Regional credit market for species conservation: Developing the Fort Hood Recovery Credit System

Wolfe, David W.; Hays, K. Brian; Farrell, Shannon L.; Baggett, Susan

doi:10.1002/wsb.184

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration of temporary credits in habitat exchange programs has ranged from 5 to more than 30 years (Calvet et al., 2019; State of Nevada, 2017a; Wolfe et al., 2012). Because short‐ or moderate‐term actions incur less financial commitment and risk to credit sellers than permanent actions (Bean, 2017), programs that allow temporary credits may facilitate participation from more‐diverse entities than those restricted to permanent offsets.…”

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because short‐ or moderate‐term actions incur less financial commitment and risk to credit sellers than permanent actions (Bean, 2017), programs that allow temporary credits may facilitate participation from more‐diverse entities than those restricted to permanent offsets. For example, private landowners surveyed prior to implementation of the Golden‐cheeked Warbler Recovery Credit System and the Contournement Nîmes‐Montpellier project were resistant to permanent conservation protections, but willing to enter into temporary conservation agreements (Calvet et al., 2019; Wolfe et al., 2012).…”

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unclear, however, whether such dynamic, permanent offsets have been used within this program. Increasing credit duration likely would decrease the flexibility of temporary credits and be less appealing to landowners (Calvet et al., 2019; Wolfe et al., 2012), and other habitat exchange programs in the United States do not appear to dictate the duration, transaction methods, or financial sustainability of temporary credits generated throughout the debit project. Therefore, it remains unclear whether a series of temporary offsets can mitigate a long‐term impact (Moilanen & Kotiaho, 2018).…”

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, they are centralized exchanges that are overseen by independent administrators who are not regulators, but may receive approval for compensatory mitigation from regulatory entities. Third, they may exist in the absence of a mandatory mitigation policy (Bean, 2017; Galik et al., 2017; Pindilli & Casey, 2015; Wolfe et al., 2012). We focus on these habitat exchange programs because they have been touted as a more flexible and practical offset approach in the face of global environmental change (which could reduce the efficacy of permanent conservation strategies; D'Aloia et al., 2019) and in areas where environmental regulation or land‐use restriction is unpalatable politically (see Section 2; Bean, 2017; Galik et al., 2017; Wolfe et al., 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Endangered Species Act. This program engaged private landowners in 10−25‐year financial agreements, in increments of 5 years, to improve Golden‐cheeked Warbler habitat on their properties (Wolfe et al., 2012; Figure 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation

Davis

Heinrichs

Fleishman

et al. 2021

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat exchange programs, a form of biodiversity offsetting, aim to compensate for negative impacts in one area by conservation in another. A newer subset of habitat exchange programs includes programs that have three distinct characteristics: they allow for temporary (as opposed to only permanent) credits; they are centralized and overseen by nonregulatory, independent administrators; and they exist in the absence of mandatory mitigation policy. As a result, these programs may be relatively flexible and practical in areas where environmental regulation is unpalatable politically. We synthesized gray and peer‐reviewed literature to evaluate these programs’ strengths and shortcomings. On the basis of our synthesis, we suggest that temporary conservation credits in habitat exchanges could encourage participation of landowners in conservation and enable programs to respond to environmental change. However, temporary credits can lead to trade‐offs between flexibility and uncertainty. Moreover, there is little evidence that these habitat exchange programs have benefited target species, and many challenges associated with offsetting programs persist. Newer forms of habitat exchange programs may have potential to achieve no net loss or net gains of biodiversity to a greater extent than other forms of offsetting, but this potential has not yet been realized.

show abstract

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trade‐offs Between Flexibility and Uncertainty Associated Wi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation

Davis

Heinrichs

Fleishman

et al. 2021

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Habitat leasing as an alternative to affirmative conservation easements in conserving wildlife on private lands

Bennett

Brammer

2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an opinion piece in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, Brown et al. (2023) proposed using affirmative clauses in conservation easements to enhance the wildlife benefits of easements. We agree that conservation easements are foundational tools to achieve wildlife conservation goals on private lands and their use could be improved to increase their impact. Here, we respond to the article to highlight the challenges with affirmative clauses, add nuance to the discussion, and propose an alternative that could achieve the goals proposed by Brown et al. (2023) without the need for affirmative clauses. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND AFFIRMATIVE CLAUSESConservation easements are intended to, and largely succeed in, permanently preventing the conversion of land to commercial or residential uses by limiting subdivision and development (Pocewicz et al. 2011). The strength of conservation easements lies in permanent restriction of alternative uses of the land base, which maintains existing habitat by limiting landscape fragmentation and conversion to uses incompatible with wildlife habitat. Because of the perpetual nature of conservation easements, the tool typically incorporates flexibility for landowners to manage the encumbered land in accordance with the best practices of the day (Horton et al. 2017).Affirmative clauses permanently obligate landowners to take certain actions to improve wildlife habitat.Requiring permanent management obligations is often not feasible from a landowner or ecological perspective.Landowners need flexibility to manage their land profitably and in line with contemporary best practices as climate continues to change and habitat shifts. Brown et al. (2023) proposed that land trusts should expand their use of affirmative clauses to increase the biodiversity benefits of conservation easements. While affirmative clauses might result in biodiversity benefits, the practical difficulty of including affirmative clauses outweighs the benefits and makes widespread adoption unlikely.We offer 4 primary practical difficulties to affirmative clauses: (1) affirmative clauses cannot be valued; (2) affirmative clauses may require unfunded ongoing management expenses; (3) affirmative clauses are difficult to monitor and enforce; and (4) conservation easement terms are inflexible and difficult to amend.Conservation easements are valued using a before-and-after appraisal method that is typically based on comparable sales of similar encumbered and unencumbered properties. When determining the value of the easement, appraisers cannot consider management practices, habitat, or biodiversity because of a lack of market signals to justify their financial value (McLaughlin 2016). Logically, landowners would not be willing to transfer a conservation easement for which they will not be fully compensated.

show abstract

Supply, Demand, and Uncertainty: Implications for Prelisting Conservation Policy

Galik

McAdams

2017

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regional credit market for species conservation: Developing the Fort Hood Recovery Credit System

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation

Strengths and shortcomings of habitat exchange programs for species conservation

Habitat leasing as an alternative to affirmative conservation easements in conserving wildlife on private lands

Supply, Demand, and Uncertainty: Implications for Prelisting Conservation Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About