• The European Parliament voted to downgrade the wolf's protection status from 'strictly protected' to 'protected,' a move celebrated by farmers and criticized by conservationists.
• The decision, influenced by increasing wolf populations and livestock attacks, allows EU member states greater flexibility in managing wolf populations, including culling.
• Conservation groups argue the downgrade lacks scientific justification and jeopardizes the wolf's recovery, while supporters emphasize the need to balance biodiversity with the economic concerns of farmers.

The European Parliament has approved a measure to lower the protection status of wolves within the European Union. This decision, which passed with 371 votes in favor, 162 against, and 37 abstentions, reclassifies the wolf from a 'strictly protected' to a 'protected' species under the EU Habitats Directive. This change enables member states to implement culling measures more easily, particularly in areas where wolves pose a threat to livestock. The move follows concerns raised by farmers and some politicians regarding increasing wolf populations and associated damages. However, conservation organizations strongly oppose the decision, citing a lack of scientific basis and potential harm to wolf populations and overall biodiversity.

• What: The European Parliament approved downgrading the protection status of wolves from 'strictly protected' to 'protected'.
• Who: Key actors include the European Parliament, EU member states, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, conservative lawmakers (EPP), conservation groups, and farmers.
• When: The vote occurred on Thursday, with the change potentially taking effect 20 days after publication in the EU Official Journal, followed by 18 months for EU countries to comply. The EU u-turn began in 2023.
• Where: The decision affects wolf populations across the European Union, particularly in rural and mountainous regions. Focus on Netherlands and other European countries.

The decision to downgrade the wolf's protection status reflects a complex balancing act between biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic concerns of rural communities. Driven by increasing wolf populations and reported livestock attacks, the move aims to provide member states with greater flexibility in managing wolf populations. However, conservationists argue that the decision is politically motivated and lacks a sound scientific basis, potentially undermining years of conservation efforts. The situation is further complicated by anecdotal evidence, such as Commission President von der Leyen's personal experience with a wolf attack, which may have influenced the decision-making process. The long-term impacts on wolf populations and the broader ecosystem remain uncertain, highlighting the need for continued monitoring and adaptive management strategies.

This will allow us to intervene when dealing with problem wolves.

There is no data justifying a lower level of protection, but the EU institutions decided to ignore science.

Wolves are vital to healthy ecosystems, but today’s vote treats them as a political problem, not an ecological asset.

With growing wolf concentrations in some areas, we should give authorities more flexibility to find balanced solutions between the aim to protect biodiversity and the livestock of local farmers.

The European Parliament's approval to downgrade the wolf's protection status, shifting it from "strictly protected" to "protected" under the EU Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention, signifies a contentious compromise between conservation and the socioeconomic concerns of rural communities. This decision, driven by increasing wolf populations and resulting conflicts with livestock farming, aims to grant member states greater flexibility in managing wolf populations. While proponents, including the European People's Party and some farmer groups, hail it as a necessary step towards adapting conservation policies to ecological realities and easing the burden on rural livelihoods, critics, including numerous environmental organizations and scientists, decry the move as a politically motivated attack on biodiversity that disregards scientific evidence and jeopardizes decades of conservation efforts. The long-term consequences of this decision remain uncertain, with concerns raised about potential increases in wolf culling, disruption of ecological balance, and the setting of a dangerous precedent for weakening EU nature laws. Member states now face the challenge of implementing the new regulations while ensuring the long-term favorable conservation status of the wolf, with the possibility of maintaining stricter national protections. The effectiveness of non-lethal coexistence measures and the commitment to supporting farmers in preventing livestock depredation will be crucial in mitigating the potential ecological costs and achieving a balanced approach between wildlife preservation and the needs of rural communities.