RSOC 375 midterm 2

• protecting nature involves setting aside nature preserves and keeping them untrammeled by man
• virtues: moderation, humility, fairness

• emergent, attempts to restore degraded nature; if it is to continue, nature must be actively restored
• virtues: engagement, competency ("we are smart, we can fix it"), taking responsibility

• restoration can help nature
• hands off preservation is not enough
• full human participation
• positive role for humans

• restoration as grandiose and hubristic
• ignores the value of wildness
• restoraiton is not a net benefit
• restoration presupposes a destructive nature

when restoration is used to justify past harms or potential harms to nature

when restoration is undertaken to remedy a past harm done, but not offered as a justification for the harm

a form of environmental intervention which attempts to recreate some aspect of the prior function of an ecological reference site

• species and systems that restorationists want to restore are on the move, usually to cooler places
• what defines restoration ecology is being challenged

loyalty to predisturbance conditions (or at least minimally that projects have a "historically motivated goal")

• as having
• 1. structural or compositional replication of a reference ecosystem
• 2. functional success
• 3. durability
• critique: very few restoration projects in real life achieve these three criteria

• a laissez-faire free-market capitalism
• freeing up the conditions for the accumulation of capital

how natures structures and functions become subject to market forces, monetized, traded

• science of quantifying ecosystem services
• ex. environmental assessment processes

• there are communities of knowledge that exist (ex. government, capitalism/markets, science) and these independent knowledge systems need to move information between these spheres
• the "forum" translates information from one state to another
• ex. science assessing and quantifying ecological areas to translate into capital, banks, etc

the process by which wetland credits are certified as providing wetland functions and the subsequent monitoring which ostensibly guarantees their continued provision

• chasing the vegetation
• conventions of identification
• setting baselines
• hierarchies of identification

• the linear model of science
• more science -> less uncertainty -> market action

• post-normal science
• movement from applied science to professional consultancy in the professional giving their opinion on a plant ID

• excess of objectivity
• obstacle to achieving a shared understanding isn't a lack of scientific knowledge but a huge body of knowledge that can be assembled and interpreted to yield competing view of fa problem and how society should respond

• public good
• government - business as usual
• government - concerned conservationist
• incentive-based conservation

activities undertaken to counterbalance unavoidable adverse environmental impacts with the objective of achieving a net beneficial outcome

• 1. correct market failures by putting a value (through a price) on biodiversity or environmental losses
• 2. encourage sustainable land development practices
• 3. foster new sources for funding of biodiversity conservation

• avoid, mitigate, restore, offset to avoid net loss
• then contribute to add net gain

• 1. direct permittee responsibilities (on or off-site)
• 2. banking: a third party manages offsets and sells 'credits'
• 3. in-lieu payments: compensatory payment made to a third party or trust fund

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme

• ethical
• social
• technical
• governance

• what values are important?
• what is the ethical basis for conservation?

• what should offsetting achieve?
• what substitutions are acceptable? at what exchange rates?

• how is the mitigation hierarchy applied?
• are there appropriate surrogates for biodiversity?
• can you capture the uncertainty and time lags?
• what accounting approach is best?

• how are decisions made?
• how are ILF payments handled?
• is there monitoring, evaluation, and auditing?

to conserve, restore, protect, and manage alberta's wetlands to sustain the benefits they provide to the environment, society, and the economy

• 1. wetlands of the highest value are protected for the long term benefit of all Albertans
• 2. wetlands and their benefits are conserved and restored in areas where losses have been high
• 3. wetlands are managed by avoiding, minimizing, and if necessary compensating for impacts
• 4. wetland management considers regional context

• 1. lack of agreement on what constitutes 'avoidance'
• 2. poor planning in advance of development
• 3. economic undervaluation of wetlands
• 4. 'techno-arrogance' abounds in the view of wetland restoration 
• 5. inadequate enforcement and compliance

• Alberta Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool - Actual Guide 
• field protocol
• must be completed by practioners that meet 'competency' criteria defined by the GoA
• meant to be rapid and standardized, but many of the metrics are highly subjective

• 1. restorative replacement (replacement through restoration, enhancement, or construction of another wetland)
• 2. 'non-restorative' replacement (activities that support the maintenance of wetland value, ex. supporting research or education about wetlands)

• simplest system of grazing management
• usually under light or very light stocking rates over growing season (June-Oct)
• no rotation

• moving animals between every 10 days and 2 months
• most common system of management

• system with many names
• moving animals every 3-10 days
• similar in execution to HM

• arrived in north america in the 1980s
• emphasis on high stocking rate and herd impact to increase productivity
• planning and monitoring