THE WOLF IS AN ESSENTIAL FIGURE FOR THE BALANCE OF EUROPEAN ECOSYSTEMS, A NATURAL “BIO-REGULATOR” ABLE TO MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY AND PREVENT IMBALANCES IN WILDLIFE. HOWEVER, THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RECENT DECISION TO REDUCE ITS LEGAL PROTECTION HAS TRIGGERED A HEAVY DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, WHICH ALSO INVOLVES SCIENCE AND ETHICS
An appeal for the defense of the wolf: the reasons for the NO
The affair which led five environmental organisations, Earth Odv, Green Impact, One Voice, Lndc Animal Protection and Great Lakes And Wetlands, to appeal the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has its roots in a controversial decision of the Council of the EU, adopted on 6 December 2024 during a meeting of the Bern Convention.
Here, the European Union has chosen to reduce the level of protection of the wolf, an animal symbol of European ecosystems and fundamental for maintaining natural balance.
The downgrading proposal, put forward by the European Commission under the leadership of Ursula Von der Leyen and supported by the European People’s Party (EPP), found fertile ground among right-wing and far-right groups, thus consolidating a majority in favor of its approval. However, the vote split the EU.
Spain and Ireland firmly opposed it, while countries such as Belgium, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus opted to abstain, expressing doubts about the scientific basis of the proposal. The position of Germany and Poland, which remained uncertain until the final stages of the negotiation, further fueled instability and criticism of the decision.
An irrational choice: a justified appeal
According to Valentina Coppola, ethologist and president of the environmental and animal rights association EARTH ODVthe choice adopted by the Council has no rational basis and risks triggering disastrous consequences for ecosystems.
Coppola underlines how the lupo represents a crucial bioregulator, capable of keeping prey populations under control, including wild boars, whose excessive proliferation can seriously damage the environment and agricultural crops. «Depriving the wolf of adequate protection – says the president -, not only does it ignore the ecological value of this predator, but it threatens to profoundly alter the dynamics of wild species, favoring imbalances that are difficult to manage”.
The scientific community has therefore attempted to make its voice heard in defense of wolf protection. On the initiative of Green Impact, over seven hundred scientists and academics have signed two declarations warning against the proposal to reduce protections, denouncing the lack of scientific evidence to support this decision.
Despite the strong appeal launched by the academic world, their position remained unheard, leaving room for political interests which, according to many experts, risk compromising the fragile balance of European ecosystems.
The legal action undertaken by EARTH ODV, Green Impact, One Voice, LNDC Animal Protection and Great Lakes and Wetlands, now aims to overturn a decision that they believe is contrary to the principles of biodiversity protection promoted by the Union itself. The battle is not only played out on a judicial level, but is part of a broader debate on the future of European environmental policies, called to reconcile nature conservation with economic and social pressures. But let’s try to understand the points on which he is moving “the defense”.
Inconsistencies and legal issues: the heart of the appeal
The appeal presented by the five environmental organizations is based on a series of inconsistencies that undermine the legitimacy and transparency of the decision-making process. At the center of the dispute is the lack of consultation of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and citizens, an element that raises questions about the democratic representativeness of a choice that profoundly impacts the protection of wildlife.
The organizations denounce the absence of a rigorous and independent scientific review, an essential element for any legislative change involving the conservation of a protected species.
Another crucial issue concerns the violation of the sixty-day suspension period, a consolidated practice to allow adequate evaluation of decisions that imply significant changes in environmental matters. This acceleration, perceived as arbitrary, has fueled suspicions of political forcing, with the consequent compromise of the precautionary principle that should guide any intervention in the conservationist field.
A particularly controversial point is represented by the disproportionate weight of the European Union in the context of the Bern Convention. With its twenty-seven votes, the EU exercises a decisive influence, capable of orienting decisions based on internal political balances rather than the real needs of environmental protection. This imbalance has raised concerns about the democratic nature of the process, transforming an international negotiating table into a platform dominated by Brussels dynamics.
It is useful to point out that the Berne Conventionsigned in 1886 to guarantee the protection of European flora, wildlife and natural habitats, represents an irreplaceable legal bulwark for the protection of the continental ecosystem. The decision to reduce wolf protection is therefore a violation of the founding principles of this international legal instrument created to promote harmony between human development and environmental conservation.
A future at risk: the ecological implications
The approval of the reduction of protections for the wolf could trigger a chain of devastating consequences for European biodiversity. The numerical decline of this species, already threatened in some areas of the continent, would risk profoundly altering the balance of ecosystems, generating imbalances in the food chain.
The absence of the wolf, the apex predator, could favor the uncontrolled proliferation of species such as wild boars and deer, with negative repercussions on forests, crops and natural habitats.
Furthermore, this decision would set a dangerous precedent, compromising the strength of European environmental regulations and calling into question the reliability of conservation policies. The perception of changing legislation subordinated to political interests risks discouraging future environmental protection efforts. Put simply, it could pave the way for further exemptions that could involve other protected species.
Faced with this scenario, the appeal represents the last bastion to prevent the entry into force of a measure which, as we have already said, has been judged “anti-ecological” e “without scientific basis”.
This initiative is not limited to defending the wolf, but takes on a broader symbolic value: it is a battle to preserve the credibility of European environmental institutions and to ensure that the voice of science and civil society can continue to influence decision-making processes regarding biodiversity. At stake is not just the fate of a single species, but the future of European nature and the collective responsibility for its protection.