Nine EU states call for cormorant culling

The motion came from the Czech Republic and was co-signed by Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Croatia, Romania and Slovakia.

The stated goal: to keep the cormorant population "at an ecologically and economically acceptable level". Specifically, the nine states are demanding that the bird's protection status under the EU Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) be lowered to enable a regular hunting season.

Finland's Agriculture Minister Sari Essayah justified the demand by saying that cormorants were causing "major problems" in the Baltic Sea. Behind this lies an economic-policy interest: commercial fishery and angling associations in several northeastern European countries have for years complained about fish losses, which they blame on the cormorant.

What the ministers in Brussels did not address, however: the scientific evidence is considerably more nuanced than the "problem bird" framing suggests.

What science actually says

The cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) was on the brink of extinction in Central Europe until 1920 — persecuted by people who saw it as a competitor. Since being placed under Europe-wide protection by the EU Birds Directive in 1979, the population has recovered. From a conservation perspective, this is a success story, not a catastrophe.

Scientific studies from Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Brandenburg and Switzerland, documented in NABU's position paper on the cormorant, show that on natural waters — that is, large inland lakes, rivers and coastal waters, where by far the majority of cormorants are found — no significant damage to fish stocks occurs. According to these studies, damage is limited to isolated exceptional situations at small flowing waters or intensively managed pond facilities.

Also relevant: the cormorant is listed in Austria on the Red List as highly endangered — and this despite the fishery lobby describing it as "over-protected". BirdLife Austria points out that while the population trend is rising in some regions, the bird remains subject to considerable hunting pressure in other countries.

Article 9 of the EU Birds Directive already contains an exemption clause: interventions are legitimate where significant damage can be demonstrated and the species is not endangered as a result. In most cases, however, this evidence is lacking. The nine states are not demanding a case-by-case exemption, but a general lowering of the protection status — a qualitatively different and far more far-reaching step.

Fishery lobby has been working towards an EU hunting season for years

The cormorant debate follows a familiar pattern: a wild animal that touches economic interests is framed as a "problem species", its protection status is called into question, and killing is presented as a management solution. We know the same pattern from the wolf debate, from the lynx or from the beaver.

What stands out in the Brussels debate: the demand for a hunting season outside the breeding period sounds like a concession to nature conservation. In fact, the non-breeding period is the phase in which many waterbirds rest in concentrated numbers at bodies of water and are vulnerable depending on food availability. "Outside the breeding period" in practice does not mean "gentle management", but a hunting season on migratory birds during their most sensitive phase.

The fishing lobby in several EU countries has been intensively lobbying for a cormorant hunting season for years. The German Angling Fisheries Association (DAFV), for example, has been calling for a pan-European management approach including hunting in the European Parliament since 2018. The Brussels ministerial meeting on 26 May 2026 shows: these lobbying efforts are bearing political fruit – scientifically sound counter-arguments notwithstanding.

A precedent with signal effect for wolf, lynx and beaver

Should the EU Commission give in to the pressure and water down the Birds Directive for the cormorant, this would set a precedent. If the economic interests of one professional group are enough to lower the protection status of a bird species, the signal to other sectors is clear: enough political pressure, and nature conservation gives way.

For Switzerland, the EU decision has no direct legal effect – Switzerland is not an EU member, and the cormorant here is subject to the federal Hunting Act (JSG) as well as the Nature and Cultural Heritage Protection Act (NHG). However, Swiss nature conservation policy is aligned with EU standards in many areas. Experience shows that a weakening of the EU protection framework also increases political pressure on national protection rules.

More on the debate about predators and economic interests in the dossier “Wolf in Switzerland: facts, politics and the limits of hunting” and in the article “France and the fox: how a neighbouring country exposes hunting myths”.