The Deshkan Ziibi Conservation Impact Bond Project: On Conservation Finance, Decolonization, and Community-Based Participatory Research

The Deshkan Ziibi Conservation Impact Bond (CIB) model was developed in Canada as a novel approach to conservation finance building on components of existing conservation funding models. The CIB model responds to the urgent need for piloting reconciliatory and cross-cultural ways of collaborating with Indigenous communities to diversify investment partnerships and redirect capital to conservation efforts that promote the regeneration of land and reciprocal and respectful relationships in southern Ontario. The CIB is a financial instrument that facilitates cross-cultural collaboration by providing a common goal amongst a diverse set of sectors, partners, and worldviews to promote healthy landscapes and empower relationships between people and ecosystems. By leveraging financial incentives, this model aims to engage partners who may not have otherwise been attracted to conservation efforts. By tying financial returns to impact metrics of holistic landscape health that incorporate Indigenous worldviews and values of nature, this innovative instrument seeks to contribute towards shifting the conservation finance paradigm more broadly by engaging in the ongoing process of decolonizing the financialization of nature.

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.

Increasing AZA-Accredited Zoo and Aquarium Engagement in Conservation

Conservation should be the higher purpose of any modern zoological facility and has consistently been a required element of accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Each year, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums collectively commit considerable resources to conservation around the world, exceeding 150 million USD annually since 2011 and exceeding 231 million USD in 2019. Furthermore, with 195 million people visiting AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums each year, there is enormous opportunity to connect people to nature and engage them as agents of change. As AZA facilities continue to prioritize conservation-driven missions, their participation in field conservation has increased greatly. AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction (SAFE)® was established in 2014 to encourage greater collaboration of AZA members and their field partners to save species. The SAFE framework is dedicated to species recovery and based on conservation best practices. SAFE species programs develop 3-year action plans that build on established recovery plans, evaluate impact, and combine AZA facilities and visitors to increase resources for research, public engagement, communications, and conservation funding. Here we share preliminary outcomes of the SAFE program as they relate to programmatic measures of success to determine whether the framework 1) is useful for the AZA membership as measured by engagement and participation, and 2) increases conservation activity on behalf of targeted species as measured by the number of facilities supporting a species' conservation and financial investment. In this analysis we utilized data supported by the AZA Annual Report for Conservation and Science (ARCS) to demonstrate benefits of the SAFE framework and provide insights into future strategies to enhance conservation impact.

The Pursuit of Meaning: Placing Biodiversity and Biography at the Center of Biology

Naturalists enrich our scientific understanding of biodiversity. However, just as countries have fallen behind on commitments to provide biodiversity conservation funding, so has the focus of life science stayed arm’s length. The purpose of this article is to consider why biodiversity should be the center of life sciences education and how biographies of Charles Darwin and the incorporation of female scientists allow important findings, paintings, and journaling as part of standard teachings. The addition of female naturalists will provide role models for diverse, underrepresented student populations. This article suggests that biodiversity and biography become central to hteaching life sciences while supplemented by other practices. Such reallocations provide students an opportunity to learn not only what these scientists discovered but how these individuals “developed” into scientists.

Marketing Products With Wildlife: How to Make It Benefit Conservation

A key obstacle to wildlife conservation is a scarcity of funding. A recent paper [Courchamp, F., Jaric, I., Albert, C., Meinard, Y., Ripple, W. J., and Chapron, G. (2018). The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16:e2003997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997] illustrates how for-profit businesses' widespread use of threatened wildlife imagery could create complacency in the public about their conservation. A wildlife imagery royalty, whereby businesses that use threatened wildlife in their marketing pay a small percentage of their sales to the conservation of those species could be revolutionary for conservation funding. However, businesses are not currently compelled to support the protection of the species espoused in their products. We build upon the arguments presented by recent publications [Good, C., Burnham, D., and Macdonald, D. W. (2017). A cultural conscience for conservation. Animals 7:52. doi: 10.3390/ani7070052; Courchamp, F., Jaric, I., Albert, C., Meinard, Y., Ripple, W. J., and Chapron, G. (2018). The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16:e2003997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997] to explore limitations and a number of key pathways that may help bring a wildlife imagery royalty to fruition.

Using recent baselines as benchmarks for megafauna restoration places an unfair burden on the Global South

The potential for megafauna restoration is unevenly distributed across the world, along with the socio-political capacity of countries to support these restoration initiatives. We show that choosing a recent baseline to identify species’ indigenous range puts a higher burden for megafauna restoration on countries in the Global South, which also have less capacity to support these restoration initiatives. We introduce the Megafauna Index, which considers large mammal’s potential species richness and range area at country-level, to explore how the responsibility for megafauna restoration distributes across the world according to four scenarios using various temporal benchmarks to define species’ indigenous range – current, historical (1500AD), mid-Holocene and Pleistocene. We test how the distribution of restoration burden across the world correlates to indicators of conservation funding, human development, and governance. Using a recent or historical baseline as a benchmark for restoration puts a higher pressure on African and southeast Asian countries while lifting the responsibility from the Global North, where extinctions happened a long time ago. When using a mid-Holocene or Pleistocene baseline, new opportunities arise for megafauna restoration in Europe and North America respectively, where countries have a higher financial and societal capacity to support megafauna restoration. These results contribute to the debate around benchmarks in rewilding initiatives and the ethical implications of using recent baselines to guide restoration efforts. We suggest that countries from the Global North should reflect on their responsibility in supporting global restoration efforts, by increasing their support for capacity building in the South and taking responsibility for restoring lost biodiversity at home.

The Role of Media During COVID-19 Global Outbreak: A Conservation Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic is fast driving the ways of life and economies. In this study, we used Zimbabwe as a case study to assess how different forms of media are being utilised to access information of the COVID-19 disease (across age, educational level, and employment status). We investigated people’s perceptions of the origins of COVID-19, its implication on the continued consumption of meat from wildlife species by humans, and management strategies of wildlife species that harbour the coronavirus. We gathered 139 responses using an online structured questionnaire survey. Social media platforms were used to acquire information on the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to traditional sources (television, radio, and newspapers). Most respondents thought that the COVID-19 virus was created by humans (n = 55, mostly the young and middle-aged) while others believed that it originated from animals (n = 54, mostly middle-aged with postgraduate qualifications). The majority (73%) of respondents who cited COVID-19 origin as animals also supported a ban on consumption of meat from the species. The middle-aged respondents (in comparison to the young and older respondents) and those who were employed (compared to the unemployed) were more likely to support the ban in wildlife trade. The likelihood of visiting wildlife centres given the consequences of COVID-19 was significantly lower in the old-aged respondents when compared to the young and the middle-aged respondents. Our results emphasize the need for science to penetrate social media circles to provide appropriate information. The observed perceptions about visiting wildlife centres could negatively impact conservation funding.

Genetic diversity and population structure in Nothofagus pumilio, a foundation species of Patagonian forests: defining priority conservation areas and management

Patagonian forests are the southernmost temperate forests in the world, and Nothofagus pumilio is one of their most ecologically important tree species (i.e., a foundation species). It presents great adaptability and a wide distribution range, making it a suitable model for predicting the performance of trees facing global climate change. N. pumilio forests are increasingly threatened by extreme climatic events and anthropogenic activities. This study aims to identify priority conservation areas and Genetic Zones (GZs) for N. pumilio, promoting the implementation of specific practices to ensure its management and long-term preservation. Thirty-five populations (965 trees) sampled across its distribution (more than 2200 km latitudinally) were genotyped with SSRs, and geographical patterns of genetic variation were identified using Bayesian approaches. The phylogeographic patterns of the species and geomorphological history of the region were also considered. Six priority conservation areas were identified, which hold high allelic richness and/or exclusive allelic variants. Eighteen GZs were delineated based on the genetic structure of this species, and maps showing their distributional range were drawn up. Overall, this study defines management units based on genetic data for N. pumilio for the first time, which will facilitate the establishment of sustainable practices and highlight priorities for investment of conservation funding.