Management of Large Carnivores in Fennoscandia: New Patterns of Regional Participation

Abstract

Countries are increasingly shifting responsibility for large carnivore management from central to local government authorities. The three countries in FennoscandiaFinland, Norway, and Sweden-are no exception. In all three countries new approaches to large carnivore management have emerged, including some elements of decentralization, which is intended to increase efficiency, and improve the equity, participation, and transparency of the government to the citizenry. Although the three countries are similar in terms of their biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics, they have chosen three different decentralization strategies. In Norway a representative model of decentralization has emerged, whereas the Swedish and Finnish model has a corporatist character. This comparative study of policies relating to the large carnivores in the three countries focuses on the actors, and their powers and accountability, and demonstrates that the different strategies result in no significant increase in power at the local or regional level.

When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal constraints on wildlife management within Europe’s Bern Convention

“…There is considerable practical experience with stakeholder processes (Reed 2008) and various forms of inclusive management in Europe (Sandström et al 2009;Redpath et al 2017). However, although inclusive management may be intrinsically important to satisfy modern day democratic principles and to address a sense of justice (Jacobsen and Linnell 2016) it is unclear if it alone can diffuse such complex conflicts as those associated with large carnivores.…”

“…As one Bern Convention guidance document (T-PVS/Inf (2010) 16) puts it: "Competent authorities need to explain the particular circumstances justifying the choice of an Article 9.1 reason and verify that the specific conditions are met." There is currently a general lack of documentation about the utility of many lethal and non-lethal approaches to interventions aimed at the relatively simple conflict associated with livestock depredation (Eklund et al 2017;Treves et al 2016), let alone the more complex social/cultural conflicts (Reed 2008;Sandström et al 2009). However, providing evidence that allowing more liberal killing of wolves helps to increase tolerance requires that it is actually tested and evaluated, so there can be a catch-22 situation where proof is needed, but cannot be obtained until tested.…”

Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia

“…One of the ways that a scheme's success is affected is the degree of stakeholder participation in the management process (Sandström, Pellikka, Ratamäki, & Sande, 2009). Participation by local communities in wildlife management has been increasing in recent decades after it was noted that top-down regulations have often been met with fierce opposition by local communities because these communities felt that their views were not taken into consideration (Voinov & Gaddis, 2008).…”

Applying a synthetic approach to the resilience of Finnish reindeer herding as a changing livelihood

“…However, it is not an easy task to develop a forum that would have genuine impact beyond mere discussions. For example, regarding predator management, herders may participate in discussions in regional large carnivore consultative committees in Scandinavia that, however, have failed to have an influence on concrete decisionmaking due to lack of accountability to existing governance instruments (Sandström et al 2009). …”