Mon, Aug 15, 2022: 1:45 PM-2:00 PM
514C
Background/Question/MethodsThe biodiversity crisis necessitates a global implementation of effective, equitable and feasible conservation strategies. Meeting ambitious conservation area targets with insufficient conservation resources could require decision-makers to capitalize on other effective area-based conservation measures besides protected areas. Land acquisitions (LAs) for watershed protection can produce co-benefits for human needs and biodiversity, but there are concerns that acquiring land is not scalable or may not protect threatened biodiversity. Land acquisitions programs are rare, limiting the opportunities to assess these concerns. We investigate a unique policy that has legally mandated public LAs for watershed protection in the Colombian Andes, a tropical biodiversity hotspot, since 1993. We ask, what increases in species and ecosystem protection has sustained local public investment in watershed services provided? What factors affect the spatial allocation of this instrument, and what are its limitations? We assembled a novel dataset of >7,000 LAs from 145 administrative units and used spatial statistics to evaluate contributions of LAs to ecosystem and species coverage and representation within the PA network. To understand factors affecting spatial allocation and limitations to implementation, we constructed statistical models that predicted three implementation outcomes. We surveyed LA managers to uncover unquantified factors that affected implementation.
Results/ConclusionsMore than 300,000 ha were acquired through LAs, which is equivalent to the size of some of Colombia's national parks. However, while the scale of the acquisitions has been noteworthy, economic factors, such as land cost and government income, were main drivers in the number, size, and amount spent on LAs – not species or ecosystem threat. Given that land costs were higher in more threatened ecosystems and that LAs were mostly driven by available public funding and lower land costs, protection was biased towards less threatened ecosystems, with a few exceptions. LAs did protect over 8% of endangered High Andean Dry Páramo. They also protected over 5% of the range of two threatened and endemic birds. Managers ranked land tenure informality as the largest barrier to buying land and stated that political will was also lacking in several locations. This lack of political will could indicate that LAs are not necessarily a politically popular or expedient way to invest in watershed protections. However, where appropriate, increased oversight, environmental education, involvement of communities, and long-term partnerships between departments, environmental agencies, and municipalities could help draw political pressure and institutionalize progress on investments in watershed services and their biodiversity co-benefits.
Results/ConclusionsMore than 300,000 ha were acquired through LAs, which is equivalent to the size of some of Colombia's national parks. However, while the scale of the acquisitions has been noteworthy, economic factors, such as land cost and government income, were main drivers in the number, size, and amount spent on LAs – not species or ecosystem threat. Given that land costs were higher in more threatened ecosystems and that LAs were mostly driven by available public funding and lower land costs, protection was biased towards less threatened ecosystems, with a few exceptions. LAs did protect over 8% of endangered High Andean Dry Páramo. They also protected over 5% of the range of two threatened and endemic birds. Managers ranked land tenure informality as the largest barrier to buying land and stated that political will was also lacking in several locations. This lack of political will could indicate that LAs are not necessarily a politically popular or expedient way to invest in watershed protections. However, where appropriate, increased oversight, environmental education, involvement of communities, and long-term partnerships between departments, environmental agencies, and municipalities could help draw political pressure and institutionalize progress on investments in watershed services and their biodiversity co-benefits.