What nature should be restored? “Wild” systems regulated by carnivores such as wolves? Or bio-cultural systems (e.g. meadows and grasslands) maintained by people and livestock?  Or something in between?
Images provided by the author.

By Dr Hanna Pettersson, Prof George Holmes, Prof Claire H. Quinn, Dr Steven M. Sait, and Dr Juan Carlos Blanco.

Read the full paper here.

In many European countries, wolves are expanding their ranges. Their return can be difficult, especially for small-scale family farms whose animals roam free on extensive grasslands, and who have limited financial means to sustain losses. Both extensive farming and large carnivores provide socio-ecological benefits, such as maintaining biodiversity and cultural heritage. Various institutions are therefore trying to promote coexistence between the two. But what does coexistence actually mean, according to whom, and how is it interpreted in official policy?

To explore this topic, we studied a recent change in wolf conservation policy in Spain. The new policy imposes strict nationwide protection of the species, even though it is not considered endangered, and despite strong opposition from the regions that harbour the majority of the country’s more than 300 wolf packs. To understand what motivated the policy and whose priorities were considered, we interviewed local communities and managers and conducted media and policy analysis.

We found three prominent interpretations of human-wolf coexistence. The ‘traditionalists’ saw coexistence as a state where wolves were limited and controlled to facilitate extensive grazing and the restoration of pastoral landscapes. The ‘protectionists’ called for the adaptation and limiting of farming so that wolves could roam free and “natural” systems could be restored. The ‘pragmatists’ called for compromises according to each local context. The interpretations were based on different worldviews and priorities for nature, each valid in its own right. However, our policy analysis revealed that national conservation institutions strongly favoured the protectionist interpretation. It underpins the protection decision and Spain’s new Coexistence Strategy, which is primarily focused on wolf conservation, and which fails to address the clashing worldviews. This has aggravated social tensions and the risk of conflicts surrounding wolves.

The research suggests that to achieve coexistence between wolves and people in Spain, conservation policy needs to be transparent and open to debate from the onset, including what nature should be restored and how. Processes based on dialogue with those impacted are more likely to be socially accepted and effective, since the co-evolution and continuous change of ecological and social systems makes it impossible to establish what is “right” and “natural” through scientific means alone.