Whither the Endangered Species Act? =
Protection is=20 good economics

Andrew = J.=20 Gunther

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Printable=20 Version=20
Email=20 This Article

3D. Main=20 Opinion Page
3D. Chronicle=20 Sunday Insight
3D. Chronicle=20 Campaigns

SF Chronicle Submissions
3D. Letters=20 to the Editor
3D. Open=20 Forum
3D. Sunday=20 = Insight

We're frequently told that the Endangered Species Act, a = cornerstone of=20 U.S. environmental law, must be "improved." At the heart of these=20 arguments are claims of economic damage, as critics agonize that = the=20 well-being of critters is placed above that of humans.=20

These criticisms arise from a limited understanding of both = endangered=20 species protection and economics. A key purpose of the ESA is to = enhance=20 our well-being, and in particular that of future generations. = Endangered=20 species, just as the famous canary in the coal mine, indicate the=20 degradation of ecosystems that contribute environmental goods and = services=20 to our economy.=20

These goods and services include clean air and water, crop = pollination,=20 water retention and flood control, soil formation and waste = assimilation.=20 Our economy depends upon these factors just as it does on fossil = fuels,=20 capital investment and labor. If we want a strong economy for = ourselves,=20 our children and grandchildren, it makes economic sense to protect = the=20 ecosystems that provide these valuable goods and services.=20

Unfortunately, the "cost" and "benefit" of endangered-species=20 protection often reflects what can be easily assigned a monetary = value.=20 The ability of our estuaries to absorb and degrade all of our = waste=20 discharges is of great value (imagine if all our waste just built = up). But=20 because it is difficult to give a monetary value to waste = assimilation,=20 this benefit is often overlooked when the "economics" of = environmental law=20 is debated.=20

This selective application of economic theory leads to analyses = that=20 give great weight to easily quantified costs (i.e., timber not = cut, the=20 cost of emission control equipment or the value of unsold water = "left" in=20 a river), but ignore the costs incurred if environmental = protections are=20 not provided (soil erosion, childhood asthma or damaged = fisheries). These=20 selective economic arguments can be made quite compelling, because = the=20 quantifiable costs are often borne by specific individuals or = corporations=20 in particular instances, while the hard-to-quantify (but no less = economic)=20 costs are borne by society as a whole (including future = generations) due=20 to the cumulative impact of the activities of all individuals or=20 corporations.=20

The recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment = sponsored by the=20 United Nations, has made the first global assessment of how the = loss of=20 ecosystem services such as water retention and purification is = adversely=20 affecting human well-being, and how poorly our present economic = markets=20 take such costs into account. For example, an analysis of = Mediterranean=20 forests has documented that the "market value" of timber and fuel = from=20 these ecosystems accounts for only one-third of their total = economic=20 value, with the balance being ecosystem goods and services such as = watershed protection or climate moderation. When the loss of these = goods=20 and services is considered, many nations commonly considered to be = growing=20 in wealth are actually getting poorer, the U.N. assessment found.=20

There is no doubt that the ESA produces economic hardship in = specific=20 cases, as individuals find they are no longer free to take actions = that=20 harm endangered species. These instances prompt claims that = implementing=20 the ESA is causing a "taking" of private property, with complaints = about=20 government intervention in our "free market" economy.=20

Yet, without government intervention, our economy polluted our = rivers,=20 poisoned our air, acidified our rainfall and poured untreated = waste into=20 our estuaries and coastal waters. Government intervention (such as = the=20 ESA) does not "take" private property; it simply represents the = public's=20 refusal to continue to subsidize private activities by allowing = the=20 destruction of public resources.=20

So next time you hear somebody talk about the economic impacts = of the=20 Endangered Species Act, remember the big picture. Protecting = endangered=20 species, and the ecosystems they represent, will keep our economy=20 productive now and in the future.=20

Andrew J. Gunther, Ph.D., is executive director of the = Center for=20 Ecosystem Management and Restoration in Oakland (http://www.cemar.org/). =

Page B - 9

OPEN FORUM

Whither the Endangered Species Act? = Protection is=20 good economics

Whither the Endangered Species Act? =
Protection is=20 good economics