In 2022, when Switzerland sought to downgrade the wolf’s protected status under the Bern Convention, the EU opposed it outright. Citing scientific advice from the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, Brussels argued the move lacked evidence and would endanger a fragile conservation success.

But two years later, those same arguments were discarded. By late 2023, the European Commission had launched a review, and in 2024 the EU itself proposed the very downgrade it had once dismissed as “scientifically unjustified”. What changed was not the science but the politics: rural depopulation, underfunding, and farmer discontent were amplified by conservative parties into a wider anti-green backlash. Under pressure, the EU abandoned its earlier defence of strict protection and coexistence, and gave way to political concerns.

The price of success

Over the past decades, wolves have spread across much of Europe, expanding from their strongholds in the Carpathian Mountains, the Dinaric Alps, and the Iberian Peninsula to western Europe and forming distinct populations that often cross national borders. This remarkable recovery has been made possible through strict protection under the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention, which has increased wolf populations from around 12,000 in 2012 to approximately 21,500 today. It is one of Europe’s most striking conservation successes.

However, three years ago, the EU changed direction. In November 2022, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s European People’s Party (EPP) Group, supported by Renew, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and far-right MEPs, warned that “growing populations of large carnivores are threatening traditional farming”. The following day, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging the Commission to consider easing protections for wolves and bears.

A subsequent in-depth analysis formed the basis for the Commission’s December 2023 proposal to downgrade the wolf’s protection status. This culminated in the European Parliament’s decision to support the species’ downlisting from “strictly protected” to “protected” under the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive, which took place in December 2024 and spring 2025, respectively.

Efforts to weaken wolf protection run counter to ecological evidence. Wolves, like bears, are apex predators and keystone species that keep deer and wild boar numbers in check, preventing overgrazing and allowing forests to regenerate. Their presence sets off trophic cascades that strengthen biodiversity and indirectly sustain plants, insects, and smaller carnivores across European ecosystems.

A stark example of politics overriding evidence came earlier this year in Sweden, a country that has arguably been in breach of the EU Habitats Directive for more than a decade. Sweden has permitted the annual culling of its wolf population while politicians have lobbied hard to downgrade the legal status of the species.

This summer, for the first time in six years, the Swedish government cut the national reference value for wolves from 300 to 170 individuals. The move was condemned by international scientists commissioned by the government to assess the consequences. They accused politicians of misrepresenting their findings and explicitly rejecting Sweden’s decision. They also cautioned that a population of just 170 wolves falls short of the requirements set out in the Habitats Directive for maintaining a favourable conservation status.

At the EU level, similar warnings have been voiced. Ahead of the Bern Convention in December 2024, the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) warned that a downlisting of wolves under the Habitats Directive could set a dangerous precedent. Although wolf numbers have recovered, six of the EU’s seven biogeographical regions still classify their status as “unfavourable.” Likewise, of the nine transboundary populations monitored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), six are deemed vulnerable or near-threatened.

The LCIE has noted with concern that its 2022 report – originally cited to oppose downlisting – was later invoked to justify it. Yet, no meaningful changes in numbers or threats had occurred, and a 2023 assessment reported only marginal increases. In response, the LCIE warned that politicising such decisions undermines science-based conservation, describing the proposed downlisting as “premature and faulty.”

The cost of wolf attacks

Wolves may prefer vulnerable wild ungulates, but unprotected livestock make for easy prey, fuelling the perception of wolves as a major threat. The in-depth analysis recorded 65,499 livestock killed across EU member states, with 18.7 million euros paid out in compensation. Agrarian and right-wing parties have seized on these figures to demand weaker protections, tapping into rural frustration. Flemish Animal Welfare Minister Ben Weyts captured this mood after several ponies were killed within days: “At some point, from an animal welfare perspective, you have to dare to say that the price of protecting one species is too high.”

Still, Flanders shows that coexistence with wolves is possible. Wolf damage in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium peaked at 189 animals in 2021 but fell to 99 in 2024, an almost 50-per cent drop in just three years. According to Diemer Vercayie from Wolf Fencing Team Belgium (WFTB), this decline is closely linked to preventive measures, with roughly half of the fences in the Limburg pack’s core area now made wolf-resistant. Since the animal’s return to Flanders in 2018, WFTB has handled 1,400 applications and made over 700 fences wolf-proof. Professional farmers are reimbursed up to 100 per cent of costs through the Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund (VLIF), while hobby keepers receive up to 90 per cent via the Agency for Nature and Forests, with some support for maintenance.

The Netherlands, by contrast, delayed action for years. Fragmented governance and slow policymaking led to inconsistent measures, misinformation, and polarisation, with a national wolf plan only adopted in 2025. Farmers investing in protective fencing often risk stigmatisation for “accepting” wolves. Despite decades of EU rhetoric and scattered regional progress, many member states remain paralysed in polarised debates that have prevented them from implementing coordinated, practical solutions.

Human pressures are direly lacking

Across the EU, wolves are threatened by more than just political decisions. Habitat fragmentation, conflicts with shepherds and the tourist sector, and high mortality rates due to legal and illegal killings and road traffic accidents impact their populations. Wolves are estimated to kill approximately 56,000 domestic animals each year – out of a total of 279 million heads of livestock – equating to roughly three animals per wolf annually. Country-level livestock losses may be tolerable, but local hotspots can face heavy pressure. Wolf attacks impose hard-to-quantify indirect costs and emotional distress, and recurrent damage can undermine pastoralism, cultural heritage, and rural livelihoods.

Wolf attacks impose hard-to-quantify indirect costs and emotional distress, and recurrent damage can undermine pastoralism, cultural heritage, and rural livelihoods.

In Poland, efforts to support coexistence are carried out by underfunded and overstretched Regional Directorates for Environmental Protection (RDOŚ), which rely solely on national funds despite the availability of EU support. Over the past five years, no EU funds were channelled to RDOŚ by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management for human-wolf related coexistence measures. WWF Poland stresses the need for stronger support for farmers, including more EU funding. Much of the outreach and education work is undertaken by NGOs and conservationists such as Piotr Chmielewski from Z Szarym za Płotem (“Wolf behind the fence”), who runs school and community programmes aimed at changing public perceptions. He notes that “words are a powerful weapon; wolves cannot defend themselves [against them].”

Shifting cultural attitudes is proving far from easy. In Poland, wolves rebounded after gaining legal protection in 1998, having nearly vanished in the 1970s. Yet illegal killings continue. Studies by Polish research institutes estimate that at least 140 wolves are poached each year, with the real toll likely much higher. Prosecution is rare, as overloaded courts and weak enforcement mean many offenders walk free.

One notable case is that of Lego. This wolf was shot by a hunter in August 2024, not long after becoming a father. The hunter claimed to have mistaken Lego for a red fox – an animal that can legally be hunted in Poland – but the case is still pending in court. As Chmielewski notes: “We only know the tip of the iceberg. These cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. Wildlife crime is still a relatively new area of law.”

Illegal killings of wolves are also becoming increasingly common in neighbouring Czechia. In May of this year, four wolves were found dead in the Jesenicko region, most likely from poisoning. The scenario in such cases is always the same: the police investigation goes nowhere, and the case is dropped. This is not only true of poaching, but also of a wide range of environmental crimes. The will, technology, and personnel to investigate them thoroughly and catch the perpetrators are often lacking.

The will, technology, and personnel to investigate [environmental crimes] thoroughly and catch the perpetrators are often lacking.

A borderless problem and flawed solutions

Despite differences in landscape, culture, and wolf numbers, the political and public narratives surrounding wolves are remarkably similar across EU member states. Opponents often portray wolves as a threat to public safety, fuelling fears of attacks on children and insecurity in rural areas – even though there have been no fatal wolf attacks on humans in Europe in the 21st century. Critics warn that such rhetoric spreads misinformation and undermines conservation efforts. Claims of “surplus killing” – wolves killing more than they consume – are used to paint them as vicious predators. As mobile coverage now extends to even the most remote pastures, farmers and shepherds are becoming increasingly exposed to these narratives via social media – a growing concern for NGOs combating misinformation.

Some critics of wolf protection frequently claim that the animal’s numbers are artificially inflated as a result of secret reintroduction programmes rather than natural recolonisation. Others go even further, claiming that rural life itself has worsened since the wolf’s return. Such arguments are used to press for tighter human control over wolf populations, which is framed as essential to restoring balance and safeguarding livelihoods.

These claims often gain traction in the media, amplified by unverified reports of wolf attacks. Alarmed by this trend, a group of Polish scientists specialising in wolf research and conservation issued a joint appeal in May 2025, warning: “We are concerned that information published in the media about wolves is often untrue, misleading, and misinforms the reader.”

And the notion that culling offers a simple solution is equally misleading. As an Italian park ranger observed, older wolves normally keep younger ones in check, so killing the wrong animal can destabilise a pack, triggering more attacks on livestock or causing lone wolves to roam unpredictably. Moreover, wolf populations often rebound quickly, making any effect from culling short-lived.

Still, some draw an even more complex picture. Paola Aragno of Italy’s Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) stresses that the impact of culling is largely psychological: At the same time, argues Aragno, “Banning culls won’t help coexistence.”  He believes that occasionally killing a wolf can make rural communities feel less powerless and more willing to accept coexistence measures, since they are “not only defending themselves but also striking back”. In Italy, ISPRA has set an annual ceiling of 160 wolves that may be legally culled, though the actual number could be lower once roadkill, poisoning, and poaching deaths are factored in. Wolf survival is already significantly reduced by these pressures, and while fringe anti-wolf voices dominate social media, many shepherds admit that culling has its limits.

While fringe anti-wolf voices dominate social media, many shepherds admit that culling has its limits.

Positive examples exist

Although the European Union is increasingly leaning towards culling, positive EU initiatives exist. Since 1992, EU-funded LIFE projects have tested coexistence tools including electric fences, guard dogs, and stakeholder engagement. A review of 135 projects across Mediterranean countries and Romania shows how such measures can be effective when properly implemented. Electric fences – such as those installed by the Wolf Fencing Team Belgium – were identified as the most effective non-lethal measure, while others showed only moderate success. Swedish research confirms that all fencing helps reduce wolf attacks, with two types offering the best protection: five-wire electric fencing and sheep netting reinforced with two electric wires, known as “predator-repellent fencing.” Despite these promising results, scientists stress the need for more research to identify the most consistently effective methods. Inadequate evaluation and reporting standards continue to make drawing reliable conclusions difficult.

In Italy, livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) have proven particularly effective in deterring predators. Most regions support their use, though funding schemes have driven up puppy prices in some cases. In areas like Central Italy, where wolves never disappeared and later recolonised much of the country, there is a strong tradition of breeding Maremmano and Samoyed dogs. While LGDs can be highly effective, their success depends on proper training, management, and committed handlers. In Poland, efforts to distribute Tatra Shepherd Dogs (owczarki podhalańskie) have had mixed results. Some dogs were raised more as pets than working animals, which limited their effectiveness.

Efforts remain scattered

Some national authorities in countries like France, Italy, and Germany provide data, guidelines, and educational resources to promote coexistence. Nevertheless, these efforts are frequently fragmented, underfunded, and poorly integrated into broader rural development policies. The European Platform on Coexistence and its regional counterparts have facilitated dialogue and promoted good practices, but participation is voluntary and is often undermined by political reluctance or distrust among stakeholders.

In the northern Italian alpine province of Trento, forest rangers actively support shepherds by providing information, fencing, and even livestock guarding dogs, an uncommon but effective approach. Just an hour away in South Tyrol, however, the autonomous province of Bozen has opted for a starkly different path. In 2023, it declared coexistence “irrational” on 1458 of 1500 alpine pastures. With only a handful of active shepherds left and herds often left unattended – practices dating back to when wolves and bears were exterminated – conflict with predators is intense.

The first Italian wolf culling occurred on 11 August 2025. Herbert Dorfmann, an MEP in the European People’s Party who comes from South Tyrol, has long been opposed to wolves and played a key role in shifting EU protection policies. Meanwhile, Matthias Prieth, one of the few local shepherds using preventive measures, says the real issue is the long decline of alpine grazing: “Alpine pastures were dying long before the wolf.” Though he admits he would shoot a wolf attacking his herd, he sees widespread culling as futile. Instead, the shepherd proposes linking subsidies under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to low predation rates to reward responsible herding.

The case of brown bears 

In addition to the wolf, brown bears have also come into the crosshairs of the European People’s Party. The ursine’s numbers have risen significantly in recent years, with an estimated 20,500 individuals now present across Europe – a 17 per cent increase since 2016. In its 2024 manifesto, the EPP – the largest European political family – made its position on the brown bear very clear: “We need new rules for the management of large carnivore populations, especially wolves and brown bears, including culling when densities reach unsustainable levels.”

The majority of Europe’s brown bears are concentrated in the Carpathian Mountains, spanning Romania, Slovakia, Poland, and Ukraine. Other strongholds include northeastern Europe – particularly Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the Baltic states – and the Western Balkans, where populations extend across Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia. Smaller, more isolated groups persist in the Alps, the Apennines in central Italy, and parts of the Iberian Peninsula.

As with wolves, bears are increasingly portrayed as “out of control” in Central and Eastern Europe, fuelling public fear and political pressure for culls – even where proven coexistence strategies exist. Effective tools like secure waste management, electric fencing, education, and new technologies such as the “Human-Bear Conflict Radar” – a forecasting tool piloted in Bulgaria – offer non-lethal alternatives. Yet prevention is often overlooked. It was only recently that Italian alpine regions, especially the Trento area, improved their secure waste bins and public information for trekkers.

In July 2025, officials in Poland authorised the killing of three bears (a strictly protected species of large carnivore under national law) near homes in Cisna, in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship, which is home to the country’s largest bear population. Public and scientific backlash led to a reversal of this decision, but the case demonstrates how fragile bear protection remains.

What is the effect of tourism?

In 2024, bears and wolves respectively caused a total damage of 145,000 euros and 93,000 euros in Trento. Monica Fedel, a shepherd from the Trento area, recently reported that a bear had attacked one of her horses on an alpine pasture in the Brenta Dolomites. The bear startled the horse, causing it to break through the protective fences. She partly blamed the incident on tourists, as she was forced to lock up her four guard dogs at dusk for fear that they would attack a visiting trekker’s aggressive dog. She is not angry with the bear, though. Reflecting on the situation, she says, “He acts like a bear, the wolf like a wolf, and the shepherd like a shepherd.”

A 2021 EU LIFEstockProtect report confirms that tourists are a greater concern than wolves for many alpine herders, as tourism often disrupts livestock protection. Yet shepherds rely on visitors, since herding alone is unviable due to low prices and heavy bureaucracy. CAP subsidies largely support “landscape maintenance” through grazing, not production – sometimes encouraging fraud.

Nearby, in the highland pasture of Borca Bassa, shepherd Ivan Zanoni had just lost three donkeys to a bear. In tears, he said he considers each predation “a personal failure”, especially when one of the slain animals belongs to a friend who has asked Ivan to take care of it. With only one assistant and increasing costs, the shepherd believes the system is unsustainable.

Although shepherds maintain the scenic pastures that make the Alps a profitable tourist attraction, they still have to pay rent for using them. This is a significant cost on top of other expenses, including measures to make the land wolf-proof. “I don’t want to be paid to look after the pastures,” Zanoni says. “But I think that I shouldn’t have to pay if I’m the one caring and protecting them.”

The future of wolves and bears will not be decided by predators, but by whether Europe addresses these deeper challenges and chooses prevention and support over fear and politics.

This investigation was carried out with the support of Journalismfund Europe.