The return of the wolf in Italy (and Europe) between damage for farms and benefits for the ecosystem

The growth of new forms of sustainable tourism, such as wildlife watching, confirms the increasing attention paid to this animal and its habitat. In regions such as Abruzzo, where this activity is now well established, hikers also arrive from abroad to observe the wolf and the Marsican bear.

'Unfortunately, however, its return is also accompanied by an increase in poaching: illegal killings have increased,' Romito says. A phenomenon that in fact represents a form of illicit control of the species. "Adequate cultural communication on the subject has been lacking, so we try to intervene with popularisation and our assistance programmes for breeders'.

In fact, the presence of a large predator can create tensions in coexistence with man, particularly because of the effects on livestock activities. While animal welfare associations welcome the return of the wolf, many operators in the agri-food chain denounce the negative effects on their work.

The greatest fears concern livestock farming: according to a report by the European Commission, wolves kill 65,000 livestock every year in the EU, mainly sheep and goats, with compensation costs of EUR 18.7 million. At European level, the sheep population is about 60 million and the losses inflicted by wolves amount to 0.065%. A limited impact overall, but one that can vary greatly at local level. In Italy the annual average is about 8,700 preyed upon animals, for which compensation of close to two million euro is paid.

"Producers feel abandoned and many companies have closed down given the extensive damage, the lengthy and procedural requirements for compensation, as well as the unevenness of compensation across the country," says CIA-Agricoltori Italiani president Cristiano Fini.

Regions subsidise the adoption of prevention tools such as fences and guard dogs and provide compensation in the case of proven predation. According to producers, however, these measures are not always timely and often not sufficient.

One of the biggest problems concerns indirect damage and the complex bureaucratic process for obtaining compensation: 'No region reimburses consequences such as miscarriages, loss of production, veterinary treatment or reduced animal welfare, and preventive measures now fall almost entirely on farmers,' continues Fini. Faced with these problems, farmers are asking for more economic support and more streamlined and effective procedures.

The demands of the agri-food industry also have a bearing on the decisions taken by the European Union, which recently approved the downgrading of the wolf's protection status. This is an amendment to the Habitats Directive, the main instrument with which Brussels ensures the conservation of biodiversity on the continent, which sanctions the change of the species from 'strictly protected' to 'protected' only.

"We express our strong support for the change in the status of the wolf," explains Fini. "It is a fundamental step to enable a more balanced management of the species and to address the growing problems related to interference with livestock activities."

This change does not remove the obligation to maintain a favourable conservation status, but provides 'greater flexibility to member states in the management of their local wolf populations'. A decision strongly supported by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, personally affected by the loss of a pony killed by a wolf and linked to the European People's Party, for whom the support of farmers is crucial.

The greatest criticalities are to be found in areas less accustomed to the presence of wolves, including Trentino, one of the areas where the debate on coexistence with large carnivores is most heated. Here, workers in the agricultural sector complain of particular difficulties in managing the relationship with this predator, which had long disappeared in the region.

"There have been dozens of predations, especially of sheep and donkeys, so much so that some breeders have already closed down," says Danilo Perin, municipal councillor for the municipality of Ospedaletto and organiser of one of the latest demonstrations in Val Sugana, where dozens of farmers gathered to demand more decisive action.

Not far away, in South Tyrol, last August saw the first legal culling of a wolf in more than fifty years. The decision by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, authorised by Ispra and permitted by the Habitats Directive, which allows derogations for the removal of certain specimens in special cases, came after numerous attacks on livestock in the Vinschgau Valley.

An event that has led to protests and appeals by animal rights activists, who claim that the criteria for culling laid down by European regulations have not been respected. "There are obvious criticalities and serious and unacceptable contradictions in the Province's ordinance and in Ispra's favourable opinion itself," reads a "We are not interested in massacres, but we would like the problematic specimens, those that come too close to the houses, to be eliminated," insists Perin, who together with many farmers in the region supports increased culling. "We only ask to be able to work in peace again.

On the one hand, the spread of wolves causes major problems for many farms, but it can also result in unexpected economic benefits. "In Tuscany we estimate that wolves affect about 35,000 ungulates a year. This means less damage to valuable crops and also a saving of public money on compensation," explains Duccio Berzi, consultant to the wolf task force for the region of Tuscany.

In addition to the environmental benefits, the technician also points out a major new problem: the increasing presence of wolves in areas close to built-up areas. In these contexts there is a danger that some specimens, attracted by rubbish or pets, will lose their natural mistrust of humans and penetrate as far as private gardens and residential areas. "There, fences are not enough: different policies are needed, including management of prey species and waste, cleaning of green areas and, in certain cases, direct action on the animals. It is complex, but necessary to prevent more serious problems'.

According to Berzi, the downgrading of protection status may help to intervene in a more linear and rapid manner: 'The instruments available today are slow, complicated and always susceptible to appeal, transposing the European directive could increase clarity and operativeness'. The reference is above all to contexts in which the damage is significant or the population is not yet ready to coexist and the presence of wolves creates major inconveniences, such as the killing of pets.

Luigi Boitani, Professor of Zoology at Rome's La Sapienza University and one of the leading experts on the subject, takes a different view, expressing his opposition to the downgrading: 'It is not a bad measure per se, but the reasons presented are not reasonable. First of all, the cattle that are preyed upon are a very low percentage; secondly, Commission President von der Leyen spoke of a danger to humans, but the data say otherwise: attacks on people are very rare and in no case lethal'.

When discussing the danger to humans, the issue of the wolf is often superimposed on that of the bear, especially in areas such as Trentino, where the issue of large carnivores is particularly keenly felt. 'In reality, these are two separate issues,' Boitani explains, 'The bear is potentially dangerous to humans, the wolf is not. Moreover, the bear does more damage to poultry farms, which can easily be avoided with proper electrification. Confusing the two plans does not help'.

According to the zoologist, in the case of wolves, the culling of a few specimens is not an effective strategy and can only be useful if a problematic individual is identified, which requires complex research work for which expertise and resources are often lacking. "I am not against culling in absolute terms, but in the case of the last decision taken in South Tyrol the conditions were not right.

In short, the return of the wolf is a slow process that began in the 1970s, but the debate on its presence is recent and very divisive. Between those who extol the ecological benefits and those who denounce the damage to activities, compromise seems far away. For experts, however, the only way remains coexistence, which recognises both the wolf's right to live and the difficulties of those working on the land.

'The solution lies in the middle way: prevention, adequate compensation, targeted culling only when needed,' says Boitani, who insists on the importance of dialogue and collaboration without ideological closures. 'There is a need for round tables between all the players: farmers, citizens, institutions, environmentalists. It is not a utopia, it has already been done in several European countries. In Italy the parks that work, such as the Casentino park, prove that it is possible to live with the wolf'.