- Email: [email protected]
The brown bear in Norway, II: Management and planning
Biological Conservation 48 (1989) 151-162
The Brown Bear in Norway, Ih Management and Planning I. Mysterud Department of Biology, Division of Zoology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1050, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo 3, Norway
& M. Muus Falck The Forest Owners Association of 1950, Lilleakervn 31, Nq2283 Oslo 2, Norway
(Received 17 November 1986; revised version received 30 September 1988; accepted 2 October 1988)
ABSTRACT This paper presents three different management plans designed to give longterm protection to 17 Norwegian subpopulations of brown bear Ursus arctos L. Plan I was developed by an expert committee, which proposed approx. 220 bears in six different 'security-areas' ( SA ) totalling 95 930 km 2. Each SA is designed to support a viable population of bears in a specific area. Plan H proposes a minimum of 250 bears in two large management ranges (162000kin z) on multiple use lands in Norway. The main objective is to prevent future 'isolation', a decrease in gene flow potential, andfragmentation of habitat which might affect future population growth. Plan III suggests cooperation with Sweden and Finland. Two large management zones (377000km 2) with a future target population of 1000 bears is proposed. This strategy of international cooperation would secure genetically viable populations and sufficiently large areas to provide the highest level of demographic protection. The problems of adjusting population number to area are discussed on the basis of theoretical island biogeography and recent findings in conservation biology. 151 BioL Conserv.0006-3207/89/$03"50 © 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
152
L Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
INTRODUCTION Ecological, genetic and practical management of large carnivores in multiple-use areas presents complicated and controversial issues. Conservation management programmes must be developed to accommodate a variety of interest groups. The management of carnivores today should be based on a programme designed for a measurable and predictable time scale (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989). In Mysterud & Muus Falck (1989), our aim was to convince managers and planners that they should give greater consideration to the size of area in relation to the biological requirements of a given population. Norway today has 4.1 million inhabitants in an area of 323 886 km 2, of which 50% is mountain heath, 20% productive forest, 5% lakes and 2-8% cultivated land. Less than 1% of the land area is populated (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1985). A proposal prepared by a public committee in 1980 for Finnmark County (Directorate for Nature Management, 1980) emphasised that the brown bear Ursus arctos L. should be managed within large, continuous areas, and that population density should be adapted to local husbandry through differential planning. These proposals were never put into effect by the authorities. In 1986 a new management plan (Plan I) was proposed for the Norwegian bear population (Vaag et al., 1986), which stimulated new discussions about the future of the brown bear in Norway. In this paper we outline two alternative plans (II and III), and discuss them in terms of conservation biology theory. Although the removal of bears which kill livestock is still allowed, the Norwegian brown bear is strictly protected by legislation (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989). This is documented both through the game law (Ministry of Environment, 1981) and the ratification of the Berne Convention (Norwegian Parliament, 1986). Government officials have, meanwhile, become aware of the serious conflicts that may arise, particularly between husbandry, herding of reindeer and the presence of large carnivores. It is argued (Ministry of the Environment, 1983) that damage to livestock and domestic reindeer should be kept at a tolerable level, while securing viable populations of bear, wolverine and wolf. The possibility of controlling the bear population is also stated in the Berne Convention. The conservation of a species cannot be achieved only by protective legislation, and we have therefore emphasized this by redefining 'status' as area-specific demographic protection (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989) of the 17 subpopulations (Kolstad et al., 1986).
The brown bear in Norway, H
153
Although ecological knowledge must always be the basis of planning concerned with biological resources, experience has shown that management goals can seldom be realised solely on biological criteria. There are other interests in society that are often of greater importance. It is therefore unrealistic to believe that sufficiently large areas can be set aside in Norway to support every aspect of the management of faunal resources. It is now necessary to widen and integrate multiple-use thinking into more advanced resource management. To achieve this, planning authorities at different levels of governments must cooperate with biologists to a greater extent than they do today.
T H E P R O P O S E D M A N A G E M E N T PLANS
Plan I: Proposed security areas to protect viable populations In 1983 an expert Management Committee (MC), was established to consider and make proposals for the future preservation of the brown bear, wolverine and wolf in Norway. Its main conclusion (Plan I) (Vaag et al., 1986) was to call for the establishment of so-called 'security-areas' (SA) for these species throughout the country (Fig. 1). Each SA was to be large enough to keep a viable population in an optimum environment and with a sufficient number of individuals. The SAs are not reserves or national parks, but multiple-use areas, some heavily utilised by man. The 6 SAs range in size from 6760 to 27 340km 2, and total 91 680km 2 (Table 1). Their borders partly follow administrative units (municipalities and counties) and partly landscape features. Plan I comprises the same total areas as the present distribution of bears in Norway (Kolstad et al., 1986). An accurate target population size was defined for each SA (Table 1). The MC also suggested that bears could be managed outside the SAs and defined a total protected population level of 295 bears, 220 inside and 75 outside the SAs. Plan I does not safeguard a large enough population for viability or a sufficiently large area because it is not known whether each SA could support the proposed target bear population. It is also doubtful whether the MC's proposal to manage bears outside the SAs will be accepted, and in a plan based on compromises, such bears will not have adequate security. Plan I has one further weakness in that it proposes to manage the bear on the basis of the present estimate of the number of individuals in each population. It is well known that such figures are not reliable (Kolstad et al., 1986), and that field research can only offer crude estimates.
154
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Fig. 1. Designation of the Plan I 'security-areas' (SA) for the brown bear in Norway (redrawn from Vaag et al., 1986).
Plan II: National management ranges In Plan II we propose two large and continuous management ranges on Norwegian territory: one in the north ( N N M R ) and the other in the south and central regions (SNMR) (Fig. 2). The northern area is an ecological region mainly centred on an arctic-alpine zone while the southern area has extensive northern boreal forests east of the divide, mixed with alpine mountains (Nordic Council o f Ministers, 1983). National management ranges are not restrictive protection zones, but an ecological and administrative designation o f multiple-use areas. Inside the ranges, environmental and agricultural authorities will be requested to cooperate so
The brown bear in Norway, H
.~
=
.= .~
~o
155
=
~.=~ ~ ~
.~
o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
~ ~ ~
e~.N
.<
¢~ . ~
0
Z
6~
< ~r.~
<
~
o
.
~
~r ~
o
E .o -r. ~,
f-I
~
0
0
%
0
Z
0
b.,
0
~.~
~ o
~,~ 0
e~
<
o
e~
~
0
r~z =
~, '~2~ ~
"N ,'~ o ~ ~ '~m~ ~Z --~ Z
,.-1
0 <
o
156
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Fig. 2. Designation of Plan II northern (NNMR) and southern (SNMR) Norwegian
Management Range of the brown bear in Norway.
that viable bear populations can be integrated in existing environmental and economic activity. Table 2 gives details of the two ranges, with estimated present and target populations. Four separate known bear populations are included in N N M R and eight in SNMR (Kolstad et al., 1986). The latter range covers the whole area of presumed dispersal, offering free access across the national border and westward. The long-term target population level of 200 in N N M R and 300 in SNMR is a goal that cannot be achieved today, or on a short-term basis with the present level of multiple use. We propose that management should secure a short-term target population of approx. 100 bears in N N M R and 150 in SNMR (Table 2).
157
The brown bear in Norway, H TABLE 2
Plan II. Designated Area and Target Population in Northern (NNMR) and Southern (SNMR) Management Range of Brown Bear in Norway Range
Population unit a
Number b
(km2) Estimated population
Target population Shortterm
Northern Norwegian Management Range (NNMR)
PTP AP KKP TP Outside
Total Southern Norwegian Management Range (SNMR)
Total Grand total
HLP LP VO HP HEP VHP THHP TMP Outside
Area
18-23 4-7 8-9 23-27 1-2 54-68
Longterm
Presently occupied habitat
Total
7 000 3 000 4 000 8 000 100
200?
22 000
53 000
9-13 11-15 2-5 29-35 3-5 8-11 3-6 10-13 10-20 85-123
6 000 3 000 1000 3 000 2 000 2000 2 000 9000 150
300?
48000
109000
139-191
250
500?
70000
162000
a Unit abbreviations given in Mysterud & Muus Falck (1989). b Estimated population figures from Kolstad et al. (1986).The target population levelis given as a guide to the necessary number of individuals to secure a long-term viable bear population. Both demographic and genetic aspects have been considered. Th e retention and security o f br ow n bear habitats should be given high priority, so that carnivore management, if it is to succeed, must be based on a cooperative effort by local groups and central organisations. A plan to prevent further habitat deterioration and shrinkage must be developed in detail for the whole range. Plan II excludes the coast in order to avoid or minimise conflict with livestock, but also because the status o f the coastal populations is u n k n o w n - - a l t h o u g h it is not likely that they will contribute m uch to the future survival o f bears in Norway. The m a n a g e m e n t ranges should include the greatest possible pa r t o f the b o r d e r areas between N o r w a y , Sweden and Finland. This is i m p o r t a n t for the maintenance o f dispersal and recruitment o f individuals fr om the larger eastern populations.
158
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
/,i
SONMR
[]
OCCURRENCE
O
NATIONALPARKS
......
COUNTYBORDER
Fig. 3. Designation of the Plan III of Northern (NONMR) and Southern (SONMR) Nordic Management Range of the brown bear. This international mega-range includes areas in Norway, Sweden and Finland.
159
The brown bear in Norway, II
Plan III: International mega-regions Plan III proposes two large and continuous management ranges on international territory, one in Northern Fenno-Scandinavia (NONMR) and the other in Southern and Central Scandinavia (SONMR) (Fig. 3). It is important that the two ranges should meet, or that a corridor is maintained between them in Sweden. This will offer continuous space for dispersal throughout the Fenno-Scandinavian Mountain Range. More detailed planning is needed in Sweden and Finland before a better evaluation of the level of demographic protection can be made. On the Norwegian side the habitat area in this proposal is identical with that in Plan II (Fig. 1). Table 3 shows the areas and known and target populations for Plan III. The combined long-term population level proposed for both ranges is 1000 bears in 377 000 km 2, which is larger than the total land area of Norway. How large a number actually can be safeguarded in the ranges and adapted to TABLE 3 Plan III. Designated Area and Target Population in Northern (NONMR) and Southern (SONMR) Nordic Management Range of Brown Bear Range
Nation
Number ~ Estimated population
Northern Nordic Management Range (NONMR)
Norway ( N N M R a) Sweden Finland
Total Southern Nordic Management Range (SONMR)
Total Grand total
Norway (SNMR a) Sweden
Area ° (kin 2)
Target population
Presently occupied habitat
Total
Shortterm
Longterm
54-68 ? ? ?
100 ? ? ?
? ? ? 500
22 000 ? ? ?
53 000 53 000 53 000 159000
85-123 ? ?
150 ? ?
? ? 500
48 000 ? ?
109 000 109 000 218 000
?
?
?
377 000
1 000
Area and short-term target population level are identical with Plan II (Table 2). The longterm target population for Norway given in Plan II might be reduced if a Nordic plan were carried out.
a
160
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
current economic activity will remain an open question until a Nordic group has developed a cooperative plan in greater detail. Plan III has the advantage that the long-term biological population goals in Plan II could be achieved immediately. It is very important that small countries with limited space resources and high economic activity in multiple-use areas should establish a large and continuous management range through international cooperation. Nordic cooperation to preserve populations of large carnivores has been discussed several times by the Nordic Council (Nordic Council, 1969-73), but without any firm result. However, the Berne Convention obliges contracting parties to cooperate in order to increase the efficiency of conservation acts (Ministry of Environment, 1979).
DISCUSSION Nature conservation planners have set aside national parks and nature reserves to preserve biological diversity. However, there is an inherent danger of 'isolation', in which areas become islands in a developed landscape, which may threaten the long-term survival of protected species. One consequence might be that surrounding areas will be forgotten by the planning authorities and therefore cease to function as 'bridges' between the islands. Such areas are likely to develop into barriers to the dispersal of animals and plants (Miller, 1983; Wilcox, 1983). Nature management through the restrictive 'island-protection' policy has led to severe conflicts between environmental authorities and local communities. Very often, areaprotection is not understood or accepted as a necessary policy. We conclude that Plan I must be rejected. It has not designated large enough areas to maintain and secure large and continuous stretches of bear habitat to meet in full the space demand of viable populations. The alternative Plans II and III should therefore be considered. Plan II has the potential to prevent most of the problems discussed in insular ecological theory, which in turn should increase the probability of long-term survival. If the recent level of multiple use (herds of domestic reindeer) should cease or change, a future target population increase towards the long-term goal could be accommodated. The needs for two separate ranges are described as (1) the demand from agricultural interests to reduce the distribution of bears; (2) to apply the multiple-use concept to achieve a higher demographic protection level; (3) the basic ecological differences of the landscape; and (4) differing prehistory of bear populations. The northern population of bears has presumably invaded Fennoscandia from the east, north of the Gulf of Bothnia, and the
The brown bear in Norway, H
161
southern population from the south, crossing the Ancylus-bridge (Ekman, 1922; Haglund, 1968). Plan III secures two large habitat blocks of international territory but an international objective can only be reached through a long and detailed process of implementation. Managers must be convinced of the validity of biological arguments, and be made aware of the long-term dangers of area shrinkage and the increasing isolation of constantly decreasing populations. The Nordic model in Plan III would give the bear safe and long-term conservation. It would without doubt be the better alternative. It would also indicate for nations in Europe the importance of international cooperation in safeguarding whatever bear habitat that remains in their multiple-use areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present paper discusses material collected during the Carnivore Survey. The Ministry of the Environment and the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management financed the survey. We are obliged to Dr Lennart Hansson, Swedish Agricultural University, Dr Michael R. Pelton, University of Tennessee and Dr Chris Servheen, US Fish and Wildlife Service for critical reading of an earlier draft of the manuscript. We are also grateful to Mr Derek Thomas, University of Oslo, for improving the English, and Anne Marie Helstad for technical assistance.
REFERENCES Directorate for Nature Management (1980). Utredning om forvaltning av bjorn i Finnmark. (Management plan proposal for brown bear in Finnmark County). Viltrapport, 13, 1-112. (In Norwegian.) Ekman, S. (1922). Djurvdrldens utbredningshistoria pgt Skandinaviska halv6n (Faunal distributional history on the Scandinavian Peninsula). Bonniers, Stockholm. (In Swedish.) Haglund, B. (1968). De stora rovdjurens vintervanor II (Winter habits of large carnivores). Viltrevy, 5, 213-361. (In Swedish.) Kolstad, M., Mysterud, I., Kvam, T., Sorensen, O. J. & Wikan, S. (1986). Status of the brown bear in Norway: Distribution and population 1978-1982. Biol. Conserv., 38, 79-99. Miller, K. R. (1983). Biosphere reserves in concept and practice. In Towards the Biosphere Reserve; Exploring Relationships between Parks and Adjacent Lands,
ed. R. C. Scace & C. J. Martinka. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, pp. 7-21.
162
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Ministry of Environment (1979). Konvensjon om vern av ville planter og dyr, og deres naturlige leveomr~der (Bernkonvensjonen). (Convention on the Conservation of European Plants and Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne Convention). (Mimeographed in Norwegian.) Ministry of Environment (1981). Lov av 29 mai 1981 nr 38 om viltet. (The Game Law, No. 38, 1981). Norsk lovtidend, 1981, 508-23. (In Norwegian.) Ministry of Environment (1983). Forskrift av 4 februar 1983 nr 80 om forvaltning/ adgang til felling av ulv, jerv og bj~rn. (Statutory regulations concerning management of wolf, wolverine and bear, No. 80, 1983). Norsk Lovtidend, 1983, 88-89. (In Norwegian.) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1985). Land and people. In Facts about Norway, ed. G. Moss, Chr. Schibsted, Oslo, pp. 6-15. Mysterud, I. & Muus Falck, M. (1989). The brown bear in Norway, I: Subpopulation ranking and conservation status. Biol. Conserv., 48, 21-39. Nordic Council (1969-1973). Meddelande om rekommendation nr 4/1968 ang~ende uppr~ittande aven naturpark f6r stora rovdjurens bevarande. (Contribution to Registration No. 4/1968 concerning establishment of Nature Park for Conservation of Large Carnivores.) Rek. 4/1968/1; D 1969, p. 2143; D 1970, p.2079; D 1971, p. 2405; D 1973, p. 1145. (In Swedish.) Nordic Council of Ministers (1983). Representativa naturtyper i Norden. (Representative nature types of Nordic Countries). Naturgeografiske Utredningner, 1983, No. 2. Minab/Gotab, Stockholm. Norwegian Geographic Survey (1984). Skog og jordbruksomrhder (Forest and agricultural areas). NGO, H~nefoss. (In Norwegian.) Norwegian Parliament (1986). Samtykke til ratifikasjon aven konvensjon av. 19. September 1979 vedr~rende vern av ville europeiske planter og dyr og deres naturlige leveomrhder. (Ratification of the Convention on the Conservation of European Plants and Wildlife and Natural Habitats). In Proceedings from the Norwegian Parliament. Stortingsforhandlinger (1985-86), 20, 2035-9. (In Norwegian). Vaag, A. B., Haga, A. & Granstuen, H. (1986). Forslag til landsplan for forvaltning av bj~rn, jervogulv i Norge. (Management plan proposal for brown bear, wolverine and wolf in Norway.) Viltrapport, 39, 1-162. (In Norwegian.) Wilcox, B. A. (1983). Biosphere reserves and the preservation of biological diversity. In Towards the Biosphere Reserve: Exploring Relationships between Parks and Adjacent Lands, ed. R. C. Scace & C. J. Martinka. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, pp. 207-17.
The Brown Bear in Norway, Ih Management and Planning I. Mysterud Department of Biology, Division of Zoology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1050, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo 3, Norway
& M. Muus Falck The Forest Owners Association of 1950, Lilleakervn 31, Nq2283 Oslo 2, Norway
(Received 17 November 1986; revised version received 30 September 1988; accepted 2 October 1988)
ABSTRACT This paper presents three different management plans designed to give longterm protection to 17 Norwegian subpopulations of brown bear Ursus arctos L. Plan I was developed by an expert committee, which proposed approx. 220 bears in six different 'security-areas' ( SA ) totalling 95 930 km 2. Each SA is designed to support a viable population of bears in a specific area. Plan H proposes a minimum of 250 bears in two large management ranges (162000kin z) on multiple use lands in Norway. The main objective is to prevent future 'isolation', a decrease in gene flow potential, andfragmentation of habitat which might affect future population growth. Plan III suggests cooperation with Sweden and Finland. Two large management zones (377000km 2) with a future target population of 1000 bears is proposed. This strategy of international cooperation would secure genetically viable populations and sufficiently large areas to provide the highest level of demographic protection. The problems of adjusting population number to area are discussed on the basis of theoretical island biogeography and recent findings in conservation biology. 151 BioL Conserv.0006-3207/89/$03"50 © 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
152
L Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
INTRODUCTION Ecological, genetic and practical management of large carnivores in multiple-use areas presents complicated and controversial issues. Conservation management programmes must be developed to accommodate a variety of interest groups. The management of carnivores today should be based on a programme designed for a measurable and predictable time scale (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989). In Mysterud & Muus Falck (1989), our aim was to convince managers and planners that they should give greater consideration to the size of area in relation to the biological requirements of a given population. Norway today has 4.1 million inhabitants in an area of 323 886 km 2, of which 50% is mountain heath, 20% productive forest, 5% lakes and 2-8% cultivated land. Less than 1% of the land area is populated (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1985). A proposal prepared by a public committee in 1980 for Finnmark County (Directorate for Nature Management, 1980) emphasised that the brown bear Ursus arctos L. should be managed within large, continuous areas, and that population density should be adapted to local husbandry through differential planning. These proposals were never put into effect by the authorities. In 1986 a new management plan (Plan I) was proposed for the Norwegian bear population (Vaag et al., 1986), which stimulated new discussions about the future of the brown bear in Norway. In this paper we outline two alternative plans (II and III), and discuss them in terms of conservation biology theory. Although the removal of bears which kill livestock is still allowed, the Norwegian brown bear is strictly protected by legislation (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989). This is documented both through the game law (Ministry of Environment, 1981) and the ratification of the Berne Convention (Norwegian Parliament, 1986). Government officials have, meanwhile, become aware of the serious conflicts that may arise, particularly between husbandry, herding of reindeer and the presence of large carnivores. It is argued (Ministry of the Environment, 1983) that damage to livestock and domestic reindeer should be kept at a tolerable level, while securing viable populations of bear, wolverine and wolf. The possibility of controlling the bear population is also stated in the Berne Convention. The conservation of a species cannot be achieved only by protective legislation, and we have therefore emphasized this by redefining 'status' as area-specific demographic protection (Mysterud & Muus Falck, 1989) of the 17 subpopulations (Kolstad et al., 1986).
The brown bear in Norway, H
153
Although ecological knowledge must always be the basis of planning concerned with biological resources, experience has shown that management goals can seldom be realised solely on biological criteria. There are other interests in society that are often of greater importance. It is therefore unrealistic to believe that sufficiently large areas can be set aside in Norway to support every aspect of the management of faunal resources. It is now necessary to widen and integrate multiple-use thinking into more advanced resource management. To achieve this, planning authorities at different levels of governments must cooperate with biologists to a greater extent than they do today.
T H E P R O P O S E D M A N A G E M E N T PLANS
Plan I: Proposed security areas to protect viable populations In 1983 an expert Management Committee (MC), was established to consider and make proposals for the future preservation of the brown bear, wolverine and wolf in Norway. Its main conclusion (Plan I) (Vaag et al., 1986) was to call for the establishment of so-called 'security-areas' (SA) for these species throughout the country (Fig. 1). Each SA was to be large enough to keep a viable population in an optimum environment and with a sufficient number of individuals. The SAs are not reserves or national parks, but multiple-use areas, some heavily utilised by man. The 6 SAs range in size from 6760 to 27 340km 2, and total 91 680km 2 (Table 1). Their borders partly follow administrative units (municipalities and counties) and partly landscape features. Plan I comprises the same total areas as the present distribution of bears in Norway (Kolstad et al., 1986). An accurate target population size was defined for each SA (Table 1). The MC also suggested that bears could be managed outside the SAs and defined a total protected population level of 295 bears, 220 inside and 75 outside the SAs. Plan I does not safeguard a large enough population for viability or a sufficiently large area because it is not known whether each SA could support the proposed target bear population. It is also doubtful whether the MC's proposal to manage bears outside the SAs will be accepted, and in a plan based on compromises, such bears will not have adequate security. Plan I has one further weakness in that it proposes to manage the bear on the basis of the present estimate of the number of individuals in each population. It is well known that such figures are not reliable (Kolstad et al., 1986), and that field research can only offer crude estimates.
154
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Fig. 1. Designation of the Plan I 'security-areas' (SA) for the brown bear in Norway (redrawn from Vaag et al., 1986).
Plan II: National management ranges In Plan II we propose two large and continuous management ranges on Norwegian territory: one in the north ( N N M R ) and the other in the south and central regions (SNMR) (Fig. 2). The northern area is an ecological region mainly centred on an arctic-alpine zone while the southern area has extensive northern boreal forests east of the divide, mixed with alpine mountains (Nordic Council o f Ministers, 1983). National management ranges are not restrictive protection zones, but an ecological and administrative designation o f multiple-use areas. Inside the ranges, environmental and agricultural authorities will be requested to cooperate so
The brown bear in Norway, H
.~
=
.= .~
~o
155
=
~.=~ ~ ~
.~
o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
~ ~ ~
e~.N
.<
¢~ . ~
0
Z
6~
< ~r.~
<
~
o
.
~
~r ~
o
E .o -r. ~,
f-I
~
0
0
%
0
Z
0
b.,
0
~.~
~ o
~,~ 0
e~
<
o
e~
~
0
r~z =
~, '~2~ ~
"N ,'~ o ~ ~ '~m~ ~Z --~ Z
,.-1
0 <
o
156
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Fig. 2. Designation of Plan II northern (NNMR) and southern (SNMR) Norwegian
Management Range of the brown bear in Norway.
that viable bear populations can be integrated in existing environmental and economic activity. Table 2 gives details of the two ranges, with estimated present and target populations. Four separate known bear populations are included in N N M R and eight in SNMR (Kolstad et al., 1986). The latter range covers the whole area of presumed dispersal, offering free access across the national border and westward. The long-term target population level of 200 in N N M R and 300 in SNMR is a goal that cannot be achieved today, or on a short-term basis with the present level of multiple use. We propose that management should secure a short-term target population of approx. 100 bears in N N M R and 150 in SNMR (Table 2).
157
The brown bear in Norway, H TABLE 2
Plan II. Designated Area and Target Population in Northern (NNMR) and Southern (SNMR) Management Range of Brown Bear in Norway Range
Population unit a
Number b
(km2) Estimated population
Target population Shortterm
Northern Norwegian Management Range (NNMR)
PTP AP KKP TP Outside
Total Southern Norwegian Management Range (SNMR)
Total Grand total
HLP LP VO HP HEP VHP THHP TMP Outside
Area
18-23 4-7 8-9 23-27 1-2 54-68
Longterm
Presently occupied habitat
Total
7 000 3 000 4 000 8 000 100
200?
22 000
53 000
9-13 11-15 2-5 29-35 3-5 8-11 3-6 10-13 10-20 85-123
6 000 3 000 1000 3 000 2 000 2000 2 000 9000 150
300?
48000
109000
139-191
250
500?
70000
162000
a Unit abbreviations given in Mysterud & Muus Falck (1989). b Estimated population figures from Kolstad et al. (1986).The target population levelis given as a guide to the necessary number of individuals to secure a long-term viable bear population. Both demographic and genetic aspects have been considered. Th e retention and security o f br ow n bear habitats should be given high priority, so that carnivore management, if it is to succeed, must be based on a cooperative effort by local groups and central organisations. A plan to prevent further habitat deterioration and shrinkage must be developed in detail for the whole range. Plan II excludes the coast in order to avoid or minimise conflict with livestock, but also because the status o f the coastal populations is u n k n o w n - - a l t h o u g h it is not likely that they will contribute m uch to the future survival o f bears in Norway. The m a n a g e m e n t ranges should include the greatest possible pa r t o f the b o r d e r areas between N o r w a y , Sweden and Finland. This is i m p o r t a n t for the maintenance o f dispersal and recruitment o f individuals fr om the larger eastern populations.
158
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
/,i
SONMR
[]
OCCURRENCE
O
NATIONALPARKS
......
COUNTYBORDER
Fig. 3. Designation of the Plan III of Northern (NONMR) and Southern (SONMR) Nordic Management Range of the brown bear. This international mega-range includes areas in Norway, Sweden and Finland.
159
The brown bear in Norway, II
Plan III: International mega-regions Plan III proposes two large and continuous management ranges on international territory, one in Northern Fenno-Scandinavia (NONMR) and the other in Southern and Central Scandinavia (SONMR) (Fig. 3). It is important that the two ranges should meet, or that a corridor is maintained between them in Sweden. This will offer continuous space for dispersal throughout the Fenno-Scandinavian Mountain Range. More detailed planning is needed in Sweden and Finland before a better evaluation of the level of demographic protection can be made. On the Norwegian side the habitat area in this proposal is identical with that in Plan II (Fig. 1). Table 3 shows the areas and known and target populations for Plan III. The combined long-term population level proposed for both ranges is 1000 bears in 377 000 km 2, which is larger than the total land area of Norway. How large a number actually can be safeguarded in the ranges and adapted to TABLE 3 Plan III. Designated Area and Target Population in Northern (NONMR) and Southern (SONMR) Nordic Management Range of Brown Bear Range
Nation
Number ~ Estimated population
Northern Nordic Management Range (NONMR)
Norway ( N N M R a) Sweden Finland
Total Southern Nordic Management Range (SONMR)
Total Grand total
Norway (SNMR a) Sweden
Area ° (kin 2)
Target population
Presently occupied habitat
Total
Shortterm
Longterm
54-68 ? ? ?
100 ? ? ?
? ? ? 500
22 000 ? ? ?
53 000 53 000 53 000 159000
85-123 ? ?
150 ? ?
? ? 500
48 000 ? ?
109 000 109 000 218 000
?
?
?
377 000
1 000
Area and short-term target population level are identical with Plan II (Table 2). The longterm target population for Norway given in Plan II might be reduced if a Nordic plan were carried out.
a
160
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
current economic activity will remain an open question until a Nordic group has developed a cooperative plan in greater detail. Plan III has the advantage that the long-term biological population goals in Plan II could be achieved immediately. It is very important that small countries with limited space resources and high economic activity in multiple-use areas should establish a large and continuous management range through international cooperation. Nordic cooperation to preserve populations of large carnivores has been discussed several times by the Nordic Council (Nordic Council, 1969-73), but without any firm result. However, the Berne Convention obliges contracting parties to cooperate in order to increase the efficiency of conservation acts (Ministry of Environment, 1979).
DISCUSSION Nature conservation planners have set aside national parks and nature reserves to preserve biological diversity. However, there is an inherent danger of 'isolation', in which areas become islands in a developed landscape, which may threaten the long-term survival of protected species. One consequence might be that surrounding areas will be forgotten by the planning authorities and therefore cease to function as 'bridges' between the islands. Such areas are likely to develop into barriers to the dispersal of animals and plants (Miller, 1983; Wilcox, 1983). Nature management through the restrictive 'island-protection' policy has led to severe conflicts between environmental authorities and local communities. Very often, areaprotection is not understood or accepted as a necessary policy. We conclude that Plan I must be rejected. It has not designated large enough areas to maintain and secure large and continuous stretches of bear habitat to meet in full the space demand of viable populations. The alternative Plans II and III should therefore be considered. Plan II has the potential to prevent most of the problems discussed in insular ecological theory, which in turn should increase the probability of long-term survival. If the recent level of multiple use (herds of domestic reindeer) should cease or change, a future target population increase towards the long-term goal could be accommodated. The needs for two separate ranges are described as (1) the demand from agricultural interests to reduce the distribution of bears; (2) to apply the multiple-use concept to achieve a higher demographic protection level; (3) the basic ecological differences of the landscape; and (4) differing prehistory of bear populations. The northern population of bears has presumably invaded Fennoscandia from the east, north of the Gulf of Bothnia, and the
The brown bear in Norway, H
161
southern population from the south, crossing the Ancylus-bridge (Ekman, 1922; Haglund, 1968). Plan III secures two large habitat blocks of international territory but an international objective can only be reached through a long and detailed process of implementation. Managers must be convinced of the validity of biological arguments, and be made aware of the long-term dangers of area shrinkage and the increasing isolation of constantly decreasing populations. The Nordic model in Plan III would give the bear safe and long-term conservation. It would without doubt be the better alternative. It would also indicate for nations in Europe the importance of international cooperation in safeguarding whatever bear habitat that remains in their multiple-use areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present paper discusses material collected during the Carnivore Survey. The Ministry of the Environment and the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management financed the survey. We are obliged to Dr Lennart Hansson, Swedish Agricultural University, Dr Michael R. Pelton, University of Tennessee and Dr Chris Servheen, US Fish and Wildlife Service for critical reading of an earlier draft of the manuscript. We are also grateful to Mr Derek Thomas, University of Oslo, for improving the English, and Anne Marie Helstad for technical assistance.
REFERENCES Directorate for Nature Management (1980). Utredning om forvaltning av bjorn i Finnmark. (Management plan proposal for brown bear in Finnmark County). Viltrapport, 13, 1-112. (In Norwegian.) Ekman, S. (1922). Djurvdrldens utbredningshistoria pgt Skandinaviska halv6n (Faunal distributional history on the Scandinavian Peninsula). Bonniers, Stockholm. (In Swedish.) Haglund, B. (1968). De stora rovdjurens vintervanor II (Winter habits of large carnivores). Viltrevy, 5, 213-361. (In Swedish.) Kolstad, M., Mysterud, I., Kvam, T., Sorensen, O. J. & Wikan, S. (1986). Status of the brown bear in Norway: Distribution and population 1978-1982. Biol. Conserv., 38, 79-99. Miller, K. R. (1983). Biosphere reserves in concept and practice. In Towards the Biosphere Reserve; Exploring Relationships between Parks and Adjacent Lands,
ed. R. C. Scace & C. J. Martinka. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, pp. 7-21.
162
I. Mysterud, M. Muus Falck
Ministry of Environment (1979). Konvensjon om vern av ville planter og dyr, og deres naturlige leveomr~der (Bernkonvensjonen). (Convention on the Conservation of European Plants and Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne Convention). (Mimeographed in Norwegian.) Ministry of Environment (1981). Lov av 29 mai 1981 nr 38 om viltet. (The Game Law, No. 38, 1981). Norsk lovtidend, 1981, 508-23. (In Norwegian.) Ministry of Environment (1983). Forskrift av 4 februar 1983 nr 80 om forvaltning/ adgang til felling av ulv, jerv og bj~rn. (Statutory regulations concerning management of wolf, wolverine and bear, No. 80, 1983). Norsk Lovtidend, 1983, 88-89. (In Norwegian.) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1985). Land and people. In Facts about Norway, ed. G. Moss, Chr. Schibsted, Oslo, pp. 6-15. Mysterud, I. & Muus Falck, M. (1989). The brown bear in Norway, I: Subpopulation ranking and conservation status. Biol. Conserv., 48, 21-39. Nordic Council (1969-1973). Meddelande om rekommendation nr 4/1968 ang~ende uppr~ittande aven naturpark f6r stora rovdjurens bevarande. (Contribution to Registration No. 4/1968 concerning establishment of Nature Park for Conservation of Large Carnivores.) Rek. 4/1968/1; D 1969, p. 2143; D 1970, p.2079; D 1971, p. 2405; D 1973, p. 1145. (In Swedish.) Nordic Council of Ministers (1983). Representativa naturtyper i Norden. (Representative nature types of Nordic Countries). Naturgeografiske Utredningner, 1983, No. 2. Minab/Gotab, Stockholm. Norwegian Geographic Survey (1984). Skog og jordbruksomrhder (Forest and agricultural areas). NGO, H~nefoss. (In Norwegian.) Norwegian Parliament (1986). Samtykke til ratifikasjon aven konvensjon av. 19. September 1979 vedr~rende vern av ville europeiske planter og dyr og deres naturlige leveomrhder. (Ratification of the Convention on the Conservation of European Plants and Wildlife and Natural Habitats). In Proceedings from the Norwegian Parliament. Stortingsforhandlinger (1985-86), 20, 2035-9. (In Norwegian). Vaag, A. B., Haga, A. & Granstuen, H. (1986). Forslag til landsplan for forvaltning av bj~rn, jervogulv i Norge. (Management plan proposal for brown bear, wolverine and wolf in Norway.) Viltrapport, 39, 1-162. (In Norwegian.) Wilcox, B. A. (1983). Biosphere reserves and the preservation of biological diversity. In Towards the Biosphere Reserve: Exploring Relationships between Parks and Adjacent Lands, ed. R. C. Scace & C. J. Martinka. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, pp. 207-17.