Between now and 6 December, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention (the Convention on the Conservation of Wild Life and Natural Habitats in Europe) will have to decide – at its 44th meeting – whether downgrade the status of wolf protection from “strictly protected” to “protected“.
A move that generates concern and follows one decision of the European Union countries of 25 September based on a proposal from the European Commission.
We talked about it here: Sensational step backwards: the European Union (with Italy’s vote) wants to reduce the protection of wolves
The proposal (…) is widely considered illegal, lacks scientific justification and violates the principles of democratic participation and the rule of law in decision-making, reads an open letter published by Green Impact and other NGOs, to the Secretary of the Bern Convention and to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
In fact, that proposal does not present scientific evidence that could be recognized and accepted by the international scientific community substantially violates both EU law and the Berne Convention.
What the scientific community says and what it is doing
The international scientific community is speaking out against the downgrade, highlighting the lack of scientific evidence to support the EU proposal, Gaia Angelini, president of the NGO Green Impact, said in a press release.
Furthermore, a group of experts is currently circulating two letters addressed to the Secretary General of the Bern Convention, as well as the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), a specialized group of the IUCN, has took a clear position against the proposal.
The Ombudsman opens an investigation
On 28 October, the European Ombudsman Emilly O’Reilly has launched an investigation on the European Commission’s proposal to downgrade the protection status of the wolf, following a complaint lodged by the NGO Client Earth.
O’Reilly asked the Commission to “clarify what scientific evidence he based his statement on the danger posed by the wolf population” and underlined that the Commission had departed from the guidelines to better legislate on stakeholder consultation when it carried out targeted data collection and asked why.
The Ombudsman also raised concerns about the level of transparency and the democratic nature of the process itself, which we had also highlighted. We strongly doubt that it complies with the fundamental principles of the EU legislative process, said ClientEarth lawyer Ilze Tralmaka..
Because the commission has until January 24 next year to respond to these initial questions, the investigation is unlikely to impact the vote.
The proposal requires the two-thirds majority within the Standing Committee to be adopted. But NGOs are worried that the proposal could still pass, given “the EU’s disproportionate voting power (27 votes) at the Bern Convention“, as highlighted in the letter to world leaders.
We’ll see.
