Building a Durable National Framework for Large Landscape Conservation

Agencies in Action Federal Programs That Deliver Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Benefits Every Day
Find out more about the briefings in this series below:
Part 1	Financing Inclusive Clean Energy Investments in Rural America
Part 2	Energy Efficiency Means Business
Part 3	Climate Adaptation Programs across Agencies
Part 4	Building a Durable National Framework for Large Landscape Conservation

The final briefing in the series focused on landscape conservation. Ecosystems often span county, state, tribal, and national borders. Wide swaths of area must be managed across jurisdictions and in collaboration with stakeholders on the ground to maximize social and environmental benefits, including ecosystem services such as water filtration and carbon sequestration. Furthermore, networks of intact and connected core habitats, working lands, and open space facilitate the migration of species, which is especially important for allowing animals to adapt to climate and land use changes, as well as for reducing human-wildlife conflict and wildlife-vehicle collisions.

Panelists dove into the benefits of coordinating conservation efforts at the scale of large landscapes and showcased opportunities to advance an inclusive and durable national framework for landscape conservation. For more information on this topic, see EESI's complementary articles:

Q&A: The Role of State Agencies in Large Landscape Management and Ecosystem Connectivity

Strength in Numbers: The Power of Collaborative Conservation in Alaska and Canada

Highlights

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

No single entity alone has the authority or the ability to address conservation challenges across the United States. A coordinated national effort by the conservation community is required. This effort, due to its scale and scope, would be best supported by federal leadership. A national framework for landscape conservation should not be a top-down regulatory approach. Rather, it should be a set of conditions that would elevate shared conservation priorities and challenges from the bottom up. It could also include a national network of collaborative conservation partnerships. A national survey by the Network for Landscape Conservation identified 122 collaborative landscape conservation initiatives in the United States. The projects are locally focused, but they achieve significant regional and national outcomes. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) provides $400 million in ecosystem restoration grants to states, tribes, and territories. Continued engagement with states and tribes on implementation is critical. There is no guaranteed funding for tribal fish and wildlife programs. Tribes must cobble together funds piecemeal for their programs through multiple funding sources. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act (H.R.2773) would be a great way to work with tribes. For the first time, tribes were included in the development of this conservation bill from the beginning. The tribal title would provide base funds for tribal fish and wildlife programs.

 

Lynn Scarlett, Former Deputy Secretary of the Interior; Coordinating Committee member, Network for Landscape Conservation

• Climate change and human activities are impacting habitats, wildlife, and people at unprecedented rates. Our challenges transcend individual jurisdictions and properties.
• Landscape-scale, durable, collaborative, and inclusive conservation is needed.
• Landscape conservation requires public and private investment in actionable science and partnership coordination.
• Durable solutions require linking livelihoods and healthy landscapes. For example, healthy soil brings greater land productivity, carbon storage, better water quality, and more biodiversity.
• Collaborative large-scale conservation is a centerpiece of 21st century conservation. We must build on the foundation that is already in place.

 

Dr. Deborah Rocque, Assistant Director for Science Applications, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

• Conservation challenges require transformational change.
• Conservation successes are traditionally measured by the acre, by the species, and by the stream mile. This is no longer an accurate measure of our success.
• In 2009, 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) were established by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The LCCs spanned from Alaska to Puerto Rico and brought conservation organizations together to work on shared priorities.
• From fiscal year (FY) 2010 to FY 2017, LCCs received appropriations from Congress, and FY 2017 appropriations were about $24 million per year. But funding was eliminated in FY 2018.
• LCCs had varying success. Some LCCs were not well-implemented, well-communicated, or equitably resourced. Other LCCs successfully brought together federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and tribes to give everyone an equal voice, and they continued their work despite losing federal funding after 2017.
• State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service share the statutory authority to manage wildlife in the United States. Each of these entities is protective about its authority, so the top-down approach of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not well-received by state partners.
• LCCs must work earlier, better, and more often with tribal partners.
• The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) provides $400 million in ecosystem restoration grants to states, tribes, and territories. Continued engagement with states and tribes on implementation is critical.

• No single entity alone has the authority or the ability to address conservation challenges across the United States. A coordinated national effort by the conservation community is required. This effort, due to its scale and scope, would be best supported by federal leadership.

• A national framework would provide a durable approach that does not change with administrations, would drive investments, and would support coordination.
• The Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy aims to create a network of connected lands and waters that supports thriving fish and wildlife populations and improves the quality of life for people across the 15 states of the Southeast.
• One size does not fit all. The strategy’s spatial plan or blueprint identifies priority areas for conservation actions while maintaining flexibility to incorporate partner priorities. Over 250 people working for more than 100 organizations have used the blueprint. It has helped drive more than $40 million in conservation funding and restore 75,000 acres of land.
• Numerous studies show that landscape connectivity is critically important to human and ecosystem health.

 

Dr. Julie Thorstenson, Executive Director, Native American Fish and Wildlife Society

• The Native American Fish and Wildlife Society (NAFWS) works to assist Native American and Alaska Native tribes with the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. NAFWS’s mission and work is supported by 227 tribal nations.
• There are 574 federally-recognized tribes in the United States. Tribes are unique, sovereign entities with the inherent right to govern themselves, and each tribe has its own history, culture, language, and priorities.
• Tribes own or influence the management of nearly 140 million acres, including more than 730,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, 10,000 miles of streams and rivers, 80 million acres of forests, and habitats of more than 500 species listed as threatened or endangered.
• Recent studies indicate that lands managed by indigenous people have greater biodiversity. The Native Land Information System found that while tribal lands make up 2.6 percent of the United States, they overlap with 12 percent of key biological areas.
• Tribal fish and wildlife programs are diverse, ranging from formal programs dating back to the 1930s to those in the beginning stages of development.
• NAFWS often receives requests for technical assistance to help tribes identify funding sources. Funding inequity for tribal fish and wildlife programs is one of the most obvious but least known issues in Native American conservation work.
• Tribes are excluded from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson Act) even though tribes have spent decades trying to benefit from these funds. Tribes pay the excise taxes that create this funding, and tribal lands and populations are used for calculations on the fund distribution.
• There is no guaranteed funding for tribal fish and wildlife programs. Tribes must cobble together funds piecemeal for their programs through multiple funding sources, such as federal contracts through the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638), federal grant programs, and tribal funds such as casino, land lease, and hunting and fishing license revenue.
• A recent NAFWS survey found that 83 percent of surveyed tribes in the lower 48 states had federal grants for their fish and wildlife program. Most often, these funds are for specific projects, not the overall operation and maintenance of the program.
• One tribe reported using 12 different grants in 2022 to fund its fish and wildlife program. While grant funds are important to tribal fish and wildlife management, long-term wildlife management cannot be carried out one project at a time.
• It is important to engage tribes and indigenous people for landscape conservation.
• Tribes have varying levels of capacity, so they may be unable to respond right away. They have been historically left out of conversations and funding opportunities. Although they are at the forefront of conservation management, tribes are often overlooked partners in conservation work.
• It is important to consider state-tribal relations. Some tribes and states have cooperative management plans, while others tribes and states do not work well together.
• Tribes provide a unique perspective. Tribal ecological knowledge is being recognized as valid science more than in the past.
• As states revise their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), they should increase efforts to include tribes. Partnerships could lead to state assistance with tribal wildlife action plans.
• The Recovering America's Wildlife Act (H.R.2773) would also be a great way to work with tribes. For the first time, tribes were included in this conservation bill from the beginning. The tribal title would provide base funds for tribal fish and wildlife programs.
• There are too many voices missing from our conservation conversations. We must remove as many of the barriers to participation as possible. Efforts to include tribes and other underrepresented populations must be more than a box-checking exercise.

 

Anna Wearn, Director of Government Affairs, Center for Large Landscape Conservation

• Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are promoting locally-led, national-scale collaborative conservation by convening and participating in dialogues about shared goals and needs, developing and advancing policy recommendations, advocating for sustainable funding, and bolstering federal and private investments.
• Coordinating at the regional, ecosystem, or watershed level allows community-driven conservation to achieve results at a magnitude not otherwise possible. Conservation challenges such as natural disasters, invasive species, zoonotic disease, and habitat fragmentation all transcend geographic boundaries. Effectively addressing these threats necessitates a collaborative transboundary approach.
• Collaborative capacity is the ability to promote communication between members of a partnership, establish a shared purpose, and measure progress towards common goals. It is a constant challenge in LCCs.
• NGOs tend to lack the resources necessary to overcome this challenge. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and federal fiscal year 2022 (FY 2022) appropriations will invest in collaborative capacity to help address this need.
• A national framework for landscape conservation should not be a top-down regulatory approach. Rather, it should be a set of conditions that would elevate shared conservation priorities and challenges from the bottom up. It could also include a national network of collaborative conservation partnerships.
• The following principles should underlie any future framework:
  • ensuring equity and inclusivity,
  • promoting collaboration and coordination between federal, state, tribal and local partners,
  • providing long-term reliable funding that leverages public-private partnerships,
  • integrating climate resilience efforts with biodiversity conservation efforts,
  • recognizing geographic differences, and
  • employing a bottom-up approach.
• Some policy recommendations include:
  • Establish a body or convening structure to coordinate federal landscape-scale conservation and climate resilience efforts.
  • Establish a diverse advisory body including non-federal stakeholders to guide implementation.
  • Develop legislation to establish long-term, reliable support for a network of landscape conservation collaboratives, including funding for actionable science and collaborative capacity.
• FY 2022 appropriations provided $12.5 million for cooperative landscape conservation. This program received funding under both Republican and Democrat-controlled Congresses. However, this funding is only about half of what the program received when it started in 2010 and about $6.5 million less than was requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 2022 and 2023. Addressing all the needs identified by stakeholders requires more funding than the program originally received.
• Optimizing investments in landscape connectivity requires an unprecedented level of coordination across and within federal agencies. This includes not only natural resource agencies but also others such as the Department of Transportation, which is heavily investing in landscape connectivity under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

 

Dr. Sacha Spector, Program Director for the Environment, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

• Landscape conservation is the most effective and inclusive approach to conservation.
• The strength of the conservation field can be supported by investing in science, staff, and organizational capacity to work on the ground as well as future leadership through workforce development.
• A national survey by the Network for Landscape Conservation identified 122 collaborative landscape conservation initiatives in the United States. The projects are locally focused, but they achieve significant regional and national outcomes.
• Financial support for landscape conservation initiatives comes from private philanthropy, and individual donors provide the majority of philanthropy funds.
• When federal funding for LCC initiatives stopped, private philanthropy filled the void. In Alaska, when LCCs dissolved, the Northern Latitudes Partnership was established, recognizing that collaborative conservation best achieved shared goals.
• Investments in the coordination capacity of LCCs is the most important factor in accelerating conservation. This is also the most difficult funding to acquire.
• The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation has given 42 grants worth $1 million overall across the country, but over 450 applications were received for a total demand of $10 million. Demand for these grants is far greater than private philanthropy can meet.
• A new national framework should be built around flexible models of public-private partnership, so philanthropy and local supporters can partner with state and federal funding agencies.

 

Q&A

 

Q: Can you give examples of collaborative landscape conservation that show how organizations decide their goals are better accomplished by working together?

Rocque:

• The Intermountain West Joint Venture’s mission focuses on bird conservation, but it has listened to local landowners’ concerns about water. In this way, their water initiative is locally-led.

Thorstenson:

• The Southern Ute Tribe in Colorado accessed Secretarial Order 3362 funds working together with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Fish and Wildlife Service to understand big game migration.

Wearn:

• The following resources have great examples:
  • Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) report: SECAS FUTURES: Structuring Governance to Achieve Landscape-scale Conservation Outcomes
  • Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies white paper
  • EESI article: The Power of Collaborative Conservation in Alaska
• Generally, successful river restoration requires strong partnerships, since pollution in one part of a river spreads to the rest. Organizations have to work together and combine resources, so that the entire ecosystem can function and species can travel throughout the river.

Spector:

• LCCs become vehicles for groups with a narrow mission or a specific geography to contribute to a greater outcome that they could not achieve on their own. LCCs also bring people to the table who would not collaborate otherwise.
• The Appalachian Trail Landscape Partnership brings together about 70 partners along the length of the Appalachian Trail.
• The Maine Land Trust Network’s First Light program with the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Miꞌkmaq communities brings together the land trust community with the traditional knowledge and original landowners of the region to reconcile past injustices and advance conservation.

 

Q: How do we ensure that conservation efforts are led by local communities and that the federal government provides the leadership necessary to tackle large-scale conservation issues?

Rocque:

• The hardest thing to fund is coordination of multiple organizations. Landscape connectivity is beyond the scope of small organizations. The state and federal government must think beyond boundaries to either provide the funds for coordination or provide coordination as a service.

Thorstenson:

• Tribal fish and wildlife agencies are underfunded and have insufficient capacity to have meaningful, robust, and regular consultation. Funding is required to address this inequity. The federal government must ensure tribes are treated as sovereign entities and that they are heard. Every conversation that tribes cannot attend is a missed opportunity for tribal representation that has already been missing for too long.

Wearn:

• Landscape conservation catalyzes and connects community-driven conservation priorities, partnerships, and actions so that they can tap into greater resources, support, and tools that exist at the national and even the transnational level.
• The restoration of the Gulf Coast and the Everglades is not possible without state agencies and local communities identifying the most pressing priorities and the federal government providing funding, coordination, and support.

Spector:

• We can ensure that all partners have the resources to participate by supporting their staff capacity.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to support science and the technical elements of large landscape strategy, allowing actors to be more effective.

 

Q: Going forward with implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, what lessons should we apply from the past? What should Congress look for as indications that landscape conservation is being advanced as intended or that it needs to be improved?

Wearn:

• One indicator is how much public-private partnerships are leveraged, which the Department of Transportation considers in its conservation grant criteria.
• The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program prioritizes collaboration, which is critical in implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• Implementation of the law must use a bottom-up and inclusive approach that includes stakeholders such as private landowners, community members, tribes, and federal and state agencies early and often. Implementation must pursue a clear, compelling, and shared vision with specific and measurable goals. Education and outreach must convey the value of projects to partners.

Spector:

• About $48 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is for nature-based approaches. The entire $1.2 trillion must be spent in alignment with landscape-scale conservation outcomes.
• Consultation with tribes and LCCs is critical to this process right from the start.

Thorstenson:

• Funding needs to be accessible. For example, grant match requirements can be significant barriers for tribes.
• The connectivity pilot project is a great opportunity for collaboration across a large landscape. The NAFWS Wildlife Connectivity Coordinator is already in touch with 50 tribes that are interested in this work.
• Tribes must be treated as true sovereigns. The process must be sustainable across years and administrations. Implementation of this law presents an opportunity to get landscape conservation right this time.

Rocque:

• We need a national framework that helps prioritize projects, so investors will know their money is being effectively spent. We need consistency in evaluating projects and equitable and inclusive results.

 

Compiled by S. Grace Parker and edited for clarity and length. This is not a transcript.