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

Abstract

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.