Brown Bear in the Alps:

III ° International Workshop

Triesenberg (FL) 14 – 16 Mai 2007

Proceedings: written by Paolo MOLINARI & Urs BREITENMOSER

Proceedings

1 ______

Workshop organized by the AWNL (Amt für Wald, Natur und Landschaft / National Office of Forests, Nature and Land Management) of the Principality of Liechtenstein, with the co-operation of the KORA (Koordinierte Forschungsprojekte zur Erhaltung und zum Management der Raubtiere / Coordinated research projects for the conservation and management of carnivores) Switzerland.

AMT FÜR WALD, NATUR UND LANDSCHAFT KORA Switzerland FÜRSTENTUM LIECHTENSTEIN

Proceedings written by P. Molinari and U. Breitenmoser in Triesenberg / Bern, Draft Version - 25 May 2007 / Final Version – 21 June 2007

These proceedings should be cited as: - Brown Bear in the Alps: III° International Workshop, 2007, Proceedings. Triesenberg, Liechtenstein.

2 CONTENTS ______

Background ……………………………………………………………………………….4

Preamble ………………………………………………………………………………….6

Keynote Presentation …………………………………………………………………….8

Presentations ……………………………………………………………………………..8

Workshop …………………………………………………………………………….....10 - Goal of the Alpine bear workshop ……………………………………...... 10 - Objectives of the workshop ………………………………………………10 - Rules for working groups (WG) …………………………………………..12 - Report WG 1: Review of existing bear management plans …………………...13 - Report WG 2: Monitoring of bears ………………………………………..15 - Report WG 3 – 4: Practical cooperation and international communication ……...18

Summary of the plenary discussions and conclusions ………………………………... 20

Next step ………………………………………………………………………………. 21

Programme …………………………………………………………………………….. 22

List of participants …………………………………………………………………….. 24

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………. 25

ANNEX ______

1) Conclusions from the II° Workshop – Brown bears in the Alps / Chur (CH), 4 – 5 September 2006

2) Preamble in Alpine languages

3 Background

______

The return of the brown bear to the Alps gained a new dynamic in particular through the project of Adamello Brenta (Italy), where releases took place in order to support the remnant population. The conspicuous behaviour of some of the released individuals poses new challenges in living with bears. Dispersing young bears of this new occurrence reached astonishingly quickly distant areas. An example was the return of a brown bear to Switzerland in August 2005 – after 100 years absence.

This bear was a young male, well known to game biologists. It was a young of female Jurka, who was translocated in 2001 from Slovenia to the Trentino in the frame of the restocking project. Jurka’s behaviour has ever since been conspicuous. Her missing shyness towards humans led to several critical encounters. Her son copied this behaviour. Indeed he was not aggressive, but due to repeated encounters between him and humans, one had to expect delicate situations to happen, perhaps even with an accident. The return of the brown bear to Switzerland caused a high media interest and the animal known to game biologists as JJ2 soon was baptized “Lumpaz”.

In May and June 2006 another bear – the brother of JJ2, called JJ1, passed through South Tyrol and reached Austria and Germany, where the last bear dated back 170 years. The greater was the media coverage in Bavaria (D) where the bear was known as “Bruno”. The limits in possible peaceful cohabitation between man and bear soon became obvious.

Immediately it was recognised how important it was that an appropriate management plan is necessary in order to minimize conflicts and the potential risk a bear may pose to human safety and to dispose of an action plan to outline the necessary steps and actions on how to deal with nuisance bears. Although a bear management plan can provide the frame for how to deal with such bears, each single situation needs a thorough and individual assessment and at the same time – taking the movement capacity of these animals into consideration – these concepts need to be internationally harmonized.

Even though the international cooperation between Italy, Austria and Germany started immediately during the stop over of JJ1, the demand for intensified cooperation emerged after JJ1 was shoot, due to becoming a potential risk for man. The incident showed the need for intensified cooperation and exchange of information between range states. This happened in July 2006 in Trento on invitation of the Province of Trento and the Italian Ministry of Environment where the First International Bear Workshop took place. Representatives of all Alpine countries got to know each other and discussed the country related problems. Soon it was recognized that more needs to be invested and a topic- related workshop was organized by the Swiss FOEN. This meeting took place in September 2006 in Chur (see Annex 1). The focus of the meeting was to get to know the persons relevant for decisions in bear management in the different countries, to discuss bear-management strategies across country borders, if possible, to harmonize the

4 guidelines to deal with problem bears and to facilitate the communication between countries and between wildlife managers, and the media. Despite the somewhat problematic situation due to a mix of political and technical interests, the workshop had great consequences for the further process. (Additional information on the Chur workshop can be found in Annex 3 - SCHNIDRIG.pdf.) Therefore it was decided to step back to separate discussions on the strategic/political level from the discussion of the technical management across borders.

Host of the III. International brown bear workshop in the Alps was the Principality of Liechtenstein. To improve efficiency a preparatory meeting was organized one month beforehand. One representative per country (Felix Näscher FL, Piero Genovesi I, Georg Rauer A, Thomas Keller D, Paolo Molinari CH and Urs Breitenmoser as facilitator) defined the common goal and the agenda after consulting the respective ministries.

The objective was to develop a common vision through analysis of the four main topics: 1) review of the existing bear management plans, 2) monitoring of bears, 3) practical cooperation in bear management and 4) international communication policy. Through the analysis of the differences between countries identify the minimum common denominator to establish a solid basis for an Alps wide management concept. We have to aim at managing bears on the population level and not the national occurrences.

Subsequently, from 14 to 16 May 2007, 20 experts from 8 different nations met for a closed meeting in Triesenberg (FL). The contents and results of this workshop are presented on the following pages.

5 Preamble ______

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF THE BROWN BEAR RECOVERY IN THE ALPS

A common statement by the participants of the Alpine Brown Bear Workshop in Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, 14–16 May 2007

The brown bear is making a comeback in the Alps. This is the result of the natural spread of the Dinaric population into the Slovenian, Austrian and Italian Alps, but also of the release of bears in Austria, and Italy (Trentino) to safe the last remnant Alpine brown bear population. While the natural spread of the population with reproducing females is a slow process that must be expected to last for decades, dispersing offspring can be encountered far from the advancing population. Wandering young male bears have recently ventured into Austria, Switzerland and Germany, and may arrive in Liechtenstein and France in the future, too. The brown bear is part of the Alpine natural heritage, and the Alpine countries welcome its recovery, responding to the obligations of national laws and the Habitats Directive, and recommendations by the Berne Convention, the Alpine Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The recovery may be achieved by several ways – natural spread, restocking, or reintroduction – but at one time, all Alpine countries will share one large population that they need to manage under a common view and a transboundary concept.

Although the ecological conditions in the Alps are favourable for the brown bear and better than during the times of its eradication, the bears are returning into a different world than the one they left a hundred years ago. The forests have expanded and the natural food resources improved. But at the same time, the Alps are one of the most intensively used mountain range in the world. The habitat is increasingly fragmented as a consequence of intensified use of valleys and development of transport and tourist infrastructure. The general public is in favour of the return of the bears, but decisive is, above all, the acceptance of people living in the bear areas. The return of the large carnivore poses a number of challenges, which we must learn to handle. Brown bears can cause damage to livestock and other property, and they pose a potential risk to human safety. All this makes the conservation of the brown bear in the Alps a special challenge. Furthermore, we have to recognise that the present status of the brown bear is different from country to country, and will be so for many years to come. Slovenia faces considerable bear abundance and standard management includes population control through culling. Italy and Austria are challenged by the conservation of small and still vulnerable populations. In Germany, Liechtenstein, France or Switzerland, however, any bear showing up is a unique and exciting event causing huge public interest. The common focus of the Alpine countries is clearly on the conservation of the entire population, not on the individual. There can be no doubt that the maintenance of a brown bear population in a human-dominated landscape like the Alps implies active management measures such as awareness raising campaigns, mitigation of habitat fragmentation, damage prevention and compensation, application of aversion techniques,

6 and the removal of individual bears when all other options fail. The brown bear is still highly endangered in the Alps, however with different population status in the various countries. Removal of individuals therefore requires not only an in-depth assessment of the behaviour of the animal, but must also consider the national or local situation of the bear population and the public perception. It hence requires a case-to-case evaluation by the competent authorities and, in most cases, consultation across the borders.

Several of the Alpine countries have already developed and implemented guidelines or concepts for dealing with brown bears, which all share generally accepted principles of conservation and wildlife management, but may differ in details depending on the situation in each country. There is, however, a clear consensus that the Alpine bear population can only recover and be maintained in a close cooperation among all Alpine countries. This cooperation requires a tight consultation between the national and regional institutions responsible for wildlife conservation in the different countries. The two young male bears (known as JJ1 alias Bruno and JJ2 alias Lumpaz), which recently wandered from Italy to Austria, Germany and Switzerland, have demonstrated the need for such collaboration. It also includes a mutual learning process leading to an adaptive management. In the future, the Alpine countries will further combine efforts and strengthen cooperation in order to develop a transboundary policy for the conservation and management of the brown bear. Cooperation will focus on sharing of information, compatible monitoring, maintenance of common databases, and harmonising management measures. It should result in a framework of coherent measures for the conservation and management of the Alpine brown bear population. Regular meetings will be held to exchange experiences and discuss questions of common interest such as to agree on how to deal with bears crossing international borders.

Therefore, after an initial Alpine brown bear meeting in Trento, Italy, and a follow-up in Chur, Switzerland, in 2006, national wildlife authorities and brown bear experts gathered in Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, from 14–16 May, 2007 where participants agreed on the above document. The next meeting will take place in Bavaria, Germany.

______

THE TRANSLATION OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO ALL ALPINE LANGUAGES CAN BE FOUND IN: - ANNEX 2.

7 Keynote Presentation ______

- Living with bears - combining science, conservation, management and human dimension.

Prof. Djuro Huber (HR) presented his many years of experience studying bears and outlined that bear behavior may be very different from individual to individual. Although mostly vegetarian, bears are the largest terrestrial carnivore. They are skillful, unpredictable and strong. Prof. Huber showed what aspects these traits of bears have on management, conservation and human dimension with the example from Croatia.

Presentations ______

- Conclusion from the Chur 2006 meeting

Dr. Reinhard Schnidrig (CH) outlined the premise leading to the Chur workshop. He presented the goals and the strategy to reach the goals. After the results obtained at Chur, also the problems have been analysed in a self-critical manner. The precious conclusions served as basis to relaunch the whole process.

- Learning from JJ1 experience.

Dr. Felix Knauer (D) outlined what was to be learnt in Austria, Germany and all the Alps from the events 2006. After bringing forward some comments, the experiences were analysed in detail and categorised as positive or negative for the following categories: 1) experience with authorities, 2) media work, 3) internal work of Austrian emergency team, 4) collaboration with Trento/Italy and 5) bear JJ1. The conclusions not only manifested what was learnt but give also important hints on what is needed in the future.

- Bear hunting management and conservation at the gate to the Alps.

Dr. Marko Jonozovic (SLO) talked about the long tradition of brown bear conservation and management in Slovenia. He explained the Slovenian system of combining brown bear hunting and conservation, but also stressed the recent problems in the management. Besides problems in relation to acceptance and agriculture (in particular sheep farming), especially habitat fragmentation was mentioned. Although the Management Strategy for Brown Bear in Slovenia gives the cooperation with Croatia and the Dinaric population the priority, it is emphasized that the support to sustain the Alpine recolonisation is

8 granted as well. At the end some measures were suggested to improve the dispersal towards the Alps.

- Educating bears and people in the Italian Alps

Dr. Piero Genovesi (I) and Dr. Claudio Groff (I) stressed that creating the basis for coexistence between bears and people is a major challenge. They presented how the brown bear management in Trentino is structured and explained how the monitoring, communication, the emergency team and especially the decision process function. “Bear management requires substantial financial resources” was a key statement. The authorities in the Trentino manifest a huge commitment. A demoscopic test on human attitude toward bear presence showed that acceptance remained similar as before the restocking project.

- Review of brown bear management plans

Dr. Georg Rauer started to show the common grounds as well as the differing situations in the Alpine nations that led to the management/action plans. The single documents were analyzed, and the national legal backgrounds and the responsible structures discussed. Two topics were presented in depth: dealing with problematic bears and damage compensation.

9 Workshop ______

The outline of the Workshop was designed by the Programme Committee during a preparatory meeting held in Vaduz (FL) 25 – 26 April 2007.

Programme Committee: Felix Näscher, Paolo Molinari, Piero Genovesi, Georg Rauer, Thomas Keller and Urs Breitenmoser.

Goal of the Alpine bear workshop:

To identify common goals and promote international cooperation in conservation and management of the recovering Alpine bear population.

Objectives of the workshop (4 working groups (WG):

WG 1. Review of existing bear management plans WG 2. Monitoring of bears WG 3. Practical cooperation in bear management WG 4. International communication policy

1. Review of existing bear management plans o Evaluate common goals of the management plans o Review consistency in bear behavioural categories and proposed responses o Identify needs for and propose adjustments in regard to cross-border issues

2. Monitoring of bears o Review present monitoring schemes for bears in the Alpine countries o Identify need for standardisation and synchronisation of bear monitoring o Evaluate the need for compatible and/or centralised databases o Explore possibilities for common reporting on status of the Alpine bear population

3. Practical cooperation in bear management o Recommend procedures for the continued international cooperation

10 o Propose measures for improving the cooperation in the case of “individuals of special concern” moving between countries o Define roles and responsibilities for ensuring effective co-operation in emergency situations

4. International communication policy o Identify key information and propose ways and means to ensure exchange of information between the relevant institutions o Identify key messages and develop a media communication strategy for emergency situations

Facilitator’s agenda

th TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2007 Comments/Remarks

10:30 Introduction to the workshop Facilitator 15 min. PPT presentation, hand out memo sticks 10:45 Coffee break 15 min. 11:00 Group work WG 1–4 120 min. 13:00 Lunch

14:00 Group work WG 1−4 60 min.

15:00 First findings / open questions Plenary 90 min.

Discussion of the draft preamble

16:30 Coffee break 30 min

17:00 Group work WG 1−4 60 min. Reporters hand in results on memo-sticks 18:00 End of work day 2

th WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2007

09:00 Group works: Plenary 120 min. Presentation and discussion of results Reporters

11:00 Coffee Break 30 min.

11:30 Summary and conclusions Facilitator 30 min.

11:45 Presentation of the final document Chair 30.min of the workshop

Next steps and farewell

11 Rules for working group (WG):

1. Organisation of working groups: • Select WG 1–4 according your interest and expertise • Make sure that all countries are represented in all groups • Each WG elects facilitator (time) and reporter (notes) 2. Tasks for each group: • Discuss objective/sub-point and make recommendations to plenary • Sub-points only suggestion – groups adapt work where needed • Review draft preamble and provide feedback (Tuesday 15:00) • Time available: 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 h 3. Deliverables: • Results of group work as Word or PowerPoint file (Tuesday evening!) • Presentation of group work results on PowerPoint Wednesday 09:00 4. Follow-up: • Organisers/facilitators summarise workshop results • Participants review and comment draft results • Final version distributed as PDF

The working groups had roughly four hours to accomplish their tasks and then presented their findings to the plenary. After the discussion, the working groups integrated the recommendations of the plenary into their reports. To grant an optimized group composition with representatives from different countries and experiences, after a plenary discussion and general agreement, groups 3 and 4 where merged in one single WG. Urs Breitenmoser acted as facilitator and was supported by Felix Näscher and Paolo Molinari, who all gave some input in the different working groups. As a decision maker of the Italian delegation was unable to participate at the workshop, he was represented by Paolo Molinari (meeting guide and co-organisator of the workshop) and Claudio Groff (representative of Trento). Especially for the discussion about the final version of the “Preambles – a common statement by the participants of the workshop” Piero Genovesi (INFS - National Wildlife Institute of Italy) was contacted several times via eMail and phone, as he was mandated by the Italian Ministry of Environment. Therefore, all participating countries officially agreed on the results of the workshop.

12

Report Working Group 1: Review of existing bear management plans

Group members: G. Rauer, C. Groff, M. Jonozovic, M. Wölfl, U. Wotschikowski & R. Schnidrig (reporter).

1. Evaluate common goals of the management plans:

y Plans would need to talk about goals, roles and procedures. y General population goals cannot be found at the moment... y … but all countries are willing to work towards contributing to establish a viable Alpine population (we need however a definition for this).

2. Review consistency in bear behavioral categories and proposed responses

y Categories are needed for sound communication! It remains to be defined whether the categories describe types of bears or specific behaviors or respective actions? y The category „surveyed bear“ is not necessary and can be deleted1. y Removal of a bear just causing damages is not an option in the Alps. y Bear categories have to be harmonized between countries (Alpine bear countries should speak with one tongue). y At least the German speaking countries should agree on common categories of bears to avoid confusion in the public. y Proposal: Behaviour assessment list (4 categories of dangerousness towards human). y In case of bears causing damages apply prevention measures and aversive conditioning.

1 This refers to the categories as proposed in the conclusions from the second Alpine bear workshop in Chur, Switzerland, 5/6 September 2006 (see Annex 1 – this document).

13 3. Identify needs for and propose adjustments in regard to cross-border issues

y Goals on the population-level with time scales are needed. y Feasibility studies in the different countries (habitat quality, conflicts, social carrying capacity, etc.) should be done. y Roles and responsibilities in some countries need to be clarified (decision makers versus advisers). Bear management responsibility (including decisions) is up to a specific GO. y Integrate the decision-makers into the international cooperation process about Alpine bear management in all countries. y International review process for national or regional management or action plans is recommended.

14

Report Working Group 2: Monitoring of bears

Group members: M. Marence, U. Brendel, D. Huber, P. Molinari (input) & F. Knauer (reporter).

Monitoring was reviewed and assessed for four different topics or levels: - 1) Population, 2) Problem individuals, 3) Habitat, and 4) Human attitudes.

A) REVIEW PRESENT MONITORING SCHEMES FOR BEARS IN THE ALPINE COUNTRIES

1) Population

SLOVENIA: What: dead bears, damages, signs; How/who: GPS-radiocollar, population estimates by hunting clubs, by SFS (10-20 people); Funding: national money, project money, volunteer work.

AUSTRIA: What: dead bears, damages, signs; How/who: genetic monitoring, by bear advocates (4) and local experts (~20); Funding: state money, WWF, project money.

D (BAVARIA): What: dead bears, damages, signs; How/who: genetic monitoring, by bear advocates (2) and local experts (~10); Funding: state money. (Remark: not established yet, but intended).

SWITZERLAND: What: dead bears, damages, signs; How/who: genetic monitoring, by BAFU (KORA), cantonal wildlife services; Funding: federal and state money.

I / (TRENTO): What: dead bears, damages, signs; How/who: genetic monitoring, by Province of Trento, PNAB, Hunter’s Association; Funding: provincial money. I / (FRIULI V.G.): What: dead bears, damages, signs;

15 How/who: genetic monitoring, by Region Friuli V.G. / University of Udine, National Forest Service (CFS); Funding: regional, provincial (UD) and project money.

2) Problem individuals

SLOVENIA: damages, cases of habituated and food-conditioned bears in or around settlements, aggressive bear behaviour; by intervention group; national money;

AUSTRIA: damages, events with nuisance bears; by bear advocates; state money;

D (BAVARIA): damages, events with nuisance bears; by bear advocates; state money;

SWITZERLAND: damages, events with nuisance bears; by cantonal wildlife services, KORA; federal and state money;

I / (TRENTO): damages, events with nuisance bears; by Province of Trento; provincial money;

I / (FRIULI V.G.): damages, events with nuisance bears; by Region Friuli V.G. and National Forest Service; national, regional and provincial money.

3) Habitat

Studies exist on habitat evaluation, barriers and corridors, but no continuous monitoring of habitat quality and changes in all Alpine countries.

4) Human dimension Existing studies: SLO Dinarics (Kaczensky et al., Korenjak, media clippingsl); TN (at least 2 studies); A: WWF, Styrian hunters; CH: several general inquiries included bear.

B) – D) STANDARDISATION, SYNCHRONISATION, COMPATIBILITY AND REPORTING

16

1) Population y Standardize genetic and molecular methods (markers, etc.); y Centralize (at least compatible and accessible) genetic database on individual level; y Radio-collar all bears in hands (GPS-GSM), at least in all areas without established bear populations2; y Standardized reporting scheme (e.g. SCALP3 criteria).

2) Problem individuals y Radio-collar all nuisance bears as pre-condition for successful aversive conditioning; y Common evaluation scheme for problem individuals.

3) Habitat There is a need for compatible and centralised database concerning the habitat suitability and changes in time. The Alps provide adequate habitat for bears in many areas. However, those areas are fragmented through human-made structures. The main problem for population expansion and establishment is limited connectivity. The habitat monitoring (including analyses and modelling) is expected to provide a sound basis for the identification of suitable expansion corridors and critical barriers. Common reporting on status of the bear habitat is needed, regarding to the development and establishment of the bear population in the Alps.

4) Human dimension y General baseline information study needed for all countries in the Alps; y Detailed studies on particular problems; y Regular monitoring of media events/articles.

Report Working Group 3-4: Practical cooperation and international communication

2 The conclusion from the plenary discussion was that – besides specific research projects – there is no need to radio-tag every resident bear, that however bears dispersing (across international borders) should be radio-collared as early as possible.

3 Monitoring standards developed for the Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population - see (MOLINARI-JOBIN, A., P. MOLINARI, C. BREITENMOSER-WÜRSTEN, M. WOELFL, C. STANISA, M. FASEL, P. STAHL, J.M. VANDEL, L. ROTELLI, P. KACZENSKY, T. HUBER, M. ADAMIC, I. KOREN & U. BREITENMOSER 2003: Pan-Alpine Conservation Strategy for the Lynx. Nature and Environment 130, Council of Europe Publishing, 20 pp.).

17

Group members: C. Peter, S. Mancic, C. Jäggi, C. Walder, T. Borchers, F. Näscher (input) & T. Keller (reporter).

Objectives of the joined WG 3 – 4

° Recommend procedures for the continued international cooperation

° Propose measures for improving the cooperation in the case of “individuals of special concern” moving between countries

° Identify key information and propose ways and means to ensure exchange of information between the relevant institutions

° Define roles and responsibilities for ensuring effective co-operation in emergency situations

Regular procedures (between authorities) y Secure permanent contact and name an “institution” responsible; y Decide on an appropriate framework for maintaining the cooperation (e.g. under the Alpine Convention, Bern Convention, CMS, protocol, etc.); y Distribute list of responsible authorities and relevant persons to Alpine countries. y Exchange monitoring data. y Communicate management decisions and rational. y Exchange information on political developments related to bears; y Establish cooperation, information exchange, training, and updating between ETF (Emergency Task Forces).

Rapid response procedures (between authorities) y Country concerned to contact responsible authorities and relevant persons in neighboring countries. y Regular and rapid exchange of information (i.e. daily reports on incidents, damages, actions taken, press releases etc.) in case of a problem bear. y Ad-hoc inter-country consultations. Meetings to harmonize management and external communication as far as possible. y Communicate management decisions and rational. y Cooperation, information exchange and updating between concerned ETFs. Key messages and media communication strategy for emergency situations

18 Communication should be transparent, based on facts, and timely. Existing communi- cation strategies, e.g. the Life-Coop SLO/ITA/AUT should be taken into account. y The brown bear is part of the Alpine natural heritage. y Large carnivores are part of natural ecosystem of the Alps and play important role. y The brown bear is recovering and spreading in the Alps. y The brown bear is still highly endangered in the Alps and of high conservation priority. y There are suitable habitats for brown bears in the Alps. y The brown bear is a wild animal and can be dangerous to humans. y It can cause damage to livestock and other properties. y There are means to prevent, reduce and mitigate damages. y There is a set of measures to deal with individual problem brown bears. y The brown bear is dependent on the acceptance of people.

19 Summary of the plenary discussions and conclusions ______

y The “Alpine brown bear population” is, at the moment, rather a vision than a fact. There is, however, a consensus that the goal must be a viable population, spread across the Alpine Arc, and that this can only be achieved if all Alpine countries work together and contribute in solidarity to this goal. y Distribution and abundance of this population needs to be evaluated under the aspect of the principle of “favorable conservation status” and the concept of “viable population”. It is however important to emphasis that the long-term goal goes beyond a “minimum viable population”; the brown bear is an important part of the Alpine ecosystem and should be able to regain its ecological position in all suitable habitats in the Alps. y A future Alpine brown bear population will be a management-dependent meta- population. It is, at the time being, impossible to outline exactly neither how such a meta-population can be recovered nor how it will be conserved and managed in the future. It is however clear that it can only be done in a sensible transboundary cooperation between the Alpine countries. The Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores, prepared by Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe prepared for the European Commission could provide conceptual and practical support for the future planning. These guidelines will be further discussed by a series of workshops in the European countries hosting large carnivore populations to channel comments on the guidelines from responsible authorities and key interest groups to the Commission.. The Alpine bear workshop will explore the possibilities to join efforts with the LCIE who is mandated to facilitate these workshops. y More consistent habitat suitability models for the whole of the Alps would considerably support the conservation planning. Models would also need to predict the potential abundance of brown bears in specific areas or sub-populations. The participants of the Triesenberg meeting however agreed that the ecological carrying capacity of the cultivated landscapes of the Alps for the bear is high and probably exceeds the “social carrying capacity” (the amount of bear being tolerated by resident people). It is hence important to consider people’s attitudes in the models and conservation planning and to balance between the ecological potential and the socio- economic reality. y The “Alpine brown bear workshop” is so far an informal think tank made up by wildlife managers of the national institutions and bear experts. The possibility of a more formal embedment and collaborations was discussed. Three lines of connections have to be considered:

o A formal “host” for the Alpine Brown Bear Workshop, e.g. the Alpine Convention, the Bern Convention, or others.

20 o Synergetic cooperation with other groups working on the recovery of large carnivores in the Alps, e.g. the LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative of Europe), the SCALP (Satus and Conservation of Alpine Lynx Population) or the AWW (Alpine Wolf Workshop Group).

o Creation of a superior task force made up by the decision makers of the responsible institutions of the Alpine countries that could transfer the technical/scientific recommendation of the Workshop on the political level.

Next step ______

The next meeting of the Alpine brown bear workshop will take place in Bavaria, Germany. Based on the proceedings (minutes) from the Triesenberg meeting (this document), an organizing committee should prepare the agenda in the frame of a preparatory meeting (like in Vaduz) and identify the concrete topics and goals according to the need for actions listed in the working group reports or in this summary conclusions.

21 Programme ______

BROWN BEAR IN THE ALPS - Liechtenstein Workshop, 14 -16- May

- Meeting Guide – Logistics, introduction of people and setting of the meeting: Paolo Molinari - Chair of the meeting: Felix Näscher

AGENDA AND SCHEDULE

Monday, 14th May 2007 → Afternoon: Arrival of participants

18:30 Welcoming address / general goals F. Näscher, FL 15 min. Keynote presentation D. Huber 45 min.

20:00 Free dinner at Hotel Kulm or surrounding restaurants

Tuesday, 15th May 2007

09:00 Presentations (5 X 15 Min.) R. Schnidrig 75 min. F. Knauer M. Jonozovic C. Groff J. Rauer

10:30 Introduction to the workshop Facilitator 15 min.

10:45 Coffee break 15 min.

11:00 Group work Working groups: 1 – 4 120 min

13:00 Lunch at Hotel Kulm 60 min.

14:00 Group work Working groups: 1 – 4 60 min.

15:00 First findings / open questions Plenary 90 min.

16:30 Coffee break 30 min.

17:00 Group work – completion of task Working groups: 1 – 4 60 min.

22 18.30 Guided tour at the Liechtenstein Museum of Art - theme: “Hunting – myths and reality“

20:00 Reception given by the Liechtenstein government (location announced)

Wednesday, 16th May 2007

09:00 Group works: Plenary 120 min. Presentation and discussion of results Reporters

11:00 Coffee Break 30 min.

11:30 Summary and conclusions Facilitators 45 min.

12:15 Next steps and farewell F. Näscher, FL 15 min.

12:30 End of the meeting – lunch - departure

DETAILS OF PROGRAMME - PRESENTATIONS / INVITED SPEAKERS

Monday, 14th May 2007 – Keynote Presentation

Duro Huber: Living with bears – combining science, conservation, management and human dimension.

Tuesday, 15th May 2007 Introductory presentations

R. Schnidrig: Conclusions from the Chur 2006 meeting;

F. Knauer: Learning from JJ1 experience;

M. Jonozovic: Bear hunting management and conservation at the gate to the Alps;

P.Genovesi & C. Groff Educating bears and people in the Italian Alps;

G. Rauer Review of brown bear management plans.

23 List of participants ______

NAME COUNTRY Email

BORCHERS Thomas Germany [email protected]

BREITENMOSER Urs Switzerland [email protected]

BRENDEL Ulli Germany [email protected]

GROFF Claudio Italy [email protected]

HUBER Djuro Croatia [email protected]

JÄGGI Christoph Switzerland [email protected]

JONOZOVIC Marko Slovenia [email protected]

KELLER Thomas Germany [email protected]

KNAUER Felix Germany [email protected]

MANCIC Snezana France [email protected]

MARENCE Miha Slovenia [email protected]

MOLINARI Paolo Switzerland [email protected] Italy [email protected]

NÄSCHER Felix Liechtenstein [email protected]

PETER Cornelia Austria [email protected]

RAUER Georg Austria [email protected]

SCHNIDRIG Reinhard Switzerland [email protected]

WALDER Christoph Austria [email protected]

WÖLFL Manfred Germany [email protected]

WOTSCHIKOWSKY Ulrich Germany [email protected]

GENOVESI Piero Italy [email protected]

24

The participants of the of the Triesenberg (FL) III° International Brown Bear Workshop

Acknowledgements ______

Dr. F. Näscher and the Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Land Use Planning, Agriculture and Forestry / National Office of Forests, Nature and Land Management of the Principality of Liechtenstein for the logistic and financial support;

The Swiss FOEN for financial and logistic support;

Barbara Flad – secretary of the general director for the professional and appreciated cooperation during the preparatory phase and during the workshop itself;

The commitment of Dr. Piero Genovesi, who despite not being able to participate though kept contact via eMail or telephone, was most appreciated;

Anja Molinari-Jobin for a critical revision of the Proceedings;

Last but not least all participants for the constructive spirit during the workshop and their enthusiasm to work for a common vision.

ANNEX ______

1) Conclusions from the II° Workshop – Brown bears in the Alps / Chus (CH), 4 – 5 September 2006

2) Preamble in Alpine languages

25 ANNEX ______

1) Conclusions from the II° Workshop – Brown bears in the Alps / Chus (CH), 4 – 5 September 2006

2) Preamble in Alpine languages

26 Annex 1

Conclusions from the II° Workshop - Brown Bear in the Alps Chur (CH) 4 – 5 September 2006

By Urs Breitenmoser, Paolo Molinari & Reinhard Schnidrig ______

Bear experts and wildlife mangers from the Alpine countries (France, Italy, Germany, Principality of Liechtenstein, Austria, Slovenia, and Switzerland) have met for a workshop in Chur (hereafter referred to as the Workshop) to discuss bear management and to try to harmonise as far as possible (1) the terms used in the different countries to categorise bears with a conspicuous behaviour, and (2) to discuss possible concepts of intervention and tools to manage individual bears. The here proposed list of categories aims to facilitate the communication between the wildlife managing institutions responsible for the conservation of bears and to synchronise the language used in public communication. This report integrates the different ideas developed in the working groups into one proposal for bear categories. It is a technical document on behalf of and for further discussion within the initiative for a concerted bear management in the Alps.

1. Bear Categories proposed by the working groups Three working groups (WG) have discussed the categorisation of bears and presented their proposals to the plenary: WG 1 (France, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) 1. Normal bear 2. Habituated bear 3. Problem bear 4. Dangerous bear WG 2 (Germany and Austria) 1. Unauffälliger Bär (discrete, unobrousive) 2. Auffälliger Bär (susbpicuous bear) a) Schadbär (damaging bear) b) Problembär (problem bear) 3. Risikobär (risk bear, „dangerous bear“?) WG 3 (Italy and Slovenia) 1. Non problem bear 2. Potentially problematic bear a) individual status b) area of presence 3. Problem bear a) damaging bear b) dangerous to humans

27 2. Comparison and compilation

WG 1 and WG 2 were rather close in their proposal. WG 1 defined their category 4 “dangerous bear” as animals to be removed, whereas WG 2 saw their category 3 “Risikobär” (risk bear) as animals potentially to be removed. WG 2 proposed to sub- categories in the class “2. Auffälliger Bär” (suspicious bear), namely “a) Schadbär” (bear causing economic damage) and “b) Problembär” (problem bear) causing a threat to humans. WG 3 agreed in the distinction of “problem bear” and “dangerous bears” in their categories 3. a) and 3. b). WG 3 however introduced an additional element – bears with “normal” behaviour, which are however special because of their “individual value” (e.g. “first bear in Switzerland since 100 years”) or because of the area they move to (e.g. new bear areas, areas with very high human activity). The hereafter following proposal for a compilation of the categories is based on the following assumptions, which are partly derived from the plenary discussion and partly an interpretation of the group’s proposals:

- A “normal” bear (which is basically any “not suspicious bear”) can become a “suspicious bear” or just a “special bear” as a consequent of its “predatory behaviour” (above average attacks to livestock), because of its particular behaviour towards humans (habituated, potentially aggressive), or simply because it moves into an area with no bears where the animal receives very high attention by the people and the media.

- Any “normal bear” can, in certain situations, be potentially dangerous to humans. Human attitudes and human behaviour is a very important element within the human- bear relationship. The less people are used to the presence of bears, the more diverse their reactions will be, ranging from panic to naïve confidence. Informing and educating people are therefore essential elements of all bear management.

- A bear showing signs of particular behaviour or moving into a critical area is first of all an individual to be observed. Observation and communication (including mutual international information) must start before management measures are implemented. On one hand, radio tagging facilitates observation, information and eventually implementation of measures, and on the other hand, the application of adverse conditioning measures affects the chances to capture a bear. Consequently, a bear to be observed should be radio-tagged at a very early stage.

28

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUAL BEARS: 1. Unobtrusive Bear Any bear regardless to age and sex who lives within the area occupied by a bear population and does not qualify for any of the other categories.

2. Surveyed Bear Any bear which has the potential to become a “bear under treatment” or ventures into an area with no experience with bears. The criteria may differ among populations/countries, but examples are: - dispersing (subadult) bears venturing into new areas; - bears showing signs of habituation (e. g. apparent diurnal activity, approach of settlements/houses); - bears attacking livestock.

3. Bear under Treatment Any bear being the target of management measures such as scaring off, adverse conditioning, or removal. 3 a) Habituated Bear A bear showing no fear of humans (e.g. lastingly reduced flight distance), diurnally active in areas with high human presence, conditioned to food from human sources. 3 b) Damaging Bear A bear being known to cause above-average economic damage, e. g. predation on livestock, destruction of bee-haves, etc. 3 c) Dangerous Bear A bear closely pursuing and/or attacking people or a bear with a high risk to injure a human, e.g. a bear searching repeatedly food in densely settled areas.

Table 1. Proposed translations of the bear category terms

English German Italian French

Unobtrusive bear Unauffälliger Bär Orso dicreto, non Ours discret appariscente

Surveyed bear Überwachter Bär Orso sorvegliato / Ours surveillé controllato Habituated bear Habituierter Orso condizionato ours habitué /aufdringlicher Bär

Damaging bear Schadbär, Schaden- Orso dannoso, Ours nuisible stiftender Bär nocivo Dangerous bear Gefährlicher Bär Orso pericoloso Ours dangereux

29 Comments and conclusions The categorisation of bears implies the definition of management elements and intervention measures. Such measures are likely to be applied for the category 3 bears and will differ for the subcategories 3a, 3b, and 3c. These subcategories are not to be understood as a “hierarchy” – a habituated bear may never be a damaging or a dangerous bear, and a damaging bear might not be habituated at all. It’s just a list of possible bears with may be target of rather different interventions. A list of such measures and certain recommendations on how to apply the different intervention tools should be compiled by the Workshop. However, the application of such elements should not be too strictly tightened to the defined categories, because: - Each bear and each case is different and need to be assessed according to the circumstances. The categories defined above are too general to fit all possible situations; - The value of an individual bear for the conservation of the Alpine population depends on the status of the local population. It is not the same to remove a habituated bear in Slovenia, where it is one among hundreds and local people are used to the culling of bears or at the expanding front of the population (e.g. Switzerland or Germany), where the bear must be considered under the aspect of preparing the ground for the recolonisation and the public awareness. We must however bear in mind that human attitude in newly settled areas is ambivalent: on one hand, a large majority welcomes the bear, on the other hand, unforeseeable events or accidents may cause a swift change in public opinion; - The political and administrative structure and hence the decision making bodies differ among the Alpine countries, and the competencies of the national institutions must be considered when bear categories are linked with management measures. Follow-up meetings should review the proposed conclusions from the Chur workshop and may advance the discussion on management interventions.

30 Annex 2

Preamble in Alpine languages

Die Rückkehr des Bären in die Alpen – eine Herausforderung

Eine gemeinsame Stellungnahme der Teilnehmer am Alpinen Bärenworkshop in Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, 14.–16. Mai 2007

Der Braunbär kehrt in die Alpen zurück. Sein Comeback wird ermöglicht durch die natürliche Ausbreitung der Dinarischen Population in die slowenischen, österreichischen und italienischen Alpen, aber auch durch die Freilassungen in Österreich und im italienischen Trentino, wo auf diese Weise die letzte Bärenpopulation der Alpen gerettet wurde. Die natürliche Ausdehnung der Population mit den fortpflanzungsfähigen Weibchen ist ein langsamer Prozess, der Jahrzehnte dauern wird. Abwandernde Jungbären können allerdings weit vor der Populationsfront angetroffen werden. Wandernde junge Männchen haben bereits Österreich, die Schweiz und Deutschland erreicht, und sie können in Zukunft auch in Liechtenstein und Frankreich auftauchen.

Der Braunbär ist ein Teil des Naturerbes in den Alpen; die Alpenländer begrüssen seine Rückkehr, was auch in den nationalen Gesetzgebungen oder der EU-Habitat Direktive sowie in den Empfehlungen der Berner Konvention, der Alpenkonvention und dem Übereinkommen zur Erhaltung der natürlichen Vielfalt seinen Ausdruck findet. Die Rückkehr des Bären kann auf verschiedene Weisen zustande kommen – durch natürliche Ausbreitung, durch Aufstockung des Bestandes oder Wiederansiedlung: Eines Tages werden die Alpenländer eine grosse gemeinsame Bärenpopulation teilen, die sie unter einheitlichen Gesichtspunkten betrachten und einem länderübergreifenden Konzept unterstellen müssen. Obwohl die ökologischen Bedingungen für die Braunbären in den Alpen heute günstig und besser sind als zur den Zeiten der Ausrottung, kehren die Bären in eine andere Welt zurück als vor hundert Jahren. Die Wälder haben sich wieder ausgedehnt und die natürliche Nahrungsgrundlage für sie hat sich verbessert. Gleichzeitig sind die Alpen aber eines der am stärksten genutzten Gebirge der Welt. Die natürlichen Lebensräume infolge der intensiven Nutzung der Täler und der Infrastrukturentwicklung für Verkehr und Tourismus sind zunehmend fragmentiert. Die breite Öffentlichkeit mag zwar die Rückkehr des Bären begrüssen, ausschlaggebend ist letztlich aber vor allem die Akzeptanz derjenigen Leute, die in den Bärengebieten leben. Die Rückkehr eines Grossraubtiers bringt eine Zahl von Herausforderungen mit sich, mit denen wir umzugehen lernen müssen. Bären können Schäden an Nutztieren oder anderem Besitztum anrichten, und sie stellen ein potenzielles Risiko für den Menschen dar. Das macht die Erhaltung des Braunbären in den Alpen zu einer ganz besonderen Aufgabe. Dabei ist auch zu berücksichtigen, dass die Situation der Bären von Land zu

31 Land heute sehr unterschiedlich ist und für absehbare Zeit auch bleiben wird. Slowenien weist eine beachtliche Zahl von Bären auf und zum gängigen Management gehört dort auch die Reduktion des Bestands. Für Italien und Österreich besteht die Herausforderung derzeit in der Erhaltung der kleinen und noch sehr anfälligen Population. In Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Frankreich und der Schweiz hingegen wird jeder auftetende Bär zu einem sensationellen Ereignis, das grosses öffentliches Interesse entfacht. Der gemeinsame Fokus der Alpenländer ist jedoch der Schutz der gesamten Population, nicht einzelner Individuen. Ohne Zweifel bedingt der Erhalt einer Bärenpopulation in einer vom Menschen dominierten Landschaft wie den Alpen ein aktives Management, ein- schliesslich Massnahmen wie die Aufklärung der Leute, Reduktion der Habitat- Fragmentierung, Verhinderung und Vergütung von Schäden, Vergrämungsaktionen und dem Entfernen einzelner Bären, falls andere Mittel versagen. Der Bär ist in den Alpen nach wie vor gefährdet, allerdings mit unterschiedlichem Erhaltungs-Status in den einzelnen Ländern. Das Entfernen eines Bären erfordert deshalb nicht nur eine umfassende Beurteilung des Verhaltens des Tiers, sondern muss auch die nationale oder lokale Situation der Bärenpopulation und die öffentliche Wahrnehmung des Ereignisses berücksichtigen. Es bedingt eine Beurteilung von Fall zu Fall durch die zuständigen Verwaltungen und in den meisten Fällen auch eine gegenseitige Konsultation über die Landesgrenzen hinweg. Mehrere Alpenländer haben bereits Konzepte für den Umgang mit Braunbären in Kraft gesetzt. Diese Richtlinien stimmen mit den allgemeinen Prinzipien des Naturschutzes oder des Umgangs mit Wildtieren überein, unterscheiden sich jedoch in Details, je nach Situation in den einzelnen Ländern. Es besteht allerdings ein klarer Konsens darüber, dass die Rückkehr des Bären und die Erhaltung der Population im Alpenbogen nur möglich ist, wenn die Alpenländer eng zusammen arbeiten. Voraussetzung für eine solche Zusammenarbeit ist ein intensiver Austausch zwischen nationalen und regionalen Institutionen, die in den verschiedenen Ländern für den Erhalt der Wildtiere zuständig sind. Die beiden jungen Bären, die unter den Namen JJ1 alias Bruno und JJ2 alias Lumpaz bekannt wurden und kürzlich von Italien nach Österreich, Deutschland und in die Schweiz wanderten, haben die Bedeutung einer engen Zusammenarbeit eindrucksvoll veranschaulicht. Diese Zusammenarbeit muss auch einen gemeinsamen Lernprozess und eine schrittweise Anpassung des Managements umfassen. Die Alpenländer werden sich in Zukunft vermehrt und gemeinsam um ein grenzüberschreitendes Vorgehen beim Erhalt und dem Management des Braunbären bemühen. Die Zusammenarbeit wird den Informationsaustausch, vereinheitliches Monitoring, den Unterhalt gemeinsamer Datenbanken und die gegenseitige Abstimmung von Vorgehensweisen beinhalten. Sie sollte zu einem Konzept von einheitlichen Massnahmen zum Erhalt und zum Management der Bärenpopulation in den Alpen führen. Regelmässige Treffen zum Austausch von Erfahrungen und zur Diskussion von Fragen von gemeinsamem Interesse – zum Beispiel in Zusammenhang mit dem Umgang mit Bären, die über internationale Grenzen wechseln – sind geplant. Nach einer ersten Zusammenkunft zum Alpenbären in Trento (Italien) und einem Folgetreffen in Chur (Schweiz) im Jahr 2006 trafen sich nun vom 14. – 16. Mai die für das Wildtier-Management zuständigen Behörden der Alpenländer und Bärenfachleute in Triesenberg (Liechtenstein), wo die Teilnehmer diese gemeinsame Stellungnahme ausarbeiteten. Das nächste Treffen wird in Bayern, Deutschland, stattfinden.

32 La sfida del ritorno dell’Orso bruno sulle Alpi

Una posizione comune dei partecipanti all’incontro sull’Orso bruno

delle Alpi tenuto a Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, il 14–16 maggio 2007

L’Orso bruno sta tornando sulle Alpi. Questo è il risultato dell’espansione naturale della popolazione Dinarica nelle Alpi slovene, austriache ed italiane, ma anche dei rilasci operati in Austria ed in Trentino per salvare dall’estinzione l’ultima residua popolazione delle Alpi. La naturale espansione della popolazione, ed in particolare di femmine riproduttive, è un processo lento, che probabilmente richiederà decenni. Tuttavia giovani orsi in dispersione possono già oggi raggiungere aree molto lontane dall’area di presenza stabile della popolazione. Giovani maschi hanno raggiunto negli ultimi anni l’Austria, la Svizzera e la Germania, e potrebbero nel prossimo futuro visitare anche il Liechtenstein e/o la Francia. L’Orso bruno fa parte del patrimonio naturale delle Alpi, e tutte le nazioni alpine vedono favorevolmente il suo ritorno, che risponde anche agli obblighi delle leggi nazionali e della Direttiva Habitat, oltre che alle raccomandazioni della Convenzione di Berna, della Convenzione delle Alpi e della Convenzione di Rio sulla Biodiversità. Il recupero dell’Orso sulle Alpi potrà avvenire in vari modi, per naturale espansione o attraverso interventi di ripopolamento o reintroduzione; in ogni caso, i Paesi alpini condivideranno in futuro un’unica popolazione, che saranno chiamati a gestire sulla base di una visione condivisa e di un approccio transfrontaliero. Nonostante le attuali condizioni ecologiche delle Alpi siano favorevoli per l’Orso bruno, e comunque migliori rispetto al momento in cui la specie è stata sterminata da questa regione, gli orsi stanno ritornando in un ambiente molto diverso rispetto a un secolo fa. Oggi infatti le Alpi hanno foreste più estese e risorse alimentari più abbondanti di allora. Allo stesso tempo le Alpi sono una delle aree montane più intensamente utilizzate dall’uomo. Gli habitat sono sempre più frammentati in conseguenza dello sviluppo urbanistico nelle valli nonchè dell’incremento delle reti viarie e delle infrastrutture turistiche. L’opinione pubblica generale è favorevole al ritorno degli orsi, tuttavia rimane decisiva l’accettazione degli abitanti delle aree dove l’orso è presente. Il ritorno di questo grande carnivoro determina molte sfide alle quali dobbiamo saper rispondere. Gli orsi bruni possono causare danni al bestiame e ad altri beni dell’uomo, e possono determinare un rischio per la sicurezza delle persone. Per questo la conservazione dell’Orso bruno nelle Alpi è una sfida particolarmente complessa; inoltre dobbiamo riconoscere che lo stato di conservazione dell’Orso varia da paese a paese, e sarà così per molti anni a venire. In Slovenia è presente una popolazione consistente di orsi, e la gestione ordinaria prevede anche un controllo della popolazione tramite piani di abbattimento. L’Italia e l’Austria affrontano la sfida di conservare popolazioni piccole e ancora molto vulnerabili. In Germania, Liechtenstein, Francie e Svizzera ogni orso che compare rappresenta ancora un evento unico che crea un enorme interesse pubblico. L’obiettivo comune dei paesi alpini è finalizzato alla conservazione delle popolazioni, non dei singoli individui. Non c’è dubbio che per preservare una popolazione di orsi bruni in un ambiente così antropizzato come quello alpino sono necessarie misure di gestione attiva quali campagne di comunicazione, interventi di mitigazione della frammentazione degli habitat, misure di prevenzione e compensazione dei danni, nonchè l’applicazione di interventi di ricondizionamento degli orsi confidenti, e la rimozione di

33 individui pericolosi quando tutte le altre opzioni falliscono. L’Orso bruno ancora oggi è fortemente minacciato nelle Alpi, ma con status differenti nei vari paesi alpini. La rimozione di individui richiede pertanto non solo una approfondita valutazione del comportamento dell’animale, ma deve anche considerare la situazione della popolazione di orsi a livello locale o nazionale, e la percezione del pubblico. Si richiede quindi una valutazione caso per caso da parte delle competenti autorità e – nella maggior parte delle situazioni – una consultazione a livello transfrontaliero.

Diversi paesi alpini hanno sviluppato e prodotto linee guida o piani d’azione sull’Orso bruno, tutti basati su principi generalmente accettati di conservazione e gestione faunistica, tuttavia gli stessi possono presentare differenti dettagli a seconda della situazione dei diversi paesi. Vi è comunque un generale consenso sul fatto che la popolazione di orsi delle Alpi potrà riprendersi e sopravvivere solo se i paesi alpini coopereranno tra loro. Questa cooperazione richiede una puntuale consultazione tra le istituzioni nazionali e regionali responsabili della gestione faunistica nei vari paesi. I due giovani maschi (conosciuti come JJ1 alias Bruno e JJ2 alias Lumpaz), che si sono recentemente spostati dall’Italia verso l’Austria, la Germania e la Svizzera, hanno mostrato la necessità di questa collaborazione. Essa richiede un processo di apprendimento reciproco che porti quindi ad una gestione adattativa. Nel futuro i paesi delle Alpi lavoreranno insieme e rafforzeranno la cooperazione al fine di sviluppare una politica transfrontaliera per la conservazione e la gestione dell’Orso bruno. La cooperazione si concentrerà sulla condivisione delle informazioni, sistemi di monitoraggio compatibili, il mantenimento di banche dati comuni, e l’armonizzazione delle misure di gestione. Questo dovrebbe portare ad un quadro di misure coerenti per la conservazione e la gestione della popolazione di orsi delle Alpi. Si terranno incontri periodici per scambiare esperienze e discutere argomenti di interesse comune, come ad esempio i casi di orsi che attraversano i confini tra i diversi paesi.

Per questo, dopo un incontro Alpino sull’Orso bruno tenutosi a Trento (Italia), ed un ulteriore incontro organizzato a Coira (Svizzera) nel 2006, le autorità nazionali di gestione della fauna ed esperti di Orso bruno si sono riuniti a Triesenberg (Liechtenstein) dal 14 al 16 maggio del 2007, dove i partecipanti hanno concordato sul presente documento. Il prossimo incontro si terrà in Baviera (Germania).

34 Izziv ponovne vrnitve rjavega medveda v Alpe

Skupna izjava udeležencev delavnice “Rjavi medved v Alpah”, Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, 14 – 16. maj 2007

Rjavi medved se vrača v Alpe. To je posledica naravnega širjenja dinarske populacije v slovenske, avstrijske in italijanske Alpe, pa tudi izpustov medvedov v Avstriji in Italiji (Trentino) s ciljem ohranjanja zadnje preostale avtohtone Alpske populacije rjavega medveda.

Medtem, ko je naravna širitev z reproduktivnimi samicami zelo počasen proces, za katerega se pričakuje, da bo trajal desetletja, pa je moč njihove potomce srečati daleč od matičnih populacij. Take mlajše klateške samce so nedavno opazili v Avstriji, Švici in Nemčiji, v prihodnje pa jih verjetno lahko pričakujemo tudi v Liechtensteinu in alpskem delu Francije. Rjavi medved je del naravne dediščine v Alpah in alpske dežele pozdravljajo njegovo vrnitev, upoštevajoč obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz nacionalnih zakonodaj, Habitatne Direktive ter priporočil Bernske in Alpske konvencije ter Konvencije o biotski raznovrstnosti. Vrnitev medveda je moč doseči na več načinov – z naravno širitvijo, doselitvijo ali ponovno naselitvijo – toda nekoč si bodo vse alpske dežele delile enotno veliko populacijo, s katero bodo morale upravljati s skupno perspektivo in čezmejnim sodelovanjem.

Čeprav so ekološki pogoji v Alpah za življenje rjavega medveda ugodni oziroma celo boljši, kot so bili v času njegove iztrebitve, se medvedje danes vračajo v popolnoma drug svet, kot je bil tisti, ki so ga pred stoletjem zapustili. Gozdovi so se sicer razširili in ponudba naravne hrane se je izboljšala, toda Alpe so obenem tudi ena izmed s strani človeka najbolj intenzivno uporabljanih gorskih verig na svetu. Habitat se intenzivno drobi na manjše enote, kot posledica intenzivne rabe alpskih dolin in razvoja transportne in turistične infrastrukture. Širša javnost je naklonjena vrnitvi medvedov, toda odločilno je predvsem sprejemanje ljudi, ki skupaj z medvedi v istem okolju živijo. Vrnitev velikih zveri prinaša s sabo številne izzive, ki se jih moramo naučiti obvladovati. Medvedi lahko povzročajo škodo na drobnici in drugem premoženju ter lahko predstavljajo tudi potencialno tveganje za varnost ljudi. Ohranitev medveda v Alpah je zato poseben izziv. Prav tako se moramo zavedati, da je trenuten status medvedov od države do države različen, in da bo tak najbrž ostal še vrsto let. Slovenija ima upoštevanja vredno številčnost medvedov, tako da običajno upravljanje vključuje tudi uravnavanje populacije z odstrelom. Italija in Avstrija se srečujeta z izzivom ohranitve majhnih in še vedno ranljivih populacij. Nasprotno pa predstavlja v Nemčiji, Liechtensteinu, Franciji in Švici vsako pojavljanje medveda izviren in vznemirljiv dogodek, ki proži množičen odziv javnosti. Skupna pozornost alpskih držav mora biti zato nedvomno namenjena varstvu celotne populacije, manj pa posameznim živalim. Ni dvoma, da ohranitev medvedje populacije v krajini, v kateri prevladujejo aktivnosti človeka, kot je primer v Alpah, obsega aktivno upravljanje z ukrepi kot so osveščanje javnosti, okoljski omilitveni ukrepi pri drobljenju habitatov, preprečevanje škode in izplačila odškodnin, uporaba odvračalnih sredstev, ter nenazadnje, odstranitev posameznih medvedov, ko vse druge možnosti odpovedo. Rjavi medved je v Alpah še vedno zelo ogrožen, vendar je stanje populacije v

35 različnih državah različno. Tako odstranitev posameznih medvedov ne zahteva samo temeljite ocene obnašanja takih živali, ampak mora upoštevati tudi stanje populacije medveda tako na državni, kot na lokalni ravni, pa tudi dojemanje javnosti. Zaradi tega je ocena pristojnega organa potrebna za vsak primer posebej, v večini primerov pa je potrebno tudi čezmejno posvetovanje.

Nekaj alpskih držav je že razvilo in uporablja smernice oz. koncepte ravnanja z rjavimi medvedi, ki si vsi delijo splošno sprejeta načela varstva in upravljanja s prostoživečimi živalmi, ki pa se v podrobnostih in glede na stanje od države do države vendarle razlikujejo. Razlikam navkljub pa obstaja jasen konsenz, da se lahko alpska populacija rjavega medveda ponovno vzpostavi in ohrani le s tesnim sodelovanjem med vsemi alpskimi državami. Le-to zahteva dobro komunikacijo med državnimi in regijskimi ustanovami, ki so v različnih državah odgovorne za varstvo prostoživečih živali. Dokaz za potrebo po takšnem sodelovanju sta dva mlada medvedja samca (znana kot JJ1 ali Bruno in JJ2 ali Lumpaz), ki sta se nedavno iz Italije priklatila do Avstrije, Nemčije in Švice. Sodelovanje vključuje tudi skupen proces učenja, ki vodi k prilagodljivemu upravljanju. V prihodnosti bodo zato alpske države še bolj združevale napore in okrepile sodelovanje s ciljem razvoja čezmejne politike ohranitve in upravljanja z rjavim medvedom. Sodelovanje bo osredotočeno na izmenjavo informacij, uskladitev monitoringa, ustvarjanje in vzdrževanje skupnih baz podatkov in usklajevanje upravljavskih ukrepov. To bi moralo pripeljati do skupnega okvirja medsebojno povezanih varstvenih in upravljavskih ukrepov za medvedjo populacijo v Alpah. Organizirana bodo redna srečanja, na katerih bodo izmenjane izkušnje in preučena vprašanja skupnega interesa, kot je na primer uskladitev ravnanja z medvedi, ki prehajajo državne meje.

Predstavniki institucij, ki so pristojne za upravljanje s prostoživečimi živalmi, ter strokovnjaki za rjavega medveda so se po ustanovitvenem srečanju o "Medvedu v Alpah" v Trentu v Italiji in nadaljevalnem srečanju v Churu v Švici v letu 2006, ponovno zbrali v Triesenbergu v Liechtensteinu, od 14–16 maja 2007. Navzoči so s konsenzom sprejeli pričujoči dokument. Naslednje srečanje bo na Bavarskem v Nemčiji.

36 Le retour de l’ours dans les Alpes: un défi

Prise de position commune des participants à l’atelier des 14, 15 et 16 mai 2007 à Triesenberg (Liechtenstein) consacré à la gestion de l’ours dans les Alpes.

L’ours brun est de retour dans les Alpes, grâce non seulement à l’expansion naturelle de la population dinarique dans les Alpes slovènes, autrichiennes et italiennes, mais aussi aux lâchers effectués en Autriche et dans le Trentin, qui ont permis de sauver les derniers plantigrades présents dans la chaîne de montagnes. L’expansion naturelle d’une population grâce aux femelles en âge de reproduction est un processus lent, qui dure des décennies. Toutefois, de jeunes plantigrades migrent et peuvent être rencontrés loin du territoire de leur population: des jeunes mâles ont déjà atteint l’Autriche, la Suisse ainsi que l’Allemagne et pourraient à l’avenir aussi rejoindre le Liechtenstein et la France. L’ours brun appartient au patrimoine naturel des Alpes et les pays alpins saluent son retour, qui d’ailleurs figure non seulement dans les législations nationales ou la Directive Habitats, mais aussi dans la Convention de Berne, la Convention alpine et la Convention sur la diversité biologique. Divers phénomènes (dispersion naturelle, repeuplement ou réintroduction) peuvent entraîner le retour de l’ours et, un jour, les pays alpins partageront une grande population qu’ils devront considérer de façon uniforme et gérer ensemble par-delà les frontières. Si, en raison de leurs conditions écologiques, les Alpes sont aujourd’hui une région plus favorable et mieux adaptée à l’ours qu’il y a cent ans, époque de la disparition de l’espèce dans le massif, elles sont aussi une région totalement différente de celle que le plantigrade connaissait alors. Les forêts ont repris du terrain et la nourriture est plus abondante. Toutefois, les Alpes sont dans le même temps l’un des massifs montagneux les plus utilisés. Sous l’effet de l’exploitation intensive des vallées et du développement d’infrastructures de transport et d’installations touristiques, les habitats naturels sont de plus en plus fragmentés. Certes, l’opinion publique salue le retour de l’ours, mais c’est l’acceptation des personnes vivant dans les régions rejointes par le plantigrade qui est décisive. Des défis nombreux, que nous devons apprendre à gérer, accompagnent la réapparition d’un grand carnassier. L’ours peut causer des dommages au bétail ou à d’autres possessions de l’homme et il peut représenter un danger pour ce dernier. Par conséquent, la conservation de l’espèce dans les Alpes est une mission très particulière. Il faut aussi tenir compte du fait que la situation de l’ours varie très fortement d’un pays à l’autre et qu’il en sera encore ainsi pendant quelque temps. La Slovénie abrite une population nombreuse, qu’elle gère aussi par des mesures de réduction. L’Italie et l’Autriche doivent relever le défi que représente la conservation de leurs populations, encore petites et très vulnérables. À l’inverse, pour l’Allemagne, le Liechtenstein, la France et la Suisse, toute arrivée d’un individu est un événement extraordinaire qui suscite un grand intérêt du public. Ensemble, les pays alpins se concentrent cependant sur la protection de toute la population présente dans les Alpes, non à celle d’individus isolés. Il ne fait aucun doute que la conservation d’une population d’ours dans une région qui, comme les Alpes, est extrêmement utilisée par l’homme exige une gestion active de l’espèce, qui inclut des mesures comme la sensibilisation du public, la réduction de la fragmentation des habitats, la prévention des dommages et leur indemnisation, des

37 actions d’effarouchement, ainsi que l’enlèvement de plantigrades en cas d’inefficacité des autres moyens. L’ours reste menacé dans les Alpes, mais son état de conservation varie d’un pays à l’autre. Par conséquent, avant d’enlever un ours, il faut non seulement évaluer de façon complète le comportement de l’animal, mais aussi tenir compte de la situation nationale ou locale de la population ainsi que de la réaction probable du public. Les autorités compétentes doivent procéder à une évaluation au cas par cas et, la plupart du temps, procéder aussi à une consultation internationale. Des directives de gestion de l’ours brun sont déjà appliquées dans plusieurs pays alpins. Toutes respectent les principes généraux énoncés en matière de protection de la nature ou de gestion des animaux sauvages sont similaires, mais leurs détails varient selon la situation de chaque État. Il est toutefois partout clairement établi que seule une coopération étroite entre les pays alpins permettra le retour de l’ours et la conservation de sa population dans les Alpes. Cette collaboration n’est possible que s’il y a un échange intensif entre toutes les institutions nationales et régionales chargées de la conservation des animaux sauvages. La gestion des deux jeunes ours connus sous les noms de Bruno (ou JJ1) et Lumpaz (ou JJ2) qui ont récemment rejoint l’Autriche, l’Allemagne et la Suisse en provenance de l’Italie a illustré combien une collaboration étroite est importante. Celle-ci doit permettre aux pays d’apprendre ensemble et garantir qu’ils adapteront progressivement leur gestion du plantigrade. À l’avenir, les pays alpins s’efforceront davantage et ensemble de conserver et de gérer l’ours brun. Ils collaboreront en échangeant des informations, en mettant en œuvre des systèmes de surveillance similaires, en entretenant des bases de données communes, et en adaptant leur façon de procéder. Ils devraient ainsi obtenir un cadre de mesures homogènes pour la conservation et la gestion des populations d’ours dans les Alpes. Les pays alpins ont prévu de se rencontrer régulièrement pour échanger leurs expériences et discuter de questions d’intérêt commun, comme la gestion des ours qui traversent les frontières. Après une première réunion sur les ours alpins qui s’est tenue dans le Trentin (Italie) et une rencontre de suivi à Coire (Suisse) en 2006, les autorités des pays alpins compétentes en gestion des animaux sauvages ainsi que des spécialistes des ours se sont réunis à Triesenberg (Liechtenstein), où ils ont élaboré cette prise de position commune. Leur prochaine rencontre aura lieu en Bavière (Allemagne).

38