LIFE 07NAT/IT/ EX-TRA IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS FOR LARGE CARNIVORE CONSERVATION: A TRANSFER OF BEST PRACTICES FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 LIFE 07NAT/IT/ EX-TRA IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS FOR LARGE CARNIVORE CONSERVATION: A TRANSFER OF BEST PRACTICES FINAL REPORT

2 LIFE07NAT/IT/ Final Report 01/01/ /03/2013 Reporting Date 31/03/2013 LIFE EX-TRA Project location Data Project Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece Project start date: 01/01/2009 Project end date: 31/03/2013 Total budget EC contribution: (%) of eligible costs 68,5% Name Beneficiary Contact person Postal address Ente Parco Nazionale Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga Ms. Annette Mertens Via del Convento, 67010, Assergi, L Aquila Telephone Fax: Project Website mertens.annette@gmail.com

3 Table of contents List of contents 1. List of acronyms 4 2. Executive summary General progress Evaluation and long-term benefits Dissemination Problems encountered 8 3. Introduction Administrative part Description of the management system Evaluation of the management system Technical part Task by task - description Evaluation Analysis of benefits Dissemination issues and monitoring Financial part Costs incurred Accounting system Partnership arrangements Auditor's report/declaration List of annexes Summary of all materials sent to the EC 100 List of figures Figure 1. Organigram of the LIFE EX-TRA management structure 12 Figure 2. Map of bear damages recorded in 2001 at county level in Romania (Annual report on carnivore evaluation prepared by Carpati Foundation and Forest Research and Management Planning Institute). 19 Figure 3. Panel to inform drivers about the danger posed by traffic collisions with wildlife 41 2

4 List of tables Table 1. Key deliverables and milestones of the LIFE EX-TRA Project 5 Table 2. List of milestones achieved in the project 7 Table 3. Summary action A5 15 Table 4. Summary action A6 15 Table 5. Summary action A7 16 Table 6. Summary action A8 17 Table 7. Summary action A9 17 Table 8. Experience exchange trips made in the course of the LIFE EX-TRA Project 20 Table 9. Training courses for veterinaries and technical staff organized in the LIFE EX-TRA Project 23 Table 10. Summary action C1 23 Table 11. Summary action C2 27 Table 12. Summary action C3 30 Table 13. Summary action C4 33 Table 14. Summary action C6 40 Table 15. Summary action C7 42 Table 16. Number of persons targeted by the communication activities 63 Table 17. Minimum numbers of different media releases about the LIFE EX-TRA project per country 64 Table 18. Number of claims registered in the four project countries during project implementation ( ). 73 Table 19. Trends of ungulate numbers in Romania throughout the project 79 Table 20. Estimated numbers of carnivores in the Romanian project area during the project 82 Table 21. Costs incurred per cost category 92 Table 22. Costs incurred for the organization of the final conference of the LIFE EX-TRA Project 94 3

5 1. List of acronyms ACGA Associazione Cane da Gregge Abruzzese (Abruzzo Shepherd Dog Association) ASUR - Azienda Sanitaria Unica Regionale BET Bear Emercengy Team BWS Balkani Wildlife Society (Bulgaria) ELGA Greek State Agricultural Insurance Company EPA Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System HD Human Dimension ICAS Romanian Institute for Forest Research and Management LCWG Large Carnivore Working Group (Romania) LGD Livestock Guarding Dog MOEW Ministry of Environment and Water (Bulgaria) PNGSL Parco Nazionale Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga (Italy) PNMS Parco Nazionale Monti Sibillini (Italy) PNATE Parco Nazionale Appennino tosco-emiliano (Italy) REI Regional Environmental Inspectorate (Bulgaria) TUB Transylvania University of Brasov (Romania) UNIVAQ Università dell Aquila (Italy) VHF Very High Frequency (type of radiocollar) 4

6 2. Executive summary The LIFE EX-TRA project aimed at improving the know-how of conservation actors in what concerns activities for the conservation of wolves and bears. It foresaw to improve the capacities of all participants about essential aspects of carnivore conservation: biological aspects, interactions with other species, conflict management and stakeholder involvement. Based on the expertise gained in the frame of the LIFE Project Improving Coexistence of Large Carnivores and Agriculture in SEurope (LIFE04NAT/IT/000144)-COEX, of which PNGSL had been one of the associated beneficiaries, this project was supposed to be a tool to transfer expertise and good practice to new sites. The project objectives were: - To transfer the best practice and lessons learned previously onto new areas - To strengthen the cooperation with stakeholders in large carnivore conservation measures - To strengthen the use of well-working damage prevention tools in the target areas - To provide the relevant authorities with necessary knowledge about conflict management - To acquire the necessary capacity for the management of conflicts caused by habituated bears - To ensure capacities for the management of wild prey for maintaining the present wolf populations - To improve the attitudes of the local interest groups towards the conservation of wolves and bears Table 1. Key deliverables and milestones of the LIFE EX-TRA Project Key deliverables Action Deadline Report of the stakeholder analysis (including recommendations) A5 31 March 2010 Report about the damage caused by carnivores (incl. recommendations) A7 31 March 2010 Brochures about wolves and bears D1 30 June 2010 Brochures about livestock guarding dogs and electric fences D2 30 June 2010 Protocols of BET C6 15 December 2010 GIS database A10 31 March 2011 Maps of the areas at high risk of livestock damage A10 15 December 2011 Reports of training stages and experience exchanges C1 15 December 2012 Activity report about stakeholder involvement C2 15 December 2012 Activity report C4 15 December 2012 Activity report C6 15 December 2012 Activity report C7 15 December 2012 Key milestones Action Deadline First red deer were released C7 30 November 2009 Needs and expectations of stakeholders are known A5 15 December 2009 Attitudes of the agricultural world are known A6 15 December 2009 Extent of damage in the target areas is known A7 15 December 2009 Availability of prey species is known A8 15 December 2009 First scaring devices installed C7 30 June 2010 First electric fences and livestock guarding dogs were distributed C3 31 August 2010 BETs are in place C6 15 December

7 2.1 General progress The LIFE EX-TRA project has started on and after few initial delays it was developed as foreseen. The preparatory phase has provided all the necessary information and recommendations for the implementation of the concrete actions. Action A10 (GIS database) has continued throughout the project because the database was regularly updated with coordinates from the field work. The risk likelihood maps were produced and now provide information about more conflict risk levels. The training and experience exchange activities have been one of the core components of the project (action C1). Twenty experience exchange trips have been made, and 10 courses field staff in the assessment of mortality causes to livestock have been organized (8 in Italy, 1 in Bulgaria, 1 in Romania and 1 in Greece). These activities have shown to be extremely useful and appreciated and provided an important added value of the project and its multi-partner character. Another crucial part of the project was the whole component of stakeholder analysis and involvement (actions A5, A6, C2 and E3). Many meetings (95) have been made with stakeholders, and important results have been achieved, in terms of practical management agreements, of the improvement of the relationships between the interested parties and the local authorities and the increased awareness of authorities of the Human Dimensions as a management tool. Also the efforts to encourage the use of damage prevention tools have been successful. All the foreseen livestock guarding dogs and electric fences have been distributed to livestock raisers (action C3). Especially the use of electric fences has achieved an enormous success. The involved local authorities (PNMS and MOEW) have recognized that these tools have helped reduce the conflicts and the costs of compensation payments and therefore they have purchased additional fences at own costs and given them to farmers. In the frame of action C4 the dissemination of the use of livestock guarding dogs has also been successful. In fact, the development of the dog breeding network has resulted in the dissemination to a great number of farmers and the distribution of 91 dogs. Several new management regulations have also been achieved in the project areas. As foreseen in action C5 the damage and conflict monitoring procedures have been updated and improved. Also, all the participants (except PNATE where no bears are present) have developed Bear Emergency Team and intervention protocols. The teams are now fully operative and 116 conflict situations have already been successfully mitigated. In Italy 54 Red deer have been released in the National Park territories and devices for the prevention of traffic collisions with ungulates have been installed on 58 km of national and regional roads. In the frame of the dissemination activities a set of materials regarding bears, wolves and the coexistence with people have been readapted from materials of the LIFE COEX Project (LIFE04NAT/IT/000144) and reproduced in the project countries. Moreover, an interactive information CD has been produced and distributed. The project website has been updated and all the materials, pictures and videos produced in the frame of the project can be found on it. The monitoring activities have been carried out throughout the whole project in order to keep track of the distributions of wolves and bears, their prey and the damages they caused on agriculture. The post-hoc assessment of the stakeholders perceptions has revealed a great level of satisfaction regarding the project activities. Finally on October the final conference of the LIFE EX-TRA Project took place in the Gran Sasso National Park in Italy. The conference was concentrated on the exchange of best practices in participatory management, whereas on the second day the Open Space 6

8 Technology was applied in an demonstrative way. The conference was attended by over 100 persons from 16 countries, and it has made possible an intense exchange of experiences from many areas of the world. Information about the conference can be found of the project website ( Following is a table with the most relevant milestones that were achieved: Table 2. List of milestones achieved in the project Name of the Milestone Action Foreseen date Date First steering group meeting done A1 April 2009 June 2009 Staff chosen and responsibilities assigned A1 April 2009 April 2009 First meetings with stakeholders C2 July 2009 December 2009 First experience exchange trips C1 August 2010 April 2009 First presentation of LGD to farmers C4 August 2009 May 2009 First red deer were released C7 September 2009 November 2009 First training course for veterinaries C1 December 2009 October 2009 Extent of damage in the areas known A7 December 2009 December 2009 Availability of prey species is known A8 December 2009 September 2009 Distribution of wolves and brown bears in the target area is known Α9 December 2009 December 2009 Website ready D3 December 2009 January 2010 First electric fences and LDG distributed C3 August 2010 November 2009 Needs and attitudes of stakeholders known A5 December 2009 May 2010 Attitudes of the agricultural world known A6 December 2009 May 2010 Beginning of dissemination of public awareness material D1 September 2010 August 2010 First road kill prevention devices installed C7 October 2010 June 2010 Final BET protocols are in place C6 December 2010 September 2010 Discussion forum active D3 December 2010 September 2010 GIS database ready A10 March 2011 November 2010 Damage monitoring plans in place C5 December 2011 March 2011 Maps of areas at high risk of livestock damage are ready A10 December 2011 December 2011 First distribution of LGD to farmers by LGD network C4 Not specified July 2010 First BET intervention C6 Not specified March 2009 Ex-post assessment of stakeholder attitudes completed E3 Not specified September 2012 Final conference E6 Not foreseen October Evaluation and long-term benefits Often large carnivores are used as scape goats by local interest groups to express their frustrations about other issues such as hard working conditions, restrictions in protected areas etc. Improving the relationships between local interest groups and authorities is also a tool to improve the image of wolves and bear among the general public. This has been done through several important steps: - the encouragement of the use of effective damage prevention tools - the start-off of an important communication and consultation process - the creation of expertise for the assessment and management of conflicts Besides this the project has set the basis for long-term effectiveness of these actions. Negotiation for management often involves long processes, which are based on the positive willingness of all the involved parties to communicate. Participatory processes have been 7

9 initiated by the present project, on the one hand by providing the necessary tools and expertise, and on the other hand by demonstrating to the involved parties (especially to the local authorities) the importance and effectiveness of this approach. Also the activities for training veterinaries in damage assessment and the revision of the damage monitoring procedures will have an important future effect because they will ease the development of adequate compensation procedures and therefore lead to better relationships between livestock raisers and the local authorities. The Bear Emergency Teams that were set up and trained during the project, will have an important direct impact in the future for bear management and protection. The project has also been very important for the transfer of expertise between participants in many fields of carnivore conservation: the assessment of damage on livestock, the use of damage prevention tools, the management and handling of problem bears and the use of stakeholder analysis and involvement tools for the management of conflicts. In this sense the multi-partner approach has allowed the achievement of the foreseen goal of the project. 2.3 Dissemination As can be seen in Annex XXIII the dissemination and communication activities have reached a great number of different types of persons. The general public has been targeted by approximately 350 media releases and by the distribution of information material (brochures and DVDs). The developed information materials were in addition used in schools, targeting at least children. It can be estimated that round people were targeted by the information activities. The main targeted audience were livestock raisers, who have been reached by public fairs and events, with brochures and other information material and in the meetings with stakeholders. A smaller but not less crucial interest group that was directly reached by the project activities is the one made up by representatives of local and national authorities Ministries, Regional Inspectorates, Local Municipalities etc. These were involved in the stakeholder consultation processes and the general information activities. The involvement of these groups was crucial because the have become aware of many shortcomings in the local management policies and systems as well as of the importance of the applied techniques for conflict management. 2.4 Problems encountered In the course of the LIFE EX-TRA project there have been two delays, which have however not caused any major problems to the activities. As already described in the IncR the earthquake in Abruzzo Region in 2009 has destroyed the offices of the project, and this has caused a delay of the development of the first general project management activities and of some of the preparatory actions. This situation has been explained to the LIFE Unit in a letter of , and the LIFE Unit has expressed their comprehension in their letter of Most of these problems were recovered within few weeks. The only set of actions that suffered an actual delay is the one regarding Human Dimensions activities (A5, A6 and C2). This was caused due to the fact that the University of L Aquila, which had been subcontracted for the development of the action, has been completely destroyed, and all the materials and computers went lost. Therefore the staff of the University needed few months to reconstruct their whole infrastructure and to recover the work they had already started to do for the 8

10 present project. Since the stakeholder activities of the other countries were also linked to the activities in Italy, also some of these countries suffered some delay. The effect of this problem was that there has been a delay of two months in the development of actions A5 and A6 (stakeholder analysis and opinion polls). Regarding action C2 (negotiation discussions, on the basis of results of action A5), in some places the action has already started before the end of action A5 (Bulgaria and Greece), therefore widely on time, whereas in other places (Italy and Romania) there has been a delay of 4 months. However, this delay has been fully recovered and not caused any kind of problem. The second delay concerned the partner Bulgarian Ministry of the Environment (MOEW), due essentially to a constant change of managing bodies in the past firs two project years. The start of the EX-TRA project coincided with the expiration of the old Bulgarian government and the old Minister refused to sign the partnership agreement between MOEW and PNGSL. The new Minister (Karadjova) stepped in to force in July 2009 and needed several months to catch up with the institutional activities. Therefore the partnership agreement was finally signed at the end of September By then one contact person for the LIFE EX-TRA project was chosen. But also this person did not manage to get several things organized because he quit his job in March This person was then replaced with a new one (Stojan Verghev) in April 2010, who has finally concretely started implementing the planned project duties. One of the duties of MOEW was to purchase the equipment to be used by the national parks where the project takes place, for a total budget of EUR This equipment mainly included electric fences to be given to livestock farmers and bee keepers (action C3) and equipment for the Bear Emergency Teams (action C6). The purchase of this equipment was delayed due to the upmentioned reasons. The new contact person Stojan Vergiev then started actively organising the activities in the project since April 2010 and the purchase of the equipment was finally concluded in June All the purchased electric fences were immediately distributed to the farmers during summer Until then the fences that were previously bought by the partner BWS have been given to the farmers, therefore the delay did not pose any problem. In fact, after all the fences had were distributed the staff of MOEW got aware of the effectiveness of these tools and made an additional purchase of 90 fences with own budget. Also the equipment for the Bear Emergency Team was immediately distributed to the relative Regional bodies. Until then the interventions of the Teams have been made with equipment purchased earlier by the partner BWS. In emergency situations the staff of BWS has always been on the place within 2 hours. Therefore the BET was fully working all the time. The purchase of MOEW was to make sure that the Regional Inspectorates have their own equipment, so things get easier and the they can be self sufficient in the future. 9

11 3. Introduction Damage caused to livestock is one of the main reasons why persecution of large carnivores has persisted for centuries, extirpating them in parts of their historical range or, in the best case, reducing them to small, remnant populations. Unprotected agricultural facilities are vulnerable to attacks from wild predators. The consequence is a high incidence of damage to farmers, which results in a decrease of the public acceptance of the rural populations for these species, turning the nature of carnivores management difficulties into emotional issues rather than economic ones. Reducing such levels of conflicts is a prerequisite for successfully conserving large carnivore species. Important steps in this direction have already been made by the LIFE COEX Project (LIFE04NAT/IT/000144) of which PNGSL was one of the associated beneficiaries. The LIFE EX-TRA Project aimed at going one step further: based on the experience gathered in the LIFE COEX Project it foresaw to improve the capacities of all participants about essential aspects of carnivore conservation: biological aspects, interactions with other species, conflict management and stakeholder involvement. The project was carried out in four countries (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece). In Italy three National Parks (Parco Nazionale Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga, Parco Nazionale Monti Sibillini, Parco Nazionale Appennino Tosco-emiliamo) were involved and the activities were carried out in their territories, covering 50 SCIs. In Romania the project was developed in four SCIs, of which one is also a National Park (Ciucas National Park). In Bulgaria 5 SCIs were targeted, of which three were in different National Parks (Pirin Moutains National Park, Central Balkans National Park, Rodopi Mountains National Park). The Greek project area was located in three SCIs. The project targeted the two Annex II and IV HD (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) species wolf (Canis lupus) and bear (Ursus arctos), both priority species. In Italy wolves and bears were targeted in the territory of PNGSL and PNMS. Bears are registered only sporadically in these areas but the project aimed to prepare the ground for a potential reappearance of the species. In PNATE only wolves were targeted because bears are absent from the area and not likely to recolonize it in the near future. In Romania both bears and wolves were targeted in all the project areas. In Bulgaria bears were targeted whereas the activities concerning wolves have been removed from the project during the negotiation phase because this species is a game species in this country. The same applies for Greece, where the wolf populations north of the 39 th parallel are not included in Annex IV of the HD. The socio-economic context of the LIFE EX-TRA Project was extremely important because the conflicts with livestock raisers, based both on economic as well as emotional damage caused by wolves and bears, are the main threat for these species. In this context the development of the stakeholder analysis and involvement component of the project was of primary importance. This is an innovative tool for the creation of common approaches and agreements between local authorities and stakeholders, and has demonstrated to be extremely useful for achieving long-lasting positive results. The project is expected to have important long term results because it has achieved to implement not only practical activities on the field but also to create a know-how of the involved management parties, to develop an institutional background and to startup fruitful communication and positive relationships between the authorities and local stakeholders. All these are important results that will surely have a long-term effect. 10

12 4. Administrative part 4.1 Description of the management system The first year of the project was dedicated to the preparation of the concrete activities (A actions): preliminary assessment of conflicts, carnivore populations, human attitudes, stakeholders etc. The first steps of the concrete actions (C actions) were already started 6 months after the project start but the first months included rather preparatory activities (e.g. purchase of materials, planning of interventions). The core of the concrete actions was during the second and third project year. Most of the monitoring activities already started in the second year (damage assessment, monitoring of carnivore populations) in order to assess the success of the concrete actions. Only the follow-up survey of the stakeholder involvement component was started in the last year, after the whole participatory management component had been concluded. The last year also was dedicated to the conclusion of the concrete actions and the start of the closing activities of the project: final conference, financial reporting, audit, preparation of final report etc. The dissemination activities have accompanies the project more or less constantly during its whole duration. Internal organization and management The coordinating beneficiary of the project is the Parco Nazionale Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga. The staff of this Park is strongly active in the management of carnivore populations, being located in one of the core areas of the Apennine Mountains. The National Park has already been coordinating and associated beneficiary in several LIFE projects, and it was associated beneficiary of the LIFE COEX Project (LIFE04NAT/IT/000144), which could be seen as a first phase of the present project. The project also involved 6 associated beneficiaries: two national Parks in Italy (Parco Nazionale Monti Sibillini, Parco Nazionale Appennino Tosco-emiliano), one University in Romania (University of Transylvania), one NGO (Balkani Wildlife Society) and the Ministry of Environment and Waters in Bulgaria and one NGO (CALLISTO) in Greece. Each of these organizations has delegated one person as internal coordinator, and all together they have formed the project steering group. In addition, the coordinating beneficiary has hired a project manager, who was responsible for the overall coordination of the project across all the beneficiaries. The general project manager was directly supported by a financial manager, who had the following duties: Supervision of all administrative procedures carried out by the project partners (e.g. contracts with staff, purchasing procedures, requests of documentation etc.) Support to project partners about financial rules of the EC and eligibility of costs Support to project partners for financial statements Coordination of production of financial statements Control of financial statements delivered by project partners Control of project budget and potential changes within the limits imposed by the LIFE+ Regulation 11

13 The steering group and additional staff of the project has met in one kick-off meeting (A2) where all the preliminary project details were discussed, and then in 4 steering group meetings. These served to assess the development of the project, to exchange information between beneficiaries about procedures, methods and obtained results, to discuss potential problems and to plan the upcoming phase until the next steering group meeting. A final meeting was held in November 2012 in Thessaloniki, which served to plan the after- LIFE conservation Plan and to fill gaps and clarify issues for the final technical report and the single action reports. In addition, in each country the beneficiaries have made a row of internal project meetings, upon need. Besides this the project manager has requested from the beneficiaries regular updated about project implementation in the project areas. Also, upon need the project manager and the financial manager have travelled to the partner countries each time it was considered necessary to get a direct view of the local progress and to solve specific problems. Therefore, besides the steering groups, the project manager has made the following local visits to the partner countries: Romania: July 2009; September 2010; May 2011; January 2012; Bulgaria: September 2009; May 2010; February 2012; Greece: June The financial manager has kept track of the project expenses with the use of a specific financial monitoring tool. This was an Excel database that provided a periodic update of the expenses for each beneficiary in comparison with the foreseen budget. In addition, when deviations from the planned budget were inserted, automatically showed whether the 10% threshold was respected. PNGSL Coordinating staff Annette Mertens Project manager Pina Leone Internal coordinator TUB-FSFE National Coordinator Accountant BALKANI WS National Coordinator Accountant PNMS Technical Coordinator Administrative staff PNATE Technical Coordinator Administrative staff CALLISTO National Coordinator Accountant MoEW Accountant Figure 1. Organigram of the LIFE EX-TRA management structure 12

14 Partnership agreements Partnership agreements have been signed between the coordinating beneficiary and each of the associated beneficiaries (Annex I of the IncR). The form proposed by the EC has been used and only very slightly modified to add additional details that seemed to be important. All the agreements have been signed in March 2009, except for the one with MOEW, which has been signed on The details of the contents of the agreements were listed in the IncR. The contracts with the different associated beneficiaries were almost identical, differing only for the procedure of distribution of the EC contribution to public bodies or to NGOs. 4.2 Evaluation of the management system The management system of the project has worked well in general, although there have been two changes: The financial manager has changed twice. The first one (Luca Santarossa) has quit the project after two years for another job. At that point the coordinating beneficiary was obliged to choose the replacement from the list of candidates that had been made during the first tender procedure, and was therefore forced to hire a person (Paola Donati) who lived far away from the project area (in Sicily). This has created problems in the project development, which wave caused the termination of the contract after 6 months. Finally a new financial manager (Gloriana Aloisio) was selected with a more simple procedure. This person has successfully accompanied the project until its end. In Romania the internal project manager (George Predoiu) has left the project half way through for another job. The replacement with the new responsible persons (Ioan Dutca and Tudor Stancioiu) has not caused any problems. The changes in the management structure in the Bulgarian beneficiary MOEW were explained in paragraph 2.4. The project partnership has worked without problems. The interactions between partners were mainly coordinated by the project manager, but the single partners also interacted autonomously on specific issues such as experience exchanges, exchange of information etc. The partnership structure has provided a huge added value in terms of transfer of know-how and information. The conflicts between carnivore conservation and livestock raising is unlikely to be ever fully overcome, as long as the predators will continue existing in the same area with human rural activities. Therefore the only effective strategy to ensure long-term conservation of the target species is to have the local capacities to improve the coexistence between the involved parties. This has been positively achieved in the project thanks also to its complex structure and partnership. However, many of the activities carried out in the project will have a follow-up also in the future. These are summarized in the after-life conservation plan. 13

15 5. Technical part 5.1. Task by task - description PLEASE NOTE: Since actions A1 A9 have already been concluded in 2009 and their progress was reported in the MTR and the Progress Report, in order to limit the length of the present report a very brief summary of each of these actions was made whereas more detailed information can be found in the two up mentioned reports. Action A1. Preparation of administrative and legal background Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The necessary administrative documentation for the beginning of the project was prepared and all the foreseen procedures have been carried out correctly. Action A2. Kick-off steering group meetings Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress: A kick-off steering group meeting was held from 23 to 25 June at Rocca Calascio, in the territory of PNGSL. An international action plan was produced as a guideline for the future activities. Deliverables Minutes of the kick-off meeting - Annex II.1 of the IncR International action plan - Annex II.2 of the IncR Action A3. Initial technical national meetings Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The planned initial technical meetings were made at which methodological details of the project actions were settled and administrative rules were provided Deliverables Minutes of the first national technical meetings - Annex II.3 of the IncR Action A4. Initial training sessions for transfer of expertise Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress A best practice manual has been produced, translated into the project languages (Annex I of the MTR) and made available on the project website. The planned initial workshops were held in the project areas and the best practices from the LIFE COEX Project were presented. Deliverables Minutes of the training workshops in Romania and Bulgaria - Annex II.4 of the IncR Best practice manual Annex I of the MTR Minutes of best practice meeting in Greece Annex II of the MTR 14

16 Action A5. Stakeholder analysis Timing of the action: Start date ; foreseen end date Final end date: Progress and comparison with planned outputs The stakeholder assessment has been carried out in all the project areas and summarized in reports. The main involved stakeholders are known as well as their needs, expectations and main problems. Table 3. Summary action A5 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece 89 interviews N Interviews 462 interviews 25 interviews 3 group discussions 196 interviews Action start February 2009 Feb 09 Feb 09 Feb 09 Action end May 2010 Nov 2009 Dec 09 May 2010 Problems and delays As mentioned in the letter of 22 April 2009 to the EC the present action has been delayed due to the earthquake in Abruzzo Region, which has destroyed the offices of UNIVAQ and caused the loss of all the existing materials and data. The consequence of this was a delay of 3 months of actions A5 and A6, which has affected also the other countries. This delay did not affect the outcome of the project. The timing of the public meetings foreseen in the frame of action C2 was planned accordingly and all the necessary meetings were made in due time. Deliverables: Reports of stakeholder analysis Annex III of the MTR Presentation of results in Italy Annex IV of the MTR Report of Action A5 in Bulgaria in English language (as requested in point 6 of the EC letter of ) Annex I Action A6. Analysis of attitudes about coexistence with large carnivores Timing of the action: Start date ; foreseen end date Final end date: April 2010 Progress The planned polls have been carried out and the attitudes of the general public towards large carnivores were known. Table 4. Summary action A6 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece N Interviews Comprised in A5 400 Not foreseen 161 Action start February 2009 September 2009 Not foreseen February 2009 Action end May 2010 April 2010 Not foreseen March 2010 Changes Italy: In Italy this action was planned to be carried out only in PNMS and in PNATE because in PNGSL a similar action has already been carried out in the frame of the LIFE COEX Project. In PNMS and PNATE it was decided that this action would be combined with Action A5 in the same areas. Action A6 foresaw a quantitative assessment of the opinions of the 15

17 general public about large carnivore conservation issues, whereas similar assessments, but with a qualitative approach, were done in the frame of Action A5. After discussions with the experts from the University of L Aquila it appeared evident that coupling the two Actions in one effort (with a common budget) would have made more sense than keeping the actions separate. Therefore the budget for this action in Italy (7.500 EUR) was added to the budget for Action A5, which also included an assessment that provided information about the attitudes of the locals about coexistence with large carnivores. The objectives of both actions were surely achieved because a clear and in-depth picture of the perceptions and conflicts was obtained. Deliverables: Report of opinion polls Annex V of the MTR Action A7. Preliminary damage assessment Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The assessment of the damage on livestock was done in all the countries simultaneously, with the aid of questionnaires that were adapted from the ones previously used in the frame of the LIFE COEX Project. Information was collected about: general data about the livestock holding, used damage prevention techniques, description of the damage. The action has been carried out according to the plans and a report summarizing information about the damage caused by carnivores is available. Table 5. Summary action A7 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece Number of holdings present in the area Surface of area, in hectares Number of registered damage claims Action start Feb 09 Feb 09 Feb 09 Feb 09 Action end Dec 09 Dec 09 Dec 09 Dec 09 Deliverables Report of analysis of damage on livestock Annex VI of the MTR. Integration to the Greek report - Annex VII of the first progress report Action A8. Assessment of the availability and mortality causes of natural prey species Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The planned assessments of the ungulate populations have been carried out in all the foreseen project areas. Only slight methodological adaptations have been made, which have been clarified in the MTR and Progress Report. These adaptations have been made to improve the quality of the monitoring activities when it was observed that some techniques worked better than others in specific circumstances. 16

18 Table 6. Summary action A8 Italy - Italy - PNMS PNGSL Number of observation sessions Action start June 2009 June 2009 October December Action end Italy PNATE Romania Bulgaria Greece Not foreseen 93 Not foreseen Not foreseen Not March foreseen 2009 Not foreseen Not foreseen Not foreseen Dec 2009 Not foreseen Not foreseen Deliverables: Report of wild prey monitoring Annex VII of the MTR Action A9. Assessment of the distribution and numbers of wolves and bears Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The planned assessments of the wolf and bear populations have been carried out in all the foreseen project areas. Only slight methodological adaptations have been made, which have been clarified in the MTR and Progress Report. These adaptations were made to improve the quality of the monitoring activities when it was observed that some techniques worked better than others in specific circumstances. Table 7. Summary action A9 Italy - PNGSL Italy - PNMS Italy - PNATE Romania Bulgaria Greece Number of snow-tracking days Not foreseen Not foreseen Not Not Not Number of wolf-howling sessions foreseen foreseen foreseen Number of camera traps installed Not foreseen 14 Not foreseen Not Number of fur traps 12 7 Not foreseen foreseen Number of tracking transects Not foreseen Action start July 2009 April 2009 July 2009 Sept 2009 April 2009 May 2009 December March March December Action end December December Deliverables: Report of large carnivore monitoring Annex VIII of the MTR Action A10. Development of a Geographical Information System Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress A GIS consultant was contracted by PNGSL to coordinate the GIS activities and to produce one common GIS database. The Romanian, Greek and Bulgarian partners have involved own GIS technicians, who have produced shape files that could used with ArcView or ArcGIS programs. These shapefiles were then sent to the technician of PNGSL, who joined the different files in a common database. During the course of the action it appeared that harmonization of the geographic materials was hardly possible across all the project areas due to the vast differences in the data formats. E.g. concerning data about damage locations: in Romania the geographic data refer to the location of the affected shepherd camp, based on the information provided by the shepherd. 17

19 This provides an exact location, but not of the precise spot where the damage occurred. Contrarily in Greece the information about damage is provided by the public insurance company (ELGA), and in this case the location of the damage is at commune level. Expanding all the information at commune level is not possible because in Romania no map material about communal borders is available. Therefore, as far as possible (e.g. for general territorial information, Natura 2000 sites etc.) the database was made in a common format. For the other data separate databases were made for the different areas. In any case, geographic information is visualized for each country and maps were produced accordingly. This database includes layers for the following features: - General geographic features (settlements, roads, rivers etc.) - Damage caused by large carnivores - Livestock holdings - Censusing locations (e.g. wolf howling stations, deer observation stations etc.) - Location of registered carnivore and ungulate presence - Location of damage on livestock - Location of bear damage on crops - Interview locations The last step of the action has been the production of maps that show potential conflict areas in the project countries. The final version of the map material will be used by all the project beneficiaries and delivered to relevant national authorities to function as an effective tool to guide future conflict prevention and stakeholder involvement strategies. Details are provided in the after- LIFE conservation plan. Comments: Reply to point 1 of the EC letter of In Romania, due to the fact that carnivores are considered strictly protected species, compensation for damage produced to domestic livestock is centralized by state and not by local administrations (communes). Therefore no systematic information is available in detail at regional level. In addition, the mapped administrative boundaries are very large and do not allow a subdivision of the territories in communes like in Greece or Italy. Since the damage is produced in localized points (shepherd camps, farms) expanding the damage costs/levels to a very large area does not provide a proper image about the damage likelihood (actually is diluting the effects). Furthermore, the analysis of the data on damage collected in the first year of the project showed no strong correlation with the expected variables (proximity to forest, foggy, cloudy conditions, attack during night rather than day). The only variables that confirmed the expectations were distance to human settlements and permanent roads (i.e. increased distance increased chance for attack). Therefore, to produce risk maps, shepherd camp locations rather than commune areas were used and damage level was used as a variable. The damage level in each year was recorded either in number of animals killed and also translated in damage value. As all project areas support heavy populations of carnivores, damage as number of attacks was more or less constant across years (53 in 2009; 35 in 2010; 52 in 2011 and 47 in 2012), but not in the same spots. Since all the shepherd camps have similar conditions regarding protection (use of wood fences during night; shepherds are always present; shepherd dogs are used as protection method - no electric fences) the variation was probably due to other natural factors 18

20 (movement of carnivores especially wolf but also bear during fall; particular weather conditions; care and attention of shepherds etc.). Therefore, all 3 project areas show a general high risk potential (confirmed by official sources the annual evaluation report on large carnivores for 2011 which show that Brasov and Covasna counties are among counties with the highest level of damage see figure below) but also a rather constant damage level under the conditions of a potentially growing carnivore population (i.e. due to the strict protection). Figure 2. Map of bear damages recorded in 2001 at county level (Annual report on carnivore evaluation prepared by Carpati Foundation and Forest Research and Management Planning Institute). In Annex II please find detailed maps of the recorded economic damage in the three Romanian project areas. The data outputs obtained by these maps provide good information as a basis on where concentrate damage prevention and management efforts. The use of Geographical Information System to monitor damage and underline very sensitive areas (i.e. areas of high risk) is a very efficient tool for authorities. The risk maps and database developed in the project could be used as a model for authorities and should be expanded at national level. The following step in improving the model developed under the project is to develop and implement a very simple and user-friendly software which allows field inspectors introduce data related to damages and compensations. Such an electronic field form linked to a central database and maps (e.g. Google Earth) would let gather information from the entire range of carnivores, in real time and therefore would help take wise decisions for their management. This also replies to point 1 of the EC letter of Comparison with planned outputs and objectives The action was carried out as planned and the maps of risk areas are available. 19

21 Deliverables: Preliminary thematic maps (excerpt) Annex IX of the MTR GIS database Annex I.1 of the progress report Maps of the areas at high risk of livestock damage Annex I.2 of the progress report Detailed GIS maps of the Romanian project area Annex II Action C1. Training for general conservation actors in the target areas Timing of the action: Start date ; foreseen end date ; final end date: Progress Task C.1.1 The following experience exchange trips have been done (this replies also to point 2 of the EC letter of ): Table 8. Experience exchange trips made in the course of the LIFE EX-TRA Project Host Participants Addressed topics Dates country PNGSL Romania Osvaldo Locasciulli Carlo Artese Gino Damiani Luca Festuccia May 2010 Mauro Fabrizio September June August June June January 2013 PNMS May September 2010 Bulgaria Greece Romania Bulgaria Bulgaria Romania Federico Striglioni Umberto Di Nicola Marco Innocenti Franca Adriani Gino Damiani Carlo Artese Osvaldo Locasciulli Pina Leone Nicoletta Riganelli Silvano Nardi Nicoletta Riganelli Carlo Artese Marco Bonanni Federico Striglioni Gino Damiani Simone Ricci Federico Striglioni Umberto di Nicola Bear and wolf trapping and monitoring Bear-human conflicts LGD Bear and wolf trapping and monitoring Bear-human conflicts Human Dimensions Bear monitoring LGD Wolves and infrastructures Bear-human conflicts Bear monitoring Carnivore-livestock conflict management Wolf monitoring LGD Wolf monitoring Bear-human conflicts LGD Damage assessment Damage prevention Bear management Romania Paolo Salvi Bear and wolf trapping and monitoring Bear-human conflicts LGD Bulgaria Alessandro Rossetti Bear and wolf trapping and monitoring Bear-human conflicts 20

22 01-05 August 2011 Romania Alessandro Rossetti Bear-human conflicts Bear monitoring Carnivore-livestock conflict management PNATE Bulgaria Mia Canestrini Luigi June 2012 Molinari Mia Canestrini Luigi Molinari November 2012 Francesca Moretti Francia Willy Reggioni TUB 29 August-03 September 2009 Portugal George Predoiu LGD September July October 2012 BWS Wolf monitoring LGD Wolf monitoring Human Dimensions Livestock conflicts Greece Ioan Dutca Bear-human conflicts Livestock conflicts Bears and infrastructures Bear habitat Croatia PNGSL Italy- PNGSL Petru Tudor Stancioiu Ioan Dutca Zoltan Szekely Ioan Jantea Jantea Ioan Rățulea Sergiu Serban Tiberiu Szekely Zoltan Szekely Janos Kostadin Valchev Aleksandar Dutsov Ivayla Taseva Kostadin Valchev Ljubomir Petrov April 2009 Romania 1-4 August 2011 CALLISTO Italy - Constantinos Godes October 2009 PNGSL November 2011 Portugal Vaios Koutis LGD BET Bear management Livestock conflicts Ungulate management Wolf monitoring Livestock damage analysis LGD Anti-poison dogs Bear monitoring Human Dimensions Bear monitoring Livestock conflicts Livestock conflicts COEX best practices Please note that some experience exchange trips have been done simultaneously by two beneficiaries. The costs were supported by both beneficiaries and therefore are considered as two single trips. Please also note that permit to travel to countries of the LIFE COEX project (Portugal, Spain, France, Croatia) was requested from the EC in the letter of The reply of the DO of was: Costs eligible as directly linked to the implementation of the project, however, original budget not to exceed by more than 10 % / In the Interim Report (if missions are already carried out, otherwise in FR) you should clearly technically justify all trips not foreseen in the project.. The justifications are the following: Trip of TUB to Portugal (29 August-03 September 2009): 21

23 The organization Grupo Lobo has been a partner of the LIFE COEX Project, and has very extensive experience in the activities concerning the recovery of the use of livestock guarding dogs as a damage prevention tool. Since the Romanian associated beneficiaries had in their tasks the integration of livestock guarding dog pups in livestock camps (action C3) the visit to Portugal was important to gain the necessary know how to adequately carry out their tasks. Trip of TUB to Croatia (21-28 July 2012): The experience exchange trip of the Romanian partner TUB to Croatia was needed because after the debates and discussions about the BET protocol in Romania with other institutions (ICAS, Life URSUS, EPAs) and with the specialists in the Large Carnivore Working Group from Romania, it appeared evident that a thorough understanding of the system for properly addressing the conflict between humans and carnivores was needed. This was even more needed as the new members of the BET (see action E1) had not participated at the previous trainings regarding BET held in Romania by specialists from Croatia. The great international experience of Dr. Djuro Huber in many carnivore-related issues has been very useful for identifying best solutions and needed steps to acquire the conservation goals for these species. Trip of PNATE to France (21-22 November 2012): The Alfa Wolf Centre in the Mercantour National Park is unique for the public awareness raising and information activities it carries out. This takes place in a wildlife area specifically dedicated to wolves, in the heart of the National Park. The visit to that place has been important because PNATE is very active in raising public awareness about wolves. This park carries out a big amount of activities involving schools and the general public. Therefore the visit to the Alfa Wolf Centre has been important as an input for the future activities. The experience exchange trips provided the following benefits: - they allowed the project partners to gain information and know-how from other partners about topics in which these were more skilled or had different experiences. - They allowed the partners of the LIFE EX-TRA project to gain information from the partners of the LIFE COEX Project (LIFE04NAT/IT/000144). - They allowed to establish relationships between the project partners, which have been helpful for solving technical problems during the project and will be useful also in the future. - The issues that were mostly discussed in the experience exchanges were the following: - management of problem bears - monitoring and trapping techniques - human dimensions approaches and techniques - use of LGD and other damage prevention tools - involvement of tool boxes (BETs, veterinary assessment etc.) for the management of conflicts This replies also to point 2 of the EC letter of The reports of the single trips can be found in Annex III. Task C.1.2. Ten training courses for technical staff have been carried out (Tab. 9, Annex IV), where information was provided on techniques to assess causes of livestock mortality, to recognize false depredations, to decide on whether the damage should be compensated or not, and on 22

24 damage prevention techniques. The courses were coordinated and taught by the veterinary of PNGSL, with the assistance of other veterinaries according to the situation. Table 9. Training courses for veterinaries and technical staff organized in the LIFE EX-TRA Project Nr. Dates Place Nr. Participants Farindola, PNGSL, Italy Smolyan, Bulgaria Isola del Gran Sasso 35 PNGSL, Italy Orecchiella, PNATE, Italy Korydallos, Greece Comano, PNATE, Italy Visso, PNMS, Italy Ligonchio, PNATE, Italy Modena, Italy Brasov, Romania 23 The courses generally lasted 2-3 days, contrarily to what was stated in the project. This was chosen in order to ease participation for a higher number of people and the daily programs of the courses were very intense, with many different topics faced on each day and both theoretical and practical programs. More courses than initially foreseen were held. This was due to a high number of requests of participation in the planned events, due to which the organizers were asked if additional training sessions could be organized. Therefore in the end the benefit of the project was definitely higher than initially foreseen due to the fact that a huge number of people benefited from a consistent practical package of information. The travel expenses for the additional courses were covered by funds of the LIFE EX-TRA Project that were economised from other actions. All other costs (catering etc.) were covered by the different organizers of by internal funds of PNGSL. A technical manual with practical guidelines for the analysis of livestock carcasses was produced and is available on the downloads page of the project website in all the project languages. The third training course (Isola del Gran Sasso, October 2010) was followed by a Symposium called Gli accertamenti anatomopatologici legati alla gestione faunistica (anatomopathological investigations in wildlife management). It involved 13 national and international speakers and it as attended by 41 participants. The symposium offered important points of view about the assessment of causes of mortality of wildlife. Table 10. Summary action C1 Number of experience exchange trips: 20 Number of courses for veterinaries: 10 Number of participants at the courses: 375 Action started: April 2009 Action end: January

25 Comparison with planned outputs and objectives The action has been carried out as planned. The courses for veterinaries have been extremely successful especially in Italy. In fact, in this country local authorities found the courses so useful than the need for 4 additional ones arose. Reports of the training activities are available. The manuals are available to be downloaded on the project website. Deliverables: Reports of training courses for veterinaries Annex X of the MTR. As foreseen in the project this tool is available for download on the project website. In order to reduce the useless waste of paper it is preferable that the tool is available in electronic format, the user can then decide whether to print it or use it on a computer, tablet etc. Best practice manual for the assessment of wildlife damage on livestock Annex XI of the MTR Reports of experience exchange trips Annex III Reports of training stages Annex IV Action C2. Stakeholder consultation and involvement Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress The whole Human Dimension component of the project (Actions A5, A6, C2 and E3) has started off with a common approach. During the preparatory phase a coordination meeting was held between all beneficiaries. A basic methodology was discussed, and then each country representative explained the socio-political and institutional backgrounds that influenced the stakeholder involvement activities in the respective country. Already then it appeared clear that the background situations and also the conflict parameters that were to be faced were very different among the four countries. This was then also confirmed by the results of the different stakeholder analyses (Action A5). Therefore the agreement was to refer to a common methodological background (provided by the University of L Aquila), but that then the specific processes would be adapted to the local requirements in each country. Totally 95 individual or group meetings have been held during the project. For details about meetings and contents please refer to the action report (Annex V). This replies also to point 3 of the EC letter of In Italy a problem that is strongly affecting wildlife (and carnivore conservation) is the aversion of the stakeholders towards national parks and the problems caused by wild boars. For both problems wolves and bears function as scape goats for personal discontents, because locals know that they can exercise pressure on the authorities by threatening the conservation of protected species. This topics has in fact become the core of the stakeholder involvement process in this country, and was focused on in the meetings with the stakeholders. In the meetings, commonly with the stakeholders, three lists of activities/strategies/proposals have been developed: 1. Interventions that could be implemented immediately, and have already been implemented, e.g tenders for the purchase of fences to protect livestock, agreements to ease the disposal of livestock carcasses etc. 24

26 2. Activities that can be discussed and, if possible, developed commonly between the local authority (the Park) and the stakeholders e.g. pasturing regulations, shelter for breeders, support for use of livestock guarding dogs etc. These topics are nowadays being further discussed in follow-up meetings between the Park administration and the involved stakeholders. 3. Interventions that cannot be implemented due to logistic, financial or legal reasons etc. lethal control of wolf population, compensation of dispersed animals etc. This procedure has put the Park administrations in the position of stakeholders themselves, who were able to show the other interest groups that they are fully willing to find common solutions in the limits of what is possible. In addition, it has shown that notwithstanding the legal limitations the Park is fully willing to find common agreements. After this, concrete results have been obtained, mainly in the form of agreements between the stakeholders and the Park administrations for specific interventions such as: - common installation of damage prevention tools - corrections of the damage compensation price lists - assistance for the disposal of livestock carcasses - implementation of adequate grazing infrastructures - sanitary-veterinary treatments - agreements with local authorities and veterinary services about the management of damage caused by wild boars These and other activities were developed commonly by the Parks and the interested stakeholders, with resources independent from the present project. These are important results because, having been decided commonly, they are positively valued by all the involved parties, who are all committed to respect the agreements. Also, the stakeholder groups have selected some representatives who are now in charge of keeping in touch with the Parks and monitor the progress of the activities. Although not all the identified agreements directly target the coexistence with wild predators, they aim at improving the working conditions of livestock breeders and thus at reducing the indirect pressure on wolves and bears due to emotional aversions of the stakeholders. Another important achievement of this action is that many of the local authorities, as well as the Park administrations, have recognized the importance of the stakeholder consultation techniques in order to achieve successful relationships with local interest groups and for the planning of guidelines, regulations etc. For instance, following the activities implemented in the project the administration of PNATE has now decided that they will adopt the same techniques for the upcoming development of the Park Management Plan in cooperation with other local authorities (Province Administrations, Municipalities, Veterinary Services, Forest Administration, Hunting Authorities etc.). In PNGSL the staff of other services has now started adopting the public involvement techniques that were demonstrated in the EX-TRA Project for other issues. Furthermore, the Park has developed a new LIFE Project (LIFE PRATERIE LIFE11NAT/IT/000234, started in November 2012), which plans to apply public participatory techniques for the revision of grazing plans. In Romania a damage compensation system exists on the paper but is actually only scarcely implemented. The main issue bonded to this is the lack of a legal and institutional background: the responsibilities and duties of the different involved authorities are not clear and the detailed administrative procedures are not established. Therefore, for the conservation of wolves and bears in this country the implementation of an adequate damage compensation 25

27 regulation is of utmost importance. This need was identified in the frame of action A5, and it became evident that it was sensible to focus common decision making process on this specific issue. The meetings with stakeholders served to go more into detail about the management and compensation of carnivore attacks on livestock. The results of the stakeholder analysis (actions A5 and A6) were presented by the contracted sociologist Stefan Ungureanu in a restitution meeting in Bucharest (28 th of September 1 st of October 2011) at the fourth edition of the national meeting of the Public Administration from Romania. Round 130 people were present, coming mainly from local councils of counties, cities, town and villages but also from tourism agencies and associations, NGOs, televisions, ministry of health and public health agencies. The project team also participated at the meeting of the Romanian Large Carnivore Working Group in March 2012, where the sociologist has presented the results of the stakeholder analysis carried out under actions A5 and A6. The LCWG was informed on the results of the study, emphasizing the main factors that have a negative impact on conservation: 1. conflicting opinions among institutions on different issues such as conservation vs. hunting, current population level, density above vs. below optimum, lethal non-lethal methods for problem bears, complementary feeding, threats for carnivores etc., 2. unclear and inefficient legislation (hard to apply, small effects), 3. overlapping responsibilities among institutions, 4. intricate structure and long distance from top to bottom of the hierarchy in state institutions and 5. institutional instability (political influence, changing too often leaders and strategies). The meeting has been attended by 13 persons, representing the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the National Forest Administration, the LIFE Ursus project (LIEF08NAT/RO/000500), Environmental Protection Agency of Covasna and Vrancea counties, the Forest Research and Management Planning Institute in Brasov, The Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering from TUB and three NGOs: WWF, Milvus group and the Association for Nature Values Conservation. One major outcome of the action was that the local authorities became aware of the fact that there is an urgent need for detailed regulations regarding extensive livestock raising and damage prevention, and that his has to be done commonly with local communities. It was the first time that all stakeholders gathered in common meetings (Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Game Management Control Agency, Hunting Association, Research Institutes, Livestock breeders, landowners). This allowed the start-up of a common communication and negotiation process. People also became more conscious of their rights and of the possibility do discuss with the local authorities and negotiate solutions that are acceptable for all parties. In Bulgaria the main problem faced by this action was different: in this country the presence of bears causing damage on human activities, and even attacking humans, have posed a serious problem during the years of the project. Especially the case of a person killed by a bear in May 2010 caused an extreme conflict and strong negative feelings and fear of the local communities. The meetings made in the frame of the action have been of primary importance to calm these acute negative attitudes, by replying to basic questions of people and by showing them that they were not left alone. Initially during the meetings people were very critical towards the presence of NGOs and MOEW. 26

28 But during time, as the meetings continued, the effect was positive because most of the local and national media and local people were citing the advises concerning appropriate behavior with bears. The conflicts also decreased because the people felt that they were listened to and they started to follow the advises of BWS and MOEW about adequate behaviors in the forest. Furthermore, the local communities have shown a big level of satisfaction due to the fact that they now know whom they can to address to when they have a doubt or when a conflict situation appears. As can be read in the report of action E5 for Bulgaria the conflicts between different institutions (as reported in action A5) still exists but due to the legal changes made in 2010 the management of bears is now equally distributed between the Ministry of Environment and the Executive Forestry Agency. As a result of the stakeholder consultation process the Ministry of Environment also speeded up the procedures for compensation payments (from 6 months to about 20 days). This very important improvement has led to a decrease of the negative feelings of the local communities towards the Ministry. In Greece a finding of action A5 was that the wildlife-reintroduction myth (i.e., that NGOs are breeding and releasing wildlife) pertains among stock-breeders and hunters. Rural people lack basic knowledge on population dynamics, especially regarding prey-predator relationships, therefore the reappearance of predators is explained with intentional restocking programs. This problem was identified as a core topic, which was faced in the stakeholder meetings. The consultation process has first generated an increased awareness of the local stakeholders about the most urgent environmental issues. The fact the stakeholders appreciated most was that they have learned to build trust in local authorities and in other stakeholder groups. They also recognized that they can cooperate with each other when fighting for specific issues. The positive effect of this for carnivore conservation is that this cooperation does not necessarily translate in opposition between stakeholder groups and local authorities (e.g. livestock raisers, hunters vs. authorities) but that common goals can be reached. In all the project countries the general result can be summarized as follows: There has been a general recognition by stakeholders of a process, started by the local authorities and NGOs, which is ongoing and not a one-shot initiative. This has generated a general improvement of relationships between stakeholders and the authorities. As a consequence also the local authorities have recognized the importance and effectiveness of the application of public consultation and participatory management. Table 11. Summary action C2 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece First stakeholder meeting November 2010 December 2009 September feedback meetings 11 public 2 restitution meetings meetings Number of meetings 24 individual 11 public made meetings meetings 34 8 December 2009 Action start July 2010 May 2010 July 2009 April 2009 Action end Dec Dec Dec Dec

29 Problems and delays 1. The earthquake in L Aquila has caused a 6 month delay in the development of Actions A5 and A6 and consequently of action C2. However, this delay was fully recovered and therefore has not affected the positive outcome of the action. Comparison with planned outputs and objectives Communication between management actors and stakeholder has started and has given important positive results. The relationships between the local authorities and the main stakeholders have improved. Agreements between authorities and local communities about conflict management procedures have been reached. In general an overall improvement of the relationships between the bodies involved in the project and local stakeholders has been observed, which has a positive effect on large carnivore conservation. A detailed report of the action is available. Deliverables Report of first stakeholder meetings in Italy Annex XII of the MTR (additional product) Report action C2 Annex V Action C3. Donation of electric fences and livestock guarding dogs Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress In Italy this action was carried out only in PNMS. In this area the initial plan had been to provide 10 electric fences to farmers in order to prevent damage caused by wolves. However, it was then seen that a bear in the area was causing heavy damage to bee-hives. Therefore, as mentioned on page 21 of the IncR and on page 29 of the Mid-term report, it was decided to increase the number of fences to 15. The budget for the purchase of the 5 additional fences was shifted from action C7, where savings have been made (see action C7, progress report). Twelve of the fences have been installed in 2010 and The last three have been kept uninstalled on purpose for some months in order to have some devices available for emergency cases. In 2011 no more evidence of the presence of bears was found, therefore the last three fences were spared for upcoming conflict situations. They were then installed in 2012: one was provided to a sheep breeder after he had suffered several attacks. The last two fencing sets have been given to one pig breeder, who had suffered repeated attacks by predators, to fence one large area for which one set would not have been sufficient. This activity has had a big success among the livestock breeders and the Park administration has got aware of the importance of the use of this tool to decrease conflict situations. Therefore the Park administration has decided to cofinance, with own funds, 80% of the costs of additional electric fences in 16 livestock holdings. Romania: All the 12 planned LGD have been placed in shepherd camps. Of the dogs in Piatra Mare - Ciucas area, a female died due to a collision with a car, another was stolen and a male died for unknown causes (practically, is only one pair left in this area). Of the dogs distributed in Dalnic area two died soon after integration but the dog breeder replaced them for free. Therefore 9 dogs are still active in the livestock camps. 28

30 An agreement was made with the beneficiary shepherds, according to which the dogs could be used for breeding, and at least two of the pups would be taken to be placed in other livestock camps. The pups donated in Ciucas have produced a litter, and three of these pups were then given to another livestock raiser. The positive result of this action was that livestock breeders were truly interested in working with these dogs and their attitudes were very positive. In the course of the project many more requests for dogs have been received by the project staff than could actually be satisfied. Therefore this action has functioned as an important demonstration for the usefulness of this tool. Since action C4 has been successful this will help to further enhance the use of these dogs after the project. Furthermore, of the dogs that were integrated most just reached the proper age to be used for reproduction, therefore in the future several pups will be available to be given to other livestock raisers. This will be done in cooperation with the dog breeders who were involved in action C4. A trailer was bought for easing the transport of dogs and of food for the dogs. It has been regularly used. In future it will be used to carry food for prey species, construction of observation and feeding points (action C7) transportation of dogs to dog shows (action C4) and other conservation activities. Bulgaria: Between 2009 and 2010 BWS has purchased 33 electric fences as planned in the project. Thirty-one of these were all distributed between October 2009 and December Two fences were kept for emergency cases and they were then given to farmers in In addition, the partner MOEW has purchased and installed 57 electric fences. These fences were part of a purchase that has been delayed (see page 5, 6 of the MTR). The purchase of these materials was completed in June 2011 and all the fences have been set up in livestock camps in by the end of The staff of MOEW has rapidly been able to observe that the damage on livestock on the livestock and bee-hives has decreased by 100% (except for one case in which the fence was not properly handled by the farmer and therefore there has been one attack) and that it is cheaper to pay electric fences than to compensate the damage. Therefore this institution has decided to purchase additional 90 fences with own budget, all of which have been installed in Rodopi Mountains in 2012 (see par. 5.3 (outside LIFE)). Greece: Please note the following contradiction in the project: In the first draft of the project the Greek partner CALLISTO had foreseen to purchase and install 5 electric fences. During the negotiation phase this was deleted by the EC because there was an overlap with the Rural Development Plan (please see instruction 2 of the EC letter of ). The reference to this change was not completely deleted from the last version of the project, but the according budget was deleted. The electric fences were therefore not purchased and installed. 29

31 Table 12. Summary action C3 Number of fences distributed Italy - PNMS Romania Bulgaria Greece 15 in (+90 farms (2 in outside one big farm) Not foreseen LIFE) Not foreseen 14 (2 as replacement) Not foreseen Not foreseen Number of dogs distributed Not foreseen First dog/fences distributed June 2010 April 2010 Nov 2009 Not foreseen Action start Oct July 2009 Nov 2009 Not foreseen Action end Dec 2012 Dec 2012 Dec 2012 Not foreseen Comparison with planned outputs and objectives The action was developed as foreseen, all the planned damage prevention tools have been distributed and are now being used. The results of the action have been very positive especially regarding electric fences. The damage in the beneficiary holdings has significantly decreased. In the areas where electric fences have been distributed significant replication effects observed, where local authorities have decided to continue the e-fence and LGD distribution scheme with own funds. Deliverables: Report of action C3, including Coordinates, maps and photos of electric fences installed in PNMS and Bulgaria (as reply to point 3 of the EC letter of ) Annex VI Action C4. Development of a network of livestock guarding dog breeders Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress Italy: In PNGSL a cooperation agreement was made with the Associazione Cane da Gregge Abruzzese (Abruzzo Sheep Dog Association ACGA). This cooperation has given useful and concrete results. The following activities have been carried out: Starting from May 2010 forty surveys have been made in livestock holdings to assess the presence and quality of LGD (101 dogs). During this survey a DNA screening was made on 30 dogs to evaluate their genetic quality. This was fundamental as a guide for future exchange of dogs between holdings. Totally 61 dog exchanges were made. The staff of ACGA have presented their activities in the following symposia, seminars, workshops about use of LGD and conflict mitigation: - 03 August 2010, Castel del Monte 100 persons - 21 July 2011, Parco Aurunci di Esperia 100 persons - 08 September 2011, Castel del Monte 30 persons - 30 May 2012, Seminar at the University of Teramo about dog behaviour 250 persons - June 2012, presentation in the national scientific week in the commune of Vasto 100 persons October 2012, participation at the workshop Vultures, Wolves and Livestock Interactions and Management in Igoumenitsa, Greece Presence at fairs: - Participation at the fair "Ruralia alle Cascine", Florence 1-3 October persons 30

32 - Participation in the symposia organized during the livestock raising fair in Campo Imperatore each year in August. Dissemination material produced: - Development of technical guidelines for LGD management 500 copies (in Italian and English). The Italian version of the booklet was used to be distributed to all persons interested in the use of LGD during the work of the ACGA. The English version was used for dissemination of the activity to the international project partners, who can on their turn it for internal scopes, if desired. - Production of a DVD about LGD with films and pictures - Production of a sanitary booklet with the LIFE + project logo Other activities carried out by the ACGA: - Installation of selection and education centre for LGD Il Mandorlo Amaro ; - On 5 August 2010 the representatives of ACGA participated with their dogs at a quality contest during the yearly livestock fair in Campo Imperatore, L Aquila; - Competition for sheep raisers to assess the quality of the dogs; - Development of a specific software for dog exchange, identification and DNA sampling; - Stands during 3 days of public dog registration and microchipping events 50 persons; - Presentations during training courses for veterinaries in March and May 2012; - Participation at the TV program LINEA VERDE, which was broadcasted on and in different replications afterwards. In PNMS a first assessment of the LGD in the area has been made in 2009 and 2010 (page 30 the MTR). On during the first distribution of electric fences (C3) a presentation about the use of LGD has been made. In a second step also this Park has started off cooperation with the ACGA. On a LGD demonstration event has been organized, at which 8 livestock raisers took part. These breeders showed to be interested in the use of dogs and asked the Park staff of start a LGD integration program. This was not foreseen in the project and therefore the Park has started to carry out such activities with own resources starting from In cooperation with the staff of ACGA 3 livestock breeders have been selected, which now take actively part in the distribution of dogs in the Park. In PNATE this action is not carried out because in this area the use of livestock guarding dogs is slowly being recovered by livestock raisers themselves and an interference of the present project is not necessary and might obstacle the natural process. Romania: Close connection with the Carpathian Shepherd Dog Kennel Club from Bistrita (Northern Romania) was established and several exchange visits were performed. After a first meeting (in 2009), 5 more were organized in 2010, for dog purchase and transportation to shepherd sites. In 2011 (in April, May, June, July, August, October and November) and 2012 (February, April and August) 10 more visits of project team members to Bistrita were organized either for collecting and exchanging information on breeding, raising, training dogs, or for participating at meetings of the Carpathian Shepherd Dog Kennel Club. After that, to ensure a good relationship and a better dissemination of information about Carpathian Shepherd dogs, the following meetings with livestock breeders and the representatives of the club were organized: 31

33 - Short field meetings were organized in 3 episodes during 2010 and 2011 in the shepherd camps of the project area where dogs were integrated. - On the dogs of the project participated in a dog fair and contest in Targu Mures. It was attended by persons. - The most important meeting was organized on the 3 March 2012 in Cernat (Dalnic area). It brought together over 40 livestock breeders from all three project areas. Presentations of the vice-presidents of the club (Andrei Deak and Vasile Iclenzan) and discussions covered the advantages to have a specialized shepherd dog, how to train the dog to be efficient in herd protection and the effectiveness of Carpathian Shepherd dog breed compared to others. All participants have established a connection with the club and some of them were interested to purchase such dogs in the near future. - Another meeting was held on 31 st of March 2012, when two of the project team members together with three livestock breeders from Dalnic participated in the General Assembly of Carpathian Shepherd Kennel Club held in Bistrita. Over 50 livestock guarding dog breeders from Romania attended this meeting. A presentation of the project was done during this meeting. On the next day, at the national competition of Kennel Carpatin Shepherd Dog, three of the donated dogs participated and won seven different prizes in different dog categories. Totally people were present at this event. One person who was directly involved in the project activities (Zoltan Zskely) is a livestock raiser himself. As a consequence of this action he now has a close relationship with the livestock breeders in the area and is further actively promoting the exchange of dogs. In fact, as was mentioned in action C3, already three LGD pups generating from the dogs given in the project were given from one shepherds to another independently from the project beneficiaries. In Bulgaria this action was not carried out since it addresses specifically wolves, which are not a target species in the Bulgarian project site. Greece: As stated in the project proposal in 2007 the Greek government was planning to support financially the use of high-quality livestock guarding dogs as well as the provision of electric fences through the Greek Rural Development Programme (RDP). Therefore, no donation of livestock guarding dogs or electric fences was foreseen in the framework of the project in Greece, to avoid double funding. However, in order to contribute to the implementation of preventive measures in the Greek project area, the associated beneficiary in Greece (CALLISTO) undertook several other activities to inform livestock owners, beekeepers and farmers about all available damage prevention techniques and methods. In the frame of the Pindos/Grevena project (NAT/07/GR/000291) a LGD breeding centre was set up. This breeding station was used by the Pindos/Grevena Project in cooperation with the EX-TRA project and the ARCTOS/Kastoria Project (LIFE09NAT/GR/000333). During the first year of the EX-TRA project a first screening of livestock raisers owning reliable LGD in the project area was made. Furthermore, contacts have been made with relevant dog breeders who are members of the most active and unique kennel club in Greece for the conservation and propagation of the local LGD breed ellinikos poimenikos (OFEP). In 2010 members of the appointed team were invited at a dog show (in the city of Larissa, capital city of the Region of Thessaly, which encompasses the project area) organized by the 32

34 aforementioned club, an occasion that gave the opportunity to further discuss the idea of a network set-up and its importance. In 2012 the staff of CALLISTO has visited, in the frame of an additional survey, additional 102 livestock raisers, and free assistance was provided about dog maintenance. Following these visits 30 dogs were exchanged from shepherd to shepherd (with intermediation of the staff of CALLISTO) or from the breeding station to shepherds. Some dogs were given to beneficiaries of the PINDOS/GREVENA Project (the travel expenses were covered exclusively by funds of the PINDOS/GREVENA Project). Please note that all these dogs were exchanged at no cost, therefore there has been no overlap of costs between the projects. As foreseen on page 40 of the progress report in May 2012 a workshop was organized in Greece at which the use of LGD was discussed. It was an opportunity to bring together the persons involved in the work with LGD in the COEX and the EX-TRA project and to exchange information about the past experiences and lessons learned. The workshop was attended by 18 persons from Italy (3), Bulgaria (2), Spain (1), Portugal (1) and Greece (11). The workshop was structured in two sessions: the first session consisted in a row of presentations about the activities carried out in the past years. The second session was a round table at which different issues ere discussed such as genetic selection, training techniques, integration techniques, legal and institutional issues. Details can be found as an annex of the technical action report. Table 13. Summary action C4 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece Number of meetings with dog raisers Not foreseen 6 Action start June 2009 July 2009 Not foreseen July 2009 Action end Dec 2012 Dec 2012 Not foreseen Dec 2012 Comparison with planned outputs and objectives: The action was developed as foreseen. In the target areas the distribution of LGD has started off and is now progressing autonomously, coordinated and carried out by local breeders. As a result of the action over 90 dogs have already been distributed to livestock farmers. A report is available. Deliverables Leaflet about LDG network Annex XIII of the MTR (additional product) Report of action C4 Annex VII Action C5. Development of long-term damage monitoring action plans Timing of the action: Start date ; foreseen end date ; final end date Progress PNMS: As explained in the MTR (pages 16 and 31) and in the IncR (page 15) the damage assessment and compensation procedures in PNMS are complicated by the fact that there are strict differences between different Regional territories. To overcome this problem at the end of 2009 an agreement has been made with the involved local authorities (Regional Government, Park Administration, Forest Administration, Veterinary Service) for a common damage assessment protocol. According to this the veterinaries of the park always have to be 33

35 announced in case damage occurs, also in the territory of Marche Region. Also, the staff of PNMS will always have access to the records about damage gathered by this Regional Government. A database has also been set up in 2011, in which the data about livestock damage since 2003 have been registered, and which is now officially used by the Park Staff for the storage of information from the damage assessments. The staff of PNMS had considered the option to try a common decision making process for the development of a new compensation regulation. However, then Marche Region started a revision of the regional regulation (law of 1995) and for PNMS it seemed more realistic to contribute to this revision process instead of starting a parallel one. One veterinary was permanently hired by PNMS for the assessment of the damage in the area. In addition, the Park Administration has received an official permit by Marche Regional Administration for the Park veterinaries to accompany the veterinaries of the National Health Service (ASUR) during the assessment of damage cases. A very important result of this action is that, contrarily to what happened before the project, the Park Administration now has access to the information about damage in the area in the Marche Region, and that a staff member of the Park can be present during the damage assessments. This is important for the Park in order to adequately plan all damage prevention and public participatory activities. In the declaration in Annex VIII the Park Administration commits to use the developed monitoring procedures also in the future. In PNGSL and PNATE this action was not carried out because damage monitoring plans already exist. Romania: In Romania according to the legislation (Decision 1679 from 2008), damage produced by large carnivores to livestock or agricultural crops could be compensated only under certain conditions and if it is reported in a specific format. The field form used under actions A7 and E2 contains more information and could be considered complementary to the one provided by the legislation (overlaps are minor). However, based on the field experience and the Romanian situation, it was modified to best fit the conditions for an efficient use. The final form (containing information on the place where the attack occurred, weather conditions, time of day, existing protection methods, reaction of attacked animals and details on the damage - species and number of animals, age, sex, type of injury - part of the body affected etc.) has been submitted to the Large Carnivore Working Group for Romania. In an official declaration dated the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Annex VIII) has acknowledged we consider that the damage monitoring procedure developed in the frame of the LIFE EXTRA Project will be a useful tool in the management of large carnivore populations in Romania. Bulgaria: The Ministry of Environment has produced a database that has to be used to gather information about wildlife in general. This database includes a specific section about carnivore conflicts, where also the damage caused by bears on livestock, orchards and beehives (and other goods) is stored. Its main function is to gather all the information from monitoring of wildlife, to be always available to the responsible institutions. The database includes two levels of information flow - from the one that collect it (Regional Environmental 34

36 Inspectorates, National Parks, Foresters, Rangers, NGOs) to the national data base and opposite. BWS participated in optimizing the forms to be filled on field and it is part of the monitoring committee of the project for the creation and optimization of the national database. A Ministry order obliges the staff of the National Parks and the forest rangers are obliged to insert all data from monitoring activities in this database (Order RD 270/ ) (Annex VIII). Greece: In Greece the associated beneficiary CALLISTO has updated the internal damage monitoring rules by adapting to own needs also the forms developed and used in the LIFE COEX Project (and other projects). Afterwards CALLISTO wanted also to take the opportunity to obtain a revision of the damage assessment and compensation procedures adopted by the state insurance organization ELGA (for explanation please refer to page 22 of IncR and page 32 of MTR). The damage monitoring plan is based on the already existing rules and procedures followed by the ELGA s inspectors. After initial negotiation steps (page 32 of the MTR) CALLISTO has prepared a special proposal suggesting specific amendments and additions for serving needs of monitoring damages by large carnivores. The proposal was submitted to ELGA on 31 January 2012 and again on 15 October Initially, adoption of the Plan was expected earlier (by December 2011), however due to the severe economic problems in Greece started from spring 2010, ELGA became cautious and noncommittal. This made necessary the revision of the proposals made by the Greek Beneficiary (CALLISTO) and delayed the whole process. An official meeting with ELGA officers in Athens was then made on 02 November After this ELGA replied officially on 20/12/2012 is a letter to CALLISTO (see attached letter in Annex VIII) explaining that due to the economic crisis in Greece, the personnel of ELGA and the number of ELGA s inspectors have been reduced drastically. Fewer inspectors should visit the same or larger number of reported damages. Therefore, at this moment, ELGA cannot compel inspectors to collect additional data on the damage caused by bears, because this involves additional time of inspection. Nevertheless, in the up mentioned letter ELGA committed itself to ask from all inspectors to cooperate with CALLISTO for collecting the additional data on a voluntary basis. After this reply, the Greek partner reacted as follows: 1) CALLISTO submitted its proposals for collection of additional data by ELGA s inspectors to other Greek Environmental NGOs that cooperate with this NGO on a campaign against illegal use of poison baits. Five NGOs and the Natural History Museum of Crete adopted this proposal and have addressed the same request to ELGA in a common letter signed by all seven organisations. This common letter, mentioning also the efforts made by the LIFE EX-TRA project and including as annex the CALLISTO s recommendations, has been sent to ELGA on 30 January ) CALLISTO has already communicated with ELGA s inspectors in the LIFE EX-TRA project area (Trikala district) asking them to implement its recommendations and to collect additional data. 35

37 Comments: Reply to point 3 of the EC letter of The milestone damage monitoring plan in place did not refer to the approval of the plans/revisions by that date but to the development of the plans/revisions. In other words, it was foreseen that the new regulations would be elaborated by that date (which was the case!), but it was foreseeable that the real approval of the new plans by the responsible authorities. As can be read in the progress report (which was delivered in December 2011), by then the following steps had already been achieved: - PNMS - revised damage assessment protocol - Romania new damage monitoring plan, submitted to the LCWG - Bulgaria Ministry order for the use of the data collection and storage procedure - Greece in Greece the proposal for amendments was ready in January 2012 Comparison with planned outputs and objectives: Well-working monitoring procedures are now actively used in the project areas and adopted by the relevant authorities as stated in the project. Deliverables: Declarations concerning action C5 of PNMS, Romanian Ministry of Environment, MOEW, ELGA Annex VIII (additional product) Action C6. Bear emergency team Timing of the action: Start date ; foreseen end date ; final end date Progress In the frame of the LIFE COEX Project a Bear Emergency Team has been developed by Prof. Djuro Huber of the University of Zagreb, Croatia. Mr. Huber has been contacted by the partners of the LIFE EX-TRA project and invited to function as a consultant for the development of the BET s in the project countries. In Italy the BET was developed for two areas where bears still occur only very sporadically, and therefore has the function to prepare the ground for the potential appearance of problem bears in the future. In Bulgaria and Greece the BETs aim at addressing all types of conflicts in which bears are involved, such as bears approaching human settlements, entering orchards, causing particular damage on livestock, endangering people etc. In Romania the BET also has a general function, but it is specialized on the release of bears from poacher s snares, which is one of the main problems and a major cause of mortality for this species. Italy: As stated in the project PNGSL and PNMS set up a common BET coordination group, which intervenes, when necessary, according to a protocol is shared by the two bodies. From the operative point of view, however, the BET activities are carried out by two separate action teams, which will be nominated by each of the parks. This is necessary due to the large territory covered by the Park, which would make it difficult for one single team to rapidly respond to emergencies in the whole area. 36

38 The BET Protocol includes procedures to be followed in case of conflicts and staff responsible for the actions. The protocol was officially adopted by PNMS on and by PNGSL on (Det. 416) (Annex IX). The staff of PNGSL and PNMS involved in the BET attended a training course that was organized in collaboration with Prof. Djuro Huber, in Kuterevo, Croatia, from 7 to 10 April At this training the necessary information was provided about all the relevant issues: Development of a BET protocol, staff needed, intervention and management methods, handling techniques, follow-up activities. After this, PNGSL subcontracted Mr. Franco Mari (bear expert, component of the Technical Bear Group of the Lumbardy Region) in order to provide assistance in the practical implementation of the BET and for the design of the protocol. A second practical BET training course has been made the territory of PNMS on 15/07/2011. Eight persons from PNMS and PNGSL have participated. The LIFE ARCTOS Project (LIFE09NAT/IT/000160) has organized a training course for the management of BETs, which was held on 17 December The staff of PNGSL and PNMS as well as staff from the local forest administration has participated in the training. The training was attended by 40 persons, mostly staff from the Forest Administration and of the park administration of PNGSL and PNMS. The two Park administrations now have the necessary tools and capacities for the management of potential conflict cases involving bears. Romania: Based on common agreements with the trainers and trainees, the Romanian BET training was held in 2-4 June 2010 in the areas of Bran and Brasov, with the expertise of Prof. Djuro Huber. At the training, specialists from across the entire country participated. A BET protocol was designed, including procedures to manage conflicts situations, and staff was assigned. Upon revision by the Large Carnivore Working Group, the BET protocol includes guidelines for the rescue of bears captured in snares or traps. In an official declaration dated (Annex IX) the Ministry of Environment and Forests has stated that the BET protocol is included in the National Bear Management Plan to replace the chapter related to problem bears. This was also confirmed in the letter of concerning the damage monitoring procedure (see action C5). Together with the project team members, during the project the BET team has made 34 interventions. It tranquilized 38 bears in the forests surrounding the city of Brasov (well known for large populations of scavenger bears, and many recent conflicts with city dwellers) in 2011 and 2012, in addition to those previously addressed in 2010 (9 cases involving 18 bears, in Brasov, Mures, Hunedoara, Bacau, Bistrita and Arges counties). Bulgaria: A training for BET members was held from 20 April 2010 to 22 April 2010 by Prof. Djuro Huber. (Watch the video: 1). The course was attended by representatives of 3 national parks: Rila, Pirin and Central Balkan; REI Smolian and BALKANI WS staff total 27 participants. The BET was formed as MOEW appointed 4 people from each of their local structures to be trained and responsible in case of bear related situations. Some aspects of the bear protocol 37

39 were clarified and discussed during the first Training course in Rhodope mountain April The regulations of the Bulgarian BET are included in the Bulgarian Brown Bear Management Plan, which was finalized on 28 December 2008 (before the beginning of the LIFE EX-TRA Project. N.B. the costs are not included in the project!). The EX-TRA project had the objective to implement the BET practically. This was done with the following steps: - A ministry order was issued that officially assigned the duty to intervene on the bears to different involved persons (Order 190/ ) (Annex IX). - In addition MOEW hired two experts for the BET, who are paid per intervention (1 vet + 1 zooengineer). - Two emergency telephone numbers were also created, which are directly linked to the official police emergency number (112). All the foreseen materials have been purchased and have been distributed to the staff of the national parks involved in the project. This material is actively being used for the interventions. On September 2012 the staff of National Parks and REI Smolyan (22 persons) attended a training course on the use of tranquillizing equipment, traps, photo traps and prevention methods for the BET. They were trained by staff of BEW. Until the end of the project the BET made 52 interventions. They were financed by the LIFE EX-TRA project and by own funds of MOEW. The following bears were captured and radiocollared in the frame of action C6: Poached bear released from trap and fitted with collar Capturing and collaring of female brown bear on damaged beehives Release of a bear from a poacher snare and relocation in Central Balkan NP Trapped male bear that was destroying storage rooms for corn Trapped female bear that was destroying storage rooms for corn Release poached bear from snare Collaring a young bear eating corn in hunting game stations In Bulgaria there has been a delay in the purchase of parts of the material for BET by one of the Bulgarian beneficiaries (MOEW) (see par. 2.4). BWS purchased a tranquillizing gun at the beginning of the project and, as was mentioned further up, the Regional Environmental Inspectorate of Smolyan already owned some equipment. These materials have been used until the new materials arrived. In emergency situations the staff of BWS has always been on the place within 2 hours. Therefore the BET was fully working also before all the equipment was available. The purchase of MOEW was to make sure that the Regional Inspectorates have their own equipment also after the project, so things get easier and the they can be self sufficient in the future. Reply to Question 6 of the EC letter of The project mentions that in Bulgaria three BETs would be set up. In the initial plan the new teams should have been: 1 managed by BWS, 1 by the Central Balkan National Park and 1 by the teams of Rila Mountains and Pirin Mountains together, whereas for Rodopi Mountains a BET would be set up with materials that were already owned by Smolyan Regional Inspectorate. During the project duration it became clear that due to lengthy bureaucratic procedures the management of one single BET for Rila and Pirin Mountains was not realistic, therefore one additional BET was set up, so that Rila and Pirin mountains both had their own 38

40 BET. The additional equipment was bought by MOEW with own funds, only the training activities were covered by the EX-TRA project for all the participants. Therefore there are now the following BETs in Bulgaria: 1 managed by Smolyan Regional Inspectorate, for problems in the Rodopi Mountains. The equipment was already available before the project. 1 managed by BWS, active upon call wherever it is necessary. The equipment was purchased by the LIFE EX-TRA Project. 1 managed by the Central Balkans National Park, with equipment bought by the LIFE EX- TRA Project. 2 for Rila and Pirin Mountains. Two additional tranquillizing guns were bought by MOEW with EX-TRA funds, the other material was bought with own funds of MOEW. Greece: The Greek BET was set up in cooperation with the LIFE Pindos/Grevena Project (NAT/07/GR/000291). Travel costs were paid by EX-TRA while the personnel costs were covered by the Pindos/Grevena Project. However, also one staff member of the EX-TRA project (Vaios Koutis) sometimes participated in the interventions. The BET is managed directly by CALLISTO, which has internally officially approved and adopted the BET (Prot. 255/ ) (Annex IX), has assigned the staff and is running its activities. It was updated in spring/summer 2012 and translated to Greek, and a definite version was submitted to the ministry of Environment in July 2012 (Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climatic Changes Directorate of Aesthetic Forests, Parks and Game) to require for the official approval of the protocol. A reminder was sent in October Following this correspondence a technical meeting was arranged by the Ministry on December, 4 th, 2012, in Athens at the Directorate of Aesthetic Forests, Parks and Game headquarters. At this meeting NGO ARCTUROS was also invited. At this meeting, the Ministry officers asked from CALLISTO to revise the protocol to add some points included in the text presented by ARCTUROS in the meeting. Dr. Mertzanis, CALLISTO s Head of bear experts, undertook the responsibility of merging the two texts to one. Several draft versions have been processed, in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment officer in charge, between February 16th and May 11th, A final draft was submitted to the Ministry on 15th May 2013 and has also been distributed from the Ministry to other competent authorities (Ministry of Food and Rural Development, ELGA, Regional Authorities of W. Macedonia, Head Regional Authorities of Ipeiros-W. Macedonia as well as to the General Secretariat of Civil Protection) for final comments. A letter of support has been requested from the Ministry to "Callisto" and "Arcturos", for the acceleration of the Protocol evaluation procedure from the other aforementioned competent authorities. This letter has been prepared and sent by "Callisto" to the aforementioned authorities. This letter has been also co-signed by "Arcturos". The estimate of the Ministry of Environment (YPEKA) officer who is in charge of the whole portfolio is that the whole case will be finalized (issue of the Ministerial Decision) by the end of June beginning of July An official document concerning this procedure will be sent to the LIFE Unit as soon as it will be obtained. 39

41 The Greek BET has made 30 interventions during the project implementation. Table 14. Summary action C6 Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece Number of training activities Number of interventions Not foreseen Action start September 2009 August 2009 April 2009 June 2009 Action end March 2012 March 2012 March 2012 March 2013 Comments: Changes already mentioned in the IncR and in the MTR: - at the beginning of the project only the Italian staff went for training in Croatia, whereas the Croatian expert visited the Romanian and Bulgarian project teams in their countries. In 2012 the Romanian team visited the Croatian team (see action C1) in order to gather further information about the BET. - in Italy two separate teams with own equipment were implemented, but with one common protocol. Comparison with planned outputs and objectives The action was developed according to the plans. The BET protocols are in place, the teams are fully active and 116 interventions have already been made. Deliverables: BET Protocols and list of interventions Annex XIV of the MTR Declarations concerning action C6 Annex IX (additional product) Report of action C6 Annex X Action C7. Actions to increase the availability of wild prey Timing of the action: Start date ; end date Progress Italy: In PNGSL 41 Red deer have been released, of which 10 were radio-collared. They are being monitored remotely. In this park Swareflex scaring devices (to prevent traffic collisions with ungulates) were installed on 40 km. In PNMS 13 Red deer have been released, of which 10 with radiocollars. In this Park 595 Swareflex devices were installed on 18 km. In PNGSL the monitoring of the cases of road collisions with wildlife in the road tracts where the Swareflex devices were installed showed a general decrease of the collisions. In PNMS no systematic monitoring has been done on the roads before the implementation of the scaring devices, therefore a numerical trend could not be assessed. In general it appears that the effectiveness of the Swareflex devices is major if it s use is associated with the use of other prevention tools such as awareness raising etc. A more detailed discussion of the effectiveness of the Swareflex scaring, as requested by point 5 of the EC letter of , was included in the action report (Annex XI, par. 1.7, 1.8 and 3.6). 40

42 Eight specific information panels were also produced and installed for attracting the attention of drivers on the danger of collisions with wildlife. Figure 3. Panel to inform drivers about the danger posed by traffic collisions with wildlife These initiatives have had the following positive effect besides the mere reduction of traffic collisions: they have activated synergies between different authorities responsible for road management, and helped to raise the awareness of responsible staff about the wildlife-traffic conflict issue. Moreover, the placing of information panels on the roads has also helped to attract the attention of drivers and of the local police about the potential danger. As a cause of these effects the Park Administrations have already received new requests of intervention by the local road management authorities. Taking into account that in the past year only 15 collisions have been registered in PNGSL this can already be considered a positive starting point. In Romania 20 feeding points for Red deer were restored between 2009 and 2011 and 4 were newly constructed in Besides this in two of the most important areas for both ungulates and carnivores (where high concentrations occur or high transit occurs) two small observation points were built. These points serve as a depot for food and as places where more thorough observations could be carried out (more information than that collected by cameras or snow tracking) not only on the presence of species or numbers of individuals but also on sex-ratio, size, age, behavior (data mandatory for management decisions). Therefore, such points are very useful for monitoring effects of complementary food offered to the populations. Although not foreseen explicitly in the original proposal, the decision to build these points was based on their efficiency and also the fact that they will serve as examples for such monitoring points (being located on the game management area belonging to TUB and being regularly used by specialized field personnel and students) in the After-LIFE period as well. In addition, the costs for building them were very low (around 60 euro for each point), since only construction materials had to be purchased (plastic foil, nails, timber braces) whereas all the work was done at no cost by field personnel and project volunteers. Patrols for poaching control were periodically organized, especially in Dalnic area, which proved to be one of the most vulnerable areas to poaching. The patrols were formed by LIFE EX-TRA members and volunteers, together with a member of LIFE URSUS project (LIFE08NAT/RO/000500). A photo trapping camera was used to identify potential poachers in Dalnic area. 41