Advertisement

The Problematic Wolf

  • Juha Hiedanpää
  • Daniel W. Bromley
Chapter

Abstract

Finland joined the European Union in 1995 and since that time, the European Commission (EC) has shown growing impatience with Finland’s compliance with EU rules concerning the protection of wolves and other large carnivores. In 2005, the Commission referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which subsequently found Finland deficient in the strict protection of wolves. We investigate the reasons underlying the court case. We identify two problems in the realm of reason giving. The first problem arises from the lack of a causal model linking decentralized actions on the part of the subjects of administrative rules with the desired outcomes imagined by the centralized entities issuing the new administrative rulings. The second problem arises from the authoritarian tendencies of the EU that fail to understand the context of wolves for rural livelihoods in Finland. Both of these problems give rise to surprising practical effects emerging from the harmonization game. We introduce the concept of instrumentality with respect to the goal of sustainable wolf populations. We also introduce the concept of inverse high-grading of wolves under the umbrella of biodiversity protection. The EU and the people of rural Finland will continue to struggle over wolves until a more coherent policy goal, and a more defensible administrative rule structure, can be formulated.

Keywords

European Union Large Carnivore Habitat Directive Wolf Population Great Cormorant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Alphandéry, Pierre, and Agnés Fortier. 2001. Can Territorial Policy Be Based on Science Alone: The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France. Sociologia Ruralis 41: 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon. 2005. Suomen susikannan hoitosuunnitelma [Wolf Management Plan for Finland]. Maa– ja metsätalousministeriö 11/2005. Helsinki. (In Finnish). http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/2005/MMMjulkaisu2005_11b.pdf .
  3. Baker, Susan. 2003. The Dynamics of European Union Biodiversity Policy: Interactive, Functional and Institutional Logics. Environmental Politics 12(3): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beunen, Rauol, W.G.M. van der Knaap, and G. Robbert Biesbroek. 2009. Implementation and Integration of EU Environmental Directives: Experiences from the Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisi, Jukka, and Sami Kurki. 2008. The Wolf Debate in Finland: Expectations and Objectives for the Management of the Wolf Population at Regional and National Level. In Publications 12. Seinäjoki: Helsinki University, Ruralia Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Bisi, Jukka, Sami Kurki, Mario Svensberg, and Tuija Liukkonen. 2007. Human Dimensions on Wolf (Canis lupus) Conflicts in Finland. European Journal of Wildlife Research 53(4): 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgström, Suvi. 2012. Legitimacy Issues in Finnish Wolf Conservation. Journal of Environmental Law 24: 451–476.Google Scholar
  8. Bromley, Daniel W 2005. Purging the Frontier From Our Mind: Crafting a New Fisheries Policy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2006. Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2009. Abdicating Responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries Policy. Fisheries 34(6): 280–290, and Rejoinder, pp. 299–302.Google Scholar
  11. Caddy, Joanne. 1997. Hollow Harmonisation? Closing the Implementation Cap in the Central European Environmental Policy. European Environment 7: 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dean, Mitchell. 2010. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. European Court of Justice. 2007. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007. Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland. Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of Natural Habitats – Wild Fauna and Flora – Wolf Hunting. Case C–342/05. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C–342/05.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Hiedanpää, Juha. 2005. The Edges of Conflict and Consensus: A Case for Creativity in Regional Forest Policy in Southwest Finland. Ecological Economics 55(4): 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiedanpää, Juha, and Daniel W. Bromley. 2011. The Harmonization Game: Reason and Rules in European Biodiversity Policy. Environmental Policy and Governance 21: 99–111.Google Scholar
  17. Knill, Cristoph, and Duncan Liefferink. 2007. Environmental Politics in the European Union. In Policy-Making, Implementation and Patterns of Multi-Level Governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koppen, I.J. 2001. The Role of European Court of Justice. In European Union’s Environmental Policy: Actors, Institutions and Processes, ed. A. Jordan. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  19. Linnell, John, Valeria Salvatore, and Luigi Boitani. 2007. Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission. Final draft May.Google Scholar
  20. Maurer, Andreas, Jürgen Mittag, and Wolfgang Wessels. 2003. National System’s Adaptation to the EU System: Trends, Offers, and Constraints. In Linking EU and National Governance, ed. B. Kohler-Koch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCormick, John. 2001. Environmental Policy in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Mehtälä, Johanna, and Timo Vuorisalo. 2007. Conservation Policy and the EU Habitats Directive: Favourable Conservation Status as a Measure of Conservation Success. European Environment 17: 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norgaard, Richard B. 1984. Coevolutionary Development Potential. Land Economics 60(2): 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norgaard, Richard B. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Paavola, Jouni. 2004. Protected Areas Governance and Justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 1(1): 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paavola, Jouni, Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská, and Andy Gouldson. 2009. Institutions, Ecosystems and the Interplay of Actors, Scales, Frameworks and Regimes in the Governance of Biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 148158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratamäki, Outi. 2008. Finland’s wolf Policy and New Governance. The Journal of Environment & Development 17(3): 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rauschmayer, Felix, and Vivien Behrens. 2008. Legitimacy of Species Management: The Great Cormorant in the EU. In Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy: Case Studies in Multilevel Governance, eds. J. Keulartz and G. Leistra. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Rauschmayer, Felix, Jouni Paavola, and Heidi Wittmer. 2009. European Governance of Natural Resources and Participation in a Multi-level Context: An Editorial. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Samuels, Warren J. 1989. The Legal-economic Nexus. George Washington Law Review 57(6): 1556–1578.Google Scholar
  31. Sandström, Camilla, Jani Pellikka, Outi Ratamäki, and Alan Sande. 2009. Management of Large Carnivores in Fennoscandia: New Patterns of Regional Participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sauer, Alexandra. 2005. European Nature Conservation Policy: Challenges for Local Implementation in Germany. In From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, eds. B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, and P. Odman. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne. 2001. Barriers to Nature Conservation in Germany: A Model of Explaining Opposition to Protected Areas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 21: 369–385.Google Scholar
  34. Stone Sweet, Alec. 2004. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone Sweet, Alec, Wayne Sandholtz, and Neil Fligstein, eds. 2001. The Institutionalization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juha Hiedanpää
    • 1
  • Daniel W. Bromley
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute FinlandFinlandFinland
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MadisonWisconsinUSA

Personalised recommendations