Allow "nonuse rights" to conserve natural
resources
New research published in Science magazine on
conservation leasing
Peer-Reviewed PublicationBozeman, MT—PERC Vice President of Research Shawn Regan and PERC Senior Fellows Bryan Leonard, Christopher Costello, and Dominic Parker along with Suzi Kerr, Andrew Plantinga, James Salzman, V. Kerry Smith, and Temple Stoellinger published a paper, “Allow ‘nonuse rights’ to conserve natural resources” (August 27, 2021), in Science on the role non-use rights play in conserving natural resources.
Traditionally, natural resources in the United States have been managed for productive uses, meaning resource extraction. To acquire and maintain leases of publicly owned resources such as oil and gas, timber, and rangelands, the resources must be put to certain “productive uses.” Purchasing rights to natural resources to conserve them, rather than for extraction, is typically not an option.
The authors argue that “use-it-or-lose-it” requirements, coupled with narrow definitions of valid “uses,” limit environmental groups from participating in markets to conserve publicly managed natural resources. Such restrictions can bias resource management in favor of extractive uses, even when environmental groups are willing to pay more. By allowing for non-use rights, environmentalists can express their values in the marketplace, rather than relying on political, legal, or administrative processes.
“If environmental groups are willing to pay more to protect an area than industry groups are to develop it, then the land clearly ought to be protected,” says author Shawn Regan on the subject of what he calls conservation leasing.
If done thoughtfully, allowing for non-use rights can improve the status quo of public resource management for the following reasons:
- Non-use rights can reveal the economic value of conservation.
- Environmentalists have shown interest in participating in such markets, and granting them further access through non-use rights could expand conservation efforts.
- Non-use rights, if secure and well-defined, could deliver more lasting conservation outcomes that are not dependent upon shifting political winds.
- A rights-based approach allows for greater flexibility in responding to changing market and environmental conditions — for example, those posed by a changing climate.
- A rights-based approach can limit conflict by compensating existing leaseholders.
This paper is the result of a PERC workshop that brought together experts in resource management, economics, and conservation to think creatively about how to extend market tools like price signals and property rights to natural resource conservation.
PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is a 40-year-old nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through markets and property rights. Located in Bozeman, Montana, PERC’s staff and associated scholars conduct original research that applies market principles to resolve environmental problems.
More information, including a copy of the paper, can be found online at the Science press package at https://www.eurekalert.org/press/scipak/. You will need your user ID and password to access this information
JOURNAL
Science
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Commentary/editorial
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Allow "nonuse rights" to conserve natural resources
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
27-Aug-2021
Bidding on a better future
Archaic laws prevent conservationists from bidding on public resources; experts think this should change
Peer-Reviewed PublicationIMAGE: A PUMPJACK BRINGS OIL TO THE SURFACE IN BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ON A SITE LEASED FROM THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. view more
CREDIT: JOHN CICCARELLI, BLM
In 2016, environmental activist Terry Tempest Williams purchased drilling rights to 450 hectares of federal land in Utah. She created a company and began paying rental fees on the lease. But when Tempest Williams revealed that she intended to keep the oil in the ground, the Bureau of Land Management canceled the leases. They argued that she violated the “diligent development requirement” of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, which requires lessees to “exercise reasonable diligence in developing and producing” their leases.
Tempest Williams’ experience highlights the “use it or lose it” stipulation common to many of the laws governing public resources in the U.S. and around the world: You can’t lease public resources with the intent to leave them be. A group of scientists, economists and lawyers at several universities, including UC Santa Barbara, say it’s time for this requirement to go. The authors argue their case for creating a free market in an article featured in the prestigious journal Science.
“We have 19th century laws in conflict with 21st century values,” said co-author James Salzman, Bren distinguished professor of environmental law at UC Santa Barbara.
“When our public lands laws were written in the 1800s and early 1900s, the goal was to make as much productive use of the lands as quickly as possible,” he continued. “The idea of just leaving the lands as they are was not possible. The only valid uses were extraction – logging, mining, grazing — you name it.”
Many professionals in resource management are aware of this issue, but it hasn’t reached the public ear, the authors explained. And the first step in changing the laws is for people to realize what the problem is. “The goal of this project is to say to the public, ‘Hey. This is crazy. And you should know about it,’ ” Salzman said.
An appreciation of public lands for more than their extractive value is a relatively recent phenomenon, added co-author Andrew Plantinga, an environmental economist at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. The environmental movement in the 1970s saw a huge shift in public appreciation for nature.
At the same time, economists, ecologists and Earth scientists began to recognize the importance of natural benefits like biodiversity and ecosystem services. Not only are intact ecosystems important for wildlife, they discovered; these systems also provide palpable benefits to society such as clean drinking water, pest control and fish stocks, among many other things. These are all services that cost time and money to replace in the form of filtration plants, pesticides and fish hatcheries, to name a few.
There’s also been a growing interest from communities in the health of their local environment.
“Under current rules, I think many people feel powerless to make any substantive impact on those ecosystem services,” said co-author Christopher Costello, director of UCSB’s Environmental Markets Lab and Bren School professor. “The problem is, if you’re worried about wildlife conservation, oppose gas fracking in your backyard or want to keep water in the stream for fish, what do you do? There’s no way to ‘buy’ those goods like you would buy a loaf of bread or running shoes.”
There’s now a great demand for conservation, so why haven’t the rules changed with the times?
“Laws are sticky,” Salzman remarked. “Once you’ve got a law in place, you get vested interests who don’t want things to change.”
And since extraction is a prerequisite for bidding on public resources, conservationists cannot join and bid on public lands to achieve their goals. Instead, a huge component of environmental action and philanthropy in the U.S. is directed toward lobbying in the interest of changing policies and regulations.
Unfortunately, policy changes are often fickle. There’s growing exasperation over the flip-flop of environmental regulations across administrations and a desire for more durable interventions. Everyone is frustrated by the mercurial rules, regardless of whether they favor more or less extraction. “Uncertainty is never good for the economy,” Costello said. “And it can be even worse for the environment.”
The authors maintain that the laws need to be changed so that people who don’t want to extract resources can bid for the same licenses and permits as those who do. Essentially, if bidding is allowed for use of public lands, those who favor non-use should be able to compete against traditional extractive interests. This would completely change the sector. “Rather than focusing on legislation that determines how resources get used, we can think about this as a market and let the highest values be expressed,’” Plantinga explained.
Granted, there is the possibility that people interested in extraction will have more purchase power and buy all the rights, but that’s the way the market works right now, Salzman pointed out. It may sound odd, he noted, but we need more bidders, not fewer.
The authors aren’t proposing that all public resources be opened up to bidding. They firmly believe that current protections should be kept in place. However, when public resources are offered for sale, they argue that everyone should be allowed to bid on the rights.
Opening up public lands to non-use also empowers smaller groups. Consider a community concerned about the Gunnison sage-grouse, critically endangered by habitat loss from oil and gas development. The options available right now mostly involve petitioning state and federal agencies to make sweeping changes, a task far beyond the resources of most individuals and local organizations.
“Imagine that instead of fighting endless, costly and often fruitless court battles, the same community could buy up a bunch of mineral rights, and choose not to extract the oil,” Costello said. “That would be an asset that they now own.”
Updating the laws, the researchers say, will allow the true value of public resources to be revealed in an environmental market. It will give different groups equal footing in auctions, and create a more stable, actionable path toward conservation, to the benefit of both industry and the environment.
JOURNAL
SCIENCE
No comments:
Post a Comment