Rural Development Revisited in Cork

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Rural Development Revisited in Cork CountrySide 156 N° 165 Pantone 390 CMYK 24 / 0 / 98 / 8 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2016 - BIMONTHLY - EN European Landowners’ Organization Pantone 364 CMYK 73 / 9 / 94 / 39 Rural Development revisited in Cork Phil HOGAN, © European Union, 2016 Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development CountrySide 165 Editorial Thierry de l’ESCAILLE, Secretary General Now that the European Union has formally commit- Contents ted itself to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, it is time for us to consider how we can best achieve this monumental task. While we agree that 3 Rural Development revisited in Cork all sectors of our different economies and societies must contribute, it is clear that the European coun- 6 Sustainable futures for Europe’s heritage in tryside has a major role to play, both as a source of cultural landscapes: carbon emissions, but more importantly as the major Applying a landscape approach to land-use carbon offset asset Europe has to offer. science and policy In order to unlock all this potential, it is vital that Milestone reached: Wildlife Estates Label 8 Europe engages much more with the private sector in exceeds 1 million hectares mark order to stimulate conservation actions by all stake- holders. It has never been the case that only the NGO 9 Keep Calm and Let Africa Speak! community can manage land properly. Private actors, 10 Wild flowering landscapes & bee-friendly such as those who have the Wildlife Estate label, farm machinery announced as winners of show that the private sector is more than competi- this year’s European Bee Award tive, especially as they often do not have the same access to state funding. 12 Education, Training & Innovation European Historic Houses annual event To involve the private sector more means that Eu- rope and national governments must seek a better 14 Fish, Mushrooms, and Forestry: YFCS Gen- understanding of their motivations and drivers, not eral Assembly Vienna 2016 lock them out for the sake of an outdated orthodoxy that believes only in the public cause and the public 15 Due to French Overprotection, Chinese Are purse. At the 11th plenary session of our Wildlife Es- Buying Our Farmland tates label in Denmark, we have once again seen the Book extraordinary potential of the private contribution. 2 Semences hors-la-loi. All we need now is the right set of policy solutions in La biodiversité confisquée. order to unlock it. EU: You cannot stop terrorism by restricting legal gun ownership. You can still sign the online petition 16 Diary dates © J. Nagy CountrySide 165 A. BUCKWELL, C. PIRZIO-BIROLI, F. FISCHLER, T. de L’ESCAILLE and C. BÜREN at the high level workshops © European Union, 2016 Rural Development revisited in Cork In November 1995 the European Commission decided to host a conference on Rural Development in the Irish city of Cork. This turned out to be an influential event in the development of the CAP. All the main stakeholders with an interest in the European countryside participated and together produced a concise two-page Cork Declaration called “A living countryside”. The Agriculture Commissioner of the day, Franz FISCHLER, stayed in the background at that event, but he carried forward the principal idea in the declaration that sustainable development in Europe’s rural areas should rise in the EU’s priorities. The result was that in his first major reform of the CAP, Agenda 2000, the two-Pillar CAP was born. This galvanised the principle that rural development was a Pillar of the CAP rather than a complicated accompaniment to the primary support regime. Allan BUCKWELL and David BALDOCK Institute for European Environmental Policy n subsequent reforms the second Pillar So there were risks in gathering 300 the groups then produced and organised was expanded in resources and meas- stakeholders and experts again in Cork ideas about the policy developments nec- Iures were based on the principles of this September, twenty years later, for essary to realise the full potential of Eu- co-financed, programmed, multi-annual a second Cork Rural Development con- rope’s rural areas. There was a continu- measures regionally tailored by the Mem- ference. The conference was opened by al feedback between the groups and a ber States to the needs of their rural re- Commissioner HOGAN who of course was drafting team led by Heino von MEYER gions. These were precisely the principles on home territory, together with COM (OECD) who gradually worked up a new spelled out in the 10-point declaration of AGRI Chairman Czesław Adam SIEKIER- Cork declaration distilling the output of Cork I. SKI, and the President of the Agriculture the groups. Council Gabriela MATEČNÁ, the Slovak However, in more recent years rural de- Minister of Agriculture and Rural devel- The five page declaration “A Better Life in velopment has not enjoyed so much of opment. None were in a position to make Rural Areas” contained these ten points: the European limelight. Ever since the new announcements about imminent or 2007/8 commodity price spikes atten- desired policy developments. This meant 1 Promoting Rural Prosperity tion, not unnaturally, has tended to focus that the ideas and the impetus had to 2 Strengthening Rural Value Chains 3 on agricultural production, its productiv- come from the participants and a well or- 3 Investing in Rural Viability and Vitality ity and capability of providing for a grow- ganised facilitation team. 4 Preserving the Rural Environment and ing and enriching population. In the 2013 Simplification reform the slow evolution of the CAP to- The action took place in four parallel 5 Managing Natural Resources wards greater resources for Rural Devel- workshops dealing with the themes: 6 Encouraging Climate Action opment was halted. Some actions previ- • Jobs, Growth and Investment in the 7 Boosting Knowledge and Innovation ously considered better suited to Rural agri-food supply chain and the wider 8 Enhancing Rural Governance Development were switched to Pillar 1 rural economy 9 Advancing Policy Delivery (for example greening, help for areas of • Rural environment, climate and water 10 Improving Performance and Accounta- natural constraints and for young farm- • Targeting innovation to farmers’ bility ers), and five Member States choose to needs switch substantial pillar 2 funds back to • Rural viability and vitality This unusually bottom-up and spontane- Pillar 1 direct supports shrinking their Ru- ous approach was appreciated by most of ral Development programmes. These workshops occupied the bulk of the the delegates, especially as there was a conference. The participants, who came concerted effort to harvest the ideas on Meanwhile other preoccupations, such as from all areas of the rural economy, and the various tables, and underlining syn- migration, sluggish economic progress, all parts of the EU, worked together con- ergies rather than conflicts. Lying be- and now Brexit have occupied the Euro- structively. The general framework was hind the Declaration there was a shared pean centre stage. Within the rural policy first to identify the potential opportuni- sense that rural policy needed new vigour world it has been Pillar 1 of the CAP, the ties under each of the four themes. Sec- and a refreshed sense of direction. Oth- crisis in dairy and other markets, safety ond, the work groups considered the driv- erwise there was a danger of it being rel- nets, greening, simplification and concern ing forces acting on these themes and any egated to a lower tier of EU priorities and about the budget that have absorbed the obstacles to their development. In the the budget could decline with it, either in air time and the attention of ministers. third and final sessions of the workshops the course of the next MFF review or sub- CountrySide 165 © European Union, 2016 sequently. In addition, the logic of Cork There was a confident tone in language er rural economy, the better integration 1 was ready to be taken further. Many about improved performance, smart ad- of migrants and wider social inclusion as delegates seemed to agree with Franz ministration rather than mere simplifi- well as shorter supply chains. FISCHLER who, in his remarks in the cation, addressing the climate and en- closing session, argued that rural policy vironmental agenda with more vigour, Solutions were diverse rather than sim- should be the main driver going forward, digitisation and the need for policies to plistic. In his closing remarks, Commis- implicitly incorporating Pillar 1 agricultur- be accountable and fit for purpose. Ru- sioner HOGAN backed the call for the ru- al support as a single element of a wider ral societies are not inherently backward ral proofing of all EU policies. More in- and more strategic frame. and provide much more for society than formation, training, engagement and fa- is generally recognised. While there were cilitation, alongside greater awareness The Declaration itself asserts the case for certainly calls for more and better fo- amongst consumers and others in value adopting the second Pillar approach for cussed support this was accompanied by chains were approaches that cropped up the whole of the CAP. “The architecture demands for rural identity to be celebrat- in nearly every workshop. Administra- of the CAP must be based on a common ed with greater pride and stakeholders to tions are often reluctant to give these 4 strategic and programming framework work together more effectively to secure softer measures much priority, not least that provides for targeting all interven- their place in any re consideration of Euro- because of the challenge of measuring tions to well-defined economic, social and pean priorities. results. However, the Cork discussions environmental objectives” (from Point 8 indicate that it would be most helpful if on governance). At the same time it is clear that the po- this culture could be changed.
Recommended publications
  • Conservation Easements Conserving Land, Water and a Way of Life
    Conservation Easements Conserving Land, Water and a Way of Life Conservation easements are one of the most powerful, effective tools available for the conservation of private lands. Their use has successfully protected millions of acres of wildlife habitat and open space in the United States and in many countries. A conservation easement is a restriction placed on a piece of property to protect its ecological or open- space values. It is a voluntary, legally binding agreement that limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place now and in the future. In a conservation easement, a landowner voluntarily agrees to donate or sell certain rights associated with his or her property, such as the right to subdivide, and a private organization or public agency agrees to hold the landowner’s promise not to exercise those rights. conservation easements benefit conservation easements keep the public and the environment land in private hands and ■ Conservation easements conserve watersheds and preserve traditional land uses aquifers, helping ensure a clean supply of water for ■ Private property subject to a conservation easement public use. remains privately owned, and landowners often ■ Conservation easements buffer treasured national continue to live on the property. parks, from Yellowstone to Canyonlands, from develop- ■ The option to place conservation easements on private ment and human activity. Easement lands help protect land is an important private property right that comes migratory corridors for wide-ranging animals such as with land ownership in the United States. elk and bears, which do not confine their movements to the boundaries of a park.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Easements for Green Urban Spaces Matthew Olhausen
    Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 24 | Number 1 Article 11 1-1-2018 Conservation Easements for Green Urban Spaces Matthew Olhausen Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Olhausen, Conservation Easements for Green Urban Spaces, 24 Hastings Envt'l L.J. 179 (2018) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol24/iss1/11 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conservation Easements for Green Urban Spaces Matthew Olhausen* Many California cities are struggling to keep up with the state’s high demand for new housing, and the resulting rush to build has resulted in a decreasing green space per household. As development pressures increase and the cost of land continues to rise, cities should consider new ways to preserve and create urban parks. In addition to traditional land use tools, conservation easements can provide cities with a solution to create urban parks in urban areas that lack green space.1 Conservation easements are incredibly flexible and protect public use of land perpetually, which insulates community parks from changing political winds. To effectuate this, cities may be able to avoid the high cost of land acquisition in up-and- coming neighborhoods by working with private developers, ensuring that residents will have convenient access to city parks, and providing residents with higher quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications
    Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Anthony Waldron1; Vanessa Adams2; James Allan3; Andy Arnell4; Greg Asner5; Scott Atkinson6; Alessandro Baccini7; Jonathan EM Baillie8; Andrew Balmford1; J Austin Beau9; Luke Brander10; Eduardo Brondizio11; Aaron Bruner12; Neil Burgess4; K Burkart13; Stuart Butchart14; Rio Button15; Roman Carrasco16; William Cheung17; Villy Christensen18; Andy Clements19; Marta Coll20; Moreno di Marco21; Marine Deguignet4; Eric Dinerstein22; Erle Ellis23; Florian Eppink24; Jamison Ervin25; Anita Escobedo26; John Fa27; Alvaro Fernandes-Llamazares28; Sanjiv Fernando22; Shinichiro Fujimori29; Beth Fulton30; Stephen Garnett31; James Gerber32; David Gill33; Trisha Gopalakrishna34; Nathan Hahn22; Ben Halpern35; Tomoko Hasegawa36; Petr Havlik37; Vuokko Heikinheimo28; Ryan Heneghan38; Ella Henry39; Florian Humpenoder40; Harry Jonas41; Kendall Jones42; Lucas Joppa43; A.R. Joshi44; Martin Jung37; Naomi Kingston4; Carissa Klein45; Tamas Krisztin37; Vicky Lam46; David Leclere39; Peter Lindsey47; Harvey Locke48; TE Lovejoy49; Philip Madgwick50; Yadvinder Malhi34; Pernilla Malmer51; Martine Maron52; Juan Mayorga53; Hans van Meijl54; Dan Miller55; Zsolt Molnar56; Nathaniel Mueller57; Nibedita Mukherjee1; Robin Naidoo58; Katia Nakamura59; Prakash Nepal60; RF Noss61; Beth O’Leary62; D Olson63; Juliano Palcios Abrantes64; Midori Paxton65; Alexander
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Easements for Forest Landowners and Their Advisers
    The Warnell Continuing Education Program Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Purpose/About the Course The purpose of this course is to provide a working knowledge of conservation easements as a land-use tool and provide a status update on the timber market. It provides guidance on drafting conservation easement agreements to achieve landowner goals for their property. The Georgia Alabama Land trust discusses various philosophies of land use protection and what conservation easements can offer landowners. This course offers a comprehensive overview of legal, appraisal, base line information, tax incentives, and other inputs needed for a successful conservation easement agreement. This online course has been redesigned to be as flexible as possible. The major change is that five sessions will be pre-recorded and available for viewing prior to the start of the course on December 3-4. To show that registrants have watched videos, there will be a short quiz of three questions for each prerecorded session. These five sessions will not be shown during the course itself. However, instructors of these pre-recorded sessions will be available for questions during the live Zoom portion of the course. Live interaction with the instructors is part of the course learning design. Attendance of the live course will be tracked. Objectives and Benefits The objective is to provide guidance for attendees in reaching a sustainable protection agreement for "working forest" land. A framework is offered for analyzing protection goals for reaching a successful agreement in the context of legal constraints and tax incentives. You will learn: How easements affect land use The advantages/disadvantages of easements on a working forest Which agencies and organizations can accept easements Tax aspects of easements How to plan for an easement Who Will Benefit? Landowners with an interest in maintaining a working forest while protecting it from development or other exploitation should attend.
    [Show full text]
  • World Environment Day
    'Swachh Bharat Pakhwada' by ENVIS Centres (1st June- 15th June, 2016) Swachh Bharat Abhiyan - A Brief Report Conceptualized by ENVIS Secretariat, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India World Environment Day The celebration of World Environment Day (WED) is a forty-four year old concept in world history. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) initiated the observance of this day to globally celebrate the spirit of positive environmental action. Every year, millions of individuals and organizations engage in various activities on this day which includes tree-planting drives, art exhibitions, social media campaigns, etc. This way, there is a build-up of a collective power of people belonging to different walks of life, leading to the generation of an exponential positive impact on the planet. The UN General Assembly declared June 5 as World Environment Day in the year 1972. Two years later in 1974, WED was celebrated for the first time, with the United States hosting it. The theme for this first ever WED was 'Only One Earth'. Since then, WED has been trending every year with a different theme. The most recent theme of WED (for 2016) was 'Go Wild for Life: Zero Tolerance for the Illegal Wildlife Trade'. Angola was the global host country of WED 2016. As a consequence of man's insatiable greed, illegal trade in wildlife product is booming in an alarming rate. Ecosystems are getting corrupted and, the killing and smuggling of different species are leading them to extinction. Wildlife crime is endangering a number of species of elephants, rhinos, tigers, gorillas and sea turtles, along with many other lesser-known victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Easements in the U.S. and Abroad: Reflections and Views Toward the Future
    Conservation Easements in the U.S. and Abroad: Reflections and Views toward the Future Harvey M. Jacobs © 2014 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper The findings and conclusions of this Working Paper reflect the views of the author(s) and have not been subject to a detailed review by the staff of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Contact the Lincoln Institute with questions or requests for permission to reprint this paper. [email protected] Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP14HJ1 Abstract Public policy for privately owned land in the United States was traditionally undertaken in one of three ways: through regulation, via manipulation of the property tax, or through targeted use of public capital investments. Thirty years ago a fourth approach began to gain prominence— private, non-profit land trusts and their use of the conservation easements. In summer 2012 the Lincoln Institute sponsored a panel at an international conference on agriculture and forestry to expose U.S. practice with land trusts and conservation easements, and to ask questions about the transferability of the U.S. experience to other countries. This working paper provides an integrated summary of the presentations made at that conference and the papers subsequently prepared by the panel presenters. Cutting edge practice is profiled in the Pacific Northwest and by a TIMO (private timberland investment organization). The use of conservation easements by land trusts will continue its growth in the U.S., there is both caution and hope for the transferability of the U.S. experience. About the Author Harvey M.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Easement Violated: What Next - a Discussion of Remedies
    Fordham Environmental Law Review Volume 20, Number 3 2017 Article 5 Conservation Easement Violated: What Next - A Discussion of Remedies Ann Harris Smith∗ ∗Indiana University School of Law Copyright c 2017 by the authors. Fordham Environmental Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/elr CONSERVATION EASEMENT VIOLATED: WHAT NEXT? A DISCUSSION OF REMEDIES Ann HarrisSmith * I. INTRODUCTION Nonprofit organizations and government agencies with conservation missions often must compete with private developers for lands that have natural value.1 These organizations operate on tight budgets,2 and they are wise to find ways to leverage their dollars to achieve maximum conservation results. At the same time, many natural area owners have an emotional connection with their land and want to ensure its protection through the years, 3 but they may be tempted by offers from developers. They could be facing financial difficulties, ready for retirement, or concerned about creating estate tax problems for their heirs. Conservation easements have become very popular because they meet the needs of conservation organizations and landowners. Easements appeal to conservation organizations because many landowners are willing to donate them, allowing the organizations to * J.D. Candidate, 2010, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis; M.A., 2004, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University; 2003, M.P.A., School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University; B.A., 1997, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This paper does not represent the views of my employer, The Nature Conservancy. Many thanks to Daniel Cole, Alfred Gemrich, Ashley Humphries, Leslie Ratley-Beach, and Michele Richey for their help in developing this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Afforestation and Reforestation - Michael Bredemeier, Achim Dohrenbusch
    BIODIVERSITY: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION – Vol. II - Afforestation and Reforestation - Michael Bredemeier, Achim Dohrenbusch AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION Michael Bredemeier Forest Ecosystems Research Center, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Achim Dohrenbusch Institute for Silviculture, University of Göttingen, Germany Keywords: forest ecosystems, structures, functions, biomass accumulation, biogeochemistry, soil protection, biodiversity, recovery from degradation. Contents 1. Definitions of terms 2. The particular features of forests among terrestrial ecosystems 3. Ecosystem level effects of afforestation and reforestation 4. Effects on biodiversity 5. Arguments for plantations 6. Political goals of afforestation and reforestation 7. Reforestation problems 8. Afforestation on a global scale 9. Planting techniques 10. Case studies of selected regions and countries 10.1. China 10.2. Europe 11. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary Forests are rich in structure and correspondingly in ecological niches; hence they can harbour plentiful biological diversity. On a global scale, the rate of forest loss due to human interference is still very high, currently ca. 10 Mha per year. The loss is highest in the tropics; in some tropical regions rates are alarmingly high and in some virtually all forestUNESCO has been destroyed. In this situat– ion,EOLSS afforestation appears to be the most significant option to counteract the global loss of forest. Plantation of new forests is progressing overSAMPLE an impressive total area wo rldwideCHAPTERS (sum in 2000: 187 Mha; rate ca. 4.5 Mha.a-1), with strong regional differences. Forest plantations seem to have the potential to provide suitable habitat and thus contribute to biodiversity conservation in many situations, particularly in problem areas of the tropics where strong forest loss has occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIFORM CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACT (Last Revised Or Amended in 2007)
    UNIFORM CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACT (Last Revised or Amended in 2007) drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS NINETIETH YEAR IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA July 31 – August 7, 1981 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2007 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS Approved by the American Bar Association Chicago, Illinois, January 26, 1982 UNIFORM CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACT The Committee that acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Conservation Easement Act was as follows: RUPERT R. BULLIVANT, 1000 Willamette Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, Portland, OR 97204, Chairman K. KING BURNETT, P.O. Box 910, Salisbury, MD 21801 ROBERT H. CORNELL, 25th Floor, 50 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 CHARLES M. HAAR, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA 02138 CHARLES G. KEPLER, P.O. Box 490, Cody, WY 82414 BROCKENBROUGH LAMB, JR., 1200 Mutual Building, Richmond, VA 23219 ANN REED, P.O. Box 629, Raleigh, NC 27602 ALLAN G. RODGERS, 2 Park Square, Boston, MA 02116 WILLIAM G. THOMAS, P.O. Box 820, Alexandria, VA 22313 ALLAN D. VESTAL, University of Iowa, College of Law, Iowa City, IA 52242 RUSSELL L. BRENNEMAN, 101 Pearl Street, Hartford, CT 06103, Reporter JOHN J. COSTONIS, New York University, School of Law, Room 307, Vanderbilt Hall, 40 Washington Square, South, New York, NY 10012, Reporter JOHN C. DEACON, P.O. Box 1245, Jonesboro, AR 72401, President: 1979-1981 (Member Ex Officio) GEORGE C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Landowner's Guide to BWSR Conservation Easements
    A Landowner’s Guide to BWSR Conservation Easements 1/4/2014 2 A Landowner’s Guide to BWSR Conservation Easements This guide summarizes responsibilities that landowners have in the care of conservation easements and provides guidance for conducting effective site inspections and making informed decisions about long-term management needs of easement lands. An electronic version of this guide with links to resources is available at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native_ vegetation/Landowner_Guide_to_Conservation_Easements.pdf Table of Contents ► What is a Conservation Easement? ► The Importance of Conservation Easements ► The Landowners Essential Role ► Common Easement Questions ► What Can and Can’t I Do on My Easement? ► How is the Boundary for My Easement Defined? ► Can the Public Access my Easement? ► Who Should I Contact with Questions? ► How Do I Care for My Easement? ► A Landowner’s Responsibilities ► The Role of Others ► Site Inspections ► Spotting and Resolving Problems ► Strategies to Manage and Care for My Easements ► Other Strategies to Improve Wildlife Habitat 3 What is a Conservation The Landowner’s Essential Role ► Easement? ► While BWSR secures a number of different types of Conservation easements involve the acquisition of easements through various easement programs, the certain property rights for conservation purposes. expectations of landowners are generally the same. Landowners who offer the state a conservation easement receive a payment or marketable wetland • Know and maintain the easement boundary mitigation credits to permanently restore or • Understand and comply with easement terms and preserve the land. In turn, the landowners establish conditions or limited use conditions conservation practices where necessary, such as • Maintain and manage the easement property native grass and forbs, trees, or wetland restorations.
    [Show full text]
  • FCWG Policy Platform · 117Th Congress in America’S Forests”
    “ Policymakers can help grow the powerful climate solutions that are FCWG Policy Platform · 117th Congress in America’s forests” America’s forests and forest products are a proven carbon sequestration and storage “technology” to provide the negative emissions we need to slow climate change. Today, U.S. forests and forest products annually sequester and store almost 15% of U.S. carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. New research suggests we could nearly double this natural carbon capture with the right actions. Best of all, this climate action through forests will build on the nearly 3 million jobs in America’s forest sector and bring broad co-benefits to our communities, from clean air and water to wildlife and outdoor recreation. The Forest-Climate Working Group (FCWG) was founded in 2007 to provide a unified voice across the U.S. forest sector that can help America capture this remarkable opportunity. Our member organizations reflect the wide diversity of actors who help to conserve and manage America’s forests every single day: private landowners, forest products companies, state foresters and other government agencies, forestry, conservation and wildlife non-profits, carbon finance, and academic researchers. TODAY 15% of U.S. carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are stored annually from forests and forest products New research suggests we could nearly double this natural carbon capture with the right actions. ForestClimateWorkingGroup.org This platform outlines how policymakers can help private forest owners and public land managers grow the powerful climate solutions in America’s forests and forest products while delivering other environmental and economic benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
    54078 US Hwy 2 West Glasgow, MT 59230 November 16, 2012 Governor’s Office – Sheena Wilson Clay Vincent, Hill County Planner Montana State Library, Helena A.T. Stafne, MFWP Commissioner Montana Department of Environmental Quality Representative Kris Hansen Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks David Aageson Director’s Office BFW Land Company Fish and Wildlife Division Donna Greytak Lands Section Arnold Hall Parks Division Healy Family, LP Commission Secretary James Hirst Legal Unit Lee and Roxanne Laeupple Montana DNRC Northeastern Land Office John Schaller Environmental Quality Council Steve and Wanda McIntosh MT Environmental Information Center Evelyn Wanke State Historic Preservation Office Trevor Wolery Hill County Commissioners Mark Aageson Dear Interested Party: You recently received documents relating to the proposed action of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) purchasing 2,992 acres of property for a Wildlife Management Area located approximately 42 miles northwest of Havre. The property is located along the Milk River and consists primarily of Milk River riparian habitats and associated uplands. The primary purpose of this proposal is to conserve and enhance native areas that provide important habitat for game and nongame species and to provide additional recreational opportunities for the general public. This habitat provides critical winter range for big game species and the Milk River serves as a migratory corridor for many species. Protecting and enhancing the existing habitat is expected to increase use by game animals, including mule deer, elk, white-tailed deer, antelope, pheasants, sharp- tailed grouse, and waterfowl along with a variety of native nongame species of birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals.
    [Show full text]