Agent Green’s letter on the brown bear, ignored by the Government

Dear Prime Minister,

We, the undersigned Agent Green Association, under OG 27/2002 regulating the handling of petitions, request the following:
1. Order an inspection of how the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Population in Romania, adopted by Environment Minister Order no.625/2018, is being applied.
2. Reject the proposed emergency ordinance (OUG) submitted by the Minister of the Environment, Waters and Forests, Mr Tantzos Barna

Grounds for the petition

1. Regarding the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Population in Romania, adopted by Order 625/2018

Ursus arctos (the brown bear) is protected by the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC:
Annex II – ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST WHOSE CONSERVATION REQUIRES THE DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION and

Annex IV – ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST IN NEED OF STRICT PROTECTION

Under this legislation, the minimum conservation objectives for this species should have been adopted through the management plan for the protected natural areas.

At national level, the Habitats Directive was transposed in Romania through OUG
57/2007, maintaining the same strict protection regime under OUG 57/2007 (Article 4 point 34, paragraph 21 paragraph 6 and 7).

Under this legislation, the minimum conservation objectives for this species should have been adopted through the management plan for the protected areas, pursuant to OUG 57/2007 on the regime of protected natural areas and the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna (Article 4 point 34, 21, 6 and 7).

The aforementioned Plan also established a detailed programme for managing this species, covering both general and scientific management, assessment of numbers of individuals and trends, assessment of habitats’ capacity to sustain the species, and management of human-bear conflict situations and the establishment of preventive measures.

From 2018 to the present, this plan has not been implemented, resulting in the current situation in which, without any protective measures for this strictly protected species, direct intervention and even lethal measures are being introduced through an OUG adopted without public consultation or consultation with specialists, and without respecting European law’s requirements for applying species conservation measures.
The lack of management and protection measures and the failure to implement the action plan may lead to a new infringement procedure against Romania, in addition to the numerous procedures already opened concerning the incorrect transposition, implementation and application of European environmental protection law. We ask you to stop the incorrect implementation of bear management measures and ensure the application of the adopted Plan, which contains concrete, scientific measures to prevent human-bear conflict as well, involving all relevant stakeholders.
Please urgently order an inspection at the Ministry of the Environment, Waters and Forests and the adoption of urgent measures in accordance with those established in the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Species in Romania.

2. Regarding the proposed OUG submitted by the Minister of the Environment, Waters and Forests

This proposed OUG is unconstitutional. The emergency circumstances in which the Romanian Government may issue such ordinances are not justified in this case. The brown bear species is not a killer species; conflict situations can be resolved under the measures already established in the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Species in Romania, which only await implementation. Therefore, issuing an emergency ordinance that refers neither to this plan nor to any management measures for a strictly protected species is unjustified.
Such a proposal may be adopted ONLY with regard to the management objectives for the strictly protected species, with public consultation and, above all, consultation with the European Commission.
The ordinance proposes an intervention procedure allowing the killing of female bears with cubs, as well as individuals without examining their stage of development or sex. This would even mean killing bear cubs. Such interventions, undertaken without respecting the protected species’ management measures under the aforementioned action plan, briefly described below, will undoubtedly lead to breaches of the protection regime and the initiation of infringement procedures.

The proposed ordinance provides at art al 2 that cubs remaining after their mother is killed would be taken to rehabilitation centres or authorised shelters. However, these are NOT owned and/or managed by the state, and the possibility of relocating these cubs to such centres is unknown. If the number of cubs that can be accommodated is exceeded, what do we do with them? Would the likely solution again be shooting the cubs, as permitted by the OUG? Such measures may compromise the species’ future development, causing its decline and therefore a new infringement procedure against Romania.
The intervention team described in the draft OUG has no specialist, although the Action Plan contains a measure specifically aimed at accrediting and using specialists for such situations. Mayors or deputy mayors do not have the experience and scientific training needed to lead these interventions. Nor do the other team members constitute qualified personnel.
The intervention methods described have no foundation and contain no concrete procedure; their implementation will not be practicable, except for shooting, which could thus become the rule. Specifically:
– previous experience indicates that few veterinarians can act in emergencies. They have no specific equipment, do not possess and do not wish to possess tranquillising substances, which are expensive, expire quickly and are subject to specific management procedures.
– the Forest Guard’s specialist technical staff is insufficient and physically unable to attend simultaneous incidents. Moreover, this staff is not specialised in biodiversity protection; it would make more sense for Environmental Guard employees to be present.
– without a concrete assessment of the logistical equipment available at the date of this OUG, effective intervention through tranquillisation and relocation is out of the question. There are few tranquilliser guns nationally, and transport logistics are wholly inadequate: at present, rehabilitation centres, zoos and some protected-area administrations or research institutions have around 5 such transport cages. How can relocation take place without equipment? A gun and its accessories cost a great deal. The gun alone costs at least 5000 euros. How many veterinarians will buy such guns? From what budgets? If all county Gendarmerie units now possess and use tranquilliser guns, why are local veterinarians being forced to buy guns they will use rarely or never (under Article 6 of the draft ordinance, the veterinarian would have to possess the gun and successfully tranquillise and euthanise the bear).

– regarding the tagging and monitoring of tranquillised and relocated individuals, which would involve fitting GPS collars: who fits them and who manages the data they transmit, given that they send a daily stream of data through telephone messages? An institution with the necessary capacity and experience and specialised personnel must be authorised to handle this.
Removing the bear by shooting is not conditional on implementing the preventive measures indicated in the Action Plan. Killing must take place only after the other measures have been tried and have failed. This proposal makes absolutely no reference to other preventive measures, relying only on observing how often a bear enters human communities. This is difficult to ascertain because bears look alike: there is no guarantee that today’s bear is the same one as a month ago.

Regarding calls to 112, the draft does not make clear how they will manage to notify the hunters who administer the hunting grounds and are included in this procedure. Such a system cannot work. Private entities are not at state institutions’ disposal.
We reproduce above some measures from the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Population in Romania, adopted by Order 625/2018.

I. Objective 1, Action 1.1 of the Plan, conserving the brown bear species’ habitat in Romania

1. Involves mapping the brown bear species’ distribution range in Romania.
2. Involves regulating the measures proposed and validated in guidelines produced by previously completed projects concerning the conservation and management of the brown bear species and its specific habitats (methodological and technical rules applicable when setting conditions or deciding whether to grant endorsements/consents/authorisations for plans/projects/activities affecting habitats favourable to the brown bear species, to reduce/eliminate:
• the impact of human projects/plans/activities (transport infrastructure, alternative energy production parks, residential development, tourism infrastructure, etc.);
• the impact on the brown bear species of human activities (tourism, gathering berries/mushrooms, forestry and hunting operations, exploitation of natural resources, etc.) carried out in its natural habitat.
3. Involves creating a commission of specialists to analyse and select information from previously produced guidelines that can become applicable technical rules, and to propose other guidelines containing the measures needed for conservation-oriented management of the species.
4. Involves creating rules at central level to ensure hunting-ground managers’ involvement in the endorsement procedure for various plans/projects/studies/activities using natural resources (forestry, agriculture, mineral resources, other natural resources, etc.) and land (PUG, PUZ) that affect the brown bear species in particular and fauna of hunting interest in general.
5. Involves regulating the endorsement of pasture management plans to harmonise agricultural/forest/pasture and urban planning with potential impacts
on the management of the brown bear species.
6. Involves conducting a study of the impact of gathering
mushrooms and berries on the brown bear population.
7. Proposes amending Order no.410 of 11 April 2008 (approving the Procedure for authorising the collection, capture and/or purchase and/or sale, domestically or for export, of mineral specimens, plant fossils and vertebrate and invertebrate animal fossils, as well as wild plants and animals and their import), so that authorisation to collect non-timber forest products is based on the results of the study mentioned in point 6.
8. Involves conducting a study to determine the brown bear species’ diet under current conditions in Romania, to assess the food resources needed and available nationally for each county, taking into account the areas where supplementary/complementary food is provided for the brown bear species and those where it is not.
9. Involves creating an online database at Environment Ministry level on natural habitat conservation and management of the brown bear species, including: favourable habitats, ecological corridors, species management zoning, built-up areas, national/regional/local infrastructure projects, other data on activities that may affect the species’ habitat and management, results of studies estimating the size of the brown bear population, and the quality of specific habitats.
10. Involves drawing up guidelines to assess the impact of human activities on bear populations, covering new construction (transport, energy, tourism), land-use change and natural resource extraction activities that affect the species’ food resources or degrade habitat quality, including their cumulative effect.
11. Involves conducting a study of the impact on traditional human activities in these areas of the brown bear population’s use of new habitat compared with its use of traditional habitat.

II. Objective 1, Action 1.2 of the Plan, controlling the development of human-modified areas

1. Involves regulating the expansion of built-up areas in key areas for the bear species, specifically whether good-practice guidelines have been produced with land-use recommendations for areas frequented by bears so that built-up development does not affect them. Identifying compensatory measures for landowners in these areas whose use of their land is restricted.
2. Involves regulating, through legislation, the acceptance of responsibility by owners and local authorities who carry out/approve permanent construction in habitat favourable to the brown bear species.

3. Involves drawing up recommendations to include in urban planning regulations special measures for buildings/developments, undertaken by the owner and local authority (local council, mayor’s office, county council, etc.).

III. Objective 1, Action 1.3 of the Plan, monitoring the brown bear population nationally

1. Involves monitoring the brown bear population’s conservation status using methods based on genetic analyses, covering: estimating population size and structure (periodic population estimates, births and deaths within the brown bear population, population dynamics, identifying areas with high human-caused mortality and assessing the brown bear population’s health), assessing habitat quality, identifying pressures and threats, determining evolutionary potential and genetic viability, early detection of genetic problems (inbreeding) within the bear population nationally, and determining the level of gene flow within the bear population nationally.
2. Involves implementing intensive monitoring measures:
• monitoring population size and establishing the minimum number of individuals nationally, regionally and by county,
• determining evolutionary potential and genetic viability,
• early detection of genetic problems (inbreeding) within the
bear population nationally,
• determining the level of gene flow within the bear population at
national level
3. Involves developing monitoring protocols and regular training sessions for specialist staff of hunting-ground managers to implement intensive monitoring measures.
4. Involves implementing annual ongoing monitoring measures at county, regional and national levels, collecting the following information:
• estimating the minimum size, structure, density and trend of Romania’s brown bear population;
• determining the permanent, seasonal and incidental distribution of the brown bear population nationally;
• monitoring the functionality of ecological corridors/critical points;
• identifying areas with high mortality caused
by humans (various forms of poaching and accidental cases);
• identifying areas with high levels of conflict;
• assessing damage caused by bears and its causes

5. Involves developing the required protocols provided for ongoing monitoring, on the basis of which the study estimating the brown bear population’s size annually at national level should have been carried out.
6. Involves conducting the study estimating the brown bear population’s size annually at national level in 2020 and sending it to us as a photocopy or electronically?
7. Involves conducting the study estimating the brown bear population’s size annually at national level in 2021.

IV. Objective 1, Action 1.4 of the Plan, ensuring the optimal size of the brown bear population

1. Involves determining the optimal number of brown bears in Romania.
2. Involves determining brown bear population management zones nationally.
3. Involves conducting a scientific study that formed the basis of this zoning, mentioned in point 1.
4. Involves adopting management zones for the brown bear species nationally by ministerial order.
5. Involves conducting a study to determine the brown bear species’ impact on prey species (red deer, roe deer, wild boar), with implications for the hunting, forestry and agricultural sectors?

V. Objective 1, Action 1.4 of the Plan – Intentional taking of individuals from the wild to regulate brown bear population densities through hunting regulated by the central authority responsible for species management, under derogations in the circumstances provided by law

1. Involves ensuring that intervention takes account of management measures, species distribution, recorded numbers by class and age, and the brown bear population’s natural increase in Romania (not currently established).
2. Involves allocating funds for ongoing monitoring of harvested bears
3. Involves including in intervention teams representatives of local Environmental Protection Agencies and/or the National Environmental Guard’s county commissariats, as well as biologist specialists experienced in managing brown bears.

VI. Objective 2, Action 2.1 of the Plan – Ensuring connectivity of the brown bear population in Romania

1. Involves designating ecological corridors in Romania.
2. Involves establishing a methodology for designating ecological corridors
for the brown bear species nationally, regionally and locally. 3. Involves developing and integrating specific management/conservation measures to ensure connectivity into protected natural areas’ management plans.
4. Involves developing a set of regulations, procedures and technical measures to avoid/reduce/compensate for habitat fragmentation, for harmonisation with other relevant sectors (transport, water, agriculture, forestry, hunting, development, tourism, mineral resource extraction).
5. Involves developing, approving and implementing regional action plans for the brown bear species in ecological corridor areas

VII. Objective 2, Action 2.2 of the Plan – Ensuring connectivity of the brown bear population in the Carpathian region

1. Involves implementing joint projects with Ukraine and Serbia for:
• habitat use along borders, genetic studies to establish the numbers (proportions) of bears using border areas between countries, determining the dispersal of brown bear individuals and genetic exchange in the region;
• identifying pressures and threats along borders and applying concrete measures to reduce and diminish them, particularly to control, prevent and reduce poaching
• identifying, validating, regulating and monitoring cross-border ecological corridors for the brown bear species between Ukraine – Romania – Serbia and developing an action plan to help implement management measures so that these corridors fulfil their role in the long term;
• developing and implementing the brown bear population action plan at Carpathian regional level
2. Involves developing a cooperation protocol between neighbouring countries’ environmental authorities to regulate the exchange of information and knowledge about the brown bear population (population size and structure, genetic structure, distribution, etc.) and threats to regional connectivity, as well as data on individual bears in research programmes/projects (bears with GPS/GSM/Radio monitoring systems) that cross the border.

VIII. Objective 2, Action 2.3 of the Plan – Translocating and/or reintroducing individuals of the brown bear species

1. Involves developing joint projects/protocols with countries in the Carpathians and beyond concerning the translocation and/or reintroduction of brown bear individuals from Romania’s brown bear population, which can be captured in high-density areas (Braşov, Harghita, Covasna, Prahova, Argeş, Vâlcea, etc.) in Romania.

IX. Objective 3, Action 3.1 – Operation of accredited specialists providing technical and scientific support for managing the brown bear species

1. Involves creating a working group operating under the Environment Ministry’s aegis and approved by ministerial order.
2. Involves having accepted and endorsed specialists for emergency intervention to resolve conflict situations caused by bears.

X. Objective 3, Action 3.2 – Reducing human-bear conflicts by implementing preventive conflict-reduction measures

1. Involves creating and implementing a system of subsidies, compensation and financial incentives for owners to buy systems protecting domestic animals and property (electric fences and other systems successfully used in other countries), as well as specialised dogs.
2. Involves regulating a funding mechanism for landowners to establish special crops for feeding bears, serving as a buffer.
3. Involves creating and using wildlife fields and encouraging hunting-ground managers to plant tree species bearing fruit preferred by the brown bear species.
4. Involves regulating and controlling grazing in habitat favourable to brown bears.
5. Involves taking measures to reduce the impact of tourism infrastructure and activities on the brown bear species.

XI. Objective 3, Action 3.4. Reducing the impact of human activities and integrating species conservation measures into other sectors of activity

1. Involves taking measures to regulate limits on built-up development in key areas for the bear species (protected natural areas where bears occur) and finding compensatory measures for landowners whose land use is restricted?
2. Involves developing and promoting guidelines on assessing impacts and measures to reduce/eliminate human activities’ negative impact on the bear population – (guidelines for forestry, grazing, construction, transport, etc.)?
3. Involves identifying quiet areas and establishing applicable conservation measures to eliminate the effects of disturbing the species during winter sleep/cub rearing/reproduction?
4. Involves integrating species conservation measures into hunting, forest, agricultural and pasture management plans and the collection of non-timber forest products (berries/mushrooms, etc.).
5. Involves developing measures to control poaching (snares, poisoning, capturing cubs, etc.) undertaken by owners as a way of defending property, animals and goods, through the civic involvement of the local population.
6. Involves conducting an information campaign, launching a national campaign to raise awareness of the brown bear species’ importance, targeting farmers, communities and local authorities.

XII. Objective 3, Action 3.4. – Preventing the conditioning and habituation of bears

1. Involves developing criteria for selecting the container model and installing and bringing these bear-proof containers into use, following a study of the need to use such household waste collection systems?
2. Involves developing a study on measures to reduce access to human-provided food sources, concluding with a technical guide available to interested entities.
3. Involves conducting a study on the effects of reducing or increasing complementary feeding of the brown bear species and, if so, whether a set of technical rules/measures has been developed for hunting-ground managers to implement when providing complementary food?