Strengthening livestock welfare policies to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts

Animal welfare in relation to human food choices is growing attention modern societies. The “Five Freedoms” framework (i.e., freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury disease, express normal behavior fear distress) proposed 1965 within the Brambell Report established by UK Farm Welfare Council 1979 (Farm Council, 2009) has been adopted multiple governments nongovernmental institutions, which commit protect interests of farm animals. World Organization for Health (OIE, www.oie.int), an intergovernmental organization made up 180 member nations, developed a Global Strategy with recommendations improve animals, including their protection wildlife attacks, similar concerns can be found at Partnership (www. globalanimalpartnership.org). By causing injuries or distress, these attacks impact on most five freedoms. Wildlife livestock are also major cause Human–Wildlife Conflicts (HWCs) worldwide. HWCs trigger retaliation persecution, threatening species ecosystems, but issue security wellbeing rural livelihoods. authorities both nature conservation International Union Conservation Nature, IUCN) Food Agriculture Organization, FAO) aim addressing dimensions HWCs, mitigating commonly set political agendas. Nonetheless, despite numerous calls multidisciplinary approaches reduce efforts still focused just wildlife. Consequently, environmental charge often perceived as only ones responsible enforcing actions, nonlethal lethal interventions, minimize occurrence through management Under this dominant paradigm, we read that it crucial account sociopolitical, cultural, ecological, economic associated depredations, animal long overlooked. We argue, however, preventing matter welfare. perspective, might represent paradigm shift way depredations faced, animals emerge key actors. Against background, first step enact policies regard, is, farming laws incorporate obligations guarantee An illustrative example already offered European Directive 98/58/EC 20 July 1998 concerning kept purposes. This directive states “animals not buildings shall where necessary possible given adverse weather conditions, predators risks health” “all husbandry systems depends frequent inspected least once day.” Better integration activities have even reached Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), identified one important responsibilities farmers should nowadays (Kantar, 2020). Legal requirements included CAP cross-compliance system, must respect basic rules complying EU standards public health order receive income support direct agrienvironmental payments (European Commission, 2013). In next CAP-period, (e.g., area- animal-based payments) will linked higher environment- climate-friendly practices originated either non-CAP regulations Statutory Management Requirements, SMRs; 2013, 2019). Since integrated SMRs, all obligation applicable provisions sectoral law regarding Considering raising recurrent comprehensive prevent wildlife, envision effective enforcement duties would result more protected against attacks. case Europe, example, Member States checking farmers’ compliance laws, official inspections directives systematically check farms implementation interventions (Figure 1), when necessary. Importantly, predation assess effectiveness maintenance over time. Furthermore, current 1% annual rate systematic under control system increased reach landscape level, areas positively (Miele et al., 2017). facilitate vulnerable during birthing), injured, dead discovered relatively fast, before scavengers, reducing likelihood attack, well uncertainty verification suspected (López-Bao Within regulatory CAP, there particular focus fact beneficiaries understand clearly (which include welfare). Farmers inspectors better information legislative related (including attacks), noncompliance. Following other integrate legislation promote enforcement, offer real mitigation. requires coresponsibility coordination between agricultural departments; challenge considering that, instance, 3 out 27 currently biodiversity departments same ministerial portfolio. moral motivated habitats conservation, potential remarkably conflict driver (Lute 2018) root intolerant behaviors, such retaliatory killing, stakeholder demands predator populations, demonstrations species. Boosting thus frequency behaviors. consumers concerned about implications they purchase, expect increasing demand integrating into national coming years, though litigation. While welfare, management, contribute conserve species, large carnivores vultures, human–wildlife coexistence, safeguard sustainable livelihoods wellbeing. authors declare no interest. José Vicente López-Bao conceptualized paper. Both contributed equally writing did collect any primary data develop manuscript.