# PREVENTION OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY LARGE CARNIVORES IN THE ALPS

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Joint report prepared by:

LARGE CARNIVORES, WILD UNGULATES AND SOCIETY WORKING GROUP (WISO) of the ALPINE CONVENTION and the project LIFE WOLFALPS EU
# PREVENTION OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY LARGE CARNIVORES IN THE ALPS

Joint report prepared by:

LARGE CARNIVORES, WILD UNGULATES AND SOCIETY WORKING GROUP (WISO) of the ALPINE CONVENTION and the project LIFE WOLFALPS EU

## Editors:

Berce Tomaž and Černe Rok

Slovenia Forest Service, Vecna pot 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

## Authors (listed in alphabetical order):

Berce Tomaž, Bertolotto Sabrina, Blaschka Albin, Bragalanti Natalia, Braghiroli Sonia, Bruno Mauro, Calderola Sonia, Chioso Christian, Cucè Laura, Černe Rok, Frick Cathérine, Groff Claudio, Hilfiker Daniela, Horrix Irina, Javornik Jernej, Knauer Felix, Lüthi Riccarda, Maceli Giovanni, Marucco Francesca, Menzano Arianna, Mettler Daniel, Meyer François, Nadalin Giuliana, Nägele Olivier, Parzanese Emanuele, Rasetto Paola, Rauer Georg, Rizo Sylvie, Rossi Elisabetta, Simčič Gregor, Simon N. Ricardo, Steyer Katharina, Truc Fabrizio, Walter Theresa, Wölfl Manfred, Zanghellini Paolo, Zeni Matteo

## Contributors:

Ebster Marion, Sourbron Leentje Ann
TABLE OF CONTENT:

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>PREFACE</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIVESTOCK PROTECTION IN THE ALPS</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>REPORTS BY COUNTRY</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>3.1</td><td>AUSTRIA</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>3.1.1</td><td>Damages caused by large carnivores in Austria</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>3.1.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Austria</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>3.2</td><td>FRANCE</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>3.2.1</td><td>Damages caused by large carnivores in France</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>3.2.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in France</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>3.3</td><td>GERMANY</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>3.3.1</td><td>Damages caused by large carnivores in Germany</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>3.3.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Germany</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>3.4</td><td>ITALY</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>3.4.1</td><td>Damages caused by large carnivores in Italy</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>3.4.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Italy</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>3.5</td><td>LIECHTENSTEIN</td><td>157</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.1</td><td>Damages caused by large Carnivores in Liechtenstein</td><td>158</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Liechtenstein</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>3.6</td><td>SLOVENIA</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.1</td><td>Damages caused by large Carnivores in Slovenia</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Slovenia</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>3.7</td><td>SWITZERLAND</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td>3.7.1</td><td>Damages caused by large carnivores in Switzerland</td><td>206</td></tr><tr><td>3.7.2</td><td>Damage prevention measures in Switzerland</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING A RELIABLE PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK</td><td>235</td></tr></table>
# 1 PREFACE

Large carnivores were eradicated from most of the Alps about 100 years ago. A small relic population of brown bears (*Ursus arctos*), however, remained present in Trento, Italy, while the Eurasian lynx (*Lynx lynx*) was reintroduced to the region in the 1970s. Grey wolves (*Canis lupus*), for their part, started to recolonize the western and central Alps about 30 years ago from a remnant population in Italy, and the eastern Alps some 10 years ago from the Dinaric population. As a result, lynx and wolves are today regularly present in all member states of the Alpine convention. Numbers of bears in the Alps have also been increasing in the last 20 years, especially in Trentino and Slovenia. With the increasing presence of large carnivores in all Alpine countries, protection of human property against carnivore attacks is becoming a necessary part of animal husbandry in this region.

In the absence of large carnivores, traditional practices of livestock protection disappeared from the Alps and led to the present situation where free-range, unprotected grazing by livestock is a common practice in many Alpine territories. With increasing numbers of large carnivores, damages to livestock started to occur. However, it is reassuring that good practices in livestock protection also started to develop simultaneously in many Alpine areas. We are convinced that the widespread use of such practices and their further improvement will ensure the future of livestock grazing in the Alps in the presence of viable populations of large carnivores. The Large Carnivores, Wild Ungulates and Society Platform of the Alpine Convention (WISO) is committed to resolving issues concerning large carnivore depredations on grazing animals.

In the previous mandate of WISO, a study entitled "*A comparative overview of the use of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to protect livestock in the Alpine countries*" was conducted by Adelphi to examine how the Alpine countries are using EU funding to prevent or mitigate large carnivore damages. In this mandate, in order to have a wider overview of the general situation on the relation between damages and damage prevention in each Alpine country, the WISO platform joint the effort with the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project and prepared this document focusing on damage prevention practices, which are currently evolving throughout the Alps. The
contribution of LIFE WOLFALPS EU project personnel was especially important in
preparing the report for Italy and in collecting data on damages for Austria and France.
WISO members prepared the section on damage prevention and AGRIDEA provided
the report for Switzerland.

The main objectives of this report are to (1) present an overview of the systems of livestock protection against large carnivores and sources of financing, (2) highlight examples of good practice and (3) prepare general and technical recommendations regarding livestock protection for all members of the Alpine convention.
## 2 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIVESTOCK PROTECTION IN THE ALPS

WISO and project LIFE WOLFALPS EU members who contributed to this report have recognized some key elements which need to be considered for the prevention of damages caused by large carnivores in all Alpine countries. These key elements are:

* Prevention of damages needs a long-term strategy. Good planning of livestock protection measures is essential and can prevent many conflicts.

* An organized consulting system of competent experts is the key to success for the sustainable implementation of herd protection measures through trust and competence. To improve methods and management, the collection of positive examples as well as negative examples is crucial.

* The agricultural policy framework is the basic prerequisite for livestock protection in order to enable structural adjustments and planning security.

* Regular control of proper implementation and monitoring of efficiency of damage protection measures needs to be done on a regular basis to adapt the implementation and direct the support of effective measures. Technical guidelines listed at the end of this document must be respected to ensure the efficiency of the implemented protection measures.

* It is necessary to provide legal basis for the owners of livestock guarding dogs. The legal foundations are necessary for flock protection in order to anchor the resource use of dogs, shepherds and farmers in the long term. Additional emphasis must be given to the relationship between livestock guarding dogs and humans.
* Wolves can learn to circumvent livestock protection measures (overcome fences, enter stables, tricking livestock guarding dogs). If this remains an exception, removal of such individuals is recommended. If the occurrence of the learned behaviour is repeating by different individuals, protection measures need to be improved.

* The acceptance of protection measures is still critical among many stakeholders. Constant communication is necessary in order to foster acceptance and allow adaptation of protection measures. Other stakeholders like tourism organizations must be involved in communications as especially in the Alpine regions pastures are often crossed by hiking routes which can lead to problems.
# 3 REPORTS BY COUNTRY

## 3.1 AUSTRIA

Prepared by:

Theresa Walter, Georg Rauer, and Felix Knauer (Chapter Damages)

Theresa Walter, Georg Rauer, and Felix Knauer (Chapter Damage prevention)
### 3.1.1 Damages caused by large carnivores in Austria

<table><tr><td>REPORTING COUNTRY /</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH REGIONS DOES THE REPORT INCLUDE?</td><td>The whole country</td></tr><tr><td>REPORT PREPARED BY</td><td>Theresa Walter, Georg Rauer, Felix Knauer</td></tr></table>

#### INTRODUCTION / COMMENT OF THE SITUATION

We find that numbers of wolves increased during the last years and we expect this trend to continue, also due to increasing populations surrounding Austria. Wolves and therefore depredation events can occur anywhere in Austria. Depredation events are currently caused by relatively few individual wolves compared to the number of wolves detected in the country, however the number of wolves causing damages might change with increasing numbers of wolves present. We see a certain pattern emerging of some single wolves causing damages and then never being identified anywhere else in the country.

Up to now, the main livestock species killed in depredation events were sheep. Sheep can also be found everywhere in Austria, with the highest numbers of around 20% each in the federal states Tyrol and Lower Austria. To a certain degree, depredation hotspots have occurred in both of these federal states. While 60% of all sheep kept on alpine pastures can be found in Tyrol, in Lower Austria no sheep can be found on alpine pastures.

Consequently, when analysing the depredation data in Austria, prevention measures in Austria should be implemented at its best everywhere where sheep are kept.
LARGE CARNIVORES POPULATION TRENDS IN THE PERIOD 2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th><th>BROWN BEARS</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs</th><th>Population estimates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>20</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>35</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>49</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>
DAMAGES CAUSED BY WOLVES IN AUSTRIA IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected<sup>1</sup></th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2015<sup>3</sup></td><td>15</td><td>79</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2016<sup>4</sup></td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>2017<sup>5</sup></td><td>6</td><td>23</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>26</td><td>93</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>19</td><td>81</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>95</td><td>362</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>20</td><td>61</td></tr></tfoot></table>

1. Animals affected: killed or injured animals during attacks.

2. Damage compensation paid is only available for the last three years (2017-2019) and only listed by predator (bear, wolf), however not divided by animal species affected. For details see table below.

3. In 2015, in one attack on sheep, also 2 cows died, which are not listed in the table for 2015.

4. In 2016 in two attacks on sheep also 3 goats were killed, which are not listed in the table for 2016.

5. In 2017 in one attack on sheep, also five goats were killed, which are not listed in the table for 2017.
DAMAGES CAUSED BY BEARS IN AUSTRIA IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>55</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>5</td><td>27</td><td></td><td></td><td>19</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>15</td><td>49</td><td></td><td></td><td>26</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>16</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>12</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>12</td><td>60</td><td></td><td></td><td>6</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2017<sup>1</sup></td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>2018<sup>1</sup></td><td></td><td>35</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>2019<sup>1</sup></td><td></td><td>29</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td><strong>58</strong></td><td><strong>290</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td><strong>10</strong></td><td><strong>89</strong></td><td><strong>367</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – There is no data available on the damage cases for the last three years.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 – In the category “OTHER” beehives are included. Beehives make up most of the damages. One beehive damage counts as “one animal”. Fishing ponds are included in the category “OTHER”, where one pond counts as “one animal”.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 – Damage compensation paid is only available for the last three years (2017-2019) and only listed by predator (bear, wolf), however not divided by animal species affected.
For details see table below.</footnote>
DAMAGES COMPENSATION PAID (IN EURO) IN AUSTRIA FOR WOLFS AND BEARS IN THE PERIOD YEARS 2017-2019

<table><thead><tr><th>YEAR</th><th>BEAR</th><th>WOLF</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2017</td><td>57 679,19</td><td>2 691,10</td><td>60 370,29</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>10 015,64</td><td>33 539,50</td><td>43 555,14</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>16 319,27</td><td>50 643,10</td><td>66 962,37</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>84 014,10</td><td>86 873,70</td><td>171 287,80</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.1.2 Damage prevention measures in Austria

#### ELECTRICITY

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th></tr><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>Austria</th></tr><tr><th>REPORTING PERIOD</th><th>2012-2019</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th><td><ul><li>Federal states of Burgenland, Kärnten, Steiermark, Wien and Oberösterreich: no measures implemented by the federal states</li><li>Federal state of Lower Austria: "wolfproof fencing" funded since 2019 (50% of investment)</li><li>Federal state of Salzburg: stockage of 4 intervention kits with electric fences, funding of electric fences (December 2019 35% of investment, since January 2020 85%)</li><li>Federal state of Tirol: stockage of 8 intervention kits with electric fences from 2019 onwards</li><li>Federal state of Vorarlberg: funding of electric fences</li><li>Pilot project in Salzburg: fencing of an alpine pasture from 2012 - 2016 with mobile electric nets and wires</li><li>Within LIFE WolfAlps EU: establishment of three "wolf prevention intervention teams" (WPIU) to intervene after damage events and support farmers with fences and workforce.</li><li>Additionally some private initiatives by farmers</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</th><td>Mainly sheep, but also goats</td></tr><tr><th>HERD / PROPERTY SIZE</th><td>No data.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTED MEASURE(S)</td><td>Technical details of implemented fencing vary and are not standardized over the federal states. The recommendations from the ÖZ are:<br/><b>Mobile electric nets:</b><ul><li>Height: minimum 90 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage 3500 V</li></ul><b>Wire fences</b><ul><li>minimum 4 electric wires (20-40-60-90cm)</li><li>Height: minimum 90 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage 3500 V</li><li>Lowest wire not higher than 20 cm</li></ul><b>Non-electric fences:</b><ul><li>minimum one electric wire on the outside of the fence at 20cm height</li><li>Height: minimum 90 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage of the electric wire 3500 V</li><li>Electric wire not higher than 20 cm</li></ul>The WPIU within LIFE WolfAlps EU will also work according to these recommendations.<br/>These recommendations are also listed on websites from the regional chamber of agriculture and of the sheep and goat breeders association.<br/><br/>Technical details of the fences used in the pilot project in Salzburg:<br/><b>Mobile electric nets:</b><ul><li>Height: 105 cm</li></ul><b>Wire fence</b><ul><li>5 electric wires</li></ul>In both fence types some plastic poles were stabilized using additional wooden poles.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>Implementation of electric fencing has to be done by farmers themselves.<br/>The time invested by the WPIU within LIFE WolfAlps EU and their material are financed by the project.<br/>The pilot project in Salzburg was implemented by the "Nationale Beratungsstelle Herdenschutz" together with the respective farmers and for the first installation of fences also 10 students from a farming school helped.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>Currently, funding and advice on the professional use of preventive measures like electrical fences is scarce and many farmers have to pay for the investments themselves.<br/>The location of fences and electrification must be adapted to the environmental conditions: slope, holes, type of soil, weather conditions, etc.<br/>The first set up of a fence on alpine pastures can be time consuming. Every pasture is different and individual solutions have to be found.<br/>When sheep of different herds and farms are to be kept in a herd together during summer, health management of the sheep has to be set up and implemented before the sheep are brought on the alpine pastures.<br/>Regular controls of the fences are necessary to ensure their functionality.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES AND BASIC REQUIREMENTS</td><td>See above.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Albin Blaschka (ÖZ) <a href="mailto:office@bear-wolf-luchs.at">office@bear-wolf-luchs.at</a> and the responsible people in the nine federal states</td></tr><tr><td>MORE INFORMATION AND INFO-MATERIALS</td><td>Brochure on recommended minimum standards for technical prevention measurements developed by the ÖZ:</td></tr></table>
https://baer-wolf-luchs.at/downloads

Brochure by the federal state of Salzburg on prevention measures:

https://www.salzburg.gv.at/agrarwald/Documents/Herdenschutz-A5-WEB.pdf

Final report »Nationale Beratungsstelle für Herdenschutz«:

https://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/themen/land-forstwirtschaft/agrar/LWSJF/Grosse_Baeutegreifer/Nationale_Beratungsstelle_Herdenschutz_Abschlussbericht_Stand_16.1_0.2017.pdf

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

* **Federal states of Burgenland, Kärnten, Oberösterreich, Wien, Steiermark, Tirol:** no subsidies

* **Federal state of Lower Austria:** 50% of the costs for setting up fencing is funded since 2019

* **Federal state of Salzburg:** Since 2018 35% funding for electric fences, since 2020 increase to 80% (up to € 3.000). Measures are supported if there has been an officially recorded incident of wolf attacks within a radius of 30 km within a period of 12 months before the application is submitted

* **Federal state of Vorarlberg:** subsidies of up to € 2.000 are paid for damage prevention with fences of up to 200m length per alpine pasture, electric fence energisers are funded with up to € 250.

* **LIFE WolfAlps EU:** financing of the development and education of the WPIU, as well as the required materials and time for their interventions

* **Pilot project Salzburg:** the pilot project was financed by the respective ministry, the federal states and the WWF.

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

No.
## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>For LIFE WolfAlps EU an international protocol for the set-up of the WPIU and the monitoring of interventions is developed. Monitoring of interventions will be done by the WPIU members. The pilot project in Salzburg was supervised by the Fachgremium Herdenschutz at the respective financing ministry.<br/>For all other implemented measures no data are available.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>The LIFE WolfAlps EU WPIU will involve between 8-12 people per team, equalling 24-36 people in Austria.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>For the WPIU an international protocol will be developed (not ready yet).</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>See above.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>No data.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?</td><td>Not yet implemented for LIFE WolfAlps EU.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?</td><td>Not yet implemented.</td></tr></table>
Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Building the fence at the ridge in the pilot project in Zederhaus/Salzburg. © G. Rauer</figcaption></figure>

## LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2011 – 2020</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) are used by single farmers on private initiatives. A pilot project was supported in Osttirol from 2014-2017.</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><ul><li>Sheep</li><li>Goats</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><ul><li>Breeds recommended by the federal state of Salzburg:</li><li>Maremmano Abruzzese & Patou</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Breeds used in the pilot project: Maremmano Abbruzzese from Italy</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SOURCES OF LGDs (working lines, genetic lines, etc.)</td><td>So far, there has been no official program in Austria for breeding, developing or maintaining pure genetic or working lines. If farmers want to get dogs, they have to get them freely from what is available.</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>Farmers can get financial assistance for the purchase of a LGD only in the federal state of Salzburg.<br/>No further data on the implementation available.</td></tr><tr><td>EDUCATION PROCESS</td><td>No standardized education process.</td></tr><tr><td>SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION PHASE</td><td>Not available in a standardized form.</td></tr><tr><td>CERTIFICATION OF LGDs</td><td>No existing certification of livestock guarding dogs in Austria.</td></tr><tr><td>PROTOCOL OF CERTIFICATION</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOGS' ACTIONS</td><td>The use of livestock guarding dogs may offend in several aspects against the legal regulations in Austria concerning dog-keeping. The owner of livestock guarding dogs in action faces an unreasonable risk of being prosecuted. First attempts to adapt the legal framework were heavily opposed by animal welfare proponents.</td></tr><tr><td>ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS</td><td>In general, the law requires owners to take care of their dogs – to provide food, water and shelter, regardless the type of dog. Dogs have to have the possibility to socially interact with humans at least two times per day.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>Up to now, there is no certified breeding program for LGD in Austria. There is also no certification process for LGD.<br/>Many shepherds don't know how to work with LGD.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Animal welfare law requires breeders to look after the dog at least 2 times per day to allow for social interactions and provide a form of shelter if the dog is living outside i.e. a doghouse.<br/>The integration of many small sheep herds to become one large sheep herd, which is to be protected by LGD, is a challenging process, which needs time.<br/>Breeders complain about the responsibility they assume by using guard dogs because of the risk of conflicts and accidents with neighbours, hikers and mountain bikers.<br/>Hikers and mountain bikers do not know how to interact with LGD.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Albin Blaschka (ÖZ) <a href="mailto:office@bear-wolf-luchs.at">office@bear-wolf-luchs.at</a></td></tr></table>

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

* **Pilot project Nationale Beratungsstelle Herdenschutz:** was financed by the respective ministry, the federal states and the WWF.

* **Federal state of Salzburg:** Since 2020: Investments in LGD with a flock size of up to 200 sheep will be subsidised at 80% of the cost of two guard dogs, up to a maximum of EUR 1 600 per dog; for a flock of 200 sheep or more, an additional guard dog will be subsidised for every additional 100 sheep.

For all other livestock, 80% of the purchase price of two or more guard dogs, up to a maximum of EUR 1 600 per dog, provided that the use of guard dogs is appropriate in individual cases, taking into account the size of the herd.
Measures are supported if there has been an officially recorded incidence of wolves of the respective species within a radius of 30 km within a period of 12 months before the application is submitted.

* All other federal states: no subsidies.

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

Non available.

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>The pilot project in Osttirol was supervised by Fachgremium Herdenschutz at the respective financing ministry.<br/>No data is available for all other implementations.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>The pilot project involved at least two shepherds per year, as well as nine to ten farmers who were involved with their sheep.<br/>No data is available for all other implementations.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>No data</td></tr></table>
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

There was no standardised measurement of effectiveness in the pilot project.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

There were no trained LGD available in Austria, so they had to be imported from abroad. Familiarization of LGD with the herd were a key point to success.

It is necessary to have shepherds who are used to working with herding dogs, in order to manage the herds in a way that LGD can do their job.

The health management of sheep before they are on the alpine pastures was a challenge, as involving sheep with parasites and other diseases in the project lead to resistance in the farmers and they no longer wanted to participate.
Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Lifestock guarding dog in the pilot project in Osttirol. © C. Sonvilla |www.sonvilla-graf.com</figcaption></figure>

Final report from the "Nationale Beratungsstelle Herdenschutz" (German):

https://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/themen/land-forstwirtschaft/agrar/LWSJF/Grosse_Baeutegreifer/Nationale_Beratungsstelle_Herdenschutz_Abschlussbericht_Stand_16.10.2017.pdf
SHEPHERDS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2014-2017</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Guarding animals using shepherds was applied in the pilot project from the Nationale Beratungsstelle Herdenschutz in Osttirol.</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td>Sheep</td></tr><tr><td>ROLE OF SHEPHERDS (JOB LIST)</td><td>The job of the shepherds in the pilot project was to keep the sheep herd together and to direct them into a night fence in the evening as well as herd management during the daytime. Additionally feeding and management of herding and guard dogs.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THEY WORKING WITH LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS?<br/>IF YES, WHO IS THE OWNER OF DOGS?</td><td>The shepherds worked with LGD supplied by the project; some worked with their own herding dogs, some with rented herding dogs.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY ANIMALS DO THEY TAKE CARE OF?</td><td>There were between 2-4 guarding dogs and 2-4 herding dogs per year on the pasture.</td></tr><tr><td>DO THEY REPORT THEIR WORK?</td><td>There was a final project report.</td></tr><tr><td>ORIGIN OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>The shepherds were from Austria and Germany.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE SHEPHERDS ORGANIZED IN ORGANIZATION?</td><td>No, not in Austria.</td></tr><tr><td>SALARY (per month, season, etc. - define)</td><td>No data available.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>ARE THE COSTS COFINANCED?</td><td>No.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH COSTS?<br>■ salary,<br>■ insurance,<br>■ food,<br>■ other?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>There is no data on how and where shepherds are really used for guarding animals in Austria.</td></tr><tr><td>INSURANCE</td><td>Insurance issues depend on the employment contract.</td></tr><tr><td>FOOD</td><td>No data available.</td></tr><tr><td>SHELTER</td><td>Shepherds' accommodation is the responsibility of their employer.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP AND CATTLE SHEPHERDS?</td><td>No data available on cowherds.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW DO THE SHEPHERDS LEARN ABOUT THEIR WORK?</td><td>No structured or standardized training available in Austria. The Austrian shepherds in the pilot project were not trained. The German shepherd was a professional shepherd in Germany. Shepherd is no defined occupation in Austria, but in Germany.</td></tr><tr><td>RESPONSABILITIES OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>Responsible for the health and well-being of the herd.</td></tr><tr><td>IS THERE ANY PROMOTION OF ROLE / JOB OF SHEPHERDS?</td><td>No, there is no structured promotion of this job.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE SHEPHERDS DOING OUT OF</td><td>No data.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>WORKING SEASON?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>The profession of shepherd faces several challenges :<br/>- No training offer;<br/>- no real "job" in Austria;<br/>- A lack of data;<br/>- a lack of recognition and valorisation of skills;<br/>- Tough living and working conditions ;</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Albin Blaschka (ÖZ) office@bear-wolf-luchs.at</td></tr></table>

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

Not implemented.

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

Not implemented.

### SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>CONTROL TAKE?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td colspan="2">EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td></tr><tr><td>HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>
OTHER DAMAGE PREVENTION MEASURES AND TECHNIQUES

<table><thead><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>AUSTRIA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2019-2020</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td><ul><li>GPS collars for sheep for herd protection (federal state Salzburg): funding of GPS bands since 2020</li><li>GPS collars for sheep for herd protection (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein): the idea is to be able to control herds without shepherds from home by analyzing their movements</li><li>Feasibility study on prevention measurements on alpine pastures in Tirol: a study initiated by the federal state of Tirol to analyze the feasibility of different prevention measures on different types of alpine pastures</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><ul><li>Both GPS collars initiatives: sheep flocks without shepherds</li><li>Feasibility study: analysis of four different alpine pastures with sheep herds</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><ul><li>GPS collars (federal state of Salzburg): no technical details on funded GPS bands available.</li><li>GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein): testing of the usage of GPS trackers from vehicle surveillance which use the GSM network in 2019 and 2020. The producing companies are Infostars (60 trackers), Qtrack (52 trackers) and Simpletrack (20 trackers). The goal is to be able to identify unusual movement patterns and panic within the herd via movement analysis. The trackers should last for at least 150 days (battery life) and will be tested on different alpine pastures. GSM reception is necessary to be able to send the positions recorded by the trackers.</li><li>Feasibility study: the study compiled four different alpine pastures with different natural influence factors (e.g. topography, number of sheep, size of the pasture) and social</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>influence factors (e.g. cultivation management, form of organization, tourism). Data on the pastures was gathered on the ground and also all available digital data was compiled (maps of the pastures etc.). After data analysis a strategy for damage prevention was developed (if deemed possible) and costs were calculated (salary for people working on the pasture, fence management, accommodation on the pasture, LGD and herding dogs).</td></tr></table>

FINANCIAL SOURCES

* GPS collars (federals state of Salzburg): funded by the federal state of Salzburg

* GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein): funded as a research project by the HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein, by the federal state Steiermark and LIFE WolfAlps EU

* Feasibility study: funded by the federal state Tirol

IMPLEMENTATION

* GPS collars (federal state of Salzburg): In 2020 first time investments in GPS bands (inkl. straps) are subsidised at 80% of the cost, up to a maximum of EUR 80 per piece; sheep/goats have to be at least one year old and remain at alpine pastures for at least 60 days/year. Overall up to 600 GPS bands can be funded in 2020.

For every livestock owner a maximum number of 3 GPS collars is funded: for up to ten sheep/goats according to the definition one GPS system, for eleven to 20 sheep/goats according to the definition another GPS system and for 31 to 50 sheep/goats according to the definition a third GPS system.

Measures are supported if there has been an officially recorded incidence of wolves of the respective species within a radius of 30 km within a period of 12 months before the application is submitted.
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li><strong>GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein):</strong> testing of different trackers on different alpine pastures in different federal states; trackers are bought together to have lower prices, and farmers are trained by the respective companies. Positions can be taken up to every minute, which makes it easier to check on the sheep because their whereabouts are known. Analysis of movement patterns are possible.</li><li><strong>Feasibility study:</strong> The study was implemented on four alpine pastures and one pasture, which is used before animals are moved higher onto an alpine pasture. For one pasture only costs remained as a restraining factor (and did so for all five pastures which were reviewed!) and the feasibility was assessed as good. For one pasture the feasibility was assessed as currently not given (due to – among other things - the complexity of the area, tourism use and problems with acceptance), for the other three pastures feasibility varied between those two (main challenges: costs, acceptance, forming of herds).</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>SURVEILLANCE</td><td><ul><li><strong>GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein):</strong> HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>EFFECTIVENESS</td><td><ul><li><strong>GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein):</strong> pilot project currently running, analysis will be done by the end of 2020. First experiences show that most alpine pastures have enough GSM reception for data transfer, number of positions taken will have to be reduced be able to cover the whole period on the pastures.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><ul><li><strong>GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein):</strong> better maps should be used by the providers; if GSM reception is bad, battery performance is less effective; panic detection in the movement is yet to be analyzed and tested.</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Feasibility study:</strong> The main challenges found by the study are the unavailability of shepherds and a culture of shepherding, the way farms are structured and traditions on alpine pasture management, breeding of sheep versus production of meat and the socio-economic challenges for the implementation of damage prevention (funding and time).</td></tr></table>

CONTACT
INSTITUTION AND
PERSON

**GPS collars (federal state of Salzburg):** Hubert Stock, federal state of Salzburg; hubert.stock@salzburg.gv.at

**GPS collars (HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein):** Reinhard Huber, HBLFA Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Abteilung Schafe und Ziegen; reinhard.huber@raumberg-gumpenstein.at

**Feasibility study in Tirol:** Josef Gitterle, Land Tirol, Abteilung Landwirtschaftliches Schulwesen und Landwirtschaftsrecht; josef.gitterle@tirol.gv.at
## 3.2 FRANCE

Prepared by:

**Ricardo N. Simon** (*Chapter Damages*)

**Sylvie Rizo** (*Chapter Damage prevention*)
### 3.2.1 Damages caused by large carnivores in France

<table><tr><td>REPORTING COUNTRY / WHICH REGIONS DOES THE REPORT INCLUDE?</td><td>FRANCE<br/>THE WHOLE COUNTRY</td></tr><tr><td>REPORT PREPARED BY</td><td>Ricardo N. SIMON, technical coordinator of the LIFE WOLFALPS project at the French biodiversity agency (OFB)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">INTRODUCTION / COMMENT OF THE SITUATION</td></tr></table>

The abundance and distribution of wolves in France has been progressing yearly since the natural recolonization of the country by individuals coming for the Italian population in the early 1990s. The species has expanded from its initial arrival point in the southern French Alps to colonize the northern section of the chain, as well as mostly mountainous terrain further north and west, including part of the Pyrenees Mountains at the border with Spain. However, most if not all reproducing packs are still located in the Alps. The latest estimate of population size indicates over 500 wolves in the country and maintenance of gene flow with the Italian population. Wolf experts in France therefore considered the population viable over the next 5 to 50 years.

Wolf depredation on livestock is a major issue in the country. France has some of the highest rates of the wolf damages on livestock in Europe, mostly implicating sheep in the southern section of the Alps. Sheep flocks in this area might be kept in alpine pastures year round, increasing exposure to wolves. The French state subsidizes protection measures for flocks (guard dogs, electric fencing, shepherd assistants, technical support and vulnerability analysis) and compensates breeders for direct and indirect losses. In addition, the French state has put in place a protocol for lethal control – based on derogation to the species' strictly protected status in accordance with dispositions of the 1992 Habitats Fauna Flora Directive – in an attempt to reduce wolf depredation on livestock. Under strict control by state agents, currently up to 19% of the wolf population can be removed yearly, which corresponds to about 90 to 100 wolves a year.
LARGE CARNIVORES POPULATION TRENDS IN FRANCE IN THE PERIOD
2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates (95% CI)</th><th>Confirmed packs (for wolves)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>120 (90-160)</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>140 (105-175)</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>190 (140-260)</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>160 (130-230)</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>270 (230-310) <sup>1</sup></td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>250 (210-280) <sup>1</sup></td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>260 (215-290) <sup>1</sup></td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>360 (315-400) <sup>1</sup></td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>430 (385-475) <sup>1</sup></td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>530 (480-575) <sup>1</sup></td><td>70</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 – Estimates obtained via a mathematical relationship, established for the period spanning between 1996 and 2013, between wolf numbers obtained by genetic capture-mark-recapture and wolves counted during winter in areas of permanent presence (i.e., areas in which wolf signs, mostly tracks, were observed for two winters in a row).

2 – Estimates are minimum counts based on detection via non-invasive methods (tracks and other signs, camera traps, genetics) and corrected in light of new information (for instance, if an individual was not detected in year t, but is detected in year t+1, it is added to the estimate of year t).

3 – Detected minimum count prior to any correction.
DAMAGES CAUSED BY WOLVES IN FRANCE IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER<sup>1</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>967</td><td>3781</td><td>31</td><td>34</td><td>84</td><td>146</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1430</td><td>4784</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>113</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>1750</td><td>5792</td><td>31</td><td>48</td><td>158</td><td>279</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>1729</td><td>5873</td><td>29</td><td>32</td><td>175</td><td>423</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2173</td><td>8278</td><td>40</td><td>51</td><td>175</td><td>321</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>2286</td><td>8508</td><td>56</td><td>62</td><td>205</td><td>477</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>2591</td><td>9487</td><td>62</td><td>106</td><td>236</td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>3025</td><td>11574</td><td>92</td><td>125</td><td>235</td><td>497</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>3321</td><td>11518</td><td>105</td><td>151</td><td>320</td><td>615</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>3331</td><td>11370</td><td>138</td><td>199</td><td>353</td><td>713</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td><strong>22603</strong></td><td><strong>80965</strong></td><td><strong>599</strong></td><td><strong>825</strong></td><td><strong>1879</strong></td><td><strong>5144</strong></td></tr></tfoot></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – Category includes goats, dogs, horses and other.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 – Damage compensation paid in France are not differentiated between livestock species (see table below).</footnote>
Data on damage compensation paid in France for wolf damages are not differentiated between livestock species. The data below are thus pooled for all livestock species. Yet about 95% of livestock depredated in France by wolves are sheep.

<table><thead><tr><th>YEAR</th><th>DAMAGES (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>1 184 917</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1 559 808</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>1 986 509</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2 208 988</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2 973 161</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>3 050 136</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>3 446 897</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>3 956 348</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>3 988 726</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>4 207 895</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td><strong>28 563 385</strong></td></tr></tfoot></table>
### 3.2.2 Damage prevention measures in France

#### ELECTRICITY

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th></tr><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>France</th></tr><tr><th>REPORTING PERIOD</th><th>2011 – 2019</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th><td>Funded measure includes two types of fences:<br/>- mobile electric nets<br/>- permanent wire pasture parks (minimum 4 wires)</td></tr><tr><th>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</th><td>Sheep, goats</td></tr><tr><th>HERD / PROPERTY SIZE</th><td>Funding is provided for a flock of a minimum size of 25 sheep or goats kept as breeding animals and identified. The amount of the funding depends on the size of the flock and on the flock management system chosen by the breeder.</td></tr><tr><th>TECHNICAL DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTED MEASURE(S)</th><td><strong>Mobile electric nets:</strong><ul><li>Height: minimum 80 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage 3000 V</li></ul><strong>Permanent wire pasture parks</strong><ul><li>minimum 4 electric wires</li><li>Height: minimum 80 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage 3000 V</li><li>Building of non-electric fences: minimum two electric wires per park, one of which is located at the bottom of the fence on the outside.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th>IMPLEMENTATION</th><td>An average of 1500 applications for financial assistance per year since 2015.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>The location of fences and electrification must be adapted to the environmental conditions: slope, holes, type of soil, weather conditions, etc.<br/>The removal of the vegetation around electric fences is essential to ensure their effectiveness (no loss of current).</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES AND BASIC REQUIREMENTS</td><td>See above.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Sylvie Rizo (Ministry of agriculture / DGPE/BCCB) - sylvierizo@agriculture.gouv.fr</td></tr><tr><td>MORE INFORMATION AND INFO-MATERIALS</td><td>/</td></tr></table>

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

* A subsidy is provided from the 2014/2020 EAFRD for farmers located in eligible areas (based on the occurrence of attacks for the 2 previous years)

* An emergency aid from national fund can be provided for farmers facing attacks or difficulties on new settlement.

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

The national regulation taken in application of the EAFRD provides different multi-annual funding ceilings for the 2015-2020 period. They vary from 3.200 € to 31.500 euros depending on the herd management system chosen (either fixed park, mobile electric fence or mixed). The ceiling can be increased by 25% for flocks over 1500 animals.

An additional subsidy can be provided to cover the workload which is needed to set up, move and maintain the enclosure when it is made by the farmer. The rate amounts 28,30 € /day.

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES
<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>Departmental state authorities of the ministry of agriculture under the responsibility of "Agence de Services et de Paiement". This public institution is in charge of paying and controlling public aid to beneficiaries.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Departmental state authorities perform random controls. The breeders are warned in advance.<br>An average of 5 % of breeders are controlled every year.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>Inspectors verify the enforcement of legal commitments:<br>- the form which reports guarding activities and movements for each flock must be completed;<br>- the size of the flock;<br>- implementation of protection measures chosen;<br>- number of days of shepherding in eligible areas.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>The aid granted can be reduced or cancelled, depending on the anomaly observed.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

A national study on the effectiveness of protection measures was launched on a national scale in 2014. This study was not focused on fences especially but on the use of all protection measures.

In application of the national wolf plan for 2018/2023 a national observatory of protection measures will be implemented soon.

### WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
The national study on the effectiveness of protection measures showed that protection measures are most effective when deployed in combination; the effectiveness of combinations differs according to landscape and pastoral contexts; only combinations of three or more means are likely to limit the number of attacks; the use of shepherds and livestock guarding dogs show the best level of effectiveness (the more limited level of effectiveness of the shepherd is linked to the lack of trained shepherds and the difficult working conditions).

Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Night mobile fence.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Reinforcement of a fixed fence with mobile nets.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fixed fence.</figcaption></figure>

## LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2011 – 2019 (June)</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs)</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><ul><li>Sheeps</li><li>Goats</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><strong>Main Breeds concerned:</strong><ul><li>Great Pyrenees</li><li>Maremme Abruzze</li><li>Kangal (Anatolian shepherd)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>SOURCES OF LGDs (working lines, genetic lines, etc.)</td><td>So far, in the Alps, there has been no official program for developing or maintaining pure genetic or working lines. Most of the dogs at work are not registered as pure breed. Farmers get dogs freely on the market.<br>In application of the national plan for wolf 2018/2023, a program to improve the quality and safety of guarding dogs will be implemented; it will be based on the inventory of dogs at work and their characterisation. This will be a start to work on bloodlines with voluntary breeders.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>Farmers can get financial assistance for the purchase and for the maintenance of a guarding dog.<br/>In 2019:<br/>- 442 farmers applied for the purchase of 536 guarding dog,<br/>- 1516 applied for the maintenance.<br/>The approximate numbers of financed livestock guarding dogs at work is 4230.</td></tr><tr><td>EDUCATION PROCESS</td><td>A guide on good practices for the education of guarding dogs is available (in French).<br/>It recommends to use dogs born in the shepherd's care and which live in the flock with their mother from the birth to their eight week at minimum: this is the integration phase in the herd. From 8 weeks of age, the puppy can be separated from its mother (and its brothers and sisters – at least one) and placed alone in its new flock. The pup is regularly in touch with domestic animals and owners provide them with a safe place (e.g. box) where the pup can easily retreat from other animals. This is the attachment phase to the flock (2 – 3 weeks – depending on the dog). During this period, the breeder will have to set up a minimum of socialization and learn how to react in case of unwanted behaviour. The dog's education should progressively lead the animal to obey basic commands: knowledge of his name, notion of right and wrong, tying and walking on a leash, recall and order to return to the flock. In general, after two years the dog is considered reliable and ready for work.</td></tr><tr><td>SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION PHASE</td><td>The Ministry of Agriculture commissioned the "Institut de l'Elevage" (the National Institute for Breeding) to manage a network of 6 experts in guarding dogs experts (and 14 local relays). These experienced farmers know how to raise, educate and manage guarding dogs. They provide training and personal advice within the technical support measures. The counselling</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>procedure aims at improving a dog's integration in the herd, its sociability and behaviour as guarding dog, but is not a control. It is based on voluntary participation of the dog owners. Within personal counselling, experts adapt to the farmer's case and needs; they can be present in the field and reached by telephone.<br/>Since 2018, in application of the EAFRD scheme of technical support, farmers can apply for training sessions and advices to improve their knowledge and practice of using guarding dogs. A financial aid is available for:<br/>- group training sessions;<br/>- individual advice concerning adult dogs (in owner's farm),<br/>- individual advice for the introduction of a puppy in the flock (in owner's farm).</td></tr><tr><td>CERTIFICATION OF LGDs</td><td>There is no existing certification of livestock guarding dogs.</td></tr><tr><td>PROTOCOL OF CERTIFICATION</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOGS' ACTIONS</td><td>Under the current state of the law, the owner of a guarding dog cannot be automatically exonerated from his civil and penal responsibilities in case of an accident. However, as for any other type of dog, a condemnation will only be possible if the judge considers that the owner is guilty of negligent behaviour. In the case of guarding dogs, the fact that they move freely, without muzzle and out of the supervision of their owner cannot be sufficient to constitute a fault.</td></tr><tr><td>ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS</td><td>In general, the law requires owners to take care of dogs – to provide food, water and shelter, regardless the type of dog.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>Breeders complain about the high level of responsibility they take on by using guard dogs because of the risk of conflicts and accidents with neighbours and hikers.</td></tr></table>
An inventory will be carried out in order to measure the importance of these accidents and the legal responses that have been given so far. According to the results, the adaptation of the legislation will be discussed.

In addition, various communication actions are carried out with mountain users (videos, billboards, etc.) to warn them of the presence of guard dogs and the right attitudes to adopt (see link below).

Better use of guarding dogs should also be improved by implementing a breeding program.

CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON

Sylvie Rizo (Ministry of agriculture / DGPE/BCCB) - sylvierizo@agriculture.gouv.fr

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

Within EAFRD scheme a financial support is available for:

* Purchase of a guarding dog: 80% of the purchase price with a maximum aid of 375 €;

* maintenance of a guarding dog: 652 € / year;

* Dog behaviour tests (*): 100% / 500 €.

Annual funding ceiling are applied depending on the size of the flock: 4000 € up to 450 animals, and 8000 € for more than 450 animals.

### Technical assistance:

* group training sessions on guarding dogs: 100%. 150 €/ session and per year;

* individual advice concerning adult dogs: 600 € per visit;

* individual advice for the introduction of a dog in the flock: 600 € per visit.

The total annual aid for technical assistance is at the maximum of 2000 €/ year.
(*): behaviour tests are decision-making tool for the farmer. It should help resolve or anticipate potential problems related to the dog's behaviour.

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

There is no extra subsidy to cover the workload which is needed to work with livestock guarding dogs.

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>Departmental state authorities of the Ministry of Agriculture under the responsibility of the Agence des Services et des Paiements.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>No data</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Departmental state authorities perform random controls. The breeders are warned.<br>An average of 5 % of breeders are controlled.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>Inspectors checked out the enforcement of legal commitments:<br>- the form which reports guarding activities and movements for each flock must be completed;<br>- the size of the flock;<br>- implementation of protection measures chosen;<br>- number of days of shepherding in eligible areas.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>The aid granted can be reduced or deleted, depending on the anomaly observed.</td></tr></table>
## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

A national study on the effectiveness of protection measures was launched on a national scale in 2014. This study was not focused on dogs specially but on the use of all protection measures.

In application of the national wolf plan for 2018/2023 a national observatory of protection measures will be implemented soon.

### WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

The national study on the effectiveness of protection measures showed that protection measures are most effective when deployed in combination; the effectiveness of combinations differs according to landscape and pastoral contexts; only combinations of three or more means are likely to limit the number of attacks; the shepherd and guarding dogs show the best level of effectiveness (the more limited level of effectiveness of the shepherd is linked to the lack of trained shepherds and the difficult working conditions).

### Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Kangal (Anatolian shepherd) © Idèle</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Maremme Abruzze © Idèle</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Patou (Great Pyrenees) © Idèle</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Billboard about guarding dogs for hikers

## References:

* **Guide for guarding dog education and use**

http://idele.fr/domaines-techniques/sequiper-et-sorganiser/chiens-de-troupeau/chiens-de-protection/publication/idelesolr/recommends/guide-de-lutilisateur-du-chien-de-protection-des-troupeaux.html).

* **General information about guarding dogs**

http://chiens-de-troupeau.idele.fr

* **Communications tools:**

http://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/depliants-brochures-panneaux-d-information-sur-les-a4010.html
SHEPHERDS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2014-2019</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Guarding animals using shepherds</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td>Sheep, goats</td></tr><tr><td>ROLE OF SHEPHERDS</td><td><p>The job list depends the flock management system:</p><p><u>Permanent pasture fence management:</u></p><ul><li>ensuring daily surveillance of the herd, including several visits per day,</li><li>if necessary, nocturnal grouping of animals inside electrified parks or in a barn;</li><li>ensuring the installation and maintenance of electric fences;</li><li>controlling the electrification of fences;</li><li>feeding and care of guard dogs.</li></ul><p><u>In "guarding" management:</u></p><ul><li>ensuring a daily full-time presence of the farmer or shepherd, and possibly a herdsman with the flock to monitor the movements of the herd, and to manage the installation of mobile parks and guarding dogs.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>ARE THEY WORKING WITH LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS?</td><td>Shepherds usually work with guarding dogs owned by the breeder who employs them.</td></tr><tr><td>IF YES, WHO IS THE OWNER OF DOGS?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY ANIMALS DO THEY TAKE CARE OF?</td><td>No data.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>DO THEY REPORT THEIR WORK?</td><td>Breeders have to fill a form which report guarding activities for each flock. It indicates the period of grazing activities, the location and protection measures implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>ORIGIN OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>French and foreign workers may be employed. Usually employed by the owner of the flock but in some cases, the owner can also keep his own flock.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE SHEPHERDS ORGANIZED IN ORGANIZATION?</td><td>Several local and a national shepherd organizations exist and take part in national discussions about the wolf public policy. Still, only a minority of shepherds is involved as this profession faces a lot of turn over.</td></tr><tr><td>SALARY (per month, season, etc. – define)</td><td>The average net salary is around 1800 € /month and may vary with experience.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE COSTS COFINANCED?</td><td>EARDF subsidies can fund extra worktime for flock protection due to predators when done by the owner.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH COSTS?<br/>■ salary,<br/>■ insurance,<br/>■ food,<br/>■ other?</td><td>EARDF co-finances the salaries of shepherds employed by owner of the flock.<br/>National subsidies can be provided to implement shepherd shelters.<br/>In some national parks, national subsidies directly finance shepherds units that are intended to help sheep owners who faces difficulties, for instance in case of a wolf attack.</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>There is no specific data on the number of shepherds but according to a recent report on the subject (see below), it could be around 3000. The number of salaried shepherds has increased in the past years with the return of the wolf and the incentives to protect the flocks and the funds provided by the EARDF.<br/>In 2019, the equivalent of 455 full time jobs were funded. Only 10 % of the flocks are not guarded in the Alps.<br/>In accordance with UE regulation on conditionality, compensation of damages is conditional on the implementation</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>of protection measures, and presence of a shepherd is one of them.</td></tr><tr><td>INSURANCE</td><td>Insurance issues depend on the employment contract.</td></tr><tr><td>FOOD</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>SHELTER</td><td>Shepherds' accommodation is the responsibility of their employer and a national regulation provides minimum standards. Housing conditions play an important role in the attractiveness of jobs for shepherds. The development and encouragement of shepherding has increased the need for new accommodation and the renovation of existing accommodation.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP AND CATTLE SHEPHERDS?</td><td>No data on cattle shepherds.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW DO THE SHEPHERDS LEARN ABOUT THEIR WORK?</td><td>Several short and long training sessions are available but a large majority of shepherds learn by experience. The number of places for training is small and access to funding can be difficult.</td></tr><tr><td>RESPONSABILITIES OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>In addition to looking after the flock (see job list above), some shepherds in possession of a hunting permit and a specific authorisation can shoot the wolves to protect their flock.</td></tr><tr><td>IS THERE ANY PROMOTION OF ROLE / JOB OF SHEPHERDS?</td><td>The need to promote the shepherd's profession and improve working conditions has been clearly identified and is on the agenda of public policy on the wolf.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE SHEPHERDS DOING OUT OF WORKING SEASON?</td><td>In autumn, some shepherds work doing the lambing period. In winter, they generally find work in the tourism industry (ski instructor, ski patrol man, restaurant employee, etc.). Some shepherds may also be employed on a farm as employees or they can be farm managers. Nevertheless, many shepherds face unemployed periods in the off-season.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>The profession of shepherd faces several challenges:<br/>- a lack of data ;<br/>- a lack of recognition and valorisation of skills ;<br/>- a limited training possibilities, little used;<br/>- harsh living and working conditions;<br/>- the need to increase the number and quality of housing ;<br/>- the need of involvement and cohesion of shepherds to build up collective projects (e.g. companionship, collective agreement, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Sylvie Rizo (Ministry of agriculture / DGPE/BCCB) - sylvierizo@agriculture.gouv.fr</td></tr></table>

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

EARDF subsidies (see below).

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

Within the EAFRD scheme 2014-2020, a financial aid is available for flocks located in eligible areas (based on the occurrence of attacks on the 2 previous years).

It covers 80% of the cost of a salaried shepherd (up to 100% in national parks) and is submitted to both monthly and annual ceilings:

* 1.250 € / month for fixed park herd management;

* 2.500 € / month for mobile electric fence or mixed herd management.

* From 5.000 up to 32.000 euros/year including guarding dogs depending on the size of the flock and herd management system chosen.

It is based on a rate of 22,64 € / gardening day for a farmer shepherding its own flock. Same annual ceilings are applied as for salaried shepherd.
## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE ?</td><td>Controls are carried out by the agency for services and payments.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Inspectors perform random controls. The breeders are warned. An average of 5 % of breeders are controlled.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED</td><td>Inspectors checked out the respect of legal commitments:<br/>- the form which reports guarding activities and movements for each flock must be completed;<br/>- the size of the flock;<br/>- implementation of protection measures chosen;<br/>- number of days of shepherding in eligible areas.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>The aid granted can be reduced or deleted, depending on the anomaly observed.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

A national study on the effectiveness of protection measures has been launched on a national scale in 2014. This study was focused on the use of all protection measures.

In application of the national wolf plan for 2018/2023, a national observatory of protection measures will soon be implemented.

### WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
The national study on the effectiveness of protection measures showed that protection measures are most effective when deployed in combination; the effectiveness of combinations differs according to landscape and pastoral contexts; only combinations of three or more means are likely to limit the number of attacks; the shepherd and guard dogs show the best level of effectiveness (the more limited level of effectiveness of the shepherd is linked to the lack of trained shepherds and the difficult working conditions).
3.3 GERMANY

Prepared by:

Irina Horrix, Katharina Steyer (Chapter Damages)

Irina Horrix, Manfred Wölfl (Chapter Damage prevention)
### 3.3.1 Damages caused by large carnivores in Germany

<table><tr><td>REPORTING COUNTRY</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH REGIONS DOES THE REPORT INCLUDE?</td><td>Germany (see tables)<br/>German/Bavarian Alps (see text)</td></tr><tr><td>REPORT PREPARED BY</td><td>Irina Horrix, LfU & Katharina Steyer, BfN</td></tr></table>

#### INTRODUCTION / COMMENT OF THE SITUATION

##### Situation in the German/Bavarian Alps

In the last decades, no large carnivores have been residential in the Bavarian Alps. Yet, wolf attacks on livestock were proven in:

- 2010 in the Mangfall Mountains (14 sheep),

- in 2015 near the Mangfall Mountains (3 sheep),

- in 2017 near Bad Tölz (4 sheep)

- in 2018 in the Allgäu (3 sheep + 5 cows/calves)

- and currently in 2020 in three different regions (Allgäu, Werdenfelser Land, Chiemgau) (3+ 11 + 9 sheep).

Apart from the depredations in the Allgäu in 2018, solely sheep were affected even though in the alpine region cattle are predominantly kept and sheep husbandry plays a minor role. The debate about the wolf is sometimes conducted very emotionally in this part of Bavaria. Within the framework of the 'Bavarian Wolf Action Plan', 'non-protectable pastures' where fencing is not economically reasonable will be defined - alternative prevention methods are not yet considered. In such 'non-protectable pastures', the assessment of alternatives for the removal of a wolf does not include livestock protection measures and compensation payments are not bound to protection measures either. This process slows down advancements in the field of livestock protection. Thus, activities in the Bavarian Alps would have to focus on building awareness about the imperative of livestock protection and the promotion of different practicable options (e.g. emphasizing best-practice examples).
LARGE CARNIVORES POPULATION TRENDS IN GERMANY IN THE PERIOD 2010-2019

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR<sup>1</sup></th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th><th>BROWN BEARS</th></tr><tr><th>Confirmed number of pups (→ minimum number)</th><th>Confirmed packs (for wolves)</th><th>Population estimates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010/11</td><td>35</td><td>7 packs, 7 pairs, 6 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2011/12</td><td>57</td><td>14 packs, 6 pairs, 4 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2012/13</td><td>63</td><td>18 packs, 12 pairs, 3 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2013/14</td><td>102</td><td>25 packs, 11 pairs, 3 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2014/15</td><td>134</td><td>31 packs, 20 pairs, 6 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2015/16</td><td>175</td><td>47 packs, 15 pairs, 4 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2016/17</td><td>219</td><td>60 packs, 13 pairs, 3 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2017/18</td><td>273</td><td>73 packs, 30 pairs, 3 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2018/19</td><td>394</td><td>105 packs, 25 pairs, 13 solitary</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – The German wolf population is monitored in so-called 'wolf monitoring years'. The wolf monitoring year is a period of 1st May to 30th April next year</footnote>
DAMAGES CAUSED BY WOLVES IN GERMANY IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019¹

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP & GOAT</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER</th><th rowspan="2">Damages compensated by<br>Federal States in total (€)</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Category<fnref n="2" /></th><th>Animals affected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>38</td><td>114</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>23</td><td>25.551</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>61</td><td>226</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>19</td><td>36.878</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>47</td><td>153</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>20</td><td>17.614</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>68</td><td>189</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>27</td><td>22.790</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>99</td><td>344</td><td>17</td><td>19</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>23</td><td>59.051</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>155</td><td>602</td><td>10</td><td>16</td><td>34</td><td>1</td><td>94</td><td>107.783</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>202</td><td>881</td><td>55</td><td>67</td><td>27</td><td>1, 4</td><td>128, 3</td><td>135.140</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>311</td><td>1397</td><td>125</td><td>140</td><td>36</td><td>1, 2, 3, 4</td><td>123, 2, 3, 2</td><td>187.895</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>491</td><td>1752</td><td>115</td><td>136</td><td>33</td><td>1, 2, 3, 4</td><td>168, 5, 1, 5</td><td>231.790</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>706</td><td>2559</td><td>116</td><td>127</td><td>65</td><td>1, 2, 3, 4</td><td>194, 11, 2, 1</td><td>418.246</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td><strong>2178</strong></td><td><strong>8217</strong></td><td><strong>448</strong></td><td><strong>516</strong></td><td><strong>222</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>854</strong></td><td><strong>1.242.738</strong></td></tr></tfoot></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – Data was compiled by the DBBW, the Federal Documentation and Consultation Centre on Wolves based on information of the Federal States. Further information and more details are available via www.dbb-wolf.de.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 – Category Other 1: game kept in enclosures, 2: horse, 3: dogs, 4: others</footnote>
### 3.3.2 Damage prevention measures in Germany

#### PREFACE

In the last decades, large carnivores have rarely been stationary in the Bavarian Alps. Therefore, we had to concentrate damage prevention measures in other parts of the country. Yet, there have been wolf attacks on livestock in the Mangfall Mountains in 2010 and lately, in 2018, in the Allgäu. These attacks and the general necessity of livestock protection (in regard to e.g. dispersing wolves and other predators) have led to some smaller prevention projects and fence material distribution in the region.

#### ELECTRICITY

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th></tr><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>GERMANY, Bavaria</th></tr><tr><th>REPORTING PERIOD</th><th>2010-2020</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th><td><ul><li>Stockage of intervention kits at local level 2011-2020</li><li>Distribution of fence material to livestock farmers after attacks</li><li>Distribution of fence material to livestock farmers near wolf territories</li><li>Fence construction help in urgent cases (i.e. repeated lynx attacks on the same enclosure, bear presence)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</th><td><ul><li>Predominantly sheep and goats, 2019 and 2020 calves in rare occasions</li><li>2020: stationary beehive (breeding of queens) due to bear presence</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">HERD / PROPERTY SIZE</th><td>All</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">TECHNICAL DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTED MEASURE(S)</th><td><strong>Electric nettings</strong><ul><li>Mobile fences</li><li>Height: 106 cm, 120 cm, 145 cm, 160 cm, 170 cm → currently predominantly 90-106 cm</li><li>Minimum voltage 4000 V</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Multi-wire electric fences</strong><ul><li>mobile fences</li><li>Height: at least 90 cm</li><li>Structure: at least 4 lines of hot wire</li><li>Minimum voltage 4000 V</li></ul><strong>Lynx defense after repeated attacks on enclosures (not yet in the Alps)</strong><ul><li>Part time prevention by securing the complete enclosure with a mobile electric net (height 170/140 cm)</li><li>Installing one or two wires on top of the enclosure fence (two wires attached at a separate construction angling about 45° outwards)</li><li>2019: enhancement of three enclosures with only one line of hot wire at the top-outside of the fences (see picture below)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td><strong>Project budgets (2010-2012) → Prevention Fund (2012-2020)</strong><ul><li>Intervention kits are stored at local level (each: 20 nets with a height of 170 cm, 4 electric fence energizers, 8 batteries, 2 solar panels)</li><li>Individual material supply to 29 livestock farmers</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><ul><li>Until today, we did not use the intervention kits, but the requirements towards the material have evolved. Thus, the stored nets (170 cm) are not appropriate in many cases due to more difficult handling.</li><li>After the wolf attacks in 2019, only a single sheep farm received fence material, whereas the affected cattle farmers believed damage prevention in the Alps was not feasible.</li><li>The proper use of the distributed material is not monitored.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES AND BASIC REQUIREMENTS</td><td><ul><li>The Bavarian Wolf Action Plan comprises the idea to define pastures which cannot be protected (= where prevention measures are not economically reasonable) in advance. The</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>definition of an area as a "non-protectable pasture" shall facilitate the assessment of alternatives in special cases. An exceptional permission (according to federal nature conservation law) would still be necessary for the removal of a wolf. Current pilot work is focusing on fencing possibilities only, neglecting measures like using livestock guarding dogs or further developing grazing systems (e.g. herding practices, temporal fencing).</td></tr></table>

CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON

Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU)

Irina Horrix (Irina.horrix@lfu.bayern.de), Manfred Wölfl (Manfred.Woelfl@lfu.bayern.de)

MORE INFORMATION AND INFORMATION MATERIALS

* Website:

* https://www.lfu.bayern.de/natur/wildtiermanagement_grosse_beutegreifer/praevention/index.htm

* Federal state aid program:

* https://www.stmuv.bayern.de/themen/naturschutz/bayerns_naturvielfalt/wildtiermanagement/doc/foerderrichtlinie_investition_herd_enschutz_wolf.pdf

* https://www.stmuv.bayern.de/themen/naturschutz/bayerns_naturvielfalt/wildtiermanagement/doc/mrkblatt_foeihw.pdf

* https://www.stmelf.bayern.de/agrarpolitik/foerderung/244077/

## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

* 'Prevention fund' (2012-2020): The 'prevention fund' was initiated in 2012 after wolf attacks on livestock in the Mangfall Mountains. The LfU can buy material and grant it to livestock farmers who experienced attacks. Additionally, intervention kits were stocked at local level and fence material
for prevention (and a long-term material test) was purchased to farmers in proximity to wolf territories.

* **Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW'** (since May 2020): The environmental ministry finances 100 % of the purchase of equipment to farmers who graze their animals within a designated area around the territories of stationary wolves and around 'incidence areas' (see map on the website below). The agricultural administration processes the applications. With the start of the 'FöRIHW', the 'prevention fund' stays only available for cases in which lynx or bear are involved.

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

The FöRIHW covers the costs for a professional first-time installation of stationary fences for sheep, goats, calves and cattle up to 24 months.

**Wandering sheep subsidy:** In 2019, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL) made a total of 1.05 million euros available to provide financial support for the extra workload made by **wandering shepherds** to protect their herds against wolf attacks (e.g. for fencing or use of LGDs). From July 15 to October 10, 2019, wandering shepherds who move with their flocks through wolf and wolf prevention areas could apply to the BLE for funding for protection measures against the wolf. If all necessary conditions for funding were met, a grant of **36 euros per wandering sheep** was granted. Due to very strict conditions, only seven applications were received from Bavaria, 2 of which were approved with a total amount of **21,636.00 €**.

**For the future,** subsidies for extra workload are planned to be financed within the framework of the national agricultural funding instrument "*Joint Task Improvement of the agricultural structure and coastal protection*" (GAK).
## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>'Prevention fund': The Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU) is in charge of control and evaluation.<br/>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': Both Bavarian ministries (environment & agriculture) are in charge of surveillance of the proper use of state aid funds.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>'Prevention fund': The prevention fund is administrated by one project employee at the Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU).<br/>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': Inspection teams at the 'Office for Food, Agriculture and Forestry' in each 'Rural District Office' will randomly control 5 % of the supported livestock farmers each year. Additional controls are necessary but their implementation is still in progress.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': The procedure must still be elaborated.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?</td><td>'Prevention fund': The correct use of the material is not monitored systematically. Only few farmers have been surveyed concerning the suitability of the tested material, so far.<br/>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': Presumably, the inspection teams will only check whether the details indicated in the application form (land area, amount of requested money) are in accordance with the actual situation in the field. The inspection teams will inspect neither the number of animals, nor the fence height or the energy supply. → Additional controls are necessary.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': Must still be elaborated.</td></tr></table>
WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES
OF THE
CONTROL IN
CASE OF
IMPROPER USE?

**Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW':** The state aid contract dictates a refunding of the subsidy, partly or completely, depending on the severity of the improper use or subsidy fraud.

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

**'Prevention fund'**: Not specifically measured.

**Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW'**: A protocol for the evaluation of the state aid program is still in progress.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

None of the farmers who received material or emergency help has experienced (further) damages to their animals.
Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs:

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Intervention kit</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>106 cm electric nettings protecting goats and sheep.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>120 cm electric nettings with one additional hot wire at 150 cm protecting goats.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>4-wire electric fence (90 cm high) protecting cattle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>5-wire electric fence (120 cm high) protecting calves.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>5-wire electric fence protecting goats.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>5-wire electric fence (120 cm height), damage prevention due to bear presence.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Tested options of electric enforcement of deer enclosures after repeated lynx attacks.</figcaption></figure>
LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

<table><thead><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>GERMANY, BAVARIA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2011 – 2016</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td><ul><li>(2011: Pilot project in the Mangfall Mountains: Pooling animals of different flocks, integration of LGDs and shepherds with shepherding dogs, see 5.)</li><li>2012: Pilot project “Integration of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) in two farms in Berchtesgaden”</li><li>(Information evenings, informational farm visits and excursions for farmers in order to promote LGDs)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><ul><li>Sheep</li><li>Ponies, horses</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><strong>Breeds included:</strong><ul><li>Maremmano Abruzzese</li></ul>Two livestock owners purchased LDGs at age of approximately 2 years from a Swiss breeder.</td></tr><tr><td>SOURCES OF LGDs (working lines, genetic lines, etc.)</td><td>Walter Hildebrand, Swiss breeder at the livestock protection center Jeizinen, Switzerland.</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td><p>Inspired by informative meetings, expert visits on their farms and the demonstration of LDGs in the below-described pilot project in the Mangfall Mountains, two local livestock owners decided to integrate LDGs into their herds. The LfU arranged the contact to a Swiss breeder and supported the farmers within the scope of the ‘prevention fund’.</p><p>The farmers themselves financed the purchase of the dogs. One farmer purchased a single dog; the other farmer purchased two dogs.</p><p>The following activities were financed via the ‘prevention fund’:</p></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>five days of supervised integration by the Swiss breeder Walter Hildebrand</li><li>follow-up visit by the Swiss breeder Walter Hildebrand</li><li>additional advice and trainings by German LGD-trainer/cynologist</li><li>LGD information boards</li><li>Guided tours offered by the two farmers in order to they pass their experiences to multipliers.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>EDUCATION PROCESS</td><td><p>The Swiss breeder Walter Hildebrand raised the three LGDs in sheep herds. In spring 2012, the LGDs joined their new owners under the surveillance of Walter Hildebrand, where they were slowly integrated in the herds.</p><p><u>Sheep farm:</u> At first, the owners provided a safe sleeping place in the barn (on the leash). On the second day, the dogs joined the herd on the meadow (leashed), whereas on the third day the dogs could already move freely on the pasture and the barn without the leash. Walter Hildebrand followed the integration and corrected any unwanted behavior (LDGs and sheep towards LGDs). Later the dogs stayed with the herd all the time.</p><p><u>Pony/Horse farm:</u> Due to the injury risk and the unknown livestock species for the dog, the integration of the LGD into the pony herd was much more time intensive. The LGD was very anxious in the beginning and had to be accustomed to the new animals by multiple leashed walks among the herd each day.</p></td></tr><tr><td>SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION PHASE</td><td>5 days of supervised integration by the Swiss breeder and one additional visit later on.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>CERTIFICATION OF LGDs</td><td>In some German states, associations have elaborated different LGD certification tests, which are accepted by the states or which are performed on behalf of the state. In Bavaria, such a system is not in place, yet. A new Bavarian-Thuringian corporation was founded in 2019 and has already certified some LDGs in Thuringia (https://verbandherdenschutz.de/). The LfU has still not monitored whether the certification is satisfactory.</td></tr><tr><td>PROTOCOL OF CERTIFICATION</td><td>The protocol of the certification test generally includes an individual character check of the LGD (e.g. by testing the behavior towards the owner and towards strangers) and a test of the LDG /a team of two LGDs within (in some cases an unknown) herd. The general behavior in the herd (distance to the fence, territorial behavior, interaction with herd animals) and the reaction to different disturbances outside the fence (e.g. unknown person, bicycle driver, car, drone, dog) are tested. Sometimes a person (in a protection suit) may even climb over the fence and walk inside the paddock.</td></tr><tr><td>LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOGS' ACTIONS</td><td>No special status of livestock guarding dogs. The owner is fully responsible for all dog's actions, regardless the location (pasture and outside).<br>In case of an attack, the procedure is the same for all types of dogs.</td></tr><tr><td>ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS</td><td>In general, the law obligates owners to take care of dogs – to provide food, water and shelter, social contact to the owner and enough possibilities to move around freely, regardless the type of dog. Some phrases from the law left space for a discussion about the legality of keeping dogs behind electric fences and the obligation to provide a doghouse. In 2017, the German ministry for Food and Agriculture made clear that it is legal to use LGDs behind electric fences only a weatherproof and isolated place to lay down is necessary. Moreover, the ministry announced an</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>amendment of the animal welfare law for dogs, which clarifies the legal obligations concerning LGDs. However, this amendment is still under development.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td>LGDs are still in a very early state in Bavaria. A main problem is a still widespread negative attitude towards LGDs. Some people picture them as aggressive and dangerous and have little understanding for the necessity of their use (maybe due to still very low numbers of wolf attacks in Bavaria). Especially when LGDs are located near or inside villages or inside the barn during the winter months, neighbors often complain about the barking of the dogs or take legal action against the livestock owners.<br/>The status of LGDs in the German legislation is unclear and not yet defined. Some farmers fear the responsibility and legal consequences in case of an attack on people who enter a pasture guarded by LGDs.<br/>The above-described problems may explain why many livestock owners have adopted the idea that LGDs can only be used in remote areas.<br/>Keeping LGDs is extremely time- and cost-intensive. Livestock owners would very much prefer a financial aid for the maintenance expenses for the LGDs (food, veterinarian costs) instead of the lately introduced subsidies on the purchase of dogs.<br/>Federal state aid program 'FÖRIHW': Especially in the beginning, visits or the availability of advisors in case of troubles or everyday challenges might be necessary. However, such measures are not foreseen within the framework of the current program.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Irina Horrix, Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU) (Irina.horrix@lfu.bayern.de)</td></tr></table>
## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

**Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW'** (since May 2020): The environmental ministry finances the purchase of LDGs up to 3000 € per dog. LDGs are only promoted in a designated area around the territories of stationary wolves and around 'incidence areas' (this area is wider than the one regarding the promotion for fences, see map on the website below). With the start of the 'FöRIHW', the 'prevention fund' stays only available for cases in which lynx or bear are involved.

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

**Wandering sheep subsidy:** In 2019, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL) made a total of 1.05 million euros available to provide financial support for the extra workload made by **wandering shepherds** to protect their herds against wolf attacks (e.g. for fencing or use of LGDs). From July 15 to October 10, 2019, wandering shepherds who move with their flocks through wolf and wolf prevention areas could apply to the BLE for funding for protection measures against the wolf. If all necessary conditions for funding were met, a grant of **36 euros per wandering sheep** was granted. Due to very strict conditions, only seven applications were received from Bavaria, 2 of which were approved with a total amount of **21,636.00 €**.

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

**WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?**

**Pilot project:** The intense contact to both pilot farms ended after the successful integration of the LGDs and the transmission of one report by each livestock owner.

**Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW':** Both Bavarian ministries (environment & agriculture) are in charge of surveillance of the proper use of state aid funds.

**HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?**

**Pilot project:** The livestock farmers were intensively supported by a national park employee who is as well a volunteer in the wildlife management of the LfU. One project employee of the Bavarian Environment Agency (LfU) and the Swiss breeder were involved, too.
<table><tr><td></td><td>Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': Inspection teams at the 'Office for Food, Agriculture and Forestry' in each 'Rural District Office' will randomly control 5 % of the supported livestock farmers each year.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': Must still be elaborated.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': Presumably, the inspection teams will only check whether the details indicated in the application form (e.g. number of financed LGDs) are in accordance with the actual situation in the field. The inspection teams will presumably not inspect the condition of the dogs, nor their behavior as guarding dogs or their integration into the herd → additional visits/supervisors/advisors are necessary.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': Must still be elaborated.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': The state aid contract dictates a refunding of the subsidy, partly or completely, depending on the severity of the improper use or subsidy fraud.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

* 'Prevention fund': Not specifically measured.

* Federal state aid program 'FöRIHW': A protocol for the evaluation of the state aid program is still in progress.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

None of the new owners of LGDs has experienced damages to their animals.
Additional information (photographs, technical details, charts, links to websites, etc.):

Ad: Photographs:

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Maremmano Abruzzese with sheep.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

TEVION

06-18-2012 09:14:40

Maremmano Abruzzese with sheep at the Wimbach river.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Pony farm: Anxious Maremmano Abruzesse in the beginning of the integration.
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Pony farm: Successful integration of LGD into a mixed pony and horse herd.</figcaption></figure>
## SHEPHERDS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>GERMANY, Bavaria</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2010-2020</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Experience with shepherding in the presence of predators has so far been limited and must first be regained. The active herding of a flock of sheep in the lowlands or low mountain ranges has nothing in common with the herding of a flock of sheep or cattle in the mountains, where in recent decades in Bavaria the focus -if shepherds are present at all- has been more on animal control. Bavaria does not have the distinctive shepherd culture in sheep like Switzerland, where shepherd dogs are also used in the mountains and the herd is fenced at night. For the whole of Bavaria, the demands on shepherds will increase considerably in the presence of predators. This applies also to shepherds on alps.</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td>Mainly cattle, only about 3.000 to 4.000 sheep and goats graze on Bavarian alps.</td></tr><tr><td>ROLE OF SHEPHERDS (JOB LIST)</td><td>During the grazing season in the mountains, the shepherd regularly checks and looks after the herd entrusted to him (e.g. health control). Due to the size of the area, grazing without fencing - so-called "free grazing" - may mean that the shepherd cannot check all the animals every day. This form of shepherding is not an effective protection against attacks by large carnivores.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THEY WORKING WITH LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS? IF YES, WHO IS THE OWNER OF DOGS?</td><td>In the Bavarian Alps, barely any livestock farmers/shepherds work with LGDs.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY ANIMALS DO THEY TAKE CARE OF?</td><td>Herd size differs between 5-700 animals</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>DO THEY REPORT THEIR WORK?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>ORIGIN OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>External employees if the alp (not the animals!) is permanently shepherded (e.g. milk producing alps). Regularly control visits of the livestock owners in other cases (e.g. free grazing sheep), could be once a week or even less.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE SHEPHERDS ORGANIZED IN ORGANIZATION?</td><td><strong>No specific shepherd organization.</strong><br>Livestock keepers are organized in the:<ul><li>Bavarian sheep keeper/goat keeper association and/or</li><li>Alpine pasture management associations:<ul><li>AVO: https://almwirtschaft.net/</li><li>AVA http://www.alpwirtschaft.de/über-uns/)</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>SALARY (per month, season, etc. – define)</td><td>No data.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE COSTS COFINANCED?<br>WHICH COSTS?<ul><li>salary,</li><li>insurance,</li><li>food,</li><li>other?</li></ul></td><td>The use of a shepherd on a recognized alpine pasture/mountain pasture is subsidized by the state within the framework of the so-called ‘cultural landscape program’.<br>Salary, up to 2.750 € per grazing season</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>INSURANCE</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>FOOD</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>SHELTER</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP AND CATTLE SHEPHERDS?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>HOW DO THE SHEPHERDS LEARN ABOUT THEIR WORK?</td><td>Specific further training of shepherds working in the mountains - not only, but also on the subject of large carnivore damage prevention - is currently <strong>only available in Switzerland</strong>. Shepherds in Bavaria receive further training in the alpine pasture and alpine management schools of the offices for nutrition, agriculture and forestry as well as in the alpine pasture management associations.</td></tr><tr><td>RESPONSABILITIES OF SHEPHERDS</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>IS THERE ANY PROMOTION OF ROLE / JOB OF SHEPHERDS?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE SHEPHERDS DOING OUT OF WORKING SEASON?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><ul><li>permanent shepherding demands a change of the current herding system in most cases</li><li>the use of a shepherd is costly and labor-intensive, but only economic with a flock of around 200 sheep</li><li>lack of experienced shepherds</li></ul>Due to the mostly small herd sizes, shepherding in Bavaria is therefore hardly feasible for most animal owners. One solution may be to combine several herds (see 5.). However, the advantages of shepherding with the problems of herd pooling (disease transmission, different husbandry systems, lack of coherent areas) must be openly discussed.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Manfred Wölfl, LfU</td></tr></table>
## SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

### SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

**For the future,** subsidies for the maintenance of LGDs are planned to be financed within the framework of the national agricultural funding instrument "Joint Task Improvement of the agricultural structure and coastal protection" (GAK).

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?</td><td>Not implemented.</td></tr></table>
OTHER DAMAGE PREVENTION MEASURES AND TECHNIQUES

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2011; 2014</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td><ul><li>Pilot project to demonstrate pooling of different sheep flocks and integration of livestock guarding dogs and shepherds with shepherding dogs, led by Swiss professionals (2011-09-26 - 2011-10-04)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td>Sheep flocks of three different owners</td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><ul><li>Shepherd pooled the three different groups and got them used to herding dogs</li><li>Then two guarding dogs were integrated into the system, letting sheep and herding dogs get used to them</li><li>Exemplary drives of the total flock, use of a night pen</li><li>Behavior of guarding dogs towards tourists (hikers, cyclists, other dogs)</li><li>Demonstration of complete system for interested public</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>FINANCIAL SOURCES</td><td>Prevention fund (state money)</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td>two weeks project to test and demonstrate new herding system in the Alps</td></tr><tr><td>SURVEILLANCE</td><td>LfU (report)</td></tr><tr><td>EFFECTIVENESS</td><td>Pilot project with no wolf around</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><ul><li>Loss of lambs</li><li>Difficulties due to inexistent herd structure / missing leader sheep</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td>Manfred Wölfl, LfU</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Pilot Project with pooled sheep, LGDs and herding dogs.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
Pilot Project: Integration of the LGDs into the herd.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Demonstration of LGDs to interested public.
3.4 ITALY

Prepared by:

**Arianna Menzano** (*Chapter Damages*)

**Arianna Menzano** (*Chapter Damage prevention*)

With the contribution of:

Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta: Christian Chioso, Fabrizio Truc

Regione Piemonte: Arianna Menzano, Francesca Marucco, Emanuele Parzanese, Paola Rasetto, Mauro Bruno

Regione Liguria: Giovanni Maceli, Sabrina Bertolotto

Regione Lombardia: Elisabetta Rossi, Sonia Braghiroli, Laura Cucè

Provincia Autonoma di Trento: Matteo Zeni, Paolo Zanghellini, Natalia Bragalanti, Claudio Groff

Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia: Giuliana Nadalin

Regione Veneto: Sonia Calderola
### 3.4.1 Damages caused by large carnivores in Italy

<table><tr><td>REPORTING COUNTRY / WHICH REGIONS DOES THE REPORT INCLUDE?</td><td>Italy<br/>Regione Piemonte, Regione Liguria, Regione Valle d'Aosta, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Regione Veneto, Regione Lombardia</td></tr><tr><td>REPORT PREPARED BY</td><td>Arianna Menzano with the collaboration of:<br/>- Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta: Christian Chioso, Fabrizio Truc<br/>- Regione Piemonte: Arianna Menzano, Mauro Bruno<br/>- Regione Liguria: Giovanni Maceli, Sabrina Bertolotto<br/>- Regione Lombardia: Elisabetta Rossi, Laura Cucè<br/>- Provincia Autonoma di Trento: Matteo Zeni, Claudio Groff, Natalia Bragalanti, Paolo Zanghellini<br/>- Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia: Giuliana Nadalin<br/>- Regione Veneto: Sonia Calderola</td></tr></table>

### INTRODUCTION / COMMENT OF THE SITUATION

We find that numbers of wolves increased during the last years and we expect this trend to continue with a strong expansion of individuals to the eastern Italian Alps. Wolves and therefore depredation events can occur anywhere in Italy. The most important livestock damages are caused by stable packs in new recolonized areas.

The number of depredation events can vary among Regions due to the number of wolves but, above all, to the different diffusion and the correct use of the protection systems. Data on damage attacks are very different depending on the considered Region.

The strong administrative and legislative fragmentation among the Italian Regions is connected to the absence of approach homogeneity in collecting data on damage attacks and on damage compensation methods. Even, it should be emphasized that, until 2016, the 4 Ligurian provinces treated the matter in a substantially
different way, while subsequently the Liguria Region adopted a uniform procedure.
So, it is very difficult to collect, analyze and present those data.

Up to now, the main livestock species killed in wolf depredation events were sheep,
followed by goats and cattle. The livestock number and species present in the
pastures vary among Alpine Regions. As a whole, minor ruminal clearly prevail,
with some minor exception for the western Alps and the central-eastern Alps where
bovine predominant. Also the number of animals grazed by each breeder is not
uniform in the territory, varying according to the Regional zootechnical evolution.
For example, in the western Alps, where wolf returned at the end of '90s, a
progressive disappearance of small flocks has been observed in favors of bigger
ones (composed by different owners who gave their livestock in guard to a single
shepherd).

Data are presented for each Regional situation due to the impossibility to combine
them together in a unique table, due to the facts that:

- not always data on large carnivore presence are provided from the
Administrations, above all for bear, or they are not available (Region Liguria);

- not always data on damages are available or provided from the Administrations
in the format required.
# LARGE CARNIVORES POPULATION TRENDS IN ITALY PER REGIONS IN THE PERIOD 2010-2019

## Reporting region Valle d'Aosta

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>1-5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1-5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>1-5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>1-5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>5-10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>7-15</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>7-15</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>20-30</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>30-40</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>40-50</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Reporting region Liguria

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>59</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Reporting region Piemonte

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>62</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>70</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>50</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>133</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>151</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>195</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Reporting region Lombardia

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th><th>BROWN BEARS</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates<sup>1</sup></th><th>Confirmed packs</th><th>Population estimates<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>1 ind. Alps</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>1 ind. Alps + 1 pack Alps (n. ind. unknown) + 4-6 packs Appennine (22-24 ind.)</td><td>1 Alps + 4-6 Appennine</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>1 ind. Alps + 1 pack Alps (n. ind. unknown) + 4-6 packs Appennine (22-24 ind.)</td><td>1 Alps + 4-6 Appennine</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>1 ind. Alps + 2 packs Alps (n. ind. unknown) + 4-6 packs Appennine (22-24 ind.)</td><td>2 Alps + 4-6 Appennine</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>1 ind. Alps + 2 packs Alps (1 of 7 ind. and 1 n. ind. unknown) + 4-6 packs Appennine (22-24 ind.)</td><td>2 Alps + 4-6 Appennine</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>2 individuals (1 Alps and 1 in plain) + 2 packs Alps (1 of 4 ind. and 1 n. ind. unknown)</td><td>2 Alps</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – Minimum number of individuals and of packs (with number of individuals), confirmed by genetic analysis or observations. Appennine data are available only for 2015-2018.</footnote>

<footnote>**Minimum number of individuals confirmed by genetic analysis and radio-collars. In Lombardy region we just have transitory presence of young males in dispersion and, only in last years, recurrent seasonal presence of adult males. No stable presence and no breeding activity.</footnote>
Reporting region Provincia Autonoma di Trento

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th><th>BROWN BEARS</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs</th><th>Population estimates*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td></td><td>13</td><td>66</td></tr></tbody></table>

* Source: Groff C., Angeli F., Asson D., Bragalanti N., Pedrotti L., Zanghellini P. (editors), 2020. 2019 Large Carnivores Report, Autonomous Province of Trento's Forestry and Wildlife Department.

Reporting region Friuli Venezia Giulia

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">WOLVES</th><th>BROWN BEARS</th></tr><tr><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs (for</th><th>Population estimates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>16<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

1 – resident or vagrant bears identified by genetic analysis.
Reporting region Veneto

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">WOLVES</th></tr><tr><th>YEAR</th><th>Population estimates</th><th>Confirmed packs (for wolves)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td></td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
# DAMAGES CAUSED BY WOLVES IN ITALY PER REGIONS IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019

## Reporting region Liguria

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="3">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="3">CATTLE</th><th colspan="3">OTHER</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>27</td><td>61</td><td>6560,00</td><td>15</td><td>15</td><td>5292,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>11.852,00</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>41</td><td>101</td><td>12481,70</td><td>13</td><td>15</td><td>6162,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>18.643,70</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>21</td><td>69</td><td>6631,17</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>3602,00</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3242,00</td><td>13.475,17</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>44</td><td>155</td><td>14678,55</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>1753,40</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>16.431,95</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>37</td><td>120</td><td>13969,68</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2382,50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>16.352,18</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>35</td><td>98</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>31.757,05</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>23</td><td>63</td><td>8407,05</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3175,00</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>600,00</td><td>12.182,05</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>52</td><td>80</td><td></td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>11.469,57</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>48</td><td>147</td><td></td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>21.878,16</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>64</td><td>124</td><td></td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>23.050,08</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>392</td><td>1018</td><td>62728,15</td><td>87</td><td>94</td><td>22366,9</td><td>17</td><td>12</td><td>3842</td><td>177091,91</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Reporting region Lombardia

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER</th><th rowspan="2">TOTAL<br>Damages (€)</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>600</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>700</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>3</td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2116</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>4</td><td>14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>7450</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>7</td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>9724,8</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>7980,9</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2360</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>21</td><td>94</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>30.931,7</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Reporting region Valle d'Aosta

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="3">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="3">CATTLE</th><th colspan="3">OTHER</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>1023,20</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>738</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>8</td><td>57</td><td>3112,26</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1186,42</td><td>4</td><td>18</td><td>701,32</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>5</td><td>40</td><td>5000,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>150,40</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>349,60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>9</td><td>41</td><td>3412,16</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1956,40</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>851</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>10</td><td>70</td><td>4522,00</td><td>5</td><td>27</td><td>28.827,00</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>1659,39</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>27</td><td>82</td><td>5394,60</td><td>14</td><td>17</td><td>250</td><td>16</td><td>42</td><td>2046,60</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>34</td><td>100</td><td>8815,39</td><td>20</td><td>30</td><td>10063,00</td><td>11</td><td>19</td><td>8644,50</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>97</td><td>402</td><td>31.430,01</td><td>45</td><td>84</td><td>42.632,42</td><td>46</td><td>97</td><td>14.640,81</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Reporting region Veneto

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER</th><th colspan="3">TOTAL</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animal affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>2.760</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>5.180</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>38</td><td>51</td><td>46.543</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>43</td><td>48</td><td>48.643</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>77</td><td>103</td><td>50.010</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td></td><td>251*</td><td></td><td>107</td><td></td><td>27</td><td>176</td><td>385</td><td>136.343,60</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td></td><td>292*</td><td></td><td>125</td><td></td><td>33</td><td>196</td><td>450</td><td>204.684,90</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>79*</td><td>310*</td><td>81</td><td>112</td><td>38</td><td>58</td><td>198</td><td>480</td><td>198.755</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>79</td><td>853</td><td>81</td><td>344</td><td>38</td><td>118</td><td>739</td><td>1534</td><td>692.919,5</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Reporting region Piemonte

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th>SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th>CATTLE</th><th>OTHER</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr><tr><th>Animals affected</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>254</td><td>18</td><td></td><td>64955,22</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>346</td><td>35</td><td>1</td><td>92655,94</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>409*</td><td>49</td><td>2</td><td>67042,00</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>590*</td><td>44</td><td></td><td>74770,00</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>333*</td><td>54</td><td>1</td><td>37989,00</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>388*</td><td>65</td><td>3</td><td>59551,00</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>311*</td><td>37</td><td></td><td>49442,00</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>433*</td><td>57</td><td></td><td>40552,71</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>397*</td><td>57</td><td></td><td>32871,07</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>552*</td><td>87</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>4013</td><td>503</td><td>7</td><td>519.828,9</td></tr></tbody></table>
Reporting region Provincia autonoma di Trento

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="2">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="2">CATTLE</th><th colspan="2">OTHER</th><th colspan="3">TOTAL</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td></td><td>6.930,00</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td>9.200,00</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td></td><td>14.942,00</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>32</td><td></td><td>34.567,93</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>23</td><td>75</td><td>22</td><td>25</td><td>9</td><td>15</td><td>54</td><td>115</td><td>46.925,59</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>33</td><td>161</td><td>27</td><td>29</td><td>12</td><td>32</td><td>72</td><td>222</td><td>76.589,94</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>26</td><td>149</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>13</td><td>26</td><td>45</td><td>181</td><td>37.394,13</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>82</td><td>385</td><td>55</td><td>60</td><td>34</td><td>73</td><td>234</td><td>518</td><td>226.549,6</td></tr></tbody></table>
Reporting region Friuli Venezia Giulia

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="3">SHEEP AND GOATS</th><th colspan="3">CATTLE</th><th colspan="3">OTHER</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>4</td><td>5 (3 G + 2</td><td>1086,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>130,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>1375,50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>1438,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>3612,00</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>300,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>8</td><td>62*</td><td>9083,54</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>2303,6</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>29</td><td>107</td><td>16.725,04</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>300,00</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>2.303,6</td></tr></tfoot></table>
# DAMAGES CAUSED BY BEARS IN ITALY PER REGIONS IN THE PERIOD OF 2010-2019

## Reporting region Friuli Venezia Giulia

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="3">SHEEP</th><th colspan="3">CATTLE</th><th colspan="3">OTHER</th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected¹</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animals affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>12</td><td>36</td><td>5320,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>1100,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2628,3</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>9</td><td>19</td><td>2140,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>9</td><td>24</td><td>2890,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>92</td><td>500,00</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>1292,50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>500,00</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>225,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>4886,25</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>900,00</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>812,00</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>1061,50</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>675,00</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>1362,50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>53</td><td>125</td><td>16.066,5</td><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>6.598,25</td><td>7</td><td>107</td><td>3.628,3</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Reporting region Veneto

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">YEAR</th><th colspan="3">TOTAL<fnref n="1" /></th></tr><tr><th>Damage cases</th><th>Animal affected</th><th>Damages (€)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>21.824,00</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>1.015,00</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>12.250,00</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>10.670,00</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>39</td><td>60</td><td>48.974,00</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>6.179,00</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>4.084,00</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1.186,00</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2.473,00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>105</td><td>87</td><td>108.655,00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<footnote n="1">1 – Just damage cases in total (including sheeps, goats, cattle and other) are reported.</footnote>
### 3.4.2 Damage prevention measures in Italy

#### ELECTRICITY

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</th></tr><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>ITALY</th></tr><tr><th>REPORTING PERIOD</th><th>Variable 1998 – 2019</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td><strong>ELECTRIC FENCES</strong><br><strong>A. Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li>Electric nettings of different high (105-120-145 cm)</li><li>Multi-wire electric fences</li></ul><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Lombardia</strong><ul><li>Smart fences</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia:</strong><ul><li>Permanent steel wire net fences of at least 145 cm</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Liguria:</strong><ul><li>Not electrified nets of 1 m. with the in front addition of 2 electrified wires</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><strong>A. Italian regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li><strong>Electric nettings</strong><ul><li>sheep, goat, cattle, beehives, courtyard animals.</li></ul></li><li><strong>Multi-wire electric fences</strong><ul><li>goats, cattle, equides, beehives</li></ul></li><li><strong>Both type</strong><ul><li>goats, sheep, cattle, beehives, equides, llamas</li></ul></li></ul><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia:</strong><ul><li>Permanent steel wire net fences</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>pony, llama, sheep</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>HERD / PROPERTY SIZE</td><td><strong>A. Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li><strong>Electric nettings</strong><ul><li>Sheep: up to 2000 animals</li><li>Goat: up to 100 animals</li><li>Cattle: up to 50 animals</li><li>Equines: up to 10 animals</li></ul></li><li><strong>Multi-wire electric fences</strong><ul><li>Sheep: up to 1000 animals</li><li>Goats: up to 100 animals</li><li>Cattle: up to 300 animals</li><li>Equines: up to 10 animals</li><li>Alpaca/Llamas: up to 20 animals</li><li>Beehives: up to 50 bee family</li></ul></li><li><strong>Both type</strong><ul><li>Sheep and goats: up to 1500 animals</li><li>Cattle: up to 400 animals</li><li>Donkeys and llamas: up to 20 animals</li><li>Courtyard animals: up to 50 animals</li><li>Beehives: up to 100 bee families</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia:</strong><ul><li><strong>Permanent steel wire net fences</strong><ul><li>Sheep: up to 60 animals</li><li>Equines: up to 3 animals</li><li>Alpaca: up to 3 animals</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTED MEASURE(S)</td><td><strong>A. Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li><strong>Electric mobile nettings</strong><ul><li>Height: 105 – 120 - 145 cm</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></table>
* Circumference of enclosures: 50 – 500 m depending on the animal number, typology of management and on the strategy of protection defined

* Voltage range: 3000 - 6000 V

* Pulse range: 2-3 J

* Portable battery-powered (and solar charged) low-impedance energizer that delivers a powerful shock

## Multi-wire electric fences

* Variable: Mobile, semi-permanent and permanent fences

* Height: variable from 108 to 155 cm

* Structure: variable from 3 to 5 lines of metallic wire (generally all hot)

* Circumference of enclosures: variable from 200 to 1400 m

* Voltage range: 3000-6000 V

* Pulse range: 2-3 J

* Portable battery-powered (and solar charged) low-impedance energizer that delivers a powerful shock

## B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

### Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia:

#### Permanent steel wire net fences

* Height: at least 145 cm

* Structure: steel wire net fences augmented by 3 electrified wire (i.e always above the net fencing and just above ground level on the outside of the net fencing)

* Minimum voltage: 6000 V

* Portable battery-powered (and solar charged) low-impedance energizer that
delivers a powerful shock.

➤ **Regione Liguria**

* **Not electrified nets + 2 electric wires in front of the fence**

* Metal net height: 100-150 cm.

* 2 electrified wires at 25 and 100/150 cm from the ground

**Aspects different by Regions**

Details by Regions/Province when given:

➤ **Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia**

* **D.P. Reg. 128/2009 (from 2008 until today)**

* 38 sets of el. nettings (**livestock**)

* 15 sets of el. nettings (**mobile beehives**)

* 8 sets of el. nettings (**variable**)

* 9 sets of multi wire el. fences (**permanent beehives**)

* 4 sets of multi wire el. fences (**livestock**)

* 2 sets of multi wire el. fences (**variable**)

* 3 sets of permanent steel wire net fences (**variable**)

* **LIFE Arctos (2010-2011)**

* 80 sets of el. nettings (**variable**: **permanent and mobile beehives, livestock**)

➤ **Provincia Autonoma di Trento (PAT)**

* **LIFE Arctos (2011 - 2014)**

* **279 sets of multiwire electric fences (Livestock, courtyard animals, beehives)**;

* **LIFE DINALP BEAR (distribution in 2018)**

* **19 sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences (young cattle)**;

* **PAT long term free loans to prevent damage by brown bears** (and wolves after the comeback, for fences)

IMPLEMENTATION
protecting livestock) in Western Trentino (distribution
from **1998** to **2019**):

o **703** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **beehives**;

o **205** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **livestock and courtyard animals**;

> **PAT** financing of private equipment purchase to prevent damage by **brown bears and wolves**, for fences protecting livestock in Western Trentino: 90% of the equipment price for fences protecting beehives, sheep and goats; 60% of the equipment price for fences protecting cattle and equines (financing from **1998** to **2019**):

o **34** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **beehives**;

o **78** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **livestock and courtyard animals**;

* **PAT long term free loans** to prevent damage by **wolves** in Eastern Trentino (distribution from **2012** to **2019**):

o **112** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **livestock**;

* **PAT** financing of private equipment purchase to prevent damage by **wolves** in Eastern Trentino: 90% of the equipment price for fences protecting sheep and goats; 60% of the equipment price for fences protecting cattle and equines (Financing from **2012** to **2019**):

o **35** sets of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences for **livestock**;

> **EAFRD** (financing from **2016** to **2019**)

o **14** sets of permanent, traditional wood fences with electric wiring for **livestock**: cattle, horses;
o 5 wooden huts to protect **beehives** ("Bienenhaus").

➤ **Regione Piemonte**

➤ **REGIONAL PLAN TO PROTECT LIVESTOCK FROM PREDATOR** (from 2012 to 2015)

o 290.000,00 €/year

➤ **EAFRD** (from 2016 to 2019)

o 277.440,01 € funded within Measure 10.1.6

o 4.610,46 € funded within Measure 4.4.2

➤ **LIFE WOLFALPS** (distribution in 2014-2018)

o 19 sets of electronic nettings (sheep and goat)

o 1 set of multiwire electrified fences (goats)

o 6 sets of multiwire electrified fences (cattle)

o **Piedmont Region Low 14/5/2019 n.9 –Art. 9 “Regional intervention program, for the year 2019 and 2020, to support costs for livestock defence”**. (2019 and 2020)

o 200.000,00 € per year

➤ **Regione Lombardia**

➤ **LIFE ARCTOS** (distribution in 2011-2014)

o 36 sets of electrified nettings (sheep)

➤ **LIFE WOLFALPS** (distribution in 2016-2018) and **After Life WolfAlps** (distribution in 2018-2019):

o 32 sets of multiwire electrified fences;

o 45 sets of electrified nettings.

➤ **EAFRD 2014-2020 financing scheme (2019)** ongoing.

o 86 requests for funding under evaluation

➤ **Other** (distribution **from 2018**) – funded by CMO (EAGF) financed beekeepers associations:

o 15 sets of electrified nettings (mobile and stationary beehives)

➤ **Regione Liguria**
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li><strong>Genova Provincial project for the prevention of damage from predators (2004-2006)</strong><ul><li>3 experimental electrified fences were activated and technical assistance</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regional Project "The wolf in Liguria" (implemented by the Antola Regional Park - 2006)</strong><ul><li>installations of electric fences, technical assistance to farmers, information activities</li><li>25.000 € financed</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regional Project "The wolf in Liguria" (2012-2018)</strong><ul><li>44 electrified enclosures</li></ul></li><li><strong>D.G.R 435/2016: contributions for prevention and damage compensation</strong></li><li><strong>EAFRD 2014-2020</strong><ul><li>A total of 1.000.000 founded within Measure 4.4.2.</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><p><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong></p><p>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:</p><p>Considering the increasing presence of different large carnivore species in the Alpine area, the challenges are:</p><ul><li>spreading correct information about presence of LC and good practices;</li><li>test the feasibility of prevention measures to protect calving cow, calves, young cattle (&lt; 15 months old) and huge or small flock that graze in remote areas with only periodic control by the shepherd/farmer.</li><li>develop the coexistence not only between wolves and zootechnical activities, but also between wolves and the population as a whole, even in urban / peri-urban contexts, contrasting depredation also on pets and livestock belonging to amateur breeders.</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>leading the breeders towards a change in the management of their livestock, showing all the consequent benefits. The correct information and training of all subjects who can play a role in prevention activities (trade associations, professionals, veterinarians, local authorities) is also fundamental;</li><li>create an effective support system corresponding to the real needs of each breeder.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES AND BASIC REQUIREMENTS</td><td><p><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong></p><p>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:</p><ul><li>ordinary maintenance;</li><li>the size of the fence is proportional to the number of animal/species/breed or oversize the area of the enclosure to enable the herd to move and graze within the enclosure also during night;</li><li>the structure of fence to protect beehive in always the same;</li><li>increase water-points availability;</li><li>minimize incorrect use and bad construction of the fence (e.g. not enough electricity, the bottom part of the net doesn't follow the orography of the territory);</li><li>underestimation of the importance of grounding system;</li><li>shape of the fences area - has to be without sharp angles to enable the herd to circle within the enclosure;</li><li>risk of entanglement if animals are not used to electricity and fences/nettings or in case of panic situation;</li><li>presence of suitable shelters for shepherd recovery;</li><li>constant presence of shepherds;</li><li>minimize the risks for other species of fauna, especially ungulates;</li><li>bad choice of location (e.g. under a terracing wall as high as the fence);</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>sometimes a second, light electric fence surrounding the animals' enclosure is needed, to keep predators away from the main netting/fence.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td><p><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:</p><ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><ul><li>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia - Servizio caccia e risorse ittiche<br>Giuliana Nadalin (giuliana.nadalin@regione.fvg.it)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><ul><li>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta - Assessorato Ambiente, Risorse naturali e Corpo forestale<br>Christian Chioso (c.chioso@regione.vda.it)<br>Fabrizio Truc (f.truc@regione.vda.it)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong><ul><li>Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Foreste e Fauna, Settore Grandi carnivori<br>Claudio Groff (claudio.groff@provincia.tn.it)<br>Matteo Zeni (matteo.zeni@provincia.tn.it)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><ul><li>FAFRD<br>Regione Piemonte Direzione Agricoltura e Cibo<br>Moreno Soster (moreno.soster@regione.piemonte.it)<br>Rasetto Paola (paola.rasetto@regione.piemonte.it)<br>Parzanese Emanuele<br>(emanuele.parzanese@regione.piemonte.it)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Lombardia</strong><ul><li>Regione Lombardia - Struttura Natura e Biodiversità, Sviluppo sostenibile e tutela risorse dell'ambiente<br>Elisabetta Rossi<br>(Elisabetta_maria_rossi@regione.lombardia.it)<br>Laura Cucè (Laura_cuce@regione.lombardia.it)</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Regione Lombardia – Sviluppo delle Politiche Forestali e Agroambientali (EAFRD)</strong><br>Maria Novella Bruno<br>(maria_novella_bruno@regione.lombardia.it)<br><br><strong>ERSAF</strong><br>Lucia Ratti (Lucia.ratti@ersaf.lombardia.it)<br>Sonia Braghiroli (Sonia.braghiroli@ersaf.lombardia.it)<br><br><strong>Regione Liguria</strong><br><br><strong>Dip. Agricoltura, Turismo, Formazione e Lavoro, Settore Fauna Selvatica, Caccia e Vigilanza Venatoria</strong><br>Gianni Maceli (giovanni.maceli@regione.liguria.it)<br>Sabrina Bertolotto (sabrina.bertolotto@regione.liguria.it)</td></tr><tr><td>MORE INFORMATION AND INFORMATION MATERIALS</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br><br><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><br><ul><li><strong>Prevenzione dei danni da predatori al patrimonio zootecnico</strong><br>https://www.regione.fvg.it/rafvg/export/sites/default/RAFVG/ambiente-territorio/tutela-ambiente-gestione-risorse-naturali/FOGLIA52/allegati/Opuscolo_prevenzione_danni_1 upo_web.pdf</li><li><strong>Le recinzioni elettrificate</strong><br>https://www.regione.fvg.it/rafvg/export/sites/default/RAFVG/ambiente-territorio/tutela-ambiente-gestione-risorse-naturali/FOGLIA52/allegati/Le_recinzioni_elettrificate_Vade mecum_technico.pdf</li><li><strong>Website:</strong><br>https://www.regione.fvg.it/rafvg/cms/RAFVG/ambiente-territorio/tutela-ambiente-gestione-risorse-naturali/FOGLIA52/</li></ul></td></tr></table>
➤ **Provincia Autonoma di Trento**

https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/

https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/Rapporto-Orso-e-grandi-carnivori

➤ **Regione Piemonte**

LIFE WOLFALPS (in Italian):

o Implementation of prevention system for sheep in area of recent wolf recolonization -
http://www.lifewolfalps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Annex_FR_C2_03_Deliverable_ufficiale_corr.pdf

o Implementation of specific preventive measures for cattle in the western Italian Alps -
http://www.lifewolfalps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Report-C3.pdf

➤ **Regione Lombardia**

http://www.naturachevale.it/specie-animali/azioni-per-la-tutela-di-orso-e-lupo/

➤ **Regione Liguria**

http://www.ambienteinliguria.it/lirgw/eco3/ep/home.do

http://www.ambienteinliguria.it/eco3/DTS_GENERALE/20150730/Report%20_Progetto_Lupo2014_pavia_rid.pdf

http://www.ambienteinliguria.it/eco3/DTS_GENERALE/20131003/Depliant_Lupo_190613.pdf

http://www.agriligurianet.it/it/impresa/sostegno-economico/programma-di-sviluppo-rurale-psr-liguria/psr-2014-2020/publiccompetition/343-bando-sottomisura-4-4-2-%E2%80%93-presentazione-domande-di-sostegno.html?view=publiccompetition&id=343:bando-sottomisura-4-4-2-%E2%80%93-presentazione-domande-di-sostegno
# SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

#### Regione Liguria

* **Regional funds** art. 43 RL n. 29/1994 (Regional rules for the protection of homeothermic fauna and for hunting)

* **EAFRD 2014-2020 - Measure 4.4.2:** Call for submission of requests for support and payment - for the prevention of damage from fauna

* **DGR 365/2016:** The contribution corresponds to 60% of the material cost with a maximum eligible expenditure of € 1,000.00, equal to a maximum contribution of € 600.00 per individual subject and for areas up to one hectare. For higher surfaces, the contribution is equal to 80% of the material cost, with a maximum eligible expenditure of € 2,000.00, equal to a maximum contribution of € 1,600.00.

#### Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

* **Regional co-financing scheme:** AR FVG co-finances 90% of the purchase of equipment to companies and private citizens.

* **Projects:** LIFE Arctos (2010-2014)

#### Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta

* **Regional co-financing scheme:** Assessorato Ambiente, Risorse Naturali e Corpo Forestale co-finances 90% of the purchase of equipment to farmers

* Up to 5000 € for fences (more than 50 cattle)

* Up to 3000 € for fences (less than 50 cattle)

#### Provincia Autonoma di Trento (PAT)

* **PAT:** other than provide -for free- temporary (to cover emergencies) and long term loans of electric nettings and multiwire electric fences, PAT finances private equipment purchase: 90% of the equipment price for fences protecting beehives, sheep and goats; 60% for fences protecting cattle and equines.

* **LIFE Arctos Project (2010-2014); LIFE DINALP BEAR (2014-2019).**
➤ **Regione Piemonte**

* **EAFRD 2014-2020** (European agricultural fund for rural development - Investments in physical assets)

* **Measure 4.4.2** - Farmers can access to a capital contribution to offset the prevention cost incurred.

Subsidies cover 100% of the cost of the prevention system purchased (livestock guarding dog or electrified fences) with range from 1.000 to 30.000 € for each application.

Totally 4610,46 € have been funded in 2018 (3 applications).

* **LIFE Wolfalps Project** – The equipment is donated to cattle owners who decided to collaborate with the Project or that had to face situations of wolf-emergency (livestock in general).

➤ **Regione Lombardia**

* **EAFRD 2014-2020 financing scheme (2019)**: evaluation of requests is ongoing.

* **Measure 4.4.1** - Maximum 30.000 € per request for purchase of mobile electric fences and multi-wire electric fences and LGD's.

* **Regional co-financing scheme**: DG Agriculture co-finances the purchase of electric fences to farmers for a maximum of € 5.000 for each request. The scheme finances also a 10% of work to put in place the equipment.

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

A. Total Regions: not provided

B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

➤ **Regione Piemonte**

* **EAFRD 2014-2020** (European agricultural fund for rural development - payment for agri-environment-climate commitments)

* **Measure 10.1.6** - Within the EAFRD scheme 2014-2020, the area-based flat rate payment for mobile electric fences, livestock
guarding dogs and constant human presence during grazing is 50,00 € / ha, only for mountain and hilly territories.

Subsidies cover the workload which is needed to setup, move and maintain the enclosure and the constant human presence.

Eighty farmers have been funded in the period 2016-2019, for a total of 277.440,01 €.

* **Regional Law 14/5/2015 n.9 –Art. 9 “Regional intervention program, for the year 2019 and 2020, to support costs for livestock defence”**.

Farmers not involved in EAFRD – Measure 10.1.6, and using electrified fences for night livestock recovery or livestock guarding dogs, can apply for payments.

A maximum of 3.000,00 €/farmer can be funded in de minimis rules (REG UE n. 316/2019).

Totally 200.000,00 € have been funded in 2019 and 2020.

* **Regional plan to protect livestock from predators (2012-2015).**

Bonus defined on the basis of a score taking into account:

* use of electrified fences for livestock night recovery

* use of livestock guarding dogs

* shepherd continuous presence during grazing

* number of grazing animals

A yearly maximum of 2.500,00 €/farmer can be given.

About 250 farmers have been funded each year.

Totally 290.000,00 €/year have been funded.

## ➤ Regione Lombardia

* **Regional co-financing scheme:**

DG Agriculture co-finances the purchase of electric fences to farmers. The scheme finances also a 10% of work to put in place the equipment.
## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><ul><li>FVG AR, Servizio Caccia e risorse ittiche. Sometimes in collaboration with Friuli Venezia Giulia - Corpo Forestale Regionale (FVG RFC).</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><ul><li>Struttura Flora e fauna-Ufficio per la fauna selvatica e ittica, Corpo forestale della Valle d'Aosta (CFVdA), Mont Avic Natural Park</li></ul></li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong><ul><li>PAT Officials -Servizio Foreste e fauna (Forest and Wildlife Service)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><ul><li>EAFRD - ARPEA Piemonte (Piedmont Regional Agency for Providing Services in Agriculture)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Lombardia</strong><ul><li>Regione Lombardia and ERSAF</li><li>EAFRD - OPR (Organismo Pagatore Regionale)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong><ul><li>Technicians of the Agriculture Department of the Regione Liguria, Nucleo Vigilanza Regionale and professionals in charge</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><ul><li>Approximately 50 officials from regional units.</li></ul></li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong><ul><li>2 damage prevention &amp; compensation managers of Large Carnivores Office of the Forest and Wildlife Service + 10 damage prevention assistants who work in</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>10 different areas of the Province (with 10 substitutes) and by 53 damage supervisors. All of them are officers of the PAT Forest and Wildlife Service Police.<br/><ul><li><strong>Regione Lombardia</strong><ul><li>Approximately 5 officials from ERSAF units.</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong><ul><li>Approximately 30 people including regional supervisory staff, technicians from Regione Liguria and external staff.</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></table>

WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

**Regular field controls and collaboration with farmers are crucial for ensuring the correct use of the equipment.**

#### Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

No official protocol. There is a survey for each application when the owner installs the fence for the first time. If requested, it is possible to fill out the subsidy application with a technical support. FVG RFC does the next controls in the field during its ordinary activity; the controls can be announced and unannounced visits. The idea of controlling the use of the equipment is to check, if the equipment is correctly installed and to stay in touch with farmers. This is a kind of collaboration between farmers and officials, as they share useful feed-back information and improve the general knowledge about the use of these preventive measures.

#### Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta

Ufficio per la fauna selvatica e ittica and CFVdA damage officials perform regular, announced and unannounced, controls of the use of the equipment in the field, at least once per year, usually between May and October.
The idea of controlling the use of the equipment is to check, if the equipment is correctly installed in the field and to stay in touch with farmers. This is a kind of collaboration between farmers and officials, as they share useful feedback information and improve the general knowledge about the use of these preventive measures.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

### Provincia Autonoma di Trento

PAT Forest and Wildlife Service damage prevention assistants perform controls on the use of the equipment in the field. They make unannounced visits, usually between May and August.

Damage prevention assistants check the enclosure (how it is built and maintained), measure the foreseen features and fill in a control form, which is sent to the Large Carnivores Office.

The goal is to check if the equipment is correctly installed in the field and to stay in touch with farmers. This is a kind of collaboration between farmers and officials, as they share useful feedback information and improve the general knowledge about the use of these preventive measures.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

### Regione Piemonte

* EAFRD - The control is administrative

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

### Regione Lombardia

* RegioneLombardia/ERSAF perform regular controls of the use of the equipment in the field. They make announced and unannounced visits at the protected properties at least once per year, usually between May and October. Damages officials control the general situation around the protected area, check the enclosure, measure the foreseen features and fill in a control form.
Regione Liguria

* Project "The wolf in Liguria" (2006) - The Antola Park technicians check and verify the correct installation and the effectiveness of the deterrent systems supplied. They make announced visits, throughout the year, with particular attention to the summer months. Visits to the company were frequently based on an interview with the breeders, in the event of problems related to the implementation of the prevention measure, or to improve their efficacy. This assistance activity was found to be very important to ensure continuity of the effectiveness of the intervention and also it was also highly appreciated by breeders.

* DGR 365/2016 – Regional Vigilance staff or regional technicians/consultants, expert in prevention measures, carry out a technical inspection.

Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia- Regione Lombardia - Regione Liguria- Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta - Provincia Autonoma di Trento

* composition of the fence (height, number of single nettings);

* type of protected property;

* presence of electricity, correct voltage (near the source and in the middle of the perimeter) and grounding (number of rods used and installation), use of solar panel;

* maintenance of the fence route (vegetation, etc.);

* setup of nettings, proper installation, presence of passages under nettings, assessing the level of damages on the nettings (wear and tear);

WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>description of damages;</li><li>presence of animals in the fence;</li><li>protective measures used, presence of LGD or others dog;</li><li>description and photos of irregularities.</li><li>length of the enclosure</li><li>description of fence micro-location (type of terrain, slope)</li><li>cadastral references</li></ul></td></tr></table>

HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

It depends on the kind of implemented measures used and if the owner is present.

#### Regione Piemonte

* **EAFRD** – The administrative takes about an hour; the field inspection can take also a full day

#### Regione Lombardia – Provincia Autonoma di Trento - Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta - Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

* Approximately 30-60 min.

#### Regione Liguria

* Approximately 1-4 h.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

#### Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

If improper use is detected, the first step is to contact the owner, inform him/her about the situation and give advice on how to improve the use of
fences to assure its effectiveness. In these cases, the field controls are made more frequently. More controls are made also if damages occur on the protected properties.

### ➤ Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta

If the fences are not correctly used, the subsidies are not paid.

If during 2 subsequent checks, the 1st positive and the 2nd negative, the farmer must return the subsidy.

### ➤ Provincia Autonoma di Trento

If improper use is detected, the first step is to contact the owner, inform him/her about the situation and give advice on how to improve the use of fences to assure its effectiveness. In these cases, the field controls are later repeated. More controls are made also if damages occur on protected properties.

If the irregularities occur again, the procedure is to warn again the owner about the situation. If this further step is not enough, equipment given for free will be taken back by Forest and Wildlife Service Police Officials.

If a presumed Large Carnivore damage happens, an inspection by one of the 53 damage supervisors almost always follows. 100% of the damaged item/livestock/apiary's material value will be refunded. Livestock and apiaries prices are set every few years in agreement with stakeholders' organizations. Usually, PAT payment follows within 60 days after the damage assessment. No damage compensation is provided if the damaged person benefited from PAT financing or lending of damage prevention equipment, but didn't use or misused it.

### ➤ Regione Piemonte

**EAFRD** - The Piedmont Region has approved a gradual penalty system which, based on the severity, duration and extent, reduces the contribution for the breeder until the aid complete exclusion.
➤ **Regione Lombardia**

If improper use is detected, the first step is to contact the owner, inform him/her about the situation and give advice on how to improve the use of fences to assure its effectiveness. In these cases, the field controls are made more frequently. More controls are made also if damages occur on the protected property. If the irregularities occur again, the procedure is to formally warn the owner about the situation.

➤ **Regione Liguria**

If improper use is detected, the owner is contacted, informing him about the problems evaluated. If during the next inspection the required adjustments are not performed, no contribution is submitted.

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

#### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

➤ **Provincia Autonoma di Trento**

- No data about the effectiveness are yet available.

➤ **Regione Piemonte**

- **LIFE Wolfalps Project** - The average yearly damages that farmers had 3 years before the implementation of protective measures are compared with yearly damages after the implementation.

➤ **Regione Lombardia**

- The effectiveness is evaluated taking into account damages that farmers had before the implementation of protective measures with the feedbacks of the single farmers periodically contacted after the implementation of the measures.
# WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

## Aspects different by Regions

### Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta

The overall effect of the use of high electric fence in Aosta Valley is positive, but at the moment there are no percentages data about damage reduction.

### Provincia Autonoma di Trento

A thesis about brown bears and human conflict mitigation in Trentino has been conducted in 2011 https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/content/download/11801/219829/version/1/file/Tarin_Tonon.1400839109.pdf). The study detected a problem in the construction and ordinary maintenance of electric fences: just 6 out of the 40 electric fences checked were considered perfectly built and maintained, and just about half of the 40 checked fences were considered adequately maintained. Since then, much progress has been made, but the proper maintenance of electric fences is still a matter of concern.

### Regione Piemonte

* **LIFE Wolfalps Project** - The overall effect of the use of electric fence is **very positive**:

* **No damages recorded** when using **multi-wire electric fences** for cattle and goats;

* **Only occasional attacks** with few deaths when sheep and goats are closed in the electric nettings.

### Regione Lombardia

* The overall effect of the use of electric fences is **very positive**:

* **No farmers have experienced damages after the implementation of electric fences;**

* **Beekeepers have not experienced any damage after the implementation of electric fences**, except one case where the electrification of the fence was not in use.

### Regione Liguria

**No farmers have experienced short-term damages** after the implementation of preventive measure.
LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>ITALY</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>Variable 2011 – 2019</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs)</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li>Sheep, goats, cattle, equides, llamas, alpacas and captivity bred red deer (<em>Cervus elaphus</em>) in one experimental case.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project), Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project - Pasturs Project), Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong><ul><li><strong>Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese</strong><br>Pups born in working lines (dogs' parents active livestock guarding dogs) were distributed to new owners at age of approximately 10-14 weeks and were immediately integrated in the new environment under regular surveillance of farmers.</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (EAFRD - 2014-2020)</strong><ul><li><strong>Measure 10.1.6.</strong><ul><li><strong>Cane da Montagna dei Pirenei</strong></li><li><strong>Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese</strong></li><li><strong>Pastore del Caucaso</strong></li></ul></li><li><strong>Measure 4.4.2.</strong><ul><li><strong>Cane da Montagna dei Pirenei</strong></li><li><strong>Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese</strong></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></table>
No specific indications.

* **Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia**

* **Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese**

Pups born in working lines (dogs' parents active LGD) were purchased by the shepherd at age of approximately 8-10 weeks and were immediately integrated in the new environment, under regular surveillance of farmers.

Required: all pups are equipped with regular pedigree ENCI, health book, microchip, registration in the canine registry and delivered only after 60 days of birth.

* **Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta**

* **Cane da Montagna dei Pirenei**

* **Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese**

* **other breeds can be tested**

No specific indications.

* **Regione Liguria** (EAFRD - 2014-2020)

* **Measure 4.4.2.**

* **Cane da Montagna dei Pirenei**

* **Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese**

A LGD selection was made, in order to encourage the spread only of dogs having a strong aptitude for the defense of flocks, with a balanced and non-aggressive behaviour.

* **Regione Liguria** (Project "Farmers & predators")

* **Cane da Pastore Maremmano Abruzzese**

LGD without genealogical certification.

SOURCES OF LGDs (working lines, genetic lines, etc.)

**Aspects different by Regions**

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia**
  **D.P.Reg. 128/2009**: dogs are purchased by the companies or private citizens and then they received subsidies (i.e. 90%).

* **Provincia Autonoma di Trento** (2014-2019)
Financing of single pups or (mainly) couples of pups. Working lines were established through a collaboration with experienced LGD breeders afferent to the Circolo del Pastore maremmano abruzzese, a National LGD club. When financing the purchase of a LGD, PAT explicitly requires that the pup must belong to a LGD breed suited to the work required from the dog; the pup must come from working lines and must be purchased only by authorized breeders. The use of particularly aggressive LGD breeds are discouraged by PAT administration, due to the widespread presence of tourists and outdoor enthusiasts on the mountain pastures.

➤ **Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project)**

Pups with Pedigree and belonging to working lines were purchased within the Project and donated to farmers (distribution 2015-2018). Pups came from the Centre of Italy.

➤ **Regione Lombardia (Pasturs Project)**

Pups were purchased and donated to farmers (2016-2017).

**Regione Lombardia (EAFRD)**

○ **Measure 4.4.2** – LGD must have Pedigree.

➤ **Regione Piemonte (EAFRD)**

○ **Measure 10.1.6** – LGDs must have Pedigree or have a certification attesting to belong to the suitable breeds. The certification must be produced by the Commission for the Morphological Evaluation of Dogs used for livestock defense from predators.

○ **Measure 4.4.2** – LGD must have Pedigree.

No special mechanism of maintaining pure genetic or working lines.

➤ **Regione Liguria**

○ **EAFRD** - Puppies come from parents working with livestock but without Pedigree.
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>Project "Farmers and Predators")- LGD without genealogical certification.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td><p><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:</p><ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><br>D.P.Reg. 128/2009 financing 2 pups</li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (PAT):</strong><br>PAT financing 53 pups (from 2014 to 2019);<br>LIFE DINALP BEAR Project financing the hiring of a veterinarian LGD expert, paid by the project's budget, to check the integration process of the pup in the new herd and family.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><br>LIFE Wolfalps Project financing:<br>18 pups distributed to sheep/goats breeders<br>7 pups distributed to cattle breeders<br>FAFRD<br>Measure 10.1.6 financing about 250 LGD</li><li><strong>Regione Lombardia</strong><br>LIFE Wolfalps Project financing:<br>3 pups distributed to sheep breeders<br>Progetto Pasturs financing:<br>6 pups distributed to sheep breeders<br>Difes Attiva project distributed pups to farmers in the Appennine regional territory. In time single farmers are exchanging new pups born from these working lines parents that can be suitable to become a future LGD.</li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong><br>FAFRD financing 156 LGD from 2015 to 2020</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>EDUCATION PROCESS</td><td><p><strong>A. Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:</p></td></tr></table>
Experienced LGD breeders make the first step to choose some
pups from
the herd in the first two months of life, generally according to the
3 behavioural characteristics: being trustworthy, attentive and
protective toward livestock. Pups of 8 weeks can join
new owners, where they slowly get to know the herd. At first, the
pups meet calmer animals from the herd. The pup is regularly in
touch with animals and owners provide them a safe place (e.g.
box) where the pup can easily stand back from other animals.
The pup has to be checked regularly and step-by-step it can join
the rest of the herd. When the pasturing season begins, the pup
stays with the herd all the time. The owner has to follow the
integration and correct any unwanted behaviour. In general,
after two years the dog becomes reliable.

It is suggested to introduce in a new flock at least 2 pups
together to avoid playing behaviour with lambs with the risk of
hurting them.

## B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

### ➤ Regione Liguria

As soon as the phase of insertion in the flock is finished, i.e. when the puppies have strong links with the flock (generally 15 days), the socialization move on to the phase with the shepherd dogs delegated to manage the flock. At first, the puppies know only the dogs that will work with the flock, in order to avoid that these can be assessed as potential dangers for the flock itself.

At the same time, strangers are presented to the puppies initially accompanied by the shepherd and then alone. In order to avoid aggressive behaviours. Any aggressive behaviour must be immediately corrected with peremptory orders.
<table><tr><td></td><td>All puppies are trained in the use of the collar and leash, as well as being manipulated, in order to ensure the manageability of the subject in case of veterinary care, etc.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION PHASE</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br><ul><li><strong>Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong></li></ul>Specialized support is provided by an expert in dog behaviour who offers help to new owners by phone, e-mail and during field visits.</td></tr><tr><td><ul><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinalp Bear Project)</strong></li></ul>Each dog was periodically visited by a vet and LGD expert, paid by the project's budget, to check how the integration process of the pup was going on, and to offer support to the new owners (especially in case of unwanted behaviours). The vet visit was later guaranteed also for the puppies produced by 9 breeders who received the dog parents by the project. Every LGD breeder, from whom the dogs are coming from, offers support to new owners and advises them by phone, e-mail and during field visits.</td></tr><tr><td><ul><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong></li></ul>Technical assistance was provided to guarantee the correct insertion of the dog in the flock, a good socialization with other dogs and with people unrelated to the farm.<br>The assistance provided by the technician is:<ul><li><strong>preventive</strong>, before delivering the puppies, instructing the shepherd / breeder of all the precautions to be activated in all the phases mentioned in the educational process;</li><li><strong>in progress</strong>, after the delivery of the puppies, it is controlled about every 10 days, to check the different stages of the</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>educational process. Furthermore, the farmer can ask for more indication in every moment (usually by phone). Evaluation of the dog's functionality is also made at the ages of 3 - 6 months, 6 - 9 months, 9 - 12 months, over 1 and a half years.</td></tr><tr><td>CERTIFICATION OF LGDs</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br><ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><br>Decreto Legislativo n. 529 del 30 dicembre 1992.</li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinalp Bear Project)</strong><br>LGD were certified by "Circolo del pastore maremmano abruzzese" that guarantees the pedigree. Nine breeders who received the puppies established their own working lines and they distributed 25 pups to new owners. At the beginning of 2018, the owners of the dogs established an LGD Association to guarantee continuation in the appropriate management of the dogs, as well as proposing common initiatives.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong> Livestock guarding dogs with Pedigree were donated to farmers.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (EAFRD)</strong><ul><li>Measure 10.1.6 - LGDs included in the application form must have Pedigree or have a specific certification attesting to belong to the suitable breeds (produced by the Commission for the morphological evaluation of dogs used for livestock defense from predators).</li><li>Measure 4.4.2 - LGD must have Pedigree.</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>PROTOCOL OF CERTIFICATION</td><td><strong>Total Regions: not provided.</strong></td></tr><tr><td>LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOGS' ACTIONS</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>No special status of LGD. The owner is fully responsible for all dog's actions, regardless the location (pasture and outside).</td></tr><tr><td>ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br/>In general, the law obligates owners to take care of dogs, to provide food, water and shelter, regardless the type of dog.</td></tr><tr><td>FOOD</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br/><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➢ <strong>Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong><br/>During the Project the shepherds with LGDs have been supplied with high quality dog-food (Almo Natura) for a total of 24.000 kg.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br/>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li>There is no certification of working lines of LGD's.</li><li>Some farmers complain regarding the responsibility and legal consequences in case of an attack on people who enter the pasturing area, guarded by LGDs.</li><li>Manage the worries of farmers about the potential problems that LGDs can create: be aggressive toward people, harass non-target wildlife, roam beyond farm boundaries causing problems with neighbors and tourist, interfere with livestock herding and/or herd dogs.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➢ <strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><br/><strong>RA FVG - Servizio Caccia e Risorse Ittiche</strong><br/>Giuliana Nadalin (giuliana.nadalin@regione.fvg.it)</td></tr></table>
Regione Piemonte

EAFRD - Regione Piemonte Direzione Agricoltura e Cibo

Moreno Soster (moreno.soster@regione.piemonte.it)

Rasetto Paola (paola.rasetto@regione.piemonte.it)

Parzanese Emanuele

(emanuele.parzanese@regione.piemonte.it)

LIFE Wolfalps - http://www.lifewolfalps.eu/

Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta

RAVdA - Assessorato Ambiente, Risorse naturali e
Corpo forestale

Christian Chioso (c.chioso@regione.vda.it)

Fabrizio Truc (f.truc@regione.vda.it)

Provincia Autonoma di Trento

Servizio Foreste e Fauna, Settore Grandi carnivori

Claudio Groff (claudio.groff@provincia.tn.it)

Matteo Zeni (matteo.zeni@provincia.tn.it)

Regione Lombardia

Regione Lombardia - Struttura Natura e Biodiversità,
Sviluppo sostenibile e tutela risorse dell'ambiente

Elisabetta

Rossi

(Elisabetta_maria_rossi@regione.lombardia.it)

Laura Cucè (Laura_cuce@regione.lombardia.it)

Regione Lombardia – Sviluppo delle Politiche Forestali
e Agroambientali (EAFRD)

Maria Novella Bruno

(maria_novella_bruno@regione.lombardia.it)

Regione Liguria

EAFRD - Liguria Region - Department of Agriculture,
Training and Work.
# SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia**

* **D.P.Reg. 128/2009:** dogs are purchased by the companies or private citizens and then they received subsidies (i.e. 90%). The subsidies include also the cost of delivery, training and management of the dog breeder.

* **Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta:** financing up to 1000 € for dog for year donated (90% financed from regional law); up to 800 € for year for food and veterinary expenses (90% financed from regional law)

* **Provincia Autonoma di Trento:**

* **PAT** financing 90% of the pup cost for sheep and goat breeders; 60% for cattle and equines breeders. **Cost of each dog: 850€**, taxes and all other extra included (for 70-100 days old pups)

* **LIFE DINALP BEAR Project:** financing hiring of a vet, LGD expert, to check the integration of the pups in the new herds and families

* **Regione Piemonte:**

* **LIFE Wolfalps Project:** pups donated (100% financed by the project)

* **EAFRD - Measure 4.4.2.** - Subsidies cover 100% of the cost of the LGD with Pedigree for a maximum cost of 800,00 €/dog.

* **Regione Lombardia:**

* **Pasturs Project:** pups donated (100% financed by the project)

* **EAFRD - Measure 4.4.1.** - pups financed (**Cost of each dog: 800 €** for 8 weeks old pup)

* **Regione Liguria:**

* **EAFRD - Measure 4.4.2.** - the aid intensity is 50% of the eligible expenditure, the maximum contribution for the purchase of each LGD, inclusive of
expenses for microchip, insertion in canine registry, vet ordinary costs, training, is in any case equal to € 500.00. It is possible to ask for 1 to 4 LGD.

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

**A. Total Regions: not provided.**

**B. Aspects different by Regions**

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Piemonte**

* **EAFRD - Measure 10.1.6 - the area-based flat rate payment for mobile electric fences, livestock guarding dogs and constant human presence during grazing is 50,00 € / ha, only for mountain and hilly territories.**
    Subsidies cover also the workload which is needed to work with LGD. Eighty farmers have been funded in the period 2016-2019, for a total of 277.440,01 €.

* **Piedmont Region Low 14/5/2015 n.9 -Art. 9 "Regional intervention program, for the year 2019 and 2020, to support costs for livestock defence".** Farmers not involved in EAFRD - Measure 10.1.6, and using electrified fences for night livestock recovery or livestock guarding dogs, can apply for payments. A maximum of 3.000,00 €/farmer can be funded in de minimis rules (REG UE n. 316/2019). Totally 200.000,00 € have been funded in 2019 and 2020.

* **Regional plan to protect livestock from predators (2012-2015):**

Bonus defined on the basis of a score taking into account:

* use of electrified fences for livestock night recovery;

* use of livestock guarding dogs;

* shepherd continuous presence during grazing

* number of grazing animals

A yearly maximum of 2.500,00 €/farmer can be given.

About 250 farmers have been funded each year.

Totally 290.000,00 €/year have been funded.
## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

<table><tr><td>WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong> - Servizio Caccia e Risorse Ittiche</li><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong> - Struttura Flora e fauna (Ufficio per la fauna selvatica e ittica), Corpo forestale della Valle d'Aosta (CFVdA) Mont Avic Natural Park.</li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinal Bear Project)</strong><ul><li>LGD breeders (who distributed the pups) acted as advisor for new owners in the field. LGD breeders are experienced farmers, who know how to raise the dogs properly and how to integrate them in the herd. For new owners it is very important to have an advisor who can help them in case of troubles or everyday challenges. Furthermore, a vet, LGD expert, was also hired to advise new owners on how to raise the dogs, how to monitor them in the new environment, etc.</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project):</strong> a specialized support was provided by a vet expert in how to raise the dogs with a correct behaviour, how to monitor them in the new environment. For new owners it is very important to have an advisor who can help them in case of troubles or everyday challenges.</li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong> - external technician.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong> - Approximately 50 officials from regional units.</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinal Bear Project)</strong><br/>- 20 LGD breeders and a vet LGD expert.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolalps Project)</strong> Veterinaries and cynology experts.</li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong> - 1 technician.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia</strong><br/>Officers contact the owner to check if the dog's integration proceeds as it should and everything is going well.</li><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br/>No particular protocol. The supervisors control if the dog is used in the herd like a guarding dog.</li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinal Bear Project)</strong><br/>After the control, the vet produces a report for the LDG owners, about the dog's health and behaviour. The document assessed the situation, and, in case of health or behaviour problems, gave advices on how to solve them.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolalps Project)</strong><br/>No particular protocol. The Veterinaries control, if the dog's integration proceeds as it should and advise owners in the field and by telephone.</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (EAFRD)</strong><br/>The control is administrative</li><li><strong>Regione Liguria</strong><br/>There are two evaluation protocols:<ul><li>evaluation schedules produced within the Life Medwolf;</li><li>evaluation schedules produced within the Pasturs Project</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>WHICH FEATURES ARE</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>MONITORED OR INSPECTED?</td><td>LGD health, its integration in the herd and with the owner, its behaviour as a guarding dog, and its attitude towards humans strangers.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td><b>A. Italian Regions common aspects</b><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<br><b>Field controls:</b> from 30 min to 2 hours (up to a day for Liguria)<br><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br><b>EAFRD:</b> The administrative control can take about an hour.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td><b>Aspects different by Regions</b><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br>➤ <b>Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia – Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project) - Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project) – Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinalp Bear Project)</b><br>Suggest the owner to contact the expert to educate dogs and avoid unwanted behaviours.<br>➤ <b>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</b><br>If the dog is not correctly used, the subsidies are not paid.<br>➤ <b>Regione Liguria</b><br>The technician advises the owner how to correct, if possible, the incorrect behaviors. In extreme cases the dog is removed from the flock.</td></tr></table>
# EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

## HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

### Italian Regions common aspects

With minor differences according to Regions/Province:

The situation at each farm regarding the occurrence of damages is monitored.

## WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project) – Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project) – Provincia Autonoma di Trento (LIFE Dinalp Bear Project)**

Not specifically measured. However, none of the new owners of LGDs has experienced damages to livestock.

## References

* Berce, T., Zahariaš, K., Sedmak, A., Bragalanti, N. 2018. Livestock guarding dogs. The LIFE DINALP BEAR project handbook.

* Coppinger R, Coppinger L. 1978. Livestock guarding dogs for U.S. agriculture. Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusett s.Groff C., Angeli F., Asson D., Bragalanti N., Pedrotti L., Zanghellini P. (editors), Large Carnivores Report 2019 (and previous Reports), Autonomous Province of Trento's Forestry and Wildlife Department:

* **Provincia Autonoma di Trento** - https://grandicarnivori.provincia.tn.it/Large-Carnivores-Report

* http://www.canislupus.it/un-cane-lupo/

* https://www.almonature.com/it/humans-and-wildlife/

* http://www.difesattiva.info/

* https://pasturs.org/

* http://www.medwolf.eu/
SHEPHERDS

<table><tr><td>COUNTRY</td><td>ITALY</td></tr><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>2012-2019</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td>Guarding animals using shepherds</td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td>Italian Regions common aspects<br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<br>• Sheep/goats or cattle</td></tr><tr><td>ROLE OF SHEPHERDS (JOB LIST)</td><td>Aspects different by Regions<br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br>• More livestock owners give animals on guard to one shepherd.<br>• Shepherd stays with the herd all the time during the day.<br>• The herd has to be enclosed in a safe enclosure during the night (night pen or stable).</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THEY WORKING WITH LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS?</td><td>Italian Regions common aspects<br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<br>Yes, sometimes their work is connected with LGD.</td></tr><tr><td>IF YES, WHO IS THE OWNER OF DOGS?</td><td>Not always the shepherd is the owner of the LGD. It can be owned by different breeders who rent their dogs to work for the pasture season.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MANY ANIMALS DO THEY TAKE CARE OF?</td><td>A. Total Regions: not provided.<br>B. Aspects different by Regions<br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br>➤ <strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br>Up to 100 sheep or goats<br>➤ <strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><br>Up to 1200 sheep and goats</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>DO THEY REPORT THEIR WORK?</td><td>Total Regions: not provided.</td></tr><tr><td>ORIGIN OF SHEPHERDS</td><td><b>A. Total Regions: not provided.</b><br/><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br/>Usually they are the owners of the flock but sometimes the shepherds came from Eastern Europe.<br/>In some cases, the owners of different flocks give livestock in guard to a single shepherd to decrease management costs.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE SHEPHERDS ORGANIZED IN ORGANIZATION?</td><td><b>A. Total Regions: not provided.</b><br/><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br/>The owners of the livestock often belong to agricultural organizations.</td></tr><tr><td>SALARY (per month, season, etc. - define)</td><td>Total Regions: not provided.</td></tr><tr><td>ARE THE COSTS COFINANCED?<br/>WHICH COSTS?<br/>■ salary,<br/>■ insurance,<br/>■ food,<br/>■ other?</td><td><b>A. Total Regions: not provided.</b><br/><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br/>Subsidies for workload are included in EAFRD payments.<br/>➤ <b>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</b><br/>Subsidies for salary no more than 1500 €/month from May to October.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td><b>A. Total Regions: not provided.</b><br/><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br/><b>The EARDF funds (Measure 10.1.6)</b> enable owners to apply for subsidies for covering the workload which is needed to setup, move and maintain the enclosure and for permitting them to constantly be present during the livestock grazing.<br/>In the Alps, where predators are not yet present or are recently returned, the livestock is left unattended with only occasional human control.</td></tr><tr><td>INSURANCE</td><td><b>Italian Regions common aspects</b><br/>No special insurance are applied.</td></tr><tr><td>FOOD</td><td><b>Italian Regions common aspects</b><br/>Not supplied.</td></tr><tr><td>SHELTER</td><td><b>Total Regions: not provided</b></td></tr><tr><td>ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP AND CATTLE SHEPHERDS?</td><td><b>A. Total Regions: not provided.</b><br/><b>B. Aspects different by Regions</b><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <b>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</b><br/>Only sheep and goat shepherds can ask for subsidies.<br/>➤ <b>Regione Piemonte</b><br/>In most of the cases only sheep/goat shepherds are constantly present during the grazing.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW DO THE SHEPHERDS LEARN ABOUT THEIR WORK?</td><td><b>Italian Regions common aspects</b><br/>No training.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>RESPONSABILITIES OF SHEPHERDS</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br/><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><br/>Their main task is to enclose the animals in a safe enclosure during the night and to follow livestock during grazing, controlling LGDs behaviour with tourists.</td></tr><tr><td>IS THERE ANY PROMOTION OF ROLE / JOB OF SHEPHERDS?</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br/>No, there isn't.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE SHEPHERDS DOING OUT OF WORKING SEASON?</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br/><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><br/>Some shepherds graze animals all the year, moving to plain areas. Others work in their own farm.</td></tr><tr><td>CHALLENGES</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br/><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <strong>Regione Piemonte</strong><br/>Promotion of typical shepherds in the alpine area as the role was abandoned during the last century because of the absence of large carnivores.</td></tr><tr><td>CONTACT INSTITUTION AND PERSON</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br/><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br/>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br/>➤ <strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br/>RAVdA - Assessorato Ambiente, Risorse naturali e Corpo forestale<br/>Cristian Chioso (c.chioso@regione.vda.it)<br/>Fabrizio Truc (f.truc@regione.vda.it)</td></tr></table>
# SUBSIDIES OR OTHER MEANS TO MITIGATE OR PREVENT LARGE CARNIVORE DAMAGES

## SUBSIDIES AND PAYMENTS FOR EXTRA WORKLOAD

### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

**Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta**

* Subsidies for salary no more than 1500 euro per month from May to October (90% financed from Regional Law).

**Regione Piemonte**

* **EAFRD (2014-2020) - Measure 10.1.6** - The area-based flat rate payment for mobile electric fences, livestock guarding dogs and constant human presence during grazing is 50,00 € / ha. in mountain and hilly terrain.

Subsidies cover the workload which is needed to setup, move and maintain the enclosure and the constant human presence.

Eighty farmers have been funded in the period 2016-2019, for a total of 277.440,01 €.

* **Piedmont Region Law 14/5/2015 n.9 -Art. 9 "Regional intervention program, for the year 2019 and 2020, to support costs for livestock defence"** - Farmers not involved in EAFRD – Measure 10.1.6, and using electrified fences for night livestock recovery or livestock guarding dogs, can apply for payments.

A maximum of 3.000,00 €/farmer can be funded.

Totally 200.000,00 € have been funded both in 2019 and 2020.

* **Regional plan to protect livestock from predators (Period 2012-2015)**

Bonus defined on the basis of a score taking into account:

* use of electrified fences for livestock night recovery;

* use of livestock guarding dogs;

* shepherd continuous presence during grazing;

* number of grazing animals.
A yearly maximum of 2.500,00 €/farmer can be given.

About 250 farmers have been funded each year.

Totally 290.000,00 €/year have been funded.

## SURVEILLANCE OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### WHO IS IN CHARGE OF SURVEILLANCE?

#### Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta** - Struttura Flora e fauna (Ufficio per la fauna selvatica e ittica), Corpo forestale della Valle d'Aosta (CFVdA) Mont Avic Natural Park.

* **Regione Piemonte (EAFRD)** - ARPEA Piemonte (Agenzia Regionale Piemontese per l'Erogazione in Agricoltura - Piedmont Regional Agency for Providing Services in Agriculture)

### HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?

#### A. Total Regions: not provided.

#### B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta**

Approximately 50 officials from regional units.

### WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL / PROCEDURE OF EACH CONTROL?

#### A. Total Regions: not provided.

#### B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:

* **Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta**

To verify the presence of shepherd with the animals.

### WHICH FEATURES ARE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?

#### A. Total Regions: not provided.

#### B. Aspects different by Regions

Details by Regions/Province when given:
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta - Regione Piemonte (EAFRD)</strong><br>Presence of shepherd with the animals.</td></tr><tr><td>HOW MUCH TIME DOES ONE CONTROL TAKE?</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br>Approximately 30 minutes.</td></tr><tr><td>WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROL IN CASE OF IMPROPER USE?</td><td><strong>A. Total Regions: not provided.</strong><br><strong>B. Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<br><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br>If the shepherd is not present, the subsidies are not paid.</td></tr></table>

## EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTED MEASURES

### HOW IS THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURED?

**Italian Regions common aspects**

Not measured.

### WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

**Italian Regions common aspects**

Not measured.
OTHER DAMAGE PREVENTION MEASURES AND TECHNQUES

<table><thead><tr><th>COUNTRY</th><th>ITALY</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>REPORTING PERIOD</td><td>Variable 2007 – 2019</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTED MEASURES</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><ul><li>Acoustic devices</li><li>Light bollard for wildlife</li></ul></li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong><ul><li>Temporary, free loan of housing modules</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong><ul><li>Alpine shelter</li><li>Acoustic devices</li><li>Optical devices (fladry)</li></ul></li><li><strong>Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong><ul><li>Acoustic devices</li><li>Optical devices (fladry)</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TARGETED TYPE OF PROPERTY</td><td><strong>Italian Regions common aspects</strong><br>With minor differences according to Regions/Province:<ul><li>Cattle, sheep, goat</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNICAL DETAILS</td><td><strong>Acoustic devices</strong><br>Deterrents detect the approach of animals and people to livestock pasture areas and exert a dissuasive action through the emission of lights and high volumes sounds. The instruments, powered by battery and solar panels, work automatically without operator intervention. It is suitable for the protection of animals grazing or in shelters on limited areas and for periods not too long. Sounds are stored in a removable card and are played randomly.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Characteristics: acoustic / luminous bollard activated by PIR sensors and internal timer. The instrument must have the following characteristics and equipment:<ul><li>Construction certified for external use (IP54);</li><li>Presence of high power speaker and led lights;</li><li>Power supply from rechargeable battery and photovoltaic panel of at least 5 watts;</li><li>Activation by internal PIR sensor, programmable timer and external PIR sensor invasive with the central unit through wireless system;</li><li>Random sound emission to minimize habituation.</li><li>Optical devices (fladry) made up of red flags (50 x 10 cm), attached to a wire and spaced 50 cm. one from the other. They are perceived by wolf as a sort of physical barrier and so they aren't crossed.</li><li>Alpine shelter, specific for high mountain altitude, (external size of 2.41 x 2.56 x 2.70 m) has been donated to a sheep shepherd to permit his constant presence at the pasture.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>FINANCIAL SOURCES</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:<ul><li><strong>Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta</strong><br>Regional co-financing scheme: Assessorato Ambiente, Risorse naturali e Corpo forestale) co-finances 90% of the purchase of equipment to farmers up to 2000 €</li><li><strong>Regione Piemonte (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong></li><li><strong>Regione Lombardia (LIFE Wolfalps Project)</strong></li><li><strong>Provincia Autonoma di Trento</strong></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION</td><td><strong>Aspects different by Regions</strong><br>Details by Regions/Province when given:</td></tr></table>