Feil med rovviltpolitikken
Utnyttelse av nødvergeretten
Det vi mener
Bilder: © Staffan Widstrand: http://www.staffanwidstrand.se/
Brev sendt til Bern- konvensjonen:
To the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Secretariat of the Bern Convention
Norway today has some species of great predators. We keep the stock down on a minimum level. This level is politically controlled without a background of professional points of view on how many animals that in reality are needed to preserve a sustainable stock for the future.
Consequently, is Norway taking part in a common international responsibility? As Norway chose to shoot several wolves, both in 2001 and 2005, none of Bern convention countries directed any criticism towards Norway. If it had not been for the growing stock in Sweden, we would not have neither wolf nor bear in Norway today.
What is the use of international conventions if no sanctions are made for those countries breaking the rules? To Norwegian predators the agreement is worth nothing.
If we have an obligation to take care of the predators – and this task is to be divided equally between the countries affected by the stock;
1) What has Norway done to prevent the predators from being extinct?
2) What has Norway done to protect the wolf stock in Scandinavia?
3) According to the secretariat of the Bern Convention, have Norway and Sweden a just distribution when it comes to protect the bear and wolf stock?
Is there an agreement on geographical distribution of wolf and bear cubs between Norway and Sweden?
Is it not the responsibility of the secretariat of the Bern Convention to initiate a settlement on stock allocation when the countries themselves are not up to the task?
In that way sustainable stocks of endangered species can be ensured.
4) What is the minimum amount of wolves in Norway, according to the Bern Convention, if we are to take active part in maintaining the species?
Do we take an active responsibility for a sustainable Scandinavian wolf stock by having wolf cubs every three year only? And what if the state legislation says that this frequency is not to be adopted the next ten years? – for a wolf stock preserved since the beginning of the 1970ies!
One should assume that the number of animals/breeds has an influence on the survival of the species on the long view? Also how fast the stock can be augmented when on a critical minimum?
5) Does it have any significance for the Scandinavian wolf stock if Norway has 0-10 animals or 3 breeds on the Norwegian side of the border? And how many animals does Sweden have to have if the stock is to be sustainable, in order to have wolves in Norway in the near future?
Should not the Bern Convention bring forth information from scientists on how many animals of each species are required in an isolated area to maintain the species on a long term basis?
Should not the calculated stock (the number of animals needed to maintain the stock) be a minimum requirement for the ratifying countries?
To disperse the burden equally; should not the stock be a calculated one, and the number of animals be dispersed between Norway and Sweden to avoid an invidious distinction?
To avoid disagreements between countries with shared stocks; should a viable stock rather be kept in its own regulated territory?
6) What if the next Norwegian government is in disfavour of preserving predators? Can Norway shoot as many predators as it chooses without taking the risk of being stopped by the Secretariat of the Bern Convention?
7) Are today’s international conventions strong enough to stand against a extermination by new governments in disfavour of predators? Today the legal framework is loosely interpreted! The governments are consentingly acting upon their own will as long as there are animals left.
8) If the number of breeds, together with territories and actions (killing as a means of disputal moderation), disable us in taking care of sustainable stocks of predators, is the parliamentary legislation then according to the Bern Convention?
9) Is Norway allowed to shoot out all the predators before the Bern Convention intervene?
10) Why is applied research retained from the international protection of species? Scientist are able to present an estimation on a sufficient number of breeds to obtain genuine sustainable stocks. In Norway, it is the political agenda that is deciding the number of desired individuals within the species of predators.
Today the reports tell about the development of the stocks and about calculated consequences of future actions, like to continued killing on i.e. wolverine.
11) When scientists state that the stock will collapse/vanish from certain regions if we continue taking out the same amount of animals (which is necessary if the political aim is supposed to be reached), is then the desired level sustainable?
12) Should there not be more stringent demands towards the countries to make them produce action plans on how to ensure the species of their country?
Each country ought to give an account of what has been done until now and what will be done in the years to come. Action plans/appraisal forms should be returned by each country to a committee of experts for a review and feeback. The demands should be more stringent to prevent us from having positive international action only in theory.
The multinational cooperation to save the nature, the environment and the diversity looses its value if stringent demands are not held forth and the action plans checked and followed up. There ought to be made a minimum demand within an international collaboration. Several financial pressure groups are in conflict with the preservation of the environment, the nature and biological diversity in one way or the other. The authorities are obliged to watch over the enivironment, the diversity of nature and the ecosystems which form the platform for every peace of life on this planet.
Finally, we would like to ask the Secretariat of the Bern Convention to give an account of the way Norway is managing its stock of predators.
Endel av svaret som vi fikk fra Konvensjonen:
"As a signatory to the Convention, Norway has the obligation to conserve the populations of large carnivores and, since its ratification in the 1986, large carnivore populations in Norway have increased, seen the return of wolf to parts of the country. We still think that the situation of bear could improve and would like to see more results in facilitating a re-establishment of populations, as there is plenty of potential good habitat for the species in Norway."
"Norwegian policy on large carnivores has been discussed on several occasions by the Standing Committee to the Convention (following complaints by NGOs) and the conclusions were that it was within the terms of the Convention, so no "case file" for possible non respect of obligations was ever opened. Needless to say, if Norway's policy was to change in a way that may threatened the species protected under the Convention, the Standing Committee would certainly re-examine the matter to check if conservation action and the status of the species are in line with obligations under the Convention."