Monday, April 08, 2019

Trump administration sabotages major conservation effort, defying Congress

Scientists and officials around the US have told the Guardian that the Trump administration has withdrawn funding for a large, successful conservation program – in direct contradiction of instructions from Congress. Unique in scale and ambition, the program comprises 22 research centers that tackle big-picture issues affecting huge swaths of the US, such as climate change, flooding and species extinction. They are known as Landscape Conservation Cooperatives – or were, because 16 of them are now on indefinite hiatus or have dissolved. “Congress approved $12.5m for the existing 22 landscape conservation cooperatives,” said Betty McCollum, chair of the House interior-environment appropriations subcommittee, at a recent hearing with an interior department official. “[But] we are hearing disturbing reports from outside groups and concerned citizens that the LCC program is being altered and may not receive any federal funding.”...MORE

For some general background on LCCs see my post from 2013. 

And here is an excerpt from what I posted in January of 2018

In May of last year. the House Committee on Natural Resources issued the following press release

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 3, 2017 -Today, Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Raúl Labrador (R-ID) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke expressing concerns and requesting information on two climate change adaptation programs established within the Department of the Interior during the Obama administration.The Climate Science Centers (CSCs), which are led by the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which are principally managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have both been identified as having insufficient internal controls, lacking transparency and potentially funding duplicative research.   “Despite a significant federal investment of at least $149 million,  their effectiveness, management, and levels of oversight remain serious concerns to the Committee. Since their inception, the CSCs and LCCs have lacked necessary internal controls, failed to develop effective communication policies, and have put taxpayer dollars at risk by acting in contravention of guidelines issued by Interior and the Office of Management and Budget,” the letter states.  “Most recently OIG issued a program evaluation in which it found that taxpayer dollars are further imperiled due to the fact that the ‘CSCs and LCCs had no formal process to coordinate the prevention of duplication in research grants...’ In its review, OIG found that the CSCs and LCCs lacked a written policy for coordination, and that the LCCs failed to adequately keep track of their projects in a centralized database that could be utilized and accessed program-wide.”Click here to read the full letter.
The article states Trump's proposed budget "zeroed out" the funding for the LCCs. However, Congress has continued to fund the CSCs and LCCs, so this may not be much of a threat. And if they were established administratively, they could have been disbanded administratively, and to my knowledge have not been disbanded.

Despite the OIG reports and the concerns expressed by Bishop and Labrador, Zinke appears to base his reorganization on the same concept - ecosystem management. Some will say the Obama LCCs were the first step, and now Zinke proposes to implement the same management scheme in a fashion not even dared by the Obama administration. You will note the enviro reps quoted are critical of budget proposals, but not of the overall concept. Some think this is what they have been after for years.

We will be evaluating all this as more information becomes available. One should not, however, limit their evaluation through the lens of "what is the most scientific way to manage resources." That has to be overlaid with our form of government. Will this proposed reorganization increase or diminish the role of states in resource management? Will it increase or diminish the role of the feds in resource management? How will this affect the role of Congress in authorizing, oversight and appropriations?

Surely there is a more "scientific" way to pass a budget than what we are currently witnessing, but it is a small price to pay to maintain our representative republic. Our Founding Fathers designed a multitiered system to protect our liberty by restraining government. Their efforts had nothing to do with "scientific" management or efficiency. That's the lens through which we should evaluate this and other proposals.inc

Since Zinke's departure, we haven't heard much about the proposed reorganization of Interior.
 

No comments: