Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices as a conflict‐reducing and legitimacy‐enhancing tool: the case of Swedish carnivore management

Abstract

A new structure for decision-making in relation to management of large carnivores is presently being implemented in Sweden through a system of regional Wildlife Management Delegations (WMD). Th e governing idea is that strengthened regional infl uence will increase the legitimacy of both the management system and its outcomes. We use this institutional change as a backdrop for analyzing the possibilities to apply deliberative practices to reduce confl ict and enhance legitimacy in the management of natural resources. We argue that structures alone do not determine the prospects of deliberative arrangements; the political context (i.e. the characteristics and relationships among participating actors) is equally important. An analytical framework is proposed that merges structural prospects for deliberation in co-management with stakeholder features, capturing the interests and beliefs of the actors involved. We illustrate the application of this framework by analysing original data from three Wildlife Management Delegations. Our fi ndings show that there are signifi cant diff erences in the beliefs among the actors within the system. Based on similarities in their beliefs, they can potentially form a relatively strong anti-carnivore/pro-WMD-coalition, opposing the pro-carnivore/anti-WMD-beliefs of the nature conservation interest. Furthermore, the structure is designed to meet vital deliberative criteria, yet we point at substantial diff erences between statutory and eff ective representation that, as it coincides with diverging beliefs, can aff ect decision-making. One qualitative criterion for successful deliberation stands out in our study Ϫ reasoned debate. Th e prospects for deliberation in WMDs to reduce confl ict levels among opposing interests seem to depend on the capacity for ensuring exchange of reasonable and informed arguments.

Effectiveness of short-term knowledge communication on Baltic Sea marine genetic biodiversity to public managers

“…One possible explanation to the lack of support for deliberation can be related to the topics addressed. Deliberations enable scrutiny of diverse positions and are primarily used in contested fields of natural resource management, for example wildlife management including large carnivores (Lundmark and Matti 2015) or the use of snowmobiles in a mountain region (Zachrisson 2010). Our audio recordings from the deliberations suggest relatively homogeneous and moderate views among the participants.…”

Governing Large Carnivores—Comparative Insights from Three Different Countries

“…A possible proposal to avoid this issue of misfit is to build power based on sociological legitimacy, where affected actors decide on forms of collaboration (which procedures to use and how to build trust and sharing of knowledge) rather than building power based on state authority and the right to rule (Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015). To our knowledge, this issue has not been discussed in contemporary literature in Norway.…”

“…von Essen's (2012) results indicate a broad representation of different actors in the Wildlife Management Delegations at the regional level but also show how the role of delegate can be confusing-the delegates are simultaneously trustees/ representatives of their respective organizations or interests and take a part of the decision-making authority. The study of Lundmark and Matti (2015) shows an overrepresentation of hunter/outdoor interests, as representatives tend to represent themselves/participate mainly for personal interest reasons rather than the political or stakeholder interest they are formally representing. There seems to be a misfit between the formal institutional arrangement and members' expectations in that the delegation meetings lack reasoned debate, the role of the chairperson is problematic, and there is a pressing need to make decisions rather than communicating properly.…”

“…Similarly, several authors argue that engaging local and regional actors in the process must increase in terms of both inputs, decision-making and implementation. The common denominators include (1) increased participation from lower levels; (2) more local governance; (3) incorporation of influence from relevant actors in the process of management; and (4) building collaborative governance between state and private actors with the objective to share responsibilities, risks, and benefits (Sandström et al 2009;Heikkinen et al 2011;Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hiedanpää 2013;Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2013;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015;Skogen 2015).…”

“…They promote the strengthening of stakeholder influence as a solution to problems of trust, argue that trust should be built among all actors, and contend that sharing of knowledge should be organized in ways that do not privilege specific types of knowledge over others (Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015). In other words, they argue that the basis for power should stem from deliberative governance theory.…”