PACOBACE Action Plan for Brown Bear Conservation in the Italian Alps improvements and changes of the contents five years after its adoption

Transcription

1 PACOBACE Action Plan for Brown Bear Conservation in the Italian Alps improvements and changes of the contents five years after its adoption Piero Genovesi ISPRA Institute for Environmental Protection and Research Expert meeting WISO PLATFORM Cevo (BS) October 2013

2 Conservation status of Brown bear in Italy Brown bear one of the only two critically endangered mammals in Italy

3 Conservation status of Brown bear in Italy Demographic and stochastic factors associated to small population size Possible poaching caused by conflicts

4 3 National Report Habitat Directive

5 3 National Report Habitat Directive Population size: Trend: increase Pressures: Reduced fecundity/genetic depression Medium Trapping/poisoning/poaching Medium Threats: Reduced fecundity/genetic depression High Trapping/poisoning/poaching High

6 3 National Report Habitat Directive Average rate of annual growth , based on minimum numbers of alive (MNA), 15.6% (increasing). Increasing risk of inbreeding makes it necessary an expansion of the range. Negative perspectives due to the decrease in the social support to the reintroduction recorded in recent years. Presence in NE Italy refers to a few young males dispersing from Slovenia, not an established population. Partial overlap with bears (incl. females) dispersing from the Central Alps; a reproduction event may occur. Status Trend Future prospects Inadequate U1 Improving (+) Declining (-)

7 Italian legal framework L. 157/92. DPR 357/1992 Ministry of Environment in charge of Brown bear protection; authorisation required for any capture, removal, reintroduction Regions, Provinces responsible for wildlife management, damage compensation, etc. ISPRA is the scientific authority of the Italian state; formal technical opinion requested by the Italian legislation for any capture, removal, reintroduction

8 Italian legal framework Technical opinion issued by ISPRA Under the Habitat Directive, state may..derogate to prohibitions, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Feasibility study (2000) identified a general objective of a population of 50 individuals, interconnected to the population of the Eastern Alps and of the Balkans Genetic data indicate a risk of inbreeding depression

9 Italian legal framework Procedure to remove a bear Local authority sends request to Min. Env. Min. Env. requires technical opinion of ISPRA ISPRA issues opinion, Min. Env. issues authorisation

10 Case study In May 2013, male bear caused alarm in the area of Monte Baldo, predating livestock within a village, and approaching people May 27 th preliminary informal warning from Prov Trento May 28 th request from Prov. Trento to Min Env, copied ISPRA. Removal for permanent captivity May 29 th Min Env requested ISPRA for a technical opinion May 30 th favourable opinion issued by ISPRA May 31 st authorisation issued by Min Env

11 Criteria for the evaluation Example M11 G Repeadedly sighted at short distance L Causes damage close to inhabited buildings areas; following people Q Repeatedly reported in inhabited areas; Enforcement of actions a, b, g, h, I (monitoring, information, surveillance, aversion conditioning, capture and radio-monitoring), assessed taking into account number and frequency of actions Population in 2013 estimated to be above 50

12 Acceptance of bears Decreased support toward the reintroduction and in general bears In 2013 first evidence of a case of poaching

13 On-going revision of PACOBACE Adopted in 2010 Request from Alpine local authorities to revise the document, introducing more flexible management options Several meetings at the Min. Environment in Rome, and among Regional/Provincial authorities

14 On-going revision of PACOBACE Decision making: PACOBACE identifies parameters and response measures

15 On-going revision of PACOBACE Decision making: PACOBACE identifies parameters and response measures - Increased monitoring - Information - Prevention/shelters - Control of food sources - Prevention/electric fences - Surveillance - Aversion techniques - Capture/radiotracking - Permanent captivity - Shooting

16 On-going revision of PACOBACE Key principles being discussed: Also addressing damage, not only risks for humans Extension of the possibility to remove animals

17 Criteria for the evaluation From case by case, to explicit criteria. Possible guiding principles Number and frequency of aversion interventions Applicability of prevention measures Below 50, need to consider a substitution Above 50, need to consider sustainability, for ex: Proportion of overall population, considering trends and increase rates, on a case by case basis Proportion of increase rate recorded in previous years (i.e. 50% of average)

18 Conclusions Bear population has arrived to a threshold that allows a more flexible management approach More effective management crucial to address decrease in social support, but need to ensure conservation of the population Need to address damage, not only risks to humans, when population size allows to do so Italian policies and Habitat Directive impose that alternatives to removal are carefully considered, and any removal is also based on an evaluation of the sustainability National institutions already ensuring rapid decision making Agreed criteria being developed among Italian central and local authorities; aim to increase transparency and objectivity of decision making