EU Platform Ninth Regional Workshop Report (), November 2019

Ninth Regional Workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores – Workshop Report

Miercurea Ciuc (Harghita County), 19 November 2019

This report was drafted for the EU Platform members with the assistance of adelphi consult GmbH and Callisto, as part of the services provided to DG Environment of the European Commission for Service Contract No. 07.0202/2018/788833/SER/ENV.D.3. It does not necessarily reflect the official view of the European Commission.

Visit the EU Platform at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/coexistence_platform.htm

Contents

Contents 2

Introduction 3

Aim of the workshop 3 Workshop format 3 Workshop attendance 4

Workshop presentations 5

Policy context at international and regional level 5 Discussion of the situation in Harghita 8 Involvement of hunting organisations in bear management 8 Damage prevention systems: electric fence systems, bear-proof bins and adapted waste management systems and intervention teams 10 Controlling recreational and tourism activities: reducing disturbance, controlling supplementary feeding, exploring new sources of income 12

Annex 1. Agenda 16

Annex 2. Participant list 18

Introduction

The EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores (EU Platform) organises regional workshops twice a year in areas where there are ongoing conflicts regarding people and large carnivores. The 9th regional workshop was organised by the Harghita local platform on large carnivores (Harghita Platform) established in a pilot project1 in 2018 in collaboration with the EU Platform, one of 41 Romanian counties in eastern . It took place at the County Council building in Miercurea Ciuc on 19 November (09:00-18:00).

Aim of the workshop

The workshop focused on the work progress of the Harghita Platform. The main aim was to give its members the opportunity to present their progress to relevant stakeholders of the region and internationally, and to explore pathways for relevant steps in the future to address the existing conflicts. The aim of the workshop was to examine / discuss / share experience on the following:  Different perspectives of the relevant stakeholders at local, regional, national and European level, including the Harghita County Council in order to understand better the local situation regarding coexistence  Ongoing coexistence-promoting activities by different stakeholders in the region and the process of engagement put in place in Harghita  Jointly agreed actions by Harghita Platform members and their needs for implementation  Learning from similar types of action carried out in other countries and transferability to or from there.

Workshop format

During the first part of the workshop, presentations set out the institutional context regarding large carnivores in Europe and as well as the concept of the EU and regional platforms. This included the presentation of the background on bears in the region and international examples on large carnivore management.

The second part focused on the situation in Harghita County and progress of the Harghita Platform as a discussion about possible future steps for the Harghita Platform to implement the agreed actions as well as gain support to realize measures depending on the relevant authorities. See Annex 1 for the full agenda.

1 Regional Platforms on People and Large Carnivores : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/regional_platforms.htm 3

Workshop attendance

The workshop was attended by the EU Platform members ELO, WWF, FACE, IUCN-LCIE, CIC and EUROPARC. The European Commission, regional administrations and different stakeholders from agriculture, nature conservation, hunting, forest management, science and tourism were also present. See Annex 2 for a list of participants.

4

Workshop presentations

Policy context at international and regional level

Formal Welcome Csaba Borboly, Committee of the Regions, Harghita County Council president The European Committee of the Regions promotes effective participation of regional and local organisation in shaping policies. The aim of Harghita County is to improve the balance between conflicting species and humans. The population of Harghita county, 86% of them Hungarian and 14% Romanian, has a long history of coexistence with nature. Biodiversity was formed during centuries and traditional practices are of key importance for the natural and biocultural heritage. However, the current bear population, estimated to have increased since the hunting band in 2016 to 1500-1800 bears, means that Harghita to have the most damages in the Eastern Carpathians, including 282 livestock damages in 2017/18, numerous road accidents in all years and 4 fatal attacks in 2019 – leading to lack of security for the population. Real damage diverges from reported damages as not all are reported. A campaign on reporting was run to improve the situation. The county hopes for proposals from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, but at national level, no actions have been taken. There is also a need for more funding and funding for research, for example, allocate more LIFE project funds to Romania or through EU subsidies. The awareness of the problem is high, but a series of measures (e.g. waste management or electric fences), alone does not bring a solution. The aim is to find a common voice in order to prevent conflicts and also to establish goals at EU and national levels.

Figure 1 Csaba Borboly welcoming the participants.

5

Introduction to the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores Jurgen Tack, EU Platform Co-Chair, European Landowners Organization (ELO) ELO is the co-chair of the EU Platform together with the European Commission. The EU Platform is one of the mechanisms which aim to support the implementation of EU legislation, supporting stakeholder exchange and discussion around large carnivore (LC) management. Seven stakeholder representative organisations signed a joint mission, principles and ways of working together. Since the EU Platform’s establishment, the members have agreed on joint communication measures, organised events and commissioned pieces of background research including gathering good practice examples and examining funding for coexistence measures. The EU Platform was involved in proposing the establishment of regional platforms and has a strong interest in the outcomes of the process in Harghita.

Feedback from the EU Platform workshop in in 2017 Roderick Enzerink, Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) FACE represents 7 million hunters across 37 European countries. Hunters regard large carnivore as part of nature and the environment. However, there can also be conflicts, with farmers but also hunters. Carnivores can attack hunting dogs and can sometimes be (viewed as) competition for hunters. Hunting should be part of wildlife management of large carnivores. FACE promotes the improvement of coexistence and respective recognition within the Habitats Directive. The 2017 workshop was organised in the context of the 2016 hunting ban by the Romanian government citing concerns about monitoring and data collection. This led to a lack of stakeholder trust, increasing the bear population and conflicts. The workshop helped create an open and collaborative atmosphere between stakeholders. The agenda included international comparisons, large carnivore management in Romania and communication of local aspects in presentations and group exercises. The resulting workshop statement especially criticized the hunting ban, which does not solve the problems. Overall, the meeting was productive, but many initiatives had to be worked on further such as the establishment of a national working group or the implementation of the national action plan and others. With many resting problems, a step further forward might be taken during the Harghita workshop.

Introduction to the regional large carnivore platforms Valeria Salvatori, IEA, project manager for the Regional Large Carnivore Platforms There is an increasing search and possibility for minimizing conflicts through practical solutions and technical tools. Their effectiveness might be tested and evaluated, but they do not contribute to solving conflicts as different opinions on how large carnivores should be preserved. There is a need for an integrated science approach that also understands positions resulting from social identity. The regional platforms project realizes this and creates a space of dialogue and understanding between people as representatives of their organisations but also as individual people. The platform work employs team principles (neutrality, equality, transparency, confidentiality) and work principles (lawful, knowledgeable, constructive, respectful). As part of a first phase, starting in 2017, platforms have been established in Italy (wolf – livestock damages), Spain (wolf – livestock damages) and Romania (bear – increasing populations). In a second phase, agreed and prioritized actions will be implemented as pilot actions. In Italy, the experience was very positive and increased mutual understanding. In Spain, stakeholders came together and approached each other without previous collaboration.

6

In Harghita, the county presidency also acted always supportive of the process. Overall, trust is an issue in all cases as well as the need for involvement of the relevant authorities.

EU Policy actions on large carnivore conservation and management András Bartal, European Commission (responsible for Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) The Habitats Directive and its annexes are the legal basis for protecting large carnivores. Annex IV names the strictly protected species. In Romania, bear, lynx and wolf are included in this annex. Within the article 17 reporting of April 2019, the figures suggest that the populations are in a favourable conservation status. Derogation from strict protection is possible according to article 16 but this requires 3 principles to be followed – existence of serious damage such as impact on other protected species (no clearly defined term), threat to public security and lack of alternatives. The outcomes of the recent EU Court of Justice ruling on the use of derogations clarifies the use of the appropriateness of hunting as a means to reduce poaching (possible if the link to reduction of poaching can be proved). The strict protection status of the bear in Romania will not be changed – the Fitness Check found there was no need to make changes to the Annexes of the Directive. Implementation should be improved, and to assist with this, the guidance for species protection is in review. The European Commission supports the regional platforms. Regarding the funding of damage prevention, 1.5 million euros has been estimated as needed while currently less than a fifth of it is spent. Romania has so far not chosen to use Rural Development Funds to support damage prevention mesures such as electric fences. The responsible Ministry should also improve the management of bears, e.g. regarding the speed of issuing derogations. Media reporting the problems is another topic that could be handled better.

Background to the situation in Harghita László Demeter, Harghita platform organiser

The report of the last meeting was distributed and is also available on the platform website2. It contains activities that could be carried out on the local level to improve the situation. The brown bear is of high value and can generate income, especially for hunting associations, so a good management is in everybody’s interest. A bad management or lack of management leads to damages or loss of value. The regional platform aims to involve stakeholders willing to work together, with whom results can be reached. This is lacking at national level. The regional platform established a structured process to support common thinking and decision making, including a detailed problem analysis that demonstrates the complicated nature of the problem and the different viewpoints of stakeholders, but also similarities between them. The platform members recognise that the national action plan for bear already includes a lot of useful elements but it is not yet implemented. The actions agreed on by Harghita platform include measures concerning intervention and population regulation quotas, research on bear population involving hunting associations in the field, communication and education (related to spreading correct information and tourism), as well as the management of damages. The common objective of good management can be reached if social and state participants collaborate to implement a well-designed strategy both on the national and regional/local level.

2https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/190520Harghita_report_5&6th_workshop_EN.pdf 7

Harghita platform – the process Andrea Sólyom, Harghita platform facilitator Scholarships enabled 3 studies on a LIFE project, on wildlife and on the platform process. To be chosen as platform location, was a good opportunity, as much has been learnt from the project process which is very well prepared through experiences in other areas, but is still modifiable to take account of local characteristics and a local assessment on what can be done. The platform members met on a monthly basis since January. This followed a preparation phase with interviews of stakeholders to discuss the problems they face, and their viewpoints as well as to identify people from different sectors willing to collaborate. The collaboration meant that trust was built up between the participants and organisers. Communication with authorities on the national level, however, remains weak. Trust decreases with increasing distance (to Bucharest). The workshops started with setting rules. In Harghita, the problem and causes of the conflict between bears and humans were first analysed in homogenous groups (the same stakeholders) with similar views (through problem trees). In the next step, these views were discussed in heterogenous groups to see if an agreement can be reached. Solution trees were elaborated to identify measures that should be looked at in closer detail. The decision criteria – practicability, urgency and feasibility – was based on international recommendations which were adapted to the local level. The actions decided upon cover the following domains: damage prevention and management, wildlife plots and habitat protection, education and communication activities and changing legislation. A report on how the conflict is represented in the media has also been funded.

Discussion of the situation in Harghita

Involvement of hunting organisations in bear management József Benke, Zetelaka és társai hunting association, member of the Harghita platform and CIC representative The current management of bears means that human lives are not being valued. There are increasing problems with people being mutilated or killed by (problem) bears in attacks or road accidents. The existing action plan should be respected. The Harghita Platform’s main selected priority is to promote the regulation of large carnivore numbers by hunting to address the steady increase of bear numbers. Game managers have a key role in management in Romania, e.g. with their contribution to monitoring through camera traps. The measures undertaken such as electric fences, buffer and bear refuge zones do not solve the high number of conflicts and damages due to the natural growth of bears not being addressed. Bear hunting is the normal situation in Romania and part of a normal management regime for large carnivores. It needs to be allowed in order to ensure bears fear of humans and problem bears can be dealt with appropriately. Game managers therefore propose two hunting quotas designed for intervention and one for prevention to address the natural population growth.

Impulse interventions: involvement of hunting organisations in bear management Lehel Hadnagy, member of the Harghita platform Bear management is a competency of the Ministry of Environment. Even though it is not currently a game management issue, the hunters are expected to respond to problematic bears. People are not satisfied in the County. Often intervention requires permission from the ministry and this is extremely slow in coming. 75% of wildlife damages are caused by bears

8

and this is increasing over time. While some contest it, there is a relationship between the number of bears and amount of damage. Before 2016, hunters knew roughly how to manage the population and damages were manageable. After 2016, there was less clarity on the population size and hunters could no longer manage the population. This led to an increase in damages. Getting a derogation takes at least 30 days which is too long. For example, in summer 2018, a derogation was requested 6 August 2018. On 4 September the reply was given that the value of 14 cows not enough to give the permit to shoot bear. A second request was sent 19 October. A permit was finally received 8 November by which time the bear was already hibernating. The total damages exceeded 10,000€. People are now starting to devalue the bear and poaching, poisoning and car accidents are increasingly problematic. Waste prevention is also an important problem. Education is important. Some of the Harghita county platform actions can be carried out directly by the platform. The platform needs to think about alternative financing for these e.g. LIFE projects. Others depend on the ministry e.g. monitoring method for bear population, modifying legalisation, intervention quotas for hunting. Some decisions should be decentralised to the regional level.

Impulse interventions: participative processes with hunting organisations Ere Grenfors, Finnish Hunters’ Association and FACE representative In Finland, a membership survey by the association has shown that there are different groups of hunters and different reasons for becoming hunters e.g. there are increasing numbers of female hunters attracted first through interest in dogs. The survey found 5 different categories of hunters who can be distinguished according to gender, age, engagement with hunting already, reasons for hunting and attitude to nature and large carnivores. Hunting associations have an important role in society – they are one of the few active clubs left in many villages and help with a feeling of communality. The Finnish hunting association represents these different groups of hunters. Their aims include improving the image of hunters in society, understanding their members and making science-based management decisions. Bear damages in Finland are serious, especially for reindeer herders but lower than for other large carnivores. Bears rarely kill hunting dogs, unlike wolves do. Based on hunters’ bear litter observations in combination with DNA analysis and other methods, the bear population is estimated at 2020 – 2130 individuals. It is considered stable, contributed through the hunting season during which the hunt of 313 bears was granted in 2019 (305 used). In conclusion, the acceptance of bears is quite high, while fear is not high. Moreover, bears rarely kill hunting dogs. Illegal killing is low and quota hunting seems to work well. There are few problem bears, they remain shy and stay in the forest.

Responses and discussions  It was commented that care should be taken in the presentation to respect all participants at the meeting and not apportion blame to those engaging in the discussion (comments on environmental NGOs in a presentation).  A question was asked about how exact the Finnish monitoring is and how the hunting quota is allocated when problem bears are not defined.  DNA and other methods are used for monitoring and these are combined.  An artist said that he was carrying out a project on coexistence and bringing together different disciplines is important and not tried enough. Protection of nature, including protected areas is important for reducing damages.  It is also important that nature protection support is available to other interests who have an economic interest in the land, not only environmental NGOs. 9

 A question was asked about why the number of attacks in Romania is so high compared to other countries. In other areas, they happen once every 10-20 years. A hunting organisation responded that attacks occur more because there are more bears and they are entering agricultural land (which is also expanding). It may also be that they are losing fear due to more contact with people e.g. tourists.  Participants discussed the fluctuations in damages and whether numbers are up to date or depend on the reporting of damages. The increase in damages seems to be a long-term trend even though some damages (e.g. sheep) are rarely reported.

Damage prevention systems: electric fence systems, bear-proof bins and adapted waste management systems and intervention teams Imecs István, Organizația GeoEcologică ACCENT, Harghita platform member The spa-town of Băile Tușnad is the smallest town in Romania with 1600 inhabitants but it welcomes tens of thousands of visitors all year long. In the past, there were many problems with bears caused by the open-waste management facilities – by 2009, 15-20 bears were regularly using the area. While tourists enjoyed taking photos of the bears, the situation was undesirable for bears ad humans. Bear-proof-bins were therefore installed but did not solve the problem immediately as they were poorly used (doors left open, waste left outside, etc.). The issues were only addressed properly when county-level and local financing allowed electric fences to be bought and distributed to residents to put around their properties. When used properly (with a low wire and well-maintained), these completely prevent bears entering the property. Additionally the bins were encircled with wires and this, together with thorough awareness-raising in many languages by local NGOs, has had the effect that people use them well now. The local government also holds workshops with many different interest groups. There is now high awareness about the fences and high use of them.

Impulse interventions: prevention measures / emergency responses Mihai Pop, expert ACDB A number of LIFE projects have been carried out to help develop and install prevention measures, including two in Harghita County. Incidents with bears were analysed and mapped and a database established of where they were occurring. A campaign encouraged people to report and this was maintained until 2016 where conflict between stakeholders became too extreme and reporting was discontinued (due to the ban on bear hunting). Many incidents occurred close to villages. A protocol, developed from experiences in other countries, was adapted for the region. This included a scale of bear behaviours and suitable management reactions. A risk assessment team analysed each case to decide on whether action was required. In most cases (55%), no intervention was needed. In some cases (22%), prevention measures (fencing, dogs) were implemented which stopped the damage, at least in short term, in 15% of cases relocation was considered desirable (it was actually carried out for half of these), in 8% of cases, lethal intervention was required. The debate remains open about if and how to use hunting, if should it be the rule or the exception and should it target individuals or populations. Attacks on humans are still not well understood and not easily compared. Attacks are much rarer in other countries with similar bear densities. Human behaviour is also part of the problem. The framework for dealing with incidents changed after 2016 and many different organisations are now involved. Good protocols are needed defining how this collaboration should work if this is to continue.

10

Impulse interventions: Damage evaluation Joszef-Tamas Fodor, expert on electric fence systems An open question remains about what to do in areas where electric fencing cannot be used. Damage prevention and compensation are needed but the current system is not working well and change of paradigm is needed. Firstly we need to distinguish between damages caused by huntable wildlife and protected species. There are multiple users for many areas e.g. hunters and farmers. Each one needs to take their own responsibilities seriously and pay for any damages caused. There is not a linear relationship between the numbers of bears and damages (practices such as feeding have an impact) but there is certainly a relationship. The approach to managing damages also depends on the territorial nature of the species. For species with a relatively uniform dispersal (e.g. wolf), damages are uniform. For species with random or clustered dispersal which are non-territorial (e.g. wild boar), damages are difficult to predict. The likelihood of damages occurring to a field depends on the type of species. One approach is to use buffer zones to examine the impact on different crops. Evaluation of damages can be standardised well. The surface damaged, condition of the crop and protection in place is assessed by an independent evaluator. Farmers get compensation (from the hunting associations or the ministry) if they do everything they can to avoid damages. Hunting associations can be regarded as responsible if game management is important for the species management. If not, acceptable decision can be contested with the involvement of more independent experts.

Responses and discussion  A hunting representative commented that damage reporting is low and that people do not report damage to sheep or crops. Compensation doesn’t cover additional costs such as losses of milk.  A participant commented that electric fencing in towns such as Băile Tusnad perhaps moves the problem on to other towns where protection is not in place.  An environmental NGO commented that the usefulness of electric fences depends on how and where they are used and what is happening in the surrounding area. The bear is becoming a social problem, often being hit on the road, not hibernating. Both immediate and long-term solutions must be considered. In the case they are causing immediate danger to people (e.g. entering buildings), they should be removed straight away. However, to address the general issues, longer term solutions such as rubbish management and re-considering the use of complementary feeding should be considered.  A hunting representative commented that solutions were in place but not implemented since 2016. WWF should work with hunting organisations and go out in the field to check the situation. A common agreement on monitoring. WWF responded that they do work with hunting associations including on joint LIFE projects. They submitted a proposal in Harghita county.  A hunting association said that in 2016, the damages caused by wildlife increased caused by hunting ban. The effects of electric fences on other forms of wildlife must also be considered.  An organiser from the Platform commented that it is a clear example of something concrete, not just talking. The environmental ministry has expressed support for the agreed actions but does not have financing to support them. The platform members shouldn’t wait for the ministry’s blessing to implement those in their power. The different

11

stakeholders shouldn’t blame one another but should work together e.g. submitting joint LIFE projects rather than competing ones in the same area.  One idea might be to ask the ministry to send a letter to all counties clarifying the responsibilities and who is empowered to do what.  Many changes are needed to implement appropriate damage prevention. Game managers need to discuss their role with the Government and set up protocols of for intervention.  NGOs were asked about their views on hunting.  An environmental NGO commented that hunters should have a role in management but there are alternatives for how to define this role. It is important that all listen to one another respectfully and do not trade insults.

Controlling recreational and tourism activities: reducing disturbance, controlling supplementary feeding, exploring new sources of income Szabó Károly, director, Harghita Tourism Development Association, member of the Harghita platform There are different parallel realities in this country. In terms of tourism, the Harghita tourism development association promotes touristic values of region. There has been significant tourism development since 2008 taking advantage of the beautiful landscape and well- preserved environment. Bears are becoming a tourist attraction whether we want it or not but feeding them remains a legal grey zone. Bears are seen as nice and cute and cuddly. The association also uses a bear to promote tourism. Bear observation is becoming popular but people pay to see a bear and not for the possibility of seeing a bear. It is necessary to feed bears to guarantee a sighting. Harghita has at least 6 bear observatories and this is becoming an alternative source of income. It brings in several hundred of thousands of euros every year. This could potentially be reinvested in damage-prevention systems rather than waiting for action from the ministries. Images of damages can be damaging for tourism and need to be avoided. Non-ethical practices, such as feeding bears over winter time increase the likelihood of damage occurring.

Impulse interventions: sustainable ecotourism Juan Carlos Blanco, LCIE, Proyecto Lobo and expert from the Avila regional platform Bear tourism in Spain is very different from in Romania. There are two populations in Spain, one shared with France in the Pyrenees (reintroduced) and other in the Cantabrian Mountains (natural). Tourism connected with bear watching is popular but it is forbidden to feed the bears so sightings are not guaranteed. The main opportunities are between April to June and observations are carried out at distance (not less than 500m) using telescopes and binoculars. People value the experience as a whole. They aren’t necessarily expecting to see a bear. Bears have a positive impact on tourism in Cantabria. An assessment showed that 21% of businesses receive at least 50% of their income from bear-related tourism. Businesses created include traditional products with bear-labelling and hotels and restaurants using the bear as a symbol. Regulation remains important for improving practices and to avoid mass tourism and the disturbance or habituation of bears. Some observation points have become too popular and cars are now being banned from the area. Special observation points have been set up similar to bird hides so that the bears do not see the people. People still try to approach to take photos which has resulted in a ban in Asturias on walking in certain areas at certain times of year. There is around 1m€ year of tourism related to large carnivores in Spain. This is not

12

enormous but it is very concentrated in specific places. In order to avoid attacks, information on how to behave is published in newspapers. A collaboration with the Federation of mountain sports has helped to spread information.

Responses and discussions  A hunting representative commented that preventing accidents is the task of game managers and the costs should be recuperated by game managers.  Although it seems to work well in Spain, the attraction of observatories is higher if you can see bears closer – this is the demand of people in Romania.  In Spain the model is based on landscape and habitat observation, not just bear- watching.  The landscape in Spain is similar to Romania. Once people are well-trained they can spot bears easily, especially with the density of bears in Romania. The problem is, that the current feeding stations compete with more ethical practices.  An evaluation of impacts is needed. In Spain it seems to be done well, this might be considered in Romania. The Bern convention statement on supplementary feeding also highlights the negative impacts of tourism. There is potential for additional income from tourism, however in Romania this might increase conflict. There are distributional issues, the socioeconomic consequences of tourism need to be considered i.e. who the money goes to. Hunting clubs could be more closely cooperating with tourism operators.  There had been a proposal to invite a facility manager of bear watching to the meeting. In theory, they are open to discuss legalization topics (currently, it is a legal grey zone). They should be involved in research on the impact. Assessment studies were planned in earlier phase in Băile Tusnad but funding is needed.

Figure 2 Impression from the discussions.

Workshop statement The participants discussed a draft workshop statement. It was agreed that this would be circulated following the meeting and that the participants would respond in a short time period with agreement or suggestions for changes. 13

Statement agreed at the joint workshop of the EU Platform and the Harghita regional platform, 19 November 2019, Miercurea Ciuc The Harghita County Regional Large Carnivore Platform3 first met in early 2019 with the purpose of discussing issues surrounding coexistence with bears in the County. After a series of 6 meetings, the platform members came to an agreement on the top-priority actions for Harghita County. However, not all of these actions can be implemented by the County alone. For this reason, a joint meeting with the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores was organised to discuss wider interest in and support for the platforms’ work. The workshop participants refer to the statement agreed between hunters and NGOs at the EU Platform regional workshop in 2017 in Bucharest4. This agreement remains just as relevant today as it was in 2017. The problems identified then continue. The high level of damages caused by brown bears lead to serious conflict on the regional and national level. The gaps in the system of decision-making are exacerbating public discontent. The damages to properties reached unacceptably high levels and the presence of bears close to human settlements represent a risk to public safety. Local communities have an essential role in maintaining natural values and Natura 2000 habitats in good condition. The growing discontent with the current system of bear and conflict management may even compromise reaching conservation targets.

The participants make the following recommendations directed in particular at the Ministries for the Environment and Agriculture: ● Take all possible steps to operationalize decision making on intervention in the case of damage causing bears to allow an effective protection of public safety, property, crops and livestock. ● More autonomy is needed at the local level to make rapid and effective decisions on conflict management and especially interventions in the case of damage-causing bears. Local and county level public authorities should be empowered to directly fund and implement activities contributing to conflict management and reduction, thus complementing the available resources. ● Participation of key stakeholders on the regional and national level in decision-making and the implementation of the measures formulated in the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Bear, specifically regarding sound data collection on the brown bear population size, structure and ecology as a basis for objective decision making, is essential and should be encouraged by all means. ● Game Managers have the power to contribute decisively to maintaining Favorable Conservation Status of large carnivores in Romania and their active participation in the management of the species and conflicts should be supported. The role of hunting as a management tool for brown bears in Romania should be reconsidered. The workshop participants agreed that the collaborative process established by the Harghita Large Carnivore Platform, bringing a range of very different interest groups together, is a model of significant interest in Romania and in other EU countries and should be replicated. Such a model is essential to find solutions to conflicts between human interests and the presence of large carnivore species.

It is disappointing the national Ministries for the Environment and Agriculture, despite being invited, did not take part in the workshop. We urge the National Government to fully engage with the productive and collaborative discussions taking place on the regional level in Harghita and in other counties.

Workshop participants, 19 November 2019

3 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/regional_platforms.htm 4https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/45_Workshop%20statement_FINAL-en.pdf 14

Summary Jurgen Tack, ELO The Harghita Platform deserves our thanks. They have done a great job in bringing people together, despite different visions, to discuss how to solve the problem. The main problem in Harghita, and in other areas we have heard about, might be lack of engagement of authorities. The Harghita and EU Platform members are here, the European Commission (EC) is here, but the authority who is most important for decision-making on bear management is not here. We would urge the national government to engage in the process, as not engaging is not going to solve the problem. Today brought people together from hunters to nature protection organisations, so the national government should be able to be present as well. As we have seen re-examining the EU Platform Bucharest workshop statement of 2017, nothing has been done, the problems are the same. A number of speakers highlighted legal possibilities. The EC is clearly indicating that a number of solutions are appropriate, but some actions depend on the national government. With the involvement of hunting associations, recreational tourism, the regional authorities and NGOs, we have looked at damage prevention systems, tourism and hunting approaches comparing the local situation and international examples. The situation in Romania is different from elsewhere in the EU as favourable conservation status is a given and the large carnivore populations are large. The brown bear density is among highest in Europe. Some solutions from other countries might be transferable here but not all of them. Tourism for example, as it is developed in Spain, might not be entirely applicable here as many bears are already habituated to supplementary feeding. The main conclusion is that nothing was solved here today but maybe we have made some small steps towards a solution. A full solution cannot be found, however, without the national government. Our message to them can be summarized in one word: Engage. Thanks are due to those who engaged and who were present today. Especially to the regional platforms project, the local organisors, council and platform members. Thanks are also due to all participants.

15

Annex 1. Agenda

Table 1 Agenda of the 9th Regional Workshop of the EU Platform

TIMING AGENDA ITEM* SPEAKERS

8.30 Arrival of participants, registration, coffee

Csaba Borboly, Committee of the Regions, 9.00 Formal Welcome Harghita County Council president

Introduction to the EU Platform on Jurgen Tack, EU Platform Co-Chair, 9:20 Coexistence between People and Large European Landowners Organization (ELO) Carnivores

Roderick Enzerink, Federation of Feedback from the EU Platform workshop in 9:30 Associations for Hunting and Conservation Bucharest in 2017 of the EU (FACE)

Valeria Salvatori, Istituto di. Ecologia Introduction to the regional large carnivore Applicata (IEA) project manager for the 9:40 platforms Regional Large Carnivore Platforms Pilot Project

EU Policy actions on large carnivore András Bartal, European Commission 10:00 conservation and management

10:20 Background to the situation in Harghita László Demeter, Harghita platform organiser

10:40 Harghita platform – the process Andrea Sólyom, Harghita platform facilitator

11:00 Coffee break

József Benke, Zetelaka és társai hunting Involvement of hunting organisations in bear association, member of the Harghita management: monitoring inputs, platform and CIC representative communication, population regulation Lehel Hadnagy, member of the Harghita 12:00 Impulse interventions, participative platform processes with hunting organisations Ere Grenfors, Finnish Hunters’ Association Responses and discussion and FACE represenative Platform members and participants

13:00 Lunch

Damage prevention systems: electric fence Imecs István, Organizația GeoEcologică systems, bear-proof bins and adapted waste ACCENT, membru platformă Harghita management systems and intervention Mihai Pop, expert ACDB 14:00 teams Joszef-Tamas Fodor, expert on electric Impulse interventions: prevention measures fence systems / emergency responses

16

Responses and discussion Platform members and participants

Controlling recreational and tourism Szabó Károly, director, Harghita Tourism activities: reducing disturbance, controlling Development Association, member of the supplementary feeding, exploring new Harghita platform sources of income 15:00 Juan Carlos Blanco, LCIE, Proyecto Lobo Impulse interventions: sustainable and expert from the Avila regional platform ecotourism Platform members and participants Responses and discussion

16:00 Coffee break

16:30 Discussion and next steps for the platform Facilitators

18:00 Formal end of meeting

* Simultaneous translation between Hungarian, Romanian and English was provided

17

Annex 2. Participant list

Table 2 Participants of the 9th Regional Workshop of the EU Platform.

Name Organisation 1 Ágota Juhász Press 2 Albert Gábor Hunters Association Ciuc 3 Alexandru Gridan ICAS Braşov 4 Alfonz Pál Albert Local Council Sandominic 5 András Márton Harghita County Prefecture 6 András Bartal European Commission 7 András Kovács Árpád Harghita County Council 8 Andrea Sólyom Sapientia University 9 Andrea-Julianna Kicsid Harghita County Counci 10 Annamária Dóczy Environmental Protection Agency Harghita County 11 Árpad Bíró Hunters Association 12 Árpád Tőke National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 13 Attila Babos National Agency for Protected Areas Covasna 14 Attila Farkas Association for Ecosystem Management 15 Attila Simó National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 16 Barna Tánczos Senate of Romania 17 Barna Benedek Prosilva Hunting Association, Malnaș National Park Administration Gorge and Hasmasul 18 Barna Hegyi Mare Mountains 19 Beáta Józsa Svella Harghita County Council 20 Beatrix Tanko Harghita County Council 21 Bernadett Antal Harghita County Council 22 Bogdan Olarson Olarsons Art Space and Museum of the Future 23 Cilip Árpád Development Agency of Harghita County 24 Cristian Remus Papp WWF Romania 25 Csaba Domokos “Milvus Group” Bird and Nature Protection Association 26 Csaba Borboly Harghita County Council, CoR 27 Dávid Kolumbán Harghita County Council 28 Dombi Tihamér Harghita County Council General Association of Hunters and Sports Fishermen 29 Drăgănescu Mugurel from Romania 30 Electra Ghiza PRO TV press 31 Elemér Pál Land Owners Association Vărșag 32 Előd Rancz Som Hunting SRL 33 Előd-Gergely Kiss "Hargita Népe" Daily Newspaper 34 Emma Ábraham Harghita County Agriculture Directorate 35 Emmanuelle Mikosz ELO 36 Emőke Kopacz Harghita County Council

18

37 Endre Csúcs Press 38 Endre Farkas Maszol Press 39 Ere Grenfors FACE 40 Erika Szebeni Harghita County Council 41 Éva Csató Sapientia EMTE 42 Ferenc Székedi Freelance journalist 43 Gergely Rodics Agri Cultura Natura Transylvaniae 44 István Balázs National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 45 István Bencze Hunting and Fishing Association Miercurea Ciuc 46 István Szabó National Forest Administration ROMSILVA 47 István Zöldi Harghita County Beekeepers Association Harghita Community Development Association (ADI 48 István Márton Harghita) 49 István Imecs ACCENT GeoEcological Association 50 István Bíró Hunting Association Gheorgheni 51 István Becze Szekler Farmers' Association 52 János Zsolt Nimród Hunting Association 53 János Kassay Sapientia University 54 József Böjte Tánczos Barna Senatorial Office "ZETELAKA ÉS TÁRSAI" Hunting and Fishing 55 József Benke Association 56 József-Tamás Fodor Romanian Trapper Association 57 Juan Carlos Blanco Spanish Platform 58 Jurgen Tack ELO 59 Kaja Lotman EUROPARC 60 Károly Szabó Harghita Community Development Association 61 Katrina Marsden Adelphi (Secretariat) 62 Lászlo Kocsis National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 63 László Szőcs Land Owners Association Vacaresti 64 László Domokos EPA Harghita 65 László Demeter National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 66 László Zólya Harghita County Council 67 László Csedő Duna TV Press 68 László Szakács National Agency for Protected Areas Mureș 69 Lehel Hadnagy Hunters Association Szilos Biro 70 Leonardo Târnava Mare Hunting and Fishing Association Marmureanu 71 Levente Jurcsák Local Council Sancraieni 72 Levente Dósa Elek Pro Saint Anna Association 73 Loránd Țepuc Sheep Breeders Association - Harghita County 74 Mária Csúcs Press 75 Márton Kelemen Milvus Group Bird and Nature Protection Association 76 Mihai Hofnar National Agency for Protected Areas Mureș

19

The Association for the Conservation of Biological 77 Mihai Pop Diversity (ACDB) 78 Nobel Kudelász Duna TV Press 79 Oliver Bedő National Agency for Protected Areas Covasna 80 Ottó Csergő National Park Bicaz Gorges - Hăşmaşul Mare Mountains 81 Péter Domokos National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita 82 Petru Todiruț Press 83 Richard Szabó PRO TV press 84 Robert Cristian Egri National Organization of Romanian Scouts 85 Roderick Enzerink FACE 86 Sabrina Dietz FACE 87 Silviu Chiriac Environment Protection Agency of 88 Sonja Hölzl Adelphi (Secretariat) 89 Szabolcs Király Sapientia University 90 Szilárd Szabó Environmental Protection Agency Harghita County 91 Tekla Bara Development Agency of Harghita County 92 Tibor Farkas Organic Farmers Association of Gyimes Valley 93 Tibor Lőrinczi-Mátéfi Private Forest District Frumoasa 94 Tibor Lázár Harghita County Beekeepers Association 95 Vaida Szidónia Maria Harghita County Council 96 Valeria Salvatori IEA, IUCN-LCIE 97 Vasile Bicajanu Harghita County Council 98 Vlad Ursulean Journalist’s House 99 Zoltán Szőcs National Agency for Protected Areas Covasna 100 Zoltán Kovacs Harghita County Council 101 Zoltán Rafain Land Owners AssociationTușnad 102 Zoltán Kovrig National Agency for Protected Areas Mureș 103 Zsombor Süket Microregional Association Ciucul de Sus 104 Zsombor Jenő Pakucs Sound system

20