Incorporating Land Tenure Security into Conservation

Abstract

Insecure land tenure plagues many developing and tropical regions, often where conservation concerns are highest. Conservation organizations have long focused on protected areas as tenure interventions, but are now thinking more comprehensively about whether and how to incorporate other land tenure strategies into their work, and how to more soundly ground such interventions on evidence of both conservation and human benefits. Through a review of the literature on land tenure security as it relates to conservation practice, predominantly in the tropics, we aim to help conservation practitioners consider and incorporate more appropriate land tenure security interventions into conservation strategies. We present a framework that identifies three common ways in which land tenure security can impact human and conservation outcomes, and suggest practical ways to distill tenure and tenure security issues for a given location. We conclude with steps for considering tenure security issues in the context of conservation projects and identify areas for future research.

Human migration to the forest frontier: Implications for land use change and conservation management

“…There is increasing awareness among conservationists of the importance of tenure for conservation outcomes (Robinson et al., ). We contribute to this by arguing that in areas where in‐migration continues to put pressure on the forest frontier, overcoming this challenge without relying on coercive methods (Peluso, ) will require interventions involving improving tenure security for current forest frontier residents.…”

“…Secure tenure does not necessarily mean formal, state‐recognised tenure; customary systems can remain secure without formal recognition (Simbizi, Bennett, & Zevenbergen, ). However, such systems may become overwhelmed by external pressures or claims from migrants, meaning that formalisation of locally recognised rights can be an important step in securing tenure (Robinson et al., ). The risk is that formalising tenure tends to increase privatisation of common land (often used for grazing and collection of non‐timber forest products), which are of particular importance to poorer people.…”

Voluntary, permanent land protection reduces forest loss and development in a rural‐urban landscape

“…However, few ex-post analyses quantify the difference that VPLPs have made for conservation outcomes. This contrasts with a rapidly growing empirical literature on impacts of other conservation strategies, including (1) compulsory approaches, for example, protected areas (see Oldekop, Holmes, Harris, & Evans, 2016 for a recent review) and regulatory zoning/enforcement (e.g., Börner, Kis-Katos, Hargrave, & König, 2015;Nolte et al, 2017;Sims & Schuetz, 2009;Wu & Cho, 2007), (2) voluntary, nonpermanent protection, such as payments for environmental services (PES) (see Börner et al, 2017 for a recent review) and alternative income generation strategies (e.g., Weber, Sills, Bauch, & Pattanayak, 2011), (3) approaches that grant or clarify land rights, such as indigenous lands (e.g., Blackman, Corral, Lima, & Asner, 2017;Nolte, Agrawal, Silvius, & Soares-Filho, 2013) or improvements in land-tenure security (Robinson et al, 2017), as well as (4) supply-chain interventions (see Lambin et al, 2018 for a recent review).…”

How do practitioners characterize land tenure security?

“…The results presented here indicate that, while practitioners understand that LTS is complex and multidimensional, the emphasis on de jure characterizations indicates that the latest concepts and research examining the causes and consequences of LTS may not be informing, or being informed by, practitioners. Perceptions of LTS are driven by a multitude of factors, such as the strength of informal and formal institutions, conflict, power dynamics, macroeconomic conditions (Robinson et al, ), and it is possible that practitioners and researchers are focused on different factors influencing LTS. Researchers should also be cautious when their work is not in line with practitioners' framings, as these will have little chance of informing practical change without also changing the dominant mindsets used to implement projects.…”

“…Researchers and practitioners can play an important role using emerging evidence to inform such policies (Cook, Hockings, & Carter, ; Cook, Mascia, Schwartz, Possingham, & Fuller, ; Pullin et al, ; Pullin & Knight, ; Pullin, Knight, Stone, & Charman, ; Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, ; Sutherland, Pullin, Dolman, & Knight, ; Thorn, ), but to do so requires a common understanding and sustained dialogue between researchers and practitioners about the challenge they are trying to solve. Increasingly nuanced frameworks for understanding the nature and dynamics of LTS are emerging in academia (Arnot, Luckert, & Boxall, ; Robinson et al, ; Simbizi, Bennett, & Zevenbergen, ; van Gelder, ) (see SI for more on the evolution of LTS characterizations in the academic literature), marking notable advances that have the potential to inform practice.…”