Search

Sustainability agendas increasingly recognize that attaining conservation and development outcomes demands greater integration across sectors. Integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) are a leading approach to reconciling multiple objectives. However, a characterization of the diversity of approaches under the ILI umbrella and the comparative performance of different types of approach is lacking. Here, we analyze questionnaire data obtained from project proponents to delimit four particular types of ILI: one type was dominated by agricultural interventions and another by conservation interventions, and these partially integrated ILIs engage local scales of governance; the remaining two types exhibit strong integration, with aims and actions across multiple sectors and scales of governance. We show that integrated projects were deemed to be more successful by project proponents. The typology offers the practitioner and research community an explicit set of strategies for selection, evaluation, and support and attests to the need for integration to achieve sustainable outcomes.

Biodiversity offset strategies are based on the explicit calculation of both losses and gains necessary to establish ecological equivalence between impact and offset areas. Given the importance of quantifying biodiversity values, various accounting methods and metrics are continuously being developed and tested for this purpose. Considering the wide array of alternatives, selecting an appropriate one for a specific project can be not only challenging, but also crucial; accounting methods can strongly influence the biodiversity outcomes of an offsetting strategy, and if not well-suited to the context and values being offset, a no net loss outcome might not be delivered. To date there has been no systematic review or comparative classification of the available biodiversity accounting alternatives that aim at facilitating metric selection, and no tools that guide decision-makers throughout such a complex process. We fill this gap by developing a set of analyses to support (i) identifying the spectrum of available alternatives, (ii) understanding the characteristics of each and, ultimately (iii) making the most sensible and sound decision about which one to implement. The metric menu, scoring matrix, and decision tree developed can be used by biodiversity offsetting practitioners to help select an existing metric, and thus achieve successful outcomes that advance the goal of no net loss of biodiversity.

Voluntary sustainability standards have increased in uptake over the last decade, here we explore their potential contribution to biodiversity conservation and other aspects of agricultural sustainability. We reviewed the content of twelve major crop standards and quantified their global coverage. All standards included some provisions for the protection of biodiversity, but we only identified two with criteria that prohibited all deforestation. We found records of certified cropland in 133 countries, and estimated that certified crop area increased by 11% (range 8.8% -13.5%) per year from 2000 to 2012, but still only covered 1.1% (range 1.0%-1.2%) of global cropland. The crops with the highest levels of certification were heavily-traded commodities: coffee, cocoa, tea and palm oil each had 10% or more of their total global production area certified. Coverage was lower for other crops, including the world's most important staple foods (maize, rice, wheat). Sustainability standards have considerable potential to contribute to conservation, but there is an ongoing need for better evaluation of how effectively they are implemented. We present examples of ways in which governments, companies, financial institutions and civil society can work together to scale up and target certification to places where it can have the greatest positive impact. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Approaches to integrated landscape management are currently garnering new interest as scientists, policymakers, and local stakeholders recognize the need to increase the multi-functionality of agricultural landscapes for food production, livelihood improvement, and ecosystem conservation. Such approaches have been attempted in many parts of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) but to date there has been no systematic assessment of their characteristics, outcomes, and limitations. To fill this gap, we surveyed participants and managers in integrated landscape initiatives throughout the LAC region to characterize these initiatives’ contexts, motivations and objectives, stakeholders and participants, activities and investments, outcomes, and major successes and shortcomings. Results from 104 initiatives in 21 countries indicate that integrated landscape management is being applied across the region to address a variety of challenges in diverse contexts, and that use of this approach is expanding. Initiatives reported investing across four key “domains” of landscape multi-functionality: agricultural production, ecosystem conservation, human livelihoods, and institutional planning and coordination. Initiatives reported positive outcomes across all four domains, but particularly with respect to institutional planning and coordination. Initiatives with larger numbers of objectives, investments, and participating stakeholder groups all reported significantly higher numbers of positive outcomes, suggesting significant value in the core precepts of the integrated landscape management approach. Key challenges identified by survey respondents—including the long time horizon required to achieve results at scale, unsupportive policy frameworks, and difficulty in engaging the private sector and other important stakeholders—offer insights for improving the future effectiveness of integrated landscape initiatives.

Voluntary sustainability standards and certification offer a promising mechanism to mitigate the severe negative impacts of agricultural expansion and intensification on tropical biodiversity. From a conservation standpoint, certification of tropical agroforestry crops, especially coffee and cocoa, is of particular interest given the potentially high biodiversity value of agroforestry systems and the substantial market penetration of coffee and cocoa certification in recent years. Here, we review experience with coffee and cocoa certification, summarize evidence on conservation impacts, and explore future needs. While there is much evidence that environmental criteria behind certification support biodiversity conservation, it is less clear to what extent certification is the cause of improved conservation outcomes. Additionally, the farm-scale focus of current certification models may limit delivery of biodiversity conservation benefits, as maintenance of biodiversity depends on processes at larger landscape scales. To address this scale mismatch, we suggest that investment and innovation in certification over the next decade prioritize landscape conservation outcomes. This may be achieved by (1) linking existing certification mechanisms with broader landscape and ecosystem service management approaches and/or (2) expanding current certification models to consider the landscape itself as the certified unit.

Mesoamerica provides a unique context for biodiversity conservation in managed landscapes because of its geography, history of human intervention, and present conservation and development initiatives. The long and narrow form of the Mesoamerican landmass, and its division by a central mountain range, has served as both a bridge and a barrier. Conservation efforts in Mesoamerica are unique for the emphasis they place on regional connectivity through the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and on biodiversity conservation in managed landscapes. The emphasis on conservation in agricultural systems has fostered innovations in payment for ecosystem services, and provides novel insights on the functional role that biodiversity plays in the provisioning of ecosystem services. The increasing rate of economic development in the region and the advent of new payment for ecosystem service schemes have provided new opportunities for forest regeneration and restoration. However, the small scale of private landholdings and the diversity of land uses featured in the region, while contributing to biodiversity conservation due to their structural and floristic complexity, present challenges for biodiversity monitoring and management.

Suburban, exurban, and rural development in the United States consumes nearly 1 million hectares of land per year and is a leading threat to biodiversity. In response to this threat, conservation development has been advanced as a way to combine land development and land conservation while providing functional protection for natural resources. Yet, although conservation development techniques have been in use for decades, there have been few critical evaluations of their conservation effectiveness. We addressed this deficiency by assessing the conservation outcomes of one type of conservation development project: conservation and limited development projects (CLDPs). Conducted by land trusts, landowners, and developers, CLDPs use revenue from limited development to finance the protection of land and natural resources. We compared a sample of 10 CLDPs from the eastern United States with their respective baseline scenarios (conventional development) and with a sample of conservation subdivisions—a different conservation development technique characterized by higher-density development. To measure conservation success, we created an evaluation method containing eight indicators that quantify project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site and in the surrounding landscape. The CLDPs protected and managed threatened natural resources including rare species and ecological communities. In terms of conservation benefits, the CLDPs significantly outperformed their respective baseline scenarios and the conservation subdivisions. These results imply that CLDPs can offer a low-impact alternative to conventional development and a low-cost method for protecting land when conventional conservation techniques are too expensive. In addition, our evaluation method demonstrates how planners and developers can incorporate appropriate ecological considerations when designing, reviewing, and evaluating conservation development projects. Resumen: El desarrollo suburbano, exurbano y rural en los Estados Unidos consume casi un millon de hectareas por ano y es la mayor amenaza para la biodiversidad. En respuesta a esta amenaza, el desarrollo con conservacion ha sido propuesto como una forma de combinar el desarrollo de tierras con la conservacion de tierras al mismo tiempo que se proporciona proteccion funcional a los recursos naturales. Sin embargo, aunque las tecnicas de desarrollo con conservacion han estado en uso por decadas, ha habido pocas evaluaciones criticas de su efectividad para la conservacion. Abordamos esta deficiencia mediante la evaluacion de los resultados de conservacion de un tipo de proyecto de desarrollo con conservacion: proyectos de desarrollo limitado y conservacion (PDLC). Los PDLC, llevados a cabo por fundaciones, propietarios e inmobiliarias, utilizan ingresos del desarrollo limitado para financiar la proteccion de suelos y recursos naturales. Comparamos una muestra de 10 PDLC en el este de Estados Unidos con sus escenarios de base (desarrollo convencional) y con una muestra de subdivisiones de conservacion – una tecnica de desarrollo con conservacion caracterizada por un desarrollo de mayor densidad. Para medir el exito de conservacion, creamos un metodo de evaluacion con 8 indicadores que cuantifican los impactos del proyecto a los ecosistemas terrestres y acuaticos del sitio y en el paisaje circundante. Los PDLC protegieron y manejaron recursos naturales amenazados, incluyendo especies y comunidades ecologicas raras. En terminos de beneficios para la conservacion, los PDLC fueron significativamente mejores que sus escenarios de base y que las subdivisiones de conservacion. Estos resultados implican que los PDLC pueden ofrecer alternativas de bajo impacto al desarrollo convencional y un metodo de bajo costo para la proteccion de tierras cuando las tecnicas de conservacion convencionales son demasiado caras. Adicionalmente, nuestro metodo de evaluacion demuestra como los planificadores y las inmobiliarias pueden incorporar consideraciones ecologicas apropiadas en el diseno, la revision y evaluacion de proyectos de desarrollo con conservacion.

Sustainability standards and certification serve to differentiate and provide market recognition to goods produced in accordance with social and environmental good practices, typically including practices to protect biodiversity. Such standards have seen rapid growth, including in tropical agricultural commodities such as cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soybeans, and tea. Given the role of sustainability standards in influencing land use in hotspots of biodiversity, deforestation, and agricultural intensification, much could be gained from efforts to evaluate and increase the conservation payoff of these schemes. To this end, we devised a systematic approach for monitoring and evaluating the conservation impacts of agricultural sustainability standards and for using the resulting evidence to improve the effectiveness of such standards over time. The approach is oriented around a set of hypotheses and corresponding research questions about how sustainability standards are predicted to deliver conservation benefits. These questions are addressed through data from multiple sources, including basic common information from certification audits; field monitoring of environmental outcomes at a sample of certified sites; and rigorous impact assessment research based on experimental or quasi-experimental methods. Integration of these sources can generate time-series data that are comparable across sites and regions and provide detailed portraits of the effects of sustainability standards. To implement this approach, we propose new collaborations between the conservation research community and the sustainability standards community to develop common indicators and monitoring protocols, foster data sharing and synthesis, and link research and practice more effectively. As the role of sustainability standards in tropical land-use governance continues to evolve, robust evidence on the factors contributing to effectiveness can help to ensure that such standards are designed and implemented to maximize benefits for biodiversity conservation.

"Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a market-based approach to environmental management that compensates land stewards for ecosystem conservation and restoration. Because low-income households and communities control much of the ecologically sensitive land in developing countries, they potentially stand to gain from PES, as environmentally responsible stewardship is assigned a value by various actors in society. To date, however, instances of PES benefiting the poor have been limited mainly to specific localities, small-scale projects, and a handful of broader government programs. We analyze the size, characteristics, and trends of PES to evaluate its future potential to benefit low-income land stewards in developing countries. We estimate that by the year 2030, markets for biodiversity conservation could benefit 10???15 million low-income households in developing countries, carbon markets could benefit 25???50 million, markets for watershed protection could benefit 80???100 million, and markets for landscape beauty and recreation could benefit 5???8 million. If payments and markets reach these potentials, they could provide a non-negligible contribution to poverty alleviation at the global level."

Suburban, exurban, and rural development in the United States consumes nearly 1 million hectares of land per year and is a leading threat to biodiversity. In response to this threat, conservation development has been advanced as a way to combine land development and land conservation while providing functional protection for natural resources. Yet, although conservation development techniques have been in use for decades, there have been few critical evaluations of their conservation effectiveness. We addressed this deficiency by assessing the conservation outcomes of one type of conservation development project: conservation and limited development projects (CLDPs). Conducted by land trusts, landowners, and developers, CLDPs use revenue from limited development to finance the protection of land and natural resources. We compared a sample of 10 CLDPs from the eastern United States with their respective baseline scenarios (conventional development) and with a sample of conservation subdivisions--a different conservation development technique characterized by higher-density development. To measure conservation success, we created an evaluation method containing eight indicators that quantify project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site and in the surrounding landscape. The CLDPs protected and managed threatened natural resources including rare species and ecological communities. In terms of conservation benefits, the CLDPs significantly outperformed their respective baseline scenarios and the conservation subdivisions. These results imply that CLDPs can offer a low-impact alternative to conventional development and a low-cost method for protecting land when conventional conservation techniques are too expensive. In addition, our evaluation method demonstrates how planners and developers can incorporate appropriate ecological considerations when designing, reviewing, and evaluating conservation development projects.

Previous research has indicated that a substantial portion of native flora and fauna may persist in agricultural mosaics in the Neotropics. However, understanding the relative importance of different habitat factors and management practices at different scales for sustaining this biodiversity has proven somewhat elusive. In addition, most such research has taken place in only a few fairly well-studied landscapes, thus limiting our ability to infer broader patterns that might be transferred to unstudied locales. This study expands the geographic breadth of prior research by evaluating bird and butterfly assemblages in an agricultural landscape in the Rio Copan watershed of western Honduras. The study also provides a systematic assessment of the relative influence of categorical and continuous habitat variables across a range of scales likely to be significant for birds and butterflies. Overall, we recorded 145 tree species, 139 bird species, and 119 butterfly species. Birds and butterflies displayed contrasting responses to land cover: birds were most strongly associated with dense vegetation in broadleaf forests, forest fallows, shade-grown coffee farms, and live fences, while butterflies were most abundant in live fences, pastures, and riparian forests. Bird assemblages were heavily skewed toward common and non-forest-dependent species, likely due to the young age and high disturbance level of forest plots. In contrast, butterfly assemblages contained a substantial proportion of forest-dependent species, which were observed in forests as well as pastures and live fences. Contrary to expectations, categorical land cover descriptors were more effective at explaining faunal assemblage patterns than continuous habitat descriptors related to vegetation and landscape context. In addition, plot scale (25–100 m) habitat features had a greater influence on faunal assemblages than did neighborhood scale (200–3000 m) landscape composition or structure, although differences in management intensity at the scale of the entire watershed (5–20 km) also exerted a strong influence on conservation outcomes.