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 lives from a logic of listening and cooperation. Therefore it would be illogical to attack other participants outside the platform in any way). The task is as follows:  „The platform gives itself the task to better understand the conflict situation given by the return of the wolf, to improve the conflict and wolf management. Approach and thematic framework: the platform will look at the main conflict situations but also at the wider legal framework, taking into account the interests of grazing livestock farmers, species protection, public welfare and animal welfare “ This was followed by an interactive round of introductions of the 24 participants (see Annex 2 for a list of participants). In the run-up to the event, participants were asked to bring along an object that symbolized their work: all those present presented it one after the other and briefly explained what it stood for. Objects and comments of the participants:  Highlighter: as a symbol for moderation and conflict management  Notepad: as a memory aid in meetings  Pen: serves to write down and record the wishes and the observed  Green folder: Contains crack protocols as part of the work of nature conservation and nature use  Lederhosen: part of the daily work  Post-is: to prioritize the spontaneous tasks  Flyer: Product of collecting information and presentation of this  Mobile phone: contact person for various concerns, therefore always on the phone  Sheep' as the core object of the work: not brought along because it does not fit into the trunk;  Own head: listening to complaints  Procedure folder for official channels: as a symbol of the effort to keep the stack as small as possible  Service card: symbolizes the implementation of the law ('veterinary police')  Picture of a young wolf: as a gift from a guest from abroad - stands for the international character of the wolf topic and related educational work  Hearing aid: it is important to listen and to explain from an appropriate perspective  Mobile phone: as a connection to the outside world and support for daytime activities  Notepad: Bundles different topics  Appointment calendar: parallel to the mobile phone  Laptop: contains all lectures  Flyer: serves the public relations work  Laptop cable: power source  Newspaper: Information material

4. Work on two topics in groups At meeting 1, important topics were already mentioned which are the focus of attention for Platform (see task):  Wolf and herd protection / sheep  Wolf and herd protection / other grazing animals  Wolf and biodiversity  Wolf and the common good  Wolf and animal welfare The proposal from the moderator was to work in small groups of 3 to 4 people with (possibly) similar positions on 2 of the main topics.  The idea is to create a picture on a flipchart that would represent the group's view of the topic;;  In addition, the groups were asked to write down key points on another flipchart for 2 questions: "we want to get away from..." and "we want to go to...". The principles for creating the pictures and key points:  Be relatively spontaneous.  At least 3 colours per image  Image should fill flipchart  Preliminary design on A 4 ok  Total 20 minutes for picture  A total of 10 minutes for the key points The objectives of this work were:  to identify views on the topics  Beginning to identify different interests  As well as formulating positive visions of the future This proposed methodology was first explained and discussed in plenary. The composition of the groups was discussed, especially whether it would be better to form groups along the positions or "mixed" groups with one person from each "position". Finally, the procedure as originally proposed was followed. The group division was proposed by the moderator team with the exception of 2 participants who chose their group themselves respectively could have formed their own group (focus on hunting which was not represented as a separate position with its own group). The groups were as follows:

Topic Group Agriculture Group Nature Group Administrations Conservation / Animal Protection / Hunting Group Wolf and herd protection / sheep Jochen Rehse Thomas Mitschke Carolin Grönemann Stefan Erb Kenny Kenner Axel Munzel

Marc Sander Wolfgang von Wieding Konstantin Knorr Maja Züghart

Wolf and Animal Gina Strampe Dieter Ruhnke Theo Grüntjens Protection Georg Menke Ulrike Kressel Birgit Mennerich-Bunge Klaus Grünhagen Jens Bülthuis Jutta Flohr

5. Plenary Session In the following the pictures and the key points ("we want to get away from the following situation" and "we want to go to...") as well as the explanations of the respective group are presented: 5.1. Topic Wolf and Protection of Sheep 5.1.1. Group Agriculture

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - Helpless situation - Livelihood of grazing animals - Ideology - Biodiversity (contribution to open land) - - Animal suffering - Implementation of the commitments

Explanations to the picture and the key points: - Red line: everyone in society is for the wolf or has no points of conflict/ the shepherd is alone. - Abandoned / helpless situation - For shepherds it is a matter of preserving existence - Implementation of the commitments and confirmation of the application (herd protection, financial compensation) (but in some cases it is not legally possible, as in protected areas: corridor/network projects vs. herd protection directive) - Conversations held but nothing happens - Wish for more understanding. Crux: difficult to understand what happens to a shepherd (in case of a wolf attack) - the killed animals are the smallest problem. - Difference city/rural population. - Understanding is difficult but a basic requirement - People who make decisions are politically dependent.

5.1.2. Group Administration

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - Herd protection = high effort for animal - Herd protection should not be a question of owners lack of funding - Difficult economic situation of sheep farming - grazing premium (livestock subsidy for each sheep being in a zone with wolf presence) (inter alia)

Explanations to the picture and key points: - Financial aspects. Fence is paid, but it costs more than that. - There are also special challenges (like herding) - The wolf comes on top for sheep farmers, in an already difficult situation. - Livestock subsidy - Discussion on livestock subsidy in the group: must not be linked to agricultural subsidies Appropriate premium and then everything else could be dropped) - Discussion in the group: Some things cannot be settled with money: mental cinema, psychological stress. Fences are not safe. We always run after them. Prices have gone up. - Conclusion of the moderation: want more equipment, but it is not always possible, because of politics and also financially it has limits.

5.1.3. Group Nature- / Animal Conservation

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - 80% of the killed sheep and goats are poorly - Chamber of agriculture responsible for protected or not protected at all. Animal prevention and compensation suffering - Many shepherds who lead the way and - Over 300 herd protection applications on hold practice exemplary herd protection - EU funding pools (EAFRD, LIFE) are not - Acceptance of herd protection measures by exhausted the public and authorities / associations - Herd protection is animal welfare - Counteracting the herd protection by MU (danger of herd protection fences)

Explanations to the picture and key points: - Responsibilities transferred to the Chamber of Agriculture. Equalization thereby. (Corrigendum Mr Munzel, ML: MU still responsible for funds) - There is an obligation to protect, herd protection is law (here there were differentiated and different views of other participants). - Framework conditions should be clarified (e.g. noise from herd protection dogs and their presence on dikes); education and acceptance by the population is also important - Exchange experiences how to do it. Herd protection should become a matter of course, but the how should also be communicated; there are already some good examples, the question is how to communicate them to others. - Many applications that are on hold. There is a lack of transparency on this. Political pressure is making a difference, but extensive communication (transparency) is just as important, e.g. regarding the lack of capacity for applications. - EU funding / European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and LIFE are not fully exploited - “Wolf protection fences: must be dismantled”? Such press releases are counterproductive - Learning effect - Promoting acceptance, educating. Question: How do we reach and support shepherds?

5.2. Topic Wolf and Animal Welfare 5.2.1. Group Agriculture

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - Wandering shepherd in worry - Acceptable balance between wolf and - Away from animal suffering for livestock livestock - Away from fences at all costs - livestock also have a right to animal welfare - Away from farm animal oriented wolves

Explanations to the picture and key points: - "Idyllic Lüneburg Heath landscape", but endangered - Shepherd is powerless (kills sometimes even when the shepherd is present); - problem of fences in the landscape (e.g. on flood plains). Fences at all costs? - Constant maintenance of the fences is necessary. - Herd protection fence has limits - Away from farm animal oriented wolves (maybe there are not many)

5.2.2. Group Administration

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - victim role - Tolerance - Pure cost-benefit calculation - Coexistence - SSS (see - shoot - shovel)  Offences - Humility - Abuse of the wolf for other purposes - co-creation - Wolf as prey competitor - Objectivity - Wolf as "Beast" - Herd protection = animal welfare - Wolf as a fellow hunter - Individual responsibility - Biodiversity in the Lüneburg Heath

Explanations to the picture and the key points: - There are rules / a legal framework - Getting away from being a victim. Shepherds take a little off the hook - Away from a pure cost-benefit calculation - Away from seeing - shooting - shoveling - Topic “Wolf” works quite well to split groups: town/country, shepherd/others, etc. - No longer show wolf as a beast - Animal welfare and herd protection are equivalent. Not playing one off against the other. - Everyone is jointly responsible. Everyone has to deliver his part. Wolf can support there also positively.

5.2.3. Group Nature Conservation / Animal Welfare

We want to get away from the following situation: We want to go to: - Removal - Definition of reasonable cause - Injured Wolf - Definition of legal framework (practical, fast) - Kills farm animals (injured) - "Task Force" - Unprotected (not sufficient) - Consistent herd protection (minimization of risk)

Explanations to the picture and key points: - Red line: focus on a) wolf on one side (you can see a road and a wolf injured / injured in an accident) and b) grazing animal keeper on the other side, requires separate treatment. - With a): A well-defined, quickly implementable legal framework is missing - Demand wolf protection / wolf-free areas: Question, what is a reasonable reason to kill a wolf? - Away from injured animals by wolf attacks. Need for clarification (e.g. proximity of the flock of sheep to the house perceived as 'wolf-proof') - aversive measures or task force (e.g. guard dogs after an attack) as possible alternatives

5.3. Similarities and Differences / Need for Discussion After all groups had presented their picture and keywords on their ideas for the future, the plenum collected in the remaining half hour those aspects / topics that seemed to be common ground between all groups and those aspects where there was still disagreement or need for discussion. These were noted by the moderators on cards and hung up on 2 pin boards (the cards with a lightning bolt mark topics for which further clarification or discussion is needed).

Similarities:  Sheep farming and especially hobby sheep farming and herding/walking are under economic stress even without the wolf. The wolf exacerbates the situation even more.  Especially the shepherds and migratory shepherds make an important contribution to biodiversity in the Lüneburg Heath.  Shepherds and in particular the open herding/ wandering and hobby shepherds deserve even more support  Further improvement of funding conditions  The profession of shepherd must be preserved  It is important to look at sheep farming as a whole in its economic reality, as well as at the individual shepherd and the psychological consequences that the current situation may have (economic insecurity, wolf attacks)  Strengthen appreciation for shepherds  The wolf can stay.  Herd protection is important, reduce cracks 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 livestock must be avoided.  Further networking of interest groups

Need to talk:  Negative conditioning 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 artificial division through such categorisation has also been pointed out.

It was noted that 3 levels are addressed in the discussions and topics:  the mental level  Facts  Economic valuation At the end of the round, it was discussed whether and how specialist information is needed - e.g. as a short presentation during the next meeting or as a handout before the next meeting

6. Feedback Round At the end of the meeting the participants were asked to write down on an A4 sheet of paper in three boxes what they found positive in the meeting, what they would change and to make a global assessment / comment. Also at the end of the meeting a short oral statement about the meeting could be made. All comments are listed below, and then summarized. Positive - Objective discussion - Slow approach to problems by working out the situation in mostly homogeneous small groups - Discussion good - Final round - Summary of the same objectives - Better discipline to listen to everyone - Presentation - Culture of discussion - Diversity of opinion - Some consensus issues - Setup was good - Discussions have already been more objective - Factual handling - Exchange of information from all directions - Good cooperation and getting to know each other. But many similarities - Always "got it together"  - Exchange of information between the various interest groups - Conflicts are slowly being addressed. Different points of view are becoming clearer or are being recorded - Preparation of topics - Composition of the working group - Presentation of the different points of view good method - consideration of different interest groups. dialogue. Acceptance of different views Conclusion positive: - Objective discussion and exchange of opinions/positions - Composition of the working party - Structure and moderation

Change - Introduction too long - warm-up round too long - Swap chair circle for tables - Schedule at the end always (?) lacks time - Break talk too short - Intervention when reservations / judgements are expressed against individual persons / roles is desirable - Do not allow co-lectures - Partially substantial accusations without reason - Other opinions apply Deep trenches / High hurdles - Understanding the situation of others - Appreciation through half-hearted statements contradicts the agreed rules - Less statements. It is repeated too often and is annoying, especially from the direction of the livestock owners! - Stock thinking still recognizable - Technical background - More expertise as a basis - professional input. common professional basis as far as possible - Professional view still far(er) apart - The objection: Herd regulation and herd protection  is instrumentalized by MU - Illegal possibilities (at present) should not be discussed - Constant repetition of own locked position - Introduction of ministerial targets:  Inventory regulation  Idea Minister Lies as concept in France Conclusion Change: - Structure and moderation interventions - Clarifying professional basis - Listening and strengthening understanding - Fewer statements

Global

- A difficult path to general satisfaction - Interest groups collide - Gotta sink in?! - Debate on the next meeting should be held together - More than expected - less than expected - Good - Moderation runs in a good direction - Another step in the right direction - Mode of operation! Group composition! Good moderation - leap forward - So far less willingness to recognize each other. Rather proclaiming own positions - Exchange - Sceptic  how should / can existing trenches be overcome? I don't see a real chance - I doubt the willingness to approach each other - Finding solutions very difficult

Conclusion Global

- the work of the dialogue platform is progressing in the right direction. - finding a solution is still difficult - Discuss preparation of the meetings at the end of each meeting in the group Annex 1. Agenda

Time Topic Goals 14:30 Informal welcome with coffee, juice, water and cake 15:00 Welcoming, Introduction Orientation on the work order, principles and overall process, Adjustments in response to suggestions from participants Introduction Moderation Team 15:15 Introduction round, presentation of the daily Get to know each other routine 15:30 Work on main topics in small groups: Illustration Working out points of view on the topics of the different points of view and initial Beginning to identify different interests development of interests and positive visions of the future 16:10 Exchange in plenary on perspectives (Topic 1) Clarifying points of view 16:45 Break 17:00 Continuation of the exchange in plenary on Clarifying points of view perspectives (topics 2-4) 18:00 Possibly, if time permits: Systemic structure Possible solutions for topic 1 constellation for topic 1: Presentation of the method, carrying out the first step of the structure constellation NOTE: this point was finally dropped for time reasons and the presentation of the pictures was continued and discussed until 18:50. 18:50 Conclusion, evaluation and feedback Outlook for the next meeting Making improvements possible for the next meeting 19:00 End

Annex 2. Participants

Last Name First Name Organization

Bülthuis Jens Mayor of Bispingen, Association of Hunters Soltau

Erb Stefan State sheep breeding association of Lower Saxony

Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Flohr Jutta Food Safety

Lower Saxony Ministry for Environment, Energy, Building and Grönemann Carolin Climate Protection

Grünhagen Klaus Country Section of the German Associaiton of Farmers

Grüntjens Theo Wolf Consultant

Hölzl Sonja adelphi

Jay Marion adelphi

Kenner Kenny Biohotel Kenners LandLust

Wolf office at the Lower Saxony State agency for water Knorr Konstantin management, coastal protection and nature conservation

Kressel Ulrike Society for the Protection of Wolves (Association)

Lower Saxony Ministry for Environment, Energy, Building and Lethen Justina Climate Protection

Menke Georg Masterrind (Master Cattle)

Mennerich-Bunge Birgit Veterinary Office Lüchow-Dannenberg

Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) Section Mitschke Thomas Lüneburg

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of Munzel Axel Lower Saxony

Rehse Jochen State sheep breeding association of Lower Saxony

Ruhnke Dieter German Animal Welfare Association Section Lower Saxony

Sander Marc Nature Park Lüneburger Heide association

Strampe Gina Association for agricultural game keeping Lower Saxony von Korff York Flow-ing von Ruschowski Eick Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation von Wieding Wolfgang Main District Hunter, district of Heidekreis

Züghart Maja Lower nature protection authority, district of Lüneburg