Methods for calculating Protection Equality for conservation planning

Protected Areas (PAs) are a central part of biodiversity conservation strategies around the world. Today, PAs cover c15% of the Earth’s land mass and c3% of the global oceans. These numbers are expected to grow rapidly to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity target 11, which aims to see 17% and 10% of terrestrial and marine biomes protected, respectively, by 2020. This target also requires countries to ensure that PAs protect an “ecologically representative” sample of their biodiversity. At present, there is no clear definition of what desirable ecological representation looks like, or guidelines of how to standardize its assessment as the PA estate grows. We propose a systematic approach to measure ecological representation in PA networks using the Protection Equality (PE) metric, which measures how equally ecological features, such as habitats, within a country’s borders are protected. Extending research in Barr et al. (2011), we present an R package and two Protection Equality (PE) measures; proportional to area PE, and fixed area PE, which measure the representativeness of a country’s PA network. We illustrate the PE metrics with two case studies: coral reef protection across countries and ecoregions in the Coral Triangle, and representation of ecoregions of six of the largest countries in the world. Our results provide repeatable transparency to the issue of representation in PA networks and provide a starting point for further discussion, evaluation and testing of representation metrics. They also highlight clear shortcomings in current PA networks, particularly where they are biased towards certain assemblage types or habitats. Our proposed metrics should be used to report on measuring progress towards the representation component of Aichi Target 11. The PE metrics can be used to measure the representation of any kind of ecological feature including: species, ecoregions, processes or habitats

Thriving or Surviving? Forester Adaptations to Parcelization in New York State

Consulting forester business practices are challenged by significant decreases in the sizes of private forest properties and the changes in landowner values that accompany forestland parcelization. Though researchers have discussed the potential ways entrepreneurial foresters could adapt to these new ownership patterns and landscape dynamics, actual responses by foresters working in parcelizing landscapes are largely undocumented. We conducted twenty in-depth interviews with foresters working in New York State to determine (1) how foresters have experienced parcelization of properties they work with, (2) what challenges are associated with forestry projects on decreasing property sizes, and (3) what kinds of changes foresters are making to adapt to decreasing property sizes. We found that foresters across the state observe decreasing sizes of forest properties and see values of forest owners shifting beyond timber production, although most do not consider these changes to be the most urgent challenges to sustainable forestry and profitable forest consulting. Professional foresters are reacting to parcelization in diverse ways; while some are trying entrepreneurial approaches to reach new clients or offer different services, others are primarily interested in maintaining their traditional practices and roles. These findings indicate that strictly relying on independent entrepreneurial responses by private foresters may not be sufficient to close the gap between the historical role of consulting foresters and the trajectory of modern forest parcels. Additional measures like specialized training and policy changes may also be required to address the management challenges associated with forestland parcelization

Public access to spatial data on private-land conservation

Information is critical for environmental governance. The rise of digital mapping has the potential to advance private-land conservation by assisting with conservation planning, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. However, privacy concerns from private landowners and the capacity of conservation entities can influence efforts to track spatial data. We examine public access to geospatial data on conserved private lands and the reasons data are available or unavailable. We conduct a qualitative comparative case study based on analysis of maps, documents, and interviews. We compare four conservation programs involving different conservation tools: conservation easements (the growing but incomplete National Conservation Easement Database), regulatory mitigation (gaps in tracking U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species habitat mitigation), contract payments (lack of spatial data on U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program due to Farm Bill restrictions), and property-tax incentives (online mapping of Wisconsin's managed forest tax program). These cases illuminate the capacity and privacy reasons for current incomplete or inaccessible spatial data and the politics of mapping private land. If geospatial data are to contribute fully to planning, evaluation, and accountability, we recommend improving information system capacity, enhancing learning networks, and reducing legal and administrative barriers to information access, while balancing the right to information and the right to privacy

Who owns the Brazilian carbon?

Brazil is one of the major contributors to land-use change emissions, mostly driven by agricultural expansion for food, feed and bioenergy feedstock. Policies to avoid deforestation related to private commitments, economic incentives, and other support schemes are expected to improve the effectiveness of current command and control mechanisms increasingly. However, until recently, land tenure was unknown for much of the Brazilian territory, which has undermined the governance of native vegetation and challenged support and incentive mechanisms for avoiding deforestation. We assess the total extent of public governance mechanisms protecting aboveground carbon (AGC) stocks. We constructed a land tenure dataset for the entire nation and modeled the effects and uncertainties of major land-use acts on protecting AGC stocks. Roughly 70% of the AGC stock in Brazil is estimated to be under legal protection, and an additional 20% is expected to be protected after areas in the Amazon with currently undesignated land undergo a tenure regularization. About 30% of the AGC stock is on private land, of which roughly two-thirds are protected. The Cerrado, Amazon and Caatinga biomes hold about 40%, 30% and 20% of the unprotected AGC, respectively. Effective conservation of protected and unprotected carbon will depend on successful implementation of the Forest Act, and regularization of land tenure in the Amazon. Policy development that prioritizes unprotected AGC stocks is warranted to promote conservation of native vegetation beyond the legal requirements. However, different biomes and land tenure structures may require different policy settings considering local and regional specifics. Finally, the fate of current AGC stocks relies upon effective implementation of command and control mechanisms, considering that unprotected AGC in native vegetation on private land only accounts for 6.5% of the total AGC stock