European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

The Northern Chamois is widespread as a species and has a large population of just under 500,000 individuals (Corlatti et al. 2022). Although it is declining in some parts of its distribution range, the bulk of the population (subspecies R. r. rupicapra) is found in the Alps and is currently secure. Consequently, it is assessed as Least Concern. However, most chamois subspecies qualify as threatened and require urgent conservation action, among them R. r. asiatica and caucasica, whose distribution falls outside the geographic range of this assessment. Refer to the global assessment (Anderwald et al. 2020) for information on these two subspecies.

R. r. cartusiana - Listed as Vulnerable (VU) D1. Confined to a single mountain, the population size was estimated at 1,500 individuals in 2017-2018 (Prévost 2018). Assuming that ca 60% of the population are mature (IUCN definition), this would translate into a total of 900 adults. The past introduction of R. r. rupicapra to the Chartreuse to increase the small relict population (Rouland 1980) might jeopardize the long-term persistence of R. r. cartusiana due to the potential risk of crossbreeding (Apollonio et al. 2014) which could eventually lead to extinction by hybridisation and introgression (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996).

R. r. tatrica - Listed as Endangered (EN) B1ab(i)+2ab(i) - has a restricted geographic range (EOO 500 km²; AOO 300 km²) and small population of 1,200 individuals (860 in Slovakia and 340 in Poland (mean population size for 2017-2022; Ciach and Pęksa 2018; M. Ciach and Ł. Pęksa – unpublished)). There are an additional ca 100 individuals in the Low Tatra Mts (Slovakia) as a result of the introduction of a backup population between 1969-1976 (Bačkor and Velič 2008, Urban and Malina 2017), but these are presently hybridised with introduced R. r. rupicapra (Zemanová et al. 2015) and cannot be accounted for the subspecies tatrica (J. Robovsky pers. comm. 2020). There has been a strong fluctuation in the number of mature individuals (decline of the population from ca 1,100 individuals in the 1960’s to ca 220 individuals by the turn of the century; Ciach and Pęksa 2018). The population increased rapidly between 2000 and 2018 and has fluctuated in recent years, with current numbers exceeding the population size prior to the decline (Ciach and Pęksa 2018; M. Ciach and Ł. Pęksa – unpublished). Concerns are low genetic variation and a projected problem of hybridisation with introduced R. r. rupicapra (Zemanová et al. 2015).

The Northern Chamois is native to mountainous parts of central and southern Europe and Asia Minor, where it occurs as seven subspecies: R. r. asiatica, R. r. balcanica, R. r. carpatica, R. r. cartusiana, R. r. caucasica, R. r. rupicapra and R. r. tatrica (Shackleton 1997, Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). It occurs from 200 m to 3,500 m asl. It has been introduced to Czechia.

Only five subspecies fall into the geographic range of this assessment: R. r. balcanica, R. r. carpatica, R. r. cartusiana, R. r. rupicapra and R. r. tatrica. For information on R.r. asiatica and caucasica, please refer to the global assessment of northern chamois (Anderwald et al. 2020).

The subspecies R. r. balcanica occurs in Croatia (Dinara and Biokovo Mts.), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria (four main massifs), and Greece. In Serbia, it inhabits the mountain Tara, the area around the Lim River, Đerdapska klisura and Zlot. In Kosovo, it occurs in the mountains of Prokletije, Mokra Gora, Koritnik and Šar Planina. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, it inhabits the mountains of Zelengora, Prenj, Čvrsnica, Čabulja, Veleža, Bjelašnica, Treskavica and Sušica. In Montenegro, it is found in the mountains of Durmitor, Prokletije and Orjen, and in the Tara River canyon. In Bulgaria, there are five distinct sub-populations: Western Rhodopes, Rila, Pirin, Vitosha and Central Balkan. The population in Vitosha was reintroduced after 2000 (Valchev et al.2010). A reintroduction project has also started in the Western Stara Planina, but requires additional animals in order to be successful. In Greece, there are 30 distinct subpopulations forming six discrete population blocks in the following mountain ranges: Northern Pindus (12 subpopulations), Central and Southern Pindus (7), South mainland mountains (5), N-NW mountains (1), Mount Olympus (1), Rhodope Mountains (4) (Papaioannou 2010, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2020; Papaioannou and Kati 2016). The first three, and possibly the fourth, seem to share a common gene pool, whereas the rest diverge slightly (Papaioannou et al. 2019). The area of occupancy at the national level is estimated between 1,950–2,475 km² (EEA 2019, Papaioannou 2020). Based on a population genetics study of Balkan Chamois across its distribution range, the subspecies forms three genetic clusters with individuals from Serbia and Bulgaria assigned to two separate clusters, while individuals from the other countries belonged to the same cluster (Rezić et al. 2022).

The subspecies R. r. carpatica occurs in many populations in Romania throughout the Transylvanian Alps and the Carpathian mountains. There have been a number of successful re-introductions (Shackleton 1997).

The subspecies R. r. cartusiana is endemic to France, where it is restricted to a 350 km² area of the Chartreuse limestone massif, centred around Grenoble, at the western edge of the French Alps.

The subspecies R. r. rupicapra is found in Austria, southern Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy, eastern France, Slovenia and NW Croatia. While the range has remained similar to the previous assessment in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, it has increased in France as a result of natural and assisted recolonisations. Due to translocations of individuals in the past, this subspecies has been introduced to Czechia (the Sudeten Mountains, spreading to the Mount Śnieżnik range in Poland) and Slovakia (the Great Fatra Mountains and Slovenský raj Mountains) where it has established free-living populations (Urban and Malina 2017).

The subspecies R. r. tatrica has a small island-like distribution range of some 300 km² and occurs in the open habitats above the tree line in the Tatra Mountains of Poland and Slovakia, including the ranges of Western, High and Belianske Tatra Mountains (Jamrozy et al.2007). In Slovakia, it had also been introduced to the Low Tatra Mountains (Shackleton 1997), but this population has a restricted range of 400-450 ha (Urban and Malina 2017) and is now hybridised with introduced R. r. rupicapra (Zemanová et al. 2015).

The Northern Chamois as a species is widespread and appears generally stable in the European region, especially the Alpine subspecies R. r. rupicapra. However, many of the other subspecies are rare and/or declining:

R. r. balcanica: The total population numbers less than ten thousand individuals: ca 700 in Croatia (Šprem and Buzan 2016, Kavčić et al. 2021), less than 1,000 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (cf. Adamič et al. 2006, Korjenić et al. 2009), ca 320 in Central Serbia (data from 2017), ca 200-300 in Kosovo, ca 1,400 in Montenegro (Đurović 2018), ca 1,400 in North Macedonia (V. Maletić pers. comm.), ca 450-600 in Albania (F. Bego pers. comm.), ca 2,500-3,000 in Bulgaria (with the largest subpopulations in the Rhodopes – ca 1,000 - and Rila – ca 1,000; S. Avramov, pers. comm.), and ca 1,500 in Greece (i.e. 1,330-1,765, with four populations numbering more than 150, the largest 380 and the smallest no more than 5-15; Papaioannou 2015, 2016a,b, 2020; Papaioannou and Kati 2016). In Bulgaria, the population size increased from 1,000-1,100 individuals estimated in 1997-2000 to 1,600–1,800 in 2005 (200-220 in the Central Balkan range, 450-500 at Rila, 200 in Pirin, and 750-850 in the Western Rhodopes; Spiridonov et al. 2011).

R. r. carpatica: Following some fluctuations in population size (Şelaru 1997), chamois numbers in Romania have shown a steady increase from ca 6,800 in 2008 to ca 8,150 individuals in 2019. This has been paralleled by an increase in the number of harvested animals from 195 in 2008 to 443 in 2018 (A. Farkas pers. comm).

R. r. cartusiana: The population is currently estimated at ca 1,500 individuals, with ca 200 animals harvested in 2017-2018 (Prévost 2018). The population history is as follows: ca 50 individuals in 1945, 250 in 1972 (Prévost 2018), 35 in 1977, and 67 in 1979 in the north-western nucleus of the introduced population (Rouland 1980), 150 in 1986 (Prévost 2018) and ca 120 in 1990 (Berducou 1990). Between 2005 and 2016, both the assigned hunting quota and number of harvested chamois increased: in 2005, about 110 chamois were harvested out of a quota of ca 140, and in 2016, about 180 out of ca 200 (Chantreau and Gaudry 2019). The genetic integrity of the current R. r. cartusiana population is unknown.

R. r. rupicapra: This subspecies comprises the bulk of the global northern chamois population, and is widespread and abundant in the Alps. Recent population declines have been suggested for some countries (e.g. Austria, Switzerland and Italy), but this is controversial, as there are large regional differences in population trends in all cases. The situation in Switzerland may provide a good example for the difficulties in inferring population trends from different data sources: In Switzerland, the total population size was estimated at ca 91,500 in 2021. Compared to 2011, when there was an estimated number of about 94,200 chamois (Eidgenössische Jagdstatistik, accessed 14/12/2022), this would represent a decline of about 3%. However, as there is no standardised method to infer population abundance or trends of chamois in Switzerland, abundance estimates are not validated, and suspected changes need to be interpreted with care. The number of chamois shot in Switzerland peaked in the 1990s (at 19,550 animals in 1994) and has since declined steadily. In 2011, about 13,300 chamois were shot, in 2021 about 10,400, which would correspond to a decline of 22% in ten years (data: Eidgenössische Jagdstatistik, 2022). However, care must also be taken regarding the interpretation of these data, as hunting regulations and hunting pressure have changed over the years. Reductions in numbers of shot animals therefore do not necessarily reflect population declines (Vogt et al. 2019). While in some sub-populations, chamois numbers have experienced steady declines in the past 20-30 years, others have been stable or increasing (e.g., Vogt et al. 2019, Willisch et al. 2013; Willisch pers. comm). A similar situation applies to Austria, where trends in the number of animals shot has differed widely between provinces, while the overall population trend is still under debate (Reimoser et al. 2019). In Germany, a population numbering approximately 1,200 animals today occurs in the federal state of Baden Wuerttemberg (Wotschikowsky 2010, MLR 2019). In the federal state of Saxony, few occasional sightings of individuals that belong to a border population in Czechia occur (Hertweck and Riebe 2009). The bulk of the German chamois populations occur in the federal state of Bavaria for which Wotschikowsky (2010) suggested an estimate of roughly 20,000 individuals in 2010. Current population size and trends have been debated amongst different stakeholder groups, which resulted in the initiation of several research projects to inform this debate, but results are pending to date. Robust population estimates are currently available for some areas. In Italy, the total population estimate is ca 137,000 individuals, with ca 124,800 outside (in 2014; Pellicioli 2019) and ca 12,600 inside National Parks (Gran Paradiso 2019: ca 7,000; Stelvio 2019: ca 3,500; Val Grande 2013: ca 800; Dolomiti Bellunesi: ca 1,300; Italian National Park Authorities). Given annual population counts of 119,042 (2009), 120,400 (2010), 123,475 (2011), 123,666 (2012), 126,825 (2013), and 124,847 (2014) outside National Parks (Pelliccioli 2019), the number of chamois (including kids) in the Italian Alps appears relatively stable. Nevertheless, declines have been detected in some populations, particularly in high density areas: for example, in the Trentino sector of the Stelvio National Park, the decline was over 60% between the mid-1990s and 2019. In France, chamois abundance and distribution range have shown an increase over most of the overall monitoring period, although the total abundance may have tended to stabilize during the last 15 years (1988: 31,680, 1994: 55,570, 2005: 98,715; 2010: 103,345; Corti 2012; Barboiron et al. 2018). Although the population expansion still seems to be ongoing at intermediate and low altitudes (Barboiron et al. 2018), contrasting local trends have appeared in other areas, including some local population decreases even in national parks such as in the Ecrins National Park and the Vanoise National Park. Difficulties in inferring R. r. rupicapra population sizes and trends also include limited economic and human resources allocated to absolute abundance surveys, and changes in survey methodology including the promotion of relative abundance indices (Loison et al. 2006, Michallet et al. 2015). Although this may fulfil the objective of making local surveys cheaper for the purpose of adjusting annual harvest rates, it may weaken the availability and accuracy of total population estimates (e.g. Jullien and Cornillon 2017, Barboiron et al. 2018). In practice, such indices of relative abundance are only reliable when calculated over a sufficient number of surveys per year and over a sufficient number of years (Loison et al.2006), which is often not fulfilled (e.g. Chantreau and Gaudry 2019). Partial participation of stakeholders further compromises the reliability of population monitoring, and corrections of biased abundance estimates in mountain ungulates (De Danieli and Sarasa 2015) also remain an open question in chamois. In France, actual harvest rates relative to authorized hunting quotas may have decreased for about 15 years (Saint-Andrieux and Barboiron 2022). It was particularly low in 2020-21 perhaps due to weather events or COVID-19 restrictions (Chasser en Savoie 2021, Saint-Andrieux and Barboiron 2022).

R. r. tatrica: The total population size is currently estimated at 1,200 individuals (860 in Slovakia and 340 in Poland, based on the mean population size for 2017-2022; Ciach and Pęksa 2018, M. Ciach and Ł. Pęksa – unpublished). Numbers of the Tatra chamois had declined steadily since the 1960s (Jurdíková 2000) from ca 1,100 individuals to ca 220 individuals by the turn of the century (Ciach and Pęksa 2018). After the period of decline, the population increased rapidly between 2000 and 2018 and has fluctuated in recent years, with current numbers exceeding the population size prior to the decline (Ciach and Pęksa 2018, M. Ciach and Ł. Pęksa – unpublished). There is an additional population of ca 100 individuals in the Low Tatra Mts (Slovakia), which was established from 30 individuals from the Tatra population and introduced as a back-up population between 1969-1976. It increased subsequently and has persisted to date (Bačkor and Velič 2008, Zemanová et al. 2015), although nowadays, this population is displaying high levels of introgression of the R. r. rupicapra genome.

Northern Chamois inhabit steep, rocky areas mostly in the mountains, utilising a variety of habitats including alpine meadows, open rocky areas, mixed broadleaf woodland, and coniferous woodland (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). The species feeds on grasses, herbs, leaves of trees, buds, shoots, and fungi (Sägesser and Krapp 1986). The gestation period is 170 days, and the number of offspring is usually one per pregnancy. Females are sexually mature at 2.5 years, while males mature 1-1.5 years later. The lifespan is 14-22 years. Females and kids occur in herds of 5-30 individuals, while adult males remain solitary.

Poaching and over-hunting are a problem for the species in parts of its range, especially where it occurs outside protected areas and private hunting reserves (Shackleton 1997, Jurdíková 2000, Markov et al. 2016). Many of the less numerous subspecies (e.g. R. r. balcanica, R. r. cartusiana, and R. r. tatrica) are threatened by the deliberate introduction of subspecies from other geographic areas (especially R. r. rupicapra; e.g. Rouland 1980), leading to hybridisation and genetic swamping (Shackleton 1997, Zemanová et al. 2015, Šprem and Buzan 2016, Iacolina et al. 2019). Human disturbance, particularly as a result of increased tourism and leisure activities in mountain areas, is also a problem (Shackleton 1997, Jurdíková 2000, Pęksa and Ciach 2015, Pęksa and Ciach 2018). Competition with domestic livestock and introduced species such as the Mouflon Ovis aries musimon is a threat to the more vulnerable subspecies, although it is not considered to be a major problem for R. r. rupicapra. R. r. rupicapra does, however, suffer periodic outbreaks of sarcoptic mange, causing local population declines (Shackleton 1997). Habitat loss is a problem in some areas (e.g. for R. r. balcanica in Albania; Shackleton 1997). Because its population is very small indeed, subspecies cartusiana is susceptible to extinction as a result of stochastic demographic or environmental events (Shackleton 1997, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006).

Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica
Overall threats are habitat and population fragmentation and an overall reduction in population size due to multiple, non-exclusive factors such as poaching and unsustainable hunting, increased density of infrastructure, competition with livestock for pastures, predation, and the introduction of other subspecies of chamois, mainly Alpine chamois (Rezić et al. 2022). In Albania, habitat loss is a major threat in some regions due to land demands by the expanding human population. There appears to be no competition from domestic livestock. Poaching does occur, but the extent is not known. In both Bulgaria and Croatia, the major threats are poaching and hybridisation with Alpine chamois (Iacolina et al 2019). In Rhodope, this is almost complete, and is also a potential danger at Rila. In Croatia, the hybridisation zone between the Alpine and Balkan subspecies is in the Velebit mountains (Šprem and Buzan 2016). Outside protected areas, poaching remains a problem. Although there has been a decrease in poaching in Bulgaria in recent years, it still has negative effects on populations. As a result, the majority of suitable habitats in Bulgaria have not been recolonised by chamois. Poaching is wide-spread in the entire country both in national parks and hunting territories. The genetic purity of the subspecies needs to be clarified, especially in West Rodopi, where 10 female and one male Alpine chamois were introduced from Switzerland in 1977. Their influence on the neighbouring subpopulations requires clarification. The influence of disturbance of chamois due to drive-hunting of Wild Boar, as well as the presence of feral and guard dogs around livestock, also need to be assessed. The Balkan population, which has been isolated for about 100 years, is still small and vulnerable, and poaching has not yet been eliminated (Markov et al. 2016). In Serbia, the population at Tara mountain had declined from 500 to ca 60 individuals between 1992 and 1996, mainly due to poaching. However, due to conservation measures in the last decade, the number has increased to ca 120 individuals. The population from Stolovi mountain is extinct, and only isolated individuals are occasionally encountered in the area around the Lim river. Populations from Šar planina are also threatened by poaching and are declining (estimated to be about 100 individuals). The populations at Đerdapska klisura and Zlot are not threatened. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, numbers declined in the last three decades due to poaching (e.g. by more than 80% to 90 individuals at Zelengora mountain). At Prokletije mountain (belonging to both Serbia and Montenegro), the population is not threatened and numbers up to 150 individuals. In Greece, the main threat is also poaching. All Greek sub-populations suffer from regular poaching to a greater or lesser extent (Papaioannou 2010, 2015, 2016a,b,c, 2020; Bounas et al. 2017). Poaching is more intensive in the border zones with the neighbouring Balkan countries. Additional problems are: fragmentation due to geographic isolation in restricted areas and resulting very small population sizes, disturbance due to legal hunting of other game species and livestock presence, competition with livestock, increased road accessibility for timbering and livestock keeping close to or inside the species’ key habitats, as well as a lack of an effective state wildlife management system at a national level (Papaioannou 2010, 2015, 2016a,b, 2020; Papaioannou and Kati 2016; EEA, 2019). Genetic effects on one of the northern Greek populations due to re-stocking with individuals of other subspecies from Bulgaria, as well as current road construction for installation of wind power stations, seem to be future threats, too (Papaioannou 2020). Both population size and geographic range are estimated to be less than 10-20% of the carrying capacity in Greece (Papaioannou 2020). This latter point is normally not accounted for in species assessments, which means that particularly in Greece with its extremely small and isolated populations, the Balkan Chamois should be listed as higher conservation concern (i.e. vulnerable) than the assessment based on overall population size would suggest.

Rupicapra rupicapra carpatica
Grazing by domestic sheep in summer leads to disturbance and thus to higher dispersal of animals. In some areas, high livestock densities create intense grazing pressure and lead to interspecific competition. Additional concerns are small, fragmented populations and poaching in some areas (Valdez 2011).

Rupicapra rupicapra cartusiana
Many factors threaten this subspecies, and the most important include: food and space competition with domestic livestock, Red Deer Cervus elaphus and introduced Mouflon; potential hybridisation with introduced R. r. rupicapra (Rouland 1980); over-harvesting and poaching; forestry; summer tourism and winter cross-country skiing.

Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra
R. r. rupicapra is not threatened overall. However, the ongoing increase in human land use and particularly increases in (summer to winter) outdoor / tourism activities contribute to habitat degradation and disturbance (e.g. Ingold 2005, Courbin et al. 2022). In parts of its range, the subspecies was / has been subjected to increased hunting pressure at local scales, in order to prevent browsing damage to mountain forests (e.g. Baumann and Imesch 2010, Wotschikowsky 2010) and to afforestations. In areas managed by the State Forestry Board in Bavaria chamois are managed on the basis of a spatio-temporally structured zonation system. Under legislative regulation, year-round hunting is exerted in small areas to support regeneration of forests with protective attributes (e.g. protection from avalanches and erosion), while in other areas hunting is restricted to few to no individuals. Debates regarding the management practices of chamois population units in some regions / countries have been ongoing, but compelling evidence is often limited. Over the majority of the subspecies’ range, however, harvest rates are generally considered sustainable. Climatic factors such as harsh winters (i.e. with a lot of snow) and warm summers may limit population growth in some areas (Vogt et al. 2019, Willisch et al. 2013). Climate change seems to exert negative effects on body mass of young chamois (Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet 2012, Mason et al. 2014), but its demographic effect in these populations is still unclear. Imperio et al. (2014) suggested that positive and negative effects of a changing climate may largely balance out, with an overall positive effect of lower winter snow depth on survival rates, but negative effects from higher spring-summer temperatures on population dynamics. Among the biotic factors that can negatively influence chamois populations are diseases such as infectious keratoconjunctivitis (Degiorgis et al. 2000, Mavrot et al. 2012) and sarcoptic mange (Rossi et al. 2007), and competition with livestock (in this case also the danger of disease transmission) or other wild ungulates such as Red Deer, Alpine Ibex Capra ibex or Mouflon (e.g. Suter et al. 2005, Bertolino et al. 2009, Chirichella et al. 2012, Darmon et al. 2012, Vogt et al. 2019, Corlatti et al. 2019). Increased predation is expected due to the return of large carnivores such as the Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx (Vogt et al. 2019) and wolf Canis lupus (Gazzola et al. 2007). In 2015, a barbed wire border fence was constructed along the border between Croatia and Slovenia due to the European migrant crisis. This fence represents a major threat to the local chamois population, as it may cause mortality, obstruct seasonal dispersal, and reduce effective population size (Safner et al. 2019).

Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica
In the past, major threats included poaching and domestic sheep grazing. However, the Tatras are now protected in their entirety in the form of national parks: the Tatranský Národný Park (TANAP) in Slovakia was established in 1949 and the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (TPN) in Poland in 1954. As a result of strict conservation measures, hunting is banned and incidents of poaching are rare (Jamrozy et al. 2007). Sheep grazing, once common all over the Tatras, gradually declined following the creation of the national parks, and since the 1980s has been restricted to mid-forest meadows, which lie at lower altitudes, below the range of occurrence of the Tatra Chamois. Currently, disturbance and habitat loss caused by tourism is a major threat to the population. This includes the constant presence of large numbers of tourists in the high mountains and the development or maintenance of tourist infrastructures (ski resorts, hiking trails), which impact the spatial distribution, behaviour and physiology of the Tatra chamois (Zwijacz-Kozica et al.2013, Pęksa and Ciach 2015, Pęksa and Ciach 2018). In Slovakia, interbreeding with animals from introduced populations of R. r. rupicapra has caused the loss of the back-up population of R. r. tatrica in the Low Tatra Mountains (Slovakia; Zemanová et al. 2015), and further gene flow between introduced Alpine and native Tatra Chamois can become a serious threat to the population occurring in the Tatra Mountains. Both populations (natural, inhabiting the Tatra Mountains and introduced and hybridised in the Low Tatra Mountains) are relatively small, and their effective population sizes may limit the maintenance of genetic diversity and adaptability over the long term. A potential problem is the danger of disease transmission from domestic livestock to the wild population of the Tatra Chamois.

The species is hunted and poached for sport, meat and for the production or ornamental goods.

The species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention and in Annex V of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (higher protection applies to some subspecies). Chamois occur in many protected areas. In general, conservation recommendations that apply to all subspecies include ensuring that any harvest is sustainable (e.g. through research, monitoring, legislation, and international cooperation), reducing poaching (e.g. through legislation, enforcement, education and awareness-raising, and provision of alternative livelihoods where necessary), reducing the impacts of human disturbance (e.g. by providing refugia in areas with intense tourism and hunting pressure), preventing habitat degradation, and protecting the genetic integrity of populations (by avoiding translocations of 'foreign' subspecies that could hybridise with the local population). Monitoring of all subspecies is important, especially those that are rare and/or declining. Due to increasing evidence of negative effects on chamois through interspecific competition with Red Deer, Red Deer (re-)introductions should be avoided in areas with chamois presence, and due to the danger of disease transmission from domestic livestock to wild ungulates, prophylaxis of domestic animals against infectious keratoconjunctivitis should become routine. Climate change may lead to conservation problems through habitat alteration and direct or indirect effects on reproduction/survival. Particularly the uncertainties in population trends in central Europe highlight the importance of methodologically consistent long-term monitoring programmes.

R. r. balcanica is listed in Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. In Croatia, one of two Balkan Chamois habitats – the Dinara Mountain - was listed in the Natura 2000 sites in 2019, but legal hunting still takes place. In Greece, the conservation status of the Balkan Chamois at the national level is U2-(i) (EEA, 2019), and it is included in the Greek National Red Data book as NT (Near Threatened; Legakis and Maragou, 2009). It is a fully protected species, and hunting has been banned throughout the country since 1969 (Law 86/69). Most of the subspecies’ population ranges have been included in a no-hunting legislation status (wildlife sanctuaries). In addition, several chamois ranges overlap - entirely or partly - with Natura 2000 sites, either SCIs or SPAs (Papaioannou 2016a,c, 2020), and most of them are located within the boundaries of protected areas (e.g. extended National Parks, namely: Northern Pindos, Olympus, Oiti, Rodope, Tzoumerka-Peristeri-Aracthos gorge). The Greek Ministry of Environment has recently (2015) implemented monitoring projects for species listed on Annex 17 of the European directive 92/43 EU (EEA 2019) - including the Balkan chamois - and the National Action Plan for this subspecies was accomplished (Papaioannou 2020). In Bulgaria, Balkan chamois have been protected since 2007 (with poaching fines of 2,500 euro and up to 5 years of imprisonment) and a National Action Plan was developed. The species is listed as Endangered in the National Red Book, but the status of U1 vs. U2 has been disputed. Although a small population growth at the national level was registered during the previous reporting period, the Balkan Chamois still inhabits less than half of its potential habitat in Bulgaria, and the present population size is several times lower than the potential number for the country. The distribution in Rila, Pirin and the Central Balkan is mostly within the borders of national parks where hunting is strictly prohibited, and almost all present Bulgarian populations and the majority of the potential chamois habitat are in Natura 2000 sites. The main tool to decrease poaching in Bulgaria is through community-based conservation, i.e. encouraging local hunters through a small number (35-55) of hunting permits, and education of mountaineers and local communities. Under the National Action Plan, a National Chamois working group was established in order to coordinate the activities of the plan, but it deals mainly with hunting derogations (Avramov et al. 2010). A few joint control actions against illegal trophies of Chamois were carried out. More than fifteen trophies were confiscated and trials started against some of the most famous poachers. A large-scale media campaign was initiated against poaching. The Ministry of Environment organized the first National Chamois Counting in 2009. The counts continue but their reliability has been compromised in the last years. Monitoring of Chamois needs to be revised and improved.

R. r. cartusiana has been subject to intensive conservation management, including reintroductions. The subspecies was distinguished by Couturier (1938), while it was not distinguished from R. r. rupicapra during certain management actions and in many reports (Corti 1995). This uneven recognition has had substantial impacts on its conservation until nowadays. R. r. cartusiana was not assessed at the subspecific level in the Red List of Mammals of France in 2009 (UICN France et al. 2009), while it was listed as vulnerable with unknown population trend in the Red List of Mammals of France in 2017 (UICN France et al. 2017). It was considered as formerly abundant in Chartreuse, but overhunting and poaching probably put the population at risk of extinction from WWII to 1970 (Rouland 1980). Restocking and restoration programmes are cited in some references of grey literature (Corti 2006). During the 1974-76 period, 29 R. r. rupicapra individuals from the Bauges hunting reserve and the Markstein were translocated to the northwestern part of the Chartreuse (Rouland 1980). During the 1990-92 period, 26 chamois assumed to be R. r. cartusiana were translocated from the southwestern part of the Chartreuse to the south-eastern part (Michallet and Toïgo 2000). In practice, monitoring focused on estimating the relative abundance of chamois in Chartreuse is only partially fulfilled and suggests high interannual variability and overall stability during the 2010-2016 period (e.g. Chantreau and Gaudry 2019). The conservation of R. r. cartusiana should incorporate improved monitoring and reporting of abundance, sustainable management of hunting pressure and active management of the risk of extinction by hybridisation and introgression, beyond monitoring pressures from interspecific competition.

R. r. tatrica is listed in Annexes II* and IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. It has been strictly protected by law since 1868 on the Polish side of the Tatra Mountains (the world's first parliamentary act on the protection of animal species). In spite of being strictly protected by law, numbers of Tatra Chamois continued to decline. In the mid 20th century, the whole Tatra Massif became protected in the form of national parks: the Slovakian Tatranský Národný Park was formed in 1949 and the Polish Tatra National Park was formed in 1954. Moreover, the Tatras have been designated as an International Biosphere Reserve and are one of the areas protected by the Natura 2000 network in the frame of the Habitats Directive. Today, the entire population and its habitats are protected year-round in both the Polish and Slovakian national parks. The species is listed in the Polish Red Data Book as critically endangered. R. r. rupicapra introduced into Slovakia should be managed to minimise the threat of genetic introgression from dispersing males into the populations of R. r. tatrica. The population of R. r. tatrica in the Low Tatras, affected by introgression of R. r. rupicapra, should be maintained separately from the pure R. r. tatrica in the High Tatras (Zemanová et al. 2015).