Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:59:32.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting Endangered Species in the US and Canada: The Role of Negative Lesson Drawing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2007

Mary Illical  and
Kathryn Harrison
Mary Illical
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Kathryn Harrison
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Although the US and Canada share ecosystems, with many species ranging freely across the border, the two countries have taken very different approaches to protecting endangered species. The US Endangered Species Act, adopted in 1973, relies primarily on regulation, thus imposing the costs of protecting biodiversity on the private sector. In contrast, Canada's Species at Risk Act, adopted in 2002, relies primarily on public expenditures to support stewardship programs. We argue that this difference is best explained by negative lesson drawing from the US experience. In particular, awareness of the costs of species protection in the US led Canadian business to present stronger opposition to regulation than had their American counterparts decades earlier. We use the case of the Canadian Species at Risk Act to theorize about conditions under which negative lesson drawing is likely to be most influential.

Résumé. Bien que les États-Unis et le Canada partagent les mêmes écosystèmes, les deux pays ont adopté des approches très différentes en matière de protection des espèces en péril. La Loi américaine sur les espèces en péril (US Endangered Species Act), adoptée en 1973, porte essentiellement sur la régulation, et de ce fait impose les coûts de la protection de la biodiversité au secteur privé. En revanche, la Loi canadienne sur les espèces en péril, adoptée en 2002, fait principalement retomber les coûts des programmes de gestion au secteur public. Nous démontrons que cette différence s'explique principalement par le rôle des leçons négatives apprises de l'expérience des États-Unis. La prise de conscience des coûts liés à la protection des espèces en péril aux États-Unis a notamment amené les milieux d'affaires canadiens à présenter une plus forte opposition à la régulation que leurs homologues américains l'avaient fait des années plus tôt. En s'appuyant sur le cas de la Loi canadienne sur les espèces en péril, nous visons à théoriser les conditions selon lesquelles l'acquisition de connaissance par leçons négatives (“ negative lesson drawing ”) est susceptible d'être le plus concluant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 367 - 394
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amos, William, Kathryn Harrison and George Hoberg. 2001. “In Search of a Minimum Winning Coalition: The Politics of Species-at-Risk Legislation in Canada.” In Politics of the Wild: Canada and Endangered Species, ed. Karen Beazley and Robert Boardman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, David. 2004. Telephone interview. August 26.
Anon. (Alberta wildlife official). 2005. Confidential telephone interview. August 24.
Anon. (environmentalist). 2005. Confidential telephone interview. August 30.
Anon. (lawyer, Dept. of Justice). 2004. Confidential telephone interview. August 21.
Anon. (Ontario wildlife official). 2005. Confidential telephone interview. September 20.
Anon. (Quebec wildlife official). 2004. Confidential email to Mary Illical, December 10.
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon [1995] 63 USLW 2500.
Baumgartner, Sandy. 1996. Canadian Wildlife Federation. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting 48, Nov 19.
Bennett, Colin. 1991a. “What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?” British Journal of Political Science 21: 215–33.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin. 1991b. “How States Utilize Foreign Evidence.” Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 31–54.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin J. and Michael Howlett. 1992. “The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change.” Policy Sciences 25: 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Bonnie. 2001. Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of Biodiversity. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Campbell, J. Phil. 1973. Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives. Serial no. 93-5, 93rd Congress, First Session. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, March 26.
Canadian Endangered Species Coalition (CESC). n.d. “Getting Their Acts Together: A Report Card on the Implementation of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.” 〈http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/FNSN/cesc/report97.html〉. June 19, 2004.
Canadian Endangered Species Coalition (CESC). n.d. “Getting Their Acts Together: A Report Card on the Implementation of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.” 〈http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/FNSN/cesc/report97.html〉. June. 1997. “Federal Endangered Species Legislation—Background: Summer 1997.” 〈http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/FNSN/cesc/bck-su97.html〉. June 19, 2004.
Dolowitz, David and David Marsh. 1996. “Who Learns What From Whom? A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature.” Political Studies 44(2): 343–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, Andrew. 2000. “Anderson blasts U.S. critics.” Ottawa Citizen [early edition], March 4, A6.
Dunlap, Riley. 1989. “Public Opinion and Environmental Policy.” In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, ed. James P. Lester. Durham: Duke University Press.
Elgie, Stewart. 1995. Endangered Species Legislation: A Bear Necessity. Author's draft copy.
Elgie, Stewart. 1996. Sierra Legal Defence Fund. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 48, Nov 19.
Elgie, Stewart. 2005a. Telephone interview. July 25.
Elgie, Stewart. 2005b. Email to Mary Illical. November 11.
Environment Canada. 1999. “Canada's Plan for Protecting Species at Risk: An Update.” December.
Fulton, Jim. 2001. David Suzuki Foundation. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 23, May 15.
Government of Canada. 2006. Canada Gazette Part II, 140.18, September 6.
Harrison, Kathryn. 1996. Passing the Buck: Federalism and Canadian Environmental Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Harrison, Kathryn and George Hoberg. 1994. Risk, Science, and Politics: Regulating Toxic Substances in Canada and the United States. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Hoberg, George. 1991. “Sleeping with an Elephant.” Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaimet, Kate. 2002. “Liberals demanded favors to pass bill.” Ottawa Citizen, December 27. A1.
Kagan, Robert. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kohm, Kathryn. 1991. “The Act's History and Framework.” In Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future, ed. K.A. Kohm. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mauch, Anne. 2001. Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 22, May 10.
May, Elizabeth (Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada). 2005. Interview. July 25.
McIntyre, Wilf. 2001. National Vice President of the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 22, May 10. line # 1005.
Moe, Terry M. and Michael Caldwell. 1994. “The Institutional Foundations of Democratic Government: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150(1): 171–95.Google Scholar
Mooers, Arne. 2004. “Why did the fish miss the boat?” Globe and Mail, April 30. A21.
National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition (NESARC). n.d. “How has the ESA impacted America?” 〈http://www.nesarc.org/stories.htm〉. January 22, 2005.
National Environmental Law Section, Canadian Bar Association. 2002. “Submission on Bill C-33 Species at Risk Act.” 〈http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/00-33-eng.pdf〉. May 6, 2004.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Page, Devon. 2005. Notice of Application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, submitted on behalf of Western Canada Wilderness Committee, David Suzuki Foundation, Forest Ethics, and Environmental Defence Canada, 5 December.
Petersen, Shannon. 2002. Acting for Endangered Species: The Statutory Ark. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Pombo, Richard. n.d. “The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to Update, & Strengthen the Law.” House Resources Committee. 〈http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/whitepaper.htm〉. January 22, 2005.
Pope, David. 2001. Vice-President, Western Stock Growers' Association. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 21, May 9.
R v Hydro-Québec [1997] 3 SCR 213.
Robertson, D.B. 1991. “Political Conflict and Lesson Drawing.” Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1991. “What is Lesson Drawing?” Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1993. Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning across Time and Space. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Scheberle, Denise. 2004. Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Politics of Implementation. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Scientists for Species. 1997. “1997 Scientists' Letter.” 〈http://www.scientists-4-species.org〉. March 11, 2004.
Scientists for Species. 1999. “1999 Scientists' Letter.” 〈http://www.scientists-4-species.org〉. March 11, 2004.
Scientists for Species. 2001. “2001 Scientists' Letter.” 〈http://www.scientists-4-species.org〉. March 11, 2004.
Smallwood, Kate. 2003. A Guide to Canada's Species at Risk Act: A Sierra Legal Defence Fund Report. Vancouver: Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Species at Risk Working Group (SARWG). 1998. “Conserving Species at Risk and Vulnerable Ecosystems: Proposals for Legislation and Programs.”
Species at Risk Working Group (SARWG).. 2000. “Conserving Species at Risk Cooperatively: A Response to the Species at Risk Act” 〈www.mining.ca/english/publications/SARWG-Eng.pdf〉. February 11, 2004.
Stone, Diane. 2004. “Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 545–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TVA v. HILL, [1978] 437 US 153.
US Department of Interior. 2003. “Endangered Species Act ‘Broken’—Flood of Litigation Over Critical Habitat Hinders Species Conservation.” 〈http://www.doi.gov/news/030528a.htm〉. April 28, 2005.
Venton, Margot and Kate Smallwood. 2002. “The Lost Decade: Canada's conservation track record since signing the 1992 Rio Convention on Biological Diversity.” Vancouver and Toronto: Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Ward, Norman. 2001. Western Wheat Growers Association. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting no. 21, May 9.
Wilson, Geoff. 1996. National Agriculture Environment Committee. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Evidence. Meeting 49, Nov 19.
Yaffee, Steven L. 1982. Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.