Biodiversity Action Plan 2025: Wolf missing from the document

And yet, for years this diagnosis has been followed by the same pattern: action plans, programs, pilot projects.

Now comes the next round: Already adopted in November 2024, and updated with additional measures on December 12, 2025, the Federal Council has approved the Swiss Biodiversity Action Plan for the 2025 to 2030 period .

This sounds like networking, like ecological infrastructure, like a state that understands that habitats are not created in brochures, but on the map.

At the same time, the diagnosis remains harsh: In Switzerland, almost half of the habitats are considered endangered.

And yet, a question arises that is elegantly sidestepped in the document: What does this mean for wild animals, hunting and the wolf, i.e., for the conflict area in which biodiversity policy is truly decided?

Anyone searching the new action plan for "wolf" will find: nothing by name. The plan deliberately remains general, focusing on habitats, programs, pilot projects, and efficiency improvements.

At the same time, the wolf is as prominent in Swiss wildlife policy as almost no other species. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) openly describes the change in strategy: In the winter of 2024/2025, it approved the culling of around 125 wolves. By the end of January 2025, 92 wolves had been shot preventively, i.e., before any damage had occurred.

The Federal Council enacted the revised hunting law, including the amended hunting ordinance, effective February 1, 2025. The preventive regulation of the wolf population is explicitly mentioned as a tool for conflict reduction.

This is the imbalance that is journalistically relevant: In the central biodiversity program, the wolf remains invisible, but in its implementation, it becomes the main topic.

Biodiversity policy rarely fails due to a lack of knowledge, but often due to a lack of implementation.

Anyone who says it's "always the same old thing" is absolutely right. Not because biology or ecology are lacking, but because they too often have no political consequences.

The federal government itself writes that the second phase (2025–2030) should address deficits, increase effectiveness and efficiency, close knowledge gaps and test approaches in pilot applications.

That all makes sense. But as long as enforcement and incentives aren't right, there's a risk that biodiversity management will become a continuous exercise: you document the loss better, you manage it more professionally, but you don't stop it.

And this is precisely where recreational hunting comes into play, because it lies at the intersection of conservation mandates, utilization interests, tradition, and public acceptance policies. The wolf is a touchstone in this complex environment: it forces us to consider prevention, coexistence, regulation, and biodiversity goals simultaneously.

What a federal action plan for wildlife and hunting should be called

If Switzerland truly wants to achieve more by 2030 than just the next package of "measures," it needs clear guidelines. Here are eight points that would make all the difference, especially regarding wolves and hunting:

1) The wolf belongs in the biodiversity plan, not just in hunting law.

Those who promote biodiversity as a systemic challenge shouldn't ignore the visible conflict. This isn't about "romanticizing" the wolf, but about making transparent how coexistence, prevention, regulation, livestock protection, and biodiversity goals fit together. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) itself states: The wolf is not specifically promoted in Switzerland, but its return must be managed.

The action plan is deliberately broad, but it aims for effectiveness and implementation. That is precisely why it is legitimate to ask how a key area of implementation (predators, livestock protection, regulation) can be integrated with the biodiversity goals.

2) Preventive regulation needs measurable criteria and public control

If "preventive" means taking action before damage occurs, then particularly strict, verifiable criteria are needed. The FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment) text on the regulatory phase shows how extensively this instrument has already been used. A sound action plan would have to specify: What data is required? What alternatives have been implemented? What objectives are to be achieved? What will be independently evaluated?

3) Priority for prevention instead of policy of appeasement

Hunting laws were explicitly revised to reduce conflicts between alpine farming and wolves.
Anyone who wants to reduce conflict must make prevention so binding that "shooting as the first option" never becomes the norm. Otherwise, regulation becomes a political safety valve, not a last resort.

4) Peace, habitat, connectivity: Without these, every attempt to treat symptoms becomes merely symptomatic.

The new action plan calls for networking and measures along transport routes. For wildlife, this must mean specifically: more wildlife sanctuaries, better corridors, and less fragmentation. If habitat is lacking, conflicts arise, and hunting is misused as a means of remediation.

5) Professionalization in wildlife management instead of militia logic

In many cantons of Switzerland, recreational hunting is largely organized through leases, volunteer structures, and tradition. At the same time, tasks such as tracking wounded game, enforcing animal welfare laws, and intervening in the treatment of injured animals are explicitly assigned to game wardens.

If biodiversity is a priority, wildlife management must be professionalized: game wardens instead of hobby hunting, with clear mandates, training, control, transparency and a culture that prioritizes protection over recreational interests.

6) Disclose conflicts of interest: Who decides on culls and why?

Among wolves, the pressure is high, emotions run high, and the lobby is vocal. That's precisely why robust governance is needed: clear roles, published justifications, verifiable data, and independent oversight.

7) Uniform standards instead of a patchwork of cantonal regulations

Preventive regulation operates through cantonal applications and federal review. This system invites inequality, depending on the canton, policy, and local culture. An action plan that promises effectiveness must set minimum standards; otherwise, biodiversity will remain dependent on the vagaries of jurisdiction.

8) Success criteria for 2030 that do not consist of PR

“More measures” is not a goal. Goals are: more functioning habitats, better connectivity, fewer endangered habitat types, more stable populations, and fewer conflict-ridden interventions. The federal government itself emphasizes efficiency, evaluation, and knowledge gaps. Then it must also define what it will be measured against and what happens if it falls short.

Biodiversity requires courage, not just management.

The new action plan can be an important framework. But as long as the wolf is excluded from the biodiversity plan and simultaneously subjected to massive hunting restrictions, a central message remains contradictory: biodiversity as a basis for life on the one hand, conflict management through culling on the other.

Anyone who is serious about this must take the politically uncomfortable step: wildlife management as a core government responsibility, not as a side issue for recreational hunting. This requires professionalism through game wardens, clear rules, transparent data, and consistent prevention. Only then will biodiversity have a chance of becoming more than just another phase on paper by 2030.