In this chapter, you will learn about:
-
1.
The development and contemporary expressions of conservation law and its relationship to the science of conservation biology
-
2.
The most important international conservation laws and how they define and empower conservation
-
3.
Examples of national conservation laws in the United States that have provided models for conservation at national levels in other countries
-
4.
Specific case histories in which national and international conservation laws have influenced the goals and practices of conservation biology
Conservation biology is a legally empowered discipline; that is, it represents a scientific community that has received legal, political, and cultural incentives and reinforcements. Indeed, some have gone so far as to call conservation biology a “regulatory science” that “seeks to develop scientific standards that can be applied to regulatory criteria and then to develop management strategies to meet those standards” (Tarlock 1994:1130). Throughout the world, the goals of conservation biology, including preservation of biodiversity, protection of endangered species, and conservation and management of ecosystems, are increasingly established in and enabled by laws.
Today many conservation biologists are tempted to believe that it was conservation biologists who inspired the laws that protect biological diversity, but a close look at recent history forces us to abandon this self-gratifying notion. It was conservation law that came first, in manifestations like the US Endangered Species Act (1973) and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (1973), among others that preceded the earliest organizational efforts to define the discipline of conservation biology. Although conservation biology might still have developed without national and international environmental legislation, it would have been substantially less influential. In fact, conservation biology owes much of its early success and continuing vitality to its legal empowerment and support, and modern national and global environmental legislation has affected and continues to affect conservation biology in three ways. First, it has given legal incentives and approval for biodiversity preservation. Second, it has affirmed the goals of conservation biology and influenced the public to value conservation. Third, it has provided an environment that requires and sustains scientific research, management and monitoring.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC
Berrens, R. P., D. S. Brookshire, M. McKee, and C. Schmidt. 1998. Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: two case studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Land Economics 74:147–161
Brown, T. C., and G. L. Peterson. 1993. A political-economic perspective on sustained ecosystem management. In: W. W. Covington and L. F. DeBano (eds) Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management. U S Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-247, pp 228–235
Brussard, P. F., and J. C. Tull. 2007. Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology 21:21–24
Caldwell, L. K. 1966. Administrative possibilities for environmental control. In: F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton (eds) Future environments of North America. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, pp 648–671
Coggins, C. 2003. The tiger and the pangolin: nature, culture, and conservation in China. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI
Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Cooper, M. H. 1999. Endangered Species Act. CQ Researcher 9:851–863
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
Darling, F. F., and J. P. Milton (eds). 1966. Future environments of North America. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY
DiMento, J. F. 2003. The global environment and international law. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX
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
Faure, M., and J. Lefevere. 1999. Compliance with international environmental agreements. In: N. J. Vig and R. S. Axelrod (eds) 1999. The global environment: institutions, law, and policy. CQ, Washington, DC
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, VA
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
Holdgate, M. 1999. The green web: a union for world conservation. Earthscan, London
IUCN. 2000. Vision for water and nature: a world strategy for conservation and sustainable management of water resources in the 21st century. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
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
Justinian. 1997. Institutes of Justinian, 2nd edition. Translated by T. C. Sandars. Gaunt, Holmes Beach, FL
Karr, J. R. 1995. Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: lessons for conservation biology. In: D. Ehrenfeld (ed) Readings from conservation biology: the social dimension–ethics, policy, management, development, economics, education. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA, pp 108–114
Kaiser, J. 1997. When a habitat is not a home. Science 276:1636–1638
Kelso, B. J. 1995. The ivory controversy. Africa Report 40(2):50–55
Lehman, W. E. 1995. Reconciling conflicts through habitat conservation planning. Endangered Species Bulletin 20(1):16–19
Liroff, R. A. 1976. A national policy for the environment: NEPA and its aftermath. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN
Mann, C., and M. Plummer. 1997. Qualified thumbs up for habitat plan science. Science 278:2052–2053
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 edition. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA
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
Murthy, K. S. 1988. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. CRC, Boca Raton, FL
Nash, R. F. 1989. The rights of nature. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
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. Island Press, Washington, DC
O’Connell, M. A. 1997. Improving habitat conservation planning through a regional ecosystem-based approach. Endangered Species Update 14(7–8):18–21
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
Petulla, J. M. 1977. American environmental history. Boyd & Fraser, San Francisco, CA
Postel, S., and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC
Rawlins, W. 2006. Woodpecker mapping gets chain saws buzzing. The News & Observer. 6 August 2006. Raleigh, NC
Roberts, J. 2004. Environmental policy. Routledge, London
Rodgers, W. H. Jr. 1994. The seven statutory wonders of U.S. environmental law: origins and morphology. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27:1009–1021
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
Rohlf, D. J. 1995. Response to O’Connell. In: D. Ehrenfeld (ed) Readings from conservation biology: the social dimension–ethics, policy, management, development, economics, education, Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA, pp 100–101
Rosenbaum, W. A. 1985. Environmental politics and policy. CQ, Washington, DC
Rosenbaum, W. A. 1995. Environmental politics and policy, 3rd edition. CQ, Washington, DC
Salzman, J., and B. H. Thompson. 2003. Environmental law and policy. Foundation, New York
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. Tycooly, London
Sands, P. 1999. Environmental protection in the twenty-first century: sustainable development and international law. In: N. J. Vig and R. S. Axelrod (eds) The global environment: institutions, law, and policy. Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC, pp 116–137
Schilling, F. 1997. Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species? Science 276:1662–1663
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? Regulation 15(1). Available from http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n1-smith.html (accessed July 2007)
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
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1992. Article 2
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Report to Congress on the recovery of threatened and endangered species fiscal year 2003–2004. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Summary of listed species. Available from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Boxscore.do (accessed July 2007)
Vig, N. J., and R. S. Axelrod (eds). 1999. The global environment: institutions, law, and policy. CQ, Washington, DC
Walley, K. K. 1996. Surprises inherent in no surprises policy. Endangered Species Update 13(10–11):8–9, 14
Weiss, E. B. 1999. The emerging structure of international environmental law. In: N. J. Vig and R. S. Axelrod (eds) The global environment: institutions, law, and policy. CQ, Washington, DC, pp 98–115
Weiss, E. B., and H. K. Jacobson. (eds). 1998. Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with International Environmental Accords. MIT, Cambridge, MA
Weiss, E. B., and H. K. Jacobson. 1999. Getting countries to comply with international agreements. Environment 41(6):16–31
Yost, N. C., and J. W. Rubin. 1989. NEPA deskbook. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). The Legal Foundations of Conservation Biology. In: Conservation Biology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6891-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6891-1_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6890-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6891-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)