Seals, salmon and stakeholders: integrating knowledge to reduce biodiversity conflict

Abstract

Biodiversity conflict (sensu Young et al., 2010) is one of the fastest-growing areas in conservation biology (Dickman, 2010). Much of the work on biodiversity conflicts has focussed on terrestrial systems (e.g. Woodroffe, Thirgood & Rabinowitz, 2005) but Linnell (2011) highlights similarities across biodiversity conflicts linked to individual species whether in terrestrial or marine environments (e.g. seals and wolves). Thus, while biodiversity conflicts are characterized by their complexity and history, making each conflict unique (Young et al., 2010), there is likely to be a degree of commonality across management strategies particularly when considering the social factors (Dickman, 2010; Linnell, 2011). The Moray Firth Seal Management Plan (MFSMP) is an example of a conflict management scheme that incorporates the use of lethal predator control as a management strategy (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005). Lethal control has served as a mitigation tool for both the ecological and social aspects of the conflict. The reduction in shooting associated with the plan has benefited the conservation of harbour seals (Thompson et al., 2007). The impact of lethal control of seals on salmon populations, however, is difficult to measure directly, although modelling has been used to estimate the potential effects (Butler et al., 2006). While the data collected in our study will allow the production of more accurate models of the impact of seals in rivers, it is unlikely to alter earlier conclusions that the impact of removing seals from larger rivers on salmon stocks and fisheries is probably small. Due, in part, to difficulties in measuring salmon populations, direct experimentation is challenging and is unlikely to be achievable in the short term. Maintaining some level of lethal control also helped to engender support for the plan with fisheries interests, whereas a ban on lethal control is likely to have alienated stakeholders and exacerbated the conflict as in some terrestrial systems (Young et al., 2005; Thirgood & Redpath, 2008). In his paper, Butler (2011) contends that fishery stakeholder perceptions are a significant obstacle to moving the MFSMP forward (Butler et al., 2011). Subsequent research on the social outcomes (i.e. decision quality, relationships and capacity-building) of participation in the MFSMP suggests that there has been some progress in this regard (Young, 2010). Young (2010) found that the novel approach of a fisheries-led process combined with a ‘local champion’ enabled the integration of knowledge from all relevant stakeholders, including local fishermen and scientists, on an equal footing, which helped dispel certain deeply held beliefs, and created a better understanding of scientific research. This was evidenced by the fact that stakeholders from the fisheries industry collectively gave the highest score to the technical quality of decisions (Young, 2010). The plan was also successful in reducing the conflict between seal conservation and fisheries, which was one of its explicit objectives (Young, 2010). This does not mean that the MFSMP has been wholly successful in changing stakeholder perceptions, and we agree with Butler’s (2011) emphasis on the need to continue to engage stakeholders. Indeed, Young et al. (2012) highlight the risk associated with the lack of continued feedback to stakeholders of scientific research and stress the need for local coordination groups capable of providing a link between researchers and local stakeholders. While Butler (2011) suggests including stakeholders as co-researchers in future research on seal and salmon interactions, this may not be the sole means of integrating local and scientific knowledge. Our research programme has shown that, with sufficient buy-in from stakeholders, they can become actively and directly involved in the research. The collection of diet samples and the capture of seals in rivers, for example, would not have been possible without the local knowledge and assistance of fisheries interests. Such an involvement gives those stakeholders involved a feeling of ownership of the project, aiding in both the Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430