The economic analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species Act - Term Paper Example

In 1973, the United s Congress enacted a measure to protect threatened species and their habitat signed into law by President Richard Nixon Overview The Endangered Species Act provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants that we deem as threatened or endangered in the United States. Therefore, the following provisions, made for listing species as well as for the recovery plans and the designation of critical habitats for specific listed species. When taking actions the "Act" outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow that may further jeopardize listed species, which contains exceptions and exemptions. The term "CITES" the most common term for (ESA) or the Endangered Species Act this is the enabling legislation for the convention on international trade in said endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Violations of the Act provide criminal and civil penalties for the convention (ESA). The complete extension of some animal species and the disappearance of others led up to the wildlife conservation act that injected seamlessly into the publics conscious followed by the laws. Over the years, the structure of the act evolves to contain additional exception and exemptions. However, the overall objectives remain the same to protect the many species and consequential ecosystems that inhabit and make up this earth. An overview of the objectives and structure of the Endangered Species Act provides a very detailed and broad protection for many of the colorful species that inhabit this Earth. Wildlife and plants when listed as endangered fall under the net of this protection outlining procedures that federal agencies should follow and adhere to if there is the slightest chance the species are jeopardized. Not only does the Endangered Species Act of 1973, written by a team of lawyers and scientist and written into law by President Nixon, protects endangered species it also provides security for their "ecosystems upon which they depend" as well. The Endangered Species Act enables legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly known as CITES. Criminal and civil penalties provide for the violations of the Act and the Convention. Two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are in charge of administrating the act. The (FWS) has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species are under the (NOAA) who handle marine species. Species that occur in both habitats (e.g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon) jointly managed by the FWS and the NOAA. Is the preservation of species, in any sense, a "public good?" In this authors opinion, the answer is yes. First, we should roughly define what a "Public Good" suggests. Our understanding of a public good is something that could be defined as free or to be more specific something that belongs to everyone. When we labeled something as a public good, that is to say that its impact has a positive effect on those concerned. further, we can say that it has not only an effect on those concerned but plays a critical role in our understanding the government body on what the definition of appropriation of said Public Good, in this case species and an ecosystem and how it plays a critical role to the survival of the whole . What does this mean and why is this important? The wildlife and the subsequent ecosystems that fall under the ESA are common property rights and common rights essentially that they are free from corporate, individual and Government appropriations. This may be a contradiction in terms as we discuss government regulation and the reason it plays a crucial role on environmental impacts. Consider this analogy, for example, that the act or consumption of one person does not limit or prohibit the use by another would be consider a "Public Good". If we consider the ESA efforts, we come to see as the stoic so gracefully taught the citizens the need to consider the whole as opposed to focusing on the sum of its parts. The ESAs primary goal is to prevent the extinction of imperiled plant and animal life, and secondly, to recover and maintain those populations by removing or lessening threats to their survival. Wildlife or let just be more specific, life in general should be the concern of all living things and further the right to life should not be subjected to the appropriation of individuals who believe their needs are more important than the needs of life itself. The ESA has played a critical role in protecting and lessening the threats on wildlife and their inhabitants. This helps to increasing our understanding, for decades to come, what "Public Good" means. Are there reasons to believe that this represents a case of "market failure" that requires some form of government regulation? What are these reasons? Enacted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") was supposed to bring species back from the brink of extinction. Whether or not that has happened over last 30 years is up for debate. If we argue that, fewer than thirty of over 1,000 domestic species have taken off the endangered and threatened species lists. Of these, more species become delisted, because of extinction than because of recovery due to the ESAs protections. One problem is that regulatory protection for endangered species discourages habitat conservation on private land. Stringent land-use restrictions make ownership of endangered species habitats a liability instead of an asset. The presence of a listed species can freeze the use of private land, barring everything from home construction and timber cutting to farming and clearing firebreaks. Faced with this risk, landowners respond accordingly. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that landowners preemptively destroy potential habitat rather than risk federal regulation. Nevertheless, is that to suggest more Government Regulation? Will this help improve todays environmental programs? There has indeed been substantial environmental progress over the past several decades but, there certainly are deficiencies and those deficiencies are not necessarily calling out for more government control but perhaps reform that society can fix through further centralized environmental regulations. The existing environmental programs impose substantial costs on the American people, and they have played a mitigating role in producing environmental benefits and generating positive gains. What form does the regulation take under the Endangered Species Act? It is critical to understand how they handle decisions of which species they add to this list under the ESA. If a species has protection under the (ESA), the species must meet one of five criteria criterion. First, the species animal or plant must be threatening destruction, curtailment, or modification of the habitat or the environment. Second, the over utilization for recreational, scientific, educational purposes or commercialization must exist. Third, the animal or plant must show signs of declining in numbers due to disease or predation. Fourth, the animal or plant must show any inadequacy through the existing of any regulatory mechanisms. Fifth, a presence of other natural or manmade factors affects the continued existence of the plant or animal facing distinction. These facts after first review and a petition to list a species, goes to the two federal agencies take the following steps, or rulemaking procedures. After each step, they publish it in the Federal Register, the US governments official journal of proposed or adopted rules and regulations. The next step involves a petition that files with an agency that presents information that the species is imperiled. A screening period of 90 days begins. If the petition does not present substantial information to support the listing, they deny it. The next step includes the finding of information is substantial, a status review begins which is total comprehensive assessment of a species biological status and threats, with a result of: "warranted", "not warranted," or "warranted but precluded". If a finding of not warranted", the listing process is over. If the finding is one of warranted the agencies publishes a comprehensive 12-month finding report within one year of the date of said petition. They propose a list the species as threatened or endangered. Comments go out. Solicitation from the public begins and one or more public hearings scheduled. Three expert opinions from appropriate and independent specialists if included, it takes three expert opinions from an independent specialist. A "warranted but precluded" finding is automatically recycled back through the twelve-month process indefinitely until either a result of "not warranted" or "warranted" is determined. The agencies monitor the status of any "warranted but precluded" species (Pourney). Essentially the "warranted but precluded" finding is a deferral added by the 1982 amendment to the ESA. It means other; higher-priority actions will take precedence. For example, an emergency listing of a rare plant growing in a wetland can overturn the schedule to read "higher-priority." A final rule must be determined in a one-year period on whether to list the species. The final rule time limit to the listings then grouped together according to similar geography, threats, habitat, and taxonomy. The costs of species preservation divided fairly among the agencies. Statistics prove that the endangered species conservation in the United States has fallen short of the original goal. Only about eight species have recovered since the laws inception in 1973 (Stroup 1995). The species listed number well over 1,000, and thousands more wait listing in the near future. The ESA does not accomplish its goal very well; it prevents the endangerment of susceptible species, nor does it effectively recover species facing extinction. What kinds of incentives does the Act create for individual decisions affecting the preservation of the designated species? Incentives could be an important and effective resource in Americas effort to preserve biodiversity. Landowners would have something to gain and less to lose by harboring endangered species and improving their habitat. A well-rounded incentive approach would integrate the various incentives available, so that landowners could receive multiple benefits from conservation activities on their lands. Any one incentive would most likely cover few of the costs of preserving endangered species habitat, but several incentives could recover a substantial portion of losses (Reid, 1993). Incentives could work effectively if in addition to this government could impose penalties for degrading endangered species habitat. Incentives could roughly double the reward for conserving (compared to not conserving). Keeping the jail terms and fines for illegal activities on public lands would be a good idea as they would be relatively easy to enforce, and would constitute a clear violation of public will (Reid, 1993). Are there any perverse incentives in this measure? The legislation necessary to implement such a plan could be huge. A wise approach would be making the current law applicable to federal lands only. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be in charge of conservation of these lands, which it has in general done a good job of (Reid 1993). A new entity that creates the protection of endangered species on private lands may serve to be helpful. If the division of the Fish and Wildlife Service develops an entirely new agency, if added to assist in the effort, this may be a possible solution. To date the only requirement is that this bureau; devote its entire attention to conservation of private lands (Rohlf, 1994). Would you suggest any sorts of reform of revisions to Endangered Species Act? Whether organized around a profit-seeking or nonprofit undertaking, wherever we have exclusive private ownership there are incentives for the private owners to preserve the resource. Private ownership allows the owner to capture the full capital value of the resource, and self-interest and economic incentive drive the owner to maintain its long-term capital value (Merrill).  Policy revolutions are not made overnight therefore reforming environmental policy is never easy. Helping to guiding reform efforts and avoid some of the pitfalls by adhering to sets of principles and cul-de-sacs that can derail promising policy changes. These principles environmental speaking boil down to decentralizing decision-making. Reduce government interventions that distort economic and environmental decision-making or subsidize environmental harm. If government can promote technological development and wealth creation by further developing and expanding property rights into environmental resources. If some how they can hold private parties accountable for the environmental harms, they cause. Making ecological innovations possible with a decentralized decision-making approach; keeping in mind that not every principle will be applicable in every environmental policy context. Yet together they represent a new science of environmental protection that can lead to greater environmental progress in the years to come (Gattuso). **Use the following website to answer last question: http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/freegreentext.htm References: ESA. Endangered Species Act. Retrieved April 26, 2011: http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/esa.html Gattuso Dana J., Revitalizing Urban America: Cleaning up Brownfields (Competitive Enterprise Institute 2000) (describing the Brownfield phenomenon). 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (2000). Merrill, T. (1999). Where such solutions are impracticable, reliance on a "golden rule" for resolving interstate externality problems seems advisable. Golden Rules for Transboundary Pollution, 44 Duke L.J. 931 (1997). Pourney, Paul R. EPA and the Evolution of Federal Regulation, in Public Policies for Environmental Protection 16 (Paul R. Portney & Robert N. Stavins eds., 2d ed. 2000). Litigation Essentials: https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDispla y&crawlid=one&doc. Retrieved April 26, 2011. Type=cite&docid=seven+N.Y.U. +Envtl.+L.J.+246&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=154f48e 1f10dbc0038a40490840c7a36 Rohlf, Daniel J. 1994. "Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesnt Work-- and What to Do About it." Chap 7 in R. Edward Grumbine, ed., Environmental Policy and Biodiversity, 181-200. Washington, D.C.: Island Press Stroup, Richard L. 1995. The Endangered Species Act: Making Innocent Species the Enemy. Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research Center. Smith, Robert. Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife, 1 Cato J. 439, 456 (1981). Additional websites http://volokh.com/posts/1236182374.shtml http://www.jstor.org/pss/1057472 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/narj15&div= 61&id=&page= Read More