International Wildlife Management Policy: A Comparative Public Administration (CPA) Framework Analysis of Five Diverse Countries

Declining wildlife populations are a global issue. The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species indicates that 1,219 out of the 5,487 mammal species assessed worldwide, 22.2 percent, are... [ view full abstract ]

Declining wildlife populations are a global issue. The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species indicates that 1,219 out of the 5,487 mammal species assessed worldwide, 22.2 percent, are globally threatened or extinct (IUCN, 2014). Many large mammal species, like the Panthera tigris (tiger) and the Panthera leo (lion), have expansive ranges which include multiple countries and thus require collaborative international conservation initiatives. Trans-boundary wildlife management policies pose many challenges as differing political regimes can lead to a wide range of governmental management strategies across countries. Understanding how countries implement wildlife management policy is an important step to address complex international wildlife issues, such as habitat loss and wildlife crime. In this exploratory study, a conceptual comparative public administration (CPA) framework is used to compare wildlife management strategies of five diverse countries to better understand the challenges that exist for the formulation and implementation of international wildlife management policy. Australia, China, Kenya, Russia, and the United States are chosen for the study based on political structure, wildlife management model, degree of biodiversity, and prominence of one or more threatened charismatic wildlife species. From the literature, many challenges are found to exist including differences in political institutions, ease of policy development and/or implementation, cultural implications, wildlife ownership, conservation funding mechanisms, incentives for conservation, and policy regarding wildlife-human interactions and compensation for wildlife caused damages. Future comparative research is needed to find effective ways to bridge these numerous trans-boundary wildlife management policy challenges as well as develop standardized criteria to identify what constitutes “successful” wildlife management across countries. An international collaborative and cooperative governmental effort is imperative to the continuing survival of wildlife populations and the maintaining of global biodiversity.

References
IUCN. (2014). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals/analysis/red-list-status. Downloaded on 13 December 2014.