DOCSLIB.ORG

Thirty Years of Species Conservation Banking in the U.S. Comparing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thirty Years of Species Conservation Banking in the U.S. Comparing Biological Conservation 214 (2017) 6–12 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Thirty years of species conservation banking in the U.S.: Comparing policy MARK to practice ⁎ Maria Jose Carreras Gamarraa, , Theodore P. Toombsa,b a Environmental Defense Fund, Ecosystems Program, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington D.C., 20009, USA b Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Thirteen years after the release of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “Guidance for the establishment, use, and Biodiversity offsets operation of conservation banks”, a draft “Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy” has been Compensatory mitigation released. Understanding whether this draft Policy improves the existing Guidance and incorporates lessons Conservation banking policy learned requires a review of the practices of currently approved banks. We assess the practices that species Endangered Species Act conservation banks report, compare them with the 2003 Guidance and international biodiversity offset princi- Listed species ples, and assess the degree to which the draft Policy advances conservation banking policy. Results show that Species Conservation Bank banks have generally been well aligned to the recommendations of the 2003 Guidance, but fall significantly short when compared to the analyzed offset principles. Although the draft Policy significantly advances conservation banking policy, future policy updates that provide clear minimum standards on accounting methods, estimation of counterfactual scenarios and monitoring practices are still necessary, together with a greater transparency through reporting and the adoption of new methods and tools to meet the no net loss/net benefit goal. 1. Introduction project proponent can buy credits (i.e., conservation benefits to the species) from a bank to offset the project's impacts through a one-time Species conservation banking has become an accepted compensa- purchase ([USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The first tory mitigation and endangered species recovery tool across the U.S. Species Conservation Bank (SCB) was established in California in 1986 However, more than three decades after the establishment of the first for the least tern (Sternula antillarum) and fish associated with intertidal bank, the success of the approach in terms of species recovery is still and subtidal habitats ([RIBITS] Regulatory In-Lieu Fee Bank unclear (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005; Madsen et al., 2010; Pawliczek Information Tracking System, 2016). Nine years later the first SCB and Sullivan, 2011; Wilcove and Lee, 2004). According to referenced policy was issued by the State of California (California Natural researchers, the reasons stem from a lack of transparency in their design Resources Agency, 1995). By 2002, the first bank was established and execution, outdated policy, lack of adequate accounting, lack of outside of California (in Arizona), and one year later the USFWS issued evidence of net benefit, and a lack of innovative on-the-ground pilot national guidance ([USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). initiatives (Bunn et al., 2013; Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005; Gelcich et al., Given the large number of SCBs in existence and their long track record, 2016; Mills, 2004; Pawliczek and Sullivan, 2011). The lack of sys- assessment of current banking practices can serve to inform future tematic monitoring and evaluation of species conservation banking policy updates. policy, practice, and outcomes contributes to the lack of clarity on its Only one comprehensive review of SCBs in the U.S. has been pub- successes and failures. lished (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005). This effort, which included 35 of Species Conservation Banks (SCBs) are one of the available com- the now 138 approved banks, concluded that “conservation banking pensatory mitigation mechanisms recognized by the U.S. Fish and offers at least a partial solution to the conservation versus development Wildlife Service (USFWS), along with in-lieu fee, permittee responsible conflict over biodiversity,” although many ecological uncertainties re- mitigation, Habitat Exchanges, and other third party mitigation ar- main (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005, p. 996). The authors offer sugges- rangements. SCBs are parcels of land conserved and managed in per- tions to improve the practice and reach its full potential to contribute to petuity for listed or candidate species through a legal instrument, and species recovery and eventual delisting. These include a comprehensive are meant to offset adverse residual impacts occurring elsewhere. A information platform that effectively ensures transparency and ⁎ Corresponding author at: 3803 13th St. NW Washington D.C., 20011, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Carreras Gamarra), [email protected] (T.P. Toombs). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.021 Received 9 December 2016; Received in revised form 30 June 2017; Accepted 17 July 2017 0006-3207/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. M.J. Carreras Gamarra, T.P. Toombs Biological Conservation 214 (2017) 6–12 promotes information sharing and the development of objective credit information based on the following categories: and debit metrics. Clear standards and regulations that reduce uncertainty, increase • Category 1: general practices: transparency, and adequately address current deficiencies are broadly ○ Status considered essential to overcome the challenges faced by conservation ○ Target banking programs and drive investment in mitigation (Bunn et al., ○ Location 2013; Mills, 2004). The [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) ○ Type of ownership “Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation ○ Approval date banks” (hereafter “Guidance”) was developed in 2003 to serve this role ○ Transactions (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005; Mann and Absher, 2013). Modeled after • Category 2: availability of documentation California's 1995 policy, its intent was to streamline banking processes • Category 3: credit accounting (where credits are the translation of and turn the approach into an accessible and widespread tool for the values of the natural resources of the area): achieving recovery of endangered species (Fox and Nino-Murcia, 2005; ○ Consideration of habitat quality Mann and Absher, 2013). Despite lessons learned from on-the-ground ○ Currency or method used experience, and the rapid growth of peer-reviewed literature on offset ○ Equivalency practices (Gelcich et al., 2016), no major changes in federal species • Category 4: other reported practices: conservation banking policy have been made since the Guidance was ○ Goal of biodiversity offsets (no net loss/net benefit) and princi- released. In recognition, and as part of the effort to overhaul all miti- ples of biodiversity offsets related to credit accounting: ad- gation policies, the U.S. Department of the Interior launched the Draft ditionality, like-for-like. Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy (hereafter ○ Technical concepts of offsets (e.g., leakage, counterfactual sce- “draft Policy”) in 2016 ([USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016), nario, proximity) which is intended to replace the Guidance and other regulatory docu- ○ Methods to address uncertainties/risks of offset success ments. ○ Social aspects Understanding whether the draft Policy will improve the existing ○ Management and monitoring activities Guidance and incorporate lessons learned over time requires a baseline ○ Legal, administrative, and financial aspects understanding of the current performance of approved banks. The fol- lowing research questions guide our assessment: (1) What are the The general practices included in Category 1 are useful for de- characteristics of current SCB practices? (2) How well does current termining the general design of SCBs. Since there is no standardized practice meet the recommendations in the 2003 Guidance? (3) How reporting format, the number and type of documents available for each well does current practice compare to international biodiversity offset SCB varies widely. This lack of consistency and its implications are principles ([BBOP] Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program, 2009), addressed in Category 2. The method used for calculating credits as a more frequently updated global benchmark for SCB and other si- (Category 3) was determined using the transaction data provided by the milar offset programs? and (4) What are the implications of the 2016 credit ledger and, where available, any credit evaluation documents. draft Policy if it were to be adopted in the U.S.? To answer these Credit accounting is a key aspect of SCB practice, and the method used questions we: (1) review and summarize the reported practices of all is suggestive of the ecological performance of SCBs. The other reported federally approved SCBs in the U.S.; (2) compare these results with the practices (Category 4), although not exhaustive, are useful for de- recommendations articulated by the Guidance and international best termining the scientific and technical elements of banking and are ex- practices; and (3) assess the differences between the two U.S. policies plicitly highlighted in the documents available in RIBITS (where and the degree of change in banking practices that might be required to available), in national polices relevant to conservation banking prac- meet the new draft Policy if it were to be adopted. tices, and/or in biodiversity offset principles of best practice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]