Search

Large mammals (megafauna) are disproportionately important for ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, but have been lost to disproportionate degrees, mostly in prehistoric times. Against the background of scientific knowledge regarding the state of ecosystems before a man-made wave of extinctions significantly reduced the numbers and diversity of megafauna on most continents, this article examines how (inter)national law and policy relate to efforts to restore large herbivores, omnivores and carnivores to terrestrial ecosystems around the world. Such megafauna rewilding, involving the (re)introduction of vanished species or proxies thereof, poses significant challenges to current laws and policies at national and domestic levels. These tend to have institutionalised a collective amnesia and myopia regarding what is ‘natural’ and ‘indigenous’. The success of future megafauna restoration efforts will partly depend on an understanding of what it takes to navigate, adjust or redesign applicable legal frameworks, and the article tables a research agenda to that end.

Restoring functional ecosystems in Europe inter alia requires restoring large mammal (megafauna) diversity and densities to levels well above the current downgraded state, which results from a human-driven wave of megafauna extinctions and extirpations in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. Combining law and natural science, we address the question to what degrees international legal instruments support or require such megafauna rewilding efforts. We provide an overview of Europe's current megafauna plus those species that would likely have been present without human interference. We categorize these species and restoration scenarios in ways that make sense from a legal perspective and identify and interpret relevant legal instruments. Our analysis indicates that Article 8(f) of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires restoring the diversity and densities of Europe's megafauna as far as possible-which is indeed quite far. Depending on the circumstances, megafauna rewilding measures can also be required or supported by various other legal instruments at global, pan-European, European Union and other levels.

The world’s largest predators, like their prey species and biodiversity at large, face increasing impacts from climate change, in addition to various other threats. Such climate impacts include the shrinking and disruption of habitat (e.g., polar bear, wolverine); range shifts, especially upslope (e.g., snow leopard, Ethiopian wolf) and poleward (e.g., golden jackal); reduced availability of key resources as water becomes scarcer and prey populations suffer from extreme weather, disease or other climate-related impacts (e.g., Gobi bear, cheetah); and increased human–wildlife conflict, when large carnivores progressively range beyond protected areas (e.g., African wild dog), or when climate change makes their ranges more suitable for livestock (e.g., lion). The aforementioned and many other large carnivore species are protected under global and/or regional legal instruments for wildlife conservation, such as the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Algiers and Maputo Conventions on African Nature Conservation, and the Bern Convention on European Wildlife Conservation. We view current international wildlife law through the lens of the aforementioned scenarios and, as it were, through the eyes of the wildlife species involved, and attempt to assess to what extent the law is ‘climate change proof’ in terms of being prepared for said scenarios. Our analysis indicates, first, that most of the climate adaptation measures that seem necessary—concerning protected areas, connectivity, counteracting climate impacts, and addressing non-climate threats—can in principle be achieved by fully and properly implementing the law as it stands. Second, it appears that the facilitation of range shifts beyond historic ranges still calls for some serious attention and resourceful interpretation. Third, it seems that particularly significant hurdles have yet to be overcome before the law is properly attuned to facilitating managed relocation (assisted colonization) where necessary.

n een arrest over het Finse vergunningsbeleid voor de jacht op wolven geeft het Hof van Justitie uitleg over de betekenis en reikwijdte van een aantal omstreden bepalingen van de Habitatrichtlijn. De twee belangrijkste vragen betreffen (a) of het toegestaan is om vergunning voor jacht te verlenen om meer acceptatie voor grote roofdieren te bewerkstelligen bij de lokale bevolking en (b) op welk bestuursniveau (lokaal, nationaal, biografisch, grensoverschrijdend) de zogenoemde eis van ‘gunstige staat van instandhouding’ voor beschermde soorten moet worden bereikt. Daarnaast benadrukt het Hof van Justitie net als in andere recente arresten het belang van wetenschappelijk bewijs en de prominente rol van het voorzorgbeginsel. Met de vestiging van het eerste Nederlandse wolvenroedel in eeuwen kan de eerste vraag ook zeker relevant geworden voor Nederland. Het antwoord op de tweede vraag is voor Nederland – met zijn gefragmenteerde grondgebied en vele kleine populaties beschermde soorten – zelfs van fundamenteel belang. Het Hof van Justitie geeft meer duidelijkheid maar laat tegelijkertijd nog wel vragen open.

This article seeks to identify to what extent, and under what conditions, lethal wolf management can be conducted in EU countries without violating applicable European legal frameworks, in particular the Habitats Directive. The analysis carried out to that end demonstrates that certain variables are tightly related with the options of EU member states to allow the killing of wolves under the Directive, namely (1) the conservation status of the populations in question; (2) the quality of the scientific evidence showing that the various conditions of the Directive's derogation clause are met; (3) the quality of supervision and regulatory safeguards in member states’ hunting regimes and wolf plans; and (4) the extent and quality of intergovernmental cooperation targeting transboundary wolf populations. As these variables improve, so does the scope for legally viable wolf hunting.

In Europe, decision-making power related to biodiversity conservation has been partly, and voluntarily, relinquished by countries to superior levels. In this hierarchical top-down scenario, the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive grant protection to a considerable number of taxa, and determine underlying conservation actions at (sub)national levels. The protection mandates emanating from these legal instruments are expected to be transferred effectively to lower levels, adapting general obligations to species-specific contexts. We assessed the implementation of general obligations from international agreements through local regulations, using as illustrative example the European requirement of protecting the breeding sites of protected species, and the conservation of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe. After reviewing 43 wolf management and conservation plans across Europe, only 14% of wolf plans contained management guidelines issued to avoid wolf breeding site destruction or disturbance (this figure was 52% in the case of North America, n = 25 wolf plans). In Europe, we found only seven actions or guidelines designed to ensure breeding site protection/availability for wolves (from six countries). None of the plans contained a comprehensive set of measures to preserve breeding sites or guarantee their availability. Our results suggest that transposition of general obligations from international agreements into local legislation systems may be a critical point of weakness in the biodiversity conservation policy process. We recommend additional scrutiny to ensure that ambitious conservation goals are not diluted, but enforced, along its way from high-tier laws to local regulations, in accordance with the letter and spirit of international agreements.

Conflicts have emerged due to range expansions of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) across Europe, characterized by their international conservation status and perceived impacts on livestock and native prey species. Most countries in Central Europe do not yet include the golden jackal in their national list of occurring, native species. Nevertheless, legal obligations arise as soon as golden jackals colonize a particular country. Legal implications of this range expansion were described in past studies from an international perspective. However, they left out specifics on the legal status within any particular country. Therefore, we examine the actual legal status within Central European countries, exemplifying the diverse federal and provincial laws. In particular, we assess the current conservation and hunting laws in Austria’s provinces and discuss them in the context of neighbouring countries to analyse implications for relevant authorities. We found substantial contrasts not only among provinces but also between direct neighbouring countries, impeding efforts for transboundary species conservation and leading to complications regarding the management of this species. Improved procedures for collecting records and hunting-bag data appear necessary for future species assessment on a European level and management on a local level. We recommend a more unified legal system but adjusted to actual golden jackal presence on the regional and cross-border level, combined assessment, or similar management strategies to minimize conflicts, reduce persecution, and clarify legal obligations.

After more than two decades of implementation of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), some fundamental aspects of the directive are still unclear, and subject to interpretive uncertainty, which limit its correct implementation. For example, obligations for Member States in situations where a protected population has almost, or has just, gone extinct are unclear. The isolated and protected population of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Sierra Morena region in Spain – the only wolf population in the southern half of the Iberian Peninsula – has been steadily declining to the point where it is doubtful whether any wolves are left. Using this illustrative example, we provide clarifications on the obligations by Member States in situations where populations are on the verge of extinction. Our analysis shows that Articles 6 and 12 of the Habitats Directive require Member States to restore populations that are quasi extinct. From a legal perspective, even the complete extinction of the species would not exonerate Member States from its obligations regarding the species in the Natura 2000 sites concerned. In this line, we argue that the Spanish authorities should not wait with recolonization, reinforcement and/or reintroduction actions until the complete absence of wolves in the Sierra Morena is conclusively proven. Two scenarios appear to meet legal requirements: i) active reinforcement/reintroduction, or ii) an active and effective policy towards a rapid natural recolonization of Sierra Morena by northern wolves. However, based on the observed wolf trends in Spain and Portugal during the past five decades, a reconnection between northern and Sierra Morena wolves seems unlikely in the foreseeable future even if actively promoted. Considering the urgency of actions required to avoid that this population will be the first wolf population to become extinct in Europe in modern times, in order to comply with European obligations, the adopting and carrying out a reintroduction/reinforcement scheme to restore the Sierra Morena wolf population is required. Such a scheme needs to be accompanied by a comprehensive enforcement plan to assure that reintroduced wolves will thrive.

This review article assesses the relevance of international wildlife treaties for the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s five species of rhinoceros – white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), black rhino (Diceros bicornis), Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). The analysis covers global treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention, alongside various regional African treaties. Employing standard legal research methodology combined with relevant knowledge from the natural and social sciences, the focus of the review is both on past performance and future potential of the treaties involved. The outcomes of the analysis suggest that, despite pervasive compliance deficiencies which continue to curtail the effectiveness of the various treaties, the prospects of various rhinoceros populations may well have been (even) worse without some of these treaties. The comparative importance of the World Heritage Convention for the conservation of the three Asian rhino species is an example. The main threat to rhinoceroses – poaching driven by a demand for rhino horn in various Asian countries – is international in nature, and a substantial part of the analysis centers on the international community’s efforts to address this threat over the past four decades within the framework of CITES. A key recommendation flowing from this analysis is for CITES parties to seriously but critically explore alternatives to the current trade ban regime, including the option of a strictly controlled legal trade in rhino horn sourced from viable, sustainably managed populations.

Free‐ranging domestic cats Felis catus, from owned pets to feral cats, impact biodiversity through predation, fear effects, competition, disease and hybridization. Scientific knowledge regarding these impacts has recently increased, making it timely to assess the role of nature conservation legislation in this connection. We do so with particular regard to the obligations of governments around the world under international wildlife law. First, we provide an overview of current knowledge, based on a literature review, concerning the ways in which domestic cats impact wildlife; the resulting effects on native species’ populations and ecosystems; and available strategies for addressing these issues. In light of this knowledge, using standard legal research methodology, we then identify and interpret relevant legal instruments, with a particular focus on international wildlife treaties. Lastly, we identify and assess factors that may influence the implementation of relevant obligations. The outcomes of this analysis indicate that numerous legal obligations of relevance to free‐ranging domestic cats already apply under global treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory Species and World Heritage Convention, and a range of regional legal instruments for biodiversity conservation. Of particular significance are obligations concerning (a) invasive alien species; (b) protected areas and (c) protected species. Many national authorities around the world are currently required, under international law, to adopt and implement policies aimed at preventing, reducing or eliminating the biodiversity impacts of free‐ranging domestic cats, in particular by (a) removing feral and other unowned cats from the landscape to the greatest extent possible and (b) restricting the outdoor access of owned cats. Factors that can influence or impair the application of these obligations include considerations of feasibility, scientific uncertainty, the interests of cat owners and the (perceived) interests of domestic cats themselves. Even if such factors may to some extent explain why many authorities have hitherto failed to take effective action to address the threats posed by free‐ranging domestic cats, from a legal perspective these factors provide little ground for justifying non‐compliance with international wildlife law. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Leopard (Panthera pardus) conservation has a strong international dimension. Hunting trophy export quotas established for African range states under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) are a case in point. We test these quotas, and the methods for their establishment, against the benchmark of the general principles of precaution, sustainable use and adaptive management. The various national approaches and the CITES regime condoning them largely fail this test. For decades, CITES bodies have endorsed apparently arbitrary quotas lacking robust scientific bases, without regular adjustment. Thus, the quotas have been inadequately performing their assigned function within the Convention’s framework. The way in which the CITES leopard quota regime has been operating is fundamentally at odds with the principles of sustainable use, precaution and adaptive management. To remedy this, we offer recommendations on how to embed a science-based, sustainable, precautionary and adaptive approach to quota-setting within the CITES system.

Large wild herbivore species are important to ecosystems and human societies, but many of them are threatened and in decline. International wildlife treaties have a role to play in arresting and reversing these declines. This paper provides a global overview and analysis of relevant legal instruments and their roles regarding the conservation of the 73 largest terrestrial herbivores, i.e., those with a body mass of ≥ 100 kg. Outcomes reveal both significant positive contributions and shortcomings of the Ramsar Wetlands Convention, the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Convention on Migratory Species and its subsidiary instruments, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and a range of regional and bilateral treaties. Maximizing the potential of these treaties, and attaining their objectives regarding the conservation and restoration of large herbivores, requires substantial increases in funding and political will. Even before such game-changing increases occur, however, it remains worthwhile to seek and use the many opportunities that exist within the current international legal framework for enhancing the conservation of the world’s largest herbivores.

In Norway, as in many other countries, a government-sponsored campaign against large carnivores was waged well into the twentieth century and eventually led to the disappearance of gray wolves (Canis lupus) from the country.1 By the 1960s, the species was considered functionally extinct both in Norway and neighboring Sweden. In 1971, wolves received legal protection under Norwegian law.2 Occasionally in subsequent years,wolves dispersing fromthe Russian-Finnish population made it into the Scandinavian Peninsula. In 1983, in the south-central Swedish–Norwegian border area, two of these immigrants produced a first litter of wild Scandinavian wolf pups again. The Scandinavian wolf population has been growing since and numbers over 400 individuals today, although only a small part of the population lives on the Norwegian side of the border. The threats faced by Scandinavian wolves include inbreeding, low levels of tolerance by some sectors of the rural public, and high levels of poaching.3 Since the official status of wolves in Norway switched from vermin to a protected species, wolf conservation and management has been an increasingly contested topic in the country, with the controversy generally peaking every time the Norwegian government authorizes a winter wolf hunt.4 Whereas some Norwegian citizens would like to seemanymore wolves in the country than the currently estimated 65– 68 animals (plus another 25wolves or sowhose range straddles the Sweden–Norway border), others would rather see them all disappear once more.5 The latest chapter in the Norwegian wolf saga began in summer 2016 when Parliament agreed on a new wolf policy. In the follow-up implementation of this national policy, the relevant RegionalManagement Authorities earmarked a total of 47 wolves—two-thirds of the national population— for culling in order to reduce sheep depredation, only to see the Climate and Environment Minister reverse this decision and reduce the number of wolves to be killed to 15.6 One international treaty has been an influential feature in debates on Norway’s wolf policy during the past three decades: the Council of Europe’s 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.7 The discourse has, unfortunately, been affected by some tenacious misunderstandings concerning the compatibility of Norway’s constantly evolving wolf policy with the Convention. Our aim in this article is to reduce the confusion in this regard, in order to promote a constructive and well-informed debate regarding the future of wolf conservation and management in Norway. An added advantage of this focus is that it entails the legal analysis of certain features of the Bern Convention, the relevance of which extends far beyondNorwegian wolves, as they apply to European wildlife conservation at large.

Fences, walls and other barriers are proliferating along international borders on a global scale. These border fences not only affect people, but can also have unintended but important consequences for wildlife, inter alia by curtailing migrations and other movements, by fragmenting populations and by causing direct mortality, for instance through entanglement. Large carnivores and large herbivores are especially vulnerable to these impacts. This article analyses the various impacts of border fences on wildlife around the world from a law and policy perspective, focusing on international wildlife law in particular. Relevant provisions from a range of global and regional legal instruments are identified and analysed, with special attention for the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and the European Union Habitats Directive.

The EU Habitats Directive is a key biodiversity conservation instrument. It contains legal obligations for the 28 EU member states in order to safeguard a ‘favourable conservation status’ (FCS) for selected species and habitat types. The crucial FCS concept itself, however, remains subject to considerable confusion regarding its proper interpretation and operationalization, impairing the Directive’s effective implementation. Diminishing this confusion is the purpose of this review. It focuses specifically on large carnivores—wolf (Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and wolverine (Gulo gulo). These pose particular challenges, given their low densities, transboundary populations, and human-wildlife conflict potential. Large carnivores are also the only species for which specific guidance has been adopted by the European Commission— and subsequently contested. Our methodology combines legal analysis with an understanding of the species’ ecology and associated social, economic and cultural dimensions. We analyze the methods and processes through which EU law is interpreted, implemented, and enforced, by member states, European Commission, and EU Court of Justice—which is the ultimate authority regarding EU law interpretation. On that basis, we engage three particularly complex interpretation questions which are also of great practical significance: (1) the appropriate scale to achieve FCS (national or transboundary population level); (2) the respective roles of demographic, genetic and ecological factors in determining FCS; and (3) the use of extinction versus carrying capacity as benchmark. Regarding these questions, we identify approaches that are workable and effective, as well as likely to be endorsed by the EU Court.

Hybridisation between wolves and dogs is increasingly reported in Europe. Nonetheless, no systematic survey has ever been attempted at the continental scale. We made the first assessment of wolf-dog hybridisation (WDH) occurrence in Europe and analysed how the phenomenon is addressed by international legislation and managed at the country level. We found that WDH is reported in all nine extant European wolf populations, and in 21 out of 26 countries for which we received information. The two main international legal instruments (i.e., the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention) do not explicitly mention the threat posed by hybridisation but do provide guidance promoting control of free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids. However, we recorded poor compliance with such recommendations in most European countries, and a lack of coordination in addressing WDH among countries sharing the same wolf population. Alarmingly, we revealed a lack of well-designed and implemented country-wide genetic surveys to detect and monitor hybridisation, both relevant pre-requisites to effectively implement WDH management. By recommending criteria for an operative definition of “hybrid”, we also suggest improvements to enhance WDH-related policy at the European scale.

Environmental law contributes to biodiversity conservation insofar as it is properly drafted and implemented. This article explores one way in which its effectiveness can be impaired: progressive dilution. This occurs when consecutive steps are taken in the law's application which in isolation may not appear much out of line and are presented as legal, but eventually render a result contrary to the law's intentions – like a military mission creeping beyond its mandate. This phenomenon is explored using the case of an orca found emaciated in the Netherlands’ waters in 2010. Captured for rehabilitation purposes and subsequently retained for strictly circumscribed scientific research, the animal somehow ended up in a commercial Spanish entertainment park, used for public performances and breeding purposes – all with express approval of various governmental authorities, including courts. The entire chain of events is analysed in light of requirements imposed by diverse (inter)national legal instruments, including the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and European Union regulations.

In this chapter, we aim to provide an introduction to strategies, policy, and law regarding the management of mammals in Europe. Covering this extensive and complex topic in one concise chapter is no easy task, and we pretend no more than to scratch the surface. We begin by offering a bird’s-eye view of some salient features concerning mammal policy and law in Europe, namely, (1) the sheer diversity of approaches; (2) the overall dominance of the paradigm of human-wildlife coexistence; (3) the influence and sophistication of international legal frameworks for wildlife conservation; and (4) the issues raised by the remarkable recent comeback of many large animal species, including large carnivores. Subsequently, we introduce two of the international frameworks in some detail, i.e., the pan-European Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 1979 (Bern Convention) and the wildlife legislation of the European Union (EU). We then discuss an interesting but challenging approach that has been emerging with regard to wildlife populations that are shared amongst several European countries, such as large carnivores. This approach consists of adjusting management to the scale of each wildlife population – including where this population is transboundary – rather than adjusting it to the scale of countries or other jurisdictional units.

The pervasive influence of human agency on biodiversity in the Anthropocene gives rise to several new challenges for national and international wildlife law, including questions regarding what is natural and what is alien. Ultimately, a new vision and new rules are called for but in the meantime wildlife lawyers and other conservation professionals must work with conventional legal frameworks. Striking instances where vexing issues arise are the recent range expansions of certain canids. Coyotes Canis latrans and crab-eating foxes Cerdocyon thous in the Americas and golden jackals Canis aureus in Europe are progressively colonizing areas and countries where they did not previously occur. A key question is whether to consider this as acceptable extensions of natural range or whether the pioneering carnivores should be viewed as alien species, potentially triggering legal obligations of prevention, control and eradication. In addressing this question we draw on guidance provided under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international legal frameworks, in which governments are forced to grapple with the application of long-standing concepts to new phenomena in an era of profound global change. Our analysis suggests that coyotes in Costa Rica, crab-eating foxes in Panama, and golden jackals in the Netherlands are not to be considered alien species, whether invasive or not. Thus, even if action to address adverse impacts by these canids on native biodiversity may sometimes be desirable, these species are not subject to legal requirements to combat invasive alien species.

Free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) impact biodiversity through predation, disturbance, competition, disease and hybridisation. Scientific knowledge regarding these impacts has recently increased. This article interprets the European Union (EU) Birds and Habitats Directives (Nature Directives) in light of this knowledge. The outcome indicates that various obligations in the Directives, particularly concerning Natura 2000 sites and the generic protection of birds and other species, have significant implications for the management of free-ranging domestic cats. Regarding (unowned) stray and feral cats, these must be removed or controlled when they pose a threat to protected species and/or sites. Regarding (owned) pet and farm cats, the Nature Directives require EU Member States to ensure that letting cats roam free outdoors is forbidden and effectively prevented. Current practice across the EU does not yet conform to these requirements. Whereas the article identifies and assesses various factors that may explain this compliance gap, legally valid justifications appear absent.

With some exceptions, populations of bears, wolves, lynx and other large carnivores are recovering across Europe. Zoning is one of the means available to public authorities to promote large carnivore conservation while minimizing conflicts with human interests. In principle, this can entail designating zones where large carnivore conservation is prioritized over conflicting human interests, but also zones where the population density of large carnivores is adjusted to human activities, including low‐density areas or exclusion zones. Zoning as a large carnivore conservation and management tool is explored here in light of two influential European legal instruments, the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive. The article finds that, first, the various legal regimes that apply to large carnivores under these instruments in different parts of Europe by themselves provide for a distinct degree of high‐level zoning. Second, and importantly, the Convention and Directive determine the legal bandwidth within which domestic authorities can design and implement more specific (sub)national zoning regimes.

Despite their iconic status, lion (Panthera leo) populations continue to decline across the majority of their range. In the light of the recent decision (in October 2017) to add lions to the Appendices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), this paper identifies the new and existing legal protections afforded to lions through five global treaties, and maps these protections against the most critical contemporary threats facing the species. It thus offers a new analysis of the CMS listing, and draws on existing legal reviews, to highlight the ways in which global treaties offer differing forms of protection for lions. It then combines multiple concordant assessments of lion populations, to highlight nine categories of threat: human-lion conflict, bushmeat poaching, human encroachment, trophy hunting, trade in lion bones, unpredictable environmental events, socio-economic factors, policy failures, and governance/institutional weakness. The paper assesses how the various treaties each address these different categories of threat. The analysis identifies two pathways for improving legal protection: expanding the application of global treaties in respect of lions and their habitats (the paper considers the CMS listing in these terms), and improving the implementation of treaty commitments through local and national-scale actions. Furthermore, it identifies local implementation challenges that include the local knowledge of rules, compliance with rules and enforcement capacity, alongside the variety in local contexts and situations, and suggests where global treaties might provide support in meeting these challenges. We suggest that this analysis has wider implications for how treaty protection can and is utilised to protect various species of large-bodied, wide-ranging animals.

In 2008, South Africa adopted its ‘National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa’. Concern has subsequently been raised as to whether these norms and standards apply to free-ranging elephant on land, which had not been enclosed with a fence with the express purpose of containing these animals and other game on the property. The application of these norms and standards pivots on whether the owner(s) of the property have taken possession of these animals in accordance with common law applicable to game, or have given effect to the provisions of the Game Theft Act. To address this concern, this article briefly explores the evolution of South African regulatory jurisprudence applicable to game, including elephant, and analyses the norms and standards in relation to international and national legislation and common law applying to elephants. The norms and standards are not applicable to unowned, free-roaming elephant. These norms and standards, therefore, do not fulfil their primary objective of uniform management of elephant across South Africa. This limitation of the norms and standards, therefore, needs to be considered when they are revised.

[][1] An EU decision will make hunting strictly protected species such as the lynx more difficult to justify. PHOTO: STEFAN HUWILER/ROLFNP/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO For strictly protected species in Europe, the 1992 Habitats Directive requires EU Member States to implement conservation actions that include a ban on their capture and killing ([ 1 ][2]). Several Member States have creatively evaded this requirement to allow annual hunting of some of these species, including wolf ( Canis lupus ), bear ( Ursus arctos ), and lynx ( Lynx lynx ), by exploiting provisions that allow exceptions to strict protection ([ 2 ][3]). The Directive allows limited exceptions to achieve particular goals when there is no satisfactory alternative and making the exception would not harm the conservation status of the species' populations. A recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ([ 3 ][4]) makes it much harder for Member States to interpret these provisions to allow hunting and rightly centers future policy decisions on the results of scientific research. The case, initiated by the nongovernmental nature-protection organization Tapiola, challenged Finland's justification of wolf hunting as a conservation measure needed to prevent poaching ([ 4 ][5]). The CJEU ruled that the prevention of poaching is a legitimate conservation goal that might justify exceptions from strict protection. However, it also interpreted the associated conditions in such a strict manner that in practice it will be difficult to justify hunting for this purpose ([ 3 ][4]). This ruling lays out important limitations on hunting strictly protected species throughout the EU ([ 3 ][4]). First, Member States cannot allow hunting for conservation purposes unless rigorous scientific studies indicate that hunting would have a positive net impact on the strictly protected population. Second, exceptions from strict protection may be used only as a last resort for achieving their claimed purposes. The Member State must be able to demonstrate, with reference to scientific sources, that there is no other satisfactory alternative. Third, the CJEU emphasized that the precautionary principle prevents Member States from making exceptions to strict protection if the best available science leaves uncertainty as to whether the conservation status of populations involved would be negatively affected. This decision makes explicit the need for good science to inform environmental protection laws. Examples of how conservation scientists and others can contribute include modeling the demographic and ecological impacts of exemptions and identifying scientifically grounded alternative solutions to hunting. A greater awareness of the legal questions that require the help of scientists to answer could result in more policy-relevant research agendas and improved environmental decision-making. 1. [↵][6]Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1992); . 2. [↵][7]1. A. Christiernsson , J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16, 237 (2019). [OpenUrl][8] 3. [↵][9]Court of Justice of the European Union, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo—Kainuu ry, case C-674/17 (2019); . 4. [↵][10]1. J. Darpo , J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16, 305 (2019). [OpenUrl][8] Y.E. and G.C. receive funding for a project that touches on hunting and conservation issues from Riksbankens jubileumsfond and have previously (within the past 3 years) received funding for species conservation research from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. J.V.L.-B. is a member of the IUCN Canid Specialist Group. A.T. is a member of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. G.C. is a member of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, IUCN Canid Specialist Group, and IUCN Cat Specialist Group. [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BEur.%2BEnviron.%2BPlan.%2BLaw%26rft.volume%253D16%26rft.spage%253D305%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text"

Many conservation professionals are familiar with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, and the World Heritage Convention. Regional instruments, such as those focusing on Africa, Antarctica, or Europe, are also conspicuous features of the conservation arena. Other international wildlife agreements focus on particular species, such as polar bears or albatrosses, or particular transboundary protected areas, such as the huge Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (see table 1). These agreements are collectively known as international wildlife law (Bowman et al. 2010). The binding agreements themselves are typically accompanied and informed by an evolving set of nonbinding instruments, such as Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions and action plans.

This article focuses on the role of international law with respect to migratory seabird conservation in polar ocean areas in light of climate change. It blends several topical international law cha...

Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top-down 'command and control' approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top-down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas collaborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts.

The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe has seen many countries rush to construct border security fencing to divert or control the flow of people. This follows a trend of border fence construction across Eurasia during the post-9/11 era. This development has gone largely unnoticed by conservation biologists during an era in which, ironically, transboundary cooperation has emerged as a conservation paradigm. These fences represent a major threat to wildlife because they can cause mortality, obstruct access to seasonally important resources, and reduce effective population size. We summarise the extent of the issue and propose concrete mitigation measures., While cooperation across national boundaries has emerged as a key concept in wildlife conservation, this Perspective reveals that, at the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in the extent of security fencing along international borders, which has dramatic consequences for this approach.

The focus of this chapter is on the threat of habitat fragmentation, and the corresponding challenge of connectivity conservation. In particular, the chapter aims to identify the varying extents to which international wildlife regimes are conducive to, or even require, the maintenance or achievement of an adequate degree of ecological connectivity. Legal instruments examined include the Ramsar Wetlands Convention; World Heritage Convention; Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and selected daughter instruments; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); African Convention(s) on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Bern Convention on European Wildlife and Natural Habitats; and EU Habitats Directive. The problem of habitat fragmentation and the corresponding need for connectivity conservation are not addressed in so many words in the provisions of most of these legal instruments. In many cases, however, the interpretation of relevant provisions in light of (i) the instruments’ objectives, (ii) current scientific knowledge on fragmentation and connectivity, including regarding the needs of species in order to cope with climate change, and (iii) relevant decisions by the parties, renders the conclusion that measures to counter fragmentation and ensure connectivity are mandatory.

This chapter assesses the significance of the pan-European 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) for European wilderness protection. It does so both (1) generally and (2) with reference to a group of species that is of special interest from a wilderness protection perspective, namely the five European terrestrial large carnivores: brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gulo gulo), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Wilderness protection as such is not required by the Bern Convention in so many words. Nonetheless, the protection of wilderness (qualities) can evidently serve the implementation by contracting parties to the Convention of their obligations under the treaty, although it will not do so in every instance. Moreover, a faithful implementation of the Bern Convention by its contracting parties is likely to further the protection of wilderness (qualities), as a consequence of the close links between the latter and a number of species and habitats protected under the Convention. Large carnivores are a case in point. In certain instances, safeguarding and restoring particular wilderness qualities will actually be required by the Bern Convention. To illustrate, the implementation of the Convention’s obligations concerning the protection of native species and their habitats can bar the construction of roads and other human infrastructure, and ‘naturalness’ is the direct beneficiary of the duty to control non-native species. Clear potential thus exists for cross-fertilization between the Convention’s objectives and obligations on the one hand, and the protection of wilderness on the other hand. The overlap between the two is not perfect, however. A further clarification of the relationship between the Bern Convention and wilderness protection is desirable. This can best be done through the adoption of guidance on the topic by the Convention’s Standing Committee.

This article performs a comparative analysis of five major legal instruments for (marine) nature conservation in Europe, namely the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the 1979 EU Wild Birds Directive, the 1992 EU Habitats Directive, the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, and the 2008 EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Through this analysis, an answer is provided to the question what the recently added MSFD contributes to the pre-existing legal framework in the field of marine nature conservation. To provide the necessary focus, the analysis is carried out from the perspective of one marine subregion, the North Sea, although many elements of it are ostensibly of wider relevance. The article systematically explores the potential added value of the MSFD with regard to marine protected areas (MPAs) and other types of nature conservation measures. It concludes that the MSFD apparently contributes both substance and legal teeth to the legal framework for the protection, management and restoration of marine species, habitats and ecosystems in Europe.

This article reviews the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the European Union's Wild Birds and Habitats Directives from the perspective of the need to help nature adapt to climate change in order to attain biodiversity conservation goals. It concludes that even though none of the three instruments explicitly state this, both the Bern Convention and the EU directives currently subject Member States to legal obligations to take the measures necessary to facilitate the adaptation of biodiversity in Europe to climate change. These measures include the restoration and protection of robust populations and habitats, as well as the establishment of adequate connectivity in order to enable recovery of populations following climate-related impacts and to enable climate-induced range shifts.