Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, The US Supreme Court Has Gutted Federal Protection for Wetlands — Now What?, 618 Nature 215 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Most US wetlands just lost federal protection, but there’s still time for state and local governments to act. Scientists and the public can help.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, What the US Supreme Court Decision Means for Wetlands, 618 Nature 215 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency and the Future of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
David A. Stroud et al., Development of the Text of the Ramsar Convention: 1965–1971, 73 Marine and Freshwater Research 1107 (2022)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The ‘Ramsar’ Convention on Wetlands was the first of the modern era global biodiversity conventions and remains the only multilateral environmental agreement focused on a single group of ecosystem types. At the time of initial discussions within the wetland conservation science community in the late 1960s, its ambition was unprecedented, with no successful models to draw upon, especially with regard to novel concepts such as the modus for an ‘internationally protected site’. Drawing on previously unpublished draft texts, we track the Convention’s textual development to its ultimate agreement in 1971. During this period its geographic scope changed from an initial European to global focus, whereas core obligations related to the designation of internationally important wetlands and the provision of secretariat coordination functions were substantively developed.
Date of Publication:
Gillian T. Davies et al., Reply to Bridgewater (2021), “Response to Davies et al., ‘Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands’”, 72 Marine and Freshwater Research 1401 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
We reply to the main concerns raised by Bridgewater (2021) in his response to Davies et al. (2021a), ‘Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands’. We appreciate the contribution of Bridgewater (2021) to this emerging conversation and, although we disagree with some of his assessments and statements, we do not find his points to be incompatible with support for the Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands (ROW). This reply focuses on four areas of concern raised by Bridgewater (2021). First, we describe why a wetlands-specific declaration will add important value to other Rights of Nature declarations. Second, we discuss how the ROW does not detract from, but rather can contribute to and complement, existing conservation and management approaches and mechanisms. Third, we agree on the importance of weaving Indigenous and local knowledge with other knowledges and emphasise that the ROW should not be confused with or misused to undermine the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Finally, we explain how legal rights can and have been granted to non-humans, including elements of Nature, such as wetlands.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Long-Term Management of Mitigation Sites (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This resource is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches to implementation. This particular guide will assist ILF program sponsors and other stakeholders can preparing for the long-term management of mitigation sites. After noting the regulatory requirements, this guide discusses typical challenges for ILF programs related to long-term management and makes recommendations on how to avoid or address some of the common challenges. It also offers sample language for certain provisions regarding long-term management and concludes with additional resources for further information.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca Kihslinger et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Full Cost Accounting (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The following is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches to implementation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca Kihslinger et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Programmatic Audits (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The following is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Opportunities and Challenges for Synergies Across Biodiversity-Related Conventions in the Context of Human Health and Zoonotic Diseases: The Role of Scientific Advisory Bodies, in Biological Diversity and International Law: Challenges for the Post 2020 Scenario (Mar Campins and Teresa Fajardo eds., Spring Nature, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This chapter examines the work of the scientific advisory bodies of five biodiversity-related conventions: the Ramsar Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on Migratory Species, Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, and Convention on Biological Diversity. It will discuss how the scientific advisory bodies have collaborated in the past, through ad hoc or more formalized approaches, and how they may work more closely together in the future through the emergence of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), especially in the context of human health and infectious diseases. In doing so, this chapter considers how the scientific advisory bodies have responded to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Ebola virus disease, and COVID-19. While institutional constraints exist, IPBES provides an opportunity for the scientific advisory bodies—and thus the biodiversity-related conventions themselves—to more effectively emphasize the need for biodiversity conservation as preventive measures for human health and well-being.
Date of Publication:
R. T. Kingsford et al., Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance–Improving Conservation Outcomes, 9 Frontiers in Environmental Science 1 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Ramsar Convention (or the Convention on Wetlands), signed in 1971, was one of the first international conservation agreements, promoting global wise use of wetlands. It has three primary objectives: national designation and management of wetlands of international importance; general wise use of wetlands; and international cooperation. We examined lessons learnt for improving wetland conservation after Ramsar’s nearly five decades of operation. The number of wetlands in the Ramsar Site Network has grown over time (2,391 Ramsar Sites, 2.5 million km2, as at 2020-06-09) but unevenly around the world, with decreasing rate of growth in recent decades. Ramsar Sites are concentrated in countries with a high Gross Domestic Product and human pressure (e.g., western Europe) but, in contrast, Ramsar Sites with the largest wetland extent are in central-west Africa and South America. We identified three key challenges for improving effectiveness of the Ramsar Site Network: increasing number of sites and wetland area, improved representation (functional, geographical and biological); and effective management and reporting. Increasing the number of sites and area in the Ramsar network could benefit from targets, implemented at national scales. Knowledge of representativeness is inadequate, requiring analyses of functional ecotypes, geographical and biological representativeness. Finally, most countries have inadequate management planning and reporting on the ecological character of their Ramsar Sites, requiring more focused attention on a vision and objectives, with regular reporting of key indicators to guide management. There are increasing opportunities to rigorously track ecological character, utilizing new tools and available indicators (e.g., remote sensing). It is critical that the world protect its wetlands, with an effective Ramsar Convention or the Convention on Wetlands at the core.