Royal C. Gardner

The Ramsar Convention

This chapter examines the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the global intergovernmental treaty that promotes wetland conservation worldwide. When one is studying or seeking to protect a particular wetland, it is important to look beyond the wetland’s delineated borders. As discussed in Chap. 1, the health of a wetland is influenced by its placement in the landscape, the ecosystem services it provides, and the activities that occur within its watershed (e.g., development, agriculture). Focusing solely on the wetland site may result in missing the bigger picture. Similarly, when studying wetland policies, it is instructive to look beyond domestic regimes (i.e., national and local laws and policies) and consider global wetland policies. Parties to the Ramsar Convention address this through three main pillars of implementation: the ‘wise use’ of all wetlands, the designation and management of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites), and international cooperation on management of shared resources and sharing of knowledge and information.

The Legal Status of Environmental Credit Stacking

Environmental credit markets have been established to offset impacts to wetlands, endangered species habitat, water quality, and the global climate system. As these markets mature, participants are exploring the concept of credit stacking, whereby a conservation project or parcel produces different types of mitigation credits for multiple markets (such as wetland and endangered species credits or water quality and carbon sequestration credits). If these stacked credits are unbundled, they may be sold in different credit markets to offset impacts from different activities. Such transactions raise concerns about additionality, interagency coordination, verification of ecological improvements, monitoring and management, and transparency. This Article examines eight different credit stacking scenarios and the emerging rules that govern the sale of credits. Generally, there is diversity in how different federal and state agencies handle credit stacking, and they have not issued clear rules on when unbundling stacked credits is permissible. The Article closes with considerations that agencies could take into account in developing a credit stacking protocol to avoid double counting and ecological loss. The credit stacking scenario where it may be most appropriate to consider unbundling is when the accounting units are pollutant-specific, such as is the case with water quality and carbon markets.

Satellite sensor requirements for monitoring essential biodiversity variables of coastal ecosystems

Abstract The biodiversity and high productivity of coastal terrestrial and aquatic habitats are the foundation for important benefits to human societies around the world. These globally distributed habitats need frequent and broad systematic assessments, but field surveys only cover a small fraction of these areas. Satellite‐based sensors can repeatedly record the visible and near‐infrared reflectance spectra that contain the absorption, scattering, and fluorescence signatures of functional phytoplankton groups, colored dissolved matter, and particulate matter near the surface ocean, and of biologically structured habitats (floating and emergent vegetation, benthic habitats like coral, seagrass, and algae). These measures can be incorporated into Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), including the distribution, abundance, and traits of groups of species populations, and used to evaluate habitat fragmentation. However, current and planned satellites are not designed to observe the EBVs that change rapidly with extreme tides, salinity, temperatures, storms, pollution, or physical habitat destruction over scales relevant to human activity. Making these observations requires a new generation of satellite sensors able to sample with these combined characteristics: (1) spatial resolution on the order of 30 to 100‐m pixels or smaller; (2) spectral resolution on the order of 5 nm in the visible and 10 nm in the short‐wave infrared spectrum (or at least two or more bands at 1,030, 1,240, 1,630, 2,125, and/or 2,260 nm) for atmospheric correction and aquatic and vegetation assessments; (3) radiometric quality with signal to noise ratios (SNR) above 800 (relative to signal levels typical of the open ocean), 14‐bit digitization, absolute radiometric calibration <2%, relative calibration of 0.2%, polarization sensitivity <1%, high radiometric stability and linearity, and operations designed to minimize sunglint; and (4) temporal resolution of hours to days. We refer to these combined specifications as H4 imaging. Enabling H4 imaging is vital for the conservation and management of global biodiversity and ecosystem services, including food provisioning and water security. An agile satellite in a 3‐d repeat low‐Earth orbit could sample 30‐km swath images of several hundred coastal habitats daily. Nine H4 satellites would provide weekly coverage of global coastal zones. Such satellite constellations are now feasible and are used in various applications.

International Wildlife Law: Understanding and Enhancing Its Role in Conservation

Many conservation professionals are familiar with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, and the World Heritage Convention. Regional instruments, such as those focusing on Africa, Antarctica, or Europe, are also conspicuous features of the conservation arena. Other international wildlife agreements focus on particular species, such as polar bears or albatrosses, or particular transboundary protected areas, such as the huge Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (see table 1). These agreements are collectively known as international wildlife law (Bowman et al. 2010). The binding agreements themselves are typically accompanied and informed by an evolving set of nonbinding instruments, such as Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions and action plans.

North American wetland mitigation and restoration policies

Like wetlands themselves, the legal and policy regimes that govern wetland mitigation in North America are not static. They have evolved over time, in both Canada and the United States, often encompassing the mitigation sequence or hierarchy of ‘‘avoid, minimize, and compensate’’ (Cox and Grose 2000; Gardner 2005). Yet, the manner in which compensatory mitigation is provided, and its level of effectiveness, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This special issue of Wetlands Ecology and Management consists of five papers examining different aspects of wetland mitigation and restoration policies. It illustrates the cross-disciplinary focus of the journal, aiming to cover key issues that link wetland science, management, policy, and economics. The contributing authors have long been involved in developing, applying, and/or studying mitigation policies. Clayton Rubec and Alan Hanson open the special issue by providing an overview of mitigation policies of the 14 jurisdictions in the Canadian federation (its ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government). While some jurisdictions have adopted a ‘‘no net loss’’ policy, others have embraced a stricter ‘‘no loss’’ approach for certain wetlands. For example, New Brunswick is committed to no loss of provincially significant wetland habitat. The authors note, however, that Canada lacks an effective means to evaluate the extent to which mitigation contributes to the objective of no net loss of wetland area and functions. Palmer Hough and Morgan Robertson then provide an extensive history of the development of mitigation policies under the U.S. Clean Water Act. They explain how the mitigation debate now tends to focus on compensatory mitigation, the last step in the sequence, and trace the expansion of mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs as alternatives to traditional approaches to offset wetland impacts. It is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the historical context of the aquatic resources mitigation regulation published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in April 2008 (Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency 2008). The growing reliance on entrepreneurial wetland mitigation banks is a unique feature of U.S. mitigation policy. In the next paper, Morgan Robertson offers two case studies of entrepreneurial wetland mitigation banks, as they attempt to navigate economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges. The reality on the ground can be quite different from the economic theory typically proffered about marketbased environmental policies. In-lieu fee mitigation is another aspect of U.S. mitigation policy, and Jessica Wilkinson expands upon a 2006 Environmental Law Institute study. She examines 38 in-lieu fee programs and identifies the R. C. Gardner (&) Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL, USA e-mail: gardner@law.stetson.edu

Wetland Mitigation Banking:Banking on Entrepreneurs

Sir Edward Coke, a seventeenth-century English jurist, suggested that the value of real property is intrinsically tied to the ability to exploit its resources: to farm the land, to harvest its trees, to mine its ore. Almost four centuries later, this view continues to hold sway. Indeed, property (wetlands or otherwise) left in its natural state is often considered to be economically idle. Is it possible, however, for undeveloped land to yield a profit? May an owner benefit economically by deciding not to develop land or by actively restoring it to its natural condition? Until recently, the answer was almost always “no.” But the rapidly growing business of wetland mitigation banking has changed the calculus. If properly implemented, mitigation banking can offer economic benefits to private landowners and ecological benefits to the public.

Bibliography of 2015 Scientific Publications on the Ramsar Convention or Ramsar Sites

This paper provides a consolidated and categorized bibliography of scientific articles published in 2015 that discuss the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands or individual Ramsar Sites. The articles are separated into two main categories: (a) articles that discuss the Ramsar Convention or its implementation generally, and (b) articles about wetland sites that are on the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. Articles in the latter category are further separated into subcategories by region (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, and Oceania). Each entry summarizes the article’s Ramsar connection. This bibliography is intended to facilitate research and provide timely, relevant article updates to the members of the Ramsar community.

Leveling the Mitigation Playing Field

“Leveling the playing field” had long been the mantra of entrepreneurial mitigation bankers. In their view, if all mitigation providers (banks, in-lieu fees, and permittees) were subject to the same standards, mitigation bankers would prevail (and profit) because they provided a superior product. Mitigation bankers called for equal treatment; what they got were “equivalent standards.” As we will see, the Corps and the EPA have taken the position that equivalent standards do not necessarily mean equal or identical standards. But we will also see that the agencies embraced a preference for mitigation banking in the regulation, which seems to run counter to the concept of a level playing field.

Dredge and Fill: The Importance of Precise Definitions

The allure of gold has long caused misjudgments and madness, so perhaps it is no surprise that today’s regulation of mining activities is a bit peculiar as well. The land of the midnight sun is not the only place where strange things are done. Washington, D.C., is also a prime location for oddities, and the Clean Water Act is a leading example. The statute, which is the federal government’s strongest regulatory tool to protect wetlands, does not prohibit all activities that harm wetlands. It is not illegal under the Clean Water Act to remove wetland vegetation. It is not illegal under the Clean Water Act to excavate or dredge wetlands. It is even not illegal under the Clean Water Act to drain a wetland. Rather, what is prohibited is the “point source discharge‘ of “dredged or fill material.” Thus, it is of paramount importance how these terms are defined, and the definitions have an impact on development and mining operations from Appalachia to Alaska.

Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations

The BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the biggest single-incident disaster for the aquatic environment in U.S. history. It is estimated that more than 200 million gallons of crude oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico, soiling shores from Texas to Florida. The coastal wetlands of Louisiana have been particularly hard-hit. Billions of dollars will be spent on litigation, remediation, and compensation, but that money will not offset the damage to the environment and the ecosystem services lost.