EU Court: Science must justify future hunting.

Abstract

![][1] An EU decision will make hunting strictly protected species such as the lynx more difficult to justify. PHOTO: STEFAN HUWILER/ROLFNP/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO For strictly protected species in Europe, the 1992 Habitats Directive requires EU Member States to implement conservation actions that include a ban on their capture and killing ([ 1 ][2]). Several Member States have creatively evaded this requirement to allow annual hunting of some of these species, including wolf ( Canis lupus ), bear ( Ursus arctos ), and lynx ( Lynx lynx ), by exploiting provisions that allow exceptions to strict protection ([ 2 ][3]). The Directive allows limited exceptions to achieve particular goals when there is no satisfactory alternative and making the exception would not harm the conservation status of the species' populations. A recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ([ 3 ][4]) makes it much harder for Member States to interpret these provisions to allow hunting and rightly centers future policy decisions on the results of scientific research. The case, initiated by the nongovernmental nature-protection organization Tapiola, challenged Finland's justification of wolf hunting as a conservation measure needed to prevent poaching ([ 4 ][5]). The CJEU ruled that the prevention of poaching is a legitimate conservation goal that might justify exceptions from strict protection. However, it also interpreted the associated conditions in such a strict manner that in practice it will be difficult to justify hunting for this purpose ([ 3 ][4]). This ruling lays out important limitations on hunting strictly protected species throughout the EU ([ 3 ][4]). First, Member States cannot allow hunting for conservation purposes unless rigorous scientific studies indicate that hunting would have a positive net impact on the strictly protected population. Second, exceptions from strict protection may be used only as a last resort for achieving their claimed purposes. The Member State must be able to demonstrate, with reference to scientific sources, that there is no other satisfactory alternative. Third, the CJEU emphasized that the precautionary principle prevents Member States from making exceptions to strict protection if the best available science leaves uncertainty as to whether the conservation status of populations involved would be negatively affected. This decision makes explicit the need for good science to inform environmental protection laws. Examples of how conservation scientists and others can contribute include modeling the demographic and ecological impacts of exemptions and identifying scientifically grounded alternative solutions to hunting. A greater awareness of the legal questions that require the help of scientists to answer could result in more policy-relevant research agendas and improved environmental decision-making. 1. [↵][6]Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1992); . 2. [↵][7]1. A. Christiernsson , J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16, 237 (2019). [OpenUrl][8] 3. [↵][9]Court of Justice of the European Union, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo—Kainuu ry, case C-674/17 (2019); . 4. [↵][10]1. J. Darpo , J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16, 305 (2019). [OpenUrl][8] Y.E. and G.C. receive funding for a project that touches on hunting and conservation issues from Riksbankens jubileumsfond and have previously (within the past 3 years) received funding for species conservation research from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. J.V.L.-B. is a member of the IUCN Canid Specialist Group. A.T. is a member of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. G.C. is a member of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, IUCN Canid Specialist Group, and IUCN Cat Specialist Group. [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BEur.%2BEnviron.%2BPlan.%2BLaw%26rft.volume%253D16%26rft.spage%253D305%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text