The biodiversity crisis is upon us. You’ve likely encountered the numbing trends: Over one-third of our plants and animals are at risk of extinction; ecosystems are collapsing. Behind these numbers are actual creatures: songbirds, secretive salamanders, bees and butterflies, iconic orcas. Habitat destruction and degradation—the draining of wetlands, conversion of grasslands to farms, damming, logging, and the rampant spread of invasive species—are driving the declines. Climate change is merely adding insult to these injuries. 

Current federal funding only gives states and tribes a fraction of what they need to confront these emergencies. But before you crawl back to bed and hide under the covers, there’s good news from Washington, DC. On March 31, Senator Martin Heinrich, the New Mexico Democrat, and Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican, reintroduced the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, a bipartisan bill that would infuse state and tribal wildlife conservation programs with much-needed funding.

RAWA—“rah wah”—would allocate up to $1.4 billion annually for proactive, on-the-ground conservation, and it would guarantee $97.5 million to tribal conservation programs every year for 10 years. 

As reported by Sierra, RAWA enjoyed broad bipartisan support when it was first introduced in 2022. It died when Congress couldn’t agree on a funding mechanism for the bill and left it out of last year’s omnibus spending package.

Now, advocates are cheering its revival. In a press release, Bradley Williams, associate director of legislative and administrative advocacy for Sierra Club, applauded the reintroduction, calling it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect wildlife and address the biodiversity crisis.”

Proponents use the word “unprecedented” to describe RAWA, and for good reason: If passed, the legislation would not only provide states with much-needed gap funding, but it would, for the first time, guarantee sustained funding for tribal conservation programs.

“One of the most obvious issues in the conservation world, but least talked about, is inequity in funding for tribal fish and wildlife programs,” says Julie Thorstenson, executive director of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society and a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. “There's nothing out there that tribes can count on year to year for that sustainable base level funding.” Instead, tribes must patch together funding, often competing for nonrenewable federal grants, and tribes with newer or smaller programs may lack the capacity to even apply. 

Consequently, they have long sought to secure such funding through legislation, including the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993 and the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000. Both would have diverted some of the money from the federal Wildlife Restoration Program, which provides grants to state fish and wildlife agencies, to tribes. (The program relies on taxes on ammunition, firearms, and archery equipment for funding; critics argue that the structure should be revamped to draw from a broader range of conservationists—birders, for instance.) In contrast, RAWA establishes new and separate accounts for state and tribal conservation and restoration, which supplement rather than take away from existing funding. 

“With RAWA, [states and tribes] are all at the same table. And that's something that's definitely different than past efforts,” says Thorstenson.

Even though the bill failed last year, lobbying for RAWA during a fly-in to DC last November gave NAFWS members a chance to educate lawmakers about the inadequacy of funding and the depth and breadth of tribal conservation. “I think a lot of times people don't realize all that's happening in Indian Country in conservation,” says Thorstenson. “We're at the forefront of everything, really: salmon restoration, dam removal, endangered and threatened species, invasive species, wildlife health.”

Last year’s America the Beautiful Challenge, a competitive grant program hosted by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, highlighted the scale of the need, as nearly a quarter of the 574 federally recognized tribes applied for funding. “We had 133 tribes asking for $326 million,” says Thorstenson. “I think it opened a lot of eyes, especially for our federal partners.” 

Ultimately, 14 tribes received America the Beautiful grants for projects ranging from bison restoration in Montana to wetlands mapping in Bristol Bay, Alaska—a preview of the kinds of projects that could be possible with more reliable funding.

Like last year’s bill, RAWA directs funding to states so they can develop and implement Wildlife Action Plans, which outline proactive measures to help struggling species before they decline to the point of crisis. Collectively, these plans have identified 12,000 species of animals and plants in need. The bill would allocate $850 million to states in 2024, with stepwise annual increases to $1.3 billion in 2028. Though the bill includes funding for threatened and endangered species recovery, an important aim of RAWA is to keep species from becoming listed in the first place—a goal that a diverse range of stakeholders, from developers to duck hunters, can get behind. 

Critically, RAWA allows for a broad toolbox of strategies to help wildlife, from habitat restoration and acquisition to research and invasive species management, even the building of nature centers. Funds may also be used for wildlife-related education and recreation projects, especially in historically underserved communities.

Corina Newsome, associate conservation scientist at the National Wildlife Federation, says RAWA would be a big win not just for wildlife but for environmental justice, as degraded wildlife habitat is often degraded people habitat too. States are massively under-resourced, says Newsome. “This money will provide resources for them to be able to engage a broader network of constituencies in their state, which is important for conservation outcomes.” Citing an example of a win-win conservation project, through their Sacred Grounds program, the National Wildlife Federation has been working with church congregations in a Black community in Southeast Washington, DC, to plant pollinator gardens, which not only support bees, butterflies, and other insects but also reduce flooding and run-off into the Anacostia River. 

Racial and socioeconomic diversity is sorely lacking in most state fish and wildlife agencies, says Newsome. By engaging more people in more types of communities, she sees an opportunity to diversify the agencies charged with conservation, and to provide points of entry into conservation careers, whether by building a nature center in an urban neighborhood that doesn’t have good access to unspoiled wild places or providing ways for citizens to participate in habitat restoration and scientific monitoring.

“Having a diverse set of decision-makers and thinkers and problem solvers allows us to be better equipped to solve the very interconnected, complex, integrated issues that we are facing when it comes to environmental challenges across the US,” says Newsome.

Thorstenson agrees that having more people at the table is critical for addressing the many threats to biodiversity, and while she’s heartened by the new climate of inclusion and co-stewardship with tribes, she says tribal programs must staff up to take advantage of these new opportunities. “That capacity level has to be addressed,” she says. RAWA would not only fund new positions and projects, but it would also allow wildlife managers to spend less time chasing grant money and more time actually doing conservation work.

The funding mechanism for RAWA has yet to be determined; that and the 10-year commitment are likely to be the bill’s sticking points. Yet “having the dedicated fund with assured money every year is really one of the most critical elements of the bill,” says Naomi Edelson, senior director for wildlife partnerships at the National Wildlife Federation. Just as it took decades to recover iconic species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, “it's going to take decades to get the monarch butterfly back. We know we can, but it will take time,” says Edelson. 

Advocates expect RAWA to move quickly through the Senate now that the Easter recess is over. A major difference from last year, Williams told Sierra, is that the bill has support from leadership.

Last year the House passed RAWA by a vote of 231-190; 18 Republicans voted “yea.” This year, with a Republican majority and new rules imposed by the GOP’s right wing, could be more challenging. Representative Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, has promised to introduce the bill this year, as she has every year since 2017. Her Republican cosponsor, Jeff Fortenberry, resigned from Congress last year, but a broad coalition of supporters is poised to apply pressure when needed. 

Money won’t solve the biodiversity crisis. But RAWA is a rare opportunity to rush a shot of first aid to our ecosystems and their wondrously diverse inhabitants. If not now, when?