----should establish a US National Biodiversity Strategy through an interagency biodiversity council

The science on the status and trends of biodiversity around the world has highlighted the crisis that nature and humanity face. Today, approximately one million species are at risk of extinction globally, the majority of land and seas have been significantly modified by human activity, populations of wild species continue to decline, and ecosystem services—from disease buffering to pollination—are at risk of loss (IPBES, ; WWF, ). The result is reflected in the recent review of progress toward achieving the 2020 Aichi Targets of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity—none of the targets were achieved and some have regressed (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ). Through the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. employs one of the world's most powerful laws for biodiversity conservation. The ESA aspires to support biodiversity by preventing extinction, recovering imperiled species, and protecting the ecosystems in which they live. Now 50 years old, the goals of the ESA have yet to be fulfilled: hundreds of species listed under the ESA continue to decline (Evans et al., ; Gratwicke et al., ; Malcom et al., ; Schwartz, ), and many hundreds of species not yet listed continue to decline to the point that ESA protections may be required. Despite being credited with preventing numerous extinctions (Gerber et al., ), the ESA is but a single law among many that expresses Congressional intent for protecting nature. While biodiversity protection benefits from high public support (Bruskotter et al., ; Burivalova et al., ; Pollack, ), a complex, and often contradictory policy landscape, the lack of coordination among agencies, and polarization of public perception about biodiversity conservation (Malcom & Li, ) all contribute to a general failure of the U.S. to enunciate a clear vision for the future of its biodiversity and demonstrate progress toward this goal. To end this, a national Strategy that reflects the plurality of values for biodiversity conservation and societal expectations of government programs on behalf of nature is warranted.

National-level decisions for addressing the biodiversity crisis also have global implications, particularly since the U.S. has important historical standing as a global leader in environmental protection. Whether it is direct intervention through providing resources and direction to curb wildlife trafficking (U.S. Congress, ) or participating in multilateral discussions and negotiations, U.S. actions carry weight and influence across the globe.

We propose a renewed call for a U.S. National Biodiversity Strategy (Strategy) to effectively demonstrate leadership in biodiversity conservation both domestically and abroad. The call for a national biodiversity policy goes back at least to the 1980s. In 1987, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment produced a report at the request of several Congressional committees, entitled Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity (U.S. Congress, ). The first options for Congressional action identified in this report—National Biodiversity legislation and a National Conservation Strategy—were incorporated into legislation (H.R.4335—100th Congress and H.R.1268—101st Congress National Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act). The legislation would have established biodiversity conservation as a national priority and proposed an interagency task force. The bill set forth the required contents of such a strategy, which were to be completed within 2 years of this Act's enactment (Blockstein, ). Secretary Babbitt's Secretarial Order 3173 in 1993 established a National Biological Survey (a federal agency) within the Dept of the Interior 1990s (Blockstein, ; Lubchenco, ; Reid, ).

As evidenced by the current extinction trends, the status quo is insufficient to address the scale of the crisis. The continued decline of nature in the U.S. may seem puzzling given that there are numerous laws and policies designed to protect biodiversity (Table , “+” effects). One explanation for the continued decline may be found in another myriad of laws authorizing actions that drive the main threats to biodiversity, such as land- and sea-use change (Table , “−” effects). Laws generally are designed to solve policy problems. Individual laws generally are not, by design, used to set a national policy direction across multiple domains. As such, laws may create a conflict with other societal goals. The consequence is that we have an implicit notion, mostly through the ESA but also through other laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, that we would like our government to strive hard to protect biodiversity. However, we do not have an explicit policy regarding what aspects of biodiversity take precedence over other societal goals. For example, how are we to find a balance between economic and biodiversity goals, or how do we address contradictions and heterogeneity of laws and policies across jurisdictions? The current policy context indicates that the U.S. has a responsibility gap between stated objectives and outcomes for nature and this is where a Strategy may lend clarity.

TABLE 1. An illustrative set of United States statutes that exemplify the far-reaching and variable impacts that legislation can have on biodiversity. Statutes are sorted into three categories (a–c) based on Congressional intent and design.

[Table 1 Ommitted]

2 A NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY

A Strategy represents an opportunity to situate the protection of our nation's biodiversity within the context of other national goals and aspirations (e.g., healthy communities, equitability, prosperity, security). On the international stage, 194 countries have developed at least one National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in accordance with their participation in CBD. Reviews of implemented plans applaud the ability of strategies to raise awareness about biodiversity, the threats to biodiversity, and actions needed to address threats (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., ; Swiderska, ; Whitehorn et al., ). New policies and laws on biodiversity have been introduced in some of these countries, and protected area networks expanded in response. In many cases, plans have helped to integrate biodiversity planning into other economic/policy sectors, particularly those that place direct pressure on biodiversity. Country-specific success stories call out the significance of financial and political support in providing security and longevity to investments in biodiversity mainstreaming, demonstrating the need for strategies to be accompanied by effective policy.

The importance of setting a Strategy and goals with high aspirations cannot be overstated. A salient example is when U.S. President Kennedy set the goal of putting people on the moon. Setting that goal led to a massive investment and mobilization of the nation's resources to accomplish the mission. Without the national goal, efforts would likely have been piecemeal, insufficient, or contradictory, hampering if not preventing success. A U.S. National Biodiversity Strategy would ensure that actions across government and among sectors are harmonized to safeguard efficient and effective efforts to achieve both biodiversity and social goals. A focus on endangered species conservation, for example, would yield different priorities than emphasizing the maintenance of ecosystem functions. Both are defensible goals, but lacking a national statement about our goals for biodiversity protection will make it very difficult to measure progress, evaluate the effectiveness of policy tools, or responsibly report current status and trends to the American people. Efforts such as the Biden administration's Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful (DOI et al., ) describe the challenge and a few needs, especially for area-based conservation, but they have not yet led to the necessary synthesis of biodiversity-focused goals nor do they outline how to achieve such goals.

2.1 Proposed process for creating a strategy

Establishment of an Executive Order establishing a task force represents one promising approach to the development of a National Biodiversity Strategy. An executive order would be consistent with legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, where a resolution calling for the creation of a Strategy has already been introduced (Neguse, ). The task force could be convened and coordinated by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and include as principals the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Commerce. Such representation is important given the leading roles each plays in actions affecting biodiversity conservation and its intersection with society, from land management to the effects of commerce on human health and well-being. Other Executive Branch departments would need to be involved from the start, such as the Department of Transportation (affecting habitat connectivity) or the Environmental Protection Agency (regulating pollution), given that the Strategy itself carries out specific actions. A scientific advisory panel and a stakeholder engagement strategy are also essential for creating a rigorous and inclusive Strategy.

A National Biodiversity Strategy is the kind of a document that would be delivered by an expert advisory panel overseen by the task force. A Strategy will need to be accompanied by effective policy. As such, it should elicit policies that departments and agencies would adopt. We suggest that a Strategy would provide policy guidance to improve benefits or reduce harms, and to identify whether and which new laws or policies may be needed to meet the national goals. For example, a Strategy may include a recognition that purchasing through government agencies has biodiversity impacts through the supply chain and request that all agencies conduct assessments of such impacts. We are not saying that the Strategy should say this, but this is an example of how we see a Strategy leading to policy, but not, by itself, be a policy.

While an Executive Order offers one promising approach to developing a Strategy, it is also possible that congressional action (e.g., amendments to existing legislation, new funding), may be more effective over the long-term. Congressional action would increase durability regardless of changing priorities of Federal agencies and political appointees in the Executive Branch. Of course, taking action to advance biodiversity protection does not need to wait until the Strategy is complete. A Strategy could codify the current aspirational goals such as protecting at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters for biodiversity and climate by 2030 (“30 × 30”; Biden, ; Dinerstein et al., ). Further, the initiating action could include directives that federal agencies shall use their authorities to advance conservation concurrently with their primary missions, extending a key policy embodied in the ESA that is focused solely on threatened and endangered species (Evansen et al., ; Hou, ; Ruhl, ). These goals and directives would by default be incorporated into the Strategy.

2.2 Key elements of a strategy

First, a Strategy should include a systematic accounting of current laws and policies with the greatest effect on biodiversity conservation. With multiple competing and conflicting statutory goals there is no clear guidance for how to harmonize those laws' goals, nor why they should be done. A national Strategy would provide policy and legislative guidance to improve benefits or reduce harms, and to identify whether and which new laws or policies may be needed to meet the national goals and implement the Strategy. The Strategy should also seek to strengthen the nation's leadership role in international conservation. This would include assessing and integrating the role of biodiversity in U.S. national security and foreign policy strategies, including international development policies, planning and finance, diplomatic dialogues, trade agreements, and advancing progress toward the “30 × 30” goal now adopted in the Global Biodiversity Framework (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ). Care should also be taken to integrate biodiversity and climate change policies and strategies, from involvement in the Paris Agreement to adaptation and mitigation strategies such as habitat corridor protections and biodiversity-sensitive renewable energy build-out.

Second, the Strategy should describe how to advance conservation in collaboration with diverse stakeholders and should promote equitable access to biodiversity and the benefits of nature. A long history of discrimination has led to clear patterns of injustice and inequity regarding access to nature (Cordell, ; Krymkowski et al., ; Theriault & Mowatt, ; Wolch et al., ). As nature-based experiences become increasingly rare among younger generations and underserved communities, our nation needs to address whether or not we find this acceptable. Social inequality in our exposure to, and valuation of, nature has broad implications for how we handle the biodiversity crisis. A Strategy offers a mechanism for all communities to realize the advantages of biodiversity, such as nature's benefits to people, and for improved coordination with—and ultimately investment in—private landowners in particular (Eichenwald et al., ).

Previous work outlines ways that countries can leverage public funds to help pay for voluntary conservation efforts on private lands and measures to help address the regulatory burden of protecting nature (Perino et al., ). Because current biodiversity conservation efforts often face strongest opposition from advocates of private property rights and opponents of environmental regulation, there is broad recognition of a need to simplify the burden of protecting nature on private lands.

Third, it is important to conduct a regular assessment of biodiversity, parallel to the quadrennial climate review to monitor trends. As noted above, with a few exceptions (e.g., birds) (Rosenberg et al., ), there is a dearth of information regarding the overall status and trends of biodiversity in the U.S., which is reflected by the fact there has not been a national assessment of any sort since the turn of the century (U.S. Geological Survey, ). The Biden administration has already announced several important building blocks that should help address this crisis in efforts to tackle the climate crisis (Biden, ) by leveraging nature's capacity to support the health, well-being, and economic security of all Americans. More specifically, the announcement to launch the first-ever National Nature Assessment by 2026 (Biden, ). Major opportunities lie in the potential for the assessment led by the U.S. Global Change Research Program to advance a national response to the biodiversity crisis. However, it is vulnerable to the same criticisms leveled at the National Climate assessment, including its aim to be policy relevant and not policy prescriptive (Carroll et al., ). Ideally, this assessment should make actionable and directly inform a science-driven, whole-of government approach to addressing the extinction crisis; this includes a focus on advancing current and new policy tools, improving coordination among existing authorities, and strengthening the U.S.'s leadership and commitment to the world.

Fourth, a Strategy should be comprehensive and broad. Biodiversity spans organizational ranges from genes to ecosystems. Biodiversity includes terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. However, a Strategy also interacts with other national priorities in important ways. For example, the Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversity on Federal Lands suggests that conservation of biological diversity requires comprehensive, coordinated interagency approaches to management programs, and that maintaining biological diversity should be an objective applied to all federal lands. More recent movement toward creating climate adaptation strategies would benefit from the clarity that a National Biodiversity Strategy could provide. For example, the current conflict within one environmental sector pushing for advancing clean energy through wind and solar projects with clear adverse biodiversity impacts.

Finally, a Strategy should aim to direct and encourage a culture of innovation for biodiversity conservation across multiple sectors of society. This could include the creation of an “Advanced Research Projects Agency for Biodiversity,” or similar body, akin to DARPA or ARPA-E, which are widely regarded as highly successful models of government helping to drive innovation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, ). Indeed, collaboration between governmental and non-governmental sectors will promote the sense of corporate responsibility that is rapidly emerging. For example, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Earth Day 2022 to guide the valuation of ecosystem and environmental services and nature assets in Federal regulatory decision-making (i.e., Natural Capital Accounts; Biden, ). Innovative financing and financial markets for biodiversity are promising approaches that measure and value biodiversity. A Strategy offers a necessary institutional structure that facilitates corporate disclosure on biodiversity impacts and dependencies and reports progress toward sustainable development goals. A federal program is needed to promote a Strategy and plainly clarify its societal benefits to the American people, reframing biodiversity as key to our social and economic systems and on par with economic, health and national security priorities. This should include how private and corporate entities can participate to further strategic goals (Barbier et al., ); and how local, state, and Tribal decisions feed into the process. Such a task force should align and develop objectives, discrete targets, and policy sideboards.