toward small mammals; uptake of a range of current and intended actions that may provide benefit to small mammals; and potential perceived barriers to their uptake. Pastoralists assigned great conservation value to small mammals; over 80% (n = 36) agreed to strongly agreed that small mammals on their property were important. These values did not translate into stated willingness to engage in voluntary cessation of wild‐dog control (r² = 0.187, p = 0.142, n = 43). However, assigning great conservation value to small mammals was strongly related to stated voluntary willingness to engage in the proenvironmental behavior most likely to result in benefits to small mammals: cat and fox control (r² = 0.558, p = 0.000, n = 43). There was no significant difference between stated voluntarily and incentivized willingness to engage in cat and fox control (p = 0.862, n = 43). The high levels of willingness to engage in voluntary cat and fox control highlight a potential entry point for addressing Australia's mammal declines because the engagement of pastoralists in conservation programs targeting cat and fox control is unlikely to be prevented by attitudinal constraints. Qualitative data suggest there is likely a subpopulation of pastoralists who value small mammals but do not wish to engage in formal conservation programs due to relational barriers with potential implementers. A long‐term commitment to engagement with pastoralists by implementers will thus be necessary for conservation success. On‐property cat and fox control programs that build and leverage trust, shared goals, collaboration, and shared learning experiences between stakeholders and that explicitly recognize the complexity of small mammal dynamics and the property‐level ecological knowledge of pastoralists are more likely to gain traction.     

Equity trade‐offs in conservation decision making

Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade‐offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill‐defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation.     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.     

Framing the ecosystem concept through a longitudinal study of developments in science and policy

This paper examines how scientific literature and policy documents frame the ecosystem concept and how these frames have shaped scientific dialogue and policy making over time. This was achieved by developing a frame typology, as a basis for organizing relevant value expressions, to assess how different frames have altered perspectives of the ecosystem concept. The frame typology and analysis is based on a semi‐grounded and longitudinal document analysis of scientific literature and policy documents using the ecosystem concept. Despite changing discourses and public priorities (e.g., cultural constructs of biodiversity) both science and policy documents are characterized by stable value systems that have not changed substantially since the 1930s. These value systems were defined based on ethical principles that delineate 6 core frames: humans first, dual systems, eco‐science, eco‐holism, animals first, and multicentrism. Specific crises (e.g., climate change) and cross‐disciplinary uptake and re‐uptake of, for example, the ecosystem services concept, have brought new perspectives to the forefront of public discourse. These developments triggered changes in the core frames that, rather than being value based, are based on how the ecosystem is conceptualized under fixed value systems and over time. Fourteen subframes were developed to reflect these longitudinal changes. There are as such clear framing effects in both scientific literature and in policy. Ecosystem research is for instance often characterized by unstated value judgments even though the scientific community does not make these explicit. In contrast, policy documents are characterized by clear value expressions but are principally management driven and human centered.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Geography of conservation spending,biodiversity, and culture

We used linear and multivariate models to examine the associations between geography, biodiversity, per capita economic output, national spending on conservation, governance, and cultural traits in 55 countries. Cultural traits and social metrics of modernization correlated positively with national spending on conservation. The global distribution of this spending culture was poorly aligned with the distribution of biodiversity. Specifically, biodiversity was greater in the tropics where cultures tended to spend relatively less on conservation and tended to have higher collectivism, formalized and hierarchical leadership, and weaker governance. Consequently, nations lacking social traits frequently associated with modernization, environmentalism, and conservation spending have the largest component of Earth's biodiversity. This has significant implications for setting policies and priorities for resource management given that biological diversity is rapidly disappearing and cultural traits change slowly. Therefore, we suggest natural resource management adapt to and use characteristics of existing social organization rather than wait for or promote social values associated with conservation spending. Supporting biocultural traditions, engaging leaders to increase conservation commitments, cross‐national efforts that complement attributes of cultures, and avoiding interference with nature may work best to conserve nature in collective and hierarchical societies. Spending in modernized nations may be a symbolic response to a symptom of economic development and environmental degradation, and here conservation actions need to ensure that biodiversity is not being lost.     

The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union

Europe is a region of relatively high population density and productive agriculture subject to substantial government intervention under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Many habitats and species of high conservation interest have been created by the maintenance of agricultural practices over long periods. These practices are often no longer profitable, and nature conservation initiatives require government support to cover the cost for them to be continued. The CAP has been reformed both to reduce production of agricultural commodities at costs in excess of world prices and to establish incentives for landholders to adopt voluntary conservation measures. A separate nature conservation policy has established an extensive series of protected sites (Natura 2000) that has, as yet, failed to halt the loss of biodiversity. Additional broader scale approaches have been advocated for conservation in the wider landscape matrix, including the alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies, which remains a challenge. Possibilities for alignment include further shifting of funds from general support for farmers toward targeted payments for biodiversity goals at larger scales and adoption of an ecosystem approach. The European response to the competing demands for land resources may offer lessons globally as demands on rural land increase.     

Alternative Perspectives on the Sustainability of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries

Many believe commercial fisheries in Alaska (U.S.A.) are sustainability success stories, but ongoing socioeconomic problems across the state raise questions about how this sustainability is being defined and evaluated. Problems such as food insecurity and the disenfranchisement of Alaska Natives from fishing rights are well documented, yet these concerns are obscured by marketing campaigns that convey images of flourishing fishing communities and initiatives to certify Alaska's fisheries as responsibly managed. Fisheries management mandates and approaches built on such metrics and technologies as maximum sustainable yield and systems of tradable quotas actually serve to constrain, circumscribe, and marginalize some Alaskans’ opportunities for effecting change in how the benefits of these fisheries are allocated. Beneath the narrative of sustainability, these management technologies perpetuate a cognitive ecological model of sustainability that is oriented to single‐species outcomes, that casts people as parasites, and thus assumes the necessity of trade‐offs between biological and social goals. Alternative cognitive models are available that draw metaphors from different ecological concepts such as keystone species and mutualisms. Such models, when used to inform management approaches, may improve societal outcomes in Alaska and elsewhere by promoting food security and sustainability through diversified natural resource harvest strategies that are more flexible and responsive to environmental variability and change. Perspectivas Alternativas sobre la Sustentabilidad de las Pesquerías Comerciales en Alaska     

Quantifying current and potential contributions of Australian indigenous peoples to threatened species management

Formal engagement of indigenous peoples in conservation is increasing globally and leads to multiple benefits to communities while contributing to national and international biodiversity goals and obligations. This and ongoing declines in biodiversity have led to calls to increase opportunities for indigenous people to engage in managing their estates. However, there is no overarching understanding of indigenous peoples’ involvement in conservation, which limits the identification of new opportunities. We amalgamated information across governments and large nongovernmental organizations in the megadiverse country of Australia to quantify the involvement of indigenous people in management of threatened species. We identified 153 Australian‐based projects undertaken by different indigenous groups around the nation in 2015 and 2016 that included explicit funds for management of threatened species or threatened ecosystems. Most were in remote parts of western and northern Australia. Almost one‐quarter of all threatened animals and 2% of threatened plants were the subject of some formal conservation action by indigenous people. Occurrence records for 1574 threatened species showed that 823 (89.2%) of 923 species recorded on indigenous peoples’ lands were not listed in management projects. This gap may represent new opportunities for conservation initiatives. Because at least 59.5% of Australia's threatened species occur on indigenous peoples’ lands, efforts to build appropriate and effective indigenous conservation alliances are vital. However, it is also important to recognize that threatened species are part of complex social, ecological, economic and cultural systems, and to achieve successful outcomes requires consideration of indigenous peoples’ priorities, rights, and obligations and relationships with their traditionally owned land and sea.     

Major shifts in Amazon wildlife populations from recent intensification of floods and drought

In the western Amazon Basin, recent intensification of river‐level cycles has increased flooding during the wet seasons and decreased precipitation during the dry season. Greater than normal floods occurred in 2009 and in all years from 2011 to 2015 during high‐water seasons, and a drought occurred during the 2010 low‐water season. During these years, we surveyed populations of terrestrial, arboreal, and aquatic wildlife in a seasonally flooded Amazonian forest in the Loreto region of Peru (99,780 km²) to study the effects of intensification of natural climatic fluctuations on wildlife populations and in turn effects on resource use by local people. Shifts in fish and terrestrial mammal populations occurred during consecutive years of high floods and the drought of 2010. As floods intensified, terrestrial mammal populations decreased by 95%. Fish, waterfowl, and otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) abundances increased during years of intensive floods, whereas river dolphin and caiman populations had stable abundances. Arboreal species, including, macaws, game birds, primates, felids, and other arboreal mammals had stable populations and were not affected directly by high floods. The drought of 2010 had the opposite effect: fish, waterfowl, and dolphin populations decreased, and populations of terrestrial and arboreal species remained stable. Ungulates and large rodents are important sources of food and income for local people, and large declines in these animals has shifted resource use of people living in the flooded forests away from hunting to a greater reliance on fish.