The Heritage Foundation's take on TESRA

In an attempt to give a balanced evaluation of Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (TESRA), I found an article from The Heritage Foundation which supported the bill. The full article is available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm861.cfm.

According to the article, the ESA “has helped rescue only 10 of the nearly 1,300 species that have been listed” in the last 30 years. In the meantime, the ESA has created “endless conflicts and litigation” between landowners and environmental groups.

The authors specified the weaknesses of the ESA include:
1. “vague classifications allow private property to be declared “critical habitats” almost arbitrarily, resulting in many use restrictions and seizures”
2. Changes in classification incorrectly moved some previously under-studied species from ‘unknown’ status to ‘stable’ status. These errors contributed to wrong decisions in delisting and undercut the necessary efforts in recovery.
3. Unclear definition between “threatened” and “endangered” species. This has caused problems in assigning the correct amount of effort in species protection and recovery.
4. Vague standard of “best available” scientific data, and non-transparency in listing decision making.
5. Created perverse incentive for landowner to destroy evidence and habitats of endangered species. Since the discovery of endangered species on private land “can lead to a government taking of that property… the threat of severe restrictions on land use prompts landowners to make their lands inhospitable to rare species”

The authors suggested that the TESRA will strengthen the ESA and encourage landowners to participate in conservation. They argued that the TESRA will:
· “clearly define the phrase “best available” data, creating more rigorous standards for scientific review”
· implement species recovery agreements with private landowners
· provide conservation aid that rewards environmental stewardship
· bring some transparency and certainty to the decision making process
· honor the public’s “right to know”
· compensate landowners of any lost uses of their properties fairly
· “replace the critical habitat program with a more integrated process that allows for species-specific approaches to establishing “take” prohibitions for threatened species”
· Respect the 5th Amendment right by better defining the word “harm” as “intentional act that causes the death or physical injury of a threatened species”

In conclusion, the authors stated that the TESRA will correct the flaws of the ESA, strengthen scientific standards, and delegate decision making to state and local governments. As a result, the endangered species will be better protected while property rights can be honored.

Apparently, both the for-protection groups and the for-property-rights groups acknowledged that the ESA can be improved. However, the tricky part is to determine how to make the improvements.

I believe that the incentive program will work only if the ‘rewards’ from protection is higher than the financial benefits from development (assuming that the landowner is indifferent in species protection). In this case, does the value of an endangered species boil down to the regional opportunity cost of development? Will a species’ worth change based on the economic condition and its preferred habitat? In the end, does science play any role in determining species protection at all?