EU Wildlife Protections Face Pressure in the Name of Simplification

by Susan Hartland

A European Union review of wildlife legislation is giving hunting interests an opening to press for greater freedom to hunt and kill protected animals. At a September 29, 2026, meeting in the European Parliament in Brussels, which I attended for C.A.S.H./Animal Rights, calls for flexibility and reduced administrative “burdens” repeatedly accompanied demands that allow faster action against wildlife.

The meeting was co-organized by the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, known as FACE, and the European Landowners’ Organization. Its subject was the European Commission’s 2026 stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directives, two central pillars of EU wildlife and habitat protection. There are approximately 7 million hunters across the EU.

The review grew out of a broader political drive for simplification and competitiveness. In December 2024, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen instructed Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall to stress-test existing legislation and reduce administrative burdens. In October 2025, EU leaders urged the Commission to intensify that work and explore faster planning and permitting procedures. On December 10, 2025, the Commission specifically announced the Nature Directives stress test for 2026.

That announcement also promised implementation guidance “including with regard to predatory species.” The wording does not itself authorize killing, but it shows that predators were explicitly part of the announced agenda. The stress test examines species protection, exceptions to protection and procedures for changing the annexes that determine particular legal protections.

The Commission says its aim is more cost-efficient implementation while maintaining high standards of nature protection. It also leaves open whether the results will justify changes to the legal framework. The process therefore creates an opportunity for stakeholders to argue for changes to how wildlife protection works.

At the Brussels meeting, several speakers portrayed hunters, farmers and landowners as essential conservation partners. According to my contemporaneous notes, a speaker from Malta advocated adaptive “harvest” management, protection of hunting traditions and more usable flexibility within the Directives. Another speaker called for faster responses when species recover, citing conflicts involving otters, cormorants, beavers and rooks.

Romanian regional representative Csaba Borboly raised public-safety concerns involving bears and questioned whether authorities could use exceptions quickly enough. My notes record his concern that local officials fear legal action when deciding to kill wildlife, and his question about legal security for officials acting in good faith. He also said options included changes to the Directives and their annexes.

These comments matter because the Habitats Directive already permits exceptions, known as derogations, for public safety and other specified purposes. Article 12 establishes strict protection for listed species; Article 16 allows departures subject to conditions, including the absence of a satisfactory alternative and safeguards for conservation status. Recovery does not automatically end Article 12 protection for a species that remains listed.

The question is which constraints speakers want removed. Better data and adequately staffed authorities can improve implementation. Reducing the evidence required for lethal action, weakening consideration of alternatives or insulating decisions from legal scrutiny would put wildlife at greater risk. The meeting notes do not establish that specific amendments have been agreed.

There was one reasonable voice in the room. EUROPARC director Alberto Arroyo Schnell questioned why the Directives were being revisited when Europe was still losing nature and conservation remained inadequately resourced. Commission official Andrea Vettori emphasized effective monitoring and reporting.

For anti-hunting advocates, the concern is that safeguards against killing may be recast as administrative obstacles. The Commission’s report is expected at the end of 2026, and its conclusions remain open. Wildlife advocates should demand concrete explanations of proposed changes and defend the evidence, alternatives and accountability requirements that give protection practical force.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Susan asks that you reach out to Jessika Roswall and simply state that in an era where nature has so many challenges, Europe can be a leader in strengthening protections and biodiversity — and the rest of the world hopes they do the right thing.

Jessika Roswall’s contacts are here:
https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners/jessika-roswall_en

Susan Hartland’s life-long mission is to protect and save animals. Her mission started years ago when she worked with homeless animals in rural shelters. It was through this experience that she began to understand just how widespread the exploitation and suffering was for animals and the need for organizations and individuals to work to end the needless suffering of all animals. Witnessing this suffering also evoked awareness that all animals have feelings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Her educational background is in electrical engineering, and she worked in the broadband industry as a technician, design engineer and technical operations director. Once Susan left the corporate world, she had the honor of holding roles as Director for Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Executive Director of Full Circle Farm Sanctuary and now as Director of Animal Rights in Belgium and the Netherlands.