Legitimacy issues in finnish wolf conservation

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 451-476

  Borgström, Suvi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

EU Habitats Directive; Finland; Legitimacy; Nature conservation; Regulation; Wolves

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL METHOD; CANID; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HUNTING; NATURE CONSERVATION; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

FINLAND;

CANIDAE;

EID: 84869105021     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqs015     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), 'Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland' accessed 10 January 2012.
2. Jukka Bisi and Sami Kurki, Susipuhetta Suomessa (Helsingin yliopisto 2005)
3. MAF(n1)
4. MAF(n1)
5. Bisi and Kurki (n 2)
6. The problem in Finland is that the wolf population is very unevenly distributed, which has raised the question at what level the conservation status should be assessed
7. See the attempts to operationalize the concept with regard to large carnivores in John Linnell and others, 'Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for large Carnivores in Europe' (European Commission 2008)
8. Outi Ratamäki, Yhteiskunnallinen Kestävyys ja Hallinta Suomalaisessa Susipolitiikassa (Joensuun yliopisto, yhteiskuntaçja aluetieteiden tiedekunta 2009) 61
9. See more examples in Rosie Woodroffe and others (eds), People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (Cambridge University Press 2005)
10. In the United States, the wolf issue has been taken to the courtrooms a number of times as the Northern Rockies Wolf population has been delisted and listed again under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
11. See Rob Dubuc 'The Northern Rocky Mountain Delisting: What Would Leopold Think?' (2009) 32 Environmental Law and Policy Journal 215
12. See Luigi Boitani and Paolo Ciucci, 'Wolf Management Across Europe: Species Conservation Without Boundaries' in Marco Musiani and others (eds), A New Era for Wolves and People: Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and Policy (University of Calgary Press 2009) 15-40
13. Arie Trouwborst, 'Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species Protection Law and the Return of Lynx, Wolf and Bear to Western Europe' (2010) 22 Journal of Environmental Law 347
14. Jan Därpö 'Brussels Advocates Swedish Grey Wolves. On the Encounter Between Species Protection According to Union Law and the Swedish Wolf Policy' (2011) 8 European PolicyAnalysis 1.
15. Council Directive of the 21May 92/43/EC on the Conservation of the Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora [1992] OJ L206/7
16. See Linnell and others (n 7), and Boitani and Ciucci (n 10). According to Boitani and Cuicci especially in Europe, where countries are relatively small and habitats are fragmented, coordinating wolf management across national boundaries is needed to ensure the unrestricted movement of wolves throughout multiple countries.
17. See further Luigi Boitani, Action Plan for the Conservation of theWolves (Canis lupus) in Europe (Council of Europe Publishing 2000)
18. See Boitani (n 13), Ratamäki (n 8)
19. Juha Hiedanpää and Daniel W Bromley 'The Harmonization Game: Reasons and Rules in European Biodiversity Policy' (2011) 21 Env Pol Gov 99
20. Därpö (n 10)
21. Reindeer husbandry is a traditional livelihood of the Sámi People. The Sámi are an indigenous people in Finland, Sweden, Norway and North-West Russian Federation. The Sámi, the only indigenous people in the EU, are a minority whose language and culture are protected by provisions such as art 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The article provides for special treatment for the Sámi in order to protect their culture (positive discrimination) and may also be used as a material basis for protection. Both of these forms of protection are also safeguarded by the fundamental rights set out in the Finnish Constitution.
22. Ratamäki (n 8)
23. See Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-04713. This case will be dealt with later on in this article, but in short, the question was about the interpretation of art 16(1)(a-c). In its judgment, the CJEU found that by authorising wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of art 16(1)(b) of the Habitats Directive, the Republic of Finland had failed to fulfill its obligations under arts 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that Directive [47]. In addition, there is an ongoing infringement proceeding by the European Commission involving Swedish wolf-hunting policy, initiated in early 2010. The case concerns Swedish 'Licence Hunting', which is seen to breach the obligations under the Habitats Directive. According to the Swedish Government, the aim of the licence hunt was to increase the societal acceptability of wolf conservation. See detailed description of the infringement procedure in Därpö (n 10).
24. More on the consistency of the Swedish wolf policy with the Habitats Directive in Michanek Gabriel, 'Strictly Protected Wolf Meets Swedish Hunter with Licence to Kill' in Inge Lorange Backer and others (eds.) Pro Natura Festskrift til Hans Christian Bugge ved 70- årsdagen 2 Mars 2012 (The Publishing House Universitetsforlaget 2012).
25. See Därpö (n 10) 14. Furthermore, as the CJEU has explained, art 2.3 is not an autonomous ground for derogation. See Case C-247/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3029 [8].
26. See the summary of the changes in legislation in MAF (n 1)
27. MAF (n 1)
28. See Figure 2 in the main text at n 39
29. Although space limitations prevent the examination of any other instruments besides the Habitats Directive, it should be kept in mind that there are other instruments of relevance for the conservation of wolves, such as the Bern Convention on the Conservation of EuropeanWildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 19 September 1979), Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992), and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (Washington, DC, 3 March 1973). On international legal framework applicable to large carnivores in Europe, see further Trouwborst (n 10) and Därpö (n 10).
30. Wolves living in the reindeer management area fall under Annex Vof the Habitats Directive, which allows the authorities more flexibility of action
31. See among others Case C-183/05, Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-137 [29]. See also Arie Trouwborst 'Conserving European Biodiversity in a Changing Climate: The Bern Convention, the EU Birds and Habitats Directives and the Adaptation of Nature to Climate Change' (2011) 20 RECIEL 62.
32. Commission v Ireland (n 24) [30]
33. Commission v Ireland (n 24) [14]
34. See MAF (n 1)
35. According to art 1(e) of the Directive, the conservation status of a species is 'favorable' when population data indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long term basis as a viable component of its natural habitat, and there is, and will continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations. On the interpretation of favourable conservation status, see European Commission, 'Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC' (2007); Linnell (n 7).
36. Linda Laikre and others, 'Importance of Genetics in the Interpretation of Favourable Conservation Status' (2009) 23 Conservation Biology 1378
37. Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-04713 [25]. The interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Habitats Directive will not be elaborated in detail here. Discussions on interpretation of the provisions of the Habitats Directive relevant to the issue of wolf conservation can be found in Trouwborst (n 10).
38. See Figure 2 in main text at n 39
39. Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-04713. See the detailed description of the legal dispute between the government of Finland and the European Commission in Hiedanpääand Bromley (n 14). There is also an ongoing infringement proceeding involving Swedish wolf-hunting policy initiated in early 2010. See the analysis of the Swedish case in Därpö (n 10).
40. Commission v Finland (n 31) [1]
41. These included changes made to the derogation provisions in the Hunting Act to comply with the Habitats Directive and the added requirement to obtain a licence to hunt wolves in the reindeer management area. See the summary of the changes in MAF (n 1).
42. Commission v Finland (n 31) [6]
43. Commission v Finland (n 31) [16]
44. In recent years the number of hunting licences granted has varied between 14 (2004-2005) and 45 (2008-2009). See Figure 1.
45. The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute as well as the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture have claimed illegal hunting to be the reason for decrease in number of wolves, accessed 14 February 2012.
46. Illegal hunting also appears to be widespread in Sweden and Norway. Liberg and others have analysed the impacts of illegal hunting on recovery of the large carnivore population. Their simulation indicated that without poaching during the past decade, the population would have been almost four times as large.
47. See Liberg and others, 'Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up: Cryptic Poaching Slows Restoration of a Large Carnivore in Europe' (2012) 279 Proceedings of the Royal Society 910
48. Decree of the MAF on the Nominal Value of Living Game Species, 241/2010
49. The Act on Damage Caused by Game Species of 2009 105/2009
50. Outi Ratamäki, 'Finland'sWolf Policy and New Governance' (2008) 17 Journal of Environment & Development 316
51. See eg Daniel Bodansky,'Legitimacy in International Environmental Law' (2006) University of Georgia, School of Law, Research paper series No. 06-007 2006 accessed 10 January 2012.
52. On different theories see Bodansky (n 41) 2, 7-9
53. Bodansky (n 41) 2, 6
54. Andreas Wimmel, 'Theorizing the Democratic Legitimacy of European Governance: A Labyrinth with No Exit?' (2009) 31 European Integration 181, 186
55. Daniel Bodansky, 'The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?' (1999) ScholarlyWorks, Paper 443, 601. accessed 10 January 2012.
56. See the results summarised in MAF (n 1)
57. See Fritz Scharpf, 'Economic Integration, Democracy and theWelfare State' (1997) 4 JEPP 18
58. Wimmel (n 43)
59. Scharpf (n 46) 19
60. SeeWimmel (n 43) 183
61. Juha Karhu and Tapio Määttä, 'Ympäristöçja Luonnonvaraoikeudelliset Sääntelytekniikat ja Legitimiteetti' in Pertti Rannikko and Tapio Määttä(eds), Luonnonvarojen Hallinnan Legitimiteetti (Vastapaino 2010)
62. Karhu and Määttä(n 50) 61
63. Karhu and Määttä(n 50) 76
64. Karhu and Määttä(n 50) 76
65. See also Boitani (n 13) 22
66. See Boitani and Ciucci (n 10)
67. [20s ] of the Constitution of Finland of 1999
68. See among othersWimmel (n 43)
69. TomWard,'The European Union: A Crisis of Legitimacy?' (2010) 9 European View120
70. Jukka Bisi and others, 'Human Dimensions onWolf (Canis lupus) Conflicts in Finland' (2007) 53 Eur J Wildl Res 304
71. See Därpö (n 10) 8
72. See Tuori Kaarlo, Critical Legal Positivism (Ashgate 2002)
73. Where he presents the normative and practical faces of law as multilayered phenomena. His theory develops a model of legal systems based on three levels of law. First, what we normally think of as legal activity (legislating, litigating and adjudicating) is at the 'surface' of Tuori's three levels. Second, a 'middle, mediating level in the law' consists of principles that guide the interpretation of the law and may at times invalidate or limit some of the legal activity at the surface. The third and the most stable level is the 'deep structure' of law, where we find, according to Tuori, both the most basic principles (eg human rights) and the habits of mind or forms of rationality by which we think and argue about the law.
74. See Bisi and others (n 60)
75. MAF (n 1)
76. According to s 20 of the Constitution of Finland, nature and its biodiversity, the environment and the national heritage are the responsibility of everyone
77. [25s ] of the Police Act of 1995
78. MAF (n 1)
79. Bisi and others (n 60)
80. For more on the history of the wolf management legislation, see MAF (n 1)
81. See Karhu and Määttä(n 50) 61
82. See MAF (n 1)
83. Cyrille de Klemm, 'Compensation for Damage Caused byWild Animals' (1996) 84 Nature and Environment 9, 53
84. The issue of the legal duty to compensate for damage caused by wild animals has been debated
85. See eg Leila Suvantola, 'The Golden Eagle Compensation Scheme in Finland' in Reinhard Klenke and others (eds), Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Europe (Springer 2012)
86. See Suzanne Stone,'Compensation and Non-lethal Deterrent Programs: Building Tolerance for Wolf Restoration in the Rockies' in Marco Musiani and others (eds) (n 10) 141-158
87. It remains controversial, whether the compensation programmes increase the tolerance of wolves. For instance, in a survey conducted by Stone, more than 60% said that compensation did not increase their tolerance. However, much the same ratio (59%) stated that their tolerance would decrease if the compensation program were to end.
88. Kimberly Rollins and Hugh C Briggs, 'Moral Hazard, Externalities and Compensation for Crop Damage fromWildlife' (1996) 31 Journal of Economics and Management 368, 369
89. Suvantola (n 74). See also Stone (n 75), 151. She states that the availability of compensation could also be detrimental to wildlife conservation in certain situations by preserving economically unsustainable livestock producers or by creating new economic opportunities that encourage loss of wildlife habitat. This is actually quite near to the situation in Finnish Lapland, where in some areas the degradation of pasture land is a problem due to the excessive number of reindeer. Leena Rantamäki-Lahtinen 'Porotalouden Taloudelliset Menestystekijät' MTT:n selvityksiä156/2008.
90. See amongst others Mark Sellethin and Göran Skogh,'Property Rights in Endangered Species: The Wolverine Case' (2004) 18 European Journal of Law and Economics, 239-247, 242
91. Kathleen Schwerdtner and Bernd Gruber 'A Conceptual Framework for Damage Compensation Schemes', (2007) 134 Biological Conservation, 354-360
92. Suvantola (n 74)
93. For comparative analysis about these two compensation schemes, see Suvantola (n 74)
94. The Ministry of The Environment made the suggestion when the Game Animal Damage Act (105/2009) was planned. Government Proposal 90/2008.
95. Karhu and Määttä(n 50) 61
96. MAF (n 1)
97. JB Ruhl, 'Climate Change Adaptation and the Structural Transformation of Environmental Law' (2010) 40 Environmental Law 343, 390
98. DouglasW Smith and Gary Ferguson, Decade of theWolf (The Lyons Press 2006)
99. For more on wolf ecology, see Musiani and others (n 10)
100. Evert Vedung, 'Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories' in Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc and others (eds), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons, Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (Transaction Publishers 1998) 29-34
101. Eckard Rehbinder, 'States Between Economic Deregulation and Environmental Responsibility' in Klaus Bosselmann and Benjamin Richardson (eds), Environmental Justice and Market Mechanisms: Key Challenges for Environmental Law and Policy (Kluwer 1999) 93
102. Neil Gunningham, 'Environmental Law, Regulation and Governance: Shifting Architectures' (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law 179, 183
103. Olli Pohjanpalo, 'Sudet eivät kuulu kylänraitille' Helsingin sanomat (Helsinki 24 November 2011) A 8
104. Mark A Cohen,'Criminal law as an Instrument of Environmental Policy:Theory and Empirics' in Anthony Heyes (eds), The Law and Economics of the Environment (Edward Elgar 2001)198
105. For theories of crime and punishment, see Markus D Dubber, 'Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law' (2005) Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2005-02 accessed 10 January 2012.
106. Elina Pirjatanniemi, VihertyväRikosoikeus, Ympäristökriminalisointien Oikeutus, Mahdollisuudet ja Rajat (Edita 2005) 228
107. accessed 10 January 2012.
108. See Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-1147; Case C-518/04 Commission v Greece [2006] ECR I-42; and Case C-221/04 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-4515
109. See E-3329/10FI Janez Potocnik response to a written question (30 June 2010).
110. Nancy E Bockstael and others, 'On Measuring Economic Values for Nature' (2000) 34 Environ Sci Technol 1384
111. See Erik Gómez-Baggethun and others, 'The History of Ecosystem Services in Economic Theory and Practice: From Early Notions to Markets and Payment Schemes' (2010) 69 Ecological Economics, 1209
112. In Finland, for example, the Natural Values Trading Scheme and the Golden Eagle Compensation Scheme have been effective and acceptable instruments for the promotion of biodiversity. See Suvantola (n 74).
113. Juha Hiedanpää, 'The Edges of Conflict and Consensus: A Case for Creativity in Regional Forest Policy in Southwest Finland' (2005) 55 Ecological Economics 485
114. For global examples, see James Salzman, 'Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services: Notes from the Field' (2005) 80 New York University Law Review 870
115. Colin Reid, 'The Privatisation of Biodiversity? Possible New Approaches to Nature Conservation Law in the UK' (2011) 23 Journal of Environmental Law 203
116. Anna-Liisa Sippola and others, Petovahinkojen Sosioekonominen Merkitys Porotaloudelle Suomessa - Loppuraportti (University of Lapland, Arctic Center 2005)
117. Astrid Zabel and Karin Holm-Müller, 'Conservation Performance Payments for Carnivore Conservation in Sweden' (2008) 22 Conservation Biology 247
118. See MAF (n 1)
119. The incentive scheme was designed in collaboration between the Ministry of the Environment and the Forest and Parks Services. The proposed design was negotiated with representatives of the Sámi people, the Association of Reindeer Cooperatives, the Regional Environmental Centre of Lapland, and a representative of individual reindeer owners. The proposals made in the consultations led to amendments of the final scheme, such as taking into account the golden eagle's nesting in neighbouring countries. In addition, the incentive scheme builds upon deliberative follow-up and information-sharing. An advisory board was set up in conjunction with the adoption of the scheme. The board consists of representatives of the Forests and Parks Services, the Regional Environmental Centre of Lapland, the Association of Reindeer Cooperatives, the Sámi Parliament, the Fish and Game Research Institute, and the Ministry of the Environment. See Suvantola (n 74) 11.
120. Jukka Similä, Regulating Industrial Pollution: The Case of Finland (Helsingin yliopiston oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta 2007) 39
121. See Denise Taylor 'Education as a Conservation Strategy: Exploring Perspective Transformation' in Musiani and others (n 10) 161
122. Leila Suvantola and Jukka Similä, Luonnonsuojeluoikeus (Edita 2010) 26
123. Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The network comprises Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated by Member States under the Habitats Directive, and it also incorporates Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds [1979] OJ L103/1.
124. For more about the conflict, see Juha Hiedanpää, 'European-wide Conservation Versus Local Well-being: The Reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland' (2002) 61 Landscape and Urban Planning 113
125. Hiedanpää(n 99)
126. Gunningham (n 88)
127. The Saimaa ringed seal is a subspecies of the ringed seal (Pusa hispida). It is among the most endangered seal species in the world, having a total population of only about 260 individuals. The only existing population of these seals is found in Lake Saimaa, Finland. Today, the greatest threats to the Saimaa ringed seal population are fishing, splintering of their habitats, and warming winters.
128. See accessed 17 May 2012.
129. Gunningham (n 88) 196
130. Ratamäki (n 40) and Hiedanpääand Bromley (n 14)
131. Ratamäki (n 40)
132. MAF (n 1)
133. MAF (n 1)
134. Hiedanpääand Bromley (n 14)
135. See Ratamäki (n 40)
136. See among others Gunningham (n 88) 210