Report on the U.S. Endangered Species Act “Blanket Rule” and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A significant policy debate is underway within the United States regarding the “blanket 4(d) rule” of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This rule, which dictates the level of protection for species classified as “threatened,” has direct implications for the nation’s ability to meet key environmental targets, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land), which calls for urgent action to halt biodiversity loss and protect threatened species.

Background of the “Blanket 4(d) Rule”

Purpose and Function

The “blanket 4(d) rule” was established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to manage a large backlog of at-risk species requiring protection. It functions by automatically extending the stringent protections afforded to “endangered” species to those listed as “threatened.” This practice was designed as an immediate conservation measure, directly addressing the urgency of SDG Target 15.5, which aims to protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.

Legal and Administrative Chronology

• Post-1973: The rule is implemented to streamline protections under the newly passed Endangered Species Act.
• 2019: The Trump administration rescinds the rule, requiring species-specific recovery plans before full protections are applied.
• 2024: The Biden administration reinstates the blanket rule.
• 2025: A federal lawsuit is filed by the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, arguing the rule is illegal and counterproductive.
• 2025: Following a change in administration, the FWS begins the process of rewriting the rule, with a replacement expected by late 2026.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Alignment with SDG Principles

Arguments in Favor of the Blanket Rule

Proponents argue the rule is a critical tool for achieving conservation goals aligned with SDG 15. Their position is based on the following points:

• Immediate Protection: The rule provides swift and comprehensive protection against “take”—defined as harassing, harming, killing, or degrading habitat. This is essential for fulfilling SDG Target 15.5 by preventing species from declining further toward extinction.
• Institutional Efficiency: For an agency like the FWS, which faces significant staffing shortages, the rule offers an efficient mechanism to protect numerous species. This relates to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which emphasizes the need for effective and capable government bodies.
• Precautionary Principle: It acts as a vital safeguard, buying time for the development of more comprehensive, long-term recovery strategies.

Arguments Against the Blanket Rule

Opponents contend that the rule’s broad application undermines other sustainable development principles, including SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Disincentivizing Partnerships: Critics, including PERC, argue that the rule discourages private landowners and other stakeholders from participating in voluntary conservation efforts due to fear of stringent government oversight. This hinders the public-private partnerships crucial for achieving SDG 17.
• Contradicting Conservation Goals: The policy may create “perverse incentives” for landowners to eliminate critical habitat to avoid regulation, an outcome that directly contradicts the objectives of SDG 15.
• Ineffective Outcomes: Opponents point to the FWS’s low success rate (3%) in delisting species as evidence that the blanket approach fosters regulatory inertia rather than active recovery. They advocate for tailored regulations, which they claim are more effective and foster greater collaboration.

Biodiversity Context and SDG 15 (Life on Land)

Species Classification Under the ESA

The ESA establishes two primary levels of protection, reflecting different degrees of risk to biodiversity:

• Endangered: A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (e.g., the black-footed ferret).
• Threatened: A species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (e.g., the grizzly bear).

Currently, the FWS monitors 1,651 animal species, with 1,219 listed as endangered and 378 as threatened, highlighting the scale of the conservation challenge related to SDG 15.

Future Outlook and Policy Implications

Regulatory Review Process

The future of species protection in the U.S. will be shaped by the ongoing regulatory review. This process, which involves public participation, reflects the principles of SDG Target 16.7 (responsive and inclusive decision-making).

1. An executive order has mandated a review of ESA regulations that may hinder economic development.
2. The Department of the Interior has ordered a formal reconsideration of the blanket rule.
3. A public comment period is anticipated to begin in early 2026.
4. A final draft of a new rule is scheduled for publication by October 31, 2026.

Conclusion: Balancing Conservation and Sustainable Development

The debate over the blanket rule encapsulates a core challenge of sustainable development: balancing the urgent need for biodiversity protection (SDG 15) with the promotion of effective institutions (SDG 16) and collaborative partnerships (SDG 17). The final policy decision will significantly influence the United States’ strategy for integrating ecosystem values into national planning and achieving its international conservation commitments.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 15: Life on Land

• The article’s central theme is the protection of terrestrial species, specifically those listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). It discusses the legal and administrative mechanisms for preventing species extinction and protecting biodiversity, which is the core mission of SDG 15. The debate over the “blanket rule” is a debate about the most effective strategy to “halt biodiversity loss” and “protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article delves into the functioning of a key government institution, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the legal framework (the ESA) it administers. It highlights challenges to the institution’s effectiveness, such as being “wobbly” and “losing about 40 percent of its workforce.” Furthermore, the lawsuit brought by various organizations and the subsequent policy reversals between different presidential administrations illustrate the processes of justice, governance, and the challenge of building “effective, accountable and transparent institutions.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.”
  • The entire article is about the methods used to protect threatened species like the grizzly bear, gray wolf, and greater sage grouse from becoming endangered and ultimately extinct. The debate over the “blanket rule” versus tailored recovery plans is a direct discussion of the actions needed to achieve this target. The article mentions threats like “habitat loss” and “habitat degradation” as key issues the ESA aims to address.
• Target 15.7: “Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna…”
  • This target is relevant through the ESA’s prohibition of “take,” which is defined in the article as including “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect.” The legal battle concerns the extent and application of these prohibitions to threatened species, which is a form of regulating and preventing the illegal or harmful killing and capture of protected wildlife.
• Target 15.9: “By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes…”
  • The conflict described in the article between species protection and economic activities such as “energy development, logging and other economic activity” exemplifies the challenge of this target. The article notes that the Trump administration reviewed ESA regulations that “hindered energy development,” highlighting the tension between development processes and integrating biodiversity values into national planning.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
  • The article describes a federal lawsuit brought by the “Property and Environment Research Center” and “Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation” to challenge a federal regulation. This is a clear example of stakeholders using the legal system and the rule of law to seek justice for their interests and hold a government agency accountable.
• Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”
  • The effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is a central point of contention. Opponents of the blanket rule argue it allows the FWS to “avoid its hard work” and contributes to a low “3-percent success rate at getting protected species off the endangered species list.” Proponents argue the rule is essential for the FWS to function, especially as it is “losing about 40 percent of its workforce.” This discussion directly addresses the capacity and effectiveness of the institution.
• Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”
  • The article mentions that the process to create a replacement rule will “trigger a public review process” with a “public comment period of at least 30 days.” This demonstrates a commitment to participatory decision-making. The lawsuit itself, involving different interest groups like PERC and the Center for Biological Diversity, shows various stakeholders participating in the policy-making process.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 15 Targets

• Population counts of specific species: The article provides numbers for the grizzly bear (“about 2,000 in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming”) and the black-footed ferret (“Approximately 400 exist today”). These numbers serve as direct indicators of the status of threatened and endangered species, relevant to Target 15.5.
• Number of species on protected lists: The article states that the FWS has “1,651 monitored animal species. Of those, 1,219 are endangered and 378 are threatened.” Changes in these numbers over time would be a key indicator for measuring biodiversity loss or recovery (Target 15.5).
• Species recovery/delisting rate: The article explicitly mentions a key performance indicator for the FWS: its “3-percent success rate at getting protected species off the endangered species list.” This is a direct measure of the effectiveness of conservation efforts aimed at preventing extinction (Target 15.5).

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• Institutional workforce capacity: The article states that the FWS is “losing about 40 percent of its workforce.” This percentage is a quantifiable indicator of the institution’s capacity and stability, which is crucial for its effectiveness as described in Target 16.6.
• Public participation in rulemaking: The mention of a planned “public comment period of at least 30 days” for the new rule is an indicator of a participatory and transparent decision-making process, relevant to Target 16.7.
• Use of legal systems for redress: The filing of a “federal lawsuit” by organizations to challenge a government rule is an indicator of access to justice and the functioning of the rule of law, as per Target 16.3.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mountainjournal.org