Back to 2001 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to Internationalization of SCB: A survey of European members

To DC or Not DC ­ That's the Question

Discussions of the potential role of SCB in Washington, D.C. are as old as our young organization itself. But those watching closely may have noticed that this dialogue has gained momentum in the past year, as indicated by Gary Meffe's editorial in the June 1999 issue of Conservation Biology and the views expressed by Michael Soulé and Reed Noss in the November 1999 newsletter. This past January, under Soulé's lead, an ad hoc group of SCB members held a one-day workshop in Washington, D.C. to examine these issues more thoroughly. SCB President Reed Noss, Policy Committee Chair Mike O'Connell, and Board members Nick Salafsky and Curt Meine joined Soulé, Jack Vanderryn, Eric Dinerstein, Faith Campbell, Amy Mathews-Amos, and me to hear the perspectives of representatives from other scientific societies and conservation groups. We focused on the potential objectives, roles, and functions of a Washington, D.C. policy office, and how such an office could be funded. Representatives of the American Institute for Biological Sciences (AIBS), Ecological Society of America, and American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology discussed what their societies had achieved through their policy offices, how their offices coordinate with their Boards, and how they fund their efforts. Representatives of conservation groups including Environmental Defense, American Lands, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, and National Wildlife Federation described how their organizations use or could make use of the scientific community and considered the potential value to them of an SCB office in Washington, D.C.

These representatives were generally very positive about the contributions SCB could make to science and conservation policy in Washington, D.C. It became apparent that a "niche model," in which SCB identifies a specific role to play in Washington, D.C., may not be the best approach. A more appropriate way to think about SCB's contribution may be in terms of synergy: that is, the more organizations working collaboratively towards the same objectives, the better. Within this group effort, SCB's role clearly would be to provide objective scientific information that could assist decision-makers and also be available to conservation groups, while not becoming a conservation group itself.

While our discussions were informative and upbeat, many uncertainties remain. Therefore, the Board of Governors has commissioned an in-depth study examining the substantive and administrative questions of what SCB might accomplish through a Washington, D.C. office and by what mechanisms, as well as examining alternative ways to achieve these goals. Ellen Paul (Ornithological Council), who recently completed a similar study for AIBS, has been hired to complete this report in time for consideration at the June meeting. As chair of the policy subcommittee that is overseeing this process, I will work with vice-chair Amy Mathews-Amos and other subcommittee members to make sure the document is informative and useful for SCB. In the meantime, SCB members who are interested in seeing the results of the January workshop can email me at David@cnie.org or click on the link below.

Back to 2001 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to Internationalization of SCB: A survey of European members