Safe Harbor Agreements

  • Marcela Bonells
Reference work entry


This article provides an overview of Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) as voluntary mechanisms for the conservation of wetlands in private lands, along with their advantages and disadvantages, and examples of similar (albeit non-identical) agreements around the world. SHAs are voluntary agreements between private landowners and US conservation government agencies in which landowners commit to undertake measures to restore, maintain, preserve, or enhance habitat, including wetlands, for species protected (or listed) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In exchange, they are provided regulatory relief from land use restrictions. While SHAs take place in the context of a statutory framework, they are non-traditional tools for the conservation of protected species, in that the incentive they provide is regulatory relief.


Safe Harbor Agreements Wetlands conservation tools Endangered Species Act Voluntary conservation assurances Stewardship agreements U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biodiversity conservation tools Habitat conservation Regulatory relief 


  1. Australian Government, Department of the Environment. Conservation Agreements. n.d. Last visited 18 September 2016.
  2. Bean MJ. Landowner incentives and the endangered species act. In: Baur DC, Irvin WR, editors. Endangered species act: law, policy, and perspectives. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Resources; 2010. p. 206–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bean MJ. Overcoming unintended consequences of endangered species regulation. Idaho L Rev. 2002;32:409.Google Scholar
  4. Bonells M. Private nature reserves: An innovative wetland protection mechanism to fill in the gaps left by the SWANCC and Rapanos Rulings. Environs. 2012;36:2–33.Google Scholar
  5. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service. Announcement of Final Safe Harbor Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 32,717 (June 17, 1999) (codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(c), 17.32(c)); 1999Google Scholar
  6. Defenders of Wildlife. Incentives for biodiversity conservation: an ecological and economic assessment. Washington DC: Defenders of Wildlife; 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Environmental Defense (ED). Safe harbor: helping landowners help endangered species. New York: ED; 1999.Google Scholar
  8. Frank G, Müller F. Voluntary approaches in protection of forests in Austria. Environ Sci Pol. 2003;6:261–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner RC. Rehabilitating nature: A comparative review of legal mechanisms that encourage wetland restoration efforts. Catholic University L Rev. 2003;52:57–620.Google Scholar
  10. Kishida D. Safe harbor agreements under the Endangered Species Act: Are they right for Hawaii? Hawaii L Rev. 2001;23:507.Google Scholar
  11. Quarles SP, Lundquist TR. Land Use Activities and the Section 9 Take Prohibition. In: Baur D C, Irvin W R, editors. Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy, and Perspectives. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Resources; 2010. p. 160–91.Google Scholar
  12. National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Safe harbor agreements and the ESA: Improving conservation on private lands. Endangered Species Act Factsheet. Washington DC: NWF; 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia. Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil. n.d. Last visited 18 September 2016.
  14. South Saskatchewan River Watershed Stewards Inc. Prairie Habitat Stewardship for species at risk. n.d. Last visited 18 September 2016.
  15. Sullins TA. Basic practice series: ESA (Endangered Species Act). 2nd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association (ABA), Section of Environment, Energy and Resources; 2001.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Safe harbor agreements for private landowners. Arlington: USFWS; 2011.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Working together: tools for helping imperiled wildlife on private lands. Arlington: USFWS; 2005a.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Conservation Profiles. Arlington: USFWS; 2005b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SecretariatRamsar Convention on WetlandsGlandSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations