Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What form of human-wildlife coexistence is mandated by legislation? A comparative analysis of international and national instruments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are currently many controversies over the process of wildlife conservation, mainly focused on determining which forms of human-wildlife relationship should be endorsed by society. These differences often lead to legal discussions between lawmakers and stakeholders as result of misinterpretation of law. In this study, we examine the dominant conservation ideologies underpinning institutionalized wildlife conservation by exploring the moral basis underlying a broad range of national and international legislation. We used a teleological interpretative approach to explore the implicit and explicit intentions of legislative instruments. We found that a shift from a human-nature dualism to an integration paradigm occurred in the legal frameworks during the last 20-30 years. A desire to improve the status of threatened species or ecosystems was clearly expressed in all legislation. However, the widespread mention of consumptive values seems to indicate no principled opposition between the notions of conservation and of sustainable use. We identified three different groups of legislation: (1) a small group containing largely protectionist instruments, (2) a group based on the main European nature conservation texts and, (3) a cluster incorporating almost all the post-Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) legislation from around the world. The CBD was found to have had a major impact on the shaping of the modern legal instruments, reconciling the eco- and anthropocentric values at the heart of modern legal thinking. Overall, the dominant legal ideology seems to aim for a compromise between the interests of society and wildlife, allowing its sustainable use and steering for shared space.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batavia C, Nelson MP (2017) For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biol Conserv 209:366–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman M, Davies P, Redgwell C (2010) Lyster’s international wildlife law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carter NH, Linnell JDC (2016) Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31:575–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KM et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:1462–1465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra A, Idrisova A (2011) Convention on biological diversity: a review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation. Biodiv Conserv 20:3295–3316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapron G, Epstein Y, Trouwborst A, López-Bao JV (2017) Bolster legal boundaries to stay within planetary boundaries. Nat Ecol Evol 1(3):86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson P, Adams WM (2009) Science and uncertainty in South Africa’s elephant culling debate. Environ Plan C 27:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis J (2011) General principles and comparative law. Eur J Int Law 22:949–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennelly N (1996) Legal interpretation at the European Court of Justice. Fordham Int Law J 20:656

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon-Légaré A, Prestre PL (2014) Explaining variations in the subnational implementation of global agreements: the case of Ecuador and the convention on biological diversity. J Environ Develop 23:220–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiedanpää J, Bromley DW (2011) The harmonization game: reasons and rules in European biodiversity policy. Environ Policy Gov 21:99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantz SM et al (2015) Future habitat loss and extinctions driven by land-use change in biodiversity hotspots under four scenarios of climate-change mitigation. Conserv Biol 29:1122–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2011) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague J Rule Law 3:220–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts L, Gutiérrez-Fons JA (2013) To say what the law of the EU is: methods of interpretation and the European Court of Justice Colum J Eur L 20:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JDC et al (2015) Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conserv Biol 29:978–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lute ML et al (2018) Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solution. Biol Conserv 218:223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald DW, Jacobsen KS, Burnham D, Johnson PJ, Loveridge AJ (2016a) Cecil: a moment or a movement? Analysis of media coverage of the death of a lion, Panthera leo. Animals 6:26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald DW, Johnson PJ, Loveridge AJ, Burnham D, Dickman AJ (2016b) Conservation or the moral high ground: siding with Bentham or Kant. Conserv Lett 9:307–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345:1558–1560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews F (2016) From biodiversity-based conservation to an ethic of bio-proportionality. Biol Conserv 200:140–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnis DL (1998) Wildlife policy-making by the electorate: an overview of citizen-sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildl Soc Bull 1973–2006(26):75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SM, Ring JJ, Spellan MK (2013) Domestic legal traditions and states’ human rights practices. J Peace Res. 50:189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morishita J (2006) Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 30:802–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson MP, Vucetich JA, Chapron G (2016) Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conserv Lett 9:302–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newbold T et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson ER et al (2015) Pendulum swings in wolf management led to conflict, illegal kills, and a legislated wolf hunt. Conserv Lett 8:351–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL et al (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM et al (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM et al (2017) Don’t forget to look down–collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biol Rev 92:2157–2163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder D, Pisupati B (2010) Ethics, justice and the convention on biological diversity. University of Central Lancashire, Preston

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PJ, Griffiths CJ, Soorae PS, Armstrong DP (2014) Reversing defaunation: restoring species in a changing world. Science 345:406–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton BE (2016) Clumsiness and elegance in environmental management: applying cultural theory to the history of whaling. Environ Politics 25:414–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suggit AJ et al (2018) Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering. Nat Clim Change 8(8):713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst A, Redpath S, Gutiérrez R, Wood K, Young J (2015) Law and conservation conflicts conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 108–118

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst A et al (2017a) International wildlife law: understanding and enhancing its role in conservation. Bioscience 67:784–790

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst A, Boitani L, Linnell JD (2017b) Interpreting ‘favourable conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how many are wanted? Biodiv and Conserv 26:37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban MC (2015) Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348:571–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D, Campbell B (2015) Understanding stakeholder conflict between conservation and hunting in Malta. Biol Conserv 191:812–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vucetich JA, Bruskotter JT, Nelson MP, Peterson RO, Bump JK (2017) Evaluating the principles of wildlife conservation: a case study of wolf (Canis lupus) hunting in Michigan, United States. J Mammal 98:53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willett P (1988) Recent trends in hierarchic document clustering: a critical review. Inf Process Manag 24:577–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. The involvement of JDCL and BPK was funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant 251112); AT was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Grant 452-13-014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Benjamin Cretois

  2. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Torgard, 7485, Trondheim, Norway

    Benjamin Cretois, John. D. C. Linnell & Bjørn P. Kaltenborn

  3. Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Arie Trouwborst

Authors
  1. Benjamin Cretois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John. D. C. Linnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bjørn P. Kaltenborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arie Trouwborst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Cretois.

Additional information

Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity legal instruments and regulations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cretois, B., Linnell, J.D.C., Kaltenborn, B.P. et al. What form of human-wildlife coexistence is mandated by legislation? A comparative analysis of international and national instruments. Biodivers Conserv 28, 1729–1741 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01751-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01751-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation