The United States Endangered Species Act ("ESA") is one of the strongest species protection laws in the world. The stated goal of the ESA is to recover threatened and endangered species to the point where they no longer need its protection. Most provisions are implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively "the Services"). The Services are responsible for designating species as threatened or endangered, and developing and implementing recovery plans to help species reach that goal. But the ESA expressly requires that all federal agencies use their authorities to work towards this recovery goal. While the Act has been successful at preventing extinction, its record on recovery is more mixed – comparatively few species listed under it have reached their recovery goal. Reasons for this may include inadequate funding, political pressure, and lack of interagency coordination on recovery planning and implementation.
The goal of this Research Topic is to gain a better understanding of recovery processes and programs under the ESA, and explore possible policy interventions that can improve those processes and programs. Doing so may help ensure that more species reach the point where they no longer need ESA protections. Managing for imperiled species protection in the face of competing national priorities has proven more difficult than Congress expected when it passed the ESA in 1973. More specifically, recovery has lagged behind the ambitious goals set when the ESA was passed due to a variety of political, economic, ecological, and legal factors. As the U.S. approaches the 50th anniversary of the passage of the ESA, it is a particularly opportune time to take stock of the status of the recovery goal and explore what goes right -- and wrong -- in recovery actions as we continue to face a national and global biodiversity crisis.
The scope of this Research Topic encompasses work that investigates, analyzes, and evaluates species recovery programs and projects carried out under the ESA by the Services and other federal agencies, either alone or in partnership with non-federal stakeholders like state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and Tribes.
We are interested in papers that explore the past, present, or future of ESA recovery programs, identify barriers to effective recovery, and explore possible policy interventions to improve, enhance, and reform ESA recovery efforts.
We welcome a variety of paper types that explore ESA recovery, including:
* Quantitative and/or qualitative analyses or reviews of recovery programs by agency, imperiled species, or taxa.
* Perspectives on ESA recovery generally, particularly those that explore how species recovery can be improved at a programmatic level.
* Case studies of ESA recovery projects involving one or more listed species.
* Economic analyses of recovery costs or recovery funding needs.
* Frameworks or tools for improving the recovery planning and/or implementation process.
* Geospatial analyses related to habitat of particular suitability to the recovery of one or more imperiled species.
The United States Endangered Species Act ("ESA") is one of the strongest species protection laws in the world. The stated goal of the ESA is to recover threatened and endangered species to the point where they no longer need its protection. Most provisions are implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively "the Services"). The Services are responsible for designating species as threatened or endangered, and developing and implementing recovery plans to help species reach that goal. But the ESA expressly requires that all federal agencies use their authorities to work towards this recovery goal. While the Act has been successful at preventing extinction, its record on recovery is more mixed – comparatively few species listed under it have reached their recovery goal. Reasons for this may include inadequate funding, political pressure, and lack of interagency coordination on recovery planning and implementation.
The goal of this Research Topic is to gain a better understanding of recovery processes and programs under the ESA, and explore possible policy interventions that can improve those processes and programs. Doing so may help ensure that more species reach the point where they no longer need ESA protections. Managing for imperiled species protection in the face of competing national priorities has proven more difficult than Congress expected when it passed the ESA in 1973. More specifically, recovery has lagged behind the ambitious goals set when the ESA was passed due to a variety of political, economic, ecological, and legal factors. As the U.S. approaches the 50th anniversary of the passage of the ESA, it is a particularly opportune time to take stock of the status of the recovery goal and explore what goes right -- and wrong -- in recovery actions as we continue to face a national and global biodiversity crisis.
The scope of this Research Topic encompasses work that investigates, analyzes, and evaluates species recovery programs and projects carried out under the ESA by the Services and other federal agencies, either alone or in partnership with non-federal stakeholders like state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and Tribes.
We are interested in papers that explore the past, present, or future of ESA recovery programs, identify barriers to effective recovery, and explore possible policy interventions to improve, enhance, and reform ESA recovery efforts.
We welcome a variety of paper types that explore ESA recovery, including:
* Quantitative and/or qualitative analyses or reviews of recovery programs by agency, imperiled species, or taxa.
* Perspectives on ESA recovery generally, particularly those that explore how species recovery can be improved at a programmatic level.
* Case studies of ESA recovery projects involving one or more listed species.
* Economic analyses of recovery costs or recovery funding needs.
* Frameworks or tools for improving the recovery planning and/or implementation process.
* Geospatial analyses related to habitat of particular suitability to the recovery of one or more imperiled species.
