1. PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: THE CARNIVORE CONFLICT IN NORWAY Kim S. Jacobsen (kimsjacobsen@gmail.com) Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) University of Oxford

2. “A tool box half full” Baruch-Mordo S., Breck S. W., Wilson, K. R., Broderick J. (2009). A tool box half full: how social science can help solve human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(3): 219-223. DOI: 10.1080/10871200902839324 AIM: To investigate the perceptions of environmental justice among stakeholders in the Norwegian carnivore policy - in order to better understand what would constitute a just policy

4. Norway – “maximum conflict”

5. Susceptible livestock practices

6. Norway – “maximum conflict” Susceptible livestock practices + recolonisation by large carnivores

7. Norway – “maximum conflict” Susceptible livestock practices + recolonisation by large carnivores + rapid societal change in rural areas

8. Norway – “maximum conflict” Susceptible livestock practices + recolonisation by large carnivores + rapid societal change in rural areas = “a recipe for maximum conflict” Zimmerman B., Wabakken P., Dötterer (2001) Human-carnivore interactions in Norway: how does the re- appearance of large carnivores affect people’s attitudes and levels of fear? Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 76(1): 1-17

9. Schlosberg’s framework of environmental justice - A purely distributive approach is insufficient 1. Distribution: equitable division of environmental goods and risks 2. Recognition: of the diversity of the participants and their identity 3. Participation: rights of participation in the decision-making process Schlosberg D. (2003) The justice of environmental justice: reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political movement. In: Light A., De-Shalit A. (Eds.) Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 77-106. Schlosberg D. (2004) Reconceiving environmental Justice: global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics 13(3): 517-540. Schlosberg D. (2013) Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics 22(1): 37-55.

10. The Q methodology Identifies shared views across a population Produces narratives that describe each viewpoint Each narrative derived through a process similar to factor analysis Suitable for finding mutually acceptable policies Durning D. (2006) Using Q-methodology to resolve conflicts and find solutions to contentious policy issues. Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance ( NAPSIPAG): 601. Watts S., Stenner P. (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

11. Participant selection Stakeholder organisations Environmental organisations Farmer unions Reindeer herder organisations

12. Results Three significant factors = there are three distinct viewpoints on environmental justice in Norwegian carnivore policy among these stakeholder groups

13. Factor 1: Carnivore sceptics 1.Issues of recognition: -Lifestyle and identity 2. Issues of distribution: - financial and emotional burden 3. Participation: - accountability and scientific focus

14. Factor 2: Carnivore advocates 1.Issues of distribution: - future generations and global society 2. Issues of recognition: - the rights of carnivores 3. Issues of participation: - ranked very low

15. Factor 3: Bureaucratic carnivore sceptics 1. Issues of recognition: -violation of their rights, distinct sub-culture 2. Issues of distribution: -injustice towards livestock and economic threats 3. Issues of participation: -Highly satisfied

16. Distinguishing statements of Carnivore Advocates More perceived injustice: Carnivores have intrinsic rights We derive benefits from their presence We have obligations towards future generations and the global society Lethal carnivore control is animal abuse We pay the costs of poor husbandry

17. Distinguishing statements of Carnivore Advocates Less perceived injustice No economic threat Emotional stress should not be compensated Livestock compensation value is adequate Group identity and rights

18. Consensus statements 1.Other stakeholders look down on us 2. The opposing side portrays us misleadingly

19. Implications for theory and policy Recognition was ranked highly by all factors -(Though most highly by the two sceptic groups) = A predominant focus on equitable distribution is not justified Skogen & Krange: rural culture under threat

20. Policy challenges Emphasised the categories similarly -But disagreed within categories Any attempt to alter the distributional impact of carnivores will result in dissatisfaction - either from Factor 1 and 3 or Factor 2 Reflects division of values and views on rural life and identity = any decision will be one of political prioritisation

21. Thank you! Contact: kimsjacobsen@gmail.com

22. Participant selection “quantitative-qualitative hybrid” Participants that cover the range of viewpoints in the population Strategic sampling (not random) Cross R. (2005). Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health education research 20(2): 206-213.

23. Participant selection Sheep farmers and environmentalists Hedmark County Rogaland County

24. Participant selection Reindeer herders North Saami South Saami