Salmon, science, and conservation: Organizational power and the listing and recovery planning of an endangered species

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 124-133
Author(s):  
Randle J. Hart

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stinchcombe ◽  
Leonie C. Moyle ◽  
Brian R. Hudgens ◽  
Philip L. Bloch ◽  
Sathya Chinnadurai ◽  
...  


1997 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 407
Author(s):  
Bea Sommer

Back from the Brink is based on material presented at a conference held by the Commonwealth Endangered Species Advisory Committee in Sydney in December, 1995. The purpose of the conference was to bring together practitioners with a wide range of "hands-on" recovery planning and implementation experience to review and refine the recovery process for threatened species and ecological communities. A foreword by Dr Andrew Burbidge (Endangered Species Advisory Committee) addresses the need for community involvement and government co-operation, and highlights the importance of the recovery process itself, if conservation of threatened species and ecological communities is to be successful.



2012 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 30-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Gregory ◽  
Graham Long ◽  
Mary Colligan ◽  
James G. Geiger ◽  
Melissa Laser




2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize challenges with the current planning process. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species, we quantify the completeness, timeliness, age, and other variation among ESA recovery plans over the past 40 years. We show that nearly 1/4 of eligible listed taxa (n = 1,548) lack final recovery plans; half of plans have taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are more than 20 years old; and there is significant variation between agencies and among regions and taxonomic groups in planning. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species requiring protection, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions—some already underway—that may address some of the shortcomings and help improve recovery action implementation for threatened and endangered species.



2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Carroll ◽  
Robert C. Lacy ◽  
Richard J. Fredrickson ◽  
Daniel J. Rohlf ◽  
Sarah A. Hendricks ◽  
...  


FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1088-1127
Author(s):  
Daniel Kraus ◽  
Stephen Murphy ◽  
Derek Armitage

Wildlife is declining around the world. Many developed nations have enacted legislation on endangered species protection and provide funding for wildlife recovery. Protecting endangered species is also supported by the public and judiciary. Yet, despite what appear as enabling conditions, wild species continue to decline. Our paper explores pathways to endangered species recovery by analyzing the barriers that have been identified in Canada, the United States, and Australia. We summarize these findings based on Canada’s Species at Risk Conservation Cycle (assessment, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation) and then identify 10 “bridges” that could help overcome these barriers and bend our current trajectory of wildlife loss to recovery. These bridges include ecosystem approaches to recovery, building capacity for community co-governance, linking wildlife recovery to ecosystem services, and improving our storytelling about the loss and recovery of wildlife. The focus of our conclusions is the Canadian setting, but our findings can be applied in other national and subnational settings to reverse the decline of wildlife and halt extinction.



2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize challenges with the current planning process. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species, we quantify the completeness, timeliness, age, and other variation among ESA recovery plans over the past 40 years. Among eligible listed taxa (n = 1,548), nearly 1/4 lack final recovery plans; half of plans have taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are more than 20 years old; and there is significant variation in planning between agencies, and among regions and taxonomic groups. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species requiring protection, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions—some already underway—that may address some of the shortcomings and help improve recovery action implementation for threatened and endangered species.



2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 229-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M. Bradshaw Schulz

This Article explores the previously overlooked role of relational contracting in forming and maintaining public-private partnerships. Relational contracting generally describes firms using formal but legally non-binding agreements to collaborate on shared objectives. Why do parties invest in forming elaborate contracts that they do not—and cannot—enforce in court? Contract theory suggests that the very act of contracting is relationship-building; it generates commitment, trust, cooperation, a win-win philosophy, and strengthened communication. Writing down goals and intentions allows parties to clarify expectations while maintaining flexibility for unforeseen conditions. This Article demonstrates that agencies also use relational contracting— creating unenforceable written agreements to build relationships with external actors. To shed light on agencies’ use of relational contracting, this Article provides a novel review of the recovery planning process required by the Endangered Species Act. A surprising finding emerges: private groups are providing crucial resources and logistical support to prevent the extinction of endangered species. Tribes, states, nongovernmental organizations, and sportsmen’s groups are providing necessary resources to further agency action. By orchestrating private action through recovery planning documents, the agency can garner the resources necessary to undertake species translocations, which it could not unilaterally facilitate. Although the plans are not judicially enforceable, they nevertheless play a coordinating and commitment-generating role in facilitating private actors to engage in recovery efforts. This example highlights the broader trend of relational contracting building and formalizing relationships between agency and non-agency actors. Environmental impact statements, forest management plans, and recovery plans for endangered species are all examples of such “relational contracts” governing inter-agency and private-public collaborations. Viewed in this light, seemingly prosaic planning documents are, in fact, a crucial component in facilitating many agency collaborations. Descriptively, this account adds institutional detail to literatures on new governance and public-private partnerships. Normatively, it raises questions about whether the benefits of contracting offsets the potential distributional inequities and mechanisms to shroud government actions created by the practice.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document