Wildlife Management, Species Injustice and Ecocide in the Anthropocene
- PDF / 717,296 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 39 Downloads / 164 Views
Wildlife Management, Species Injustice and Ecocide in the Anthropocene Ragnhild Sollund1
© The Author(s) 2019
Abstract Norway has been signatory to the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (otherwise known as the “Bern Convention”) since 1986. Nevertheless, every year, Norwegian authorities authorize the killing of brown bears, lynx, wolves and wolverines, which are listed as strictly protected fauna species by the Bern Convention. Norway has a responsibility to protect these species and has several times been brought to court by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for failure to satisfy their duties under this international legal instrument. This article discusses Norway’s large predator policy and its compliance with the Bern Convention through an analysis of court decisions and judicial reasoning from the perspective of species justice for nonhumans.
Introduction In the past 40 years alone, the world has witnessed a 60% decline in the population of vertebrate species (WWF 2018). To a large extent, this has been brought about by loss of habitat. For example, 20% of the Amazon is gone. Human activities have not only polluted air, land and water, but also altered the world’s topography, destroyed habitats, contributed to the insecurity of all of Earth’s species, and caused widespread extinction (Bar-On et al. 2018; Harari 2015; Shearing 2015; White 2012). Indeed, the situation for free-born (“wild”) nonhuman animals is dramatic. Growing concern about the implications of the human footprint for the nonhuman world is exemplified by the proposed epochal term, the Anthropocene. The concept has been popularized by Paul Crutzen (2002) and has gained some currency in criminology (see, e.g., South 2010) because it acknowledges and expresses the impact of the human species on Earth’s geology and ecosystems, including its nonhuman species. Such an impact can also
* Ragnhild Sollund [email protected] 1
Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
R. Sollund
be seen in Norwegian “nature management” practices, which prevent free-born animals from exercising their inherent rights to live peacefully in their natural habitats. There are several international conventions in place to prevent the extinction of “wildlife”1 species and the destruction of habitats, such as the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (otherwise known as the “Bern Convention”).2 The Bern Convention aims to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe and some African countries. Norway’s ratification of the Bern Convention in 1986 means that Norway is required to take “appropriate and necessary legislative and administrative measures” to “ensure the conservation of the habitats of… wild flora and fauna” (Article 4.1) and to “ensure the special protection of wild flora species” (Article 5) and “wild fauna species” (Articles 6 and 7).
Data Loading...
