Financing and governing ecological restoration projects: The Tasmanian Island Ark

Abstract

This article examines the financial and governance dimensions of the Tasmanian Island Ark project, in the Tasmanian Midlands. It focuses on the intervention costs, funding sources and the legal context to financing, including property tenure, negotiated agreements and regulatory requirements. The case study shows that it is not easy to extrapolate financial data from one restoration project to another; however, the types of costs, their relative significance and timing, and legal context can be relevant considerations across diverse projects. The Tasmanian case study helps fill a gap in the literature about the financial side of ecological restoration projects and how planners can prepare for large landscape-scale interventions. The paper discusses the overarching constraints on environmental restoration practices and then presents the specific costs of restoration activities.

The permitting process for marine and coastal restoration: A barrier to achieving global restoration targets?

“…As P2 noted, "it's completely broken and it's prohibitive," and P8 stated that "it is acting as a barrier to getting good work done in a climate where none of us can afford not to have good restoration work happening." The high costs of obtaining permits (including time/salary costs) was also emphasized by all participants, and reflects earlier studies in the coastal and marine space (Saunders et al, 2022) and the terrestrial context (Richardson & Davidson, 2021). Economic literature also emphasizes the importance of considering transaction costs in designing environmental policy (McCann, 2013), as complex policy with high transaction costs can create barriers that reduce or prevent conservation activities from occurring (Camacho & McLachlan, 2021;Shumway et al, 2021).…”

Conservation covenants for ecosystem restoration: adapting an old instrument to a new global conservation challenge?

“…These voluntary initiatives primarily depend on laws of the Australian states and territories to underpin conservation investment and secure long-term outcomes, such as covenants negotiated between the covenanting agencies and landholders. The transaction costs to broker customized solutions on a property-by-property basis can be high (Richardson and Davidson, 2021) and the federal government mainly assists indirectly such as via bespoke financial grants and the regulated carbon market which can aid restoration by revegetation and soil management. The Australian government also operates an income tax incentive program for conservation covenants under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, however, its applicability is limited (Smith et al, 2016).…”

A Framework to Identify Priority Areas for Restoration: Integrating Human Demand and Ecosystem Services in Dongting Lake Eco-Economic Zone, China

“…In order to ensure the sustainable supply of ecosystem services (ESs), the restoration of ecologically degraded areas has become an important objective of ecosystem management [4][5][6]. Nevertheless, inadequate financing constrains the large-scale implementation of ecological restoration [7,8]. For the sake of improving the efficiency of restoration and achieving the related goals as soon as possible, it is particularly important to scientifically delineate priority restoration areas (PRAs) [9,10].…”