For decades the cormorant has been one of the symbols of European fauna threatened by man. Between intensive hunting, pollution and pesticides, in the 1970s this species came close to disappearing in many areas of the continent. The situation changed in 1979 with the introduction of the European Union’s Birds Directive, one of the first major instruments for protecting biodiversity.
Since then the cormorant population has seen constant growth. According to estimates reported in the European debate, the number has gone from less than 50 thousand individuals to almost 2 million specimens distributed across lakes, rivers, coastal areas and wetlands. A conservation success which today, paradoxically, has become the reason for a new controversy.
The request of the ten European countries
The issue reached Brussels through a letter addressed to the European Commissioner for the Environment. The representatives of Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania signed it, calling for a review of the protection status of the species.
According to the signatories, the increase in cormorants would have caused increasing damage to professional fishing and aquaculture facilities. In their assessment, each specimen would consume up to 180 kilograms of fish per year, with economic losses estimated at around 350 million euros for the European fishing sector.
The declared objective is to bring the population back to levels considered “ecologically and economically sustainable”, paving the way for broader forms of control, including the possibility of regular culling.
The opposing front: “It’s not a solution”
However, the proposal encountered strong opposition from environmental associations and part of the scientific community. Many experts point out that the cormorant represents one of the most important recovery stories of European wildlife and that a weakening of protections could set a dangerous precedent.
Several studies cited also argue that significant damage to fish populations is limited above all to specific situations, such as small waterways or intensive farming, while in large natural ecosystems the impact would be much more limited.
Environmentalists also point out that European legislation already allows exemptions and targeted interventions when concrete damage is demonstrated. For this reason they believe a general reduction in protections is excessive.
This is not how the problem is solved
The confrontation on the cormorant comes after that which involved other protected species, such as the wolf, and could have much wider consequences. If Brussels were to accept the requests of the ten countries, a new chapter would open in the relationship between nature conservation, economic interests and wildlife management.
The issue, however, cannot be addressed by culling animals. Reducing protections risks shifting attention from structural causes, such as the management of aquatic ecosystems and production activities, towards an immediate but not very conclusive solution in the long term.
It is not by killing animals that the problem is solved, but rather by intervening with strategies of balance between human activities and the conservation of biodiversity. The European Commission now has the task of evaluating a complex decision, which could become an important precedent for the future management of wildlife in Europe.
You might also be interested in:
