Currently, the following six subspecies of the Eurasian Lynx are proposed (von Arx et al. 2004, Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, Kitchener et al. 2017):

• Northern Lynx L. l. lynx: northern Europe and western Siberia (Scandinavia, Finland, Belarus, Baltic states, European part of Russia, Ural, Siberia east to the Yenisei River).
• Carpathian Lynx L. l. carpathicus: Carpathian Mountains.
• Balkan Lynx L. l. balcanicus: Balkans (Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo).
• Caucasus Lynx L. l. dinniki: Caucasus Mountains south to Türkiye, Iraq and Iran, formerly also in the Kopet-Dag, Turkmenistan.
• Turkestan Lynx L. l. isabellinus: Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan).
• Siberian Lynx L. l. wrangeli: Siberia east of the Yenisei River (Russia).

Three further subspecies have been described that need further investigation and clarification:

• Altai Lynx L. l. wardi: Altai Mountains (Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia).
• Baikal Lynx L. l. kozlovi: Central Siberia, from the Yenisei River to Lake Baikal.
• Amur Lynx L. l. stroganovi: Russian Far East, Ussuri and Amur territories, North Korea, northeastern China (Manchuria).

European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)

The Eurasian Lynx is abundant in the northern and eastern parts of its range In Europe. There are 8,000-9,000 individuals present in Europe (including Ukraine but excluding Russia and Belarus; LCIE 2018, Chapron et al. 2014) and this number has been stable since the last regional assessment in 2007. Including numbers from Russia west of the Ural Mountains according to the last global Red List assessment (Breitenmoser et al. 2015), the European population can be estimated to be 17,000–18,000 lynx with an overall stable population trend, and hence the species is classified as Least Concern at the European level.

The number of lynx within the EU Member States remains small. With an estimated total of 7,000-8,000 individuals, the EU population is below the population size threshold for Vulnerable under Criterion C (10,000 mature individuals), but does currently not meet the subcriteria regarding the extent of the decline or population structure. However, some of the larger subpopulations (eleven subpopulations are distinguished in Europe, see below) have shown declining trends in the past decade and if this trend persists, the lynx numbers and declines within the EU could meet Vulnerable under Criterion C1 in the near future. Consequently, it is assessed as Near Threatened (C1) at the EU level.

Continued and coordinated conservation measures are required to ensure the recovery of the species. This is particularly true for the Critically Endangered Balkan Lynx subspecies, but also for the reintroduced populations in Western and Central Europe (Alpine, Vosges-Palatinian, Jura, Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian, Dinaric, Harz) which are still small and are classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered. Additionally, the recent negative trends in some of the larger autochthonous subpopulations (Scandinavian and Baltic) have to be reversed.

The lynx status estimates available from the range countries are mainly on total population size (number of lynx individuals) or number of independent individuals (adults and subadults, based on capture-recapture estimates by means of camera trap surveys extrapolated to the distribution area of the subpopulation). The number of mature individuals is however slightly lower which was taken into account when assessing the category. Subpopulations are assessed on the European, not the EU level.

1. Jura
Endangered (D). Lynx numbers in the Jura Mts. have increased to c.140 independent individuals and the range has expanded. It however still qualifies as Endangered under Criterion D because the subpopulation size is below 250 mature individuals. In recent years, a few male lynx from the Jura Mts. have dispersed to neighbouring regions (e.g. the Black Forest in Germany). However, there is too limited immigration of lynx from neighbouring subpopulations, e.g. the Alps, into the Jura subpopulation to provide a sufficient demographic rescue effect. Therefore, the Red List category is not adjusted for connectivity.

2. Vosges-Palatinian
Critically Endangered (C1, D). The Vosges-Palatinian subpopulation is on the verge of extinction. Numbers had dropped from 30-40 lynx in 2005 to one to three ten years later which is a reduction of 91% (CR Criterion C1 (25% reduction in four years) in addition to Criterion D for the very small population size). Consequently, in the frame of the EU LIFE project "Reintroduction of lynx in the biosphere reserve Palatinian Forest" 20 lynx were released from 2016 on into the Palatinian Forest in Germany. However, as the reintroduction was only completed in 2020 and there was a continuing decline throughout the years before, Critically Endangered under Criteria C and D is still considered valid. There is so far too limited immigration from the Jura Mts. to provide a demographic rescue effect.

3. Alpine
Endangered (D). The subpopulation has slightly increased to c. 163 independent individuals, which is however still small and the subpopulation remains Endangered. In addition, the increase was partly due to the foundation of stepping stones through translocations of lynx. So far the subpopulation is not receiving any relevant immigration from neighbouring subpopulations which are all also small and have conservation problems themselves (e.g. Dinaric subpopulation). The Alpine subpopulation itself is fragmented into four smaller occurrences in the Western and Eastern Alps. Consequently, the Red List category is not adjusted for connectivity.

4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
Critically Endangered (D). The distribution of the Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian subpopulation has stagnated since the late 1990s (Magg et al. 2016). The subpopulation has decreased from an estimated 75 individuals in 2005 to c. 50 individuals in 2006-2011. In the past few years, it has slightly recovered to 60-80 independent individuals in 2015 and numbers seem to stabilize. It is just around the threshold of 50 mature individuals for Endangered under Criterion D. Considering the previous long-term negative trend and that limiting factors have not yet been reversed (Magg et al. 2016) suggests a precautionary approach and classification as Critically Endangered. Neighbouring lynx subpopulations are small and threatened, and there are barriers to dispersal, consequently, no rescue effect from them can be expected and the Red List category is not adjusted.

5. Dinaric
Endangered (D). The overall subpopulation size has been rather stable in the past decade at around 130 individuals, however, it has decreased in the northern part of its range. Besides a high level of human-caused mortality (Sindicic et al. 2016), problems of inbreeding have been noticed due to the very few founder individuals released in 1973 (Sindicic et al. 2013). The subpopulation is isolated and no rescue effect can be expected. It is assessed as Endangered under Criterion D. Efforts have been made to reinforce the subpopulation with lynx from the Carpathians in the frame of the EU LIFE project “Preventing the Extinction of the Dinaric-SE Alpine lynx Population Through Reinforcement and Long-term Conservation“).

6. Carpathian
Least Concern. The Carpathians host one of the largest continuous lynx subpopulations in Europe. The overall number is about 2,100-2,400. Overall, it appears to be rather stable, although in certain regions numbers have decreased, either reflecting a real trend (e.g. Ukraine and Bulgaria) or due to better monitoring systems in place which proved that previous numbers were overestimated (e.g. Slovakia, Kubala et al. 2017). When considering the number of mature individuals, the threshold for Near Threatened under Criterion D is almost met. A careful monitoring of the situation (which requires the implementation of better monitoring systems in many of the range countries) and a re-assessment within a few years are recommended.

7. Scandinavian
Vulnerable (C1). The Scandinavian subpopulation has a large range (area of occupancy over 450,000 km²) but has further declined in numbers in the past decade. It is now estimated at c. 1,300-1,800 individuals compared to c. 1,800-2,300 in 2011 and c. 2,000 in 2001. The drastic decline, which is at least in part due to a management goal designed to reduce conflicts related to sheep and semi-domestic reindeer depredation, would qualify for classifying the subpopulation as Endangered under Criterion C1 (less than 2,500 mature individuals and a 20% decline over two generations). However, in 2015 and 2016, the decline was halted. There is some connectivity with the Karelian subpopulation (Finland and Russia) and single individuals are likely to disperse. The category is therefore adjusted to Vulnerable. The extent of this connectivity and the phylogeny of these two subpopulations, however, need some further investigation. A careful monitoring of the situation, a continued adaptive adjustment of hunting quotas and derogations, and a status re-assessment within a few years, are recommended.

8. Karelian
Least Concern. The numbers in Finland have further increased and are estimated at c. 2,500 individuals (compared to 1,100 animals in 2004). Although there is no up-to-date information from Russian Karelia, the number of lynx is also thought to be stable there. It is furthermore connected with the large neighbouring subpopulation in Russia from which a potential rescue effect is to be expected. Therefore, the Karelian subpopulation is assessed as Least Concern.

9. Baltic
Least Concern. The subpopulation consists of around 1,200-1,500 individuals, without considering Russia and Belarus for which no current information is available. Although there was a slight decrease – particularly in Estonia (probably due to the effect of prey declines following snow-rich winters) – this subpopulation is connected both to the Karelian and the larger Russian subpopulations from which a potential rescue effect can be expected. It is therefore assessed as Least Concern. Developments in the Baltic States and Poland, however, need to be carefully surveyed as the distribution area in this part of the range is still fragmented. A further reduction in Estonia has to be prevented.

10. Balkan
Critically Endangered (D). This subpopulation consists of only 20-39 mature individuals and has been assessed as Critically Endangered in 2015 (Melovski et al. 2015). The number and distribution has not changed since, and the population is isolated. Therefore, Critically Endangered under Criterion D is still valid.

11. Harz
Critically Endangered (D). This subpopulation has been newly founded through re-introduction of lynx into the Harz Mountains in Germany. Between 2000 and 2006, 24 lynx were reintroduced into the Harz National Park in Lower Saxony. Since 2002, reproduction is regularly recorded (https://www.luchsprojekt-harz.de/luchsprojekt/de/start/). It is currently estimated at 46 independent individuals, is isolated, and qualifies for Critically Endangered under Criterion D (below 50 mature individuals).

The Eurasian Lynx has a very broad distribution. It occurs along forested mountain ranges in southeastern and Central Europe and from northern and eastern Europe through the boreal forests of Russia, down into Central Asia and the Tibetan plateau (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). The present area of occupancy in Europe west of Russia is estimated to be 926,500 km². In Europe, it was probably always absent from some larger islands such as Ireland and Sicily and from countries with few forests. It was also absent from the Iberian Peninsula, where the smaller Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus) occurs. From this extensive distribution, lynx were exterminated from most of western and central Europe. Causes for the reduction were likely the transition of forest into agricultural lands, the replacement of wild through domestic ungulates and the severe persecution of large carnivores as pests (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten submitted). Larger subpopulations persisted in Scandinavia, the Carpathians and the Baltics but numbers were heavily reduced, and in European Russia. It also survived in a small area in the southeastern Balkan (North Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro). Human activities reduced the lynx to its minimum numbers in the 1950s. In recent decades, many subpopulations have recovered (Chapron et al. 2014). Lynx were reintroduced in the 1970s and 1980s in several areas of western and central Europe, including in Switzerland, Slovenia, Czechia, Austria, Germany, and France.

See the Supplementary Information for a map of this species' distribution.

Lynx occurring in Europe are viewed as belonging to eleven distinct subpopulations (von Arx et al. 2004, Linnell et al. 2008):

1. Jura
This subpopulation stretches across the Jura Mountains from central-eastern France north of the Rhone to western Switzerland between Geneva and Basel. Based on reintroductions in Switzerland in 1974/75, lynx have now colonised almost the entire mountain range.

2. Vosges-Palatinian
Founded through re-introductions in the French Vosges Mountains in the 1980s, the established subpopulation expanded to the German Palatinian Forest. It started declining in the 1990s and was on the verge of extinction in 2015. Reintroduction of lynx in the Palatinian Forest between 2016 and 2020 has prevented this.

3. Alpine
Originates from re-introduction projects in the 1970s in Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia. In the 1990s the subpopulation was fragmented into two occurrences, nowadays, four occurrences are identified (Molinari et al. 2018): (1) The area occupied by lynx in the north-western Alps (Switzerland, France which has increased, (2) a new occurrence founded in north-eastern Switzerland with the translocation of 12 lynx between 2001 and 2008, (3) a new occurrence established through the release of five lynx, from 2011 to 2017, in the north-eastern Alps (Kalkalpen Austria) and (4) the south-eastern Alpine occurrence (Italy, Slovenia) which has however decreased continuously since 2000.

4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
The subpopulation occurs in the triangle of the three range countries: in southwestern Czechia (Šumava Mts., SE-part of the Český les Mts. = Oberpfälzerwald, the Šumava foothills, Blanský les, Novohradské Mts.; Kutal et al. 2017), southeastern Germany (Bayerischer and Oberpfälzer Forest, Fichtelgebirge, Frankenwald), and northern Austria (Böhmerwald, Mühlviertel, Waldviertel).

5. Dinaric
The Dinaric subpopulation is distributed from central-southern Slovenia through central Croatia (Gorski Kotar and Lika) to western Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6. Carpathian
The distribution area covers at present almost the entire mountain chain of the Carpathians. The stronghold of the subpopulation is in Romania and Slovakia, followed by Poland. The distribution in the Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria is scattered. Distribution and numbers may be overestimated as no robust monitoring system exists in many of the range countries.

7. Scandinavian
Lynx occur throughout most of Norway and Sweden with the exception of southwest Norway.

8. Karelian
The subpopulation stretches from the Russian Republic of Karelia across to Finland where it is however only permanently present in the south to the centre of the country. The occasional presence in northern Finland is contiguous with the presence of lynx in Murmanskaya Oblast, although they do not appear to be as abundant here as in Karelia (Bragina et al. 2015). There appears to be a potential connection with the Scandinavian subpopulation.

9. Baltic
This subpopulation in north-eastern Europe is distributed from eastern Poland through Belarus, northern Ukraine to the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). It also occurs in Kaliningrad Oblast and towards the east it extends to western Russia. The distribution of the subpopulation is highly fragmented in the southwestern part of its range.

10. Balkan
The Balkan Lynx is distributed in the southwest Balkans, mainly in the border area between Albania and North Macedonia. Mavrovo National Park in North Macedonia is the stronghold of the population. The Munella Mts. and Polis-Gur i Zi-Valamara region in Albania host smaller occurrences. Two different individuals were pictured in Bjeshkët e Nemuna, western Kosovo, not far from the border with Montenegro. From time to time there are single, unconfirmed observations in northern Greece.

11. Harz
Lynx were reintroduced into the Harz National Park in Lower Saxony from 2000–2006. They have settled the entire Harz Mountains and surrounding areas.

Distribution and subpopulation data are incomplete/not available for European Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

In the first half of the 20^th century, the lynx distribution was restricted to small remnant subpopulations in Scandinavia, the Carpathians, and southwestern Balkans, some isolated patches in northeastern continental Europe and to the extensive boreal forests of Russia. The population minimum occurred in the late 19th century up to World War II. Afterwards, due to protective legislation and increasing prey populations, the autochthonous subpopulations (Scandinavian, Baltic and Carpathian) started to recover. In west and central Europe, the lynx was completely eradicated. Reintroduction projects since the early 1970s created several small and still mostly isolated subpopulations (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, KORA Foundation 2022).

Eleven subpopulations are identified across Europe. The total number of lynx in Europe is estimated at 8,000-9,000 individuals (including Ukraine, excluding Russia and Belarus) and 17,000-18,000 individuals including European Russia. However, Kolesnikov et al. (2020) state the number of lynx west of the Urals as 12,000 according to official data. Within the EU region, the total number of lynx is estimated to be 7,000 – 8,000 individuals.

The largest subpopulations in Europe are the autochthonous ones in the north and east which have around 1,500-2,500 individuals each: Scandinavian (~1,300‐1,800), Karelian (Finish part ~2,500), Baltic (~1,200-1,500), Carpathian (~2,100-2,400). All the re‐introduced subpopulations are still of small size. The current subpopulation sizes are as follows: Alpine 140‐170, Bohemian‐Bavarian-Austrian 60-80, Dinaric ~140, Jura ~140, Vosges‐Palatinian a few individuals, Harz 46 individuals. The subpopulation of greatest conservation concern is the fifth autochthonous one, the Balkan Lynx subpopulation, which numbers only 20-39 mature individuals and was listed as Critically Endangered (CR) in 2015 (Melovski et al. 2015).

Most subpopulations have generally been stable in the past few years. Exceptions are the Scandinavian and Baltic subpopulations which have decreased and the Vosges-Palatinian subpopulation which has almost vanished.

Information on the status, distribution and developments of the European subpopulations over time are compiled in Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten (1990), Breitenmoser et al. (2000), von Arx et al. (2004), Linnell et al. (2008), Kasczensky et al. (2013), Chapron et al. (2014) and LCIE (2018).

Throughout Europe and Siberia, the Eurasian Lynx is primarily associated with forested areas which have good ungulate populations and which provide enough cover for hunting. It inhabits extensive, temperate and boreal forests from the Atlantic in Western Europe to the Pacific coast in the Russian Far East (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In Europe, it can be found in Mediterranean forests up to the transition zone of taiga to tundra and lives from sea level up to the tree line (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In the far north of Scandinavia, lynx can also make extensive use of open alpine tundra habitats. In other regions, the Eurasian Lynx can also adapt to more open habitats and cultivated landscapes if anthropogenic losses are not too strong and human disturbance not too high.

The Eurasian Lynx is the largest species in the Lynx genus, and the only one to primarily depend on ungulate prey, although they rely on smaller species where ungulates are less abundant. Lynx kill ungulates ranging in size from the 15 kg musk deer to 220 kg adult male Red Deer, but show a preference for the smaller ungulate species, such as Roe Deer and Chamois, which in many regions of Europe are their main prey. Occasionally, lynx also hunt foxes, hares, Marmots, Wild Boar, beavers, birds, Red Squirrels, shrews or domestic animals such as sheep and goats, or, in Scandinavia, semi-domestic reindeer (Odden et al. 2013, Mattisson et al. 2014). In the northern parts of European Russia and western Siberia, where Roe Deer are absent, Mountain Hares and tetraonids form the basic prey base (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, Matyushkin and Vaisfeld 2003). Eurasian Lynx are predominantly crepuscular but can be active at any time of the day (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). They are ambush predators and hunt mainly at dusk and during the first half of the night. Kills that provide several meals are covered by lynx often with vegetation or snow to protect them against scavengers.

Lynx populations expand quite slowly. Expansion generally occurs along the edges of a resident lynx population (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten submitted). The colonisation of new areas can already be slowed down or stopped by moderate additional human-made mortality. Female lynx are mainly philopatric. Male lynx can disperse considerable distances in their second year and can cross unsuitable habitats (e.g. altitudes above the timberline in the Alps or large rivers; Haller 2009, Herdtfelder et al. 2021).

The territorial social system of the Eurasian Lynx is maintained mainly through scent marking (Vogt et al. 2014). Home range size varies widely from 100 to over 2,000 km² (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, Linnell et al. 2021) depending on habitat quality, prey density and social pressure (Herfindal et al. 2005, Aronsson et al. 2016). Home ranges averaged 248 km² for males (n = 5) and 133 km² for females (n = 5) in a radio telemetry study in Poland’s Bialowieza forest (Schmidt et al. 1997). Average home range sizes in Switzerland were 90 km² for females and 150 km² for male lynx (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In contrast, home range sizes are almost an order of magnitude larger in northern Scandinavia. In Norway, the average home range size of males was 2,605 km² and 1,456 km² for females (Linnell et al. 2021). Male home ranges generally enclose one or two female home ranges. Densities are typically one to three adults per 100 km², although higher densities of up to 5/100 km² have been reported from Eastern Europe and parts of Russia and lower densities of 0.3/100 km² from Scandinavia (Jedrzejewski et al. 1996, Schmidt et al. 2011, Sunde et al. 2000).

The major threats to lynx in Europe are low acceptance among some stakeholder groups due to conflict with hunters and in northern Europe also with livestock farmers and semi-domestic reindeer herders that can result in illegal killing and political pressure for more legal killing, loss and fragmentation of habitat mainly due to infrastructure development, poor wildlife management structures and poor law enforcement, as well as accidental mortality.

Depredation on domestic animals by Eurasian Lynx is a minor problem in most range-countries, however such depredation has caused conflicts and management problems in some range countries such as Switzerland (Angst et al. 2000), France (Drouet-Hoguet et al. 2021), Sweden and Norway. Illegal killing is a limiting factor to the increase and expansion or a threat to the establishment of reintroduced subpopulations in some regions such as the Swiss Alps and the Bohemian-Bavarian Forest (Arlettaz et al. 2021, Heurich et al. 2018).

There are also concerns in regard to the low genetic diversity and small population sizes shown in some of the subpopulations. Besides the autochthonous Balkan Lynx subpopulation this particularly concerns all the reintroduced subpopulations which have – compared to the Carpathian source population – a considerably reduced heterozygosity and a high number of lost alleles as a consequence of genetic drift (Breitenmoser et al. 2011, Breitenmoser-Würsten and Obexer-Ruff unpubl.). Reduced heterozygosity is more pronounced in the Alpine (Breitenmoser-Würsten and Obexer-Ruff unpubl., Breitenmoser-Würsten and Obexer-Ruff 2003), Dinaric (Sindicic et al. 2013), Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian and Vosges-Palatinian subpopulations (Bull et al. 2016) while the Jura subpopulation is doing better. Inbreeding and inbreeding depression are, therefore, potential threats to all the reintroduced, small subpopulations.

Additional threats to the European subpopulations as assessed by the contributors are detailed below:

1. Jura
Traffic accidents, illegal killing, conflicts with hunters and lack of conflict mitigation.

2. Vosges-Palatinian
Illegal killing due to conflicts with hunters and fragmentation used to be the major threats. Currently, the small population size is of big concern.

3. Alpine
Threats include illegal killing, infrastructure development (especially road construction), vehicle and train collisions, and limited dispersal. An emerging threat for the Alpine population is the narrow genetic base: all the relatively few founder animals came from the same region and some of them were probably closely related. Genetic analysis indicates that the Alpine population has the lowest level of heterozygosity of all reintroduced lynx populations.

4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
Illegal killing, conflicts with hunters, and poor enforcement of legislation are the most relevant threats. Illegal killing is considered the most likely cause for the limited distribution (Magg et al. 2016).

5. Dinaric
Poor enforcement of legislation (illegal killing), traffic mortalities and prey/food base depletion are major threats to the Dinaric population. An emerging additional threat is inbreeding depression as the population displays a considerable level of inbreeding (Sindicic et al. 2013).

6. Carpathian
Poor integration of science into decision-making, traffic mortalities, conflicts with hunters, and lack of knowledge about species numbers and trends (lack of robust monitoring systems) are considered the most prominent threats.

7. Scandinavian
The main threats are legal hunting and illegal killing, both motivated by conflicts with livestock (semi-domestic reindeer, free-ranging sheep, Mattisson et al. 2014) and conflicts with hunters (Andrén et al. 2011).

8. Karelian
Potential threats are legal hunting/culling, conflicts with hunters, and lack of capacity and funding in management authorities.

9. Baltic
Roads and railroads, poor dialogue with stakeholders, prey/food base, lack of knowledge about species numbers and trends, and lack of capacity and funding in management structures were considered the most important threats.

10. Balkan
Poor enforcement of legislation, lack of capacity and funding in management structures, poor integration of science into decision-making, corruption, illegal killing and poorly regulated large-scale forestry all pose a major threat to the Balkan Lynx.

11. Harz
Road fatalities and diseases are the most relevant mortality factors of the released lynx so far (Anders 2016).

The species is sometimes hunted for recreation and to regulate population size. In some countries, the species is also important for the skin market and the pelt industry.

It is included on CITES Appendix II and listed in the Bern Convention (Appendix III with the exception of the Balkan Lynx Lynx lynx balcanicus which is listed in Appendix II) and the EU Habitats Directive (Annexes II and IV, except for Estonia where it is Annex V and with an exception from Annex II, and Finland and Latvia where it also has an exception from Annex II). The lynx is protected and hunting is prohibited in Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine. In Sweden, Finland and Romania the Eurasian Lynx is protected but a limited number of lynx can be killed under Derogation. In Estonia and Norway, the Eurasian Lynx is listed as a game species with an open hunting season and in Latvia, lynx are exploited to a limited extent under derogation (Kaczensky et al. 2013). In the European part of Russia, the Eurasian Lynx is hunted/trapped in places where it is abundant as in some areas of the Central region and the Volga region, and in most areas of the northwestern region. Hunting is not allowed in the Northern Caucasus and in the southern region (Bersenev et al. 2011).

In several European range states, prevention measures to reduce livestock depredation are in place and awareness has increased (Kaczensky et al. 2013). Besides compensation and improved livestock protection, management responses to lynx depredation on domestic animals also include lynx removal. In several European countries, lynx hunting is thus part of the conflict management system. More human-dimension studies on the Eurasian Lynx are needed to research more in detail the factors affecting the (lack of) tolerance to lynx (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten submitt.), particularly by hunters.

The protected areas in Europe are too small to host viable lynx populations (Chapron et al. 2014, Belotti et al. 2015), and hence in the multi-use landscapes coexistence with humans is needed. Two pan-European conservation strategies to guide lynx conservation are available, the first commissioned by the Bern Convention (Breitenmoser et al. 2000), the second by the EU Commission (Boitani et al. 2015). Together with the Guidelines on Transboundary Management of Large Carnivore Populations in Europe (Linnell et al. 2008), these documents aim at facilitating the development of regional or international conservation action plans (see list in Kaczensky et al. 2013; most plans are available on www.lcie.org).

Since 2006, a programme for the recovery of the Balkan Lynx has been implemented aiming to secure the survival and recovery of this Critically Endangered subspecies. However, until now no population recovery has been detected. It remains unclear if this is because wildlife conservation is of low priority in the Balkan range countries of the lynx or if the very small subpopulation suffers from intrinsic problems or a combination of both (Melovski et al. 2021).

There is a need for improved surveys and monitoring activities in many parts of the Carpathian and Baltic subpopulations. A transboundary monitoring scheme would facilitate the implementation of targeted conservation actions (Schmidt et al. 2021). The small and isolated European Lynx subpopulations in western and central Europe need genetic improvement through the translocation of individuals from the source population (Carpathian) and improved connectivity between the subpopulations to allow gene flow and prevent inbreeding depression. There is a need for range-wide coordination of conservation actions (Kubala et al. 2021). Building and maintaining a viable Lynx metapopulation across West and Central Europe will require well-informed international cooperation between scientists, authorities and conservation practitioners across the designated range, following a common strategy as outlined by the Bonn Lynx Expert Group (2021). The Bonn Lynx Expert Group (2021) outlined the long-term goal of one large natural and managed metapopulation of the Carpathian Lynx across its original distribution range and in the designated mountain ranges in West and Central Europe. To reach this goal it is needed to maintain the autochthonous and reintroduced subpopulations, to connect subpopulations through the formation of regional metapopulations, to foster the expansion and connectivity of the subpopulations through further reintroductions and to conduct stepping-stone releases (Molinari et al. 2021, Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten submitt.). In regard to future translocations, a challenge is the sourcing of animals with regard to the conservation and genetic status of the various subpopulations. All reintroduced subpopulations have a reduced genetic diversity and at least some are inbred. Restoration of genetic variability is needed (Bonn Lynx Expert Group 2021). As the availability of suitable individuals from the autochthonous or reintroduced subpopulations might be limited for genetic, health or simply organisational reasons, the use of lynx from a special ex situ breeding programme is intended (Lengger et al. 2021).

Further recommendations on general and population-specific measures for the European subpopulations are compiled in Boitani et al. (2015).