During the approximately 35-minute discussion, we examined, together with a senior representative of the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), how Romanian and Slovak efforts to reduce the brown bear\u2019s protection status could be coordinated.<\/p>\n
The discussion focused on the \u201cdownlisting\u201d of species covered by the Bern Convention\u2014meaning amendments to its appendices\u2014legal challenges concerning large carnivore management, and the EU-level \u201cstress test\u201d consultation.<\/p>\n
The FACE representative explained in detail how the wolf\u2019s protection status had been reduced under the convention. Several Member States had regarded this as a political decision, even though scientific evidence confirmed that wolf populations were increasing.<\/p>\n
The same reasoning applied to the brown bear, especially in Romania, where genetic monitoring estimated the population at between 10,000 and 12,800 animals. This was approximately three times the ecological carrying capacity.<\/p>\n
One of the most serious risks was that decisions concerning species protection were not always guided by field data and scientific findings but were instead influenced by competing political and activist agendas.<\/p>\n
The discussion made it clear that, in several Member States\u2014including Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Slovenia\u2014government decisions were regularly challenged in court by internationally backed NGOs. As a result, the management of bear and wolf populations could be blocked for months or even years.<\/p>\n
At the same time, new European legislation, such as the Nature Restoration Regulation, had entered into force. Governments had begun drafting their national restoration plans, but there was a risk that the conflicts affecting mountain regions would not be addressed at all.<\/p>\n
If these plans had focused exclusively on the strictest possible protection of wildlife without allowing room for regulated wildlife management, future efforts to reduce protection levels could have become even more difficult.<\/p>\n
The scenarios examined during the discussion were clear. If the brown bear could not be moved, on a scientific and regionally differentiated basis, from Annex IV to Annex V of the Habitats Directive in areas where the population consistently exceeded the ecological carrying capacity and the danger to human life was documented, the situation would not only have remained unchanged but could have deteriorated further.<\/p>\n
This would have meant that shepherds, farmers and mountain municipalities continued to bear the burden of \u201cEuropean nature conservation\u201d alone, while decisions were taken in courts and distant offices.<\/p>\n
The FACE expert described the situation clearly: in countries where bear and wolf populations were managed through well-designed derogation systems\u2014such as Croatia or Sweden\u2014species conservation and human safety could be maintained simultaneously.<\/p>\n
The problem became particularly serious in countries where legal challenges from activist organisations and the environmental orientation of ministries jointly obstructed effective population management.<\/p>\n
T\u00e1nczos Barna\u2019s role and the legal dispute over the wolf\u2019s protection status<\/p>\n
We also discussed the fact that several organisations were challenging the reduction of the wolf\u2019s protection status through legal action at the European level.<\/p>\n
This posed a particular risk because T\u00e1nczos Barna, in his role as a representative of the Romanian Government, had openly argued in the AGRIFISH Council that Europe needed to move away from individual derogations and towards proportionate regulation through amendments to the annexes of the relevant legislation, as had already been done in the case of the wolf.<\/p>\n
If these legal challenges had succeeded, both the wolf and bear issues could have returned to the starting point\u2014to a \u201cstrict protection for everything\u201d approach that ignored human life, traditional farming and the everyday realities of mountain communities.<\/p>\n
For this reason, we worked to ensure that the experience gained from the wolf case could also be used in a legally robust manner when seeking to change the brown bear\u2019s protection status.<\/p>\n
Six concrete areas of work were identified across Europe<\/p>\n
Following the discussion, we identified six specific areas in which we intended to continue working together with FACE:<\/p>\n
Stress test consultation \u2013 The objective was for the European Committee of the Regions and FACE to submit separate but mutually reinforcing contributions by 10 August as part of the review of the Habitats and Birds Directives. These contributions were to build on data from Harghita County and the support expressed within the AGRIFISH Council.
\n\u201cReality Check\u201d event in Brussels on 21 September \u2013 We considered it important for the political message presented at the European Committee of the Regions\u2019 event to be supported by an expert with strong scientific credibility, so that the European Commission would not view our proposals merely as interest-group lobbying.
\nEuropean Parliament Biodiversity Intergroup \u2013 Our objective was to organise a hearing in the autumn specifically focused on the brown bear. This could have resulted in a written cross-party declaration calling for the launch of a regionally based process to reduce the species\u2019 protection status.
\nOnline workshop on 30 July \u2013 We planned to share experiences from Romania, Slovakia, Finland and other countries and to prepare a common policy position and messaging package. All participants could then have used these materials in their own submissions.
\nSupporting Romania and Slovakia following the AGRIFISH meeting \u2013 We planned to prepare a procedural roadmap, organise a joint expert meeting and draw up a comparative legal analysis of the application of EU derogation rules.
\nNature restoration plans \u2013 We sought to ensure that the national restoration plans of mountainous countries addressed conflicts between people and large carnivores in a dedicated chapter, thereby creating a legal basis for future regulation.<\/p>\n
The following eight weeks were expected to be decisive. During this period, it could have been determined whether, in the 2028\u20132034 EU cycle, the brown bear issue would remain a political minefield or would be placed on a legally sound and scientifically grounded path.<\/p>\n
Achieving this required work in Brussels, responsibility from the ministries in Bucharest, and data collection and strategic planning at the county level.<\/p>\n
I asked farmers, local authorities and everyone affected in Harghita County to share their experiences, cases and data. These could have formed the evidence package that we needed in both Brussels and Bucharest.<\/p>\n
The \u201cbear mafia\u201d and extremist NGO networks were vocal. We therefore had to give an even stronger and more credible voice to the realities experienced by mountain communities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In recent weeks, it had become clear that the protection status of bears and wolves was no longer merely a domestic Romanian issue but had developed into a field of European political conflict. Decisions taken under the Bern Convention and within EU institutions either supported the survival of mountain communities or left the field open to the \u201cbear mafia\u201d and extremist NGO networks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":1958,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[82,1,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cor","category-hirek","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1957"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1957\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1959,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1957\/revisions\/1959"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cor.borbolycsaba.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}