EU proposal to modify the status of wolf protection from “strictly protected fauna species” to “protected fauna species”

Wolf protection is back on the table for European Union (EU) lawmakers as they must now reopen talks on the EU’s Habitats Directive, a cornerstone of EU biodiversity policy. The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention decided to back a European Commission proposal weakening the protection of wolves on Tuesday, December 3, meaning Members of the European Parliament must now reconsider one of the EU’s flagship biodiversity policies. But why is the European Commission looking to downgrade protections for wolves, and does it align with align with the original environmental biodiversity pledges in the Bern Convention? What’s really behind the EU proposal.

“Bern Convention Standing Committee approves EU proposal to modify wolf protection.

The Bern Convention, formally the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, is the Council of Europe’s international treaty on nature conservation, covering most of the natural heritage of the European continent and extending to some African states. It was opened for signature on 19 September 1979 and entered into force on 1 June 1982. It comprises 50 Parties. The governing body of the Bern Convention is the Standing Committee and is composed of Contracting Party representatives.

The European Union (EU) proposal is not the first concerning wolf protection in Europe. In 2022 Switzerland made a similar proposal, which was rejected ( report, item 5.2 ). Proposals concerning other species have also been made. In 2019 Norway proposed altering the protection status of the Barnacle Goose ( Branta leucopsis ) from Appendix II to Appendix III, which was also rejected .

The Council of Europe’s Bern Convention Committee has adopted an EU proposal to modify the status of wolf (Canis lupus) protection from “strictly protected fauna species” to “protected fauna species”. The final decision will be published on Friday 6 December.

The change will enter into force in three months, unless at least one third of the Parties to the Council of Europe’s Bern Convention object, in which case it will not enter into force. If fewer than one third of the Parties object, the decision will enter into force only for those Parties which have not objected.

The European Union (EU) proposal is not the first concerning wolf protection in Europe. In 2022 Switzerland made a similar proposal, which was rejected.”

From Il Comitato permanente della Convenzione di Berna approva la proposta dell’UE di modificare la protezione del lupo – Portal

Op Ed by Brunella Pernigotti

Not only in my opinion, but also in the opinion of reliable biologists and researchers, this is a purely political decision that reveals the hypocrisy lying beneath the false proclamations of environmental protection. If Europe really wanted to fight against the environmental crisis, it should safeguard the natural habitat and the species that live there and keep it in balance.

There is no scientific evidence to support this barbaric measure, which unfortunately will open up scenarios worthy of the Middle Ages with wolf hunting and which will legitimize the multiple acts of vile poaching that already occur in Europe against wild wolves.

In Italy there is the only subspecies of gray wolf in the world, called Canis lupus italicus, which risked extinction until the 70s of the last century, when, with foresighting and true love for nature and the environment, the government included it in the list of strictly protected species, so since then the wolf in Italy has been able to reconquer its natural spaces.

Now the European countries are much more populated and the anthropogenic effects are being highlighted in cases of frequent encounters with wild fauna near inhabited centers. It is therefore very easy to speak to the “gut” of the people and create fear and useless alarmism, when, instead, it would be necessary to educate people and local administrations to better manage garbage and domestic or farm animals, because this would cost a lot of money and constant commitment.

We are entering an obscurantist era governed by ignorance, aggravated by the hypocrisy of those who should take care of the res-pubblica (=public administration) who trumpet proclamations in defense of the environment, the climate, the green economy, but do not know the most elementary scientific and ethological bases to take the right direction in safeguarding Nature.

We would need serious studies and scientific researches commissioned and well financed to reach a fair balance between wild nature and human activities such as farming, which require economic aid and incentives, as well as accurate information on what to do when they are in regions populated by potentially dangerous wild animals such as wolves and bears, the largest carnivores living in Europe.

It cannot be denied that these animals do not have an impact on livestock, but it is necessary to understand a fundamental concept: predators can cause damages, of course, but these can be contained and resolved, while their extinction represents an irreparable damage for all humanity, since they have been within a perfectly functioning food chain for billions of years which human beings are part of. Men are not outside of it and they are flattering themselves if they think they can dispose of nature as they please. The Earth is our home and only a crazy man would destroy the place where he lives.

Photographs of Canis lupus italicus credit Antonio Iannibelli.