Quantifying the effects of rangeland conversion on ecosystem functions: Linking land use systems to enhance farm profitability

62

Drivers of change

Explanation

Changing societal values

A shift towards negative perceptions about grazing among land managers and environmental groups in the 1980s and 1990s led to policies reducing grazing on public lands (Alvarez 2011)

Similarly, changes in community norms and practices away from production and towards amenity enjoyment, as well as increasing trends in amenity migration, reflected in the decline in the number of landowners involved in crop or livestock production and an increase in landowners who primarily managed for amenities (Ferranto et al. 2014)

Perception of ecological crisis

Failures in land management practices led to recognition that the reduction in grazing practices led to an increased spread of nonnative vegetation, as well as loss of native plant and wildlife communities (Alvarez 2011; Huntsinger et al. 2014).

Emerging scientific evidence further highlighted the potential role of grazing in enhancing biodiversity conservation (Barry et al. 2007; Alvarez 2011; Huntsinger et al. 2014).

Moreover, concerns over grassland conversion and the adverse impact of regulations on ranching highlighted the need for more effective mechanisms for rangelands management (Alvarez 2011).

Lack of effective landscape scale conservation mechanisms for vulnerable rangeland ecosystems mostly occurring on fragmented private lands (Alvarez 2011; Huntsinger and Bartolome 2014)

Availability of arena for interaction and formulation of a shared vision

The US Fish and Wildlife Service initiated the process of convening stakeholders at a ranch in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2005. The meeting provided an opportunity for interaction and led to the realization by a diverse stakeholder group, including environmental groups, ranching communities, and government representative at the local, state and federal levels that they share a common aspiration in protecting California’s grasslands as well as the plant and animal communities they support (Barry et al. 2007; Alvarez 2011).

Emergence of new institutions

Adoption of the California Rangeland Resolution and the establishment of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, with current signatories of more than 100 organizations, based on shared vision and scientific evidence pointing to the importance of landscape history in current management decisions (Barry et al. 2007; Huntsinger and Bartolome 2014).

Related initiatives include: the preparation of a map highlighting grasslands to be protected for wildlife and plant conservation; adoption of a strategic plan highlighting mechanisms for mobilizing resources, providing incentives, sharing information, streamlining permitting processes, and filling research gaps; and establishment of the California Rangeland Trust to facilitate conservation easement processes on private lands (Huntsinger et al. 2014).

Adaptive governance attributes

Performance of CRCC

Positive attributes

Potential challenges

Adaptive and integrated management goals

Recognition of rangeland habitat as social-ecological systems that are a product of grazing and other past management practices of ranchers

Promotion of rangeland conservation efforts across multiple scales from the ranch and pasture levels to the landscape level

Management of rangelands to achieve a variety of goals, including cattle ranching, environmental conservation, provision of ecosystem services, as well as climate change mitigation

Threats to ranching, including low profitability, drought, loss of critical ranching infrastructure, as well as loss and fragmentation of rangelands due to land use conversion

Challenges associated with grazing permits, including fear of government restrictions, lack of rancher knowledge on the application process, shortage of available leases, lengthy application procedure, and lack of government and NGO personnel knowledge about grazing

Challenges associated with rancher participation in ecosystem service provision, including lack of incentives, and limited rancher familiarity with ecosystem services and payments for ecosystem services

Challenge of integrating ranching into other uses in a compatible manner on private and public lands, including the difficulty of finding personnel with skills across the diverse land uses

Diverse knowledge systems

Emphasis of the CRCC on mobilizing and sharing information to generate awareness and support among stakeholders for rangeland conservation across private and public lands

Promotion of social learning through yearly summits, workshops and field trips that facilitate interaction and knowledge exchange among researchers, resource management organizations and private ranchers

Recognition and utilization of traditional and local knowledge gained from the experience of ranchers by promoting peer-to-peer learning among ranchers

Bridging the science-policy gap by bringing ranchers in direct contact with researchers and resource managers

Lack of knowledge about the impacts of grazing

Lack of knowledge on the valuation of ecosystem services, as well as high transaction costs associated with the quantification and verification process

Potential room for more investment in social science research and mechanisms for integrating local/traditional knowledge in understanding the behavioral and institutional aspects of ranching and rangelands management

Polycentric institutional structure

Promotion of vertical and horizontal interactions among diverse actors (government, private sector, and non-governmental organizations) across federal, state, and local levels to facilitate the implementation of rangeland management practices that also conserve the environment

Emphasis on building local capacity for rangeland management through the provision of various forms of support, including education, funding, permit assistance, opportunities for deliberation, and facilitation of ranchers’ participation in conservation easement programs

Safeguarding the autonomy and flexibility of ranchers and landowners to make management decisions at the local level in an adaptive fashion in response to the availability of new information

Innovative use of incentives and other non-regulatory mechanisms, such as Payment for Ecosystem Services and the role of the California Rangeland Trust, to ensure voluntary compliance of ranchers and other stakeholders with provisions of the California Rangeland Resolution

Existence of complex and potentially conflicting regulatory mechanisms among the diverse actors involved in rangelands management across land ownership types

Analytic deliberation process

Emphasis on the facilitation of dialogue and collaboration as mechanisms for reaching common ground among stakeholders

Involvement of the general public through workshops and summits with the aim of raising awareness about the ecological benefits of rangelands

Potential room for investment in conflict management mechanisms as part of the functioning of the CRCC