Report on the U.S. Endangered Species Act and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent critique by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum likened the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to “Hotel California,” suggesting that species, once listed, rarely achieve recovery. This report analyzes the effectiveness of the ESA, a cornerstone of U.S. conservation law, through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It examines the challenges and successes of the Act in contributing primarily to SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water), while also considering its intersection with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), and various economic and climate-related goals.

Analysis of Conservation Efficacy and SDG 15 (Life on Land)

The primary objective of the Endangered Species Act is to prevent extinctions and recover imperiled species, directly aligning with the targets of SDG 15 to halt biodiversity loss. Since its enactment in 1973, the Act has extended federal protection to over 2,370 species. However, its performance in achieving full recovery has been a subject of debate.

• Listing Statistics: Over 1,600 species are currently on the roster. An estimated 97% of species added to the list remain there.
• Recovery Rate: Only 54 species were delisted due to recovery between 1973 and 2021.
• Extinction Prevention: The Act has been highly successful in its primary goal of preventing extinction, with only 26 listed species having been declared extinct. This success is a critical contribution to SDG 15.

Despite its success in preventing extinctions, experts identify systemic issues that hinder species recovery, delaying progress on biodiversity targets.

1. Delayed Protection: Species are often not listed until their populations have reached critically low levels, making recovery a more difficult and prolonged process.
2. Insufficient Funding: According to analysis, federal funding on a per-species basis has substantially dropped, creating a scenario where agencies are asked “to do more and more with less and less.” This lack of financial commitment undermines the institutional capacity to achieve conservation goals.
3. Complex Threats: Recovery is complicated by multifaceted and persistent threats, including widespread habitat loss and the mounting impacts of climate change, which directly challenge the objectives of SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15.

Institutional Frameworks and Partnerships (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

The implementation of the ESA highlights challenges related to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The Act’s effectiveness is often inhibited by political instability and inadequate collaboration, particularly with the private sector. The Trump administration has frequently targeted the law, claiming it inhibits development and directing federal agencies to change regulations in ways that could weaken environmental reviews.

A significant challenge arises from the fact that a majority of endangered species rely on private lands for their habitat. This creates implementation difficulties and underscores the need for effective partnerships (SDG 17).

• Dependence on Private Land: Over two-thirds of listed species depend at least partially on private lands.
• Landowner Conflict: The Act’s regulations can be perceived as a detriment to landowners and businesses, creating conflict and discouraging cooperative conservation efforts.
• Perverse Incentives: In some cases, regulations have inadvertently incentivized landowners to destroy potential habitats to avoid future restrictions, as seen in a study on the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Experts argue for a shift towards more incentive-based models, such as tax benefits and conservation easements, to foster voluntary participation from private landowners. Such partnerships are crucial for creating sustainable conservation outcomes on a landscape scale.

Economic and Societal Contributions of Biodiversity (SDG 8 & SDG 12)

While critics argue that the ESA’s regulations inhibit economic growth (SDG 8), substantial evidence demonstrates that biodiversity protection provides significant economic and societal returns. Protecting ecosystems and species supports sustainable economic activities and provides invaluable services.

• Ecosystem Services: Coastal mangroves reduce storm-related property damage by over $65 billion annually, and insect pollination contributes an estimated $34 billion in value to U.S. agriculture each year.
• Sustainable Tourism: The endangered North Atlantic right whale generated an estimated $2.3 billion in the whale-watching industry and broader economy in a single year (2008).
• Resource Management: Protecting water flow for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow provides significant annual benefits to agriculture and municipal water users in Texas.
• Scientific Innovation: Biodiversity is a source of knowledge for human health. The anti-cancer compound paclitaxel, for example, was originally derived from the Pacific yew tree, highlighting the unknown potential lost with each extinction.

Conclusion: A Call for Sustained Commitment to Global Goals

The Endangered Species Act has been a critical tool for preventing extinctions, making a vital contribution to SDG 15. However, its limited success in species recovery is not an inherent failure of the law itself, but rather a result of systemic challenges, including chronic underfunding, political instability, and delayed intervention. The recent recovery of the Roanoke logperch, a result of three decades of collaborative effort, demonstrates that success is possible with sustained commitment.

Achieving the ambitious targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 14 and SDG 15, requires that the institutional framework for conservation be strengthened. This includes providing sufficient resources, fostering stable and science-based policies, and building robust partnerships with all stakeholders, especially private landowners. A consistent and well-funded commitment to biodiversity is essential for securing a sustainable future for both wildlife and humanity.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • This is the most central SDG addressed. The article revolves around the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), a law designed to protect imperiled species and their ecosystems. It discusses threats to biodiversity, including habitat loss from logging and urbanization, and conservation efforts for terrestrial species like the Humboldt marten, Florida panther, and red-cockaded woodpecker. The core debate is about the effectiveness of policies aimed at halting biodiversity loss and protecting threatened species.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article extends its discussion to aquatic species protected under the ESA. It explicitly mentions marine animals like the North Atlantic right whales and Steller sea lions, as well as freshwater species such as the Roanoke logperch and California tiger salamander. This connects the issues directly to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and freshwater resources.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article provides a detailed critique of the legal and institutional frameworks governing species protection. It examines the effectiveness of the ESA as a law and the performance of the institutions responsible for its implementation, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. Issues like “systemically low conservation funding,” political interference, administrative delays in listing species, and the highly litigated nature of the law all relate to the goal of building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article highlights the importance of collaboration among different stakeholders. It points out the challenges and necessity of engaging private landowners, as “more than two-thirds of species listed under the Endangered Species Act depend at least in part on private lands.” The successful recovery of the Roanoke logperch is cited as an example of an effective partnership between “federal agencies, local partners, landowners and conservationists,” underscoring the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation to achieve conservation goals.

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

1. 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 a commentary on this target. It discusses the primary goal of the ESA, which is to prevent extinctions. The statistic that “97 percent of species that are added to the endangered list remain there” is used to question the law’s effectiveness in recovering species, while the fact that “just 26 listed species have gone extinct” since the law’s passage is used to highlight its success in preventing extinctions.
2. Target 15.a: Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems.
   • The article identifies a lack of financial resources as a key failure point. It states that recovery delays are due to “systemically low conservation funding” and that “federal funding per species has dropped substantially” even as the number of listed species has risen. This directly addresses the need for adequate funding for conservation.
3. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts…
   • The mention of protections for the North Atlantic right whale, which involves “shipping and fishing restrictions,” and the recovery of the Roanoke logperch through habitat restoration like “removing obsolete dams” are concrete examples of actions taken to manage and protect aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of endangered species.
4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article critiques the institutional effectiveness of the bodies managing the ESA. It points to significant delays, noting that the process to list a species “frequently took several years” and that “Some listing decisions take more than a decade.” This inefficiency, coupled with funding cuts and layoffs of scientific staff, undermines the institutions’ ability to fulfill their mandate.
5. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
   • The article describes how “political flip-flopping” on conservation policy creates instability and hinders long-term recovery efforts. The statement, “If you’re lurching between administrations that care and administrations that are hostile, it’s going to be very hard to make progress,” directly speaks to the lack of policy coherence that undermines sustainable development.
6. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…
   • The article discusses the “private lands predicament” and the need for more incentives (“carrots”) to encourage cooperation from landowners. The successful delisting of the Roanoke logperch is attributed to a decades-long partnership involving “Federal agencies, local partners, landowners and conservationists,” serving as a model for this target.

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

1. Number of threatened species: The article states that “more than 1,600 species” are on the list and that over 2,370 have been listed since 1973. This serves as a baseline indicator for the scale of biodiversity at risk (relevant to Target 15.5).
2. Species recovery and extinction rates: Specific figures are provided that measure the effectiveness of conservation actions. The article notes that “only 54” species have recovered and been delisted, while “just 26 listed species have gone extinct.” These numbers are direct indicators of progress toward preventing extinction and promoting recovery (Target 15.5).
3. Population trends of specific species: The article uses the bald eagle as an example of a successful recovery, with its population increasing from “just 417 known nesting pairs” to “nearly 10,000 nesting pairs.” This type of data is a key indicator of the health of a species population (Target 15.5).
4. Level of conservation funding: While not providing exact figures, the article provides a clear qualitative indicator of financial support. It states that there is “systemically low conservation funding” and that “federal funding per species has dropped substantially,” indicating a negative trend in resource mobilization (Target 15.a).
5. Efficiency of institutional processes: The time it takes for a species to receive protection is used as an indicator of institutional performance. The article mentions that “Some listing decisions take more than a decade,” and 47 species have perished while awaiting a listing decision, indicating severe administrative delays (Target 16.6).

4. Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insideclimatenews.org