For biodiversity to thrive across Europe, laws should treat wildlife as individuals capable of suffering, experts argue

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 a new University of Portsmouth 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 in the Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy. Dr Caroline Cox, Associate Professor in Wildlife Crime and Policy at the University of Portsmouth said: “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. 

“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 In the UK, outdated legislation and weak enforcement further undermine conservation outcomes.”  

The researchers found that just 16 per cent of habitats protected under the EU Habitats Directive are currently in favourable condition, while more than half of assessed bird species were found to have an unfavourable conservation status. They argue that the EU system protects only selected species and habitats, leaving many others without meaningful legal recognition. 

In the UK, the picture is equally concerning. Nearly one in six of the country's more than 10,000 surveyed species is now at risk of extinction, while only 14 per cent of important wildlife habitats are considered to be in good condition. The researchers also highlight low conviction rates for wildlife crime and say the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has struggled to keep pace with modern conservation challenges. 

At the heart of both legal systems, the study argues, is an anthropocentric approach that values wildlife primarily for the benefits it provides to people, such as supporting ecosystems, agriculture or landscapes, rather than recognising animals as sentient beings with intrinsic value. 

Although animal sentience is recognised in EU treaties and in the UK's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the researchers say that recognition has yet to be meaningfully incorporated into biodiversity law. The study finds that species are protected when they serve ecosystem functions or policy objectives and downgraded when they become politically inconvenient. 

The researchers point to the European Union's decision in 2024 to reduce the protection status of wolves as an example of how conservation law can be weakened by political pressure. 

The move, which gives member states greater flexibility to manage wolf populations through measures including culling, came despite the species being regarded as a major conservation success, with wolf numbers increasing by almost 60 per cent over the past decade. The study found that previous European Commission analysis did not support reducing protection levels and concluded that coexistence measures were more effective than culling at protecting livestock. 

The study also highlights that the decision was accompanied by procedural shortcomings, including limited public consultation, questions over the evidence used and lobbying from agricultural and hunting interests. 

Dr Meganne Natali, Visiting Researcher from the University of Portsmouth, explains: "The wolf downgrade demonstrates how fragile protection can become under pressure.  

 "Species outside the annexes receive little to no protection. 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." 

Rather than creating new legislation, the researchers argue that existing laws should be strengthened. They call for tighter controls on legal exemptions that allow protections to be set aside in the public interest, stronger enforcement and prosecution of wildlife offences, and greater international cooperation to promote coexistence between people and wildlife instead of conflict-based management. 

The researchers believe the findings have implications far beyond Europe. As biodiversity declines around the world, the research highlights that conservation laws must move beyond protecting species only when they are economically or politically valuable and instead recognise wildlife as sentient beings deserving of consistent legal protection. 

Dr Cox says: "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 team is now developing practical recommendations to help governments integrate the recognition of animal sentience into existing biodiversity laws while maintaining effective conservation policy. Their aim is to create a coexistence-based legal framework that bridges biodiversity governance and animal law.