Don't forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation

Abstract

Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top-down 'command and control' approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top-down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas collaborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts.

International law and lions (Panthera leo): understanding and improving the contribution of wildlife treaties to the conservation and sustainable use of an iconic carnivore

“…Experience, including our own, indicates that this is best achieved through a multidisciplinary approach , whereby legal experts join forces with ecologists and experts from other disciplines with a good understanding of the broader context and the actual Tables 3 and 4. conservation needs of species. Such cooperation has, encouragingly, been gathering momentum in recent years (Cliquet et al 2009;Trouwborst et al 2015;Epstein et al 2016;Selier et al 2016;Treves et al 2017;Trouwborst et al 2017a;Chapron et al 2017;Redpath et al 2017;Trouwborst et al 2017c). Our review, performed by legal experts, conservation biologists and social scientists, builds on this momentum.…”

“…Depending on the particular circumstances and the treaty obligation(s) involved, there is a time and a place for top-down as well as bottom-up approaches, for coercive as well as flexible approaches, and for all manner of combinations of these (Treves et al 2017;Chapron et al 2017;Redpath et al 2017). It is important to note in this regard that the participation of local and indigenous communities, poverty alleviation, awareness raising and education have become key features in the implementation of all the major conservation treaties, as expressed in COP decisions, strategies, funding allocations, and guidance documents (see, e.g., Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2010; CBD Secretariat 2011; UNESCO et al 2012).…”

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.…”

“…While there are many good arguments for being responsive to the concerns of rural stakeholders who are being asked to share their properties, neighbourhoods, and landscapes with wolves (Redpath et al 2017) it is essential that management explicitly addresses the question of how they are balancing the concerns of the different publics within the intentions, constraints and obligations imposed by the Convention. The current Norwegian policy, which aims to have high rates of wolf killing and minimal population goals, can hardly be viewed as a reasonable attempt at balancing these interests, and certainly not as living up to the country's obligations under the Bern Convention.…”

Governing Large Carnivores—Comparative Insights from Three Different Countries

“…Collaborative measures are often presented as solutions to conflicts and problems of acceptance (Lundmark, Matti, and Sandström 2014;Pomeranz et al 2014;Redpath et al 2017). This "deliberative turn" (Bäckstrand et al 2010) is underpinned by the normative assumption that broad participation by public and private actors in policymaking will increase the legitimacy (by stakeholders/actors perceiving that they have agency), democracy (by broad participation and deliberation), and effectiveness and sustainability (through goal achievement and by combining knowledge and sharing implementation responsibilities) of policy outcomes (Jentoft 2000;Dingwerth 2007;Berkes 2010;Sjölander-Lindqvist, Johansson, and Sandström 2015).…”