Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 19;14(11):e0224021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224021. eCollection 2019.
Routinely crossing international borders and/or persisting in populations across multiple countries, species are commonly subject to a patchwork of endangered species legislation. Canada and the United States share numerous endangered species; their respective acts, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), require documents that outline requirements for species recovery. Although there are many priorities for improving endangered species legislation effectiveness, species recovery goals are a crucial component. We compared recovery goal quality, as measured by goal quantitativeness and ambition, for species listed under SARA and ESA. By comparing across ESA and SARA, the intent of the study was to identify differences and similarities that could support the development of stronger species' recovery goals under both legislations. Our results indicated that: (1) overall, only 38% of recovery goals were quantitative, 41% had high ambition, and 26% were both quantitative and with high ambition; (2) recovery goals had higher quantitativeness and ambition under ESA than SARA; (3) recovery goals for endangered species had higher ambition than threatened species under ESA and SARA, and; (4) no recovery goal aimed to restore populations to historic levels. Combined, these findings provide guidance to strengthen recovery goals and improve subsequent conservation outcomes. In particular, species at risk planners should seek to attain higher recovery goal ambition, particularly for SARA-listed species, and include quantitative recovery goals wherever possible.
物种经常跨越国际边界和/或在多个国家的种群中持续存在，因此通常受到各种濒危物种立法的约束。加拿大和美国有许多共同的濒危物种；它们各自的法案，即《受威胁物种法》（SARA）和《濒危物种法》（ESA），要求制定文件，概述物种恢复的要求。尽管有许多优先事项可以提高濒危物种立法的有效性，但物种恢复目标是一个关键组成部分。我们比较了 SARA 和 ESA 下列出的物种的恢复目标质量，以目标的定量和雄心来衡量。通过比较 ESA 和 SARA，研究的目的是确定可以支持两种法规下制定更有力的物种恢复目标的差异和相似之处。我们的研究结果表明：(1) 总体而言，只有 38%的恢复目标是定量的，41%的目标有很高的雄心，26%的目标既定量又有很高的雄心；(2)ESA 下的恢复目标比 SARA 下的恢复目标更具定量性和雄心；(3)ESA 和 SARA 下濒危物种的恢复目标比受威胁物种的恢复目标更有雄心，而且；(4)没有恢复目标旨在将种群恢复到历史水平。综合来看，这些发现为加强恢复目标和改善随后的保护成果提供了指导。特别是，有风险的物种规划者应该努力实现更高的恢复目标雄心，特别是对于 SARA 列出的物种，并尽可能制定定量的恢复目标。
