Search

REDD+ presents novel options for conservation in the tropics, yet it is unclear how biodiversity-focused organizations or actors should react to these carbon-focused opportunities. Here, we critically assess for the first time the expected outcomes of five contrasting scenarios of engagement between a biodiversity actor and REDD+. We discover that in the Berau regency, Indonesia, it is usually beneficial for a biodiversity actor to react in some way to REDD+, but the preferred reaction depends on whether a REDD+ project is already developing in the region, and the scale and type of conservation objectives. In general, from a strict biodiversity perspective, the most cost efficient reaction to the presence of REDD+ is to use biodiversity funds to protect areas neglected by REDD+. Our results demonstrate that if biodiversity actors fail to adapt the way they pursue conservation in the tropics, REDD+ opportunities could go largely untapped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing the vulnerability of areas to habitat loss remains a challenge for conservation planners. Different areas are often assumed equally vulnerable to habitat loss or, worse, conservation attention focuses on remote, unproductive areas contributing little to minimizing biodiversity loss. Understanding vulnerability is crucial to planning but gathering the required information can be time consuming and expensive; and any data on vulnerability will be uncertain. We investigated the circumstances in which including vulnerability data produces better conservation decisions. We found that it is best to use existing information on vulnerability only when uncertainty is less than 20%-30%. With higher uncertainty and large spatial variance in vulnerability, it is best to improve vulnerability data before making conservation decisions. Otherwise, it is best to ignore vulnerability and consider only biodiversity value. Other important factors are whether reservation displaces or inhibits habitat loss and the correlation between biodiversity value and vulnerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built-assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built-assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade-offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built-assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade-offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]