Agent Green today submitted observations on the draft emergency ordinance for killing bears

To: Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests
Bvd. Libertăţii No. 12, Sector 5, Bucharest

For the attention of: Mr Adrian BOȘTEANU, Biodiversity Department

Email: cabinet.ministru@mmediu.ro and adrian.brosteanu@mmediu.ro

Bucharest, 25 September 2025

Opinions, proposals and suggestions concerning the draft EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending and supplementing Emergency Ordinance No. 81/2021 approving methods of immediate intervention to prevent and combat attacks by brown bears on people and their property, and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts

Dear Mr Adrian Broșteanu,

We are responding to the Environment Ministry’s announcement of a public consultation on the draft EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending and supplementing Emergency Ordinance No. 81/2021 approving methods of immediate intervention to prevent and combat attacks by brown bears on people and their property, and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts.

We have prepared comments and suggestions in red directly in the text of the draft emergency ordinance, which we hope will be useful to you. Ideally, the ordinance would not be issued at all and work would focus on implementing an updated national action plan, but if you continue this slippery process, I urge you to consider our proposals. Both our own experts with postgraduate qualifications in the field and people from authorities affected by this ordinance, who have accumulated many years of futile experiences concerning human–bear conflict, contributed to these comments.

Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that, from the outset, this new alarmist emergency ordinance illustrates, on the one hand, the ministry’s failure to ensure human–bear coexistence and co-adaptation by blocking the national action plan approved back in 2018. On the other hand, the draft ordinance shows us that the ministry either lacks experts in the field or is run by the same organised crime groups in trophy hunting which, step by step, have reached exactly where they wanted, regardless of who was minister over the last 6 years. Namely, to kill as many bears as possible in a planned manner, in any setting, and to sell parts of animals belonging to a species that is, after all, strictly protected.

The ministry’s priorities should not be unjustified, alarmist lethal measures, but sets of strategic, planned actions showing the cognitive and emotional intelligence characteristic of our species, which has, after all, created enough technology other than lethal firearms to ensure human–bear coexistence. The ministry’s priorities must take account of the greatest threats to the brown bear species:

• Degradation of natural habitat, which has long ceased to be in a favourable conservation condition. Natural habitat has been reduced to certain mountain areas, is fragmented and insufficiently extensive solely because of the Environment Ministry’s poor decisions over the last 26 years. Only 1% of the country’s area is strictly protected in small scattered enclaves, while the rest of the territory is profoundly degraded and structurally disrupted, which is why Agent Green lodged the necessary complaints with the European Commission in 2019, and the infringement proceedings begun in 2020 continue, indicating that Romania is still on the wrong path
• Climate change
• Lack of education among authorities and the public, which over the last 5 years has led to human persecution of bears and even demonisation of the brown bear species at an unprecedented level that is difficult to remedy

The ordinance is dominated by the government’s refusal to take responsibility for the brown bear species, which remains strictly protected by international conventions and European legislation.

Any population-control measure using lethal means, or other methods that might negatively affect bear survival, must be treated with the greatest caution, given the variety of threats facing brown bears. Brown bears must have safe habitats and avoid human persecution (Weaver et al., 1996, Estes et al., 2011, Ripple et al., 2014, Darimont et al., 2015). A brown bear needs a large habitat free from human conflict to seek food, a mate, shelter and den sites. An ideal brown bear habitat must have an appropriate distribution and abundance of food resources so bears can develop harmoniously. Another critical threat to bears is the intrusion of motorised machinery into their habitats (Craighead 2002).

Furthermore, many researchers have argued that climate change harms bears by further altering the availability of food sources in their habitats. Their conclusions demonstrate that the Romanian government must take the impact of climate change on brown bears with the utmost seriousness. For example, Bojarska and Selva (2012) conducted a global review of bear food-source selection in relation to geographical location (latitude, longitude, altitude) and many environmental variables, such as the duration and thickness of snow cover.

They found that some of the “most important factors affecting brown bear feeding ecology” were “temperature and snow conditions” (Bojarska & Selva 2012). They determined that climate change can be expected to greatly influence brown bear feeding habits through changes in food availability, hibernation patterns, nutritional and energy requirements, and feeding behaviour. Rising global temperatures produce shorter winters with less snow, especially at northern latitudes and higher elevations (Sagarin & Micheli 2001, Wilmers & Post 2006).

Climate change can affect brown bear feeding habits through changes in plant distribution and phenology. In response to higher temperatures, Rodriguez et al. (2007) demonstrated a long-term decline in the contribution of food to the brown bear diet during the hyperphagic season, when brown bears normally consume large quantities of fruit to accumulate fat for hibernation and successful reproduction. Changes in fruit timing and abundance, the gathering of fruit and acorns, and reduced availability of high-quality fruit can have important consequences for brown bear population spatial dynamics, forcing them towards sub-Carpathian areas where human communities are also located (Rodriguez et al., 2007).

If the main food resources for brown bears disappear without a corresponding change in the timing of alternative food resources, a serious dietary shortage could arise. (Bojarska and Silva 2012, pp. 133-4). The currently available scientific studies make clear that climate change threatens and will continue to threaten brown bears by adversely altering their habitat.

Dorresteijn et al. (2014) studied brown bear coexistence with humans in Transylvania, Romania. The researchers found that “bears and humans coexisted relatively peacefully, despite occasional conflicts”. The keys to this coexistence were: 1) the availability of forested areas connected to bear populations in the Carpathian Mountains; 2) the use of traditional livestock management to minimise damage caused by bears; and 3) a certain tolerance among shepherds for occasional conflicts with bears.

Dorresteijn et al. found that bear activity was not associated with human settlements, and compensation for livestock losses does not influence people’s attitudes towards bears.

These studies show that conflict between humans and bears is low in the regions of Romania where hunting quotas and, probably, bear populations are highest. Clearly, claims that hunting is needed to address human–bear conflict in this region are false.

Co-adaptation and coexistence with Romania’s brown bears are essential for the safety of the human population, animals and agriculture.

Agent Green recommends that the Environment Ministry implement a new action plan firmly requiring co-adaptation and coexistence with Romania’s brown bears. Co-adaptation and coexistence must happen if we want bears to continue to exist, meaning people must be willing to share habitat and tolerate the low level of risk bears pose (Dubois et al., 2017, Carter and Linnell, 2016, Chapron, Guillaume et al., 2016). People must counter their own tendency to act as “hyperpredators” of other species and their habitats (Darimont et al., 2015, Chapron and López-Bao, 2016).

In 2015, a group of academics, industry representatives and nongovernmental organisations from five continents met at a 2-day workshop to develop the first international principles for ethical decision-making in wildlife control. This group’s findings were published and are summarised as follows:

“They determined that wildlife conservation efforts should begin wherever possible by modifying human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and developing a culture of coexistence; that significant harm to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems and/or other animals should be justified by evidence; that measurable, outcome-based objectives should be clear, achievable, monitored and adaptable; that predictable reductions in animal welfare should affect the smallest number of animals; that community values as well as scientific, technical and practical information should inform them; that they should be integrated into systematic long-term management plans; and that they should be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (harmful, too numerous) applied to target species. We recommend that these principles guide the development of standards and decisions and the implementation of international, national and local standards” (Dubois et al., 2017).

We recognise that living with bears in rural areas can be difficult. When property is damaged (including homes, crops, livestock, commercial forestry, etc.), compensation should be delivered promptly with the help of local authorities. This will improve people’s tolerance towards bears, reducing the risk and frequency of retaliatory poaching.

In extreme situations where bears truly pose a risk to people and/or their property, the Environment Ministry should have an emergency plan (at national or administrative level) to intervene case by case and eliminate dangerous situations. This emergency plan should be permanently separated from any harvest quotas that might be allocated to managers and should clearly state that its specific and sole scope is to address extreme cases. Lethal action must be exceptional and applied exclusively in the face of imminent danger when capture and relocation were not technically possible. Habituated bears may only be relocated to sanctuaries in secure natural habitats, which the state must provide as a moral and legal obligation following its failure to ensure human–bear coexistence and co-adaptation. Trophies from lethal interventions should not be traded, thus preventing the fraudulent killing of bears disguised as emergencies. All animals killed must be incinerated.

There is no question of money being lost to the state budget if trophy hunting were completely banned. Quite the opposite. Have you ever wondered how much money can be made by systematically photographing and filming a bear an infinite number of times compared with a single bullet for that same bear? The Center for Responsible Travel in Washington, D.C., showed in its study (which I recommend to you) that tourism agencies focusing on watching, photographing and filming bears in British Columbia generated 12 times more money than organised hunting trips.

Agent Green therefore considers it necessary for state authorities to establish specific conservation objectives based on environmental, social and economic goals: the basis for up-to-date and timely information about species. Decision-making transparency and predictability in setting the proposed objectives, measures and actions are needed to facilitate stakeholder collaboration. Only in this way is it possible to facilitate not only a balanced social climate, but also an ethical and nondiscretionary framework in Romania’s brown bear population management system.

We also support proposals for studies on the impact of mushroom and wild-fruit gathering on the brown bear population and on the impact of brown bears on prey species (red deer, roe deer, wild boar), with implications for hunting and the agricultural and forestry sectors. However, we recommend that independent agencies conduct these studies to ensure their results are not biased to serve private interests.

Thank you for your attention. Below I present Agent Green’s proposals to improve the draft emergency ordinance.

With concern,

Gabriel Păun
President of Agent Green
United Nations Champion of the Earth

GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE

amending and supplementing Emergency Ordinance No. 81/2021 approving methods of immediate intervention to prevent and combat attacks by brown bears on people and their property, and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts

Having regard to the obligation of state institutions to guarantee individuals’ constitutional rights, such as the right to life and bodily integrity, as well as the right to property,

Considering that the measures taken so far have not effectively addressed attacks by brown bears on people, their presence in public or private spaces and the material damage caused to households being continually on the rise,

Whereas Article 16(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora explicitly mentions situations in which a member state may intervene in populations of strictly protected species, provided there are no satisfactory alternatives to the derogation, as follows: “(c) in the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including reasons of a social or economic nature and situations which would have beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;”,

Considering that the current conservation status of the bear species in Romania is favourable, resulting in an increase in the number of animals whose actions within built-up areas endanger people’s safety and security and their property,

Having regard to the finding over time that the procedure and methods of action do not correspond to certain current, special situations requiring immediate intervention in incidents caused by brown bears within built-up areas, making it necessary to create a legal framework allowing the immediate removal of risks caused by bear attacks,

Taking into account the urgent need to create safety for people in areas with bears by reducing and combating their actions and attacks within built-up areas,

Having regard to the fact that failing to adopt measures to address urgently bear attacks on people and their property within built-up areas would perpetuate a situation endangering people’s safety and security in Romania,

Whereas the above elements concern the public interest and constitute an urgent and extraordinary situation whose regulation cannot be postponed,

Pursuant to Article 115(4) of the Constitution of Romania, republished,

The Government of Romania adopts this emergency ordinance.

Article I. – Government Emergency Ordinance No. 81/2021 approving methods of immediate intervention to prevent and combat attacks by brown bears on people and their property, and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No. 732 of 26 July 2021, approved with amendments and additions by Law No. 197/2022, as subsequently amended and supplemented, is amended and supplemented as follows:

1. In Article 1(3), after point c), a new point c1) is inserted, reading as follows:

“c1) intervention by tranquillisation and moving – immediate, specialised human action to capture, tranquillise and move one or more brown bears within the same hunting ground or, in the case of municipalities and national parks, to a neighbouring hunting ground, regardless of their stage of biological development or sex, whose actions may threaten people’s lives or bodily integrity or the integrity of their property;”

the brown bear or bears being moved only after marking them for monitoring purposes.

2. In Article (1)(3), point d) is amended as follows:

“d) intervention by tranquillisation and relocation – immediate, specialised human action to capture, tranquillise and relocate one or more brown bears to another hunting ground, regardless of their stage of biological development or sex, whose actions may threaten people’s lives or bodily integrity or the integrity of their property;”

the brown bear or bears being relocated only after marking them for monitoring purposes.

3. In Article 1(3), after point h), a new point i) is inserted, reading as follows:

“i) habituated bear – an animal of the brown bear species which, following repeated and uncontrolled contact with humans and frequent access to human-provided food sources, displays altered behaviour, losing its natural avoidance of human presence and creating increased risks to people’s bodily integrity or the integrity of their property.”

4. In Article 2, paragraphs (1) and (2) are amended as follows:

“(1) To implement this emergency ordinance and provide specialist services for driving away, relocating, moving or removing bears by shooting, the administrative-territorial unit concludes a single contract for standby/immediate intervention services to prevent and combat brown bear attacks with a single manager of the hunting ground or grounds within that administrative-territorial unit, in compliance with public procurement legislation. The model contract for standby/immediate intervention services to prevent and combat brown bear attacks, concluded with the manager, is set out in Annex No. 1.

the manager of the hunting ground where the presence/attack of one or more brown bears has been reported is obliged to undertake standby/immediate intervention actions to prevent and combat brown bear attacks, as well as actions to prevent their habituation, the expenses generated by these activities being reimbursed by MMAP through the territorially competent Forest Guard structures.

(2) To implement this emergency ordinance and provide specialist services for tranquillising, moving and relocating or removing bears by euthanasia, the administrative-territorial unit concludes a single contract for standby/immediate intervention services with a single private-practice veterinarian, in compliance with public procurement legislation. The model contract for standby/immediate intervention services concluded with the private-practice veterinarian is approved by an order of the Minister of Environment, Waters and Forests, to be drawn up within 60 days of the entry into force of this emergency ordinance.”

5. In Article (2)(3), point b) is amended as follows:

“b) personnel of the territorially competent gendarmerie/police/local police structures on duty in the area where the bear’s presence has been reported;”

6. In Article 2, after paragraph (4), a new paragraph (5) is inserted, reading as follows:

“(5) Members of the intervention team may communicate using electronic remote communication means, with the communications exchanged during each intervention being recorded and retained.”

7. In Article 4, paragraph (1) is amended as follows:

“(1) Immediate intervention involving bears is carried out gradually through the following methods:

1. a) driving away by various effective means, which must always include non-lethal firearms with rubber bullets

a1) tranquillisation and moving;

1. b) tranquillisation and relocation;

2. c) removal by euthanasia or shooting.”

3. In Article 4, after paragraph (1), a new paragraph (11) is inserted, reading as follows:

“(11) Where the presence of a bear is reported within built-up areas, the requirement for gradual intervention laid down in paragraph (1) does not apply, except for bear cubs younger than one year.”

the decision being justified and reasoned under signature, with witness statements and statements from the injured person or persons and/or those suffering property damage attached to the incident report.

Non-application of the requirement for gradual intervention applies only to habituated brown bears which, following an assessment of the wild animal’s behaviour, are classified as high risk under point 2.1 of Annex 2 – PROCEDURE governing the actions of the institutions responsible for managing interventions in incidents involving Ursus arctos (brown bear)

9. In Article 4, paragraph (2) is amended as follows:

“(2) In interventions by tranquillisation and moving, tranquillisation and relocation, or removal by euthanasia or shooting, prior issue of the harvest/capture authorisation provided for in Order No. 410/2008 of the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development approving the Procedure for authorising the collection, capture and/or acquisition and/or sale, domestically or for export, of mineral specimens, plant fossils and vertebrate and invertebrate animal fossils, as well as plants and animals from wild flora and fauna, respectively, and their import, as subsequently amended and supplemented, is not required.”

10. In Article 5, paragraphs (2) and (3) are amended as follows:

“(2) If a brown bear threatens people’s lives or bodily integrity, the intervention team immediately proceeds to euthanise or shoot it.

(3) Marking and monitoring tranquillised animals to be moved/relocated is carried out by fitting GPS collars or ear tags and a microchip, which do not in any way affect their bodily integrity.”

Proposal to amend paragraph 3:

(3) For tranquillised animals to be moved/relocated, marking and monitoring is carried out, mandatorily, by fitting GPS collars or a microchip, which do not in any way affect their bodily integrity.”

11. In Article 5, after paragraph (2), a new paragraph (21) is inserted, reading as follows:

“(21) If an animal that has been driven away returns and damages public or private property, the intervention team immediately proceeds to tranquillise and move/relocate it.”

During the first intervention to drive away a brown bear, it will be marked using permanent-paint balls (or another marking method allowing the wild animal to be identified if it returns).

12. In Article 5, the introductory part of paragraph (4) and point a) are amended as follows:

“(4) Removal of a bear by euthanasia or shooting may take place in the following situations:

1. a) if interventions outside built-up areas by driving away or tranquillising and moving/relocating are unsuccessful and the risk level changes to high, according to the risk assessment procedure;”
2. In Article 5(4), after point a), a new point a1) is inserted, reading as follows:

“a1) if the brown bear has been reported within built-up areas and is older than one year;”

And endangers people’s safety or security/life or bodily integrity/the integrity of their property/the lives of domestic animals in yards or households, in compliance with Government Decision 3/2023.

14. In Article 5(4), after point f), a new point g) is inserted, reading as follows:

“g) in the case of habituated bears.”

15. In Article 5, after paragraph (5), a new paragraph (6) is inserted, reading as follows:

“(6) By way of exception to paragraphs (1) and (5), where the presence of bears is reported within built-up areas, immediate intervention involving them is carried out by any of the methods provided for in Article 4(1). This measure does not apply to bear cubs younger than 1 year.”

16. In Article 6, paragraph (3) is amended as follows:

“(3) In the case of female animals, immediate intervention will primarily use driving away or tranquillisation and moving/relocation, except in cases of presence within built-up areas; if a female with cubs no older than 1 year is removed by euthanasia/shooting, the cubs are urgently relocated by the manager’s specialist staff to specialised rehabilitation centres or authorised shelters.”

In Article 11, paragraph (1), point d is amended as follows:

1. d) the commander of the gendarmerie/police/local police personnel participating in the immediate intervention,
2. In Article 12, paragraphs (1) and (2) are amended as follows:

“(1) Where removal takes place by euthanasia or shooting, the brown bear is handled by the manager or Forest Guard, as appropriate.

(2) The skin and skull of the animal removed under paragraph (1), prepared by the manager, remain in the manager’s custody where removal was performed by the manager, or are handed to the Forest Guard where removal was performed by its designated personnel, and remain public property of the state.”

18. In Article 13, paragraph (3) is amended as follows:

“(3) The costs referred to in paragraph (1) are reimbursed at the manager’s request by the Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests, within the standard rates established by order of the Minister of Environment, Waters and Forests, on the basis of supporting documents submitted by the administrative-territorial units to the Forest Guards, within a maximum of 30 calendar days of invoicing, and the services contract shall require the manager to carry out a number of actions to drive away brown bears, primarily within built-up areas.

19. Article 14 shall be supplemented as follows:

Police, Local Police and Gendarmerie officers are obliged to act on their own initiative concerning the presence of one or more bears within built-up areas and on transport routes, and to summon the intervention team through their own dispatch centres for an on-site intervention.

20.Article 15 shall be supplemented as follows:

Failure by representatives of the administrative-territorial unit (mayor/deputy mayor) to attend the scene to form the intervention team following a report of bear presence/human–bear conflict constitutes an administrative offence punishable by a fine of 5000 to 10000 lei, unless the act was committed in circumstances constituting a criminal offence under criminal law.

Police and Gendarmerie officers present at the scene as part of the intervention team shall, in the case of habituated brown bears, investigate the manner/cause of their habituation and take action to sanction those responsible under the law, namely Law 407/2006.

Note: The costs should be paid directly to the manager by the Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests,

Article II. Hunting and Game Protection Law No. 407/2006, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No. 944 of 22 November 2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented, is amended and supplemented as follows:

1. In Article 23(1), after point w), two new points x) and y are inserted, reading as follows:

“x) feeding bears (Ursus arctos L.) in any form, within and outside built-up areas, along access/transport routes and tourist trails, except supplementary and diversionary feeding carried out lawfully by the hunting-ground manager.

1. y) conducting hunting/wildlife tourism to photograph bears beside access/transport routes;
2. In Article 48(1), after point d), a new point d1) is inserted, reading as follows:

“d1) breaches of Article 23(1)(x), with a fine of 10,000 to 30,000 lei;” for legal persons and a fine of 5000 to 20000 lei for individuals. Penalties are doubled for repeat offences within one year.

d2) breaches of Article 23(1)(y), with a fine of 20000 to 50000 lei.

PRIME MINISTER

Ilie BOLOJAN