Engaging stakeholders in monitoring of large carnivores:

Nordic lessons for central Europe?

John Linnell

Berlin

19:04:2016

www.nina.no

Who am I?

Scientist at Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA).

Have studied lynx & other large carnivores in Norway and beyond.

www.nina.no

Who am I?

Member of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE).

IUCN Specialist Group

Contracts to support EC with policy development.

Stakeholder status – representing conservation interests

www.nina.no

Objectives for presentation

Introduction to monitoring large carnivores

Focus on Nordic experiences – with a view to transfer to central Europe

Why monitor?

How to monitor?

Who should monitor?

www.nina.no

Why monitor?

Conflict over numbers is widespread

For science

For Article 17 reporting (if EU)

For adaptive management

Different purposes require different designs

Methods

Areas of coverage

Frequency

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Robust

Practical Credible

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Different aspects need monitoring

Distribution

Trend (with or without numbers)

Numbers

Habitat

Health (diseases / genetics)

Different species need different approaches

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Estimates

Statistical measurement of uncertainity

Counts

Hopefully minimum numbers – no estimate of uncertainity

www.nina.no

How to monitor? – All species

Dead carnivores should be collected and examined

Hunters

Vehicle collisions

Other causes

Livestock depredation cases

Examined in most countries

www.nina.no

How to monitor? - Bears

DNA based estimates from faeces / hairs

Estimate of all individuals

Observations of females with cubs-of-the-year

Count of reproductive events

Hunter observations

Sweden = bears seen per hunting day = index

Eastern Europe = feeding site counts

www.nina.no

How to monitor? - Bears

X

www.nina.no

How to monitor? - Bears

E.g. Jämtland county in 2006. 50.000 km2. 5287 scats collected, 3000 analysed.

www.nina.no

How to monitor? – Eurasian lynx

Camera trapping

Estimate of total population

Observations of family groups

Count of reproductive individuals

Observations of tracks from multiple lynx in snow

Follow for >2 km – state wardens

Increasingly using camera traps in areas with poor snow

Use distance rules to separate

www.nina.no

How to monitor? – Wolves

Pack mapping

Multiple data sources – observations, tracks in sand or snow, DNA, telemetry, camera traps, howling

Count based, number of reproductive units (plus some idea of pack size)

DNA analysis

Scats

Estimate of total population size

www.nina.no

How to monitor? – Wolverine

Counts of natal dens

Revisit all known den locations each winter, plus actively search for new dens in areas with other indications

Count of annual reproductive attempts

DNA analysis

Scats and urine

Estimate of total population size

Norway = 120.000 km of search effort annually

www.nina.no

How to monitor? – Questions

Whole area vs reference areas

Statistically robust

Cautionary tale of Norwegian bears

Total population vs reproductive units

Effort and practicality

www.nina.no

Who should monitor?

Very challenging – counting phantoms

Needs broad engagement

Public

Key stakeholders – hunters / environmentalists

Networks of trained observers

State game wardens / foresters

Researchers

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data quality

Observations must be categorized

Species identity must be confirmed by trained staff

Preferably some form of record that can be re-analysed or verified (photograph, DNA)

Nobody is beyond being questioned!

Transparency is essential

Curse of secret observations

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data flow

Validation Data storage

Interpretation and analysis

Observation

Observation Validation

Observation Validation

Communication

Action

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data flow

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data flow

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data flow

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data interpretation

Essential elements

Data interpretation must be at a centralized level

Avoid double counts in different units

Standard methods

Transparency

Efficiency of resource use (statistics / labs / IT)

www.nina.no

Who should monitor? – Data interpretation

Norway – Sweden

Shared database

Standardised protocols in field and lab

Joint reports

Identify shared individuals / packs

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Robust

Practical Credible

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Robust

Practical Credible

Design,

observation

validation, and

interpretation

- scientists

www.nina.no

How to monitor?

Robust

Practical Credible

Broad

participation by

many

stakeholders

Broad

participation by

many

stakeholders

Transparency

Communication

www.nina.no

www.nina.no

Workshop

Method standardization (regional / population level)

Outstanding issues around methods?

Stakeholder engagement

Barriers to multiple stakeholder engagement?

How to overcome these barriers?