This dissertation examines how eco-knowledge intersects with the changes to EU legal cultures and practices known as eurolegalism. This conjunction has created a mechanism for the extension of EU law in the Member States even in the face of a weakened EU. Through a portfolio of six articles, controversies over the protection of wolves in Sweden are used to illustrate and explicate the changing roles and responsibilities of various actors in protecting species, and the centralization of competence for environmental protection in Europe at the EU level. In doing so, some substantive requirements of the Habitats Directive are also analyzed. The first article maps the movement of competence to determine conservation policy towards the EU level and away from international and Member State actors. The second article examines what the EU requires of its Member States by analyzing the Habitats Directive’s key concept, favourable conservation status. It also makes normative arguments for how contested aspects of this concept should be interpreted to best achieve the Directive’s conservation goals. The third article deepens this analysis by applying these arguments to the Swedish wolf population. The fourth article is a case commentary illustrating the enforcement of the Habitats Directive through public interest litigation to stop the hunting of Swedish wolves. The fifth argues that the greater availability of public interest standing in the US than in the EU has led to the greater implementation of federal law. The sixth argues that greater availability of public interest litigation in Sweden than previously is also leading to the greater enforcement of “federal” EU law. Each of these articles demonstrates or explains factors that lead to the hollowing out of state power in favor of the EU and interest groups. / <p>Cover photo by Guillaume Chapron</p>

No description available.

Humans are modifying the global landscape at an unprecedented scale and pace. As a result, species are declining and going extinct at an alarming rate. Here, I investigate two main aspects of species’ declines: what factors are contributing to their declines and how effective our conservation efforts have been. I assessed one of the main mechanisms for protecting species by looking at the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States. I examined three separate indicators of species declines for different groups of species: range contractions in Canadian imperilled species, declines in abundance in global amphibian populations and increases in temporal variability in abundance in North American breeding birds. I found that change in recovery status of ESA listed species was only very weakly related to the number of years listed, number of years with a recovery plan, and funding. These tools combined explained very little of the variation in recovery status among species. Either these tools are not very effective in promoting species’ recovery, or species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. I examined patterns of species’ declines in three different groups in relation to a number of anthropogenic variables. I found high losses of Canadian imperiled bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species in regions with high proportions of agricultural land cover. However, losses of imperiled species are significantly more strongly related to the proportion of the region treated with agricultural pesticides. This is consistent with the hypothesis that agricultural pesticide use, or something strongly collinear with it (perhaps intensive agriculture more generally), has contributed significantly to the decline of imperiled species in Canada. Global increases in UV radiation do not appear to be a major cause of amphibian population declines. At individual sites, temporal changes in amphibian abundance are not predictably related to changes in UV intensity. Variability in species’ abundance of North American breeding birds, after accounting for mean abundance, is not systematically higher in areas of high human-dominated land cover or climate change. Rather, it appears that areas with a high proportion of human-dominated cover come to have a higher proportion of highly abundant, and thus more variable, species.

Humans are modifying the global landscape at an unprecedented scale and pace. As a result, species are declining and going extinct at an alarming rate. Here, I investigate two main aspects of species’ declines: what factors are contributing to their declines and how effective our conservation efforts have been. I assessed one of the main mechanisms for protecting species by looking at the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States. I examined three separate indicators of species declines for different groups of species: range contractions in Canadian imperilled species, declines in abundance in global amphibian populations and increases in temporal variability in abundance in North American breeding birds. I found that change in recovery status of ESA listed species was only very weakly related to the number of years listed, number of years with a recovery plan, and funding. These tools combined explained very little of the variation in recovery status among species. Either these tools are not very effective in promoting species’ recovery, or species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. I examined patterns of species’ declines in three different groups in relation to a number of anthropogenic variables. I found high losses of Canadian imperiled bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species in regions with high proportions of agricultural land cover. However, losses of imperiled species are significantly more strongly related to the proportion of the region treated with agricultural pesticides. This is consistent with the hypothesis that agricultural pesticide use, or something strongly collinear with it (perhaps intensive agriculture more generally), has contributed significantly to the decline of imperiled species in Canada. Global increases in UV radiation do not appear to be a major cause of amphibian population declines. At individual sites, temporal changes in amphibian abundance are not predictably related to changes in UV intensity. Variability in species’ abundance of North American breeding birds, after accounting for mean abundance, is not systematically higher in areas of high human-dominated land cover or climate change. Rather, it appears that areas with a high proportion of human-dominated cover come to have a higher proportion of highly abundant, and thus more variable, species.

In recent years, critical habitat has been subject to a great deal of controversy and numerous lawsuits. Critical habitat is an integral part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that serves not only to protect the species and its habitat but may also help the recovery of the species. Critical habitat has been the subject of a large number of recent lawsuits. These lawsuits arise from conservation groups, forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to designate critical habitat and from developmental groups, claiming that the economic analyses used by the FWS during the designation of critical habitat are faulty. The economic analyses that are currently being done by the FWS are quantifying the costs of critical habitat to the extent possible while virtually making no effort to quantify the benefits of critical habitat. This potentially biased economic analysis can skew public opinion by presenting an unbalanced result from the analysis. Therefore, this thesis presents a methodology for comprehensively identifying and quantifying, where possible, the costs and benefits of critical habitat.

Earlier studies have found that endangered species recovery is only weakly associated with the tools enabled by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). With habitat loss often cited as a leading cause of species declines, we tested whether the recovery of ESA-listed species is instead associated with the protection of critical habitat (CH) by protected areas. We tested the relationship for 299 species using recovery indices derived from the biennial status reports to Congress (1990-2010), as well as NatureServe and IUCN population status data. We found no overall relationship between recovery and the extent to which CH is protected. However, restricting the analysis to recovering species, listed species with larger areas of protected (R2 = 0.158) or strictly protected (R2 = 0.194) CH fared better than species with less protected or strictly protected CH areas. Declining species (199 of 273 species studied) fared no better with more protected habitat. We conclude that the abatement of habitat loss alone does not necessarily facilitate recoveries for the majority of ESA-listed species. We also note that the weak relationships we observed in this study may be reflective of poor recovery status estimates.

abstract: This work is an assemblage of three applied projects that address the institutional and spatial constraints to managing threatened and endangered (T &amp; E) terrestrial species. The first project looks at the role of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in protecting wildlife and whether banning non&ndash;conservation activities on multi-use federal lands is socially optimal. A bioeconomic model is used to identify scenarios where ESA&ndash;imposed regulations emerge as optimal strategies and to facilitate discussion on feasible long&ndash;term strategies in light of the ongoing public land&ndash;use debate. Results suggest that banning harmful activities is a preferred strategy when valued species are in decline or exposed to poor habitat quality. However such a strategy cannot be sustained in perpetuity, a switch to land&ndash;use practices characteristic of habitat conservation plans is recommended. The spatial portion of this study is motivated by the need for a more systematic quantification and assessment of landscape structure ahead of species reintroduction; this portion is further broken up into two parts. The first explores how connectivity between habitat patches promotes coexistence among multiple interacting species. An agent&ndash;based model of a two&ndash;patch metapopulation is developed with local predator&ndash;prey dynamics and density&ndash;dependent dispersal. The simulation experiment suggests that connectivity levels at both extremes, representing very little risk and high risk of species mortality, do not augment the likelihood of coexistence while intermediate levels do. Furthermore, the probability of coexistence increases and spans a wide range of connectivity levels when individual dispersal is less probabilistic and more dependent on population feedback. Second, a novel approach to quantifying network structure is developed using the statistical method of moments. This measurement framework is then used to index habitat networks and assess their capacity to drive three main ecological processes: dispersal, survival, and coexistence. Results indicate that the moments approach outperforms single summary metrics and accounts for a majority of the variation in process outcomes. The hierarchical measurement scheme is helpful for indicating when additional structural information is needed to determine ecological function. However, the qualitative trend between network indicator and function is, at times, unintuitive and unstable in certain areas of the metric space. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Applied Mathematics for the Life and Social Sciences 2013

abstract: Since its inception in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has been met with both praise and criticism. More than 40 years later, the Act is still polarizing, with proponents applauding its power to protect species and critics arguing against its perceived ineffectiveness and potential mismanagement. Recovery plans, which were required by the 1988 amendments to the Act, play an important role in organizing efforts to protect and recover species under the Act. In 1999, in an effort to evaluate the process, the Society for Conservation Biology commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. Here, I seek to determine the extent to which SCB recommendations were incorporated into these new guidelines, and if, in turn, the recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. I found that the guidelines successfully incorporated most SCB recommendations, except those that addressed monitoring. As a result, recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, but still fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in future ESA recovery planning. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.S. Biology 2014

Humans are modifying the global landscape at an unprecedented scale and pace. As a result, species are declining and going extinct at an alarming rate. Here, I investigate two main aspects of species’ declines: what factors are contributing to their declines and how effective our conservation efforts have been. I assessed one of the main mechanisms for protecting species by looking at the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States. I examined three separate indicators of species declines for different groups of species: range contractions in Canadian imperilled species, declines in abundance in global amphibian populations and increases in temporal variability in abundance in North American breeding birds. I found that change in recovery status of ESA listed species was only very weakly related to the number of years listed, number of years with a recovery plan, and funding. These tools combined explained very little of the variation in recovery status among species. Either these tools are not very effective in promoting species’ recovery, or species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. I examined patterns of species’ declines in three different groups in relation to a number of anthropogenic variables. I found high losses of Canadian imperiled bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species in regions with high proportions of agricultural land cover. However, losses of imperiled species are significantly more strongly related to the proportion of the region treated with agricultural pesticides. This is consistent with the hypothesis that agricultural pesticide use, or something strongly collinear with it (perhaps intensive agriculture more generally), has contributed significantly to the decline of imperiled species in Canada. Global increases in UV radiation do not appear to be a major cause of amphibian population declines. At individual sites, temporal changes in amphibian abundance are not predictably related to changes in UV intensity. Variability in species’ abundance of North American breeding birds, after accounting for mean abundance, is not systematically higher in areas of high human-dominated land cover or climate change. Rather, it appears that areas with a high proportion of human-dominated cover come to have a higher proportion of highly abundant, and thus more variable, species.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (U.S. ESA) is one of the oldest pieces of legislation to protect endangered species. The bodies responsible for administering the U.S. ESA have published species Biennial Recovery Statuses (BRSs) in Reports to Congress on the Status of Endangered and Threatened Species. We found that expert assessments of species recovery trends match BRSs reasonably well; however, there appears to be a weak relationship between the BRSs and available data tracking species abundance and range trends. We aimed to establish whether the recovery trends of species examined were detectably associated with their threats, the general U.S. ESA tools, or recovery actions. We found positive associations between species recovery and two U.S. ESA tools – mean annual funding and peer-reviewed scientific information. However, correlations with other variables differ greatly depending on how recovery is defined. Species threats and recovery actions are also moderately related to their abundance and range trends.