Environmental governance and institutions

Environmental problems can be interpreted as social phenomena where specific social groups find changing relations between society and nature problematic [20]. The interactions between environmental and social issues are “mediated through culture, economy and politics, and are constructed and re-constructed through conflict”[21, p. 173]. Public policies devised to deal with environmental problems are outcomes of socio-political interactions (from cooperation to conflict) between various actors with different values and resources and in a changing social, political, economic, and environmental context. Through these socio-political interactions, societal and policy goals are identified, trade-offs between competing objectives and resource allocations are established, and decisions are enforced [22]. These interactions influence their social context—the social structures and culture within which they take place—which, subsequently, has an impact on further interactions [23, 24]. The effectiveness of social actors in influencing policy process is determined by their power, which can be identified as “the organizational and discursive capacity of agencies (…) to achieve outcomes in social practices, a capacity which is however co-determined by the structural power of those social institutions in which these agencies are embedded” [25, p. 347]. In their interactions, social actors are informed by their discourse–“a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” [26, p. 44]. Knowledge of the world is constructed within certain discourses and is embedded in power relations [27]. In the context of public policies, discourse can be defined more specifically “in terms of its content, as a set of policy ideas and values, and in terms of its usage, as a process of interaction focused on policy formulation and communication” [28, p. 184].

The interactions of actors within “fields” or “arenas” [29] over time solidify into patterns—institutions—consisting of “cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behaviour” [30, p. 33]. Institutions constitute enduring elements in social life: they structure interactions and evolve gradually in response to those interactions, thus “connecting the past with the present and the future” [31, p. 97]. Institutions regarding environmental resources constitute environmental governance and temporarily resolve conflicts between groups of actors that represent competing interests and discourses regarding those resources [32]. Current institutions may be conceptualized as political legacies of historical struggles between competing groups. These legacies favour certain interests and discourses regarding reality, relevant knowledge, distribution of scarce environmental resources, and attempts from those groups to dominate their policy fields [33–35]. The ability of groups of actors to influence institutions is mediated by their “institutional capacity” [36], i.e. the power to sustain or disrupt existing institutions due to access to different forms of capital (intellectual, social, political, material). Through their more or less strategic actions regarding institutions [37, 38], actors want the state to explicitly or implicitly acknowledge their discourse in the form of environmental policies that correspondingly identify the nature of the environmental problems to be addressed, the ways of addressing them, and the people who should be involved [39, 40].

Institutional arrangements embodied in environmental governance are “path-dependant” and increasingly difficult to challenge over time as they become more reinforced, and alternative solutions become more and more difficult to implement [41]. Still, they evolve to fit the changing socio-economic, political, technological, and cultural context; to absorb new information; or to respond to the conflicts between actors involved in a particular policy field, especially conflicts over ideas and assumptions underlying policies [42–44]. These gradual adjustments and adaptations within ‘normal policy-making’ [39], including policy changes of the first order (routinized decision-making, settings of existing policy instruments) and of the second order (introduction of new policy instruments), might eventually amount to a major, paradigmatic, third-order policy change transforming the basic assumptions behind the policy [45]. However, usually, such a major transformation requires some external critical shock event that undermines the position of the dominant coalition of actors, destabilises existing institutional arrangements, and creates a window of opportunity for competing coalitions to shape the policy in line with their core beliefs [43, 46, 47]. Consequently, major policy change involves arguments that are more political than scientific and is accompanied by a change of groups deemed authoritative in the policy field [39]. Shock events might include political, economic, technological, and environmental “punctuations” as well as policy decisions and impacts from other policy fields [48]. Based on these premises concerning institutional change, we have developed a model of policy change (Fig 3). The model is informed by earlier frameworks for policy analysis, particularly Advocacy Coalition Framework [49] and Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory [50], as well as by institutional approaches to the analysis of environmental governance: Policy Arrangement Approach [51], and Evolutionary Governance Theory [35]. It is a heuristic and analytical tool that facilitates tracing the direction and dynamics of institutions over time.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Model of policy change.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231601.g003

Policy development (thin black arrow) is initiated by a group of social actors (white arrow) following a major event external to the policy field (black dot) at T¹. During the formative moment, basic institutional parameters of policy (paradigms, rules, networks) are determined that then translate into a policy path. The shaded area of the policy path delineates normal policy-making—possible minor (first and second order) policy changes undertaken within a certain policy paradigm. These changes are stimulated by dominant actors in the field to improve the effectiveness of policies or to respond to criticism of challenging social actors who want to disrupt existing institutions (grey arrows). They might also be oriented at responding to changes in surrounding fields and/or in a wider structural, cultural, or environmental context of policy-making. Usually, policy development experiences a major (third-order) change following some critical external disruptions (black dots—wars, major socio-economic transformations and political changes, environmental disasters, etc.). These disruptions influence the institutional capacity of policy actors. At T², the challenging group of policy actors supporting a new paradigm manages to transform the direction of policy development to follow a new path informed by a new policy paradigm, which will last until the next major change initiated by a punctuation at T³. Major external events do not always amount to third-order policy changes, and institutional arrangements might prove resilient to the stress (as in T⁴). It is also possible that a series of first and second-order changes may induce a major policy change (at T⁵), even in the absence of critical external events.

Following the theoretical insights described above, wolf governance might be conceptualised as a field of public policy comprised of institutions regulating the goals and methods of wolf management as well as groups of actors involved. This public policy is informed by a certain dominant way of interpreting wolves and the need for their management. The dynamics of policy involves changes of different degrees that are influenced by the relations between groups interested in wolf management and by the wider socio-political, economic, and environmental factors that impacts those relations. In the following sections, we use the model above to interpret the changes in wolf policy in Poland starting from 1945 and finishing with the listing of the species as protected in 1998.

Wolf governance in Poland (1945–1998)

After the Second World War, wolf populations in Poland increased both in range and size, reaching around 800 individuals in 1951 and inhabiting major forested areas in eastern Poland and the Polish Carpathians [17, 53]. The species was legally classified as a game animal that could be hunted throughout the year. Hunters were interested in the highest possible reduction of its populations to limit losses caused by wolf depredation on wild ungulates and to remove alleged threats to humans [54]. Following accounts of the increasing predation of wolves on farm animals and wildlife, in 1955, the national government excluded the wolf from the list of game species and proclaimed a programme for the extirpation of the ‘pest’ [55]. “Akcja wilcza” [eng. Wolf action], allowed for a wide range of methods (including poisoning) for killing wolves to be used and offered high bounties for killed animals (ibid.). In 1959, the population was assessed at 250 individuals [56] (see also Fig 1), but the programme continued until 1975 when the wolf was relisted as a game species, bounties were cancelled, and a close season from 1 April to 31 July was introduced (apart from the main wolf areas where seasonal protection was instituted in 1981). At that time, there were less than 60 wolves in Poland, mainly in the eastern-most parts of the country [16]. This relisting of the wolf as a game species was spurred by the warnings of scientists that the species might be exterminated and by the growing awareness of the potential positive impact of wolves on ecosystems [54, 55]. However, the lobbying of groups supporting wolf eradication contributed to the reintroduction of high bounties in 1984 (without cancelling of the game status). This was met with opposition from environmental activists and wildlife biologists, whose pressure led to the final cancelling of bounties in 1989 [57]. In 1975, wolf numbers started growing and, according to hunting statistics, they reached almost 900 by 1990 [58].

The wolf governance under the hunting legislation was dominated by hunters associated with the Polish Hunting Association and foresters, many of whom were hunters themselves. Wolf policy was supervised by the Ministry of Forestry and administered by public officials responsible for hunting. The whole country was divided into hunting districts managed usually either by hunting clubs (under the Polish Hunting Association) or by the State Forest Administration. Hunting was regulated by annual hunting plans prepared by the entities managing particular hunting districts. Plans concerning forested areas had to be agreed with the forest administration. In some areas (e.g. Bielsko-Biała province, South Poland), hunters and foresters organized annual meetings during which they specified the number of wolves to be hunted in particular hunting districts [59]. Scientific advice was provided by specialists in hunting management.

During communist times, hunting was perceived mainly in terms of “hunting economy”, which was based on the breeding of game to be sold in order to support the national economy [60]. This had its effect on the perception of wolves by hunters. They viewed the species first and foremost as competition preying on the game animals that hunters were breeding. At the same time, they considered the wolf as a prestigious prey: the ultimate hunting achievement with a valuable trophy. In the hunters’ view, hunting helped to keep wolf populations at a ‘reasonable’ level and was necessary to prevent a proliferation of wolves that could threaten other game species (from an interview with a hunter). They also viewed hunting as a way to limit the predation of wolves on livestock. Wolves dispersing to the western part of Poland were eliminated so that the wolf populations were practically restricted to forest pockets in eastern Poland.

In 1989, the political and socio-economic transformation of Poland started. It involved democratisation, new parties in power, transitioning from a centrally-planned to market economy, decentralisation, as well as opening the way for the activities of NGOs. In the early 1990s, NGOs enjoyed strong social legitimacy based on their role in the protest movements in the 1980s [61]. Due to international contacts and support programmes, their capacity was growing, and they professionalized and increasingly used expert support [62]. Environmental issues were also relatively high on the political agenda because of their perceived high role in the process of European integration [61]. These socio-political changes influenced the field of wolf governance.

Already in 1989, wolf hunting was prohibited in the Białowieża Forest (East Poland) due to ecological research concerning wolves carried out by wildlife biologists [55, 63]. One of the biologists involved explained in an interview: “In 1989, after political changes in Poland, our academic tutor [name] became vice-minister of environmental protection (…). We informed him that the numbers of wolves [provided by hunters] were overestimated and that hunting wolves in the Białowieża Forest affected wolf families that lived in the Białowieża National Park. Being a biologist and ecologist, he quickly understood the problem and introduced (…) protection for wolves in the Białowieża Forest”. Wolf research in the Białowieża Forest carried out by wildlife biologists with the novel technology of telemetry brought new data on wolf biology and ecology, which challenged some assumptions underlying wolf management by hunters (e.g. the number of animals) [e.g. 64]. Scientists criticised the hunting approach to wolves, arguing that it was “influenced by ideas from the 19^th century”, and condemned the excessive hunting period, the plans to kill all wolves in particular hunting districts, and the lack of responsibility for exceeding wolf hunting plans [65]. Instead, they argued that “scientific research has proven that large predators are indispensable elements of healthy ecosystems” and that “one of the goals of hunting policy should be the full protection of wolves” (ibid, p. 21).

The new socio-political context in Poland brought about legislative changes. In 1991, a new Nature Conservation Act was introduced. It stipulated that regional representatives of the government (voivoda—governor) could introduce the legal protection of fauna and flora species within their regions. In Poznań province (West Poland), a few wildlife biologists used this opportunity and in 1992, forwarded an official notion to the regional governor arguing that due to the hunting pressure, wolves cannot repopulate in the province [57]. Their notion was accepted, and they sought similar measures in the neighbouring provinces of Gorzów and Piła ‘despite some opposition of hunters’ [66]. In the same year, leading Polish zoologists published the ‘Polish Red Data Book of Animals’ [67], the first comprehensive publication of that sort in Poland, which listed the wolf under the category of ‘rare species’–‘represented by small, isolated and dispersed populations with a high risk of extinction’–and suggested increasing protection measures.

These events challenged the perception underlying wolf policy that the condition of the species under hunting management was favourable. They also invigorated a campaign for the full protection of the wolf and the lynx initiated in 1991 by a newly established environmental NGO “Workshop for All Beings” in Bielsko-Biała province. By the end of 1993, the activists managed to convince the regional governor to introduce practically full protection of the species and expanded their campaign to the other parts of Poland. They collaborated with leading wildlife biologists specializing in wolf ecology and prepared educational materials with arguments supporting wolf conservation and highlighting wolves’ positive role in ecosystems. The NGO’s strategies included gathering signatures for petitions to protect the wolf and sending these to the government and to the regional governors; encouraging sending personal letters to decision-makers; producing and distributing leaflets; organising marches, lectures, and music concerts; contacting the media; and personally meeting decision-makers [68]. The latter strategy was facilitated by the changes of relations between decision-makers and activists following the greater accessibility of politicians since 1989. As recollected by the interviewed activists: “At that time, you could enter the office in the Ministry and start talking to the minister, and now you need to pass four thousand security gates”; “It was quite easy for me to meet the minister. I had a stack of petitions and I just barged into the office. I tried not to negotiate with lower level officials because I knew that it was a hierarchical organisation”. These meetings were also aimed at helping the officials to introduce changes advocated by activists: “The officials were writing justifications for legal regulations and this [required] providing them with arguments. (…) Sometimes you needed to give them a piece of paper [with arguments] so that they could use them”.

However, in the activists’ view, the government itself did not see the need to protect the wolf. This may have in some part been because some of its members were hunters, whom activists perceived as their main opponents. Only the bottom-up societal pressure showing that “in the young emerging democracy there was a social need to protect large carnivores” could, in their view, bring positive results (Interview with NGO). The political and social circumstances in the early 1990s proved conducive to such actions: “The authorities were more susceptible to the voices of social actors. (…) Practically, the first protests in Poland [after democratic transition] concerned the [protection of] Białowieża Forest and large carnivores. No one was used to that and it was a juicy piece for the media. No one was used to [a situation] where people stand on the street and demand something that is not connected with bread, meat, sugar, etc.“. The activists were particularly focused on contact with the media: “Media were already free and could cover what they wanted. They were very interested [in our activities]. Numerous articles on this subject were published in various newspapers and magazines (…) We used to have a strategy to inform the media. (…) We sent [information about] everything that was going on in the campaign (…) to the press (…) so that they knew what was going on, that there was a need, that society demanded…“. Wolf conservation demands were published in mainstream national media which, according to activists, was particularly important for pressing regional politicians. At that time, Poland was still divided into 49 small provinces (in 1998 this went down to 16): “Environmental activists in mainstream national media were some kind of signal for the local governors—these provinces were minute; these were some second-rate officials (…) who felt pressure from above” (Interview with NGO).

The campaign by environmental activists was accompanied by discussion about the need for wolf protection among scientists interested in wolf management. Two positions could be distinguished. Most wildlife biologists, including the State Committee for Nature Conservation (an advisory body to the minister of environment) treated the wolf as an endangered species requiring higher conservation measures [55, 69–72]. They agreed that in contrast to the traditional image of ‘the big bad wolf’, which had informed wolf policy in Poland and led to wolf persecution, the wolf played an important ecological role in the ecosystems, especially with regard to ungulates. Because of that, the species should be more widely distributed. They suggested that official statistics concerning wolves might have been overestimated and the hunting pressure too significant for the species’ restitution. At the same time, they indicated that international regulations that concerned Poland (CITES) or were about to concern (the Bern Convention) treated the wolf as endangered. In their view, Poland should follow suit and adjust the legal rules of wolf management to restore the population. Another group of scientists, specializing in hunting management, opposed changing wolf policy [73, 74]. They argued that hunting had not limited the increase of wolf populations and should be continued without new conservation measures. They also disputed the presumption that official wolf numbers were overestimated. In their opinion, the campaign to protect the wolf was not based on reliable data. Before changing policy, decision-makers should listen to the ‘opposing side: hunters, foresters, and scientists’. According to those hunting specialists, increased protection of wolves would worsen their situation because animals would be killed illegally, while hunters would not be interested in intervening. Finally, the protected wolf might lose its fear towards humans and increasingly attack livestock. Consequently, they recommended keeping the status of the wolf as game.

While the position of hunters towards wolf protection was negative, the approach of foresters was more nuanced. On one hand, many foresters were hunters themselves and subscribed to their values and beliefs concerning wolves. Furthermore, many hunting districts (e.g. in Krosno province) were managed by forestry units that benefitted from organising wolf hunts for Polish and international hunters. On the other hand, to limit damages in forest plantations, foresters were keen on reducing the densities of wild ungulates kept at high levels for hunting purposes before 1989 [75]. Environmental activists tried to use these arguments to win foresters’ support: ‘We were arguing that the wolf is needed in the forest, that it is an ally of forest management’. Despite these attempts, at the local and regional levels, foresters did not particularly endorse wolf protection, and sometimes outright criticized conservation initiatives [76]. At the national level, such arguments proved more effective, especially because environmental activists were strategically using evidence provided by scientists specialising in forest management: ‘We were providing the Ministry with arguments for wolf protection, showing that wolves play an important ecological role in limiting wild ungulates based on evidence published by forestry scholars. And because the Ministry of Environment is very forestry-oriented and always has been (…), these arguments were more effective than those presenting wolves as beautiful or rare” (Interview with NGO).

As a result of the campaign of activists and some wildlife biologists, by the end of 1994, several of the 49 provinces in Poland introduced wolf protection or strongly reduced the hunting season. Activists also criticised wolf hunting plans in other provinces and started mobilising international support—for instance, in January 1995, Brigitte Bardot wrote a letter to president Lech Wałęsa to stop planned wolf hunts in Krosno province. In March 1995, the government signed the Bern Convention (ratified on September that year), but with a reservation that in Poland the wolf would not be “strictly protected”, as declared in Appendix II [77]. One month later, In April 1995, the government issued a new regulation concerning protected wildlife species and designated the wolf as protected in all but three provinces with particularly high wolf densities—Krosno, Suwałki and Przemyśl. In the two latter provinces, however, wolves became protected following decisions from the regional governors, so hunting was allowed practically only in Krosno province. It hosted the biggest wolf population at that time, which was considered by some wildlife biologists as particularly valuable for the sustainability of wolves in Poland [66]. Environmental activists, supported by scientific data provided by a wildlife biologist investigating wolf ecology in Krosno province, tried to convince the regional governor to list the species as protected regionally, however, strong criticism, especially from hunters, foresters, herders, and contrary evidence from a specialist in hunting management, led to the eventual rejection of the campaign [68, 73]. At the same time, the Polish Hunting Association was trying to convince the Ministry of Environment to restore wolf hunting in several provinces that hosted around 90% of the Polish wolf population [78].

The pressure of the activists to list the wolf as protected in Krosno province continued. In the meantime, some leading activists from the Workshop for All Beings established a new NGO called “Association for Nature ‘Wolf’”, which focused in particular on wolf conservation. Activists tried to convince the regional governor in Krosno to limit the number of wolves to be hunted and the minister to introduce the protection of the wolf in the whole country. According to the interviewed members of NGOs, the latter was hindered by the then-minister of environment Stanisław Żelichowski (1993–1997): “Żelichowski was a hunter (…). We had a few skirmishes concerning the wolf. (…) The attempts to introduce protection in all provinces seemed hopeless because he was firmly against it”.

Parliamentary elections in 1997 and the establishment of a new government, including the new minister of environment Jan Szyszko, created a new political situation, which in the view of the interviewed NGO members proved crucial for the final change of legal rules: ‘When he was only about four days in office, I phoned him (…), and [knowing that he was a forester and was sensitive to forestry issues,] I told him that I would like to meet him and show him the result [of research] suggesting that the wolf was a great support for forest management (…). Szyszko wanted to show that [as a new minister,] he was open to NGO voices and invited us to give a talk for his students (…). He also invited journalists. (…) After the talk, the journalists attacked him for what he was going to do considering all the arguments [supporting wolf conservation], and (…) he blurted out that (…) everything suggested that the wolf should be protected. This was in February, and in April, the regulation [for protecting the wolf throughout the whole country] was issued’. The official justification for the regulation stated that ‘the wolf plays an important role in maintaining the ecological balance in the environment and is a natural regulator of the population number and health status of game ungulates’ [79, p. 125–126]. To address concerns at the local level, the new law allowed for intervention culls, e.g. to eliminate individuals posing a direct threat to humans. Introducing wolf protection was accompanied by other actions from environmental activists and wildlife biologists, who were aware that the legal protection could be removed or limited due to pressure from hunters or livestock owners. For instance, due to lobbying of a pro-wolf coalition, from 1997, the State Treasury was legally obliged to compensate for wolf damages to livestock. In parallel, activists provided free training and support to livestock owners to protect their herds against wolf attacks.

The listing of the wolf as a protected species under the Nature Conservation Act changed the composition of groups involved in wolf management. The administration of wolf conservation was transferred to provincial conservation offices at a regional level and to the chief nature conservator at the Ministry of Environment at the national one [75]. In 1998, the Ministry of Environment commissioned the preparation of a strategy of wolf management. It was co-authored by some of the most vocal wildlife biologists supporting conservation and the activist who had led the campaign [19]. The strategy set out to retain wolf conservation in Poland and proposed activities facilitating population increase in major forest areas in the country, mitigating damages in livestock, adjusting hunting practices and plans to consider wolves’ impact on game, and research, monitoring, and educational activities. Although never officially accepted by the Ministry due to the opposition of actors supporting wolf hunting, it initiated further activities from conservation actors who wanted to ensure the stability of the new arrangement. The protection of wolves became the cornerstone of wolf policy in Poland in the following years, additionally strengthened by the accession of Poland to the EU in 2004 and the adoption of the Habitat Directive.