Keeping CalPERS honest about its investment policy
Sonoma County deforestation project is not environmentally responsible.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System claims to make socially and environmentally responsible investments. CalPERS is one of the largest institutional investors in the world, and such a policy could make a difference. But is this policy being implemented?
The so-called “Preservation” Ranch project, funded by CalPERS, would permanently destroy almost 1700 acres of Sonoma County forest by converting the forest to vineyards. The widespread conversion of forests to vineyards is one of the major land-use problems in Sonoma County. It leads to serious and irreversible impacts of habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss, and water diversion and impairment. Preservation Ranch is a large example of what has become a trend. (See the video at YouTube, “Worse than a Clearcut”).
CalPERS’ review process for the funding of such projects is badly flawed. Such environmentally harmful projects get funding approval long before any real environmental review is done. The Environmental Impact Report for Preservation Ranch, for instance, has not yet been presented for public review, although funding for these and other vineyard investments by CalPERS began five years ago.
CalPERS has told the Sierra Club that Premier Pacific Vineyards (the project proponents) “has represented to us that it will adhere to all the regulatory and environmental requirements as they undertake the entitlement process for this project.” While the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does indeed provide that the environmental impacts of a project must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated, the CEQA process starts long after a project has been funded. When so much investment has occurred for so long before significant environmental review, it is very difficult for the plan to be substantially changed. Unless CalPERS requires a serious environmental assessment before funding such projects, it is in effect funding the entitlement-seeking process itself and at the same time betting upon its results. CalPERS should weigh environmental concerns in its initial analysis of investments.
CalPERS has also adopted policy statements on controlling greenhouse-gas emissions. The Sacramento Bee reports that Preservation Ranch claims “The entire [Preservation Ranch] property is expected to become ‘carbon neutral’ after 15 years, meaning the carbon dioxide absorbed by the renewed forest will exceed the carbon lost to vineyard development.” This claim hides the much larger carbon loss in the first 15 years. In contrast, California’s target is "to reduce greenhouse gases by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.” Preserving the existing forest acreage is the way to do that. CalPERS should be investing in forest carbon-sequestration efforts rather than deforestation.
What you can do. Express your concerns to the CalPERS Board of Administration by writing us at:
Sierra Club
P.O. Box 466
Santa Rosa, CA 95402.
We will deliver your message to CalPERs. Urge CalPERS to withdraw its financial support from the environmentally destructive Preservation Ranch project and to make environmental review an early and fundamental part of its process for project selection.
Concerning CalPERS' policies of making socially and environmentally responsible (ESG) investments, CalPERS states “We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes” (see: http://www.calpers-governance.org/principles/domestic/us/page08.asp). CalPERS (2006) has also signed on to the U.N. Principles for Responsible Investment (see http://www.unpri.org/principles/). “The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) provides the framework for investors to give appropriate consideration to environment, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues”.
The Redwood Chapter would like to congratulate CalPERS on formulating policies such as these, as they move in the right direction. But are CalPERS statements about socially responsible investments just idle feel-good politics or are they being implemented?
The point that the Redwood Chapter continues to make to CalPERS about projects like Preservation Ranch is that CalPERS’ review process for the funding of such projects is badly flawed. Such environmentally harmful projects get funding approval long before any real environmental review is done. The environmental impact report for Preservation Ranch, for instance, has not yet been presented for public review, although funding for these and other vineyard investments by CalPERS began five years ago.
Without requiring a serious environmental assessment before funding such projects, CalPERS is in effect funding the entitlement-seeking process itself and at the same time is betting upon its results, all the while those results are still unknown. That cannot be socially responsible, either towards CalPERS’ shareowners, since it is needlessly risky, or towards addressing environmental concerns.
Particularly, we do not think it is socially responsible when means do exist by which CalPERS could get a far better grip upon these issues. CalPERS could incorporate into its initial analysis of proposed projects an approach which weights various factors related to environmental concerns. CalPERS would then be working to ensuring that projects that are detrimental to the environment would not be facilitated with the retirement funds of State employees.
CalPERS has also adopted policy statements on controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (see http://www.calpers-governance.org/principles/domestic/us/page10.asp ). These include such principles as: “Emissions – As an important first step in addressing climate risk, companies should disclose their total greenhouse gas emissions. Investors can use this emissions data to help approximate the risk companies may face from future climate change regulations”.
Reportedly (Sacramento Bee, Aug. 5, 2007, “CalPERS vineyard venture attacked” , www.sacbee.com/378/story/309420-p2.html) “The entire [Preservation Ranch] property is expected to become ‘carbon neutral’ after 15 years, meaning the carbon dioxide absorbed by the renewed forest will exceed the carbon lost to vineyard development.” But what does this statement mean and where are Preservation Ranch’s disclosures of their projected carbon emissions? Has CalPERS encouraged Preservation Ranch to register with California’s Climate Action Registry (CCAR) (see: http://www.climateregistry.org/ ).
Recently, a carbon sequestration project conducted through the the Climate Action Registry, the van Eck Forest Project, which will be managed for sustainable forestry, was recognized by House Speaker Pelosi as advancing the goal of GHG reduction. That project is said to achieve GHG reduction by “protecting our existing forestland from further loss and by providing real, verifiable and permanent carbon reductions through the effective management of forests for climate benefits” [Emph. added] (Source: www.pacificforest.org/news/pelosi.html).
The van Eck forest is 2,100 acres, which is only about a quarter larger than the area which Preservation Ranch proposes to deforest. It is further reported that “As a result of Pacific Forest Trust’s forest management standards for carbon storage, 500,000 more tons of CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere than would otherwise occur over the next 100 years.” That will definitely not be the case for the 1600+ acres planned to be permanently deforested by Premier Pacific Vineyards. Those acres will be an absolute loss.
How well, then, does Preservation Ranch’s projected 15 year “carbon neutrality” after deforestation of some 1600+ acres, actually advance California’s and Governor Schwarzenegger’s target of reducing GHGs: “The goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020” [Emph. added] (Source: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/7220/) Surely preserving the existing forest acreage would advance that goal farther and faster. Why is CalPERS not investing in similar forest carbon sequestration efforts rather than deforestation projects?
Premier Pacific Vineyards has said that its plans for deforestation for vineyard development are the necessary “economic engines” of its forest restoration plans for the remainder of the property. Why are such engines necessary, though? There are other funds available for forest restoration, as the van Eck project shows - as does a recent acquisition by the Conservation Fund of approximately 16,000 acres of redwood and Douglas fir forest in Mendocino County.
CalPERS has said “... company managers want to adopt long-term strategies and visions, but often do not feel that their shareowners are patient enough.” (Source: http://www.calpers-governance.org/principles/domestic/us/page02.asp) Why can’t CalPERS adopt longer term strategies? How patient are CalPERS shareowners willing to be in the cause of forest restoration? The Preservation Ranch forests will recover to the point of sustainable logging returns in a few decades with only moderate forest management in the interim.
Read Everything
you always wanted to know about “Preservation” Ranch and
CalPERS but were afraid to ask
“Preservation" Ranch - grapes shouldn't replace trees.
The Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club has released a short video designed to educate the public and decision-makers about the proposed Preservation Ranch vineyard development project. The video is posted on the YouTube web site at the following URL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIrJRc4P94Q
The short video clip, “Worse than a Clearcut” is the first use of YouTube by the local Sierra Club to educate the public about the environmentally destructive Preservation Ranch project. The video highlights the role of CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, in facilitating this project through an investment of $200 million with Premier Pacific Vineyards. The video is also available at Google: click here;this file may be downloaded at Google as an MP4, for IPod or PSP.
A Flash version of the video can be found here.
Distribution of this short video clip through YouTube is one component of a wider public education campaign. Similar videos about Preservation Ranch will be distributed through other web sites, and on DVD in order to inform key decision-makers.
Preservation Ranch is the latest in a long series of environmental assaults on western Sonoma County forests. After years of environmentally destructive logging, Sonoma County forests now face the additional threat of permanent development and conversion to vineyards. Numerous western Sonoma County forest conversions have been approved in the past, but the Preservation Ranch proposal is more than twice as large as all previous proposed and approved conversions combined since 1989.
Soon after acquiring 19,000 acres of western Sonoma County, (an area almost twenty times larger than Golden Gate Park in San Francisco), Premier Pacific Vineyards announced the Preservation Ranch project. Important aspects of the proposed project appear to have changed over time, but recent proposals have included conversion of some portion of the 19,000 acres of forest to vineyards. The current proposal includes 1,665 acres of vineyard development, more than 200 acres of vineyard development on other land, and 90 “vineyard estates”. Beyond its 19,000 acres, Preservation Ranch will set a dangerous precedent of development for the rest of western Sonoma County and the North Coast.
Redwood Chapter Chair Margaret Pennington expressed confidence that public education can stop this destructive proposal. “The people of California care about protecting the environment. I don’t believe that the public employees who are members of CalPERS want their investment being used to permanently destroy California forests. This video is one important tool for getting the message to the larger community.”
Previous discussions between the Redwood Chapter and CalPERS concerning Preservation Ranch have been unfruitful. CalPERS has defended the Preservation Ranch project on the grounds that Preservation Ranch will comply with the state and local law. In response to this assertion, Jay Halcomb, the Chair of the Forest Protection Committee noted that, “Not everything that is legal is a good idea. Surely CalPERS has a higher environmental standard than the bare minimum required by law. CalPERS should demonstrate responsible environmental stewardship, not just what they can get away with legally.”
The CalPERS Board of Administration is found at: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/organization/board/home.xml
The Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club has 10,000 members in Sonoma, Mendocino, and other North Coast counties, 5,000 of whom live in Sonoma County. Opposition to the Preservation Ranch project follows an earlier successful campaign to establish some forest protections in the Sonoma County general Plan. For more information about the video or the ongoing forest protection campaign, please contact the following:
The latest news about the roughly 20,000 acre vineyard and residential development project in Western Sonoma County is that a project plan has been submitted to Sonoma County's Dept. of Permits and Resource Management and has been returned (temporarily) to the proposers for being incomplete. The project plan, which is funded by CalPERS and which is called by its proponents, “Preservation Ranch”, proposes to permanently convert 1,665 acres of forest and 207 acres of rangeland into sixteen ridge-top vineyards and to develop 90 units of residential housing on 270 acres in sparsely populated hills north and east of Annapolis, on lands which were previously over-logged.
Note that this project covers 19,000+ acres (roughly 30 sq. miles). At 30 sq. miles this involves an area of land larger than the size of Manhattan Island (23.1 sq. miles) or twice the size of Petaluma (14 sq. miles) or ¾ the size of Santa Rosa (40.4 sq. miles). Concerned citizens, please stay tuned and prepare to comment to your Supervisor when the project returns, as the project will require approval of rezoning by the Board and County expenditure will be required to support necessary infrastructure if the plan is approved. This audacious plan is said by its proponents, quite rightly, to be precedent-setting - as pressure continues to mount to convert Northern California's over-logged private forestlands to other forms of income. Although Sonoma County has plenty of acreage available for vineyards, speculators are now buying depleted forestlands rather than waiting until natural forest regrowth occurs. Last year more timber conversion applications were filed with the California Department of Forestry than in the past 10 years altogether, and Sonoma County recently passed (a too-weak) Timberland Ordinance to address this problem.
Grapes shouldn't replace trees. Besides loss of forest - which can never adequately be restored, once converted – these conversions pose grave dangers to our salmon streams, to the water table, to the forest habitat and wildlife, and to soils. Biologists and ecologists agree that conversion of forests to intensive agriculture causes fundamental changes in ecological and physical processes that maintain our wildlife and the beneficial qualities of water, land and air.
See also: Getting Plowed - Wine Comments by Doctor Vino |
