Ex-post compensation payments for wolf predation on livestock in Italy: a tool for conservation?

Abstract

Context. Compensation programs have become a common tool to mitigate conflicts between farmers and large predators; however, their effectiveness is based on a series of assumptions that should be carefully and continuously assessed within an adaptive management framework. Ex-post compensation programs were adopted in Italy as a financial incentive to aid wolf conservation since the 1970s; however, their implementation has never been monitored nor actively managed in the past 35 years, during which time a remarkable recovery of wolf population and range expansion into more human-dominated landscapes has taken place. Aims. We hereby report on wolf-damage compensation programs in Italy and discuss their conservation value. Methods. We used data on wolf-damage compensation that we compiled at the national scale for the period 1991–95. Although not recent, these were unfortunately the only available data at the national scale, and were instrumental in supporting our discussion on compensation programs, as these are increasingly becoming a politically and economically sensitive issue. Key results. From 1991 to 1995, annual compensation costs represented on average 86% of the alleged losses to farmers, and averaged €1 825 440 (±169 760 s.d.), or about €5150 (±750) per wolf per year. Compensation costs varied markedly from region to region, although local differences were hardly explainable in terms of wolf densities and their trends at the regional scale. On the contrary, they appeared largely affected by inconsistencies in rules and procedures of regional compensation schemes. Conclusions. In the light of persistently high occurrence of wolf–livestock conflict, and widespread illegal killing of wolves, we argue that compensation programs in Italy currently provide no evidence of being a functional and cost-effective conservation tool. However, lack of monitoring of compensation costs in Italy at all institutional levels, including non-government organisations (NGOs), reveals that compensation policies are not being evaluated, nor is their effectiveness being assessed. Implications. We contend this is an unwise and unsustainable strategy to reduce the conflict, especially in the light of the recent increase in wolf numbers and, most importantly, a marked change in livestock husbandry practices. By emphasising the need for a thorough revision of the compensation schemes adopted for wolf conservation in Italy, we advocate new and theoretically sound solutions to current compensation policies.