Biodiversity conservation policy in megadiverse countries: Comparing policy systems for 2020 targets to inform management in the coming decades

2022 ◽  
Vol 302 ◽  
pp. 113815
Author(s):  
Kelly Dunning
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Policy Systems

Reviewing the role of habitat banking and tradable development rights in the conservation policy mix

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
RUI SANTOS ◽  
CHRISTOPH SCHRÖTER-SCHLAACK ◽  
PAULA ANTUNES ◽  
IRENE RING ◽  
PEDRO CLEMENTE
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Time Lags ◽  
Policy Mix ◽  
Biodiversity Offsets ◽  
Development Rights

SUMMARYHabitat banking and tradable development rights (TDR) have gained considerable currency as a way of achieving ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity and of reconciling nature conservation with economic development goals. This paper reviews the use of these instruments for biodiversity conservation and assesses their roles in the policy mix. The two instruments are compared in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, social impact, institutional context and legal requirements. The role in the policy mix is discussed highlighting sequential relationships, as well as complementarities or synergies, redundancy and conflicts with other instruments, such as biodiversity offsets and land-use zoning.Habitat banking and TDR have the potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation objectives and attain cost-effective solutions with positive social impacts on local communities and landowners. They can also help to create a new mind-set more favourable to public-private cooperation in biodiversity conservation. At the same time, these policy instruments face a number of theoretical and implementation challenges, such as additionality and equivalence of offsets, endurance of land-use planning regulations, monitoring of offset performance, or time lags between restoration and resulting conservation benefits.A clear, enforceable regulatory approach is a prerequisite for the success of habitat banking and TDR. In return, these schemes provide powerful incentives for compliance with regulatory norms and ensure a more equitable allocation of the benefits and costs of land-use controls and conservation. Environmentally harmful subsidies in other policy sectors as well as alternative offset options, however, reduce the attractiveness and effectiveness of these instruments. Thus, the overall performance of habitat banking and TDR hinges on how they are integrated into the biodiversity conservation policy mix and fine-tuned with other sectoral policies.

scholarly journals A Call for International Leadership and Coordination to Realize the Potential of Conservation Technology

BioScience ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (10) ◽  
pp. 823-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
José J Lahoz-Monfort ◽  
Iadine Chadès ◽  
Alasdair Davies ◽  
Eric Fegraus ◽  
Edward Game ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Emerging Technology ◽  
Conservation Action ◽  
International Leadership ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
International Alliance ◽  
Conservation Technology

AbstractAdvancing technology represents an unprecedented opportunity to enhance our capacity to conserve the Earth's biodiversity. However, this great potential is failing to materialize and rarely endures. We contend that unleashing the power of technology for conservation requires an internationally coordinated strategy that connects the conservation community and policy-makers with technologists. We argue an international conservation technology entity could (1) provide vision and leadership, (2) coordinate and deliver key services necessary to ensure translation from innovation to effective deployment and use of technology for on-the-ground conservation across the planet, and (3) help integrate innovation into biodiversity conservation policy from local to global scales, providing tools to monitor outcomes of conservation action and progress towards national and international biodiversity targets. This proposed entity could take the shape of an international alliance of conservation institutions or a formal intergovernmental institution. Active and targeted uptake of emerging technology can help society achieve biodiversity conservation goals.

Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 2979-2994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Anton ◽  
Juliette Young ◽  
Paula A. Harrison ◽  
Martin Musche ◽  
Györgyi Bela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Research Needs

scholarly journals The Imperial Mind and Biodiversity Conservation: Historical perspective on current debates in biodiversity conservation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-81
Author(s):  
Angus Wright
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conservation Policy ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Wild Populations ◽  
Land Sharing ◽  
Land Sparing ◽  
Adequate Food

Biodiversity conservation debates have recently been summarized in the phrase, “land-sparing versus land-sharing.” In the land sparing camp are those who seek policies to put as much of the earth’s surface as possible into “protected areas” in which agriculture would be virtually excluded. In order to assure adequate food production, land outside protected areas would be farmed with maximum intensity through techniques that would largely exclude or exterminate wild populations of flora and fauna. In contrast, those who advocate land sharing policies argue for a combination of protected areas alongside agricultural landscapes that would use techniques tending to favor the maintenance of wild populations within a complex matrix of land uses. Here, I contend that the attempt to settle the debate through studies that seek quantification of agricultural production data and promotion of wild species populations in existing landscapes uses is of limited value because of the inability to control properly for both temporal and spatial variation. The more fundamental problem in quantitative evaluation, the one explored at length in this paper, is that the two policy positions in fact disguise profoundly different philosophical world views that can best be understood through historical analysis of the formation of colonial and post-colonial conservation ideas and practice. I argue that the essential problem with the land-sparing perspective can be summarized in two related points: first, land-sparing strategies assume that protected areas are more protective of a broad range of species than they are; and, second, they assume that the negative effect of industrial agriculture on biodiversity is minimal and can remain so even under strategies to increase production on a smaller land base. Both of these assumptions rest on a historically derived idea of control over landscape and habitat processes that is, from the land-sharing perspective, illusory. This false sense of control over human life and ecological processes arises at least partially from a way of thinking shaped by imperialism. I lay out here a historical perspective on contemporary conservation policy debates, with emphasis on the development of conservation policy in Brazil, Meso-America, and the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document