Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores - Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine - in Europe (Marts 2013)

Status,managementanddistributionoflargecarnivores bear,lynx,wolf&wolverine inEurope
MARCH2013 Part1
StatusoflargecarnivoresinEuropeupdate2012
ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedwiththeassistanceofIstitutodiEcologiaApplicataandwiththe contributionsoftheIUCN/SSCLargeCarnivoreInitiativeforEurope(chair:LuigiBoitani)under contractN070307/2012/629085/SER/B3.
Status,managementanddistributionoflargecarnivoresbear,lynx,wolf& wolverineinEurope
PetraKaczensky1,GuillaumeChapron2,ManuelavonArx3,DjuroHuber4,HenrikAndrn2,andJohn Linnell5(Editors)
1
ResearchInstituteofWildlifeEcology,UniversityofVeterinaryMedicine,Vienna,Savoyenstrasse1, A1160Vienna,AUSTRIA GrimsWildlifeResearchStation,DepartmentofEcology,SwedishUniversityofAgricultural Sciences(SLU),SE73091Riddarhyttan,SWEDEN CoordinatedResearchProjectsfortheConservation&ManagementofCarnivoresinSwitzerland (KORA),Thunstrasse31,CH3074Muri,SWITZERLAND UniversityofZagreb,BiologyDepartment,VeterinaryFaculty,Heinzelova55,HR10000Zagreb, CROATIA NorwegianInstituteforNatureResearch(NINA),POBox5685Sluppen,NO7485Trondheim, NORWAY
Contributors(inalphabeticalorder): MichalAdamec,Franciscolvares,OleAnders,HenrikAndrn,LinasBalciauskas,VaidasBalys,Peter Bedo,FerdinandBego,JuanCarlosBlanco,LuigiBoitani,UrsBreitenmoser,HenrikBrseth,Ludek Bufka,RaimondaBunikyte,GuillaumeChapron,PauloCiucci,AlexanderDutsov,ThomasEngleder, ChristianFuxjger,ClaudioGroff,MiklsHeltai,KatjaHolmala,BlediHoxha,DjuroHuber,Yorgos Iliopoulos,OvidioIonescu,GjorgeIvanov,JasnaJeremi,KlemenJerina,PetraKaczensky,Felix Knauer,IlpoKojola,IvanKos,MihaKrofel,JakubKubala,SasaKunovac,JosipKusak,MiroslavKutal, JohnLinnell,PeepMannil,RalphManz,EricMarboutin,FrancescaMarucco,DimceMelovski,Kujtim Mersini,YorgosMertzanis,RobertW.Mysajek,SabinaNowak,JohnOdden,JanisOzolins,Guillermo Palomero,MilanPaunovic,JensPersson,HubertPotonik,PierreYvesQuenette,GeorgRauer,Ilka Reinhardt,RobinRigg,AndreasRyser,ValeriaSalvatori,TomaSkrbinek,AleksandraSkrbinek Maji,AleksandarStojanov,JonSwenson,AleksandrTraje,ElenaTzingarskaSedefcheva,Martin Va,RaunoVeeroja,ManuelavonArx,ManfredWlfl,SybilleWlfl,FridolinZimmermann,Diana Zlatanova
ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfortheEuropeanCommissionhoweveritreflectstheviews onlyoftheauthors,andtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmay bemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein. Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged

Cover:PhotocompositionbyAlessandroMontemaggiori 2
Tableofcontents
Part1:
I.GeneralIntroduction II.Methods III.Europesummaries 1. Bear 2. Lynx 3. Wolf 4. Wolverine IV.Appendix 1. LargeCarnivorePopulationsinEurope. 2. Someexamplesofthediversityofdataformatsthatwereprovidedforthe mappinglargecarnivoredistributioninEurope. 3. QuestionnaireonthestatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresinEurope. 4 5 15 16 28 40 54 60 61 62 66
I.Generalintroduction
Largecarnivores(bearsUrsusarctos,wolvesCanislupus,lynxLynxlynxandwolverinesGulogulo)are amongthemostchallenginggroupofspeciestomaintainaslargeandcontinuouspopulationsorto reintegratebackintotheEuropeanlandscape.Political,socioeconomicandsocietychangeschallenge pastmanagementapproachesinsomeofthelargepopulations.Atthesametimelocal improvementsinhabitatquality,thereturnoftheirpreyspecies,publicsupportandfavourable legislationallowfortherecoveryofsomesmallpopulations.SeveralofEuropeslargecarnivore populationsarelargeandrobust,othersareexpanding,somesmallpopulationsremaincritically endangeredandafewaredeclining. Largecarnivoresneedverylargeareasandtheirconservationneedstobeplannedonverywide spatialscalesthatwilloftenspanmanyintraandinternationalborders.Withintheselargescales conservationandmanagementactionsneedtobecoordinated.Tofacilitatecoordination,acommon understandingofthepresentdayconservationstatusoflargecarnivoresatnationalandpopulation levelisanimportantbasis. Theaimofthissummaryreportistoprovideanexpertbasedupdateoftheconservationstatusofall populationsidentifiedbytheLargeCarnivoreInitiativeforEurope(LCIE),availableinthedocument GuidelinesforPopulationLevelManagementPlansforLargeCarnivores(Linnelletal.2008)and/or inthevariousSpeciesOnlineInformationSystems(http://www.kora.ch/spois/;alsoseeAppendix1). However,methodsusedtomonitorlargecarnivoresvaryandadirectcomparisonovertimeor amongpopulationswillneverbepossibleatacontinentalscale.Itismorerealistictohaveaninsight intothegeneralorderofmagnitudeofthepopulation,itstrendandpermanentrangeasthe currenciesforcomparisonsandassessments(seepoint2).Thissummaryalsodoesnotaimto replacethehabitatdirectivereporting,butrathercomplementit.Discrepancieswilllikelyoccurdue todifferenttimeperiodscoveredanddifferentagreementsreachedoncommonreportingcriteriaon anationallevelwhichhastodealwithmanymorespecies.Furthermore,forseveralcountriesthe mostrecentdataordistributionmapwerenotalwaysavailable,yet. Changesinmonitoringmethodslikelyresultinchangingpopulationestimates,eveninstable populations.Improvedandmorecostlymethodsmaysuddenlydiscoverthatpreviousestimates weretoohigh,ormaydetectmoreindividualsthanpreviouslyassumed.Examplesofbothoccur. Beingawareofthechangeinmethodologytheexpertassessmentmaystillbestableforthe populationevenifnumberslistedintableshavechanged.Ontheotherhand,largescaleofficial (government)estimatesmaybebasedonquestionableornontransparentextrapolationsthatrun contrarytodatafromreferenceareaswithinthecountryorsimilarregionsfromothercountries.If thediscrepancyisapparent,expertassessmentneedstoquestionofficialnumbers. Thissummarydoesnotaimatreviewingmonitoringtechniques.Examplesofparametersand principlesformonitoringlargecarnivoresandsomegoodpracticeexampleshavebeenpreviously compiledbytheLCIE(http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_monitoring.pdf). Furthermore,referencesattheendofmanycountryreportsdoprovideampleexamplesofwell documentedandstateoftheartmonitoringoflargecarnivoresinEuropeunderawidevarietyof differentcontexts. 4
II.Methods
1.Collectionofinformation 1.1.EuropeanSpeciesSummaries Inordertocollectstandardizedinformationonthestatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresa questionnairewasdesignedandmailedtoallmembersoftheLCIEandsomeotherkeyexpertsin 2012.Theywereaskedtoeitherfillinthequestionnairethemselvesoraskcolleaguestodoso.The questionnairehad8sectionsfocusingon(seeAppendix3): 1. Abundance 2. Range 3. Management&harvest 4. Livestockdepredation&compensationsystem 5. Threattosurvival 6. Conservationmeasures 7. Issuesofparticularinterest 8. Ongoingorrecentlyterminatedconservation/researchproject Intotalwereceivedback76questionnaires(Table1).Someadditionalmaterialwascompiledfrom recentreportsorpublicationsand/orbycontactingnationalLCexpertsviaemailortelephone. BasedonthesequestionnaireswecompiledaEuropewideoverviewofthesituationoflynx,bear, wolfandwolverineinEuropetryingtocompileinformationonthelevelofpopulationsoutlinedby Linnelletal.(2008)asmuchaspossible.Datafromthequestionnaireswascrosscheckedwiththe CountrySpeciesReports(October2012)andupdatedincasenewormoredetaileddatahadcome forthinthetimesincethequestionnairesurvey(February2012).Itisimportanttonotethatin generalwewerenotabletolocatenewupdatedinformationofsuitablequalityfromRussia,Belarus orUkraine,soinmostthesecasesthesecountrieshavebeenleftoutofthetablesalthoughthey wereincludedintheLinnelletal.(2008)assessment. Table1:QuestionnairesreturnedforupdateofstatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresinEurope.
Country Albania Austria BosniaHerzegovina Bulgaria Questionnairesavailable Compiledby Lynx Wolf Wolverine x x x x x noinfo x x NA NA NA NA AleksandrTraje,BlediHoxha,Kujtim Mersini,FerdinandBego ThomasEngleder(lynxBohemia) SasaKunovac DianaZlatanova(bear,lynx),Alexander Dutsov(bear),ElenaTzingarskaSedefcheva (wolf) JosipKusak&JasnaJeremi(wolf),Djuro Huber(bear,wolf,lynx) MiroslavKutal&MartinVa(wolf),Ludek Bufka(lynx) PeepMannil,RaunoVeeroja
Bear x
noinfo x x
Croatia CzechRepublic Estonia
x NA x
x x x
x x x
NA NA NA
Finland France Germany Greece Hungary ItalyAppenine ItalyAlps Kosovo* Latvia Lithuania "TheFormerYugoslav Republicof Macedonia" Montenegro Norway Portugal PolandW PolandBaltic PolandCarpathian Romania SerbiaE SerbiaW Slovakia x x NA x NA x x x x x NA x NA noinfo x x x x NA x x x NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KatjaHolmala(lynx,bear),IlpoKojola(lynx, bear,wolf,wolverine) EricMarboutin(lynx,wolf),PierreYves Quenette(bear) OleAnders(lynxHarz),IlkaReinhardt (wolf) YorgosMertzanis(bear),YorgosIliopoulos (wolf) MiklsHeltaiandPeterBedo PauloCiucci(bears),LuigiBoitani(wolves) ClaudioGroff(Trentinobears),Francesca Marucco(wolves) JanisOzolins LinasBalciauskas GjorgeIvanov(bear),DimceMelovski(bear, lynx),AleksandarStojanov(bear,wolf) JonSwenson(bear),JohnLinnell&Henrik Brseth(lynx,wolf,wolverine) Franciscolvares SabinaNowak,RobertW.Mysajek SabinaNowak,RobertW.Mysajek SabinaNowak,RobertW.Mysajek OvidioIonescu MilanPaunovic MilanPaunovic RobinRigg(wolf,bear),JakubKubala(wolf, lynx) MihaKrofel&KlemenJerina(bear),IvanKos &HubertPotonik(lynx),AleksandraMaji Skrbinek&TomaSkrbinek(wolf) JuanCarlosBlanco(wolf,bear),Guillermo Palomero(bear) JuanCarlosBlanco JuanCarlosBlanco,GuillermoPalomero GuillaumeChapron(wolves),JonSwenson (bears),HenrikAndrn(wolverine,lynx), JensPersson(wolverine) ManuelavonArx
noinfo noinfo noinfo x NA x x x x x x x
noinfo noinfo noinfo x NA NA NA x x x x x x NA NA x x x x NA x x x x x x x x NA x
Slovenia
NA
SpainNW SpainSierraMorena SpainPyrenees
x NA x
NA NA NA
x x NA
NA NA NA
Sweden Switzerland Total
x x 23
x x 22
x x 28
x NA 3
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence.
WeassessedthethreattosurvivalforeachspeciesviaanadaptedversionofthestandardIUCN threatlist(seeAppendix3).Themainmodificationwastoaddasectionexploringareasofconflict, publicacceptanceandinstitutionalcapacitywhichdoesnotexistinthestandardversion.Weentered alldataintoIBMSPSSStatisticsVersion19.Inafirststepwegroupedthevariousthreatsinto19 maincategories(Table2).Althoughwehadaskedexpertstoratethreatsasmoderatelyimportant versusveryimportant,manypeopleusedinconsistentratingsymbolsandwehadtotreatall selectedthreatsequally.Wecouldnotusesumseither,asthemainthreatsencompasseddifferent numbersof"subthreats"andwerenotdesignedinawaythattheselectionofmoresubthreats meansahigherimportance.Consequently,wecheckedonlywhetherornotathreatundereach maincategorywastickedoffifsothemainthreatwasgiventhevalue1=wasselectedasa threat.Inasecondstepwederivedthesumsoverallquestionnairesforeachspeciesforthepast, presentandfuture.Wealsoderivedsumsbypopulation,howeversamplesizesaresmallandcountry reportsmayactuallybemoreinformative.
Group 1 1 1 1 9 10 11 28 29 30 31 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 20 21 23 24 25 32 46 47 27 35 36 37 38 40 41 43 50 51 52 53 58 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 72 75 76 77 78 84 85 86 88 89 105 106 108 110 113 115 116 117 118 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 132 134 135 136 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 Threat code 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.3 1.1.1.0 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.1.2.0 1.3.3.1 1.3.3.2 1.3.3.3 1.3.3.0 1.1.4.1 1.1.4.2 1.1.4.3 1.1.4.0 1.1.3.1 1.1.3.2 1.1.3.0 1.1.5.0 1.1.8.0 1.2.1.0 1.2.2.0 1.2.3.0 1.3.4.0 1.6.0.0 1.7.0.0 1.3.1.0 1.4.1.0 1.4.2.0 1.4.3.0 1.4.4.0 1.4.6.0 1.4.7.0 1.4.8.0 1.4.9.0 2.1.0.0 2.2.0.0 2.3.0.0 2.4.0.0 3.1.3.0 3.5.1.0 3.5.2.0 3.5.3.0 3.6.0.0 3.7.0.0 4.1.2.1 4.1.2.2 4.1.2.3 4.2.2.0 5.1.0.0 5.2.0.0 5.3.0.0 6.1.1.0 6.2.1.0 6.2.2.0 6.2.3.0 6.2.5.0 6.2.6.0 7.1.0.0 7.2.0.0 7.4.0.0 7.6.0.0 8.1.0.0 8.3.0.0 8.4.0.0 8.5.0.0 8.6.0.0 9.1.0.0 9.2.0.0 9.3.0.0 9.4.0.0 9.5.0.0 9.6.0.0 9.7.0.0 9.8.0.0 9.9.0.0 9.10.0.0 10.1.0.0 10.4.0.0 10.5.0.0 10.6.0.0 11.1.1.0 11.1.2.0 11.1.3.0 11.1.4.0 11.1.5.0 11.1.6.0 11.1.7.0 11.2.1.0 11.2.2.0 11.2.3.0 11.3.1.0 11.3.2.0 11.3.3.0 11.3.4.0 11.3.5.0 11.3.6.0 11.4.0.0 Threat name Habitatloss /Crop/Shiftingagriculture Habitatloss /Crop/Small holder farming Habitatloss /Crop/Agroindustry Habitatloss /Crop/General Habitatloss /Woodplantations /small scale Habitatloss /Woodplantations /largescale Habitatloss /Woodplantations /General Habitatloss /Extraction/Forestry/small scalesubistence Habitatloss /Extraction/Forestry/selectivelogging Habitatloss /Extraction/Forestry/clear cutting Habitatloss /Extraction/Forestry/general Habitatloss /livestock/Nomadic Habitatloss /livestock/small holder Habitatloss /livestock/agroindustry Habitatloss /livestock/general Habitatloss /Nontimber plantations /small scale Habitatloss /Nontimber plantations /largescale Habitatloss /General Habitatloss /Abandonment Habitatloss /Other Habitatloss /Abandonmentofnonagricultural areas Habitatloss /Changeofmanagementofnonagricultural areas Habitatloss /Managementofnonagricultural areas /General Habitatloss /Extraction/Nonwoodyvegetation Habitatloss /changeinspecies dynamics Habitatloss /fire Habitatloss /Extraction/mining Habitatloss /Infrastructure/industry Habitatloss /Infrastructure/humansettlement Habitatloss /Infrastructure/tourismrecreation Habitatloss /Infrastructure/transportland Habitatloss /Infrastructure/dams Habitatloss /Infrastructure/telecommunication Habitatloss /infrastructure/power lines Habitatloss /Infrastructure/windpower development Invasivealienspecies /competitors Invasivealienspecies /predators Invasivealienspecies /hybridizers Invasivealienspecies /pathogens &parasites Harvesting/food/regional Harvesting/recreational /subsistence&local Harvesting/recreational /subnational andnationa Harvesting/recreational /regional andinternational Harvesting/populationregulation Harvesting/over harvestingofwildprey Accidental mortality/trapping&snaring Accidental mortality/shooting Accidental mortality/poison Accidental mortality/Vehiclecollisions Persecution/Pestcontrol Persecution/other Persecution/unknown Pollution/global warming Pollution/agricultural Pollution/domestic Pollution/comercial Pollution/light Pollution/other Natural diasters /drought Natural diasters /storms &flooding Natural diasters /fire Natural diasters /avalanche&landslides Changeinnativespecies /competitors Changeinnativespecies /prey&foodbase Changeinnativespecies /hybridizers Changeinnativespecies /parasites &pathogens Changeinnativespecies /mutualisms Intrinsicfactors /limiteddispersal Intrinsicfactors /poor recruitmentor reproduction Intrinsicfactors /highjuvenilemortality Intrinsicfactors /inbreeding Intrinsicfactors /lowdensities Intrinsicfactors /skewedsexratios Intrinsicfactors slowgrowthrates Intrinsicfactors /populationfluctuations Intrinsicfactors /restrictedrange Intrinsicfactors /other Disturbance/recreation&tourism Disturbance/transport Disturbance/fire Disturbance/other Lowacceptanceduetoconflicts withlivestock Lowacceptanceduetoconflicts withhunters Lowacceptanceduetooverprotection/legal constraints onallowing harvest Lowacceptanceduetosymbolic andwider social economic issues Lowacceptanceas formofpolitical oppositiontonational /European intervention Lowacceptanceduetofear for personal safety Lowacceptanceduetofundamental conflictofvalues aboutthe species presenceinmodernlandscapes Lackofknowledgeaboutspecies numbers andtrends Lackofknowledgeaboutspecies ecology Lackofknowledgeaboutconflictmitigation Institutions /Poor enforcementoflegislation(poaching) Institutions /Poor dialoguewithstakeholders Institutions /Poor communicationandlackofpublic awareness Institutions /Lackofcapacityinmanagementstructures Institutions /Fragmentationofmanagementauthority Institutions /Poor integrationofscienceintodecisionmaking Other Variable HabitatLoss (Agriculture),N=4
Table2:Categorizationofthe threatlistfromthe questionnaire.
HabitatLoss (Forestry),N=7
HabitatLoss (Livestock),N=4
HabitatLoss (other),N=1
HabitatLoss (Mining),N=1
HabitatLoss (Infrastructure),N=8
Invasivealienspecies,N=4
Harvest,N=5
Overharvestingofwildprey,N=1 Accidental mortality,N=4
Persecution,N=3
Pollution(incl.Chlimatechange), N=6
Natural disasters,N=4
Changeinnativespecies,N=5
Intrinsic factors,N=10
Disturbance,N=4
Lowacceptance,N=7
Lackofknowledge,N=3
^Poor managementstructures,N=6
notincluded
1.2.Distributionmapoflargecarnivores Inadditiontothequestionnaire,LCIEmemberswereaskedtocompileupdateddistributionmapsfor thelast35years.Inordertoreceivestandardizedmapsthatcouldbeeasilycompiledtheywere askedtousethe10x10kmEEAgrid(http://www.eea.europa.eu/dataandmaps/data/eea referencegrids1).Wechosea10x10kmgridbecauselargecarnivoreshavelargerangesandan averagehomerangeofalynx,wolf,bearorwolverineislikelytocoveronetoseveralgridcells. Becausethereisanorthsouthgradientinhomerangesize,theScandinavianspeciesdatawere bufferedby10kmtocreateaunitofpresencemoresimilartoahomerangesize. Expertswereaskedtodistinguishbetweentwolargecarnivoredistributioncategories,ideallyusing thebelowdefinition: Permanentpresence:cellwaspermanentlyoccupiedbythespecies(atleast50%oftime overtherelevanttimeperiod,butatleastfor3years)and/ortherewasconfirmed reproduction. Sporadicoccurrence:occasionalpresence(e.g.dispersers)and/ornoreproduction. WereceivedmapsforallspeciesandcountrieswithlargecarnivorepresenceinEuropewiththe exceptionofRussia,BelarusandUkraine.Wedidnotasktheverysmallcountries(e.g.Lichtenstein, Andorra)astheyarecoveredbymonitoringandmappinginthesurroundingcountries. WecompiledmapsinArcMap10.0(ESRIInc.,Redlands,CA,USA)firstonanationalandthenonan Europeanlevel.Overlappingcellsoftransboundarypopulationswereassignedtothehigherlevelof occupancy,e.g.ifacellwasdefinedtobeofpermanentpresencebyonecountryandofsporadic presencebytheothercountry,thecellwasgiventhestatusofpermanentpresence. Forcountries/populationsthatprovidedrangemapsnotbasedontheEEAgrid,anoverlayrulewas definedtogetherwiththeexpertprovidingthemap,e.g.acellwasdefinedasoccupiedifatleast 50%ofthecellfellintothedistributionrange(alsoseeAppendix2). Distributionrangeswerecalculatedbasedonthenumberofcells,inafirststeponthenationallevel, basedonthelayerprovidedbyeachcountryandinasecondsteponapopulation/Europeanlevel basedonthecombinedmaps.Becauseneighboringcountriessharemanygridcellsalongtheir borders,thesumoftheoccupiedcellsofthesinglecountriesislargerthanthetotalonthe population/Europeanlevel.PopulationbordersweredefinedaccordingtoLinnelletal.(2008). However,becausepopulationboundarieshavenotbeenformallyfixed,assignmentofcellstooneor theotherpopulationissomewhatfuzzyforsporadicoccurrenceatcontactzones.Butsporadic occurrencerangesarebydefinitionsubjecttochangesanyways.Somegeneticevidencehasemerged inrecentyearsthatmayalsoargueforageneralrevisionofsomeborders. 1.3.CountrySpeciesReports Inordertogetmorecomprehensiveinformation,weadditionallyaskedforcountryreportsforlynx, wolvesandbears.TheCountrySpeciesReportsgivedetailedinformationonhowpopulation estimates,rangemapsetc.arederivedthusaresupplementarytotheinformationprovidedinthe EuropeSpeciesSummary.Intotalwereceived56fullCountrySpeciesReportandcompiledan additional9shortCountrySpeciesReportsbasedontheinformationprovidedinthequestionnaires 9
(Table3).WedidnotcompiledCountrySpeciesReportsforwolverinesastheEuropeWolverine Summaryonlycovers3countriesandalreadygivesverydetailedinformation. FortheSpeciesCountryReportsweproducedzoomedimagesofthemergeddistributionlayersof thespecies.However,becausebordercellswereassignedtothehighercategory,thesedistribution mapsmaybedivergentfromtheoriginalnationalmapsandthenationalcountofsporadicand permanentcells. Table3:CountryreportsforlargecarnivoresinEurope. Country Albania Austria BosniaHerzegovina Bulgaria Croatia CzechRepublic Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Latvia Lithuania "TheFormer YugoslavRepublicof Macedonia" Norway Portugal Questionnairesavailable Compiledby Bear Lynx Wolf full full full AleksandrTraje PetraKaczenskywithinputbyGeorgRauer(bear, full full full wolf),PetraKaczenskywithinputfromThomas Engleder&ChristianFuxjger(lynx) short short short compiledafterdatabySasaKunovac full full NA full full full NA full NA full full NA short full full full full full full full NA short NA full short full full full full full full full full full NA full full DianaZlatanovaandAlexanderDutsov(bear), DianaZlatanova(lynx),ElenaTzingarska Sedefcheva(wolf) DjuroHuber(bear,wolf,lynx) PetraKaczenskywithinputfromLudekBufka (lynx),MiroslavKutal(wolf) PeepMannil KatjaHolmalaandIlpoKojola(lynx),IlpoKojola (bear,wolf) EricMarboutin(wolf,lynx),PierreYvesQuenette (bear) PetraKaczenskywithinputfromOleAnders, SybilleWlfl,andManfredWlfl(lynx),Ilka Reinhardt(wolf) YorgosMertzanis(bear),YorgosIliopoulos(wolf) compiledafterdatabyMiklsHeltaiandPeter Bedo PaoloCucci(bearsAbruzzo)andClaudioGroff (bearsAlps)andLuigiBoitani(wolves)
JanisOzolins GuillaumeChapronwithinputfromVaidasBalys, full RaimondaBunikyte&LinasBalciauskas(wolf) CompiledafterdatabyGjorgeIvanov,Aleksandar short Stajanov&DimeMelovski(bear),DimceMelovski (lynx),AleksandarStojanov(wolf) full full JohnD.C.Linnell,JohnOdden&HenrikBrseth (lynx),JohnD.C.Linnell&JonSwenson(bear), JohnD.C.Linnell&HenrikBrseth(wolf) Franciscolvares 10
full NA
full NA
Poland Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland 2.Levelofdatastandardization 2.1.Populationestimatesforlargecarnivores Estimatingthenumberoflargecarnivoresinagivenareaisalwaysadifficulttaskeveninaresearch contextwithinalimitedarea.Estimatingnumbersatverylargescales,suchaswithinawhole country,withanydegreeofaccuracyorprecisionrequiresamassiveandwelldesignedeffort.Across Europethereisawidediversityofapproachesthathavebeendevelopedbasedondifferent ecologicalsituations(e.g.thepresenceorabsenceofsnow),differentsocialsituations(e.g.the extenttowhichhunterstakepartintheactivity)anddifferentfinancialsituations.Asaresultthe qualityofthecensusdatareportedbythedifferentcountriesforthedifferentspeciesandthe differentpopulationsvariesdramatically. Differentmethods Intheworstcasesthereisnothingmoresubstantialtogoonthananexpertsbestguess (guesstimate)basedonextrapolatingareasonabledensityacrosstheknowndistribution.An exampleofthiswouldbethesizeofthewolforbearpopulationinAlbania.Theseguesstimates shouldbeviewedforwhattheyare,amereapproximationoftheorderofmagnitudeofthe populationsize.Attheotherendofthespectrumareverywelldesignedmonitoringsystemsthatuse acombinationofmethodssuchasintensivesnowtrackingandthepowerofDNAanalysis(extracted fromurineandfaeces)tomapoutthenumbersofwolfpacksandthenumbers,andgeneticstatus, ofindividualsasseenwithinthewesternAlpsorScandinavia.Inbetweenisawidediversityof methodsthatproducevaryingresults.Somesurveysarebasedaroundconservativeminimumcounts whileothershaveusedstatisticalmethodstocalculatetheuncertaintyassociatedwithestimates. Itisapositivesignthatanincreasingnumberofcountriesareusingmodernmethodssuchas cameratrapping(mainlyforlynx,butincreasinglyforwolves)andDNAbasedmethods(extracting DNAfromfaeces,hairsandurine).Itisalsopositivethatthereisanincreasingrecognitionoftheuse ofcitizensandstakeholders(especiallyhuntersandforesters)aspartnersindatacollection.The increasingnumberofpeerreviewedpapersfromtheseapproachesalsopermitsanevaluationofthe qualityoftheworkandinsightintothedetailsoftheprocesses. However,manycountriesalsohavesystemswheretheexactmethodologyisnotwellknownorhas neverbeenvalidated.ThisparticularlyconcernscountriesfromeasternEuropewhichhavehadwell 11 full full full short full full full full full full full short full NA full full full full full full full full full full SabinaNowak&RobertW.Mysajek OvidioIonescu MilanPaunovic RobinRigg(bear),JakubKubala(lynx), RobinRigg,JakubKubala,&MichalAdamec(wolf) KosIvan&HubertPotonik(lynx),Aleksandra MajiSkrbinek(wolf,bear) JuanCarlosBlanco(wolf),GuillermoPalomero andJuanCarlosBlanco(bear) GuillaumeChapron(wolves),JonSwenson (bears),HenrikAndrn(lynx) ManuelavonArxwithinputfromFridolin Zimmermann(lynx),AndreasRyser(bear)and RalphManz(wolf)
structuredwildlifemanagementinstitutionsthatcensuswildlifespeciesbasedonreportsfromthe individualhuntinggrounds,whicharethencollatedandinterpreted.However,thedetailsofthis processhaverarelybeenevaluatedorpublishedmakingithardtoevaluate.Thesesystemsare probablyveryusefultomapdistribution,detecttrendsandgiveroughideasofpopulationsize,and maywellformtheplatformforagoodsystem,butthereisaneedtoevaluate,validateand restructuretheapproach,especiallyincreasingtheseparationbetweenfielddatacollectionand interpretationashasbeendoneforwolvesandlynxinPoland. Doublecountingoftransboundaryanimals Oneissuethatisalsoimportantconcernsdoublecountingofindividualsthatliveonregional(e.g. administrational)orinternationalborders.Althoughthereisagooddealofintraandinternational cooperationatanexpertlevelthisrarelyextendssofarastojointreportingofdatasuchthatdata frombothsidesoftheaborderiscomparedtoensurethatthesameanimalsorpacksdonotappear twice.Insmallpopulationstheeffectofdoublecountingmaybesignificant.Notableexceptionsare theperiodicstatusreportsforwolvesintheAlpsandtheannualreportsonScandinavianwolves. Doublecountsareofconcernalsoifthemonitoringunitissmallerthantheaverageactivityrangeof thelargecarnivoreofconcern.ThisseemstobethecaseinseveraleasternEuropeancountrieswere asumofhuntinggroundcountsapproachisusedtodeterminenotonlytrendsbutalsopopulation numberswithoutaccountingforthepotentialmismatchinscales.Themismatchoftenresultsin divergingpopulationestimatesbetweenofficialdataandexpertassessment(e.g.inthecaseof Slovakia). Differentunits&timesoftheyear Anotherissueisthemonitoringunit.Wolvesaremainlymonitoredaspacks,ratherthanindividuals. Packsarethenextrapolatedtototalnumbers,oftenwithouthavingdataonaveragepacksizesfor theregionorcountry.Bearsaremonitoredinseveralpopulationsasfemaleswithcubsoftheyears (COYs),themostimportantandoftenmostvisiblesegmentofthepopulation.Againconversionof femaleswithCOYstoindividualsisnotstraightforwardoralwaysmeaningful.Thesameistruefor lynx,whichinareaswithreliablesnowcoveraremonitoredbycountsoffamilygroups.Formal statisticalapproachestoconvertbetweenunitsexistforScandinavianlynxandbears. Furthermore,thetotalpopulationsizemaybedifferentlyreportedincludingdependentyoungor basedonlyonthenumberofadultorindependentindividuals.Thisdifferenceinreportingcan generateadifferenceof1050%betweenestimates. Thetimingofthecountalsomakesadifferenceaspopulationhighswillbereportedafter reproductionandbeforeharvestandlowsafterharvestandbeforereproduction.Theinterval betweenpopulationestimatesobviouslyalsomakescomparisonsdifficult.Annualestimateswillbe morelikelytopickuppopulationchanges,especiallyinsmallpopulations,thansurveysconductedat largertimeintervals.Inseveralcasesnocomparisonwithpastpopulationestimateswerepossible becauseofthelackofupdatedrangewidepopulationsurveys(e.g.SpainforalargepartoftheNW Iberianpopulation). Producingaccuratenumbersonlargecarnivoresonlargescalesisalwaysgoingtobedifficultand expensive.Therearealsomanystatisticalissuesconcerningsamplingandestimatingprecisionand accuracythatposerealchallenges,whilenewmethodsbecomeavailable.Thechoiceoftheapproach willhavetovarywiththelocalcontextandneeds.However,thereisaclearneedforabetter documentation,animprovementinaccesstorawdataandmorevalidationofsomeapproachesto facilitatecomparisonsbetweendifferentmethods.Itisalsoimportanttogainbetterknowledgeof theabilityofthedifferentmethodstodetecttrendsintheirpopulations.Rectifyingthese 12
weaknessesisbothaprioritytaskandpotentiallyakeyareaforengagementbetweenmanagers, scientistsandmanystakeholders, Giventhehighvariabilityofthedatabaseitbecomesclearthatpopulationestimatesarenot1:1 comparableamongcountries/populationsorbetweentimeperiods.Nevertheless,weare confidentthatthissummaryprovidespresentlythebestavailableandmostcompletelargescale assessmentoflargecarnivorepopulationestimatesinEuropethatispossibleatthispointintime. 2.2.Distributionmapoflargecarnivores Distributionmapsarenotasubstituteforpopulationestimatesastheyarenotnecessarilycorrelated anddensitiescanvarywidelyaccordingtohabitat,preydensityandhumaninfluence.Nevertheless, mappinglargecarnivoredistributionislargelysubjecttothesameconstraintsasestimating populationsize.Themoreintenseandlargescalethemonitoringsystem,themorelikelyeven dispersingindividualswillbedetected.Furthermore,therangemapwilldependonthedatatype usedformapping,thecriteriausedtodefineacellaspermanentlyoccupiedorhavingonly sporadicoccurrence,andthetimeperiodoverwhichpresencesignshavebeencollected. ThefirststandardizedpopulationwidedistributionmappingwasintroducedbytheStatusand ConservationoftheAlpineLynxPopulationproject(SCALP;MolinariJobin2012).SCALPcategorizes lynxpresencesignsintothreecategories: Category1(C1):Hardfacts,verifiedandunchallengedobservations; Category2(C2):Observationscontrolledandconfirmedbyalynxexpert(e.g.trained memberofthenetwork);and Category3(C3):Unconfirmedcategory2observationsandallobservationssuchassightings andcallswhich,ifnotadditionallydocumented,bytheirnaturecannotbeverified Basedonthesecategories,Alpinewidemapshavebeenproducedat2yearintervals (http://www.kora.ch/ge/proj/scalp/index.html).TheSCALPcriteriahavesincebeingwidelyusedin theiroriginalorrefinedformforotherlynxandsomebearandwolfpopulations.However,theSCALP projectremainstheexceptionandmappingmethodsvarywithinaswellasamongcountriesand populations. Datatype Datatypeusedforproducingthemapsvariedandinrespecttoreliabilityofsigns: C1hardfacts:deadanimals,DNA,cameratrapping C2likelypresence:snowtracking,singletracks,wildpreyremains,livestockdepredation C3softfacts(difficulttoassess):unconfirmedcategory2observationsandallobservations suchassightingsandcallswhichcannotbeverified Interviewswithlocalpeople Habitatsuitabilitymaps Expertassessments Variouscombinationsoftheabove 13
Criteriafordefiningacell Theunderlyingdatafordeterminingwhetheragridcellwasoccupiedornotwashighlyvariable: Pointbased,i.e.adatapointfallingintothe Pointbasedwith/withoutreliabilitycriteria(e.g.SCALP) Pointbasedwith/withoutfrequencycriteria(e.g.2C2forlynxinGermany) Pointbasedandbuffered(e.g.by10kmforshotfemalebearsinSweden) Pointsandotherinformationmergedintoadistributionmapwithminimalgaps(e.g.lynxin Croatia) Datacollectedonadifferentunit(e.g.huntingdistricts,ratherthangridcells)and intersectedwiththeEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessmentormathematicalrules(e.g. Romaniawheredataiscollectedontheunitofhuntinggrounds) Datacollectedforadifferentgrid(e.g.oldSPOIS10x10kmUTMgrid)andintersectedwith theEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessmentormathematicalrules(e.g.forbearsinthe Cantabrianpopulation) ExtrapolateddistributionmapsintersectedwiththeEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessment ormathematicalrules(e.g.bear,lynxandwolfinBosniaandHerzegovina) ThedefinitionofPermanentpresencewaslinkedtodifferentcriteria: Reproduction(e.g.nataldens,pups,COYs) Minimumnumber(e.g.pairsorpacksforwolves) Time/frequency(e.g.in50%ofthemonitoringtime,in3outof5years) Densityofsigns Proportionofthegridcellthatfallswithinthecarnivorerange(e.g.>50%) Habitatquality Expertassessment Anypossiblecombinationoftheabove Timeperiods Timeperiodscoveredrangedfrom120years,butwiththemajoritycoveringtherequestedperiodof themostrecent35years.Itisobviousthatmorepresencesignswillaccumulateoveralongertime period,thanoverashorttimeperiod Giventhenationalorlocalconditionsandtheavailabilityofdata,theremaybegoodreasonsfor utilizingoneortheotherapproach.However,theexamplesinAppendix2illustratethatfora meaningfulcomparisonatleastabasiclevelofstandardizationisneeded,inafirststepfocusingon: Commonuseofthe10x10kmEEAgrid Equaltimeperiods(e.g.usingthe7yearFFHreportinginterval) Equalpresencecriteriaovertimeforpermanentpresence(e.g.4outof7years) Requestforhardfacts,ratherthanextrapolations(e.g.C1&C2signs) Pointbaseddataratherthanextrapolateddata Giventhehighvariabilityofthedatabaseitbecomesclearthatthedistributionmapsarenot readilycomparableamongcountries/populationsorbetweentimeperiods.Nevertheless,the mapsdoprovidethebestandmostcompletelargescaleassessmentoflargecarnivoredistribution inEurope. 14
III.EuropeSummaries
15
BearEuropesummary
CompiledbyDjuroHuber
Scandinavian Karelian
Baltic
Carpathian
Cantabrian Pyrenean
Alpine
Dinaric Central Apennine i d
East Balkan
Fig.1:BrownbeardistributioninEurope20062011.Darkcells:permanentoccurrence,Greycells: sporadicoccurrence.Redbordersmarkcountriesforwhichinformationwasavailable.
[Pleasenote:neighboringcountriescanhavedifferentcriteriaandtimeperiodsforthedefinitionofcellswith permanentandsporadicpresence.DatafromBelarus,UkraineandRussiaarenotincluded.]
16
1.Distribution InEurope,thebrownbearsoccurin22countries.Basedontheexistingdataondistribution,aswell asarangeofgeographic,ecological,socialandpoliticalfactorsthesecanbeclusteredinto10 populations:Scandinavian,Karelian,Baltic,Carpathian,DinaricPindos,EasternBalkan,Alpine, CentralApennine,Cantabrian,andPyrenean(Fig.1). 2.Populationestimates&monitoring TheestimatedtotalnumberofbrownbearsinEuropeseemstobeintherangeof17000individuals. Basedonreportedandupdatedcensusdata,thelargestpopulationistheCarpathianpopulation (>7000bears),followedbytheScandinavianandDinaricPindospopulations(>3000bears).The otherpopulationsaremuchsmallerrangingfromseveralhundred(e.g.Baltic~700,Cantabrian~200) tolessthanhundred(e.g.Alps4550,Pyrenean2227). Comparedtothelastsurveythatincludeddataupto2005(BearOnlineInformationSystemfor Europe,BOIS)theScandinavian,Karelian,DinaricPindos,Baltic,Cantabrian,andPyrenean populationhaverecordedaclearincrease.Theotherpopulationsremainedstable.Thedecreasein theEasternBalkanpopulationislikelyduetonewmonitoringtechniques.Allpopulationrangeshave beenrelativelystableorslightlyexpanding.IntheAlpinepopulationthelossofthecentralAustrian segmentwascounterbalancedbytheexpansionofthenorthItaliansegmentinTrentino. Monitoringinanumberofcountries/populationsisbasedongeneticmethodsthatusenon invasivelycollectedDNA(fromscatsorhairs):Scandinavia,Italy,Austria,Spain,France,Greece, Slovenia.Inothercountriesgeneticmethodsareusedtocomplimentorconfirmdataobtainbyother methods(countsatfeedingsites,snowtrackingandtelemetry):Croatia,Poland,Slovakia.Inthe countrieswithoutgeneticsandtelemetry,absoluteestimatesarebasedonmuchweakergrounds. Thesmallpopulationsaregenerallysubjecttomoreintenseandcostlymonitoringmethodstryingto countindividuals,althoughthemostcloselymonitoredlargepopulationisinScandinavia.Inhunted populationsharvestdataisusedtoidentifypopulationtrends. 3.Legalstatusandremovaloptions Mostofthebearpopulationsarestrictlyprotected.ThepartsofpopulationsthatfallwithinEU countries,arestrictlyprotectedunderpanEuropeanlegislation(theHabitatsDirective)andno exceptionsunderannex5exist.Sweden,Finland,Romania,Estonia,Bulgaria,SloveniaandSlovakia currentlyusederogationsunderarticle16ofthedirectivetoallowalimitedcullofbearsbyhunters. Croatia,BosniaandHerzegovinaandNorwaymanagebearsasagamespecieswithannualquotasas theyareonlylimitedbytheBernConventioninthisrespect.ForCroatiathiswillendin2013when theEUregulationswillbeadopted.Nearlyallcountrieshavesomekindofbearmanagementplan, actionplanorbearmanagementstrategy.However,inanumberofcountriessuchadocumentisstill waitingtobeadequatelyimplemented. 4.Conflictsandconflictmanagement Bearsarelarge,opportunisticandomnivorouscarnivoreswithawiderangeofbiologicalneeds duringtheirlifecycle,whichmaybringthemintoconflictwithhumans.Someconflicttypesthreaten humaninterests(e.g.propertylosslikelivestockdepredationorattacksonhumans),somethreaten bears(e.g.habitatfragmentationanddendisturbance)andsomearemutuallyproblematic(e.g. trafficaccidents). Mostcountriespaydamagecompensationseitherfromthestatebudgetorfromfundscontributed byinterestgroups,mostlybyhunters.Therougheconomiccost(basedonreportedcompensation onlyandexcludingmitigation)isinthemagnitudeof2.53.0Mperyear.Livestocklossesarethe mostimportantdamagetype,butthevarietyofdamagesaremuchwiderthanforwolves, wolverines,andlynxandincludedamagestobeehives,orchards,crops,trees,andevenvehiclesand buildings.MorethanhalfofallmoneyispaidforcompensationsinNorway(1.5M),followedby 321000intheCantabrianMountains,and252000inSlovenia.Othercountriespaybetween 17
Status S oflarge ecarnivoresin nEuropeupdate2012
6000(C Croatia)and141000(Greece)ann ually.Theam mountspaidarenotata llproportion naltothe numberofbearsinthe t populatio on.Costsper rbear/year raregenerallyhigherins smallerpopu ulations thaninlargerones:e.g. e 12666inNorway, 6114inth hePyrenees,3445inCe entralApenn nine, 1605in ntheCantab brianMounta ains,1371 intheItalian nAlps,555inSlovenia,,511inGre eece, 102inPoland,45inBulgaria, ,15inEsto onia&Latvia,8inSlova akia,6.0in Croatia,and d3.6in Sweden. .Itshouldbe enotedthatthereisnod datatoshow wthatcountr rieswhichpa aymorehave ebetter acceptan nceoftheirbears. b 5.Populationgoals&populationlevelcoop peration Allcount triesstateth hegoaltohaveatleasta stablebearpopulation.Allexcepttw wopopulations (CentralApenninean ndCantabria an)areshare edamongtw woormoreco ountries.For rtheCentral neandCantabrianbearpopulations p t themanagem mentauthori ityisdelegat tedtothelev velof Apennin autonom mousregions s.Population nlevelmanag gementhas beengenera allyaccepted dastheprescribed conceptisfa model,h howevertheimplementa ationofthisc arfromsatisf factory,espe eciallyincou unties notimplementingth heirownnati ionalplans.A Agreementsbetweencountriesinclu udesomedegreeof, orstepstowardsjoin ntorcoordin natedmanag gement(Fran ncewithSpain,Greecew withBulgaria, SlovakiawithPoland d,Sloveniawith w Croatia,S Swedenwith hNorway),sharinginform mation(Swedenand Norway, ,SloveniaandCroatia),or o mostcomm monlyworkinggroupsbe etweenscien ntistsorman nagers. However,innocaseisthereafo ormalpopula ationlevelmanagementplanasoutli nedinLinne elletal. (2008).F Formanypopulationsno oprogressin implementingpopulatio onlevelman agementhasbeen made. 6.Threats Thesma allestbearpo opulationsar recriticallye endangered.However,th hecurrentpr revailingpub blic interest, ,mostmanagementactio ons,andfina ancialbackup p,seemtopresentlysecu ureatleasttheir t shorttomidtermsur rvival.Almos sthalfofthe epopulations sarecurrent tlygrowing,b buttoguarantee msurvival,all a presentan ndpotential futurethrea atshavetobetakeninac ccount. longterm Themos strelevantth hreats(group pedin19ma aincategorie es)forbearsinEurope,b asedon23 nfrastructure question nnairesoverallbearpopulations,we ereidentified das:habitatlossduetoin ment,distur developm rbance,lowacceptance, a poormanagementstructures,intrins sicfactors,accidental mortality yandpersec cution.Mostthreatswer reexpectedto t becomeslightlymore importantin nthe future(F Fig.2).
Fig.2:Th hreatassess smentreleva antforbears soverallpop pulationsinEurope. 18
7.Summarytables 7.1.1.Populationsizeandtrend:
[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals]
Name Lastsizeestimate BearOnlineInformationSystemof 2005 Norway:46 Sweden:23502900 TOTAL:2600 Norway:23 Finland:810860 SubTOTAL:850 Estonia:515 Latvia:10 SubTOTAL:525 Mostrecentsizeestimate(2010, 2011or2012) Norway:105(minimumcount) Sweden:3300(2968366795%CI) TOTAL:3400 Norway:46(minimumcount) Finland:16001800 SubTOTAL:1700 Estonia:~700 Latvia:1015 SubTOTAL:~710 Trend20062011
Scandinavia
Strongincrease
Karelian
(thistimenot includingRussiawest of35E)
Strongincrease
Baltic
(thistimenot includingBelarusand theRussianoblastsof Lenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov, Tver,Smolensk, Bryansk,Moscow, Kalinigrad,Kaluzh, Tula,Kursk,Belgorod &Ore)
Increase
Carpathian (thistimenot includingUkraine)
Romania:6700 Poland:117
Romania:~6000 Poland:~80(butofficialestimateis
119164)
Stable
SerbiaNorth:? Slovakia:700900
SerbiaNorth:~6 Slovakia:8001100(butofficial
estimateis1940)
DinaricPindos
Alpine
SubTOTAL:8100 Slovenia:300 Croatia:6001000 Bosnia&Herzegovina:438 Montenegro:~100 TheFormerYugoslavRepublicof Macedonia:160200 Albania:250 Serbia:5080 Greece:190260 TOTAL:2800 Italy(Trentino):1618
SubTOTAL:~7200 Slovenia:396480 Croatia:1000 Bosnia&Herzegovina:550 Montenegro:270 TheFormerYugoslavRepublicof Macedonia:160200 Albania:180200 Serbia:6010 Greece:350400 TOTAL:3070 Italia(Trentino):3336(minimum
count)
Increase
Stable
EasternBalkans
CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean
Italy(Friuli):<12 Switzerland:0 Austrian:1220 Slovenia:510 TOTAL:3540 Bulgaria:600800 Greece:2535 Serbia:few TOTAL:720 TOTAL:4080 TOTAL:~100
Italy(Friuli):<12 Switzerland:02 Austrian:~5 Slovenia:510 TOTAL:4550 Bulgaria:530590 Greece:~50? Serbia:~2 TOTAL:~600 TOTAL:3752 28femaleswithCOYs TOTAL:195210 Spain:2227 France:22(minimumcountincluding
Spanishbears)
Stableordecrease?
Stable Increase Increase
TOTAL:1418
TOTAL:2227
19
7.1.2.Monitoringmethods:
POPULATION Country Norway Scandinavian Sweden Monitoringmethods National/ population Regional Genetics CMR,collectionof damagedata anddeadbears Genetic CMR,collectionof damagedata anddeadbears,bear Densityextrapolation,telemetry observationindexprovidedby moosehunters Observations offemales with CMRgenetics COYs Uniquefemales withCOYs,bear tracks andobservations Sumofhuntingground"counts" Questionnaires tostateforest Telemetry divisions &national parks Snowtracking,genetics,camera Sumofhuntingground"counts" trapping,telemetry,confirmed reproduction Genetics,camera trapping,density extraploration,guesstimate Sumofhuntingground"counts" Guesstimate Sumofhuntingground"counts" Sumofhuntingground"counts", densityextrapolation Genetics Genetics,coordinatedfeedingsite counts Genetics,camera trapping,spring surveyoffemales withCOYs noinfo Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping noinfo Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping,telemetry Snowtracking,camera trapping
Karelian Baltic
Finland Estonia Latvia Poland Romania
Carpathian Serbia E Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Greece
DinarioPindus
Kosovo* noinfo "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Sumofhuntingground"counts" Macedonia" W Montenegro noinfo Serbia W Slovenia Dinaric Genetics,camera trapping,density extraploration,guesstimate
Alps
Genetic CMR,coordinatedfeeding sitecounts,reconstructionfrom removal data Confirmedsigns ofbear presence Austria (SCALPC1 &C2) Genetics,camera trappingin ItalyAlps femalearea Genetic CMR,coordinatedfeeding Slovenia Alps sitecounts Genetics,confirmedsigns ofbear Switzerland presence Sumofhuntingground"counts", Bulgaria extrapolation&guesstimate Serbia SE Genetics,camera trapping,density extraploration,guesstimate
Genetic
Telemetry Genetics,individual trackcounts ontransects
"TheFormer Yugoslav Snowtracking,genetics,camera Republic of Sumofhuntingground"counts" trapping Macedonia" E Italy Central Apennine Genetics &markresight Apennine Uniquefemales withCOYs, Cantabrian SpainNW genetics Genetics,camera trapping,unique France females withCOYs Pyrenees Genetics,camera trapping,unique SpainE females withCOYs
EastBalkan
20
7.2.1.Rangechangeandtrend:
POPULATION Scandinavia Rangechange/Trend Increase Sweden:increase Norway:stable Increase(?) Finland:increase Increase Estonia:increase Latvia:stagnant
Karelian
(thistimenotincluding Russiawestof35E)
Baltic
(thistimenotincluding BelarusandtheRussian oblastsofLenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow, Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula, Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)
Carpathian
(thistimenotincluding Ukraine)
Stable
Romania:stable Poland:stable SerbiaNorth:stagnant? Slovakia:increase?
DinaricPindos
Stableorslightincrease
Slovenia:slightincrease Croatia:stable/slightincrease Bosnia&Herzegovina:stable? Montenegro:? TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:increase Albania:? Serbia:stable/slightincrease Greece:Rodopi:stable/decrease,Pindos:increase
Alpine
Stable
Italia(Trentino):residentrangestagnant,disperserrangeincrease Italy(Friuli):stagnant Switzerland:onlysingledispersers Austrian:decline Slovenia:stagnant
EasternBalkans
Stable
Bulgaria:stable Greece:? Serbia:?
Likelystable Stable Norealcomparisonpossible,likelyslightincrease
21
7.2.2.Occupiedcellsinthe10x10kmEEAgrid:
POPULATION Country Norway Scandinavian Sweden Karelian Finland Estonia Baltic Latvia 2006 2009 NA 2006 2011 2009 2011 2007 2010 Time period 2007 2011 Definitionofcells Permanent Sporadic Confirmedfemale presencebufferedby 10 km Killedfemales buffered by10 km Confirmedfemale presencebufferedby 10 km Confirmed reproduction All other bufferedby 10 km Kindbergetal.2011 & expertassessment All other bufferedby 10 km All other bufferedby 10 km Huntinggroundcounts andoccurence monitoringinNATURA 2000 sites 801 3,014 3,815 N ofoccupiedcells Permanent
1
Sporadic
All
1,691
2,986
4,677
208
296
504
Poland Carpathian Romania Serbia E Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Greece Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro Serbia W Slovenia Austria ItalyAlps Alps Slovenia Switzerland Bulgaria EastBalkan Serbia SE "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Italy Central Apennine Apennine Cantabrian Spain France Pyrenees Spain Total
2008 2011
2006 2011/12 Noinfo last20 years 2006 2011
2000 2012 2005 2011 2006 2012 Noinfo 2006 2011 2008 2011 Noinfo 2007 2011 2007 2011 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2000 2012 Noinfo 2006 2011 2004 2008 (Abruzzo) SPOIS2007 2007 2011 2011
DinarioPindus
Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other occupationover last3 years 66%ofcell intersects 33%ofcell intersects huntingunits with huntingunits with bears bears Noinfo Noinfo Nocriteria provided Noinfo Expertassessment Expertassessment basedondensityof basedondensityof signs andhabitat signs andhabitat qualityhigh qualitylower Signdensity&best Signdensity&best qualityhabitathigh qualityhabitatlower 50%ofgridfilledby 50%ofgridfilledby extrapolated extrapolated distributionmap distributionmap Confirmedpresencein All other signs all years Noinfo Noinfo Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Noinfo 95%kernel ofall bear data NA Confirmedfemales for atleast3 years 95%kernel ofall bear data NA Atleast3 subsequent years ofconfirmed signs ofpresence Noinfo Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Noinfo All other signs, includingexpert assessment Confirmedsigns All other signs All other signs, includingexpert assessment Confirmedsigns All other confirmed signs Noinfo Nocriteria provided
992
234
1,226
787
354
1,141
14
108
122
189
201
390
23 SPOIS2007 grid Atleast3 years occupied Confirmedpresence signs noinfo All other confirmed signs noinfo 4,854 77 79
41 50 7,262
64 77 129 12,116
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce,incaseoftwocellsgettingdifferentassessmentsfromthedifferent countries,thehighercategorywasused
22
7.2.3.Connectivitywithotherpopulations
POPULATION Scandinavia Karelian
(thistimenotincluding Russiawestof35E)
Baltic
(thistimenotincluding BelarusandtheRussian oblastsofLenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow, Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula, Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)
Connectivity ThepopulationispotentiallyconnectedwiththeKarelianpopulationthrough dispersingmales,butprobablynotbydispersingfemales. TheKarelianpopulationprobablyhassomelevelofgeneticexchangewiththe Scandinavianpopulationtothesouthandwest.BoththeKarelianandBaltic populationsareconnectedtothemaindistributionareaofRussianbearstotheeast andtherebywitheachother.Theseparationbetweenthetwopopulationsismade hereonlyasanadministrativedecisiontoproduceunitsofpracticalsizeandwith morehomogenousinternalconditions. TheclosestpopulationisinnorthernBulgariaandsoutheasternSerbia,butthe movementofindividualbearsmaybeveryrestrictedduetotheDanubewhichactsas aphysicalbarrier.Therearesomequestionsconcerninginternalconnectivitywithin theCarpathianpopulationduetoalackofknowledgeaboutthesituationwithin UkraineandthedevelopmentsofbeardistributionineasternSlovakia. InSloveniainthenorththispopulationisclosetotheoneoftheAlpsandbearsin TrentinoandSloveniaareconnectedbysinglemaledispersers.However,thereisnot acontinuousdistributionoffemalebearswiththeAlps.Historicalconnectionswith theCarpathianpopulationthroughSerbiaandwiththeEasternBalkansthroughthe FormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniaarenowunlikely. Themostimportantpotentialconnectioniswiththeirsourcepopulation,theDinaric Pindos.Afewindividualbearshavebeenshowntomovebetweenthesetwo populationsinbothdirections. TheGreekpartoftheRilaRhodopesegmentisneartheDinaricPindospopulationbut thereisnodemonstratedconnectionbetweenthesetwopopulations.Tothenorthof theStaraPlaninasegmentthereisapotential,butunproven,connectiontothe Carpathianpopulation.WithintheEasternBalkansthemainchallengeistomaintain connectionsamongthethreesegmentsofthispopulation. Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishing unassistedconnectivityintheshortterm. Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishing unassistedconnectivityintheshortterm. Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishing connectivityintheshortterm.Duetoreintroductions,geneticallythePyrenean populationnowconsistsofbearsfromtheDinaricPindospopulation.
Carpathian
(thistimenotincluding Ukraine)
DinaricPindos
Alpine
EasternBalkans
7.3.IUCNassessment:
POPULATION Scandinavia Karelian Baltic Carpathian DinaricPindos Alps EasternBalkans CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean IUCNassessment LC LC(inconnectionwithRussiawestof35E) LC(inconnectionwiththeRussianoblastsofLenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore) NT(includingandnotincludingUkraine) VU CE VU CE CE CE
23
7.4.Legalstatusandremovaloptions:
Country Norway Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Poland Romania Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Greece Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro Serbia Slovenia Austria Italy Switzerland Bulgaria Spain France EUhabitat directive Annex NA II,IV IV IV IV II,IV II,IV II,IV NA NA II,IV II,IV NA NA NA NA II,IV II,IV II,IV NA II,IV II,IV II,IV Bern convention II II excluded II II II II excluded II II III II NA II II II excluded II II II II II II N bearskilledunder article 16 derogationsin2007 2008 combined NA 366 179 64 0 0 480 56 NA NA NA noinfo NA NA NA NA 162 0 1 NA 6 0 noinfo
2 1
Annualbear removals under Annex5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
AnnualNonEUlegalbear removals 11 (mean20062011) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 17 (mean20062011) 73 (mean20062011) NA noinfo 0 noinfo 0 NA NA NA 1(in2008;for 20062011) NA NA NA

3
Management / actionplan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Noinformation No Yes Yes no info Onlyregional planforPrespa Basinbetween MK,AL&GR no info Yes Yes Yes,butnolegal or jurisdictional value Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 2 3 TheN2KGroup2011, Habituatedbearcapturedandputincaptivity(bearJURKA), FoodconditionedandhabituatedbearJJ3
24
7.5.Conflicttypeandcosts:
[Mostlybycountryratherthanpopulation,countryattributedtothepopulationithasthelargestsharewith] POPULATION Conflicttypeandcosts/years Scandinavia Norway(20062011range):upto2M forsheep(38007000)andrecentlyupto 35000forsemidomesticreindeer(475) Sweden(20062011):37000sheep(50100sheep&fewotherlivestock).In additioncomesthebearsshareoftheeconomicincentivepaidtoreindeerherders forthepresenceoflargecarnivores.In2009thiswas~187000. Karelianpopulation Finland(20072011mean):750000 for681reindeer&172700otherdepredation (thistimenotincluded (30100sheep,05otherlivestock(cattle,horses),04dogs,150250beehives, Russiawestof35E) hundedspackagesofsilagesomedamageinoatfields(notquantifiablefrom records) Estonia(20072011):almostnolivestockdepredation,mostdamagesonbeehives Baltic (thistimenotincluded 12500(105hives) BelarusandtheRussian Latvia(20062011):nodamagesandnodamagecompensationsystemforbears
oblastsofLenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow, Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula, Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)
Carpathian
(thistimenotincluded Ukraine)
DinaricPindos
Alpine
EasternBalkans
Romania:noinformationavailable Poland(2010):61,555(556beehives),stronglyincreasingtrendsince2007,only veryoccasionallylivestock SerbiaE:noinformationavailable Slovakia(20062010):5500(160sheep/goat),12002900(015cattle),12000 (200beehives) Slovenia(2010):252497 (numberofattacks:650sheep/goat,15cattle/horses/pigs, 425otherlikebeehives,agriculture,orchards,animalfeed,caraccidents,feeders), increasingtrendsince2007 Croatia(20072010):6000(220sheep/goats,033beehives,cropandfruittree damage,veryoccasionalcattle/horsesorpoultry) Bosnia&Herzegovina(20072011):42sheep,20cattle/horse/pig,23beehives,5 orchards Montenegro:noinformation TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia(includingEastBalkanpart)(2007):53 sheep/goat,167cattle/horse/donkey/pig,152beehives Albania:nodataandnocompensationsystem SerbiaSW:noinformation Greece:(20062010):19000(200sheep/goat),98000(215cattle/horse),24000 (530beehives/swarms) Italy(Trentino,20062011mean):17000forsheep/goats,4000forrabbits/ chickens,27000forbeehives Austria(20082011):highlyvariablebut~10100sheep,~02otherlivestock(e.g. cattle,rabbits),~1030beehives,~025canisterswithrapeseedoil Switzerland:attacksmainlyonsheepandbeehives.Amountvariesbetweenyears. Bulgaria(20072011):~81,850for~ 249sheep;18goats;27cattle;6 horses/donkeys;12pigs;3dogs;533beehives;58fruittrees;othersblack chokeberry(Aroniamelanocarpa)325kg(increasingtendencyduetobetter informedlocalsfortheopportunityforcompensation) SerbiaSE:noinformation (20062011mean):22000(136sheep/goats),29000(47otherlivestock),(2011): 45,188forotherdamages (2010):321000mainlyforbeehivesandlivestock France(20062011mean):103000for200sheep/goats,31beehives Spain(2010):20500for70sheepand29beehives
25
7.6.Criticalmanagementissues
POPULATION Scandinavia Conflicttypeandcosts/years ThemajorpressureinNorway remainstotheissueofdamagestounguardedfree rangingsheep.Thischronicconflicthasledtoparliamentsettingverylowpopulation goalsforbearrecovery.Thegoalsfrom2003havebeenslightlydowngradedin2011. AlthoughconflictshavebeenlowinSweden,newconflictsareappearingasbears expandintomoredenselypopulatedareas.However,generallythebeariswell acceptedandmanagedinSweden. InconnectionwithbearsinBelarussandRussia thesepopulationsarelargeand occupyalargeareasafeguardingtheirfavorableconservationstatus.However,the lackofreliableandregularinformationfromBelarussorRussiamakesitdifficultto assesspopulationorrangechanges. ThedistributionmapforSlovakia isbasedondatapooledoverthelast20yearsand theaccuracyofmonitoringmethodshavebeenquestioned.Thelackofrecent informationfromUkrainemakesanoverallassessmentdifficult. InSloveniaincreasing damagesandanincreaseinnuisancebearsaremakingita challengetomaintainbearnumbersatthepresentlevel,letaloneallowforthe spreadingofthepopulationintotheAlps.WithCroatiaenteringtheEU,thestatusof thebearwaschangedfromgamespeciestofullyprotected.Huntingisnow labelledcullingandhastohappenundertheEUderogationregulationwhichweakens thehuntersstakeandsupportforbearmanagement.Thispopulationissharedby manycountriesandsubjecttowidelyvaryingmonitoringmethodsandstandards. ThereisagenerallackofaccessibleandrobustdatafromBosnia&Herzegovina, Montenegro,AlbaniaandtheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia. InitiativestocoordinateandharmonizebearmanagementbetweenItaly,Switzerland, AustriaandGermanyarecurrentlyunderway.However,theoccurrenceoffood conditionedand/orhabituatedbearsremainamanagementchallenge. Bulgariahasdevelopedanewbearmanagementplan andcontroversiesseemtohave calmeddown.InGreecehabitatfragmentationremainsaconservationconcern. Occasionallossesduetopoachingorotherhumanrelatedaccidentsstilloccurand thepopulationremainsstagnantdespiteregularreproductionevents. Thewesternpopulationsegmentshowsanobviousincrease(from3femaleswith cubsoftheyear(COYs)recordedin1994to25in2010),whiletheeasternoneseems stagnantwithveryfewfemaleswithCOYs. Acceptanceforthereintroducedbearsseemsstillaproblemandlossesdueto poachingorotherhumanrelatedaccidentsstilloccur.
Karelianpopulation Baltic
Carpathian
(thistimenotincludeding Ukraine)
DinaricPindos
Alpine
EasternBalkans CentralApennine Cantabrian
Pyrenees
26
7.8.Mostrelevantthreatsperpopulation: Themainthreatsconsideredrelevantvaryquitewidelyamongpopulationsandwithinpopulations withsmallpopulationsnotsurprisinglybeingmoreatriskfromintrinsicfactorsandpopulations coveringmanypoliticalbordersfacingawidervarietyofthreatsthanthosemainlycontainedinone orafewcountries(numberofquestionnairesbypopulationgiveninbrackets).

Threatcategory(sortedbyoverall threatassessmentfor thespecies) Habitat(Infrastructure) Disturbance Lowacceptance Poormanagementstructures Intrinsicfactors Accidental Mortality Persecution Habitat(Forestry) Habitat(Divers) Lackof knowledge HabitatLivestock Harvest Natural disaster Change innative fauna Habitat(Agriculture) Habitat(Mining) Pollution(incl.Chlimate change) Invasive alienSpecies Preyoverharvest Abruzzo (N=1) 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Alpine (N=2) 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issuetickedoffasathreatforbear(forpresenttimeonly) Dinaric East Baltic Cantabrian Carpathian Pindos Balkan Karelian (N=2) (N=1) (N=4) (N=7) (N=1) (N=1) 2 1 4 7 1 0 2 1 4 7 1 0 2 0 4 6 1 1 2 1 4 6 1 0 2 1 4 3 1 0 2 1 3 6 1 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 3 6 1 0 1 1 3 5 1 0 2 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pyrenean Scandinavi (N=2) an(N=2) 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27
LynxEuropesummary
CompiledbyManuelavonArx
Karelian Scandinavian
Baltic
Carpathian Vosges Palatinia Jura Alpine

Bohemian Bavarian
Dinaric
Balkan
Fig.1:EurasianlynxdistributioninEurope20062011.Darkcells:permanentoccurrence,Greycells: sporadicoccurrence.Redbordersmarkcountriesforwhichinformationwasavailable. [Pleasenote:neighboringcountriescanhavedifferentcriteriaandtimeperiodsforthedefinitionofcellswith permanentandsporadicpresence.DatafromBelarus,UkraineandRussiaarenotincluded.] 28
1.Distribution EurasianlynxaredistributedinnorthernandeasternEurope(ScandinavianandBalticstates)and alongforestedmountainrangesinsoutheasternandcentralEurope(Carpathian,Balkans,Dinarics, Alps,Jura,Vosges).Lynxarefoundin23countriesandbasedonarangeofcriteria,including distributionandothergeographic,ecological,politicalandsocialfactorscanbegroupedinto10 populations(Fig.1).Fiveofthesetenpopulationsareautochthonous(Scandinavian,Karelian,Baltic, CarpathianandBalkan),theotherpopulationsbasedincentralandwesternEuropestemfromre introductionsinthe1970sand1980s(Dinaric,Alpine,Jura,VosgesPalatinianandBohemian Bavarianpopulations).Inaddition,thereareanumberofotheroccurrencesoflynxstemmingfrom morerecentreintroductions,suchasintheHarzmountainsofcentralGermany. 2.Populationestimates&monitoring ThetotalnumberoflynxinEuropeis900010000individuals(excludingRussia&Belarus).The largestpopulationsaretheautochthonousonesinthenorthandeastwhichhavearound2000 individualseach:Scandinavian(~18002300),Karelian(Finishpart~2500),Baltic(~1600),Carpathian (~2300).Allthereintroducedpopulationsareofsmallersizeastheywereformedonly40yearsago andwithsmallnumbersoffounders.Thecurrentpopulationsizesareasfollows:Alpine130160, BohemianBavarian~50,Dinaric120130,Jura>100,VosgesPalatinian~19.Thepopulationof greatestconservationconcernisthefifthautochthonousone,theBalkanlynxpopulation,which numbersonly4050individualsaccordingtorecentresearch. Mostpopulationshavegenerallybeenstableinthelastdecade.FortheCarpathianandBalkan populationssmallernumbersareindicatedascomparedtothelaststatusreportoftheEurasianLynx OnlineInformationSystemfrom2001(ELOIS,vonArxetal.2004),however,thecurrentestimates areassumedtobemorerealisticduetoimprovementsinmonitoringandscientificresearch, whereastheformernumbershavemostprobablybeenoverestimates.TheKarelianandJura populationshavebothincreased.TheVosgesPalatinianpopulationdenotesaslightdecrease;the occurrenceinthePalatinianforesthasvanished.FortheAlpineandDinaricpopulationsthetrendis notconsistentthroughouttherangewhichismainlyduetoadropoflynxnumbersinSlovenia,which formspartofbothofthesepopulations. MonitoringintheScandinavianpopulationisbasedonsnowtracking,geneticsandcollectionof livestockdepredationcases,supportedbytelemetryandcameratrapping.InFinland(Karelian population),snowtrackingandtelemetryareused.InEstonia,LatviaandPolandestimatesarebased onsnowtracking,supportedbyanalysisofharvestbagdatainEstoniaandLatvia.IntheCarpathians, monitoringandpopulationnumberestimatesarebasedmainlyonhuntinggroundcounts,snow trackingandguesstimates.FortheAlpine,JuraandVosgespopulations,cameratrapping(including capturemarkrecapture(CMR)inreferenceareasanddensityextrapolation)iscombinedwiththe collectionofdifferentdatasetsvalidatedusingthecriteriadevelopedbytheStatusandConservation oftheAlpineLynxPopulation(SCALP)project(MolinaryJobinetal.2012).Thesameistrueforthe Balkanpopulation.ThebasicmonitoringmethodsconcerningtheDinaricpopulationaresnow tracking(allthreecountries),geneticsamplingandguesstimates(SloveniaandCroatia).Inthe BohemianBavarianregionavarietyofthemethodsisusedincludingcollectionofsightingsofsigns andcameratrappictures. 3.Legalstatusandrelevantmanagementagency Mostofthelynxpopulationsarestrictlyprotected.ThepartsofpopulationsthatfallwithinEU countries,withtheexceptionofEstonia,arestrictlyprotectedunderpanEuropeanlegislation(the HabitatsDirective).Sweden,LatviaandFinlandcurrentlyusederogationsunderarticle16ofthe directivetoallowalimitedculloflynxbyhunters.Norwaymanageslynxasagamespecieswith annualquotasastheyareonlylimitedbytheBernConventioninthisrespect.Managementplansfor lynxexistinonlyabouthalftherangecountries,withseveralmorehavingcomeupwithadraft. 29
4.Confli ictsandconf flictmanage ement Livestockdepredatio onandthusconflict c levellsarelowformostofthe epopulation ns.Therearesome damages sintheAlpin neandJurapopulations, p howeverusuallylesstha an100dome esticanimals sare killedpe eryearintotal.Theonlytwo t populat tionswithma ajordepreda ationproblem msaretheNordic N ones.Ab bout700010 0000sheepand700080 000semidom mesticreindeerareattri butedtolynxand compens satedinNor rwayeveryyear,summin ngupto~5M M peryear.In2009Swe edenpaid~17500 fordepredationonsheep s andan nadditional~ ~3500000asanecono omicincentiv vetoreindeer herdersfortheprese enceoflynx. .In2011Finllandpaid15600for25 5domestica animalsand~827000 ~ for554 4reindeer. Consider ringthemos strelevantth hreatstothe eEurasianlyn nx(seebelow w),themajo orconflictsar renot withlive estockhusbandry,butwithungulate hunting.Thisconflicthaslongbeenn neglected.While W a rangeof fpreventionmeasuresex xisttocount eractlivesto ockdepredation,fruitfulw waysofconf flict managem mentwithhuntingareye ettobefoun nd.Awarene esshashowe everincrease edandinmany regionsp participatory yprocessesfor f abetterc collaboration nanddialogu uebetween differentinterest groupsh havebeeninitiated. 5.Populationgoals&populationlevelcoop peration Formost tofthepopu ulationsther reisatleast someformof o cooperatio onbetween scientistsof the different trangecoun ntries.Onthe elevelofthe emanageme entauthoritie es,cooperatiionisrarean ndexists onlyfortheScandina avianandAlpinepopulat tions.Arang gewidecons servationstra ategywasde eveloped AlpineandBa alkanpopula ations,howe everthishasnotbeenimplementediinaction.In2009the fortheA Conventioncalled Alpineco ountriessign nedatransbo oundarypoliiticalarrange ementunder rtheAlpineC theWISO Oplatform(W WildlifeandSociety).Th eplatformaims a todevel lopacommo onstrategyfor f the managem mentoftheAlpinepopulationsoflyn nx,wolfandbear. 6.Threats Themos strelevantth hreatstoEur rasianlynxin nEuropearelowaccepta ancelargelyd duetoconfli ictswith hisprobably hunters, ,persecution n(i.e.illegalkillingswhich yinterlinkedwiththefirs st)andhabit tatloss duetoin nfrastructure edevelopme ent,poorma nagementst tructuresandaccidental mortality.
hreatassess smentreleva antforlynxo overallpopu ulationsinEu uropebased don22 Fig.2:Th question nnaireswiththreatsgroupedin19m maincategor ries. 30
[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals] POPULATION Lastsizeestimate Mostrecentsizeestimate EurasianLynxOnline (2009,2010or2011) InformationSystemof2001 Alpine Switzerland:70 Switzerland:96107 Slovenia:10 Slovenia:few ItalyE:10 Italy:1015 ItalyW:3 Austria:20 Austria:35 France:few France:13(extrapolated) TOTAL:~120 TOTAL:~130 Balkan TheformerYugoslav TheformerYugoslav RepublicofMacedonia:35 RepublicofMacedonia:23 Albania:1525 Albania:<510 Kosovo*:? Serbia(incl.Kosovo*):1525 Serbia& Montenegro:30 Montenegro:? TOTAL:~80105 TOTAL:4050 Estonia:900 Baltic Estonia:790 (thistimenot Latvia:648 Latvia:<600 included:Belarus Lithuania:103 Lithuania:4060 andtheRussian Poland NE: 60 PolandNE:96 oblastsof Ukraine:27 Ukraine:80901 Leningrad, Novgorod,Pskov, SubTOTAL:~1700 SubTOTAL:~1600 TverandSmolensk. Kaliningrad) CzechRepublic:3045 Bohemian CzechRepublic:60 Germany:12 Germany:12 Bavarian Austria:4 Austria:510 TOTAL:~75 TOTAL:~50
(takingintoaccountdouble counting)
Trend20062011
Stable West:slightincrease East:decrease
Decrease?
Improvementsin monitoring/scientificresearch revealedmuchbetter informationandmorerealistic estimates
Stable North:increasing South:stabletodecreasing

Partlychangeinmonitoring methods.
Stableordecrease
Carpathian
Romania:2050 Slovakia:400
Romania:12001500 Slovakia:300400(butofficial
estimatesmuchhigher)
Dinaric
Jura
Karelian2
(thistimenot
Poland:97 Ukraine:230 CzechRepublic:40 Hungary:15 Serbia&Montenegro:45 Bulgaria:few TOTAL:~2800 Slovenia:40 Croatia:4060 BosniaHerzegovina:40 TOTAL:~130 France:54 Switzerland:2025 TOTAL:~80 Finland:870
Poland:~200 Ukraine:3504001 CzechRepublic:13 Hungary:13 Serbia:50 Bulgaria:11 TOTAL:~23002400 Slovenia:1015 Croatia:~50 BosniaHerzegovina:70(may beoverestimated) TOTAL:120130 France:76(minimumcount) Switzerland:2836 TOTAL:>100 Finland:24302610
Stable South:expanding
Improvementsin monitoring/scientificresearch revealedmuchbetter informationandmorerealistic estimates
Stableordecrease South:increase North:decrease
Increase
Strongincrease
31
included:the Russianoblastsof Murmanskand Karelia)
Scandinavian
Norway:327 Sweden:14001800
TOTAL:~2000 Vosges Palatinian France:18 Germany:34 TOTAL:~20
Stable Norway: 6569family groups(384408individuals) Sweden:277lynxfamily groups(14001900 individuals) TOTAL:~18002300 France:~19(extrapolated) Stableorslightdecrease Germany:0 TOTAL:~19
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo
declarationofindependence. CouncelofEurope2012.NationalReportsoftheStatusofLargeCarnivores.MeetingoftheGroupofExpertsontheConservationofLarge CarnivoresinEurope,2426May2012,Gstaad/Saanen,Switzerland.TPVS/Inf(2012)7. https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2161432&SecMode=1&DocId=19 24342&Usage=2 2 IntheELOIS2001FinlandbelongedwithSwedenandNorwaytotheNordicpopulationwhichhassubsequentlybeensplitintotwo populations(ScandinavianwithSwedenandNorwayandKarelianwithFinlandandRussianKarelia).
1
32
POPULATION Monitoringmethods National/ population Regional Austria Alps Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2) Camera trapping,telemetry Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2 FranceAlps CMRcamera trappinginreferencearea andselectedC3) Italy Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2) Camera trapping,telemetry Country Slovenia Alps Expertopinion,guesstimate Switzerland Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2) Alps Questionnaires,collectionofchance Albania observations Kosovo* "TheFormer Densityextrapolation,confirmedpresence Yugoslav signs (SCALPC1&C2) Republic of Macedonia" Snowtracking,identifyunique Estonia reproductions,trackanddirect observations Sumofhuntingground"count",guesstimate, Latvia longtermtrendinharvestcomposition& efficiency Snowtracking,sumofhuntingground Lithuania "count",guesstimate Confirmedpresencesigns,snowtracking, PolandNE guesstimate Austria Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2 Bohemia andselectedC3) Czech Sumofhuntingground"counts"through Republic questionnaires every2 years Germany Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2), Bavaria camera trapping Questionnaires andfollowupfield Bulgaria investigations toconfirmpresence Czech Sumofhuntingground"counts"through Republic questionnaires every2 years Questionnaires andfollowupfield Hungary investigations toconfirmpresence,camera trapping,estimate Poland Confirmedpresencesigns,guesstimate Romania Slovakia Serbia Croatia Slovenia Dinaric Bosnia Herzegovina Switzerland Jura FranceJura Karelian Finland Norway Scandinavian Sweden France Vosges Germany Palatinian Germany Harz Sumofhuntingground"counts" Sumofhuntingground"counts" Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping Expertopinion,guesstimate Snowtracking Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2) Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2 andselectedC3) Systematic snowtracking Snowtracking,genetics CMRcamera trappinginreferencearea, telemetry,genetic Snowtracking,camera trapping Questionaires Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping, telemetry
Alpine
Balkan
Telemetry
Baltic
Telemetry Snowtracking Snowtracking,genetics,telemetry Camera trapping Snowtracking,genetics,CMRcamera trapping,telemetry Telemetry,CMRcamera trapping,systematic snowtracking Camera trapping,snowtracking Snowtracking,genetics,CMRcamera trapping,telemetry
Bavarian Bohemian
Carpathian
Snowtracking,genetics,telemetry Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping, telemetry,confirmedreproduction Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping Camera trapping Telemetry Snowtracking,genetics Camera trapping CMRcamera trappinginreferencearea, telemetry,genetic CMRcamera trappinginreferencearea Telemetry
Dinaric
Jura
Systematic snowtracking(singlelynx & confirmedfamilygroups),lynx harvestdata, Camera trapping,telemetry lynx damagereports,setofindex lines Systematic snowtracking(singlelynx & confirmedfamilygroups),lynx harvestdata, Genetics,telemetry lynx damagereports Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2 CMRcamera trappinginreferencearea andselectedC3) Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2), camera trapping Confirmedpresencesigns (SCALPC1&C2), Telemetry camera trapping
VosgesPalatinian
Harzoccurence
33
POPULATION Alpine Rangechange/Trend Mixedtrend Switzerland:stable/increase Slovenia:stagnant Italy:stagnant Austria:stagnant France:stagnant Decrease However,alsoduetomuchbetterinformation.Rangemightberestrictedforalready sometime. TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:decrease Albania:unknown Serbia(incl.Kosovo*):slightincrease? Montenegro:? Stable Estonia:stable Latvia:stable Lithuania:increase PolandNE:stable Ukraine:stable? Stable CzechRepublic:stable Germany:stagnant Austria:stagnant Stable(Expandinginthesouth) Romania:stable Slovakia:stable? Poland:stable Ukraine:stable? CzechRepublic:stagnant? Hungary:stagnant Serbia:slightincrease Bulgaria:unclear,butlikelyexpanding Mixedtrend Slovenia:Decrease Croatia:stable BosniaHerzegovina:increase Increase Stable Finland:Inspiteofthestrongincreaseinnumbers,therangehasnotchanged. Increase Sweden:lynxareexpandingsouthwardsandhaveestablishedinthesouthern1/3of thecountry. Norway:stable Decrease France:stagnant Germany:decrease Since1999,asinglephotoistheonlyevidenceoflynxpresenceinthePalatinian Forestandanestablishmentoflynxterritoriesisnotexpectedanytimesoon.
Balkan
Baltic
(thistimenotincluded:the RussianoblastsofLeningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tverand Smolensk.Kaliningrad)
BohemianBavarian
Carpathian
Dinaric
Jura Karelian
(thistimenotincluded:the Russianoblastsof MurmanskandKarelia)
Scandinavian
VosgesPalatinian
34
Population Country Austria Alps Time period 2006 2010 Permanent Confirmed reproduction Confirmed reproductionor presence3 outof5 years Presenceinall 3 years Reproductionor evidenceoverseveral years Confirmed reproductionor presence3 outof5 years Expertassessment basedondensityof signs andhabitat qualityhigh noinfo Nocriteria provided Sporadic All other signs Permanent
1
Sporadic
All
FranceAlps Italy Slovenia Alps
2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2011
All other signs Presence1 2 years All other
Alpine
93
150
243
Switzerland Alps
2006 2010
All other signs Expertassessment basedondensityof signs andhabitat qualitylower noinfo Nocriteria provided
Albania Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro
2006 2011 noinfo 2006 2011 noinfo 2008 2010 2006 2012 2006 2011 2008 2011
Balkan
45
141
186
Baltic Estonia (this timenot included: Latvia Belarus,the Russianoblasts Lithuania ofLeningrad, Novgorod,Pskov, PolandNE Tverand Smolensk. Austria Bohemia Bavarian Bohemian Czech Republic
2008 2011/12 2009 2012
Germany
2010/2011
Bulgaria Hungary Carpathian (this timenot included: Ukraine)
2000 2012 2002 2006
PolandS
2008 2011
noinfo noinfo Confirmed All other signs reproduction Confirmed All other signs reproduction Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other signs occupationover last3 years Frequency/densityof Frequency/densityof signs highest signs lower Confirmed reproductionor All other signs presenceeachyear All other,butalso Confirmed frequencyor quality reproduction criteria (C1 or 2 C2 for a sporadic cell) Reproductionor eveidenceoverseveral All other signs years Probabilityof Probabilityof occurencehighest occurencelow Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other signs occupationover last3 years 66%ofcell intersects 33%ofcell intersects huntingunits withlynx huntingunits withlynx Nocriteria provided noinfo 50%ofgridfilledby extrapolated distributionmap Reproductionor evidenceoverseveral years Signdensity&best qualityhabitathigh Confirmed reproductionor presence3 outof5 years Confirmed reproductionor presence3 outof5 years Noinfo noinfo 50%ofgridfilledby extrapolated distributionmap All other Signdensity&best qualityhabitatlower All other
823
447
1,270
56
101
157
1,126
347
1,473
Romania Slovakia Serbia Croatia Dinaric Slovenia Dinaric Bosnia Herzegovina Switzerland Jura Jura FranceJura Karelian (this timenot included:the Russianoblasts Finland ofMurmansk andKarelia)
20062011/12 2006 2009 noinfo 2005 2011
2008 2011 2000 2012
202
98
300
2006 2010
94 All other signs
84
178
2008 2010
2009 2011
Confirmedfamily All other signs buffered groups bufferedby10 by10 km km
920
2,538
3,458
Norway Scandinavian Sweden
2007 2011
2006 2011
VosgesPalatinian
France Vosges
2008 2010
Harzoccurence Total
Germany
2010/2011
Confirmedfamily All other signs buffered groups bufferedby10 by10 km km Confirmedfamily All other signs buffered groups bufferedby10 by10 km km Confirmed reproductionor All other presence3 outof5 years All other,butalso Confirmed frequencyor quality reproduction criteria (C1 or 2 C2 for a sporadic cell)
4,761
2,404
7,165
14
46
56
3 8,134
21 6,328
24 14,462
35
POPULATION Alpine Connectivitywithotherpopulations
Theobservedrateofdevelopmentwillmostlikelynotallowforanaturalfusionofthewestern andeasternAlpinepopulationswithinthenextdecades.Nevertheless,theAlpsaretheareain WesternandCentralEurope,whichcanpotentiallyhostthelargestlynxpopulationhabitat modelspredictapotentialcapacityof9601,800lynx,dependingonthedensityassumed. ThereispotentialconnectionbetweenthewesternAlpinepopulationandtheJurapopulation, whichinturnhaspotentialconnectionswiththeVosgespopulation. ThereispotentialconnectivitybetweenthelynxintheeasternAlpinepopulationandthe Dinaricpopulationhowever,lynxinthisareahavemarkedlydecreasedinthepastdecade. TheDinaricpopulationinBosniaHerzegovinahasrecentlyspreadsouthashastheCarpathian populationinSerbiaandBulgaria,respectively.Thesecouldbothpotentiallyleadtoamerging withtheBalkanpopulation.Thiswould,ononehand,bewelcomeasasupportforthisCritically Endangeredpopulation;ontheotherhand,theassumeduniquetaxonomicstatusoftheBalkan lynxmightbecorruptedthroughimmigratinglynxfromthenorthand/orwest.Bothofthese potentialconnectionsarewithlynxthataregeneticallyofCarpathianorigin(theDinaric populationwasreintroducedwithanimalsofCarpathianorigins). TotheeasttheBalticpopulationconnectstothecontinuouswesternRussianpopulation,and tothenorththereisgoodconnectiontotheKarelianpopulation,withwhichitsharesgenetic similarity.Thepopulationisveryfragmentedinitssouthernandwesternpart.Itisveryunlikely thatanyconnectionremainswiththeCarpathianpopulationtothesouth. TheoccurrencesbetweentheBohemianBavarianandtheCarpathianpopulationsLaberiver SandstoneMts.andJesenikyMts.seemtohavevanishedandsohavethesteppingstonesfor potentialconnection.Tothesouth,thereisnoconfirmedevidenceofmovementsbetweenthe BohemianBavarianandtheAlpinepopulations.InAustria,occupiedareasareactuallyquite close,buttheDanubeRiverandamotorwayseparatethem.OntheGermanside,several motorwaysintheplainbetweentheBavarianforestandtheAlpsmakeitveryunlikelyforthe lynxtoexpandtothesouthandsouthwest.Tothewest(towardstheBlackForest)the infrastructurebarriersareevenstronger. Althoughverylarge,theCarpathianpopulationappearstobeisolatedfromotherpopulations. TothenorththeconnectiontotheBalticpopulationappearstohavebeenbrokenaslynxare absentfromthelowlandsofwesternUkraineandineasternPolandlynxoccurrencesare exceptionallyfragmented. TheconnectiontotheSlovenianpartoftheAlpinepopulationseemstohaveweakenedasthe lynxnumbersandrangeinthisareahavemarkedlydecreasedinthepastfewyears.Thereisa potentialconnectionwiththeBalkanpopulationtothesouth,however,therearenoconfirmed signsoflynxpresenceinMontenegro. Potentialcorridorstoneighbouringpopulations(AlpineandVosgesPalatinian)exist,butthere aresomebarrierslikehighwaysandriversthatneedtobecrossed.Connectionstothe Chartreuse(FrenchAlps)aretheeasiestandmayindeedhavebeenused,asindicatedbysigns oflynxpresence. TheKarelianpopulationisgeneticallyclosetotheBalticpopulationandtheirdistributionsare moreorlesscontinuous,connectedviawesternRussia.ConnectiontotheScandinavian populationislikelytobelimitedalthoughdispersershavebeendocumentedusinggenetical methods.TotheeasttheKarelianpopulationconnectstothecontinuousSiberianpopulation. AlthoughthereissomeconnectiontotheKarelianpopulationthisisprobablyquiterestricted becausetherearefewlynxinthereindeerhusbandryareaofnorthernFinland.Geneticdata confirmthispatternwithFinnishlynxbeingmorecloselyrelatedtoBalticlynxthanto Scandinavianlynx. TheconnectionfromtheVosgesMtstothePalatinianForestisapparentlynotwellestablished: Thereisnofirmevidenceoflynxpresenceinthelaterareaforsometime.Anexpansiontothe eastacrosstheRhinevalleyisunlikely,andtothewestprobablyalsolimitedduetolackof foresthabitats.AlongtheleftshoreoftheRhineRiver,however,achainofsecondarymountain rangesoffersthepotentialforalargermetapopulation.Thereisanobviousconnectiontothe JuraMts.,howeverwithsomebarriersnoteasytoovercome.
Balkan
Baltic
BohemianBavarian
Carpathian
Dinaric
Jura
VosgesPalatinian
36
7.3.IUCNassessment(notincludedRussia,howeverassessmentdoesnotchangewithorwithoutRussia):
POPULATION Alpine Balkan Baltic BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric Jura Karelian Scandinavian VosgesPalatinian IUCNassessment EN(D) CR(C2a(i,ii)D) LC CR(D) LC EN(D) EN(D) LC LC CR(C2a(i,ii)D)
Country Austria Italy Switzerland Albania Kosovo* Greece "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro Estonia Latvia Lithuania Czech Republic Germany Bulgaria Hungary Poland Romania Serbia Slovakia Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Slovenia France Finland Norway Sweden EUhabitat directive Annex II,IV II,IV NA NA NA II,IV Bern convention III III III III NA III N Animalskilled underarticle16 derogation2007 2008combined 0 0 NA NA NA 0
1
Annualremovalsunder annex5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
AnnualNonEUlegallynx removals NA NA 1(in2007;for 2006 2011) 0 noinfo NA
Management / actionplan no no yes draftversion noinfo onlyfirst evidenceof potential presence
NA NA V IV II,IV II,IV II,IV II,IV II,IV II,IV II,IV NA II,IV NA NA II,IV II,IV IV NA II,IV
III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III
NA NA NA 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 NA 0 NA NA 0 noinfo 304 NA 86
NA NA 130 (mean2006 2011) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0 noinfo NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA NA 139(2011;increasingtrend) NA draftversion noinfo yes yes no draftonly yes no yes draftversion yes draftversion waitingfor approval since 2008 yes no yes no no yes yes yes
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 TheN2KGroup2011
37
7.5.Conflicttypeandcosts:
POPULATION Alpine Conflicttypeandcosts(average)/year Switzerland:12000(for747smalllivestock)intheSwissAlps[range20062011].In addition,twocantons(ZH,SG)paycompensationtohuntingassociationsforlynx presence. Nocentralinformationonlivestockdepredationexists,althoughinterviewsandother surveysindicatethatconflictlevelsarelow. Onlyfewcasesoflivestockdepredationarereportedannually. Livestockdepredationisrare. Hardlyanylivestockdepredationcases. Damagesaremarginal: BosniaHerzegovina:sheepandgoats,however,nodataavailable. Croatia:Nocasesofconfirmeddamages. Slovenia(Alps&Dinaric):975for9sheep[2011] France:18360for92sheep[mean20002011] Switzerland:between320sheep/goatsperyear[range20062011].Thecantonof Solothurnpayscompensationtohuntingassociationsforlynxpresence. Finland[2011]: Reindeerhusbandryarea:827122for554reindeer. RestofFinland(outsidereindeerhusbandryarea):15600for25domestic animals. Norway:2.12.9M for700010000sheep&1.13.4Mfor30008000semi domesticreindeer. Sweden:~17500(90sheep).Inadditioncomesthelynxsshareoftheeconomic incentivepaidtoreindeerherdersforthepresenceoflargecarnivores.In2009this was~3500000forreindeer. Hardlyanylivestockdepredationcases.
Balkan Baltic BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric
Jura
Karelian
Scandinavian
VosgesPalatinian
7.7.Criticalmanagementissues:
POPULATION Alpine Criticalmanagement/conservationissues AswithallreintroducedpopulationstheAlpinelynxpopulationwasbasedonavery limitednumberoffounders.Thegeneticdiversityislowandthepopulationisinbred. Lowacceptancebysomeoftheinterestgroups. Illegalkillings,lossofpreybaseandhabitatdegradationseemtobethemainfactors thathaveledtothedrasticdecreaseandalmostextinctionoftheBalkanlynx.Except forMavrovoNPinMKtherearenosignsofreproduction.Plansforinfrastructure developmentinMavrovoNPposeapotentialthreatfortheremainingcore population.Thelackofpoliticalinterestfornatureconservation,andnonsustainable wildlifemanagementpracticesintherangecountriesareaddinguptowardsthelong termextinctionofthelynx. Limitedandfragmenteddistributionoflynxinthesouthernpartofthepopulation range.Translocationoflynx(3individualsinspring2012)fromEstoniatoPolandis ongoingasaconservationmeasure. Illegalkillingisassumedtooccurregularlybuttherearefewconfirmedcases. Lynxcouldbepotentiallythreatenedbyinfrastructuredevelopmentprojectsthat threatentofragmentthehabitat. Thepopulationhasonly3+2foundersandisheavilyinbred.Addingnewindividualsin thenorthernpartofthepopulationisthemainconservationactionneeded. Thepopulationhastobegeneticallymonitoredasitisinbred.Thereisasevere conflictwithhunters(cantonofVD). FI:Publicattitudesarebecomingincreasinglynegative,geneticdiversityhas decreased. TheissuesconcernconflictswithSamireindeerherdersoverlynxdepredationon reindeerinbothNorwayandSweden,themassivelossesofdomesticsheepin Norway,andconflictwithroedeerhuntersinbothcountries. Smallpopulationsize.Connectionstootherpopulationsshouldbeenhanced.
Balkan
Baltic
BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric Jura Karelian Scandinavian
VosgesPalatinian
38
7.8.Mostrelevantthreatsperpopulation:
POPULATION Alpine Balkan Baltic BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric Jura Karelian Scandinavian Mostrelevantthreats 1. Persecution,2.Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithhunters,3.Infrastructure developmentduetoTransport(roads/railways),4.Inbreeding 1. Persecution,2.Overharvestingofwildpreypopulations,3.Poormanagement structures,4.Infrastructuredevelopment 1. Persecution,2.Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithhunters,3.Vehiclecollision 1. Persecution,2.Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithhunters,3.Vehiclecollision 1. Infrastructuredevelopmentduetotransport(roads/railways),2.Infrastructure developmentduetotourism/recreation,3.Persecution 1. Inbreeding,2.Persecution 1. Lowacceptanceduetoconflictwithhunters,2.Vehiclecollision,3.Persecution,4. Inbreeding NA 1. Persecution,2.Lowacceptance(conflictwithlivestock;conflictwithhunters;as formofpoliticaloppositiontonational/EUintervention;duetofundamentalconflict ofvaluesaboutspeciespresence) Lowacceptanceduetoconflictwithhunters
VosgesPalatinian
Themainthreatsconsideredrelevantvaryamongpopulationsandwithinpopulationswithsmall populationsnotsurprisinglybeingmoreatriskfromintrinsicfactorsandpopulationscoveringmany politicalbordersfacingawidervarietyofthreatsthanthosemainlycontainedinoneorafew countries(numberofquestionnairesbypopulationgiveninbrackets).
Threatcategory(sortedbyoverall threatassessmentfor thespecies) Lowacceptance Persecution Poormanagementstructures Habitat(Infrastructure) Accidental Mortality Lackof knowledge Intrinsicfactors Change innative fauna Disturbance Habitat(Forestry) Preyoverharvest Habitat(Livestock) Habitat(Divers) Natural disaster Harvest Pollution(incl.Chlimate change) Invasive alienSpecies Habitat(Mining) Habitat(Agriculture)
Balkan (N=2) 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Issuetickedoffasathreatforlynx(forpresenttime only) Vosges Bohemian Bavarian Carpathian Dinaric Karelian Scandinavi AlpsJura Baltic (N=2) (N=2) (N=7) (N=2) (N=1) an(N=2) (N=4) 4 2 6 2 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 0 2 2 4 2 5 2 0 1 0 3 2 6 2 0 0 2 2 2 5 2 0 1 2 4 1 6 2 0 0 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 2 4 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 2 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
39
WolfEuropesummary
CompiledbyGuillaumeChapron
Baltic
Central European Lowlands Alpine NWIberian
Carpathian
SierraMorena
Italian Peninsula Dinaric Balkan
Fig.1:WolfdistributioninEurope20062011.Darkcells:permanentoccurrence,Greycells:sporadic occurrence.Redbordersmarkcountriesforwhichinformationwasavailable. [Pleasenote:neighboringcountriescanhavedifferentcriteriaandtimeperiodsforthedefinitionofcellswith permanentandsporadicpresences.DatafromBelarus,UkraineandRussiaarenotshown.] 40
1.Distribution InEurope,wolvesoccurinallcountriesexceptintheBeneluxcountries,Denmark,Hungaryandthe islandstates(Ireland,Iceland,UnitedKingdom,Cyprus,Malta).Basedonacombinationof distributionandsocial,ecologicalandpoliticalfactorswehavecategorizedtheseinto10populations: NorthWesternIberian,SierraMorena,Alpine,ItalianPeninsula,Carpathian,DinaricBalkan,Baltic, Karelian,ScandinavianandCentralEuropeanLowlands(Fig.1). 2.Populationestimates&monitoring TheestimatedtotalnumberofwolvesinEuropeseemstobelargerthan10,000individuals.Basedon reportedandupdatedcensusdata,thelargestpopulationsaretheCarpathianpopulationandthe DinaricBalkanpopulation(>3,000wolves),followedbytheBalticpopulation(>1,000wolves).Other populationsareanorderofmagnitudesmaller(ItalianPeninsula600800wolves,Scandinavian~300 wolves,CentralEuropeanLowlands~200wolves,Alpine>160wolves,Karelian>165wolves).The SierraMorenapopulationinsouthernSpainistheonlyoneonthebrinkofextinctionwithonlyone packdetectedin2012.FortheNorthWesternIberianpopulation,thereisnoupdateddatabutthe populationisbelievedtohaveremainedstable(~2,2002,500wolves). MostpopulationshavebeenincreasingorstablesincetheWolfOnlineInformationSystem(WOIS) wasreleasedin2005.Afewcountries(theunitofreportingfortrends)haveseentheirpopulation estimatesdecreasingeitherbecauseofanimprovementofcensusmethodology(inCzechRepublic, Slovenia,Bulgaria)orbecauseofarealdeclineinabundance(inAlbania,Finland,Macedonia, Portugal,SierraMorena).Trendsinpopulationrangearecorrelatedwithtrendsinabundance(and areactuallyofteninferredfromtrendsinabundance).Allpopulationrangeshavebeeneither increasingorstableexcepttheFinnishpartoftheKarelianpopulationandtheSierraMorena populationinsouthernSpain. MonitoringinScandinaviaisbasedonintensivesnowtrackingcomplementedwithgeneticsand telemetryallowingforpreciseestimatesofannualnumberofreproductions,thetotalnumberof individuals,andeveninformationontheinbreedingcoefficientofindividualpackmembers.Inthe FinnishpartoftheKarelianpopulationmonitoringisbasedonintensivesnowtrackingandtelemetry. IntheBalticsharvestdata,snowtrackinganddamagestatisticsareusedformonitoring.TheCentral EuropeanLowlandspopulationismonitoredbyusingsignsurveys(Poland&Germany)in combinationwithgenetics,cameratrappingandtelemetry(Germany).IntheCarpathianpopulation monitoringislargelybasedonharvestanddamagestatisticsandthecollectionofwolfsignsby variousinterestgroups,howeverthemainmethodremainsaninterpretationofassessmentsmade bythevarioushuntinggroundswherethemethodologyissomewhatunclear.TheDinaricBalkan populationspansthemostnationalbordersandthusissubjecttothemostdiversemonitoring rangingfrominterviewswithlocalpeopleandexpertassessmentsbasedonharvestdata,damage reports,signsurveys,cameratrapping,telemetryandgenetics.TheItalianPeninsulapopulationis alsomonitoredthroughamixofsignscollectedovervaryingtimeperiodsbyvariousinterestgroups, damagereportsandexpertassessment.TheAlpinewolfpopulationismonitoredbygenetics, confirmeddamages,cameratrapping,intensivesnowtrackingandsignsurveys.TheNWIberianand SierraMorenapopulationsaremonitoredbyrendezvoussitemappingincombinationwith provokedhowlingcensusestoconfirmreproduction. Overall,thesmallpopulationsaresubjecttomoreintenseandcostlymonitoringmethodsaimedat accuratelycountingindividualpacks(Scandinavian,Alpine,CentralEuropeanLowlands)thanthe largerpopulationswheremonitoringlargelyattemptstodocumentwolfpresenceorrelative densities.Inhuntedpopulationsharvestdataisusedtoidentifyareaswithreproductionbasedon pupsorpregnant/lactatingfemalesintheharvestbagandvariousinterpretationsbasedonage/ sexstructureofthebag. 41
3.Legalstatusandmanagement ThelegalstatusofwolvesintheEuropeanUnioncountriesisdirectlyspecifiedintheHabitats Directive(92/43/EEC).BydefaultwolfpopulationsarelistedunderAnnexesIIandIV.AnnexII requirestheestablishmentofNatura2000sitesforthespecieswhileannexIVrequiresstrict protection,prohibitinganydestructionordamagetothepopulation(butwithderogationsstill possibleunderArticle16).However,therearesomenotableexceptions(Bulgaria(AnnexV),Estonia (onlyinAnnexV,notinIIorIV),Finland(notinAnnexII;wolvesinreindeerhusbandryzonesin AnnexVinsteadofIV),Greece(wolvesnorthof39thparallelonlyinAnnexV,notinIIorIV),Latvia (wolfonlyinAnnexV,notinIIorIV),Lithuania(wolfonlyinAnnexV,notinIIorIV),Polandand Slovakia(wolfinAnnexVinsteadofIV),Spain(wolfnorthofriverDueroinAnnexVinsteadofIV).As nonEUmembers,NorwayandSwitzerlandareonlysignatoriesoftheBernConvention.Agrowing numberofcountrieshaveamanagementplanorareintheprocessofendorsingone.Management canbecentralized(e.g.France,Sweden)ordecentralized(e.g.Spain,Germany)leadingtothesame populationfacingdifferentmanagementregimeswithinacountryaswellasamongcountries. 4.Conflictsandconflictmanagement Wolvesandlivestockareassociatedwithconflictsoverthewholespeciesrange.Therougheconomic cost(basedonreportedcompensationonly,i.e.excludingcountrieswherenodatawhereavailable) canbeestimatedatreaching>8Mperyearresultingfromatleast20,000domesticanimalsbeing predated.Sheepaccountforthevastmajorityoflivestockdeaths,butsomepopulationshave particulardepredationissues(e.g.reindeerintheScandinavianandKarelianpopulations).However, incountrieswheretheabsenceofwolveshasresultedinextensivesheepgrazingwithminimal supervision,reestablishingformermitigationmeasures(e.g.shepherding,livestockguardingdogs) orestablishingnewmeasures(e.g.electricfences)cancostmanytimestheamountspendon compensation,e.ginFrancecompensationin2011amountedfor~1M,whereasmitigation amountedfor~7M. Theacutenessoftheresultingsocialconflictisnotnecessarilyalwaysdirectlyproportionaltothe numberofanimalslostasillustratedbytheScandinaviancase,whereanannuallossof~20hunting dogsisamajordriverofalowacceptanceofthewolfinruralcommunities.Anincreasingnumberof countriesofferacompensationsystem(withtheexceptionofAlbania,TheformerYugoslav RepublicofMacedoniaandLithuania),althoughwhopaysthecompensation,andunderwhat conditions,variesgreatly. 5.Populationgoals&populationlevelcooperation Quiteafewadvancesinpopulationlevelmanagementhavebeenreportedinmanytransboundary populations.Agreementsbetweencountriesincludesomedegreeofcoordinatedmanagement (SloveniaCroatia),sharinginformation(e.g.ItalyFranceSwitzerland,GermanyPoland,Sweden NorwayFinland),ormostcommonlyworkinggroupsbetweenscientistsormanagers.Forsome populationshowever,littleornoprogresshasbeenmade,eitherbetweencountries(Karelian, Carpathian)orwithinthesamecountry(NorthWesternIberian).Innocasesarethereasyetany formallybindingpopulationmanagementplansbetweendifferentcountries.
42
6.Threats strelevantth hreats(group pedin19ma aincategorie es)forwolvesinEurope, basedon28 8 Themos question nnairesoverallwolfpopulations,we reidentified das:lowacce eptance,hab bitatlossdue eto infrastru ucturedevelo opment,persecution,po oormanagem mentstructuresandaccid dentalmorta ality. Mostthr reatswereexpectedtobecome b sligh htlymoreimportantinth hefuture(Fig g.2).
hreatassess smentreleva antforwolve esoverallpo opulationsin nEurope. Fig.2:Th
43
[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals.] POPULATION Lastsizeestimate Mostrecentpopulation Trend20062011 WolfOnlineInformation estimate System(2005) Scandinavian Sweden:102119(+24 Sweden:29packs+25scent Increase crossborder) markingpairs(includingcross borderindividuals)[2012] Norway:21 Norway:3packs+2scent (excludingborderpacks) markingpairs(2324wolves) (excludingborderindividuals) [2012] TOTAL:32packs+27scent markingpairs TOTAL:147164 260330individuals Finland:205215 Karelian Finland:150165 [2012] Decrease
(notincluding: Russianoblasts ofKareliaand Murmansk)
Baltic
(notincluding: Belarus,northern Ukraineandthe Russianoblasts ofKaliningrad, Lenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov, Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk, Moscow, Kursk,Belgorodand Orel)
Estonia:110 Latvia:~300 Lithuania:355 Poland:200 SubTOTAL:~1000
Estonia:23030[2010] Latvia:300100[2010] Lithuania:~300[2011] Poland:267359(6777packs) [2009] SubTOTAL:8701400
Stabletoincreasing Estonia:increase(partlydueto changeinmethodology Latvia:stable. Lithuania:stable Poland:increase
Central European Lowlands
Carpathian
(thistimenot including:south western Ukraine)
Germany:6 Poland:13 TOTAL:19individuals Slovakia:400600 Romania:2500 Poland:290 CzechRepublic:~10 Hungary:1025 SubTOTAL:3300
Germany: 14packs+3scent markingpairs+single residents(43adultwolves) [2012] Poland:22packs+2pairs (100110wolves)[2012] TOTAL:36packs+5pairs Slovakia:~200400(but officialestimateis1823 [2010]) Romania:23002700[most recentbutundated] Poland:minimumestimate 4751packs(209254wolves) [2009] CzechRepublic:1wolf[2012] Hungary:singleindividuals SubTOTAL:3000
Increase
DinaricBalkan
Slovenia:70100 Croatia:150210 Bosnia:600 Bulgaria:20003000
Slovenia:3243[2010] Croatia:168219(50packs) [2011] Bosnia:650[2010] Bulgaria:~1000[2011](but
Likelystable,buttrend assessmenthinderedby methodologicalproblems Slovakia:Possibledouble countingsincenumberof huntinggroundshasincreased (theirsizehasdecreased) Romania:stable Poland:fluctuating CzechRepublic:decrease (possiblyduetomethodology change). Likelystable,buttrend assessmenthinderedby methodologicalproblems Slovenia:decrease,probablydue
44
TheformerYugoslav RepublicofMacedonia: 600800 Serbia:7501000 Greece:650 Albania:9001200 TOTAL:5000 TOTAL:500800 France:61130 Italy:noinfo Switzerland:3 TOTAL:~100120 Spain:~2000 Portugal:~220435 TOTAL:~22002500 officialestimateis22002500 [20062005]) TheformerYugoslav RepublicofMacedonia:267 [2010] Serbia:80050[2011] Greece:noupdateddata,700 minimum[1999] Albania:200250[2010](but officialestimateis2370 [2009]) TOTAL:3900 TOTAL:600800 France:68minimumnumbers (13packs+7transboundary packs)[2009/10] Italy:67minimumnumbers (12packs+7transboundary packs)[2009/10] Switzerland:8[2011],first reproductionin2012 Austria:28[20092011] Slovenia:occasional dispersers TOTAL:32packs[2009/10] (>160wolves) Norecentestimatesoftotal populationsize.Onlyfor someregions:Basque Country,Catalonia,Castilla LaMancha,Madrid. TOTAL:norecentupdate tobettermonitoringmethods implementedsince2010. Croatia:slightincrease. Bulgaria:decreaseduetoearlier improperestimate. TheformerYugoslavRepublic ofMacedonia:decrease. Serbia:stable. Greece:noupdateddata. Albania:decreasebutlikelydue todifferentmonitoringmethods Stable Increase
Italian Peninsula Alpine
NWIberian
SierraMorena
TOTAL:6377
1pack[2012] TOTAL:1pack
Possibledecrease,buttrend assessmenthinderedbylackof updatedpopulationestimates. Spain:recentestimatesonly fromsmallpartofrange Portugal:decreaseofbreeding packsfromrecentsurveys conductedinspecificareas (TrsosMontesarea,South Douroriverarea) Decreaseandpopulationclose toextinction
45
Population Country Norway Scandinavian Sweden Monitoringmethods National Regional Snowtracking,genetics (individual recognition&inbreedingcoefficients),dead wolves,wolfdamagereports Snowtracking,genetics (individual recognition&inbreedingcoefficients), telemetry,deadwolves,wolfdamagereports Snowtracking,genetics,telemetry(50%of packs) Snowtracking,uniquereproductivepacks, observations &tracks Sumofhuntingground"counts", guesstimate,longtermtrendinharvest composition&efficiency Snowtracking,sumofhuntingground "count",guesstimate Collectionofwolfpresencesigns toconfirm packs Snow&sandtracking,camera trapping, genetics,collectionofconfirmedC1 andC2 signs Collectionofwolfpresencesigns toconfirm packs Noinfo Howling,genetics Howling,genetics
Karelian
Finland Estonia Latvia
Baltic Lithuania PolandNE Germany PolandW CzechRepublic Carpathian PolandSE
Genetics Snowtracking,genetics,howling,telemetry Telemetry Snowtracking,genetics,howling,telemetry Confirmed&documentedtracks andscats fromwinter
CentralEuropean Lowlands
DinaricBalkan
Collectionofwolfpresencesigns toconfirm Snowtracking,genetics,howling,telemetry packs Snowtracking,howling,genetics,camera Romania Sumofhuntingground"counts" trapping,telemetry,confirmedpacks Slovakia Sumofhuntingground"counts" Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping Snowtracking,camera trapping,sign Albania Guesstimate identification,questionnaires Snowtracking,howling,sumofhunting Bosnia Herzegovina ground"count" Snowtracking,telemetry,howling,density Bulgaria Sumofhuntingground"count",guesstimate extrapolation Snowtracking,analysis ofspatiotemporal occurenceofwolfdamages inareas where Croatia Combinedestimate wolves feedpredominantlyonlivestock, telemetry Greece Howlingtoconfirminformationfromlocals, Snowtracking,howling,genetics,camera wolfdamagereports,interviews withlocals trapping Noinfo Sumofhuntingground"counts" Noinfo Guestimates
Noinfo Noinfo Noinfo Noinfo Snowtracking,howling,genetics Genetic CMR Densityextrapolation,guesstimate Snowtracking,howling,genetics,telemetry Genetics,camera traps Snowtracking,CMRgenetics,howlingto France confirmreproduction,confirmedpresence signs Alpine Snowtracking,CMRgenetics,howlingto ItalyAlps confirmreproduction,confirmedpresence signs Switzerland Genetics,camera traps,confirmedsigns Portugal Rendevouzsiteinvestigation&howling NWIberia SpainNW Rendevouzsiteinvestigation&howling Snowtracking,genetics Rendevouzsiteinvestigation&howling, SierraMorena SpainS damagelevels *Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence.
Kosovo* "TheFormer YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia" Montenegro Serbia Slovenia ItalianPeninsula ItalyPeninsula Austria
46
POPULATION Scandinavian Rangechangesincelastassessment/Trend20062011 Increase Sweden:increase Norway:moreorlessunchangedestablishedwolvesareconfinedtothe managementzonealongtheSwedishborder Moreorlessstable Finland:nochangebutlikelylesswolvesinEasternFinland Increase Estonia:stable Latvia:stable Lithuania:stableorincreasing Poland:increase
Karelian
(notincluding:Russian oblasts ofKareliaandMurmansk)
Baltic
(notincluding:Belarus, northern UkraineandtheRussian oblasts ofKaliningrad,Leningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver, Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow, Kursk,BelgorodandOrel)
CentralEuropean Lowlands Carpathians

(thistimenotincluding: southwestern Ukraine)
Increase Likelystable Slovakia:noinformationprovided CzechRepublic:decrease(possiblyduetomethodologychange) Romania:stable Poland:generallystable Increase Slovenia:increase Bulgaria:decreaseduetoearlierimproperestimate.Arecentfieldsurveyrevealed wolvesdonotpermanentlyinhabitsomeoftheareaspointedoutbyforestersin 2008asareaswithpermanentwolfpresence Croatia:increasedrangeofoccurrencesofdispersers TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:stable Serbia:slightincreasetothenorthincentralpartofthecountry Greece:increaseinSouthofthecountry Albania:stable Stable Increase NorecentupdatefrommostIberianareas Spain:apparentlystable Portugal:slightdecreaseinsomeareas Decrease/almostextinct
DinaricBalkan
ItalianPeninsula Alpine NWIberian
SierraMorena
47
POPULATION Scandinavian Karelian Country Norway Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Baltic Lithuania Time period 2007 2011 2009 2012 2009 2011 2008 2010 2006 2012 2006 2011 Definitionofcells Permanent Sporadic Confirmedpacks All other signs buffered bufferedby10 km by10km Confirmedpacks All other signs Confirmedpacks All other signs Confirmedpacks All other signs Harvestdata confirming All other signs reproduction Wolves presencein Wolfpresence50%of 50%ofall counts all counts Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other signs occupationover last3 years All other signs,but alsofrequencyand Confirmedpacks/pairs qualitycriteria (1C1 or 3 C2) Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other signs occupationover last3 years All other signs NA Confirmed reproductionor 50% All other signs occupationover last3 years 66%ofcell intersects 33%ofcell intersects huntingunits with huntingunits with bears bears Nocriteria provided Noinfo Expertassessment Expertassessment basedondensityof basedondensityof signs andhabitat signs andhabitat qualityhigh qualitylower Signdensity&best Signdensity&best qualityhabitathigh qualityhabitatlower Confirmedsigns based onquestionnaires to local forestryunits Noinfoyet andsigns from original fieldwork 50%ofgridfilledby 50%ofgridfilledby extrapolated extrapolated distributionmap distributionmap Confirmedpacks or livestockdepredation All other signs everyyear Noinfo Noinfo Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Noinfo Confirmedpacks Confirmedpacks & expertassessmentof packterritories Confirmedpacks 3 outof5 years Confirmedpacks 3 outof5 years Confirmedpacks Confirmedpacks Confirmedpacks Nocriteria provided Nocriteria provided Noinfo All other All other signs All other signs All other signs All other signs All other signs Noinfo onlyinformationfor Pyrenees included Noinfo 550 24 574 N ofoccupiedcells Permanent 556 253
1
Sporadic 1,705 1,124
All 2,261 1,377
942
492
1,434
PolandNE
2008 2011
Germany CentralEuropean Lowlands PolandW CzechRepublic PolandSE Carpathian Romania Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina
2011/12
157
84
241
2008 2011 2006 2010 2008 2011
1,442
270
1,712
20062011/12 last20 years 2006 2011
2000 2012
Bulgaria
2000 2012
DinaricBalkan
Croatia
2005 2008
2,565
749
3,314
Greece Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro Serbia Slovenia ItalianPeninsula ItalyPeninsula Austria France ItalyAlps Switzerland Portugal SpainNW SpainS
2006 2010 Noinfo 2006 2011 2008 2011 Noinfo 20092011/12 ~last5 years 2007 2011 2006 2010 2010 2011 2005 2011 2007 SPOIS 2000/01,2003 & 2011,since2000 dependingonregion 2010/2011
Alpine
332
268
600
NWIberia
1,166
37
1,203
SierraMorena Total
8 7,983
0 4,818
8 12,801
48
POPULATION Scandinavian Connectivity ThereisverylimitedgeneticexchangewiththeKarelianwolfpopulation.Immigration fromtheKarelianpopulationistheonlypossiblenaturalmechanismtoincreasethe geneticvariabilityoftheScandinavianpopulation.Withtheexceptionofanoccasional routeacrosstheBalticice,allimmigrantsmustpassthroughthereindeerherding areasofnorthernFinland,SwedenandNorwaywherewolvesarerarelytolerated. Translocationsasapossibilitytoincreasegeneticvariabilityarebeingdiscussed. TheKarelianpopulationisthewesternmostextensionofthemuchlargerRussian populationandthereisapossibilityforconnectionwiththeBalticpopulationinthe south.However,thereissomenewgeneticevidencefromFinlandthatimpliesmuch lessgeneticexchangethanwaspreviouslyassumed.Someoccasionalexchangewith theScandinavianpopulationoccurs. TheBalticpopulationisalsothewesternmostportionofthemuchlargerpopulation inRussiaandBelarus,anditalsopotentiallyconnectswiththeKarelianpopulation. However,thereismuchuncertaintyaboutthestatusofwolvesinthesouthernpartof theirdistributionrangeinRussiaandBelarushasannouncedplanstoreduceits population.InPoland,althoughthedistributionisnotcontinuous,dispersalmightbe stillpossiblebetweentheBalticandCarpathianpopulations. Thispopulationhasbeenexpanding.ThesourcepopulationistheBalticpopulation. However,recentgeneticresultsshowthatgeneticexchangebetweenboth populationsislow.In2009ayoungradiomarkedwolffromGermanydispersed throughnorthernPolandallthewaytoLithuaniaandBelarus. ItislikelythatsomelevelofgeneticexchangeoccurswiththeDinaricBalkan populationinwesternBulgaria,andwiththeBalticpopulationthrougheastern Poland,althoughthisconnectionisfragmented. Tothenorth,thepopulationhasnocontactwiththenearestpopulationintheAlps, althoughdispersinganimals(fromtheDinaricBalkanpopulation)havebeenrecently reportedinAustriaandeasternItaly.Totheeast,thepopulationmayexchange individualswiththelargewolfpopulationoftheCarpathianswhichextendsinto northernBulgaria.Theextentofinternalconnectivityanddegreeofsubstructuringis ingreatneedofclarification. Thenearestpopulation(apartthatintheWesternAlps,seebelow)isinSlovenia (DinaricBalkanpopulation). ThegeneticcontinuitywiththeItalianPeninsulapopulationhasbeenassessedat2.5 individualspergeneration,allofthemmovingfromtheApenninestotheAlpine population.In2005,ayoungradiomarkedwolfdispersedmorethan1,000kmfrom Parma(intheItalianPeninsulapopulation)toNice(inTheFrenchpartoftheAlpine population).RecentgeneticevidencefromtheAustrianAlpshasconfirmedwolvesof Italianorigin,andsuggestedothersoflikelyDinaricBalkanandEasternEuropean (nodifferentiationonpopulationlevelpossible)origin.In2012ayoungradiomarked wolfdispersedfromtheSlovenian/CroatianborderthroughAustriatotheItalianAlps nearLagodieGarda. ThenearestwolfpopulationisintheWesternAlpsandconnectionsbetweenthetwo donotexist.However,wolvesfromtheAlpshavebeenreachingthePyrenees, althoughbreedinghasnotbeenconfirmedyet. ThepopulationisisolatedfromtheNWIberianpopulationby270kilometers,butis almostextinct.
Karelian
Baltic
CentralEuropean Lowlands
Carpathians
DinaricBalkan
ItalianPeninsula Alpine
NWIberia
SierraMorena
49
7.3.IUCNassessment
POPULATION Scandinavian Karelian Baltic CentralEuropean Lowlands Carpathians DinaricBalkan ItalianPeninsula Alpine NWIberia SierraMorena IUCNassessment EN EN LC EN LC LC VU EN NT CR
7.4.Legalstatusandremovaloptions
Country EUhabitat directive Annex NA II &IV IV/V2 V V V II &IV II &IV II &IV II &V II &IV II &V NA NA II &V NA II &IV/V NA NA NA NA II &IV II &IV II &IV II &IV NA II &IV IV/V
4 3
Bern convention II II excluded II excluded III II excluded II excluded II excluded II II excluded II II noinfo excluded II II excluded II II II II II III
N wolveskilled underderogations ofarticle 16in2007 2008 combined NA 10 63 NA NA NA 0 0 0 2 312 NA NA NA NA NA noinfo NA NA NA NA 10 0 0 noinfo NA 0 3

1
Annualwolfremovals underannex5 NA NA 26 (mean20062011) 150(2011;increasing trend) 163 (mean2006 2011) 40(2011;increasingtrend) NA NA NA 0 NA 149(2011;increasing trend) NA NA 380 (mean2006 2009) NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ~200 (estimatedmean2006 2011)
AnnualNonEUlegalwolf removals 6 (2011;increasingtrend) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 272(mean20072011) NA 23(2011;increasingtrend) NA noinfo 144(mean20082010)
Management / Actionplan? yes yes yes yes yes presentedin 2011,still not final yes unapproved conceptsince7 years noinfo under discussion yes no no no inthefinal stage yes no noinfo no
Norway Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Germany Czech Republic Hungary Poland Romania Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Greece Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro Serbia Slovenia Italy Austria France Switzerland Portugal Spain
noinfo noinfo 25 35 (estimatedmeanfor unapproveddraft 20062011) since2007 NA yes NA yes (butAlps no) NA yes NA yes 02(range2006 2011) yes NA no NA yes
*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 2 3 4 TheN2KGroup2011, onannexVinthereindeer excludedfromIIandonannexVnorthof39thareasparallel, onannexVnorthofriver Duero
50
7.5.Conflicttypeandcompensationcosts:
[Mostlybycountryratherthanpopulation,countryattributedtothepopulationithasthelargestsharewith, costsdonotincludeexpensesformitigationmeasures] POPULATION Conflicttypeandcompensationcosts Scandinavian Sweden:100000(~200500smalllivestock),~20huntingdogs.Inadditioncomes thewolfsshareoftheeconomicincentivepaidtoreindeerherdersforthe presenceoflargecarnivores~82000[2009] Norway:120000430000for4002300sheep,070000for0239reindeer [2011] Karelian Finland:500000 1350000(6501001reindeer),32688 154302(30120sheep, 26otherlivestock(cattle,horses),2535dogs)[range20072011] Baltic Estonia:95000(209casesin2011) Latvia:50239livestock,notcompensated(range20082011) Lithuania:nodataandnocompensation Poland(wholecountry):95000(~1000livestockperyear) CentralEuropean Germany:26584(~225smalllivestockin2011) Poland(wholecountry):95000(~1000livestockperyear) Lowlands Carpathians Slovakia:~16000~500livestockin2010 Romania:norecentinformation Poland(wholecountry):95000(~1000livestockperyear) CzechRepublic:~1800(~10livestock)in20062010 DinaricBalkan Slovenia:269000 (453animals)[20072011average] Bosnia:~400livestockin2011 Bulgaria:nodata,nocompensation Croatia:194000in2010(~1500livestock) TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:nodata Serbia:governmentalcompensationonlyintheProvinceofVojvodinawherewolfis strictlyprotected Greece:~8000001500000(~20000sheep,~12000goat,~2000cattle,~2000 horses/mules/donkeys;probablyonly25%getsreported[20062009average]) Albania:nocompensationsystemandnopreventionormitigationmeasures ItalianPeninsula Nodataavailableforlivestockcompensationatnationallevel,dataareavailableonly forsomeprotectedareas Alpine France:~1M(4618livestockin2011)(note:preventionmeasurescost7M) Italy(PiemonteRegion):~72953direct&19703indirectlosses(383mostly sheep/goats)in2011 Switzerland:40000120000(88358livestock)[range20062011] Austria:nocentraldatabaseforactualpayments(1570livestockin20092011) NWIberia Spain:~2M(guesstimate) Portugal:763,858(~2497attacks)[2010] SierraMorena Nodamagesanymoreinthelast3years
51
7.6.Criticalmanagementissues:
Scandinavian TheScandinavianpopulationwasfoundedinthelate1970sbythreeindividualscoming fromFinland.Furtheremigrationhasbeenverylow(therearecurrentlygenesfromonly 5foundersinthepopulation)andthepopulationremainsinbred,whichhasrendered managementproblematic.In20102011,Swedenopenedforalicensedwolfhunt(28in 2009/10,19wolvesin2010/11),whichattractedcriticismfromtheEUcommission.This huntwaspartofabroaderplantoimprovethewolfconservationstatustoincrease acceptanceandtobringnoninbredwolvesinthepopulation,butthishasnotyettaken place.Therecentlyproposedpopulationcapat180wolvescomplementedwithactive translocationswouldnotincreasetheshorttermchanceofthepopulationtoreach demographicFCS,butwouldimprovetheirlongtermgeneticstatus.InNorway,themain conservationissueisthelowgoalwhichhasbeensetbyparliament3packstotally insideNorwaypluspacksontheborderwithSweden. ThepositivetrendwhichtheFinnishportionoftheKarelianpopulationhadinthelast decadeappearstohavebeenreversedasthenumberofpacksreportedisnowdeclining. Thereisalsouncertaintyabouttheexactsizeandthedegreeofeffectiveconnectivity withtheRussianoblastofKarelia. TheBalticpopulationofwolvesisfacingapotentialthreatfromplansbyneighbouring Belarustoreduceitswolfpopulation.AsBelarusareoutsidetheEUandtheCouncilof Europetherearefewrelevantinternationalconventionsthatcanbeusedtostimulate cooperation.However,asof20August2012theimportofwolfhuntingtrophiesfrom Belarushasbeenbanned(EUdeclaration757/20121).Basedonrecentstudies,wolves fromtheRoztoczeregion(togetherwithwolvesfromnorthernUkraineandareas eastward)appeargeneticallydifferentfromwolvesbelongingtotheBalticpopulation, therewillthereforebeaneedfortherevisionofthepopulationstructureofwolvesin thisregion. SurvivalandgeneticvariabilityisverydependentondispersalofindividualsfromNE Poland.Thusfactorslimitingdispersal(vehiclecollisions,poaching,infrastructure barriers)influencestherecoveryprocess. IntheCarpathians,thereisregularandintensiveexploitationofwolvesfrom transboundrypopulationsinSlovakiaandUkraine.Polandsharesabout21transborder packswithSlovakiaandeveryyearatleast18%of150harvestedwolvesinSlovakiaare estimatedtoincludeindividualsfromthesepacks.Altogetherabout60%oftheSlovakian wolfharvestismadewithina20kmzonealongthePolishborder,potentiallycausinga sourcesinkeffect.Similarly,thereisagenerallackofdataontheimpactofwolfhunting inUkraineonthenumberofwolvesinneighbouringPoland,SlovakiaandRomania. Bulgaria:Recentgeneticstudieshavefoundhybridizationofwolveswithdomesticdogs orevenwithgoldenjackals.Killedanimalswhichareclassifiedaswolvesmayactuallybe puredogsorgoldenjackals,thereforeofficialnumbersofkilledwolvesperyearmaynot beaccurate.Ingeneralthereisaneedtoclarifystatusanddistributionwithinthisvast population,withaspecialviewtoidentifyeventualsubstructuring. IntheItalianPeninsulapopulation,hybridizationwithdogsappearstobeavery importantthreat.AnewLIFENATURAprojecthasjuststartedinTuscanytoraisethe levelofawarenessonthisthreatandexperimentaremovalpolicy.Alackofinstitutional engagementfrommanyoftheregionsmakesitimpossibletoorganizeanypopulation widemonitoringschemeofpopulationsize/distributionandofcompensationcosts. InItaly,politicalchangesinsomeregionsarethreateningtoremovefundingand dismantletheorganisationofsomehighlysuccessfulandwellorganisedconservation andconflictmitigationactivities. Lackofcoordinationbetweenauthoritiesinthevariousautonomousregionsanda separationbetweenscienceandmanagementarecriticalissues.Thelackofupdated populationfiguresfortheentirepopulationisamajorsourceofconcerngiventhefact thattheyareexposedtohunting. TheSierraMorenawolfpopulationinsouthernSpainisfacingextinctionduetoan ongoingdecline.Thelatestdatafrom2012onlydocumentsthepresenceofonebreeding pack.
Karelian
Baltic
CentralEuropean Lowlands Carpathians
DinaricBalkan
ItalianPeninsula
Alpine
NWIberia
SierraMorena
1
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:223:0031:0050:EN:PDF
52
7.8.Mostrelevantthreatsperpopulation: Scandinavian poaching(halfthetotalmortality),inbreeding,geographicisolation, acceptancebysociety,practicalimplementationofmanagement Karelian persecution,lowacceptance Baltic lowacceptance,poaching,poormanagementstructure,pathogens(Estonia), infrastructuredevelopment CentralEuropean infrastructuredevelopment,humandisturbance,lowacceptance,poor Lowlands managementstructure Carpathians habitatfragmentation,persecution,humandisturbance,lowacceptance, transport,infrastructuredevelopment DinaricBalkan lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithlivestock,poordialoguewith stakeholders,poormanagementstructures,humandisturbance,poaching, transport,hybrids,poaching,lowlegislationenforcement,infrastructure development. ItalianPeninsula hybrids,poisoning,lowacceptance,poormanagementstructure Alpine lowacceptance,selectivelogging,poaching,poormanagementstructures NWIberia lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithlivestock,(hybridization),(pestcontrol), poaching,fragmentationofmanagementauthorities,habitatfragmentation SierraMorena populationfacinganextinctionvortexwithlowdensitiesandinbreeding. Ultimatethreatsareconflictswithlivestockandhunters Themainthreatsconsideredrelevantvaryquitewidelyamongpopulationsandwithinpopulations withsmallpopulationsnotsurprisinglybeingmoreatriskfromintrinsicfactorsandpopulations coveringmanypoliticalbordersfacingawidervarietyofthreatsthanthosemainlycontainedinone orafewcountries(numberofquestionnairesbypopulationgiveninbrackets).
Issue tickedoffasathreatforwolves(forpresenttime only) Central Ilalian European Dinaric Sierra Balkan Penninsula Karelian NW Iberia Scandinavian Morena Carpathian Lowlands (N=2) (N=1) (N=1) (N=2) (N=7) (N=2) (N=1) (N=5) 4 2 7 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 1 0 2 0 0 4 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 7 1 1 2 0 0 5 2 7 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 6 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 0 2 0 0 3 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Threatcategory(sortedby
overall threatassessmentfor the species)
Lowacceptance Habitat(Infrastructure) Persecution Poormanagementstructure Accidental Mortality Lackof knowledge Change innative fauna Disturbance Harvest Intrinsicfactors Habitat(Livestock) Habitat(Forestry) Habitat(Divers) Preyoverharvest Habitat(Agriculture) Habitat(Mining) Invasive alienSpecies Natural disaster Pollution(incl.Climate change)
Alpine (N=3) 3 3 3 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Baltic (N=4) 4 3 2 4 1 3 4 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
53
WolverineCountry&Europesummary
CompiledbyHenrikAndrn,withinputfromJohnLinnell Fig.1:Wolverine distributioninEurope 20062011.Distribution areasinneighbouring Russiaarenotshown. Darkcells:reproduction Greycells:sporadic occurrence
Scandinavian
Karelian
1.Distribution WolverinesarefoundinfourEuropeancountiesinEurope:Sweden,Norway,FinlandandRussia.The distributionisdividedinto2populations;theScandinavianpopulation(commontoNorwayand Sweden,andtheextremenorthofFinland)andtheKarelianpopulation(FinlandandRussia),but thereisprobablysomeconnectionbetweenthetwopopulations.Forthisassessmenttherearedata onpopulationtrendsanddistributionfromSweden,NorwayandFinland,butnorecentdataare availablefromRussia. 2.Populationestimates&monitoring TheScandinavianpopulationconsistsofabout1,100individualsandisincreasinginSweden(2011: 680(100SE)individuals),butisstableinNorway(2011:385(46SE)individuals).Therangeisalso increasinginSweden,butismoreorlessstableinNorway.ThedifferentdevelopmentsinSweden andNorwaycanbeexplainedbythemuchhigherlegalharvestrateinNorway(yearlyharvest15 20%ofthepopulation)whichaimstostabilisethepopulationascomparedtoSweden(onlyafew individualsperyear,i.e.<1%).ThepopulationinFinlandisincreasingbothinnumbers(2011:150 170individuals)anddistribution. TheannualsurveysinNorwayareperformedbytherangersfromtheStateNatureInspectorate (SNO)andevaluatedandcompiledbyasectionattheNorwegianInstituteforNatureResearch 54
(Rovdata).Chanceobservationsbythepublicarealsofollowedupandverified.Theannualsurveysin Swedenareperformedbyrangersfromthecountywildlifemanagementauthoritiestogetherwith reindeerherdersandothervolunteers.ThecountyboardsevaluatethesurveysandtheSwedish WildlifeDamageCentercompilesthedata. InbothSwedenandNorwaythewolverinesaresurveyedannuallyinMarchMaybysnowtracking andidentificationofnataldenswhichrepresentreproductions.Allformerknowndenningsitesare revisitedandtracksarefollowedinanattempttoidentifynewsites.Thesesurveysaimtocoverthe entirewolverinerangeeverywinter.Reproductionsareregisteredbasedonobservationsofcub tracksorvisualobservationofcubs,orotherdocumentationofdensitecharacteristicsthatcan separatecachesitesfromdensites.InbothNorwayandSwedenmanyofthesitesarerevisited duringsummeraftersnowmelttocollectfurtherevidenceofreproduction.NorwayandSweden havejustcompletedaprocesstostandardisetheirfielddatacollectionandinterpretationprotocols whichwillfacilitatethepublicationofpopulationwidestatusreports.Norwayalsohaveanannual collectionofscatsbasedonsnowtrackingusingsnowscooters.Eachwinterinrecentyearsover 100000kmofscooterbasedtrackinghasbeenconducted.Thissurveyaimstocovertheentire wolverinerangeeachyear.GeneticalmethodsareusedtoconductCaptureMarkRecapture estimatesofpopulationsize. ThesurveyinFinlandisbasedonsnowtrackingandlinetransectsperformedinwinterwhichaims toestimatethetotalnumberofindividualsinthepopulation. DistributionmapsforSweden&Norwayarebasedonverifiednataldensforpermanentpresence andsnowtracking,DNA,verifieddepredation,andshotanimalsforsporadicoccurrence.Allsigns werebufferedbya10kmradiusandintersectedwiththe10x10kmEEAgrid.TheFinnish distributionisbasedonalltracksandsigns. 3.Legalstatusandrelevantmanagementagencies ThepartofthewolverinepopulationsthatfallswithinthetwoEUcountries,SwedenandFinland,are strictlyprotectedunderpanEuropeanlegislation(theHabitatsDirective).Swedenusesderogations underarticle16ofthedirectivetoallowalimitedcullofwolverinesbygamewardens.Finland presentlydoesnotremovewolverinesatall.Norwaymanageswolverineasadefactogamespecies withannualquotasastheyareonlylimitedbytheBernConventioninthisrespect.Becausethe managementobjective(setbyparliament)istomaintainthepopulationatastablelevellowerthan whichithasatpresentwardensfromtheStateNatureInspectoratealsokillwolverinesoutsidethe normalhuntingseasonusinghelicoptersanddenremovals. TheSwedishEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyisworkingonanewmanagementplantoreplacean oldactionplanfrom2000.InSwedenthemanagementdecisions(likeharvestquotas)aremainly takenbytheSwedishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(atanationallevel).However,theaimisto increasinglydelegatemanagementauthoritytotheCountyBoardAdministrations.TheCountyBoard AdministrationsareresponsiblefortheannualwolverinesurveysinSweden. InNorwaythemanagementdecisions(likeharvestquotas)aredelegatedtoRegionalManagement Committeescomposedofcountylevelpoliticiansthatareappointedtothecommitteebythe MinistryoftheEnvironment.Thesecommitteeshavemanagementauthorityonlyifthepopulationis abovetheregionalgoalthathasbeensetbyparliament.Otherwisethedecisionsaretakenbythe DirectorateforNatureManagement(nationallevel). InFinlandtheMinistryofAgricultureandForestryandFinnishWildlifeAgencyisinchargeof wolverinemanagement.Amanagementplanwasdrafted,buthasbeenunderrevisionforthelast fouryearsandstillhasnotbeenfinalized. 55
4.Conflictsandconflictmanagement ThemainhumanwolverineconflictissimilarinSweden,NorwayandFinland,i.e.wolverine depredationonsemidomesticreindeer.InNorway,thereisadditionalconflictbecauseof depredationondomesticsheep.Inallthreecountriesthegovernmentpayscompensationfor wolverinekilleddomesticanimals.InSwedenthecostsarebetween22.5Mperyearforreindeer andinNorwaybetween1.82.2Mperyearforreindeerandbetween2.73.8Mperyearfor sheep.TheSwedishsystemisbasedonariskbasedsystemwherecompensationispaidapriori basedonthepresenceofreproductivewolverineswhereasinNorwaythecompensationispaidex postfactobasedonbothdocumentedlossesandestimatedlosses.Becauseofthedifficultyof findingfreshlykilledanimalsunderextensivegrazingconditionsonlyasmallproportionofthelosses compensatedarebasedondocumentedkills.Finlandpayforacombinationofdocumentedlosses andestimatedlosses. AnimportantmanagementissueinSwedenisthehighlevelofpoachingthatlowersthegrowthrate inthewolverinepopulation,althoughthepopulationisstillincreasing.Animportantmanagement issueinNorwayisthatthecurrentwolverinepopulationisabovethemanagementgoaland thereforetheharvestquotasaresetquitehighinordertoreducethepopulation. ThereisalongtermresearchprojectonwolverinesinnorthernSwedenandnewwolverineprojects incentralandnorthernNorway.Theseresearchprojectshaveatightcooperationandfocuson collectingbasicecologicaldataonwolverines,studyingtheimpactofwolverinesonsemidomestic reindeer,andexploringthepotentialinteractionsbetweenwolverinesandEurasianlynx. 5.Populationgoalandpopulationlevelcooperation TheSwedishmanagementgoalisaninterimtargetof90annualreproductions(approximately580 individuals).Thisinterimtargethasbeenevaluatedandthereisasuggestedmanagementgoalof increasingthistoaminimumof133yearlyreproduction(approximately850individuals)inSweden. InNorwaymanagementisactuallytryingtolowerthepopulationtoitsnationalgoalsof39annual reproductions(approximately250individuals).Therearenoconcretepopulationgoalsforwolverine inFinland,otherthankeepingthepopulationatasustainablelevel. ThereisnoformalcommonpopulationlevelmanagementplanforSwedenandNorway.Butthe nationalagencies(theSwedishEPAandtheDirectorateforNatureManagement)haveregular meetings.ThenewSwedishcarnivorepolicyhasacknowledgedtheideaofpopulationmanagement andcivilservantsatthenationalpoliticallevelmeetonaregulartodiscusslargecarnivore managementquestions.Atthemomentthereisaworkinggroupledbythenationalagenciesto developacommonsurveymethodologyandcommonstatusreportsforSwedenandNorway.Some reindeermanagementunitshavemigrationroutesthatcrosstheborder,inwhichcasethe compensationforlossesispaidbythecountryinwhichthepredationoccurs.Thereislittle coordinationbetweenbothNorwayandSwedenwithFinlandonwolverineissues. 6.Threats Inthepastthemainthreatswereoverharvestandpoaching.Thedisappearanceoftheotherlarge carnivoresinthepastmightalsohavehadanegativeimpactonthewolverine,ascarrionprovidedby thekillsofotherpredatorsisimportantforwolverines. Todaythethreatsarestilloverharvest(harvestforpopulationregulationinNorway)andpoaching. Butthethreatbecauseofoverharvestislowertoday,astheharvestquotasaresetinrelationto managementgoalsandtheeffectsareevaluatedbytheresultsfromannualsurveys.The managementsystemiscomingclosertoanadaptivemanagementapproachwhichmeansthatany undesiredreductionsinpopulationsizecanbeaddressedbyreducingharvestquotas. 56
Anemergingthreatisclimatechangeaswolverinesaredependentongoodsnowconditions(deep snowthatlastslongintospringtime)fortheirnataldens. AchronicthreatisthelowpopulationgoalssetbybothNorwayandSwedenbecauseofconflictwith semidomesticreindeerherdinginbothcountriesandsheepfarminginNorway.Thereindeer husbandrysystemhasadvocatedcertaintolerancelevelsforthetotallossesofreindeertoall predators,basedoneconomicallyacceptablelosses.Theseacceptablelossesaremuchlowerthan theestimatedlossestoday.Thus,ifthepoliticiansdecidetofollowthesetolerancelevels,thenthe managementgoalsforallpredators,includingwolverines,wouldhavetobelowerthantoday. 7.Summarytables 7.1.1.Populationsizeandtrend:
[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals] Name Lastsizeestimate Mostrecentsizeestimate WolverineInformation (2010,2011or2012) Systemof2005 Scandinavian Norway:200 Norway:58reproductions (~385(46SE))[2011] Sweden:400 Sweden:118reproductions (~680(100SE))[2011] TOTAL:600 TOTAL:1065(150SE) Finland:165175 Finland:75 Karelian (thistimenotincluding
Russianoblastsof Murmansk andKarelia)
Trend20062011
Increase
Increase
POPULATION Country Norway Scandinavian Sweden Karelian Finland Monitoringmethods National/population Regional Intensivesnowtracking&natal denmapping.CMRbasedon faecalDNA. Intensivesnowtracking&natal denmapping Intensivesnowtracking line transects
7.2.1.Rangechangesandtrend:
POPULATION Scandinavian Rangechange/Trend Increase Sweden:expandingsoutheastwards(intotheforestlandscape) Norway:stable Increase Finland:increase
Karelian
(thistimenotincluding RussianoblastsofMurmansk andKarelia)
57
POPULATION Country Timeperiod Definitionofcells Permanent Sporadic Confirmed Allother nataldens bufferedby bufferedby 10km 10km Confirmed Allother nataldens bufferedby bufferedby 10km 10km Confirmed female presence Allother (den& bufferedby family 10km tracks) bufferedby 10km Nofoccupiedcells Permanent1 Sporadic1 All1
Norway
20072011
Sweden Scandinavian
20062011
2,202
1,635
2,837
FinlandNW
20092011
Karelian
(thistimenot including Russianoblasts ofMurmansk andKarelia)
1
Finland
Confirmed reproduction Allothers& 20092011 (den& expert family assessment tracks)
277
439
716
unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce
POPULATION Scandinavian Connectivitywithotherpopulations ThereisprobablyaconnectiontotheKarelianpopulationtotheeast,althoughbetter mappingisneededinnorthwesternRussiatoclarifytheconnectivitythrough MurmanskandKareliaoblasts. ThereispotentialconnectivitywithboththeScandinavianpopulationandthe continuousnorthernRussianpopulationofwolverinesthatextendseastwards, althoughbettermappingisneededinnorthwesternRussia.
Karelian
7.3.IUCNassessment:
POPULATION Scandinavian Karelian IUCNassessment VU(Vulnerable)Criterion D1(smallpopulation) Noinformation
Country Norway Sweden Finland
1
EUhabitat directive Annex NA II &IV II &IV
Bern convention II II II
N Animalskilled underarticle16 derogation2007 2008combined NA 8 0

1
Annualremovalsunder annex5 NA NA NA
AnnualNonEUlegallynx removals 77(2011;increasingtrend) NA NA
Management / actionplan yes yes noyet
TheN2KGroup2011
58
7.5.Prog gressinpopulationlevelmanageme ent:

POPULAT TION Scandina avian Population nlevelmanag gement? Norwayan ndSwedenha aveaclosedia alogueonlargecarnivorem managementis ssueat thelevelof o thenationa lwildlifemanagementauth horities.Inad dition,resear rchis coordinate edacrossthe borders.Mon nitoringisbecomingstanda ardised.Reciprocative compensationissuesar eformalisedfor f reindeerunits u thatmigr rateacrosstheborder. i nocommo onmanagementplanthatreallytakesin ntoaccountth hejoint Butthereis wolverinepopulation. Noinforma ation
Karelian
7.6.Conflicttypean ndcosts:
POPULAT TION Scandina avian Karelian Conflictty ypeandcosts peryear Sweden:fo orreindeer2. .02.5M Norway:fo orreindeer1. 82.2M,forsheep2.73.8 8M Finland:1, ,3002,500reiindeer peryea ararecompen nsated Russia:No oinformation
icalmanagementissues: 7.7.Criti
POPULAT TION Scandina avian Criticalma anagement/ conservationissues (indec creasingorde erofimportan nce) Sweden:poaching, p tole rancelevelsdue d toconflict tswithreinde erhusbandry Norway:harvestlevels, populationre egulation,tole erancelevelsd duetoconflic ctswith sbandry reindeerandsheephus Noinforma ation
Karelian
7.8.Mos strelevantthreatsperpopulation: p Themos strelevantth hreats(group pedin19ma aincategorie es)forwolverinebasedo on3question nnaires overallw wolverinepo opulations,were w identifie edas:lowac cceptance,habitatlossd duetolivesto ock (mainlyc concerningreindeer r herd dingareas), harvest(low wpopulationgoals),andp persecution. .Other threatsd didnotplayanyroleforthisspecies. However,climatechang gewasident tifiedasapotential futureth hreat,astheavailabilityof o suitabled enninghabit tat(snowcaves)maydec creasewith increasin ngtemperatures.
59
IV.Appendix
60
Appendix1:Populationnamesusedinthisreportandnamesformerlyused1.
Wolf Wolverine NorthWesternIberian Scandinavian (formerlyalsoreferedtoas (formerlydividedinto IberianorNWIberia Scandinavian,southern population) Norwegian&Swedishforest population) SierraMorena Karelian CentralApennine BohemianBavarian (formerlyalsoreferedtoas (formerlyalsreferedtoas (formerly:Abruzzo, FinishRussianpopulationor BavarianBohemian) Apennine,orApennine Mountains) subdividedintoFinnish WesternRussianandFinnish Westernwolverine population) Alpine Alpine Alpine (formerlyalsoreferedtoas (formerlyalsoreferedtoas (formerlyalsreferedtoas Alps) EasternAlps&WesternAlps) AlpsorWesternCentral Alps) EasternBalkan Balkan ItalianPeninsula (formerlyalsoreferedtoas Italian) Carpathian Carpathian Carpathian (formerlyalsoreferedtoas CarpathianMountains) Dinaric Pindos Dinaric DinaricBalkan Baltic Baltic Baltic Karelian Karelian Karelian (formerlyincludedinNordic populationtogetherwith Norway&Sweden) Scandinavian Scandinavian Scandinavian (formerlyincludedinNordic populationtogetherwith Finland) Pyrenean VosgesPalatinian(formerly CentralEuropeanLowlands (formerly:Germany/West (formerlyalsoreferedtoas alsoreferedtoasVosges) Poland) Pyrenees)
1
Bear Cantabrian
Lynx Cantabrian
Formerlyusedpopulationnamesasfoundin:
LinnellJ.,V.Salvatori&L.Boitani(2008).Guidelinesforpopulationlevelmanagementplansforlargecarnivores inEurope.ALargeCarnivoreInitiativeforEuropereport.preparedfortheEuropeanCommission(contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2). BearOnlineInformationSystemforEurope(BOIS),http://www.kora.ch/spois/bearois/index.htm EurasianLynxOnlineInformationSystemforEurope(ELOIS),http://www.kora.ch/en/proj/elois/online/index.html EurasianLynxOnlineInformationSystemforEurope(ELOIS),http://www.kora.ch/en/proj/elois/online/index.html WolfOnlineInformationSystemforEurope(WOIS),http://www.kora.ch/spois/wolfois/index.htm WolverineInformationSystemforEurope(WISE),http://www.kora.ch/spois/wise%20alpha%200.1/index.htm Mapsofspeciesdistributionandpopulationdesignations: Bear:http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/bear_pop_map.jpg Lynx:http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/lynx_pop_map.jpg Wolf:http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/wolf_pop_map.jpg Wolverine:http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/wolverine_pop_map.jpg
61
Appendix2:Someexamplesofthediversityofdataformatsthatwereprovidedforthemapping largecarnivoredistributioninEurope. Example1:Distributionisprovidedinadifferentgridformat,thechallengewashowtotransferthe oldgridtothenewgrid.TheexampleisforlynxdistributioninnorthernAustria.A)Gridprovidedby expert(7cellsreproduction,27cellssporadic);B)Firstinterpretationbytryingtocomeupwitha matchingsymmetryandnumberofcellshowever,geographicrepresentationiswrong;C)Expert wentbacktohispointdataandintersecteditwiththeEEAgridnowthegeographicrepresentation iscorrect,butthenumberofcellshaschangedto6cellsreproduction,26cellssporadic. A) B)C) Example2:Adistributionmapisprovided.TheexampleisforlynxinCroatia.A)Distributionmapof lynxinCroatiabasedonacombinationofhardfactpointdataandexpertassessmenttofillthegap. B)Conversiontoagridbasedonthe%ofareaoftheEEAgridcellcoveredbythedistributionmap inthiscase>50%wasthecriteriatodefineacellasoccupiedresultingin109cellspermanent,28 cellssporadic. A)B)
62
Example3:Differentcriteriaareused.TheexampleisforlynxinFrance.A)Frenchcriteriadeveloped byVandeletal.2007usesabufferandresultsin193cellsreproduction,123cellssporadic;B)Swiss criteria(nobuffer&permanent=3outof5yearspresent)resultsin83cellsreproduction,171cells sporadic. A)B)
63
Example4:Pointdataisbuffered.TheexampleisforbearsinSweden.A)Femalebearsshotin Sweden20062011asaproofforreproduction/permanentrange.Becausefemalebearhavelarge homerangesof2001,000km(median250km),everykilledfemalewasbufferedwitha10km radius(bufferedarea314km).Eventhisisaconservativeestimateofpermanentpresence,aseach femaleshomerangewillbeassociatedwithmalehomerangesthatareevenlarger.Thebuffered areawasintersectedwiththeEEAgridandresultedin1,498cellswithreproduction.Withoutthe bufferonly640cellswouldhavebeenidentifiedascellswithreproduction. A)B)
64
Example5:Onlypointdatawithacertainqualityandathresholdnumberareused.Theexampleis forlynxinGermanyintheBavarianpopulation.A)SCALPC1&C2signscollectedin2010/11(only oneyear)black(C1)grey(C2)butnoevidenceofreproduction,red(C1)&yellow(C2)plusevidence ofreproduction.B)Cellsareonlyacceptedasoccupiediftheycontainatleast1C1or2C2signsfor bothcategoriesresultingin5cellswithreproductionand14cellswithsporadicoccurrence. A)B)
65
Appendix3:QuestionnaireonthestatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresinEurope. __________________________________________________________________________________
LCIE2012KnowledgeUpdate
IMPORTANT: A)Alldatareferto2010ifnototherwisespecified B)ThisformshouldbefilledforeachcountryAND,ifyouhavethedata,alsoforeachportionoftheLCIEdefinedpopulationsinsidethe country.Wewilllatercompiletogetherthedatatoproducea(LCIE)populationbasedreport. C)Thefollowingquestionsrequestalevelofdetailthatmaynotbeapplicableorpossibleformanyrespondents.Pleasefillinasmuchas youcanandwhereitisapplicable. D)Foranswersthatcontainnumbers,pleasetrytoattachtheoriginalreport(inanylanguage)wheretheycomefromsothatwecantrack thenumberswewillpresent. SPECIES: COUNTRY: POPULATION: COMPILER: 1.ABUNDANCE 1.1Howispopulationsizeestimated?
1.1.1. aerialsurvey: Y/N 1.1.2. snowtracking: Y/N 1.1.3. wolfhowling: Y/N 1.1.4. geneticsampling: Y/N 1.1.5. densityextrapolation: Y/N 1.1.6. guesstimate: Y/N 1.1.7. CMRcameratrapping:Y/N 1.1.8. sumofhuntinggroundcounts: Y/N 1.1.9. other:. . 1.2.Whodoesit? 1.2.1. governmentalagencies: Y/N 1.2.2. academic/researchcenters: Y/N 1.2.3. NGOs(conserv.orhunting): Y/N 1.2.4. independentindividuals: Y/N 1.2.5. other:.. 1.3.Whatisthelatestmedia/meanvalue(orranges)ofpopulationsize:.(Date:..) 1.3.1anderroraroundthemean?.. 1.4.ArethesevaluesrevealinganincreaseoradecreasesincethepreviouspopulationestimatepublishedintheSPOIS?........... 1.4.1.Giveatablewithestimatesperyearsifpossible: 2006.2007...2008..2009. 1.4.2.Arechangesaconsequenceofchangedmethodology: Y/N 1.4.3.Arechangesaconsequenceofplannedmanagementaction: Y/N 1.5.Ifbothofficialestimationsanddivergingscientific/expertestimatesareavailablegiveboth.:official.(Date:) expert..(Date:...) 1.6.Presentdensitynumbersifsuchareavailablefrom(1)specificareas(scientificrobustmethodology(e.g.CMR)or(2)official densityestimateswerepublished: Area/name Areasize Popul.Size Density Methodused Date Comments:
Entirecountry/ knowndistrib.range
Partofcountry/known distrib.range
Referencearea
66
2.RANGE 2.1.Pleaseattachamaptothisupdate,separatingbetweenrangeofreproductive/residentindividualsandareasonlyusedby vagrants/dispersers.(Use10x10kmrastermapforupdatefollowinstructionsinseparateattachment).Pleaseprovidedataofthe map. 2.2.Hastherangeincreasedordecreasedsincethelast(SPOIS2007)rangeestimate?.................................................. Comments:.. 3.MANAGEMENTANDHARVEST 3.1.Isthereaformalmanagementplanoractionplan? Y/N Ifyespleasesendacopyaspdf 3.2.Whichistheformaldepartment/ministryresponsibleformanagement? .. 3.3.Towhatextentismanagementdecentralizedtosubnationalauthorities? .. 3.4.Towhatextentarethepublic/stakeholdersinvolvedinmanagementplanningandmanagementdecisions? ......................................................................................... . 3.5.Isthereanofficialgoalforthesizeanddistributionofthepopulation? Y/N Ifsowhatarethegoals? 3.6.Arethereanyspecificzoningpolicieswithdifferentmanagementsystemsindifferentregions? . 3.7.Whatisthelegalstatusofthespeciesinthecountry:. 3.8.Arethereanyformal(Y/N)__________orinformal(Y/N)___________transboundaryarrangementsconcerningcooperationin largecarnivoremanagement?Ifso,pleaseelaborate .. 3.9NumberofrespectiveLSspecies 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 individualkilled Howmanyareknowntobekilledeachyear () byhuntersaspartofahuntingseason byhunters/farmersaspartofatargeted damagelimitationaction bystategamewardens/employees confirmedcasesofillegalkilling trafficmortality disease other(specify) Comments:.. 4.LIVESTOCKDEPREDATIONandCOMPENSATIONSYSTEM 4.1Depredationclaims 2006 Howmanyofthefollowinglivestock speciesareclaimedasbeingkilledeach yearbytherelevantlargecarnivorespecies (givenumberifpossible,otherwiseY/N) sheep goats cattle horses pigs reindeer dog other
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
67
4.2.Isthereacompensationsysteminplaceinyourcountryforthebelowlistedlivestockspecies?(iftheanswervariesperprovince/ regionpleasecopythetableandgiveseparateanswersforeachregionwithadifferentsystem) Y/N sheep. goats cattle.............. horses............ pigs................. reindeer.................. dogs other 4.2.1.Ifyes,whopaysthecompensation? a)Thegovernment?Y/NIfyesfromwhichdepartmentorministryarefundsdrawn? b)Hunters?Y/N c)EnvironmentalNGO?Y/N d)Other?(pleasemention) 4.2.2.Doesthesystemcompensateonlydocumentedlosses?Y/N ordoesitalsopayforanimalsthataresimplylost?(Y/N) ifsoarethereanyconditionsaboutcompensatinglostanimals?........................................................................................................ 4.2.3.Arekilledlivestockexaminedbyanybodytoconfirmthecauseofdeath?Y/N, ifsowhoexaminesthekills?....................................................................... 4.2.4.Whatproportionofthelivestockthatarecompensatedareconfirmedasbeingkilled?........................................... 4.2.5.Whatpercentageofthevalueofthekilled/lostlivestockispaid?_________ 4.2.6.Iscompensationpaidinrealtime(continuouslyorinregulartimesteps)orattheendofeachyear?................................... 4.3Livestockcompensated 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Howmanyofthefollowinglivestock speciesarecompensatedasbeingkilled eachyearbytherelevantlargecarnivore species sheep goats cattle horses pigs reindeer dogs other 4.4.Compensationcosts 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Howmuchisspentonpayingfor compensationforthefollowinglivestock eachyear? sheep goats cattle horses pigs reindeer dogs other 4.5.Isfundingavailableforadoptingmitigation(topreventdepredation)measures? Y/N Ifyes,whopays?(nametheagencyordepartment) 4.6.Whichofthefollowingmeasuresaresupported? 4.6.1.Electricfencing? Y/N 4.6.2.Livestockguardingdogs Y/N 4.6.3.Salaryforshepherds? Y/N 4.6.4.Otherlogisticalsupportforshepherds? Y/N Ifyes,pleasementionwhich:
68
4.6.5Conversiontoalternativeformsofagriculture?Y/N Comments:.. .. ___________________________________________________________________________ 5.THREATSTOSURVIVAL(adaptedfromthenewIUCNauthoritylists) Fillin: x=moderatelyimportant xx=veryimportant Threat 1.Habitatloss/degradation(humaninduced) 1.1.Agriculture 1.1.1.Crops 1.1.2.Woodplantations 1.1.3.Nontimberplantations 1.1.4.Livestock 1.1.5.Abandonment 1.1.8.Other 1.1.9.Unknown 1.2.1.Abandonment 1.2.2.Changeofmanagementregime 1.2.3.Other 1.2.4.Unknown 1.3.1.Mining 1.3.3.Wood[forestrypractices] 1.3.4.Nonwoodyvegetationcollection 1.3.7.Other 1.3.8.Unknown 1.4.1.Industry 1.4.2.Humansettlement 1.4.3.Tourism/recreation 1.4.4.Transportland[roads/railways] 1.4.5.Transportwater 1.4.6.Dams 1.4.7.Telecommunications 1.4.8.Powerlines 1.4.9.[Windpowerdevelopment] 1.4.10.Unknown 1.3.3.1.Smallscalesubsistence 1.3.3.2.Selectivelogging 1.3.3.3.Clearcutting 1.1.4.1.Nomadic 1.1.4.2.Smallholder 1.1.4.3.Agroindustry 1.1.3.1.Smallscale 1.1.3.2.Largescale 1.1.2.1.Smallscale 1.1.2.2.Largescale 1.1.1.1.Shiftingagriculture 1.1.1.2.Smallholderfarming 1.1.1.3.Agroindustryfarming
Past <2005
Present2006 Future 2011 >2012
1.2.Landmanagementofnonagriculturalareas
1.3.Extraction
1.4.Infrastructuredevelopment
69
1.5.Invasivealienspecies(directlyimpactinghabitat) 1.6.Changeinnativespeciesdynamics(directlyimpactinghabitat) 1.7.Fires 1.8.Othercauses 1.9.Unknowncauses 2.1.Competitors 2.2.Predators 2.3.Hybridizers 2.4.Pathogens/parasites 2.5.Other 2.6.Unknown 3.1.Food[killingcarnivoresforfood] 3.1.1.Subsistenceuse/localtrade 3.1.2.Subnational/nationaltrade 3.1.3.Regional/internationaltrade 3.2.1.Subsistenceuse/localtrade 3.2.2.Subnational/nationaltrade 3.2.3.Regional/internationaltrade 3.5.1.Subsistenceuse/localtrade 3.5.2.Subnational/nationaltrade 3.5.3.Regional/internationaltrade
2.Invasivealienspecies(directlyaffectingthespecies)
3.Harvesting[hunting/gathering]
3.2.Medicine[killingformedicine]
3.5.Cultural/scientific/leisureactivities[i.e.recreationalhunting]
3.6.[Populationregulation] 3.7.[Overharvestingofwildpreypopulations] 4.1.2.1.Trapping/snaring 4.1.2.2.Shooting 4.1.2.3.Poisoning 4.1.3.Other 4.1.4.Unknown 4.2.2.Vehiclecollision
4.Accidentalmortality
4.2.Collisions 4.3.Other 4.4.Unknown 5.1.Pestcontrol 5.2.Other 5.3.Unknown 6.1.Atmosphericpollution 6.1.1.Globalwarming/oceanicwarming 6.1.2.Acidprecipitation 6.1.3.Ozoneholeeffects 6.1.4.Smog 6.1.5.Other 6.1.6.Unknown 6.2.1.Agricultural 6.2.2.Domestic 6.2.3.Commercial/Industrial 6.2.4.Othernonagricultural
5.Persecution[illegalkilling/poaching]
6.Pollution(affectinghabitatand/orspecies)
6.2.Landpollution
70
6.2.5.Lightpollution 6.2.6.Other 6.2.7.Unknown 6.3.1.Agricultural 6.3.2.Domestic 6.3.3.Commercial/Industrial 6.3.4.Othernonagricultural 6.3.5.Thermalpollution 6.3.6.Oilslicks 6.3.7.Sediment 6.3.8.Sewage 6.3.9.Solidwaste 6.3.10.Noisepollution 6.3.11.Other 6.3.12.Unknown
6.3.Waterpollution
6.4.Other 6.5.Unknown 7.1.Drought 7.2.Storms/flooding 7.3.Temperatureextremes 7.4.Wildfire 7.5.Volcanoes 7.6.Avalanches/landslides 7.7.Other 7.8.Unknown 8.1.Competitors 8.2.Predators 8.3.Prey/foodbase 8.4.Hybridizers 8.5.Pathogens/parasites 8.6.Mutualisms 8.7.Other 8.8.Unknown 9.1.Limiteddispersal 9.2.Poorrecruitment/reproduction/regeneration 9.3.Highjuvenilemortality 9.4.Inbreeding 9.5.Lowdensities 9.6.Skewedsexratios 9.7.Slowgrowthrates 9.8.Populationfluctuations 9.9.Restrictedrange 9.10.Other 9.11.Unknown 10.1.Recreation/tourism 10.2.Research 10.4.Transport 10.5.Fire 10.6.Other
7.Naturaldisasters
8.Changesinnativespeciesdynamics
9.IntrinsicFactors
10.Humandisturbance
71
10.7.Unknown 11.1.1.Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithlivestock 11.1.2.Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithhunters 11.1.3.Lowacceptanceduetooverprotection/legalconstraintsonallowingharvest 11.1.4.Lowacceptanceduetosymbolicandwidersocialeconomicissues 11.1.5.Lowacceptanceasformofpoliticaloppositiontonational/Europeanintervention 11.1.6.Lowacceptanceduetofearforpersonalsafety 11.1.7.Lowacceptanceduetofundamentalconflictofvaluesaboutthespeciespresencein modernlandscapes 11.2.1.Lackofknowledgeaboutspeciesnumbersandtrends 11.2.2.Lackofknowledgeaboutspeciesecology 11.2.3.Lackofknowledgeaboutconflictmitigation 11.3.1.Poorenforcementoflegislation 11.3.2.Poordialoguewithstakeholders 11.3.3.Poorcommunicationandlackofpublicawareness 11.3.4.Lackofcapacityinmanagementstructures 11.3.5.Fragmentationofmanagementauthority 11.3.6.Poorintegrationofscienceintodecisionmaking 11.1Lackofpublicacceptancefortheirpresence
11.2Lackofknowledge
11.3Poormanagementstructures
11.4Other
6.CONSERVATIONMEASURES 6.1.Whichconservationmeasureshavebeenimplementedtoaddressthethreatsoutlinedabove?Uselistathttp://www.kora.ch/sp ois/.Crossout(butdonotdelete)measuresnolongervalidandhighlightmeasuresnewlyaddedtothelist. 7.ISSUESOFPARTICULARINTEREST 7.1Anythingparticularissueyoubelieveisworthmentioning(e.g.forwolvesinScandinavia,itwouldbeinbreeding).Listpercountry, butindicatepopulationconcernedforcountrieswith>1population 8.ONGOINGORRECENTLYTERMINATEDCONSERVATION/RESEARCHPROJECT 8.1Provideabrieflistofprojectswithtitle,purpose,institutionresponsible,fundersandbudgets.Indicatepopulationforcountries >1population. Comments:.. THANKYOU!!!
72

Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores - Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine - in Europe (Marts 2013)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores - Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine - in Europe (Marts 2013)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Status,managementanddistributionoflargecarnivores bear,lynx,wolf&wolverine inEurope

ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedwiththeassistanceofIstitutodiEcologiaApplicataandwiththe contributionsoftheIUCN/SSCLargeCarnivoreInitiativeforEurope(chair:LuigiBoitani)under contractN070307/2012/629085/SER/B3.

ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfortheEuropeanCommissionhoweveritreflectstheviews onlyoftheauthors,andtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmay bemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein. Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged

Croatia CzechRepublic Estonia

noinfo noinfo noinfo x NA x x x x x x x

noinfo noinfo noinfo x NA NA NA x x x x x x NA NA x x x x NA x x x x x x x x NA x

SpainNW SpainSierraMorena SpainPyrenees

Sweden Switzerland Total

Table2:Categorizationofthe threatlistfromthe questionnaire.

Overharvestingofwildprey,N=1 Accidental mortality,N=4

Dinaric Central Apennine i d

Status S oflarge ecarnivoresin nEuropeupdate2012

Fig.2:Th hreatassess smentreleva antforbears soverallpop pulationsinEurope. 18

Carpathian (thistimenot includingUkraine)

CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean

Stable Increase Increase

Finland Estonia Latvia Poland Romania

Carpathian Serbia E Slovakia Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Croatia Greece

Telemetry Genetics,individual trackcounts ontransects

CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean

Likelystable Stable Norealcomparisonpossible,likelyslightincrease

2006 2011/12 Noinfo last20 years 2006 2011

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce,incaseoftwocellsgettingdifferentassessmentsfromthedifferent countries,thehighercategorywasused

CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean

Annualbear removals under Annex5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AnnualNonEUlegalbear removals 11 (mean20062011) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 17 (mean20062011) 73 (mean20062011) NA noinfo 0 noinfo 0 NA NA NA 1(in2008;for 20062011) NA NA NA

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 2 3 TheN2KGroup2011, Habituatedbearcapturedandputincaptivity(bearJURKA), FoodconditionedandhabituatedbearJJ3

CentralApennine Cantabrian Pyrenean

EasternBalkans CentralApennine Cantabrian

Carpathian Vosges Palatinia Jura Alpine

Status S oflarge ecarnivoresin nEuropeupdate2012

Stable West:slightincrease East:decrease

Stable North:increasing South:stabletodecreasing

Stableordecrease South:increase North:decrease

included:the Russianoblastsof Murmanskand Karelia)

TOTAL:~2000 Vosges Palatinian France:18 Germany:34 TOTAL:~20

FranceAlps Italy Slovenia Alps

2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2011

All other signs Presence1 2 years All other

Albania Kosovo* "TheFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Montenegro

2008 2011/12 2009 2012

Bulgaria Hungary Carpathian (this timenot included: Ukraine)

2000 2012 2002 2006

20062011/12 2006 2009 noinfo 2005 2011

2008 2011 2000 2012

94 All other signs

Confirmedfamily All other signs buffered groups bufferedby10 by10 km km

Norway Scandinavian Sweden

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce,incaseoftwocellsgettingdifferentassessmentsfromthedifferent countries,thehighercategorywasused

AnnualNonEUlegallynx removals NA NA 1(in2007;for 2006 2011) 0 noinfo NA

Management / actionplan no no yes draftversion noinfo onlyfirst evidenceof potential presence

NA NA NA 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 NA 0 NA NA 0 noinfo 304 NA 86

NA NA 130 (mean2006 2011) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo declarationofindependence. 1 TheN2KGroup2011

Balkan Baltic BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric

BohemianBavarian Carpathian Dinaric Jura Karelian Scandinavian

Central European Lowlands Alpine NWIberian

Italian Peninsula Dinaric Balkan

Status S oflarge ecarnivoresin nEuropeupdate2012

hreatassess smentreleva antforwolve esoverallpo opulationsin nEurope. Fig.2:Th

Estonia:110 Latvia:~300 Lithuania:355 Poland:200 SubTOTAL:~1000

Estonia:23030[2010] Latvia:300100[2010] Lithuania:~300[2011] Poland:267359(6777packs) [2009] SubTOTAL:8701400

Stabletoincreasing Estonia:increase(partlydueto changeinmethodology Latvia:stable. Lithuania:stable Poland:increase