Suchergebnisse

A variety of policy interventions from public authorities and private companies attempt to reduce deforestationin private forest concessions. These includefines for illegal deforestation and market incentives for forestmanagement practices that meet sustainability standards. While some studies have found significant differencesin forest outcomes between concessions that participate in sustainability commitments and those that do not,others have found small or inconclusive differences. We contribute to this literature by examining all privatelyallocated concessions in the Peruvian Amazon to determine whether sustainability commitments correspondwith lower deforestation rates. Conversely, we examine whetherfines correspond with higher deforestationrates, a question for which fewer analyses have been published. Using matching methods, we do notfind sig-nificantly different deforestation rates between control groups and logging concessions with third party en-vironmental certification. We also do not see significant differences in deforestation rates in petroleum con-cessions managed by companies who have made sustainability commitments. Regarding punitivefines, we donotfind significant differences in deforestation rates between control groups and logging concessions withfineslevied. The same holds true forfines levied in brazil nut concessions. Potential explanations for thesefindingsinclude insufficient monitoring or inadequate stringency for sustainability commitments, and insufficientlypunitivefines or low enforcement levels.

A variety of policy interventions from public authorities and private companies attempt to reduce deforestationin private forest concessions. These includefines for illegal deforestation and market incentives for forestmanagement practices that meet sustainability standards. While some studies have found significant differencesin forest outcomes between concessions that participate in sustainability commitments and those that do not,others have found small or inconclusive differences. We contribute to this literature by examining all privatelyallocated concessions in the Peruvian Amazon to determine whether sustainability commitments correspondwith lower deforestation rates. Conversely, we examine whetherfines correspond with higher deforestationrates, a question for which fewer analyses have been published. Using matching methods, we do notfind sig-nificantly different deforestation rates between control groups and logging concessions with third party en-vironmental certification. We also do not see significant differences in deforestation rates in petroleum con-cessions managed by companies who have made sustainability commitments. Regarding punitivefines, we donotfind significant differences in deforestation rates between control groups and logging concessions withfineslevied. The same holds true forfines levied in brazil nut concessions. Potential explanations for thesefindingsinclude insufficient monitoring or inadequate stringency for sustainability commitments, and insufficientlypunitivefines or low enforcement levels.

Overlapping land use allocations, in which one parcel of land is allocated two or more times for different uses, either intentionally or unintentionally, are common globally. We assess how overlapping land use allocations impact forest cover change using Peruvian government data for the lowland Amazon. Results are based on propensity score matched difference-in-differences methods using 1-ha resolution forest loss data for 2000–2014, along with Peruvian government land use allocation data. We find that deforestation is lower in overlapping than in same-type, non-overlapping allocations. This finding is consistent across all types of overlapping land use allocations. These results support the hypothesis that multiple use management decreases deforestation, and provide no evidence indicating that overlapping allocations are a form of tenure insecurity that might increase deforestation. Our findings inform conservation policy related to multiple use management, land tenure security, and conflict avoidance.

Overlapping land use allocations, in which one parcel of land is allocated two or more times for different uses, either intentionally or unintentionally, are common globally. We assess how overlapping land use allocations impact forest cover change using Peruvian government data for the lowland Amazon. Results are based on propensity score matched difference-in-differences methods using 1-ha resolution forest loss data for 2000–2014, along with Peruvian government land use allocation data. We find that deforestation is lower in overlapping than in same-type, non-overlapping allocations. This finding is consistent across all types of overlapping land use allocations. These results support the hypothesis that multiple use management decreases deforestation, and provide no evidence indicating that overlapping allocations are a form of tenure insecurity that might increase deforestation. Our findings inform conservation policy related to multiple use management, land tenure security, and conflict avoidance.

Although satellite‐based variables have for long been expected to be key components to a unified and global biodiversity monitoring strategy, a definitive and agreed list of these variables still remains elusive. The growth of interest in biodiversity variables observable from space has been partly underpinned by the development of the essential biodiversity variable (EBV) framework by the Group on Earth Observations – Biodiversity Observation Network, which itself was guided by the process of identifying essential climate variables. This contribution aims to advance the development of a global biodiversity monitoring strategy by updating the previously published definition of EBV, providing a definition of satellite remote sensing (SRS) EBVs and introducing a set of principles that are believed to be necessary if ecologists and space agencies are to agree on a list of EBVs that can be routinely monitored from space. Progress toward the identification of SRS‐EBVs will require a clear understanding of what makes a biodiversity variable essential, as well as agreement on who the users of the SRS‐EBVs are. Technological and algorithmic developments are rapidly expanding the set of opportunities for SRS in monitoring biodiversity, and so the list of SRS‐EBVs is likely to evolve over time. This means that a clear and common platform for data providers, ecologists, environmental managers, policy makers and remote sensing experts to interact and share ideas needs to be identified to support long‐term coordinated actions. ; DSS, RS, DR and JP were financed by the EU BON project that is a Seventh Framework Programme funded by the European Union under Contract No. 308454. ; Peer reviewed