1. Achieving coexistence with large carnivores in the EU
European Federation for Hunting and Conservation
Achieving coexistence with large carnivores in the EU
Brussels, 07 March 2018
Ludwig Willnegger
Secretary General FACE

2. FACE: who are we?
International non-profit non-governmental organisation
Our members: National hunting associations from 36 European countries and 7 associate members
Represent 7 million hunters
IUCN member since 1987
Engaged in all relevant EU and international policy processes that can affect hunting and conservation

3. Hunters and large carnivores
Hunters are important stakeholders in large carnivore conservation and management:
Create acceptance and reduce illegal killing:
See research on IK from: SW, FIN, AUT, etc.
Local support and knowledge vital for conservation
Hunters instrumental in combatting poaching
The most challenges are in countries and regions where large carnivores have disappeared.

4. Hunters and conflicts Killing of game species and disturbance
Large carnivores can be viewed as competition
Chamois, red deer, mouflon and roe deer
Can create dangerous situations (e.g. for driven hunts)
Conflict with hunting dogs (driven hunting)
Impacts on agriculture: Hunting and farming are intertwined
Of course, hunters recognize large carnivores as part of the environment, but see the need for management

6. Hunters and solutions
Multi-stakeholder approach needed to secure the participation of land owners and land managers and other key stakeholders
Hunters are not always included in management plans and hence, they are not satisfied with the plans (-> Consequences: e.g. poor implementation, IK)
Involving stakeholders in monitoring: improves data quality and acceptance
Creating acceptance through communication alone is not enough
Conversation ≠ conservation. Action is needed!
Apply flexibility and adjust to local needs - “economic, social, cultural and regional requirements” (Art. 2)
(LCP without COPA-COGECA),
Consequences:

7. New Report: Large Carnivore Management Plans of Protection: Best Practices in EU Member States
Good points:
Legal framework overview
Population status overview
Bad points:
Unscientific (selective and does not capture
e.g. social science research)
Promotes strict protection
The study fails to place an emphasis on relevant social science research, which has shown, e.g. in Finland, that illegal killing (poaching) of large carnivores, mainly wolves, is a sign of increasing and powerful non-communicative resistance that must be considered a serious signal of a need to adapt management to those groups most closely affected by large carnivores.

8. Critical points:
It fails to highlight the need for MS to take account of “economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics” as outlined in Article 2.3 of the Habitats Directive.
With regard to hunting as a management tool, there is a tradition for hunters to manage these species.
In various settings, large carnivore hunting (but also carnivore-related ecotourism) is associated with significant economic benefits, and in many contexts is regarded as being crucial for achieving local acceptance of the presence of these species (Hofer 2002; Knapp 2006).
Instead of promoting well-regulated harvest as a preventive measure to reduce conflicts, the study continually recommends that lethal management has no positive effect on large carnivore species. In reality, many MS manage large carnivore populations via lethal management because it maintains a healthy balance between human and conservation interests.

9. Critical points:
The study does not place a strong focus on the need for trans- boundary & population-based approaches to large carnivore management.
The study recommends “an alternative model of management that is based on scientific principles and that creates a strategy of support, awareness and information for different stakeholders”, but does not go into detail on what this model should look like. Importantly, in this context, the authors have not taken into account recent calls by the Council, the European Parliament and the CoR for greater flexibility of implementation approaches.
Promoting strict protection via non-lethal management approaches will not achieve EU conservation goals; instead, it is likely that such an approach will lead to increased cases of IK

10. FACE Policy requests
FACE Policy requests

11. FACE Policy requests I. Improving coexistence
Calls for greater recognition of “economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics” Art. 2.3, Hab.Dir.
Calls for greater recognition of the existing flexibility of implementation approaches that consider specific local, regional and national circumstances to reduce unavoidable problems/conflicts between people and large carnivores.
II. Updating the annexes of the Habitats Directive:
Calls on the EC to promote the correct application of Art 19 (Hab.Dir.) which provides that the annexes shall be updated in accordance with technical and scientific progress to lower the protection status
Allowing the import of wolf trophies from Serbia and Belarus

12. FACE Policy requests III. Management planning for large carnivores:
Calls on the EC to promote and propose means for the funding and development of coordinated transboundary management for large carnivore species.
Calls on MS to develop adaptive management plans which effectively mitigate human-large carnivore conflicts (e.g. in areas with significant livestock depredation problems and/or areas with zoning for large carnivores).
Calls on MS to focus on ‘populations’ and not ‘individuals’ in line with the Habitats Directive.
Calls on MS to consider well-regulated harvest as a preventive measure to reduce conflicts.

13. FACE Policy requests IV. Improved stakeholder involvement:
Calls on MS to secure the participation of those most closely affected by large carnivores such as hunters, farmers, land owners and other land managers in order to guarantee the success of large carnivore conservation and management.
V. Supporting decisions with science, instead of bias:
Calls on MS to make decisions based on the best available knowledge in the natural and social sciences when designing and implementing large carnivore management plans;

14. Thank you for your time!