Status and Management of the Brown Bear in Europe

STATUSAND MANAGEMENT OF THE BROWN BEAR IN EUROPE

ANDREASZEDROSSER, World Wide Fundfor Nature-Austria,Ottakringer Strasse 114-16, A-1162 Wien, Postfach1, Austria BJ0RNDAHLE, Department of Zoology,Norwegian University of Science and Technology,N-7491 Trondheim,Norway JONE. SWENSON,Department of Biologyand NatureConservation, Agricultural University of Norway,Postbox 5014, N-1432 As, Norway,and NorwegianInstitute for NatureResearch, Turgasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim,Norway, email: [email protected] NORBERTGERSTL, WWF-Austria, Ottakringer Strasse 114-16, A-1162 Wien, Postfach1, Austria

Abstract:The total numberof brownbears (Ursus arctos) in Europeis presentlyabout 50,000 (about 14,000 outside Russia), within an areaof more than 2.5 million km2(800,000 km2outside Russia). About 37,500 bears are found in the northeasternEuropean population; 8,100 in the Carpathian Mountains;2,800 in the Alps-Dinaric-Pindos; 1,000 in Scandinavia;520 in the Rila-Rhodope Mountains;200 in the StaraPlanina Mountains; 50- 65 in the westernCantabrian Mountains; 40-80 in ApennineMountains; 20 in the easternCantabrian Mountains; 6 in the WesternPyrenees; 5 in the CentralPyrenees; and 4 in the southernAlps. The brownbear is eithera protectedor game species in all of the countriesdiscussed in this paper.Most countriesmanage the brownbear at the nationallevel, althoughseveral ministriesare often involved. All Europeancountries with bears within their nationalborders (except Bosnia and Herzegovinaand the YugoslavFederation) have signed the Bern Convention;almost half have prepared,or are preparing,a managementplan for brown bears. In addition,most countriesengage in monitoring,research, information dissemination, and conservation activities. In areas where bear range includes humansettlements, damage to livestock, orchards,and beehives occurs but, in most countries, stakeholdersare compensatedfor damage,either by the state, regional government,or hunterclubs. In 1995-96 about 1.15 million US$ was paid to compensatesuch damagethroughout Europe.

Ursus 12:9-20

Key words: brown bear,Europe, population and managementstatus, Ursus arctos

Brown bears originally occurred throughoutEurope, managementand conservation; the EuropeanUnion except on large islands such as Iceland,Gotland, Corsica, (EU) expandedits territoryand as more countries and Sardinia;their former occurrenceon Irelandis still joined (Austria and Sweden in 1995) and others debated (Kurten 1976, Corbets and Harris 1991). Later applied for membership,large carnivoremanage- the species disappearedfrom most areas as the human ment and conservationchanged. population grew and suitable habitat was destroyed by 3. Three re-introductionsor augmentationsof bear deforestationand agriculture.In addition,the extermina- populations (in Austria, France, and Italy) have tion of bears was often encouragedas a means of elimi- takenplace in westernEurope from 1989 to 2000. nating livestock depredation,with bounties paid by the The 2 action plans also adopteddifferent approaches. state,local authorities,or both, for killing bears.This was Servheen et al. (1999) analyzed the needs and threatsof effective because bears have a low reproductiverate and each country'sbear population separately. Swenson et al. are sensitive to high harvestrates. Eventually, the combi- (2000) used a populationbasis, stressing the need for a nation of human persecutionand habitatdestruction led continental approachand co-ordinatednational efforts. to the exterminationof bears from most of western Eu- This pan-Europeanapproach was chosen because most rope and many areas in eastern and northern Europe European brown bear populations are shared by (Swenson et al. 1995, Rauer and Gutleb 1997, neighbouringcountries. The Europeanaction plan was Breitenmoser1998). endorsedby the IUCN-Bear Specialist Group,the Inter- In this paperwe summarizepopulation status, distribu- nationalAssociation for Bear Researchand Management and tion, managementstatus of the Europeanbrown bear (IBA), and the Council of Europe.It was also published populationscovered in the Actionplan for the conserva- by the Council of Europeas an official documentwithin tion of the brown bear in Europe (Swenson et al. 2000). the legal frameworkof the Bern Convention. This action plan is complementaryto, and a refinement of, the InternationalUnion for the Conservationof Na- ture and NaturalResources (IUCN) Bears: Statussurvey METHODS and conservationaction plan (Servheenet al. 1999). The We used the following definitions: separateEuropean action plan was preparedfor several Europe includes the countries west of the borders of reasons. the former Soviet Union and Turkey,but also includes 1. Much of the data from Europe in the world-wide the Baltic countriesand Ukraine.This definition is con- plan was collected in the early 1990s and was out- sistent with that of the Large CarnivoreInitiative of Eu- dated when in 1999. published rope(Swenson et al. 2000). In an effortto presentcomplete 2. Political conditions in large parts of Europe have populationsizes, we include the bear populationsin the over the last changed rapidly decade; the war in formerSoviet Union thatare contiguouswith the popula- the former Yugoslavia ended and new countries tions we considerin this paper. were establishedwith new legal conditionsfor bear A populationconsists of the bears in an area that are 10 Ursus 12:2001 genetically isolated, totally or substantially,from other 2 nights per year. These estimates are based on the un- bearpopulations. A populationmay consist of severalsub- tested assumptionsthat 80-90% of the bear population populations.A sub-populationconsists of bearsin an area visits feeding sites duringthis periodand that no bearvis- that have male-mediatedgenetic interchangewith bears its more than one site (D. Huber,University of Zagreb, in nearby areas, but little or no contact or interchange Zagreb, Croatia,personal communication,1998). Even among females. the estimates from Scandinavia, which are based on All data were obtained by a standardquestionnaire markedto unmarkedratios of bears observedin 2 areas, mailed out to bear researchersand governmentalagen- arebased on an extrapolationto the rest of the brownbear cies dealing with bear managementin each countrywith range (Swenson et al. 1994). Given these uncertainties, bearoccurrence. We triedto obtainmore thanone answer estimatesreported here must be regardedas approximate, percountry. All respondentsto ourquestionnaire are listed but the ranking of the populationsby size is relatively in Table 1; all the informationin this paper,if not indi- accurate. cated otherwise,is based on theirresponses. We obtained data from all Europeancountries with bear populations (Table2). RESULTS We stress thatpopulation numbers are all estimatesde- rived by different methods and are not directly compa- Size and Distributionof Populations rable. Bears are notoriouslydifficult to census (Kendall NortheasternEurope (37,500 bears).-The Northeast- et al. 1992, Miller et al. 1997), and many estimates,espe- ern European population is estimated at about 37,500 cially those based on observationsfrom the public, are bears, and is thereby the largest continuousbrown bear likely overestimates(Swenson et al. 1995). Estimatesin populationin Europe. The populationis found between south-easternEurope are often derivedfrom countsmade 53?N in the southto 69?N in the northand stretchesfrom by huntersat feeding sites thatare carriedout during 1 or the Ural Mountainsin the east to the west coast of Fin- Table1. Researchersand managerscontributing data for the compilationof the EuropeanBrown Bear Action Plan, 1997-99.

Union European Affiliation Country member Correspondingperson Albania No S. Pllaha State Forest Service Austria Yes N. Gerstl World Wide Fund for Nature-Austria G. Rauer Bosnia and Herzegovina No D. Huber Universityof Zagreb

Bulgaria No K. Georgiev WildernessFund Croatia No D. Huber Universityof Zagreb Czech Republic No P. Koubek University of Brno Estonia No J. Randveer EstonianAgricultural University Finland Yes I. Kojola Finnish Game and FisheriesResearch Institute P. Tunkkari Universityof Oulu France Yes A. Clevenger Banff National Park P.Y. Quenette Diren Life O. Robinet Ministryof Environment Greece Yes Y. Mertzanis Arcturos Italy Yes G. Boscagli Parco Regionale SirenteVelino E. Dupre National Wildlife Institute M. Possilico Ufficio AmministrazioneForeste Demaniali Latvia No V. Pilats LatvianMammalogical Society Norway No J. Braa Directoratefor NatureManagement O.J. S0rensen North Tr0ndelagCollege Poland No H. Okarma Polish Academy of Sciences Romania No O. Ionescu Game Economy Department,National I. Micu Administrationof the Forest Slovakia No M. Kassa Slovak EnvironmentAgency Slovenia No M. Adamic Universityof Ljubljana Spain Yes J.C. Blanco Asesores T6cnicos de Medio Ambiente A. Clevenger Banff National Park E. Valero University of Leon Sweden Yes A. Bjarvall Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency F. Sandegren Swedish HuntersAssociation Ukraine No V. Domashlinets Ministryof EnvironmentalProtection Yugoslav Federation No M. Paunovic NaturalHistory Museum Belgrade BROWNBEARS IN EUROPE * Zedrosseret al. 11

Table2. Presentstatus (1997-98),distribution, and expected population trend of Europeanbrown bear populations (including contiguouspopulations outside these countries).The populationsare listedfrom the largestto the smallest.

Population Numberof bears Country Numberof bears Distributionarea (km2) Presentstatus North-Eastern 37,500 EuropeanRussia 36,000 1,700,000 Increasing? Europe Finland 800-900 300,000 Stable Estonia 440-600 15,000 Stable Belarus 250 (120?)a 60,000 8-21 Stable Norway 5,000 Stable Latvia 20-40 10-5,000 Decreasingtable? 8,100 Romania 6,600 Carpathian 38,500 Decreasing Mountains. Ukraine a 400(970?) 11,400 Decreasing Slovakia 700 3,000 Increasing Poland 100 4,000 Stable Czech Republic 2-3 2,000 Decreasing? Alps-Dinaric-Pindos 2,800 1,200 Bosnia-Herzegovina 10,000 Decreasing? Yugoslav Federation 430 2,000 Croatia 400 9,800 Decreasing?table Stable Slovenia 300-500 3,000 Stable Greece 95-110 6,200 Decreasing Macedonia 90 820 Stable Albania 250 3,000 Stable Austria 23-28 8,000 Increasing Italy ? Increasing 250,000 Scandinavia 1,000 Sweden 1,000 20,000 Increasing Norway 18-34 Increasing 60,000 Rila-Rhodope 520 Bulgaria 500 Decreasing Mountains Greece 15-20 2,400 Decreasing StaraPlanina 200 Bulgaria 200 2,400 Decreasing Mountains WesternCantabrian 50-65 Spain 50-65 5,000 Decreasing Mountains Appenine Mountains 40-80 Italy 40-80 5,0002,600 Eastern Cantabrian 20 Spain 20 Decreasing Mountains. 2500 WesternPyrenees 6 France 3-4 500 Decreasing Spain 1-2 500 Decreasing CentralPyrenees 5 France 5 SouthernAlps 4 Italy 4 1,500 ? Europetotal ~ 50,000 ~ 2,500,000 a Alternative,less accuratepopulation estimates. land (Fig. 1). As it is contiguous with bears on the east rapidlyin the second partof this century(Frackowiak et side of the mountainsin Russia, it is part of the largest al. 1999, Hell and Findo 1999, Ionescu 1999), and re- brown bear populationin the world. Although the fence cently the Slovakian and Polish bear populationwas re- along the Finland-Russiaborder is a potentialbarrier, the connected with its Ukrainian counterpart.This range Finnish-Norwegianpopulation has received a net influx expansionoccurred rapidly; about 200 km in less than20 of dispersingbears from Russia (Pullainen1990). In Fin- years. Knowledge of the statusof females in this expan- land,the specieshas re-establishedmost of its formerrange sion area would be of great interest because, based on afterthe populationbottleneck at the beginningof the 20t data from the Scandinavianpopulation (Swenson et al. century (Nyholm and Nyholm 1999). In Norway, 8-21 1998), one would expect to find few females in this newly bears are restrictedto S0r-VarangerMunicipality (espe- colonized area.Female brown bears in the ApusenMoun- cially the Pasvik Valley), though there are occasional tainsof westernRomania are probably partly isolated from sightings in the eastern part of the Finnmark Plateau the remainingCarpathian population, but interchangeof (Swenson and Wikan 1996). males is suspectedto occur. CarpathianMountains (8,100 bears).- The Carpathian The Carpathianpopulation probably consists of 3 sub- populationincludes the brownbears in Slovakia,Poland, populations.No furtherincrease in range and population Ukraine, and Romania (Fig. 1). The CarpathianMoun- size is expected because the populationin the 4 countries tains populationis estimatedto be about 8,100 bears and has reachedor passed its optimal number,and nearly all is the second largestin Europe.The populationincreased suitablehabitat is occupied (Frackowiaket al. 1999, Hell 12 Ursus 12:2001

A = Appenine Mountainspopulation RR = Rila-Rodope Mountainspopulation APD = Alps-Dinaric-Pindos population S = Scandinaviapopulation CM = CarpathianMountains population SA = SouthernAlps population CP = CentralPyrenees population SP = StaraPlanina Mountains population EC = EasternCantabrian Mountains population WC = WesternCantabrian Mountains population NE = North EasternEurope population WP = WesternPyrenees population

Fig. 1: Present distribution of the brown bear in Europe. and Findo 1999, Ionescu 1999). populationmay be divided into several sub-populations Alps-Dinaric-Pindos (2,800 bears).-This population (S0rensen 1990) or may become distinct populationsif consists of brown bears in the forested areas extending these corridorsbecome unusabledue to humanactivities. from the easternAlps in Austriaand northeasternItaly in The populationestimates for the YugoslavFederation, the northto the Pindos Mountainsin Greece in the south, Bosnia andHerzegovina, and especially Albaniaare quite andspans parts of Austria,Italy, Slovenia, Croatia,Bosnia uncertain.Additionally, the effects of the war and politi- and Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of cal instability on the bear populationare unknown, but Macedonia,the YugoslavFederation, Albania, and Greece. may be severe, at least locally (Huber1999). Threebears Thetotal Alps-Dinaric-Pindos population numbers about were released into centralAustria in 1989-93 in an area 2,800 bears.The forestedareas in these countriesare less with a naturallyoccurring male bear (Rauerand Gutleb continuousthan in the Carpathianarea, separating the func- 1997). Reproductionoccurs regularlyin this sub-popula- tionalhabitat into moreor less isolatedsub-areas, although tion, which now consists of about 13-16 bears(Zedrosser there is some inter-connectivity.This suggests that the et al. 1999). We consider this a sub-populationbecause BROWNBEARS IN EUROPE * Zedrosser et al. 13 there is movement of male bears, but not female bears, once widespreadbrown bear population.In at least 3 of between centralAustria and the rest of the Alps-Dinaric- these (Pyrenees,Southern Alps, andEastern Cantabrians) Pindos population. the threatof extirpationis high. Unless promptaction is Scandinavia (1,000 bears).-After heavy persecution taken during the next few years, these populationswill in Norway and Sweden, the once-numerousbrown bear undoubtedlyvanish. To underscorethis point,a small,iso- populationin Scandinaviawas reducedto about 130 indi- lated Europeanbrown bear population in the Vassfaret viduals by 1930 (Swenson et al. 1995). The population area of southernNorway, died out as recently as the late has since increasedto between 800 and 1,300, of which 1980s (Bakken et al. 1994). more than 95% are in Sweden. Female brown bears are Western(50-65 bears) and Eastern CantabrianMoun- mostly confined to 4 areas in Sweden that probablyrep- tains (20 bears).-Brown bears are now found in 2 areas resent the areas where remnantpopulations survived in of the SpanishCantabrian Mountains. These populations about 1930 (Swenson et al. 1994). Male bears may dis- apparentlyhave been separatedsince the beginningof the perse between neighbouringfemale core areas,but when century,and now show genetic differences. Today,they considering demographicviability, each of the 4 should are separatedby 30-50 km of mountainousterrain, and be consideredas separatesub-populations (Taberlet et al. interchange between the populations is unlikely 1995). In Sweden, the distributionof bearsnow resembles (Cienfuegos and Quesada 1999), due to unsuitablehabi- that of 1800, with bears occurringin 50% or more of the tat and a high speed railway and motorway that bisects country. In Norway, bears are usually found along the the area.The most recentpopulation estimate for western Swedishborder, and most individualsare dispersing young Cantabriais 50-65 bears, distributed over 2,600 km2 males from Sweden (Swenson et al. 1998). The popula- (Palomeroet al. 1993). The easternCantabrian Mountains tion is the most productiveyet documentedin the world, populationis estimatedto contain about 20 bears. Both and increasedat a rate of 10-15% annuallybetween 1985 Cantabrianbear populations face similar conservation and 1995 (Saetheret al. 1998). problems. The populations are in steady decline due to Rila-Rhodope Mountains(520 bears).-This popula- human-causedmortality, primarily a resultof illegal snares tion is located in southwesternBulgaria and northeastern intendedfor wild boars (Sus scrofa) and poison intended Greece (Mertzanis1999, Spassov and Spiridonov 1999). for wolves (Canis lupus)(Cienfuegos and Quesada 1999). It includes 3 sub-populationsin the BulgarianRila Moun- High human-causedmortality, combined with smallpopu- tains andPirin Mountains, as well as the subpopulationin lation size, makes survivalof these populationsvery un- the westernRhodope Mountains on both sides of the bor- likely unless appropriate management actions are der.Although the totalpopulation is about520 bears,only implementedsoon. 15-25 are found in Greece. The connectionbetween the ApennineMountains (40-50 bears).-This population bears in Greece and Bulgaria is probablymaintained by is locatedin AbruzzoNational Park and the areasurround- males fromBulgaria. No furtherincrease in rangeor popu- ing Italy's ApennineMountains and was estimatedat 70- lation size is expected because poaching in Bulgariahas 80 bears in 1985 (Boscagli 1990). However, since then increased since the political changes of 1989 (Mertzanis the populationis thought to have decreased, and 40-50 1999, Spassov and Spiridonov 1999). bears may be a more realistic estimate. This population Stara Planina Mountains (200 bears).-This popula- may increase because poaching has been reduced in re- tion of about 200 bears is located along a 120-km area cent years and because areas surroundingAbruzzo Na- that extends from Zlatitsa-Teteven in the east, to the tionalPark have been protectedto securesuitable habitats. TryavnaMountains in west-centralBulgaria (Spassov and However, these bears survive in an area that is densely Spiridonov 1999). It became isolated from the popula- populated by humans and there are potential conflicts tions to the south and west early in this centuryafter an between bear conservationand humanactivities. effort to exterminatethe species. However, genetic inter- WesternPyrenees (6 bears).-The WesternPyrenees changebetween the StaraPlanina population and the Rila- brown bear population inhabits a 1,000 km2 area that Rhodope population may be possible through male straddlesthe national borderbetween France and Spain As in dispersal. the Rila-Rhodope population,no further (Fig. 1), althoughonly half of this area is used regularly increase in range and populationsize is expected as a re- (Camarra1999). Reproductionwas most recently docu- sult of increased poaching since 1989 (Spassov and mented in 1995 and 1998, and the present populationis Spiridonov 1999). estimatedto be 6 individuals.(Camarra 1999). This rem- nant population is doomed to extinction unless drastic SmallIsolated Populations measures, such as population augmentation,are taken Five very small,isolated populations are found in south- soon. ern and western Europe, representingthe remnantsof a SouthernAlps (4 bears).-This populationis located 14 Ursus 12:2001 in the provinceof Trentinoin the northeasternpart of the ing, capture,or otherexploitation of listed species. BrentaMountains in Italy (Osti 1999). The potentialbear CITES:Convention on InternationalTrade in Endan- habitatcovers 1,500 km2,of which only 240 km2is used gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (3 Mar 1973, regularlyby bears.Reproduction has not been documented Washington).-All Europeanbrown bear populations are since 1989. Recently, DNA analysis of hair and excre- listed in AppendixII. This appendixalso includesall spe- ment samples revealed that only about 3 individuals- cies not in actualdanger of extinction,but potentiallyen- and no more than 4-are likely to survive in this area dangeredif tradeof specimensof this species is not strictly (Genovesi et al. 1999). Augmentationof this population controlled.Trade control is accomplishedthrough special has begun, with 2 bears from Slovenia released in 1999 exportpermits. and another3 in 2000. There are plans to release an addi- Biological Diversity Convention:United Nations Con- tional 4 bears in 2001 and 2002. (P. Genovesi, National ference on Environmentand Development(UNCED) (5 Institutefor Wildlife, Bologna, Italy,personal communi- May 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).-The main objective cation, 2000). of UNCED is the conservationand sustainableuse of biological diversity.A presuppositionis the preservationof ReintroducedPopulations ecosystems, naturalhabitats, and wild populationsof spe- In Europe,bears were reintroducedinto 2 areaswith no cies of wild faunaand flora. The brownbearper se is not bears, and 2 populationshave been augmented.The first mentionedspecifically in this convention. reintroductionoccurred in easternPoland, where 10 bears EuropeanParliamentResolution, 17Feb 1989 (A2-339/ were introducedinto the Bialowieza area between 1938 88, ABL C 69/201, 20.3.1989) (applies to EU members and 1944. This introductionwas not successful. Tracks Table 3. Membercountries of internationaltreaties were last observed in 1947, except for one set of tracks (1999) relevantto the brownbear in Europe.Entry of yes indicates which have been from a observedin 1963 may dispersing treaty signed by country;(yes): treaty will be signed by bear from Belarus (Buchalcyzk 1980, Jakubiec and countrywithin next years (applicantcountries to EUonly); Buchalczyk 1987). The most recent introductionwas in no: treatynot signed by country. the central Pyrenees Mountains(3 individualsin 1996- 97), and the populationnow numbers5 bears;this newly- founded is located about 150 kilometerseast population i c -oa of the WesternPyrenees population. Two augmentations, a Is one in central Austria and one in northernItaly, are de- 0 scribedin the sections Alps-Dinarics-Pindos, and South- Country ern Alps, respectively. Albania yes no no no no Austriab yes no yes yes yes Bosnia and InternationalAgreements no no no no no A list of all countries in internationalagree- Herzegovina participating Bulgaria yes yes yes yes no ments covered by this paperis presentedin Table 3. Croatia yes no yes yes no Bern Convention:Convention on the Conservationof Czech Republicc yes yes yes yes (yes) and Natural Habitats 1979, Estoniac yes no no yes (yes) EuropeanWildlife (19 Sept. Finlandb yes yes yes yes yes Bern, Switzerland).- The goal of the Bern Convention Franceb yes no yes yes yes is to preservewild animal species and their naturalhabi- Macedonia yes no no no no no yes yes tats. Membercountries 3) must atten- Greeceb yes yes (Table pay special Italyb yes no no yes yes tion to endangeredand potentially endangered species and Latviac yes no yes yes (yes) include protectivemeasurements in planning and devel- Norway yes no no yes no Animal and are listed withindiffer- Polandc yes no yes yes (yes) opment. plantspecies no no of Romania yes yes yes ent appendices, each representing a different stage Slovakia yes yes yes yes no endangerment.The Europeanbrown bear is listed in Ap- Sloveniac yes yes yes yes (yes) no yes yes yes pendix II (strictlyprotected fauna species). Actions must Spainb yes of listed Swedenb yes no yes yes yes be takento enhancethe specialprotection species Ukraine yes yes yes yes no in or willful distur- Yugoslav AppendixII; capture,keeping killing, Yugoslav no no no yes no bance, and the possession and trade of these species is Federation forbidden.The re-colonizationof indigenousspecies must aConventionon InternationalTrade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild be if so will enhance the likelihood of Faunaand Flora. promoted doing Union (EU) member. countriescan make reservationsto bEuropean preservation.Member CCountryhas begun detailednegotiations with the EU that should lead the Bern Conventionregarding means or methodsof kill- to membershipin 2002-05. BROWNBEARS IN EUROPE* Zedrosser et al. 15 only). -The EuropeanCommission (EC) shouldpromote HuntingManagement and Poaching programsto protectthe brownbear in Europeand should In Europe, as defined in this paper,the brown bear is continueexisting programs. These programsshould cover totally protectedin 12 countriesand a game species in 6. the entire EU. Actions for socio-economic development In 4 countriesthe brown bear is a protectedspecies, but will be promotedin returnfor communitieshaving pro- hunting is allowed by special permission from the gov- tective measures for the brown bear. Systems for bear ernment(Table 4). damage preventionand damage compensationshould be Europeanbrown bears, because of their high produc- developed.A networkof connectedreserves and specially tivity (Saetheret al. 1998, Tufto et al. 1999), can sustain protected areas should be established (called the harvestrates exceeding sustainableharvest levels in North "NATURA2000 Network"). Americanpopulations. In Slovenia, legal harvestduring European Parliament Resolution, 22 Apr 1994 (A2- the 1980s exceeded 14%of the estimatedpopulation an- 0154/94, ABL C 128/427, 09.05.1994) (applies to EU nually (Krce 1988). Over 700 bears were killed legally membersonly). -The EC shouldnot supportand finance each year in the populationscovered in this paper(Table development that would have a negative effect on bear 4). Some of thesebears are killed legally in protectedpopu- populations.Actions with negative impact on bearpopulations as a managementtool. We do not have any evi- lations should be correctedby the establishmentof pro- dence that legal hunting is reducing the size of a bear tected areasand corridors for genetic exchange.Measures populationin Europe,except in Romaniawhere popula- to preventthe killing andcapture of bearsand protect bear tion reductionis a managementgoal. habitatshould be undertaken.Financial support for dam- In additionto legal hunting,bears are poached as nui- age compensation, and compensation for economic re- sancebears, for trophies,or for economicreasons. As eco- strictionsdue to bear conservation,should be provided. nomic and social conditions have worsened in countries Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Conservationof Natu- such as Albania,Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Ro- ral and WildFauna and Flora (ABLL 206, 22.07.1992) mania, the YugoslavFederation, and Macedonia,poach- (applies to EU membersonly).-The main goal of the so- ing probablyoccurs more often. Poachingof bearsis also called Flora-Fauna-HabitatDirective is to secure species a problemin the Nordic countries,where semi-domestic diversityby protectionof habitatsand protectionof wild reindeerare raised. However, illegal killing may also be fauna and flora. Actions must be taken by the member unintentional,for examplewhen bearsare killed by snares countries to preserve all species of wild fauna and flora set illegally for wild boars or by poisoned baits set ille- and theirhabitats. The Europeanbrown bear is a priority gally for wolves. In fact, these are importantsources of species of the EuropeanUnion. It is mentionedin Appen- bear mortalityin Spain. dix II (species needing specially protected areas) and Appendix IV (strictly protectedspecies; capture,killing Managementof Bear-causedProblems and willful disturbancenot permitted).The possession, The effective guardingtechniques necessary for coex- transport,and trade of AppendixIV species is strictlypro- istence of livestock husbandryand large carnivoreshave hibited.Exemptions can be given only if this has no nega- vanished in many areas of Europe (Kaczensky 1996); tive on impact the preservationof the species; to prevent partlydue to economic, social, and political changes, and serious damage to culture and livestock; public health, partlyas a result of the exterminationof large carnivores and sanitary safety reasons;and for scientific, restocking, in most of theirformer ranges. For this reason,damage to and re-colonization purposes. livestock occurs in many areas where the bear range includes humansettlements. In bears National addition, damageoats, Management orchards,and beehives in some areas. There is compen- Most of countries (17 22) covered in this papermanage sation for damage in most countries(64%), either by the brown bears at the national level (Table 4). Although national or regional government (57%) or hunter clubs is carriedout a management by nationalentity, in 4 coun- (21%, Table5). In Slovakia and Austria,damage is com- tries more thanone ministryor stateagency is involved in pensated by either national or regional governments,or bear management.Management is on the regional level by hunters. Usually compensation is not linked to the in 3 only countries;in 2 cases managementis sharedby owner's effortto preventdamage. In 1995-96 aboutUS$ nationaland local or (Croatia), national,regional, and lo- 1.15 million was paid to compensate for bear damage cal (Italy) entities. Eight countrieshave prepared,or are throughoutEurope. a for brown preparing, managementplan bears.Some type The vast majorityof livestock lost to bear depredation of or is carriedout in monitoringprogram activity 17 coun- in Europe are sheep (Table 5). In Finland, Norway, and tries. Sweden, semi-domesticreindeer depredation is also sig- 16 Ursus 12:2001

Table 4. Management and legal status of the brown bear in European countries (1997). Management Bear Country Institutionin charge Management Legalstatus M toring deaths'(year) level plan legal illegal Albania GeneralDirectorate of Forestry national no protected no ~- ~ 10 (1996) Austriab Regional Governments regional yes protected yes 2 ? (19!91-99) Bosniaand Ministryof Agriculture national no game species yes 83 ? Herzegovina (1 987) Bulgaria Ministryof Environment, national no protected no 8 -30 Ministryof Agriculture, (1996) Forests and Agricultural Reforms Croatia Ministryof Agriculture national/ no game species yes 16/year(1986-92) local Czech Republicc District Governments regional no protected yes 0 Estonia- Ministryof Environment national no game species yes 34 (1996) Finlandb Ministryof Agricultureand national yes protectedd yes 97 Forestry (1996) Franceb Ministryof Environment national no protected yes 0 1 (1997) Macedonia Ministryof Forestry, national no protected no 2 ? Agricultureand Water (1996) Economy Greeceb Ministryof Agriculture national yes protected yes 0 7 O (1996) Italyb Regional Governments national/ yes protected yes 0 5 regional/ (1989-96) local LatviaC Ministryof Environmental national no protected 0 Protectionand Regional Development Norway Directoratefor Nature national yes protected yes 2 2 Management (1998) (1998) Polandc Ministryof Environmental national no protected yes 6 7 Protection,Forestry and (1952-96) (1995-96) NaturalResources Romania Ministryof Waters,Forests national no game species yes 299 and EnvironmentalProtection (1992) Slovakia Ministryof Agriculture, national no protectedd 73 Ministryof Environment (1991) Sloveniac Ministryof Agricultureand national yes protectedd yes 37 9 Forestry,Ministry of (1996) Environmentand Spatial Planning Spainb Regional Governments regional yes protected yes 0 ? Swedenb EnvironmentalProtection national (yes) protectedd yes 30 4 Agency (1996) (1996) Ukraine Ministryof Environmental national no game species yes 1/year 9 Protectionand Nuclear Safety, State ForestryCommittee Yugoslav Ministryof Agriculture national no game species (yes) 19 32 Federation (1987) (1987) a ? = unknown,- = no information b EuropeanUnion (EU) member. c Countryhas begun detailed negotiationswith the EU that should lead to membershipin 2002-2005. d Bears are protected,but huntingis allowed with special permissionfrom the government. nificant. Damage to beehives is only importantin a few size and developmentin Europe. First, all large and vi- countries, with Greece experiencing the most cases of able populations(>1,000) are situatedin either northern damage (Table5). or easternEurope, whereas bear populationsin western Europeare usually very smalland may not be viable(Table 2). This differenceis most likely attributableto the differ- DISCUSSION ent attitudesof people andthe differinghistorical and eco- We have observed 2 trends regardingbear population nomic development of the countries. Boitani (1995) BROWNBEARS IN EUROPE * Zedrosser et al. 17 describesa similarpattern for the wolf in Europe.We be- neither augmentationcan be considered successful yet, lieve that communismin easternEurope was not nearly and the populationswill not be secure until they connect as destructiveto bearpopulations as the political systems with the female populationfront of the expandingAlps- in westernEurope. This is possibly due to the fact that in Dinaric-Pindos population (Zedrosser et al. 1999; P. communist countries,bears were often managed for the Genovesi, NationalInstitute for Wildlife, Bologna, Italy, huntingpurposes of a few hunters,including foreign hunt- personalcommunication, 2000). This againdemonstrates ers with hardcurrency. Also, huntingand gun-ownership the importanceof cross-bordercooperation in Europe. among the general public were strictly limited, thus re- Several internationaltreaties affect the conservationof ducing the potentialfor over-huntingand poaching. brownbears in Europe.CITES and the Biological Diver- Second, the only populationsthat we consider viable sity Conventionare world-wide treaties, whereas the Bern are those sharedby 2 or more countries(Table 2). Almost Conventionapplies to Europe,and the EU-directivesonly all the bears in Europelive in large transboundarypopu- to EU membercountries. The power of these treatiesvar- lations in easternor northernEurope. Less than 1%of all ies accordingto the situation.Enforcement of the treaties Europeanbears live in western or southwesternEurope. depends largely on the contractingparties and, unfortu- The few populationsthat exist within a single countryare nately, they are poorly enforced in several countries. In small and declining, and we do not considerthem viable. addition,resolutions of the EuropeanParliament are only Some are so small that immediate action must be taken. recommendations.In this context, non-governmentalor- Conservationactions need to be takenon the nationallevel, ganizationsplay crucialroles as the drivingforces behind, but could be facilitatedby internationalfunds and exper- and watch-dogsfor the realizationof treatiesand laws. tise. Withinthe EU, brown bears have generally been con- We consider populationreintroduction and augmenta- sideredprotected species. This legal protectionoriginated tion of small populationsnecessary for the conservation becausebear populations in the originalEU countrieswere of the brown bear in some areas of Europe. The Polish small and threatened.With the accession of Sweden and reintroductionof 1938-44 was unsuccessfulbecause the Finlandthis situationhas changedbecause both countries released bears were born in captivity and approached have large bearpopulations and a traditionof hunting.In people aftertheir release. Most of these animalswere killed 1992, the EU grantedboth Sweden and Finland exemp- very soon aftertheir release because of theirpotential risk tions from Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Flora-Fauna- to human safety. (Buchalcyzk 1980). In 1996-97, a sec- HabitatDirective). Bear huntingin these countriesis now ond reintroductionof bears was attemptedin the central officially viewed as a way to reduce serious damage to Pyrenees in France. Some of these bears startedto kill culture and livestock, and to protect public health and sheep in a nearbyarea. Local residentswere not prepared safety,although hunting is actuallya way to controlpopu- for the arrivalof bears and bear damage, and this led to lation increase. The situationfor some of the new appli- majorcontroversies and political troubles in Francewhich cants to the EU is similarto that of Sweden and Finland: are still unresolved (Direction Regionale de large bear populations are traditionally hunted, and l'EnvironnementMidi-Pyrenies 2000). The failed rein- changes to this practice might not be accepted and may troductionin Polandand the political problemsin France resultin increasedpoaching of bears.Here again, exemp- indicatethe importanceof protectingexisting bearpopu- tions will most likely be granted.There might be a need lations (Zeiler et al. 1999). It may be easier to recover for the EU to reconsidertheir general position on bears large carnivorepopulations when the populationhas not and hunting.Certainly, hunting in small and fragmented been absentfor many decades (Boitani 1995). But if rein- populationsis not feasible, but legalization of bear hunt- troductionis chosen,great care has to be takenin theprepa- ing may increaseacceptance for bears and therebyfacili- rationof the project and solutions for possible problems tate the conservationof viable bear populations. must be availablein advance. TheAction Plan for the Conservationof theBrown Bear In some cases, augmentationis the only way to ensure in Europe(Swenson et al. 2000) has now been published the survival of a small populationthat might otherwise as an official document of the Bern Conventionand the become extirpated.This has proven successful in Aus- Council of Europe, and thus must be considered by all tria,where a populationof 13-16 animalshas been estab- member countries (only 3 Europeancountries have not lished (Zedrosser et al. 1999). The most recent yet signed: Georgia,Russia, and San Marino).Although augmentationof a bear populationstarted in 1999 in the we believe the larger populationsin Europe are viable, Adamello-BrentaNational Parkin Italy's southernAlps. we are concerned that the smaller, isolated populations In both cases, the few naturallyoccurring individual bears are on the verge of extirpation. Because countriesin Eu- were doomedto extirpation.But despitethe positive signs rope aresmall in area,a beardispersing 200 km may cross of population increase due to reproductionin Austria, several nationalborders and enter several differentjuris- 18 Ursus 12:2001

Table 5. Damage and compensation due to the brown bear in European countries; the time period is indicated next to each country.Livestock numbers are from official damage statistics in numberskilled or destroyed.(Abbreviations: ? = unknown; - = no information;none = not found in the country).

0 o . 0 UA 0 0 3 0 I..) Country Albania none ? no 0 none Austria 30/year /year yes, by huntersand 3,689 none 0 none 30/year (1990-96) 30/year llyear stateinsurance (1996) Bosnia- -.- - -. none - no 0 Herzegovina no, but in none - 0 Bulgaria preparation hunters 0 0 none yes,clubs by Croatia 5/year 1/year 1-3 e clubs CzechRepublic 0 0 0 0 none 0 no 0 Estonia none - no 0 Finland(1996) ? ? ? 800 ? yes, by state 461,114 France(1996) 0 0 none yes, by state 0 Macedonia none - no 0 Greece(1996) 12 4 124 21 none 331 yes, by state 66,330 Italy(1996, yes, 2 1 8 4 none 2 by regional 5,061 Appenine goverment Mountains) Latvia - - - - none - no 0 Norway(1995) 1,821 0 0 0 32 0 yes, by state 454,047 Poland 355/year 0 0 0 none 40/year yes, by state 9 Romania(1998) yes, by hunters 4 .000 - - - none - clubs in some places Slovakia yes, by state or - - - none - - -- none- - hunters Slovenia(1996) yes, bybyhunters hunters - 1-2 none -20 48,509 -300 -30 -10 clubs Spain 9, none yesyes, byb regon regional 41,700/year /year 9/year 19/year 21/year government state Sweden(1995) 0 es, by 24 0 0 0 496 insurance 172,790 Ukraine none no 0 Yugoslav ~- ~- none no 0 Federation dictions. Thus managementactions appliedin any given I. Kojola,T. Komberec,P. Koubek, A. Landa,C. Martinka, J. countrymay affect not only bearsin thatcountry, but the Y. Mertzanis,B. Micevski, I. Micu, F. Moutou, Naves, S. M. entire populationshared by several neighbouringcoun- H. Okarma,M. Paunovic,V. Pilats, Pllaha, Possilico, J. tries. The adoptionof this action plan by the Bern Con- N. Powell, W. Pratesi-Urquhart, P.-Y. Quenette, F. vention represents a unique opportunity for the Randveer, G. Rauer, H.V. Reynolds, O. Robinet, conservationof the brown bear in Europe. Sandegren,C. Servheen,V. Sidorovich,P.S. Soorae, O.J S0rensen,M. Sylven, V. Titar,P. Tunkkari,B. Tuson, E.F. Valero,and M.Velevski. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are gratefulto the many people who have assisted LITERATURECITED us in the of the Action Plan by pro- preparation European BAEKKEN,B.T., K. ELGMORK, AND P. WABAKKEN.1994. The brown bear and its viding informationon the manage- Vassfaretbrown bear population in central-southNorway We thankM. ment and providingcomments on the text. no longer detectable. International Conference on Bear Adamid, L. Balciauskas, A. Bjiirvall, J.C. Blanco, G. Researchand Management9(1): 179-185. Boscagli, J.T. Braa, U. Breitenmoser,A. Clevenger, V. BOITANI,L. 1995. Ecological and cultural diversities in the Domashlinets,E. Dupre,E. Ferandez-Galiano, S. Findo, evolution of wolf-human relationships.Pages 3-12 in L.N. and D.R. editors. and K. Georgiev,D. Hodder,D. Huber,O. Ionescu, M. Kassa, Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, Seip, Ecology BROWNBEARS IN EUROPE * Zedrosser et al. 19

conservationof wolves in a changingworld. Proceedingsof 32:289-306. the Second North American Symposium on Wolves. KACZENSKY,P. 1996. Large carnivore-livestock conflicts in CanadianCircumpolar Institute, Occasional Publications 35, Europe.Munich Wildlife Society, Linderhof,Germany. Edmonton,Canada. KENDALL,K.C., L.H. METZGAR, D.A. PATTERSON,AND B.M. BOSCAGLI,G. 1990. MarsicanBrown Bear populationin central STEELE.1992. Power of sign to monitor populationtrends. Italy-status report 1985. Aquilo, Serie Zoologica. 27:81- Ecological Applications2:422-430. 83. KRCE,B. 1988. Rjavi medved. Pages 23-62 in B. Krystufek,B, BREITENMOSER,U. 1998. HabenGrossraubtiere in den Alpen eine A. Brancelj, B. Krce, and J. Cop, editors. Zveri II. Lovska Zukunft?Pages 58-62 in Commission Internationalepour zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana,Slovenia. (In Slovenian.) la Protection des Alpes, editor. Alpenreport,Verlag Paul KURTEN,B. 1976. The cave bear story: life and death of a Haupt,Bern, Stuttgart,Wien, Germany.(In German.) vanished animal. Columbia University Press, New York, BUCHALCYZK,T. 1980. The brown bear in Poland. International New York,USA. Conferenceon Bear Researchand Management4:329-332. MERTZANIS,G. 1999. The status of the brown bear in Greece. CAMARRA,J.J. 1999. Statusand managementof the brown bear Pages 72-81 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, in France. Pages 68-72 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero,and B. editors. Bears: status survey and conservationaction plan. Peyton, editors.Bears: status survey and conservation action InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature and plan. InternationalUnion for the Conservationof Natureand NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. MILLER, S.D., G.C. WHITE,R.A. SELLERS,H.V. REYNOLDS,J.W. CIENFUEGOS,J.N., AND C.N. QUESADA.1999. Status of the brown SCHOEN,K. TrIus, V.G. BARNES,R.B. SMITH,R.R. NELSON, bear in western Cantabria, Spain. Pages 104-111 in C. W.B. BALLARD,AND C.C. SCHWARTZ.1997. Brown and black Servheen, S. Herrero,and B. Peyton, editors Bears: status bear density estimationin Alaska using radiotelemetryand survey and conservationaction plan. InternationalUnion for replicated mark-resight techniques. Wildlife Monographs the Conservationof Nature and NaturalResources, Gland, 133. Switzerland. NYHOLM,E.S., ANDK.E. NYHOLM.1999. Status of the brown CORBETS,G. B., ANDS. HARRIS,EDITORS. 1991. The handbook of bear in Finland. Pages 63-68 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, Britishmammals. Blackwell ScientificPublications, Oxford, andB. Peyton,editors. Bears: status survey and conservation UK. action plan. InternationalUnion for the Conservation of DIRECTIONREGIONALE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENTMIDI-PYRENIES. 2000. Natureand NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. Bilan public "Ours". Direction Regionale de OSTI,F 1999. Presentstatus and distributionof the brown bear l'Environnement Midi-Pyrenies, Toulouse, France. (In (Ursus arctos L) in Trentino (Italy). Pages 84-86 in C. French.) Servheen, S. Herrero,and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status FRACKOWIAK,W., R. GULA, AND K. PERZANOWSKI.1999. Status surveyand conservation action plan. InternationalUnion for of the brownbear in Poland.Pages 89-93 in C. Servheen,S. the Conservationof Nature and NaturalResources, Gland, Herrero,and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and Switzerland. conservation action plan. International Union for the PALOMERO,G., A. FERNANDEZ,ANDJ.Y. NAVES. 1993. Demografia Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, del oso pardo en la CordilleraCantabrica. Pages 55-72 in Switzerland. J.Y Naves andG. Palomero,editors. El oso pardoen Espafia. GENOVESI,P., E. DUPRE,AND L. PEDROTI. 1999. FirstItalian brown Coleccion Tecnica, InstitutoNacional parala Conservacion bear translocations.International Bear News 8:14. de la Naturaleza,Madrid, Spain. (In Spanish.) HELL,P., ANDS. FINDO.1999. Present status, conservation,and PULLIAINEN,E. 1990. Recolonisation of Finland by the brown managementperspectives of the brown bear populationin bearin the 1970s and 1980s. Aquilo, SerieZoologica. 27:21- the Slovak partof the westernCarpathians. Pages 96-100 in 25. C. Servheen,S. Herrero,and B. Peyton,editors. Bears:status RAUER,G., ANDB. GUTLEB.1997. Der Braunbar in Osterreich. surveyand conservationaction plan. InternationalUnion for Federal EnvironmentalAgency, Monographs 88, Vienna, the Conservationof Nature and NaturalResources, Gland, Austria.(In German.) Switzerland. SITHER,B.E., S. ENGEN, J.E. SWENSON,AND F. SANDEGREN.1998. HUBER,D. 1999. Status and managementof the brown bear in Assessing the viability of Scandinavianbrown bear, Ursus former Yugoslavia. Pages 113-122 in C. Servheen, S. arctos, populations: the effects of uncertain parameter Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and estimates. Oikos 83:403-416. conservation action plan. International Union for the SERVHEEN,C., S. HERRERO,AND B. PEYTON,EDITORS. 1999. Bears: Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, status survey and conservation action plan. International Switzerland. Union for the Conservationof Natureand Natural Resources, IONESCU,0. 1999. The management of the brown bear in Gland, Switzerland. Romania. Pages 93-96 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero,and B. S0RENSEN, O.J. 1990. The brown bear in Europe in the mid Peyton, editors.Bears: status survey and conservation action 1980's. Aquilo, Serie Zoologica. 27:3-16. plan. InternationalUnion for the Conservationof Natureand SPASSOV,N., ANDG. SPIRIDONOV.1999. Statusof the brownbear NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. in Bulgaria.Pages 59-63 in C. Servheen,S. Herrero,and B. JAKUBIEC,Z., AND BUCHALCZYK,T. 1987. The brown bear in Peyton, editors.Bears: status survey and conservationaction Poland:its history and presentnumbers. Acta Theriologica plan. InternationalUnion for the Conservationof Natureand 20 Ursus 12:2001

NaturalResources, Gland, Switzerland. , ANDS. WIKAN.1996. A brownbear population estimate SWENSON,J.E., B. DAHLE,N. GERSTL,AND A. ZEDROSSER.2000. for Finnmark County, North Norway. Fauna Norvegica. Action planfor the conservationof the brownbear in Europe. Series A 17:11-15. Conventionon the Conservationof EuropeanWildlife and TABERLET,P., J. E. SWENSON,F. SANDEGREN,AND A. BJARVALL. Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Nature and 1995. Localization of a contact zone between two highly environment, N. 114, Council of Europe Publishing, divergentmitochondrial DNA lineages of the brown bear Strasbourgh,France. Ursusarctos in Scandinavia.Conservation Biology 9:1255- , F. SANDEGREN,AND A. SODERBERG.1998. Structure of 1261. the expansionfront of an increasingbrown bear population. TUFTO,J., B.E. SBTHER,S. ENGEN,J. SWENSON,AND F. SANDEGREN. Journalof Animal Ecology 67:819-826. 1999. Harvestingstrategies for conservingminimum viable , P. WABAKKEN,A. BJARVALL,A. SODERBERG,AND populations based on World ConservationUnion criteria: R. FRANZEN.1994.Bj0mens historiske og navaerendestatus brown bears in Norway. Proceedings of the Royal Society og forvaltningi Scandinavia.Norwegian Institute for Nature London B 266:961-967. Research, Forskningsrapport53, Trondheim,Norway. (In ZEDROSSER,A., N. GERSTL,AND G. RAUER. 1999. Brown bears in Norwegian with English summary.) Austria. Federal Environmental Agency, Monograph 117, , P. WABAKKEN,F. SANDEGREN,A. BJARVALL,R. FRANZEN, Vienna, Austria. AND A. SODERBERG. 1995. The near extinction and recovery ZEILER, H., A. ZEDROSSER, AND A. BATH. 1999. Attitudes of of brown bears in relationto the bear managementpolicies Austrianhunters and Viennaresidents toward bear and lynx of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife Biology 1:11-25. in Austria.Ursus 11:193-200.