Wildlife Innovation And Longevity Driver (WILD)

955 Words2 Pages

Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver (WILD) Act: S. 826:
Program Design Options

Overview and Mandated Provisions
The Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver (WILD) Act was composed with the aim of improving and maintaining global biodiversity by addressing four critical issues: habitat loss, invasive species, and wildlife poaching/trafficking. The WILD Act addresses these issues through four provisions: 1) establishing the Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prizes, 2) reauthorizing the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF), 3) amending the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and 4) reauthorizing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFWP) (S. 826 - WILD Act, 2017). This memo outlines the key unresolved issues within the …show more content…

Four of the five reauthorizations of the Multinational Species Conservation Acts extend the timelines of funding, but the Great Apes Act has a new directive to convene a panel of experts to prioritize ape conservation efforts. However, the implementation does not change so the new priorities would be easily integrated into the current program. The Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prizes are completely new entities, but they are created under the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980. This act has enacted many prizes previously, so there is a standard implementation that would be followed. The amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act creates a new directive for all governmental departments that manage invasive species to create a management plan, but leaves the prioritization and implementation of the plans to the discretion of the secretaries. The amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act leaves the most to the discretion of the administrator, and this report seeks to inform the decisions not specifically …show more content…

This particular program design option fuses both the economics of applying a numerical value to the ecology of the services that the environment provides. However a major criticism of this particular program design option is that it tends to only focus on the quantitative variables that apply to human society, however there are many other qualitative variables such as the sentimental benefits of the environment that cannot be quantified that are missing from the valuation. In this particular program design option, a target habitat will be prioritized based on the analysis that is provided. Different frameworks have different methods of calculating an ecosystem valuation, hence an understanding or development of a method that can be applied to a range of biomes will be imperative. A comparative analysis of this has already been carried out by Pandya et al., where it was found that most ecosystem valuation approaches were useful to explain ecosystem valuation at a macro scale and theoretical level, however relevant local ecosystem valuation services are hindered by data scarcity which negatively impacts the ability to make decisions with regards to local policy development (Pandya et al.,

Open Document