Bill Overview
Title: Advancing Human Rights-Centered International Conservation Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to take actions to ensure that the international financial assistance it provides does not go to any foreign security force unit (e.g., a military or paramilitary unit) where there is a reasonable belief that the unit has committed a gross violation of internationally recognized human rights. The USFWS must conduct risk analysis to ensure that a recipient (or subrecipient) of a grant does not fund or support any such unit. The prohibition against providing funding to such a unit shall not apply if the applicable government is taking effective steps to (1) bring the responsible members of the unit to justice, and (2) prevent gross violations of internationally recognized human rights by the unit in the future. The USFWS must take other actions to prevent funding such a unit, such as (1) coordinating with the Department of State on procedures for vetting potential assistance recipients, (2) publicly identifying units that are barred from receiving assistance, (3) requiring assistance recipients to provide certain information and to implement a safeguards plan, and (4) requiring periodic financial and programmatic audits of assistance recipients. The bill also requires (1) a grant recipient to report credible information about possible human rights violations involving a grant to the USFWS and the relevant diplomatic or consular post, (2) the program awarding the grant to investigate such allegations, and (3) the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior to investigate certain cases referred by the USFWS.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: People protected from and affected by international human rights abuses related to conservation projects.
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill primarily targets international recipients of USFWS financial assistance, particularly foreign security force units.
- There is an emphasis on units that might have committed gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.
- Affected populations include those potentially protected from human rights abuses by foreign security forces due to the safeguards put in place.
- The focus on international conservation indicates that populations in foreign countries receiving conservation aid will be impacted.
Reasoning
- The primary set of people directly affected by this policy are not based in the US, as the policy focuses on international recipients.
- The US-based target audience includes administrative staff at USFWS, conservation advocates, and human rights defenders.
- Potential US indirect effects might pertain to those whose work or personal ethos intersects with ethical conservation efforts.
- Given the budget constraints, it's unlikely individuals unrelated to the policy's administrative or advocacy aspects in the US population will observe any direct impact.
- Most of the interviews will focus on US populations who might see ethical or professional shifts due to changes in the funding process.
Simulated Interviews
Conservation Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will mitigate the misuse of conservation funds by unvetted military units in other countries.
- It's essential for conservation efforts to respect human rights; this law supports that mission.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Wildlife Fund Accountant (New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has brought additional strain due to the increased audits and compliance requirements.
- However, the drive for ethical compliance is a positive change for the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired USFWS Officer (Montana)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see that there's growing accountability in how US funds are used overseas.
- I do hope the policy doesn't bog down well-meaning projects with red tape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Law (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides interesting case material for my thesis.
- It reflects a positive shift towards protecting human rights in conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
International Development Consultant (Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds necessary loopholes to weed out bad international actors receiving funds.
- Though challenging, it's a crucial step towards transparent aid distribution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
HR Manager at a Conservation NGO (Florida)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work now involves stricter vetting for international teams which is aligned with our mission.
- Adapting to these changes is beneficial yet challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Human Rights Advocate (Ohio)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that intertwines conservation with human rights.
- Monitoring accountability is crucial, but implementation will require robust oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Military Advisor (North Carolina)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's commendable that military abuses are being recognized in conservation funding.
- The policy might help curb misuse of funds internationally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Journalist specializing in Environmental Issues (Oregon)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers a new angle for stories about accountability in foreign aid.
- Hope to see real progress through these regulatory steps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Professor of Political Science (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a case study in integrating human rights within U.S. international aid programs.
- Researching its impacts will be important for the academic community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6500000)
Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6500000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal implications and diplomatic relationships affected by the barred units.
- Efficiency in grant distribution by reducing misuse of funds.
- Training and implementation timelines for the safeguards plan.