Managing the carnivore comeback: International and EU species protection law and the return of Lynx, Wolf and bear to Western Europe

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 347-372

  Trouwborst, Arie ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bern convention; Brown bear; Habitats directive; Large carnivores; Lynx; Transboundary; Wolf

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; CARNIVORE; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; EUROPEAN UNION; HABITAT CONSERVATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

WESTERN EUROPE;

CANIDAE; LYNX; URSUS ARCTOS;

EID: 78049416891     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqq013     Document Type: Article

References (121)

1. An extensive biological literature has been consulted for this article. With a view to the prospective readership, however, exhaustively reproducing these sources would probably be more cumbersome than useful. An accessible introduction is provided in M Enserink and G Vogel, 'The carnivore comeback' (2006) 314 Science 746.
2. More comprehensive introductory texts (in German) are R Kalb, Bär, Luchs, Wolf: Verfolgt, Ausgerottet, Zurückgekehrt (Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz 2007).
3. And R Hofrichter and E Berger, Der Luchs: Rückkehr auf Leisen Pfoten (Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz 2004)
4. C Sillero-Zubiri and others, 'Management and Control of Wild Canids Alongside People' in DW MacDonald and C Sillero-Zubiri (eds), Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids (OUP, Oxford 2004) 107, at 107
5. See the intriguing map in P Ciucci and others, 'Long-distance Dispersal of a Rescued Wolf from the Northern Apennines to theWestern Alps' (2009) 73 J Wildl Manage 1300, at 1301
6. For accounts of the events and the media hype concerning Bruno, see Austrian Bear Emergency Team, JJ1 'Bruno' in Austria and Germany 2006-Protocol and Risk Assessment (Vienna 2006).
7. T Rosen and A Bath, 'Transboundary Management of Large Carnivores in Europe: From Incident to Opportunity' (2009) 2 Conserv Lett 109
8. Kalb (n 1) 241-52
9. U Breitenmoser and others, 'The Changing Impact of Predation as a Source of Conflict Between Hunters and Reintroduced Lynx in Switzerland' in DW MacDonald and AJ Loveridge (eds), Biology and Conservation ofWild Felids (OUP, Oxford 2010) 493, at 503
10. J Karlsson and M Sjöström, 'Human Attitudes towards Wolves, a Matter of Distance' (2007) 137 Biol Conserv 610
11. Comparable studies specifically focussed on, respectively, Germany and the Netherlands, are R Schmidt and S Lüders, Der Schutzstatus der Wölfe in Deutschland - Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven (Caspers Mock Anwälte, Koblenz 2009)
12. And A Trouwborst and CJ Bastmeijer, 'Lynxen en Wolven: Het Natuurbeschermingsrecht en de Terugkeer van Grote Roofdieren naar Nederland' (2010) 37 Milieu en Recht 272
13. On the various disciplines of relevance to large carnivore issues, see A Bath, 'Working with People to AchieveWolf Conservation in Europe and North America' in M Musiani and others (eds), A New Era forWolves and People:Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and Policy (University of Calgary Press, Calgary 2009) 173, at 174-8
14. Passive, or negative, species protection means prohibiting certain harmful human actions. Active protection means taking positive measures to enhance the conservation of a species. It should be noted that the distinction between active species protection and area protection proper is not in every instance well defined.
15. For a recent discussion of the latter species' plight, see P Ferreras and others, 'Iberian Lynx: The Uncertain Future of a Critically Endangered Cat' in MacDonald and Loveridge (n 5) 507
16. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (adopted 19 September 1979, entered into force 1 November 1983) ETS 104
17. Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1979] OJ L206/7
18. Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79, see eg art 8 on protected areas
19. Para 1.2.8 of COP Decision VII/27 (2004) on Mountain Biological Diversity draws attention to conflicts between humans and wild animals, 'especially with regard to coexistence with predators'.
20. Convention onWetlands of International Importance Especially asWaterfowl Habitat (adopted 2 February 1971, entered into force 21 December 1975) 996 UNTS 245
21. UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted 16 November 1972, entered into force 17 December 1975) (1972) 11 ILM 1358
22. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975) 993 UNTS 243
23. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (adopted 23 June 1979, entered into force 1 November 1983) (1980) 10 ILM 15
24. The definition of migratory species in art I(1)(a) speaks of cyclical and predictable movements
25. The snow leopard (Uncia uncia) occurs in Appendix I
26. Agreement on the Conservation of Seals in theWadden Sea (adopted 16 October 1990, entered into force 1 October 1991)
27. Arts 4 and 5-9, respectively
28. Art 11(1)(a)
29. See V Salvatori and J Linnell, Report on the Conservation Status and Threats for Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe, Doc T-PVS/Inf (2005) 16
30. C Shine, Legal Report on the Possible Need to Amend Appendix II of the Convention for theWolf, Doc T-PVS/Inf (2005) 18
31. Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine. Most reservations concern the exclusion of wolf and/or bear from Appendix II. Curiously, only few of these states have provided for protection through Appendix III instead.
32. See eg Dutch Council of State, 13 November 2002, nr 200200050/1, para 2.3.3.9.
33. HJP Knot, 'Verdrag van Bern: Grote Broer van de Habitatrichtlijn?' in CJ Bastmeijer and others (eds), Europees en Internationaal Natuurbeschermingsrecht in Nederland (Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague 2001) 35
34. Recommendation No 10 (1988) Concerning the Protection of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos); Recommendation No 17 (1989) on the Protection of the Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe; Recommendation No 20 (1991) on the Protection of the European Lynx (Lynx lynx); Recommendation No 37 (1992) on the Conservation of the Cantabrian Bear; Recommendation No 43 (1995) on the Conservation of Threatened Mammals in Europe; Recommendation No 59 (1997) on the Drafting and Implementation of Action Plans of Wild Fauna Species; Recommendation No 74 (1999) on the Conservation of Large Carnivores; Recommendation No 82 (2000) on Urgent Measures Concerning the Implementation of Action Plans for Large Carnivores in Europe; Recommendation No 89 (2001) on the Conservation of the European Lynx in the Alps; Recommendation No 101 (2003) on the Implementation of the Pan-Alpine Conservation Strategy for the Lynx (PACS); Recommendation No 115 (2005) on the Conservation and Management of Transboundary Populations of Large Carnivores; and Recommendation No 137 (2008) on Population Level Management of Large Carnivore Populations
35. U Breitenmoser and others, Action Plan for the Conservation of the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe, Nature and Environment No 112 (Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2000)
36. L Boitani, Action Plan for the Conservation of theWolves (Canis lupus) in Europe, Nature and Environment No 113 (Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2000)
37. JE Swenson and others, Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe, Nature and Environment No 114 (Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2000)
38. Convention on the Protection of the Alps (adopted 7 March 1991, entered into force 6 March 1995)
39. Protocol on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention of1991 Relating to the Conservation of Nature and the Countryside (adopted 20 December 1994, entered into force 18 December 2002); see arts 14 and 15
40. Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians (adopted 22 May 2003, entered into force 4 January 2006)
41. Protocol on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological and Landscape Diversity (adopted 19 June 2008, not yet in force)
42. The conservation of large carnivores is explicitly addressed in Art 1(2) and 12 of the Biodiversity Protocol
43. This concerns Bulgaria (wolf in Annex V instead of IV), Estonia (lynx, wolf and bear not in Annex II; lynx and wolf in Annex V instead of IV), Finland (lynx, wolf and bear not in Annex II; wolf in reindeer zones in AnnexV instead of IV), Greece (wolf north of 39th parallel only in Annex V, not in II or IV), Latvia (lynx and wolf not in Annex II; wolf in Annex V instead of IV), Lithuania (wolf only in Annex V, not in II or IV), Poland and Slovakia (wolf in Annex V instead of IV), Spain (wolf north of Duero in Annex V instead of IV) and Sweden (bear not in Annex II)
44. Eg Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (February 2007)
45. J Linnell, V Salvatori and L Boitani, Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores, a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) report prepared for the European Commission (July 2008)
46. European Commission, Note to the Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores (1 July 2008)
47. Arts 2(1)-(2) and 3(1)
48. Guidance Document (n 36) 10 and 61
49. The interpretation by the Dutch judiciary so far has been that a favourable conservation status for species and habitats should be achieved at national level. For each relevant Natura 2000 area, however, the relative contribution to the achievement of the national goal must be clear. See Dutch Council of State, 6 November 2008, nr 200802545/1, para 2.13.2.
50. Art 16(1)
51. See eg Guidance Document (n 36) 60-2
52. See Art 1(i) of the Habitats Directive; and Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) at 14-23 and 57-67
53. See IUCN, The Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, Gland 2009) accessed 25 June 2010.
54. When the least negative qualifications 'Near Threatened'or 'Least Concern'apply, supplementary criteria set out in the Carnivore Guidelines are used to determine the conservation status of a population; see Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) at 18
55. Note to the Guidelines (n 38)
56. The 11 populaties, ordered by IUCN status and including estimated numbers of lynx, are as follows. 'Least Concern': Karelia (1500), Baltic (3400), Carpathians (2500); 'Near Threatened': Scandinavia (2000); 'Endangered': Dinaric (130), Western Alps (80), Jura (80); 'Critically Endangered': Bohemian-Bavarian (75), Balkans (5100), Eastern Alps (30-40), Vosges/Palatinia (30-40). See Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) 57-62.
57. 'Least Concern': Baltic (3600), Carpathians (3000-4000), Dinaric/Balkans (5000); 'Near Threatened': Karelia (750), Northwest Iberia (2400); 'Vulnerable': Italian Peninsula (500-800); 'Endangered': Scandinavia (130-150), Western/Central Alps (100-120); 'Critically Endangered': Sierra Morena (50), Germany/Western Poland (550). See Carnivore Guidelines
58. For a map depicting the 10 populations see Figure 1.1.1 in L Boitani and P Ciucci, 'Wolf Management Across Europe: Species Conservation without Boundaries' in Musiani and others (n 8) 15, at 18.
59. L Boitani, 'Wolf Conservation and Recovery', in LD Mech and L Boitani (eds), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London 2003) 317, at 340
60. An instructive map is kept up to date on.
61. The progress of wolves (and lynx) in France can be tracked on .
62. 'Least Concern': Baltic (6800), Karelia (4300), Scandinavia (2600); 'Vulnerable': Carpathians (8100); Dinaric/Pindos (2100-2500); 'Endangered': Eastern Balkans (720); 'Critically Endangered': Cantabrians (130), Apennines (40-50), Alps (35-40), Pyrenees (15-17). See Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) 52-56.
63. See Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-1147; Case C-518/04 Commission v Greece [2006] ECR I-42; and Case C-221/04 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-4515
64. Generally, see Guidance Document (n 36) 54-65
65. As noted eg by J Thissen in I Borkent and M Neefjes, 'De Toekomst Ziet er Anders Uit: Leren Loslaten, dan Komen Wolf, Lynx en Wildernis Vanzelf', (2009) 6 Vakblad Natuur Bos Landschap 2, at 3
66. Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland 2007 ECR I-4713
67. Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) 30
68. This recommendation coincides with the opinion of the Commission that 'the killing of individuals of a wide-ranging large carnivore will need to be evaluated at population level (transboundary where applicable)': Guidance Document (n 36) 61. It is interesting to compare this with the reasoning of the EU Court on transboundary environmental impact assessment in Case C-205/08 Umweltanwalt von Kärnten v Kärntner Landesregierung, 10 December 2009.
69. Shine (n 25) 11
70. Action Plan for the Conservation of the Eurasian Lynx in Europe (n 29) para 2.4.
71. JDC Linnell and others, The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim 2002) 6
72. Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in Europe (n 29) para 2.4.2.
73. Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) 30
74. Case C-342/05 (n 60) para 47
75. Carnivore Guidelines (n 37) 30
76. See in this regard also the reasoning by the Scottish Court of Session in Royal Society for the Protection of Birds v Secretary of State for Scotland [2000] SLT 22
77. See eg Table 13.1 in Boitani (n 53) 322-3; and Table 1.1.1 in Boitani and Ciucci (n 52) 19-21.
78. For some examples regarding wolves see JC Blanco and Y Cortés, 'Ecological and Social Constraints of Wolf Recovery in Spain' in Musiani and others (n 8) 41, at 60-2
79. Boitani and Ciucci (n 52) 24
80. And SH Fritts and others, 'Wolves and Humans' in Mech and Boitani (n 53) 289, at 311-12
81. Guidance Document (n 36) 54
82. Notably, experts have ranked 'illegal killing prompted by conflict with hunters'as the primary threat to lynx in Europe. See Breitenmoser and others (n 5) 494.
83. M von Arx and others, Status and Conservation of the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe in 2001 (KORA, Muri 2004)
84. Guidance Document (n 36) 57
85. Case C-183/05 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-137, para 29
86. Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2005] ECR I-9017, para 68
87. Case C-183/05 (n 82) para 13
88. Opinion of A-G P Léger 21 September 2006, C-183/05, para 28
89. Art 12(4)
90. Case C-308/08 Commission v Spain, 20 May 2010 nyr
91. Case C-183/05 (n 82) para 14
92. see also the proceedings instigated on 25 September 2009 in Case C-383/09 Commission v France [2009] OJ C312/26
93. See n 29
94. Recommendation No 137 (2008), para 1
95. See n 26 and 35
96. Action plans and management plans adopted (until 2007) in Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, have been usefully compiled by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe at accessed 25 June 2010.
97. Ministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Brandenburg, Ein Managementplan fürWölfe in Brandenburg (1994)
98. Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Freistaates Sachsen, Managementplan für denWolf in Sachsen (2009)
99. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, Leitlinie Wolf -Grundsätze zum Umgang mitWölfen. Handlungsempfehlungen und Managementma(nahmen für Sachsen-Anhalt (2008).
100. I Reinhardt and G Kluth, Leben mit Wölfen. Leitfaden fu«r den Umgang mit einer Konfliktträchtigen Tierart in Deutschland (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2007). 99 Boitani and Ciucci (n 52) 30.
101. A Molinari-Jobin and others, Pan-Alpine Conservation Strategy for the Lynx, Nature and Environment No 130 (Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2003)
102. Recommendation No 101 (2003)
103. Protocole de Collaboration Italo-Franco-Suisse pour la Gestion du Loup dans les Alpes (adopted 13 July 2006, in French and Italian languages)
104. Preamble
105. Para 1(a)-(b)
106. Paras 2 and 3
107. Carnivore Guidelines as quoted previously (n 66)
108. So are the UK and Ireland, but these are set apart by the fact that large carnivores can only return to them through active human reintroduction efforts
109. A question which is of limited legal relevance but interesting all the same, is whether these states would have negotiated such exemptions if the current advances of the wolf had been foreseen at the time the Habitats Directive was adopted
110. Guidance Document (n 36) at 11
111. Art 8(f)
112. See the Action Plans in n 29 (emphasis added)
113. Recommendation No 17 (1989), para H
114. Restoration also features prominently in the new EU biodiversity target; see Council Conclusions on Biodiversity Post-2010, 3002nd Environment Council meeting (15 March 2010)
115. For a more detailed case study (in Dutch) of the carnivore comeback in respect of the Netherlands, see Trouwborst and Bastmeijer (n 7)
116. Written questions by MP Ouwehand of the Party for the Animals (PvdD), 2 July 2009, Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2008/2009, nr 3613
117. Written questions by MPs Ormel and Schreijer-Pierik of the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), 10 November 2009, Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2009/2010, nr 933
118. And by MPs Ormel, Pieper and Schreijer-Pierik (CDA), 26 March 2010 (2010Z05367)
119. J Linnell, cited in Enserink and Vogel (n 1) at 747