Following the downgrading of the protection status of wolves in the EU from ‘strictly protected' to ‘protected', the Swedish government announced last month that it would increase the budget for measures to manage the gradual reduction of its endangered wolf population from currently 350 to 170.
In total, the government proposes to allocate 338 million SEK (€31 million) over three years (2026 – 2028) to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for measures intended to ensure the favorable conservation status of wolves despite the continued license hunting. Already next year, hunting will reduce the population to 270.
According to the Agency’s assessment, a reduction of the wolf population without endangering its survival is possible but requires reinforced management in the form of monitoring its genetic status, follow-up of individual wolves and moving genetically important wolves to other areas.
The new reference value, 170 wolves, was given by the government. A reference value for a species is a minimum level below which the population should not fall. If the population number falls below this, there is a risk that the species will not survive in the long term.
The Agency was of the opinion that the reference value could be lower than today but should be higher than 170. However, in August, the Agency reported a reference value for wolves of 170 individuals to the European Commission.
“Scientists have been clear that even 350 wolves don’t secure favourable conservation status,” commented Misha Istratov, chairman of the Species Crisis Foundation, a foundation supporting projects protecting biodiversity and red-listed species. “Cutting further isn’t management; it’s denial dressed as policy.”
In his view, the money spent on “managing” the survival of the wolf population could finance thousands of kilometres of modern fencing and the teams to keep it working through winter and lambing.
“It’s a stress test of democratic maturity - whether we spend public money to solve real problems or to feed cultural ones,” he added. “Most rural Swedes actually support strict protection for large carnivores. The price of one culled wolf could fund predator-proof fencing for several farms.”
He refers to new research that shows that human-caused wolf mortality—including hunting and government removals—reduces pack survival and reproduction, especially when leaders are killed. That destabilization of packs leads to increased attacks on livestock after culling.
There is also a European dimension. Wolves have returned across much of the continent, yet Sweden’s population remains an outlier: tiny, isolated and genetically depleted. After the downgrading of the protection status, Sweden is now testing the limits, politically and legally.
Following the vote in the European Parliament last May based on the Commission’s proposal, the amendment which downgraded the protection of wolves from ‘strictly protected' to ‘protected' under the Habitats Directive at EU level, entered into force on 14 July 2025.
The European Commission told The Brussels Times that regardless of the change in protection status, Member States are still obliged to achieve and maintain wolf populations at favourable conservation status under EU law.
The Swedish wolf population is currently categorised as endangered according to the Swedish Red List. There is an on-going infringement case against Sweden (INFR (2010)4200) as the case is not closed for the moment. The Commission says that it continues to engage in extensive dialogue with the Swedish authorities on the matter.
The case was opened in 2011 in response to a complaint by Swedish environmental organizations. It resulted in two reasoned opinions but has not been referred to the European Court of Justice. In an op-ed in The Brussels Times, the Swedish organisations reminded the Commission about the need to finally refer it to the Court.
The European Ombudsman opened an inquiry in October 2024 into the Commission's proposal to weaken the protection status of wolves following a complaint that the decision was not based on sufficient scientific evidence and proper stakeholder consultation.
However, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry last September because the same issues in the meantime had fallen under the review by the European Court of Justice.
That review started in December 2024 after the case had been submitted to the Court by Green Impact and other organisations with an appeal to annul the Council decision based on the Commission’s proposal because “the fundamental principles of transparency and objectivity required under EU law were not observed”.
