By Hanna Pettersson, Lou Lécuyer, Juliette Young, Lindsay Stringer, Simon Calla, Erika Juhász, and Zsolt Molnár.
The new Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in Montreal in 2022, sets out a vision for living “in harmony with nature” by 2050. One of its targets (target 4) mandates efforts to deal with human-wildlife conflicts and two (targets 21 and 22) explicitly demand recognition of “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in the management of nature. This focus on localism is based on a mounting body of research showing that the effectiveness of conservation strategies often hinges on understanding and working with the people who live with and care for particular ecosystems.
The targets are of high relevance for how we manage large carnivores in Europe, including bears, wolves, and lynx. These large carnivores often become the topic of conservation conflicts, especially in pastoral areas with free-roaming sheep, goats and cows, since they are particularly vulnerable to attacks. Pastoral areas are cherished for reasons of culture, heritage and beauty, but also because they maintain a significant part of the continent’s biodiversity. Pastoral areas also tend to be the buffer zone between forests and settlements. This renders them first in line to be recolonised by Europe’s expanding carnivores, and therefore at the centre of efforts to promote coexistence.
However, the knowledge of pastoralists and other traditional resource users is often still dismissed in these efforts, which continue to rely primarily on information provided by natural scientists and conservationists. Why is this still the case? Part of the explanation for this disconnect is a lack of clarity about who is “local”. In contrast to Indigenous Peoples, whose rights and identities are formally recognised through various declarations and conventions, “local communities” lack both specificity and recognition. There is only one Indigenous People recognised as such in Europe (the Sámi), while the “locals” could include pretty much anyone, making it difficult to understand with whom to work to develop coexistence mechanisms.
Our paper addresses this conundrum. We propose an approach to guide thinking about the questions “Who is local?” and “What is local knowledge?”. We highlight important characteristics of localness and local knowledge, based on a continuum, considering time spent in the area, activities carried out, and exposure to carnivores. We illustrate that local communities and knowledge are evolving continuously, but that there are indicators which can be used to identify the people who are the most knowledgeable of the place in question and who are its most important stewards. Accessing the knowledge of these people can guide the planning and organisation of community engagement efforts, supporting stakeholder mapping and the creation of platforms to manage conservation conflicts.
Our paper supports ongoing work to “space” conservation planning, recognising that there are diverse ways of living in, with and from nature. We therefore need to create spacesin which locals, scientists and managers can gather to jointly formulate relevant questions, select methods, collect and analyse data, as well as share, reflect, and learn from each other. Various examples in our paper highlight how such efforts have been used to find effective and locally accepted strategies to prevent carnivore depredation, address wildfires, and reduce conflicts. These spaces for dialogue will be crucial in the coming years as EU member-states develop their National Restoration Plans, as mandated by the EU restoration law adopted in 2024. Whether it concerns carnivores, pastures, fisheries or forests, the key to sensible and durable conservation strategies is to build on local care and skills, adapting system management in ways that make sense to local people and that enable continuous adaptation and innovation in the face of change.
Relational Thinking 