The stress test of the European Union’s Birds and Habitats Directives has reached an important stage. At the “Reality Check” event held in Brussels on 21 September, EU institutions, local and regional authorities, civil society organisations, experts and practitioners discussed how nature conservation rules work in practice.
Csaba Borboly, member of the European Committee of the Regions and rapporteur of the CoR’s 2018 opinion on conflict species and its 2024 opinion on coexistence with large carnivores, was given a prominent speaking opportunity. He presented the experience of the local and regional level immediately after the Deputy Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment.
In his opening remarks, the Deputy Director-General referred to Csaba Borboly by name twice. He highlighted the role of the European Committee of the Regions and the importance of ensuring that local and regional experience is given appropriate weight in the assessment of how EU nature conservation rules are implemented. He also stressed that the purpose of the stress test is to identify problems, burdens and practical difficulties encountered on the ground, based on real-life experience.
“It was an honour to speak immediately after the Deputy Director-General. This gave us the opportunity to give the issue, right from the beginning of the discussion, the weight and emphasis justified by the everyday experiences of rural communities. The real test of European nature policy does not take place in Brussels, but in our villages, on our farms, in our forests and in protected areas. It takes place where people live every day with the consequences of these decisions,” said Csaba Borboly.
An Important Step, Not a Final Decision
The Brussels consultation does not mean an immediate legislative amendment, nor does it bring a final decision on the protection status of the brown bear or on the annexes of the Habitats Directive.
Its importance lies in the fact that properly documented local experiences, implementation problems and policy proposals can become part of the evidence considered in the European Commission’s stress test. They can therefore carry weight in the study currently being prepared and in the Commission’s final report.
The Deputy Director-General’s remarks also made it clear that the process is not limited to a theoretical assessment of legal texts. The Commission is also examining how clear, implementable and effective the current rules are in practice, and what administrative burdens they create for those concerned.
“We are not overstating the importance of today’s event. This is not the day when decisions are made, but it is an important step in preparing those decisions. However, if we do not clearly explain the local reality today, it cannot receive the appropriate weight in the final report either. That is why we must be present at every such forum, bring data with us and ask for concrete solutions,” Csaba Borboly emphasised.
The Assessment Is Taking Place Through Several Channels
Andrea Vettori, Head of the Biodiversity Unit at DG ENV, presented the different interconnected elements of the stress test. These include the Eurobarometer survey, the open public consultation, the targeted consultation, youth engagement, practical “Reality Check” events and expert dialogue on implementation.
The opinions and data received will be processed in a dedicated study. According to the timetable presented at the event, the stress-test study may be completed in autumn 2026, while the European Commission’s final report is expected by the end of 2026.
The assessment focuses on three main areas:
- the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, particularly appropriate assessments concerning Natura 2000 sites;
- policy coherence, stakeholder involvement, financing, governance, monitoring and reporting;
- species protection, derogations and the adaptation of the Directive’s annexes to scientific and technical progress.
This means that the management of the brown bear is not a secondary issue. It is directly linked to the third pillar of the stress test: finding the right balance between species protection, the practical application of derogations and the updating of the annexes.
Article 16 Must Work in Practice, Not Only on Paper
The central message of the Harghita County position is that it is not enough to provide legal possibilities in theory for protecting human life, preventing serious damage and rapidly removing dangerous bears. These mechanisms must also work in practice and in time.
Strict protection of the brown bear is the general rule under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive. Article 16, however, allows intervention, among other reasons, in the interests of public health, public safety and other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, as well as to prevent serious damage.
When applying Article 16, authorities must in every case justify the precise reason for intervention, demonstrate the absence of another satisfactory solution, prove that the measure is proportionate, and ensure that the intervention does not jeopardise the favourable conservation status of the population concerned.
These are necessary legal safeguards. Problems arise, however, when even fully documented, scientifically justified decisions aimed at protecting human life are followed by lengthy legal disputes, delays or uncertainty surrounding implementation. In such cases, the prohibition under Article 12 remains continuously applicable, while the practical use of the possibilities provided by Article 16 is repeatedly called into question.
“We are not asking for nature conservation to be weakened. We are asking for Article 16 to function as a real legal instrument that can be applied in time. Scientifically justified preventive and rapid-response decisions designed to protect human life must not be paralysed for months. While legal procedures are delayed, people remain exposed to danger,” Csaba Borboly stressed.
The right to legal remedy and strict professional oversight must be guaranteed. At the same time, local experts, farmers, mayors and public authority leaders should not feel intimidated when they act in good faith, on the basis of proper documentation and in accordance with the law to protect human life.
This requires a standardised evidence package, a real-time conflict register, territorial data and clear rapid-response protocols. The aim is not to bypass oversight, but to ensure that properly prepared decisions are legally robust and can be implemented in time.
Romania’s Official Voice Is Missing
The open public consultation and the targeted collection of data from Member States are two separate processes. Citizens and organisations were able to participate in the open consultation, while Member States and relevant organisations were approached separately within the targeted consultation.
According to data presented at the event, 25 Member States responded to the targeted request. Official responses from Romania and Germany were missing. This is particularly concerning in Romania’s case, given that the country is seriously affected by brown bear attacks, damage and implementation conflicts.
“Romania’s silence works against us. If the responsible Ministry of Environment does not make the country’s voice heard, it becomes much more difficult to explain that this is not a theoretical debate for us. We are talking about human lives, injuries, agricultural damage and rural communities exposed to danger. We therefore expect Environment Minister Diana Buzoianu to present a clear, firm and data-based official position,” Csaba Borboly said.
At the same time, Tánczos Barna deserves recognition for having raised the issue as Minister of Agriculture at the European meeting of the relevant ministers and for presenting the problems faced by Romanian communities.
“This requires professional expertise, political courage and consistency. I thank Tánczos Barna for taking on this responsibility. However, a single ministerial intervention cannot replace Romania’s comprehensive, coordinated and continuous institutional action.”
Thank You for the 413 Responses from Romania
The EU’s open public consultation ran from 12 May to 10 August. According to the summary presented at the event, 413 questionnaires were completed from Romania.
Csaba Borboly thanked everyone who took the time to share their opinions and experiences.
“The 413 responses from Romania are an important result. I thank everyone who completed the questionnaire, shared the call and encouraged others to participate. At the same time, we have much greater potential than this. If every institution, representative organisation and community actor had mobilised together, Romania could even have been the EU country with the highest number of responses. This showed that every person’s contribution matters, but we need stronger cooperation.”
The 413 responses to the public consultation cannot replace an official Member State position. The two would reinforce each other: citizen participation demonstrates the social significance of the problem, while an official government position ensures that Romania participates in the process with institutionalised and professionally substantiated proposals.
The Committee of the Regions Gives Weight to Local Experience
The role of the European Committee of the Regions was given particular emphasis in the Deputy Director-General’s opening remarks. The added value of the CoR lies in connecting EU objectives with the realities of implementation at local and regional level.
The European Committee of the Regions has previously stated that the Habitats Directive is fundamentally fit for purpose. At the same time, it has also called for derogations to be genuinely applicable and for the conservation status of species to be periodically reviewed on the basis of up-to-date scientific data and objective criteria.
The CoR also considers it necessary to support regional large carnivore platforms, ensure adequate financing for prevention and compensation, and improve the collection of more detailed territorial data.
“The presence of the Committee of the Regions matters because we are not speaking from theory. We have to implement these decisions, and we directly experience their social consequences. Local experience is not an obstacle to European nature conservation; it is a condition for making the system workable and socially acceptable,” Csaba Borboly said.
Data, Funding and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed
In addition to the bear issue, the stress test addresses several other problems that are important for local communities. These include financing for Natura 2000 areas, compensation for farmers and landowners, administrative burdens, monitoring, the comparability of data and the implementation capacity of local authorities.
The costs associated with nature conservation obligations cannot be placed on rural communities without adequate support. The LIFE programme supports important good practices and pilot projects, but as a competitive funding programme it cannot automatically provide assistance to every affected region, farmer and landowner.
Predictable funding is therefore needed in the next EU budget, including through the National and Regional Partnership Plans, for:
- damage prevention;
- rapid and fair compensation;
- scientific monitoring of the bear population;
- the operation of rapid-response units;
- strengthening the capacity of local authorities and regional cooperation platforms.
“Long-term public acceptance of nature conservation requires a fair sharing of burdens. We cannot expect farmers and rural families to bear alone the cost of a common European objective. Without prevention, fair compensation and rapid assistance, the conflict between local communities and nature conservation will continue to grow.”
The Next Step Continues Tomorrow
The stakeholder meeting of 21 September will be followed by another “Reality Check” event with Member States on 23 September. A further implementation dialogue will take place in October, followed by the study and the European Commission’s stress-test report planned for the end of 2026.
The current consultation is therefore an important stage in a longer European process. The institutional and professional work does not end here. Within a week, discussions on coexistence with large carnivores, human safety and regional solutions will also continue in the European Parliament and in the relevant commission of the European Committee of the Regions.
“This is a long process that requires sustained work and determination from beginning to end. Today was an important step, but not the final destination. We must be present at every forum. We must bring data, local experience and workable solutions. We must repeat again and again: protecting human life and protecting nature cannot be treated as opposing objectives. We need a system that works, is lawful and can be properly financed.”