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: Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
Target Audience
Population: People in low- and middle-income countries with high biodiversity areas
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill will impact people living in low- and middle-income countries where high levels of biodiversity or important species and ecosystems exist, as it aims to fund conservation projects in those areas.
- The projects funded will specifically aim to manage protected and conserved areas in these countries, which may involve habitat restoration, anti-poaching efforts, and community engagement in conservation activities.
- Individuals and communities dependent on biodiversity for their livelihoods, such as those involved in eco-tourism or sustainable use of resources, will be directly affected by enhanced or altered management practices.
- Conservation efforts can positively impact local communities by providing employment, supporting tourism, and preserving natural resources crucial for agriculture, fishing, etc.
- Indirectly, global populations benefit as biodiversity supports ecological stability and services like carbon sequestration, which can mitigate climate change impacts.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily affects international populations as it funds conservation projects in biodiversity-rich areas in low- and middle-income countries. However, it indirectly impacts American citizens, particularly those involved in international environmental conservation efforts.
- There is a potential positive impact on U.S.-based NGOs and conservation experts who engage in global conservation projects, as they may have additional opportunities due to grants requiring matching funds, incentivizing partnerships.
- U.S. businesses that rely on international natural resources or participate in eco-tourism may benefit from the long-term sustainability of these ecosystems.
- The average American may not experience direct impacts but could perceive a sense of improved global environmental stability, contributing to societal wellbeing over time.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a step in the right direction for supporting biodiversity on a global scale.
- It's important that it includes a matching funds requirement, as it encourages collaboration and maximizes impact.
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 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative will likely foster educational opportunities and research partnerships.
- It aligns well with global sustainability goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
CEO of an Eco-Tourism Company (New York, NY)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants could support the areas our tours visit, which is crucial for sustainability.
- It might be challenging to meet the matching funds requirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance Video Producer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding for conservation projects globally can lead to more content creation opportunities.
- It's encouraging to see U.S. involvement in international biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Undergraduate Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy brings hope for the future of biodiversity.
- It could inspire more students to specialize in conservation efforts.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Wildlife Biologist (Boulder, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having access to more funding sources is critical for our fieldwork overseas.
- The matching requirement will need careful planning, but it's doable.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Conservation Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant opportunity for cross-border collaborations in conservation.
- The challenge will be in securing matching funds efficiently.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising to see policy supporting global environmental efforts, potentially opening markets for sustainable tech.
- I'm eager to see how matching funds spur innovation.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Philanthropist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will leverage philanthropic contributions, amplifying its impact.
- Ensuring accountability and results from the funded projects is vital.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Corporate Social Responsibility Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Promoting conservation abroad aligns with our CSR goals and could enhance corporate reputation.
- The matching funds aspect can help engage more stakeholders.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 5: $160000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $190000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $230000000)
Year 100: $3330000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3900000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for effective collaboration with international partners to ensure projects meet biodiversity goals.
- Ensuring the matching funds are secured to maximize the impact of the U.S. grants.
- The long-term benefits of biodiversity projects outweigh the upfront costs, especially in areas of high ecological importance.