The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species

The term critical habitat is used to describe the subset of habitat that is essential to the survival and recovery of species. Some countries legally require that critical habitat of listed threatened and endangered species be identified and protected. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the identification of critical habitat has had much impact on species recovery. We hypothesized that this may be due at least partly to a mismatch between the intent of critical habitat identification, which is to protect sufficient habitat for species persistence and recovery, and its practice. We used content analysis to systematically review critical habitat documents from the United States, Canada, and Australia. In particular, we identified the major trends in type of information used to identify critical habitat and in occupancy of habitat identified as critical. Information about population viability was used to identify critical habitat for only 1% of the species reviewed, and for most species, designated critical habitat did not include unoccupied habitat. Without reference to population viability, it is difficult to determine how much of a species’ occupied and unoccupied habitat will be required for persistence. We therefore conclude that the identification of critical habitat remains inconsistent with the goal of protecting sufficient habitat to support persistence and recovery of the species. Ensuring that critical habitat identification aligns more closely with its intent will improve the accuracy of the designations and may therefore help improve the benefits to species recovery when combined with adequate implementation and enforcement of legal protections.     

Conservation planning on China's borders with Myanmar,Laos, and Vietnam

Transboundary conservation is playing an increasingly important role in maintaining ecosystem integrity and halting biodiversity loss caused by anthropogenic activities. However, lack of information on species distributions in transboundary regions and understanding of the threats in these areas impairs conservation. We developed a spatial conservation plan for the transboundary areas between Yunnan province, southwestern China, and neighboring Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot. To identify priority areas for conservation and restoration, we determined species distribution patterns and recent land-use changes and examined the spatiotemporal dynamics of the connected natural forest, which supports most species. We assessed connectivity with equivalent connected area (ECA), which is the amount of reachable habitat for a species. An ECA incorporates the presence of habitat in a patch and the amount of habitat in other patches within dispersal distance. We analyzed 197,845 locality records from specimen collections and monographs for 21,004 plant and vertebrate species. The region of Yunnan immediately adjacent to the international borders had the highest species richness, with 61% of recorded species and 56% of threatened vertebrates, which suggests high conservation value. Satellite imagery showed the area of natural forest in the border zone declined by 5.2% (13,255 km²) from 1995 to 2018 and monoculture plantations increased 92.4%, shrubland 10.1%, and other cropland 6.2%. The resulting decline in connected natural forest reduced the amount of habitat, especially for forest specialists with limited dispersal abilities. The most severe decline in connectivity was along the Sino-Vietnamese border. Many priority areas straddle international boundaries, indicating demand and potential for establishing transboundary protected areas. Our results illustrate the importance of bi- and multilateral cooperation to protect biodiversity in this region and provide guidance for future conservation planning and practice.     

A Framework for Developing Objective and Measurable Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

For species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with writing recovery plans that include “objective, measurable criteria” that define when a species is no longer at risk of extinction, but neither the act itself nor agency guidelines provide an explicit definition of objective, measurable criteria. Past reviews of recovery plans, including one published in 2012, show that many criteria lack quantitative metrics with clear biological rationale and are not meeting the measureable and objective mandate. I reviewed how objective, measureable criteria have been defined implicitly and explicitly in peer‐reviewed literature, the ESA, other U.S. statutes, and legal decisions. Based on a synthesis of these sources, I propose the following 6 standards be used as minimum requirements for objective, measurable criteria: contain a quantitative threshold with calculable units, stipulate a timeframe over which they must be met, explicitly define the spatial extent or population to which they apply, specify a sampling procedure that includes sample size, specify a statistical significance level, and include justification by providing scientific evidence that the criteria define a species whose extinction risk has been reduced to the desired level. To meet these 6 standards, I suggest that recovery plans be explicitly guided by and organized around a population viability modeling framework even if data or agency resources are too limited to complete a viability model. When data and resources are available, recovery criteria can be developed from the population viability model results, but when data and resources are insufficient for model implementation, extinction risk thresholds can be used as criteria. A recovery‐planning approach centered on viability modeling will also yield appropriately focused data‐acquisition and monitoring plans and will facilitate a seamless transition from recovery planning to delisting. Un Marco de Referencia para Desarrollar Criterios de Recuperación Objetivos y Medibles para Especies Amenazadas y en Peligro     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.