Bear Management Charter: European cooperation is needed

Consultation in Brussels at FACE – review and amendment of the draft Charter

Today in Brussels, at the building of the European Committee of the Regions, we held a consultation with a representative of FACE (the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation), during which we reviewed and discussed the draft Bear Management Charter. The document was expanded with a package of amendments aimed at ensuring that, in regions with high bear density, biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods reinforce one another.

During the meeting, we examined the different practices and situations across Member States and discussed possible methods. Sweden was highlighted as a good example, where a distinct judicial practice has developed for handling large carnivore cases, including the legal framework for the regulated hunting of brown bears. The Swedish model is instructive because it ensures consistent and predictable application of the law – in contrast to situations where courts in different Member States may issue contradictory rulings in similar cases, and delays mean not only lost time but, in some instances, the loss of human lives.

Main elements of the amendment package
Regional intervention and transparency

We proposed the establishment of county and regional rapid-response units, the integration of bear incidents into civil protection and emergency planning, and the creation of public, online, map-based systems for reporting incidents and damages, where damages, interventions, and genetic data can be tracked transparently.

Cross-border population management and platforms

We proposed that the brown bear be managed in cross-border, population-level units, and that regional large carnivore platforms – involving farmers, hunters, conservationists, and local authorities – be recognized as full partners in decision-making processes.

Compensation and prevention

A central element of our amendments is the reform of compensation systems: not only direct damages should be compensated, but also the indirect losses and additional costs borne by small-scale farmers and beekeepers – including increased guarding, the maintenance of livestock guardian dogs, reduced production potential, and lost income – based on harmonized criteria agreed at EU level. We proposed that the EU and Member States fully utilize existing EU instruments and ensure up to 100% funding for preventive measures – electric fencing, livestock guardian dogs, bear-proof storage containers, reinforced beehives – as well as for damages in areas affected by large carnivores.

Self-defense, training, and monitoring

We requested that professional groups entitled to use self-defense and deterrence tools be clearly defined in legislation. Accredited regional training centers should provide mandatory training on managing conflicts with large carnivores. Monitoring of bear populations, supported by genetic methods and publicly available regional data, should underpin science-based decision-making.

Review of protection status – a European-level necessity

We made it clear that further concrete steps are needed regarding the bear issue. In Member States where the brown bear population is significantly increasing or has already grown substantially, and where local communities suffer considerable damages and losses – with risks to human life and economic activities – the species’ protection status must be reassessed.

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and its annexes must be reviewed from time to time, as environmental conditions, population status, and socio-economic circumstances are constantly evolving. This is also confirmed by the European Parliament’s Resolution of 24 November 2022, which calls for the application of the review procedure under Article 19 of the Directive. The 2024–2025 wolf precedent – during which the protection level of the grey wolf was changed from “strictly protected” to “protected” under both the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive – has demonstrated that this legal pathway is feasible and functional.

International consultation in Romania – preparing the downlisting

It was agreed during the consultation that in Romania – should the UDMR succeed in advancing this initiative – an international consultation should be organized to prepare a decision addressed to the relevant EU Member States: in countries significantly affected by bear populations, a downlisting should take place, meaning the reclassification of the brown bear from “strictly protected” to “protected.”

This consultation in Bucharest is particularly important given that Romania holds the largest bear population in the European Union, and several Member States have already openly indicated that they consider a review of the protection level to be possible.

European cooperation is necessary

European cooperation is needed among countries where the bear population is not endangered, yet local communities, human life, and economic activities face significant damages and losses. The bear issue must be placed on the agenda of an upcoming EU Council Presidency and turned into a European priority.

We see clearly that without this step, courts in Member States may issue contradictory decisions even in similar cases, delays are frequent, and lost time can, in some instances, mean lost human lives. Therefore, the annexes of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention must be aligned with reality. These legal instruments are effective and produce tangible consequences, but their classifications must reflect the actual status of populations.

The amendments we have initiated aim to ensure that coexistence with the brown bear becomes truly sustainable, safe, and reflective of the real burdens borne by mountain communities.

Further consultations and similar events are necessary so that Member States can move closer to a common, workable practice.