Service contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores

Contract number. 07.027739/2018/792763/SER/ENV.D.3

Report : Description of the situation regarding wolf protection measures (livestock guarding dogs) and other land uses, NRP Vercors, France (27 January – 30 march 2020)

Estelle Bailan, Katrina Marsden, Laure Lou Tremblay, FEAL and adelphi consult GmbH

Service contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores

Contract number. 07.027739/2018/792763/SER/ENV.D.3 Report EN : Description of the situation regarding wolf protection measures (livestock guarding dogs) and other territory usages, Vercors Natural regional Park, France. (27 january – 30 march 2020)

Contract managed by the Instituto Ecologia Applicata, Rome

This report was written by Estelle Bailan, Katrina Marsden and Laure-Lou Tremblay (FEAL and adelphi consult GmbH) following visits and telephone interviews in and around the NRP Vercors. It is part of the activities foreseen in the service provision contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between humans and large carnivores. The opinions and assessments contained in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of the European Commission.

June 2020

2

Table of contents

1 Context ...... 4 1.2 Specific context in France ...... 5 1.2.1 Wolf legislation ...... 5 1.2.2 Wolf management ...... 6 1.2.3 Compensation regime ...... 6 1.3 Specific context in Vercors Natural Regional Park (NRP) ...... 7 1.3.1 Recent concertation processes in the Park...... 8 2 Purpose of this report ...... 9 2.1 Purpose of the missions ...... 9 2.2 General approach to our intervention ...... 9 3 Interviews ...... 10 3.1 Persons met ...... 11 3.2 Meeting procedure ...... 11 3.3 Results ...... 11 3.3.1 Issues ...... 11 3.3.2 Actors ...... 18 3.3.3 Relations between actors ...... 21 3.3.4 Initiatives ...... 24 3.3.5 Expectations from the intervention/dialogue platform ...... 24 4 Next Steps ...... 26 5 Annexes ...... 27 5.1 Annex A: Mission Members ...... 27 5.2 Annex B : Questionnaire ...... 27 5.3 Annexe C : Persons met ...... 28 5.4 Annex D : Initiatives regarding livestock guarding dogs or wolf management ...... 33

3

1 Context 1.1 General context with regard to this project

The interviews described in this report were conducted by Estelle Bailan (FEAL), Katrina Marsden and Laure Lou Tremblay (adelphi consult) under a service contract with the European Commission's Directorate-General for the Environment (No. 07.027739/2018/792763/SER/ENV.D.3). This foresees "the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores". This is an additional project supporting a first service provision contract on regional platforms (Service provision contract No 07.027739/2017/771819/SER/ENV.D.3 "Service contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores").

The impacts of large carnivores – notably bear, wolf, and lynx - recently have reappeared and intensified with regard to a wide range of human activities, including the economically costly depredation on livestock and pets. In some countries, hunters perceive carnivores as competitors for shared prey species and in some situations, predation can influence traditional game harvests and hunting. In some exceptional cases, large carnivores (mainly bears) can be a risk for human safety, and fear of both bears and wolves is often expressed by rural residents in areas where large carnivores have recently returned. Although the real impact of large carnivores can be mitigated through the adoption of adequate tools in a technical way, the disagreement among different sectors of the society about the core issue about presence of large carnivores can result in social conflicts. Experience has shown that these conflicts can escalate to very high levels and can dominate political discourses in some countries. In many cases, reintegrating large carnivores into the fabric of the European countryside requires making a number of adjustments to the practices of many sectors, including agriculture, forestry, hunting, transport, and refuse treatment, as well as dealing with the general concerns of many rural residents. The social perception of such needed changes can be either positive or negative, resulting in difficult situations to be managed. Often, the nature of conflict is mainly social, and in this case no technical tool is expected to achieve full success if not welcomed and implemented through a shared decision making approach. Many management measures may be highly controversial and / or expensive, so it is crucial that their adoption can be justified by involving the interested parties in a participatory way. Due to the diversity of European situations there are no solutions that work in all contexts. It is therefore necessary to identify the range of potential solutions and then pick the combination of measures which work best in different local contexts. In 2012, the Directorate General for the Environment of the European Commission (DG ENV) launched an initiative for the conservation and sustainable management of large carnivore species, based on dialogue with, and involvement of, relevant stakeholders, with a view to ensuring their commitment to the long-term conservation of large carnivores in coexistence with humans in Europe. In 2014 the EU platform on coexistence between humans and large carnivores was established, with the vision "To promote ways and means to minimize, and wherever possible find solutions to, conflicts between human interests and the presence of large carnivore species, by exchanging knowledge and by working together in an open-ended, constructive and mutually respectful way". The EU platform represents a tool for sharing views and issues at a higher level, but somehow lacks the direct contact with local issues. There is a need to implement pilot activities that could serve as models for other contexts, and to show how and where the participatory approach offers an effective means to move large carnivore conservation from the purely ecological to the social

4 dimension, thus taking full account of the perceptions, emotions and values of the local communities, and launching a shared responsibility process whereby actions to be implemented are selected on a common ground wherever that appears possible. Therefore, it is the primary aim of this project to set up local platforms of stakeholders in areas where high levels of conflicts are detected, in order to promote dialogue among different interest groups. It is an additional project supporting the first service contract on regional platforms (service contract no. 07.027739/2017/771819/SER/ENV.D.3 “Service contract for the establishment of regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores”). The project will support stakeholders, where this is desired, to reach agreement about key actions to implement in order to mitigate the impact of large carnivores on local human activities and smoothen the social conflicts that hamper the conservation status of the large carnivore population involved. The project also aims at improving the communication flow with the European stakeholder platform on large carnivore coexistence, as well as promoting the existence of the local platforms through ad- hoc communication activities thus contributing to the promotion of stakeholder participation at different levels. In the first contract, three regions have been retained after fact-finding missions: Harghita County in Romania, Grosseto Province in Italy and Avila Province in Spain. In those regions platforms have been established and are currently running. In the second contract, platforms have been launched in Lower Saxony, Germany, Sweden and after discussions with the French authorities: the Parc naturel régional du Vercors Natural Regional Park of Vercors (Vercors NRP) in France. This report presents the results of fact-finding missions (interviews with stakeholders) in the Vercors NRP.

1.2 Specific context in France

At the end of the 18th century, there were between 10,000 and 20,000 wolves in France, before they disappeared from French territory in the 1930s due to large-scale, deliberate destruction of the population. It was not until 1992 that renewed confirmation of the wolf's presence was given. In the 2000s, the population reaches around a hundred individuals, before increasing sharply in the early 2010s1. Today, in France, the wolf is present in the region of Occitania, in the Alpine and Provençal ranges, as well as in Great East region and in Franche-Comté2, with about 530 individuals3. The French Office for Biodiversity (Office Français de la Biodiversité, OFB) is responsible for the annual monitoring of the populations (since its first appearance in 1992) with several local partnerships. For areas where sedentary populations are identified (Zones of Permanent Presence, Zones de Présence Permanente, ZPP), the Wolf-Lynx network ensures more intensive monitoring. There are currently 97 ZPPs in France, in which 72 wolf packs live4.

1.2.1 Wolf legislation In France, as in all European countries, large predators are protected by Annex II of the Bern Convention (1979) and by Annex IV of the Habitats Directive5. At the national level, the wolf is a species strictly protected by the decree of 23 April 20076.

1 The Wolf in France, French Office for Biodiversity. https://www.loupfrance.fr/suivi-du-loup/situation-du-loup-en- france/ 2 Ibid. 3 The Grey Wolf, French Office for Biodiversity, 2019. 4 Brochure "Le loup en France" (the Wolf in France), Ferus, 2019. brochure 5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 6 Order of 23 April 2007 establishing the list of terrestrial mammals protected throughout the territory and the terms of their protection. French Ministry of Agriculture.

5

The National Action Plan 2018-2023 on the wolf and livestock breeding activities7 (Plan d’action national 2018-2023 - NAP) establishes a framework for regulations and modalities of interaction with breeding activities. The NAP defines orientations concerning support policies and the consideration of impacts on breeding, and decides on studies to characterize the conservation status and impacts of the species on breeding activities.

1.2.2 Wolf management The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition define the national strategy for coexistence with large predators, in particular through the above-mentioned NAP. The Prefect of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region ensures the coordination and application of the national strategy through the publication of decrees and orders. The DREAL8 Auvergne-Rhône Alpes and the DRAAF9 Auvergne-Rhône Alpes are responsible for implementation of the wolf policy. The NAP includes a wolf population management section and a section on the prevention of damage caused by the wolf. The wolf population management section establishes in particular derogations for the removal of individuals. The damage prevention section provides for various means of protection, including shepherds, fences, livestock guarding dogs (LGD), etc. The plan is supported by a ministerial order (Ministerial Framework Order of 19 February 201810 and 28 November 201911 ) which determines the conditions for establishing protection measures against predation. In particular, the NAP establishes a 'livestock guarding dog network', a network of contact points to facilitate access to LGDs, to advise breeders, and to help structure the sector in the medium term. Among other things, the plan also provides for a mobile intervention unit to support farmers and provide support in areas of attack.

1.2.3 Compensation regime The OFB is responsible for monitoring damage caused by the wolf. In the event of damage, the breeders file a report with the DDTM12. An OFB agent then draws up an "attack report". On the basis of this report, the DDT can decide to grant compensation. According to the recent amendment to the rules on compensation, protective measures must be in place in order to receive compensation. Further technical advice is provided by the regional agents of the OFB. At the national level, compensation represents a budget of approximately 3 million euros. For information, the compensation for one ewe is approximately € 200. The number of compensation files has increased steadily over the years. Breeders can also apply for subsidies from the DDT for the implementation of protection measures, depending on the communes covered by a prefectoral decree (financed by the State and the EAFRD). In 2019, public subsidies for financing protection aid amount to 26.3 million euros at the national level, of which 80% for guarding and 10% for protection by dogs are estimated at around (2.63 million euros at the national level, 90% of which for dog maintenance13 ).

7 Plan national d'actions 2018-2023 sur le loup et les activités d'élevage, Ministry of Ecology and Solidarity and Ministry of Agriculture. (Plan national d'actions 2018-2023 sur le loup et les activités d'élevage) 8 Direction régionale de l'environnement, de l'aménagement et du logement (Regional Directorate for the Environment, Planning and Housing) 9 Direction régionale de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture et de la forêt (Regional Directorate of Food, Agriculture and Forestry) 10 Order of 19 February 2018 setting the conditions and limits under which exemptions from the prohibitions on destruction may be granted by prefects concerning the wolf (Canis lupus). 11 Order of 28 November 2019 relating to the operation for the protection of the environment in rural areas concerning the protection of herds against predation 12 Direction départementale des Territoires et de la Mer (Departmental Directorate of Territories and the Sea) 13 Conclusions of the working group on livestock guarding dogs, Economic Affairs Committee, National Assembly, October 2019.

6

1.3 Specific context in Vercors Natural Regional Park (NRP)

The territory of the Vercors Natural Regional Park (Vercors NRP) covers 2,062 km². The Vercors is subdivided into distinct regions according to the topography : - Les Coulmes and Le Royans (north-west), a predominantly forested area, where suckler cattle farms predominate. - Les 4 Montagnes, the most touristy region (mainly ski resorts, and close proximity to the urban centre of Grenoble) with a few traditional dairy farms, which add value to their production by producing the Bleu du Vercors -Sassenage (PDO). - The Vercors Drômois, with its small grassy plateaus, used as mountain pastures in summer. - The Trièves, a high altitude plateau to the east of the massif, - The Diois and the Gervanne, with Mediterranean tendancies, dominated by pastoral areas with small numbers of the pastoral routes valorised by low numbers sheep for meat production, - The Vercors High Plateau, the wildest and highest altitude area, without permanent residents, but used for nearly 2000 years as summer pasture for sheep herds which can be large and transhumant. The main agricultural activities of the Vercors NRP are milk and meat production, equally divided between sheep and cattle, as well as the production of vines and nuts. Tourism is one of the main economic sectors and about 15% of the residents have a professional activity linked to tourism (compared to 5% in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region). In the Vercors NRP, the presence of the wolf (Canis lupus) was first documented in 1997. This is relatively early compared to other regions. Since then, the wolf population has increased, as has its territory. The wolves in the NRP Vercors belong to the population of the Provençal and Alpine range. There are currently between 6 and 8 wolf packs in the Vercors NRP. The population is increasing. The park crosses two administrative departments (Drôme and Isère), coordination between the entities represents an important intermunicipal work. The extensive and varied geographical context of the Vercors NRP also makes administration complex: the issues are not necessarily comparable from one territory to another. At the departmental level, the DDT14 Drôme and Isère are responsible for monitoring the national action plan on the wolf and livestock activities in the Vercors NRP. In both departments, departmental wolf committees (CDL) have been created and managed by the DDT. However, the Vercors NRP is active on wolf issues in its territory. The actions of the PNR are decided and implemented by a mixed syndicate bringing together the Auvergne-Rhône Alpes region, the Drôme and Isère departments, the municipalities that have adopted the Park Charter, as well as intermunicipal structures (the EPCI) and certain gateway towns15. At the level of the municipalities in the park, the mayor publishes the laws and regulations relating to the implementation of the wolf plan in the context of his municipality. The organization in communities of communes helps to develop a coordinated path between communes.

14 Departmental Directorate of Territories 15 How does a Regional Nature Park work?,NRP Vercors website

7

The park plays a mediating role between the administration, elected officials and the various interest groups involved.

1.3.1 Recent concertation processes in the Park

Over the past decade, the park has further built upon its role as mediator in the wolf issue, notably by carrying out a very comprehensive consultation process. It has organized a series of meetings with the actors concerned by the presence of the wolf, their representatives and elected officials and has managed to agree on 51 actions along three main lines: communication, knowledge of the wolf and evaluation of protection measures. The actions are detailed in the Vercors 2018-2023 Action Plan: Wolf & Territory16 . In order to monitor the implementation of the actions described in the plan in a participative format, two groups meet regularly: the consultation group (a group of about 50 participants representing breeders, hunters, administrators, elected officials, nature protection associations, tourism professionals, etc.) and a smaller reflection group, the plan steering committee, called the Reference Group. In spite of the participatory work carried out to support the implementation of the NAP in the Vercors, there are still points of tension between particular groups of stakeholders who could benefit from an additional mediation process. In particular, certain herd protection measures put in place by farmers (especially the use of LGDs) can sometimes lead to problems with regard to other uses of the territory, notably tourism activities. In this context, the Vercors NRP wishes to set up and lead a multi-actor working group "for a cohabitation of breeding activities and other land uses" in collaboration with this European project. The project supports this initiative by providing a team of experts and a professional facilitator to help the Vercors NRP to implement this dialogue process in collaboration with the internal teams of the NRP. At the end of 2019, two meetings were held with the Vercors NRP team. This enabled an initial definition of the problem (to be further developed during interviews with the actors) and an initial mapping of the actors involved. On 6 December 2019, the project was presented to the Vercors Reference Group, which validated the participation of the Vercors NRP in the project. Interviews with the actors started in January 2020. Numerous interviews were conducted with elected officials, members of the administration, breeders and actors of the profession, hunters and associated actors, tourism and leisure actors, research organisations, nature protection associations.

16 Vercors action plan 2018-2023 : Wolf & Territory. Local implementation of the Loup 2018-2023 National Action Plan: Concerted experimentation programme at the Vercors-Trièves scale, Vercors NRP, September 2018.

8

2 Purpose of this report

In this report we will inform all interested parties about the work we carried out between January and March 2020 in the Vercors NRP. We present the objectives of our work, the approach we used, the people we met with, their views on the situation, and the conclusions of our mission and the next steps envisaged.

2.1 Purpose of the missions

The objectives of the interview phase are part of the establishment of a platform/initiative for regional dialogue:

 To gain a better understanding of the social, economic, political and cultural situation with regard to conflicts between the use of guard dogs for livestock and other land uses.

 To identify the different elements and actors related to the issue

 To inform actors about this initiative

2.2 General approach to our intervention

The approach that we use in all sites of our work has four parts, as described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Approach of the establishment of regional platforms

9

At all times in this process our team will remain:  Neutral with regard to the issues under discussion. The only suggestions we will make are on the process to follow but even here we remain open to changes whenever they are requested by the participants.  In support of each stakeholder by way of understanding what is important to her/ him.  Transparent with regard to the decisions that we are intending to take on the process and the reasons for them as well as on the decisions that already have been taken (as far as we are aware of them).  Confidential with regard to who told us what in the preliminary interviews of the first phase. Nevertheless we will feedback information – to the EC-DG ENV but also to the stakeholders – about the general points that were raised and the overall situation albeit without indicating who stated which point (this is a purpose of the current report) unless the respondent authorized us to do so. This implies that our role is not to propose solutions to the issues under consideration. We will remain a neutral third party in support of all the other parties. Instead, the solutions will have to come from the local stakeholders themselves or from expertise brought in on the request of these stakeholders. We consider that if the platform participants can reach consensus on solutions, they should be appropriate for the specific local context, as well as more lasting than any solution suggested by external experts.

10

3 Interviews 3.1 Persons met

We conducted a total of 41 interviews: 23 face-to-face interviews during fact-finding missions and 18 interviews by telephone/zoom (teleconference). See Annex C for a list of individuals. Persons were identified with the support of the Vercors NRP team during the stakeholder mapping. During the course of the interviews, we were able to add people to our list through a "snowball effect". 3.2 Meeting procedure

Prior to the interviews, our team (see Appendix A) prepared a questionnaire that served as the basis for our discussions (see Appendix B). This questionnaire was used for the work of the other platforms established in the framework of the European project. During the interviews, we did not always respect the order of the questions in the questionnaire, preferring to ask the questions according to the theme of the conversation. We generally tried to cover all the questions in the questionnaire where relevant. 3.3 Results

In this report, we have tried to represent as faithfully as possible the richness of the responses collected. To this end, we reorganised the results of the interviews in an Excel file, grouping them by person and stakeholder group, as well as by subtopics. The information collected is extensive and in this report we will provide summaries of these results as well as a general context. We have also ensured the confidentiality of the responses (no link to the identity of the author). The opinions expressed during the interviews and presented here represent the views of the interviewees.

3.3.1 Issues On the basis of the interviews, and to clarify the analysis, we classified the issues according to the following categorization:

1. The context of the wolf's presence 2. Quantification and qualification of incidents with LGD 3. Technical issues related to LGD 4. Communication and user awareness 5. Socio-cultural context 6. Socio-economic context 7. Cross-cutting issues

1.The context of the wolf's presence

The protection measures in place are linked to an increase in the wolf population on the Vercors over the last 15 years. Although it has been present on the Plateaus for longer, the arrival of the wolf in the foothills and hamlet areas is more recent (4-5 years) and has therefore required increased protection measures with LGDs and electrified nets sometimes present throughout the year (or outside the summer period) in these inhabited areas. About 6 to 8 wolf packs are currently present in the Vercors.

11

The consultation carried out by the Vercors NRP has led to exchanges between actors that have led to a recognition of the needs of each, resulting in a situation where tensions are not as high as in other territories. The Maploup interface, developed by the Pastures Federation of Isère (Fédération des Alpages de l'Isère - FAI 38) and the Departmental Association of Mountain Economy (Association Départementale d'Economie Montagnarde – ADEM), makes it possible to record attacks and monitor potential predation incidents. In addition, the departmental wolf committees in Isère and the Drôme, as well as the Wolf-Lynx network developed by the OFB allow for better information sharing.

However, this consultation phase also generated high expectations regarding concrete actions which have not always been fulfilled. Some people therefore question the usefulness of these consultation meetings.

Moreover, there are strategic political games on the wolf issue that can blur the real needs or the possibilities of solution. For example, one actor refused to do the interviews, with a position stressing the fact that they do not want the wolf and that concertation/mediation actions are a means of obtaining funding by those who carry them out.

There is a concern among the breeders but also among other actors regarding the future evolution of wolf populations and the effectiveness of current measures because the wolf adapts, probably faster than the breeders' response time. This is exacerbated by the fact that the process of publically acknowledging the wolf's presence in the Vercors was long, leaving the wolf a head start in adapting. For example, the wolf no longer hesitates to attack in the middle of the day. Note that not all breeders are affected to the same extent. In the north of the Vercors, the farms are mainly cattle and are less affected by predation: they have fewer dogs to manage.

In France, there is a possibility of removing wolves in certain circumstances under derogation, but this is ultimately considered inefficient by many actors. Some consider that removal not directly linked to attacks in a targeted manner (i.e. carried out later) does not work, while others consider any removal of a protected species to be unacceptable.

2. Quantification and qualification of incidents with LGDs

Since the first official identification of wolves in 1997 and the first attacks in 2002, the LGD numbers have gradually increased. In order to be compensated in the event of an attack by a predator, breeders in the core wolf areas must be equipped with at least two measures of a triptych of means of protection namely installation of electrified parks, shepherding and guard dogs. This is a major reason for the fairly rapid increase in the guard dog numbers in the Vercors. In 2018, the DRAAF Auvergne-Rhône Alpes counted 3317 LGDs17 financed by the State services in the Alpine massif. Incidents with the dogs seem to be becoming more and more frequent, but there is no uniform and coordinated collection of incidents. Many actions have been initiated, but there is currently no central point or toll-free number. There are several online forms, and town halls or tourist offices collect statements from those affected, the police also collect complaints. All information is supposed to go up to the level of the prefect and is therefore on a departmental basis.

Many actors point to the fact that there is no standardised description of incidents to characterise the circumstances and their context. In this rather vague context, it is thus difficult to take appropriate measures. Some initiatives such as 'Mon expérience avec le chien de protection' ("My

17 Livestock guarding dogs: when breeders forge their knowledge in the Alps, Adem and CERPAM, 2019.

12 experience with LGDs") (SEA, FAI and DDT 73, then transposed to the Drôme via ADEM, DDT 26) have made it possible to collect testimonies on the encounter between dogs and walkers. In 2019, this voluntary online form enabled 528 testimonials to be collected. In addition, the SURICAT website allows you to report any problem during an outdoor activity.

It is difficult to have an estimate of the incidents and their nature, but a majority of actors confirm that there has been a clear increase over the last three years.

Despite this, the majority of incidents seem to be encounters that have frightened users without necessarily involving a bite. Some stakeholders also want to point out that they only get feedback when the interaction went badly: most visitors would thus have a positive but undocumented experience.

It is certain that inhabited areas lead to more interaction between dogs and people. This can create more tense situations such as in the Gigors-et-Lozeron - Beaufort/Gervanne area, or around Lans-en-Vercors and Villard-de-Lans.

3. Technical issues related to LGDs

While shepherds have always used LGDs, until 1998, their use had declined and they were often used without any organised accompaniment. The training of the dogs was thus not necessarily carried out well with the right supervision, and this may have led to errors (exposure to predators of dogs that were too young, poor socialisation, etc.). Interviews showed that specific dogs had recurring problems. Most stakeholders agree that there is still little data on the education of LGDs, their breeds, their selection, and how best to manage them.

A problem in mountain pasture areas is linked to the fact that seasonal herders generally own the driving dogs, but the LGDs are those of the breeders and come with the herds. Some shepherds do not necessarily have the training or the ability to become "leader of a pack" of dogs. Shepherds do not necessarily know the dogs before the start of the season. This makes LGDs automatically less obedient to the shepherds than driving dogs. Note that the dogs do not necessarily know each other either, which increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. Dogs need to get familiar with each other, which can take time. In addition, repeated attacks stress the dogs.

The implementation of protective devices, such as dogs, is subject to controls and delegated visits by the DDT's Service and Payments Agency (Agence de services et de paiement -ASP). However, these visits are rare in practice. The Breeding Institute (Institut de l’élevage –IDELE) offers breeders support from advisors on guard dogs financed by European funds (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development – EAFRD). Because of the administrative procedure for applying for EAFRD funds, the accompaniment arrives a few months later than the request for assistance from breeders. There is a feeling among the breeders that they have had to fend for themselves to protect themselves and therefore find the dogs and the people who can advise them. The Chamber of Agriculture of the Drôme offers training courses in the method of training LGDs. In addition, the ADEM and the FAI support breeders in both departments with the implementation of protection measures.

Actors have contradictory expectations about the role of dogs: some believe that dogs should be able to hunt while others consider them in their role of deterrence. This is why the breeds of LGDs

13 are diversifying, with breeds with different behaviours, without any established chain of custody for the time being. The main breeds used in France for protection are the Pyrenean Mountain, called "Patou", the Anatolian Shepherd, called "kangal" the Spanish Mastiff, the Cao de Gado transmontano, or the Abruzzo Shepherd. The Patous stay more in the herds a priori, like the Cao de Gado, while the Shepherds of Anatolia tend to patrol and potential leave the flock to hunt the wolf. All these dogs are characterized by a strong autonomy towards humans and work on instinct. They most often stay close to the herd but are regularly out of sight and within earshot of the shepherd's voice when repelling and hunting predators.

Initiatives researching the genetics and behavioural links are thus strongly supported by the various players. Many actors stress the need for systematic data collection on LGDs (census, lineage, breed, behaviour, etc.). No organisation is responsible for this task at the moment. A puppy is only recognized as a pedigree breed after passing before a judge and registration in the Book of French Origins (Livre des origines Françaises, LOF). For the moment, this procedure is poorly adapted to working dogs. Dogs are recognized by the LOF on the basis of their appearance (beauty characteristics) rather than their usefulness. A potential future development is that the IDELE supported by the Ministry of Agriculture for the development of a quality network of guard dogs, in order to follow the genetics of the dogs.

Projects and efforts on accompaniment are nevertheless underway. Camille Fraissard's project in ethology was unanimously cited by the actors as essential and useful work for all. Her study, within the framework of the association Ethology outreach and initiative (Vulgarisation et initiative en éthologie, VIE), aims to observe the behaviour of 50 dogs throughout the South-East of France.

Some suggest modifying herd management practices to adapt to the new context of increased dog presence (more shepherds, selecting dogs that know each other, etc.). This concerns especially the Southern Vercors (Drôme part) which includes most sheep farms, which require dog protection. However, it is difficult for breeders or shepherds to be present in all parks or grazing areas.

4. Communication and user awareness

The actors highlighted the quantity of initiatives in terms of information to hikers by a multitude of organisations: permanent signalling, leaflets, official brochures, videos, etc. These tools are mainly distributed locally through accommodation providers and tourist offices. However, many actors are sceptical about the effectiveness of communication. Already, the local scale of communication restricts the number of people likely to receive the message. Tourist offices point out that only 12% of tourists visit the offices. Many people miss the communication efforts, despite the efforts made. In addition, few locals visit tourist offices but may be affected by the dogs’ presence.

There is a lack of harmonisation between the different signalling systems, but efforts are being made to homogenise them throughout the Alpine Arc. Furthermore, several stakeholders have put forward the need for more interactive content, more likely to reach the public concerned (videos, face-to-face contact, etc.). Some research actors thus suggest organising technical/practical workshops open to all or public meetings. These events would provide an opportunity for knowledge sharing and dialogue through learning. The technical day organised in 2019 with the LIFE EUROLARGECARNIVORES project in Gigors and Lozeron thus brought together elected representatives, breeders, associations and the Vercors NRP. Some also noted the importance of clarifying the messages communicated to walkers. On the question of bypassing, for example, it

14 would be necessary to explicitly define the distance to be maintained with the herd.

In general, actors support the need to inform tourists about good practices to be observed in pastoral areas. Some actors speak of the support that could be provided by the media. On the one hand, the media are in a prime position for information sharing and education on good practices. On the other hand, stories of incidents that are often "sensationalist" in the press tend to inflame the debate.

The focus of the debate on LGDs means that little is said about the wolf, and therefore about the reasons for the presence of dogs. Until now, only breeders have had to adapt to the presence of the predator, but several actors point out that now it is more users who have to change their habits because of the presence of the wolf that impose LGDs.

This makes it essential to communicate this link between the presence of wolves and dogs, and to integrate it into a more global message on the specificities of animal husbandry and life in rural areas. With this in mind, the community of communes in the Vercors massif (part of Isère) has, for example, organised a day with a herd for volunteer hikers with a breeder.

Some actors have themselves developed alternative methods to reduce the likelihood of incidents. Information on the location of dogs or herds is one of the points on which most experimentation and action is focused. Thus, ADEM and the Chamber of Agriculture 26 have equipped about thirty dogs/ewes with GPS collars to geolocate flocks. This gives users the possibility to change their itinerary or to prepare for the presence of the dogs. The NRP Vercors has also developed a module in the Vercors Rando application that makes it possible to find out which mountain pastures are used by sheep herds and for how long.

At the same time, FAI 38 has launched a herd mapping project based on the model of the Hunting Federation 38 Hunting Area Mapping.

A complicating factor in the mapping of herds is the fact that farmers do not necessarily have their farms in the same department as their mountain pastures. For example, some breeders from Drôme come to the mountain pastures in Isère for a few months. As the Public Establishment for Intercommunal Cooperation Drôme and Isère (Etablissement Public de Coopération Intercommunale, EPCI) are not necessarily coordinated on the presence of herds, the presence of herds is sometimes not recorded.

5. Sociocultural context

With regard to conflicts with LGDs, the imprudent behaviour of users was often highlighted in the interviews, in particular the lack of education of tourists and neo-ruralists on the issues of pastoralism and the attitude to be observed towards dogs. For some actors, it is mainly hikers from large urban areas who are increasingly present in the mountain pastures, and are not necessarily aware of the attitude to adopt with guard dogs, especially in the presence of their domestic dogs. It is this ever-increasing number of outdoor sports enthusiasts that they find problematic. For other actors, the problem concerns more the local populations (not only neo- rural), who wish to be able to walk (often with their dogs) without constraint all year round. This conflicts with the activities of agricultural professionals and the constraints of protection against the wolf. This problem is exacerbated by the presence of herds and therefore dogs near dwellings. For

15 others, both populations (outside hikers or local people) are involved in incidents depending on the time of year.

Other actors consider the behaviour and education of LGDs and their owners as the main reason for incidents. These naturally protective dogs can easily become aggressive, especially if they have not been properly trained. It should be noted that incidents are usually contained to particular areas.

Finally, a large number of stakeholders consider that there is a shared responsibility between tourist behaviour and guard dogs for incidents.

Shepherds and breeders are sometimes subject to contradictory injunctions: on the one hand, the State provides funding to support the use of these LGDs, which are also almost indispensable for obtaining compensation in the event of predation. On the other hand, local people, mountain users, actors of the tourist economy and local elected representatives demand a reduction in the number of LGDs to reduce conflicts with tourism.

These dynamics provide us with in-depth information on the different visions of the rural world. Many actors speak of a division between those who use the space as a place of work and those who practice a leisure activity. The mountain is perceived by some as a space of freedom, where everything is allowed. Several actors deplore a lack of knowledge of the uses and rules of the rural world (e.g. when collecting nuts in private plots or unauthorised passage in the middle of pastures) and a dimension of 'consumption' of the mountain by tourists and other outdoor sports enthusiasts.

The actors in the livestock world sometimes feel at best ignorance and at worst contempt for pastoralism and its practices by many "city dwellers" or "neo-rurals". Many actors invoke this opposition or division between a traditional rural world based on hunting and pastoralism and a neo-rural or tourist population with little awareness of local issues. This lack of knowledge of the uses of the rural world leads some actors to say that 'no, the mountains do not belong to everyone'.

On the other hand, some of the people interviewed report the loss of patience of some farmers, who are also tired of the current farming conditions. They point to the sometimes hostile attitudes of some shepherds who leave those in difficulty to cope: "if you want wolves, you have dogs". They tell of the growing feeling of fear felt by walkers and other users. Some tourism and leisure actors advise tourists against certain plateaus during the summer season, in anticipation of the risk of incidents.

This conflict of perception is reinforced by the lack of dialogue and exchange between these populations. This difficult dialogue is of great concern to herders and pastoralists, who suffer from a lack of recognition for their work. Many breeders confide that they are under great stress in relation to the management of the dogs and a change in their activity.

The concern is also very important for many elected representatives who are often at the heart of controversies and have to take measures in one direction or another, fearing that a really serious accident could happen.

16

6. Socio-economic context

One of the most obvious consequences of the presence of LGDs and associated incidents is the impact on tourist activities. Many visitors become frightened of dogs, which discourages some from returning. The tourism sector is quite important in the Vercors, with 15% of residents having a professional activity related to tourism. In summer, many tourists are attracted by outdoor activities: hiking, mountain biking, paragliding, which generates income for professionals in the leisure sector. In addition, local farmers and producers also benefit from the presence of tourists by offering accommodation and potentially selling their products on local markets (meat, milk).

Thus, the socio-economic impact of LGDs is not negligible, which even creates mistrust among some professionals. Indeed, some of them speak of the use of dogs by breeders to drive tourists away from the pastures.

For their part, the breeders put forward the additional workload and problems that LGDs bring with the need to now have to manage packs of dogs given the number of wolves. The recognition of this work and the mental burden that can be generated by interactions with the inhabitants or locals is mentioned by several breeders. Moreover, LGDs are only operational for a short period of time: from 18 months to about seven years. The costs of caring for older dogs must be taken into account.

The significant costs generated by the management of the dogs as well as the tension associated with the presence of the wolf could motivate the abandonment of the profession for some of them. This represents an important risk for the economic activities resulting from pastoralism. They explain that they are able to devote less time to the selection of more productive ewes, which impacts on their sense of pride in their work. Many question the future of pastoralism. A withdrawal of the breeders could affect the maintenance of the typical landscapes of the Vercors, which would in turn affect tourism.

Livestock farmers also expressed the view that they currently bear full civil liability in the event of an incident with a walker (under Article L. 211-11 of the Rural Code). They consider this to be a source of major stress and unfair as dogs are an obligation and not a choice. They are calling for a review of this status.

7. Transversal issues

The presence of the wolf in the Vercors brings in actors with varied visions, sometimes incompatible if one remains at the level of positions. Most of them stressed the need to find a ground for consultation and communication to move the debate forward. There are therefore efforts and initiatives to improve coordination and exchange of information on technical tools. There are, however, certain tensions, fuelled by relative competition between actors. Some categories of stakeholders maintain good relations within their group or with other categories (e.g. hunters and herders) but communicate very little with others (tourists and hunters or herders) (see Table 1).

Finding a system of governance to bring these multiple actors together is therefore a complex task. Each actor or group of actors is motivated by divergent interests, has particular skills and different prerogatives. In particular, the Vercors NRP spans two departments, which are not necessarily confronted with the same issues and which are not necessarily coordinated in their actions.

17

However, the Vercors NRP is very active in the coordination effort. The field of knowledge sharing communication is proving its worth in the Park. On the basis of the plan developed, the park is following research projects on the theme of the wolf and LGDs. The research has made it possible to renew contact with breeders. The research brings a new dimension to the relationship between breeders and the park, bringing shared knowledge and mutual respect, with the breeders being happy to be listened to.

In general, some actors note a tendency to increase the number of meetings and gatherings to try to foster exchanges. Meetings are often a source of exasperation because concrete actions are difficult to come about.

Although the actors are generally motivated to develop a space for exchange, many of them are sceptical about state intervention in consultations. There has been a certain loss of confidence in state services in the face of prolonged denial about the presence of the wolf and the lack of a clear position. The impression is that the experience gained over the years is not being taken into account and that it is necessary to start from scratch again in the current areas of wolf-colonisation, for example. Thus, the herders show a particular mistrust of the state authority. Some actors state that the state does not take sufficient responsibility for the management of the wolf.

3.3.2 Actors

The following table (Tab. 2) presents a list of the identified actors with a preliminary overview of the actors to be involved or informed about further developments of our work and the implementation of the platform and its results (additions can be made in the future).

Table 1. Actors involved

Categorisation Name Description of the organisation of the actor

Departmental In the Vercors, DDT Isère (38) and DDT Drôme (26) are involved. Directorate of DDT supervises the wolf presence monitoring network. It also Territories offers an aid scheme for the protection of herds (funded by the (Direction State and Europe) and manages reports of damage by large Départementale predators as well as compensation. It issues derogations and des Territoires – authorisations for the taking of wolves. It publishes hunting DDT) regulations. It coordinates the departmental wolf committees.

State French Office for The OFB monitors, collects and analyses wolf presence data. This Administration Biodiversity office coordinates the Loup-Lynx platform, which aims to assess (Office Français de the conservation status of these two species by collecting data on la Biodiversité – their presence (2000 correspondents trained in their detection in OFB) France). The OFB then centralizes the data. Each year, the OFB publishes the results of the collection work: permanent presence and detection maps of the wolf. OFB agents also report attacks to breeders.

Departmental The departmental council manages the monitoring of sensitive

18

Council Isère and natural areas and files relating to areas affected by the wolf. The Drôme (Conseil council guarantees interactions between users and acts as an Départemental intermediary between breeders and other users. The council is Isère (38) et Drôme also responsible for setting up pastoral signalling. (26) )

Natural Regional Nature reserve management and service management. Important Park Vercors implication on the subject of the wolf in the Vercors (active from (Parc naturel the arrival of the wolf). Effort to reconcile breeding activities and régional du Vercors the mission to protect the wolf. Leads in particular the Wolf - PNR Vercors) Vercors Plan for the improvement of concertation between actors.

Nature Reserve of The reserve covers 10% of the park's territory. It is the largest land the Vercors High reserve in mainland France. The guards of the reserve carry out plateaus the reports of attacks on the territory of the reserve.

Other Institutions Elected officials must respond to the twofold imperative of protecting citizens and supporting farmers facing predation. Not all Elected officials municipalities are affected in the same way and positions on the issue of coexistence are varied.

Public Administrative structure that groups together municipalities. Some Establishment for communities of municipalities have attributions in the tourist field Intercommunal (maintenance of hiking trails) and agriculture (support of Cooperation pastoralism). Interactions with the park and the department on (Etablissement possible conflicts of use. Link between tourism professionals and public de pastoralists. coopération intercommunale – EPCI)

Hunting Hunting federations grant hunting permits, carry out species Federation monitoring missions (winter assessments of the wolf population) Hunters (Fédération chasse and act as relays for the wolf training courses provided by the 38 et 26) OFB, while offering guides to participants in regulation operations and assistance to farmers (taking samples, defensive shots, etc.).

Vercors Wild Life Association for the Protection of Wild Animals. Independent NGO (Vercors Vie which aims at the protection of wolves through awareness

Sauvage – campaigns, cancellation of shooting orders. Founding member of

ASPAS) the CAP Loup network (collective of associations for the

protection of wolves) which brings together 40 organisations

including Ferus, WWF, or the LPO.

Associations for the protection of French Federation of Associations for the Protection of Nature and nature France Nature the Environment (3500 member associations). The FNE

Environnement - campaigns for the protection of the wolf. In particular, it had wolf

FNE packs banned in the Mercantour in 1996. It still denounces the

official shooting orders, fights against poaching, and works to

raise awareness about the wolf.

Bird Protection Active association within the National Wolf Group (Groupe

19

League (Ligue de National Loup), member of CAP Loup and FNE. Action against protection des official shootings, wolf regulation policy, creation of exclusion oiseaux – LPO) sectors. It also encourages the use of means of protection and support for breeders in the event of a crisis, as well as the creation of spaces for dialogue.

World Wildlife WWF aims for a peaceful cohabitation between the wolf and Fund - WWF human activities such as livestock farming. It is active in awareness-raising campaigns and supports Ferus in setting up means of protection against wolf attacks (Pastoraloup initiative in particular). WWF is also active in the LIFE EUROLARGE CARNIVORES project..

Departmental Contributes to the development of pastoral activities in the Association of department and supports the breeders. Studies and technical Mountain approaches on herd predation, actions to help implement Economy protection measures, raising awareness of pastoralism and the (Association presence of dogs, recording of incidents. Efforts to improve départementale dialogue between actors. d’économie montagnarde- ADEM 26) Federation of mountain Association which contributes to the development of pastoral pastures of Isère activities in Isère. It also offers mediation missions for livestock Organisations in (Fédération des actors and supports communication actions on pastoralism. support of animal alpages de l'Isère- husbandry FAI 38) & Breeders Breeders Breeders can be part of a Joint farming grouping (Groupement agricole d'exploitation en commun - Gaec), operate individually or in family farms.

Chamber of Overall support the wolf's regulation policy. Assist in the Agriculture 26 implementation of protection measures against predation, offer and 38 (Chambre training courses for guard dogs, herd and dog mapping projects. d’agriculture 26 et 38)

Ovine Defending farmers' interests, assistance with administrative Departmental procedures, promotion of sheep farming products and Federation : professions, promotion of the sector. It is an agricultural union. (Fédération Départementale Ovine – FDO)

Mission to improve the competitiveness of herbivorous livestock farms and their sectors. Technical follow-up to the breeders for the implementation of protection measures. Development of a network of guard dogs with reference breeders. Offers, among The Breeding other things, training to help breeders integrate dogs and provides Institute (L’Institut information on guard dogs and various practical guides for de l’Elevage – breeders. IDELE)

20

National Research Institute for Agriculture, Research in particular on mountain farming practices, Food and the development of predation indicators. Favourable to the Environment experimentation of different measures for the management of (Institut national de predation in the park. recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation, l’environnement – INRAe)

Research and Grenoble Alpes Research in particular on wolves and the use of mountain areas educational University and exploration of the controversies between science and society institutions (Université on the theme of the wolf in the Vercors. Grenoble Alpes – UGA)

Ethology Association that considers ethology as a tool for scientific outreach and mediation. Various projects involving participatory research, initiative popularization of knowledge and implementation of solutions. (Vulgarisation et Supports the study "Le Patou ne fait pas tout", carried by Camille initiative en Fraissard. éthologie – VIE)

Mountain Biker Organization for the defence of the practice of mountain biking in Foundation - MBF natural environments. Intervenes in cases of conflict of use on land degradation and erosion in particular (mediation). Some incidents reported with guard dogs (incident report forms). Raising awareness of the presence of guard dogs.

Tourism Offices Mission to advise and accompany tourists. Communication on the (Offices du subject of the wolf and raising awareness of the presence of Tourisme – OT) guard dogs. Concerted efforts on the wolf controversy with other actors. Tourism and outdoor activity organisations Mountain leaders Accompanying hikers and other outdoor sports enthusiasts. They (Accompagnateurs have a role of education to the mountain environment. de montagne)

This category also includes all recreational users: hikers, Mountain sports mountain bikers, trailers, paragliders, etc.. They are not practitioners necessarily federated, a category of actors rather individualized.

3.3.3 Relations between actors

The aim here is to identify the positions of the actors on the main themes related to the wolf in the

21

Vercors and their relationship with each other. Of course, the categories of actors do not necessarily have homogenous positions.

Tableau 1. Perspectives of the different actors

 Tourism professionals are quite worried about the current situation. Many of them report the feeling of fear of tourists afraid of dogs. Tourism  Tourism professionals underline the difficult relationship with breeders, Professionals who sometimes find it difficult to accept the presence of walkers on their mountain pastures. The presence of dogs is not always synonymous with problems:  The tension is not the same everywhere. Some mountain pastures are much less affected by predation than others. As a result, there are fewer dogs and interactions and less tension.  Communication about guard dogs can be a way for tourists to discover the pastoral world, especially through days with the herds.  The majority of encounters go well, there is a bias of over- representation/over-mediatisation of incidents.  Scepticism towards the state's handling of the wolf issue. The impression is that the State is failing to take its responsibilities and to accompany its national programme on the wolf with action. Moreover, the state reportedly denied for years the permanent return of the wolf to the Vercors, which has Breeders not established a good basis of trust.  Pro regulation of the wolf population. The wolf strongly disrupts their activities and is a source of stress and extra work.  A source of stress and extra work with the introduction of LGDs. Some believe that it remains difficult to control the dogs, even when training them.  Often difficult interactions with locals and tourists. Locals repeatedly deal with LGD (barking etc.). Breeders find unfair the lack of consideration and understanding for their activity expressed by some locals.  The fact that the herders bear legal responsibility for incidents increases the tension. Some herders report procedural threats from some tourists/inhabitants.

 Hunters consider that they are performing a public service mission by Hunters managing animal populations and are sometimes called upon to eliminate individual wolves by way of derogation.  They consider that the arrival of the wolf has upset the established balance by adding a competing predator that has greatly reduced the populations of mouflon, deer and chamois. Consequently, many of them consider it necessary to include the wolf in the huntable species for rebalancing purposes (wolf control position).  Some conflicts with breeders. There have been incidents between guard dogs and hunting dogs.

22

 Nature protection associations tend to blame the state for its lack of clear commitment to the wolf, particularly with regard to the lack of control over shooting. Associations for the  They are quite critical of the NAP.. (The ASPAS and Ferus left the national protection of wolf committee in 2019). nature  The data reported on the number of wolves is disputed. This fuels fears that the state will use reports as justification for derogations to allow more removals from the population. For this reason, some organisations are reluctant to share data on the presence of wolves.  Some organisations want to reduce the number of shootings and campaign against removal under any circumstances. Others accept that hunting can be used as a management measure. So there are quite different perspectives on the definition of 'species regulation'.  Some organisations support pastoralists. Ferus, in partnership with WWF, has been running the Pastoraloup project to help herders with groups of volunteers to implement protection measures. WWF is involved in the LIFE EUROLARGECARNIVORES project and has organised training for herders and administrators.

 Mayors are undoubtedly the elected officials most concerned by the wolf Local Elected problem and incidents with dogs. They are in a particular situation being Officials responsible for the safety of their fellow citizens, incidents between dogs and the population sometimes lead them to take a stand and act.  Not all mayors are concerned in the same way by the problem of LGDs. Some municipalities are particularly affected by predation and therefore LGDs, such as Lans-en-Vercors.  Some elected representatives consider that they have made significant efforts, contrary to breeders. However, others are more sympathetic to the breeders and the difficult situation they find themselves in.  In this context, some mayors decide to restrict access to certain mountain pastures, while others ban pet dogs from the mountain pastures.

Administration  In recent years there has been a decline in human resources which limits the presence of agents in the field to support the herders. This generates some frustration.  The representatives of the State services regret that breeders’ positions are often too uncompromising, but some of them understand their frustration and the situation of increasing pressure.

The above provides an overview of the stereotypical differences between the different actors. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that communication between many is positive and that, with the exception of a few, the actors involved are willing to work together.

23

3.3.4 Initiatives

As described above, a large number of initiatives, related to the problems identified, have already been tested in the Isere and Drôme departments or in the Vercors NRP. However, there is a problem of coordination and information sharing between the organisations implementing them. Annex D provides a summary of the initiatives mentioned in the interviews.

 The actors work together in different constellations, in forums, discussions and position papers. Some of the work resulting from these events and the work of the different groups is listed below, this list is not exhaustive:  Various guides on the training and integration of LGDs into the herd by the actors of the 'Breeding' group. See in particular the work of ADEM and IDELE on the subject.  Documents written within the framework of the Vercors 2018-2023 Wolf and Territory Plan coordinated by the Vercors NRP and documents from the National Action Plan coordinated by the State services.  Documents supporting the implementation of protection measures (State services including the DDT, Hunting Federation Guides).  Wolf population monitoring documents drafted by the OFB.  Documents relating to the safeguarding of Pastoralism (Work of the Auvergne Rhône Alpes Region, ADEM and the Chamber of Agriculture in particular).  Various applications and experiments in mapping herds and wolves, accompaniment, training, research projects on dogs.

All of these initiatives require a high level of exchange and dialogue between certain players. The interviewees stated that there is already an ongoing dialogue with several forums organised over the last decade. The flip side of the coin is a certain consultation weariness that is expressed by some of the interviewees. This is of course a crucial point for our work on a local platform.

3.3.5 Expectations from the intervention/dialogue platform

We can identify three categories of expectations from the interviews conducted so far: It is expected that the regional platform will improve dialogue, strengthen cooperation and the development of a common strategy: "to dialogue without seeking to impose one's point of view", "to get out of entrenched postures", "to find a space for discussion", to have a "trusting cooperation" in which agreements are taken seriously. There are some fears that the platform will be superimposed on the park's mediation work. The Vercors NRP is already carrying out important work to improve consultation between stakeholders (Wolf Plan Vercors). Some stakeholders have supported the important role of the park, due to its legitimacy and experience. However, the neutral position of the platform would be an asset to advance the debate and bring the actors together. It is also an opportunity to become even more of an actor in coexistence. Many initiatives are being carried out at the park level and beyond. There is a desire to bring these initiatives together and to learn from the experiences of others. The platform could contribute to this.

24

Most stakeholders stressed the urgency of the situation and the need for mediation. The current situation is very tense in some areas. Actors are motivated to discuss in a more measured and open manner.

25

4 Next Steps

With the exception of one interviewee, all actors were interested in the project. Some working at the departmental level indicated that they may not be the most able to participate but that they wanted to stay informed. A first meeting is planned, involving as many of the interviewees as possible. At this meeting, participants will have the opportunity to discuss the added value of this platform/initiative, its level of intervention, target audience, objectives and strategy.

26

5 Annexes 5.1 Annex A: Mission Members

Name Role Affiliation Estelle Bailan Animator-Mediator FEAL Katrina Marsden Coordination of the France Platform adelphi consult Laure-Lou Tremblay Support adelphi consult

5.2 Annex B : Questionnaire

Part I: Details on the actor and on the interview

Introduce yourself. Give some context and background of your own work (project) and what in particular led you to this stakeholder. Describe the purpose of the interview and the process that is likely to follow after the interviews. State your role in that process. Say what will happen with the data of the questionnaire. Add the following information:  How many people will be interviewed in total  The interview will be confidential with regard to who said what but not with regard to the information provided  Note taking during the interview  Any questions before starting?

Partie II: Questions

1. What is the situation with regard to [… the issue]? You have mentioned mainly problematic [if this is case] aspects – do you think there are other ones as well? 2. What has led to this situation? 3. Which persons or institutions are directly involved in this? What do you think are their interests or expectations? 4. How would you describe your relationship to these other stakeholders? 5. Which other persons or institutions/ groups are yet other stakeholders, observers or potential third parties in this situation? 6. What have you already done to solve the problem? Have you asked others to help you in this? 7. What would happen if nobody steps in to work on the situation? What would be the consequences for you/ for the other stakeholders? 8. Is anyone taking advantage of the current situation? If not, why does it exist? Would you be afraid of losing something if you reached an agreement? Would anyone else fear losing something if they reached an agreement? 9. How urgent is the situation? 10. What would be your personal goal in addressing this situation: For example if you imagine a positive outcome in one year of time what would it look like? 11. How does this whole situation affect you personally in terms of stress or any other emotions that the situation may stir [if this has not been said yet]? 12. What would you hope for from the intervention of an outside party in this situation?

27

13. If there were some kind of exchange process put into place with the other stakeholders would you be willing to participate? If you are willing to participate would you agree to a period of peace during that time [in case of conflict]? This would mean to abstain from public attacks outside of the agreed upon exchange platform and to agree to the principle of respect (be ready to listen) for the other parties within the platform? 14. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Part III : Description of follow up

Restate what you will do once you have concluded the stakeholder interviews.

5.3 Annexe C : Persons met

The following table gives an overview of the people we met and the location of the meeting (Table 1). In total, we conducted 41 interviews: 23 face-to-face during fact-finding missions and 18 by telephone/zoom (teleconference).

Tableau 2. Persons met

Persons met during a specific interview Position Place Date Category

France Nature Romans sur 18.02.20 Nature Abel Jean-David Environnement Isère 20 Protection (FNE)

OFB, Loup-Lynx 10.02.20 Bazireau Florie Telephone Administration network 20

Mayor of Lans Lans en 26/02/2 Kraemer Michael Administration en Vercors Vercors 020

Ecogarde of 26/03/2 Leroy David Vercors NRP Telephone Administration 020 Trièves sector. Europe Ecology The Greens 05.02.20 Mériaux Pierre (EELV) Elected Grenoble Elected Official 20 official Grenoble commune Mayors of Gigors-et- 27.01.20 Martin Béatrice Gigors-et- Elected Official Lozeron 20 Lozeron

28

Maupoux Christelle and Beringer 30.01.20 DDT Drôme Valence Administration Patrice 20

DDT Isère, in charge of the 05.02.20 Patrouiller Jérôme Grenoble Administration Pastoralism and 20 Predation Unit.

Breeder La chapelle en 12.02.20 Poilblanc Alexandra Telephone Breeding Vercors, FDO 20 representative

Hunting Federation 26 21.02.20 Randon Mallaury (Technician in Crest, Drôme Hunting 20 charge of the wolf case) Elected official Lans-en- 07.02.20 Repellin Daniel Hunting Hunting 38 Vercors 20 Sustainable Development Project Manager Energy Transition, Housing, Agriculture and Forestry 23/03/2 Ruault Julie Telephone Administration Attractiveness 020 and Development Department, Community of Communes of the Vercors massif

Hunting 06.02.20 Sibut Patrice Grenoble Hunting Federation 38 20

Departmental Council 26 (mission officer for Sensitive Natural Spaces 18.02.20 Thomine Sophie et Charra Kostia Valence Administration and mission 20 officer for reconciling the uses/outdoor sports)

29

14.02.20 Tourism / Valla Marie-Laure EPCI Diois Telephone 20 Recreation

Vice-president of Vercors NRP in charge of Lans-en- 22.01.20 Vartanian Michel Elected official biodiversity, Vercors 20 mayor of Chamaloc NRP Vercors, Conservator National Natural 19.02.20 Betton Benoit Telephone Administration Reserve of 20 Vercors High Plateaus

04.02.20 Tourism / Boutin Bernard Vercors Nature Valence 20 Recreation

Mountain Departmental 21.02.20 Candy Fabien Die, Drôme Breeding Economic 20 Agency (ADEM)

(FAI) Director of the federation of 31.01.20 Caraguel Bruno Telephone Breeding mountain 20 pastures of Isère

06.02.20 Chambru Mikaël UGA Grenoble Research 20

Agriculture 06.02.20 Corbière Fanny Chamber of Grenoble Breeding 20 Isère

30/03/2 Cotte Philippe OFB Telephone Administration 020

LPO, President AURA and General 28.01.20 Nature De Thiersant Marie Paule Telephone Secretary LPO 20 Protection National Wolf Group

26.02.20 Ducomet Vincent IDELE Referee Telephone Breeding 20

30

Breeding 26.02.20 Ducreux Barbara Telephone Research Institute 20

Research, 20/03/2 Fraissard Camille Telephone Research association VIE 020

Moutain Bikers Lans-en- 07.02.20 Tourism / Gauthier Cyrille Foundation MBF Vercors 20 Recreation

24.02.20 Gontard Guillaume Sénateur Isère Telephone Elected official 20

JA Isère, élu Agriculture 26.02.20 Jallat Jérémy Telephone Breeding Chamber of 20 Isère

Tourism Office 20.02.20 Tourism / Lalande Didier Telephone Villard de Lans 20 Recreation

EPCI Royans Development Saint Jean en 14.02.20 Lesieur Matthieu Administration and Tourism Royans 20 Technician

06.02.20 Loucougaray Gregory INRAe Grenoble Research 20

Mayor of Lus la Croix Haute, President of the 20.02.20 Matheron Alain Telephone Elected official Community of 20 Communes of the Diois Shepherd on the mountain 27/03/2 Monvoisin Alex Telephone Breeding pasture of 020 Grande Cabane

Moreau Elisabeth and Savignac Gaec BOS, Gaec Gigors-et- 06.02.20 Breeding Catherine Savel Lozeron 20

31

Deputy Mayor of La Motte Fanjas La Motte 30.01.20 Tourism / Peyretout Nicolas and Professional Fanjas 20 Recreation Mountain Leader

Lans-en- 07.02.20 Ravix Pascal Breeder Breeding Vercors 20

MTE, Research 03.02.20 Rayé Gilles Saillans Research on Biodiversity 20

Guard of the Natural Reserve of the Vercors High Plateaus, 26/03/2 Tournier Hervé Telephone Administration local wolf 020 correspondent for the RN territory. 05.02.20 Trocme Benjamin EELV Isère Grenoble Elected official 20

32

5.4 Annex D : Initiatives regarding LGDs or wolf management

A large number of initiatives, related to the problems identified, have already been tested in departments 26/38 or in the NRP Vercors.

5.4.1.1 Table of different actors' initiatives

Category of Name of the Author Description Website the initiative initiative Le Patou ne fait Association VIE Research project on LGDs. Start of the project in 2012 Support to pas tout (Vulgarisation et with a practical application in 2015 with the first https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne- breeders for initiative en experimentation subjects. Official support of the NRP rhone-alpes/patou-ne-fait-pas-association-vie- the education éthologie) - since 2018. Current equipment of 50 dogs (collars) mene-etude-mieux-choisir-eduquer-chiens- of dogs Camille Fraissard for 26 breeders, final goal of 100 dogs. protection-1681602.html

Training IDELE (Institut 2 days training http://idele.fr/no_cache/recherche/publication/id 'Integrating a d'élevage – elesolr/recommends/integrer-un-chien-de- livestock guarding Breeding Institute) protection-dans-un-troupeau.html dog into a herd' ('Intégrer un chien de protection dans un troupeau') LGD network IDELE (Breeding Technical support to other breeders and LGD http://idele.fr/domaines-techniques/sequiper-et- (Réseau chien de Institute - Institut networks sorganiser/chiens-de-troupeau/chiens-de- protection) d'élevage) protection.html

PastoraLoup Ferus Sending volunteers (usually young people, mostly https://www.ferus.fr/benevolat/pastoraloup from urban areas) to help the shepherds with protection measures Training my Agriculture 4 days of training to master the training method to https://extranet-drome.chambres- livestock guarding Chamber of effectively use the LGD. agriculture.fr/formations/detail-de-la- dog (Dresser mon Drôme formation/actualites/dresser-mon-chien-de- chien de troupeau-15/ Troupeau) 33

LGD quality line MAA / IDELE Project under consideration Survey of ADEM , CERPAM Report published in March 2019 , LGDs: when https://adem26.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/rappor breeders' know- breeders forge their knowledge in the Alps (Chiens de t_cima_final_anon-6.pdf how on LGDs protection: quand les éleveurs forgent leurs savoirs dans les Alpes) Geolocation Mapping of Hunting hunting locations Federation 38 Application carto Breeders’ map of the location of sheep and cattle herds troupeau association/ pastures of Isère (FAI 38) GPS collars on 30 ADEM, FDO et la Tracking Animals and Exploring Educational Methods. animals (dogs and ch. d’agriculture. sheep) Vercors Hiking PNRV Map showing the location of herds and the presence https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/les- (Vercors Rando) of LGDs on the signalled routes and present in the alpages-du-vercors_336860#10/44.9716/5.4478 application. Research, Jonathan Barre, Development of a connected collar for ewes development and FDO, supported by (preference for not geolocating dogs) communication C2PMU project on GPS collars Incidents My experience Adem / Cerpam Surveys on the accompaniment of dogs, 528 https://framaforms.org/mon-experience-avec-les- recording with the livestock testimonies in 2019 chiens-de-protection-1558537249 guarding dog (Mon expérience avec le chien de protection) Application 'ways' Breeders’ Allows hikers to interact. (under association/ development) pastures of Isère (FAI 38) SURICAT National resource website and app to report any problem during Nature http://sentinelles.sportsdenature.fr/ centre Nature activities 34

sports (Pôle ressources national Sports de nature - PRNSN) Awareness- Mountain sharing FAI and Melanie le Involving individuals in the mountains raising and (Montagne en Febuer communication partage) on behaviours Video “I and Community of Explanation of the shepherd's profession and its to have pastoralism” "Moi communes of implications. (3min) et le Vercors Massif Pastoralisme" (Northern Part) Creation of videos Conseil général Explanations on how to react to herds and dogs. for those who Isère https://youtu.be/-TR_inW5JP4?t=243 practice outdoor activities Signalling panels Tourism offfices, Alpine parks Agriculture Chamber Raising Day with a flock Community of Raising public awareness of pastoralism issues Awareness of (Pastoralism Day) communes of Pastoralism Vercors massif Transhumance AdEM Feast of Die (Fête de la transhumance de Die) FAI 38 Screenings in Grenoble, raising awareness among city http://www.alpages38.org/-Festival-du-Film- Pastoralism and dwellers Pastoralismes-et-.html Open Spaces Film Festival Auvergne Rhône 2.4m plan announced at the end of June 2019, of Plan for Alpes region which approximately €300,000/year for safeguarding safeguarding against predation pastoralism (Plan 35 de sauvegarde du pastoralisme) Ongoing and Vercors NRP Training programme for Tourism professionals future; awareness (started in November 2019 and running until 2022 : plan / training of + school project the Vercors wolf + public awareness programme between 2021 and plan 2022 These actions are partly completely related to pastoralism, partly completely related to large carnivores, and partly related to the interactions between the two.

36

2. Table of initiatives related to wolf management

Name of the initiative Author Description Vercors Action Plan 2018-2023: 3 main axes: transmission of Wolf and Territory (Plan d'actions Vercors NRP information, acquisition of Vercors 2018-2023: Loup et knowledge, herd protection territoire) Steering and consultation group Vercors NRP Concertation for the Loup Vercors Plan Collection of signs of the presence Loup-Lynx network OFB of large carnivores by the locals

Situation of the wolf in France: Permanent Presence Zone (ZPP) OFB current presence on the territory maps, in particular

Wolf Departmental Committee Isère Prefecture and Drôme Space for discussion and action (Comité départemental Loup) Prefecture

System of grouped SMS messages tamtam loup City Hall of Lus la Croix haute to warn inhabitants and breeders

Information portal on wolf predation in the Alpine massif. ADEM, Auvergne-Rhône Alpes Maploup Online interactive maps on region, FAI 38 attacks and an interactive atlas on DDT data.

37