Ex post and insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy

The importance of equity in payments to encourage coexistence with large mammals

Large mammals often impose significant costs such as livestock depredation or crop foraging on rural communities, and this can lead to the retaliatory killing of threatened wildlife populations. One conservation approach-payments to encourage coexistence (PEC)-aims to reduce these costs through financial mechanisms, such as compensation, insurance, revenue sharing, and conservation performance payments. Little is known about the equitability of PEC, however, despite its moral and instrumental importance, prevalence as a conservation approach, and the fact that other financial tools for conservation are often inequitable. We used examples from the literature to examine the capability of PEC-as currently perceived and implemented-to be inequitable. We recommend improving the equitability of current and future schemes through the cooperative design of schemes that promote compensatory equity and greater consideration of conservation performance payments and by changing the international model for funding PEC to reduce global coexistence inequalities. New and existing programs must address issues of equitability across scales to ensure that conservation efforts are not undermined by diminished social legitimacy.

The population bottleneck of the Iberian wolf impacted genetic diversity but not admixture with domestic dogs: A temporal genomic approach

After decades of intense persecution, the Iberian wolf subspecies faced a severe bottleneck in the 1970s that considerably reduced its range and population size, nearly leading to its extinction in central and southern Iberian Peninsula. Such population decline could have impacted the genetic diversity of Iberian wolves through different processes, namely genetic drift and dynamics of hybridization with domestic dogs. By contrasting the genomes of 68 contemporary with 54 historical samples spanning the periods before and immediately after the 1970s bottleneck, we found evidence of its impact on genetic diversity and dynamics of wolf-dog hybridization. Our genome-wide assessment revealed that wolves and dogs form two well-differentiated genetic groups in Iberia and that hybridization rates did not increase during the bottleneck. However, an increased number of hybrid individuals was found over time during the population re-expansion, particularly at the edge of the wolf range. We estimated a low percentage of dog ancestry (~1.4%) in historical samples, suggesting that dog introgression was not a key driver for wolf extinction in central and southern Iberia. Our findings also unveil a significant decline in genetic diversity in contemporary samples, with the highest proportion of homozygous segments in the genome being recently inherited. Overall, our study provides unprecedented insight into the impact of a sharp decline on the Iberian wolf genome and refines our understanding of the ecological and evolutionary drivers of wolf-dog hybridization in the wild.

Befragung von Haltern von vom Aussterben bedrohten Schaf- und Ziegenrassen zum Einfluss des Wolfes auf die Tierhaltung

Gegenstand und Ziel Mit der weiteren Ausbreitung des Wolfes in Deutschland nehmen die Konflikte mit Tierhaltern zu. Es stellt sich zunehmend die Frage nach den Auswirkungen des Wolfsbestandes auf die Weidetierhaltung. Ziel der Studie war es daher, durch die Befragung von Tierhaltern den Einfluss des Wolfes speziell auf die Haltung von vom Aussterben bedrohter Schaf- und Ziegenrassen zu untersuchen und herauszufinden, welche Schutzmaßnahmen von den Tierhaltern gegen den Wolf ergriffen werden.

Material und Methoden Ein Fragebogen aus 11 Fragen wurde von der Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen e. V. (GEH) online gestellt und von 494 Schaf- und Ziegenhaltern aus ganz Deutschland anonym ausgefüllt und anschließend ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse 33 % der bedrohten Schaf- und 80 % der bedrohten Ziegenrassen werden von weniger als je 10 Tierhaltern gehalten, überwiegend in Hobbyhaltung oder zum Nebenerwerb. Die Aufgabe der Tierhaltung einzelner Tierhalter kann sich daher signifikant negativ auf den Fortbestand der jeweiligen Rasse auswirken. An den mittleren Herdengrößen der Herdbuchzuchten lässt sich in den letzten Jahren keine negative Auswirkung auf die Tierzahlen erkennen, obgleich die Mehrheit der Befragten ihre Weidetierhaltung durch den Wolf bedroht sieht. Beachtenswert ist, dass signifikant mehr Halter angeben, die Tiere abschaffen zu wollen (Halter außerhalb Wolfsgebiet), als dies bei konkreter Bedrohung der Fall ist (Halter im Wolfsgebiet). Genannte Präventionsmaßnahmen sind am häufigsten die Veränderung der Einfriedung und die Herausnahme bestimmter Flächen aus der Nutzung. Der Einsatz von Herdenschutzhunden spielt keine große Rolle.

Schlussfolgerungen Durch die Aufgabe der Tierhaltung einzelner Halter besteht die Gefahr der Verringerung der Rassendiversität bei kleinen Wiederkäuern. Daher benötigen diese einen besonderen Schutz, was bei der Planung und Festlegung von Kompensationsmaßnahmen berücksichtigt werden muss.

Broadening the toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management

Facilitating coexistence between people and large carnivores is critical for large carnivore conservation in human-dominated landscapes, when their presence impacts negatively on human interests. Such situations will often require novel ways of mediating between different values, worldviews and opinions about how carnivores should be managed. We report on such a process in an agricultural area of recent wolf recovery in central Italy where unsolved social tensions over wolf presence have radicalized opinions on either side of the wolf debate, resulting in a stalemate. Where previous mitigation policies based on top-down damage compensation have failed, we tested the potential for applying a participatory approach to engage different stakeholder groups in a dialogue aimed at sharing a deep understanding of the problem and co-creating potential solutions. We based our approach on the theory of meta-consensus, using a decision support tool known as Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Over the course of three months, we carried out five workshops with stakeholder representatives from farming, hunting and environmental associations, and one biologist. Stakeholders shared several objectives and agreed over many management interventions, including the management of free-ranging dogs, the implementation of damage prevention measures, and a damage compensation system suitable for farmers. The process facilitated agreement over actions aimed at improving relations between stakeholders and enhancing the state of knowledge on the issues at stake. Most importantly, we recorded positive social and relationship outcomes from the workshops, and observed a willingness from participants to engage in further discussions over disputed management preferences. Overall, we found MCDA to be a useful tool for laying the groundwork for further participatory and deliberative processes on wolf management. However, challenges ahead included the involvement of a larger number of representatives of different social sectors, and a simplification of the methodology which some participants found too complicated and time consuming.

Cost of Coexisting with a Relict Large Carnivore Population: Impact of Apennine Brown Bears, 2005-2015

Human-carnivore conflicts are a major conservation issue. As bears are expanding their range in Europe's human-modified landscapes, it is increasingly important to understand, prevent, and address human-bear conflicts and evaluate mitigation strategies in areas of historical coexistence. Based on verified claims, we assessed costs, patterns, and drivers of bear damages in the relict Apennine brown bear population in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park (PNALM), central Italy. During 2005-2015, 203 ± 71 (SD) damage events were verified annually, equivalent to 75,987 ± 30,038 €/year paid for compensation. Most damages occurred in summer and fall, with livestock depredation, especially sheep and cattle calves, prevailing over other types of damages, with apiaries ranking second in costs of compensation. Transhumant livestock owners were less impacted than residential ones, and farms that adopted prevention measures loaned from the PNALM were less susceptible to bear damages. Livestock farms chronically damaged by bears represented 8 ± 3% of those annually impacted, corresponding to 24 ± 6% of compensation costs. Further improvements in the conflict mitigation policy adopted by the PNALM include integrated prevention, conditional compensation, and participatory processes. We discuss the implications of our study for Human-bear coexistence in broader contexts.

Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation

Social conflicts around large carnivores are increasing in Europe, often associated to the species expansion into human-modified and agricultural landscapes. Large carnivores can be seen as an added value by some but as a source of difficulties by others, depending on different values, attitudes, livelihoods, and everyday activities. Therefore, the effective involvement of the different interest groups is important to identify and shape tailored solutions that can potentially be implemented, complementing top-down approaches that might, on their own, result in lack of implementation and buy-in. To improve dialogue in conflictual situations, as part of a European project promoted by the European Parliament, we assessed the practical implementation of participatory processes in three sample areas in Europe where wolves and bears have recently been increasingly impacting human activities. Our results demonstrate that collaboration among different and generally contrasting groups is possible. Even in situations where large-carnivore impacts were seen as unsatisfactorily managed for many years, people were still willing and eager to be involved in alternative discussion processes hoping this would lead to concrete solutions. An important and common highlight among the three study areas was that all the management interventions agreed upon shared the general scope of improving the conditions of the groups most impacted by large carnivores. The process showed the importance of building trust and supporting dialogue for knowledge co-production and mitigation of conflicts between stakeholders and that controversial environmental issues have the potential to trigger a meaningful dialogue about broader societal issues. The direct involvement and support of competent authorities, as well as the upscaling of this process at larger administrative and social scales, remain important challenges.

Addressing inequality and intolerance in human-wildlife coexistence

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human-wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.

Costs of coexistence: understanding the drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh

Habitat degradation and fragmentation have heightened the importance of understanding human tolerance towards wildlife, as the fate of wildlife in multi-use landscapes depends on people's capacity for coexistence. We applied the wildlife tolerance model to examine drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh, interviewing local people in 17 villages. We used structural equation modelling to identify causal pathways in which elephant-related exposure, positive and negative interactions, costs and benefits (tangible and intangible) contributed to tolerance. Contrary to expectations, monetary costs were non-significant in shaping tolerance despite major impacts on livelihoods. Instead, intangible costs and intangible benefits were significant factors determining tolerance. Furthermore, reducing people's exposure to elephants would not necessarily affect tolerance, nor would increasing positive interactions. We discuss how the socio-economic and bio-cultural dynamics of local communities can explain these results, and demonstrate how our model can be used to incorporate such complexities into conservation decision-making. For instance, compensation schemes aim to recompense monetary losses and direct damages, to improve tolerance, whereas our results suggest a more effective approach would be to enhance resilience to non-monetary costs and improve perceived benefits. We conclude that future studies should pay increased attention to intangible costs and consider the less direct drivers of tolerance. Through repeated testing of universal models such as that presented here, broad trends may emerge that will facilitate the application of policies across contexts and landscapes.

Determinants of home range size and space use patterns in a protected wolf (Canis lupus) population in the central Apennines, Italy

Large carnivores are amongst the most susceptible species to human activities, and human-modified environments pose a threat to carnivore conservation. Wolves (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) in the central Apennines, Italy, have coexisted with humans since historic times and represent a good case study to assess their spatiotemporal response to anthropogenic factors. From 2008 to 2010, we investigated the spatial behavior of wolves (seven wolves in five packs and six floaters) in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park. Orographically corrected annual home ranges of resident wolf packs, estimated through the Brownian bridge movement model, averaged 104 ± 24 km2 (mean ± SD), whereas floaters used two- to fourfold larger areas (293.8–408.7 km2). We did not detect any seasonal effect on home range size, but home ranges were larger during the night and in areas of greater road density, especially during summer. By estimating core areas through an individual-based approach, we also revealed a habitat-mediated response to human presence and activity, as resident wolves preferentially established core areas at greater elevation and in the more forested and inaccessible portions of the home range.

Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict compensation

Human-wildlife conflict is a major conservation challenge, and compensation for wildlife damage is a widely used economic tool to mitigate this conflict. The effectiveness of this management tool is widely debated. The relative importance of factors associated with compensation success is unclear, and little is known about global geographic or taxonomic differences in the application of compensation programs. We reviewed research on wildlife-damage compensation to determine geographic and taxonomic gaps, analyze patterns of positive and negative comments related to compensation, and assess the relative magnitude of global compensation payments. We analyzed 288 publications referencing wildlife compensation and identified 138 unique compensation programs. These publications reported US$222 million (adjusted for inflation) spent on compensation in 50 countries since 1980. Europeans published the most articles, and compensation funding was highest in Europe, where depredation by wolves and bears was the most frequently compensated damage. Authors of the publications we reviewed made twice as many negative comments as positive comments about compensation. Three-quarters of the negative comments related to program administration. Conversely, three-quarters of the positive comments related to program outcomes. The 3 most common suggestions to improve compensation programs included requiring claimants to employ damage-prevention practices, such as improving livestock husbandry or fencing of crops to receive compensation (n = 25, 15%); modifying ex post compensation schemes to some form of outcome-based performance payment (n = 21, 12%); and altering programs to make compensation payments more quickly (n = 14, 8%). We suggest that further understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of compensation as a conflict-mitigation tool will require more systematic evaluation of the factors driving these opinions and that differentiating process and outcomes and understanding linkages between them will result in more fruitful analyses and ultimately more effective conflict mitigation.