RECOVERYPLANS FOR BROWNBEAR CONSERVATIONIN THE CANTABRIAN MOUNTAINS,SPAIN

G. PALOMERO,Departamento de Geografia,Urbanismo y Ordenaci6ndel Terrritorio,Universidad de Cantabria,E-39005- Santander,Spain M. AYMERICH,Servicio de Vida Silvestre, Instituto para la Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, Gran Via de San Francisco 35, E- 28071-Madrid,Spain A. CALLEJO,Servicio de Medio Ambiente Natural, Xunta de Galicia, C/ Juan Montes 3-1?, E-27001-Lugo, Spain J.F. GARCIA-GAONA,Servicio de Medio Natural, Consejeria de Medio Ambiente y Urbanismo, Principado de Asturias, E-33071- Oviedo, Spain J. RASINES, Servicio de Montes, Caza y Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, Consejeria de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Pesca, Diputaci6nRegional de Cantabria,E-39071-Santander, Spain

Abstract: The conservationproblems of brownbears (Ursus arctos) in the CantabrianMountains of Spain include illegal huntingand habitatloss. Recovery Plans recommend increasing the number of guards in key areas, declaring more Parks and Reserves, and evaluating environmental impacts. Even though their applicationis still minimal, Recovery Plans are to date the best technical and legal instrumentin existence for brown bear preservationin Spain.

Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2):13-17

Key words: brown bear, CantabrianMountains, conservation, recovery plans, Spain, Ursus arctos.

In the CantabrianMountains in northwestSpain, 70- 90 brownbears live in 2 apparentlyunconnected popula- tions (Fig. 1). One has 3 times as many bears than the other(Palomero et al. 1993a), and each covers 2,500 km2 (Naves andPalomero 1993, Palomeroet al. 1993b). They are situated in 4 Autonomous Regions (Fig. 1) whose governmentsare empowered to manage both the bears and their habitats. Bears were legally huntedin Spain until 1967, when a temporaryban was introduced. This ban became perma- nent when brownbears were declareda protectedspecies in 1993. They are currentlylisted as endangeredin the National catalogue of threatenedspecies establishedby Royal Decree 439 on 30 March, 1990. This listing le- gally obligates the AutonomousRegions to develop Re- covery Plans in accordance with law 4/1989 on the Fig. 1. Brown bear distribution and present and future Conservationof NaturalAreas and Wildlife. We review protected areas in the CantabrianMountains, Spain, 1992. the main conservation problems facing the Cantabrian brown bear and describe and analyze the conservation between 1981 and 1990 in the western populationand 6 strategycurrently being developed for the species. definite and 6 probablebear deaths in the easternpopula- tion for the same period. Illegal killing results not from dissatisfactionwith compensationpolicies, but from the CONSERVATIONPROBLEMS desire for a rare, illegal hunting trophy and from traps Differentauthors consider poaching and habitatdegra- and bait meant for other animals. dationas the maincauses for the decline of the Cantabrian Fewer people in mountain areas, a decrease in cattle brown bear population (Purroy and Clevenger 1991, rearing and an end to former agriculturalactivities has Palomeroet al. 1993a). Although it is difficult to accu- meant less disturbancein mountainousareas and even ratelyestimate damage from illegal hunting,this damage recolonizationof former naturalareas for bears. How- appearsto be excessive. Brafiaet al. (1982) cited 20-25 ever, offsettingthese positive developmentsfor bears are deathsdue to illegal huntingin the CantabrianMountains increased leisure pursuits in the countryside and in- between 1979 and 1981. Palomero et al. (1993a) pro- creased building, forestry and mining activities that do vided data on 21 definite and 12 probable bear deaths not consider the ecological needs of the bear. Often 14 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997 these human activities lead to loss of or damage to lowing a later link between the two current popula- favorable bear habitat. tions in the Cantabrian Mountains and guaranteeing Even if the most pressing conservationproblems were their genetic and demographicviability" (Table 1). to disappear,the viability of small populationsis intrin- The recovery plans attemptto reestablishthe popula- sically threatened(Shaffer 1981). Shaffer (1983) sug- tion distributionthat brown bears occupied in the 17th gested extinctiontimes of 19, 44, and 114 years for bear and 18th centuries before the populationseparation oc- populations of 10, 20, and 50 individuals,respectively. curred(Nores 1988). This approachmeans thatthe scope Knightand Eberhardt(1985) statedthat 30-70 individu- of the plans includes not only the current,but also the als in 2,500-7,400 km2 have a 95% possibility of ex- potentialpopulation area at least concerninghabitat im- tinctionin <100 years. Allendorfet al. (1986) estimated pacts. that for genetic reasons a population <125-250 is un- Because the primarygoal of the plans is to reduce the likely to survive long term. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife risk of extinction, they are in effect indefinitely until Service (1993:27) stated that "little reliance for long- that goal is achieved. Regularrevisions allow for flex- term viability can be placed on isolated populations of ibility to remedy problems that arise over such a long 50-90 grizzly bears." Censuses and other information time period. on the CantabrianMountains populations put their num- bers in this range (Palomero et al. 1993a). However, Objectives,Directives, and Measures their regularannual reproduction,albeit low, allows for The plans include very specific proposals, and more optimism provided negative factors are removed. general proposalsthat will be furtherdeveloped later or used as directives. The series of directives and mea- sures attemptto fulfill the following operationalobjec- RECOVERYPLAN DEVELOPMENT tives: 1. To establish and implement effective measuresfor Backgroundand Approval the direct protectionof the species. Law 4/1989 on the Conservation of Natural Areas 2. To develop and implementprograms and activities and Wildlife significantly changed the conservation that effectively contributeto the conservationand strategy for endangered species in Spain. Instead of restorationof brown bear habitat. that merely banning hunting and possessing live and dead 3. To establish a supplementaryfeeding program in extreme condi- specimens, it proactively required the development ensures the availabilityof food of plans to protect species and their habitats. Gov- tions. ernments of the Autonomous Regions were respon- 4. To compensate damage claims as quickly and ef- sible for this implementation. fectively as possible. There was sufficient scientific information on the 5. To heightenthe awarenessof differentsocial groups Cantabrian brown bear to allow immediate prepara- to the problems of the brown bear and the need tion of such plans. The 4 Autonomous Regions in the for its conservation. CantabrianMountains drafted and approvedtheir respec- 6. To increase knowledge of the species and its habi- measures can be refined tive recovery plans, Cantabriain 1989, Castilla y Le6n tats so that conservation in 1990, Asturias in 1991, and Galicia in 1992. The and improved. information on contents of the 4 recovery plans are similar as they deal 7. To collect continuous, up-to-date with similarproblems. They were jointly draftedby Au- brown bear demographics. of each differ accord- tonomous Regions with bears within their boundaries The specific measures plan on the basis of technical proposals made by the same ing to the situation in each Autonomous Region. to team of researchersand managers. However, they fall into similar groups according the operational objectives (Table 1). Scope and Duration The first group of measures deals with eradicating with from increas- The goal of a recovery plan is to restore and main- illegal hunting proposals ranging number of to an of 1 for ev- tain a species as a viable component of a given eco- ing the guards average ha to to discredit the system. For the Cantabrianbrown bear, the specific ery 2,500-3,000 campaigns hunters. Other measures include Recovery Plan goal is "to increase the number of in- behavior of illegal dividuals in order to achieve a sufficiently large and continuous training for existing rangers, creating spe- and bear stable population in the current distribution area al- cialized patrols, criminalizing poaching. RECOVERYPLANS FOR BROWN BEARS IN SPAIN * Palomero et al. 15

Table 1. Organizationof recovery plans for brown bear in the CantabrianAutonomous Communities, 1992.

UltimateObjective Directives Measures Examples

To ensure Cantabrianbrown bear A. Protect Bears 1. Eradicateillegal hunting Increase guards conservationby means of population Create specialized mobile guard units and range increase to join the 2 Equipment(vehicles, radios, etc.) existing populations Continuous guard training courses Collaborationwith Civil Guard Apply maximum penalties Prison sentences for illegal hunting Campaign against illegal hunting

2. Preserve genetic purity

B. Conserve and restore habitat 3. Extend network of parks and reserves 4. Environmentalimpact studies 5. Develop forest policy 6. Manage game resources 7. Control eco-tourism 8. Control unpavedroad use

C. Provide supplementary food during shortage 9. Supplementfood supply

D. Compensatefor bear damage 10. Damage compensation Compensatefor bear damage Compensatefor damage by other species

E. Educate public 11. Develop public education program

E Research 12. Biological 13. Ecological

G. Collect information 14. Monitor population Census breeding females annually Monitor signs of presence in fixed transects.

The second group of measures attemptsto guarantee by the Autonomous Regions require the incorporation the genetic purity of the Cantabrianbrown bear by, in the next few years of almost 75% of bear range into among other things, tightly controllingthe whereabouts the networkof Parksand Reserves. At present,scarcely of bears in zoos to avoid accidental introductionsinto 7% is included (Fig. 1). the wild and listing the genetic and demographiccon- The fourth group covers directivesto ensure that bear siderationsfor future populationaugmentation. conservationis consideredin environmentalimpact stud- The third group of measures envisages extending the ies. The primarynegative effect on Cantabrianbear habi- network of Protected Natural Areas and incorporating tat is the cumulative impact of small building projects the ecological requirementsof the bear into the manage- exempt from studies covered by the EuropeanUnion Di- ment criteriafor such areas. The measuresmade public rective 85/377. This problem has been rectified either 16 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997 by creatingin each AutonomousRegion separateprovi- RECOVERYPLAN IMPLEMENTATION sions or by simply extending the list of activities sub- AND MONITORING ject to a prior study. The 4 plans share a similar organizationalframework Groups 5 through 8 cover forestry policy, hunting, for implementation. The plans are enforced by depart- tourismdevelopment, and measuresto control the nega- ments responsiblefor wildlife management,but their di- tive effect of cattle and unpavedforest roads. rectives are compulsory for all governmentand private Supplementaryfeeding, addressedin the next group, bodies. Thus, any public works departmentor individual is considered exceptional, limited, and a last resort in interestedin building must adhere to the recovery plan situationsof extreme hardshipdue to lack of naturalre- directivesand measures. sources. The need for inter-plancoordination and for coopera- The burden of bear conservationmust not fall com- tion with non-governmentalconservation organizations pletely on people living in bear range. Thus group 10 underliesthe plans. Coordinationis 1 componentof the covers socio-economic measures and directives and in- plans thathas been well developed. Meetings at different cludes a compensation payment system for bear dam- levels between representativesof Autonomous Regions age to agricultureand livestock. This system accelerates and the National Government take place frequently. the payment process (1 month between damage occur- ManagementPrograms (1 to 3 years) andAnnual Results rence and receiptof payment),fairly assesses the amount Reportsare required. due (at marketprices), and adds compensationfor suf- The recovery plans did not come about in a vacuum, fering (supplementarypayment of 20% of the damage but as a result of accumulatedexperience and work on value). conservationof bears. As the plans have only existed a Directives and measuresto increase awarenessof bear shorttime, it is difficultto evaluatedetailed results. How- conservationproblems in Group 11 include the creation ever, an initial review showed that, contraryto expecta- of "bearhouses": centers for permanentand temporary tions, the previoussituation has not improved-bears are exhibitions on topics related to bear biology and its in- still illegally killed, habitatis still disturbed.Despite this, fluence on humanculture, environmental education class- the plans continue to be the best technical and legal in- rooms for schoolchildren and audiovisual facilities for strument to date in Spain for bear conservation. The viewing documentariesof captive-rearedbears in semi- measureshave simply not been implementedsufficiently naturalconditions. Such "bear houses" aim to satisfy or forcefully. peoples' need to see bears that will be created by the Full implementationof the plans will requireconsider- awareness-raising and educational activities, thereby able economic effort and a complementaryadministra- avoiding new disturbancein the wild. tive and legal framework.The latterhas been adequately Research activity includes collecting informationon dealt with recently and prospectsfor the formerlook rea- bear biology, especially responses to human activity sonablybright. The EuropeanUnion has approved,within Con- (hunting,cattle rearing,forestry, etc.) and use of habitat the ambitofACNAT (CommunityAction for Nature (habitatecology). Currentlyunderway is productionof servation)and LIFE (Legal Instrumentfor Environment) Moun- a thematicmap (vegetation, geology, etc.) on a scale of funds,a bearconservation project in the Cantabrian 1:25,000 of the bear range to identify critical areas (den- tains coordinatedby theAutonomousRegions which rep- of the Plans. ning, refuge and feeding zones or communicationcorri- resentsthe next phase in the implementation US dors between different groups) which will be used to It involves an overall investmentof about $6 million develop specific conservationmeasures for each area. over 1994-96. This amountincludes 42% for habitatres- 20% for The last group covers monitoringthe population sta- torationand protection, anti-poachingactivities, 13% for tus to judge the success of the other measures in view 13% for socio-economic measures, monitoring 12%for of the results obtained. The plans advocate use of non- and researchon the species and its habitat,and intrusivemethods, and annualcensuses of family groups. awareness-raisingand environmentaleducation. consideredthe brown bear The overall guidelines of the recovery plans for the Hiraldoand Alonso (1985) brown bear in the CantabrianMountains correspond to one of the most useful vertebratesas an indicatorof the and health of an area of the IberianPenin- the proposals for brown bear protectionin Recommen- naturalvalue dation 10 of the PermanentCommittee of the Conven- sula. Indeed, if the brown bear has surviveduntil today tion on the Conservationof Wildlife and the Environment in the CantabrianMountains it is because the habitatis other areas of Nevertheless, in Europe (Berne Convention). less disturbedthan Spain. RECOVERYPLANS FOR BROWN BEARS IN SPAIN* Palomero et al. 17 without decisive action, it will become extinct there as it Tecnica, Instituto para la Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, is already in many other places. The newly created re- Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.) C. 1988. Reducci6nareal del oso en la Cordillera covery plans for bears in the CantabrianMountains is a NORES, pardo Cantabrica.Acta Montana,Serie Documents de majorstep in preventingthis from occurring. Biologica Travail2:7-14 (In Spanish.) PALOMERO,G., M. AYMERICH,A. CALLEJO,J.F. GARCiA-GAONA,J. RASINES,AND E. ROY. 1993a. Conservaci6ndel oso pardo LITERATURECITED en la CordilleraCantabrica. Pages 309-323 in J. Naves and ALLENDORF,F., J. BALLOU,J. BEECHAM,P. BRUSSARD,M. GLPIN, G. Palomero, eds. El oso pardo en Espafia. Coleccion R. HARRIS,W. KASWORM,K. KNUSDEN,L. MAGURE,C. Tecnica, Instituto para la Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, MARTINIKA,L. METZGAR,R. REDMON,O. RYDER,C. SERVHEEN, Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.) M. SHAFERAND J. WAWER. 1986. Results of on workshop PALOMERO,G., A. FERNANDEZ,AND J. NAVES.1993b. Demograffa bear U.S. Fish & Wildl. grizzly populationgenetics. Serv., del oso pardoen la CordilleraCantabrica. Pages 55-72 in J. Office Bear Montana. Grizzly Recovery Coord., Missoula, Naves and G. Palomero, eds. El oso pardo en Espafna. 8pp. Colecci6n Tecnica, Instituto para la Conservacion de la F. B. AND G. PALOMERO.1982. Situacion del BRANA, HEREDIA, Naturaleza,Madrid, Spain. (In Spanish.) oso en la CordilleraCantabrica. 2:38-40. pardo Quecus (In PURROY,FJ., ANDA.P. CLEVENGER.1991. Ecologia del oso pardo Spanish.) en Espafia.Museo Nacional de CienciasNaturales, Monogr. AND J.C. ALONSO. 1985. Sistema de indicadores HIRALDO,F., 4, Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.) faunisticos a la (vertebrados)aplicable planificaci6ny gesti6n SHAFFER,M.L. 1981. Minimun population sizes for species del medio natural en la Peninsula Iberica. Naturalia conservation.Bio Science 31:131-134. Hispanica 26:32pp. (In Spanish.) . 1983. Determinig minimun viable population sizes AND L.L. EBERHARDT.1985. KNIGHT,R.R., Population dynamics for the grizzly bear. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 5:133- of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology 66:323-334. 139. NAVES, J., AND G. PALOMERO.1993. Distribucion del oso pardo U.S. FISHAND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery en la CordilleraCantabrica. 35-47 in J. Naves and Pages plan. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Missoula, Mont. 181pp. G. Palomero, eds. El oso pardo en Espafia. Colecci6n