Ulvetid har skrevet til alle medlemmer af Greens – Europeans Free Alliance og The Left i EU-parlamentet (i alt ca. 100 Medlemmer af parlamantet), for at sikre os der kommer kokus på von der Leyens udemokratiske metoder. Du kan læse vores henvendelse herunder:

Dear NN

 

We are a Danish NGO that works for peaceful coexistence between wolves and humans. We are writing to you, and other members of the Greens – Europeans Free Alliance. In an urgent matter.

Although our inquiry is about the wolf’s conservation status, it may have more serious consequences for the democratic rules and the normal procedure in the commission.

We hope you will take your time to read our inquiry.

Thanks in advance

 

By initiating changes in relevant laws, Ursula von der Leyen intends to circumvent basic process rules in the Habitats Directive in her personal vendetta against the wolf.

At the 42nd annual meeting of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention in December 2022, a suggestion of downgrading of the wolf’s protection status proposed by Switzerland was rejected by the European Commission due to the fact that the current strict protection in the Bern Convention contains sufficient options to remove a wolf with deviant behaviour.

Thus, the wolf’s conservation status and continued existence in Europe should be ensured in accordance with the recommendations of leading researchers and other professionals.

However, the following year, in September 2023, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s pony, Dolly, was killed by a wolf. The fence around Dolly’s pen was not predator safe, even though it was located in a known wolf territory. Although Ursula von der Leyen herself was responsible for her pony’s safety, the episode prompted the chairman of the EU Commission to actively enter the struggle to have the wolf’s conservation status downgraded by all means.

Ursula von der Leyen’s targeted efforts resulted in the wolf’s conservation status being downgraded from “Strictly protected” to “protected” on 6th December 2024 at the 44th annual meeting of the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention. This downgrading in the Bern Convention enabled Ursula von der Leyen to go for her real goal: to have the wolf’s conservation status downgraded in the Habitats Directive.

According to Article 19. 2 of the Habitats Directive, a downgrading of the protection status of a strictly protected animal – e.g. the wolf – can only be achieved by unanimity in the Council of Ministers.

As some EU member states have previously voted against the downgrade, it seems unlikely that unanimity will be achieved. The chairman of the commission is of course aware of this.

Apparently, the prospect of not being able to achieve this unanimity and thus missing the possibility of downgrading the wolf’s conservation status, has led Ursula von der Leyen to take the extraordinary step to suggest a change in the EU legislation, to avoid the requirement for unanimity in the Habitat Directive’s article 19 paragraph 2. That appears from a press release of 3rd December 2024, which the EU Commission issued under the heading “EU proposal on adaptation of the wolf’s protection status adopted in the Bern Convention, paves the way for more flexibility in the management of wolf populations”

The press release states, among other things, that “the Commission will propose a targeted legislative change for this purpose (to have the wolf’s protection status downgraded. Red.), which must be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council / Council of Ministers”

It is extremely worrying that someone this powerful is attempting to manipulate a democratic adopted part of a directive on the basis of personal dislike for the wolf.

Moreover it is a serious problem for democracy and for the general confidence in the EU as an institution that the president simply circumvents the rules when they are in her way. The long-term consequence may be that it sets a precedent.

According to a previous press release from the EU Commission “Wolves in Europe: Commission urges local authorities to make full use of existing derogations and collects data for conservation status review” of 4 September 2023, it becomes evident that Ursula von der Leyen personally interfered and overruled the course that EU Environment Commissioner Sinkevicius had taken in connection with the wolfs conservation status. This is supported by the fact that as late as December 2022 the EU Commission voted against the proposal that Switzerland had put forward to downgrade the wolf’s conservation status in the Bern Convention.

This means that only one year after voting against a downgrading of the wolf’s conservation status, the commission itself is proposing the very same downgrade that they voted against the year before. It is difficult to interpret this reversal from the Commission’s side in any other way but Commission President Ursula von der Leyen having overruled the Environment Commissioner’s course in order to pull through her personal position.

It is equally remarkable that the proposal for the downgrading is justified with data from a report that the EU Commission itself had ordered: “The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union – An In-depth Analysis”

The Commission’s abuse of this analysis is deeply reprehensible. There is nothing in the report to support the Commission’s claims regarding the need to downgrade the wolf’s conservation status. On the contrary, there are many facts and conclusions in the report which support the necessity of maintaining strict protection.

The above statements are supported by a statement issued by LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative Europe), a group consisting of Europe’s leading researchers regarding large carnivores.

LCIE writes directly in their statement that it is worrying when the EU Commission in 2022 uses LCIE’s annual report to argue against a downgrade of the wolf’s conservation status, and in 2023 uses the same annual report from 2022 to argue for a downgrade of the wolf’s protection, despite LCIE pointing out that there has been no significant change in the European wolf population in the intervening period.

In a release from the UICN, the LCIE expresses concern that the downgrading of the wolf’s conservation status lacks scientific justification.

The following statements can be read in the publication of UICN:

  • This move could set a worrying precedent for wildlife conservation policies across Europe
  • A report from 2023 shows only marginal increases in the number of wolves, which is insufficient to justify the downgrade.
  • The proposal may undermine the conservation status of wolf populations contrary to existing conservation goals.
  • Claims that the downgrading would solve socio-economy

c conflicts, such as damage to livestock, lack concrete evidence.

  • Existing management options for protected wolf populations already include the possibility of interventions to protect the safety of livestock and people.
  • Downgrading based on political decisions without scientific support risks setting a dangerous precedent for future wildlife management.
  • Conservation decisions must be prioritized with sound science rather than political lobbying.

The official aim of the Commission and Ursula von der Leyen with the downgrading of the wolf’s conservation status is allegedly to increase flexibility in management and reduce the number of wolf attacks on livestock.

As regards the first part, it has not been possible to get clarified what exactly is meant by increased flexibility.

Assuming that flexibility means easier access to regulate wolves that approach humans or that repeatedly attack livestock, it makes no difference in case of a downgrade from Annex 4 (Strictly Protected) to Annex 5 (Protected).

The possibilities for managing bold wolves that approach people in a threatening manner are exactly the same for strictly protected wolves and protected wolves. Hence a downgrade of the protection status will therefore make no difference.

Regarding the question of the number of wolf attacks on livestock, there is no evidence that a reduction of wolves in an area reduces the number of attacks. On the contrary. In a scientific report from Slovakia, it appears that no correlation can be found between the number of wolves and the number of wolf attacks on livestock. It appears from the report that two other studies from Montana (USA) and Slovenia respectively came to the same result.

In another scientific report, it is concluded that “controlling wolves with lethal means appears to be related to more attacks in a larger area the following year”

Therefore, the Commission’s main argument for downgrading wolves’ conservation status in order to reduce the number of wolf attacks lacks scientific evidence.

When Ursula von der Leyen takes such a drastic step as attempting to eliminate or at least change the legislation in order to bypass the requirement for unanimity in the Habitats Directive, solely to get her way to be able to downgrade the wolf’s conservation status, it is nothing short of an expression of manipulation, abuse of power and disregard of a democratically adopted directive. Should this be accepted, the change in the law must be assumed to apply to all species that are strictly protected in Appendix 4, i.e. not only the wolf. In this case it will lead to a significantly easier option to change not only the conservation status of strictly protected species, but also any other regulative which for one reason or another is considered inconvenient for the European Commission President. This is a highly questionable scenario.

Best regards

Ole Pedersen

Chairman

The association Ulvetid

Maglemosen 1 – 4070 Kr. Hyllinge – Denmark

Phone.: + 45 60613739

Mail: formand@ulvetid.dk

Homepage: www.ulvetid.dk

Virusfri.www.avast.com