Regulatory Frameworks for Voluntary Conservation in Latin America

Roberto de la Maza H. and Diego Guzmán V.

Biodiversity conservation in Latin America, a region home to 6 of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries, is a priority for ensuring sustainability, social well-being, and compliance with international commitments. National governments bear the primary responsibility for this purpose, mainly through the establishment of traditional Protected Areas (PAs). 

However, as recognized by Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), biodiversity conservation cannot rely solely on top-down imposed schemes, such as traditional PAs, but must be supported by other effective area-based conservation measures and the recognition of Indigenous and traditional territories. Therefore, voluntary conservation represents a bottom-up strategy that promotes the co-responsible, direct, and inclusive participation of landowners and local communities. 

Voluntary participation in biodiversity conservation is not new, as there have always been individuals and communities interested in protecting the natural resources of their lands (Chacón, 2008, p. 1). These initiatives are primarily based on the shared responsibility derived from the right to a healthy environment, which entails everyone’s obligation to conserve biodiversity. Furthermore, property rights allow individuals to use, enjoy, and dispose of their lands, including dedicating them to conservation and promoting official recognition of their initiatives (De la Maza, 2019, p. 8). Finally, the right to property limits its exercise, since in consideration of the ecological function of land, most Latin American constitutions recognize that the exploitation of a natural resource cannot be abused when this results in a negative impact on the environment and thus, on the biodiversity that inhabits it (Rodríguez, 2019). 

What has evolved is the creation or strengthening of regulatory frameworks in Latin America to promote, recognize, and encourage voluntary participation in biodiversity conservation. 

For example, Chilean Private Protected Areas (PPAs) are defined as those created on privately owned land and recognized by the state in accordance with the provisions of the law. The legislation of Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Peru does not define voluntary conservation initiatives but includes their characteristics and objectives. Furthermore, Mexican Voluntary Conservation Areas (VCAs) emphasize their voluntary nature, allowing for the recognition of conservation initiatives on land subject to any type of ownership (agrarian, collective, private, or public). 

The legislation of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala considers officially recognized conservation initiatives as a type of PA, including them in their National Protected Areas Systems. In Mexico and Peru, while both VCAs and Private Conservation Areas (PCAs) are also types of PAs, they are not part of their national systems. Therefore, for the purposes of achieving Target 3 of the GBF, all these countries may report these initiatives as PAs. 

Regarding the instruments for their recognition, in Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala, voluntary conservation initiatives are recognized through a declaration by the authorities in the same way that other PAs are established. In Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, the instruments for their recognition differ from the declarations by which traditional PAs are established, highlighting the voluntary nature of the former. 

Regarding the procedures for modification, revocation, or termination of voluntary conservation initiatives, some countries have stricter regulations, establishing them in perpetuity. This is the case in Brazil, where although Private Natural Heritage Reserves (PNHRs) are recognized by an administrative ordinance, they can only be terminated or have their area reduced by a law of the Federal Congress. Among the countries with less strict regulations are Colombia and Mexico, where owners of Civil Society Natural Reserves (CSNRs) or VCAs can request their cancellation at any time, demonstrating their flexibility. 

In Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, overlap between voluntary initiatives and PAs established by the authorities is permitted. In Brazil, when overlap exists, a body must be created for the integrated and participatory management of the mosaic of Nature Conservation Units. In Colombia, overlap is valid provided that the CSNRs adhere to the management guidelines of traditional PAs. In Mexico, when an authority intends to establish a PA that encompasses one or more VCAs, they must consider their existing management strategies. This overlap helps to strengthen the effective management of traditional PAs since these properties often voluntarily align themselves with, or even go beyond, the conservation objectives of PAs, rather than conflicting with them. 

In terms of incentives, Chile stands out, where owners of PPAs can participate free of charge in park ranger training programs, and its legislation includes inheritance tax exemptions. In Brazil, the establishment and management of PNHRs are considered priorities for receiving support from the National Environmental Fund, as well as for public rural credit programs. In Brazil, Costa Rica, and Mexico, owners of voluntary initiatives may be authorized to use distinctive symbols, certifications, or labels on promotional and informational materials or on products that are friendly to biodiversity conservation. In Brazil and Colombia, both PNHRs and CSNRs are eligible for environmental compensation measures resulting from projects with significant environmental impacts. 

Finally, in Brazil, licensing for projects that directly affect PNHRs requires prior consultation with the environmental agency that created them, while in Mexican VCAs, the exploration or extraction of hydrocarbons or minerals is prohibited. This provides them with a special protection regime against certain projects or activities, which is one of their main incentives. 

We can conclude that Latin America has circumstances that favor voluntary conservation based on the biological characteristics of its countries, as well as the presence of Indigenous peoples whose traditions are linked to their territories and natural resources. Many of these countries go beyond guaranteeing the rights to a healthy environment and land property, not only by promoting voluntary conservation initiatives, but also by integrating them into their national biodiversity conservation policies. 

Finally, comparative exercises like this facilitate the identification of strengths, weaknesses, areas of opportunity, and lessons learned in the development of voluntary conservation regulatory frameworks in Latin America, allowing them to be adapted and replicated in other countries. 

Chacón, Carlos M. et. al. (2008). Voluntad de conservar. Experiencias seleccionadas de conservación por la sociedad civil en Iberoamérica. The Nature Conservancy y Fundación Biodiversidad. Available in: https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/voluntad%20de%20conservar.pdf  

De la Maza Hernández, Roberto (2019). Mecanismos participativos para el establecimiento y gobernanza de áreas protegidas: el caso de las áreas destinadas voluntariamente a la conservación en México. Available in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334328081_Mecanismos_participativos_para_el_establecimiento_y_gobernanza_de_Areas_Naturales_Protegidas_el_caso_de_las_Areas_destinadas_voluntariamente_a_la_conservacion_en_Mexico_130519  

Rodríguez, Gloria Amparo (2019). La Función Ecológica de la Propiedad en Colombia. Revista Justicia Ambiental y Climática. Año XI, N° 11/Diciembre. Available in: https://www.revistajusticiaambiental.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/JA.-Estudios.4.pdf