Europe as a model for large carnivores conservation: Is the glass half empty or half full?
Introduction
Large carnivores represent a charismatic and ecologically important mammal group (Gittleman, Funk, Macdonald, & Wayne, 2001) with species considered worth of extraordinary conservation efforts either per se, or as proxies for ecosystems integrity (focal, umbrella, keystone and flagship; Andelman and Fagan, 2000, Amori and Gippoliti, 2000, Caro, 2010; Caro, Fitzhebert, & Gardner, 2004). It is widely recognized that for their ecological role, perceived value and critical demographic status and trends, conservation of large carnivores at a large scale represents a global priority (Ray et al., 2005), also with implications for other species (Fuller and Sievert, 2001, Okarma, 1995, Skogland, 1991).
Conservation and management of large carnivores requires a thorough knowledge of their demographic trends, population status and dispersion dynamics. This should optimally be achieved at various spatial levels, from (meta)populations to landscape, regional and continental levels. Consequently, international organizations and public agencies support research in this sense (e.g. Dalerum, Cameron, Kunkel, & Somers, 2009; de Heer, Kapos, & Ten Brink, 2005). The causal analyses and interpretation of temporal trends and spatial patterns represent a strategic step in predicting the extinction risk and consequently adapting conservation strategies and policies (e.g. Boitani et al., 2015, Liberg et al., 2011; Purvis, Gittleman, Cowlishaw, & Mace, 2000).
At the global level, the status of large carnivore species is constantly monitored (Bauer et al., 2015, Henschel et al., 2014, Ripple et al., 2014, Stirling and Derecher, 2012). Chapron et al. (2014) recently synthesize current trends of four species (brown bear, Ursus arctos; Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx; grey wolf, Canis lupus; wolverine, Gulo gulo) in the European Union (EU). The authors based their considerations on a large amount of expert data. They concluded that increase in distribution range of all four species is the result of suitable and effective European policies towards their conservation. The authors therefore invite to consider the application of the EU coexistence model for large carnivores in other geographical contexts.
We agree that the proposed ‘coexistence model’ is a laudable goal, but we are not convinced that Europe, considered as a single study unit, provides such a clear-cut example of successful cohabitation between humans and large carnivores. More importantly, we are not convinced that the EU model is a universal and broadly exportable model. Moreover, we aim to critically assess the role of EU policies as the main driving force of the recently improved status of large carnivores on this continent. Below, we analyze point-by-point advantages of the EU policies and their drawbacks.
Section snippets
‘Europe’ as a single sample unit? The need to stratify heterogeneous data
Advocates of the effectiveness of the EU conservation model (e.g. Chapron et al., 2014) developed their conclusions considering ‘Europe’ as a single sample unit. Nevertheless, even a rough review of mapped species distributions at the continental scale, shows how variable patterns of species-specific fragmentation are within the Continent. From this point of view, ‘Europe’ appears as a heterogeneous area that might be more realistically subdivided into at least four macro-regions (as
‘Europe’ as a representative and exportable model?
From a broader perspective, ‘Europe’ has a particularly intense history of human-wildlife interactions. Moreover, when considering the human population density, ‘Europe’ is a ‘full world’ (Farina, Johnson, Turner, & Belgrano, 2003), contrary to other ‘empty’ continents (Africa, large sectors of Americas) where human density is low. Furthermore, average EU cultural attitude to nature conservation (not necessarily that of local rural communities), well depicted by the richness of its conservation
An optimistic point of view that is not valid for all large carnivore taxa
Conservation status of a highly threatened endemic taxa, such as the Apennine brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus) (Ciucci & Boitani, 2008; Falcucci, Maiorano, Ciucci, Garton, & Boitani, 2008; Gippoliti, 2016) or isolated populations such as the Sierra Morena wolf (López-Bao et al., 2015) cannot be comfortably nested into the success story of the EU environmental policy (Chapron et al., 2014). Endemic taxa must get priority in conservation policy, which is particularly true for Southern Europe,
Conclusions
The analysis of the EU environmental policy as a model for large carnivore conservation (Chapron et al., 2014) suggests an optimism on the status and coexistence between these large mammals and humans in ‘Europe’. Optimistic attitudes are important in conservation policy by facilitating positive and creative approaches and feedbacks (Beever, 2000). Nevertheless, realism and reliability should also characterize the work of conservation practitioners and scientists, to avoid dogmatic attitudes
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Jared Diamond (University of California, Los Angeles) for the encouragement and Gary Galbreath (Biological Sciences, Northwestern University, Illinois, US), Marco Musiani (University of Calgary) for their useful comments and suggestions. Daniel Brito thanks Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for continuous support on his research (grant 307542/2015-7). Moreover we would acknowledge Professor Bernardino Romano and Dr. PhD Francesco Zullo
References (81)
- et al.
Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: Drivers, scope and potential impacts
Land Use Policy
(2015) - et al.
Don’t think local! Scale in conservation, parochialism, dogmatic bureaucracy and the implementing of the European Directives
Journal for Nature Conservation
(2015) - et al.
Conservation and control strategies for the wolf (Canis lupus) in western Europe based on demographic models
Comptes Rendus Biologies
(2003) - et al.
‘Full’ world versus ‘empty’ world paradigm at the time of globalization
Ecological Economic
(2003) - et al.
Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: Application to European forests (1990–2000)
Ecological Indicators
(2011) - et al.
Brown bear conservation and the ghost of persecution past
Biological Conservation
(2011) - et al.
What do mammalogists want to save? Ten years of mammalian conservation biology
Biodiversity and Conservation
(2000) - et al.
Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
(2000) - et al.
Time frames for population viability analysis of species with long generations: An example with Asian elephants
Animal Conservation
(1999)