National biodiversity research and policy in the United States

In my last blog, I outlined the impressive United Nations efforts to forge a strategy to protect global biodiversity via a process that began in 1992. I also bemoaned the fact that, nearly alone among the nations of the world, the United States never ratified the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that managed this process. In this blog, I’ll take a look at what national biodiversity efforts have occurred in the United States even without our country’s complete involvement in the CBD.

First, it’s worth considering the foundation for biodiversity policy in the nations that joined the CBD. Those nations committed to creating a “National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan” which describes how the country intends to fulfill the objectives of the CBD in light of specific national circumstances, with action plans constituting the sequence of steps to be taken to meet those goals. With that foundation, communities within those countries are also expected to adopt “Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans” aligned with their national strategies. This arrangement is not occurring in the United States although, as we will explore in future blogs, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles have stepped in to fill much of the gap that our country’s lack of a national strategy has created.

In my researching of this topic, I’ve found four research and policy endeavors that at one time established a basic national biodiversity foundation for the United States. Sadly, all of them appear to be marginalized nationally as of 2025.

1. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity.  

Although the United States has never created a robust national biodiversity strategy, it did make an early entry into nationwide biodiversity research via a 2002 study that examined numerous biodiversity conditions comparatively, in each of the nation’s 50 states. The study was prepared for the Nature Conservancy by a nonprofit organization known as NatureServe. It analyzed more than 21,000 plant and animal species, concluding that in one out of every four states, more than ten percent of native species are at risk. 

While this study provides a useful overview of biodiversity conditions in each state, it has several shortcomings. It is now 23 years old and has apparently not been updated. And at only 25 pages, it provides data that beg for additional research and analysis. Finally, it was not an official federal government publication so lacks the authority that would accompany endorsement by the federal government.

2. USAID Biodiversity Policy

“USAID” is the acronym for the United States Agency for International Development. In 2014, USAID released a biodiversity policy emphasizing the relationship between biodiversity and development by stating a vision “to conserve biodiversity for sustainable, resilient development” and two goals: 1) conserve biodiversity in priority places, and 2) integrate biodiversity as an essential component of human development. 

Although not limited to biodiversity, a new USAID “Environmental and Natural Resource Management (ENRM) Framework” was completed and released in 2019 with the explanation that it does not entail a new strategy or initiative, nor does it create new reporting requirements. Instead, it was intended to provide direction, articulate priorities, outline a unifying vision to address emerging challenges and critical threats, and serve as a guiding document for cross-sectoral investments. The two stated priority areas in this document are improving natural resource management for self-reliance, and improving urban systems for a cleaner environment and enhanced human well-being.

Informed by the new ENRM and other insights, the 2024 USAID Biodiversity Policy retained the first goal from the 2014 policy document, but revised the second goal to 2) catalyze nature-positive, equitable development. It further explained this shift to highlight enhanced attention to locally-led development and leadership of indigenous peoples. Other changes highlight the need to address biodiversity loss and climate change together, and mainstreaming biodiversity into all sectors at USAID.

With the 2025 Trump administration’s gutting of USAID, that agency’s biodiversity policies appear to have been eliminated, at least for now.

3. Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful

Shortly after taking office as President in 2021, Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) which included a commitment by the United States to achieve a goal of 30 percent of land and water in the country set aside for conservation by the year 2030 (a goal often just called “30 x 30”). By so doing, the U.S. preceded United Nations commitment to such a goal, a commitment made at CBD COP15 in 2022. The Biden order was quickly followed by Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful, a preliminary report to the National Climate Task Force prepared by four represented agencies: the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality.

This report established eight principles for a “locally led” effort to achieve its goals: (1) Pursue a collaborative and inclusive approach to conservation; (2) Conserve America’s lands and waters for the benefit of all people; (3) Support locally led and locally designed conservation efforts; (4) Honor tribal sovereignty and support the priorities of tribal nations; (5) Pursue conservation and restoration approaches that create jobs and support healthy communities; (6) Honor private property rights and support the voluntary stewardship efforts of private landowners and fishers; (7) Use science as a guide; (8) Build on existing tools and strategies with an emphasis on flexibility and adaptive approaches.

This Biden executive order and its supporting reports evidently were not retained by the Trump administration.

4. Biodiversity in Focus: United States Edition

Like the “States of the Union” study, this research report was prepared by a respected non-profit organization, in this case NatureServe. This organization highlights its North American Network that supports biodiversity conservation today through data analyses that provide the insights needed to protect the well-being of our plants, animals, and natural communities for present and future generations. Its study ranks conservation status for both ecosystems and species to serve as a tool to help prioritize policy responses nationwide. It was published in 2023 in hopes of helping to energize President Biden’s 30 x 30 goal. 

It’s easy to become discouraged with our nation’s current lack of formal commitment to biodiversity and its minimal federal policy support. But fortunately, this lack has not prevented states and localities from working to preserve and enhance biodiversity. In my next blog, we’ll begin to explore especially what’s being done in California to fill the national biodiversity policy void.