The issue of the large bear population in Romania and the increasing number of related incidents was a subject put on the agenda by Romania (jointly with Slovakia) at the latest EU Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers.
At the June EU Agri-Fish Council, the Romanian interim Minister of Agriculture requested the attention of his EU colleagues to the management of the large and growing bear population in Romania (and Slovakia).
Therefore, Romania called for the initiation of a European process to assess greater flexibility in the protection and management framework applicable to brown bear populations that have achieved and maintained a favourable long-term conservation status, as is the case in Romania and Slovakia.
This comes after a worrisome increase in the number and frequency of bear-related incidents.
Brown bears: from biodiversity pride to socio-economic burden
The issue of the large bear population in Romania and the increasing number of related incidents was a subject put on the agenda by Romania (jointly with Slovakia) at the latest EU Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers.
At the June EU Agri-Fish Council, the Romanian interim Minister of Agriculture requested the attention of his EU colleagues to the management of the large and growing bear population in Romania (and Slovakia).
Therefore, Romania called for the initiation of a European process to assess greater flexibility in the protection and management framework applicable to brown bear populations that have achieved and maintained a favourable long-term conservation status, as is the case in Romania and Slovakia.
This comes after a worrisome increase in the number and frequency of bear-related incidents.
Too many bears?
In terms of biodiversity, Romania scores high on the European map. However, when it comes to the brown bear population, recent figures seem to show an imbalance: although more than half of Europe's entire bear population is located in Romania and Slovakia, the countries' forests account for only 5.5% of the continent's total forest area, according to the document presented by the Romanian Minister of Agriculture.
The bear population is officially estimated at approximately 11,500 individuals in Romania and at least 2,500 individuals in Slovakia. The species has a favourable conservation status, while the optimum population level from both an ecological and public-safety perspective for Romania's approximately 70,000 km² of suitable habitat is around 4,000 individuals. In Slovakia, the same figure amounts to 800 individuals. The current population therefore exceeds these levels by almost threefold.
Increasing number of bear attacks: social and economic consequences
Over the past five years, bear attacks in Romania have resulted in 14 deaths (an average of two to three deaths per year) and more than 150 people being seriously injured, while the cumulative number of emergency calls reporting the presence of bears or bear attacks has exceeded 30,000. Official data show that half of the 27 deaths reported over the past two decades occurred during this recent period. More than 274 people have survived bear attacks with serious long-term injuries.
Many of the incidents are the result of tourists’ recklessness, as they try to feed and take pictures with wildlife. However, local communities and economic sectors such as agriculture and tourism have growing concerns about the bear situation, which seems to be getting out of control.
Effects on agriculture
The agricultural sector has been affected economically due to both livestock losses and farmers being unable to carry out their activities under normal conditions in areas affected by bears. In Romania, between 2024 and 2026 alone, 1,806 domestic animals, including horses, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, were killed by large carnivores, particularly bears. Farmers in the crop-production sector also suffer significant material losses due to bear damage to arable crops, orchards and vineyards.
The additional expenditure incurred by farmers to implement protective measures aimed at reducing damage cannot be overlooked. Such measures include electric fences, monitoring systems, protective equipment, additional labour and guard dogs. Farmers also face indirect costs, including adapting crops, technologies and agricultural activities, as well as additional administrative costs.
Arguments for relaxing the protection status
A recent article on spotmedia.ro dives into the pros and cons of removing bears from the List of Strictly Protected Species.
The first argument is the protection of human life. Supporters of the change say that, in some areas, bears venture into towns too often, attack people, enter homes, and create a constant state of danger.
The second argument relates to local communities. In mountain villages, people have been complaining for years that they are left to deal with the problem on their own. For them, the discussion about conservation seems abstract when bears enter their yards, destroy crops, kill livestock, or appear on the streets.
The third argument is the need for faster intervention. Local authorities often say that procedures are cumbersome, and the status of a strictly protected species limits the state’s ability to quickly remove dangerous individuals.
The fourth argument is the European precedent set by the wolf. The European Union changed the wolf’s protection status from “strictly protected” to “protected,” which gives Member States more flexibility in managing wolf populations while requiring them to maintain a favourable conservation status.
For the Minister of Agriculture, this precedent should also be applied to the brown bear, especially since in Romania the issue is not only an agricultural one but also a matter of public safety.
Arguments against relaxing the protection status
Environmental organizations, however, reject the idea that changing the brown bear’s protection status would resolve conflicts between humans and animals.
Agent Green NGO, for example, reacted strongly and argues that the Minister’s intention makes no sense. “Romania’s problem is not that the law protects bears too much. Romania’s problem is that the state has protected both people and bears too little,” says Agent Green.
The organization points out that the real solutions lie in waste management, protecting farms, electric fences, rapid response, education, and identifying truly problematic bears. In other words, the problem is not the bear’s legal status but the lack of administrative measures that would reduce conflicts.
WWF Romania takes a similar stance. The organization warns that any intervention involving a strictly protected species must be justified on a case-by-case basis, demonstrate that there are no satisfactory alternatives, and not adversely affect the species’ conservation status. WWF argues that setting general quotas without local assessment and without transparent scientific data risks turning a safety measure into a form of game management.
Environmental organizations also point out that reducing the bear population does not automatically lead to a reduction in incidents. Conflicts are fuelled by bears’ access to trash and other human-generated food sources, the intentional or accidental feeding of the animals, uncontrolled tourism development, habitat fragmentation, and a lack of education.
Less protection or more regulation?
Supporters of the change say that Romania needs stronger tools to protect people. Critics say that these tools already exist but are not being applied correctly, and that relaxing protection could lead to more bears being shot without resolving the root causes of the conflict.
The debate is not, in fact, just about bears. It is about the ability to manage a complex conflict involving people, local communities, agriculture, tourism, infrastructure, and nature, and about how to reduce human-wildlife conflict while maintaining acceptable levels of social and economic risk.
More information
For more information, you can reach out to the Netherlands Agricultural Network in Romania via: bkr-lvvn@minbuza.nl