Abstract
Many countries, including Sweden and Finland, are decentralizing the management of large carnivore species within their borders and emphasizing the role of stakeholder participation in legitimizing formal policy. Regional large carnivore committees (RLCCs), including representatives of authorities and non-governmental organizations, are essential to these endeavors. These committees are formally constituted in Sweden, whereas in Finland, they are informally developed from the bottom-up. In both countries, the declared roles of these committees are consultative. A comparative study based on survey data is described here, which address the question of how procedural legitimacy is shaped and maintained in institutional settings with different origins, such as top-down or bottom-up. The results indicate no clear difference in the representatives’ general satisfaction with the country-specific arrangements. Notable differences were found in specific perceptions of the clarity and purposes of the RLCCs. In both countries, the perceived rationale for the establishment of RLCCs emphasized the knowledge and expertise of the represented interest groups and authorities. Between the countries, similarities were also found in the strong links between overall satisfaction and personally perceived success and progress in communication and information exchange, i.e., deliberative processes. The capacity of the RLCCs to improve trust and acceptability with regard to different opinions was viewed as a key element underlying satisfactory RLCC activities, irrespective of the institutional settings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrén H, Svensson L, Liberg O, Hensel H, Hobbs NT, Chapron G (2010) Den svenska lodjurspopulationen 2009–2010 samt prognos för 2011–2012. Inventeringsrapport från Viltskadecenter 4/2010. SLU, Grimsö
Bäckstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (eds) (2010) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of environmental governance. Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham
Beetham D (1991) The Legitimation of power. Macmillan, Hampshire, p 267
Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3):621–630
Berkes F (2008) Commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2:1–6
Berkes F, George P, Preston R (1991) Co-management. Alternatives 18:12–18
Blomquist W (1992) Dividing the waters: governing groundwater in Southern California. ICS Press, San Francisco, CA, p 402
Cinque S (2008) I vargens spår. Myndigheters handlingutrymme i förvaltningen av varg. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, p 240
Duit A, Galaz V, Löf A (2009) Fragmenterad förvirring eller kreativ arena? Från “government” till “governance” i svensk naturvårdspolitik. In: Sundström G, Pierre J (eds) Samhällsstyrning i förändring. Liber, Stockholm, pp 125–148
Finnish Government (2010) Government bill HE 237/2010. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2010/20100237. Accessed 31 Jan 2011
Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environmental Management 45(1):52–66
Heikkinen S, Kojola I (2010) Suurpetojen lukumäärä ja lisääntyminen vuonna 2009. In: Wikman M (ed) Monitoring game abundance in Finland in 2010. Riista- ja kalatalous–Selvityksiä 21/2010. Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki, pp 16–20
Kooiman J (1993) Modern Governance: new government-society interactions. Sage, London, p 280
Kronsell A, Bäckstrand K (2010) Rationalities and forms of governance: a framework for analysing the legitimacy of new modes of governance. In: Bäckstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (eds) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 28–46
Lipset M (1959) Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53:69–105
McCool SF, Guthrie K (2001) Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Society and Natural Resources 14:309–323
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2005) Management plan for the wolf population in Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11b/2005, Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry (2007a) Management plan for the Lynx population in Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 1b/2007. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki, p 64
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry (2007b) Management plan for the bear population in Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2/2007. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki, p 64
Nie M (2003) Beyond wolves: the politics of wolf recovery and management. University of Minnesota Press, MN, p 270
Pellikka J, Salmi P (2008) Collaborative moose hunting planning—a Finnish case. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13:400–415
Pierre J (2008) Decentralisering, governance och institutionell förändring. In: Rothstein B (ed) Politik som organisation. Förvaltningspolitikens grundproblem. SNS Förlag, Stockholm, pp 245–270
Pinkerton E (1989) Cooperative management of local fisheries, new directions for improved, management and community development. University of British Columbia Press, B.C, p 320
Pohja-Mykrä M, Vuorisalo T, Mykrä S (2005) Hunting bounties as a key measure of historical wildlife management and game conservation: Finnish bounty schemes 1647–1975. Oryx 39:284–291
Raik DB, Lauber B, Decker DJ, Brown TL (2005) Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:109–122
Rauschmayer F, Berghöfer A, Omann I, Zikos D (2009) Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance 19:159–173
Rydin Y, Pennington M (2000) Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment 5:153–169
Sandström C (2009) Institutional dimensions of co-management: participation, power and process. Society and Natural Resources 22:230–244
Sandström C, Pellikka J, Ratamäki O, Sande A (2009) Management of large carnivores in Fennoscandia: new patterns of regional participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:37–50
Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16:309–326
Swedish Government (2000) Prop 2000/01:57 Sammanhållen rovdjurspolitik. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/12/76/c6ba0dfe.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2011
Thomas CW (2003) Bureaucratic Landscapes: interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. MA MIT Press, Cambridge, UK, p 368
Trachtenberg Z, Focht W (2005) Legitimacy and watershed collaborations: the role of public participation. In: Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 53–82
Tuler S, Webler T (1999) Voices from the forest: what participants expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources 12:437–453
Turnhout E, Van Bommel S, Aarts N (2010) How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society 15(4):26. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26/
UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23 (2000) V/6. Ecosystem approach
UNEP/CBD/COP/II/8 (1995) Preliminary consideration of components of biological diversity particularly under threat and action which could be taken under the convention
Viltskadecenter (2010) Resultat från inventering av lodjur i Sverige vintern 2009/10. Inventeringsrapport från Viltskadecenter 2010–3. http://www.de5stora.com/illustrationer/fil_20101207095021.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2011
Wabakken P, Aronson Å, Strømseth TH, Sand H, Maartmann E, Svensson L, Flagstad Ø, Hedmark E, Liberg O, Kojola I (2010) Ulv i Skandinavia: Statusrapport for vinteren 2009–2010. Høgskolen i Hedmark, Oppdragsrapport nr. 4
Weber M (1968) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology, vol 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 640
Webler T, Tuler S (2001) Public participation in watershed management planning: views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review 8:29–39
Webler T, Tuler S (2006) Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. The Policy Studies Journal 34:699–722
Webler T, Tuler S (2008) Organizing a deliberative planning process: what does the science say? In: Odugbemi S, Jacobson T (eds) Governance reform under real-world conditions: citizens, stakeholders, and voice. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 125–160
Wittmer H, Rauschmayer F, Klaue B (2006) How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Policy 23(1):1–9
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Outi Ratamäki for her cooperation and expertise in constructing the survey, the RLCCs’ secretaries for their help in providing information, and all of the respondents of the survey in Sweden and Finland for sharing their time and perceptions. We would also like to thank the two anonymous referees and Dr. Juha Hiedanpää for providing us with constructive comments and suggestions. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Academy of Finland (HIRSU-project) are acknowledged for funding this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pellikka, J., Sandström, C. The Role of Large Carnivore Committees in Legitimising Large Carnivore Management in Finland and Sweden. Environmental Management 48, 212–228 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9672-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9672-x