Governing large carnivores: why reinvent the wheel?

How to govern large carnivores has proven to be a difficult task, both politically and from a scientific point of view. The problem(s) seem to be perceived similarly around the world, where top-down governing is considered... [ view full abstract ]

How to govern large carnivores has proven to be a difficult task, both politically and from a scientific point of view. The problem(s) seem to be perceived similarly around the world, where top-down governing is considered outdated and more public participation is requested to increase legitimacy. Many countries have therefore established new modes of governance e.g. decentralization, collaborative governance or other forms of participatory approaches, assuming that the inclusion of stakeholders and varying degrees of power sharing will lead to legitimate governance and management of large carnivores. However, there is no uniform idea of how to increase public participation, countries rather seems to try to reinvent the wheel, instead of learn from past experience and research.
From a research perspective this plethora of governance models open up for comparing how different models delivers in terms of legitimacy. Based on a qualitative meta-analysis of the contemporary research of the governance modes implemented in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Michigan, USA, the purpose of this paper is twofold; to systematically combine theories and results from several studies to assess the delivery in terms of legitimacy of the applied governance modes in practice as well as in theory.
Based on a conceptual framework of governance modes, our study provide a systematic analysis of key aspects such as power, representation, transparency, effectiveness and accountability, assumed to enhance legitimacy. The framework serves several purposes. First, it is a useful analytical instrument for comparing the potential and limitations of various governance modes. Second, it opens up the possibility to identify different modes of governance and their characteristics. Third, instead of having to reinvent the wheel the framework is intended to support learning between countries through the guidance of empirical analysis of modes of governance and their legitimacy. Furthermore our study emphasize the need for more comparative research in order to develop models on and comprehend how to measure success and legitimacy for management as conflict-ridden as the one of large carnivores.