Experts Urge Europe to Recognize Wildlife as Individuals Able to Suffer

Wildlife rules across the EU and the UK are falling short of their own promises, according to a new peer-reviewed comparative study that urges governments to treat animals not as “ecological assets,” but as individuals capable of experiencing suffering.

The research, published in the Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, argues that post-Brexit reforms and EU-wide legal architecture alike suffer from a structural mismatch: ambitious policy goals versus weak day-to-day delivery.

Legal scholars Dr Caroline Cox and Dr Meganne Natali of the University of Portsmouth compared the EU’s Habitats and Birds frameworks with the UK’s post-1980 wildlife protections, finding that both systems can look comprehensive on paper while remaining inconsistent in practice.

In the EU, protection is described as fragmented and exception-based. The team points to low performance indicators, including only 16% of habitat types in “favourable condition” under the Habitats Directive and 53% of assessed bird species showing “unfavourable conservation status” between 2013 and 2018.

The paper also highlights a core design feature: legal safeguards largely depend on whether species and habitats are listed in annexes. Species outside these lists receive limited recognition, allowing member states to comply formally while narrowing real-world conservation scope.

In the UK, Cox and Natali contend that older legislation and insufficient enforcement undermine outcomes. They cite persistent gaps in habitat condition, worrying species risk trends, and wildlife-crime conviction rates that lag behind performance in other crime categories.

Both jurisdictions, the authors say, reflect an “anthropocentric logic,” where wildlife is protected primarily for human benefit—ecosystem services, agriculture, and landscape aesthetics—rather than for animals themselves. They note that even where sentience is acknowledged in primary law or under the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, biodiversity rules have not operationalised that ethical premise.

The study uses the EU’s 2024 wolf protection downgrade as a case study of how fragile enforcement can become. While wolf numbers have risen, the authors argue the benchmark for genuinely favourable conservation status has not been met, and they question the process, including limited consultation, limited data transparency, and political lobbying pressures.

To fix the mismatch, the researchers call for tighter derogation regimes, stronger monitoring and prosecution, and more cross-border cooperation—shifting from conflict-based wildlife management toward coexistence strategies that protect both conservation goals and animal interests.

wildlife law, animal sentience, biodiversity governance, EU regulations, UK enforcement, derogations, habitat protection, conservation policy, wolf management, ethical continuity

News Publication Date: 17-Jul-2026

Web References: https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2025.2619363

References: 10.1080/13880292.2025.2619363