Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cimatti, M., Ranc, N., Benítez-López, A., Maiorano, L., Boitani, L., Cagnacci, F., Čengić, M., Ciucci, P., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Krofel, M., López-Bao, J.V., Selva, N., Andren, H., Bautista, C., Ćirović, D., Hemmingmoore, H., Reinhardt, I., Marenče, M., Mertzanis, Y., Pedrotti, L., Trbojević, I., Zetterberg, A., Zwijacz-Kozica, T., Santini, L.

The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) and the Swedish Wildlife Damage Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences provided funding for the project. JVLB was supported by a Ramon & Cajal research contract (RYC-2015-18932) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.

Legislation for the preservation of biodiversity has been instrumental to the recovery of multiple species and habitats. The European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC is one of the strongest legal tools in nature conservation. This Directive seeks to achieve its biodiversity goals by requiring EU Member States to take measures to reach or maintain favorable conservation status (FCS) of natural habitats and species in Europe. FCS is a legal concept, but must be understood and applied by scientists, managers, and policy makers, and therefore a proper interpretation of this concept is crucial for biodiversity conservation and wildlife management. However, its definition contains several aspects that can lead to misinterpretation, forming the core of controversies in determining whether or not populations have reached FCS. In this review, we provide legal and ecological clarifications of the most contested aspects of FCS that have not yet been conclusively settled by analyzing and weighing a variety of sources.

Integrating environmental concerns into sectoral policies is a priority for sustainable development. Despite environmental policy integration being established in Europe in 1998, major weaknesses still limit its effectiveness, such as poor coordination at national and subnational levels. We use the integration of scavenger conservation into sanitary European regulations to illustrate how the adoption of different criteria when implementing the same legislation affects the effectiveness of the environmental policy integration process. We focus on the implementation across Spanish autonomous regions of Regulation EU 142/2011 allowing dead livestock to be left in situ for feeding scavengers. Using Asturias (NW Spain) as a case study, we provide spatially explicit estimates of two key factors guiding the implementation of the legislation, the estimates of scavenger feeding requirements, and the area designated as scavenger feeding zones, based on different criteria used across Spanish regions. We detected a remarkable variation in both scavenger feeding requirements (up to 452%; ranging from 108 to 596 t/year) and scavenger feeding zones (up to 72% in size) depending on the implementation criteria used. The concentration of scavenger feeding requirements per km2 within scavenger feeding zones (i.e., carrion demand) varied up to 167%. Similarly, the concentration of carrion supply from livestock within scavenger feeding zones (i.e., carrion availability) changed up to 33%. Policy implications. Our results support the need for systematic evaluations to choose the best criteria for implementing sanitary regulations concerning scavenger conservation. Interregional coordination in implementing the agreed criteria emerges as a relevant issue to improve the effectiveness of environmental policy integration for transboundary conservation of European scavengers. Foreign Language La integración de la protección del medio ambiente y la conservación de la biodiversidad en políticas sectoriales se entiende como fundamental para el desarrollo sostenible. A pesar de que la integración ambiental en política se considera una necesidad en la Unión Europea desde 1998, este proceso presenta importantes carencias que comprometen su efectividad, como la escasa coordinación tanto entre países como entre regiones de un mismo país. Tomando como ejemplo la integración de la conservación de especies carroñeras en las políticas sanitarias europeas, demostramos cómo la adopción de distintos criterios para implementar una misma política compromete los resultados esperados. Analizamos la implementación en las 17 comunidades autónomas españolas de la regulación europea 142/2011 que permite dejar carroñas de ganado in situ en el campo para la alimentación de especies carroñeras. Seleccionamos la comunidad autónoma de Asturias (NO España) como caso de estudio, para aplicar los distintos criterios seguidos en cada comunidad autónoma y calcular estimas espacialmente explícitas de los dos factores recomendados para implementar la citada normativa: los requerimientos tróficos de las especies carroñeras y la superficie designada como zonas de alimentación para estas especies. Dependiendo del criterio, detectamos una variación considerable tanto en las estimas de los requerimientos tróficos de las especies carroñeras (hasta del 452%; desde 108 hasta 596 t/año), como en la superficie designada para su alimentación (hasta del 72%). La concentración de los requerimientos tróficos de las especies carroñeras por km2 en las áreas designadas para su alimentación (demanda de carroña) varió hasta un 167% según los criterios usados. De igual modo, la concentración de la carroña de ganado disponible en las áreas de alimentación designadas (carroña disponible) varió hasta un 33%. Implicaciones de gestión: Nuestros resultados muestran la necesidad de realizar evaluaciones sistemáticas para seleccionar los mejores criterios a la hora de implementar políticas sanitarias que afectan a la conservación de las especies carroñeras. La coordinación transfronteriza en esta materia resulta clave para mejorar la efectividad de este proceso de integración ambiental destinado a la conservación de las especies carroñeras europeas.

[...]the previous study commissioned by the European Parliament on the impact of large carnivores on farmers and their livelihood (Linnell and Cretois 2018) did not provide the support for this outcome either. [...]a similar downlisting proposal submitted by Switzerland was opposed by the European Commission only 2 years ago (European Union 2022). Despite the positive trend of wolf and bear populations in Europe over the last decades at the continental scale (Chapron et al. 2014; Kaczensky et al. 2024), these species have not yet reached the so-called favorable conservation status in most European Member States (Eionet Portal 2025) as required by the European Habitats Directive, and recently confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU 2024). The European Commission's debates and proposals to weaken wolf protection without a rigorous evaluation of the expected impacts of the proposed approach provide a foundation for national populist decisions on large carnivore management that are not evidence-based and offer little or no benefits for livestock owners, while previous proposals to improve the quality and transparency of data collection on livestock predation at the EU level (Selva et al. 2023; Singer et al. 2023)

Introduction of legal rights for nature could protect natural systems from destruction Scientific evidence indicates that the global environmental crisis is accelerating and that environmental laws have not been able to reverse the trend ( 1 ). A movement to recognize nature as a rights holder argues that existing laws regulate, rather than stop, the destruction of the natural world ( 2 ). Instead of incrementally reforming such laws, a growing number of jurisdictions around the world have recognized rights of nature (see the box). This may better protect natural systems, though questions remain and contributions from various disciplines will be necessary to implement this rights revolution and ensure its effectiveness.

Law enforcement and integration of environmental issues into other policies able to affect species and ecosystems are cornerstones for the effective protection of biodiversity. We illustrate the necessity of monitoring and improving such enforcement and integration through the example of the European sanitary policies for managing livestock carcasses after the “mad cow disease” outbreak while supporting scavengers’ conservation. Continuous updates of EU sanitary regulations for reconciling scavenger conservation and public health have led to actions whose implementation and monitoring rely on delineating scavenger feeding zones and estimating livestock mortality and scavenger feeding requirements (SFRs). However, the lack of clear and homogeneous criteria to calculate SFRs results in remarkable variations (e.g. of up to >450% in some regions). Although we offer a prospective approach to improve SFR calculations, we show here the high levels of uncertainty in these estimates based on the imperfect information available regarding scavengers’ ecology. Synthesis and applications. The multiple socioeconomic and ecological impacts of sanitary crises such as “mad cow disease” underpin the need for high‐level political commitments to guarantee public health, food security and biodiversity conservation. To effectively integrate scavenger conservation into sanitary policies, the shortfalls here detected when estimating scavenger feeding requirements should be addressed. We recommend policymakers establish systematic on‐ground carcass monitoring for detecting implementation gaps (e.g. food shortages compromising scavenger conservation, potential risks of disease transmission), and to modify EU sanitary regulations accordingly. This monitoring would increase knowledge on scavenging ecology and epidemiological surveillance while enhancing cross‐compliance. Lessons learned in Europe may help to integrate conservation issues into other sectorial policies worldwide. The multiple socioeconomic and ecological impacts of sanitary crises such as “mad cow disease” underpin the need for high‐level political commitments to guarantee public health, food security and biodiversity conservation. To effectively integrate scavenger conservation into sanitary policies, the shortfalls here detected when estimating scavenger feeding requirements should be addressed. We recommend policymakers establish systematic on‐ground carcass monitoring for detecting implementation gaps (e.g. food shortages compromising scavenger conservation, potential risks of disease transmission), and to modify EU sanitary regulations accordingly. This monitoring would increase knowledge on scavenging ecology and epidemiological surveillance while enhancing cross‐compliance. Lessons learned in Europe may help to integrate conservation issues into other sectorial policies worldwide.

The study was supported by Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, and provincial bureau of Department of Environment, Hamedan province. JVLB was supported by a ‘‘Juan de la Cierva’’ research contract from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

This research received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Environment (MITECO). J.V.L.B. was supported by a Ramón y Cajal research contract (RYC-2015-18932) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.

[...]the environmental authorities in charge of wildlife conservation are often perceived as the only ones responsible for enforcing actions, from nonlethal to lethal interventions, to minimize the occurrence of attacks on livestock through the management of wildlife. In the next CAP-period, income support (e.g., area- and animal-based payments) will be linked to higher environment- and climate-friendly farming practices and standards originated either in CAP and non-CAP regulations (i.e., Statutory Management Requirements, SMRs; European Commission, 2013, 2019). Since Directive 98/58/EC is also integrated in the SMRs, all EU farmers have the obligation to respect the applicable provisions of the sectoral law regarding animal welfare (European Commission, 2013). Boosting livestock welfare duties would reduce livestock depredations, and thus the frequency of these behaviors. Since consumers are concerned about the animal welfare implications of the food they purchase, we expect an increasing demand for integrating animal welfare standards into national laws in the next coming years, even though litigation.