Methods for reducing Cormorant problems at European fisheries at European Cormorantproblems Methods forreducing The INTERCAFECormorantManagementToolbox Photographs — Shutterstock Methods for reducing Cormorant problems at European fisheries atEuropean Cormorantproblems Methods forreducing The INTERCAFECormorantManagementToolbox Ian Russell, Bruno Broughton, ThomasKellerandDaveCarss Ian Russell,BrunoBroughton, Photographs — Shutterstock THE INTERCAFE CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This publication has been Miha Janc, Verena Keller, Manos During the drafting process, the produced by INTERCAFE’s Work Koutrakis, Loïc Marion, Petr Musil, Toolbox was reviewed by the Group 2, the ‘Conflict Resolution Simon Nemtzov, Erik Petersson, Work Group and was also made and Management’ group, which Henrik Lykke Sørensen, Tamir available to all INTERCAFE comprised 22 researchers from 17 Strod, Stefano Volponi and Ian participants for comment and countries across Europe and beyond Winfield. Helpful comments and correction. Numerous participants (for details of WG2 participants, corrections on various drafts from INTERCAFE’s other two please see Appendix). were provided by the above Work Groups made presentations and also by: Zeev Arad, Timo and contributions to the Conflict This publication was drafted by Asanti, Redik Eschbaum, Robert Resolution and Management group Ian Russell, Bruno Broughton and Gwiazda, Reinhard Haunschmid, meetings, and these meetings were Thomas Keller with substantial Scott Jones, Botond Kiss, Vilju also informed on occasions by editorial input and help from Dave Lilleleht, Oleg Nemenonok, Kareen discussions with invited experts Carss. Specific sections of text, Seiche and Josef Trauttmansdorff. and local stakeholders. Wherever figures and Case Studies were A number of people also kindly appropriate, information from these provided by: Michal Adamec, provided photographs for inclusion sources has also been incorporated Thomas Bregnballe, Henri and individual sources are into the Toolbox. Engström, Marijan Govedic, acknowledged under each picture. [2] THE INTERCAFE CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX CONTENTS 1 PREFACE 5 4.4.5 Overview of habitat modification techniques 52 2 INTRODUCTION 7 4.5 Killing Cormorants — Lethal Measures 53 4.5.1 Reducing reproductive success 54 3 EUROPEAN CORMORANT MANAGEMENT 4.5.2 Shooting — at a site-specific or local TOOLBOX 8 level 57 3.1 Background And Some Words Of Caution 8 4.5.3 Shooting — coordinated culling for 3.2 What Is The Toolbox? 9 population control 59 3.3 What Does The Toolbox Contain? 9 4.5.4 Recent information on lethal actions 3.4 Legal Issues 9 against cormorants in Europe 61 3.5 Is A Particular Tool Suitable For Me? 9 4.5.5 Overview of lethal measures 61 3.6 How Do I Use The Toolbox? 10 4 CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLS 12 5 FINANCIAL COMPENSATION 64 4.1 Scaring Cormorants Away From A Fishery 12 4.1.1 Auditory deterrents 12 6 CASE STUDIES 66 4.1.2 Visual deterrents 21 6.1 Case Study No. 1. Greece — Local use of 4.1.3 Chemical deterrents 30 visual/auditory deterrents to protect fishing 4.2 Protecting The Fish — Exclusion Techniques 31 sites on Lake Kerkini 66 4.2.1 Netting enclosures 31 6.2 Case Study No. 2. UK (England & Wales) 4.2.2 Using ‘wires’ 36 — Protecting a locally endangered species 4.2.3 Floating plastic balls 39 involving management of a cormorant 4.2.4 Facility design and construction 39 breeding colony 66 4.2.5 Overview of exclusion techniques 40 6.3 Case Study No. 3. Slovenia — An example 4.3 Reducing Fish Availability To Cormorants of collaborative shooting to protect a river — Fish Stock Management Techniques 40 fishery 67 4.3.1 Timing of stocking 41 6.4 Case Study No. 4. Germany — Wires over 4.3.2 Frequency and location of stocking 41 Carp ponds 69 4.3.3 Regulating fish density 41 6.5 Case Study No. 5. Greece — Netting 4.3.4 Size at stocking 42 enclosures to protect over-winter fish 4.3.5 Species vulnerability 43 holding facilities 69 4.3.6 ‘Buffer’ species 44 6.6 Case Study No. 6. Sweden — Fishery 4.3.7 Location of fish-holding facilities 44 management measures to improve fishery 4.3.8 Overview of fish stock management performance on two large lakes in the techniques 45 presence of cormorants 70 4.4 Reducing Fish Availability To Cormorants 6.7 Case Study No. 7. Israel — Coordinated — Habitat Modification Techniques 45 cormorant management on a relatively large 4.4.1 Elimination of resting or roosting scale in the Hula Valley 72 places 46 6.8 Case Study No 8. Germany, Bavaria — 4.4.2 Elimination of nests 47 relatively large-scale lethal techniques as 4.4.3 Improving habitat quality for fish 47 examples of cormorant population control 4.4.4 Artificial fish refuges 48 in practice 73 www.intercafeproject.net [3] THE INTERCAFE CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX 6.9 Case Study No. 9. France — Large-scale shooting of wintering cormorants 74 6.10 Case Study No. 10. Czech Republic — Shooting to control population growth and expansion 75 6.11 Case Study No. 11. Switzerland — National cormorant management plan — scaring birds and preventing colonisation 76 6.12 Case Study No. 12. Denmark — National cormorant management plan — local actions and reduction of breeding output 78 7 SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES 81 8 FURTHER INFORMATION 85 APPENDIX: WORK GROUP 2 MEMBERSHIP 86 [4] THE INTERCAFE CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX 1 PREFACE This publication is supported by cormorant-fisheries interactions in countries in continental Europe COST. It is one of the outputs the context of the interdisciplinary (Georgia, Norway, Serbia) and the of the INTERCAFE COST management of human-wildlife Middle East (Israel). In addition Action (635). COST (European conflicts at local to international to these 28 countries, Ukraine and Cooperation in Science and levels across Europe. It also Croatia were also associated with Technology) is the longest-running aimed at delivering a coordinated the Action. INTERCAFE held intergovernmental network for information exchange system a series of eight meetings, each cooperation in research across and improved communication themed around a topic particularly Europe. between stakeholders. To this relevant to the host country: end, INTERCAFE attempted to INTERCAFE — ‘Conserving address: 1. Gdansk, Poland, April biodiversity: interdisciplinary 2005 — ‘Cormorant ecology, initiative to reduce pan-European i. the fundamental distrust between commercial fishing and cormorant-fishery conflicts’ — was the main stakeholder groups stakeholder interaction’ awarded funding for four years which was compounded by the 2. Saxony, Germany, September (2004–2008). COST Actions are disparate and uncoordinated 2005 — ‘Commercial carp charged with directing European nature of available sources of aquaculture’ science and do not pay for information; 3. Hula Valley, Israel, January researchers’ time. Instead, funding ii. the necessity of applying an 2006 — ‘Cormorant-fishery was available for INTERCAFE integrated interdisciplinary conflict management in the Hula to organise and run a series of research approach (biological, Valley, Israel’ international meetings, drawing social, legal) to cormorant- 4. Bohinj, Slovenia, October together researchers from a fishery conflicts (as these are 2006 — ‘Angling and EU number of disciplines (bird- as much a matter of human legislation’ related and broader ecology, interests as they are of biology 5. Hanko, Finland, April 2007 fisheries science and management, or ecology), thus recognising — ‘What to do when the sociology, social anthropology the need for different cormorant comes’ and international law) and other perspectives in the development 6. Po Delta, Italy, September 2007 experts (very often connected of collaborative strategies, and — ‘Extensive aquaculture with fisheries production, harvest iii. the lack of an integrated systems and relationships and management, or to regional/ understanding of the between stakeholder perspectives national policy and decision- interdisciplinary factors at the and different spatial and making). Under INTERCAFE’s heart of cormorant-fisheries institutional levels’ coordination, interested parties, conflicts that precludes the 7. South Bohemia, Czech Republic, from local stakeholders to provision of useful and practical April 2008 — ‘Management international policy-makers, were information and advice to all practices in a complex habitat thus offered a unique opportunity interested/affected parties. mosaic and at local, regional to address European cormorant- and national levels’ fisheries issues. The INTERCAFE network 8. Paris, France, September 2008 comprised almost seventy — ‘The management of The main objective of researchers from 24 EU Member cormorant-fisheries conflicts in INTERCAFE was to improve States (all except Luxemburg, France and the wider European European scientific knowledge of Malta and Spain) and other context’ www.intercafeproject.net [5] THE INTERCAFE CORMORANT MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX At each meeting, INTERCAFE overview of European cormorant- ▪ Essential social, cultural and participants worked in one of three fishery conflicts and associated legal perspectives on cormorant- Work Groups, covering the broad issues, which is as comprehensive fisheries conflicts. aims of the Action: as possible given the budgetary (ISBN 978-1-906698-11-9) and time constraints on all of ▪ Work Group One — Ecological INTERCAFE’s participants. Highlights from these publications Databases and Analyses are available in INTERCAFE: an ▪ Work Group Two — Conflict The INTERCAFE publications Integrated synthesis