Interpreting ‘favourable conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how many are wanted?

Abstract

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. 123Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:37-61 DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1238 Regarding these questions, we identify approaches that are workable and effective, as well as likely to be endorsed by the EU Court.

Making rewilding fit for policy

“…Additionally, this definition allows for transitions into and through self-sustaining novel ecosystems as a possible trajectory for rewilding initiatives. This is important, as the "re" of rewilding has been previously understood as implying a return to some previous state, or historical benchmark, which might only be possible within specific spatial and temporal scales (Corlett, 2016b;Rohwer & Marris, 2016) and if there is agreement on the specific historical benchmarks to use (Epstein, López-Bao, & Chapron, 2016;Trouwborst, Boitani, & Linnell, 2017). Continual global change makes that goal unattainable in many situations (Marris, 2013).…”

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.…”

When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal constraints on wildlife management within Europe’s Bern Convention

“…There is considerable experience within wildlife management institutions to manage hunting and control of large mammals, including large carnivores, through adaptive management frameworks where regular population monitoring is used to update quotas to minimize undesired developments in the size and distribution of the population (Linnell et al 2010;Swenson et al 1998). Our current biological understanding of these species also underlines that their interests are best served by fostering widespread and interconnected populations, and that this is more important than achieving locally high densities, especially when considering the long term need for gene flow (Linnell et al 2008;Trouwborst et al 2017a). …”

“…Furthermore, the Bern Convention's Standing Committee has recommended a set of guidelines on population level management of large carnivores (Linnell et al 2008) to parties (Recommendation No. 137 (2008)) where a central tenet is that the use of the transboundary population level as the benchmark for assessments in connection with Article 9 should only be considered when formal management plans exist at the transboundary population level (Trouwborst et al 2017a and2017b). Finally, irrespective of the scale of assessments, all parties to the Convention have individual responsibilities towards species conservation and cannot outsource these to other countries (Trouwborst et al 2017b).…”

“…Many ambitious visions of how far this recovery can continue are often articulated within the frames of the emerging rewilding discourse, for example. However, the growth of many conflicts (Redpath et al 2013) associated with wildlife populations forces the consideration of the need to potentially limit recovery at levels below the biological potential Trouwborst et al 2017a).…”