Study explores why the Endangered Species Act failed

Too little, too late: Study explores why Endangered Species Act fails

Since its passage in 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been the most powerful law in the United States to prevent species extinction and has served as a model for conservation policies in other countries.

However, its success in helping species recover leaves a lot to be desired.out more than a thousand Of the countries listed by ESA over the past 48 years, only 54 have recovered to the point where they no longer need protection.One new researchpublished in the journal PLOS ONE, examines why so few species have successfully recovered.

The study, led by Erich Eberhard of Columbia University’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology and co-authored by academics at Princeton University, paints a grim picture. They found that most species were not protected until their populations were extremely small, making their recovery prospects bleak.

“We found that the small population size at the time of listing, coupled with conservation delays and underfunding, continues to undermine one of the world’s strongest laws protecting biodiversity,” they wrote.

Of the thousands of species listed under the Endangered Species Act over the past 48 years, only 54 have recovered to the point where they no longer require protection. Image: Eberhard et al. 2022

These findings are especially newsworthy in light of the upcoming meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in December. The meeting aims to finalize a framework that will guide conservation efforts around the world through 2030.Earth is currently facing Accelerating the rate of extinctionthe expected loss is over a million species in the foreseeable future.

persistent mode

Small populations are more vulnerable to environmental and genetic threats and are therefore more likely to become extinct before conservation interventions restore the species to stable population sizes.

Evidence that species are not protected by ESA until populations become very small First reported in 1993when a study found that on average there are only 1,075 vertebrate species, 999 invertebrate species and 120 plant species remaining on the conservation list.

The new study repeats the approach of a 1993 study to determine whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has become more proactive about 30 years after it first brought attention to the issue. The team also looked at trends in species’ “waiting time” — the length of time between when a species is first identified as likely to need protection and when it actually receives ESA conservation status — and the funding used to list and restore species trend. endangered species.

Oriental Cougar (Puma concolor cougar) was removed from the Endangered Species Act in 2011, when it was officially declared extinct. It is now thought to be extinct before it was protected by ESA. photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

It turned out that the species’ population size at the time of listing did not change significantly between 1985-1991 and 1992-2020. The study also found long wait times before species are protected, further increasing the risk of extinction for species whose populations are already low or rapidly declining.

Funding restrictions don’t help. While funding allocations declined between 2010 and 2020, the number of species on the conservation list increased by more than 300% during this period. As a result, the study found that conservation funding per species has fallen by nearly 50 percent since 1985.

red knot (warm grey hair) was added to the threatened list in 2014 after decades of significant population decline.Image credit: Liang Dan/Princeton University

“With the number of endangered species and the threats they face multiplying, the unfortunate conclusion is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is being asked to do more with less,” Eberhard said.

The authors note that underfunding to protect threatened and endangered species has persisted for decades, regardless of which party is in power in the White House and Congress.

“Our research makes an important point: saving endangered species costs money – funding to identify which species are in distress and deserving special attention, funding to protect and restore habitat, and funding to eliminate other threats such as harmful invasive species ,” said co-author David Wilcove of Princeton University. “These endangered species cannot save themselves.”

As the CBD meeting approaches, the study authors hope that leaders in the United States and around the world will learn from these lessons to better protect and preserve globally endangered species.

“The U.S. leadership on this issue is tragic as we move into the next round of international talks on global biodiversity,” said co-author Andrew Dobson, from Princeton University. “Countries need to invest more in more money to save
Overall, threatened species and biodiversity can also act as a hedge against climate change and can create many other societal benefits, including jobs. “