| COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES |
 |
PHILOSOPHY HOME PAGE |
|
COLLOQUIUM CALENDAR |
|
COLLOQUIA & CONFERENCES
Marybeth Bauer Environmental Studies/Environmental Science and Policy University of Maryland January 14, 2005 Monday, 4:00pm-6:00pm Nursing 127 My presentation will illustrate my interest in research at the interface of multi-disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing environments -- prominently, philosophical, scientific, policy, economic, and educational. I will illustrate the importance (philosophical and practical) of such research by discussing my ongoing, collaborative project to reform federal policy for allocating funds to threatened and endangered species.(*) Philosophically, we argue that it would be unjustified for the federal government to rank species in order of funding priority based on their relative value. Instead, following our interpretation of an Endangered Species Act (Act) mandate, we recommend prioritizing species based on their potential to benefit from funding -- a strategy for getting the most gbang out of the federal buck h for the Act fs goals of species survival and recovery. The existing procedure for ranking species falls short of this mark. In early 2005, we will be meeting with federal agencies -- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -- to present an alternative approach that not only promises to make better use of limited federal funds for species conservation, but also raises interesting ethical questions concerning the value of species. For example, should spending reflect an emphasis on preventing the extinction of species or achieving their recovery? Should all actions necessary to prevent the extinction of the species with the highest extinction risk be funded, no matter how expensive, before allocating funds to the next highest priority? In addition to these philosophical dimensions and value-based analysis of the Endangered Species Act, our recommendations for revising federal endangered species allocation procedures are informed by conservation science. In particular, we urge the Service and NOAA to establish separate species priority ranking systems and budgets for extinction prevention actions and recovery actions. We argue that funding for recovery actions should be allocated on the basis of species f recovery potential, with greatest priority given to species that are most likely to make significant recovery progress as a result of funding. The Service and NOAA have established a procedure for assessing species f recovery potential, and we urge that it be revised to provide greater accuracy and precision. Our suggestions for revision are informed by our understanding of ecological and social factors that limit and enhance the recovery potential of species. (*) I am collaborating with two researchers at Environmental Defense: Michael Bean, J.D. (Chair, Wildlife Program) and Timothy Male, Ph.D. (Senior Ecologist). Environmental Defense is a non-governmental organization dedicated to developing and implementing interdisciplinary, socio-economically beneficial solutions to environmental problems.  |
|
Last updated 11/6/08 11:10 PM
•
burke@sc.edu
|
© 2006 University of South Carolina Board of Trustees |