European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

Following the population bottleneck of the 1960s and 1970s, the European Grey Wolf population is generally increasing in number and expanding its distribution range. Based on the best available data, in 2022, the total number of wolves in the 27 EU Member States is likely to be in the order of 19,000, and the number of wolves in the European assessment region (excluding Belarus and European Russia) is likely to exceed 21,500, a significant increase over the last five years (Boitani et al. 2022). Consequently, the species qualifies as Least Concern at both the European and EU 27 regional levels. The quantity and quality of data on population size and structure varies greatly between European countries: see the IUCN Red List assessment (Boitani et al. 2018) for a description of the nine main European populations (sensu Linnell et al. 2008) and for an explanation of the methods used to obtain the numbers for each population.

1. Iberian
Near Threatened. The Iberian population is large, about 2,500 individuals (2024-2990), and rather stable, slowly expanding towards the south and east. Although recently (2021) declared nationally protected in Spain, it is maintained in the Near Threatened category because of fragmentation in management regimes, lack of a population-level management plan, the occurrence of largely unpredictable events of human persecution (poisoning, shooting, etc.) that may threaten the population at the local level and the near-isolation of some of its southern population segments.

2. Western-Central Alps
Near Threatened. The Alpine population was founded based on a recent expansion of the Italian peninsula wolf population and has grown rapidly and steadily (10-20% /year) in each country of the Alpine arch. Accurate estimates from each country cannot be simply added up to estimate the population because an unknown % of wolves are shared among countries and the effect of running independent capture-recapture estimates could significantly inflate double counts. This concern is especially serious for the Italian-French part of the population. The total number of about 1,900 individuals should be considered as indicative. Dispersion over a large range, fragmentation among several countries, and the first signs of hybridisation (northeast in the western Alps of Italy and France, and eastern Alps of Italy) justify its assessment in the category Near Threatened.

3. Italian peninsula
Near Threatened. The Italian peninsula wolf population is estimated to number 2,020-2,645 individuals. The shape of the range is narrow and elongated, mainly restricted to the Apennines Mountains. In spite of the recent increase in numbers and range, the Italian peninsula wolf population is locally vulnerable to local extermination from human pressures (poisoning, shooting) and the locally high prevalence of wolf-dog hybridisation. The stochastic nature of these events suggests that the current positive status of the population may easily be reversed.

4. Dinaric-Balkan
Least Concern. This wolf population does not qualify for any Threatened categories because of its large size (c. 5,000-5,500 individuals) and wide distribution. However, several parts of the range may be subject to excessive pressure from lethal control and poorly regulated hunting. In many countries the data quality is poor, and management plans are poorly developed or absent. Moreover, there are also very different management regimes amongst countries, lack of any compensation system in many of them (e.g. Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, North Macedonia), lack of robust population monitoring in some of the countries (uncertainties on population estimates and trends), widespread poaching even in protected populations and probably excessive wolf hybridisation with dogs. It is worth noting that all cases of decreasing wolf population in Europe are from this population. There is an acute need for better data from throughout the southern part of this population.

5. Carpathian
Least Concern. This large wolf population (c. 3,900-4,700 individuals) appears to be maintaining its conservation status mainly due to the management implemented in Romania, Poland and the Slovak Republic. Some of the peripheral areas of the range may be subject to excessive hunting and poaching pressure (e.g. Hungary, Bulgaria) and may require appropriate conservation measures to limit mortality. In Poland and Czechia, wolves are fully protected while quotas for wolf hunting have decreased substantially in Slovakia. There is no common management plan at the population level and completely different management regimes are implemented in neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Poland, Slovak Republic, Hungary and Czechia).

6. Baltic
Least Concern. The relatively large (and increasing) number of wolves (c. 2,190–2,790) in the EU member states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) and the natural continuity of its range into the Russian Federation and Belarus support its assessment in the category of Least Concern. A large part of the population is fully protected in eastern Poland (1,040 wolves). However, portions of the population in some of the Baltic States are intensively hunted with high hunting quotas at 40-50% and may require careful monitoring to ensure their long-term persistence. The recent increase in solid border security fencing along the borders to Belarus and the Russian Federation are grounds for concern as they will decrease the degree of connectivity. Accurate monitoring is necessary as without this connectivity the population might be down-listed to Near Threatened.

7. Karelian
Near Threatened. The total population, shared by Finland and Russian Karelia is estimated to be 750 individuals and would qualify for Vulnerable under criterion D. However, the Karelian population is generally considered to have connections with the very large Russian population, and there could potentially be a rescue effect, so the population level assessment is downgraded by one step to Near Threatened. The total population in Finland is small (c. 275 – 315) and it would qualify for the category of Endangered (D1) if it were isolated. The number of wolves in Russian Karelia is not well-known but is likely to be in the order of 500 and may be declining as a result of excessive persecution. The degree of fragmentation is not known. Very little information is currently available on the status of the wolf in Russian Karelia, and this population should be reassessed if any new relevant data becomes available.

8. Scandinavian
Vulnerable (D1). The population size is well known (550 of which 460 [364 – 598 95% CI] in Sweden) and the estimated number of mature individuals justifies the category Vulnerable. The population has low genetic variability due to a small number of founders and has little genetic exchange with the Karelian population. The management policies (low population goals and high hunting/control quotas) in Norway (and recently proposed in Sweden) dramatically affect the future conservation prospects of the overall population, and there is no common management plan at the population level.

9. Central European
Near Threatened. The population has grown very rapidly since 2000 and it is now estimated to number in the order of 1,850 individuals. This population is highly dynamic and dispersing animals have reached all Central European countries with confirmed packs established in Austria, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the German part of the population, the expansion is mainly occurring in a north-westerly direction, whereas the expansion to the southwest is slower. Although the geographic gap between the Central European population and the Baltic population is nearly closed, genetic exchange between these populations still appears to be limited. New connections with the expanding populations in the Alps are also likely to occur soon. However, an increasing number of fences built to contain the spread of African Swine Fever may become a serious threat by contributing to population fragmentation.

Historically, Grey Wolves were found over most of Europe, including the British Isles. By the mid-20th century, their range was greatly reduced to remnants in northwest Iberia, central Italy, parts of the Baltics, the Carpathians, and the mountain areas of the Balkans. In the last 50 years, their range has greatly expanded with Grey Wolf presence being recorded in all continental European countries. The European Grey Wolf population is currently a large meta-population with several distinct populations, which can be described as follows (Chapron et al. 2014):

1. Iberian
Wolves are found mainly in the north-western quadrant and centre of Iberia (both Spain and Portugal). The Iberian population does not extend as far east as the Pyrenees (although some individuals are now recolonising the Pyrenees from the Alps, via France). Wolves are expanding southwards in Spain and are now found on both banks of the Duero River in both Spain and Portugal. The population segment in the Sierra Morena mountains in southern Spain seems to be extinct. The population segment in the Sierra Morena mountains in southern Spain seems to be extinct (Blanco and Cortés 2002, Alvares et al. 2015, Blanco and Cortés 2012, Jiménez et al. 2016, López-Bao et al. 2018).

2. Western-Central Alps
The population in 2021 occupies a large area that includes most of the Western Alps in France and Italy, with many wolf packs territories being transboundary along the French-Italian border and occupying large areas of south-eastern France up to the Massif Central, and in Italy to lowlands of Piemonte and Liguria, also far from the Alps. Increasing numbers of wolves are found in Switzerland and in eastern Alpine regions of Italy, with numbers rapidly building up in Veneto, Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Trentino, and will likely further expand through most of the central Alps. Several packs have been formed by individuals from the Alps and animals from the Dinaric-Balkan population, especially in the easternmost part of its range.

3. Italian peninsula
Wolves occur in the whole Apennines range from Liguria to Calabria (Aspromonte) and extending into the coastal plains along the Tirrenic and Adriatic coasts and to all hilly areas of northern Lazio and central-western Tuscany (provinces of Siena, Grosseto and Pisa).

4. Dinaric-Balkan
The population covers a vast area from Slovenia in the North to central Greece in the South, including the whole Dinaric Mountain range through Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, western Serbia and Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, the western and southern parts of Bulgaria and the European part of Türkiye.

5. Carpathian
The population extends across several countries, from northern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia through Romania, south-western Ukraine, Slovakia, south-eastern Poland and the eastern part of Czechia. Small (but increasing) numbers of wolves are also present in northern Hungary on the periphery of the distribution.

6. Baltic
This population covers the eastern lowlands of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and northern Ukraine and would naturally extend to Belarus and the neighbouring parts of the Russian Federation (including the oblasts of Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Smolensk, Bryansk, Moscow, Kursk, Belgorod and Orel). However, the connectivity with Belarus and Russia is being increasingly reduced by the recent dramatic increase in border fence construction.

7. Karelian
Wolves occur in Finland (mainly in the southern half of the country) and Russian Karelia. The Karelian wolf population is the western extremity of the large Russian population. However, of the three main connectivity areas allowing continuity of the Russian Karelian population with the rest of Russia, one is completely blocked by megalopolis St. Petersburg and its satellites. Wolves in Russian Karelia are estimated to number about 300 and they are heavily hunted: bounties are paid and the annual wolf harvest is often equivalent to annual breeding.

8. Scandinavian
The distribution range of the population is in central Sweden and, to a lesser extent, in south-eastern Norway. It is spreading slowly toward southern Sweden but is being prevented from expanding in Norway because of government policy.

9. Central European
This population is expanding rapidly into the central European lowlands from its core in the western half of Poland and the eastern part of Germany. Several packs are also found in Czechia. Its expansion is likely to continue with packs being established in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark.

Due to the diversity in climate, topography, vegetation, patterns of human settlement and historical development of the wolf range, wolf populations in various parts of the original range vary dramatically in density. Wolf densities normally vary from about one per 12 km² to less than one per 120 km² (Mech and Boitani 2003). The overall European wolf population can be viewed as a large metapopulation with several distinct fragments, although dispersal could theoretically connect almost all fragments, and connections are being re-established in many areas. Following the bottleneck of the 1960s and 1970s, the European wolf population is generally increasing in number and expanding its distribution range. However, some European populations are still small and not all have more than 1,000 animals (see below for specific details). Dispersing animals can potentially be found anywhere in mainland Europe. The number of wolves in Europe (excluding Russia) is likely to exceed 21,500, and the total number of wolves in the EU 27 region is likely to be in the order of 19,000; some of the populations are continuous with wolf populations living in countries outside the EU.

1. Iberian
Population size: about 2,500 individuals (2024-2990) and rather stable. The Iberian Wolf (Canis lupus ssp. signatus) may be a distinct subspecies. After the population reduction up to the 1960s, it has increased dramatically since the 1970s and has been stable or slightly increasing in the last ten years and expanding its range across central Spain. The population occupies most of northwestern Iberia and is expanding south and east after having crossed the Duero River in Spain. There are two distinct population segments within this population. The largest is that north of the Duero River in both Spain and Portugal. South of the Duero in Portugal there is a small population segment of around 50 wolves which has only limited exchange of animals with the segments north of the Duero in Portugal and east to the Spanish segment south of the Duero.

The nearest wolf population is in the western Alps and connections between the two are limited to rare known cases. In the Pyrenees (regions of Cataluña and Aragón) there are currently a few non-reproducing wolves that have been genetically identified as members of the Alpine population from where they are assumed to have dispersed naturally (Alvares et al. 2015, Blanco and Cortés 2012, Jiménez et al. 2016, López-Bao et al. 2018, Torres and Fonseca 2016).

The isolated Sierra Morena subpopulation in southern Spain has (virtually) disappeared.

2. Western-Central Alps
Population size: c.1,900 wolves. This population is of Italian Apennines origin and all wolves share the same distinctive Italian genetic haplotype. Individual wolves dispersing from the Apennines first colonised the Alps in 1992 and succeeded in establishing a permanent and expanding population which shows a highly dynamic spatial pattern spreading towards the west and north (and then to the east along the Alpine arc). New packs are regularly reported in Switzerland where there are about 150 wolves. More recently (2015) dispersing individuals from Dinaric-Balkans and the western Alps formed a pack in the central Alps. The total number in 2015/2016 was estimated to be about 420-550 wolves (65 packs and 12 pairs; WAG 2018, Marucco et al. 2012); in 2017/18 it was estimated to be 550-700, increasing on average by 10-20% per year. The genetic continuity with the Apennines population has been recently assessed at 1.25-2.5 individuals per generation, all of them moving from the Apennines to the Alpine population (Fabbri et al. 2007). In 2005, a young radio-marked wolf dispersed more than 1,300 km from Parma (Italy) to Nice (France), providing a demonstration of the natural dispersal along the northern Apennines range to the Alps. In spite of the continuity between the two populations (Apennine and Alpine), their ecological and socio-economic contexts are sufficiently different to justify a separation into two functional population units for management purposes (LCIE 2007, Marucco et al. 2017; http://www.lifewolfalps.eu/).

3. Italian peninsula
Population size: 2,020-2,645 wolves (Aragno et al. 2022). The population was described in 1921 (Altobello 1921) and confirmed in 1999 (Nowak 1999) as a distinct subspecies (Canis lupus italicus). It is genetically recognised by the presence of a unique mtDNA haplotype. After the population bottleneck of the 1960s, when total numbers were estimated to be about 100 animals, the population has steadily recovered throughout the Apennines and expanded into the western Alps. In 2006, the population was estimated to be 500-800; estimates in 2017 suggested numbers to be 1,100-2,400 with an estimate of 1,600 probably being close to the real number. However, the difference between the 2006, 2017 and 2021 estimates are also due to improved estimation methods. The nearest population (apart from that in the western Alps, see above) is in Slovenia (Dinaric-Balkan population). Although a large portion of the central Alps and part of the agricultural Po River valley effectively separate the Italian peninsula and the Dinaric populations, the current trend suggests the inevitable continuity between them (Galaverni et al. 2015, Boitani and Salvatori 2016).

4. Dinaric-Balkan
Population size: 5,000-5,500. There is continuity of the population and suitable habitats throughout the range although the population might be significantly sub-structured within this massive elongated range. Although the population is estimated to number about 5,000 individuals, locally the densities may vary greatly and its overall demographic trend is unknown. In Croatia and Slovenia, the population has recovered significantly following improved management in the 1990s. In Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (Trbojević 2016) it is likely that the population has decreased in recent years due to overharvesting. To the north, the population has increasing functional contacts with the nearest population in Italy, and dispersing animals are reported in Austria. One dispersing male successfully established a pair and a territory in Veneto (northern Italy) with a mate from the western-central Alps population. To the east, the population may exchange individuals with the large wolf population of the Carpathians which extends into northern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia (Iliopoulos 1999; Kusak et al. 2005; Štrbenac et al. 2005; Jeremic et al. 2014, 2015, 2016; Trbojević 2016).

5. Carpathian
This population is estimated to number c. 3,900-4,700 animals, the majority of them living in Romania and Ukraine. The differences between the 2006 and 2017 estimates are partly due to improved estimation methods. Slovakia hosts about 600 wolves and southern Poland contributes with good wolf habitat in the areas along its southern borders (the wolf population in the Polish Carpathians is about 300 individuals). In the past, there was natural continuity with wolves living in northern Poland and Belarus, but this link is now constrained by large areas where wolves have been exterminated. Nevertheless, it is likely that some level of genetic exchange still occurs with the Dinaric-Balkan population in western Bulgaria / eastern Serbia, and with the Baltic population in eastern-central Poland (Okarma 1993; CLCP 1997-98, 2000, 2001, 2002; Smietana and Wajda 1997, Okarma et al. 2000, Shkvyrya 2008, Cazacu et al. 2014, Pirga et al. 2016, Rigg et al. 2014).

6. Baltic
Subpopulation size: about 2,190-2,790 in EU countries and an additional 1,000-1,500 in Belarus and 1,600 in the adjacent Russian oblasts. At the start of the 20th century the population was greatly reduced, but still widely present, these increased during and after World War 1. In the period between the wars, populations were greatly reduced again, but recovered to peak levels during and after World War II, only to be heavily persecuted in the 1950s such that they again reached very low levels in the 1960s and early 1970s. The populations appear to have then increased, peaking in the early 1990s – before being reduced again in the late 1990s. This population is the westernmost portion of the large Russian population and it ultimately connects with the wolf range of Russian Karelia. In Poland, although the distribution is not continuous, it is highly likely that dispersal regularly connects the Baltic and Central European populations. The recent building of fences against human migrations effectively reduce the continuity of this population with the Belarus/Russian population (Bluzma 2000, Sidorovich et al. 2003, Linnell et al. 2006, Nowak and Mysłajek 2016, Bragina et al. 2018, Ozolins et al. 2011, Kawata et al. 2013, Geldon et al. 2015).

7. Karelian
Population size: 275-315 wolves in Finland and about 750 including Finland and Russian Karelia. Following widespread control of the population in the first part of 20th century, the population recovered after the 1980s and 1990s. The current estimates are based on counts of family groups in Finland and the population is expanding. In Russian Karelia, wolf numbers appear to be stable.

8. Scandinavian
Population size: 550 (CI = 364 – 598). The population derives from a pair that immigrated from Finland and first reproduced in Sweden in 1983. A third immigrant in 1991 boosted the reproduction and the population is now estimated to be 460 wolves (about 85 in Norway). The population has been steadily increasing from 1983-2001, then slightly decreased in 2002-3, and then is increasing again. In winter 2023 it has been reduced by the removal of at least 75 animals. There is evidence of limited further genetic exchanges with the Finnish/Russian wolf population after 1991. Immigration from Russia / Finland is the only possible mechanism to increase the genetic variability of the population which is critical for its future viability (Chapron et al. 2016; Svensson et al. 2017; Wabakken et al. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016).

9. Central European
Population size: 1,850. Wolves were exterminated in Germany during the 19th century, but individuals that were dispersing from Poland were shot occasionally throughout the 20th century. In the late-1990s a pack began breeding in Saxony and there are now (2022) at least 160 packs. Wolves in western Poland have had a dynamic history of persecution and heavy harvest with periods of total absence and very low numbers in 1950 - 1990s, but since 2000 the population started to recover from immigrants originating in eastern Poland and presently there are about 550 wolves in the region. Three packs were confirmed in Czechia in 2016 /2017 (Kutal et al. 2017, Hulva et al. 2018) and they have grown to 16 in 2022. This population is highly dynamic and dispersing animals have reached Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands where the first packs are now permanently present. Connections exist to the Baltic population, but the distances are in the order of up to several hundred kilometres (Fechter and Storch 2015; Reinhardt et al. 2015; Sunde and Olsen 2017; Nowak and Myslajek 2016, 2017; Nowak et al. 2017).

Wolves live in diverse habitat types and their broad distribution ranges show the species' adaptability to the most extreme (both in terms of natural and anthropogenic factors) habitat conditions. The wolf’s habitat has been prosaically described as anywhere where humans do not kill it and where there is something to eat. Where wolves depend on wild ungulate prey, their habitat is that of their prey. Habitat quality should thus be interpreted in terms of human disturbance, prey densities and range size. In general, large forest areas are particularly suitable for wolves in Europe, although wolves are not exclusively a forest species.

The wolf has a very diversified diet and is a true generalist that feeds opportunistically on what is most available in its habitat. The wolf’s diet may include large prey, such as Moose, Red Deer, Roe Deer and Wild Boar, as well as small mammals and birds, invertebrates, vegetation and carcasses. Diet composition throughout the geographic range and seasonal variations depend on the relative abundance of potential prey, as well as accessibility and availability. A wolf typically requires 3-5 kg of meat per day, although it can fast for several days when food is not readily available.

Human intolerance is perhaps the most important limiting factor facing wolves in Europe today. Fear, misunderstanding and the fact that wolves do kill livestock have prompted an uneasy relationship with people in many areas, leading to direct conflicts and retaliatory/preventative persecution. In some countries, poorly regulated hunting of wolves poses a threat, while in others licenses for killing wolves are issued irrespective of biological understanding. Poaching is widespread and probably represents the most important mortality factor for the wolf in many parts of Europe. Wolf depredation on domestic animals has been a problem since man progressed from hunter/gatherer to farmer, and although the numbers of sheep or cattle taken are, as a percentage, very low, livestock depredation remains the primary reason for persecuting wolves. Wolves have also become symbolic of wider issues of social change facing rural life, such that the politics of wolf management has become very controversial and intertwined with multiple other issues. It also appears that institutions in many countries are ill-equipped to handle the biological and socio-politic challenges of wolf management. Human land use is the most significant threat to wolf habitat. Wolves can live close to humans but they require safe areas in which to retreat. This is not always considered in land use planning in wolf areas and the small, fragmented populations in western Europe can result in animals moving into unsuitable habitats. Although wolves show a good ability to cross linear infrastructure like highways and railroads, these structures can be associated with wolf mortality and there is a need to ensure wildlife permeability in all infrastructure projects. Wolf-dog hybridisation has been increasingly reported in most European countries but only appears to be a major issue in Italy and other Mediterranean countries because of poor dog management practices. Legislation and public attitudes towards dog management and dog control policies impede the implementation of a coordinated effort to manage the occurrence and spread of hybridisation (Ciucci 2012). Another emerging threat is the border fences being built to control human migrations and the veterinary fences built to control the spread of the African swine fever in wild boar that have an increasingly serious impact on the connectivity towards the east and within the populations of several eastern and central European wolf populations. These fences will soon reduce the viability and conservation status of several wolf populations. Specific threats to different European wolf populations are as follows:

1. Iberian
Illegal killing is still common (estimated to account for 50% of the total mortality) and poison baits are still used. Illegal killing appears the primary cause of the (virtual) disappearance of the Sierra Morena population.

2. Western-Central Alps
Documented causes of mortality include car or train accidents and poaching. Several cases of illegal killing have been reported in France and Italy, and conflicts with hunters and farmers are constantly reported. Both France and the Regional Government of Piemonte have been carrying out extensive and continuous research and monitoring of the wolf population and damages to livestock, and excellent data is available for management purposes. The number of livestock depredations in the Italian Alps is decreasing, despite the increase in wolf numbers, due to the large efforts in the implementation of preventive practices promoted by the authorities. Although wolf presence is still far from being accepted by local farmers and livestock breeders, the general attitude is improving (LIFE WOLFALPS).

3. Italian peninsula
The population is protected on paper, but the law is poorly enforced with illegal killing remaining common (and rarely prosecuted) throughout the range. Poison baits are increasingly used against dogs, foxes and wolves. Hybridisation with dogs has been documented and, in certain areas of central Italy, it appears to account for up to 70% of the total wolf population (Verardi et al. 2006, Ciucci 2012, Salvatori et al. 2019).

4. Dinaric-Balkan
There is an enormous diversity in threats occurring throughout the range. Poorly regulated legal hunting and illegal killing, often with the use of poison) are taking an unknown number of wolves throughout most of the range. Other pressures that are commonly reported include: habitat fragmentation due to the construction of fenced highways and a shortage of wild prey. In many countries, there is very limited knowledge about wolf ecology or status (Huber et al. 2002, Iliopoulos 2005, Trbojević 2016).

5. Carpathian
Poison baits and illegal killing are widespread throughout the range. In Ukraine, wolves are treated as a pest species. Poorly regulated legal hunting in Slovakia hinders the recovery of the wolf in the Czech-Slovak borderlands (Kutal et al. 2016).

6. Baltic
The Baltic population is subject to hunter-harvest in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Access to good quality population monitoring data is, therefore, crucial to ensure that quotas are set at sustainable levels. There is room for substantial improvement in monitoring efforts in Latvia and Lithuania.

7. Karelian
The main threat to wolves in this region is killing by humans. In south-central Finland, wolves cause very limited damage to livestock, but predation on domestic dogs and a perception of competition for game species is the most frequent impact that causes strong resentment from the public. In the north of Finland, potential conflicts with semi-domestic reindeer herding effectively prevent its expansion.

8. Scandinavian
Due to the small number of founders the inbreeding coefficient is very high, on average higher than for full siblings mating (Liberg et al. 2005). Predation on domestic dogs, sheep and semi-domestic reindeer are the most frequent damages that cause continuing debate on wolf conservation. In the north of Sweden and Norway, potential conflicts with semi-domestic reindeer herding effectively prevent its expansion. Norway has a restrictive policy that officially prevents further expansion.

9. Central European
The main cause of documented mortality in Germany is traffic accidents (70%). Cases of illegal killing have been reported in Poland and Germany, and complaints from hunters and farmers are constantly reported from Germany. The implementation of livestock protection measures in Germany does not keep track with the fast population growth providing the ground for permanent and growing conflict with farmers, whereas such conflicts appear to be much less in the Polish population segment. The habitat is also very heavily modified and fragmented. Coordination between the federal states of Germany and between Germany and neighbouring countries is crucial.

The species is sometimes hunted for sport. In some countries the species is also important for the skin market and the pelt industry.

By default, the species is strictly protected under the Bern Convention (Appendix II) and Habitats Directive (Annex II and IV), meaning that wolves may not be killed except under strict conditions, and key wolf habitat must be protected as part of the European protected area networks Natura 2000 (Habitats Directive, Annex II) and Emerald Network (Bern Convention, Appendix II). However, there are many national and regional exceptions. Regarding the Habitats Directive:

1) in Spain, wolves north of the Duero River are not subject to Annexes II or IV, but covered instead by the more flexible regime of Annex V, which permits harvesting – and it remains uncertain which regimes apply to wolves east of the Duero River (Trouwborst 2014);
2) in Greece, wolves north of 39°N have a similar status (only Annex V);
3) in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) wolves have a similar status (only Annex V);
4) in Finland, wolves occurring in the Reindeer herding area in northern Finland fall under Annex V; wolves outside the Reindeer herding area fall under Annex IV but not Annex II;
5) In Bulgaria and Slovakia, wolves are subject to Annex II and Annex V;
6) In Poland, wolves are also on Annex II and Annex V of the Habitats Directive, but strictly protected under the national legislations and government has not opened for harvest.

A similar set of diverse situations exist under the Bern Convention, with some countries having taken total exceptions (e.g. Finland) and others treating it as Appendix III instead of Appendix II.

In general, habitat restoration is required in some key areas (especially in southern Europe) in the form of fostering a healthy prey base and encouraging wolves to move back into their former range where appropriate. Conflicts with humans need to be addressed by involving local people in wolf management plans and through education programmes to increase people's understanding of wolf biology and behaviour. Problems resulting from wolves preying on domestic animals need to be tackled by livestock protection schemes and compensation systems. In general, there is a need for innovative governance regimes that balance the need for large-scale (international level) coordination of management with the need to give local stakeholders a voice in local-level solutions to local problems. Finally, there is a need to increase investment in population monitoring in many countries in southern and eastern Europe where the largest populations live. Details of specific conservation measures for European wolf populations are given below:

1. Iberian
Wolves are fully protected in Portugal and south of the Duero River in Spain. North of the Duero River in Spain, wolves were game species until 2021 and subject to various management regimes depending on the legislation of eight autonomous regional governments. Since 2021, the wolf is nationally protected by law. The autonomous regions are gradually approving their action plans. Asturias has a wolf management plan and Galicia and Castilla y León also have approved their plans. However, management coordination among the regional governments and between Spain and Portugal is very limited. By allowing the (virtual) extinction of the Sierra Morena population in southern Spain, Spain has been in contravention of its obligations under the Habitats Directive’s Annex II and Annex IV regimes, and EU law requires the Spanish authorities to restore this population (Trouwborst 2014).

2. Western-Central Alps
The population is fully protected under French, Italian and Swiss law. In France and Switzerland, the national Action Plans include provisions for the legal take of a certain number of wolves under strict conditions in response to damages on livestock. The three countries signed (2006) a formal agreement of cooperation for the management of the entire population, recognising that the biological population needs to be managed through a common and accepted approach, but the agreement has not produced any concrete cooperation at the administrative or political levels.

3. Italian peninsula
Fully protected by a national law, with damage compensation provided by 14 different regional laws. Compensation is paid for livestock lost to wolf predation, but the effectiveness of compensation programmes has never been assessed and it is increasingly questioned. Apart from formal protection the population is not actively managed. The species occurs in several protected areas throughout its range but the size of these areas is far too small to protect any viable populations. In spite of formal protection, illegal killings are estimated to take a substantial portion of the population every year (up to 15-20%). A national Action Plan setting the broad strategic ground for management has been under discussion for several years (2015-2017) but has not been approved because of disagreement between the national and regional governments (Boitani and Salvatori 2016).

4. Dinaric-Balkan
Management is fragmented by multiple national laws. Most of the range is also outside the EU and therefore not bound by the protection of the Habitats Directive, although all range countries are now Bern Convention signatories. It is a game species in almost all countries, except for Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and Greece south of 39° latitude where wolves are fully protected. In Slovenia and Croatia, an effective Action Plan is in place and implemented (Štrbenac et al. 2005, http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/velike_zveri/akcijski_nacrt_upravljanja_volk_2013_2017.pdf) but no plans exists for any of the other countries. With the exception of Slovenia and Croatia, in general, law enforcement is weak or totally absent, institutions in several of the countries are not fully functional, there is very limited monitoring and research, and wildlife management structures for regulating hunter harvest of the prey base are poorly developed. There is a major need for investment in institution building in these countries.

5. Carpathian
In Slovakia wolves are a game species with a hunting season; in Poland and Czechia they are strictly protected by national laws; in Romania, they are legally protected, but are managed as a de facto game species with hunting quotas decided yearly; in Ukraine, wolves are neither a game species nor protected (often treated as “pest” species, with bounties of c. 20 Euro per individual) (Salvatori et al. 2002). There is a need to improve monitoring, especially in Slovakia, and ensure that quotas and seasons are scaled with respect to realistic population estimates.

6. Baltic
Wolves have been strictly protected in Poland since 1998, but are harvested in the three Baltic States (EU Habitats and Species Directive Appendix V) and in neighbouring Belarus and Ukraine. There is a new action plan for the conservation of the wolf in Latvia (2017). In all countries, there is a need to ensure that monitoring is effective at detecting trends in population development so that hunting quotas and seasons can be adjusted accordingly.

7. Karelian
In Finland, wolves occurring in the reindeer herding area fall under Annex V of the Habitats Directive; those outside the reindeer herding area fall under Annex IV. Finland has a National Management Plan that includes the removal of some wolves under controlled circumstances. In Russian Karelia, wolves are killed throughout the range and at any time. In spite of the small number of wolves, Finland has approved a plan to maintain the population within the maximum of 25 packs. The discontinuous flow of dispersing wolves from Russia allows a reasonable but cautiously positive forecast on the conservation of this population. Illegal killing of wolves remains a major problem in Finland. There are also widespread social and political conflicts that centre on wolf conservation.

8. Scandinavian
Wolves are fully protected in Sweden and Norway; however, Norway applies both a zoning system and operates with a very low management goal that restricts wolves to a small area (c. 5% of the country) along the border with Sweden and prevents population expansion. Both Norway and Sweden provide full compensation for damages. Both countries greatly restrict the presence of wolves in the reindeer herding areas that cover the northern part of the peninsula. The main issue for the long-term viability of the population is inbreeding, which can only be improved by facilitating the movement of wolves through the northern reindeer herding areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland. Social and political conflicts around wolf management are intense.

9. Central European
Wolves are functionally protected in all countries. In Germany, conservation is implemented by the local authority but there is a certain degree of coordination at the federal level. In Poland, wolves are strictly protected since 1995. The main threats stem from the intense social and political conflicts around wolf management.