Meeting with Stakeholders in Lüneburg Heath No. 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Dialog platform on the subject wolf in the Lüneburg Heath, Germany Documentation of the second meeting - translated version from German original report - 09.12.2019 from 14.30 to 19:00 in the Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation Contents 1. Short presentation of the main results of the meeting 1 2. Preface 4 3. Greeting and Introduction 4 4. Work on two topics in groups 5 5. Plenary Session 6 6. Feedback Round 14 Annex 1. Agenda 16 Annex 2. Participants 17 1. Short presentation of the main results of the meeting The meeting served to clarify the views of three groups on two different topics. The groups were shepherds and stock farmers nature conservation / animal protection / hunting administration The two issues were: wolf and sheep farming wolf and animal welfare The clarification of the points of view gave a first indication of the interests of the groups. The various interests appeared as follows: Shepherds Nature Conservation / Administration Animal welfare / Hunting Wolf and Maintaining a livelihood (a See herd protection as nature Effective support for shepherds Sheep challenge especially for hobby and conservation. including reducing costs for Farming migratory sheepherders) shepherds, reducing running More understanding of the Further strengthen herd costs for herd protection and experience of a shepherd / what it protection and let it become a enabling effective fences (fences means to be a shepherd (during wolf matter of course (a large part of are partly overcome). A grazing attacks and beyond). Overcoming a the shepherds should still improve animal premium could be perceived social separation between herd protection) interesting here. town and country. Recognize exemplary herd Further improve the current Taking a proactive role (out of protection (which often exists) herd protection situation helplessness) (increase financial resources, try Increase acceptance (including to move politics in this direction) Pragmatic solutions (no ideology) financial consequences) for herd protection among the public, Being able to trust the politicians authorities and associations (keeping promises) (More) Effectively support Increase capacities to compensate shepherds in herd protection for the effects of the wolf (e.g. through (process herd protection faster processing of applications, applications more quickly, replacement of once subsidised commission LWK with prevention fences) and protection, offer advice) Find solutions where legal Strengthen financial resources conditions make herd protection of the shepherds (e.g. with EU difficult (e.g. in certain nature funds, which are partly not reserves) exhausted - LIFE, EAFRD Keeping landscapes open projects and others) Dike maintenance Being able to trust politicians (transparency on the part of Biodiversity: Wolf and other species politicians about objectives and difficulties, e.g. lack of staff to process applications) Reduce animal suffering (e.g. through improved herd protection) Wolf and preserve the migration Avoid removals Proactive role for sheep Animal sheepherding farmers (away from victim role) Avoid injured wolves Welfare Avoid animal suffering of grazing Towards a world with room for Avoid kills in farm animals. animals (grazing animals also have all - the wolf and the sheep the right to animal welfare) Consistent herd protection farmers (minimization of risk) Set fences intelligently (Away from Respect the legal framework. fences at all costs. Problem of fences Clear practical effective legal Away from seeing, shooting, in the landscape e.g. at river framework (e.g. with "Mobile shoveling floodplains) Task Force" for herd protection Realizing basic values in after wolf attacks with guard dogs) Find solutions for habituated wolves dealing with the wolf: tolerance, (i.e. wolves that seem to be coexistence, humility, co-creation, specialized on livestock attacks – objectivity, herd protection, animal maybe there are not many) welfare. Overcoming pure cost- benefit calculations Establish an acceptable balance between wolf and grazing animals See wolf as a chance to unite, not split up: -Everybody is Idyllic Lüneburger Heide responsible. Each has to deliver landscape preserved his part. town and country Making solutions possible for together. Shepherd and non- shepherds (away from shepherd together. Herd powerlessness) protection and animal welfare are not opposites, but to realize them Finding solutions for permanent together. Do not use wolf for maintenance of fences. political goals. Recognizing that herd protection Consider wolf as a fellow fencing has limits in safety hunter (and not as a competitor for the hunters) Biodiversity in the Lüneburg Heath The presentation of the respective views of the groups on the two topics resulted in common views/consensus different points of view / still existing need for discussion Common views / consensus of interests (in both issues): Sheep herding and especially hobby sheep herding and herding/hiking are under economic pressure even without the wolf. The wolf aggravates the situation even more. In particular the herding shepherds / migratory shepherds make an important contribution to biodiversity in the Lüneburg Heath Shepherds and in particular the open herding/hiking and hobby shepherds deserve even more support The profession of shepherd must be preserved It is important to understand the economic reality of sheep farming as a whole, as well as the individual shepherd and the psychological consequences of the current situation (economic insecurity, wolf attacks) The wolf can stay. Herd protection is important, reduce kills further. A balance must be found between the interests and survival of the sheep farming and the preservation of the wolf population. Animal suffering both for the wolf and for farm animals must be avoided. Further networking of interest groups Strengthen appreciation for shepherds Further improvement of funding conditions Different points of view/ still existing need for discussion: Aggravation approach (as in Saxony) with “task force” What is the right "balance" between wolf population, financial support, herd protection and further support (including increased recognition) for the shepherds? Where should fences be put and where not? What types of fences? What does this mean for maintenance and material renewal and labour input? What are the financial limits of the support? How far is the society willing to go there? What can/should the presence of wolves mean for the prices that can be charged by agriculture? Who bears the remaining costs? Who has what exact responsibilities when it comes to wolf & sheep farming: what are the shepherds responsible for, what is society responsible for? What are the exact legal bases? Who finances exactly what? How can "the shepherds" as a group be differentiated between industrially organised sheep farming, hobby shepherds and migratory animal husbandry? What about stock regulation and upper limits? What is the current situation of the wolf population? In the discussion, people are sometimes divided into groups, but they do not want to find themselves there at all. For example as "city people" or "rural population". The reality is often much more complex and some people have the impression that if they are divided into one of the categories this does not do justice to their competence and their own point of view. The danger of an artificial division by such categorisation has also been pointed out. 2. Preface The Ministries for Environment, Energy, Construction and Climate Protection and for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of the State of Lower Saxony have invited to the second meeting of the regional dialogue platform. They are supported by an EU project that promotes dialogue on coexistence between humans and large predators: for coordinating the platform Marion Jay (adelphi), for moderating the meeting Yorck von Korff (flow-ing) and supporting Sonja Hölzl (adelphi). This report documents the results of the discussions of this meeting. 3. Greeting and Introduction The meeting was opened by Mr. Munzel (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection - ML), Mrs. Grönemann (Ministry of Environment, Energy, Building and Climate Protection - MU) and Mr. von Ruschkowski (Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation). Mrs. Jay welcomed on the behalf of the project team and presented some changes in the composition of the group, which resulted from the 1st meeting: new participants were invited (related to cattle and sheep farming and hunting), but no journalist came due to the decision to do so in meeting 1 (see documentation of the 1st meeting). A total of 24 persons took part. Mr. von Korff presented the proposed course of the meeting (see below, Annex 1) and again explained the work assignment and working principles that had been decided by the group in the 1st meeting. The working principles are: mutual respect Listening personalised (if possible, participants should attend all meetings themselves and not send someone else) express your own interests (what is really important to me about a topic) seek solutions together with others that include these interests as far as I am concerned, to talk about the results of the platform after each meeting with my own organisation and to get feedback from there for further platform work Peacetime (do not report negatively on the other participants outside the platform meetings, but - if reported - present the different opinions as factually as possible. The platform