Nordic wildlife management shows promise, but adaptability isn't fixing the problem
A new review of wildlife management in Finland, Norway, and Sweden reveals that inclusive, stakeholder-heavy approaches boost public support but struggle to actually control animal populations—especially mobile species like geese. For governments and conservation organizations worldwide weighing how to balance local buy-in with practical results, the findings suggest participation alone won't solve wildlife conflicts.
Originaltitel: Institutional lessons from the Nordic management model
To improve wildlife management outcomes, in terms of reaching management goals and increasing legitimacy, Nordic countries have developed institutional systems involving stakeholders that aim for a more inclusive and participatory model. Given the high levels of human-wildlife conflict, we conducted a scoping review to examine the institutional characteristics and outcomes of the wildlife management model used in Finland, Norway, and Sweden and examined what lessons this model has for management systems worldwide. By using an analytical framework developed from the institutional analysis and development framework, we conducted our scoping review focusing on context, process, and outcomes. We found 41 articles relevant for analyses, most of which focused on Sweden. The Nordic wildlife management model showed mixed results, depending on which species was managed. In general, goose management was characterized by high levels of adaptability and acceptance, but due to mobility of the species and growth in geese populations, effective actions to achieve management goals were difficult to identify. A similar pattern was found for management of ungulates, although it was not as difficult to find effective actions to achieve the management goals. Acceptance of large carnivore management was relatively low, and there were high levels of distrust and power imbalances associated with this management. Management of large carnivores also lacked adaptability, and there was need for more research on ways to achieve management goals effectively. We found no straightforward solution to human-wildlife conflicts, but institutions can positively influence the adaptability, effectiveness, and acceptance of management, depending on the context. Particularly important for the capacity of wildlife management systems is building on previous experiences and continuous exploration of alternative management forms to strengthen adaptability. Lessons drawn from the Nordic model of wildlife management can help avoid mistakes in future management reforms.