Private initiatives preserve species

Conservation of natural resources is better left to the private sector, according to a report published by the Reason Foundation.

Michael DeAlessi, Director of Natural Resources Policy, argues that American federal government oversight of environmental protection is ineffective for many reasons:

Federal regulations are more process-oriented than results-oriented; for example, the Endangered Species Act has recovered only 10 of 1,300 species over its 30-year life span.

Public ownership of land, such as National Parks, provides little incentive for individuals to care for it; indeed, one-third of American land is owned by the federal government, but much of it is deteriorating.

Special interest groups influence the policy-making process in order to create gains for themselves, often at the expense of other groups.

However, private initiatives make all groups better off. When property rights are well-defined, individuals are more likely to care for resources for a future return on their investment. For example:

Ducks Unlimited, a private organisation founded by California sportsmen in 1937, works to restore and improve wetlands to ensure continued populations of waterfowl for future hunting.

The Louisiana chapter of the Audubon Society earned almost one million dollars in the early 1980s by allowing oil and gas development on Rainey Sanctuary, a 26,000 acre nature preserve owned by the society.

Private initiatives show that economic development and habitat preservation can peacefully co-exist, says DeAlessi.

Source: Michael DeAlessi, Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve our Nation's Resources, Policy Study 328, Reason Foundation, January 2005.

For text: http://www.rppi.org/ps328.pdf

For more on Property Issues: Privatising Environmental Goods: http://eteam.ncpa.org/policy/Property_Issues/Privatizing_Environmental_Goods/

FMF Policy Bulletin/ 22 February 2005