WORKSHOP REPORT Regional workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores
Pravets, Bulgaria - 22 April 2015 WORKSHOP REPORT Regional Workshop: EU Platform on Large Carnivores
This report is collated and edited with the assistance of adelphi GmbH and Callisto, as part of the services provided to DG Environment of the European Commission for Service Contract No. ENV.B.3/SER/2014/0036. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Platform or the official view of the European Commission.
Visit the platform at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/coexistence_platform.htm Contents
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Workshop goals 4 1.2 Workshop attendance 5
2. Workshop content 6
2.1 Situation in the Balkan and Carpathian region 6 2.2 Theme 1: Transboundary Cooperation: Guidelines on population level management of large carnivores 7 2.3 Theme 2: From Conflict to Coexistence 10 2.4 Theme 3: Population Level Key Actions 14 Wolf 15 Lynx 15 Bear 15
3. Discussion and summary 17
3.1 Transboundary cooperation 17 3.2 Conflict resolution 17
4. Next steps 20
5. Annexes 21
5.1 Annex 1: Agenda 21 5.2 Annex 2: Participants list 24 5.3 Annex 3: Feedback from breakout groups 27 Wolf break-out group 27 Lynx breakout group 28 Bear breakout group 29 1. Introduction
The four European large carnivore species (brown bear, wolf, Eurasian lynx and wolverine) are among the most symbolic but challenging groups of species in terms of conservation and management in the European Union (EU). In June 2014, a group of eight representative stakeholder organisations agreed to work together as part of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores, with the help of the European Commission. The Platform has decided at its first Annual Meeting to organise several events to discuss experiences about coexistence between people and large carnivores. This report describes the first regional workshop organised under the auspices of the platform. After several Brussels-based conferences, the venue was considered to be advantageous as it is in a Member State which has significant large carnivore populations and is also close to a national park (which is also a Natura 2000 site), that is a stronghold for large carnivores. The workshop had a regional focus, concentrating on human and large carnivore coexistence in the Balkan and Carpathian regions. However, the aim was to discuss examples from a range of locations and draw lessons which are also of interest to those dealing with human and large carnivore coexistence elsewhere in the EU. Delegates came from many European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) as well as from neighbouring countries (some of which are candidates for EU membership) (Albania, Ukraine and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRoM)). This was particularly important for the discussion of transboundary cooperation. Each year, the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation - CIC organises its general assembly in a different country. The workshop was held at the invitation of CIC as a side event to this year’s General Assembly, the day before their main event. In his opening remarks, CIC President Mr. Bernard Lozé made the point that CIC has been very keen to host the first Platform workshop because conservation is at the heart of what CIC does and that their membership is very interested in large carnivore management. He pointed out that those managing natural areas such as hunters, foresters and conservationists often have the same goals and that working together benefits all. He also pointed out the link between the work of the Platform and the main theme of the CIC GA "Healthy Wildlife, Healthy People", since nature is not healthy without wildlife, which includes large carnivores. CIC’s role in hosting and organising the meeting with the help of its Bulgarian member, the Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria (UHAB) meant that there was a good representation of hunters at the workshop including high-ranking representatives from outside Europe. The UHAB was particularly successful in attracting a large Bulgarian audience who tabled local issues of high relevance during the debate.
1.1 Workshop goals
The co-chairs of the Platform, Ms. Pia Bucella. representing the Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV) of the European Commission, and Mr. Konstantinos Kostopulos, representing the European Landowners' Organization on behalf of Mr. Thierry de l'Escaille recapitulated the history of the setting up of the Platform and outlined the intention of the workshop. The main goal was to contribute to collecting examples of good practices to be shared by the members of the Platform with each other and the broader public. The speakers were requested to present a case/example on transboundary cooperation and/or conflict resolution on large carnivores at this workshop which addresses three major themes which have already been subject to research funded by the European Commission: 1: Transboundary cooperation for large carnivore management, with a view to key actions at the population level. 2: Humans and large carnivores in Europe: from conflict to co-existence: relationships between people, large carnivores and institutions. 3: Key actions on large carnivore populations:
Dr. András Demeter, who manages the assistance provided by DG ENV to the Platform, gave short introductions to all three topics.
1.2 Workshop attendance
The workshop was well attended especially by hunting representatives. 128 participants pre- registered for the workshop, of whom 70 signed the registration list and a further 20 registered on the day. However, a large number of participants who were taking part in the CIC General Assembly also joined the event. It is estimated that around 120 participants took part in the main session of the workshop. 2. Workshop content
A general introduction was given to the situation in the Balkan and Carpathian region. The first two themes were presented through a series of short (5 -10 minutes) case studies where experts working on a particular theme briefly described their experiences and the relevance to the work of the Platform. After the presentation of the case studies, questions were invited from the floor.
2.1 Situation in the Balkan and Carpathian region
Payment Compensation System for damages caused by brown bears Radostina Galitionova, National Nature Protection Service Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Water, Bulgaria The legal basis and responsibilities for protection of carnivores in Bulgaria were described. The most common types of damage are to livestock, apiaries, orchards, berry fields and properties. Complaints are collected by an emergency response team who react within 1-3 days. The information collected included damage, GPS coordinates, presence of dogs, protection measures, etc. The doubling of the amount of damages paid from 2013 to 2014 is thought to be due to the presence of one problematic young bear in the area. Measures to tackle the problem are included in the Action Plan for the Brown Bear in Bulgaria. This includes the compensation scheme, coordination with stakeholders such as training and fieldwork. A LIFE+ project was also established for transferring best practices such as setting up electric fences.
Introduction to Romania’s work on large carnivores Prof. Ovidiu Ionescu, Expert of the International Council of Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Romania The situation in Romania is similar to that in Bulgaria though compensation paid out is much higher. The distributions of the three species (bear, lynx and wolf), mainly in the forests and mountains were described, as well as how populations were monitored. Romania is a good example of coexistence with landscape shared by humans and large carnivores. There are however conflicts, especially with traditional livestock production, which receives the most compensation. Fatal incidents with bears happen on a near annual basis and more are hospitalised. Competition with hunters is also an issue and there is some poaching of large carnivores. Habitat fragmentation is an increasing problem, with a lot of planned road construction. Carnivores cannot be maintained solely in protected areas and there is an urgent need to work together with all stakeholders. Management plans for all three species are currently being reviewed.
2.2 Theme 1: Transboundary Cooperation: Guidelines on population level management of large carnivores
Theme 1 was directly related to the practical Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores from 2008. This document is considered an important resource for large carnivore management. While the scientific evidence for the benefits in conservation terms of transboundary, broader scale management are fairly clear, adjustments to local conditions are also necessary and achieving this balance through political and management instruments is difficult. Further analyses have shown that few transboundary management measures are in place. Five case studies were presented to demonstrate the successes and challenges faced with transboundary cooperation.
Open borders for bears between the Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians Prof. Dr. Andriy-Taras Bashta, Institute of Ecology of the Carpathians, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine The project was implemented over 1 million hectares across the Romanian-Ukrainian border with the aim of preserving biodiversity in Maramures. Populations of brown bear here have decreased since the 1970s with a small recovery recently to around 200 individuals today. The main activities included mapping and ranking of favourable habitats, monitoring measures, development of management measures, stakeholder consultation and awareness raising. Bears face threats from humans indirectly through habitat degradation, disturbance, reduced access to food and road construction. Direct threats include disturbance during recreation and poaching. Poaching is more serious than some suggest – ca. 15 bears have been poached in the last 5 years including the first bear tracked by the project. Bears cannot only be conserved in protected areas. Engagement and participation of local communities in management measures is necessary. This has been successful in the project (e.g. engagement of border guards) but the challenge will be to continue this after the project has ended.
LIFE Connect Carpathians – focusing on bear and wolf to implement landscape scale conservation Iain Trewby, Fauna & Flora International (FFI), Romania This LIFE + project (2013-2019) has the aim of enhancing landscape connectivity for brown bear and wolf through a network of Natura 2000 sites. Habitat mapping shows that the west Carpathian population could become isolated from the south Carpathian population as the corridor between the two is narrow. The main direct and indirect human-caused threats are: fragmentation of the landscape, human-wildlife conflicts, conflicting strategies and plans, capacity for landscape-scale conservation, poaching, socio-economic decline and lack of awareness. In order to address these threats, four measures are taken: Enhance functional connectivity (e.g. land management and purchase); reduce human-wildlife conflict (mitigation and tackling poaching); promote long-term planning (monitoring of habitat, harmonising plans); engage stakeholders (through meetings and active collaboration). In the first stages of the project, it is clear that the roles of the different project beneficiaries is very important (e.g. engaging the gendarmes with new interests and tackling poaching).
Wolf management plan in Croatia and transboundary cooperation on large carnivore management Jasna Jeremić, State Institute for Nature Protection, Croatia Wolf numbers were reduced from 1000s to only 50 individuals in the 1990s. Now there are an estimated ca. 200 individuals. Wolf conservation faces a number of key issues: livestock damage, centralised decision-making, lack of communication, lack of knowledge and impact on game. All have the potential to lead to illegal killing. A series of management plans have been developed. During development of the management plans, 10 workshops were held and Slovenian managers were involved from the start. There was also an attempt to involve Bosnia-Hercegovina but this proved politically difficult. Annual reports are coordinated with Slovenia. The wolf management plan is currently being revised for the post-2015 period. The 2005-10 plan was largely successfully implemented involving research and monitoring, habitat conservation, tourism, public participation and cooperation. Hunting of wolves (under strict controls) was allowed by the plan which increased acceptance of the measures. The plan was updated for 2010-15 (see above). The hunting quota is currently set at zero. This has led to an increase in illegal killing in Croatia and Slovenia including hanging up of dead animals by poachers. Public acceptance of poaching appears to be high. The attitude towards wolves needs to be tackled and their value increased, including considering allowing some hunting.
Transborder bear Conservation Action Plan between BUL and GR for the area of western Rodopi mountain range (PHARE-CBC Project) Kosta Valchev, BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria The first Greek-Bulgarian cooperation on a large carnivore management plan was established by a caving club, NGOs and a municipality under the PHARE programme and included active participation from local stakeholders such as hunters. The aim was to establish viable brown bear populations as an integral part of ecosystems and landscapes in harmonious coexistence with humans. Background biological, distribution and migration information was collected and used to create models of core areas. Information on damage caused was also collected and mapped. This allowed the identification of areas where conflict potential was high. The main threats to bear populations were identified as: killing by humans, conflict with humans, threats to humans, lack of public support, habitat fragmentation, anthropogenic food sources e.g. garbage and supplementary feeding. The plan has the objectives of maintaining connectivity between core areas, reducing bear- human conflicts and improving public perception (e.g. establishment of a bear museum), establishing a monitoring programme, and controlling human-caused mortality. It was found to be important that stakeholders felt ownership of the plan. Funding sources and a clear time span and review were also important.
Cross border lynx conservation in Albania, FYROM, Montenegro, Kosovo Manuela Von Arx, KORA, Switzerland The presentation described the Balkan lynx population of ca. 40 individuals which is in a critical state. It is mainly present on the border between fYRoM and Albania. In 2005 the first transboundary workshop was held. The 2013-15 plan has the following objectives: establishment of a monitoring system, promoting sustainable management and hunting, improving site protection, strengthening collaboration with stakeholders, beginning activities in Kosovo and Montenegro, improving communication. So far there have been successes in developing capacity, increasing knowledge, establishing monitoring, setting up a regional conservation strategy, setting up summer schools, raising awareness (e.g. the Balkan lynx is the mascot of the national football team of FYROM). The effects on the lynx population are however unclear. It seems to have stabilised in the past few years, however there are also a few areas where lynx presence was proved a few years ago but could not be re-confirmed since. It is still disappearing in certain areas such as the Albanian Alps. Many threats remain and the national authorities lack both the will and the capacity to fully engage.
Discussion The presentations were followed by a wide-ranging discussion on aspects related to cross- border collaboration as well as other themes. A question was raised about what evidence there was that allowing hunting increases the public acceptance of wolves. It was argued that poaching incidences have increased in Croatia since the hunting quote was reduced to zero. However, in the past the set quotas were never reached. The question of hybridisation between dogs and wolves was also raised by a participant from Germany. This was described as more of a problem where wolf populations are very small and where free-ranging dogs are common (e.g. in Italy). In Romania, where wolf populations are large, they are unlikely to interbreed with dogs but more likely to kill them instead. In Germany, it is unlikely to be an issue because feral dogs are rare. The situation in Romania was described by a participant who said that wolf damage was rare though sometimes people thought that damage by jackals was caused by wolves. Bears, however, were more problematic and presenting them as cuddly, children’s friends was dangerous. The participant stressed that the different situations in different countries need appropriately tailored responses.
2.3 Theme 2: From Conflict to Coexistence
This session was based on a comprehensive study carried out for DG Environment which analyses all components and factors shaping the human-LC’s co-existence1. Conflict to coexistence goes to the heart of what the Platform Agreement is about and will remain a topic of high importance for the plenary meeting and future workshops. Eight case studies were presented in this section.
Wolf in Bulgaria: myths and fiction Hristo Mihaylov & Stoyan Stoyanov, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria The wolf habitats and hunting grounds in Bulgaria were described. The number of hunted wolves has increased from the 1970s, peaking in 2003. The range of wolves has increased over time. The removal of borders in Eastern Europe has allowed the spread and formation of new populations. While a reward was given for wolves killed up until 2009, hunting is now very restricted and in 6% of the area inhabited by wolves it is completely banned. Some areas of conflict were described such as killing of livestock and game species. The presentation concluded with a list of myths about wolves: the Bulgarian wolf population is very high; wolves are dangerous for humans; wolves cause significant damage to livestock; wolf-dog hybrids occur in areas with a stable wolf population and hunting and hunters are a threat to wolf populations. Hunting was described as a means to sustainably manage wolf numbers and distribution and to reduce the threat of conflict and illegal killing of wolves.
Long-term Action plan for mitigation of bear and wolf damages in Smolyan region (2014 - 2023) Diana Zlatanova, Department of Zoology and Anthropology, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridsk, Bulgaria The presentation described the existing conflicts between humans and bears in the Smolyan region and their causes: unclear separation of duties, easy access of bears to anthropogenic food sources combined with low quality natural food resources have led to conflict situations, negative attitudes towards bears and lack of public support for bears. Conflicts include attacks on humans and properties. In particular, two recent cases where a man was killed and a woman seriously injured by bears were widely covered by the media and have increased negative feelings about bears. The action plan aims to deal with these issues and has the following specific aims: prevention of damage by bears and wolves; reduce risk posed by problem bears; decrease conflict and improve public attitude; analysis of the number and density of the bear population; control human-caused mortality of wolves and bears. The content of the
From conflict to coexistence? Insights from multi-disciplinary research into the relationships between people, large carnivores and institutions. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/task_4_conflict_coexiste nce.pdf programme was described including the specific prevention measures; institutional arrangements; public involvement and plans for sustainable business measures (tourism and hunting).
Existing wolf-human conflict in Bulgaria and attempts at mitigation Elena Tsingarska, BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria A large number of wolves in Bulgaria still get killed due to a number of conflicts between humans and wolves. The level of poaching is correlated with the densities and the locations of the populations. The most important conflicts are damages on livestock, competition for the game between wolves and hunters as well as a low acceptance and a lack of knowledge, partly because of fear of wolves. The BALKANI Wildlife Society's study showed that for the period of 2002 – 2006 the level of livestock loss was 1,5% in Kraisht and 3,8 % in Pirin. These numbers are not high but these damages can be very destructive to a whole flock with a high individual impact. One of the causes is a lack of adequate livestock protection measures. Reviving traditional practices such as livestock guarding dogs and introducing new prevention methods can help. The compensation system is currently not working well and needs to be improved. A national wolf management plan has been developed which includes an examination of existing conflicts and problems and outlines specific measures and activities to minimise these conflicts. Surveys show that public attitude needs to be improved. Most people are afraid of or have a completely negative attitude to wolves while only some show interest in the species. Public awareness, information campaigns and education programmes could help.
Building trust among stakeholders in monitoring of wolf population in Slovakia Imrich Suba, Vice-President, International Council of Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Slovakia Wolves mainly occur in north-eastern Slovakia where damages and hunting also mainly happen. Bears mostly occur in the centre of Slovakia, whereas lynx populations are quite dense all over the eastern two thirds of the country. The wolf can be hunted in Slovakia following a quota system. A graph showing how wolf numbers correlate with red deer numbers was used to emphasise that hunters and wolves are not in competition. The bear is fully protected in Slovakia although up to 35 individuals have been hunted per year in the last decade. In 2009 the total number of bears in Slovakia was estimated to be over 1800.The lynx population is also increasing, like the wolf and bear population, resulting in an estimated number of about 1500 in 2009. In order to increase the accuracy of monitoring, wolf and bear surveys have been conducted involving the cooperation of hunters who are knowledgeable and well organised in Slovakia. Monitoring was conducted by various stakeholders to collect biological samples (scats) which were analyses for DNA identification as part of the SloWolf project. This successful project (Report of Pilot Study of Wolves in The Northern Slovakia using molecular genetics”2) has
Robin Rigg, Tomaž Skrbinšek & John Linnell (2014): Pilot study of wolves in Slovakia using non- invasive genetic sampling. Available at : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/pa_slovakia_finalreport.p df demonstrated that involving hunters among the stakeholders to collect samples improves the efficiency of population estimates. However, greater coordination is still needed to avoid parallel monitoring projects.
Emergency response team Bulgaria – Dealing with bears and wolves Alexandar Dutsov, BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria According to surveys, whereas the public opinion is more positive about bears, the general attitude towards wolves is highly negative despite the fact that people are more afraid of bears. The majority of the public is however aware that bears can cause damage. The actual number of incidents where damage was caused by bears in 2009 in the Smolyan Region was 120. The Bear Emergency Team (BET) was established to rapidly respond to damages by immediately inspecting the location and recording the damages. The BET reports and proposes actions and compensation to a national managing committee. The BET team consists of different stakeholders such as vets, NGOs and foresters. A definition of a “problematic bear” has been agreed on and regional training sessions are being organised. Following on from the successes of the BET, it is suggested that wolf and lynx damage assessment and registration systems should be developed and that management plans and compensation schemes should be coordinated.
Bear Emergency Team, Greece Spyros Psaroudas, CALLISTO, Greece In Greece bear-human conflicts have increased over the last 10 years due to a population increase and re-colonisation of a former range. Radical changes in the landscape such as large infrastructure developments cause changes in bear behaviour. Conflicts between humans and bears include damage to livestock, crops and beehives as well bears seeking food from rubbish. The BET under the LIFE ARCKAS project has been officially endorsed by the state. An Operational Manual was officially published in February 2014 (“Bear-human proximity and interference Management Protocol”). In total there were 85 cases of bear-human interactions which occurred within the project area (average ~20 cases per year), including traffic fatality incidents (18%), damage on agricultural production (52%), poaching cases (3%) and bears approaching human settlements (25%). Measures included building of electric fences as well as relocation of bears. Cases of intervention and how the BET team responded were described. New pressures are caused particularly by infrastructure, the preventative measures of which are very costly. Awareness raising about the Rural Development Programme can give farmers further options for coping with bears. The bear management tool at the national level is needed for isolated problematic bears.
The evolution and management of the large carnivore from the hunters’ perspective in Romania Dr. Atilla Kelemen, Member of the Romanian Parliament and Vice President of FACE Dr. Ing. Neculai Şelaru, General Director of the Romanian Association for Hunting and Angling, Romania
In Romania the three large carnivore species are found at the highest density known in Europe, except for the European part of the Russian Federation. The current conservation risks are: greater fragmentation of natural habitats through new highways, exploitation of forests’ natural products, human access to previously undisturbed areas, competition for food from domestic dogs, decreased natural prey (due to increased carnivore populations) and peoples’ attitude. In order to reduce conflict, a number of management suggestions were made including amongst others delimitation of areas for carnivores far from people; installation of free circulating corridors (dealing with infrastructure) to allow populations to meet; the conservation of the prey species; supplementary feeding of large carnivores; the hunting without delay of problematic individuals. Conclusions were drawn about how conflict could be avoided. Hunting would help preserve large carnivores in their natural areas but financial costs should not only be carried by hunters but by all beneficiaries inside and outside the country. Management needs to be differentiated between different countries including re-examining the legal situation. Working together is of key importance.
Visitor management and bears in the Central Balkans National Park, Bulgaria Sergey Aleksandrov, expert in Directorate Biodiversity, plans, programs and projects, Central Balkans National Park, Bulgaria The National Park is a popular hiking destination in Bulgaria. It is also an important bear habitat with links to other subpopulations across the country. There has been one instance of a tourist being injured by a bear in the Park, someone who went off the marked trails. Luckily, he knew how to react and did not suffer long-lasting injury. Information is provided on signs for all tourists entering the park so they know how to deal with bears. Dealing with garbage left behind by tourists can be problematic since the park cannot manage it. Conflict with livestock grazing in the park is more common with 6 cases in 2014 though some interested parties believe these numbers are an underestimate. These are compensated where eligible. There is an emergency response team in the park to deal with all instances with a simple procedure for contacting them. They aim to respond within 24 hours. It is however important that they are called immediately, delays can result in lack of clarity about what has caused the damage.
Discussion There was a discussion about how much competition there really is between large carnivores and hunters. Some participants reported that it seriously affected game bags, whereas others believed it was less of a problem. There was further discussion about hybridisation and how much of an issue it is in Bulgaria. A participant reported that deliberate interbreeding is carried out. Others stated that there were no signs of hybridisation in the general population in the wild. A participant asked if bear numbers should be reduced to take account of the amount of food available in particular years. Others added that people in Bulgaria were used to living with large carnivores but culling had to be considered as a management option. Including hunters was likely to result in better relations between different interests. There was a question regarding the number of livestock guarding dogs needed. It was suggested that it was optimal to have at least two since they work together but it depends on the number of livestock. There was a complaint that management plans were developed too much by NGOs alone and that there was a risk of them not being scientifically sound or corrupt if they did not involve other interests. Management plans should be funded and organised by the EU. A participant involved in the management plan in Bulgaria responded that all stakeholders were invited to participate. The European Commission stated that allegations of corruption would not be accepted without documented evidence. The European Commission has a very thorough process for assessing funding applications as the funds spent are European taxpayers’ money. There was discussion about the role of politicians and stakeholders and the role politicians should take in large carnivore management.
2.4 Theme 3: Population Level Key Actions
Theme 3 was tackled through an interactive analysis of the Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe3. This document was originally produced for the European Commission after extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders. It describes a set of cross-cutting actions that are of general importance for large carnivore conservation in Europe. Secondly, generic actions for each species across Europe are listed and finally specific actions which are important for individual bear, wolf, lynx and wolverine populations. Participants were presented with an adapted version of the key actions, focussing on the Balkans, Carpathians and Dinaric-Pindos regions. They were asked to rank both the generic actions and the specific population actions for each carnivore species in these regions. They then discussed the results of the prioritisation exercise.
Participants broke into three groups of different sizes: wolf (40 participants who took part in the ranking exercise); lynx (11 participants); bear (15 participants). The groups also took slightly different approaches, partly due to differences between the populations in questions, partly due to the different compositions of the groups. The wolf group ranked the generic and specific actions together but not the cross-cutting actions; the lynx group ranked only the cross-cutting actions and the bear group ranked the generic and cross-cutting actions separately. In each group, participants ranked actions only for the population about which
Boitani, L., et al. 2015. Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe. Institute of Applied Ecology (Rome, Italy). Report to DG Environment, European Commission, Bruxelles. Contract no. 07.0307/2013/654446/SER/B3. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/key_actions_large_carni vores_2015.pdf they were most knowledgeable meaning that the sizes of the groups working on the different populations was also different.
Full results from each group are included in Annex 3.
Wolf The wolf group was the largest and most animated. Two populations were considered: the Carpathian population (a smaller group of around 11 worked on this) and the Dinaric-Balkan population (considered by 29 members of the group). In both groups the following generic actions were considered important: “Standardised census and monitoring of wolf populations” (C:5; D-B:17) and “Control of free-ranging dogs and wolf-dog hybridisation” (C:8; D-B: 14). The highest ranking action for the Carpathian population, however was a specific action for this population: “Improving the prey base for wolf population” (C:11). For the Dinaric-Balkan population, “Systematic wolf mortality monitoring” (natural and human- caused) (D-B: 20) was considered of greatest importance.
There was some debate within the group about why mortality monitoring for the Dinaric- Balkan population was considered so important (more important even than a census). The participants stressed that they thought this gave the best overview of population numbers. “Prevention and compensation measures to reduce livestock depredation” (C:2; D-B: 10) was ranked highly for the Dinaric-Balkan population but not the Carpathian. It was thought that this was due to the absence of livestock interests represented at the workshop. A large proportion of the wolf group participants were hunters or their representatives.
Lynx The group considered two populations: the Carpathian population (6 participants) and the Balkan population (5 participants). For both populations, “Institutional capacity-building in wildlife management agencies” (C:5; B:5) was considered important as was “Standardisation of monitoring procedures” (C:5; B:4). The importance of “Managing free-ranging and feral dogs to reduce hybridisation with wolves and other conflicts” was debated. It had originally not been included in the ranking, however the “Reduction of feral and free-ranging dogs and cats in the wild” is a Specific action proposed in the Key Actions report for the Carpathian lynx population and a participant from the Carpathian group ranked it highly because of competition for resources and disease rather than hybridisation (C:4). In the Balkan group, “Law enforcement with respect to illegal killing” was seen as the most important action (B:6; C:3) and prevention of habitat fragmentation (B:4; C:3) and evaluating socio-economic impacts were also ranked highly (B:4; C:1). The lynx group had a larger number of managing authorities and conservation interests than the wolf group.
Bear The group considered 3 populations: Carpathian (2 participants), Dinaric-Pindos (4 participants) and Eastern Balkan (9 participants). Cross-cutting actions and generic actions were considered separately. In all groups, prevention of habitat fragmentation was ranked highly (C:4; D-P:2; E-B:9). Standardisation of monitoring procedures was considered important in the Eastern Balkans (C:2; D-P:1; E-B:7) and “Law enforcement with respect to illegal killing of large carnivores” was also considered important here (C:1; D-P:0; E-B:4). “Integrating large carnivore management needs into wildlife and forest management structures” was important in the Carpathians (C:4; D-P:1 ; E-B:3). Otherwise, participants chose different priorities and there was no clear ranking. For the generic actions, habitat connectivity was clearly also considered of high importance (C:3; D-P:1; E-B:9). “Implement sound protective measures to prevent damage by bears” was considered less important in the Carpathian region than in the others (C:0; D-P: 2; E- B:7) but management strategies were considered important here (C:3; D-P:0; E-B:2). Other overarching management measures were considered relatively important: “Managing bear populations based on monitoring trends, sizes and total mortality” (C:2; D-P:0; E-B:6) and “Establishment and training of bear management bodies: A bear management committee and bear emergency team in each county with bears” (C:1; D-P:1; E-B:5). 3. Discussion and summary
Each workshop session and the break-out groups were followed by a question and answer session allowing participants to discuss issues raised by the presentations and to express their own viewpoints. A brief summary is given of the main topics of discussion below.
3.1 Transboundary cooperation
Flexible approach to large carnivore management Several participants stressed that the differing situations in different countries needed different approaches and that local tailoring was needed. A viewpoint expressed by hunting interests was that areas with large carnivores should be supported in their management by funds from other parts of Europe but should not have management requirements imposed upon them. Some questioned whether the framework provided by the Habitats Directive was flexible enough.
Large carnivore ranges and protected areas A conclusion from many of the presentations, also raised in the discussion was whether management of large carnivores in particular geographic areas was possible. While some hunters believed that large carnivores should not be allowed to extend their range significantly, other conservation interests focused on the importance of habitat connectivity outside protected areas to allow different populations to reach each other and ranges to expand.
The role of managing authorities Several participants focused on the important role of managing authorities in working together on transboundary management and providing support for large carnivore management and conflict resolution over the longer term. Managing authorities often lack capacity and sometimes the political will to work together. Many transboundary efforts so far are led by NGOs relying on European or external funding sources. One participant stressed the importance not only of national and transnational cooperation but also of ensuring that regions within a country worked together better to manage large carnivores.
3.2 Conflict resolution
Public attitude to large carnivores Attitudes to wolves in particular are negative even though people fear bears more. A question was raised about the evidence base which demonstrates that allowing some hunting improves public attitudes (in reference particularly to the Croatian case study). Some participants believed that allowing some hunting would increase the value of large carnivores for hunters and prevent them being poached as much. This issue was raised on several occasions with many hunters expressing the view that allowing culling both on a general level and of problematic individuals improved relations between different interest groups and maintained populations at a suitable level.
Competition with hunting Views on competition for game species differed between conservation and hunting interests but also between hunters from different areas. Some stated that the presence of large carnivores had a serious impact on game bags while others thought that large carnivore numbers dropped naturally in years where the prey base was smaller. The view was expressed that large carnivore numbers should be controlled depending on the food available. The contrary view was also expressed by conservation interests that this approach was not scientifically validated and that the numbers suggested by some hunting interests were arbitrary.
Livestock guarding dogs A participant working in the livestock industry stated that livestock interests were underrepresented at the workshop and that hunters and livestock interests could come into conflict over guard dogs. These are required by Bulgarian law to wear a stick preventing free movement to hinder them from killing wildlife. Dogs not wearing the stick can be shot which the participant suggested was unjust. A question was also raised about the optimal number of livestock guarding dogs needed to care for a flock. It was suggested that livestock guarding dogs often worked better together so that more than one was required. The number, however, would depend on the size of the flock. It was suggested that in some locations, there are too many livestock guarding dogs and this could impact on wildlife.
Free-ranging dogs The question about the extent of hybridisation between dogs and wolves was subject to animated discussion during the workshop. Some participants believed that it was widespread in Bulgaria and some that it was rare. Several participants from Romania however considered feral dogs as an eminent threat to large carnivores. The situations that were likely to lead to hybridisation were discussed. In particular, where populations of wolves are very small and free-roaming dogs are common (for example in Italy) hybridisation is more likely to occur.
Management plans One participant complained that in Bulgaria, management plans were organised to too large an extent by small groups consisting mainly of NGOs without enough input from governments or the European Commission. It was claimed that this could lead to corruption or one-sided plans. This was disputed by other participants involved in the plans and the European Commission stated that allegations of corruption (particularly if European funding is received) have to be backed up by strong evidence. Several participants stressed the importance of working with all stakeholders and different interest groups from an early stage both on policy development but also for scientific monitoring. Where management plans involved a range of stakeholders, they were believed to bring benefits. Coordinated approaches such as emergency response teams helped to give an overview of the situation and allowed problems to be dealt with rapidly.
Funding streams for large carnivore management The question of funding for large carnivore management came up on many occasions at the workshop. Several participants stressed the importance of long-term funding and of management continuing after a LIFE project for example, was completed. It was acknowledged that conservation actions often depended on external funding. The European Commission stated that those working on large carnivores should not only depend on LIFE funding but also in particular on the European Fund for Rural Development (Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)). On the other hand, one participant highlighted how actions encouraged through the CAP could have negative impacts such as increasing livestock numbers in key areas for large carnivores which is resulting in more conflicts.
4. Next steps
The case studies presented at the workshop provide a good starting point for the Platform to begin sampling examples from across Europe illustrating how conflictual issues can be dealt with to allow coexistence. Further case studies will be collected by the Platform members through an online survey4. The case studies together with the results of the prioritisation exercise on key actions will be discussed at the Platform’s plenary meeting 2 June 2015. The results of the meeting will be made available on the Platform’s online resource centre allowing all stakeholders involved with the discussions around coexistence, access to a significant amount of information on the various solutions to conflicts. It is hoped that the Platform’s meetings and workshops and their results will allow a wider range of individuals to access to relevant information on coexistence issues.
5. Annexes
5.1 Annex 1: Agenda
INTRODUCTION 10.00 – 10.45 1. Welcome Welcome to Bulgaria and the first Bernard Lozé, regional workshop of the EU Platform President on Large Carnivores International Council of
Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) 2. Introduction to the Introduction to the work of the EU Co-chairs of the Platform: workshop Platform on Coexistence between Pia Bucella, European People and Large Carnivores Commission Konstantin Kostopoulos, European Landowners' Organization (ELO) 3. Bulgaria’s work on Large Payment Compensation System for Radostina Galitionova, Carnivores damages caused by brown bears National Nature Protection Service Directorate Ministry of Environment and Water, Bulgaria
4. Romania’s work on Introduction to Romania’s work on Prof. Ovidiu Ionescu, Large Carnivores Large Carnivores Expert International Council of Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Romania TOPIC 1: TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION 10.45 – 11.45 Guidelines on population level management of Large Carnivores Introduction A brief overview of transboundary Dr. András Demeter, cooperation in population-level European Commission management of Large Carnivores Case study 1 Open borders for bears between the Prof. Dr. Andriy-Taras Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians Bashta, Institute of Ecology of the Carpathians, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Case study 2 LIFE Connect Carpathians – focusing Iain Trewby, on bear and wolf to implement Fauna & Flora International landscape scale conservation (FFI), Romania Case study 3 Wolf management Plan in Croatia and Jasna Jeremić, transboundary cooperation on large State Institute for Nature carnivore management Protection, Croatia Case study 4 Transborder bear Conservation Action Kosta Valchev, Plan between BUL and GR for the BALKANI Wildlife Society, area of western Rodopi mountain Bulgaria range (PHARE-CBC Project) Case study 5 Cross border lynx conservation in Manuela Von Arx, Albania, FYROM, Montenegro, Kosovo KORA, Switzerland Discussion How to improve transboundary Moderation: management of Large Carnivores Co-chairs of the Platform TOPIC 2: FROM CONFLICT TO COEXISTENCE (SESSION 1) 11.45 – 12.30 Introduction Conflict resolution and large carnivores Dr. András Demeter, – insights from previous EC European Commission commissioned projects Case study 1 Wolf in Bulgaria: myths and fiction Hristo Mihaylov & Stoyan Stoyanov, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria Case study 2 Long-term Action plan for mitigation of Diana Zlatanova, bear and wolf damages in Smolyan Department of Zoology and region (2014 - 2023) Anthropology, Project BG161PO005/10/3.0/2/20 Sofia University St. Kliment Operational Program Environment Ohridsk, Bulgaria 2007-2013 Case study 3 Existing wolf – human conflict in Elena Tsingarska, Bulgaria and attempts for its mitigation BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria Case study 4 Building trust among stakeholders in Imrich Suba, monitoring of wolf population in Vice-President Slovakia International Council of
Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Slovakia Questions and answers Short Questions and Answers session Moderation: to discuss points raised by the case Co-chairs of the Platform studies
LUNCH BREAK 12.30 – 13.30
TOPIC 2: FROM CONFLICT TO COEXISTENCE (SESSION 2) 13.30 – 14.30
Case study 5 Emergency response team Bulgaria – Alexandar Dutsov, Dealing with bears and wolves BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria
Case study 6 Bear Emergency Team, Greece Spyros Psaroudas, CALLISTO, Greece Case study 7 The evolution and management of the Dr. Attila Kelemen, large carnivore from the hunters’ Member of the Romanian perspective in Romania Parliament and Vice President of FACE Dr. Ing. Neculai Şelaru, General Director of the Romanian Association for Hunting and Angling, Romania
Case study 8 Visitor management and bears in the Sergey Aleksandrov, Central Balkans National Park, expert in Directorate Bulgaria Biodiversity, plans, programs and projects, Central Balkans National Park, Bulgaria
Questions and answers Short questions and answers session Moderation: to discuss points raised by the case Co-chairs of the Platform studies
TOPIC 3: POPULATION LEVEL KEY ACTIONS 14.30 – 16.00
Introduction Description of the session & Election of Dr. András Demeter, break-out group moderators European Commission (Please see Documents about key actions A, B, C & D)
Break-out groups Key actions for: Moderation: 1. Bear elected participants 2. Wolf 3. Lynx
Discussion 1. Report from break-out groups Co-chairs of the Platform: 2. Conclusions of the workshop & Next Pia Bucella, European steps Commission Konstantin Kostopoulos, ELO
5.2 Annex 2: Participants list
No. First name Surname Title Organisation Group
1 Evgeni Abadzihiev wolf 2 Manu Alin - Codru Ing. Romanian Hunters Association (AGVPS) 3 George Aman International Council for Game and wolf Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Switzerland 4 Rosen Andreev Phd. State Hunting Estate Chepino, Bulgaria wolf 5 Angel Angelov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 6 Ivaylo Bankov Union of Hunters and Anglers of Bulgaria wolf (UHAB) 7 Dimitar Batalov Executive Forest Agency, Bulgaria 8 Kamila Bizeova International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Slovakia 9 Pavlin Bogdanski Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 10 Silviu Chiriac Dr. Local Environmental Protection Agency, wolf Vrancea County, Romania 11 Michael de Pelet The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), United Kingdom 12 Sevdalina Dimitrova Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 13 Valeri Dzhambazov Варна - Hunting And Fishing Association, wolf Bulgaria 14 Jusein Efendiev Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 15 Rumen Evtimov bear 16 Ventsislav Furlanski Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 17 Genadi Gavrilov BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria bear 18 Emil Gelev Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 19 Georgi Georgiev Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 20 Kiril Georgiev Wilderness Fund, Bulgaria 21 Stilian Geraskov Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria lynx (UHAB) 22 Gerassim Gerassimov Bulgarian Society for the Protection of wolf Birds (BSPB) 23 Todor Gichev Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 24 Dinko Gospodinov State Hunting Estate Kormisosh, Bulgaria bear 25 Kristóf Hecker The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Headquarters, Hungary 26 Jan Heino International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), President of Division Policy and Law, Finland No. First name Surname Title Organisation Group
27 Bledi Hoxha Society for Protection and Preservation of lynx Natural Environment (PPNEA), Albania 28 Hristo Hristov Wilder Rhodopes Foundation 29 Acosta- Ilya National Museum of Natural History, Sofia Pankov (NMNHS), Bulgaria 30 Hari Irgev Hunting Estate Ëledjik, Bulgaria lynx 31 Dimitar Jekin Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 32 Chavdar Jelev Phd. NRSWMBP Sofia, Bulgaria wolf 33 Ivan Kafedzhiev wolf 34 Gospodin Kaloyanov wolf 35 Sasho Kamenon wolf 36 Krasimir Kamenov Executive Forest Agency, Bulgaria 37 Sashko Kamenov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 38 Rozali Koev Regional Directory of Forestry, Russe wolf 39 Bernard Lozé International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), France 40 Tamás Marghescu International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Headquarters, Hungary 41 Dime Melovski Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) lynx 42 Hristo Mihaylov Assoc. Faculty of Forestry, University of Forestry, Prof. Sofia, Bulgaria 43 Rossen Mirchev NRSWMBP wolf 44 Dimitar Nanchev Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria bear (UHAB) 45 Nedko Nedev Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria lynx 46 Stoyan Nikolov Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) 47 Nikolai Nikolov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 48 Nino Ninov 49 Koly Panayotov Варна - Hunting And Fishing Association, wolf Bulgaria 50 Vasil Panitsa 51 Grigor Penev Union of Hunters and Anglers of Bulgaria wolf (UHAB) 52 Ivan Petkov Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria (UHAB) 53 Stoyan Petrov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 54 Ioan-Mihai Pop Environmental Protection Agency Vrancea wolf County , Romania 55 Rosen Popsavov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria bear No. First name Surname Title Organisation Group
56 Vasil Purov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 57 Radi Radev Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria wolf (UHAB) 58 Radko Radkov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria lynx 59 Maria Rangelova Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria bear (UHAB) 60 Robin Rigg Slovak Wildlife Society 61 Julian Rusev Executive Forest Agency wolf 62 Dimitar Rusev Regional Directory of Forestry wolf 63 Sahak Sahakian wolf 64 Ulf Scheibye International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Denmark 65 Sider Sedefchev Union of Farmers – Struma, Bulgaria wolf 66 Georgi Sheremetev Hunting Reserve Studen Kladenec, wolf Bulgaria 67 Dimitar Shishkov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf 68 Veselin Simeonov 69 Espen Soilen Norwegian Association of Hunters and wolf Anglers (NJFF) 70 Caroline Sorensen The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Headquarters, Hungary 71 Kostadin Spasov wolf 72 Venislava Spasova BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria bear 73 Zheko Spiridonov Wilderness Fund, Bulgaria bear 74 Svetlan Staikov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 75 Goce Stavrevski International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Macedonia 76 Ivan Stepanov Bulgaria bear 77 Stoyan Stoyanov Phd. Faculty of Forestry, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria 78 Stoycho Stoychev Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) 79 Luis Suárez World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), Arangüena Spain 80 Sona Supekova International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), Working Group Artemis, Slovakia 81 Alina Szabo Fauna & Flora International, United bear Kingdom 82 Ivan Todev NRSWMBP Sofia, Bulgaria wolf 83 Dimitar Todorov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria wolf No. First name Surname Title Organisation Group
84 Todor Todorov Southeast State Enterprise - Ministry of wolf Agriculture and Food 85 Georgi Toshev 86 Nada Tosheva Bulgarian Society for the Protection of wolf Birds (BSPB) 87 Vasil Vasilev Union of Hunters and Anglers in Bulgaria wolf (UHAB) 88 Ivan Vasilev 89 Bolgiu Veleriu bear 90 Peter Zaekov Regional Directorate of Forestry, Bulgaria 91 Svetla Zareva wolf 92 Martin Zizka Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic
Please note that apparently many participants did not sign the registration sheet, or were previously unregistered but their names were not legible. A number of delegates to the CIC GA also attended at least part of the workshop but did not register for the event.
5.3 Annex 3: Feedback from breakout groups
Wolf break-out group 29 participants pre-registered for the wolf breakout group but finally 40 people participated.
Evaluation Actions for wolves extracted from document Key Actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe Participants were asked to rank both the generic and specific actions together by placing three stickers on the actions they considered of greatest importance. They did not rank the cross-cutting actions.
Action Generic Actions Carpathian Dinaric-Balkan
1 Standardised census and monitoring of wolf 5 17 population
2 Transboundary cooperation and population-level 3 1 management plan Action Generic Actions Carpathian Dinaric-Balkan
3 Prevention and compensation measures to reduce 2 10 livestock depredation
4 Measures against illegal killing and control of poison 0 7 baits
5 Control of free-ranging dogs and wolf-dog 8 14 hybridisation
6 Habitat fragmentation and connectivity 3 2
7 Education, information and data accessibility 2 8
Actions for wolves extracted from document Key Actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe Participants were asked to discuss the specific actions listed below and give their views on their relative importance.
Action Specific actions for Carpathian population Importance
1 Sanitary veterinary monitoring of the wolf population 0
2 Improving the prey base for wolf population 11
Action Specific actions for Dinara-Balkan population Importance
1 Training and establishment of Wolf emergency team and damage 2 inspectors in all 10 countries sharing Dinara-Balkan wolf population
2 Systematic wolf mortality monitoring (natural and human caused) 20
3 Health status of wolves (including zoonotic agents) 6
Lynx breakout group 5 participants pre-registered for the lynx breakout group, in the end 11 people participated in the exercise, with more joining in the discussion.
Evaluation Cross-cutting actions for all large carnivores evaluated for lynx population. Participants were given four stickers each and asked to rank only the cross-cutting actions as for lynx these were similar to the generic and specific actions for these populations.
Actions Carpathians Balkan
1. Preventing fragmentation of habitat and reducing disturbance 3 4 associated with infrastructure development
2. Reducing large carnivore depredation on livestock
3. Integrating large carnivore management needs into wildlife and forest management structures
4. Evaluating social and economic impacts of large carnivores 1 4
5. Improved transboundary coordination of large carnivore management 3
6. Standardisation of monitoring procedures 5 4
7. Managing free-ranging and feral dogs to reduce hybridisation with 4 (N/A) wolves and other conflicts
8. Law enforcement with respect to illegal killing of large carnivores 3 6
9. Genetic reinforcement of small populations of lynx and bears N/A
10. Institutional capacity-building in wildlife management agencies 5 5
11. Developing best practice for large carnivore based ecotourism
Bear breakout group 8 people pre-registered for the bear breakout group, but finally 15 people participated. They were given four stickers.
Evaluation Actions for Bears extracted from document Key Actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe For the bear group, cross-cutting actions and generic actions were ranked separately. Cross-cutting actions for all large carnivores evaluated for bear population.
Action Carpathian Dinaric- Eastern Pindos Balkans
1. Preventing fragmentation of habitat and reducing disturbance 4 2 9 associated with infrastructure development
2. Reducing large carnivore depredation on livestock 0 1 2 Action Carpathian Dinaric- Eastern Pindos Balkans
3.Integrating large carnivore management needs into wildlife 4 1 3 and forest management structures
4.Evaluating social and economic impacts of large carnivores 1 0 2
5.Improved transboundary coordination of large carnivore 2 1 3 management
6.Standardisation of monitoring procedures 2 1 7
7.Managing free-ranging and feral dogs to reduce hybridisation 0 0 0 with wolves and other conflicts
8.law enforcement with respect to illegal killing of large 1 0 4 carnivores
9.Genetic reinforcement of small populations of lynx and bears 0 0 0
10.Institutional capacity-building in wildlife management 2 1 2 agencies
11.Developing best practice for large carnivore based 0 1 1 ecotourism
Generic Actions for bears
Action Carpathian Dinaric- Eastern Pindos Balkan
1 Protection of bear habitat and enhancement of 3 1 9 connectivity within each population and between populations
2 Economic use of the intrinsic (inherent) and extrinsic 1 1 3 (utilitarian) value of bears
3 Managing bear populations based on monitoring trends, 2 0 6 sizes and total mortality
4 Implement sound protective measures to prevent 0 2 7 damage by bears
5 Preparation and implementation of a management 3 0 2 strategy (plan) for each trans-boundary bear population Action Carpathian Dinaric- Eastern Pindos Balkan
6 Reduce conflicts over the size of populations by providing 2 0 1 genetically determined population size estimates using data collected with public participation
7 Establishment and training of bear management bodies: 1 1 5 A bear management committee and bear emergency team in each county with bears
8 Prevention of bear access to garbage and anthropogenic 0 2 0 food