Back to SCB'S EXECUTIVE OFFICE RELOCATES

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to SCB'S BOARD REVISITS STRATEGIC PLAN, MAKES DECISIONS ON MAJOR ACTIVITIES

POLICY UPDATE: RAISING THE PH(D) LEVEL OF WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a seemingly naïve new senator learns the tricks of the trade and exercises his right to speak up for what is correct, even if it means stopping the work of the entire United States Senate by speaking around the clock.

As reported on page 1, in January 2008, the David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellows convened in Washington, D.C. for a policy workshop and visits with Congressional staff. In March, the Fellows were followed by SCB's Board of Governors, who conducted a second wave of strategic visits that coincided with one of the busiest days in the U.S. presidential primary election season. We did not stop the Senate, although we might have slowed it down a bit while some senior staff listened carefully.

First, some of the Executive Office staff joined about half of SCB's Board of Governors, representing local chapters and all but the Europe and Marine Sections, in an afternoon briefing on working with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the executive branch in a time of transition. The briefing was conducted by Jim Hester, USAID's director of environmental programs and compliance. The briefing was followed by a reception for friends of SCB's policy program from Congress, non-governmental organizations, and current and former executive branch officials.

Senator Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent his senior counsel, committee staffer, and personal office environmental aide to host us in the formal Foreign Relations Committee Room in the Capitol building. As representatives of SCB's Africa, Asia, Austral and Neotropical America, and Australasia Sections described the environmental issues with the greatest impact on their regions, staffers asked questions and outlined steps the committee had taken and expects to take. These actions range from reforming development assistance to shaping climate legislation and negotiations.

In mid March, the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a letter to all committee members announcing their intention to become deeply involved in the climate negotiations. The committee leaders plan to hold hearings and briefings, issue a staff-written report for the committee, and consider carefully a potential administration proposal for an international clean technology fund. Several organizations, including SCB, already have sent representatives to meet with both majority and minority committee staff about these activities.

We spent an hour with Senator Obama's environmental aides in the Senator's own office. We were impressed with the scientific understanding of Obama's senior aide, who previously worked for the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, as we discussed invasive species. Obama's staff, in turn, noted their favorable impression of the way that SCB's Sections, local chapters, and Executive Office are organized to promote mutual support, encourage diversity, and bring both global perspectives and detailed knowledge to bear on numerous conservation issues.

Despite the efforts of board member and Arizona resident Tom Sisk, we were unable to schedule a meeting with Senator McCain's office. We are planning a follow up visit in the near future to ensure balance across political parties in our meetings.

We also met with an aide to Senator Clinton who had been detailed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New York native and Africa Section board member Ron Abrams, who had made the appointment, helped to lead an effective discussion. In meetings with both Obama's and Clinton's staff we briefly reviewed the five major policy issue areas for SCB and a few of our recent activities in these areas. We also conveyed a letter, endorsed by the North America Section, on conservation issues in agriculture.

Streamlined Policy Approval Process

In order to encourage policy work by SCB's Sections and chapters, the Board of Governors indicated its support of a new process that sets timetables for approval and reduces external review time for statements based on information published in Conservation Biology, other peer-reviewed journals, or other SCB publications. Members of the North America Section, Policy Committee, Social Science Working Group, and SCB's Policy Director worked together to achieve board consensus on the process, which is posted at www.conbio.org/resources/policy.

Both Treadmill and Grindstone

We have made progress on some policy fronts, but legislative activity in Washington, D.C. is slowing down in some areas. The last months of any presidency tend to be characterized by Congress waiting for a new executive and the executive waiting until Congress is in recess before launching a final surge of policy initiatives. These initiatives often are ambitious and politically difficult because an outgoing administration can afford to take risks and may wish to leave its mark on policy. We are doing our best to anticipate and prepare for such actions.

Defending the Integrity of Science

As reported in the February 2008 newsletter, Mike Kelly, a whistle-blowing former government biologist, and Dominick DellaSala testified in hearings before the House Natural Resources Committee on what appeared to be political interference in the scientific process required under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. For example, in 2007, scientists from SCB, The Wildlife Society, and the American Ornithologists' Union determined in parallel reviews that the government had not used the best available scientific and commercial data in developing its draft recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.

In January 2008, Kelly, DellaSala, other SCB members, and SCB's Policy Director briefed investigators of the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General's office [see SCB Newsletter 15(1):7], whose inquiries began at the request of the Natural Resources Committee and several concerned Congressional leaders. SCB recently helped to draft a letter sent to the Senate by a large group of organizations in which we requested not only hearings on interference with the integrity of science but information from federal agencies on interim protections for natural resources that have been the subject of politically-motivated management decisions. We also met with staff of the Natural Resources Committee in mid April to help plan a potential follow-up hearing.

Mike Kelly, Dominick DellaSala, and others will join us for a policy workshop on 13 July at SCB's annual meeting. Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), will lead a symposium on the politicization of endangered species science later in the week.

Informal Consortium of Science Policy Officers

SCB continues to work with UCS and with policy officers of other professional scientific organizations to share information and explore how we can support each other's efforts. We recently examined potential remedies related to stringent interpretation of a criminal conflict of interest statute (18 U.S.C. Section 218) by the departments of the Interior and Agriculture. It is currently extremely difficult for federally employed scientists to serve on the boards of directors of scientific societies. Service is distinct from a fairly common requirement that individuals disclose potential conflicts of interest or recuse themselves from discussing or voting on actions or decisions with which they may have a conflict. Our informal consortium is working with members of the Government Affairs committees of both houses of Congress to examine how the situation might be corrected. The Office of Government Ethics agrees that the current interpretation may be excessive, but it does not have authority to direct the departments to revise their policies.

Advances in Climate Change Policy

Climate change is an exception to the recent lulls in some aspects of policy activity. In early June, California Senator Barbara Boxer is expected to bring her major climate bill, S. 2191, to the Senate floor for potential amendment and possible passage. In the meantime, diverse interest groups and senators are proposing and considering changes to the draft bill.

John Dingell, chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a veteran of fifty years in Congress, recently called climate change one of the most complicated legislative issues he has experienced during his tenure. Dingell's staff have prepared several white papers on different aspects of climate change based on input from many organizations, including SCB. Approximately a dozen committees have jurisdiction over aspects of climate change on domestic and global fronts.

Among the issues still to be addressed fully in any bill are conservation and restoration of forests and agricultural practices that may help mitigate climate change. Management of these systems affects absorption, sequestration, and conversion of carbon and other greenhouse gases. Opinions vary on how existing laws like the Clean Air Act (whose regulatory authority over carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court), Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act should be applied in the context of climate change. In mid April, it was disclosed that the Bush Administration was considering whether to issue principles for legislation to avoid regulatory complexity that may result from application of such laws to proposals for facilities that are likely to emit substantial quantities of greenhouse gases.

Some political leaders know that scientific understanding of climate change is developing rapidly. For example, Congressman Rush Holt asked visiting members of the Board of Governors about the role of soils and soil organisms in relation to climate change. Two Board members responded that they are reviewing studies on that issue and would share their reviews as soon as possible. In the House, several committees and caucuses are reviewing approaches to minimizing and mitigating climate change that may rely more heavily than earlier proposals on energy efficiency, use of renewable resources, and forest restoration worldwide.

Advances and Updates on Policy Action Areas

Farm Bill negotiations continue to be roiled by news of surging commodity prices and high levels of global deforestation. As a result, there is less demand for core subsidies for U.S. grain farmers and an increased need to retain conservation measures, such as a ban on importation of illegally harvested wood products (which is in the Senate bill), in the final version of the bill to be passed by both houses.

Two leaders in protection of biological security have confirmed their participation in the 13 July policy workshop. They also will join us in discussing how SCB can work more effectively with the executive branch and Congress. Dinah Bear recently retired as Chief Counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality after serving 25 years under Republican and Democratic administrations. Dean Wilkinson recently retired from leading the Department of Commerce's Interagency Invasive Species Task Force; he also led efforts by the conservation community to strengthen the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1988. Jim Barrett, Chief Executive Officer of Redefining Progress, which helped to develop California's global warming law, also has confirmed his participation.

SCB's policy expertise is being requested more each day. Please consider learning how you can increase our society's policy capacity and, if you wish, become more engaged in policy issues of your own greatest interest. Sign up for the 13 July workshop, subscribe to the policy listserv (http://list.conbio.org/mailman/listinfo/policy), and visit the policy Web site for weekly news and updates.

John Fitzgerald

Back to SCB'S EXECUTIVE OFFICE RELOCATES

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to SCB'S BOARD REVISITS STRATEGIC PLAN, MAKES DECISIONS ON MAJOR ACTIVITIES