Attacking the act

Abstract

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is 30 years old this year, is no stranger to controversy. As one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation ever introduced in the US, it has been a battleground of conflicting interests almost since its inception. This year will be no different. Dr Sue Silver, Editor-in-Chief The aim of the ESA is to preserve the biological heritage of the US by protecting species in danger of extinction. To achieve this, it is also necessary to conserve the habitat in which the species is found, and to devise recovery plans to help restore viable population levels. When the act passed into law, President Nixon said, “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed”. Unfortunately, few people seem to have heard the muttered response, “Unless it happens to live on my land, or get in the way of my development plans”. Even supporters of the ESA recognize that it is by no means perfect. Getting a species listed as “protected” is a long, slow process, and because species are not included until they are in serious trouble, protected status often does not prevent them from disappearing. There are currently 986 species listed as endangered, with 276 more classed as threatened. Since 1973, only about 30 species have been removed from the list, and in seven cases this was because they became extinct (http://endangered.fws.gov). Furthermore, as Frontiers legal columnist Douglass Rohrman explains (p 107), the act has always been hampered by a lack of resources. However, the ESA's greatest weakness, according to some, is that it offers no incentive to private landowners to protect endangered species on their land, while at the same time preventing them from developing that land as they wish. There have been a number of attempts to “improve” the ESA, each calling for the same things – more consultations, more layers of bureaucracy, and more data collection before decisions are made. These demands for more data will simply result in species declining, often to the point of no return, while we study them. Now the ESA is about to come under renewed attack. Richard Pombo (R-CA), author of two previous bills to overhaul the ESA, has become Chair of the House Resources Committee. Pombo is a staunch supporter of private property rights and consequently is not a fan of the ESA, so these two subjects are likely to be at the top of his agenda. Pombo contends that, as a result of current ESA regulations, owners often destroy endangered species (or their habitat) for fear of losing control of their property. He wants to introduce a compensation package for landowners, to encourage them to host protected species, but also to lift restrictions on land use and destruction of habitat. However, since there is currently no evidence that the necessary funds exist to provide this compensation, landowners will gain while endangered species lose out. The scientific community, and even the lay public, recognize that the current rate of species extinctions, and the consequent loss of biodiversity, will have severe repercussions – if not for the current generation, then definitely for future ones. Whether one sees species extinctions purely in terms of lost ecosystem services, or from the moral perspective that we have a duty of care towards the living heritage we share the planet with, the end result is the same. Each attempt to improve the act forces scientists to argue against plans to further complicate and slow the listing process. If we truly wish to reduce extinction rates, changes to the legislation should aim to simplify procedures, speed up the listing process, and provide funding for the research necessary to begin turning the situation around. Perhaps in this particular instance Richard Pombo has a point. If funds could be made available to offer private landowners sufficient incentives to preserve endangered species on their property, then their elected representatives might find it easier to commit the necessary resources and design a more effective, proactive ESA.