Investors Not Accounting for Climate Change Effects

from climate business http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2010/01/06/global-investment-portfolios-filled-hidden-climate-risks

By ClimateBiz Staff

BOSTON, MA — Investment portfolios around the world are filled with “hidden risks” because their managers do not consider climate change when making investment decisions — largely because asset owners aren’t asking them to.

In a survey of some of the world’s largest asset managers, nearly half said climate change was either not on their client’s radars, or had just surfaced as a concern. A trend toward short-term financial performance also make climate change assessment — a long-term threat — less likely.

“Despite the growing recognition of the far-reaching impacts climate change will have on the global economy, only a handful of asset managers are integrating climate risks and opportunities throughout their investment practices,” Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which commissioned the survey, said in a statement Wednesday. “These findings make clear that the investment community is overly focused on short-term performance and ignoring longer-term business trends such as climate-related risks and opportunities. The recent subprime mortgage meltdown is a painful reminder of the fallout for investors who ignored ‘hidden’ long-term risks.”

Nearly 75 percent of asset managers in the survey expressly exclude climate change in their overall due diligence. This is despite the fact that nearly half see significant climate change risk exposure for some sectors.

Yet not all asset managers are ignoring climate change investment risks. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the second largest public pension fund in the U.S., said Wednesday it would engage its active equity managers on their climate change analysis and push each manager to cultivate climate change and sustainable investment expertise and also tweak corporate governance voting processes to consider and address climate change.

“As a long-term investor, CalSTRS wants to invest in well-managed companies that can address the physical risks of climate change and adapt to the changing regulatory and market realities of a carbon-constrained economy,” CalSTRS CEO Jack Ehnes said in a statement. “Our asset managers need to ask the right questions and critically evaluate how companies are positioned so that we’re sure that our investments will produce outstanding risk-adjusted returns for our members.”

More than 80 asset managers responsible for $8.6 trillion in assets completed the survey, which was conducted in early 2009 at the request of INCR.

Pilkey: Measures Needed to Protect Coasts in Face of Sea Level Rise

This article from Delaware On Line

Orrin Pilkey (and son Roger) are two of the best known coastal experts in the US.

November 15, 2009 More radical measures urged to protect Del. beaches By GREG BURTON The News Journal An international expert on beach replenishment offered advice for Delaware in the wake of last week’s nor’easter: Renourish the beaches this time to protect residents from the disaster of another storm but take more radical steps to prepare for future disasters. That includes systematically dismantling oceanfront infrastructure, relocating homes and pushing developments inland, said Orrin H. Pilkey, emeritus professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and author of “The Corps and the Shore” and this year’s “The Rising Sea,” which he co-authored. “Immediately prohibit any high-rise construction,” he said. “Make a study of how to demolish buildings. Any building in bad shape has to be immediately destroyed. Start doing it bit by bit by bit, not just moving them back, but removing buildings. And, after a major storm, don’t repair it.” Property owners should begin financing their own beach replenishment projects, a move he said would dramatically lower the hyper-inflated property value of beachfront property. Regulations should be enacted to curb development, he said, and buffers should be enforced. Instead, coastal development creates an artificial system of sea walls and beaches elongated to protect businesses and homes encroaching on the shore. A report released last month by a team of scientists and planners suggested that along the East Coast, as much as 60 percent of the land in low-lying areas is developed. The scientists at Environmental Research Letter, in a report funded by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, focused on areas less than 3 feet above sea level. They estimate that less than 10 percent of these low lands from Massachusetts to Florida is set aside for conservation. Such coastal foresight is reckless, Pilkey said. “Relocation is likely to be the most economically feasible response to sea level change over the long term. However, coastal communities still seldom give it serious consideration,” he writes in “The Rising Sea.” Tony Pratt, Delaware’s shorelines and waterway administrator, said just the opposite is true. Relocation would be much more costly than beach renourishment, he said, citing a study done for the state that examined the cost of relocating 65 houses along one mile of beach in South Bethany. Pratt said it would cost about $32 million to buy those houses and millions more to pay for the removal of sewer lines and other relocation issues, for a total cost of about $40 million. After that first row of homes is removed, it would cost another $40 million to remove the second row, he said. “That would mean $80 million in expense to gain about the same amount of beach that would cost $10 million” through renourishment programs, he said. “Dr. Pilkey’s notions are not in keeping with good economic strategy that makes good sense,” he said. “His approach is naive and says to walk away from the problem.” If nothing is done, erosion would cause oceanfront homes to fall into the sea, Pratt said. On that point, Pilkey and Pratt agree. But Pilkey said developers and government leaders often overstate the cost of abandonment and underestimate the cost of beach replenishment. Most replenishment projects run by the Army Corps of Engineers, he said, fail to account for seasonal scouring from storms when predicting how long a new beach will last. “Although the cost of the move-back alternative will be highly variable, depending on many factors, the argument is often made by pro-development groups that retreat is more costly than beach nourishment,” he wrote in “The Rising Sea.” “A 2007 newsletter of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) quotes a study claiming that in the state of Delaware, retreat would be four times more costly than beach nourishment for the foreseeable future. The article estimates that the cost of nourishing Delaware’s beaches for the next 50 years will be $60 million. A close look at that state’s spending, however, indicates that $60 million has been spent for beach nourishment in just the years 2001 to 2007!” There is historical precedence for relocating or abandoning beach developments. After the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm, platted homes and roads were abandoned on Assateague Island. More recently, North Topsail Beach, N.C., used eminent domain to condemn homes damaged in 2005 by Hurricane Ophelia. “My personal view is that we should pay them, but not necessarily the inflated value of beachfront property,” Pilkey said. “Much, if not most, of beachfront property is investment. I’m very reluctant to reward somebody who did something so stupid as to build next to an eroding shoreline.”

“Coalmine canaries face extinction in fatal trap”

[The Sydney Morning Herald discusses the impacts of climate change on coastal and marine systems. I think this is an important element of the most important issue that small islands have to address: Restoration of coastal wetlands in the face of sea level rise.]

by BEN CUBBY

“Clean Coal” = Dirty Water —— washingtonpost.com 3 May 2009

So first there was Mountain Top Removal– and fill in the creeks (or cricks as they say there) — now there’s “poison the rivers, too.”

Today’s Post has the second shoe:

EPA Seeks Rules for Utilities’ Runoff:
Pollutants Scrubbed From Smokestacks Are Being Diverted Into Waterways

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 3, 2009

Faced with new evidence that utilities across the country are dumping toxic sludge into waterways, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to impose new restrictions on the level of contaminants power plants can discharge.

Plants in Florida, Pennsylvania and several other states have flushed wastewater with levels of selenium and other toxins that far exceed the EPA’s freshwater and saltwater standards aimed at protecting aquatic life, according to data the agency has collected over the past few years. While selenium can be beneficial in tiny amounts, elevated levels damage not only fish but also birds and people who consume contaminated fish.

But the reason more selenium and metals such as arsenic are now entering U.S. waterways is because the federal government has pressed utilities to install pollution-control “scrubbing” technology that captures contaminants headed for smokestacks and stores them as coal ash or sludge. The EPA estimates that these two types of coal combustion residue — often kept in outdoor pools or flushed into nearby rivers and streams — amount to roughly 130,000 tons per year and will climb to an estimated 175,000 tons by 2015.

Eric Schaeffer, who used to lead the EPA’s enforcement office and now heads the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, said the agency must take action to avoid solving “one environmental problem by creating another.”

“Scrubbers will help clean our air, but let’s make sure that the toxic metals stripped out of coal-plant smokestacks don’t end up in our water,” he said, adding that the EPA’s toxic release inventory ranks the power industry as the nation’s second-largest discharger of metals and metal compounds. “It’s crazy not to have limits on toxic discharges this big.”

Mary Smith, director of the engineering and analysis division of the EPA’s water office, said the agency initially assessed the toxic emissions of 56 industries and found that the utility industry “was at the high end of the range.” When it comes to selenium in power plant effluent, she added, “We’re looking at how low it can go and what is economically achievable.”

While the EPA has not comprehensively sampled the nation’s utilities, some operations have reported wastewater selenium levels far above the agency’s guidelines. Sampling at Edison Mission Energy’s Homer City, Pa., plant, for example, found that it produces wastewater with selenium levels well within its state operating permit but more than 100 times the EPA’s acceptable freshwater selenium levels.

Bill Constantelos, Edison Mission Energy’s managing director of environmental services, said the company has worked with the EPA and has significantly reduced the selenium in its wastewater. “The standards we have to meet, we are meeting,” he said.

And David Luksic, manager of environmental capital projects at Tampa Electric, said the selenium concentrations that the EPA has detected are diluted before the utility flushes its wastewater out to Tampa Bay. “It’s like dumping a thimble-full in a swimming pool,” he said.

But the EPA and some members of Congress are questioning whether the federal government should establish new standards to protect the environment and public health. At a hearing Thursday of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on water resources and environment, the panel’s top Republican, John Boozman (Ark.), said the nation has “a problem” when it comes to utility releases of toxic sludge.

“We’re not going to be done with coal tomorrow. . . . So as we do a better job of scrubbing and whatever, we’re going to have even increased residue,” Boozman said.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency “is moving to establish a new water-quality criterion aimed at selenium.”

“The new method specifically calls for assessing levels of selenium in fish tissues instead of in concentrations in water because selenium, like mercury, bioaccumulates in fish,” Andy added. “EPA already measures mercury levels in fish tissues in order to be more protective. The agency plans to request public comment on its new criterion for selenium before the end of this year.”

The federal government is focused on selenium in fish tissue because, as with mercury, the contamination accumulates rapidly in the animals’ bodies and becomes more potent. Consumption of contaminated fish can trigger a range of effects in birds and humans. Birds that eat selenium-contaminated fish experience effects such as deformation of their beaks and jaws and problems producing viable eggs, while humans can suffer neurological damage as well as hair and nail loss.

“Selenium is probably one of the most ecologically toxic elements that there is,” said Conrad Dan Volz, who directs the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities.

Volz, who testified Thursday before the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee, has conducted two large-scale studies of fish in the Pittsburgh area and has found a direct correlation between power plant toxic emissions and selenium contamination in the animals. He noted that this is a problem because some area residents “eat four meals of river-caught fish a week,” raising their contamination risk.

Some states have had to issue fish-consumption advisories to protect residents from selenium contamination. Duke Energy used to let residents near Princeton, Ind., fish in the lake it created as a cooling reservoir for the coal ash ponds near its Gibson Generating Station, but it banned fishing two years ago after tests showed elevated selenium levels.

The utility had channeled water from the reservoir to the adjacent Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area, which is home to endangered least terns and other migratory birds. After U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials found selenium-contaminated eggs from some bird species on the refuge, the company spent $600,000 to pipe in water from the Wabash River.

“We recognize that every action has a reaction,” said Duke Energy spokeswoman Angeline Protogere. She said the company is exploring whether it can take the selenium-contaminated waste in its ash ponds and store it in a dry landfill instead.

[by noon on Sunday there were 55 comments on this article at the Post's web site.]

Good sense and good science from the NY Times environment blogger, Andrew Revkin . . .

April 3, 2009, 2:15 PM

Study: Cool Spells Normal in Warming World

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Graphs provided by the authors, published by the AGUA climate simulation in a world facing “business as usual” increases in greenhouse gases still shows lots of periods with cool fluctuations.

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters(subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human-driven global warming that’s based on short-term trends (a decade or so). I’ve noted here before that climate campaigners who seek to use real-time events to engage the public can only retain credibility if they account for natural variability in framing their case and explain that the odds of such events are shifting. (Realclimate explored natural variability and warming last year, too.)

The same requirement applies to the community of climate skeptics/contrarians/deniers/realists(depending on who’s doing the labeling) who have made a mantra out of the “global cooling” since the 1998 peak in global temperature.

Measured changes in global temperature show ups and downs, with some periods of a decade or more defying the long-term trend.

The paper shows, both in recent records and projections using computer simulations, how utterly normal it is to have decade-long vagaries in temperature, up and down, on the way to a warmer world. The paper is titled simply, “Is the climate warming or cooling?” It is written by David R. Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center and Michael F. Wehner of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The bottom line? “We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming,” the paper says, adding that, “It is easy to ‘cherry pick’ a period to reinforce a point of view.”

I asked Dr. Easterling why they pursued this effort, which somewhat replicates findings of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but perhaps with a more pointed goal. Here’s his reply:

To show, in a peer-reviewed scientifically defensible way that there is no reason to expect the climate to warm in a monotonic type fashion, that there is natural variability along with anthropogenic forced warming and we shouldn’t expect each year to be warmer than the next or even a run of 10 years always to show warming. That we can get a 10- or even 15-year period with no real change in globally averaged temperature even though in the end we have strong global warming.

There was another useful effort by climate scientists and communication specialists this week, a letter to the journal Science, “Creating a Common Climate Language,” urging international organizations to standardize basic terms in assessing climate science to gauge policy responses. (You can download the letter at Michael Mann’s Web page.)

The more work that the science community does along these lines, the better. There is a dizzying range of official definitions of the term “climate change” itself, for starters. Some assessments track only concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; others consolidate the influence of all greenhouse gases into a “carbon dioxide equivalent” measurement. There’s no common number for the globe’s “pre-industrial” average temperature, etc. When entering any debate, a first step clearly is to settle on definitions.

I’ll be doing more pieces on the climate basics soon, including a look at arguments that ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are the dominant driver of recent climate change. I’ll also be writing more on why sea levels do not rise uniformly (and may be falling in a few places) even as there is high confidence in rising seas in a warming world.

Climate Change, environmentalism, global warming, skeptics

GEOSS in the Americas Symposium::

::GEOSS in the Americas Symposium::.

When Growth Seems to Work — Foreign Policy

“Seven Questions: How Countries Get Rich“ from Foreign Policy, Posted May 2008

Why do some countries succeed when others struggle? That’s what Nobel laureate A. Michael Spence and the Commission on Growth and Development set out to discover in their landmark study of the world’s 13 fastest-growing economies.

The secret to growth? The real secret of economic development, says Spence, is that there are no secrets.
Why do some countries succeed when others struggle? That’s what Nobel laureate A. Michael Spence and the Commission on Growth and Development set out to discover in their landmark study of the world’s 13 fastest-growing economies.

Foreign Policy: You’ve obviously studied development topics in economics for a long time. Was there anything that surprised you as you did your research with the commission?

Michael Spence: I was surprised by two things. One, how important the global economy is for developing countries both in terms of demand, meaning the size of the market and your ability to expand it once you get a cost position, and also from the point of view of importing technology or knowledge. But the biggest surprise was how important political leadership is in looking at cases of sustained high growth in developing countries. There’s a whole lot of consensus building and picking the right model, getting everybody on board, making deals with stakeholders like labor and business, and a persistent kind of pragmatic approach with imperfect knowledge about how the economy is going to respond to policy. I started out thinking this was a subject that was mainly about economics, and I ended up thinking that was about half of it, but the other half is really political.

FP: Were you able to discover any secret to growth among the countries that you studied?

MS: I don’t think there’s any kind of secret. There are certainly common characteristics of the sustained high-growth cases, and they’re described in some detail in the report. I don’t view them as secrets. But we haven’t been able to find a case where, if you avoid the general approach that’s described there—engagement with the global economy; being careful to bring everybody on board; very high savings and investment levels; a stable macro environment and a pretty heavy reliance on the basic characteristics of market allocation, price signals, and stuff; and being willing to put up with rather chaotic microeconomic dynamics—you can sustain high growth.

FP: Some people have read your report as an implicit critique of the so-called Washington Consensus. Do your findings contradict the kinds of things that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were promoting, especially in the 1990s?

MS: No. At least that wasn’t the intent. Since the Washington Consensus in its various forms was developed and then experimented with in developing countries, there’s been a huge amount of experience and learning everywhere—in developing countries, in the academic community, in the international institutions. We never stop at a point where you know all the answers to questions, and there are a lot of things that are still highly debated. There is still a lot of merit in a good deal of the Washington Consensus. The open-economy orientation, even if it needs some modulation, is certainly right. The stable macroeconomic environment, however you achieve it, is surely right. What’s probably different about this report is there’s a somewhat different view about what government’s role is and how it evolves over the course of a long period of sustained growth than was probably envisaged in the Washington Consensus.

FP: What’s your view on corruption as a drag on development? Countries like India, China, Indonesia, and South Korea have major problems with corruption, and yet they’ve been able to grow fairly successfully.

MS: I think it depends on the kind of corruption. This is an active subject of research, so we’re learning all the time. I would say really small-scale corruption is not necessarily a good thing, but it’s a little bit like a tax. If it gets out of hand and turns into big delays in things like establishing businesses or getting approvals for investment projects, it can be a problem. The really destructive kind of corruption, I would describe as wholesale theft on a large scale, where governments are really living on taking the national resources and using them to buy votes and stay in power. That seems to be completely destructive of the sustained growth and policies that are needed to support it.

FP: You mentioned national resources. What about commodity prices? A lot of countries in places like sub-Saharan Africa are growing in large measure because of this run-up in commodity prices that we’re seeing.

MS: That’s true. There’s a growth acceleration on a rather broad base in Africa and parts of Latin America. Some of it, maybe even a fairly large amount of it, is based on commodity price run-ups. There’s also better control of inflation, better macroeconomic management, more effective leadership in government to throw into the mix depending on which case you’re talking about. Other than the current food emergency, the run-up in commodity prices is a huge opportunity for many African countries and for the continent as a whole. And the trick is to turn the increased wealth and resource rent into a pattern of investment in things like education and infrastructure and other things that support economic diversification and productive-employment creation and growth that sustains. The jury’s out, but people are hopeful that will happen.

FP: Are there any countries in particular that you see as not squandering the commodity price boom?

MS: Every country is a complex case study, but not every country just squanders the wealth. For a long period of time, Botswana has avoided squandering their resource wealth, which is diamonds. And South Africa does a pretty good job, but they still have high unemployment and need a broadening pattern of growth. There’s a lot of skill and expertise and knowing what you’re doing that goes into dealing with natural resource rents well. In some of the African countries, it’s going to take effective leadership and probably some international advice and expertise to make this all happen.

FP: This is different than your standard research report, because you’re actively going out and promoting it. You’re hoping that it’s going to have a real-world effect. What are you trying to do to get the lessons put into practice?

MS: This report is really more about a framework. How do the growth dynamics work, and what kind of policies tend to support it? When you get to the country level, it has to get very specific and depends entirely on history and the initial conditions and things like that. So, for a period of months, we’re going to go out and, having given people the chance to read the report, discuss it and debate it in various settings. And just do a good job of seeing it as an input rather than an output. It’s an occasion to have a discussion that may help focus the policy and priority-setting process in developing countries, and that would be a good thing.

Development on Offshore Cays — a continuing problem

Building Resorts on Offshore Cays

Posted by Bruce Potter on May 16, 2008 at 9:50pm

Article from the St. Thomas Source

CZM Approves Thatch Cay Development
by Pamela Reid Bussard

May 15, 2008 — In a landmark decision Tuesday evening, the Coastal Zone Management Committee approved residential development for Thatch Cay.
The development will provide for slightly more than 100 dwelling units, and includes infrastructure for water, power, waste disposal and other utilities and amenities.

[Here's an aerial picture of Thatch Cay, taken within the past couple of weeks -- St. Thomas in the background.

bp]
“The applicant’s objective, as described in the environmental-assessment report, is to develop … a world-class residential community on Thatch Cay,” the recommendation noted.

While most of the staff findings recommended approval without raising any objections, the recommendation did limit the developer only to the dock proposed for this development.

“Staff finds that it will be necessary to minimize any further alteration of the seabed surrounding Thatch Cay,” the report said. “As such, no additional docks will be permitted for any future development.”

The CZM made mention of its own limited ability to provide on-site monitoring of the development, and proposed a special condition requiring the developer to pay for an independent monitor that CZM will hire.

In its report, the staff recommended that the independent monitor “coordinate with CZM’s resource ecologist and all other pertinent DPNR staff.”

Local environmental advocates expressed a sense that this approval clears the way for the development of other outlying islands and cays.

“Unfortunately, this was the first time that a cay was approved for development,” said Jason Budsan of the Environment Association of St. Thomas-St. John, in an interview after the meeting. “It was good that the CZM board members put special conditions on the future development, but it is almost as if Pandora’s Box has been opened for future development of these extremely fragile remaining islands.”

While disappointed in the outcome, Budsan lauded the way the developers approached the community for comment and input.

“It would be a nice change to have the developers approach community groups for input prior to their submitting their Environmental Assessment Report for review by CZM so that the public at large will have a greater sense of input for future development,” Budsan said.

Without commenting before the creation of the EAR, public input in the application process is not part of the application’s record. Staff review is what generates stipulations and conditions like those set forth in this application.

For the CZM staff to be able to consider public input, it has to be submitted while the staff is still considering the developer’s submission, Budsan noted.

The developers went to considerable lengths to mitigate objections of community groups, including moving the dock at the suggestion of DPNR’s Fish and Wildlife Division.

While the application was approved, the 23 conditions placed on the development will require not only that the CZM make sure those conditions are met, but also that the public pay close attention.

The conditions include:

– The developer will have to develop a plan with the U.S. and V.I. Departments of Agriculture, as well as with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, to remove the feral goats on the cay. In addition, the developer must work with these same groups to develop a plan that addresses the introduction of domestic animals to the cay.

– The CZM will hire an independent monitor of the development at the applicant’s expense. The monitor will be guided by a monitoring plan.

– The applicant is responsible for payment of submerged land fees. These fees amount to $35,000 per year. No adjustments for inflation or other increases were noted in the staff recommendation.

– To minimize road traffic on St. Thomas, Crown Bay Dock — not Red Hook — will be the primary staging area for construction materials for the development, and constructions workers are to be shuttled to and from the cay from the Thatch Cay-owned Red Hook Marina.

– No topsoil will be transported to the cay for landscaping.

– The developer will incur all costs associated with solid-waste disposal, and the waste will go to the Bovoni Landfill. However, other than noting that waste would have to be removed by vessel, there was no mention of how the solid waste would be transported to the Bovoni Landfill, nor was there recommendation for after the landfill’s scheduled close.

– Mitigation measures to accommodate the tree boa snake will be coordinated with Fish and Wildlife.

– The applicant will maintain public access to the cay, specifying the manner and means of public access to it. A minimum of five public moorings will be installed.

The approval of the application sets forth a number of thresholds for the CZM and developers who wish to build on outlying islands and cays in the territory.

“Whether it is good or bad, you have set a precedent for future development of cays in the Virgin Islands,” Budsan said.

Tags: czm, stt, offshore cay, eco-tourism, caribbean, eia

Share

5 Comments

Comment by charles-Baptiste Gerard 23 hours ago

Very interesting project indeed. If you have more information about it, I’ll be happy to read it.

Comment by Bruce Potter 6 hours ago

So this from “a friend” in the US Virgin Islands:

this CZM approval (of 100 villas on Thatch Cay) is devastating. right now there are three major developments being proposed and going before CZM for the privately owned cays, Great St. James and two on Inner Brass. Mandahl Bay on the north coast of St. Thomas is up for marina development (to service Hans Lollick, another offshore cay ). A house construction was just approved for Inner Brass WITHOUT any review from any of the divisions in the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, because, as a single private residence, it was a “minor” permit.

We can kiss our offshore reserves and reefs goodbye. the inshore ones are already gone.

and then there was this note from our friend Jules in Barbados about the potential development of Culpepper Island, described in a blog, ASKING FOR YOUR INPUT, by Damon Copie at .

And if you want some more, there’s the new development (a “Balinese village”) proposed for Mosquito Island in Virgin Gorda Sound by Sir Richard Branson, who also owns another island in Virgin Gorda (Necker Cay) plus yet another “Balinese village” being proposed for yet ANOTHER island in AUSTRALIA, and the big Beef Island project (about 600 units, as I recall) currently in abeyance because the British Virgin Island courts want to know why permits were issued in spite of protected areas status of some of the development property.

I think maybe big investors should stick with yachts?

Comment by Bruce Potter 6 hours ago

Sorry — the previous post makes it look like Sir Richard Branson owns a proposed development on Beef Island in the British Virgin Islands — that one he does not own — not real sure these days who does own the Beef Island development which originally was proposed by a Hong Kong-based investor, but he may no longer be a major shareholder in the project, which has had a series of partners and development management companies.

Comment by Erle Frayne Argonza 1 hour ago

Interesting project! The regulalory standards seem really to be getting stricter by the year. But as you reported, there are still some loopholes, like some houses getting be built without approval. Hmmm we still get this kind of controversial loopholes here in the Philippines too (recently there was the building that a Korean firm built inside a restricted forest area in Subic Bay). It pays to be vigilant indeed to ensure quality standards in these kinds of development be met with high marks.

Comment by Bruce Potter just now

I disagree with the thrust of Erle Frayne Argonza’s post: the problem is NOT loopholes. I think that stricter standards are almost useless to control development because the governments and other authorities in charge are not able to adequately:
o assess proposals;
o set conditions on development proposals that satisfy the laws themselves;
o monitor the implementation and operation of the permitted development over sustained periods of construction and day-to-day operation;
o properly oversee the transfer of development constraints when properties are sold from one developer to a successor group; AND
o actually execute meaningful sanctions on developers and owners who DO violate development conditions.

In fact, my speculative belief these days is that the unforeseen consequence of more complex regulation in high pressure development zones (especially in small islands where my Foundation focuses) may favor large or rich developers. Regardless of the proximate or indirect causes, these failures of the ability to manage development are as common in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, as they are in the out islands of the Bahamas or Palau. One developer in Maryland for example built a 1200-square-meter house and faux lighthouse on a small island he owned in the Magothy river, and it seems the only sanction he suffered was a $5,000 fine and his legal costs. He probably would not have had that much opposition, except that the his island is very near Gibson Island, one of those places for the very old-rich in Maryland. We have a 12-year-old e-mail group that addresses some of these issues that you can join at -http://yahoogroups.com/group/island-eia/join- it’s free and spam free.

“Sandy Cay, Oh Sandy Cay . . . “

The following accounts taken from the press and program documents provide background on the latest phase of Island Resources Foundation’s eight-year engagement with the government and the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands. Although the actual transfer of Sandy Cay from Laurance Rockefeller to the BVI is a major step in this process, the Foundation will continue to be involved in maintenance and monitoring activities to be conducted through the BVI National Parks Trust or based on monitoring activities for the donor.

For a picture of Sandy Cay and scans of the official programme printed for the “Ceremony to mark the Official Transfer of Sandy Cay,” see our new blog page (under construction) at http://www.irf.org/wordpress.

“Oh Sandy Cay, Oh Sandy Cay, We’re Happy You’ve Come Back to We”

[excerpted from and expanding upon a news story by: BVI Platinum News at http://tinyurl.com/5w3y8n]
Friday, May 02, 2008

Sandy Cay is now in the hands of the British Virgin Islands Government and as best described in the words of a song written and composed by Teacher Lavern D. Blyden and sung by the elementary students of the Jost van Dyke School, “Oh Sandy Cay, oh Sandy Cay, we’re happy you’ve come back to we” (to the tune of O Tannenbaum).

The official signing and transfer ceremony of Sandy Cay was held at the Joseph Reynolds O’Neal Botanic Gardens on May 1, 2008 in the presence of Premier and Minister of Finance, the Honorable Ralph T. O’Neal, the Honorable Omar W. Hodge Minister of Natural Resources and Labour, the Honorable Alvin Christopher representative for the 2nd district and Minister of Natural Resources and Labour when the transfer was first proposed in 2003, Mr. Clayton W. Frye, Jr., executor of the Estate of Laurance S. Rockefeller, Mr. William Moody distinguished Fellow of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and residents of Jost Van Dyke, Virgin Gorda, Tortola.

The ceremony was chaired by Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour, Mr. Clyde Lettsome.

Delivering the opening remarks, the Honorable Alvin Christopher thanked the representatives of the Rockefeller estate for the gift and recalled when he learnt from Foxy that Green Cay was for sale and his successful endeavor to keep it in the hands of the people, as part of a larger plan to create a marine protected area that would include the cays and reefs to the north and east of Jost van Dyke, from Little Jost to Sandy Spit, Green Cay and Sandy Cay.

Also presenting remarks at the official signing over ceremony was Dr. Michael O’Neal, Chairman of the BVI National Parks Trust and President of the H. Lavity Stoutt Community College of the Virgin Islands and the Honorable Omar Hodge. Hon. Hodge in his remarks referred to the occasion as “A prodigal son comes home”. Hon. Hodge said “we have been talking about this for over 7 years and the donation is much much more than the transfer of land”. He said this transfer will have a lasting impact on the people of the BVI. He also added that he is pleased to announce the adoption of the protected area for recreation and fishing. Hon. Hodge thanked Mr. Wes Frye for the years of service to the project.

Mr. William Moody, former Program Officer and currently a Distinguished Fellow of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said he was glad to have worked on the 14-acre Island that Laurance Rockefeller loved, nurtured and owned for 50 years and expressed special thanks to Dr. Michael O’Neal and NPT staff Director Joseph Smith-Abbott, Deputy Director Ms. Esther Georges, Nancy Pascoe Woodruff, Planning Officer and others from the Trust for their commitment throughout the eight-year-long Rockefeller-funded technical assistance and capacity building program referred to as the Sandy Cay project.

The Sandy Cay project consisted of three phases between 2000 and 2008, planned and coordinated by Island Resources Foundation to ensure that the Government of the BVI, the National Parks Trust, and the associates of Laurance Rockefeller who administer the affairs of his estate, share a mutual understanding and commitment to fulfilling Mr. Rockefeller’s expectations that Sandy Cay would be maintained in perpetuity as a freely available, publicly accessible managed wilderness area. 
        
Two “heroes” of Caribbean Conservation, Laurance S. Rockefeller and Dr. Edward L. Towle, founder of Island Resources Foundation, who had partnered in many projects crucial to the development of a true local conservation conscience in the Caribbean over four decades were directly and intimately involved in the beginning of this project. Unfortunately both passed on before the transfer was completed, but the vision and commitment of both these important influences in the Virgin Islands– the fabulously rich entrepreneur with vision and a heart, and the genius with a vision and boundless energy to see it implemented — were recognized by several speakers in the course of the transfer ceremonies.

Some of the major products of the 8-year project are listed below, but it also should be noted that monitoring of the condition of the island and additional support to the Trust will be provided for several years by the Rockefeller Estate through Island Resources Foundation.

The Sandy Cay Project (2000-2008)

—         Ecosystem Characterization (2000 – 2001)
        Creation of an environmental profile of the Sandy Cay ecosystem by Island Resources Foundation.

—         Legal Environment for the BVI National Parks Trust (2002)
        An overview and assessment of the National, Regional and International Laws and Treaties Governing the Role of the British Virgin Islands National Parks Trust.

—         Legislative Review Process (2001 – 2007)
        Revision of the National Parks Ordinance of 1961 and the Marine Parks and Protected Areas Ordinance of 1979.

—        Management Planning (2001)
        The development of a Management Plan for Sandy Cay by Island Resources Foundation.

—         Environmental Impact Assessment for Rat Eradication Program, Sandy Cay, British Virgin Islands (2002)
        Documentation of the proposed effects, verified by subsequent project implementation and follow-up monitoring, of eradicating alien invasive rats then rampant on Sandy Cay.

—        Habitat Restoration (2002)
        Eradication of Black Rats (Rattus rattus) from Sandy Cay, BVI; and initiation of a long-term Monitoring Program, still ongoing.

—        Training (2002 & 2004)
        Training opportunities for National Parks Trust Board members and staff.

—        Sandy Cay User Guidelines (2004)
        Guidelines prepared at the request of the BVI Tourist Board and Film Commission. The Guidelines were specifically designed to assist the Tourist Board in providing better oversight of commercial filming and fashion photography at Sandy Cay.

—        Financial Management (2005)
        Development of Fiscal Management Guidelines for the National Parks Trust and completion of annual financial audits.

—        Policy Formulation (2006)
        Creation of a Board Operations Manual for guidance on the Trust’s governance process, including features unique under the new legislation and regulations.

—        Protected Area Planning Process (2004 – 2007)
        Revision of the 1981 and 1984 versions of the System Plan of Protected Areas for the BVI.

—        Updated Legislation (March 2006)
        Approval of the National Parks Trust Act Number 4 of 2006.

—        Management Planning (2007)
        Development of an Implementation Plan for the National Parks Act, No. 4 of 2006, and a site Management Plan for Sandy Cay by the BVI National Parks Trust.

—        BVI System Plan of Protected Areas (January 2008)
        Approval of the British Virgin Islands Protected Areas System Plan 2007 – 2017. This plan includes all 21 existing park sites and all the marine and terrestrial areas that are proposed as protected areas.

—        Updated Legislation (April 2008)
        Approval of the National Parks Trust Regulations 2008.

—        Four Decades of Site Maintenance and Environmental Monitoring at Sandy Cay, British Virgin Islands, 1968 – 2008
        A report by Jean Pierre Bacle and Judith Towle summarizing the historic pattern and activities of site maintenance and monitoring performed under the direction of Laurance Rockefeller, to serve as general guidance for future management of the Cay.

—        Transferal of Sandy Cay (May 1st 2008)
        Donation of Sandy Cay from the Estate of Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller to the BVI Government and the designation of the Cay as a protected area under the management of the BVI National Parks Trust.

Following the official signing, the Premier thanked Mr. Rockefeller for giving Sandy Cay back to the BVI and said that in years to come, the children and grandchildren and generations to come will thank their forefathers for the vision in preserving these parks. He asked the Ministers to ensure that Mr. Rockefeller’s wishes are well met in taking good care of the parks and that people can go and relax and enjoy the parks.

A painting of Sandy Cay by Virgin Islands artist Reuben Vanterpool was presented to the Rockefeller group from the Government and people of the British Virgin Islands in appreciation for the gift of this precious national resource.

The day after the transferal of Sandy Cay, a special trip to Sandy Cay was arranged by the National Parks Trust for the various parties to the transfer and the students of the Jost van Dyke school — many of whom had not previously been to the islet which is only a few hundred yards from Jost van Dyke.

- – - -

After 40-plus years working in internationally-supported development projects, I know that the two rarest and most necessary ingredients in this complex process are TIME and CONSISTENT support. Thanks to the skills, resources, and mutual confidence of the two principals (Laurance Rockefeller and Ed Towle) who began this conversation about the future of Sandy Cay in 2000, the project has achieved great benefits for the future of all conservation and natural resources management programs and projects in the Territory — just as they both knew would happen.

Thanks to all of our partners, colleagues and supporters for helping to make it possible.

Bruce Potter
Island Resources Foundation

Coastal Caribbean: Isleta, Puerto Rico

Took this picture last week, flying back to San Juan from Tortola.

Is this a tourism success, or what?