It is just not fair: the Endangered Species Act in the United States and Ontario

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The United States and the Canadian province of Ontario have enacted endangered species laws that regulate private land. The rationale for this is that the vast majority of endangered species in the two countries rely on private lands for survival. However, from a landowner perspective the law is deemed unfair. This paper presents analysis from 141 interviews with landowners in three U.S. states and Ontario. In recognition of distributive justice claims, both the U.S. government and the Ontario government have enacted programs aimed at increasing financial incentives for participation and compliance with the law. However, the law is still perceived as unfair. The central argument of this paper is that future amendments and new policies for endangered species should confront two other forms of environmental justice: procedural justice and justice-as-recognition. Landowners in both countries expressed not only concerns about compensation, but also a deep desire to be included in the protection and recovery process, as well as to be recognized by government and society as good stewards of the land. The paper concludes by stating that future policy amendments need to address justice-as-recognition if endangered species conservation on private lands is to be considered fair by landowners.

Exploring rural landowners’ willingness to protect species at risk in Prince Edward Island

“…The protection of most listed species on private land, therefore, relies on voluntary stewardship by private landowners. However, there are only a few studies documenting the willingness of landowners in Canada to carry out actions to benefit species at risk on their property (Olive 2011;Henderson et al 2014;Olive and McCune 2017). Such information is needed to guide the development of effective programs to encourage stewardship on private lands.…”

“…In Canada, the protection of species and their habitats is divided among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments (Bourdages and Labelle 2003;Olive 2014Olive , 2016. These different levels of government have committed to the development of complementary legislation and programs for their protection (Olive 2014;Government of Canada 2018b).…”

“…In Canada, the protection of species and their habitats is divided among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments (Bourdages and Labelle 2003;Olive 2014Olive , 2016. These different levels of government have committed to the development of complementary legislation and programs for their protection (Olive 2014;Government of Canada 2018b). While most provinces have developed their own legislation to protect species at risk, there are still four provinces that have no stand-alone legislation (Ecojustice 2012;Olive 2014Olive , 2015.…”

“…These different levels of government have committed to the development of complementary legislation and programs for their protection (Olive 2014;Government of Canada 2018b). While most provinces have developed their own legislation to protect species at risk, there are still four provinces that have no stand-alone legislation (Ecojustice 2012;Olive 2014Olive , 2015. These include the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island (PEI).…”

“…The committee seeks to assess wildlife resources, particularly endangered or threatened species, and species of special concern; analyze the effect of land use and environmental activities on wildlife and habitat; and make recommendations about conservation of wildlife and habitat (Government of Prince Edward Island 2015). However, the WCA does not require recovery planning and without a provincial list of species at risk there is currently limited protection in place (Ecojustice 2012;Olive 2014).…”