Sure. Thank you.
I think it's pretty simple, really; it's just a question of the scale that we're talking about. Much as in a recovery strategy for a species that roams across large areas—migration across international borders, or provincial or territorial—they tend to need a lot of space and time annually. And that, by definition, involves lots of people who have tenures, interests, economic and other, in the land. The whole point about a recovery strategy and action plan is that it's to provide a prescriptive list of the things that the species needs to persist. That's the whole purpose of SARA.
Therefore, all you have to work out is what the mechanism is across that range by which that prescription will apply fairly to all the people who have interests in that same habitat. If you presume that the species' needs and the needs of that natural habitat are valued highly by humanity, then we will have a prescription that works. Right now there is no formalized range-wide plan, in most cases—one action plan—and so we have a sort of fragmented approach.
I think it's very interesting that the GEF and the UNDP and the U.S. Forest Service are coming up with reports about ecosystem valuation and development costs needing to internalize the prescriptions and costs that nature and we humans too need at that kind of scale. I think that's a very strong indication of how conservation planning for at-risk species—and preventing more species from becoming at-risk—is going to be addressed in the coming decades.