Public Policies for Human-Fauna Relations: Convergences and Contrasts Between South America and the European Union

Abstract

Keywords

Fauna protection, public policies, rights of nature, animal welfare, comparative law

Suggested Citation Style:

Calandrini, Vitor and Almeida, Paulo Santos de (2026). Public Policies for Human-Fauna Relations: Convergences and Contrasts between South America and the European Union. Journal of Animal Law, Ethics and One Health (LEOH), 24-40. DOI: 10.58590/leoh.2026.003

* Vitor Calandrini – Professor, PhD in Sustainability from the School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo (EACH-USP). Contact: vitcalan11@gmail.com

** Paulo Santos de Almeida – Professor, PhD, Graduate Program in Sustainability, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo (EACH-USP). Contact: psalmeida@usp.br

Content

• I. Introduction
• II. Methodology
• III. Results and Discussion
• 1. Philosophical and Legal Foundations of Human-Fauna Relations
• 2. Normative Frameworks and Public Policies in South America
• 3. Normative Frameworks and Public Policies in the European Union
• 4. Convergences and Contrasts between South America and the European Union
• 5. Future Perspectives and Global Challenges
• IV. Conclusion

I.                Introduction

The contemporary ethical debate on the relationship between humans and non-human animals is largely structured around the recognition of sentience as a criterion for moral consideration. This formulation is widely associated with the seminal work of Peter Singer (Animal Liberation), in which speciesism is denounced as an unjustifiable form of moral discrimination (Singer, 1975),^[1] reviving an argument already present in the classical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, according to whom the capacity to suffer constitutes the core of ethical relevance (Bentham, 1789).^[2] This perspective played a decisive role in expanding public and legal debate on animal protection, influencing normative reforms and public policies aimed at mitigating animal suffering.

Notwithstanding its historical importance, the utilitarian approach has been subject to sustained criticism in specialised literature, particularly due to its consequentialist emphasis, which tends to preserve animal exploitation so long as it is compatible with minimum welfare standards. In response, the deontological tradition of animal rights, as advanced by Tom Regan (1983),^[3] argues that certain animals are subjects-of-a-life, endowed with inherent value and holders of basic moral rights incompatible with their instrumentalisation. This critique is further developed by the abolitionist position of Gary Francione and Anna Charlton (2000),^[4] who contend that legal regimes focused exclusively on welfare ultimately legitimise institutionalised forms of exploitation under the guise of protection.

Alongside these approaches, contemporary perspectives grounded in justice and political theory have broadened the debate by linking it to institutions and public policies. Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach (2006),^[5] for instance, grounds the dignity of non-human life in the flourishing of species-specific capabilities, offering a normative framework compatible with democratic legal systems. The critical convergence of these perspectives facilitates the overcoming of a strictly anthropocentric paradigm and contributes to the emergence of an ecocentric horizon, in which fauna protection is no longer justified solely by individual suffering or human utility, but rather becomes part of a broader ethic of ecological interdependence and the preservation of life systems.

The formation of this plural ethical horizon, marked by a critique of strict anthropocentrism and by the valorisation of ecological interdependence, produces direct effects on institutional organisation and on the formulation of contemporary public policies, particularly through the incorporation of these values into guiding principles, normative instruments and arrangements of environmental governance. As argued by Callicott (1989)^[6] and Rolston III (1988),^[7] the incorporation of the intrinsic value of nature and fauna shifts the focus of environmental ethics from the isolated individual to ecological systems as a whole, demanding normative and institutional responses compatible with this complexity. In this sense, the environmental rationality proposed by Leff (2006)^[8] demonstrates that ethical and epistemological transformations reverberate in the redefinition of state agendas, while Sachs (2002)^[9] shows that sustainability constitutes a political–institutional project rather than a merely abstract moral ideal. This reorientation is also reflected in the legal field, where models of ecological governance increasingly recognise the centrality of the integrity of natural systems, as defended by Bosselmann (2008)^[10] and Capra and Mattei (2015),^[11] opening space for public policies that cease to treat fauna as a merely instrumental element and instead integrate it as a structural component of socio-ecological governance.

This theoretical shift is increasingly reflected in the evolution of public policies concerning human-fauna relations through the gradual incorporation of ethical and ecological values into governmental agendas. In different regions of the world, this movement has assumed distinct institutional configurations, with particular relevance, in this article, to the European Union – understood as a supranational entity endowed with its own normative competences – and to South America, conceived not as a homogeneous legal bloc but as a set of national experiences marked by constitutional, legislative and jurisprudential innovations. In the South American context, countries such as Ecuador incorporated the recognition of the rights of nature into their 2008 Constitution;^[12] Bolivia enacted the Law of Mother Earth (Law No. 071/2010)^[13] as well as the Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well (Law No. 300/2012);^[14] and Colombia advanced through judicial decisions that attributed legal personality to rivers and strategic ecosystems, consolidating an innovative ecological jurisprudence (Colombia, 2017).^[15] Brazil, although it has not explicitly adopted the paradigm of the rights of nature at constitutional level, has strengthened its normative and institutional framework through the creation of the National Secretariat for Biodiversity, Forests and Animal Rights (Brazil, 2024a),^[16] the establishment of the National Register of Domestic Animals (Brazil, 2024b),^[17] and the enactment of state-level legislation specifically aimed at animal welfare, evidencing a progressive – albeit heterogeneous – incorporation of ethical and ecological concerns into the formulation of public policies related to fauna.

II.               Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, theoretical–analytical approach, appropriate for the investigation of complex legal and institutional phenomena related to the formulation of public policies, environmental ethics and fauna protection. As emphasised by Minayo (2006),^[18] qualitative research is particularly suitable for understanding meanings, values and normative structures, especially in contexts in which legal and ethical categories are undergoing processes of transformation.

From a logical standpoint, the research employs the hypothetical-deductive method, departing from consolidated theoretical frameworks – such as ecocentrism, legal guarantee theory (garantismo jurídico), environmental ethics and the rights of nature – in order to critically analyse normative frameworks, judicial decisions and institutional arrangements concerning human-fauna relations. This methodological choice makes it possible to confront normative hypotheses with concrete legal experiences, identifying convergences, limits and tensions in the implementation of public policies (Gil, 2017).^[19]

Two main research techniques were employed: bibliographical review and documentary analysis. The bibliographical review focused on classical and contemporary works in animal ethics, environmental law, ecological constitutionalism and public policy theory, including authors such as Singer, Regan, Nussbaum, Callicott, Sachs, Leff, Ferrajoli, Capra and Mattei, as well as specialised European and Latin American legal literature. This stage aimed to construct the theoretical-analytical framework guiding the interpretation of normative data.

The documentary analysis examined constitutions, infra-constitutional legislation, international treaties, formalised public policies and landmark judicial decisions from South America – with emphasis on Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Argentina – and from the European Union, including the Treaty of Lisbon and relevant European regulations. According to Cellard (2008)^[20] and Bowen (2009),^[21] documentary analysis allows for the examination not only of the normative content of legal texts, but also of their institutional contexts, political objectives and underlying rationalities.

The investigation adopts a functional and typological comparative law perspective, as proposed by Zweigert and Kötz (1998),^[22] avoiding direct or hierarchical institutional comparisons between the European Union and South America. Given the profound historical, political and legal differences between the contexts analysed, the comparison focuses on the functions performed by norms and public policies in the protection of fauna and nature, as well as on the ethical-legal paradigms guiding these normative choices.

The analysis is developed in an interpretative and critical manner, seeking to identify trends of convergence, structural contrasts and institutional limits in the incorporation of ecocentric values, animal sentience and the protection of non-human life in contemporary public policies. The study does not aim to empirically assess the operational effectiveness of these policies, but rather to examine their normative coherence, their alignment with emerging paradigms and their transformative potential within the field of public environmental law.

III.             Results and Discussion

1.               Philosophical and Legal Foundations of Human-Fauna Relations

The relationship between human beings and non-human fauna has historically been structured under an anthropocentric paradigm, in which nature was conceived as an instrument destined to satisfy human interests. This vision, consolidated by modern rationalism and by the dualism between subject and object, shaped legal systems and environmental public policies for centuries. Within this model, animals were treated as resources, goods or property, devoid of intrinsic normative value.

From the second half of the twentieth century onwards, this paradigm began to be progressively challenged by ethical, scientific and philosophical transformations. Advances in biological and ecological sciences revealed the interdependence among living beings, prompting a reassessment of the human position within the biosphere. This shift gave rise to ecocentric conceptions that recognise humanity as an integral part of ecological systems rather than as an entity superior to them.

In this context, animal ethics played a significant role in expanding the circle of moral consideration. Peter Singer, in his seminal work Animal Liberation (1975),^[23] introduced sentience as a fundamental ethical criterion, arguing that the capacity to experience pain and pleasure imposes direct moral duties on human beings. His critique of speciesism influenced legislative debates and public policies aimed at reducing animal suffering.

From a complementary perspective, Tom Regan (1983)^[24] advanced the argument that certain animals are “subjects-of-a-life”, endowed with inherent value and holders of moral rights. Unlike utilitarian approaches, his deontological theory maintains that animal interests cannot be overridden by cost-benefit calculations. The articulation between these two approaches contributed to overcoming the conception of animals as mere objects of law.

The ethical debate was further broadened by the development of environmental ethics. Aldo Leopold’s^[25] land ethic, later developed by Baird Callicott,^[26] shifts moral evaluation towards the effects of human actions on the integrity of the biotic community. This perspective offers more adequate foundations for public policies aimed at ecosystem conservation and management.

At the philosophical level, Michel Serres^[27] proposed the notion of a “natural contract”, while Hans Jonas^[28] grounded an ethics of responsibility and the duty to protect life in the face of contemporary environmental risks. Both approaches introduce an intergenerational dimension that is indispensable to the formulation of public policies oriented towards sustainability and precaution.

These reflections find legal expression in proposals that challenge the exclusivity of human beings as holders of rights. Christopher Stone anticipated this debate by arguing that elements of nature could be recognised as legal subjects.^[29] Within the framework of legal guarantee theory, Luigi Ferrajoli^[30] demonstrates that fundamental rights are historically expansive constructions, thereby legitimising the progressive incorporation of fauna and ecosystem protection into the core of the rule of law.

In the Brazilian context, this normative expansion dialogues with constitutional interpretations of the principle of dignity. Sarlet^[31] argues that dignity cannot be understood in a strictly anthropocentric manner and must encompass non-human life. Such an understanding reinforces Article 225 of the Federal Constitution as a direct foundation for public policies aimed at fauna protection.

Finally, critiques of the dominant economic model further reinforce this paradigmatic shift. Sachs^[32] advocates strong sustainability as a normative limit to economic growth, while Leff proposes an environmental rationality grounded in epistemic plurality and the overcoming of productivist logic. These contributions connect ethics, law and public policy.

From this plural theoretical framework, fauna protection ceases to be merely a philosophical debate and becomes materialised in positive law and state action. The following section analyses how these foundations are translated into normative frameworks, public policies and institutional arrangements in South America.

2.               Normative Frameworks and Public Policies in South America

Legal developments in South America concerning the protection of fauna and nature are characterised by a progressive expansion of the object of normative protection. This movement goes beyond the instrumental safeguarding of animals and incorporates a systemic understanding of nature, in which living beings, ecosystems and non-living natural elements are recognised as interdependent. Such an approach finds expression in constitutions, judicial decisions and recent public policies.

Before advancing, it is important to clarify a conceptual distinction that is particularly relevant in the South American context. On the one hand, certain legal and jurisprudential developments aim at the protection of animals as individual sentient beings, focusing on suffering, dignity and, in some cases, the attribution of limited forms of legal subjectivity. On the other hand, a significant portion of South American normative innovation is oriented towards the protection of fauna as an ecological component, embedded within broader socio-ecological systems and often represented collectively through the rights of nature or environmental constitutionalism. Although these two logics may converge in practice, they are analytically distinct and respond to different ethical, legal and institutional rationalities.

The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador inaugurated a paradigmatic framework by explicitly recognising the rights of nature (Pachamama, Mother Earth). Articles 71 to 74 confer upon nature the right to exist, to maintain its vital cycles and to regenerate its ecological processes, imposing corresponding duties of protection and restoration upon the State. This formulation breaks with anthropocentric logic by recognising nature as an autonomous legal subject.

Ecuadorian jurisprudence has consolidated this orientation by admitting judicial actions on behalf of specific natural elements, as exemplified by the emblematic Vilcabamba River case, in which the court recognised the violation of the river’s rights and ordered environmental remediation measures.^[33] This precedent reinforces the understanding that legal protection is not limited to sentient beings but extends to natural systems essential for the maintenance of life.

Similarly, the Bolivian Constitution of 2009 and the enactment of the Law of Mother Earth (Law No. 071/2010)^[34] and the Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well (Law No. 300/2012)^[35] consolidated a holistic conception of nature. Within this model, Mother Earth is understood as a dynamic living system composed of interdependent communities of living beings and natural elements, providing a normative basis for integrated environmental public policies.

In the South American context, the effectiveness of ecocentric approaches is directly associated with the inclusion of non-state social actors in the formulation and implementation of environmental public policies. The literature highlights that local communities and Indigenous peoples play a central role not merely as recipients of norms, but as co-producers of ecological governance, mobilising traditional knowledge, sociocultural legitimacy and mechanisms of social control (Gudynas, 2011;^[36] Schlosberg and Carruthers, 2010^[37]). Studies on the rights of nature in Ecuador and Bolivia demonstrate that the action of civil society organisations and socio-environmental movements – including animal protection initiatives – has been decisive for strategic litigation and for the practical effectiveness of these norms, enhancing their democratic legitimacy and implementation capacity (Acosta, 2016;^[38] Kauffman and Martin, 2021;^[39] Boyd, 2017^[40]).

At the jurisprudential level, South America also stands out for the judicial recognition of individual animals as subjects of rights, particularly through the use of habeas corpus. In Argentina, the case of the orangutan Sandra (2014)^[41] constituted a landmark by recognising the animal as a “non-human subject of rights”, distancing her legal status from that of mere property. Subsequently, the case of the chimpanzee Cecilia (2016)^[42] reaffirmed this orientation by ordering her transfer to a sanctuary.

These decisions are significant beyond their symbolic value. By admitting habeas corpus as an instrument for the protection of animal liberty, Latin American courts expanded the scope of fundamental guarantees and demonstrated the adaptability of constitutional law to new subjects of protection. This movement directly dialogues with legal guarantee theory and with the historical expansion of fundamental rights.

Colombia further reinforced this tendency by recognising, in 2017, the Atrato River as a subject of rights and appointing legal representatives responsible for its protection.^[43] Although this case does not concern an individual animal, it consolidates the expansion of legal subjectivity beyond living beings, incorporating ecosystems and non-living natural elements into the sphere of constitutional protection.

In Brazil, the 1988 Federal Constitution laid solid foundations for this movement by enshrining, in Article 225, the State’s duty to protect fauna, flora and essential ecological processes, expressly prohibiting practices that subject animals to cruelty. This provision conferred autonomous legal relevance upon animal protection, dissociating it from a purely patrimonial or economic logic.

Brazilian infra-constitutional legislation reinforces this framework. Law No. 5,197/1967^[44] (Wildlife Protection Act) prohibited hunting and the commercialisation of wild animals without authorisation, while Law No. 9,605/1998^[45] (Environmental Crimes Act) criminalised conduct harmful to fauna. Decree No. 6,514/2008^[46] regulated administrative sanctions, strengthening the State’s preventive and repressive capacities.

At the jurisprudential level, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court consolidated animal protection as an autonomous constitutional value. In the judgment of ADI 4983/2016,^[47] the Court reaffirmed the constitutional prohibition of cruelty to animals, recognising that cultural practices cannot prevail over fauna protection. This decision underscores the centrality of ecological ethics in Brazilian constitutional interpretation.

More recently, there has been an increasing institutionalisation of public policies aimed at fauna protection and biodiversity conservation. The creation of the National Secretariat for Biodiversity, Forests and Animal Rights^[48] and the implementation of instruments such as the National Register of Domestic Animals^[49] signal a transition from merely repressive policies to integrated strategies of management, prevention and environmental governance.

Taken together, South American developments demonstrate that the legal protection of fauna and nature has been constructed through a combination of innovative constitutions, landmark judicial decisions, structuring legislation and institutional public policies. By integrating animals, ecosystems and non-living natural elements within a single normative horizon, the region makes a significant contribution to the consolidation of contemporary ecological constitutionalism.

This trajectory provides a robust foundation for comparative analysis with the European Union, allowing an examination of how different institutional arrangements have converged towards the incorporation of ecocentric and guarantee-based principles in the formulation of public policies for the protection of non-human life.

3.               Normative Frameworks and Public Policies in the European Union

The European Union has developed one of the most sophisticated supranational systems for animal protection, structured around the incorporation of animal welfare as a legally relevant value, albeit without recognising animals or nature as subjects of rights. This model reflects a functional and regulatory approach, centred on the mitigation of animal suffering within specific economic sectors (Peters, 2016;^[50] Stucki, 2020^[51]).

The primary legal foundation of this system is found in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which recognises animals as sentient beings and imposes upon European institutions and Member States the obligation to pay full regard to animal welfare when formulating and implementing Union policies. As observed by Peters (2016),^[52] this represents a significant normative recognition, yet one that does not fundamentally displace the conception of animals as objects of regulation rather than holders of subjective rights.

On the basis of this provision, the European Union has established an extensive set of regulations and directives that operate directly as harmonised public policies. Notable examples include Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport, Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing,^[53] and Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.^[54] These instruments establish binding minimum standards at the European level, while granting Member States a relevant degree of discretion in their domestic implementation, which is a defining feature of EU directives(Craig and Búrca, 2015).^[55]

In the field of animal farming, Directive 1999/74/EC, which progressively prohibited the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, illustrates the incremental nature of the European model. According to de Sadeleer (2014),^[56] such norms reflect a political balance between animal welfare considerations and economic competitiveness, often resulting in regulatory compromises that limit their transformative potential.

This margin of autonomy allows Member States to adopt more stringent measures than those required at Union level. Slovenia, for example, in 2013 has imposed a comprehensive ban on the use of wild animals in circuses,^[57] thereby implementing a public policy that exceeds the minimum standards established by EU law. Such initiatives confirm that European legislation functions as a normative floor rather than a ceiling of protection (Favre, 2012).^[58]

The Netherlands has also distinguished itself through rigorous public policies in the agricultural sector, particularly with respect to intensive confinement systems. National measures restricting the use of cages for pregnant sows and laying hens anticipated debates that were later incorporated into the European legislative agenda, illustrating the role of Member States as normative laboratories (Stucki, 2020).^[59]

The application of these norms is mediated by judicial control, particularly by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Court’s case law has recognised animal welfare as a legitimate public interest capable of justifying proportionate restrictions on the economic freedoms of the internal market, albeit without conferring autonomous fundamental status upon animals (Vedder, 2019).^[60] This stance reveals the centrality of balancing integration objectives with animal protection concerns.

At the national level, administrative courts in France have applied European regulations on transport and slaughter rigorously, including by rejecting arguments based on cultural traditions. Such precedents reinforce the binding force of EU norms and demonstrate how European law directly shapes internal administrative and judicial decisions (Cardwell, 2016).^[61]

Germany presents a particularly relevant case, having incorporated animal protection into Article 20a of its Basic Law in 2002, thereby granting it constitutional status. Although this does not entail the recognition of animal legal personality, constitutionalisation strengthens restrictive interpretations of harmful practices and heightens the requirement for ethical and scientific justification for human interventions involving animals (Peters, 2016).^[62]

In Portugal, the reform of the Civil Code recognising animals as sentient beings distinct from things (Law No. 8/2017, amending the Civil Code of 1966)^[63] exemplifies a movement convergent with the European welfare-oriented logic, even though it does not dismantle the patrimonial structure of private law. This type of normative innovation reinforces the gradual reconfiguration of the legal status of animals within the European legal space (Stucki, 2020).^[64]

Despite its high degree of institutionalisation, the European model remains constrained by a sectoral and instrumental approach. As noted by Stucki (2020),^[65] animal protection in the European Union operates predominantly as a regulatory technique rather than as an ontological or systemic recognition of non-human life, thereby differing substantially from Latin American experiences grounded in the rights of nature.

This characteristic renders the European case particularly relevant for the comparative analysis proposed in this article. By highlighting both the advances and the limits of a model centred on animal welfare and regulatory governance, the European Union offers an important institutional counterpoint to the ecocentric and guarantee-based approaches observed in South America, setting the stage for the examination, in the following section, of the convergences and contrasts between these normative trajectories.

4.               Convergences and Contrasts between South America and the European Union

This section adopts a functional and typological comparative law approach, avoiding direct institutional comparisons between the European Union and South America. The objective is to analyse distinct normative trajectories in the incorporation of fauna and nature protection into contemporary public law, recognising that legal responses to socio-environmental crises do not follow a linear or hierarchical logic. This methodological choice aligns with the functional comparative law tradition, which privileges legal problems and solutions across diverse contexts (Zweigert and Kötz, 1998).^[66]

In the European context, fauna protection is structured around a model of supranational normative integration, in which environmental law and animal welfare law play a central role. References to “fundamental rights” are limited to positively recognised human rights, such as the right to health, the right to a balanced environment and procedural rights of information, participation and access to justice. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently affirmed this indirect mediation, legitimising economic restrictions in the name of environmental protection and animal welfare without recognising animals as rights holders, as illustrated by cases such as Commission v Italy^[67] and Liga van Moskeeën.^[68]

Despite the recognition of animals as sentient beings under EU law, their protection remains anchored in a mitigated anthropocentrism, in which human, environmental and economic interests structure legal tutela. The CJEU has reiterated that animal welfare constitutes a legitimate public interest of the Union, but one that must be balanced against other relevant legal values, including the free movement of goods and scientific freedom.^[69] In this sense, sentience reinforces state duties of moral consideration without configuring a paradigmatic shift towards animal subjective rights (Stucki, 2020).^[70]

Recent South American experience, by contrast, reveals a more far-reaching normative inflection, particularly through the constitutionalisation of the rights of nature in Ecuador and Bolivia. Ecuadorian constitutional jurisprudence has consolidated this shift by recognising nature as a subject of directly enforceable rights, as in the emblematic Vilcabamba River case, in which ecological protection prevailed over infrastructure interests. Authors such as Gudynas and Acosta interpret these decisions as a rupture with classical environmental constitutionalism (Gudynas, 2011;^[71] Acosta, 2016^[72]).

This approach, however, does not equate to a generalised recognition of “animal rights” as individual subjective rights. As demonstrated by subsequent decisions of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court – particularly in the Los Cedros Forest case (Judgment No. 1149-19-JP/21, 2021)^[73] – and by Bolivian experiences linked to the protection of Indigenous territories and sensitive ecosystems, such as the TIPNIS, fauna is often protected as an integral component of ecological systems, represented judicially by communities or by the public prosecutor.^[74]. Kauffman and Martin (2017)^[75] highlight that this expanded procedural standing is central to the operationalisation of the rights of nature.

Within the European model, the effectiveness of fauna protection is permeated by structural political tensions, particularly due to the heterogeneity of Member States and the influence of strategic economic sectors. The jurisprudence of the CJEU reflects these tensions by adopting a balancing approach, recognising animal protection as a legitimate but rarely absolute interest in the face of consolidated productive activities. Peters (2016)^[76] observes that this dynamic is characteristic of integration systems based on minimum political compromises.

In South America, although ecocentric constitutional innovation represents a significant normative advance, its implementation is marked by persistent conflicts between constitutional norms and developmentalist policies. Cases involving mining, hydrocarbon exploitation and large-scale infrastructure projects in Bolivia and Ecuador illustrate the difficulty of translating the rights of nature into consistent state decisions, as evidenced by mining projects such as Mirador in Ecuador^[77] and by infrastructure initiatives affecting Indigenous territories and protected ecosystems, notably the TIPNIS in Bolivia.^[78] These tensions have resulted in recurrent judicialisation and the selective application of constitutional norms (Gudynas, 2011;^[79]Acosta, 2016^[80]).

From a comparative perspective, both models face significant institutional limits, albeit derived from distinct rationalities. In the European Union, the challenge lies in the uniform implementation of supranational jurisprudence and standards; in South America, in the state capacity to sustain ecocentric decisions in the face of economic interests and sovereignty disputes. Thus, the comparison does not reveal greater or lesser normative advancement, but rather differentiated legal trajectories whose structural tensions shape contemporary approaches to fauna and nature protection.

5.               Future Perspectives and Global Challenges

The consolidation of public policies governing human-fauna relations raises a set of challenges that transcend national borders and require coordinated responses across multiple scales. Recent scholarship has emphasised the need to rethink environmental governance structures from a genuinely planetary perspective, capable of integrating national legal instruments, international regimes and supranational mechanisms into an institutional arrangement suited to addressing complex transboundary problems, such as international wildlife trafficking, accelerated biodiversity loss and the socio-environmental externalities associated with climate change (Biermann, 2014).^[81]

In this context, global environmental governance proves insufficient when limited to fragmented models or overly dependent on voluntary commitments. The construction of more robust institutional and legal systems demands not only the strengthening of classical multilateral instruments – such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – but also the development of new mechanisms of technical cooperation, shared monitoring systems, integrated information flows and effective forms of transnational accountability. Recent reports on the state of global environmental governance warn of the proliferation of disarticulated initiatives and persistent implementation and accountability deficits, highlighting the need for more coherent, legitimate and results-oriented structures (Sun, 2023).^[82]

The challenge of combating wildlife trafficking exemplifies these dynamics. Wildlife trafficking is an inherently transnational phenomenon, involving complex illegal supply chains, multiple actors and institutional asymmetries between countries of origin, transit and destination. The literature indicates that effective responses depend on the creation of integrated international networks, with enhanced coordination among state agencies, multilateral organisations, enforcement bodies and civil society organisations, in order to reduce normative overlaps and operational gaps that undermine the effectiveness of existing policies, as illustrated by initiatives such as the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC).

From an epistemological and political standpoint, it is equally necessary to rethink the foundations of environmental decision-making. The proposal of a plural environmental rationality, developed particularly within Latin American thought, underscores that overcoming technocratic and productivist approaches requires the incorporation of diverse systems of knowledge – scientific, local and traditional – into inclusive and participatory deliberative processes (Leff, 2001).^[83] This perspective reinforces the centrality of local communities, Indigenous peoples, civil society organisations and animal advocacy movements in the formulation and implementation of public policies, enhancing their social legitimacy, territorial adequacy and practical effectiveness.

Another decisive axis for future perspectives lies at the intersection of social justice, climate justice and fauna protection. The literature on strong sustainability and sustainable development argues that environmental policies detached from social and economic dimensions tend to produce limited or socially exclusionary outcomes (Sachs, 2002).^[84] Recent scientific reports, such as the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services,^[85] indicate that climate change simultaneously intensifies risks to biodiversity and exacerbates the vulnerabilities of human populations that depend directly on ecosystem services. In this context, integrated policy frameworks – including climate mechanisms such as REDD+ with social and biodiversity safeguards – highlight the need for responses guided by principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity.^[86]At the institutional level, these transformations require innovative arrangements capable of articulating state and non-state actors. Academic networks, research centres, civil society organisations, multilateral agencies and science–policy interfaces play an increasingly important role in knowledge production, norm formulation and public policy monitoring, as illustrated by initiatives such as Future Earth^[87] and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).^[88] The literature on Earth system governance emphasises that the inclusion of multiple actors, accountability mechanisms and flexible normative architectures constitutes a central element in addressing environmental problems at the planetary scale (Biermann, 2014).^[89]

Finally, the consolidation of a global legal-ecological paradigm presupposes a profound cultural and ethical transformation. Fostering a planetary consciousness that recognises the interdependence between human beings and other forms of life entails sustained investment in environmental education, institutional strengthening and reforms of legal systems that expand the sphere of protection beyond strict anthropocentrism, progressively incorporating non-human subjects into legal tutela (Giménez-Candela, 2019).^[90] In this scenario, cooperation between regions with distinct historical and institutional trajectories – such as South America and the European Union – appears particularly promising, as it enables the exchange of experiences, the contextual adaptation of good practices and the joint construction of minimum standards of protection, monitoring and enforcement.

In summary, the future of human-fauna relations depend on the articulation of robust global governance, plural social participation and an effective commitment to socio-environmental justice. In the absence of such articulation, public policies are likely to remain fragmented and insufficient in the face of the complex and interdependent challenges that characterise the twenty-first century.

IV.             Conclusion

This article set out to analyse how contemporary public policies governing human-fauna relations have been structured in different legal and institutional contexts, with particular attention to South America and the European Union. By adopting a comparative and functional approach, the study sought to identify convergences, divergences and structural limits in the normative treatment of animals and nature, without presupposing linear models of legal evolution.

The analysis demonstrated that the European Union has consolidated a highly institutionalised and coherent regulatory framework centred on animal welfare and the recognition of animal sentience. Through supranational legislation and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, animal protection has been incorporated as a legitimate public interest capable of shaping sectoral policies in areas such as agriculture, transport, scientific research and biodiversity conservation. However, this framework remains largely instrumental and anthropocentric, as animals are not recognised as subjects of rights, but rather as objects of regulation whose protection depends on balancing welfare considerations against economic and integration objectives.

In contrast, South American experiences reveal a more normatively disruptive trajectory, particularly through the constitutional recognition of the rights of nature in countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia and through innovative judicial decisions acknowledging expanded forms of legal subjectivity. These developments signal a shift towards ecocentric constitutionalism, in which fauna is protected as an integral component of ecological systems and not merely as a resource or economic asset. Nevertheless, the practical implementation of these norms remains uneven and frequently constrained by developmentalist policies, institutional fragilities and conflicts over natural resource exploitation.

The comparative findings indicate that neither model offers a complete or definitive solution to the challenges of human-fauna relations. The European Union benefits from high levels of normative uniformity, institutional capacity and policy integration, but is limited by its reluctance to transcend welfare-based and sectoral approaches. South America, by contrast, contributes bold constitutional and jurisprudential innovations that expand the conceptual boundaries of environmental protection, yet struggles with enforcement deficits and the translation of ecocentric principles into consistent public policies.

From a theoretical perspective, the article contributes to the literature by demonstrating that contemporary fauna protection cannot be adequately understood through a dichotomous opposition between anthropocentric and ecocentric models. Instead, it emerges from dynamic and context-dependent legal arrangements shaped by political compromises, institutional capacities and social participation. The findings reinforce the relevance of legal guarantee theory and ecological constitutionalism as analytical frameworks for understanding the expansion of normative protection beyond the human sphere.

In practical terms, the study underscores the importance of strengthening participatory mechanisms, enhancing the role of civil society and local communities, and fostering multi-level governance structures capable of addressing transboundary environmental challenges. The articulation between supranational regulation, national constitutional innovation and local implementation appears essential for improving the effectiveness and legitimacy of public policies concerning fauna and nature.

Ultimately, the protection of non-human life in the twenty-first century demands not only regulatory refinement or constitutional innovation, but also a sustained ethical and institutional commitment to reconfiguring the legal relationship between humans and the natural world. By placing South American and European experiences in dialogue, this article highlights the potential of cross-regional learning and cooperation as a pathway towards more inclusive, coherent and effective public policies for human-fauna relations.

Copyright (c) 2026 Vitor Calandrini, Paulo Santos de Almeida

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.