Carnivore Management Zones and their Impact on Sheep Farming in Norway

Abstract

We investigated the impact of Norway’s current zonal carnivore management system for four large carnivore species on sheep farming. Sheep losses increased when the large carnivores were reintroduced, but has declined again after the introduction of the zoning management system. The total number of sheep increased outside, but declined slightly inside the management zones. The total sheep production increased, but sheep farming was still lost as a source of income for many farmers. The use of the grazing resources became more extensive. Losses decreased because sheep were removed from the open outfield pastures and many farmers gave up sheep farming. While wolves expel sheep farming from the outfield grazing areas, small herds can still be kept in fenced enclosures. Bears are in every respect incompatible with sheep farming. Farmers adjust to the seasonal and more predictable behavior of lynx and wolverine, although these species also may cause serious losses when present. The mitigating efforts are costly and lead to reduced animal welfare and lower income for the farmers, although farmers in peri-urban areas increasingly are keeping sheep as an avocation. There is a spillover effect of the zoning strategy in the sense that there is substantial loss of livestock to carnivores outside, but geographically near the management zones. The carnivore management policy used in Norway is a reasonably successful management strategy when the goal is to separate livestock from carnivores and decrease the losses, but the burdens are unequally distributed and farmers inside the management zones are at an economic disadvantage.

Knowledge Claims and Struggles in Decentralized Large Carnivore Governance: Insights From Norway and Sweden

“…Norway has also been brought to court by nongovernmental organizations for failure to satisfy their duties under the Convention. Other studies show that the mitigating efforts prescribed under the Convention, are costly and lead to reduced animal welfare and lower income for farmers (Strand et al, 2019).…”

The combined effects of centralization and carnivore management on sheep farmers and sheep farming in Norway

“…The number of sheep the farmer can maintain is substantially lower when carnivores are present, implying that the income is reduced equally. While CMZ management stimulated more farmers to take up small-scale sheep production in central areas, especially in the CMZ for wolf, the same policy led to a decrease in sheep farming in the more rural areas, especially when bear or wolf were present (Strand et al, 2019(Strand et al, , 2018.…”

“…The Norwegian government has implemented a spatially differentiated carnivore management system aiming to balance agricultural and environmental interests in the humancarnivore conflict (Strand et al, 2019). This strategy is based on a political consensus reached through decision 687 (June 17, 2011(June 17, ) over proposal 163 S (2010(June 17, -2011 in the Norwegian parliament.…”

“…But the reintroduction of carnivores also coincides with an ongoing social change process characterized by urbanization and centralization (Langørgen, 2007). The reported abandonment of sheep farming in areas where carnivores are reintroduced (Strand et al, 2019(Strand et al, , 2016 is therefore not necessarily related to the carnivores but could equally well be an effect of the ongoing urbanization where people leave the sheep industry for better paid jobs in the cities.…”

The Changing Cultural Dimensions of Biodiversity Conservation

“…7 To a natural scientist such as myself, the desired balance depends on which taxa are being addressed; on the levels of food production under a landsharing or land-sparing system; on the spatial and ecological relationships between taxa, habitats, and food production; and on the efficiency of exchange between farmland and wild areas, regardless of whether ''spared'' areas are actually made available for wildlife. It also depends on whether land sparing creates conflicts at the boundaries, for example, with large predators and livestock, 8 or whether it encourages management practices that are unsustainable over time.…”