Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that all agencies of the Federal government consult with FWS and NOAA (collectively the “Services”) on actions that could jeopardize the existence of threatened and endangered species or result in the “destruction or adverse modification” of a species’ critical habitat.  In 1986, the Services proposed a weak regulatory definition of the term “destruction or adverse modification,” that undercut the protective effects of critical habitat.  Despite the Services’ definition being held legally invalid by three separate Federal Courts of Appeals as far back as 2001, the Services have still not changed their legally invalid regulations.  SCB is proposing a new definition of these terms that has a clear scientific basis, and that will require the Services to consider and provide for the recovery, not just the survival, of threatened and endangered species.

SCB is also proposing changes to the Services’ regulations to ensure that the Services consider and address climate change and habitat connectivity in the context of species recovery when they designates critical habitat.  Finally, SCB is proposing that the Services adopt a strict timeline for processing petitions to designate critical habitat.  As of April 2011, critical habitat has only been designated for 604 or 44 percent of the 1,372 domestic species protected by the ESA.  The Services' ability to address this backlog would be significantly improved if they agreed to an objective timeline for designating critical habitat for those species which have not yet received critical habitat.

SCB is filing this petition concurrently with its comments regarding the FWS’s revised critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).  The FWS is proposing to designate up to 13.9 million acres as critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO).  While this would be a positive step for the recovery of the NSO, unfortunately the FWS is simultaneously undermining the long-term effectiveness of critical habitat by including several policy decisions that could undercut the recovery of the NSO.  For example, the FWS is proposing that any logging project smaller than 500 acres would not represent “destruction or adverse modification” of spotted owl critical habitat, despite the fact that there is no scientific literature supporting this policy.  SCB’s proposed reforms of the ESA’s regulations would prohibit the FWS from chopping up the NSO’s critical habitat in an unscientific, high-risk manner.

This is the second petition filed by SCB in 2012 to reform, strengthen, and modernize the regulations that implement the ESA.  While the ESA remains one of the most comprehensive laws ever passed to prevent extinction, the regulations that implement the ESA have mostly stood unchanged since 1986, a year before the founding of the Society for Conservation Biology.  In late 2008, SCB briefed the Obama Transition team on a set of recommendations for improving the implementation of several U.S. laws including the ESA. Since then we have worked with the FWS and NOAA to address the reforms we suggested in 2008.

Read the petition to the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce HERE.

High-intensity pulses produced by seismic air gun surveys can cause a range of impacts on marine mammals, fish, and other marine life, including habitat displacement and disruption of vital behaviors essential to foraging and breeding.  In some cases, seismic air gun surveys can result in injuries or mortalities to marine species, including marine mammals.   For these reasons, SCB is supporting Alternative C, the no action alternative, because it represents the most precautionary approach to managing the ongoing development of the Atlantic Ocean’s natural resources, while providing sufficient protection for its critically endangered wildlife.  Under this alternative, BOEM would not permit any seismic activities in the Atlantic ocean with regard to oil and gas exploration.  Adoption of Alternative C would not affect BOEM's ability to move forward with offshore wind or other renewable energy activities.

The SCB comment letter can be found HERE.

IPBES aims to tackle head-on the accelerating worldwide loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem service by bridging the gap between accurate, impartial and up to date science and policy-makers. Although many organizations and initiatives contribute to improving the dialogue between policy-makers and the scientific community in this field, IPBES is established as a new platform, recognized by both the scientific and policy communities to address the existing gaps and strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services. “Today, biodiversity won”, said the chair of the meeting, Sir Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom. “Over 90 governments successfully established the science-policy interface for all countries. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are essential for human wellbeing. This platform will generate the knowledge and build the capacity to protect them for this and future generations,” he said.

Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, said, “The creation of IPBES, just a few weeks away from the Rio+20 Conference, is a strong signal, and I congratulate this significant progress towards the conservation of biodiversity.” “I hope that this body will allow biodiversity to be better taken into account in sustainable development strategies, as did the IPCC for climate change over the last 20 years. Biodiversity loss is a key indicator of the changes which are affecting our planet”. She added that IPBES “will provide a more efficient coordination tool between researchers and decision-makers in order to rise to this challenge. UNESCO has supported this process since its inception and will do everything to bring its long experience and to mobilize its scientific networks in the fields of water, oceans and biodiversity in the service of IPBES,” she added.

IPBES will respond to requests for scientific information related to biodiversity and ecosystem services from governments, relevant multilateral environmental agreements and United Nations bodies, as well as other relevant stakeholders. A core trust fund will be established to receive voluntary contributions from governments, United Nations bodies, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), other intergovernmental organisations and other stakeholders, such as the private sector and foundations.

The core functions of IPBES will encompass the following areas:
• To identify and prioritise key scientific information needed for policymakers and to catalyse efforts to generate new knowledge;
• To perform regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages;
• To support policy formulation and implementation by identifying policy-relevant tools and methodologies; and
• To prioritise key capacity-building needs to improve the science-policy interface, and to provide and call for financial and other support for the highest-priority needs related directly to its activities.

IPBES’s role, mandate and key principles are:
• To collaborate with existing initiatives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including multilateral environmental agreements, United Nations bodies and networks of scientists and knowledge holders, to fill gaps and build upon their work, while avoiding duplication;
• To be scientifically independent and ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy through the peer review of its work and transparency in its decision-making processes;
• To use clear, transparent and scientifically credible processes for the exchange, sharing and use of data, information and technologies from all relevant sources, including non-peer-reviewed literature, as appropriate;
• To recognise and respect the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems; • To provide policy-relevant information, but not policy-prescriptive advice, mindful of the respective mandates of the multilateral environmental agreements;
• To integrate capacity-building into all relevant aspects of its work according to priorities decided by the plenary; • To recognise the unique biodiversity and scientific knowledge thereof within and among regions, and also recognise the need for the full and effective participation of developing countries and for balanced regional representation and participation in its structure and work; • To take an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach that incorporates all relevant disciplines, including social and natural sciences;
• To recognise the need for gender equity in all relevant aspects of its work; • To address terrestrial, marine and inland water biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interactions;
• To ensure the full use of national, subregional and regional assessments and knowledge, as appropriate.

More information is available at: http://www.ipbes.net/

WASHINGTON DC — As climate scientists, farmers, conservation groups and concerned citizens continue two weeks of protests at the White House in opposition to permitting a large new pipeline to carry partially refined tar from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, the world’s largest international conservation science society reminded the Obama Administration of the hazards the pipeline poses to the environment, particularly the highly endangered whooping crane.

“In addition to its well known climate change impact, the Keystone XL pipeline would threaten the whooping crane — one of the most highly endangered birds in the world — from one end of its migration route and habitat to the other,” said Dominick DellaSala, an ecologist and president of the North American Section of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Last year, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) sent detailed comments to the State Department and other federal agencies explaining that the proposed pipeline and those it would connect to follows the migration of the endangered whooping crane for nearly its entire route. The risk of highly toxic oil spills and the dramatic expansion of tailing ponds could jeopardize the survival of the bird that the Fish and Wildlife Service calls one of the most famous symbols of America’s dedication to saving its wild national heritage.

While the Canadian Government is committed to the 1,700 mile-pipeline, its fate is in the hands of the U.S. State Department, which must decide by the end of this year to approve or reject a request for a permit for the pipeline to cross into US territory.

“The Secretary of State has no duty to issue a permit, but she does have a duty under several laws including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to consider alternatives and to choose safer alternatives,” said SCB Policy Director John M. Fitzgerald. “Furthermore, the Keystone XL decision provides the President the opportunity to direct Secretary Salazar to restore the rule that no US agency will jeopardize any species that the US lists as endangered, even if agency action results in harmful effects in another country.”

Jim Barrett, a Ph.D. economist and clean energy expert who co-chairs the SCB Investment Task Force, said the Keystone XL pipeline lacks a compelling economic component for creating jobs and is at odds with the president’s commitment to a clean energy future.

“As the Administration turns its focus to jobs and the economy, the Keystone XL project offers little prospect for either,” Barrett said. “With minimal impact on oil prices and a small number of short-term jobs created, the pipeline project will yield meager economic benefit in return for the substantial environmental costs it will impose on current and future generations.”

Barrett, whose studies have shown the benefits of federal support for efficiency and renewable energy, said the Administration can create jobs and promote clean energy with strategies that utilize new technologies.

“The Administration should be focused on a strategy of building new industries at home based on the technologies of tomorrow. This can create a virtuous cycle of job creation and reinvestment in American industries rather than exporting our national income for investment abroad.”

In its Recommendations to the Obama Administration in 2008 and its climate statements of 2009 and 2010, SCB outlined a better way forward based on restoring ecosystems, increasing efficiency and properly-placed renewable energy.

“We urge the President to apply that advice using his existing authority, and to work with Congress to reshape the federal budget accordingly to address the deficit and job-creation,” Barrett said.

Fitzgerald said that before the President addresses the nation on his budget and jobs proposals, and before the protests at the White House peak, both on September 3, the President should consider that:

1.)    With only 74 breeding pairs in the core population near the tar sands, the whooping crane would be exposed to great risk from one end of its range to the other by the Keystone XL Pipeline;

2.)    Obeying the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act fully would almost surely prevent approval of the pipeline given much safer energy alternatives;

3.)    In the upcoming budget agreement, Obama and Congress can create lasting jobs to deliver renewable, safe energy while protecting the wildlife and environment of both nations.

The SCB declaration states:

“The 21st century is a time of unprecedented demands on forests. If forests are going to continue to sustain humans’ basic needs, society must adopt science-based conservation stewardship, and new policies to respond to rising demand for the products and services provided by forests. New measures are needed to halt the decline of forests regionally and globally, and to encourage broader tracking, accountability, and reporting metrics on forest degradation and deforestation. Additionally, because many protected areas currently are protected in name only, they will require appropriate and relevant policy interventions, enforcement, and local incentives to ensure that they are truly protected. Recognizing the demands placed on forests and the need to sustainably manage them, the United Nations prepared a resolution on forests adopted by the General Assembly in its quest towards sustainable management of forest ecosystems and associated resources.”

The full declaration is here.

The Society’s Executive Office and that of the Society for Ecological Restoration worked informally with IUCN in the summer as IUCN prepared its extensive recommendations for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  Building on a letter prepared by the European Section SCB prepared and sent recommendations for the Conference of the Parties in advance of the COP where we were represented by a delegation of Policy Director Fitzgerald and four other SCB members.

We found SCB members on several delegations of party states and NGOs all of whom welcomed SCB’s presence.  We worked with them and others during the two weeks of intensive negotiations.  We highlight some of what we successfully proposed or demonstrably advanced here but we also achieved the goal of being a helpful presence within and between several different venues (e.g., negotiating sessions called Working Groups and Contact Groups) in the conference.

The most important outcome of this meeting was probably its success on many fronts, compared with the failure within the UN system at Copenhagen which saw a few big nations negotiate a non-binding agreement whose targets are driven not by current science nor by a process that will use future science, but by what was politically acceptable to each at that moment.  Our progress at the CBD helps keep us on track to build a system of binding laws that respond to science as it evolves and protect vulnerable biodiversity while we improve our understanding of it.  In agreeing on a Protocol on Access and Benefits Sharing the parties broke the logjam and allowed for agreement on a new and more practical strategic plan.  Thanks in part to us, this new plan includes more than one reference to the laws or policy instruments that parties must report to the future Conferences of the Parties that they have put in place in order to achieve the conservation targets and the overall implementation of the Conventional.

1)  We prompted the EU to insert “and the precautionary approach” as the final phrase in the single paragraph on the Mission of the 2010-20 Strategic Plan (See excerpt below).  Near the final day, we noticed that “decisions based on sound science” had been added to this key paragraph.  Before Rio that phrase had been used to stop precautionary conservation measures in the absence of definitive data.  At Rio, in Agenda 21 and in the preamble to the CBD, in non-binding form, all nations agreed to err on the side of caution in such cases.  The EU has adopted this principle in law and is rightly proud of it.  I immediately brought this issue to the attention of the EU delegation and they succeeded in inserting the precautionary approach in our contact group on the final day of our work in that group after several parties grumbled but none dared oppose it on the record.

2) Costa Rica’s delegate, an environmental lawyer and former Minister, successfully advanced our suggestion that the plan specifically include reports to the Conferences of the Parties (implying every two years hereafter and not just by 2015) on “policy instruments” as well as strategic plans overall.

3) Our delegation member Christine Real de Azua, who led the effort to persuade the World Bank to publish green GDP figures for each country in the mid-1990s, rose to the defense of the EU when no one else could speak authoritatively about the proposal that all nations be expected to incorporate the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into the systems of national accounts (such as having accounts that complement their standard Gross Domestic Product accounts to reflect natural capital (forests, fish, ecosystem services, etc. – stewardship or lack thereof).  Her interventions persuaded the EU to continue to fight to require that parties include nature in national accounts AND in other reporting.  She and I also made connections with the UNEP officials who plan now to work with SCB in developing additional uses for the TEEB report and the accounting numbers that will flow due to the CBD plan, that we can use to enhance investment and procurement policies of nations and corporations.

4) We provided copies of the SCB/Africa Section’s position paper on Agro-fuels to a grateful African delegation and others who were working hard to maintain precautionary approaches in the statement on Bio-fuels as Brazil and others sought to weaken them.

5) We defended references to IPBES in several documents, including the formal statement on the Science Policy Interface, so that the request of Venezuela and others that it be discussed at this CBD COP has been fulfilled positively and it should now proceed to approval in the UN General Assembly and in the UNEP Governing Council meetings over the next year.

6) After we spoke with several delegations key phrases in the statement on Biodiversity and Climate Change were moved so as to indicate, we hope, that the Executive Secretariat and the CBD’s working bodies will not defer indefinitely to the UNFCCC with regard to climate mitigation, especially through ecosystem management (e.g. REDD+), but work with the other conventions, cooperate on the road to “Rio plus 20” in 2012, and report back at the next COP (in India in 2012) on what more the CBD can contribute to climate change mitigation.

[mappress mapid="3"]