Prioritizing debt conversion opportunities for marine conservation

Incentivized debt conversion is a financing mechanism that can assist countries with a heavy debt burden to bolster their long-term domestic investment in nature conservation. The Nature Conservancy, an international conservation-based nongovernmental organization, is adapting debt conversions to support marine conservation efforts by small island developing states and coastal countries. Prioritizing debt conversion opportunities according to their potential return on investment can increase the impact and effectiveness of this finance mechanism. We developed guidance on how to do so with a decision-support approach that relies on a novel threat-based adaptation of cost-effectiveness analysis. We constructed scenarios by varying parameters of the approach, including enabling conditions, expected benefits, and threat classifications. Incorporating both abatable and unabatable threats affected priorities across planning scenarios. Similarly, differences in scenario construction resulted in unique solution sets for top priorities. We show how environmental organizations, private entities, and investment banks can adopt structured prioritization frameworks for making decisions about conservation finance investments, such as debt conversions. Our guidance can accommodate a suite of social, ecological, and economic considerations, making the approach broadly applicable to other conservation finance mechanisms or investment strategies that seek to establish a transparent process for return-on-investment decision-making.     

Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.     

Water Planning and Hydro-Climatic Change in the Murray-Darling Basin,Australia

More than a third of humanity lives in regions with less than 1 million liters of fresh water per person per year. Population growth will increase water demand while climate change in arid and semi-arid areas may reduce water availability. The Murray-Darling Basin in Australia is a region where water reform and planning have been used to reduce consumptive extraction to better sustain river ecosystems under climate variability. Using actual data and previously published models that account for climate variability and climate change, the trade-off between water extractions and water essential to the long-term ecological function of river systems is analysed. The findings indicate that better water planning and a more complete understanding of the effects of irrigation on regional climate evapotranspiration could: (1) increase the overall benefits of consumptive and non-consumptive water use; (2) improve riparian environments under climate variability; and (3) be achieved with only small effects on the profits and gross value of food and fiber production.     

How long can fisheries management delay action in response to ecosystem and climate change?

Sustainable management of fisheries is often compromised by management delaying implementation of regulations that reduce harvest, in order to maintain higher catches in the short-term. Decreases or increases in fish population growth rate driven by environmental change, including ecosystem and climate change, affect the harvest that can be taken sustainably. If not acted on rapidly, environmental change could result in unsustainable fishing or missed opportunity for higher catches. Using simulation models of harvested fish populations influenced by environmental change, we explore how long fisheries managers can afford to wait before changing harvest regulations in response to changes in population growth. If environmental change causes population declines, delays greater than five years increase the probability of population collapse. Species with fast and highly variable population growth rates are more susceptible to collapse under delays and should be a priority for revised management where delays occur. Generally, the long-term cost of delay, in terms of lost fishing opportunity, exceeds the short-term benefits of overfishing. Lowering harvest limits and monitoring for environmental change can alleviate the impact of delays; however, these measures may be more costly than reducing delays. We recommend that management systems that allow rapid responses to population growth changes be enacted for fisheries management to adapt to ecosystem and climate change.     

A habitat‐based approach to predict impacts of marine protected areas on fishers

Although marine protected areas can simultaneously contribute to biodiversity conservation and fisheries management, the global network is biased toward particular ecosystem types because they have been established primarily in an ad hoc fashion. The optimization of trade‐offs between biodiversity benefits and socioeconomic values increases success of protected areas and minimizes enforcement costs in the long run, but it is often neglected in marine spatial planning (MSP). Although the acquisition of spatially explicit socioeconomic data is perceived as a costly or secondary step in MSP, it is critical to account for lost opportunities by people whose activities will be restricted, especially fishers. We developed an easily reproduced habitat‐based approach to estimate the spatial distribution of opportunity cost to fishers in data‐poor regions. We assumed the most accessible areas have higher economic and conservation values than less accessible areas and their designation as no‐take zones represents a loss of fishing opportunities. We estimated potential distribution of fishing resources from bathymetric ranges and benthic habitat distribution and the relative importance of the different resources for each port of total catches, revenues, and stakeholder perception. In our model, we combined different cost layers to produce a comprehensive cost layer so that we could evaluate of trade‐offs. Our approach directly supports conservation planning, can be applied generally, and is expected to facilitate stakeholder input and community acceptance of conservation.     

Controlling range expansion in habitat networks by adaptively targeting source populations

Controlling the spread of invasive species, pests, and pathogens is often logistically limited to interventions that target specific locations at specific periods. However, in complex, highly connected systems, such as marine environments connected by ocean currents, populations spread dynamically in both space and time via transient connectivity links. This results in nondeterministic future distributions of species in which local populations emerge dynamically and concurrently over a large area. The challenge, therefore, is to choose intervention locations that will maximize the effectiveness of the control efforts. We propose a novel method to manage dynamic species invasions and outbreaks that identifies the intervention locations most likely to curtail population expansion by selectively targeting local populations most likely to expand their future range. Critically, at any point during the development of the invasion or outbreak, the method identifies the local intervention that maximizes the long‐term benefit across the ecosystem by restricting species’ potential to spread. In so doing, the method adaptively selects the intervention targets under dynamically changing circumstances. To illustrate the effectiveness of the method we applied it to controlling the spread of crown‐of‐thorns starfish (Acanthaster sp.) outbreaks across Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Application of our method resulted in an 18‐fold relative improvement in management outcomes compared with a random targeting of reefs in putative starfish control scenarios. Although we focused on applying the method to reducing the spread of an unwanted species, it can also be used to facilitate the spread of desirable species through connectivity networks. For example, the method could be used to select those fragments of habitat most likely to rebuild a population if they were sufficiently well protected.     

Geographic bias in citation rates of conservation research

We investigated whether the impact of conservation science is greater for research conducted in countries with more pressing conservation problems. We quantified research impact for 231 countries based on 2 citation metrics (mean cites per paper and h index) and fitted models predicting research impact based on number of threatened bird and mammal species (as a measure of conservation importance of a country) and a range of demographic variables. Citation rates of conservation research increased as a country's conservation need increased and as human population, quality of governance, and wealth increased. Even after accounting for these factors, citation rates among regions and countries within regions varied significantly. The conservation research community needs to consider ways to begin addressing the entrenched disadvantages some countries have when it comes to initiating projects and producing high‐quality research.