Search

Perpetual conservation easements (CEs) are popular for restricting development and land use, but their fixed terms create challenges for adaptation to climate change. The increasing pace of environmental and social change demands adaptive conservation instruments. To examine the adaptive potential of CEs, we surveyed 269 CEs and interviewed 73 conservation organization employees. Although only 2% of CEs mentioned climate change, the majority of employees were concerned about climate change impacts. CEs share the fixed-boundary limits typical of protected areas with additional adaptation constraints due to permanent terms on private lands. CEs often have multiple, potentially conflicting purposes that protect against termination but complicate decisions about principled, conservation-oriented adaptation. Monitoring is critical for shaping adaptive responses, but only 35% of CEs allowed organizations to conduct ecological monitoring. In addition, CEs provided few requirements or incentives for active stewardship of private lands. We found four primary options for changing land use restrictions, each with advantages and risks: CE amendment, management plan revisions, approval of changes through discretionary consent, and updating laws or policies codified in the CE. Conservation organizations, funders, and the Internal Revenue Service should promote processes for principled adaptation in CE terms, provide more active stewardship of CE lands, and consider alternatives to the CE tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation spending in California, USA exceeds conservation expenditures in many countries. To date, there has been no objective method to assess the efficiency of such spending for achieving species conservation outcomes. We conducted the first such retrospective analysis of conservation spending, examining the distribution of $2.8 billion spent on land protection by the state of California and partners from 1990 to 2006. Using a return on investment algorithm with species protection as the sole objective, we describe a “cost-efficient” funding scenario that would have protected four times more distinct species and three times more threatened and endangered species compared to the observed allocation. Differences between the species-diversity spending and the observed spending patterns reflect the myriad funding objectives, beyond protecting species, of the state. Identifying cost-effective conservation strategies are essential given the need to maintain species diversity in the face of global change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]