Sweden has received a formal letter from the European Commission making it clear that the country’s attempt to lower the wolf reference value to a politically determined figure of 170 animals is not acceptable.
The message marks a decisive moment for Sweden’s environmental governance, highlighting the tension between political ambitions and the scientific and legal obligations that every EU member state must uphold.
For years, Sweden has portrayed itself as a champion of evidence-based environmental policy. Yet the Commission’s review tells a different story. The criticism coming from Brussels describes a member state attempting to reshape scientific conclusions to match political wishes rather than allowing policy to be guided by science.
It is now, more than ever, the responsibility of the Swedish government to act as a committed EU member and safeguard its nature and wildlife. You cannot undermine the purpose of Article 17 reporting by presenting political numbers instead of scientific assessments.
Scientific requirements vs. Political targets
According to the Commission, Sweden’s submitted reference value for wolves does not meet the biological or legal criteria of the Habitats Directive.
A reference value must be grounded in long-term ecological viability, not in what happens to be politically desirable at a given moment. Despite this, Sweden has put forward a figure shaped by political considerations not scientific reasoning, aiming for the lowest possible number.
At the same time, the Swedish government plans to invest more than €10 million annually in so-called "special management measures" for wolves–an approach critics argue attempts to artificially replace natural ecological processes in order to justify a reduced population.
Trying to "buy" your way to a smaller wolf population runs entirely counter to the philosophy of the Habitats Directive. The Directive exists to ensure species can persist naturally within their natural range, not through costly artificial management created to support political goals.
Allowing such an approach could set a dangerous precedent. If one member state is permitted to reshape conservation targets according to short-term political preferences, others may follow.
A question of credibility
The disagreement extends far beyond the issue of wolf conservation. It raises fundamental concerns about Sweden’s credibility as an environmental actor and its ability to communicate scientific data free from political pressure.
If Sweden cannot coexist with its own wild animals, then a profound shift in mindset is required. Wildlife is not a bargaining chip; it is part of our shared natural heritage.
For an EU striving to restore biodiversity by 2030, Sweden’s attempt to lower conservation targets sends the wrong message. Compliance with the Habitats Directive is not optional; it is a core foundation of the Union’s environmental policy framework.
A call for Sweden to show leadership again
Sweden was once regarded as a leader in nature protection, a country admired for its commitment to science-based conservation.
Sweden must reclaim its position as a leader in this field. We are at risk of losing a reputation that took decades to establish.
The Commission’s intervention is therefore more than a reprimand. It is a reminder that the EU’s environmental foundation depends on trust, scientific integrity, and shared responsibility. Should Sweden fail to adjust course, it risks not only legal consequences but also losing credibility as a reliable partner in European nature conservation.
This is a defining moment: either Sweden aligns itself with EU law, science, and long-term ecological responsibility, or it continues down a path where political convenience overrides duty. Europe is watching.
