WORKSHOP REPORT II Second Regional Workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores

Transcription

1 WORKSHOP REPORT II Second Regional Workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores Rovaniemi, 8 October 2015

2 WORKSHOP REPORT II Second Regional Workshop: EU Platform on Large Carnivores This report was collated and edited with the assistance of adelphi GmbH and Callisto, as part of the services provided to DG Environment of the European Commission for Service Contract No. ENV.B.3/SER/2014/0036. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Platform or the official view of the European Commission. Visit the Platform at: 2

3 Contents 1. Introduction Field trip Workshop Workshop attendance 6 2. Workshop content Introductions Topic 1: Socio-economic aspects of coexistence Topic 2: Socio-economic aspects of coexistence in the everyday lives of reindeer herders Topic 3: Wolf management Workshop statement and final conclusions Next steps Annexes Annex 1: Agenda Annex 2: Participants list Annex 3: Workshop press release 6 October Annex 4: Press coverage Lapin Kansa, 9 October

4 1. Introduction The four European large carnivore species (brown bear, wolf, Eurasian lynx and wolverine) are among the most symbolic but challenging groups of species in terms of conservation and management in the European Union (EU). In June 2014, a group of eight representative stakeholder organisations agreed to work together as part of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores, with the help of the European Commission. The Platform decided at its first annual meeting to organise several events to discuss experiences about coexistence between people and large carnivores. A first regional workshop was held in Pravets, Bulgaria. Information on the workshop is available on the Platform website 1. At the Second Annual Meeting it was decided to focus on the socioeconomic aspects of coexistence for large carnivores at the second workshop. The Joint representatives of Finnish and Swedish reindeer herders agreed to host a second workshop in Rovaniemi,. This report describes this second regional workshop. After several Brussels-based meetings and the first regional workshop in Pravets, the location in was considered to be desirable as the Northern situation and questions about coexistence with reindeer herders are quite specific and present different challenges to those discussed in Bulgaria. In particular, all four large carnivore species are present in Fenno-Scandinavia. As with the first workshop, the focus was therefore regional, concentrating on human and large carnivore coexistence in Fenno-Scandinavia and particularly on the interaction with reindeer husbandry in the Lapland, Northern Ostrobotnia and Kainuu areas of. However, the agenda also included examples of studies on socio-economic aspects from other locations (Slovenia and Italy) and delegates from a range of member states took part. The Finnish Reindeer Herders were keen to hold the workshop to demonstrate to members of the Platform what reindeer herding involves and the specific issues with coexistence faced by herders. The workshop and field trip preceding it allowed herders and other Platform members to come together, discuss issues around coexistence and make comparisons about the situations in different locations. 1.1 Field trip On 7 October, the day before the workshop, a number of Platform members attended a field trip organised by the Finnish Reindeer Herders. The trip involved participation in a reindeer autumn round-up. The trip started at the Finnish Reindeer Herders s office where Anne Ollila, Director of the Finnish Reindeer Herders, presented background information on reindeer herding. 1 ria.htm 4

5 The reindeer husbandry area is demarcated by law for reindeer herding (Reindeer Husbandry Act 848/1990). The area consists of the Lapland region, Northern Ostrobotnia and Kainuu regions and covers 122,936km 2, 36% of the s total area. There are 4,500 reindeer owners from around 1000 families. Around 20% of those carrying out reindeer herding are under 25 and 18% are over 60. The ratio of men to women involved is roughly 60:40. It is an important source of employment in the sparsely inhabited northern regions. Meat is the main product and it is mainly consumed within. Fur and leather goods are also produced and tourism is an increasingly important income source. There are three core events during the reindeer husbandry year: calving, summer calve marking and autumn round-ups. Reindeer wander freely in the summer, grazing and avoiding hordes of blood-sucking insects. Their fur moults and becomes thinner and they grow new antlers. The natural behaviour of reindeer is capitalised on in the herding work. In the summer, the blood-sucking insects start to bother the reindeer and they gather into herds. Herders can then round these up to create bigger herds and take to fenced areas for calve earmarking. In the autumn, reindeer are at their best condition and have grown a layer of fat for the winter. The rutting season starts in September. The leading male collects females together and guards them carefully from competitors. One male can have around 30 females in his harem. The herders again use this natural event in their herding work. These harems are gathered together to form bigger herds (by foot, motor cycles, ATV s and helicopters) and brought into fenced areas. The Platform field trip visited a small autumn round-up carried out by the Pudasjärven Livo reindeer herding cooperative 2 in the Pudasjärvi municipality area. It involved around 100 reindeer (large round-ups can be around 2000 in size). The round-up involved the following stages: The male reindeer were caught first with lassos. They were marked in the books under the list of their owner, given an antiparasitic medicine and released. Removing them from the rest of the herd allowed the rest of the work to proceed more safely. The calves were then caught by hand or lasso and numbers were placed round their necks. The calves were then released to find their mothers, and the reindeer herders noted which female each calf followed. The calves were caught again and the same earmark as their mothers was cut into the tip and sides of their ears with a sharp hunting knife. The reindeer for slaughter were listed and marked with a metal slaughter tag on the ear. The livestock were read (counted and registered according to their ear marks) and treated for parasites. Visible markings were cut into their fur over their ribs to show they had been read. In between the active parts of the round-up, the participants had a chance to drink coffee with the reindeer herders around the camp fire. The reindeer herders described their work and some of their concerns about coexistence with large carnivores. In the area visited, the reindeer herders said that wolverine numbers were increasing and that wolverine were attacking larger animals including moose. The attacks were generally concentrated in small areas meaning that one herder was sometimes disproportionately affected. Herders also 2 5

6 thought that bear numbers had increased as bears were succeeding in having larger, more successful litters. 1.2 Workshop The goal of the workshop was to contribute to one of the objectives of the Platform: to recognise socio-economic and cultural considerations and concerns in the dialogue on human-large carnivore conflicts. During the workshop these aspects were be discussed, in particular in the context of the reindeer herding communities. In addition, participants and examples from other member states helped to broaden the discussions to include other contexts and geographic locations allowing an exchange of information and views. The last session of the workshop included the discussion of a Workshop Statement which aims to take forward the work of the Platform based on the workshop conclusions. The statement looked in particular at the following issues: monitoring as a crucial reference base; proven ways going forward to improve coexistence; and fully understanding the socioeconomic context and geographic targeting for successful stakeholder engagement. The statement is included in the end of chapter 2 of the report (section 2.5). A press release was also issued before the workshop and a press briefing held afterwards. The press release and a press article are included in annex Workshop attendance The workshop was well attended especially by reindeer herders, their representatives and academics researching reindeer herding. 49 participants took part in the workshop. A full list of participants is included in annex 2. 6

7 2. Workshop content 2.1 Introductions The workshop was introduced by the hosting Platform member: the Joint representatives of Finnish and Swedish reindeer herders and the co-chairs: the European Landowners Organisation and the European Commission who set the scene by briefly describing the regional context and the work of the Platform. All presentations are available on the Platform website 3. Anne Ollila, Director of the Finnish Reindeer Herders, described why reindeer herding is of cultural and economic importance in and how depredation by large carnivores is regarded as a serious additional pressure to a way of life already threatened. All four large carnivores as well as golden and white-tailed eagle are present in the reindeer herding areas and can prey on reindeer. In some areas, reindeer herding communities are facing social and economic collapse and the number of communities in this situation has increased in recent years. The number of large carnivores has also increased over this time. From the Finnish Reindeer Herders s perspective, the purpose of the workshop was to try to find solutions, to listen to the range of perspectives and have a constructive dialogue in order to bring new insights to the socio-economic aspects of coexistence with large carnivores. Jenny Wik-Karlsson, CEO of the Swedish Sami, introduced her organisation and described how reindeer herding in Sweden needs space to exist and the possibility to develop while retaining a unique culture. The younger generation is keen to keep herding but are facing difficulties including enforcing their legal rights and the challenges of climate change in addition to large carnivores. The government is struggling to find solutions, having set the acceptable level of losses at 10% of the winter reindeer herds where large carnivores are present. She reinforced the point made by Anne Ollila that the purpose of coming together is to find solutions. She challenged the participants to say what effort they are making rather than always asking for greater sacrifices from the reindeer herders. Heli Siitari, Nature and Game Management Trust,, represented Mr. Thierry de l'escaille of the European Landowners Organisation as co-chair of the Platform at the meeting. She thanked the Finnish Reindeer Herders for their hospitality and for providing interpretation, thus allowing full participation from local herders as well as the international audience. She also thanked the speakers for providing ideas, thoughts and data to the participants, allowing the Platform to take back important information for further discussion. András Demeter, European Commission and co-chair of the Platform, also thanked the hosts, contractors and especially the reindeer herders who demonstrated their work to the Platform members at the field trip. He stated that favourable conservation status for large carnivores can only be reached with the acceptance of local communities. An open dialogue about multifunctional uses and competing interests is needed. He gave some background to the Platform s work including how and why it was established and the challenges of working together, and debriefed the participants about the first regional workshop held in Bulgaria. At 3 7

8 the Second Annual Meeting in June, the Platform agreed to concentrate more on socioeconomic aspects. The main tool for sharing information on the Platform is its website 4. Ilpo Kojola, Natural Resource Institute, gave an overview of the global to regional situation for the four large carnivore species. For each species he presented figures for the population levels in Scandinavia and. In general there has been an increase in large carnivore numbers over the last century. Though some species showed a small drop in recent years, populations are thought to be stable. The genetic diversity in for bear is also higher since two populations have the possibility of mixing here. With lynx, the situation is different in that, for reasons which are unclear, numbers are increasing in but falling in Scandinavia. He also described how many animals were shot each year in the different areas. 2.2 Topic 1: Socio-economic aspects of coexistence Topic 1 related to the broad socio-economic aspects of coexistence. A number of examples from the reindeer herding areas and one international example were presented. The presentations were followed by an open discussion with the audience. How large carnivores effect reindeer herding in the reindeer husbandry area Anne Ollila, Reindeer Herders The differences in the issues faced in reindeer herders compared with livestock husbandry elsewhere in Europe need to be understood. Reindeer cannot be protected by guarding dogs, they are free-ranging animals. The damage caused by large carnivores to reindeer herds is significant. Researchers have estimated that large carnivores kill 25,000 30,000 reindeer annually, but last year only around 4,000 of the carcasses were recovered. The core income for reindeer herders is from meat production (tourism and other reindeer products are secondary). In some cooperatives, a three-stage collapse is being experienced. In all, 32 cooperatives are in some stage of collapse and this trend is moving from the South northwards. Despite this, young people still have a strong interest and pride in their profession, however, parents are starting to question whether their children should enter into this line of work. Loss of reindeer husbandry would be an enormous blow to Finnish and Lappish culture. They welcome the fact that the Platform is considering socio-economic issues. Reindeer herders are prepared to coexist with large carnivores but the losses currently experienced are too high. Numbers need to be limited there is no other way to prevent serious damage. Reindeer herders have a right to preserve and develop their culture and real solutions need to be found. The Platform is the right place to discuss this. The economic impact of large carnivores on rural enterprises Sanna Hast, Reindeer Herders Reindeer herding is one of the oldest professions in and has widespread economic effects across the country with a large impact on local and national cash flow. An economic overview shows that it is more interesting and complex than just direct cash flow from selling reindeer meat. A variety of meat products have been developed as well as 3 labels of protected designated origin. Fur and leather are used in traditional costumes and handicrafts 4 8

9 but also by the global fashion industry. The economic value for tourism has not been comprehensively studied but tourism farms, if their output in euros alone is regarded, are as significant as the meat industry. Reindeer are always in the top three of things to see, eat or experience in Northern and have extensive future potential. Large carnivores are exerting a dual pressure direct economic impacts (loss of animals) and indirect impacts (prevention measures, searching for carcasses, etc). This is similar to what was found in a recent study in Sweden looking at the impacts on rural businesses (Elofsson ). Reindeer slaughter rates are falling and incomes are collapsing. Genetics are being weakened by the need to keep weaker individuals for breeding. Compensation does not cover any of these indirect costs. Monetary compensation alone is a band-aid, not a cure. Losses can only be controlled by the removal of animals causing damage. Understanding the aspects of wolf conflicts and how to respond it Mari Pohja-Mykrä, Ruralia Institute Views about wolves vary widely between different interests and have emotional values attached. The wolf is regarded as a symbol of wilderness representing untouched nature but at the same time it is a predatory species which impacts on peoples lives. Conservationists are currently supported by EU policies and feel empowered. The ecological discourse can stigmatise others such as hunters and make them feel excluded which has the effect of radicalising them. This radicalisation means that acting against the law is not regarded as a real crime. Increasing the punishments may also be counterproductive. On the other hand, making wolves into a local common pool resource would turn illegal killing into a threat to the common good. Rumours are used by both sides, on the one hand, rumours about reintroductions and the genetic impurity of the species, on the other hand, rumours that in Europe only the Finns are so backward as to not fully welcome wolves. Information based on emotions and moral judgements is used by all interested parties. Knowing this is not a management tool but nevertheless understanding it allows us to predict the action of stakeholders. Finnish best practise: Local Finnish large carnivore negotiator Antti Härkälä, Natural Resources Institute The local negotiator s job is to carry out basic field work (tracks, behaviour, DNA sampling) providing information on the location of wolves and to report on damages caused. A very important aspect is the work with local stakeholders and gathering information from them. Links between various institutes are also important. A lack of trust of authorities and researchers and feelings of not being in control can lead to not discussing problems. The media can also cause problems. They want an exciting story and can twist words to get one. Social media is also very difficult to control. Hunters have very strong views on wolves and their population size. Face-to-face discussion is always preferable. The negotiator also trains volunteers and gives them support for difficult cases. Lessons on socio-economic aspects from the LIFE project WOLFALPS Aleksandra Majic Skrbinsek, University of Ljublijana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology 5 Elofsson, K. (2015) Impact of carnivore attacks on the economy of rural enterprises. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 9

10 The project 6 focused on areas where wolves have naturally recolonised the Alps as well as areas where they are likely to return (judged by habitat suitability mapping). Public attitude was measured as a baseline for the project. The main target group was the general public but also farmers and hunters (and to a lesser extent environmentalists, mountaineers and high school students). Support varies across the area and the groups. Hunters are the most diverse group but are generally less supportive in areas with wolves. Livestock breeders are the least supportive group. However in general, the presence of wolves and knowledge about them affects support (those with the most knowledge have less fear). Damage prevention measures seem to have worked to reduce attacks. There is potential to work more with hunters on wolf conservation in the area. Discussion Following the presentations, the floor was opened for comments from participants. Discussion was wide-ranging, relating both to the presentations and to other topics that participants felt had not been adequately covered. It was pointed out that fear of large carnivores and wolves in particular themselves was not the greatest problem for reindeer herders. It was rather the rules that had to be followed regarding large carnivores. For reindeer herders, this could be regarded as an external white man s agenda that was being imposed upon them rather than something they had a say in and a power to affect. There were some comments on the composition of the programme and the representation of different interests. Hunters interests are also of high priority when discussing large carnivores. For them, loss of hunting dogs to large carnivores is a serious issue in and Scandinavia. Hunting dogs can be economically valuable but are also often regarded as a member of their family and if they are killed by wolves, this has serious emotional consequences. It was also mentioned that conservation interests were not adequately represented in the programme. In order to have an open dialogue, it is necessary to understand what conservationists and the wider general public think. While it had been suggested in the presentations that conservationists felt empowered by the current legal situation, this may not be the case and in fact all interested parties are likely to have similar feelings of not being listened to and being excluded from certain discussions. While viewpoints are different, the discourses and feelings of frustration are the same. The hosts agreed that there was no specific conservationist included in the agenda, however, reindeer herders would regard themselves as conservationists. A question was asked about tourism. Having all species of large carnivore present could be regarded as a benefit. It was asked what proportion of herders income was related to tourism and whether this had the potential to grow. In the answer it was stated that while tourism is growing in the more Southern parts of North, some aspects of tourism (such as attracting large carnivores to viewings using bate which causes them to gather in a particular area) are difficult to reconcile with active reindeer herding. A question was asked about causes of mortality to reindeer other than large carnivores. Traffic accidents also cause a significant number of deaths per year (around 3,500 annually). Especially harsh winter conditions (where frozen snow can prevent digging for food) can also be a mortality factor. 6 Further information on WOLFALPS available at: 10

11 2.3 Topic 2: Socio-economic aspects of coexistence in the everyday lives of reindeer herders In topic 2, the specific aspects of coexistence in terms of reindeer herders everyday lives were discussed. This included social and cultural difficulties faced as well as management of compensation and prevention measures. The session was followed by a discussion. Large carnivores and social problems in reindeer herding cooperatives Pirjo Oinas, Lapland University A technique called deep interviews was used to bring out viewpoints on topics that are difficult for people to discuss. Reindeer herding is an important part of the lifestyle and culture of Lapland families. The impact of large carnivores on reindeer herding is potentially having a negative effect on the development of communities. Having to fence reindeer in more often and other additional costs are decreasing profitability and making it more difficult for example, to take holidays and carry out other communal tasks. Additional jobs such as tourism are being taken up but these only add more time pressure and stress. Reindeer herders find it very difficult if their children do not choose the same profession. Nonetheless, they are hesitant to recommend it because of the potential difficulties faced. Swedish perspective and the case of transferring wolf Jenny Wik-Karlsson, Swedish Sami (Svenska Samernas Rikförbund) Reindeer herding in Sweden is restricted by law to being only carried out by Sami in 51 communities. The border of the reindeer husbandry area is disputed but the area covers around 50% of the Swedish land surface. Sami can carry out reindeer husbandry only in the area and tourism carried out under the communities' names is restricted by law. Roughly the same number of reindeer are killed by large carnivores as are slaughtered and sold. The Sami are an indigenous people and the government has obligations to ensure their interests are met. Several governments where Sami people live have been criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights for not fully meeting their obligations. Wolves can cause continuous disturbance even if there is only one single individual. The artificial transferring of wolves from to Sweden has been successful in one case but there are still questions about the extent to which this is a long-term solution. Large carnivores have always been there and are accepted by the Sami, however, better use should be made of traditional knowledge. Sami are semi-nomadic reindeer herders and are proud of their culture. They cannot spend all their time in meetings discussing different management measures. Reindeer herders and their work with large carnivores Mika Kavakka, reindeer herder, head of the Kemin-Sompio Cooperative Reindeer are largely free ranging. Kemin-Sompio has the largest cooperative in, 350 were killed by large carnivores (only those that were found) while are annually sent to slaughter. The highest amount of damage occurs near the Russian border and transboundary cooperation is therefore needed. There has been an increase in the number of reindeer killed in recent years. Finding killed reindeer takes a significant amount of time 11

12 and causes financial and social problems. Many are not found (around 5 times as many thought to be killed). Licenses to shoot problematic animals take a long time to get which can be pointless if the animal has already left the area. Hunting is costly and time-consuming. Compensation does not cover the costs of searching for dead reindeer or of hunting. While coexistence has always occurred in the reindeer herding areas, damages are now becoming intolerable. The only solution is decreasing the number of large carnivores in the reindeer husbandry area. Large carnivores from a funder s perspective Päivi Kainulainen, Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment The work of the department includes taking responsibility for the Reindeer Herders, providing financial support to reindeer herding and answering appeals for compensation for damages caused by large carnivores. Development projects have been important in the reindeer herding area e.g. new technology such as GPS collars as well as fencing of farmed areas to avoid conflict. Large carnivore damage has a direct economic effect on profitability this needs to be controlled and mitigated. In order for reindeer herders to receive financial support (headage payment of 28,50 per animal), they need to have a herd of at least 80 head of reindeer. For new start-ups, they must maintain this number for at least 5 years after the last payment received. The number of new start-ups for reindeer herding since 2001 has exceeded the number of agricultural start-ups showing that this is still a lively area with many new entrants wishing to carry out the profession. Discussion The issue of large populations of large carnivores in Russia crossing into was discussed. There is a fence along the Russian border already but this does not prevent large carnivores entering. Herders regarded this as a problem and said that the numbers of wolves and bears entering was significant. The importance of engaging stakeholders in monitoring was mentioned in this context. There are few observations made in the border areas in particular. If herders were better involved in monitoring, this might allow faster reactions to particular events and the establishment of preventative measures in advance to stop damages happening. The issues of engaging young people in the business of reindeer herding were also raised. Lower numbers of reindeer going to slaughter is regarded as a serious problem, decreasing profitability and reducing the attractiveness of the profession. Particularly in the south, young people have other options and are increasingly choosing these. For those who have been involved in the business longer, however, there may be fewer alternatives and they may lack the education to change careers if all their reindeer are killed by large carnivores. An upcoming study by the Natural Resource Institute in was mentioned. This is a bioeconomic model for reindeer husbandry with data from 6 herding districts. It will examine the effect of direct losses and indirect losses. Indirect losses can be very high, for example searching for dead reindeer can take 3-10 days per animal found. Hunting large carnivores can also be costly around 2,500 a day with an exceptional permit. A question was asked about whether would benefit from the Swedish system which sets an acceptable loss level and then pays an automatic compensation rate based on the 12

13 risk of losing animals. This means that herders do not have to search for reindeer carcasses. The Swedish herders said that, though there were still problems with the system, they would not choose to go back to the Finnish system. The Finnish Reindeer Herders, on the other hand, stated that in they are not interested in adopting the Swedish system. They do not regard compensation as the solution. In Norway, it is estimated that only 2% of the reindeer killed by large carnivores are found in winter and 8% in summer. They are planning on giving up the present compensation system based on the documentation of reindeer carcasses. It was announced in the state budget that they plan to move to a risk-based system for domestic reindeer. In this system, the amount of compensation paid is based on the number of carnivores within the area. The details and legal basis for the system are currently being developed by the Norwegian Environment Agency. 2.4 Topic 3: Wolf management The final topic of the day concentrated on the details of management plans on wolves and how these differ between and Sweden. Both plans have been recently updated. Swedish wolf management plan Helene Lindahl, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) The wolf action and management plans are an important administrative tool. Management includes protective hunting (damage management) and licenced hunting. The plan shows how lethal management can be carried out at the same time as securing favourable conservation status. The plans for all large carnivores were developed in 2012 and the wolf plan was updated in 2014 to set clearer targets. The new plan aims to include better tools for active management and show who will deal with the day-to-day work. The plan has political aims, milestones, and precise targets and lists the actions needed to meet the targets. It aims to reach favourable conservation status and sets a minimum number of wolves. Transboundary cooperation with authorities in and Russia is planned to allow for wolf migration. Follow-up should show how the measures are being effective. The tolerance level for damage caused by large carnivores has been set at 10% of the total winter herd of each Sami village. There was limited time for consultation on the new plan which is nonetheless regarded by the government as very important. The action plan will be updated every 6 years following the Habitats Directive reporting cycle. Finnish wolf management plan Juha Hiedanpää, Natural Resources Institute Developing the Finnish plan has been a search for the reasonable. In 2001 the EU began infringement proceedings against because of wolf management. Since then, there has been an aim to improve management but it has been a bumpy road. In 2005, the management plan was updated but it has not been very successful in helping with coexistence. A new plan, developed also in cooperation with political and social scientists, includes 3 concepts: regulation, information and economic incentives. An attempt to establish 13

14 a very collaborative process of working together is therefore being made. A survey was carried out and an online forum established to find out about the views of people on wolf territories and how these differed from people outside wolf territories. The dialogue was constructive without significant negative comments or trolling. Workshops were then held involving only 20 locals in each area. They came up with a list of 375 things to do. This was reduced to a list of a hundred and then reduced further to a list of 59 concrete actions and 9 projects. Management includes hunting aimed at removing some of the non-alpha members of certain packs, and mediators to help people live with wolves and preventative measures and damage compensation. The government is looking at co-designing nudges to help encourage constructive discussion about the wolf and free people from inset and unproductive habits of thinking and feeling. Wolf management from transboundary perspective Harri Norberg, Finnish Wildlife Agency Most large carnivore populations are shared, making transboundary cooperation essential. There was a call for better transboundary management in the review produced for the European Commission: Key Actions for Large Carnivore Populations in Europe 7. Transboundary collaboration is improving with greater information shared on wolves approaching borders. Sweden and Norway share a wolf population and collaborate on this though the management regimes are very different. All Nordic countries share information on the four large carnivores. The reindeer herding areas in and Sweden separate the Finnish-Russian and Scandinavian populations, however, they do not close the migration routes and young wolves can and do disperse through this area. This migration and breeding between the populations is very important to prevent inbreeding. Meetings are organised at different administrative levels to share information and maintain relationships. Information and observations are shared (e.g. harvest / mortality, DNA). In order to set the Finnish wolf management plan in place, the cooperation of reindeer herders as key stakeholders in the monitoring process is needed. The plan foresees translocation of wolves from to central Sweden. Active transboundary management is taking place. Resources for further cooperation however still need to be secured. Response and perspectives in the EU context András Demeter, European Commission An infringement case against Sweden on their wolf policy was launched by the European Commission 5 years ago. An additional document ("extended reasoned opinion") was sent in June, 2015, therefore it was not possible for the Commission co-chair to comment on the presentation but he expressed his appreciation of the openness of the Swedish authorities in participating in the workshop. The Finnish plan has been presented to the European Commission and is being monitored with great interest, due to its experimental nature and the interesting learning processes. Future ideas are being discussed with the authorities. In 7 Boitani, L., et al. (2015) Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe. Institute of Applied Ecology (Rome, Italy). Report to DG Environment, European Commission, Bruxelles. Contract no /2013/654446/SER/B3. Available at: vores_2015.pdf 14

15 general, the European Commission advocates transboundary management as suggested in the Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores 8. A study commissioned by the European Commission by Blanco et al 9, however, showed that not a single formalised bilateral agreement at the government level has been put in place. It is very important that member states do this and the Commission advocates member states to take active steps to establish transboundary plans. While some member states are stating that there are legal constraints within the Habitats Directive, there are plenty of other areas where these have been overcome. No examples of shared reporting were included in the last round of Habitats Directive reporting. Some good examples of transboundary projects, however, do exist. Discussion A specific question on the extent and progress of SEPA s work with Russia was asked. Sweden, and Russia aim to establish a transboundary management plan in the long term. In the short term, they are cooperating through contact between managers, sharing survey results and information on major management decisions. As a first step, Sweden is engaged in bilateral discussions with Russia and is examining the potential for joint projects. and Norway are set to join the collaboration at a later date. It was pointed out that under the Birds Directive, transboundary management of migratory birds is being carried out and that international cooperation had been established. Should management for large carnivores be carried out under a similar basis? The Commission replied that the Birds Directive included obligations on migratory species which are not included in the Habitats Directive, and that there are a number of legally binding international agreements on migratory birds. However, recommendations to governments on transboundary cooperation are included in the Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe 10. It was pointed out that although there is no government level formal agreement on large carnivores,, Sweden and Norway reached an agreement in 2011 about joint practices at the state secretary level. A question was raised about whether, if a large carnivore killed stock in Norway and Sweden and then moved on into, a derogation on this basis was possible. The answer was that national legislation would have to be followed and further legal advice would be needed to answer this specific question. 8 Linnel, J. et al. (2008) Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores Available at: n_level_management.pdf 9 Blanco, J. et al. (2012) Towards a population level approach for the management of large carnivores in Europe. Challenges and opportunities. For the European Commission. Available at: oop.pdf 10 Boitani, L., et al. (2015) Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe. Institute of Applied Ecology (Rome, Italy). Report to DG Environment, European Commission, Bruxelles. Contract no /2013/654446/SER/B3. Available at: vores_2015.pdf 15

16 It was pointed out that reindeer have a role in maintaining the landscape in the North. If their numbers decreased significantly, valuable cultural landscapes and ecosystem services could be lost. A question was asked about how much practical success had resulted from the Swedish and Finnish wolf management plans. Both have been recently updated so concrete success are difficult to pinpoint. The processes so far are however thought to be successful and have engaged relevant actors better. 2.5 Workshop statement and final conclusions In the final session, Tasos Hovardas, representing the European Commission s contractors, Callisto and adelphi, who provide support to the Platform, presented a discussion paper working towards a workshop statement. This was followed by a discussion lead by John Linnell from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), in which participants made suggestions for additions or changes to the statement. The agreed statement is copied below. Workshop Statement At the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Platform on 2 June 2015, the Platform decided that they wished to have a strong focus on socio-economic issues in their next workshop. In order to move forward with the work of the Platform through the workshop, the workshop discussed some of the key socio-economic aspects related to large carnivores and agreed on the following statement based on the themes listed below. In some cases, concrete actions for the themes have been agreed on by Platform members. Monitoring provides a crucial reference base for policy making Monitoring relevant to coexistence issues has to be undertaken. This includes monitoring large carnivore conservation status (including numbers and distribution) as well as behaviour and diet. Monitoring of conflicts, such as damages caused, is also important. The methods used should be scientifically tested, transparent and accessible to allow all stakeholders to understand and examine methods of data selection and analysis. The methods used can however vary with context e.g. the effort and precision depends on the conservation status and they must be adapted to local conditions, such as the presence of snow. If monitoring data were accessible and monitoring as a procedure were to be respected by all involved actors, then a crucial reference base for policy making would be available. Involving interest groups other than scientists (who to date are most often responsible for monitoring work) may have advantages such as providing access to resources and data that would otherwise not be available, and increasing the acceptability of the results with the groups involved. In this case, it is important that an agreed monitoring methodology be followed by all participants. It was pointed out that funding is often limited and that transboundary coordination is necessary but can be difficult to put in place. 16

17 Action: FACE and IUCN agreed to work together to develop best practice guidelines for the involvement of diverse stakeholder groups in monitoring. This will be based on their existing experience of such schemes. They will aim to present the guidance at the next regional workshop, planned for the spring of Facilitating coexistence under ongoing conflict Proven ways forward to improve coexistence can be transferred between different locations and different member states. It is however clear that coexistence is challenging and requires the implementation of a range of responses, starting from damage prevention measures in cases where these measures are feasible and effective. However, it is also widely recognised by the Platform members that there will be cases where problematic individual large carnivores will need to be removed (if necessary, through lethal control) where alternatives have been tested and no other way to prevent serious damage is available. The extent of the deterioration of livelihood functions and productivity due to loss of animals should be regarded as a signal as to when further actions are required. Secondary effects such as fear of large carnivores impacting on social conditions in a Member State should also be considered. It must also be documented whether depredation by large carnivores is the only challenging factor, or if there are also other factors impacting livelihood unrelated to large carnivores. Co-designing management measures, co-producing knowledge (e.g. through the monitoring measures described above) and other ways of combining stakeholder efforts can help transfer good practice measures from other situations or locations and raise the productivity and profitability of livelihoods to the level necessary for improved coexistence. In this context, long-term management plans are needed that give predictability and reaffirm the ultimate objective of favourable conservation status while ensuring that the full range of social, economic and physical challenges (including climate change) are recognised. Follow-up: In order to understand the range of management measures available, FACE requested that the European Commission clarify the legal context and what is possible and what is not within the existing legal framework. One issue of concern relates to the ability of member states to use regulated hunting under derogation to control sizes and limit distribution of large carnivore populations once they have reached Favourable Conservation Status. The European Commission is invited to determine if any of the Commission guidance documents related to large carnivores and species protection are in need of updating in light of developments since their publication. Fully researching and understanding the "socio-economic context" Research delivering natural sciences data on large carnivore population sizes and range need to be complemented by socio-economic research on affected stakeholders. The term "socio-economic", however, covers a broad range of themes. To study and understand the conflicts and to find solutions, a wide range of different disciplines have to be engaged. Therefore, further discussions should aim at breaking down the term "socio-economic" into smaller elements within the specific context of human-large carnivore coexistence. Certain elements of the "socio" part would require the involvement of some branches of social sciences or even psychology while the "economic" part would include components 17

18 such as agricultural economics, livestock production science, game management, statistics etc. In addition to the direct and indirect costs imposed by large carnivores, any such evaluation should clearly identify the positive values associated with large carnivores, including moral and aesthetic aspects, tourism benefits and ecological functions. In this context, it should also be recognised that the presence of large carnivores can also have socio-economic benefits such as increasing the potential for tourism and providing ecosystem services. The extent of these benefits also need to be better researched and understood. Action: IUCN will begin to examine potential frameworks for structuring these economic and socio-cultural analyses, such as that represented by the emerging Payment for Ecosystem Services concepts. However, in order to take this further and fully include social and cultural considerations or specific cases, funding will be needed. If Platform members agree, they could together carry out an initial assessment including gathering of further case studies and then seek funding for such a piece of work from EU and other funding sources. Geographic targeting for successful stakeholder consultation and involvement As well as targeting research to fit the particular social and economic questions under consideration, adoption of best practice by stakeholders needs to be adjusted to fit the specific local context. In order for this to be successful, the socio-cultural aspects specific to the local area need to be thoroughly examined. Cultural and social variations and diversity can be crucial even at the local level, where there might be heterogeneity in local activities and practices, demographic characteristics, expectations and social tolerance levels. An examination of case studies among member states with varying degrees of controversies due to large carnivores could help to provide insights for dealing with the complexity of such conflicts. It will also be important to consider preparatory actions in the member states where large carnivores are likely to return in the near future. Delving deeper into the regional context focus on North At the workshop, the above issues were explored and also discussed in the context of reindeer herding in and Sweden. Reindeer husbandry is central to northern European rural culture and maintains valuable arctic ecosystems. It offers a source of livelihood that is suitable to these sparsely populated areas and maintains a valued cultural landscape and represents a core pillar of Finn and Sami cultural heritage. These areas do not have many other options for sources of income. Reindeer herders are used to living with large carnivores and acknowledge that they are a natural component of the ecosystem in the North. They accept some losses due to large carnivore depredation. Because of the extensive nature of reindeer herding, however there are few mitigation measures that can protect reindeer against large carnivore depredation. In northern Europe semi-domestic reindeer represent the major food source to support large carnivore populations. Management of large carnivores in the area therefore needs to fully take into account the continued economic and social viability of reindeer husbandry. Currently searching for reindeer carcasses requires a considerable input of effort from reindeer herders and carcasses are frequently not found, meaning that no compensation is received. There were discussions about whether setting a reasonable level of damage or tolerance level for stock taken by large carnivores would be relevant for. 18

19 Reindeer herders in however, see control of carnivore numbers rather than compensation schemes as the long-term solution. In addition, the question of involving stakeholders in monitoring activities is highly relevant to the reindeer herding areas and joint monitoring could provide valuable information and increase trust in the figures on large carnivores. The challenges of transboundary management were also recognised. On one hand, the genetic viability of the Scandinavian wolf population is dependent on dispersing wolves being able to pass through the reindeer herding areas and maintaining the ranges of all large carnivore species is necessary to meet Favourable Conservation Status under the Habitats Directive. On the other hand, the challenge of having a long border with Russia from which large carnivores can disperse was raised. 19

20 3. Next steps The workshop statement included a number of concrete actions for Platform members to take forward over the next months. It provides a basis for agreement between different Platform members on which to continue working together in future. Workshop participants are also encouraged to engage in future Platform activities. This could include submitting case studies demonstrating coexistence good practice through an online survey 11 and keeping up to date on Platform activities on through the website 12. The results of the meeting, as well as the presentation, are available on the Platform s website allowing all stakeholders involved with the discussions around coexistence access to a significant amount of information on socio-economic aspects in Northern Europe. It is hoped that the Platform s meetings and workshops and their results will grant a wider range of individuals a better understanding of human - large carnivore coexistence issues. A video recording of the workshop can be viewed here:

21 4. Annexes 4.1 Annex 1: Agenda INTRODUCTION min Organiser s welcome to the Regional workshop Anne Ollila, Director, Reindeer Herders 5 min Welcome Jenny Wik-Karlsson, Svenska Samernas Rikförbund 5 min Welcome Heli Siitari, European Landowners' Organisation, co-chair of the workshop 15 min Introduction to the Platform András Demeter, European Commission, co-chair of the workshop 30 min Large carnivores in Nordic countries Ilpo Kojola, Natural Resources Institute TOPIC 1: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COEXISTENCE min How large carnivores effect reindeer herding in the reindeer husbandry area 20 min The economic impact of large carnivores on rural enterprises 20 min Understanding the aspects of the wolf conflicts and how to respond it Anne Ollila, Director, Reindeer Herders Sanna Hast, Reindeer Herders Mari Pohja-Mykrä, Ruralia Institute 10 min Finnish best practise: Local Finnish LC negotiator Antti Härkälä, Natural Resources Institute 10 min Lessons on socio-economic aspects from the LIFE project WOLFALPS Aleksandra Majic Skrbinsek, University of Ljublijana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology 20 min Discussion All participants LUNCH BREAK TOPIC 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COEXISTENCE IN THE EVERYDAY LIFE OF REINDEER HERDERS min LC and social problems in reindeer herding cooperatives 20 min Swedish perspective and the case of transferring wolf 20 min Reindeer herders and their work with LC Pirjo Oinas, Lapland University Jenny Wik-Karlsson, Svenska Samernas Rikförbund Mika Kavakka, reindeer herder, Kemin- Sompio reindeer herding cooperative 21

22 10 min LC from a funder s perspective Päivi Kainulainen, Specialist for Reindeer Husbandry, Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 20 min Discussion All participants COFFEE BREAK TOPIC 3: WOLF MANAGEMENT PLANS min Swedish wolf management plan Helene Lindahl, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 20 min Finnish wolf management plan Juha Hiedanpää, Natural Resources Institute 10 min Wolf management from Harri Norberg, Finnish Wildlife Agency transboundary perspective 10 min Response and perspectives in the EU András Demeter, European Commission context 30 min Discussion All participants WORKSHOP STATEMENT AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS min Working on the workshop statement John Linnell, András Demeter and Anastasios Hovardas (Callisto adelphi) 15 min Final conclusions Anne Ollila, Heli Siitari and András Demeter WORKSHOP FINISHES AT

23 4.2 Annex 2: Participants list Participants list - Regional Workshop - Roveniemi - 08/10/15 Surname First name Organisation Umbrella Organisation Participants 1 Rautiainen Mikko International Council for CIC Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) 2 Lotman Kaja Europarc Federation Council member EUROPARC From Estonia 3 Tikkunen Kai Suomen Metsästäjäliitto s Jägarförbund r.y. Finnish Hunters' 4 Glöersen Gunnar Swedish association for hunting and wildlife management 5 Griffin Cy FACE - Federation of s for Hunting and Conservation of the EU 6 Linnell John NINA - The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research FACE FACE FACE IUCN Sweden Brussels Norway 7 Pasma Tarja Finnish for Nature Conservation, District of Lapland 8 Hirvonen Seppo Taivalkoski reindeer herding cooperative 9 Käsmä Mika Taivalkoski reindeer herding cooperative 10 Knuuti Jukka Reindeer 11 Koskela Antti Kuivasalmi reindeer herding cooperative IUCN Reindeer Reindeer Reindeer Reindeer 12 Koskela Anni Metsähallitus Reindeer 13 Ollila Tuomo Metsähallitus Luontopalvelut, Parks and Wildlife 14 Paasovaara Juha Hossa-Irni reindeer herding cooperative 15 Ranta Hannu Näkkälä Reindeer herding cooperative Reindeer Reindeer Reindeer 23

24 16 Rytkönen Kauno Kuivasalmi reindeer herding cooperative Reindeer 17 Papp Cristian-Remus WWF DCPO WWF Romania 18 Forslund Mats WWF Sweden WWF Sweden 19 Suárez Arangüena Luis WWF España / WWF Spain WWF Spain 20 Tolvanen Dr. Petteri WWF WWF 21 Kapiainen Keijo The Finnish Wildlife Agency /Suomen riistakeskus 22 Kojola Taina Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 23 Kontiosalo Lassi Regional Council of Lapland Rovaniemi 24 Kumpula Jouko Luonnonvarakeskus / Natural Resources Institute (Luke) 25 Luhta Vesa Finnish for Nature Conservation 26 Ruusila Vesa Luonnonvarakeskus / Natural Resources Institute (Luke) Speakers 27 Härkälä Antti Natural resources institute 28 Hast Sanna Reindeer l Paliskuntain yhdistys 29 Hiedanpää Juha Natural resources institute Reindeer 30 Kainulainen Päivi Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 31 Kainulainen Päivi Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 32 Kavakka Mika Kemin-Sompio reindeer herding cooperative Reindeer 24

25 33 Kojola Ilpo Natural Resources Institute 34 Lindahl Helene Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Sweden 35 Majic Aleksandra University of Ljubljana Slovenia 36 Oinas Pirjo University of Lapland 37 Pohja-Mykrä Mari Ruralia Institute 38 Wik-Karlsson Jenny Swedish reindeer herders Sweden Organisation team 39 Demeter András DG ENV European Commission 40 Arvela Marita DG ENV European Commission Belgium Belgium 41 Siitari Heli Nature and Game Management Trust ELO 42 Ollila Anne Reindeer l Paliskuntain yhdistys 43 Ervasti Tuomi-Tuulia Reindeer l Paliskuntain yhdistys 44 Angeli Maaren Reindeer l Paliskuntain yhdistys 45 Jortikka Aarre Reindeer l Paliskuntain yhdistys Reindeer Reindeer Reindeer Reindeer 46 Marsden Katrina adelphi contractors Germany 47 Kohlmorgen Nina adelphi contractors Germany 48 Hovardas Tasos CALLISTO contractors Cyprus 49 Norberg Harri Finnish Wildlife Agency contractor 25

26 4.3 Annex 3: Workshop press release 6 October 2015 Platform Press Release UNDERSTANDING AND GENUINELY TAKING SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS RESPECTING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND NEEDS ARE THE KEYS TO SOLVING CONFLICT WITH LARGE CARNIVORES Understanding and genuinely taking socio-economic aspects into consideration as well as respecting local knowledge and needs are the keys to solving conflict with large carnivores. Under the banner of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores, the European Commission and European Landowners Organisation (as co-chairs of the EU Platform) and Reindeer Herders (a member of the Platform) are co-organising a workshop in Rovaniemi on 8 October The workshop focuses on the socio-economic aspects of coexistence with large carnivores, especially in the Finnish and Swedish reindeer husbandry areas - the northernmost parts of the European Union. In particular, damages caused by the large carnivores and the economic and social questions that stem from them will be presented and potential solutions to improve coexistence discussed. The EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores is a grouping of organisations representing different interest groups which have agreed on a joint mission: "To promote ways and means to minimise, and wherever possible find solutions to, conflicts between human interests and the presence of large carnivore species, by exchanging knowledge and by working together in an open-ended, constructive and mutually respectful way" Included in the initial agreement signed by the members of the Platform was the statement that socio-economic and cultural considerations and concerns need to be recognised and respected. In order to promote better coexistence, socio-economic questions need to be better considered in addition to questions regarding the ecological needs of large carnivores. Anne Ollila, Executive Director, Reindeer Herders said: the reduction in the economic and social viability of reindeer husbandry in and Sweden due to continuing damages caused by large carnivores is not sustainable in the long term. Reindeer husbandry is at the core of the northern culture and it offers a source of livelihoods that is suitable to these sparsely populated areas. These areas do not have many other options for sources of income. We have found the EU Platform to be a helpful and functional forum for factual conversations in relation to large carnivores. Hatred towards large carnivores as well as fantasies have been left aside from discussions. Instead, communication has focused on scientific facts while also taking into account different regional situations and needs to solve this conflict. Heli Siitari, representing the European Landowners Organisation, current jointchairs of the EU Platform, said: The Reindeer Herders is an extremely valuable member of the EU Platform, adding knowledge on the area-specific issues and situations to discussions at the European level. The EU Platform offers a direct connection to the Commission and other stakeholders related to large carnivores at 26

27 the European level. Open discussions between these different interests are an absolute precondition to finding mutual understanding between different parties. An open and honest examination of socio-economic aspects in the Finnish and Swedish reindeer husbandry areas is of high importance to the Platform since all four large carnivores, bear, lynx, wolverine and wolf (as well as protected golden and white-tailed eagle), are present in the area. These are exceptional circumstances in the European context and can provide important lessons for other parts of the European Union. 27

28 4.4 Annex 4: Press coverage Lapin Kansa, 9 October