Plenary Meeting of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores

Transcription

1 Case studies and Rural Development Plenary Meeting of the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores Platform Secretariat: Katrina Marsden, Tasos Hovardas, Spyros Psaroudas (adelphi and Callisto) Brussels 30 May 2016

2 Case studies collection and analysis Research into use of rural development work Examples from member states Comparison of good practice drawn from case studies with EAFRD measures examination of future potential Discussion Introduction

3 Case studies

4 Method Questionnaire to Platform members / information from Platform members Identification of good practice from Workshop presentations Identification of good practice from LIFE projects Examples divided into broad categories

5 Category Descriptions Number of cases Advice / Awareness raising Innovative financing Sourcing of information from individual contact points (websites, experts, volunteers) for the general public responsible authorities or stakeholders 6 Awareness raising for tourists to avoid conflict with bears 2 Avoiding infrastructure development in areas important for wolf breeding 1 Volunteer programmes providing livestock keepers with extra capacity 3 Eco-labelling schemes to increase value of produce 3 Eco-tourism development based on the presence of large carnivores 1 Payment for results scheme 1 Information received Practical support Monitoring Practical measures to improve coexistence such as provision of fencing or livestock guarding dogs 3 Establishment of emergency teams to respond to call-outs. 1 Good practice in involving stakeholders in monitoring of large carnivores and sharing the results with stakeholders. 3 Plenary Meeting of the EU Platform Studies on understanding Coexistence between stakeholder People attitudes and Large to Carnivores different large carnivore species. 2 Intensive efforts to encourage stakeholders to work together. 3 Understanding viewpoints

6 Funding sources Funding Source Number of cases National / regional government 10 EU LIFE 10 NGO Resources / volunteers 7 EAFRD 1 Private 1

7 Location

8 Species targeted wolf bear lynx wolverine

9 Key stakeholders Livestock keepers / herders General public All Hunters Business National / regional government

10 EAFRD funding

11 Method Literature review, questions to DG Environment and DG Agriculture Online questionnaire: background information of respondents, items on Rural Development Programmes, items on specific (sub-) measures in these programmes that either explicitly or implicitly targeted large carnivores (121 items; January to April 2016) Programming periods: ; respondents from 12 different Member States; 13 Rural Development Programmes in the programming period and another 28 Rural Development Programmes in the programming period (41 implementations) The number of regions or countries covered amounted to 27 different localities (for Germany, France, and Italy, data collection referred to different regions of the Member States) Statistical analysis to discover trends in data

12 Number of implementation of measures Table 1. Number of implementation of measures targeting large carnivores in Rural Development Programmes per Programming Period and geographical scale Programming Period Geographical scale Total Mediterranean Balkan Central European Nordic Total

13 Measure code Support for investment in agricultural holdings Support for nonproductive investments linked to the achievement of agrienvironment(-climate) objectives Programmes code Programmes 121 Italy (Marche, Toscana) 4.1 Finland; Croatia; Sweden; Italy (Marche), Spain Results (Aragon) 216 Greece, Italy (Abruzzo), Sweden, Germany (Saxony) 4.4 Germany (Saxony, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern); Greece; Italy (Abruzzo, Emilia Romagna, Lazzio, Marche, Piemonte, Toscana), Spain (Asturias) Support for nonproductive investments linked to the achievement of forest environment objectives 227 Spain (Rioja) 8.5 Agri-environment(- climate) 214 Bulgaria, Slovenia, Greece 10.1 Bulgaria, Slovenia, Spain (Rioja), Portugal Village renewal 323 Germany Brandenburg; 7.6 Germany Brandenburg; France (Alsace, Auvergne, Champagne-Ardennes, Franche Comte, Languedoc Rousillon, Midi Pyrenees, Alpes Cote D Azur, Rhones Alpes) LEADER 412 Germany - Saarland 19 Germany - Saarland

14 Funding Table 2. Mean size of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), source of funding per Programming Period, and mean planned budget for measures Programming period Mean size of RDPs (M ) EAFRD funding (M and % of total RDP) (59.24) (77.72) * Data on planned budget were available only for the programming period

15 Species targeted Wolf Bear Lynx Wolverine

16 Beneficiaries Stock breeders/herders Farmers Bee keepers Rural residents Environmental NGOs

17 Stakeholders involved in design of measures

18 Stakeholders involved in Programme Monitoring Committee

19 Biplot

20 Determiners of effectiveness

21 Examples

22 Greece

23 Example 1: Greece National RDP : Measure 214 («Agri-environment payments») Measure 216 («Support for non-productive investments»)

24 Example 1: Greece Measure 214 («Agri-environment payments») Action 3.3: Promoting agricultural practices to protect wildlife (leaving aside production of particular/eligible species of crops corresponding to 10% of the cultivated surface and up to 1 Ha) Uptake of the measure (spend in ): 0 The action cancelled due to the lack of availability of the necessary application tools

25 Example 1: Greece Measure 216: «Support for non-productive investments»; Sub-measure 1: Support actions for the protection of wildlife Action Purchase and installation of electrified fence Uptake of the measure (spend in ): ,50 Number of funded applications: 109 out of 136 (27 rejected)

26 Example 1: Greece Measure 216: Support for non-productive investments; Sub-measure 1: Support actions for the protection of wildlife Action Purchase and maintenance of Greek shepherd dogs Uptake of the measure (spend in ): 0 The action cancelled due to its complexity and the lack of authorised certification agency

27 Size of the National RDP : Amount finally devoted to LC: ,50 Percentage: 0,0016% Example 1: Greece Note: Foreseen amount for LC and the wildlife in general was initially much higher. Nevertheless, the money were transferred to other measures

28 Example 1: Greece National RDP : Measure Support for non-productive investments Purchase and installation of electrified fence (similar to one of the three measures included in the RDP )

29 Purchase and installation of electrified fence: Eligible for grants are: Example 1: Greece a) Natural and legal persons or groups of natural or legal persons, who systematically engage in beekeeping and reside or travel in regions of intervention b) Breeders with extensive farms of sheep and cattle, living or traveling in intervention areas, and c) Farmers that cultivate agricultural products edible by bears, in the intervention areas

30 Example 1: Greece Size of the National RDP : (85% the size of the RDP in the previous programming period) Amount devoted to LC: N/A

31 Example 1: Greece Proposal for improving implementation of the measures in real life: Simplification of the application procedures Better promotion of the measures (cooperation with stakeholders, organisation of local public events) Cooperation of stakeholders and joint efforts on: (a) monitoring the implementation of the measures and (b) pressing the Managing Authorities for their enforcement (lobbying etc.)

32 Spain JC Blanco (LCIE)

33

34 Example 2: Spain La Rioja ( ). Measure code 227-4: Support for non-productive investments in forest areas The preservation and care of Natura 2000 spaces network in forests, the biodiversity, to maintain and restore the forestry potential and the implementation of preventive measures against forest fires.

35 Example 2: Spain Building wolf proof corrals to protect sheep during the night in forest where wolves were present. This is considered a measure to improve the habitat for livestock in areas with wolves

36 Example 2: Spain Maintenance of extensive livestock increased premium (15 /ha) in areas where wolves are confirmed to be present. Extensive farmers are compensated for grazing a minimum number of days, respecting stocking density, management plans, etc.

37 Example 2: Spain In the municipalities with wolves, the livestock breeders must have at least one Large Guarding Dog for every 150 sheep/goats

38

39 Example 2: Spain Plan in La Rioja: 200 million euros 25.3% FEADER 27.7% Ministry of Agriculture and Environment 47.0% Regional Government of La Rioja The budget of the submeasure was >13 Million euro. The cost of wolf related measures: 95,265 (0.7% of the submeasure)

40 Example 2: Spain The Future: Plan : Asturias. (4.4). Subsidies to avoid damages caused by wild damages to agriculture and livestock: mobile fences, electric fences, mastiff dogs and protection for beehives in bear areas

41 Example 2: Spain Aragón (4.1). Bear proof corrals to protect sheep which overnight in the mountains. Breeders who have livestock in natural parks or buffer areas and who have suffered damages in the last year

42 Example 2: Spain CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE Coordination Between environmental and agricultural agencies Between autonomous regions

43 Future potential crosscomparison of case studies and EAFRD funding

44 Code Measure Strengths Weaknesses 121 / 4.1 Support for Farmers do not need to prove that the Not fully financed (the beneficiary investment in measures are linked to agrienvironment-climate objectives under farmers / groups of farmers. Only must also contribute). Open only to agricultural holdings the regulation. Measures may covers costs of infrastructure. therefore Future also provide potential additional economic benefits. 216 / 4.4 Support for non-productive investments linked to the achievement of agri- environment(- climate) objectives 100% financed. Open to all land managers. Need to prove the link to agrienvironment-climate objectives and that the measure is non-productive. Land manager cannot benefit financially from the measure. Only covers costs of infrastructure. 214 / 10.1 Agrienvironment (-climate) Potentially available to all land managers. Continued payment which can cover additional costs and income foregone on an annual level, not just initial costs. Annual payment which does not cover the initial investment in infrastructure. The link with providing area-based environmental benefits should be clear - therefore needs to include land management requirements. 323 / 7.6 Village renewal Open to wide range of rural actors. Can cover a wider range of measures related to coexistence including information and awareness raising, waste management, local infrastructure management. Have to be in accordance with plans for the development of municipalities and villages in rural areas.

45 Code 1 Measure name Advice / Awareness Innovative financing Future potential Practical support Understandin g viewpoints Monitoring Knowledge transfer / Information Advisory Services C C C C C 2 C C C C C Investment in physical 4.1 assets K Non-productive invesment 4.4 K 6.2 Business start-up aid P Non-agricultural activity 6.4 development P Basic services / village 7.1 renewal P 7.5 Tourism infrastructure P Studies / investments 7.6 natural heritage K K K K K Forest ecosystem 8.5 investment K Agri-environment-climate 10.1 K K Compensation Natura areas K Animal welfare payments 14 P Forest-environmentclimate K 15.1 Cooperation LEADER Technical support P P P C C C C C C C C C C

46 Feedback from DG Agri and Env

47 Discussion

48 Case studies Do the members believe that the case studies represent the most important aspects of good practice in the EU? Are there serious gaps? If so, how can they be filled? How can the best sources of funding for good practice be identified? How can best practice from the case studies be better drawn out, presented and transferred to different settings? Do the members agree to endorse the case studies as examples of good practice?

49 Rural Development Is more evidence gathering needed on use of the EAFRD e.g. into the role of stakeholders in design, implementation and monitoring of the measures or the reasons Member States have used particular measures? If so, how can the members contribute to this by engaging their own members? How can members best provide their own members with guidance on engaging with the design of the Rural Development programmes? How can they be supported in doing this? How can use of EAFRD funding to support coexistence be optimised in the areas with large carnivore conflict? Should support provided through the EAFRD be focused on livestock breeders / herders or is there also the potential to target measures at other interests represented by Platform members?