Governing dual objectives within single policy mixes: an empirical analysis of large carnivore policies in six European countries

Abstract

Policy mixes (i.e. the total structure of policy processes, strategies, and instruments) are complex constructs that can quickly become incoherent, inconsistent, and incomprehensive. This is amplified when the policy mix strives to meet multiple objectives simultaneously, such as in the case of large carnivore policy mixes. Building on Rogge and Reichardt's analytical framework for the analysis of policy mixes, we compare the policy mixes of Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany (specifically Saxony and Bavaria), and Spain (specifically Castilla y León).The study shows that the large carnivore policy mixes in the case countries show signs of lacking vertical and horizontal coherence in the design of policy processes, weak consistency between objectives and designated policy instruments, and, as a consequence, lacking comprehensiveness. We conclude that creating consistent, coherent, and comprehensive policy mixes that build on multiple objectives requires stepping away from sectorized policy development, toward a holistic, systemic approach, strong collaborative structures across policy boundaries and regions, the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, and constant care and attention to address all objectives simultaneously rather than in isolation.

Quantifying the checks and balances of collaborative governance systems for adaptive carnivore management

“…Examples of collaborative governance systems associated with lethal control of carnivores include those involved in the development and implementation of harvest quotas for black bears Ursus americanus and cougars Puma concolor in both the United States and Canada (Artelle et al, 2018a), as well as for brown bears Ursus arctos, Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx, grey wolves Canis lupus and wolverines Gulo gulo in a range of European countries (de Boon et al, 2021). Furthermore, collaborative systems involving local communities are increasingly seen as key to ensuring the sustainability of trophy hunting activities targeted at large carnivores in both Africa and central Asia (Ullah & Kim, 2020).…”

“…The adaptive management of wildlife populations is an essential component of the interaction between biodiversity and human societies. Management can promote the conservation of threatened species in human‐dominated landscapes (Chapron et al, 2014 ; Karanth & DeFries, 2010 ), sustain economic, cultural and recreational human activities that rely on the extractive use of wild populations (Di Minin et al, 2019 ; Fischer et al, 2013 ), or minimise negative interactions that arise when wildlife affects, or is perceived to affect, human livelihoods (de Boon et al, 2021 ; Raithel et al, 2017 ; Redpath et al, 2013 ). In theory, decisions taken in the context of wildlife management aim to achieve one or more stated goal, such as protect threatened species, promote the sustainable use of harvested populations or reduce negative interactions between wildlife and humans.…”

“…Such governance systems are typically characterised by a set of administrative and political institutions whose interactions and collective decision‐making—which may span local, regional and national scales in the case of decentralised governance—aim to increase the legitimacy of management and ensure population targets are met (Pellikka & Sandström, 2011 ; Risvoll et al, 2016 ; Sandström & Lundmark, 2016 ). Examples of collaborative governance systems associated with lethal control of carnivores include those involved in the development and implementation of harvest quotas for black bears Ursus americanus and cougars Puma concolor in both the United States and Canada (Artelle et al, 2018a ), as well as for brown bears Ursus arctos , Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx , grey wolves Canis lupus and wolverines Gulo gulo in a range of European countries (de Boon et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, collaborative systems involving local communities are increasingly seen as key to ensuring the sustainability of trophy hunting activities targeted at large carnivores in both Africa and central Asia (Ullah & Kim, 2020 ).…”

What Is the Role of the Government in Wildlife Policy? Evolutionary Governance Perspective

“…Increasing wildlife populations exacerbated human-wildlife conflicts, and translated into calls for more participatory governance (Redpath et al, 2017). The responses of the European states differed depending on their policy-making styles, legislation, political history and traditions of wildlife management (de Boon et al, 2020;Putman, 2011;Stöhr & Coimbra, 2013). The level of state intervention permitted in legislation and acceptable to the people can range from almost complete state control to practically no involvement (Putman, 2011).…”

“…Although most countries adopt state-dominated governance, some took steps to decentralise decisionmaking (Bjärstig et al, 2014;Sandström et al, 2018). In federal countries, wildlife governance is dominated by regional authorities (de Boon et al, 2020;Stöhr & Coimbra, 2013).…”