z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Environmental liability litigation could remedy biodiversity loss
Author(s) -
Phelps Jacob,
Aravind Sakshi,
Cheyne Susan,
Dabrowski Pedrini Isabella,
Fajrini Rika,
Jones Carol A.,
Lees Alexander C.,
Mance Anna,
Nagara Grahat,
Nugraha Taufiq P.,
Pendergrass John,
Purnamasari Umi,
Rodriguez Maribel,
Saputra Roni,
Sharp Stuart P.,
Sokolowki Amir,
Webb Edward L.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
conservation letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.153
H-Index - 79
ISSN - 1755-263X
DOI - 10.1111/conl.12821
Subject(s) - harm , lawsuit , liability , business , biodiversity , safer , environmental planning , strict liability , environmental law , environmental resource management , political science , law , economics , geography , ecology , computer security , finance , biology , computer science
Many countries allow lawsuits to hold responsible parties liable for the environmental harm they cause. Such litigation remains largely untested in most biodiversity hotspots and is rarely used in response to leading drivers of biodiversity loss, including illegal wildlife trade. Yet, liability litigation is a potentially ground‐breaking conservation strategy to remedy harm to biodiversity by seeking legal remedies such as species rehabilitation, public apologies, habitat conservation and education, with the goal of making the injured parties ‘whole’. However, precedent cases, expert guidance, and experience to build such conservation lawsuits is nascent in most countries. We propose a simplified framework for developing conservation lawsuits across countries and conservation contexts. We explain liability litigation in terms of three dimensions: (1) defining the harm that occurred, (2) identifying appropriate remedies to that harm, and (3) understanding what remedies the law and courts will allow. We illustrate the framework via a hypothetical lawsuit against an illegal orangutan trader in Indonesia. We highlight that conservationists’ expertise is essential to characterizing harm and identifying remedies, and could more actively contribute to strategic, science‐based litigation. This would identify priority contexts, target defendants responsible for egregious harm, propose novel and meaningful remedies, and build new transdisciplinary collaborations.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here