WAIT,WHAT?!

EU approved Slovak law to kill bears in return for nature vote, minister claims

The alleged quid pro quo, which Brussels denies, is the latest twist behind a major nature restoration bill that finally passed on Monday.

\\

This month the Slovak parliament passed a law allowing the government to issue emergency permits to kill bears that approach human settlements.

 | Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images

JUNE 18, 2024 
BY KARL MATHIESEN AND LOUISE GUILLOT

If you want to save nature, let us kill bears.

That’s the trade Slovakia’s Deputy Prime Minister Tomáš Taraba says he made with the European Commission in return for casting a critical swing vote for a historic EU nature law Monday.

“We made it very clear that we cannot support [the Nature Restoration Law] in so far as we will not receive approval of our new legislation on bears. And this happened,” Taraba told POLITICO in a phone call shortly after voting for the contested law, which requires EU countries to restore one-fifth of land and sea areas this decade.

The Commission denied such a transaction ever took place. But in a note to the Slovak minister last week, which Taraba’s department shared with POLITICO, EU environment chief Virginijus Sinkevičius gave provisional backing to a controversial Slovak law that sanctions killing bears near villages and towns. Then he asked for Taraba’s vote for the nature law.

Sinkevičius’ team insists this wasn’t a trade. But Taraba certainly viewed it that way.

A far-right politician who runs Slovakia’s environment ministry, Taraba had previously said he planned to oppose the Nature Restoration Law, citing EU overreach. On Monday he reversed that stance, saying Slovakia had already fulfilled the bill’s targets.

His vote helped the nature law squeeze past EU ministers by the finest possible margin.

The law, which has been criticized by farmers, was the subject of a divisive, nail-biter vote in the European Parliament last year.

Monday’s vote among EU environment ministers, which officially turned the bill into law, was similarly dramatic. It incited a crisis within Austria’s ruling coalition after the country’s Green environment minister defied the chancellor and supported the bill, leaving Taraba as the only uncertain vote.

The suggestion the Commission fast-tracked its legal decision or somehow adjusted its stance on the bear law to bring Slovakia on board marks another extraordinary turn in the story of this divisive legislation.
Bears, bears, everywhere

Bear attacks have become a prominent political issue in Slovakia after a rise in violent incidents involving people in the past three years. “People in Slovakia are very afraid,” Taraba said.

This month the Slovak parliament passed a law allowing the government to issue emergency permits to kill bears that approach human settlements. According to the legal charity ClientEarth, the move likely breaches the EU's strict limits on the circumstances and conditions under which protected species, like bears, can be killed.

EU environment chief Virginijus Sinkevičius denied any quid pro quo. “That's a very strange rumor … there were no discussions or negotiations: bears or nature restoration law. … It wasn't some trading there or anything like that.”

He added that no specific accommodations were made to get Slovakia’s support for the Nature Restoration Law.

But in the note to Taraba sent on Monday, June 10, Sinkevičius appeared to offer the guarantee the Slovak was seeking. Sinkevičius said his legal team had arrived at their decision just two working days after a meeting between Commission and Slovak officials in which Taraba said he had laid out something approaching an ultimatum.

“As agreed during the meeting on Thursday,” Sinkevičius wrote, “our experts have now looked as thoroughly as possible into the new Slovak law amending the Civil Protection Act and the Nature Act, and I am happy to share with you that they conclude that the new law appears to be largely in compliance with the EU Habitats Directive.”

But there were “some provisions, where conformity with EU law will very much depend on how these provisions will be applied,” he added.

Taraba ignored those caveats, telling POLITICO the Commission had found them in “full compliance” with EU law.

Sinkevičius concluded his note by turning to the upcoming vote on the Nature Restoration Law. He acknowledged Taraba’s concerns about the bill but expressed his hope that the minister would now vote in favor.

“I trust that my reply provides you with the necessary reassurance, and I understand that the discussions you have had with [EU Green Deal chief Maroš Šefčovič] and with my team last week have also clarified your last open questions related to the Nature Restoration Law and have reassured you in that regard as well. I count on your support and look forward to seeing you in Luxembourg for the ENVI Council,” Sinkevičius said.

Ioannis Agapakis, a ClientEarth lawyer, said the Commission's letter was "concerning" and its findings questionable.

“EU laws offer ample flexibility to be able to address human safety concerns, with shooting being the absolute last resort based on strict criteria,” Agapakis said. “Piecemeal, reactionary measures are ineffective in addressing wildlife encounters and go against international and EU nature laws. This move will only lead to further breaches of the law without averting future tragic developments."

But Taraba told POLITICO that Sinkevičius' memo was indeed the signal they required to vote "yes" for the Nature Restoration Law.

“When we saw that, really, [the] Commission understands and they reevaluated pretty quickly. Then we can see that, yes, they understand our critical points as well,” said Taraba. “So, for us, it's a good result.”