Nicholas Ford-Learner, Jane Addison, Patrick Smallhorn-West
To ensure the protection of both people and nature, conservation practitioners have a responsibility to integrate human rights considerations into their conservation policies and practices. Here, we (i) develop a human rights-based scoring framework for international conservation organization (NGO) policy commitments and (ii) use this to conduct a gap analysis of policy commitments for nine NGOs, which collectively contribute approximately $1.86 billion USD annually to the global conservation budget. While progress has been made, critical gaps remain in commitments to certain rights and recognizing local groups' rights and knowledge, particularly around social development and decent work, recognitional equity, and commitments to implement human rights-based approach principles. Given the influence of these organizations in global public discourse, more comprehensive public commitments to human rights will likely increase compliance with international law, drive organizational change, and help rebuild trust with vulnerable communities.
{"title":"Conservation and human rights: The public commitments of international conservation organizations","authors":"Nicholas Ford-Learner, Jane Addison, Patrick Smallhorn-West","doi":"10.1111/conl.13035","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13035","url":null,"abstract":"<p>To ensure the protection of both people and nature, conservation practitioners have a responsibility to integrate human rights considerations into their conservation policies and practices. Here, we (i) develop a human rights-based scoring framework for international conservation organization (NGO) policy commitments and (ii) use this to conduct a gap analysis of policy commitments for nine NGOs, which collectively contribute approximately $1.86 billion USD annually to the global conservation budget. While progress has been made, critical gaps remain in commitments to certain rights and recognizing local groups' rights and knowledge, particularly around social development and decent work, recognitional equity, and commitments to implement human rights-based approach principles. Given the influence of these organizations in global public discourse, more comprehensive public commitments to human rights will likely increase compliance with international law, drive organizational change, and help rebuild trust with vulnerable communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141448889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Although widely regarded as the go-to for comprehensive wildlife trade data (Eskew et al., <span>2020</span>; Watters et al., <span>2022</span>), short comings of the US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) have been noted for decades (GAO, <span>1994</span>; Reaser & Waugh, <span>2007</span>). Most recently, Weissgold (<span>2024</span>) recommended measures to improve LEMIS quality controls necessary for accurate scientific interpretation and policy application. The temptation to improve LEMIS for such aims is laudable yet inconsistent with its intended function. LEMIS is a law enforcement information system managed by law enforcement staff. It was never envisioned as a platform for advancing scientific goals and it is unlikely to be reprogrammed for such purpose due to limitations of authority and administration. There is substantial need to improve LEMIS data quality to better its regulatory function. Consequently, this can improve scientific application potential, but substantial analytical limits will remain.</p><p>LEMIS data are a subset of the multiagency data relative to US wildlife importation. Consistent with the whole of government, science-based approach promulgated by the Executive Office of the President (e.g., The White House, <span>2024</span>), the United States urgently needs to establish an Interagency Wildlife Trade Data System (IWTDS) to meet priority scientific and policy goals across the environmental, food security, and human health sectors. Calls for such a system have been made by the government accounting officers (GAO, <span>2010</span>, <span>2023</span>) and interagency bodies (e.g., Reaser et al., <span>2020</span>) for decades.</p><p>Wildlife trade data are a fundamental resource for preventing species endangerment as well as mitigating invasive species and zoonotic disease risks. Ideally, IWTDS would be administered by a team of information officers with substantial scientific credentials who collectively serve the six federal agencies that have authorities relative to the US trade in live wildlife and/or derivatives: Customs and Border Protection (Department of Homeland Security), USFWS (Department of the Interior), Animal Health and Inspection Service (Department of Agriculture), Centers for Disease Control (Health and Human Services), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce), and the Food and Drug Administration.</p><p>In order to facilitate interagency wildlife import data collection, access, management, and analyses, IWTDS policies, standards, formats, and protocols must: (1) enable interoperability of agency-specific trade data platforms; (2) allow for direct access by certified agency personnel; (3) integrate an alert system that informs the agencies when and where a wildlife species under their authority is anticipated to enter the United States; (4) establish a shared directory of terms and codes; (5) harmonize terms,
{"title":"Establish an US Interagency Wildlife Trade Data System to meet scientific and policy goals","authors":"Jamie K. Reaser","doi":"10.1111/conl.13039","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although widely regarded as the go-to for comprehensive wildlife trade data (Eskew et al., <span>2020</span>; Watters et al., <span>2022</span>), short comings of the US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) have been noted for decades (GAO, <span>1994</span>; Reaser & Waugh, <span>2007</span>). Most recently, Weissgold (<span>2024</span>) recommended measures to improve LEMIS quality controls necessary for accurate scientific interpretation and policy application. The temptation to improve LEMIS for such aims is laudable yet inconsistent with its intended function. LEMIS is a law enforcement information system managed by law enforcement staff. It was never envisioned as a platform for advancing scientific goals and it is unlikely to be reprogrammed for such purpose due to limitations of authority and administration. There is substantial need to improve LEMIS data quality to better its regulatory function. Consequently, this can improve scientific application potential, but substantial analytical limits will remain.</p><p>LEMIS data are a subset of the multiagency data relative to US wildlife importation. Consistent with the whole of government, science-based approach promulgated by the Executive Office of the President (e.g., The White House, <span>2024</span>), the United States urgently needs to establish an Interagency Wildlife Trade Data System (IWTDS) to meet priority scientific and policy goals across the environmental, food security, and human health sectors. Calls for such a system have been made by the government accounting officers (GAO, <span>2010</span>, <span>2023</span>) and interagency bodies (e.g., Reaser et al., <span>2020</span>) for decades.</p><p>Wildlife trade data are a fundamental resource for preventing species endangerment as well as mitigating invasive species and zoonotic disease risks. Ideally, IWTDS would be administered by a team of information officers with substantial scientific credentials who collectively serve the six federal agencies that have authorities relative to the US trade in live wildlife and/or derivatives: Customs and Border Protection (Department of Homeland Security), USFWS (Department of the Interior), Animal Health and Inspection Service (Department of Agriculture), Centers for Disease Control (Health and Human Services), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce), and the Food and Drug Administration.</p><p>In order to facilitate interagency wildlife import data collection, access, management, and analyses, IWTDS policies, standards, formats, and protocols must: (1) enable interoperability of agency-specific trade data platforms; (2) allow for direct access by certified agency personnel; (3) integrate an alert system that informs the agencies when and where a wildlife species under their authority is anticipated to enter the United States; (4) establish a shared directory of terms and codes; (5) harmonize terms,","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141448878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ruben Venegas-Li, Hedley S. Grantham, Hugo Rainey, Alex Diment, Robert Tizard, James E. M. Watson
The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will become the most important multilateral agreement to guide biodiversity conservation actions globally over the coming decades. An ecosystem goal and various targets for maintaining integrity, restoring degraded ecosystems, and achieving representation in conservation areas feature throughout the GBF. Here, we provide an operational framework that combines disparate information on ecosystem type, extent, integrity, protection levels, and risk of collapse to support identifying irreplaceable “Critical Ecosystem Areas” (CEAs), to help implement these ecosystem targets. The framework classifies each component ecosystem based on its integrity, importance in ensuring no ecosystem collapse, and relative value in achieving ecosystem-specific representation targets. These CEAs are immediate conservation opportunities given that they achieve multiple ecosystem GBF goals and targets, and we showcase its application using Myanmar's forested ecosystems as a case study.
{"title":"An operational methodology to identify Critical Ecosystem Areas to help nations achieve the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework","authors":"Ruben Venegas-Li, Hedley S. Grantham, Hugo Rainey, Alex Diment, Robert Tizard, James E. M. Watson","doi":"10.1111/conl.13037","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13037","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will become the most important multilateral agreement to guide biodiversity conservation actions globally over the coming decades. An ecosystem goal and various targets for maintaining integrity, restoring degraded ecosystems, and achieving representation in conservation areas feature throughout the GBF. Here, we provide an operational framework that combines disparate information on ecosystem type, extent, integrity, protection levels, and risk of collapse to support identifying irreplaceable “Critical Ecosystem Areas” (CEAs), to help implement these ecosystem targets. The framework classifies each component ecosystem based on its integrity, importance in ensuring no ecosystem collapse, and relative value in achieving ecosystem-specific representation targets. These CEAs are immediate conservation opportunities given that they achieve multiple ecosystem GBF goals and targets, and we showcase its application using Myanmar's forested ecosystems as a case study.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141445004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hubert Cheung, Annie Young Song, Moreno Di Marco, Duan Biggs
Coordinated policies and effective global environmental governance are needed to address the global biodiversity crisis. Human dimensions like geopolitics influence conservation decision-making and outcomes. The importance of considering these complex social factors is heightened in an era of renewed great-power politics, as the intensifying US–China rivalry has direct implications for environmental governance and biodiversity outcomes. Can the US–China rivalry and its confrontational dynamics be channeled into conservation policymaking to improve biodiversity outcomes? Drawing from international relations and policy studies, policy diffusion theory can provide conservationists with useful insights into the interdependency of policy decisions. Here, we examine the four mechanisms—competition, coercion, learning, and emulation—of the classic model of policy diffusion theory in the context of environmental policymaking. We explore a case study for each mechanism to illustrate how it can benefit biodiversity conservation, and point to examples of relevant policies and actions that could improve outcomes. To operationalize this concept for conservation, we present a decision tree that conservationists can use to determine the most relevant policy diffusion mechanism in different policy contexts. Upon determining the appropriate mechanism, conservationists can take further steps to intentionally trigger the mechanism and catalyze conservation policy diffusion across jurisdictions.
{"title":"Policy diffusion in global biodiversity conservation: Learning, competition, coercion, and emulation amid US–China great-power politics","authors":"Hubert Cheung, Annie Young Song, Moreno Di Marco, Duan Biggs","doi":"10.1111/conl.13026","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13026","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Coordinated policies and effective global environmental governance are needed to address the global biodiversity crisis. Human dimensions like geopolitics influence conservation decision-making and outcomes. The importance of considering these complex social factors is heightened in an era of renewed great-power politics, as the intensifying US–China rivalry has direct implications for environmental governance and biodiversity outcomes. Can the US–China rivalry and its confrontational dynamics be channeled into conservation policymaking to improve biodiversity outcomes? Drawing from international relations and policy studies, policy diffusion theory can provide conservationists with useful insights into the interdependency of policy decisions. Here, we examine the four mechanisms—competition, coercion, learning, and emulation—of the classic model of policy diffusion theory in the context of environmental policymaking. We explore a case study for each mechanism to illustrate how it can benefit biodiversity conservation, and point to examples of relevant policies and actions that could improve outcomes. To operationalize this concept for conservation, we present a decision tree that conservationists can use to determine the most relevant policy diffusion mechanism in different policy contexts. Upon determining the appropriate mechanism, conservationists can take further steps to intentionally trigger the mechanism and catalyze conservation policy diffusion across jurisdictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141329485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>International wildlife trade is implicitly complex and esoteric. Oftentimes, the data are doubly so, as crucial contextual information is not readily apparent. Working effectively with these data often requires a robust comprehension of international and domestic trade processes as well as their intersections with national policy administration, conservation, and ecological processes. Weissgold (<span>2024</span>) calls attention to important limitations affecting the utility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) wildlife trade data. However, to prevent further misunderstanding of the LEMIS system, it is necessary to address a sentiment expressed by Weissgold regarding the apparent incompleteness of LEMIS records. The goal of this response is to help researchers working with LEMIS data understand that the LEMIS Declaration subsystem documents a specific subset of international wildlife trade. This understanding is vital for accurate analyses.</p><p>As Weissgold states, LEMIS wildlife trade data are typically extracted from the LEMIS Declaration subsystem, which omits many confirmed occurrences of illegal wildlife trade interdiction. Wildlife trade activity must qualify as an import or an export before it is eligible to become a LEMIS wildlife trade database record. LEMIS wildlife trade data are records of wildlife trade events processed by USFWS wildlife inspectors, whose jurisdiction is defined by inspection, search, and seizure authority at international land, sea, and air borders as well as at functional equivalents of the border (USFWS, <span>2008a</span>). Satisfaction of this “border nexus” condition underpins the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement's (OLE) review of trade declarations for internationally traded wildlife (USFWS, <span>2008b</span>). Domestic instances of illegal wildlife trade handled by USFWS OLE special agents, whether the wildlife was ultimately intended for export or not, are documented elsewhere within LEMIS and must be specifically requested from the Investigations, Violations, or other LEMIS subsystems (USDOI, <span>2020</span>). The absence of these records from the LEMIS Declaration subsystem data is not a result of procedural or data entry errors.</p><p>LEMIS data users should also note that the LEMIS Declaration subsystem is not a complete record of lawful U.S. international wildlife trade and information gaps abound. If a trade event satisfies any of a series of conditions prescribed by USFWS and the wildlife is not protected by key U.S. legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Act, the Lacey Act, etc., then the import (or export) may be exempt from declaration to the USFWS and thus not recorded in LEMIS (Table 1) (U.S.C Title 50 §, <span>14.62</span>; U.S.C Title 50 §, <span>14.64</span>). In a dataset as large as LEMIS, records skewed towards or against the recording of certain taxa or types of trade can lead to misrepresentation
国际野生动植物贸易隐含着复杂性和深奥性。通常情况下,数据更是如此,因为关键的背景信息并不显而易见。要有效地利用这些数据,通常需要对国际和国内贸易过程及其与国家政策管理、保护和生态过程的交叉点有深刻的理解。Weissgold (2024) 呼吁人们注意影响美国鱼类和野生动物管理局 (USFWS) 执法管理信息系统 (LEMIS) 野生动物贸易数据效用的重要限制因素。然而,为了防止对 LEMIS 系统的进一步误解,有必要回应 Weissgold 就 LEMIS 记录明显不完整所表达的观点。本回复的目的是帮助使用 LEMIS 数据的研究人员理解 LEMIS 申报子系统记录的是国际野生动植物贸易的一个特定子集。正如 Weissgold 所说,LEMIS 的野生动物贸易数据通常是从 LEMIS 申报子系统中提取的,该子系统省略了许多经证实的非法野生动物贸易拦截事件。野生动物贸易活动必须符合进口或出口的条件,才有资格成为 LEMIS 野生动物贸易数据库的记录。LEMIS 野生动物贸易数据是由美国联邦自然保护局(USFWS)野生动物检查员处理的野生动物贸易事件记录,其管辖范围由国际陆海空边界以及功能等同边界的检查、搜查和扣押权界定(USFWS,2008a)。满足这一 "边界关联 "条件是 USFWS 执法办公室(OLE)审查国际贸易野生动物贸易申报的基础(USFWS,2008b)。由 USFWS 执法办公室特工处理的国内非法野生动物贸易案例,无论野生动物最终是否用于出口,都会在 LEMIS 的其他地方进行记录,并且必须专门向调查、违规或其他 LEMIS 子系统申请(USDOI,2020)。LEMIS 数据用户还应注意,LEMIS 申报子系统并非美国合法国际野生动植物贸易的完整记录,存在大量信息空白。如果贸易活动符合美国联邦动植物保护局规定的一系列条件中的任何一项,并且野生动物不受美国重要法律(如《濒危物种法》、《海洋哺乳动物法》、《雷斯法案》等)的保护,那么进口(或出口)可以免于向美国联邦动植物保护局申报,因此不会记录在 LEMIS 中(表 1)(《美国法典》第 50 编第 14.62 节;《美国法典》第 50 编第 14.64 节)。在 LEMIS 这样一个庞大的数据集中,偏向或偏离记录某些分类群或贸易类型的记录会导致对贸易的经济、社会和生态影响的误解。表 1. USFWS 野生动物申报要求的豁免豁免类型摘要来源进口申报豁免为人类或动物消费而进口的贝类和非生物渔业产品U.S.C Title 50 § 14.62(a)进口申报要求的豁免。在加拿大或墨西哥为娱乐目的捕获的鱼U.S.C Title 50 § 14.62(b)(1) 进口报关要求的例外情况野生动物产品或非商业用途的制成品,用作衣物或随身个人行李U.S.C Title 50 § 14.62(b)(2) 进口报关要求的例外情况野生动物产品或非商业用途的制成品,构成家庭搬迁到美国的住所U.S.C Title 50 § 14.62(b)(3) 进口报关要求的例外情况。62(b)(3) 进口报关单要求的例外出口报关单豁免出口供人类或动物食用的贝类和非生物渔业产品U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(a) 出口报关单要求的例外为繁殖或与繁殖有关的研究而出口的Pelecypoda类活体水生无脊椎动物U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(a) 出口报关单要求的例外为娱乐目的出口的贝类和非生物渔业产品U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(a) 出口报关单要求的例外为娱乐目的出口的贝类和非生物渔业产品U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(a) 出口报关单要求的例外。U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(a) Exceptions to export declaration requirements.Wildlife not intended for commercial use where the value is less than $250U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(b)(1) Exceptions to export declaration requirements.Wildlife products, including game trophies, used as clothing, contained in accompanying personal baggage, or constituting a household move from the United States.U.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(b)(2) Exceptions to export declaration requirements.Live farm-raised fish and farm-raised fish eggsU.S.C. Title 50 § 14.64(b)(3) Exceptions to export declaration requirements. 64(c) 出口申报要求的例外情况。从美国水域捕捞的绿海胆(Strongylocentrotus spp:缩写:USFWS,美国鱼类和野生动物管理局。
{"title":"Concerning data absent from LEMIS wildlife trade records","authors":"Orion Goodman, Jonathan E. Kolby","doi":"10.1111/conl.13034","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13034","url":null,"abstract":"<p>International wildlife trade is implicitly complex and esoteric. Oftentimes, the data are doubly so, as crucial contextual information is not readily apparent. Working effectively with these data often requires a robust comprehension of international and domestic trade processes as well as their intersections with national policy administration, conservation, and ecological processes. Weissgold (<span>2024</span>) calls attention to important limitations affecting the utility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) wildlife trade data. However, to prevent further misunderstanding of the LEMIS system, it is necessary to address a sentiment expressed by Weissgold regarding the apparent incompleteness of LEMIS records. The goal of this response is to help researchers working with LEMIS data understand that the LEMIS Declaration subsystem documents a specific subset of international wildlife trade. This understanding is vital for accurate analyses.</p><p>As Weissgold states, LEMIS wildlife trade data are typically extracted from the LEMIS Declaration subsystem, which omits many confirmed occurrences of illegal wildlife trade interdiction. Wildlife trade activity must qualify as an import or an export before it is eligible to become a LEMIS wildlife trade database record. LEMIS wildlife trade data are records of wildlife trade events processed by USFWS wildlife inspectors, whose jurisdiction is defined by inspection, search, and seizure authority at international land, sea, and air borders as well as at functional equivalents of the border (USFWS, <span>2008a</span>). Satisfaction of this “border nexus” condition underpins the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement's (OLE) review of trade declarations for internationally traded wildlife (USFWS, <span>2008b</span>). Domestic instances of illegal wildlife trade handled by USFWS OLE special agents, whether the wildlife was ultimately intended for export or not, are documented elsewhere within LEMIS and must be specifically requested from the Investigations, Violations, or other LEMIS subsystems (USDOI, <span>2020</span>). The absence of these records from the LEMIS Declaration subsystem data is not a result of procedural or data entry errors.</p><p>LEMIS data users should also note that the LEMIS Declaration subsystem is not a complete record of lawful U.S. international wildlife trade and information gaps abound. If a trade event satisfies any of a series of conditions prescribed by USFWS and the wildlife is not protected by key U.S. legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Act, the Lacey Act, etc., then the import (or export) may be exempt from declaration to the USFWS and thus not recorded in LEMIS (Table 1) (U.S.C Title 50 §, <span>14.62</span>; U.S.C Title 50 §, <span>14.64</span>). In a dataset as large as LEMIS, records skewed towards or against the recording of certain taxa or types of trade can lead to misrepresentation","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141304693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Julia Gómez-Catasús, Manuel B. Morales, David Giralt, David González del Portillo, Robert Manzano-Rubio, Laura Solé-Bujalance, Francesc Sardà-Palomera, Juan Traba, Gerard Bota
Solar photovoltaic (PV) has become the second renewable energy source, giving rise to potential conflicts with biodiversity conservation. However, the information available about the impacts and mitigation measures of solar PV energy is scarce and scattered, and a rigorous and comprehensive review on the topic is lacking. Here, we review the state of knowledge on its impacts and mitigation measures and identify main knowledge gaps. For that, we reviewed more than 2000 articles, out of which only 180 assessed the impacts of solar PV (N = 138) and/or propose mitigation measures (65). Even though Asia and Europe head the list of regions with the highest PV installed capacity (59% and 22%, respectively), a large portion of the existing knowledge is drawn from North American environmental contexts (48% of the studies), specifically from deserts (41%). Impacts were addressed on plants (26%), arthropods (14%), birds (10%), microorganisms (10%), reptiles (7%), mammals (4%), and bats (1%), but also on abiotic factors (e.g., humidity and temperature; 20%) and ecosystem services (3%). Most studies addressed the impact of PV on habitat alteration at landscape (33%) and microhabitat scale (20%), and on microclimate at microhabitat scale (17%), but other topics have been scarcely addressed (e.g., impact on microclimate at landscape scale or the potential of agrivoltaic systems). Lastly, 53% of the studies employed a single PV facility, and preconstruction situations were rarely reported (8%). There is a strong environmental context bias in the current understanding of PV impacts, which might not be extrapolable to other environmental situations like farmlands, where most of the solar PV capacity is being installed. Moreover, standardized and robust sampling designs are lacking to address cumulative, long-term, and long-scale impacts and produce comparable findings across contexts. Given the lack of empirical evidence and the irrepressible development of PV energy, it is advisable to apply an iterative monitoring and adaptive process to guarantee a safe energy transition. This review may provide useful guidance on prioritizing research efforts for a smooth shift to renewable energy.
{"title":"Solar photovoltaic energy development and biodiversity conservation: Current knowledge and research gaps","authors":"Julia Gómez-Catasús, Manuel B. Morales, David Giralt, David González del Portillo, Robert Manzano-Rubio, Laura Solé-Bujalance, Francesc Sardà-Palomera, Juan Traba, Gerard Bota","doi":"10.1111/conl.13025","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13025","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Solar photovoltaic (PV) has become the second renewable energy source, giving rise to potential conflicts with biodiversity conservation. However, the information available about the impacts and mitigation measures of solar PV energy is scarce and scattered, and a rigorous and comprehensive review on the topic is lacking. Here, we review the state of knowledge on its impacts and mitigation measures and identify main knowledge gaps. For that, we reviewed more than 2000 articles, out of which only 180 assessed the impacts of solar PV (<i>N</i> = 138) and/or propose mitigation measures (65). Even though Asia and Europe head the list of regions with the highest PV installed capacity (59% and 22%, respectively), a large portion of the existing knowledge is drawn from North American environmental contexts (48% of the studies), specifically from deserts (41%). Impacts were addressed on plants (26%), arthropods (14%), birds (10%), microorganisms (10%), reptiles (7%), mammals (4%), and bats (1%), but also on abiotic factors (e.g., humidity and temperature; 20%) and ecosystem services (3%). Most studies addressed the impact of PV on habitat alteration at landscape (33%) and microhabitat scale (20%), and on microclimate at microhabitat scale (17%), but other topics have been scarcely addressed (e.g., impact on microclimate at landscape scale or the potential of agrivoltaic systems). Lastly, 53% of the studies employed a single PV facility, and preconstruction situations were rarely reported (8%). There is a strong environmental context bias in the current understanding of PV impacts, which might not be extrapolable to other environmental situations like farmlands, where most of the solar PV capacity is being installed. Moreover, standardized and robust sampling designs are lacking to address cumulative, long-term, and long-scale impacts and produce comparable findings across contexts. Given the lack of empirical evidence and the irrepressible development of PV energy, it is advisable to apply an iterative monitoring and adaptive process to guarantee a safe energy transition. This review may provide useful guidance on prioritizing research efforts for a smooth shift to renewable energy.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141257444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrew Tilker, Jürgen Niedballa, Hung Luong Viet, Jesse F. Abrams, Lucile Marescot, Nicholas Wilkinson, Benjamin M. Rawson, Rahel Sollmann, Andreas Wilting
Unsustainable snaring is causing biodiversity declines across tropical protected areas, resulting in species extinctions and jeopardizing the health of forest ecosystems. Here, we used 11 years of ranger-collected data to assess the impact of intensive snare removal on snaring levels in two protected areas in Viet Nam. Snare removal resulted in significant declines in snare occupancy (36.9, 95% Bayesian credible interval [4.6, 59.0] reduction in percent area occupied), but snaring levels nonetheless remained high (31.4, [23.6, 40.8] percent area occupied), and came with a substantial financial cost. Our results indicate that snare removal remains an important component of efforts to protect tropical protected areas but by itself is likely insufficient to address this threat. To stop snaring in protected areas, a multifaceted approach will be necessary that combines short-term reactive snare removal with long-term proactive programs that address the underlying drivers behind snaring.
{"title":"Addressing the Southeast Asian snaring crisis: Impact of 11 years of snare removal in a biodiversity hotspot","authors":"Andrew Tilker, Jürgen Niedballa, Hung Luong Viet, Jesse F. Abrams, Lucile Marescot, Nicholas Wilkinson, Benjamin M. Rawson, Rahel Sollmann, Andreas Wilting","doi":"10.1111/conl.13021","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unsustainable snaring is causing biodiversity declines across tropical protected areas, resulting in species extinctions and jeopardizing the health of forest ecosystems. Here, we used 11 years of ranger-collected data to assess the impact of intensive snare removal on snaring levels in two protected areas in Viet Nam. Snare removal resulted in significant declines in snare occupancy (36.9, 95% Bayesian credible interval [4.6, 59.0] reduction in percent area occupied), but snaring levels nonetheless remained high (31.4, [23.6, 40.8] percent area occupied), and came with a substantial financial cost. Our results indicate that snare removal remains an important component of efforts to protect tropical protected areas but by itself is likely insufficient to address this threat. To stop snaring in protected areas, a multifaceted approach will be necessary that combines short-term reactive snare removal with long-term proactive programs that address the underlying drivers behind snaring.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141236086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) create opportunities for a wide range of area-based conservation strategies. As countries seek to integrate OECMs into conservation planning, it is useful to consider the types of areas that might meet the formal criteria. To support this goal, I analyzed the different types of measures discussed as possible OECMs in the literature, identifying a wide range of measures, far more diverse than those currently recognized as OECMs. There was a strong emphasis on measures with conservation as a secondary management objective, with most studies being supportive of the potential to balance biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. However, many studies have highlighted the need to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved and sustained, and that appropriate governance and management structures are in place. Concerns were raised about measures associated with resource extraction, such as fisheries and forestry, which were often considered incompatible with conservation. Very few studies offered a nuanced discussion of specific measures or evaluated whether sites offer conservation outcomes, leaving clear knowledge gaps in translating speculation into evidence. Nevertheless, the current literature offers a strong starting point from which to target potential case studies to build the evidence base necessary to advance OECMs.
{"title":"Diverse approaches to protecting biodiversity: The different conservation measures discussed as possible other effective area-based conservation measures","authors":"Carly N. Cook","doi":"10.1111/conl.13027","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13027","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) create opportunities for a wide range of area-based conservation strategies. As countries seek to integrate OECMs into conservation planning, it is useful to consider the types of areas that might meet the formal criteria. To support this goal, I analyzed the different types of measures discussed as possible OECMs in the literature, identifying a wide range of measures, far more diverse than those currently recognized as OECMs. There was a strong emphasis on measures with conservation as a secondary management objective, with most studies being supportive of the potential to balance biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. However, many studies have highlighted the need to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved and sustained, and that appropriate governance and management structures are in place. Concerns were raised about measures associated with resource extraction, such as fisheries and forestry, which were often considered incompatible with conservation. Very few studies offered a nuanced discussion of specific measures or evaluated whether sites offer conservation outcomes, leaving clear knowledge gaps in translating speculation into evidence. Nevertheless, the current literature offers a strong starting point from which to target potential case studies to build the evidence base necessary to advance OECMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141177600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Louise Mair, Marwa Elnahass, Erwei Xiang, Frank Hawkins, Juha Siikamaki, Laura Hillis, Stephen Barrie, Philip J. K. McGowan
To achieve the goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), agreed by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is an urgent need to address the economic drivers of biodiversity loss. The KMGBF includes a target to encourage businesses and financial institutions to disclose their impacts and dependences on biodiversity. While transparent biodiversity disclosures could help shift business operations away from activities that harm biodiversity, the weak target wording implies voluntary and unstandardized disclosures, which tend to be low quality and ineffective. Moreover, examination of scientific and practical insights strongly indicates that the evolving strategy of disclosures led by businesses may prioritize short-term business and investment interests while neglecting biodiversity outcomes and the wider systemic risks they pose. We argue that there is a risk of limited if not altogether perverse outcomes from the target, where businesses provide ambiguous disclosures that fail to reduce impacts on biodiversity, yet an increase in volume and frequency of disclosures suggests progress toward the target. Consequently, we advocate for a regulatory approach, supported by scientific engagement in the development of disclosure standards and associated policy indicators, to ensure that the emerging response to the KMGBF target on disclosures avoids perverse outcomes and instead results in positive impacts on biodiversity.
{"title":"Corporate disclosures need a biodiversity outcome focus and regulatory backing to deliver global conservation goals","authors":"Louise Mair, Marwa Elnahass, Erwei Xiang, Frank Hawkins, Juha Siikamaki, Laura Hillis, Stephen Barrie, Philip J. K. McGowan","doi":"10.1111/conl.13024","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13024","url":null,"abstract":"<p>To achieve the goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), agreed by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is an urgent need to address the economic drivers of biodiversity loss. The KMGBF includes a target to <i>encourage</i> businesses and financial institutions to disclose their impacts and dependences on biodiversity. While transparent biodiversity disclosures could help shift business operations away from activities that harm biodiversity, the weak target wording implies voluntary and unstandardized disclosures, which tend to be low quality and ineffective. Moreover, examination of scientific and practical insights strongly indicates that the evolving strategy of disclosures led by businesses may prioritize short-term business and investment interests while neglecting biodiversity outcomes and the wider systemic risks they pose. We argue that there is a risk of limited if not altogether perverse outcomes from the target, where businesses provide ambiguous disclosures that fail to reduce impacts on biodiversity, yet an increase in volume and frequency of disclosures suggests progress toward the target. Consequently, we advocate for a regulatory approach, supported by scientific engagement in the development of disclosure standards and associated policy indicators, to ensure that the emerging response to the KMGBF target on disclosures avoids perverse outcomes and instead results in positive impacts on biodiversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniel J. Ingram, Thais Q. Morcatty, Hani R. El Bizri, Mahesh Poudyal, Edward Mundy
<p>Wildlife use is widespread across the world where animals and their derivates are consumed and/or traded (Ingram et al., <span>2021</span>). When the use is unsustainable, it is a leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide, with profound consequences for ecosystem services and functions (IPBES, <span>2022</span>). In December 2022, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreeing to achieve the sustainable use and management of biodiversity as one of four central goals by 2050. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has focussed global attention on the wildlife trade and potential risk of zoonotic emerging infectious disease spread. From February 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been negotiating drafts of a global Pandemic Agreement, calling for collective action on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, including the need to “take measures to reduce risks of zoonotic spill-over” (Article 4; World Health Organisation, <span>2024</span>). Given how wholly interconnected these issues are, leveraging approaches that tackle integrated issues around the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, such as One Health and Planetary Health approaches (de Castañeda et al., <span>2023</span>), will be paramount to addressing the global challenges of biodiversity loss and zoonotic disease emergence.</p><p>Managing the use of wildlife can be challenging for many reasons, including the number of actors involved along varied supply chains across rural and urban areas, the complexities around the legality of trade in different circumstances, and the capacities of governments to act (Ingram et al., <span>2021</span>). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a worldwide initiative to end the wildlife trade (Coalition to End the Trade, <span>2020</span>), resulting in certain countries banning physical wildlife markets. Yet, it is becoming increasingly evident that digital services platforms, particularly social media platforms, are playing a pivotal role in the legal and illegal trade of wildlife (Morcatty et al., <span>2021</span>). Yet, little has been done to stem the illegal online trade of wildlife, which undermines efforts to manage the trade effectively, sustainably, and safely (Morcatty et al., <span>2021</span>). Here, we highlight two major ways in which technology companies running global social media, e-commerce (marketplaces), and content-sharing platforms (hereafter just “tech companies”) can assist in achieving the goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the WHO Pandemic Agreement.</p><p>For the latter, examples could include public lists of tech companies, which are not part of groups working to reduce online illegal wildlife trade (Sebagh, <span>2021</span>), and transparent monitoring of such groups to ensure that activities are taking place and reporting tools are effective. Furthermore, monitored trade should not only include high-value w
正如《世界卫生组织大流行病协议》第 18 条所强调的,缔约方将致力于 "反击和解决误导或虚假信息"(World Health Organisation, 2024),这可以通过社交媒体和内容共享技术公司的行动与合作更容易地实现,例如通过算法的细微变化来引导用户在分享之前考虑信息的准确性(Pennycook 等人,2020)。例如,一些平台使用链接推荐算法向用户推荐新的连接。这些算法可能会增加两极分化的可能性,因为用户倾向于在有共同联系的群体中建立联系;然而,有证据表明,如果平台调整链接推荐算法,零星地向用户推荐没有多少共同联系的不同个体,就可以抑制两极分化(Santos 等,2021 年)。同样,用户可能会参与意见放大,这指的是 "用户的一系列行为,这些行为可能会以更积极或消极的情绪扭曲原始意见",当话题成为趋势时,这些行为可能会在网络中扩散(Lim & Bentley, 2022)。平台可采用两种有望遏制极端极化的方法:以 "正常范围 "的情绪持续传播观点,以及限制不遵守平台政策的用户的放大数量(Lim & Bentley, 2022)。然而,仅靠内容审核和事实核查可能不足以解决这些问题。在热带国家,情况很可能是一场完美风暴:野生动植物贸易和新出现的传染病风险非常普遍(Allen 等人,2017 年),有时在应对野生动植物在线贸易和管理虚假信息传播方面的财政和技术能力较低。欧盟新的《数字服务法》最近取得了进展,该法旨在通过监管在线平台 "防止非法和有害的在线活动以及虚假信息的传播",从而为世界其他地区提供了一个可借鉴的监管范例。热带成员国要想充分实现《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》和《世界卫生组织大流行病协议》中提出的目标,运营社交媒体、电子商务和内容共享平台的科技公司就必须加强自身的作用,协助各国解决野生动植物非法贸易问题以及在其平台上传播虚假信息的问题。因此,科技公司在创造对人类和野生动物都人道的技术方面可以发挥重要作用:写作-原稿;写作-审阅和编辑。Thais Q. Morcatty:写作-审稿和编辑。Hani R. El Bizri:撰写-审阅和编辑。Mahesh Poudyal:写作-审阅和编辑。爱德华-蒙迪作者声明无利益冲突。
{"title":"Urgent actions needed by digital services platforms to help achieve conservation and public health goals","authors":"Daniel J. Ingram, Thais Q. Morcatty, Hani R. El Bizri, Mahesh Poudyal, Edward Mundy","doi":"10.1111/conl.13023","DOIUrl":"10.1111/conl.13023","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wildlife use is widespread across the world where animals and their derivates are consumed and/or traded (Ingram et al., <span>2021</span>). When the use is unsustainable, it is a leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide, with profound consequences for ecosystem services and functions (IPBES, <span>2022</span>). In December 2022, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreeing to achieve the sustainable use and management of biodiversity as one of four central goals by 2050. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has focussed global attention on the wildlife trade and potential risk of zoonotic emerging infectious disease spread. From February 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been negotiating drafts of a global Pandemic Agreement, calling for collective action on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, including the need to “take measures to reduce risks of zoonotic spill-over” (Article 4; World Health Organisation, <span>2024</span>). Given how wholly interconnected these issues are, leveraging approaches that tackle integrated issues around the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, such as One Health and Planetary Health approaches (de Castañeda et al., <span>2023</span>), will be paramount to addressing the global challenges of biodiversity loss and zoonotic disease emergence.</p><p>Managing the use of wildlife can be challenging for many reasons, including the number of actors involved along varied supply chains across rural and urban areas, the complexities around the legality of trade in different circumstances, and the capacities of governments to act (Ingram et al., <span>2021</span>). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a worldwide initiative to end the wildlife trade (Coalition to End the Trade, <span>2020</span>), resulting in certain countries banning physical wildlife markets. Yet, it is becoming increasingly evident that digital services platforms, particularly social media platforms, are playing a pivotal role in the legal and illegal trade of wildlife (Morcatty et al., <span>2021</span>). Yet, little has been done to stem the illegal online trade of wildlife, which undermines efforts to manage the trade effectively, sustainably, and safely (Morcatty et al., <span>2021</span>). Here, we highlight two major ways in which technology companies running global social media, e-commerce (marketplaces), and content-sharing platforms (hereafter just “tech companies”) can assist in achieving the goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the WHO Pandemic Agreement.</p><p>For the latter, examples could include public lists of tech companies, which are not part of groups working to reduce online illegal wildlife trade (Sebagh, <span>2021</span>), and transparent monitoring of such groups to ensure that activities are taking place and reporting tools are effective. Furthermore, monitored trade should not only include high-value w","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141074082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}