Governing Large Carnivores—Comparative Insights from Three Different Countries

Abstract

The governance of large carnivores is often surrounded by conflicts. Along with the difficulties of governing large carnivores through centralized, top-down governing and a general shift towards participatory approaches in natural resource governance, this has led many countries to establish various collaborative measures in large carnivore governance -often presented as a catch-all solution to problems of legitimacy, democratic deficit and effectiveness. However, the field of large carnivore governance currently lacks a coherent understanding of strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of collaborative arrangements. In this paper, we address this knowledge gap. Using the framework of modes of governance to categorize and compare the governance of large carnivores in Norway, Sweden and Finland, we discuss the potential and limitations of various governance modes and identify gaps in contemporary research literature. The main conclusion is that all three governance systems need to incorporate more interactive governance elements. ARTICLE HISTORY

What makes a major change of wildlife management policy possible? Institutional analysis of Polish wolf governance

“…The literature on wolf governance particularly highlights the role of local communities in wolf conflicts and the need to negotiate policy responses with those communities to increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of new instruments [102,103]. This, however, often proves challenging and the outcomes regarding trust building and conflict mitigation are very limited [104,105]. In our case, local communities from existing or potential wolf territories did not participate in the policy-making, although some groups of local actors (especially livestock farmers) were particularly affected by the wolf's presence.…”

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

“…Hansson‐Forman et al () conclude that national policymakers find themselves in a difficult situation, because international regulation urges for participation at the same time as it also constrains national processes and outcomes. The depiction by regional officials in the visited case suggests that the same goes also for the regional level versus the national level.…”

“…Regarding the governance of carnivores, collaborative governance has been a preferred method for improving local acceptance, for instance, when managing wolves in the Nordic countries (Hansson‐Forman, Reimerson, Sjölander‐Lindqvist, & Sandström, ). Sjölander‐Lindqvist, Johansson, and Sandström () argue that the success of such governance is dependent on understanding individual and collective responses.…”

“…Lundmark and Matti (), investigating large carnivore conflicts, argue that the polarisation of interests regarding such issues hamper the ability to find compromises. Hansson‐Forman et al (, p. 12) call for empirical testing of the basic assumptions of deliberative theory. Redpath et al (, p. 2160) point out that there are few evaluations of collaborative governance in conservation and that “we are certainly far from being able to design the ideal collaborative process.” Sjölander‐Lindqvist et al (, p. 179) see deficiencies in representation and dialogue quality in meetings.…”

“…Hansson‐Forman et al () conclude that the Finnish governance mode, in contrast to its Scandinavian neighbours, is centralised, largely owing to the fact that goals and targets are decided nationally and subnational collaboration is set within top‐down determined boundaries. Regional state organisations (ELY) are currently responsible for regional environmental management and supervision, for instance, derogations regarding the cormorant.…”