Models for State Programs for Biodiversity

• Author: Robert B. McKinstry, Jr./Coreen Ripp/Emily Lisy
• Pages: 47-50

Part III

Models for State Programs for

Biodiversity

Despite the U.S. failure to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD)1or to develop a comprehensive national strategy for

biodiversity conservation, many states, working with local governments and

conservation organizations, have stepped into the breach to develop and im-

plement integrated programs for biodiversity conservation that incorporate

the measures called for by the CBD. These programs, the challenges in de-

veloping and implementing them, and the elements of successful state pro-

grams are the focus of this book. Part III begins the analysis of these pro-

grams by examining some of the significant state efforts to implement state-

wide programs for biodiversity conservation.

In Chapter 5, Sue George2provides an overview of the states’ role in de-

veloping biodiversity programs. The authority to protect wildlife and habitat

at the state level is created by three main sources. The U.S. Constitution and

the common law give primary responsibility for the management and pro-

tection of wildlife to the states. The second source of state authority for man-

aging biodiversity conservation arises from the large amount of state-owned

land in many states, which gives states both an opportunity and the responsi-

bility to protect wildlife and habitat found in these lands. Third, land use

planning at the state and local level is particularly important for meeting the

goal of biodiversity conservation through the protection of wildlife habitat.

Despite the importance of biodiversity conservation, efforts to achieve

this goal are often halted as a result of inadequate funding to plan and imple-

ment strategies for the protection of biodiversity.3However,the State Wild-

47

1. Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations Conference on the

Environment and Development, opened for signature June 5, 1992, U.N.

Doc. DPI/1307, reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 818 (1992), available at http://www.

biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp (last visited May 25, 2005).

2. Field Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife.

3. A study conducted by the Defenders of Wildlife in 2000 found that lack of

funding and lack of political support presented the most significant roadblocks

to protecting biodiversity and wildlife habitat at the state level. Linda Breggin

& Susan George, Planning for Biodiversity: Sources of Authority in State Land

Use Laws,22Va. Envtl. L.J. 81 (2003).