Following the rise of environmental movements in the 1970s, environmental laws are currently credited with numerous successes in protecting species. Legislation functions to designate and protect habitats, ensure strict protection of vulnerable species populations from a range of threats, and regulate the sustainable use of more robust populations. For biodiversity conservation in Europe, Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora have had a positive impact on species’ conservation status. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is similarly credited with having been instrumental in the recovery of many listed species. Our research aims to better quantify the conservation effectiveness of laws and understand how they can be improved. We have addressed specific issues of high conservation importance.
Epstein, Y., López-Bao, J.V. & Chapron, G. (2016). A legal-ecological understanding of favorable conservation status for species in Europe. Conservation Letters, 9(2): 81-88.
Epstein, Y. (2016). Favourable conservation status for species: examining the Habitats directive’s key concept through a case study of the swedish Wolf. Journal of environmental law, 28(2): 221-244.
European Commission. 2015. What is ‘favourable conservation status’ for species? Researchers clear up misinterpretations. Science for Environment Policy: 457
Epstein, Y., Chapron, G. & Verheggen, F. (2022). What is an emergency? Neonicotinoids and emergency situations in plant protection in the EU. Ambio, 1-8.
Epstein, Y., Christiernsson, A., López-Bao, J.V. & Chapron, G. (2019). When is it legal to hunt strictly protected species in the European Union. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(3): e18.
Christiernsson, A. (2019). Is the Swedish Brown Bear Management in Compliance with EU Biodiversity Law? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 16 (3), 237-261
Epstein, Y., López-Bao, J.V., Trouwborst, A. & Chapron, G. (2019). EU Court: Science must justify future hunting. Science, 366(6468): 961.
Epstein, Y. & Chapron, G. (2018). The hunting of strictly protected species: The Tapiola case and the limits of derogation under article 16 of the habitats directive. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 27(3).
Epstein, Y. (2017). Killing wolves to save them? Legal responses to ‘tolerance hunting’in the European Union and United States. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26(1): 19-29.
Chapron, G., & Treves, A. (2016). Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1830), 20152939.
López-Bao, J.V., Fleurke, F., Chapron, G. & Trouwborst, A. (2018). Legal obligations regarding populations on the verge of extinction in Europe: Conservation, Restoration, Recolonization, Reintroduction. Biological conservation, 227: 319-325.
Hellner, A. & Epstein, Y. (2023). Allocation of Institutional Responsibility for Climate Change Mitigation: Judicial Application of Constitutional Environmental Provisions in the European Climate Cases Arctic Oil, Neubauer, and l’Affaire du siècle, Journal of Environmental Law, eqac024.
Chapron, G., Marfaing, G. & Betaille, J. (2022). Patterns of Litigation in France during Two Decades of Recovery of a Large Carnivore. bioRxiv October 14, 2022, p 2022.10.11.511781.
Bétaille, J. (2022). Les stratégies contentieuses des associations en matière de protection du climat: de l’application du droit à l’activisme judiciaire. In: Kada, N. (Ed.), Droit et climat – Interventions publiques locales et mobilisations citoyennes (pp.109-123), Dalloz.
Epstein, Y., Chapron, G. & Verheggen, F. (2021). EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use. Science, 373(6552): 290.
Epstein, Y. & Kantinkoski, S. (2020). Non-Governmental Enforcement of EU Environmental Law: A Stakeholder Action for Wolf Protection in Finland. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8: 101.
Bétaille, J. (2019). Chasse à la glu: la tradition l’emporte sur la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice. Actualité juridique du droit administratif, (20): 1172-1177.
Bétaille, J. (2021). Le préjudice écologique à l’épreuve de l’«affaire du siècle»: un succès théorique mais des difficultés pratiques. Actualité juridique du droit administratif, (38): 2228-2234.
Epstein, Y. & Schoukens, H. (2021). A positivist approach to rights of nature in the European Union. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 12(2): 205-227.
Bétaille, J. (2020). Rights of nature: conservation might not need another hype.
Bétaille, J. (2019). Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 16(1): 35-64.
Bétaille, J. (2019). Des droits pour la nature, un nouveau mirage juridique. In: Touzeil-Divina, M. (Ed.), L’arbre, l’homme & le(s) droit(s) (pp.77-87), Editions L’Epitoge.
Chapron, G., Epstein, Y. & López-Bao, J.V. (2019). A rights revolution for nature. Science, 363(6434): 1392-1393.
Treves, A., Chapron, G., López-Bao, J.V., Shoemaker, C., Goeckner, A.R. & Bruskotter, J.T. (2017). Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews, 92(1): 248-270.
Epstein. Y., López-Bao, J.V. & Chapron, G. (2023). Strict Protection of Species in the EU: Controversies and Trends, in Nature Law and Policy in Europe (ed. Andrew Jackson, Routledge, in press).
Nores, C. & López-Bao, J.V. (2022). Historical data to inform the legal status of species in Europe: An example with wolves. Biological Conservation 272: 109639
Mateo-Tomás, P., Gigante, F.D., Santos, J.P.V., Olea, P.P. & López-Bao, J.V. (2022). The continued deficiency in environmental law enforcement illustrated by EU sanitary regulations for scavenger conservation. Biological Conservation, 270: 109558.
Christiernsson, A. (2021). Är naturreservat ett effektivt instrument för att bevara och återställa ekologiskt funktionella landskap? Nordisk miljörättslig tidskrift 2, 7-29.
Christiernsson, A. (2021). Rätten som styrmedel för att bevara biologisk mångfald. I Biologisk mångfald, naturnyttor och ekosystemtjänster. Svenska perspektiv på livsviktiga framtidsfrågor, 291-299.
Sazatornil, V., Trouwborst, A., Chapron, G., Rodríguez, A. & López-Bao, J.V. (2019). Top-down dilution of conservation commitments in Europe: An example using breeding site protection for wolves. Biological Conservation, 237: 185-190.
Epstein, Y. (2019). Biodiversity Protection: An Environmental Issue? On Sweden’s Implementation of EU Species Protection Laws in Environmental and Sectoral Legislation. Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 2019(1): 69-82.
Mateo-Tomás, P., Olea, P.P. & López-Bao, J.V. (2018). Europe’s uneven laws threaten scavengers. Science, 360(6389): 612-613.
López-Bao, J.V. & Margalida, A. (2018). Slow transposition of European environmental policies. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(6): 914.
Bétaille, J. (2018). L’ours dans les Pyrénées: la carence fautive de l’Etat dans la mise en œuvre de la directive Habitats. Actualité juridique du droit administratif, (41): 2346-2352.
Köck, W. & Kuchta, L. (2017). Wolfsmanagement in Deutschland. Natur und Recht, 39(8): 509-517.
Epstein, Y. (2017). The Big Bad EU? Species Protection and European Federalism: A Case Study of Wolf Conservation and Contestation in Sweden.
Trouwborst, A., Chapron, G., Fleurke, F., Epstein, Y. & López-Bao, J.V. (2017). Europe’s biodiversity avoids fatal setback. Science, 355(6321): 140.
López-Bao, J.V., Blanco, J.C., Rodríguez, A., Godinho, R., Sazatornil, V., Alvares, F., García, E.J., Llaneza, L., Rico, M. & Cortés, Y. (2015). Toothless wildlife protection laws. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(8): 2105-2108.
Darpö, J. & Epstein, Y. (2015). Thrown to the Wolves–Sweden Once Again Flouts EU Standards on Species Protection and Access to Justice. Nordic Environmental Law Journal,
Epstein, Y. & Darpö, J. (2013). The wild has no words: environmental NGOs empowered to speak for protected species as Swedish courts apply EU and international environmental law. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 10(3): 250-261.
Bétaille, J. (2020). La directive Oiseaux quarante ans après: des résultats encourageants et des espoirs à concrétiser. Revue semestrielle de droit animalier, (2): 305-336.
Epstein, Y. (2018). Adversarial legalism and biodiversity protection in the United States and the European Union. Transnational Environmental Law, 7(3): 491-513.
Trouwborst, A., Blackmore, A., Boitani, L., Bowman, M., Caddell, R., Chapron, G., Cliquet, A., Couzens, E., Epstein, Y. & Fernández-Galiano, E. (2017). International wildlife law: understanding and enhancing its role in conservation. BioScience, 67(9): 784-790.
Chapron, G., Epstein, Y., Trouwborst, A. & López-Bao, J.V. (2017). Bolster legal boundaries to stay within planetary boundaries. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(3): 1-5.
Epstein, Y. (2013). The Habitats Directive and Bern Convention: synergy and dysfunction in public international and EU law. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 26: 139.
Epstein, Y. (2012). Population-based species management across legal boundaries: The Bern Convention, habitats directive, and the Gray Wolf in Scandinavia. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 25: 549.
Design and implementation by Guillaume Chapron © 2023. The views and opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors only. Contact: guillaume.chapron@slu.se