10Landmark
Cases for
Biodiversity
Boya Jiang
Emmanuel Ugirashebuja
Dimitri de Boer
Danting Fan

10 biodiversity cases from all around the world
Finland

Belgium

China

India
Colombia

The Philippines

Costa Rica
BrazilTanzania

Australia

Table ofContentsb

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

1. China: Habitat of Green Peacock Saved from Hydroelectric Dam

1

2. Brazil: Landowners are Now Liable for Using Illegally Deforested Land

4

3. Colombia: Deforestation in the Amazon - a Violation of Fundamental Rights

8

4. Costa Rica: Investigation into Pesticides that Harm Bees

12

5. Belgium: Traders in Protected Bird Species Sentenced

16

6. Finland: Wolf Hunting Declared Illegal

20

7. Australia: Local Community and NGO Stop Coal Mining Expansion

24

8. Tanzania: Road Construction in the Serengeti National Park Rejected28

9. The Philippines: Oil Exploration in the Tañon Strait Stopped

32

10. India: Asiatic Lions Gain Another Foothold

36

The green peacock is anelement in the COP 15 logo

1. China:
Habitat ofGreen Peacock
Saved from
Hydroelectric
DamHigh court halts construction
to save critically endangered
species
Friends of Nature, a Chinese NGO, won alandmark case in the high court of Yunnan
Province in South West China, stopping
the construction of a partially completedhydropower station on the Jiasa river. At
the time of the ruling, tens of millions ofdollars had already been spent on theconstruction of the 270 MW station.

Green Peacock (Zhinong Xi)

d

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

The Jiasa Hydropower Station threatened
the country’s largest remaining habitatof green peacocks. Rare across its whole
range in South East Asia, the green
peacock is critically endangered in China.

There are less than 300 wild birds left in
the country, and the Jiasa dam would havesubmerged the home of more than half ofall of China’s peacocks.
Yunnan, China’s second largest producerof hydropower electricity, prides itself on
being the most biodiverse province in the
country.
This symbolic ruling prioritized Yunnan’s
iconic biodiversity over the interests of
one of the province’s main industries – atestament to China’s commitment toprotect the environment.
Legal analysis
After almost three years and several
hearings, in March 2020, the Kunming
Intermediate People’s Court ruled in thefirst instance that the contractor had to
immediately suspend work until a newenvironmental impact assessment (EIA)
was carried out. In December 2020, Yunnan
High People’s Court issued the final,
second-instance judgement upholding thedecision of the first-instance trial. The caseconcerns three leading issues:

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 1and approved at a time when Cycas chenii
had not yet been formally described andincluded in the World Cycas List, explaining
the EIA Agency’s failure to include thisprotected species in the EIA report.

The courts of both first and second
instances held the project on the Jiasa riveras posing a real, imminent, and significant
risk to the habitat of green peacock andCycas chenii—a protected species ofplant. This case falls under the category of
preventive public interest litigation against“acts of environmental pollution andecological damage that pose a significant
risk of harming public interests”, as listed in
the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s
Court on Several Issues Concerning theApplication of Law to the Adjudicationof Environmental Civil Public Interest
Litigation. This case has been widely hailed
as the first major example of a preventativeenvironmental public interest litigation casein China.

The court of first instance held that theplaintiff failed to prove that the EIA Agency
had violated the law while conducting theEIA.

2. Were laws broken in the EIA process?
Friends of Nature challenged the legality ofthe original EIA procedure, claiming that theprocedure was not thorough enough andlacked facts.
The EIA Agency, affiliated to a state-owned
power company, argued that their Jiasa
Hydropower Station EIA report had clearlystated that “with limited time and complex
characteristics of wildlife, it is not possible
to reach a comprehensive conclusion oneither the birds, or other more secretive
animal species”. The assessment was
based on a combination of literature review
and interviews, and a conclusion was madethat the construction of the dam would notaffect the survival of the green peacocksin the area. Also, the report was prepared2

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

The court of second instance held that theability of a party producing an EIA reportto assess the extent of environmental
impact and reach conclusions depends
on a series of subjective and objective
factors such as the party’s expertise, theirevaluation standards, and the technology
the party employs. Having reviewed the
Jiasa Hydropower Station EIA report, theCourt ruled that there was no evidence
that the EIA Agency acted unlawfully when
conducting the assessment.
3. Should the construction of the dam be
halted permanently?
The court of first instance ordered thecontractor to immediately stop building
work and prohibited the extraction andstorage of water from the Jiasa river andthe clearing of vegetation in the area atrisk of being flooded by the dam. However,
the injunction was granted against theconstruction plan based on the existing EIA.
The competent authorities will decide what
to do next with the dam after the contractor
conducts an ex-post environmental impact
assessment as ordered by the Ministryof Ecology and Environment and submits
improvement measures for filling.
The court of second instance supported
the verdict and held that, considering therisks facing the habitat of the birds, andResearch team investigating the hydropower dam (Wild China Film)under the provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Law on “circumstanceswhere non-compliance with the approved
EIA documents occurs in the course of theconstruction and operation of a project”,
the court of first instance had made theruling to protect the environment from an
immediate harm.
The judge at the first instance weighed thesocial and economic impact and made adecision that would significantly reduceand control the risk to the habitat of green
peacock, pulling the species back from thebrink of extinction. The Ministry of Ecology
and Environment has ordered an ex-postenvironmental impact assessment, andthe decision whether or not to stop theconstruction permanently will be madeby the competent authorities once theex-post environmental impact assessment
is completed.

The green peacock case was a landmark
victory. It was China’s first and mostimportant case of preventive public interest
litigation for conservation of endangered
wildlife, and it broke away from thetraditional judicial concept of “an injury is
only remediable after it has been suffered”,
prioritizing environmental protection even
before the damage has occurred. The casealso highlights the crucial role of China’s
judicial system in the protection of nature.

Zhinong Xi

1. The river banks are at risk of being
flooded by the dam’s reservoir. How
to determine to what extent the green
peacocks will be affected by thisdamage, that is yet to occur?

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 3

2. Brazil:
Landowners are
Now Liable for
Using Illegally
Deforested
Land
Supreme Court closes aloophole used by destroyersof Amazon rainforest

Landowners in Brazilian Amazonia are now
liable for the deforestation on the land theyown, even if they purchased the land after it
had already been deforested by someone
else—Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled in
February 2021. If found in possession ofillegally-deforested land, the landowners
also have to restore the forest and pay
penalties.
Over the last few years deforestation
rates have soared in Brazilian
Amazonia—5,000 square kilometresof rainforest were lost in 2020 alone. A
4

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Macaw taken at Parque Nacional De
Pacaás Novos, Brazil (Diogo Hungria @painfully effective scheme of laundering theillegally deforested land has been to quickly
sell it to a business who then put it tocultivation or ranching, while claiming they
were not aware of the land’s prior illegal
deforestation.

hungriadb)

Aerial view of the Amazon rainforest(2011CIAT/NeilPalmer)

Brazil’s Amazon rainforest anddevelopment at a crossroads (APPhoto/Leo Correa)

Brazil’s federal prosecutors have beencountering the rising deforestation in
the Amazon by bringing public litigation
cases against the destroyers of theforest. More than 3,500 such cases werebrought between 2017 and 2020, using
the deforestation data provided by Protect
Amazonia Project launched in 2017 by
Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor Office.
All these outstanding cases can now beheard because the landowners’
claims of ignorance about theillegal deforestation of their land
are no longer valid. Dismantling
this legal loophole is a huge
step towards saving the Amazon
rainforest—home to the world’s
greatest biodiversity and one of“Amazônia
the planet’s largest carbon sinks. Protege” Logo.
Legal Analysis
The Protect Amazon Project wasdeveloped in the context of the increasing
deforestation of the Amazon rainforest,

which required a new approach to
substitute fragmented measures. It
coordinates the protection of the Amazon
rainforest with a clearer focus and more
integrated strategies. The project wasconceived, developed, and coordinatedby the Public Prosecutor’s Office, withthe support of the Office of the Attorney
General. Brazilian federal prosecutors took
concrete measures against deforestationin their jurisdictions. Under this project,
Federal Public Prosecutor Offices took
actions simultaneously across different
areas in the Amazon rainforest, covering
states, municipalities, national parks,
conservation areas, and Indigenous Lands.
Each action, which covered deforested

areas of similar size, followed two specificsteps:
1) Giving the deforester a chance to sign acivil agreement regarding (i) reforestationof the area; (ii) paying indemnification witha discount calculated under specific terms
previously disclosed.
2) Filing an environmental lawsuit
demanding reforestation andindemnification calculated under specific,
previously disclosed terms.
The cases are brought based on
information from public databases ofdifferent agencies regarding the land,
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 5its owners, possessors, users, etc. It
involves coordination with environmental
agencies, notably the Brazilian Instituteof Environment and Renewable Natural
Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico
Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation (ICMBio) who oversee theenforcement of environmental law, apply
administrative sanctions, and control
logging, transportation, wood processing insawmills, and exportation of wood.
A landmark case for the Protect Amazon
Project went to court in late 2020. The
Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and
IBAMA filed a Public Civil Action against“an uncertain and not locatable person,
holder of the embargoed area”, due toillegal deforestation of sixty-seven hectaresof forest. The request was to conductreforestation of the degraded area and to
pay indemnification for material and moral
environmental damages.
Justice Antonio Herman Benjamin ruledthat the Erga Omnes effect (obligations
are owed towards all), which is usuallyassociated with the right to property,
can also be applied when it comes toenvironmental protection. As such, allindividuals, the community, and the State
must respect the domain of others, suchas the Amazon rainforest. Therefore, in theevent of current or imminent trespassing,
the private or state owner of the property
is entitled with the right to sue the offender,
even if they are unknown or uncertain.
Correspondingly, Justice Benjamin also
explained the procedural requirementsthat would help cases against uncertain
offenders to have access to the court. He
ruled that in lawsuits regarding imminent
trespassing, trespassing, deforestation,or environmental degradation of any
kind of public or private land, the law
6

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

obviously does not require the impossible,
i.e., the individualization of the uncertain
or unknown defendant. The mandatory
procedural requirements of an initial
petition only ask for “documents necessary
to support the request”. Such documents
must a) exist and be available, and b) be
absolutely indispensable. It is not for thejudge, in the initial petition, to demand
documentary evidence beyond that.

The blue poison dart frog
(AdobeStock)

Another key point developed from theabove leading case is the argument of
propter rem obligation, which refers to
the environmental liability of the owner. In
the vast and remote areas of the Amazon
rainforest, it is easy to deforest becauseof the absence of people for thousandsof miles. Satellite photos of the same
areas throughout the years, documenting
logging and wood processing, as well astransportation documents, are evidenceof trespassing. The fact that the land isalready deforested has been used as a
strategy to obtain legal registration throughpublic notaries, to demand credit for buying
the same land, to raise cattle, or develop
agricultural projects on the land throughprivate or public bank loans. But now, withthe principle of propter rem obligation, theburden of reforestation and indemnification
will be put on the current possessor orowner of the land.
Hence, the above case developed anargument to define responsibility for
deforestation even when the current owneror possessor of the deforested land is not
the one who deforested it. It interrupted thechain of illicit events that links trespassing,
deforestation, and regularization of
deforested areas in the name of theinvaders or of those who acquire land titles
from them.

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 7

According to the petitioners, the Colombian
government was complicit in the change inclimate by failing to control the deforestationin the country’s Amazon region. The
petitioners argued that, rather than fulfillingits duty in preventing deforestation, thegovernment let it increase—over 40% peryear since 2015. However, the district court
ruled against the tutela.

3. Colombia:
Deforestationin the Amazon–a Violation of
Fundamental
RightsSupreme Court approvesa case brought by young
people against deforestationof the Amazon
In Colombia, when a person’s fundamental
rights are threatened, he or she can filea “tutela”—a type of constitutional caseagainst government to protect individual
rights—with any court in the country.
In 2018, twenty-five people between theages of 7 and 25 delivered a collective
tutela to a district court. In their tutela, theyoung people claimed that their right to ahealthy environment and life in the future is
being violated, because in the coming years
climate change will affect the quality of lifein their hometowns and cities.
8

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

The plaintiffs then appealed to thecountry’s Supreme Court, which upheld
the tutela, ruling that the Colombian state’s
failure to protect the Amazon rainforest
affected the fundamental rights of all
Colombian citizens.

Destroyed forest in the south ofColombia (Andrés Cardona)
Ecuadorian Squirrel Monkey inColombia (Adam Rainoff)

The Supreme Court ordered the formationof the Intergenerational Pact for the Lifeof Colombian Amazonia, and instructed
the stakeholders and governments in the
Colombian Amazon to formulate immediateplans to halt the deforestation.
Finally, in a historic ruling, the Supreme
Court recognized Colombian Amazon
as an entity that has rights – entitled toprotection, maintenance and restoration by
the state.
Legal Analysis:
The district court considered tutela as
an inappropriate approach to bring thisclaim due to its collective nature, thus
ruling against the plaintiffs. On appeal, theSupreme Court of Columbia overruled,
deciding that the conditions for filinga tutela were sufficiently met, because
the connection between environmental
deterioration, violation of fundamental
rights, and direct harm to the individual wasestablished, and the judicial order would beoriented towards restoring individual rights,
not collective ones.

On the issue of the government’s legal
obligations, the Court supported theplaintiffs’ argument that under the Paris
Agreement, the Joint Statement ofColombia, Germany, Norway and theUnited Kingdom on Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation in the Colombian
Amazon, and the national Law 1753 of2015, the Colombian government had
a legal obligation to reduce the annual
rate of deforestation. Despite this,the country was reported to have lost
178,697 hectares in 2016, a 44% increaseon the figures reported in 2015, with
70,074 hectares of deforested areas in
the Amazon. The plaintiffs claimed that
according to the Institute of Hydrology,
Meteorology and Environmental Studies(IDEAM), deforestation will increase averagetemperatures by 2.14°C by 2071, which iswithin their estimated lifespan. Therefore,by contributing to global warming,
deforestation will undermine the plaintiffs’
fundamental rights. The Court supported
this claim.
The Court ruled that the fundamental
rights of life, health, minimum subsistence,
freedom, and human dignity aresubstantially linked and are determinedby the environment and the ecosystem.
Applying the principle of precaution,intergenerational equity and solidarity,
the Court found that, by failing to prevent
deforestation, a threat to the future
generations’ fundamental rights had been
established.
As to the rights of nature, the Court
regarded the Colombian Amazon rainforest—the “lungs of the world”—as a “subject ofrights”, and its conservation as a national
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 9

Deforestation in Colombia

Colombia’s youth fighting for the
Amazon (Dejusticia)(5) Mitigate deforestation within 48 hours of
the judgment.

and the environmental research groups,
as well as the general population. Suchorders enhance the bottom-up approach inconservation to help ensure full complianceof the government, especially on the local
level, as observed through the enforcementof this case.

(Daniel Henryk Rasolt)

Rainforest creek in the Colombian Amazon (Rhett A. Butler)

and global obligation. By criticizing theanthropocentric and selfish model ofhumanity’s hegemonic position, the Court
adopted the “ecocentric-anthropic” criteria,
which places humans on par with theecosystem, to avoid the arrogant treatmentof the natural environment by humans.
The Court issued five mandatory orders:(1) Formulate short, medium and long-term
action plans to tackle deforestation andclimate change impacts;
10

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity(2) Create, with wide public participation,an Intergenerational Pact for the Life of
the Colombian Amazon –(PIVAC) to reduce
deforestation and GHG emissions;(3) All municipalities shall update andimplement Land Management Plans
and include an action plan to reduce
deforestation;(4) The corporate defendants shall createan action plan to tackle deforestation;

The threat to biodiversity is highlighted in
the reasoning part of the judgment. The
Court emphasized that one of the imminent
dangers posed by deforestation is themassive extinction of animal and plant
species, and quoted expert reports thatapproximately 57% of the tree species of
the Colombian Amazon were in danger, as
well as animals such as the jaguar and theAndean bear.
Furthermore, the Court identified theintegration between ecosystems, pointing
out that a mass deforestation of the
Amazon would break the ecologicalconnection with the Andes, potentiallythreatening or causing the extinction of
the species inhabiting that corridor, andgenerating “damage to ecological integrity”.

By recognizing for the first time that the
Colombian Amazon is a “subject of rights”
entitled to protection, conservation,
maintenance, and restoration led by thestate and the territorial agencies, the Court
paved the way for citizens to demand
the protection of the forest when thegovernment fails to tackle deforestation.

In addition, the Court put great emphasison the active public participation of
the young generation, the affected
communities, the scientific organizations,
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 11

4. Costa Rica:
Investigation
into Pesticides
that Harm Bees

Supreme Court orders
scientific study that may leadto ban on pesticides that
harm pollinating insects
In keeping with the country’s tradition ofenvironment-first policies, the Supreme
Court of Costa Rica ordered the country’s
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to
conduct a scientific study on the effects
that neonicotinoid pesticides may haveon the environment and public health, andon the populations of crucial pollinators—bees.
Neonicotinoids account for more than aquarter of the global pesticide market andare used for practically every major crop.
They are highly effective, but non-target
insects are also affected. Bees are exposed
to neonicotinoids via nectar and pollen.

1210 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Protest against the sale of bee-harming
pesticides (Mitja Kobal /Greenpeace)Angel bee at hive entrance. (Bee Culture)
Beekeeping in Costa Rica (Bee Culture)

Scientists have long linked neonicotinoids
to the decline of bees—these chemicals
have been shown to disrupt bees’ nervous
system as well as affecting their learningand memory, which are essential for social
insects.
The decline in the numbers of pollinatinginsects, including bees, led the European
Union to ban three neonicotinoid pesticides
in 2015. However, the legal defence for the
Costa Rican Ministry of Agriculture cast
doubt on the evidence that neonicotinoids
can affect bees in the wild, because thesescientific findings were laboratory-based.
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 13

However, the Supreme Court ruledthat despite lack of scientific certainty,
measures had to be taken to prevent
potential risks to biodiversity, adding that
it was the duty of the state to prevent suchrisks.
Legal analysis:
The major issue discussed in thiscase is whether and when to apply the
precautionary principle and take preventive
action.
In order to circumvent the scientificevidence that neonicotinoids directly harm
individual bees, the Costa Rican Ministryof Agriculture and Livestock argued thatthese effects are observed in laboratory
conditions, and that there is no evidence
that these effects occur in nature andcan affect bee populations with knock-on
consequences for the environment.
However, Costa Rica’s Supreme Court
judged that a risk for environmental
and public health damage existed andthat preventive action had to be taken.
The Court ordered a scientific study on
the effects of the use of agrochemicals
that contain neonicotinoids on health,biodiversity, and the environment of Costa
Rica, as well as the adoption of measures
to safeguard these constitutional goods,
which may be at risk or in serious danger.
The protection of the environment is thestate’s responsibility, to be realized inaccordance with the precautionary principlethat governs in environmental issues. The
state’s obligation in terms of environmental
protection harnesses a subjective rightof the people to demand, through judicial
bodies, the adoption of suitable measures
for the supervision of this right, in light of
openly negligent attitudes by the public
14

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Male orchid bee collecting fungus
filaments from tree bark in Costa
Rica (Gil Wizen)
Use of agro-toxics (iStock/Nelic)authorities, or similarly of natural persons
or legal entities. The possibility to judiciallydemand a type of beneficial activity on thestate’s part, in compliance with its duty
towards the protection of the life, healthor environmental rights of its inhabitants,
includes the clear verification of an
imminent threat to biodiversity and hence
against the rights of these persons.
With respect to the constitutional doctrine
developed in this judgement on thepreventive and precautionary principles
in environmental matters, the Court
affirmed that the state must implement
actions to prevent the generation of risks
to biodiversity and to the environment.
For example, when an activity produces
negative environmental impacts andthere is certainty about the risks or theenvironmental impacts that can arise, inapplication of the preventative principle,
an evaluation or inspection of said
environmental impact must be done before
initiating, as to limit or prohibit it.
However, if there is no scientific certainty
on the environmental sustainability of anactivity, because doubt can be cast on
the available information, in accordancewith the precautionary principle, the statecannot use the lack of certainty as reason
to postpone the adoption of effective
measures that prevent the deteriorationof the environment or harm to biodiversity.
In sum, “the difference [between theseprinciples] lies in the level of knowledge
and the certainty of the risks that an act or
activity produces”.
With regards to the obligation to guarantee
the rights to health and to a healthy andbiologically balanced environment, it isnecessary that the precautionary andpreventive principles are the dominantprinciples in order to guarantee that
deterioration and violation of theenvironment is minimized. The authorities
must adopt suitable measures to regulate
the risks that may derive from the use ofpesticides in Costa Rica. In accordance withthe precautionary principle, when there is alack of absolute certainty over the scientificinformation available on the dangers orenvironmental impact that an act or activity
can produce, the state cannot utilize thisstate of doubt to postpone the adoptionof measures for environmental protection,but on the contrary, the authorities are
obligated to implement anticipatory
and effective measures to prevent thedeterioration of the environment andguarantee its sustainability.
This is an example case where theprecautionary principle has been fullyinterpreted and applied. The Constitutional
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa
Rica handed down a decision safeguarding
the human rights to life and health, the rightto a healthy environment, food security, andbiodiversity.

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 15

Snowy Owl
buffetting wind
(Dick Walker)

5. Belgium:
Traders inProtected
Bird Species
Sentenced

Criminal organisation broken
up following an international
investigation
Law enforcement agencies of seven
European countries—Belgium, the United
Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Austria,
and the Netherlands, together brought
down a sophisticated international criminal
network that traded protected species ofbirds, mainly large eagles.
In Spain and France, the network plunderednests for eggs and chicks that were thenreared in captivity. The birds were laundered
as captive-born using CITES certificatesforged by the network, and put on the
global market for thousands of euros.

16

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

In a Belgian court, the defendants were
found guilty of being part of a criminalorganisation, forgery of CITES export
permits and use of illegal traps and nets.
The judge ruled that their crime was a direct
and irreversible threat to biodiversity, andcompared the profits in the illegal wildlife
trade to those in drugs and weaponstrafficking.
Illegal international wildlife trade is oneof the key drivers of global biodiversity
loss. Yet, this trade is often not considereda priority by law enforcement, and isoperated by global criminal networks thatare difficult to identify and prosecute.
This case shows that, given international
cooperation and political will, these criminalorganisations can be brought to justice anddismantled.

Egyptian vulture (Tomáš Adamec)

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 17

Bird smuggling (Jefta Imagines/Barcroft)

Legal Analysis
The Belgian Criminal Court of First Instanceof East Flanders (Ghent division) dismantled
a bird-smuggling ring, convicting four
persons of illegal trade in endangered
protected bird species. The Court stressedthat the accused “committed a direct andirreversible assault on biodiversity”.
The Court emphasized that “international
trade in endangered plant and animal
species has approached a scale andlucrativity comparable to international
drugs and arms trafficking”. The Court also
noted that the accused, when committing
their crimes, took advantage of the “lackof political priority” attached to the wildlife
trade.

18

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

In convicting the accused, the Court reliedon the following:‒ Laws prohibiting the illegal trade ofprotected and endangered birds;‒ A long and extensive judicial review;‒ International legal cooperation between
Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain,
France, Germany, Austria, and theNetherlands.
The basis for this case was the EU-CITESRegulation 338/97, which implements
the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora within the European Union.
The Regulation lists species which areprotected and endangered, and the tradein such species is prohibited. The accused
were charged of engaging in illegal trade
in several species of birds through forgeryof breeder’s declarations and CITES
certificates regarding endangered species
as specified in Annex A of the Regulation.

Red-footed Falcon (Carolien Hoek)

African Fish Eagle (Wayne Davies)

Notably, the Belgian NGO Bird Protection
Organization was recognized as a civil
party to the proceedings. Under Belgium
criminal law, a victim can bring an action
for damages before the criminal court
as a civil party. For environmental NGOs,
the current Belgium case law interprets
the admissibility requirements in line with
the Aarhus Convention, meaning thatenvironmental NGOs are considered tohave sufficient interest in bringing actions
against violations of environmental
law. In this case, while the court of first
instance only awarded a symbolic 1 euro
compensation for moral damages, theCourt of Appeal of Ghent reversed andawarded full compensation.
This case also highlights the importanceof international legal cooperation in
acquiring evidence to convict suspects oftransboundary illegal trade in endangered
species, which are both indispensable
and vulnerable elements of biodiversity.
Without the international legal cooperation
between Belgium, the United Kingdom,
Spain, France, Germany, Austria and theNetherlands, it would have been extremely
difficult to obtain the evidence to ensure
the convictions.

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 19

This loophole allowed wolf hunting in
Finland to continue despite being inviolation of European law—wolves are aprotected species in the EU, which Finland
is a member of.

6. Finland:
Wolf Hunting
Declared Illegal
Long campaign by an NGO
makes Finnish government
comply with the EU law

In March 2020 the Supreme Administrative
Court of Finland made it illegal to hunt
wolves in the country, ruling that wolf
hunting permits issued to Finnish hunterswere against the law. The case was brought
by Tapiola, an NGO established by three
local citizens to protect wolves.
Wolves were once hunted to near extinction
in Western Europe, but the numbers are
now increasing, and the species is quickly
recolonizing its former territory. In Finland,
however, wolves are met with hostility andfear from people.
Every year, the Finnish government issued afixed number of licences to cull the so-called“problem wolves” classified as animals who
have killed dogs or livestock. The authorities
argued that these licences were a safetyvalve that prevents the killing of wolves inretribution to the harm the wolves do.
20

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Tapiola argued that the government failed
to show any scientific backing to the claimthat licences in any way contribute to theprotection of Finnish wolves. This claim was
accepted by the European Court of Justice(CJEU).
The ban on wolf hunting in Finland is ofglobal significance: the return of wolves totheir former habitats has been shown to beimmensely beneficial for ecosystem healthand biodiversity.
Legal Analysis
Wolves are listed in Annex IV of the EU
Habitats Directive (Council Directive
92/42/EEC 1992) as a strictly protected
species, meaning that their killing is strictly
prohibited, except for a very limited numberof reasons. However, Finland negotiatedan exception for wolves in certain parts ofthe country to be listed under Annex V that
imposes fewer restrictions, so that hunting
permits could be granted by the local
Finnish authorities.
In response to a previous complaint
brought by a large Finnish environmental
NGO in 1997 to the European Commission,
the Commission initiated a formal
infringement procedure against Finlandthat finally reached the CJEU. The result
was stricter national regulation in Finland,
however wolf killing permits were stillallowed under section (e) of Article 16(1):“under strictly supervised conditions, on
a selective basis and to a limited extent”,
without specifying a clear purpose andGrey wolf (canis lupus) in snowing (Grey Wolf Hide Photography Finland)leaving a space for the discretion of
authorities. As a result, wolf populations
kept going down. Worse still, despite
objections arising from public consultation,a plan was announced in 2014 toreintroduce managed wolf hunting.
Although environmental organizations are
generally allowed to bring public interest
litigation under the Finnish law pursuant tothe access to justice requirement underthe Aarhus Convention, challenges tohunting permits in the country
are nonetheless regulated by
the Hunting Act. This means only
local and regional associations
are eligible to sue.

“Association
for Nature
Conservation
Tapiola” Logo.

For this reason, three local
individuals registered a small NGO
called Tapiola, which covered
most of Finland’s territory in order to beable to litigate the hunting permits issued
in different administrative regions. Tapiola

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 21

Wounded wolf (Pertti Huotari / Yle)

Hunter Ari Turunen with one of his dogs.

requested courts in different Finnish
regions to (1) issue injunctions against thepermits, and (2) refer the case to the CJEU
because Finnish law was breaching the
EU law. However, almost all the regional
courts rejected these claims based on lackof standing. For example, the location of
Tapiola’s registered office was located too
far from the region in question.
In order to meet these requirements,
Tapiola then changed litigation strategy,
splitting the NGO into six regionalorganizations. However, claims were
rejected again either on standing or on
merits, but one of the appeals went up to
the Supreme Administrative Court that
finally referred the case to the CJEU, asking
whether and under what circumstanceswolf hunting was permitted and whether
Finland was violating EU law.
22

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity(Davide Monteleone/The Guardian)

In 2019, the CJEU ruled in favor of theclaimants on all issues, imposing highly
stringent restrictions on wolf hunting.
By emphasizing the main aim of the EU
Habitats Directive to “ensure biodiversity
through the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora”, theCourt ruled that:(3) The authorities failed to guarantee thatthe hunting permits will not harm wolf
populations concerned at a favorable
conservation status in their natural range;(1) The said objective of the permits – toreduce illegal hunting – is not statedin a clear and precise manner and theauthorities failed to establish that the killing
was appropriate to achieving that objective,
which shall be supported by rigorous
scientific data;(5) Not all conditions under Article 16(1)(e)are satisfied, compliance with which mustbe established in particular by reference tothe population level, its conservation status
and its biological characteristics.

(2) The authorities failed to establish that noother satisfactory alternatives existed;(4) There had been no impact assessmentof the wolves’ conservation status whenissuing the hunting permits;

Therefore, although the CJEU did nothave to determine on issues of fact in apreliminary judgment as such, it concluded
that the permits at issue did not appear

to satisfy the EU law and lacked sufficientreasons. The Court imposed a high burdenof proof, based on rigorous science, on
the government side. Following the CJEU
ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court ofFinland ruled accordingly and declared wolf
hunting permits illegal.
This case is a testament to how innovativeand intelligent legal strategies can beused by members of the public to protect
biodiversity. In order to enforce the EU law,
the NGO Tapiola created a legal standing
and fully utilized public participation andaccess to justice.
Even though Tapiola’s claims were rejectedduring the initial national proceedings,
injunctions were nevertheless granted insome cases. This saved the lives of wolves
because the hunting season finished during
the litigation period. This approach—using
injunctions to counter imminent threats tobiodiversity, is worth learning from.
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 23

7. Australia:
Local
Community
and NGO Stop
Coal Mining
Expansion

Court rejects proposalthat would have destroyed
biodiverse habitats
In 2013, the residents of Bulga, a small
village in the state of New South Wales, won
a legal challenge against a mining company
and the local government over proposals to
expand a nearby coal mine.
Coal mining in Bulga is an important
industry that goes back almost two
centuries. In 2010, at the time when
exploiting unprofitable coal deposits
became economically viable becauseof rising coal prices, Warkworth Mining
Company applied for a permit to extend
their mining operations around Bulga.
24

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Mount Thorley Warkworth(iStock/Zetter)

Going against the agreement the company
had made when they first started operatingin the village, Warkworth Mining applied tostart extracting coal in areas originally set
aside for non-disturbance because of theirunique habitats and biodiversity. Moreover,the new mining operations would be a lot
closer to the village than the limits that had
been agreed .

In response, Bulga’s residents establishedan association and went to court, with theassistance of the Environmental Defenders
Office, an NGO in Australia. Together, they
asked the Land and Environmental Courtof New South Wales to reject Warkworth’s
application on the basis that the extensionof mining operations was contrary to
ecological sustainable development andwould have negative economic and social
impacts on the Bulga community.

The Court agreed that the proposedcoal mine expansion would have an
unacceptable impact on local biodiversity,
would create noise pollution, and would
cause other negative consequences to thepeople of Bulga. Thus, the application by
Warkworth Mining was disapproved.
This case is a major victory. Not only did
it prevent a direct harm to biodiversity
from occurring, but the Court’s decision
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 25

contributed to mitigation of climate change,
which is a key driver of biodiversity loss.
Legal Analysis
Residents of Bulga presented an
external merits application to the Landand Environmental Court of New South
Wales. This challenged an administrativedecision of the Minister for Planningand Infrastructure granting approval toa proposed expansion project for an
existing open cut coal mine operated by
Warkworth Mining Limited. The residents(Appellants) claimed that the project should
be refused, because of the significant
and unacceptable impact on biologicaldiversity, noise, dust and social impacts.
In disapproving the Warkworth projectapplication, the Court relied on thefollowing relevant matters:‒ Impacts on biological diversity;‒ Noise and dust impacts;‒ Social impacts;‒ Economic issues;
In reviewing the administrative decision
granting the approval of the proposedmine extension, the Court first analysed
the statutes which contain the power ofthe decision maker to make the decision
to approve or disapprove an application.
It then analysed the power of the Court
to review the merits of the decision inorder to determine the nature, scope andparameters of the powers that the Minister
is bound to consider and those that he has
a discretion to consider. The Court thenproceeded to undertake fact-finding andinference drawing from the evidence before
it in order to determine the likely impactsof the project on the environment. Thiswas undertaken with a view of ascertaining
the nature and type of each impact andthe efficacy of the proposed measures in
26

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Transporting Coal in NSW(Jessica Hromas/The Guardian)

Squirrel Glider (Gregory

Speckled Warbler(Duncan McCaskill)

Millen © Australian Museum)

the application for approval or “that could
be imposed as conditions of approval, toprevent, mitigate or compensate for eachtype of impact”. The Court review involved
determination of how much weight eachrelevant matter of impacts on biodiversity,
noise, dust, social and economic issues
should receive. The Court finally “weighted
matters to be balanced, each against
others”.
Relying on the facts as well as extensive
expert witnesses’ reports, and after thebalancing exercise of all relevant matters,
the Court concluded that the Projectextension would likely have significant

impacts on endangered ecologicalcommunities, and key habitats of thespecies of the local fauna. The Court
also concluded that “Warkworth’s offset
package and direct offsets and othercompensatory measures would notadequately compensate for the significant
impacts that the Project would have on theextant endangered ecological communities
in the disturbance area.
The Court, in arriving at its final conclusionof disapproving the Warkworth Projectapplication, undertook an exercise ofbalancing the negative and positive
impacts, especially the economic benefits
and positive impacts in the broader area
and region.

This case is momentous for having
set aside an administrative decision
approving the application for extensionof activities of the Warkworth Project toprotect nature. The Court in this caselaid down the standard of review for
administrative decisions on approval of
projects which may have environmental
impact and illuminated the process ofbalancing relevant matters of impact on theenvironment. The Judgment shows a stepby-step process of reviewing the meritsof administrative decision (s) by courts ofprojects which may have environmental
impacts, thus providing a stronger legal
safeguard for nature conservation.

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 27

was necessary to boost the economy byconnecting the northwest of Kenya with therest of the country.

8. Tanzania:
Road
Construction in
the Serengeti
National Park
Rejected

East African Court of Justicestops Tanzania from building
a road that would disrupt
animal migrations
In 2010, Africa Network for Animal Welfare,a Kenya-based NGO, filed a case in the
East African Court of Justice to preventthe government of Tanzania from building
a highway through the iconic Serengeti
National Park.
The NGO objected to the constructionof the highway on the grounds that it
would cause environmental damage anddisrupt migrations of wildlife. According
to the Tanzanian government, the road28

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Africa Network for Animal Welfare took thecase to the East African Court of Justice,arguing that the proposed road would
violate the East African Community Treaty
which binds all member states to conserve,
protect and manage the environment andnatural resources.
The East African Court of Justice is the
judicial arm of the East African Communitythat consists of six states in the Great
Lakes Region, including Tanzania. In 2014,
the First Instance Division of the Court
ruled that Tanzania’s proposal to build ahighway across the Serengeti was unlawful.
Not only does this ruling safeguard thefuture of the Serengeti National Park, oneof the most important biodiversity hotspots
in the world, but it was a historic decision—a transnational judiciary in East Africa
making a national government prioritise
environmental protection in economic
decision-making.
Legal Analysis
Two important aspects of this case are theinherent power of the East African Courtof Justice to grant an injunction and thethreshold of a state action.
Tanzania argued that the East African
Community does not grant the Court thepower to issue injunctions. The Court,
however, held that it possessed inherent
power to grant injunctions including
those of permanently stopping countries
from carrying out any action that is an
infringement of the East African Community
Treaty.

Lion cub (Omer Salom)

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 29

Inherent powers enable courts to fulfil
their mandates properly and effectively.
The power of a court to issue injunctions
is not derived from any written laws, rather,such power is inherent in the courts sothat they are able to ensure adherence
and compliance with the law. Without theinherent power to issue injunctions, courts
become toothless—unable to dispense
appropriate punishment when laws arebroken.
According to Tanzania, a proposal is an idea
or plan and not an action attributable to thestate. Tanzania, therefore, maintained thatsince the project was in its infancy at thetime of ruling, it could not be considered
to be an “action of a state”, which could befaulted for a breach of the Treaty. Tanzania
held that the First Instance Division had
erred in declaring that the proposed “initial
proposal to build the road” breached theTreaty.
The Court highlighted the difficulty indetermining the threshold of what would
constitute an action of a state that canconstitute a breach of the Treaty. However,in this particular case, the Court opinedthat in order for a threshold to exist
for an initial idea or plan to transform
into a challengeable act of a state, thegovernment needed to have in place,among other things, the following:‒ Agreed architectural plans and drawings;‒ Bills of quantity;‒ Cabinet approval of the project;‒ Appropriate budget, endorsed orapproved by parliament;‒ Commencement of loan processed forfinancing the project where necessary;‒ Commencement of procurement
processes (whether public or private
bidding), as appropriate, and;‒ Practical manifestation of actualcommencement of engineering works
30

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

African elephants taken in Serengeti(Marcel Kovačič)

Baby monkey looking hesitant andcurious taken on safari in Tanzania.
(Magdalena Kula Manchee)

Great wildebeest migration crossing
Mara river at Serengeti (Jorge Tung)(such as official field surveys or deliveryof construction machinery and materials
to the site).
In the view of the Court, “the above
accompaniments � whether singly orin multiples � and whether separately
or in combination (s) � would signal the
manifestation of an “action” or a series of“actions” on the part of the government
to actualize its plans to construct the
impugned Super Highway” and pass thebar of what would constitute an actionof a state set by Article 30 of the Treaty.
Despite finding that the proposal to builda superhighway in the Serengeti had notreached the threshold of an action of
Tanzania, the Court declined to lift thepermanent injunction issued by the First
instance Division of the Court given that
evidence showed that if the “initial plan”
was to crystallize into an action, it would
result in “imminent risk of irreversible
damage” to the ecosystem of Serengeti.
The case required the Court to declarein equivocal terms its inherent powers to
grant injunctions, including permanent
injunctions, even where the Treaty did
not expressly grant those powers. The
Court clarified the necessary elements
for determining whether plans havetransformed into actions of a state which
can be challenged before the courts forthe breach of the Treaty provisions on theprotection of the environment.
The case brings to the fore the neverending debate on the conflict between
economic development and protection of
the environment. The case is significant forhaving, after weighing economic benefits
and the need for protection of biodiversity,
permanently stopped any future plans ofconstruction of a road in the Serengeti
which would have intruded on the natural
habitat and caused tremendous stress tomigrating animals.
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 31

Legal Analysis
In this case, two major issues need to beconsidered regarding the judgment madeby the Supreme Court:‒ Who has the legal standing to sue asplaintiffs;‒ The validity of the presidential decree.

9. ThePhilippines: Oil
Exploration in
the Tañon Strait
StoppedJAPEX’s Iwafune-oki oil
and gas field (JAPEX)

Presidential decree isoverruled in a win for local
people and marine mammals

In November 2007, oil exploration company
JAPEX started drilling exploratory wellsin the Tañon Strait in the Philippines. The
Tañon Strait is a globally important whaleand dolphin habitat and migration route, but
the number of marine mammals there has
been steadily declining.
Local lawyers and an NGO sued JAPEX
on behalf of both whales and dolphins,and local fishermen. The case went to theSupreme Court of the Philippines, who
ruled that oil exploration in the Tañon Strait
had to stop.

32

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Spinner dolphins in Tañon Strait (DannyOcampo/Oceana Philippines)

JAPEX claimed that a presidential decreeallowed the company to explore for oilin the Tañon Strait. However, the Strait
is a protected area, where, according to
the legislation of the Philippines, special
protected area laws have priority—even
over a presidential decree. JAPEX, however,disregarded these laws.

Moreover, according to the local
residents, JAPEX held no consultations
or discussions with the local stakeholders
before starting to explore for oil, and thefishermen’s livelihoods suffered after the
drilling in the sea drove away the fish. The
Court ruled in favor of the local residents
and marine mammals and declared oil
exploration in the Tañon Strait illegal.
Marine biodiversity has declined by over
40% since the 1970s, but this case isimportant not only because it involved a key
marine biodiversity site. The decision by theSupreme Court of the Philippines ensured
that even highest powers of a government
must comply with the laws that safeguard
the environment and biodiversity.

Here, the original plaintiffs were theresident marine mammals, including
toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises andother cetacean species that inhabit thewaters in and around the Tañon Strait.
They were represented by “legal guardiansand friends” (collectively known as “theStewards”), and an NGO was established
for the welfare of the fishermen. Hence,the consolidated petition involved threedifferent sets of plaintiffs: the resident
marine mammals, the Stewards (ofNature), and an NGO as representatives
for subsistence fishermen and their future
descendants.
When deciding the eligibility of theplaintiffs, the Supreme Court adopted
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, which stipulate that “any Filipino
citizen in representation of others,
including minors or generations yet
unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmentallaws”. In the Annotations to these rules,
the Supreme Court commented that“to further encourage the protectionof the environment, the Rules enable
litigants enforcing environmental rights
to file their cases as citizen suits”. This
provision relaxed the restrictions on theeligibility of plaintiffs filing cases to enforce
environmental laws. It recognized that all
humans are stewards of nature, and one
doesn’t have to have a personal and directinterest in this matter to bring a case as
required by the traditional doctrines.
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 33

Ultimately, the Court held that the standing
for animals was no longer necessary
because of the adoption of the Rules ofEnvironmental Procedure. The wordingof the petition reflects that the plaintiffs
ideally wanted standing granted to theresident marine mammals for their own
sake. However, the Court denied standing
to the dolphins on the basis that humans,
as stewards of nature, can bring actions
on nature’s behalf to enforce rights ofobligations under environmental laws. This
indicated that the Court was embracing amore anthropocentric view of the role of“stewards of nature”.
It is worth noting that, although this case
was filed in 2007, years before the Rulesof Procedure for Environmental Cases
came into effect, it has been consistently
held that rules of procedure “may beretroactively applied to actions pending andundetermined at the time of their passage
and will not violate any right of a person
who may feel that he is adversely affected,
inasmuch as there is no vested rights inrules of procedure”.
The validity of the presidential decree
was also discussed in the ruling. The
Court held that because the Tañon Strait
was designated as a protected area in
1998, no activity outside the scope of its
management plan could take place withoutobtaining an Environmental Compliance
Certificate, which is only granted after an
Environmental Impact Assessment has
been conducted. The Court held that theEnvironmental Impact Assessment Systemand the National Integrated Protected
Area System were not complied with bydefendants before the implementation of
the seismic survey. Therefore, the Court
held the defendant to be in violation of
the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act of 1992.
34

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Bantay Dagat or fish
wardens. (Gregg Yan)

Tanon Strait from Pebbles
Beach (Warren Olandria)
Traditional paddle craft (Gregg Yan/Oceana)

Furthermore, the Court held that thepresidential decree which was used as alegal basis for the service contract between
the government and the oil company incharge of the oil exploration activities was
ultra vires. In fact, because the Tañon Strait
is a protected area, the contract required alaw passed by the Congress. Therefore, theConstitutional Court cancelled the contract
and all the permits related to oil explorationin the Tañon Strait.

The precautionary principle is quite material
to show that further destruction of themarine ecosystems through offshore
drilling and other destructive projects
such as reclamation will further aggravate
the already precarious condition in theprotected seascape.

duty of the state that must never becompromised. The constitution and thenational laws of the state which containsafeguards to protect the environment
should be complied with by government
agencies tasked to implement them
whensoever.

The Tañon Ruling is a categorical statementby the judiciary which demonstrates theimportant rights of animals and reiterates
environmental protection as a primordial
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 35

10. India:
Asiatic LionsGain Another
Foothold

Asiatic lions must be
reintroduced to Kuno
National Park, rules India’s
Supreme Court
The Centre for Environment Law and
WWF India won a case against the
Indian government when the country’s
Supreme Court ruled for Asiatic lions to bereintroduced to Kuno National Park.
Asiatic lions once roamed from Northern
India to Turkey. Now they are criticallyendangered, surviving as one populationof about 500 individuals in a single locationin India—Gir National Park in the state ofGujarat.
Being confined to one population in asmall area makes Asiatic lions extremely
vulnerable, and in 1990, Indian scientists
proposed the creation of a second wild
population to safeguard the big cats. Kuno
Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Madhya36

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

A lioness and her cub at Gir (Anup Dutta)

Pradesh was identified as the best site forreintroduction. Preparations were carriedout, including resettling villages. However,by 2004 the project stalled.
The Centre for Environment Law and
WWF India brought a legal case against
the government, seeking to compel it toproceed with the reintroduction. In 2013,
the NGOs won the case in the Supreme
Court, and a subsequent appeal by thegovernment was dismissed.
Rewilding, bringing back the original fauna,is a promising approach to tackle the lossof biodiversity. However, reintroduction of
top predators, such as lions, is controversial
and difficult. This case is a victory for the

reintroduction of top predators—promotersof biodiversity that are vital for ecosystem
health.
Legal Analysis
The issue for determination in this Case
before the Supreme Court of India waswhether there was a necessity for the
reintroduction of the Asiatic lion, a species
under the threat of extinction, to the Kuno
Wildlife Sanctuary. While examining thenecessity of a second home for Asiatic
lions, the Supreme Court relied on thefollowing relevant matters:‒ The anthropocentric v. eco-centric
approaches;‒ Kuno historical habitat re-introduction;‒ Prey Density at Kuno
The Supreme Court took the eco-centric
approach rather than the anthropocentric

approach and applied the species bestinterest, that is the best interest of the
Asiatic lions. The Court disregarded theanthropocentric approach which postulates
that “humans take precedence and thathuman responsibilities to non-humans are
based on human benefits” in favour of theeco-centric (nature-centre) approach whichassumes that “humans are part of natureand non-humans have intrinsic value”. The
Supreme Court opined that Article 21 of
the Constitution of India (“Right to Life”) not
only protects the human rights “but also
casts an obligation on human beings toprotect and preserve a species becoming
extinct, protection of environment is an
inseparable part of right to life”. The Court
relied on the doctrine of public trust as
enunciated in its earlier decision in M. C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997)
1 SCC 388. The doctrine suggests thatcertain common properties such as rivers,
10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 37

The Asiatic lions of the Gir
forest (AdobeStock/Veneratio)
The entrance to the
Palpur-Kuno sanctuary(Sameer Garg)seashores, waters, forests and air “are heldby the government in trusteeship for free
and unimpeded use of the general public”
and that “the State, as a custodian of thenatural resources, has a duty to maintainthem not merely for the benefit of the
public, but for the best of flora and fauna,
wildlife and so on”. In line with the doctrine,
the Court opined that “human beings
have a duty to prevent the species fromgoing extinct and have to advocate for aneffective species protection regime”.
Relying on the uniformity of expert views
that endangered species like the Asiatic
lion should have a second home, as wellas on a detailed study that found the Kuno
Wildlife Sanctuary to be the best habitat for
the reintroduction of the Asiatic lion, theSupreme Court held that the reintroductionof the Asiatic lion in Kuno was a prioritythat could not be delayed if the species is
to be protected from extinction. The Court
supported their directive for reintroduction
with the facts that the Asiatic lion had
historically lived in the wild in Kuno and thatsufficient prey density now existed in Kuno.
The Supreme Court ordered the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest to issue a directive
to reintroduce the Asiatic lion in Kuno within
six months.
38

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

The Asiatic lion case is significant forhaving compelled a government tointervene with a view of ensuring thatthe endangered species is adequately
protected, reducing the possibility of
its extinction. The Court applied an
eco-centric rather than an anthropocentric
approach. In doing so, the Court
extrapolated the rights of nature from theexisting human right to life and extended it
to the duty of the Government of Gujarat toprotect the Asiatic lion species and prevent
it from going extinct by reintroducing it to
the Kuno Wildlife Reserve.

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 39

Asiatic lions(iStock/Scooperdigital)

40

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity 41

10Landmark
Cases for
Biodiversity
Boya Jiang

Emmanuel Ugirashebuja
Dimitri de Boer
Danting Fan©Cover: Bee approaching a flower(AdobeStock/Yod77)

Layout: A. Chevallier, 2021.
September 2021.

Disclaimer: The casebook is exclusively created fornonprofit and educational purposes. Any commercial use
is strictly prohibited.

42

10 Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

Landmark Cases for Biodiversity

III