Measuring triage

New Zealand and the Australian states of New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania are all taking a potentially revolutionary approach to how they manage endangered species.  Using a system unique to the values and legal requirements of each, these four governments have built new tools to prioritize endangered species spending so they use money more cost-effectively.  The result of this explicit use of decision theory or 'decision science' is a different allocation of money among endangered species.  Those that are more unique, cheaper to save, more likely to respond to intervention, or whose conservation benefits more other species might all benefit from these systems.  However, the flip side that has opened these systems to criticism is that this represents explicit triage - letting species go extinct.  Professors Hugh Possingham and Stuart Pimm debate the issue here. 

I am firmly on the side of using decision science to make better decisions, particularly in the U.S.  The reality is that we already have an unconscious system of triage.  For example, there are more than 110 species that - for most of the last 20 years - have received average funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of less than 10 percent of recovered species in their same taxonomic group and each of these species have also been consistently reported as declining by the same agency.  That is probably an extremely low estimate of our current, somewhat accidental system of triage.  Approximately 10 percent of species I looked at are getting a pittance of funding and are consistently declining.

The advantage of the New Zealand and Australian systems is that these decisions are made explicitly those agencies may be doing less triage and when they are making choices to focus on other species, the reasons for doing so are clear.   

A Green Olive Branch on Endangered Species

The ESA's mixed record on wildlife restoration and its impact on business have made the law vulnerable to critics.

Published by: Wall Street Journal

By Timothy D. Male

Jan. 16, 2014 7:15 p.m. ET

The Endangered Species Act was signed in 1973 by a Republican president— Richard Nixon —and passed with the support of 99% of Congress. The goal was to protect America's special animals and plants no matter the cost, but the measure of the law's effectiveness depends on whether you're a glass half-full or half-empty person. Between 40%-50% of endangered species in the U.S. are improving or stable, but the others are moving toward extinction. While the law has driven the rebirth of 36 species, a similar number have disappeared. This mixed record on wildlife restoration—and the real and perceived impact it has on business—has turned the ESA into a partisan playing field.

Despite numerous attempts, no major revisions to the law have passed Congress in more than 25 years. Republican leaders in the House have said they would try to revise it again next year, but all indications are that this effort will be as doomed as earlier hyperpartisan proposals that suggested limiting wildlife protections if there is any economic cost.

This is unfortunate. If politicians and advocates on both sides are willing to compromise, there are many ways to make this law even more successful at restoring American wildlife, while minimizing costs to business and the economy. For example, in testimony to the House critics have heaped scorn on the ways the ESA empowers private citizens to use lawsuits to compel the government to protect species. Setting deadlines for agency decision-making—and allowing citizens to sue if the agency fails to meet a deadline—is necessary to make sure that potentially endangered species receive due consideration, especially because past administrations have flaunted those deadlines without judicial enforcement.

Still, critics are right that lawsuits are not the best way to prioritize species for protection. A better alternative is to rely on science to tell us which species are more distinctive, imperiled, critical to ecosystem health, or likely to benefit from the ESA. Listing decisions could be scheduled based on those criteria, but the ESA currently lacks a meaningful tool other than the courts to set up such a schedule.

Other tweaks could help with whether and how species are listed. While the ESA hasn't changed, other organizations have developed more sophisticated ways to categorize extinction risk. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the state of Florida, New Zealand and the nonprofit NatureServe have developed far more transparent and quantitative methods that use science to understand the differences between more and less threatened species. Meanwhile, the federal government still lacks clear and consistently applied definitions of the terms "threatened," "endangered" and "recovered" for the 1,500 listed species.

This is more than semantics. The lack of clarity creates a huge degree of frustration for state agencies and businesses affected by the ESA because they cannot predict how federal agencies will behave. It often appears that requirements change with agency personnel and on a case-by-case basis.

Establishing clearer definitions would greatly speed up decisions on whether and how to protect species. We need that faster process because scientists have already identified thousands that face some degree of extinction risk and aren't currently protected. Clear definitions would also create benchmarks for lowering protection levels from endangered to threatened to delisted. Such benchmarks would give more businesses and states an incentive to invest in conservation.

Efforts to restore or "recover" endangered species also need to be revamped. The federal government owns almost 30% of all U.S. land, and it is fair to expect that this should be managed for endangered species preservation and restoration. Unfortunately, when placing restrictions on projects, agencies often ask less of federal lands than private or state lands. That unequal treatment makes little sense. Most Americans would probably agree that the onus should be put on federal property whenever, all else being equal, there is a choice in where to pursue species restoration. 

Congressional action or a directive from Interior Secretary Sally Jewell could raise the standard on federal projects to a "net benefit" level requiring that federal projects leave species better off. While not a panacea, such a standard would incentivize agencies and businesses to invest in restoring habitat and species populations. Then they could "bank" those achievements in advance of future development projects that will harm species. 

Such initiatives have already paid dividends in California and Hawaii, where state laws have led to better conservation of listed species and the protection of more than one million acres—while creating a growing market in restoration credits for businesses. Recently announced efforts by the Obama administration to improve and expand similar policies across the country are a step in the right direction. 

These and many other ideas offer a blueprint to produce a new law that would yield more recovering species, while providing American businesses with greater regulatory predictability and smart ways to lower costs.

How many ESA-listed species have gone extinct

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects about 1,400 species of plant and animal.  PolitiFact did a nice review recently of a politician's claim that few full species recoveries have happened under the law.  True claim, but it hides the fact that around half of listed species are moving toward recovery.  But what about the flip side?  How many species have gone extinct? 

Fourteen species are identified as 'presumed extinct' by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their most recent report to Congress.  Another 10 species have already been taken off the endangered species list - i.e. they are formally extinct.  That makes 24 species being reported as extinct.  

In addition, there is a whole genus of Hawaiian snails - 42 species - whose status is hidden because they were all listed in 1981 as a single entity and continue to be reported that way even though they are unique species (a problem for another post).  How many of these are extinct?  The most recent 5-year status review for these species describes 13 species is this group as presumed extinct.  So that is 37 - 37 extinct species.

Also, scientists consider 11 more snail species to be alive even though they haven't been since since before 1981.   These extinctions are really not associated with the ESA -  most of them were probably extinct, sometimes decades, before they were added to the endangered species list in 1981.  That would be 48 species, but I wouldn't count these ones since scientists haven't called extinction on them yet. 

Hawaiian snails are a different and more beautiful beast than the common ones you might have in your garden. The 5-year status review is a worthwhile review of the plight of these beautiful, disappearing animals.  For example one species - Achatinella apexfulva - is down to only one snail left in captivity and none known in the wild.  Philosopher, Thom van Doreen has a nice post about this snail here. This may be the most endangered animal on the endangered species list yet it doesn't even get a mention in biennial agency reports. 

These are the 13 Hawaiian snail species that are apparently extinct (and the last time they were seen):

Achatinella lehuiensis	1922
Achatinella spaldingi	1938
Achatinella rosea	1949
Achatinella valida	1951
Achatinella elegans	1952
Achatinella vittata	1953
Achatinella juddii	1958
Achatinella caesia	1990
Achatinella thaanumi	rare since 1900
Achatinella juncea	unknown
Achatinella decora	unknown
Achatinella casta	unknown
Achatinella papyracea	unknown