DOCSLIB.ORG

IUCN World Conservation Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IUCN World Conservation Congress S IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States of America 6 –10 September 2016 IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States of America 6–10 September 2016 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: IUCN (2016). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 106pp. Produced by: IUCN Publications Unit Available for download from: www.iucn.org/resources/publications Contents Foreword 5 Acknowledgements 8 Table of Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions 10 Resolutions 17 Recommendations 216 Other Decisions 244 Annex 1 – Explanation of votes 248 Annex 2 – Statement of the United States Government on the IUCN Motions Process 297 3 Foreword It is with great pleasure that the Resolutions Committee hereby forwards to IUCN Members, Commission members, IUCN Secretariat staff, other Congress participants and all interested parties, the Resolutions and Recommendations as well as other key decisions adopted by the Members’ Assembly at the World Conservation Congress held in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1–10 September 2016. The 112 Resolutions and Recommendations have been classified following the guidance in paragraph 48 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Conservation Congress, whereby Resolutions are directed to IUCN itself and Recommendations are directed to third parties, and may deal with any matter of importance to the objectives of IUCN. The present document is organised as follows: first Resolutions on matters related to the governance of the Union; second Resolutions on conservation policy issues; third Recommendations; and lastly other Decisions by the Members’ Assembly. The motions process is a fundamental element of IUCN’s governance and constitutes a means through which IUCN Members set IUCN’s general policy, influence conservation priorities and find support for moving commitments into action. Ultimately, all these decisions, together with the IUCN Programme 2017–2020 pave the way for the work of the Union for the next inter-sessional period and support the achievement of IUCN’s Mission. In accordance with Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Conservation Congress, IUCN Members and the Council proposed motions by the deadline of 12 February 2016, as set by the IUCN Council. Following the submission of 129 motions by IUCN Members and 6 by the IUCN Council, the Motions Working Group considered all proposed motions in line with Rule 54 to ensure that they were consistent with the purpose of motions as defined in Rule 48bis. The Motions Working Group accepted 81 motions, merged 33 into 14 motions and rejected 21 motions. Those 95 motions were published in April 2016 in all three languages online. Following the receipt of 12 appeals, the Congress Preparatory Committee acting as the appeals body under Rule 62ter decided to reinstate 4 motions and to revise a motion that was merged by the Motions Working Group. This resulted in a total of 99 motions being submitted to the Members for consideration. The Motions Working Group, acting under Rule 45bis (c) i), identified 6 motions as warranting debate at the global level during the Congress because of their significant importance for conservation for IUCN and its Members. In accordance with Rule 62bis, the Motions Working Group transmitted all 99 motions to the first ever IUCN online discussion1 of motions before Congress from 2 May 2016 to 3 July 2016. Other motions were also submitted to the online discussion: 6 motions to reform the IUCN Statutes and/or Rules of Procedure of the World Conservation Congress, of which one proposed by five Government Agencies and five by the IUCN Council. During the online discussion Members made general comments on motions, proposed amendments and endorsed the suggestions made by other Members or participants. The Resolutions Committee was delighted to see the collegial and respectful manner in which participants interacted, and the overall high technical quality of the substantive discussions. Often, the online discussion succeeded in resolving disagreement over parts of motions, reaching a text that enjoyed general support for being put to the vote. Following the end of the online discussion, the Motions Working Group submitted 85 motions, some with amendments, to an electronic vote by the IUCN membership in accordance with Rule 1 The historic material of the online discussion, i.e. Members’ interventions and iterative versions of the motions, remain visible in the Portal at least until the next Congress. 5 62quinto. The following were not submitted to the electronic vote: the 6 motions classified by the Motions Working Group as warranting debate at the global level during the Congress [Rule 45bis (c) i)]; and 8 motions which had been the subject of such debate and divergent proposed amendments that it was not possible to produce a consensus text for submission to a decision by electronic vote prior to Congress [Rule 45bis (c) ii)]. In addition, the 6 motions on IUCN governance were also forwarded for further discussion and vote during the Congress. [Rule 45bis (d)] The electronic vote on motions was open from 3 August 2016 at 12 noon GMT/UTC until 17 August 2016 at 12 noon GMT/UTC. IUCN’s Members adopted all 85 motions, some with amendments2. As provided in Rule 62septimo, motions adopted by electronic ballot prior to the Congress have the same validity as motions adopted during the sittings of the Members’ Assembly. A total of 711 IUCN Members participated in the vote, representing 68.6% of the votes of the entire membership of IUCN. The voting result for each motion can be viewed in the Union Portal (only available to IUCN Members). Twenty motions (14 conservation policy motions and 6 governance-related motions) were thus further discussed both in contact groups and in plenary sittings during Congress. Progress on motions’ discussions was reported during nearly all plenary sittings. During its first sitting on 6 September, 2016, the Members’ Assembly ‘recorded’ en bloc the adoption of the 85 motions adopted electronically. Members were also informed of the organisation of work at Congress, including the process and deadline for submission of new motions, and the process for submitting amendments to motions. New motions had to be submitted by email by one Member eligible to vote with the co-sponsorship of at least 10 additional Members eligible to vote using a simplified template. Motions were only admissible if they complied with the criteria spelled out in Rule 52, such as that the issue of the motion is new (could not have been foreseen by the initial deadline for motions) and urgent (cannot wait until the next Congress). By the deadline set by the Steering Committee of Congress, 11 new motions had been received. The Resolutions Committee, following the guidance under the Rules of Procedure 52 and 53 of the World Conservation Congress, decided to accept 6 new motions, reject 3 motions for not meeting the criteria and submitted 2 to the Programme Committee to be considered as possible amendments to the IUCN Programme. Members discussed and adopted 26 motions during Congress (including the 6 governance-related motions with reforms to IUCN Statutes and/or Rules). The 112 Resolutions and Recommendations adopted by the Members’ Assembly together with the other Decisions taken by IUCN membership constitute the key decisions of the 2016 Congress and can be found in this document. We invite all IUCN constituents to consult, support and make use of this important set of outcomes of the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress. An overview of the number of motions submitted, considered and adopted on the occasion of the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress is presented in the following table. 2 The list of these 85 motions is contained in Congress document WCC-2016-1.6/4. 6 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Hawai‘i Overview of Motions submitted, considered and adopted Motions submitted by deadline 12 February 2016 135 Motions accepted by the Motions Working Group (as 81 presented or with minor changes) Motions merged 33 merged into 14 Motions rejected 21 Motions reinstated following appeals process 4 Total number of motions accepted and put to online 99 discussion Motions related to the governance of the Union submitted by 6 deadline of 29 February 2016 Number of motions submitted to and approved by an 85 electronic vote of the IUCN membership prior to Congress Number of motions initially identified as warranting debate at 6 the global level and forwarded to Congress for continued discussion and vote Motions which had been the subject of such debate and 8 divergent proposed amendments that it was not possible to produce a consensus text Motions related to the governance of the Union forwarded to 6 Congress for continued discussion and vote Total number of motions forwarded to Congress 20 New motions submitted and accepted during Congress 6 Motions resulting from separating motions during contact 2 groups Total number of Resolutions and Recommendations 112 approved by the Members’ Assembly As Chair of the Resolutions Committee, I wish to convey my deepest gratitude to the members of the Motions Working Group/Resolutions Committee for their hard work, invaluable advice and collegial behaviour throughout this process.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INVENTORY of INCENTIVES for Community-Based Conservation
    INVENTORY OF INCENTIVES for community-based conservation 1 Cate- # Name Implementing body Country Summary References INVENTORY OF INCENTIVES gory 1 Conservation Conservation 14 countries A (1) Conservation International’s Conservation Stewards Programme (CSP) [1] www.conservation.org/ FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION Stewards International works with communities who agree to protect their natural resources, as well projects/Pages/conservation- Programme as the benefits they provide, in exchange for a steady stream of compensation stewards-program.aspx from investors. A conservation agreement is a deal between a community and a [2] www.conservation.org/ group or person funding a conservation project. In exchange for making specific publications/Documents/ conservation commitments, communities receive benefits from the funder. CSP’s Conservation%20 conservation agreement model offers direct incentives for conservation through Agreements%20Private%20 a negotiated benefit package in return for conservation actions by communities. Partnership%20Platform.pdf Thus, a conservation agreement links conservation funders to people who own and use natural resources. Benefits typically include investments in social services like health and education as well as investments in livelihoods, often in This inventory is part of the 2020 Luc Hoffmann Institute publication the agricultural or fisheries sectors. Benefits can also include direct payments and wages. The size of these benefit packages depends on the cost of changes entitled ‘Diversifying local
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Market Work for Nature How Biocredits Can Protect Biodiversity and Reduce Poverty
    Making the market work for nature How biocredits can protect biodiversity and reduce poverty Ina Porras and Paul Steele Issue Paper Economics; Biodiversity Keywords: March 2020 Conservation, wildlife, financing for development, investment About the authors Ina Porras was formerly a senior researcher in IIED’s Shaping Sustainable Markets Group. She now works as an Economics Adviser at the Department for International Development, UK. Paul Steele is chief economist in IIED’s Shaping Sustainable Markets Group (www.iied.org/users/paul-steele). Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank, without implicating: Stephen Porter formerly of IIED, Dorothea Pio of Flora & Fauna International, Richard W Diggle of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Namibia, Oliver Withers of the Zoological Society of London and Glen Jeffries of Conservation Capital. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Produced by IIED’s Shaping Sustainable Markets Group The Shaping Sustainable Markets Group works to make sure that local and global markets are fair and can help poor people and nature to thrive. Our research focuses on the mechanisms, structures and policies that lead to sustainable and inclusive economies. Our strength is in finding locally appropriate solutions to complex global and national problems. Published by IIED, March 2020 Porras, I and Steele, P (2020) Making the market work for nature: how biocredits can protect biodiversity and reduce poverty. IIED Issue Paper. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/16664IIED ISBN 978-1-78431-782-9 This publication has been reviewed by Dorothea Pio from Fauna and Flora International and Stephen Porter formerly from the International Institute for Environment and Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Green River Basin Ecosystem Services Feasibility Analysis Project Report
    Upper Green River Basin Ecosystem Services Feasibility Analysis Project Report Russell Schnitzer By Esther A. Duke, Amy Pocewicz, and Steve Jester December 2011 Upper Green River Basin Ecosystem Services i Authors Esther A. Duke, Consultant, The Nature Conservancy - Wyoming Chapter, and Coordinator of Special Projects and Programs, Colorado State University Email: [email protected] Amy Pocewicz, Landscape Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy - Wyoming Chapter Email: [email protected] Steve Jester, Executive Director, The Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust Acknowledgements This feasibility analysis was possible due to financial support from the Dixon Water Foundation, the World Bank Community Connections Fund, and The Nature Conservancy. We thank our partners at the University of Wyoming and Sublette County Conservation District, who include Kristiana Hansen, Melanie Purcell, Anne Mackinnon, Roger Coupal, Ginger Paige, and Tina Willson. We are also grateful to Jonathan Mathieu and The Nature Conservancy’s Colorado River Program and to the many individuals who participated in interviews and focus group discussions. The report also benefitted from discussion with and review by Ted Toombs of the Environmental Defense Fund. Suggested citation: Duke, EA, A Pocewicz, S Jester (2011) Upper Green River Basin Ecosystem Services Feasibility Analysis. Project Report. The Nature Conservancy, Lander, WY. Available online: www.nature.org/wyoscience December, 2011 The Nature Conservancy Wyoming Chapter 258 Main St. Lander, WY 82520 Upper Green River Basin
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Privatization of Environmental Permitting
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 Increasing Privatization of Environmental Permitting Jessica Owley University of Miami School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Land Use Law Commons Recommended Citation Jessica Owley, Increasing Privatization of Environmental Permitting, 46 Akron L. Rev. 1091 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/171 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INCREASING PRIVATIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING Jessica Owley * I. Introduction .................................. 1091 II. The Rise of Compensatory Mitigation .............. 1092 A. Background .......................... ....1 092 B. Examples........................... 093 III. Privatization of Mitigation... .................... 1101 A. Background ....................... ....... 1102 B. Examples................................ 1106 C. Benefits of Private Mitigation Programs .... ..... 1116 D. Concerns with Private Mitigation ....... ....... 1118 TV. Conclusion: Harnessing Strengths while Minimizing Harms. ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigation Banking Information Cover Sheet
    Optional Draft Prospectus Checklist for Conservation and Mitigation Banks in California [Revised May 2021] Please refer to the “Interagency Guidance for Preparing Mitigation Bank Proposals in California”, revised May 2021, for procedures related to the submission of a conservation and mitigation bank proposal. We recommend that you review the policies and guidance from all the agencies with jurisdiction for the credits you are seeking. Some of the websites where you can find these policies are included below. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) -- http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices-and-References/ • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) -- https://www.epa.gov/cwa- 404/federal-guidance-establishment-use-and-operation-mitigation-banks • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) -- https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/conservation-banking.html • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) -- http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/conservation/index.html • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) -- https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking • State Water Resources Control Board -- https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ Following Interagency Review Team (IRT) review of the Draft Prospectus, additional information may be requested for evaluating the proposal. Acceptance of a Draft Prospectus does not guarantee final approval of a Bank; only that the review can proceed to the Prospectus. This preliminary review is optional but strongly recommended. It is intended to identify potential issues early so the Bank Sponsor may attempt to address those issues prior to the start of the formal review process. The following information is needed to evaluate the Draft Prospectus. A greater level of detail provided in the Draft Prospectus will result in a more comprehensive assessment of the site’s suitability.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper NI WP 16-02 NICHOLAS INSTITUTE for ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS February 2016
    Working Paper NI WP 16-02 NICHOLAS INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS February 2016 www.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu Managing Risk in Environmental Markets Lydia Olander* CONTENTS SUMMARY Executive Summary 2 Environmental markets use voluntary approaches Overview 3 to meet regulatory requirements and to target cost- Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banking 8 effective, flexible, and efficient means to achieve Conservation Banking 24 environmental results. Although these markets create Carbon Offsets Markets 34 opportunities, they also involve some risk for regulated Water Quality Trading 48 buyers, project developers (sellers), landowners, and Synthesis 59 the public. This paper reviews technical risk, extreme Appendix 67 events, behavioral uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty, References 68 and market uncertainty in four markets that engage agricultural and forest landowners in the United States: Author Affiliation wetland and stream mitigation banking, conservation *Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University banking, greenhouse gas offsets, and water quality trading. Because these markets involve transactions Citation L. Olander. 2016. “Managing Risk in Environmental Markets.” that range from annual to permanent transfers of NI WP 16-02. Durham, NC: Duke University. http:// environmental benefits, they entail different risks and nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications. liabilities. Disclaimer Working papers present preliminary analysis and are intended to stimulate Given robust risk management strategies and discussion and inform debate on emerging issues. Working papers may be significant similarity across programs, only a few risk eventually published in another form, and their content may be revised. management mechanisms have yet to be tried in all markets. One such mechanism is clarifying rules about how water quality and carbon offsets projects can sell into multiple markets, thereby enhancing flexibility and reducing risk for buyers and sellers.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Incentive Mechanisms for Conserving Habitat
    Volume 43 Issue 4 Fall 2003 Fall 2003 Evaluating Incentive Mechanisms for Conserving Habitat Gregory M. Parkhurst Jason F. Shogren Recommended Citation Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren, Evaluating Incentive Mechanisms for Conserving Habitat, 43 Nat. Resources J. 1093 (2003). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol43/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. GREGORY M. PARKHURST- & JASON F. SHOGREN'" Evaluating Incentive Mechanisms for Conserving Habitat ABSTRACT Private lands have an important role in the success of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The current command-and- control approach to protecting species on private land has resulted in disincentives to the landowner, which have decreased the ability of the ESA to protect many of our endangered and threatened species. Herein we define and evaluate, from an economic perspective, eight incentive mechanisms, including the status quo, for protecting species on private land. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses and compare and contrast the incentive mechanisms according to a distinct set of biological, landowner, and government criteria. Our discussion indicates that market instruments, such as tradable permits or taxes, which have been successful in controlling air pollution, are not as effective for habitat protection. Alternatively, voluntary incentive mechanisms can be designed such that landowners view habitat as an asset and are willing participantsin protecting habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Status of Environmental Credit Stacking
    The Legal Status of Environmental Credit Stacking EPRI Public Webcast February 11th, 2014 Phone: 877-789-2085 Today’s Speakers Attendee PIN: 7712 Jessica Fox Royal C. Gardner Technical Executive Professor of Law and Director Electric Power Research Institute Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy Stetson University College of Law © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 Phone: 877-789-2085 Webcast Recording Attendee PIN: 7712 • Today’s webcast will be recorded. Your participation in this webcast provides your consent to the recording. • Recording will be posted to http://wqt.epri.com © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Phone: 877-789-2085 EPRI & Stetson Disclosure Attendee PIN: 7712 • No portion of this webcast or associated publication constitutes legal advice, opinion, or guidance from EPRI or Stetson University. • EPRI and Stetson University are not promoting any specific policy or laws. • This is an academic research effort with observations and conclusions intended to inform the public. © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4 Phone: 877-789-2085 Ecology Law Quarterly, 40(4):713-758 Attendee PIN: 7712 #1 Download in last 60 days in four SSRN categories: • Environmental Economics • Natural Resources Law and Policy • Environmental and Natural Resources Law • Environmental Law and Policy © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 Phone: 877-789-2085 What is Environmental Credit Stacking?Attendee PIN: 7712 © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 Phone: 877-789-2085 The Crux of Stacking Attendee PIN: 7712 Can you get paid twice for the same conservation action? • Drive to maximize Economic Returns • Concern over Ecological Validation • Development of Policy © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Federal Public Trust Doctrine to Fill Gaps in the Legal Systems Protecting Migrating Wildlife from the Effects of Climate Change
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2017 Using the Federal Public Trust Doctrine to Fill Gaps in the Legal Systems Protecting Migrating Wildlife from the Effects of Climate Change Hope M. Babcock Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1978 https://ssrn.com/abstract=2978687 95 Neb. L. R. 649 (2017) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Environmental Law Commons Hope M. Babcock* Using the Federal Public Trust Doctrine to Fill Gaps in the Legal Systems Protecting Migrating Wildlife from the Effects of Climate Change TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 650 II. The Impact of Global Climate Change on Wildlife ...... 653 A. General Impact of Climate Change ................ 654 B. The Impact of Global Climate Change on Wildlife . 656 1. Wildlife Migration ............................. 658 2. Assisted Migration and Protecting Migratory Corridors ...................................... 661 III. Rigid Federal Laws and Inadequate Private Conservation Mechanisms ............................. 664 A. Federal Lands and Federal Laws .................. 665 B. Inadequate Private Conservation Mechanisms ..... 669 IV. The Public Trust Doctrine and a Federal Trust in Wildlife ............................................... 673 A. The Public Trust Doctrine ......................... 674 B. Strong Federal Interest in Wildlife................. 680 © Copyright held by the NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Babcock teaches natural resources law, among other topics, and directs an environmental clinic at Georgetown. She has written numerous articles on the public trust doctrine, many of which are referenced in footnotes to this piece.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Ecosystem Services on State Trust Lands in the West
    Exploring Ecosystem Services on State Trust Lands in the West Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Conference Denver, CO –March 2, 2012 Susan Culp, Project Manager The Sonoran Institute inspires and enables community decisions and public policies that respect the land and people of Western North America. Our Vision: A West of healthy landscapes, resilient economies, and vibrant communities. Western Lands & Communities A joint venture of the Sonoran Institute and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy • Partnership established in 2004 • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy founded in 1974 by the Lincoln family – inspired by the works of Henry George • Progress and Poverty (1879) • Land value tax – concept that land ownership and valuation structures could be used to generate public goods Western Lands and Communities State Trust Land Program • Seeks to broaden the range of land use information, tools, and policy options available to state trust land managers and diverse stakeholders for long‐ term, sustainable management of trust lands. What and Where are State Trust Lands? • Intermountain West: Sonoran Institute’s core geography Public Lands in the West • Public lands in the West that are in federal ownership – BLM – US Forest Service – Parks & wilderness areas Add in Tribal Lands… • Federal public lands • Tribal lands State Trust Lands: A Unique Category of Lands in the West Granted to states by Congress upon entrance into the Union Held in a perpetual, intergenerational trust to support a variety of public institutions –the primary beneficiary
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Species Conservation Banking in the United States
    Theor Soc (2017) 46:21–56 DOI 10.1007/s11186-017-9283-5 Theorizing command-and-commodify regulation: the case of species conservation banking in the United States Christopher M. Rea1 Published online: 27 April 2017 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Abstract State-directed but market-oriented forms of regulation, especially environ- mental examples like cap-and-trade and ecological offsetting, have proliferated in the past two decades, but sociologists have been slow to theorize these broad institutional shifts. This article offers a framework for explaining these processes of regulatory marketization. First, I argue that institutions of this sort are examples of what I call command-and-commodify regulation, a mode of regulation that distinctively hybridizes economic and authoritative dimensions of power. Second, I explain how and why one example of command-and-commodify regulation, species conservation banking, emerged and remained concentrated in California, but did not so easily develop in other American states. Finally, abstracting from the case, I argue that the concept of market reconstruction is useful for developing a more general theory of the ways that social conflicts and mobilization reconfigure regulatory power and thus give rise to new modes of regulation. Together, a theory of command-and-commodify regulation and market reconstruction may be useful for explaining the development of a wide variety of environmentally focused and other regulatory institutions. Keywords Commodification . Endangered species . Environment . Institutional emergence . Markets . Regulation Gazing out over the grasslands of Valley Flats Reserve, just outside of Sacramento, California, one would not suspect that one is looking at an example of an important and far reaching development in environmental regulation—one that speaks to broader shifts in the ways that states wield regulatory power and use markets to achieve specific regulatory ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking
    land Article Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking Marie Grimm Technische Universität Berlin, Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, EB 5, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany; [email protected]; Tel.: +49-(0)30-314-27388 Abstract: Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the US Endangered Species Act. This article provides a case study analysis of two conservation banks in the state of California, comparing the conservation gains provided by banks with the losses from development impacts. It provides an analysis of credits and metrics to determine whether the gains are equal to the losses in terms of type, condition, and amount. Results do show that the gains exceed the losses in terms of acreage. However, the program uses indirect metrics (acreage), and the equivalence of the losses and gains, besides habitat type and size, is not reflected. Banks provide a baseline in their documentation and conduct monitoring of species abundance and habitat quality, but they do not use it to measure additional conservation gains. More detailed metrics and transparent indices to certify the acres in production could allow for a quantification of conservation benefits and an evaluation of program success. However, selecting standardized metrics is challenging because they need to be species-specific to reflect the goal of species recovery, and still be operational in practice. Keywords: conservation banking; biodiversity offsets; Endangered Species Act; habitat banking; species conservation; metrics; equivalence; habitat quantification tools; effectiveness Citation: Grimm, M.
    [Show full text]