Stakeholder acceptance for the presence and management of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Flanders (Belgium).

Abstract

Wild boar reappeared in Flanders in 2006, after several decades of absence. The original management goal was to eradicate the limited number of local small populations, before a viable wild boar population would re-establish. However, due to the lack of support for both this management objective as for the management actions required to achieve this goal, the authorities were quickly forced to abandon this policy. In 2011 the Flemish authorities decided that wild boar, being a native game species, should be managed, based on local stakeholders acceptance capacity and the principles of adaptive impact management (Riley et al., 2003). For this purpose 10 game management zones (GMZ) were delineated, covering the whole region, and local stakeholder groups were asked to collaborative determine the management objectives within each of these GMZs. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) was given the tasks to (1) provide annually for each GMZ the available data on wild boar impacts and, (2) to report the stakeholders acceptance for these impacts as well as for the current policy goals and management tools. For this last purpose, INBO performed two surveys. The first questionnaire targeted the three main stakeholder groups (nature conservation NGOs, hunters, farmers) inquiring their acceptance of the current impacts, their support for the current policy priorities and, for the currently available management tools for wild boar management in Flanders. The second survey questioned the (general) public attitudes towards wild boar, and their support for the current wild boar policy and acceptance of management tools. This last topic is no subject of this report. Our report focuses on the outcomes of the stakeholder group survey. Results reveal a moderate agreement among the different stakeholders about wild boar management objectives, being different forms of damage to crops and gardens, car collisions and, to a lesser extend, the negative impacts on biodiversity. Stakeholder groups however strongly differ in their support for the possible management tools. It appears that institutional roles and ethical reasons, rather than the nature of the impacts itself, are defining one's position.