Tag Archives: environmental laws

Permanently Reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund

UPDATE: On February 4, 2016, President Obama proposed a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in his 2017 budget request. If approved by Congress, the fund would receive $900 million annually to fund recreation and conservation of public lands. The LWCF was previously re-authorized for the next three years as part of Congress’ year end budget bill, which passed in December of 2015. Source: The Hill.

This technical piece provides background and a policy recommendation to reauthorize the expired Land and Water Conservation Fund, a mechanism to fund public land acquisition and recreation in the United States. The Act to authorize the fund expired in September 2015. 


 Executive Summary

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1964 authorized the appropriation of up to $900 million annually for public land acquisition and support of state recreation programs. Funding was derived from offshore oil and gas royalties and had to be approved annually by Congress. In September 30, 2015, the Act expired. In the 50 years since its passage, the Fund has raised $16.8 billion and provided economic and ecological benefits to society. The returns on investment of the Fund has been at least 4 to 1. Several bills to reinstate the LWCF have been proposed recently. The PARC (Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation) Act would reinstate the Fund but reduce spending on federal land acquisition and increase spending for state recreation and offshore oil exploration. Bills to permanently reauthorize the LWCF have also been proposed in the House (H.R. 1814) and Senate (S. 338). Based on the analysis of these policy alternatives, I recommend that Congress permanently authorize the LWCF by passing H.R. 1814/S. 338. This will allow society to realize the maximum benefits and avoid the risk of a future funding gap.

Source: http://wilderness.org/mapping-land-and-water-conservation-fund-lwcf

Source: http://wilderness.org/mapping-land-and-water-conservation-fund-lwcf

Background of the Land and Water Conservation Fund

To address the market failure of the undersupply of public lands (generally a public good), the Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) Act was passed in 1964[i]. This Act established a funding mechanism which allocated a portion of revenues from oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and directed that funding to public land acquisition and recreational activities. [ii] The law allowed the Fund to raise up to $900 million annually. The level of funding was determined and approved by Congress each year. Historically, Congress had approved only portion of the LWCF; the fund could have raised $36.2 billion to date, but only $16.8 billion was allocated to the Fund itself.[iii] The remainder was diverted to other appropriations in the general federal budget. The LWCF appropriated funding toward three purposes: land acquisition by the four federal land management agencies (the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service), matching grants for states to support recreational activities, and other federal programs.[iv] On September 30, 2015, the LWCF expired. Several bills to reinstate the LWCF with modifications or with a permanent funding mechanism have been proposed in Congress in 2015.

 Benefits and Costs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 1965 – 2015

The Land and Water Conservation Fund allocated over 41,000 individual funds[v] which have contributed to the protection of 4.5 million acres of federal[vi] and 2.6 million acres of state and local lands[vii]. These public lands are located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and US territories in 98% of counties in the United States.[viii] In terms of political feasibility, the LWCF is supported by a coalition of state, local, and national conservation and recreation organizations[ix] and received bi-partisan support in Congress from 1965 to 2015.

The LWCF is a primary source of funding for the four federal land agencies which provide recreational opportunities to the American public. Recreation contributes to the economy directly and indirectly; park-goers spend money at local tourism outlets (hotels, restaurants) and purchase recreational equipment to support their activities. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that recreational activities related to wildlife hunting on public lands contributed $3.7 billion to the economy in 2011 alone.[x] The Federal Interagency Council on Recreation found that recreational activities on public lands (national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and others) supported 880,000 jobs in 2012 alone[xi].

Funding for the LWCF is generated from the royalties (e.g. revenues) from offshore oil and gas drilling activities. Royalties that must be paid from offshore drilling activities in the U.S. range from 12.5 to 18.75% and are determined by a law separate from the LWCF.[xii] A portion of these royalties (up to $900 million annually) has gone to the LWCF while a majority of the remainder goes to the US Treasury. The other funds from oil royalties support the Historic Preservation Fund, the states where the oil operation was leased, and other allocations.[xiii] Royalties are charged whether or not the LWCF exists. Hence, a change in the law to reinstate or cancel the LWCF does not affect oil company’s profit margins nor the price of oil. Without the LWCF, the revenues that would normally cover the fund are used within the general federal budget.

Most funding from oil and gas drilling on public lands goes to the US Treasury. Source:  https://useiti.doi.gov/

Most funding from oil and gas drilling on public lands goes to the US Treasury. Source: https://useiti.doi.gov/

A 2010 report analyzed the return on investment of the LWCF and found that for every dollar spent through the fund, there was a $4 return in economic value.[xiv] This value was estimated based on a suite of ecosystem services provided by lands acquired through the LWCF including water quality protection, habitat provision, carbon sequestration, erosion control, aesthetics, and others. This does not include direct economic values for recreation, tourism, historical resources, and those other benefits which cannot be valued in dollar terms including existence and bequest value. Hence, the return on investment in the LWCF is likely greater than four to one.

Policy Alternative 1: Reinstate the LWCF with modifications with the PARC Act

The PARC (Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation) Act was introduced in the House in October 2015. This Act aims to reauthorize the LWCF at the same level ($900 million annually) for the next seven years but reforms the allocation by reducing funding for federal land acquisition (not more than 3.5% as compared to the previous 60%), and increasing funding for state recreation projects (not less than 45% as compared to the previous 25%).[xv] The PARC act also allocates funding toward promoting offshore energy exploration, innovation and education (not less than 20%) as well as other programs.[xvi] The breakdown of these allocations suggests that the PARC Act would eventually indirectly increase offshore drilling, but would not increase the amount of royalties diverted to the LWCF itself. This effects the efficiency of the Fund in society; by promoting additional drilling and carbon emissions, the externality of carbon pollution will be less internalized with the PARC Act than with the original LWCF.

The PARC Act was introduced by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-Utah). Photo: http://www.standard.net/Government/2015/05/15/House-defies-Obama-veto-threat-passes-defense-policy-bill

The PARC Act was introduced by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-Utah). Photo: http://www.standard.net/Government/2015/05/15/House-defies-Obama-veto-threat-passes-defense-policy-bill

The political feasibility of the PARC Act is currently low. Although it has been promoted by the chair of the House Committee of Natural Resources, it is opposed in the house Democrats and many Republicans[xvii] as well as by the White House.[xviii] In addition, it is opposed by prominent advocacy groups. John Gardner from the National Parks Conservation Association stated that “the PARC Act does not remotely constitute a reauthorization of LWCF, as it seeks to systematically dismantle the program and, for purposes of federal land acquisition, render it effectively worthless.”[xix]

Policy Alternative 2: Reinstate the LWCF with permanent funding

Efforts to reinstate the LWCF with permanent funding have been introduced in Congress: H.R. 1814 in the House (which currently has 196 cosponsors) and S. 338 in the Senate (which currently has 18 co-sponsors). These bills would reinstate the LWCF and allow for permanent funding; this would avoid the need for Congress to annually reauthorize and approve the fund. The only allocation specification that the bill makes is that “not less than 1.5% …be used for projects that secure recreational public access to Federal public land.”[xx] The remainder of the appropriations would remain as in the original LWCF.

HR 1814  was introduced by Raul Grijalva (D - Arizona). Photo: govtrack.us

HR 1814 was introduced by Raul Grijalva (D – Arizona). Photo: govtrack.us

Benefits of these bills are expected to be in line with the historical benefits as provided by the LWCF – at least a 4 to 1 return on investment. The benefits provided by the LWCF from 1965 to 2015 is a testament to the likely success of a permanent reauthorization and dedicated funding of the program. If passed, permanent reauthorization would avoid future gaps in the flow of funds from LWCF as there has been since September 2015. In addition, the political feasibility is high with bipartisan support in Congress and the support of a large coalition of organizations.[xxi]  It is unclear in the language of the bill whether there would be guaranteed full funding ($900 million) annually. If it is not guaranteed, then an inconsistent funding stream of a future LWCF constitutes a limitation of its effectiveness.


To correct the market failure of the undersupply of public lands and to provide net benefits to society, the LWCF should be reinstated with permanent funding (H.R. 1814/S. 338). These bills avoid the limitations of the PARC Act which would contribute to the externality of carbon pollution. Benefits of permanent reauthorization of the LWCF outweigh the costs to society by at least 4 to 1. Passage of S. 338 and H.R. 1814 is possible given the bi-partisan support from both chambers of Congress and from the Executive Branch. Language in the bill should be clarified as to whether the fund will be guaranteed to be financed fully ($900 million annually). Permanent authorization would avoid a gap in the funding stream. A complete, consistent, and permanent funding of the LWCF would deliver maximized net social benefits to the American public.


[i] Act of September 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq

[ii] Hardy Vincent, Carol. 2014. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33531.pdf (accessed 12/1/2015).

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Walls, Margaret. 2009. Federal Funding for Conservation and Recreation: The Land and Water Conservation Fund. Resources for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-BCK-ORRG_LWCF.pdf (accessed 11/27/2015).

[vi] Zinn, Jeffrey. 2005. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Retrieved from http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RS21503.pdf (accessed 12/2/2015).

[vii] Walls, Margaret. 2009. Federal Funding for Conservation and Recreation: The Land and Water Conservation Fund. Resources for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-BCK-ORRG_LWCF.pdf (accessed 11/27/2015).

[viii] National Recreation and Park Association. 2008. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance Program. Retrieved from www.nrpa.org (accessed 12/1/2015).

[ix] Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition. Retrieved from http://lwcfcoalition.org/about-us.html (accessed 11/30/2015).

[x] Based on calculation from report: 4.9 million people hunting on public lands in 2011 multiplied by trip expenditures per hunter of $762. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

[xi] Federal Interagency Council on Recreation. 2014. Fact Sheet on Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Income.

[xii] Government Accountability Office. 2010. Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1134.pdf (accessed 12/2/2015).

[xiii] Department of the Interior. Natural Resource Revenues from U.S. Federal Lands. Retrieved from  https://useiti.doi.gov/ (accessed 12/1/2015).

[xiv] Trust for Public Land. 2010. The Return on Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Retrieved from https://www.tpl.org/return-investment-land-and-water-conservation-fund (accessed 11/29/2015).

[xv] House Committee on Natural Resources. 2015. The Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation Act (PARC). Retrieved from http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/nr_parc.act_11.6.2015.pdf (accessed 12/1/2015).

[xvi] Ibid

[xvii] Henry, Devin. 2015. GOP infightiS.ng breaks out over conservation bill. The Hill. Retrieved from: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/259728-gop-in-fighting-breaks-out-over-conservation-bill (accessed 11/29/2015).

[xviii] Cama, Timothy. 2015. Obama official objects to GOP conservation bill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/260588-obama-official-objects-to-gop-conservation-bill (accessed 11/22/2015).

[xix] Retrieved from https://www.npca.org/articles/892-position-on-the-parc-act.

[xx] S. 338 – A bill to permanent reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/338 (accessed 12/1/15).

[xxi] Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition. Current Legislation. Retrieved from  http://lwcfcoalition.org/legislation.html (accessed 12/1/15).

PADDDtracker – explore legal changes to the world’s protected areas

This is the tenth (and final) blog in a series of weekly blog posts covering conservation topics with a focus on protected areas and the laws and institutions that support them (or don’t).



When you think about national parks, wildlife reserves, marine sanctuaries, or other protected lands or waters, what pops into your mind? Perhaps you envision amazing animals, peaceful getaways, or the potential for fun adventures. Chances are that you live nearby a protected area, whether it be local, state, or nationally designated. In fact, there are more than 200,000 nationally established protected areas in the world according to the latest estimates from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. You can locate your local protected areas here. Protected lands and waters provide endless resources to people, including carbon storage, filtration of clean water, natural products, and a sense of peace and serenity in nature. Maps that display protected places are usually viewed as a snapshot. However, have you ever thought about the dynamic nature of protected areas? It turns out that although the number of protected areas and the land and waters they cover has been increasing in recent years, there are many instances around the world of changes that have reduced the size or status of protected areas or even removed protection completely.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) is an acronym to encapsulate the legal changes that make protected areas weaker, smaller, or delete them entirely. Researchers have worked to collect data on PADDD and have made it available online at PADDDtracker.org. This site, although intuitive to use, has a few important technical components that users should be familiar with when exploring or using the data. This blog post presents a quick “primer” and answers to FAQs about PADDDtracker. The intended audiences of PADDDtracker include scientists, park managers and other conservation practitioners, students, and companies considering investments in conservation or other development projects.

First of all, what is a protected area?

For the purposes of defining a PADDD event for PADDDtracker, a protected area is:

“a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” (IUCN Definition 2008)

While doing research on PADDD, it’s important to identify whether a legal change is actually affecting a protected area as defined by IUCN and not some other type of intervention (a payment for ecosystem services scheme, a forest certification area, etc).

What do all of those D’s stand for? A dega-what? 

A downgrade is the legal allowance of additional human activities within a protected area. These could include industrial development and extraction (e.g. oil drilling, agriculture, mining, tourism), or could even include subsistence-level harvesting of natural resources (artesanal fishing).

A downsize is the reduction in size of a protected area caused by a change in the law.

A degazette is the complete legal deletion of a protected area. To “gazette” is to write down or establish an area, so to degazette is to remove it from the law.

The colors on the map show the different D's: downgrades (purple), downsizes (green), and degazettes (orange). Most PADDD event data exist as points, but there are also polygons available in some nations including Peru. 

The colors on the map show the different D’s: downgrades (purple), downsizes (green), and degazettes (orange). Most PADDD event data exist as points, but there are also polygons available in some nations including Peru.

Why are some circles highlighted?  

PADDDtracker differentiates between enacted (already passed into law) and proposed (put forth but not yet passed) PADDD events. Highlighted circles show proposed events. When doing research on PADDD, it’s important to verify the current status of proposals – some may have been enacted recently or may no longer be under consideration.

What are those other terms on the Advanced Search?

Cause: Many PADDD events (but not all) have a known proximate cause that primarily drove the legal change. The cause of legal changes can usually be identified within the law itself. If the cause of a PADDD event does not fall into one of the fourteen causes in the list (e.g. tourism development), it falls under “Other” or is perhaps “Unknown.”

IUCN category: The International Union for the Conservation of Nature provides guidance on the categorization of protected areas into 6 categories. Category I is the strictest, while VI is the least strict. Sometimes, a downgrade causes the change in the IUCN category of a protected area; however, this does not always occur.

The six management categories for protected areas as defined by IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/BP9-management_guidelines/2.%20Backgroundf2.html

The six management categories for protected areas as defined by IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/BP9-management_guidelines/2.%20Backgroundf2.html

Reverse: Sometimes, PADDD events are withdrawn, even after enactment. For example, there is currently a proposed law in Congress that would reverse the 1906 downsize of Yosemite National Park and add that portion back to the park. Hence, enacted events can be reversed, even years later. In addition, proposed events can also be reversed. In other words, proposals that are retracted or abandoned are considered as reversed PADDD proposals.

Offset: Occasionally, to compensate for the reduction or deletion of a protected area, a law subsequently adds a parcel of land to the park in a different location. Offsets may make up the difference in the area lost but also may not.

Systemic: Oftentimes, one law to change protected areas affects many parks simultaneously. For example, a law may affect all National Parks or all National Forests at the same time.

How can I get summary information on PADDD quickly and easily?

There are two easy ways to do this. The first: access an Event Profile for any PADDD event by clicking on the corresponding dot on the map and selecting Event Profile. This will give you a summary of the information about that particular legal change. Scroll down to access details about the event.

1/2: Event Profile for a downgrade event in Virunga National Park, DRC.   http://www.padddtracker.org/view-paddd/paddd-events/B62175

1/2: Event Profile for a downgrade event in Virunga National Park, DRC. http://www.padddtracker.org/view-paddd/paddd-events/B62175

2/2: Details of event profile for downgrade in Virunga National Park, DRC. http://www.padddtracker.org/view-paddd/paddd-events/B62175

2/2: Details of event profile for downgrade in Virunga National Park, DRC. http://www.padddtracker.org/view-paddd/paddd-events/B62175

The second way to get information quickly: access a Country Profile by clicking on a locality on the map outside of a PADDD event dot on the nation you are interested in. Scroll down to access pie charts and a timeline summarizing the data for that country.

1/2: Country profile of PADDD for the DRC.

1/2: Country profile of PADDD for the DRC.

2/2: Country profile of PADDD for the DRC.

2/2: Country profile of PADDD for the DRC.

Where do the data come from?

Some data on PADDDtracker have been published in conjunction with peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Mascia and Pailler 2011; Mascia et al. 2014), but some have not been validated by peer-review. Some data are currently under review or in preparation for publication. A subset of the validated data can be downloaded here. A portion of the data on PADDDtracker, however, have been contributed by “the crowd” including users and contributors from around the world. Hence, there may be duplicate entries of PADDD events and some out of date information, for example, on the current status of proposed events.

How do I share PADDD on Social Media?

Sharing PADDD events and country profiles on social media – facebook and twitter – is easy. When you want to share a page, simply click on the facebook or twitter icon on the top right-hand corner of the screen to share instantly.

How do I conduct research using PADDD data?

Some of the data on PADDD are available to download. These data comprise the data which have been validated by peer review and do not include all PADDD data points that you see online. You can download the data here. Before working with the data, do read the technical guide (here) which defines key terms and provides decision trees about the delineation and definition of PADDD events and fields.

This is exciting. There is so much potential for research on PADDD! Where do I learn even more about PADDD and PADDDtracker!?

More information on PADDD can be found in the technical guide. This document will come in handy if you plan to work with PADDD data for research. For instance, the flow charts help you determine if something is actually a PADDD event and what category “D” it falls into. Also, for the latest science, check out the new peer-reviewed paper about impacts of PADDD on tropical deforestation and carbon emissions (Forrest et al. 2015 – open access).

Start exploring PADDDtracker today!

This is the last entry of the summer blog series. Next week, the fall blog series focused on evaluating conservation interventions and building the evidence base for conservation will begin.

Subscribe today!

Perspectives on Lion Trophy Hunting

Cecil the Lion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11764395/Zimbabwes-favourite-lion-Cecil-killed-by-hunter-from-North-America.html

Cecil the Lion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11764395/Zimbabwes-favourite-lion-Cecil-killed-by-hunter-from-North-America.html

The recent outrage over the illegal hunting of Cecil the Lion reminded me of an analysis I compiled in 2013 about African lion tourism. A thorough review of the literature at the time demonstrated that the story of trophy hunting for lions is not straightforward as many make it out to be. Yes, the moral argument is clear – hunting of a majestic, endangered animal is wrong. However, the conservation science and sustainability argument is more complex. The income generated from hunting lions may be significant. Hunting a lion for sport costs a tourist between $24,000 and $71,000 – the highest price for any trophy animal. In theory, much of this funding should be directed to the local communities and habitat conservation which should promote the protection of lions and other creatures. However, this element of the argument becomes murky – there are many unknowns about the particulars of the funding streams from the tourists to the local communities. Corruption and private entities may get in the way and the funds may be funneled into the wrong hands. More in-depth economics research is needed to accurately identify and quantify the funding generated from trophy hunting. I fear, however, that research in this particular area would be met with many obstacles, including opaque, non-transparent bureaucratic barriers and perhaps danger to the researcher. We do know a few important facts and figures, however, about lion tourism to date. The excerpt from this report discusses the “No-Hunting” and the “Southern African” models of wildlife management. The no-hunting model is implemented in India and Kenya; wildlife hunting is banned. In the Southern African model (as examined here in South Africa and Tanzania), however, hunting – including trophy hunting – is allowed. Wildlife tourism, both consumptive (e.g. hunting) and non-consumptive (e.g. photography), contribute to the Southern African economy.

Want to know more about the specifics of lion ecology and tourism? Read on.


African Lion (Panthera leo leo)

The African lion (Panthera leo leo) is an iconic predator whose populations have been declining for the past 50 years due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict.  Lions depend on large swaths of habitat and prey including zebras, wildebeest, and springbok. They live in prides of four to six members, which consist of related females and their cubs as well as a dominant male. Females hunt and raise young communally. Typically, lions live in open woodlands or scrub and grass complexes where sufficient cover is provided for hunting and denning.  They are found in most countries in eastern and southern Africa, yet they survive in only 22% of their historical range (IUCN 2006a,b; Bauer 2008).

Current and historic range map of the African lion. Source: Panthera 2009.

Current and historic range map of the African lion. Source: Panthera 2009.

Population Status

African lions live on both protected and private lands, although there are fewer lions outside protected areas than in the past. In 1990, 75% of African lions lived outside protected areas, while in 2002, 50% did (Ferreras and Cousins 1996, Chardonnet 2002). This decline may be attributed to high levels of human-wildlife conflict on unprotected lands.

African lions have been listed on the IUCN Red list  as Vulnerable since 1996.  Recent estimates suggest that the lion population has undergone a 30% to 50% reduction over the past two decades with current estimates ranging from 23,000 to 39,000 (IUCN 2012)

Figure 14: Population trend of the African lion. Sources (in chronological order): Myers 1975 (1950 and 1975); Ferreras and Cousins 1996; Nowell and Jackson; Chardonnet 2002; Bauer and VanderMerwe 2004; IUCN 2012; Riggio et al. 2012.

Population trend of the African lion. Sources (in chronological order): Myers 1975 (1950 and 1975); Ferreras and Cousins 1996; Nowell and Jackson; Chardonnet 2002; Bauer and VanderMerwe 2004; IUCN 2012; Riggio et al. 2012.

The African lion is listed on CITES II, which allows international trade with an export permit.  In 2004, a proposal to transfer the lion from CITES II to CITES I (and restrict all international trade) was denied. This meeting drew national attention to the lion population decline and prompted IUCN to organize regional workshops in Africa to assess the status of lion conservation.

Trophy hunting


Walter Palmer and associate with Cecil. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/07/what-drives-trophy-hunters-like-walter-palmer.html

Trophy hunting is permitted in South Africa and Tanzania, but not in Kenya.  Hunting quotas are established by wildlife departments, typically based on rough population estimates (Baker 1997). Trophy hunting of lions generates significant income for local communities, which is attributed to its high market value. Lions attract the highest prices of all trophy species, on average $24,000 – $71,000 (Lindsey et al. 2012). Lions contribute 5-17% to trophy hunting incomes in each country. Trophy hunting tourists contribute additional revenue including fees to hunt other animals, lodging, and transportation.

Lion trophy hunting was recently banned in Botswana; studies have shown that this ban cost the trophy hunting industry 10% of total revenues (US$1.26 million) and has adversely affected community conservation efforts (Lindsey Roulet 2006, Peake, 2004b). A ban on trophy hunting may confer additional costs or losses of revenue to other tourism providers, such as the hotel and wildlife watching industries.

However, trophy hunting may impact population dynamics of lions. Loveridge et al. found that trophy hunters typically target males and therefore skew sex ratios in favor of adult females. As males are removed from the population, males from outside the pride replace them and may commit infanticide (2007).  Interestingly, in certain countries such as South Africa, up to 90% of lions hunted for sport are captive bred (Damm 2005). Lindsey et al. also suggest that the captive-bred hunting industry in South Africa has grown while the number of wild lions hunted has declined (2012).

Local Perceptions and Threats

Lion-livestock conflict a reality for local farmers. http://cml.leiden.edu/news/livestock-depredation-lions.html

Lion-livestock conflict a reality for local farmers. http://cml.leiden.edu/news/livestock-depredation-lions.html

In general, local people perceive lions as a threat to their livelihoods and income-generating opportunities. Lions may prey on livestock, attack people, or otherwise reduce available land for human settlement (Abe et al. 2003).  Lion conservation efforts have not historically involved local communities until recently.  A 2006 IUCN workshop found that local communities support lion conservation actions given that they are given a stake in management.

Threats to lions include poisoning, trapping, and shooters by farmers and herders, habitat loss and fragmentation, scarcity of wild prey, and inbreeding/small populations, improperly managed trophy hunting (Bauer 2008, Trinkel et al 2010). Although habitat fragmentation is listed as a threat, a recent study suggests that lions residing within fenced reserves maintain populations closer to carrying capacity and require $500/Km2 annually for management, while lions in unfenced reserves maintain much lower densities and over $2000/km2 for management (Packer et al. 2013). This suggests that physical separation of lions from human settlements via fences mitigates conflict, reduces management costs and may prevent further declines.

Root causes of these threats include human population growth, expanding settlement, poverty, and armed conflict which prevents tourism and enables wildlife poaching and illegal trade. Illegal hunting and trade is another issue for African lions. Although comprehensive data sets do not exist, illegal trade in cubs, skins, and body parts is common. Wares are exported to Asia, typically for use in traditional medicine and souvenirs. Illegal hunting and trade persist due to ineffective law enforcement  and lack of motivation (IUCN 2006).

Proposed Listing of the Lion on the ESA

In 2011, a group of conservation organizations (IFAW, the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International, Born Free and Defenders of Wildlife) submitted a proposal to list the African lion on the Endangered Species Act.  If passed, import of trophy lions into the US would be banned (except for imports that enhance the species’ propagation or scientific purposes).  The proposal claims that trophy hunting is unsustainable and contributing to severe declines of the lion populations (Place et al. 2011).  The proposal also states that existing regulatory mechanisms such as CITES are inadequate to conserve the species, and that a US listing would attract international attention for the species.  Lindsey et al. 2012 suggest that the reduction of hunting by American tourists would be detrimental to communities that rely on trophy hunting funds to control lion populations and combat poaching. Additional studies have offered alternative actions which may make trophy hunting more sustainable including reducing quotas, improving oversight to prevent illegal activities and setting restrictions to allow for shooting of only the oldest male lions (Loveridge and Macdonald 2002, Whitman et al. 2004, Packer et al. 2011).  As of April 2013, this proposed listing has undergone a public comment period and is under a 12 month review by the USFWS.

African lion conservation: A comparison between models

This case study can be used to compare the effectiveness of the South African (for Tanzania) and No-Hunting (for Kenya) models in terms of their ability to support populations of African lions that generate revenues for local communities.  The lion range in Tanzania covers 92% of the country, 45% of which is located inside protected areas (Mesochina et al. 2010). Tanzania has the largest lion population in Africa (estimated at 16,800 individuals) and is first in terms of lion trophy hunting; about 200 lions are legally harvested each year. This figure does not include illegal harvests (Mesochina et al 2010).  Due to the lack of robust data, it is unknown whether lion populations in Tanzania are declining, stable, or increasing.

The director of wildlife for the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism recently published an op-ed the New York Times speaking out against the proposed ESA listing (Songorwa 2013). Songorwa wrote that lion hunters pay $9,800 to hunt lions; an average of $1,960,000 (60% of the trophy hunting market) is generated each year (Songorwa 2013).  Listing the species on the ESA and concurrent loss of this revenue would be detrimental to conservation efforts and game reserves in Tanzania.

By contrast, habitat available for lions in Kenya covers less than half of the country  (KWS 2008).  Kenya has been losing 100 lions per year for the past seven years, leaving the country with just 2000 individuals (Barley 2009). At this rate, lions will go extinct in Kenya within 20 years. Lion populations are crashing due to habitat destruction and conflicts with humans. Many rural Kenyan communities are killing lions by poisoning animal carcasses with a pesticide, Carbofuran, which can be purchased over the counter (Mynott 2008).

Furthermore, hunting is prohibited in Kenya and no revenues are generated from trophy hunting. Lions, however, bring in significant revenues from ecotourism.  Annually, Kenya’s 2000 remaining lions could be worth $17,000 each, or $34 million total, in the ecotourism sector (Barley 2009). The beneficiaries of lion tourism include the government and private tourism operators;  however, these stakeholders are not living alongside lions everyday. Landowners who live near lions are more in control of their populations, but do not receive financial benefits and hence do not have the incentive to conserve them (Nelson 2012).

It is difficult to conclude which model (the Southern African or the No-Hunting) is working better for lions based simply on the model itself, but based on lion population abundance and trends, funds generated, and social support, lions are faring better in Tanzania than they are in Kenya. Tanzania has a larger population of lions, is experiencing less steep declines, and generates revenues from both trophy hunting and ecotourism. Tanzania also has more protected areas which means that there is less direct contact between people and lions. However, threats to the lion persist despite the model.  An inclusion of additional countries within the Southern African model could allow for more robust comparisons.


References and the full text of the paper “Comparisons of national wildlife management strategies: what works, where and why?” can be found here. Authored by Rachel Golden, Shalynn Pack, and Ashley Walker.

Do you have updated facts and figures on status or policies related to African lions? Please comment!

How do you know that protected areas are actually protecting anything? Use Matching!

This is the sixth in a series of weekly blog posts covering conservation topics with a focus on protected areas and the laws and institutions that support them (or don’t).

The forests surrounding many protected areas are being rapidly cleared or degraded. Shown is recent deforestation for oil palm plantations along the edge of Bukit Palong National Park in Peninsular Malaysia. Photo by William Laurance, http://theconversation.com/are-nature-reserves-working-take-a-look-outside-9432

The forests surrounding many protected areas are being rapidly cleared or degraded. Shown is recent deforestation for oil palm plantations along the edge of Bukit Palong National Park in Peninsular Malaysia. Photo by William Laurance, http://theconversation.com/are-nature-reserves-working-take-a-look-outside-9432

A new methodological approach is gaining traction in the conservation science community. This method is borrowed from the economics literature and has historically been used to analyze the impact of policies on future wages, socioeconomic status, or other economic variables. Today, conservation researchers are beginning to employ this rigorous approach – known as matching – for a variety of purposes. One prevalent application of matching is the evaluation of protected areas, both terrestrial and marine. Why is the matching approach so popular to evaluate protected areas? First of all, the need to rigorously evaluate protected area performance is becoming more widely acknowledged in the literature. The Convention on Biological Diversity includes targets about national designation of protected areas which should be effectively managed. Without monitoring and evaluation of these lands and waters, there would be no way to determine whether management were effective and whether the targets were met. 

Let’s suppose that you are interested in whether the protected areas in your country are preventing the loss of forests. Ok great. Can you simply compare the deforestation rates inside and outside the protected area? Unfortunately, that won’t be completely accurate. The lands inside and outside of that particular protected area might have different types of vegetation, terrain, or soil productivity. Because of these inherent differences, you cannot simply compare the inside to the outside. Ok, what about comparing the protected area before it was established to after? That is a bit better, because it is focused on the same piece of land. However, it doesn’t accurately capture the impact of protection because there may be other factors at play in this location. Perhaps other policies were enacted around the same time that affected deforestation.

inside outside

Ok, so how do we actually isolate the IMPACT of the protected area (the legal establishment itself) on deforestation? One way to do this is to use matching. To conduct matching, the researcher selects a piece of land that is protected and a similar (matching) piece of land that is NOT protected. The protected area is considered the “treatment” and the unprotected area is the “control.” Comparing the treatment and control to each other is a fair and simple way to quantify the benefits of protection. Hence, matching isolates the impact of the protection policy ITSELF and rules out extraneous factors that could affect the results (like other policies, the impacts of different landscape types or soil types, etc).

inside outside

How do you know if two pieces of land (or water) are a good match? Use covariates! Covariates are variables that correlate with the treatment and the outcome. It is necessary to use covariates because the location of protection or deforestation (or whatever outcome variable you are looking at) on the landscape is not random. Protected lands tend to be placed in isolated, mountainous areas with low soil productivity – high and far from development or urban areas. Also, deforestation occurs happen more often in places that are easier to access – closer to roads or other access infrastructure and also closer to the forest edge. By accounting for these factors using covariates (distance to roads, distance to forest edge, etc), the researcher can select well-matched control regions that are actually comparable to the protected area in question. This reduces bias in the analysis and allows you to compare apples to apples.  Further, it is worth noting that when using matching, the magnitude of the impact is likely to be much smaller than the estimate of impact using more traditional approaches simply because the covariates are accounted for.

What are some limitations of the matching approach? Simply put, sometimes you cannot find a perfect match. There may not always exist enough similar parcels on the landscape that are similar in access and topography to your protected area. Also, there is the issue of choosing covariates. How do you know that you have chosen the correct covariates or a sufficient number of them? As more researchers use matching, the scientific community will gain a more refined understanding of which covariates to use and when.

What research frontiers exist for applying matching in conservation? There are many! Matching could be used to evaluate conservation interventions other than protected areas – matching has been applied to quantify impacts of payments for ecosystem services, for example, The method could also be extended to indigenous reserves, community based natural resource management areas, or other area-based interventions. The application of matching to evaluate protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) is an area of research that merits exploration. Using matching can help answer questions like – what is the impact of changing a protected areas’ status on carbon storage for climate mitigation? What is the impact of reducing a protected area’s size on biodiversity? If a protected area’s protection is removed, how is land cover affected? There are endless possible areas of research and exploration that could employ matching.

What are some tools and resources to help with matching? There is a wealth of literature available on matching and impact evaluation – see here, here, and here.  There are also some R packages – MatchIt and Matching are two examples. If you are aware of other resources, post a comment below!

World Oceans Month – Marine Protected Areas and PADDD

This is the fifth in a series of weekly blog posts covering conservation topics with a focus on protected areas and the laws and institutions that support them (or don’t).Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge - located near the US-Mexico border http://flickriver.com/photos/frogdr/sets/72157623645555404/

June is World Ocean's Month http://www.oceanchampions.org/blog/?p=1362

June is World Ocean’s Month. http://www.oceanchampions.org/blog/?p=1362

In honor of World Oceans Month, this post will feature two short stories about ocean protection and how that protection was almost compromised. First of all, why is there a month dedicated to the world’s oceans? Oceans cover about 70% of our planet and provide vital life support systems for people around the world – they provide wild fish, regulate the global climate, and support ecotourism industries for many nations. Policies to help protect the oceans from overfishing and pollution are in place and growing in their extent. One example of top-down policies which apply to the oceans are Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs. MPAs are special places where human activity is restricted, whether it be commercial or local fishing, offshore drilling, or diving.

The world’s first MPA, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, was established in 1903 by President Roosevelt. This was 31 years after the first land-based park, Yellowstone National Park, was established in 1872. In recent years, the number of new MPAs and their coverage of the world’s oceans has been increasing. Notably, President Obama recently established the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument – the largest MPA in the world. MPAs are diverse entities – some are “no-take” zones, which prohibit all fishing activities. Others are “multiple-use” zones which may allow some fishing, but there are limits on catch and restrictions on the type of gear fishermen can use. MPAs can also place limits on diving for recreation or tourism. Due to these restrictions, marine protected areas have been controversial in some parts of the world. Opposition may come from policy makers or local communities, who claim that a proposed MPA could interfere with tourism or commercial or local fishing.

The benefits of marine protected areas for species have been documented extensively in the literature. A large meta-analysis of MPAs found that species density, biomass, organism size, and diversity on average were higher after the establishment of a park (or inside a park as compared to the outside). A recent update of this meta-analysis found that reserves can be effective even if they are small and regardless of location; it should be noted, however, that effects of reserves on different groupings of species can vary. In addition, MPAs can have positive “spillover” effects. This means that the MPA provides spawning habitat for fish; the fish hatchlings are then able to populate the surrounding area that is not protected and enrich the nearby fisheries.

Are MPAs beneficial for local people? It depends – the impacts are less straightforward and data availability is limited. One study examined changes in human well-being indicators (food security, resource rights, employment, community organization, and income) as a result of establishing a nearby marine protected area.  For the most part, food security remained stable or increased. Some local people gained more control over marine resources but about the same proportion lost control. This study shows that more data and research are needed to understand the influence of establishing a marine protected area on local communities and their livelihoods. It suggests that although MPAs are not universally “good” or “bad” for local people, they can be thought of as an opportunity to enhance livelihoods given proper implementation and other supportive policies and practices.

What about the legal support that MPAs need? Are marine protected areas currently threatened by legal changes that would weaken, shrink, or remove them? Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) has been proposed in at least two iconic marine parks, but the most recent information suggests that neither of these proposals has been successful. 

Great Blue Hole National Park, Belize http://www.visithopkinsvillagebelize.com/the-great-blue-hole.html

Great Blue Hole National Park, Belize http://www.visithopkinsvillagebelize.com/the-great-blue-hole.html

1. Marine PADDD averted in Belize – offshore drilling

The most recent marine PADDD story comes from Belize, a small, tropical, coastal country in Central America. Many conservation projects and organizations are interested in Belize – it is home to the second longest barrier reef in the world, dwarfed only by the Great Barrier Reef. Despite the Belize Barrier Reef’s designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site, a recent proposal to conduct offshore drilling in this location was considered by the government, which would have opened up about 99% of Belize’s jurisdictional waters. Drilling could have affected many protected areas including seven World Heritage sites. After tireless opposition from environmental voices including Oceana, the Belizean government decided to drop the proposal last month. A salient argument against drilling was economic: Belize’s economy and millions of jobs depend on tourismResearch has found that a majority of tourists participate in marine activities during their visit to Belize, and that the value of coral reefs and mangroves in Belize is estimated at $289 million annually. Marine PADDD was successfully avoided in this small coastal nation.

Great Barrier Reef, Australia http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/great-barrier-reef/holland-text

Great Barrier Reef, Australia http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/great-barrier-reef/holland-text

2. Marine PADDD avoided in the Great Barrier Reef – industrial waste

Last year, the Australian government issued a proposal to open up the Great Barrier Reef – the largest barrier reef in the world – to allow dumping of dredge spoil. Dredge spoil is produced during large-scale construction activities, usually related to ports. The Australian Government recognizes the impacts of dredging on their website:

“Dredging and material placement (also called spoil dumping) have relatively well-known potential impacts such as degradation of water quality, changes to hydrodynamics, smothering of benthic fauna and flora, damage to marine wildlife through the dredge mechanism, translocation of species and removal of habitat.”

This issue was raised to high-profile status within Australia and the international conservation community. The impending World Parks Congress in 2014 was held in Sydney; all eyes were watching the Australian government. Would they retract this proposal? With the pressure on, the Environment Minister of Australia announced that the reef would be safe from dredge spoil. In March 2015, the BBC reported that dredge spoil dumping will be banned in the Great Barrier Reef.

These marine conservation stories offer some hope. Both iconic protected areas faced proposed downgrades which would have weakened their regulations but neither passed.  An interesting feature that these stories have in common: the international news media and conservation community raised the profile of the proposals and garnered lots of attention. The involvement of civil society helped to reverse the course of these proposed PADDD events.

Happy World Oceans Month! 

#WorldOceansMonth #OceanOptimism #HopeSpots

“Border bills” in the United States – national security and protected areas

This is the fourth in a series of weekly blog posts covering conservation topics with a focus on protected areas and the laws and institutions that support them (or don’t).Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge - located near the US-Mexico border http://flickriver.com/photos/frogdr/sets/72157623645555404/

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge - located near the US-Mexico border http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Santa_Ana/about.html

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge – located near the US-Mexico border http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Santa_Ana/about.html

For the past four years, members of Congress have debated whether or not to allow border patrol agents additional access to public lands for national security purposes.  

In 2011, an act with a pro-conservation title (H.R. 1505: the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act) was introduced. The proposed bill would grant the U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to all public lands within 100 miles of the U.S. borders of Mexico and Canada. Within these large swaths of land, sixteen environmental laws would be waived including the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Why? So that the border agents could patrol, build roads, fences, or other infrastructure for national security purposes without the burden of cumbersome environmental regulations. Later that year, the bill was amended to only apply to lands within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border. Various iterations of the bill have been proposed for the last several years, but nothing has been passed. I’m going to call all of the related bills the “border bill” for simplicity.

What is the latest on the border bill? 

H.R. 399 and S. 208 are active bills currently being considered by Congress. Pew has created a map to show the lands that this bill would affect. As you can see on the map, the border bills would allow access to iconic parks such as Saguaro, Big Bend, and Carlsbad Caverns National Parks


U.S. Public Lands Affected by the “Border Bill” http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/news/2015/03/31/new-bills-threaten-national-parks-wilderness-wildlife-refuges

A separate but related border bill in Arizona (S. 750: Arizona Borderlands Protection and Preservation Act) would allow patrolling, surveillance, and equipment deployment in border lands. However, there is no mention of infrastructure or other construction in the full text. The map here shows the lands that this bill would affect.

Federal Lands opened to additional border security activities https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/senator-john-mccain-pushing-extreme-border-security-bill-tramples-environment

Federal Lands opened to additional border security activities https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/senator-john-mccain-pushing-extreme-border-security-bill-tramples-environment

What is so interesting about this legislation? Like many political debates, this is all about values, pitting national security and immigration reform against public land management and environmental stewardship.

Proponents of the bill argue that the government should do everything in its power to protect national security. They argue that immigration is out of control and that the border should be secured by any means necessary. Debates can get testy. Recently, John McCain responded to a question from Senator Carper of Delaware about the bill: “In all due respect, frankly, I don’t give a damn if somebody that lives in Delaware doesn’t like my efforts.” Proponents see immigrants as a threat to national security; border crossings are also linked to exacerbated drug and human trafficking.

Opponents, however, state that this bill would be destructive to the environment. Because the bill would waive environmental laws, the Customs and Border Patrol could avoid completing Environmental Impact Assessments required by NEPA which often delay projects but also allow for more environmentally friendly project design. Because these border bills waive the Endangered Species Act, arguably the strongest conservation law in the U.S. (if not the world), endangered species found in these areas could be put at substantial risk. Infrastructure projects – roads, fences, helipads, patrol bases – could themselves fragment habitat and disturb wildlife in sensitive areas.

Mountain Lion - Big Bend National Park http://www.nps.gov/bibe/learn/nature/mt-lions.htm

Mountain Lion – Big Bend National Park http://www.nps.gov/bibe/learn/nature/mt-lions.htm

These border bills, if passed, would constitute a systemic downgrade of protected areas such as National Parks and National Monuments. Downgrades are one type of legal change encapsulated in the concept of PADDD – protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement. You can explore the myriad protected areas that these border bills could affect on PADDDtracker.org.

If passed, it is unknown exactly how much of a toll these bills would take on the environment and to what extent they would enhance security. Although the bill does provide Customs and Border Patrol with access to large swaths of land, the agency may not effectively need access to very distant areas from the border. It is possible that the debate about the border bills is a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue – constituents of Arizona and other border states may feel differently about the border security issue because it is more of a local concern for them.

It is difficult to summarize this complex issue. Overall, values are driving the political dispute over border security and public lands. Given the current political climate, the border bill debate is likely to continue without a resolution.