I bring this to your attention only because right wing, anti-environmental movements that start in the US often infect the rest of the world. Also, in the Caribbean, some fisheries limits might be affected by this new interpretation — if we have a bunch of fish in a big aquarium somewhere, can we fish out the rest?

I wish the title wasn’t so obscure. . .

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
Conservation, or Curation?
By JOHN A. VUCETICH and MICHAEL PAUL NELSONAUG. 20, 2014

Credit
Victo Ngai
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

THE United States Fish and Wildlife Service — the main agency for the conservation of species — recently announced a new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that severely limits its reach and retreats from the conservation ethic that healthy landscapes depend on native plants and animals.

The law says that a species qualifies for protection if it is in danger of extinction “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A species does not need to be at risk of extinction everywhere it lives if it is endangered in a significant portion of its range. But what is “significant”? And how is “range” defined?

Now, under a policy that took effect July 31, the agency has provided answers. The law’s protections, for practical purposes, will be applied only if a species is at risk of extinction in a vital (read, significant) portion of its range where its loss would put the entire species at risk of extinction. And the concept of range no longer takes into account its historical distribution but defines the concept in terms of where the species is found now.
This means that as long as a small, geographically isolated population remains viable, it won’t matter if the animal or plant in question has disappeared across the vast swath of its former habitat. It won’t qualify for protection.

This interpretation threatens to reduce the Endangered Species Act to a mechanism that merely preserves representatives of a species, like curating rare pieces in a museum. Also likely to suffer are efforts to protect or repopulate areas where endangered species once lived.

Imagine if this new approach had been in place when the bald eagle was being considered for protection in the 1970s. Arguably, the national bird might never have been listed as endangered in most of the lower 48 states, even though it had virtually been extirpated by illegal hunting and the pesticide DDT. Why? Because a healthy population of bald eagles remained in Alaska and Canada.

Today, the return of the bald eagle is one of the great successes of the Endangered Species Act. The bird is flourishing in the very areas where it had been wiped out and reasserting its position in the ecological order that was disrupted by its absence. This was accomplished in part by using the authority in the law to protect nesting sites and summer and winter roost sites and to reintroduce the bird into its historical range.

(The Fish and Wildlife Service says it still would have protected the bald eagle under this new interpretation. Nevertheless, a case could have been made to withhold the law’s safeguards once the bird was no longer at risk of extinction outright.)

More recently, other threatened animals haven’t been so lucky.

In cases involving the gray wolf, wolverine and swift fox, the agency, employing the logic of this new policy to guide it, decided or proposed to remove or withhold protections for those animals after concluding there was no risk that they would go extinct. Never mind that they had vanished from much of the territory they once inhabited. (The gray wolf, which is in the administrative process of losing its protection under the law, had been lost from 85 percent of its range but securely inhabits the last 15 percent.) The agency reasoned that there were enough of these animals left in their much-diminished range to survive.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

Several years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service and a sister agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, began developing a uniform policy for interpreting that key phrase in the Endangered Species Act — the line that says that a species must be at risk “throughout all or a significant portion of its range” to qualify for protection. Uncertainty over the meaning of that phrase and government decisions based on varying interpretations had led to controversy and litigation.

The two agencies call their reading of the law a “reasonable interpretation,” although they acknowledge that “there is no single best interpretation.” In fact, their reading is especially narrow and possibly contrary to Congress’s intent when it passed one of the nation’s most important conservation laws. A more appropriate interpretation of range would be those portions of a species’ historical distribution that are suitable, or that can feasibly be made suitable, by mitigating or removing the threats that had caused the species’ decline.
If the purpose of conservation is merely to preserve the fewest possible members of a species, then this new policy might be adequate. But this approach amounts to a retreat from two conservation aspirations that had long animated the law: first, to mitigate harms that humans had perpetrated against certain species, such as severely reducing their geographic range; and second, to make it possible for species to return to landscapes where they had been extirpated. The idea was that healthy ecosystems depend on the presence of native species.

Since taking effect in 1973, the law has been instrumental in saving many species from extinction, including the California condor, American crocodile, whooping crane and black-footed ferret. Some 1,400 plants, animals and fish are now on the list.

This new approach does not mean that endangered species won’t still be saved. But it falls far short of the conservation aspirations the law once embodied. This new policy will result in a world for our children even more diminished than the one we live in.
John A. Vucetich is an ecologist at Michigan Technological University. Michael Paul Nelson is an environmental ethicist at Oregon State University.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 21, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Conservation, or Curation?. Order Reprints|Today’s Paper|Subscribe

From those wonderful guys (see mention of Goldman Sachs key role toward bottom of article below), who brought us “Super Recession 2007,” Social Impact Bonds. . . or SIBs, if you prefer. (Twitter version might be: “From the WS SOBs, SIBs.”)

The report is by the Non-Profit Quarterly at <https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/24658-democracy-in-tatters-citizen-impotence-in-american-democracy.html> [My emphasis added to the account below.]

POLICY/SOCIAL CONTEXT

First Social Impact Bond Fails to Meet Halfway Mark Performance Target

WRITTEN BY RICK COHEN CREATED ON WEDNESDAY, 13 AUGUST 2014 14:47

August 8, 2014;National Union of Public and General Employees

The first Social Impact Bond project in the world, the Peterborough prison effort to reduce recidivism by 10 percent, has encountered a problem: It didn’t meet the 10 percent target for the first cohort of released prisoners and therefore failed to qualify for an early payout for investors. In fact, according to this report from the National Union of Public and General Employees, “the data released this week shows the scheme will come nowhere near achieving what proponents claimed it would when the project was launched.” (“Nowhere near,” it appears, actually was a mere 8.4 percent reduction in recidivism.)

This was an early payout possibility for the investors in the SIB, and they missed it, but investors have the ability to get some payout by the end of the project. While the payout for the first cohort would have been triggered by a 10 percent reduction in recidivism, the payout target for the combined first and second cohorts of released prisoners is only a 7.5 percent recidivism reduction (compared to a national comparison group with characteristics similar to the Peterborough prison short-sentence population). The sponsors of the Peterborough bond apparently quickly emailed a statement that the project was “on track” to meet its targets for a payout to investors by 2016 for the first and second cohorts.

Third Sector’s Stephen Cook notes that the third cohort of the Peterborough SIB was cancelled by the government, as the program is being transformed into a national program under the Ministry of Justice called Transforming Rehabilitation. The new national program is still measurement- and results-oriented like the Peterborough SIB, but as a national program, it will be restructured to be roughly equivalent to what American nonprofits experience as performance-based contracting; participating nonprofits implementing the anti-recidivism projects will be compensated when they reach predetermined performance benchmarks. The process is sort of like a SIB but, as Cook notes, but “without any social investors,” or as we would note, without any private investors anticipating a profit from the program.

Like the reaction of SIB promoters to the news that the third Peterborough cohort had been cancelled, the SIB community is publicly talking up SIBs despite the project’s falling short at its first payment point. But Cook senses something else coming from the SIB promoters’ bleachers. “The overall impression is that everyone concerned is determined to talk up the Peterborough SIB in public, despite qualified success and difficulties over statistics and measurement,” he writes. “In private, some of those involved are much more downbeat about the prospects for replicating what might prove to be a one-off experiment.”

For some observers, the problem posed by SIBs like the Peterborough project is more than the likelihood that they might be simply rather expensive one-time experiments. The fact that the UK government was able to turn the project into a program—minus having to pay a premium to private investors—goes to a point that critics have raised before. If a governmental agency and related nonprofits are going to go through what was needed to structure the Peterborough project, which the National Union of Public and General Employees says took 29 months, including 11 months just negotiating the measures by which success would be determined and the investors paid, why not work on a more broad-based program? That’s time that might be better spent on public policy lobbying to create a more widely available program rather than designing the arcane structure of a SIB for the benefit of private investors tied to one project.

Cook suggests that the biggest question about SIBs might be “whether they will ever fulfill the initial intention of attracting a wide range of investors—not just forward-thinking foundations willing to take risks for the sake of innovation.” In the Peterborough case, 17 charitable foundations invested the £5m to work with the Peterborough prisoners. Charitable foundations can obviously accept little or no financial return on their investments in social programs; they do that through a concept called “grants.” Private investors want a return on their investment—called “profit.”

In New York, the anti-recidivism SIB that has Goldman Sachs as its primary investor is structured to give Goldman a return of more than 20 percent if performance targets are met, and even that wasn’t enough for Goldman. The massive Wall Street firm’s SIB is also the beneficiary of a 75 percent guarantee from Bloomberg Philanthropies. According to the National Union article, the response of the SIB community to the Peterborough outcomes is not one of “acknowledging the flaws in the privatization schemes…[but instead] proposing [that] governments provide incentives or guarantees to encourage people to invest in” SIBs, that is, finding ways to further subsidize SIBs.

Therein lies the real problem. How much are SIBs aimed at solving social problems versus finding new opportunities for private investors to profit from the largesse of taxpayers?—Rick Cohen

Terms:Government Nonprofit Relations, Newswire

Now I’m not saying that conservation trusts have a lot in common with Social Impact Bonds, but I sure wish someone would show us the hard data

[In my experience in the Caribbean, the problems of LACK of COOPERATION do NOT come from independent SIDS failing to cooperate, but rather from TERRITORIES of major nations who do not share available information. The best example was Hurricane Marilyn in 1995, which hit St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands with inadequate advance warning of changes in the storm track, EVEN THOUGH those changes were charted by radar used by the Met Offices in the French West Indies.]

from <http://www.sprep.org/climate-change/global-campaign-launched-to-improve-weather-and-climate-services-for-small-island-developing-states-sids>

Global campaign launched to improve weather and climate services for small island developing states (SIDS)

Details Published on 04 August 2014

Tweet

A global campaign to improve weather and climate services for all small island developing states was launched today with the support of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Digicel Pacific.

The Small Islands, Weather Together campaign (www.weathertogether.org) aims to show how the small island developing states of the world can work together to improve their vital weather and climate services.

In the Pacific region alone, extreme weather already accounts for 76% of all disasters with 50% directly related to cyclones. The increase in extreme weather events is also hampering the sustainable development of many small island developing states. For example, when Cyclone Evan hit Samoa in December 2012 it resulted in the loss of one third of the country’s entire annual economic output.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud stresses that small island developing states need greater investment to further strengthen their vital weather and climate services and to ensure that efforts towards sustainable development are not wasted.

“If we don’t invest in stronger weather and climate services for small island developing states then extreme weather events could simply wipe out years of development effort if they are not well prepared. It is much more cost-effective to invest in early preparedness and prevention than to focus only on rehabilitation and post-disaster action,” he asserted.

Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of weather and climate events – cyclones, typhoons, drought, flash floods – in many small island developing states. But many of their Meteorological Services still lack the basic infrastructure, technology and expertise they need to protect vulnerable island communities and economies.

For Mr. Jarraud, there is an urgent need to enhance the quality of early warnings for extreme weather. He pointed out that the formulation and dissemination of these warnings also need to be improved so that they can be understood and used by the island communities and government agencies.

In the Pacific islands, SPREP and other partners are working to improve communication of this type of information in partnership with national meteorological services, the media, including broadcast stations and communities.

“SPREP recognises that weather forecasts and warnings such as those given during tropical cyclones do not have a shelf life, they must be disseminated rapidly to the public or else they are useless,” says SPREP Acting Director General Kosi Latu.

He further noted, “We can improve the quality of the forecasts and warnings so that countries and communities have more lead time to take action. But we can also improve the way climate information is used over longer time scales by farmers, fishermen and by decision-makers across government. For example, when planning new infrastructure, we can say ‘this place has a high risk of tsunami, flooding or storm surge, so don’t build things here’.”

Mr. Jarraud recalls that the small developing island states stand to suffer more and more if the global community fails to agree to a limit in greenhouse gas emissions, the main human cause of climate change and global warming.

“Greenhouse gas emissions are still on the rise. We need to reach a peak of emission over the next 15–20 years, then to decrease dramatically to zero equivalent emission in about 50–60 years from now.

“This is a huge challenge. We must act now. The more we wait, the more difficult it will be, and, therefore, the more expensive it will be for countries to adapt to climate change. If we do not act now, we are agreeing to leave the small island developing states in a situation which may no longer be manageable,” he warned.

The Small Islands, Weather Together campaign was launched specifically to coincide with the lead up to the United Nations Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, which will be held in Apia, Samoa, from 1–4 September, 2014.

For more information visit: callingstevemenzies

This is one of those disruptive concepts that get you thinking about other interesting options. . . .

– – – – from the Scientific American <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-poachers-and-illegal-loggers-strike-this-forest-phones-it-in/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook>

If Poachers and Illegal Loggers Strike, This Forest Phones It In

Environmentalists are bugging rainforests with discarded smartphones to catch poachers and illegal loggers
Jun 24, 2014 |By W. Wayt Gibbs

The smartphones, encased in waterproof housings and attached to a cluster of solar cells, look a bit like large black flowers.
Credit: Rainforest Connection via FlickrWhen a tree falls to illegal loggers in the forest of the Kalaweit Supayang Nature Conservation Reserve for gibbons in West Sumatra, Indonesia, it most definitely makes a sound—and generates a text message to alert reserve managers. Last summer a tiny, nonprofit start-up calledRainforest Connection installed a handful of old, donated smartphones, each tricked out with a solar charger and reprogrammed to conduct audio surveillance, into the forest canopy. The system quickly brought logging to a halt, says Topher White, a 31-year-old physicist who designed the system and founded the outfit.

Now, with the help of the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the KfW development bank in Germany, Rainforest Connection is preparing to deploy dozens of such listening devices in equatorial Africa to protect endangered forest elephants and their habitats. “This technology enables the forest to talk to the world,” says musician Neil Young in a video produced by Rainforest Connection for a fund-raising campaign it plans to launch today on Kickstarter. “The forest can speak—and you can hear it. They can hear the first saw, they can hear the rifle shots when people are shooting animals and shouldn’t be. They can tell when the forest is under attack by people who are breaking the law.”

The smartphones, encased in waterproof housings and attached to a cluster of solar cells, look a bit like large, black flowers. White mounts them high in the canopy, where they are hard to spot. The devices periodically record snippets of audio, which they transmit over the cheap local cellular network to a central server. The computer analyzes the audio waveforms as they come in. If the software detects the sound of chain saws, it triangulates the position of the logging and sends the info to workers at the preserve.

Within 24 hours of activating four strategically positioned bugs in the Kalaweit reserve, White says, the devices picked up illegal loggers and dispatched authorities. After two weeks of operation loggers stopped entering the 135-hectare region covered by the system. A year on, they have not returned, he says.

The project in Africa will be much larger, involving about 30 listening devices in the canopy of a 200,000-hectare forest in Cameroon that is important habitat for endangered elephants and lowland gorillas as well as chimpanzees. Each phone can pick up saws up to a kilometer away, so the network will directly protect roughly 10,000 hectares. By positioning the bugs around the periphery of the forest near roads and trails frequented by poachers and illegal loggers, White and the ZSL hope to effectively defend a large fraction of the forest.

The area includes three Forest Stewardship Council–certified logging concessions where timber is harvested legally—and on prearranged, sustainable timetables. “Beyond chain saws we will also be detecting vehicle movements along roads, allowing authorities to note when trucks are moving logs on roads where [or when] no such activity is planned or sanctioned,” White says. “To be blunt, providing an accounting for corruption within the concession—including illegal logging by those who work there—is amongst the primary goals of the pilot.”

“If it works as well as we hope,” says Lauren Redmore of the ZSL, “we will certainly look to expand to a larger deployment”—although, she and White acknowledge, cellular data coverage could be a limiting factor in remote areas.

High-tech surveillance is clearly not a panacea for deforestation, which continues to proceed at an alarming pace. To fight the problem, “we’ve used lawsuits, we’ve used government regulations, we’ve used consumer boycotts, we’ve used market pressure campaigns—and we need to continue using all of those avenues,” says Randy Hayes, founder of the Rainforest Action Network. “But frankly, we need more tools. And this is the most exciting, critical new tool that I’ve seen that I think can help us get the job done.”

This from the IISD reporting service <http://biodiversity-l.iisd.org/news/climate-adaptation-marketplace-launched-on-coral-triangle-day/>

[I have to say, with no animus at all against this particular event and initiative, that every once in a while all of these special pre- and post- conference events or side events remind me of those (very) old Micky Rooney and Shirley Temple movies, where everyone is sort of moping around and suddenly Micky jumps up and says, “Hey gang, let’s make a circus!” So everyone jumps up and 30 minutes later there’s a three-ring circus with a parade led by St. Bernards towing red wagons, and trained pooches and cats leaping through flaming hoops and donkey-back riders and 600 people in the audience.