1 Auditing Biodiversity at the United States General Accounting OfficeINTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing Brasilia, Brazil – June 2004

2 Biodiversity Biodiversity reflects the “web” of life—everything is interrelated Use this frame to justify why we think auditing biodiversity related programs is important Biodiversity is the sum of all the different kinds of organisms inhabiting a particular region. We depend on biodiversity for virtually everything we need to live—food, energy, shelter, and water. Biodiversity is also important to us for ethical and aesthetic reasons. Despite its importance, biodiversity is threatened on every continent and in every country, largely as a result of human activity. The most serious threats are the loss of habitat through fragmentation, degradation, or destruction. Loss of forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and other ecosystems translates to the potential loss of the thousands, or even millions, of individual species that depend on these habitats.

3 Endangered Species in the U.S.Primary federal law protecting species, the Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973 519 animals and 746 plants in the U.S. protected under the act Hundreds of millions of dollars spent by federal and state governments in the U.S. on species protection Additional federal laws protect other species Considerable controversy surrounds the protection of endangered species because implementation of the Act affects economic activities Primary protections afforded by the ESA are: (1)prohibit individuals, corporations, and state/local governments from harassing, harming, wounding, killing, trapping or capturing protected species. (2) ensure that activities carried out by the U.S. federal government—such as road building—do not jeopardize the continued existence of any protected species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of certain specified habitat determined to be critical to the species continued existence. The most comprehensive dollar figure is $610 million spent by federal and state governments in FY 2000 (most recent data available). FY 1999=514 million; FY 98=454 million. FY total=1.6 billion. This only includes expenditures that are reasonably identifiable for a specific federally listed species. Thus, it does not include all act-related expenditures nor does it include expenditures on state listed species that are not also federally listed. In FY 2003 the FWS budget for endangered species is approximately $126 million Laws protecting species include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act , the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of Laws protecting ecosystems upon which species depend include the Clean Water Act which protects wetlands, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act of 1964. Economic activities affected include logging, grazing, development, electricity generation (dams)

4 Endangered Species in the U.S.--Map of the U.S. identifying the number of listed species by state. Almost all states (45) have an endangered species acts. 32 only provide a mechanism for listing and prohibit taking of or trafficking in listed species. The remaining 13 also have a recovery or consultation component. --The Biodiversity hotspots in the US (in red) are California, Hawaii (Polynesia) and the Caribbean (including Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The term “biodiversity hotspot was first used by British ecologist Norman Myers in 1988 to designate areas in which there is a disproportionate number of endemic species (species that are found nowhere else) and which are losing habitat at a high rate.

5 Challenges to Auditing BiodiversityAuditing biodiversity presents special challenges: It takes considerable time for scientists to fully understand species’ behavior and habitat needs As a result, government decisions are often made in the face of scientific uncertainty In addition, the full implications of these government decisions are often not known for many years As a result, it is difficult for auditors to measure the soundness and results of agency decisions in the short term Research can take decades to complete. For example, actions to recover the desert tortoise in the S.W. United States are likely to be unknown for 25 years because the tortoise does not begin to breed until it reaches age 15 to 20 years.

6 Challenges to Auditing Biodiversity (con’t)Agency decisions often have considerable economic implications Together with scientific uncertainty, these factors have made biodiversity decisions highly contentious and marked by ideological battles This makes independence and professional competence especially important when auditing biodiversity

7 GAO’s Approach to Auditing Biodiversity and Other Science ProgramsRely on criteria found in federal law and regulations Conduct field work on specific audits— to understand and “see” the science issues faced in a particular program Participate in professional conferences and seminars in conservation biology and other disciplines Develop a high level of issue knowledge and expertise (hire from specific disciplines and provide continuing education) Network with science professionals Approaches often combine traditional performance audit techniques with high levels of scientific knowledge. This picture shows a GAO auditor conducting field work, as noted in the 2nd bullet. She is tracking a desert tortoise with a team of scientists who will gather data, like weight and size, when the tortoise is found.

8 Specific Biodiversity-related EngagementsMojave Desert Tortoise – Was the decision to protect the tortoise under the Endangered Species Act based on sound science? Utilized the National Academy of Sciences (through contract) to obtain specific scientific expertise Interviewed a multitude of researchers and “experts” on the desert tortoise Conducted field work—observed tortoise research projects, habitat restoration efforts, etc. This picture shows GAO auditors conducting field work to observe desert tortoise research projects and habitat restoration efforts in Joshua Tree National Park in California (as noted in the third bullet). The auditors also interviewed experts and attended a desert tortoise conference on this trip. ENGAGEMENT OUTCOME: although the decision to identify the tortoise as endangered had been hotly debated, the results of the NAS panel—which concluded that the tortoise is endangered—silenced much of the debate.

9 Specific Biodiversity-related Engagements (con’t)Endangered Species listing decisions – Is the U.S. making sound scientific decisions about what species should be protected? Analyzed federal departments compliance with federal law and regulations Analyzed results of external peer reviews Interviewed recognized experts for views Analyzed the outcomes of species decisions to determine if they were later reversed by federal departments or court decisions due to a lack of scientific support ENGAGEMENT OUTCOME: Based on our analysis, we concluded that the Fish and Wildlife Service is making sound decisions about listing species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

10 Ongoing Biodiversity AuditsEndangered Species Recovery: The ESA requires that recovery plans be developed for most protected species. We have been asked to determine the extent to which the allocation of recovery funds is consistent with recovery guidance and evaluate what factors influence recovery funding decisions. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES): CITES established the international trade framework for preventing trade in endangered species. We have been asked to describe the background and evolution of CITES, determine how much funding and resources have been committed to CITES-listed species, and evaluate the linkages between CITES, the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Invasive Species: Harmful nonnative weeds threaten our natural resources. We have been asked to determine what federal and nonfederal entities are involved in implementing projects that address harmful weeds and what funding mechanisms are used, and to describe the challenges, barriers and best practices pertaining to obtaining funds to implement noxious weed projects. ESA Recovery: Compare the Service's actual allocation of recovery funds to how funds would have been allocated under its guidelines, using cost data from recovery plans. Obtain budget and policy documents and interview HQ, regional and field officials to identify the factors that influence funding allocation decisions. CITES: Research the purpose and history of CITES, identify funding sources and amounts committed to CITES-listed species, and analyze and compare provisions of the CITES, the ESA and the MMPA to identify linkages and possible redundancies, and determine how any redundancies are addressed. Invasive Species: Use a semi-structured interview guide to gather information from a variety of federal and nonfederal agencies and organizations on the range of entities involved in management projects. These sources will provide us with national data on the numbers and types of relevant entities and their funding mechanisms. From the data gathered for question 1, we will select a nonprobability sample of entities--using criteria including type, geography, and reputation for success--to which we will administer another semi-structured interview guide to obtain insights into challenges, barriers, and best practices.

11 Recent Biodiversity Related GAO ReportsEndangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is Needed to Improve the Consultation Process, March 2004 (GAO-04-93) Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, August 2003 (GAO ) Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, December 2002 (GAO-03-23) Available at Other biodiversity reports in the last 15+ years: Endangered Species: Limited Effect of Consultation Requirements on Western Water Projects (March 1987) Endangered Species: Management Improvements Could Enhance Recovery Program (December 1988) Endangered Species:Spotted Owl Petition Evaluation Beset By Problems (February 1989) Endangered Species Act: Types and Number of Implementing Actions (May 1992) Endangered Species: Past Actions Taken to Assist Columbia River Salmon (July 1992) Endangered Species: Contract Funding for Selected Species (July 1992) Endangered Species: Potential Economic Costs of Further Protection for Columbia River Salmon ( Species Protection: National Marine Fisheries Service Enforcement Efforts (June 1993) Endangered Species: Factors Associated with Delayed Listing Decisions (August 1993) Endangered Species:Public Comments Received on Proposed Listings (September 1993) Endangered Species Act: Impact of Species Protection Efforts on the 1993 California Fire (July 1994) Endangered Species: Federal Actions to Protect Sacramento River Salmon (August 1994) Endangered Species Act: Information on Species Protection on Nonfederal Lands (December 1994) Estimated Costs to Recovery Protected Species (December 1995) Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains (May 1999) FWS: Weaknesses in the Management of Endangered Species Program Workload at the Carlsbad, CA Field Office (September 2000) Endangered Species Act: Fee Based Mitigation Arrangements (February 2001)

12 Concluding remarks and questionsClockwise from top left (Animals are D.C. area natives) Black bears, black-eyed susan, Delmarva fox squirrel (endangered because of population encroachment), blue crab, 17-year cicada, Baltimore oriole. See the need for greater collaboration with our national auditors to address increasingly global issues. Species from the Washington, D.C. area