For biodiversity to thrive across Europe, laws should treat wildlife as individuals capable of suffering – experts argue
Comprehensive legal analysis reveals “failures” in wildlife protection laws, which, researchers state, threaten biodiversity despite ambitious conservation frameworks
Taylor & Francis Group
Wildlife protection frameworks in both the EU and the UK need stronger and more consistent implementation – and must recognise animals as “individuals capable of experiencing suffering”, rather than mere ecological assets.
This is the argument from authors of a new peer-reviewed study, which, in providing the first comprehensive comparative examination of EU and UK wildlife legislation in the post-Brexit era, exposes a disconnect between ambitious policy goals and practical implementation.
The research team, environmental lawyers Dr Caroline Cox and Dr Meganne Natali of the University of Portsmouth, reveal significant shortcomings in wildlife protection frameworks across Europe and the United Kingdom, despite decades of legislative development and billions in conservation investment.
Their article is published today in the Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy.
“Our study finds that while both the EU and the UK have developed complex legal structures for wildlife protection, neither system delivers a coherent or fully effective framework,” Drs Cox and Natali explain.
“In the EU, wildlife protection remains fragmented, selective, and exception-based, with species safeguarded only when expressly listed and protection frequently weakened through exception that allows a national, local or regional administration in an EU member state to deviate from a given regulation (derogations) and political compromise.
“In the UK, outdated legislation and weak enforcement further undermine conservation outcomes.”
Key findings
European Union framework under scrutiny
The research identifies fundamental contradictions within the EU's wildlife protection system, despite its reputation as one of the world's most comprehensive:
- Only 16% of habitats listed under the Habitats Directive (an EU environmental legislation designed to protect endangered species and habitats) are currently in “favourable condition”
- 53% of bird species assessed between 2013-2018 showed “unfavourable conservation status” (when a species or habitat is not considered to be in a healthy, secure, and sustainable condition for the long term).
- The EU's protection system operates through "exceptions rather than universality," (the way in which EU wildlife laws protects only selected species and habitats, rather than providing protection to wildlife generally) leaving countless species without legal recognition.
UK post-Brexit challenges
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Britain's cornerstone wildlife legislation, faces mounting criticism:
- Nearly one in six of the UK's 10,000+ surveyed species risk extinction
- Only 14% of important wildlife habitats are in good condition
- Wildlife crime conviction rates remain significantly below average for all crimes
- The Act's five-yearly review system leaves species vulnerable to political shifts and ministerial priorities
An anthropocentric logic
A key problem baked into both of the frameworks is a certain anthropocentric logic, the paper claims. Under this, wildlife is protected because of its value to humans—for example, via ecological services, agricultural balance or landscape aesthetics—rather than for the wildlife themselves.
“Even where animal sentience is recognised at treaty level,” the authors note, such as in EU primary law and the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, “this recognition has not been operationalised within biodiversity law.”
According to the lawyers, the benefit of environmental protections regarding wild animals specifically as sentient beings is that it introduces ‘ethical continuity’ into the legal framework; at present, protection is all too conditional and reversible.
“Species are protected when they serve ecosystem functions of policy objectives—and downgraded when they become politically inconvenient," the authors add.
The European Wolf controversy highlights a “fragile” protection system
This impermanence is exemplified by the EU’s 2024 decision to downgrade the protection status of wolves from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’, granting greater flexibility in the management of wolf populations, including via culling.
This move has been framed as a response to increasing wolf populations across Europe, and a corresponding increase in conflicts with farmers and hunters.
Although the wolf has been a significant conservation achievement for the EU—with numbers having increased by nearly 60% in a decade—studies have cautioned that wolves have not yet achieved the benchmark of a genuinely favourable conservation status.
Furthermore, Cox and Natali note, the European Commission’s prior analysis in 2023 did not support a reduction in the protection level; it also acknowledged that coexistence measures are more effective at protecting livestock from wolves than culling.
The decision to downgrade the protection of wolves, the authors note, was also “marred by procedural shortcomings”, including a restricted public consultation and a lack of transparency around data on livestock losses and wolf behavior; accompanied by pressure from agricultural and hunting lobbying groups; and surrounded by controversy as to whether the predation of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s pony by wolves influenced the policy shift.
“The wolf downgrade demonstrates how fragile protection can become under pressure,” the researchers note.
Another issue in the EU is that wildlife law only protects those species that are explicitly listed in the annexes of the Habitats and Birds Directive – based on scientific assessments of rarity, conservation status and ecological value at the time of drafting.
“Species outside the annexes receive little to no protection,” Dr Natali says.
“Member States can technically comply while limiting the practical scope of conservation. The result is a framework that appears harmonised, but in reality remains fragile and uneven in application.”
Tightening regimes for greater protection
As for how they would like to see protection frameworks improved in both the EU and the UK, Cox and Natali highlight three areas for improvement.
“First, derogation regimes must be tightened,” they say. “Protection cannot remain structurally dependent on broad ‘overriding public interest’ clauses.”
Secondly, the enforcement of protective measures must be strengthened. As the researchers note: “Legal ambition without monitoring and prosecutorial follow-through produces symbolic protection.”
The third would include enhanced cooperation and coexistence-based approaches. “We advocate stronger cross-border cooperation, better integration of wildlife conservation across policy sectors, and the promotion of human–wildlife coexistence strategies rather than conflict-based management,” Dr Natali adds.
Implications for global conservation
The study's findings extend beyond Europe, offering lessons for wildlife governance worldwide. As biodiversity loss accelerates globally, the research underscores the urgent need for legal frameworks that balance human interests with ecological integrity and ethical responsibility.
The research team argue that wildlife law must place animal sentience at the heart of conservation frameworks.
“Without that integration, biodiversity law remains ethically incomplete and politically unstable.
“The true measure of environmental law lies not only in its capacity to preserve species, but in its willingness to govern our shared landscapes with justice, empathy, and foresight,” the authors conclude.
With their initial study complete, the researchers are now moving to develop practical recommendations for implementing improvements to existing wildlife protections – examining how these laws could integrate sentience recognition without collapsing into pure welfare regulation – aiming for a coexistence-based framework that bridges biodiversity governance and animal law.
Journal
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy
Method of Research
Observational study
Article Title
Protecting Wildlife in Europe: A Comprehensive Analysis of Legislative Frameworks and Their Shortcomings
Article Publication Date
17-Jul-2026
Biodiversity delivers the largest productivity gains under extreme drought in drier grasslands
During years of extreme drought, drier grasslands showed the strongest positive effects of biodiversity on productivity
Yokohama National University
image:
Summary of the main findings from 75 global biodiversity experiments. Biodiversity effects on productivity were strongest under extreme drought in more-arid grasslands, driven by increased complementarity, whereas comparable context dependence was not detected in forests or under heat extremes.
view moreCredit: YOKOHAMA National University
Biodiversity does not enhance ecosystem productivity equally across all ecosystems under climate extremes. During years of extreme drought, drier grasslands showed the strongest positive effects of biodiversity on productivity.
When extreme drought strikes, drier grasslands receive the greatest productivity benefit from biodiversity. By contrast, forests did not show the same context-dependent pattern under drought, according to a new global synthesis of 75 biodiversity experiments. Researchers from YOKOHAMA National University published their results in Nature Ecology & Evolution on July 15.
Biodiversity has been studied long before it got its catchy name, though fully exploring all it entails is a never-ending process. Through other studies, it has already been established that biodiversity plays a significant role in an ecosystem’s productivity. What is lesser known is where this biodiversity matters most when climate extremes are taking their toll.
“Our ultimate goal is to move away from a broad ecological insight to a practical basis for climate adaptation,” said Takehiro Sasaki, professor of the Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University and first author of the study.
With intense heat waves and droughts becoming more commonplace, this question becomes a crucial one in the space of climate science. A global synthesis of 75 biodiversity experiments sought to answer this question, along with whether these benefits persist, weaken or intensify under times of drought or extreme heat, and if the benefits of biodiversity apply equally to different ecosystems.
In more-arid grasslands, plant diversity had its strongest positive effect on productivity during years of extreme drought. This effect was driven mainly by stronger complementarity among species, consistent with species contributing in more functionally distinct and/or mutually supportive ways under water limitation. In less-arid grasslands, by contrast, drought was associated with stronger selection effects, indicating a greater contribution from a few highly productive species.
Forests did not show comparable context dependence under extreme drought, although this does not mean that biodiversity is unimportant in forests. Heat extremes likewise did not produce clear context-dependent changes in biodiversity effects across ecosystem types or aridity gradients. Across both grasslands and forests, soil nutrient conditions did not detectably modify biodiversity effects under either drought or heat extremes, suggesting that water limitation may become a more important constraint on productivity than soil nutrient supply as climatic stress intensifies.
The study synthesized data from 75 biodiversity experiments in grasslands and forests spanning broad climatic gradients, with experiment durations ranging from 2 to 23 years. These data were linked to long-term daily precipitation and maximum-temperature records, as well as site-level aridity and soil data. The analysis assessed whether aridity and soil nutrient conditions modified biodiversity effects under drought and heat extremes
Results show that biodiversity effects on productivity were strongest under extreme drought in drier grasslands, whereas forests show no comparable context dependence under the same conditions.
Further exploration to fully unpack the question of where biodiversity is going to make the biggest difference when climate extremes hit is necessary. Researchers hope to improve their forest evidence by increasing the duration of studies, improving more sensitive indicators of drought for forest ecosystems, in addition to testing whether the effects of biodiversity are slower to emerge in forests than in grasslands. Looking into the tree health indicators and the crown condition of forests years after extreme climatic anomalies might be better indicators of the ecosystem’s health and the weight the biodiversity of the forest carries.
Another goal of this research is to make the science more predictive for use in geographical blind spots in biodiversity experiments. This type of insight would help prepare ecosystems to better adapt to a warming climate, and ideally make conservation efforts a top priority when it comes to preserving the varied environments present on this planet.
Takehiro Sasaki, affiliated with both the Graduate School of Environment and Information Science and the Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University, together with Yuki Iwachido of the Graduate School of Environment and Information Science and Nico Eisenhauer of the Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University, contributed to this research.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, Tottori University, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NSF Biodiversity on a Changing Planet Program and NSF Long-Term Ecological Research Prgroam, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Swiss National Science Foundation, Margarete-von-Wrangell Fellowship of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wurttemberg and the European Social Fund, NSF Awards, NSERC DG grant, EXCELLENTIA project, the German Research Foundation, Swedish Research Council Formas and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche made this research possible.
###
YOKOHAMA National University (YNU) is a leading research university dedicated to academic excellence and global collaboration. Its faculties and research institutes lead efforts in pioneering new academic fields, advancing research in artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum information, semiconductor innovation, energy, biotechnology, ecosystems, and smart city development. Through interdisciplinary research and international partnerships, YNU drives innovation and contributes to global societal advancement.
Journal
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Method of Research
Data/statistical analysis
Article Title
Biodiversity effects under climate extremes intensify with aridity in grasslands but not forests
Article Publication Date
15-Jul-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment