Download Biological Carbon Sequestration as Wildlife Adaption Strategy

Summary - Breakout Session A
“Biological Carbon Sequestration as a Wildlife Adaptation Strategy”
Moderator: Bob Ford
Common challenges or obstacles to initiating carbon sequestration project opportunities
as wildlife habitat restoration projects:
(1) No price tag provided by conservation community for adaptation.
How would the FWS secure past investment on projects?
What is the cost of replacing lands that may be lost due to sea-level rise?
Questions such as these should be considered by the larger conservation
community and a “price tag” to adequately deal with wildlife adaptation
developed. A good start would be through a carbon sequestration initiative.
(2) Lack of appropriate inventories to identify restoration projects.
Beyond the megafauna and birds, FWS does not have enough records for other
groups (e.g. insects, butterflies).
(3) Management framework: species vs. ecosystem approach.
What is the most effective scale (temporal and spatial) for management?
Past (historical), today, or future conditions?
Alternative/Solution:
Managing for landscape health (natural processes). Maybe we should be looking
at a process base approach over a species base approach to preserve “ecosystem
integrity.”
“Ecosystem Integrity” not clear cut definition: need to discuss and define.
(4) Plantings – specific restoration drought? Root stock? Resilience?
Suggestion: It was advised that FWS assess ecosystem in order to accomplish
biological objectives, and then look at connectivity.
Tools and models for ecosystem assessment are available, but the agency (FWS)
needs to use them.
(5) Role of private industry.
In land acquisition: We need to determine if and/or how the interests of a
particular industry partner will determine the tracts we buy for sequestration
projects.
How much control/influence private industry would have?
Alternative/Solution:
Need to define/implement a strong model (language) for private-government
agreement.
Setting clear objectives within a time frame.
FWS needs to clearly outline the incentives to the market and the people
Biodiversity protection is not an overall individual interest; therefore FWS
should talk in terms of what would be available for people (e.g. water
quality).
A recommendation for a multi-agency effort was proposed. The suggestion was that
some agencies should or may be able to join objectives:
Coordinating biological objectives within agencies will bring the issue of
connectivity.
Simultaneously, it will help assess the amount of assets that should be allocated
when working with agencies that have different biological objectives.
A suggestion was made to bring carbon investors into biological objectives, and carbon
credits into management.
Submitted by:
Delissa Padilla, National Wildlife refuge System, FWS