Abstract
Conservation biology is a discipline that is empowered by legal support for accomplishing its mission of global biodiversity conservation, with such support rooted in legal frameworks grounded in ethical rights, utilitarian interests, and equal distribution of risks. Two US environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act (1970) and the US Endangered Species Act (1973) reframed biodiversity conservation in the US, and provided models used by other nations. The Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the adoption of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in 1973 engaged international support in new, systemic, and collaborative associations to achieve conservation. From these foundations, conservationists today must become more astute in understanding conservation law to make research effective in achieving conservation goals.
To make the changes we need to make and to reach a safer future, we will need the resources of everybody here — the scientists, the policy makers, and the industrialists — all working together towards a common goal. And that goal is a planet that can continue to support life.
Dr. Piers Sellers, American astronaut
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Literature Cited
Actman, J. 2016. Dolphin-safe tuna rules just got tougher. National Geographic.
Adler, Robert W. 2006. In defense of NEPA: The case of the Legacy Parkway. Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law 26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2568714 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2568714
Aguilar, G. 2001. Access to genetic resources and protection of traditional knowledge in the territories of indigenous peoples. Environmental Science & Policy 4: 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00028-4.
American Bar Association. 2017. Environmental justice. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2016/may-june/environmental_justice/
Anderson, C.B., C.S. Seixas, O. Barbosa, M.S. Fennessy, J. Díaz-José, and F.B. Herrera. 2019. Determining nature’s contributions to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science 14: 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0643-5.
Andresen, S., and E. Hey. 2005. The effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 5 (3): 211–226.
Axelrod, R., S. VanDeveer, and D. Downie. 2011. The global environment: Institutions, law, and policy. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Barry, D., and M. Oelschlaeger. 1996. A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10: 905–911.
Bean, M.J., S.G. Fitzgerald, and M.A. O’Connell. 1991. Reconciling conflicts under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Bies, L. 2018. House passes legislation to delist gray wolves. The Wildlife Society. URL: https://wildlife.org/house-passes-legislation-to-delist-gray-wolves/. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
Biggs, D., F. Courchamp, R. Martin, and H.P. Possingham. 2013. Legal trade of Africa’s rhino horns. Science 339: 1038–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229998.
Boersma, P. Dee, Peter Kareiva, William F. Fagan, Clark J. Alan, and Jonathan M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? Bioscience 51 (Aug 2001): 643–649.
Brown, T.C., and G.L. Peterson. 1993. A political-economic perspective on sustained ecosystem management. In Sustainable ecological systems: Implementing an ecological approach to land management, U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General technical report RM-247, ed. W.W. Covington and L.F. DeBano, 228–235. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Caldwell, L.K. 1966. Administrative possibilities for environmental control. In Future environments of North America, ed. F.F. Darling and J.P. Milton, 648–671. Garden City: Natural History Press.
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2019. An open letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from scientists and scholars on Federal wolf delisting in the context of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/pdfs/Open-letter-to-FWS-regarding-proposed-wolf-delisting-May-2019.pdf
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and The Humane Society of the United States (THS). 2018. Petition to maintain protections for gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the lower 48 states as endangered or threatened “Distinct Population Segments”. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/pdfs/Wolf-Petition-12-17-2018.pdf
Challender, D.W.S., S.R. Harrop, and D.C. MacMillan. 2015. Towards informed and multi-faceted wildlife trade interventions. Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.11.010.
Clark, E.R., and L.W. Canter. 1997. Environmental policy and NEPA: Past, present, and future. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Coggins, C. 2003. The tiger and the pangolin: Nature, culture, and conservation in China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Collier, A. 2018. This land was made for you and me – And them: Why and how the department of the interior should give greater consideration to the gray wolf’s historical range. Annual Review of Environmental and Natural Resource Law: Notes. Ecology 45: 289–326.
Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2018. Description of proposed changes to implementation of the Endangered Species Act (No. IF10944).
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2017, January 2. The CITES species. Retrieved from: https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.php
Cooper, M.H. 1999. Endangered Species Act. CQ Researcher 9: 851–863.
Cornell Law School. 2018. Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service [WWW Document]. Oyez. URL: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-71. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
Costa, R. 1997. The U.S. fish and wildlife’s red-cockaded woodpecker private lands conservation strategy: An evaluation. Endangered Species Update 14 (7–8): 40–44.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. The National Environmental Policy Act: A study of its effectiveness after twenty-five years. Retrieved from: White House Office of the President website: https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/nepa25fn.pdf
———. 2007. A citizen’s guide to the NEPA. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-involved/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf
———. 2016. CEQ NEPA pilot program [WWW Document]. The White House. URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/nepa-pilot-project. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
da Silva, M., and D.R. de Oliveira. 2018. The new Brazilian Legislation on access to the biodiversity (Law 13,123/15 and Decree 8772/16). Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 49: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.001.
Darling, F.F., and J.P. Milton, eds. 1966. Future environments of North America. Garden City: Natural History Press.
DiMento, J.F. 2003. The global environment and international law. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Do Amaral Azevedo, C.M. 2005. Regulation to access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in Brazil. Biota Neotropica 5: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032005000100002.
Doherty, T.S., L.M. Bland, B.A. Bryan, T. Neale, E. Nicholson, E.G. Ritchie, and D.A. Driscoll. 2018. Expanding the role of targets in conservation policy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33: 809–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.014.
Emslie, R. 2012. Ceratotherium simum. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2012: e.T4185A16980466. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T4185A16980466.en. Downloaded on 28 April 2019.
Evans, D.M., J.P. Che-Castaldo, D. Crouse, F.W. Davis, R. Epanchin-Niell, C.H. Flather, R.K. Frohlich, D.D. Goble, Y.-W. Li, T.D. Male, L.L. Master, M.P. Moskwik, M.C. Neel, B.R. Noon, C. Parmesan, M.W. Schwartz, J.M. Scott, and B.K. Williams. 2016. Species recovery in the United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology 29. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/2016/rmrs_2016_evans_d001.pdf
Faure, M., and J. Lefevere. 1999. Compliance with international environmental agreements. In The global environment: Institutions, law, and policy, ed. N.J. Vig and R.S. Axelrod. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Flather, C.H., M.S. Knowles, and I.A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography: Characteristics of hot spots in the conterminous United States. Bioscience 48: 365–376.
Fleishman, E., D.E. Blockstein, J.A. Hall, M.B. Mascia, M.A. Rudd, J.M. Scott, et al. 2011. Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. Bioscience 61 (4): 290–300.
Foin, T.C., S.P.D. Riley, A.L. Pawley, and D.R. Ayres. 1998. Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. Bioscience Washington 48 (3): 177–184.
Furman, E. 2011. Gray wolf legal challenges: 2005 to present [WWW Document]. Michigan State University Animal Legal & Historical Center. URL: https://www.animallaw.info/intro/gray-wolf-legal-challenges-2005-present. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
Gies, E. 2012, May 05. Report: Endangered Species Act works. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2012/05/30/endangered-species-act-works-saysreport/2/
Glick, D. 2005. Back from the Brink: An endangered species story with happy endings? From soaring bald eagle populations to rebounding grizzly bears, there have been more successes than you might expect. Smithsonian 36 (6): 54–63.
Goetz, P.C. 1997. An evaluation of ecosystem management and its application to the National Environmental Policy Act: The case of the U.S. Forest Service. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Greene, G. 1994. Caring for the Earth: The World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Environment 36 (7): 25–28.
Greenwald, N., K.F. Suckling, B. Hartl, and L.A. Mehrhoff. 2019. Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Peer Journal 7. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6803.
Gregory, R., G. Long, M. Colligan, J.G. Geiger, and M. Laser. 2012. When experts disagree (and better science won’t help much): Using structured deliberations to support endangered species recovery planning. Journal of Environmental Management 105: 30–43.
Grifo, F., D. Newman, A.S. Fairfield, B. Bhattacharaya, and J.T. Grupenhoff. 1997. The origins of prescription drugs. In Biodiversity and human health, ed. F. Grifo and J. Rosenthal, 131–163. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hanson, T. 2018. White House takes up NEPA implementation rules [WWW Document]. Congressional Western Caucus. URL: https://westerncaucus.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1564. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
Harvey, E., J.M. Hoekstra, Raymond J. O’Connor, and W.F. Fagan. 2002. Recovery plan revisions: Progress or due process? Ecological Applications 12: 682–689.
Himes Boor, G.K. 2014. A framework for developing objective and measurable recovery criteria for threatened and endangered species. Conservation Biology 28 (1): 33–43.
Holdgate, M. 1999. The green web: A union for world conservation. London: Earthscan Publications.
InforMEA. 2019. All Treaties and MEAs. United Nations Information Portal on Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from: https://www.informea.org/en/treaties
Jackson, A. 2019. The gray wolf may soon lose endangered species protection. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/us/gray-wolf-endangered-species-delisting-proposal-trnd/index.html
Jarman, M. 2018, August 3. USFWS and NOAA fisheries propose ESA changes [Web blog post]. The Wildlife Society. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://wildlife.org/usfws-and-noaa-fisheries-propose-esa-changes/
Joyner, C.C., and Z. Tyler. 2000. Marine conservation versus international free trade: Reconciling dolphins with tuna and sea turtles with shrimp. Ocean Development and International Law 31: 127–150.
Kaiser, J. 1997. When a habitat is not a home. Science 276: 1636–1638.
Karr, J.R. 1995. Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: Lessons for conservation biology. In Readings from conservation biology: The social dimension – Ethics, policy, management, development, economics, education, ed. D. Ehrenfeld, 108–114. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Kelso, B.J. 1995. The ivory controversy. Africa Report 40 (2): 50–55.
Lamb, R. 2018. Environmental impact assessment. In Environmental health in the 21st century: From air pollution to zoonotic diseases, ed. Richard Crume, vol. 2. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO/Greenwood.
Lamb, R., K. Gazenski, and R. Krehbiel. 2014. Using spatial data to improve recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved from University of Maryland, College Park website: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/20175
Lehman, W.E. 1995. Reconciling conflicts through habitat conservation planning. Endangered Species Bulletin 20 (1): 16–19.
Liptak, A. 2018. The dusky gopher frog loses a round in the Supreme Court. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gopher-frog.html
Liroff, R.A. 1976. A national policy for the environment: NEPA and its aftermath. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Loh, J., and K. Loh. 1994. Rhino horn in Taipei, Taiwan. Traffic Bulletin 14 (2): 55–58.
Marshall, L. 2012, December 11. Record 618 South African rhinos poached for horns in 2012, so far [Web blog post]. National Geographic. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/12/11/record-618-south-african-rhinos-poached-for-horns-in-2012-so-far/
McCuin, G., B. Schultz, and R. Orr. 2009. Know NEPA: Important points for public participation – Part one of a two-part series (No. special publication 09-14). University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension. https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2009/sp0914.pdf
Mead, L. 2017. Environmental assessments key to achieving SDGs, climate goals. SDG Knowledge Hub. URL: http://sdg.iisd.org/news/environmental-assessments-key-to-achieving-sdgs-climate-goals/. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
Meffe, G.K., and S. Viederman. 1995. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 327–332.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2003. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. 11th ed. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc, Springfield.
Miller, K. 2017. Court upholds decision on Great Lakes gray wolf population [WWW Document]. The Wildlife Society. URL: https://wildlife.org/court-upholds-decision-on-great-lakes-gray-wolf-population/. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
Miller, C.J., and J.L. Croston. 1998. WTO scrutiny v. environmental objectives: Assessment of the International Dolphin Conservation Program. American Business Law Journal 37: 73–125.
Miller, J.K., J.M. Scott, C.R. Miller, and L.P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense? Bioscience 52: 163–168.
Mintzer, I., and D. Michel. 2001. Climate change, rights of future generations and intergenerational equity: An in-expert exploration of a dark and cloudy path. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 1: 203. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2001.000978.
Nash, R.F. 1989. The rights of nature. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. 2019. Division on engineering and physical sciences FAQ [WWW Document]. URL: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/deps/deps_037300. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. The Tuna-Dolphin issue. NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Retrieved from: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=PRD&ParentMenuId=228&id=1408.
Nazzaro, Robin. 2006, April 06. Endangered species: Time and costs required to recover species are largely unknown (GAO-06-463R). Retrieved from Government Accountability Office website: http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/94110.pdf.
Neel, M.C., A.K. Leidner, A. Haines, D.D. Goble, and J.M. Scott. 2012. By the numbers: How is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act? Bioscience 62 (7): 646–657.
Neergheen-Bhujun, V., A.T. Awan, Y. Baran, N. Bunnefeld, K. Chan, T.E. dela Cruz, et al. 2017. Biodiversity, drug discovery, and the future of global health: Introducing the biodiversity to biomedicine consortium, a call to action. Journal of Global Health 7 (2): 020304. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.020304.
Nicholson, C.P. 2017. Annual NEPA report 2016 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) practice, NEPA practice. National Association of Environmental Professionals. https://naep.memberclicks.net/assets/annual-report/2016/nepa_annual_report_2016.pdf.
Noss, R.F. 1993. Whither conservation biology? Conservation Biology 7: 215–217.
Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
O’Connell, M.A. 1997. Improving habitat conservation planning through a regional ecosystem-based approach. Endangered Species Update 14 (7–8): 18–21.
Oreskes, N. 2017. The scientist as sentinel [WWW Document]. Harvard University, Science Reserach Public Lecture. URL: https://www.physics.harvard.edu/node/734. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
Parson, E.A., P.M. Haas, and M.A. Levy. 1992. A summary of the major documents signed at the Earth Summit and the Global Forum. Environment 34 (12–15): 34–36.
Pepper, E. 2015. Never eliminate public advice: NEPA success stories [WWW Document]. National Resources Defense Council. URL: https://www.nrdc.org/resources/never-eliminate-public-advice-nepa-success-stories. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
Petulla, J.M. 1977. American environmental history. San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser.
Pielke, R., Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawlins, W. 2006. Woodpecker mapping gets chain saws buzzing. The News & Observer. 6 August 2006. Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Restani, Marco, and John M. Marzluff. 2002. Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. Bioscience 52 (2): 169–177.
Roberts, J. 2004. Environmental policy. London: Routledge.
Rodgers, W., Jr. 1994. The seven statutory wonders of U.S. Environmental law: Origins and morphology. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27: 1009–1021. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol27/iss3/15.
Rohlf, D.J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work – And what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5: 273–282.
———. 1995. Response to O’Connell. In Readings from conservation biology: The social dimension – Ethics, policy, management, development, economics, education, ed. D. Ehrenfeld, 100–101. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Rosenbaum, W.A. 1995. Environmental politics and policy. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Salzman, J., and B. Thompson Jr. 2013. Environmental law and policy, 4th (concepts and insights series) (version 4th ed.), Concepts and insights. 4th ed. St. Paul: West Academic.
Samaan, A.W. 2011. Enforcement of international environmental treaties: At analysis. Fordham Environmental Law Review 5: 25. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=elr.
Sample, V.A. 1993. A framework for public participation in natural resource decision making. Journal of Forestry 91 (7): 22–27.
Sand, P.H. 1988. Marine environment law in the United Nations Environment Programme: An emergent eco-regime. London: Tycooly Publishing.
Sands, P. 1999. Environmental protection in the twenty-first century: Sustainable development and international law. In The global environment: Institutions, law, and policy, ed. N.J. Vig and R.S. Axelrod, 116–137. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
Sas-Rolfes, M. 2017. African wildlife conservation and the evolution of hunting institutions. Environmental Research Letters 12 (11): 115007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa854b.
Schilling, F. 1997. Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species? Science 276: 1662–1663.
Sherpa, L., R. Beeckmans, S. Raj, A. Richardson, and A. Requesens. 2014. Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-5411-2016009.
Slocombe, D.S. 1989. CITES, the wildlife trade, and sustainable development. Alternatives 16: 20–29.
Smith, R.J. 1992. The Endangered Species Act: Saving species or stopping growth? Cato Review of Business & Government. Retrieved from: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/1/v15n1-9.pdf.
Smith, J.A., K. Brust, J. Skelton, and J.R. Walters. 2018. How effective is the safe harbor program for the conservation of red-cockaded woodpeckers? The Condor 120: 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-113.1.
Supreme Court of the United States. 2018. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. (11/27/2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-71_omjp.pdf.
Tarlock, A.D. 1994. The nonequilibrium paradigm in ecology and the partial unraveling of environmental law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27: 1121–1144.
Tear, T.H., J.M. Scott, P.H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act—Are criticisms supported by data. Conservation Biology 9: 182–195.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. NEPA Process Overview [WWW Document]. URL http://gladesreservoir.com/nepa-process-overview. Accessed 29 Feb 2020.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Delisting a Species. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/classification/pdf/delisting.pdf.
———. 2017a. Removal of Wyoming’s gray wolves from endangered species list final step in historic recovery across northern rockies [WWW Document]. USFWS Conserving the Nature of America. URL: https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=removal-of-wyoming%E2%80%99s-gray-wolves-from-endangered-species-list-final-step-&_ID=36037. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
———. 2017b. Critical habitat: What is it? https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/critical_habitat.pdf.
———. 2018a. ESA implementation and regulation revisions. USFWS Endangered Species. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/regulation-revisions.html.
———. 2018b. Listing and critical habitat and petition process. USFWS Endangered Species. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/what-we-do/listing-petition-process.html.
———. 2018c. Endangered species|What we do|Listing and critical habitat|Critical habitat|FAQ [WWW Document]. Endangered Species. URL: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/critical-habitats-faq.html Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
———. 2019a. U.S. federal endangered and threatened species by calendar year. USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listings-count-by-year-report.
———. 2019b. Threatened & endangered species. USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.
———. 2019c. Foreign species, overview. USFWS Endangered Species. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-species.html.
———. 2019d. Species profile for gray wolf (Canis lupus). USFWS Endangered Species. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=4488
———. 2019e. Department of the interior celebrates recovery of the gray wolf with proposal to return management to states, tribes [WWW Document]. URL: https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=department-of-the-interior-celebrates-recovery-of-the-gray-wolf-with-&_ID=36378. Accessed 09 Dec 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revision of the regulations for listing species and designating critical habitat, 83 FR 35193 (to be codified at 50 CFR 424). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/25/2018-15810/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-revision-of-the-regulations-for-listing-species-and
———. 2019. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 26 draft recovery plan amendments for 42 species across the United States, 84 FR 790. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/31/2019-00436/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-26-draft-recovery-plan-amendments-for-42-species
United Nations (UN). 2015. The millennium development goals report. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf
———. 2018. The sustainable development goals report 2018. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/the-sustainable-development-goals-report-2018.html
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 2017, September 15. Countries agree on a landmark 2030 strategy to save fertile lands. UNCCD. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://www.unccd.int/news-events/countries-agree-landmark-2030-strategy-save-fertile-lands
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2019. Secretariats and conventions [WWW Document]. UN Environment. URL http://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/why-does-un-environmentmatter/secretariats-and-conventions. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2019. World heritage list. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1992. Article 2.
United Nations Human Rights (UNHR). 2013. Indigenous peoples and the United Nations Human Rights system. United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. Fact Sheet No. 9/Rev. 2. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf
Vincent, C.H., L.A. Hanson, and C.N. Argueta. 2017. Federal land ownership: Overview and data. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Walley, K.K. 1996. Surprises inherent in no surprises policy. Endangered Species Update 13 (10–11):8–9, 14.
Weijerman, M., M.J. Dunlap, C. Birkeland, G.A. Piniak, M.W. Miller, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, and R.E. Brainard. 2014. Endangered Species Act listing: Three case studies of data deficiencies and consequences of ESA ‘threatened’ listing on research output. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7: 15–21.
Weiss, E.B. 1999. The emerging structure of international environmental law. In The global environment: Institutions, law, and policy, ed. N.J. Vig and R.S. Axelrod, 98–115. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Weiss, E.B., and H.K. Jacobson. 1999. Getting countries to comply with international agreements. Environment 41 (6): 16–31.
Welch, J.R. 2015. Brazil’s new biodiversity law. Ethnobiology Letters 6: 216–217.
Wentz, J. 2018. Proposed amendments to Endangered Species Act regulations could curtail protections for species imperiled by climate change. URL: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2018/09/19/proposed-amendments-to-endangered-species-act-regulations-could-curtail-protections-for-species-imperiled-by-climate-change/. Accessed 09 Nov 2019.
Western Governors’ Association (WGA). 2017. Western Governors’ Association policy resolution 2017–11: Species conservation and the Endangered Species Act (p. 8). Retrieved from: https://westgov.org/images/editor/2017-11_Species_Conservation_and_the_ESA_for_web.pdf
Wilhere, George F. 2012. Inadvertent advocacy. Conservation Biology 26 (1): 39–46.
Wu, M., and J. Salzman. 2014. The next generation of trade and environment conflicts: The rise of green industrial policy. Northwestern University Law Review 108 (2): 401–474. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=nulr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Dyke, F., Lamb, R.L. (2020). The Legal Foundations of Conservation Biology. In: Conservation Biology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39532-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39534-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)