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

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

Report DE-2: Description of the situation regarding wolf in the Lüneburger Heide, ,

(17-21/05/2019 and 07-14/06/2019)

Dr. Marion Jay, Dr. Yorck von Korff, Johanna Hartmann

August 2019

1

Table of contents

1. Context ...... 3 1.1 General context with regard to this project ...... 3 1.2 Specific context with regard to this mission in Lower Saxony ...... 4 2. Purpose of this report ...... 5 3. Purpose of the missions...... 5 4. General approach to our intervention ...... 5 5. Interviews ...... 7 5.1 Persons met ...... 7 5.2 Interview procedure ...... 9 6. Results ...... 10 6.1 Issues ...... 10 6.1.1 The impact of the wolf on livestock and the question of wolf management ...... 10 6.1.2 Husbandry practices and prevention and compensation measures ...... 10 6.1.3 The link between tourism and the wolf ...... 11 6.2 Stakeholders involved ...... 11 6.3 Relationships between stakeholders and level of conflict ...... 13 6.4 Expectations from the intervention/dialogue platform ...... 13 7. Next Steps ...... 14 8. Annexes ...... 15 8.1 The members of the mission ...... 15 8.2 Questionnaire ...... 15

This report was prepared by Dr. Marion Jay, Dr. Yorck von Korff and Johanna Hartmann following a visit in Lower Saxony within the activities planned for the Service contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores. Angelika Wüst and Carolin Grönemann, Lower Saxony Ministry of Environment, commented and amended a first draft of this report. The opinions and evaluations contained are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of the European Commission.

2

1. Context 1.1 General context with regard to this project

The mission described in this report was carried out by Marion Jay, Johanna Hartmann (both adelphi consult) and Yorck von Korff (flow-ing) in the framework of a service contract with the European Commission Directorate-General for Environment (Contract nr. 07.027739/2017/771819/SER/ENV.D.3). This service contract foresees “the establishment of regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores”. The impacts of large carnivores – notably bear, wolf, and lynx - recently have reappeared and intensified with regard to a wide range of human activities, including the economically costly depredation on livestock and pets. In some countries, hunters perceive carnivores as competitors for shared prey species and in some situations, predation can influence traditional game harvests and hunting. In some exceptional cases, large carnivores (mainly bears) can be a risk for human safety, and fear of both bears and wolves is often expressed by rural residents in recolonization areas. Although the real impact of large carnivores can be mitigated through the adoption of adequate tools in a technical way, the disagreement among different sectors of the society about the core issue about presence of large carnivores can result in social conflicts. Experience has shown that these conflicts can escalate to very high levels and can dominate political discourses in some countries. In many cases, reintegrating large carnivores into the fabric of the European countryside requires making a number of adjustments to the practices of many sectors, including agriculture, forestry, hunting, transport, and refuse treatment, as well as dealing with the general concerns of many rural residents. The social perception of such needed changes can be either positive or negative, resulting in difficult situations to be managed. Often, the nature of conflict is mainly social, and in this case no technical tool is expected to achieve full success if not welcomed and implemented through a shared decision making approach. Many management measures may be highly controversial and / or expensive, so it is crucial that their adoption can be justified by involving the interested parties in a participatory way. Due to the diversity of European situations there are no solutions that work in all contexts. It is therefore necessary to identify the range of potential solutions and then pick the combination of measures which work best in different local contexts. In 2012 the Directorate General for the Environment of the European Commission (DG ENV) launched an initiative for the conservation and sustainable management of large carnivore species, based on dialogue with, and involvement of, relevant stakeholders, with a view to ensuring their commitment to the long-term conservation of large carnivores in coexistence with humans in Europe. In 2014 the EU platform on coexistence between humans and large carnivores was established, with the vision "To promote ways and means to minimize, and wherever possible find solutions to, conflicts between human interests and the presence of large carnivore species, by exchanging knowledge and by working together in an open-ended, constructive and mutually respectful way". The EU platform represents a tool for sharing views and issues at a higher level, but somehow lacks the direct contact with local issues. There is a need to implement pilot activities that could serve as models for other contexts, and to show how and where the participatory approach offers an effective means to move large carnivore conservation from the purely ecological to the social dimension, thus taking full account of the perceptions, emotions and values of the local communities, and launching a shared responsibility process whereby actions to be implemented are selected on a common ground wherever that appears possible.

3

Therefore, it is the primary aim of this project to set up local platforms of stakeholders in areas where high levels of conflicts are detected, in order to promote dialogue among different interest groups. It is an additional project supporting the first service contract on regional platforms (service contract no. 07.027739/2017/771819/SER/ENV.D.3 “Service contract for the establishment of regional/local platforms on coexistence between people and large carnivores”). The project will support stakeholders, where this is desired, to reach agreement about key actions to implement in order to mitigate the impact of large carnivores on local human activities and smoothen the social conflicts that hamper the conservation status of the large carnivore population involved. The project also aims at improving the communication flow with the European stakeholder platform on large carnivore coexistence, as well as promoting the existence of the local platforms through ad- hoc communication activities thus contributing to the promotion of stakeholder participation at different levels. In the first contract, three regions have been retained after fact-finding missions: Harghita County in Romania, Grosseto Province in Italy and Avila Province in . In those regions platforms have been established and are currently running. In the second contract, the European Commission proposed sites to be included in the project, among which Lower Saxony, Germany. This report presents the results of the first two fact finding missions in Lower Saxony that address the regional situation in the region of the Lüneburger Heide. A separate report deals with the situation on the federal state level in Lower-Saxony regarding wolf.

1.2 Specific context with regard to this mission in Lower Saxony

The Lüneburger Heide (Lüneburg Heath) is one of the largest contiguous heathlands in Central Europe. It is located between the and in Lower Saxony, north-central Germany. Its area extends over the districts of Lüneburg, , , , as well as parts of the districts of, Lüchow- and . The unique cultural landscape of the Lüneburg Heath was first created by the influence of the people. Through arable farming, livestock breeding and wood extraction, open areas were created which offered optimal growth conditions for the heath and created this habitat for humans, animals and plants. Even today, Heidschnucke sheeps are traditionally used for the care of heather in order to prevent the half-open heath landscape from becoming overgrown by trees. Lüneburg Heath’s landscape is characterised by forests, moors and extensive heath areas. From a tourism perspective, the “Lüneburger Heide” is also used as a name for a touristic destination. The wolves are spread out across Lower Saxony but concentrates in and around the Lüneburg Heath, especially around the two big military training areas (“Truppenübungsplätze” Munster and Bergen). These areas are not accessible for the public and are important habitats for wolf packs and a refuge for wolf reproduction. The monitoring in Lower Saxony as of August 2019 counts 24 wolf packs, 2 individual resident wolves and 4 pairs1. This is up from 5 counted packs in 2014/15 and 10 in 2016/17. According to official monitoring figures, the population has been expanding its territory (but not its numbers which is growing at a slower rate) since 2011 for about 60 percent per year in Lower Saxony. Monitors are concluding that this strong dynamic is not only due to regional reproduction but also to continued wolf immigration. The one derogation so far implemented for legal wolf killing in Lower Saxony targeted a wolf in the Munster area, near the Lüneburg Heath.

1 Source: https://www.wolfsmonitoring.com/monitoring/wolfsterritorien_in_niedersachsen/

4

2. Purpose of this report

In this report we will inform all interested parties about the work we carried out between 7 and 14 of June 2019 in Lower Saxony. This includes the objectives of our work, the approach we used, whom we met for which reasons, as well as some conclusions from our mission together with possible next steps.

3. Purpose of the missions The general context in Lower Saxony is described in more detail in the report on the situation at the federal state level regarding the wolf (August 2019). During the first fact finding mission in May 2019, the focus on the Lüneburg Heath was discussed, first with the federal state authorities (Ministry of Environment) and then with stakeholders and appeared as an interesting and strategic choice. After the first fact finding, a number of interest groups remained to be interviewed at the federal state level (Lower Saxony) and first contacts had been made at the regional level in the region of the Lüneburg Heath. Therefore, the second fact finding mission in June 2019 targeted both actors at the federal state level and regional level with the aims to:

➢ Expand the understanding of the situation and the perception of actors at the federal state level

➢ Discuss the first ideas concerning the potential regional platform (format, involvement of different actors, potential topics)

➢ Find information on regional actors and establish further contacts with potential platform participants

➢ Expand our understanding of the regional issues that a platform could target and of the regional interplay of the actors

➢ Inform regional stakeholders and build trust with them.

4. General approach to our intervention The approach that we use in all sites of our work has four parts, as illustrated in the figure 1 below. At all times in this process our team will remain:

➢ Neutral with regard to the issues under discussion. The only suggestions we will make are on the process to follow but even here we remain open to changes whenever they are requested by the participants.

➢ In support of each stakeholder by way of understanding what is important to her/ to him.

➢ Transparent with regard to the decisions that we are intending to make on the process and the reasons for them as well as on the decisions that already have been made (as far as we are aware of them).

➢ Confidential with regard to who told us what in the preliminary interviews of the first phase. Nevertheless we will feed back information – to the EC-DG ENV but also to the stakeholders – about the general points that were raised and the overall situation albeit without indicating who stated which point (this is a purpose of the current report).

5

In accordance with previous considerations, we will never propose ourselves any solution to the issues under consideration. Our role will remain that of a third party in support of all the other parties. Therefore the solutions will have to come from the regional stakeholders themselves. If the latter can reach consensus on these solutions they will be more appropriate for the specific regional context, as well as more lasting than any solution suggested by external experts.

6

5. Interviews 5.1 Persons met

The following table gives an overview whom we met at the regional level as well as when and where. For an overview of the interviews carried out at federal state level, see Report DE-1. In total we carried out 22 face-to-face interviews during the fact finding missions 1 and 2 and two interviews via phone calls. Some of the respondents listed here are also interviewed as stakeholders at the federal state level, as both are intertwined.

Table 1. Persons met

Federal state Persons met during a specific Date and time level / regional Organizational affiliations interview of the day level

17 May 2019

Division 27b - Biological Federal state Lower Saxony Ministry for the 10h00 Diversity / Species Protection: Environment, Energy, Building and Climate Protection, Division  Mr Krüger, 27b - Biological Diversity / Species Protection  Mr Knorr

 Ms Grönemann

Minister's office:

 Mr Nilles

Mr Brockob Federal state State Sheep Breeding Federation 13h30

Federal state & German Federation for the Ms Sprengel-Krause regional Environment and Nature 17h00 Conservation (BUND)

20 May 2019

Mr Plagge Federal state State forest offices 9h30 Mr Aßmann

Federal state Central Federation of Hunting Mr Rohloff Ground Owning Cooperatives and 13h00 Hunting Ground Landowners Mr Zanini (ZJEN)

Mr Heringer Federal state Nature Conservation Association 15h00 of Lower Saxony (NVN) Ms Sandkühler

7

Federal state Persons met during a specific Date and time level / regional Organizational affiliations interview of the day level

Mr Persiehl

Mr von Ruschkowski Federal state Alfred Toepfer Academy for 19h00 Nature Conservation

21 May 2019

Mr Reding Federal state State Hunting Federation Lower 14h00 Saxony (LJN)

7 June

Mr and Ms Strampe Federal state Federation for game keeping 10h30 and regional Lower Saxony (Landesverband für landwirtschaftliche Wildhaltung) and Interest Group of Livestock Farmers in Germany (WNON)

Federal state Association: Friends of free-living Mr Martens 15h00 and regional wolves; wolf consultant

11 June

Mr Frost Federal state Tourism Marketing Lower Saxony 15h30

12 June 2019

Federal state Farmers' Federation of Lower Mr Gelsmann-Kaspers 10h00 Saxony (Landvolk)

Federal state Nature and Biodiversity Mr Buschmann 13h00 Conservation Union (NABU)

Mr Garbe Federal state Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of Lower 15h00 Mr Munzel Saxony (ML)

Federal state State press conference of Lower Mr Mlodoch 17h00 Saxony

(project team divided into 2 groups on the 13 June: Group 1 J. Hartmann & M. Jay, 13 June Group 2 Y. von Korff)

Federal state & Association of Heidschnucken Group 1, Mr Kuhlmann regional sheep breeders (Lüneburger 9h30 Heidschnuckenzüchter e.V.)

Federal state & Federal Forestry Office at the Group 2, Mr Tilk 10h00 regional Military Training Area Bergen

8

Federal state Persons met during a specific Date and time level / regional Organizational affiliations interview of the day level

Federal state & Society for the protection of Group 1, Ms Kressel regional wolves (Gesellschaft zum Schutz 13h00 der Wölfe)

Group 2, Mr Faß Federal state Wolfcenter Dörverden 14h00

14 June

Federal state Lower Saxony Federation of Mr Hempel horse related associations 10h00 (Pferdeland GmbH)

Federal state & Interest group livestock farmers Mr Rehse regional (Interessengemeinschaft der 15h00 Weidetierhalter – WNON)

5.2 Interview procedure

Prior to the visit, our team (Annex A) had prepared a questionnaire that would be the basis for our exchanges (see Annex B). However, during the interviews we did not always heed the order of the questions in the questionnaire but sometimes preferred to follow up with questions according to the thematic flow of the conservation. Nevertheless, we usually tried cover all questions contained in the questionnaire.

9

6. Results

As we assured semi-confidentiality (no reporting on who said what, just providing general impressions) to our respondents and as the number of respondent was small (making it easy to guess who said what even if we report content only), we will limit ourselves here to a more general description of the situation with regard to the wolf presence and related issues, stakeholders involved, relationships between stakeholders, the recent history and conflict dynamics, plus the readiness of the parties to address the situation in dialogue. Sometimes we will remain rather abstract on purpose so that it becomes more difficult to guess who said what.

6.1 Issues

6.1.1 The impact of the wolf on livestock and the question of wolf management At the regional level, the same issues than at federal state level can be observed.

 Uncertainty regarding the role of AK wolf as advisory body (to what extent suggestions will be taken into account?)  Doubts on the reliability of the numbers of wolves present in Lower Saxony  Frustration due to long delays in the application procedure for prevention measures and compensation (one sheep breeder applied for money but the procedure took too long and in the meantime he had an attack on his herd).

6.1.2 Husbandry practices and prevention and compensation measures Fencing Despite of now receiving 100 percent public subsidies for buying new fences in Lower Saxony, some interviewees remained critical about this issue, mentioning among others that “fences do not give 100 percent protection”. Various interviewees agreed that for sheep farmers fencing remained a difficulty also in their practical implementation. One interviewee: “The fence has to be very close to the ground and this is not easy to do as the land usually is quite uneven and as fences have to be moved. The 1,2 m fences are getting very heavy to carry. These are mobile fences.” Interviewees also remained critical about the lack of follow-up funding: “After three years mobile fences are broken. And then there will be no follow-on subsidies.” About the net fences that are suggested one interviewee pointed out that they are too heavy, likely to tumble in a storm, and difficult to mount (“impossible for women and children”). However the same interviewee showed appreciation for the educational center in Echem where new fence models are presented and showed openness to keep looking for practical solutions. Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) Various interviewees saw the introduction of livestock guarding dogs problematic. Two independently even said that they are “impossible” in the Luneburg Heath and one added: “You rather need them in summer, what do you do with them in winter?” Another said that LGDs “are

10 only an option for a few farmers” and pointed out the challenges: “They may threaten hikers, they bark and disturb the neighbours, it is difficult to integrate them into the herd and shepherd needs a lot of experience for this.” Compensations One interviewee suggested that “higher compensations would help a lot - independent from the kind of attack. If one was more generous a lot of pressure would be taken out of the discussion, there would be much less commotion.” Another respondent mentioned that “these contributions from the state are voluntary and can be cut any time”, suggesting that they should become obligatory. A third interviewee criticized that there was no compensation “if one did not find the killed lamb”. Finally another interviewee suggested that there should be permanent financial support for sheep holders “paying shepherds for being in wolf areas – a solution that may work”.

6.1.3 The link between tourism and the wolf Tourism is an important income source in the region of the Lüneburger Heide. Similarly to the federal state level, at regional level stakeholders mention that a few companies are using the wolf as a tourism attraction. Some regional stakeholders do depict, similarly to stakeholders at federal state level, potential problems for touristic activities arising from wolf presence: fences impacting on the landscape and guarding dogs that are too aggressive to be used in regions like the Lüneburger Heide, where tourism is an important activity. Some stakeholders also mention the possible fear of tourists in case wolves are present in a region, which might impact the number of visits to the region negatively. This issue is to be further considered in next interviews. It is probable that it plays a role in further platform discussions due to its interlinkages with the extensive livestock farming activities.

6.2 Stakeholders involved

The following is a preliminary overview of stakeholders identified at the regional level in the Lüneburger Heide with regard to the issue we focus on (extensive livestock farming), that should be further involved or informed at the regional level where the platform will be established. It remains open to change as some stakeholders are eventually not yet mentioned in the following table. A list of stakeholders identified at federal state level can be found in the fact finding Report 1. Both lists are, naturally, very similar as the stakeholders and associations at federal state level have representatives at regional level; and the issues are similar so that interest groups do not differ greatly.

Table 2. Stakeholders identified at regional level, to be involved or informed in later steps of the process

Stakeholder category Name of the organisation

Regional Governments District administration: veterinary services and nature protection services

City administrations

Wolf consultants Voluntary consultants in the concerned districts (they can be from

11

different organisations or independent individuals, their work as wolf consultant is voluntary and not related to their organisational affiliation)

Hunters District associations of hunters

Nature protection NGOs Regional representatives of Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU Niedersachsen),

German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland)

Animal welfare Society for the protection of wolves (Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Wölfe),

Friends of free-living wolves e.V (Freundeskreis freilebender Wölfe)

Livestock breeders Regional livestock farmers

Regional (district) Farmers' associations

Forestry District forest administrations

Regional forest administration of Federal Forest areas

Research institutions, Agricultural education center Echem education Environmental education center in Lüneburg (Umweltbildungszentrum Lüneburg)

The media Regional press

Tourism and outdoor Lüneburger Heide GmbH organizations Regional associations of horse riders

Regional tourism marketing organisations

Regional tourism industry Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) Lüneburg (Industrie und Handelskammer (IHK) Lüneburg Wolfsburg)

DEHOGA district associations (German hotel and restaurant association, Deutsche Hotel- und Gaststättenverband e.V.)

Natural Parks administration Nature protection park (Verein Naturschutzpark Lüneburger Heide e.V.)

Nature park South Heide (Naturpark Südheide)

Regional politicians Mayors

Members of the federal state parliament of Lower Saxony representing one of the district of the Lüneburger Heide

12

6.3 Relationships between stakeholders and level of conflict

The situation at the regional level is perceived differently by the stakeholders interviewed. On the one hand the positions held by the different interest groups are seen as polarised, as much as they are at federal state level. Regionally the social conflict on the presence of wolves is described as highly emotional in some places. Extreme positions of some groups or individuals, sometime staging actions such as “Warning Fires”, are described. On the other hand, some stakeholders underline the fact that besides a few hotspots, the social conflict is not escalating. One stakeholder said that emotions surge and ebb with wolf presence. All of this means that conflict may heat up at specific times and places at the regional level and then ebb again and remain on a latent level. Nevertheless even this latent level is characterized, for many stakeholders, by having developed certain assumptions and images about the other interest groups. Various livestock farmers feel treated unfairly by society: an interviewee mentioned that the society seems to welcome the return of the wolf and “livestock farmers are the only ones that are suffering”. Media coverage is considered quite differently by different interviewed persons; either it is considered as neutral and not too “excited”, or rather very strongly emotional and leading to even more escalation in the social conflict. Some respondents were concerned with negative consequences if the conflict is not treated soon: one consequence mentioned is the increase in illegal killings of wolves. Another aspect is the abandon of extensive livestock farming practices. A respondent talked about a “double tragedy”: the sheep bred are sometime ancient breeds that may disappear if livestock farmers abandon their work; and the extensive farming is of crucial importance for landscape and nature conservation in the traditional landscape of the Lüneburg Heath.

6.4 Expectations from the intervention/dialogue platform

At this stage of the fact finding process, the expectations we identified by stakeholders at federal state level do not differ from the ones mentioned in interviews at the regional level. This is due to the fact that the regional stakeholders so far interviewed, are mostly stakeholders at federal state level, and further interviews need to be conducted at regional level. The expectations can be summarised as belonging to the following three categories: Expectation that the regional platform will improve dialogue, enhancing cooperation and the elaboration of a common strategy: “Cooperate in order to produce a common strategy for coexistence, independently form the interests”, “work together”, “talk to each other and listen to each other”, have a “trustful cooperation” in which agreements are taken seriously and a cooperation that can have an impact on federal state policy, is listened at federal state or even at European level. Expectation that the conflicts will be alleviated, problems reduced, solutions found – at regional level on the ground as well as on a policy (federal state) level: “Less cracks”, “less formal queries in the federal state Parliament regarding the wolf”, “less media coverage”, “new instruments (regarding prevention for example)”. An important repeated expectation is that the “work of the platform has an impact” on the ground / on policy.

13

Expectations that the general atmosphere will improve with regard to wolf, to coexistence and to wolf management: “Fears are disappearing”, “emotions are disappearing”, “and people can feel again that they are not powerless but have the possibility to handle the situation”,“ mobilisation of different sections of society in order to support livestock farmers and especially hobby farmers”. One respondent expressed this expectation that the “wolf becomes normal, is a normal part of it all, a part of Lower Saxony’s culture”.

7. Next Steps

The stakeholders met are willing to engage in a dialogue process. They agree with the approach of the platform as we presented it. A next step is to organise a third fact finding mission at the regional level, including potentially a scoping meeting with regional authorities. A first platform event could be then set up and the platform established. It is important to take very carefully into consideration the format of the platform and the possibilities to involve wider groups into the process. One option could be to have a first platform meeting open to the public and have following meeting with a smaller group of stakeholders that sign up to the rules of the platform and engage to come for the following meetings. The role of the press is to be carefully considered throughout the process, either as enabler of change (positive impact, lowering the social conflict) or as potentially negatively impacting general opinion and/or the work of the platform itself. In this regard the attitude of potential platform participants towards the presence of a journalist at platform meetings is crucial. One option could be to choose an appropriate interested journalist, set up rules for his participation to the platform (e.g. concerning anonymity or how often he/she would report about the platform meetings) and invite future platform participants to meet with the journalist in order to address possible questions and fears. For this to be possible, however, all platform participants would have to agree. Attention is to be paid at the specific interactions between the federal state and the regional level. A major challenge is that the platform will have a regional focus, however the wolf policy is made at federal state level. And thus it is important to keep in mind the interaction of regional and federal state level and especially the role as multipliers that actors can play (bringing in the opinions of their own group/association into the platform, but also transporting to their group/association the results of the platform). It will be also crucial to ensure that federal state aspects are not taking a central place during the platform meetings, as the mandate to act as platform is a regional mandate and cannot address the federal state policy. A major opportunity could be that more regional action such as a regional dialogue platform could be helpful to de-emotionalise the topic. A dialogue platform could be an impulse for regional level cooperation in other areas of Lower Saxony, and an example of regional cooperation that could positively impact federal state cooperation between stakeholders and with the administration.

14

8. Annexes 8.1 The members of the mission

Member Function Affiliation Marion Jay Platform coordination in Germany adelphi Johanna Hartmann Project assistant adelphi Yorck von Korff Facilitator flow-ing

8.2 Questionnaire

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

Part II: Questions to ask2 1. Before we start, could you give us some insight into your work in your function as […]? How does this work relate to the […] issue? How long have you been in this function ? 2. What is the situation with regard to [… the issue]? You have mentioned mainly problematic [if this is case] aspects – do you think there are other ones as well? 3. What has led to this situation? 4. Which persons or institutions are directly involved in this? What do you think are their interests or expectations? 5. How would you describe your relationship to these other stakeholders? 6. Which other persons or institutions/ groups are yet other stakeholders, observers or potential third parties in this situation? 7. What have you already done to solve the problem? Have you asked others to help you in this? 8. What would happen if nobody steps in to work on the situation? What would be the consequences for you/ for the other stakeholders? 9. How urgent is the situation?

2 Do not miss to ask your own follow on questions whenever that appears more coherent in a given interview situation. This questionnaire is just a basic orientation so that you may not leave out important aspects.

15

10. What would be your personal goal in addressing this situation: For example if you imagine a positive outcome in one year of time what would it look like? 11. How does this whole situation affect you personally in terms of stress or any other emotions that the situation may stir [if this has not been said yet]? 12. What would you hope for from the intervention of an outside party in this situation? 13. If there were some kind of exchange process put into place with the other stakeholders would you be willing to participate? If you are willing to participate would you agree to a period of peace during that time [in case of conflict]? This would mean to abstain from public attacks outside of the agreed upon exchange platform and to agree to the principle of respect (be ready to listen) for the other parties within the platform? 14. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Optional question What could you do in order to make the situation worse (this paradoxical question shows the influence and responsibility that the party has and can also lead to find ways to improve the situation. It fits best possibly after question 7 or 8)

Part III: Description of follow up Restate what you will do once you have concluded the stakeholder interviews.

16