 |
TODAY Wednesday 2 July 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
newsroom
|
TODAY Wednesday 2 July 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
TODAY IN THE WORLD: Bothersome Science
The general pattern of environmental protection is for political institutions to follow (hesitatingly, incompletely, and imperfectly) the development of scientific knowledge. Evidence that first manifests itself in refereed journals -- freon destroys the ozone layer, carbon monoxide induces emphysema -- eventually informs policy. In regards to the Endangered Species Act, however, we're now witnessing a very public display of a reverse dynamic: politics has gotten way ahead of science, and the scientists are beginning to grumble.
The Endangered Species Act was signed into law by Richard Nixon 25 years ago. It compels the federal government to keep a list of species that are either "endangered" or "threatened." Once a species gets on the list, no one can undertake activities that increase the species' risk of extinction. Affirmative requirements are tougher and more elaborate for listed species that live on federal land or on land impacted by government activity, but the ESA does reach into private landholding practices, which is why it's become controversial.
Most real-estate developers don't like the ESA (most real-estate developers don't like any land use controls) and many developers make a habit of offering generous campaign contributions to political officeholders. Many officeholders, particularly from western states, have themselves made a fair amount of money from real estate, either through direct investments or through law practices that service developers. These shared interests are reinforced by shared patterns of recreation: the golf course and the marina are prime forums for contemporary American politics.
Because of the power of these interests, and because the Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies are incapable of literally following the burdensome mandates of the ESA, a middle ground was sought that would allow for both species protection and new development. The middle ground is called a Habitat Conservation Plan. A Habitat Conservation Plan lets a developer disturb a certain fraction of a threatened species' habitat in return for not disturbing (or even restoring) another fraction. Crucial to the attractiveness of such a Plan is the explicit federal assurance that if a developer adheres to the Plan he will incur no ESA liability at any time in the future (the "no regrets" clause).
Though they've been on the books for fifteen years, Habitat Conservation Plans have been a particular favorite of this Administration and its Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt early in his term decried the all-or-nothing enforcement policies on the ESA, and said he wanted to avoid "environmental train wrecks." To date, 212 HCPs have been approved and 200 more are under negotiation in 19 states. The most famous of the Habitat Conservation Plans is the one devised for San Diego County, where developers would be licensed to disrupt some of the habitat of an endangered bird (a gnatcatcher) if they would agree to buy additional habitat acreage that would be placed under conservation restrictions. HCPs sound like, and probably are, reasonable approaches to species protection on private lands -- there's nothing wrong with incentives for property owners to protect nature -- but there now emerges the possibility that all the win-win, private/public partnership talk has obscured some dubious assumptions about the science of species survival.
A recent (13 June) issue of Science highlights the problem. Ecologists and conservation biologists say that they are still learning about what is required for the survival of an endangered species in its natural habitat. The overall trend -- which will not make developers happy -- is to reveal that many species require more expansive undisturbed habitat than had heretofore been believed. More to the point, say these scientists, the Habitat Conservation Plan discussions tend to become political wrestling matches between developers and local enviros, and HCPs are being developed without the participation of scientists and without reference to the scientific literature. HCPs may sound good and reasonable, they say, but evidence mounts that, typically, they offer only illusory protections against species loss. Many ecologists believe that HCPs concede way too much by way of habitat fragmentation.
As if that weren't bad enough, yesterday we learn in The New York Times that the area where a species lives is frequently different from the area where that species first developed. It seems that the "edges" of rainforests -- the messy-looking places where savannahs meet woods in an irregular pattern -- serve as evolutionary nurseries. Dr. Thomas Smith of San Francisco State says "If we don't stop ignoring these transition areas, we may be preserving the pattern of biodiversity, but not the processes that produce it."
Oy. Sometimes, it seems, this ecology business gets harder and harder the more you know. Easy solutions are urged to apply.
TODAY ON THE SITE
For a lean-and-mean treatment of Biodiversity and American Public Opinion, check out our special report of the same name, found in the In The Trenches section.
This week's "Today" columns:
7/01: Forest for the Trees
6/30: Investing in PessimismTo access "Today" columns from previous weeks, click "Archives" below.