B-R8: Keep the wolf strictly protected! And make all member states respect its protection!

Due to its strict protection in the Habitats Directive, the wolf has been able to return and increase its populations in many member states. The return of the wolf to regions from which it had once been eradicated marks a significant conservation achievement.

Currently, it is estimated that there are around 23,000 wolves in Europe. Wolves have made a comeback in all mainland European countries, with some regions hosting populations exceeding 1,000 individuals. Additionally, wolves are expanding their territories.

However, this ongoing spread is resulting in more frequent conflicts with human activities, particularly due to increasing livestock damage caused by wolves. The predation of livestock by wolves is a central point of contention in the wolf debate, even though it represents a relatively minor issue in terms of overall numbers across Europe, and the economic impact appears manageable at a national level.

Nevertheless, the concentration of wolf-related incidents in specific areas creates significant tensions with local residents and communities. Adjusting the protection status of wolves from strictly protected to simply protected could help alleviate these local conflicts while ensuring the long-term survival of wolves in Europe.

Changing the protection status of wolves from strictly protected to protected is the basis for being able to better pacify local conflicts and at the same time guarantee the wolf a permanent existence in Europe.

Instead of extensive protection for individual animals, the focus in the future will primarily be on the management of wolf populations, taking into account regional and local conditions. By adjusting national legislation, it will be possible to respond more quickly to threats from individual animals or packs, for example, if they have learned to overcome livestock fences. This will permanently strengthen the acceptance of wolves in the population.

However, wolf populations in the EU are still in unfavourable or inadequate conservation status in six out of seven biogeographical regions, according to the most recent assessments done under the Habitats Directive. The latest IUCN assessment shows that six out of nine transboundary wolf populations in the EU are vulnerable or near-threatened. Thus, the main objective of both the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive – to ensure the restoration and conservation of endangered species – has not yet been reached, and there is no scientific basis to support an EU-wide weakening of the legal protection of the species.

That state is confirmed by several research papers including the in-depth analysis on the situation of the wolf in the European Union prepared by the Commission and published in December 2023.

According to that assessment, a threat to farm animals caused by wolves is exaggerated as wolves kill a minor percentage of livestock annually (0.1-0.05%). Also, many effective tools to protect the livestock are available and there is no scientific evidence proving that lethal controls of the wolf population are effective in reducing wolves attacking livestock. In addition, the derogation system that exists already in the Habitats Directive allows significant flexibility for states in dealing with specific problematic individuals and there is no realistic need for introducing any additional mechanism.

“As established by the European Commission in its Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive (Commission Notice C(2021) 7301)44, under the current policy and related legislation, the conflicts associated with the conservation of wolves in Europe’s multi-functional landscapes cannot be addressed only or mainly through culling/lethal control. Lethal control was widely used in the past, and derogations to authorise lethal control are still a tool for the Member States, but actions to deal with livestock damage or other conflicts generated by wolves can be based on livestock damage prevention methods and other management measures presented in this document.”

However, wolf populations in the EU are still in unfavourable or inadequate conservation status in six out of seven biogeographical regions, according to the most recent assessments done under the Habitats Directive. The latest IUCN assessment shows that six out of nine transboundary wolf populations in the EU are vulnerable or near-threatened. Thus, the main objective of both the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive – to ensure the restoration and conservation of endangered species – has not yet been reached, and there is no scientific basis to support an EU-wide weakening of the legal protection of the species.The reduction of the protection status does not imply that the wolf as a species is less safeguarded. Therefore, we strongly encourage the Commission to closely monitor national initiatives aimed at protecting the wolf and to take action when national measures may threaten the recovery of wolf populations.

Any weakening of the protection status of the wolf is also a threat of regression in the protection of other large carnivores of the Habitats Directive, especially in the context of hunter’s’ lobby plans, striving to decrease the protection status also of bears and lynx.

Therefore, we want the Commission to cancel any plan for weakening the protection status of the wolf. And if the Commission puts forward proposals for such weakening, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should reject such proposals.

Therefore, we want the Commission to cancel any plan for weakening the protection status of the wolf. And if the Commission puts forward proposals for such weakening, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should reject such proposals.

Wolves' role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and biodiversity is crucial and existing populations are already exposed to many threats including the ones related to traffic and illegal killing that causes a remarkable number of wolves’ deaths in the EU.

Therefore, we want the Commission to cancel any plan for weakening the protection status of the wolf. And if the Commission puts forward proposals for such weakening, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should reject such proposals.

Therefore, we want the Commission to cancel any plan for weakening the protection status of the wolf. And if the Commission puts forward proposals for such weakening, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should reject such proposals.

For the sake of not only the wolf, but of all species and habitats protected by the EU legislation, it is also important and urgent that the Commission takes further steps to make all member states respect the legal protection of the wolf. Now, wolf hunting in Sweden has been an infringement case since 2010, and the Commission has sent reasoned opinions twice (!), most recently in 2015, clarifying that it is a violation of the Habitats Directive. Unless the Commission takes the case to the Court, there is major risk that other member states follow the bad example and set reference values of only a few hundred animals for wolves and other large carnivores, and then hunt the populations down so they become fragmented into small, isolated and vulnerable remnants.

Because of the Commission not taking measures, several other member states have followed this negative precedent and set low reference values for wolves and other large carnivores. This step allows for the populations to be hunted down and fragmented
into small, isolated and vulnerable remnants, compromising the good conservation status.

ForTherefore, for the sake of not only the wolf, but of all species and habitats protected by the EU legislation, it is also important and urgent that the Commission takes further steps to make all member states respect the legal protection of the wolf. Now, wolf hunting in Sweden has been an infringement case since 2010, and the Commission has sent reasoned opinions twice (!), most recently in 2015, clarifying that it is a violation of the Habitats Directive. Unless the Commission takes the case to the Court, there is major risk that other member states follow the bad example and set reference values of only a few hundred animals for wolves and other large carnivores, and then hunt the populations down so they become fragmented into small, isolated and vulnerable remnants.

For the sake of not only the wolf, but of all species and habitats protected by the EU legislation, it is also important and urgent that the Commission takes further steps to make all member states respect the legal protection of the wolf. Now, wolf hunting in Sweden has been an infringement case since 2010, and the Commission has sent reasoned opinions twice (!), most recently in 2015, clarifying that it is a violation of the Habitats Directive. Unless the Commission takes the case to the Court, there is major risk that other member states follow the bad example and set reference values of only a few hundred animals for wolves and other large carnivores, and then hunt the populations down so they become fragmented into small, isolated and vulnerable remnants.

The joint presence of herds and large carnivores in grazing areas generates conflict situations between carnivores such as wolves, and human shepherds and breeders. If the latter are obliged to find answers to maintain their activity, these must be adapted and proportionate in order to respect the protection laws and to avoid a further disappearance of large carnivores. It is important that the cohabitation between human activities and the presence of wild carnivores on our territories finds its balance. The human responsibility is twofold: to protect herds of animals domestic (to guarantee the continuity of an economic activity) and ensure the sustainability of wild species such as wolves.

This is not merely an issue about carnivores or the Habitats Directive, but is a question of rule of law. A reasoned opinion is supposed to be the last step before an infringement is taken to the Court. If the Commission fails to take the next step, it is a signal to all member states that they do not need to respect the EU environmental legislation. Hence, the continued inactivity of the Commission puts at severe risk the credibility of all EU environmental legislation, and, in fact, the credibility of EU legislation in general.