Legal foundations of Development of conservation conservation - - PDF document

Legal foundations of conservation biology

Scientists typically shy away from involvement in law a policy formulations Conservation biology is different Good Science is needed, but insufficient to achieve the goals

• f conservation biology. Policy is an integral part of

Reed Noss (1993, former editor of the journal Conservation Biology): “I believe that conservation biologists have a responsibility to enter the policy arena and advocate both general principles and specific actions needed to conserve biodiversity.”

Development of conservation legislation in the US

1872 Yellowstone National Park 1891 forest reserve act 1916 Establishment of National Park Service These first laws were primarily designed to preserve natural resources (scenery and commodities). Protection was concerned about local threats and

• situations. Problems like habitat destruction, water

pollution, and species endangerment were considered local annoyances and not global threats.

Development of conservation legislation in the US

1872 Yellowstone National Park 1891 forest reserve act 1916 Establishment of National Park Service These first laws were primarily designed to preserve natural resources (scenery and commodities). Protection was concerned about local threats and

• situations. Problems like habitat destruction, water

pollution, and species endangerment were considered local annoyances and not global threats.

Rachel Carson. 1962

Global threats such as DDT

Lobbyists of the agricultural and pesticide industry successfully blocked the introduction of laws to reduce the use of DDT. 1968 Environmental Defense Fund attack problems using the public right of every citizen to a clean environment and scientific evidence. First success in banning DDT in Michigan. This lead to a national forum and a ban of DDT in the whole USA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969

Established environmental quality as a leading national priority Required that a detailed statement on the ecological consequences of planned actions to be written before action is taken. Required that an Environmental Impact Statement is written if the environmental assessment finds that the planned actions would have a significant impact Laws & Regulations

Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search: Advanced Search EPA Home > Laws & Regulations > Major Environmental Laws EPA Newsroom Browse EPA Topics Laws, Regulations & Dockets Where You Live Information Sources Educational Resources About EPA Programs Partnerships Business Opportunities Careers Recursos en español

Major Environmental Laws

More than a dozen major statutes or laws form the legal basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (More about the full text of these laws.) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. NEPA full text | More about NEPA Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act Public Law 106-40, Jan. 6, 1999; 42 U.S.C. 7412(r) Amendment to Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Factsheets and full text The Clean Air Act (CAA); 42 U.S.C. s/s 7401 et seq. (1970) CAA summary | CAA full text | Guide to the CAA | CAA - US Code The Clean Water Act (CWA); 33 U.S.C. ss/1251 et seq. (1977) CWA summary | CWA full text Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) 42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1980) CERCLA summary | CERCLA full text The Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA); 42 U.S.C. 11011 et seq. (1986) EPCRA summary | EPCRA full text The Endangered Species Act (ESA); 7 U.S.C. 136;16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. (1973) ESA summary | ESA full text

National Environment Policy Act (NEPA)

Lynton K. Caldwell drafted the law for NEPA: he demanded that a detailed statement must accompany “proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” The wording was positive and vague, and passed easily house and senate in 1969 and was signed into law 1970 by Nixon. The “detailed statement” on the ecological consequences of the action became the “teeth”

NEPA: detailed statement

environmental impact of the proposed action any adverse action that cannot be avoided alternatives to the proposed action relationship between local/short-term use of the environment and long-term use and protection of the environment. irreversible commitments of resources in case the action is implemented. the statement must be circulated among governmental agencies and the public (Non-governmental organizations, libraries, and private citizen groups)

categorically excluded (maintenance actions, repairs, etc.) EIS:Environmental Impact Statement FONSI: finding of no significant impact EA: Environmental Assessment Decision of planning an action Groups unsatisfied with FONSI can ask for court action ?

A federal action takes place on federal land (1/3 of the US) or

• n private or state land that

needs a federal permit.

Shortcomings of NEPA

NEPA uses as a unit the ecosystem, at the time it was drafted not much research on ecosystem management was done, which results in a procedural problem: a single agency is in control of the EIS Other stakeholders have a voice (but it is one way), the draft EIS can be disputed, discussed (, and corrected) Once a final EIS is drafted only litigation can change it. This diverts energy and money from non-governmental

• rganizations and agencies: scientists spend less time in the

field because the work needs to be litigation proof, ....

Endangered species act

See special lecture Influential in many ways: protection of large areas, polarization of stakeholders

Clean air/water acts

Air (1970) EPA sets air quality standards Regulates industrial pollution: pollution permits Water (1972) aspired to attain zero discharge of pollutants permit system and sets limits to tolerable pollution discharge

The Clear Skies Initiative. Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants -- nitrogen

• xides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury -- by 70 percent.

The initiative will improve air quality using a proven, market-based approach. Global Climate Change. Commits America to an aggressive strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years. The initiative also supports vital climate change research and ensures that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized. The Clear Skies Initiative Dramatically & Steadily Cuts Power Plant Emissions

• f Three of the Worst Air Pollutants:
• Cuts sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73

percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.

• Cuts emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67

percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.

• Cuts mercury emissions by 69 percent -- the first-

ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.

• The so-called "Clear Skies" initiative expands the

pollution trading system that results in some communities getting cleaner, but many communities losing out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more

• pollution. Why should some local communities be left

behind? And why should we wait so long?

• Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) is the major contributor acid

rain and soot. Clean Air Act programs could reduce SO2 pollution levels to 2 million tons by 2012. The Bush Administration plan weakens protections to allow 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010 – allowing a staggering 225 percent more SO2 pollution.

• Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog

that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 – effectively allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.

• Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people

and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power

• plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing

toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration’s plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 – allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution. 51.05 56.73 49.73 63.56 51.25 31.78 40.47 72.76 47.91 58.21

50 100 150 200 250

1990 Emissions 1996 Emissions 1999 Emissions Other Medical Waste Incinerators Municipal Waste Combustors Utility Coal Boilers

Mercury Emissions Have Dropped 45% Since 1990

Source: EPA

221 Tons 196 Tons 112 Tons Tons Per Year

1.6 4.9 (Gold mines, institutional boilers, chlorine production, hazardous waste incineration, etc.)

Mercury rules, study at odds

Feds dispute report funded by EPA that says tighter controls would benefit public health.

By Shankar Vedantam / Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff. What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co- authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion. That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule.

March 25th, 2005

International conservation laws

1937 IWC: international convention for the regulation of

whaling

1950 International convention for the protection of birds 1971 Convention on wetlands of international importance

(Ramsar agreement)

1973 CITES: convention on international trade of

endangered species

1982 Commission on conservation of antarctic marine living

resources.

1992 United nations conference on environment and

development (Rio Summit, Convention on biological diversity)

The Convention's mission is "the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world". The Convention uses a broad definition of the types of wetlands covered in its mission, including swamps and marshes, lakes and rivers, wet grasslands and peatlands, oases, estuaries, deltas and tidal flats, near-shore marine areas, mangroves and coral reefs, and human-made sites such as fish ponds, rice paddies, reservoirs, and salt pans. Designate at least one wetland that meets the criteria for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance ("Ramsar List") and ensure the maintenance of the ecological character of each of these "Ramsar Sites". Promote the wise use of all wetlands within their territory through their national land-use planning, including wetland conservation and management; Promote training in wetland research, management and wise use; Consult with other Parties about the implementation of the Convention, especially with regard to transfrontier wetlands, shared water systems, shared species, and development projects that may affect wetlands. More than 1,400 wetlands, covering more than 120 million hectares, have been included in the Ramsar List.

CITES

(the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between

• Governments. Its aim is to ensure that

international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

www.cites.org

CITES

Appendices I and II Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Appendix III: This Appendix contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade. Changes to Appendix III follow a distinct procedure from changes to Appendices I and II, as each Party’s is entitled to make unilateral amendments to it. The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices, according to the degree of protection they need.

CITES

Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Mammals 228 spp. + 21 sspp. + 13 popns 369 spp. + 34 sspp. + 14 popns 57 spp. + 11 sspp. Birds 146 spp. + 19 sspp. + 2 popns 1401 spp. + 8 sspp. + 1 popn 149 spp. Reptiles 67 spp. + 3 sspp. + 4 popns 508 spp. + 3 sspp. + 4 popns 25 spp. Amphibians 16 spp. 90 spp.

• Fish

9 spp. 68 spp.

• Invertebrates

63 spp. + 5 sspp. 2030 spp. + 1 ssp. 16 spp. Plants 298 spp. + 4 sspp. 28074 spp. + 3 sspp. + 6 popns 45 spp. + 1 ssp. + 2 popns Totals 827 spp. + 52 sspp. + 19 popns 32540 spp. + 49 sspp. + 25 popns 291 spp. + 12 sspp. + 2 popns