Bill Overview
Title: United States Foundation for International Conservation Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of State to establish a foundation to provide grants for projects to manage protected and conserved areas in low- and middle-income countries with high levels of biological diversity or species and ecosystems of significant importance. Recipients of grants from this foundation must secure outside funding to match, at minimum, the amount of the grant.
Sponsors: Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
Target Audience
Population: People in low- and middle-income countries with high biodiversity areas
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill aims to manage protected and conserved areas in low- and middle-income countries with high biodiversity.
- Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems affects local populations within those areas as they might depend on these ecosystems for their livelihoods, such as through fishing, agriculture, or tourism.
- Regional ripple effects of conservation can impact broader populations who rely on ecosystem services like clean water, pollination for agriculture, or carbon sequestration.
- The grants require matching outside funding, which suggests engaging stakeholders and partnerships, further widening the impact regionally and globally.
Reasoning
- The bill targets managing protected areas in countries high in biodiversity. Residents of these countries that rely on ecosystem services will be impacted.
- Direct impacts on US citizens are mainly indirect through global ecological benefits, professional opportunities, and international collaboration.
- Specialized professionals like conservationists, ecologists, and environmental economists will be directly affected if involved in projects.
- During the simulation, we are considering impacts on those who might feel ethical satisfaction from contributing to global good.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step in the right direction for global biodiversity conservation.
- Collaboration with international communities is crucial for effective conservation efforts.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Investment Banker (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in the potential for sustainable investment opportunities this policy may create.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Conservation Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is exciting as it might increase funding and support for conservation projects I work with.
- Projects focusing on biodiversity can have significant ecological benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Oil and Gas Executive (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am cautiously supportive if it means balancing biodiversity with development needs responsibly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open up opportunities for tech solutions that support conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental Activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns with the goals of preserving ecosystems, something I'm passionate about.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Film Producer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting biodiversity can provide compelling narratives for media projects I work on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a solid policy that may serve as a case study for my students on international conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Botanist (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Conserving biodiversity globally is important for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tour Operator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could enhance the destinations I offer by ensuring the sustainability and uniqueness of ecosystems.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $65000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $75000000)
Year 10: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $85000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Establishing a new federal foundation entails ongoing administrative and operational costs.
- The requirement for matching funds emphasizes partnership, potentially enhancing the effectiveness and impact of each dollar spent.
- The global focus necessitates international cooperation and might require adjusting foreign policy priorities.
- Long-term environmental benefits might not directly correlate to immediate economic metrics but are essential for sustainability.