Content uploaded by Jon E Swenson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jon E Swenson on Jul 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BROWN BEAR IN EUROPE
ANDREAS ZEDROSSER, World Wide Fund for Nature-Austria, Ottakringer Strasse 114-16, A-1162 Wien, Postfach 1, Austria
BJØRN DAHLE, Department of Zoology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
JON E. SWENSON, Department of Biology and Nature Conservation, Agricultural University of Norway, Postbox 5014, N-1432 Ås,
Norway, and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Turgasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway, email: jon.swenson@ibn.nlh.no
NORBERT GERSTL, WWF-Austria, Ottakringer Strasse 114-16, A-1162 Wien, Postfach 1, Austria
Abstract: The total number of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Europe is presently about 50,000 (about 14,000 outside Russia), within an area of more
than 2.5 million km2 (800,000 km2 outside Russia). About 37,500 bears are found in the northeastern European population; 8,100 in the Carpathian
Mountains; 2,800 in the Alps–Dinaric–Pindos; 1,000 in Scandinavia; 520 in the Rila–Rhodope Mountains; 200 in the Stara Planina Mountains; 50–
65 in the western Cantabrian Mountains; 40–80 in Apennine Mountains; 20 in the eastern Cantabrian Mountains; 6 in the Western Pyrenees; 5 in the
Central Pyrenees; and 4 in the southern Alps. The brown bear is either a protected or game species in all of the countries discussed in this paper. Most
countries manage the brown bear at the national level, although several ministries are often involved. All European countries with bears within their
national borders (except Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Yugoslav Federation) have signed the Bern Convention; almost half have prepared, or are
preparing, a management plan for brown bears. In addition, most countries engage in monitoring, research, information dissemination, and conser-
vation activities. In areas where bear range includes human settlements, damage to livestock, orchards, and beehives occurs but, in most countries,
stakeholders are compensated for damage, either by the state, regional government, or hunter clubs. In 1995–96 about 1.15 million US$ was paid to
compensate such damage throughout Europe.
Ursus 12:9–20
Key words: brown bear, Europe, population and management status, Ursus arctos
Brown bears originally occurred throughout Europe,
except on large islands such as Iceland, Gotland, Corsica,
and Sardinia; their former occurrence on Ireland is still
debated (Kurtén 1976, Corbets and Harris 1991). Later
the species disappeared from most areas as the human
population grew and suitable habitat was destroyed by
deforestation and agriculture. In addition, the extermina-
tion of bears was often encouraged as a means of elimi-
nating livestock depredation, with bounties paid by the
state, local authorities, or both, for killing bears. This was
effective because bears have a low reproductive rate and
are sensitive to high harvest rates. Eventually, the combi-
nation of human persecution and habitat destruction led
to the extermination of bears from most of western Eu-
rope and many areas in eastern and northern Europe
(Swenson et al. 1995, Rauer and Gutleb 1997,
Breitenmoser 1998).
In this paper we summarize population status, distribu-
tion, and management status of the European brown bear
populations covered in the Action plan for the conserva-
tion of the brown bear in Europe (Swenson et al. 2000).
This action plan is complementary to, and a refinement
of, the International Union for the Conservation of Na-
ture and Natural Resources (IUCN) Bears: Status survey
and conservation action plan (Servheen et al. 1999). The
separate European action plan was prepared for several
reasons.
1. Much of the data from Europe in the world-wide
plan was collected in the early 1990s and was out-
dated when published in 1999.
2. Political conditions in large parts of Europe have
changed rapidly over the last decade; the war in
the former Yugoslavia ended and new countries
were established with new legal conditions for bear
management and conservation; the European Union
(EU) expanded its territory and as more countries
joined (Austria and Sweden in 1995) and others
applied for membership, large carnivore manage-
ment and conservation changed.
3. Three re-introductions or augmentations of bear
populations (in Austria, France, and Italy) have
taken place in western Europe from 1989 to 2000.
The 2 action plans also adopted different approaches.
Servheen et al. (1999) analyzed the needs and threats of
each country’s bear population separately. Swenson et al.
(2000) used a population basis, stressing the need for a
continental approach and co-ordinated national efforts.
This pan-European approach was chosen because most
European brown bear populations are shared by
neighbouring countries. The European action plan was
endorsed by the IUCN–Bear Specialist Group, the Inter-
national Association for Bear Research and Management
(IBA), and the Council of Europe. It was also published
by the Council of Europe as an official document within
the legal framework of the Bern Convention.
METHODS
We used the following definitions:
Europe includes the countries west of the borders of
the former Soviet Union and Turkey, but also includes
the Baltic countries and Ukraine. This definition is con-
sistent with that of the Large Carnivore Initiative of Eu-
rope (Swenson et al. 2000). In an effort to present complete
population sizes, we include the bear populations in the
former Soviet Union that are contiguous with the popula-
tions we consider in this paper.
A population consists of the bears in an area that are
10 Ursus 12:2001
genetically isolated, totally or substantially, from other
bear populations. A population may consist of several sub-
populations. A sub-population consists of bears in an area
that have male-mediated genetic interchange with bears
in nearby areas, but little or no contact or interchange
among females.
All data were obtained by a standard questionnaire
mailed out to bear researchers and governmental agen-
cies dealing with bear management in each country with
bear occurrence. We tried to obtain more than one answer
per country. All respondents to our questionnaire are listed
in Table 1; all the information in this paper, if not indi-
cated otherwise, is based on their responses. We obtained
data from all European countries with bear populations
(Table 2).
We stress that population numbers are all estimates de-
rived by different methods and are not directly compa-
rable. Bears are notoriously difficult to census (Kendall
et al. 1992, Miller et al. 1997), and many estimates, espe-
cially those based on observations from the public, are
likely overestimates (Swenson et al. 1995). Estimates in
south-eastern Europe are often derived from counts made
by hunters at feeding sites that are carried out during 1 or
2 nights per year. These estimates are based on the un-
tested assumptions that 80–90% of the bear population
visits feeding sites during this period and that no bear vis-
its more than one site (D. Huber, University of Zagreb,
Zagreb, Croatia, personal communication, 1998). Even
the estimates from Scandinavia, which are based on
marked to unmarked ratios of bears observed in 2 areas,
are based on an extrapolation to the rest of the brown bear
range (Swenson et al. 1994). Given these uncertainties,
estimates reported here must be regarded as approximate,
but the ranking of the populations by size is relatively
accurate.
RESULTS
Size and Distribution of Populations
Northeastern Europe (37,500 bears).—The Northeast-
ern European population is estimated at about 37,500
bears, and is thereby the largest continuous brown bear
population in Europe. The population is found between
53°N in the south to 69°N in the north and stretches from
the Ural Mountains in the east to the west coast of Fin-
Table 1. Researchers and managers contributing data for the compilation of the European Brown Bear Action Plan, 1997–99.
Country European Union
member Corresponding person Affiliation
Albania No S. Pllaha State Forest Service
Austria Yes N. Gerstl
G. Rauer
World Wide Fund for Nature-Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina No D. Huber University of Zagreb
Bulgaria No K. Georgiev Wilderness Fund
Croatia No D. Huber University of Zagreb
Czech Republic No P. Koubek University of Brno
Estonia No J. Randveer Estonian Agricultural University
Finland Yes I. Kojola
P. Tunkkari
Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute
University of Oulu
France Yes A. Clevenger
P.Y. Quenette
O. Robinet
Banff National Park
Diren Life
Ministry of Environment
Greece Yes Y. Mertzanis Arcturos
Italy Yes G. Boscagli
E. Dupre
M. Possilico
Parco Regionale Sirente Velino
National Wildlife Institute
Ufficio Amministrazione Foreste Demaniali
Latvia No V. Pilats Latvian Mammalogical Society
Norway No J. Braa
O.J. Sørensen
Directorate for Nature Management
North Trøndelag College
Poland No H. Okarma Polish Academy of Sciences
Romania No O. Ionescu
I. Micu
Game Economy Department, National
Administration of the Forest
Slovakia No M. Kassa Slovak Environment Agency
Slovenia No M. Adamic University of Ljubljana
Spain Yes J.C. Blanco
A. Clevenger
E. Valero
Asesores Técnicos de Medio Ambiente
Banff National Park
University of Leon
Sweden Yes A. Bjärvall
F. Sandegren
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Swedish Hunters Association
Ukraine No V. Domashlinets Ministry of Environmental Protection
Yugoslav Federation No M. Paunovic Natural History Museum Belgrade
BROWN BEARS IN EUROPE • Zedrosser et al. 11
land (Fig. 1). As it is contiguous with bears on the east
side of the mountains in Russia, it is part of the largest
brown bear population in the world. Although the fence
along the Finland–Russia border is a potential barrier, the
Finnish-Norwegian population has received a net influx
of dispersing bears from Russia (Pullainen 1990). In Fin-
land, the species has re-established most of its former range
after the population bottleneck at the beginning of the 20th
century (Nyholm and Nyholm 1999). In Norway, 8–21
bears are restricted to Sør-Varanger Municipality (espe-
cially the Pasvik Valley), though there are occasional
sightings in the eastern part of the Finnmark Plateau
(Swenson and Wikan 1996).
Carpathian Mountains (8,100 bears).— The Carpathian
population includes the brown bears in Slovakia, Poland,
Ukraine, and Romania (Fig. 1). The Carpathian Moun-
tains population is estimated to be about 8,100 bears and
is the second largest in Europe. The population increased
rapidly in the second part of this century (Frackowiak et
al. 1999, Hell and Findo 1999, Ionescu 1999), and re-
cently the Slovakian and Polish bear population was re-
connected with its Ukrainian counterpart. This range
expansion occurred rapidly; about 200 km in less than 20
years. Knowledge of the status of females in this expan-
sion area would be of great interest because, based on
data from the Scandinavian population (Swenson et al.
1998), one would expect to find few females in this newly
colonized area. Female brown bears in the Apusen Moun-
tains of western Romania are probably partly isolated from
the remaining Carpathian population, but interchange of
males is suspected to occur.
The Carpathian population probably consists of 3 sub-
populations. No further increase in range and population
size is expected because the population in the 4 countries
has reached or passed its optimal number, and nearly all
suitable habitat is occupied (Frackowiak et al. 1999, Hell
Table 2. Present status (1997–98), distribution, and expected population trend of European brown bear populations (including
contiguous populations outside these countries). The populations are listed from the largest to the smallest.
Population Number of bears Country Number of bears Distribution area (km²) Present status
North-Eastern
Europe
37,500 European Russia
Finland
Estonia
Belarus
Norway
Latvia
36,000
800–900
440–600
250 (120?)a
8–21
20–40
1,700,000
300,000
15,000
60,000
5,000
10–5,000
Increasing?
Stable
Stable
?
Stable
Stable?
Carpathian
Mountains.
8,100 Romania
Ukraine
Slovakia
Poland
Czech Republic
6,600
400(970?) a
700
100
2–3
38,500
11,400
3,000
4,000
2,000
Decreasing
Decreasing
Increasing
Stable
?
Alps–Dinaric–Pindos 2,800 Bosnia-Herzegovina
Yugoslav Federation
Croatia
Slovenia
Greece
Macedonia
Albania
Austria
Italy
1,200
430
400
300–500
95–110
90
250
23–28
?
10,000
2,000
9,800
3,000
6,200
820
3,000
8,000
?
Decreasing?
Decreasing?
Stable
Stable
Decreasing
Stable
Stable
Increasing
Increasing
Scandinavia 1,000 Sweden
Norway
1,000
18–34
250,000
60,000
Increasing
Increasing
Rila–Rhodope
Mountains
520 Bulgaria
Greece
500
15–20
10,000
2,400
Decreasing
Decreasing
Stara Planina
Mountains
200 Bulgaria 200 ? Decreasing
Western Cantabrian
Mountains
50–65 Spain 50–65 2,600 Decreasing
Appenine Mountains 40–80 Italy 40–80 5,000 ?
Eastern Cantabrian
Mountains.
20 Spain 20 2,500 Decreasing
Western Pyrenees 6 France
Spain
3–4
1–2
500
500
Decreasing
Decreasing
Central Pyrenees 5 France 5 ? ?
Southern Alps 4 Italy 4 1,500 ?
Europe total ~ 50,000 ~ 2,500,000
a Alternative, less accurate population estimates.
12 Ursus 12:2001
and Findo 1999, Ionescu 1999).
Alps–Dinaric–Pindos (2,800 bears).—This population
consists of brown bears in the forested areas extending
from the eastern Alps in Austria and northeastern Italy in
the north to the Pindos Mountains in Greece in the south,
and spans parts of Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, the Yugoslav Federation, Albania, and Greece.
The total Alps–Dinaric–Pindos population numbers about
2,800 bears. The forested areas in these countries are less
continuous than in the Carpathian area, separating the func-
tional habitat into more or less isolated sub-areas, although
there is some inter-connectivity. This suggests that the
population may be divided into several sub-populations
(Sørensen 1990) or may become distinct populations if
these corridors become unusable due to human activities.
The population estimates for the Yugoslav Federation,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and especially Albania are quite
uncertain. Additionally, the effects of the war and politi-
cal instability on the bear population are unknown, but
may be severe, at least locally (Huber 1999). Three bears
were released into central Austria in 1989–93 in an area
with a naturally occurring male bear (Rauer and Gutleb
1997). Reproduction occurs regularly in this sub-popula-
tion, which now consists of about 13–16 bears (Zedrosser
et al. 1999). We consider this a sub-population because
A = Appenine Mountains population
APD = Alps–Dinaric–Pindos population
CM = Carpathian Mountains population
CP = Central Pyrenees population
EC = Eastern Cantabrian Mountains population
NE = North Eastern Europe population
Fig. 1: Present distribution of the brown bear in Europe.
RR = Rila–Rodope Mountains population
S = Scandinavia population
SA = Southern Alps population
SP = Stara Planina Mountains population
WC = Western Cantabrian Mountains population
WP = Western Pyrenees population
BROWN BEARS IN EUROPE • Zedrosser et al. 13
there is movement of male bears, but not female bears,
between central Austria and the rest of the Alps–Dinaric–
Pindos population.
Scandinavia (1,000 bears).—After heavy persecution
in Norway and Sweden, the once-numerous brown bear
population in Scandinavia was reduced to about 130 indi-
viduals by 1930 (Swenson et al. 1995). The population
has since increased to between 800 and 1,300, of which
more than 95% are in Sweden. Female brown bears are
mostly confined to 4 areas in Sweden that probably rep-
resent the areas where remnant populations survived in
about 1930 (Swenson et al. 1994). Male bears may dis-
perse between neighbouring female core areas, but when
considering demographic viability, each of the 4 should
be considered as separate sub-populations (Taberlet et al.
1995). In Sweden, the distribution of bears now resembles
that of 1800, with bears occurring in 50% or more of the
country. In Norway, bears are usually found along the
Swedish border, and most individuals are dispersing young
males from Sweden (Swenson et al. 1998). The popula-
tion is the most productive yet documented in the world,
and increased at a rate of 10–15% annually between 1985
and 1995 (Sæther et al. 1998).
Rila–Rhodope Mountains (520 bears).—This popula-
tion is located in southwestern Bulgaria and northeastern
Greece (Mertzanis 1999, Spassov and Spiridonov 1999).
It includes 3 sub-populations in the Bulgarian Rila Moun-
tains and Pirin Mountains, as well as the subpopulation in
the western Rhodope Mountains on both sides of the bor-
der. Although the total population is about 520 bears, only
15–25 are found in Greece. The connection between the
bears in Greece and Bulgaria is probably maintained by
males from Bulgaria. No further increase in range or popu-
lation size is expected because poaching in Bulgaria has
increased since the political changes of 1989 (Mertzanis
1999, Spassov and Spiridonov 1999).
Stara Planina Mountains (200 bears).—This popula-
tion of about 200 bears is located along a 120-km area
that extends from Zlatitsa–Teteven in the east, to the
Tryavna Mountains in west-central Bulgaria (Spassov and
Spiridonov 1999). It became isolated from the popula-
tions to the south and west early in this century after an
effort to exterminate the species. However, genetic inter-
change between the Stara Planina population and the Rila–
Rhodope population may be possible through male
dispersal. As in the Rila–Rhodope population, no further
increase in range and population size is expected as a re-
sult of increased poaching since 1989 (Spassov and
Spiridonov 1999).
Small Isolated Populations
Five very small, isolated populations are found in south-
ern and western Europe, representing the remnants of a
once widespread brown bear population. In at least 3 of
these (Pyrenees, Southern Alps, and Eastern Cantabrians)
the threat of extirpation is high. Unless prompt action is
taken during the next few years, these populations will
undoubtedly vanish. To underscore this point, a small, iso-
lated European brown bear population in the Vassfaret
area of southern Norway, died out as recently as the late
1980s (Bækken et al. 1994).
Western (50–65 bears) and Eastern Cantabrian Moun-
tains (20 bears).—Brown bears are now found in 2 areas
of the Spanish Cantabrian Mountains. These populations
apparently have been separated since the beginning of the
century, and now show genetic differences. Today, they
are separated by 30–50 km of mountainous terrain, and
interchange between the populations is unlikely
(Cienfuegos and Quesada 1999), due to unsuitable habi-
tat and a high speed railway and motorway that bisects
the area. The most recent population estimate for western
Cantabria is 50–65 bears, distributed over 2,600 km2
(Palomero et al. 1993). The eastern Cantabrian Mountains
population is estimated to contain about 20 bears. Both
Cantabrian bear populations face similar conservation
problems. The populations are in steady decline due to
human-caused mortality, primarily a result of illegal snares
intended for wild boars (Sus scrofa) and poison intended
for wolves (Canis lupus) (Cienfuegos and Quesada 1999).
High human-caused mortality, combined with small popu-
lation size, makes survival of these populations very un-
likely unless appropriate management actions are
implemented soon.
Apennine Mountains (40–50 bears).—This population
is located in Abruzzo National Park and the area surround-
ing Italy’s Apennine Mountains and was estimated at 70–
80 bears in 1985 (Boscagli 1990). However, since then
the population is thought to have decreased, and 40–50
bears may be a more realistic estimate. This population
may increase because poaching has been reduced in re-
cent years and because areas surrounding Abruzzo Na-
tional Park have been protected to secure suitable habitats.
However, these bears survive in an area that is densely
populated by humans and there are potential conflicts
between bear conservation and human activities.
Western Pyrenees (6 bears).—The Western Pyrenees
brown bear population inhabits a 1,000 km2 area that
straddles the national border between France and Spain
(Fig. 1), although only half of this area is used regularly
(Camarra 1999). Reproduction was most recently docu-
mented in 1995 and 1998, and the present population is
estimated to be 6 individuals. (Camarra 1999). This rem-
nant population is doomed to extinction unless drastic
measures, such as population augmentation, are taken
soon.
Southern Alps (4 bears).—This population is located
14 Ursus 12:2001
in the province of Trentino in the northeastern part of the
Brenta Mountains in Italy (Osti 1999). The potential bear
habitat covers 1,500 km2, of which only 240 km2 is used
regularly by bears. Reproduction has not been documented
since 1989. Recently, DNA analysis of hair and excre-
ment samples revealed that only about 3 individuals—
and no more than 4—are likely to survive in this area
(Genovesi et al. 1999). Augmentation of this population
has begun, with 2 bears from Slovenia released in 1999
and another 3 in 2000. There are plans to release an addi-
tional 4 bears in 2001 and 2002. (P. Genovesi, National
Institute for Wildlife, Bologna, Italy, personal communi-
cation, 2000).
Reintroduced Populations
In Europe, bears were reintroduced into 2 areas with no
bears, and 2 populations have been augmented. The first
reintroduction occurred in eastern Poland, where 10 bears
were introduced into the Bialowieza area between 1938
and 1944. This introduction was not successful. Tracks
were last observed in 1947, except for one set of tracks
observed in 1963 which may have been from a dispersing
bear from Belarus (Buchalcyzk 1980, Jakubiec and
Buchalczyk 1987). The most recent introduction was in
the central Pyrenees Mountains (3 individuals in 1996–
97), and the population now numbers 5 bears; this newly-
founded population is located about 150 kilometers east
of the Western Pyrenees population. Two augmentations,
one in central Austria and one in northern Italy, are de-
scribed in the sections Alps–Dinarics–Pindos, and South-
ern Alps, respectively.
International Agreements
A list of all countries participating in international agree-
ments covered by this paper is presented in Table 3.
Bern Convention: Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (19 Sept. 1979,
Bern, Switzerland). — The goal of the Bern Convention
is to preserve wild animal species and their natural habi-
tats. Member countries (Table 3) must pay special atten-
tion to endangered and potentially endangered species and
include protective measurements in planning and devel-
opment. Animal and plant species are listed within differ-
ent appendices, each representing a different stage of
endangerment. The European brown bear is listed in Ap-
pendix II (strictly protected fauna species). Actions must
be taken to enhance the special protection of species listed
in Appendix II; capture, keeping or killing, willful distur-
bance, and the possession and trade of these species is
forbidden. The re-colonization of indigenous species must
be promoted if doing so will enhance the likelihood of
preservation. Member countries can make reservations to
the Bern Convention regarding means or methods of kill-
ing, capture, or other exploitation of listed species.
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endan-
gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (3 Mar. 1973,
Washington).—All European brown bear populations are
listed in Appendix II. This appendix also includes all spe-
cies not in actual danger of extinction, but potentially en-
dangered if trade of specimens of this species is not strictly
controlled. Trade control is accomplished through special
export permits.
Biological Diversity Convention: United Nations Con-
ference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (5
May 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).—The main objective
of UNCED is the conservation and sustainable use of bio-
logical diversity. A presupposition is the preservation of
ecosystems, natural habitats, and wild populations of spe-
cies of wild fauna and flora. The brown bear per se is not
mentioned specifically in this convention.
European Parliament Resolution, 17 Feb 1989 (A2-339/
88, ABL C 69/201, 20.3.1989) (applies to EU members
Table 3. Member countries of international treaties (1999)
relevant to the brown bear in Europe. Entry of yes indicates
treaty signed by country; (yes): treaty will be signed by
country within next years (applicant countries to EU only);
no: treaty not signed by country.
Country
Bern Convention
Bern Convention
Reservation
CITESa
Biological Diversity
Convention
EU-directives
Albania yes no no no no
Austriabyes no yes yes yes
Bosnia and
Herzegovina no no no no no
Bulgaria yes yes yes yes no
Croatia yes no yes yes no
Czech Republiccyes yes yes yes (yes)
Estoniacyes no no yes (yes)
Finlandbyes yes yes yes yes
Francebyes no yes yes yes
Macedonia yes no no no no
Greecebyes no yes yes yes
Italybyes no no yes yes
Latviacyes no yes yes (yes)
Norway yes no no yes no
Polandcyes no yes yes (yes)
Romania yes no yes yes no
Slovakia yes yes yes yes no
Sloveniacyes yes yes yes (yes)
Spainbyes no yes yes yes
Swedenbyes no yes yes yes
Ukraine yes yes yes yes no
Yugoslav
Federation no no no yes no
aConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora.
bEuropean Union (EU) member.
cCountry has begun detailed negotiations with the EU that should lead
to membership in 2002–05.
BROWN BEARS IN EUROPE • Zedrosser et al. 15
only). —The European Commission (EC) should promote
programs to protect the brown bear in Europe and should
continue existing programs. These programs should cover
the entire EU. Actions for socio-economic development
will be promoted in return for communities having pro-
tective measures for the brown bear. Systems for bear
damage prevention and damage compensation should be
developed. A network of connected reserves and specially
protected areas should be established (called the
“NATURA 2000 Network”).
European Parliament Resolution, 22 Apr 1994 (A2-
0154/94, ABL C 128/427, 09.05.1994) (applies to EU
members only). —The EC should not support and finance
development that would have a negative effect on bear
populations. Actions with negative impact on bear popu-
lations should be corrected by the establishment of pro-
tected areas and corridors for genetic exchange. Measures
to prevent the killing and capture of bears and protect bear
habitat should be undertaken. Financial support for dam-
age compensation, and compensation for economic re-
strictions due to bear conservation, should be provided.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Conservation of Natu-
ral and Wild Fauna and Flora (ABL L 206, 22.07.1992)
(applies to EU members only).—The main goal of the so-
called Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive is to secure species
diversity by protection of habitats and protection of wild
fauna and flora. Actions must be taken by the member
countries to preserve all species of wild fauna and flora
and their habitats. The European brown bear is a priority
species of the European Union. It is mentioned in Appen-
dix II (species needing specially protected areas) and
Appendix IV (strictly protected species; capture, killing
and willful disturbance not permitted). The possession,
transport, and trade of Appendix IV species is strictly pro-
hibited. Exemptions can be given only if this has no nega-
tive impact on the preservation of the species; to prevent
serious damage to culture and livestock; public health,
sanitary and safety reasons; and for scientific, restocking,
and re-colonization purposes.
National Management
Most (17 of 22) countries covered in this paper manage
brown bears at the national level (Table 4). Although
management is carried out by a national entity, in 4 coun-
tries more than one ministry or state agency is involved in
bear management. Management is on the regional level
in only 3 countries; in 2 cases management is shared by
national and local (Croatia), or national, regional, and lo-
cal (Italy) entities. Eight countries have prepared, or are
preparing, a management plan for brown bears. Some type
of monitoring program or activity is carried out in 17 coun-
tries.
Hunting Management and Poaching
In Europe, as defined in this paper, the brown bear is
totally protected in 12 countries and a game species in 6.
In 4 countries the brown bear is a protected species, but
hunting is allowed by special permission from the gov-
ernment (Table 4).
European brown bears, because of their high produc-
tivity (Sæther et al. 1998, Tufto et al. 1999), can sustain
harvest rates exceeding sustainable harvest levels in North
American populations. In Slovenia, legal harvest during
the 1980s exceeded 14% of the estimated population an-
nually (Krcb e 1988). Over 700 bears were killed legally
each year in the populations covered in this paper (Table
4). Some of these bears are killed legally in protected popu-
lations as a management tool. We do not have any evi-
dence that legal hunting is reducing the size of a bear
population in Europe, except in Romania where popula-
tion reduction is a management goal.
In addition to legal hunting, bears are poached as nui-
sance bears, for trophies, or for economic reasons. As eco-
nomic and social conditions have worsened in countries
such as Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ro-
mania, the Yugoslav Federation, and Macedonia, poach-
ing probably occurs more often. Poaching of bears is also
a problem in the Nordic countries, where semi-domestic
reindeer are raised. However, illegal killing may also be
unintentional, for example when bears are killed by snares
set illegally for wild boars or by poisoned baits set ille-
gally for wolves. In fact, these are important sources of
bear mortality in Spain.
Management of Bear-caused Problems
The effective guarding techniques necessary for coex-
istence of livestock husbandry and large carnivores have
vanished in many areas of Europe (Kaczensky 1996);
partly due to economic, social, and political changes, and
partly as a result of the extermination of large carnivores
in most of their former ranges. For this reason, damage to
livestock occurs in many areas where the bear range in-
cludes human settlements. In addition, bears damage oats,
orchards, and beehives in some areas. There is compen-
sation for damage in most countries (64%), either by the
national or regional government (57%) or hunter clubs
(21%, Table 5). In Slovakia and Austria, damage is com-
pensated by either national or regional governments, or
by hunters. Usually compensation is not linked to the
owner’s effort to prevent damage. In 1995–96 about US$
1.15 million was paid to compensate for bear damage
throughout Europe.
The vast majority of livestock lost to bear depredation
in Europe are sheep (Table 5). In Finland, Norway, and
Sweden, semi-domestic reindeer depredation is also sig-
16 Ursus 12:2001
Table 4. Management and legal status of the brown bear in European countries (1997).
a ? = unknown, - = no information
b European Union (EU) member.
c Country has begun detailed negotiations with the EU that should lead to membership in 2002-2005.
d Bears are protected, but hunting is allowed with special permission from the government.
nificant. Damage to beehives is only important in a few
countries, with Greece experiencing the most cases of
damage (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
We have observed 2 trends regarding bear population
size and development in Europe. First, all large and vi-
able populations (>1,000) are situated in either northern
or eastern Europe, whereas bear populations in western
Europe are usually very small and may not be viable (Table
2). This difference is most likely attributable to the differ-
ent attitudes of people and the differing historical and eco-
nomic development of the countries. Boitani (1995)
Country Institution in charge Management
level
Management
plan Legal status Monitoring Bear deathsa (year)
legal illegal
Albania General Directorate of Forestry national no protected no —10
(1996)
AustriabRegional Governments regional yes protected yes 2
(1991-99)
?
Bosnia and
Herzegovina Ministry of Agriculture national no game species yes 83
(1987)
?
Bulgaria Ministry of Environment,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forests and Agricultural
Reforms
national no protected no 8
(1996)
~ 30
Croatia Ministry of Agriculture national/
local
no game species yes 16/year (1986-92) ?
Czech RepubliccDistrict Governments regional no protected yes —0
EstoniacMinistry of Environment national no game species yes 34
(1996)
?
FinlandbMinistry of Agriculture and
Forestry
national yes protecteddyes 97
(1996)
?
FrancebMinistry of Environment national no protected yes 0 1
(1997)
Macedonia Ministry of Forestry,
Agriculture and Water
Economy
national no protected no 2
(1996)
?
GreecebMinistry of Agriculture national yes protected yes 0 7
(1996)
ItalybRegional Governments national/
regional/
local
yes protected yes 0 5
(1989-96)
LatviacMinistry of Environmental
Protection and Regional
Development
national no protected 0 —
Norway Directorate for Nature
Management
national yes protected yes 2
(1998)
2
(1998)
PolandcMinistry of Environmental
Protection, Forestry and
Natural Resources
national no protected yes 6
(1952-96)
7
(1995-96)
Romania Ministry of Waters, Forests
and Environmental Protection
national no game species yes 299
(1992)
—
Slovakia Ministry of Agriculture,
Ministry of Environment
national no protectedd73
(1991)
—
SloveniacMinistry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Ministry of
Environment and Spatial
Planning
national yes protecteddyes 37
(1996)
?
SpainbRegional Governments regional yes protected yes 0 ?
SwedenbEnvironmental Protection
Agency
national (yes) protecteddyes 30
(1996)
4
(1996)
Ukraine Ministry of Environmental
Protection and Nuclear Safety,
State Forestry Committee
national no game species yes 1/year ?
Yugoslav
Federation Ministry of Agriculture national no game species (yes) 19
(1987)
32
(1987)
BROWN BEARS IN EUROPE • Zedrosser et al. 17
describes a similar pattern for the wolf in Europe. We be-
lieve that communism in eastern Europe was not nearly
as destructive to bear populations as the political systems
in western Europe. This is possibly due to the fact that in
communist countries, bears were often managed for the
hunting purposes of a few hunters, including foreign hunt-
ers with hard currency. Also, hunting and gun-ownership
among the general public were strictly limited, thus re-
ducing the potential for over-hunting and poaching.
Second, the only populations that we consider viable
are those shared by 2 or more countries (Table 2). Almost
all the bears in Europe live in large transboundary popu-
lations in eastern or northern Europe. Less than 1% of all
European bears live in western or southwestern Europe.
The few populations that exist within a single country are
small and declining, and we do not consider them viable.
Some are so small that immediate action must be taken.
Conservation actions need to be taken on the national level,
but could be facilitated by international funds and exper-
tise.
We consider population reintroduction and augmenta-
tion of small populations necessary for the conservation
of the brown bear in some areas of Europe. The Polish
reintroduction of 1938–44 was unsuccessful because the
released bears were born in captivity and approached
people after their release. Most of these animals were killed
very soon after their release because of their potential risk
to human safety. (Buchalcyzk 1980). In 1996–97, a sec-
ond reintroduction of bears was attempted in the central
Pyrenees in France. Some of these bears started to kill
sheep in a nearby area. Local residents were not prepared
for the arrival of bears and bear damage, and this led to
major controversies and political troubles in France which
are still unresolved (Direction Regionalé de
l’Environnement Midi-Pyrenies 2000). The failed rein-
troduction in Poland and the political problems in France
indicate the importance of protecting existing bear popu-
lations (Zeiler et al. 1999). It may be easier to recover
large carnivore populations when the population has not
been absent for many decades (Boitani 1995). But if rein-
troduction is chosen, great care has to be taken in the prepa-
ration of the project and solutions for possible problems
must be available in advance.
In some cases, augmentation is the only way to ensure
the survival of a small population that might otherwise
become extirpated. This has proven successful in Aus-
tria, where a population of 13–16 animals has been estab-
lished (Zedrosser et al. 1999). The most recent
augmentation of a bear population started in 1999 in the
Adamello-Brenta National Park in Italy’s southern Alps.
In both cases, the few naturally occurring individual bears
were doomed to extirpation. But despite the positive signs
of population increase due to reproduction in Austria,
neither augmentation can be considered successful yet,
and the populations will not be secure until they connect
with the female population front of the expanding Alps–
Dinaric–Pindos population (Zedrosser et al. 1999; P.
Genovesi, National Institute for Wildlife, Bologna, Italy,
personal communication, 2000). This again demonstrates
the importance of cross-border cooperation in Europe.
Several international treaties affect the conservation of
brown bears in Europe. CITES and the Biological Diver-
sity Convention are world-wide treaties, whereas the Bern
Convention applies to Europe, and the EU-directives only
to EU member countries. The power of these treaties var-
ies according to the situation. Enforcement of the treaties
depends largely on the contracting parties and, unfortu-
nately, they are poorly enforced in several countries. In
addition, resolutions of the European Parliament are only
recommendations. In this context, non-governmental or-
ganizations play crucial roles as the driving forces behind,
and watch-dogs for the realization of treaties and laws.
Within the EU, brown bears have generally been con-
sidered protected species. This legal protection originated
because bear populations in the original EU countries were
small and threatened. With the accession of Sweden and
Finland this situation has changed because both countries
have large bear populations and a tradition of hunting. In
1992, the EU granted both Sweden and Finland exemp-
tions from Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Flora-Fauna-
Habitat Directive). Bear hunting in these countries is now
officially viewed as a way to reduce serious damage to
culture and livestock, and to protect public health and
safety, although hunting is actually a way to control popu-
lation increase. The situation for some of the new appli-
cants to the EU is similar to that of Sweden and Finland:
large bear populations are traditionally hunted, and
changes to this practice might not be accepted and may
result in increased poaching of bears. Here again, exemp-
tions will most likely be granted. There might be a need
for the EU to reconsider their general position on bears
and hunting. Certainly, hunting in small and fragmented
populations is not feasible, but legalization of bear hunt-
ing may increase acceptance for bears and thereby facili-
tate the conservation of viable bear populations.
The Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear
in Europe (Swenson et al. 2000) has now been published
as an official document of the Bern Convention and the
Council of Europe, and thus must be considered by all
member countries (only 3 European countries have not
yet signed: Georgia, Russia, and San Marino). Although
we believe the larger populations in Europe are viable,
we are concerned that the smaller, isolated populations
are on the verge of extirpation. Because countries in Eu-
rope are small in area, a bear dispersing 200 km may cross
several national borders and enter several different juris-
18 Ursus 12:2001
dictions. Thus management actions applied in any given
country may affect not only bears in that country, but the
entire population shared by several neighbouring coun-
tries. The adoption of this action plan by the Bern Con-
vention represents a unique opportunity for the
conservation of the brown bear in Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to the many people who have assisted
us in the preparation of the European Action Plan by pro-
viding information on the brown bear and its manage-
ment and providing comments on the text. We thank M.
Adamic´ , L. Balciauskas, A. Bjärvall, J.C. Blanco, G.
Boscagli, J.T. Braa, U. Breitenmoser, A. Clevenger, V.
Domashlinets, E. Dupre, E. Fernandez-Galiano, S. Findo,
K. Georgiev, D. Hodder, D. Huber, O. Ionescu, M. Kassa,
I. Kojola, T. Komberec, P. Koubek, A. Landa, C. Martinka,
Y. Mertzanis, B. Micevski, I. Micu, F. Moutou, J. Naves,
H. Okarma, M. Paunovic´ , V. Pilats, S. Pllaha, M. Possilico,
N. Powell, W. Pratesi-Urquhart, P.-Y. Quenette, J.
Randveer, G. Rauer, H.V. Reynolds, O. Robinet, F.
Sandegren, C. Servheen, V. Sidorovich, P.S. Soorae, O.J
Sørensen, M. Sylvén, V. Titar, P. Tunkkari, B. Tuson, E.F.
Valero, and M.Velevski.
LITERATURE CITED
BÆKKEN, B.T., K. ELGMORK, AND P. WABAKKEN. 1994. The
Vassfaret brown bear population in central-south Norway
no longer detectable. International Conference on Bear
Research and Management 9(1):179–185.
BOITANI, L. 1995. Ecological and cultural diversities in the
evolution of wolf–human relationships. Pages 3–12 in L.N.
Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors. Ecology and
Country
sheep
goats
cattle
horses/
donkeys
reindeer
beehives
Compensation
Amount
(Euro)
Albania ? ? ? ? none ? no 0
Austria
(1990-96) 30/year none 1/year 0 none 30/year yes, by hunters and
state insurance
3,689
(1996)
Bosnia–
Herzegovina —— — —none —no 0
Bulgaria —— — —none —no, but in
preparation 0
Croatia 5/year 0 1/year 0 none 1–3yes, by hunters
clubs ?
Czech Republic 0 0 0 0 none 0 no 0
Estonia —— — —none —no 0
Finland (1996) ? ? ? ? 800 ? yes, by state 461,114
France (1996) 0 0 ——none —yes, by state 0
Macedonia —— — —none —no 0
Greece (1996) 12 4 124 21 none 331 yes, by state 66,330
Italy (1996,
Appenine
Mountains)
2 1 8 4 none 2 yes, by regional
government 5,061
Latvia —— — —none —no 0
Norway (1995) 1,821 0 0 0 32 0 yes, by state 454,047
Poland 35/year 0 0 0 none 40/year yes, by state ?
Romania (1998)
4.000 —— —none —
yes, by hunters
clubs in some
places
—
Slovakia —— — —none —yes, by state or
hunters —
Slovenia (1996) ~300 ~30 ~10 1-2 none ~20 yes, by hunters
clubs 48,509
Spain 9/year 9/year 19/year 21/year none —yes, by regional
government 41,700/year
Sweden (1995) 24 0 0 0 496 0 yes, by state
insurance 172,790
Ukraine —— — —none —no 0
Yugoslav
Federation —— — —none —no 0
Table 5. Damage and compensation due to the brown bear in European countries; the time period is indicated next to each
country. Livestock numbers are from official damage statistics in numbers killed or destroyed. (Abbreviations: ? = unknown;
— = no information; none = not found in the country).
BROWN BEARS IN EUROPE • Zedrosser et al. 19
conservation of wolves in a changing world. Proceedings of
the Second North American Symposium on Wolves.
Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publications 35,
Edmonton, Canada.
BOSCAGLI, G. 1990. Marsican Brown Bear population in central
Italy—status report 1985. Aquilo, Serie Zoologica. 27:81–
83.
BREITENMOSER, U. 1998. Haben Grossraubtiere in den Alpen eine
Zukunft? Pages 58–62 in Commission Internationale pour
la Protection des Alpes, editor. Alpenreport, Verlag Paul
Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, Germany. (In German.)
BUCHALCYZK, T. 1980. The brown bear in Poland. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:329–332.
CAMARRA, J.J. 1999. Status and management of the brown bear
in France. Pages 68–72 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B.
Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and conservation action
plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
CIENFUEGOS, J.N., AND C.N. QUESADA. 1999. Status of the brown
bear in western Cantabria, Spain. Pages 104–111 in C.
Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors Bears: status
survey and conservation action plan. International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
CORBETS, G. B., AND S. HARRIS, EDITORS. 1991. The handbook of
British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,
UK.
DIRECTION REGIONALÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT MIDI-PYRENIES. 2000.
Bilan public “Ours”. Direction Regionalé de
l’Environnement Midi-Pyrenies, Toulouse, France. (In
French.)
FRACKOWIAK, W., R. GULA, AND K. PERZANOWSKI. 1999. Status
of the brown bear in Poland. Pages 89–93 in C. Servheen, S.
Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and
conservation action plan. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
GENOVESI, P., E. DUPRE, AND L. PEDROTTI. 1999. First Italian brown
bear translocations. International Bear News 8:14.
HELL, P., AND S. FINDO. 1999. Present status, conservation, and
management perspectives of the brown bear population in
the Slovak part of the western Carpathians. Pages 96–100 in
C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status
survey and conservation action plan. International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
HUBER, D. 1999. Status and management of the brown bear in
former Yugoslavia. Pages 113–122 in C. Servheen, S.
Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and
conservation action plan. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
IONESCU, O. 1999. The management of the brown bear in
Romania. Pages 93–96 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B.
Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and conservation action
plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
JAKUBIEC, Z., AND BUCHALCZYK, T. 1987. The brown bear in
Poland: its history and present numbers. Acta Theriologica
32:289–306.
KACZENSKY, P. 1996. Large carnivore–livestock conflicts in
Europe. Munich Wildlife Society, Linderhof, Germany.
KENDALL, K.C., L.H. METZGAR, D.A. PATTERSON, AND B.M.
STEELE. 1992. Power of sign to monitor population trends.
Ecological Applications 2:422–430.
KRCb E, B. 1988. Rjavi medved. Pages 23–62 in B. Krystufek, B,
A. Brancelj, B. Krcb e, and J. C
b
op, editors. Zveri II. Lovska
zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana, Slovenia. (In Slovenian.)
KURTÉN, B. 1976. The cave bear story: life and death of a
vanished animal. Columbia University Press, New York,
New York, USA.
MERTZANIS, G. 1999. The status of the brown bear in Greece.
Pages 72–81 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton,
editors. Bears: status survey and conservation action plan.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
MILLER, S.D., G.C. WHITE, R.A. SELLERS, H.V. REYNOLDS, J.W.
SCHOEN, K. TITUS, V.G. BARNES, R.B. SMITH, R.R. NELSON,
W.B. BALLARD, AND C.C. SCHWARTZ. 1997. Brown and black
bear density estimation in Alaska using radiotelemetry and
replicated mark–resight techniques. Wildlife Monographs
133.
NYHOLM, E.S., AND K.E. NYHOLM. 1999. Status of the brown
bear in Finland. Pages 63–68 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero,
and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and conservation
action plan. International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
OSTI, F. 1999. Present status and distribution of the brown bear
(Ursus arctos L) in Trentino (Italy). Pages 84–86 in C.
Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status
survey and conservation action plan. International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
PALOMERO, G., A. FERNANDEZ, AND J.Y. NAVES. 1993. Demografia
del oso pardo en la Cordillera Cantabrica. Pages 55–72 in
J.Y. Naves and G. Palomero, editors. El oso pardo en España.
Colecciòn Tècnica, Instituto Nacional para la Conservacíon
de la Naturaleza, Madrid, Spain. (In Spanish.)
PULLIAINEN, E. 1990. Recolonisation of Finland by the brown
bear in the 1970s and 1980s. Aquilo, Serie Zoologica. 27:21–
25.
RAUER, G., AND B. GUTLEB. 1997. Der Braunbär in Österreich.
Federal Environmental Agency, Monographs 88, Vienna,
Austria. (In German.)
SÆTHER, B.E., S. ENGEN, J.E. SWENSON, AND F. S ANDEGREN. 1998.
Assessing the viability of Scandinavian brown bear, Ursus
arctos, populations: the effects of uncertain parameter
estimates. Oikos 83:403–416.
SERVHEEN, C., S. HERRERO, AND B. PEYTON, EDITORS. 1999. Bears:
status survey and conservation action plan. International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
Gland, Switzerland.
SØRENSEN, O.J. 1990. The brown bear in Europe in the mid
1980’s. Aquilo, Serie Zoologica. 27:3–16.
SPASSOV, N., AND G. SPIRIDONOV. 1999. Status of the brown bear
in Bulgaria. Pages 59–63 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B.
Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and conservation action
plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
20 Ursus 12:2001
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
SWENSON, J.E., B. DAHLE, N. GERSTL, AND A. ZEDROSSER. 2000.
Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear in Europe.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Nature and
environment, N. 114, Council of Europe Publishing,
Strasbourgh, France.
———, F. SANDEGREN, AND A. SÖDERBERG. 1998. Structure of
the expansion front of an increasing brown bear population.
Journal of Animal Ecology 67:819–826.
———, ———, P. WABAKKEN, A. BJÄRVALL, A. SÖDERBERG, AND
R. FRANZEN.1994. Bjørnens historiske og nåværende status
og forvaltning i Scandinavia. Norwegian Institute for Nature
Research, Forskningsrapport 53, Trondheim, Norway. (In
Norwegian with English summary.)
———, P. WABAKKEN, F. SANDEGREN, A. BJÄRVALL, R. FRANZÉN,
AND A. SÖDERBERG. 1995. The near extinction and recovery
of brown bears in relation to the bear management policies
of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife Biology 1:11–25.
———, AND S. WIKAN. 1996. A brown bear population estimate
for Finnmark County, North Norway. Fauna Norvegica.
Series A 17:11–15.
TABERLET, P., J. E. SWENSON, F. SANDEGREN, AND A. BJÄRVALL.
1995. Localization of a contact zone between two highly
divergent mitochondrial DNA lineages of the brown bear
Ursus arctos in Scandinavia. Conservation Biology 9:1255–
1261.
TUFTO, J., B.E. SÆTHER, S. ENGEN, J. SWENSON, AND F. SANDEGREN.
1999. Harvesting strategies for conserving minimum viable
populations based on World Conservation Union criteria:
brown bears in Norway. Proceedings of the Royal Society
London B 266:961–967.
ZEDROSSER, A., N. GERSTL, AND G. RAUER. 1999. Brown bears in
Austria. Federal Environmental Agency, Monograph 117,
Vienna, Austria.
ZEILER, H., A. ZEDROSSER, AND A. BAT H . 1999. Attitudes of
Austrian hunters and Vienna residents toward bear and lynx
in Austria. Ursus 11:193–200.
