Redefining 'Harm' in the Endangered Species Act: Implications for Conservation

Introduction

When the Trump administration in the United States proposed narrowing the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it didn’t make the front page over here in Ireland – but it probably should have. It may seem like a legal technicality happening on the other side of the world, but it speaks volumes about where environmental priorities are heading globally. And for those of us working in agriculture, sustainability, and rural policy, it raises some serious red flags.

What happens to environmental protections in countries like the US can shape the trajectory of global conservation for decades to come. In a world where ecosystems are interconnected and climate breakdown respects no borders, we all have a stake in this conversation.

What’s Actually Being Proposed?

The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 and has been one of the most effective tools globally for protecting biodiversity. At its core, the ESA makes it illegal to “harm” endangered species – and crucially, harm has long been interpreted to include the destruction of a species’ habitat.

This broader definition recognises that wildlife needs more than just legal protection – it needs functioning ecosystems to survive. A bird with no nesting site, a frog with no clean water, or a lynx with no hunting ground is effectively being harmed, even if it hasn’t been physically injured.

Under the proposed changes, however, harm would be redefined to exclude habitat degradation. That means companies could legally operate in areas critical to endangered species – mining, drilling, building – without violating the ESA, as long as no animals are directly harmed during the activity. It’s a dramatic shift in emphasis, one that separates species from the very environment that sustains them.

This isn’t just a paper change. It would have very real consequences for countless habitats, particularly in areas where industrial interests overlap with fragile ecosystems. Already, around 70% of listed endangered species in the US rely on private land for survival – and without habitat protections, those areas could be opened up to development with little oversight.

Why Habitat Matters Just as Much as the Species

One of the most persistent myths in conservation is that we can protect species without protecting their habitats. But the science tells a different story. Globally, habitat destruction is the leading driver of species extinction. It’s estimated that habitat loss and degradation are a threat to 85% of all species listed as threatened or endangered.

To put that in context: deforestation alone is responsible for the loss of 10 million hectares of forest every year – an area roughly the size of Iceland. In the United States, over one-third of all species are at risk of extinction, and habitat destruction is a factor in nearly all of those cases.

By narrowing the definition of harm to exclude habitat, the ESA would lose its teeth at the exact moment when robust protection is most needed. This change would make it easier for industries to fragment ecosystems, pollute wetlands, and clear forests – all while technically staying within the law.

From a policy standpoint, it’s like offering to protect a fish without defending the river it lives in.

Legal Pushback and Public Outcry

The move has triggered an outcry from legal scholars, conservationists, and community groups alike. Many are pointing out that the broader definition of harm has already been upheld by the US Supreme Court. Rewriting that definition now not only contradicts legal precedent but could result in lengthy court battles and legal uncertainty for years to come.

Critics are also questioning the rushed nature of the proposal. The public comment window – just 30 days – offers limited time for meaningful input, especially from communities and scientists directly affected.

Environmental organisations across the US are preparing to challenge the rule in court if it’s adopted. They argue, rightly, that gutting habitat protections undermines decades of environmental progress – and opens the door to irreversible damage.

Why It Matters to Us in Ireland

So why should we care what the US does with its environmental laws?

Firstly, the United States plays a leading role in shaping global environmental standards. When it rolls back protections, it sets a dangerous precedent. We’ve seen time and again that when one major economy deregulates, others can feel pressure to follow suit – particularly in the face of economic or political pressures.

Secondly, Ireland is facing its own biodiversity emergency. Over 60% of Ireland’s native species are in decline, and one-third are threatened with extinction. Habitat loss is at the core of this crisis – whether through land drainage, intensification of agriculture, or urban sprawl.

The curlew, for example, has declined by over 90% in the past 40 years in Ireland. The freshwater pearl mussel, a species once common in our rivers, now only survives in a few isolated catchments. These declines aren’t happening in a vacuum – they’re the result of decades of land use decisions that chipped away at the places where these species once thrived.

If we don’t learn from what’s happening abroad – or worse, if we follow similar paths – we risk repeating the same mistakes here at home.

A Lesson in Sustainable Land Management

At The Informed Farmer Consultancy, we work with landowners, community groups, and public bodies to help make sustainability practical. From hedgerow restoration to creating biodiversity corridors, from protecting pollinators to planning low-impact grazing systems – we’ve seen the benefits of putting nature back at the centre of land management.

But these decisions are harder to make when policies are unclear, incentives are skewed, or regulations don’t reflect ecological realities. That’s why it matters so much how laws define terms like harm – because those definitions shape what’s legally acceptable and what’s not.

In agriculture especially, we’ve got a unique opportunity to be part of the solution. Well-managed farmland can provide refuge for wildlife, clean water, carbon storage, and food security – all at the same time. But that balance can’t be achieved if habitat protections are seen as optional or negotiable.

Conclusion

The proposed change to the ESA might still be blocked. There’s mounting public opposition, legal resistance, and growing awareness of what’s at stake. But regardless of what happens in the US courts, the bigger message is clear: we can’t afford to take environmental protections for granted.

In Ireland, we’re at a crossroads too. With the new CAP strategic plan, increased focus on agri-environment schemes, and public interest in rewilding and nature restoration growing, we have a chance to do things differently. But that will only happen if we stay alert, stay informed, and keep biodiversity on the agenda – not just in our fields, but in our policies, our budgets, and our public debates.

Because in the end, protecting the natural world isn’t someone else’s job. It’s everyone’s.

At The Informed Farmer Consultancy, we believe that practical, sustainable agriculture can go hand in hand with thriving ecosystems. If you’d like to explore how biodiversity and sustainability can work on your land or within your organisation, get in touch. We’re always happy to help turn ideas into action.

*By Anne Hayden MSc., Founder, The Informed Farmer Consultancy.