sou · GZB337 · 2011-04-20 00:00:00 — ge förslag till metoder för en utvecklad dialog med lokalbefolkningen om rovdjuren samt vägar till en förbättrad information till lokalbefolkningen vid ny eller tillfällig förekomst av stora rovdjur. Regionalt ansvar – lokalt inflytande Syftet med den nya förvaltningen med ett ökat regionalt ansvar och lokalt inflytande är att systemet ska leda till en förbättrad samexistens mellan rovdjur och människa och att målen med den nya rovdjursförvaltningen uppnås. analysera om det regionaliserade ansvaret för förvaltningen av rovdjuren och jakten lett till en ökad acceptans av rovdjur i människors närhet, och i övrigt ge förslag till förvaltningsåtgärder avseende rovdjuren som bidrar till en samexistens mellan människa och rovdjur i syfte att stärka rovdjurens situation i landet. Åtgärder för att stärka vargstammens genetiska situation Regeringen redovisade i propositionen En ny rovdjursförvaltning (prop. 2008/09:210) åtgärder för att stärka vargstammens genetiska status. Flytt av varg från renskötselområdet till den mellansvenska vargpopulationen kan vid behov genomföras utan ytterligare utredning utöver lämplig utsättningsplats. När det gäller införsel av vargar med östligt ursprung har regeringen uppdragit åt , och att utarbeta rutiner för sådana åtgärder. Uppdraget ska redovisas . analysera och bedöma om de initiativ som regeringen föreslagit i propositionen om en ny rovdjursförvaltning för att minska graden av inavel är tillräckliga samt därutöver redovisa vargstammens utveckling, bedöma och redovisa eventuellt behov av kompletterande åtgärder för att säkra en genetiskt livskraftig vargstam, och analysera hur förankringsprocessen genomförts vid utsättning av vargar inom . Utredaren ska redovisa samhällsekonomiska konsekvensanalyser av förslagen. För eventuella förslag med statsfinansiella konsekvenser ska även finansieringsförslag lämnas. Samråd och redovisning av uppdraget Samråd ska hållas med berörda myndigheter, organisationer och andra intressen. Erfarenheter från och ska inhämtas. Utredaren ska vidare utgå från internationella åtaganden samt de riktlinjer för förvaltning av stora rovdjur på populationsnivå som Europeiska kommissionen fastställde 2008. Utredaren ska lägga fram ett delbetänkande om bedömning av gynnsam bevarandestatus för de aktuella arterna . Uppdraget ska slutredovisas . (M 2010:02) Förlängd tid för uppdraget och tillägg till uppdraget Med stöd av regeringens bemyndigande har chefen för gett en särskild utredare i uppdrag att utvärdera målen för rovdjursstammarnas utveckling. Utredaren ska enligt direktiven redovisa ett delbetänkande om bedömning av gynnsam bevarandestatus för björn, järv, lodjur och varg. Delbetänkandet ska istället redovisas . Utredaren ska även analysera hur den skandinaviska vargpopulationen kontinuerligt kan få ett inflöde av vargar med östligt ursprung. Utredaren ska föreslå och redovisa åtgärder som dels underlättar för naturlig invandring av varg, dels säkerställer att dessa vargar når den mellansvenska vargpopulationen. Slutbetänkandet ska kompletteras med dessa förslag. Naturlig invandring av varg Den skandinaviska vargstammen härstammar från endast tre individer. Endast ett fåtal vargar har vandrat in från och etablerat sig inom den skandinaviska populationen. Ytterligare vargar har vandrat in i norra men dessa har inte nått den mellansvenska vargpopulationen bl.a. på grund av omfattande problem för renskötseln. Denna mycket begränsade invandring har inneburit att den höga graden av inavel som finns inom den skandinaviska vargstammen inte har minskat i tillräcklig omfattning. Regeringen förbereder olika åtgärder för att påtagligt minska inavelsgraden i populationen bl.a. genom att aktivt plantera in vargar med östligt ursprung . Sådan inplantering får dock ses som en engångsåtgärd. För att efter genomförd inplantering bevara vargstammens genetiska status och säkra att vargstammen är långsiktigt livskraftig bedömer forskare att efter genomförd inplantering så behöver en till två nya vargar per femårsperiod komma i kontakt med den skandinaviska vargpopulationen och reproducera sig. För att säkerställa detta är det nödvändigt att antingen vidta åtgärder så att naturligt invandrade vargar kan passera renskötselområdet utan att orsaka skador eller att vidta åtgärder som säkerställer att eventuella skador för renskötseln minimeras och kompenseras. Det kan t.ex. röra sig om tillfälliga korridorer för att underlätta att varg vandrar ner till . Det kan även vara frågan om höjd ersättning till en sameby där en varg uppehåller sig eller icke återbetalningsbart bidrag för förebyggande åtgärder, exempelvis flyttning av en renhjord när en varg befinner sig i en sameby. Utredaren ska analysera och föreslå åtgärder för att underlätta att naturligt invandrade vargar med östligt ursprung når den mellansvenska vargpopulationen med minimerad skadenivå för renskötseln. Utredaren ska redovisa samhällsekonomiska konsekvensanalyser av förslagen. För eventuella förslag med statsfinansiella konsekvenser ska även finansieringsförslag lämnas. Samråd ska hållas med berörda myndigheter och organisationer, särskilt företrädare för rennäringens intressen. Förslagen ska redovisas i slutbetänkandet . Evaluation of the conservation genetic basis of management of grey wolves in , , , , , , , Missoula, The evaluation panel was asked to assess the scientific basis of conservation genetic recommendations for managing Swedish wolves, more specifically to evaluate views and hypotheses proposed by different researchers. In addition, the panel was asked to provide its own assessment of the population sizes needed for obtaining Favourable Conservation Status, as defined in the EU Habitats Directive, Article 17. Finally, the panel addressed other relevant questions as they emerged during discussions. The main conclusions and recommendations are as follows: Scandinavian wolves are highly inbred, there is evidence for deleterious genetic variation that will become expressed during inbreeding, and inbreeding depression must be considered an important problem. The panel supports the view that action should be taken as soon as possible to reduce inbreeding levels. The panel does not see a contradiction between the presence of inbreeding depression and the fact that the population has increased. This represents a balance between on the one side a beneficial environment with plenty of prey and a wolf population below carrying capacity favouring population growth, and on the other side inbreeding depression resulting in decreased reproductive performance. At present, the balance is still in favour of population growth, but if inbreeding continues to increase, the situation is likely to reverse. The major challenge is to reduce the high inbreeding. There is no other way to achieve this than by introducing new genetic variation, either by natural immigration of grey wolves from or by artificial translocations. The panel supports a short-term goal that consists of reducing inbreeding from the current ca. to below over a 20 year period. If the current population in and is maintained at a maximum of 240 individuals, then 5–10 genetically effective immigrants are required per generation. At this low population size immigration must be continuous. If a larger population size is allowed, then in the longer term fewer immigrants would be required to keep inbreeding below , but the exact numbers would have to be determined analytically. The panel finds that obtaining Favourable Conservation Status will require a population size of at least 3,000–5,000 individuals. Wolves throughout , and Karelia-Kola have historically constituted one continuous population, which has since been fragmented and reduced due to human activity. It is therefore most appropriate to focus efforts for obtaining Favourable Conservation Status on this geographical region. The panel consequently recommends transnational collaboration and agreements among , , and with the purpose of securing a common grey wolf population consisting of 3,000–5,000 individuals. The individual sub-populations of the total population should be connected by migration at a rate to ensure that inbreeding is not a problem. It will require detailed analyses and discussions to determine the specific proportions of the total population to inhabit each country. The relative proportions of suitable habitat found in each country could be a good starting point for the assessment. The panel was asked to provide recommendations for a relevant measure of population size. The most relevant measure depends on the question asked. If it concerns the demography of the population, then the most relevant measure is the census population size (N), which is simply the number of individuals. If it concerns conservation genetics questions concerning inbreed- ing, gene flow etc., then effective population size (Ne) is the most relevant measure. The ratio between census and effective population size can be used as a conversion factor. this ratio is difficult to determine precisely and conversions between census and effective population sizes should therefore be evaluated with caution. The panel finds it important to continue close monitoring of Scandinavian wolves. In particular, specific monitoring of potential inbreeding depression is recommended (e.g. physical deformities, changes of life-history parameters) and funding for this purpose should be available. The pedigree established for wild Scandinavian wolves is available on request and is already used in practical management. The panel finds that this is a particularly important tool that should be used for identifying individuals of immigrant ancestry or individuals that in other ways represent particularly valuable portions of the founder genetic diversity. These individuals should subsequently be protected from hunting. The panel finds it justified to use offspring of wolves from the captive Fennoscandian wolf population for artificial translocations. There is concern that some introgression with domestic dogs has occurred, but this can be assessed using genetic markers. The panel is impressed by the high quality of the science that has been conducted during the monitoring and assessment of the conservation status of Scandinavian wolves. Elucidating the pedigree of a wild carnivore population must be considered a unique achievement, and overall the conservation ecology and genetics research on Scandinavian wolves ranks very highly in the conservation biology sciences. 1.Assignment for the panel In October 2010 the Large Carnivore Inquiry () decided to invite an international panel of Conservation biologists to assess the current genetic status of the Scandinavian wolf population. The purpose of this was to clarify its conservation status in accordance with the Reporting Guidelines under article 17 of the Habitats directive as well as issued by the EC. The background for assigning an international panel was an entrenched disagreement between Swedish research groups regarding this issue, especially over the severity of the inbreeding The panel has had access to peer-reviewed articles with relevance to the topic as well as reports to the () and the Government. The panel members are: , , (Chair) , , Missoula, The panel was given the following questions: What are the different hypotheses presented about the required population size for favourable conservation status (FCS) of the wolf? What are the underlying scientific assumptions and prerequisites for each hypothesis? How well supported and documented are they in current science? What is the panels assessment: which hypothesis is the most well-founded? What is the panels own assessment of the population size required to reach and sustain favourable conservation status? What would be a relevant measure of population size: number of individuals, number of or something else? The panel read literature and conducted discussions over e-mail through and and then met for three days in January 2011, during which time a hearing was held with the research groups involved in the issue: (university), (, , Grimsö research station) and (). (university) and (SLU) were unable to participate, but were contacted for specific questions via e-mail. Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) is a concept defined in the EU Habitats Directive (Council directive 92/43/EEC of 21 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). According to Article 1 the conservation status will be taken as favourable when: population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis; wolf is listed in (species of community interests in need for strict protection) and in (species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation) to the directive. The member states should, according to Article 17, every six years report on the implementation of the measures taken under the Habitats Directive. To assist member states, guidelines have been developed. The guidelines for reporting under Article 17, prepared by the EC, describes FCS as the overall objective to be reached for all habitat types and species of community interest. It is stressed that the fact that a habitat or species is not threatened, i.e. not faced by any direct extinction risk, does not mean that it is in FCS. Favourable reference range and favourable reference population are two important concepts in the evaluation of conservation status. The favourable reference range is the historic or potential range, or the area required for population viability including consideration of connectivity and migration issues. The favourable reference range must be at least the range when the Directive came into force, which is 1995 for . The favourable reference population is the population considered the minimum necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the population/species. The guidelines document mentions that the minimum viable population (MVP) concept may be useful when setting the reference population value, but that MVP can only provide a proxy for the lowest tolerable population size. This means that in practice MVP will be lower than the population level considered at FCS. The favourable reference population must be at least the size of the population when the Habitats Directive came into force. Another important guidance document is for Large Carnivores, developed by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe for the EC. In a note to the guidelines the EC gives support to them, stating that they are not legally binding but do constitute a reference point against which DG Environment will monitor actions taken by the Member States in fulfilment of their obligations under the Habitats Directive. In the matter of assessing conservation status, the large carnivore guidelines are to a large extent in line with the guidelines for reporting under article 17. However, the large carnivore guidelines put more emphasis on MVP and the use of PVA. They suggest using red list criterion E, which is defined as less than extinction risk over 100 years based on a PVA . An alternative, in the absence of enough data to conduct a robust PVA, is according to the guidelines to use red list criterion D (predefined thresholds for the red list threat categories). The large carnivore guidelines also emphasize the importance of maintaining or restoring connectivity. They conclude that the assessment of conservation status should be conducted at the population level, even when the population is transboundary. One consequence of this can be that countries that share a population will be able to achieve FCS at the population level whereas this may not be feasible considering their national segments (subpopulations) in isolation. According to this, the panel concluded that population size at FCS should be above MVP. The population should have the size and the structure (subpopulations, connectivity) so that problems of small populations are avoided. Finally, the population should also be of a size that would allow for evolutionary potential. By this it is meant that the population should be able to evolve in order to adapt to changes in the environment, e.g. climate change and emergence of new diseases. How large – in terms of actual numbers – should populations be in order to fulfil these requirements for Favourable Conservation Status? A recent paper analyzed minimum viable population size (MVP) estimates for 212 different species collected from the literature (Traill et al. In order to standardize results from different species they defined MVP as the population sizes required for a probability of persistence over 40 generations. They found a median MVP of 4,169 individuals (CI 3,577 – 5,129). The MVP estimates used in the meta-analysis typically accounted for demographic stochasticity as well as some form of environmental stochasticity, and density dependence. percent of the PVAs also included genetic factors such as inbreeding depression. However, the costs of inbreeding to population growth were routinely underestimated, and genetic MVPs included other assumptions that would tend to cause MVP to be underestimated. Traill et al. (2007) concluded that minimum viable populations for most species will exceed a few thousands of individuals. Estimates of evolutionary MVP (Traill et al. 2010) – the minimum population size required for species to adapt to changing environments through evolution have ranged from effective population sizes (Ne) of 500–1000 (Franklin et al. 1980; Franklin & Frankham 1998) to 5,000 (1998). Effective population size of a set of individuals denotes the number of individuals in an ideal population that would give rise to the same inbreeding or random genetic drift that occurs in the specific set of individuals in question. Here, an ideal population denotes a population with equal sex ratio and a Poisson distribution of offspring among families. A review of genetically effective population sizes among wildlife populations (Frankham 1995) found that comprehensive estimates of effective population size were on average of census population sizes, whereas a more recent review found an average ratio of (Palstra & Ruzzante 2008). Two recent studies on wolves found that effective sizes were and of census population sizes (Aspi et al. 2006; vonHoldt et al. 2008), but the ratio for the Scandinavian wolf population, may be lower than these wolf populations because of its high level of inbreeding accumulation. , evolutionary MVPs would be on the order of thousands in terms of census population sizes, and if Franklins (1980) initial suggestion of a minimum effective population size of 500 is accepted, then this would correspond to 1,250–5,000 individuals. Taken together, demographic and evolutionary MVPs converge on numbers around 3,000–5,000. At which population level should FCS be evaluated (local or transnational)? According to the reporting guidelines for the EU Habitats Directive Article 17 conservation status should be reported with reference to current range, potential extent of range taking into account physical and ecological conditions (such as climate, geology, soil, altitude), historic range and causes of change and area required for viability of habitat/species, including considerations of connectivity and migration issues. In for Large Carnivores, it is also recommended, as above, that FCS be evaluated at the population level even for transboundary populations. From a scientific perspective these considerations about definitions of populations and management units and the need for taking historical distributional ranges and population structure into account are evident and well supported (et al. 2000; Waples & Gaggiotti 2006). , a crucial issue for evaluating the conservation status of Scandinavian grey wolves then concerns the population level and geographical scale at which it should be assessed. Essentially, the general question to answer is: What is a grey wolf population? It must be acknowledged that grey wolves are highly vagile carnivores. Home ranges can be extensive and individual wolves can migrate hundreds of kilometers within relatively short time spans (Linnell et al. 2005, Kojola et al. Moreover, grey wolves can occupy a wide range of ecologically varying habitats (Mech & Boitani 2003). , the historical and natural distribution of grey wolves would be expected to be continuous over large geographical regions, interrupted by landscape features such as seas, oceans and other impassable waterways and mountain ranges, unfavourable environmental conditions etc. A recent study, however, also demonstrates geographical genetic heterogeneity that appears to correlate with ecological factors, such as dietary preferences and availability (Pilot et al. Described in population genetics terms this would mean that the natural population structure would be a continuous population with some degree of isolation-by-distance (i.e. increasing genetic difference with increasing geographical distance) and additional heterogeneity reflecting specific ecological factors. In total, the population would show a considerable degree of genetic and demographic connectivity. Based on these considerations it must be assumed that the current Scandinavian grey wolves along with grey wolves from Fennoscandia, Karelia and extending further into belong to one single population. , each of these units such as Scandinavian wolves should be considered fragments of a population i.e. In the recent past (until a few hundred years ago) grey wolves throughout the region constituted a largely continuous population connected by gene flow mediated by the extensive dispersal capabilities of the species. The present situation with different sub-populations throughout Fennoscandia and Karelia is artificial and is a result of human-mediated fragmentation. Essentially, the geographical zones in northern , and where grey wolves are not tolerated constitute barriers in the landscape through which wolves are unable to disperse. The fact that relatively small but statistically significant genetic differences can be observed among the present sub-populations (Aspi et al. 2009) reflects: 1) limited or no gene flow through zones where grey wolves are not tolerated, isolating the sub-populations, 2) random genetic drift, that is random genetic changes caused by low and in the case of very low effective population sizes and founder events and 3) the isolation-by-distance (e.g. Aspi et al. 2006) that occurred already in the continuous historical population. Considering the natural genetic population structure of grey wolves, their distributional range in the recent past and the definitions of reporting units (i.e. the scale at which reporting should be done) in the EU Habitat Directive Article 17 and for Large Carnivores it follows that Favourable Conservation Status should be evaluated and secured at the level of the historical range. In practical terms, the evaluation panel recommends focusing on the current geographically most proximate sub-populations in Fennoscandia and Karelia. The panel notes that there is a knowledge gap concerning population sizes and densities and genetic population structure of the easternmost part of the range that ought to be filled in. The evaluation panel notes that although inbreeding problems are by far the most severe in the Scandinavian sub-population (Liberg et al.