Back to SOCIAL MARKETING: MORE THAN JUST ”ADVERTISING” FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2008 ANNUAL MEETING13-17 JULY, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, USA

SCB'S POLICY PROGRAM INFORMS LEGISLATION AFFECTING GLOBAL CONSERVATION

Integrity of science in wildlife law: peer reviews prompt congressional action on recovery planning

When SCB's Board of Governors voted in February, 2007 to advance policies to protect scientific integrity in the implementation of wildlife law, the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) recovery plan was among the examples they had in mind. SCB's Policy Director and other staff currently are working with congressional staff and members of the North America Section's policy committee to improve incorporation of conservation science into recovery plans and similar instruments.

In May and July 1997, the Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress held hearings that focused on directions to civil servants from high-level presidential appointees to set aside accepted conservation measures species at risk. SCB worked with witnesses including Dominick DellaSala; Mike Kelly, a former National Marine Fisheries Service employee; Jeff Ruch, head of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Francesca Grifo, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists; and with committee staff to ensure that testimony, questions, and responses at the hearings (i.e., the official record) would clarify the facts and suggest reforms. During preparation for and at the hearings, witnesses and SCB staff also suggested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct further procedural reviews of how science has been incorporated into regulations affecting natural resources.

At the July hearing, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior admitted that directions to set aside scientific findings and recommendations in protecting listed species, although non-felony and non-criminal, are violations of the law. The Inspector General also recommended that a proposed new ethics regulation be adopted and applied to Presidential appointees in the Department.

In September, I met briefly with Norm Dicks, Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and his Senate counterpart's staff director. We discussed ways in which Congress might require reforms and revisions of the Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan. SCB had raised the idea of reforms in May 2007 during discussions with conservation groups and others. However, lack of unanimity in the conservation community at a late stage in the annual congressional appropriations process made it difficult to include reforms and revisions in the appropriations bill. Senator Widen subsequently put a "hold" on confirmation of senior officials at the Department of the Interior until the Department promised a more thorough review of more than a dozen decisions that may have been subject to political interference. Relaxing the hold on confirmations also may hinge on strengthening of ethics regulations and steps such as withdrawal of pending revisions, which many fear would weaken implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

Updates on responses of the Department of the Interior and reports of the GAO will be included in future newsletters. In the meantime, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of legislation further insulating the Inspectors General themselves from political interference.

A peer review of the Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan conducted by SCB and the American Ornithologists' Union was quoted in an October 2007 article in The Washington Post (Eilperin, J. 3 October 2007. Scientists see politics in spotted owl plan. The Washington Post, page A05. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202031.html):

More than 100 independent scientists suggested . . . that political pressure may have led federal officials to water down protections for the northern spotted owl in a recently revised recovery plan for the threatened bird . . . An independent review by the Society for Conservation Biology and the American Ornithologists' Union said, "[Changes to the recovery plan] may in part reflect new information . . . but it's hard not to conclude that they may also result from pressure to relax restrictions on logging."

Responses to climate change

Since SCB's board chose climate change as our top policy priority, climate scientists and geophysicists have found strong signals that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and apparent ecological effects of climate change exceed even the "worst case" projections made in recent years. However, it appears that many senior members of Congress have not recognized the new scientific information, and assume that undesirable climate change effects largely can be mitigated if emissions are reduced by 2050. In response to this situation, SCB is taking a number of actions.

1. We recently visited with congressional leaders, their staff, and others who have primary jurisdiction over climate change legislation or recently have introduced legislation. Our objective was to bring new scientific information to the attention of staffers. We also reminded staff of the climate-change testimony we submitted earlier in 2007 (see www.conbio.org/activities/policy/ClimateChange.cfm). Our testimony cited peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that a combination of (1) assistance for conservation and (2) taxes or other fees levied on emissions of greenhouse gases can result in remarkably rapid progress and rewards. Without recommending a specific approach to legislation, we urged staff to review all options again in the light of the peer-reviewed evidence. In the coming weeks, we will be visiting with other climate leaders, especially those in the Senate, where new principles and new legislation have been proposed. These principles and legislation are the subject of hearings and mark-ups in October and November in the Senate Environment Committee. Among the key pronouncements is Senator Obama's call for auctioning all of the permits awarded to emitters of pollutants under any cap and trade system. Others have proposed that as many as half of the permits be given away, which many economists regard as a substantial subsidy. Another new proposal, the Lautenberg-Sanders principle, would prohibit permits for new coal-fired power plants unless the plants can sequester their carbon emissions.

2. Information on SCB's policy Web site allows our members to compare existing energy legislation passed by the House and Senate. With this information, members can identify the legislation that they believe is most appropriate and urge their delegations to support that legislation or discuss improvements that they as individuals feel are important.

3. I addressed a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility in October. Our meeting addressed SCB's policy program and policy process. We touched on local chapters, Regional Sections, working groups, and the oversight exercised by the Policy Committee and the Board. We discussed examples of how SCB decided whether to support specific policy positions. Many of the member organizations of AAAS are interested in learning from our experience with respect to engaging in policy, affecting specific policy topics such as climate change, and protecting the integrity of science in agency decision-making.

4. By focusing on synergies in policy topics, we are capitalizing on multi-pronged strategies to minimize carbon emissions and maximize environmental resilience to climate change. For example,

a. We are working with allies in the professional conservation and forestry communities and the House and Senate committees as they refine legislation to curtail importation of illegally harvested timber, much of which is literally stolen at gunpoint from local communities in tropical regions. This framework for curbing deforestation will help address climate change and its impacts as well as direct losses of biological diversity (see Biological security, below).

b. With the help of our new Policy Associate Kevin Eckerle, a former AAAS fellow with both a Ph.D. and an MBA, we are reviewing potential mechanisms to measure and reward stewardship of resources by jurisdictions and nations. We continue to use SCB's Web site to inform our members about the progress of the UNEP Finance Initiative and other efforts to capitalize on conservation (see Stemming the tide of invasive aquatic species, below).

c. Working with experts in federal agencies, we are comparing progress in each house of Congress on legislation that may help curtail pathways by which non-native invasive species are introduced into the United States.

Biological security: securing protection for forests, foresters, and honest purveyors of forest products

On 16 October, I attended a hearing of the House Natural Resources committee on securing protection for forests, foresters, and honest purveyors of forest products. A broad set of witnesses supported enactment of legislation to add plants to the types of living species covered by the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act currently prohibits importation or sale of wildlife that is harvested illegally and moved from its point of origin to another jurisdiction. The International Wood Products Association is reluctant to support the measure unless importers can ensure a clean chain of custody to avoid prosecution for receiving illegally harvested wood products. To provide examples of how such safeguards might be implemented through the Forest Stewardship Council or another certification process, SCB suggested language for the committee's report and provided a letter from the Justice Department about the Department's enforcement guidance.

Stemming the tide of invasive aquatic species
by Kevin Eckerle, SCB Policy Associate

On 27 September 2007, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported favorably S. 1578, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007. Similarly, on 28 June, the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2830), which contained the House proposal for management of ballast water. Further action in both houses is expected in this Congress.

In general, the Senate and House bills are similar. Identical language defines the vessels to which the proposed standards apply, establishes rigorous standards for the effectiveness of ballast water treatment techniques, and prescribes the penalties for violating the regulations. Of potential concern is the exclusion in both bills of foreign-flagged vessels transiting (those not originating from or destined to ports in the United States) through the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Each bill requires a report from the Coast Guard on the potential effects of ballast water operations from these vessels, but these vessels are not regulated under either of the current proposals.

The major difference between the bills is the timetable over which the new standards will take effect. The House proposal is more aggressive, requiring installation of ballast water treatment equipment on ships by 31 December 2013. The House bill also requires an earlier review of these standards; the bill mandates that reviews begin by December 2012, two years earlier than the Senate proposal. The Senate bill specifically references the United Nations International Maritime Organization's (IMO) ballast water convention in outlining the justifications for the new regulations. Both proposals encourage international collaboration for developing more effective programs to eliminate the spread of aquatic nuisance species through ballast water. Finally, the Senate bill authorizes annual appropriations of up to $50 million to the Coast Guard between 2008-2012 to enforce the new regulations; the House proposal authorizes only $20 million annually.

These aggressive bills implement standards that are ten times more stringent than those of the IMO ballast water convention, significantly improving the management and treatment of invasive aquatic species. The omission of transiting vessels from these regulations could be addressed prior to final passage as it represents a major pathway for continued introduction of invasives into United States waters. Likewise, the House language addressing the timetable for adoption of new regulations and review of the new standards is the stronger and hopefully will be maintained in the final version of the bill.

Investment and Procurement: world's third largest bank unveils climate-conserving investment index

In a breakthrough for conservation investment, the European bank HSBC announced in October 2007 that it would invite investments in a new fund. The fund comprises securities of 300 firms that are working to minimize climate change in different ways, from building wind turbines to generating solar and tidal energy. According to HSBC, the fund's index has outperformed the market by a substantial margin since 2004 (see Oakley, D. 25 September 2007. HSBC index points way to windfalls. Financial Times, page 3). Similar funds are available in the United States and Europe that reflect social and environmental goals and screen out securities that compromise progress toward those goals. However, it seems that few funds focus on climate change while offering a broad set of securities.

John Fitzgerald

Back to SOCIAL MARKETING: MORE THAN JUST ”ADVERTISING” FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2008 ANNUAL MEETING13-17 JULY, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, USA