1. 1st meeting of the working group on wolves 24 September 2009 DG ENV

2. Replies on the Questionnaire Overview and main findings
1) Coexistence with livestock breeding: prevention / mitigation of damages
2) Assessment of the conservation status: how to operationalise

3. Preventive measures
Use of preventive/protection measures are implemented in almost all Countries/regions where wolves are present
But big differences in budget, source of financing, conditions…
Most used measures: Livestock Guarding Dogs, presence of sheperds, electric fences, night-time enclosures (no use of LGD in FI, SE and Baltic)

4. Preventive measures
No significant differences are reported in use of such measures by farmers in traditional wolf areas and newly recolonised areas
Generally considered successful, though they do not prevent all attacks/damages (rather mitigate them)
Generally considered as one element (not sufficient alone) to improve public acceptance/coexistence and to reduce illegal killing (but impacts not fully assessed/quantified)

5. Preventive measures
Often supported by public funds (but not everywhere! See RO, PL, LT…)
Different aid rates (60% to 100%), eligibility, conditions, extent of implementation
Community funds (LIFE, EAFRD) not very used for this purpose. But good example in France! (See also SI, BG, IT-Campania)

6. Ex-post compensation for wolf damages
Compensation payments (with public funds) exist in almost every Country (not in LT)
Other systems also exist in a few Countries/regions: ex-ante payments (e.g. IT-Piemonte, SE for reindeer), insurance system (IT-Toscana).
Conditions vary: eligibility, value of damage, direct/indirect costs.

7. Ex-post compensation for wolf damages
Public expenditure for ex-post compensations compared to that for prevention measures:
Prevention > Compensation: DE, SE, FR
Compensation > Prevention: SI, PT, IT, PL, EE, CZ, SK, FI

8. Ex-post compensation for wolf damages
Considered useful/essential to improve coexistence if compensation is fair and timely paid
Considered useful to reduce illegal killing (but no reliable data and no proper assessment of such impact)

9. Are there sufficient species and population data in your country?
Very differentiated reply: many respondents say yes, many say no
No detailed information provided

10. How do you define "favourable conservation status" of the population in your country, in particular taking into account the Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores?
Very differentiated answers:
Some use the guidelines, some just intend to use them.
Some refer only to Art. 1 Habitats Directive,
Some refer to number of packs and connectivity
A few „ quantified definitions“: FCS = 100 individuals; 50 packs; MVP= 20 breeding pairs

11. What is your experience in applying the guidelines in your country as regards Wolves?
Most countries don't fully apply (yet) or have problems with part of the text.
Considered useful as a basis for management plans and for underlining the cross border character of wolf populations

12. Is the population status constantly monitored? By which methodology?
Yes, mainly by:
Snow tracking, visual observations and wolf howling
DNA analysis of feces
Telemetric projects
Damage reports

13. Do you share one population or segments of a population with other countries? How do you manage this and how do you ensure that the population reaches favourable conservation status?
Several examples of contacts/data exchange between MS for shared wolf populations (ES-PT, IT-FR, SE-FI, Baltic)
But no real approach for a common management plan at population level so far

14. Did the population decrease below – or increase above the level they had when the Directive came into force on your territory?
Generally increase of population and/or range (but no detailed figures provided):
Increase: FI, SE, EE, FR, SK, IT, DE
Stable : PL, RO, LT, CZ, PT