Date:
2018/06/13
Time:
14:30
Room:
K308 Cabinet
Wildlife restoration needs more effort to mitigate conservation conflicts: the case of large carnivore damages in Europe
(Oral)
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
SEE PEER REVIEW
After centuries of decline, numbers and ranges of large carnivores have recently increased in Europe, due to the recovery of habitats and prey populations and an increased support for conservation efforts (1). A key issue for the conservation of large carnivores is managing the conflicts arising from damage to human property, such as livestock depredation. This is a sensitive problem where wildlife species return after decades of absence and particularly sensitive when the return is made by humans; e.g., reintroductions. The mitigation of these conflicts is commonly addressed with compensation schemes, assuming that reimbursing farmers for economic losses will increase the tolerance towards the species involved (2).
Our study synthesizes information on compensation costs from 33 populations of four large carnivore species in Europe. Compensation and prevention costs tend to be higher in countries that are wealthy, lack a recent history of coexistence with large carnivores and show a low level of tolerance towards them. We estimate that almost 30 million Euros are paid annually for compensation of large carnivore damage in Europe, of which approximately two-thirds is paid in countries where the range of large carnivores has at least quadrupled in the last decades. In the case of brown bear (Ursus arctos), preventive cost double the amount spent on compensation (5 vs. 2.4 million Euros per year, respectively), being the majority of preventive measures subsidized in reintroduced populations and in Norway (where bear's range has ten-fold increased in the last ca. 60 years). Half of the subsidized measures classified as prevention are not invested in protecting livestock and agriculture. They rather seem to assist in the change in husbandry practices required before implementing effective measures to prevent damage (e.g., dog fodder or veterinary assistance) or they are related in fact to damage verification (e.g., training dogs to find sheep carcasses).
We discuss that to effectively mitigate conflicts in the long term, damage management policies should focus on the quality of preventive measures rather than on the quantity; should be adaptative and flexible; and should fit for purpose. To achieve these goals we recommend to managers and policymakers to evaluate the achievements of compensation and prevention programs periodically and we call for a pan-European database of damage occurrence, management actions and associated costs.
(1). Boitani, L. & Linnell, J.D.C. (2015). Bringing large mammals back: Large carnivores in Europe. In: Rewilding Eur. Landscapes (eds. Pereira, H.M. & Navarro, L.M.). Springer, Cham, pp. 67-84.
(2). Boitani, L., Ciucci, P. & Raganella-Pelliccioni, E. (2010). Ex-post compensation payments for wolf predation on livestock in Italy: A tool for conservation? Wildl. Res., 37, 722-730.