STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia

STEWARDSHIP: THE PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION OF THE WIDER COUNTRYSIDE. AN
OVERVIEW AND SUGGESTIONS FOR APPLICATION IN
CATALONIA.
Report on a land stewardship training stay
at the Quebec Labrador Foundation/
Atlantic Center for the Environment
Jordi Pietx i Colom
Ipswich, Massachusetts (USA)
September 1995

A change in attitude about our relationship with the land is necessary. There
is a dichotomy between wildlife and wildlife habitat that must be better
addressed. Wildlife is a public resource (...), while the land that wildlife
depends on for food and shelter is in many cases privately owned. Resolution
of this dichotomy must come through a change in attitude, giving proper
respect to all flora and fauna. Resolution also depends on a change in the
way we plan and manage our landscapes. It will the become possible for man
and wildlife to live in closer harmony.
Oriana Trombetti and Kenneth Cox, 1990.
After spending some months in New England I have become acquainted with the
similarities of the landscape and the settlement patterns between New England
and Catalonia. A number of large coastal metropolis, sandy beaches and rugged
coastlines, a diverse interior with farmland, forests, towns and cities of
diverse size, and a profusion of mountain areas, and a largely uninhabited far
north. Many comparisons can be made with a metropolitan landscape formed by
the cities of Barcelona and Tarragona, the sandy beaches at the southern Costa
Daurada and the rocky Costa Brava, at the north, the interior agricultural
plains with its towns, the several Catalan forested mountain ranges, and the
less populated Pyrenees at the north. Such a situation is very interesting
when trying to find comparable approaches to land conservation.

INDEX
1. Introduction
2. Stewardship. An overview
3. The crucial role of land trusts
3.1 Land trust strategies
3.2 Geographical structure for land trusts
3.3 Funding for land trusts
4. Private land stewardship mechanisms
5. Conservation easements a tool to land stewardship
5.1 Conservation easements. Some general considerations
5.2 Financial benefits to donating conservation easements
5.3 Conservation easements in escrow. Involving multiple
properties at once
5.4 Aspects included in conservation easements
5.5 Monitoring and enforcing conservation easements
6. Landowner contacts. A means to build up on private protected land and
owners acceptance
6.1 First contacts
6.2 Preparing a conservation easement
6.3 Long term contact
7. The birth of the Stewardship Movement
7.1 Easements in the United States. A historical review
7.2 Stewardship in Eastern Canada. An example of a growing movement
8. Selected examples on stewardship and land conservation
9. Stewardship opportunities in Catalonia. Some final recommendations
9.1 Recommendations on land stewardship in Catalonia
9.2 Examples of stewardship opportunities in the near future
9.3 Funding strategies for land stewardship
9.4 Protecting the land is a long term task
10. Reference list
Appendix 1. Useful addresses
Appendix 2. Useful vocabulary on land stewardship and conservation
Appendix 3. Some proposed translations for land stewardship terminology
Appendix 4. Sample conservation easement

1. INTRODUCTION
This report is the outcome of a training stay at the Quebec-Labrador
Foundation/Atlantic Center for the Environment, from May to August 1995. This
stay was the result of a personal interest on land and landscape preservation,
and on the approaches to the subject currently and historically used in North
America, with a main focus on New England. The opportunity offered to me by
Brent Mitchell, Stewardship Director at the Quebec-Labrador
Foundation/Atlantic Center for the Environment was invaluable in this sense.
Throughout this stay I have been able, on one hand, to do a careful literature
research here at the Atlantic Center for the Environment, and on the other
hand to participate on the 1995 Latin American and Caribbean Fellowship
Program on Land Conservation and Stewardship (16 July - 19 August 1995). My
participation to the Fellowship as a volunteer coordinator, as well as a keen
participant, was part of the agreement and the unique chance offered to me by
QLF.
The Quebec-Labrador Foundation/Atlantic Center for the Environment, QLF/ACE is
a North-American non-profit organization, founded in 1963, with its
headquarters in Ipswich, Massachusetts, with offices in Montpelier (Vermont),
Montreal (Quebec - Canada), and St. John's (Newfoundland - Canada). QLF/ACE is
devoted to support the rural communities and environment of eastern Canada and
northern New England through a comprehensive "sustainable development"
strategy that combines community, culture and conservation. Programs in
natural sciences, cultural heritage, and leadership development run side-by-
side, delivering mutual reinforcement. The International Program at QLF/ACE
offers the opportunity to share this model of rural sustainable development
with other regions in the world through fellowships, workshops and other
opportunities for professionals to obtain a close insight to the tools being
used in north eastern North America.
The 1995 Latin American and Caribbean Fellowship on Land Conservation and
Stewardship was a five-week program for conservation professionals from
countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. Six professionals from
Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Peru, Brazil and St.Vincent (Grenadines)
attended the fellowship. It was an intensive program, problem-solving in its
approach, introducing participants to conservation issues in the northeastern
United States. Its broad goals were to provide training and professional
development for conservation leaders from that region, promote an exchange of
ideas and innovations in the area of landscape conservation and stewardship.
Through round-table discussions, site visits, and internships, participants
had the opportunity to share ideas with their counterparts, acquire new
information and develop their practical skills.
The report is based on an extensive literature review, personal meetings and
information obtained during the 1995 Latin American and Caribbean Fellowship,
described above. It is intended as a useful document to present the most
relevant ideas to land stewardship, particularly from the point of view of
non-profit organizations. Considering the short period of time in which it was
produced, as well as the objective to

draw on existing sources of information, it is not, in many parts, an original
document. Information has been transcribed from existing sources directly into
this report. References are indicated throughout the text but no attempt was
made to separate quotations, except for some paragraph long and separate
quotations, from original text, but rather to integrate them in a useful and
linear text. Most referenced bibliography can be obtained from the author, as
well as from the list of organization addresses included at the appendixes.
The author can be reached at 93 - 885 68 80, or through mail at Ramon de
Terrades, 4 1er 2a, 08500-Vic (Osona).
Finally I would like to thank you the Quebec-Labrador Foundation/ Atlantic
Center for the Environment for the enlightening, rewarding and exciting
opportunity this training stay turned out to be. To Brent Mitchell,
Stewardship Director, as my supervisor while I was at QLF/ACE, and for the
large amount of ideas, information and contacts that he put in front of me,
without which this report would not be the same. The rest of the staff at
QLF/ACE was helpful to me all the time. Some people I left at home in
Catalonia deserve all recognition, my parents, Manel and Teresa, the rest of
my family, and very specially my girlfriend Núria. Jason Miner, with whom I
shared very long days coordinating the Latin American and Caribbean
Fellowship, showed me his particular and interesting vision of the
conservation community. Finally thank you to all this people who shared their
time with me talking about land conservation, and whose personal
communications are profusely appear in this report.
Ipswich, Massachusetts. August 1995.

2. STEWARDSHIP. AN OVERVIEW
As Edwards (1994) indicates, more than 60% of the land in the United States is
held in private ownership with an even larger proportion of privately owned
land being in the eastern states. Often a large proportion of certain habitats
are found on private land, and many rare and valuable types of wildlife
habitat are found exclusively on private land. For example, 74% of the U.S.
wetlands are on private land. Conservation of natural areas in the U.S. cannot
rely only on public land; such suggestion would be politically and
economically impractical (Edwards 1994).
The concept of stewardship can be defined differently depending on the range
of issues involved. Brown & Mitchell (1994) give a broad definition of
stewardship as personal responsibility for sound natural resource management.
Under this definition the concept can include waste management (Fenton 1993),
the use of cars, etc.
More specifically community stewardship means understanding the
interrelationship of and caring for all community resources that are our
collective inheritance and our legacy for future generations (Humstone 1994).
Differently, some organizations involved in private land conservation define
stewardship in a more technical way, as the annual monitoring of private lands
under conservation easements, presented later in this report (Caroline Norden,
Maine Coast Heritage Trust, pers.comm.).
Mitchell (1991) shows that of the two-thirds of farmers who perceive
themselves to be friendly toward wildlife, more than 80% have never received
any kind of public support (cost-sharing, tax relief, technical assistance or
other forms of encouragement) for their conservation efforts. Yet the public
expects the farmer to invest time and money in managing wildlife resources,
which provide little or no financial return. The challenge is now to create
new incentives for farmers to manage their land with wildlife and other
natural resources in mind.
And on the words of Ross (1991) the key question here is
will this approach work? Well, if your management objectives are to
stop development, totally protect the wildlife habitat, and keep the
area in totally natural state, the answer is, "probably not".
On the other hand if your objective is to allow for well planned
appropriate growth, to pool agency manpower and funding in order to
monitor or to prevent resource threats from new dams, mining,
landfill, toxic spills, soil erosion, etc., and make the private
sector more responsible to finding solutions to resource issues,
then this concept is definitely working.

The fear over federal condemnation ran rampant during the planning
stages for this concept. It is still there to some degree because of
past and existing government land acquisition policies. During the
intense public debate there was a recurrent theme from those
landowners who could be affected by this approach. "This is my land
and I will do whatever I want with it or to it".
Unfortunately, the world is too small and the environmental problems
too complex to assume that land ownership carries no responsibility
toward the world's environmental problems. We can also no longer lay
the total burden of preventing environmental degradation on public
officials and government agencies. Today the cry should be "This is
my land but I must work to preserve its natural values in order to
protect the world's environment for the survival of future
generations"
Once stewardship is understood as a key tool to private land protection, when
you run a stewardship program of any kind you must think of yourself as an
educator. Your job (convincing others to be stewards of the land) will be
easier if you understand a little bit about how people change their behavior
and learn. Remember all learning involves changes in attitude, skill and
knowledge (Camozzi 1991). At the same time, perhaps as important as
professional training for staff is the need for education about stewardship
for policy-makers (Proceedings 1991).
The kind of focused landscapes and habitats for a stewardship program can be
very varied, as objectives of stewardship can be. However most organizations
involved in stewardship have specific agendas on the land they try to protect.
As to give some examples stewardship programs may focus on:
- Prime agricultural lands
- Productive forest resource land (for both wood products and wildlife)
- Scenic corridors and vistas
- Significant natural areas
- Watersheds, aquifers, shorelines, and water bodies
- Wetlands
- Public recreational lands
- Historic resources

3. THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF LAND TRUSTS
Edwards (1994) considers as one principal advantage in the conservation market
that there are persons with no legal rights to the land who value natural
areas. Owners of private land must determine how to exchange value from these
people, who are not interested in ownership, for protection of the natural
area. Unfortunately, the people who derive benefit from the protection of the
particular area may not be close neighbors of the land owner. In this respect,
landowners and conservationists in America have made use of third-party agents
to reduce the costs of collecting funds, collecting information, designing
protection mechanisms, and monitoring and enforcing agreements.
In relation to this view is worth mentioning the origin of the agreements to
protect private lands at what are called mutual covenants, defined later in
section 4. These are agreements between neighboring landowners who wish to
preserve shared features, to exchange rights on each other properties to see
them preserved in the future.
Land trusts are nonprofit organizations that work to save critical open areas
in their communities or regions for the future, because of their natural,
recreational, scenic, historical, or productive value. Land trusts protect
lands by accepting donations of property, buying land, or helping landowners
establish legal restrictions -called conservation easements- that permanently
prevent harmful development. Entrusted with donated lands and funds, land
conservation groups are under an obligation to their donors, members and
communities to operate as responsibly and effectively as possible, that is
building on professionalism.
The Land Trust Alliance, an organization created in 1982, and devoted to make
other land protection organizations more effective, launched a US wide survey
on land trusts in October 1994. At that date 1095 land trusts existed in the
US, protecting about 1.6 million Ha. Of these 395 (36%) are in the New England
area, where they protect about 0.6 million Ha. Only about one-fifth of the
land protected by US land trusts is owned outright (Hilts and Mitchell 1993),
the rest being privately owned and mostly under conservation easements. New
England has always been, and continues to be, the heart of land trust
activity. The first land trusts in the US were established in this region, and
today it is home to nearly half of the nation's trusts. In October 1994
Connecticut and Massachusetts, but also California, had the most land trusts,
each reporting over 112 trusts. Maine had the forth largest number, reporting
80. The combination of people's familiarity with land trusts in this region
and intensive development pressures in recent years has spawned rapid
formation of new trusts. As in 1989 more than half the new trusts established
in the previous four years were formed in New England, with the greatest
growth occurring in Vermont, Rhode Island, and along the Maine coast
(Anonymous 1989).
The first land trusts in the US were established in the late 1800s, and a few
of the largest, most active organizations date from that time.

Initially, land trusts were formed slowly; just over 15% of the trusts in
existence in the late eighties were founded before 1965. About this time,
however, land trust numbers began to increase rapidly, and their growth in the
1980s was dramatic (Anonymous 1989).
Assuming the importance of the land trusts in the stewardship process their
rigor is a key point to their success. Brown & Mitchell (1994) introduced this
idea stating the need for NGOs to earn legitimacy and respect among
government counterparts is key to their effectiveness. On the other hand,
conservation organizations have a clear incentive to work in a cost-effective
manner so that members will continue to endow them. They can market their
achievements as twofold: the amount of benefit they have acquired by
protecting a stated acreage of land and the efficiency with which achieved
their goal, in economical terms, as a proportion of funds spent directly on
conservation acquisition as opposed to administrative costs (Edwards 1994).
The status acquired by land trusts in the US is such that allows formal
partnerships in key governmental programs. This can be exemplified by the Fish
and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Planning process. The Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP) are a tool for forming partnerships and resolving
conflicts between private economic development and protection of threatened
and endangered species, authorized by a 1982 amendment to the Endangered
Species Act. Several authors have recently discussed on the use of HCP (Bean
et al. 1991, Beatley 1994, O'Connell 1994, Thornton 1992). The FWS uses the
assistance of land trusts to perform the varied roles of planning and
implementation in what are complicated land transactions and challenging
negotiations. The Nature Conservancy, more than any other environmental
organization, has played a major role in a number of HCPs (Beatley 1994).
Their role has been a combination of behind-the-scenes leadership and
promotion of agreement among parties. This has been an effective role for TNC
because they hold credibility in the eyes of both the development and
environmental communities. In contrast to the conservative TNC are
environmental groups that are more strident and uncompromising, and they see
the HCP process as illegal and primarily a circumvention of the Endangered
Species Act. Beatley (1994) presents in more detail the role of TNC in
relation to some HCPs.
The Land Trust Alliance has also focused on public agencies and land trusts
working together to protect land (see Myers 1992 and Endicott 1993).
Innovative state programs give formal, often legislated, roles for land trusts
in the form of direct loans and grants. Edwards (1994) warns on the fact that
contributors to private conservation organizations might not be willing to
accept partnerships with public agencies and thus may no longer support these
organizations, but Endicott(1993) presents many examples where this was never
the case. Griffin (1991) also considers it important for land trusts to work
with the government, to get favorable legislation passed, amongst other
reasons.
These examples make it obvious that US land trusts are expected to play a
serious and important role in conservation. Following this assumption the next
subsections discuss some relevant points in the work of land trusts.
Finally it is noteworthy that government agencies can also hold conservation
easements. Some examples of this are the Fish and Wildlife Service, at their
National Wildlife Refugees in Lake Umbagog (Maine),

and the proposed Conte Refuge at the Connecticut River (Mitchell 1993), in
western New England. Other examples of easements hold by the government,
indicated by Boelhower (1995), are state agencies in Maine and New Hampshire,
the federal government through the Forest Service and Acadia National Park,
also in Maine, a number of municipalities in New Hampshire (due to a state
initiative that provided funds to cities and towns to purchase conservation
easements. About 135 donations of fee and easement in and around Acadia N.P.
were first set up by Maine Coast Heritage Trust and later handed to the
federal government, as an example of a public/private partnership (Caroline
Norden, MCHT, pers.comm., 1995, Brown 1993). Acadia now holds more easements
than any other federal or state agency or local land trust in Maine (Endicott
et al. 1993). MCHT has been specially successful in approaching landowners who
are reluctant to deal with the federal government, thus really acting as a
facilitator, and has also helped National Park Service with easement
monitoring, training on tax issues, and inventorying important lands outside
the park boundary (Brown 1993).
Opportunity for such partnerships exists because private non-profits are more
ready for instant action whilst the government mechanisms move at a slower
pace. The Trust for Public Lands is a nation-wide example of an organization
assisting the government to secure open public lands.
In the following sections some organizational aspects of land trusts are
discussed. Detailed descriptions on starting and running a land trust are
presented by the Land Trust Alliance (1990 and 1994).
3.1 Land trust strategies.
Land trusts should maximize their limited resources with the thoughtful
development and execution of a natural and open space preservation strategy.
To Dovernoy (1994) this should include:
a) Define reasonable program preservation goals (see later this section
too)
b) Draft a concise statement of purpose
c) Select land types and regions of interest
d) Develop community and agency support for the strategy. Therefore
neighbors should be invited to participate in the strategy's development.
To establish criteria on the organization goals, perhaps a master study could
be useful; to include: land use, existing planning, landscape and ecological
outstanding features and potential threats to the land. In the long run it is
also important to have criteria on accepting land proposals. Potawatomi Land
Trust bases its decisions on resource criteria (landscape features of special
interest to the trust), project criteria (factors relating to existing
threats, land uses, accordance to public policies, size, etc.) and adverse
criteria (conditions under which the land trust will not accept an easement,
to include the trust resources for managing the donation).
The Natural Lands Trust (Arendt & Pitz 1991) presents a geographically
based strategy encompassing different levels. Rather than an alternative, this
is a complement to the definition of criteria. This approach defines a number
of activities a large land trust, probably

with regional objectives, can become involved in. As for evolving or small
land trusts this strategy is also useful as a kind of step process in which,
as resources increase, to become further involved. In brief the eight levels
considered by Arendt & Pitz are as follows:
1. Engaging neighbors in stewardship around a trust preserve. This
involves engaging neighbors in monitoring appropriate uses of the preserve and
providing basic maintenance.
2. Expanding protection around a preserve. When a trust preserve adjoins
undeveloped properties encompassing notable resources, it works with abutters,
neighboring landowners and community leaders to devise a plan extending that
preserve. Such partnerships often develop as the result to one of the Trust's
outreach programs offered to area landowners at a cost (tree planting, vine
removal).
3. Creating neighborhood conservation areas in other communities. In
neighborhoods without a trust preserve, landowners or neighborhood groups may
call on the trust to help them protect their community character. The trust's
role in such instances is to work with local sponsors to define the area vital
to preserve, identify the key planners, and create a plan which would engage
others in the emerging vision.
4. Advancing preservation in rural towns. This step is intended for
early planning and preservation of rural communities, not yet experiencing
development pressure. A large part of such an objective lies in helping local
officials and residents to view their natural resources as long-term assets,
and in helping them devise a strategy for encouraging sensitively located
development to boost their typically lethargic communities.
5. Protecting assets in transitional rural/suburban communities. The
trust can provide substantial assistance in helping all parties recognize
other possibilities than restrictive zoning. These might include the creation
of a community-wide framework for open space designation, which does not
affect landowner equity. The Trust for Public Land is often involved in such
projects, as it specializes in conservation real estate, applying its
expertise in negotiation, public finance, and law to protect land for public
use (TPL fact sheet).
6. Preserving the last open space in suburban/urban communities. In this
situations, as remaining opportunities are few, residents understand all too
well the importance of preserving open spaces, but also land prices tend to be
very high. In this context, the trust reviews all potentially available
properties with local officials to determine the possibilities for creating
pocket preserves and greenway linkages. Communities such as these, are often
interested in applying a very broad range of techniques, including land
purchase, open space zoning, Transfer Development Rights (see Labaree 1991),
and landowner contacts.
7. Protecting regional resources. Regional natural resources and natural
areas do not recognize municipal boundaries. Nonprofit conservation groups or
administration agencies often act as unofficial stewards, but they do not
exercise ownership over these resources. The trust can help structure a plan
to coordinate efforts among communities with divergent and sometimes
conflicting interests.

8. Stewardship around National Parks and Regional Preserves. Lacking
adequate funds to purchase more buffers or corridors, public organizations
involved in protected areas management can engage the land trust in helping
them devising "adjoining land strategies". Establishing good relations with
local governments and with private landowners is key to the success of this
approach. The trust work can include advice to county planning authorities on
alternative techniques for controlling land use and influencing landowner
decision-making. Maine Coast Heritage Trust is a good example of such an
approach, as presented earlier in this chapter, and described in detail by
Brown (1993) and Endicott et al. (1993).
3.2 Geographical structure for land trusts
The present number of land trusts in some US states have made it clear that
there is a need for coordination and structure of land trusts if these are to
be reasonably well funded and gain support and individual membership. Land
trusts need to avoid conflicts and define well their geographical area or
field of interest through the consecution of a strategy as indicated above.
Although local land trusts play an important role in their communities and
build up in local initiative, it is unlikely that state funds can be available
for their organizational support. Economy and efficiency point towards a
regional approach. At the regional level there are two possible models: 1) the
regional office of a statewide land trust and 2) a separate regional land
trust. It is a possibility that a local land trust becomes a regional trust as
an obvious succession of steps. Otherwise local land trusts should join to
develop regional organizations, or join an existing regional organization.
Hilts and Mitchell (1993) also suggest that land trusts have to operate at a
level where they have the financial base to afford at least some full-time
staff.
On the other hand, this important role of local land trusts happens through
the exercise of a non regulatory control over the local lands. In a small town
where everybody knows each other, and where a land trust exists and has good
connections with the media, landowners are more careful stewards of the land.
They do not want their neighbors to see them destroying or disturbing the
natural resources, and they do not want to appear on the media. Thus a local
land trust can exercise a strong conservation control over the community
(Richard Forman, Harvard University, pers.comm., 1995). However for this
mechanism to take place there is a strong need of education on caring the land
for the local community (Mitchell 1992). Local, small land trusts, are also
important to be in close contact with the local community, and thus be
essential to the larger state-wide land trusts on continuing with such an
education and pursue of the land trust community agenda (Mary Ellen Boelhower,
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, pers.comm., 1995).
Acknowledging the importance of a healthy land trust community many large
organizations dedicate efforts to assist smaller groups. The Land Trust
Alliance is a national organization with a mission to strengthen the land
trust movement and to ensure that land trusts have the

information, skills and resources they need to save land. Following this
mission the LTA focuses on (LTA 1992): information, education and training
(publications, Land Conservation Law Institute, information clearinghouse,
national rally); public awareness (educational materials, media outreach); and
public policy (Federal tax policy, public-private partnerships).
When this report is being prepared the Maine land trust community, through the
state-wide Maine Coast Heritage Trust, is starting a new initiative, the
Conservation Land Trust Network. This would be a voluntary membership
organization for Maine trusts which would offer them technical and legal
assistance through a number of services. MCHT would provide funding, staff and
office space for this new initiative which will start in November 1995 at the
Maine state land trust convention.
Finally, in a smaller scale, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests organizes an annual meeting with the 24 trusts in New Hampshire.
3.3 Funding for land trusts
Although land trusts vary greatly in size, they generally accomplish much with
little. More than half of land trusts have no paid staff. Only about 30% have
more than 1 paid staff person, although some of these trusts are quite large.
More than half of the land trusts had, in 1989, annual budgets of less than
$10,000, but nearly a quarter have budgets greater than $100,000, and their
budgets range up to more than $1 million (Anonymous 1989). Some examples from
annual reports in 1993 and 1994 show the following figures:
• Essex County Greenbelt Association (regionally based in northeastern
Massachusetts). $250,000
• Vermont Land Trust (state wide land trust in Vermont focused on
farmland protection). $4,8750,000
• Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (state wide land
trust in New Hampshire focused on the protection of working forests).
$1,995,000
• Trust for Public Land (national trust mainly involved in protecting
urban open areas). $21,262,000
Particularly impressive is land trusts' ability to harness the energy and
support of private individuals. The combined membership of land trusts is over
640,000 (1989 figures). More than one-third of land trusts rely solely on
individual donations and memberships for their annual operating budgets; the
same number rely solely on these sources for their acquisition funds. On
average, land trusts fund nearly two-thirds of their operating budgets and
almost 60% of their land acquisition budgets from individual donations and
memberships. Remaining funds are made up of a mix of foundation, corporation,
and government funds, sales of services, income from land transactions, and
miscellaneous other sources (Anonymous 1989).

It is common practice for land trusts to establish an endowment fund to help
support with enforcing the terms contained in the conservation easements. This
fund is provided through donations requested for each land transaction
accomplished. As an example one land trust has a policy that each transaction
be endowed based upon a minimum of 1 per cent of the assessed valuation of the
property prior to transaction, or $1000, whichever is larger. This endowment
is commonly paid in installments, and is tax-deductible.
In another example quoted by Duvernoy (1994) in Seattle a wetland area, Saddle
Swamp, was supported through pubic funds. In this instance the owner donated
this 48 Ha property to the Seattle-King County Land Conservancy, and following
the King County government bought a conservation easement for the area from
the Conservancy. Presently the Conservancy supports the stewardship of Saddle
Swamp from an annuity established with funds from the sale of the Conservation
Easement.
A number of states in the U.S. have developed dedicated taxes, sometimes
lottery funds but more often property transfer taxes and taxes on second
homes, to support land stewardship. Things that relate to the problem of the
development of land. Proceedings (1991) discuss some other methods of fund-
raising that are not considered here.
Legal fees often account for the majority of land trust expenses. Since many
organizations are initiated on a shoestring budget it is very useful to have a
lawyer on the board (Griffin 1991). It is also important to include economists
to work on the counterbalance of loss of local taxes by other benefits to
community. However in Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont, the state
reimburses localities for the reduction in the tax base that results from
lower property taxes (Goldsmith and Clark 1990). Stewardship in general is
expensive. It is best to take advantage of what other, preferably larger,
groups are doing elsewhere.
Where development pressure is high, conserving land for natural preservation
may increase the pressure on other spaces. Lands preserved in a natural state
also drive the value of adjacent residences up, simply by lending beauty and
character to the neighborhood or region. Both these outcomes further exclude
lower income purchasers from living in the areas affected. At the same time,
low-income housing development could endanger sensitive natural areas (Wood
1993). Vermont Land Trust has also used the approach of expanding conservation
easements to include affordable housing. The basic technique is to identify
land that is important for conservation and the land that can be developed.
Then work through local nonprofit housing groups. Nearly a quarter of the US
land trusts have worked with limited development as a way to finance
conservation (Anonymous 1989). One land purchase project of VLT generated
housing at high cost. So they were forcing the market away from affordable
housing (Carbin 1991). Another example is the Essex County in north eastern
Massachusetts, around the towns of Essex, Hamilton and Beverly. In this
coastal area, including agricultural lands, forest, marshes, the Ipswich river
and its wetlands large parts of the land are hold by conservation easements.
The price of housing is much higher than further north, in Ipswich, Rowley or
Newbury, where a lesser amount of land is protected (Brent Mitchell, QLF/ACE,
pers.comm., 1995).

In the state of Vermont there was interest for both affordable housing and
conservation (Carbin 1991). The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board was
founded by a state act in 1989 under the auspices of the VLT. As the 1987
Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund Act indicates the board was
created with the dual goals of creating affordable housing for Vermonters, and
conserving and protecting Vermont's agricultural land, historic properties,
important natural areas and recreational lands, as being of primary importance
to the economic vitality and quality of life of the state. Today the Board
continues its support, funding, and partnerships with land and community
trusts to preserve land and provide affordable housing. Libby (1990) and
Dennis (1993) provide detailed insights to the VCHB.
Reselling the land is another way for land trusts to raise funds. If there is
a situation in which a landowner no longer has interest in retaining land and
needs money from it, particularly farmers, organizations try to get an
agreement to buy the farm, and then sell it to farmers who want to work the
property (Carbin 1991). It is also common practice to sell parcels of land for
development in order to finance the preservation of more significant areas
(Wood 1993). These smaller parcels can also be sold to community land trusts
that focus on providing affordable housing and farmland.
Planned giving primarily deals with gifts of assets as opposed to gifts from
one's income. That is why they are often substantial, because the gift is not
coming from income off the capital, but the capital itself. The vast majority
of gifts in this area come when the donor no longer has any use for assets, at
his or her death. Most planned gifts are made in one's will or other estate
planning. The term, however, also includes lifetime gifts of property, such as
stock, real estate and life insurance. On planned giving see Giese & Murray
(1988), Moran (1991), Martin (1990), and Schmeling (1991).

4. PRIVATE LAND STEWARDSHIP MECHANISMS
The conservation of private land is the main goal for land trust
organizations, therefore a wide number of conservation options have been put
through by these organizations to suit the landowners willing to preserve
their lands. What follows is an exhaustive list of the options available and a
brief description of each. In the next section conservation easements are
extensively discussed as one of the most innovative and widely used approach
to private land conservation. Ward (1987) and LTA (1993) are two interesting
technical documents which further explain these mechanisms.
The most popular methods of land protection are land donations, easement
donations and land purchase. 90% of land trusts accept land donations. 72%
accept easement donations, and 60% purchase land (Anonymous 1989).
Verbal agreement
This is probably the most simple way to start a stewardship project. There are
many disadvantages to this approach, mainly that no legal commitment is being
made, but also that conservationists mentally check-off a property once a
agreement is reached and do not pursue it further.
Nevertheless, verbal agreements have been very successful and are an excellent
starting place. Under the agreement landowners agree to manage land and notify
of any land use change or intent to sell. The process entails a lot of
listening. Participation is encouraged by giving landowners plaques and
offering a stewardship award. The presentation of awards and plaques turned
out to be very important to landowners and gets government officials involved
and interested. Follow-up is specially important, through a newsletter and
personalized information to landowners (Hilts 1991). Section 6.1 presents
other recommendations for contact programs directed at verbal agreements.
The Natural Heritage Stewardship Program, in Ontario (Canada), is a very
successful example of verbal agreement stewardship, presented in Section 8.
Hilts and Moull (1988), Hilts et al. (1990), and Hilts and McLellan (1984)
fully describe this program.
Gift
A property or piece of land can be given to a land trust for permanent
ownership to be managed for multiple conservation benefits. The land trust is
responsible of local property taxes on the land. In some cases, with the
consent of the donor, a gift land may be re-sold, subject to conservation
restrictions to ensure their permanent protection. A gift of land can be
tailored to allow the owner to live on the land for the rest of his/her life.
Increasingly land trusts are aware of the burden of expenses that come
together with a gift of land. Therefore many land trusts do not accept a

gift of land unless the owner, or another source, can provide funds to manage
the property once in the hands of the land trust.
Bequest
In this case land is left to a land trust through a will. This allows the
landowner to own and manage the property during his/her lifetime, while
assuring permanent protection for the future.
Sale and Bargain Sale
When an owner is willing to sell for less than market value land trusts may
have funds for such a purchase. In most cases the organization will request
the right to re-sell the property subject to conservation restrictions. Sales
at market price are far more uncommon, but possible indeed.
Constraints on funding for property management as presented under gift of land
apply here too.
Restricted Land Sale (Deed Restrictions)
A landowner may wish to sell his/her land to a private party subject to deed
restrictions. Such conservation restrictions can be held by the previous
owner, however in the long run they are stronger if they are conveyed to a
public entity or non-profit organization through a conservation easement.
One such an example is at Kennebunk Plains, in southern Maine, a sandplain
grassland, a unique community sustaining several rare plant species. The 1040
acre tract had been appraised to be worth more than $3 million as residential
land. The landowner, a commercial blueberry operation, was willing to sell the
land below fair market value if it could capture corporate tax savings that
were slated to expire at the end of 1988. By acting as an intermediary for the
towns, The Nature Conservancy was able to obtain the lower price and secure
the property by year's end, several months before the state's funds could be
made available (Endicott 1993), through the Lands for Maine's Future Program.
The Trust for Public Land, not discussed here, specializes on assisting
government agencies to speed up the process of bargain sales.
Conservation Easement/Conservation restriction
Conservation easements are extensively discussed in the next section and
therefore only a brief definition will be given here. Conservation restriction
is the equivalent under the Massachusetts state law.
This is a legal agreement for conservation the landowner sells or donates to a
land trust. The landowner keeps the land and its resources but gives up the
right to exercise more intensive uses such as residential or commercial
development or mining, or certain non-sustainable practices related to
forestry, farming, or other uses of the land. In fact the landowner (grantor)
transfers the development rights to the land trust (grantee) through a
conservation easement deed. The grantee agrees to hold but not use the
development rights and to ensure they are not used by anyone else.

Applicability and characteristics of conservation easements vary depending on
the state (US) or province (Canada) legislation that applies. Once an easement
has been signed the landowner may live on and manage the land, sell it, or
pass it on to other relatives. The easement, however, remains in effect
forever (US) or for the number of years previously fixed (Canada).
Donors of conservation easements generally contribute to a special fund
established to underwrite the monitoring program of lands protected by
easement and deed restrictions, and otherwise ensure compliance with protected
agreements, if necessary by liability.
Mutual Covenants
A number of neighbors may agree to voluntarily impose restrictions on the uses
of their lands. Such restrictions are binding on all current and future owners
while the majority of the owners agree to enforce compliance. For example,
mutual covenants are often established by waterfront owners who share common
concerns about land use around the body of water. As in this case mutual
covenants are normally used by neighboring owners wish to protect some shared
feature. They are also used by developers to control certain features of a
subdivision or development plan, in an attempt to maintain quality and enhance
property values after the developer has completed the project. Mutual
covenants generally may run for no longer than thirty years. Covenants are
most appropriate where they protect features of local importance, primarily
for the benefit of adjacent residents. Where environmentally important lands
are involved they are poor substitutes for conservation restrictions (Ward
1987).
Interestingly this land protection mechanism lies at the origins of the
nowadays successful conservation easement.
Conservation buyer project
The Jackson Hole Land Trust, operating around Grand Teton National Park
(Wyoming), has recently set up a new approach to land conservation. This
project is based on finding individuals or groups interested on buying a large
parcel of land with significant natural values, who then restrict future
development in the land by giving a conservation easement. In this case the
trust acts as a state agent, both finding buyers or sellers of land of
conservation interest.
Transferable development rights
By this mechanism a landowner is allowed to sell the development rights of his
land to another landowner. If, for instance, zoning or other development
regulations allow no more than an average of one house per acre, a
transferable development rights scheme will allow a landowner wishing to
preserve, say, 50 acres of land, to sell the rights to build the 50 houses
that could have been constructed on this land to another landowner. The
purchaser can then use these rights to build more houses on his or her land.
Under such scheme, the seller receives some financial reward for protecting
the land at no financial cost to government. Such schemes have been adopted by
some local governments, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, to protect open
space. However, as appealing as they may appear in theory, they often have not
worked particularly well in actual practice (Goldsmith and Clark 1990).

Corporate stewardship
Large corporations are major owners of land in North America (timberland,
residential lands, reservoirs, power lines, mining lands, etc.), and thus
there is ground for conservation on these properties. Penak (1991) and Kelly
and Pressman (1989) discuss on corporate stewardship. Penak indicates land
protection and related educational programs as the main benefits of such
agreements; section 8 presents an example in New Brunswick.
Access to corporate lands provides recreational and educational opportunities
for the public. Important partnerships between industry and government may
form, using opportunities to improve the corporate image. Such projects might
heighten awareness among the company and the general public. They may also
send positive messages to other corporations about such partnerships. An
example of such partnerships exists in north west Maine, on the
Mooselookmeguntic Lake, where Seven Islands Land Co., a paper company, is
working on a proposal for the Forest Legacy Program, to pass the development
rights to the U.S. Forest Service. Out of the three largest corporations
owning lands in the state of Maine, this corporation is the only one with a
policy of sustainability for its activities (Ed Kfoury, Rangeley Lakes
Heritage Trust, pers.comm. 1995).
Related to land conservation in corporate lands Boelhower (1995) prevents on
the skepticism about conservation easements on corporate lands, because of the
subjectivity that exists in restrictions, specially related to forest
management.

5. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A TOOL TO LAND STEWARDSHIP
5.1 Conservation easements. Some general considerations.
Conservation easements have already been briefly defined on Section 4.
One important aspect of the market is the ability to develop legal mechanisms
by which desired transactions can take place. Government plays an important
role in developing such transaction mechanisms. If a market relies on a range
of products from a diverse range of producers, it must have a variety of legal
options for transaction at its disposal. As a general rule, the more property
rights to land that can be separate, the more transactions can be tailored to
meet individual requirements. In particular, having the ability to purchase
only those property rights that are essential for natural area protection and
management of the land allows conservation organizations to use their funds
efficiently; purchase of the free-hold interest in land is often an expensive
luxury (Edwards 1994)
The existence of conservation easements, as well as other formal kinds of
stewardship, has as a main reason fulfilling the role of non-existent, or
loose, planning laws in the U.S. Local planning law is often absent at the
town level, instead public committees are used to control development, but
with no long-term planning. At the state level planning is more extensive but
has no details at the local level. As a result, easements often are used as a
means to preserve lands from extensive development.
In some states QANGOs (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations), are
set by the public government with the aim of assisting the absent planning
process. These QUANGOs are not different from NGOs on the way they work but
follow criteria to assist existing gaps ad the public level, and they depend
wholly or partially on government funding (Mitchell 1992). An interesting
example of such an organization is the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,
already presented on section 3.3.
On legal basis public agencies are entitled to hold conservation easements by
the same mechanisms used by land trusts. A limited number of examples are
presented at the beginning of section three. However it has not been common
for these agencies to get involved in easements (Brent Mitchell, QLF/ACE,
pers.comm., 1995), instead governments fund land trusts holding conservation
easements.
Most conservation easements currently being applied in the US are perpetual,
although current legislation allows easements with a termination date,
permitting any term desired by the parties, some states requiring a minimum of
10 or 15 years (Ginsberg 1988). But to

obtain a federal tax deduction for the contribution of a conservation easement
it must be granted in perpetuity.
However the issue of perpetuity is now entering in a legal debate on what does
it actually means. The boom on conservation easements in the U.S. started some
20 years ago and this is a short period of time to assess their perpetual
enforcement. Thus it is not possible to discuss this point extensively and no
information is available on it. Sometimes a limited term on conservation
restrictions may be necessary or even desirable (Ginsberg 1988). A future
option to purchase a property, when the owner wishes to occupy it for a few
years, might be coupled with conservation restrictions to protect the parcel
during the option period. Another case is when a limited easement allows to
establish a relationship with an interested conservation organization and
protect the property while the owner makes a longer term decision. Mitchell
(QLF/ACE, pers.comm., 1995) believes easements for a limited number of years
are not worst an option than perpetual easements, and pressure for
development does not have to be a problem when the former are about to end.
However Norden (Maine Coast Heritage Trust, pers.comm., 1995) considers it too
expensive and time consuming for land trusts to become involved in easements
for a limited time and they never do. Similarly owner will often be unwilling
to pay the costs associated with the placing of short-term restrictions or to
contribute adequate funds for overhead and monitoring expenses of short-term
conservation easements (Ginsberg 1988).
As viewed by Edwards (1994) it is only through exclusion of all people and
(...) selective inclusion of paying costumers that monetary payment may be
obtained for protection of a natural area. No other authors have this view and
indeed some land trusts base their work on stewardship of lands for public
access and recreation, and they have membership based funds, therefore, other
possibilities than exclusion may apply. However see case studies in section 7
for examples of conservation products based on exclusion.
Boelhower (1995) presented an extensive survey of conservation easements on
working forests in the states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. Recognizing
this limited nature this survey allows for some discussion over the future of
the conservation easements. Easements, as well as most land trusts (see
section 3), are still new, as 74% of all easements included in the study are
less than five years old. Further, over 80% of easements are still owned by
the original easement initiators, who likely have a strong sense of land
stewardship. But these landowners are aging. An estimated 40% of easement
protected properties will be passed on to new owners within the next 10 to 15
years. As Bolehower questions, will the next generation have a similar land
ethic, manage the land with concern for all values of the forest, and manage
under ecologically sustainable principles?
Boelhower (1995) also interestingly discusses on the easements of the future.
Easements so far have appealed primarily to individual landowners, which
comprise almost 90% of all easement landowners of this survey. Large
commercial forest owners, often corporations have not been involved. Many of
these owners are skeptical of easements because of the subjectivity that
exists in forest management restrictions. Layered easements address these
concerns. They combine traditional perpetual easement that limits development
with a renewable term easement that contains specific forest management
provisions. This approach would

permanently protect important areas from development -such as shorelines,
special habitat, and recreational areas- and would provide the opportunity to
establish short-term controls on forest management. As landowners enter into
easement agreements and realize the restrictions are workable, the term
portion could be converted to perpetual restrictions. If the term portion is
not renewed, at least development of the property will be prevented.
As a very specific issue, but interesting to know about, land trusts might
become targets as potential contributors to cleanup costs on land they own or
on which they monitor easements, and what they can do about it. This paragraph
is a resume of Harrigan & Smith (1991) on this issue. Over the last twenty-
five years, U.S. Congress has enacted a series of comprehensive statues that
set standards under which both federal and state governments may compel
"responsible" parties to clean up various types of environmental
contamination. All the principles of landowner liability apply to non-profit
organizations, including land trusts, where the organization owns the land in
fee. As grantees of conservation easements, liability is far less clear. Until
that issue is resolved favorably for grantees, land trusts should gather all
of the same pre-acquisition information that is needed for fee purchases.
Before acquiring an interest in real state, the condition of the property
should be investigated in order to detect any waste material and to qualify
for the innocent purchaser defense. Overreaction to the risk of hazardous
waste liability should not be permitted to lead to organizational paralysis,
Keep the issue in perspective. At the other end of the spectrum, the momentum
that accompanies long term dealings between staff and potential donors is
difficult to stop. The subject of the hazardous waste inspection should be
introduced at the same time as other contingencies, like title work and
surveys. No deed should ever be accepted without adequate investigation just
to avoid an awkward situation. Finally, if an investigation reveals the
presence of hazardous waste, the land trust will not acquire it, Keeping the
results confidential may pose a danger to human health and the environment,
and may later expose the trust to charges of hypocrisy. Blowing the whistle
may cost the landowner a fortune and may seem a harsh penalty to pay for
offering a donation.
5.2 Financial benefits to donating conservation easements.
Again this is an issue very variable depending on the legislation that
applies. Ward (1987) and LTA (1993) are two interesting technical documents on
private land conservation, and further detail the financial benefits of
protecting land. Other private land conservation strategies, as bargain sales,
gifts of land or bequests also provide financial incentives. As an example,
obtained from a leaflet by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests, the following four situations can produce financial benefits:
Income taxes
Donation of development rights through an easement constitutes a charitable
gift, which may be deductible for federal income tax purposes. The value of
the gift, determined through a qualified appraisal, is equal to the difference
between the fair market value of

the property before and after the easement is donated. To be deductible, an
easement must meet certain minimum conservation objectives established by the
federal (US wide) government.
Estate taxes
State and federal inheritance taxes on unrestricted land are often so high
that the heirs are forced to sell some or all the land just to pay these
taxes. Because an easement reduces the value of the landowner's estate, the
inheritance taxes are also reduced. Thus, an easement may enable heirs to keep
land that they otherwise would have to sell.
Gift taxes
When a landowner gives land to a family member, the gift is subject to federal
gift taxes if its value exceeds the maximum tax-free amount. Lowering the
value of the land through an easement may allow the owner to give more land in
any one year without creating a gift tax, or it may help reduce the amount of
tax owed.
Property taxes
Most property protected under a conservation easement qualifies for reduced
taxation under current use assessment, and landowners are usually encouraged
to apply. Landowners whose property is already enrolled in current use will
rarely see any further reduction in property taxes as the result of granting a
conservation easement.
Although there are tax advantages to land conservation, they are only
effective when dealing with people who can benefit from such incentives. Much
of the problem, especially with farmland, is that a farmer needs to use the
land as a source of retirement income. In this case, tax advantages do not
have much value (Carbin 1991).
MCHT (undated) indicates a list of standards to consider a properly appraised
value of an easement donation as a "qualified conservation contribution",
deductible for income tax purposes:
1. Easement is for conservation purposes (recreation or education,
protection of environmental systems, preservation of open space, historic
preservation).
2. Easement is enforceable in perpetuity
3. Easement is donated to a qualified organization.
4. The donor follows the appraisal requirements for charitable gifts
5.3 Conservation easements in escrow. Involving multiple
properties at once
The difficulty of being the first landowner in a watershed or a region to
donate a conservation easement is obvious. While a lot of ranchers want to see
their ranch, as well as their neighborhood, remain in agriculture, they are
concerned that if they act first, their land will become an island in a sea of
development. As a result while owners wanted to see their neighborhood
protected, they wanted their neighbor to take the first step in protecting the
land. A specific type of

conservation easements, in escrow, take on this kind of problem. This section
is based on Long (1994) who discusses escrow agreements in detail.
In general terms, escrowing easements involves negotiating an escrow agreement
to accompany the conservation easements. The escrow agreement defines the
circumstances under which the conservation easements will take effect and be
transferred to the land trust that he will grant a conservation easement in
the future. In this way different land owners can agree into conservation
easements that will be effective in the future, but not necessarily at the
same time.
This approach overcomes the fact that getting different owners to donate
conservation easements at the same time could jeopardize their charitable
deductions. Since they would, in effect, receive a measure of control over
their neighbors' property in return from donating the easements, their
donative intent would be legally in question.
What follows is the steps used for an escrow process that took place to
protect the upper third of a critical watershed in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem in Montana.
1. Completing the title information and the baseline data relating to
the resources being protected and delivering them to the escrow. At this point
the land trust involved also prepared a "Resource Protection Plan" to document
its protection strategy for this watershed, including a detailed land
ownership map identifying existing conservation easements as well as the
escrow ranches. At this stage it is important to successfully complete the
baseline inventories and to involve all participants and information that will
be needed (minerals remoteness test, lenders) because these will need to be
completed fro inclusion in the escrow.
2. Public notification of the participating landowners' desire to donate
conservation easements.
3. Provide for the delivery of the escrow agreement to all parties
involved, that is all landowners, three in this instance. All these parties
have to review and approve the terms and the conditions of all of the
conservation easements.
4. Voluntary provision of the escrow. This is a 30 day grace period
during which any of the landowners could walk away from the escrow fro any
reason, no questions asked and with no legal recourse by the other
participants.
5. After the thirty-day waiting period the escrow goes into effect. If
there is any breach of the escrow (changes in the property like division,
transfer, mortgage, encumber or hypothec, or violations of the terms of the
easements) the conservation easements become effective immediately.
6. Eventually the conservation easements become effective, exit the
escrow, and are delivered to the land trust. The escrow includes a provision
for a final date by which the easements will be executed and the escrow will
end. In this case study this was as long as a four year period.

Some extra points are important to be considered. The escrow process is
a lengthy one, with a lot of contacts and information being transferred before
the escrow is actually into effect. As indicated it means having all the
ranchers reviewing and agreeing to all the conservation easements involved.
Honest, open communication among all parties is essential. Legal fees are also
costly, over $ 7000 (1992) in this case study.
5.4 Aspects included in conservation easements
The content of an easement's restrictive provisions is, of course, entirely
dependent on the facts at hand and must be thought through on a case-by-case
basis. Nevertheless, one can speak in a general way of certain basic areas of
concern that are likely to come up more often than not (see Diehl and Barret,
1988 p. 177-189). Next a very limited number of common aspects are presented,
gathered from various sources of information, as indicated. Appendix 4
presents a very simple sample easement.
There are two major concerns when developing easements: balance and coherence.
As to the first, which runs to policy, the grantee should be at pains not to
intrude further on the landowner's beneficial use and enjoyment of the
property than the protection of the conservation values of the property. Pride
of ownership runs deep; landowners, rightly, value their prerogatives. As a
general rule, grantees should not use easements to impose their own
preferences in inessential matters like taste or, unless the easement is part
of a comprehensive regional protection plan, try to solve problems that
transcend the boundaries of the property. The grantee should stick to the
restrictions that will make a substantial difference to the conservation
values of the property, that it can monitor efficiently, and that it intends
to enforce (Barret 1988).
Property subdivision
A common and almost compulsory limitation on an easement is to prevent the
property from further subdivision or separate sell in smaller parcels. This
allows for large parcels of natural or agricultural lands to be preserved.
Commonly some land might be excluded from the easement to allow limited
development, as indicated next. From the view of a landscape ecologist such
parcels should be provided at the edges of the properties, but often are in
the middle of a protected parcel, thus increasing the edge effect and reducing
at large its protection value (R.Forman, Harvard University, pers.comm.,
1995).
Right of purchase
Again a typical provision. It allows for the grantee of an easement to buy the
property in the future, at fair market price, from the owner if this is
intending to sell it. The price of this land will be in accordance to the
development restrictions placed by the conservation easement.

Non-agricultural development
Often land owners want to protect their property but also provide their
descendants or other future owners with flexibility and choice. Because of
these, or other, reasons, conservation easements retain a limited number of
development rights for the landowner's future use. Until recently, limited
development usually meant that most conservation easements were written to
allow a limited number of residential structures on large lots. House sites
generally were located on parcels ranging from 6 to 12 Ha which occasionally
accommodated a small tenant house or barn apartment, as well. But now with the
emergence of creative concepts, limited development can be much more varied
and imaginative. Examples of this new approach to housing development can be
found in Yaro et al (1989), an acclaimed design manual, originally developed
for the Connecticut River Valley, but with general ideas to be applied
elsewhere.
Examples of conservation easements where creative design has been applied are
based on a full level of residential development permitted by current zoning
(one house per hectare) to be constructed if creative design principles are
used. In addition, the easement permits the transfer of a portion of the
development rights from one area of the property to a village extension
property (see figure). Other design guidelines follow typical planning jargon
and stop short of developing a specific site plan. This was intended to
accommodate future trends taking into account that the development would not
necessarily arise in the near future.
Another example for residential restrictions was applied onto a more open farm
landscape where options to hide the development were limited. Here a
traditional farm complex in the area was used, gathering three to five
separate buildings, containing seven residences, together around a common
courtyard area (see figure). The surrounding open land would be managed by a
homeowners association and used for a horse pasture, meadow or community
garden. This example shows a more constrained option for development to be
included onto an easement.
Agricultural easements
Some agricultural easements intend only to preserve land for agricultural use;
other easements protect primarily natural resources, but agriculture is a
permitted use of land provided it is conducted in a manner that is compatible
with protection of land's natural resources. The idea of protecting working
farms and working farmland landscapes is the most important behind this type
of easements.
Issues like nonpoint source pollution, erosion, etc. are generally excluded
from farmland easements. Land trusts generally consider these kind of aspects
unenforceable, and thus prefer to refer interested owners to the US Natural
Resources Conservation Service, or similar agencies for assistance (Mark
McCatherine, Vermont Land Trust, pers.comm., 1995).
In the state of Vermont, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (see
section 3.3), is involved in a major effort to protect agricultural farmland
for the future, through its work with Vermont's land trusts. Behind this goal
is the idea that in might arrive a day when relying on agricultural products
coming in big trucks from the Midwest will not be

affordable or possible any more, and Vermont has decided to keep its working
farms (James Libby, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, pers.comm. 1995).
The American Farmland Trust, AFT, is a national organization founded in 1980
on the premise that the private sector, and agricultural producers in
particular, could and must play a central role in conserving food-producing
resources. AFT mission is to stop the loss of productive farmland and to
promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment (Thompson 1993).
Forestland easements
Easements for forestland are considered to require more work and significant
expertise and may not be for everyone (Wayburn 1994). Thus some organizations
specialize in forestland protection. The Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests is amongst the oldest land trusts in the country, funded in
1901 The Pacific Forest Trust, in California, was set up in 1993 for
forestland easements and assistance to other land trusts in the Pacific
Northwest.
Forest easements must specially address the long term and consider guiding or
constraining the extraction of timber resources even when this is not foreseen
in 20, 40 or more years. Straightening out the long-term landowner goals from
the outset will save much time and effort latter, and this is also generally
true for all easements. Under these long-term prescriptions it is not easy to
define management goals.
Wayburn (1994) claims for a mixing prescription of a short list of very clear,
enforceable, and easy monitored prescriptions -such as no commercial harvest
or no harvest in stream zones- and then identification of long-term
performance goals -achievement of old-growth conditions, maintenance of a mix
of several seral stages over the landscape-. These do not approach the how but
the what, and put responsibility upon the forest manager and allows them to
take advantage of new knowledge or equipment. It is also recommended to
include in the easement the right to review any forest management activity, to
be notified of any permit process, and to have a long-term management plan
that is to be updated every 10 years. Boelhower (1995) also indicates that
forest conditions are continually changing, and so is technology. Landowners
need to be able to manage for current existing forest conditions, and not be
limited by arbitrary standards that may actually work against the nature of
the forest.
Considering the higher monitoring requirements in these easements endowment
needs will be expected to be higher. Lyme Timber Company, in granting an
easement to the State of New Hampshire dedicated 10% of its annual returns on
the parcel to the management endowment, and further specified that 75% of that
money was to be spent on management plans and their updating.
Boelhower (1995) warns that current easements do not guarantee sustainable
management. Many easements regulate forest management, but none specifically
ensures long-term, ecologically sustainable forest management. Under the
easement language currently in place activities like high-grading of the
timber, careless road construction, and neglect of aesthetics, would all be
difficult to challenge. Thus ecologically sustainable management should be
defined in the easement. Regulating

forests through goals instead of actual management practices specifies the
desired end result, freeing the landowner to choose whatever strategies are
most appropriate for the land. Goal oriented management provides for changing
technology and allows the landowner to use whatever tools and expertise are
currently available, as long as the overarching goal of ecologically sound
management is achieved. This approach develops in more detail that of Wayburn
(1994) above.
Scenic/Aesthetic easements
Preserving landscapes is the objective of this kind of easements. The Trustees
of Reservations, regionally based in Massachusetts state, is involved at large
with landscape and historical preservation. Indeed this was its mission when
it was founded in 1981, being the oldest regional land trust in the world. Its
origins, related to the wealthy families of Boston, are strongly connected to
landscape architecture, being Charles Eliot, its main initiator, with
Frederick Law Olmsted office in Boston. Today The Trustees are also involved
in protecting natural areas, but scenic preservation and public enjoyment are
still central to their mission. For a detailed description of The Trustees of
Reservations and its history see Abbott (1993).
Forever-wild
All management activities are prohibited under this prescription, and thus
represents the most restricted type of easement.
Open space preservation
This is a common practice in easements, intended at controlling further
development.
Public access
The granting of public access to a private property under an easement is
another common practice. One of the main concerns of landowners on this point
is their potential liability to members of the public who become injured. Muir
(1994) discusses this problem.
In the US any states have recreational use statues that shield landowners from
liability for public recreational use, recreational being understood on a wide
sense of normal uses in public space. However if the land contains
particularly hazardous features such as abandoned quarries, open pits, or
natural features these should be indicated or fenced to restrict access to
fully be protected by the law (in this case provision for the owner or the
land trust to create and maintain these signs and protections must be
envisaged). In some states statues only protect owners when access to the land
is free of charge, and in these cases a parking fee or a charge for a trail
map or a box for voluntary donations are not considered a charge for access.
Land trusts and trail groups must keep in mind that the recreational use
statues are phrased in terms of protecting "owners" of land and the may
themselves no benefit from the statues unless they are considered owners too.
Given the case that a landowner is taken to court, which can happen even under
shielding statues, at least defense costs will appear. In this case the
landowner's first line of defense will be the homeowner's

policy for her residence. Land of an owner's property is considered residence
unless is actively farmed or used for timbering operations. Again, if a charge
is made to permit access this might be considered an excluded "business"
activity from the homeowner's policy.
Another possibility is when the conservation easement document has a "hold
harmless" provision by which the land trust is to defend any claims and pay
any resultant damages (Diehl and Barret 1988 show an example of this
provision). If the land trust is well-established and has a good reputation
will be able to do that. The risks involved in doing so may not be substantial
at all. The land trust's own commercial general liability policy will usually
provide coverage if the trust incurs a loss because of such an
indemnification. It is also possible for the land trust to have the owner
named in its liability policy so that the insurer will have a direct defense
running obligation to the landowner that would not strictly arise from
inclusion at the easement document. For the insurer point of view the
underwriting risk is not appreciably increased when additional insurers are
added to a policy under circumstances such as this.
It is also theoretically possible to add the land trust as an insured to the
landowner's homeowner's policy. This might be of interest if the land trust is
just getting started and can't yet afford its own commercial liability
insurance. However in this instance the insurers are very likely to refuse
this addition. Therefore the land trust is well advised to get its own
insurance as soon as it can afford to do so.
Attridge (1994) claims for effective risk management to be developed to reduce
the potential for expensive liability. Such strategy should include: inventory
and mitigation of any hazards on the land; assessment of where public access
should and should not occur; putting up fences or signs to protect and warn
the public from dangers; regular maintenance to the standards of similar
organizations; educating staff and users about proper use; obtaining indemnity
agreements with other occupiers; and buying liability insurance for either the
land trust or the conservation easement landowner.
Right of way
A specific kind of easements are the preservation on rights of way. In the
U.S. hiking trails, no matter how old or their historical importance, are not
secured by law. As a result a landowner has the right not to grant access to a
previously used trail. This is another difference from the European tradition
of free access to the land.
As a interesting specific example Massachusetts has rights of way on coastal
salt marshes for hunting and fishing. However lately it has been discussed how
this access has to be applied and if the public has to hunt or fish whilst on
the marsh or has also got the right to walk or hike there.
Some land trusts have specialized in preserving rights of way, both through
easements or direct purchase. Some mountain clubs, like the Green Mountain
Club of Vermont, became involved in preserving trails when landowners started
to ask that trails be moved from their properties. Now the GMC is involved on
an ongoing effort to protect the rights of way throughout the entire Green
Mountain Trail. However the first idea was to protect the land along the trail
it turned into a

project that protects mountain tops and important habitats along the trail too
(Robert Lincoln, Green Mountain Club, pers.comm., 1995).
Surface mining
This is generally prohibited, following the requirements of relevant
legislation that prohibit surface mining and any other method of mining that
is inconsistent with the particular purposes of an easement.
5.5 Monitoring and enforcing conservation easements
Once a conservation easement is established on a property the holder, that is
the land trust, has the commitment to ensure that the restrictions placed by
the easement stay in place, forever. The land trust community utilizes the
term stewardship in a technical way as the activities related with holding an
easement (C.Norden, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, pers.comm. 1995). Successful
stewardship requires excellent communication with landowners, regular
monitoring visits, detailed documentation and record keeping, and adequate
funds for legal defense should the need arise. Thus stewardship is a large
component of the activities in a land trust. Lind (1991) provides an extensive
description of easement stewardship. This subsection will present some basic
guidelines involved in stewardship, mainly from Lind (1991), Diehl and Barret
(1988) and unpublished guidelines used at the Maine Coast Heritage Trust.
A conservation easement cannot alone protect the land or resources it has been
set for, only the easement holder's excellent stewardship can. A careful
stewardship plan must:
1. Assign overall responsibility for the stewardship program.
2. Establish procedures, standards, and policies for the stewardship program.
3. Ensure adequate funding for the stewardship program.
4. Provide for continuity (forever is a long time!). It is to the benefit of a
land trust to have a established and long-term team. This is not easy
considering the pressures of the professional market and the economic
capabilities of a land trust.
These four rules relate to an overall stewardship strategy. At the level of a
single easement the are also sound practices for stewardship:
- Thoughtful easement writing, to provide clear and enforceable restrictions
to survive the courts if necessary (see models in Diehl and Barret 1988).
- Prepare objective, easy to duplicate, and specific baseline data before an
easement is signed. Define the boundaries well.
- Regular, systematic and documented monitoring based on written program, and
good record keeping on it.

- Maintaining good relationships with the property owner (personal visit once
a year) and the community. Keep complete records of all communications.
- Strong financial planning. Where will the money for stewardship come from?
Is the property at a reasonable distance from office for monitoring?
- Remember you have a commitment to enforce the easement. Fulfill obligations
to landowners, your own by-laws and I.R.S. regulations.
Each easement-holding organization typically develops its own monitoring
inspection report form or checklist that pinpoints the natural and human-
caused changes that have taken places on the property since the last time it
was monitored. This report must be adapted to the capabilities of a land
trust. A basic list of steps in making a monitoring visit is given by Diehl
and Barret (1988):
1. Notify the property owner in writing well in advance of the visit. The
owner or representative should accompany you on the visit if at all possible.
2. Review the easement's baseline data. Take a summary of the document's main
restrictions for reference during the visit.
3. Gather the equipment you will need in making the inspection -maps, photos,
camera, etc.
4. During the visit, note any changes to the property. Take photographs when
they would be helpful. These should be from well located, duplicable photo
stations.
5. Discuss observable changes with the property owner.
6. Complete the inspection report form and send two copies to the property
owner. As him or her to sign and return one copy for your files.
The possibility that a property holding an easement can be sold obviously
exists. There is fear that new owners will ignore the terms of the easement.
Precautions can be taken to avoid conflict with new landowners:
- Hold meetings with the local legal community (attorneys, magistrates,
judges, realtors) to describe the legal effects and the history of easements.
- Contact title companies asking to inform your agency about potential sale of
a protected property.
- Encourage neighbors to contact you if they believe a violation is taking
place. It might be necessary to explain them what kind of problem to look for.
- Keep records of all correspondence just in case easement questioned.
No matter what precautions are taken conflict may always be expected to arise.
There are three pieces of advice on rectifying violations:

1. Stay out of court whenever possible
2. Make sure the easement document specifies that you can go to court under
specific circumstances
3. If you must go to court make sure you can win
Diehl and Barret (1988) indicate three alternatives to the courtroom:
1. Restoration
2. Arbitration. This is the use of a private third-party who hears both sides
of an issue and dictates a solution, usually a compromise. Arbitration can
cost less money and take less time than courtroom litigation. Some believe
that, for arbitration to be useful at all, it must be binding. If the parties
can appeal it loses its attractiveness.
3. Mediation. This is an arbitration between the two parties involved. A third
party mediator is hired to guide the disputing parties in working out their
own solution to their problem.
As a conclusion to this section Diehl and Barret (1988) statement is
essential. Monitoring and defending easements sounds like a lot of work and
it is. But organizations and agencies should never accept conservation
easements without a strong commitment and ability to monitor them.

6. LANDOWNER CONTACTS. A MEANS TO BUILD UP ON PRIVATE
PROTECTED LAND AND OWNERS ACCEPTANCE
Landowner contacts are a key issue to the stewardship of private lands, and a
number of publications specifically devoted to these contacts exist. Two
interesting references are Hilts et al (1988), a manual on landowner contact,
that can be obtained through The Natural Heritage League (see Appendix 1) and
a special issue of the Natural Areas Journal in July 1984 (Volume 4, Number
3), now unfortunately out of print.
Contact introduces landowners to the existence of the conservation
organization carrying the contact, and helps to establish its credibility.
Active interchange between landowners and conservation groups benefits both
sides, even if no formal protection results immediately. While some landowners
know their property well, even basing their decision to buy it on its natural
significance, other owners may have no idea of their land's ecology. Learning
about their land often affects how owners will treat it. Repeated contact can
even change owner's intentions. The conservation groups can benefit by knowing
the intentions of landowners more clearly, perhaps even being able to rule out
immediate action on certain lands not under pressure, or those for which there
is no hope (Labaree 1991).
6.1 First contacts
The first contacts with a landowner are clearly a key on stewardship of
private lands. It is strictly necessary to gain the confidence and acceptance
of the owner to set up a stewardship program in his/her land. As indicated
Hilts et al (1988) extensively describe techniques for the first landowner
contacts, Hoose (1981) is another useful source.
The first part of this subsection is a step by step list for first contacts,
from Stokes et al (1989, p.200), directed towards future formal and legal
protection. The second half presents examples and considerations for less
formal contact programs, directed towards a verbal agreement. These are
particularly interesting for application in Catalonia, where incentives for
private land protection do not currently exist.
1. Before talking to the owner, develop a profile of his/her stewardship
record, approximate income, and family history associated with the property.
Estimate the land's value, determining its zoning, and investigate local real
estate trends.
2. Your first contact should be a simple, friendly gesture. A brief
letter or telephone call and a follow-up visit to answer questions may be
sufficient to establish contact.
3. Time your visits carefully. Avoid intensive work periods for farmers,
and times of stress such as illness and death, unless the owner

specifically requests the visit because the information may be helpful in
making decisions during such a period.
4. For a first visit, go with a friend, relative or neighbor who knows
the owner. The primary purpose of the first visit should be to explain the
organization's interest and help you size up the owner's commitment to
protection and any potential threats to the property.
5. Be prepared to spend a lot of time with a property owner, over a
number of visits-even years. Be a good listener, and be patient. Don't try to
rush anyone into making a quick decision. The owner is being asked to make a
decision about a property that may be the family's principal asset, that may
have been in the family for generations, or that may have some other
significance to the owner that you know nothing about.
6. Always know what it is that you want to protect on a particular
property; let the owner know that you are most concerned about protecting the
wetland on the Greek Revival farmhouse. An owner who hesitates to protect the
entire property may be receptive to protecting the part where the most
critical resources are located. Don't think of the organization as saving the
property: you're seeking a way for the owner to save the property. Remember
that the only reason that the source is still there is because of the actions
(or inaction) of the owner.
7. Information about the property from the community's environmental
inventory, such as maps, photographs or written narratives may be useful in
highlighting the importance of the property. As a first step, you might
suggest that the owner draw the property's boundaries and point out special
features on an aerial photograph.
8. Follow up quickly. Write a thank-you note after a visit and answer
any questions that were left unanswered during the visit.
9. The setting is important. The kitchen table may be a far more
successful site than a lawyer's office; holding meetings on the owner's turf
reduces any sense of intimidation. If you are dealing with multiple owners,
use hosts in the neighborhood.
10. Appearances are important: dress fro the occasion. Ask yourself how
the landowner will interpret what you wear; casual wear, office dress, or a
uniform can each be appropriate or inappropriate.
11. Strive to project confidence and build respect and trust. Be honest,
positive and open. Don't hide anything; doing so can destroy a carefully built
relationship and hurt you with others. If you are not an expert do not try to
appear to be one.
12. If a landowner has difficulty understanding the options, suggest
that an advisor -a relative, a friend, a family attorney- join the discussion.
13. Take careful notes about what the landowner and the family members
say, and what the owner agrees to. Later these notes may prove helpful in
developing an agreement or clarifying the donor's intent once the agreement is
in place.
In the US there are many incentives to private land protection and these have
been described throughout this report. In Canada these are much less developed
(see Section 7). Because of these and other differences a pilot project in
Ontario used a fundamentally different philosophy to US Landowner Contact
Programs (Hilts and Wagner McLellan 1984). Instead of encouraging landowners
to donate, sell, or otherwise legally protect their land, owners were simply
encouraged to practice good private stewardship. A small booklet was prepared
for distribution to landowners that stressed this point, and pointed out the
fascinating ecology of such sites, as well as the values of protecting them.
This message was

very soft-sell but it achieved its goal and opened the door for other more
formal protection options. It was an honest attempt to see the issue from the
landowners point of view, and to listen to his or her concerns while providing
him or her with information on the special significance of his or her
property. Only 10% of the 165 landowners contacted refused to meet with
anyone. In this pilot project each contact required about 10 man-hours of
work. The fact that such contacts can be done efficiently and effectively by
young employees without much previous experience suggests that costs can be
kept in the range of $100 per contact (1984). In addition the cost of a full-
time coordinator would add about 10-20% to the overall program.
Similar to the Canadian experience is the Registry Programs conducted by The
Nature Conservancy during the 80's. The Registry Programs are efforts to
secure voluntary protection agreements from landowners (Hoose 1984). The
incentives offered to landowners are mainly psychological. The intention is to
inspire a civic sense of stewardship responsibility by informing owners that
something on their property is of at least statewide significance. The program
asked landowners to make three promises:
- To preserve and protect the outstanding natural features as well as they
can.
- To notify TNC of any threats to the natural features.
- To notify TNC if they plan to sell or transfer ownership of the property.
There is no assumption that a property protected voluntarily is strongly
protected, or that is protected forever. Each year TNC recontacts each owner,
but makes a special effort to revisit those owners whose property is most
important or whose commitment or health seems weakest. The program is based on
a personal rather than a legal relationship, thus TNC has not insisted that
signed documents accompany registration. Although the act of signing implies a
stronger commitment than a verbal agreement it also raises questions on the
owner about whether the signed agreement burdens the property, brings in
attorneys, usually takes more visits, and therefore more time and money.
Most TNC Registration Programs, 24 states had them by 1985, are defined,
focused and driven by state Natural Heritage Data. Generally no program was
started until two years of heritage data were available. Heritage data greatly
enhances the registry worker's chances for success. "Your property contains
one of three known populations of Bessya bullii in Transylvania" is a far more
compelling statement than "your property contains a very rare plant species".
However McFall (1984) indicates highly technical or lengthy information is not
necessary because they are much more than most people want to know.
Some final thoughts and suggestions for landowner contacts are presented from
Sargent Meyer (1984):
- The success of many preservation projects depends on finding the right
person or group willing to become involved. Help can be from individual local
conservationists and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. It is important to
be careful about involving high-powered advocate groups that have national
exposure, particularly in rural areas.

- If you are ready to take a proposal or document to a landowner, or
particularly any board of trustees, do not leave anything to chance. The board
members may not have understood or even read your proposal. Sometimes you will
be told you don't need to come to a meeting. It is important to be there to
explain and answer questions. You can always say you have some other business
in the area and will be able to attend the meeting.
- Projects might be transferred to another agency or slated for acquisition
from a willing seller. The outcome is apt to be far better if you, the
original contact and confidant, are there to introduce the new person involved
and then keep in touch as long as needed.
- Contacting owner corporations and organizations is difficult. If your
introductory letter is simply addressed to a large concern, the letter can end
up anywhere. It is best to call the switchboard first and ask for the name of
the manager or superintendent and write directly to that person. With really
large corporations, with or without local offices, the real estate department
(still get a name) is sometimes a good starting point for a contact.
and McFall (1984):
- Getting information to the landowner. Take a manila file folder with your
business card stapled to the inside and include: a one-page handout that
explains in general terms why the particular area is worthy of preservation; a
one-page handout on why to preserve natural areas; a one-page handout on your
organization and your contact program, a list of plants with common names;
and, if appropriate, a black and white aerial photo with the natural area
outlined. High technical or lengthy publications are purposely not put in the
folder because they include much more than most people want to know. The
folder is really useful for the owner to keep the information together and
accessible, it is less likely to be thrown away or lost.
- McFall's program included signing a two-page agreement. They leave the
landmark papers and a stamped and addressed return envelop and ask them to
send back the agreement after everyone has seen it and it has been signed. The
return envelop makes it easier for the owners to follow through and saves you
the drive back to finish things.
- A 5”x7” color photograph of the natural area makes an excellent gift to the
landowner and it doesn't cost much. Natural areas really sell themselves if
you let them and these small gifts help instill the owner's pride in his or
her natural area.
- For far-away landowners you will not going to visit, but at least you might
call them. From the phone call many think that they really must have something
special. These landowners are often very interested in such kind of programs
because when they sign up they receive assistance in watching over and
protecting their property.

6.2 Preparing a conservation easement (see also section 5.5)
It is important that the negotiations with landowners, for a conservation
easement or for other kinds of legal commitment, be handled by competent and
politic people, people knowledgeable in all aspects of land transactions,
including finances and state plans, and people that can develop the confidence
of landowners. In most cases such skills are not found in board members
(volunteers) but with technical staff.
Similarly there is a need for legal support services for land trusts. Indeed
Griffin (1991) considers it essential for a land trust to have a lawyer
amongst its staff. Even in the US, where stewardship is well established, in
some areas it is difficult to find attorneys with expertise in this
specialized area.
One special case is when a large family group is involved in taking the
decisions on a conservation easement. In such a case it is advised to search
for advice on how to conduct extended discussions and negotiating a successful
agreement. Sometimes it might even be helpful having someone to facilitate and
conduct the discussions during the decision-making process. Schauffler (1994)
wrote an essential account on the important points on family consensus, and
there is other specific literature devoted to this issue (Fisher and Ury
1981, Fisher and Ury 1988, and Ury 1991).
6.3 Long term contact (see also section 5.5)
A good relationship with the property owner is essential to the success and
violation-free record of an easement (see Section 5.5). This good relationship
must be based, at least, on a one-on-one contact at least once a year. Some
grantees supplement that scheduled personal contact of the annual monitoring
visit with other actions:
- Recognition of generosity and good property stewardship. Either a plaque or
the least expensive hand-lettered proclamation are in common use.
- Advisory services. Offering advisory services of professionals such as
landscape architects, road engineers, and timber specialists who are at the
grantee's disposal.
- Newsletters. Sending a regular newsletter to all easement program
participants.
The Natural Heritage Stewardship Program (NHSP 1989), in Ontario, conducted an
evaluation of 20 follow-up techniques organized into three broad categories:
printed materials, personal contacts and publicity. The evaluation, based on a
survey of landowners, as well as professional judgment, gave the highest score
to a site visit. The telephone contact, along with management assistance (tree
marking, wildlife habitat improvement, management plans, etc.) were in the
same general range. A little lower, but still with high scores were a mailback
postcard with a brief questionnaire and social gatherings. A flowchart (see
figure) presents the results of this study.

STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia

STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia

Similar to STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia (20)

More from Jordi Pietx i Colom

More from Jordi Pietx i Colom (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STEWARDSHIP: The Protection and Conservation of the Wider Countryside. Overview and suggestions for application in Catalonia