1. The Endangered Species as it is, is unable to address the issue of inequities when it come to a species recovery fund, this results in the more charismatic species tending to get more of the funding for protection. The Endangered Species Act was more attuned to managing ecosystems as opposed to the species (implied by its title) a function it has not ne able to achieve leading to conflicting/confusing recovery goals where more than one species is involved as well as needless duplication of effort and inefficiencies. Currently the Act is a lightning rod for critics out to decry regulations by the government action to polarize segments of the population.
Some changes necessary to the Act include bolstering the recovery plan. This should put into place the missing tracking mechanism ensuring recovery plan implementation and as such determine how many conservation measures under the plan are actually carried out in the field. Partly to blame for this inadequacy is the lack of funding as well as lack of enforcement mechanism in that the implementation of the recovery plan does not receive adequate attention from the service currently.
2. The main downfall of the ESA is the many misconceptions surrounding it. Whereas many indicate that the Act has only managed to recover a handful of species, it is important to consider that the ESA acts as an Emergency room with its main aim being to stabilize and rebound species that are endangered or threatened. With this in mind, 50 percent of species which have been on the list for longer than seven years are stable or improving. Under these measures, the longer a species is protected by the ESA, the more likely the condition it is in will improve or stabilize. This ensures the protection of Biodiversity in any ecosystem.
The ESA is also notably explicit in its provisions to balance species protection with the people's economic needs. When a species is put on the list, the Act requires that the economy and the people are considered in all stages. This includes the designation of habitat regulation development as well as alternatives creation. In addition the economy is actually enhanced by the protection of ecosystems that provide medicine, food, recreation and flood protection.
3. Participation in environmental concerns has become a buzzword in recent years, with accumulating evidence indication that ensuring procedural equity does in fact increase the overall quality of the decisions that made concerning the natural resources and environmental assets. This also facilitates the mobilization of local knowledge that might not be otherwise accessible, increases the decision's acceptance. This broad participatory approach also facilitates dealing with diversity of interests, values, conflicting interpretation of the biophysical as well as social science analysis and the perspective on how to deal with any uncertainty arising in the hazardous waste management.
To ensure that there is procedural equity in search decision making processes, the government can provide a participant funding. This resource will act to facilitate public participation offsetting procedural inequities and present both substantive (enhanced positive effects and reduced adverse environmental effects) and procedural (more effective participation by the public) benefits.
4. Public education focusing on the environment aims at improving the quality of the environment, creating environment of people that revolves around environmental protection as well as developing the people's capability in matters of decision making. Public education empowers the general population enabling them to participate in environmental preservation and protection programs.
The educated public can then be able to lead preservation programs and awareness such as Recycling usage water, Rainwater savings, and Mass environment programs amongst others. Such initiatives are only sustainable when the public has adequate education. Public education more than anything presents the long term solution in the crisis areas of water, biodiversity and hazardous waste disposal management.
5. The Command and control policies have proven to be largely ineffective in the preservation and conservation of the environment. This arises from there being large non-compliance which is problem. Critics have described them as having too many sticks with the carrots being inadequate. The penalties charged under these policies are also often very low and are usually not given out. These policies also require politicians elected at any one time to be experts in science and technology so as to set desired standards. This proves to be time consuming politically as well as unpopular with the public.
The future of public policy making is moving from the command and control era to the market mechanism: cap and trade era. These policies set clear, mandatory as well as enforceable limitations on green house gas emissions allowing the market to identify ways and means of achieving this limit in the most cost effective manner. Tradable emissions permits or allowances are then distributed in amounts that are equal to the total permitted emissions by the cap, either at no cost or by actions.
The innovation of giving pollution reduction a market place value, cap-and-trade promotes process and technological innovations that are aimed at reducing pollution down to and beyond the levels that are required. This is a more comprehensive and acceptable environmental conservation policy making method. Its potential to reduce environment clearly indicates that environmental issues can be solves through public policy.