TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 23 November 2023 DOI 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 Managing wolf impacts on sheep OPEN ACCESS husbandry: a collaborative EDITED BY Rebecca Kariuki, Arizona State University, United States implementation and assessment REVIEWED BY Francesco Maria Angelici, of damage prevention measures National Center for Wildlife, Saudi Arabia Emily Pomeranz, Michigan State University, United States in an agricultural landscape *CORRESPONDENCE Valeria Salvatori Valeria Salvatori 1*, Agnese Marino 1,2, Paolo Ciucci 3, valeria.salvatori@gmail.com Claudio Galli 4, Massimo Machetti 4, Edoardo Passalacqua 5, 20 July 2023 RECEIVED ACCEPTED 31 October 2023 Simone Ricci 1, Giorgia Romeo 4, Fabio Rosso 6 and Lucia Tudini 7 PUBLISHED 23 November 2023 1 Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA), Rome, Italy, 2Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), CITATION Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 3Sapienza Università di Roma, Department Di Salvatori V, Marino A, Ciucci P, Galli C, Biologia e Biotecnologie “Charles Darwin”, Rome, Italy, 4Regione Toscana, Direzione Agricoltura e Sviluppo Machetti M, Passalacqua E, Ricci S, Rurale, Sede Territoriale Regionale di GROSSETO, Firenze, Italy, 5Confederazione Generale dell’Agricoltura Romeo G, Rosso F and Tudini L (2023) (Confagricoltura) Grosseto, Grosseto, Italy, 6Centro di Istruzione Professionale Agricola e Assistenza Tecnica Managing wolf impacts on sheep (CIPA-AT) Grosseto, Grosseto, Italy, 7Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria husbandry: a collaborative implementation (CREA), Centro di ricerca Politiche e Bioeconomia, Rome, Italy and assessment of damage prevention measures in an agricultural landscape. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4:1264166. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 Wolves in Europe are expanding their range and significantly impacting farming COPYRIGHT © 2023 Salvatori, Marino, Ciucci, Galli, livelihoods and landscapes. Damage prevention measures such as livestock guarding Machetti, Passalacqua, Ricci, Romeo, Rosso dogs and night-time enclosures have proven successful in mitigating losses. and Tudini. This is an open-access article However, they are often implemented as top-down measures without a proper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The understanding of the farming dynamics they are meant to alter, making them use, distribution or reproduction in other unappealing and difficult to implement for farmers. Semi-extensive, small scale forums is permitted, provided the original livestock farming systems are particularly vulnerable and diverse, requiring specific author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in care and catered support when addressing issues related to wildlife management. In this journal is cited, in accordance with these contexts, it is crucial to employ adaptive management approaches that enable accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted solutions to be collaboratively designed at the grassroots level. Here we propose a which does not comply with these terms. method for centring the experiences and knowledge of local farmers to co-produce damage prevention practices that better address their needs. We developed this approach in the course of the LIFE MEDWOLF project, which was implemented in the province of Grosseto, Italy, between 2012 and 2017. The project brought together local authorities, environmental associations, farming unions and individual farmers to develop tailor-made damage prevention measures and assess their technical and economic impact, through a stepwise process. Collaboration with 86 local farmers resulted in >50 modifications to the original project plan, and an overall 50% reduction of preyed livestock in farms that participated in the project. Our findings highlight the benefits of collaboratively designing, implementing, and monitoring damage prevention measures with farmers. Based on these results, we reflect on the importance of integrating local and scientific knowledge, on the implications this has had on stakeholder relations, and on the challenges that we faced in upscaling this management approach. KEYWORDS Canis lupus, co-production, damage prevention assessment, participatory processes, wolf predation Frontiers in Conservation Science 01 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 1 Introduction With the aim of decreasing the negative impacts of wolves on livestock farming we implemented DPM in an agricultural area of European wolves (Canis lupus) are undergoing a noticeable central Italy, the Province of Grosseto, where wolf density had expansion process throughout the continent (Chapron et al., 2014; recently increased. Our aims were to: (1) assess the degree of Boitani et al., 2022) and, particularly in the absence of adequate satisfaction with the then applied regional policies and mitigation strategies (Gervasi et al, 2021b), their presence is often management approaches; (2) understand the willingness of associated with livestock depredations (Naughton-Treves et al., farmers to modify their management systems and the challenges 2003; Linnell and Cretois, 2018; Gervasi et al., 2021a). Damage they faced in doing so; (3) trial the application of damage mitigation ideally includes compensation and preventive measures prevention measures in close collaboration with local farmers; such as livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) and night time enclosures, and (4) assess the efficacy and the costs of the implemented whose effectiveness and cost-efficacy should be regularly monitored DPM. Our method was based on the assumption that shared (Miller et al., 2016). However, ensuring the technical functionality responsibility through the active involvement of the affected of such measures is rarely sufficient as their social acceptability and parties would be a central pillar of the project. We acted implementation can be affected by many factors. Farmers may resist considering the potential benefits of participatory or adaptive co- implementing damage prevention measures (DPM) due to deeply- management approaches that are meant to foster more just, rooted feelings of distrust towards the authorities and conservation equitable and flexible management solutions through iterative practitioners who promote their use, due to a sense on injustice for social learning (Armitage et al., 2006; Stringer et al., 2006). We the initial investments, maintenance and labor costs that DPM also hoped that the results obtained through this pilot application require, and wider structural changes in farming systems associated would provide useful information to guide future management with DPM adoption. The costs associated with the implementation policies at the provincial, regional and national levels. We and management of DPM have been systematically underestimated planned each step of the process in a collaborative manner, with in conservation interventions (Widman et al., 2019), and this is a multi sectorial team composed by the NGO Istituto di Ecologia particularly relevant for small scale subsistence sheep and goat Applicata as coordinator, an external private organization based in farming. This type of farming has long suffered a crisis in Europe, Rome, the provincial offices of the three main agricultural unions mainly due to a fall in market prices, high production costs, and lack (Cordiretti, Confagricoltura and Confederazione Italiana of professional incentives (Pulina et al., 2018). Agricoltori), the local branch of Legambiente NGO (an Reflecting trends reported in most European countries, wolves environmental NGO acting at the national and local levels) and in Italy have increased and expanded their range to the lowlands, the national World Wide Fund (WWF-IT), and the provincial being increasingly reported in agricultural landscapes, coastal areas administration office for agricultural and rural development (at the and even in peri-urban areas (Galaverni et al., 2016; La Morgia et al., time responsible for wildlife damage monitoring). The diversity of 2022). The impact of wolf predation on small-scale, semi-extensive stakeholders in the project is reflected in the authorship of this farming systems has increased in the last decade and compensation article, which brings together conservation and social scientists, programs have proven generally unsatisfactory to mitigate losses public administration officials and agricultural trade union and discontent (Marino et al., 2016; Gervasi et al., 2021b), due to representatives and technicians. many reasons including the lack of involvement of the directly In this paper we describe the collaborative method we applied to affected stakeholders (Salvatori et al., 2020). Although the wider select, implement and monitor the functionality and costs of community at the international or national level might express damage prevention measures with a group of local farmers in the positive attitudes towards the conservation of wolves, the challenges Province of Grosseto. We reflect on the process’ aim of integrating faced by local communities that share their land with the predators local and scientific knowledge and on the implications this has on are often disregarded by top-down policies (Carter and Linnell, stakeholder relations. 2016). Central Italy, where this work was carried out, presents several additional problems associated with the effects of climate change on the costs and availability of pasture and fodder, as well as 2 Study area: the province of on production performance (Moriondo et al., 2010). This, coupled Grosseto, Italy with the overall market difficulties of products, culminated in the termination of numerous milk supply contracts by some important The Province of Grosseto (440,262 ha) holds the largest share of processing companies operating in some areas (ISMEA, 2019). It is farms in the Tuscany region (22.4% of all its livestock farms and against this backdrop that in recent decades Tuscan breeders have 41% of all its sheep farms) (ISTAT, 2013). In 2012 there were 1,811 had to deal with the increasing presence of wolves and the impact livestock farms in the province, 60% owned sheep; 42% cattle; 23% they have on production. Tackling these issues, and aiming at equines and 7% goats. The landscape is dominated by pockets of addressing both conservation and development goals, effectively semi-agricultural land interspersed with wooded areas. Livestock, calls for multi-actor and multi-sector forms of collaboration and particularly sheep dairy production, represents a significant developed through a stepwise approach, with each step including share of the local economy, with an average of 50 heads/km2 information sharing, consultation, collaboration and co-production (Gervasi et al., 2022), and is represented mainly by small-scale, (Brown, 2003). semi-extensive farming systems. Frontiers in Conservation Science 02 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 Wolves began re-colonizing Grosseto in the early 1980s (Boitani outreach of the institutions on the ground and providing learning and Ciucci, 1993), having been nearly eradicated by the late 1960s opportunities to their staff, who had the chance to experience, first (Cagnolaro et al., 1974). Wolf presence was estimated to be at least hand, day to day farming realities as well as farmers’ grievances and with 13 packs in 2013–2014, and 22–24 packs in 2017 (Ricci et al., accounts of wolf depredations. All the interviews were analyzed by 2018). Wolves feed on locally abundant wild prey as well as one of the authors only (SR) and the information gathered was used to livestock, which appears to be a secondary food source in their define criteria for ranking farmers that might be interested in diet (Bargagli, 2006). When the LIFE MEDWOLF project started, receiving damage prevention measures. Through a public call DPM were adopted by a few isolated cases and without substantial published by the Provincial administration and further promoted support and monitoring from local authorities. Livestock damages by the agricultural unions to their associates (step 2a), farmers were were compensated through a series of regulations that changed over invited to express their interest in receiving DPM to be installed with time (Marino et al., 2016) causing high levels of dissatisfaction by the support of a technician. The farms that expressed interest were farmers that resulted in illegal wolf killings and exposure of ranked according to the following criteria (step 2a; see Supplementary wolf carcasses. Material for details): • (i) proximity of the farm to depredation hotspots, 3 Methods prioritizing farms at greater risk based on their location; • (ii) the size of farms, prioritizing professional farmers who In this paper we present a method for centring the knowledge owned more livestock; and experiences of livestock owners to co-produce damage • (iii) the type of livestock farmed, prioritizing sheep farms prevention practices that better address their needs. based on the knowledge that 94% of attacks in the previous The project had initially planned to provide farmers with decade involved sheep (Marino et al., 2016); mobile electric fences at least 1.2m in height, scientifically proven • (iv) past experiences of depredations, prioritizing farms that to be effective in reducing damage in different contexts of pasture experienced recurrent depredations and therefore most grazing (Salvatori and Mertens, 2012; Bruns et al., 2020). However, urgently needed to implement damage mitigation strategies. these were ill received by farmers when they were consulted, and the project was thus heavily reframed to adapt to farmers’ preferences Once the ranking system was applied (step 2b), and according and needs. The partnership between conservation technicians, to the funds available, we evaluated that allocating 2,500€ per farm farming unions, local authorities and farmers included as much would allow the participation of some 70 farms. The higher-ranking flexibility as possible and envisaged the possibility of co-producing farmers were visited individually by technicians of the farming trade and modifying technical details through a series of steps (Figure 1), unions to discuss their participation in the project (step 2c), and thus testing a procedure for inclusive, cooperative and shared collaboratively identify DPM that were suitable to the farm’s socio- decision-making across sectors. The methodology for each step is ecological context and to the farmer’s needs, preferences and labor described in detail below. capacities (steps 3a and b). 3.1 Selection of farmers and 3.2 Collaborative implementation mitigation measures of measures We began with a preliminary assessment of the damage levels on The farmers’ trade unions were responsible for purchasing the the farms by consulting available registries of damages (step 1a) and material needed (step 4a). Farmers contributed to the installation of by conducting a total of 150 face-to-face interviews (step 1c) with a the selected measures, financially and/or with their own labor, and random sample of sheep owners with >20 head of sheep, including 16 signed a commitment to use and maintain in good condition the sheep owners who had declared recurrent damages (>6) during the materials received for at least five years after the project’s end (step period 2007–2012. We also held focus groups with local farmers in the 4b). Farmers who received livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) were municipalities with higher levels of damages to collect information regularly visited by technicians contracted by the project who about their opinions and points of view (Ricci, 2013). The interviews supported the dog’s training and assisted farmers in addressing were carried out by staff from the provincial administration and the behavioral issues and needs. The dogs’ health and sanitary farming trade unions, following a sequence of open-ended questions, requirements were also covered by the project until the dogs and lasted on average 2.8 hours (range 2–4). They were aimed at: (1) reached 18 months of age and could be considered adult. Farmers collecting information about depredation events that had been left out who received fixed or mobile fences were supported with technical by largely incomplete official damage registries; (2) understanding the assistance during the fences’ construction and in case of unforeseen farming conditions and practices employed at the time of the difficulties (step 4c). After the implementation of the chosen DPM, depredation events; and (3) understanding farmers’ opinions of the farms were visited every six months by the project staff or insurance-based damage compensation system in place at the time contracted technicians to monitor the functionality and correct (Marino et al., 2016). The interviews were also aimed at improving the use of the measures using a structured questionnaire (step 4d). Frontiers in Conservation Science 03 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 FIGURE 1 Shared responsibility, methods and contributions of different actors in each step of the LIFE MedWolf project implementation process in the province of Grosseto. Key to color text: Orange = Mainly Stakeholder contribution; Blue = Mainly Authorities contribution; Brown = Mainly project staff contribution. 3.3 Evaluation of effectiveness entered the project, and the “After” period from the date of fence completion or of LGD full functionality to the end of the project We assessed the effectiveness of DPM using two complementary (i.e., 30/9/2017, see Supplementary Material for details). We approaches: a before–after–control–impact (BACI) comparison compared the number of attacks and the number of livestock lost with the same farms that received DPM, and a treatment–control in each farm during these two periods. comparison between farms that received the fences and nearby We performed the treatment–control analysis on the farms that farms that didn’t. For the BACI comparison, we collected data installed fences (treatment farms) and on farms that did not adopt through interviews and official statistics of damage suffered at farms DPM but were located within ca. 5 km of treatment farms (control that received DPM from the project only (step 5a), considering the farms; step 5b; see Supplementary Material for details). Farmers took “Before” period from January 2014, when the farms officially part in the experimental design on a voluntary basis. They informed the Frontiers in Conservation Science 04 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 project staff after each depredation event so that both treatment and underwent significant restructuring to be able to offer tools that control farms could be visited to collect data on the circumstances of were easier to implement, such as fixed metal fences and fixed each attack, in the form of a structured questionnaire. electric or mixed fences to be used as night shelters. We thus Some of the farmers who had received DPM within the project modified the planned activities, and engaged in a collaborative (n = 62) or had implemented them through other means (N = 101) relationship with 86 farms. The project also planned to deliver at also took part in interviews to describe their experiences and offer least 20 LGDs in the area. Initially only six farmers agreed to have their opinions (step 5c). Finally, 11 farmers from the treatment them, but as word of mouth spread among farmers, we received group and 6 farmers who had not taken part in the project more requests. By the end of the project a total of 79 fences and 54 participated in more in-depth interviews. Dog behavior was LGDs had been adopted by local farmers (Table 1). assessed through evaluation of distance to the flock in 11 farms (step 5d, see Zingaro et al., 2017 for a detailed description). 4.2 Evaluation of effectiveness 3.4 Evaluation of costs Eighty-one percent of interviewed farmers (n = 163) evaluated fences as a valid tool to reduce depredation risk, and 74% evaluated To understand the impact that DPM have on the everyday lives LGDs positively. Sixty-nine percent of the interviewees who had of farmers we undertook a significant effort to quantify the installed fences (N = 108) reported a decrease in the occurrence of economic costs sustained by farmers who had newly implemented damages; even though 59% claimed they added a significant amount them (step 6a). We also designed an ad-hoc questionnaire with a of labor to regular livestock management workloads. Of the 11 sample of 20 farmers selected taking into consideration a set of farmers who participated in the project and offered in-depth variables (location, flock size, membership of union organization) interviews regarding their experience, all of them reported that as well as farmers’ willingness to participate in the survey (step 6b). the technical interventions had improved their situation, stating Given the high variability obtained through the various interviews, firmly that “with the dogs our life has changed completely … we feel we convened a focus group with 5 farmers, 3 representatives of the much safer, the female dog is a phenomenon”; and that “[fences] farmers unions and 2 representatives of the main milk have allowed many people to sleep soundly”. Farmers also transformation cooperatives. The discussion was aimed at highlighted the importance of highly specialized technical developing estimates of DPM costs in a typical farm in Grosseto assistance and continued support “We need competence. We need (step 6c). Depreciation costs of the tools installed was calculated highly competent staff visiting the farms” … “the technical assistance using reference values from the National Farming Data Network represents a good 80% of the prevention strategy”. (FADN) managed by CREA. Overall DPM were viewed as a “necessary evil” which required significant adjustment and labor but allowed farmers to take issues into their own hands: “I can’t sell the flock, thus I must adapt.” … “I 4 Results was somehow forced to get the dogs … after having suffered the attacks I had to do something … I need to ensure income continuity, 4.1 Selection of farmers, choice of protect my capital, then I hope the institutions will do something damage prevention measures, and (alluding to the possibility of passing regulations to carry out wolf their implementation population control), but I see a long and challenging process ahead”. Nonetheless, in many statements, they transmitted a sense of Our preliminary assessment showed that most livestock holdings ownership of the process for adopting prevention measures: “I were managed in a semi-extensive manner, often on rough terrain. decided I no longer want to suffer damages. Now when I let the sheep Farmers reported that the landscape and terrain in Grosseto usually out, they stay with the dogs, otherwise I keep them in” and “The allowed grazing areas to be close enough to the main holdings for difficulty lies in the fact that traditional practices are no longer viable, flocks to be returned to farms at night. However, most farms used the world progresses, we cannot remain 30–40 years behind … one regular fences to confine livestock at night rather than enclosures needs to adapt to the changing situations…”. suited to preventing wolf attacks. Ninety-seven percent of interviewees reported having 1m high fences, and experiencing TABLE 1 Damage prevention measures implemented at 86 farms in the high levels of stress and anxiety along with difficulty in resting province of Grosseto through the LIFE MedWolf project.. properly at night due to their fear of suffering wolf depredations. Seventy-four percent of the farmers reported having suffered attacks Type of measure No. of farms No. of interventions at night, often not far from their holdings. Most (68%) said they were Fences* 59 69 interested in receiving damage prevention measures. LGDs 19 39 A total of 201 farmers responded to the public call for expression of interest. We made visits to the 70 highest ranked Fences and LGDs 8 10 fences, 15 LGDs farms. When funds allowed it we visited lower ranking farms too. Total 86 133 (79 fences + 54 LGDs) During these visits, most farmers had deemed mobile electric fences *After the evaluation only two farms opted for mobile electrified fences, while the others were unsuitable to their farm management systems and the project fixed fences. Frontiers in Conservation Science 05 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 Many farmers expressed satisfaction towards the collaborative their expenses, along with the costs of other types of DPM, should process facilitated by the project and its diverse partnership, stating be covered by public institutions: “I like the wolf but we should all that “The whole approach was fundamental, I had the feeling of not pay for its presence … we need funds for the fences, dog food and vet being alone and forgotten in my troubles. [It contributed to mitigate the care. I like having the dogs, but they are a considerable expenditure”. conflict] because it put the two parties, farmers and conservationists, A few also suggested that farms that were successful in reducing together,” … “I met people who provided support and ideas”. Others depredations should be supported as much as others: “there should instead expressed skepticism towards the project-driven initiatives, be an incentive per head: if you see in my farm there are no losses which were known to be supported by EU funds “On the one hand anymore, but they produce less”. Despite the diversity of systems it will be a shame when the project will come to an end as nobody will highlighted by the farmers, those who participated in the focus visit us, but on the other hand it’ll be good because there was too much group with the aim of producing monetary estimates of the overall money” and in some cases were perceived to be limited in scope “The costs of DPM, first set out to characterize what a “typical sheep farm interventions were useful, but they can only help up to a certain point”. in Grosseto” might look like, i.e., is family-run, with an average of The interviewed farmers who were not involved in the project claimed 1–2 full time equivalent working individuals; relies primarily on to have little knowledge about it, but expressed some skepticism and privately owned land and secondarily on rented land as well as distrust “I know very little about Medwolf … I am generally skeptical. communal grazing areas; specializes in dairy sheep breeding, with There may be some [financial] speculation”… “while allocating funds 300–400 sheep heads and sells milk to a dairy processing within the project, the least amount was for us who are the offended cooperative; uses part of its livestock and dairy products for stock party…”. Among the most skeptical farmers were those who felt that replenishment and personal consumption; engages in other focusing on damage prevention was harmful because it diverted productive activities (e.g. cereals, wine, olives) and produces most attention from more immediate solutions such as changing the law of its fodder, but rarely engages in extra-agricultural activities; relies to allow for wolves to be culled “[the project] further destroyed the local on subsidies from the 1st pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy economy because it didn’t provide a solution to the root causes, it circled (formerly known as direct payments) but rarely taps into funding around them instead”… “[damage prevention] decreases our freedom available by Rural Development Programs. Considering the impact in an already challenging job, because it requires a constant physical that fencing had on sheep (i.e., higher risk of diseases and higher presence … It is a lie that prevention solves the problem, it is not true, it need of fodder) and the costs associated with raising good quality forces livestock to live an unnatural life … no other adequate means exist dogs, on average, they estimated that the costs for adopting and but removing the predator”. Some farmers, though, had positive views maintaining the necessary DPM ranges from 43 to 54 euros per of the project even though they had chosen not to be involved in it: “I sheep head, per year. Fifty-two percent of this estimate was don’t know it very well but when there is the opportunity to discuss it is attributed to labor costs, due to the additional workload that always positive. Maybe such initiatives are more suited for DPM represent for small family-run farms (Figure 2). young people”. 5 Discussion 4.3 Evaluation of costs In this paper we present a method through which sheep farmers, Many farmers reported that LGDs require a significant time trade union technicians, local administration representatives and investment to train properly, are expensive to maintain, and that conservationists were drawn into a collaborative relationship, co- FIGURE 2 Cost estimation for adoption and maintenance of damage prevention measures (three fences and 7–8 livestock guarding dogs for ca. 400 sheep heads) at a typical farm in Grosseto. Frontiers in Conservation Science 06 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 producing, implementing and jointly monitoring the effectiveness of The case study we present is of limited scope and impact. Despite measures to reduce wolf depredations on livestock, in a selected focusing on improving relations of trust and collaboration between group of 86 farms. Expertise from conservation technicians provided different stakeholders and knowledge systems, the damage prevention scientifically tested measures and tools, known to successfully interventions that were developed are still primarily “technical” in their mitigate depredations across a variety of herding contexts (Espuno nature (Li, 2007; Taylor, 2015). The focus has been and always was on et al., 2010; Reinhardt et al., 2012; Bruns et al., 2020). Farm visits and changing localized farming practices so that they could be more wider efforts made by trade union technicians and local successfully adapted to rural rewilding. The process was initiated administration representatives served as important forms of through European funding directed at biodiversity conservation, and outreach through which local institutions showed concern, as such, never contemplated changing or debating the wider terms of presence and support for farmers faced with the challenge and wolf presence and management dictated by national laws, nor was it burdens of coexisting with wolves. Technicians and administrative ever intended to address the structural changes occurring in representatives were offered the opportunities to live day-to-day increasingly globalized agrarian systems (Fletcher and Toncheva, farming management systems and challenges and learn about the 2021), which severely impact rural livelihoods and farmers’ overall impact of wolves on farming livelihoods. Farmers themselves are the vulnerability to wolf depredations. This is an important factor to primary holders of knowledge and expertise regarding these consider when discussing the participatory nature and limits of dynamics and therefore are best positioned to lead efforts aimed at certain conservation interventions (Nadasdy, 2007). It explains why, identifying solutions suited to their specific needs (Horowitz, 2015), in addition to receiving positive feedback from many satisfied farmers, and their farm-specific expertise played a central role in the selection, the project also encountered widespread opposition from a portion of implementation and assessment of damage prevention effectiveness the local farming sector who see damage prevention measures as a and costs. More than anyone else, they have a detailed understanding distraction or an obstacle to more radical solutions involving wolf of the diverse ecological, labor and organizational conditions of their culling. The cross-sectorial collaborative approach undertaken through farms, and intimate knowledge of their livestock’s needs and the partnership was founded on the idea that partners needed to agree behavioral habits. over which activities to implement and how to tailor the planned The results we present therefore draw from a combination of interventions. The need for DPM was something that all partners and local and scientific knowledge, brought together iteratively. This many farmers viewed as important and urgent. Considering the enabled a flexible adaptive management approach, whereby context of intense social conflict in which the project was developed, interventions and their objectives were repetitively revised and partners and farmers engaged in the project on the basis of a shared reframed with each new piece of acquired knowledge (Stringer commitment toward improving the current conditions of local et al., 2006; Armitage et al., 2007). Our methodology includes a coexistence, even when a common ground on other issues could not diverse set of social science methods ranging from questionnaires, be established or when the local scale and narrow focus of the project semi-structured and in-depth interviews, focus groups as well as limited its capacity to impact wider regional policies (Marino forms of joint labor and socialization that enabled knowledge et al., 2021). transfer and social learning to emerge over time. Interviews and Our results show that the collaborative implementation of DPM focus groups particularly served to center the experiences and was successful in reducing depredations in the farms that actively knowledge of farmers, allowing them to drive efforts to select, participated in the project. Whether these results have decreased the implement and monitor the efficacy and costs of DPM. Social overall wolf predatory pressure in the Province of Grosseto is yet to science methods were complemented with ecological analyses of be determined and will also be linked to a variety of other factors. As depredation registries, as well as before-and-after and treatment- reported in the in-depth interviews the livestock owners who took and-control analyses of damages, to systematically evaluate the part in the process claimed to have come out of it feeling more effectiveness of the implemented measures. supported and better able to face the challenges of coexisting with The experiences we report suggest the importance of moving wolves. The “softer” results of the project related to social learning beyond just complementing local and scientific knowledge, toward are potentially its most significant and radical results. The power effective integration of the two (Clark and Murdoch, 1997). Farmers dynamics at play in many conservation conflicts (Robbins, 2012; and conservation technicians worked side by side to choose the best Adams, 2015), including our case study, are likely to persist despite suited measures and ensure they functioned correctly. Moreover, and potentially even through some forms of participatory farmers contributed essential information to develop more accurate conservation (Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Li, 2007). However, there depredation statistics, and to quantify the financial burden of DPM is value in reflecting on the opportunities provided by moments of by producing cost estimates. Meanwhile, systematic evaluations of shared labor and efforts to collaboratively define goals, as these play the efficacy of DPM proved their effectiveness in reducing a role in improving relationships and bridging across differences. depredations. These, along with farmers’ personal accounts, Finally, the results we present highlight both the value of setting circulated through word of mouth and contributed to increase the flexible funding conditions and the challenges posed by popularity of DPM and of LGDs particularly. In this way, local unresponsive governance institutions. The iterative method knowledge and experience directly informed science-based reported in this study required a high level of adaptability. With approaches. Through their contributions, farmers developed and each initiative aimed at re-designing the project interventions came often expressed a sense of ownership of the process and its results the process of requesting approval by the European Commission. (see also Young et al., 2018). By the end of the project the Commission had granted over 50 Frontiers in Conservation Science 07 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 modifications to the budget. This included approving new lines of activities were undertaken in the period 2012–2017, during the research such as the study of the costs incurred by farmers to adopt implementation of the LIFE MEDWOLF project (LIFE11NAT/IT/ damage prevention measures, requested by farmers and their trade 069), co-funded by the European Union and aimed at mitigating the unions. Funding sources that allow for explorative, open ended and impact of the wolf on livestock production through the reflexive research are essential for interventions of this type, as co- implementation of preventive measures as a tool to increase the production approaches inevitably require adaptable goals. On the tolerance of farmers for this species in the province of Grosseto. other hand, we encountered difficulty in extending this approach to upper management levels and, since the project ended, the area has experienced a lack of continuity in the kind of management Acknowledgments approach adopted. Whilst there is now a group of farmers in Grosseto who are leading local efforts to support the adoption of Parts of this manuscript have been released as a Carnivore damage prevention strategies (https://difesattiva.info), they Damage Prevention Newsletter article (Salvatori et al., 2021). We are currently do so without support from the regional administration. grateful to A. Di Pascasio, L. Vielmi, M. Gandolfi and A. Argenio for field data collection, to the livestock breeders who contributed to the study with their time and knowledge and to the provincial Data availability statement agricultural unions (Coldiretti Grosseto, Confagricoltura Grosseto, CIA Grosseto). Particular thanks to A. Pollini who left us The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be prematurely during project implementation. We thank A. made available by the authors, without undue reservation. Monteleone and M. C. Macrì of the Italian National Rural Network and D. Petrucci from the Provincial offices for their collaboration in implementing the project. Through Agnese Ethics statement Marino’s contribution, the research contributes to the “Marı́a de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants was not required to participate in this study in accordance Conflict of interest with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be Author contributions construed as a potential conflict of interest. VS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & Publisher’s note editing. AM: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PC: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. CG: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors Project administration, Writing – review & editing. MM: Writing – and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, review & editing. EP: Writing – review & editing. SR: or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its GR: Writing – review & editing. FR: Writing – review & editing. manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. LT: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Supplementary material Funding The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online The author(s) declare financial support was received for the at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2023. research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The 1264166/full#supplementary-material References Adams, W. M. (2015). “The political ecology of conservation conflicts,” in Conflicts Armitage, D., Berkes, F., and Doubleday, N. (2007). Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, in conservation: Navigating towards solutions. Eds. S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutié rrez, K. A. learning, and multi-level governance. (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press). Wood and J. A. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/ Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2006). Adaptive co-management and the CBO9781139084574.006 paradox of learning. Global Environ. Change. 18, 86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002 Frontiers in Conservation Science 08 frontiersin.org Salvatori et al. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166 Bargagli, L. (2006). “Analisi alimentare del lupo sul Monte Amiata,” in Il lupo sul Linnell, J. D. C., and Cretois, B. (2018). Research for AGRI Committee – The revival of Monte Amiata: progetto sui grandi canidi (lupo, cane) nel territorio dell’Amiata wolves and other large predators and its impact on farmers and their livelihood in rural Grossetana e Senese. Eds. S. Lovari and A. Sangiuliano (Grosseto: Comunità regions of Europe. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Montana Amiata Grossetano), 73–99. Cohesion Policies, Brussels. Boitani, L., and Ciucci, P. (1993). “Wolves in Italy: critical issues for their Marino, A., Braschi, C., Ricci, S., Salvatori, V., and Ciucci, P. (2016). Ex post and conservation,” in Wolves in Europe: current status and perspectives. Eds. C. insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural Promberger and W. Schröder (Ettal: Munich Wildlife Society), 75–90. landscapes of central Italy. Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 62, 227–240. doi: 10.1007/s10344-016- Boitani, L., Kaczensky, P., Alvares, F., André n, H., Balys, V., Blanco, J. C., et al. (2022) 1001-5 Assessment of the conservation status of the Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe. Available at: Marino, A., Ciucci, P., Redpath, S. M., Ricci, S., and Young, J. (2021). Broadening the https://rm.coe.int/inf45e-2022-wolf-assessment-bern-convention-2791-5979-4182-1- toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management. J. 2/1680a7fa47. Environ. Manage 296, 113125. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113125 Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional Miller, J. R. B., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., and misfit. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 479–487. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0479: Schmitz, O. J. (2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock ICADAC]2.0.CO;2 depredations by large carnivores. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 40 (4), 806–815. doi: 10.1002/ Bruns, A., Waltert, M., and Khorozyan, I. (2020). The effectiveness of livestock wsb.720 protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co- Moriondo, M., Pacini, C., Trombi, G., Vazzana, C., and Bindi, M. (2010). existence with humans. Global Ecol. Conserv. 21. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00868 Sustainability of dairy farming system in Tuscany in a changing climate. Eur. J. Cagnolaro, L., Rosso, D., Spagnesi, M., and Venturi, B. (1974). Inchiesta sulla Agron. 32, 80–90. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.001 distribuzione del lupo (Canis lupus L.) in Italia e nei cantoni Ticino e Grigioni Nadasdy, P. (2007). “Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience,” in (Svizzera). In Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina (Italy: Istituto Nazionale della Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Eds. D. fauna Selvatica), 59. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press). Carter, N. H., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: rural large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 (8), 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006 citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1500– Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., et al. (2014). 1511. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Pulina, G., Milá n, M., Lavı́n, M., Theodoridis, A., Morin, E., Capote, J., et al. (2018). Science 346 (6216), 1517–1519. doi: 10.1126/science.1257553 Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat Clark, J., and Murdoch, J. (1997). Local knowledge and the precarious extension of sectors. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 6715–6729. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14015 scientific networks: A reflection on three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis 31 (1), 38–60. Reinhardt, I., Rauer, G., Kluth, G., Kaczensky, P., Knauer, F., and Wotschikowsky, U. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00035 (2012). Livestock protection methods applicable for Germany – a country newly Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? (New York: Zed recolonized by wolves. Hystrix, Italian J. Mammal. 23, 62–72. doi: 10.4404/hystrix- Books). 23.1-4555 Espuno, N., Lequette, B., Poulle, M. L., Migot, P., and Lebreton, J. D. (2010). Heterogeneous Ricci, S. (2013). Ex-ante evaluation of livestock depredations in the Province of response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildl Grosseto (Rome: LIFE MedWolf technical report for action A4. Istituto di Ecologia Soc. Bull. 32, 1195–1208. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[1195:HRTPSH]2.0.CO;2 Applicata). Fletcher, R., and Toncheva, S. (2021). The political economy of human-wildlife Ricci, S., Salvatori, V., and Ciucci, P. (2018). Assessment of wolf presence in expansion conflict and coexistence. Biol. Conserv. 260, 109216. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109216 areas in Italy (Rome: The province of Grosseto. LIFE MedWolf technical report for Galaverni, M., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., and Randi, E. (2016). One, no action D4. Istituto di Ecologia Applicata). one, or one hundred thousand: how many wolves are there currently in Italy? Mamm Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction (New York: Wiley- Res. 61, 13–24. doi: 10.1007/s13364-015-0247-8 Blackwell). Gervasi, V., Linnell, J. D., Boitani, L., Cerne, R., Cretois, B., Ciucci, P., et al. (2021a). Salvatori, V., Balian, E., Blanco, J. C., Ciucci, P., Demeter, L., Hartel, T., et al. (2020). Ecological and anthropogenic drivers of large carnivore depredation on sheep in Applying participatory processes to address conflicts over the conservation of large Europe. J. Appl. Ecology. 30. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01798 carnivores: understanding conditions for successful management. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8. Gervasi, V., Salvatori, V., Catullo, G., and Ciucci., P. (2021b). Comparing wolf doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00182 depredation on livestock in areas of historical vs recent occurrence in Italy. Eur. J. Salvatori, V., and Mertens, A. (2012). Damage prevention methods in Europe: Wildl. Res. 67, 82. doi: 10.1007/s10344-021-01522-1 Experiences from LIFE Nature projects. Hystrix Italian J. Mammal. 23 (1), 73–79. Gervasi, V., Zingaro, M., Aragno, P., Genovesi, P., and Salvatori, V. (2022). Stima doi: 10.4404/hystrix-23.1-4548 dell’impatto del lupo sulle attività zootecniche in Italia. Analisi del periodo 2015 – 2019. Salvatori, V., Tudini, L., Ricci, S., Galli, C., Petrucci, D., Passalacqua, E., et al. (2021) Relazione tecnica realizzata nell’ambito della convenzione ISPRA-Ministero della Multi-disciplinary approaches for managing sheep and wolves in Tuscany. Carnivore Transizione Ecologica per “Attività di monitoraggio nazionale nell’ambito del Piano Damage Prevention Newsletter 21. Available at: http://www.protectiondestroupeaux.ch/ di Azione del lupo”. (Rome, Italy: Technical report. Ministry of Environment). fileadmin/doc/International/CDP_and_General_Infos/CDPNews21_Winter2021.pdf. Horowitz, L. S. (2015). “Local ecological knowledge,” in The routledge handbook of Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., and Reed., M. S. political ecology. Eds. T. Perreault, G. Bridge and J. McCarthy. (London and New York: (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9781315759289 systems: a critical review. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), 39. ISMEA. (2019). Il mercato dei formaggi pecorini. Italy. Available at: https://www. Taylor, M. (2015). The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods, ismea.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/10572. agrarian change and the conflicts of development (London and New York: Routledge). Istat. (2013). Bilancio demografico della popolazione residente per provincia e anno- Widman, M., Steen, M., and Olofsson, K. (2019). Indirect costs of sheep depredation dal 2011. Available at: http://www.istat.it/it/toscana/dati?q=gettableterr&dataset= by large carnivores in Sweden. Wildlife Soc Bull. 43, 53–61. doi: 10.1002/wsb.951 DCIS_POPORESBIL1&dim=63,2,3,0&lang=2&tr=0&te=1. Young, J. C., Redpath, S., Ciucci, P., Marino, A., Ricci, S., and Salvatori, V. (2018) “I La Morgia, V., Marucco, F., Aragno, P., Salvatori, V., Gervasi, V., De Angelis, D., et al. no longer feel alone” Introducing a decision modelling approach to addressing wolf (2022). Stima della distribuzione e consistenza del lupo a scala nazionale 2020/2021. conflicts in Italy Carnivore Damage Prevention Newsletter 17. Available at: https://www. Relazione tecnica realizzata nell’ambito della convenzione ISPRA-Ministero della protectiondestroupeaux.ch/fileadmin/doc/International/CDP_and_General_Infos/ Transizione Ecologica “Attività di monitoraggio nazionale nell’ambito del Piano di CDPNews17-Winter2018.pdf. Azione del lupo”. (Rome, Italy: Technical report. Ministry of Environment). Zingaro, M., Salvatori, V., Vielmi, L., and Boitani, L. (2017). Are Livestock Guarding Li, T. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of Dogs where they are supposed to be? Anim. Behav. Appl. Sci. 198, 89–94. doi: 10.1016/ politics (Durham and London: Duke University Press). j.applanim.2017.10.002 Frontiers in Conservation Science 09 frontiersin.org