National and transboundary perspectives of large carnivore conservation and management in Norway

Date:
2018/06/14

Time:
14:00

Room:
A3 Wolmar

National and transboundary perspectives of large carnivore conservation and management in Norway

(Oral)

Veronica Sahlén
veronica.sahlen@miljodir.no

Norwegian Environment Agency Wildlife Section Postboks 5672 Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
,
Susanne K. Hanssen
Norwegian Environment Agency Wildlife Section Postboks 5672 Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
,
Terje Bø
Norwegian Environment Agency Wildlife Section Postboks 5672 Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
,
Knut Morten Vangen
Norwegian Environment Agency Wildlife Section Postboks 5672 Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway

DOI: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/107757

SEE PEER REVIEW

Norway shares its populations of lynx (Lynx lynx), wolverine (Gulo gulo), brown bear (Ursus arctos), grey wolf (Canis lupus) and Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) with mainly Sweden, but also Finland and Russia. Norway and Sweden have a long history of dialogue and collaboration in questions relating to large carnivores (LC) in population monitoring and financing of long-term research. Monitoring collaboration has intensified in recent years with shared methodology and database, shared reporting of monitoring results and regular meetings to ensure that methods do not diverge between the two countries.
That Norway and Sweden share LC populations is nothing new, but using the same monitoring methodology and registering the data in a common database has provided an improved platform for studying transboundary issues [1,2,3].
It is clear that Norwegian and Swedish management strategies do not operate independently of each other, and may affect the other country's ability to achieve its LC management objectives. It is equally clear that population management would benefit from greater collaboration between the two countries also in the practical management of these species.
Norway and Sweden, as signatories to the Bern Convention, share the basic premises of LC protection and what is permitted as derogations from that protection. However, the Norwegian management policy is based on a principal of geographically differentiated management. This is a form of zonation to allow for viable large carnivore population while still enabling cultural and agricultural use of natural resources, of which free-range grazing of livestock is a significant part. Management in both countries is decentralised, but the manner in which this is organised differs between the countries. Norwegian population targets are precise and populations should be neither below nor above the set targets, whereas Sweden (as an EU member) identifies reference values for Favourable Conservation Status that act as de facto minimum population levels. These are all part of national frameworks that sometimes result in conflicting management objectives between the two countries.
These differences make it a challenge to achieve the same level of cooperation in the practical LC management as in monitoring. There is extensive dialogue between the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency as central management authorities, and both central and regional management authorities are actively working to identify possible areas of cooperation. This includes, for example, a common handling of reports of wolves in close proximity to humans, and development of population level viability studies and harvest models.

REFERENCES:
1. Gervasi, V. et al. (2016). Wildlife Biology 22 (3): 95-106.
2. Gervasi, V. et al. (2015). Biological Conservation 191: 632-639
3. Bischof, R. et al. (2016). Conservation Letters 9: 122–130.

SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:
In their abstract the authors from the Norwegian Environment Agency outline their presentation on the collaborative monitoring, registration and management of the large carnivore populations in Norway and Sweden. Both countries share a long border and and areas of regular abundance or concentration areas of large carnivore overlap substantially and most of them can be characterized as transborder areas. Although the assessment of the populations and survey methods as well as documentation of the latter have been harmonized over the past years, current and future challenges lie in the different management schemes and organization between the two countries. The authors report on this joint, collaborative endeavor, its current solutions and success and challenges.
MERITS:
This abstract and presentation presents a substantial body of work of a highly needed but nowadays still rare attempt to harmonize and collaborate in international, transborder monitoring, management and research of wildlife populations. Therefore I support the acceptance of this contribution.
CRITIQUE:
Concisely and clearly written and highlighting the problems but also achievements. The only critique I have that it would be good to have short information on the Finnish and Russian cooperation in wildlife monitoring, its potential and current issues, perhaps. The reason why I bring it up is the fact that it is mentioned right at the beginning of the abstract, however, not been taken up again. Although the reasons may be obvious and Norway and Sweden have a much longer tradition this should be addressed once mentioned that this is a much more challenging process. Perhaps this will be discussed in the presentation.
DISCUSSION:
The Norwegian-Swedish collaboration in large carnivore monitoring could, or, is a prime example for international cooperation in the assessment of transborder wildlife populations. I hope in their presentation or later, the cooperation partners could publish at one point in the future a kind of road map how to tackle such a large attempt, solve issues, achieve common goals and handle the logistics. I believe this could be a blue print for other potential transborder cooperations in Europe and across the globe.

- - -
INTRO:
This abstract provides an informative and useful overview and comparison of the Norwegian and Swedish management of large carnivores. Similarities and important differences are clearly presented, and biological effects of these differences on the focal populations of conservation and management concern are hinted on, as are challenges to improve management coordination to achieve conservation obligations.
MERITS:
The authors work at the Norwegian Environment Agency, have academic background, and have excellent overview. The 3 key references are up-to-date and very illustrative of effects and dilemma that arise from the two countries' different management approaches. Thus, in all, a very informative and interesting presentation.
CRITIQUE:
No significant weaknesses. Just a minor correction of the language in a sentence: "It is clear that Norwegian and Swedish management strategies do not operate independently of each other, and may affect the other country's ability to achieve its LC management objectives." I think the authors mean that the EFFECTS of the management strategies on the populations of concern are not independent of one another. Thus, I propose the sentence is changed into "It is clear that the effects of the Norwegian and Swedish management on the focal populations are not independent of one another, and may affect the other country's ability to achieve its LC management objectives."
DISCUSSION:
Effects of different management strategies for the same species and populations on different sides of a country border may be of crucial importance for the fate and successful conservation of populations of threatened species with important ecological roles. Since the large carnivore populations common to Norway and Sweden are exceptionally well studied, this overview and comparison provides a very useful contribution to both science and practical management.

National and transboundary perspectives of large carnivore conservation and management in Norway

Date:2018/06/14

Time:14:00

Room:A3 Wolmar

National and transboundary perspectives of large carnivore conservation and management in Norway

(Oral)

SEE PEER REVIEW

SEE PEER REVIEW

Date:
2018/06/14

Time:
14:00

Room:
A3 Wolmar