Strengthening conservation law enforcement: Incorporating harm, remediation and plural nature value criteria into an individual-based assessment of biodiversity offence gravity

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is a pressing global issue, necessitating effective conservation laws and compelling enforcement mechanisms. Yet, implementation issues persist. This study contributes to the development of an individual-based decision tool designed to help judicial authorities assess the gravity of biodiversity offences and the harm inflicted on individual organisms or a specific habitat. Through an extensive survey of expert opinions from 105 conservation biologists, we investigate what harm, remediation, and plural nature value criteria are most critical for the individual-based assessment of the gravity of biodiversity offences, as well as potential pitfalls in tool design. Experts identified species-specific traits such as specialization, generation length, and dispersal ability, as well as habitat characteristics like connectivity and natural integrity, as crucial harm criteria. A majority also emphasized the importance of remediation criteria that reflect the potential of harm reversal. However, key challenges emerged, including data gaps, uncertainty, and the difficulty of integrating multiple criteria into a coherent gravity score. Additionally, the plurality of values underpinning biodiversity assessments − whether intrinsic, instrumental, or relational − complicates legal decision-making. These findings raise a critical question: should efforts focus on developing a quantitative tool despite its inherent difficulties, or would a broader decision-making framework that qualitatively captures offence gravity be more appropriate? Rather than advocating for a single approach, we highlight the merits of both. A quantitative tool could enhance consistency and comparability in legal decision-making, whereas a qualitative framework might better accommodate case-specific complexities. Ultimately, either approach should provide structured reasoning for key legal decisions, including prosecution, fines, and remediation measures.