Addressing the gap between participatory ideals and the reality of environmental management: The case of the cormorant population in Finland

Abstract

Environmental management, similar to public management generally, is increasingly challenged by an ever more complex society. Generally, in scientific literature, participatory features are presented as solutions for adapting centrally steered management to local circumstances and for mitigating conflicts. This article argues that local realities and transformations are easily neglected in environmental management due to unsuccessful implementation of its own participatory ideals. By studying the management of cormorant-human conflicts in Finland, the article identifies critical features that can be implemented to overcome the gap between participatory ideals and the reality of environmental management. By interviewing locals and civil servants and by directing questionnaires to fishers, the article presents how management and science look for dependencies between cormorants, fish stocks, and water nutrition, although fishers and locals are primarily concerned with the combination of seal-and cormorant-induced damages, the changed behaviour of fish, and reduced recreational possibilities. Narrow scientific approaches and the national interpretation of the EU Birds directive thereby impede the management system from perceiving the complete local impact of a growing cormorant population. This article identifies obstacles hindering a balanced environmental management policy and concludes that there is a need to reinforce (a) social scientific approaches; (b) vertical negotiations at the local, national, and supranational level; and (c) the training of civil servants as facilitators of communication.

The limits of collaborative governance: The role of inter‐group learning and trust in the case of the Estonian “Forest War”

“…On the other hand, co-governance does not automatically increase the legitimacy and compliance of non-state actors but should be assessed against wider ideals of equal citizenship and public reason (Birnbaum, 2016). Participatory ideals are often not implemented successfully (Nordberg & Salmi, 2019), and when they are, participatory governance is fragile and failure-prone, requiring careful and skillful This article analyses reasons for failure of collaborative environmental governance based on forest policy in Estonia using network and qualitative analysis.…”

“…Collaborative governance tools are used in all policy domains, but they are particularly prevalent in natural resources management, with a number of applications in forest policy (see Beland Lindahl et al, 2017). Often, this has meant a focus on community-level management schemes in developing countries, but developed countries have also opened up policy-making to outside stakeholders (Maier et al, 2014;Nordberg & Salmi, 2019).…”

Making sense of how proponents conspire to thwart environmental impact assessment processes: insights from the Miramar Resort controversy in Taiwan

“…Accordingly, focused samples of comparable size, targeted at those who can make meaningful contributions to the dataset, have been used in analogous case-based research elsewhere (e.g. Mehnen, Mose, and Strijker 2013;Boeckmann 2016;Nordberg and Salmi 2019). Interviews proceeded around a loose set of questions, with further follow-up questions depending on interviewees' responses.…”

Frontline bureaucrats in wildlife management: Caught in the dilemma between effectiveness and responsiveness

“…Depending on the result of this, there is a risk of blurred boundaries between governance, that is, the creation of a setting in which actors can manage wildlife effectively, and management, that is, the making of operational decisions of wildlife (Decker et al, 2012). This line of inquiry, implemented using qualitative methods, extends the idea that the daily work of the frontline managers is crucial for the realization of policy goals due to their considerable degree of autonomy and discretion when transforming high-level policy decisions into action (Brugnach et al, 2011;Cinque, 2008Cinque, , 2015May & Winter, 1999;Nordberg & Salmi, 2019;Rinfret & Pautz, 2013;Säve, 2015). Since they are expected to harmonize the multiple interactions of scale and levels while maintaining administrative rules and achieving the specific targets of policy decisions (including the key task of increasing and stimulating the involvement of different actors in the governance of natural resources), the frontline managers must balance these different and complex tasks.…”

“…The underlying proposition of the paper is that the frontline, positioned at the interface between the local level and the state, plays a critical role in the implementation of natural resource policy (Cinque, 2008;Nordberg & Salmi, 2019;Säve, 2015); this needs to be further explored to build stronger and long-term successful policy endeavors. We thus ask the following overarching question: Is it possible to combine increasing requests for responsiveness (collaborative governance as a mode) while at the same time upholding and securing support for the prescribed policy, and achieve effectiveness (collaborative governance as a policy instrument)?…”