Connectivity conservation at the crossroads: protected areas versus payments for ecosystem services in conserving connectivity for Colombian carnivores

Protected areas (PAs) constitute one of the main tools for global landscape conservation. Recently, payments for environmental services (PES) have attracted interest from national and regional governments and are becoming one of the leading conservation policy instruments in tropical countries. However, the degree to which areas designated for PES overlap with areas that are critical for maintaining species' landscape connectivity is rarely evaluated. We estimated habitat distributions and connectivity for 16 of the 22 mammalian carnivores occurring in the Caribbean region of Colombia, and identified the overlap between existing PAs and areas identified as being important for connectivity for these species. We also evaluated the potential impact of creation of new PAs versus new PES areas on conserving connectivity for carnivores. Our results show that PAs cover only a minor percentage of the total area that is important for maintaining connectivity ( x = 26.8 % ± 20.2 s . d . ). On the other hand, PES, if implemented extensively, could contribute substantially to mammalian carnivores’ connectivity ( x = 45.4 % ± 12.8 s . d . ). However, in a more realistic scenario with limited conservation investment in which fewer areas are set aside, a strategy based on implementing new PAs seems superior to PES. We argue that prioritizing designation of new PAs will be the most efficient means through which to maintain connectivity.

Understanding how opportunity cost affects multi-objective conservation investment in the Central and Southern Appalachian Region (USA)

Summary Consensus does not exist for which cost forms (i.e., one accounting solely for explicit cost and the other for both explicit and opportunity costs as in relative opportunity cost) are used in calculating return on investment (ROI) for conservation-related decisions. This research examines how the cost of conservation investment with and without inclusion of the opportunity cost of the protected area results in different solutions in a multi-objective optimization framework at the county level in the Central and Southern Appalachian Region of the USA. We maximize rates of ROI of both forest-dependent biodiversity and economic impact generated by forest-based payments for ecosystem services. We find that the conservation budget is optimally distributed more narrowly among counties that are more likely to be rural when the investment cost measure is relative opportunity cost than when it is explicit cost. We also find that the sacrifice in forest-dependent biodiversity per unit increase in economic impact is higher when investment cost is measured by relative opportunity cost rather than when measured by explicit cost. By understanding the consequences of using one cost measure over the other, a conservation agency can decide on which cost measure is more appropriate for informing the agency’s decision-making process.

Infrastructural nature

The assertion that ‘ecosystems are infrastructure’ is now common in conservation science and ecosystem management. This article interrogates this infrastructural ontology, which we argue underpins diverse practices of conservation investment and ecosystem management focused on the strategic management of ecosystem functions to sustain and secure human life. We trace the genealogies and geographies of infrastructural nature as an ontology and paradigm of investment that coexists (sometimes in tension) with extractivist commodity regimes. We draw links between literatures on the political economy of ecosystem services and infrastructure and highlight three themes that hold promise for future research: labor, territory, and finance.

Importance of Community Forestry Funds for Rural Development in Nepal

Nepal’s Community Forestry (CF) process has implied the devolution of powers to collect, retain, and redistribute forest revenue from community forests products. This study contributes to our knowledge about these important aspects of CF by presenting an analysis of the dynamic pattern of income and expenditure of 43 randomly selected Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) from Kaski, Nepal. Results show that CFUG three-year average annual income accounts NRs 216,225 (1 US$ = NRs.114) and is highly skewed towards a few wells off CFUGs; the high-and-low average annual income of one-third of CFUGs in the sample ranges from NRs. 33,116 to NRs 502,363. Timber income and user’s contribution constitute the most important sources of income, comprising 40% and 25% respectively. The rural development investments of CFUG income are also highly variable and are shaped by income size of CF, and the other socio-political factors such as the number of households, distance to market, infrastructure status, and contextual factors. Overall, 44% of the CFUG income is invested in community development and 37% in forest conservation. Investment in community development increases with rising income. Accordingly, results presented here provide insights to promote community forests to generate more income which, indeed, could be a vehicle for community development as it appears in the mid-hills of Nepal.