« Author: Cherney, D. »

Adaptation Policies for Biodiversity: Facilitated Dispersal
   in Author: Cherney, D. | Biodiversity | Climate Change | Environment July 18, 2008

Conservation Nonprofit Revenue
   in Author: Cherney, D. July 03, 2008

How much influence should a ‘mega-foundation’ have?
   in Author: Cherney, D. | Science + Politics June 26, 2008

Adaptation Policies for Biodiversity: Facilitated Dispersal

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of Queensland University and colleagues have an important article on “Assisted Colonization and Rapid Climate Change” in this week’s issue of Science (pdf). The author’s argue:

Rapid climatic change has already caused changes to the distributions of many plants and animals, leading to severe range contractions and the extinction of some species (1, 2). The geographic ranges of many species are moving toward the poles or to higher altitudes in response to shifts in the habitats to which these species have adapted over relatively longer periods (1-4). It already appears that some species are unable to disperse or adapt fast enough to keep up with the high rates of climate change (5, 6). These organisms face increased extinction risk, and, as a result, whole ecosystems, such as cloud forests and coral reefs, may cease to function in their current form (7-9).

Current conservation practices may not be enough to avert species losses in the face of mid- to upper-level climate projections (>3°C) (10), because the extensive clearing and destruction of natural habitats by humans disrupts processes that underpin species dispersal and establishment. Therefore, resource managers and policy-makers must contemplate moving species to sites where they do not currently occur or have not been known to occur in recent history. This strategy flies in the face of conventional conservation approaches.

The strategy flies in the face of conventional conservation approaches due to the numerous risks associated with the introduction of invasive species. The authors fully acknowledge these risks.

The world is littered with examples where moving species beyond their current range into natural and agricultural landscapes has had negative impacts. Understandably, notions of deliberately moving species are regarded with suspicion. Our contrary view is that an increased understanding of the habitat requirements and distributions of some species allows us to identify low-risk situations where the benefits of such "assisted colonization'" can be realized and adverse outcomes minimized…

…One of the most serious risks associated with assisted colonization is the potential for creating new pest problems at the target site. Introduced organisms can also carry diseases and parasites or can alter the genetic structure and breeding systems of local populations…

…In addition to the ecological risks, socioeconomic concerns must be considered in decisions to move threatened species. Financial or human safety constraints, for example, may make a species' introduction undesirable. It is likely to be unacceptable to move threatened large carnivores or toxic plants into regions that are important for grazing livestock…

These risks do not invalidate the authors' major point. If we want to conserve current biodiversity in a changing climate, we will likely need creative alternatives to current conservation approaches. Facilitated dispersal of species is one option that deserves consideration in specific conservation contexts. However, it is far from a silver bullet.

Conservation Nonprofit Revenue

This past week, I aggregated IRS tax data for the top 50 revenue producing conservation nonprofit organizations. I documented over $22.5 billion dollars in combined revenue between 1998 and 2005. The combined assets of these organizations were approximately $8 billion in 2005. To help understand where revenue is flowing, I used a simple classification system. The following pie chart breaks down revenue by sector for the eight year period:

Of little surprise, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is the top revenue generating conservation nonprofit. In 2005, TNC accounted for 25.6% of the revenue generated by the top 50 organizations. I compare the revenue streams of the top 10 in the following graph. TNC is the dark blue line.

The distribution of financial resources can give insight into conservation priorities. Does the allocation of conservation dollars over the eight year per period align with the conservation challenges we face? Are there nonprofit sectors over or under attended to? What does the division of revenue tell us about donors? About nonprofits? About the costs of various nonprofit activities?

How much influence should a ‘mega-foundation’ have?

Tomorrow is Bill Gates’ last official day at Microsoft. His energy will now be reoriented toward philanthropic efforts at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation’s assets currently exceed $37 billion. In 2006, Warren Buffet pledged roughly $31 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock -- at rate of approximately $1.5 billion per year -- to the Gates Foundation. The exact dollar value of his pledged donation is impossible to calculate, since it is directly tied to the performance of his stock. Regardless, the current assets and pledged donations to the Gates Foundation exceed $60 billion.

As a basis for comparison, The Nonprofit Almanac 2008 (p.102) asserts that the 71,095 active foundations in the United States granted $36.4 billion in 2005 (The most recent year for which data was available to the authors). In 2005, the Gates Foundation granted just over $1.5 billion. Their contribution accounts for more than 4% of the total $36.4 billion foundation dollars granted that year. In 2007, the Gates Foundation donated $2 billion. In short, the Gates Foundation contribution to total foundation giving is likely increasing.

I applaud the extreme generosity of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet. However, their concentrated wealth raises serious democratic and scientific questions. In a June 9th WSJ article, Melinda Gates rightly points out that $20,000 helping “a child who needed a kidney” is “$20,000 that doesn’t go to buy life-saving vaccines” to children in developing countries. These types of decisions can have large social implications, impacting both domestic and foreign policy. For example, if the Gates Foundation were to give $2 billion towards AIDS research, it could potentially shift research efforts away from other worthwhile pursuits. My point is not about effectiveness, which is another important discussion. I am speaking to the influence donors can have.

Who is best suited to make such decisions?

How much influence should one private foundation have? Is it too much for one foundation to control 5%, 10%, 25%, or 50% of total foundation giving?

Is it possible for a single foundation to drive research and programmatic agendas? If so, how much control/influence should a foundation have?