The following article is part of a series of reflections on the 2025 New Directions in Environmental Law Conference, also known as NDEL. On February 15, 2025, scholars, practitioners, students, and policymakers convened at Yale Law School to analyze changes and emerging issues in environmental law. The series covers the keynote speaker and each panel from NDEL and is written by Student Reporter attendees. Student Reporters were guided by Alysia LeComte and Julianne Frey, NDEL Committee Members and 2L students at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.
Student reporters Louis Cimmino, Matthew Mauga, and Ailie Maclean prepared this edited summary of the panel “New Directions in Biodiversity Law: Challenges and Opportunities” featuring panelists Lydia Slobodian, Paul Greenberg, Paul Todd, and Julie King.
Introduction
“The term biodiversity (from “biological diversity”) refers to the variety of life on Earth at all its levels, from genes to ecosystems, and can encompass the evolutionary, ecological, and cultural processes that sustain life.” – American Museum of Natural History
The panel began by answering the timely question of how the second Trump term will affect biodiversity protection efforts in the U.S. and abroad. From there, the panel discussed the rights of nature, historical approaches to biodiversity conservation advocacy, and opportunities to conserve more species under legal protections. Lastly, the panel described various methods to restructure and strengthen current biodiversity law to provide greater corporate transparency, cross-national relationships, and more.
Biodiversity Threats Under the New Administration
In its first term, the Trump administration removed protections for endangered species and circumvented the “God Squad,” also known as the Endangered Species Act Committee. Given this track record, the panel discussed the possible consequences for biodiversity both in the U.S. and internationally as Trump begins his second term in the White House.
The panel agreed that, once again, global biodiversity law and species protections will be significantly affected. For historical context, Paul Todd, a senior attorney for Global Biodiversity at the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained that the U.S. was a key player in the development of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international agreement intended to protect endangered species from the effects of international trade. The U.S. is currently the most prominent financial contributor to the agreement, but could decide to decrease or even stop funding under the Trump administration. In addition, USAID, which the administration has already begun dismantling, helped support biodiversity by promoting sustainable development. Cuts to USAID could lead to a ripple effect, indirectly impacting various species across the world. Julie King, a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law and Undergraduate Program Director at Baylor University, added that there are concerns about the Endangered Species Act’s Section 7, which requires that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether agency plans would harm endangered species or their habitats. If altered so that agencies can conduct Biological Assessments on their own, endangered species will not be as protected from federal actions as they are today.
Journalism is already feeling adverse effects under the new administration. Paul Greenberg – fisherman, conservationist, journalist, and author – relayed that journalists normally tell stories, to which the public and government agencies react. The new administration disrupts this system by tagging journalism and specific news channels as “fake news.” Greenberg explained that this impedes the effectiveness of relaying real news stories, in turn affecting public and government response to biodiversity issues.
Lydia Slobodian, Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at Georgetown Law School, concluded that there is comfort in looking to other actors, both nationally and internationally, for hope in biodiversity law. During the first Trump Administration, local governments, NGOs, and corporations stepped up to meet biodiversity challenges and will do so again. Organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity have already filed against the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Rights of Nature
After discussing what the future may hold for biodiversity law, the panelists turned to the means of advocacy and protection. One such avenue for protection is acknowledging the rights of nature. “Rights of nature” refers to the recognition of the legal rights of natural entities. Slobodian explained there is a longstanding history of recognizing nonhumans – corporations, ships, states, and property – as entities with personhood, meaning that those entities can bring claims against others in court or be sued themselves. The question then is not how to justify recognizing nonhuman entities as having personhood, but rather, why should we?
There are two primary reasons for recognizing the legal rights of nonhuman entities. The first is that recognizing personhood for nonhumans helps the legal system function better. For example, when someone wants to bring a claim against a law or business, it may be hard to pin down just one person who is responsible for the alleged harm. Giving personhood to states or corporations allows people to seek relief more efficiently and effectively while preventing floods of litigation.
Turning away from corporations and invoking a less anthropocentric viewpoint, the second reason is that humans are not the only moral entities worthy of rights on the planet. Greenberg spoke to the shift we have already seen in fish. The rhetoric surrounding fish included asserting that they could not feel pain and were closer to being commodities than animals. Now, in part thanks to the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and an increased awareness of the overexploitation of bluefin tuna, there has been a noticeable shift in perspective towards viewing fish as animals rather than commodities.
A possible third, more anthropocentric reason to recognize the legal personhood of natural entities is that a biodiverse planet creates an environment with more resources to discover life-saving cures, better manage supply and demand, and protect human welfare generally.
(People’s Climate March, NYC, 2014; Photo by Joe Brusky)
Todd added that there is a movement within many countries and at the IUCN to recognize the crime of ecocide. If ecocide is a crime, then ecosystems must have some rights that can be violated. Thus, there are different routes for jurisdictions to recognize natural rights and hold destructive entities accountable. Countries like Ecuador and Bolivia have already enacted laws regarding the rights of nature. Here in the U.S., recognizing the rights of nature is still only occurring at the local government level, which means there is room to grow.
King rounded off the discussion on the rights of nature on an upbeat note, stating that this is still a new area of law, one in which lawyers can get creative in arguing and developing claims to advance biodiversity goals.
Issues in Traditional Biodiversity Activism
On a practical level, an important consideration for activists and policymakers is what sorts of species draw the greatest attention and support from the public. Historically, these species—dubbed “charismatic” based on their broad appeal—have been a central component of many prominent biodiversity conservation efforts, used to drive legal change through public and political outcry. Examples include the giant panda, tigers, elephants, and more, whose respective campaigns in past decades have solidified them as emblems of the broader conservation movement.
Panelists highlighted that these charismatic species present strategic opportunities for a campaign to gain rapid awareness and sustained funding from the public. Acknowledging this, others believed that such an approach to conservation is not without its limitations. Specifically, they cautioned that advocating for legal protections for only those species with the greatest public appeal leaves countless other organisms vulnerable to loss. This is particularly concerning because often, it is the less charismatic species—those that do not receive entire campaigns dedicated to their conservation—that play the most significant role in maintaining overall ecosystem health.
(Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) (One of the most “charismatic” megafauna: the elephant)
Demonstrating that point, Greenberg referenced aquatic macroinvertebrate species, which are found in most freshwater ecosystems. Such species are highly susceptible to changes in their aquatic habitats, and a significant drop in macroinvertebrate populations often signals a decrease in water quality. Thus, these “indicator species” provide immense value for environmental monitoring, especially for ecosystem services such as clean water, from which the entire food web benefits, including charismatic species. Yet, lacking the broad appeal of charismatic species, macroinvertebrates have largely fallen by the wayside in legal proceedings. As a result, the loss of these creatures—even locally—may lead to long-term difficulties in conserving even species with legal protections. So long as biodiversity law prioritizes protecting charismatic species over protecting the broader ecosystems upon which each species relies, biodiversity conservation will only become more difficult in the face of intensifying ecological disturbances.
A New Paradigm for Biodiversity Activism
With that, King acknowledged the necessity of a change in approach for conservation advocacy. As environmental issues such as global warming continue to increase in severity, posing threats to maintaining habitat for species worldwide, there is a clear need to address the legal protection of species and the legal avenues for mitigating drivers of biodiversity loss. In particular, there is an opportunity to synergize biodiversity conservation with the climate change mitigation movement. By emphasizing that biodiversity is a key factor influencing ecosystem health, and that healthy ecosystems are most resilient to disturbance, there is a strong case to provide legal protections for various species—not simply the most charismatic—because it affords our environment the greatest chance to withstand these novel disturbance events.
Strengthening Biodiversity Law for Global Conservation
As biodiversity loss accelerates, the legal response must shift from reactive measures to proactive policies that address systemic causes. Strengthening biodiversity laws requires an integrated approach that combines legislative action, corporate responsibility, international cooperation, and financial restructuring.
One of the primary concerns raised by the panel was corporate accountability. Many multinational corporations contribute significantly to biodiversity loss, yet without strict legal obligations, they face little accountability for their environmental impact. Panelists stressed the need for stronger enforcement of liability laws, requiring that corporations disclose and mitigate their environmental damage. Enhancing corporate transparency in global supply chains can prevent industries from engaging in unsustainable practices that fuel deforestation, habitat destruction, and species decline.
International cooperation is equally vital. Biodiversity conservation is inherently global, as species migration, ecosystem functions, and environmental threats transcend national borders. Todd emphasized the need to strengthen agreements like CITES and integrate biodiversity protections into international trade laws while helping the Global South develop sustainably. By embedding conservation requirements within trade agreements, nations can ensure that economic activities align with environmental sustainability goals.
Additionally, restructuring conservation funding is a key priority. Developing nations, often home to the most biodiverse regions (see map above), frequently face external pressures to exploit their natural resources. Conservation financing must move toward models that provide economic incentives for preservation rather than extraction. Current biodiversity offsetting strategies—where environmental damage in one area is “balanced” by conservation efforts elsewhere—operate under hierarchical frameworks, but their underlying logic is fundamentally flawed. The idea that protecting or restoring biodiversity in one location can make up for its loss in another oversimplifies complex ecological relationships and often fails to prevent a net decline in overall biodiversity. Moving forward, effective frameworks must address these inequities and emphasize genuine biodiversity protection rather than relying on flawed offset calculations. As global power dynamics evolve, equitable and realistic mechanisms for biodiversity preservation are likely to become more critical, widespread, and influential.
The Future of Biodiversity Law
As we begin a new administration where environmental advocates will need to develop unorthodox strategies for securing—or even simply maintaining—biodiversity protections, it is clear that holistic, integrated thinking is the best path forward. We must collaborate not only across environmental movements—joining climate change mitigation with biodiversity protection—but also across industries, technologies, and nations. We can no longer afford to think at the individual scale: a single species, habitat, or country. Instead, we must take ambitious action to form new partnerships, critique existing systems, and demand transformative change across scales.
While much is uncertain about the future of biodiversity law, the panelists emphasized that at least one thing is clear: the change we need now must begin in our local ecosystems—within our communities. As emerging environmental law practitioners—working nationally or internationally—we have a duty to protect biodiversity wherever we find ourselves and however we can. Be that in pro-bono clinics, with local nonprofits, or with international NGOs, we must have the humility to see ourselves as part of the broader ecosystem and the courage to defend it. Only then will biodiversity law serve to truly remedy the challenges we face today.