status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in...

7/28/2019 Status, management and distribution of large carnivores bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine in Europe (marts 2013)

1/72

Status,management

and

distribution

of

large

carnivores

bear,lynx,wolf&wolverine

inEurope

MARCH2013

Part1


2/72

StatusoflargecarnivoresinEuropeupdate2012

2

ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedwiththeassistanceofIstitutodiEcologiaApplicataandwiththe

contributionsoftheIUCN/SSCLargeCarnivoreInitiativeforEurope(chair:LuigiBoitani)under

contractN070307/2012/629085/SER/B3.

Status,managementanddistributionoflargecarnivoresbear,lynx,wolf&

wolverineinEurope

PetraKaczensky1,GuillaumeChapron

2,ManuelavonArx

3,DjuroHuber

4,HenrikAndrn

2,andJohn

Linnell5(Editors)

1ResearchInstituteofWildlifeEcology,UniversityofVeterinaryMedicine,Vienna,Savoyenstrasse1,A 1160Vienna,AUSTRIA

2GrimsWildlifeResearchStation,DepartmentofEcology,SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences(SLU),SE 73091Riddarhyttan,SWEDEN

3CoordinatedResearchProjectsfortheConservation&ManagementofCarnivoresinSwitzerland(KORA),Thunstrasse31,CH3074Muri,SWITZERLAND

4UniversityofZagreb,BiologyDepartment,VeterinaryFaculty,Heinzelova55,HR 10000Zagreb,CROATIA

5NorwegianInstituteforNatureResearch(NINA),POBox5685Sluppen,NO7485Trondheim,NORWAY

Contributors(in

alphabetical

order):

MichalAdamec,Franciscolvares,OleAnders,HenrikAndrn,LinasBalciauskas,VaidasBalys,PeterBedo,FerdinandBego,JuanCarlosBlanco,LuigiBoitani,UrsBreitenmoser,HenrikBrseth,LudekBufka,RaimondaBunikyte,GuillaumeChapron,PauloCiucci,AlexanderDutsov,ThomasEngleder,ChristianFuxjger,ClaudioGroff,MiklsHeltai,KatjaHolmala,BlediHoxha,DjuroHuber,YorgosIliopoulos,OvidioIonescu,GjorgeIvanov,JasnaJeremi,KlemenJerina,PetraKaczensky,FelixKnauer,IlpoKojola,IvanKos,MihaKrofel,JakubKubala,SasaKunovac,JosipKusak,MiroslavKutal,JohnLinnell,PeepMannil,RalphManz,EricMarboutin,FrancescaMarucco,DimceMelovski,KujtimMersini,YorgosMertzanis,RobertW.Mysajek,SabinaNowak,JohnOdden,JanisOzolins,GuillermoPalomero,MilanPaunovic,JensPersson,HubertPotonik,PierreYvesQuenette,GeorgRauer,IlkaReinhardt,RobinRigg,AndreasRyser,ValeriaSalvatori,TomaSkrbinek,AleksandraSkrbinek

Maji,AleksandarStojanov,JonSwenson,AleksandrTraje,ElenaTzingarskaSedefcheva,MartinVa,RaunoVeeroja,ManuelavonArx,ManfredWlfl,SybilleWlfl,FridolinZimmermann,DianaZlatanova

ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfortheEuropeanCommissionhoweveritreflectstheviews

onlyoftheauthors,andtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmay

bemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein.

Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged

Cover:PhotocompositionbyAlessandroMontemaggiori


3/72


3

Tableofcontents

Part1:

I.

General

Introduction

4II.Methods 5

III.Europesummaries 15

1.Bear 162.Lynx 283.Wolf 404.Wolverine 54IV.Appendix 60

1.LargeCarnivorePopulationsinEurope. 612.Someexamplesofthediversityofdataformatsthatwereprovidedforthe

mappinglargecarnivoredistributioninEurope.62

3.QuestionnaireonthestatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresinEurope. 66


4/72


4

I.Generalintroduction

Largecarnivores(bearsUrsusarctos,wolvesCanislupus,lynxLynxlynxandwolverinesGulogulo)are

amongthemostchallenginggroupofspeciestomaintainaslargeandcontinuouspopulationsorto

reintegrate

back

into

the

European

landscape.

Political,

socioeconomic

and

society

changes

challenge

pastmanagementapproachesinsomeofthelargepopulations.Atthesametimelocal

improvementsinhabitatquality,thereturnoftheirpreyspecies,publicsupportandfavourable

legislationallowfortherecoveryofsomesmallpopulations.SeveralofEuropeslargecarnivore

populationsarelargeandrobust,othersareexpanding,somesmallpopulationsremaincritically

endangeredandafewaredeclining.

Largecarnivoresneedverylargeareasandtheirconservationneedstobeplannedonverywide

spatialscalesthatwilloftenspanmanyintra andinternationalborders.Withintheselargescales

conservationandmanagementactionsneedtobecoordinated.Tofacilitatecoordination,acommon

understanding

of

the

present

day

conservation

status

of

large

carnivores

at

national

and

population

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.


5/72


5

II.Methods

1.Collectionofinformation

1.1.

European

Species

Summaries

Inordertocollectstandardizedinformationonthestatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresa

questionnairewasdesignedandmailedtoallmembersoftheLCIEandsomeotherkeyexpertsin

2012.Theywereaskedtoeitherfillinthequestionnairethemselvesoraskcolleaguestodoso.The

questionnairehad8sectionsfocusingon(seeAppendix3):

1. Abundance2. Range3. Management&harvest4. Livestockdepredation&compensationsystem5. Threattosurvival6. Conservationmeasures7. Issuesofparticularinterest8. Ongoingorrecentlyterminatedconservation/researchproject

Intotalwereceivedback76questionnaires(Table1).Someadditionalmaterialwascompiledfrom

recentreportsorpublicationsand/orbycontactingnationalLCexpertsviaemailortelephone.

BasedonthesequestionnaireswecompiledaEuropewideoverviewofthesituationoflynx,bear,

wolfandwolverineinEuropetryingtocompileinformationonthelevelofpopulationsoutlinedby

Linnelletal.(2008)asmuchaspossible.Datafromthequestionnaireswascrosscheckedwiththe

CountrySpecies

Reports

(October

2012)

and

updated

incase

new

or

more

detailed

data

had

come

forthinthetimesincethequestionnairesurvey(February2012).Itisimportanttonotethatin

generalwewerenotabletolocatenewupdatedinformationofsuitablequalityfromRussia,Belarus

orUkraine,soinmostthesecasesthesecountrieshavebeenleftoutofthetablesalthoughthey

wereincludedintheLinnelletal.(2008)assessment.

Table1:QuestionnairesreturnedforupdateofstatusandmanagementoflargecarnivoresinEurope.

CountryQuestionnairesavailable

CompiledbyBear Lynx Wolf Wolverine

Albania x x x NA AleksandrTraje,

Bledi

Hoxha,

Kujtim

Mersini,FerdinandBego

Austria noinfo x noinfo NA ThomasEngleder(lynx Bohemia)

BosniaHerzegovina x x x NA SasaKunovac

Bulgaria x x x NADianaZlatanova(bear,lynx),AlexanderDutsov(bear),ElenaTzingarskaSedefcheva(wolf)

Croatia x x x NAJosipKusak&JasnaJeremi (wolf),DjuroHuber(bear,wolf,lynx)

CzechRepublic NA x x NAMiroslavKutal&MartinVa(wolf),LudekBufka(lynx)

Estonia x x x NA PeepMannil,RaunoVeeroja


6/72


6

Finland x x x xKatjaHolmala(lynx,bear),IlpoKojola(lynx,bear,wolf,wolverine)

France x x x NAEricMarboutin(lynx,wolf),PierreYvesQuenette(bear)

Germany NA x x NAOleAnders(lynx Harz),IlkaReinhardt

(wolf)

Greece x NA x NAYorgosMertzanis(bear),YorgosIliopoulos(wolf)

Hungary NA x NA NA MiklsHeltaiandPeterBedo

Italy Appenine x NA x NA PauloCiucci(bears),LuigiBoitani(wolves)

Italy Alps x noinfo x NAClaudioGroff(Trentinobears),FrancescaMarucco(wolves)

Kosovo* noinfo noinfo noinfo NA

Latvia

x

x

x

NA

Janis

Ozolins

Lithuania NA x x NA LinasBalciauskas

"TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia"

x x x NAGjorgeIvanov(bear),DimceMelovski(bear,lynx),AleksandarStojanov(bear,wolf)

Montenegro noinfo noinfo noinfo NA

Norway x x x xJonSwenson(bear),JohnLinnell&HenrikBrseth(lynx,wolf,wolverine)

Portugal NA NA x NA Franciscolvares

Poland W NA NA x NA SabinaNowak,RobertW.Mysajek

Poland Baltic NA x x NA SabinaNowak,RobertW.MysajekPoland Carpathian x x x NA SabinaNowak,RobertW.Mysajek

Romania x x x NA OvidioIonescu

Serbia E x x x NA MilanPaunovic

Serbia W x NA NA NA MilanPaunovic

Slovakia x x x NARobinRigg(wolf,bear),JakubKubala(wolf,lynx)

Slovenia x x x NAMihaKrofel&KlemenJerina(bear),IvanKos&HubertPotonik(lynx),AleksandraMajiSkrbinek&TomaSkrbinek(wolf)

SpainNW x NA x NAJuanCarlosBlanco(wolf,bear),GuillermoPalomero(bear)

SpainSierraMorena NA NA x NA JuanCarlosBlanco

SpainPyrenees x NA NA NA JuanCarlosBlanco,GuillermoPalomero

Sweden x x x xGuillaumeChapron(wolves),JonSwenson(bears),HenrikAndrn(wolverine,lynx),JensPersson(wolverine)

Switzerland x x x NA ManuelavonArx

Total

23

22

28

3

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovo

declarationofindependence.


7/72


7

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.


8/72


8

Gr oup Threatcode Threatname Variable

1 1.1.1.1 Habi tatloss/Crop/Shiftingagriculture

1 1.1.1.2 Habi tatloss/Crop/Small holder farming

1 1.1.1.3 Habi tatloss/Crop/Agroindustry

1 1.1.1.0 Habi tatloss/Crop/General

9 1.1.2.1 Habi tatloss/Woodplantations/smallscale

10 1.1.2.2 Habitatloss/Woodplantations/largescale

11 1.1.2.0 Habitatloss/Woodplantations/General

28 1.3.3.1 Habitatloss/Extraction/Forestry/smallscalesubistence

29 1.3.3.2 Habi tatloss/Extraction/Forestry/selectivelogging

30 1.3.3.3 Habi tatloss/Extraction/Forestry/clearcutting

31 1.3.3.0 Habitatloss/Extraction/Forestry/general15 1.1.4.1 Habitatloss/livestock/Nomadic

16 1.1.4.2 Habitatloss/livestock/small holder

17 1.1.4.3 Habitatloss/livestock/agroindustry

18 1.1.4.0 Habi tatloss/livestock/general

12 1.1.3.1 Habi tatloss /Nontimberplantations/smallscale

13 1.1.3.2 Habi tatloss/Nontimberplantations/largescale

14 1.1.3.0 Habi tatloss/General

20 1.1.5.0 Habi tatloss/Abandonment

21 1.1.8.0 Habi tatloss/Other

23 1.2.1.0 Habi tatloss/Abandonmentofnonagricultural areas

24 1.2.2.0 Habi tatloss/Changeofmanagementofnonagricultural areas

25 1.2.3.0 Habi tatloss/Managementofnonagricultural areas/General

32 1.3.4.0 Habi tatloss/Extraction/Nonwoodyvegetation

46 1.6.0.0 Habitatloss/changein speciesdynamics

47 1.7.0.0 Habitatloss/fire

27 1.3.1.0 Habitatloss/Extraction/mi ni ng Habi tatLoss (Mining),N=1

35 1.4.1.0 Habi tatloss/Infrastructure/industry

36 1.4.2.0 Habi tatloss/Infrastructure/humansettlement

37 1.4.3.0 Habi tatloss/Infrastructure/tourism recreation

38 1.4.4.0 Habitatloss/Infrastructure/ transport land

40 1.4.6.0 Habitatloss/Infrastructure/dams

41 1.4.7.0 Habitatloss/Infrastructure/telecommunication

1 .4 .8 .0 H ab i ta tloss/infrastructure/powerlines

43 1.4.9.0 Habitatloss/Infrastructure/windpowerdevelopment

50 2.1.0.0 I nvasivealienspecies/competitors

51 2.2.0.0 I nvasivealienspecies/predators

52 2.3.0.0 I nvasivealienspecies/hybridizers

53 2.4.0.0 I nvasivealienspecies/pathogens&parasites

58 3.1.3.0 Harvesting/food/regional

62 3.5.1.0 Harvesting/recreational/subsistence&local

63 3.5.2.0 Harvesting/recreational/subnational and nationa

64 3.5.3.0 Harvesting/recreational/regionaland international

65 3.6.0.0 Harvesting/populationregulation

66 3.7.0.0 Harvesting/over harvestingofwildprey Overharvestingofwildprey,N=1

67 4.1.2.1 Acci dental mortality/trapping&snaring

68 4.1.2.2 Acci dental mortality/ shooting

69 4.1.2.3 Acci dental mortality/poison

72 4.2.2.0 Acci dental mortality/Vehiclecollisions

75 5.1.0.0 P ersecution/Pestcontrol

76 5.2.0.0 P ersecution/other

77 5.3.0.0 P ersecution/unknown

78 6.1.1.0 Pollution/global warming

84 6.2.1.0 Pollution/agricultural

85 6.2.2.0 Pollution/domestic

86 6.2.3.0 Pollution/comercial

88 6.2.5.0 Pollution/light

89 6.2.6.0 Pollution/other

105 7.1.0.0 Natural diasters/drought

106 7.2.0.0 Natural diasters/storms &flooding

108 7.4.0.0 Natural diasters/fire

110 7.6.0.0 Natural diasters/avalanche&landslides

113 8.1.0.0 Changein nativespecies/competitors

115 8.3.0.0 Changein nativespecies/prey&foodbase

116 8.4.0.0 Changein nativespecies/hybridizers

117 8.5.0.0 Changein nativespecies/parasites&pathogens

118 8.6.0.0 Changein nativespecies/mutualisms

121 9.1.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/limiteddispersal

122 9.2.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/poorrecruitmentorreproduction

123 9.3.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/highjuvenil emortality

124 9.4.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/inbreeding

125 9.5.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/lowdensities

126 9.6.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/skewedsexratios

127 9.7.0.0 Intrinsicfactorsslowgrowthrates

128 9.8.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/populationfluctuations

129 9.9.0.0 Intrinsicfactors/restricted range

130 9.10.0.0 I ntrinsi cfactors/other

132 10.1.0.0 Di sturbance/recreation&tourism

134 10.4.0.0 Di sturbance/transport

135 10.5.0.0 Di sturbance/fire

136 10.6.0.0 Di sturbance/other

138 11.1.1.0 Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithlivestock

139 11.1.2.0 Lowacceptanceduetoconflictswithhunters

140 11.1.3.0 Lowacceptanceduetooverprotection/legalconstraintsonallowing

harvest

141 11.1.4.0 Lowacceptanceduetosymbolicand widersocialeconomicissues

142 11.1.5.0 Lowacceptanceas formofpoliticaloppositiontonational /European

intervention

143 11.1.6.0 Lowacceptanceduetofearforpersonalsafety

144 11.1.7.0 Lowacceptanceduetofundamental conflictofvaluesaboutthe

speciespresencein modernlandscapes

145 11.2.1.0 Lackofknowledgeaboutspeciesnumbersandtrends

146 11.2.2.0 Lackofknowledgeaboutspeciesecology

147 11.2.3.0 Lackofknowledgeaboutconflictmitigation

1 48 11.3 .1.0 I ns ti tuti ons/Poorenforcementoflegislation (poaching)

1 49 11.3 .2.0 I ns ti tuti ons/Poordialoguewithstakeholders

1 50 11.3 .3.0 I ns ti tuti ons/Poorcommunicationand lackofpublic awareness

1 51 11.3 .4.0 I ns ti tuti ons

/

Lack

of

capacity

in

management

structures1 52 11.3 .5.0 I ns ti tuti ons/Fragmentation ofmanagementauthority

1 53 11.3 .6.0 I ns ti tuti ons/Poorintegrationofscienceintodecisionmaking

154 11.4.0.0 Other notincluded

Intrinsic factors,N=10

Disturbance,N=4

Lowacceptance, N=7

Lackofknowledge,N=3

^Poormanagementstructures,N=6

Changein nativespecies,N=5

HabitatLoss (Agriculture), N=4

HabitatLoss (Forestry),N=7

HabitatLoss (Livestock),N=4

HabitatLoss (other),N=1

HabitatLoss (Infrastructure),N=8

Invasivealienspecies,N=4

Harvest,N=5

Accidental mortality,N=4

Persecution, N=3

Pollution(incl.Chlimatechange),

N=6

Naturaldisasters,N=4

Table2:Categorizationofthe

threatlistfromthe

questionnaire.


9/72


9

1.2.Distributionmapoflargecarnivores

Inadditiontothequestionnaire,LCIEmemberswereaskedtocompileupdateddistributionmapsfor

thelast35years.Inordertoreceivestandardizedmapsthatcouldbeeasilycompiledtheywere

askedtousethe10x10kmEEAgrid(http://www.eea.europa.eu/dataandmaps/data/eea

reference

grids

1).

We

chose

a

10

x

10

km

grid

because

large

carnivores

have

large

ranges

and

an

averagehomerangeofalynx,wolf,bearorwolverineislikelytocoveronetoseveralgridcells.

Becausethereisanorthsouthgradientinhomerangesize,theScandinavianspeciesdatawere

bufferedby10kmtocreateaunitofpresencemoresimilartoahomerangesize.

Expertswereaskedtodistinguishbetweentwolargecarnivoredistributioncategories,ideallyusing

thebelowdefinition:

Permanentpresence: cellwaspermanentlyoccupiedbythespecies(atleast50%oftimeovertherelevanttimeperiod,butatleastfor 3years)and/ortherewasconfirmedreproduction.

Sporadicoccurrence:occasionalpresence(e.g.dispersers)and/ornoreproduction.WereceivedmapsforallspeciesandcountrieswithlargecarnivorepresenceinEuropewiththeexceptionofRussia,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,because

population

boundaries

have

not

been

formally

fixed,

assignment

of

cells

to

one

or

theotherpopulationissomewhatfuzzyforsporadicoccurrenceatcontactzones.Butsporadic

occurrencerangesarebydefinitionsubjecttochangesanyways.Somegeneticevidencehasemerged

inrecentyearsthatmayalsoargueforageneralrevisionofsomeborders.

1.3.CountrySpeciesReports

Inordertogetmorecomprehensiveinformation,weadditionallyaskedforcountryreportsforlynx,

wolvesandbears.TheCountrySpeciesReportsgivedetailedinformationonhowpopulation

estimates,rangemapsetc.arederivedthusaresupplementarytotheinformationprovidedinthe

EuropeSpeciesSummary.Intotalwereceived56fullCountrySpeciesReportandcompiledanadditional9shortCountrySpeciesReportsbasedontheinformationprovidedinthequestionnaires


10/72


10

(Table3).WedidnotcompiledCountrySpeciesReportsforwolverinesastheEuropeWolverine

Summaryonlycovers3countriesandalreadygivesverydetailedinformation.

FortheSpeciesCountryReportsweproducedzoomedimagesofthemergeddistributionlayersofthespecies.However,becausebordercellswereassignedtothehighercategory,thesedistribution

mapsmaybedivergentfromtheoriginalnationalmapsandthenationalcountofsporadicandpermanentcells.

Table3:CountryreportsforlargecarnivoresinEurope.

CountryQuestionnairesavailable

CompiledbyBear Lynx Wolf

Albania full full full AleksandrTraje

Austria full full fullPetraKaczenskywithinputbyGeorgRauer(bear,wolf),PetraKaczenskywithinputfromThomas

Engleder&ChristianFuxjger(lynx)BosniaHerzegovina short short short compiledafterdatabySasaKunovac

Bulgaria full full fullDianaZlatanovaandAlexanderDutsov(bear),DianaZlatanova(lynx),ElenaTzingarskaSedefcheva(wolf)

Croatia full full full DjuroHuber(bear,wolf,lynx)

CzechRepublic NA full fullPetraKaczenskywithinputfromLudekBufka(lynx),MiroslavKutal(wolf)

Estonia full full full PeepMannil

Finland full full fullKatjaHolmalaandIlpoKojola(lynx),IlpoKojola

(bear,wolf)

France full full fullEricMarboutin(wolf,lynx),PierreYvesQuenette(bear)

Germany NA full fullPetraKaczenskywithinputfromOleAnders,SybilleWlfl,andManfredWlfl(lynx),IlkaReinhardt(wolf)

Greece full NA full YorgosMertzanis(bear),YorgosIliopoulos(wolf)

Hungary NA short NAcompiledafterdatabyMiklsHeltaiandPeterBedo

Italy full NA fullPaoloCucci(bearsAbruzzo)andClaudioGroff(bearsAlps)andLuigiBoitani(wolves)

Latvia full full full JanisOzolins

Lithuania NA short fullGuillaumeChapronwithinputfromVaidasBalys,RaimondaBunikyte&LinasBalciauskas(wolf)

"TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia"

short full shortCompiledafterdatabyGjorgeIvanov,AleksandarStajanov&DimeMelovski(bear),DimceMelovski(lynx),AleksandarStojanov(wolf)

Norway

full

full

full

JohnD.C.Linnell,JohnOdden&HenrikBrseth

(lynx),

John

D.

C.

Linnell

&

Jon

Swenson

(bear),

JohnD.C.Linnell&HenrikBrseth(wolf)

Portugal NA NA full Franciscolvares


11/72


11

Poland full full full SabinaNowak&RobertW.Mysajek

Romania full full full OvidioIonescu

Serbia full full full MilanPaunovic

Slovakia short short fullRobinRigg(bear),JakubKubala(lynx),RobinRigg,JakubKubala,&MichalAdamec(wolf)

Slovenia full full fullKosIvan&HubertPotonik(lynx),AleksandraMaji Skrbinek(wolf,bear)

Spain full NA fullJuanCarlosBlanco(wolf),GuillermoPalomeroandJuanCarlosBlanco(bear)

Sweden full full fullGuillaumeChapron(wolves),JonSwenson(bears),HenrikAndrn(lynx)

Switzerland full full fullManuelavonArxwithinputfromFridolinZimmermann(lynx),AndreasRyser(bear)andRalphManz(wolf)

2.Levelofdatastandardization

2.1.Populationestimatesforlargecarnivores

Estimatingthenumberoflargecarnivoresinagivenareaisalwaysadifficulttaskeveninaresearchcontextwithinalimitedarea.Estimatingnumbersatverylargescales,suchaswithinawholecountry,withanydegreeofaccuracyorprecisionrequiresamassiveandwelldesignedeffort.AcrossEuropethereisawidediversityofapproachesthathavebeendevelopedbasedondifferentecologicalsituations(e.g.thepresenceorabsenceofsnow),differentsocialsituations(e.g.theextenttowhichhunterstakepartintheactivity)anddifferentfinancialsituations.Asaresultthe

qualityofthecensusdatareportedbythedifferentcountriesforthedifferentspeciesandthedifferentpopulationsvariesdramatically.

Differentmethods

Intheworstcasesthereisnothingmoresubstantialtogoonthananexpertsbestguess(guesstimate)basedonextrapolatingareasonabledensityacrosstheknowndistribution.AnexampleofthiswouldbethesizeofthewolforbearpopulationinAlbania.Theseguesstimatesshouldbeviewedforwhattheyare,amereapproximationoftheorderofmagnitudeofthepopulationsize.AttheotherendofthespectrumareverywelldesignedmonitoringsystemsthatuseacombinationofmethodssuchasintensivesnowtrackingandthepowerofDNAanalysis(extractedfromurineandfaeces)tomapoutthenumbersofwolfpacksandthenumbers,andgeneticstatus,

ofindividualsasseenwithinthewesternAlpsorScandinavia.Inbetweenisawidediversityofmethodsthatproducevaryingresults.Somesurveysarebasedaroundconservativeminimumcountswhileothershaveusedstatisticalmethodstocalculatetheuncertaintyassociatedwithestimates.

Itisapositivesignthatanincreasingnumberofcountriesareusingmodernmethodssuchascameratrapping(mainlyforlynx,butincreasinglyforwolves)andDNAbasedmethods(extractingDNAfromfaeces,hairsandurine).Itisalsopositivethatthereisanincreasingrecognitionoftheuseofcitizensandstakeholders(especiallyhuntersandforesters)aspartnersindatacollection.Theincreasingnumberofpeerreviewedpapersfromtheseapproachesalsopermitsanevaluationofthequalityoftheworkandinsightintothedetailsoftheprocesses.

However,manycountriesalsohavesystemswheretheexactmethodologyisnotwellknownorhasneverbeenvalidated.ThisparticularlyconcernscountriesfromeasternEuropewhichhavehadwell


12/72


12

structuredwildlifemanagementinstitutionsthatcensuswildlifespeciesbasedonreportsfromtheindividualhuntinggrounds,whicharethencollatedandinterpreted.However,thedetailsofthisprocesshaverarelybeenevaluatedorpublishedmakingithardtoevaluate.Thesesystemsareprobablyveryusefultomapdistribution,detecttrendsandgiveroughideasofpopulationsize,andmaywellformtheplatformforagoodsystem,butthereisaneedtoevaluate,validateand

restructurethe

approach,

especially

increasing

the

separation

between

field

data

collection

and

interpretationashasbeendoneforwolvesandlynxinPoland.

Doublecountingoftransboundaryanimals

Oneissuethatisalsoimportantconcernsdoublecountingofindividualsthatliveonregional(e.g.administrational)orinternationalborders.Althoughthereisagooddealofintra andinternationalcooperationatanexpertlevelthisrarelyextendssofarastojointreportingofdatasuchthatdatafrombothsidesoftheaborderiscomparedtoensurethatthesameanimalsorpacksdonotappeartwice.Insmallpopulationstheeffectofdoublecountingmaybesignificant.NotableexceptionsaretheperiodicstatusreportsforwolvesintheAlpsandtheannualreportsonScandinavianwolves.

Double

counts

are

of

concern

also

if

the

monitoring

unit

is

smaller

than

the

average

activity

range

of

thelargecarnivoreofconcern.ThisseemstobethecaseinseveraleasternEuropeancountrieswereasumofhuntinggroundcountsapproachisusedtodeterminenotonlytrendsbutalsopopulationnumberswithoutaccountingforthepotentialmismatchinscales.Themismatchoftenresultsindivergingpopulationestimatesbetweenofficialdataandexpertassessment(e.g.inthecaseofSlovakia).

Differentunits&timesoftheyear

Anotherissueisthemonitoringunit.Wolvesaremainlymonitoredaspacks,ratherthanindividuals.Packsarethenextrapolatedtototalnumbers,oftenwithouthavingdataonaveragepacksizesfortheregionorcountry.Bearsaremonitoredinseveralpopulationsasfemaleswithcubsoftheyears

(COYs),

the

most

important

and

often

most

visible

segment

of

the

population.

Again

conversion

of

femaleswithCOYstoindividualsisnotstraightforwardoralwaysmeaningful.Thesameistrueforlynx,whichinareaswithreliablesnowcoveraremonitoredbycountsoffamilygroups.FormalstatisticalapproachestoconvertbetweenunitsexistforScandinavianlynxandbears.

Furthermore,thetotalpopulationsizemaybedifferentlyreportedincludingdependentyoungorbasedonlyonthenumberofadultorindependentindividuals.Thisdifferenceinreportingcangenerateadifferenceof1050%betweenestimates.

Thetimingofthecountalsomakesadifferenceaspopulationhighswillbereportedafterreproductionandbeforeharvestandlowsafterharvestandbeforereproduction.Theinterval

between

population

estimates

obviously

also

makes

comparisons

difficult.

Annual

estimates

will

be

morelikelytopickuppopulationchanges,especiallyinsmallpopulations,thansurveysconductedatlargertimeintervals.Inseveralcasesnocomparisonwithpastpopulationestimateswerepossiblebecauseofthelackofupdatedrangewidepopulationsurveys(e.g.SpainforalargepartoftheNWIberianpopulation).

Producingaccuratenumbersonlargecarnivoresonlargescalesisalwaysgoingtobedifficultandexpensive.Therearealsomanystatisticalissuesconcerningsamplingandestimatingprecisionandaccuracythatposerealchallenges,whilenewmethodsbecomeavailable.Thechoiceoftheapproachwillhavetovarywiththelocalcontextandneeds.However,thereisaclearneedforabetterdocumentation,animprovementinaccesstorawdataandmorevalidationofsomeapproachestofacilitatecomparisonsbetweendifferentmethods.Itisalsoimportanttogainbetterknowledgeoftheabilityofthedifferentmethodstodetecttrendsintheirpopulations.Rectifyingthese


13/72


13

weaknessesisbothaprioritytaskandpotentiallyakeyareaforengagementbetweenmanagers,scientistsandmanystakeholders,

Giventhehighvariabilityofthedatabaseitbecomesclearthatpopulationestimatesarenot1:1

comparableamongcountries/populationsorbetweentimeperiods.Nevertheless,weare

confidentthat

this

summary

provides

presently

the

best

available

and

most

complete

large

scale

assessmentoflargecarnivorepopulationestimatesinEuropethatispossibleatthispointintime.

2.2.Distributionmapoflargecarnivores

Distributionmapsarenotasubstituteforpopulationestimatesastheyarenotnecessarilycorrelated

anddensitiescanvarywidelyaccordingtohabitat,preydensityandhumaninfluence.Nevertheless,

mappinglargecarnivoredistributionislargelysubjecttothesameconstraintsasestimating

populationsize.Themoreintenseandlargescalethemonitoringsystem,themorelikelyeven

dispersing

individuals

will

be

detected.

Furthermore,

the

range

map

will

depend

on

the

data

type

usedformapping,thecriteriausedtodefineacellaspermanentlyoccupiedorhavingonly

sporadicoccurrence,andthetimeperiodoverwhichpresencesignshavebeencollected.

ThefirststandardizedpopulationwidedistributionmappingwasintroducedbytheStatusand

ConservationoftheAlpineLynxPopulationproject(SCALP;MolinariJobin2012).SCALPcategorizes

lynxpresencesignsintothreecategories:

Category1(C1):Hardfacts,verifiedandunchallengedobservations; Category2(C2):Observationscontrolledandconfirmedbyalynxexpert(e.g.trained

memberofthenetwork);and

Category3(C3):Unconfirmedcategory2observationsandallobservationssuchassightingsandcallswhich,ifnotadditionallydocumented,bytheirnaturecannotbeverified

Basedonthesecategories,Alpinewidemapshavebeenproducedat2yearintervals

(http://www.kora.ch/ge/proj/scalp/index.html).TheSCALPcriteriahavesincebeingwidelyusedin

theiroriginalorrefinedformforotherlynxandsomebearandwolfpopulations.However,theSCALP

projectremainstheexceptionandmappingmethodsvarywithinaswellasamongcountriesand

populations.

Datatype

Datatypeusedforproducingthemapsvariedandinrespecttoreliabilityofsigns:

C1 hardfacts:deadanimals,DNA,cameratrapping C2 likelypresence:snowtracking,singletracks,wildpreyremains,livestockdepredation C3 softfacts(difficulttoassess):unconfirmedcategory2observationsandallobservations

suchassightingsandcallswhichcannotbeverified

Interviewswithlocalpeople Habitatsuitabilitymaps Expertassessments Variouscombinationsoftheabove


14/72


14

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)andintersectedwiththeEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessmentormathematicalrules(e.g.

Romaniawheredataiscollectedontheunitofhuntinggrounds)

Datacollectedforadifferentgrid(e.g.oldSPOIS10x10kmUTMgrid)andintersectedwiththeEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessmentormathematicalrules(e.g.forbearsinthe

Cantabrianpopulation)

ExtrapolateddistributionmapsintersectedwiththeEEAgridbasedonsubjectiveassessmentormathematicalrules(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.


15/72


15

III.

Europe

Summaries


16/72


16

Alpine

Scandinavian

Karelian

Baltic

Carpathian

Central

Apennine

Pyrenean

Cantabrian

East

BalkanDinaric

BearEuropesummary

CompiledbyDjuroHuber

Fig.1:BrownbeardistributioninEurope20062011.Darkcells:permanentoccurrence,Greycells:sporadicoccurrence.Redbordersmarkcountriesforwhichinformationwasavailable.

[Pleasenote:neighboringcountriescanhavedifferentcriteriaandtimeperiodsforthedefinitionofcellswith

permanentandsporadicpresence.DatafromBelarus,UkraineandRussiaarenotincluded.]


17/72


17

1.Distribution

InEurope,thebrownbearsoccurin22countries.Basedontheexistingdataondistribution,aswellasarangeofgeographic,ecological,socialandpoliticalfactorsthesecanbeclusteredinto10populations:Scandinavian,Karelian,Baltic,Carpathian,DinaricPindos,EasternBalkan,Alpine,CentralApennine,Cantabrian,andPyrenean(Fig.1).

2.Populationestimates&monitoring

TheestimatedtotalnumberofbrownbearsinEuropeseemstobeintherangeof17000individuals.Basedonreportedandupdatedcensusdata,thelargestpopulationistheCarpathianpopulation(>7000bears),followedbytheScandinavianandDinaricPindospopulations(>3000bears).Theotherpopulationsaremuchsmallerrangingfromseveralhundred(e.g.Baltic~700,Cantabrian~200)tolessthanhundred(e.g.Alps4550,Pyrenean2227).Comparedtothelastsurveythatincludeddataupto2005(BearOnlineInformationSystemforEurope,BOIS)theScandinavian,Karelian,DinaricPindos,Baltic,Cantabrian,andPyreneanpopulationhaverecordedaclearincrease.Theotherpopulationsremainedstable.ThedecreaseintheEasternBalkanpopulationislikelyduetonewmonitoringtechniques.Allpopulationrangeshave

been

relatively

stable

or

slightly

expanding.

In

the

Alpine

population

the

loss

of

the

central

Austrian

segmentwascounterbalancedbytheexpansionofthenorthItaliansegmentinTrentino.

Monitoringinanumberofcountries/populationsisbasedongeneticmethodsthatusenoninvasivelycollectedDNA(fromscatsorhairs):Scandinavia,Italy,Austria,Spain,France,Greece,Slovenia.Inothercountriesgeneticmethodsareusedtocomplimentorconfirmdataobtainbyothermethods(countsatfeedingsites,snowtrackingandtelemetry):Croatia,Poland,Slovakia.Inthecountrieswithoutgeneticsandtelemetry,absoluteestimatesarebasedonmuchweakergrounds.Thesmallpopulationsaregenerallysubjecttomoreintenseandcostlymonitoringmethodstryingtocountindividuals,althoughthemostcloselymonitoredlargepopulationisinScandinavia.Inhuntedpopulationsharvestdataisusedtoidentifypopulationtrends.

3.Legalstatusandremovaloptions

Mostofthebearpopulationsarestrictlyprotected.ThepartsofpopulationsthatfallwithinEUcountries,arestrictlyprotectedunderpanEuropeanlegislation(theHabitatsDirective)andnoexceptionsunderannex5exist.Sweden,Finland,Romania,Estonia,Bulgaria,SloveniaandSlovakiacurrentlyusederogationsunderarticle16ofthedirectivetoallowalimitedcullofbearsbyhunters.Croatia,BosniaandHerzegovinaandNorwaymanagebearsasagamespecieswithannualquotasastheyareonlylimitedbytheBernConventioninthisrespect.ForCroatiathiswillendin2013whentheEUregulationswillbeadopted.Nearlyallcountrieshavesomekindofbearmanagementplan,actionplanorbearmanagementstrategy.However,inanumberofcountriessuchadocumentisstillwaitingtobeadequatelyimplemented.

4.Conflictsandconflictmanagement

Bearsarelarge,opportunisticandomnivorouscarnivoreswithawiderangeofbiologicalneedsduringtheirlifecycle,whichmaybringthemintoconflictwithhumans.Someconflicttypesthreatenhumaninterests(e.g.propertylosslikelivestockdepredationorattacksonhumans),somethreatenbears(e.g.habitatfragmentationanddendisturbance)andsomearemutuallyproblematic(e.g.trafficaccidents).Mostcountriespaydamagecompensationseitherfromthestatebudgetorfromfundscontributedbyinterestgroups,mostlybyhunters.Therougheconomiccost(basedonreportedcompensationonlyandexcludingmitigation)isinthemagnitudeof2.53.0Mperyear.Livestocklossesarethemostimportantdamagetype,butthevarietyofdamagesaremuchwiderthanforwolves,wolverines,andlynxandincludedamagestobeehives,orchards,crops,trees,andevenvehiclesandbuildings.MorethanhalfofallmoneyispaidforcompensationsinNorway(1.5M),followedby321000intheCantabrianMountains,and252000inSlovenia.Othercountriespaybetween


18/72

6000(

number

thaninl

1605i

102in

Swedenaccepta

5.Popul

Allcoun

(Central

Apennin

autono

model,

notimpl

orsteps

Slovakia

Norway,

Howeve

(2008).

made.

6.Threa

Thesma

interest,

shortto

longterThemo

questio

develop

mortalit

future(

Fig.2:T

Croatia)and

ofbearsin

argerones:

ntheCanta

Poland,45

.Itshould

b

ceoftheir

ationgoals

triesstatet

Apenninea

eandCanta

ousregion

oweverthe

ementingt

towardsjoi

with

PolanSloveniaan

r,innocase

ormanypo

ts

llestbearp

mostmana

midtermsu

msurvival,a

trelevantt

nairesover

ment,distur

yandperse

ig.2).

reatassess

141000(

hepopulati

.g.12666

rianMount

inBulgaria

noted

that

ears.

&populatio

egoaltoha

dCantabri

brianbearp

.Populatio

implement

eirownnat

torcoordi

,

Slovenia

wdCroatia),

isthereaf

pulationsn

pulationsa

gementacti

vival.Almo

llpresenta

reats(grou

allbearpop

bance,low

ution.Most

mentrelev

Greece)ann

n.Costspe

inNorway,

ins,1371

15inEst

thereisno

nlevelcoop

veatleasta

n)areshar

opulationst

levelmana

tionofthis

onalplans.

atedmana

ith

Croatia,

rmostcom

rmalpopula

progressin

ecriticallye

ns,andfin

thalfofthe

dpotential

edin19m

ulations,we

cceptance,

threatswer

ntforbears

ually.Thea

bear/year

6114int

intheItalia

nia&Latvia

atato

sho

eration

stablebear

damongtw

hemanage

gementhas

conceptisf

greements

ement(Fra

Sweden

witonlyworki

tionlevelm

implementi

ndangered.

ncialbacku

population

futurethrea

incategori

reidentifie

poormanag

eexpected

overallpo

tatusoflarg

ountspaid

aregeneral

ePyrenees,

Alps,555

,8inSlov

that

count

population.

oormorec

entauthori

beengener

rfromsatis

betweenco

cewithSpa

Norway),

snggroupsb

anagement

ngpopulati

However,t

,seemtop

arecurren

tshavetob

s)forbears

as:habitat

ementstruc

obecomes

ulationsin

carnivoresi

arenotata

lyhigherin

3445inC

inSlovenia,

kia,6.0in

ieswhich

p

Allexceptt

untries.Fo

tyisdelega

llyaccepte

actory,esp

untriesinclu

in,Greece

haring

infortweenscie

lanasoutli

nlevelman

ecurrentp

resentlysec

lygrowing,

takenina

inEurope,b

lossduetoi

tures,intrin

ightlymore

Europe.

Europeup

llproportio

mallerpop

ntralApen

511inGr

Croatia,an

ymore

hav

o populati

theCentral

edtothele

asthepres

ciallyincou

desomede

ithBulgaria

ation

(Swetistsorma

nedinLinne

agementha

evailingpu

ureatleast

buttoguara

count.

asedon23

nfrastructur

sicfactors,a

importanti

date2012

18

altothe

lations

ine,

ece,

3.6in

better

ons

elof

cribed

nties

greeof,

,

den

and

agers.

lletal.

sbeen

lic

heir

ntee

e

ccidental

the


19/72


19

7.Summarytables

7.1.1.Populationsizeandtrend:

[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals]

Name Lastsizeestimate

BearOnlineInformationSystemof

2005

Mostrecentsizeestimate(2010,

2011or2012)

Trend20062011

Scandinavia Norway:46Sweden:23502900TOTAL:2600

Norway:105(minimumcount)Sweden:3300(2968366795%CI)TOTAL:3400

Strongincrease

Karelian(thistimenotincludingRussiawestof35E)

Norway:23Finland:810860SubTOTAL:850

Norway:46(minimumcount)Finland:16001800SubTOTAL:1700

Strongincrease

Baltic(thistimenotincludingBelarusandtheRussianoblastsofLenningrad,Novgorod,Pskov,

Tver,Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)

Estonia:515Latvia:10SubTOTAL:525

Estonia:~700Latvia:1015SubTOTAL:~710

Increase

Carpathian

(thistimenotincludingUkraine)

Romania:6700Poland:117

SerbiaNorth:?Slovakia:700900

SubTOTAL:8100

Romania:~6000Poland:~80(butofficialestimateis119164)

SerbiaNorth:~6Slovakia:8001100(butofficialestimateis1940)

SubTOTAL:~7200

Stable

DinaricPindos Slovenia:300Croatia:6001000

Bosnia&Herzegovina:438Montenegro:~100TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:160200Albania:250Serbia:5080Greece:190260TOTAL:2800

Slovenia:396480Croatia:1000

Bosnia&Herzegovina:550Montenegro:270TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:160200Albania:180200Serbia:6010Greece:350400TOTAL: 3070

Increase

Alpine Italy(Trentino):1618

Italy(Friuli):


20/72


20

7.1.2.Monitoringmethods:

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovodeclarationofindependence.

National/population Regional

NorwayGeneticsCMR,collectionof

damagedata anddeadbears

Sweden

GeneticCMR, collectionof

damagedata anddeadbears,bear

observationindexprovidedbymoosehunters

Densityextrapolation,telemetry

Kareli an FinlandObservations offemaleswith

COYsCMRgenetics

EstoniaUniquefemaleswithCOYs,bear

tracks andobservations

Latvia Sumofhuntingground"counts"

PolandQuestionnairestostateforest

divisions &national parksTelemetry

Romani a Sumofhuntingground"counts"

Snowtracking,genetics,camera

trapping,telemetry,confirmed

reproduction

Serbia EGenetics,camera trapping,density

extraploration,guesstimate

Sl ovaki a Sum

of

hunting

ground

"counts"

Snowtracking,genetics,camera

trapping,telemetry

Albania Guesstimate Snowtracking,camera trapping

Bosnia

HerzegovinaSumofhuntingground"counts"

CroatiaSumofhuntingground"counts",

densityextrapolation

Genetics,coordinatedfeedingsite

counts

Gr eece Geneti csGenetics,cameratrapping,spring

surveyoffemaleswithCOYs

Kosovo* noinfo noinfo"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

W

Sumofhuntingground"counts"Snowtracking,genetics,camera

trapping

Montenegro noinfo noinfoSerbia W Genetics,

camera trapping,density


Slovenia

Dinaric

GeneticCMR,coordinatedfeeding

sitecounts,reconstructionfrom

removal data

AustriaConfirmedsignsofbearpresence

(SCALPC1&C2)Genetic

Italy AlpsGenetics,camera trappingin

femalearea

Slovenia AlpsGeneticCMR,coordinatedfeeding

sitecounts

SwitzerlandGenetics,confirmedsignsofbear

presenceTelemetry

BulgariaSumofhuntingground"counts",

extrapolation&guesstimate

Genetics,individualtrackcounts

ontransects

Serbia SEGenetics,camera trapping,density


"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

E

Sumofhuntingground"counts"Snowtracking,genetics,camera

trapping

Central ApennineItaly

ApennineGenetics&markresight

Ca nta br ia n Spa in NWUniquefemaleswithCOYs,

genetics

FranceGenetics,camera trapping,unique

femaleswithCOYs

Spain EGenetics,camera trapping,unique

femaleswithCOYs

POPULATION

Pyrenees

Monitoringmethods

Alps

EastBalkan

Carpathian

DinarioPindus

Baltic

Country

Scandinavian


21/72


21

7.2.1.Rangechangeandtrend:

POPULATION Rangechange/Trend

Scandinavia Increase

Sweden:increaseNorway:stable

Karelian(thistimenotincludingRussiawestof35E)

Increase(?)

Finland:increase

Baltic(thistimenotincludingBelarusandtheRussianoblastsofLenningrad,Novgorod,Pskov,Tver,Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)

Increase

Estonia:increaseLatvia:stagnant

Carpathian(thistimenotincludingUkraine)

Stable

Romania:stablePoland:stableSerbiaNorth:stagnant?

Slovakia:increase?

DinaricPindos Stableorslightincrease

Slovenia:slightincreaseCroatia:stable/slightincreaseBosnia&Herzegovina:stable?Montenegro:?TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:increaseAlbania:?Serbia:stable/slightincreaseGreece:Rodopi:stable/decrease,Pindos:increase

Alpine StableItalia(Trentino):residentrangestagnant,disperserrangeincreaseItaly(Friuli):stagnant

Switzerland:onlysingledispersersAustrian:declineSlovenia:stagnant

EasternBalkans StableBulgaria:stableGreece:?Serbia:?

CentralApennine Likelystable

Cantabrian Stable

Pyrenean Norealcomparisonpossible,likelyslightincrease


22/72


22

7.2.2.Occupiedcellsinthe10x10kmEEAgrid:

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovodeclarationofindependence.1unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce,incaseoftwocellsgettingdifferentassessmentsfromthedifferent

countries,thehighercategorywasused

Permanent Sporadic Permanent1

Sporadic1

All1

Norway 20072011

Confirmed female

presencebufferedby

10km

All otherbufferedby

10km

Sweden 20062011Killedfemalesbuffered

by

10

km

Kindbergetal .2011&

expert

assessment

Karelian Finland 20092011

Confirmed female

presencebufferedby

10km

All otherbufferedby

10km801 3,014 3,815

Estonia 20072010Confirmed

reproduction

All otherbufferedby

10km

Latvia 20062009 NA

Huntinggroundcounts

and occurence

monitoringin NATURA

2000sites

Poland 20082011

Confirmed

reproductionor50%

occupationoverlast3

years

All other

Romania 20062011/12

66%ofcell intersects

huntingunitswith

bears

33%ofcellintersects

huntingunitswith

bears

Serbia E Noinfo Noinfo NoinfoSlovakia last20yea rs Nocriteriaprovided NoinfoAlbania 20062011

Expertassessment

basedondensityof

signsand habitat

qualityhigh

Expertassessment

basedondensityof

signsand habitat

qualitylower

Bosnia

Herzegovina20002012

Signdensity&best

qualityhabitathigh

Signdensity&best

qualityhabitatlower

Croatia 20052011

50%ofgridfilledby

extrapolated

distribution map

50%ofgridfilledby

extrapolated

distribution map

Greece 20062012Confirmedpresencein

al l yearsAll othersigns

Kosovo* Noinfo Noinfo Noinfo"TheFormer

Yugoslav

RepublicofMacedonia"

20062011 Nocriteriap ro vi d ed Nocriteria provided

M on ten egr o 2 00 82011 Nocriteriap ro vi d ed Nocriteria provided

Serbia W Noinfo Noinfo NoinfoSlovenia 20072011

95%kernelofal l bear

data

All othersigns,

includingexpert

assessment

Austria 20072011 NA Confirmedsigns

Italy Alps 2011Confirmedfemalesfor

atleast3yearsAll othersigns

Slovenia 2007201195%kernelofal l bear

data

All othersigns,

includingexpert

assessment

S wi tzer l and 2 00 72011 NA Confirmedsigns

Bulgaria 20002012

Atleast3subsequent

yearsofconfirmed

signsofpresence

All otherconfirmed

signs

Serbia SE Noinfo Noinfo Noinfo"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

20062011 Nocriteriap ro vi d ed Nocriteria provided

Central ApennineItaly

Apennine

20042008

(Abruzzo)23 41 64

Cantabrian Spain SPOIS2007 SPOIS2007grid noinfo 77 77France 20072011

Atleast3years

occupied

All otherconfirmed

signs

Spain 2011Confirmedpresence

signsnoinfo

4,854 7,262 12,116

POPULATION Country TimeperiodDefinitionofcells Nofoccupiedcells

504

992 234 1,226Carpathian

129

4,677

DinarioPindus 787 354 1,141

EastBalkan 189 201 390

Scandinavian

Alps 14 108 122

Baltic

Total

Pyrenees 79 50

1,691 2,986

208 296


23/72


23

7.2.3.Connectivitywithotherpopulations

POPULATION Connectivity

Scandinavia ThepopulationispotentiallyconnectedwiththeKarelianpopulationthroughdispersingmales,butprobablynotbydispersingfemales.

Karelian(thistimenotincluding

Russiawestof35E) TheKarelianpopulationprobablyhassomelevelofgeneticexchangewiththe

Scandinavianpopulationtothesouthandwest.BoththeKarelianandBalticpopulationsareconnectedtothemaindistributionareaofRussianbearstotheeastandtherebywitheachother.Theseparationbetweenthetwopopulationsismadehereonlyasanadministrativedecisiontoproduceunitsofpracticalsizeandwithmorehomogenousinternalconditions.

Baltic(thistimenotincludingBelarusandtheRussianoblastsofLenningrad,Novgorod,Pskov,Tver,Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)

Carpathian(thistimenotincludingUkraine)

TheclosestpopulationisinnorthernBulgariaandsoutheasternSerbia,butthemovementofindividualbearsmaybeveryrestrictedduetotheDanubewhichactsasaphysicalbarrier.TherearesomequestionsconcerninginternalconnectivitywithintheCarpathianpopulationduetoalackofknowledgeaboutthesituationwithinUkraineandthedevelopmentsofbeardistributionineasternSlovakia.

DinaricPindos InSloveniainthenorththispopulationisclosetotheoneoftheAlpsandbearsinTrentinoandSloveniaareconnectedbysinglemaledispersers.However,thereisnotacontinuousdistributionoffemalebearswiththeAlps.HistoricalconnectionswiththeCarpathianpopulationthroughSerbiaandwiththeEasternBalkansthroughtheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniaarenowunlikely.

Alpine Themostimportantpotentialconnectioniswiththeirsourcepopulation,theDinaricPindos.Afewindividualbearshavebeenshowntomovebetweenthesetwopopulationsinbothdirections.

EasternBalkans TheGreekpartoftheRilaRhodopesegmentisneartheDinaricPindospopulationbutthereisnodemonstratedconnectionbetweenthesetwopopulations.TothenorthoftheStaraPlaninasegmentthereisapotential,butunproven,connectiontotheCarpathianpopulation.WithintheEasternBalkansthemainchallengeistomaintainconnectionsamongthethreesegmentsofthispopulation.

CentralApennine Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishingunassistedconnectivityintheshortterm.

Cantabrian Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishingunassistedconnectivityintheshortterm.

Pyrenean Ithasbeentotallyisolatedforoveracentury.Thereisnopossibilityofreestablishingconnectivityintheshortterm.Duetoreintroductions,geneticallythePyreneanpopulationnowconsistsofbearsfromtheDinaricPindospopulation.

7.3.IUCNassessment:

POPULATION IUCNassessment

Scandinavia

LCKarelian LC(inconnectionwithRussiawestof35E)Baltic LC(inconnectionwiththeRussianoblastsofLenningrad, Novgorod,Pskov,Tver,

Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)Carpathian NT(includingandnotincludingUkraine)DinaricPindos VUAlps CEEasternBalkans VUCentralApennine CECantabrian CEPyrenean CE


24/72


24

7.4.Legalstatusandremovaloptions:

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovodeclarationofindependence.1TheN2KGroup2011,

2Habituatedbearcapturedandputincaptivity(bearJURKA),

3FoodconditionedandhabituatedbearJJ3

Country

EUhabitat

directive

Annex

Bern

convention

Nbearskilledunder

article16

derogationsin2007

2008combined1

Annualbearremovals

underAnnex5

AnnualNonEUlegalbear

removals

Management /

actionplan

Norway NA II NA NA 11(mean20062011) Yes

Sweden II,IV II 366 NA NA Yes

Finland IV excluded 179 NA NA YesEstoni a IV II 64 NA NA Yes

Latvia IV I I 0 NA NA Yes

Poland II,IV II 0 NA NA Yes

Romani a II,IV II 480 NA NA Yes

Slovakia II,IV excluded 56 NA NA No

Albania NA II NA NA 0 Noinformation

Bosnia

HerzegovinaNA II NA NA 17(mean20062011) No

Croati a II,IV III NA NA 73(mean20062011) Yes

Greece II,IV II noinfo NA NA YesKosovo* NA NA NA NA noinfo noinfo"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

NA II NA NA 0

Onlyregional

planforPrespa

Basinbetween

MK,AL&GR

Montenegro NA II NA NA noinfo noinfoSerbia NA II NA NA 0 Yes

Slovenia II,IV excluded 162 NA NA Yes

Austria II,IV II 0 NA NA

Yes,butnolegal

orjur is dic tiona l

value

Italy II,IV II 12 NA NA Yes

Switzerland NA II NA NA 1(in 2008;for20062011)3 Yes

Bulgaria II,IV II 6 NA NA Yes

Spain II,IV II 0 NA NA Yes

France II,IV II noinfo NA NA Yes


25/72


25

7.5.Conflicttypeandcosts:[Mostlybycountryratherthanpopulation,countryattributedtothepopulationithasthelargestsharewith]POPULATION Conflicttypeandcosts/years

Scandinavia Norway(20062011range):upto2M forsheep(38007000)andrecentlyupto35000forsemidomesticreindeer(475)

Sweden(20062011):37000sheep(50100sheep&fewotherlivestock).In

additioncomesthebearsshareoftheeconomicincentivepaidtoreindeerherdersforthepresenceoflargecarnivores.In2009thiswas~187000.

Karelianpopulation(thistimenotincludedRussiawestof35E)

Finland(20072011mean):750000 for681reindeer&172700otherdepredation(30100sheep,05otherlivestock(cattle,horses),04dogs,150250beehives,hundedspackagesofsilagesomedamageinoatfields(notquantifiablefromrecords)

Baltic(thistimenotincludedBelarusandtheRussianoblastsofLenningrad,Novgorod,Pskov,Tver,Smolensk,Bryansk,Moscow,

Kalinigrad,Kaluzh,Tula,Kursk,Belgorod&Ore)

Estonia(20072011):almostnolivestockdepredation,mostdamagesonbeehives12500(105hives)

Latvia(20062011):nodamagesandnodamagecompensationsystemforbears

Carpathian(thistimenotincludedUkraine)

Romania:noinformationavailablePoland(2010):61,555(556beehives),stronglyincreasingtrendsince2007,only

veryoccasionallylivestockSerbiaE:noinformationavailableSlovakia(20062010):5500(160sheep/goat),12002900 (015cattle),12000

(200beehives)DinaricPindos 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,5orchards

Montenegro:noinformationTheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia(includingEastBalkanpart)(2007):53

sheep/goat,167cattle/horse/donkey/pig,152beehivesAlbania:nodataandnocompensationsystemSerbiaSW:noinformationGreece:(20062010):19000(200sheep/goat),98000(215cattle/horse),24000

(530beehives/swarms) Alpine Italy(Trentino,20062011mean):17000forsheep/goats,4000forrabbits/

chickens,27000forbeehives

Austria

(2008

2011):

highly

variable

but

~10

100

sheep,

~0

2

other

livestock

(e.g.

cattle,rabbits),~1030beehives,~025canisterswithrapeseedoilSwitzerland:attacksmainlyonsheepandbeehives.Amountvariesbetweenyears.

EasternBalkans Bulgaria(20072011):~81,850for~249sheep;18goats;27cattle;6horses/donkeys;12pigs;3dogs;533beehives;58fruittrees; others blackchokeberry(Aroniamelanocarpa) 325kg(increasingtendencyduetobetterinformedlocalsfortheopportunityforcompensation)Serbia SE:noinformation

CentralApennine (20062011mean):22000(136sheep/goats),29000(47otherlivestock),(2011):45,188forotherdamages

Cantabrian (2010):321000mainlyforbeehivesandlivestockPyrenean France(20062011mean):103000for200sheep/goats,31beehives

Spain

(2010):

20500

for

70

sheep

and

29

beehives


26/72


26

7.6.Criticalmanagementissues

POPULATION Conflicttypeandcosts/years

Scandinavia ThemajorpressureinNorway remainstotheissueofdamagestounguardedfreerangingsheep.Thischronicconflicthasledtoparliamentsettingverylowpopulationgoalsforbearrecovery.Thegoalsfrom2003havebeenslightlydowngradedin2011.AlthoughconflictshavebeenlowinSweden,newconflictsareappearingasbears

expandintomoredenselypopulatedareas.However,generallythebeariswellacceptedandmanagedinSweden.

Karelianpopulation InconnectionwithbearsinBelarussandRussia thesepopulationsarelargeandoccupyalargeareasafeguardingtheirfavorableconservationstatus.However,thelackofreliableandregularinformationfromBelarussorRussiamakesitdifficulttoassesspopulationorrangechanges.

Baltic

Carpathian(thistimenotincludedingUkraine)

ThedistributionmapforSlovakia isbasedondatapooledoverthelast20yearsandtheaccuracyofmonitoringmethodshavebeenquestioned.ThelackofrecentinformationfromUkrainemakesanoverallassessmentdifficult.

DinaricPindos InSloveniaincreasing damagesandanincreaseinnuisancebearsaremakingitachallengetomaintainbearnumbersatthepresentlevel,letaloneallowforthespreadingofthepopulationintotheAlps.WithCroatiaenteringtheEU,thestatusof

thebearwaschangedfromgamespeciestofullyprotected.HuntingisnowlabelledcullingandhastohappenundertheEUderogationregulationwhichweakensthehuntersstakeandsupportforbearmanagement.Thispopulationissharedbymanycountriesandsubjecttowidelyvaryingmonitoringmethodsandstandards.ThereisagenerallackofaccessibleandrobustdatafromBosnia&Herzegovina,Montenegro,AlbaniaandtheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia.

Alpine InitiativestocoordinateandharmonizebearmanagementbetweenItaly,Switzerland,AustriaandGermanyarecurrentlyunderway.However,theoccurrenceoffoodconditionedand/orhabituatedbearsremainamanagementchallenge.

EasternBalkans Bulgariahasdevelopedanewbearmanagementplan andcontroversiesseemtohavecalmeddown.InGreecehabitatfragmentationremainsaconservationconcern.

CentralApennine Occasionallossesduetopoachingorotherhumanrelatedaccidentsstilloccurand

thepopulationremainsstagnantdespiteregularreproductionevents.Cantabrian Thewesternpopulationsegmentshowsanobviousincrease(from3femaleswith

cubsoftheyear(COYs)recordedin1994to25in2010),whiletheeasternoneseemsstagnantwithveryfewfemaleswithCOYs.

Pyrenees Acceptanceforthereintroducedbearsseemsstillaproblemandlossesduetopoachingorotherhumanrelatedaccidentsstilloccur.


27/72


27

7.8.Mostrelevantthreatsperpopulation:

Themainthreatsconsideredrelevantvaryquitewidelyamongpopulationsandwithinpopulations withsmallpopulationsnotsurprisinglybeingmoreatriskfromintrinsicfactorsandpopulationscoveringmanypoliticalbordersfacingawidervarietyofthreatsthanthosemainlycontainedinoneorafewcountries(numberofquestionnairesbypopulationgiveninbrackets).

Threatcategory(sortedbyoverall

threatassessmentforthespecies)

Abruzzo

(N=1)

Alpine

(N=2)

Baltic

(N=2)

Cantabrian

(N=1)

Carpathian

(N=4)

Dinaric

Pindos

(N=7)

East

Balkan

(N=1)

Karelian

(N=1)

Pyrenean

(N=2)

Scandinavi

an(N=2)

Habitat(Infrastructure) 1 2 2 1 4 7 1 0 2 2

Disturbance 1 1 2 1 4 7 1 0 1 2

Lowacceptance 0 1 2 0 4 6 1 1 2 1

Poormanagementstructures 1 1 2 1 4 6 1 0 2 0

Intrinsicfactors 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 0 2 0

AccidentalMortality 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 0 1 0

Persecution 1 2 0 0 3 4 1 0 2 2

Habitat(Forestry) 1 0 0 1 3 6 1 0 1 0

Habitat(Divers) 1 0 1 1 3 5 1 0 1 0

Lackofknowledge 1 0 2 0 3 5 1 0 0 0

HabitatLivestock 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1

Harvest 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0

Naturaldisaster 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0

Changeinnativefauna 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0

Habitat(Agriculture) 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

Habitat(Mining) 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0

Pollution(incl.Chlimatechange) 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

InvasivealienSpecies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Preyoverharvest 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Issuetickedoffasathreatforbear(forpresenttimeonly)


28/72


28

Baltic

Karelian

Scandinavian

Carpathian

Bohemian

BavarianVosges

Palatinia

Jura

AlpineDinaric

Balkan

LynxEuropesummary

CompiledbyManuelavonArx

Fig.1:EurasianlynxdistributioninEurope20062011.Darkcells:permanentoccurrence,Greycells:

sporadicoccurrence.Redbordersmarkcountriesforwhichinformationwasavailable.

[Pleasenote:neighboringcountriescanhavedifferentcriteriaandtimeperiodsforthedefinitionofcellswith

permanentandsporadicpresence.DatafromBelarus,UkraineandRussiaarenotincluded.]


29/72


29

1.Distribution

EurasianlynxaredistributedinnorthernandeasternEurope(ScandinavianandBalticstates)andalongforestedmountainrangesinsoutheasternandcentralEurope(Carpathian,Balkans,Dinarics,Alps,Jura,Vosges).Lynxarefoundin23countriesandbasedonarangeofcriteria,includingdistributionandothergeographic,ecological,politicalandsocialfactorscanbegroupedinto10

populations(Fig.

1).

Five

of

these

ten

populations

are

autochthonous

(Scandinavian,

Karelian,

Baltic,

CarpathianandBalkan),theotherpopulationsbasedincentralandwesternEuropestemfromreintroductionsinthe1970sand1980s(Dinaric,Alpine,Jura,VosgesPalatinianandBohemianBavarianpopulations).Inaddition,thereareanumberofotheroccurrencesoflynxstemmingfrommorerecentreintroductions,suchasintheHarzmountainsofcentralGermany.

2.Populationestimates&monitoring

ThetotalnumberoflynxinEuropeis900010000individuals(excludingRussia&Belarus).Thelargestpopulationsaretheautochthonousonesinthenorthandeastwhichhavearound2000individualseach:Scandinavian(~18002300),Karelian(Finishpart~2500),Baltic(~1600),Carpathian(~2300).Allthereintroducedpopulationsareofsmallersizeastheywereformedonly40yearsago

and

with

small

numbers

of

founders.

The

current

population

sizes

are

as

follows:

Alpine

130

160,

BohemianBavarian~50,Dinaric120130,Jura>100,VosgesPalatinian~19.Thepopulationofgreatestconservationconcernisthefifthautochthonousone,theBalkanlynxpopulation,whichnumbersonly4050individualsaccordingtorecentresearch.

Mostpopulationshavegenerallybeenstableinthelastdecade.FortheCarpathianandBalkanpopulationssmallernumbersareindicatedascomparedtothelaststatusreportoftheEurasianLynxOnlineInformationSystemfrom2001(ELOIS,vonArxetal.2004),however,thecurrentestimatesareassumedtobemorerealisticduetoimprovementsinmonitoringandscientificresearch,whereastheformernumbershavemostprobablybeenoverestimates.TheKarelianandJurapopulationshavebothincreased.TheVosgesPalatinianpopulationdenotesaslightdecrease;theoccurrenceinthePalatinianforesthasvanished.FortheAlpineandDinaricpopulationsthetrendisnotconsistentthroughouttherangewhichismainlyduetoadropoflynxnumbersinSlovenia,whichformspartofbothofthesepopulations.

MonitoringintheScandinavianpopulationisbasedonsnowtracking,geneticsandcollectionoflivestockdepredationcases,supportedbytelemetryandcameratrapping.InFinland(Karelianpopulation),snowtrackingandtelemetryareused.InEstonia,LatviaandPolandestimatesarebasedonsnowtracking,supportedbyanalysisofharvestbagdatainEstoniaandLatvia.IntheCarpathians,monitoringandpopulationnumberestimatesarebasedmainlyonhuntinggroundcounts,snowtrackingandguesstimates.FortheAlpine,JuraandVosgespopulations,cameratrapping(includingcapturemarkrecapture(CMR)inreferenceareasanddensityextrapolation)iscombinedwiththecollectionofdifferentdatasetsvalidatedusingthecriteriadevelopedbytheStatusandConservationoftheAlpineLynxPopulation(SCALP)project(MolinaryJobinetal.2012).ThesameistruefortheBalkanpopulation.ThebasicmonitoringmethodsconcerningtheDinaricpopulationaresnowtracking(allthreecountries),geneticsamplingandguesstimates(SloveniaandCroatia).IntheBohemianBavarianregionavarietyofthemethodsisusedincludingcollectionofsightingsofsignsandcameratrappictures.

3.Legalstatusandrelevantmanagementagency

Mostofthelynxpopulationsarestrictlyprotected.ThepartsofpopulationsthatfallwithinEUcountries,withtheexceptionofEstonia,arestrictlyprotectedunderpanEuropeanlegislation(theHabitatsDirective).Sweden,LatviaandFinlandcurrentlyusederogationsunderarticle16ofthedirectivetoallowalimitedculloflynxbyhunters.NorwaymanageslynxasagamespecieswithannualquotasastheyareonlylimitedbytheBernConventioninthisrespect.Managementplansforlynxexistinonlyabouthalftherangecountries,withseveralmorehavingcomeupwithadraft.


30/72

4.Confli

Livestoc

damage

killedpe

ones.A

compenfordepr

herders

for55

Conside

withliv

rangeof

manage

regions

groups

5.Popul

Formos

differen

onlyfor

forthe

Alpinec

theWIS

manage

6.Threa

The

mohunters,

duetoi

Fig.2:Tquestio

ctsandcon

kdepredati

sintheAlpi

ryearintot

out70001

satedinNor

edationons

forthepres

reindeer.

ringthemos

stockhusba

prevention

mentwithh

participator

avebeenin

ationgoals

tofthepop

trangecoun

theScandin

lpineandB

ountriessig

platform(

mentofthe

ts

t

relevant

tpersecutio

frastructur

reatassessnaireswith

lictmanag

nandthus

eandJura

al.Theonly

000sheep

wayevery

y

heepanda

nceoflynx.

trelevantt

ndry,butwi

measurese

untingarey

processes

itiated.

&populatio

lationsthe

tries.Onth

vianandAl

lkanpopul

edatransb

ildlifeand

Alpinepopu

reats

to

Eu(i.e.illegal

developm

mentrelevthreatsgro

ment

onflictlevel

opulations,

twopopulat

and70008

ear,summin

additional

In2011Finl

reatstothe

thungulate

isttocount

ettobefou

orabetter

nlevelcoop

eisatleast

levelofth

pinepopula

tions,howe

oundarypoli

Society).Th

lationsofly

asian

lynx

inkillingswhic

nt,poorma

ntforlynxupedin19

sarelowfo

howeverus

ionswithm

00semido

gup

to

~5

3500000

landpaid15

Eurasianly

hunting.Thi

eractlivesto

d.Awaren

ollaboratio

eration

someform

manageme

ions.Aran

verthishas

iticalarrang

eplatforma

x,wolfand

Europe

are

hisprobabl

nagements

verallpopaincatego

tatusoflarg

rmostofth

uallylessth

jordepred

mesticreind

per

year.

asanecon

600for2

x(seebelo

sconflictha

ckdepredat

sshashowe

anddialog

fcooperati

ntauthoriti

ewidecons

notbeenim

mentunde

imstodevel

bear.

low

acceptinterlinked

tructuresan

lationsinEies.

carnivoresi

population

n100dom

tionproble

eerareattri

In2009

Sw

micincenti

domestica

),themajo

slongbeen

ion,fruitful

verincrease

ebetween

nbetween

s,cooperat

ervationstr

plementedi

theAlpine

opacomm

nce

largely

withthefir

daccidental

ropebase

Europeup

s.Thereare

sticanimal

saretheN

butedtolyn

denpaid

~1

vetoreinde

nimalsand

rconflictsa

neglected.

waysofcon

dandinma

differentint

scientistsof

ionisrarea

ategywasd

naction.In

Convention

nstrategyf

due

to

conflit)andhabit

mortality.

on22

date2012

30

some

are

ordic

xand

7500

er

827000

enot

hilea

lict

ny

erest

the

dexists

veloped

009the

called

orthe

cts

with

atloss


31/72


31

7.Summarytables

7.1.1.Populationsizeandtrend:

[Pleasenotenumbersmaycontaindoublecountsofborderindividuals]

POPULATION Lastsizeestimate

Eurasian

Lynx

Online

InformationSystemof2001

Mostrecentsizeestimate

(2009,

2010

or

2011)

Trend20062011

Alpine Switzerland:70Slovenia:10ItalyE:10ItalyW:3Austria:20France:fewTOTAL:~120

Switzerland:96107Slovenia:fewItaly:1015

Austria:35France:13(extrapolated)TOTAL:~130

Stable

West:slightincreaseEast:decrease

Balkan TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:35Albania:1525

Kosovo*:?

Serbia&Montenegro:30

TOTAL:~80105

TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:23Albania:


32/72


32

included:theRussianoblastsofMurmanskandKarelia)

Scandinavian Norway:327

Sweden:14001800

TOTAL:~2000

Norway: 6569familygroups(384408individuals)Sweden:277lynxfamilygroups(14001900individuals)TOTAL:~18002300

Stable

Vosges

Palatinian

France:18Germany:34TOTAL:~20

France:~19(extrapolated)Germany:0TOTAL:~19

Stableorslightdecrease

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovodeclarationofindependence.1CouncelofEurope2012.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=1924342&Usage=22IntheELOIS2001FinlandbelongedwithSwedenandNorwaytotheNordicpopulationwhichhassubsequentlybeensplitintotwo

populations(ScandinavianwithSwedenandNorwayandKarelianwithFinlandandRussianKarelia).


33/72


33

7.1.2.Monitoringmethods:

*Thisdesignationiswithoutprejudicetopositionsonstatus,andisinlinewithUNSCR1244/99andtheICJOpinionontheKosovodeclarationofindependence.

National/population Regional

Austria Alps Confirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2) Camer atrapping,telemetry

France AlpsConfirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2

and selectedC3)CMRcameratrappingin referencearea

Italy Confirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2) Camer atrapping,telemetry

Slovenia

Alps Expertopinion,

guesstimate Snow

tracking,

genetics

Switzerland

AlpsConfirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2)

CMRcameratrappingin referencearea,

telemetry,genetic

AlbaniaQuestionnaires,collection ofchance

observationsSnowtracking,cameratrapping

Kosovo* Questionaires

"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

Densityextrapolation,confirmedpresence

signs(SCALPC1&C2)

Snowtracking,genetics,cameratrapping,

telemetry

Estonia

Snowtracking,identifyunique

reproductions,trackanddirect

observations

Telemetry

Latvia

Sumofhuntingground"count",guesstimate,

longtermtrendin harvestcomposition&

efficiency

Telemetry

LithuaniaSnowtracking,sumofhuntingground

"count",guesstimateSnowtracking

Poland NEConfirmedpresencesigns,snowtracking,

guesstimateSnowtracking,genetics,telemetry

Austria

Bohemia

Confirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2

and selectedC3)Cameratrapping

Czech

Republic

Sumofhuntingground"counts"through

questionnairesevery2years

Snowtracking,genetics,CMRcamera

trapping,telemetry

Germany

Bavaria

Confirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2),

cameratrapping

Telemetry,CMRcamera trapping,systematic

snowtracking

BulgariaQuestionnairesand followupfield

investigationstoconfirmpresenceCameratrapping,snowtracking

Czech

Republic

Sumofhuntingground"counts"through

questionnairesevery2years

Snowtracking,genetics,CMRcamera

trapping,telemetry

Hungary

Questionnairesand

follow

up

field

investigationstoconfirmpresence,camera

trapping,estimate

Pol and Confi rmedpresencesigns,gues s ti ma te Snowtracking,genetics,telemetry

Romani a Sumofhuntingground"counts"Snowtracking,genetics,cameratrapping,

telemetry,confirmedreproduction

Sl ova ki a Sumofhuntingground"counts" Snowtracking,genetics,cameratrapping

Serbia Cameratrapping

Croatia Snowtracking,genetics,camera trapping Telemetry

Slovenia

DinaricExpertopinion,guesstimate Snowtracking,genetics

Bosnia

HerzegovinaSnowtracking Cameratrapping

Switzerland

JuraConfirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2)

CMRcameratrappingin referencearea,

telemetry,genetic

France

Jura Confirmedpresence

signs

(SCALP

C1

&

C2

and selectedC3)CMR

camera

trapping

in

reference

area

Karelian Fi nl and Sys tema ti csnowtracking Telemetry

Norway

Systematic snowtracking(singlelynx&

confirmedfamilygroups),lynxharvestdata,

lynxdamagereports,setofindexlines

Cameratrapping,telemetry

Sweden

Systematic snowtracking(singlelynx&

confirmedfamilygroups),lynxharvestdata,

lynxdamagereports

Genetics,telemetry

France

Vosges

Confirmedpresencesigns(SCALPC1&C2

and selectedC3)CMRcameratrappingin referencearea

Germany

Palatinian


cameratrapping

Harzoccurence Germany Harz


cameratrappingTelemetry

VosgesPalatinian

Monitoringmethods

Balkan

Scandinavian

PO PUL ATIO N Coun tr y

Carpathian

Dinaric

Baltic

Bavarian

Bohemian

Alpine

Jura


34/72


34

7.2.1.Rangechangeandtrend:

POPULATION Rangechange/Trend

Alpine Mixedtrend

Switzerland:stable/increaseSlovenia:stagnantItaly:stagnant

Austria:stagnantFrance:stagnant

Balkan Decrease

However,alsoduetomuchbetterinformation.Rangemightberestrictedforalreadysometime.TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia:decreaseAlbania:unknownSerbia(incl.Kosovo*):slightincrease?Montenegro:?

Baltic(thistimenotincluded:theRussianoblastsofLeningrad,

Novgorod,

Pskov,

Tver

and

Smolensk.Kaliningrad)

Stable

Estonia:stableLatvia:stable

Lithuania:increasePolandNE:stableUkraine:stable?

BohemianBavarian Stable

CzechRepublic:stableGermany:stagnantAustria:stagnant

Carpathian Stable(Expandinginthesouth)Romania:stableSlovakia:stable?Poland:stableUkraine:stable?

CzechRepublic:stagnant?Hungary:stagnantSerbia:slightincreaseBulgaria:unclear,butlikelyexpanding

Dinaric Mixedtrend

Slovenia:DecreaseCroatia:stableBosniaHerzegovina:increase

Jura Increase

Karelian(thistimenotincluded:theRussianoblastsofMurmanskandKarelia)

Stable

Finland:Inspiteofthestrongincreaseinnumbers,therangehasnotchanged.

Scandinavian Increase

Sweden:lynxareexpandingsouthwardsandhaveestablishedinthesouthern1/3ofthecountry.Norway:stable

VosgesPalatinian Decrease

France:stagnantGermany:decreaseSince1999,asinglephotoistheonlyevidenceoflynxpresenceinthePalatinianForestandanestablishmentoflynxterritoriesisnotexpectedanytimesoon.


35/72


35

7.2.2.Occupiedcellsinthe10x10kmEEAgrid:

*Thisdesignation

iswithout

prejudice

to

positions

on

status,

and

isinline

with

UNSCR

1244/99

and

the

ICJ

Opinion

on

the

Kosovo

declarationofindependence.1unduplicatedoverlappingorbordercellsonlycountedonce,incaseoftwocellsgettingdifferentassessmentsfromthedifferent

countries,thehighercategorywasused

Population Country Tim eperiod Permanent Sporadic Permanent1

Sporadic1

All1

Austria Al ps 20 062010Confirmed

reproductionAll othersigns

France Al ps 20 082010

Confirmed

reproduction or

presence3outof5

years

All othersigns

Italy 20082 01 0 P re sen cein all 3years Presence12years

Slovenia Al ps 2 00 82011

Reproduction or

evidenceoverseveral

years

All other

Switzerland

Alps20062010

Confirmed

reproduction or

presence3outof5

years

All othersigns

Albania 20062011

Expertassessment

basedondensityof

signs and habitat

qualityhigh

Expertassessment

basedondensityof

signs and habitat

quality lower

Kosovo* noinfo noinfo noinfo"TheFormer

Yugoslav

Republicof

Macedonia"

20062011 Nocriteriap ro vi d ed Nocriteriaprovided

Montenegro noinfo noinfo noinfoEstonia 20082010

Confirmed


Latvia 20062012Confirmed


Li thua ni a 20 062011 Nocriteriap ro vi d ed Nocriteriaprovided

Poland NE 20082011

Confirmed

reproductionor50%

occupationover last3

years

All othersigns

Austria

Bohemia20082011/12

Frequency/densityof

signs highest

Frequency/densityof

signs lower

Czech

Republic20092012

Confirmed

reproductionor

presenceeachyear

All othe

status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in...

Documents