EU Large Carnivore Platform: Fourth Regional Workshop – supplementary materials Bucharest 8-9 June 2017

Fourth Regional Workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores – supplementary materials – full overview of group work Bucharest 8-9 June 2017

K. Marsden, K. Brandt (adelphi), Y. Mertzanis (Callisto)

This report was produced as part of the services provided as the Platform Secretariat to DG Environment of the European Commission, Service Contract No. 07.0202/2016/738209/SER/ENV.D.3. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Platform or the official view of the European Commission. For more information, please contact lcplatform@adelphi.de.

Visit the Platform at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/coexistence_platform.htm

Photos Tsingarska © European Commission

adelphi consult GmbH T +49 (0)30-89 000 68-0 www.adelphi.de Alt-Moabit 91, 10559 Berlin F +49 (0)30-89 000 68-10 office@adelphi.de

Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Session 1: Understanding the current situation with large carnivores management in Romania 5

2.1 Understanding and addressing the key issues 5

2.1.1 What darkens the picture (makes you pessimistic)? 6

2.1.2 What makes you optimistic? 9

3. Session 2: Understanding what we want (our vision) and the key obstacles to achieving our vision 11

3.1 Our vision 11

3.2 Obstacles to achieving the vision 11

4. Session 3: Prioritising the necessary actions 13

4.1 Identification of actions 13

4.2 Prioritisation exercise 13

5. Session 4: Identification of SMART Targets 16

5.1 Results of group work to identify SMART targets 17

5.2 Monitoring Methodologies – advantages and disadvantages 22

4

1. Introduction

This document reproduces the work carried out in the break-out groups at the workshop. The break-out sessions were designed and facilitated by Professor Alistair Bath of the Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN). Professor Bath is an experienced facilitator in conflicts around wildlife who has managed similar processes in Croatia and Bulgaria amongst other countries.

He worked together with the participants to come up with 1. an understanding of the current situation; 2. objectives and barriers to achieving these objectives; and 3. SMART targets for achieving the objectives.

The results of the group work are reproduced here to give a clear overview of the findings and viewpoints of participants. Some of the photos are included as examples. The rest can be found on the Platform website1.

The workshop findings and next steps are described in more detail in the Workshop Report.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/events.htm

5

2. Session 1: Understanding the current situation with large carnivores management in Romania

2.1 Understanding and addressing the key issues

In understanding and addressing the key issues with large carnivore management in Romania are you…?

Participants were asked to rank whether in answer to the above question, they were:

losing (- - ), losing ground (-), gaining the upper hand (+) or winning (++).

They were given a red sticky dot and asked to place it next to one of the above answers, the results as shown in the photograph (fig. 1) were as follows:

Table 1. Current situation with large carnivores’ management in Romania based on the participants' perception

Category Number of dots

Losing 9

Losing ground 19

Gaining the upper hand

8

Winning 0

Figure 1. Losing – winning board

6

2.2 The positive and negative aspects of current management

Participants were divided into 16 small groups with 3-4 individuals per group. They identified up to five positive and negative aspects of current management and wrote them on cards. The facilitator then stuck the cards on flip chart sheets and grouped similar topics together. They were later used to create a list of actions to be prioritised. The areas identified are replicated below.

2.2.1 What darkens the picture (makes you pessimistic)?

Media

• Lack of objectivity in media

Funding questions

• Lack of scientists/ technicians (related to funding?)

• Economic activities damages

• Lack of funding

• Benefits are not equally shared among the interest groups (e.g. chances – hunters)

• Corruption

Society

• General development of society

• Farmers are not clearly aware about the importance of large carnivores

• Size of the country Cultural differences

• Reduced social acceptability for large carnivores

• Insufficiently/ incorrectly informed population; lack of knowledge

• Landowners and communities don’t know their rights (lack of information)

• Divergent interests

Habitat loss

• Altering quality of large carnivore’s populations

• Massive decrease of large carnivore’s habitats and their quality

• Deforestation and habitat loss

• Increase of human infrastructure in the natural habitat

Legislation

• Ineffective implementation of the existing legislation

• Reactive management based on power positions without recognizing the legitimate economic situation

• Legislative gaps concerning the damages produced by large carnivores

• Lack of agreed management and action plans and legislative framework

• Law is not applied

• Legislation is incomplete and incoherent

• Corruption reduces the capacity of state institutions to take over responsibility

Human wildlife conflicts

• Life of humans in danger!

• Increasing human wildlife conflicts

• Humans – large carnivores conflicts

• Negative perception towards large carnivores among rural population

• Lack of operational strategy to solve conflict situations

• Conflicts being used to justify quota

Infrastructure

• Planning process for infrastructure development not taking into consideration environmental aspects (species related) and not accommodation changes

• Fast development/ lack of planning

• Reduced institutional capacity (corruption, incompetence)

7

Lack of cooperation amongst interest groups

• Lack of cooperation between institutions, organizations (management)

• No information exchange or experience between different actors

• Functional large carnivore management comity at national level (inter-ministerial, experts (researchers), interest groups

• Segregated interests related to species conflicts of interests (“tunnel vision”)

• Different targets of the stakeholders

• Low cooperation between organizations (hunting and NGOs)

• Negative situation generated by some animal welfare organizations in their own interest. This kind of organizations are creating false problems and damage large carnivore conservation

• The economic value of species are not accorded to stakeholders who are truly involved to management and conservation

• Poor cooperation of hunters with landowners

Lack of data

• Insufficient understanding of the interaction between large carnivores and landscape (studies species ecology)

• Insufficient data on impacts (hunting, forestry, protection…)

• Lack of credibility of data, lack of relevant indicator for status of large carnivores

• Lack of objective data; stakeholders should not be involved in data collection

• Lack of sound data

• Lack of database; ministry of Environment does not implement credible methodologies counting large carnivores

Compensation

• Damage on livestock and crops hard to be compensated

• Compensation payments not functional

• Compensation system is not functioning properly

• Lack of compensation for negatively affected people

Preventive measures

• Prevention has a low implementation

• Lack of proper conflict preparation measures funded by the state

• Knowledge about guarding dogs often lost or not implemented properly; wrong breeds

• Lack of preventive measures

• Lack of education and training for livestock owners and herders

• Lack of resources in protection of livestock

Management scale

• CAP Intensification of livestock illegal grazing in forests, unprotected livestock

• Overpopulation of bears

Poaching

• Poaching still on a high level

Monitoring and Management

• Lack of harmonization between the management of large carnivores and their prey species

• No standardized and agreed monitoring system

Lack of involvement

• Lack of discussion before hunting ban decision was taken

• Lack of involvement of local population (on the village/local population level)

• Lack of involvement from the government

• No involvement of local administrations

• Lack of bottom-up approach

8

Hunting issues

• Hunting was not focused on “problem” animal

• Hunting associations are spending a lot of money for sustainable management of game with no compensation for damages caused by strict protected species

• No clarity about selective hunting of problem individuals

• Focusing the management on hunting as the main tool

• Lack of trophy hunting leads to lack of interests from the hunters

• Poaching is still on a high level

Herbivore numbers

• High number of large carnivores have a negative influence on herbivore numbers

Attitudes

• Attitude and mentality of all involved interest groups

• Opposition to better information might be lower quotas

• Different information/perceptions and scale of collecting and transmitting information

Conflict Management

• There is no one to facilitate the resolution of conflict and tensions

Politics

• Lack of clear policy lead no agreement on policy level what the goals are

• Corruption,

• Incompetent decisions

• Need of reorganization of institutional framework and reduced capacity (resources, people)

Language

• “Language” of different groups of interest

Figure 2. Example of pessimistic board (3 boards in total)

9

2.2.2 What makes you optimistic?

Hunting

• Examination system for hunters in Romania assures that only well-qualified people get the license

• Hunting association system assured conservation of wildlife in Romania by controlling numbers that could be hunted

• Selective hunting helped farmers and maintained the quality of the large carnivores population – world records for bears and wolf trophies

• Eliminate the practices to hunt other large carnivores individuals than the problematic ones

Wildlife watching

• Wildlife watching programs are increasing

• Many tourists come to Romania to see these protected species in their natural habitat

• Increase in promotion of wildlife watching and photography

Livestock issues

• Traditional management of the livestock protection still in place

• More discussions about damage on livestock and crops

Legislation

• Legislation is being harmonized

Data Monitoring

• Chance for changing data collection strategies

• Increasing numbers of conservation projects more data

• Opportunity to improve the inventorying and monitoring methods

• Evaluation based on genetic analysis

• Chance to implement a management based on exact population evaluation and reduction of conflicts

• Existing monitoring and research

• Develop objective, neutral methodology for determine quota

EU Platform

• Involvement of the European Committee

• Access to EU funding because they are creating a platform for discussion

Information

• Access to information in improving (access to papers, conferences, workshops, web…)

Habitat

• Habitat quality still good availability

• Habitats good, large, connected

• Favorable habitats for species

Healthy population of large carnivores

• Conservation status of species – good (presence, distribution…)

• Large number of carnivores

• Viable population of large carnivores

• The last hundred years of management (allowing hunting) maintained high population numbers

• We have viable populations large carnivores

• Increasing populations of bears

• Healthy populations --> potential for wildlife watching and tourism

• Statute is favorable for conserving the population of large carnivores

Former management

• Former management of wildlife good starting point

• Experience in large carnivore management

• Traditional coexistence still in practice

• Large carnivores= strictly protected species

• Increasing numbers of management plans

• Nobody asked for hunting ban basis for solution?

10

Public attitude

• High level of acceptance

• Positive attitude of local communities vis a vis bears

• General public is still positive towards large carnivores: more groups are interested

• Good? Acceptance of local population

• Interest in finding solutions

• High adapting capacity of large carnivores and Romanians

• An open attitude on both sides to find solutions

• We arrived at a point where the dialogue is inevitable

• Existing solutions which have been tested in our national context

• At least we have a discussion on the coexistent problem

• Local communities become more involved

• Increasing interest of the general public/ society

• Increased level of discussions between interested parties

• Increasing level of awareness (more people into debates and discussions)

• Real dialogue between stakeholders

• Openness to cooperate/ work together (process)

11

3. Session 2: Understanding what we want (our vision) and the key obstacles to achieving our vision

3.1 Our vision

Workshop participants were asked if they agreed with the following vision based on the discussions so far and on the EU Large Carnivore Platform Agreement2.

• Management of large carnivores should be determined on the basis of sound scientific evidence using best available and reliable data.

• Improve coexistence between people and large carnivores, in particular, those people in rural areas living closest to them.

• To promote ways and means to minimize and wherever possible find solutions to conflicts between human interests and the presence of large carnivores species by exchanging knowledge by working together in an open-ended constructive and mutually respectful way.

Participants agreed with the vision.

3.2 Obstacles to achieving the vision

Participants were then asked what the biggest obstacles are to achieving the vision. Working in 16 different groups, they each came up with at least 5 obstacles to reaching the vision. Many identified similar obstacles which have been grouped together.

The following aspects were deemed to be lacking according to the different groups:

Table 2 Biggest obstacles to the by the workshop participants’ agreed vision – actions or resources that are lacking currently

Process Monitoring Compensation and prevention

Politics

Common objective between hunters, NGOS, land owners, breeders, authorities

Agreed, credible, internationally approved methodology

Legislation update for compensating for other damages: human injuries, cars, etc.

Ways to prevent the issue becoming too political.

Consideration of cultural/ historical aspects and values Key stakeholders not involved Different visions (hunters vs. NGOs) Politicians listen to loudest group

Full involvement of stakeholders NGOs not participating Hunters bearing most costs Monitoring is for NGOs

Bureaucratically simple method for receiving compensation for livestock damages

Ways to deal with corruption

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/EN_Agreement.pdf

12

Process Monitoring Compensation and prevention

Politics

Addressing conflicts appropriately Cause is not addressed Rules not respected (lack of communication and enforcement) Take cheapest option (easier)

Promotion of a national, unitary monitoring methodology based on the latest scientific knowledge from the government centrally

Human resources / training / funding to manage prevention measures especially for livestock

Understanding of the value of large carnivores

Framework to enable a process to reach agreement on a vision

A common agreement on monitoring methods (failing due to lack of funding and cooperation, lack of political priority by government)

Capacity for wildlife management

Understanding of the value of bottom-up approach involving all

Motivation to solve conflict

Means to deal with problem bears

Means of dealing with frustration from hunting ground managers

Excessive supplementary feeding

Figure 4. Example Obstacle board

13

4. Session 3: Prioritising the necessary actions

4.1 Identification of actions

From the issues and obstacles identified in session 1 and the discussion that followed, the facilitator identified a series of 12 actions which deserved further attention.

4.2 Prioritisation exercise

The actions were written up on the board. The participants were each provided with a red and a blue sticky dot and asked to place them next to the issues according to the following rubric:

Red dots: What is the biggest obstacle i.e. the most important objective to understand and address?

Blue dots: What is the biggest obstacle you can do something about i.e. the most important objective you can have an impact on?

Table 3. Priorisation of the necessary actions

Action Explanation Red Blue

Create a clear policy lead

- Change needed within legislation

12 9

Understand attitudes and values towards large carnivores

- documenting recreational behaviour

- acceptance levels-human dimensions research needs

- how many is “too many”

12 9

Create a process to effectively deal with large carnivores issues

- Dialogue needs to be open, achieve consensus

- Involvement of all interest groups

- Challenges and opportunities of existing

- Need a management plane –role of hunting

8 6

Create a knowledgeable work force using effective preventive methods

- How are dogs used? - Best practices?

4 3

14

Action Explanation Red Blue

Need to have management at a smaller scale

- Should it be at a larger national scale

0 0

Need credible recognised methodology for monitoring

- Population overpopulation how understand?

- Understanding data collection methods trends

18 8

Increase capacity of skilled staff in data collection

- How do we work together, trust each other and share what we learn with each other?

2 2

Increase financial resources for monitoring and related large carnivore activities

- Financial resources needed

2 0

Crate an effective compensation system

- What should be compensated?

- Materials and human injuries? - How document injuries

numbers, etc.? - Natura 2000? - Timing of payments?

19 1

Create economic motivation to address issues

- Hunting concession lease holders – what is their situation?

13 7

Understand and address issues regarding “problem” bears

- Need clear legislation and direction

- Food attractants near guest houses?

3 0

Ensure all laws are applied

- People using forests o Bikers o Addressing access

issues o Mushroom, berry

pickers - Poaching issues

7 0

Increase resources to rural areas

- Do we understand benefits and costs of rural residents?

1 1

15

Figure 5. Prioritisation boards

16

5. Session 4: Identification of SMART Targets

Participants were asked which of the identified, high profile actions they wished to work on further. They broke into five groups based on their interest in the issues. They were asked to identify SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) targets for in order to deal with the issue.

For each issue, they were asked to fill in a certain number of cards answering the following questions:

• Why do we need this? (2 yellow cards) • What does it look like? (3 green cards) • SMART activities to reach the objective (5 green cards) • Corresponding first steps to achieve the activity (5 yellow cards)

The results are presented in the table below.

17

5.1 Results of group work to identify SMART targets

Table 4. Identifying SMART targets to deal with the highest importance issues

Action Why needed? What does it look like? SMART activities First steps

Create a process to effectively deal with large carnivore issues

Increasing the exchange of information

Improving (re-)actions

Increasing the quality of management

Good feedback on results

Improving continuously the process

Modularity for specific problems

Bottom-up process

Transparent

Dynamic

1. Discussion platform (preferably based on expertise)

2. Establishing indicators for process assessment/ monitoring

3. Open to interest groups 4. Rules/ protocols (working/

communication) 5. Establishing a common

language (no partisan interpretation)

1. Start working 2. Estimation of the resources

needed (human, financial, results)

3. Establishing deadlines for achieving results

4. Identification of the groups of interest

5. Kick-off information (to public)

Create a clear policy lead for issues on large carnivore management

- - 1. Joint meetings in working groups to make an action plan in order to make a legislative draft and consult the interest of the public

2. Promoting legislative initiatives from the parliament

1. Avoid the decrease of quotas caused by poached animals

2. Quotas vs. hunting areas

3. Splitting harvesting quota - Density reduction ; Punctual interventions in conflict cases with specific specialized staff

18

Action Why needed? What does it look like? SMART activities First steps

3. Responsibility of a specialized authority to engage in conflict intervention and decision-making

4. Implementation of the law through well-trained and informed personnel (standard professional courses)

5. Informing local communities about the implementation of specific legislation

Improve the methodology for monitoring large carnivores

To obtain the necessary information

To base management decisions on an agreed knowledge

Monitoring on an agreed scale (region/population level)

Standards and approved methodology

Full transparency/participatory process

1. Counting facilitated workshops with all interest groups

2. Review existing methodologies and propose most efficient system for all three large carnivores in Romania

3. Implement a common project for establishing a credible recognized monitoring methodology

4. Centralize all the data related to large carnivores at the ministry and make it accessible

1. Identify the participants and establish the secretariat for this workshop

2. Get the mandate of the ministry of environment to conduct this review

3. Apply for funding for a common proposal to establish a credible recognized monitoring methodology (e.g. LIFE)

4. Obtain public funding to provide the ministry with a sound data management capacity

19

Action Why needed? What does it look like? SMART activities First steps

5. Roll-out the approved methodology

5. Organizing field workshops

Establish an effective compensation scheme for large carnivore damages

Compensation system which covers all aspects: material loss, buidlings, effort, tools, etc., treatments costs, deaths, etc. and rendering

Actual system is bureaucracy, slow, unsure, people don’t trust in compensation

Compensation subject to the existence of prevention measures, fence, dog, etc.

Simple procedure

Compensation obtained in short time, max. 30 days

1. Simplify procedure

2. Include training of personnel in the process - Informing society about rights and obligations

3. Budget allocated specifically for the compensation of damages

6. Decentralization of the system - Decentralization of staff responsibility

1. Lobby factors decide

2. Training of the whole group on the updated legislative act

4. Presenting the situation in the territory of the decision-makers to understand the compensation system

Create an economic motivation to address coexistence issues

An economic value of large carnivores will justify their existence

To cover expenses for wildlife management

Hunting of large carnivores or income from wildlife watching will cover the running costs (guarding, food, anti-poaching activities)

Revenues of tourism (hunting/wildlife watching) become an important source for local communities

1. Sustainable hunting quotas

2. Ministry of environment creates a large carnivore fund

3. Wildlife watching is regulated by a code of conduct

4. Ministry of tourism promotes Romania through large carnivores (create brand)

5. Large carnivores platforms develops a large, national LIFE project (conflicts, monitoring)

1. Unblock large carnivore hunting based on a proper monitoring system

2. Large carnivore platform addresses ministry of environment to create a large carnivore fund with respective rates and rules C + % of hunting concession

3. Create the tourism guidelines (large carnivores platform responsible)

20

Action Why needed? What does it look like? SMART activities First steps

Hunters/ tourists pay a conservation fee for large carnivore (prevention, monitoring)

4. Large carnivore platform addresses ministry of tourism to create a brand with a special group

5. To create a working group for development of a LIFE project

Create a knowledgeable work force using effective preventive methods

To increase public acceptance through reducing incidents

Level of damages is high in some areas

Includes all relevant actors

Sharing common goals

Effective sharing of relevant data

1. Financial incentives for prevention measures

2. Legislative framework for regulating livestock management activities/ professions

3. National database about risk areas (risk areas designated for local authorities)

4. To stop artificial feeding close to localities where there are people present

5. Reduce human intrusion in natural habitats

1. To create a national program financed by environmental administration

2. Occupational standards for livestock related activities Normative act for grazing activities/ professions – bet practice included

3. Data Collection for damages 4. Creation of risk management

contracts for hunting areas 6. Improve legislation/

regulations for compulsory consultation of the hunting grounds administrators for human intrusions

21

Figure 6. Example of SMART targets board

22

5.2 Monitoring Methodologies – advantages and disadvantages

The international experts on large carnivore monitoring were given a separate task – to examine the different monitoring techniques and their advantages and disadvantages in terms of implementation.

The experts stressed that in most cases, a variety of methods should be used to maximise the positives and reduce the negatives that each method has applied just by itself.

Their findings are summarised in the table below.

Table 5.

Method Advantages Disadvantages

DNA

Credible, robust population estimate

Can calibrate cheaper methods

Involve “citizen scientists” and stakeholders

Cannot “cheat”

Value for money additional results (e.g. parentage)

Expensive

Labour intensive

Requires special equipment and facilities

Many samples needed

Not for lynxes

Observation

(of bear females with cubs of the year (FWCOY) and feeding sites

Cheap (more or less 10%)

Results can be close to DNA

Can use camera traps

Attractive for participants

Show trend

Only for bears

Double counting

May be hard to distinguish between individuals

Disturbance

May underestimate as do not see all animals

Camera Traps Very attractive for stakeholders and the public

Continuous monitoring of all species

Map distribution, detect presence

Monitor preventive measures effectiveness (e.g. electric fences)

Loss/ theft of equipment

Labour intensive

Robust (statistical) population estimate only if individuals can be distinguished (e.g. lynx)

Tracks

Cheap

Follow tracks to find DNA samples, prey, etc.

Wolf and lynx

Involve stakeholders, “citizen scientists”

Attractive for volunteers

Need substrate (esp. snow)

Less useful for bears

Time consuming

Misidentification (wolf or dog?) –Y use photos, mobile app to verify

23

Method Advantages Disadvantages

Mortality Statistics

All species

All causes

Multiple data and samples (ID, DNA, pathology)

Identify Problems

Accessible material

Need cooperation

Biased to human causes

May be under-reported (mortality deducted from quota)

Telemetry

Very precise, detailed and robust information

Answers many questions (home range, mortality, use…)

Good for communication (very visual)

Animal welfare (captures, immobilisation, wearing collar)

Requires special skill and equipment

Hard to trap wolves

Expensive (but value for money)

Usually small sample size

Damage/ Compensation

Map and quantify conflict

Different techniques for involving stakeholders

Maybe under-reported

Data quality variable

Not easy to obtain overall reliable data for all species

Figure 7. Monitoring advantages and disadvantages