Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main goals of this project?

There are three main goals. The first is to try and change the unit of management from the individual administrative unit (county, federal state or country) to that of the population irrespective of how many administrative units it crosses. Sometimes this will involve requiring neighbouring countries or autonomous regions to cooperate on a shared population, in other cases it will require that a country differentiates between two distinct populations within its borders. Our second goal is to try and operationalise the habitats directive for the large carnivores which involves coming up with operational interpretations of concepts such as “favourable conservation status” that take the specific biology of large carnivores into account. Our third goal is to make recommendations concerning best management practices for large carnivores.

Why do we need a population approach?

Because large carnivores use very large areas and occur at extremely low densities. 29 of 33 existing large carnivore populations in Europe stretch across national borders – therefore it is necessary to manage these populations in a coordinated manner.

Is it possible to adopt common management strategies for species as diverse as wolves, Eurasian lynx, brown bears and wolverines?

Although the species do have some individual characteristics that need to be considered, such as the need for bears to hibernate in dens during winter, from the point of view of conservation they share surprisingly many features, and generally have the same habitat and management needs. Where species specific approaches are needed, we clearly highlight this in our good practice guidelines. One approach to defining favourable conservation status allows for using population and species specific data on reproduction and mortality in a population viability analysis.

The choice of IUCN regional red list criteria as the standard for setting favourable reference populations levels has been controversial. Why have they been chosen?

The red list criteria are the most widely accepted criteria today among the global conservation community. From the point of view of legislation it is desirable to harmonise as many systems as possible – which is one administrative reason to favour this choice. However, the main reason is that these criteria are the result of a long term process among a global community of conservation biologists. They allow a species specific modelling approach – which may be useful given access to population and species specific data when these data are available. In cases where such data are not available there is the possibility to use a general value for population size which is tried and tested for a range of species.

So what does a population need to be in order to have reached favourable conservation status?

Basically the population has to be large enough to have exceeded the threshold for a minimum viable population, its trend should generally be stable or increasing, it should have good internal connectivity (be effectively continuous) and its habitat should be in good condition. The minimum viable population implies that there is less than a 10% chance of it becoming extinct within 100 years. Furthermore, it should be subject to effective monitoring.

Will recommending a Europe wide definition for favourable conservation status allow for the diversity of approaches that are needed in a diverse continent like Europe?

Yes, because Favourable Conservation Status is a minimum goal, and according to our recommendation should be a property of the population, not the country.  Also the criteria take regional and species specific conditions into account. This should allow nations to adopt considerable freedom in adapting populations to local circumstances as long as they are above the minimum requirement that is needed to satisfy community interests.

Why do we need a standard at all?

So that we can compare like with like when assessing the status of populations, and so that countries have a clear operational definition to relate to when developing their management practices.

Likewise, can any advice on good management practices have general European application?

Yes, because we are just setting some frames around acceptable practices – within these frames there is considerable freedom for nations to adapt to local circumstances and traditions.

In the guidelines, you focus on both demographic and genetic aspects of carnivore conservation, are genetic aspects really important?

In the recent past we have been mainly focused on preventing our carnivore populations from becoming extinct, and have therefore had a rather short term focus. During this process we have noticed that many carnivore populations have managed to thrive despite passing through very small genetic bottlenecks. However, now that we have passed through the crisis stage we need to consider more long-term aspects, where genetic aspects are more important. This will be especially important if we are faced with a changing environment, for example due to climate change. Signs of inbreeding depression have already become apparent in the Scandinavian wolf population which is descended from 3 individuals so the issue is not only theoretical.

What about countries which are not included within the EU?

It will help that Romania and Bulgaria have just joined and that Croatia is close to joining. However, there are a number of really important countries that are not included within the EU, such as Norway, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Switzerland, Bosnia & Hezegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. Many of these countries are crucial partners as they form crucial links in biologically continuous populations. For example, in the Carpathian Mountains, Ukraine separates the carnivores found in the northern EU countries (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic) from those in the southeastern EU (Romania, Bulgaria). Finding ways to involve non-EU countries will be needed to advance the progress of the population level management concept. Associated agreements such as the Bern and the Bonn conventions may be useful in these circumstances.

Is hunting large carnivores compatible with their conservation?

In principle large carnivores can be sustainably harvested provided that the populations are large enough, that the population is well monitored, and if the harvest is well regulated. They are more challenging to manage than other game species, such as herbivores, mainly because they occur at very low densities and are difficult to monitor. In many cases allowing hunting increases the acceptance of rural people for the presence of large carnivores. However, there are many societies that will regard large carnivore hunting as unacceptable. Furthermore, there are several populations that are so small and endangered that opening for hunting is impossible. The EU’s habitat directive does not open for normal hunting of species (most large carnivores) on annex 4 (strictly protected), except through derogations. Until now, there has been a great deal of flexibility concerning derogation which has provided the flexibility necessary for species like large carnivores

Are large carnivores really an important issue for the European Commission?

Yes! Large carnivores are presently found in all EU countries apart from the British Isles and the Benelux countries (22 of 27 countries) with some countries having all 4 species. Wherever they occur the large carnivores are controversial and absorb a lot of management capacity. They are responsible for a significant proportion of the correspondence that the Commission deals with. This reflects the fact that we have not yet found the best management structures for them. These species have been saved from extinction, but there is still a long way to go before we have reached sustainable coexistence.

Does this issue only concern large carnivores?

No. Large carnivores are one of the most dramatic examples of the need for large scale conservation approaches, but they are far from the only one. Species like migratory birds and migratory bats are already covered by their own international conventions, but there are many examples of species that range widely across the borders of different administrative units that may have different and uncoordinated management strategies. This is just a first attempt to develop ecological realism and flexibility within the Habitats Directive.

Throughout Europe there has been a trend towards more local and decentralised management of natural resources. Do these large guidelines seek to reverse this trend?

No. However, for wide-ranging species like large carnivores there is a need to ensure a larger scale coordinated framework within which the many local levels can operate. In other words we are encouraging both the central and the local – where the central level sets some general coordinated frames – and where the local level is free to find locally adapted solutions as long as they help reach the overall goals. We call this the principle of freedom-within-frames.

Return to LCIE start page