Wildlife protection frameworks in both the EU and the UK need stronger and more consistent implementation—and must recognize animals as "individuals capable of experiencing suffering," rather than mere ecological assets.
This is the argument from authors of a new peer-reviewed study, which provides the first comprehensive comparative examination of EU and UK wildlife legislation in the post-Brexit era and 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.
2 Comments
abrake@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 32d
Interesting! There have been similar measures made in Ecuador, New Zealand, and a proposal in Mexico.
All of those examples though intersect with indigenous rights rather than a pure environmental/conservation effort. They're also all limited to particular regions, so they might still suffer the weakness that the authors identify with the UK and EU: having a patchwork of rules with lots of exceptions rather than a single coherent framework.
lath@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
Nah, that would make them want to hurt the wildlife even more.