Bolster legal boundaries to stay within planetary boundaries

International law and lions (Panthera leo): understanding and improving the contribution of wildlife treaties to the conservation and sustainable use of an iconic carnivore

“…Experience, including our own, indicates that this is best achieved through a multidisciplinary approach , whereby legal experts join forces with ecologists and experts from other disciplines with a good understanding of the broader context and the actual Tables 3 and 4. conservation needs of species. Such cooperation has, encouragingly, been gathering momentum in recent years (Cliquet et al 2009;Trouwborst et al 2015;Epstein et al 2016;Selier et al 2016;Treves et al 2017;Trouwborst et al 2017a;Chapron et al 2017;Redpath et al 2017;Trouwborst et al 2017c). Our review, performed by legal experts, conservation biologists and social scientists, builds on this momentum.…”

“…Depending on the particular circumstances and the treaty obligation(s) involved, there is a time and a place for top-down as well as bottom-up approaches, for coercive as well as flexible approaches, and for all manner of combinations of these (Treves et al 2017;Chapron et al 2017;Redpath et al 2017). It is important to note in this regard that the participation of local and indigenous communities, poverty alleviation, awareness raising and education have become key features in the implementation of all the major conservation treaties, as expressed in COP decisions, strategies, funding allocations, and guidance documents (see, e.g., Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2010; CBD Secretariat 2011; UNESCO et al 2012).…”

Towards linking environmental law and science

“…There are, however, real challenges: institutional barriers, different standards of proof, and different ethical responsibilities to name a few. With global patterns emerging of deregulation of environmental legislation (Chapron et al 2017), there is a need and opportunity for scientists and lawyers to look towards each other for insights and collaborations. Linking science to law should improve outcomes of decision-making for the benefit humanity and the environment.…”

Public trust thinking and public ownership of wildlife in Italy and the United States

“…PTD originally focused on public access to navigable water in the United States and subsequently became the legal basis for public wildlife conservation in most states (Blumm & Paulsen, 2013;Horner, 2000). However, regardless of ambitions expressed in laws, around the world populations of many species continue to decline or disappear entirely, often due to lack of appropriate scientific population and threat assessments, habitat loss, and particularly circumvention or poor enforcement of international, national, or local laws that govern human interactions with other species (Chapron, Epstein, Trouwborst, & López-Bao, 2017;Maxwell et al, 2016;Trouwborst et al, 2017). However, regardless of ambitions expressed in laws, around the world populations of many species continue to decline or disappear entirely, often due to lack of appropriate scientific population and threat assessments, habitat loss, and particularly circumvention or poor enforcement of international, national, or local laws that govern human interactions with other species (Chapron, Epstein, Trouwborst, & López-Bao, 2017;Maxwell et al, 2016;Trouwborst et al, 2017).…”

“…For example, in the state of Georgia, "Wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of its citizens" (Georgia Code § 27-1-3), and in Hawaii, "All public natural resources are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people" (Hawaii State Constitution, Article XI § 1). However, regardless of ambitions expressed in laws, around the world populations of many species continue to decline or disappear entirely, often due to lack of appropriate scientific population and threat assessments, habitat loss, and particularly circumvention or poor enforcement of international, national, or local laws that govern human interactions with other species (Chapron, Epstein, Trouwborst, & López-Bao, 2017;Maxwell et al, 2016;Trouwborst et al, 2017).…”